Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12954

 1                           Wednesday, 17 March 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.

 6             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning.  Before we begin

 7     the further examination of the witness, Your Honour, the Defence wishes

 8     to raise an issue concerning D65 ter 280.  This is part of the KiM

 9     dossier as it's called.  We have a number now, so we move that these

10     documents be admitted into evidence.  The number is D011-4582.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

12             Any objection, Ms. Gopalan?

13             MS. GOPALAN:  No, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be admitted.

15             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit D888, Your Honour.

17                           [The witness entered court]

18             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  I'd remind you the affirmation you made to tell

21     the truth still applies, and Mr. Djordjevic continues his questions.

22             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23                           WITNESS:  DANICA MARINKOVIC [Resumed]

24                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

25                           Examination by Mr. Djordjevic: [Continued]

Page 12955

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Marinkovic.

 2        A.   Good morning.

 3             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have D007-0440

 4     brought up on the screen, please.

 5        Q.   We'll wait a little bit, and it's tab 34 in your binder.  And

 6     when this document comes up, I would like you to comment on it, on the

 7     most important points in it.

 8             We now have the front page of the document.  It's an indictment,

 9     a very voluminous one, so we will not go through all of it.  I will

10     simply ask you whether you are familiar with this indictment; and if so,

11     whether you could comment on it.

12        A.   The indictment we now see on the screen KT number 191/94, dated

13     the 7th of April, 1995, is familiar to me.  The indictment was filed by

14     the district public prosecutor in Pristina with the district court, and

15     I'm familiar with the indictment because in this case in the proceedings

16     against the persons listed in this indictment I acted as the

17     investigating judge.  Based on my investigation the public prosecutor

18     continued criminal proceedings against these persons and filed an

19     indictment.  They are accused of the crime of conspiring to engage in

20     hostile activities as prescribed in Article 136, paragraph 2 of the

21     Criminal Code with the purpose of -- of violating the territorial

22     integrity according to Article 116, paragraph 1 and engaging in terrorism

23     under Article 125.  I wish to add that I carried out an investigation

24     against 88 persons, and after I had completed my investigation the

25     indictment was filed against 72 persons.  The Prosecutor decided not to

Page 12956

 1     indict 12 persons because there was insufficient evidence, so that any

 2     further criminal proceedings or investigations against these persons were

 3     stopped.

 4             From this indictment it is evident that these persons are of

 5     Albanian ethnicity, and if you look at the counts in the indictment one

 6     can establish that they're accused of engaging in the period from 1992 to

 7     1994 in November when they were all arrested of creating a hostile

 8     association, an illegal MUP, that they had become members of this enemy

 9     association, with the aim of engaging in anti-constitutional activities

10     to imperil the constitutional order of Yugoslavia and the territory of

11     Serbia by planning to cede part of the -- to cut off part of the

12     territory of the Republic of Serbia, that is, the autonomous province of

13     Kosovo from Serbia and to accede to Albania with this territory.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I think this is quite enough.

15             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to tender this document

16     into evidence, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit D889, Your Honour.

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have Defence

20     document D011-4579.

21        Q.   In your binder it's number 37.  It's not the next document in

22     consecutive order, but I'm sure you'll find it.

23             You can tell us what this is about now, please.

24        A.   I'm familiar with this document.  This is a copy of the judgement

25     handed down by the district court in Pristina.  The Trial Chamber

Page 12957

 1     consisted of five judges, two of whom were professional judges, while the

 2     remaining three were judge jurors.  The Trial Chamber handed down a

 3     judgement in connection with the indictment we saw previously against

 4     Avdija Mehmedovic and others, all of whom are listed in the preamble of

 5     this judgement.  The judgement is K number 29/95 and 38/95.

 6             In this judgement the accused are found guilty.  There were 72

 7     people indicted and 69 of them were found guilty of the crime they were

 8     indicted for.  I won't repeat the articles of the law, and they were

 9     sentenced to various lengths of time.  And all this is described in the

10     grounds given in the judgement.  The judgement also mentions the evidence

11     taken into consideration by the Trial Chamber and the defence put forward

12     by the accused, and the Trial Chamber established that there had been

13     elements of the crime of creating an illegal MUP within the scope of

14     which there were centres of public and state security, that they had

15     established forensic departments, operative systems, that they had

16     conducted illegal on-site investigations in parallel with the proper

17     institutions, that they had arrested persons of Albanian and other

18     ethnicity, and that they had regularly sent reports to their illegal

19     government which was acting abroad, from abroad.

20             As I was the investigating judge in this case, a large number of

21     exhibits were found and their numbers are listed here, the pseudonyms

22     they used, the code books they used.  The ultimate goal of their illegal

23     activity was to have part of the territory of the FRY secede from

24     Yugoslavia and to create a separate state in Kosovo and Metohija.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned the Trial Chamber consisting of five

Page 12958

 1     judges, two of whom were professional judges and three judge jurors.

 2     Could you briefly explain what this means.

 3        A.   In view of the crime they were accused of and the sentence

 4     prescribed for this crime under the Law on Courts, the composition of the

 5     Trial Chamber had to consist of five members, two of whom had to be

 6     professional judges and the others were citizens of various professions

 7     who were elected as judge jurors in the court.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I move that this

 9     document be admitted into evidence.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D890, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  On what has been shown on the screen we haven't

13     seen the date.  Can we learn the date of this judgement?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will tell you on what page the

15     date is to be found.

16             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It's certainly there somewhere.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I will look at the overview I

18     drew up.  The date is the 17th of July, 1995.

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It's on page 5 of the B/C/S

20     version, if it can be shown on the screen, please.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  That's enough.  We don't need to see it.  We just

22     need to hear it.  Thank you.

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

24             The next document is D007-0541.

25        Q.   In your binder it's tab 35, Mrs. Marinkovic.  Please just comment

Page 12959

 1     on it briefly.  It was the intention of the Defence to show how

 2     proceedings were conducted from the indictment, through the trial, to the

 3     final appeal.  What do we have here?

 4        A.   This is the appeal judgement of the Supreme Court of Belgrade.

 5     It's K number I726/96 and the date is the 14th of March, 1997.  In this

 6     judgement the Supreme Court of Serbia decided in the appeal against the

 7     judgement we have just seen.  Some of the -- some of -- some parts of the

 8     appeal were upheld and some sentences were reduced by the Supreme Court.

 9     So some bases of appeal were upheld.

10        Q.   Can you tell me something about the composition of the Chamber?

11        A.   The Chamber consisted of three professional judges.  One was the

12     Presiding Judge and the other two or members of the Trial Chamber.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I move that this document be

15     admitted into evidence.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit D891, Your Honour.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-0562.

19        Q.   In your binder it's number 36.  Please go ahead.

20        A.   What we see on the screen here is a copy of the judgement with

21     the district court in Pristina handed down in the name of the people.

22     The number is K 37/97.  The judgement was handed down on the 11th of

23     July, 1997, and the Trial Chamber consisted of five members, two of whom

24     were professional judges and three judge jurors.  I'm familiar with this

25     judgement because in this case I was the investigating judge against the

Page 12960

 1     persons indicted here.  These persons were charged with the criminal

 2     offence of terrorism under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of

 3     Yugoslavia, punishable in connection with Article 138 of the same law.

 4     In this case where I conducted the investigation, for the first time in

 5     the practice of the district court in Pristina the court -- so actually,

 6     this was the first time that the criminal offence of terrorism was

 7     investigated and tried in the district court.  The investigation was

 8     conducted against 15 persons, but only three were available, only three

 9     could be arrested; and the remainder were at large.  So that the

10     investigation was carried out in their absence.  An arrest warrant was

11     issued against them, and afterwards when the indictment was filed they

12     were tried in absentia.

13             In this judgement where the accused are found guilty, all 15 of

14     them, all of them are Albanians by ethnicity; and it was proved in the

15     course of the proceedings that that they had created an enemy terrorist

16     organisation, that they had been members of it, that the members of this

17     organisation went for training in Albania, training in the handling of

18     weapons.  From Albania they brought weapons on to the territory of Kosovo

19     and Metohija and then they launched terrorist attacks in a certain

20     time-period from 1993 to 1998.  They launched attacks in a co-ordinated

21     manner in various towns and villages on the territory of Kosovo and

22     Metohija.  Their attacks were aimed at civilians, both Albanians and

23     non-Albanians; against members of the police; against buildings housing

24     police stations.  They attacked buildings where refugees were housed;

25     they launched attacks from ambushes, opening fire on vehicles in which

Page 12961

 1     there were police officers.  Their guilt was proved in the proceedings.

 2     A certain number of persons were killed, a certain number were injured.

 3     They survived but remained invalids.  A certain amount of weapons were

 4     found.  They attacked buildings by throwing explosive devices and

 5     hand-grenades and firing from automatic weapons.  And all this was done

 6     for political motives.  Their aim was to cause fear and panic among the

 7     citizens, to force Albanians who did not wish to join the KLA to do so.

 8     And a large-scale exodus of Serbs and other non-Albanians began, and

 9     their purpose was to endanger the territorial integrity of the FRY, to

10     cut off a part of the territory, create separate state, and later on to

11     join it up with Albania.

12             I only wish to add one thing.  One of the accused in this group

13     who were found guilty of terrorism is Hashim Thaqi, who was tried in

14     absentia.  He was proved to be guilty of terrorism, and he was sentenced

15     to ten years in prison.  Now he is the prime minister of the so-called

16     Independent Kosovo.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this into

19     evidence, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Could you assist me, please, with the date of this

21     conduct.  The indictment seems to have been July 1997, so the conduct

22     investigated must have been before then.  Are you saying that it was

23     found that the KLA existed and was functioning in Kosovo before July

24     1997?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I apologise.  Perhaps I can

Page 12962

 1     provide an example as a clarification.  If you look into the grounds

 2     given, you can see that there was a terrorist attack in 1993 at a

 3     railroad crossing on the road between Glogovac and Pristina.  A police

 4     van was moving along that route with the policemen going to Pristina to

 5     work.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  The point of my question was not whether there was

 7     terrorist activity, but whether it was what we know as the Kosovo

 8     Liberation Army?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It had existed in 1993, the

10     terrorist gang that called itself the Kosovo Liberation Army.  However,

11     they were much smaller in numbers at the outset and then they increased

12     their numbers, established units and staffs, et cetera.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Many seem to have taken the view that the Kosovo

14     Liberation Army really came into existence as an entity in February or

15     March 1998.  I'm just very curious that you seem to identify it much

16     earlier, even in 1993.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying that they existed

18     as early as 1993 is because I had conducted investigations into certain

19     cases where the accused spoke about that.  When I say that it existed in

20     1993, I have in mind that period during which there was a group of

21     criminals fleeing from the law.  They were small in numbers and they did

22     not pronounce openly their existence.  However, the band of criminals did

23     term themselves the KLA and started being active in the area of Drenica

24     and Srebrenica.  After that they managed to gain membership and continued

25     with the training and activities in the field.  If you take a look at the

Page 12963

 1     overview I showed here, I included all their terrorist actions in terms

 2     of dates, starting with 1993 onwards.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you very much.

 4             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Defence will not have any

 5     further questions along this line of questions, although it was our

 6     original intention to put a question much similar to yours.  I would like

 7     to thank you for that.  I believe this was very useful.  Before moving on

 8     to the next document I seek to tender this one into evidence.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D892, Your Honour.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13             The next document is D007-0356.

14        Q.   In your binder, Ms. Marinkovic, it is tab 38.  This is another

15     indictment.  Please provide us with a brief comment.

16        A.   The document we have on the screen is an indictment issued by the

17     district prosecutor.  It was submitted against the persons stated

18     therein.  There were 21 of them in total, all Albanians.  This indictment

19     was raised after an investigation was conducted which was headed by me.

20     The accused were charged with the crime of terrorism.  As you can see in

21     the grounds given, this group too created a terrorist association of

22     which they were members.  In the territory of Kosovo and Metohija they

23     carried out terrorist attacks against SUP facilities as well as against

24     facilities housing refugees and those under construction.  They also

25     attacked buildings and property owned by Albanians.  In those attacks, as

Page 12964

 1     charged in the indictment, they premeditated -- they were accused of

 2     premeditated murder or attempts to murder several people.  They caused

 3     harm to life and limb of a number of people and caused great material

 4     damage.  After all the terrorist attacks described in the indictment, the

 5     terrorist organisation which called itself the KLA took on the

 6     responsibility for those attacks by issuing 29 communiques.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document

 9     into evidence.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D893, Your Honour.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This is another indictment which

13     is D007-0406.

14        Q.   In your binder it is tab 39.

15        A.   What we can see on the screen is another indictment raised by the

16     district public prosecutor in Pristina after an investigation was carried

17     out headed by myself following a request of the public district

18     prosecutor.  The accused were charged with the crime of associating in

19     order to carry out enemy activities, and in particular crimes of

20     terrorism as well as endangering the territorial integrity of the state.

21     I won't go through the article numbers again since we have already

22     mentioned that.

23             As you can see in the left top corner, the KT number is 201/93.

24     This concerns the group which continued its activities after a part of

25     that group had been arrested within the illegal Ministry of National

Page 12965

 1     Defence.  That group was -- the original group was tried in 1993, and

 2     they were pronounced guilty and received prison sentences.  This group

 3     was detected later.  In Pristina they published and distributed an

 4     illegal newspaper, given its contents.  They advocated the creation of

 5     the state of Kosovo.  Their plan was to serve the urban area and to

 6     establish guerilla units within that area.  They were trained in the

 7     handling of weapons so as to be ready once the KLA initiated their

 8     attacks.  They would then use those guerilla units to carry out attacks

 9     against citizens in towns.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document

12     into evidence.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D894, Your Honour.

15             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   We will move on to the next topic, which I am inclined to title

17     Racak.  This will bring us closer to the close of this

18     examination-in-chief.

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have D149.

20        Q.   In your binder it is tab 40.  This is an Official Note.  Let's go

21     through it to see what it is, who drafted it, when, why; in brief, the

22     details.

23        A.   The Official Note we have on the screen is mine.  I put it

24     together as an investigating judge.  It is number 14/99.  It states that

25     on the 15th of January, 1999, I tried to enter the village of Racak so as

Page 12966

 1     to carry out an on-site investigation concerning a previous terrorist

 2     attack which occurred there.  I was prevented from completing the

 3     investigation because after we had entered the village of Racak fire was

 4     opened at us from different types of weapons forcing us to turn back.  In

 5     this note it is stated that on that day I was informed by the duty

 6     service of the Urosevac MUP that there had been a terrorist attack in

 7     Racak and that I was supposed to decide whether there should be an

 8     on-site investigation or not.  Before setting out from Pristina for

 9     Stimlje in the police station from which we were supposed to go further

10     afield and eventually reaching Racak, I was visited by the deputy

11     district prosecutor in my office, Mr. Ismet Sufta.  He was on duty that

12     day like I was.  He agreed with me that we were to go there to conduct

13     that investigation.

14             Once we reached the Stimlje police station, we were awaited there

15     by Mr. Janicijevic, who was the chief of the secretariat.  He shared with

16     us the information as to what had happened that morning.  He told us that

17     in the early hours of the 15th of January, 1999, there was a clash

18     between the police and members of a terrorist gang in the village of

19     Racak, which was their stronghold including Racak and its surrounding

20     villages.  Given that the policemen had already secured the scene to

21     create the preconditions for our on-site investigation, the chief used

22     radio communication to get in touch with them.  At a certain point in

23     time, he was informed that there is a lull, that there was no sporadic

24     firing from the hills, and that the team could indeed go to Racak to

25     conduct that on-site investigation.

Page 12967

 1             Together with the other members of the team and escorted by the

 2     police, I went to the village of Racak.  As I state here, we arrived

 3     there at around 2.00 p.m.  By the policemen on the spot I was informed

 4     that they collected all of the weapons they could find in the nearby

 5     hills.  All the weapons were put in a single spot.  Together with the

 6     prosecutor and other team members such as scene of crime officers and the

 7     general crime inspector who was there, we saw all the weapons there.  I

 8     specified the items found in terms of weapons, military uniforms, ammo

 9     crates with the ammunition of different calibres.  We also found a

10     Browning machine-gun, the calibre of which is 12.7 millimetre and another

11     Browning machine-gun, the calibre of which was 7.9, 36 automatic rifles,

12     two sniper rifles, five hand-held rocket-launchers, 12 mines --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  12 mortar shells.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 22 hand-grenades, radio stations,

15     hand-held radios, medical equipment, as well as military equipment

16     bearing KLA insignia.  All the weapons were found there and photographed.

17     I ordered the police to load the weapons into the vehicle.

18             After everything was done, we inspected the area, searching for

19     any casualties.  However, at that point in time they opened fire on us.

20     The police advised me that it would be a risky thing to proceed for

21     reasons of safety, and they recommended that we turn back.  We indeed did

22     so.  While returning from Racak one could hear sporadic firing from the

23     nearby villages; however, we managed to reach the Stimlje police station

24     safe and sound.  We agreed that the next day, on the 16th, we were to go

25     to Stimlje again and to attempt another on-site investigation.

Page 12968

 1        Q.   Thank you.  This was on the 15th.  I will have a number of other

 2     questions, one of which will be slightly off on a tangent, but I believe

 3     it is rather important.  You mentioned the public prosecutor who visited

 4     the scene with you that day.  I believe his name was Ismet Sufta.  Who

 5     were the prosecutors during the NATO air campaign with the district

 6     prosecutor's office in Pristina, and did they observe the same schedule

 7     as the municipal and district courts, or were they organised in a

 8     different fashion?

 9        A.   In the district prosecutor's office there was a single district

10     prosecutor who was the head of the office.  He had his deputies, five or

11     six of them.  They followed his instructions.

12        Q.   Who was the district prosecutor?

13        A.   Slavko Stefanovic was the district prosecutor at the time.

14        Q.   Do you recall who the deputies were, at least the names of those

15     whom you can remember and whom you worked with?

16        A.   Jovica Jovanovic was one, then Miodrag Surla, Dragomir Zivic [as

17     interpreted], Ismet Sufta, Ljiljana Delic, and Radojka Vlahovic.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Did they all continue working throughout the war, all

19     six of them plus the head of the office?

20        A.   The district prosecutor remained in his position as well as Ismet

21     Sufta.  For a while Dragan Zivic worked as well.  Before that Jovica

22     Jovanovic and Miodrag Surla went to join the military prosecutor's

23     office.  They were later joined by Dragan Zivic.  Ljiljana and Radojka,

24     the female colleagues, since they had minor children, were not under work

25     obligation and they left Pristina for security reasons with their

Page 12969

 1     families.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I will go back to your Official Note.  Upon entering

 3     the village of Racak when you observed the village houses, could you

 4     notice any damage caused by any heavy weapons on the 15th of January?

 5        A.   On that first day, I did not notice any type of damage on the

 6     houses which could indicate that there had been shelling or heavy pieces

 7     engaged there.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  My next question is as follows:  When you went to

 9     carry out this on-site investigation, did you notice any fortifications,

10     trenches, dugouts, or anything of that sort?  Did you have time to

11     observe anything like that on that day?

12        A.   On that day we did not manage to tour the terrain so that apart

13     from the weapons we seized on the site we were not able to observe

14     anything else.

15        Q.   During the investigation were there any local people in the

16     village?

17        A.   One could see that the village was deserted, that there was no

18     one around.  We saw no people or animals.  I gained the impression that

19     the population had been moved out.

20        Q.   As this is the 15th of January, 1999, just before the NATO

21     air-strikes against the FRY, you said that the police had to inform the

22     international observers in line with the agreement reached.  Do you know

23     whether they did so?

24        A.   Yes.  In Pristina when I was informed by the SUP duty service

25     that an incident had occurred in the village of Racak and that we had to

Page 12970

 1     carry out an investigation, I reminded the duty service that they should

 2     immediately inform the headquarters of the OSCE and that they should go

 3     to Stimlje, where we would meet up and go to Racak together.

 4        Q.   But were there any members from the OSCE waiting for you in

 5     Stimlje?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   You decided that on the next day you would again go on that site,

 8     that was the 16th of January.  What did you do on that day?  Did the same

 9     prosecutor go with you?  Did the same police officers secure the spot?

10     What happened on the 16th of January, to the best of your recollection

11     and based on this note?

12        A.   On the 16th of January, as agreed with the members of my team, we

13     set out from Pristina to Stimlje.  This was at around 10.00 or 10.30

14     a.m., and we arrived in Stimlje and first went to the police station

15     there in order to find out whether it was safe to proceed to Racak and

16     whether the police could guarantee our safety while conducting the

17     investigation.  When we arrived in Racak, or rather -- no, when we

18     arrived in the Stimlje police station, everything was quiet.  As Racak is

19     nearby and we could not hear any shots being fired from afar, I set out

20     with my team escorted by the police to the village of Racak.  On the

21     road, however, as soon as we turned off the main road going from Stimlje

22     to Prizren and Urosevac, hardly had we arrived halfway, fire was opened

23     on us from all directions so that we turned back.  And on that day we did

24     not manage to get to the village or carry out an investigation.

25        Q.   Do you recall anything special about that day, the 16th of

Page 12971

 1     January, and Racak?

 2        A.   On that day, as we did not manage to carry out an on-site

 3     investigation, we went back to Stimlje police station and again in

 4     agreement with the prosecutor and the other members of the team we

 5     decided that on the following day, the 17th of January, we would try

 6     again.  We then set out towards Pristina from Stimlje and we all went

 7     home.  In the evening when I switched on my television the first news

 8     item I saw showed Mr. Walker -- a picture of him entering the village of

 9     Racak with members of the OSCE --

10        Q.   I have to interrupt you.  You saw this on the 16th?

11        A.   Yes, on the 16th in the evening.

12        Q.   Yes.  Please go on.  I apologise for interrupting you.

13        A.   I heard Walker saying that there had been a massacre in Racak.  I

14     was speechless, dumbfounded.  Walker had entered Racak before the

15     official and authorised on-site investigation team, which had been

16     prevented from carrying out its work.  Walker had entered Racak on his

17     own, without any agreement or consultation with us and made the statement

18     that a massacre had taken place.

19        Q.   Thank you.  What happened on the 17th of January?

20        A.   On the 17th of January, together with the members of the

21     investigation team - and I also invited a forensic expert, Dr. Slavisa

22     Dobricanin, who was the director of the forensic institute in Pristina,

23     and he joined the team, I thought I might need his help in case I was

24     able to carry out an on-site investigation on that day and in case we

25     found any corpses.  At the police station in Stimlje, where we arrived in

Page 12972

 1     the afternoon, and both on the 16th and the 17th, the duty service had

 2     informed the representatives of the OSCE that they should come to Stimlje

 3     police station at a certain time if they wanted to join me and the other

 4     members of the investigation team and go with us to the village of Racak

 5     to carry out the inspection.  On the 16th no one from the OSCE was there,

 6     but on the 17th when we arrived at the police station in Stimlje,

 7     upstairs in the office of the chief members of the OSCE led by Walker's

 8     deputy, a British General John Drewienkiewicz arrived there.  After

 9     introductions I told them that if the security conditions were in place

10     we would go to the village of Racak and carry out an on-site

11     investigation.  When the English general, John, heard that he raised his

12     voice and started issuing orders to me.  I was surprised by this.  I

13     couldn't believe it.  I can say here that the only person who ever tried

14     to influence my work or prevent me from carrying out my job as an

15     investigating judge was General Drewienkiewicz, who had no right to do

16     that.  He told me angrily that I could not go to Racak, that I could go

17     to Racak only with him and without a police escort, that in Racak there

18     were local people who would be frightened if they saw the police, that

19     they would open fire on the police, and I said to him, "If you say that

20     there are local people there, why would they open fire?  Are the local

21     villagers armed or not?  If they are armed, are they villagers or are

22     they soldiers?"  He was even more irritated by what I said and he said,

23     "You must not go to Racak because if you do there will be more victims.

24     The 'villagers' will open fire.  I will inform my chief Walker and tell

25     him to stop you from doing this."

Page 12973

 1             I tried to explain to him that no one could prevent me from going

 2     to Racak and carrying out an on-site investigation because that was my

 3     duty as an investigating judge.  I already knew that there had been an

 4     incident in Racak, I had been informed of that officially, and it was my

 5     duty to carry out an on-site investigation and establish what had

 6     happened on the spot, search for evidence, establish whether there were

 7     any casualties, how many, and what they had died of.  He became even

 8     angrier when he saw how persistent I was, and he threatened me.  He said

 9     if I entered the village and if innocent villagers got killed, he would

10     report me to the ICTY, and I would be responsible if any more people got

11     killed.

12             There we parted ways.  He decided not to go.  He withdrew with

13     the other members of his team, and I set out with the members of my team

14     and a police escort to the village of Racak.  When we set out to the

15     village of Racak we came as far as the entrance to the village.  Fire was

16     opened on us again from all directions.  Shooting started so we could not

17     turn back, but we did and we were fired at all the way.  On that day

18     there was damage to an institution for retarded children, the health care

19     clinic, the police station, and an official vehicle which was parked in

20     the yard of the police station.  We did not manage to carry out an

21     on-site investigation on that day.

22        Q.   Thank you.  We'll pause here.  The next exhibit, or rather,

23     document is dated the 18th of January, and I move that it be admitted

24     into evidence.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

Page 12974

 1             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  I see that it

 2     is already a Defence exhibit.  My mistake.  Thank you.  We will proceed.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  What is the Defence exhibit number?  Is that D149?

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  D149.

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour, yes.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise once again.  The

 8     next document is D48.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  148.  Interpreter's correction.

10             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Please go ahead.  It's in your binder number 41.

12        A.   What we see here on the screen is a record of the on-site

13     investigation.  The number is KRI 14/99.  I drew up this report

14     concerning the on-site investigation I carried out on the 18th of

15     January, 1999, in the village of Racak when we managed to enter the

16     village of Racak on the fourth day.  The members of the on-site

17     investigation team are listed, and we see here that the investigation

18     commenced at 1400 hours.  As on the previous days, I and the members of

19     the investigation team set out from Pristina to Stimlje in a car.  When

20     we arrived at Stimlje we first went to the police station there.  This

21     was at around noon or 12.30.  We were met by the chief of the secretariat

22     and we spoke to him, asking him what the situation was on the ground and

23     whether the conditions would be in place for us to go on site.  The chief

24     of the branch [as interpreted] police station, Mitic, was in the office

25     with the chief of the secretariat.  He was there and he was following

Page 12975

 1     what was going on.  The chief had a radio station, by means of which he

 2     communicated with the policemen who were at Racak.

 3             While we were talking there, after about half an hour or 20

 4     minutes, General Djordjevic entered the office.  We were introduced to

 5     him.  That was the first time I had met him, and he spoke to the chief of

 6     the secretariat to learn whether the conditions were in place and whether

 7     the team could go on site and carry out an on-site investigation.  The

 8     chief of the secretariat, Janicijevic, described the situation to him but

 9     I wasn't paying much attention to all the details.  After a while, the

10     chief of the secretariat told us that he had been informed from the

11     ground that there was a lull, that it was currently quiet in the village,

12     that we could set out in order to try to carry out an on-site

13     investigation on that day.  With my colleague, the prosecutor, and Sasa

14     Dobricanin, the court forensic expert, I left the building of the police

15     station, when I was approached by representatives of the OSCE.  They told

16     me they had arrived and that they wanted to go with us if the conditions

17     were in place for carrying out an investigation on that day.  These were

18     two Americans and one Italian, and they had an interpreter interpreting

19     from English into Serbian and vice versa.  I entered their names into the

20     record.

21             When we were about to set out, everyone entered their own

22     vehicle, and Mitic, the chief of the branch police station, came down and

23     said he would go with us.  He said that he had been told to do so by

24     Janicijevic, his chief of secretariat.  In view of the fact the situation

25     had been risky and unsafe on the previous days, he was supposed to escort

Page 12976

 1     us and provide for our security in case there was any firing or any risk.

 2             We set out in a convoy and arrived at Racak.  There was no

 3     shooting along the way.  When we entered the village of Racak, left our

 4     vehicles, and started towards the village, one of the police officers who

 5     was already there approached me and told me that there were bodies in the

 6     mosque.  Together with the investigation team, the representatives of the

 7     OSCE, so all of us together, we entered the mosque and we all viewed the

 8     bodies in the mosque together.

 9             In the mosque, as I stated in this report, we saw 40 bodies; 39

10     of whom were men, and one was a woman.  The bodies were lined up.  They

11     were all dressed.  They had shoes which looked like military boots.  Some

12     had dark grey, others navy blue military trousers, and they had military

13     belts on those trousers.  The forensic technician, acting on my orders,

14     numbered the bodies.  They were photographed.  Dr. Dobricanin inspected

15     each body visually and immediately stated out loud that there were no

16     traces of any slaughter on those bodies.  On one or two bodies there was

17     damage to the head -- injuries to the head, where the forensic experts

18     said these had been caused by birds or animals because the corpses had

19     lain outdoors for a while.

20             After the corpses had been photographed, each body was put into a

21     separate body-bag according to the proper procedure, and they were placed

22     in a refrigerator truck which was immediately sealed in the presence of

23     the OSCE.  And this refrigerator truck containing 40 bodies on my orders

24     went immediately to the Forensic Institute in Pristina, there to await

25     further instructions from me as the investigating judge.

Page 12977

 1             After this, as it was quiet, there was no shooting, we were not

 2     hindered by anyone, we went on to inspect the terrain and see what other

 3     evidence we could find.  We thought we might find other corpses or

 4     perhaps the pit I had seen on television where Walker had shown bodies

 5     lying there, saying that allegedly there had been a massacre.  When we

 6     set out on foot along the hill we immediately came across trenches, and

 7     following those trenches we arrived at an abandoned house.  When we

 8     entered that house we found various objects, which gave us to understand

 9     that the KLA headquarters had been located there.  We found weapons,

10     uniforms, lists, duty rosters of members of the KLA.  In the yard next to

11     the house where the headquarters had been, we found a store of food,

12     large quantities of flour, cigarettes, eggs.  We found a kitchen where

13     food was prepared and where there were tables and chairs.  It gave us the

14     impression that large numbers of people had eaten there.

15             In the house itself we found mortars for hand-held

16     rocket-launchers, seven rounds of ammunition, a large quantity of

17     bullets, three hand-grenades, trousers, and green vest with hand-grenades

18     and bullets in the pockets as well as propaganda material.  Everything

19     that was found in that house was photographed, numbered, labelled,

20     recorded, and I entered all this into my record.  And then these items

21     were seized for further investigation and forensic work.

22             When we continued on our way, we followed the trenches which ran

23     from the bottom of the hill to the top on both the right-hand side and

24     left-hand side.  In the trenches we found very many spent shell casings

25     or cartridges.  We found the tools that had been used to dig these

Page 12978

 1     trenches, and we found parts of uniforms here and there.  When we reached

 2     the top of the hill, which was known as Vis, we found a machine-gun nest.

 3     A big room had been dug into the hill which contained a stove which could

 4     be used to burn wood.  We found wooden beds, military blankets, coats,

 5     jackets, and trousers, and all around there was a large quantity of spent

 6     cartridges made in China.

 7             There was a military canvas there as well as a tripod for the

 8     machine-gun.  It was all included in our note about the on-site

 9     investigation, and all the items were taken away to be used as evidence.

10     Throughout the investigation the OSCE observers accompanied us.  They did

11     not try to interfere with our work.  They only occasionally put

12     questions, and I provided answers with the assistance of their

13     interpreter.  Throughout the investigation one of the scene of crime

14     officers was tasked with video recording everything we found.  We toured

15     most of that village and the entire village.  We did not, however, manage

16     to locate the pit that Walker indicated in the broadcast.  We tried to

17     follow another route going downhill on the other side, trying to find the

18     pit; however, having reached the foot of the hill, we were still unable

19     to find any other casualties or traces of massacre or blood.  When we

20     went back to the village centre, we were still walking between the houses

21     when fire was opened at us.  I'm not a soldier, but there was firing all

22     around from different types of weapons, I believe.  There were bullets

23     zooming about.  We were trying to take cover.  It was so risky and

24     basically none of us believed we would get out of there alive.

25             We ran downhill any which way we could, and we tried to take

Page 12979

 1     shelter in the house together with the OSCE representatives.  We,

 2     however, did not manage to reach the house because the firing was so

 3     strong we had to lie down.  We managed to reach our vehicles.  We got in

 4     and left the village as quickly as possible.  The fire continued

 5     throughout.  At a certain point along our route, we felt that something

 6     had struck our vehicle, the vehicle where the forensic expert and I were.

 7     The vehicle was lifted off the ground and fell down again.  The vehicle

 8     was indeed hit, but fortunately enough no one was injured.  We managed to

 9     reach the police station eventually and tried to calm down.  We took our

10     time to recover before eventually leaving Stimlje.

11        Q.   Thank you.  On that occasion did you encounter any villagers in

12     Racak?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Very well.

15             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, I just wanted to

16     point something out.  Page 21, line 25, it is stated there that Mitic was

17     the chief of the branch police station, but he was actually the chief of

18     the police station, not a branch police station.  This was clearly a

19     mistake.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no.  Mitic was the chief of

21     the police department in Urosevac.

22             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Thank you very much for your assistance.  There seemed to be

24     something wrong.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we next please have

Page 12980

 1     D002-0952.

 2        Q.   In your binder it is tab 42.

 3             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have that on the

 4     screen.  My associate is informing me that the number is incorrect.

 5     D003-0952.  I apologise.  It was a slip of the tongue.

 6        Q.   It is on the screen now.  Could you please provide a comment.  It

 7     is your tab 42.

 8        A.   We have a list of those identified who had been killed in the

 9     village of Racak.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Do you have anything to tell us regarding this list,

11     something in particular which may be something you observed?  First of

12     all, who identified the bodies, and were there any other examinations

13     conducted on those corpses?

14        A.   Concerning the 40 corpses we found, since we did not know their

15     identity, I issued an order to the forensic service to identify the

16     bodies by taking finger-prints which were to be used alongside their

17     identity documents and other files to ascertain their identity clearly.

18     Before that, I issued another instruction which was followed upon the

19     very next.  It was when we unsealed the refrigerator truck in the

20     presence of OSCE representatives.  The bodies were then taken to the

21     forensic medical institute and paraffin glove samples were taken from all

22     the corpses from the mosque in order to establish whether there were any

23     gunpowder traces on their hands.  After that, an order was issued to the

24     forensic medical institute to carry out the autopsies of those bodies.

25     The scene of crime service which took the finger-prints managed to

Page 12981

 1     identify all of the bodies.  We have their first and last names contained

 2     in this document as well as their dates of birth.  This concerns the 40

 3     bodies we identified which had been found in the mosque in Racak.

 4             Concerning this list I can tell you that when I testified as a

 5     Defence witness in the case against Mr. Milosevic I was shown a list from

 6     the indictment.  On that list there were 42 names.  It was the first time

 7     that I learned that another figure is being used, the figure being 45,

 8     although I am certain that there were only 40 corpses that we found in

 9     the mosque.  Later on, with the assistance of the Trial Chamber and the

10     prosecutor, we established what the differences were between the lists.

11     In the list of 45 there were people who were not found in the mosque at

12     all.  We, therefore, corrected the list, bringing it closer to the

13     original list of 40 which I had.

14        Q.   Were you familiar with the results of the paraffin glove test

15     concerning the mortal remains that were tested?

16        A.   Yes, I received a report concerning that.  It was established

17     that 37 corpses contained gunpowder traces.  Only three had none.

18        Q.   You told me you issued an order to carry out autopsies.  Who did

19     that on the mortal remains in question?

20        A.   The autopsy of those mortal remains found in the village of Racak

21     was carried out by a Yugoslav team of eminent experts, pathologists, and

22     forensic medical experts.  Two Belarus pathologists also participated as

23     part of the team.  They were in Pristina at the time because they were

24     carrying out autopsies of other corpses.  Later on a Finnish pathology

25     team joined in.  They were not present at the outset.  After their

Page 12982

 1     arrival from Finland they joined in, following my agreement and those

 2     experts who were already working on the corpses agreed.

 3        Q.   Who headed the Finnish team?

 4        A.   Helena Ranta.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Another question before the break.  Did you establish

 6     the identity of the female found in the mosque in Racak; and if so, could

 7     you please tell us who she was?  Do you have any information about that?

 8        A.   The identity of the female corpse was established.  Her name was

 9     Hanusha Mehmeti [phoen].  My operational information I received from the

10     prosecutor's office indicates that she was the sister of two KLA members.

11     Her father was also a KLA member in Racak.

12        Q.   Thank you for your answers.

13             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I kindly wish to have this

14     document admitted.  After the break I will have only a little bit of time

15     left, which I will use well to conclude my examination-in-chief.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  The document you want admitted is the list?  It

17     will be received.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D895, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  We will have the first break now and resume at

21     11.00.

22                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 12983

 1        Q.   Before we move on to the next document, I wanted to go back to a

 2     topic we discussed before briefly only.  Ms. Marinkovic, when you entered

 3     Racak on the 15th of January the first time and when you came back on the

 4     18th -- well, first I asked you about the 15th whether you were able to

 5     observe any damage on the houses, and the same question now goes for the

 6     18th.  Did you observe any damage caused by heavy weapons on the

 7     buildings in Racak, and did you notice any other types of destruction

 8     such as houses which were burned or things similar to that?

 9        A.   I didn't see any traces of shelling or of any houses being set

10     ablaze.  I didn't notice that on the 15th, on the 16th, the 17th, and the

11     18th.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we next please have

14     D003-0959.

15        Q.   In your binder it is tab 43.  I believe you have already

16     commented on a similar thing during your testimony.  I would kindly ask

17     you for your comment now as well.

18        A.   This document has to do with the forensic examination of the

19     scene of incident which forms part of the on-site investigation report.

20     This was done following the instructions of the competent judge.  It was

21     carried out by a forensic technician of the Urosevac SUP who was present

22     there.  He was a member of the on-site investigation team.  In this

23     report it is stated what activities were taken by the expert and what

24     instructions they received from the judge.  We also have certain

25     photographs showing weapons, although the pictures are not of a very good

Page 12984

 1     quality.  However, it contains the weapons found at the 15th of January,

 2     1999.  That is to say the first day when we entered the village of Racak.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  I think this is sufficient.  Thank you for that.

 4             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this Defence

 5     document into evidence.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Gopalan.

 7             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours, I have not been able to follow this

 8     document, since we've only had the cover page.  So I'm not clear on what

 9     the witness has been commenting on.  Are there separate pages behind?

10             JUDGE PARKER:  I would assume so, but can you tell us,

11     Mr. Djordjevic, how many pages are in this document?

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour.  In the

13     B/C/S there are nine pages, in the English document it is only six pages,

14     probably due to a smaller font.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  Are there also photographs and other attachments?

16             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, the photographs and records

17     from the crime scene by the scene of crime officers.  If Ms. Gopalan is

18     still not satisfied, we can go through each and every page.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We can certainly do that.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE PARKER:  We think it would be useful to quickly view each

23     page of the document.  We'll arrange that.

24             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The Registrar is also confirming

25     that that would be possible.  The first page seems to be the same in both

Page 12985

 1     languages.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  The next page.  The next page in the English.  Can

 3     you keep going.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be -- sorry --

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  Sorry.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D896, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

10             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   The next document in your binder is tab 44.  It is Defence

12     document D003-0989.

13             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have that on the

14     screen.

15        Q.   It is a record of damage on the court vehicle, the damage was

16     sustained on the way back.

17        A.   This is the cover page of the case file of the Urosevac SUP.

18     Inside the file there are photographs of the vehicle, that the vehicle

19     was damaged on the 18th of January, 1999, when the on-site investigation

20     team was returning from the scene, the vehicle was fired upon.  And we

21     see a detailed description of the damage.  This is also a report of an

22     examination of the vehicle which forms part of the case file.  There's

23     also a report from the scene as well as all the other measures we

24     undertook in Racak between the 15th and the 18th of January, 1999.  This

25     particular page has to do with the 18th of January.

Page 12986

 1        Q.   I presume there are also photographs in the file?

 2        A.   Yes, there are.

 3             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now show the Court and

 4     the Prosecution each page of the B/C/S and English versions of the

 5     document plus the photographs.  In other words, let's go through this

 6     document.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  That's underway.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence moves

 9     to have this document admitted into evidence.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D897, Your Honour.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D003-0951.

13        Q.   In your binder it's tab 45, Madam.  Could you please comment on

14     this document which we see before us?  Could you explain to the Court

15     what sort of document this is, on what occasion it was compiled, who

16     compiled it, and all the other details concerning this document?

17        A.   The document we see on the screen is an order issued by the

18     investigating judge to the forensic technicians of the Pristina court,

19     ordering them to do the following:  In co-operation with the group of

20     forensic experts who are conducting autopsies on bodies in the institute

21     of forensic medicine in Pristina do a paraffin glove test of each body

22     individually, do gunpowder tests on the body and clothing, perform

23     dactyloscopy to establish the identity of the bodies, to photograph each

24     body separately, conduct the forensic examination of each projectile and

25     other foreign body found in the bodies in order to establish the type of

Page 12987

 1     projectile and weapon involved.  And under item 2 it says that the above

 2     investigative action shall be carried out by authorised forensic

 3     technicians of the Pristina SUP.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Do you tender that, Mr. Djordjevic?

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, but in e-court there

 6     are some other documents bearing the same number.  So can we go through

 7     this page by page, as we did in the previous case?

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 9             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It seems that the rest is not in

10     e-court, so I do tender this, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Perhaps the judge could help us.

12             We see nothing in this order about autopsies.  Now, is there a

13     separate order for those?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  I take it this order was given on the 19th of

16     January, 1999?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  That appears in the B/C/S form but not in the

19     English translation.

20             It appears there is just this page, Mr. Djordjevic.  It will be

21     received.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit D898, Your Honour.

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It seems that this is the only

24     page in e-court.  I will have to put the following question then.

25        Q.   Was there a special order to conduct autopsies of the bodies

Page 12988

 1     found in the village of Racak?

 2        A.   Yes, there was.

 3        Q.   To whom was the order to conduct autopsies issued?

 4        A.   It was issued to the commission of forensic experts and

 5     pathologists at the level of Yugoslavia.  Slavisa Dobricanin was the head

 6     of that group, and the members included Dr. Otasevic from Nis; Dr. Dunjic

 7     from Belgrade; Dr. Tasic from Novi Sad; and Dobricanin from Pristina.

 8     These were all forensic experts, pathologists, and also a two-member team

 9     from Belarus whose names I cannot recall, but they are listed in the

10     order.  And the order also states what is to be established in the

11     autopsy of all 40 bodies.  At the end of that order it says that a

12     Finnish team of forensic experts would join in the autopsy once they

13     arrive from Finland.

14        Q.   Thank you.  In the course of the investigation did you receive

15     any conclusions from the forensic team?

16        A.   After an autopsy was conducted on all 40 bodies, I received a

17     joint conclusion from the forensic experts, which was the same in the

18     case of all three teams, the Yugoslav team, the Belarus team, and the

19     Finnish team.  The conclusion was that the cause of death of all the

20     bodies were injuries they sustained from fire-arms, hand-held weapons,

21     and that they had been shot from a distance.

22        Q.   Thank you.  We'll pause now.

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] And in the meantime could we

24     have document D003-0955 on the screen.  Yes, this is the document.

25        Q.   There was some confusion here.  This document is in your binder

Page 12989

 1     under the same tab you have just been looking at, 40.  This is the

 2     general conclusion you have just mentioned.  Did these general

 3     conclusions ensue after the order you had issued?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Please go on.

 6        A.   In these conclusions it says that it was established that the

 7     cause of death in all 40 bodies were projectiles, that all the injuries

 8     had been fatal except in the case of six bodies, where there had also

 9     been injuries caused by animals after death, post mortem.  The wounds

10     were found in various parts and sides of the bodies, had arrived from

11     different directions.  And that all the body wounds were accompanied by

12     corresponding rips on the clothing of the dead bodies.  Then there is a

13     description of how the team worked, that the autopsies were videotaped

14     with two or three video cameras in the presence of the European community

15     and the Finnish team, that they had been photographed, sketched, and the

16     injuries described in the course of the autopsy.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 2 of this

18     document, please.  Thank you.

19        Q.   May we go on?

20        A.   In these joint conclusions, in item 12 it says that the Finnish

21     team of experts which joined in later on examined all 16 bodies on which

22     autopsies had been performed before their arrival, and after that they

23     continued working together with the other teams on the autopsies that

24     were conducted afterwards.  The date here is the 30th of January, 1999,

25     and the conclusions were signed by the Yugoslav team of experts and the

Page 12990

 1     experts from Belarus.  And we can see their names and signatures here.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence wishes to tender

 4     this document, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D899, Your Honour.

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have D003-0949.  I

 8     think we have the complete documentation now as regards this topic.

 9        Q.   What is this?

10        A.   What we see on the monitor now is the order I issued to conduct

11     an autopsy of the dead bodies, listing what had to be established and who

12     was to participate in the autopsy.  And it states here that the cause of

13     death should be established, the type and nature of the injuries and when

14     they were inflicted for each body individually, defects in the clothing,

15     and whether they were consistent with the injuries on the body for each

16     body individually; on the basis of gunpowder analysis, whether the damage

17     to the clothing contained traces of gunpowder particles or whether the

18     damage to the clothing was caused later.  Every projectile and other

19     foreign body was to be photographed and sent to the competent organs to

20     establish what kind of projectile it is.  After the autopsy, establish if

21     there are identical items of clothing or footwear and determine the

22     manufacturer.

23             This order also contains an instruction that technicians of the

24     Pristina SUP should be allowed to conduct a paraffin glove test, a

25     gunpowder analysis both of the body and of the clothing, and to carry out

Page 12991

 1     dactyloscopy in order to establish identity.

 2        Q.   I think this will suffice.

 3             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to tender this document,

 4     Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit D900, Your Honour.

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mrs. Marinkovic, on receipt of this forensic report, was it

 9     necessary to carry out any further investigation?  Can you tell us what

10     happened after this?

11        A.   After I received the written report on the results of the

12     forensic investigations I had ordered, I sent the complete file to the

13     prosecutor of the district court in Pristina for further action.  That

14     was my duty under the Law on Criminal Procedure.  The complete file was

15     sent to the prosecutor of the district court in Pristina.

16        Q.   And that was the end of your investigation in this case?

17        A.   I undertook all investigative activities that I as an

18     investigating judge was able to undertake in connection with the events

19     in Racak.  Before that, no investigation had been instituted.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have D61 on the

22     screen, please.

23        Q.   Please comment on this document briefly.

24        A.   As far as I can see, it was sent to the Ministry of the Interior

25     of Serbia by the Pristina secretariat on the 10th of December, 1998.  As

Page 12992

 1     for the contents, I can see that this has to do with an investigation

 2     carried out by me as the investigating judge as well as other members of

 3     the scene of crime -- on-site investigation.  I was supposed to undertake

 4     that investigation on the 10th of December, 1998, in the village of

 5     Obrinje.  Concerning this event, I can tell you that the district court

 6     in Pristina received a request from a number of families which lived in

 7     Gornje Obrinje.  They reported that in Gornje Obrinje some of their

 8     family members who had been killed were buried.  Following that request,

 9     I set a date for the investigation.  Concerning the exhumation of the

10     corpses, we also included forensic medical institute experts.  We needed

11     their assistance for the exhumations, and Ms. Helena Ranta also headed a

12     Finnish team which came along.  We agreed with the Finnish team to go

13     there on the 10th of December early in the morning, escorted by the

14     police.  They were in charge of securing the perimeter.  We set out from

15     Pristina to Obrinje.

16             On approaching the village of Obrinje, the vehicle where the

17     Finnish pathologists were stopped.  They all got out of the vehicle,

18     together with Ms. Helena Ranta.  Not knowing what it was about, I got out

19     of my vehicle and with the assistance of an interpreter I inquired about

20     why they had stopped.  Helena Ranta told us that we cannot go any further

21     towards Gornje Obrinje in that composition.  She said that there was a

22     barricade at Gornje Obrinje manned by armed KLA members.  If they saw the

23     police they would open fire, endangering us.  She suggested that I alone

24     accompany them in their vehicle.  When I asked who was there to guarantee

25     my safety, she said that she couldn't do that because if they opened fire

Page 12993

 1     she could be hit.  I put the second question then, telling her that I

 2     could not carry out an on-site investigation without my team members and

 3     that on-site investigations have to be undertaken by the competent

 4     authorities of Serbia.  There should also be a forensic expert and the

 5     police was supposed to be there to secure the scene.  She did not want to

 6     go on in the presence of the police, and we were unable to reach an

 7     agreement on how to proceed and whether there would be an exhumation that

 8     day.  It was already getting dark, and we noticed that in the surrounding

 9     hills since we were down on the road terrorists began appearing and

10     surrendering -- and surrounding us.  They wore black uniforms and had

11     weapons.  It was only a matter of time when they would open fire.

12             Since we were unable to agree that I alone should accompany them

13     or that they themselves can carry out the on-site investigation without

14     any authority, we agree that we should go back that day to Pristina.  We

15     also agreed that we should return to Gornje Obrinje and were supposed to

16     agree on a date.  However, after that Helena Ranta did not come back, she

17     never asked for another date.  And the families were no longer requesting

18     any investigations.  I drafted an Official Note about all that, but it

19     remained in the district court in Pristina.  I do not have a copy which I

20     can produce.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

23     this into evidence.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 12994

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  It's Exhibit D61 already?

 2             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  Yes, yes, sorry.  That's my fault.

 3             [Interpretation] The next Defence document is D011-4530.

 4        Q.   It is your tab 47, Ms. Marinkovic.

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Due to the lack of time, we were

 6     unable to secure a translation; however, he we will receive one.  This is

 7     the first page of the document.  Could we please go to page 3.  I believe

 8     that is a criminal report.  Yes, this is the document.

 9        Q.   Please comment since there was something specific in relation to

10     this document, and can you also refer to the time-period, please.

11        A.   What we have on the screen is a copy of the criminal report sent

12     by the Pristina SUP to the district public prosecutor.  It was submitted

13     against an unidentified perpetrator charged with the crime of murder

14     contained in Article 47 of the penal code of Serbia.  The victim was

15     Bajram Kelmendi and his two sons Kastriot and Kustrima from Pristina.

16     The crime was committed on the 26th of March, 1999, in Pristina, during

17     the period of NATO air-strikes.

18        Q.   What else can you tell us about the victims?

19        A.   I knew Bajram Kelmendi personally.  He was a good attorney in

20     Pristina dealing with criminal cases only.  I had a good co-operation, a

21     professional co-operation, with him.  Unfortunately, this is what

22     happened to him.  Concerning this event on the 26th of March, 1999, as

23     the investigating judge following information I received from the duty

24     service about the whereabouts of the corpses, I attended the crime scene.

25     I drafted a report, the number of which is 84/99.  In the report I

Page 12995

 1     specify the place where the corpses were found, in the proximity of the

 2     Energoinvest company.  I described the position of the bodies, the

 3     clothes, as well as the 35 spent cartridges on the scene from a

 4     7.62-millimetre weapon.  This was all taken as evidence.  At the on-site

 5     investigation scene, he Ejup Golica was also present.  He was the

 6     victim's brother-in-law.  He recognised both Bajram and his two sons.  He

 7     was able to identify them, following which I ordered the forensic medical

 8     institute to conduct autopsies of these three bodies.  They were

 9     subsequently transferred to the institute.  Photographs were taken of the

10     crime scene and sketches made because there was also a scene of crime

11     officer in attendance.  I sent a copy of the on-site investigation report

12     to the district public prosecutor for further action.  In this case, as

13     the investigating judge, I was in charge of the on-site investigation.

14        Q.   Do you know whether the perpetrators were ever discovered?

15        A.   As far as I know, they were not, unfortunately.

16        Q.   Thank you.  The last question put by Defence today has to do with

17     the processing of crimes committed by specifically MUP members.  I won't

18     ask you about any army members because you have already explained that

19     this was within the competence of the military court.  As of the moment

20     of your appointment as investigating judge in 1994, do you know of any

21     MUP members being processed or prosecuted by the Pristina court?  You, as

22     you said, were an investigating judge with that court as of 1994.

23        A.   Yes.  I know that during that period there were criminal

24     procedures and proceedings instituted against MUP members.

25     Investigations were carried into those cases by myself or my colleagues,

Page 12996

 1     although I don't know how many specifically and who the persons involved

 2     were since it's been a long time since.  However, I know that after the

 3     completion of investigations, indictments were issued against those who

 4     perpetrators those crimes and that judgements were handed down as well.

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Defence seeks to tender this

 6     last document.  At the same time we wish to thank the witness for coming

 7     here in order to clarify some issues important for Defence.  With this I

 8     close my examination-in-chief, Your Honours.  Of course this should be

 9     MFI'd, given that a translation is still pending, as I have already

10     informed you.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  The criminal report will be marked for

12     identification.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit D901, MFI'd, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

15             Thank you, Mr. Djordjevic.

16             Ms. Gopalan.

17                           Cross-examination by Ms. Gopalan:

18        Q.   Good afternoon, Witness.

19        A.   Good afternoon.

20        Q.   Now, a few moments ago we had some testimony in relation to the

21     incident in Gornje Obrinje.  Do you remember that?

22        A.   I've already shared with you the things I can remember.

23        Q.   That's right.  Am I right that in this case, the Gornje Obrinje

24     incident, an on-site investigation was never completed?

25        A.   It was not completed because we were prevented from attending the

Page 12997

 1     scene.

 2        Q.   And you also mentioned that the families were no longer

 3     requesting any investigations, correct?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   As an investigating judge, did you have an obligation to complete

 6     an investigation even if the family members did not require or request an

 7     investigation?

 8        A.   The investigative measure of on-site investigation in Gornje

 9     Obrinje is something I attempted to carry out; however, I was prevented

10     in doing so.  Given that Helena Ranta herself told me that there were KLA

11     members there, for objective reasons this could not be completed.

12        Q.   Just a few more questions on your role, on your obligations, as

13     an investigating judge.  You testified about these obligations in the

14     Milosevic trial.  You've already mentioned in this case that you were --

15     you provided testimony in the Milosevic case.  As I understand it, an

16     investigating judge, you said, makes no conclusions and as an

17     investigating judge you collect evidence.  Is that correct?  We can call

18     up the Milosevic testimony if that's necessary to refresh your memory.

19        A.   There's no need.  What I said is true.  As an investigating judge

20     I am not there to make conclusions.  I merely collect evidence following

21     a request of the competent district prosecutor or if I deem it to be

22     necessary.

23        Q.   So your duty was to observe, record, and collect evidence in a

24     crime scene, and it was the prosecutor who made the decision whether to

25     take the case forward.  And I'm reading from your testimony in Milosevic

Page 12998

 1     now.  Is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes, it is.

 3        Q.   Now, I'd like to move to some cases we spoke about earlier today,

 4     for example, D892.  That's the exhibit number for a case judgement

 5     rendered on 11 July 1997.

 6             MS. GOPALAN:  If we could call up that exhibit, please.

 7        Q.   Do you recall this case?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   Now, in relation to this case you mentioned today line 8, 7,

10     saying that:

11             "The aim of these defendants was to cause fear and panic among

12     the citizens, to force Albanians who did not wish to join the KLA to do

13     so."  And you go on to say that:  "The purpose was to endanger the

14     territorial integrity of the FRY and to cut off a part of the territory,

15     create a separate state, and later on to join up with Albania."

16             Now, how did you know this was the aim of the defendants?

17        A.   Because the defendants themselves when interviewed during the

18     investigation openly spoke about that.  They proudly discussed their idea

19     of creating an independent state.

20        Q.   Now, a similar goal was stated by the defendants in the illegal

21     MUP case.  Do you remember that case, D890?  Do you remember the illegal

22     MUP case?  If not I can call up the document.

23        A.   I recall the document.  Put your question, please --

24        Q.   And the question is --

25        A.   -- it doesn't need to be on the screen.

Page 12999

 1        Q.   -- these defendants as well, you said, had the goal of creating a

 2     separate state.  In this case as well, was this information that was

 3     provided to you during the interviews?

 4        A.   Yes, it was.

 5        Q.   Now, let's have a look at some other cases that you discussed

 6     yesterday.  If you remember, you looked at a large number of on-site

 7     investigations relating to various crimes.  Now, one of which I'm

 8     interested in is the case of Dalip Dugoli.  I don't intend to call up the

 9     exhibit on the screen, but your testimony in relation to this case was

10     that this is a classical example of a terrorist attack on an Albanian

11     civilian.  He was attacked because he worked for the agricultural

12     co-operative.  Do you remember that case and your testimony in that

13     regard?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now, a number of the documents that we saw yesterday related to

16     attacks due to the victims having been involved in Serb establishment

17     jobs; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Now, let's have a look at another one, and we will call up the

20     exhibit in this case.  It is D860.

21             Now, while the exhibit is being called up, I will remind you that

22     this is the case of Sejdi Muja, a forester from the village of Gradica,

23     and he was shot on the 12th of January, 1998, when he left to go to work

24     because he worked in Glogovac for the forestry estate there.  Do you

25     remember that?

Page 13000

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MS. GOPALAN:  Could we go to the second page.

 3        Q.   You also testified that he refused to boycott Serbian government

 4     institutions as ordered by the KLA.

 5             Now, how did you learn this, Witness, that this was the reason he

 6     was attacked?

 7        A.   In connection with this and other cases, where Albanian civilians

 8     were the victims of terrorist attacks because they worked in government

 9     institutions, I and everybody else engaged in this job came across this

10     in the course of our work on individual cases or through operative

11     information passed on to me by the prosecutor.  And also in the course of

12     investigations conducted against other persons who spoke about being

13     subjected to pressure, forced to join the KLA terrorist gang, who spoke

14     about being victims.  This was one such case because before this he had

15     reported more than once to the Glogovac SUP that he had been threatened

16     followed, and he asked for protection.

17        Q.   But that is information that would not be reflected in your

18     on-site report?

19        A.   Correct.  This is not reflected because it is not something that

20     has to enter the record of the on-site investigation, which has to

21     contain only things immediately observed on site and does not include

22     operative information gained before or after the on-site investigation.

23        Q.   Now, from this document we see that the victim wasn't alone.  He

24     was with his neighbour, Selim Dibrani.  That's in the second paragraph.

25     And it reads:

Page 13001

 1             "On the morning of the day in question at about 0850 hours, the

 2     deceased and his neighbour Selim Dibrani set off to work in the direction

 3     of the village of Glogovac ..."

 4             Now, Selim Dibrani also worked in the Serb forest institute as

 5     did the victim, correct?

 6        A.   I don't know where you found this piece of information.

 7        Q.   It's in the second paragraph, first line.

 8        A.   As far as I can see, it doesn't say here that he was also

 9     employed in the Serb forest institute, only that he was a neighbour of

10     his and that they set out together.

11        Q.   Does it not say in the B/C/S translation "set off to work"?

12        A.   Yes, but it doesn't say where this person was employed.  I only

13     knew that the deceased worked for the forest company.

14        Q.   So you have no information on where Mr. Selim Dibrani worked?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Okay.  We'll move on to another topic.  Ma'am, one of the first

17     documents we looked at today was to do with the illegal MUP case.  You've

18     already mentioned it during this cross-examination.  I don't think we

19     need to go through the indictment and the judgement.  I have some

20     questions about this case.  Now, as I understand it, a first-instance

21     judgement was passed and this judgement was then confirmed on appeal,

22     correct?

23        A.   No, that's not correct.  I didn't say that because the judgement

24     was changed, not confirmed.  It's not the same thing.  The

25     second-instance court in Serbia found that some grounds of appeal by the

Page 13002

 1     defence counsel of the accused were well founded because they were

 2     appealing against the length of the sentence.  So the trial judgement was

 3     changed in that the sentences were either reduced or increased, the

 4     sentences handed down in the trial judgement.

 5        Q.   Now, Mrs. Marinkovic, in the Milutinovic [sic] case when you were

 6     asked this question you said that:

 7             "After my investigation an indictment was issued, a

 8     first-instance judgement was passed.  The Supreme Court of Serbia

 9     confirmed the judgement."

10             Now, at the moment you're saying that that is not entirely

11     correct and what you have said now is a more accurate representation of

12     what happened?

13        A.   Well, tell me what you're interested in particularly in this

14     respect.

15        Q.   Please answer the question.  I asked whether what you have said

16     now is more accurate than what you had said in the Milosevic case?

17        A.   What I said today is correct --

18        Q.   Thank you, ma'am.

19        A.   In the Milosevic case I don't know how it was entered in the

20     transcript because I could not have said the sentence had been confirmed,

21     as the second-instance judgement relating to these persons was in

22     evidence.  So it may -- I may have misspoken or it may have been

23     misinterpreted, but I couldn't have said that it was confirmed.

24        Q.   Thank you, ma'am.  And in that case, in the Milosevic case, you

25     also said:

Page 13003

 1             "I stand by my cases and my work."

 2             Is that still your position, that you stand by your cases and

 3     your work?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now, let's have a look at some documents in relation --

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  I notice that page 49, line 5 we were dealing with

 7     the Milutinovic case, and we seem by line 16 to have moved to the

 8     Milosevic case.  Were you meaning each of them?

 9             MS. GOPALAN:  I misspoke, Your Honours, in line 49 -- page 49,

10     line 5.  I should have said "Milosevic."

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

12             MS. GOPALAN:  My apologies.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That was one thing, Your Honour,

15     but secondly, may he we have a reference for what was put to the witness.

16     May we see what the witness actually said.  Was this a misinterpretation

17     or what happened, as we do have the appeal judgement in evidence.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  You have the page, Ms. Gopalan?

19             MS. GOPALAN:  Yes, I do, Your Honours.  It's page 223, and the 65

20     ter number is 3115.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  Please carry on.

22             MS. GOPALAN:

23        Q.   Now, going back to the illegal MUP case, have you heard of an

24     organisation called the Human Rights Watch, Witness?

25        A.   At that time I hadn't heard of it.

Page 13004

 1        Q.   But now you are aware?  You know of an organisation called

 2     Human Rights Watch?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Let's have a look at a report that they have prepared, and that's

 5     65 ter 6089.  And while the document is being brought up, Witness, would

 6     you say that this case involving the Albanian policemen, this illegal MUP

 7     case, was professionally handled by all the parties involved?

 8        A.   When you say "all the parties involved," who precisely are you

 9     referring to, please?

10        Q.   I'll be more precise.  By the prosecutors, the judges, that's

11     whom I had in mind.

12        A.   Yes, both the court and the prosecutors.

13        Q.   Now, let's have a look at the report on your screen.  We have a

14     past partial translation of the relevant section in the B/C/S, whereas

15     the English version is a complete version.  Now, if you can see in the

16     cover page this is a Human Rights Watch report.  It's entitled:  "Serbia

17     and Montenegro Persecution Persists:  Human Rights Violations in Kosovo,"

18     and it's dated December 1996.  You have that on your screen, don't you,

19     Witness?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And I'd like to now go to page 21 of the English and the next

22     page of the B/C/S, please.  And I'm going to read out a portion and get

23     your comments.  Now, it's a section headed:  "The Case of the Former

24     Albanian Policemen."  And I'll read this out.

25             "In November and December 1994, 134 [sic] ethnic Albanians were

Page 13005

 1     arrested for forming a parallel Albanian police force.  All of them were

 2     formerly Yugoslav policemen and were active in the police trade union."

 3             Witness, this is the case that we have been talking about,

 4     correct, the illegal MUP case?

 5        A.   I don't know.  It says here 136 Albanians.  I didn't investigate

 6     that number.  Whether these are different ones or the same ones, I had 88

 7     Albanians under investigation suspected of creating an illegal MUP.

 8        Q.   Now, apart from the number itself, which you say is not accurate,

 9     is the case the same case?

10        A.   I don't see that this is a case here.  This is simply a report by

11     this organisation --

12        Q.   That's right.  This --

13        A.   -- I don't see what this is about.

14        Q.   This organisation is reporting about the indictment and the

15     judgement in relation to the illegal MUP case that we saw.  Now, I'm

16     going to take you in further detail in terms of what they say, but at the

17     moment based on this information you would agree with me that this report

18     relates to the same case, correct?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Why not?

21        A.   Because the numbers do not correspond, names are not mentioned,

22     so I cannot comment on something I know nothing about.  I don't know on

23     what basis this report was drawn up, no source of information is listed

24     here, so that I as a practicing judge am not able to comment on this.

25        Q.   Very well, ma'am.  Now, let me ask you the question another way.

Page 13006

 1     Were you aware of any other cases involving ethnic Albanians being

 2     arrested for forming a parallel Albanian police force in December 1994

 3     and judgement being issued in 1995?

 4        A.   There may have been in other district courts on the territory of

 5     Kosovo and Metohija, but I'm not aware of what the number of such cases

 6     was.

 7        Q.   So you don't know.  Now let's move on, and perhaps we could deal

 8     with some of the questions raised.  Let's go to the next page in the

 9     English, and I'm interested in the section, the paragraph that begins

10     with "Fazli Balaj."

11             Now, I'll read this out to you:

12             "Fazli Balaj defended 12 of the former policemen, all of whom

13     were arrested between November 24th and December 7th, 1994.  He was

14     allowed contact with some of his clients after six days.  He told

15     Human Rights Watch about one particular case of torture and the judge's

16     response ..."

17             Now, before we go any further, Fazli Balaj, do you know him?

18        A.   No, I don't, but there is someone called Fazli Baljaj.

19        Q.   Did you know someone called Fazli B aljaj?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And it appears that he was a defence lawyer, and he defended 12

22     of these former policemen who were involved in the illegal MUP case,

23     correct?

24        A.   He was a judge of the district court in Pristina.  After 1992 he

25     left the court of his own initiative, became a lawyer.  He was a defence

Page 13007

 1     lawyer, but whether he defended 12 or one defendant, I don't know.

 2        Q.   So he was a defence lawyer, and the report states that he was

 3     involved in defending some of the policemen.  Now, I'm going to continue

 4     reading.

 5             "He told Human Rights Watch about one particular case of torture

 6     and the judge's response.

 7             "'I went inside (the prison) to visit my client, Isak Aliu.  He

 8     came to the corridor to meet me.  When he came I saw that he was black

 9     and blue.  I asked him to get undressed and I could he see that he had

10     been beaten all over.

11             'At that moment, the jail door opened and the investigating

12     judge, Danica Marinkovic, came in.  I said to her, 'look what they did to

13     my client.'  She said, 'well, colleague, I am not a doctor.  Address me

14     in writing.'"

15             Now, having read out the section, do you recall this encounter

16     with Mr. Balaj in a prison?

17        A.   Madam prosecutor, I have to disappoint you.  This is not correct.

18     I never went to the district prison.  That was not my duty, nor is this

19     incident described in the report correctly -- correctly described.  It

20     didn't take place.

21        Q.   Did you see or have this encounter with Mr. Balaj anywhere else

22     if not in the district prison?

23        A.   If Fazli Balaj was the defence counsel for one of the accused I

24     interviewed, he would have been present at the interview in my office.

25     That is the only occasion on which we might have met.  He would have been

Page 13008

 1     present at the interview.  The public prosecutor and an Albanian/Serbian

 2     interpreter would also have been present.  So if he had anything to state

 3     for the record, he would have been able to do so on that occasion.  That

 4     was his right as defence counsel and it was never denied him.

 5        Q.   And so your evidence then is that you don't recall ever having

 6     told Mr. Balaj to put his complaints about Isak Aliu in writing; is that

 7     what you're saying?

 8        A.   Well, now you're turning your question round, Madam Prosecutor.

 9     You asked me one thing a moment ago; now you're asking me something else.

10     Please be precise in your questions so my answers can be precise.

11        Q.   Will you please answer the question, Witness.

12        A.   Could you repeat your question, please.

13        Q.   Is it your evidence that you don't recall ever having told

14     Mr. Balaj to put his complaints about Isak Aliu in writing?

15        A.   I told you this was not correct.  I did not meet him in the place

16     or in the manner described here.  We had no such encounter, so I couldn't

17     have said anything to him.

18        Q.   Now, did you receive any complaints about the treatment of any

19     prisoners who had been detained as a result of your investigations, had

20     been detained in prison?

21        A.   When you say "complaints," what sort of complaints, about what?

22        Q.   Mistreatment, beatings, for example.

23        A.   There couldn't have been any complaints about such things because

24     there never was any beating or mistreatment.  I don't know who might have

25     done such things.

Page 13009

 1        Q.   Very well.

 2             MS. GOPALAN:  Now, Your Honours, I will ask this exhibit to be

 3     marked for identification, since I'm planning on returning to it shortly.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  To the best of my understanding, the witness did

 6     not testify to the contents of this document in any part of it, so I

 7     doubt that we can make use of it, even as marked for identification.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  While it's marked for identification, the Chamber

 9     won't make use of it, Mr. Djordjevic.  But one of the purposes of marking

10     it for identification is that foreshadowed by Ms. Gopalan, that is, she

11     intends to return to the document for some other purpose, and the

12     question of marking it, is simply to be sure we're dealing with the same

13     document.  So it will be marked for identification.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit P1558, marked for

15     identification, Your Honour.

16             MS. GOPALAN:  I'd like to call up 65 ter 3096, please.

17        Q.   I'll give you a moment to look at the document, Witness.  Now,

18     you can see that this is a document bearing the stamp of the Institute of

19     Forensic Science in Pristina, correct?

20        A.   Yes, I see that this is the document of the Institute of Forensic

21     Science in Pristina.

22        Q.   And it is dated the 22nd of December, and it is addressed to you

23     as the investigating judge, correct?

24        A.   Yes.  I see that it's addressed to me, and I see that it says

25     that upon the request of that court, Kio number 161/94 from the 22nd of

Page 13010

 1     December, 1994, a medical examination was carried out on the same day

 2     that my letter was sent, and the person was Isak Aliu.

 3        Q.   Does this name, Isak Aliu, ring a bell?

 4        A.   No, I've just read it here now.

 5        Q.   He was also the person mentioned in the Human Rights Watch report

 6     that we just saw.

 7             MS. GOPALAN:  Now, could we go to page 2 in English and page 1 of

 8     the B/C/S, please.

 9        Q.   Now, before we go into the details, Witness, do you recall

10     receiving this report?

11        A.   I can't recall it now, but if it's addressed to me I must have

12     received it.  So it certainly must be in the case file because it's an

13     official document.

14        Q.   And let's have a look at the opinion section of the report.  I

15     believe it's at the bottom of the page in the B/C/S and it reads:

16             "The injuries described under items 2, 3, and 4 of the report are

17     haematomas, and under item 5 of the report there is an excoriation.  They

18     were all inflicted by a heavy blow from a blunt heavy mechanic implement,

19     and individually and together they are qualified as a minor injury."

20             Ma'am, you've said that you do not recall receiving this report

21     specifically, but do you remember receiving these types of reports, i.e.,

22     reports of medical examination that had such conclusions, conclusions

23     involving injuries inflicted during custody?

24        A.   Well, you know what, it does say here that this is a minor

25     injury, but it doesn't say here who the injuries were inflicted by and

Page 13011

 1     where, so that your conclusion that these injuries were inflicted in

 2     custody is premature.  I received such reports because in the course of

 3     an investigation anyone who was in detention and who applied to have a

 4     medical examination for any reason whatsoever was sent for a medical

 5     examination because that was their right, and I was regularly sent

 6     reports from the doctors involved, and depending on the severity of the

 7     health complaint further measures were taken for the treatment of these

 8     detainees.  So I carried out my job in that respect.  There may have been

 9     such reports, such as the one we see here.  But as an investigating

10     judge, when I get a report of this kind it's up to me to inform the

11     prosecutor and the defence counsel.  If they consider that there are

12     elements of a crime here and that they know who the perpetrator is, they

13     have the right to submit a criminal report against the perpetrator.  The

14     prosecutor and the defence counsel are the parties who can proceed based

15     on this information.

16        Q.   So your testimony then is that it wasn't within your competence

17     to further investigate that this was a matter for the prosecutor and

18     defence counsel?

19        A.   The prosecutor and defence counsel are authorised to proceed if

20     they believe there are any steps necessary in that direction as part of

21     criminal proceedings.  It was up to me only to acquaint them with this.

22             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours, I believe it's time for the break.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  It is indeed.  We will have the second break now,

24     and we will resume at 1.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.

Page 13012

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Gopalan.

 3             MS. GOPALAN:

 4        Q.   Witness, when we left off we were looking at the medical

 5     examination report of Isak Aliu --

 6             MS. GOPALAN:  Which I'd like to tender into evidence,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 9             MS. GOPALAN:  And could I call up -- I'm sorry.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Excuse me, this will be Exhibit P1559,

11     Your Honour.

12             MS. GOPALAN:  And could I call up D889, please.  I'm not sure if

13     this is the correct document.  D889.  I'm after the indictment dated 7th

14     of April, 1995.  Yes, that's right.  And if we could go to item 27,

15     please.

16        Q.   Ma'am, this is the case of the illegal MUP that we were

17     discussing during your testimony this morning.  Do you remember?  We

18     looked at this document.  And if we could go to item 27 in the English as

19     well, we see that item 27 relates to an Isak Aliu.  Now, ma'am, it is

20     Isak Aliu's medical report that we've been looking at, correct, that we

21     just saw before the break?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And I'll also point out some other indictees while we have this

24     document up on the screen.

25             MS. GOPALAN:  If we could go to page 1, please.  Page 1, item 1.

Page 13013

 1        Q.   I'm just going to make a note of some of these names, since we're

 2     going to come back to them after this.  In item 1 we have Avdija

 3     Mehmedovic, item 7 we have Bljerim Oloni, item 10 on the same page we

 4     have Murata Sahiti, item 13 --

 5             MS. GOPALAN:  Sorry, the English page needs to be moved as well.

 6     Thank you.

 7        Q.   Item 13 we have Ramadan Ferizi.

 8             MS. GOPALAN:  And if we could now move to item 21 --

 9        Q.   Who is Alidem Bejtulah.  And the next page for items 38 Tahir

10     Caka.

11             MS. GOPALAN:  And could we also see finally 32, please, for Bruti

12     Sali [phoen].

13        Q.   Ma'am, does this refresh your memory on the illegal MUP case?

14             MS. GOPALAN:  Let me just see if it's Bruti Sali.  I'm not able

15     to locate the last name at the moment, but I can provide that information

16     later.

17        Q.   Now, I've listed a number of individuals who were indicted in

18     this case, and I have with me medical reports, reports of medical

19     examinations of these individuals that are similar to the ones that -- to

20     the one that we saw for Isak Aliu.  The conclusions stated in these

21     reports are similar, if not identical, to what the report on Isak Aliu

22     said.  Now, let's call up one of these reports, 03105, just as an

23     example.  And just for the record Bruti Sali is item 39 in the

24     indictment.  That was the person who was missing.

25             Ma'am, I'm not going to go through these reports individually,

Page 13014

 1     but as mentioned, I have eight other reports that bear the same

 2     conclusion, which is injuries sustained.  Now, it would appear based on

 3     this document and the other medical reports that these indictees suffered

 4     certain injuries during their detention, correct?

 5        A.   It is not correct.  They did suffer injuries, but we can't see

 6     when and what they were caused by.  So as not to dwell on the findings

 7     too long, the answer is the same that I have given concerning the first

 8     one, Aliu or something.  The same answer applies to all of them.

 9             Secondly, so as to inform the Trial Chamber, once I have

10     interviewed an accused if detention is pronounced, they're held in the

11     district court building in Pristina.  They have no contact with anyone

12     else.  No one could injure them there.  Also, concerning any visits in

13     the prison, they can only be visited by counsel or by family members on a

14     certain date and time.  Rules are strictly observed.  Concerning their

15     situation and their complaints of certain types of treatment by those

16     employed in the district prison, there is a judge tasked by the president

17     of the court, who is under an obligation to visit the prison once a week,

18     to visit each and every person detained and hear any complaints if there

19     are any.  All that is recorded and checked.

20        Q.   Very well, ma'am.  Now, before I move on to the next document, I

21     would like to tender into evidence the other medical reports relating to

22     the indictees that I just referred to in the indictment.  Would it be

23     sufficient for me to read out the 65 ter numbers for these documents?

24             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Neither Defence nor the Chamber

Page 13015

 1     have seen these documents before; therefore, I don't believe -- I believe

 2     that we should at least be shown these documents if they are being

 3     tendered now to verify whether they actually refer to the persons

 4     mentioned.  I simply cannot take this blank statement that all of them

 5     were injured while in detention.  We need to be acquainted with that,

 6     some basis should be lain for that, so that we may pose additional

 7     questions or objective we deem necessary.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  It seems to be required that you go through each,

 9     at least to identify the name.  Would you proceed, Ms. Gopalan, or would

10     you prefer to do that at a later stage of your examination?

11             MS. GOPALAN:  I would prefer to do that at a later stage,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Very well.

14             MS. GOPALAN:  Particularly because these were exhibits that were

15     referred to in the Milutinovic case as well.  So in any event, I would

16     have been asking for their admission right at the end.  So I will move on

17     and I will do it at a later stage.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  Did you mean Milutinovic or Milosevic?

19             MS. GOPALAN:  Milutinovic.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

21             MS. GOPALAN:

22        Q.   Still keeping with this issue of Isak Aliu and the injuries that

23     he suffered, could we go to a statement, and this is a statement of Fazli

24     Balaj, so the defence counsel that we've just been discussing, and it's

25     06083.  Now, ma'am, this is a statement that Mr. Balaj gave to this

Page 13016

 1     Tribunal, an investigator in this Tribunal, and it has been read back to

 2     him and he has stated that it's correct.  And I also represent to you

 3     that he has initialled or signed each page.  And I think it's only fair

 4     that you have the opportunity to comment on what he says about him.

 5             MS. GOPALAN:  If we could please go to paragraph 7 of the

 6     statement.  If we could scroll up the page, please, I'll start with the

 7     first paragraph.

 8        Q.   Now, this is Mr. Balaj's statement in relation to the detention

 9     of Isak Aliu.  And he says:

10             "During the first three days of their detention, my clients were

11     not permitted" --

12        A.   Apologies.  I don't see it in Serbian.

13        Q.   The statement is not available in Serbian, Witness.  I'm not

14     showing -- I do not propose to show you the whole statement.  I will read

15     out the relevant portions and ask that you comment.  And I'll start

16     again.

17             "During the first three days of their detention, my clients were

18     not permitted any contact with an attorney.  Neither the police nor Judge

19     Danica Marinkovic would give me any information about their whereabouts."

20             Now, what Mr. Balaj is saying here that information wasn't

21     provided about the clients' whereabouts, is that true?

22        A.   Before answering I must say that I cannot comment selectively on

23     the statement.  I don't know what it is about in its entirety.  As for

24     the single part you read out, all I can say that it is not true.

25        Q.   I'll read you out another part, and it's at the bottom -- yes.

Page 13017

 1     And that's paragraph 7.  It reads:

 2             "Upon my request, Judge Danica Marinkovic eventually sent a

 3     request to the forensic medical department for an examination of Isak

 4     Aliu."  I believe that is the document that we saw, the medical exam was

 5     a result of this request.  Now I'll continue reading.  "However, Judge

 6     Marinkovic waited until the 22nd of December, 1994, nearly a month of

 7     Isak Aliu's arrest to make this request.  By this time, some of Isak

 8     Aliu's injuries had begun to heal.  Today I have reviewed the medical

 9     certificate describing the results of Isak Aliu's examination dated the

10     22nd of December, 1994.  It describes injuries to Isak Aliu's hands,

11     back, hip, and right knee.  The certificate would be sent to Judge

12     Marinkovic for inclusion in her case file.  After Isak Aliu received this

13     examination and this certificate was produced, Judge Danica Marinkovic

14     took no action to prevent further mistreatment of Isak Aliu or to

15     prosecute those responsible for torturing him."

16             That's the end of the paragraph.  My question to you, Witness,

17     is:  Did you delay the request for the medical exam to nearly a month

18     after Mr. Aliu's arrest, by which time his injuries had begun to heal?

19        A.   This is not true.  Everything in this paragraph is untrue,

20     especially because there is no additional evidence or orders or Official

21     Notes accompanied to this statement.  Alongside his statement, Mr. Aliu

22     should have forwarded the relevant documents.

23        Q.   We'll deal with that in a moment.  The last sentence:

24             "After Isak Aliu received his examination and the certificate was

25     produced, Judge Danica Marinkovic took no action to prevent further

Page 13018

 1     mistreatment of Isak Aliu or to prosecute those responsible for ...

 2     him."

 3             Now, you said that everything in this paragraph is untrue.  This

 4     last sentence, that you "took no further action to prevent further

 5     mistreatment of Isak Aliu or to prosecute those responsible for torturing

 6     him," is that also untrue, that you -- so you took steps?

 7        A.   Firstly, it is not true that there was any mistreatment or

 8     torture in the prison.  That is not true.  Secondly, concerning any

 9     medical findings for Isak Aliu, such as the one you have shown me at the

10     beginning, I have provided an answer, and I stand by it.

11        Q.   Very well.

12             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours, I'll ask this statement to be marked

13     for identification, as I will be returning to it later as well.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be marked.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit P1560, marked for

16     identification, Your Honour.

17             MS. GOPALAN:  Could I call up 6076, please.

18        Q.   Now, Mrs. Marinkovic, we're moving on to 1995, the medical

19     reports we saw for the end of 1994.  Now, in your previous answer you

20     mentioned relevant documents that Mr. Aliu should have forwarded.  This

21     would seem to be a relevant document.  It is -- the date of delivery is

22     the 27th of February, 1995, and it is addressed to you,

23     Danica Marinkovic, correct?

24        A.   Yes.  The complaint we see was sent to me.

25        Q.   And the English translation, the first paragraph, refers to

Page 13019

 1     certain accused.  And we see that the name Isak Aliu is mentioned.  Do

 2     you see that?  So it's the same individual we've been discussing?

 3        A.   Yes, I he see him.  He is the first one on the list.

 4        Q.   So this letter based on the dates would have been sent after you

 5     received the reports on the medical examination we just saw, correct?

 6        A.   I don't understand.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not convinced that the

 9     English document is the right document, judging by the contents and

10     layout.  It says here "submission of defence counsel."  That would be the

11     exact translation of the Serbian version, whereas in the English we have

12     "complaint of the defending lawyer."  First of all, we need to establish

13     whether the establish translation reflects the original.  The case number

14     is the same, but it says "Cno" and in the Serbian it says "Kio."  I'm

15     definitely not convinced that this is the same document and on the face

16     of it, it doesn't look like it.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Is this a Tribunal translation, Ms. Gopalan?

18             MS. GOPALAN:  Let me check that, Your Honours.

19                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

20             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours, on whether it is a Tribunal

21     translation, we are obtaining that information at the moment.  But we can

22     see from the document that this is a partial translation of the B/C/S.

23     And as I understand it, it is the underlined portions in the B/C/S that

24     have been translated to the English.  And therefore, whatever I will be

25     referring to in the English is available in B/C/S.

Page 13020

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic, if you find there is some material

 2     translation error in those parts of the document that are put to the

 3     witness, you may raise those as it occurs.

 4             Otherwise, please carry on, Ms. Gopalan.

 5             MS. GOPALAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 6        Q.   Now, Mrs. Marinkovic, you said that --

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honours, I

 8     must say that there seem to be significant differences between the

 9     copies.  It says here "from paragraph 3 onwards ..." The B/C/S seems to

10     be translated correctly, but the top part seems to be completely

11     unrelated to the original.  It is indeed not a complaint.  It is a

12     submission by defence counsel.  That's number one.  Number two, what I

13     saw seems to be all right, but what follows is unclear.  The only thing I

14     was able to identify is the beginning of the third paragraph, which more

15     or less could be considered a valid translation.  However, all this I

16     believe is insufficient to be of any use to the Chamber.  "Complaint" and

17     "submission" carry a different meaning.  I have no problem against

18     marking this for identification, but I would kindly seek that the entire

19     document be translated, otherwise it shouldn't be admitted.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  We will determine that in due course.

21             If you would carry on, please, Ms. Gopalan.

22             MS. GOPALAN:

23        Q.   Ma'am, you said that this was a document that you received

24     based -- this was a complaint we see was sent to me, so you say it was

25     sent to you, and the heading reads:  "Complaint or submission of the

Page 13021

 1     defending lawyer."  And the next line says:  "This is the fifth complaint

 2     I have lodged in this instance."  And I'm going to read to you the

 3     details:

 4             "On the 24th of February, 1995, I visited my defendants in the

 5     district jail.  I informed them of the conversation I had with you in

 6     your office and about your refusal to examine the accused once again as

 7     you examined them once.

 8             "However, the accused Isak Aliu told me that on 17, 21, and 22nd

 9     February he was taken out of the premises of the jail and sent for

10     interrogation to the state security premises in Pristina.  On 22nd

11     February 1995 he was subjected to physical torture."

12             Before I continue reading, do you recall this visit you had from

13     Mr. Balaj - I believe this is a document that he prepared, we can see

14     that in the last page - in relation to conducting further medical

15     examinations of his clients?

16        A.   What I he see here in the Serbian, it says "submission of the

17     defence counsel," so it's not a complaint, it's a submission.  And I will

18     read, or rather, I have read the contents of this now --

19        Q.   Ma'am, I --

20        A.   -- I cannot remember that Balaj --

21        Q.   I'm sorry, please continue.

22        A.   That he discussed this topic in my office.  The only thing I can

23     say is that in the third paragraph what he says here is in no way correct

24     because Isak Aliu, after a decision had been issued on the conduct of

25     investigations against him, could not have had a conversation with anyone

Page 13022

 1     nor could he have been taken away from the premises of the district

 2     detention unit in Pristina.  So none of this can be true.  There was no

 3     torture of the accused while the investigation was ongoing.  This is not

 4     permissible nor is anyone authorised to do any such thing.  So this is

 5     impossible.

 6        Q.   So, ma'am, you don't remember Mr. Balaj having made such a

 7     request to you, to prevent torture, because there was no torture while

 8     the investigation was ongoing; is that your evidence?

 9        A.   What I'm saying is that there was no torture or mistreatment.

10     This submission may have been made if there is the court stamp on it

11     saying it had been received.  I do know, however, that there was no

12     torture or mistreatment that such things could not have happened.  This

13     submission I would have placed in the file, but there was nothing I could

14     do, no action I could take, because he was not telling the truth.  He is

15     a defence lawyer so he has to write some things, he has to take some sort

16     of action, so that's his right.  I cannot prohibit him from writing

17     whatever he likes.

18        Q.   So your testimony then is that Mr. Balaj just made this up, these

19     allegations?

20        A.   I didn't say he made it up, but it's untrue.

21        Q.   Very well.

22             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document into

23     evidence and call up another document.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  The witness doesn't recall this document, as I

25     understand her evidence.

Page 13023

 1             MS. GOPALAN:  That's correct, Your Honours, but it is related

 2     to -- for other testimony that has been provided.  And she did say that

 3     the complaint we see was sent to me.  So it is a document that is

 4     addressed to her.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  And there also appears to be the seal of the

 6     court.

 7             MS. GOPALAN:  Yes, Your Honours.  I don't think she disputes the

 8     authenticity of the document either.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

10             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I move that the Court mark this

11     document for identification at the present and that the entire document

12     be translated.  It's true that the witness could not testify to the

13     contents of the document at all.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Anything further, Ms. Gopalan?

15             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours, she did testify that "this submission

16     I would have placed in the file," so not only does she say that it was a

17     complaint that was sent to her, she accepts that it would have been the

18     type of document that she was placed in the file -- that she would have

19     placed in the file, yes.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that.  That's not

21     correct.  I apologise to the Chamber.  I said that this was the usual

22     sort of submission and that submissions of this kind were in case files,

23     but I'm not saying that this particular document is one I received and

24     placed in the case file.  I don't remember that, but what is contained

25     here about torture and mistreatment is not correct.

Page 13024

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  In view of the seal of the court, the Chamber will

 2     receive the document as an exhibit.  If it appears to become material,

 3     the Chamber may order that the whole of the document be translated.  At

 4     the moment that is not justified on what we have heard.  It will be

 5     received.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit P1561, Your Honours.

 7             MS. GOPALAN:

 8        Q.   Let's have a look at another document, Witness.  This is 65 ter

 9     06078.  This is another document, also from Mr. Balaj.  And we see in

10     number 2 it says:

11             "Examining magistrate of the Pristina district court."

12             That would be you, correct?

13        A.   I don't see whether this document was received in the court.  The

14     content is similar to the content of the previous document.

15             MS. GOPALAN:  Could we go to the second page of the B/C/S,

16     please.

17        Q.   We see in English it says "imprint of official seal."

18             MS. GOPALAN:  Is there another page in the B/C/S?  Yes.

19        Q.   Right at the bottom, is that the official seal of the district

20     court and the date of delivery?

21        A.   Yes, I see the official seal of the court at the bottom of the

22     document, but I don't know whether it was handed to me and the contents

23     are not familiar to me now that I see the first page.

24        Q.   Well, the contents are similar to the other document that we just

25     saw.  It is a continuing complaint about the treatment of Isak Aliu.  And

Page 13025

 1     a number of recipients are listed in addition to yourself.  And you say

 2     that although you are listed as a recipient, this is not a document that

 3     you are familiar with?

 4        A.   No, I'm not familiar with it.  Nowhere do I see that it was

 5     handed to me personally or that I received it.

 6        Q.   Now, in this document we see somewhat more detail in relation to

 7     Isak Aliu's complaint, and could we go to page 1 of the English and page

 8     1 of the B/C/S.  This document names two individuals, state security

 9     officers, Rajko Dodera you see at the bottom of the B/C/S and perhaps --

10     yes, and same in the bottom of the English, state security officer Rajko

11     Dodera, and it also names another state security officer from Ferizaj,

12     that's on the next page, who says - it's in the English second paragraph

13     - state security officer from Ferizaj, Zelenovic, has beaten him most.

14             Now, ma'am, if you were to receive such information identifying

15     members of the state security as having been involved in beating an

16     individual in custody, what would you do?

17        A.   I didn't receive this, a submission listing particular persons.

18     This submission should have been sent to the district public prosecutor

19     who was authorised to examine and establish whether what is stated in the

20     submission is correct.  I don't know either of the two people mentioned

21     here, but Rajko Dodera is mentioned because a terrorist attack against

22     him was launched, a hand-grenade was thrown on his house where he lived

23     in Urosevac, and we mentioned this case yesterday.  It's one of the

24     exhibits in this case.  So everything stated here was something that the

25     district public prosecutor should have investigated, not I as the

Page 13026

 1     district judge.

 2        Q.   Now, ma'am, initially when we saw this document you said, I see

 3     the official seal of the court at the bottom of the document, but I don't

 4     know whether it was handed to me.  And now having looked at it further

 5     you say that, "I didn't receive it."  That's in line 17, page 72.  What

 6     is it, ma'am?

 7        A.   This submission was not handed to me as the investigating judge.

 8     It must have been handed to the president of the court, who forwarded it

 9     to the district prosecutor.  It didn't arrive in my office, and I see the

10     contents are similar to the contents of the previous document.  So the

11     defence counsel might have thought he had to address it to me as well.

12     It does have the stamp of the court, but it was received in the clerk's

13     office and then it would have been forwarded to the appropriate persons.

14        Q.   Ma'am, during the course of this afternoon we've seen a number of

15     documents relating to the treatment of Isak Aliu in custody that were

16     addressed to you, and in relation to all of these documents your

17     testimony is that you do not recall receiving them.  Is that your

18     position?

19        A.   If you're asking me whether what is mentioned here actually

20     happened to Isak, then it's not correct because neither he nor any of the

21     other accused who were in prison experienced anything like this.  As for

22     the submissions, I did not receive this last one, I don't recall the

23     contents, so that none of this is familiar to me.

24             MS. GOPALAN:  Your Honours.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

Page 13027

 1             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I have to point out the

 2     translation into English.  It has nothing to do with the original B/C/S.

 3     In the second paragraph of the English version it says on the 22nd of

 4     February he was beaten with truncheons on his back and arms, whereas it

 5     says here that on the 22nd he was taken to the state security station.

 6     And then again I see Pristina and a date, and usually CLSS says here that

 7     there is a stamp, but I don't see that on the translation.  And then in

 8     the translation it says "complaint," whereas in the original it says

 9     "submission."  So I really have a problem with these translations of

10     these documents which I see here.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE PARKER:  I'm afraid we have run over time and we cannot

13     continue.  We must therefore continue with this tomorrow when we sit.

14     When we continue tomorrow, one possible way of dealing with

15     Mr. Djordjevic's concern is to have the witness read the document, and it

16     will then be translated in the course of the hearing.  And that will be

17     an instant translation which may not be as precise as a considered one,

18     but it will have the advantage that we will be able to determine whether

19     there is any material difference between what is said in the document in

20     B/C/S and what is offered in the English translation.  So we will adjourn

21     on that basis and come back to the document tomorrow.

22             I'm afraid we must adjourn now because the court is used for

23     other purposes, and we are listed tomorrow afternoon at 2.15, when we

24     will continue.

25                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

Page 13028

 1                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 18th

 2                           day of March, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.