1 Tuesday, 12 June 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is
8 case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Before I'll invite the Prosecution to call its next witness, I'd
11 like to deal with a few procedural matters. I'd first like to address the
12 Prosecution with instructions from this Chamber. The Prosecution will
13 recall that at the pre-trial conference on the 1st of March of 2007, the
14 Chamber said the following, and I quote: "On the basis of the information
15 you have provided until now, the Chamber grants the Prosecution 125 hours
16 examination-in-chief to present its case. This is not to encourage the
17 use of 125 hours if less would do, and this is not a decision for
18 eternity. As I said before today, the Chamber will take a flexible
19 approach and will also look at how the time is used and reserve all rights
20 to adapt the number of hours granted if good cause exists to do so."
21 That's the end of the quote.
22 This was at the pages 350 to 351, and you may also wish to refer
23 to the discussion on the pages 684 and 685, where a typographical error or
24 perhaps my own error of pronunciation is discussed relating to the above
1 Following the pre-trial conference, the Chamber has issued the
2 Prosecution with several warnings that examination-in-chief is taking much
3 longer than estimated. We have advised you on the Prosecution's side to
4 be more focused in your questioning of witnesses, yet you have continued
5 to run over your estimates. This is despite the fact that Rule 92 ter,
6 which is meant to save court time, is being increasingly relied on by you
7 to introduce evidence in paper form.
8 The results of this consumption of time are to be seen in the two
9 tables that have been handed around, if they have been handed around. Not
10 yet. Then they should be handed around. Are they available?
11 Well, then I'll tell you what you find on it and you'll receive it
12 soon, because the results of this consumption are to be seen in the two
13 tables. I refer you first of all to the table entitled: "Main Database
14 Report Number 3."
15 As of the end of the testimony of Witness 6, you have used up
16 almost 15 hours more than you had estimated before the witness in
17 question. You would then turn to the table entitled: "Main database
18 Report Number 2," which will be handed out to you, which shows that you
19 have completed 28 witnesses, not counting the Chamber witness Maklen Misha
20 and not counting, of course, Shefqet Kabashi. You've now used up 50.3 per
21 cent of your allocated time. This means that you have just under 62 and a
22 half hours to present the remainder of your case.
23 The Chamber would like to receive from the Prosecution an updated
24 witness list. At the moment we are -- at the moment we are working off
25 the 2nd of March, 2007, list. Some witnesses have been taken off that
1 list, whereas the status of others has changed, especially within the
2 framework of the Rules 92 bis, 92 ter, and 92 quater. If you would
3 consider, for example, the witness with pseudonym 14. He is classified as
4 a 92 ter witness in annex A of your motion of the 19th of February, 2007.
5 To be precise, he is listed as a 92 bis witness who should appear for
6 cross-examination, but this is practically equivalent to him being a 92
7 ter witness.
8 Now, on the 24th of May, 2007, the Chamber denied your application
9 to subpoena Witness 14. What then is his current status? Do you still
10 plan to keep him on your witness list? Moreover, the updated witness list
11 should ensure that the time allocations for the remaining witnesses add up
12 to the hours remaining in the Prosecution's case, which, as at the end of
13 Witness 6, stood at just under 62 and a half hours. The Prosecution is
14 given until Tuesday, the 19th of June, to file its updated witness list,
15 and this concludes the Chamber's remark on the matters.
16 I was informed that the main database reports number 3 and number
17 2 will be delivered within the next couple of minutes.
18 The next item, the Chamber announces that the Defence submissions
19 on Witness 30 have not persuaded the Chamber that it should not issue the
20 subpoena requested by the Prosecution.
21 I move to my next item, and that is that I'd like to ask the
22 Defence if there are any objections to the protective measures for -- the
23 protective measures requested in the 12th written motion for protective
24 measures, which initially was numbered the 11th motion, but now has been
25 corrected as the 12th motion, that is in relation to the witness -- not
1 the witness who will start his testimony today because no protective
2 measures are sought in relation for that witness, but the witness then to
3 follow after the witness will start to testify today.
4 Is -- if you can't give an answer now, the Chamber would like to
5 hear from you whether perhaps later this afternoon you could --
6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, most certainly I would have thought
7 immediately after the first break we would certainly so far as we are
8 concerned be able to give Your Honour a definitive response. There are --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. EMMERSON: -- there are one or two matters relating to both of
11 the first witnesses that at a convenient moment before we proceed I need
12 to raise with Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll give you an opportunity, but I still have
14 a few other items on my list.
15 After the first break, Mr. Guy-Smith, Mr. Harvey, would that be
16 possible for you?
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would be absolutely fine, Your Honour.
18 MR. HARVEY: And for us, Your Honour, thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Then I move to a couple of matters that are in some way related.
21 The Chamber has not received reports in respect to some of the subpoenas
22 the Chamber has issued. That is, first of all, in relation to subpoenaed
23 Witness 52, then -- so the Chamber would like to -- if any of the parties,
24 and of course especially the Prosecution who calls these witnesses, is
25 aware of any developments in view of the subpoenas being served or
1 whatever other developments in that context, the Chamber would like to be
3 The same would be true for the witness which has been subpoenaed
4 to appear on Thursday, the 14th of June; and the same question also arises
5 in view of a subpoena for a witness to appear on Wednesday, the 20th of
6 June; and in relation to a witness which is subpoenaed to appear on
7 Thursday, the 21st of June.
8 Of course, the Chamber would like to know whether the subpoenas
9 are served upon these witnesses, but also the Chamber wonders that if
10 there would be any obstacle for the witnesses to appear, whether the
11 Prosecution has developed any alternative scenario, but of course then we
12 would have to know something about it. The Chamber wants to avoid that we
13 are sitting in court and then hear the report that the witness doesn't
14 appear and that we have no alternative scenario to proceed upon. So
15 therefore, the Chamber is urging the Prosecution to closely monitor what
16 happens with the subpoenas, to inform the Chamber about any development in
17 that context the OTP has knowledge of, and then also to be informed on
18 whatever the consequences. Of course, if the witnesses will appear as
19 scheduled, there's no problem, but if there's any obstacle there to
20 present alternative scheduling.
21 I don't know, Mr. Di Fazio, whether you could give us information
22 now at this moment on the four witnesses I mentioned, but -- and I don't
23 know whether it can be done in open session, but I leave it to you at this
24 moment. If you would prefer to respond to that after the break, then of
25 course you may do so.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: I think in the interests of accuracy that that's a
2 better idea.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I'll move to my -- no, I have no further
4 matters on my list.
5 Then, Mr. Emmerson, you asked to address the Chamber on certain
6 matters. Please do so.
7 MR. EMMERSON: There are disclosure issues arising in respect of
8 both of the next two witnesses. I pause before I use the name of the
9 first witness. My understanding is that no protective measures have been
10 sought in respect of that witness and that there is no difficulty in me
11 using his name in open court, and I see Mr. Di Fazio shaking his head.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. EMMERSON: The first witness who is due to testify today is
14 Miomir Stosic. Yesterday evening electronically the Prosecution disclosed
15 a batch of material relevant to the named victim in the count to which the
16 evidence of this witness is relevant. The material was disclosed almost
17 exclusively in B/C/S and it has not been possible for the Defence to read
18 or understand let alone assimilate it.
19 We understand that searches are currently being made within the
20 Prosecution's files to determine whether English translations of those
21 documents can be made available; but given the timetable, it is unlikely
22 that they can be produced and assimilated in sufficient time for
23 cross-examination on those documents, if there is cross-examination on
24 those documents, to take place immediately after evidence in chief.
25 For my part, I've given some consideration as to whether it would
1 be the most fruitful use of time for me to suggest that I should
2 cross-examine as far as I can before the documents are assimilated. The
3 reality is that such cross-examination as I anticipate having for this
4 witness, as matters currently stand, is unlikely to occupy sufficient time
5 to enable the Trial Chamber's time this afternoon to be used as
6 productively as it ought to be, which brings me to the next witness, in
7 respect of whom there is an application for protective measures and whose
8 name --
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I interrupt you for one second.
10 Could Mr. Di Fazio inform us -- not in detail, but give us any
11 impression of what these disclosed documents are about. Is that something
12 that sheds a new light on matters or whether it just confirms or --
13 MR. DI FAZIO: They're mainly, as I understood it, disclosure
14 relating to the victim, the --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: The relative of this coming witness, so they were
17 principally, if I recall, of scientific nature. There certainly aren't
18 any statements or anything from that deceased person or anything like
19 that. I didn't think there would be anything in there that would
20 particularly excite the Defence's interest, but that's from my perspective
21 of course.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Has it been explored whether what we find in
23 those documents would concern matters on which the parties do agree? I
24 don't know to what extent I earlier understood, for example, that --
25 MR. DI FAZIO: There may be --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- that DNA identification is accepted. I don't know
2 whether that's true for this -- for the victim -- the relative of this
3 witness. If that would be true, then it -- if these are all kind of
4 doctor's report -- I don't know what it is, but if it would be that, one
5 could wonder what's the use of -- of presenting them if they deal with a
6 matter that is not in dispute.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I might add, that's what I suspect most of the
8 documents are, because I only became aware, unfortunately, of this
9 controversy when I came into court. And I haven't had a chance to look at
10 the documents for which there are no translations. And so I -- when I say
11 to you I think they are mainly scientific documents, that's --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Di Fazio --
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I suspect that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- do I understand you well that the material that
15 was disclosed to Mr. Emmerson yesterday evening late that you say, I saw
16 that material only just before I entered court? I would have expected
17 you --
18 MR. DI FAZIO: No --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- if it was disclosed to the Defence yesterday, that
20 you would have used this morning to -- at least to understand, even if not
21 in detail, but at least to get yourself acquainted with what these
22 documents approximately tell us.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: It was mainly material that related, as I said, to
24 the deceased. I had gone through a lot of the material, some of the B/C/S
25 material, and made arrangements for it to be disclosed on the basis of a
1 look at the material and a decision as to whether or not it fell within
2 the Rules and should be made available to the Defence. I didn't go
3 through the documents chapter in verse because they didn't interest the
4 Prosecution considerably. So that's the assessment that I had.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
6 MR. EMMERSON: Well --
7 JUDGE ORIE: It might be that the matter will be resolved. It
8 might be that there still is a problem. Let's --
9 MR. EMMERSON: I obviously don't know how Mr. Di Fazio is in the
10 position to be familiar in detail with the contents of these reports. It
11 may be that he scanned them with a B/C/S reader. The -- I'm to some
12 extent in Your Honour's hands, but in practical terms, knowing that the
13 Prosecution has disclosed material relating to the alleged victim of this
14 count and knowing that on the evidence there is some considerable
15 uncertainty about the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and
16 fatality involved and without going into detail knowing that whilst DNA is
17 not in issue as far as the Defence of Mr. Haradinaj is concerned, there
18 are forensic issues relevant to this witness and this victim which I would
19 want it, albeit briefly, to explore with this witness and perhaps in much
20 more detail with witnesses to come. I would be reluctant to accept a
21 first-blush view of Mr. Di Fazio's -- on documents he can't read in a
22 language he understands about whether or not it may have material of
23 potential assistance to the Defence.
24 What I'm really seeking to do is to make a proposal which makes
25 the most efficient use of the Trial Chamber's time this afternoon, and I
1 raised with Mr. Di Fazio just before Your Honours sat whether there was --
2 an alternative course of action which would involve him calling this
3 witness to give his evidence in chief and then moving immediately on to
4 the evidence in chief of the witness to follow. But may I say that there
5 is a comparable problem, although perhaps not so acute, in respect of the
6 witness to follow --
7 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you're now moving to your next
8 disclosure issue or --
9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, it's -- I'm really putting them all before
10 Your Honours so you're really in a position to see which direction you
11 would like to give for the conduct of these proceedings this afternoon.
12 Just before you sat we were provided with a lever-arch file
13 containing 23 -- I'm sorry, 18 documents relevant to the count in respect
14 of which the second witness is due to give evidence. Now, as -- I have
15 somebody to my left looking through the material as I speak because
16 obviously I have not had an opportunity to acquaint myself with the
17 contents of the file which was not disclosed electronically in advance.
18 But as I understand it - and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong - the
19 documents we have been provided are in the majority in English and
20 therefore it will be possible to assimilate them, but again not possible
21 to assimilate them whilst evidence in chief is taking place. So my
22 practical suggestion, if it works, would be for both witnesses to give
23 their evidence in chief today and for us then to adjourn and assimilate
24 the disclosure which has been provided in the not-entirely-helpful order
25 in which it has been provided overnight and then for cross-examination to
1 commence tomorrow if that is a course that is favourable to the Trial
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Di Fazio, the suggestion made by Mr. Emmerson, would you like
5 to respond to that?
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. While, I leave the matter in the Trial
7 Chamber's hands. I can say this, that the proposed course of action would
8 not greatly inconvenience the Prosecution, and I'm ready to proceed with
9 my witness. I understand Mr. Kearney will be ready to proceed with his
10 witness, and he's been notified that it may move up in time if this course
11 of action is adopted.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I additionally ask you, what explains this late
13 disclosure of documents -- let's first focus on the first witness to start
14 his testimony today, that's at least how I now call him. Why was that
15 disclosed 15 hours before the start of his testimony and not any earlier.
16 Is that new material or did the witness bring it?
17 MR. DI FAZIO: No, it wasn't new material. I think the problem,
18 unless I'm wrong, is that there's an absence of English translation for a
19 lot of the B/C/S material that was -- that went in the unfortunately late
20 disclosure. And that's probably, I gather, what has caused the Defence
21 problems. The Prosecution is now making -- will locate all available -
22 and I stress the word available - English translations and provide them to
23 the Defence as soon as possible. And I can't guarantee that there are
24 English translations for each and every document that was given to them in
25 B/C/S, but the problem arose in finding matching English translations and
1 sending those to the Defence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try and understand. One way or the other you
3 identified the document as relating to the deceased relative of the
4 witness. You suggest that the absence of an English translation causes
5 some trouble to the Defence. I can imagine that it caused you some
6 trouble as well, and I asked myself what made you pay attention to these
7 documents which are not translated into English but which you, for one
8 reason or another, identified as relevant for the -- today's witness. And
9 if you have done that before, why have you not told the Defence that you
10 identified some documents which -- where you've not yet found English
11 translations but you'll do your utmost best, I mean why did this not
12 happen last Friday --
13 MR. DI FAZIO: That should have happened -- yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- or Thursday or Wednesday or preferably Tuesday.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I regret that, if Your Honours please, and I will
16 try and ensure that that doesn't occur in respect of upcoming witnesses.
17 The Prosecution does --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Would you also then, please, next time not present
19 the matter as something which causes problems to the Defence, but where
20 you don't wait for the Defence to tell us that there's a disclosure
21 problem. But to report that spontaneously to the Chamber that you failed
22 documents which you identified as relevant for the witness, that you
23 failed, first of all, to disclose them in their original language earlier;
24 and that you failed to timely check whether there were any translations
1 Let's move on. I think enough has been said about this. Any
2 other matter?
3 MR. EMMERSON: There is one other matter, and I wonder if I might
4 simply raise it briefly. It arises out of the indication that Your Honour
5 gave a moment ago in relation to the ruling concerning the subpoena
6 application in respect of Witness 30.
7 Without going into details at this stage, Your Honour will recall
8 that the Defence submission in respect of that subpoena raised two central
9 questions about two other witnesses, one of whom --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. EMMERSON: -- is a named victim and a witness to certain
12 matters which Witness 30 would testify about, and one of whom is a named
13 perpetrator allegedly of one of the counts in respect of which Witness 30
14 was due to give evidence. Your Honours will recall from the
15 correspondence summarized in the Defence submission that in respect of the
16 first of those two individuals the Defence have been requesting now for
17 some time an explanation and disclosure from the Defence -- from the
18 Prosecution of what can only be Rule 68 material which led the Prosecution
19 to choose to abandon at the 11th hour that witness as a witness for the
21 Similarly, so far as the other witness is concerned, Your Honours
22 will recall - and it's referred to in the motion - an occasion in which
23 Mr. Di Fazio assured the Trial Chamber that a suspect interview which had
24 been conducted with that witness very shortly before the hearing would be
25 disclosed to the Defence the following day --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me cut this short. When I indicated, Mr.
2 Emmerson, that the submissions on Witness 30 had not persuaded the Chamber
3 that it should not issue the subpoena, this was not meant to mean that the
4 issues raised for which you applied for delay of our decision are not
5 serious anymore.
6 Mr. Di Fazio, you've certainly seen the matters raised and which
7 caused the Defence to ask for a delay in deciding upon your motion. When
8 do you think that you could further address those matters? I'm not going
9 into detail either at this moment. That is one witness not on the list
10 anymore, another witness where Mr. Emmerson said that -- perhaps you check
11 that over the break as well.
12 MR. EMMERSON: And, Your Honour, finally in relation to --
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I haven't personally handled that issue.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, no --
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I can get that information to you --
16 JUDGE ORIE: After the break.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: I just need some time to do that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson?
19 MR. EMMERSON: I think it may assist Mr. Di Fazio's recollection,
20 I think he's dealt personally with both of the two witnesses at one time
21 or another.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I don't remember.
23 MR. EMMERSON: May I also in respect of that witness place one
24 matter formally on the public record. I have been concerned to know for
25 some time and have asked of the Prosecution orally why it was that a
1 decision was taken that Witness 30 should not be called as a witness in
2 the Limaj trial, given that his statement includes direct allegations of
3 having witnessed a crime committed by one of the accused in that trial and
4 being in a position to identify that individual.
5 I was concerned to know whether the Prosecution as a whole or the
6 Prosecutors in that case had reached that decision because of a view that
7 they had taken adverse to that witness as to his credibility. And I made
8 the request of Mr. Re orally at the beginning of this year, and I wish, if
9 I may, to place on the record a -- the contents of a three-line response
10 which I've received in writing from Mr. Re on the 1st of February which
11 says this: "In response to your oral query about why the Prosecution did
12 not call," the witness, I won't mention his name, "as a witness in the
13 Limaj, Bala, and Musliu trial, I confirm that his proposed testimony
14 concerned issues outside of the indictment period and was not relevant to
15 that case."
16 It may be that that explanation will require some revisiting in
17 due course, and I think it right and necessary that it be placed on the
18 public record at this stage.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's now on the record.
20 Mr. Di Fazio, are you ready to call your next witness, which is,
21 as was said before, Miomir Stosic?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I am, and I hope to do so shortly.
23 But perhaps before we do, do -- is the course proposed by
24 Mr. Emmerson going to be adopted by the Trial Chamber; namely, that we
25 proceed with the evidence in chief of both of these witnesses today and
1 reserve their cross-examination until tomorrow to alleviate this
2 disclosure problem?
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, the Chamber may well follow the
5 suggestion, but we'll consider it during the break and that means that we
6 could start now with the examination-in-chief of the first witness.
7 Perhaps -- you certainly should prepare for the next witness to be called
8 before Mr. Stosic is cross-examined.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Kearney is springing into
10 action as we speak. Thank you, Your Honours.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Stosic.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to
15 make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth,
16 and nothing but the truth before you give your testimony in this court.
17 The text of the solemn declaration is now handed out to you by Madam
18 Usher, and I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
20 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stosic. Please be seated.
22 Mr. Stosic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Di Fazio.
23 Mr. Di Fazio is sitting over there -- or standing over there.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
1 WITNESS: MIOMIR STOSIC
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
4 Q. Mr. Stosic, I'd like to get some personal details from you,
5 please. Could you tell us if the details that I now recount to you are
6 correct; these are details concerning yourself. You were born on the 26th
7 of July, 1969, in Pec, and you are of Serbian ethnicity. Would you agree
8 with that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In 1998 you lived in Belo Polje, which is just on the outskirts of
11 Pec, along with your father; your mother; your brother, Zoran; and his
12 wife. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. Your father, Velizar, was born in 1935. Is that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know his actual birth date, the full date, or only the year
18 in which he was born?
19 A. Just the year.
20 Q. Thank you. I now want you to tell us, please, some details about
21 your father, your late father. Did he live throughout his life in Pec?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In 1998, was he a retired man?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you know how long prior to 1998 he had retired?
1 A. Four to five years.
2 Q. Thank you. Tell the Trial Chamber what his job had been prior to
3 his retirement?
4 A. He was a driver, and then he was a receptionist.
5 Q. What sort of receptionist precisely?
6 A. He actually worked in the security service of a certain company.
7 Q. Thank you. And I -- that's what I'd like to be clear about, this
8 security service. What did that actually mean? Where did he -- where was
9 he located during the day when he worked and what were his actual
10 day-to-day duties when he worked in -- at the security service, as you put
12 A. He worked in 24-hour shifts every other day. He guarded the
13 company's administration building.
14 Q. What company? Where was the company's administration building
16 A. The administration building was in Pec, and the name of the
17 company was Srbija Sume and before it was a forestry company.
18 Q. Was Srbija Sume somehow a company dealing with forest -- the
19 forest in Kosovo, forest lands in Kosovo?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. What did your father do after he retired, some four to
22 five years before 1998?
23 A. He worked as a farmer.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stosic, does your first name happen to be Miomir?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. Where did your father work as a farmer?
4 A. In the village where we lived.
5 Q. Did your -- did your family own any land outside of the village in
6 which you lived?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Where was that?
9 A. In Brzenik, 4 kilometres from the village.
10 Q. And let's get this clear, okay. First of all, where was your
11 family home in 1998, the place that you went to sleep in every night with
12 your mother and father and your brother Zoran and his wife? Where was
13 that house located?
14 A. Belo Polje.
15 Q. Thank you. And Belo Polje, I believe, is only -- either part of
16 Pec or not very far from Pec, is that correct, to the south of Pec?
17 A. Part of Pec.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, did your father or did your family, I should say,
19 own any other land not located in Belo Polje?
20 A. The question is not clear.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, I don't know whether you're asking the
22 same as you did before where you asked: "Did the family own any land
23 outside of the village where you lived."
24 The answer was: "Yes.
25 "Where was that?
1 "In Brzenik, 4 kilometres from the village."
2 Is that what you're seeking?
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Not quite, if Your Honours please, but I'll deal
4 with it.
5 Q. Is Brzenik very far from a place called Lodza?
6 A. It was together with Lodza, it was part of Lodza.
7 Q. If your father went to visit his -- his land, where would he
8 normally describe himself as going, to Brzenik or to Lodza?
9 A. In Brzenik.
10 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like you to look at a photograph,
11 please, on the screen that will appear in front of you.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: And can the witness be shown 65 ter number 10,
14 Q. Please look at the photograph of this individual.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I can move on while that -- while it's being dealt
16 with --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Registrar has resolved the matter. Yes.
18 It should appear soon on our screens. Yes.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
20 Q. Do you recognise the individual in that photograph?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who is it?
23 A. That's my father.
24 Q. Is that Velizar Stosic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I tender the photograph.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam -- Mr. Registrar, that would be number ...?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 341 --
5 JUDGE ORIE: P341, I take it?
6 THE REGISTRAR: P341, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
10 Q. Now, let's get back to the issue of the plot of land that your
11 father worked. Following his retirement, did he go to this plot of land
12 in Brzenik from time to time?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And how would he normally travel there?
15 A. Mostly by bicycle.
16 Q. And do you know the village of Lodza itself, the actual village?
17 Have you been there?
18 A. Yes, once.
19 Q. How far is -- do you know -- can you tell us how far this land was
20 from that village?
21 A. It was that Lodza actually was kind of -- continued on from there,
22 it kept growing, so that's the place where actually Lodza began.
23 Q. Thank you. How long did the trip take from your house, your
24 family home, in Belo Polje to this place where your family held some land?
25 A. What do you mean how long did it take?
1 Q. How long, once he got on his bicycle, would it take him to ride
2 from your house to the land that was owned by your family? How long? How
3 many minutes?
4 A. 15 to 20 minutes at the most.
5 Q. Thank you. I want you to turn your mind to 1998. Was your father
6 visiting that plot of land in 1998?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And about how often would he go there?
9 A. Well, it depends on the need, perhaps 15, 20 days, maybe 10 days.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, in July of 1998 did your father go there,
11 to the plot of land?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you remember the date in July or the dates in July that he
14 went to the plot of land?
15 A. The 17th of July, as far as I can recall.
16 Q. What were you doing on that particular day?
17 A. I went to work, and then when I came back my mother said that the
18 father -- my father had gone to tend to the field and that he never came
20 Q. Thank you. In that period of time, July of 1998, what was the
21 security situation like in your area?
22 A. The situation was tense.
23 Q. Did that affect your father's going to visit his plot of land or
24 the plot of land that was held by your family?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Tell the Trial Chamber in what way it affected -- affected
2 his visits.
3 A. Personal safety. It wasn't safe to move around.
4 Q. And why not in particular? What was -- what made it unsafe?
5 A. Well, that was the general situation, that's what it was like, it
6 was tense.
7 Q. Did that have any effect on your father's visits to the family
8 plot of land?
9 A. Perhaps a little bit.
10 Q. Is that something that you know or something that you speculate?
11 Do you actually know if it affected his visits or not?
12 A. I don't know what you would like me to say.
13 Q. Let's move on. Now, you said your father last went there in -- on
14 the 17th of July, 1998. Did you ever see him again?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know if he took his bicycle on the 17th of July, 1998, when
17 he went to his field?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was that something he normally did, get there on his bicycle?
20 JUDGE ORIE: The question has been put and answered by the
21 witness, Mr. Di Fazio.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I see. I apologise for that.
23 Q. After the 17th of July, 1998, did you ever see your father's
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you try and explain to the Trial Chamber the circumstances
2 under which you next saw your father's bicycle.
3 A. With a police escort.
4 Q. Okay. Now, just start at the beginning and tell the Trial Chamber
5 how it happened. Did you go and speak to the police? Did they come and
6 speak to you? Had you gone to the field yourself? How did it actually
7 transpire that you saw again your father's bicycle?
8 A. The police came to my house to get me. They said that that part
9 which was controlled by some army had been liberated and that it was
10 possible to go and to look at the bicycle.
11 Q. Do you know what army the police were talking about?
12 A. No, I don't, no.
13 Q. After your father left on the 17th of July, 1998, and he didn't
14 come back, did you go to the fields looking for him, at that field that
15 was held by your family, or did your brother Zoran go there, or did your
16 mother go there?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Any reason why not?
19 A. He wasn't there in the field. There was no need to go there
21 Q. How did you know that he wasn't there in the field anymore?
22 A. Because the police had searched that whole area around the field
23 and the field.
24 Q. About how long after did -- your father left on the 17th of July,
25 1998, did the police come and tell you -- did the police come and get you
1 and say to you that it was possible to go and look at the bicycle, about
2 how long after?
3 A. Approximately a month.
4 Q. Okay. Now, in between the 17th of July, 1998, and the police
5 telling you that the bicycle had been found in the field did you or your
6 brother Zoran or your mother go to the field looking for your father?
7 A. There was just me, no one else.
8 Q. Okay. There was just you, no one else. Did you go to the field?
9 A. Yes, that day when the police was there, and I didn't go anymore.
10 Q. Anyway, you did not go to the field after the 17th of July for a
11 period of about a month. That's correct, do I understand you correctly?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. And did you, indeed, see a bicycle in the field that
14 was owned by your family?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Whose bicycle was it?
17 A. It was ours from the house.
18 Q. And was it actually located in the field itself?
19 A. It was right at the beginning where the field began, maybe a
20 couple of metres into the field.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, after this, or rather, I should say after the
22 17th of July, 1998, did you make any attempts to locate your father or
23 find him?
24 A. I did not. All I did is report that he was missing to the
25 International Red Cross in Pec as well as to the SUP.
1 Q. Did you -- did the police ever seek your assistance, more details,
2 or anything like that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you know of a place called Zlopek?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Have you ever been there?
7 A. Once.
8 Q. Under what circumstances and when did go there?
9 A. Under a police escort, in order to identify a body that they
10 believed was not my father.
11 Q. I'm sorry, I don't follow that. What special expertise did you
12 have in identifying bodies that were not that of your father? I don't
13 follow. Why would the police ask you to do that?
14 A. To look at the body to see whether that was my father, because he
15 had been missing for more than a month before that. They believed that it
16 wasn't possible that this victim was my father, so I went there personally
17 to look, nothing more.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you for explaining that. That's clear. Thank you.
19 And when you went there, was it -- were there policemen in
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you help or participate in the recovery of the body?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were there any cameras there?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Who operated the camera?
2 A. Technicians.
3 Q. Do you know if they were police technicians?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Was there anyone there in custody?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who was that?
8 A. I don't know. It was a man in civilian clothing with handcuffs.
9 Q. Do you have any information as to what that person was doing
11 A. He showed the place where the body was buried.
12 Q. Is that something you know or something someone told you? How do
13 you know that, basically?
14 A. I know because he was there and he indicated with his hand where
15 the body was.
16 Q. What ethnicity was that person?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you ever go to any other such scenes that you just
19 described, apart from Zlopek?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. And, sorry, before I leave Zlopek in particular, can
22 you remember approximately when you went to Zlopek to try and identify
23 your father?
24 A. I don't know exactly. Maybe about a month and a half after he
25 disappeared, something like that.
1 Q. Okay. All right. Now, you started to tell us about other places
2 that you went to. Apart from Zlopek, can you tell us the next place that
3 you went to?
4 A. To Radonjic Lake, the canal of Radonjic Lake and Ljumbarda.
5 Q. Okay. Well, we'll deal with this this way. Did you go to
6 Ljumbarda and the canal of Radonjic Lake on the same day or on separate
8 A. In relation to Zlopek?
9 Q. No. I'm talking about your visit to Radonjic Lake and Ljumbarda.
10 Did you go to those two places on the same day, Ljumbarda and the canal
11 leading into Lake Radonjic on the same day?
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. Can you remember the date that you went there? If you can't
14 remember, just say so, but if you can remember, tell us.
15 A. I cannot recall the exact date, but it was perhaps about two
16 months after my father disappeared.
17 Q. And how did you come to be there? How did you ...
18 A. The police came and they said that they found bodies, and they
19 sent me to go and see if any of those bodies was the body of my parent.
20 Q. Okay. So the police asked you to attend at that scene, did they?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you remember if you went to Ljumbarda or the canal
23 leading into Lake Radonjic first? Which one did you go to first?
24 A. I went to the canal first.
25 Q. Thank you. I'd like to show you a photograph of the -- an aerial
1 shot of the canal area.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. DI FAZIO: May the witness be shown 65 ter 1220, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is that a different aerial photograph from the area
5 than the one as -- that is already in evidence?
6 MR. DI FAZIO: It's the same one but unmarked.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Unmarked.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm informed further that it's Exhibit 45.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: I think we're going to need the assistance of the
13 usher --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, would you --
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm embarking on an exercise --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- please assist the witness.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: And I would really appreciate the usher's
19 Q. Witness, now, the usher is going to give you a special magic
20 pencil now, and you can write on the screen with this. I would like you
21 to get the magic pencil and mark on the screen with one small circle the
22 area that you went to when you went to the canal. Now, just look at it
23 carefully. When you've worked out where you went to, could you please
24 indicate that on the screen and a mark will come up.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. All right. Thank you.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I seek to tender that into
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number ...?
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P342.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. Don't touch the screen again, please, Witness.
10 Now, did you ever cross the canal to the other side, or did you
11 stay on that side of the canal on that day that you visited this area?
12 A. No, I did not cross over to the other side.
13 Q. Did you notice any cement -- or were there any cement walls?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you ever walk away from that area down towards the lake or in
16 the opposite direction, or did you remain in that area that you've marked?
17 A. I did go towards the lake.
18 Q. How far?
19 A. Maybe a kilometre or so.
20 Q. And who did you go with?
21 A. With the police and ...
22 Q. Just the police or other people?
23 A. Well, there were other people there, but I don't know who they
25 Q. Okay. I thank you for that. Thanks for that clarification. When
1 you were at the point or the area close to the area that you've marked on
2 this map, did you see any bodies?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know how many bodies you saw on that day?
5 A. Five or six, more or less.
6 Q. Were they decomposed?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
9 MR. EMMERSON: I appreciate the difficulty, but I'm very anxious
10 that Mr. Di Fazio not lead the witness about any aspect of this part of
11 the witness's testimony.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
15 MR. DI FAZIO:
16 Q. Did you -- when you were at the lake, did you see any cars?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
18 MR. DI FAZIO:
19 Q. Sorry, at the canal, this area that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: The same problem that was just mentioned.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, with respect, that's not leading a witness.
23 A man standing there would have opened his eyes, and he would have seen
24 many things. He would have seen the sky, birds, and so on, other people,
25 policemen, leaves trees, rocks, et cetera. One must be able to ask a
1 witness a basic innocent question like: Did you see any vehicles at the
2 location? It's not suggestive of the answer --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: -- And my submission is not -- I'm not engaging any
5 leading sort of mischief by asking that particular question.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is overruled.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. Did you see any vehicles at the area that -- that you were at?
10 I'm talking about the area that you've indicated.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Where were the vehicle -- where were the vehicles located --
13 vehicle or vehicles located?
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that misstates --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were several --
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- the witness's testimony. He was asked if he
17 saw vehicles, and he now has refined his question and that certainly is a
18 new one.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: All right.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Now he's suggesting one of two answers --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Stosic, when you said -- when you were
22 asked whether you saw vehicles, you answered yes. Did you intend to say
23 that you saw one or did you see more vehicles?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Several vehicles.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
1 MR. DI FAZIO:
2 Q. Were they police vehicles or army vehicles?
3 A. There were police vehicles there, a fire brigade vehicle or
4 vehicles, and civilian vehicles.
5 Q. Okay. All in working order or capable of being driven?
6 A. The ones up there, yes, but there was one vehicle in the canal and
7 it wasn't possible to drive that one.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours would just bear with me.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MR. DI FAZIO: I want to show the witness two clips. They're not
12 in e-court, they're in Sanction apparently.
13 Q. Witness, I'd like you to have a look at these video-clips and just
14 absorb -- just look at them, okay, just look at them.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: They can be played.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.
18 Q. And I'd now like you to -- well, perhaps I should stop there. Did
19 you -- did you see anything in that video-clip?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What did you see?
22 A. I saw a car in a canal.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: I'd now like the witness to be shown a second clip,
25 please --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, has this clip or this portion of the
2 clip been exhibited already? And what number would it be so that --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: It's a portion of an exhibit. It's one of the
4 forensic exhibits. I can give you the answer to that in just a moment, if
5 Your Honours please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's a portion of the exhibit?
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it's a portion.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: As is the next clip that I intend to show the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Can I proceed to show the next clip to that --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you would rewind that so we can look at it
14 from the beginning.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you. Perhaps that could be done. If
16 we could go to the previous clip and look at it again.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. DI FAZIO: The exhibit number is being looked up and we'll
19 have that for Your Honours, if Your Honours please. Now, can the witness
20 be shown the second clip, please.
21 Q. Have a look at this as well, please.
22 [Videotape played]
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay. For the Prosecution's purposes, the clip can
24 be stopped at this point.
25 Q. Did you look at that clip and did you see anything in that clip;
1 if so, what?
2 A. I saw a car.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, when you saw the -- you said earlier in your
4 evidence, you testified that you saw a car. When you saw the car, can you
5 tell us if it was upside down or -- yes, upside down or is it in the
6 condition you can see it in this particular clip? You can see the red
7 colour of the vehicle. Can you remember? And remember, don't -- if
8 you're not sure, make sure that you tell the Trial Chamber.
9 A. It was upside down.
10 Q. Thank you. Did you do anything in respect of that car?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What? What did you do?
13 A. Well, I helped in the effort to pull the car out of the canal.
14 Q. And how was that done?
15 A. With ropes.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I will seek to tender those
17 two clips into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't know if you want them --
20 JUDGE ORIE: If they are already -- if the whole of the video is
21 already in evidence, then is there any need to --
22 MR. DI FAZIO: No, for my purposes, no. As long as we -- it is
23 part -- it is part of another exhibit in the case but --
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have the number for us --
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- it would certainly help and then we can say
2 exactly for the record what portion was shown to the witness.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm looking for the exhibit number --
5 MR. EMMERSON: I wonder whether it -- with all respect, whether it
6 might be the simplest of all to give a fresh exhibit number to those two
7 clips, and I say that because Your Honours will have seen the time-line at
8 the bottom of them and it may be a matter of some importance to be
9 absolutely clear --
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then -- we could be clear to the extent whether
12 it's an earlier exhibit, yes or no. The first portion that was played
13 went from 14 minutes, 54.8 seconds, up to approximately 15 minutes, 7
14 seconds, so the whole portion played was approximately 12 seconds; whereas
15 the second portion started at 1 hour, 25 minutes, 01 seconds dot 8, so
16 almost 25.02, and went up to 1, 25 minutes, 20.2 seconds.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Unless I'm much mistaken - and I'll be corrected if
18 I'm wrong because one's familiar with some of these pieces of film but
19 they do look alike - unless I'm much mistaken these are two separate
20 pieces of film from which you've been played excerpts which, on the face
21 of it, were taken four days apart from one another.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Mr. Di Fazio, you're invited to clarify exactly whether this is in
24 evidence or not and then the Chamber will decide whether, for these two
25 clips, specific exhibit numbers will be assigned. But at least it's on
1 the record now already what minutes have been played.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, and I have an opportunity now to check.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm coming --
7 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, Mr. Di Fazio, I'm looking at the
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, that's exactly right. I can indicate I'm
10 drawing very close to the end of my examination-in-chief.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you would say it's just a matter of a couple of
12 minutes, then we could continue; otherwise, I would like to have a break
13 now. Are you talking about how many minutes, approximately?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Maybe another five or six minutes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think, then, it would be worthwhile to continue for
16 such a period of time.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: And Your Honours will convey your decision after
18 the break?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Thank you.
21 Sorry, I momentarily misunderstood.
22 Q. Witness, after you had been to Lake Radonjic, did you ever go to
24 A. Not on that day.
25 Q. About how long after did you go to Djakovica?
1 A. Maybe seven days.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Guy-Smith, does the objection
3 against leading also stand in relation to this episode?
4 MR. EMMERSON: It does.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. And what did you do in Djakovica?
10 A. Well, all the bodies from the Radonjic Lake were moved to the
11 Pastrik Hotel in Djakovica. I went there because I had been unable to
12 identify my father on that day. I had to wait until everything was
13 exhumed and taken there, and then I went there to identify my father.
14 Q. How did you come to go there? Did you go there on your own
15 initiative or did the police mention it to you? How did it transpire?
16 A. The police notified me about the day when I was supposed to go
17 there and look. I was not the only one. There were several people who
18 had reported people missing, and we were all invited to go there on that
19 day to try and find the missing persons.
20 Q. And what scene did you see when you went to Djakovica; in
21 particular, where in Djakovica did you go?
22 A. In the Pastrik Hotel in Djakovica, on the ground floor of the
24 Q. And what was there?
25 A. Well, all the bodies that had been transported from the canal to
1 Djakovica where the pathologists did their job were there, and I went
2 there to identify the body.
3 Q. Did you actually see any body of your father or any body that you
4 identified as that of your father?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were there any items of personal property there on that day?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you make any identification?
9 A. Everything.
10 Q. Did you make any identification? Just answer me yes or no,
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you identify your father's body?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you see any personal property of your father?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you remember what that was?
18 A. Wrist-watch and clothing.
19 Q. Had your father had any operations prior to July 1998?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What sort of operations?
22 A. Yes. He had leg surgery -- in fact, he had a hip operation. An
23 artificial hip was implanted in his body.
24 Q. Do you know when that happened?
25 A. Five or six years before he went missing.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibits 65 ter 1368 and
3 1369, please. Thank you.
4 Q. Witness, do you recognise the item in the middle that you can see
5 depicted there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What is it?
8 A. It's a wrist-watch.
9 Q. Yes, you're right, it's a wrist-watch. Do you know by any chance
10 whose wrist-watch it is?
11 A. It was my father's.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: And this -- 1369 I think is the next one.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First we -- do you want to have the batch of
15 photographs under one exhibit number, Mr. Di Fazio?
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: There's no point in having separate exhibits.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then already for you, Mr. Registrar, that would be
20 the -- are these the second and the last?
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, the second and the last.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then the two, all together six photographs, would be
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the six photographs will be
25 Prosecution Exhibit 343.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
3 Q. And just on that last photograph, is that the same or is that --
4 in particular, the bottom one, is that your father's watch?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Last topic: Did you ever --
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I've done with those photographs.
8 Q. Did you ever obtain -- or, sorry, speak to anyone --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
10 MR. EMMERSON: I hope I'm not jumping in too soon in anticipating
11 what this question is asking and seeking to elicit, but if it is seeking
12 to elicit a certain hearsay account, I would wish to make an objection to
13 it because of the nature and quality of the account.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stosic, the next question that will be put
15 to you by Mr. Di Fazio you are invited not to answer immediately, but to
16 wait to answer that question until I've invited you to do so.
17 Mr. Di Fazio, if you put the question to the witness, then
18 Mr. Emmerson will find out whether that is the question he expected.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it's going to be that topic, I can indicate
20 that, but I can proceed in the way that you, Your Honours, have indicated.
21 Q. Following this -- these trips to the canal that you've told us
22 about and the -- your trip to the Hotel Pastrik, did you make any other
23 inquiries concerning the disappearance of your father?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I think that's a gentle question which is, as
1 Mr. Di Fazio acknowledges, is heading in the direction in which I seek to
2 raise my objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it's --
4 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not objecting to --
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's [indiscernible] --
6 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not objecting to the form of that question but
7 we're very shortly going to be in a position that Mr. --
8 JUDGE ORIE: But let's not at every question speculate on how
9 close we are to the area of which you consider to be the area --
10 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
14 Q. Yes. Did you make any other inquiries concerning the
15 disappearance of your father other than the -- this visit to the canal
16 that you've told us about and other than this visit to the Hotel Pastrik?
17 A. Can I answer?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do.
19 MR. DI FAZIO:
20 Q. Yes, yes.
21 A. No, nothing after that. I just heard rumours, nothing else.
22 Q. Other than rumours, did you ever receive any information, apart
23 from rumours, as to the circumstances of your father's disappearance?
24 A. No.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then before we adjourn, two very classical questions.
2 P341 is a photo of -- on which the witness identified his father,
3 Velizar, any objection against admission?
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P343 are six photographs, personal belongings of the
6 victim. No objections, then P341 and 343 are admitted.
7 342 is the map marked by the witness, as far as I remember, Mr. --
8 or, no, we have not yet assigned a number to the marked map, did we? Oh,
9 yes, I say "map," but of course it's an aerial view of the area which I,
10 by mistake, called a map. P342, any objections against? No. Then P341,
11 342, and 343 are admitted into evidence.
12 And Mr. Stosic, before you entered the courtroom the Defence
13 counsel have asked whether they could put questions to you not immediately
14 after you would have answered the questions by the Prosecution, but most
15 likely either later today or tomorrow, perhaps most likely tomorrow. The
16 Chamber will still have to decide on that request, so therefore at this
17 moment I can't tell you yet whether immediately after the break you'll be
18 cross-examined by Defence counsel or whether it will only be either later
19 today or tomorrow.
20 You'll be informed about what will happen immediately after the
21 break. The Victims and Witnesses Section will tell you whether you're
22 free to go then and to return tomorrow or whether we'd like you to stay
23 and answer questions put to you by the Defence. Now, in case you would
24 not be further examined today, I already thought possibly to instruct you
25 that you should speak with no one about your testimony, that is, the
1 testimony you have given today and testimony still to be given later today
2 or tomorrow.
3 Is that clear to you?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 I apologise that we have to keep you in uncertainty for the break.
7 I hope that you'll get a cup of tea or a cup of coffee so that -- but
8 you'll be informed immediately after the break or perhaps even during the
9 break if the Chamber has decided whether or not to grant your request from
10 the Defence.
11 We stand adjourned until 4.25.
12 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 4.31 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: All three Defence counsel, in order to avoid whatever
15 misunderstanding, I've asked to make everything ready for the protective
16 measures requested mainly because to remove it all, if you would not grant
17 the motion, would take three or four minutes; to get everything in place
18 takes approximately 25 minutes. So therefore, it's purely for practical
19 reasons that you find already all preparations made, but of course first
20 the Chamber would like to hear from the Defence their position in relation
21 to the requested protective measures.
22 MR. EMMERSON: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
24 Mr. Guy-Smith.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: You anticipated my position.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I did not at all as a matter of fact.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: What I was saying that in a positive light, I
3 have no objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. HARVEY: I'm not objectionable either, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think it would take us instead of 25
7 minutes only five minutes to finalise the protective measures. I take it
8 that the curtains have to be drawn down and perhaps we ...
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber grants the motion by the
12 Prosecution for protective measures, that is, in this case face
13 distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym. The witness would have the
14 pseudonym 62. The Chamber will have a break for just three or four
15 minutes in order to further prepare with curtains down and test the -- and
16 test the voice distortion.
17 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, is there --
18 MR. DI FAZIO: There's -- there are a couple of matters that you
19 raised earlier that I can very briefly deal with, if you wish.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, the Chamber prefers at
21 this moment to see whether we can get started. I already informed the
22 parties that the next break will be at 5.30, that for urgent Tribunal
23 matters, I'm not able to continue to sit after the break and that it's --
24 I understand that the two remaining Judges, but you'll hear from them,
25 that they've decided in the interests of justice they would like to
1 continue in my absence. I'll be back tomorrow.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Just in terms of formalities I'm inferring from --
3 that the way Your Honour is proposing to deal with the protective measures
4 implementation that you have acceded to the Defence's request in relation
5 to postponement of cross-examination of the last witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, I thought that the parties
7 would have been informed but -- because I instructed -- it was
8 not easy to reach everyone, and I did not follow-up that in full detail
9 but your suggestion has been followed.
10 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you. And may I also infer, for the same
11 reasons, that cross-examination of the next witness, were we to reach that
12 position, would adjourned until tomorrow?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we already instructed the Victims and Witnesses
14 Section that the witness is excused for today and expected to come back
16 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't -- perhaps I wasn't clear.
17 May I also infer given the issue of disclosure in respect of the
18 forthcoming witness who has the benefit of protective measures that should
19 we reach the position this afternoon where evidence in chief concludes,
20 that cross-examination of that witness will take place tomorrow as well?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- it would be for both --
22 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you very much indeed.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- testified already earlier today and now also for
24 this witness now to be examined.
25 Mr. Kearney.
1 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honour, while we're very quickly discussing the
2 cross-examination of this next witness, I just wanted to ask for some
3 guidance by the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber ordered in the future
4 that at the beginning of direct examination of new witnesses, the Defence
5 teams were to provide the Prosecution with a list of exhibits that we
6 could refer to in cross of that witness. And I already -- I had an
7 informal discussion with my colleagues at the break.
8 If we can just get from the Trial Chamber a little further
9 direction in that regard. Does the Trial Chamber refer to specific
10 documents like, for instance, we will use this exhibit to cross this
11 witness or is it just we will use exhibits that the Prosecution has given
12 us already? If we can just get a little clarification from the Trial
13 Chambers in that regard, I think it would help our -- the disclosure in
14 this regard.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'll tell you after the three- or four-minutes'
17 --- Break taken at 4.37 p.m.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 --- On resuming at 4.43 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the curtains can be ...
21 Witness, can you hear me in a language you understand?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 62, I'm calling you Witness 62 because the
24 Chamber has just decided that it grants the protective measures you have
25 requested. That means that no one outside this courtroom sees your face,
1 that your voice will be distorted, as not to be recognised, and that we'll
2 not call you by your own name, but we'll call you Witness 62.
3 Witness 62, before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
4 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the
5 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now handed
6 out to you by Madam Usher, and I invite you to make that solemn
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I declare solemnly that I will speak
9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Witness 62. Please be seated.
11 Witness 62, would you please speak close to the microphone, and
12 you'll now first be examined by Mr. Kearney, who's counsel for the
14 Mr. Kearney, you may proceed.
15 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 And excuse me, members of the Trial Chamber, I'm losing my voice
17 today, so I'll do my best to retain it.
18 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/62
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Examination by Mr. Kearney:
21 Q. Witness 62, good afternoon.
22 A. Good day to you.
23 MR. KEARNEY: [Microphone not activated] -- I'd like to call-up 65
24 ter Exhibit 1373, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's of course not to be shown to the public.
1 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honour, perhaps we should go into private
2 session for the first portion of this witness's testimony.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could do that, although the pseudonym sheet
4 doesn't ask for it, but I take it that you have further questions then.
5 MR. KEARNEY: I do.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 5526-5535 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Please proceed,
9 Mr. Kearney.
10 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, and my apologies for not waiting.
11 Q. Witness 62, you just told us about the -- the four soldiers you
12 saw at your home on the night in question. I just want to ask you if they
13 were armed when they came into your home?
14 A. Three of them, yes. I couldn't see the fourth.
15 Q. How were they armed?
16 A. The one, the first who came up to the entrance, he had a pistol.
17 The other one had an automatic rifle or perhaps a Kalashnikov.
18 Q. Did any of these soldiers say anything to you or say anything that
19 you heard?
20 A. I talked to them only when they took my parents, when they went
21 into the car. They -- I just greeted them. I asked them, When will you
22 -- when will you send him back? And they said they would send him back
23 the next day, in the morning.
24 Q. Did they tell you why it was they were taking your parents?
25 A. They said that they had been sent by the deputy commander, Rrustem
1 Tetaj, because my parents -- this is a long story.
2 Three days ago my parents had learned who had been -- who had been
3 the one that had injured my brother, but they did not tell us, only my
5 Q. And, Witness 62, thank you for that answer. We have part of
6 your -- part of your statement has earlier been submitted to the Court,
7 so I just want to talk about what happened on the night of July 12th for a
8 moment, if I can, please. Do you understand that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On the night when they took your parents, did they tell you why
11 Rrustem Tetaj had asked them to take your parents?
12 A. No. They just said that my parents would know why Rrustem Tetaj
13 called them, and I spoke to my father. And I think he said that this was
14 because they had discussed earlier about who injured my brother.
15 Q. On the night your parents were taken, did the soldiers tell you
16 where they were taking your parents?
17 A. They said, To the headquarters in Gllogjan.
18 Q. And you used that term earlier,"The headquarters in Gllogjan."
19 What headquarters are you referring to, Witness 62?
20 A. Well, it was the command. There was KLA in the village but also
21 in the district, but the main headquarters was in Gllogjan.
22 Q. Did the soldiers tell you anything about when or how long they
23 wanted to keep your parents, or when they would be returned?
24 A. When I asked them, When will you bring my parents back? They
25 said, The next day, in the morning.
1 Q. Did you actually see your parents being taken away that night,
2 Witness 62?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Please describe for us how that was done, how they were taken
6 A. We were speaking with each other, and then they got into the car -
7 it was a 4-by-4 vehicle - the soldiers got into the car and my parents got
8 into the car.
9 Q. What type of 4-by-4 vehicle was it?
10 A. It was a black car, we call it a jeep, a 4-by-4. There was a
11 spare tire on the fifth door.
12 Q. Had you ever seen that vehicle before?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. After your parents were taken away that evening, did you ever see
15 them alive again?
16 A. No.
17 Q. After your parents were taken from your home that evening, did you
18 have any further contact --
19 MR. KEARNEY: And, Your Honour, with apologies, I think we may
20 need to go into private session just for a moment.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.
22 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 MR. KEARNEY:
2 Q. During this conversation, did he give you any more details about
3 why your parents had been abducted from the home?
4 A. He didn't say anything. He only said that when he was returned he
5 had met Rrustem Tetaj, and Rrustem Tetaj had told the soldiers to take him
6 home and take my parents so that he could show them our house.
7 Q. I'd like to talk about Rrustem Tetaj just for a moment now. After
8 your parents were taken from the home, did you ever talk with him or meet
9 with him after that -- after that time?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Please tell us where that was and when it was.
12 A. I met him -- well, my parents were taken away on the 12th, so I
13 met him about two days later. I had to go to the village of Lluka as a
14 volunteer, to join. I was together with my brother and about seven or
15 eight other people.
16 Q. You said you were there as a volunteer to join, to join what
18 A. The Kosovo Liberation Army.
19 Q. And why were you in Lluka on that day in question two days after
20 your parents were taken from the home? What was going on in Lluka?
21 A. I went earlier to get information about this before my parents
22 were taken away. I went there to meet Rrustem Tetaj and went together
23 with other volunteers to get arms.
24 Q. When you met Rrustem Tetaj -- strike that for one moment.
25 You said that you met him two days after your parents were taken.
1 You've told us already, Witness 62, that that happened, your parents were
2 taken on the 12th of July. Am I correct in assuming that you met
3 Mr. Tetaj on the 14th of July. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, on the 14th.
5 Q. When you met Mr. Tetaj on the 14th in Lluka, did you have a
6 conversation about your parents?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Please tell us about that conversation. What was said?
9 A. I went there with another person. I can give you his name later
10 to you, if needed.
11 MR. KEARNEY: And, Your Honour, I'll put myself in the Chamber's
12 hands. Do you want to have that name on the record now, or should we go
13 on with the testimony? Perhaps for --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know. Perhaps you give that name at a later
15 stage when we are in private session anyhow.
16 MR. KEARNEY: My only thought would be, just for clarity for the
17 Trial Chambers, the story might make more sense to you if you heard the
18 name now or ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's do the following. We are closed to
20 5.30 where we have a break anyhow. So we turn into private session, we
21 stay in private session for just a very short period of time, and after
22 that we'll adjourn until ten minutes to 6.00. We turn into private
23 session. Yes, and upon return after the break we'll be in open session,
24 unless there's any reason to remain in private session, Mr. Kearney.
25 So we now turn into private session.
1 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 --- On resuming at 5.53 p.m.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
24 I see we are back in open session --
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
2 And as mentioned before, we are sitting now with only two. Judge
3 Orie is busy with urgent Tribunal business, and the two remaining Judges
4 decided it to be in the interests of justice to continue on basis of
5 Rule 15 bis.
6 Please, Mr. Kearney, continue.
7 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Witness 62, when we left off you had identified for us a person
9 you were with in Lluka while you were talking to Rrustem Tetaj. Does that
10 refresh your memory as to where we left off?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'd like to ask you now if during this contact that you had with
13 Mr. Tetaj you discussed with him your parents, what had happened to them?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Please tell us what was discussed between you and Mr. Tetaj
16 regarding your parents.
17 A. When I met Rrustem Tetaj -- when both of us met him, we asked him
18 about my parents, and he addressed my friend and told him, Your father has
19 come home. I've told my soldiers to return him.
20 Q. When Mr. Tetaj said that your -- your father had returned home,
21 whose father was he referring to you, your father or the father of your
22 friend who you identified previously while we were in private session?
23 A. No. I meant my friend's father. The father of the person who
24 came, and then they took my parents.
25 Q. And did you question Mr. Tetaj about your parents, not your
1 friend's parents, your parents?
2 A. Yes. I told him that the soldiers who came together with my
3 friend's father, they all came to my house, and they took my parents away.
4 And the soldiers said that, You sent them, that's what I told him. And he
5 told me, I don't know about this. Who told you that I sent them?
6 Q. And when he asked you that question, what did you say back to him?
7 A. I told him that the person who came to my house together with
8 them -- and that person with the two soldiers had came to my house, and
9 that person had come there to show them the house. He told me that, I
10 don't know anything about this.
11 Q. Did he suggest to you any course of action, or did you discuss
12 with him anything that could be done to try and find your parents?
13 A. I told him, Because you took that person and you returned him to
14 his home, and after he was returned he came to help them take my parents
15 away. So you can -- you must help me to find my parents. And that person
16 told me that they had been taken to the headquarters in Gllogjan.
17 Q. And when you asked Mr. Tetaj to help you find your parents, what
18 did he say to you?
19 A. He said that, If you want to go to Gllogjan you can go, but you
20 won't be able to come back alive. And I asked him whether -- well, are
21 you the deputy commander of the zone? I want to go there and speak to the
22 commander directly.
23 Q. Were those the exact words that he used, Witness 62, that: "You
24 won't be able to come back alive if you go to Gllogjan," or did he use
25 other words? Tell us what you remember, please.
1 A. Listen, he said, Well, you can go but for your own safety I cannot
2 guarantee anything, because the commander of the area two days earlier had
3 gone to help a group of the KLA who had been caught in an ambush, and
4 Ramush Haradinaj had gone there to help them so Ramush Haradinaj is not
6 Q. When Rrustem Tetaj told you that he could not guarantee anything
7 if you went to Gllogjan, what was he referring to, if you know?
8 A. Well, what I understood him to say was that if you want to go you
9 can go. I thought it was a threat, and that's why I told him, Are you a
10 deputy commander? If the commander is engaged in a battle, you are the
11 deputy. And he said, I'm not deputy commander or commander any longer.
12 Q. When you said just a moment ago, Witness 62, that "you thought it
13 was a threat," a threat from whom? Who did you understand it to be a
14 threat from?
15 A. Well, it was a dangerous time. That's what people said. If you
16 did not have somebody strong to support you who had the authority in the
17 headquarters to support you, then it would be difficult. That -- that's
18 what people said.
19 Q. After Mr. Tetaj told you that, did you have any further
20 conversation with him that day, on the 14th of July, 1998?
21 A. Well, I can't remember exactly. I think this was all we talked
23 Q. After that conversation you had with Mr. Tetaj, did you inquire of
24 any other members of the KLA about your parents after that?
25 A. Yes. When I returned from Lluka, we went to the villages. There
1 was a headquarters of a couple of villages there, in the village of
3 Q. When you went to the headquarters in Vranoc, who did you talk to,
4 if anyone, please?
5 A. I spoke to the commander of the area, and I explained him the
7 Q. What was the name of the commander of the area?
8 A. The commander of a unit was Mete Krasniqi, but the commander of
9 the area was Dr. Din Krasniqi.
10 Q. You said earlier, Witness 62, that you explained the case to him.
11 Which person did you explain the case to, was it Mete Krasniqi or Din
13 A. They were, both of them, there. I talked to Mete Krasniqi first.
14 Q. Please tell us what you told Mete Krasniqi and what, if anything,
15 he told you in response?
16 A. In fact, I talked to Din, not Mete first.
17 Q. All right. Let me ask you the same question regarding Din
18 Krasniqi. What did you tell him and what, if anything, did he tell you in
4 A. I explained to him that what had happened, I explained to him in
5 detail what had happened.
6 Q. And did he respond to you in any way? What did he tell you in
8 A. When I explained to him about my parents and my case, he was
9 surprised. He said he could not believe that these two people were
10 abducted, and he said he had no information about that. He was very, very
11 sorry. He said he would make inquiries about the case today, on the same
12 day. He said he would go to the general headquarters on the same day. He
13 would collect information, and then the next day he told me to come back
14 to him so that I could learn about what had happened.
15 Q. And did you do that? Did you go back the next day and find out
16 learn if he had learned anything?
17 A. Yes. I went there the next day. Din was not there when I went.
18 I waited for some short period of time, and then he came later.
19 Q. When you say Din was not there when you first arrived, where are
20 you talking about, Witness 62, where were you waiting for him?
21 A. In the village of Vranoc.
22 Q. And where within the village?
23 A. I was in the village of Vranoc at the place where the headquarters
24 of this area was located.
25 Q. This is the headquarters of the KLA. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, you said this was the -- the second meeting with Din Krasniqi
3 was the following day. You told us earlier that your first meeting was
4 the 14th of July, I believe. Am I correct in assuming that this next
5 meeting with Din Krasniqi was on the 15th of July. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Please tell us what happened when Din Krasniqi got back to the KLA
8 headquarters in Vranoc on the date in question.
9 A. When he came we exchanged greetings, then we discussed. I asked
10 him about any new information, and he said that he had gone to Gllogjan
11 the previous night, to the headquarters, and that he had been told that my
12 parents were in the headquarters in Gllogjan, they were interrogated
13 there, and then they were released in Irzniq. So that was the information
14 he had received the previous night. Then he also talked to me about
15 another variant which he had learned about on the same day, the 15th. He
16 said he received information that my parents had been taken to the
17 headquarters and that somebody else had taken them away without the
18 headquarters knowing it, and he said there was no information about their
20 Q. Did he tell you anything more about who had taken them away from
21 the headquarters?
22 A. He said that somebody had taken them away, and he said that no one
23 in the headquarters knew anything about it. He said that that was all he
24 could get from the people he had talked in the headquarters.
25 Q. Did he tell you who it was that he had talked to in the
2 A. No, he did not mention any name.
3 Q. Did he say if the people he talked to were KLA soldiers or
4 civilians that he talked to in the headquarters?
5 A. He said that he had talked to the members of the staff.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I just clarify.
7 Witness, you were talking of the headquarters in Gllogjan. Is
8 that correct?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Gllogjan.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: But then you mentioned -- let us speak of the
11 first version you mentioned, that they were supposedly released in Irzniq,
12 that was what is on the record now. That sounds a little difficult to
13 understand. Interrogated in Gllogjan and released in Irzniq. Can we
14 maybe clarify that, Mr. Kearney, please.
15 MR. KEARNEY: Yes, I'd be happy to, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 Q. Witness 62, the -- the two pieces of information that Din Krasniqi
17 relayed to you that he had heard about your parents, namely, one, that
18 they had been interrogated in Gllogjan and released in Irzniq; and two,
19 that they had been taken by someone from the headquarters, did he tell you
20 which one of those he believed to be true? Did he tell you anything more
21 about those two pieces of information?
22 MR. EMMERSON: I think the clarification --
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes.
24 MR. EMMERSON: I think the clarification sought was how somebody
25 who had been detained in Gllogjan could be released in Irzniq. I thought
1 that that was Your Honour's question from the clarification --
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Absolutely that was the just of my question, but I
3 thought that maybe Mr. Kearney wanted to take this route to get to this
5 MR. KEARNEY: And that will --
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's true, we have two pieces of information, but
7 the first piece or the first version consists of two elements,
8 interrogation in Gllogjan and release in Irzniq. And please, Mr. Kearney,
9 get to that point.
10 MR. KEARNEY: I will.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Emmerson.
12 MR. KEARNEY:
13 Q. And, Witness 62, the last question I asked you, let's keep that on
14 hold for a moment. When Din Krasniqi was telling you about the first
15 piece of information he had heard on the 14th of July, in the evening,
16 about your parents; namely, that they had been detained in Gllogjan and
17 released in Irzniq, did he tell you how that supposedly happened, how they
18 were detained in one place and released in another?
19 A. Yes, yes, he did, because I asked him. The first piece of
20 information which I received on the 14th, I told him how could they be
21 released in another village, in Irzniq? And he told me that he had
22 received this particular kind of information the previous day. They were
23 interrogated, they were not detained, they were simply asked questions,
24 that's what he told me, and then they were released in Irzniq. To -- they
25 were let to go back home. He said that today, on the 15th, this is the
1 information I have.
2 They were there. They were questioned, and somebody then had
3 taken them away. This is the words he used, somebody took them away, but
4 nobody in the staff knew anything about it.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I guess it's still confusing.
7 MR. KEARNEY:
8 Q. The first piece of information he heard about the detention in
9 Gllogjan and their release in Irzniq, did he tell you anything else about
10 why your parents were supposedly released in Irzniq, as opposed to being
11 released, say, in Gllogjan?
12 A. This is what I think, they were taken from my village, from my
13 house, and then they were taken to the staff. How is it possible then for
14 them to be released in Irzniq? So this is a question I put to him, and
15 then he said that he was told one day before, this was the first piece of
16 information. He said that they were taken to Irzniq and they were
17 released in Irzniq. I asked him, Who? But he provided me no name, and
18 then he talked to me about the second version and I, in fact, believed the
19 second version was true. They were in the headquarters. So I was more
20 inclined to believe the second version than the first one.
21 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honours, does that clarify the point?
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, please.
23 Witness, you may give us a further explanation what led you to
24 believe the second version as more probable than the first.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believed the second version rather
1 than the first one because from the village of Irzniq to my village, even
2 if you walk it would take about three hours. So if you would release them
3 in Irzniq, then in three hours' time they would have been back home. He
4 did not tell me who had taken them to Irzniq. They were not my parents,
5 the people he was talking about, so I believed that the second version was
6 true, because my parents were not at home at that time.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour --
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- Just for purposes of the record I object to
11 that -- the question and answer on the grounds of relevance, just for the
12 purposes of the record.
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. That is -- you mean objecting to the
14 clarification -- to the attempt to clarify that --
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: To the question of belief, to the question of
16 belief, which is really where this whole line -- where this whole
17 answer -- questioned his belief, and I'm objecting on the grounds of
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes.
20 MR. KEARNEY: Does the Court wish a response? I would --
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please, please respond.
22 MR. KEARNEY: My response would be it's clearly relevant. He's
23 trying to determine what happened to his parents, and I think the
24 relevance is rather obvious at this answer.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes --
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm not going to get into a colloquy with my
2 colleague, but once again I make the objection and leave it at that. I
3 make it for purposes of the record and nothing more, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It still can be ruled on that or has to be ruled
5 on that objection. We would overrule that objection.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
7 MR. KEARNEY:
8 Q. Did Din Krasniqi tell you who it was he had talked to on the
9 morning of July 15th when he went to the headquarters in Gllogjan to
10 inquire about your parents?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who did he say?
13 A. He did not mention any name, but he said they were people of the
14 General Staff, people of the command of the General Staff. He had talked
15 to people of his own group. So the commanders of the districts, and also
16 with the general commander, this is what I understood it to be.
17 Q. When he told you he talked to the general commander, did he tell
18 you a name, or did he just use the word "general commander"?
19 A. No, he only said that he had talked in the commands, in the
20 General Staff, without mentioning any names.
21 Q. Did he tell you what, if anything, the General Staff told him
22 about what they would do in relation to your parents?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, now I'm going to make another submission.
24 We're moving truly far afield in terms of multiple hearsay, unidentified,
25 unattributed, multiple hearsay.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please, your response.
2 MR. KEARNEY: I would ask that the Trial Chamber to allow the
3 witness to answer and assess the levels of hearsay in relation to how much
4 weight to give to the answer.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yeah, please, if you do that by clarifying the
6 level of hearsay once more.
7 MR. KEARNEY:
8 Q. Did Mr. Krasniqi tell you -- first of all, did he tell you if the
9 members of the general command staff said anything further about your
10 parents on July the 15th when he went to Gllogjan?
11 A. Yes. He said that he had discussed and inquired about the
12 whereabouts of my parents. So he asked about where my parents were.
13 Q. And did you receive back any information that you -- beyond what
14 you've told us already?
15 A. As far as I remember, no.
16 Q. Did he receive any information identifying who it was that, in the
17 second version of events, may have taken your parents away from the
19 A. He did not say it about -- he did not say anything about
20 suspicions; however, I told him what I thought. I tried to help him to
21 discover the circumstances. I suspected that it was due to some feud we
22 had -- we had with the family.
23 Q. All right. Thank you.
24 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry, could that answer be given some further
25 clarification, please, rather than steered away from.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Sure, I would expect that would --
2 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honour this was --
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: -- be a new line of questions.
4 MR. KEARNEY: -- this was covered rather extensively in the 92 ter
5 document we submitted to the Court, but further on in my examination I
6 will be talking about it again. Thank you.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: For --
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you would that be fine for you.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I think probably for purposes of continuity
10 of testimony, this would be the perfect time to deal with the witness's
11 answer so that we have a basis for an understanding of why he was trying
12 to assist Mr. Krasniqi in determining what had happened.
13 MR. EMMERSON: And may I add to that, I don't believe that it is
14 correct to say that the 92 ter statement deals with this aspect of the
15 conversation in which the witness explained his reasons and suspicions to
16 Mr. Krasniqi as relating to some feud we had with the family. And rather
17 than Mr. Kearney pick this point up in some other context, it is, in our
18 submission, right and fair that if he's eliciting this evidence clearly,
19 he now elicit from this witness what it was he said to Din Krasniqi given
20 that we've already had certain evidence about belief as to what it was
21 this witness suspected or believed in relation to this feud and what it
22 was he told Mr. Krasniqi. It's essentially fair examination-in-chief.
23 MR. KEARNEY: With all due respect to my colleagues, Your Honour,
24 I'm operating under a very tight time-line, as the Court knows. There are
25 things that I need to get out of my examination. It's my intent to come
1 back to this issue.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please make sure that you will come back to that
4 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you.
5 Q. After this conversation with Din Krasniqi, at a later time,
6 Witness 62, did you ever hear any reports about the recovery of the bodies
7 of either one of your parents?
8 A. I could not understand your question. On the same day?
9 Q. No. In the future, at some point, did you hear any information
10 about the recovery of the bodies of your parents?
11 MR. EMMERSON: May I indicate for Mr. Kearney's assistance, since
12 he's concerned about pressure of time, that I certainly - and I think it's
13 the same for Mr. Guy-Smith - would have no objection to him leading in
14 respect of the body recovery, if that gives him sufficient time to explore
15 the issue that he didn't explore a moment ago.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
17 Mr. Kearney.
18 MR. KEARNEY: I'd be happy to lead. Thank you, Mr. Emmerson.
19 Q. Witness 62, at some point, did you hear from someone that on --
20 that an identification card of your mother had been recovered by Serb
22 A. I had heard, so at the beginning of September -- this is what you
23 are asking for, yes?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Somebody had seen on television, and he said that the television
1 speaker had mentioned the name of my mother, she had the ID with her when
2 her body was recovered.
3 Q. Based on your own knowledge, Witness 62, when your mother was
4 taken from your home on the 12th of July, 1998, did she, in fact, have her
5 ID card on her person?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you hear that this identification card was found on the
8 body -- or found on a body found in the canal leading to Lake Radonjic?
9 A. They told me, people told me, people who had seen it on
10 television, who had seen the Serbian television, the Belgrade. I do not
11 remember the channel. I did not watch it myself. However, I did not
12 believe them. I had not watched them, so if you don't see something with
13 your own eyes, then -- this remained only words.
14 Q. Now, I'd like to move on to the potential motivation for the
15 abductions. You mentioned earlier that you told Din Krasniqi about a
16 potential motivation for the abduction of your parents. Can you please
17 tell us more about what it is you told him.
18 A. Din Krasniqi knew my parents, knew them well; he was a doctor.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 5560-5569 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 The court is adjourning now to tomorrow, Courtroom I, same
17 courtroom, afternoon, and we will continue with Witness 62 for -- ten
18 minutes is your estimate, Mr. Kearney?
19 MR. KEARNEY: Yes, Your Honour, however, that's dependent --
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
21 MR. KEARNEY: -- on how freely I can get through the questions.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Of course. But it will be a short while and then
23 we will have an interruption for you, and later the day continue with the
24 questions put to you by the Defence. Yes.
25 Just a moment.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Well, Mr. Kearney, you had a question dealing with
3 our -- the interpretation of our order --
4 MR. KEARNEY: I did, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: -- concerning the documents, you should know,
6 which will be likely used in cross-examination. Is that still an open
8 MR. KEARNEY: It is, Your Honour. I just seek clarification from
9 the Trial Chambers in that regard --
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Just -- yes.
11 MR. KEARNEY: I attempted to get that information from my
12 colleagues --
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No. I would like to clarify, if necessary, that
14 our order was intended to mean that a specified list of all documents and
15 other material likely to be used should be given. And as far as this
16 material is not on the 65 ter list, the relevant documents are to be
17 released. Okay. So we may adjourn now, and see you in -- tomorrow at
18 2.15, Courtroom I.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 13th day of
21 June, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.