Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9617

 1                          Monday, 22 October 2007

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everybody, both in the courtroom

 6    and those assisting us from just outside the courtroom.

 7            Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8            THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon to

 9    everyone in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor

10    versus Ramush Haradinaj, et al.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12            In view of the next witness to be called by the Prosecution, I'd

13    like to go into private session.

14                          [Private session]

15  (redacted)

16  (redacted)

17  (redacted)

18  (redacted)

19  (redacted)

20  (redacted)

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 9618











11    Page 9618 redacted. Private session.















Page 9619

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8                          [Open session]

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will immediately rule on the oral

10    application for protective measures, the standard being an objectively

11    grounded risk to security or the welfare of the witness or the witness's

12    family should it become known that the witness has given evidence before

13    this Tribunal.  We have two different ways to meet that standard, since

14    the second three-prong test has been met, there's no need to further

15    consider the factual basis for the threats which are under the first test.

16            The second three-prong test being that combination of the

17    following:  That the witness's testimony may antagonise persons who reside

18    in, in this case, in the former Yugoslavia, in Kosovo; that the family of

19    the witness live in that territory; and that there is -- exists an

20    unstable security situation in the territory which is particularly

21    unfavourable to witnesses who appear before the Tribunal.

22            And as it appears from pages 3955 and 56, the parties have agreed

23    upon the -- on the fulfilment of this last condition; therefore, the

24    protective measures are granted.

25            Mr. Registrar, since the reasons for the protective measures have

Page 9620

 1    to be delivered in open session, the last few words can be made public on

 2    the transcript, because we're still in -- we are still in private session.

 3            The protective measures, face distortion -- distortion -- voice

 4    distortion, and pseudonym.

 5                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  We now turn into open session.

 7            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 9            The Chamber just granted protective measures for the next witness

10    to be called; the relevant portion of the transcript, which is now still

11    in private session, can be made public.  That is, only the reasons for

12    granting these protective measures.

13            Now, for the witness to enter the courtroom, we have to pull the

14    curtains down.  I do understand that all preparations are put in place for

15    face distortion and voice distortion; the pseudonym of the witness will be

16    Witness 52.

17            Meanwhile, I perhaps already could address a few matters.

18            There is a Prosecution motion, a combined motion for the testimony

19    of -- under 92 bis or to subpoena the relevant witness.  That was a motion

20    filed on the 17th of October.  And the Chamber would very much like to

21    receive the response by the Defence as soon as possible. That is, this

22    week.

23            Then -- yes.  Similarly, the Chamber would very much like to

24    receive a response to the Prosecution's ninth motion for the testimony via

25    videolink, a motion for which an addendum was filed on the 19th of October

Page 9621

 1    in which but a legible and fully translated versions of the medical

 2    reports and the certificates are given.  That are already two practical

 3    matters.

 4                          [The witness entered court]

 5                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Witness 52, do you hear me in a language you

 7    understand?

 8            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  May I invite you to stand.

10            Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and

11    Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the

12    truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  I usually invite

13    witnesses to read that statement, to make that statement by reading the

14    text.  Can you read?

15            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  If I must read, yes, I can

16    read.

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps Madam Usher will hand out to you now

18    the text of the solemn declaration and I'll read it first for you.  It

19    says:  "I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,

20    and nothing but the truth."

21            Would you please make that solemn declaration now.

22            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

23    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you very much, Witness 52.  Please be seated.

25            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 9622

 1                          WITNESS:   WITNESS SST7/52

 2                          [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Curtains can be drawn up again.

 4            Witness 52, I do not address you by your own name because the

 5    Trial Chamber has decided that you will testify with a pseudonym, that is,

 6    not using your name but calling you "Witness 52"; and also, that your face

 7    will not be broadcasted and your voice also will be distorted so that

 8    although the outside world can hear the content of your testimony, they

 9    can't see your face, they can't hear your own voice.

10            You will first be examined by Mr. Di Fazio, who's counsel for the

11    Prosecution.  He's standing over there, so perhaps you look at him.

12            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.  Thank you, Your Honours.

13                          Examination by Mr. Di Fazio:

14       Q.   Witness, I'd like you to look at the television screen that's in

15    front of you because I'm going to ask that a document be put up on it.

16    And you can just have a look at it.

17            Can the witness be shown 65 ter 2101, please.  Now, that's got

18    some English and some of your own language in writing there.  Can you look

19    at those details and can you tell us if those details are correct; namely,

20    your last name, your first name, (redacted) first name, your date of

21    birth, and your place of birth.  Are they -- are they correct?

22       A.   Yes.  Yes.

23       Q.   Thank you.  I --

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, that would be exhibit number?

25            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, I'll add the allocation of the

Page 9623

 1    numbers to Professor Aleksandric's exhibits.  This would be P1137.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, and under seal.  No objections.

 3    Therefore, admitted into evidence.

 4            Please proceed.

 5            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

 6       Q.   Just one more personal detail that I need to ask you about.

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  Is it -- is it -- can that be done --

 8            MR. DI FAZIO:  We're still in --

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  We're in open session at this point.

10            MR. DI FAZIO:  My apologies.  I'm sorry.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Until now you just said what kind of data --

12            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

13            JUDGE ORIE:   -- there was on the pseudonym sheet but not any

14    detail.

15            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  We'll then turn into private session.

17            MR. DI FAZIO:  Private session, yes.

18                          [Private session]

19  (redacted)

20  (redacted)

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 9624

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8  (redacted)

 9  (redacted)

10  (redacted)

11  (redacted)

12  (redacted)

13  (redacted)

14  (redacted)

15  (redacted)

16  (redacted)

17  (redacted)

18  (redacted)

19  (redacted)

20  (redacted)

21  (redacted)

22                          [Open session]

23            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

25            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

Page 9625

 1       Q.   Witness, can you tell us if in the mid-part of 1998 (redacted)

 2    was still carrying out his occupation or whether he was retired.

 3       A.   He had retired.

 4       Q.   And was that for health reasons?

 5       A.   He was ill.

 6       Q.   And was he residing in -- at home with you in your village?

 7       A.   Yes.

 8       Q.   And about -- thinking back to the time that you last saw

 9    (redacted), about how long before that would you say that he had retired?

10       A.   A year.

11       Q.   Thank you.  Did (redacted) speak Serbian?  I mean by that was he

12    able to?  Did he have a command of that language?

13       A.   Yes.  Yes.

14       Q.   All right.  Now, I want you to turn your mind, please, if you

15    would, to the period of time around July of 1998.  At that time, were you

16    still residing in your village, in the village that -- whose name you

17    mentioned in private session?

18       A.   Yes.

19       Q.   And was your family happy to be living in that village at that

20    time, or did it take decisions about -- about leaving?

21       A.   At that time, in July, we wanted to stay.

22       Q.   And is that in fact what you did, what your family did?

23       A.   Yes.  Yes.

24       Q.   Was there ever a time when you wanted to leave or tried to leave?

25       A.   Yes.

Page 9626

 1       Q.   Can you remember approximately when that was?  If you can't

 2    remember, just say so; but if you can remember, tell us.

 3       A.   It was end of June, I think, or maybe the beginning of July.

 4       Q.   And what -- what happened at the end of June or maybe the

 5    beginning of July?  Tell us in your own words what -- what -- what

 6    happened.

 7       A.   Yes.  We didn't know what was going on and we heard that the

 8    police, the Serbian police, were leaving.  The whole village was leaving.

 9    In fact, it was not like that.  It was only the police that -- the Serbian

10    police that were leaving.  And we started to leave our village and some

11    people told us, "You can go back to your home, because Albanians are not

12    leaving.  It's only the Serbs that are leaving," because the Serbs had

13    been stationed there.

14       Q.   Thank you.  I -- I just want to ask you, to get a few more details

15    about that answer that you just gave us.  You -- you said that the Serbian

16    police were leaving.

17       A.   Yes.

18       Q.   How were they leaving?  How did you -- did you see anything or

19    hear anything that indicated that the Serbian police were leaving?

20       A.   Yes, we heard that they were leaving.

21       Q.   And did you hear where they were leaving from?  Where were they

22    leaving from?

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 9627

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8  (redacted)

 9  (redacted)

10  (redacted)

11  (redacted) But now you've told us that the police were leaving that village,

12    and did that have any effect on -- on your family and on (redacted)?

13       A.   We thought that the whole village were leaving, but -- well, I

14    don't know.  We went back home, and that was it.

15       Q.   Thank you.  All right.  But let me -- tell me if this -- if I

16    understand you correctly.  You -- your family actually left your own

17    village but returned after being told that it was only the Serbian police

18    that were leaving.  Is that right?

19       A.   We set off.  We were trying to leave.  We went halfway, and that's

20    where we were told that, "You don't need to leave.  It's only the Serbian

21    police that are leaving and not the villagers."

22       Q.   All right.  Thank you.  And can you tell the Trial Chamber, can

23    you tell the Judges if -- if it was just your family alone that was -- was

24    leaving or whether it was lots of families from your village?

25       A.   There were other families as well.  It was not only us.

Page 9628

 1       Q.   Okay.  And they were also told the same thing, that they could go

 2    back?

 3       A.   Yes, they returned as well.

 4       Q.   Thank you.  Now, who -- think back and do your best, but who

 5    explained to -- to the families, to your family and the other families

 6    that were leaving your village, that they could go back to their village?

 7    Who actually said that to them?

 8       A.   Well, when things are said in the village, you get to learn about

 9    them very soon.

10       Q.   Okay.  Let me ask you the question again.  I'll try and be a

11    little clearer.  Okay?  You've told us that you, your family, left the

12    village and so did other families.  But along the way, you told us --

13       A.   Yes.  Yes.

14       Q.   Along the way you told us that these families, including your

15    family, were told that they could go back and only the Serbian police were

16    leaving.  Now, who told the family -- the families that?

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Di Fazio, yes, the second or the third time now

18    that you said "only the Serb police was leaving" there.   The witness

19    testified that the -- not the Albanians were leaving but the Serbs were

20    leaving.

21            MR. DI FAZIO:  Sorry.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Not specifically Serb police which --

23            MR. DI FAZIO:  I see.  I don't want to compound my error and I'm

24    grateful to Your Honours for that.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Witness 52 what Mr. Di Fazio very much would

Page 9629

 1    like to know, I take it, is that when you were told that you could go

 2    back, who exactly told you that?

 3            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were a couple of young men and

 4    they said to us that we could go back because only the police are

 5    leaving -- leaving.  And that was on the same day that we had set off.

 6            MR. DI FAZIO:

 7       Q.   Can you remember if these -- these young men were in uniform or

 8    had any insignia on them?

 9       A.   They were dressed normally, the ones that told us we could go

10    back.  They had their everyday clothes on.

11       Q.   Okay.  And can you tell us if, in addition to being dressed in

12    their everyday clothes, whether they were armed or not.

13       A.   No.

14       Q.   All right.  Thank you.

15            I just may have missed asking you this:  Why did you and your

16    family want to leave?  Do you know what the reason was?

17       A.   The reason was (redacted).

18       Q.   Okay.  Perhaps we should go into private session here.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  We'll turn into private session.

20                          [Private session]

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 9630











11    Pages 9630-9634 redacted. Private session.















Page 9635

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8  (redacted)

 9  (redacted)

10  (redacted)

11  (redacted)

12                          [Open session]

13            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

14            MR. DI FAZIO:  I'm sorry, I jumped the gun.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

16            MR. DI FAZIO:

17       Q.   About how long before (redacted) disappearance did -- would you

18    say you saw these -- the last time you saw (redacted), anyway -- would

19    you say that you saw these three men?

20       A.   Would you like me to give you a date?

21       Q.   If you can.  But, of course, if you can't give us a date, that's

22    okay.  But you just tell us if -- if it was a matter of --

23       A.   Yes.  Yes.  It was the 1st of August.  It was 11.00.

24       Q.   Okay.  Is this the same day that you last saw your (redacted)?

25       A.   Yes.

Page 9636

 1       Q.   So you saw the group of three men on the last day that you saw

 2    (redacted).

 3       A.   Yes.

 4       Q.   Had you received any other visits from those men before this one?

 5       A.   No.

 6       Q.   Did (redacted) own a weapon in 1998?

 7       A.   Yes.

 8       Q.   Did he ever give that weapon to anyone?

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   To whom -- you don't -- you don't have to use names, but to whom

11    did he give his weapon?

12       A.   Unknown persons.

13       Q.   And was that on this very same day that he -- you last saw him, or

14    did he give his weapon to unknown persons before, before that last day

15    that you saw him?

16       A.   It was on the day when we left the village and then returned.

17    That was the day when these persons came and asked for the gun.

18       Q.   All right.  Okay.  So let's talk about this day.  Okay?  Don't be

19    nervous.  It's -- you're -- just think about the questions and answer

20    them.

21            Now, we're talking about this day.  And -- and you've told us that

22    these three persons came and asked for the gun.  Now, apart from the gun,

23    did (redacted) give them anything -- anything else, apart from the gun?

24       A.   It was not a rifle.  It was a pistol that he had a licence for.

25       Q.   Okay.  And he -- you've told us that he gave them that weapon.

Page 9637

 1    Fair enough.

 2       A.   Yes.

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8  (redacted)

 9  (redacted)

10  (redacted)

11  (redacted)

12  (redacted)

13  (redacted)

14  (redacted)

15  (redacted)

16                          [Private session]

17  (redacted)

18  (redacted)

19  (redacted)

20  (redacted)

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 9638











11    Page 9638 redacted. Private session.















Page 9639

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3                          [Open session]

 4            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 6            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you.

 7       Q.   Did -- did (redacted) continue to reside in the house after this

 8    occasion when he handed over those items?

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   And did you have any more visits?

11       A.   Yes.  Yes.

12       Q.   And in relation to the last time you ever saw (redacted), when

13    was the next visit?  Or was it, in fact, on that occasion, the -- the last

14    day you saw him?

15       A.   Before (redacted) disappeared, two days earlier than that two

16    people came.  They searched the house and they couldn't find anything.

17    And they came two days later then and took (redacted).

18       Q.   Thank you.  Now, tell us a bit more about this visit where the

19    house was searched.  Firstly, did you know the -- the names or identities

20    of the persons?  And just indicate with a "yes" or a "no" and don't tell

21    us the names, if you know them; but did you know the names, or not?

22       A.   No, that day, no.

23       Q.   Okay.  So now I just want you to tell us more details of these --

24    of these people whose names you did not know and who came and searched

25    your house.  Were they -- how were they dressed?

Page 9640

 1       A.   The last day they came and asked for (redacted) was

 2    sleeping at the time because he had had a heart attack, so he was taking

 3    medicine for that.  Three people came and asked for him.  We did not know

 4    them.

 5       Q.   Can I just interrupt you there.  We'll get on to this, but, first

 6    of all, I want to know about the occasion when two people came and

 7    searched the house before, before (redacted) disappeared.  Okay?  Now,

 8    let's just stick your mind -- keep your mind on that episode.  All right?

 9    That's -- that's --

10       A.   Yes.

11       Q.   I'm -- that's the episode I'm asking you about now.

12            Now, on this day when the two people whose name you did not know

13    came to the house, can you remember how they were dressed?  These two

14    people whose names you did not know?

15       A.   They were -- they were in uniform, black uniforms.

16       Q.   And were they armed?

17       A.   I don't know.  I cannot say.  But they had big jackets on and we

18    did not have time to look properly.  But they searched us.

19       Q.   Thank you.  Okay.  They -- they searched the house, you've told

20    us.  And did -- did you -- did they ever say what it was that they were

21    looking for?  Did you ever get any information about what they -- they

22    were looking for?

23       A.   Yes.  Weapons and other uniforms.

24       Q.   Did they find anything?

25       A.   No, they didn't, because we did not have any.

Page 9641

 1       Q.   Now, I take it they left and (redacted) continued to stay at

 2    home?

 3       A.   Yes, they left.  Yes.

 4       Q.   All right.  Now, thank you for telling us about that visit. Now,

 5    after that visit, were there any more visits?

 6       A.   Only when he disappeared.

 7       Q.   Thank you.  Now I'm going to ask you about that one.  So focus

 8    your mind on that day, and we'll start getting you to tell us the story

 9    about that day.  Okay?

10            Now, first of all, can you remember the date of the day that

11    (redacted) disappeared?

12       A.   It was the 1st of August.

13       Q.   Of what year?

14       A.   1998.  It was 11.00.

15       Q.   Thank you.  Who came to the house?

16       A.   Three persons; two that had been two days earlier and another one

17    whom we didn't know.

18       Q.   Okay.  So the result is that of the three people who came to your

19    house, you didn't know the name of any of those three.

20       A.   No, we didn't know them.

21       Q.   And tell the Trial Chamber in your own words what happened on the

22    day that they came.

23       A.   That day - it was around 11.00 - (redacted) was sleeping, because

24    he had just taken his medicine.  The three men came and asked for him and

25    said that they had an order from the commander to take (redacted) for 20

Page 9642

 1    minutes and he would be brought back again.

 2            Then I went and woke (redacted) up.  I told him everything what I

 3    had been told, and they stayed for about ten minutes there with us.  They

 4    were waiting.  We didn't know them at all, because they were unknown to

 5    us.

 6            (redacted) got up and went.

 7       Q.   And can you remember how these men were dressed?

 8       A.   Yes.  Two of them in black clothes, while the third one had a

 9    camouflage uniform.

10       Q.   And can you -- if you can recall, can you tell us if they were

11    armed or unarmed?

12       A.   I couldn't say.  I don't remember.

13       Q.   And how were they traveling?

14       A.   They came by car, but when they came into the yard, they were on

15    foot, of course, and they spoke to us.

16       Q.   Thanks.  Did you -- were you provided with any information about

17    where they were taking him?

18       A.   Yes.  They said that they had an order from a commander.  They

19    didn't say where, though.  They just said that they would bring him back

20    in 20 minutes.

21       Q.   All right.  And these men, were they Albanians or

22    Albanian-speaking?

23       A.   Yes.  Yes, they were speaking Albanian.

24       Q.   Okay.  Did you -- did (redacted) return that night?

25       A.   No.

Page 9643

 1       Q.   Did you in the -- in the day or days following, did you or members

 2    of your family start to try and make inquiries about where he was and what

 3    had happened to him?

 4       A.   Yes.  We went to make inquiries.  We asked in the village.  There

 5    was a -- what we called a headquarters in the village in a basement.  We

 6    didn't know about it, as a matter of fact, but by asking people we learned

 7    about it, and we asked, "Where is he?  Why did he not come back?"  And we

 8    were told, "He will be back.  He will come back. Don't worry."

 9       Q.   All right.  This was --

10            JUDGE HOEPFEL:  Sorry to interrupt.  In order to understand

11    completely, the time, was it 11.00 in the morning or 11.00 in the evening

12    when they came and took (redacted)?

13            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the morning.

14            JUDGE HOEPFEL:  Thank you.

15            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you, Your Honours.

16       Q.   Now, these inquiries, were they made in your -- in your own

17    village?

18       A.   Yes.

19       Q.   And who was it who was telling you, "He will be back.  He will

20    come back.  Don't worry"?

21       A.   There were many people there.  We didn't know who we were talking

22    to.  I was with my grandmother and younger brother.  We went there to ask

23    about the whereabouts of (redacted).  And they just told us, "He will be

24    back."  I had the impression they didn't know what to tell us themselves.

25       Q.   And were these men who were saying these things to you, that --

Page 9644

 1    that he would be back, were they -- can you tell us how they were dressed?

 2       A.   They were wearing everyday clothes.

 3       Q.   And this place called a headquarters in the village, headquarters

 4    of what?

 5       A.   Headquarters of what?  This was the basement of a villager.

 6       Q.   But you -- you -- you yourself, your own words are that "there was

 7    a headquarters in the village."  Now, headquarters of what?

 8       A.   Of the KLA.

 9       Q.   Thank you.  How many times did you go to the KLA headquarters

10    making inquiries about (redacted)?

11       A.   Two or three times, but in vain.

12       Q.   And is that the only place that you were able to make inquiries,

13    or did you go elsewhere?

14       A.   We only went there because we did not know where else to go.

15       Q.   You've told us (redacted) disappeared on the -- or, sorry, the

16    last time you saw him was on the 1st of August, 1998.  Using that date as

17    a reference point, how long did you remain in your village living in your

18    house following that?

19       A.   If I'm not mistaken, about a month after that we continued to stay

20    there, because the villagers had not left yet.  We were waiting for

21    (redacted) to come back.  Two or three days later a couple of people came for

22    his medicine, and we gave them his medicine and also a jacket.  But as I

23    said, everything was in vain.

24       Q.   Thank you.  And do you know who these -- do you know the names of

25    these people who came to collect his medicine and his jacket?

Page 9645

 1       A.   No.  No.

 2       Q.   Had you ever seen them in your village before?

 3       A.   No.  They were not from our village.

 4       Q.   Can you tell us if -- how they were dressed?

 5       A.   They were wearing a green -- greenish uniform, multicoloured, I

 6    think.  It was mixed colours.

 7       Q.   Thank you.  Was there any insignia that you could see on this

 8    uniform?

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   What insignia?

11       A.   Of the KLA on their caps and on the sleeve of their jackets.

12            MR. DI FAZIO:  Could Your Honours just give me a moment, please.

13                          [Prosecution counsel confer]

14            MR. DI FAZIO:  Thank you for answering my questions, Witness.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Witness 52, you will now be examined by Defence

16    counsel.  The first one is Mr. Emmerson?

17            MR. EMMERSON:  It is, but I have no questions.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  You have no questions.

19            Mr. Guy-Smith?

20            MR. GUY-SMITH:  No questions.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  No questions.

22            Mr. Harvey?

23            MR. HARVEY:  No questions.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Where I said that you would be examined by

25    Defence counsel, Witness 52, I did not know yet that they had no questions

Page 9646

 1    for you.

 2                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 3                          Questioned by the Court:

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  I have the following question for you:  You told us

 5    about these several occasions where men came to your house first to obtain

 6    a weapon; then there was a search; and then finally, men came and

 7    (redacted) joined them and left.  Now, did you at any later stage ever learn

 8    the names of any of these men?

 9       A.   Yes.  I learnt from (redacted).

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Could you explain to us what (redacted) told you

11    about whom when that person visited you.

12       A.   On the last day, when I accompanied (redacted) up to the car, we

13    didn't know those persons that day.  And (redacted) was trying to calm us

14    down, and he said, "Don't be scared, because this is X person," and he

15    told me the name of that person.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us that name, or would you prefer to

17    do that in private session?

18       A.   In private session, please, if we may.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  We'll turn into private session.

20                          [Private session]

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 9647











11    Page 9647 redacted. Private session.















Page 9648

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8                          [Open session]

 9            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11            Witness 52, you've answered the question put to you by

12    Mr. Di Fazio and the question put to you by the Bench.  I'd like to thank

13    you very much for coming to The Hague and to testify, and I wish you a

14    safe trip home again.

15            Madam Usher, before the witness leaves the courtroom, the curtains

16    should be pulled down.

17            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you all.

18                          [The witness withdrew]

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The curtains can be pulled up again.

20            Yes.  The Chamber is -- the legal officer of the Chamber,

21    Mr. Zahar, received copies of some correspondence between the parties

22    about disclosure issues in relation to the next witness to -- to be

23    called.

24            The parties also indicated that they'd like to raise the issue in

25    court.  What I see from this correspondence is that already quite some

Page 9649

 1    time ago in relation to the expected testimony of the witness then still

 2    on the list, Mr. Delic, that the Defence has asked -- has put six

 3    questions, questions relating to documents, questions relating to -- no,

 4    that comes later -- that you ask for whether any investigations were made

 5    in relation to, let's say, the circles, same circles as where Mr. Delic

 6    appeared as well.

 7            MR. EMMERSON:  Can I?

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9            MR. EMMERSON:  In essence, on the 10th of May, the request to the

10    Prosecution came in two forms.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12            MR. EMMERSON:  There was one letter concerned with specific

13    matters of disclosure, which has not been brought to the Trial Chamber's

14    attention because there's no issue outstanding in relation to it.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16            MR. EMMERSON:  But there was also a letter drawing attention to

17    the fact that during the Milosevic trial the position taken by the Office

18    of the Prosecutor was that Colonel Delic, as he then was, was responsible

19    for the commission of systematic war crimes.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21            MR. EMMERSON:  Including within the indictment region, including

22    within the indictment period.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which we find in the correspondence as having

24    been committed in 1998 and 1999.

25            MR. EMMERSON:  Exactly so.  As well as having been involved, so it

Page 9650

 1    was put to him, at least in a supervisory capacity, in the disinterment

 2    and transfer for the purposes of concealment of the remains of victims --

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4            MR. EMMERSON:   -- of crimes committed by Serb forces.  And in

 5    essence, what we were seeking from the Prosecution at that stage - and

 6    it's quite right to say "at that stage."  It was on the assumption that he

 7    was to be a witness for the Prosecution - was clarification the

 8    Prosecution maintained those allegations; if so, whether or not they had

 9    been investigated; and if not, why not.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Why not.

11            MR. EMMERSON:  The next development -- and I -- was the

12    Prosecution's decision to abandon Mr. Delic as a witness and thereby, in

13    Mr. Re's view, rendering those questions moot; and his substitution by the

14    witness who is now to be called without protective measures, as I

15    understand it.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17            MR. EMMERSON:  Branko Gajic.

18            Mr. Gajic's testimony concerns matters relating to the deployment

19    and activity of the 549th Brigade, even though he was not himself a member

20    of that brigade and it's not been alleged by the Prosecution in past

21    trials that he was personally involved or authorised the sorts of crimes

22    that were alleged by the Prosecution against Colonel Delic.

23            In essence, there were two essential issues outstanding,

24    disclosure having been given of a number of documents and other materials.

25    The first was a request to the Prosecution for an explanation --

Page 9651

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Why.

 2            MR. EMMERSON:   -- for the decision to abandon General Delic; and

 3    the second is the outstanding request for clarification as to whether the

 4    Prosecution approaches this trial on the same basis as it approached the

 5    trial of Milosevic; namely, that General Delic and those under his command

 6    committed war crimes systematically in the indictment region during the

 7    indictment period and thereafter.

 8            Now, as far as the first matter is concerned, Mr. Re's response is

 9    contained in the letter of the 17th of October, indicating in essence that

10    the Prosecution's decision to abandon General Delic is a non-reviewable

11    discretion and that there's nothing to be disclosed in relation to the

12    reasons for that decision; and in the letter of the 19th of October, as

13    regards the second matter, in essence the Prosecution's position is that

14    since they have taken the decision not to call General Delic, the issues

15    of substance are moot.

16            In short, whether the first question requires an answer or not is

17    perhaps much less important than whether the second question requires an

18    answer.  It isn't simply a matter relevant to the credibility of the

19    witness now abandoned.  It is also a matter relevant to the conduct and

20    the deployment of the Serb forces within the indictment region, within the

21    indictment period and thereafter.  The potential that that has for

22    alternative explanations for otherwise unexplained deaths and for the

23    removal and manipulation of remains.  And so we would respectfully invite

24    the Prosecution or invite the Chamber to request the Prosecution to state

25    what its position is in relation to the conduct of the 549th under the

Page 9652

 1    command of General Delic, or Colonel Delic, as he then was.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re, that's the question that is put to you.

 3            By the way, I suggest to the parties that this whole

 4    correspondence will be perhaps in a joint filing be put on the record,

 5    because it -- it's not just a practical matter and in line with the policy

 6    that the Chamber has set out earlier, that is, either purely practical

 7    matters just by e-mail, matters of some substance to be mentioned in

 8    court, matters of greater substance to be filed.  The Chamber suggests

 9    that, to have everything clearly on the record, that this correspondence

10    will be subject to a filing.

11            Mr. Re.

12            MR. RE:  I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be responding to.

13    I mean, the Prosecution's view is we're quite mystified by the Defence

14    pursuing a line of inquiry in relation to a witness who we advised the

15    Trial Chamber and the Defence on the 20th of June, that is, close on four

16    months ago, to -- to -- it's more than four months ago that we were not

17    calling the witness.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19            MR. RE:  Now, Mr. Emmerson is not putting the position correctly

20    when he says the Prosecution suggested in effect, to use his phrase, in

21    terms that General Delic was a war criminal, because we certainly didn't.

22            Some suggestions were put to Colonel Delic as to the state of his

23    knowledge during operations in 1998 and 1999, but the Prosecution has not

24    taken or maintained a view in relation to Bozidar Delic.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 9653

 1            MR. RE:  And Branko Gajic has nothing to do with Delic.  Gajic was

 2    in military intelligence in Belgrade.  He was not in the 549th Brigade.

 3            As far as -- and I -- and I -- we have no knowledge that the

 4    Defence is about to put any allegations to General -- retired

 5    General Gajic, and as far as I know, Mr. Emmerson has told me they're not.

 6            The matter is not just moot.  It's irrelevant.  We decided not to

 7    call Delic some months ago, four months ago.  We've moved on.  It's just

 8    beating a dead horse.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Well, whether the horse is yet dead or still alive is

10    still to be seen.

11            Mr. Re, the way in which I understand it is the following:  That

12    the Defence would very much like to know whether the position taken by the

13    Prosecution in the Milosevic case is that a series of crimes are committed

14    and there was concealment of victims of crimes apart from whether

15    Mr. Delic committed them or had some responsibility, because they may have

16    been committed under his command, but these questions they'd like to know

17    what the present position of the Prosecution is, because I take it that

18    the Defence, as they said, would consider in those circumstances that

19    there might be an alternative explanation for bodily remains being found

20    in that area; and therefore, the Defence would like to know whether that

21    is or still is the position of the Prosecution that crimes were committed

22    by other forces at that time in the area so as to -- well, to see whether

23    there's disagreement about that element between Prosecution and Defence.

24            Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Guy-Smith, Mr. Harvey, is that approximately --

25            MR. EMMERSON:  Yes, that's an entirely fair summary.

Page 9654

 1            Two matters, just if I may.  First of all, I don't recall having

 2    indicated to Mr. Re that I did not wish to explore with this witness

 3    allegations of war crimes committed by Serb forces, and I certainly do.

 4            And secondly, I am slightly surprised by the suggestion that it

 5    was not the Prosecution's case in the Milosevic trial that Mr. Delic was

 6    responsible for war crimes.  We've set out in our letter specific extracts

 7    from the allegations put in terms to him by counsel for the Office of the

 8    Prosecutor.  For example, at paragraph 3:  "The reality is that you and

 9    the police were engaged in an unrecorded exercise in ethnic cleansing.

10    The army and the police were engaged in criminal conduct to their certain

11    knowledge in 1998 and 1999."

12            And paragraph 4 that:  "The grave removal exercise must have been

13    done with your knowledge and consent."

14            It's surprising to hear Mr. Re in those circumstances suggest that

15    that is not a fair summary or it was not fairly summarised in the way in

16    which the matter has been put.  And indeed it rather reflects the

17    difficulty of a Prosecution position which -- which lacks clarity in

18    respect of these matters.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re.

20            MR. RE:  I mean, that's just getting worse.  Mr. Emmerson told me

21    he wasn't going to cross-examine Mr. Gajic on crimes having been committed

22    by Mr. Gajic.  I understand that's the Defence position.

23            In relation to whether Serbian military units committed crimes in

24    Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, well, of course they did.  One only has to read

25    the Milutinovic and Milosevic indictments to see that's the Prosecution

Page 9655

 1    case.  There's absolutely no tension between the Prosecution prosecuting

 2    the KLA for crimes committed in 1998 and alleging that the Serbian

 3    military also committed crimes in the same -- in the -- in the same year

 4    in the same territory.

 5            In relation to whether or not there was -- whether the allegation

 6    of the Serbs taking bodies to -- from Kosovo to -- to Serbia is in somehow

 7    way connected with the allegation, which I think but cannot be sure is

 8    being made, because it hasn't been properly put to any witnesses that

 9    there was some sort of body-burying operation by the Serbs somehow in

10    September 1998, there's no connection at all.  There is nothing in the

11    Milosevic transcript, the Milutinovic transcript, or anything in the

12    Prosecution's possession to suggest that the Serbs planted the bodies by

13    the canal in Lake Radonjic in September 1998.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15            MR. RE:  If that's what he's getting to.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Is that -- therefore, then, what I understand is that

17    there is no disagreement about Serbs having committed in general terms

18    serious crimes in the area during the time also relevant for the

19    indictment but that the main disagreement lies in whether this could ever

20    be an alternative or an alternative explanation for what is charged

21    against the accused in this case.  That's how I now understand the

22    position of the Prosecution to be and where it differs from the Defence

23    position and where it does not differ from the Defence position.

24            I further understood that the all-relevant material is, as always,

25    disclosed in the electronic -- in the electronic system and that from

Page 9656

 1    whatever the Prosecution has investigated or learned about matters in

 2    relation to the witness Delic, who's not on the list any more, or any

 3    other witness, if it would amount to Article 68 material, that would be

 4    that it could be understood to be exculpatory or may be exculpatory, which

 5    means that you might have different views on whether it exculpates or does

 6    not exculpate - that's exactly what we are just talking about that is,

 7    whether it provides for an alternative explanation for events or whether

 8    it does not.  That's, of course, the interpretation and the evaluation of

 9    the material - that all disclosure obligations have been fully met by the

10    Prosecution.

11            Is that correctly understood, Mr. Re?

12            MR. RE:  As far as I know, we have disclosed all relevant

13    material.

14            But just one other tiny little thing, and that is the references

15    Mr. Emmerson keeps bringing up in the Milosevic transcript.  I'm sorry to

16    say this, but he's taking them out of context.  The Prosecution did not

17    allege any specific crimes by Colonel Delic.  If they had -- if we had,

18    Mr. Emmerson would have quoted them instead of talking in terms or in

19    summary or in paraphrasing.

20            The -- what was suggested to Delic was he must have known

21    something was happening.  There was no specific allegation of criminality

22    leveled against Delic, as far as I can see, and in talking to the lawyers

23    who were in court conducting that cross-examination.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I do understand that in you're in a command

25    position, if you know about crimes, if you haven't done anything to

Page 9657

 1    prevent them or to punish them, that might amount to criminal

 2    responsibility for crimes you have not committed yourself.  If that --

 3            MR. EMMERSON:  I don't, if I may say so, think this is the right

 4    moment for know enter a debate on this, but the Prosecution called

 5    testimony of crimes allegedly committed on the direct orders of

 6    General Delic in the Milosevic trial.  Indeed, I'm going to raise some of

 7    that in cross-examination, if I may.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9            Mr. Guy-Smith.

10            MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, if I might too, just to make sure that

11    we all are operating on the same basis.  Since you have indicated that

12    it's your understanding that all material has been made available to us in

13    the electronic system, if the Court is relying on that being the

14    electronic disclosure system, as opposed to the Prosecution identifying

15    for the Defence what precise information is either relevant or

16    exculpatory, which not -- has not necessarily been done with regard to --

17    to the --

18            JUDGE ORIE:  It may be clear that any exculpatory evidence should

19    be pointed at precisely, not to be hidden somewhere in an electronic

20    disclosure system.  That may be clear.

21            I do understand that to the extent the Prosecution itself sees

22    that there is material that could be considered relevant but on which it

23    will not rely, that it nevertheless will be disclosed as relevant material

24    in the electronic disclosure system; whereas, if the Prosecution finds

25    anything which may be interpreted as, well, we know the exact -- just call

Page 9658

 1    it briefly exculpatory material, that is, material that tends to

 2    demonstrate the innocence of -- well, we have the nice formula which

 3    doesn't come literally to my mind at this moment.  But under those

 4    circumstances, then specifically that attention will be labeled as

 5    potential exculpatory material and be brought to the attention of the

 6    Defence.

 7            That's how I understand the disclosure obligations, Mr. Re.  And I

 8    also understand that in this respect, the Prosecution takes the position

 9    that it has met all its disclosure obligations.

10            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I raise a concern with that and specifically with

11    the guidance that is found in the Karemera decision concerning the

12    electronic disclosure system of the 30th of June, 2006, paragraph 10, in

13    which there is specific reference to the Prosecution's duty with regard to

14    the disclosure of information.

15            I actually would like to note on a separate point and alert the

16    Chamber to something which I think it probably knows from a review of the

17    annexes, that many of the annexes that are being relied upon by the

18    Prosecution for the testimony of the next witness happen to be authored by

19    the very individual, Mr. Delic, who is the subject matter of this

20    conversation.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.  We'll have a look at that.

22    But then it comes more to specific documents to be used during the

23    testimony of the next witness.

24            MR. GUY-SMITH:  The concern being, of course, that if we're in a

25    situation where there's picking and choosing as between documents, it

Page 9659

 1    raises some of the problems that Mr. Emmerson raised initially and some of

 2    the difficulties that we have expressed previously with regard to whether

 3    or not the Prosecution is taking disparate positions, depending on who

 4    they are prosecuting, with regard to the evidence they're presenting.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6            MR. GUY-SMITH:  We're back -- we're back into the ballet situation

 7    of the Prosecution being splayed once again potential.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is an unattractive position.

 9            Mr. Harvey, would you like to add anything?

10            MR. HARVEY:  No, I fully endorse everything that has been said by

11    my colleagues on this matter, Your Honour.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

13            Then there was another matter and then we'll have a break.

14            There was another matter about recently discovered material which

15    you were seeking to add to the 65 ter list, exhibit list.

16            MR. RE:  There's -- I think it was six reports of the 14th, a

17    counter-intelligence brief --

18            JUDGE ORIE:  I thought there were eight -- I thought there were

19    eight.

20            MR. RE:  There's seven, sorry.

21            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe there's -- there's seven.  There's seven

22    and a diagram.  And as a result of -- of the assertions made by the

23    Prosecution with regard to the discovery of this material, there certainly

24    is no objection.

25            MR. RE:  What do you mean -- what do you mean "assertions"?  I've

Page 9660

 1    just made a submission as an officer of the court.  I don't like being

 2    told that they're assertions.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that the facts, Mr. Re has pointed to

 4    that in  support --

 5            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm agreeing.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  -- of his application, that in view of that that you

 7    do not oppose.

 8            I take it, Mr. Re, that if there would be serious doubts about the

 9    facts you would have presented, that the Defence might not have accepted

10    your proposal.

11            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I certainly don't mean to ruffle his feathers at

12    this point.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14            Is that the position of you as well, Mr. Emmerson, and of you,

15    Mr. Harvey?

16            MR. EMMERSON:  I think -- unless I misunderstood the position,

17    there was one further document produced this morning for which Mr. Re

18    indicated that an oral application was going to be made in addition to the

19    written application.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Then I may have missed that.  I'm thinking about the

21    documents of which Mr. Re explained when he found them and where, not in

22    Kosovo but in Belgrade, I think.

23            MR. RE:  Yes.  They're from the archive of the 14th Intelligence

24    Group.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 9661

 1            MR. RE:  The Prosecution didn't even know existed until the --

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  No, that has been explained --

 3            MR. RE:  Recently.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Emmerson points that there would be one other

 5    document.  I'm not quite sure they know what document Mr. Emmerson is

 6    referring to.

 7            MR. EMMERSON:  Well, it arrived by e-mail this morning.  It's an

 8    18th of May proclamation concerning the extending of the border belt

 9    within which the VJ constitutionally was permitted to operate to 5

10    kilometres.  And it was served upon us as an additional document today

11    with an indication that Mr. Re would be making an oral application to add

12    it to the list.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Is that new apart from the -- the 14th - what was

14    it? - the 14th Intelligence Group?  Is this a document that is related in

15    any way to it?

16            MR. RE:  No, this isn't new.  This was disclosed to the Defence in

17    April 2006.  It's simply a --

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Was it on the list?   I think that's issue.

19            MR. RE:  It wasn't on the list.  It only came up after

20    Mr. Zivanovic gave evidence last week about the border zones,

21    cross-examined about the proclamation of the border zones and when it came

22    into effect.  And we found the proclamation of General -- of Colonel

23    Lazarevic dated the 18th of May, 1998, extending the border zone 5

24    kilometres, referable to the Federal Republic of Yugoslav government

25    decision of the 23rd of April, 1998.

Page 9662

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  So, as a matter of fact, that is now raised because

 2    it gains some relevance in relation to the testimony given by

 3    Mr. Zivanovic.

 4            MR. RE:  That's why we went looking for it, yes.

 5            MR. EMMERSON:  I certainly would have no objection to its being

 6    added.  I simply note that maybe Mr. Re can clarify the position.  I had

 7    thought that in re-examination with Colonel Zivanovic, Mr. Re had sought

 8    to establish that the day for the extension was the 8th of May.  I don't

 9    think it was this document that was put in re-examination, but I may be

10    wrong about that.  But we can --

11            JUDGE ORIE:  If you sort that out during the break.  Because if

12    there's no objection --

13            MR. EMMERSON:  Certainly no objection.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  And, of course, now clarifications could be sought

15    during the break.

16            May I take it, Mr. Guy-Smith and Mr. Harvey, that since you are

17    not jumping up that you would agree with the -- with the other documents

18    about the 14th Intelligence - what was it? - Group, that there's no

19    objection against adding them to the 65 ter list?  In the absence --

20            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I've already indicated that --

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I was looking at Mr. Harvey.

22            Okay.  Then that request is granted.

23            MR. RE:  Thank you.

24            In relation to the exhibits, could it be -- could they be done in

25    the same way as we did Mr. Zivanovic and Mr. Stijovic, that is, they be

Page 9663

 1    given numbers by the registrar in the spreadsheet so that they can

 2    sequentially follow with this one.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would that be a possibility?

 4            MR. RE:  I think there are 35 -- 37 annexes.

 5                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re, Mr. Registrar asks me whether it's your

 7    intention to have them MFI'd first or whether it -- this is already an

 8    announcement of tendering them.  I take it that that only comes during the

 9    testimony.

10            So just first to give them numbers?

11            MR. RE:  It's an announcement of an intention to tender them.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13            MR. RE:  But first get an MFI.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So we'll take it in two steps.

15            Then since we have to change from interpreter teams, we need a

16    break of half an hour.

17            We will resume and -- at 4.30.

18                          --- Recess taken at 3.58 p.m.

19                          --- On resuming at 4.35 p.m.

20                          [The witness entered court].

21            JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has considered the oral submissions by

22    the parties and the order to file the correspondence is still there, but

23    it -- the Chamber finds no reason the exchange of views until now not to

24    start with the witness at this moment.

25            I have another request for you.  I asked -- and I said similarly

Page 9664

 1    and earlier was talked about this week to receive a response on the

 2    videolink.  If there would be a possibility, even if by oral submissions,

 3    to express yourself at an earlier stage, the videolink has been scheduled

 4    for the 31st of October.  It needs quite a lot of time to prepare for it.

 5    So if that would be possible already by tomorrow, that would be highly

 6    appreciated.

 7            MR. GUY-SMITH:  We will meet after court or during one of the

 8    sessions and try to get back to the Chamber as quickly as possible.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  Your cooperation is much

10    appreciated.

11            Then, finally, my attention was drawn to the fact that there might

12    be some unclarity as to the eight documents to be added on the 65 ter

13    list.  I think I said at one moment that the request was granted.  If I

14    have not said that, then I hereby say that the addition to the 65 ter list

15    of the eight documents is granted.  And I noticed that there were no

16    objections against the other document, which you have sorted out over the

17    break, Mr. Emmerson, with Mr. Re, I take it?  Or at least there's --

18    there's no major problem there.

19            So therefore no problems with that respect.  Neither.

20            Then, Mr. Gajic, it's very unpolite not to address a witness who

21    appears in court and to deal with other procedural matters. Apologies for

22    that.

23            Mr. Gajic, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of

24    Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that

25    you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Page 9665

 1            The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.  May I invite

 2    you to make that solemn declaration.

 3            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

 4    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Gajic.  Please be seated.

 6            You'll first be examined by Mr. Re, who's counsel for the

 7    Prosecution.

 8            Mr. Re, please proceed.

 9                          WITNESS:   BRANKO GAJIC

10                          [Witness answered through interpreter]

11                          Examination by Mr. Re:

12       Q.   Good afternoon.  Your name is Branko Gajic.  Your date of birth is

13    the 17th of July, 1944.  And you are a retired major general from the

14    Serbian army and before that, the VJ and the JNA.  Is that correct?

15       A.   That's correct.

16       Q.   And you recently testified in the case Milutinovic, et cetera.  So

17    you're familiar with these proceedings and the process here.

18       A.   Correct.

19       Q.   I want to show you a statement which you have a copy there in hard

20    copy, dated the 2nd of October, 2007.  It's of some 18 pages in English.

21    It's a statement I wish to tender under Rule 92 ter of the Rules of

22    Procedure.  But first I have to ask you two questions.

23            I note that no objection has been made to any portion of this

24    statement to this point.

25            The first one is:  Does it bear your declaration and is true?

Page 9666

 1       A.   Yes.

 2       Q.   And the second question is:  If I were to ask you the questions to

 3    which answers are given in this statement, would you give that same

 4    testimony in this court?

 5       A.   Yes.

 6       Q.   And it's 65 ter number 2090.  May it be received into evidence on

 7    that basis.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re, I think the first question is not whether it

 9    was signed by the witness but whether he has read the statement and

10    whether this statement reflects the answers you gave at the time.

11            Is that the reason why you signed it?

12            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Then, since there are no objections, then,

14    Mr. Registrar, the exhibit number would be?

15            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be P1138.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

17            Since there are no objections, it is admitted into evidence.

18            MR. RE:

19       Q.   And in front of you, Mr. Gajic, do you have a folder there

20    containing the 38 documents which you have referred to in your statement

21    including your diagram which is the first annex?  Just to confirm that you

22    have it in front of you?

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Just reading the transcript, I missed the word "and

24    is true" otherwise, I would not have added that question.  I refer to page

25    50, line 24.  It says:  "Does it bear your declaration and is true?"  I

Page 9667

 1    understood whether he has signed it.  But if I would have read this, I

 2    would not have added the question I put to the witness before.

 3            Please proceed.

 4            MR. RE:  I'm always confused by the wording of 92 ter myself.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not confused.

 6            Please proceed.

 7            MR. RE:

 8       Q.   I'm going ask you some questions about the statement to clarify

 9    some of the things in your statement to give the Trial Chamber a better

10    picture of the contents of your statement.

11            The first thing I'm going to ask you about is the 29 -- in

12    paragraph 1, you refer to having had 29 years in the counter-intelligence

13    service of the military in which you served and your retirement position

14    was, I understand, as the deputy head of the security administration.

15       A.   Assistant and deputy at the same time.  This is how it was

16    officially proclaimed.

17       Q.   In terms of seniority, where were you in the military hierarchy as

18    of your retirement on the 31st of December, 2001, as a major-general?

19       A.   In early October 2000, I, together with General Vasiljevic, who

20    was deputy head of the administration, removed -- was removed from that

21    position and other people were brought in.  I was appointed to a different

22    sector, to an additional formation.  However, pursuant to the order of the

23    then-Chief of the General Staff, I and General Vasiljevic was reassigned

24    to the security administration and worked there until our retirement.

25       Q.   General, please focus on the question, if you can.  And the

Page 9668

 1    question was:  Where were you in the terms of the military hierarchy as of

 2    the date of your retirement?  Number one, two, three, four, five, six, or

 3    whatever?

 4       A.   When it comes to the security administration, I was number three

 5    there.

 6       Q.   In 1998, in the period covered by the indictment, what was your

 7    level of seniority?

 8       A.   I was both number two and number three.  I was deputy head of the

 9    administration and assistant to the head of the administration, which

10    means man number two and man number three.

11       Q.   That's in the security administration.

12       A.   That's correct.

13       Q.   What about in the military?  Could you rank where you were in the

14    military hierarchy?

15       A.   The security administration is one of the independent

16    administrations of the General Staff, and the head of the security

17    administration is one of the assistants to the Chief of the General Staff.

18    In his absence, I stepped in for him.

19       Q.   Are you saying you were fairly senior in 1998?

20       A.   Yes.  Yes.

21       Q.   Were there military secrets to which you would not have had access

22    in 1998?

23       A.   Whatever came within the competence of the military security was

24    known to me.  There were no secrets in that domain that I was not aware

25    of.  And even broadly speaking, in relation to military matters, to the

Page 9669

 1    matters of the army.

 2       Q.   I want you to turn to paragraph 6 of your statement.

 3            If that could just be displayed in English in Sanction and if you

 4    could look at the hard copy in front of you, please.

 5            That's the paragraph where you refer to:  "Counter-intelligence

 6    reports being distinct from other types of routine reporting in the VJ;

 7    namely, operational reporting and command reporting."

 8            And then you say:  "Counter-intelligence reports would often

 9    contain information from operations reports, to the extent that it was

10    relevant to the mandate of the UB."

11            The next paragraph, which is 7, you refer to an independent unit

12    in Kosovo called the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group.  What was the role

13    of the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group within the VJ in that time period?

14       A.   The 14th Counter-Intelligence Group, as you say - and it is

15    mentioned here - was connected to the security administration and it was

16    the spatial structure, the territorial structure of the

17    counter-intelligence service covering the situation on the ground with

18    regard to the activities placing the army and the defence system in

19    jeopardy, and it went down from the service to the unit commands, and it

20    directly reported to the security administration on its work.

21       Q.   You say in that statement that it had about 20 individuals.  Where

22    did they work from?  Where were they based?

23       A.   They were based in Pristina.

24       Q.   Did they do fieldwork?

25       A.   Yes.

Page 9670

 1       Q.   Can you briefly describe to the Trial Chamber how they went about

 2    their fieldwork, that is, how they collected their information in the

 3    field.

 4       A.   They had, as we called it, their intelligence sources in the

 5    territory of Kosovo and Metohija, and these intelligence sources were

 6    members of the population, civilians, as well as members of different army

 7    structures residing in the area.  Furthermore, they exchanged information

 8    with the MUP and the State Security Service and had daily contacts with

 9    the population which were quite well-developed.  The population was not --

10    were not agents as such, but they were informants on whom they relied.

11    And these were the ways on the basis of which they gathered information.

12            And I apologise, they also exchanged intelligence with military

13    intelligence organs, because they also had their infrastructure in the

14    territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

15       Q.   Mr. Gajic, I want to ask you about informants.  You just referred

16    to "informants upon whom they relied."  What was the difference between

17    the type of informants the DB was using and the type of informants that

18    military intelligence was using?

19       A.   There was no difference, except for the fact that this was the

20    counter-intelligence department, as it is written here, and the difference

21    lay in the contents of the information that was of interest.  The

22    counter-intelligence service was interested in the information concerning

23    whatever placed the army in jeopardy; whereas, the military -- or rather,

24    the State Security Service was interested in the situation in general,

25    including that which concerned the army itself. The sources were more or

Page 9671

 1    less the same and the methodology they used was the same.

 2       Q.   Did counter-intelligence have informants within the KLA?

 3       A.   Yes.

 4       Q.   Are you able to say in 1998 approximately how many informants were

 5    within the KLA?

 6       A.   I wouldn't be able to tell you with any precision.  Still there

 7    were sufficient numbers of them, because some of the sources were

 8    developed in early 1980s and are still being used to this day.  Therefore,

 9    I can't tell you how many there were.

10            The 14th Department certainly had no less than 50 or 60 different

11    sources of different ranking, quality, and so on and so forth, and I'm

12    only referring to the counter-intelligence department and not referring to

13    the counter-intelligence structures of the different units.

14       Q.   The 50 or 60 different sources, were they within the KLA?

15       A.   There were those among them who were in the KLA and others who had

16    direct or indirect contacts or links with the KLA.  For instance, some of

17    them had close relatives or friends who were members of the KLA, and these

18    were what we call indirect contacts.

19       Q.   You said they were of different ranking and quality.  First I'm

20    going to ask you about the ranking, then quality.

21            How high up within the KLA - and no names, of course - were these

22    sources placed?

23       A.   Well, for the most part they were former officers of the Yugoslav

24    People's Army with whom operative contacts were made in 1981 and later, at

25    the time of those mass-scale demonstrations you're probably aware of, and

Page 9672

 1    we had actions combatting such activities.

 2       Q.   Just concentrate on 1998 for the moment.  In 1998, how high up

 3    within the KLA were informants for counter-intelligence?

 4       A.   I wouldn't be able to give you the exact figure now or the exact

 5    information.  There were those among them who held the rank of major, even

 6    lieutenant colonel, and then the occasional colonel as well of the former

 7    JNA.  I don't know which ranks they held in the KLA.  I know the duties

 8    they held.  They were commanders, chiefs of staffs, and so on and so

 9    forth.  And, of course, I'm aware of the ranks they held in the former

10    JNA.

11       Q.   You also said they were of different quality.  How did your

12    department assess the quality of the information it was receiving from

13    these informants?  In other words, what was the methodology used to assess

14    its reliability and quality?

15       A.   The main practice was vetting.  Or rather, we double-checked the

16    information that they provided us with against other sources.

17            Secondly, we would have some earlier information about the

18    activities or events they were supposed to gather information on.  So we

19    would double-check that with the MUP, with the security service, with the

20    intelligence service, and we did that.

21            If the persons involved had for many years had operative contacts

22    with the intelligence service, we already had some valid indicators of

23    their sincerity, veracity, reliability, and so on and so forth, but we

24    always double-checked the information we received from them, especially if

25    the information was sensitive.

Page 9673

 1       Q.   I just want to take you to an example of a report.  It's annex 3

 2    of your statement -- of the -- the bundle there.  It's dated the 23rd of

 3    January, 1998.

 4            If that could be displayed in e-court, please.  If you could just

 5    go to annex 3.  It's the report of Colonel -- Chief Colonel Aco Tomic,

 6    23rd of January, 1998 to the VJ -- I think it's GS -- General Staff of the

 7    VJ Security Service, 3rd Army.  That's -- and it -- it says:  "Through

 8    operative work by the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group and the Pristina

 9    Corps, information was obtained regarding an armed clash on the territory

10    of the Srbica-Donje Prekaze village, kidnapping and maltreatment of Serbs

11    by members of the so-called KLA, the presence of members of the  'Serbian

12    Guard', headed by Arkan, and propaganda by the Albanian media in the state

13    and abroad."

14            And then it refers to the attack on the Jashari compound, and then

15    it goes down to refer to three other particular incidents.  The ones I

16    wish to ask you about are on the 22nd of April, 1998, there's an attack on

17    Desko Vasic, an assemblyman in the Zvecan Municipal Assembly --

18       A.   22nd of January.

19       Q.   Well, I meant January.

20            MR. EMMERSON:  And I'm sorry, whilst there is that interruption,

21    lest the transcript should remain unclear, the reference is not to the

22    attack on the Jashari compound in the sense that we have heard other

23    evidence about the attack in March but to earlier incident in January.

24            MR. RE:  Yes, quite.  There's one on the 22nd of January, 1998,

25    quite.

Page 9674

 1       Q.   There are three particular incidents described which I ask you to

 2    comment on.  That's 22nd of January, 1998; the attack on Desko Vasic, the

 3    stopping of a bus on the same day on the Klina-Srbica road by the

 4    so-called KLA inflicting serious bodily injuries on Nenad Nikolic; and

 5    thirdly, the stopping by a KLA patrol of Ljiljana Ilijev, a public -- or

 6    employee of the SDK public auditing service and her sister

 7    Darinka Andjelkovic.  The two of them were maltreated and then released

 8    with the words "your brothers are killing our brothers."

 9            What I want you to comment on and tell the Trial Chamber is the

10    source of those three incidents allowing it to come into this particular

11    report by Chief Colonel Aco Tomic.

12       A.   The first incident, which took place on the 22nd of January, 1998,

13    relating to Desko Vasic, who was a deputy of the Zvecan Assembly,

14    Municipal Assembly, was reported by his relatives, because the man went to

15    work and never showed up.

16            And then on the 23rd, when the MUP - because this was within the

17    competence of the MUP - tried to conduct an investigation, he was found

18    killed next to his car with another passenger, who was unidentified at the

19    time.  That's the first incident.

20            The second incident also had to do with the stopping of the bus on

21    the Klina-Srbica road, where the bus was pulled over.  The IDs were asked

22    of the passengers, who were maltreated and beaten up.

23            The information was received from the driver and the other

24    passengers who reported the incident and described the perpetrators.  As a

25    result of that, since the perpetrators wore uniforms with the KLA

Page 9675

 1    insignia, it was concluded that they were indeed responsible for this.

 2            And then the third incident, which also took place on the 22nd of

 3    January, 1998, involving this lady Ljiljana and her sister, she reported

 4    the incident to the MUP.  She described the problems she had and she told

 5    them what she had observed, the trench-digging and so on and so forth.

 6    And also on the basis of the -- or rather, it was on the basis of -- of

 7    our regular exchanges of information with the MUP that we received the

 8    information.  And the head of the 14th Counter-Intelligence Department

 9    thought it interesting enough to be sent to the security administration

10    and the command of the 3rd army and to report to them about it.

11       Q.   Why were incidents of this nature being included in

12    intelligence -- or counter-intelligence reports going up through the

13    hierarchy?

14       A.   They were significant because we followed what was happening in

15    the area to the civilian population.  The strategy of the leadership of

16    the secessionist movement was to carry out ethnic cleansing, not only of

17    Serbs, Montenegrins, but also of many, many Albanians who were deemed

18    loyal to the Serbian state, were styled as spies.  They suffered a great

19    deal.  They were targeted.  And we were monitoring the situation and the

20    developments with regard to that.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Emmerson.

22            MR. EMMERSON:  I appreciate the question did not set out to elicit

23    inadmissible opinion evidence of that nature, but I wonder if Mr. Re might

24    confine the witness or control the answers in a way that doesn't allow

25    them to transgress into areas which are not proper for the witness to be

Page 9676

 1    giving opinion evidence about.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re.

 3            MR. RE:

 4       Q.   If we come to the next part of the report --

 5            Of course, I will endeavour to --

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's understood.  Please proceed.

 7            MR. RE:  It's implicit.

 8       Q.   The next part.  Underneath that, you refer to -- sorry, it refers

 9    to "operative information" indicated that Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, is on

10    the territory of Zvecan municipality with members of the Serbian Guard.

11    They are staying in the Trojka Hotel.

12       A.   Zvecan.

13       Q.   I apologise for my sloppy pronunciation.

14            The next paragraph:  "This stay was noted a few days ago when

15    Arkan came to this area by helicopter."

16            What the significance of that particular incident, that is,

17    Arkan's presence there, such that it was put in this report?  I mean, why

18    was the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group reporting on Arkan's presence?

19       A.   Because the unit of Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was in view of the

20    army a paramilitary formation.  They were in contacts with the State

21    Security Service but in the army's view, they were a paramilitary

22    formation.  There existed a strict order of the Chief of Staff according

23    to which paramilitary forces and groups should not be allowed access in

24    Kosovo and Metohija.  Therefore, they arrived there without the approval

25    or the knowledge of the army and it was considered that this ought to be

Page 9677

 1    included in the report.  Besides, there were great problems precisely with

 2    that formation -- there had been great problems with that formation ever

 3    since 1991.

 4       Q.   [Microphone not activated]?

 5            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 6            MR. RE:

 7       Q.   Were you aware of KLA communiques being published in the 1990s?

 8       A.   Yes, I was.  Although, I did not have occasion to read them at the

 9    time.  But I knew that they were releasing these communiques.

10       Q.   That's at paragraph 11 of your statement, where you say you first

11    became aware of them in the mid -- of the KLA in the mid-1990s from

12    communiques issued in the name of the organisation.

13            When did you begin to --

14            If paragraph 11 could please be displayed in Sanction at the

15    moment.

16            When did you become aware -- when did you first start to read the

17    KLA communiques?

18       A.   That must have been back in 1997.  I know that they published two

19    communiques.  One was on the 12th of January, and the other one on the

20    19th of January, as far as I remember.  They concerned the -- or

21    contained, rather, warnings to the MUP and the army about them having to

22    leave Kosovo, since they were occupiers there.  I'm not quoting.  I am

23    paraphrasing.

24            The first communiques -- communique was dated the 12th of January,

25    and the other one --

Page 9678

 1            THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter isn't sure whether the witness

 2    said the 29th of January.

 3            MR. RE:

 4       Q.   Did you say the 29th or the 12th of January?

 5       A.   The 12th of January, 1997 and the 19th of January, 1997.

 6       Q.   Can you please turn to annex 2, which is 65 ter number 2092.  It's

 7    an information issued by the counter -- 14th Counter-Intelligence Group of

 8    the 5th of December, 1997.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first find out whether the previous document

10    has been assigned an exhibit number.

11            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1997.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, annex number 2 is 65 ter number

15    2092.  It will be marked for identification as P1140.  Annex 3 is 65 ter

16    number 2093, and that's marked for identification as P1141.

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

18            MR. RE:

19       Q.   Can I take you to the portion where in the English it says:  In

20    the most recent underground newspaper of the People's Movement for Kosovo,

21    there is a KLA communique in which the KLA accepts responsibility for the

22    following:  First, bomb attack, 11th of November, 1997, against the house

23    of the president of the Podujevo municipality, Tomcic, in Tasec village;

24    next, clash in the villages of the Drenica area between 25th and 28th of

25    November this year; next one, striking down a Cessna-310 on the 26th of

Page 9679

 1    November; then the attack on Rznic police station, 27th of November; and

 2    the next one, the murder of Danilo Dugolija from Petrastica village,

 3    Stimlje, 28th of November.

 4            I want you to comment upon those incidents in relation to the KLA

 5    and its publication or claiming responsibility for various attacks.

 6       A.   As far as I can remember - and with regard to the killings, well,

 7    that in fact did take place - but as far as the Cessna is concerned, I

 8    don't think that happened.  I don't think it was struck down.  But fire

 9    may have been opened on that plane, because they would often open fire on

10    those planes.  I remember these events, but I've already told you what I

11    thought about the Cessna.  I don't want to repeat that.

12       Q.   Okay.  You say you don't think the Cessna happened, but other --

13    the other one, two, three, four -- the bomb attack on the 11th of

14    November, 1997; the clash in Drenica; the attack on the police station;

15    and the murder of Danilo Dugolija and --

16       A.   That happened.

17            But I'd like to point something out.  The police station near

18    Rznic was frequently attacked.  It was frequently attacked and finally

19    it -- a point in time came when it was necessary to withdraw the men,

20    because they were really in a very difficult situation.  There were

21    frequent attacks.

22       Q.   What I'm getting at is the veracity, in your experience, of the

23    KLA communiques.  Now, you've said the attack on the Cessna you didn't

24    think happened but the other things did happen.  What about other KLA

25    communiques that you read at the time?

Page 9680

 1            MR. EMMERSON:  I'm sorry.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3            MR. EMMERSON:  Before the witness answers, I've forborne from

 4    intervening in the manner of the questioning because when a witness is

 5    asked to give evidence about a particular incident, the Trial Chamber has

 6    indicated -- and until now the Prosecution has abided by that

 7    indication -- that sources of knowledge need to be specified, that in

 8    respect of each particular incident the manner and basis upon which this

 9    witness speaks need to be clarified and explained.

10            Now, I left it in respect of this collection of reported

11    incidents, but if Mr. Re is now inviting the witness to extrapolate and

12    give a generalised opinion on documents that are not in the bundle and on

13    which he's not being asked to comment, then -- then, in our submission,

14    that takes it a stage too far.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re.

16            MR. RE:  I'm asking the witness to comment on this particular

17    communique, which is referred to in this document and which has been --

18    which is before the Trial Chamber.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20            MR. RE:  The witness's experience of this communique vis-a-vis

21    other communiques and whether the KLA was, in his experience --

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- let's limit it at this moment.  Let's ask

23    the witness where he says that he has doubts on whether it happened with

24    the Cessna what information he gained which allows him to tell us about

25    the veracity of these documents.  Would you please do so.

Page 9681

 1            MR. RE:

 2       Q.   But -- but very shortly, please.  I just want the information

 3    which allows you to conclude that the attacks there -- described there

 4    actually occurred.

 5       A.   Well, this information was obtained from the MUP.  That's for

 6    sure, because the MUP acted through its bodies to carry out on-site

 7    investigations.  On the basis of those investigations, they determined the

 8    circumstances under which they were killed and all other relevant factors

 9    were also established.  So this information was obtained from the MUP.

10    There was an exchange of information with them.  And as we followed all of

11    this, Colonel Tomic believed it should be included in the report.

12            And as far as the Cessna is concerned, well, that's an important

13    event.  Had a Cessna been struck down, one would have been aware of the

14    fact.  An investigation would have been carried out and the department

15    would have been informed of it.  I would certainly have remembered an

16    event of that kind.  I don't exclude the possibility that fire was opened

17    on a Cessna, but as far as I can remember - and I'm 99.9 per cent sure of

18    this - a Cessna was not brought down.  Perhaps there was a helicopter that

19    was forced to land as a result of fire being opened from the ground, and

20    that concerns the entire period we're interested in.

21       Q.   In paragraph 11, in the middle, you say:  "In 1996 and 1997, the

22    KLA expanded its attacks to include VJ forces along the border with

23    Albania."

24            Then at the bottom of the paragraph, you say:  "I remember that on

25    the 28th of January, 1998, you received information that in 1997 there

Page 9682

 1    were 55 KLA attacks against the VJ along the border and 51 attacks against

 2    the VJ throughout the rest of Kosovo.  This number increased dramatically

 3    in 1998."

 4            What was the source of your information about the 106 attacks

 5    which you refer to there?

 6       A.   Well, the inspection of the 28th of January, 1998 involved a team

 7    led by myself.  We were in the counter-intelligence unit of the 3rd Army

 8    and the chief of the counter-intelligence of Rade [as interpreted] Corps

 9    was there, the chief of the 14th and 15th, and these are reports of

10    theirs.  It was on the basis of their reports that we obtained this

11    information.

12            They also had the relevant dates, and so on and so forth, but I

13    didn't put the dates in the report.  That was for the year 1997.

14       Q.   You then go on to say:  "This number increased dramatically in

15    1998."  What was your information about the number of attacks in 1998?

16       A.   On the basis of the reports that we received, on the army's

17    problems with the KLA.  In 1998 at the border, there were 196 incidents --

18    or rather, attacks, on the border with the Republic of Albania, and there

19    were 191 attacks in the territory.  So that makes a total of 367 attacks.

20    And in comparison with 1997, this was four times more attacks, so there

21    are factors that show when these attacks took place, the dates on which

22    they took place, et cetera.  So we do have the relevant documentation.

23       Q.   What was the source of your information for the figure you've just

24    given of 367 attacks?

25       A.   As far as the border incidents are concerned, we had reports from

Page 9683

 1    border units of the 53rd and 55th Border Battalion.  We had their reports

 2    about attacks on border units that they forwarded to us.  And as far as

 3    attacks on the territory are concerned, we had unit reports, the reports

 4    that were forwarded from the units that had been attacked there.

 5       Q.   And what do you define as "an attack"?

 6       A.   Well, I define something as an attack if at least a group is

 7    involved, a group of three individuals at the least are involved in an

 8    armed attack.  So I would exclude individuals, I'd exclude just one

 9    person; although, such things can happen too.  But such incidents aren't

10    that serious, so to speak.  But here I'm referring to an organised group

11    with a particular objective, a particular task in mind, and so on and so

12    forth.

13            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm sorry.  Just for purposes --

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15            MR. GUY-SMITH:   -- of clarification, are we talking about the

16    entire calendar year of 1998?

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us whether these figures covered the

18    whole of the year or ...

19            THE WITNESS:  That's correct.  That comment is quite correct.  I'm

20    referring to the entire period, the entire calendar year 1998.  But

21    Mr. Prosecutor, let me add something with regard to 1998.  I do apologise.

22            In July and August 1998, out of the total of 196, in July and

23    August there were 71 attacks.  71 attacks on border units, units of the

24    border with Albania, and 18 were on the Kosare point, which was the most

25    exposed point in that area when it came to these attacks, these armed

Page 9684

 1    attacks.

 2            MR. RE:

 3       Q.   What about before July and August?  In, say, March, April, May.

 4       A.   There were far fewer attacks then.  In mid-March there were more

 5    attacks.  In April there were quite a few attacks.  May, June, and July,

 6    and so on -- well, it depended on the situation the KLA was in, its

 7    reorganisation.  It depended on the need to arm.  So in light of these

 8    factors, the incidents became more frequent and the escalation was

 9    gradual.

10       Q.   What were the estimates of the size and strength of the KLA in

11    early 1998 based upon?  When I say "early," I mean January, March --

12    sorry, January, February, March 1998.

13       A.   Well, we believed that there were about up to 3.000 armed men who

14    had organised themselves and there were between 6 and 8.000 who had

15    weapons.  So the distinction is an important one.  There was a group of

16    about 3.000.  They were armed, but they were also organised.  They formed

17    certain units.  But then there was this other group who had -- members of

18    which had weapons, and occasionally they participated in certain

19    operations or they were involved in protective operations in villages, in

20    staffs, et cetera.

21       Q.   In which area are you referring to?

22       A.   I am referring to the entire area of Kosovo.

23       Q.   What -- upon what do you base that assessment?

24       A.   The assessment is based on information obtained through the work

25    of special services, and it was also obtained through discussions with

Page 9685

 1    imprisoned KLA members and discussions with other individuals who had

 2    direct contact with the KLA.  They provided such information, and there

 3    were also conversations in villages.  And then we put all the information

 4    together.  We collected all this information.  This information isn't 100

 5    per cent reliable, so we can say it's approximative.

 6       Q.   How did the information the military have compare with that of the

 7    state intelligence?  Or state security?

 8       A.   Yes, we had certain misunderstandings, so to speak.  Perhaps the

 9    expression is not the most appropriate one, but I think you'll understand

10    what I mean.  The army was far more realistic when it came to these

11    assessments.  Above all, we are soldiers and we have a professional

12    approach.  It's easier for us to assess the situation, and it wasn't in

13    our interest to exaggerate the situation or to diminish its seriousness.

14    Although, there was a little exaggeration on the other side, but we kept

15    to our military information.

16       Q.   Were the DB's estimates, in your view, based on everything you

17    knew, underestimates, overestimates, or just about right of the strength

18    of the KLA?

19       A.   Well, there were certain exaggerations.  Everything wasn't really

20    as it had been described.  So sometimes we would rely on their information

21    and then realise once we were in the field that the information was not in

22    fact correct.

23            So one learned to be cautious.  As the people say, once burnt,

24    twice shy.

25            MR. RE:  Can the witness please be shown Exhibit MFI P955, which

Page 9686

 1    is a publication of the Deputy Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the

 2    16th of March, 1998.

 3            When that comes on the screen, I just want you to have a look at

 4    the portion that says "Information," and where it says that:  "We believe

 5    that the operations by organs of the Ministry of Interior in Kosovo cannot

 6    be described as an internal armed conflict in the sense of Article 3 of

 7    the Geneva Conventions.  This concerns a police action directed at

 8    preventing crimes, acts of terrorism.  This is a very important

 9    distinction," and so on.

10            Now, did you see that document at the time?

11       A.   No.  This is the first time I've seen the document.

12       Q.   Now, is the information -- what is the information there

13    consistent with in your military experience?

14       A.   No.

15       Q.   All right.  Maybe I didn't phrase the question well enough.  Is it

16    consistent with what was actually occurring on the ground based on

17    everything you saw and was reported to you?

18       A.   No.  Terrorism was at stake, and here reference is made to

19    preventing crimes.  But it was a case of pure terrorism.  I don't know

20    whether someone is playing with politics here, but I believe that this

21    document has been drafted very unprofessionally.

22       Q.   Is it consistent with the view being expressed by the military to

23    the higher echelons of state?

24       A.   No, it isn't.

25       Q.   What was the military telling the higher echelons about what was

Page 9687

 1    happening in Kosovo?  That is, in that period, March 1998.

 2       A.   Well, they relayed information, had very valid evidence according

 3    to which a paramilitary formation was being established in Kosovo.  And

 4    this was to be the means for realising the political objectives by having

 5    recourse to force, by having recourse to terrorist methods, and

 6    irrefutable evidence was provided to this effect, because Yugoslavia had

 7    its own army.

 8       Q.   Paragraph 14 of your statement - if that could please be displayed

 9    in Sanction - you refer to Colonel Delic proposing -- engaging his units

10    in areas of KLA control to restore security and you say that it must be

11    understood in the context of the constitutional limit on the VJ, which

12    prohibited operations beyond the limited area of the border.  The proposed

13    operations would have required the President to declare a state of

14    emergency.

15            I just want you to elaborate on that.  What was the requirement

16    for a declaration of the state of emergency?

17       A.   According to the Law on the Defence of the Federal Republic of

18    Yugoslavia, there is the possibility of declaring three states.  One of

19    them is a state of emergency.  And such a state is declared when security

20    is under threat in a certain part of the territory and the territorial

21    integrity and sovereignty of the state is at risk.  So the threat is posed

22    by an armed organisation that has objectives that it wants to attain

23    through force, and on the basis of such a threat, it is possible to

24    declare a state of emergency.

25            MR. RE:  Can the witness please be shown MFI 2100.  Oh, 65 ter

Page 9688

 1    2100, which is a proclamation dated the 17th of May, 1998.  Can that --

 2    and I don't think that one has a -- an MFI number yet.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 4            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be marked for

 5    identification as P1174.

 6            MR. RE:  I said it was dated the 17th of May.  I'm in error.  It's

 7    actually the 18th of May.

 8       Q.   Just very briefly tell the Trial Chamber the significance of this

 9    particular proclamation extending the border zone pursuant to a -- a

10    federal government decision of the 23rd of April, 1998.  I mean, what does

11    it mean?

12       A.   Well, let me just remind you of the fact that the Army of

13    Yugoslavia had to secure the lines when it came to securing the borders.

14    That means the border itself and an area to the depth of 100 metres from

15    the border.  If the border belt or the depth of the border belt is

16    changed, that involves changing the borderline and the federal bodies are

17    responsible for such a thing, the federal government in the former

18    Yugoslavia.  So an extension can be made to the depth of 5 or 10

19    kilometres, which in fact results in tracing a new border from a military

20    and security viewpoint.

21            That's what it means.  It means that the army then has certain

22    responsibilities, certain military responsibilities to a depth of 5

23    kilometres.  So they are not just responsible for the border itself but

24    for the area to the depth of 5 kilometres from the border.  They

25    communicate -- they control disarming.  They have contact with the

Page 9689

 1    population.  They try to make sure that the population abides by

 2    well-established rules.  And the Ministry of the Interior also has greater

 3    responsibilities when it comes to public law and order in this area.  And

 4    this was a very significant decision.

 5       Q.   If I could just take you back to paragraph 17 -- sorry, 14 and the

 6    second part of it.

 7            If that could just be displayed in Sanction for a moment, on page

 8    8.

 9            You said:  "I remember that request to declare a state of

10    emergency were rejected by the state leadership for fear that it could

11    lead to civil casualties and that international reaction would be

12    negative."

13            What -- what sort of international reaction or international

14    discussion had taken place by then?

15       A.   International.

16       Q.   Yes, international.

17       A.   Well, at the time - I won't comment on how sincere this was - but

18    at the time, there was a preference to deal with the problems in Kosovo

19    via political means.  As far as the state of emergency is concerned, well,

20    introducing the state gives the army greater responsibility, and if the

21    army had more responsibility, that would have had consequences in relation

22    to the violation of the Geneva Conventions and international war law.  So

23    the political leadership didn't want to adopt such a decision.  The

24    government believed that a political solution could be found to the

25    crisis, but they also believed that the MUP was sufficient, because MUP

Page 9690

 1    had the responsibility of fighting terrorism and they believed that the

 2    MUP could be successful in dealing with the terrorist problem in

 3    cooperation with the army.

 4            MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me.  I -- at this point, I would move to

 5    strike the answer as non-responsive to the question asked.  The question

 6    was:  Well, what sort of international reaction or international

 7    discussion had taken place by then?  And there's been no answer to that

 8    question.

 9            MR. RE:  I'm happy to press the question and -- and use the answer

10    just given.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think more important is that you seek an

12    answer to the question.  That's ...

13            MR. RE:

14       Q.   Had there been international discussion about these issues and, in

15    particular, the KLA?

16       A.   Yes.  There were international political discussions about the

17    situation in Kosovo.  And I can also say that from the 5th of March until

18    about the 20th of May, 1998, the federal government had 13 contacts with

19    the representatives of Kosovo and Metohija.  This was under the auspices

20    of the International Community, but they attempted to find a political

21    solution, but it's a well-known fact that this was all to no avail.  So

22    there was much activity, but unfortunately what transpired is something

23    that I, as a human being, did not want to see happen.

24       Q.   Was there an intelligence exchange between the Federal Republic of

25    Yugoslavia and other nations about the KLA?

Page 9691

 1       A.   Yes.  Thank you for putting this question to me.  First off, back

 2    in 1997 the State Security had contacts with the high representatives of

 3    the American CIA.  I believe that the then-CIA director, who was at the

 4    head of the intelligence service in the USA, was involved in these

 5    contacts.

 6            Then in late 1997 and in 1998 we also had contacts with them, and

 7    the last one was on the 2nd of March, 1998, that we exchanged information

 8    on this matter as well as on the Islam -- on the Islamic factors, because

 9    they were quite interested in that.  And unfortunately, this transpired

10    later on in September 2001.

11       Q.   Did you participate in these particular discussions?

12       A.   Yes, I took part in these discussions.  I was even given a task to

13    develop a platform for these contacts.  We had plans for long-term

14    activities and the platform was given by the then-Chief of the General

15    Staff, General Perisic.  There was a total of five meetings.

16       Q.   You just referred to the Islamic factors.  Is that -- well, what

17    are you referring to there?

18       A.   Are you referring to the contacts and exchange of information with

19    the CIA?

20       Q.   Yes.

21       A.   They were primarily interested in the Islamic factor in

22    Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They did not speak of al-Qaeda at the time, but they

23    spoke of extremists, fundamentalists, and so on and so forth.  They were

24    especially interested in the training centres of the Mujahedin, the

25    largest one being in Zenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the other one in

Page 9692

 1    Doboj.  They were also interested in knowing who these persons were who

 2    had come from Arabic countries to Bosnia-Herzegovina and joined the Muslim

 3    army.  It was general knowledge that a Mujahedin brigade was formed in

 4    Zenica called the El Mujahedin.  To cut the long story short, we provided

 5    them with interesting information that they did not have before, but we

 6    also told them that there existed certain contacts that led down to

 7    Kosovo.  This was something we knew at the time and we were confirmed in

 8    that information.

 9            They also provided us interesting information with regard to the

10    Islamic situation and the situation in Kosovo.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re, I am looking at the clock.  Would this be a

12    suitable moment --

13            MR. RE:  Yes.

14            JUDGE ORIE:   -- to have a break?

15            Then -- one second, please.

16                          [Trial Chamber confers]

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Guy-Smith, the Chamber still owes you a decision

18    on your request to have that answer struck from the record.  Although the

19    Chamber does agree with you that it's not responsive to the question, it

20    nevertheless is not irrelevant for those reasons.

21            MR. GUY-SMITH:  Understood.  I really was more seeking a mechanism

22    whereby we get an answer to the question.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  At the same time, we're listening.

24            MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.  I appreciate it.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  If you say you request the question be struck from

Page 9693

 1    the record, then you'll get a decision.

 2            MR. GUY-SMITH:  I appreciate it very much.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Re, could you give us any time indication?

 4            MR. RE:  I think about 20 minutes.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the Defence give us any time indications?

 6            MR. EMMERSON:  Might we confer amongst ourselves over this

 7    adjournment and return to the Trial Chamber afterwards?  I -- I'm at --

 8    I'm certain that we'll finish with the witness tomorrow if that's what

 9    Your Honour is inquiring about.

10            MR. GUY-SMITH:  If that's the concern, then the answer is

11    absolutely "yes."

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think there are no other witnesses on the

13    list for this week.  And this -- tomorrow's the last day and if you're

14    confident that we'll finish the testimony of this witness by tomorrow,

15    then further details at this moment are --

16            The only thing, Mr. Harvey, I'm always look at you.  Take care

17    that you're not the last one on my list.

18            MR. HARVEY:  I'm always nodding.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  No.  My concern was that you might be the victim

20    again at the very end of the cross-examination.

21            MR. HARVEY:  I do appreciate your concern, but you'd have seen me

22    on my feet earlier if I'd had any serious worries.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for that.

24            We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.

25                          --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.

Page 9694

 1                          --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber apologises for the late start.

 3            Mr. Re, you may proceed.

 4            MR. RE:  Can we just go to annex 31, please, which is an

 5    operations -- it's a report -- a regular combat report of the 11th of May,

 6    1998, from the Djakovica forward command post, and that is 65 ter 417.

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  Does it need an exhibit number, Mr. Re?

 8            MR. RE:  65 ter number 417.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Would be, Mr. Registrar?

10            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be P1165.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12            MR. RE:

13       Q.   If you could just, please, turn to paragraph -- or point 5, where

14    it says:  "The situation in the territory."  And in the middle of that

15    paragraph, it says:

16             "According to operative information from the security service,

17    Mujahedin dressed in traditional Mujahedin dress have been observed in

18    Donji Nec village.  Women and children from surrounding armed villages

19    have been accommodated in Junik village."

20            Just before the break, you were referring to the presence of -- or

21    discussions about Mujahedin.  Were there Mujahedin operating in the

22    Dukagjin area or zone in the first half of 1998?

23       A.   Yes.

24       Q.   How many Mujahedin units were there and where were they?

25       A.   There was one unit consisting of some 50 men, the commander of

Page 9695

 1    which was Afrim Ljulji, it was active in the area of Smonica and

 2    Jablanica.  We identified another group.  We couldn't determine the

 3    strength of it, but it was active in the area of the villages of Prilep

 4    and Voksa, somewhere there in that area.  In the Dukagjin operational

 5    zone, occasionally groups of Mujahedin would arrive from the area of

 6    Drenica.  There was one group called Abu Bekir Sadik, the commander of

 7    which was Ekrem Avdija [phoen], a hodza, who was in Bosnia-Herzegovina

 8    fighting in the war in 1992 and in the Mujahedin centre in Zenica, where

 9    he completed training.  He had connections with Saudi Arabia and so on and

10    so forth.  So this was one unit.

11            We had information which was not verified that there was another

12    unit of some 40 Mujahedin active in the area of Drenica.

13            THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't catch the name of it.

14            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And they occasionally entered into

15    the Dukagjin operational zone.

16            MR. RE:

17       Q.   I'm only interested in verified information.  Were these Mujahedin

18    units within the KLA structure?

19       A.   Yes.

20       Q.   What was the source of your information about these Mujahedin

21    units?

22       A.   Primarily the tactical units, the VJ and the MUP who were active

23    in the area, came across some soldiers who were killed and had IDs on them

24    so they could be identified.  Besides, they had that -- the characteristic

25    dress and they were wearing their typical headwear and they spoke Arabic.

Page 9696

 1    So we had that sort of information and we also had information that the

 2    service obtained from their own sources, from the MUP, and so on and so

 3    forth.

 4       Q.   What was your information about how they were being funded?

 5       A.   We had quite accurate information in that regard.  I believe that

 6    my recollection is right when I recall some nine humanitarian

 7    organisations that were formed by some Arabic countries, primarily by

 8    Saudi Arabia, but there was also -- there were also some organisations

 9    from Iran, Iraq and Yemen.  Some of these humanitarian organisations had

10    their branch offices in Kosovo and Metohija too, and they raised funds for

11    them.  Some -- I apologise.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  Mr. Re, we need -- going into this area,

13    we really need great precision.  I take the witness back to -- to the last

14    question.  The last question was:  Were these Mujahedin units within the

15    KLA structure?  And the answer was yes.  And then you asked what

16    information there was.

17            If I try to analyse and understand the answer, you said: "Tactical

18    units, VJ and MUP, came across some soldiers who were killed and had IDs

19    on them so that they could be identified."  Well, that's what I still

20    understand.

21             "Besides, they had the characteristic dress."  That's also

22    something I understand.

23             "And they were wearing their typical headwear and they spoke

24    Arabic."  I take it those deceased persons did not speak Arabic any more,

25    would they?

Page 9697

 1            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were -- you're quite right in

 2    observing this, but there were some individuals who were captured.  Some

 3    of these individuals had their diaries, kept notes, and it was on that

 4    basis that we obtained our information too.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We need greatest precision here, Mr. Re,

 6    because it -- it seems that testimony in this respect brings a lot of new

 7    elements in where we -- we hardly, if at all, we have any information from

 8    elsewhere.

 9            So therefore from seeing how they're dressed, what their identity

10    is, to -- to just conclude that, therefore, they are in the KLA structure,

11    that is -- and then go on to financing, that -- and financing seems not to

12    be very much integrated in KLA finances.  So therefore if -- if you want

13    to introduce this evidence, then we really have to be very precise,

14    careful, and thoroughly explore the sources used.

15            MR. EMMERSON:  I'm sorry.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17            MR. EMMERSON:  It may be that the point that I was about to make

18    rather dovetails with the point that Your Honour has just made, but I

19    don't know whether Mr. Re is able to help me in identifying where in this

20    witness's statement or in any of the material served by the Prosecution

21    thus far we find that the Defence have been put on notice of this line of

22    examination, because it's not something that I'm aware of at all.

23            MR. RE:  Annex 31, the document which refers to the Mujahedin.

24            MR. EMMERSON:  It refers to --

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 9698

 1            MR. EMMERSON:   -- information received from the DB about

 2    individuals having been seen in an area some considerable distance remote

 3    from the subject of the questions Mr. Re is putting to the witness.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re, I think that to that extent perhaps

 5    Mr. Emmerson and I are on the same line, that it comes a bit as a surprise

 6    and it's relatively new and that, therefore, it needs full exploration in

 7    order -- if -- if you want to take this seriously.

 8            Please proceed.

 9            MR. RE:

10       Q.   Can I take you, please, Mr. Gajic, to annex 10, which is 65 ter

11    number 2098, and it's on the top peak of KLA weaponry.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Does it need a number?

13            MR. RE:  Yes, please.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours that, will be marked for

16    identification as P1148.

17            MR. RE:

18       Q.   I just want to take you to the reference to Stinger-type rockets,

19    which is in the 7th paragraph in the Serbian, and it refers to members of

20    the OVK in Glodjane have at their disposal around 10 anti-aircraft rockets

21    of Stinger type.

22            What sort of -- very briefly, what sort of weaponry are Stingers?

23    What's the significance of their having Stingers?

24       A.   This is an anti-aircraft weapon, portable.  It is fired from the

25    shoulder, of American make.  Its significance lies in the fact that the

Page 9699

 1    weapon targets aircraft flying low and helicopters too.  Since very few of

 2    the aircraft were flying low, it was the helicopters that were targeted by

 3    these weapons most.

 4       Q.   Did that present a military threat to the VJ, the presence of

 5    these Stingers?

 6       A.   Objectively speaking, yes.  Up to that point, they had had

 7    difficulties in obtaining cutting-edge weapons and they mostly carried

 8    firearms.

 9       Q.   Could you turn to paragraph 15 of your statement, please, which --

10    in which you refer to the discovery of weaponry apparently abandoned by

11    KLA members attempting to cross the Albanian border into Kosovo.

12            From your position in counter-intelligence, can you give the Trial

13    Chamber a very brief overview of the weaponry that was recovered or

14    discovered in the first six months of 1998.

15            Can that be displayed in Sanction, please.  Thank you.

16       A.   Yes.  According to information we received in the security

17    administration, down -- or up the counter-intelligence line and down the

18    command line, in the first six months some 25.000 weapons of different

19    calibre and type were recovered together with some 500.000 bullets and

20    shells of different calibre, some 10.000 hand-grenades, greater quantities

21    of hand-held launchers and mortars, mostly of 60-millimetre, not that much

22    of 82-millimetre, and several tonnes of military equipment.

23       Q.   In which territory was this?

24       A.   Roughly speaking, 90 per cent of these weapons crossed the

25    territory -- crossed the border with Albania, and the other quantities of

Page 9700

 1    weapons crossed the border of Macedonia and to -- to a lesser extent the

 2    border of Montenegro.  In essence, there were two channels across which

 3    arms were carried in.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  I'm sorry, just for my information, I interrupted the

 5    witness more or less in the middle of his answer concerning financing of

 6    Mujahedin.  I then very much encouraged you to further explore details of

 7    what had been said before.  It -- it seems that you're now covering other

 8    ground.  Is that that you give up on that or how do I have to understand

 9    that?

10            MR. RE:  Well, it's a timing issue, Your Honour.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  It's --

12            MR. RE:  If Your Honour wishes -- if the Trial Chamber wishes us

13    to explore the issue of the funding of the Mujahedin, we'll willingly do

14    that.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  No, not that.  No, of course.  My first concern was,

16    well, the Mujahedin being within the KLA structure.  Where I -- and if --

17    I do understand that if you say for reasons of time I'm not further

18    exploring that matter at this moment.

19            MR. RE:  At this moment.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

21            MR. RE:

22       Q.   Paragraph 23, Mr. Gajic.  If you could please turn to paragraph 23

23    of your statement, which refers to attacks on the 52nd Military Police

24    Battalion on the 22nd of April, 1998.  And you say:  "The 52nd Military

25    Police Battalion responded by" -- I'm sorry:  "The attack continued,

Page 9701

 1    responded by firing a double-barreled anti-aircraft gun.  The attack

 2    continued until a 155-millimetre Howitzer was fired at the attackers."

 3            Now, that's described in the annexes referred to in that

 4    paragraph.  I won't take you to those.  I just want to ask you:  In

 5    military terms, what's the significance of firing a Howitzer?  Why would

 6    they fire a Howitzer?

 7       A.   The question is an appropriate one, because Howitzer is a very

 8    powerful artillery weapon, especially the 155-millimetre Howitzer.

 9            This is my answer:  The 52nd Military Police Battalion was

10    deployed in the Lake Radonjic area, a very specific area.  It was

11    frequently attacked - and I know this on the basis of various reports, and

12    this can be checked.  We have the documentation.  Between 22nd April and

13    the 20th of July, 1998, the battalion was attacked on 16 different

14    occasions.  Sixteen.  It was deployed in a -- in an area that was quite

15    problematic because it was cutting off the roads leading to Metohija.

16            This is an opinion of mine and perhaps an explanation for this:

17    It was decided to fire a shell from a 155-millimetre Howitzer because the

18    battalion had been under frequent attacks.  This was to have a

19    psychological effect, because when a Howitzer is fired, a large crater is

20    produced by the projectile and it has its psychological impact.

21            To the best of my knowledge, had there been any victims as a

22    result of this attack, this would have been contained in the report.

23       Q.   Just go to the paragraph preceding that, paragraph 22, in which

24    you refer to the 52nd Military Police Battalion.  And you've just said

25    there were 16 attacks in that period, 22nd April to 20th of July, 1998.

Page 9702

 1            In the middle of the paragraph, you say:  "These were forward

 2    positions and acted as a bone in the throat of the terrorists."

 3            Can you explain to the Trial Chamber what you mean by "bone in the

 4    throat of the terrorists."

 5       A.   I believe I explained this.  When you look at the position of Lake

 6    Radonjic and the entire area, and in view of the continued attempts to

 7    expand the territory, to connect Kosovo and Metohija with other parts of

 8    Kosovo or vice versa, other parts of Kosovo with Metohija, and to take

 9    control of the main roads and secondary roads, you have to look at where

10    the battalion was deployed.  It was deployed in the general area which

11    made all of these attempts impossible.  It was a well-equipped and trained

12    battalion.  These were military police officers.  That's why I use this

13    term.  Meaning they were a thorn in their side.

14       Q.   Can you please turn to paragraph 24 of your statement in which you

15    start off by saying:  "Colonel Delic ordered a heightened level of

16    readiness on the 22nd of April, 1998."  And you refer to a specific order,

17    which is annex 21, which is 65 ter number 385.

18            Could that please be given a -- a number.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

20            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 385 will be marked for

21    identification as P1157.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Re, I find behind tab 21 a document with clear

23    large letters "tab 22" on the document itself.  How should I interpret

24    this?

25            MR. RE:  I don't think you should.  I suspect it's come from

Page 9703

 1    another trial.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3            MR. RE:  And has been marked in that way.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  But we are then -- because we have no 65 ter -- it's

 5    the specific order annex 21.  Under annex 21 I've got an order for

 6    deployment of stand-by forces dated the 22nd of April, 1998.  Is that the

 7    document you're talking about?

 8            MR. RE:  That's the correct document, yes.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

10            MR. RE:

11       Q.   Mr. Gajic, I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber the

12    significance of that particular order in your military experience in terms

13    of what was then happening in Kosovo.

14       A.   Yes.  Well, this is an order the form of which and the content of

15    which is quite standard.  It has to do with engaging forces that are

16    ready.  Those are forces that are ready to be engaged at any point in time

17    at all times.  It's efficient to press a button, as they say.  And the

18    commander of the 449th [as interpreted] Brigade, Delic, decided to issue

19    such an order for the reasons you can see expounded in the first paragraph

20    under item 1.

21            Item 1 concerns the escalation of KLA activities, the formation of

22    new units, massing of men; there's the threat to the territory and to the

23    borders and border posts in particular.  It wasn't possible to have access

24    to them in order to provide supplies, et cetera.  So Delic decided to

25    issue such an order to prevent this from happening and to take preventive

Page 9704

 1    action, because he believed that the situation would just become worse,

 2    would deteriorate if something wasn't done about it.

 3       Q.   Was there anything more Delic could have done at the time when he

 4    issued this order?

 5       A.   No, I think he did everything that was possible.  Had any other

 6    measures been taken, had he planned for any other steps, it would have

 7    been necessary for him to receive a preparatory order, as we term it, from

 8    the command of the Kosovo Corps.  This can be seen in the documents.  But

 9    this is what it was possible for him to do on the basis of the authority

10    he had at the time, and it wasn't necessary to request a preparatory order

11    for this to be done.

12       Q.   I just want to -- to finish, I just want to return to the issue

13    which the Trial Chamber was -- which we were at before, which was in terms

14    of the integration of Mujahedin into the KLA.  I'm just trying to find the

15    reference.

16            The question which wasn't -- which needs a little bit of further

17    clarification or expansion was the -- I asked you:  Were these Mujahedin

18    units within the KLA structure?

19            Can you precisely, with some precision, tell the Trial Chamber

20    whether they were within the KLA structure, where they were within the KLA

21    structure, and how you know this.

22       A.   Well, first of all, not a single outside unit could have come to

23    the territory of Kosovo without those in power in the KLA being aware of

24    the fact and without the political wing of the KLA being aware of the

25    fact.  It wouldn't have been possible for any single unit to do this

Page 9705

 1    without their knowledge.  And similarly, the army or the MUP would also

 2    have been aware of the presence of any unit in the territory.

 3            And secondly, Abu Bekir Sadik's unit was also the Bravo Unit.  The

 4    Bravo Unit was divided into two units, Bravo 1 and Bravo 2 and it

 5    consisted of about 40 men, and they were in the territory of the Drenica

 6    operative zone.  This is where they operated.  But occasionally, groups

 7    from Abu Bekir Sadik's unit went to the territory of Kosovo, or rather

 8    Metohija, but they went to other territories too, Malisevo and so on and

 9    so forth.  But it's essential that they were active in the territory of

10    Drenica, and that concerns both units and the unit under the command of

11    Afrim Ljulji was in Metohija.  I have seen a diagram from the beginning of

12    1999, but it was actually part of the establishment of the operative zone

13    of Dukagjin.  But that was at a subsequent time.

14       Q.   How does presence within Kosovo equate to integration within the

15    KLA?  That's what the Trial Chamber is interested in.  How do you

16    precisely know that Mujahedin present in Kosovo were actually integrated

17    within the KLA structure?

18       A.   Well, they were because there were -- there was combat activity

19    carried out there and they weren't isolated.  There were KLA units next to

20    them.  So it wasn't a secret formation that no one knew nothing about.

21            And previously they had all been to training centres in Albania

22    and they were then moved to Kosovo.  The main centre was located in

23    Tropoje.

24            MR. RE:  That's the evidence in chief.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Re.

Page 9706

 1            Mr. Emmerson, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

 2            MR. EMMERSON:  Your Honour, I am.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Gajic, you'll now be cross-examined by

 4    Mr. Emmerson, who's counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.

 5            MR. EMMERSON:  I'm going, if I may --

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, but perhaps I -- I have -- if you would not

 7    mind - perhaps you do, Mr. Emmerson, but nevertheless - there was one --

 8    there was one question -- one answer you gave which I had difficulties to

 9    fully understand.  I'll try to find it.  It should be yellow somewhere.

10    I'll come back to it when I -- once I've found it.  It might be at the end

11    of the today,.

12            Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.

13            MR. EMMERSON:  Yes.  I wonder if the witness could be handed the

14    white file of cross-examination documents.  And perhaps I should just

15    explain, first of all, to him.

16                          Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:

17       Q.   Mr. Gajic, I'm going to ask you some questions now.  And for that

18    purpose, you will be handed a white file of documents which includes some

19    of the annexes to your witness statement, but they're put in this file in

20    a slightly different order because it's the more logical way in which they

21    appear with other documents.

22            And I want to start, if I may, please, by taking you back to

23    paragraph 22 of your 92 ter statement whilst that file is being handed

24    around.

25            In paragraph 22, you describe the --

Page 9707

 1       A.   I apologise.  Item 22 in my statement?  But I don't have it.

 2    Could -- could the statement be returned to me.

 3       Q.   I'm sorry.  I wonder if the usher could return to you your 92 ter

 4    witness statement?

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the 92 ter statement be returned to the

 6    witness.

 7            MR. EMMERSON:

 8       Q.   Yes, I wonder if you could turn to paragraph 22 again.

 9            In paragraph 22 you explain the deployment of the 52nd Military

10    Police Battalion after the 24th of March.  I think you say sometime in

11    March - to various locations which you've described as a bone in the

12    throat of the terrorists, and you've explained to us just a few moments

13    ago what it was you meant by that.

14            A little lower down, you say:  "In areas where both the VJ and the

15    MUP were present, activities were coordinated through mini joint commands.

16    The VJ was authorised to use force if fired upon and also provided limited

17    support to MUP operations to ensure the security of VJ forces."

18            I just want to ask you one or two questions, first of all, about

19    those words, if I may.  First of all, was the area or were the areas to

20    which the 52nd Military Police Battalion had been deployed, were those

21    areas where both MUP and VJ were present?

22       A.   No, only the army was present.  The 52nd Military Police Battalion

23    and to a certain extent the artillery was present.

24       Q.   Could you just help us to understand, please, what the position of

25    the 52nd Military Police Battalion was within the structure of the forces

Page 9708

 1    deployed in that area.

 2            First of all, was it associated with the 549th Brigade?

 3       A.   Yes, it was in the zone of the 549th Brigade and it was

 4    deployed -- or rather, the combat groups were deployed.

 5       Q.   Sorry, combat groups of the 549th Brigade or combat groups of the

 6    52nd Military Police Battalion?

 7       A.   I'm referring to combat groups of the 52nd Military Police

 8    Battalion.  But the 549th Brigade also had its own combat groups.  On the

 9    whole, there were companies.  They didn't have the same amount of

10    battalions.

11       Q.   Just help us understand, if you will.  Did the 52nd Military

12    Police Battalion have any other base at this time in Western Kosovo, or

13    were they based exclusively in the locations that you describe in

14    paragraph 22?

15       A.   They were in the area of Radonjic Lake, as I have described that

16    in my statement.  But in addition to the 52nd Military Police Battalion

17    from the Pristina Corps, there was also the 3rd Battalion, the 3rd

18    Military Police Battalion from the 3rd Army.  Perhaps I can assist you by

19    providing you with this information, if this is what you are wondering

20    about.

21       Q.   I just want to be absolutely clear.  We need to just make sure we

22    have precision in -- in understanding your answers.  The 3rd Military

23    Police Battalion, were they also based in the Lake Radoniq area or were

24    they based somewhere else?

25       A.   They were located somewhere else.  I don't even think that they

Page 9709

 1    were in Metohija.

 2       Q.   Very well.  So let's leave them out of the picture for a moment

 3    and concentrate on the 52nd Military Police Battalion.

 4            Now, you've told us that they were deployed in the Lake Radoniq

 5    area and you've given us some specifics in your witness statement.  My

 6    question is:  Was the whole of the 52nd Military Police Battalion deployed

 7    in that area?

 8       A.   Yes, the whole of the battalion was there.  Perhaps part of the

 9    battalion remained in Pristina in order to provide security for the

10    barracks, in order to deal with logistics, but the entire battalion was

11    present there.  And they also worked in shifts, you know.

12       Q.   Yes, I see.  And how many combat groups made up the deployment of

13    the 52nd Military Police Battalion in that area?

14       A.   Well, I think, although I'm not certain, that there were two or

15    three combat groups.  I think that the police battalion was deployed in

16    two or three combat groups.

17       Q.   Can you help us, please, because we can see from some of the

18    documents that at various times the 52nd Reconnaissance and Sabotage

19    Company appears to have been deployed with the 52nd Military Police

20    Battalion in the area of the lake.  Is that correct?

21       A.   Well, I couldn't really say.  What kind of sabotage company are

22    you referring to?  There is a reconnaissance company, but as to whether

23    it's called the 52nd, well, perhaps, because the Pristina Corps used to be

24    called the 52nd Corps, but it's part of the intelligence structure.

25       Q.   We'll look at some of the documents in a moment or two, but you

Page 9710

 1    have no independent recollection of the deployment of the 52nd

 2    Reconnaissance and Sabotage Company.

 3       A.   No, I haven't.

 4       Q.   What about the 2nd Battalion of the 52nd Mixed Artillery Brigade?

 5    Same question.

 6       A.   I can't remember.  I couldn't really answer that question.  I know

 7    that there were some units from the 52nd Artillery Brigade in that area.

 8    Their command post was in Djakovica.  But the artillery -- the batteries,

 9    rather, were in the zone of the 549 Motorised Brigade.  And as far as I

10    can remember - I think it's in the documents somewhere - part of this body

11    was provided as assistance in the Radonjicka Suka area.  That's all I

12    could say.

13       Q.   Yes.  Well, we'll -- as I say, we can perhaps just look at some of

14    the documents in a moment or two.

15            Can I ask you one or two other introductory questions, please.

16    The KSJ or special unit corps, could you just explain to the Trial Chamber

17    what that is within the structure of the VJ or what it was in 1998.

18       A.   Well, the special unit corps is a unit whose command post was in

19    Belgrade, and this corps was based on the guards brigade, in fact, for a

20    certain period of time and it was occasionally involved in Kosovo, part of

21    that corps was, and that was at the time that it was necessary to send

22    such reinforcements to Kosovo, given the situation.  But I believe that it

23    was the 72nd Special Brigade that was present there from that corps.

24       Q.   Yes.  Help me if I'm -- if I'm misunderstanding this, but KSJ

25    included a number of brigades including the 2nd -- the 72nd Special

Page 9711

 1    Brigade, but it also included, did it not, the 25th Military Police

 2    Company?

 3       A.   No.

 4       Q.   Can I -- can I ask you this, please:  Was there any KSJ deployment

 5    in --

 6       A.   I apologise.  The 52nd Company of the military police is from the

 7    Military Police Battalion.  The Military Police Battalion has some

 8    companies.  It has three companies or four companies.  It's a lower-level

 9    formation in comparison to a battalion.  Below companies you have

10    platoons.  And below platoons, you have detachments.

11       Q.   I understand that.  The question I was asking you, Mr. Gajic, was

12    whether the 25th Military Police Company is properly described as a KSJ or

13    special corps unit.

14       A.   No.

15       Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  And the KSJ in general, were they

16    specialist strike troops?

17       A.   Well, "special corps unit" means that these were special forces.

18    It was from the 72nd Special Brigade, so it means it was a special strike

19    unit.  All such units are strike units.  It all depends on the tasks.

20       Q.   And were special forces deployed in the Lake Radoniq area during

21    1998, to your knowledge?

22       A.   Not to my knowledge.  Not as far as I know.

23       Q.   Very well.  Well, again we can perhaps just return to some of the

24    documents in just a little while.

25            Now, you said, I think a few moments ago, that the area in which

Page 9712

 1    the 52nd Military Police Battalion was deployed was not an area where the

 2    MUP were present.  Is that correctly understood?

 3       A.   Yes, it was part of the establishment of the 52nd Military Police

 4    Battalion.  It could have been present there if there was a patrol or

 5    something like that, because the MUP organised patrols that controlled the

 6    roads, et cetera.  So it could have gone to the area. But as far as I

 7    know, it wasn't part of the establishment.

 8       Q.   So -- just so that we understand - and I see time - there was no

 9    joint command there but the MUP were patrolling the roads in the area.  Is

10    that correctly understood?

11       A.   Yes.  The MUP was also organised.  It was also responsible for

12    controlling the roads.  That was one of its tasks.  It also had

13    check-points and patrols that they would organise.  It's quite possible

14    that they went to the area, but they weren't part of the establishment

15    structure.  As far as joint commands are concerned, well, reference is

16    made to many joint commands here.  Is there something you wanted to ask me

17    about that?  Is that what you had in mind?

18            MR. EMMERSON:  What I wanted to do --

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20            MR. EMMERSON:  -- And I don't know whether the Trial Chamber has

21    any matters it wanted to deal with before 7.00.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I would, as a matter of fact, like to put a

23    question to the witness which was totally unclear to me.  At least, his

24    answer was unclear to me.  And apart from that, the only thing I would

25    like to put on the record is that we were informed that the Defence do not

Page 9713

 1    object to the videolink, so that --

 2            MR. EMMERSON:  Correct.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  -- that response I asked for earlier has been given

 4    by now.

 5            So I would have -- I would seek one answer to be clarified, and

 6    apart from that --

 7            MR. EMMERSON:  Yes.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  -- but it might take me two minutes.

 9            MR. EMMERSON:  Well, would this be a good moment?

10                          Questioned by the Court:

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Gajic, I would like to take you back to one of

12    the answers you gave when you were examined by Mr. Re.  A document was put

13    to you in which it is explained that -- it was a document of the Ministry

14    of Foreign Affairs in which it is explained that what happens in the area

15    is not an internal armed conflict but it's just police action against

16    crime, against terrorism, and that if looked at in any different way, that

17    would mean that the KLA would be recognised as a -- as a warring party and

18    that would have all kind of implications and that, therefore, one should

19    talk about prevention of crime and action against terrorism, rather than

20    referring to internal armed conflict.

21            Now, when asked about this document -- do you remember that?

22       A.   Yes, of course.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, first of all, you said it was drafted very

24    unprofessionally.  And you started that answer by saying:  "No. Terrorism

25    was at stake and here reference is made to preventing crimes. But it was a

Page 9714

 1    case of pure terrorism."

 2            And then you said:  "I don't know whether someone is playing with

 3    politics here, but I believe that this document has been drafted very

 4    unprofessionally."

 5            From what I understood from this document, it is rather crimes or

 6    terrorism against internal armed conflict and not to make a difference

 7    between crime and terrorism.  It's, at least from what I understand, the

 8    document rather says that here the crime of terrorism is at stake.

 9            Could you tell me why you considered it so unprofessionally?

10       A.   Well, I don't think the person who drafted the document took

11    certain things into consideration.  I don't think he even was familiar

12    with the provisions of the law.

13            According to the law of the way in which -- I don't think he was

14    familiar with the way -- with the law on the use of the army and the

15    regulations that were in force.

16            And here it's quite clearly stated what terrorism is and why the

17    army and the MUP are being used.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, you also said a little bit further on in

19    your answer, when asked what the military was telling the higher echelons

20    about what was happening in Kosovo in March 1998, you said:  "Well, they

21    relayed information, had very valid evidence, coordinate with the

22    paramilitary formation was being established in Kosovo and this was to be

23    the means for realising the political objectives by having recourse to

24    force, by having recourse to terrorist methods."

25            I take it that you referred there to what is often called the

Page 9715

 1     "KLA"?  Is that correctly understood?

 2       A.   Yes, you have understood that correctly.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  And then you continued.  You said:  "And irrefutable

 4    evidence was provided to this effect because Yugoslavia had its own army."

 5            And I didn't understand that last -- that last part of your

 6    sentence:  "Irrefutable evidence was provided to this effect."  I

 7    understand that these were terrorists trying to go after their political

 8    aims.  "Because Yugoslavia had its own army."  What did you mean when you

 9    said that?

10       A.   Yugoslavia had its own army.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But it sounds, in my ears, as if by saying that

12    you give reasons why it could not be an internal armed conflict, because

13    Yugoslavia had its army.  Or is that wrongly understood?

14       A.   No.  I meant Yugoslavia as a sovereign state has its own armed

15    forces called "the Army of Yugoslavia."  Everything else that was

16    established unconstitutionally and unlawfully is nothing other than

17    paramilitary.  The KLA in this case.  But it could have been some other

18    paramilitary formation.  The Serbian Volunteer Guards, well, for example,

19    that's just a paramilitary formation that has to be removed because it --

20    it has no legal or constitutional basis.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm -- thank you for clarifying this answer.  I

22    think I now better understand.

23            We adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00 in this same courtroom.

24            Could you please keep your earphones on for a second, because I

25    wanted to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your

Page 9716

 1    testimony, whether the testimony you gave already today or whether the

 2    testimony still to be given tomorrow.  Refrain from speaking about it.

 3                          [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Registrar draws my attention to the fact that

 5    I mentioned Courtroom I; whereas, we are in Courtroom II tomorrow.  But

 6    time is the same, 9.00 in the morning.

 7                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

 8                          to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day of

 9                          October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.