Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10621

1 Tuesday, 13 November 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 [Albanian interpretation on the English Channel]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you

7 please call the case.

8 I do receive a language I do not understand on Channel 4.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

10 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj [sic].

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12 Mr. Re, are you ready to call your next witness, which is Witness

13 30? Through videolink.

14 MR. RE: The -- the information we have received is that Witness

15 30 has not appeared in the location from where the videolink has been

16 arranged.

17 In terms of the procedure, we would ask the Trial Chamber to go by

18 videolink to confirm that for themselves and to make the necessary

19 inquiries of the officials there.


21 MR. RE: And then I will suggest another course. I will suggest a

22 course following that.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then hear from you later.

24 Let's first establish whether the videolink is functioning at this

25 moment. On my screen, I see the representative of the Registry in an

Page 10622

1 environment not being one of our courtrooms.

2 [Videolink commenced]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Monkhouse, can you hear me and can you see me?

4 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes. Good afternoon, Your

5 Honours. I can hear you and see you loud and clear.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Monkhouse, please be seated.

7 Could I ask you, in the room where you're in at this moment, are

8 you alone for the time being?

9 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour, I am.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was informed that the senior regional

11 director active in the place from where the videolink is functioning would

12 be available to inform us about the activities undertaken in order to get

13 Witness 30 in the place of the videolink. Is that correct? And if so,

14 would you please invite him to join you.

15 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour. He's on

16 stand-by. I'll have him come in the room momentarily.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

18 Good afternoon. I was informed, Mr. Monkhouse, that the person

19 sitting next to you is Mr. Theodore Tax.

20 Before I address him, I'd like to turn into private session for a

21 short while.

22 [Private session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 10623











11 Page 10623 redacted. Private session.















Page 10624

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 [Open session]

20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

22 Mr. Tax, could you please --

23 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Monkhouse.

25 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Excuse me. I'm sorry for the

Page 10625

1 interruption. I need to let you know that we're no longer receiving audio

2 from The Hague.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we -- I don't know whether you are able to

4 lip-read, but we'll wait and restore the audio before we continue.

5 THE DIRECTOR: Sean, you're muted.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I see on our screen that the microphone is crossed

7 out.

8 Do you now hear us?

9 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] No.

10 [Technical Difficulty]

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Monkhouse, can you now hear us?

13 Still not.

14 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Your Honours, unfortunately we're

15 still not receiving any audio from The Hague.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we're in the hands of the technicians.

17 THE DIRECTOR: Do you hear us now, Sean?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Still nothing?

19 I suggest that we wait for another two minutes. If then the

20 videolink has not been restored, that we'll adjourn but remain stand-by

21 until we receive a message that the videolink is functioning again.

22 What we also could do is to address a few other procedural matters

23 while waiting.

24 I suggest to the parties that we continue -- continue with a few

25 procedural matters and that as soon as the videolink has been restored,

Page 10626

1 that the Chamber is informed so that we can directly -- immediately then

2 move to the videolink again.

3 The Chamber would first like to deliver the reasons for the

4 decision on the Prosecution's application for protective measures for

5 Witness 28. These are the reasons for the Chamber's decision granting the

6 protective measures of face and voice distortion and a pseudonym for

7 Witness 28.

8 I am now surprised by someone apparently calling.

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have to switch our plugs.

11 So therefore I repeat, the Chamber would now like to give reasons

12 for its decision granting the protective measures of face and voice

13 distortion and a pseudonym for Witness 28 on the 1st of November, 2007.

14 On the 1st of November, 2007, the Prosecution applied for the

15 previously mentioned protective measures for Witness 28.

16 To back its application, the Prosecution referred to a former

17 motion of the witness in which she requested to quash a subpoena and, in

18 the alternative, to testify in closed session. The motion provided that

19 the NGO for which the witness works had received threats including - and I

20 quote - "ugly letters" - unquote, and a threatening phone call after the

21 NGO had published an article in February 2007 on certain well-known public

22 figures in Kosovo. In connection with this, an e-mail with photographs of

23 the Kosovo staff of this NGO was also sent in August 2007 to a wide range

24 of persons labeling the staff "traitors" and "spies."

25 While Mr. Haradinaj and Mr. Brahimaj remained neutral, Mr. Balaj

Page 10627

1 opposed granting the requested protective measures, as he did not see any

2 basis for protective measures for the witness.

3 The Chamber recognises that this is not a clear-cut situation for

4 granting protective measures; however, it finds that the specific

5 situation of this witness warrants protective measures. The Chamber has

6 set out the standard for granting protective measures in numerous

7 decisions and therefore needs not repeat them again. Because the Kosovo

8 branch of the witness's NGO received threats by e-mail, through regular

9 mail, and by telephone after it had published an article on issues similar

10 to those which the witness testified about, the Chamber considers that the

11 witness's testimony may antagonise persons in Kosovo.

12 The parties have agreed that there is an unstable security

13 situation in Kosovo which is particularly unfavourable to witnesses who

14 appear before the Tribunal. Even though the witness does not own property

15 there, she does work for an NGO which operates an office in Kosovo. This

16 is sufficiently similar to the situation of a witness who owns property in

17 the area to apply the standard test by analogy, because the NGO's property

18 and local staff are made vulnerable through their association with the

19 witness. Moreover, the witness's employment at the NGO might necessitate

20 travels to Kosovo, which is analogous to the witness who returns to visit

21 property or family in Kosovo.

22 Even though neither the witness herself nor her family received

23 threats, the Kosovo branch of the witness's NGO and its local staff

24 received threats as mentioned above. The NGO's small field office in

25 Kosovo and its staff are closely associated with the witness, and through

Page 10628

1 this association the witness is vulnerable to threats made against staff

2 of the field office. Thus, also the first part of the test for protective

3 measures is fulfilled by analogy, because the threats against the branch

4 of the witness's NGO are in this instance interpreted by the Chamber as

5 threats against each member of the NGO as a whole. And this includes

6 Witness 28.

7 In view of the specific circumstances of this case, the Chamber

8 finds that the conditions for protective measures are met.

9 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons.

10 Mr. Registrar, could you inform us whether the videolink is

11 functioning again. If not, we have other matters on our agenda.

12 THE REGISTRAR: It has been restored, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we ...

14 Good afternoon again, Mr. Tax. You have already introduced

15 yourself. May I just verify whether you could hear us when we were in

16 private session when we discussed the details of Witness 30.

17 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, indeed, Your Honour. We did hear

18 that part, and shortly after that discussion was when we lost the

19 connection.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then my first question would be: Did the Canadian

21 authorities receive a request for Witness 30 to be subpoenaed?

22 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, we did. The Canadian authorities

23 received a request to subpoena Witness 30, and that request was dated 29

24 August 2007, an official request.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, you wanted to say something?

Page 10629

1 MR. RE: Are we in open session?

2 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session.

3 MR. RE: Does Your Honour require a redaction of what you just

4 said a moment ago? Did I misunderstand what was said earlier about the

5 country in question?

6 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session for a second.

7 [Private session]

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: We're in open session, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

25 Mr. Tax, of course, my next question would be whether the subpoena

Page 10630

1 was issued; and then, as a follow-up, whether the subpoena was served upon

2 Witness 30. And I again ask you to refrain from any details about Witness

3 30, especially place of residence.

4 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour.

5 The proceedings that follow after this country receives an

6 official request are that there is an act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in

7 Criminal Matters Act, and that's the proceedings under which we followed

8 and proceeded to court.

9 Under that act in Canada, it's required that the Minister of

10 Justice first approve the request of the state or entity that has been

11 received in this country to provide evidence by virtual presence of

12 videolink, so to speak, and under that act it allows for an ex parte

13 application before a Superior Court judge in this country.

14 Before going to the judge -- or on making the application to the

15 judge, that judge must be satisfied of two things: One, that the witness

16 resides in his or her jurisdiction; then two, that they have reasonable

17 grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that the

18 person's evidence or statement would be relevant to that investigation or,

19 in this case, prosecution of an offence.

20 So with those parameters in mind, on the 30th of October the

21 Minister of Justice approved the request to proceed. And on November the

22 7th, I made application before a Superior Court judge under the particular

23 sections, at sections 21.1 and 22.2 out of the Mutual Legal Assistance in

24 Criminal Matters Act before a Superior Court judge.

25 The application was supported by a very extensive affidavit, and

Page 10631

1 the affidavit set out --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- could I ask you to slow down because our

3 interpreters have difficulties in following you on your speed of speech.

4 I'll give you a sign --

5 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: -- once the French translation is ...

7 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

9 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] I was aware that the matter was being

10 interpreted, and I will try to speak with an appropriate rhythm.

11 As I mentioned momentarily ago, the matter then proceeded before a

12 judge of the Superior Court in the province in which Witness 30 resides.

13 That application was made before the judge on the 7th day of November,

14 2007.

15 As I mentioned, the Attorney-General of Canada, who was bringing

16 this on behalf of the Office of the Prosecution, pursuant to the official

17 request, filed a very extensive affidavit before the Justice, and the

18 affidavit really was set into four parts.

19 Just to give you the -- the extent to which the efforts were made,

20 the first section of the -- the materials in support of the motion for

21 this application was a general overview to the Justice because this is, of

22 course, a very rare application in Canada.

23 The second area referred to the offences committed and the

24 potential relevant evidence that Witness 30 could provide.

25 The third area then related - just leafing through the affidavit

Page 10632

1 very quickly - to the need for the compelling of the testimony.

2 And the final areas related to the security concerns and the

3 aspect that within Canada we also could have this matter, what is referred

4 to in the Canadian courts as "sealed" so that it would not be part of a

5 public record within the court system or available to the general public

6 of Canada.

7 We made that application. The Justice granted that application.

8 And on November 7th, the order was granted to compel Witness 30 to attend

9 this day and give evidence.

10 In addition, the Justice was satisfied that there were significant

11 issues raised in the affidavit material and that the people that would

12 be -- or who would be present in the room today would be very limited and

13 that appropriate security measures be put in place for this day. And that

14 was the extent of the matters which the Justice ordered here.

15 Of course, there was also a subpoena to attend this day at this

16 place and give evidence at this time. And, of course, as I mentioned, the

17 final matter was the sealing order.

18 The documents - in particular, the order granted by the Justice

19 and the subpoena to the witness - were served the day after the

20 application, on the evening of November 8, Thursday, November 8, 2007.

21 JUDGE ORIE: My next question is: Do you -- when you say it was

22 served upon Witness 30, that means that he received it in person?

23 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. The individual who swore the

24 affidavit in support of the motion by the Attorney-General for these

25 applications and orders was known to Witness 30 or has been known to

Page 10633

1 Witness 30 for some time, and it was that individual who served the

2 documents in person on the witness.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, do you have any additional information as

4 to how Witness 30 responded when the subpoena was served upon him?

5 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, in terms of that, Your Honour --

6 JUDGE ORIE: And may I ask you that if any of the information you

7 would like to give to this Chamber would be at risk to identify Witness 30

8 in any way or to reveal any identifying information, then please ask us to

9 go into private session.

10 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Thank you, Your Honour. I believe I can

11 provide this information without the necessity of going to the private

12 session.

13 My understanding is - and I perhaps should digress for one quick

14 moment - that when we prepared the affidavit material and the

15 requirement -- the section that I had mentioned to the Tribunal of the

16 affidavit material, there is a -- a bit of a history with the witness and

17 the individual who assisted me and swore the information contained in the

18 affidavit to be true that they had developed a relationship and had seen

19 each other on several occasions.

20 So in terms of the requirement to compel the witness, there had

21 been statements made throughout the course of the dealings that: "I would

22 not attend"; "I would attend but not say anything"; "I will go with you";

23 "I will not go with you."

24 The matter had gone through that kind of -- of a back-and-forth

25 throughout, and on the date that the order was obtained, the Justice was

Page 10634

1 told, as it is stated in the affidavit material, that in the days leading

2 up to the application, a day or two before, the witness had indicated that

3 they would attend in this session today and in all likelihood not say a

4 great deal, answer questions, as many as they could.

5 That's what we believed. That's what we told the Justice on

6 November the 7th. Of course, as I mentioned, the Justice granted the

7 order.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I interrupt you just for one second.

9 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- if you allow me.

11 You said: "Indicated that they would attend," which is not --

12 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. I'm -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- entirely clear to me.

14 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] I'm trying to be -- not necessarily

15 identify the gender of the witness.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if you -- then if that was the purpose,

17 then I understand that you were talking about he or she would attend.

18 Yes. Please proceed.

19 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. So the next evening my

20 understanding was and I was informed that the subpoena was served and

21 there was little conversation that day, but I believe very shortly after

22 service a statement was made that, "I will not be coming to the

23 video-conference location."

24 And on two occasions since, both -- I believe Friday, November 9th

25 and again either on Sunday last or yesterday again the individual verified

Page 10635

1 with Witness 30 whether or not they would be attending, and the statement

2 was made, "No."

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then finally, of course, that's what we are for

4 here, that you today could establish that Witness 30 did not show up at

5 the place where he was subpoenaed to appear.

6 Is that correctly understood?

7 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] That is indeed the situation, Your

8 Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.

10 Now, may I ask you the following question: I take it that all the

11 documents relating to this subpoena will be kept in your archives? Or in

12 your files?

13 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. Yes, indeed. They are kept in our

14 archives. They are, of course, as I mentioned previously, in the court as

15 well, but they have been sealed.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not asking you at this moment any further.

17 But so if in future the Tribunal would be in need of receiving certified

18 copies of even the originals, that they are still kept in such a condition

19 that not for -- that they are available if you would decide to grant such

20 a request.

21 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, indeed. I do have an original set

22 of all documents. And I guess what we would have to do is to determine

23 down the road and not speculate today --


25 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] -- on what that application might be or

Page 10636

1 what --


3 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] -- the response would be, Your Honour,

4 but I can confirm that I do have original documentation.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Most important for me was to establish that all

6 the documentation is -- is kept and therefore is physically present if any

7 application would be made in the future to receive copies or originals of

8 those documents. I'm not speculating on whether ever such a request will

9 be there, but it's at least now established that the file is and will be

10 there.

11 Is there anything else at this moment which you consider to be

12 relevant to bring to our attention?

13 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, having heard the oral reasons just

14 a moment ago involving another witness, I should mention that --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, that was public. I was

16 not aware that you were listening in to when we dealt with the procedural

17 matter just in order to fill our time. But you're referring to protective

18 measures. Protective measures -- I don't know whether you want to address

19 that issue. We usually wait for applications by the parties, as an

20 application was made for Witness 30 and where protective measures had been

21 granted in respect of him.

22 So if there's anything relevant to add to that ...

23 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, I would just say obviously Witness

24 30 is not here today, but in the materials there was a request by Witness

25 30 in terms of a letter that was written that they wanted to ensure that

Page 10637

1 myself on behalf of the Attorney General was aware of the witness's

2 concerns on an early date and the individual who assisted me in the

3 affidavit made sure that I received a copy of that letter and indeed that

4 letter was put in the material that went before the Superior Court justice

5 in this country.

6 In addition, we also informed the Justice of concerns that the

7 witness had in terms of safety and security that had come even as late as

8 a day or two before the application was made. And we did inform the

9 justice of those. It was for those reasons that the justice felt there

10 was a need to compel the witness and, of course, provide the security

11 measures that could be placed on the application in this country.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That is then now on the record.

13 I'm now looking at the parties in the courtroom here in The Hague,

14 whether there's anything to be raised at this moment.

15 Mr. Emmerson.

16 MR. EMMERSON: Just one matter that I would like to clarify with

17 this witness in private session, please.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. "With this witness," I take it that --

19 MR. EMMERSON: With Mr. Tax.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You --

21 MR. EMMERSON: I see --

22 JUDGE ORIE: -- correctly -- well, you say "this witness," and

23 then you say "Mr. Tax."

24 Of course, I've considered whether the information Mr. Tax gives

25 us should be given without any solemn declaration. If the parties

Page 10638

1 would -- would want that, then --

2 MR. EMMERSON: I'm perfectly content for my part with the form in

3 which the --

4 JUDGE ORIE: You're perfectly content.

5 That's true for other Defence counsel as well? For you, Mr. Re,

6 as well?

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Since I understand that the information being

8 given by Mr. Tax is informative in nature so that the Tribunal is apprised

9 of the situation, I certainly don't require his sworn testimony.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we return for a while --

11 MR. EMMERSON: Just before Your Honour does, I saw that Mr. Re was

12 rising to his feet. If he has issues that he wishes to raise with

13 Mr. Tax, then might I ask that he do them first.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.

15 MR. RE: The question I have, if I could put to Mr. Tax through,

16 of course, the Trial Chamber, is in relation to the service of the

17 subpoena.

18 Mr. Tax, you mentioned a few moments ago that it had been served.

19 Is there a -- a document in the nature of an affidavit of service? Could

20 you just describe to us if there is, what the document is, whether it's

21 one which the witness himself has signed or whether it contains the

22 information which the serving officer or the conversation with the

23 witness --

24 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] At the moment, Mr. Re, I can indicate

25 that I have not seen an affidavit of service. The individual who did

Page 10639

1 serve the documents confirmed to me by e-mail on the evening and again the

2 next day of the service. It was my belief at the time that Witness 30

3 would be present in court today by videolink. So I did not ask the

4 individual to prepare an affidavit of service.

5 Obviously, circumstances have changed over the last few days and

6 we may require that affidavit to be executed.

7 MR. RE: Just a procedural follow-up to that. In -- under

8 Canadian procedural law, is -- is it the situation that the person serving

9 the subpoena does an affidavit when serving it, and/or does the person who

10 receives it have to sign a receipt and maybe write something on it? I

11 mean, are there two documents?

12 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, thank you for the question. It can

13 be either way. Normally with nonlegal service, in the sense of on a -- a

14 service on another lawyer of -- in this country, normally you would not

15 sign an affidavit but the lawyer would signify that the document had been

16 received.

17 When you're dealing with witnesses or other people involved in a

18 court process who may have some testimony to bring or if you're serving a

19 document on an unrepresented litigant, then indeed you would ask the

20 serving officer to prepare an affidavit of service, attach a copy, a true

21 copy, of the documents that were served, and complete that affidavit.

22 In this case, I do not believe that the individual asked for any

23 signature on the documents themselves but, rather, would be prepared to

24 swear an affidavit of service with a true copy attached of what was

25 served.

Page 10640

1 MR. RE: There is another matter I'd like to raise, but I'd like

2 to do that in private session.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we turn into private session.

4 And, Mr. Emmerson, then I take it that we'll allow Mr. Re to

5 continue and then you would raise the matter you would like to raise after

6 that.

7 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 10641











11 Pages 10641-10646 redacted. Private session.















Page 10647

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

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

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

9 If there is no other matter to be raised at this moment in

10 relation to the videolink testimony of Witness 30, I would like to thank

11 you, Mr. Tax, for attending and explaining to us the procedure that has

12 been followed until now. And this concludes the videolink. Therefore it

13 can be disconnected.

14 [Videolink concluded]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we have -- before we call the

16 next witness, that we may have an early break and then hear the testimony

17 of the witness after the break, because we'll not -- certainly not finish

18 it before the break, I take it.

19 But before we do so, I had a few other procedural matters on my

20 list. One serves as guidance for the Defence.

21 We have received a motion --

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have one motion before us which relates to

24 the admission into evidence of the Human Rights Watch report "Humanitarian

25 Law Violations in Kosovo." And I think, first of all, that Judge Hoepfel

Page 10648

1 as a few questions in relation to one of the paragraphs of this motion.

2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Thank you.

3 In this motion, which is public -- I see that right; yes?

4 We would like to have some orientation to get it right. Please,

5 Mr. Re, can you help us in paragraph 20.

6 MR. RE: I don't -- I actually don't have it in my hands, Your

7 Honour.


9 MR. RE: I'm just trying to get it up on the computer screen.

10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Or could you maybe bring it at a break. We can

11 also --

12 JUDGE ORIE: If you can get it on the screen, that would --

13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. That would be fine.

14 It would relate to paragraph 20, page 6 of the Prosecution's

15 submission. Once you have it on the screen, you can --

16 MR. RE: I have it. It's in front of me.

17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. Please, you are referring to some of the

18 murder victims allegedly named in the fourth amended indictment and being

19 listed in this chapter of the report whose admission you are seeking. And

20 here's a series of names, and I would like to ask you about the second,

21 third, fourth, and fifth name: Milica and Milos Radosevic, first, and

22 then Dara and Vukosava Vujosevic. Please, to get it right, what do you --

23 where do you consider them to be named in the indictment you are giving at

24 footnote 17? And the footnote in itself seems not to be completely in

25 order, but let us first speak of Milica and Milos Radosevic. Would that

Page 10649

1 be Radunovic? Because the report you are seeking to admit speaks of

2 Radosevic, but -- there is a slight mix-up, I think.

3 As, of course, we had all kinds of names.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And maybe just to give you a clearer idea about

6 the other questions, the next names were Dara and Vukosava Vujosevic,

7 unknown to us at first sight, at least.

8 MR. RE: That -- those are the victims listed in counts 7 and 8,

9 the Serb sisters, Vukosava Markovic and Darinka Kovac are in fact --

10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, what I mean -- okay.

11 MR. RE: They are Dara and Vukosava Vujosevic.

12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: 7 and 8.

13 MR. RE: There's a statement of -- I think of Witness --

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

15 MR. RE: There's a 92 bis statement which --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Maiden names?

17 MR. RE: Which gives their names. Those are their maiden names.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Maiden name, yes.

19 MR. RE: The names in the report are their married names.


21 MR. RE: I'm sorry, the names in the indictment are the married

22 names, but they're the same people.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The same people.

24 And as to the name Radosevic, can you help us? I mean, it's maybe

25 a little complicated for you at this very moment to clarify, but then --

Page 10650

1 MR. RE: It's counts 11 and 12. Can I get back to you? I will

2 check it.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That would be -- yes, please.

4 MR. RE: I'll get back to you after the break.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And then as to the last three names being

6 mentioned here as contained -- as being contained in pages 83 and 84.

7 Gurim, which would be a typo -- a typo in there, the report, in the Human

8 Rights Watch report. But let us say -- Gurim, it says, Bejta,

9 Agron Berisa and Ivan Zaric.

10 MR. RE: That should be counts 23 and 24. I'm sorry, that is a

11 mistake.

12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Is it --

13 MR. RE: Yes, I apologise. It's just the wrong counts. It's 23

14 and 24.

15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That's okay.

16 MR. RE: Footnote --

17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The counts 11 and 12 as well as the counts -- no,

18 the counts 19 and 20. So easy it is to mix it up. Are they really

19 containing names which would be referred to in the Human Rights Watch

20 report? If you would find --

21 MR. RE: Yes, they're there. Agron Berisa, Gurim Bejta, and

22 Ivan Zaric, counts 23 and 24. And on the Human Rights Watch report --

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Oh, yes, this is instead of 19 and 20. I see, the

24 23 and 24.

25 MR. RE: Okay. I did -- it's simply -- I've written 19 and 20,

Page 10651

1 but it should be 23 and 24. I correct that.

2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That's okay.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then perhaps in 11 and 12 where you said --

4 when "Milos" is mentioned, it's always Milos Radunovic, not Radosevic. Is

5 that --

6 MR. RE: I think that's right, but I will check it. I just need a

7 moment to check it. I probably have to do it outside.

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yeah, whereas in the Human Rights Watch it's

9 Radosevic. That's maybe something you could clarify. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then in relation to this same submission to

11 admit the Human Rights Watch report, the Chamber found that much of the

12 information in the report is unspecific or not easy to test on the

13 basis -- on what the basis of the report. Where, however, the information

14 is specific and if that would also be relevant information, we often have

15 better evidence than this evidence contained in the report.

16 The Chamber further observes that some parts of the report present

17 legal findings which are for the Chamber to be made, and it's not entirely

18 clear how you would consider findings of others when you have to make up

19 your own mind as far as legal issues are concerned. Of course, the

20 Chamber will have to make up it -- its legal findings on the basis of the

21 facts that the Chamber has established.

22 Now, for the Defence, if the Defence responds to it, the Chamber

23 would like to ask the Defence to -- certainly not to forget to address

24 Chapter 3, "Violations in the Drenica Region," pages 18 to 37.

25 Then a few other matters.

Page 10652

1 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour.


3 MR. EMMERSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Passing on, in

4 relation to the passage that Judge Hoepfel was inquiring about concerning

5 paragraph 20, it -- it is our understanding, based not only on the

6 testimony that's been heard in this court and witness statements but also

7 testimony in other cases, that the source of the material in that report

8 that relates to individuals named on this indictment is the interviews

9 conducted by two witnesses whom the Tribunal has directly heard testimony

10 from, Witness 28 and Marijana Andjelkovic. In other words, what one has

11 in this report is a Human Rights Watch re -- re-circulation of information

12 which has been the subject of direct testimony from those two individuals

13 and that is indeed the direct source for that material.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I said before that some of this information

15 that the Chamber has received better evidence, that ...

16 Then the Chamber would like to give an oral decision. It is a

17 one-liner. And, of course, the reasons will follow, but already to inform

18 the parties about the decision the Chamber has taken to strike the

19 testimony of Witness 55 from the record. Reasons will follow in writing.

20 Another matter still pending - and I'm addressing you,

21 Mr. Guy-Smith - that is, excerpts, excerpts of human rights reports you

22 asked to be marked for identification and until now we have 195 up to and

23 including 203.

24 You then announced that you had other reports which you'd like to

25 be marked, MFI'd. As you may remember, the Chamber was not giving you

Page 10653

1 great encouragement to --

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do.

3 JUDGE ORIE: -- proceed with this. Therefore the Chamber has

4 asked you to reconsider whether what is in the transcript would not do and

5 whether you would still press D195 to 203 to be admitted into evidence.

6 And, of course, a related question is whether you still seek the other

7 human rights reports to be MFI'd, because then they should be identified

8 clearly and then an MFI number should be given to it.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe -- I believe - but I may be mistaken -

10 but I believe that they well already have MFI numbers. I am at the

11 present time considering those specific daily reports and whether or not I

12 may come back with a alternative option, because I do appreciate the fact

13 that there's a fair amount of information in them, or whether or not I am

14 going to take the Chamber's suggestion. I'm in the process of doing that,

15 not right now obviously but it's something that I am in the process of

16 doing, and I will get back to you, hopefully, no later than tomorrow.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is appreciated. So that would then be in

18 relation to both the numbers I already mentioned and the ones where you

19 said --

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct, yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- they have been MFI'd. So the whole bunch of it.

22 MR. GUY-SMITH: The whole bunch, yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.

24 Mr. Re.

25 MR. RE: Can I just -- I just seek a technical clarification, the

Page 10654

1 one-line oral decision. The testimony to be stricken from the record.

2 It's a technical question. By that, does the Trial Chamber mean will

3 not -- although it's been given, will not consider that evidence, as

4 opposed to delete it entirely from the record, because it is in fact part

5 of the trial record.

6 I mean the Prosecution's position, of course, should be that it

7 remains on the record but not be considered, given that it's been given.

8 And the Trial Chamber just says we have heard it but just don't -- don't

9 consider it.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll give you a technical answer after the break.

12 Then we'll have a break until ten minutes past 4.00.

13 --- Recess taken at 3.39 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we hear the testimony of the next witness,

16 Mr. Re, you were invited to -- to be ready to announce in court today

17 whether you would have any objection against the admission of D167 up to

18 and including D178.

19 MR. RE: These are the --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Stijovic.

21 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I haven't -- I haven't brought them with me at

22 the moment. Could I possibly ask for an indulgence until this witness

23 finishes so I can give you the answer then?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.

25 And then also perhaps check whether D174 is uploaded in e-court.

Page 10655

1 We had some difficulties in locating it. So if you would then include

2 that. That's one issue.

3 Then, Mr. Re, I still owe you a technical explanation, that is,

4 about Witness 55. Where I said the testimony will be stricken from the

5 record, what -- that's not what we are physically doing. What we're

6 doing, we are excluding the evidence of Witness 55 under Rule 89(D). That

7 means it's still on the record for many, many reasons. It could be that

8 the Appeals Chamber ever wants to look at it or to decide whether our

9 decision was correct or not in this respect. But that's the technical

10 part of our decision.

11 Then are you ready to call your next witness?

12 MR. RE: Yes. I call Ahmet Ukaj.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is it Mr. Kearney who -- or is it you? I

14 see Mr. Kearney since a long time be present in court again, so I don't

15 know --

16 MR. RE: He's been on sick leave. I'm taking the witness. But

17 he's -- he's second chair.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And then it's good to hear that he has recovered.

19 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honours. And it's good to see

20 everyone as well.

21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22 [The witness entered court]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Ukaj. Can you hear me in a

24 language you understand?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 10656

1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Ukaj, before you give evidence in this

2 court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn

3 declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

4 but the truth. The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher. And I'd

5 like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.

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

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

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ukaj. Please be seated.


10 [Witness answered through interpreter].

11 JUDGE ORIE: You will first be examined by Mr. Re, who is counsel

12 for the Prosecution.

13 Mr. Re, you may proceed.

14 Examination by Mr. Re:

15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ukaj.

16 A. Good afternoon.

17 Q. Is your name Ahmet Ukaj, were you born on the 16th of July, 1968?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In Vranoc e Vogel, Decan --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- Kosovo? Are you a farmer by occupation?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you still live there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I want to show you a statement which you have --

Page 10657

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 I want to show you a statement which is in front of you, which has

4 the date of the 11th of November, 2007 and is 65 ter document 2166. Can

5 you please just take a look at the document, which is in Albanian. Does

6 it -- have you signed that document?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is the statement which you signed on the 11th of November - that

9 was on Sunday - is it a true statement?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would you give the evidence contained in that statement if you

12 were asked the same questions in court today?

13 A. Yes.

14 MR. RE: May it be received into evidence. I have not received

15 any objections to any portions of it from the Defence.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at the Defence, I see that there are no

17 objections. But it first needs a number to be assigned.

18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1226, MFI, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And it is admitted into evidence, because

20 there are no objections.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

22 MR. RE: I have a short summary of the statement.

23 I haven't explained it to the witness. If -- if Your Honour

24 wishes to, please.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it's good for the witness that he

Page 10658

1 understands.

2 Mr. Ukaj, for reasons of efficiency, the Chamber receives most of

3 your testimony through a written statement. But since the -- since the

4 outside world would not know what the questions are about, it will be put

5 to you at a later stage. A summary will be read. That summary is not

6 evidence. The evidence is your statement.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

8 MR. RE: This is the summary of the Rule 92 ter statement of

9 Ahmet Ukaj.

10 Ahmet Ukaj was a KLA soldier in 1998, serving first in his home

11 village of Vranoc and then serving in the KLA unit based in Baran.

12 One morning in August of 1998, Mr. Ukaj saw Sanije Balaj entering

13 the Red School Building in Baran near the military headquarters with a

14 group of men. She left about 15 minutes later with the group of men

15 through the main gate of the school in the direction of the main road and

16 out of sight.

17 Later that day Mr. Ukaj returned to his home village of Vranoc and

18 was told that two men had been seen leading a woman into some woods near

19 Lugu i Isufit and that shots had been heard. Mr. Ukaj went with a group

20 of men to the area to investigate. In the woods, Mr. Ukaj heard someone

21 say, "Stop," followed by the cocking of a rifle. A man named Galani, or

22 Galan, was pointing a Kalashnikov and said, "Yes, I have killed her." He

23 ordered Mr. Ukaj and his brother to remain there and ordered the others to

24 leave.

25 Mr. Ukaj then noticed that another person, Avni Krasniqi, was

Page 10659

1 nearby. Mr. Krasniqi said that he was unable to put the body in the

2 grave. Galani waved his weapon and ordered Mr. Ukaj to help Mr. Krasniqi.

3 Mr. Ukaj saw a shallow grave with the body of a young woman nearby - the

4 same woman he had seen that morning in Baran; that was Sanije Balaj - with

5 a gunshot wound to the chest. Mr. Ukaj, who was very frightened, helped

6 Mr. Krasniqi put the body in the grave. Galani then told Mr. Ukaj and his

7 brother to leave the scene, and they returned to Vranoc.

8 That is -- that completes the summary of the Rule 92 statement of

9 Ahmet Ukaj.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Ukaj, I just want to ask you a few clarifying questions

11 to assist the Trial Chamber understand the evidence which is in your

12 statement and show you one map and some -- three photographs.

13 And, first of all, I want to take you to paragraph 9 of your

14 statement, when you say: "At about 9.00 or 9.30 in the morning" - that's

15 that day in August 1998 - "I saw a young woman whom I later found out was

16 Sanije Balaj being brought into the Red School Building."

17 MR. RE: While the witness is reading that, could Exhibit P326

18 please be put onto the screen, and specifically the second photograph.

19 Q. And you say: "I was about 20 to 25 metres away from the school

20 building in which the Baran headquarters was located. She was with a

21 group of people whom I did not recognise. Nazif Ramabaja had his office

22 in the other school, about 50 to 100 metres away."

23 There's a photograph about to appear on the screen. Is that a

24 photograph of the school?

25 A. No. Not the Red School.

Page 10660

1 Q. Is that a photograph of the other school, where the -- where

2 Nazif Ramabaja had his office?

3 A. The school that is nearby.

4 Q. Thank you. Okay. Now, I want you to describe to the -- can you

5 see in that photograph where you were standing when Sanije Balaj was

6 brought in that morning?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Now, I want you to describe to the Trial Chamber what you saw when

9 you said she was being brought in. How was she being brought in?

10 A. I just saw her entering the school just like anyone would have.

11 Q. Where were the other men -- where was the group of people you did

12 not recognise in relation to her when she was being brought in? What was

13 that group of people doing?

14 A. They were walking along with her and entered the school together.

15 Q. In your next paragraph, paragraph 10, you said: "About 15 minutes

16 later, I saw her leave with four or five men."

17 And then two sentences down: "I learned that her name -- her name

18 was Sanije Balaj only about 10 to 12 days later when Fadil Nimoni called

19 me to Prapaqan to make a statement about what I knew."

20 Can you just tell the Court very briefly what the process was in

21 relation to your making a statement. How did you come to make a statement

22 and what did you do?

23 A. I found out that it was Sanije when I gave the statement in

24 Prapaqan.

25 Q. What was the process of giving the statement? What did you do? I

Page 10661

1 mean, was someone asking you questions and recording it, or what process

2 was employed?

3 A. There was the late Fadil Nimoni and someone else whom I didn't

4 know.

5 Q. Did they ask you questions?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. What about?

8 A. They asked me about what I have put in the statement, and I have

9 explained in it what they asked me.

10 Q. When you say "a statement," did they take notes when you spoke to

11 them or did you write something out? Did they type? Did -- was it

12 handwritten? Or was it just a spoken statement?

13 A. I didn't write down anything. They did.

14 Q. Did you sign anything?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did they ask you to read it before you signed it?

17 A. I don't remember.

18 Q. Do you remember whether you got a copy of it?

19 A. No, I didn't.

20 Q. Do you know what they did with the statement?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. What did you tell them had happened? Was it different to what

23 you've told the Court in this statement today?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Now, did you testify in a trial in Kosovo against Idriz Gashi on

Page 10662

1 the 17th of May this year and give evidence similar to what's in your

2 statement in that trial?

3 A. Yes. I was asked to go there, and I went.

4 Q. I'm just going to ask you about -- when you went to the woods and

5 where you went and seeing the body there, and I want to show you two

6 photographs, which are Exhibit P925. And my question is whether you can

7 identify the two locations as where the body was or whether it was that

8 area. So the two photographs will be coming in a moment.

9 The first photograph has ERN U0143926 and it's got a man taking a

10 photograph and a -- next to a muddy watercourse. Was that in the area

11 where Sanije Balaj's body was buried?

12 A. It must be approximately on the left side, a little bit above.

13 Q. Above it you can see some bushes. Was it in the bushes to the --

14 on the left side, that is, to the right of the man taking the photograph

15 or holding the camera?

16 A. On my left side, approximately.

17 Q. Just to clarify that, was the place where the body was in the

18 bushes in the top left-hand side of that photograph?

19 A. Yes, on the left side.

20 MR. RE: Is that sufficient for the Trial Chamber's purpose?


22 MR. RE:

23 Q. If you could turn to the second photograph, please, which has ERN

24 U0143933.

25 When it appears on the screen, please tell the Trial Chamber what

Page 10663

1 that is a photograph of.

2 A. It is before you go to the forest. I don't see anything specific

3 about it.

4 Q. Okay. Is that the area where you went that afternoon and were

5 shown the body of Sanije Balaj and asked to help put it into a grave?

6 That is, where you encountered Avni Krasniqi and Galani?

7 A. Yes, this is the area.

8 Q. Now, in paragraph 15 of your statement, you said that: "Galani

9 said he had killed her because he had found her with a notebook. He

10 showed us a notebook the size of a cigarette packet and read aloud some

11 Serbian names from the notebook. I can remember the names Vule and Vek. I

12 recognise these names as those of Serb police officers who had I heard

13 were working in Decan. He also said that the notebook contained the phone

14 numbers of some Serbs."

15 My question is: Did you know who these police officers were

16 yourself or you had only heard their names? And if so, how did you know

17 they were Serb police officers?

18 A. No, I didn't know them. I knew them only by name.

19 Q. How did you know they were Serb police officers?

20 A. Everybody knew that. Not only me.

21 Q. And the last thing I want to ask you about is in the last

22 paragraph of your statement, it refers to a map on which you marked the

23 villages under -- which you knew or heard to be under KLA control.

24 MR. RE: Can the witness please be shown 65 ter 2171, which was

25 annexed to the witness's statement.

Page 10664

1 Q. And on it you have said this: "Generally mark the KLA territory

2 from -- KLA territorial control from the end of May until the Serb

3 offensive of September 1998. The villages are identified with a black

4 dot." And you've indicated Serb forces with the letter "S."

5 I just want you to confirm that that is the map that you have

6 marked with a black dot and put the "S" on.

7 A. Yes, this was the map, and these were the areas I knew were under

8 KLA control.

9 MR. RE: May that also be received into evidence.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, the "S," where do I find the "S"? I see the

11 black dots, but ...

12 MR. RE: Right at the very bottom.

13 Maybe if the witness marked it in red with --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then it's --

15 MR. RE: Would you like it --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Outside -- no, I see it's outside the -- more or less

17 I was looking for it on the map itself, where it is just below.

18 Yes. That's clear to me.

19 Mr. Registrar, would you please assign a number to this map.

20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1227, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

22 Any objection? No objections. Then the map marked by the witness

23 P1227 is admitted into evidence.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. RE: That's the evidence in chief.

Page 10665

1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Emmerson, you are the first one to

2 cross-examine the witness?

3 MR. EMMERSON: I believe so, yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ukaj, you'll now be cross-examined by

5 Mr. Emmerson, who's counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.

6 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.


8 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:

9 Q. Just one or two matters, Mr. Ukaj, if I may. First of all, in

10 paragraph 12 and 13 of your witness statement, you refer to information

11 that was provided to you by Dul, D-u-l, the son of Zymer Hasanaj. And I

12 just want to be clear about it. The information that Dul provided to you

13 was that he had seen not one, but two men taking the woman into the forest

14 or the woods; correct?

15 A. This is what Zymer told us.

16 Q. And is it also what his son, Dul, told you?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, this answer could create ...

18 In your statement, it says that you were told that -- that Dul had

19 told that he had seen two men taking a woman into the forest. Now --

20 MR. EMMERSON: I think to be -- sorry, just before Your Honour

21 completes the question.


23 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry. I think to be fair, at paragraph 12 the

24 witness says: "Zymer said that his young son, Dul, had told him."

25 So at the end of paragraph 12 --

Page 10666


2 MR. EMMERSON: -- the witness is referring to communication passed

3 to him. I'm sorry.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only issue is whether the one or the two

5 was correctly understood.

6 Now, what you heard, what did Zymer tell you about what Dul, his

7 rather young son, had told him, whether it was one or whether there were

8 two men taking a woman into the woods?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He said there were two men.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we look at the transcript, Mr. Emmerson,

11 there could be ...

12 Let me just check whether ...

13 Yes, please proceed.


15 Q. In paragraph 13, in the last sentence you say: "Dul took us to

16 where he had seen the two men and a woman."

17 Can I be clear: Did Dul tell you that the place that he was

18 taking you to was a place where he had seen two men and a woman?

19 A. Duli came with us, because Zymer took us along with Dul, because

20 it was Dul who had previously told Zymer the place where he had seen the

21 man and the woman.

22 Q. All I want to be clear about is whether you heard Dul himself tell

23 you that there were two men.

24 A. No.

25 Q. Going back, please, to paragraph 9 of your witness statement,

Page 10667

1 where you describe seeing this woman who you later found out to be

2 Sanije Balaj being brought into the Red School Building, you say that she

3 was with a group of people whom you did not recognise, and you say that

4 you were about 20 to 25 metres away at the time.

5 I want to put to you a passage from a statement that has been

6 (redacted) He says

7 in his statement as follows:

8 "About 50 metres from the school which served as the KLA barracks

9 three or four soldiers came out on the road, which was very narrow as it

10 passed through the village. One of them was Mete Krasniqi and he signaled

11 to us to stop. He spoke to Hamdi, who was in the driver's seat. He asked

12 where we were going. And when we answered, he said that Sanije could go

13 no further with us because she had to be questioned. Hamdi said, 'No, she

14 is with us.' Hamdi and I got out of the car. Avni Krasniqi was standing

15 next to a white Mercedes minivan behind our car and I went to speak to

16 him. He showed me a black -- he showed me a black notebook with names of

17 people whom he said had to be interrogated and said that she could not

18 continue with us."

19 Now, I just want to ask you: The group of men that you weren't

20 able to recognise, did they -- are you able to tell us now whether your

21 inability to recognise them is because of the distance that they were away

22 from you, or could you see their features and are you able to say that

23 they were people you did not know?

24 A. The road where Sanije Balaj was stopped is behind the school. I

25 was in front of the school. So from where I was, I couldn't see the place

Page 10668

1 where she was stopped.

2 Q. I see. You did, though, see the group of men who were with her -

3 is that correct - as she was walking towards the Red School?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And were they men whose features you could clearly make out?

6 A. I couldn't make out their features because people were constantly

7 going in and out of the school. She was simply one of the many persons

8 who went in or came out of the school.

9 Q. Do you know whether Mete or Avni Krasniqi were with her as she was

10 walking into the school?

11 A. I don't remember that. I don't remember.

12 Q. You obviously knew what Mete and Avni looked like at the time.

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 Q. And -- and am I right in thinking you have a family relationship

15 with Mete and Avni Krasniqi?

16 A. [No verbal response]

17 Q. No?

18 A. No.

19 MR. EMMERSON: Okay.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: No questions.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey.

23 MR. HARVEY: No questions.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, is there ...?

25 MR. RE: No.

Page 10669

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ukaj, this concludes your testimony in this

3 court. You might think that only a few questions were put to you, but of

4 course the Chamber has read your statement, and the questions were mainly

5 clarifying your statement and asking for additional information.

6 Mr. Ukaj, I'd like to thank you very much for coming to this court

7 and to answer the questions the parties have put to you, and I hope you

8 have a safe trip home again.

9 Would you please --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And through you I want

11 to greet the three accused for whom I cherish great sympathy.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's not for a witness to say, but -- well,

13 you have said it now.

14 Would you please follow Madam Usher --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise then.


17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Guy-Smith, Mr. Harvey, do

20 you have any procedural matters to be raised at this moment? Because we

21 have no witnesses at this moment available, do we?

22 MR. RE: I have one slight procedural matter, which is 65 ter

23 document number 680, which was a photograph shown to Professor

24 Dusan Dunjic during the course of his testimony but did not seem to have

25 received a -- an exhibit number. It is at 7 -- page 7201 of the

Page 10670

1 transcript.

2 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very sorry. Can I interrupt? And the reason I

3 did is simply a matter of timing.

4 I had confidently used the name of (redacted) in open session

5 in -- in the knowledge that I thought there was no protective measure in

6 respect of him. But I'm receiving an indication that there may be, and so

7 can I simply - and I apologise for interrupting Mr. Re at this stage - but

8 can I simply ask for a redaction of the use of his name in my question

9 within a time frame and then we can consider it --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Your redaction will be made. And it's a good reason

11 to interrupt because the time limits are rather strict.

12 Mr. Re, you were asking a number for 65 ter document 680.

13 Mr. Registrar.

14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1228, Your Honours.


16 MR. RE: Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And that -- it doesn't come to my mind, P1228. Could

18 we just see it so that I know what we are talking about.

19 And is that photo tendered, Mr. Re?

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Because I think we dealt with most of the Professor

22 Dunjic exhibits, if not with all. So therefore, if we could ...

23 MR. RE: I think it was the last one -- Mr. Dutertre was very

24 anxious that I bring this to the Trial Chamber's attention. I think it

25 was the last one which wasn't in evidence, which was shown to him -- or is

Page 10671

1 attached to his statement.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then may I take it, in view of the --



5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I probably have no objection it to, but I would

6 like to have the opportunity just to double-check.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then hear from you, and at the same time

8 we'll hear from Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Harvey.

9 Yes.

10 MR. RE: To assist the Trial Chamber and Mr. Guy-Smith, these are

11 the two sisters that Judge Hoepfel asked me about earlier in counts 7 and

12 8.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the two sisters with the same maiden name.

14 Then we'll hear from the Defence whether any objections.

15 Mr. Re, could you meanwhile inform us about whether there are any

16 objections against D167 through D178.

17 MR. RE: Looking in e-court, they were marked, as far as I could

18 see, as exhibits, as opposed to MFIs. Could that just be checked? I may

19 have misread it.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please check the status of

21 D167 through 178.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE ORIE: According to the registrar, they're all MFI'd but not

24 yet exhibits in e-court.

25 MR. RE: All right. Taking them in order, 1 -- D167, there's no

Page 10672

1 objection to that one.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore admitted into evidence.

3 MR. RE: No objection to D1 -- oh, sorry, a number.

4 JUDGE ORIE: No. No, these are MFI'd, so they have numbers. It's

5 just a matter of --

6 MR. RE: I apologise.

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- objection or not and admission.

8 MR. RE: 168, no objection.

9 169, objection on the basis of relevance. It appears to be a BBC

10 World report of March 2003, of so limited weight to the -- of so limited

11 relevance to be of meaningless weight, in our submission.


13 MR. RE: D170, it's outside the time frame, and for that reason

14 the Prosecution objects to it. It's a May 1999 document.

15 D171, object to that one on the basis of relevance.

16 D172, a similar objection, on the basis of relevance.

17 D173, likewise.

18 D174 is a Prosecution -- it's a statement to the ICTY, an

19 investigator statement.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It -- I was informed that it is uploaded in

21 e-court, so there should be no problem in that respect. D174, objection?

22 MR. RE: The objection the same. And I anticipate Mr. Emmerson

23 will press for the tender, but it falls within the same category --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Category --

25 MR. RE: -- of documents that the Trial Chamber ruled on earlier.

Page 10673

1 It was up to 17 ...?

2 JUDGE ORIE: 174. We now come to 175.

3 MR. RE: Similar. It's also an ICTY statement.


5 MR. RE: 176 appears to be a Defence statement.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Dated the 6th of October, 2007, yes.

7 MR. RE: It's -- look, it's in the same category as all of the

8 statements the Prosecution has attempted to tender given to Serbian

9 authorities at the time. In that respect, the Prosecution submission is

10 if the others -- the Prosecution ones go in, this one should go in. If

11 the Prosecution ones don't go in, this one should be treated in the same

12 manner. So we have conditional objections premised upon whether the

13 statements we press for admission are admitted into evidence.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think on some of them decisions were made

15 already, but there might be others still pending.

16 Now, what if half of them were admitted, others were not admitted,

17 Mr. Re? What -- I mean, conditional objection is -- well, let's --

18 MR. RE: I can't -- I can't take it any further.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, there -- you object against admission.

20 MR. RE: 177 is an ICTY statement. The same objection.

21 And 180 -- sorry, 178.


23 MR. RE: I'm not quite sure what the relevance of it is. Maybe

24 the Defence could explain.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 10674

1 MR. RE: It appears to be a media report -- sorry.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we have -- if I -- 168, no objections,

3 admitted into evidence.

4 Then, Mr. Re, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, and 178 are objected to due

5 to lack of relevance. Could you respond to that or --

6 MR. RE: Just on 178 I just make the observation that it seems to

7 be something downloaded from the Internet on the 10th of October. It's --

8 it's completely unsourced as to where the information has come from. It's

9 from American RadioWorks, but it gives no source as to its provenance,

10 whether it's contemporaneous information, whether it was given in 1998 --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that it was-- was it tendered through

12 you, Mr. Emmerson, or was it Mr. Guy-Smith, I think, yes.

13 MR. GUY-SMITH: That was -- that was --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Munja, yes.

15 MR. GUY-SMITH: That was -- I was asking a question about Munja

16 and Mr. Salapur. That was the -- and whether or not there was any

17 recognition or identification of Viodimir [phoen] Salapur and Munja.

18 That's where that document was being used.


20 MR. GUY-SMITH: And with regard to the -- with regard to the

21 specific objection made by Mr. Re, I would at this point agree that there

22 is no specific date with regard to the -- when that document was compiled;

23 however, it deals with information concerning the period within the

24 indictment and specifically with matters about the PJP or paramilitary

25 units.

Page 10675

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you giving up any objections on your side

2 about unsourced -- I mean, it's American RadioWorks. Is that --

3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that's the source.

4 JUDGE ORIE: That's source, yes.

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Am I giving up my objection --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, it's the source. And then, of

7 course, where did the source gets its information from, that's -- I

8 mean --

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: If the question is am I giving up my objection to

10 unsourced information, the answer is, no. I will not speak out of both

11 sides of my mouth.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Of course not.

13 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I don't have the difficulty of taking a

14 position in one case and in --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, the issue might be whether you would

16 not consider this a document which, as far as the possibility to test the

17 source might be very similar to many other documents where objections were

18 made. Now, I'm just -- I'm not playing a word game.

19 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I understand exactly. I extend -- I

20 understand exactly what you're thinking. If I could reflect about that

21 for a moment, and I will come back to you on that issue. I think --


23 MR. GUY-SMITH: As much as I would like this document in and as

24 much as I think the document has relevance and importance to the Chamber,

25 you may well be right with regard to the analysis you've just made. But I

Page 10676

1 would like a moment before I concede it.

2 JUDGE ORIE: You get a moment for that.

3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I do not remember exactly who tendered what

5 documents.

6 Yes.

7 MR. EMMERSON: I think I can assist --


9 MR. EMMERSON: -- because I have a schedule of the documents

10 tendered by the Haradinaj Defence through the Haradinaj Defence through

11 the witness Stijovic.

12 And can I take them from 169 onwards --


14 MR. EMMERSON: -- dealing with the objections as they've been

15 raised.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please.

17 MR. EMMERSON: 169 was a printout of a BBC article describing the

18 history of the JSO and its paramilitary connections.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Called "Serbia's Elite Enemy Within."

20 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so. I put the passages in

21 cross-examination to Mr. Stijovic and obtained his responses. I do not

22 suggest that the document stands free-standing as evidence of the truth of

23 its contents. And so in those circumstances --

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Please -- please proceed.

Page 10677

1 MR. EMMERSON: And so in those circumstances, the -- the news

2 article D169, we do not press for its admission as an exhibit. I am

3 confident that I read onto the transcript the passages that are necessary

4 for understanding the witness's testimony, so --


6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then the status of D169 should change from MFI in --

8 no, I think we -- you do not press, so therefore it could be vacated.

9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm entirely in your hands.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D169 is vacated.

11 MR. EMMERSON: D170 is a document that was used in

12 cross-examination with more than one witness, and indeed there was some

13 evidence in the testimony of Mr. Branko Gajic as to the circumstances in

14 which this document came to be in VJ intelligence files.

15 It is a letter signed by Colonel General Pavkovic dated the 25th

16 of May, 1999 but referring with -- with unspecified dates to multiple

17 crimes allegedly committed by the MUP and false attribution of those

18 crimes to the VJ.

19 I certainly read passages of it onto the record, but, in our

20 submission, it's not a document the admission of which represents any

21 difficulty from the Prosecution's point of view. There is testimony from

22 Mr. Gajic as to its genuineness. It is put there, as much as anything,

23 for context and background. But we -- we do therefore tender it, but

24 we're in the Trial Chamber's hands as far as the assistance that is

25 necessary to derive from the document itself rather than its contents is

Page 10678

1 concerned.

2 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Re doesn't have to add anything to it, it

3 is -- of course, it's a bit of a different document compared to 169. The

4 Chamber will consider admission.

5 MR. EMMERSON: 171 and 172, in our submission, are properly

6 admissible and are tendered. 171 is the statement taken by Zoran Stijovic

7 from the former head of the RDB, Rade Markovic, outlining his presence at

8 a meeting to plan --

9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me. We have a problem with the transcript.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I didn't look at the transcript. The more I say,

11 the more will not be on the transcript.

12 [Technical Difficulty]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it working again?

14 Yes, it seems to be working again.

15 Mr. Emmerson, could you please resume where the transcript

16 stopped.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I -- I think, if I -- I had finished my

18 submission at the last full stop, and the Trial Chamber then raised with

19 Mr. Re whether there was anything further to add and, considering that

20 there didn't appear to be, indicated that the Trial Chamber would consider

21 that.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Consider the admission of, I think it was, D170, we

23 were talking about.

24 MR. EMMERSON: So may I move on, then, to D171 and D172.


Page 10679

1 MR. EMMERSON: D171 is the statement taken by Zoran Stijovic from

2 Rade Markovic concerning a meeting at which the alleged plan to move

3 Albanian bodies from Kosovo to Serbia was discussed and formulated and

4 allocated to, amongst others, General Colonel Vlastimir Djordjevic. And

5 D172 is the MUP information report which set out the context for that

6 interview and, indeed, the working group strategy for investigating the

7 recovery of the refrigerator lorry in the Danube and the subsequent

8 attempts to conceal its contents, which was, as I say, the background for

9 the dispatching of Mr. Stijovic to interview Mr. Markovic.

10 Mr. Re objects on grounds of relevance. The issue of relevance of

11 that line of questioning has already been raised and ruled upon by the

12 Trial Chamber on a number of occasions. Without at this stage making

13 submissions as to weight, up until now the Trial Chamber has accepted that

14 that issue is an issue which crosses the -- the relevance threshold, so we

15 would press for those documents to be admitted.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, Mr. Emmerson is making reference to earlier

17 decisions of the Chamber. Any need to respond to that?

18 MR. RE: The only thing I say is the -- it -- Mr. Emmerson's

19 submission doesn't alter our basic submission that what Mr. Markovic said

20 to Mr. Stijovic in 2001 is of no relevance to the proceedings here, and it

21 refers to something outside of the time frame of the indictment, which may

22 well be under -- in a different case but has nothing to do with this case.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But isn't it the case that, again, apart from

24 what weight it -- it may have or may not have, that the whole issue of the

25 removal of bodies, to say the transport or removal of bodies from Kosovo

Page 10680

1 to places far away from Kosovo is linked by the Defence to Mr. Djordjevic,

2 who also attended the scene at Lake Radonjic?

3 MR. RE: I mean, is that as good as it gets in terms of the

4 admissibility of this evidence? If -- if so, it's of so little weight --

5 JUDGE ORIE: No. You say -- you say it's outside the time period.

6 I think that there's no major problem about that. It's more -- that's at

7 least how I understand the Defence position, that if someone who was

8 involved in such a matter was present at the Lake Radonjic site, that this

9 is not without relevance. That's one.

10 And the second is that we have dealt earlier with these matters

11 and Mr. Emmerson is referring to what the Chamber at those occasions

12 decided.

13 And although I haven't checked it, it -- at first eye it seems

14 that he is referring correctly to decisions taken by the Chamber about

15 approximately the same matter.

16 MR. RE: Look, we -- we maintain our objection and say it's of --

17 of --

18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll --

19 MR. RE: -- absolutely no relevance to the proceedings before the

20 Court.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then on our list of documents to be considered, apart

22 from D170, is now D171, 172, 173.

23 We now move to a different category, Mr. Emmerson. That is the

24 ICTY statements.


Page 10681

1 JUDGE ORIE: And among them, one statement taken by the Defence.

2 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, if I could just interrupt you.


4 MR. EMMERSON: I think we got as far as D172. D173 is in a

5 different category.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, you're right. I made a mistake. I

7 apologise.

8 MR. EMMERSON: That is a contemporary document concerning

9 allegations lodged with the public prosecutor in Peja by a

10 non-governmental organisation concerning allegedly criminal activity of

11 Vukmir Mrksic, whose evidence formed a part of the - I'm sorry, I'll put

12 that again - whose role formed a part of Mr. Zoran Stijovic. In other

13 words, Mr. Stijovic referred to Mr. Mrksic as one of those who was

14 involved in the collection of information and this is a contemporary

15 indictment allegation lodged with the district prosecutor in Peja not for

16 the purposes of any proceedings, making allegations against Mr. Mrksic.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say "contemporary indictment." I think

18 it's 2002, isn't it?


20 JUDGE ORIE: But it relates to events in 1999.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Can --


23 MR. EMMERSON: Can I just digress for a moment on this. This is

24 part of a body of material which in different ways is put forward to the

25 Trial Chamber in order to make a point which, to some extent, may be a

Page 10682

1 self-evident one; namely, that the statements that the Prosecution have

2 sought to admit of individuals who were detained in Serbian police custody

3 during this period are -- are -- cannot be assumed to be voluntary witness

4 statements, because there was a systematic practice of torturing those who

5 were in custody.

6 Now, to -- to what extent this -- this material is necessary,

7 given some of the indications that the Trial Chamber has thus given in

8 relation to those documents, is a little difficult for us to judge,

9 particularly since at the moment we're -- we're not quite at the point of

10 having final decisions on the admission for that material. But that is

11 the context in which that line of cross-examination was pursued, and it

12 touches upon one or two of the other documents to follow.

13 But can I -- can I indicate that the document is tendered and

14 leave the matter in the Trial Chamber's hands?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, anything to add in relation to D173?

16 MR. RE: I would certainly dispute Mr. Emmerson's attempt to give

17 evidence from the bar table that there was a systematic practice of

18 torturing those who were in custody.

19 I have no recollection of any admissible evidence being given to

20 this Trial Chamber that there was a systematic --

21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm sorry. It was in the evidence of Witness

22 28.

23 MR. RE: -- practice of torturing.

24 What Mr. Emmerson put to Witness 28, who gave evidence to the

25 effect that she had not actually been to any police stations or -- there

Page 10683

1 was no evidence from Witness 28 that she had interviewed lawyers who had

2 spoken to people in custody or she was able to -- she was in a position to

3 give evidence of a practice being systematic, as opposed to allegations

4 being made and sustained at times of mistreatment against some - some -

5 detainees in detention. The Prosecution doesn't dispute that. But we do

6 dispute the bold assertion that there was a systematic practice, which

7 seems to imply that it occurred with each and every detainee in Serb

8 custody, because there's simply no evidence of that. And Witness 28

9 couldn't have given that evidence.

10 And if that's the highest Mr. Emmerson can put it, he should

11 withdraw the submission.

12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider D173.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Emmerson, we now move on to the other

15 category.


17 JUDGE ORIE: That is, 174 through is 177, either ICTY OTP --


19 JUDGE ORIE: -- statements and one witness statement taken by the

20 Defence.

21 MR. EMMERSON: The Defence, yes.

22 Can I deal with them individually. 174 -- or rather, in groups.

23 174 and 175 are both OTP witness statements. I should say in

24 parentheses we believe that the e-court system currently marks D174 as an

25 exhibit. But -- but I don't stand on that, if that has been done in

Page 10684

1 error.

2 We -- we recognise the rulings that the Trial Chamber has made in

3 respect of material prepared for the purposes of -- of proceedings before

4 the ICTY, and so without withdrawing the exhibits, I don't anticipate any

5 different ruling in respect of D174 and D175 from the rulings that have

6 thus far been made.

7 So far as D176 is concerned, Your Honour is quite right, that is a

8 Defence witness statement of Muhamet Avdija, again in the category of

9 material going to the use of torture by the Serbian police. But Your

10 Honour is quite right to say that it is a statement prepared in connection

11 with these proceedings, and so, again, without withdrawing it, we

12 anticipate the same ruling will follow us, as followed with other material

13 in that category.

14 But may I say simply this: That that is a Defence witness

15 statement from an individual in respect of whom the Prosecution proposes

16 to rely upon a MUP statement. And one of the difficulties is -- and I --

17 I appreciate we're dealing with different categories of -- of

18 admissibility rule, but one of the difficulties here is that -- that the

19 net result is what the Prosecution is inviting the Trial Chamber to do, is

20 to admit and rely upon statements taken by the Serbian MUP but -- and

21 indeed to rely on them as evidence of the truth of their contents but to

22 exclude statements taken from the makers of those statements to say that

23 they were obtained under torture.

24 So I -- I don't anticipate any different ruling in respect of

25 that, but -- but I don't formally withdraw it. I do tender it in those

Page 10685

1 circumstances.


3 MR. EMMERSON: I think that concludes the exhibits which were

4 tendered by the Haradinaj Defence.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes may I ask you one question.

6 Yes. I'm looking at the link between 173 and 176. In 176 we find

7 Vule Mircic [phoen]. Is that the same person as we find in D173, Vukmir,

8 also known as Mitar Miricic [phoen].

9 MR. EMMERSON: The answer to that is to be found in the testimony

10 of Mr. Zoran Stijovic, where he --

11 JUDGE ORIE: I just don't have it in my --

12 MR. EMMERSON: -- distinguished between the two brothers or

13 cousins who had similar first names: One I think Vule, one I think

14 Vukmir.


16 MR. EMMERSON: But the names appear on various different

17 documents --


19 MR. EMMERSON: -- as individuals who engaged in a practice of

20 systematic torture in the relevant police stations.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't just have it fresh in my mind, so

22 therefore I asked.

23 MR. EMMERSON: I think the transcript is 9158, around about line

24 12.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That will certainly assist.

Page 10686

1 JUDGE ORIE: Then having dealt with all the --

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: That leaves D177.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which is a --

4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Falls into the same category with regard to being

5 an OTP statement. This was a statement made by a protected witness in the

6 Milosevic case who was a deputy prosecutor who in fact discusses the very

7 thing that Mr. Re just took objection to, that being a systematic state

8 practice of torture of individuals in police stations, as well as killings

9 in those places.

10 I understand the court's ruling with regard to this issue;

11 however, I also -- I also know we've had some of this discussion before,

12 and I know that I've been urged not to raise the issue with regard to

13 different theoretical practices, depending on what case is being

14 prosecuted. But with regard to the specific issue of statements and

15 specifically with regard to the -- the manner in which MUP statements are

16 being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, whereas other

17 statements are being wholesale rejected by the Office of the Prosecutor,

18 oftentimes where they have taken them and oftentimes where they have used

19 them in other proceedings or tried to keep them out from other proceedings

20 because of the very same reason, that being their assertion that there was

21 a systematic practice of torture and abuse with regard to statements, I

22 would -- I would tender the document.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, could you specifically on -- on the

24 last objection raised by Mr. Guy-Smith, as far as the consistency in the

25 approach of the Office of the Prosecution is concerned, could you respond

Page 10687

1 to that briefly.

2 MR. RE: I'm referring to the evidence given in this particular

3 proceeding in relation to that -- the time period within the indictment,

4 which is March to October 1998, and the absence of evidence on the record

5 of systematic torture, which is what --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's --

7 MR. RE: -- what Mr. Emmerson said of detainees.

8 As far as I know - I could be corrected - there has been no

9 evidence in this case of systematic torture.

10 JUDGE ORIE: But I think that one of the issues Mr. Guy-Smith

11 raises is that -- but I have to look more precisely on the time frame,

12 which appears to be mainly 1999, Mr. Guy-Smith, or am I wrong?

13 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I believe it's up -- it's up through 1999.

14 That -- that particular individual who was a prosecutor -- was a

15 prosecutor before 1999.

16 But we've also received, with regard to the same issue, evidence

17 both from Witness 28 concerning informative talks, as well as information

18 from those reports that we are presently having a discussion about, the

19 CDHRF reports, in which, once again, informative talks - and I'm using the

20 euphemism there - were addressed as a -- as a practice and pattern of

21 behaviour with the MUP and SUP as regards Albanian civilians and Albanians

22 perceived to be members of or supporters of the KLA.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for these submissions.

24 We'll -- we'll consider them all and we'll let you know as soon as

25 decisions have been taken.

Page 10688

1 So that means for the time being that it is only 167 and 168 that

2 are admitted into evidence. Decisions to follow for the others.

3 Any other matters at this moment to be raised?

4 MR. RE: Your Honours, I was just -- I was just trying to find the

5 Milutinovic indictment. I've only pulled up the pre-trial brief. But

6 paragraph 2 says: "The core allegations concern criminal liability for

7 campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo between mid-March 1999 and the 20th

8 of June 1999."

9 Now, if I can find the -- I just couldn't pull up the indictment,

10 but my memory is it is -- it is within that period. So that's where I

11 confine my submissions.

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: And just so that there's no question whatsoever, I

13 am referring to the Milosevic case in which the Office of the Prosecutor

14 and specifically Mr. Nice went through a relatively lengthy examination of

15 a number of witnesses, not the least of which a gentleman by the name of

16 Dragan Jasovic, who was a SUP inspector in Ferizaj during our indictment

17 period in which a series of statements that were taken, that were being at

18 that time -- well, offered by Mr. Milosevic were objected to because, as

19 Mr. Nice put it, there was a systemic state practice of torture of

20 individuals at police stations during that time, including all of the

21 kinds of abuses that have been discussed here.


23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Not the least of which is the list that I at one

24 point discussed with one gentleman in terms of appropriate ways of

25 engaging --

Page 10689


2 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- in interviews.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- the Chamber is sufficiently informed to -- to

4 take a decision on the matter.

5 Then, Mr. Re, your -- my attention was drawn to the fact that

6 there may be quite a lot of mistakes in the meanwhile uploaded 92 ter

7 statement of Witness 69. Would you please in both versions, both the

8 English version and the B/C/S version, would you please check whether

9 there are any mistakes. It's mistakes in the redactions.

10 MR. RE: Are you -- is Your Honour referring to the redactions

11 ordered in the meeting we had or something else?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- again, I have not found this myself.

13 Often something that should have been redacted is one of the things my

14 legal officer writes me has not been redacted. Occasionally, something

15 that should not have been redacted has in fact been redacted. That's

16 about the English version.

17 Now, the B/C/S version, he says also contains mistakes that are,

18 as he informs me, are apparent even to him, who does not speak the

19 language, and that the mistakes in the two versions are not always the

20 same.

21 Just to draw your attention to it, that if you at a later stage

22 seek them to be admitted, that we would know that we have a precisely

23 redacted version of the 92 ter statement.

24 MR. RE: We will attend to that straight away.


Page 10690

1 Then ...

2 I'm just checking a few matters at this moment.

3 Yes, Mr. -- yes.

4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Is there --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, among other things, I was reflecting

7 with regard to D178.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what's the result of that?

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will withdraw.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You will withdraw.

11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will withdraw -- I will withdraw that because of

12 the concerns indicated by the Chamber. I think it's --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not a concern.

14 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's --

15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not -- it's an observation.

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand the observation. I accept the

17 observation. And I don't need to -- I'm not asking to -- to muddy up the

18 record that way. And I think it's a legitimate observation.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then about to adjourn.

20 The videolink testimony has been finished today. Do we have a

21 witness tomorrow, Mr. Re?

22 MR. RE: We -- we're going to make another attempt with that

23 videolink. We're making -- we're in communication with the Canadian

24 authorities.


Page 10691

1 MR. RE: I can't tell you what the result of them are at the

2 moment.

3 In terms of witnesses tomorrow, I should be able to shortly advise

4 the Trial Chamber and the Defence whether we have a witness to -- for

5 tomorrow. Mr. Versonnen is available. And whether we have another

6 witness, I should be able to inform the Trial Chamber and the Defence

7 within half an hour to an hour, I expect.

8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have an idea of who that might be?

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, if -- I don't know whether you would need any

10 protective measures for that witness. If there is a chance you would,

11 we'll turn into private session.

12 MR. RE: Can I advise -- can I inform the Defence and the Trial

13 Chamber after we finish? Because I have to make inquiries. I'm not in a

14 position to announce whether we have a witness -- a second witness just

15 yet.

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm -- apparently there's some -- there's

17 someone in mind. I'd appreciate knowing who that is. I don't see the

18 harm in having that information.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move into private session.

20 [Private session]

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 10692











11 Page 10692 redacted. Private session.















Page 10693

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 [Open session]

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

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, we invited Mr. Versonnen to come back, I

21 think, tomorrow and then we got a message that he would be available

22 today. Then we -- also in view of the ongoing discussions, we suggested

23 that today might not be a good idea, but then we were informed that

24 tomorrow he might not be available for reasons urgent -- urgent matters he

25 had to attend to.

Page 10694

1 Then I think there has been communication between the Chamber and

2 Mr. Re about the scheduling. We suggested that -- or at least we inquired

3 into whether he would be available later tomorrow afternoon or on

4 Thursday. Now you say Mr. Versonnen is available tomorrow.

5 Would that be the whole of the afternoon or just --

6 MR. RE: Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- at the end of the afternoon?

8 MR. RE: He'll be in The Hague tomorrow.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if for whatever reason we'd not find time

10 tomorrow to hear his testimony or if you and Mr. Guy-Smith are still

11 communicating about trying to find a solution, would he still be in The

12 Hague on Thursday?

13 MR. RE: He would. But I don't think we're going to reach

14 agreement on that particular issue.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I --

17 MR. RE: Being asked to make a stipulation I couldn't make.

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I've asked him to make an agreement that he's

19 indicated he can't make.

20 And I -- I'm not like the Godfather.

21 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then the Chamber understands it as a

22 notification that the attempts to reach an agreement were not successful.

23 Is there any other matter? If not --

24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I should point out, just so the Chamber is aware

25 for purposes of scheduling, that the questioning will be relatively short

Page 10695

1 and discrete.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And "relatively short" means what, Mr. Guy-Smith?

3 MR. GUY-SMITH: It will certainly be under half an hour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: That's for Mr. Versonnen.

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. With regard to the other prospective

6 witness --


8 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- that's a different matter entirely.

9 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different matter.

10 Then we will adjourn until Wednesday, the 14th of November,

11 quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Courtroom I.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.44 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 14th day of

14 November, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.