Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4865

1 Thursday, 31 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If I could remind you, sir, of the

7 affirmation you took at the commencement of your evidence, which still

8 applies.

9 Mr. Topolski, I believe, still.

10 MR. TOPOLSKI: It's good to see Your Honour again.

11 JUDGE PARKER: The mists and fog wasn't more than to delay me a

12 day but that's it.

13 MR. TOPOLSKI: We've been drawing up a list over here of what else

14 comes from Jersey apart from His Honour Judge Parker. We'll provide it

15 later.

16 WITNESS: WITNESS L-64 [Resumed]

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 MR. TOPOLSKI: Could we please go into private session.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

20 [Private session]

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 4866











11 Pages 4866-4871 redacted. Private session.















Page 4872

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 [Open session]

14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.


16 Q. As I understand the evidence you've been given us to regarding

17 this place, this camp, this facility, whatever one wants to call it, it

18 seems to be clear, Witness, do you agree, that you must have made a number

19 of visits there without Qerqiz being with you. Do you agree?

20 A. It's true.

21 Q. I want to move on to deal with somebody else you spoke about last

22 week, again on the 21st of March, again day 54 of the trial, beginning at

23 page 25 of the transcript for Mr. Whiting, and this is Hasan Hoxha. I

24 just want to ask you one or two questions about him, please.

25 He was a friend; is that right?

Page 4873












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4874

1 A. I knew him.

2 Q. You had business dealings with him in the mid-1990s, did you not?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Again, I caution you to be careful and to think about it, Witness,

5 to do yourself justice, please. I repeat the question. Did you have

6 business dealings with Hasan Hoxha in the mid-1990s?

7 A. I said no. He was dealing in cars, and once I wanted to buy one

8 car from him. That was all.

9 Q. Page -- paragraph 187, please, of your witness statement that is

10 in front of you. Would you please turn that up. 1-8-7 you're looking

11 for. Please tell me when you've got it.

12 A. Yes. I'm reading it.

13 Q. "I knew Hasan Hoxha since 1973. He was also called Hasan Dobreva

14 because he was from the village of Dobreva. He was a person that a lot of

15 people knew. He was a tradesman and had a business with trading firms in

16 Kosovo but he also used to work in restaurants and was a bouncer. I've

17 seen him numerous times and we knew each other well, and during the years

18 1994-1997 we had some mutual business, mainly in car trading."

19 You're just telling us, are you, that you just sold or bought one

20 car with him? You can't even tell the truth about that, can you?

21 A. I'm telling the truth. I'm telling you that we -- with this word

22 mutual business, I meant we dealt in the same things, that is in cars.

23 That is all I meant. He worked for himself. I worked for my own account.

24 I don't know what the meaning of that word is in English. That's my

25 understanding of it.

Page 4875

1 Q. In this passage or these passages in this part of your witness

2 statement, you go on to deal with the discovery of a number of bodies by a

3 roadside, potentially that must involve or include his. And if you look,

4 for example, at paragraph 195, you will see there mention of driving along

5 and seeing some bodies by a roadside. Do you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. I just wonder why there is no reference, that I can find anyway,

8 to such a moment, such a horrific moment in this private and confidential

9 and secret diary of important events that you used to keep during the war.

10 Could you explain to us why there is no mention of this horrific event in

11 this important document?

12 A. Nothing is horrific enough in a war. This you must understand.

13 Everything is normal. And second, in the diary there are only notes about

14 some days. It's not complete. And I can't tell you now why I didn't

15 mention that.

16 Q. I'm going to suggest that here with this gentleman, whatever

17 happened to him, was yet another example of you being a self-seeking

18 opportunist, taking an opportunity to make a yet profit even out of death,

19 I suggest. Would you be good enough, please, to look with me at

20 paragraph 196 of your statement, the last paragraph dealing with this

21 gentleman, 1-9-6. Have you got it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. This is having dealt with what you assume to be his death and

24 probably murder, having dealt with the discovery of bodies 3, 7, 11, or

25 whatever the number was by a roadside.

Page 4876

1 MR. WHITING: Excuse me. Just looking at that paragraph, I

2 think -- I don't know how counsel is going to proceed, but it perhaps

3 should be in private session.

4 MR. TOPOLSKI: Thank you, Mr. Whiting, I was just about to.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

6 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 4877











11 Page 4877 redacted. Private session.















Page 4878











11 Page 4878 redacted. Private session.















Page 4879











11 Page 4879 redacted. Private session.















Page 4880

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 (redacted)

23 [Open session]

24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.


Page 4881

1 Q. Do you know a man called Avni Sinani?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. So sorry. Is he a friend of yours?

4 A. Yes, yes. A friend like others.

5 Q. Is he someone you think would speak the truth about you?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. Well, would he have any reason to tell lies about you?

8 A. I don't think so.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. TOPOLSKI: Could we go into private session, please?

11 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

12 [Private session]

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 4882











11 Pages 4882-4889 redacted. Private session.















Page 4890

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 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Open session]

Page 4891












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4892

1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in public session.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Whiting.

3 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Re-examined by Mr. Whiting:

5 Q. Witness, you've been testifying for an awfully long time. This is

6 your seventh day, so I'm going to be brief but I'd ask you to please focus

7 on my questions.

8 You were asked a lot of questions about your prior interviews, and

9 I'd like to go back to those prior interviews and put to you some passages

10 that have not yet been put to you, and for this purpose I've distributed

11 the English version of the 27th of May, 2003, transcript to the Court and

12 to the parties. In addition, I've distributed some extracts from the 17th

13 of June, 2003 interview. The whole interview is quite bulky but there are

14 certain pages that I'd go to.

15 MR. WHITING: And I'd ask -- I don't know if the witness has

16 before him the Albanian version of the 27th of May --

17 MR. TOPOLSKI: [Microphone not activated].

18 MR. WHITING: That's it. It says July 4th on the top but it's

19 actually 27th of May. If we could go first to the 27th of May transcript

20 and specifically to page 22 of the English.

21 Q. And on the Albanian, Witness, I'd ask you to turn to page 19 and

22 go to the top of the page. And on the English it's about halfway down the

23 page.

24 And at the very top of the page in the Albanian, Witness, I draw

25 your attention to this question, and the question is from the

Page 4893

1 investigator: "Who was the head man in charge of all -- of all of the

2 soldiers in Lapusnik," and the answer that you give is Qerqiz. Did you

3 give that answer in the interview the 27th of May, 2003?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And then a little bit further down you explain further, and you

6 say: "Well, let's say we were -- let's say we were person in charge not

7 commanders. When Qerqiz arrived here, Ymer used to be the main person,

8 the person in charge. Later on Qerqiz arrived, and we thought in the

9 beginning -- we thought he came as a back-up. But after the 29th of May,

10 Fatmir Limaj and Fehmi Lladrovci arrived. They told us that Qerqiz is the

11 person in charge here," and then you say: "We were thinking to rebel

12 against that."

13 Now, did you give this answer in your interview of the 27th of

14 May, 2003?

15 A. I think so, yes.

16 Q. And then you're asked some questions --

17 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I do apologise to interject.

18 Your Honour, it's not proper cross-examination in my submission

19 simply to put to a witness extracts of previous statements and ask him, Is

20 that what you said. Your Honour, that may be onus for consistency if

21 that's being alleged, but it's not proper cross-examination -- yes,

22 re-examination, and I would object on that basis.

23 JUDGE PARKER: It's a bit early yet to know exactly where this is

24 going, but what you're putting is sound --

25 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I -- I'm sorry.

Page 4894

1 JUDGE PARKER: You're going to lead after having identified a few

2 passages to some questions that arise out of the cross-examination. Is

3 that too generous a view of what's about to happen?

4 MR. WHITING: No, Your Honour, I'm putting these passages to the

5 witness for a number of reasons. First of all, the witness -- a lot of

6 parts of the transcript have been put to the witness and so it's a matter

7 of completeness, just to complete the record.

8 Secondly, in --

9 JUDGE PARKER: Well, --

10 MR. WHITING: There's a more important reason.

11 JUDGE PARKER: We need some relevance arising out of

12 cross-examination.

13 MR. WHITING: Well, the -- the counsel for both -- this specific

14 passage addresses the evidence against Fatmir Limaj and Isak Musliu.

15 Counsel for both of these two accused have suggested that the witness has

16 completely made up this story about Fatmir Limaj and Isak Musliu and their

17 roles in Lapusnik, that the witness wasn't even in Lapusnik during the

18 months that he says he was in Lapusnik, and that they are all lies. And

19 more specifically, Your Honour, the counsel have put to the witness that

20 he -- and it was just put by -- by Mr. Topolski in the plainest form but

21 it's been put repeatedly to the witness that he is lying here because he

22 got a benefit for his case in Kosovo. And so I am putting to the witness

23 the prior transcript, the interview which occurred before there was even a

24 case in Kosovo to rebut the allegation that he has fabricated his story in

25 order to get a benefit for his -- for his case in Kosovo.

Page 4895

1 JUDGE PARKER: So as I understand it, the primary point you're

2 making is that this was his testimony before he got into difficulty with

3 drugs and the police --

4 MR. WHITING: That's --

5 JUDGE PARKER: -- in 2003.

6 MR. WHITING: That's correct, Your Honour. And I would actually,

7 I'm going to put these passages to the witness and draw the Court's

8 attention to it, but I'm also going to move into evidence for that reason

9 his prior interviews in May and June of 2003 for the sole purpose to rebut

10 the allegation which is made -- been made five or six times in

11 cross-examination that he is lying because he got a benefit for his case

12 in Kosovo.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Well, let's take this one stage at a time. We're

14 not up to moving into evidence yet. That holds all sorts of other

15 issues. We're just looking at whether this is a proper basis for

16 re-examination. From what you have indicated, you may continue that line

17 of questioning.

18 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, if I may just very briefly.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Just a moment, please. We will not at the moment

20 look at the question of whether or not this will come into evidence.

21 Now, sorry.

22 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, it's most gracious.

23 For the sake of clarity, it's not my recollection that on behalf

24 of Mr. Limaj that we alleged the witness's account was that of recent

25 invention. Of course the cross-examination was on the basis that Your

Page 4896

1 Honours couldn't believe a word he said. But that's not recent invention.

2 And what my learned friend is seeking to do is put evidence of consistency

3 of that lie that we say exists.

4 Your Honour, in my submission, that is wholly inappropriate for

5 re-examination. It can't be used to bolster the credibility of a witness

6 when in fact recent invention was not alleged.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Recent invention is a convenient basis, a label

8 upon which re-examination may be proper, but this is being advanced, as I

9 understand, Mr. Whiting, on a different basis. That is the specific

10 allegation which is most clearly being put in the course of

11 cross-examination by more than one counsel to my recollection, and that is

12 that the evidence being given here is directly influenced dishonestly by

13 the desire to escape the consequences of having been arrested in 2003 for

14 drug offences. And upon that basis, re-examination to demonstrate that an

15 account consistent with material aspects of this evidence was given before

16 arrest for drugs appears to be an appropriate basis for re-examination.

17 Now, Mr. Topolski.

18 MR. TOPOLSKI: I'm so sorry. I know I appear to be champing at

19 the bit.

20 May I just simply add for the sake of important completeness, if I

21 may, that my suggestions were not limited to the benefit to be derived, if

22 there be one, from escaping a sentence for drugs and guns and their

23 combined possession. I also put, if I'm not mistaken, war crimes as well.

24 My concern over this line, I don't go behind Your Honour's ruling of

25 course, but it's only right that I should record what my concern is, that

Page 4897

1 to seek to use this instrument to demonstrate prior consistency is unusual

2 is the only way that I would respectfully describe it at the moment, and I

3 know Your Honours will keep careful watch upon where Mr. Whiting is going

4 with this.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Is there anything you want to add?

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm only reserving comment at this point because

7 we haven't been mentioned. As soon as we are, I'm sure I'll be to my

8 feet.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I always fear that I might leave you out.

10 No, the ruling has been given. If you would proceed, Mr. Whiting,

11 but you're pursuing it for the basis that has been presently identified.

12 So you will keep what is dealt with within those confines, if you would.

13 MR. WHITING: Yes, I think I will do that. And I won't address it

14 now, but I -- but there are specific references that I could provide in

15 response to what counsel has said.

16 Q. Now, if you -- if you have that page still in front of you, you're

17 then asked some questions about Fatmir Limaj's position, and you're

18 asked: "What was his position?"

19 And the answer you give, and if you could find it in the Albanian,

20 the answer you give is: "After he assigned Qerqiz as the person in charge

21 in Lapusnik, he also made it known he was our commander and every -- he

22 said to us every" -- this is at the top of page 23 of the English:

23 "Everything you might have, any information, anything to report, you have

24 to report it to me through Qerqiz. Okay?"

25 And then the question is: "So Fatmir Limaj is above Qerqiz?"

Page 4898

1 And the answer is: "Yes."

2 And the question: "Where was he stationed?"

3 And the answer is: "In Klecka."

4 Did you give those answers in your interview of the 27th of May,

5 2003?

6 A. Yes. This is how it stands in that text, and this is what I've

7 said.

8 MR. WHITING: Now, if the witness could have before him the

9 interview of the 17th of June, 2003, and would I draw the Court's

10 attention to page 84, which has been provided. There's a little excerpt,

11 84 to 87, that has been provided to the Court and to the parties.

12 Q. Do you have page 84 in front of you, Witness?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, on this page in this interview, there's reference to some

15 names - Fatmir Limaj, Qerqiz, Ismet Jashari - and then you are asked:

16 "Can you explain to me what the position of these men were at the time?"

17 And you say, and I won't read the answers word for word, but you

18 say: "Ymer was responsible or in charge of us all at Lapusnik for several

19 weeks, or for ten days, and after ten days Qerqiz came to us with two

20 soldiers and a light machine-gun."

21 And then on the next page, on page 85, you say: "Fatmir Limaj

22 came towards the evening with about two others, and he gathered us all

23 together and he said he was the commander in charge of all of us, in

24 charge of the entire zone on the orders of the central staff. And he left

25 his friend Qerqiz as commander in Lapusnik."

Page 4899

1 Do you see those answers? Did you give those answers, sir, on the

2 17th of June, 2003?

3 A. Yes. Yes.

4 Q. And you say: "We opposed this because Ymer was in charge."

5 But then -- if you turn then to page 87, you say: "And then with

6 the mediation of Fehmi Lladrovci, we agreed to this. We accepted Qerqiz

7 as our commander and Fatmir as the commander of the zone."

8 Do you see that, sir?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you say that in the interview of 17th June, 2003?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, if I could turn, please, to page 119.

13 MR. WHITING: And if that could be provided to the witness. And

14 it's been provided to the Court and to the parties.

15 Q. And here you're asked on page 119, and this is from the 17th of

16 June, 2003, interview: "How often would you say that Fatmir Limaj visited

17 Lapusnik?"

18 And here you say: "Maybe about ten times, ten to 15 times." And

19 you say: "But he also came at night." And you say -- then you

20 clarify: "I personally saw him about seven or eight times until July."

21 Did you give those answers in your interview of the 17th of June,

22 2003?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, finally I would ask you to look at page 37 to 39 of the

25 interview of the 17th of -- no, I'm sorry. Page 23 first of the 17th of

Page 4900












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4901

1 June, 2003. This has also been provided.

2 MR. WHITING: And with the assistance of the usher. Thank you.

3 Q. And here at the top of the page you're asked: "When you went to

4 the -- went to the cowshed, how many prisoners were in the cowshed at that

5 time?"

6 And you say: "In that case there were about nine or ten."

7 And: "Can you describe the condition in the cowshed at this

8 time?"

9 And your answer is: "The conditions were catastrophic."

10 And you were asked to describe, and you said: "They were all tied

11 up. They were tied by their wrists like animals with chains. They were

12 all beaten, and they were all scared."

13 Witness, did you say those things on the 17th of June, 2003?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, finally, if -- if we could look at pages 37 to 39 of that

16 same interview, the 17th of June, 2003. And here you're giving some more

17 description of the prison and the cowshed. And you say at the top of the

18 page of 37: "They didn't speak at all. They were beaten." And you're

19 asked if they were Albanians, and you say: "Yes, they were Albanians, but

20 they were beaten." And you say: "There was a stifling smell. They had

21 no doubt urinated in the place. That's what the conditions were like. It

22 was impossible to stay inside for a minute."

23 And you're asked: "How was the floor like in the cowshed? Was

24 there hay or --" and on the next page you say: "No. There wasn't any,

25 but it was mud. It was nothing. It was stone." And you're asked to

Page 4902

1 describe the smell, and you say: "It was like the smell of human beings,

2 chickens and animals, and also like a lavatory. They performed their

3 needs in their clothes." And you're asked if there's any possibility for

4 these prisoners to move around, and your answer is: "No, not to go to the

5 lavatory or anything." And then on the next page you say they were all

6 tied to the wall.

7 Sir, did you give those answers on the 17th of June, 2003?

8 A. Since it's written there, this is the way I said that.

9 Q. Now, during your cross-examination, you described -- this is at --

10 this is on day 56 at page 39, line 16. You described an incident when a

11 soldier was disarmed in Fustica who had a problem with Shukri Buja. And

12 you said that Celiku went together with Shukri Buja and disarmed this

13 person. And you said: "If you want me to give his name, I can do that."

14 Counsel did not ask you for the name, but I will. Can you give us

15 the name, please?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What is the name, sir?

18 (redacted)

19 MR. WHITING: If we could go into private session, please.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 4903

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in public session.


13 Q. Witness, I want you to take care obviously not to mention where

14 you've been relocated to, but you have been -- it's been repeatedly put to

15 you by Defence counsel that you have benefited by being relocated out of

16 Kosovo, and at one point in your cross-examination you said, "No, I'm a

17 loser." Could you explain for the Court -- or could you answer this to

18 me -- answer this question, please: Has it been a benefit to be relocated

19 out of Kosovo?

20 A. Absolutely not. Since the 1990s, I have had opportunities to take

21 my family and to seek asylum everywhere in Europe, but I never wanted to

22 leave the country. In Kosovo I have my ancestry, my home, which I don't

23 have now, and I live in very bad conditions. If you want me, I can prove

24 it with facts.

25 Q. I think that's enough. I think that's enough.

Page 4904

1 Witness, you were asked some -- a number of questions on

2 cross-examination about Rushdi Karpuzi and Haradin Bala.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do Rushdi Karpuzi and Haradin Bala resemble each other? Do they

5 look alike?

6 A. No. Rushdi Karpuzi has a longer face. They don't resemble each

7 other.

8 Q. Now, in cross-examination Defence counsel put to you a part of

9 your interview - excuse me - on the 18th of June; it's at page 245. When

10 you said in that interview on the 18th of June, 2003 -- it's not before

11 you. It's -- but what -- you said that they could be -- that they could

12 be mistaken for each other, Rushdi Karpuzi and Haradin Bala, except that

13 Rushdi Karpuzi did not have a moustache. But if they don't resemble each

14 other, can you tell us why -- why did you say that in that interview? Why

15 did you say that they might resemble each other?

16 A. In which interview, please? Can you tell me?

17 Q. This is -- this is back in June of 2003. You said that -- you

18 said that they could be confused for each other. Why did you say at that

19 time that they -- that Rushdi Karpuzi and Haradin Bala could be confused

20 for each other?

21 A. I have said this because I thought that Haradin Bala will be

22 allowed to be tried in freedom, that's why. But they don't resemble.

23 Only -- this was the only reason.

24 Q. Is it your testimony that you were trying to help Haradin Bala?

25 A. First I thought that Haradin Bala was sick, and that was what I

Page 4905

1 thought. It would be better for him to be tried at home while he was

2 free, for as long as that could be possible.

3 Q. I'm trying to understand your answer. Is it -- is it -- are you

4 saying -- is it your testimony that you were trying to help Haradin Bala

5 when you said that Rushdi Karpuzi and Haradin Bala look alike?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, did -- at -- in Lapusnik, did Rushdi Karpuzi have an injured

8 foot or leg?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did it affect in any way the way he walked?

11 A. Even now it does.

12 Q. And did it affect the way he walked during June and July of 1998

13 in Lapusnik?

14 A. Yes. When I said the same, I meant then and now it did affect

15 him.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Whiting?

17 MR. WHITING: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I'd lost track.

18 Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now. I'm told because of attempts

20 that will take some time to correct the transcription system, it will be

21 necessary because of the redaction to have a half-hour delay for the time

22 being. So we will resume at just after 11.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

Page 4906

1 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Witness, on cross-examination you were asked some questions about

3 when you learned about Haradin Bala's heart condition. Can you recall if

4 you learned about his heart condition during the war or after the war?

5 A. No. I learnt about it after the war.

6 Q. Moving to another topic, and this is -- you were asked some

7 questions about going to Rahovec, and your best estimate was that you went

8 approximately on the 19th of July of 1998. Can you tell us how long you

9 spent in Rahovec.

10 A. One night. The following morning we returned.

11 Q. And you returned to where?

12 A. To Lapusnik.

13 Q. Did you -- after that did you go back to Rahovec?

14 A. No.

15 Q. You testified on cross-examination that you saw Isak Musliu two or

16 three times after Rahovec. Was that -- did you see him those two or three

17 times in Rahovec or in Lapusnik or somewhere else?

18 A. In Lapusnik.

19 MR. WHITING: Could we go into private session, please.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 4907

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: We are in open session, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Whiting, that concludes your re-examination,

25 does it?

Page 4908

1 MR. WHITING: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further

2 questions.

3 JUDGE PARKER: That being so, sir, you'll be pleased to know that

4 concludes the evidence which you will be asked to give during this

5 hearing, so you are now at last free to leave and to return to your home

6 and family.

7 If you would now go with the court officer. The administrative

8 arrangements are made outside. Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Whiting.

12 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes. I would move into

13 evidence the -- the prior interviews of the witness from the 27th of May,

14 2003, and the 17th and 18th of June, 2003, and there are three separate

15 bases for this application.

16 The first is that I would submit that the Defence suggested on a

17 number of occasions, and I'll provide citations, that the witness was

18 fabricating his evidence for -- for the Prosecution and in this courtroom

19 in order to obtain the benefit of not being further prosecuted for his

20 case in Kosovo, which began on the 13th of July, 2003, so, therefore,

21 after the date of his interview. And just to provide the citations, on

22 day 56 at page 21, it was put to the witness that he was being given a

23 completely new -- an opportunity -- let me see if I can get the actual

24 page.

25 This is -- well, to be fair, this is -- deals specifically with

Page 4909












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4910

1 relocation, but it's at -- this is Mr. Mansfield: "You were provided with

2 a completely new tune, were you not, in other words, you and your family

3 were relocated, weren't they?" But I think the same point can be made

4 about relocation because there's no evidence that -- relocation has also

5 been suggested as a benefit. There are two benefits: The drug case in

6 Kosovo and relocation, and relocation. There's no evidence that

7 relocation was ever talked about before the dates or during the dates of

8 these interviews.

9 Then on day 57 at page 45, it was put to the witness that he

10 would -- it was suggested that he would say anything to save himself or

11 improve his own position. On page 46 of that same day, it was put to him

12 that -- he was asked if he agreed that you've benefited.

13 At page 59 of the same day -- and here I'm going to get it. This

14 question was put to him: "Was your cooperation with the Office of the

15 Prosecutor and investigators, your statements, your interviews, indeed

16 your evidence here, all come about because you could see a way of avoiding

17 gaol for drug dealing, for possession of firearms and a hand-grenade."

18 That's a specific reference to his case in Kosovo that began on July 13,

19 1998.

20 And then finally it was put in -- well, no. On page -- today at

21 page 21 and 22, again put to him that he has benefited from cooperating

22 with the Tribunal, and the question at page 22: "I suggest that you have

23 benefited by avoiding prosecution for war crimes and avoiding significant

24 gaol time, as Mr. Whiting described it," I don't think I ever described it

25 that way but that's how the question was put, "for heroin supplying and

Page 4911

1 firearm possession. You disagree with all of that, don't you?"

2 And then finally it was put in its most stark, plainest, clearest

3 form at page 24 at the very end of Mr. Topolski's examination. This was

4 put to him: "You were facing a very substantial term of imprisonment.

5 You saw the benefit, you took it, and you are here giving the dishonest

6 evidence you are giving. Those, sir, are my suggestions to you." So that

7 directly links the benefit that is being asserted he obtained from the

8 Office of the Prosecutor with respect to his case in Kosova and his

9 dishonest testimony here. So I would submit that the prior interviews

10 should come into evidence for the sole and limited purpose to rebut this

11 suggestion that he has fabricated his evidence here in this courtroom in

12 order to obtain the benefit with respect to his case in Kosova or with

13 respect to relocation.

14 Now, there's a second -- there are two more reasons, I would

15 submit, that the transcript should come into evidence. The second one is

16 that the transcripts were repeatedly put to him. Various portions of the

17 transcripts were repeatedly put to him by all counsel. And with respect

18 to a prior witness, the second witness who testified in this courtroom.

19 We'll get his number in a second, but it was the second witness.

20 The Court found that where there had been numerous references to

21 a -- numerous references to a prior transcript that it -- it was

22 appropriate for it to come into evidence so that the context of various

23 statements could be evaluated. And I would draw -- for that -- that

24 ruling is actually at page -- at day 8, page 934, 935.

25 So that's the second reason, that there have been so many

Page 4912

1 references to it, so many questions about the prior interviews and about

2 various passages, that the Court should have avail to be it the context of

3 those questions of the overall interview.

4 The third reason --

5 JUDGE PARKER: That of course depends on whether the issues raised

6 in cross-examination are apparently likely to be affected by context, does

7 it not?

8 MR. WHITING: Well, that's -- it's very difficult -- it's very

9 difficult to make that evaluation, and I would -- I would submit that

10 where -- where there are so many references to it, it's likely to be the

11 case that the context is going to be important and -- of these various

12 references, and that seeing the overall transcript is going to be

13 important.

14 It may be the case that that's -- that that is -- that it doesn't

15 prove to be very helpful, but in that case there's nothing lost. I simply

16 would submit that it should be available to the Court as a tool in

17 evaluating the various passages that were being put to the witness.

18 Finally, Your Honour, there's a third reason, and that is that it

19 was suggested to the -- it was suggested to the witness quite forcefully,

20 and this is at page 6 of day 57, and this is from Mr. Guy-Smith, that the

21 witness was -- his answers were being moulded by the questioner and that

22 he was providing information that the questioner -- my -- Mr. Nicholls

23 tells me that the witness that I was referring to, the second witness, is

24 Witness L-7.

25 But just to go back to my point, my third point here, that the

Page 4913

1 answers were being moulded by the questioner. And -- and there was one

2 example that was put to the witness, but it was -- but the suggestion was

3 that this was a general practice that had occurred during the -- during

4 the interviews. And the question at page 6 is: "Now, when he said that

5 to you, I'm suggesting to you, sir, that this is the first time in the

6 number of interviews that you had with the OTP that you learned and

7 decided to mould information according to what you believed they wanted to

8 hear."

9 Well, I would submit that given that suggestion, it's important

10 for the Court to have available to it the transcripts of the interviews

11 to -- so that it can determine whether there is any basis to this

12 suggestion that the witness moulded his answers according to what the

13 investigator wanted to hear. The questions and answers are transcribed.

14 It can be, I would submit, discerned from that transcript whether there is

15 a basis to this suggestion. So that is the third reason.

16 I would submit that each of these reasons independently justifies

17 admission of these transcripts into evidence.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Khan.

19 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I'm most grateful.

20 Your Honour, I oppose the application made by my learned friend.

21 Your Honours, of course, may remember what in my submission was a careful

22 and thorough cross-examination by lead counsel on behalf of Mr. Limaj.

23 The extract quoted or cited by my learned friend, when it was put to the

24 witness, which is our case, that the witness is a person willing to say

25 anything to save himself, of course relates to his testimony in the dock,

Page 4914

1 and Your Honours will assess in due time the credibility, if any, of this

2 witness, whether or not he is a thorough liar, or whether or not you can

3 give even the slightest weight to what he says. But, Your Honour, that

4 relates to his demeanour and his testimony under oath in the dock, which

5 did you not require any other assistance from any other source to

6 evaluate. You've had the best evidence, which is the witness before you,

7 as my learned friend says, for seven days. So, Your Honour, that's the

8 context.

9 The second point is that the extracts of the interview that were

10 put to the witness were accepted by him. Your Honour, there was no need

11 to exhibit these interviews as previous inconsistent statements, because

12 when extracts of interview are put to the witness, he repeatedly accepted

13 what was stated and then sought to clarify or somehow explain. So again,

14 Your Honour, no need at all to have recourse to any other source other

15 than the evidence of the witness given under oath and thoroughly tested by

16 both parties through a very lengthy examination-in-chief and

17 cross-examination.

18 Your Honour, the third objection is relevance. It's simply not

19 relevant to the determination of this matter because, Your Honour, before

20 the break you of course allowed my learned friend to read out forces of

21 the transcript which he deemed to be relevant. Your Honour, by allowing

22 that those extracts were thereby read into evidence.

23 Your Honour, on behalf of Mr. Limaj, I accept my learned friend

24 read out accurately what's in the interviews. So there's no need to go

25 beyond what my learned friend has already read into evidence.

Page 4915

1 For these three reasons, I do object as a matter of principle to

2 these -- and as a matter of application for these lengthy interviews to

3 bother Your Honours. I say, Your Honour, on behalf of Mr. Limaj, there is

4 no need for you to look at yet more papers when you have seven days of

5 transcripts to go through. And for those three reasons, I would oppose

6 the application made by my learned friend.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Khan.

8 Mr. Guy-Smith.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. I have a number of comments to make. I

10 similarly oppose this particular application.

11 Initially, the issue concerning this particular witness's

12 cooperation or the benefits that he derived therefrom is something that

13 was tested in the crucible of examination, both direct and

14 cross-examination. The attempt to introduce statements which I think

15 probably between the interviews as well as written statements comprise

16 more than 350 pages of material is not only, I think, inappropriate but

17 will be something that will of no assistance to the Chamber in making a

18 determination with regard to whether or not this particular witness

19 received any benefits for his cooperation, and the use of those statements

20 for these purposes is absolutely off point.

21 With regard to the issue of putting matters in context, I think

22 that if the Chamber was to review the transcript, you will note that there

23 were probably very few references to pages used, and by that I mean we

24 probably in total discussed less than a twentieth of all the information

25 that existed. My examination with regard to those issues was quite

Page 4916

1 specific. It dealt with issues concerning identification. It dealt with

2 issues concerning specifically the question of who was a guard. And his

3 answers were answers that were, once again, as Mr. Khan has indicated,

4 answers that he accepted having made at the time, and there were also

5 issues concerning his knowledge of my client, and finally issues

6 concerning his understanding of his purpose for being at the interview

7 because, in fact, there were a number of places where there were

8 off-the-record discussions for which we have no information, and indeed

9 suggestion that were made, limited though they may be, but suggestions by

10 the questioner that he could deviate from answers previously given which

11 is something else that he accepted having been told.

12 The use of the statements themselves doesn't, once again, assist

13 in any regard, and as a matter of fact, there are a legion of subjects

14 other than those that have been discussed here that are included in those

15 statements that will not only be of no assistance to the Chamber but I

16 believe will be dealing with collateral matters and matters that, quite

17 frankly, will confuse the very issue that exists with regard to this

18 witness, and I think in large measure that is the credibility of this

19 witness. Is this witness to be believed or not? And that is I think

20 primarily going to be based upon your assessment of his evidence as given

21 both in direct and in cross-examination, and you need nothing further.

22 The context argument, the context discussion suggested by

23 Mr. Whiting, once again, is absolutely off point, because the context of

24 the questions asked were in very limited areas, I believe by all parties,

25 and could be -- in the event the Chamber needs them could be satisfied by

Page 4917

1 giving the Chamber those particular pages of the interviews and

2 transcripts, if such is necessary. I don't believe that even that is

3 necessary.

4 I think in large measure what the effect will be if the Chamber

5 makes a determination that it is going to accept this suggestion is that

6 you will have before you a vast amount of information which is absolutely

7 irrelevant, totally off point, clearly not germane to the issues at hand,

8 and therefore it should not be entertained by you.

9 Thank you.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.

11 Mr. Topolski.

12 MR. TOPOLSKI: Your Honours, I, too, object to this application.

13 May I just deal with two of the three grounds in its support advanced by

14 Mr. Whiting first of all.

15 In essence and in summary, and I try not to do grievous bodily

16 harm to all his submissions, in respect to them I simply try to summarise

17 them in this way: That his first objection is that this is to rebut the

18 suggestion that this evidence is benefit rather than truth driven. That

19 is a very different suggestion than the one that normally, certainly in my

20 jurisdiction, founds this kind of application, namely the one of recent

21 fabrication.

22 There was no dispute in relation to those passages that I put that

23 the record of the interviews that I put, and there were not many, were not

24 accurately recorded. A point that Mr. Guy-Smith has already

25 made. But fundamentally my response to point one of Mr. Whiting's is that

Page 4918












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4919

1 although not exclusively, for the most part such an application as this

2 being in recent fabrication is not the case here, and therefore does not

3 have a firm enough basis for the admission of this material.

4 The second point he makes is that it puts the cross-examination in

5 context as an evaluation tool. I think I quote him directly.

6 With great respect, that is the purpose of re-examination. That

7 is what it is designed to do. That is why the facility is given to the

8 caller of the witness to have the last word with the witness. And of

9 course one is under some pressure of time, especially when one's had a

10 witness in a courtroom for seven days, but time is well spent, the Court

11 may think, when re-examination is conducted into those areas that the

12 caller of the witness wishes to clarify by contextualising, as it were,

13 the material that's been put in cross-examination. To use this device,

14 and I don't mean that word pejoratively, to get in the totality of the

15 material that Mr. Whiting was perfectly free and entitled to and indeed

16 did put in re-examination to the witness is not, we would submit, anything

17 approaching a firm foundation for this application.

18 Really the third point that he makes I think the suggestion that

19 comes from Mr. Guy-Smith to the witness that the questions were moulded by

20 the questioner is very much the same, is it not, as saying, well, look at

21 all of this material to give some context to the questions that were asked

22 and put. Again, we submit the perfectly proper vehicle for that is the

23 vehicle of re-examination.

24 Your Honour, these exhibits that my learned friend seeks to put in

25 amount to some 300 pages of material. That of itself is not a reason not

Page 4920

1 to put them in, of course, but let's be blunt about it. The effect of

2 this is to get in untested evidence by the back door.

3 Of course it would be said in response to this point, no doubt, we

4 are dealing here not with juries but with professional Judges. That of

5 course is right, and what a Judge can do is put out of his or her mind, it

6 is said, those matters that are not properly in the Judge's mind. That's

7 all very well, but what that does or might do, and when one is judging,

8 one must have a eye, I respectfully submit to this point, that that must

9 leave, must it not, a very uneasy feeling in the mind of the lay defendant

10 who says to him or herself, Well, hold on a moment, what about all that

11 stuff in that interview that -- take an example, I don't say this case,

12 take another example altogether, that is wholly prejudicial to me, that no

13 lawyer asked about, neither prosecutor nor defender. How can I be sure

14 that if a judge reads that said about me, untried and untested, it's not

15 in some subconscious subliminal way going to effect even to a small extent

16 the Judge's view of the witness and, therefore, of me?

17 The effect of this is to get in an abundance of material, I think

18 Mr. Guy-Smith's phrase for it, that has been untested, uncross-examined,

19 not led by my learned friend in very much the same way the same point

20 would apply to witness statements.

21 Your Honours, it is a submission that for the reasons we have put

22 forward is not sufficiently grounded, we would submit, in a firm

23 foundation to enable it to succeed.

24 Can we really just consider finally what the position is here and

25 what's really being said, and may I hopefully, helpfully summarise it in

Page 4921

1 this way: Day one is a crime is committed, witnessed by a witness. Day

2 two, that witness himself commits a crime. Day three, he is interviewed

3 about the crime on day one, and of course nothing is said about the crime

4 he's committed on day two because no one knows about it. On day three,

5 the fact that he has allegedly committed a crime himself comes to notice,

6 and on day four, a deal is done, putting the phrase neutrally for the

7 moment, whereby he is not prosecuted for the crime committed on day two

8 and he agrees to give evidence in relation to the crime that he has

9 witnessed.

10 Is it really to be said that all that he or she said in interview

11 regarding the crime he or she witnessed is relevant and admissible in the

12 trial of the perpetrator of the first crime in order in some way to place

13 into some historical context the overall picture where the historical

14 context has been exhaustively examined and cross-examined in this Chamber

15 by, and I don't include myself in this, highly experienced counsel on both

16 sides of the fence.

17 Your Honour, that is why we have trials, to air in public and

18 sometimes in private these very matters. It is the privacy of what is

19 being suggested here, the admission into evidence in effect of material

20 that has not been ventilated publicly that should, and we hope would, be

21 the factor that defeats this application above all others.

22 Your Honours, that's the basis upon which we object.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Topolski.

24 Mr. Whiting.

25 MR. WHITING: Very briefly, Your Honour.

Page 4922

1 Your Honour, I would submit that it is -- it is standard

2 evidentiary law that if there is an allegation, and it is true in --

3 certainly true in my country, and I would submit that it's also true in

4 the United Kingdom, and I believe it's also true in Australia, that if it

5 is alleged that a witness has fabricated his testimony in court, is lying

6 in court for a particular reason, then it is entirely proper to go to a

7 point in time before that reason for fabrication existed to see what the

8 witness said to see if it is consistent with that witness's current

9 testimony and to admit into evidence the witness's prior statement given

10 before the point in time when the reason for fabrication -- the alleged

11 reason for fabrication occurred, but for the narrow purpose of determining

12 whether the witness has in fact fabricated his testimony for that purpose.

13 JUDGE PARKER: The first half of that proposition is one which I

14 don't think is disputed by anybody here, at least at this stage, that is,

15 that it is proper to go to the previous earlier statement for the purpose

16 of seeing whether there has been a material departure, and that is what

17 occurred in both cross-examination and re-examination. It is a different

18 question whether the past record of interview or statement ought to come

19 into evidence, whether there's justification for that, and that is

20 something which you might like to concentrate on.

21 MR. WHITING: Well, I would submit that certainly here with the

22 system that we have where there is no jury and there is no rule against

23 hearsay, that it should come into evidence for that very purpose. And,

24 yes, it is true that I put certain passages to the witness from the prior

25 interviews, but I would submit that the -- that the entire transcript

Page 4923

1 should be in evidence, and not because I'm looking to get other matters

2 in. That's not the purpose. And I would not for a moment rely on things

3 said in those interviews which were not addressed in the courtroom.

4 It is simply the point about the consistency of his story and

5 certain topics, and I put to him some of the passages. It would be

6 impossible, it would take days to put to him all the passages which touch

7 on his testimony. He testified in direct examination for three days, and

8 there are many points in those prior interviews which touch on those

9 passages. It would have taken me literally a day or two to go through

10 every single passage, and it is only for the purpose of evaluating his

11 consistency and evaluating whether he has fabricated his testimony for the

12 benefit of the case in Kosova or for relocation. That is the only purpose

13 we would seek the admission, not for any extraneous matters or matters

14 that were not dealt with in the courtroom, topics that he did not discuss

15 here. That is not something we would at any point seek to rely on. I

16 don't think that that would be proper, and that's not the use that we're

17 seeking to put it to.

18 So I think that because there's no risk of prejudice, there's no

19 risk of -- there's no jury here, there's no hearsay rule, I think it

20 should come into evidence so that the Court can go through and evaluate

21 the entire transcript and all the matters that are touched on there were

22 also touched on here in court to make a determination, as one of the

23 counsel said, I think it was -- I can't recall which one it was, whether

24 it was Mr. Guy-Smith or Mr. Topolski. The question is: Is this witness

25 to be believed or not? That's the question. And I would submit that

Page 4924

1 having the transcript and being able to look at all of the points where

2 there was consistency, having that in evidence and having it just for that

3 narrow purpose would in fact help to answer that question, which is why we

4 are all here.

5 The only other point I would make, Your Honour, is that with

6 respect to my third basis, the suggestion that the witness had moulded his

7 answers. Well, it was suggested by Mr. Topolski that that is something I

8 could have done on re-examination. That would be impossible to go

9 through, I would submit. You would have to go through the entire

10 transcript to see that in fact he was not moulding his answers to respond

11 to what the investigator wanted him to say. They weren't being -- the

12 answers were not being fed to him. That's something that's -- it was a

13 very broad suggestion made by Defence counsel in his questioning that this

14 was just the first of many examples in these interviews where his -- the

15 witness had moulded his testimony or had been encouraged to mould his

16 testimony to fit what the investigator wanted him to hear. And the

17 suggestion is that he's come into the court today with a moulded story,

18 that has been moulded by the investigator, and would I submit that the

19 transcript of the interview rebuts that allegation and that the only way

20 to do that is to consider the transcript in its entirety for that purpose,

21 and it's impossible to go through and pick out one or two examples. It's

22 in a sense proving a negative. That can only be done by looking at the

23 entire transcript.

24 But the primary point that I would go back to is that I think this

25 Court should have the entire transcript in order for the very narrow

Page 4925

1 purpose of rebutting the allegation that this witness has fabricated his

2 testimony because he wanted to be relocated or because he wanted the

3 benefit of a case.

4 And Mr. Topolski suggested that he wanted that benefit even though

5 the case did not exist. I would submit, with all due respect, that that

6 is extraordinarily far-fetched, that the witness before a case even

7 existed started laying the groundwork for a deal and a benefit, and I

8 would submit that the transcript also would refute -- also plainly refutes

9 that notion that the witness is trying to create a future benefit for

10 himself.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.

12 MR. TOPOLSKI: Your Honours, forgive me. May I add something

13 because I hope it may help. Of course my learned friend could respond if

14 he wishes to with your leave.

15 We, the Defence bar, I mean, and I've spoken to all my learned

16 friends about this, would accept that on the face of the record of all of

17 these interviews, there is of course no discussion or reference to

18 benefits at all. And therefore, if my learned friend is seeking to

19 establish in one respect, well, it's all a bit surprising if there is any

20 merit in what is being suggested here there is no reference to this

21 directly or in passing, and I underline the words in the light of Mr.

22 Guy-Smith's cross-examination, on the face of the record, we admit, of

23 course, there is no reference to seeking a benefit, trying to gain an

24 advantage either in relation to past or future conduct. If that in any

25 way assists the Tribunal in seeing a way through, as it were, the social

Page 4926

1 democratic view of things, see if there's a middle course, then I raise it

2 for that so unlimited purpose.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Topolski.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn for a short time to consider the

6 submissions.

7 --- Break taken at 11.51 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 12.19 p.m.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Whiting, we expect to be able to give our

10 ruling on your motion tomorrow rather than delay longer now. We will

11 carry on with the next witness.

12 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Mr. Nicholls will be handling the next witness. The next witness

14 is ready. If I might be excused for some time, I would appreciate it.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Certainly.

16 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE PARKER: The Bench microphones seem to have developed a

18 particular problem. The level of intensity produces squeal, feedback.

19 All right. Mr. Nicholls, you have a witness.

20 MR. NICHOLLS: Should be ready, Your Honour. No protective

21 measures.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 MR. NICHOLLS: Can I just ask in terms of breaks, will we now

24 continue to the end without a break or is there a need for a break in

25 between somewhere, having --

Page 4927












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4928

1 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry. Every time I go to speak we're getting this

2 problem. I take it others are hearing what we are hearing. Yes.

3 We would be sitting now for about quarter of an hour before the

4 break.

5 MR. NICHOLLS: Quarter of an hour before the break. Okay, thank

6 you.

7 I may say, this witness speaks English. The direct and questions

8 will be in English, so the headphones may not be as necessary for Your

9 Honours.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kereakes, is it?

12 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

13 JUDGE PARKER: If you would read allowed the affirm significance

14 on the card in front of you.

15 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

16 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Kereakes. If you would

18 sit down, please.


20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

21 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Examined by Mr. Nicholls:

23 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. I'm sorry that you were kept waiting for a little while this

Page 4929

1 morning.

2 Could you please state your full name for the record.

3 A. Anargyros Kereakes.

4 Q. I'm going to start asking you some questions now first about your

5 background, but later on we'll be moving into the time you spent in

6 Kosovo, and I'd like to remind you to be very careful not to mention the

7 names of any persons you might have taken witness statements from when

8 we're in what's called open session. I will try to bring us into private

9 session for brief moments when we need to mention names of some people,

10 but other than that, please be careful with the names.

11 Also, we need to try to make a -- speak more slowly than we

12 usually do and take a short pause between questions and answers, because

13 in these booths everything we say is being translated for the record, and

14 that takes some time. Okay?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Could you tell me where you were born, please.

17 A. Yes. I was born in Oak Lawn, Illinois, United States of America.

18 Q. When were you born?

19 A. May 1, 1968.

20 Q. I'm going to briefly go through your educational and employment

21 background before we talk about some other topics.

22 You graduated from high school and then went through two years of

23 college at Loyola University; is that correct?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. And again we're going to need just a little pause between my

Page 4930

1 question and your answer.

2 Could you tell us what you studied at Loyola?

3 A. Criminal justice and psychology.

4 Q. Did you complete that programme?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Why is that?

7 A. I then became a Chicago police officer, entering the Chicago

8 police academy.

9 Q. What year did you enter the police academy?

10 A. 1990.

11 Q. And did you complete the academy?

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. What were your first duties as a police officer after completing

14 the police academy in Chicago?

15 A. I had entered the Chicago police academy for the Chicago housing

16 police department.

17 Q. And how long were you in that department?

18 A. Four years.

19 Q. Very briefly if you can describe what your duties were as a police

20 officer with the Chicago housing department?

21 A. I was assigned to routine patrol, answering calls for service,

22 responding to in-progress calls. Also, I was later assigned to a tactical

23 unit which worked gangs and narcotics in a public housing area.

24 Q. And what was your next assignment or department after the housing

25 department?

Page 4931

1 A. I then left the Chicago housing department, police department, and

2 then I accepted a position with the Chicago police department starting off

3 again as a patrol officer.

4 Q. And that was in 1994?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. What were your duties from 1994 on as a Chicago police department

7 officer?

8 A. I started off in routine patrol and later was placed on the

9 Tactical Unit working in various parts in the city of Chicago enforcing

10 gang violence, also responding to any in-progress calls, assisting our

11 detective division in routine burglaries, armed robberies, and even

12 homicides.

13 Q. And in August of 2000, did you go somewhere?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. Where did you go that month of that year?

16 A. I volunteered for the International Police Programme Kosovo.

17 Q. And how long did you stay in Kosovo with that programme?

18 A. Two years.

19 Q. During that time were you still with the Chicago police

20 department?

21 A. I was on a leave of absence.

22 Q. Okay. We'll come back to those two years in a little while and

23 talk about the time you spent in Kosovo.

24 Could you briefly bring the Trial Chamber up to date on your

25 career since you returned from Kosovo?

Page 4932

1 A. After my return from Kosovo, I went back to the Chicago police

2 department. I was an instructor at the Chicago police academy, also a

3 supervisor now holding the rank of sergeant.

4 I volunteered for another assignment oversees, this time

5 Indonesia, to train a special riot control team in democratic policing

6 principles and also on tactics. I then returned to the Chicago police

7 department once more, and this time I accepted an assignment in October of

8 2003 contracted to the US State Department as a close protection detail

9 member for the US Consulate assigned to the Road-Map to Peace . My duties

10 included protecting principles in Gaza and The West Bank.

11 I stayed there till February, at which time I then volunteered to

12 go to Afghanistan as the close protection member for the US Ambassador. I

13 stayed there until December, at which time I was then transferred back to

14 Israel as a close protection detail member for the US Consulate.

15 Q. Thank you. And can I just ask now: Are you currently a member of

16 the Chicago police department?

17 A. I am currently a sergeant but I am on a leave of absence from the

18 Chicago police department.

19 Q. Thank you. And I want to turn to August 2000, the month you

20 arrive in Kosovo. Could you please tell me what your duties were when you

21 arrived, what units, areas you were assigned to.

22 A. Upon my arrival, I was assigned to the Kosovo Polje/Fushe Kosove

23 police station at which time I began in routine patrol, and later I was

24 assigned to the intelligence investigation section of our station.

25 In February of 2001 I accepted a position with the Central

Page 4933

1 Criminal Investigation Unit, otherwise known as CCIU, as a war crimes

2 detective. I stayed there till February, for one year, at which time then

3 I transferred to the missing persons unit and also to the regional murder

4 squad as a detective.

5 Q. Thank you. When you first joined CCIU as an investigator, were

6 you a team leader of any kind or were you a member of a team?

7 A. I was a member of a team.

8 Q. During that time as a war crimes detective, as a team member with

9 CCIU, can you describe please the types of crimes that were within your

10 mandate and that were investigated?

11 A. We were mandated to investigate any crimes of criminal sexual

12 assault, kidnappings, and murders that occurred by both sides. By "both

13 sides" I mean Serbian and Albanian in the Kosovo conflict.

14 Q. And did you receive any special training for this new environment

15 that you found yourself in?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. Just briefly describe that training.

18 A. Upon assignment to the central criminal investigation unit, we

19 were the -- the class that I was in was trained by a more senior

20 detective. Mine happened to be one from the RUC, from Northern Ireland,

21 and he was assigned to me to teach me the way that we would be keeping the

22 case files, how we were conducting the interviews of witnesses, victims,

23 and also to suspects.

24 Q. At some point in time were you promoted to team leader?

25 A. Yes, I was.

Page 4934

1 Q. Do you remember when that was?

2 A. I believe it was July.

3 Q. Is that 2001?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. If you remember, how long did you hold that team leader position?

6 A. Until I left in February.

7 Q. Can you describe your team briefly? How many detectives or

8 investigators were in your team that were under your supervision?

9 A. Usually we had 16 to 20 detectives assigned to my team.

10 Q. Now, could you tell us, please, what difficulties you personally

11 and your team may have faced in investigating war crimes in Kosovo at this

12 time.

13 A. It seems that we never had enough manpower for all the cases

14 that -- that we had. For example, each -- each investigator was assigned

15 six to eight cases. That also included myself. Even though I may have

16 been team leader, I was -- still had my own caseload. Any time -- any

17 time that a new case would arise or a new complaint would come in, that

18 would be another case for one of my detectives or for myself.

19 In addition, we also were often tasked from the police

20 commissioner to investigate any new crimes that had occurred within

21 Kosovo.

22 I had many difficulties often locating witnesses. Just facing --

23 learning who my suspects were and the victims and witnesses refusing to

24 speak many times through the Albanian language assistants since many of

25 them feared they would be compromised. I often had to seek out other

Page 4935

1 methods of interviewing, statements, by attempting to find other languages

2 to be used for the fear and safety of my witnesses.

3 Q. What other languages did you use. Can you just tell us how you

4 briefly went about that?

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

6 THE WITNESS: German was another language that we used. Serbian

7 was another language, even French.


9 Q. And can you tell us from your experience there whether these

10 witnesses's fears were valid about using local translator staff?

11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Objection. Lack of foundation.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.


14 Q. When you worked --

15 JUDGE PARKER: No, no. What is your submission to the objection.

16 MR. NICHOLLS: I think he can -- I think the foundation is laid

17 that he was there. I'm asking if based on his --

18 JUDGE PARKER: Is this anything to do with this particular case?

19 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour. It goes to the way in which

20 statements were obtained sometimes using different languages rather than

21 the language, the mother tongue of the witness.

22 JUDGE PARKER: The witness says there were these concerns or

23 objections by some witnesses. Is it going to help for us to explore

24 whether there was any substance to that that's going to help this case?

25 MR. NICHOLLS: I think it's relevant, Your Honour, to the --

Page 4936












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4937

1 evaluating witness statements and evidence that were generated to

2 understand a little bit of the problems that the witness may have had

3 using local staff in order to obtain statements.

4 JUDGE PARKER: You have from the witness that there were these

5 problems experienced with some witnesses and that has led him to use

6 interpreters that use other languages than Albanian. Isn't that

7 sufficient?

8 MR. NICHOLLS: That's fine, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I think we uphold your objection, Mr. Guy-Smith.


11 Q. What about -- can you describe the level of support you received

12 from the local police forces, the KPS?

13 A. There were several instances where I would go to the local level,

14 the station level and would not receive any type of support in helping to

15 locate witnesses. I also had a fear that many of the new KPS officers

16 were also former members of the UCK and also, too, had received directions

17 and orders from my suspects. So to always safeguard my witnesses and the

18 case file, I always -- not always, I usually tried to avoid the KPS

19 department.

20 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, I think it's been 15 minutes since we

21 started.

22 JUDGE PARKER: That's a convenient time, I take it, Mr. Nicholls.

23 We must have the break now to enable the tapes to be changed. We

24 will resume at 1.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.

Page 4938

1 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Just before you continue, Mr. Nicholls, the Chamber

3 is in a position now to give its decision in respect of the motion that

4 had been moved by Mr. Whiting. We'll deal with it now very briefly.

5 The Chamber is of the view that the previous statements or records

6 of interview should not be admitted into evidence on this occasion. The

7 matter is to be distinguished significantly from the case where a witness

8 is apparently hostile so that there is a major question whether the

9 evidence given by the witness and the previous statements are at different

10 purposes for different motivations and the question may arise of a need

11 for detailed comparison.

12 This is a case where the witness gave his evidence fully and

13 freely, was then cross examined about some particular passages, and the

14 passages appear adequately in the transcript record. They appear

15 adequately for the particular purpose relevant to a submission of one

16 Defence counsel that there had been some encouragement by the questioner

17 for the witness to take a particular line or that the effect of

18 suggestions by the questioner had been to have the witness take up a

19 particular theme.

20 Those parts were carefully adverted to in questioning and so

21 appear in the transcript. We have the position where there have been

22 particular references in this way during examination and cross-examination

23 to a few limited particular aspects of what is an extremely lengthy set of

24 previous interview material. I haven't looked at the number of pages, but

25 counsel indicate it's in excess of 300. To a substantial extent, it

Page 4939

1 appears the content of that material has not been thought by counsel to be

2 relevant and has there are has not been adverted to in the course of

3 evidence. So context does not require the Chamber have available the

4 original, and relevance appears to suggest that the majority of it could

5 have no relevance to our consideration of the merits of this case.

6 We were concerned to see whether there was something in the

7 previous ruling which had been given and which was relied upon by counsel,

8 and it has been possible to remind us also of the circumstances of -- in

9 which that occurred. We were there dealing with a witness, a

10 suggestion -- well, there were a number of suggestions, but there were

11 three previous statements, each short, and counsel for one of the accused

12 actually moved for the admission of one of those. Counsel for the

13 Prosecution then suggested all three ought to be received, in particular

14 to compare the material parts of each of the three, one with the other.

15 There was no objection by any counsel at that time, and the Chamber was

16 persuaded to accept the three. It is not, we believe, authority for the

17 proposition that it was relied upon before us today.

18 It must be said that a little later in the day another Defence

19 counsel sought to reopen the question, but the Chamber is of the view that

20 the horse had already bolted.

21 It is a particular case limited to that situation and not of any

22 general indication of the Chamber's view as to what should occur. In

23 fact, I was interested to see that the Chamber's comments include a

24 reference in allowing those three to be admitted, include a reference that

25 the normal practice is for those putting a previous statement to the

Page 4940

1 witness to ensure that the record discloses the parts of it that are

2 relevant to the questioning so that the whole statement itself is not

3 needed as an exhibit.

4 For those very brief reasons, as I have indicated, we will not

5 accept the motion to receive previous records of interview of the last

6 witness into evidence in this case.

7 Now, with that interruption, I'm sorry, Mr. Kereakes, but we had

8 to deal with an admissibility question.

9 Mr. Nicholls, back to you.

10 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.

11 Q. Mr. Kereakes, I'm now going to start asking you some questions

12 about specifically your time as a team leader at CCIU after 2001. During

13 that time, what physical area in Kosovo was within your jurisdiction, in

14 other words crimes? Where would you have authority to investigate war

15 crimes?

16 A. Anywhere in Kosovo.

17 Q. Did you personally investigate any crimes once you became a team

18 leader which took place in and around Lapusnik?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. Very briefly, could you describe what that case was about.

21 A. This case concerned victims that were kidnapped by the UCK,

22 illegally detained, tortured and murdered for various reasons.

23 Q. Did you start this investigation from scratch yourself?

24 A. No, I did not.

25 Q. If you recall, who was the team leader before you on that case?

Page 4941

1 A. That was Detective Kare Birkeland. I believe he was from Norway.

2 Q. What you received from Kare Birkeland, did you create any photo

3 line-ups?

4 A. Yes, did I.

5 Q. Very briefly, why was that necessary?

6 A. According to the victims and witnesses in a case, they had named

7 offenders at which time I thought it was important to be able to go ahead

8 and conduct a photo line-up to make sure that we would be able to locate

9 these suspects and make sure that the identity was correct.

10 Q. Did you personally - and I mean physically - construct the

11 line-ups for this case yourself?

12 A. No, I didn't.

13 Q. How did you have these line-ups created?

14 A. One of our other detectives was very good with the computer,

15 unlike my skills, so at that time I wasn't very good in how to cut and

16 paste the photographs to the line-up, so I used his services.

17 Q. Now, if you remember, who was the suspect in the first photo

18 line-up that you created? What was his name?

19 A. The first suspect in the line-up I created was Isak Musliu, also

20 known as Qerqiz.

21 MR. TOPOLSKI: Your Honour, I'm sorry interrupt. I wonder if

22 Mr. Nicholls would be good enough to elicit the name of the officer who

23 created the photo line-up on the computer, please.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: That could be done in cross, but of course I'll --

25 that's fine.

Page 4942

1 Q. Do you recall the name of the officer who you tasked to create the

2 photo line-ups?

3 A. I remember his first name. I know that he was an American, and I

4 cannot for the life of me remember his last name. His first name was

5 Barry. I believe he was from Texas.

6 MR. TOPOLSKI: Thank you very much.

7 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.

8 Q. Now, did you in any way label or identify the photo line-up for

9 Isak Musliu that you had had created?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. How did you do that what did you use?

12 A. I used U-1 concerning Mr. Isak Musliu.

13 Q. Who was the suspect in the second photo line-up that you created?

14 A. The suspect was Fatmir Limaj, also known as Celiku. And I

15 labelled him U-2.

16 Q. As the investigation progressed, did you create other photo

17 line-ups of other suspects?

18 A. In this particular case?

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Can you tell me where you obtain the photographs for the photo

22 line-ups?

23 A. CCIU had a database which at that time had access also to the KPS

24 database or other pictures that were scanned and entered into the

25 database. So the -- also from newspapers that people -- people had taken

Page 4943

1 pictures and scanned them and built this database. So at that time we had

2 a entered -- we had taken the pictures from the database.

3 Q. And using that method did you have any difficulty obtaining photos

4 to create the line-ups?

5 A. Sometimes there was difficulty. For example, if the suspect was

6 wearing a beret, we had to find five more pictures of people wearing

7 berets so we could keep the integrity of the photo line-up consistent.

8 But in each case we always tried to find the same characteristic. If the

9 suspect was wearing glasses, then five people would be added wearing

10 glasses.

11 Q. Now, for U-1, the photo line-up for Isak Musliu, and U-2, the

12 photo line-up for Fatmir Limaj, how many different photo line-up versions

13 were created, how many sheets?

14 A. I believe at least two.

15 Q. Are you sure of the number?

16 A. No. It was possible that we even created three or four, but I

17 believe at least two for each one.

18 Q. Now, can you describe - and you started to - from your training

19 and experience the proper way to create photo line-ups? Not just specific

20 to this case but the way photo line-ups should be created.

21 A. Yes. You almost want to try and keep the same characteristics

22 consistent in the photo line-up. For example, if the suspect has a

23 goatee, make sure that the other five people that you're going to enter in

24 the photo line-up have goatees. You don't want to make one picture

25 coloured of the suspect and have the other five pictures black and white.

Page 4944

1 The photo line-up must be consistent with characteristics very similar.

2 Q. You said the one photo of the suspect and the other five. How

3 many -- how many photographs do you use when you create a photo line-up?

4 A. A total of six including the suspect.

5 Q. Was that done with U-1 and U-2?

6 A. Yes, it was.

7 Q. I asked you about versions of the suspects -- versions of the

8 photo line-ups. Could you tell us about the order of pictures in photo

9 line-ups, how they should be ordered or placed.

10 A. I don't understand the question.

11 Q. That's my fault. You've created several versions, you said, or at

12 least two versions of each photo line-up. I'm asking you about the order

13 of the photographs and the placement of the suspect in different versions

14 of the same photo line-up.

15 A. Yes. I never wanted to keep the suspect in the same number, so

16 what I would do is I created a line-up that if he was -- he could be

17 number 2 or maybe he could be number 4. The reason why I did this was to

18 ensure that other witnesses were not telling each other, Hey, pick

19 number 4 or pick number 2. So that way I always kept the line-up as fair

20 as possible.

21 Q. And talking about the other five pictures that you would use in

22 addition to the picture of the suspect, in different versions of the

23 line-up, U-1 or U-2, would all those five pictures be the same or

24 different; in other words, the same photographs used on all versions?

25 A. I would use the same photographs. I would just switch their

Page 4945












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4946

1 positions.

2 Q. And did you follow these procedures you've outlined in creating

3 U-1 and U-2?

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. I'd like to show the witness P103 which is under seal.

6 MR. NICHOLLS: Actually, Your Honours, I have a redacted copy of

7 that so it can be displayed. It's the same as P103. It just has the

8 signature removed. That's behind tab 1.

9 Q. Could you look at that series of photographs, sir. You can look

10 at it to your left if that makes it easier for you rather than on the

11 screen. Do you recognise that document?

12 A. Yes, do I.

13 Q. What is it?

14 A. This is U-1, suspect Isak Musliu.

15 Q. Did you -- is this the U-1 you've been talking about that you had

16 created for you in this case?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 MR. NICHOLLS: And I don't think I need to exhibit this redacted

19 version, Your Honour. I just ask the record to reflect that P103 is the

20 photo line-up for Isak Musliu, U-1, which the witness created.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.


23 Q. I'd like you to look at P104 now, sir, and that's under tab 2 in

24 the booklet you've been provided. You can look at it to your left which

25 may be easier. Same question: Do you recognise this document?

Page 4947

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. What is it?

3 A. This is the photo line-up concerning Fatmir Limaj and which I had

4 created.

5 Q. And which -- just for the record, which number was assigned to

6 this photo line-up?

7 A. Number 1 -- oh, I'm sorry. The suspect, you mean, or the --

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. This is U-2, suspect being number 1.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. NICHOLLS: Again I'd just ask the record to reflect that the

12 witness has stated he created this photo line-up sheet which is in P104.

13 Q. Sir, I'd like you to now look at a document which has not yet been

14 exhibited. This is 0323-1631. That's at the last -- that's the last page

15 of the booklet. I think the photocopy on the ELMO that we have may be

16 missing the last digit from the ERN number, but this is 1631.

17 Take a moment and look at this document if you can, please, sir.

18 Do you recognise it?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. And what was this?

21 A. This is U-1, suspect Isak Musliu.

22 Q. And did you create this photo line-up sheet as well?

23 A. Yes. This is one that I had created.

24 Q. And can you tell me if the same photographs are used -- well,

25 that's all right.

Page 4948

1 MR. NICHOLLS: I'd ask to admit this, Your Honour, please.

2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

3 THE REGISTRAR: That will be, Your Honour, Prosecution

4 Exhibit P175.

5 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.

6 Q. I'll ask you, Witness, Mr. Kereakes, now, please explain to us the

7 proper way, according to your training and experience, to present a photo

8 line-up sheet to a witness, what steps you go through when you're asking

9 them to look at a photo line-up sheet. Not specifically at this point to

10 U-1 and U-2, but in general your understanding of the correct way to show

11 a witness a line-up sheet.

12 A. I would bring in the witness or the victim into an interview room,

13 at which time I had already placed the suspect photo line-up on a table.

14 I which then would direct the witness/victim to take his time, look at

15 each picture and see if this was one of the suspects in the case, at which

16 time I would give them time, and he would look. I would then ask him if

17 that indeed he did identify anyone to please circle the number and to sign

18 it, at which then I took that suspect photo line-up and inventoried it.

19 Q. And what about conversation during the process of the witness

20 looking at the pictures?

21 A. I would not make any comments or engage in any type of

22 conversation with -- with the witness/victim.

23 Q. Did you follow those procedures you've outlined when you showed

24 the photo sheets U-1 and U-2 to witnesses?

25 A. Yes, I did.

Page 4949

1 Q. Now, what if a witness doesn't recognise anybody in a photo

2 line-up? What do you do then?

3 A. Nothing.

4 Q. And would that fact be noted anywhere in your reports or

5 statements?

6 A. Yes, it would. I would put in there that the victim/witness was

7 not able to identify any suspects.

8 Q. And do you remember the number or the approximate number of the

9 witnesses that you showed U-1 to, if you remember?

10 A. Yes. Approximately -- no, three. Three.

11 Q. And what about U-2?

12 A. U-2 was shown, I believe, to three also. I'm sorry, strike that.

13 It was shown to two, two of my witnesses.

14 Q. If the witness has identified somebody, circled a number and

15 signed the photo line-up sheet, what then happens to the photo line-up

16 sheet?

17 A. I then would attach it to his statement.

18 Q. And did you do that with U-1 and U-2 when you showed it to

19 witnesses?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. I'm now going to ask you about some specific instances in which

22 you showed U-1 or U-2. Again, please remember not to use the names of

23 these witnesses when we're in open session.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: Could we go into private session, please.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

Page 4950

1 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 4951

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.


9 Q. Can you please describe the procedures you followed when you

10 showed U-1 to this witness, and remember not to mention the witness's

11 name.

12 A. I took him in the interview room. I already had the suspect photo

13 line-up on the table, at which time I told him again, "Take your time,

14 look at each picture, look at each face, and tell me if you can identify

15 anyone in this photo line-up." At which time I would remain quiet, and

16 the victim then identified the suspect in this case, Isak Musliu.

17 Q. And what did you have the witness do when he identified

18 Mr. Musliu?

19 A. I had him circle the number of the suspect, and also I had him

20 sign it.

21 Q. Do you remember anything else that the witness said when he

22 identified Mr. Musliu?

23 A. I don't remember.

24 Q. Again, would it help you to look at your notes of this interview?

25 A. Yes.

Page 4952

1 Q. If you could look again at tab 3.

2 MR. TOPOLSKI: Your Honours, I'm sorry to interrupt. At the

3 moment, as I understand the evidence, this witness has merely said, "I

4 recognise these notes." He has not identified them as his, and before my

5 learned friend goes any further, I'd invite him to do so, and in doing so,

6 respectfully draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that there is a

7 signature at the bottom of these notes but not of this witness. So I

8 wonder if my friend could please lay the foundation as to the provenance

9 of these notes before he leads the witness through them.

10 MR. NICHOLLS: That's fine, Your Honour. I thought the witness

11 had explained the notes reflected his interview and the date.

12 Q. The notes labeled A which are the attachment, for the record, to

13 your 2004 witness statement, U0084018 to 4020. Whose notes are these?

14 A. Those are my notes.

15 Q. Who wrote these notes into the form that you have before you?

16 A. I did.

17 Q. Do you recognise the name at the bottom of the page or in the box

18 stating officer's name.

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Who is Andreas Manthey?

21 A. Andreas was the detective who the case was turned over to at a

22 later date.

23 Q. Do you know why his name might be in that officer's name box on

24 this page, on these pages?

25 A. I believe I do. We had a continued running log of the case, and

Page 4953

1 what I believe happened, once you entered one name in there it would

2 continuously run it even if you tried to enter it on another page. So

3 after Andreas took over the case, he probably tried to enter his name in

4 the following pages but was not able to so he probably maybe just forgot

5 that by changing the one page we'll change all of them to his name, and we

6 didn't know how to get around that. But I always referred to myself in my

7 notes as reporting investigator, and I would put Kereakes in there.

8 Q. And again, if you look at the last paragraph of your notes, does

9 that remind you of what else the witness said when he picked out the

10 suspect?

11 A. Yes, it does.

12 Q. What does it say?

13 A. That the witness positively identifies Isak Musliu as the one that

14 beat him up.

15 Q. And just to make this very clear for Mr. Topolski, could you

16 please turn to tab 4 of that binder you have before you. It's the

17 document underneath tab 4. Again, remember not to say the name.

18 Can you tell me without the name what you see there, what this

19 document is?

20 A. Yes. This is that particular witness's statement.

21 Q. Does your name appear on the first page of this document as the

22 investigator taking the statement?

23 A. Yes, it does.

24 Q. What is the date it says that this statement was taken?

25 A. 17th of August, 2001.

Page 4954












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 4955

1 Q. Are the notes which we looked at just a moment ago notes of this

2 statement being taken?

3 A. Yes, they are.

4 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you while we're here and we've talked about

5 the notes a little bit that you took, when you took notes in the field or

6 elsewhere, would those notes be -- how would you take those notes,

7 handwriting, typed on a laptop? Can you describe how you would do it?

8 A. Sometimes both, but if we were out in the field, I would hand

9 write them.

10 Q. And what would happen with those notes?

11 A. I would then come back to my office and type them up again.

12 Q. When would you type them up again?

13 A. Immediately.

14 Q. And what does "immediately" mean? If you could be a little more

15 specific.

16 A. If I finished -- for example, if I finished the interview at 1600,

17 made it back to the office by 1700 hours, I would type them up within 15

18 minutes, half hour.

19 Q. And then what would happen to the original notes that you had

20 handwritten?

21 A. I would -- if it was a statement, I would then attach it to the

22 typewritten statement.

23 Q. What if it was not a statement?

24 A. If there wasn't a statement, then I would throw them away.

25 Q. And after you had obtained that signed and circled photo line-up

Page 4956

1 by this witness, what did you do with it?

2 A. At this time I would attach it to that statement of the witness

3 that I had showed it to.

4 Q. And I'm sorry, I should have asked you a moment ago. This

5 statement which you took, the same statement where the photo line-up was

6 conducted, can you tell us how interpretation between you and the witness

7 was conducted?

8 A. Well, it depended.

9 Q. I'm talking about this specific --

10 A. This specific --

11 Q. If you need to, you can refer top the notes at tab 4.

12 A. With this particular witness, is he was able to communicate using

13 German as a language. Then I brought in a German police officer, one of

14 my colleagues, who did the interpretation.

15 Q. And were there any problems with that interpretation?

16 A. No. We were able to get the statement documented. It had to go a

17 little bit slow because we were transferring from German to -- then to

18 English and it took a little bit of time, but we were able to document

19 it.

20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, without saying the name of the witness -

21 you can just answer yes or no for the moment, please - did you ever visit

22 any part of the crime scene in this case with the witness?

23 A. Yes, I did.

24 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, private session for one moment.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

Page 4957

1 [Private session]

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 [Open session]

16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.


18 Q. Again, now please do not use the name, just the word "Witness."

19 Who showed you the location of this scene which you've just

20 described?

21 A. The witness.

22 Q. What did you personally observe at the site?

23 A. There were bones protruding from the ground. Some had been

24 scattered, but then I observed a larger area that looked like several

25 remains could actually be seen protruding from the ground.

Page 4958

1 Q. In addition to you and the person you've told us brought you to

2 this site, who else went with you, if anyone?

3 A. I had members of the missing persons unit exhumation team, members

4 of the EOD, explosive ordnance disposal clearing team. I also had members

5 from my detective division. An anthropologist was also brought in, an

6 investigating judge, and -- and various other support staff.

7 Q. Have you heard of the -- okay. Do you remember who came from the

8 missing persons unit?

9 A. Yes, do I.

10 Q. Could you tell us who that was?

11 A. Judy Thomas.

12 MR. NICHOLLS: That's actually a convenient time, Your Honour,

13 because it's --

14 JUDGE PARKER: Very well, Mr. Nicholls.

15 We will resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning. We must ask you,

16 Mr. Kereakes, to return them to carry on with your evidence.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

20 to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st day of April,

21 2005, at 9.00 a.m.