1 Wednesday, 23 April 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The Accused Pavkovic not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone. Judge Nosworthy is unable

7 to be with us for the remainder of this week for urgent personal reasons,

8 but we have decided that it's in the interests of justice to continue in

9 her absence, which we shall do.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Professor Jokic.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: The examination by Mr. Zecevic will now continue.

14 Mr. Zecevic.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 WITNESS: BRANIMIR JOKIC [Resumed]

17 [Witness answered through Interpreter]

18 Examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.

20 A. Good morning.

21 Q. Professor, the question, yesterday, from His Honour Judge

22 Chowhan, we heard the explanation, and that was the first time I myself

23 heard it, that there is a difference between a mosque and a dzamija.

24 During these proceedings so far, not a single witness used the term

25 "moseja" in B/C/S, which is a mosque. Yesterday, when I looked at the

1 list of registered immovable cultural property, and this list was drawn

2 up between 1952 and 1994, until the 31st of December, 1994, I did not

3 find a single building of Islamic provenance that is described as a

4 moseja, or a mosque in English. Can you explain to me or do you have an

5 explanation for that?

6 A. The only explanation I have is the one I provided yesterday. I'm

7 absolutely convinced that even the believers, religious believers from

8 Kosovo and Metohija, do not know the difference between a dzamija and a

9 mosque. Dzamija is the only term used by Albanians in Kosovo. I did

10 hear of a term, moseja, but the dominant term used in daily communication

11 is dzamija. I didn't find in the report of Mr. Herscher and Riedlmayer

12 any mention of some moseja. This is why I did not pay attention to this

13 difference in terminology.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see P1773 on the left

16 side of the screen and P2435 [as interpreted] on the right side, which is

17 the mosque in Celine.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: That's, I think, P2445, Mr. Zecevic.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I believe I said 2445. Maybe I

20 misspoke.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, this is the mosque in Celine, at

22 least as shown by the experts of the OTP, Mr. Herscher and Riedlmayer.

23 We spoke about that yesterday. In addition to these two photographs and

24 the information provided here, the Prosecution provided also an excerpt

25 from the land registry books from the cadastre concerning this particular

1 building, and this is registered under number P2444.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's Exhibit P2444. Could we see

3 that excerpt from the land registry books, P2444, please.

4 Q. Would you please comment this excerpt once it comes up on our

5 screens.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could it be enlarged, please.

7 Could it be enlarged just one more time, please.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's fine.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could you scroll up?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. This is good enough.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Can you see this, Professor?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Could you comment on this possession list?

15 A. Well, as far as I can see, this is an official possession list,

16 and its main features are that it pertains to the Islamic community which

17 is an owner of a certain plot of land located at the address Teha Selo

18 Dzamija. Then, in the column culture name, it says "Shtepi". That means

19 a house, a building.

20 Q. Professor, just a minute, please. This when it says culture

21 name, it's the description of a type of dwelling built on that plot of

22 land, and it says here a house, building?

23 A. Yes, absolutely, that's how it is.

24 Q. Just slow down. It says here house, building; and then

25 underneath it, it says a courtyard or a yard?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Professor, you saw other excerpts from the cadastre from the land

3 registry books which pertain to religious buildings such as churches and

4 mosques. In such excerpts from the cadastre from the possession list, in

5 this column entitled culture name, does it normally say house, building,

6 or something else?

7 A. Based on my experience and everything that I have done in terms

8 of protecting cultural property, in all instances where a religious or a

9 cultural property is involved, in this column it should say a monument or

10 a religious building, not a house or a building because a house or a

11 building is a broader term.

12 Q. Does it say in certain excerpts a church, a mosque?

13 A. Yes. It certainly says a church or a mosque. For example, if

14 you take the excerpt of the cadastre of the Bajrakli mosque in Pec, you

15 will see that under the column culture name, it says a mosque; or in

16 relation to some other sites, it will say a church. And in the

17 documentation in these excerpts from the land registry books, you will

18 definitely find such information.

19 Q. So if I understood you well, this possession list pertains to a

20 house and a yard owned by the Islamic community in the Orahovac

21 municipality, Celine village, located at the address Teha Selo Dzamija

22 which is a house, a dwelling, and a yard, not a mosque?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, do you know how many entries in

25 relation to Kosovo used the expression "mosque" in the register?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't quite

2 understand your question.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you've named one entry where the word or

4 description "mosque" is used: The Bajrakli mosque in Pec. How many

5 others are there recorded as mosques in Kosovo?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All mosques that were registered as

7 cultural property, and they all have their possession list and I checked

8 that. In the documentation, you will see that both those which are

9 protected cultural property and those that are not will have that. There

10 are 22 protected mosques, and I checked that, and all of them have their

11 possession list, excerpts from the cadastre.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: And you say there are other entries in relation to

13 mosques which are not protected mosques?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is such an example.

15 Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer included this mosque on their list, and

16 we obtained a possession list and the possession list does not name it as

17 such.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you understand my question. I want

19 to know how many are registered as mosques. Is that only 22 or are there

20 others which are described in the register properly as mosques?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There certainly are. There are

22 those which are not a cultural property. Only 22 mosques are a cultural

23 property, but there are more as religious buildings.

24 Among the 230 - there aren't 230; there are fewer of them - but

25 among them, there are certainly mosques as religious buildings which have

1 their own possession list, if the procedure was implemented, was

2 completed.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know how many there are?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wouldn't be able to

5 answer that question. This would be such a demanding task that a full

6 team would need to work on it, to establish this fact, to visit all

7 municipalities, to take out excerpts from all cadastre or land registry

8 books, compare them, and then give you an answer.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 Mr. Zecevic.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just gave you this as an example.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. There is one other matter. Of the 91

15 registered cultural properties of Islamic provenance, 22, you say, are

16 mosques. What are the others in general terms?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The other buildings are hammams,

18 Kulas, Tekijas, and other buildings.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 Mr. Zecevic.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Professor --

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry.

25 Please continue, Mr. Zecevic.

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Q. [Interpretation] One of the mosques -- or rather, one of the

3 locations mentioned in our indictment is the town of Vucitrn.

4 Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer, in their report, described the damage

5 inflicted upon religious buildings in the town of Vucitrn.

6 Since we looked at those mosques in Vucitrn and discussed them,

7 could you give me your opinion, your view, on that part of the report by

8 Herscher and Riedlmayer.

9 A. When it comes to Vucitrn, it's a small town in the north of the

10 province, 40 kilometres from Pristina towards Kosovska Mitrovica. In the

11 report by Herscher and Riedlmayer, the report was done in such a way that

12 the information on cultural property in Vucitrn was not systemitised. So

13 there emerged a drastic example where existing cultural properties or

14 cultural monuments were not included at all. This pertains to monuments

15 both of Islamic and Christian provenance. We have an example that, in

16 the report, they did not register the Nisan [phoen] of Mustafa Beg and

17 the old hammam in Vucitrn.

18 What is even more typical, the report does not include the oldest

19 bridge, stone bridge, in the entire Serbia, and that is a monument of

20 first category, of exceptional importance. And this monument dates from

21 the 14th century, and it was built by the Vojnovic brothers who were

22 nephews of Emperor Dusan. I'm sure that Riedlmayer and Herscher, if they

23 visited Vucitrn at all, had to cross over that bridge because it is such

24 a typical feature, such a unique feature, that anybody, especially

25 anybody coming from elsewhere, has to notice it. There is also the

1 Vojnovic Kula there, which is another protected monument.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Where is this in Professor's report, please,

3 Mr. Zecevic?

4 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't think, Your Honours, that the Professor

5 included this in the report. We were just -- this is one of the examples

6 which we were talking about. During the proofing sessions, we talked

7 about the specific examples of Riedlmayer and Herscher report, where he

8 should take the issue with, and it was Your Honours that insisted

9 yesterday that we concentrate on the ones which are in the indictment.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But he's not said a word about mosques in

11 Vucitrn. We're talking about other things and we're talking about the

12 inadequacies of their approach, but we've got loads of that criticism in

13 here. If you are going to lead any more evidence from the witness,

14 please try and help us with the specific instances we've heard about in

15 the evidence, if you think he can assist us.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: I will, Your Honour. Thank you very much.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have on our screens

19 P1785. This is the mosque in Vlastica.

20 Q. Professor, you will recall that we looked at this mosque in the

21 village of Vlastica. Next to the photograph we have here, we will see

22 the mosque as photographed by Mr. Sabri Bajgora. This photograph of the

23 gutted interior, what does it tell you? Maybe you can comment on it.

24 A. It's very difficult to give a comment on this photograph because

25 you cannot identify a building if only part of the interior has been

1 photographed. A photograph in itself is not a document in terms of

2 protection. It has to be documented and accompanied by the relevant

3 information.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: We've heard this repeatedly. We've got the point.

5 We understand the point. Just assume for the moment that that's the

6 mosque in Vucitrn -- sorry, in Vlastica, and tell us what you make of it.

7 And if you can make nothing of it, say so and we'll move to something

8 else.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot identify the building on

10 the basis of this photograph.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's move on then. If you're not going to

12 comment on it, let's go to something you can comment on.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] May we have page 2 of this

14 document.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Just in case it's causing you anxiety, Professor,

16 when it says: "Village atrocity caused by Serbs" on a photograph like

17 that, we have no regard to that. We hear evidence about what may have

18 happened. We don't accept what Riedlmayer says just because he's written

19 on the document. There's no need for you to be so defensive about

20 everything.

21 Try to help us and we'll get to the truth, if we get the

22 assistance of people. But we won't get to the truth if witnesses come

23 here and tell us, Oh, well, the rules say such and such, therefore I

24 can't tell you, I can't help you. You're an expert. You can tell us.

25 It's obvious that's a mosque.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my only job and my

2 greatest contribution would be if I were to convince you that complete

3 confusion has been introduced by this lack of a methodological approach,

4 and neither you nor I can enter into all the pores of this issue. It

5 says, in the report, that there were ten buildings nobody visited, and

6 yet they are included in the report, that only Mr. Bajgora visited a

7 number of these, a hundred, in fact.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Give us a moment.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, we do not want to hear any more

11 evidence of a nature that is simply designed to criticise the methodology

12 used by Riedlmayer and Herscher. We have a clear position of the witness

13 on that, many examples. That subject's exhausted as far as we're

14 concerned at this stage. If things arise in cross-examination, you can

15 re-examine on them. If you have evidence to lead specifically related to

16 the cases which are featured in the trial, please do so; otherwise, we

17 will move to cross-examination.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't have, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Thank you.

20 We'll move to cross-examination in that case, Mr. Zecevic.

21 MR. ZECEVIC:

22 Q. Thank you, Professor.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any Defence counsel wishes to question?

24 No.

25 So, you'll now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor, Mr. Hannis.

1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:

3 Q. Good morning, Professor.

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. I'd like to start some questions about your background and

6 education that led up to your present status, and I'll start with your CV

7 which is in your report at page 42 of the English. I think it's page 44

8 of the Serbian.

9 And under university education, I see it says that you did basic

10 studies in history in Pristina from 1968 to 1973, and you completed your

11 basic studies in October 1973 and defended your diploma on relations of

12 Serbia and Montenegro 1914 to 1918.

13 I'm not the familiar with the education system in the former

14 Yugoslavia. Can you tell me what degree that might be equivalent to in,

15 for example, the United Kingdom or the United States? Is that equivalent

16 to a master's degree, a bachelor's degree, a Ph.D.? Do you know?

17 A. The highest degree that you can get at university. I have a B.A.

18 in history, in other words.

19 Q. Okay. And you were a historian, plain and simple, right? You're

20 not an art historian or an archaeologist or an anthropologist. You're a

21 historian, correct?

22 A. Yes. I am a historian; that's my educational background.

23 Q. And I see that your work experience then. Immediately after

24 that, it appears that you worked as a professor of history and sociology

25 at the Djordje Lopicic secondary school in Montenegro.

1 What age are the students in the secondary school?

2 A. That's up to the age of 18; that's secondary education.

3 Q. Okay. And then from 1979 to 1997, you were a professor of

4 history at the TAM school centre in Slovenia. Can you tell me what kind

5 of school that is? Is that a secondary school? Is that the same age

6 group?

7 A. It's the same school, the same level, the same age group.

8 Q. Then in 1997 until 1998, you were a deputy general director of

9 Panorama in Pristina. What was Panorama?

10 A. Panorama is a newspaper publishing company.

11 Q. What kind of work did you do there?

12 A. I was a deputy to the general manager of Panorama, the director.

13 Q. And as a historian, what kind of work were you doing as a deputy

14 to the general manager?

15 A. I did managerial work at that time.

16 Q. Had you had any prior experience or training as a manager?

17 A. You will allow me to say that I was able to do that because for

18 20 years I lived in an environment where the economy was paramount, and I

19 gained experience there and went back to Panorama to help that company

20 find a way out of the critical situation it was in.

21 Q. I'm not sure I understand that. You, as I see, were a history

22 professor at a secondary school for most of your work experience prior to

23 that. In what way did you gain experience where the economy was

24 paramount that led you to become a deputy manager?

25 A. Let me tell you that that car factory was the largest car factory

1 in the former Yugoslavia, and the school was part of that factory. It

2 was part of the factory, and that kind of work required certain

3 managerial knowledge because we, as a secondary school, also engaged in

4 additional extracurricular activities, and there we gained experience and

5 knowledge.

6 Q. I apologise. I didn't see any reference here to a car factory

7 here in your CV. It just listed you as a professor of history and

8 sociology, that first year of 1973 to 1974, and then a professor of

9 history and an educator from 1979 to 1997.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Is the car factory in Slovenia?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in Maribor. It was the

12 largest car factory in the former Yugoslavia --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 Mr. Hannis.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- with 15.000 employees.

16 MR. HANNIS:

17 Q. And did you actually do any work or any managing in the car

18 factory during 1979 to 1997?

19 A. Absolutely not.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. It was a completely different method of managing.

22 Q. And Panorama was owned by who?

23 A. It was a state-owned company.

24 Q. And then from September 1998 until the present, you've been the

25 director of the Pristina museum. How did you get that job in the first

1 place?

2 A. I got that job in the regular way. After my predecessor left the

3 post, there was a job vacancy, and I applied.

4 Q. And what prior experience did you have to be the director of a

5 museum?

6 A. I had sufficient experience certainly because history is a

7 science that deals with economic history, culture, and so on, so that my

8 knowledge of that field met all the criteria.

9 Q. Are you now or have you ever been a member of any political

10 party?

11 A. Never have I been a member of any political party.

12 Q. One thing on your CV you list is that between 1974 and 1978 there

13 was an interruption in your work because you were a political prisoner.

14 For what had you been convicted that sent you to prison?

15 A. It wasn't only in 1974 to 1978, but also in 1971 to 1972, I was a

16 political prisoner on two occasions, and I can list everything. I can

17 tell you what this is about. In 1971, as a student, I was arrested and

18 convicted. Today, we call this public speech, speaking in public.

19 Today, it's difficult to comprehend, but in dictatorships that's what

20 it's like. I was arrested for the same crime in 1974 and my indictment

21 contained a single sentence, that I was the first accused at the trial of

22 the students in Pristina.

23 Q. And --

24 A. Let me explain, please. If I were now to give you for your

25 inspection a book written by the chief of the counter-intelligence

1 service of the State Security Service in Montenegro, who was the

2 investigating judge who signed this document and who was in charge of the

3 entire investigation, he sent me a copy of the book with a handwritten

4 dedication, where he says that this is in memory of the time when one was

5 not allowed to tell the truth. I received this book at the book fair in

6 Podgorica when this man visited me, and his name is Vlado Kekovic. So

7 everything I'm saying can be checked and verified.

8 Q. Well, what was the nature of the anti-state activity or speech

9 that you allegedly were engaged in? Isn't it because you were working

10 against the majorization of the Albanian ethnic community in Kosovo?

11 That's what it was about, wasn't it?

12 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I was not working against out-voting or

13 majorization. I was only asking for equal status in all the bodies and

14 organs of the university for all ethnic groups studying at the

15 university. It was not against something; it was for something.

16 Q. And it was because the Albanians were gaining a majority which

17 made you, as a Serb, feel that you were being deprived of your rights;

18 correct?

19 A. I didn't have an impression; I knew the facts. You can find that

20 in the documents of my trial, and you have all the statistics there. You

21 had an organ at the university where there was 0 per cent or simply 2 or

22 3 per cent up to 10 per cent representative of all the groups at the

23 university, and the Executive Board published this. The Executive Board

24 of the province, the provincial government, published these statistics.

25 So it's not something I produced.

1 Q. And, at that time, your views were seen as being contrary to the

2 philosophy of the existing political powers about brotherhood and unity;

3 correct?

4 A. Let me tell you, and you have no reason to doubt what I'm going

5 to say. I was fighting for equality which implies brotherhood and unity.

6 It's not enough to use the slogan and say you're in favour of brotherhood

7 and unity when matters stand completely differently. You will understand

8 this because you come from a democracy and you live in a democratic

9 society. So it's very hard for me to expect you to understand these

10 problems which are very complex and very serious.

11 Q. Okay. On that same page in English, under your professional

12 experience, you mention that you were coordinator of a travelling

13 exhibition, jewellery and gold embroidery of Kosovo, between, here in the

14 English translation, says 1993 to 1003 - I assume that means 2003 - which

15 included, I guess, a show in Moscow.

16 When was that travelling exhibition taken to Moscow?

17 A. It wasn't only in Moscow, it was in Finland. These were the two

18 first international exhibitions in the history of the Pristina museum.

19 Q. Yes, but when was it?

20 A. In 2003 in Moscow, it was set up in the Konak of Countess Ljubica

21 in Belgrade in 1998, and then it visited Moscow and Lahti.

22 Q. On page 43 of the English, I suppose it's the next page of the

23 B/C/S, under your bibliography, you list yourself as a professional

24 collaborator, editor, and author of prefaces for publications. By my

25 count, I see you down as a professional collaborator only one time, and

1 that's in connection with something called the March Pogrom in Kosovo and

2 Metohija 17 to 19 March 2004. That's the only time on this list that you

3 worked as a professional collaborator, correct?

4 A. No. I signed the book, the March Pogrom. If I signed it, it

5 means that I was the leader of the project, and publishers would know

6 that.

7 Q. Well, my question is: You are listed here as a professional

8 collaborator and editor for that particular volume, but I see nowhere

9 else -- I see nowhere else on this list where you're mentioned as a

10 professional collaborator; is that correct?

11 A. I'm the one who wrote all the introductory texts, who was in

12 charge of the project. This may seem strange to you, but I coordinated

13 and led all these activities, everything that's stated here.

14 Q. For every single one of these items listed under 7.2, or are you

15 only talking about the March Pogrom?

16 A. I'm not -- no. I'm talking about all publishing projects and the

17 projects we did on the protection of cultural heritage. Those were two

18 types of projects: Projects in publishing, presenting and publishing;

19 and also on the ground. It's a very complex job, including a large

20 number of associates and assistants of various professional backgrounds,

21 and there my managerial experience came in very useful because I was able

22 to gather together all the different kinds of experts that were needed

23 and compose a team.

24 Q. And you also say that you're the author of prefaces, in the

25 plural, for publications. Under this list, I see the second one,

1 Architectural Treasuries of Kosovo, and you are listed as the author of

2 the preface. Were you the author of the preface for any of these other

3 books, articles, et cetera, listed under the bibliography in 7.2, or is

4 that the only one?

5 A. It's not the only one. I also wrote a preface for the

6 monography, Drenica: The Second Serbia Holy Mountain; then I wrote for a

7 very important project monography Visoki Decani; and also many other of

8 prefaces in a number of publications.

9 Q. Well, I know it may seem nitpicky, Professor, but you were rather

10 nitpicky with the report of Messrs. Riedlmayer and Herscher, so I feel

11 that I need to do it in their defence. You're not listed as the author

12 of the preface for the article, Drenica: The Second Serbia --

13 A. I'll be very pleased to answer all of your questions.

14 Q. Well, I wouldn't have to ask these questions if you would put in

15 your document which ones you were the author of the preface for. Let's

16 go to 8.2, the bibliography in your report; page 46 in the English.

17 By my count, there are some 57 different books, documents,

18 articles listed there, and can you tell me are any of those by

19 individuals who are not Serbs?

20 A. Of the books listed here, there are no other authors apart from

21 Serbian experts from Belgrade, but experts of other nationalities did

22 cooperate with them: Hungarians, Roma, and others. But as we were

23 dealing with the Serbian culture over the past ten years, quite

24 naturally, the authors of these publications were Serbs. Unfortunately,

25 that's how it was. I would have preferred to be able to establish

1 cooperation with our Albanian colleagues with whom I had had excellent

2 cooperation before, and we hope we will still have an opportunity.

3 Q. There was nothing to prevent you in preparing this report in

4 having some cooperation with your former Albanian colleagues in Kosovo,

5 was there? Could you not write them, e-mail them, telephone them?

6 A. I visited Pristina personally, Mr. Prosecutor, met with all my

7 colleagues, visited the building I used to work in and my former office

8 in Pristina. I visited them, I established contact with them. Of

9 course, I was exported by Mr. Ral Bijali [phoen] of UNMIK, who was the

10 chief of an UN UNMIK department, and I left them all my telephone number.

11 Although my colleagues from the museum in Pristina do visit Belgrade on

12 private business, they never do so on official business.

13 Q. Sir, have you ever testified before as an expert in any court

14 before your testimony here this week?

15 A. This is the first time I'm testifying in this form before a

16 court.

17 Q. In preparing your report, what instructions did you receive about

18 what you should write in your report?

19 A. In writing the report, in providing the evaluation, my main

20 starting point were criteria and standards in the protection of cultural

21 properties. I told you that my associates and I translated all of the

22 documents from the Council of Europe concerning protection of cultural

23 property. I also attended seminars where Messrs. Ball and Baccard gave

24 lectures, and everything that concerns protection of cultural property,

25 all the standards, all the professional experience applied in Europe, is

1 something that I adopted from the beginning to the end in full. This is

2 something that I'm well familiar with, and owing to that I was able to

3 give appropriate guidance to our protection service. I hope that we will

4 hold a seminar soon in Belgrade where our friends Ball and Baccard will

5 come to teach because we established very good cooperation --

6 Q. Stop.

7 You're not answering my question any more. I understand why you

8 would be considered an expert in identifying what the criteria and

9 standards are for identifying cultural property and protective measures

10 that might be needed, but is that what your instruction was about what

11 you were supposed to write in your expert report for this trial?

12 A. No. The instruction was not along those lines. Nobody

13 determined the methodology for me; I did it. I was to give evaluation, a

14 professional evaluation, of the report by Herscher and Riedlmayer.

15 Q. And what materials did you review to prepare that report? I know

16 you read their report or their survey. Did you look at the database that

17 went along with that report, the IMG database?

18 A. I used all available database, everything that was published in

19 the last 50 years from the field of protection of cultural heritage. So

20 I had a very detailed insight into the list of cultural properties in

21 entire Serbia, including Kosovo and Metohija.

22 Q. But my specific question was: Did you look at the IMG database

23 that Herscher and Riedlmayer used or incorporated, included, with their

24 report?

25 A. I was guided, first and foremost, by the database accepted by

1 UNESCO and everything used by UNESCO in their reports, in their research

2 in Kosovo and Metohija --

3 Q. No, no, no. Please, stop. Can you answer my question: Did you

4 look at the IMG database referred to by Riedlmayer and Herscher in

5 connection with their report? Do you know if you looked at that?

6 A. I did not look into that database. I looked into the content of

7 the report. That's what I evaluated.

8 Q. Did you not think it might be helpful in evaluating their report

9 if you looked at the database that they referred to and used in

10 connection with their report?

11 A. It probably would have been good had it been available to me; it

12 wasn't available to me. All other reports were available to me, and I

13 used about seven of them.

14 Q. Why wasn't it available to you? Did you ask for it from the

15 lawyer over there?

16 A. I had available to me what was presented to me as the subject of

17 the report by Riedlmayer and Herscher.

18 Q. Well, in reading Riedlmayer's report, did you not see a reference

19 to that database? Let me withdraw that and ask you the question this

20 way.

21 In page 18 of the English of Riedlmayer and Herscher's report,

22 paragraph A2.2, he makes reference to the EU IMG database and explains

23 it. So, if you read his report, you must have seen that, but you didn't

24 ask your lawyer if you could get a copy of it, a copy of the CD?

25 A. Mr. Prosecutor, at first, I read the report by Riedlmayer and

1 Herscher. Given the nature of their report, given that they were not an

2 official team or not officially included in the work by Riedlmayer and

3 Herscher, I did not use that report. I had available to me the book by

4 Bajgora, and I can't comment on it professionally because it's not

5 suitable.

6 Q. Well, that strikes me as strange if your task was to do a review

7 or an evaluation of Herscher and Riedlmayer's report. They make specific

8 reference to this EU IMG database and they say it's attached to the

9 report and a copy of the database is available on a CD. You didn't think

10 it was necessary or helpful or important to you in making an evaluation

11 of their report; is that right?

12 A. I evaluated the methodology used by Riedlmayer and Herscher as

13 stated by them in the very beginning of their report, and that was the

14 guiding principle in my work. Mr. Riedlmayer and Herscher did not state

15 in their document that this organization or this expert team was part of

16 their team, so that information was relevant to me. They were included

17 only subsequently into the project by Herscher and Riedlmayer; that

18 wasn't the starting point.

19 Q. What languages to you speak, read, and understand? I know

20 Serbian. Albanian?

21 A. I used to speak Albanian quite well. But given that I left the

22 area quite early and then spent many years in Slovenia, I forgot some of

23 it and there were also some changes in the official language. I

24 understand it well. I speak Slovenian. I used to speak good German.

25 Before, I spoke a bit of a lot of languages, but nothing quite well.

1 Q. Did you, in preparing your report, have the opportunity to review

2 the trial testimony of Mr. Riedlmayer in the Slobodan Milosevic case?

3 A. No. I did not have occasion to study it in detail, just

4 excerpts.

5 Q. And how about his testimony in this case against Mr. Milutinovic

6 and the others?

7 A. I apologise. I didn't understand your question.

8 Q. How about Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony in this case against

9 Mr. Milutinovic and the others, did you have a chance to review that

10 testimony?

11 A. I didn't.

12 Q. Not at all?

13 A. I didn't.

14 Q. Okay.

15 MR. HANNIS: If I can Your Honours' indulgence for a moment, that

16 raises something I need to check for a moment.

17 Q. Isn't there a paragraph in your report where you have a cite to a

18 part of Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony in this case? I would refer you to it

19 looks like page 17 of your report in the B/C/S. It's section 5.4.

20 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, in the English, this is at

21 page 16.

22 Q. Do you find that, Professor?

23 A. Just a moment, please. Will you assist me again, please, and

24 tell me which page it is.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I believe there was a paragraph number, Mr.

1 Hannis.

2 MR. HANNIS:

3 Q. It's paragraph number 5.4 immediately below your table 3.

4 MR. HANNIS: On my copy here, the page number is listed as

5 5.4-17; and in e-court, I think it's page 17 of the B/C/S.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean, "The critical approach in

7 selecting sources ..." Yes, please go ahead.

8 MR. HANNIS:

9 Q. Yes. You see the second paragraph there. My English translation

10 says: "On 30 October 2006, during testimony in this case, IT-05-87-T,

11 Mr. Riedlmayer said he had wanted to establish contact with UNESCO

12 experts," and then there's a quotation in English apparently from his

13 testimony on that day, right? Is that what it says in your copy?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Well, if that's not what it says in your copy, then I'm curious

16 to see what you're looking at that's different from what's filed in

17 e-court. Could you have a look at the screen in front of you. On the

18 left is the page that I'm looking at, and that second paragraph reads --

19 it has an English quotation in it. You see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So if what you just told us, that you never read or saw or heard

22 Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony in this case, how did you get this quotation

23 and this remark referring to his testimony on 30 October 2006 in your

24 report?

25 A. I didn't follow the entire testimony. We studied certain

1 statements, but I didn't have the entire document before me.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you read and understand English?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "On 30th of October, 2006, during

4 testimony in this case, Mr. Riedlmayer said that he wanted to English

5 contact with UNESCO experts."

6 I don't understand this.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on. Could you answer my question: Do

8 you understand English?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not well.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: When you read excerpts from the trial of

11 Milosevic, in what language were you reading these excerpts?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have my associates, my aides, who

13 translate texts in English for me, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 Mr. Hannis, we don't have the explanation yet for this.

16 MR. HANNIS: No.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: That's outstanding.

18 MR. HANNIS:

19 Q. I need to follow-up on a couple things of what Judge Bonomy asked

20 you. Your associates who translated for you regarding the Milosevic --

21 A. By your leave.

22 Q. Go ahead.

23 A. This particular instance, we took it as something quite telling

24 because we established contact with Mr. Ros Borath, who was in Pristina

25 at the time when Riedlmayer and Herscher were there, and we personally

1 saw him when we were in Pristina, and I --

2 Q. Stop, stop. That's not answering my question. Let me go back.

3 First of all, let me follow-up on what Judge Bonomy asked you. You just

4 said that regarding the excerpts from Milosevic, some of your associates

5 helped translate for you. What document were they reading from? It was

6 my understanding that the Milosevic transcripts were only in English; is

7 that correct?

8 A. I think that the legal service provided that to me.

9 Q. And what language was the transcript from the Milosevic trial

10 from which you reviewed excerpts with the help of your assistants?

11 A. I think it was in English.

12 Q. Now, the next thing I want to clear up with you. I asked you

13 earlier, I said: How about Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony in this case

14 against Mr. Milutinovic and the others, did you have a chance to review

15 that testimony?"

16 Your answer: "I didn't."

17 I said: "Not at all?"

18 And you said: "I didn't."

19 And now you just said, well, you looked at some excerpts like

20 this one that's in here. Which is it? Did you review it not at all or

21 did you look at some excerpts?

22 A. No. I understood you to mean whether I followed in the entirety

23 the testimony, and my answer to that was no. We did not understand each

24 other. I only looked at what I was interested in concerning the problem

25 of the presence of UNESCO representative in Pristina. I believe that to

1 be important.

2 Q. Professor, please, you didn't understand me when I said: "Not at

3 all"? You didn't understand what that term meant?

4 A. Well, it is clear that we didn't understand each other.

5 Q. I think something's clear, but I think you understood me. Then

6 when I showed you this article in this portion in your statement, where

7 it's obvious that you must have seen some of the transcript, you had to

8 change your answer. That's what happened, isn't it?

9 A. Please allow me to explain. I had occasion to familiarize myself

10 with this because this is the centre for -- or rather, the centre for

11 preserving Kosovo and Metohija established contact with Ros Borath, and

12 that's what I had in mind. I touched upon the Riedlmayer and Herscher

13 report only in relation to that particular segment; nothing more than

14 that.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Could I please see the copy, the hard copy of the

16 report, that you're reading from, Professor. Professor, would you please

17 give to the usher --

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: -- your copy. The hard copy, would you hand it to

20 him, please.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Usher, could you return that, please, to the

23 witness. Thank you.

24 If you look at your hard copy and look at what's on the screen,

25 you will see that they are different in the format and that at least part

1 of the first paragraph in your copy does not appear in the copy on the

2 screen. Now, you've obviously got a copy that's been at a different

3 stage of preparation from the one that is officially in use in the trial.

4 Can you tell us whether the one you have in your hand is a later version

5 or an earlier version?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say with certainty.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, we've been very trusting throughout

8 this trial, unlike I'm sure other Trial Chambers on occasions, and have

9 just accepted that the binders being handed to the witnesses matched the

10 material before the Court on e-court. There may be little in this for

11 all I know because certainly the bit that Mr. Hannis is concentrating on

12 does appear in both, but it's not satisfactory if they are not identical.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, let me, first of all, we didn't

14 provide any binders because --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: So where did this copy come from?

16 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I believe the witness brought it with him --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, I see.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: -- which is why I really cannot help at this point,

19 I cannot be of any help to the Trial Chamber.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, do you have anything to say on this?

21 MR. HANNIS: Well, yes, Your Honour. When we started yesterday,

22 I provided him a copy of the B/C/S version I have, which matches what's

23 in e-court, and he started out with that. Then we had a break and the

24 Defence asked if one could be substituted. I guess that's the one he had

25 with him, but I don't know why that occurred and I don't know what the

1 differences are. Maybe it's minimal, maybe it's nothing, but not knowing

2 is troubling.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, my understanding is that it is

4 the exact, exact copy, only all in Serbian, because in the document which

5 is before us in the e-court, we have some parts which are original from

6 the Herscher/Riedlmayer report. That was for the benefit of the --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the one that the witness has is a

8 track-change version, which therefore includes bits which have been

9 deleted before, obviously, a final version was compiled, but it still has

10 material in that first paragraph not apparently deleted which doesn't

11 appear in the one on the screen. The usher will show it to you so that

12 you can see what I'm referring to.

13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. If you put it on the ELMO, that might be the

15 best way and then everyone can see it.

16 Now, if you look at the last sentence of the first paragraph,

17 that's before the part that's set in, am I right - I may be wrong, so we

18 need to clarify this first of all - am I right in thinking that that last

19 sentence --

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Is not in the definite report, yes.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: And only part of it's been deleted?

22 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe the whole sentence after table 4 has been

23 deleted; two sentences, actually.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But they have, in fact, from the one on the

25 screen, but they're still there in this one; and, in fact, the last two

1 lines of that paragraph are not underlined as if they had been deleted at

2 all.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I really cannot help you, Your Honours, with

4 that because, I mean, if I would -- if I would have the opportunity to

5 look at the document, I can probably provide you with some explanation.

6 I don't really, at this point --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: What we're going to do is let Mr. Hannis look at

8 the copy that the witness has had in his hand during the break.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: And, meanwhile, we'll remove it, the usher will

11 give it to Mr. Hannis, and we will use only the screen for any

12 references. So we will confine our attention to what's in e-court.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

14 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 MR. HANNIS: Is it the whole report you intended me to have, Your

17 Honour, or only a page?

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. I think Mr. Hannis should have the whole of

19 that copy, so that he can see what differences there may have been

20 referred to. This arises only because it's been used in the course of

21 the evidence; otherwise, it could remain confidential. But because it's

22 become an issue in the presentation of the evidence, then it's necessary

23 for the Prosecutor to see it.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honour.

1 MR. HANNIS:

2 Q. Now, Professor, for a little bit we'll have to continue then with

3 what's on the screen, and my question -- my next question for you is

4 then: Is it your testimony that you only looked at a few excerpts from

5 the testimony of Professor Riedlmayer in this case and not his entire

6 testimony?

7 A. I reviewed the entire Riedlmayer/Herscher report; but as for the

8 testimony, no.

9 Q. But how did you find this particular excerpt in order to put it

10 in your report? Did somebody else do that for you?

11 A. Well, this excerpt was very interesting to me, and that's why I

12 used it.

13 Q. I understand that, but how did you find it? You told us you

14 don't read English that well, and you told us you didn't review the whole

15 thing. So how did you find these three little sentences out of

16 Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony, which went over two days or two and a half

17 days? How did you find this little gem?

18 A. My translator. While I was working on the report, I received

19 this from my translator.

20 Q. And how did your translator know to pick out this one?

21 A. My translator worked on this project together with me. I had to

22 consult my translator concerning all the terminology in the report and in

23 all the searches.

24 Q. And what's the name of your translator? We can go into private

25 session if you want.

1 A. Mrs. Milica Sefkusic.

2 Q. And did she read the entire testimony of Professor Riedlmayer

3 from his testimony in this trial?

4 A. I can't say that.

5 Q. Well, was she reading the English transcript?

6 A. She recommended this part to me as very characteristic, and I

7 accepted it.

8 Q. That's not my question. That's not my question. My question is:

9 Was she reading an English transcript of the testimony in this case?

10 A. I don't recall now.

11 Q. It's my understanding the only other version we have is a French

12 version. Does she speak and read French?

13 A. She does, yes.

14 Q. Do you know if she was reading the French version of the

15 transcript?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. Do you know which --

18 A. I don't know because, well, English was the primary language used

19 in the whole procedure.

20 Q. Okay. Do you know whether she's better in English or in French?

21 A. She's better in English.

22 Q. The reason I ask is this a quotation which purports to be from

23 Professor Riedlmayer on the 30th of October, 2006.

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would direct you to the transcript

25 at page 5414 from the 30th of October, 2006, beginning at line 14.

1 And I will avow to the Court, and I'm sure my colleagues on the

2 otherwise can call me to task if I'm wrong, but my review of the

3 transcript on that day, there are only three references to UNESCO. All

4 three of them are in this paragraph between lines 14 and 21. You will

5 see that, while generally it's talking about the same thing, there are

6 several differences between what's in the transcript and what's quoted in

7 English in the Professor's report.

8 Q. Who put this English in your report? Is that what your

9 translator provided to you? Did she type that in?

10 A. I can't recall precisely because the material was voluminous. I

11 was interested in the crux of the matter. That's what I concentrated on.

12 Q. Well, yes, but you take Mr. Riedlmayer and Mr. Herscher to task

13 over all kinds of things in their report, and you as an expert are

14 presenting this report with inaccurate information. You're quoting

15 Mr. Riedlmayer, purportedly, and this is not what he said. That's not

16 very professional of you, is it?

17 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't comb through this. I simply put forward

18 the most elementary information. Had I gone into meticulous detail, I

19 would have had to list facts for a month. I just focused on the most

20 important matters. I didn't split hairs because I know that in every job

21 there can be omissions, there can be errors, and anyone can make a

22 mistake including me. But it's true that the representative of UNESCO

23 was in Pristina, it's true that we communicated with him --

24 Q. Stop. That's not an answer to the question. Are there any other

25 portions of the report that you personally did not write, or is all the

1 rest of it your own work?

2 A. It's all my work, but you'll agree that no one could work on a

3 report by himself. A person needs a translator and a typist to work on

4 the computer. This is an enormous job. I accept everything in here as

5 mine. I'm just explaining to you --

6 Q. But what you can't --

7 A. -- I'm not denying that this is my report. This is certainly my

8 report. If there's a technical error, it doesn't impinge on the crux of

9 the matter.

10 Q. Well, sir, if there are enough technical errors would you agree

11 with me it raises concerns about the overall report?

12 A. Well, absolutely. I allow that the entire report must be

13 evaluated, but I'm deeply convinced that I did everything here with the

14 best of intentions and attempting to avoid any possible mistake.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. If there are errors, I accept that.

17 MR. HANNIS: It's time for the break, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, we have to have a break at this stage,

19 that will be for 20 minutes. While we have the break, could you please

20 leave the courtroom with the usher, and we will resume at ten minutes to

21 11.00.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, before the witness comes in, in all

1 fairness to the witness, we have identified the part which is in the

2 transcript. It is not the 30th but the 31st, and it's 5586, line 3 to 7.

3 Thank you.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

5 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Mr. Zecevic brought that to my attention, Your

6 Honour, and I apologise. I had no intent to mislead anybody.

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

9 MR. HANNIS: May I resume?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

11 MR. HANNIS:

12 Q. Professor, before we started, I just want to tell you that I may

13 have been too hard on it because it's been brought to my attention during

14 the break that that English quotation, indeed, is in Mr. Riedlmayer's

15 testimony, but on the 31st of October rather than the 30th. So the error

16 in your report is the date rather than the content.

17 I want to ask you about some additional items in your report,

18 however. On page 10 of the English, and I'm not sure what page it is in

19 the B/C/S. It's item number 4 regarding approach.

20 MR. HANNIS: And while we're waiting for that, Your Honour, I

21 would indicate that we have had a chance now to do a quick check of the

22 hard copy that the Professor was using. We note some minor differences

23 in phraseology in a number of places. They don't seem to change the

24 overall content of what's there, but there are some parts marked with

25 track changes and other parts as well.

1 During the break, we weren't able to do much more. But, you

2 know, based on previous dealings with counsel on the other side, I don't

3 have a serious concern about that, other than --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. So this can now be returned to Mr. Zecevic.

5 MR. HANNIS: Yes.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: And if the witness is to use a hard copy, he

7 should use the one that Mr. Hannis gave him at the outset.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: By all means, Your Honour. The relevant copy is in

9 the e-court.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: That's the one which we relied on.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: But it expedites the proceedings when a witness

13 has a hard copy. We appreciate counsel have noted of that and made use

14 of them when appropriate, so we will try to restore the situation we had

15 at the beginning of the evidence.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Does the witness, in fact, still have that copy or

18 was it returned?

19 MR. HANNIS: I have the hard copy.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Well, let's give it back to the witness in

21 case it should help him to find the appropriate parts.

22 MR. HANNIS:

23 Q. Professor, it's page number 10 in English, and I'm not sure which

24 page it is in your hard copy. It's fairly close --

25 MR. ZECEVIC: It's the same page.

1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

2 Q. And my question has to do with the last paragraph, where you say:

3 "Because the report that is the subject of our evaluation was prepared

4 with the instructions of representatives of international institutions of

5 justice ..."

6 My question is: What do you base that on, that Riedlmayer and

7 Herscher's report was prepared with instructions of international --

8 representatives of international institutions of justice?

9 A. This statement is based on what is stated in Mr. Riedlmayer and

10 Herscher's report. They say that themselves at the beginning of their

11 report; and, of course, it's quite natural. They were given a certain

12 task, but probably they were limited in their work by the nature of the

13 task they were given.

14 Q. Well, can you indicate to me precisely what instructions you're

15 referring to?

16 A. Well, precisely the instructions they themselves report in their

17 report. That's the only information I was able to use concerning this.

18 We did not go outside the context of what they themselves said.

19 Q. Well, can you point me to a page or paragraph in the report.

20 Maybe it's there. I'm just not finding it. There is a paragraph in

21 page 3 of the English version of the report. It says: "Following a

22 briefing by the staff of the OTP, they proceeded to Kosovo and carried

23 out field investigations." But I don't read that as saying they had

24 instructions. Is that what you're referring to?

25 A. Yes, precisely that.

1 Q. Okay. And since you didn't read the testimony of Mr. Riedlmayer

2 in this trial, you don't know what he had to say about that at pages 5420

3 through 5421 in this case, do you? You can just answer yes or no.

4 A. No.

5 Q. Thank you. I'll save that one for later. You talk about their

6 sources, and I'm looking at page 19 of the English now. I'm not sure

7 what page it is for you. The left-hand column has a reference to A2.14,

8 media accounts.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: It's page 20 of the Serbian.

10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

11 Q. And you indicate that the media are unreliable sources. I agree

12 with you that often that's true. Do you find no media sources to be

13 reliable?

14 A. I can't say that not a single media report is reliable. But from

15 experience, especially when there's a war on, you yourself know that, in

16 wartime situations, newspaper reports are often incorrect, and that's

17 maybe natural in view of the circumstances the journalists have to work

18 in. I only felt that newspaper articles cannot be considered relevant if

19 such an important assessment has to be made. One then has to have

20 reliable sources.

21 Q. Right above that, in my English version, you're talking about

22 documentation by photographs. You say: "Photography cannot be an

23 independent means of verification because a photograph itself is not a

24 document without interpretation."

25 In English, we have a saying that a picture is worth a thousand

1 words. Isn't it true that oftentimes a photograph speaks volumes?

2 A. A photograph can certainly say a lot; but if it is not

3 accompanied by the proper description, it can often be seriously

4 misleading. If a photograph contains certain interpretations, certain

5 markers in it, then it can, indeed, be relevant information.

6 Q. Okay. Thank you. Immediately above that, there is a reference

7 to the Serbian Orthodox Eparchy of Raska-Prizren, and your evaluation

8 says: "Avoiding confident informants from the Serbian side ..."

9 What proof do you have to support that claim that Herscher and

10 Riedlmayer were avoiding competent informants from the Serbian side?

11 A. Mr. Prosecutor, this example illustrates our objectivity. We did

12 not accept information coming from the Serbian Orthodox church as

13 relevant because we don't consider them to be -- well, we don't consider

14 a monk to be an expert source who knows about the protection of the

15 cultural heritage. So Mr. Riedlmayer and Herscher could have established

16 contact. We met Mr. Herscher in Decani monastery and offered him our

17 cooperation, and I wish we had worked on this together.

18 Q. When was it you met Mr. Herscher at Decani?

19 A. In 2000 and 2001.

20 Q. When in 2000?

21 A. I don't know whether it was autumn or early spring of 2001, but

22 it was around that time because we visited Decani more than once.

23 Q. And who spoke with him and offered their assistance? Was that

24 you personally?

25 A. I personally was there with Mrs. Menkovic, who is the president

1 of the centre for the preservation of the heritage of Kosovo and

2 Metohija. We were in charge of the project of urgent protection.

3 Q. The only documented indication I've seen in your report and the

4 attached annexes about efforts on your side to contact Herscher or

5 Riedlmayer is one -- a photocopy of what appears to be an e-mail exchange

6 with Mr. Herscher in, I think, the end of October 2001.

7 I would suggest to you that by then Herscher and Riedlmayer had

8 already finished writing their report. Isn't that correct?

9 A. Communication by e-mail came about later, but before that we had

10 met in the field. Communication followed when there appeared to be no

11 prospects of cooperation, so e-mails were sent by both sides.

12 Q. You never had any contact with Mr. Riedlmayer, did you?

13 A. Not with Mr. Riedlmayer because we didn't have an opportunity,

14 and we met Mr. Herscher by accident. We ran into him by accident because

15 we didn't know where they were going.

16 Q. If you could go to the next page or the next entry after the

17 media accounts that we started with, it's A3.2.

18 MR. HANNIS: And now we're on page 20 of the English, Your

19 Honours.

20 Q. Reports by Kosovar refugees, eye-witness accounts were used, and

21 you say this is unreliable and incompetent sources. Under your

22 argumentation, you say: "One cannot expect a refugee to be an objective

23 witness ..."

24 Is that your position, sir, that no refugee can be an objective

25 witness?

1 A. I can't say that there are no such persons. Certainly, there are

2 objective persons among them, but allow me to say that they're in a

3 special situation where it's natural that emotions are present. And if

4 there are emotions, you can imagine what kind of statements can be made

5 because such sources in the nature of things are unable to control

6 themselves and be objective. That's quite natural, it's normal.

7 Q. So you're saying over half a million, hundreds of thousands of

8 refugees from Kosovo cannot be objective witnesses about cultural damage,

9 about destruction of mosques in their own villages? Is that your

10 position?

11 A. You misunderstand me. I'm sorry. I didn't -- I wasn't referring

12 to that number, but to the number surveyed while the work on the report

13 was going on. That's what I was referring to. To make that kind of

14 analysis is something that a sociologist should do. This is a problem of

15 sociology which I didn't go into. I only made an assessment based on the

16 report because if you read the comments that the person surveyed said,

17 you'll see the statements are incomplete. They are ad hoc, they have no

18 grounds, they don't identify the building, the time. Not a single person

19 who answered the survey provided complete and full information, at least

20 as Mr. Herscher and Riedlmayer's -- as far as that report is concerned,

21 because it deviates from their goal?

22 Q. And you know what their goal was? What do you believe their goal

23 was?

24 A. Their goal was to establish the actual situation when it comes to

25 the destruction of the cultural heritage and religious buildings;

1 although, the definition of the religious heritage is incomplete, in my

2 opinion, here because we could discuss that. What the religious -- what

3 the cultural heritage encompasses, this is only part of it, the part

4 covered by the report.

5 Q. As I understand it of what you said yesterday, you said you don't

6 dispute that destruction occurred, right?

7 A. I do not dispute that at all. I just want it to be specific, and

8 I want it to be documented as to the numbers, destruction, and so on. We

9 need to establish the truth, and the truth can only be established if we

10 use the accepted standards. We should not skip over accepted procedures

11 that have been used in profession for dozens of years and that have

12 provided good results.

13 Q. And in preparing your report and your evaluation of Herscher and

14 Riedlmayer's work, you didn't read the transcripts of the testimony in

15 this case from eye-witnesses to damage to mosques in their villages, did

16 you? You didn't read the testimony of Sabri Popaj or Agim Jemeni about

17 the mosque in Celine, did you?

18 A. I've read it.

19 Q. Oh, you have. Well, wait a second. How much testimony in this

20 case have you read? I thought you told us only excerpts and only what

21 your translator brought to you?

22 A. I read statements of a couple of witnesses --

23 Q. Which ones?

24 A. -- based on which, well, what was available to me. I can't

25 remember the exact names, but I remember that there was a very

1 characteristic testimony about a building in Smolnica.

2 Q. Okay. I know you have not testified as an expert in trial

3 before, but I would suggest to you, sir, that it's a common practice with

4 many experts in preparing expert reports to list in their own report all

5 the materials that they've read and relied on in preparing their report.

6 There's nothing in your report about reading testimonies or statements of

7 witnesses who claim to have eye-witness information about cultural

8 damage.

9 Can you tell me now how many such statements you read and the

10 names of the persons whose statements you read?

11 A. My primary goal or my primary preoccupation was to establish the

12 list of cultural properties, to identify cultural properties, and to make

13 a conclusion based on that.

14 Q. Sir, sir, stop.

15 A. I didn't go into --

16 Q. You're not answering my question. Did you not understand it? Do

17 I need to ask it again?

18 A. I don't know what else to tell you. I really wasn't focused on

19 that, what you're saying. My attention wasn't focused on the legal

20 aspect of the report, but on something that concerns the --

21 Q. Stop, stop. My question is: Can you tell me how many such

22 statements you read and the names of the persons whose statements you

23 read? Can you tell me that, yes or no?

24 A. I can't remember the names. It's hard for me to remember the

25 names, especially since --

1 Q. Did you write that down somewhere?

2 A. I certainly did in the material that I used as a basis for

3 writing my report.

4 Q. You don't have a copy of that with you, do you?

5 A. No, that's work material.

6 Q. Okay. Do you have any other kind of work material that you read

7 and relied on in making this report that is not referred to in your

8 report?

9 A. I think that I've mentioned almost all kinds of material in my

10 report. Perhaps I omitted some minor ones, but the essence is in it.

11 Q. So --

12 A. Whatever I considered relevant I listed in my report.

13 Q. So you considered the statements of eye-witnesses to cultural

14 damage something minor that didn't need to be listed in your report?

15 A. That's not what I meant, Mr. Prosecutor. I believed that I

16 shouldn't be assessing witness evidence. It is not up to me to do that.

17 It is up to me to deal with the strictly professional issues. I didn't

18 focus on legal side of it, and I think it's understandable. I didn't

19 want to go into that because that's slippery ground for me, and I would

20 never allow myself to evaluate something that goes beyond my professional

21 expertise.

22 Q. The next entry below that - actually, two below that - number 5,

23 witness interviews, your evaluation is: "Witness interviews were taken

24 without attempting even to satisfy ethnic balance ..."

25 Is there some protocol that requires interviews to be taken from

1 an equal number of people from all ethnicities? What's your reason for

2 this criticism?

3 A. That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that the number of

4 surveyed witnesses needed to be equal. I think that's not possible

5 either. But one can always look for a ratio that would be acceptable in

6 order to confirm this. In order for the report to be more relevant, it

7 would need to use a greater number of sources when it comes to witnesses

8 because everybody saw it from their own angle. Everybody saw it with

9 their own eyes, and there were a lot of such examples.

10 Q. Okay. On page 21 of the English, this is under item 5.5, general

11 accomplishment of assigned goals, you're talking about: "This was too

12 short a time for such a serious task." This is where you talk about how

13 many structures Riedlmayer and Herscher gathered data on, with your

14 breakdown of how many they would have had to see in the days they were

15 present in the territory.

16 At the bottom of your argumentation about that, you say: "In a

17 large number of cases, the structures in the field were visited by two

18 individuals; an individual and an institution or two institutions in

19 various time-periods, A. Herscher and A. Riedlmayer, never visited any

20 single site together ..."

21 You're wrong about that, sir. What was your basis for writing

22 that in your report?

23 A. The basis was precisely the report by Riedlmayer and Herscher

24 because after touring each building, they would write down who toured it

25 and who produced the photographs. And based on that, I drew my

1 conclusions because on each site, you can see who the author of the

2 photograph was and who visited the site. And in relation to ten sites or

3 11 sites, I didn't find any information indicating of who toured it.

4 That means that they weren't toured, at least that's what the

5 documentation says. That doesn't necessarily need to be accurate.

6 You will find that data towards the end of the report where there

7 are several buildings on the same location that had not been toured. I'm

8 just saying this so you can find it easier.

9 Q. Yes. But if you had read the testimony of Mr. Riedlmayer in this

10 case, you would know that he testified under oath on the 31st of October,

11 at page 5541, lines 17 through 20: "At the time that we received the

12 information, Mr. Herscher and I visited every site together, and we could

13 usually have a division of labour: One of us would handle the camera,

14 the other one would be recording information ..."

15 He also said the same thing basically, at page 5450, lines 11

16 through 17. But because you didn't read the testimony of Mr. Riedlmayer,

17 you got that wrong in your report, didn't you?

18 A. I didn't write it erroneously. I simply evaluated what they put

19 in their report. In the report itself, you can see for yourself that's

20 what it says.

21 Q. Yeah, but you're wrong. They both visited every site, and you

22 say they didn't visit a single site together. How more wrong can you be?

23 A. I now can go over the table with 230 buildings that they offered

24 in their report. I can do it now, and I had no reason to think that they

25 would make such a mistake in their report. I simply took this report as

1 a product of their work. I had no reason to suspect that they put it

2 down erroneously. A mistake or two, that's possible. They were put

3 in -- they came as a result of a chance, and they're quite evident in the

4 report. Let me just give you an example.

5 Q. No, no. Stop. Don't give me an example because I didn't ask you

6 that question. The lawyer over there might ask you about it when it's

7 his turn again. Might point is, sir, you've written a report purporting

8 to be an expert and your report is criticising the report of Riedlmayer

9 and Herscher. The point I'm trying to make is you knew that Riedlmayer

10 came here to testify about his report. You were aware of that, weren't

11 you?

12 A. I knew that.

13 Q. Did you think it would be helpful to you in preparing an

14 evaluation of his report to hear what he had to say under oath when he

15 testified here? You didn't think you needed to see that? You didn't

16 think that might enlighten you about some ambiguities that you saw in the

17 report?

18 A. I primarily did not consider Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony as

19 something that should be my focus because that was in another case, if

20 you had in mind the Milosevic case.

21 Q. No, no. I'm talking about his testimony in this very same case.

22 You didn't think it would be helpful to see what he had to say about his

23 report, not just in Milosevic but in this case as well?

24 A. I can just repeat that I believed that I shouldn't deal with

25 those kinds of issues. My main guiding point was their report. I based

1 my work on their report. I didn't think that I needed to evaluate issues

2 that are dealt with by the Court. I think that it is up to the Court to

3 deal with it, not up to me. That was my position.

4 Q. One of the issues being dealt with by the Court concerning

5 Mr. Riedlmayer was his report. Let me give you one concrete example, and

6 I'll stop on this.

7 Would you agree with me, at least, it would have been helpful to

8 you to have read Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony in this case because then you

9 would not have made the mistake that you did make putting in your report

10 that Riedlmayer and Herscher never visited a single site together? If

11 you had read the testimony, you wouldn't have written that in your

12 report, right?

13 A. If it comes to evaluating a report, then I can't agree with you;

14 otherwise, I would. But my task was to evaluate their report, so I

15 cannot take it upon my shoulders to be responsible for the form in which

16 the report was provided. The report was the basic document that I was to

17 evaluate, in my mind. Let me just say. Take Landovica as an example.

18 Mr. Riedlmayer was in Landovica --

19 Q. Stop, stop. You've answered my question. Your lawyer can ask

20 you something further if he wants. Were you paid by the hour or were you

21 paid a flat fee for your work?

22 A. It was a flat fee.

23 Q. So by not taking the time to read two and a half days of

24 transcript, you made more money per hour that way, right?

25 MR. ZECEVIC: I would need to object.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: On what basis?

2 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, my learned friend knows -- just a second.

3 My learned friend knows the way how OLAD is paying for all

4 experts and there is really nothing that we can do because that's a

5 policy of this Tribunal, and it assumes what it assumes as obligation of

6 any expert and everybody is paid the same fee and same amount.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'll move on.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 MR. HANNIS:

11 Q. On page 29 of the English, sir, and I'm not sure what page that

12 is for you, it has to do with an evaluation about the 49 Islamic

13 monuments in Pec and Peja.

14 MR. HANNIS: I don't know if my learned friends can help me with

15 the B/C/S page.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: It's page 30.

17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

18 Q. Do you find that, Professor?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Riedlmayer and Herscher say that every one of the district's 49

21 Islamic monuments was attacked, and they go on a bit. In your

22 evaluation, you say: "All," all, "such data are totally unprofessional,

23 unverifiable, and unreliable. Nowhere else is there information that

24 there were 18 mosques from the 15th, 18th centuries in Pec. The hammam

25 is certainly not from the 15th century because there exists documentation

1 about it as a cultural property."

2 I'm not sure what that means. You said: "The hammam is not from

3 the 15th century because there exists documentation about it as a

4 cultural property." Does that documentation say it's from a later date,

5 or is it because it's designated cultural property that means it's newer?

6 What does that mean?

7 A. It means that "in the existing documentation" there is a list of

8 monuments, the one that you used yesterday. In there, you will find that

9 hammam is registered as a cultural property, and that it is from the

10 17th century. I took that as an example of the erroneous approach and

11 arbitrary attitude in giving assessments.

12 This was an example because you may say two centuries doesn't

13 mean much when it comes to historical heritage, but this is just an

14 example based on which you can come to doubt other data for which there

15 is no documentation.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. This is why --

18 Q. Your disagreement, then, is with their dating of some of the

19 buildings that they describe, but you don't dispute that those buildings

20 were damaged or destroyed, as described in the report, do you?

21 A. Based on the entire report, you can see that due to

22 inconsistencies confusion is created, and then nobody is sure, nobody is

23 certain, of the data offered. I would truly like to find an expert who

24 could, based on the documentation offered when it comes to these 40-some

25 buildings in Pec, an expert who could come up with a relevant figure when

1 it comes to cultural and religious property.

2 Q. But you personally don't have any information to dispute or

3 refute what Riedlmayer and Herscher have to say about that number of

4 monuments, mosques, et cetera, being damaged or destroyed?

5 A. I consulted all existing documentation, everything that exists,

6 and I did not come to that conclusion. You may believe me or you may

7 decide not to believe me. I was born in Pec, I know every street and

8 every alley, and I'm familiar with all of these locations. These figures

9 are not conducive to finding a stability in the future because every

10 manipulation will produce a counter manipulation, and that won't do us

11 any good.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: So what is your position? Are there or are there

13 not 36 mosques?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, there aren't.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: How many are there?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only offer you information

17 connected to the sources in the documentation.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Well, how many are there?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About ten, a dozen.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: And your entire basis for saying that is that

21 that's the total number that are registered in documents?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not in a position now, you'll

23 allow me to say, that I'm not in a position to protect my profession. I

24 feel very uncomfortable if I have to say something off the top of my

25 head. If there was documentation to be consulted, all the information

1 would have to be correct.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can you answer my question. The entire

3 basis for your conclusion about the number of mosques in Pec is the

4 number actually registered in documents, or am I misunderstanding you?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the only relevant

6 information for cultural goods is what is registered as a cultural

7 property. Religious properties also have to be registered with the

8 Islamic community.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you prepared to answer my question or not?

10 Please don't try to defend what you've done. Just answer the question.

11 I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong. I only want to know

12 whether the entire basis for saying that there are ten or a dozen mosques

13 is that that's the total number that are registered in documents in Pec.

14 And if I'm wrong that that's the basis you're using, please tell me.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. The information

16 offered is incorrect. I don't have any information to confirm anything

17 like this.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't understand why you can't just answer my

19 question and why you have to go racing off onto something else.

20 Let's move on. Mr. Hannis.

21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, please

23 may I add something.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm reminded that that's the basis on which you

2 make this conclusion in spite of the fact that you know every street and

3 every alley and you're familiar with all the locations and you were born

4 there?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's my free assessment,

6 that there aren't that number of mosques. But I ask you very kindly if I

7 may just say one thing. I feel very uncomfortable when something that is

8 the result of professional work over 40 or 50 years is brought into

9 question. If one day the Serbian Orthodox church asks a similar question

10 and says there was so much of all that, we know it was there, but they

11 don't offer any documentation, then we have two opposing sides and we

12 will never be able to overcome this. There will never be any degree of

13 understanding or reconciliation. Things should not be made up or

14 confused, and that's my main goal.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

16 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Sorry, Professor. I wish to intervene and inform

17 you that when you are here to depose, you have to talk of the ground

18 realities and merely not anchor all your information coming from a

19 particular official source, because you've taken the oath of telling us

20 everything that is correct. You know that place very well, you have

21 lived there. That is the why you have to tell us the realities. That's

22 where there's testimony; otherwise, we could get the record and read it.

23 Thank you very much.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

25 Q. I think two more things from your report, Professor, and then

1 I'll move on to a different topic. I'm now back at page 18 of your

2 report. This is under table 4. I think it's the third entry under

3 table 4. That's probably page 18 or 19 for you.

4 You're talking about, with regard to documentation on mosque, you

5 found that some facts directly refute these biassed conclusions, and

6 they're just that photo documentation that the authors are constantly

7 citing. In your argumentation, you point to a specific example

8 concerning the burning of the office and archive of the Islamic community

9 in Pristina on 13 June.

10 You say that NATO forces had entered Kosovo and Metohija on the

11 12th of June, 1999; and before then, all police forces had to leave

12 Pokrajina. Serbian police would have had to set the fire in the presence

13 of a large number of people and of NATO forces. You say all police

14 forces had to leave.

15 Let me ask you this: When did you personally leave Kosovo?

16 A. I didn't leave, I just withdrew temporarily, and this was in

17 mid-August or towards the end of August 1999 municipal.

18 Q. Okay. So were you in Pristina town on the 13th of June, 1999?

19 A. Yes, certainly, I was. I'm aware of that incident because it was

20 near my institution, and one could see everything from the window of my

21 office.

22 Q. And you saw it burning on the 13th of June, 1999?

23 A. Yes, I did. I saw people gathering. I saw there was a crowd,

24 people were passing by the building, they were curious, but I didn't

25 leave my office. I just looked out of my office window.

1 Q. But you were aware that police were still in Pristina town on the

2 13th of June, 1999, weren't you?

3 A. Anyone who was on the spot can confirm there was no chance that

4 on the 13th of June the police could have been in Pristina. It was

5 technically impossible because KFOR had taken all the -- had taken up all

6 the buildings on the first day.

7 Q. You say anyone on the spot would have known? That's what you're

8 saying?

9 A. Well, I'm saying that if anyone who was there at that point in

10 time, anyone who was there could tell you that there was no possibility

11 of the police moving around the town.

12 Q. You weren't aware of a Reuters news report from the 13th of June

13 about the British paratroopers shooting a man who had first approached

14 them and fired shots at them; and they, those British troops, consulted

15 with MUP police about that event on the 13th of June?

16 You didn't know about that?

17 A. I didn't know about that, but believe me --

18 Q. Stop, stop, stop. I just asked you if you knew. If you don't

19 know, that's fine. I'll move on to something else. You didn't know

20 about a Cox news service report from the 13th of June, 1999, from Marsha

21 Kunstel, about the Russians who were at the Pristina airport? Did you

22 know about that, some 300 Russian troops dug-in at the airport, yes or

23 no?

24 A. I am aware of that, yes. Yes, yes.

25 Q. Were you aware that Serbian police prevented reporters from

1 approaching General Michael Jackson while he tried to give a conference

2 at the airport? You didn't know about that?

3 A. [No interpretation]

4 Q. You weren't aware of Washington Post report about Yugoslav

5 soldiers and Serbian police still in evidence in many areas in the

6 capital, Pristina, on the 13th of June?

7 A. I can tell you that if we were to use media sources, they were

8 contradictory. Media sources from all sides were contradictory.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Please just answer the question. Don't you

10 understand the concept of answering the questions you're asked?

11 MR. HANNIS:

12 Q. So I take it you don't know about that?

13 A. No, I didn't hear about that.

14 Q. And, specifically --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, hold on, Mr. Hannis.

16 Mr. Zecevic is concerned about something.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours. I was just wondering what is

18 the basis of all these questions about, and I assume that's media

19 reports.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: He's asking on that basis to show he's got a

21 foundation for asking the question. He knows very well that that doesn't

22 make it evidence, but he's doing it so that you won't get up and say

23 what's his basis for asking that question. It's been done many times so

24 far in the trial.

25 Can anyone help with the answer to the question at line 23, and

1 the reference to Serb police preventing reporters from approaching

2 General Jackson at the airport? Did you know about that?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 Mr. Hannis.

6 MR. HANNIS:

7 Q. And, lastly, specifically relating to the Islamic community's

8 archives, were you aware of a report by Janine Di Giovanni for the Times

9 of London on the 14th of June, indicating that: On the 13th, under the

10 nose of recently arrived NATO, the two-storey hall of records which

11 houses all the documents from the grand mosque was torched and burned to

12 the ground. Eye-witnesses too frightened to give their names said they

13 saw two civilian cars with around 15 policemen run into the house; and

14 when they came out, the house burst into flames."

15 You never heard about that one?

16 A. Mr. Prosecutor, your --

17 Q. Yes or no, did you? Did you?

18 A. It's technically impossible to do that, please.

19 Q. It's technically impossible to say whether you heard about it or

20 not? I'm just asking you yes or no.

21 A. I didn't hear about it because it's not possible.

22 Q. No, no, no. I didn't ask you that. I asked you yes or no.

23 Please just answer yes or no. Don't add your editorial comment.

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. You'll be happy to hear the last thing I want to ask

1 you about in your report is on page 34 of the English, and that may be

2 page 35 for you. It concerns findings; and in your argumentation, you're

3 talking about the Lap mosque in Pristina.

4 This is something that I think was touched upon during your

5 direct testimony. Do you find that one?

6 A. Please go ahead.

7 Q. You said there's no confirmation that the Lap mosque in Pristina

8 was damaged during the war because, during the war no structure,

9 monument, in Pristina suffered except from the consequences of the

10 bombing of the centre.

11 Now, I think, when you testified earlier, you told us that you

12 were proud of the fact that no religious building in Pristina suffered

13 damage during the war; is that correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And there was some discussion about what is referred to by some

16 people as the Lap mosque in Pristina, and you said there was conflicting

17 information about that in Riedlmayer's report and some other report.

18 What other report were you referring to or do you know?

19 A. I think that this is the report where Mr. Heymowski is mentioned,

20 who was a consultant.

21 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you what's been marked as Exhibit P3145,

22 and I'm sorry I don't have a translation in Serbian. I will describe

23 this to you, and maybe you can tell me if it's the one you're thinking

24 of. It's dated as the 7th of November, 2006, a document adopted by the

25 Ministry of Culture, Youth, and Sports in Kosovo.

1 MR. HANNIS: I think we need to go to page 2 in e-court.

2 Q. It's described as a preliminary technical assessment of the

3 architectural and archaeological heritage in south-east Europe. And in

4 the forward, it mentions several experts ...

5 MR. HANNIS: Next page, please.

6 Q. ... including Emma Carmichael from the United Kingdom, Giorgio

7 Gianighian from Italy, Heymowski from Sweden, and some others. Is that

8 the report you're talking about?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. HANNIS: If we can go to the next page.

11 Q. I don't know if you can see a photograph there, but this is a

12 photograph that purports to be of the mosque of Lap in Pristina. Item

13 number 1.5 lists an address for that mosque as Ilir Konushevci Street.

14 Does that help refresh your memory about where this particular

15 mosque was located?

16 A. That mosque is on the road leading out of Pristina towards

17 Podujevo, to the best of my knowledge.

18 Q. Okay. So you were familiar with this mosque?

19 A. Absolutely, I am, but there's a confusion of concepts. In

20 Mr. Riedlmayer and Herscher's reports, there's a mention of the dzamija,

21 the mosque at Vranjevac. I don't know whether they're referring to Lap

22 dzamija or the Vranjevac dzamija, because to the best of my knowledge it

23 says, on the 13th, one mosque, not two mosques, in Pristina were damaged.

24 Now you have information that there's one mosque and the other mosque, so

25 which one are they referring to? Because not even the experts who

1 brought this information, they probably had Riedlmayer's report, and I

2 surprised they didn't compare it with their finding.

3 Q. Well, here's a photograph and the report describes in some detail

4 the damage, primarily consisting of a fire in the interior and all the

5 woodwork being charred and ruined. So the mosque is not destroyed but

6 it's damaged. My point is it's not whether it's one or two, but you said

7 there was not a single religious building in Pristina that was damaged

8 during the war. Here we have a report, we have a paragraph, we have a

9 committee of experts doing an assessment, and the report indicates that

10 this mosque in Pristina was damaged during the war.

11 Do you disagree with that?

12 A. Sir, Mr. Prosecutor, I think I was precise in my answer, I was

13 very precise. I said in the course of wartime operations. On the 13th,

14 there is no war; the war had ended before that. You have to understand

15 something that's part of one's intimate feelings. Everybody finds this

16 very difficult. If I say something with pride, you have to understand

17 me. You have to know that I'm attached to something in peacetime but not

18 to the tragedy of any group or nation. You shouldn't take it like that.

19 This is a totally unprotected mosque. It's actually a

20 market-place, a bazaar. This is a bazaar mosque. There's no fence

21 around it or anything. When there was a market, they had thousands of

22 people gathered around.

23 Q. Stop. But you said, earlier in your testimony, not a single

24 religious building in Pristina was damaged during the war. This is a

25 religious building and this report indicates it was damaged during the

1 car. Are you saying the damage happened five minutes after the war

2 ended? What's your information about when it happened?

3 A. I think it happened on the same day the archives were damaged or

4 the next day because that's a little bit further away from the archives,

5 so I wasn't able to see it for myself.

6 Q. But you have no personal knowledge or information to dispute the

7 report's finding that it was damaged during the war, do you?

8 A. Certainly not in the course of the war.

9 Q. How do you know that? You weren't there. You have no personal

10 information.

11 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I communicated with my Albanian colleagues on a

12 daily basis. They were in the museum building with me, and it was from

13 them I would hear information that something like that had happened. I

14 was constantly in communication with them; and, therefore, I was always

15 at the source of information. So please don't put me in this

16 uncomfortable situation. Everything has its limits. Don't attack a

17 person's personality.

18 Q. Were your Albanian colleagues going out and checking on the

19 mosque of Lap on a regular basis prior to the end of the war?

20 A. As I said, I was in daily communication with those people. They

21 were with me --

22 Q. No. My question was: Were they going out and doing a check on

23 the Lap mosque prior to the end of the war, so they would be able to know

24 if anything had happened to it?

25 A. That was not their official duty.

1 MR. IVETIC: For the record, Your Honour, I would ask Mr. Hannis

2 to point to a reference where there's a finding by the commission that it

3 was damaged during a certain point in time. From my review of the

4 document, it appears they are only relying upon Sabri Bajgora again.

5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, the document speaks for itself.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Please continue, Mr. Hannis.

7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

8 Q. In your testimony yesterday, the page which was then numbered 50,

9 you talked about the ethnic breakdown of employees at the library [sic].

10 Who held the higher positions -- I'm sorry. Not the library, the museum.

11 Who held the higher positions in the library [sic] in 1998 and

12 1999 when you were the director, and what ethnic background?

13 A. There was a Turkish lady at the library.

14 Q. Okay. What was her name?

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Why --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bukrija [phoen].

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Which library are we talking about?

18 MR. HANNIS: I meant at the museum.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: We're away on a tangent, Mr. Hannis.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The museum library, I mean.

21 MR. HANNIS: Okay.

22 Q. And regarding the positions, you said, at page 55: "From 1975

23 until 1990, the dominant leading staff was made of Albanians; however,

24 then certain changes came about and the political situation was that it

25 was what it was and changes were implemented."

1 So, after 1990, the changes that resulted, resulted in Serbs

2 holding the vast majority of the higher positions throughout Kosovo,

3 right?

4 A. That was the political situation that existed. I would rather

5 refrain from commenting it because I know that that might provoke your

6 anger. So I would rather refrain from any comments. If you wanted to

7 hear me out, then I could tell you everything from the beginning to the

8 end. I'm quite prepared to do that, as I have no reservations about

9 that.

10 Q. No, no.

11 A. But I feel --

12 Q. I'm sorry if my anger is bothering you, but my question was: Was

13 the result of that change that you described that there were more --

14 A. I'm not used to that type of communication.

15 Q. My question was: As a result of that change, was the result that

16 Serbs held the vast majority of higher positions throughout Kosovo and

17 Metohija? Can you say yes or no?

18 A. I did not have complete information. I suppose that that's how

19 it was because the political process led in that direction. There were

20 events happening of political nature.

21 If you wish me to comment upon, then I can explain, but then

22 don't interrupt me. Let me say it from the beginning to the end, so that

23 you have complete insight into it. It was evident, and it was well-known

24 to the international community, too.

25 Q. You've answered my question. I'm not going to ask you that other

1 one. You mentioned that in -- I'm not sure if I got it right in the

2 transcript. In Pristina, is there an imperial mosque or was there an

3 imperial mosque in 1999?

4 A. You did not misunderstand.

5 Q. Was there also a mosque named the emperor's mosque or is that the

6 same thing?

7 A. I did not find reference to emperor's mosque in the existing

8 documentation.

9 Q. You told us yesterday, at page 61, when we were talking about

10 annex 8 to your statement, with the list of monuments, you said there

11 were only two that were declared cultural property and that were created

12 between 1901 and 1913. One of those was the imperial mosque in Pristina.

13 Now, are you saying that mosque was built between 1901 and 1913?

14 A. That's what it says for the mosque in Gnjilane and for the

15 imperial mosque in Pristina. That fact comes from the documentation and

16 I quoted it. Those are the only two monuments from the 20th century that

17 were put on the list of cultural heritage out of all monuments existing

18 in Kosovo and Metohija.

19 Q. And you're -- you have no information to indicate that that

20 mosque was built many, many years earlier, hundreds of years earlier?

21 A. I can only speak on the basis of the existing documentation, and

22 that's what the documentation says --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: No, you can't. No, you can't. You're a man who's

24 familiar with Pristina, you know the layout of the place, the cultural

25 buildings within it. Please answer that question. Is there nothing you

1 know of to indicate the mosque was built earlier than that?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I truly don't have

3 any piece of information on the basis of which I could tell you what year

4 the mosque was built, except for what the documentation says. If we were

5 to do some other kind of expertise, perhaps that figure or that date

6 could be different. But I don't have anything else that could help me

7 make a different conclusion. I found documents stating that those are

8 the only two monuments from the 20th century that were put on the list of

9 cultural property.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you never heard it suggested anywhere by

11 anyone that that mosque is older?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had no occasion. It is possible

13 that is different, but you need to show me relevant information.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I'm asking you. Have you never heard it

15 suggested anywhere by anyone that that mosque is older?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, let me

17 just give you a sentence. It's a very tragic situation --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes or no.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. If I may explain in a

20 sentence --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I hope it's short.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- by your leave.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: It's a simple, straightforward answer.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly. Neglect and lack of

25 care in relation to cultural monuments has been present for decades, both

1 on the part of ethnic communities that use those buildings and also on

2 the part of the protection services. This is a tragic situation, and it

3 shouldn't be attributed to any individual. It's a general state of

4 affairs. This is the lack and neglect that is not present elsewhere in

5 Europe.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Please stop. I note your unwillingness to answer

7 my question. I have other questions I'll deal with in a moment.

8 Mr. Hannis, are you about finished?

9 MR. HANNIS: I am, Your Honour. I just have a couple more

10 questions on this, and then one about some listings in the indictment.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Please, let's focus this and get it complete.

12 MR. HANNIS: I will.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: There's a limit to the time we can spend on this.

14 MR. HANNIS:

15 Q. Did you ever hear of the imperial mosque referred to as the

16 mosque of Sultan Mehmed the II?

17 A. It probably has two names, but I don't know about it.

18 Q. And you're not aware that others have claimed it was built

19 in 1461?

20 A. I did not come across that fact in the report by Riedlmayer and

21 Herscher, so I did not do any further research. I simply used what they

22 had and I compare it to other documents. I don't know how else I can

23 explain that to you. If they who used the database by Mr. Bajgora didn't

24 come to that conclusion, then I was even less likely to do so.

25 Q. And you're not aware of it being listed as a protected monument

1 in 1953 rather than 1993?

2 A. I never claimed it was in 1993.

3 Q. Yes, you did. Isn't that what you said yesterday?

4 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the document --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the document which we presented is

8 dated 31st December, 1994, but it doesn't mean that it was created on

9 that date. That is -- that is covering the overall situation of the

10 protected monuments from after the Second World War, and there has been a

11 very clear answer on that.

12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

14 Mr. Hannis, your question at 65, line 7, has been not fully

15 transcribed. I think you made a reference to the sultan. No, no, sorry.

16 It's line 4.

17 MR. HANNIS: Sultan Mehmed the II. My spelling on the document I

18 had was M-e-h-m-e-d.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 Mr. Bakrac.

21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may be of

22 assistance, I think that later on I noticed that in transcript there was

23 a mistake. The witness said "1953" and transcript reads "1993," and we

24 can listen to the tapes. I think that this is where the confusion was

25 created.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: What's the line reference for that, Mr. Bakrac?

2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I don't have the line. I simply

3 looked at it in haste yesterday. I noticed that it was a mistake, but I

4 will check it with my people.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

6 A law of diminishing returns, Mr. Hannis.

7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Please get this completed now.

9 MR. HANNIS:

10 Q. Professor, in preparing your report and/or in preparing your

11 testimony here, did you review the indictment in this case, in particular

12 paragraph 75(d) [sic] which listed a number of mosques that the

13 Prosecution alleges were destroyed during the war?

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Not 75(d), I don't think.

15 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, 77(d).

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

17 MR. HANNIS: I misspoke.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't consider it necessary to

19 review that. My belief was that that indictment or simply focusing on

20 that kind of material would lead me in an inappropriate direction. All I

21 evaluated was the report before me, that by Mr. Riedlmayer and Herscher.

22 I didn't go into the nature of other issues.

23 MR. HANNIS:

24 Q. You're aware that one of the allegations is that the mosque in

25 Bela Crkva was damaged during the war, that the minaret was destroyed?

1 A. From the documentation offered by Mr. Riedlmayer and

2 Mr. Herscher, that's what stems from it.

3 Q. And you have no evidence to dispute that, do you?

4 A. I can't get to the relevant information. I wasn't invited to

5 visit these sites, nor would it be possible for me to do that. I would

6 gladly do that were it possible.

7 Q. You didn't see the aerial photographs before and after of

8 Bela Crkva, showing a mosque with a minaret standing and then later on

9 without a minaret? You didn't see that photograph?

10 A. Most likely I did see it, but I stand by what I have stated

11 earlier.

12 Q. And you didn't read the testimony of the eye-witnesses from that

13 area about the mosque being damaged, did you?

14 A. I read some statements, maybe even that particular one. You now

15 want to deal with the situation that I cannot describe because I lack

16 relevant information. I was on the spot watching the archives burn, and

17 you don't believe me because you don't consider me to be a reliable

18 eye-witness. So you're using double standards. If you don't believe me

19 who was present on the spot, how could I trust somebody else? Perhaps

20 that witness is right, but I have no evidence to support or deny it. All

21 I'm doing is using available sources, unless somebody told me to do

22 otherwise.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, Mr. Hannis has not suggested he doesn't

24 believe you; it's not his job to believe you or otherwise. You have no

25 basis for making that conclusion, and the only evidence you've been able

1 to give us was that it was on fire. You have given no indication of who

2 set it on fire.

3 Mr. Hannis.

4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

5 Q. Professor, I do believe you that it burned. I have no further

6 questions for you. Thank you.

7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I have found it. It's page 25838,

10 line 20. I think it would be good to listen to the tapes. The witness

11 said "1953," and the transcript reads "1993."

12 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall ask CLSS to revise that line.

13 Questioned by the Court:

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, was any part of the Pristina museum

15 moved to Belgrade?

16 A. What was exhibited at the exhibition called archaeology and the

17 other exhibition, jewellery and gold artefacts, that was in 1998, late

18 1998, and early 1999. It was moved, and also certain artefacts from the

19 ethnographic collection were moved, pursuant to approval of General

20 Jackson based on The Hague Convention on immunity of cultural heritage.

21 Since we were conducting revision of material, that material was in the

22 whole of the museum; and after the 12th -- or rather, the 10th of June, I

23 can't remember the exact date, but some ten or 15 days later the building

24 was broken into, and there was a danger that material could be destroyed.

25 I managed to protect the material and the British unit within KFOR

1 assisted us in housing and protecting that material. This --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: So what proportion of the artefacts of the museum

3 were ultimately in Belgrade rather than Pristina?

4 A. About 5 per cent.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: What is it you do then?

6 A. 5 per cent of the total collection.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: So what is it you do as the director of the

8 Pristina museum when you can't actually get to Pristina?

9 A. We work with the existing collection, the collection that's

10 available to us. We also produce technical documentation and other kinds

11 of documentation. This is a lot of work for curators. Those who work in

12 the field know that it's not the kind of work that can be completed in a

13 short period of time. It requires long-term work because everything

14 needs to be put on digital form and documented and put in the appropriate

15 space. Also conservation or preservation of the material, that's another

16 demanding work that is quite labour-intensive.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: How many of a staff do you have?

18 A. We have those who are employed and those who are not. Technical

19 personnel is not employed and the professional staff are. There are six

20 of those who are employed, and the others are on what we call waiting.

21 They are technical personnel, such as doormen and so on.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: So do they work with you?

23 A. Technical personnel is officially still engaged, but they do not

24 work because it's technically not possible. We are using a building that

25 already has such technical services, so we do not need to actually use

1 the services of our own technical people.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Are there any Muslim artefacts among the 5 per

3 cent of the collection that you have?

4 A. We have artefacts that are archaeological and ethnographic. When

5 it comes to archaeological artefacts, it is neither Islamic or Christian,

6 it is European. That is the only way I can describe it. As for the

7 ethnographic artefacts, they are somehow classified, categorised when we

8 were doing the review. Also when we were moving that from the museum

9 building --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: So is the answer no? Try and make it simple for

11 me.

12 A. I will explain it in one sentence. That material is of general

13 importance. It contains jewellery and costumes --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I never, for a moment, suggested that

15 archaeological artefacts should necessarily fall under one religious

16 denomination description or another. I just wanted to know if any of the

17 artefacts you have of any type whatsoever are of a particularly Islamic

18 connection. That's all.

19 A. What was used for the exhibition in Belgrade in 1998, among that

20 material, you can find some artefacts, most likely. As for the part that

21 had been moved with the assistance of the British army, there is no other

22 artefacts included there because their expert followed the -- monitored

23 the classification of the material. So it was nobody's intention that it

24 be done that way.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Please listen carefully to this question and try

1 to answer it yes or no, if you can. Do you consider yourself to be an

2 expert in Muslim religious buildings?

3 A. I'm not.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. Thank you.

5 We will take another break at this stage. We have to break for

6 half an hour at this stage, Professor. So could you again please leave

7 the courtroom with the usher.

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Could you please leave the courtroom with

10 the usher. We'll see you again at -- we'll try to make it ten minutes

11 to 1.00.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

15 [The witness takes the stand]

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, re-examination?

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Very short, Your Honour. Thank you very

18 much.

19 Re-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, in the course of the

21 cross-examination by Mr. Hannis, he asked you about the database that was

22 attached to Riedlmayer and Herscher report. In your report at the last

23 page, there is annex 11, where it is stated in the list of objects

24 seen -- contained in the database Herscher/Riedlmayer. Have you compiled

25 the list or not and is it based on the said database?

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. Thank you. Have you, as a part of this list that you had formed

3 that's part of the present annex 11, did you include the photographs that

4 are related to specific objects and locations?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. In your report on page 21, 5.5, 21, page 21, in the

7 column arguments, argumentation, under 23, have you found that?

8 A. Yes, go on.

9 Q. Do you here find that it's a problem that the gentlemen, Herscher

10 and Riedlmayer, failed to verify the credibility of the information?

11 A. Yes, that's my complaint in that regard.

12 Q. So you're saying that information received from a certain source

13 needs to be verified if possible?

14 A. Yes, of course.

15 Q. Thank you. My last two questions. Page 30, page 30, 5.6, in

16 relation to number of Islamic mosques and Islamic monuments in Pec, are

17 Messrs. Riedlmayer and Herscher getting confirmation in relation to their

18 claim that the number of Islamic monuments that were attacked on the --

19 in the relevant period, do they give argumentation whether they were

20 attacked or not?

21 A. No, they don't give any proof.

22 Q. My last question -- or rather, I don't have any further

23 questions. Thank you, Professor.

24 A. Thank you.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

1 There are a number of issues here over what ought to be admitted.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: The report reminds us about references made to

4 other reports. I think there are six others, Mr. Zecevic, that are

5 referred to in pages 5 to 7, I think, of -- or to page 8 of the report.

6 Are these all exhibits already in the trial?

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I don't believe so. They are --

8 [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Zecevic.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.

11 Your Honour, I believe they are just annexes to the report; and

12 in the very end of his report, you have the document which lists all 15

13 annexes to the report.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: So, are these six annexes to the present report?

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: In the report, there are references to a number of

17 documents which are neither annexes nor existing exhibits in the case.

18 What is it you expect us to do in relation to them?

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Well --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: If you take page 13 in the English, and you'll see

21 at the top in the right-hand column the reference to Branislav Krstic.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: What are we to make of that?

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honour, since Professor Jokic is our

25 joint expert, I would -- if I would be given until tomorrow morning so I

1 can consult with other Defences, I'll then propose to the Trial Chamber

2 our view of the issue -- on the issue of how possibly we can deal with

3 it.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: The annexes have been referred to, to a limited

5 extent, in the evidence and are referred to also, to a limited extent, in

6 the report itself.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah, that is correct, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: We see no reason why this whole documentation

9 should be admitted. We have to be selective about what happens here now

10 that the case is so focused.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: I have identified, during the direct and the

12 cross-examination and the Trial Chamber questions, I have identified

13 actually five annexes which have been referred to. But still I would, as

14 I explained, I would need to consult with my colleagues on a proposal

15 which we would make to the Trial Chamber, if you permit me to do so.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: If you take as an example annex 5 which is,

17 Project for the protection of natural and cultural heritage in Metohija,

18 hopefully all that is required from that is perhaps an example of

19 something indicating methodology --

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: -- bearing in mind that it deals with -- well,

22 virtually everything it deals with is not an issue in this case.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, it is -- it is an example of methodology and

24 I referred to, I believe, only four or five e-court pages, and we can --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

1 MR. ZECEVIC: -- certainly accommodate the Trial Chamber in that

2 respect, the annex 5.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: So what you're suggesting is that you make a

4 filing on this, are you?

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, whatever pleases the Court.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: I can do it orally as well tomorrow morning.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: No. It would be satisfactory if you were to make

9 a filing, bearing in mind what we've said --

10 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and ensuring that what's submitted does justice

12 to your position. And since you can, obviously, dedicate yourself to

13 this while others deal with other evidence, it would be very helpful to

14 us if it could be done by the end of the day tomorrow. I appreciate

15 that's quite a significant exercise, but you can appreciate why it would

16 help us. It would enable those assisting us to get to grips with it, and

17 give you an order fairly quickly, I hope, if there's anything that's

18 controversial in there so that you know exactly where you stand on the

19 evidence.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE BONOMY: We're grateful for the indication that you will do

22 all in your power to achieve that.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. I will do all in my power to achieve that. I

24 was just wondering if the dead-line could be extended to Friday.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. I was rather under the impression that

1 Friday might not be a working --

2 MR. ZECEVIC: I know. It's a --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- day for you.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: It is not a working day, but what can I say, Your

5 Honour? You understand as well as I do. I will definitely try to have

6 that by end of Thursday; but in case we need to file it and we can have

7 it on Friday, that would be certainly helpful.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: I think so that you have flexibility - it's

9 obviously in your own interests to do it as quickly as possible - but so

10 that you have flexibility in what you're doing to allow you some

11 flexibility in doing this, we'll require that you make that filing by

12 Monday so that you have time at the weekend if necessary.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I'm very much obliged to Your

14 Honours. Thank you.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And, Mr. Hannis, if it looks controversial, we'll

16 expect a quick response from you, but it may turn out that it's not a

17 controversial issue. But you will receive an e-mail once we see it

18 indicative of when we need a response, and that will depend on just how

19 controversial it looks.

20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I would indicate, perhaps to save

21 Mr. Zecevic something, I don't oppose the admission of annex 11, but I am

22 opposed to all the others, so if I could have until, I don't know, a week

23 from the following Monday to reply, because I'm going to be gone for the

24 next few days, or at least Friday of next week. I think I'm back on

25 Wednesday night, so I could have Thursday to work on it.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Professor Jokic, that completes your

5 evidence. I dare say you have spent two more restful days in your life

6 than these two.

7 The subject we find interesting but very detailed, and we're

8 trying our best to focus on what really matters for this particular case.

9 So thank you for coming to assist us. You may now leave the courtroom

10 with the usher.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I hope I was of

12 assistance to you.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 [The witness withdrew]

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, the floor may be yours.

17 MR. SEPENUK: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Dr. Fruits, please.

19 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Mr. Sepenuk, I hope you are sure of the "Fruits."

20 MR. SEPENUK: Sure of the fruits, Your Honour? You mean as

21 opposed to the nuts?

22 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Well, I think we sometimes are scared of nut

23 cases.

24 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, yes, Your Honour. The older I get, Your

25 Honour, the less I understand; that's the only thing I'm certain of.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Dr. Fruits.

3 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

5 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to

6 you.

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

8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: You're about to be examined by Mr. Sepenuk. You

12 are both speaking English. Your answers and his questions have to be

13 interpreted into a number of other languages.

14 It's very helpful to the interpretation process if you

15 concentrate on doing two things in particular. One is speaking more

16 slowly than you are used to, and you are clearly a fast speaker I can

17 tell already.

18 THE WITNESS: Oh, my goodness.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: And, secondly, after Mr. Sepenuk completes the

20 question, please delay a little before you begin to answer it to enable

21 the interpreter to catch up.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 Mr. Sepenuk.

25 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 WITNESS: ERIC FRUITS

2 Examination by Mr. Sepenuk:

3 Q. Dr. Fruits, that's one of my many defects. I speak too quickly,

4 so I think both of us should try as much as possible to keep the pace

5 measured and slower. Is that all right with you?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Dr. Fruits, 3D893 is your report of 3 February 2008. If you

8 would testify today before the Court, would you repeat everything that

9 was stated in that report?

10 A. Yes, with one exception. In my report, I believe it's on page

11 23, I say that Dr. Ball does not indicate whether he attempted to obtain

12 any information on NATO bombing from NATO itself. After reviewing the

13 transcript of his testimony, I would like to change my report slightly to

14 say that Dr. Ball indicated that he did not attempt to obtain any data

15 from NATO regarding NATO bombings, and he did not attempt to either

16 directly by himself or through the OTP.

17 MR. SEPENUK: And, Your Honour, that is the subject of a

18 supplemental information sheet that was submitted to the Court on

19 21 April, 2008.

20 Q. And aside from that one correction, Dr. Fruits, in your report,

21 you would testify today the same today?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Exhibit 1 to your report is your curriculum vitae. I'm not going

24 to go through it in detail. Would you briefly summarize for the

25 Trial Chamber your academic training in statistics?

1 A. Yes. I have a Ph.D. in economics and a master's degree in

2 economics. I also have a bachelor's degree in business economics in

3 public policy. As part of my graduate training, I spent a substantial

4 amount of time studying econometrics, which is the application of

5 statistics to economics issues.

6 Q. Have you taught statistics?

7 A. Yes, I have. As an adjunct professor, I taught a graduate-level

8 course in statistics that focused on the identifying and correcting for

9 some of the common problems that one may come across in a linear

10 regression analysis.

11 Q. And do I dare ask what is a linear regression --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, you're already falling into the trap

13 of taking up immediately when the witness completes his answer.

14 MR. SEPENUK: Absolutely right, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: So let's have a brief time out and start again.

16 MR. SEPENUK: That's the last time it will happen, Your Honour, I

17 promise.

18 Q. Dr. Fruits --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: May you be struck down before it happens.

20 MR. SEPENUK: It will never happen again, Your Honour, I promise.

21 Q. Dr. Fruits.

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. What is a linear regression model?

24 A. Linear regression is simply one method that you can use

25 statistics to either test the relationship between two or more variables

1 or to quantify the relationships between two or more variables.

2 Q. Do you teach now, Dr. Fruits?

3 A. Yes, I do. I teach a graduate-level course in urban economics at

4 Portland State University.

5 Q. And I understand that you've recently started your own consulting

6 business. Where were you previously employed?

7 A. It was a firm called --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Just give it that pause, please --

9 THE WITNESS: I apologise.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: -- or we will get into a real fankle and then have

11 to go back over the evidence.

12 THE WITNESS: I apologise.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.

14 THE WITNESS: The firm was called ECO North-west or Econ

15 North-west. It was an economic consulting firm. I have now formed my

16 own consulting firm that focuses on economics, finance, and statistical

17 consulting.

18 MR. SEPENUK:

19 Q. Have you published peer review papers using statistical

20 techniques?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do the fundamentals and the approaches to statistical analysis

23 vary with the topic being studied?

24 A. No. You can think of statistics as a tool; and as with any tool,

25 the tool itself doesn't necessarily change with what the issue is at

1 hand. Instead, the innovations are how you apply that tool to the issue

2 at hand.

3 Q. Beside from teaching and the publication of papers and articles,

4 do you regularly engage in consulting projects which use statistical

5 techniques?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. And have any of these projects involved statistical analysis of

8 demographic data?

9 A. Yes, they have.

10 Q. And what is demographic data?

11 A. Demography is simply the study of the composition of human

12 populations and the changes in the composition of human populations. So

13 demographic data is just data about the human population that you're

14 studying.

15 Q. And you have engaged in these kinds of projecting, these kinds of

16 analyses?

17 A. Yes, I have.

18 Q. Have you been admitted as a statistical expert in courts of the

19 United States?

20 A. Yes, I have. I have been admitted as a statistical expert in

21 US courts, and I have provided testimony on behalf of both plaintiffs and

22 defendants.

23 Q. Now, Dr. Fruits, you've been jointly retained by the defendants

24 in this case. What was your assignment in this matter?

25 A. My assignment was to review the testimony and reports of

1 Dr. Patrick Ball and to provide an opinion regarding his conclusions.

2 Q. According to Dr. Ball, there are three possible hypotheses to

3 explain refugee flow and killings. What are those hypotheses?

4 A. One hypothesis is that they were caused by KLA activities; a

5 second hypothesis is that they were caused by NATO activities,

6 specifically air-strikes or bombing; and the third hypothesis is that it

7 was some sort of a coordinated or systematic activity by Serb or Yugoslav

8 forces.

9 Q. With respect to the third hypothesis, Dr. Fruits, acts of Serb

10 forces, Dr. Ball concludes as follows, and I'm quoting now from P1506,

11 Dr. Ball's report of 3 January 2002, on page 1.

12 I quote from Dr. Ball: "The statistical evidence is consistent

13 with the hypothesis that Yugoslav forces conducted a systematic campaign

14 of killings and expulsions."

15 I ask you, Dr. Fruits, do you agree with that conclusion; and if

16 not, why not?

17 A. I do not agree with that conclusion. The main reason why I do

18 not is because Dr. Ball does not analyse any data on Serb or Yugoslav

19 forces' activities; and, indeed, I believe he indicated in his testimony

20 that he was -- he didn't have any data on Serb or Yugoslav forces'

21 activities, and that any data that was available was sparse or patchy and

22 not sufficient to conduct any analysis with.

23 Q. And without reliable information on Serb force activities by date

24 and time, is it possible statistically to draw any conclusions regarding

25 the activities of Serb forces to Kosovo migration, Kosovo Albanian

1 migration?

2 A. No, you cannot. And I believe I mention in my report, I think

3 it's on pages 33 and 34, that without any sort of reliable data on Serb

4 and Yugoslav forces' activities, that one cannot draw any statistically

5 reliable conclusions about those activities and whether or not they

6 affected deaths and migration.

7 Q. And you go into that in more detail in your report, do you not,

8 sir?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. Okay. Let's assume, Dr. Fruits, that all the other variables

11 we've talked about, deaths, migration, KLA and NATO activities, let us

12 assume that these were all appropriately measured. Given that

13 assumption, sir, without information on Serb force activities, is it

14 statistically possible to conduct a reliable study?

15 A. No, you cannot. If the hypothesis is that Serb and Yugoslav

16 forces' activities contributed to the deaths and migration, without the

17 Serb forces' activities you cannot conduct a statistically reliable

18 study. In fact, by omitting that variable, by leaving out the Serb

19 forces' activities, you are -- you are committing an error known as an

20 omitted variable error. And it generates biases, not just in the data

21 that's missing, but it also causes your estimates of the impacts of the

22 KLA and the NATO activities to also be unreliable; in other words, they

23 may not reflect reality.

24 Q. In Dr. Ball's report, and this is P1506, at page 15, his report

25 of 3 January 2002, he points to a unilateral cease-fire on April 6/7 by

1 the Yugoslav authorities in recognition of the Orthodox Easter as a

2 "circumstantial link" to show that, and again here quoting from Dr. Ball:

3 "To show that when Yugoslav forces ceased hostilities, the number of

4 killings and refugee departures fell drastically."

5 Do you agree with this conclusion of Dr. Ball about a

6 circumstantial link to Serb force activity; and if you don't agree, if

7 you don't agree, why don't you?

8 A. I don't agree with Dr. Ball regarding the -- what he calls the

9 circumstantial link. As I mention in my report, I don't recall which

10 page, I think the more obvious reason why the number of -- number of

11 people crossing the Morina border declined was simply because the border

12 was closed. Also regarding the number of deaths declining, I believe

13 it's on page 28 of my report, I use some of Dr. Ball data to show that,

14 in fact, deaths were higher on the 6th and 7th than they were in the

15 two-day period prior or the two-day period after. So the conclusion that

16 deaths actually were lower on April 6th and 7th is simply not true.

17 Q. Just to fill in a little gap there, because you frankly

18 anticipated my next question, which was Dr. Ball's testimony that during

19 the cease-fire the number of deaths "falls towards 0 or towards 0."

20 Your conclusion in that regard is, briefly?

21 A. My conclusion is that the number of deaths do not fall; in fact,

22 they increase over the period April 6th and 7th. Let me make that more

23 clear. On April 6th and 7th, the deaths are actually higher than in the

24 two days before or the two days after.

25 Q. That's, by the way, set forth in more detail on page 28 of your

1 report; is that correct, sir?

2 A. I believe so.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask you one question about the omitted

4 variable error. Assuming Dr. Ball carries out the exercise in exactly

5 the way he's done it, but separately evidence is led here of activities

6 of Serb and Yugoslav forces which turns out to be consistent with the

7 hypothesis that he finds to be consistent with killings and expulsions,

8 is his work equally invalid because he did not personally take into

9 account information about the movements and activities of Serb and

10 Yugoslav forces?

11 THE WITNESS: I think that would be a fair assessment. Let me

12 try to paraphrase what you've said because I think I understand the

13 question. Dr. Ball's analysis would still be invalid even if there was

14 evidence here that may support his conclusions simply because that the

15 information that may support his conclusions hasn't actually been

16 included in his analysis.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: To a layman that might actually be, on the face of

18 it, a feature that validates his approach, that he does something

19 scientific that turns out to be consistent with what the evidence might

20 portray, the evidence of what happened on the ground; whereas, if he took

21 account of information about what had happened on the ground, it might be

22 thought by the layman that that was a circular argument, that it was a

23 self-fulfilling prophecy.

24 THE WITNESS: I can -- I see what you're getting at.

25 The difficulty I have as a statistician is that you really can't

1 come to a conclusion in a round-about way, in which Dr. Ball does, in

2 which you simply reject two other alternative explanations and then come

3 to a conclusion that it must be a third alternative, in this case the

4 third alternative being the coordinated efforts of Serb or Yugoslav

5 forces.

6 I think your question is: Is it okay for Dr. Ball to exclude the

7 and Yugoslav forces and activity to avoid the circularity? I didn't

8 really investigate any of the other information in this case, including,

9 for example, from the fact witness.

10 My focus was narrowly on Dr. Ball's statistical analysis; and as

11 a statistician, his statistical analysis isn't reliable simply because it

12 doesn't have that information on the Serb and Yugoslav forces' activity.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 Mr. Sepenuk.

15 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. So just to summarize on this issue, Dr. Fruits, is there a

17 circumstantial link, in your opinion, between Yugoslav force activities

18 and the refugee flow and killings of Albanian citizens?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Let's turn to the following conclusion of Dr. Ball in his report,

21 this is P1506, again the report of 3 February 2002, page 1, he concludes

22 as follows, and I quote: "Two of the hypothesis proposed to explain the

23 patterns in killing and migration, KLA and NATO activities are

24 inconsistent with the observed pattern of refugee flow and killings."

25 And that's unquote.

1 Do you agree with this conclusion, Dr. Fruits; and if not, why

2 not?

3 A. I disagree with that conclusion, the reason being that the data

4 that he constructs of KLA and NATO activities is fundamentally flawed,

5 and those flaws make it impossible or very difficult to reach any sort of

6 reliable conclusions using any analysis of that data.

7 Q. Let's start with the KLA. What's wrong with that data, sir?

8 A. Dr. Ball has two measures of KLA activities: One is what he

9 calls KLA battles and another one is what he calls KLA killings. KLA

10 battles he provides a variety of definitions of: One is simply a battle

11 which is, according to the dictionary I consulted, a sustained fight

12 between two armies. Another definition of a battle that Dr. Ball uses is

13 he calls an exchange of fire.

14 And those two definitions really highlight some of the

15 difficulties in the KLA battle data that Dr. Ball relies on, in that

16 there's no measure of the intensity of the battles, in that an exchange

17 of fire between two people is given the same weight as a sustained battle

18 that may have a number of casualties.

19 The other problem is in what he calls the KLA killing data, which

20 really isn't -- it's more than just killings. It includes kidnappings,

21 also injuries, and I believe what he calls disappearances of Serbs in

22 what he describes as isolated incidents. It's not entirely clear what an

23 isolated incident is, and it's not entirely -- and, again, as with KLA

24 battle data, there's no measure of the intensity or the scale of these --

25 of these variables.

1 Q. Okay. Is there any analogy that might be appropriate here?

2 A. Well, you can think of, if you're trying to study, say, crop

3 yields and you want to see the effect of rainfall on crop yields, it's

4 not just enough to know whether it rained on a given day. You really

5 need to know how much it rained. Dr. Ball's approach gives the same

6 weight to a raindrop as it would to a downpour.

7 Q. Where did Dr. Ball get his data on KLA activities?

8 A. In my report, I note that Dr. Ball's report states that he

9 received the data from the OTP; however, he doesn't really provide a

10 description of how he converts that data from the OTP or the information

11 from the OTP into quantifiable data with which he can do his analysis.

12 Q. So from the data presented by Dr. Ball, is it possible for you to

13 verify the reliability and accuracy of the KLA data?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Let's turn now to the hypotheses of Dr. Ball that NATO activity

16 was inconsistent with the observed patterns of refugee flow and killings.

17 Do you agree with this conclusion of Dr. Ball's, sir; and if not, why

18 not?

19 A. I disagree with that conclusion of Dr. Ball's; and one reason is,

20 again, as with the KLA data, he has no measure of the intensity of the

21 NATO air-strikes, but also he mismeasures or miscounts the number of

22 air-strikes that occurred on given days.

23 Q. And does your Exhibit 8 go into that in a little more detail?

24 A. Yes, that's correct. Exhibit 8 to my report shows that there

25 were six dates in which Dr. Ball's data indicates or Dr. Ball's data

1 reports that there were no NATO air-strikes.

2 Q. Can you just pause there for a second. I know you haven't

3 completed your answer. I simply wanted to find out whether in

4 Dr. Ball -- in your report, there were a number of strikes that were

5 reported that Dr. Ball didn't report; is that correct?

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. I'll go into detail just in another couple of minutes?

8 A. Oh, I'm sorry.

9 Q. There's a specific question I want to cover that with. All

10 right.

11 And by the way, did you compare NATO's publicly available

12 information during this period with the data prepared by Dr. Ball?

13 A. Yes, I did.

14 Q. All right. So you did make those comparisons?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. All right. And when, to your knowledge, did NATO make this

17 information publicly available?

18 A. Approximately March of 2000.

19 Q. Now, I'll get to the question that you were -- you were answering

20 just 30 seconds ago.

21 In his report Dr. Ball states as follows, this is P1506, again

22 3 January 2002 report, page 13, he says, and I quote: "One other

23 noteworthy fact regarding NATO air-strikes was that during 2-4 April

24 attacks were greatly reduced due to bad weather, yet this period during

25 which there were relatively few NATO air-strikes included substantial

1 peaks in Kosovo-wide killings and refugee flows."

2 Do you agree with that observation of Dr. Ball, Dr. Fruits; and

3 if not, why not?

4 A. Well, I disagree with that statement because, in the main, what

5 Dr. Ball says were greatly reduced air-strikes were actually much higher

6 than were in his own data. NATO over that same period reported

7 approximately ten air-strikes. Dr. Ball's data reported only two.

8 Q. Now, how important would it be to know the intensity of the NATO

9 air-strikes, and did Dr. Ball's data provide this information?

10 A. No. Dr. Ball indicated in his report that he did not have any

11 measure of the intensity of the air-strikes.

12 Q. And that's also important, is it? Is the rainfall analogy also

13 applicable here?

14 A. Yes. It's very similar, in the sense that, again, you need to

15 know -- it would be more useful to know the intensity of an air-strike

16 rather than just whether it happened.

17 Q. In short, Dr. Fruits, does Dr. Ball's analysis of NATO

18 air-strikes provide the kind of reliable information necessary regarding

19 the cause for migration and deaths in Kosovo?

20 A. No, it doesn't.

21 Q. Okay. What we've talked about so far are three hypotheses that

22 may explain Kosovo Albanian deaths and migration. Are there other

23 hypotheses; and if so, what are they?

24 A. There are some other hypotheses, for example, the announcement of

25 NATO air-strikes; for example, warning that air-strikes were going to

1 occur may have prompted migration. Similarly, I understand from the

2 testimony in Dr. Ball's -- Dr. Ball's testimony that there was some

3 indication that the KLA may have either made announcements or threats or

4 urgings for people to leave an area, and those sorts of announcements are

5 another hypothesis of causes of migration.

6 Q. And I should mention, I believe this is correct, you talked about

7 the individual decision-making perhaps being motivated by the threat of

8 credible NATO air-strikes; is that correct?

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. Is there a hypothesis of rational expectations? Does that ring a

11 bell with you?

12 A. Yes. In economics, there's a theory or a principle called

13 rational expectations. A gentleman by the name of Robert Lucas received

14 the Nobel prize for developing this theory, and it's a relatively

15 straightforward theory. It simply says that people take into

16 consideration expectations, and those expectations can be formed by

17 announcements, threats, or promises.

18 Q. I would like to turn now to the data on migration and deaths, and

19 Dr. Ball states, at P1506 again, page 4, he says: The patterns of

20 migration and deaths are a key component of his findings." Do you agree

21 with that?

22 A. No, I disagree with that. Dr. Ball concludes that there's

23 patterns and that the two series, the series of death and migration, are

24 correlated; however, he never does the statistical procedure called a

25 correlation analysis. Instead, he merely eyeballs the two series and

1 then jumps to the conclusion that they are correlated.

2 Q. You've used the expression eyeballing a few times in your report.

3 What do you mean by eyeballing?

4 A. Well, eyeballing is an ad hoc or a subjective look-see at the --

5 at two series, and rather than any sort of rigorous test of whether or

6 not the two series are correlated. So just like we can look at -- we can

7 look at the same cloud formation and I might see a castle and you might

8 see a bunny rabbit, two people can look at the same picture, and same

9 graph, and one person can see correlation and other people can see no

10 correlation.

11 Q. Do you have an example of eyeballing that might be useful for the

12 Trial Chamber?

13 A. Yes. I think it would be useful to start with figure 2 from

14 Dr. Ball's corrigendum.

15 MR. SEPENUK: Your Honours, that's P1394, page 3.

16 Q. And what is that, Dr. Fruits?

17 A. This is the -- this is the series of migration and deaths from

18 Dr. Ball's corrigendum. I believe this figure is similar to the figure

19 in his main report. Then what I did is I took this figure, this

20 figure 2, and then just simply added some straight lines, and the purpose

21 of adding those straight lines is to show that what one may think of --

22 Q. Excuse me for interrupting. Before you get to the straight

23 lines, that's a separate exhibit, sir.

24 A. I apologise.

25 MR. SEPENUK: The separate Exhibit is 3D1144, if that could be

1 put right next to figure 2 on page 3 of P1394. If that's too difficult,

2 you could simply put the exhibit up, 3D1144, because it's the same

3 exhibit with an overlay.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: The registrar can't pick up that exhibit,

5 Mr. Sepenuk.

6 MR. SEPENUK: I have a hard copy, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can we put that on the ELMO, please.

8 MR. SEPENUK: If, in fact, Your Honour, the 3D1144 was not

9 uploaded into the system yesterday as I was told, another head will roll,

10 Your Honour.

11 Q. Do you have that on the ELMO?

12 A. I have it, yes.

13 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, tell us what this represents.

14 A. Well, it's the same figure, figure 2, only the vertical lines

15 drawn on it were put in there by me. They're to show that whereas in the

16 first case you might eyeball that graph and say that the two series are

17 correlated or very similar, that when you look at them a little closer by

18 drawing these lines, you see that there are some substantial differences

19 between the two graphs.

20 For example, on the left-hand side, you could see that the peaks

21 in the people leaving their homes and the peaks in the number of deaths

22 actually don't coincide, that they're separated by several days. Also,

23 you could see right here in the middle that there's a small peak in the

24 number of people leaving their homes, but there's a -- there's a sizeable

25 decline in the number of reported deaths. Then the third instance would

1 be over here, where you see --

2 Q. Over where, sir?

3 A. I'm sorry. It's all the way to the right of that picture. You

4 could see that there's a relatively high number of deaths on two

5 different dates, but relatively flat or no refugee flows. And, again,

6 the point of this is, to just illustrate, a quick glance at the graphs

7 may lead one to conclude that they're correlated, but, indeed, some more

8 sophisticated analysis is required to actually come to a conclusion that

9 they are statistically correlated.

10 MR. SEPENUK: Can we get an ID number, Your Honour, and that

11 should be a 3D number.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: It is there, so it's 3D1144.

13 MR. SEPENUK: Your Honour, I'm going to guess that I have

14 probably five to ten minutes, but I don't want to tax your patience. I

15 could stop now or we can resume in the morning. Whatever Your Honour's

16 pleasure.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE BONOMY: We would like you to finish your examination.

19 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Just now. There is no case here this afternoon.

21 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I may be wrong. Sorry, there is a case.

23 MR. SEPENUK: I think --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: I thought there is no case but apparently there

25 is, so we have to break now, Mr. Sepenuk. I'm sorry about that.

1 Dr. Fruits, we have to terminate today's sitting at this time

2 because another case sits in this court in the afternoon.

3 THE WITNESS: That's fine.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: That means you'll need to return tomorrow to

5 finish your evidence, and that will be in a different courtroom. It will

6 be in Court III --

7 THE WITNESS: Okay.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: -- tomorrow at 9.00.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please leave the court with the usher

11 and we'll see you tomorrow at 9.00.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 24th day of

16 April, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25