Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11275

1 Thursday, 8 March 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused Milutinovic not present]

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

6 [The witness entered court].

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Kickert.

8 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Please be seated.

10 The cross-examination by Mr. Lukic will now continue.

11 Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


14 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Kickert. My apologies again

16 for the fact that you had to come back just for my sake, but I will finish

17 soon. Can you please focus on the time when you wept to Gornje Obrinje

18 with Finnish forensics team.

19 With the leave of the Chamber, because we found this document

20 quite late yesterday, but it is a document which goes to this incident and

21 this is Exhibit D197. We distributed hard copies to the parties because

22 it was not uploaded into e-court and we informed the Prosecution yesterday

23 that we would use the document today with the permission of the Court.

24 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, this document was sent last night at

25 10 to midnight and it's in violation of your order as well that you made

Page 11276

1 in August last year of when documents for cross-examination should be

2 disclosed, and we object to the use of this document for that reason.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, does that mean you don't accept Mr. Lukic's

4 explanation that he only found it quite late yesterday?

5 MS. MOELLER: Well, Your Honour, I think the same standards should

6 apply to both parties. We also only found the document we weren't allowed

7 to use, we only got it the day before I wanted to use it, and we weren't

8 allowed to use it.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you didn't tell us that.

10 MS. MOELLER: I never got to that point, Your Honour. I think I

11 did tell you that yesterday.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: That you only found it the day before?

13 MS. MOELLER: We only received it from the witness when he came in

14 for proofing.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, well, that's a rather different situation.

16 Yes, I understand the difference.

17 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller, we don't accept that the situations

20 are comparable. Yesterday's document involved a failure to ask us to

21 alter the 65 ter list. You have obligations to intimate the terms of that

22 list not only to the Defence but to the Court. The Rule that you're

23 relying on is our practice of requiring intimation a certain time before

24 the document is used, and that clearly is a Rule that's open to variation

25 depending on the circumstances in which the document comes to light. Now,

Page 11277

1 I'm assured by Mr. Lukic that this has only been found yesterday, and in

2 light of that, the situation can't be compared to the one that we faced

3 yesterday. You were urged repeatedly in the past to interview your

4 witnesses in good time, not immediately before they gave evidence and to

5 apply properly for variation of the 65 ter list. So we do not treat the

6 two situations the same, and we will in this case allow the use of this

7 document.

8 Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. For your convenience we

10 provided you with the translation of the document and the original. It's

11 actually a draft translation done by our team.

12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kickert, did you manage to go through the

13 document?

14 A. Not quite yet, if you could give me two more minutes.

15 Q. [In English] Sure. Go ahead.

16 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Can we continue?

19 A. Absolutely.

20 Q. Thank you. We found this document yesterday through the system

21 where we normally obtain the Prosecution documents. Unfortunately, we

22 were unable to find a translation and we had to make one ourselves, and I

23 hope that you are able to understand what this is all about. As you can

24 see, the document shows that the SUP of Pristina informed the Belgrade MUP

25 and the Pristina MUP at once that the district court in Pristina sought

Page 11278

1 assistance from the MUP of Republic of Serbia and the Pristina MUP in

2 order to secure the exhumation of corpses in Donje Obrinje, and that's on

3 the date of the 10th of December, 1998. Do you see that?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Is it true that on this occasion you, in fact, agreed with the

6 district investigating judge?

7 A. No. No, there was -- my understanding of the whole procedure was

8 that the district judge, Mrs. Marinkovic, could accompany us, but I was

9 not aware that we would have a tail of 20 armoured vehicles and APCs and

10 police cars. Because I knew the situation on the ground and I knew this

11 was an area where the UCK was; and had I known before, I would -- I

12 personally would not have said -- agreed to start out.

13 Q. Are you aware that the investigating judge was the one who issued

14 the order for the scene to the attended and for the exhumation to be

15 carried out?

16 A. Our understanding was that the Finnish forensic experts had whole

17 freedom to do their investigations. They have been the day before without

18 any investigating judge, without any Serbian police. They have been at

19 the site of Gornje Obrinje to prepare the site of exhumation. So for

20 us -- for the Finns and for us it was no necessity to be accompanied. I

21 understand that the Serbian government insisted on it, but for us to do

22 the work of the Finnish forensic experts, it was not necessary.

23 Q. Is it true, and this transpires from the document, that the

24 investigating judge did not want to proceed this time without police

25 security?

Page 11279

1 A. This is correct.

2 Q. Were the Serbian authorities duty-bound to secure the site and to

3 provide security for you and the Finnish forensic experts pursuant to the

4 agreements stipulated with your organisation?

5 A. From our point of view there was no security threat to us because

6 we had contacts with the KLA. They gave us assurances we can do the

7 exhumations. We also were in touch with the families of the victims, so

8 that we had also this security, that they would not object to the fact

9 that we would be exhuming the bodies of their relatives.

10 Q. At the time Gornje Obrinje, which was in the Drinjacka region was

11 under the control of the KLA and this was the month of December of 1998.

12 A. As it says also in your report that there were KLA people seen

13 with long-rifled guns, this was also our understanding. This is why for

14 security reasons we did not continue because we would have - we the Finns

15 and myself- we would have been in the cross-fire between KLA and MUP. So

16 the only decision we could take was not to continue.

17 Q. In fact, the KLA never left the area we are discussing, but we

18 will get back to that in a minute or two. Are you aware that the police

19 were unable to decide as to whether to escort you or not if the

20 investigating judge had issued an order for the police to, in fact,

21 provide the escorting and security services to you?

22 A. Well, we didn't ask for the security escort --

23 Q. I apologise. This is what I'm asking you. Are you aware of the

24 fact that pursuant to the Yugoslav and Serbian legislation, it is not up

25 to the police to decide whether they would set out to secure an exhumation

Page 11280

1 site; rather, it is in the domain of the investigating judge. The police

2 can only honour the orders issued by the investigating judge.

3 Are you familiar with this?

4 A. I'm not familiar with this legislation, but you probably are.

5 Q. [In English] I hope so. [Interpretation] Thank you. That the KLA

6 was active in the months of August and September in the area as well was

7 something that was experienced by the KVM observers when on the 14th of

8 September they hit an anti-tank mine. Do you recall that in the village

9 of Likovac in the Srbica municipality an all-terrain vehicle of a

10 Chevrolet make which was owned by the Canadian Embassy in Belgrade hit a

11 mine and the vehicle was containing members of the mission for Kosovo and

12 Metohija, they hit an anti-tank mine that was laid by the KLA?

13 A. Yes, I remember that incident very vividly. It was Canadian KDOM,

14 and because it was armoured they were lucky enough to survive and they

15 were even lucky enough that because their satphone was destroyed also in

16 the incident that they went up to a hill and got a signal for their

17 cellphone and only through that they could ask for help. And later on

18 there was also a car of the ICRC who -- in that same particular area

19 driving on a mine -- I mean, as I explained, I'm not a specialist but it

20 must have been a pretty heavy mine, and there was one local doctor killed

21 at that particular second incident.

22 Q. And the second incident took place on the 30th of September, 1998,

23 according to the documentation I have as well as according to your report

24 number -- or rather, which is Prosecution Exhibit P557, dated the 30th of

25 September. On page 1, the last paragraph mentions the second incident

Page 11281

1 precisely, or rather, you mention it there.

2 A. 557?

3 Q. [In English] Yes, 557, first page.

4 A. Yeah, a dead and two seriously wounded and the last page, it's

5 just a -- and I also talk about the Canadian KDOM.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. The documentation also

7 shows that attacks were carried out against the police in the months of

8 August and September on several occasions. I should like to hear from you

9 whether we can agree that the KLA was active in this area throughout the

10 time and after the September of 1998 they recaptured the entire area where

11 you, in fact, found them in the month of December?

12 A. It was difficult for us to say which area was sort of recaptured

13 or lost or taken, but I think I can agree with you that also on -- our

14 understanding was in the Drenica region the KLA was active throughout.

15 And I think also -- I remember also the -- when Gornje Obrinje happened

16 that I think special forces of the MUP drove on a mine and killed several

17 officers, and that was our understanding that this may have been -- may

18 have triggered the incident in Gornje Obrinje that some colleagues went on

19 a rampage afterwards.

20 Q. Thank you. Would you then agree with me that the reason why an

21 investigation and the exhumation of corpses in Gornje Obrinje could not be

22 carried out before the arrival of the Finnish forensic experts was the

23 very presence of the KLA in the area.

24 A. For us it was the presence of the MUP. We would -- as the Finnish

25 forensic experts, we would have done the exhumations and we would have

Page 11282

1 filmed it with video and everything, we would have been able to do the

2 exhumations. But if the judge said -- insisted that she wanted to be

3 there and she wanted to be there, it could only happen if the MUP

4 accompanied her, that rendered the whole operation impossible, and this

5 was the reason I was complaining also to the Serbian Minister of Justice,

6 that if you really want us to do the exhumations to establish the facts,

7 then please let us do our job on our own.

8 Q. Thank you for your explanation. My question to you was whether

9 the KLA presence in the area made it impossible for the Serbian forces to

10 carry out an exhumation investigation before that date independently.

11 A. Well, I mean the -- at the time when the whole allegation of the

12 Gornje Obrinje incident is that it was performed or committed by Serbian

13 forces, so they were in the area, but I don't think they were there

14 permanently. I don't know about the attempts of the Serbian authorities

15 to investigate the incident; I'm not aware of this.

16 Q. Thank you. Could you please turn to your document marked P564.

17 This is the report dated the 11th of September, 1998. Under item 4 you

18 speak of the fact that nobody came to the Serbian humanitarian centre, and

19 the conclusion was drawn that none of the civilians had returned to that

20 area by then. Relative to this, my question is as follows: Are you aware

21 that the KLA rigorously punished every Albanian they learned had been

22 taking humanitarian aid from Serbia, and this was, in fact, the main

23 reason why the Serbian humanitarian aid centres were scarcely visited by

24 Albanians or not at all. Did you in your work come across any reports

25 speaking to that effect?

Page 11283

1 A. No, I was not aware of any such reports, and to begin with, if

2 there are no returnees it's logical that these centres will not be

3 frequented, anyways.

4 Q. I'm speaking of situations where returnees went back to their

5 homes, but even then they did not visit these centres because they were

6 prohibited from taking any aid from Serbia. Were you aware of this? Were

7 you also aware of the fact that all those who did go to collect aid were

8 styled as collaborationists?

9 A. I haven't heard any reports on this when I was working there.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kickert, the point I think that's being made

11 here is that you can't make a judgement from the absence of people at the

12 humanitarian aid centre that there is -- that no one has returned --

13 THE WITNESS: No, no.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, there are two separate questions there, and

15 the one that really concerns us is obviously whether or not people had

16 returned. Now, what do you say on that point more broadly than simply

17 focusing on the humanitarian aid centre?

18 THE WITNESS: Well, in my report I state that -- that is

19 independent of the humanitarian aid centre, that the Albanian population

20 of Decani had not returned. And independently of that, that the

21 humanitarian aid centre of Decani was open, it was equipped, but it was

22 not frequented. I do not make this connection here that -- that -- that

23 the population was there and did not frequent it. I say there is a

24 humanitarian centre in Decani and it was not frequented, point full stop.

25 And then I say, The Albanian population has not returned.

Page 11284

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

2 THE WITNESS: We did have in -- in Orahovac we had also

3 humanitarian centre and people returned, but even there the Albanian

4 population would not frequent -- maybe that goes in the direction of

5 your -- even there Serbian humanitarian centre was not really frequented.

6 I was a couple of times in Orahovac to see that.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Can we agree that the area of Decani was a place where civilians

10 successively were returning too, perhaps not at the time you were drafting

11 this report?

12 A. What I can agree with you is that this was an area of fighting and

13 that there was a number of IDPs and that they were shifted around, IDPs,

14 and they sort of fled the areas of fighting; that I can agree with you.

15 Q. Thank you. Can you please turn to your document P558. You

16 yourselves expressed distrust towards some sections of the translation

17 that was made, and I would like to clarify certain matters with you.

18 Confusion may arise from the fact that there are four spares or some words

19 have several meanings and it may not even be due to the translators

20 themselves but to the imprecision. In paragraph 2 you say that your

21 colleague met with the prefect for the region of Djakovica.

22 In view of the translation we received, I have to ask you this,

23 this also due to the fact that the word "prefect" in our language is used

24 in quite a different context. I have to ask you this, therefore; this is

25 a civilian person, is it not? This is a civil authority, is it not?

Page 11285

1 A. Yeah, it was not in uniform, so I -- yeah, civilian person.

2 Q. [In English] Okay. [Interpretation] Your colleague met with four

3 security coordinators there, as you put it. Would you agree with me that

4 since this term was used at this trial to denote persons who provided

5 local security -- let us clarify this. At any rate, we are talking about

6 Albanians who were armed by the municipality. Is that right?

7 A. This was -- I cite my British colleague, and he told me that he

8 met four of them in uniforms which had special markings and that they

9 would be provided the very next day with side-arms. So he did not see

10 them armed, but they would be provided. And I stated yesterday, at an

11 earlier meeting where I was present the deputy said that he was not aware

12 that they would get uniforms or side-arms.

13 Q. I said this because of the translation so that we could link this

14 with the local security. That was actually the term used in this

15 courtroom. Thank you. My colleagues have established with you already

16 that it had not been easy to find these people because they had been

17 accused of collaboration with the Serbian state on the part of their

18 Albanian colleagues. I should like to ask you in this connection the

19 following: Did you ever learn during the course of your work that these

20 people were often the target of KLA attacks and that many of them had been

21 abducted and killed?

22 A. On this specific person security coordinators, no, but from early

23 1998 there were many reports that the KLA had not only targeted police but

24 had also targeted what they said were collaborators. And in the beginning

25 I remember they were postmen, they were forest workers who were killed

Page 11286

1 and -- were allegedly killed by the KLA. That indeed what was put forward

2 in the public, in the media.

3 Q. I appreciate that in that time, due to the information you had at

4 your disposal, you said that this information lacked seriousness. But did

5 you later, during the course of your work, find out that these local

6 security units had been set-up, organised, and that they were functioning,

7 the local security service?

8 A. No. As I said yesterday, we did not follow that anymore because

9 it was overtaken by events and then KVM and a lot of these issues, so we

10 did not follow that up anymore.

11 Q. So you never found out that in over 70 villages this formation of

12 armed Albanians had been organised and was acting in an organised fashion?

13 And that is in the area of Djakovica alone, 70 villages.

14 A. The number 70, I read in one of the -- those reports. Again, I

15 don't know who put it forward to us, but apart from that being mentioned

16 to us, this number, we have not seen or experienced it.

17 Q. Thank you. On page -- but we do not have an updated transcript

18 from last night so I only have three-digit numbers. It is 122, line 15 of

19 yesterday's transcript. There you refer to the fact that with Baton

20 Haxhiu you went to attend some KLA meetings, and we know that you used his

21 services as interpreter. Do you know whether he and other interpreters

22 faithfully interpreted what you were being told by KLA representatives?

23 A. Baton Haxhiu was setting up the meeting in Klecka --

24 Q. [In English] Yes.

25 A. -- and there he did translate. And since my Albanian is

Page 11287

1 non-existent, I cannot say whether he translated it literally or not.

2 With -- on the other hand, in my meetings in Malisevo with Hashim Thaqi

3 and Kadri Veseli, we spoke directly in German so there was no translation.

4 Q. As Baton Haxhiu himself in his testimony in front of this Court,

5 he himself said that he had mitigated the military and militant stances of

6 the KLA in doing his interpreting work, and as you had no way of

7 controlling what he was saying to you, so you wouldn't be aware of the

8 fact that he was changing the substance or actually the tone. However,

9 You're referring Klecka and to your visit to Klecka. Did you on that

10 occasion find out about the camp which was set up and maintained by the

11 KLA in Klecka and about the burnt human bodies that were found in the lime

12 kiln, in the lime pit?

13 A. No. At the time I wasn't even aware where I was in Klecka. I

14 learnt that afterwards -- or when I was there. And about these

15 limestone-burnt bones, I heard out of the press in the moment the Serb

16 security forces took Klecka.

17 Q. Thank you. Just another thing, please. Could you please look at

18 your document number P561, the last paragraph in that document, please.

19 There you say that Milosevic had promised to the International Committee

20 of the Red Cross unrestricted access to prisoners for 24 hours after their

21 detention, that it is seen that 250 out of the 500 recently arrested

22 persons had already been set free. When you talk about these 500 arrested

23 people, does this mainly refer to people who had been arrested on the

24 basis of terrorist activity?

25 A. Well, this report, I just cite what Mr. Shattuck told us, so to be

Page 11288

1 honest I don't know which this 500 refers to, which sort of persons they

2 are. We are pressing both sides that the ICRC would get access to

3 detainees also with the KLA because they also took detained people. But

4 concretely on this, I don't know who this 500 number refers to.

5 Q. Very well, Mr. Kickert. Thank you very much for your time, and I

6 apologise once again for you having to return here on my sake. I have no

7 further questions for you. Thank you.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

9 Ms. Moeller.

10 Re-examination by Ms. Moeller:

11 Q. Just one question in relation to the document Mr. Lukic showed

12 you, 6D197, on the second page if you could have a look at the third-last

13 paragraph which starts with: "Because the investigative judge

14 requested ..."

15 It then says: "The investigative judge recommended to the Finnish

16 pathologists that they all return to Pristina, which suggestion they

17 accepted."

18 Was that a suggestion? Did you -- were you actually given a

19 choice where you returned or not - you meaning the Finnish forensic team

20 and everyone who accompanied them?

21 A. There was a bit of a, say, a nervous situation where at a certain

22 moment the Serb police thought that we would continue to Gornje Obrinje

23 without them and they even blocked the left-turn that we would take to go

24 up to Gornje Obrinje, but we had no intention to continue anyways because

25 it became late, A; and B, it was too tense, and as I heard afterwards from

Page 11289

1 my KLA sources, they would have opened fire. So it was a good decision

2 and we were okay with it, to return to Pristina. We would like to had --

3 to continue without Serb police, but this was not made possible.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MS. MOELLER: No further questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Just on that same paragraph the suggestion there

8 was to return to Pristina to negotiate further an agreement to recommence

9 on another day. Was that done?

10 A. This -- well, we tried, but the two positions were so

11 diametrically different. The investigating judge insisted that she was

12 present and said, "I can only be present if I have security provided by

13 the Serbian MUP, police." And so this made the whole operation

14 impossible. We asked whether we could do it on our own, as our

15 understanding was that we could pick all sites which were agreed, three on

16 each side, three allegations from each side, and we were not let do that.

17 The investigating judge insisted that she was present.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if this is -- I'm sorry. I don't

19 understand that reference that you could pick all sides, three on each

20 side, allegations from each side. What does that mean?

21 A. We -- in all talks to prepare and accept the Finnish forensic team

22 we agreed on three sites each. First it was four sites each, meaning four

23 allegations from the Serb side of massacres, like Klecka, like Golubovac

24 and then I think Ratis and I don't know what the last fourth was. But

25 then we boiled it down to three on each side. It was on the sort of

Page 11290

1 Albanian accusation side, it was Gornje Obrinje, it was Golubovac. We

2 did -- the Finns eliminated Prekaz because, in their pathologist's words,

3 these bodies were old bodies and give less of a -- of knowledge what

4 happened than fresh bodies.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: So just to be clear about the day of the -- of this

6 whole business, you actually met again later in the day and tried to work

7 out with Marinkovic a way of doing this?

8 A. Yeah, and this very same day we even met in Pristina the minister

9 of justice who then referred to -- say, I will consult with Belgrade. So

10 he was not in a position to say, Well, you go ahead without the

11 investigating judge.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: And was she willing to move at all and show any

13 sort of understanding of the problem?

14 A. No -- Mrs. Marinkovic?


16 A. No.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Absolutely rigid?

18 A. Absolutely rigid, yeah. I think we -- I think that the Finns

19 had -- in areas which were under Serbian control, they didn't have a

20 problem. In Orahovac, for example.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE BONOMY: It may be you don't know the judicial set-up well

23 enough to answer this, but was there any way of challenging her position

24 to some higher judge?

25 A. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just -- I tried to solve things on a

Page 11291

1 political level.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

3 Well, Mr. Kickert, that does complete your evidence. Thank you

4 for coming again to the Tribunal to give it, and you're now free to leave.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: So who's jumping to their feet?

9 MS. MOELLER: I think Mr. Stamp will address you, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

11 MR. STAMP: May it please you, Your Honours. Unhappily, we are

12 not able to proceed with the next witness immediately, but we could do

13 so -- propose to do so tomorrow and propose to arrange our witness in such

14 a way so he will be completed tomorrow so he will not stretch over the

15 next week. The witness is a witness that we had problems getting here,

16 but he is here, thankfully, but he just arrived yesterday afternoon and

17 there is, I understand, some debriefing to be done in the Victim and

18 Witnesses Unit which has been done and to get him settled. And we propose

19 to speak with him today.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, have you discussed the timing of the witness

21 with counsel for the accused?

22 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour.


24 MR. STAMP: We have indicated to them what the situation is and

25 indicated to them that we propose to shorten the time that we planned to

Page 11292

1 use with him so that they would have as much time as necessary.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan, if this witness is examined in

3 chief for two hours, will cross-examination be completed tomorrow?

4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I'm not in a position to assist you on that, Your

5 Honour.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Which counsel do you think can assist us on that?

7 Mr. Lukic, can you help me, please.

8 MR. LUKIC: Are we working the full day tomorrow?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. We are scheduled to have five hours tomorrow,

10 until 3.30. So if the Prosecution have two, you've got three.

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'll finish my cross-examination

12 tomorrow.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you the only one with cross on this witness?

14 MR. LUKIC: I think so.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And I noticed just one -- it's probably a fairly

16 minor point, but part of the evidence is sought to be tendered as a

17 transcript. Now, I know it is a transcript, but it's not a transcript in

18 the sense of 92 ter, I don't -- quater, I don't think.

19 MR. STAMP: No, it is not a transcript from this court.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: No. So you may give thought to what the

21 appropriate motion is for the production of that document.

22 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: It presumably is just a piece of evidence that he

24 can speak to and confirm the accuracy of or otherwise under Rule 89. But

25 give some thought to that so that we do it properly.

Page 11293

1 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honour. Thanks for the guidance.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we have no option, as you know --

3 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, Mr. Cepic.

5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your permission, I

6 believe that now the time is opportune for me to raise a question, and by

7 your leave we need to be in private session for a very short while.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 11294

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 9.53 p.m.,

21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of

22 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.