1 Tuesday, 10 May 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. McCormack, the Chamber is happy to see you
7 here. In view of the assignment, we think that you should be here as
8 often as is possible.
9 MR. McCORMACK: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: And I'm sure it will be helpful to the Chamber
11 when we come to the final stages of this trial. Thank you.
12 Mr. Nice.
13 MR. NICE: Would Your Honour just give me one minute.
14 WITNESS: RADOVAN PAPONJAK [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]
17 Q. I will have a couple of matters to return to in 1998, but let's
18 move otherwise immediately to 1999.
19 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm sorry we're a little delayed this
20 morning, but it won't inconvenience you beyond this initial, I think -- it
21 won't delay you further.
22 Q. You told us when giving evidence in chief, and I can't quote the
23 precise words to you, that killing people in the course of dealing with
24 terrorists was the absolute last resort, wasn't it?
25 A. That would be around it. The point was always to bring terrorists
1 into custody or to have the problem resolved in a different way.
2 Q. Who was Lieutenant Colonel Blagoje Djordjevic?
3 A. He was head of the police department in the Secretariat of the
4 Interior of Pec.
5 Q. Look, please, at this exhibit, 319, tab 32. You have the
6 original. You'll see this is a document which comes from Djordjevic,
7 approved by your police chief boss, Borislav Vlahovic. If we look at --
8 MR. NICE: Mr. Nort, could you just show the last page of this
9 document in English on the overhead projector, please.
10 Nothing coming up on the overhead projector so far as I'm
11 concerned. Thank you.
12 Q. So we see that it was compiled by Djordjevic, and then underneath
13 that, Mr. Nort, approved by Vlahovic. So if we now go back, please, to
14 the first page, we see something right at the top that relates to your
15 territory. "Pursuant to the agreement with members of the Secretariat of
16 the Interior in Djakovica and members of the Department of State Security
17 of the SUP of the Interior in Pec and Djakovica ..." And then it says,
18 "Ambush plan," under "Objective," "To prevent --" I'm sorry. We see
19 under "Time of Execution" that it's forecasting ambushes to be set up from
20 the 24th to the 31st of January, 1999, and this ambush plan then says as
21 the objective: "To prevent the movement of terrorists on the
22 above-mentioned local road, eliminate the said terrorists ..."
23 Nothing about capturing them. What do you say to that? By 1999
24 it wasn't a question of capturing terrorists, it was a question of
25 liquidating them, wasn't it, if you could?
1 A. First of all, I have to say that this paper that is before me was
2 not signed by Blagoje Djordjevic, as you pointed out. Next, it wasn't
3 signed by Colonel Borislav Vlahovic, and I have no idea what this is
5 Q. I'm asking you a question on the basis of this exhibit, and I'll
6 ask you to look now at the next paragraph as well, "General Tasks."
7 "Monitor the said road, as well as other local roads running from the
8 direction of Jablanica and Bucane villages in order to spot in timely
9 fashion the above-mentioned vehicles and any other vehicles used by
10 terrorists, and upon identification of the vehicles and their passengers,
11 use concentrated fire to neutralise and eliminate them."
12 A. I don't know. I cannot speak about this. As I said, this is a
13 plan that I'm totally unfamiliar with. I'm totally unfamiliar with it
14 being drafted by Blagoje Djordjevic, as you said, or signed by
15 Djordjevic --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Or Vlahovic, rather, interpreter's correction.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but I am not aware of any of
19 MR. NICE:
20 Q. And finally on this document --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please. Microphone,
23 MR. NICE: I'm so sorry.
24 Q. Finally on this document, Mr. Nort, page 3 in English, Roman V,
25 "Preparations for Execution," for you, please, Mr. Paponjak. It's right,
1 isn't it, that one of the significant characteristics of those you
2 described as the terrorists was that they used Chinese ammunition; is that
4 A. I don't know what you're talking about right now. Terrorists for
5 the most part did use Chinese ammunition. That's what facts indicate.
6 That is correct.
7 Q. You see under here "Preparations for Execution," and this is for
8 execution in the elimination of KLA: "On the 23rd of January, 1999, the
9 platoon leader and squad leaders of the PJP, together with sector leader
10 from Celopek shall make a reconnaissance of the area and the ambush
11 locations. The platoon leader of PJP shall provide grenade launchers and
12 ammunition manufactured in China ..."
13 Why should your local organisation be demanding that elimination
14 exercises should be done with weaponry of Chinese manufacture? Would that
15 be in order to be able to cast blame for what happened on the KLA if
16 things went wrong?
17 A. This is not the kind of assignment that was given at all. This
18 material was probably drafted with that objective in mind. This is not a
19 plan of the SUP in Pec.
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if you could remind me how we dealt with
21 the authenticity of this document. I think this is part of Mr. Coo's
23 MR. NICE: It was found by the OTP in the police station at Pec in
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm trying to understand the question
2 you asked.
3 MR. NICE: Yes.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there evidence that the KLA used weaponry of
5 Chinese manufacture?
6 MR. NICE: A lot of evidence that the weaponry and ammunition
7 typically associated with the KLA was of Chinese manufacture. I can't
8 point Your Honour, I'm afraid, immediately to an instance, but I think
9 there's plenty of it.
10 Q. Mr. Paponjak, we haven't yet dealt with the heart of the
11 allegation against those in Pec in authority at the time, namely that you
12 and your colleagues engaged in straightforward and well-organised
13 ethnic --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I get a copy of this document
16 that Mr. Nice has just shown to the witness now?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let a copy be passed to Mr. Milosevic.
18 MR. NICE: The accused will realise, of course, that it is an
19 existing exhibit.
20 Q. You and your colleagues, Mr. Paponjak, engaged in straightforward
21 and very well organised ethnic cleansing before the bombing -- organised
22 before the bombing even started. You realise that's the allegation
23 against you, don't you?
24 A. Perhaps there are accusations of this kind, but that's not true.
25 Q. Isn't it? And you did it under the supervision or instruction of
1 your superiors, tracking back to Belgrade and to this accused, let me make
2 it quite clear. Do you follow me?
3 A. It's clear what you're trying to say, but quite simply that's not
5 Q. I'm going to summarise for you in just a few sentences some of
6 the evidence we've heard with some dates, for your comment. On the 23rd
7 of March, according to a witness Zatriqi, MUP officers from Pec took three
8 of his buses which they later used to transport people from the city. On
9 the 25th of March, according to the witness Sokoli, he saw police from Pec
10 burning and looting houses. He was beaten by Serb forces. He was loaded
11 on a truck and sent to Prizren --
12 MR. KAY: Should these be questions rather than speeches by the
13 Prosecutor as to the nature of his case?
14 MR. NICE: I can turn them all into questions.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're putting these matters to the witness --
16 perhaps you should put them individually.
17 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I can, but with your leave there's no need
18 to do so. I've indicated that I'm just putting our case comprehensively
19 and in the shortest possible time so that the witness can know the nature
20 of the evidence. I suspect --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Put them collectively.
22 MR. NICE: Thank you very much.
23 Q. So that Mr. Sokoli said he was beaten, loaded onto a truck and
24 forced out; and finally, on the 27th of March, according to a witness
25 Mr. Konaj, he was also kicked out, told by policemen that there was no
1 place for him to go other than to Montenegro.
2 Now, that's, in very short order, a summary of some of the
3 evidence, and I want to know from you, Mr. Paponjak, whether you allow for
4 the possibility of police officers in your town doing that.
5 A. No way.
6 Q. Sometimes it's possible that you have rogue elements in a police
7 force doing bad things. Do you think even a rogue policeman could have
8 tried to force Kosovo Albanians out of Pec?
9 A. What do you mean "wild elements" in the police? I worked with
10 these people for years. I know them. Had anybody been wild, they would
11 have been eliminated from the police in the way in which this was
12 prescribed, by taking disciplinary action, et cetera. There was no one
13 who went wild in the police. Since this gentleman said that the policemen
14 took away three buses from him, he probably knows which policeman did
15 that, and he probably gave their names, and then we'll know exactly
16 whether these were policemen to begin with and how these buses were taken
17 away from him and what happened to the buses. He certainly knew all the
18 policemen in Pec because there weren't very many of us.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. You keep saying some policemen or some forces, but they know all
21 of our names; our names, surnames, our other characteristics. They know
22 who these policemen were, if they were policemen, and then it will be easy
23 to track them down by name and surname.
24 Q. Come to that further, probably in a second, but no movement, then,
25 of Kosovo Albanians by the police. Was there at the middle, end of March,
1 beginning of April, was there any organised movement of any part of the
2 population by any force, police or military?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Because, you see, you've described the movement of people right at
5 the end of March and the confusion in the centre of Pec with you moving
6 the traffic on as sort of well-meaning but unfortunate chaos. Would that
7 be about right?
8 A. That's right. There was quite a bit of disorder, rather,
9 commotion in the roads. That's true. There were even bottlenecks on the
11 Q. Perhaps you'd be good enough, then, to have a look at Exhibit 319,
12 tab 36, with me. And if I may say so, this is not a document that should
13 have come to you as a surprise, for it's been published in easily
14 available public material since 2001.
15 Now, this is an order, Mr. Paponjak, and if you'd like, please,
16 Mr. Nort, to take us to the last page, we'll see that it's signed by
17 Colonel Dusko Antic, so we can see whose it is. There he is. And now
18 let's go back to the first page, please.
19 It's dated the 30th of March, 1999, Mr. Paponjak. What it says is
20 this: "On the basis of the Supreme Commander's order on the declaration
21 of a state of war and the moving of a part of the population out of the
22 zone of responsibility of the Pec VO ..."
23 Would you tell us what "moving of a part of the population out of
24 the zone of responsibility" means, since you've told us that there was no
25 organised movement of any part of the population by any force.
1 A. Everybody who is involved in military or police work knows what
2 this means.
3 Q. Well, you tell us.
4 A. During a state of war, combat activities are anticipated. That is
5 to say that the population has to be moved out of the area of
6 responsibility in order to protect their lives in case there is combat
7 action. So --
8 Q. Mr. Paponjak --
9 A. -- at defence positions there cannot be any civilians.
10 Q. Mr. Paponjak, didn't I give you an adequate opportunity in the
11 last question but three to tell us whether there was any movement of any
12 part of the population? Didn't I give you an adequate chance to give us
13 an account of this then?
14 A. You asked that in terms of the setting up of columns and whatever
15 else there was, not in terms of the measures that have to be taken by the
16 army and the police. This is an absolutely normal thing that is done in
17 any situation where there is a state of war. Where combat action is
18 anticipated, the population is moved out of the war zone. It is
19 relocated. It's not moved out altogether, but it is relocated to safe
20 areas, and that is done anywhere.
21 Q. I asked you in the clearest terms was there any -- was there at
22 the middle, end of March, beginning of April, was there any organised
23 movement of any part of the population by any force, military or police,
24 and you said no.
25 Mr. Paponjak, this document shows you to be a liar, and you've
1 lied throughout your evidence to this Court, haven't you?
2 A. I understand your wish to have that said and to say that. That's
3 quite clear, and that's clear to everyone who is listening. I never lied,
4 sir, not a single point in time. I understand that you have that kind of
5 wish to say that, but no.
6 Q. How many thousand Kosovo Albanians, on your estimate, voluntarily
7 left their homes between, say, the end of March and June of 1999, how many
9 A. I don't know. I was not involved in such estimates.
10 Q. What was the population of Pec before the conflict? You're a
11 policeman, you might know that.
12 A. I might know had they taken part in the census. However, the
13 Albanians did not take part in the census so we don't have this
15 Q. No idea at all of the number of police you were policing? Was it
16 a hundred, or a thousand, or 5.000? You give us a clue.
17 A. If you mean estimates of the total population, what our estimates
18 were, what my personal estimates were, I can give you that. However, I
19 cannot give you any accurate figures. No one can. Estimates vary.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, just before we depart from that
21 document, if we are, are you saying that no part of the population was
22 moved out of the zone of responsibility of the Pec VO, or are you saying
23 that there was a point at which a part of the population was moved?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot claim either. I assume
25 that all the inhabitants, Serbs and Albanians, were relocated from all the
1 positions that were taken by the army of Yugoslavia or members of the MUP
2 of Serbia at places where positions were supposed to be organised in terms
3 of personnel, equipment, where the defence positions were supposed to be.
4 The population was relocated from these areas with a view to protecting
5 their own lives. In case there are combat activities, civilian casualties
6 wanted to be prevented.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm afraid I don't understand that answer. Were
8 you not in such a position of responsibility that you would know one way
9 or another whether this order ever came to be implemented?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such measures were taken by
11 commanders and leaders of units. That is why I was not in a position to
12 know that. Every leader of a unit or commander of a unit organising his
13 positions does that. That is why I assumed that this had been done
14 indeed. When deploying his personnel, when fortifying the positions,
15 digging the trenches, et cetera, the commander of the unit or the leader
16 of the unit takes such measures. If there are civilians nearby, he has to
17 relocate them to a different position, a safe position, and that is
18 ultimately decided. My work was completely different. I don't even know
19 where the positions were located.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, I don't want to take up too much time,
21 but I really don't understand that answer at all, because the wording of
22 this order is the moving of a part of the population out of the zone of
23 responsibility of the Pec VO. That's not just a movement a short distance
24 away, that's a movement out of your zone of responsibility. Would you not
25 know if that had happened?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does not say moving out now in
2 this document. It says relocation of the population. I don't know how it
3 was translated in the document that you have in front of you.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: We don't need to argue about these words, but do
5 you not have in Serbian the words "out of the zone of responsibility of
6 the Pec VO"?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It says "and relocation of a
8 part of the population from the zone of responsibility," not "out of the
9 zone of responsibility," and I would like it translated verbatim.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... it's the same.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, it's not the same. That
12 refers to the population of that area. Relocation of the population of
13 that area, not from outside. So relocation within the same zone. Moving
14 out would mean moving people out of that area. Relocation, for instance,
15 within this room would mean re-seating of a person, whereas moving out
16 would mean that the person is leaving the room altogether.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: But relocation of someone from this room would mean
18 moving a person out of the room.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: It will remain a mystery for the moment.
21 JUDGE KWON: VO is a military organisation, Vojni Okrug, I assume.
22 MR. NICE: I think Your Honour is right.
23 Q. Mr. Paponjak, you heard me summarise the evidence of a few
24 witnesses, and there have been other witnesses who have said they were
25 forced out of Pec. In light of your answers to His Honour and to me,
1 would this be reasonable: There is no scope for them being even remotely
2 accurate or honest in their account. Either they are completely wrong or
3 you're completely wrong. Would you accept that? You were there.
4 A. I do not accept that.
5 Q. Well, there's no scope for them making an honest mistake of
6 thinking they'd been forced out, thinking they'd seen houses being burned
7 down by the police, of thinking that they had been threatened that had to
8 leave or they'd be killed. There's no scope for genuine mistake, is
9 there? Either they are wrong or you're wrong.
10 A. I know that I am right, and I don't know what they were thinking
11 and why they were doing what they were doing.
12 Q. The trouble for you is there are two problems for you and one of
13 them is this: Your answers to me and your recent answers to His Honour
14 Judge Bonomy simply don't get round the fact that when you were asked in
15 specific terms, "Was there any organised movement of any part of the
16 population by any force?" you said no, and on your latest answers that
17 itself would be untrue and, therefore, a lie.
18 A. No. No. Here again, the reference is not to moving by force. It
19 is a reference to a relocation or moving for the purpose of protection of
20 those people. They're moving from a place where their lives could be in
22 Q. Now, tell us this, because you've been able to help the accused
23 and the Court with a certain amount of conjecture from time to time about
24 people being shot while trying to escape from Dubrava and things like
25 that. The Court's heard a lot of evidence about people being compelled to
1 give up their identification documents at borders when they left for
2 Albania, sometimes for Macedonia. What conceivable reason was there for
3 police, maybe from your own authority, taking, perhaps as gifts, the
4 identification documents of these departing Kosovo Albanians? What reason
5 could there be for that happening, Mr. Paponjak?
6 A. You have now give us -- given us an account which is very
7 difficult to follow. First of all, you said I helped the accused by
8 saying that people were escaping from being shot at.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you know -- let's just deal
10 with this. No, Mr. Paponjak, just wait.
11 You've known about this indictment for years; correct?
12 A. To every direct question you will receive a direct answer.
13 Q. Yes. You've known about this indictment for years.
14 A. However, in your questions --
15 Q. You've known about this indictment for years. You referred to it
16 in one of your signed documents as an exhibit. You've known about this
17 document for years; yes or no.
18 A. That is not in dispute. The indictment has been in existence for
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you have known for years, as
21 has everybody else interested in this conflict, that it is alleged the
22 Serbs kicked the Kosovo Albanians out of their country. You've known that
23 for years.
24 A. Known about the allegation.
25 Q. You have known, because of course you looked at the indictment, or
1 someone in your team did, and you will have heard the evidence in
2 preparation for this case, that one of the major allegations, because it's
3 an important bit of evidence, is that Kosovo Albanians were compelled by
4 police and military to hand over their documents of identification, their
5 car number plates, and so on. You've known that.
6 A. What does that have to do with my testimony?
7 Q. Answer the question, because you're giving evidence. You have
8 known that.
9 A. Yes, but I can't know about these allocations.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... is this: When I ask you a
11 very simple question to give your explanation for something that you've
12 known about for years and you must have turned your mind to, why do you
13 choose to take time with a long discursive answer? I want you to tell
14 these Judges what conceivable reason there could be for Kosovo Albanians
15 to hand in or to have taken from them their documents of identification.
16 Will you now please answer that question.
17 A. I don't even know the documents were taken from them. I have
18 nothing to do with Prizren, which seems to be your claim, and you are
19 trying to put to me now that I knew about it, and you want me to comment
20 on something I know nothing about.
21 Q. This much is true and obvious, isn't it: Despite knowing all
22 these allegations for years, your documents, which I must suggest are a
23 sham, your documents show no investigation into these allegations of any
24 kind, do they?
25 A. That is not in the jurisdiction of the Pec SUP, and we cannot
1 investigate into things that allegedly happen in some other area.
2 Q. Don't think, by any chance, there's a touch of bureaucracy in your
3 answers, do you? Don't you have an imagination or an idea of things that
4 happened outside the area of your SUP?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: He has answered the question, Mr. Nice. Let us
6 move on.
7 MR. NICE: Very well.
8 Q. Tell us, then, please, this: Why did Zoran Aleksic leave the
9 territory of the former Yugoslavia?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. You certainly know who he was, don't you? Don't you?
12 A. I don't know which Zoran Aleksic. But if you mean -- let me
13 think. Zoran Aleksic was one of our employees. We had a person by that
14 name, yes.
15 Q. So you did. After all, if all the -- if all the inhabitants of
16 Pec should know all the policemen, then certainly all the policemen should
17 know all the policemen, and Zoran Aleksic is one of them. We can just see
18 him, just so we can be quite sure that he exists, on, for example, tab
19 20.2, only one of a number of examples. Shall we look at that, tab 20.2.
20 Just put it on the overhead projector. Actually, here it is. Have my
21 copy. Just see it. Just see that his signature's there. Signs off on
22 one of the documents. I can't tell you what it is because it's not
23 translated. Doesn't matter.
24 What is he, a captain, or was he a captain?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you know almost --
2 A. Yes, he was.
3 Q. You know that having what -- did he move with you from Kosovo to
4 Kragujevac or was he deployed elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia?
5 A. I don't recall at this moment what happened to him, where he was
6 transferred, but he was from the section of crime investigation.
7 Q. And when did you become aware that he'd left the territory?
8 Again, the -- this is such a small territory that you'd expect people to
9 know the policemen, you must be able to give us some clue as to what
10 happened to him.
11 A. I am afraid my answer will have to be a little longer again. The
12 Secretariat of the Interior of Pec had 800 employees, organised into
13 sections. Within a section you have chiefs and heads of departments, and
14 they are in charge of the employees under them. There are several
15 departments - at least three - so you have chiefs of departments and his
17 I, as head of the secretariat, rarely had the opportunity to deal
18 with individuals except in very exceptional cases. Normally I had no
19 knowledge about any particular individual. At the time, the situation in
20 Pec was very chaotic. It took us several months to relocate and find a
21 new location and find accommodation for our employees, whether with family
22 or otherwise. And as people found a way to move to the new location, they
23 reported back to me and continued to work in Kragujevac.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... which is my immediate
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: He's coming to that. You're coming to that now,
2 Mr. Paponjak?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I cannot give you any
4 information about hundreds of other employees either, because I was not in
5 charge of any individual in particular. My job was to organise conditions
6 of work in a new place, and chiefs of sections or departments reported to
7 me about their employees and their lines of work.
8 Perfectly by chance I know that Zoran Aleksic relocated to Cacak
9 because he lived in Cacak, but I learned about that through private
10 channels more than official ones because I myself coming from Cacak.
11 MR. NICE:
12 Q. Tell us what you learnt about him and about his onward movement
13 from Cacak.
14 A. I know that he lived in Cacak, that his father lived there as
15 well, because I visited his father at home several times, and I know that
16 at some point he left the service and moved out of Cacak.
17 Q. Did he leave the service, Mr. Paponjak, because he was concerned
18 to tell the truth about and to blow the whistle on the Pec policemen and
19 he was hounded out by threats?
20 A. And who was allegedly threatening him?
21 Q. Other Serbian policemen.
22 A. Zoran Aleksic had a perfectly normal, good relationship with me
23 and he never told me anything about it.
24 Q. Now, let's move to another topic. At the beginning of June of
25 1999, you were still in service in Pec, weren't you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If there was an operation in Pec at the beginning of June of 1999
3 to dig up the bodies of people who had been killed by Serbs between March
4 and June, involving the police, you would have known about it, wouldn't
6 A. I probably would.
7 Q. Yes. Right. Now, please tell the Judges when it happened.
8 A. I don't know that it happened. You are now trying to put it to me
9 that it did happen.
10 Q. Let me suggest to you that the following at least were involved in
11 this operation: Your head, Boro Vlahovic; a man called Bato Bulatovic;
12 Milojevic Mladen and Zoran Stanisic, those last two being respectively
13 head of the criminal division and chief of the technical division of your
14 police. They and many others, no doubt, were involved in digging up the
15 bodies and sending them off to Batajnica in Serbia. You knew about it and
16 you were involved, and I'd like you now please to tell the Judges a bit
17 more about it.
18 A. All right. While you're at it you can say that I dug them up
19 personally. Nothing like that happened, and I didn't participate in it.
20 Q. Well, may we take it, then, that if in due course there is
21 evidence to show that bodies were dug up at the time that I've suggested,
22 with the assistance in particular of the traffic police, that's something
23 that you would have known of?
24 A. I cannot say anything of the sort because it did not happen. I
25 didn't know anything about it, and even less could I say that I
1 participated myself.
2 Q. How many Kosovo Albanians do you say were killed by Serb forces in
3 the course of the bombing campaign between March and June of 1999?
4 A. I have said more than once already that Serb forces did not kill
5 Kosovo Albanians.
6 Q. Not one solitary Kosovo Albanian; is that right?
7 A. Not that I know of.
8 Q. Well, I'm not going to take very much of your time or the Court's
9 on that, but just again look at one picture, please, in the book "Under
10 Orders," which as I said yesterday makes the point that all the crimes
11 alleged against -- not all, many of the crimes alleged against those
12 ethnically cleansing in Pec were well documented.
13 MR. NICE: Just the photograph, please, and the caption.
14 Q. Here's something. Look at the photograph, please, and I'll read
15 the caption slowly so you can follow it: "Witnesses identified the man on
16 the right as Nebojsa Minic, known as 'Mrtvi' ('Death'). He is implicated
17 in the extortion and killing of six family members in Pec on June the
18 12th. On the left is Vidomir Salipur, a Pec policeman and alleged head of
19 the Munja gang, who was killed by the KLA on April 8, 1999. The date and
20 location of the photograph are unknown."
21 Did you as a policeman remain totally ignorant of the person known
22 as Nebojsa Minic who is dealt with in great detail -- or some detail in
23 the pages of this book? Did you remain ignorant of him throughout?
24 A. I know Vidomir Salipur, who is on the photo here. I don't know
25 the other person.
1 Q. And is it right that Vidomir Salipur was head of something called
2 the Munja gang, which was a paramilitary group that went around and killed
3 people. Is that right?
4 A. I said loud and clear that it was a policeman, Vidomir Salipur. I
5 don't know what gang you are referring to in connection with this
7 Q. No investigations into the sort of allegations that we see in this
8 publicly available material by your police force in exile, was there?
9 A. We had no reports or other information about this. I don't know
10 where this material is coming from and how this photo was made in the
11 first place.
12 Q. Thank you very much. We've had evidence from the United Nations
13 Commissioner for Refugees, through a witness, that on the 12th of April, a
14 total of some 3.600 refugees from Istok and other municipalities arrived
15 at Montenegro. From your sighting of the chaos in the centre of town when
16 you were directing the traffic, or whatever you were doing, does it seem
17 sensible to you that some 3.000 people from the neighbouring
18 municipalities of Istok might have found their way to Montenegro on the
19 12th of April?
20 A. What do you mean do I find it reasonable?
21 Q. We have to have a picture of what you were doing, Mr. Paponjak,
22 and as far as I can understand it - forgive me if I have got it wrong -
23 you were doing your best in town to control the traffic and to help people
24 move along the roads. You must, as an experienced traffic policemen, have
25 had some idea of the numbers of people you were dealing with. Do you
1 think for all these communities under your general control some 12.000
2 might have found their way to Albania by -- sorry, to Montenegro by about
3 the 12th of April? That's all. Does that seem reasonable to you?
4 A. Why wouldn't they have been able to find their way?
5 Q. And another 2.000 going to Montenegro. Does that seem about
6 right, from what you saw?
7 A. The direction towards Montenegro was overcrowded all the time
8 because it's an uphill road. You have to go through the Kula pass,
9 movement is very slow. People travelled in ox carts, cars tractors and on
10 foot. That thoroughfare was very busy. There were bottlenecks, but the
11 column was moving.
12 Q. Well, I've given you a chance to answer the question and I'm going
13 to move back, as I said, to one event in 1998. We looked at it in tab 1.4
14 yesterday, and this is the Salihaj incident. You took us to 1.4, number
15 -- I thought it was number 56. Perhaps you will remind me of which number
16 it is for the Salihajs.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 59.
19 MR. NICE:
20 Q. Would you be good enough, now that we've got 59 --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. NICE:
23 Q. We've got 59 on the overhead projector, perhaps read it out for
24 us. It's not very long. That's the only way we can see what you say
25 there. Read it out for us, please.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. It is an incident that happened in Susica, Istok municipality, on
2 the 9th of August, 1998. "On the 9th of August, 1998, around 600 hours, a
3 terrorist attack was carried out against the police patrol of the Ministry
4 of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia in the village of Susica, Istok
5 municipality. Members the police responded to the fire and on that
6 occasion killed eight members of the KLA, namely, Saban Salihaj, Hisen
7 Salihaj, Abedin, Miljazim, Isa, Hisniju; Arben and Gashi Nazmi, who
8 carried out terrorist attacks against citizens and members of the MUP in
9 that area from May to August, 1998. On-site investigation was performed
10 by investigating judge of the district court in Pec, Veselin Trajinovic.
11 External examination of the corpses was performed by Dr. Milivoje
12 Stijovic. The corpse was turned over to the family for funeral upon
13 orders of the investigating judge. Report KU number 270/98, 291, 291 and
14 DR/98 were submitted to the district public prosecutor of Pec."
15 Q. And that's it, is it?
16 A. Sorry: "Attachment case file with records number A/III-59."
17 Q. We have that case file here with us today?
18 A. Not here, not today. Behind short reports like this are case
19 files in our archive. There are about 1.000 such case files.
20 Q. You see, your very bare report that you rely on here in this
21 document doesn't tell us, does it, which of these alleged terrorists was
22 75 years old. Can you tell us which one it was?
23 A. I don't know any of them, but in the case file there are the
24 records of the on-site investigation and various other notes that are
25 attached there.
1 Q. I'm going to suggest to you that one of them was 16 years old.
2 You can't deny that, can you? You haven't got any material to back up
3 your brief summary.
4 A. The material isn't here, but the material does exist and you can
5 receive it.
6 Q. And I can also suggest to you, because it's reported and
7 documented elsewhere, that one of the women was abducted and her body, she
8 having been killed, was only found later, days later. This wasn't an
9 attack on terrorists. If it involved one member of the KLA, it was a
10 revenge attack carried out by police from your police station. Who led
11 the attack on these so-called terrorists? Was it you?
12 A. First of all, not a single woman was abducted or killed.
13 Secondly, it wasn't an attack --
14 Q. How do you know that?
15 A. Well, from the official documents, from the records compiled by
16 the investigating judge relating to her on-site investigation and other
17 official notes.
18 Q. Is this one of the files you've reviewed in detail or did you
19 leave this one to the team, or do you know about it personally,
20 Mr. Paponjak? Which is it?
21 A. Looked at a videotape from the on-site investigation.
22 Q. What did that show? Did it show the 16-year-old or the
23 75-year-old? Did it show the slit throats?
24 A. No. I don't recall that.
25 Q. You don't recall anything that's inconvenient, do you? That's my
1 suggestion to you as to your evidence in general. You've always got an
2 alibi for anything that's inconvenient. Isn't that the reality of how
3 you've been giving evidence?
4 A. What you've just said is not true. The unfortunate images we saw
5 here, some of which I saw when I was on the spot. So the footage we saw
6 here is also unfortunate or, if you like, inconvenient, but I don't deny
8 Q. Let's turn, then, to imagery, and let's go to Dubrava. Just
9 remind ourselves that the documents on Dubrava are tab -- tab 8, and the
10 supporting material is on -- much later on; tab 46.
11 MR. NICE: File 7, if the Chamber is interested in reminding
12 itself what is contained there.
13 Q. I'm going to ask Ms. Dicklich to play, in order to save time, the
14 Dubrava tape that the accused has produced in parts, and I'll make some
15 propositions as the tape is being played and then ask the witness
16 questions at the end of each section.
17 Q. Mr. Paponjak, you appreciate, don't you, that there is no dispute
18 but that NATO bombed the prison on the 19th of May. You understand that?
19 A. Yes. That's not something that is challenged.
20 Q. Do you understand that there has been regular assertions by NATO,
21 indeed by witnesses - I'm not going to take you through it all - that
22 Dubrava prison was used as military or police or special police base in
23 the period leading up to the conflict and indeed during the conflict? You
24 understand that's always been asserted?
25 A. Possibly that is what is said, but that was not the case, and
1 probably it was the terrorists that planted that information on NATO.
2 Q. You appreciate that you've already told us you've never been to
3 Dubrava prison yourself before your visit on the 19th, and therefore you
4 have no personal knowledge of what the prison complex was used for;
6 A. We, I didn't inspect the prison, but quite certainly we didn't
7 have any of our forces there.
8 Q. So any witness who says that there were forces operating from
9 there or from near there has got it completely wrong; is that right?
10 A. Probably.
11 Q. The first tape which we'll now --
12 [Videotape played]
13 MR. NICE: We're using Sanction, by the way, Your Honours, for
15 Q. The first tape that we -- sorry, the first part of the tape
16 relates to the 19th of May. On Sanction. We'll make sure it's working
17 for the Court.
18 MR. NICE: Do Your Honours have it being displayed?
19 Q. And what we see is that this is an apparently proper document with
20 -- showing the bodies carefully numbered. The video is timed 16:37,
21 16:38, and dated.
22 In your experience as a police officer, this would appear to be a
23 proper forensic video of a scene of crime; correct?
24 A. That's it, yes.
25 Q. As we move on, we see there's quite a concentration - and I'll ask
1 Ms. Dicklich to move on and find it - of the damage that was done, in
2 particular the prisoners breaking down the doors. We'll find that a
3 little bit later. Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The point is an obvious one and is made in publications which
6 reveal the prisoners spending an hour and a half to break down the doors.
7 Why did nobody let them out? Do you know? Why did the guards not unlock
8 the door and let them out?
9 A. I simply don't know. Maybe the guards had moved away and gone
10 into safety to protect themselves from the bombing.
11 Q. They couldn't be bothered to go -- did you not inquire? Did
12 nobody inquire as to the guards, How come you didn't let the prisoners
13 out? How come you let them die where they were bombed? Did nobody ask
15 A. Why should I be the one to ask that?
16 Q. Well, if you wouldn't be the one to ask it, tell us who should
17 have asked it and then we'll see if it turns up in anybody else's report.
18 You went there. You're a senior policeman. You've come here to give
19 evidence about Dubrava. Forgive my asking you how it comes that nobody
20 bothered to ask why they weren't unlocked before their hour and a half
21 scramble to get out.
22 A. At the time of our arrival, they weren't on the premises any more.
23 Why would I then ask why nobody had let them out if they weren't in there
24 in the first place when I arrived?
25 Q. Well, you see, in your tab 8 you record the fact that as soon as
1 the attack was over the police and medical team came to the site. Yes, no
2 inquiry as to that.
3 Let's move on to the 21st of May. That's the second video. And
4 to remind everybody, there were two phases of bombing on the 21st of May;
5 morning and then later on. This one, again we see it's a properly
6 prepared video. It's got a date. It's at a slow-ish, measured speed.
7 It's got a time on it, 11:57 we can see at the moment. And is it right -
8 you've seen this slowly and asked us to look at it slowly - it deals with
9 the damage to the infrastructure, a hole in the wall near the heating
10 plant; is that right?
11 A. That's right, yes.
12 Q. It does show, I think, the prisoners. It shows the prisoners
13 against the wall. And we've had evidence that after the bombing, after
14 the first bombing on the 19th, we've had evidence that the prisoners were
15 kept in the yard overnight, it being obviously safer so far as potential
16 bombing is concerned, to be in the open and not in a building that might
17 be targeted. You know nothing to counter the evidence that the prisoners
18 were taken out after the bombing on the 19th and allowed to sleep in the
19 yard thereafter, do you?
20 A. I don't know about any of those facts.
21 Q. So the fact that there were found in the open air mattresses and
22 bodies is consistent with the mattresses having come out after the 19th
23 and not being brought out for any other purpose than for people to sleep
24 on after the first bombing, correct?
25 A. That just means that they were there. Now, whether they were let
1 out or they got out themselves is a matter of speculation, and I'm sure
2 that those providing security for the prison would know the answer to
4 MR. NICE: Your Honour, just give me a minute and we shall be able
5 to get there, but it's quite difficult to select small passages from a
6 long video. There we are. Now, I think -- there we are.
7 Q. This is a part of this video, the video on the 21st, the time is
8 -- I can't quite see, but it doesn't matter. And over by the wall,
9 though, we see lots of people moving around in comparative freedom. Do
10 you understand that would be the prisoners?
11 A. I do believe they are.
12 Q. Let's now move to the -- and we know that this, then, ended.
13 People -- there were journalists there, I think, and everybody ran away,
14 apart from the prisoners, maybe, when the bombing began again. And we
15 then come to the third video, which is -- let's have a look at it.
16 The first thing to notice about this video, Mr. Paponjak, and I'd
17 like your comment on this straight away, is it hasn't got a date on it.
18 Can you explain?
19 A. Well, probably at the time the date recorder wasn't switched on or
20 a different camera was used, because it was filmed over several days. So
21 perhaps a different camera was used.
22 Q. Just pausing there for a minute. You made the point that it was
23 important for your people to be at scenes like this immediately after
24 things had happened, and as you were on the 19th and as you were on the --
25 not you, I mean collective you, were on the 21st. You're now trying to
1 suggest, although you have no evidence of it, that there was further
2 bombing on the 22nd and 23rd. If there was such bombing on the 22nd and
3 23rd, can you explain why the MUP didn't go and look at it?
4 A. Well, you couldn't make anybody go, force them after what they had
5 experienced on the 21st. Who could you find? And who would be the person
6 to make them, force them?
7 Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer. I want to check with
8 you whether it's imagination or reality. Have you got any statement from
9 anybody saying that? Have you got a police report saying, "I, Captain
10 So-and-so, tried to get people to go to the prison and they wouldn't go"?
11 Have you? Or are you making it up as you go along, Mr. Paponjak?
12 A. I'm not making it up. You asked my opinion, and I'm giving you
14 Q. I didn't ask your opinion. I asked you to explain something.
15 You're the man who has come with all the documents and all the reports.
16 You claim from time to time to have looked at parts of the supporting
17 material. If there's any ambiguity in my questioning, let me clarify it.
18 I want you, please, now to point to a single piece of material that
19 suggests efforts to go and inspect the bombing on the 22nd and 23rd were
20 thwarted by fear. Do you follow the question? Let's have the answer.
21 A. I've just said to you now I would not be the person to send
22 anybody there, after what the on-site investigation team experienced on
23 the 21st, for as long as there were planes flying overhead and for as long
24 as there was bombing, because that would have meant that I was sending
25 people to a certain death.
1 Q. So let's understand this. When you went -- when whoever went to
2 take this video on the 24th, had you established a direct line of
3 communication with NATO so that they told you there was going to be no
4 more bombing? Had Jamie Shea rung you up to say that's it for bombing of
5 Dubrava prison?
6 A. No. I assume that at that time there were no flights and so the
7 people monitoring the situation had ascertained that there were no
9 Q. How could you know about that? You didn't know about the early
10 ones until they happened. How could you know? You're making it up as you
11 go along, Mr. Paponjak, aren't you, because you'll do anything to try and
12 help this accused.
13 A. Do you really think that we didn't have any reconnaissance teams
14 and teams to monitor the situation and report back about flights and the
15 general situation?
16 Q. Is that evidenced in the Dubrava file? Can I find it so that we
17 can check it out?
18 A. That has nothing to do with the Dubrava file.
19 Q. Can we press on with this video. One of the things about it is
20 that the video shows - and I'm not asking you to do it now because it
21 would take too long - very little change in the damage to buildings when
22 compared with the earlier 21st. For example, we have a couple of stills,
23 if you want to have a look at them we can put them on the overhead
24 projector, for the 21st and the 24th. Perhaps we could just do that now.
25 Stop the thing for the second.
1 MR. NICE: This is to make a point, I don't need them to be
3 Q. Would you look at these two of the heating plant, I think it is.
4 One shows the 21st. It's a still from the videos. You have to trust us
5 on that. Can we see that on the -- we're still on Sanction, I'm afraid.
6 So you can just switch to the overhead projector.
7 There's one on the 21st. Let's have a look at the one on the
8 24th, if it is the 24th. The other one, please, Mr. Nort.
9 Very little difference in the damage to the principal buildings of
10 interest, was there? Was there?
11 A. Do you want my comment?
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. Well, a civil engineer should perhaps take a look at this and give
14 you an answer, not me.
15 Q. That --
16 MR. KAY: Just of interest, the Prosecution's own case, the
17 witness Jacky Rowland said there was a significant change in the buildings
18 from her visit from the 21st and when she arrived on the 24th, which is in
19 her statement.
20 MR. NICE: Yes, there was one -- there was one building indeed
21 which was damaged. We can come to that if you want to have a look at it,
22 and I know that His Honour Judge Kwon's interested in looking at the
23 canteen. Yes. But also the damage that Jacky Rowland saw is consistent
24 with damage by grenades that may have been thrown.
25 Can we go back to Sanction, please.
1 Q. Now, when we look at this video without the date, and we're
2 playing it in its realtime, I think, at the moment. This doesn't have
3 anything about it, does it, of the sort of professional nature of the
4 first two videos. It starts off fairly slowly but gets rapidly much
5 faster in its survey of bodies. Do you remember that, Mr. Paponjak?
6 A. I wasn't there at the time. I assume that they were trying to
7 film it all as soon as possible to be able to leave the area and that they
8 were planning to do a more lengthy job later.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... area? I thought you'd told
10 us that they would no doubt have found it safe to be there knowing there
11 were no flights. Why would they want to leave the area?
12 A. When they arrived it was safe, but there was always the danger of
13 planes flying overhead again.
14 Q. Can we just turn now to a few particular details. What does this
15 show? What does this show?
16 A. I'm trying to recognise what it shows but I can't.
17 Q. Was that the canteen with the hole in the ceiling but no bodies
18 underneath? Was it?
19 And here's the canteen again. Actually, you can see it again.
20 There you are, the canteen damage but no sign of any bodies being killed
21 as a result of that bomb. You can see the tables and the chairs. Any
22 comment on that?
23 A. No. I wasn't there on that day.
24 Q. Now let's look at the -- well, you've brought this video and
25 apparently you can say something about it and I'm going to ask you at the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 end what you can say about it, but let's have a look at some of the bodies
2 with dates on them. We again have stills. I think we can just satisfy
3 you as to -- here's a body, and here is the still from the body. I can
4 lay it on the overhead projector.
5 It's clear, isn't it, that the naming and date of death of bodies
6 was recorded by other people at the prison, prisoners and so on?
7 JUDGE KWON: We can't see it. The ELMO is not working.
8 MR. NICE: ELMO, please.
9 Q. We can see here that this one, Eminazeri -- it's not very clear as
10 we can see it but we can hand a copy in. The date here is given for death
11 at Dubrava of the 23rd of May. Did you notice that as you reviewed this
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is improper
17 because Mr. Nice claims that that is the date of death, whereas it can be
18 the date at which the body was brought up from the rubble. It can be any
19 other date. It doesn't say that it was the date of death. It just says
20 the 23rd of May. Perhaps it was the date when the body was filmed, for
21 example. And he starts out from the assumption that it was the actual
22 date of death.
23 MR. NICE: Shall we just look at --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What did the witness say in answer to that?
25 Did you have a comment on Mr. Nice's question about the date, that
1 it was the date of death?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to say that I don't know
3 what it means or who wrote this.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Mr. Milosevic, the point you have
5 made can also be made in re-examination.
6 MR. NICE:
7 Q. You see, we've got copies of this for the Chamber and it may be to
8 save -- we haven't. Sorry. But I'll hand one in. You can see on the
9 screen that the last word is "Dubrava." So we've got, Mr. Paponjak, a
10 date, and you've got the accused's intervention to help you with your
11 imagination, we've then got a name, and then we've got some figures. And
12 what language is that all written in, please?
13 A. Well, I don't know whether this will be something from my
14 imagination again but I said clearly yesterday that these markings need
15 not mean that we wrote them. I don't know who wrote them, and that was my
16 answer of yesterday.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Albanian?
18 A. I assume that it is, because --
19 Q. Looks like it was written by a Kosovo Albanian prisoner about
20 another prisoner. And if we look at another one -- we'll take one for the
21 22nd. Perhaps just lay it straight on the overhead projector because I
22 want to finish, if I may. I've got only one more question, I think, about
23 this video and I'm done before the break, if the Court may possibly
24 indulge me with a couple of minutes.
25 Here one for another body, you see, which isn't the 23rd. This is
1 the 22nd, if Mr. Nort can turn it round so we can see it. That's helpful.
2 And again you see it has date, name, and it says "Dubrava." There's a
3 format to the way these things are done. These show the dates upon which
4 these people died, and one of them is the 23rd, and there are a couple
5 more that are the 22nd.
6 A. I say again that I don't know what this refers to. However, have
7 we not clearly shown with this that we worked according to the correct
8 procedure and that we took note of every detail and that it is not part of
9 a conspiracy for hiding the facts, as you put it, but that this is how
10 things stood. I don't know what this refers to. I don't know who made
11 this note, but the crime policemen took photographs of it as they found
13 Q. You see, you have referred to Bojic's document dated the 22nd of
14 May where he refers -- it's tab 46.3 -- where he refers to later reports
15 that the bombing happened up to the 22nd of May at 6.10 in the morning.
16 Even assuming the date of that report by the investigative judge is
17 accurate, which I don't accept -- I don't accept. Even assuming it is,
18 that couldn't possibly account for a killing on the 23rd when, as your own
19 documents show, there was only overflying. Could it? And there is no --
20 A. What has that got to do with the killing?
21 Q. You see, what I'm going to suggest to you is that those who
22 engaged in the wanton killing of many, many prisoners at Dubrava must have
23 persuaded you and the other authorities to cover up their crime by trying
24 to make it seem as if it was a later bombing that had done the damage. Do
25 you understand?
1 A. I do understand. However, the death of the prisoners was the
2 result of the bombing. That is incontestable and can be seen from this.
3 Q. I'm sorry, incontestable. Thirty people with gunshots going
4 through their heads, going straight through their bodies. That's caused
5 by bombing, is it? And if so, would you like to explain what kind of bomb
6 it is that lets off ordinary bullets? You see, we've got pathologist
7 evidence on this, Mr. Paponjak. You may not have known that.
8 A. What kind of bullets?
9 Q. Bullets that come from guns. I haven't got the dimension of the
10 bullet with me, but that's not an answer to the question. Can you tell
11 me, please, what kind of bomb lets off bullets -- I think we've got one
12 going through somebody's head, from here, down through his body and
13 several other pictures of them going through -- I can give you the
14 pictures, if you like. Would you like to see them? If you really think
15 that would help you, and I don't want to go over the break, but I can show
16 you the photographs, or some of them, of the evidence that we have in this
17 case going to show how some of these people died.
18 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I may have to defer this until after, but
19 it will be the only thing I will defer until after apart from one part
20 that I'd like to play straight away to the witness before we come to
21 Baccard's evidence.
22 Q. Can you just look at this bit of video, please.
23 [Videotape played]
24 MR. NICE: Go back. That will do as well but just let's go back a
1 Q. These are the technicians, apparently, filming. Stop there. Did
2 you see a gun in that technician's hand?
3 A. I don't know whether that's a technician or a member of the
4 security force or what.
5 Q. It appears to be the group of people who have gone round
6 photographing these bodies. You're a policeman. You were there at the
7 time. You know the uniforms. Who were they? Police, special police,
8 paramilitary? Who were they?
9 A. If you go back a bit and stop the film, maybe I can recognise
10 them, but it would be nothing strange if the technicians or the others had
11 guns in their hands. This last individual was probably a technician from
12 the investigating team, and we were able to see a uniformed policeman a
13 few seconds ago. The technicians are also authorised personnel from the
14 Ministry of the Interior, for example, and it is not unusual for them to
15 carry rifles in war situations because they can be attacked when arriving,
16 when leaving, and on the spot itself as well.
17 Q. There are no weapons seen on the people taking the video on the
18 19th, were there? They were ordinary technicians. What's happened by
19 this date?
20 A. But they were not recorded when getting out of vehicles. I don't
21 think we have anything like that recorded. They must have had weapons on
22 the vehicles that day, too, because it was quite customary and it was a
23 normal thing for everybody to carry rifles as soon as they went out into
24 the open, out of town, but also when they went to town too. There was a
25 situation of war. There were attacks coming from all over, terrorists
1 were everywhere. So it was quite natural for them to be armed with
2 rifles, too.
3 Q. See, what we see in this video is a video of people with
4 mattresses in an area where they've been made to line up, been shot, where
5 others had been pursued on that on subsequent days and attacked with
6 grenades as they had been on the first day, and all the injuries that we
7 can see on this video are consistent with that. Some killed in the
8 bombing, some killed by things like grenades, and some shot. And that's
9 my question to you, and answer that, please.
10 A. Employees -- employees of the crime investigation police of the
11 SUP of Pec carefully investigated this, carefully looked at this video
12 footage. There is nothing on this footage that would indicate that these
13 people had been shot, as you had put it. The conclusion that the experts
14 reached on the basis of the available material is that this was a
15 consequence of the NATO bombing and nothing else.
16 Q. I'm going to finish with --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I think we're going to take the break
18 now. This must be a convenient time. I think we are five minutes beyond.
19 We will adjourn for 20 minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.
23 [Videotape played]
24 MR. NICE:
25 Q. Mr. Paponjak, we've moved on from -- in the compilation video,
1 from the part that had the men with guns at the car and the video of the
2 bodies in the prison to the last part. It's on a freeze-frame at the
3 moment, and you'll see that we're back to a version that has a date, 25th,
4 and a time on it, and this is the funeral.
5 JUDGE KWON: And Sanction again.
6 MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Sanction.
7 Q. Now, this shows the bodies, one by one. You've produced this
8 video. I want some help from you, please. First of all, to your
9 knowledge was it all Kosovo Albanians who were buried on this occasion or
10 were there any Serbs there?
11 A. All who were found were buried there. All the corpses that were
12 found, that is.
13 Q. Were they all Kosovo Albanians?
14 A. I believe they are.
15 Q. They were fingerprinted, weren't they, for the purposes of
16 providing identification, because one of your reports shows that.
17 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. And it's clear that there was, under your discrimination between
19 times of anxiety when you might be worried about bombs coming and times of
20 calm when you weren't, it's clear from this video that the video-takers
21 were under no great pressure of time on the 25th. They're taking a very
22 measured video. Yes?
23 A. Yes. This was out in an open area that was not a target of aerial
24 attacks, and that area was not expected to be targeted even if the planes
25 were to fly over.
1 Q. Who made the decision not to examine the bodies for cause of
3 A. I don't know about the bodies not being examined.
4 Q. Well, you see, we've got -- oh, I see. Well, please, then, take
5 us through your material and show us where is the analysis, documentarily
6 recorded, body by body, showing of what they died.
7 A. I think that the cause of death can be established only by
8 carrying out a post-mortem, and there was no time for post-mortems or were
9 there any possibilities for doing that because post-mortems were carried
10 out in Pristina.
11 Q. Well, even if there wasn't time for full post-mortems, we can see
12 from the photographs of the bodies their clothing wasn't even moved save
13 for a few who had their trousers pulled down for some reason. Who made
14 the decision not even to examine them sufficiently to discover whether, as
15 was subsequently discovered in respect of 37 per cent of them, that they'd
16 been shot?
17 A. A decision to carry out a post-mortem is always -- is always made
18 by an investigating judge, according to our law. It's not that the law
19 enforcement agencies decide on that. It was the investigating judge who
20 examined the bodies and decided to have them buried.
21 Q. What's his name or her name?
22 A. There is a record of the on-site investigation here, signed by
23 Investigating Judge Vladan Bojic.
24 Q. Well, he was injured, of course, in the blast on the 19th or 21st
25 -- 21st, I think. Who made the decision and where's -- where's the
1 document that I can find that explains the decision-making process that
2 led to these bodies being buried so quickly without any examination for
3 cause of death?
4 A. Although wounded, Investigating Judge Bojic went on carrying out
5 his obligations, which is not the only case that this was done. All
6 lightly wounded persons continued working. Only when hospitalisation was
7 indispensable did a person not going on working.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... decision? Where is the
9 document that shows his decision? This is all your material, all these
10 binders. You tell me where I can find it.
11 A. On page 2 of the record of the on-site investigation, which is
12 among the documents here. That is tab 46. 46.1, that is.
13 Q. Go on.
14 A. I can read that out to you if you haven't got it translated.
15 Q. Which is the bit that explains everything? We've looked at parts
16 of this document before, the flying over of planes and all that sort of
17 thing, but where is the bit that explains his decision-making to have
18 these bodies buried without inspection?
19 A. When the investigation continued for the second time on the 25th
20 of May, 1999, in the absence of elementary --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a specific
22 reference in the document where this --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's have a specific reference.
24 MR. NICE: Tab 46.1 page 2 in the English, and it's towards the
25 foot of the page, under the heading "Continuation of the on-site
1 Investigation." You've got the files. Otherwise I can ...
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was ordered was photographing
4 the site and later on recording by video camera. "Then I ordered that all
5 the killed persons be relocated from the site, and after getting out of
6 the rubble, to be relocated to the Albanian cemetery in the village of
7 Donja Susica, a few kilometres away from the site in the direction of
8 Kosovska Mitrovica via Zubin Potok. After the relocation of all the
9 corpses to the mentioned place, I ordered the photographing and
10 fingerprinting of every corpse individually. At the same time, I ordered
11 to have an external examination of all corpses, which was carried out by
12 the physician M. Stijovic, a specialist surgeon employed in the general
13 hospital in Pec. The entire process went on all the way until the 26th of
14 May at 10.00."
15 Q. Just pause there.
16 A. A total of 93 bodies were taken out of the KPZ.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice stopped the witness when he
20 was supposed to read out the last sentence only and that is relevant in
21 terms of the question that was put. It reads as follows: "After carrying
22 out all the ordered crime investigation procedures, I ordered to have the
23 burial individual of bodies carried out in a legally prescribed way."
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's on this second page, yes.
25 MR. NICE: I'm grateful to the accused.
1 Q. You see, Mr. Paponjak, when people are trying to cover their
2 traces, they sometimes say things that they shouldn't or fail to say
3 things that they should. Here we see, I suggest to you, an example of
4 that, because Mr. Bojic suggests indeed that there should be, in his
5 report, should or should have been external examination of the bodies.
6 Can you please show us on this video or in any of the records that you've
7 produced that there was external examination of the bodies by
8 Dr. Stijovic? Can you show it to us?
9 A. Why do you claim that he didn't have that carried out?
10 Q. Look at the video. You've looked at it at great length. You
11 explained to the Learned Judges how it would be a good idea for them to do
12 the same.
13 Here they are fully clothed save for a few. You can hear the
14 earth mover in the background digging the graves. Where is there the
15 evidence that these bodies were examined for cause of death? It's not on
16 the video, and I'd like you, please, because there are so many
17 untranslated documents, it may be there, to take me to Dr. Stijovic's
18 reports that show the cause of death for these unfortunate people.
19 A. That is in the documentation of the court of the investigating
20 judge. We don't have that document because that document was not relevant
21 for us at that point in time.
22 Dr. M. Stijovic, specialist, submitted his report to the judge,
23 not to the SUP Pec.
24 Q. You see, what did it show -- or is this something where you can't
25 help us because it's the responsibility of another ministry? What did it
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 show for those 37 per cent of the victims who died from gunshot wounds?
2 Can you help us?
3 A. We don't have any such thing.
4 Q. How do you mean you don't have any such thing?
5 A. I mean the Secretariat of the Interior in Pec.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it says here the whole process lasted
7 until -- that's 1000 hours on 26 May this year. I'm interested to find
8 out, to ascertain how long would that process of external examination have
9 lasted if it started on the 25th of May.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The video we are seeing now was taken on the
12 MR. NICE: It's in the afternoon. If the time there is right,
13 it's in the afternoon.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: That would have been the examination of 93
16 MR. NICE:
17 Q. Can you help His Honour Judge Robinson, please, Mr. Paponjak, with
19 A. I cannot because I really don't know about that. I was not
20 present there all the time. I was there perhaps for half an hour only at
21 the stage when the burial of the corpses had already started.
22 Q. So that the burial of the bodies started within how long of your
24 A. The burial was already under way.
25 Q. And tell me, did you see Dr. Stijovic there kitted out with a
1 white or a green coat and rubber gloves, working in a tent or something
2 like that, examining the bodies, did you, or did you just see the bodies
3 put into the grave fully clothed?
4 A. On the spot itself I saw the bodies, I saw a tractor, or was it an
5 earth mover that was used to dig the graves, and I saw a significant
6 number of people there, perhaps about 15 of them. There was no tent
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, can I take up one point further?
9 MR. NICE: Of course.
10 JUDGE KWON: The last sentence of this tab, Mr. Paponjak, tab
11 46.1, says: "The forensic documentation represents an integral part of
12 this record." What does it mean? Does it mean that Dr. Stijovic's report
13 is included in this documentation?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what it means. An
15 investigating judge orders different participants to carry out particular
16 actions. The forensic documentation, as it was called here, is what we
17 have in the case file. That is what we have. The other participants who
18 carry out certain activities submit their report to the investigating
19 judge, not to us. We are only part of the team on site that is carrying
20 out investigation activities. There are experts engaged by the
21 investigating judge who submit their reports to him. We don't have the
22 reports of Dr. Stijovic for those reasons, and perhaps some other reports
23 that the investigating judge has. What is contained here is only what we
25 JUDGE KWON: It's very difficult for me to understand that while
1 you are able to bring here the record of on-site investigation written by
2 Judge Bojic that you are not able to bring here the very important report
3 of Dr. Stijovic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating judge usually
5 submits his record to us. In some cases, it so happened because we have
6 records of judgements, we also have the actual texts of the decisions, but
7 we don't have the other documentation. They don't submit that to us.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 MR. NICE:
10 Q. You see, Mr. Paponjak, you were there early on -- by the way, what
11 was a traffic policeman, if you were a traffic policeman, doing at an
12 event like this?
13 A. What do you mean what he did?
14 Q. You were a traffic policeman. What were you doing at a scene of
15 crime investigation and burial of this importance? Was there a lot of
16 traffic to direct?
17 A. There wasn't a lot of traffic, but it's right by the road.
18 Q. Well, were you on patrol and you just happened to sort of pop in
19 to the grave site or were you there for a purpose?
20 A. No, no. I was there for a purpose, of course, but I wasn't on
22 Q. Well, what was the purpose of the traffic inspector being there?
23 What was your job?
24 A. I didn't have any specific task in this respect, no specific job.
25 I just stopped by for a brief period of time to see what was going on.
1 Q. Just out of interest, to see what was going on?
2 A. I did not have any specific assignment in relation to that.
3 Q. And what about the first time when you went there? Was it on the
4 19th? Did you have any job then?
5 A. Again, no specific assignment. The bombing was on. Those of us
6 who happened to be there heard about it and went to the site itself.
7 Q. You see, if we go back to your answers when I asked you about what
8 happened on arrival and what you saw and you described the bodies, the
9 tractor and the burial, if I asked you the question, "From your own
10 knowledge, from your own observations was there any external examination
11 of the bodies that you saw," your answer would be?
12 A. Had I seen it? The answer would have been that I did not see it.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, can I clarify something? It may be
14 me that has misunderstood earlier evidence. What exactly was your
15 position in the office in Pec?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Pec I was head of the department
17 of the traffic police.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. That does clarify it. Thank you.
19 MR. NICE:
20 Q. And I return, with that question and answer in mind, to an earlier
21 topic, and then I am completely done.
22 You will remember that I suggested to you that you were much more
23 implicated in events than you revealed, possibly in relation to the
24 Salihaj family, and certainly in relation to the movement of the bodies
25 from Batajnica. I want you to have a few more details to consider about
1 the movement of bodies.
2 First, did you know and is it right that the movement of bodies
3 was aimed at avoiding the detection of crimes? No bodies; no crimes. Did
4 you understand that?
5 A. I understand that that's what you're asking me. However, that is
6 not something that I knew, and it's not correct anyway.
7 Q. Secondly, I'm going to suggest to you, and let me make it clear
8 this will emerge within a couple of months, in my suggestion, in a public
9 report, so think carefully: Were you aware that bodies from Pec were
10 found in sites 3 and 5 at Batajnica as long ago as 2002?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Are you --
13 A. May I explain? Will you let me explain what I knew about that?
14 Q. Of course.
15 A. Some kind of removal of bodies was referred to in the newspapers.
16 From the newspapers and from television, I found out that allegedly these
17 bodies were found. Now, when was that? It was in that year. And nothing
18 else. We did not receive any information about this, let alone that it
19 was bodies from Pec that were found there.
20 Q. Between December of last year and April of this year, Judge
21 Dilparic has been the investigative judge dealing with this, and so far
22 more than 50 bodies from those Batajnica sites have now been identified as
23 coming from Pec. Are you aware of that?
24 A. We received a certain amount of information that some bodies had
25 been identified and that they were handed over at the checkpoint to
1 families from Kosovo and Metohija. That is true, and that is contained in
2 our documentation.
3 Q. Well, it must be my mistake, but let me see if I follow this.
4 You're now acknowledging, because I've mentioned the investigative judge,
5 that you were aware that Pec bodies had been found in Batajnica.
6 A. That pertains to what you asked about, December last year. The
7 first question was 2002 or, rather, 1999, or whatever the year you
8 mentioned was. I'm giving you a precise answer to the question that you
9 put to me.
10 Q. So while you've been sitting there, you have at all times known
11 that bodies from Pec had been identified as found in Batajnica and indeed
12 had been returned to their original Pec family members. Yes?
13 A. Those are not bodies from Pec. These were identified persons from
14 the area of Pec.
15 Q. Identified persons from the area of Pec?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When I asked you questions earlier this morning, and we'll try and
18 find the precise answers you gave so that you can consider them, did you
19 not think that I might have been referring to bodies from the area of Pec?
20 A. Well, now it seems that on the basis that a person was identified
21 who had resided in Pec, that this body was transferred from Pec itself. I
22 don't know what you meant. I told you quite specifically that we received
23 information that bodies that were identified as being bodies of former
24 residents of Pec were returned so that they could be buried properly. But
25 that does not mean that they were found in Pec and transported from there.
1 They could have arrived from other places too.
2 Q. When I asked you questions earlier this morning about movement of
3 bodies from Pec to Batajnica - we may not be able in the time to find the
4 quotes - but you made it clear that you knew absolutely nothing about
5 this, didn't you?
6 A. Yes, absolutely nothing about any removals.
7 Q. So when you now tell us that you knew about the return of the
8 bodies, may we take it that your first answer was inevitably some form of
10 A. You cannot convince anyone of that. Those two have nothing to do
11 with each other. I know nothing about the relocation of bodies, but I do
12 know that some bodies were returned. They were found somewhere, they were
13 identified as being those bodies, and they were returned. Again, that has
14 nothing to do with their movement.
15 Q. Let me help you just with a few of your answers about bodies from
16 Pec to Batajnica. You challenged me, saying, "While you're at it, you can
17 say I dug them up personally. Nothing like that happened, and I didn't
18 participate in it." And later you said, "I cannot say anything of that
19 sort," when I suggested to you that you'd been involved, "because it
20 didn't happen. I didn't know anything about it. Even less could I say
21 that I participated in it myself."
22 You were trying to mislead this Court --
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. You've been trying to mislead this Court and you've been caught
25 out because I presented you with the evidence you didn't think I would
1 have, namely that the investigating judge has already reported to you on
2 bodies moving from Pec to Batajnica. You've been caught out,
3 Mr. Paponjak.
4 JUDGE KWON: Can I also remind you that you had said that, I
5 quote, "We did not receive any information about this, let alone that it
6 was bodies from Pec that were found there."
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We were talking about bodies
8 that had been transferred from Pec. To date, no such information exists.
9 It was announced in public that the bodies had been returned to families.
10 And the Prosecutor cannot allege that I said I didn't know about it.
11 However, we have no information that bodies had been dug out from
12 cemeteries and transferred to Serbia. We have some information that some
13 bodies were identified and returned to families. There is no link with
14 reburial. It doesn't mean that those bodies had been buried in the first
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is what I understand the witness to be
17 saying, that while there may be evidence that bodies were found in
18 Batajnica and returned to families in Pec, there is no evidence that those
19 bodies were removed from Pec, dug up from Pec and taken to Batajnica.
20 That's what I understand him to be saying. That's understandable.
21 Just to correct something in the transcript. When you said to the
22 witness, "You are trying to mislead this Court," the transcript has the
23 witness as answering "That's right," but to be fair to him, you had not
24 finished the question.
25 MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Paponjak, His Honour explains that your answer is
2 comprehensible or capable of being comprehended, but I'm going to suggest
3 to you that your answer is nonsense. Perhaps you'd like to explain,
4 please, how bodies killed in the course of the events between March and
5 June of 1999 got themselves up to the air force base in Batajnica near
6 Belgrade so as to be buried along with other bodies that had been dug up
7 in various parts of Kosovo and transferred to hide the evidence? Can you
8 explain that for us?
9 A. That still doesn't mean they were dug up in Pec --
10 Q. Where were they dug up?
11 A. -- as you tried to put in my mouth.
12 Q. Where were they dug up?
13 A. That's something I don't know.
14 Q. Let me go back and give you a last chance to think about this.
15 Amongst other sources of information, forensic scientific, there's your
16 fellow policeman Zoran Aleksic, who was driven away because he was
17 prepared to tell the truth about you and your colleagues. Do you want to
18 think again about whether you along with Vlahovic, Bulatovic, Milojevic
19 Mladen and Zoran Stanisic were involved in this? Do you want to think
20 again about that?
21 A. There's no need to think about something I know.
22 Q. Very well.
23 A. I am telling you again that I did not participate in that, even if
24 it happened, nor do I know of such a thing happening.
25 Q. And just to be quite clear, the role of the traffic police in the
1 event, amongst others, was that they were engaged in identifying the
2 corpse -- corpses to be moved by gender and age, it being part of the plan
3 to leave behind bodies that were KLA and to take away bodies that were
4 innocent victims. Do you follow me? That's the suggestion as to what you
5 and your particular group of police were doing.
6 A. That is simply ludicrous.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Than you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, any
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have re-examination,
10 Mr. Robinson.
11 Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.
13 A. Good morning.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you are going to re-examine, I
15 want a disciplined exercise re-examination. It's confined to matters
16 arising from the cross-examination. No leading questions, and it must be
17 of a reasonably -- a reasonable length.
18 MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, I should have made this point clear
19 before sitting down: As to the exhibits, although as I indicated I would
20 ask questions about them without prejudice to their admissibility, it will
21 be my argument in due course that the evidence given by this witness shows
22 that the documents should not be admitted. He has no sufficient firsthand
23 knowledge of the details he's referring to. He's relied entirely on the
24 unidentified authorship of others. He's never been able to give detailed
25 answers when asked, and this falls below the level of evidence
1 acceptability set by this Chamber. I thought I ought to make that clear
2 before re-examination.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Well, first of all, to reply to what Mr. Nice just said, Colonel,
6 when you said on several occasions that you had not written the documents
7 that you had signed, when you said you had not written them, did you say
8 that in order to explain that you cannot know every detail by heart or to
9 say that you cannot stand by those documents and their authenticity?
10 A. We prepared those documents together, I mean the team that
11 prepared them, and I participated in the preparation of this underlying
12 information. I didn't mean to say that I don't stand by those documents.
13 I stand by every document because it was the work product of a team of
14 which I was a part, so I do absolutely stand by each of these documents
15 because it is the result of joint work, and I signed them, of course, as
16 head of Secretariat of the Interior.
17 Some of the examinations were not performed by me, which is only
18 natural. Many incidents were processed by forensic policemen and
19 scene-of-crime officers, but we had the documents available when we
20 prepared these reports. I did review certain case files in which I was
21 personally interested in, or professionally interested in, and I know the
22 details, but there were other cases which were not the subject of my
23 professional interest, and I had no opportunity to explain this before.
24 Q. I'm giving you this opportunity now. So all these case files that
25 now exist in the relocated Secretariat of the Interior of Pec were
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 prepared under your leadership?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did all the documents, did all the underlying documents pass
4 through your hands and the hands of your associates who participated in
5 the preparation of these documents?
6 A. Yes. Some of them even contain my handwritten notes in the
8 Q. Let us just complete this. On whose orders did you prepare these
9 briefs or information that were prepared in the Secretariat of the
10 Interior in Pec and in Kragujevac?
11 A. The Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.
12 Q. Very well. Mr. Nice suggested that you prepared this in order to
13 help me. Who headed the Ministry of the Interior when you received those
15 A. Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic.
16 Q. Mr. Nice mentioned here that some people have already testified
17 here. Did your Secretariat of the Interior follow the evidence given in
18 this trial?
19 A. I did not check that.
20 Q. Very well. You said that since you received the assignment to
21 prepare this you were also provided with the methodology and the required
22 headings. Those people who gave you orders to prepare these documents,
23 are they the same people who sent me here?
24 A. Well, that seems to follow.
25 Q. Very well. Can we then assume that those people wanted you to do
1 something to help me?
2 A. There is no grounds for such an assumption.
3 Q. Very well. Now, look at this: A subject of considerable
4 examination by Mr. Nice was tab 2.4, "Information about the forcible
5 deportation of Albanians, their persecution, and acception [as
6 interpreted] of IDs and personal documents." Was that one of the headings
7 that were given to you by the Ministry of the Interior?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So is that the reason why it was included, as one of the required
10 headings according to the orders of the ministry?
11 A. Precisely. We could not change that.
12 Q. Does this attachment, which is mentioned in para 7 and refers to
13 one of the counts in the indictment, means that you had the task of
14 compiling all the information about deportations, the taking away of IDs,
15 et cetera, to respond to these charges?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Does it mean that you were not doing it to help me but, rather, to
18 help Mr. Nice in order to prove his case?
19 A. Well, that's the way I understood it, but it can be understood
20 differently as well.
21 Q. So if it is required to compile all information about deportations
22 of Albanians on ethnic and racial grounds, et cetera, et cetera, did you
23 give orders to your team to gather all the information related to
24 deportations of Albanians, persecution on ethnic and racial grounds, et
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what was your conclusion? Is your conclusion reflected in the
3 sentence that says "This information is not correct"?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I appreciate what the interpreters are telling me, that I have to
6 make a pause between question and answer.
7 Is it then clear that your assignment was to provide information
8 concerning cases in which Albanians were the injured party and that you
9 did precisely what you were asked?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Were you required, and we have documents here from which we can
12 see that, such as one document in particular which refers exclusively to
13 cases where Albanians were victimised, were you required by the Ministry
14 of the Interior to provide information first about those cases where
15 Albanians were the injured party? Was priority given to Albanians or
16 Serbs, Roma, and others?
17 A. We were asked as a priority to provide this information concerning
18 Albanians and later concerning cases involving Serbs.
19 Q. Later, when you were required to provide information about
20 forcible deportations and persecution of Albanians, you were also required
21 to provide information about crimes against Albanians.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you were not required to provide information about crimes
24 against Serbs?
25 A. That was not required.
1 Q. How long was it before you were required to provide information on
2 crimes against Serbs?
3 A. Considerably later. I cannot tell you exactly now.
4 Q. Was it after you completed compiling information on crimes against
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Very well. Mr. Nice asked you in particular about one brief which
8 concerns security related events involving loss of life from the 1st of
9 January, 1998, until the 1st of June, 2001, in tab 4. He only asked you
10 about item 59, which you quoted in its entirety, and there's no need for
11 me to read it again. I suppose you well remember that it concerns a
12 summary. I'll quote only one part, which says, "Members of the police
13 responded to fire." That follows after the sentence about the attack on
14 the police patrol. It also mentions that eight KLA members were killed,
15 quoting names.
16 Mr. Nice asked at one point -- in fact, he claimed that those
17 people had their throats slit. Do you know anything about that, and is
18 there any information that reality is different from this summary?
19 A. What throats? What throats were slit? That is absolutely
21 Q. So this entire file A/III, item 59, has a case file behind it for
22 every item, including 59?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you have case files numbered including lists of victims in
25 alphabetical order?
1 A. Yes. That is the underlying information that we used for this
3 Q. So for this entire documentation that you exhibited here, there
4 are underlying dossiers and case files for every incident, every case.
5 A. Precisely.
6 Q. Does that mean that each of these documents under each of these
7 tabs is an official document of the Ministry of the Interior, officially
8 signed and stamped, together with all the underlying case files?
9 A. Of course. We couldn't work any different.
10 Q. Very well. Thank you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I will ask you to exhibit
12 these documents, especially if we have in mind that Mr. Nice is exhibiting
13 documents from secondhand, fifth-hand sources such as books including
14 "Under Orders" which have no evidentiary value at all. We are talking
15 here, on the contrary, about official documents and forensic documentation
16 obtained during investigations. So if you make any comparison in terms of
17 validity between various documents tendered here, you must bear in mind,
18 of course, that official documents certainly have priority over the
19 documents provided by Mr. Nice, especially documents provided by BBC,
20 including their reports.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Now, Mr. Paponjak, where do you come from?
23 A. From Rudo.
24 Q. What did you say?
25 A. Rudo.
1 Q. What do you say? Where are you from?
2 A. Rudo.
3 Q. So you are from Rudo. And I am from Pozarevac. And now look, in
4 this document that Mr. Nice tried to explain to you in the Serbian
5 language, and that is document military district Pec, which says "moving
6 part of the population from the zone of responsibility," does that mean
7 population that is native to that area?
8 A. Many people here know the Serbian language better than I do.
9 Q. It's clear that if they were to relocate, they were to be
10 relocated outside this area.
11 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... tend to forecast
12 leading questions --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll allow him to finish. Finish the question,
14 Mr. Milosevic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. This first sentence here, does it read: "Moving out part of the
18 population from the zone of responsibility of VO Pec, military district
19 Pec," and then goes on to say, "with a view to proper functioning and
20 normal life in the zone of responsibility." Let me not ask a leading
21 question: What does this mean, Colonel?
22 A. It means what I tried to explain when asked by Mr. Nice, by the
23 Prosecutor: This was to regulate the relocation of the population from
24 those places where their lives could have been in jeopardy, such as
25 positions of the army or the police to a different location that is safer.
1 That is all there is to it. This is not about deportation or moving out,
2 it's about relocation.
3 Q. Please. Is the purpose of this measure to protect population or
4 to deport it?
5 A. These are protective measures that are applied by all military
6 units expecting to come under attack, expecting to be involved in combat
8 Q. Very well. I hope we've clarified this. Now, let us shed light
9 on some of the other issues raised by Mr. Nice regarding the Dubrava
10 prison. Mr. Nice mentioned tab 7.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just give us that tab number
13 again, the one which deals with moving out of or moving from or --
14 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 319, tab 36.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have the tab number,
16 Mr. Robinson. This is something that was introduced by Mr. Nice in
17 cross-examination. That is his exhibit.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Exhibit 319, tab 36. I'm going to ask that it be
19 passed --
20 MR. NICE: Ms. Dicklich provided him with a copy, so ...
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to ask that it be translated, that the
22 interpreters translate it for us.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the Philip Coo binder, I understand.
25 MR. NICE: Yes. We have single versions of it for ease of
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to have a Serb version placed on the
3 ELMO so that the interpreters can translate it.
4 MR. KAY: I don't happen to have Mr. Coo's exhibit bundles in my
5 pocket, which I remember were very extensive. I wonder if there are
6 English language versions, that they could be distributed to Your Honours
7 and myself.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we had an English language version this
9 morning. That's the problem. It's suggested that the translation is
11 MR. KAY: Yes. I wouldn't mind seeing that as well so that we can
12 bear it in mind, if it can be distributed.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have in front of me
14 both what I just read out from a Serbian text when I was examining the
15 colonel, and I have the English translation that was provided together
16 with this when Mr. Nice tendered it. The English translation is
17 incorrect. Instead of saying that this population -- it says -- [In
18 English] "Moving of a part of the population out of --"
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I know you're gifted
20 linguistically, but I'd prefer to have it placed on the ELMO so that it
21 can be translated. Could you pass over the Serbian version.
22 Put it on the ELMO, and we'll ask the interpreters to translate
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. May I just ask the
25 interpreters something, because as expert, they can testify, too, I
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want any evidence on it, Mr. Milosevic.
3 Just let the interpreters translate what they say.
4 What paragraph is this?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the second sentence at the
6 very beginning: "Moving part of the population from the zone of
7 responsibility." Would you please lower it a little. [In English] Down,
8 down. Just the opposite direction. [Interpretation] No, scroll it up a
9 bit. That's it.
10 You see here the second sentence says: "And moving or relocating
11 part of the population from the zone of responsibility of the military
12 district of Pec with a view to proper functioning of the entire life in
13 the zone of responsibility of the Pec military district."
14 Whereas the translation says "moving out."
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I want you to be quiet. Let the
16 interpreters do this translation for me again. The interpreters, please.
17 Just read the text.
18 THE INTERPRETER: From which part, Your Honour? Where do we
19 start? Somebody should read it for us to interpret.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can't you see what is on the ELMO?
21 THE INTERPRETER: From the beginning, it reads --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 THE INTERPRETER: -- "First command of the military section of
24 Pec, strictly confidential."
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can skip that.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Sub-heading "Functioning of life and order."
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Skip that.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Next paragraph: "Pursuant to the order of the
4 Supreme Commander proclaiming the state of war and the relocation of a
5 part of a population from the zone of responsibility of the Pec military
6 district with a view to proper functioning of the entire life in the zone
7 of responsibility of the Pec military district, I hereby order..."
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is all. So this interpreter
9 interpreted this correctly. It should read in translation "from the
10 zone," whereas the document provided by Mr. Nice says "part of the
11 population out of the zone." That is not a possible translation. It
12 is --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: She also said "relocation," which has some
14 significance too.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well except -- well, okay. I'm afraid I remain
16 subject to the same problem as I had before, that "from the zone" is, as I
17 understand it, exactly the same "out of the zone." I don't see the
18 difference unless there's some particular word in Serbian in this context
19 where "from" means "of," the population of the zone. But to relocate a
20 part of a population from a zone simply means to me out of the zone, but
21 it may be a problem of translation that is extremely difficult to deal
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I asked the witness
24 precisely for this purpose, "Where are you from, Mr. Paponjak?" And he
25 answered, "From Rudo."
1 In the Serbian language, you say, "I come from this and that
2 place," just like you said "from the zone."
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, people say that in English also,
4 that I would be from Scotland. I understand that entirely. But I would
5 never talk about the population "from" Scotland. I would always talk
6 about the population "of" Scotland, and that's where I have the
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So the reference here is to two
9 words that were mistranslated. The reference in the original is to
10 relocation, which was mistranslated as "moving out." And it further says
11 "out of the zone." Those two combined change the sense completely. The
12 witness, however, explained exactly what this was all about. I asked the
13 witness what the purpose was, protection or maltreatment, and he answered
14 protection. Of course, this was always the main purpose, to protect the
16 JUDGE BONOMY: I have no difficulty accepting that the correct
17 translation of the word is "from," but it remains a matter of
18 interpretation now what that whole sentence actually means, and that's for
19 us to deal with at an appropriate stage.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Colonel, Mr. Nice mentioned tab 7. In tab 7, there is a brief
24 about the consequences of NATO bombing in the area of responsibility of
25 Pec. I don't have to read the entire document, because it pertains to the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 entire period of aggression.
2 Tab 7 contains the documents as they occurred chronologically from
3 item 64 onwards. Istok, Dubrava. Then the 19th of May from 8.20 until
4 10.20. And then there is the actual case reference and everything else.
5 Then you come to point 60, Istok Dubrava, the 21st of May, paragraph 65,
6 and then the times are given.
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 Q. Then we come to 66. Yes, 66. Istok Dubrava, the 21st of May at
9 17.50 hours.
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. And then it goes on case file, et cetera. And the people killed
12 are mentioned in all cases.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.
14 MR. NICE: As a matter of fact, I don't know whether the Chamber
15 wants to be sensitive to this: I didn't cross-examine on this document, I
16 think, at all, not least because I didn't have a translation of it. I
17 cross-examined and asked a few questions about tab 8, but I didn't
18 cross-examine about tab 7. Indeed, if it had been translated I might have
19 wanted to do so, but I didn't have it, and I didn't do it.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let us hear the question so we can
22 determine whether to allow it.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think that you will
24 recall well that Mr. Nice insisted several times upon the times when the
25 prison was bombed in his cross-examination, all the times. And now I have
1 pulled out tab 7, and I do remember him mentioning tab 7. But if he
2 didn't read it, I accept that. But it is legitimate, because he asked
3 questions about the times of the bombings of the prison.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Tab 7 doesn't have any times on it. Is it tab 7.1
5 perhaps, or 7.2, or some later one?
6 MR. NICE: It's 7.2, I think. And it's very -- this is a real
7 good example of how not having translated documents is problematic. Of
8 course I can see, looking at them now, that various dates related to Istok
9 Dubrava are referred to, didn't form part of the accused's evidence in
10 chief, and in the absence of an English version to deal with, I didn't
11 prepare on the basis of it. So there it is. I don't know whether when I
12 see an English version there would be any points I would have wanted to
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: But it would arise.
15 Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. So in tab 7, point 64 is Dubrava prison from 8.20 to 10.20. Then
19 65, once again Dubrava on the 25th of May from 0830 hours to 1030 hours.
20 Point 66, Dubrava, the 21st of May, around 1750 hours. That's 66. Then
21 we come to 67 chronologically, Pec, Branovacko Brdo [phoen], which has
22 nothing to do with Dubrava, but already when we come to point 68, we have
23 Istok Dubrava the 21st of May from 2340 to 2345 hours. Then we come to
24 69, Istok Dubrava, the 22nd of May from 1300 hours to 1500 hours.
25 And those are all -- that is to say, from 64 to 69 inclusive, we
1 have all the events, all the instances of bombing of Dubrava prison with
2 the exception of point 67, which was inserted there chronologically
3 between 66 and 68 but does not refer to the Dubrava prison.
4 Now, Colonel, is this the customary and usual way or normal
5 phrases that are used, the customary phrases, if I can put it that way?
6 But let's clear one point up first: On different days sometimes more
7 people were killed, sometimes less people were killed by the bombing. It
8 wasn't that when the bombing took place and we have recorded, as we have
9 seen from point 69 -- 64 to 69 inclusive - how many does that make? - five
10 or six instances of bombing, not the same number of people died on all the
11 bombings; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Right. Now, can you notice --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. One that's out with the area that
15 we've looked at already is number 69. Now, what does it -- what does it
16 actually say, Mr. Paponjak? What does the report number 69 say?
17 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE BONOMY: You'd better hold on. I'm getting no translation
19 for this.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English channel?
21 JUDGE BONOMY: I can now.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Start again, yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bombing of the Dubrava
24 correctional centre with a number of projectiles, persons were killed,
25 several persons were killed, wounded seriously or less seriously, and
1 material damage was done to the prison. A report was sent to the Ministry
2 of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia. In the three days of bombing
3 100 persons were killed and another 140 persons were wounded seriously or
4 less seriously. An on-site investigation was carried out by the
5 investigating judge from the district court of Pec with cooperation from
6 the employees of the SUP of Pec. Crime and technical documents were
7 compiled, a scene of the crime recorded and video footage made and an
8 Official Note compiled. Sixty-seven bodies were fingerprinted for
9 identification purposes. Twenty-six of the bodies were not fingerprinted
10 because of the decomposition of the bodies. The corpses were buried
11 individually pursuant to the laws and regulations. Video attachments 1/X,
12 2/X, 3/X, 4/X and 1/XI. So those are the partial videotapes per day of
13 the bodies. And the case number is J/369.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Does it not actually say what happened between 1300
15 and 1500 hours on the 22nd of May?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: What does it say happened then?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, at the beginning it says --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Please let the witness answer the question.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says in the title, under number
21 69. "Istok Dubrava, the 22nd of May, between 1300 and 1500 hours."
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but what does it say happened? What you read
23 was the bombing of the Dubrava correctional centre with a number of
24 projectiles, persons were killed, several persons were killed, wounded
25 seriously or less seriously, and material damage was done to the prison.
1 A report was sent to the ministry. In the three days of bombing, 100
2 persons were killed.
3 What I'm trying to find out is what it says actually happened
4 between 1300 and 1500 hours on the 22nd of May, and it would appear it
5 doesn't deal with that. Now, can you clarify that for me?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of this, I can't
7 clarify that point.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Colonel, these first few lines, do they refer to that day the 22nd
11 of May between 1300 and 1500 hours? That is to say that the penal and
12 correctional facility was -- of Dubrava was bombed, et cetera, with
13 several projectiles and that the report sent to Serbian MUP --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: This is no way to conduct a re-examination. The
15 witness has already dealt with a question put in an open way by me and
16 says he can't explain it.
17 MR. NICE: Your Honour, looking -- I'm sorry to interrupt, but
18 looking at the answer of the witness and trying to compare what one can
19 track from the translation to the original by reference to numbers which
20 we can all follow, he volunteered an observation about partial videotapes
21 per day of the bodies which I suspect does not appear in the text, and
22 this is clearly a document and may be a document I would have wanted to
23 ask questions about in light of the material we have been supplied with
24 and, of course, in light of the answers that the witness has himself given
25 about the impossibility of there being a video, an on-site investigation
1 on the 22nd. Because you'll remember that's one of the days when they
2 were all too frightened to go, and yet here there appears to be one. So
3 there's a lot of material that should have been available to us in
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, one more question before the
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Colonel, in all of this, in all these points, from 64, 5, 8, 9,
9 and so on, do we find the same terms used and the same phrase, "the
10 bombing of the penal and correctional facility of Dubrava," et cetera, et
11 cetera, and then "several persons were killed, wounded," et cetera? Are
12 the first three sentences or phrases the same? When it says that several
13 -- a number of persons were killed, were wounded either seriously or less
14 seriously, it's the same phrase, the same turn of phrase used in all these
15 points for the Dubrava prison, although we have actually established that
16 at some time -- that sometimes more persons were killed, sometimes less.
17 So how come these same phrases were used in all the cases? What is the
18 official terminology that you used to express things like this?
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, so many leading questions in that
20 last effort from you. One doesn't know where it is leading to.
21 The last question is: What is the official terminology used to
22 express things like this? Can you answer that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your permission, I'd like to
24 answer the comment made by the Prosecutor. Everything that was added
25 subsequently, after saying that a report was sent to the MUP of Serbia,
1 relates to our collective knowledge gathered about each particular event,
2 because that is the latest report on the bombing which is a compilation of
3 all the knowledge we had. That is why it contains information about
4 fingerprinting, videotaping, and all the rest of it. So this is the last
5 time that the bombing was mentioned, and it mentions the consequences of
6 the bombings, all the consequences. I understood the Prosecutor to say
7 that there was an on-site investigation and these were attachments on the
8 basis of that. An on-site investigation wasn't conducted on that day but
9 the video attachments 1/10 to 4/10 and 1/11 are the complete tapes to be
10 found in the files on that case.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Colonel, in point 69, para 69, the first four lines, do those
13 refer to the event that took place on the 22nd of May? Is that a standard
15 A. Yes, that's right. That is standard.
16 Q. Whereas all the rest refers to the cumulative information
17 gathered, that particular case and the previous ones. Can that be seen
18 from the text? That's what I wanted to clear up.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you yourself said --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll stop here now and take the break for 20
24 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Have you had a look at all these items, from 65 to 69, with the
4 exception of 67, which does not pertain to Dubrava? The same sentence was
5 used time and again: "Several persons were killed or -- and sustained
6 serious and less serious injuries."
7 A. Yes, that is a general formulation that was used because the exact
8 number was not established.
9 Q. That's the only thing I wanted to establish. So there is no
10 difference in this description of events from day to day. The same
11 sentence is used every time, that is to say, "Several persons," et cetera.
12 A. That is right, because it was not known how many. And then
13 finally there is paragraph 69, which brings all of this together.
14 Q. Colonel, do you know whether all facilities of the Dubrava prison
15 were hit during these airstrikes?
16 A. Yes, all of them were hit.
17 Q. Was there a single facility within it that was not hit during the
18 aerial strikes?
19 A. Not a single one.
20 Q. You said that at that time there were over 1.000 convicts or
21 accused persons there; right?
22 A. Yes. I said that there was a total of 1.004 detainees or
24 Q. In a facility where there are 1.004 detainees, if all facilities
25 within that compound were hit, is it reasonable to expect that -- about
1 this many to be killed or wounded? That's less than 10 per cent.
2 A. Well, that's what I thought.
3 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's leading. That has to be
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So all the facilities within the compound were hit, and there is a
9 total of 1.004 prisoners there. Ninety-five of them were killed. Are
10 those the facts that were established?
11 A. Yes, that's right. Those are the facts that were established.
12 Ninety-seven killed persons, or perhaps a bit more, I can't say just
13 off-the-cuff now.
14 Q. Mr. Nice showed the dining area where there are no corpses, and
15 before that did you notice a part of the dining area where there were
16 several corpses, before that on the tape?
17 A. Yes. There is such footing on the tape as well.
18 Q. If a bomb fell in through the ceiling of the dining area, would it
19 jettison the corpses away from that spot?
20 A. Yes. It is only logical that they would be killed and that the
21 bodies would be thrown elsewhere.
22 Q. In tab 46.5 - there wasn't any need to translate this because it
23 was taken out of the white book - is there -- are there some photographs
24 there from the prison of Dubrava?
25 A. Just let me just try to find this.
1 I'm afraid that this is not it.
2 Q. 46.5. That's where the photographs are.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I place these photographs on the
4 ELMO now, please.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you pass it to the witness.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found this now.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you please be so kind as to place on the overhead projector
9 some of these. You don't have to put all of them on. From 322 onwards,
10 just briefly. From page 322 onwards. But that's not it. Now we've got
11 the photographs. Next, please. Next, please.
12 These are the effects of the air bombs; is that right?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. All right. Next, please.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this in relation to? You are not at
16 large in re-examination. What does it arise from? If you can't establish
17 that, I will not allow it.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In relation to Mr. Nice's question.
19 He put not only one question but many questions as to whether post-mortems
20 were carried out in order to establish how persons got killed.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could we have the next photograph, please, in relation to the
23 question put in cross-examination by Mr. Nice.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...
25 Mr. Milosevic, and what do these photographs have to do with that
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, if you'd please look
3 at the next photograph, you'd see.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have to explain to me how the
5 question which you're asking relates to an issue that arises from
6 cross-examination. I'm waiting for the explanation.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you look at the next photographs,
8 you can see quite clearly that there are several corpses there, on the one
9 down here and the next ones, where people obviously got killed in the
10 bombing. My question is --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but how does that relate to any issue?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It relates to the questions put by
13 Mr. Nice in relation to the doctor who examined the corpses, and he asked
14 whether post-mortems were carried out, examinations, et cetera. My
15 question is related to that question put by Mr. Nice; whether the
16 authorities there, where it was quite clear how a person found his or her
17 death, do they carry out post-mortems nevertheless?
18 Please look at the next photograph. If a person is taken out of
19 rubble after --
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: You can ask the question, but we don't need the
22 assistance of the photographs.
23 MR. NICE: Your Honour, it may -- incidentally, been looking at
24 the photographs and the accused may be confused and it would be
25 unfortunate to confuse anyone else. These all relate to the 19th of May.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 They can be matched to the film and there is no challenges to that they
2 died or how they died.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If we want to establish exactly what
4 this pertains to, it pertains to the 19th and 21st of May. On page 319,
5 that is at the beginning of tab 46.5, it says that 95 persons were killed
6 and 196 were wounded. That is the information contained at the very
7 beginning. It pertains to the 19th and 21st of May.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I'm asking you, Colonel, during --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you ask, are you telling us that any of
11 these pictures relate to a period other than the 19th of May? That's the
12 photographs in particular. Are you saying that any one of these relates
13 to later than the 19th of May? That's the pictures of bodies.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I cannot say
15 specifically which date these photographs pertain to, but at the very
16 outset, at the beginning of this document that was published as the white
17 book, from page 319 onwards there is reference to the 19th and 21st of
18 May. Now, what pertains to the 19th and what pertains to the 21st or some
19 other day is something that I cannot say. But obviously these pictures
20 were taken in the prison in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, and
21 you can see how many persons were hit.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice has made the point that you can tell from
23 the video shot after the 19th of May that these bodies relate to the 19th
24 of May. Now, do you dispute that?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is all on the tape from the
2 19th and the 21st of May, and everything else is on the tape, too,
3 pertaining to other dates. The tape is an exhibit, and it's from the
4 investigation that was carried out, and I cannot just say off the top of
5 my head which body pertains to which date.
6 MR. NICE: Your Honours, it may be that photograph 4 relates to
7 the 21st, I'll get the copy of the white book and examine it, but as to
8 the bodies, Your Honours' understanding of my position is clear.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic, proceed.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. I have a very simple question: In this brief concerning the
12 effects of the NATO bombing, you gave a series of cases, 97 cases of
13 bombing in the area of responsibility of your Secretariat of the Interior.
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Wherever there were casualties in these events, and when this was
16 established immediately after the bombing, was a special investigation
17 carried out or were post-mortems carried out, or was it obvious how these
18 people had lost their lives? Was it customary for post-mortems to be
19 carried out in case of bombing victims?
20 A. No, it wasn't customary.
21 Q. Why? Can you explain that?
22 A. First of all, I said that it's for the investigating judge to
23 decide whether a post-mortem would be carried out or not. It was probably
24 obvious to the investigating judge why -- how this was done, and therefore
25 there was no reason for this to be carried out. Also, in those situations
1 it was virtually impossible to carry out a post-mortem. It was virtually
2 impossible to find a forensic doctor who would carry that out.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Paponjak - excuse me - do you happen to know when
5 this white book was published?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the exact date, but I
7 think it was published sometime in 2003 or somewhere around there. I'm
8 just saying this off-the-cuff.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. The white book was published in
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you've got it here. You've
13 got the white book here.
14 JUDGE KWON: I'm just wondering why this does not say the bombing
15 on the 22nd, on page 319.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I did not participate
17 in the elaboration of this book.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Just a few more questions in relation to Dubrava. You were asked
21 whether there was any military target within the compound and in the
22 immediate vicinity of the prison.
23 A. Yes, that question was put to me.
24 Q. Is there any military facility or any military piece of equipment
25 or vehicle, an APC, a truck that was destroyed in the prison or near the
1 prison during the bombing?
2 A. No. No. There weren't any military facilities or military
3 equipment there.
4 Q. All right. Mr. Nice asked you about tab 9, too, which is a very
5 voluminous piece of information. 9 and 9.1. 9 is the text, and then the
6 entire list is 9.1. That is a detailed piece of information about the
7 terrorist organisation and the terrorist activities. That's contained in
8 the heading "Information about terrorist organisation and terrorist
9 activities and the effects of terrorist activities carried out by the KLA
10 in the territory of the SUP of Pec."
11 He put a question to you, to read the first paragraph on page 1.
12 "Albanian separatism and extremism in the previous period" is the
13 sub-heading and then he asked you why you needed 1878 [as interpreted] and
14 the Prizren League and all the rest of that in the first paragraph.
15 Colonel, as far as I can see, this entire history, including the
16 Second World War, ends by the middle of the first page, as far as I can
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. These few lines at the very beginning, were they given by way of
20 historical background for further developments or in order to describe
21 something, or was it intended to be some kind of historical text?
22 A. This was done so that whoever would read it would find his way and
23 know more about it. There was no other reason. This information was
24 compiled for our own purposes.
25 Q. For the purposes of the police with a historical background of
1 events, and very quickly they move on to the 1990s.
2 A. Precisely.
3 Q. The question about the parapolice, which starts from the middle of
4 page 4 --
5 MR. NICE: Your Honour, this is a document that particularly
6 interested and concerned me but which there was simply not time to get a
7 translation. I was indeed hoping, had time moved more swiftly -- time
8 moved more slowly and I moved more swiftly this morning, to have returned
9 to it if I could have found passages. However, I only cross-examined in
10 the event on the opening passage, and it is completely unsatisfactory for
11 a document of this kind to be examined item by item without the Court
12 having the complete document to look at.
13 I know from those who have reviewed it what my general
14 propositions about this document would be, and the Court will need to look
15 at it in -- as a whole, given both the single question I was able to ask
16 and, I think, the single question that came from the Bench yesterday, to
17 see if there is any value in the re-examination now intended.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have some sympathy for the
20 Prosecutor's submissions, but let me hear first, what is it that you're
21 seeking to establish?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With this examination, I wish to
23 refute Mr. Nice's claim that this is irrelevant. He wanted to diminish
24 the value of this document, which is a very comprehensive and detailed
25 overview of terrorist activity in the area of the Secretariat of the
1 Interior of Pec from the 1st of January 1998 to the 1st of June, 2001, as
2 we can see from the heading. And the very fact that the first few
3 sentences provide a historical background was used by Mr. Nice to diminish
4 the value of a document which contains a wealth of good information.
5 This is a typical attempt to treat condescendingly documents which
6 could be valuable exhibits by saying simply that this is not relevant.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you never used this document in
8 your examination-in-chief.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was used by Mr. Nice in
10 cross-examination with a view to --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: He only used the first -- number 1, the first
12 part, which has to do with history, and you're now seeking to utilise the
13 rest of the document, which in any event is not translated. I will
14 consult with my colleagues.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll not allow it. Move on to another question.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In connection with Dubrava, just a few more questions, please.
19 You mentioned that you did go to that cemetery in Rakos where Dubrava
20 inmates were buried.
21 A. Yes, I was there.
22 Q. Was it a cemetery even before the inmates were buried there?
23 A. It is a Muslim cemetery in that village.
24 Q. Is it the case that during the war other persons were buried
25 there, persons who got killed in combat and generally during the conflict
1 that took place in the area?
2 A. Of course. Of course they were.
3 Q. Mr. Nice said that some bodies were dug out from their graves
4 there, bodies that had the marks of bullet wounds. Did those bodies
5 include some of persons who died from being shot?
6 A. Of course.
7 Q. Mr. Nice asked you why the burial was so hurried, and we have here
8 a document prepared by the investigating judge who ordered the burial.
9 Was there a danger of contamination, of contagion involved during those
10 days? Was the burial indeed hasty?
11 A. No. It was done in the only way possible. The bodies were
12 already undergoing changes due to decomposition. They were decaying, and
13 that was the only reason why it made no sense to delay their burial. But
14 they were not buried before proper procedure was observed and every action
15 prescribed by the law taken.
16 Q. Was any omission made in that procedure, including fingerprinting,
17 examination, et cetera?
18 A. No. There was no omission.
19 Q. I will no longer come back to these photographs.
20 Mr. Nice further asked you why, after relocating to Kragujevac,
21 you continued to work on the gathering of information concerning these
22 crimes. He said verbatim, and I noted it, "Since you knew you were not
23 coming back ..." Do you know that according to Resolution 1214 it was
24 envisaged that our army and police should return immediately after
25 takeover by the KFOR? Immediately, not several years later?
1 A. That is correct. And to this date, I'm not sure that we are not
2 going back.
3 Q. Very well. Mr. Nice asked you whether anyone, anyone from the
4 outside, and he even mentioned Bosnia, whether anyone trained people from
5 Pec. Do you have any knowledge that anyone from Pec had gone for some
6 training in Bosnia?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you have any knowledge that any policemen, and you knew all the
9 policemen, ever attended some training in Bosnia?
10 A. Nobody ever.
11 Q. Mr. Nice asked you to tell us your opinion on the allegations of
12 the president of Human Rights Watch from Pec, and according to what we saw
13 from the ELMO, I read the name. It was Mr. Demaj. Did you ever hear of a
14 person called Demaj who was president of the Human Rights Watch from Pec?
15 A. No. I know no such person. And by the way, what he said there he
16 could have said in Pec, and he could have reported everything to the
17 police if he had anything to report.
18 Q. Since Mr. Nice insists that the work of Human Rights Watch is
19 public, is it possible that the activity of Mr. Demaj is public, that he
20 is president of Human Rights Watch in Pec while you know nothing about it?
21 A. No, that's not possible. If there were any abuses by the police,
22 then he could have come straight to us and reported. He could have
23 reported it to any commanding officer. If there was anything happening
24 that was out of order, it would have been logical to report it to me or
25 the commander of the police.
1 Q. Mr. Nice presented several allegations of maltreatment of
2 Albanians by the police. You told us that since Pec is a small town, the
3 citizens knew all the policemen working in Pec.
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Would it then be logical to expect this president of Human Rights
6 Watch, if he's talking about police abuse, to state the name of the
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your questions are provocatively
9 leading. I believe that you know that you are leading. "Would it then be
10 logical..." We have been through this before. You're telling the witness
11 the answer to the question. It's abusive, and you must desist, otherwise,
12 I'll stop the re-examination. If you're not able to ask questions which
13 are not leading, then it means that you're not competent to carry out the
14 re-examination. It's a matter for you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Nice also claimed, basing himself on information provided by
18 Human Rights Watch, that in 1993 there were some paramilitary groups in
19 Pec. Do you know anything, anything at all about any paramilitary group
20 in Pec in 1993 or around that year?
21 A. There was no such thing, and I don't know anything about it.
22 There were no paramilitary groups in the context in which the question was
23 asked. It's possible that there were some paramilitary groups up in the
24 mountains, in Cicavica and such like where terrorists were being trained,
25 but there were no Serb paramilitary groups.
1 Q. From what Mr. Nice quoted from reports of the Human Rights Watch,
2 there seem to have been allegations about a paramilitary group in Pec even
3 owning a barracks.
4 A. That's not possible. That's preposterous.
5 Q. Would it have been possible for a paramilitary group to exist in
6 Pec and even have a barracks without you knowing?
7 A. That's simply impossible. Anyway, the person who made this
8 allegation could have designated the barracks involved. Just throwing
9 this allegation about without specifying the barracks makes no sense. I
10 have said several times today if there was any police abuse by a specific
11 policeman - and a case was mentioned today of a policeman who
12 requisitioned some buses - then it would have been normal to say exactly
13 who it was, and the policeman must have issued some papers in exchange for
14 these buses.
15 Q. Mr. Nice also quoted this gentleman from Human Rights Watch saying
16 that police took money from shop owners in Pec. Do you know of a single
17 case wherein the police in Pec took money from shop owners?
18 A. I know nothing about that. If money was taken from some shop
19 owners, then the representative of this organisation could have stated
20 which policeman did that by name.
21 Q. Mr. Nice said in cross-examination that people were arrested
22 because they assembled in order to talk, to discuss. Do you know of a
23 single case when, let us say an Albanian because in this case we are
24 discussing mostly Albanians, do you know of a single case where an
25 Albanian was arrested because a group had assembled to talk?
1 A. No. If that had been the practice, then the entire town of Pec
2 would have been under arrest, because everybody gathered to talk.
3 Q. Mr. Nice mentioned a lawyer, Adem Bajri, from Pec, who, as he
4 said, defended 200 political prisoners starting with 1990. Do you know of
5 any political prisoners in Pec from the time when you arrived there in the
7 A. No. I don't even know what the term "political prisoner" means.
8 Q. There was a small misunderstanding at one point here, and
9 Mr. Bonomy told me to pick that issue in re-examination. Namely, Mr. Nice
10 asked you with regard to the illegal SUP whether you knew that your
11 colleagues, Albanian policemen, members of the illegal SUP, had been
13 Were any of these people who were members of the illegal SUP your
14 colleagues at any point in time?
15 A. I can't say that anyone was my colleague if he was a member of the
16 so-called illegal SUP or illegal MUP of the Republic of Kosovo. They
17 would come to perform an on-site investigation after we performed ours,
18 and in some cases they even arrived before we did, and they conducted
19 examinations. That almost always happened in situations where Albanians
20 were involved. They never conducted an on-site investigation where Serbs
21 were involved.
22 Q. Very well. Do you know any of the policemen who had been regular
23 policemen before in the SUP of Pec and who were later arrested as members
24 of the illegal SUP?
25 A. I don't have all the information about all the people who were
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 arrested, but there was a story circulating that Serif Shala had been
2 arrested. He first worked as a regular policeman in the SUP of Pec before
3 leaving the service, and he was one of those who were arrested as illegal
4 SUP members.
5 Q. Do you know of anyone from the regular SUP of Pec who was arrested
6 later as a member of this illegal MUP?
7 A. No, I don't. I know there was a trial, but I don't know about the
8 outcome because I didn't follow it.
9 Q. Very well. Mr. Nice showed us yesterday on the ELMO a document
10 that wasn't distributed, by the way, which he said was a report by some
11 military source, a military document concerning the 25th of May, 1998.
12 MR. NICE: It was an existing Prosecution exhibit, as the accused
13 will recall.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: You heard that, Mr. Milosevic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I heard that.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Did you notice that in this document -- in fact, Mr. Nice said it
18 was a military document.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In May 1998 in Kosovo, were there any military missions?
21 A. Not that I know of.
22 Q. There were probably some foreign military missions. Did you
23 notice that it is written in this document that they had stated -- that's
24 exactly what it says, I noted it, that term was used -- the people they
25 found there told them?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That's what they say. Did you notice that there was a description
3 of a man wearing ammunition belts for a Kalashnikov?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who carried ammunition and who was armed at the time? Was it the
6 KLA or civilians?
7 A. It's a matter of course that it was not civilians. Who is armed?
8 It's the KLA and the terrorists.
9 Q. Can we in fact see from this document that it was the KLA who told
10 something to this mission?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We see from the description that this mission learnt about
13 something from KLA members.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So in this case, Mr. Nice and Your
15 Honours, you are accepting as an exhibit something that is provided as
16 secondhand information by the KLA.
17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Just a few more questions, Colonel. Mr. Nice also said that the
19 Albanians thought that they would be killed if they failed to leave. Now,
20 tell me this, please: At that time, the material time that we're
21 discussing and the time that you testified about and said that a large
22 number of Albanians gathered together in the centre of Pec and that they
23 left going off in different directions, now, was anybody killed? Was a
24 single Albanian killed during that period, during those days?
25 A. No. And we could -- were convinced of that looking at the list.
1 We were able to see that.
2 Q. Very well. One more question now. Actually, it was a question
3 that Mr. Nice asked you with the fact that Albanians were allegedly
4 deprived of their ID cards by the police. Did you or any of your
5 colleagues, or any other policemen, for that matter, whom you happen to
6 know, or any soldier whom you know, did they ever confiscate documents
7 from Albanians?
8 A. No. It wasn't in our interest to confiscate documents. It was in
9 our interest for people to possess documents so we could ascertain their
10 identity to know who we were dealing with and who the people were. So
11 there would have been no logic in us confiscating documents from people
12 because we're the people issuing documents to citizens.
13 Q. Thank you, Colonel. I have no further questions for you.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. May I ask the
16 interpreters just to return to that issue of relocating the people from or
17 out of the zone. Could it be translated in any of the following ways:
18 Relocating the people in the zone, relocating the people belonging to the
19 zone, or relocating the people of the zone, or indeed relocating the zone
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly request that we have a
22 look at the original again. All the examples are possible, however.
23 The word used is "iz zone," meaning "from the zone." If it were
24 "of the zone," it would be "stanovnistvo zone." But we suggest a proper
25 expertise by the CLSS service.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, with respect to this,
3 I'd like to draw your attention to another few aspects of that particular
4 sentence. The question here is of the population. It refers to the
5 population - the word is "stanovnistvo" - and not to Albanians per se.
6 That's the first point.
7 The second point is this: In that same sentence it says that it
8 is relocation in the interests of proper -- so that -- the proper
9 functioning of life. Therefore, in the interests of the population. So
10 that the explanation given by the witness is that this whole matter was
11 undertaken in order to protect the population from the effects of armed
12 activities, and that's the only explanation that can be deduced from that
13 particular passage.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I thank the
15 interpreters. We'll consult the CLSS.
16 Mr. Paponjak, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for giving
17 it. You may now leave.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I repeat my request to have
23 these exhibits tendered into evidence.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to consider that now. We're going to
25 consider the exhibits now.
1 Mr. Nice.
2 MR. NICE: May I repeat my argument, or state my argument that all
3 of this material should be excluded. In addition to the more fundamental
4 argument, this is an example of the impossibility of dealing with material
5 without full and complete advance translation, for there is simply no
6 realistic prospect of any of us returning to deal with these documents,
7 exhibits in detail now that the witness has left, and no question of
8 anyone seeking to have him come back, as far as I'm concerned.
9 The fundamental objection comes from the mouth of the witness
10 himself, and I'll give you, I think, two or three quotations of things he
11 has said. I said to him, "Let me restate my question with the addition of
12 one other clause. When you signed off all these documents in 2002, save
13 and so far as the documents related to traffic police, you were in no
14 position from your own knowledge to underwrite or guarantee the accuracy
15 of those documents at all, were you?" To which he replied, "On the basis
16 of my own personal knowledge, I could not."
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we have in this Chamber and in this
18 Tribunal accepted evidence from witnesses who, in your words, cannot
19 underwrite or guarantee the accuracy of documents which they present.
20 MR. NICE: Quite right. But we have to look at the detail of what
21 comes from this witness to see which side of the acceptability line this
22 material falls.
23 He went on to say in answer to this particular question that for
24 the head of the secretariat to be able to find something according to my
25 question, it would appear he'd have to check every detail himself, to
1 interview each criminal, to read through each of the documents. And the
2 Chamber will recall that he made it quite plain that he'd done little if
3 any of that at the time whatever the questions in re-examination, and that
4 contrasts sharply with the position of those who have come to produce the
5 large compilations who not only gave a detailed account of the method of
6 preparation but also explained, I think, in each case that they had
7 themselves done checking and verification of the material. He doesn't
8 even suggest that he did that himself.
9 Another of his answers was to this effect: "I did not personally
10 compile any of these pieces of information. I said somewhere along the
11 lines that the head of the Secretariat of the Interior can be equated with
12 a manager." So he doesn't compile any documents. He doesn't interview
13 any individuals. That's not his job. He doesn't study any documents.
14 All he does is sign documents in his official capacity as an official.
15 Now, that is completely different from and well short of any of
16 the evidence that we've produced of this broadly, it may be very broadly,
17 similar kind, and I would invite the Chamber to say that it simply falls
18 the wrong side of the line, and very far the wrong side of the line.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: You say he doesn't study any documents. What do
20 you mean? You mean he hasn't read the documents?
21 MR. NICE: That's what he said. And he once more made it pretty
22 plain he hadn't studied any of the documents. He claimed passing
23 knowledge, for example, to one video at one stage, to the Salihaj papers,
24 but --
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, did you -- did he say that he didn't
1 read the documents that he had signed?
2 MR. NICE: He didn't say he hadn't read the documents he signed.
3 He signed them. Although he certainly made it plain in relation to one of
4 them that he hadn't drafted it himself.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.
6 MR. NICE: The Chamber has got to distinguish, of course, between
7 the informations, that's the cover documents which are the sort of general
8 conclusions and the supporting material, there's been a general pattern to
9 all of that, and it was the document which referred to The Hague
10 indictment that he was quite anxious, you may have concluded, to create a
11 distance between. But he made it clear in his own answer: It's not his
12 job. He doesn't study documents, all he does is sign documents in his
13 official capacity as an official.
14 And the Chamber will have remembered, observed today the quality
15 of his knowledge of detail. For example, when the accused took him,
16 without my conceding that it was even remotely appropriate to do so, but
17 he did, to 7.2 point 69, a fascinating entry given that, as we now see, it
18 comes on the 22nd of May, apparently, was clearly intended to support the
19 accused's case on bombing on that date and yet deals with the burial of
20 the bodies that on any reckoning occurred three days later. So that we
21 have fundamentally flawed supporting material that the witness knew
22 nothing about and didn't prepare. He was unable or unwilling to take the
23 opportunity to name the people who compiled these documents, because I
24 gave him that opportunity but he needed his rest and we left it at that.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can it be said, Mr. Nice, that any of the
1 witnesses that you presented to produce Human Rights Watch "Under Orders"
2 studied the documents that they presented?
3 MR. NICE: I don't have immediately to hand the full detail of
4 their account but in each case their supervision of methodology was a
5 great deal more detailed than this, and as I recall went into saying that
6 they checked the underlying workings and material upon which they compiled
7 their books, yes.
8 This is completely different, and it is totally remote. He simply
9 basically ultimately says, well, there was a group of people, they
10 prepared a report and I signed off the cover documents.
11 If you add that to the problems of translation, it's our
12 respectful submission that this material simply shouldn't be admitted, and
13 it will serve as an extremely helpful reminder to the accused that if he
14 wishes to admit or have admitted material of this kind, not only must it
15 be translated but its justification to be admitted must be more properly
17 Your Honours, before I sit down may I make an entirely separate
18 point dealing with the NATO bombing of Dubrava prison. I had a document
19 that there was no point in putting to the witness because he wouldn't have
20 been able to acknowledge it or deal with it, and therefore I didn't put it
21 to him and waste time, but I do have a document that sets out from NATO
22 the acknowledgement of the bombing on the 19th and 21st of May, with a
23 list of the projectiles or missiles that were used on those occasions.
24 It's in answer to a detailed question. It's a matter for Chamber in due
25 course whether it would like to see it.
1 I can, of course, go through the process of trying to produce it
2 in the rebuttal case, but that case is already becoming concerningly large
3 in contemplation and I'm also aware of the fact that by the time we get
4 through to it a lot of time will pass. So if the Chamber's interested in
5 seeing NATO's reply to the question of what bombs were dropped on those
6 days, I have it.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.
8 Mr. Kay.
9 MR. KAY: In considering this matter, it's worth looking at what
10 is the essential investigative evidence produced by the Prosecution in
11 relation to the crime scene of Dubrava. That evidence was produced by
12 Dr. Eric Baccard who just put four files into the courtroom and answered
13 about four questions, which I have here, as to gunshot wounds and
14 explosive wounds, saying that 37 per cent of the people had gunshot wounds
15 and over 40 per cent had explosive wounds.
16 In his four files was contained a video taken by someone else,
17 Jacky Rowland, who subsequently gave evidence, a detailed report by
18 Spanish investigation team concerning the identities of corpses, which was
19 none of his material or work, he just supervised the production of it into
20 the courtroom, and then a detailed report by a Danish investigation team
21 concerning the crime scene itself.
22 Inside that report, there is material from someone described as a
23 witness who gives descriptive events as to what had taken place and what
24 was the -- what formed a basis for the investigation by the Danish team.
25 That person isn't even named, he's just described as being a witness who
1 describes a massacre taking part in one part and guides the Danish team
2 around the building.
3 As an example and a matter of reference, if you go to tab 9 of
4 Exhibit 165, a document which is headed K0173927, under paragraph 3, has
5 tactical information and sets out there what the witness states happened.
6 So presumably the Trial Chamber will view this attaching what
7 weight it feels appropriate. It won't be regarding it as being evidence
8 taken under oath. And that's exactly the same set of circumstances we
9 have with this witness Mr. Paponjak, who is coming into court in a very
10 similar position to Mr. Baccard who produced a load of files from various
11 other teams he had nothing to do with himself and just presented
12 conclusions upon. It's actually the content of those files that is the
13 important evidence in the case.
14 We objected to that at the time, and it was ruled as being
15 admissible evidence. Certain parts were taken out, such as the
16 summarising statements by, for example, an investigator, Mr. Stewart,
17 Nigel Stuart. That was taken out of the exhibits. But the content
18 remained before the Trial Chamber. And the process undertaken by the
19 accused in his Defence here is not dissimilar at all to that of the
21 A large number of the exhibits are in fact prepared
22 contemporaneously in 1999. One can see that from the materials. And the
23 video that was produced is original material and exactly similar to that
24 of Ms. Rowland who was the Prosecution witness whose film of the scene was
25 sought to be brought into evidence and was successful by the Prosecution
1 to be produced as an exhibit as being contemporaneous film of the time.
2 So in my submission, the accused should be entitled to rely upon
3 this material in exactly the same way as the Prosecutor was permitted to
4 produce similar documentary evidence.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think any of the comments
8 made by Mr. Nice can be acceptable, because after Mr. Nice, precisely
9 because in the cross-examination he raised those questions, I clarified
10 with the witness, that is to say -- or, rather, what he meant when he said
11 he hadn't read. Does it mean that he hadn't read the details or that he
12 stood or did not stand behind what it said then? He said that he stood
13 behind all the documents in full that he signed, that he looked through
14 them, that he had a series of cases before him to which the documents
15 refer, which means that he stands by them in every respect.
16 Mr. Nice would have it appear that Mr. Paponjak is somebody who
17 said he signed these documents like a robot, anybody put in front of him
18 by one of his staff. On the contrary, Mr. Paponjak is head of the
19 Secretariat of the Interior for Pec, was at the head of the team, and he
20 said that although he didn't write the documents himself that the whole
21 team wrote them and worked on them, that he nonetheless controlled the
22 team, signed the documents once he was convinced, to use your term, that
23 beyond reasonable doubt the documents did in fact contain all the relevant
24 facts and data and that they were grounded in the documents that the SUP
25 had in its possession. So in every respect, he was the competent
1 authority to testify about those documents.
2 Mr. Nice says what is the basis for having them admitted into
3 evidence? Well, the basis is that the witness was here, he was sitting in
4 the courtroom; he was in Pec throughout, he was at the head of the team
5 throughout working on these matters and compiling the documents, and
6 because the witness is the person who signed all the documents that he
7 testified about here. And Mr. Nice was not able to challenge any of the
8 arguments put forward. So these are official documents belonging to the
9 police force for the material time when the documents were compiled. So I
10 don't think there is a single reason for not admitting those documents
11 into evidence as exhibits.
12 Mr. Nice also mentioned, for example, that there were attachments
13 to the documents which the witness did not use on time. Now, these
14 attachments mentioned by Mr. Nice are to be found in the tabs. So the
15 witness might not have thought of referring to a tab or a document in a
16 tab, but anyway all the attachments and attending material, whether they
17 were used in response to the questions or not, have been disclosed and
18 were placed within these binders before the witness started his testimony.
19 So we cannot say for some documents that were before you, whether
20 translated or not translated, that somebody wanted to skim over them or
21 forget them altogether. The fact that the documents were presented in
22 itself testifies to the fact that the intention was to tender them into
23 evidence and to have the contents of those documents considered by you.
24 Otherwise, as to the fact -- the comment made that it wasn't translated, I
25 explained the difficulties we had in translating the material. So that
1 argument can only be an argument in favour of something being admitted
2 into evidence subsequently, once it has been translated, and to have them
3 marked for identification in the meantime and not as an argument per se.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Generally the documents the Chamber found to be
7 relevant and sufficiently reliable to be of probative value, and therefore
8 they would be admitted. The question of weight to be attached to them is
9 another matter.
10 So there are three categories. Those documents that were
11 translated will be admitted. Translated -- if they were used, those
12 documents that were translated and which have been used in evidence are
14 Those not translated and which were used we'll mark for
15 identification pending translation.
16 The third area, the documents that were not used will not be
17 admitted. That comprises tabs 9, 11 to 19, 24 to 26, 28 to 32, 34, 35,
18 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 47 to 49.
19 That's the ruling of the Chamber. We are adjourned until --
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in relation to your next witness,
22 Mr. Stevanovic, I'd asked you to give us an indication as to the areas of
23 the indictment to which the evidence will relate so that we can plan and
24 prepare and follow the evidence more clearly, and I'd like you, first
25 thing, to spend about five minutes telling us about the -- telling us
1 about that.
2 We are adjourned until tomorrow, 9.00 a.m.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day
5 of May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.