1 Wednesday, 4 March 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. Unfortunately, the previous trial
7 in this courtroom had a delayed finish, so we had to start a little late.
8 I understand there may be a matter before the witness comes in.
9 Is that right, Mr. Djurdjic?
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Indeed
11 there is. I feel somewhat embarrassed to keep objecting about something
12 all the time. During the last session yesterday at 1808 we received an
13 e-mail message from the OTP informing us that due to circumstances beyond
14 their control witnesses Bozidar Protic and Goran Stoparic will not be
15 able to appear as witnesses as previously determined on the 23rd of
16 March, and will therefore be struck from the witness list for the weeks
17 to come. And then there is a list of the following ten witnesses, the
18 witnesses coming up now. On this list we have witnesses appearing over
19 the next couple of weeks, their names stated in a summary fashion. I
20 believe this was on the 25th of February, so some seven or eight days
21 ago, that we were facing problems in relation to this, organising our
22 Defence, witnesses being announced, and the order of appearance being
24 You stated in the clearest terms possible the problems being
25 faced by both the Court and the Prosecution, and then we adopted a set of
1 rules determined by the Trial Chamber, that being to prepare for the next
2 witness coming along. Your Honours, I believe the fundamental problem
3 here, in view of all your rulings, since the Pre-Trial Conference we said
4 that there should be a two-week notice served on the Defence about
5 witnesses to appear over the next weeks. I don't think this is a
6 deliberate move on the part of the OTP, but we are facing a number of
7 problems. Specifically, let me share a couple of facts with you. The
8 Defence received notification from the OTP in relation to the week
9 starting on the 2nd of March. We received this notification on the
10 16th of February, with only two witnesses Bogujevci Fatos and
11 Bogujevci Saranda with 05 hours allotted for each. The Defence can in no
12 way influence the planning procedure nor indeed can we decide who the
13 witnesses will be. We've got a total of two witnesses for that week; I
14 accepted that.
15 Bearing in mind the problems we had on the 25th, we talked to
16 Ms. Kravetz and we determined that Radojkovic had been subpoenaed at some
17 point without the Defence knowing about this; but now he was also placed
18 on that list for the week starting on the 2nd of March. Radojkovic,
19 Bosko, Witness Radojkovic, Bosko his evidence scheduled to last for an
20 hour, this notice is dated 23rd February this year. At the same time the
21 first part of that motion, the OTP informed us that in the week starting
22 on the 9th of March the first witness to appear will be Goran Stoparic
23 followed by K88 followed by K84 followed by Bozidar Protic; and then as I
24 said in relation to the 16th of March week which is what we received
25 yesterday, or rather, on the 2nd of March we see witnesses that are named
1 a while ago: Merovci, Adnan; Bala, Nazalie; Kabashi, Emin;
2 Zyrapi, Bislim; Baraybar, Jose-Pablo.
3 Now what we get is a summary list, there is no breakdown
4 according to weeks. We have one, we have two, and when the actual
5 witnesses will appear, we don't know that. After Saranda Bogujevci, the
6 next witness was Fatos Bogujevci if he doesn't appear then Goran Stoparic
7 would be appearing. This was the OTP's plan for the following week
8 starting on the 9th of March. Now the OTP has informed us they have
9 certain notice on us that K88 would be appearing this week to testify.
10 All of our preparations were based on the OTP's plan for the
11 first reserve witness as it were, and we have been using all our
12 resources to work towards that end; and yet all of a sudden the order had
13 been reshuffled and now we are facing a situation in which we are no
14 longer able to organise ourselves. So these weekly plans of the OTP -
15 and I don't think this is a deliberate subterfuge on their part - have
16 not been consistent. The problem is we, our Defence team, cannot cope
17 with this method.
18 I think we should comply with the Chamber's order on these weekly
19 plans or schedules. We can only prepare for the witness coming up. Now
20 we should be preparing today for Bogujevci, Fatos if Saranda fails to
21 appear. And Fatos was supposed to be the last week appearing this week
22 based on the existing plan. Therefore we're thinking that Stoparic was
23 coming along, and that's what we were preparing for. Things being what
24 they are, we are no longer in a position to make sure our client gets the
25 quality defence that he deserves. The order of witness appearances being
1 shuffled all the time as it is.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Neuner -- I beg your pardon, I didn't see you
3 hiding there out of sight.
4 Ms. Kravetz.
5 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour. Just to address this issue
6 very briefly. The next witnesses who were scheduled to appear are
7 Saranda Bogujevci and Fatos Bogujevci. This hasn't changed. We had
8 already notified the Defence about this order in our e-mail dated the
9 25th of February which was sent following the discussions we had
10 regarding witness scheduling last week in court. The only changes to
11 this schedule are Goran Stoparic and Bozidar Protic who are no longer
12 being called in the order previously announced. So Witness K88 will now
13 be testifying after Fatos Bogujevci. The reasons why Mr. Stoparic is not
14 being called this week I can discuss them if Your Honours would like more
15 details, but we would have to go into private session for that.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Very briefly we will go to private session, and
17 you can just outline in the shortest fashion.
18 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, please.
14 MS. KRAVETZ: And I would just like to indicate that the
15 remaining witnesses will testify in the order that have been notified, so
16 it's K88, K84, and then the witnesses who were just notified in our
17 notification of this Monday. So the only two changes are those two
18 witnesses and for the reasons I have just outlined.
19 JUDGE PARKER: I would understand the implication of what you
20 have said is that as soon as each of those witnesses is able to be in
21 The Hague
22 MS. KRAVETZ: Exactly, Your Honour. That's what we propose to
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, as you have heard, what has happened
2 is that two witnesses that have been in the list to be called over the
3 next two weeks have had to be dropped from their order in that list
4 because for two different reasons. Neither of those witnesses is able to
5 be in The Hague
6 respects, the witnesses to be called are still to be called as listed and
7 in the order listed, and the two witnesses, one of whom was to be called
8 shortly, that is, the third witness from now, will not be able to be
9 called until that witness is in The Hague and then the witness will be
11 In the Chamber's view, if you recall our discussion a few days
12 ago which you have mentioned, this is just the sort of exigency that can
13 arise and for which all counsel have to be prepared. If the fact that
14 one or two witnesses over the space of a fortnight are not able to be
15 called precisely when indicated, but otherwise the intended list
16 witnesses are being called in the order indicated; if that is the case,
17 in the Chamber's view it is going to be necessary that counsel are in a
18 position to cope with that sort of adjustment in their planning. And if
19 that's presenting some particular difficulty for the way that you are
20 presently managing the preparation of the Defence case, it would, I
21 think, simply mean that you would have to make some adjustment to the way
22 that you are preparing. I don't think we need anything more about it --
23 say anything more about it at the moment, and we will continue with the
25 As counsel are aware, we're actually running behind the expected
1 timetable with this list, so that the absence of two witnesses is not
2 productive of any great disturbance over the space of the next fortnight.
3 And it will be anticipated that at some future time, perhaps even in the
4 next fortnight, one or both of these witnesses will arrive. When that
5 happens, any preparation that the Defence has made for them will be able
6 to be called on so that there should be no difficulty anticipated in
7 dealing with them.
8 If the witness could be called into court, please.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Radojkovic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Radojkovic. Good
13 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry for keeping you waiting. We had to deal
14 with some other matters. Mr. Djurdjic is in the middle of asking you
16 Mr. Djurdjic -- I beg your pardon. We haven't finished
17 Mr. Neuner. I stopped you to allow you a few minutes.
18 MR. NEUNER: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 WITNESS: BOSKO RADOJKOVIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Neuner: [Continued]
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Radojkovic.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. We stopped yesterday at the point when we were talking about
25 graves at Petrovo Selo. Could you just tell us who pointed out in 2001
1 where exactly these graves were located.
2 A. I do apologise. I'm not quite sure. There was some debate going
3 on between you and the Defence, and then the Chamber stepped in. I'm not
4 sure what the ruling was. Am I supposed to make any statements about
5 this incident or not?
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours, unless
8 I'm mistaken, Mr. Neuner had moved on to a different topic and then you
9 said since he wasn't able to finish it we would be picking up today where
10 we left off yesterday. I think this was discussed yesterday, and it was
11 determined what the circumstances were that the witness would be
12 testifying to. We have something about it in his statement. If we look
13 at the June 2001 note it was stated mistakenly that there were KLA
14 uniforms involved, and then the witness confirmed that indeed there were
15 no uniforms there. Thank you.
16 JUDGE PARKER: As I understand it, Mr. Neuner, the graves at this
17 location which you have mentioned, Petrovo Selo, have no relevance to
18 this case.
19 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, they have relevance to this case. I
20 don't want to go in front of this witness into any further details, but
21 somebody 's -- that's the Prosecution's position were --
22 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, I misunderstood yesterday the point of
23 your questioning. Are you pursuing this issue further with the witness
24 today than the question you have asked?
25 MR. NEUNER: I understood, Your Honours, that after the
1 objections I obtained that I was permitted to pursue that line of
2 questioning, but maybe I misunderstood.
3 JUDGE PARKER: I understood yesterday that an explanation for
4 what was said to be a mistake in an official note of the witness was that
5 he confused the incident we are concerned with with an exhumation from
6 graves at Petrovo Selo; is that correct?
7 MR. NEUNER: This is indeed correct, Your Honours, but in the
8 Prosecution's view there were some bodies buried in that very same
9 location which are also relevant for our case but not for the truck
10 incident itself but for another incident. This witness --
11 JUDGE PARKER: How is it going to assist us to know who told this
12 witness about bodies in a grave at some other place?
13 MR. NEUNER: I understood the witness to mean that he was a crime
14 technician at the time when the exhumation was carried out, and I just
15 wanted to elicit a few facts stemming from this work as a crime
16 technician. And this would be it.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE PARKER: How does this arise in re-examination, Mr. Neuner?
19 MR. NEUNER: I believe I'm still in examination-in-chief,
20 Your Honours. I wanted to complete it but it was not possible due to the
21 objections I received yesterday. There is no cross-examination yet.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Can I tell you our fundamental difficulty,
23 Mr. Neuner. We proceeded yesterday on the basis of an understanding that
24 we had from you that there was only one relevance to this issue of
25 exhumation, and that is that by mistake a reference to it had been
1 included in a document that is otherwise a document dealing with our
2 case. What you are now advancing is something that no one of us
3 understood yesterday that there is some other relevance of this
4 exhumation or these bodies at Petrovo Selo.
5 Now, if that's the case, has this been the subject of notice to
6 the Defence?
7 MR. NEUNER: The 65 ter summary doesn't contain any explicit
8 reference to this place, Your Honours. So if I get an indication from
9 the Chamber, I would then ask no further questions about this, only a
10 question about the KLA uniforms found there and this would be it.
11 JUDGE PARKER: You have that indication, Mr. Neuner. We're not
12 happy for you to be pursuing that issue.
13 MR. NEUNER: Okay.
14 Q. Could I just ask then for how many bodies were exhumed in 2001 at
15 Petrovo Selo while you were a crime technician?
16 MR. NEUNER: I'm only focusing on the uniforms, my learned
17 colleague, I need to establish first how many bodies we are talking about
18 to get something -- some information about the uniforms. That's all I'm
19 trying to do.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no doubt you know
22 this better than I do. When one looks at this question: How many bodies
23 were exhumed? We're going back to the exhumation, aren't we? As far as
24 I'm concerned the only question that would be legitimate is: Did you see
25 the uniforms or didn't you see the uniforms, which I believe has been
1 asked and answered. He confirmed that there were no uniforms and that
2 the statement was mistaken in that respect.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is of the view that you can ask only
5 as to the number of bodies and the number of uniforms, Mr. Neuner.
6 MR. NEUNER: This is exactly what I tried to do, but I may have
7 omitted before -- Your Honours asked me about --
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Neuner, that's the ruling. Go on and do it.
9 MR. NEUNER: I just -- I've omitted one information. Certainly
10 the Defence, through a supplementary information sheet, was put on notice
11 about all the facts I was going to elicit from this witness today, and
12 this supplementary information sheet had been sent, of course, in advance
13 of yesterday's examination-in-chief. But Your Honours asked me for the
14 summary, and in the summary, as I mentioned, there was no indication of
15 Petrovo Selo --
16 JUDGE PARKER: Ask your question, get your answer, and move on.
17 MR. NEUNER: Yes.
18 Q. Witness, the question was: How many bodies had been exhumed in
19 Petrovo Selo in 2001?
20 A. There were 16 bodies in one grave and 58, I believe, in the
21 other. As to the exact figure, I'm now unable to remember. There were
22 some problems piecing the bodies together, but what we found would
23 indicate a total of between 70 and 80 bodies.
24 Q. And you personally attended the exhumation of each of these 70 to
25 80 bodies in Petrovo Selo?
1 A. Yes, from the beginning to the end.
2 Q. What clothes, if any, did these 70 to 80 dead persons wore?
3 A. Civilian clothes for the most part, but there were some KLA
5 Q. Could you, first of all, give an indication in percentage how
6 many of these 70 to 80 bodies were civilian clothes -- or were in
7 civilian clothes?
8 A. It would be easier for me to tell you the number of uniforms that
9 were there.
10 Q. Take it from this angle, how many persons or bodies wearing
11 uniforms were exhumed?
12 A. Six bodies had KLA uniforms on them. Two of these olive-drab
13 with KLA insignia on the armband, and four black KLA uniforms with combat
14 vests - that's how we referred to those. There were another two bodies
15 with civilian trousers and camouflage shirts. One of these bodies had an
16 armband with the flag and coat of arms of the Federal Republic
17 of Germany
18 spots where the previous body had the flag and the coat of arms of the
19 Federal Republic of Germany this other body that portion had been cut
20 away leaving a blank square there. Two other bodies had civilian clothes
21 but the same type of boots as the uniformed bodies. That's about it.
22 Q. Could I just -- because you mentioned now a couple of numbers.
23 Could you just clarify, is it fair to say that ten or less than ten
24 bodies, corpses, wore what you would describe as uniforms or clothes
25 which could form part of combat gear?
1 A. Yes, I can confirm that six were certainly wearing complete
2 military clothing with KLA insignia, six; two had those shirts that I
3 have described which need not necessarily mean the same things; and
4 another two who were wearing military boots, but again I'm not sure
5 whether they were civilians or KLA soldiers.
6 Q. So I've just counted the figures given in your last answer, we're
7 not talking about more than ten bodies, which could be implicated wearing
8 some military items?
9 JUDGE PARKER: I made the number 14 --
10 MR. NEUNER: I'm trying to --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 MR. NEUNER: -- to clarify this very point, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE PARKER: I thought it was clear. Six had KLA uniforms, two
14 had -- two of them were olive-drab and four black. Two other bodies had
15 civilian trousers and camouflage shirts.
16 MR. NEUNER:
17 Q. Witness, could you just --
18 JUDGE PARKER: Two of the bodies had civilian clothes but boots
19 the same as uniformed --
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. Witness, could you clarify, are we talking about a maximum of 14
22 or a maximum of ten persons wearing such items which we could nowadays
23 portray as combat gear?
24 A. There were ten bodies, I spoke of ten bodies.
25 Q. You mentioned a couple of times KLA today. Just in general, what
1 did you understand at the time and looking at these 70 to 80 bodies, what
2 did you understand at the time to be the origin wherefrom these persons
3 had come from in the first place?
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a very broad question. It
6 is very difficult for me to answer that question just now. You want me
7 to remember what I thought at the time. I knew certain facts at the
8 time. It's not a question of what I thought, so I could not give you an
9 adequate answer to that question. Perhaps you would like to clarify it a
11 MR. NEUNER:
12 Q. If you are using the word "KLA uniform," this suggests to me that
13 they may have come from a certain region within Serbia at the time, and
14 this is all I wanted to ask you for.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that such a
17 question is not appropriate. It is asking for guess-work, and my learned
18 friend is expressing his own opinion in an effort to impose it on the
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE PARKER: The question should be withdrawn, Mr. Neuner.
22 MR. NEUNER: I have no further questions at this point in time,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
25 We now come, Mr. Djurdjic, to your cross-examination.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Radojkovic, my name is Veljko Djurdjic. I'm
4 a member of the Defence team for the accused, Vlastimir Djordjevic. With
5 me today is Ms. Marie O'Leary, and the lead counsel, Dragoljub Djordjevic
6 is absent because he's working on the preparations for the Defence.
7 A. I bid you a good afternoon to all of you.
8 Q. We all speak the same language and everything needs to be
9 recorded in the transcript and to be translated, and if I speed up a
10 little please wait with your answer until the transcript comes to a full
11 stop. And don't let this upset your concentration.
12 A. Yes, I am familiar with this.
13 Q. Yes, I know. You have more experience than I do. I will be
14 asking you about the facts and circumstances that you were aware of at
15 the time of your main testimony here, and when I refer to another period,
16 I will indicate it clearly. And if you don't understand me, please feel
17 free to tell me that and I shall try and make myself clearer and rephrase
18 the question. Let us start with the last question put to you by my
19 learned friend.
20 Let me ask you whether you were aware, at the time, whether you
21 knew that the KLA were prone to wear civilian clothes and commit
22 terrorist actions particularly in inhabited areas?
23 A. Yes, I was aware of that.
24 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, I have studied all your statements closely, and I
25 shall try and focus only on some matters which have not been covered so
1 far, in view of the fact that we already have the transcripts and the
2 statements that you gave. Tell me, please, what are you by training?
3 A. I am a policeman, but later on I completed a course for crime
4 technician. So I'm a policeman with -- and I completed a secondary
5 school of internal affairs plus a seminar on crime techniques.
6 Q. Thank you. I didn't manage to establish from 1974 to 1978 where
7 were you working and what was your position?
8 A. In 1974 I started working as a policeman, and I was in -- working
9 in Zajecar for two months. After that I was transferred to the police
10 station in Kladovo; I was a policeman. Then I worked in the analysis
11 service, in the search section; and then I went to Belgrade and Zemun,
12 where I completed my training for a crime technician and this was in
13 1979. Ever since then, I have been working as a crime technician up
14 until my retirement.
15 Q. Will you tell me, please, Mr. Radojkovic, in 1999 what was your
17 A. Crime technician. I don't remember whether we had ranks, really,
18 in those days, but I was a senior clerk or a sergeant, first class.
19 Q. But you weren't wearing a uniform?
20 A. No, no, I worked in civilian clothes.
21 Q. And what was your title?
22 A. As I was saying, a senior crime technician. That's what it
23 should be.
24 Q. Did you have a separate section for crime techniques?
25 A. No, no, there were only two of us.
1 Q. But you were in charge?
2 A. It was too small a unit for one to be in charge -- well, I was
3 senior in experience. The other person was Jova Dobric.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could there be pauses between question and
5 answer, please.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. You made a statement to the investigators of the Tribunal in
8 June 2002. Can you tell me in what language you were interviewed?
9 A. If I were to see now, as certain documents here are considered
10 statements even though they're not statements, I'm in a dilemma as to
11 what you are referring to. And -- I apologise. An official note is here
12 treated as a statement and it is not my statement, but there is another
13 document that is a statement which I made to the Tribunal investigator in
14 2002. It was translated for me into Serbian, and I signed the document
15 in English, and that document was later given to me in the Serbian
16 language in 2006. Now have I made myself clear?
17 Q. Thank you. Yes, I do I understand. I do make a distinction
18 between a statement to the Tribunal and a statement according to the
19 criminal law of the Republic of Serbia
21 back to that a little later and clear up a few points. Thank you.
22 The last thing you said was that in 2006 you received that
23 statement. Did you receive that statement in the proofing for the trial
24 in the Milutinovic case?
25 A. Yes, in that case.
1 Q. Thank you. And is it right to say that the written statement
2 that you gave to the Tribunal, you did not receive it in your own
3 language when you signed it for the first time in 2002?
4 A. I didn't receive it in English or in Serbian. I signed it in the
5 MUP of Serbia
6 Q. Thank you. But where did you make that statement?
7 A. In the building of MUP in Makis, in Belgrade.
8 Q. So you made this statement to the investigators of the Tribunal
10 A. Yes, in principle, but this was a very short statement of five
12 Q. Did you ever see the original version of your statement once you
13 signed it? Did you ever see the original version?
14 A. No, I didn't. But the contents that I did see is correct.
15 Q. Thank you. In view of the fact that that statement has been
16 admitted into evidence as an exhibit as well as the official note that
17 you mentioned, we will go through those documents a little later to see
18 what may not be quite in accordance with what you said.
19 Could you tell me, please, which documents were used by the
20 investigator when you gave your statement for the first time in Belgrade
21 if any?
22 A. I have to explain to you that the investigator first came to
23 Kladovo, but I refused to talk to her. We did have a cup of coffee and
24 we had a normal conversation, but we didn't discuss the issue. And then
25 he said that he had the official note which I gave to the Working Group
1 of the MUP. Then he returned to Belgrade, and then in the evening, that
2 very evening, I remember it was a Saturday, they called me up to come to
4 or six sentences and I'll explain later which, which parts are from that
5 statement. So I had very little contact with the investigators. They
6 presented to me the official note of the Working Group.
7 Q. Thank you. Am I right in saying that you saw the official note
8 for the first time compiled by the Working Group when it was shown to you
9 by the investigators of The Hague Tribunal?
10 A. Yes, I saw it in his laptop. I was the 38th in order among those
11 statements. I didn't really read it. I said I wasn't interested in what
12 was written there.
13 Q. Thank you. What I'm saying is that the -- the conversation you
14 had with the Working Group was on the 14th of May, 2001, and you saw the
15 note compiled about it for the first time in the laptop of the Tribunal
17 A. Yes, exactly so.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. And actually I was put in a fait accompli position.
20 Q. Let me go on and ask you, did you see who compiled the official
22 A. It was -- the signatory of the official note was the Working
23 Group, but these are all my friends, my colleagues.
24 Q. How many of them signed that official note?
25 A. As far as I saw it, no one signed it; but I do know who compiled
1 it, who drafted it.
2 Q. Were you present when this note was being drafted?
3 A. No.
4 Q. How then do you know who drafted it?
5 A. It was drafted by those who had this interview with me -- at
6 least that is what I assume. After all, that is the Working Group, and
7 they said that they were the Working Group.
8 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, let me not count your years of service, but
9 during those years of service, did you ever see an official note that was
10 not signed?
11 A. I have not.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that that is in contravention of all the
13 rules of police procedure in those days and today?
14 A. You are probably right.
15 Q. Thank you. You spent many years of your life working as a police
16 officer. Would you not agree that the probative value of such an
17 official note in Serbia
18 for is operative work in pre-trial proceedings and may be used by an
19 investigating judge while conducting an investigation during the
20 pre-trial stage?
21 A. Yes, I know that it has no probative value.
22 Q. Thank you. Am I right if I say that such official notes must be
23 separated from any documents used at trial and may never be used during
24 the actual trial?
25 A. Yes, these are put in separate envelopes and I myself have come
1 across instances of this being the case, these official notes.
2 Q. Thank you very much, which reminds me, the established practice
3 of Serbia
4 anyone at all for any reason whatsoever, although there is no procedural
5 importance that attaches to this, it has to be handwritten; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Possibly an official could put together a statement and then have
8 it signed by the interviewee. Yet again, this statement would have no
9 probative value at trial whatsoever, would it?
10 A. Yes, that's right. There would be a note saying that the
11 statement has been read back to the witness, the witness identifies the
12 statement as his own, and thereby signs it.
13 Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this: Why did the Working Group
14 not want you to make a statement about particular topics or indeed allow
15 you to write up your own statement based on your recollection concerning
16 incidents that they were looking into?
17 A. When I was interviewed by the Working Group, I was facing a
18 number of health issues and was in fact in hospital in Kladovo. Perhaps
19 the conditions were not there for a written statement to be taken or
20 made, but I was not aware of them taking any statements from the other 20
21 people involved, mere official notes, that's all I know about. I did go
22 to the MUP later on and I did not make a statement about that, not
23 according to the proper procedure under the Law on Criminal Procedure
24 over in our country. I never made a statement like that.
25 Q. Am I right when I say that no one was informed as to what note,
1 precisely, was drafted based on the interviews?
2 A. I don't know that.
3 Q. Were you yourself informed about the substance of the note that
4 was produced following your interview before you were eventually shown
6 A. No, I was not informed.
7 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that you were at the health clinic.
8 Was it a sudden problem or a problem that you had been suffering from for
9 a long time?
10 A. No. Some chest pain but nothing more serious than that.
11 Q. Do you know why I'm asking you this? Because the note says that
12 of those four days you were kept at the health clinic because they were
13 suspecting the possibility of a stroke; am I right, there is no truth to
14 this at all?
15 A. Back in 1985 I suffered a hemiparesis which was a convulsion of
16 my facial muscles, but if I had suffered a stroke I probably wouldn't be
17 here today talking to you.
18 Q. Am I right to state that the official note was inaccurate in that
19 respect then?
20 A. It wasn't accurately drafted.
21 Q. Well, the inaccuracy would have been what they said about the
22 stroke, the suspicion of a stroke.
23 Mr. Radojkovic, let us try to clarify the dates back in 1999. Am
24 I right to say that the first indication you ever had of the truck in the
1 A. Yes, I think it was the 5th of April.
2 Q. Let's try to clarify this because sometimes we see the 4th quoted
3 as the right date, but in most of your statements it is the 5th of April
4 and that's where the situation evolved from?
5 A. Yes, I do know that there is a little problem about that in these
6 statements, but we can take it day by day. Why these references to the
7 4th and then some other references to the 5th, I think there was some
8 sort of an internal problem as the dates were recorded, but I think it's
9 of no consequence at all.
10 Q. All right. Let us try to clear up about how the truck was hauled
11 up. On the 5th of April you -- one day you spoke to Mr. Djordjevic?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Since some time had already elapsed you secured a truck which was
14 some 30 metres from the river-bank, you tied a length of rope to a tree,
15 you placed a plastic mark to mark the place where it was. Your job was
16 finished for the day?
17 A. Yes, that's right. That's how I think it happened.
18 Q. That was the first day.
19 The next day you made sure there was a pulley there which you
20 used to haul the truck back to the river-bank; right?
21 A. Yes, to the edge of the water itself.
22 Q. Which is the same thing as pulling it up to the river-bank;
24 A. Yes, but there's a recurring problem here which I believe you
25 have noticed as well.
1 Q. Yes, that's precisely why I'm asking. And then day three you get
2 a crane or a pulley that is even bigger, and you haul the truck out of
3 the water and ashore. Am I right?
4 A. Yes, that's quite right. Again, we pulled it out of the water
5 before we could get it ashore.
6 Q. Thank you. And on day four you got this truck and put it on to a
7 vehicle which then you used to transport it further up on to the road;
9 A. Day three, day four -- well, first we hauled the truck out of the
10 water altogether, and then we put it on this vehicle. If you want me to
11 explain, I can tell you why the procedure was what it was.
12 Q. Let's take it one step at a time. I know why the procedure
13 worked like this, but please tell me if I'm right. Once you had pulled
14 out the first 30 bodies, the truck was on the river-bank already, was out
15 of the water. And then when the next truck was supposed to come, you
16 placed it on these rails, on this vehicle, and you took it further up;
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Let me go back to day one. There was the diver, Mr. Djordjevic.
20 You're standing on the banks of the Danube
21 this how it worked: He subsequently informed you that there was a
22 Mercedes truck, refrigerator truck, that the windshield was missing, and
23 all the other steps that you took?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Now, there's something else that I want to know, Mr. Radojkovic.
1 I'm wondering if this was something that happened by accident or not, but
2 it wasn't before you gave evidence in the Milutinovic case in addition to
3 all these facts that I have mentioned. What is stated is that a large
4 stone was placed on the gas pedal; right?
5 A. Yes, Mr. Djordjevic, the diver, told me about that, that the gas
6 pedal had a large stone on it to weigh it down.
7 Q. But that wasn't there at first. The only thing that was there
8 was the missing windshield in the first note that the Working Group drew
9 up; right?
10 A. I'm sure I told them. I'm not sure if they mentioned that
12 Q. Do you perhaps think that they simply didn't want to look further
13 into this large stone weighing the gas pedal down, they just lost over
14 that circumstance?
15 A. I don't know. I wouldn't go that far. I'm sure I told them and
16 the diver did too.
17 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, you are a police officer and you know this is a
18 very important circumstance in an incident like this, a large stone
19 weighing down the gas pedal and a missing windshield and no driver there,
20 the driver is gone, these are material circumstances and would be to any
21 police investigation anywhere in the world. Do you agree with me?
22 A. Yes, you are certainly right.
23 Q. And if you have a group of forensic experts as qualified as
24 those, you would hardly expect them to missing something like that, would
1 A. Yes, but you in turn would agree that this is not my problem, is
3 Q. Yes, I do agree. Thank you. Mr. Radojkovic, nevertheless,
4 before the Milutinovic trial you gave evidence in the Milosevic case. In
5 that trial you also said he had told you that the windshield was missing
6 and that this was a Mercedes refrigerator truck. The OTP were there, the
7 Chamber was there, and I'm not mentioning the experts at all. They were
8 top-notch experts. And then you appearing as a witness, yet no questions
9 about this large stone arising. How come?
10 A. No one asked me; that's what is probably was.
11 Q. I will have to clear this up now, Mr. Radojkovic.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have on our screens
13 exhibit -- Defence Exhibit D002-0227, page 3, line 25. I'm sorry, maybe
14 I misstated the number. 002-0227, Defence exhibit. I have a hard copy
15 available. I apologise for my English. Page 8470, line 25, and 8471,
16 the first seven lines at the top of the page.
17 Q. It reads like this, Mr. Radojkovic:
18 [In English] "When you saw that, what happened next? Did you
19 give instructions to anyone to do something or did you investigate in
20 some way ... it was in fact a truck or a lorry?
21 "A. Yes, I did. The diver put on his equipment and dived into
22 the water, and when he re-surfaced, he told me that it was a lorry, that
23 there was no one in the cab, that the front windshield had fallen out,
24 and that it was probably a Mercedes lorry and its trailer box looked like
25 that of a refrigerated lorry."
1 [Interpretation] You've heard that, Mr. Radojkovic, no
2 windshield, no driver, and a Mercedes refrigerator truck, the same thing
3 that was established by the Working Group in its official note; right?
4 The date being the 23rd of July, 2002.
5 A. I accept what you're saying.
6 Q. Do you know why I'm talking to you about this? That same
7 evening, and I see that when I look at your statements, you said that
8 this was a traffic accident involving a truck in the Danube. One of the
9 reasons for you to say that would have been because there was no driver
10 and there was no windshield. If the stone was in the truck back then,
11 being the experienced policeman that you were, you wouldn't have
12 described it as a traffic accident, would you, since there was a
13 large-scale stone weighing down the gas pedal. Would you not agree with
15 A. I wrote up no dispatch that I subsequently sent to Bor. It
16 wasn't me who informed them. My associate Nesa Popovic might have,
17 although I don't believe that. If there was anything that was
18 dispatched, the note probably said that this was probably a traffic
20 Q. I agree with you. And I know that that's what was subsequently
21 dispatched -- whether he wrote it or you is no matter at all. But you
22 have one thing where this is a large-scale stone weighing down the gas
23 pedal and when there isn't that indicates something entirely different,
24 doesn't it? Yet in your first official note and in your evidence in the
25 Milosevic trial you make no mention whatsoever of any stone in the cabin,
1 do you? It is not before 2006 that you mention, for the very first time,
2 this stone?
3 A. Sir, what I can tell you is the diver told me about that stone
4 weighing down the gas pedal. Why did I not mention that in the Milosevic
5 trial? Why is it a part of the note? I probably didn't think to mention
6 that, and no one probably asked me; but there were a lot of things that I
7 didn't say in the Milosevic trial. There are a lot of things --
8 Q. But, Mr. Radojkovic, the Prosecutor did ask you. This was your
9 answer to a question from the Prosecutor. It wasn't a free conversation
10 in which you were talking nor did Mr. Milosevic ask you anything. It
11 was -- the Prosecutor asked you what the diver had established, that
12 there was no windshield, no driver, et cetera, but I won't insist. I'll
13 move on.
14 There's another matter that I'd like to ask you about. Were you
15 alone with the diver at the Danube
16 A. Just me and the diver.
17 Q. And where were you before that?
18 A. Before that I was at home because it wasn't my shift. This was
19 an extraordinary occurrence and I had to go to work and Mr. Nesa Popovic
20 was always with me in patrolling, and again problems arise. Like all
21 policemen, he had some private business, and he didn't come with me, he
22 went off to do something else.
23 Q. I apologise, but it seems to me, judging by your statement, that
24 you were in town and that you were not at home.
25 A. I was free, and then the duty person called me to come to work
1 before I was due to arrive.
2 Q. Were you wearing the same clothes?
3 A. Yes, I took an official vehicle and went there.
4 Q. Did you have your equipment with you when you were there with
6 A. No, I don't think so. I may have had my camera. We just went to
7 see what it was.
8 Q. And when you were there for the first time, you didn't take any
9 photographs of the truck?
10 A. I took photos of the truck on two occasions, so I can't tell you
11 now whether it was the first day when it was submerged in water. I just
12 saw a big box. Nobody knew it was a truck until the diver dived. I just
13 saw the top part of a big box. It could have been a container. And when
14 the diver dived down, he saw that it was a truck; and after that, our
15 activities continued.
16 Q. So if on a photograph we see a part of the box, then it was taken
17 on the first day; and if we see more than the top of the box, then it was
18 taken the next day?
19 A. Yes, you are right.
20 Q. And about what time was it when you finished, you and the diver,
21 on that first day?
22 A. I can't remember. It was in the late afternoon. It took time
23 for us to go there and for me to find him then to go home and for him to
24 get his equipment. It was already dusk.
25 Q. Very well. You said you went back and informed Popovic,
1 et cetera; we don't know who he went on to inform. But did you inform
2 your own duty service about what you found there?
3 A. I personally did not. I don't think Nesa did either, but we did
4 inform our boss.
5 Q. And the duty service had already been informed?
6 A. Yes, a fisherman had reported it to them.
7 Q. You just said that you informed who, Nesa? Someone else?
8 A. No, I said perhaps Nesa informed the duty officer. I said our
9 boss, Milan Stojanovic.
10 Q. Did you also inform the chief of the --
11 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, could counsel repeat the name.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it's time for
13 the technical break.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps it would be useful just to get the
15 transcript clear. It was not possible to pick up what you said at
16 line 19: "Did you also inform the chief of the ..."
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I will repeat the question.
18 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, did you inform the chief of OUP Kladovo, Vukasin
20 A. I did not, and I'm not sure whether Nesa Popovic did.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic. We'll have the first
23 break now and resume at 4.15.
24 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
3 like to ask to tender this part of the transcript from the Milosevic
4 trial which we read to the witness, and it was Defence document
5 D002-0227, page 3, line 25, or number 8470 as the transcript page; and
6 page 4 or 8471, lines 1 to 7. It is the part that I read very clumsily
7 in English.
8 JUDGE PARKER: You read well, Mr. Djurdjic. No need to
9 apologise. The document -- the transcript extract will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D00039, Your Honours.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Let us now digress a little, Mr. Radojkovic.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we see exhibit number, of
14 the Prosecution, P00359, please.
15 I didn't say the transcript. It should be a photograph, 00359,
16 Prosecution exhibit, that was the number it was given yesterday -- no,
17 no, I'm sorry, you're quite right. P361. I do apologise. I apologise.
18 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, you encircled a leg on this photograph, but I
19 truly do not see that.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Is it possible to zoom so as to
21 make this clearer?
22 Q. Is this what you meant? Below the box, is that the leg?
23 A. This -- I'm afraid what I have is like a mirror.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness doesn't
25 have the image.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine now.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has
3 encircled and it's been enlarged and we can see well now.
4 Q. I'd like to ask you something. So this here is what you circled?
5 Thank you.
6 A. Yes, it is the left leg.
7 Q. Now, I want to ask you, yesterday on this photograph in eastern
9 did so at the request of the Prosecutor?
10 A. Yes, all the circles I made were at the request of the
12 Q. Thank you. Mr. Radojkovic, we've come to the end of the first
13 day. Tell me, were there any other activities at the end of the day when
14 you went to the Danube
15 A. No, apart from the markings and the information I was given by
16 the diver, that was all.
17 Q. Tell me, were any steps taken to secure the crane?
18 A. I apologise. Could the usher please switch off the monitor with
19 my image on it, it's disconcerting.
20 JUDGE PARKER: While that's happening, Mr. Djurdjic, I am a
21 little confused.
22 I take it, Mr. Radojkovic, this photograph was taken by you. Was
23 it taken on the first day or the second day that you were at the river?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This photograph was taken on the
25 second day.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. That was my understanding. I'm not
2 sure whether Mr. Djurdjic thought that it had been taken on the first
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my question did not
5 focus on the time the photograph was taken. My problem was that I
6 couldn't see the leg on this photograph, so I wanted it to be cleared up
7 for me and the witness did. When it was enlarged I saw it better, and
8 I'm afraid that my intention was simply to clear that up. Thank you.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, the question was: Who took any steps to secure
12 the crane, if someone did?
13 A. The head of the OUP, I think Mr. Sperlic, he organised that with
14 the hydro power-station.
15 Q. Thank you. So we've now come to the second day. Tell me, how
16 did that day begin for you? What did you do?
17 A. In the morning, early in the morning, I went to the site. My
18 colleague, Popovic, was with me then because the hydro power-station
19 starts working at 6.00 a.m.
20 evening that a crane from the power-station? Should come to the site for
21 us to try and pull out the truck from the Danube. This was quite
22 customary because they would give us the same sort of assistance in the
23 case of traffic accidents.
24 Q. Thank you. I assume you took your equipment as a crime
25 technician that day?
1 A. Yes, I did take my equipment, my camera -- may I just add that
2 the investigating judge of the municipal court in Kladovo was informed
3 about this as well as the municipal public prosecutor, that there was
4 this in the Danube
5 would be pulling it out.
6 Q. Thank you. Did the diver come on that second day?
7 A. Yes, yes, he did.
8 Q. Tell me, when did he arrive?
9 A. I think he also came early in the morning, but I think he came in
10 his own vehicle, but we had agreed for him to come early in the morning
11 because he is the only one who can tie the pulleys. We needed a diver to
12 pull the lorry out.
13 Q. Tell me, at what time did you actually start pulling the truck
15 A. This didn't last -- didn't begin much later than we arrived
16 because we had to stop the traffic because there was this large crane on
17 the road, then the diver had to dive and attach the pulleys to the truck,
18 and then the extraction started because the bottom of the Danube
19 very muddy, and the diver had to open the door and turn the wheel for the
20 for the wheels to be in a parallel position because of this movement
21 through the mud.
22 So that - let me tell you exactly - about 12.00 it was pulled out
23 roughly to this position that we see on the photograph now, if you still
24 have that photograph. And I can now also explain why I'm confirming this
25 time, because the investigating judge of the municipal court said that we
1 should let him know once we've pulled out the truck, and then he would
2 come, for him not to waste time. And the judge did arrive about 1.00 or
3 1.30 in the afternoon.
4 Q. Thank you. Would I be right to say that while you were doing
5 this the workers from the hydro-electric power-plant had already finished
6 their business and left the scene; right?
7 A. No, they stayed until that evening, as did the crane. There were
8 about 15 workers from the hydro-electric power-plant. They had to work
9 the ropes and the pulleys. The work involved here is a little risky and
11 Q. Thank you. These are allegations from the official note of the
12 Working Group, and that's what led me to conclude that. So you wouldn't
13 say that was an accurate note?
14 A. Yes, the note is inaccurate.
15 Q. Inaccurate. All right. You had a certain fear that the
16 refrigerator truck might be booby-trapped; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This is the Bor SUP
19 Do they have a specialised team for anti-sabotage work?
20 A. No, they don't. In the Kladovo area I would be in charge of that
21 kind of business and the same applies to the teams from Bor and from
23 Q. When this fear arose, that was before you opened the rear door of
24 the container. Do you know if the deputy public prosecutor and the
25 investigating judge were there already?
1 A. Yes. They were both there already when the door was opened, and
2 the coroner from the Kladovo medical centre was present too.
3 Q. And what about the foot that you saw? Did you sort of push it
4 back into the container and subsequently covered the hole in the door
5 with the tin sheet?
6 A. Yes, I did that beforehand. As soon as I could access the door,
7 I did that. There were about 20 people there and you could see
8 everything from the road, and there was a bus that had been pulled over
9 and all the traffic was stopped. As soon as I could, I pushed it back
11 Q. Isn't that slightly peculiar, Mr. Radojkovic?
12 A. What, the fact that the foot was sticking out or that I pushed it
13 back in?
14 Q. The fact that there was a foot sticking out is not strange at
15 all; it's a fact that you found. But you came there as a forensic
16 technician; you were supposed to secure the scene and all the evidence
17 found on the scene. You see a foot sticking out of the container, you
18 push it back and you try to close the hole in the door by applying a tin
19 sheet over it. You thereby altered the crime scene; right?
20 A. Yes, I agree, I did alter the crime scene. It would have been
21 highly unpleasant for these workers from the hydro-electric power-plant
22 who are not involved in that kind of work to have to attach ropes to the
23 container and chafe against this foot sticking out.
24 Q. I know murder is most unpleasant, Mr. Radojkovic, but you are not
25 supposed to alter the scene containing any evidence, you are supposed to
1 secure it and not touch the evidence at all?
2 A. Yes, under normal conditions that would have been the case.
3 Q. So what was so unusual or abnormal about this situation? Let us
4 try to state the facts: You have a refrigerator truck submerged in the
6 pull it up. You see that a foot is sticking out. What is your inference
7 based on that?
8 A. The situation itself was abnormal. There were the air-strikes
9 and a truck turns up with Prizren licence plates, there is a foot
10 sticking out of the rear of the truck. I did find the situation slightly
11 unusual or abnormal I have to say.
12 Q. Yes, I do agree, but you are a professional forensic technician.
13 Whatever you find on a scene must be nothing out of the ordinary, and you
14 should know full well that you are not supposed to touch anything; am I
16 A. I did what I did. I was not called to account for that.
17 Q. Thank you. Nevertheless, at this point in time the only facts
18 that remains is that there was a person in the box before the truck was
19 submerged in the Danube
20 A. Sir, look, I peeped through this hole. I saw a heap of something
21 like a stack of hay inside. It was dark. I couldn't see. I tried to
22 use my torch, so obviously I used this tin sheet to cover up the hole.
23 It wasn't something for the workers of the hydro-electric power-plant to
24 do. They needed someone to deal with these practicalities before they
25 could get on with their work.
1 Q. I would like to digress now if I may. At the time, in your area,
2 which is a border area, was there any trafficking going on in terms of
3 people being smuggled across the border, asylum seekers, that sort of
4 thing. Did you perhaps ever experience any such incidents?
5 A. Yes, generally speaking the Djerdap lake area is an area that is
6 very good for something like that, and it's much used for these purposes.
7 Just before this happened, perhaps a month before, it was somewhere near
8 Golubovac that a boat had been turned upside down, or rather, was
9 capsized while travelling and some immigrants and asylum seekers drowned.
10 That's what I heard.
11 Q. Thank you. When the investigating judge arrived, did you inform
12 him of any steps that you previously took? Did you tell him about the
13 fact that you patched up the hole in that door with the screws and the
14 tin sheet?
15 A. Yes, I told both him and the deputy municipal public prosecutor.
16 Q. Am I therefore right to say that they knew that inside the
17 truck's container there was at least one body?
18 A. Yes, they knew that.
19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Radojkovic, would I be right to say that in order
20 to have proper judicial procedure one must first make sure that such
21 officials as the investigating magistrate and the deputy public
22 prosecutor be on the scene whenever something like this occurs?
23 A. I'm not quite sure what exactly the Law on Criminal Procedure was
24 that applied at the time. I do believe that at the time we were
25 authorised, following permission being granted by the investigating
1 judge, to start our on-site investigation and get on with our work, and
2 then we were allowed to keep him informed as our work progressed. That
3 was the practice, but this was a road that was adjacent to the River
5 river. Whenever something like this happened, the judges would tell us
6 to first go there, do our work, get the vehicles out of the water, and
7 then they would shortly be there.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radojkovic. Precisely so. An investigating judge
9 may authorise you to carry out an on-site investigation, but you must act
10 upon his permission or authorisation. In this specific instance, he
11 authorised you to take certain steps and to call him as soon as the
12 refrigerator truck was out of the water and somewhere where it could be
13 accessed. Am I right?
14 A. Yes, absolutely.
15 Q. You weren't trying to conceal anything from these judicial bodies
16 or officials and you brought them there immediately so that they could
17 see what exactly was going on?
18 A. No, not a single fact was concealed but there were some
19 contradictory things turned up later on but that's a different thing
21 Q. Then you opened the door, you, investigating judge, the deputy
22 prosecutor, and your colleague realised that there were a number of
23 bodies inside the truck's container; am I right?
24 A. The investigating judge never had a look to begin with; rather, I
25 told him. When the door was opened, everyone withdrew to a distance of
1 50 to 100 metres and I was the one to actually open the door. I opened
2 the door, I looked to see what was inside, and I shut the door -- or
3 rather, it was like this: I shut the door and subsequently informed the
4 investigating judge of the municipal court, whereupon he replied that
5 this was not something that he would be in charge of, and he left the
7 Q. Thank you. What about the deputy prosecutor, was he present as
9 A. Yes, he was. You see that the container is aslant, so you must
10 stand on your toes in order to be able to peer into the container because
11 there were those several bodies that were near the door, but most were
12 midway down the -- into the container, as it were, and then towards the
13 bottom. So he had a look in, and the coroner did as well - there was no
14 need, but he's normally involved in procedures such as this one - so he
15 had a look as well, and that was about that.
16 Q. Thank you very much. So what you are telling me now is that as
17 soon as on day two when you started hauling the refrigerator truck out of
18 the Danube
19 a coroner who was on the scene; right?
20 A. Yes, together with the deputy public prosecutor and the
21 investigating judge; that is when Dr. Trajkovic arrived.
22 Q. From the health centre; right?
23 A. Yes, he's a general practitioner who also happens to work as a
25 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, the first day when Djordjevic went into the water
1 he realised that the driver was missing. What sort of pre-emptive
2 measure was this for you to bring a coroner there on day two already
3 without knowing exactly what the situation was inside the truck and
4 whether there was anything else there?
5 A. You never asked the question, did you; if you had, I would have
6 answered it so you would know.
7 Q. Please explain.
8 A. When the procedure was first initiated to get the truck out of
9 the water, as I said, the diver, Djordjevic, went into the river. He
10 tried to get the wheels back in a parallel position in order to be able
11 to pull the truck out of the river. While the truck was still submerged
12 the diver was out and said, Bole, there is a pair of feet sticking out of
13 the rear.
14 Once the truck was in the shallows, it was easier to see what
15 there was. So he realised that there was a pair of feet sticking out,
16 and he said, What can we do about this? And I said, What can you do
17 about this? And I replied, Let's pull it out like this and then we'll
18 see what we do next. That was the reason that the coroner arrived with
19 the investigating judge and the deputy prosecutor with the entire team.
20 Q. Thank you. Would I be right to say that members or officers of
21 the SUP
22 judge or, indeed, a deputy prosecutor?
23 A. You're quite right.
24 Q. Quite the contrary, in fact. An investigating judge in
25 situations such as these imparts orders to the police and the police are
1 duty-bound to act upon these?
2 A. Yes, you're absolutely right.
3 Q. Would I be right to say that the investigating judge present on
4 the scene, although he believed he was not technically in charge, would
5 have had to issue orders to you and subsequently inform the appropriate
6 prosecutor about the fact that there were actions that needed doing
7 without delay?
8 A. Yes, the investigating judge -- yes, I'm sure about him too, but
9 we informed immediately the district prosecutor in Negotin because this
10 was within his remit.
11 Q. Thank you very much. Yes, you also subsequently informed the
12 district investigating judge and the district deputy public prosecutor,
13 but he would have had to give you some instructions before they ever
14 arrived. The procedure was in the hands of the investigating judge until
15 he arrived; right?
16 A. Yes, but that's what he said. He said, Shut the door and wait
17 for the public prosecutor and investigating judge who were in charge to
19 Q. Thank you. Would you agree that this was not a legal step, the
20 one taken by the investigating judge?
21 A. I'm no expert in matters of law myself, but I would tend to agree
22 with you. Particularly if we keep in mind the Law on Criminal Procedure
23 that is in force these days.
24 Q. Given the connotations of this official note, would I be right to
25 say this: Everything that went on with the refrigerator truck, there was
1 no information that was withheld from the judicial organs and the state
2 organs; right?
3 A. That's right. Quite the contrary in fact. Everything was done
4 by the book, and the appropriate local prosecutor was immediately
5 informed. For some reason, though, the ball was soon back in the
6 police's court because those other people had said they were simply not
8 Q. Thank you. You have just confirmed that you made sure that a
9 coroner was there who was supposed to do his job; right?
10 A. Yes, it was all very fair and square. The usual procedure
11 applied, the one that we had always applied, both before this incident
12 and after. There is a procedure in place and everyone knows what the
13 procedure is.
14 Q. Thank you. Once you managed to get the truck ashore or as far as
15 the edge of the river, would I be right to say that there were no plates
16 on the truck?
17 A. Yes, you're right.
18 Q. There was an inscription on the front door; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you remember the telephone number that was written on the
22 A. There was a fax number and telephone number -- you're asking for
23 too much.
24 Q. Do you remember?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you ever memorise those numbers?
2 A. It's a long number with many digits, not that easy to remember.
3 Q. Indeed. Nevertheless, in one of these documents that we are
4 using here, we come across a reference to you providing both the fax and
5 the telephone numbers. Would I be right in saying that the allegation
6 that you actually knew that and could inform others about these numbers
7 is true?
8 A. No, quite the contrary, it is true. I wrote them down.
9 Q. No, no, I think you're misunderstanding my point. Yes, of course
10 you made a note about those at the time but when you were subsequently
11 prompted about the telephone number who did you share this with?
12 A. I produced a piece of paper, and I gave it to the Working
13 Group --
14 Q. So it was them, the Working Group, that you gave this to; right?
15 A. I told the Working Group the telephone number and the fax number,
16 and this can be seen on the photograph when it's enlarged, but certainly
17 I hadn't memorised it. It's as if you were to ask me whether I know the
18 telephone number of the hotel.
19 Q. That is why I'm asking you because I thought it strange. Tell
20 me, what other documents did you hand over to the Working Group?
21 A. I just handed over the films, not the photographs, the
22 negatives -- no, I'm sorry, maybe I gave them the photographs as well.
23 I'm not sure. I gave them the negatives. I think I also gave them the
24 photographs or maybe I tore them up, but I did give them the negatives.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you have any evidence that you handed over to the
1 Working Groups the film, you mean the developed film as we would say no
2 normal vernacular, you handed over the film?
3 A. I took out the film and developed it as early as 1999, and to my
4 misfortune, this piece of film I kept in a drawer for two years; and it
5 was only later when all this happened I gave them both the film and the
6 photographs. Because in addition to these shots on this 36-picture film
7 I took some other photographs as well during my normal duties.
8 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, my question was: Did you receive anything that
9 could be used as evidence that you had handed over this film to the
10 Working Group?
11 A. No, I don't think I was given anything, but later on when I
12 handed over some other documents, then in that receipt it was indicated
13 that among other things I had handed over those photographs, the film, as
14 well as some other material.
15 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, what happened next when the
16 investigating judge of the municipal court said he was not competent and
17 you informed the district public prosecutor and the investigating judge,
18 what happened then?
19 A. When the investigating judge of the municipal court left the
20 scene, everything was closed. The police stayed there to secure the
21 site. I think that after that the truck was pulled further onto the
22 bank, because I must explain that the level of the water varied because
23 of the power-plant. So we pulled out the truck to dry land and then the
24 next day it was already in water because the water-level changes. The
25 shore is shallow there. So everything was closed, darkness started to
1 fall. The crane was moved from the road several times for traffic to be
2 able to pass so as to avoid a large column being formed, and we would let
3 the vehicles and the buses pass. And then in the evening we went to the
4 police station and then we talked there.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could the court usher, if
6 possible --
7 Q. No, let me ask you something first. Am I right when I say that
8 in the official note it is wrongly stated that Chief Sperlic came to the
9 site and that he told you that everything had to be concealed on that
10 second day?
11 A. No, not to the site. That was in the evening in the office. I
12 think he didn't come to the site at all.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could the registrar please call up
15 Exhibit P367, page 3, paragraph 1 of the B/C/S; and page 2, paragraph 7
16 of the English version.
17 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, can you see it? It's the first paragraph on
18 page 3, and I had to count for the English version. The end of the
19 second page and the beginning of the third page in English. You see the
20 Working Group says that Sperlic came to the site and immediately told you
21 to conceal things?
22 A. Could you please show me the B/C/S version.
23 Q. Here it is. When the truck was pulled out ...
24 A. Yes, this is correct, except I can't remember whether he came on
25 site or we talked in the office. I really don't remember, but I think
1 this is okay. We did talk to him as to how we should conceal this.
2 Q. Yes, but when? That is important.
3 A. That day when the lorry was pulled out and we established what
4 was inside; and when the judiciary said that they were not interested,
5 then we got together to see what we should do to conceal it.
6 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, why were the licence plates so important, which
7 were not there as you say?
8 A. It is rather important. It's unusual for a vehicle to move along
9 the road without registration plates and then to be found in the Danube
10 It's an offence. If a vehicle is in traffic without registration plates,
11 that's an offence.
12 Q. I must admit that I don't understand you. This is a truck that
13 fell into the Danube
14 plates. You're pulling out something without a licence plate. He's no
15 longer in traffic, he's no longer -- it's no longer operational. So why
16 is it important because in this particular case this truck didn't have
17 registration plates?
18 A. It is important because there are some 20 people saw two human
19 legs sticking out of that vehicle; that is important.
20 Q. Yes, that can be important, but why are the registration plates
21 so important? They're simply not there. So why is that important?
22 A. Okay, I agree, it's not important. They're not there and that's
24 Q. Thank you. You say that you stopped work then and you left the
25 policemen to secure the site?
1 A. Yes, with a patrol vehicle.
2 Q. Tell me what you did next.
3 A. I went to the police station in Kladovo, and we sat there, there
4 were four or five of us, Sperlic, Vukasin; Milo Stevanovic; me;
5 Nenad Popovic. I can't remember whether there was anyone else and we
6 discussed the event and we discussed what we should do to conceal it
7 somehow, to cover it up.
8 Q. Thank you. So is it right to say that it was your decision on
9 that second day for the event to be covered up?
10 A. If you mean me personally or the five or six of us?
11 Q. No, not you personally, but that you made such a decision in
13 A. Yes, after the district public investigator and prosecutor said
14 that he was not interested in the case.
15 Q. Did you take any other steps apart from that?
16 A. After we had agreed, yes. I --
17 Q. No, I mean did you make any other -- reach any other agreements
18 as to what else you should do?
19 A. Yes, I -- I compiled a telegram and sent it to the SUP in Bor
20 indicating that there were about 30 bodies in the truck. That was my
22 Q. Thank you. Am I right in saying that it was also agreed on that
23 occasion to find a larger crane?
24 A. Yes, because the crane operator said he could no longer pull the
25 truck out because the ropes had snapped; and then we used some rollers,
1 but it was very difficult.
2 Q. Could you tell me who took care of ensuring the crane?
3 A. I can't tell you exactly, but I assume that it must have been the
4 chief of SUP
5 they agreed about that.
6 Q. Thank you. A moment ago you were saying that the agreement was
7 to paint over the door of the cabin and to attach licence plates?
8 A. Yes, the agreement was that we should paint it over and that we
9 should cover -- to cover the inscription on the door, and to put on the
10 truck Bor licence plates in the front and behind but to damage them so
11 they shouldn't be too visible so that from a distance one couldn't see
12 the exact numbers on the plates.
13 Q. Am I right that with respect to these steps you did not inform
14 the SUP
15 A. About the painting and the licence plates, no we didn't. We just
16 sent this telegram to Bor.
17 Q. Thank you. Is it correct to say that you returned during the
18 night with the diver and did what we've just talked about, the painting
19 and the attaching the plates?
20 A. Yes, yes, you're right.
21 Q. So we've reached the point -- that is, we've reached the third
22 day now, Mr. Radojkovic. When you arrived on the site, who did you
23 arrive with? When did you arrive there? And what did you find there?
24 A. Again I arrived early in the morning. I didn't even sleep that
25 night. Let me add that I didn't even go home. And we waited for the
1 large crane to arrive, and by the time the crane arrived it was about
2 8.00 or 8.30. It's a large crane of 30 tonnes capacity. We had to pull
3 the truck out of the water again because the water had risen, and the
4 back part was again in water. That is what I found and the steps that
5 were taken were to pull it out again.
6 Q. Thank you. Is the gist of it that you had to move the truck
7 further away from the water so that it wouldn't be pulled back into the
9 A. Yes, we wanted to move it further away from the water, to make
10 sure if the water rises that it shouldn't submerge the truck.
11 Q. Thank you. Tell me, Mr. Radojkovic, do you remember when you
12 arrived at the scene whether you saw something that surprised you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Let me try and refresh your memory. Am I right if I say that you
15 saw on the road a truck loaded with a large number of coffins from a
16 private funeral company?
17 A. Yes, but you haven't read it properly. I was already there when
18 about 10.00 or 11.00 a truck appeared with coffins on it. I was already
19 there. I arrived there early in the morning, and it was only later in
20 the morning that this truck arrived with the coffins.
21 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, all the things I'm asking you come from the
22 official note that I'm quoting from, so I'll show it to you for you to
23 check whether it is correctly stated or not.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Djurdjic, there is a matter
25 that we need to discuss before this next break. I think as you're about
1 to show the witness a document it might be better if we left that until
2 after the break, and you can then carry on with your cross-examination.
3 Perhaps the witness could be shown out now and we'll deal with
4 the matter that has arisen and we'll continue again after the break. It
5 will probably be about 10 minutes to 6.00 that we resume again.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE PARKER: A difficulty has been brought to the Chamber's
9 attention which we've been trying to consider during this session, it
10 concerns the next witness, a young lady, I don't need to name her.
11 Unfortunately, she is in her final year of a course of study and must be
12 back at her educational institution tomorrow and Friday to deal with an
13 essential part of her qualifying to graduate this year. It had been
14 anticipated on the timetable that she would have finished her evidence by
15 now, and of course she hasn't started. She is -- has a plane booking
16 that would -- for her to return to where she is living at 9.00 p.m.
17 evening. Because we are running late, this problem has arisen. In
18 fairness to the young lady, it appears to the Chamber that it would not
19 be reasonable to require her to stay to give evidence with the likely
20 consequence that she would not be able to complete her course of study
21 this year. So what the Chamber has in mind is that she should be
22 released tonight to be able to catch the plane, with a view to her
23 returning to be here on Monday, in the hope that at -- either at the
24 beginning of Monday or during Monday we can reach her and hear her
25 evidence at that point.
1 Now, there will be another witness on the list who can give
2 evidence in the meantime. We mention this to see whether there is any
3 particular problem with this suggestion which either counsel sees.
4 Mr. -- Ms. Kravetz.
5 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, we had discussed this with my learned
6 colleague during the break, and we were actually trying to reschedule her
7 flight so she could try to complete her evidence tomorrow and leave
8 shortly thereafter. And I'm trying to obtain some information if that
9 was done or not to see if we could proceed today --
10 JUDGE PARKER: I can tell you that is not the case. She has a
11 particular personal exhibition, and she has to prepare that exhibition,
12 so she needs to be there all day tomorrow as well as Friday.
13 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, I am aware of her personal circumstances; she
14 had raised them in proofing. We had actually anticipated to conclude her
15 evidence today.
16 JUDGE PARKER: So do you see any problem then with it being
17 fitted in at the beginning or early in next week, depending on how we go
18 with the present witnesses?
19 MS. KRAVETZ: If that accommodates the witness, that's no problem
20 with us.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 Mr. Djurdjic.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Most certainly, Your Honour. Were
24 the witness's evidence somewhat different, the Defence would have no
25 questions at all for that witness if her evidence had only to do with the
1 circumstances that she experienced. Unfortunately, in her statement
2 there are a number of issues on account of which the Defence has no
3 choice but to ask her a number of questions. We do accept that she is
4 unable to be heard today and that she has more important duties to meet.
5 Any time she is back is all right with this Defence. The one problem
6 that I have, Your Honours, is the next witness who has now been
7 interposed, as it were. I would like to ask the Chamber to have the
8 chief for this witness this week and then leave the cross for next week
9 in order to give our Defence a chance to prepare.
10 We are a little pressed for time. I must say that. I'm not sure
11 if there is an understanding. The witness first announced for this week
12 contained two names, the brother and the sister, Bogujevci, with the
13 addition of Witness Radojkovic at a later date because his name had been
14 omitted by oversight. There were no other witnesses that were scheduled
15 for this week originally. At first there were two witnesses and then
16 since last week a total of three. That is why it is a problem for us
17 that the witness coming is not the one that was announced for next week,
18 and we can't prepare for three or four witnesses ahead of their actual
19 appearance. So could we please deal with K88 in chief this week and
20 leave the cross of K88 for next week. That is our motion. Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz.
22 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I'm just being informed by e-mail that
23 travel arrangements for the next witness have been changed. I'm trying
24 to obtain confirmation from that, but if that has been the case we could
25 just proceed with her as has been originally scheduled. But I don't know
1 if I have incorrect information or if there has been a change in the
3 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now. Could you confirm what
4 you're saying. Our information only comes from the Victims and
5 Witnesses Unit; we do not have it first-hand. If you could examine the
6 issue and find out what can be managed without putting this young lady at
7 risk of not completing her examination requirements. And could you
8 please discuss that with Mr. Djurdjic so he knows. And if it is that she
9 will not be here to give evidence tomorrow, would you please examine with
10 Mr. Djurdjic the time that will be taken over the next witness in
11 examination-in-chief. What Mr. Djurdjic asks is that we do not commence
12 cross-examination until next week, the witness having given his evidence
13 in chief. Now, at the moment that seems likely to involve the loss of a
14 day's hearing, but if you could examine those issues with Mr. Djurdjic
15 during the break.
16 We will resume at five minutes to 6.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.22 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz.
20 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, the next witness has indeed been taken
21 back to the airport and she will return home and will be brought back on
22 Sunday to testify on Monday. The other witness that was to follow,
23 Fatos Bogujevci, I understand that he is also going to be taken -- flown
24 back home because he also is in the same situation. Both of them are
25 students and are finalising their exams this week and in the coming
1 weeks. We have agreed with Defence to have both of them on Monday and
2 finalise their testimony on Monday so they can both return to their
3 normal activities and to their studies. So tomorrow we will be
4 proceeding with Witness K88.
5 JUDGE PARKER: And do you anticipate the evidence in chief of
6 that witness will finish in one session?
7 MS. KRAVETZ: My colleague, Mr. Neuner can --
8 JUDGE PARKER: If it's Mr. Neuner, we can be confident it will.
9 MR. NEUNER: I am a little bit surprised by the situation to a
10 certain extent, but I hope we will finish in one session, yes,
11 Your Honour. It's one and a half hours as far as I remember for this
12 witness, so -- which is a little bit longer than one session, but I try
13 to complete my evidence in one session --
14 JUDGE PARKER: No, an hour and a half we can manage.
15 MR. NEUNER: Yes, we will manage, hopefully, in one session,
16 Your Honours.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I've got to make other arrangements with my time,
18 that's all.
19 Very well. Well, I take it then the position that's been
20 reported has the concurrence of all counsel. The effect of it will be
21 that we will not sit at all in this case on Friday, resuming after the
22 evidence in chief of Witness K88, we will adjourn and resume on Monday
23 morning to deal with two other witnesses and then go to the
24 cross-examination of K88. Hopefully that will overcome the real problem
25 that was facing the -- particularly the young lady, but it will also, I
1 hope, provide some relief for you, Mr. Djurdjic.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
3 You have fulfilled all of our desires.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. If the witness could be brought in.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. Witness, am I right to say that you did not attend the meeting
9 that was held at Kladovo when the chief of SUP, Caslav Golubovic, arrived
10 as well as the head of the OKP of the Bor SUP and the head of -- the
11 chief of the Bor SUP
12 A. Yes, that's true. I arrived towards the end of that meeting.
13 Q. Thank you. Am I right to say that you took measures to secure
14 blankets and sheets and all the other items necessary for the bodies to
15 be individually carried across and placed in the other truck?
16 A. No, someone else took care of that. I merely took delivery at
17 the hotel of these items.
18 Q. Were the bodies arranged in such a way that they could be taken
19 away for post mortems to be performed and all the other steps that needed
21 A. Yes, given what the conditions were, the best job possible was
23 Q. Thank you very much. Am I right to say, since that is what the
24 official note claims, that it had become dark already and by that time
25 you got going and started your work, all the preparations had been
1 carried out already, it was dark already, and then you set about your
2 work; right?
3 A. I don't know what you mean exactly, what work?
4 Q. Transferring bodies from the refrigerator truck to the truck
5 provided by the utilities company.
6 A. Yes, you're quite right.
7 Q. Am I right to say that this work was in fact so hard that you
8 could not continue beyond 2.00 a.m.
9 A. Yes, it was exceptionally hard.
10 Q. Would I be right to say that you saw the truck being dispatched
11 towards Donji Milanovac?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, am I right to say that because of the situation,
14 meaning there was a war going on and the air-strikes and you were in a
15 border area and just across the way from you was the border to Romania
16 and they had allowed NATO forces to use their air-space, this being the
17 reason for your decision to stem the flow of information in order to not
18 disturb the public excessively, despite which all of the state bodies
19 knew what was going on; right?
20 A. Yes, there's a state border there and on the Danube were Romanian
21 military ships very close to the Arsa Bay
22 ordinary pair of binoculars, they were still perfectly able to see
23 everything that was going on on the other side.
24 Q. Thank you. This is a very busy road, right? If any roadworks
25 were in progress one would have had to stop all traffic first; right?
1 A. Yes, I did say a while ago that this was in fact something we had
2 to do, including bus traffic, the regular lines, and all of that.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can I now please have the usher's
5 assistance. I would like to place on our screens an OTP document,
6 65 ter list 594.
7 Q. Witness, can you see the image there?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Wait a minute, please. It's bound to appear.
10 A. I can see it now.
11 Q. Witness, am I right to say that this photograph was taken on day
12 two, following your arrival on the scene?
13 A. Most probably. I think the truck had been hauled back slightly
14 to some degree already.
15 Q. Slightly. It had been pulled back some way already. We can see
16 now that this is a truck and not a container with no cabin attached?
17 A. Yes, that much is certain.
18 Q. So you agree this is day two?
19 A. Yes, I think I could agree to that.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have
21 65 ter list 00595.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Are you exhibiting this?
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there were three
24 photographs that were shown yesterday that were marked, and I would like
25 to have that admitted -- I would like to have these admitted because they
1 are unmarked; and if we could have this first photograph exhibited,
3 JUDGE PARKER: This photograph will be received as an exhibit.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D00040, Your Honours.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] And now 65 ter document 00595. We
6 have it on our screens. Thank you.
7 Q. Witness, do you agree that this one was also taken on day two?
8 A. I think so.
9 Q. You see that the rear of the container sticks well out of the
10 water by this point?
11 A. Yes, I realise that.
12 Q. What about the third, or rather, my apologies.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I tender this photograph into
15 JUDGE PARKER: Is this different from the previous one?
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] The angle appears to be slightly
17 different. All of these are OTP exhibits, so I followed the same order
18 in which I had received these, as we see the truck gradually emerging
19 from the water. I do not think it is of essence; nevertheless, perhaps
20 this need not be admitted because the difference in angle is very slight.
21 JUDGE PARKER: You would like this one as an exhibit?
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Given the fact that the angle is
23 nearly the same, I don't think it's of the essence, and I would like to
24 withdraw my motion now.
25 Can we now please, however, have 65 ter 596 shown on our screens.
1 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, what we see here is the truck already perched on
2 the edge of the river-bank. Would I be right in stating that this
3 photograph was also taken on the same day?
4 A. You said day two, right? Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we have this document
7 admitted, please.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Is this different from the present exhibit that
9 was marked by the witness?
10 MR. NEUNER: The only difference is the annotation, Your Honours,
11 but it was tendered in annotated version, with the witness marking the
13 JUDGE PARKER: It's the same photograph that we presently have as
14 an exhibit, Mr. Djurdjic.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour, but this one
16 is unmarked and the one shown the witness by the OTP yesterday was
17 marked, we saw the foot a while ago that I had failed to observe. But my
18 questions are moving in a different direction, and that's why I'm using
19 the unmarked photographs. Actually, this photograph is an exhibit
20 already, P361, Your Honours, admitted as 361, with the circle marked by
21 the witness. It has been identified, and I don't think we need to
22 enlarge the body of evidence.
23 Can we now please have 65 ter 597, OTP Exhibit 597.
24 MR. NEUNER: While this is being done I just wanted to clarify
25 that the pictures P361 was shown unannotated to the witness and the
1 witness has marked in court the annotation. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, what about this photograph, was this one taken on
4 the same day as well? You see that we can see certain openings in this
5 photograph. Nevertheless, the forensic technician did a great job
6 zooming in.
7 A. No, this one shows the crack in its lower portion, but the point
8 of this photograph is to show the chain and the padlock on the door.
9 Q. I do see that, but I'm talking about this being taken on day two
10 before you broke the chain?
11 A. Yes, this was taken on day two.
12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have
14 65 ter Exhibit OTP 603.
15 JUDGE PARKER: You want this photograph as an exhibit,
16 Mr. Djurdjic?
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,
18 Your Honours. I do.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D00041, Your Honours.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, what we see here is the door pulled more closely
23 together with the screw -- screws and the sheet. There is no licence
24 plate, and it's perched on the edge of the river, so this must have been
25 taken on day two; right?
1 A. I need to have a closer look, please. Yes, this was taken on the
2 same day.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we please have this admitted.
5 JUDGE PARKER: My memory is that we have this photograph; is that
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't have this
8 one as a matter of fact. There's another one that I have here and then
9 the next is the one that we do have.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. This will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D00042, Your Honours.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have
13 OTP 65 ter 598.
14 Q. Witness, what about this photograph, was it taken on the same
16 A. Yes, it was.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we please have this document
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D00043, Your Honours.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could I now have Prosecution
23 document 600 on the 65 ter list.
24 Q. Witness, is the truck still on the edge of the water, on the
25 water's edge?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was this photograph taken on the same day?
3 A. No.
4 Q. On what basis do you say it was not taken on the same day?
5 A. Because the inscription on the right side of the door is not
6 there, and there's something else but I don't know how to explain it. At
7 the latitude where Kladovo is I can tell by the shadow cast by the truck
8 where the sun was. If you look at the previous photographs you will see
9 that the sun was about to set, that means it was in the afternoon; and
10 here, it's vice versa. This photograph was taken in the morning, because
11 the sun rises in the east, of course, from the direction of Romania
12 I could notice this on the basis of the shadow cast by the truck, so this
13 photograph must have been taken the next day.
14 Q. Thank you. But the truck is in the same position as it was on
15 the previous two or three photographs.
16 A. It could be so. It depended on the changes in the water-level.
17 When you asked me about the process of pulling out the truck, the last
18 one with the leg was when the truck was still. This photograph was taken
19 the next day, but it's possible that the water-level may have been
20 slightly higher or lower.
21 Q. Would you agree that all these photographs that we've looked at,
22 including those we saw yesterday shown to you by Mr. Neuner, were taken
23 on the water's edge while the truck was there and not on dry land?
24 A. The photographs of the truck were made while the truck was in the
25 water and when it was pulled out. That would be my most precise answer
1 because there are no more photographs.
2 Q. Witness, on this photograph you see that the truck is still in
3 the water, the front wheels and most of it is still in the water?
4 A. Yes, sir, but when I painted that truck I took off my trousers,
5 and I entered in my underpants to paint the door, which means that the
6 water was somewhere up to my waist.
7 Q. But what I was saying was that all the photographs were taken
8 while the lorry was partly on land and partly in the water?
9 A. In that respect you are right.
10 Q. Thank you. Mr. Witness, yesterday you told us in connection with
11 the Timok review and its founder certain things and I wanted to ask you,
12 you mentioned that he used to be your colleague. Do you know where he
13 worked and why he stopped working?
14 A. He worked in the State Security Service, in Zajecar, and I know
15 him when he came to Kladovo, and I don't know how he stopped working.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you know that the son of this person worked in the
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you. And do you know whether he stayed on working in the
20 police and what happened to him?
21 A. If my memory is right, I think he had some problems in connection
22 with some gold. I think he left the service, but I'm not too sure about
24 Q. And do you know that his son had problems because of human
1 A. I know that he had some problems with the law, but I'm not too
2 sure about what you are saying.
3 Q. Thank you. And do you know that Mr. Radojkovic was a prominent
4 member of the party Nova Demokratija in your region?
5 A. No, I was never a member of any party.
6 Q. I apologise. I didn't mean you. That's a slip of the tongue. I
7 was referring to Mr. Vitomirovic.
8 A. Yes, I know that. I know he was a personal friend of
9 Minister Mihajlovic.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. I apologise. At least I know this from talking to him. I never
12 saw them together, but he said that he was a personal friend of the
14 Q. Thank you. And do you know a person by the name of Ilija Matic?
15 A. Yes, yes, I think he was chief of the SUP in Zajecar, I think
16 that was his name.
17 Q. Thank you. Known by his nickname Ika Robija?
18 A. Yes, yes, I'm familiar with the nickname.
19 Q. And do you know when Mr. Matic was appointed chief of the SUP in
21 A. Perhaps around 2001 -- no, no. The police station of Kladovo is
22 not under the authority of SUP
23 who was the chief before him. After 2000, anyway, he became chief,
24 Mr. Matic was appointed chief.
25 Q. He was appointed by Minister Mihajlovic; am I right?
1 A. I think you are.
2 Q. And Mr. Matic was also a member of Nova Demokratija, though he
3 changed parties before that?
4 A. I cannot confirm that. I wasn't in touch with him too often.
5 Q. No, these are just matters of general knowledge.
6 Let me now take you back to a part of your testimony yesterday
7 towards the end when you said that on the 1st of May, 2001, this article
8 appeared in the Timok review and that it is of a journalist nature and
9 that suddenly the entire Belgrade
10 became familiar with it, that this is rather important. Would you agree
11 with me that this was planned and synchronised?
12 A. I can just tell you my own opinion. Mr. Milosevic was already in
13 prison by then, and suddenly reports appeared about Batajnica,
14 Petrovo Selo, the refrigerator truck, Perucac, and I don't know what
15 else, and all this was like a bomb-shell and it appeared on television
16 and in the media, in the newspapers. My impression was that all this
17 was -- that this was known from before but that the documents were kept
18 in a drawer, they were pulled out of the drawer, and by synchronised
19 action, all of this was published to create a certain impression among
20 the people to undermine the integrity of Mr. Milosevic so that he could
21 be expedited to The Hague
22 Q. Thank you. Am I right if I say that apart from this inscription
23 in the article, in the Timok crime review, which appeared in September,
24 in 1999, that apart from the heading -- not the inscription, the heading,
25 apart from the heading, everything else is just a journalist's story and
1 that it is incorrect. It's like a newspaperman's -- a reporter's report?
2 MR. NEUNER: I would just suggest to my learned colleague,
3 because he's switching here between two articles from May 2001 and from
4 September 1999 that he has the article on the screen for the witness to
5 read, and there are a couple of facts in this article and that he then
6 puts some facts stemming from this article to the witness and then let's
7 him make a comment as opposed to making here a broad brush about an
8 article and switching from article to articles. Thank you.
9 JUDGE PARKER: There is a possibility of confusion between the
10 two articles, Mr. Djurdjic. If the witness is clear about what is in
11 each, you may be able to deal with them without them being on the screen;
12 but if the witness doesn't have a clear recollection, what Mr. Neuner
13 suggests could be a way of dealing with it.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I told the witness
15 what I was referring to, and he spoke about this yesterday that in
16 September 1999 an article appeared under the heading: Refrigerator Lorry
17 in the Danube
18 the witness answered my questions about that.
19 Q. So perhaps you can just tell me whether you had that article in
20 mind when you were giving me these answers.
21 A. Yes, I understood that you were referring to the article in
22 September 1999, and I said that what prompted the article was okay but
23 that it was more like a newspaper report.
24 Q. And the mention -- the only thing that is correct is the
25 location, that it was close to the monument Koca Captain, the time is
1 more or less all right but the rest of it is very free interpretation of
2 his associates.
3 A. But that article, the 1999 article, I didn't see it published in
4 any other newspaper with a larger circulation in Serbia.
5 Q. Just one more question: Do you know at all whether the Timok
6 review was distributed in Belgrade
7 circulated only locally?
8 A. Only in the Timok Krajina, that's why it was called the Timok
9 crime review.
10 Q. And you know who Cucuk Stana is?
11 A. Yes, I know that from history, it is the wife of
12 Hajduk Veljko Petrovic, the Vojvoda of the first Serbian uprising; am I
13 right? Yes, he waged war in my part of the country.
14 Q. Could you tell us what kind of clothing Cucuk Stana wore?
15 A. Like most Serb women in those days, kind of pantaloons,
16 Cucuk Stana, a combination between a skirt and trousers, like most Serb
17 women in those, days she wore "dimija" or pantaloons.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radojkovic. I have no further questions for you.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That
20 completes my cross-examination.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Did you want to tender this lasting photograph?
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I did, and could
23 it be tendered into evidence, please.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D00044, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Neuner, do you re-examine?
2 MR. NEUNER: Yes, I would have a few questions.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Neuner:
4 Q. And, Witness, we can certainly finish your testimony today.
5 First of all, my learned colleague asked you just a moment ago about the
6 Timok Krajina. Could you tell Your Honours where Timok Krajina is in
8 A. The Timok Krajina is in the east of Serbia, it borders on Romania
9 and Bulgaria
10 and Zajecar. That would be the location of the Timok Krajina.
11 MR. NEUNER: If we could maybe have again the 65 ter number 1.01
12 on the screen.
13 Q. I'm not sure,
14 MR. NEUNER: If we could scroll down a little bit.
15 Q. -- Witness, whether you can -- whether this map is big enough to
16 encompass what you consider to be Timocka Krajina. Is it too small or is
17 it too big?
18 A. We need more of the map.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. NEUNER: Could we then simply have 65 ter number 1 on our
21 screens and we need to enlarge that certainly, but probably focusing on
22 the same area, east of Serbia
23 Could we please zoom in on the eastern part of Serbia because
24 that's how I understood the witness to direct us, east of Belgrade,
25 please, could we just zoom in. Yeah, east, could we go a little bit to
1 the east.
2 Q. Witness, you guide us. We just need to scroll to the right, yes.
3 A. Yes, that would be it roughly speaking.
4 Q. Could you now with the assistance of the usher who will hand you
5 a pen mark where the Timocka Krajina is.
6 A. Could we zoom in a little, please. This is the section that
8 MR. NEUNER: If we can even zoom in a little bit further. I
9 don't know if it's possible because the witness wants us to zoom in a
10 little bit further.
11 Q. Is that better now? Or we can even zoom in further. Witness,
12 you direct us.
13 A. Yes, this is fine. This is fine. It's very difficult for me to
14 be very specific and draw the border precisely, but I will try to give
15 you a reference point.
16 Q. If you could draw now where you believe that the outer borders of
17 the region you describe as Timocka Krajina is.
18 A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the outer borders.
19 Bordering on other countries or the Timok region?
20 Q. The Timok region within Serbia
21 to another state, if you could just mark the outer borders of the region
22 itself, whether it's at the state border or within the internal borders
23 within Serbia
24 A. Yes, I'll do my best.
25 Q. I believe what the witness marked is not being displayed.
1 Maybe -- I don't see -- oh, yes, now I see. Sorry.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. This is not a large-scale map, really, and I can't read the names
5 of the towns and villages, but this would roughly correspond to what you
7 MR. NEUNER: I would seek that this map is being tendered,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P00368, Your Honours.
11 MR. NEUNER:
12 Q. And now I want to show you again the article about which my
13 learned colleague has asked you a moment ago, and that is Exhibit 364.
14 That's the article from the 16th of September, 1999.
15 MR. NEUNER: And we need in the English version page 2, the first
16 paragraph; and in the B/C/S we need from the right page, which is
17 displayed here, just the left column, please, the left column, exactly.
18 Q. It says here, the paragraph -- the relevant paragraph starts
20 "A few days before ..."
21 MR. NEUNER:
22 In English it is the first paragraph, but I'm not sure whether
23 the witness can read the -- thank you for English but for B/C/S: "A few
24 days before the bombing started, a refrigerator truck ..."
25 Q. Can you read this paragraph? Do you find it, Witness?
1 A. No. We should move the Serbian article further to the right.
2 MR. NEUNER: Could we move to the right. I was misguiding here.
3 I think what the witness means we need the left page of that article and
4 if we could maybe scroll down --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A little further the way you
7 MR. NEUNER: We would need to move to the left, please, the
8 usher, and now with the last column here on the right-hand page down.
9 Thank you. I think even further down. It states -- it starts: "A few
10 days before the bombing started ..."
11 Q. Do you find this paragraph?
12 A. No.
13 MR. NEUNER: Maybe we can move up a little bit. I can also read
14 it in the record if this helps.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's fine. No, it's fine. Now
16 I can see it.
17 MR. NEUNER: It talks here about the truck.
18 A few kilometres from the Djerdap hydro-electric plant the truck
19 overturned and landed on the Danube
20 deformed, human bodies began to fall out.
21 That human bodies began to fall out, can you confirm that fact to
22 us, it's being accurately reported? I was asking you: Could you confirm
23 whether the press article which states that human bodies began to fall
24 out of a slightly deformed door, could you confirm that fact as being
25 accurate? Witness?
1 A. This last sentence you read, I agree, but I can't agree that
2 bodies were falling out. They were sticking out as if emerging from the
3 inside of the container. If you say "fall out," that means it's out and
4 down on the ground; and here what we had was something slightly sticking
5 out, protruding, as it were. Therefore, my answer is the bodies were not
6 falling out or were not beginning to fall out. There were bits of bodies
7 sticking out through the crack. That would be the most accurate way of
8 putting it, and my reply is merely in relation to the last sentence that
9 you read back to me.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I believe this is not fine because
12 Mr. Neuner started reading the beginning of the paragraph "several days
13 before the start of the air-strikes ..." and then the text goes on like
14 that. We should put to the witness the entire context, the substance of
15 this piece, and not a single sentence and then the witness should comment
16 on the context in its entirety as opposed to commenting on a single
17 sentence. We have the Swiss plates here several days before the
18 beginning of the air-strikes, a single truck, refrigerator truck, with
19 Swiss plates was -- and then bodies falling out, and if that's something
20 that the witness agrees with I'll be more than happy.
21 MR. NEUNER: You had a chance to do this during the
22 cross-examination and I'm at liberty to --
23 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Neuner, do you see the clock?
24 MR. NEUNER: I see the clock. I would be done after putting one
25 more fact to the witness.
1 JUDGE PARKER: About this article?
2 MR. NEUNER: Yes. It was suggested --
3 JUDGE PARKER: Then would you put to the witness the particular
4 matter you wanted him to consider in this article, please.
5 MR. NEUNER: That's all I wanted.
6 Q. Another fact which is mentioned in this article, and that's the
7 last fact I wanted to put to you, is that the crane came -- I'm sorry.
8 It is reporting to a person -- to what a person said. He said he added
9 that those were probably the bodies of the Kurds or the Talibans who had
10 mysteriously arrived on our territory.
11 Do you see here the information being reported in that article as
12 being uttered by a person?
13 A. Yes, the copy is a little poor, but I do see that portion. I see
14 the rest of the text as well.
15 Q. What would your comment be on this information that a person who
16 is quoted here in the article mentions that those were probably the
17 bodies of the Kurds or the Talibans? What is your comment to this?
18 A. No comment at all. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what the
19 source is for this information, particularly if I go on reading,
20 something about trafficking in human organs. There's a reference to
21 Kurds here. This is the story that we released after the incident at
22 Tekija. There is no other way I can understand this. It was a
23 well-known fact to the public that some Kurds had come to grief. The
24 Kurds, we refer to them as the Taliban. Further up from Tekija in a
25 slightly different area. So it's possible that someone actually stated
1 this on the record, but we do have to keep in mind the fact that this is
2 a newspaper piece and that's all it is.
3 MR. NEUNER: Thank you. The Prosecution has no more questions,
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 The Chamber would make the observation to assist both counsel
7 that it seems unlikely that it would ever be possible for the Chamber to
8 place any reliance on a newspaper article of this type in reaching a
9 decision in this case. I mention that because both counsel have spent
10 quite a bit of time with this article. It is a report by a newspaper.
11 We have no means of knowing or verifying the source of the information
12 nor of verifying what is contained in the article. Counsel can expect
13 that the Chamber will look to more direct identified and reliable
14 evidence for any finding of fact that it makes, and I hope that will
15 assist counsel in assessing whether they need to spend time on this or
16 any similar type of material in the future.
17 Mr. Radojkovic, we would like to thank you. You'll be pleased to
18 know that that is the end of your questioning. We're grateful that you
19 have been able to come to The Hague
20 given, and you will now be able to return to your ordinary activities.
21 The Chamber will now adjourn, and we continue tomorrow at 2.15.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.55 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of
25 March, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.