1 Wednesday, 13 June, 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is
9 case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 I do understand that there's a question as to how the order will
12 be, but let's perhaps discuss that once you, Mr. Kearney, have finished
13 your examination-in-chief of Witness 62.
14 Witness 62, I would like to remind you that you are still bound by
15 the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your
16 testimony, that is, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
17 nothing but the truth. Mr. Kearney will now continue his examination.
18 Mr. Kearney, please proceed.
19 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/62 [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Mr. Kearney: [Continued]
23 Q. Witness 62, good afternoon.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. When we broke yesterday, you made a statement that I want to
1 follow-up on. You were asked by myself at page 5569, line 9, the
2 following question: "Now, did these accusations or -- of your being a spy
3 or a traitor for the Serbs persist after 1992"?
4 And you gave the following answer which I want to follow-up on.
5 You said yesterday: "Yes. Things were said in the village. This was
6 their propaganda, I mean the propaganda of the families with whom I was in
7 this feud according to the Kanun, but also during the war."
8 And I want to follow-up with you. When you said "also during the
9 war," what time-period were you referring to, please?
10 A. I spoke with him about the period 1998/1999.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 5576-5588 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
22 Since we are back in open session now, the Chamber has just now
23 decided that the sequence -- the order of cross-examination is that the
24 Chamber starts with the cross-examination of Witness 62, and only once we
25 have finished the cross-examination of Witness 62, Defence counsel will
1 have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness that was -- the witness
2 that testified before, that is Miomir Stosic.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:
5 Q. Witness 62, I want to start, if I may, by asking you some
6 questions about the two conversations that you had with Din Krasniqi in
7 Vranoc about the disappearance of your parents on the 14th and 15th of
8 July, that is, the conversations that took place on the 14th and 15th of
9 July. I'm going to ask you a little bit more about these conversations
10 later on, but for now I just want to ask you about one part of your
11 evidence in relation to those conversations.
12 And you told Mr. Kearney, for the Prosecution, that you had said
13 to Din Krasniqi that you believed the disappearance of your parents was
14 connected with a long-running blood-feud which your family had become
15 involved in. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And is it also correct that it has always been your strong belief
18 that your parents' death was a measure of revenge connected with that
20 A. Look, my parents, when they were taken away, I believed that
21 Rrustem Tetaj had taken them so that they could give him information who
22 had injured my brother. Later on, I had suspicions a couple of days
23 later, after their abduction. So I had this suspicion that this was a
24 measure of revenge.
25 Q. Yes. I think when you made your witness statement in 2006 - and
1 this is the first line of paragraph 37 - the words you used were these: "I
2 strongly believe that my parents were abducted as a measure of revenge."
3 And was that an accurate statement of what your belief was in
5 A. I said it earlier, that in the beginning Rrustem Tetaj had taken
6 them so that he could be informed about the case. Later on when I heard
7 that who was involved in that circle, then I had the suspicion, yes.
8 Q. Yes. We'll come back to Rrustem Tetaj in a little while. Can I
9 just explore with you briefly some of the background to that blood-feud
10 and some of the personalities involved --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I take it that there comes a moment
12 soon where we have to turn into private session.
13 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, there does, and I think we may have reached
14 that moment at this point.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we should turn into private session.
16 [Private session]
11 Pages 5592-5604 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We are then in open session, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 We then also could have the break if you move to another subject.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Fine.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We need the full half hour because for technical
17 reasons. We'll resume at quarter past 4.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
22 MR. EMMERSON: Just a very brief matter.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. EMMERSON: And really just a --
25 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Emmerson, until it is confirmed.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 5607-5609 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
4 Where it was announced before the break that we would continue
5 with the cross-examination in open session, the Chamber, in view of the
6 effectiveness of protective measures has decided that we'll continue in
7 private session.
8 We return to private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 5611-5636 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Kearney.
11 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Witness 62, I want to ask you a question that was just posed by
13 the Court. In your opinion what would happen to people that were
14 considered to be collaborators?
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's the same question --
16 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Kearney.
18 MR. EMMERSON: And asking in terms of an opinion. If there are
19 specific instances that Mr. Kearney seeks to elicit, then I have no
21 MR. KEARNEY: I can rephrase the question, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
23 MR. KEARNEY:
24 Q. What happened to people in 1998 during the war who were
25 considered to be collaborators?
1 A. At -- this is what happened to my parents. They paid it dearly.
2 I do not need to speak about other people. The example is my parents. So
3 the slander, the slander, due to the slander they do not exist today, no
4 matter what you could refer to as revenge or whatever.
5 Q. You had mentioned that these allegations of collaboration against
6 your family had been going on for some time. I want to ask you if in 1998
7 during the war those allegations increased or decreased or stayed the same
8 in terms of their number?
9 A. After the abduction of my parents, they did not increase, the
10 rumours decreased. And with deeds I proved that the slander were simply
11 slander and that they were made by the enemies.
12 Q. Let me be more specific, Witness Number 62. I want to ask you
13 about the period of time before your parents were abducted in 1998. Did
14 the level of allegations against your family increase, decrease, or stay
15 the same at that time compared with the previous years of the 1990s?
16 A. In 1998 there were rumours, probably more than in the period from
17 1992 to 1998. However, after the abduction of my parents, for about one
18 month after that -- and after that there was a different realisation.
19 People understood the mistake. They understood that that was a false
20 propaganda, because we as a family, we contributed, probably not with
21 weapons but with the hospitality, accommodation, by also following the
22 instructions of the armed group, of the UCK. I collaborated with them.
23 Q. Thank you. You were also asked about the family of
24 Qaush Krasniqi, specifically his mother and his two siblings who were
25 abducted and murdered in October of 1998. You mentioned that there had
1 been fights between two families before that abduction. Is that a fair
2 statement of your earlier testimony?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith, may I take it that --
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- you would like to have the question rephrased that
6 they were abducted and found killed? Or found dead --
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Microphone not activated]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps that was not --
9 MR. EMMERSON: It --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it's --
11 MR. EMMERSON: It may be my -- that I've overlooked something.
12 Certainly in the paragraph in the witness statement --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. EMMERSON: -- it simply says that they are missing.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes. That's perhaps then --
16 MR. KEARNEY: Well, Your Honours, to be very specific I can read
17 directly this witness's answer on cross-examination if I can -- if that
18 will help with the proceeding of this question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
20 MR. KEARNEY:
21 Q. This is at page 32, I believe, I'm going to read a quote for you
22 from an answer you gave.
23 "For example, if we have an argument together if we have a fight,
24 then that means that I can take revenge on you or you can take revenge on
25 me so this is a situation."
1 I want to ask you simply regarding the fights that the family of
2 Qaush Krasniqi engaged in. Were the fights that they had engaged in a
3 sufficient basis under the Kanun to justify the abduction and murder of
4 three members of the family?
5 A. It could be, but not to do as they did. They were taken in order
6 to take revenge but also to put a blemish on the family but also to the
7 UCK. So these are three weak points. If you take revenge, then I would
8 be punished. This is -- then they would also say that the UCK did this
9 and then UCK would come under such accusation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kearney, I said I would not have a break any
11 earlier than 20 minutes to 6.00.
12 MR. KEARNEY: I have no further question now.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You have no further questions.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
16 MR. EMMERSON: I've been alerted to what may be an extremely
17 important error in translation. I don't know whether Your Honour wants me
18 to deal with it now.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Um --
20 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not sure it was an issue that we need to
21 trouble the witness with. It's simply an issue of clarifying with the
22 interpreters what, in fact, was said so it needn't detain the witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Could you take your earphones off for a second then.
25 Mr. Emmerson.
1 MR. EMMERSON: [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
3 MR. EMMERSON: Page 64, line 12, the answer reads: "Avdi was the
4 commander in the village, the commander of the UCK. Brahim was like a
5 leader, the leader of the village. He was in charge of the organisation
6 of the civilian population. So these two people were directly engaged in
7 the village. It was Ramush Haradinaj, it was also FARK in that area, but
8 these two people belonged to the UCK."
9 I understand that the original Albanian properly translated and
10 transcribed would read something closer to: I don't know who was connected
11 to FARK and who was connected to Ramush, but ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's more or less how I understood --
13 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- this translation, that is, you had Haradinaj, you
15 had the FARK, but these two at least were UCK.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Very well. Maybe the simplest thing would be if I
17 made a request to check the tape overnight and if there's any --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes and I -- but would that be a reason to keep the
20 MR. EMMERSON: No, absolutely not.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's then clear.
22 Any further questions? No. Then Judge Hoepfel has a question for
24 Could you put up -- put on your earphones again.
25 Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness 62, Judge Hoepfel has a question for
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, may I get back to that what you commented
5 just before when asked if such fights would be a sufficient basis under
6 the Kanun to justify the abduction and murder of three members of a
7 family. Do you remember this question?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And your answer was: "It could be, but not to do
10 as they did," or not in the way they did I suppose you wanted to say. Can
11 you explain yourself a little more precise -- precisely?
12 A. Yes. On the basis of the Kanun, children and females are not
13 involved in the killing or in the -- being killed. It's males from 18 to
14 65 years old that are involved in the blood-feud. If you kill a child or
15 a female instead of taking revenge, you owe blood to them two times.
16 That's what I know.
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much. That was all.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kearney.
20 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honour, with the Trial Chamber's extreme
21 permission, that was a -- the last question by Judge Hoepfel to the
22 witness was very insightful. And there was a very important answer given
23 back by the witness. I would be -- I would ask leave just to follow-up on
24 it with just one question if I may.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kearney, the Chamber decided that we'll not allow
2 you to put further questions to the witness. It's not a matter that could
3 not have been raised by yourself at any earlier moment.
4 Witness 62, since the Chamber takes it that no further questions
5 will be put to you because the Chambers questions have not triggered any
6 need for the Defence to ask further questions to you, this means that this
7 concludes your evidence in this court. I'd like to thank you very much
8 for coming and for answering all questions put to you. You are free to go
9 again. I wish you a safe trip home. If you could stay there just for a
10 second, because I would like to ask something to the Defence.
11 How much time do you think you could finish if we resume at five
12 or ten minutes after 6.00? Do you think the cross-examination of the next
13 witness could be finished?
14 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until ten minutes past 6.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 [The witness entered court]
20 --- On resuming at 6.12 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Stosic. You had to wait for a
22 while, but we're now ready to continue. Mr. Stosic, I'd like to remind
23 you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
24 beginning of your testimony. You'll now be cross-examined first by
25 Mr. Emmerson, who is counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.
1 Please proceed.
2 WITNESS: MIOMIR STOSIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:
5 Q. Mr. Stosic, I'm going to be asking you some questions from your
7 MR. EMMERSON: I wonder whether I might ask Mr. Registrar to be
8 loading P342 whilst I ask my first questions. Apologies.
9 Q. You told us yesterday, Mr. Stosic, that you went to the Lake
10 Radoniq canal and that sometime shortly after that you went to the Hotel
11 Pashtrik. I want to see if I can identify with you some dates. Can you
12 remember now roughly how long before you went to Hotel Pashtrik it was
13 that you went to the canal?
14 A. Five to seven days.
15 Q. Now, if I tell you that the records show that you were at Hotel
16 Pashtrik identifying your father's remains on the 14th of September, does
17 that mean that the visit to the canal must have been no later than about
18 the 9th or 10th?
19 A. No.
20 Q. When you got to the canal area, you told us that you saw some
21 police vehicles, some fire brigade vehicles, and some civilian vehicles.
22 Can I ask you, please, about the civilian vehicles. Do you remember how
23 many there were, approximately?
24 A. No.
25 Q. I mean, would it have been more or less than ten?
1 A. Less than ten, for sure.
2 Q. And more or less than five, can you help us, or not?
3 A. [No interpretation]
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand what the
5 witness said.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please speak louder so the interpreters can
7 hear you, and could you please repeat your last answer, that is, more or
8 less than five?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot give you an answer to that
10 question. I don't know exactly.
11 MR. EMMERSON:
12 Q. Very well. And again, with police vehicles, can you give us a
13 sense at all of the number of police vehicles that were there or not?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Very well. Do you recall whether there were any areas taped-off,
16 that is to say with tapes around them, to indicate which areas people were
17 permitted to enter and which they weren't?
18 A. There were traces.
19 Q. Let me just clarify that answer please, if I may. Were there
20 tapes, were there areas taped-off, with tape?
21 A. Yes, the area was taped-off.
22 Q. Looking at the photograph there --
23 MR. EMMERSON: And I don't know whether the usher might assist.
24 There's no difficulty, I think, with adding additional marks to the
25 photograph if it remains at the same scale. Is that correct?
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that the photograph has
2 been admitted into evidence --
3 MR. EMMERSON: I see.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- so what we could do is to -- starting with this
5 one --
6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- and make it a new exhibit. That means that the
8 already marked photograph would then be further marked.
9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But then I would suggest we take a further colour for
11 any further markings. But once we start marking we can't change the --
12 MR. EMMERSON: No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- we can't zoom-in or zoom-out anymore. Therefore,
14 I take it that you want to work on the basis of the photograph as it is on
15 the screen.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly as it is now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then could another colour be given to the
18 witness. Please proceed.
19 Mr. Registrar the map now to be marked would be ...?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be marked for
21 identification as D116.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
23 MR. EMMERSON:
24 Q. Mr. Stosic, can you now recall looking at that photograph before
25 you mark it, can you now recall which areas were taped-off?
1 A. It's difficult, but I will try.
2 Q. If you could then please mark the photograph as best you can with
3 a line to show where the tape was.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. So does that indicate that you could not enter the area to the
6 left of the blue line that you have drawn?
7 A. The question is not clear to me.
8 Q. Let me ask you again. You've drawn a blue line on the photograph.
9 Does that blue line represent a line of tape, as you remember it, that
10 was there when you arrived?
11 A. More or less. It was a long time ago.
12 Q. Yes. I understand that. But just to be clear --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, the previous question, no one could
14 ever consider that the whole other area would be taped off --
15 MR. EMMERSON: Very well --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- so therefore logic is the response to your
17 question. Please proceed.
18 MR. EMMERSON: I think for the sake of the record I had sorted it
19 out, but I take Your Honour's point.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. EMMERSON:
22 Q. Did you, in fact, ever enter the area to the left of the blue line
23 yourself or not?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And finally on this part of my questions, can I ask you to
1 confirm, were there police divers present when you were at the canal?
2 A. I don't remember.
3 Q. Well, you remember making a statement in this case in May of 2002
4 to the Prosecution?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. On page 3 of your statement at the very bottom, last few words on
7 the page, you've indicated that the police had underwater divers at the
8 location. Does that assist you with your memory at all?
9 A. It's possible, but I don't know.
10 Q. Very well. I want you, if you wouldn't mind, just to concentrate
11 very closely on the questions I'm about to ask you about locations within
12 the canal. In the witness statement that you made in 2002 on page 4 in
13 the second paragraph, after you describe the car that was in the canal and
14 the bodies that were there, you say this of the bodies, you say: "Some
15 were slightly covered with dirt and others buried deeper under the silt of
16 the canal."
17 So you say: "Some were slightly covered with dirt and others were
18 buried deeper under the silt of the canal."
19 Now, Mr. Stosic, we can see from the photograph that there's a
20 concrete section of the canal and that lower down there is a natural
21 section where we can see a river-bed. When you were describing in your
22 statement the fact that there were bodies -- that there were bodies deeper
23 under the silt of the canal, can you help us, please, were you referring
24 to silt in the natural section of the canal or in the concrete section?
25 A. The bodies were on the slope of the canal. From the part that was
1 in concrete, there was a sort of slope and they were up. They were not in
2 the silt in that part, that's not where the bodies were. They were from
3 the concrete section of the canal upwards.
4 Q. Could you mark perhaps with a number 1 on the photograph where
5 those bodies that you're referring to were, please. Could you mark the
6 photograph with a 1, number 1 for us, please.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Thank you. So just to return to your statement, if I can just
9 remind you what you say there. You say that: "Some were slightly covered
10 with dirt and others buried deeper under the silt of the canal."
11 Can you help us whether you were referring only to bodies that
12 were in that area or also bodies lower down in that part of your
14 A. In the part of the canal that was covered with concrete, that's
15 where the bodies were. But then further down along the canal there were a
16 couple of bodies, and you could see them from the top.
17 Q. That's what I was asking you. And were those ones further down,
18 were they the bodies that you referred to as being deeper under the silt
19 of the canal?
20 A. I don't know how to explain. They were along the direction of the
21 canal, from the concrete part of the canal downwards, near the river --
22 near the water.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
24 MR. EMMERSON:
25 Q. Very well. I'm looking again at your witness statement on page 4
1 and the second full paragraph, where you described your visit to
2 Hotel Pashtrik to identify your father's remains and you say this, you
3 say: "I could only positively identify his clothing, as the flesh was
4 gone from his face. His body had been found deeper in the silt of the
6 Now, first of all, how did you know that his body had been found
7 deeper in the silt of the canal? Who told you that?
8 A. That's what the people said who were doing the autopsies.
9 Q. And by "deeper in the silt of the canal," do you mean in the
10 natural section of the canal?
11 A. No, this top part. But since the bodies were on top of each other
12 they explain that he was --
13 Q. I see --
14 A. -- lower down and the others were on top over.
15 Q. Thank you very much for that. Did you, yourself, go down into the
16 natural section of the canal?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you told us yesterday that you assisted with the removal of
19 that red car from the canal with ropes. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you --
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Pardon, do you have --
23 MR. EMMERSON: A transcript reference --
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: -- a transcript reference.
25 MR. EMMERSON: 5511, line 15.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
2 MR. EMMERSON:
3 Q. Did you and the people you were with manage to get the car out of
4 the canal?
5 A. Yes, we managed to pull it along the side, not all the way up the
6 bank, but we kind of managed to get it out of the water.
7 Q. So you left it by the side of the water but at the bottom of the
8 canyon section - is that the position - you didn't pull it up?
9 A. No, not all the way up, just along the side.
10 Q. Now, in your witness statement, you refer to the fact that there
11 was a body in the boot of the car. Can I ask you, do you now remember
12 seeing a body in the boot of the car?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And were you present when the boot was opened?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. During the course of your testimony yesterday, you
17 referred to two other places that you had visited where bodies had been
18 discovered. The first was Zlopek and you told us - this is transcript
19 5503, line 24 - that although you weren't sure about the date, you thought
20 it was about a month and a half after your father disappeared that you
21 went to Zlopek. Does that sound right to you? Is that your recollection?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So that would put your visit to Zlopek sometime around the end of
24 August or early September. Would you agree?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And whilst in Zlopek, you saw the recovery of the body of an
2 Albanian man who had been found in a pond. Is that the position?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you, in fact, help recover that body out of the water?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When you left the scene in Zlopek, was the body still there?
7 A. Yes, it stayed. I left and the body was left behind. We were
8 waiting for the car or the transport to take it where it was supposed to
9 be taken.
10 Q. Did anybody tell you where it was going to be taken?
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 Q. I don't think the translation has come through, although the
13 answer is basically clear.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat your answer that whether
15 anyone told you where it was going to be taken, that body.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 MR. EMMERSON:
18 Q. Now, the other place that you described visiting where you saw
19 bodies being recovered was Lumbardh. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you told us yesterday that you went to Lumbardh on the same
22 day as you went to the canal and after you had been to the canal. Is that
24 A. First I went to the canal, then to Ljumbard, and then again back
25 to the canal.
1 Q. And at Lumbardh, you saw four bodies, two men and two woman. Is
2 that correct?
3 A. That's what they established, that there were four bodies.
4 Q. Did you see the bodies yourself?
5 A. The -- they were not bodies, they were just body parts.
6 Q. So they were in a state of decomposition. Is that right?
7 A. Decomposing, also tampered with by animals. Half the bodies were
9 Q. Now, at the time you went to the canal that day, you told us
10 yesterday that you saw five or six bodies there. Is that an accurate
11 reflection of your memory, that you saw five or six bodies in all at the
12 canal when you were there, or could there have been more than that?
13 A. Five to six.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, the question, I'm afraid, is not --
15 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- Unambiguous, whether there were more or whether
17 the witness saw more.
18 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm sorry, I'll rephrase the question.
19 Q. Mr. Stosic, just for the sake of clarity it's my fault for asking
20 a question that wasn't as clear as it could have been. You yourself only
21 saw five to six bodies. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, going back to the bodies or the body parts at Lumbardh,
24 again, when you left Lumbardh were those body parts still there or had
25 they been removed?
1 A. They remained there.
2 Q. And I'm sorry to jump about a little, but whilst you were at the
3 canal that day did you talk to any of the officials that were there?
4 A. Could I have the interpretation louder, please?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you assist the witness in having
6 the volume of his earphones adjusted.
7 MR. EMMERSON:
8 Q. I'll repeat the question. Whilst you were at the canal, did you
9 talk to any of the officials that were there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. We have heard and seen certain records in this case that indicate
12 that some body parts were recovered from an area of rough ground close to
13 a road near the village of Dashinoc. First of all, do you know where
14 Dashinoc is?
15 A. Dashinoc, that belongs to Ljumbarda, that's how we used to refer
16 to that area.
17 Q. Very well. Do you remember whether anybody discussed with you
18 moving bodies that had been recovered from other areas like Lumbardh,
19 like Dashinoc, like Zlopek, to the canal?
20 A. No, I don't remember. Nobody talked to me about that.
21 Q. Were you aware that certain remains had been found in or near
23 A. Yes, I knew about the remains, that they had been found. Now,
24 what was done with them later, I don't know. I guess they were all
25 transported to the Pastrik Hotel.
1 Q. Can I just be clear. At Lumbardh -- are you suggesting that the
2 area that you visited in Lumbardh was potentially the site at which in
3 remains were recovered in Dashinoc?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. And you were told, were you, that from what had been recovered it
6 was possible to determine that there were two men and two women there?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And is that something that -- I'm sorry, did we get the response
9 to that? We did, we did. Thank you.
10 And was that something that you were told there and then at the
12 A. It's not that it was said to me, it's just that I overheard a
14 Q. Thank you. And that conversation was at the site itself?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the final topic I want to ask you about is this, you gave some
17 evidence to Mr. Di Fazio yesterday about the tensions in the area around
18 Loxha during this period of time and the risks involved in moving around.
19 I just want to clarify one or two issues with you about dates. The date
20 that you have given is the date that your father left home, heading for
21 Loxha, is the 17th of July. Can I ask you how certain you are of the
22 correctness of that date?
23 A. I know this to be true.
24 Q. Very well.
25 A. I know that definitely.
1 Q. And were you aware of the fact that there had been intense
2 fighting around Loxha at various points during July?
3 A. There were no fights at that time.
4 Q. Were you aware that there had been a three-day battle around Loxha
5 in the first part of July?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Obviously, if you don't know, I'm not asking you to speculate. Is
8 the position that you simply don't know one way or the other what the
9 state of fighting was in that area at that time?
10 A. No, it's not that. It's just that I know that there was no
11 fighting going on at that time.
12 Q. Do you know when the fighting was taking place at Loxha during
14 A. Well, I don't know exactly. It could have been even beginning of
15 August or late July.
16 Q. Again, I make it absolutely clear, I'm not asking you to guess.
17 "It could have been" obviously is a phrase that leaves a lot of things
18 open to speculation. If you don't know, then please say so.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us whether you do know or not. You
20 said,"not first part of July," then you said later,"could have been end of
21 July, early August." Do you know? Because if you are uncertain about it,
22 then please tell us then.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was definitely no fighting at
24 around mid-July. It could have been late July.
25 MR. EMMERSON:
1 Q. Mr. Stosic, we have certain reports of fighting in various parts
2 of the region, including reports of fighting in Loxha on the 21st of July,
3 for example. Now, if you're telling us that you hadn't been to Loxha, I
4 just want to be clear whether you are in a position to say one way or the
5 other whether at around that time there was fighting going on.
6 A. There was fighting going on, but there was none before the 17th.
7 That's my answer.
8 Q. I see. Well, that's why I wanted to just ask you about your
9 certainty about the date. Because when you gave evidence yesterday - this
10 is transcript 5498, line 15 - you were asked for the date that you last
11 saw your father and you said: "The 17th of July, as far as I can recall."
12 Now, in the evidence you've just given us you tell us you're
13 certain of that date. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Because in the witness statement that you made about your father
16 in May 2002, Mr. Stosic, this is page 2, last paragraph, you say that the
17 date on which you last saw him was the 19th of July. Again, a day or
18 two's difference may be important, Mr. Stosic. Can I ask you again,
19 please: How sure are you of the exact date?
20 A. I'm sure it was the 17th.
21 Q. Can you help us as to why you signed a statement to the
22 Prosecution in May 2002 saying it was the 19th? Has something happened in
23 between to make you sure of the date?
24 A. Perhaps I made a mistake when giving the statement; however, I'm
25 certain that it was the 17th.
1 Q. Yes, I -- just so that we're clear, why are you certain? What is
2 it that makes you certain?
3 A. I know because I reported it to the Red Cross and to the
4 Secretariat of the Interior, that's the date I reported.
5 Q. It may be right. Do you have those reports yourself still?
6 A. No.
7 Q. But did you keep a note of the date that you made them, or the
8 date that your father disappeared in some other document?
9 A. I kept the document which is in Serbia, it's in the papers. The
10 photograph was published, and I still have to this day the -- a report in
11 the papers with his picture and information about him having gone missing
12 and that we were looking for him.
13 MR. EMMERSON: Would Your Honour just give me a moment.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. EMMERSON:
16 Q. You see, Mr. Stosic, I don't want to take time with you over this,
17 but we have a record that indicates that you reported your father missing
18 in a report to Interpol and gave them the date of the 18th of July. Now,
19 I'm just asking you again: How certain are you of your dates?
20 A. I'm certain because he went missing on the 17th, and it was on the
21 following day that I reported it to the Red Cross.
22 Q. Just to be clear the report indicates that the date on which you
23 last saw your father, as you reported, it was the 18th, not that the
24 report was made on the 18th.
25 Mr. Stosic, when you made your witness statement to the
1 Prosecution in May 2002, you gave as the date of your identification
2 process at the Hotel Pashtrik the 17th or 18th of September. And as I
3 indicated to you a little earlier, the records show that it was, in fact,
4 the 14th of September. Again, just to be clear, are you and have you been
5 somewhat vague in your memory of these specific dates?
6 A. It is possible that on the 17th or 18th I attended the
7 identification process and took over the body.
8 Q. Yes, but as I'm indicating to you the records show that that took
9 place on the 14th?
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if the witness -- If Your Honours please, the
11 witness has said it and repeatedly now, this is really a matter that is a
12 question for submission --
13 MR. EMMERSON: Well --
14 MR. DI FAZIO: He can repeatedly say it to the witness, and he can
15 repeatedly gives his answers.
16 MR. EMMERSON: I'll take the point, and I think that I've taken
17 the line questioning as far as I need to, and those are the only questions
18 I have for this witness.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Mr. Guy-Smith.
21 Mr. Stosic, you'll now be examined by Mr. Guy-Smith, who is
22 counsel for Mr. Balaj.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
24 Q. Yes, I would like to go back to the time you were at the canal and
25 if I understand your testimony correctly you were at the canal on two
1 separate occasions on the same date. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. During the period of time, the first time that you were there, can
4 you tell us how long a period of time you were at the canal?
5 A. Perhaps half an hour.
6 Q. And was it during that period of time that you helped pull the car
8 A. No.
9 Q. The second time that you went to the canal, could you tell us when
10 you arrived?
11 A. I don't know what time it was. It was in the afternoon, but I
12 don't know what time.
13 Q. Could you give us an indication of how long you were at the canal
14 the second time you were there?
15 A. I don't remember exactly, perhaps an hour, not more than that
17 Q. When you first saw the car that you helped pull out of the canal,
18 it was upside down; right?
19 A. Well, yes.
20 Q. And during the half an hour period that you were there, you, along
21 with others, were able to pull the car out of the canal and turn it over
22 so it was right-side up. Is that your evidence?
23 A. No.
24 Q. During the half an hour period that you were there --
25 A. But later on I returned. I didn't touch anything during the first
1 half an hour. It's upon my return --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, you are creating confusion. The
3 witness testified that the first time he went there he was there for half
4 an hour, and for the second time he said, I don't know exactly, but not
5 more than one hour. By referring to the half-hour again and again --
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: My apologies --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I didn't mean to.
9 Q. The second time that you were there when you helped pull the car
10 out of the canal, how long a period of time were you involved in that
11 endeavour, pulling the car out of the canal?
12 A. They were already working and they needed some help, so I
13 approached them and helped them. They had already been working on pulling
14 it out, and I wasn't there the entire time. I just came towards the end.
15 Q. So the second time you went to the canal, did you return to the
16 area where you had first seen the car upside down earlier that day?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When you assisted in pulling the car out of the canal the second
19 time, was the body still in the trunk of the car?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You were able to assist everybody in moving the car to the side of
22 the canal; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Troop.
1 MR. TROOP: No questions, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No questions for the witness.
3 Mr. Di Fazio, is there any need to re-examine.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: A few. I'll --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at the clock -- could you keep it short.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll wrap it up.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR DI FAZIO: A very limited topic, if Your Honours please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Re-examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
11 Q. You were asked questions this afternoon about your visit to Zlopek
12 and -- or Lumbardh and when bodies were being -- or remains were being
13 found. I want to know if you can tell us the sorts of persons that were
14 present on those locations. Firstly, were there police present?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At both Zlopek and Lumbardh?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know if there were any court officials present?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At both places?
21 A. I don't remember concerning Zlopek. As for Ljumbarda -- actually,
22 yes, in both cases.
23 Q. So we've got police, we've got court officials present at both
24 locations. What about soldiers, VJ soldiers, were there any soldiers
25 present at those locations?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you remember any other category of official, other than police
3 and court officials, at Zlopek and Lumbardh?
4 A. There were perhaps another two civilians there looking for their
5 relatives, a brother, a cousin, they were there with me during the
6 identification process.
7 Q. All right. So you've got police, court officials, civilians, such
8 as yourself, concerned civilians. Thank you. And about how many
9 individuals all together would you say were at Zlopek when you were there?
10 A. Including the police or not?
11 Q. All together. Court officials, police, and civilians, about how
12 many people would you say were at Zlopek?
13 A. Perhaps 15 to 20.
14 Q. And what about Lumbardh, about how many people all together were
15 present there?
16 A. Perhaps only five to six.
17 Q. Were there people with cameras at Zlopek?
18 A. I think that, yes, there was a technician recording this. I don't
19 remember for sure.
20 Q. All right. Okay. You're unsure about that. Can you tell us if
21 you saw any official -- anyone operating a camera, either a movie camera
22 or an ordinary camera, at the second place -- at the other place at
24 A. I don't remember.
25 Q. Thank you very much.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, I think yesterday page 5503 question --
3 yes, previous page: "Were there any cameras there?
5 "Who operated the camera technicians, do you know?"
6 So therefore those questions have been put to the witness already.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful to Your Honours for reminding me it
8 was superfluous in those circumstances, and if Your Honours please I have
9 no further questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions.
11 Have they triggered -- Mr. Stosic, I would have one question for
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you said there were court officials, how did you
15 know that these persons were court officials?
16 A. I know one of them personally by sight. I know that he's a public
17 prosecutor. He was there with me, and he was the one making a record, the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was that both at Zlopek and Ljumbarda that he
20 was present?
21 A. In Zlopek, yes. As for Ljumbarda, I don't remember.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And how did you know in Ljumbarda that persons
23 present there were court officials?
24 A. Well, one can see that that this is a person from a court and
25 there was also a note-taker and a person in uniform. They were writing
1 everything down, recording everything.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stosic, this concludes your testimony in
5 this court.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: This concludes your testimony in this court. We'd
8 like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, it's quite a journey,
9 and for answering all questions put to you. And I wish you a safe trip
10 home again.
11 And then, finally, the map again marked now with blue, no
12 objections, Mr. Di Fazio?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, if you would remind me what the
15 number was, then I can admit it into evidence.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D116.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Exhibit D116 is admitted into evidence.
18 We adjourn. We'll resume tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, in this
19 same courtroom.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of
22 June, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.