Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6390

1 Thursday, 28 June 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

7 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

9 I would like to briefly deal with a few matters, procedural

10 matters. The first is that the registry has informally given notice to

11 the Trial Chamber that none of the witnesses subpoenaed for the 25th or

12 the 26th of June - and I'm talking about Witnesses with the number 10;

13 Witness with number 48 in the tentative order of testimony; and Witness

14 30 - that none of them has presented himself at the premises of the

15 Tribunal.

16 The next matter is the Defence would indicate which exhibits used

17 during the testimony of Bogdan Tomas would be tendered, and perhaps we

18 could -- the Defence could refer to the tabs in the yellow binder so that

19 Madam Registrar is able to assign numbers to the extent not yet done,

20 prepare it so that a further -- further submissions on admission of these

21 exhibits can take place.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Can I go through them in order?


24 MR. EMMERSON: Number 1 is already exhibited.


Page 6391

1 MR. EMMERSON: Numbers 2 to 11 are tendered.

2 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar informs me, Mr. Emmerson, that 2 is

5 also exhibited already, so that would then make 3 to 11.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any others?

8 MR. EMMERSON: Then number 12 is already exhibited, it's an

9 extract from D85.


11 MR. EMMERSON: 13 is not tendered at this stage. That witness is

12 due to be called.


14 MR. EMMERSON: 14 has in a redacted form been tendered in the

15 context of the evidence of the witnesses currently in the witness box.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I wondered, I think that that's perhaps a matter

17 to be discussed, that is, if we have an unredacted copy of a statement

18 tendered and admitted into evidence, whether the public version which

19 gives less and adds nothing at all, but only makes clear that -- for the

20 public that this document or at least the totality of the document is in

21 evidence, whether we should admit that for --

22 MR. EMMERSON: In this --

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- for evidentiary purposes there's no reason for it.

24 MR. EMMERSON: In this context I think there may be in the sense

25 that this is not a redacted document where the redactions exist in order

Page 6392

1 to preserve confidentiality. This is a document that was redacted because

2 the Trial Chamber excluded portions of that witness's 92 ter statement

3 from admission to the record and that was done subsequent to the inclusion

4 of the unredacted version in this bundle.


6 MR. EMMERSON: So that -- in fact, none of the passages upon which

7 I cross-examined are passages which have since been redacted. So I think

8 the sensible course would be for tab 14 to be substituted with the

9 redacted version.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's understood.

11 MR. EMMERSON: But in any event, it's -- it is a -- it is already

12 an admitted document.


14 MR. EMMERSON: Tab 15 is awaiting the evidence of the witness who

15 is to come next. Tab 16 was not the subject of cross-examination, but is

16 likely to be the subject of cross-examination with either the current

17 witness or the witness to follow --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then --

19 MR. EMMERSON: We can wait until -- unless Your Honour wishes --

20 JUDGE ORIE: No. If that would be the case, you can tender that

21 when this material is used.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you. And tab 17, likewise, is not tendered

23 at this stage.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.

25 Madam Registrar will prepare a list, will assign numbers, and once

Page 6393

1 she has done that we can deal with the matter.

2 MR. EMMERSON: As I stand here, I'm conscious of the fact that

3 there may be two other exhibits between 3 and 11 which have already been

4 assigned exhibit numbers during the evidence in chief of Mr. Tomas and I

5 will, if I may, cross-check that with Madam Registrar in the next break to

6 ensure that they have same documents which require some different

7 assessment.

8 JUDGE ORIE: At least it's clear what the Defence would like to

9 have in evidence and then please verify with Madam Registrar what is

10 already in evidence.

11 Then my next question is: Is the -- the 92 ter statement, the

12 redacted statement of the present witness, that is, P377 where certain

13 parts have been excluded, is a hard copy with the redactions available and

14 has it been uploaded in the system?

15 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, it has been provided to the registry

16 to be uploaded into e-court, and I believe there is a hard copy available.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we don't need seven or eight hard

18 copies, but at least just one hard copy just to verify whether it --

19 whether the redactions are in line with the decision of the Chamber.

20 MS. ISSA: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, is there any objection against admission of the

22 redacted P377 and the photos, that's P378. I see no objections, therefore

23 P377 and P378 are admitted into evidence.

24 The Chamber is aware that you, Ms. Issa, you'd like to have some

25 additional time for the examination-in-chief of the present witness. Is

Page 6394

1 that correctly understood?

2 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, there was some time taken up with

3 the submissions yesterday as well as the numerous objections, and I'm

4 hoping to stream-line it as much as I possibly can, and I would ask for a

5 bit more time.


7 Then the next issue, the Chamber has been informed -- the Chamber

8 has been informed that there's an issue -- a disclosure issue, a

9 disclosure issue in relation to a statement taken on the 4th of January of

10 this year, a statement from Mr. Musaj. Is that correct?

11 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, that is correct.



14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue with that.

15 Disclosure, Mr. Re, has now taken place under what rule?

16 MR. RE: Rule 66.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Rule 66.

18 MR. RE: Yeah. It's a statement the OTP had of Mr. Ljulj Musaj.


20 MR. RE: Of the 14th -- sorry, the 4th of January, earlier this

21 year.


23 MR. RE: In terms of the reason for disclosure today, the only

24 thing I can say is that it was just overlooked during the disclosure

25 process. It was found during a search, which is ongoing, under the words

Page 6395

1 "Lake Radonjic"." We do a lot of different searches -- searches under

2 different terms, witness names, KLA terms, and we're doing one under

3 Lake Radonjic and this came up. Now, of course, this should have been

4 disclosed earlier under Rule 66B. And I apologise for that oversight.


6 MR. RE: However, I make quite clear having viewed the statement

7 that the Defence cross-examined the witness on, the Defence statement and

8 the Prosecution statement, there is virtually no difference in substance.

9 In fact, the Prosecution statement mentions the fact that the witness

10 had -- or Mr. Musaj had spoken to two English people --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, if I can stop you there. I do understand

12 that you concede it should have been disclosed earlier. And now you start

13 explaining to us about the content. Isn't it for the Chamber itself to

14 deal with that?

15 MR. RE: Well, of course it is, but I anticipated the Defence are

16 about to tell you about the prejudice they might have suffered --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the before we start talking about it, why

18 has the Chamber not received a copy from the OTP?

19 MR. RE: Why haven't we given you a copy of the statement?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, why haven't you disclosed it to the Chamber and

21 only to the Defence?

22 MR. RE: I can't answer that. I do apologise. We should have

23 given it to you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Under Rule 67(C).

25 "If either party discovers additional evidence or material which

Page 6396

1 should have been disclosed earlier pursuant to the Rules, that party shall

2 immediately disclose that evidence or material to the other party and the

3 Trial Chamber."

4 Before we have any further discussions on the matter, the Chamber

5 would insist on compliance with Rule 67(C).

6 MR. RE: We will get it to the Trial Chamber immediately, and

7 again I apologise for overlooking the provisions of Rule 67(C).

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.

9 The Chamber would rather not discuss it any further at this moment

10 until it has seen that material.

11 Then the Chamber was informed that as far as scheduling next week

12 is concerned, that the parties would meet and see whether they could

13 resolve the matter.

14 MR. EMMERSON: Certain matters have been resolved --


16 MR. EMMERSON: -- as I understand it. So far as the next witness

17 is concerned, if we reach the point today when that witness is to start

18 his evidence in chief, which I think may be an open question, but if we do

19 then, as we indicated to the Trial Chamber yesterday afternoon,

20 Mr. Dutertre has been kind enough to waive strict compliance with the

21 Trial Chamber's order for disclosure at the time that the witness is sworn

22 in and the materials to be used in cross-examination. And so it's likely

23 that that witness will take up a significant portion of the day on Monday.

24 I think the Trial Chamber has been copied in on an exchange of

25 correspondence so far as the two Prosecution pathologists are concerned --

Page 6397

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, just to put that on the record there was some

2 debate about whether there had been an oral announcement of these two

3 experts to be called next week. Parties disagree on these facts. The

4 Chamber is not very much inclined at this moment to further explore those

5 facts but just establishes that there was disagreement on that. And the

6 Defence has explained its difficulties to cross-examine those experts.

7 MR. EMMERSON: The position is this, that there have been

8 discussions. The Defence have put forward by e-mail and face-to-face two

9 alternative proposals. One is to adjourn the evidence of both witnesses

10 until a later stage and the other is to hear their evidence in chief and

11 have them recalled at a later stage, and I think the Prosecution are

12 currently considering those suggestions and hopefully will be in a

13 position to respond to them later in the course of the day.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Chamber will wait and see what the

15 response or hear what the response of the Prosecution will be.

16 MR. RE: Mr. Emmerson has outlined correctly. We are considering

17 and trying to jiggle things around a bit.


19 MR. RE: In relation to the Rule 67(C) matter you raised a moment

20 ago, if Your Honours require submissions on it today --

21 JUDGE ORIE: No submissions, the Chamber -- I think that's the

22 gist of Rule 67(C) that if there's late disclosure that by disclosing the

23 material to the Chamber, the Chamber can form a provisional opinion on

24 what that material is, what the impact might be, and it may invite the

25 parties for further submissions.

Page 6398

1 MR. RE: I understand. All I was asking was I wish to leave my

2 colleagues to tend to this witness, and if my presence is required a

3 message can be sent to me. That's all I'm asking.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment. If you start copying this 4th of

5 January statement, Mr. Re, and send it to the Chamber, that would be

6 appreciated.

7 Then we'll hear later this afternoon, we'll hear from the

8 Prosecution what their position will be in relation to the witnesses to be

9 called next week.

10 Yes, Mr. Emmerson.

11 MR. EMMERSON: Just one other matter. Can I inquire whether the

12 Trial Chamber have been provided with a copy of an e-mail from the Defence

13 to the Prosecution identifying certain paragraphs in the 92 ter statement

14 of the next witness to which objection is taken?

15 JUDGE ORIE: I think as a matter of fact if that is the e-mail --

16 I think we -- let me just check. If that's the one of 12.41 p.m. of

17 today, sent by Mr. Dixon to Mr. Re, that has been forwarded meanwhile to

18 the Chamber.

19 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very much obliged. That will give the Chamber

20 an opportunity to consider those paragraphs at some point.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least we can read them and prepare ourselves

22 for further submissions on the matter.

23 MR. RE: Just on that matter, I did copy an e-mail to the Chambers

24 on this very matter. We would explicitly asked that this be done in

25 writing, and I'm grateful they have done it this time before the witness

Page 6399

1 takes the stand and so we can resolve it and the time is not taken from

2 our examination-in-chief time.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I do understand from what I remember that

4 Mr. Emmerson responded that he took your point and that he apologised for

5 not having done it. So therefore the Chamber was delighted to see that

6 that finally had been settled.

7 MR. EMMERSON: And finally this: We have today filed a motion for

8 the exclusion of certain portions of the evidence of the next witness, and

9 that is obviously a matter which at some point Your Honours will want to

10 consider and perhaps give directions upon, but it may be that if we reach

11 the position where the next witness is called some preliminary directions

12 will need to be given as to how to handle that part of his evidence.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I understand that. I'm looking forward to the next

14 break so that I can read it.

15 Mr. Guy-Smith.

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I had a brief conversation today with Mr. Dutertre

17 concerning any objections or suggestions we might have with regard to the

18 next 92 ter. I informed that I would be getting them to him this

19 afternoon. We're trying to coordinate to make sure that we don't try to

20 re-invent the wheel too many times and that information will be

21 forthcoming by hopefully the end of proceedings today.

22 JUDGE ORIE: You say that is in addition to any information

23 conveyed by Mr. Dixon as well?

24 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is correct.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That is understood this happen and the informal

Page 6400

1 exchange of information, practical information, is now on the record as it

2 should be.

3 Ms. Issa, are you ready to continue the examination-in-chief of

4 Mr. Bajcetic?

5 MS. ISSA: Yes, I am, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Usher, would you please escort the

7 witness into the courtroom.

8 MR. EMMERSON: Whilst that's being done, before Mr. Re leaves the

9 courtroom, I wonder if we might pencil in a point in time during the

10 afternoon session to return to the question of the schedule for next week

11 once the Prosecution have had an opportunity to consider its position.

12 MR. RE: That's what I'm just about to go and do. Of course I'm

13 available at any time this afternoon. I'm making the necessary inquiries

14 now.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we'll hear from you as soon as

16 possible.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 [The witness entered court]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Bajcetic. I would like to remind

20 you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave yesterday

21 at the beginning of your testimony. Ms. Issa will now continue the

22 examination-in-chief.

23 Ms. Issa, please proceed.

24 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.


Page 6401

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 Examination by Ms. Issa: [Continued]

3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bajcetic.

4 A. Good afternoon to you, too.

5 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Bajcetic, we left off when you said at page 108 of

6 the transcript, lines 22 to 25 for the Chamber's reference, that you

7 referred to 30 or even 43 persons were mentioned; therefore, we have to

8 establish where these people were, who had kidnapped them, and whether

9 they were alive at all. And His Honour Judge Orie asked you a question as

10 to how you arrived at that number, 43 persons.

11 I'd like to just deal with that for a few minutes. Without

12 necessarily linking it to the KLA, can you explain when there was a

13 kidnapping in the Dukagjini Zone area in 1998 when you were there, was the

14 RDB Djakovica contacted?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How was the RDB Djakovica contacted?

17 MR. EMMERSON: I don't want to be continually interrupting

18 Ms. Issa, but this is a question which proceeds from an assumption that a

19 kidnapping has occurred asked for generalisations, not a particular

20 kidnapping or a particular incident but incidents in general, and then

21 asks for a question which is incapable of a sensible answer in terms of

22 how in general terms was the RDB contacted. Because if -- what the

23 witness is being asked to comment on is a pattern of incidents in which

24 missing persons details have been recorded. That is not something that is

25 acceptable of an answer in a form of a generalisation of that kind.

Page 6402

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, your objection, after having consulted

3 my fellow Judges, is denied.

4 You may proceed, Ms. Issa.


6 Q. Can you answer that question please, sir, how was the RDB

7 contacted if there was a kidnapping in that area?

8 A. Simply speaking, on the basis of the information received from

9 various sources, as I've already explained, from the relatives, from the

10 Albanians who were able to gain such information, or from SUP, all those

11 pieces of information arrived in SUP and then they contacted us because

12 they wanted us to provide assistance, both in the technical and operative

13 sense. We had certain technology, equipment, that made it possible for us

14 where these people were, who had kidnapped them, and whether they were

15 alive at all.

16 Q. Okay. And how many relatives of Albanians would you say

17 approached the RDB in regards to missing persons or kidnappings?

18 A. I can't give you the exact number, but when it comes to those two

19 young people who were found in the canal of Lake Radonjic, I can tell you

20 that they not only did it through their connections and relatives, but

21 they also turned to SUP to provide them assistance in their work.

22 Q. Okay. Well, just to clarify that, what are you -- who are you

23 referring to when you say "two young people"?

24 A. The two young people who were found dead in a car, which was

25 located under the cascade of the canal leading to Lake Radonjic.

Page 6403

1 Q. And what specific information did you receive in regards to those

2 two young people?

3 A. The specific information we received was that the two were a

4 couple, a married couple, Albanians of Catholic faith, who had simply gone

5 missing. So we started searching for them, too.

6 Q. And when did you receive this information?

7 A. Well, this could have been in early September. It's hard for me

8 now to be more specific about the date, but early September of 1998.

9 Q. And just to be absolutely clear, when did you receive the

10 information that they were missing?

11 A. This could have been in late August, not prior to that.

12 Q. And from whom did you receive the information?

13 A. We received it from the SUP. The RDB received it from SUP.

14 Q. Were reports regarding -- you mentioned the SUP earlier as well.

15 Were reports regarding missing persons or kidnappings provided to the RDB

16 by the SUP?

17 A. They informed us regularly about that in the hope that we would

18 provide assistance to them in their investigation in the criminal segment

19 of the investigation.

20 Q. You also mentioned that you had technology that would assist you

21 in investigating missing persons or kidnappings in this area at that time.

22 Can you be more specific as to what you were referring to?

23 A. Well, at the time we had at our disposal certain capabilities for

24 wire-tapping, telephone conversations of those persons whom we believed

25 could provide further details about the whereabouts of missing persons.

Page 6404

1 Q. And specifically, can you tell us what time-period you were --

2 you're referring to when you refer to 43 kidnappings.

3 A. I'm referring to the time-period when I was there, that is to say

4 from the 1st of July, 1998, to the 1st of October or 1st of November,

5 1998.

6 Q. And how did you arrive at that figure of 43 --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, you are -- in your questions, you're now

8 speaking about kidnappings again, whereas the witness earlier said that

9 they received reports of missing persons or kidnappings. Now, the 43 I

10 understood are under the total category of persons that went missing, and

11 where there may have been suspicions in respect of some or that they might

12 have been kidnapped by whomever, could you please clarify with the witness

13 whether the 43 are the category -- this mixed category, that is all

14 missing and some of them suspicions that they might have been -- or even

15 perhaps even indications that they might have been kidnapped.

16 Please proceed.

17 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

18 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, you heard His Honour's question. Are you able to

19 answer that, please?

20 A. Yes, I understood it. We continuously received information about

21 how many people went missing or were kidnapped. It's not like we received

22 all of the information on one day or at one moment. We compiled lists.

23 Sometimes the pieces of information we received were incorrect, and we

24 needed to compare them and reconcile in order to arrive at the most

25 accurate number of people missing and their identities. So we couldn't

Page 6405

1 speak of receiving all of the information at the same time on the same

2 day, no; we received it over a period of time.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, the 43 you were talking about were people

4 that at least went missing and who you identified who they were?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.


8 Q. Based on this information that you refer to, were you able to

9 identify some of those as potential or suspected kidnappings as opposed to

10 people who went missing?

11 A. Yes, we were able. Those were the people who had relatives in

12 Djakovica or who had relatives in SUP, such as the Vlahovic family,

13 Radunovic family, Radosevic family, but we didn't know the exact number of

14 those people who went missing or were kidnapped.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, I take it that you are aware of what

16 evidence, I would say what better and direct evidence, the Chamber

17 received in view of some of these cases.

18 MS. ISSA: Yes, I am. I'm going to move on.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And the Chamber doesn't think it is of great

20 assistance to have an indirect report in addition to more direct evidence.

21 Please proceed.

22 MS. ISSA: Yes. I'll move on, Your Honour. Thank you.

23 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, in paragraph 31 of your statement you mention that

24 the Dukagjini area was inaccessible to the MUP police patrols between

25 March 1998 and the end of September 1998 unless an operation was staged.

Page 6406

1 Can you explain why it was inaccessible?

2 A. That area was completely inaccessible for the simple reason that

3 it was dominated by the armed formations which had proclaimed themselves

4 as KLA. We used to refer to them as terrorist and rebel groups or

5 sabotage groups. We referred to them in that way because up until the 1st

6 of July they did not have uniforms, nor did they have clear insignia. So

7 we referred to them in this way in order to denote that they were not a

8 military formation.

9 Q. And after the 1st of July?

10 A. After the 1st of July, gradually, not all of them, but gradually

11 they started wearing uniforms and inscription on their sleeves, saying

12 "UCK" or "KLA."

13 Q. How did you learn this? How do you know that that's --

14 A. There were people who had direct contact with them out on the

15 ground, people who spotted them visually. In addition to that we also

16 received photographs when searching people, or we would simply come across

17 photographs. A lot of them would take photographs of themselves in

18 uniforms and with weapons and we used to come across such photographs.

19 Q. Okay. Are you able to tell us which roads specifically were

20 inaccessible during that period or which roads you were able to access in

21 the Dukagjini area during that period?

22 A. As for Djakovica, Djakovica-Pec road via Decani was not safe

23 because by the village of Rastavica, Babaloc, Crni Breg, Streoc, there

24 were cases of shooting on people travelling in vehicles, be it police or

25 civilians. So everything to the right and to the left of the road from

Page 6407

1 Djakovica to Decani and Pec was not safe, I'm speaking of the village

2 roads. As for the Djakovica-Prizren road, that road was a bit safer

3 because armed people would not appear there -- or at least they would

4 appear in fewer numbers in the vicinity of that road. In addition to

5 this, one couldn't travel towards Pristina on the road going from Pec to

6 Klina and Pristina, nor could one travel from Djakovica through the

7 village of Rakovina towards Pristina. Everybody had to use

8 Djakovica-Prizren-Brezovica and then Prizren road.

9 MS. ISSA: At this point I would like to call-up Exhibit D32,

10 please.

11 Q. And perhaps while we're waiting for that, I just want to briefly

12 refer you to paragraph 32 of your statements. In that paragraph, sir, you

13 refer to the 8th September 1998 an operation was mounted by the MUP, you

14 say, in order to investigate the bodies located in the Lake Radonjic area.

15 Then you go on and you say: "Prior to this operation there were regular

16 clashes in this area throughout the time."

17 And I just want you to clarify that. When you say: "Prior to

18 this operation there were regular clashes in this area throughout the

19 time," which area are you referring to?

20 A. I'm referring specifically to the area around the village of

21 Istinic, village of Rznic, Glodjane, that area.

22 Q. So you're not referring to the Lake Radonjic area --

23 MR. EMMERSON: Please, please --


25 MR. EMMERSON: That's an extraordinarily leading question to put

Page 6408

1 in this context; quite improper.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes it is. Ms. Issa, would you please withdraw that

3 question.

4 MS. ISSA: I will, Your Honour.

5 Q. Did that area where regular clashes occurred, sir, include any

6 part of the -- include the Lake Radonjic area?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can you be more specific as to what you mean by that. Was the

9 Lake Radonjic area accessible to you during that period of time?

10 MR. EMMERSON: To whom?

11 MS. ISSA:

12 Q. To the MUP or to the RDB?

13 A. No. I don't know exactly what triggered it, but there were very

14 fierce clashes sometime in the second half of August of 1998 when certain

15 areas were destroyed. One could see dead animals and so on. Based on

16 that what one could see when going to Lake Radonjic was that there were

17 very serious clashes in that area -- that there had been very serious

18 clashes in that area.

19 Q. And when did those serious clashes begin?

20 A. Well, one could say that fierce clashes started on the 1st of

21 July. It's hard to pin-point the date as being the 1st of July, but

22 starting on the 1st of July there erupted fierce clashes between armed

23 Albanians and police forces.

24 Q. Okay.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one clarifying question. In your

Page 6409

1 previous answer you said: "One could see dead animals and so on. Based

2 on that what one could see when going to Lake Radonjic that there had been

3 serious clashes ..." Could you tell us how by going at a certain moment to

4 Lake Radonjic and by seeing dead animals, how you could give a date to

5 these clashes. Or is there other sources of information you used to give

6 us the time-period in which these clashes may have taken place?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot pin-point the date. It's

8 been nine years. However, as we turned off the road to Djakovica-Decani

9 to the right on to an asphalt road, on both sides of that road there were

10 wrecked houses and carcasses. One could observe that clearly. The rubble

11 and carcasses had not been removed by then.

12 JUDGE ORIE: If you said: "As we turned off the road to

13 Djakovica-Decani to the right," what date are you talking about?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm speaking of the date when I was

15 there for the first time, which was on the 10th of September, 1998, that

16 was the first time I was there.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

18 Please proceed, Ms. Issa.

19 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

20 Q. Exhibit D32 is now on your screen, and with perhaps the assistance

21 of Madam Usher, I'd like to ask you if you can circle the area that was

22 inaccessible that you mentioned earlier without mounting or staging an

23 operation.

24 A. Could we blow it up a bit.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we first find the right -- the right picture

Page 6410

1 where the witness thinks he could draw the lines, because once we start

2 marking we can't zoom-in or zoom-out anymore.

3 MS. ISSA: Okay well --

4 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore perhaps if we zoom -- is the area, as

5 you said, it was inaccessible without mounting an operation, is that

6 totally visible now on the map you see on the screen or is it a larger

7 area?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see the writings here at

9 all. I can see Djakovica, but I really can't make out the place names in

10 the surrounding quadrants.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just have a look. Yes. Perhaps we first

12 zoom-in.

13 Would you please tell us when we have zoomed-in to such an extent

14 that still the whole area you would like to mark as the area where you

15 would have no access, when that's on the screen.

16 So could we zoom-in, please.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There it is. Now I have it on the

18 screen.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the whole of the area you would like to

20 mark is now on the screen? Do I understand that?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Can you now also read --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it --

24 JUDGE ORIE: -- the names of the villages and -- are you able to

25 orient yourself on this map now?

Page 6411

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, of course.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- Ms. Issa, would you give clear instructions

3 to the witness what to mark exactly.

4 MS. ISSA: Yes.

5 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, after you feel comfortable that you've oriented

6 yourself before you begin writing, I would like you to draw a circle

7 around the entire area that was inaccessible without launching or mounting

8 an operation during the period of time that you were there in -- when you

9 were working out of Djakovica.

10 A. The entire area?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. [Marks]

13 Q. Is that the entire area or should we actually move the map a

14 little bit further up.

15 JUDGE ORIE: No, that's impossible, as I said before --

16 MS. ISSA: Yes --

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- we can't -- but we can move it up -- we can

18 certainly not zoom-in and out. And whether we can move it, I'm not quite

19 certain. No, we can't move it either.

20 MS. ISSA:

21 Q. Can you confirm, Mr. Bajcetic, whether that's the entire area that

22 you were referring to?

23 A. This is most of the area. We can see Decani, Djakovica, and the

24 villages to the right and to the left of the road. Junik was quite

25 inaccessible. It's a pretty large village, then beyond that one, we can

Page 6412

1 see it here, was the villages of Dobros. And then the other villages,

2 Dujak, Zdrelo, Glamoc, Dubrava, Glodjane, Rznic, Pozar, Gornji and Donji

3 Ratis, Dasinovac, Zabelj, Jablanica, these are all the villages.

4 Q. Okay. Thank you.

5 MS. ISSA: I would like to tender that as an exhibit.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be number ...?

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be P379, marked for

8 identification.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections against admission? No. Then it is

10 admitted into evidence.

11 MS. ISSA:

12 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, I'd like to now move to paragraph 36 of your

13 statement. In paragraph 35 you mention that two KLA fighters that had

14 been arrested, Ljulj Musaj and Zenelj Alija provided information about the

15 Lake Radonjic and Dasinovac site and then in paragraph 36 you say that

16 this information from the two KLA members confirmed previous information

17 about missing or kidnapped persons. Can you explain exactly what this

18 previous information was.

19 A. When such large numbers of people go missing, of course it becomes

20 the focus of attention and then the information is collected in various

21 ways. First of all, there's the family. I mentioned Rade Vlahovic as one

22 of the individuals whose families were killed, and then I mentioned

23 Momcilo Stijovic who was a police officer and had his family in the area.

24 He was in touch with Albanians who were able to provide him with

25 information. He was on friendly terms with some of them. I was able to

Page 6413

1 see that for myself.

2 Then we had information collected through our technology and

3 then through our operative work in the field, through our associates, and

4 it was on the basis of these pieces of information that we decided in

5 which direction to turn our investigation.

6 Q. Okay. But apart from referring to information or intelligence as

7 to missing persons, did you have any other information that caused you to

8 confirm -- that was confirmed by the information that was provided by

9 Alija and Musaj?

10 A. For the most part information I referred to so far, it was

11 Ljulj Musaj and Zenelj Alija who provided crucial information. We decided

12 to follow-up on that and to verify the veracity of the information.

13 Q. Okay. You mentioned that Rade Vlahovic and Momcilo Stijovic

14 provided information regarding missing family members. Who exactly are

15 Rade Vlahovic and Momcilo Stijovic?

16 A. Rade Vlahovic was a policeman who worked for the civilian

17 department. His parents went missing at the time. Momcilo Stijovic was

18 also a policeman from the area who was a uniformed police officer. My

19 impression was that both of them had been on friendly terms from some

20 Albanians from the area before the conflict and during the conflict.

21 Q. What do you base that impression on?

22 A. To put it simply, I base it on the fact that at the time I heard

23 from Momcilo Stijovic himself that the Albanians had helped him to

24 transport some of his belongings out of his house by tractor. This was

25 part of his effort to evacuate his belongings from the area.

Page 6414

1 Q. Apart from Zenelj Alija and Ljulj Musaj, were you aware of any

2 other KLA members that had been arrested by the MUP who provided similar

3 information?

4 A. I am aware of that. I just don't know the identity of the man.

5 It was on the 8th that the MUP had taken him to Lake Radonjic, it wasn't

6 us, that's why I don't know his identity.

7 Q. And why were Alija and Musaj turned over to the RDB?

8 A. Because the MUP did not cover that professional part of arriving

9 at information in an analytical way. We were far more professional and

10 experienced in that area of work and it was our job to do that.

11 Q. I'm going to paragraph 20 of your statement, Mr. Bajcetic. You

12 say that you received information about the command structure of the KLA

13 through documents that were seized by the RDB in the manner that you

14 describe in paragraph 18 of your statement and from members of the KLA who

15 had been arrested. Can you explain what that information was that you

16 received?

17 A. Wherever the armed Albanians retreated, they left documents

18 behind. At that point in time, we had in our possession large amounts of

19 documents. The documents predominantly related to the formation of groups

20 engaged in illegal trafficking of weapons from Albania into Kosovo. We

21 knew when they were supposed to go and where. We knew which people were

22 engaged in digging up trenches. There were orders addressing certain

23 persons and telling them where to go and who to report to. Simply, these

24 were documents that we were able to find in the field.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, we don't have these documents, do we?

Page 6415

1 MS. ISSA: No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We don't whether these are documents the same as some

3 of the documents we have seen, do we?

4 MS. ISSA: I don't believe so, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No. Now, this witness is interpreting documents.

6 Now we have heard quite a bit of direct and better evidence, where we have

7 seen quite some documents. To what extent would it assist the Chamber to

8 hear the interpretation of unknown documents, perhaps the same, perhaps

9 different ones, by a witness where we have had quite a lot of witnesses

10 who testified about structures. So to that extent it -- I wonder whether

11 it's of great use to pursue the matter in the way we're doing at this

12 moment.

13 MS. ISSA: I'll move on, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed. Of course if there's any

15 concrete matter, if you say I saw a document, this document, dated that

16 and that day giving orders there, then we have the problem that we don't

17 have the document. But that's of course from saying I've seen a lot of

18 documents about where to go, what to do, that's -- it's rather vague.

19 Please proceed.

20 MS. ISSA:

21 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, in your statements, you say that you visited the

22 crime sites of Lake Radonjic canal, the Ekonomija farm, and Dasinovac.

23 You also say that you viewed video-clips of these sites before at some

24 point and also you viewed video-clips of these sites in Belgrade when you

25 gave a related statement in May of 2007. Is that correct?

Page 6416

1 A. That's correct.

2 MS. ISSA: I'd like to call-up Exhibit P72, please. It's

3 actually a video. Thank you.

4 [Videotape played]

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is from Dasinovci and

6 this is Zenelj Alija.


8 Q. Okay. Thank you.

9 MS. ISSA: You can just stop there.

10 Q. So is this the same video, sir, you viewed previously, which is

11 referred to in the statement, which includes the --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- the 10th and the 8th and the 9th as well?

14 A. Yes, that's the one from Dasinovac.

15 [Prosecution counsel confer]

16 MS. ISSA: I have no further questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Issa. I may have missed something,

18 but the dates and the times on this video are rather confusing. I do

19 understand that it has been reconstructed because some of these pictures

20 certainly are not taken at 3.00 in the morning. Is there any agreement on

21 this reconstruction, or is there not, and has it yet been fully explained

22 to the Chamber, because we're looking again and again at pictures.

23 MS. ISSA: If I can clarify that, Your Honour.


25 MS. ISSA: It's actually -- the explanation is contained in

Page 6417

1 Mr. Bajcetic's 92 ter statement, and it's quite --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you point me to the paragraph then?

3 MS. ISSA: Yes.

4 MR. EMMERSON: Might the witness remove his earphones for this.


6 Could you please take off your earphones for a second,

7 Mr. Bajcetic.

8 MS. ISSA: I think, Your Honour, it starts at paragraph 79.


10 MS. ISSA: And then 80; and if you look at paragraph 83 in

11 particular, it -- there's an explanation as to how much time is --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say it's a.m. and p.m., which has

13 been --

14 MS. ISSA: Yes, there is a 12-hour difference.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That doesn't explain the difference in dates,

16 does it?

17 MS. ISSA: Yes, it does, because of the 12-hour difference, Your

18 Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: 12 hours earlier or later?

20 MS. ISSA: Twelve hours later, as explained in paragraph 82.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just --

22 MS. ISSA: I can certainly explore this --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Twelve hours later of the actual time. That's at

24 least what this witness told us.

25 Mr. Emmerson, is there any --

Page 6418

1 MR. EMMERSON: Is there any agreement on it?


3 MR. EMMERSON: The answer to that is no aspect of the evidence in

4 relation to this part of the case is agreed.


6 MR. EMMERSON: And there's another witness who is about to give

7 evidence who gives a different explanation.


9 MR. EMMERSON: Clearly, the time shown on the counter --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could not be --

11 MR. EMMERSON: -- could not be the time.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's the only, I think, you could agree

13 upon.

14 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we know where we stand.

16 Mr. Emmerson, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Bajcetic?

17 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I am.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic, you will now be cross-examined by

19 Mr. Emmerson, who is counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.

20 Oh, I'm sorry. Please put on your earphones again. You'll now be

21 cross-examined by Mr. Emmerson, who is counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.

22 Ms. Issa.

23 MS. ISSA: Yes, sorry, Your Honour.


25 MS. ISSA: I just wondered if it would be possible to, perhaps,

Page 6419

1 provide the witness with a copy of the Serbian version of his statement,

2 in the event he will be cross-examined on his statement to be completely

3 fair to the witness.

4 MR. EMMERSON: It is behind tab 14 in the yellow file.

5 MS. ISSA: We actually have a copy which we could provide to the

6 witness.

7 JUDGE ORIE: No, there are more documents to be shown.

8 MS. ISSA: Okay.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And this one is in the yellow binder which will be

10 provided to the witness.

11 MR. EMMERSON: There is another binder to be provided, volume 2 --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Volume 2.

13 MR. EMMERSON: -- which is a brown binder.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic, binders are provided to you. You're

15 supposed to look at those portions when Mr. Emmerson invites you to do so;

16 and if he doesn't invite you, just leave them as they are.

17 Yes.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:

19 Q. For -- by way of explanation, the yellow binder you have in front

20 of you is volume 1, and you're about to be handed a brown binder which is

21 volume 2. So when I refer to volume 2, I'm referring to the brown binder.

22 Could we start, please, by looking at your witness statement in

23 these proceedings, which is behind tab 14 in the yellow binder and which

24 you signed on the 24th of May of this year. And, perhaps, you would turn

25 to paragraph 18, first of all. Do you have that? Mr. Bajcetic, do you

Page 6420

1 have paragraph 18?

2 A. Yes, yes.

3 Q. Thank you. I just want to go through that with you, please, if I

4 may, for a moment. You say in paragraph 18: "The public police (MUP) in

5 cooperation with our operatives seized documents from the KLA of precise

6 information on who smuggled weapons."

7 You say: "I cannot remember exactly which house they entered

8 first because they entered several houses and seized documentation. This

9 was done regularly throughout the period of time I was there, starting

10 from July 1998."

11 Pause there. Now, first of all, just so that we're clear, you've

12 told us that you were there from the 1st of July until either the 1st of

13 October or the 1st of November. Is that right?

14 A. That's right.

15 Q. And what's the reason for the uncertainty as to whether it's the

16 1st of October or the 1st of November?

17 A. For the simple reason that nine years have elapsed since. I

18 didn't consult the document posting me down there or the one which records

19 the date when I returned.

20 Q. I see. But during the time you were there, these seizures would

21 happen -- of documents would happen regularly. Is that right?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. How regularly? Can you give us a sense? Twice? Three times a

24 week? More or less than that?

25 A. One cannot put it that way, whether it was twice or three times a

Page 6421

1 week; rather, it was at the time when an operation was being carried out.

2 Q. I understand that. I just want to have a sense of how often those

3 seizures would occur. Use whatever formulation is most convenient to you.

4 A. Well, let's put it at once or twice a week, but these were

5 continuous activities in that period of time.

6 Q. I understand that. And they were activities conducted jointly by

7 the MUP acting in conjunction with your operatives, is that correct?

8 That's what you say in your statement "our operatives took part."

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And by your "operatives," let's be clear, are you speaking about

11 employees of the RDB from Djakovica or are you speaking about armed forces

12 of the JSO?

13 A. I'm speaking solely of the RDB members from Djakovica who were

14 seconded by several operatives from Belgrade, or rather, who were assisted

15 by several operatives from Belgrade. And they always went into the field

16 in civilian clothes with SUP members.

17 Q. With armed officers?

18 A. The police was armed, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. And just while we're on that subject, you know that

20 the JSO was part of the RDB at this point, don't you?

21 A. In that area in the period we're discussing, there was never any

22 JSO. We're talking about the period between the 1st of July and the 1st

23 of October or the 1st of November. In that period of time, the JSO was

24 never stationed there.

25 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, that's a lie, isn't it? There was a JSO barracks

Page 6422

1 just outside Decan, which was observed --

2 A. But not in Djakovica.

3 Q. Oh, I see. I'm sorry. Not in Djakovica, but in Decan?

4 A. Not in Djakovica.

5 Q. I see.

6 A. I'm not certain about Decani either. I can tell you one piece of

7 information that I know for a fact: That in Dubrava prison, that's where

8 it was stationed, I'm not certain about Decani, but I know about Djakovica

9 that there weren't any for a fact.

10 Q. Well, we've heard evidence in this courtroom that the JSO had a

11 barracks just outside Decan. Are you saying that that's not true or you

12 didn't know one way or the other?

13 A. I would say that I didn't know either way. I certainly didn't

14 visit the barracks to know. I'm not -- I know about Djakovica, that there

15 weren't any, and I heard about Dubrava near Istok and I know that there

16 were some there.

17 Q. The JSO was part of the RDB at this time, was it not?

18 A. Yes, it was.

19 Q. Did you never see an officer of the JSO at any time whilst you

20 were in Kosovo between the 1st of July and the time that you left in

21 October or November?

22 A. No, I wasn't in touch with them, was I?

23 Q. I see. So coming back to paragraph 18, these operations that were

24 being conducted once or twice a week, if we look at the bottom of that

25 paragraph and it lists the areas where they were being conducted:

Page 6423

1 "Smonica, Jablanica, Rastavica, Babaloc, Dujak, Skivjan, Reka Kec,

2 Glodjane, and Rznic."

3 So can we take it, therefore, then that those areas were being

4 entered by the forces you have described once or twice a week during the

5 period between the 1st of July and the time when you left Kosovo?

6 A. As for this period, the period on discussion here, they didn't

7 enter all these villages all at the same time, at any point in time. It

8 really depended on where the police had been attacked or maybe there had

9 been an attack to the civilians; and in such cases, one went to those

10 villages. Like this, there was no reason to cause another conflict, and

11 that's why one didn't go there.

12 Q. Yes, I understand that, but the forces of the Serbian police could

13 go there and did go there when the need arose. Is that your evidence?

14 A. Whenever the need arose, that's right. If there was an attack,

15 for example, if civilians had come under threat, in those cases they did

16 go, yes.

17 Q. And as you've told Ms. Issa in your evidence just a little while

18 ago, that included from the 1st of July a number of clashes between

19 Albanian forces and Serbian forces. Is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you gave us a description of the areas where those clashes

22 occurred during this period from the 1st of July, and that included the

23 area around Gllogjan and Irzniq and Lake Radoniq?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And if we just look at paragraph 29 of your witness statement, you

Page 6424

1 explain that in a little more detail, I think. You say: "From March 1998

2 onwards, the fighting between the MUP and the KLA continued, and it

3 particularly intensified from the 1st of July." You say that many roads

4 were unsafe, that the KLA carried out attacks on the police, and on

5 civilians you say. You say: "This happened almost on a daily basis,

6 mostly on the roads and junction and crossroads. Sometimes," you say,"

7 the MUP returned fire and other times the MUP would organise the operation

8 the next day and some persons were arrested."

9 Is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

12 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'm objecting to that because it's

13 unclear whether paragraph 29 actually refers to any of the areas that --

14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm just about to ask --

15 MS. ISSA: -- my colleague just referred to.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that Mr. Emmerson intends to clarify

17 that.

18 Please proceed.


20 Q. Now, presumably the people who were arrested were believed to be

21 members of the KLA. Is that right?

22 A. Believed to be --

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. -- but not all were always necessarily members, were they?

25 Q. But they were believed to be either members of the KLA or

Page 6425

1 supporters of the KLA who had engaged in armed attacks. Is that right?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. And these would be people who were located within the areas either

4 side of the main road that you've described as being areas which the KLA

5 mainly controlled. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And so the operations that were taking place on the 1st of July

8 involved, if I can put it, arrest operations going into those areas. Is

9 that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that would include, would it, the areas you've described of

12 Gllogjan, Irzniq, and the Lake Radoniq canal on the eastern side of the

13 main road?

14 A. That is the right-hand side of the Djakovica-Decani road.

15 Q. Yes. It would include operations into those areas. Is that

16 right?

17 A. Yes, yes.

18 Q. Thank you. Now, you've given the 1st of July as a date from which

19 this process began to intensify. Can you just explain to us, was it from

20 the 1st of July, to your knowledge, that the number of clashes increased?

21 A. It was on the 1st of July that I arrived in Djakovica --

22 Q. Yes --

23 A. -- it was roughly that around that time the clashes intensified.

24 Q. Thank you. And that was information presumably that you acquired

25 in your capacity as deputy head of the RDB Gjakove?

Page 6426

1 A. I was assistant chief of the RDB in Djakovica. On account of the

2 growing intensity of the clashes, the central office in Belgrade decided

3 to reinforce the Djakovica set-up in purely operational terms.

4 Q. But my question, Mr. Bajcetic, is: In your capacity as assistant

5 chief, you were kept informed of these operations taking place and the

6 clashes that were taking place. Is that right?

7 A. This was common knowledge. We were all in the same building.

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. We knew what the areas were in which clashes were occurring.

10 There was no surprise factor in it, as it were.

11 Q. Thank you. And then we turn, if we may, to paragraph 32 when you

12 say this: "On the 8th of September, 1998, an operation was mounted by the

13 MUP in order to investigate the bodies located in the Lake Radonjic area.

14 Prior to this operation, there were regular clashes in this area

15 throughout the time. This area was not accessible until an operation was

16 mounted."

17 Is that the same period of time that you're describing these

18 clashes taking place; in other words, from the 1st of July?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And sometimes they would involve arrests. Is that right?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. And sometimes they would involve the seizure of documents?

23 A. Right again.

24 Q. And sometimes they would involve fire-fights between the KLA and

25 the Serbian forces in those areas?

Page 6427

1 A. Well, that's how it was for the most part.

2 Q. And quite fierce fire-fights from time to time?

3 A. Yes, yes. That's right.

4 Q. And were the PJP involved in those types of operations?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

6 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I think Mr. Emmerson's just asked a

7 series of rather vague questions because he's -- he hasn't specified a

8 specific time-period or what specific areas he's referring to, and it --

9 it's a little unclear at the moment.

10 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I think --

11 JUDGE ORIE: If we look at the context of it, you earlier made an

12 observation there, Ms. Issa. I did noted at that time respond when you

13 said 29 makes it unclear what area we're talking about. If you look for

14 paragraph 30 where, for example, Babaloc and Rastavica are specifically

15 mentioned, and we know where that's situated. If you look at 31: "From a

16 security point of view, the Dukagjini area had therefore become." So if

17 we read it in the context, I think there's no great confusion about it.

18 And I think Mr. Emmerson as far as time is concerned asked whether

19 that was on from the 1st of July, as the witness testified when the --

20 when the clashes intensified. So I think that is what Mr. Emmerson is

21 asking the witness about. If he understands that differently, if there's

22 any confusion, I'd like to know.

23 And, Mr. Emmerson, if I misunderstood your questions --

24 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour is quite right.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- I would like to know as well.

Page 6428

1 MR. EMMERSON: I had asked the witness about a number of specific

2 locations, including Gllogjan and Irzniq and the Lake Radoniq canal, and I

3 think the witness has answered them.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I must add to that that often we talk about the

5 Dukagjini area or Dukagjini Zone. Sometimes it's a reference to

6 administrative matters rather than anything else. The Lake Radonjic area

7 is not always sufficiently defined.

8 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, that's why I used the expression "Lake Radoniq

9 canal area."

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, not always today a reference was made to the

11 Lake Radonjic canal area; and even if you're talking about the canal area,

12 where does it stop? Does it stop after two kilometres? Does it stop

13 after ten kilometres? So, therefore, for the future not to revisit any

14 questions, if reference is made to the Lake Radonjic area or the Lake

15 Radonjic canal area, I would like to know what are the limits of that

16 area.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.


20 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, did the forces conducting these operations include

21 the PJP?

22 A. I don't know. This is a matter for the SUP. I'm not sure if they

23 got them involved or not. I wasn't a party at those meetings. I had

24 nothing to do with the SUP operations. We had a different kind of

25 cooperation. Whenever they arrested someone, they submit an assessment to

Page 6429

1 us and that's how our cooperation went in general terms.

2 Q. Now, we've heard evidence in this case that there were Serb

3 forces, both VJ and MUP, stationed in the area of Lake Radoniq canal. Did

4 you see those forces yourself or not?

5 A. No.

6 MS. ISSA: Sorry to interrupt again, Your Honours.


8 MS. ISSA: But I think the for the purpose of that question --


10 MS. ISSA: -- he needs to indicate when he's referring to.

11 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I --

12 JUDGE ORIE: And I would like there, perhaps, a bit more

13 precision, Mr. Emmerson, both in terms of where the Lake Radonjic canal

14 area is. Could you, please, refer to the evidence or the places where

15 these forces were stationed.

16 MR. EMMERSON: Absolutely. I was going to ask him if he had seen

17 them so he could assist with those questions. But if Your Honour would

18 like me to put specifics to him.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would very much like to.


21 Q. First of all, were you aware or did you personally see VJ or MUP

22 forces stationed on Radonicka Suka, sometimes called Suka Bitesh, an area

23 of elevated ground on the western side of Lake Radoniq?

24 A. The only time I saw any military men was on the 10th --

25 Q. I see.

Page 6430

1 A. -- If September 1998 when they were securing the area, when they

2 secured the area. They were deployed in a ring, and then down the depth

3 of the area. Therefore, they weren't necessarily readily apparent as a

4 military district formation.

5 Q. Very well. That's what you saw. Now, in your capacity as

6 assistant chief of the RDB Gjakove, were you aware of the fact that there

7 were VJ and MUP forces stationed on a hill immediately to the west of Lake

8 Radoniq?

9 A. All I know is in Babaloc there was a police station. I know that

10 for a fact.

11 Q. Very well.

12 A. I was there once on my way to Pec.

13 Q. So my question is: The operations that you've described taking

14 place between the 1st of July and the time when you left on a regular

15 basis, where would they launch from?

16 A. I can tell you about what I saw for myself. Some of those

17 operations were launched from --

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't get the name of the

19 place.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the name you just mentioned.

21 Launched from?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From Djakovica.

23 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

24 Would that be a convenient moment?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, first, since I'd like to discuss some

Page 6431

1 timing issues, but we don't need you for that.

2 So could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom. And we'll

3 have a break for approximately 25 minutes.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, could you give us an indication on how

6 much time you would still need?

7 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I think I've been cross-examining for about 15

8 minutes or thereabouts, perhaps a little bit longer.

9 JUDGE ORIE: A little bit longer I think, but we can check that.

10 MR. EMMERSON: I have enough cross-examination for this witness to

11 last the rest of the afternoon, but I'm -- and taking account of the fact

12 that I know Mr. Guy-Smith has some questions for him there will be some

13 re-examination. My aim would be to adjust the timing so we can complete

14 the witness today.


16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considered whether it would be possible

18 to finish the witness for today. The Chamber is a bit concerned that

19 there might be a lot of pushing at the very end, also for re-examination.

20 The subject of the testimony seems to be of great importance to this case.

21 There's another matter that the Chamber has considered not to sit after

22 the second break --

23 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

24 JUDGE ORIE: -- for reasons unrelated to this case. The Chamber

25 would have continued after the second break under Rule 15 bis if the

Page 6432

1 Chamber would have been confident if we could conclude the witness without

2 pushing and rushing too much today. The Chamber is not confident that

3 that is possible. Under those circumstances, where 15 bis should not be

4 applied -- yes, if it would not help us out to make the witness return

5 before the weekend, we would -- I do understand that my fellow Judges

6 would not consider it to be in the interest of justice to continue.

7 That's not within my competence to decide that, but that's whispered in my

8 ear from the right-hand side, that there would be no unanimity on the

9 interests of justice being served by continuing.

10 Therefore, under those circumstances, the Chamber will not try to

11 finish this witness today where we often make a great effort to do that.

12 MR. EMMERSON: If I may say so, I'm extremely grateful for that,

13 because he is a witness who needs careful examination and not to be placed

14 under the sort of time pressure that sometimes --

15 JUDGE ORIE: And also because re-examination might suffer from it.

16 So it's fine that you're grateful, but that, of course, would be the

17 totality of the testimony. Apart from that the Chamber does not know yet

18 whether we will have any questions for the witness.

19 MR. EMMERSON: I see.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So under those circumstances, we are not going to

21 rush to get him returned to his own place before the weekend.

22 This is not an invitation or an encouragement to take one minute

23 more than needed.

24 We'll have a break until quarter past 4.00, but, Mr. Kearney, if

25 there would be already some information from Mr. Re on next week, the

Page 6433

1 position of the Prosecution on the next week witnesses, then the Chamber

2 would like to hear it now so that we can consider it over the break.

3 MR. KEARNEY: I was just rising to discuss that issue, Your

4 Honour. I'm going to meet with Mr. Re right now. I'll have hopefully

5 some guidance for the Trial Chamber when we resume. But just to be clear,

6 today we are not going to here, be sitting in the third session that --

7 JUDGE ORIE: That's what the Trial Chamber -- we'll finish then at

8 approximately quarter past 5.00, 20 minutes past 5.00.

9 MR. KEARNEY: Is the Trial Chamber's thought to bring this witness

10 back on Monday?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if we're not finished by then, and it's very

12 unlikely that we would be finished by then, the witness to return on

13 Monday.

14 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And of course we -- I don't know whether you have any

16 indication whether the witness would have to travel back before the

17 weekend. Is there any indication that he could not remain until Monday?

18 MS. ISSA: No, Your Honour, there's no indication one way or the

19 other.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's then clear.

21 Mr. Kearney, if your position -- if you have discussed the

22 position with Mr. Re three or four lines in an e-mail would inform the

23 Chamber already in such a way that we do not lose time unnecessarily after

24 the break, and we'll give an opportunity to the Defence as well to

25 consider its position.

Page 6434

1 Yes.

2 MR. KEARNEY: Yes. I'm sorry, Your Honour. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll have a break until quarter past 4.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

6 [The witness takes the stand].

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic, there are a few matters which are not

8 relevant for you which I'd like to deal with very quickly.

9 We have received the motion to exclude ballistics. We first have

10 to read it, so there's no way to discuss it at this moment. Then we have

11 seen that there's a notification of an expert report under Rule 94 bis

12 which is related to the other issue. Then finally, we have received

13 Prosecution's motion for testimony in relation to Witness 55, that's

14 testimony through videolink. Yesterday I think Defence expressed that

15 they did not as such object testimony through videolink, but of course

16 that I would give an opportunity to comment on reasons. Having read it, I

17 would be surprised if we would have a lengthy debate on the reasons given.

18 I see that -- well, if there's any need to further discuss the reasons,

19 then the Chamber will hear from you, but we will proceed with the matter.

20 Then, Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

22 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, could you turn again to your own witness statement

23 to paragraph 38, please. Paragraph 38 you describe how two individuals,

24 Alija and Musaj, I think that's Zenelj Alija and Ljulj Musaj were arrested

25 by the MUP in the beginning of September, and you say that you're not

Page 6435

1 personally aware of the circumstances under which they were arrested.

2 That's an accurate statement of the position, is it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Can we please look at paragraph 39. You say: "After

5 they were arrested, the MUP handed over both KLA members to the RDB

6 Djakovica because of their KLA membership and their involvement in

7 terrorist activities. This happened at the very beginning of September

8 1998."

9 Now, pausing there, what happened at the very beginning of

10 September?

11 A. What happened was they were arrested in the early days of

12 September.

13 Q. Thank you. And your statement continues: "Bogdan Tomas from the

14 RDB Djakovica interrogated them. I did not carry out the interrogation,

15 but I briefly attended the interrogations from time to time for a few days

16 before the 8th of September, 1998."

17 Now, pause there for a moment. I think you say a little later on

18 that these men were interrogated by the MUP before they were handed over

19 to the RDB. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did you personally ever attend any of the MUP interviews?

22 A. No.

23 Q. So going back to that sentence there, where you say you briefly

24 attended the interrogations from time to time for a few days before the

25 8th of September, obviously, we know that the testimony or the account is

Page 6436

1 these men were taken to the canal on the 8th of September.

2 Can you give us a sense of how many days? When you say a few days

3 before that, how many days before that you entered into interrogations.

4 A. I can't say specifically how many days before. It was a long time

5 ago; but if you bear in mind the legal framework, what the law provides

6 for in terms of how long they could be kept, I guess it would be several

7 days.

8 Q. Plainly, it's more than one day. Can you help us as to whether it

9 was two or three?

10 A. I can't be more specific. I'm sorry --

11 Q. Very well --

12 A. -- It just wouldn't be right for me to improvise.

13 Q. I understand. But you are clear, because you talk about there

14 being more than one interrogation over a few days, you are clear that they

15 were -- you entered into interrogations over more than one day?

16 A. My role was like this: Whenever I was called by one of the

17 operative officers, Bogdan Tomas and the late Dejan Jovovic in this case,

18 I would come in to study the certain types of information or perhaps to

19 retrieve information that I would then cross-reference that to other

20 information I may have had.

21 Q. I understand that. I understand what your role was. You entered

22 into the interrogations from time to time; correct?

23 A. Yes, from time to time.

24 Q. My question is: In your statement, you say that took place in

25 relation to interrogations, in the plural, that went on for a few days.

Page 6437

1 And I'm asking you, please, to confirm that those interrogations went on

2 for more than one day.

3 A. More than one day, yes, with breaks.

4 Q. Yes.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And you are referring to more than one day before

6 the 8th of September?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.


10 Q. And you're referring also to interrogations conducted by

11 Mr. Tomas?

12 A. Mr. Tomas and the late Dejan Jovovic.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, at paragraph 40, you say: "After they were

14 arrested the prosecutor and investigating judge prescribed a three-day

15 detention for them according to the law. During the three days, they were

16 interrogated by the RDB; but, initially, they had been interrogated by the

17 MUP."

18 You see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, in relation to that part of your statement, were you aware,

21 at the time that they were handed over to the RDB, that they had already

22 been interviewed by the MUP?

23 A. I was aware of that. At the time, they surrendered them to us

24 because we were told explicitly.

25 Q. And if you look very briefly, just to cast an eye, behind tab 5 in

Page 6438

1 that bundle --

2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Sorry to interrupt.

3 Witness, you said: "I was aware of that. At the time they

4 surrendered them to us because, we were told explicitly." Who is "we"?

5 What do you mean?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We, the people from the State

7 Security Sector, and I also mean the people from SUP who were the ones

8 handing these people over to us.


10 Q. And the people from the State Security Sector who were told about

11 the prior interviews, would that include yourself and Mr. Tomas?

12 A. No. What I'm saying is I had no part in that. It wasn't my job

13 to conduct interviews. My job was to analyse. My job was to provide

14 assistance to those people.

15 Q. I think we're talking about at cross-purposes. Let me take you

16 back a moment ago. You said a moment ago that when these men were handed

17 over to the RDB, you were told explicitly that they had already been

18 interviewed, and you said "we were told" that they had already been

19 interviewed. And Judge Hoepfel asked you: Who do you mean by "we"? And

20 you replied: "e, the people from the State Security Sector." Yes?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So when they were handed over to you, that is to say, the people

23 from the State Security Sector, by the MUP, the MUP officers who handed

24 them over told you that they had already been interviewed. That's the

25 position, is it?

Page 6439

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And did they -- when you say "we" in that context, was that

3 something that Mr. Tomas was told, as well as yourself?

4 A. This was stated -- rather, Mr. Camovic was the head of that

5 particular department. No person could be surrendered to any else of a

6 lower rank. He was the one to be informed and he received whoever was

7 being handed over, and then he decided who would be dealing with that

8 person from then -- from there on.

9 Q. Were you involved in process of selecting Mr. Tomas as the person

10 who would do the interviews?

11 A. No. In most cases, Mr. Camovic did that.

12 Q. Thank you. And Mr. Camovic told you that these men had already

13 been interviewed by the MUP?

14 A. You know what, this was nine years ago. I suppose he told me

15 that. I can't remember that detail, but he must have told me.

16 Q. It's clear that you knew that because you said so in your

17 statement, isn't it?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. If you look behind tab 5, there is just -- I don't ask you to look

20 at the contents of it, but there is a statement made by one of these men

21 or signed by one of these men --

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. -- which is dated the 4th of September, but refers to an interview

24 on the 3rd. And, I think, if you look at the end, you may recognise the

25 names as members of the MUP, is that correct, Zivojin Stankovic and Dusan

Page 6440

1 Dragovic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So presumably is it right to assume that when the men are handed

4 over to the RDB, the statement would be handed over with them so that you

5 have an idea of what they've already said?

6 A. Presumably. I don't remember the detail, but I presume that

7 that's the case.

8 Q. I mean, it would be a very strange thing indeed, wouldn't it, if

9 the MUP had already interviewed these men in Djakovica police station to

10 hand them over to you without giving you copies of the statements that

11 they had signed?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

13 Before you answer the question.

14 MS. ISSA: I'm objecting to that, Your Honour. I think he's

15 asking the witness to speculate. The witness already indicated he doesn't

16 know.

17 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Let me just re-read the question.

18 The question doesn't call for speculation. The question is, as a

19 matter of fact, what would the usual thing be, and then of course if it

20 went otherwise then that would be strange because not be the usual thing.

21 It doesn't say anything about what happened so to that extent there's no

22 call for speculation.

23 You may answer the question whether it would be strange if he

24 would have been interviewed already or that they would have been -- these

25 men would have been interviewed already without the statements being given

Page 6441

1 to you. That would be not the ordinary thing you would expect. Is that

2 correct?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be strange not to give

4 statements.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

7 Q. Now, if we look at paragraph 72 of your witness statement, can I

8 understand from you the position, Mr. Bajcetic, whilst Mr. Tomas was

9 conducting these interviews, was he sending at the end of each day some

10 sort of dispatch?

11 A. If he came by important information, then he did; otherwise, he

12 would verbally report on the results of these interviews at the end of the

13 day.

14 Q. And --

15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: By "verbally," you mean orally? It was translated

16 into English as "verbally."

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This means that we would sit down at

18 the end of the day, and he would inform us of the information he came by

19 during these interviews.

20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

21 Please, Mr. Emmerson. I'm sorry.


23 Q. Now, we've seen certain documents that were compiled and have

24 dates upon them, and I won't go with you into the complications or the

25 difficulties with the dates. But any document that was compiled

Page 6442

1 contemporaneously, that is to say on the day that an interview took place,

2 any such document would be a dispatch. Is that right?

3 A. I don't know which document you're referring to.

4 Q. I'm simply you if Mr. Tomas recorded anything in writing on the

5 day, that would be in the form of a dispatch. Is that correct?

6 A. No. He could have made notes during such interviews and then

7 assessed that none of these matters called for an urgent analysis.

8 However, if he came by information that was significant for the

9 investigation, he would send it off in a concise form.

10 Q. And send it off in a dispatch. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, as a telegram, which would later be substantiated by a

12 written document.

13 Q. Now, you say in paragraph 72 that all of the dispatches that were

14 made at that time were destroyed after a retention period of one year. Is

15 that correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Is that something you know about these dispatches specifically?

18 Have you been able to conduct a search in relation to them, or are you

19 merely just describing general practice?

20 A. This was a general practice, too, but on the other hand we did --

21 we were not legally required to retain these telegrams because the

22 contents of the telegrams were reflected in an official note or in any

23 other sort of document which was then permanently kept in the records.

24 Q. And so these dispatches were sent from Djakovica to Prizren and

25 then from Prizren to Pristina and Belgrade. Is that correct?

Page 6443

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. So there would be four separate sites holding these dispatches at

3 any one time. Is that a correct understanding?

4 A. Quite correct. The same contents thereof.

5 Q. And all four of these sites would have destroyed the dispatches.

6 Is that the position?

7 A. In principle, that's the case, yes.

8 Q. And do you know in fact whether that is the position in respect of

9 these dispatches? Or let me put it another way. Do you know in fact

10 whether that is the position in respect of dispatches that were filed

11 during September 1998?

12 A. I can't say that explicitly because I was neither charged with

13 keeping telegrams in the records or destroying them. This was the

14 standard working practice. Whatever was contained in a telegram had to be

15 reflected in a document which was permanently kept. The telegram as such

16 carried no value.

17 Q. Can we look, please, at paragraph 36 and 37 of your witness

18 statements together. Now, remind yourself of what is written there just

19 for a moment and see if, having done that, you can help me with one or two

20 matters. You say in paragraph 36 that the information that is recorded to

21 have been provided by these two men was linked - if I can put it that

22 way - but the RDB to information that had previously been provided by two

23 police officers, Momcilo Stijovic and Rade Vlahovic. Is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And I think the view that was taken was that effectively these two

Page 6444

1 were confirming information you'd already received from those two men. Is

2 that correct?

3 A. I was quite clear on this matter. Information was being gathered

4 continuously from relatives, from individual Albanians, from

5 intelligence-gathering technology, and all the information was

6 cross-referenced in order to establish whether a certain event did

7 transpire or not and in what way it transpired. And that's the only way

8 one can put it.

9 Q. So I understand that, but in paragraphs 36, 37, and at the bottom

10 of paragraph 39 of your witness statement you isolate and identify those

11 two police officers as the source of information that you already had. Is

12 that a fair assessment?

13 A. Can be, yes.

14 Q. And both of those police officers, to your knowledge, believed

15 their own relatives to have been killed by the KLA and dumped in the

16 Lake Radoniq canal. Is that correct?

17 A. Correct. It's true that that's what they believed. First of all,

18 Rade Vlahovic whose parents were kidnapped by the KLA, or so he believed,

19 and he was concerned about their fate. At that point in time, he did not

20 know where they had been dumped, that's true.

21 Q. Were you aware that Rade Vlahovic had been assigned to conduct the

22 interviews of some of these men?

23 A. No, I was not aware of that.

24 Q. Could you just look behind tab 15 for a moment. Don't mention the

25 name of the person who made this statement, but just look at the name at

Page 6445

1 the front. You see the author of the statement; yes? Do you have that?

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 JUDGE ORIE: Read it for yourself.


9 Q. Do you see that? Do you know who that individual is?

10 A. No.

11 Q. You don't. Very well. Well, without going into the details at

12 this point in open session, that is a -- that individual was a crime

13 technician working for the SUP in Gjakove in connection with this inquiry

14 and with the arrests of these men. All right. You can assume that that's

15 the position.

16 If you can turn to paragraph 30: "The interviews of these

17 terrorists were led by crime inspectors of SUP Djakovica. I recall

18 Radovan Zlatkovic" -- do you see that?

19 A. I can't see that passage.

20 Q. Do you have paragraph number 30 behind tab 15? Are you behind

21 tab 15? Maybe the usher might help you. Tab 15, paragraph 30 in the

22 statement. Do you see that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Yes. So it reads: "The interviews of these terrorists were led

25 by the crime inspectors of SUP Djakovica. I recall Radovan Zlatkovic,

Page 6446

1 Dusan Dragovic, Rade Vlahovic, and Ljubisa Novovic being involved in these

2 interviews. I also remember that interviews were also conducted by the

3 state security police officers, but I don't remember their names."

4 Now, we've seen that Dusan Dragovic signed one of the witness

5 statements because we looked at that a moment ago, and you can see here

6 that Rade Vlahovic was involved in the interviews.

7 MS. ISSA: Your Honour.


9 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry to rise again, but I think Mr. Emmerson

10 needs to be specific which interview Rade Vlahovic was involved in. He's

11 referring to interviews in general without being specific as to who he is

12 referring to.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I think as a first question that is permissible and

14 if there do not follow any further details there might remain a question

15 mark but as such the question is admissible.

16 MR. EMMERSON: There will be other evidence in relation to that.

17 This witness may or may not know the answer.

18 Q. I understood you to have said, Mr. Bajcetic, that you didn't know

19 that Rade Vlahovic was assigned to this interview process at all. Is that

20 correct? It wasn't something you knew at the time?

21 A. That's correct, absolutely.

22 Q. Would you have regarded it as appropriate for a police officer who

23 was so personally involved in an investigation to the extent that he

24 believed his own parents to have been killed and put in the canal to have

25 been assigned to the process of interviewing the suspects?

Page 6447

1 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

3 MS. ISSA: I think that's a slight misrepresentation. The

4 witness had earlier said that Rade Vlahovic didn't know where his

5 relatives were dumped.

6 MR. EMMERSON: I don't think that's correct.

7 MS. ISSA: I can find the line of the transcript.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness added that's what he believed --

9 no, he did not know at that time, that's what the said. At that time he

10 did not know whether -- he believed that they were abducted by the KLA,

11 and he did not know where they were dumped. I think that's -- but I could

12 check that.

13 MR. EMMERSON: Maybe I can clarify with the witness. The answer I

14 think that Your Honour has in mind is page 55, line 15 --

15 MS. ISSA: Yes, that's correct.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check.

17 MR. EMMERSON: It begins with: "It's true, that's what they

18 believed" --


20 MR. EMMERSON: Perhaps I can clarify that.

21 Q. Is it right that the information that you had been provided with

22 before these men were arrested from Rade Vlahovic, was first of all that

23 he believed his parents had been abducted by the KLA. Is that correct?

24 A. He believed that, but he did not have precise information because

25 he could not reach the home of his parents.

Page 6448

1 Q. And did he have any belief as to what had been done with their

2 bodies?

3 A. I don't know about that. I did not discuss this with him in such

4 detail that he might tell me that.

5 Q. I see.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, the objection by Ms. Issa I think

7 referred to page 55, lines 15 up to and including line 18, where

8 specific --


10 JUDGE ORIE: -- a specific answer is given as far as knowledge of

11 the place where they were dumped.


13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.


15 Q. To put the question to you again. In the context of an

16 investigation of this kind, would it have been considered -- would you

17 have considered it appropriate for a police officer to conduct interviews

18 in those circumstances?

19 A. I don't see why this question is put to me. I did not and could

20 not take part in the discussions within the SUP as to who they would bring

21 in or who they would interview.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the last sentence.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your last sentence because

24 the interpreters could not hear you.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question was whether I would in

Page 6449

1 principle accept a person who has a personal interest in a case to take

2 part in it. I said that I could not play any role in the selection of

3 persons to take part in interviews within MUP, and I did not discuss these

4 matters with them, because I wasn't interested and this wasn't part of my

5 job. That's why I can't give a specific answer to this question.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, the question is at the edge --

7 MR. EMMERSON: Very well --

8 JUDGE ORIE: -- of opinion and facts --

9 MR. EMMERSON: I'll move on.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please move on. Please proceed.


12 Q. You speak here about the existence of prior intelligence, and I

13 want to ask you if you could help us to understand one or two documents

14 that relate to that for a moment. First of all, David Gajic was the head

15 of the RDB in Kosovo, was he not?

16 A. He was a coordinator.

17 Q. Is that different from being the head of the RDB in Kosovo?

18 A. I told you what his exact role was. Officially he was a

19 coordinator.

20 Q. In practical terms was there anybody more senior to him within the

21 RDB in Kosovo itself?

22 A. Not in Kosovo.

23 Q. Could you turn please briefly behind tab 12 for a moment. And, in

24 fact, may I just clarify this because Ms. Issa gave some information

25 earlier on. Is it correct that you don't speak or read any English?

Page 6450

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. In the typed English version -- and this is pages 86 and 87 of

3 164 - bear with me for a moment - those are minutes that you have in front

4 of you in Serbian for the Joint Command bringing together the RDB, the VJ,

5 the MUP, and senior politicians. And if you can find the entry for the

6 4th of September, please.

7 A. Which page is that again?

8 Q. Would you like just to pass the bundle over to me for one moment,

9 and I'll find it for you. I'm afraid ...

10 A. I don't know which page that is.

11 MR. EMMERSON: If you just bring it to me for one moment, I'll

12 find the relevant page and open it.

13 Q. Now, there is an entry there in manuscript at the bottom of the

14 left-hand page - in our copy it is the top of the right-hand page - from

15 Mr. Gajic. Do you see that? Yes?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Just in order to have it on the record, I take it

17 that you have drawn the attention of the witness to page K0228486.

18 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.



21 Q. You see the entry at the bottom there, Mr. Bajcetic? Yes?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. If you look to the facing page, the text continues. And at the

24 fifth bullet point, Mr. Gajic reports that in the village of Ratis near

25 Decani there is a mass graveyard, 34 Serbs, three Romanies, three

Page 6451

1 Albanians, that is making 40 individuals in all. Now, can you help us at

2 all as to how Mr. Gajic could have come by that information, given that

3 you were RDB in Gjakove, as early as the 4th of September?

4 A. I can't account for this at all for the simple reason that it

5 happened nine years ago, and it's very difficult to retrace all these

6 different dates. What I just said can be found in the documents. You can

7 see when interviews were held with the two individuals, when we went out

8 into the field. I can't know about Mr. Gajic's contacts or his

9 whereabouts. I was not in touch with him nor was that part of my job.

10 Q. But the presumably the information was being provided by

11 RDB Gjakove. Would that not be the normal method of reporting?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

13 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I think Mr. Emmerson's now asking the

14 witness to speculate. He's just indicated he simply does not know.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson --

16 MR. EMMERSON: I'll rephrase the question --

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- you can ask him -- whether the witness knows

18 whether the information was provided by --

19 MR. EMMERSON: I was going to ask him about the normal system of

20 reporting.

21 Q. If there was information coming from the RDB to Mr. Gajic

22 concerning events in the area of Ratis, that would be information which

23 would come from which part of the RDB, Gjakove or somewhere else?

24 A. The information could have originated from the RDB in Pec --

25 Q. I see --

Page 6452

1 A. -- because we were one and the same centre, Prizren, in that Pec

2 and we both provided information.

3 Q. Can I ask you this: Can you now, looking back on those events,

4 conceive of any means by which specific numbers of remains could have been

5 communicated to Mr. Gajic by the RDB as early as the 4th of September?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

7 MS. ISSA: That's a speculative question, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me re-read it.

9 If you reformulate the question, you might obtain the information

10 you would like to have, but whether the witness can conceive of any

11 means --

12 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- is speculative. Please.


15 Q. Based on your own knowledge of what was taking place in

16 RDB Djakovica in the period from the 1st to the 8th of September, is there

17 anything that you know of which could account for Mr. Gajic having been

18 told by RDB subordinates of a specific number of remains?

19 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I think Mr. Emmerson asked this question

20 in a different form earlier on and the witness indicated he doesn't know.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's then verify whether it was exactly the

22 same.

23 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat what he said.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer, it has not been

Page 6453

1 ...

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't possibly know that. I

3 wasn't the chief of the centre in Prizren in order to be able to know

4 where the information came from.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the answer now is that he couldn't know.

6 The question was whether you did know, but I take it that the

7 witness has now clearly said that he --

8 MR. EMMERSON: He doesn't know --

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- doesn't know any such thing.

10 Please proceed.


12 Q. Just this, you've mentioned now twice two different locations,

13 you've mentioned RDB Prizren and RDB Pec as possible sources of

14 information being provided to Mr. Gajic. Is that correct?

15 A. Correct. I must tell you what this is about. There's the Prizren

16 centre, which in terms of territory covered Metohija or the following

17 towns: Prizren, Orahovac, Djakovica, Pec, Istok, and Klina. So that is

18 the centre, the HQ, which had branches in Djakovica and in Pec. I in

19 Djakovica couldn't know what somebody was sending over from Pec or from

20 Prizren for that matter.

21 Q. Thank you. That's understood. And so far as you are aware, did

22 the RDB operatives in Prizren or Pec go to the canal area before your

23 team?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 6454

1 Could we turn to tab 17 in the yellow file, please. This is a

2 witness statement made by Mr. Gajic commenting on that entry in the

3 minutes. And the paragraphs are numbered according to the days of the

4 minutes, and if you could find paragraph 26, please. Commenting - this is

5 page 15 for those of us following it in English - commenting on that entry

6 in the minutes against his own name Mr. Gajic is recorded as saying this:

7 "The RDB had received information about this mass grave in Ratis,

8 although it was never clear if some of those bodies were thrown later on

9 in the canal near Radonjicko Lake. This information was provided to the

10 RDB by the head of our local office, Vule Mircic. I do not know whether

11 those bodies were ever found in Ratis."

12 Now, first of all, which local office was Vule Mircic the head of?

13 A. He was the head of the Decani SUP department or office.

14 Q. So when Mr. Gajic refers to him as being "head of our local

15 office," he's actually referring to somebody who's not a member of the

16 RDB. Is that correct?

17 A. No, no, not Vule Mircic. He was the head of the Pec SUP local

18 office.

19 Q. Did you ever receive any information that might throw any light on

20 this suggestion, that bodies might have been moved from Ratis into the

21 canal?

22 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I don't believe that that's what the

23 statement says; it's a misrepresentation.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, that's sustained.

25 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

Page 6455

1 Q. Did you ever receive any information that could throw light on the

2 suggestion that there was a mass grave in Ratis although there was no

3 clarity about whether any of the bodies were thrown later on in the canal

4 near Radoniq Lake?

5 A. I don't know. I can't be expected to say anything about it. I

6 only know what I saw on the 10th of September, when I was actually there.

7 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on now back to your own witness

8 statement for a moment, if I may, which is just to remind you is tab 14.

9 Could you turn to paragraphs 42 to 47 for a moment. I just want to see if

10 I can get some clarification from you about these paragraphs. Is it the

11 position that on the 8th of September the detachment of RDB officials that

12 had gone to the canal returned to you that evening and reported what they

13 had seen?

14 A. I was being very specific when I said ten members of the MUP and

15 the RDB. They left on the 8th of September. Mr. Tomas led these men so

16 they could show it to us. We had not been able to pin-point the exact

17 spot until we were shown.

18 Q. You personally didn't go on that reconnaissance trip on the 8th,

19 did you?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And the information that you've recorded in your statement about

22 what happened on that day is information that Mr. Tomas and his colleagues

23 provided to you. Is that correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And is it right that they provided that information to you when

Page 6456

1 they returned to Djakovica police station that evening?

2 A. The RDB that evening, it was in the RDB offices.

3 Q. Yes. And that would be Mr. Tomas, Mr. Jovovic, and the video

4 cameraman who was with them, would it?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. And can you help us, was that the first information you received

7 about what had happened and what they had seen that day?

8 A. Indeed, that was the first information telling us what they had

9 seen.

10 Q. So the first time you were brought into the loop of information

11 about what had been seen at the canal that day was when they got back and

12 told you, was it?

13 A. That's right. Specific information about what they had seen, the

14 bodies, the location of the bodies, this is precisely what they told me

15 that evening.

16 Q. I understand that. The question I'm asking you was: Before they

17 got back to the police station, had you been receiving information during

18 the afternoon about what they'd seen or was it only when they got the back

19 that evening that the information was conveyed to you?

20 A. There was no one to tell me that afternoon, although some had

21 already arrived.

22 Q. Just clarify that answer, if you would, for a moment. You were at

23 Djakovica police station during that day; correct?

24 A. I was in the RDB offices in Djakovica. Those people were sent

25 out. As soon as they were back, they told us about what they had seen --

Page 6457

1 Q. Exactly --

2 A. -- that is the accurate version of the story.

3 Q. Thank you very much. And you were not provided with any

4 information, for example, by telephone or by radio during the afternoon,

5 is that the position? You first learnt about it that evening?

6 A. Right. There was no coverage there for mobile phones. Radio

7 links were difficult as well because there were problems with the

8 transmission.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.


11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock.


13 JUDGE ORIE: And I noticed - I'm addressing you, Mr. Kearney -

14 that where the Chamber asked for if only one or two lines as far as the

15 position of -- for next week would be, that at least until two minutes ago

16 I didn't receive anything by e-mail. I don't know how much time you would

17 need. The Chamber would like to adjourn in five minutes.

18 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honour, I'm just being shown by my colleague an

19 e-mail that was sent at 5.08 p.m. by Mr. Re, so perhaps the --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we then already excuse the witness and

21 see what the message is.

22 Mr. Bajcetic, a bit earlier than usual we have to stop for the

23 day, and since the Chamber is not sitting tomorrow we would like to see

24 you back Monday. I earlier asked the office of the -- I'm sorry. Yes.

25 Mr. Bajcetic, a bit earlier than usual we'll finish for the day.

Page 6458

1 I earlier asked the counsel for the Prosecution whether there was any

2 indication that you would not be available after the weekend because this

3 Chamber is not sitting on Friday, and therefore we will adjourn until

4 Monday. Could we see you back Monday morning?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd prefer tomorrow,

6 if possible; if not, I suppose I'll just have to accept what you're

7 suggesting.

8 JUDGE ORIE: If that would be a possibility to sit tomorrow, we

9 certainly would have done that and this Chamber is always very concerned

10 about witnesses being able to return before the weekend. Unfortunately we

11 can't do it. So it's very much appreciated that you finally then accept

12 that you have to stay until Monday. That's not what the Chamber would

13 have preferred, but unfortunately there's no other solution for that.

14 May I instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about the

15 testimony, the testimony you have already given or still -- are still

16 about to give. We'd like then to see you back Monday, the 2nd of July,

17 9.00 in the morning, in this same courtroom.

18 Madam Usher, would you escort Mr. Bajcetic out of the courtroom.

19 [The witness stands down]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kearney, what is the message?

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6459

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 So we would then on Monday start to hear the next witness in line?

12 Yes.

13 MR. KEARNEY: That's correct.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And that would take us until?

15 MR. KEARNEY: Through the end of Tuesday, we believe.


17 MR. KEARNEY: And then beginning on Wednesday we will take the

18 examination-in-chief of the following witness.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that's an expert witness, and then the --

20 the suggestion -- at least the proposal made by Mr. Emmerson was that he

21 would not cross-examine that witness but that we would then continue --

22 well, as a matter of fact, he proposed two things. The first proposal was

23 to delay the expert witnesses, both, and the subsidiary proposal was that

24 both these expert witnesses would give their testimony in chief and be

25 recalled for cross-examination at a later stage. These were the two

Page 6460

1 proposals.

2 MR. KEARNEY: Yes. And, Your Honour, given the fact that the

3 witness we're proposing for Wednesday, the estimate for his direct

4 examination by the Prosecution is 3.5 hours, we believe that that

5 witness -- that witness's direct will take up the three sessions of

6 Wednesday.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then what -- and that's of course now the

8 issue, what would you then suggest to do on Thursday?

9 MR. KEARNEY: Your Honour, I stand corrected, just reading on.

10 There's a proposal -- may I have one moment, please.

11 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honours, may I assist? Does Your Honours have

12 a copy of the e-mail yet? It's arrived on our screen.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I have received it. 11 minutes past --

14 MR. EMMERSON: The proposal --

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- let me first read it so that we ...

16 I think the estimates for time are not the issue; the issue is

17 whether the Defence is ready to cross-examine the witnesses.


19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do the following. The Chamber is not sitting

20 tomorrow, but the Chamber will be in communication with the parties

21 tomorrow to see how to proceed next week.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I think, if I may say so, Monday, as

23 suggested by Mr. Re, is entirely unobjectionable, it's the completion of

24 the evidence of this witness, followed by the evidence in chief of the

25 next witness.

Page 6461


2 MR. EMMERSON: Tuesday we will, of course, be in a position to

3 cross-examine that witness on Tuesday, he not being a forensic expert.


5 MR. EMMERSON: And my strong expectation is that he will take most

6 of Tuesday, but not necessarily the third session --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and there might be some argument as to exclusion

8 of part of his evidence --

9 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Anyhow, yes.

11 MR. EMMERSON: And then the following witness, that is to say -- I

12 don't think there is any application for protective measures in respect of

13 either of the pathologists, so that is to say Dr. Dusan Dunjic is

14 suggested to be slotted in on Tuesday afternoon, but we would need the

15 whole of Wednesday for the evidence in chief of Professor Aleksandric.

16 Now, the short answer is, to Mr. Re's question, my own view is

17 that is trying to squeeze a quart into a pint, as we say, pot; in other

18 words, we will not reach Professor Dunjic or Dr. Dunjic on Tuesday

19 afternoon in sufficient time to complete his evidence in chief. And given

20 the need to ensure that Professor Aleksandric's evidence in chief can be

21 heard, then, if we simply removed Dr. Dunjic from the equation that would

22 provide a perfectly sensible running list for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,

23 and then Thursday I think the suggestion is that it be used as much as

24 possible for tidying up all the outstanding procedural matters, because in

25 any event I shan't be here on Thursday.

Page 6462


2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would definitely concur with that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You would concur with that?

4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Most definitely.

5 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Harvey, would you.

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: And we've spent some time trying to chart out the

7 examinations.

8 JUDGE ORIE: It's not only a question of timing, it's also a

9 question of tactical advantages of not cross-examining one witness before

10 the other one gives his examination-in-chief. I mean, it's more complex

11 than it's just not a matter of scheduling. The Chamber therefore would

12 like to thoroughly consider the matter, might be in touch with the parties

13 tomorrow if need be, and then we will consider how to proceed next week.

14 Mr. Kearney, if that is -- then -- yes --

15 MR. KEARNEY: That's completely appropriate for the Prosecution,

16 Your Honour, thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Harvey.

18 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, you started a sentence with "Mr. Harvey

19 would you," and the answer is yes, I would.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Harvey, I -- half a word in our

21 communications does...

22 We adjourn until Monday, 2nd of July, 9.00 in the morning, this

23 same courtroom.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.19 p.m.,

25 to be reconvened on Monday, the 2nd day of

Page 6463

1 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.