1 Monday, 2 July 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

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

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Mr. Emmerson, are you ready to continue the cross-examination of

11 Mr. Bajcetic?

12 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I am.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Usher, could I ask you to escort

14 Mr. Bajcetic into the courtroom.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Bajcetic.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic, Mr. Emmerson will continue his

19 cross-examination, but I would like to remind you that the solemn

20 declaration you gave at the beginning of your testimony still binds you.

21 Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.

22 WITNESS: ZARKO BAJCETIC [Resumed]

23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson: [Continued]

25 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, I wonder if you could take -- or be given, first of

1 all, the green and brown folders -- sorry, the yellow and brown folders, I

2 apologise, the yellow being volume 1. If you can take volume 1, the

3 yellow folder again, and turn to tab 14, which is your witness statement

4 in these proceedings and I was asking you some questions when we broke

5 last Thursday about paragraphs 42 through to 47.

6 A. Yes, I found it.

7 Q. Thank you. Now, just before we broke on Thursday, I asked you

8 some questions about whether the information that is recorded in

9 paragraphs 42 to 47 was first provided to you when the RDB operatives who

10 had been present on the 8th returned to your offices. And you said at the

11 very end of your cross-examination on Thursday that it was correct that

12 you had not been provided during the day with any information by telephone

13 or radio and that the first you learnt about it and what had been found

14 that day was when they returned that evening. And you explained that

15 there was no coverage for mobile phones in the area of the canal and that

16 radio links were difficult as well because there were problems with

17 transmission.

18 Now, first of all, I just want to give you an opportunity to

19 reflect on that answer. That is the correct position, is it, that you

20 received no information by telephone or radio during the day on the 8th

21 and that the first information you received was received in person when

22 those operatives returned that evening?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. We've heard evidence in this court that by 4.00 that afternoon

25 members of the international community had been summoned to the scene and

1 that while Mr. Tomas was there that day and before he returned to your

2 office, he saw Zoran Andjelkovic, president of the Kosovo Provisional

3 Executive Council and Nikola Sainovic, deputy prime minister of the

4 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia attending the scene, as well as members of

5 the media. I want to ask you: Given that there were no telephone or

6 radio transmissions capable of being emitted from the scene, as far as you

7 understood the position, can you help us as to how those individuals might

8 have been notified of the find if it was genuinely found on the 8th?

9 A. I really don't know how it came about that they were notified

10 about it. That --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his last sentence.

12 MR. EMMERSON:

13 Q. Could you just repeat the last part of your answer, please.

14 A. I said that I didn't know how the people were informed because I

15 wasn't there at the time nor was I informed of the way they received

16 information about it. This was, indeed, found there because that was the

17 information I received, that they had found dead bodies there.

18 Q. Just to be clear, it appears inevitable from the evidence you've

19 given, does it not, that not only were the press and the international

20 community and the politicians informed before you were but that they

21 attended the scene before you were even informed of what had been found?

22 A. I really don't know who informed them. I cannot really comment on

23 that. I am not familiar with the situation.

24 Q. Thank you. Could you turn to paragraph 71 of your witness

25 statement, please. In paragraph 71, you are recorded as saying that:

1 "On the 8th and the 9th of September, the RDB officers who were

2 deployed on the spot reported to me, being their superior, their findings

3 and I informed the Head of RDB Department in Gjakove, Mr. Sreten Camovic

4 in line with the standard procedure."

5 Do you see that paragraph?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is that a correct statement of the position, Mr. Bajcetic?

8 A. This is the standard procedure. On the 8th and the 9th, the

9 operatives informed me about it, reported to me about it. Sreten Camovic

10 even went over there at one point, but I wasn't with him there nor was

11 there any need for him to inform me about it.

12 Q. This is just what I wanted to clarify with you. Did Mr. Camovic

13 go to the canal with the reconnaissance mission on the 8th?

14 A. With the time that elapsed, I really don't know. I'm sure that he

15 was with me on the 10th.

16 Q. Yes, I appreciate that. You went there for the first time on the

17 10th and you've said in your witness statement that Mr. Camovic went with

18 you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the question that I'm asking you is: In this paragraph of

21 your witness statement, you appear to be indicating that on the 8th you

22 received information from those who had been present and you conveyed that

23 information to Mr. Camovic. What I'm trying to understand is, plainly, if

24 Mr. Camovic was there on the 8th it would not have been necessary for you

25 to have been the conduit for information that had been provided by RDB

1 officers on the spot, would it?

2 A. Let us clarify this. The operatives who reported to me on what

3 they had seen on the spot -- well, it was quite customary for Camovic and

4 I to get together and to exchange views on what we just learnt.

5 Q. No, I entirely understand that. But the question I'm asking you

6 is whether Mr. Camovic went to the canal on the 8th with the

7 reconnaissance mission, because clearly if he did, it wouldn't have been

8 you reporting to him what the operatives had seen but him telling you what

9 he had seen, would it not?

10 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'm objecting to the latter part of that

11 question. It appears that Mr. Emmerson's drawing his own conclusion as

12 opposed to formulating in the context of a question.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, I don't really understand the objection.

15 The question I'm asking is: Did Mr. Camovic go to the canal on the 8th?

16 And the reason I'm asking the question as I explained is because if he had

17 done, paragraph 71 does not appear to be accurate.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 Ms. Issa, isn't it true that putting a possible conclusion to a

20 witness, if it is of a factual character, that that is within the scope of

21 leading questions put to the witness, whereas if it would require a kind

22 of expert opinion, then that would be different?

23 MS. ISSA: Perhaps it would make it easier if Mr. Emmerson breaks

24 up the questions and --

25 MR. EMMERSON: I will do that.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Emmerson.

2 MR. EMMERSON:

3 Q. Having refreshed your memory from your witness statement, can you

4 help us, was Mr. Camovic present at the reconnaissance mission on the 8th

5 along with Bogdan Tomas and Mr. Jovovic?

6 A. Truly, I don't know. I can't remember the detail --

7 Q. Very well --

8 A. -- those were very hard times. I don't want to go into that and

9 describe how it was, but I don't know.

10 Q. If you're not able to remember, you're not able to remember. But

11 can you help us about this: Does it follow from that that where you say

12 in paragraph 71 that you were reporting the findings of the RDB operatives

13 in the field on the 8th to Mr. Camovic, you may be wrong about that?

14 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I don't believe that follows

15 if the witness indicated that he doesn't know if Camovic went to -- with

16 the reconnaissance unit on the 8th.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Then he may be wrong.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to get matters straight.

19 Mr. Bajcetic, Mr. Emmerson is wondering whether there was any need

20 to report to Mr. Camovic what you have heard if he may have been present

21 there.

22 I think, Mr. Emmerson, that's your concern.

23 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you help Mr. Emmerson in better understanding

25 the situation because if Mr. Camovic was present there might have been no

1 need to report to him. Does that mean that since you said you reported

2 that it's more likely that he was not present? Or could it be that you

3 made a mistake that due to his presence you didn't report to him?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was very clear in

5 answering the question concerning paragraph 71. This was in the evening

6 when the operatives reported to me on what they had seen at the spot and

7 what had transpired during the day. They informed me of the fire they

8 came under and the corpses at Radonjic Lake. I can't recall whether

9 Camovic was there at the time or not. What is quite certain is that every

10 evening Camovic and I exchanged views on the intelligence, on the

11 information we received in the course of that day. I do not wish to

12 improvise or speculate by trying to say for a fact that he was there or

13 not. It is possible that he was, I even believe that he may have been,

14 but I can't be sure. It was nine years ago, after all.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. I think, as a matter of fact,

16 what Mr. Emmerson would expect that if he would have been present and if,

17 as you say in paragraph 71 of your statement, that you informed

18 Mr. Camovic in line with the standard procedure, Mr. Emmerson would expect

19 him to say: Why do you inform me? I was there. Do you understand what I

20 mean? That's the question that's bothering Mr. Emmerson. Can you help

21 him out?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of whether he had been

23 there or not, we always discussed such matters that were horrific in the

24 course of the evenings. We would kind of go through all the information

25 we got during the day in the evenings.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

2 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

3 Q. Could you return then to paragraphs 44 to 47 of your witness

4 statement, and I just want to pick up one aspect of that account with you,

5 if I can. In paragraphs 44 to 46, you record an account that you say was

6 given to you by the cameraman, Mr. Tomas, and Mr. Jovovic; is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Were they all together when they gave you this account?

10 A. Who could remember such a detail nine years later? I believe I

11 spoke to the cameraman first.

12 Q. Who was it, can you help us at all, who told you that there had

13 been heavy shelling which caused the group of MUP and RDB officials to be

14 detained for a couple of hours, awaiting the arrival of VJ reinforcements

15 whilst they were en route to the canal? Where did that information come

16 from?

17 A. I was told that by the cameraman. He was quite disappointed with

18 the fact that the support arrived quite late. I clearly recall that he

19 wore leather sandals, that went to pieces, and he was barefoot as he

20 entered the offices. He was pretty nervous and told me the whole story

21 then. That's the information you're referring to. I don't know what else

22 I can tell you.

23 Q. And the information he gave you was that there was a two-hour

24 exchange of fire prior to the arrival of VJ reinforcements, was it?

25 A. I told you what he had told me, that mortar fire was opened, just

1 as it is stated here. I can't remember his exact words now, nine years

2 later. It's impossible, not just for me but for anyone.

3 Q. Help me, if you can, you signed this statement in May of this

4 year, in which paragraph 45 you record and sign an account which states

5 that there was an exchange of fire between the MUP and the KLA whilst the

6 group were waiting for reinforcements, that the MUP returned fire from --

7 in the direction of the village of Ratis from where the convoy was being

8 shelled, and that this situation lasted for a couple of hours until the

9 MUP and VJ reinforcements arrived. That's the statement you referred to

10 as having come from the cameraman, is it?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Did you check that with the other two who were present, Mr. Tomas

13 and Mr. Jovovic, to see if they agreed with it?

14 A. The information referred to here was quite immaterial, how many

15 minutes or hours the shelling lasted; the important matter was that the

16 men returned alive and well and the important bit of information was that

17 corpses had been found at that scene.

18 Q. Could you just help us on one other aspect of this reconnaissance

19 mission. Could you turn to tab 13, please, in the yellow file and just

20 look at the front page and confirm that you know the individual who made

21 that statement without mentioning his name, please?

22 A. I know the man.

23 Q. You have described him in your own witness statement by reference

24 to his responsibilities at paragraph 57. I won't read it out, but perhaps

25 you can confirm that the description you've given in paragraph 57, in the

1 second half of paragraph 57 of your own witness statement is correct.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So this is an individual who was closely involved with this

4 investigation in a supervisory capacity; is that correct?

5 A. That was his job.

6 Q. Can we then turn to tab 13 again, his witness statement, and that

7 paragraph 13 where he lists those who took place -- who took part, I'm

8 sorry, in the reconnaissance mission. And if you pick it up halfway down

9 the paragraph, paragraph 13, he refers to, first of all, the SUP team who

10 made the first crime scene visit at the canal. And he lists the following

11 persons: General-Colonel Vlastimir Djordjevic, chief of public security

12 sector for the MUP Serbia; Lieutenant-General Obrad Stevanovic, deputy

13 chief of security; chief of Gjakove SUP, Dragutin Adamovic; chief of

14 Gjakove state security, Sreten Camovic; crime inspector Goran Mitic; crime

15 inspector Dusan Dragovic; crime technician Nebojsa Avramovic; crime

16 technician Zarko Gazdic; and from the state security sector he says the

17 following members formed part of this team, late crime inspector Dejan

18 Jovovic and crime technician Sava Jovanovic, who was in charge of -- for

19 video-recording. And he goes on to say before they reached the actual

20 crime site they didn't know exactly the location of the killed persons.

21 Now, pausing there for a moment, we can see that this witness does

22 not mention Mr. Tomas amongst those who attended. Are you clear in your

23 own mind that Mr. Tomas was amongst those who attended the canal on the

24 8th?

25 A. Yes, yes, for sure.

1 Q. With that exception, do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy

2 of the list that he has set out in that witness statement?

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We go into private session.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

14 MR. EMMERSON:

15 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that the list that is set out in the

16 witness statement -- I'll just repeat what I was about to say. You

17 mentioned a moment ago that the list of names set out in the witness

18 statement behind tab 13 concerns individuals from the public security

19 sector rather than the state security sector. And obviously we can see

20 that the name of Mr. Camovic, Mr. Jovovic, and Mr. Jovanovic are all

21 there. They, of course, were state security employees; correct?

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. Is it your evidence in effect that you don't know the identity of

24 those members of the MUP or SUP who attended on the 8th, but you do know

25 the identity of those members of the RDB who attended?

1 A. As far as the persons from the public security are concerned, I do

2 know some of them. As for the state security staff, I know all of them,

3 obviously.

4 Q. Well, can I simply ask you this: Would you agree that that is a

5 very high-ranking group of individuals to attend a crime scene, the

6 location of which was unknown and where it was perceived that there was a

7 risk of a reconnaissance mission coming under fire, would you agree that

8 it's a very high-ranking group of individuals to attend on such a

9 reconnaissance mission?

10 A. I don't understand why you're asking me this. I was not in a

11 position to determine who would be there on that day. I did not have

12 anything to say about that day, who was going to be there. I wasn't

13 there. That's the only thing I can tell you. And I have told you clearly

14 what was conveyed to me on that evening. As for the other facts, it's

15 very hard to remember things after nine years. As for the level and the

16 rank of the people in the mission and what they were supposed to be, I'm

17 really not in a position to tell you anything about that.

18 Q. Yes, I see. Let me take it down to your own level then

19 specifically. Does it strike you, looking back on those events, as

20 surprising that your superior, Mr. Camovic, would attend on a

21 reconnaissance mission if the site and the location was unknown?

22 A. I don't know why this should have surprised me. Camovic could do

23 whatever he wanted. He was my superior and he did not have to inform me

24 where he was going and who with.

25 Q. Thank you. Could you --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I could try to -- you have -- until now, you

2 have expressed, Mr. Bajcetic, two times your surprise -- being surprised

3 why these questions are put to you. What Mr. Emmerson is trying to find

4 out, whether on such a reconnaissance mission where you do not know yet

5 what to find, et cetera, why - may I say it - quite some big-shots

6 participated in that and whether that would be what one would expect, in

7 view of what would be the usual procedure. I think that's what

8 Mr. Emmerson would like to know, not whether you were in a position to

9 criticise or to decide how the mission was, but whether it surprised you

10 that very high-level authorities participated in such a visit to what

11 might be a crime scene where little was known at that time.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can share my views with you. At

13 that time I didn't know who would be going on that mission, and as I sit

14 here today I can tell you that this was a rather unusual situation for

15 such high-ranking officials to go there to that site. This was not a

16 customary thing. This was not something that was normally done. This is

17 the only thing I can tell you today.

18 JUDGE ORIE: What made the situation unusual, because I do

19 understand that that explains for you why the high-level authorities went

20 there. Looking back, do you know what made it so unusual?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What made the situation unusual was

22 the fact that there was a lot of information about the number of missing,

23 about the great number of people missing. There were reasonable grounds

24 to suspect that they were no longer among the living, and the KLA were

25 supposed to have kidnapped them and killed them. This is what I've

1 already told you, and I'm repeating it again. This is why everything was

2 focused on trying to find these people. Now, as to the level of the

3 mission and why those particular people went on that mission, I really

4 wouldn't be able to tell you that.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Do I then understand you well that you say that

6 expectations were high that perhaps a clue could be found for many

7 unresolved disappearances?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

10 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

11 Q. Could you turn, please, to paragraphs 85 to 87 of your witness

12 statement. I'm just going to go through those with you briefly, if I can.

13 You are commenting in this part of your witness statement on the video

14 footage that you have reviewed, which is said to have been taken on the

15 8th of September during the course of the afternoon, and you say:

16 "With respect to the recordings made of the site at the canal and

17 the canyon, it has to be stressed that the two bodies, which can be seen

18 on the video footage, recorded on the 8th September 1998, cannot be seen

19 anymore on the video footage made on the 9th and 10th of September, 1998.

20 One of the bodies is wearing a red shirt and the second one is wearing a

21 blue one.

22 "The reason why those two bodies cannot be seen anymore on these

23 dates because heavy rain on the 8th of September caused the water to sweep

24 both bodies downstream towards the take. I know this based on what the

25 cameraman told me and because the recording was different than what we saw

1 on the 10th of September. The cameraman told me the bodies were present

2 on the 8th but they were not present on the 10th of September."

3 And then you say: "I saw these two bodies on the 10th of

4 September downstream in the direction of the lake at approximately 200

5 metres from the location at the concrete canal, where they were initially

6 seen on the 8th of September, 1998. I saw them in the pit between the

7 earth and the natural bed on the 10th of September, 1998. The difference

8 in the water-level on the 9th and the 10th of September can be noticed on

9 the video" -- I'm sorry, "on the recordings made on those days."

10 Now, pausing there for a moment to let the translation catch up.

11 You are referring in that passage to two fully-fleshed bodies that can be

12 seen in the video footage floating in the concrete section of the canal;

13 is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And you're commenting on the fact that they do not appear in the

16 video footage for the following day, the 9th; is that correct?

17 A. In the concrete part.

18 Q. Yes. Or, indeed, on the video anywhere else, I think.

19 A. I've limited myself to the concrete section.

20 Q. And you can confirm certainly that by the time you first got there

21 on the 10th, they were not in the concrete section of the canal. Is that

22 right?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. And you say that you saw them, those two bodies, 200 metres

25 downstream. Is that right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And did you, yourself, go down to the canyon section to look at

3 those two bodies on the 10th?

4 A. You know what, my task was not to look at every body separately.

5 First of all, I saw all the bodies that were on the side towards the

6 concrete section, and I also saw the bodies that were under the cascade

7 that went down the canyon towards Lake Radonjic. My task, therefore, was

8 not to approach every body, to inspect every body, but I saw all of them

9 from there, the bank.

10 Q. Just concentrate, please, if you can, Mr. Bajcetic, on my

11 question. I understand the explanation that you've given that it wasn't

12 your task to examine the bodies individually, but you have included in

13 your witness statement an assertion that the two bodies that can be seen

14 in the concrete section of the canal on the 8th were seen by you on the

15 10th 200 metres down from the concrete section along the canyon. And I'm

16 trying to understand how you were in a position to say that the remains

17 that you saw 200 metres down in the canyon were the same as the remains

18 that can be seen on the video on the 8th.

19 So my question is: Did you, yourself, go down into the canyon

20 section on the 10th or were you viewing it from an elevated position?

21 A. If these two bodies had been in the concrete section above the

22 cascade -- actually, the cameraman was what -- who told me that. He

23 marked these two bodies. One was described as having a red shirt and the

24 other blue shirt, and he told me that they were in the canyon. One could

25 see that also from the elevation because there was some gravels there, I

1 suppose to bury the bodies, the bodies that were on the bank. And from

2 that position, one could see the two bodies as well as the other bodies,

3 and the car where the bodies of two Albanians were, the husband and the

4 wife.

5 Q. We'll come --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic, the last question was very simple,

7 whether you went down into the canyon, yes or no.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

9 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have immediately said: No, I didn't go

10 down, then Mr. Emmerson will have follow-up questions for you.

11 MR. EMMERSON:

12 Q. Let me see if I can just unpick the last answer that you've given.

13 Clearly - and we can all see this from the video - those two bodies were

14 no longer in the concrete section of the canal in the piece of footage

15 that was shown on the 9th; that much we can all agree upon. What I'm

16 interested in is: Why it is you make a positive assertion in your witness

17 statement that they were, those two particular bodies, were to be seen

18 200 metres downstream in the canyon when you arrived on the 10th.

19 Now, is it the position that this is something you were told by

20 the cameraman, or is this a position that you are giving evidence on oath

21 that you saw those bodies there, 200 metres down in the canyon, and could

22 identify them yourself as being the same bodies as were shown in the video

23 of the 8th, floating in the concrete section of the canal, please?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, in your question you are creating two

25 possibilities. The witness said already that he was told this. So in

1 addition to what he was told and not -- it's not an or question, one or

2 the other --

3 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please make the question clear in that

5 respect.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

7 Q. First of all, were you told by the cameraman or by anybody else

8 that the two bodies that had been seen on the 8th could be seen 200 metres

9 down in the canyon on the 10th? Is that something you were told, first of

10 all?

11 A. Yes. The cameraman told me that and I've already explained what

12 he had told me.

13 Q. Thank you. And did you, yourself, see those two bodies or were

14 you relying on what the cameraman said?

15 A. I've told you what the cameraman told me. These two bodies could

16 clearly be seen on the footage that he recorded on the 10th when we were

17 together. You can see that clearly --

18 Q. Well, I think --

19 A. -- in his photos.

20 Q. Well, I think there may be some dispute about that, in terms of

21 that in terms of what the video footage shows. The question I'm asking

22 you, and I'll just put it simply to you again: Did you, yourself,

23 personally look at those two bodies and identify them as being the same as

24 the two bodies that you could see in the video footage of the 8th?

25 A. The video footage that was recorded on the 10th when I was with

1 the cameraman, those are the authentic images of what could be seen in the

2 canyon -- of the canal, that is.

3 Q. Did you happen to make a note anywhere of the passage on the video

4 where you say those two bodies can be seen, 200 metres down?

5 A. I was watching the footage, I saw the two bodies, and I claim that

6 I was at the lake on the 10th with the cameraman; and I claim that the

7 footage that was made on the 10th are authentic and I have no reason to

8 doubt that what he recorded on the 9th or on the 8th are not authentic as

9 well.

10 Q. My question is: Did you make a note or a record of the

11 time-counter on the video, which you say shows those bodies 200 metres

12 down in the canal?

13 A. Sir, I was not duty-bound to record the time --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the cameraman who did that

16 and I've already told you he was not a person who --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajcetic, Mr. Emmerson just wants to know whether

18 you made any note, not whether you had to do it --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- or it was someone else who should have done that.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The answer seems simply to be no.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

24 MR. EMMERSON:

25 Q. Now, by the time you were there on the 10th, the flow of water

1 into the canal and the canyon had been very substantially reduced by

2 manipulation of the gates further up the canal, had it not?

3 A. The cameraman told me that the level of the water was high and

4 that there was a risk that all the bodies in the canal at the moment would

5 be taken to the lake. I don't know about manipulated, I don't know that

6 expression. What I know is the canal was closed in Donja Luka or

7 Gornja Luka village where that was possible, and then the level of the

8 water was reduced and that's why the corpses could not be carried all the

9 way down to the lake. That's the essence of the whole matter.

10 Q. Thank you. And that happened on the 9th; is that correct?

11 A. I don't know when this was closed. In any case, on the 10th the

12 level of the water there was not that high, it was rather low.

13 Q. Yes. Thank you. If you look at paragraph 88 of your witness

14 statement, first sentence, you say it happened on the 9th; would you agree

15 with that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And so by the 10th, the level of water was low and not sufficient

18 to carry bodies along the canyon; is that correct?

19 A. Once the gates were closed, that was no longer possible.

20 Q. You see, if I tell you, Mr. Bajcetic, that no remains were

21 recovered 200 metres down in the canal at the location you describe at

22 all, would that affect your evidence or your recollection of this matter,

23 that there were no remains recovered 200 metres down the canal?

24 A. The only influence can be the distance, 200 metres or any other

25 distance. From the concrete part down the stream, I don't know how far it

1 was, but on the -- in the footage that was recorded on the 10th of

2 September you can see that there were corpses there.

3 Q. We'll obviously review the footage. You're not able to help us as

4 to the passage you're trying to rely on? When you viewed it with the

5 Prosecution you made no note of the passage you're referring to; is that

6 right?

7 A. I don't know what footage you are referring to. I don't know what

8 I should say.

9 Q. Well, I'm referring to the footage that you are seeking to suggest

10 shows these two sets of remains 200 metres down in the canal, and I'm

11 asking you to confirm that when you viewed this video footage with the

12 Prosecution you made no note of the passage that you are identifying as

13 showing those two sets of remains in the canyon?

14 A. I really don't know. It's very difficult for me to say whether

15 this is the case or not from this position.

16 Q. Very well. Would you --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- did you understand the question put to

18 you by Mr. Emmerson? Mr. Emmerson said you're relying on what you saw on

19 the video but you did not make any note which portion exactly you were

20 viewing when you gave this part of your statement.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

23 MR. EMMERSON:

24 Q. Could you turn to tab 16, please, in the bundle, the yellow

25 bundle. This contains Serbian and English translations of the reports of

1 the diving team that attended the canal investigation, and if you would

2 like to look, please, at the first document which is 16A, I'm going to

3 direct your attention to paragraphs 1 and 3. Paragraph 1 records that:

4 "On the 12th of September, between 1630 and 1345 hours," there

5 must be some error in that record, "a diving team from the 'Belgrade' pier

6 border police station from Belgrade," then the names are given, "searched

7 the field and discovered the following."

8 And then in the third paragraph, it reads as follows: "It was

9 observed that the mud current does not allow for the hypothesis that the

10 main stream of the canal water could have carried any object, such as the

11 body of a person who drowned or another body, into the deeper part of the

12 lake. This would indicate that the mud is an obstacle to bodies being

13 carried into the depth of the lake."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then if you turn to 16C there's a further report from the team

17 of divers dated the 16th of September. And if you look to the fourth full

18 paragraph on the first page, it refers back to those findings on the 12th.

19 "On this day, the team concluded there was no possibility of

20 bodies being carried into lake -- into Radonjic lake by the canal's main

21 current. Even with high water-levels, the mud barriers would have

22 retained any bodies from the canal. In this particular case, the quantity

23 of water was small and the lake level was significantly lower than usual."

24 A little further down, it says: "On the 13th and 14th September,

25 following heavy rainfall, the water-level in the canal on and below the

1 concrete areas had grown considerably. The water mass increased seven- to

2 eight-fold and the flooding prevented any type of search of the canal."

3 Then the penultimate paragraph of this report reads as following:

4 "The team concluded that all the bodies found and any bodies that

5 had made their way to the canal bed, whether the concrete or non-concrete

6 part, under any type of circumstance could not have been carried into the

7 lake regardless of the strength of the water current. There are several

8 obstacles in the canal such as bushes, wedged branches, rocks, and

9 sandbanks, especially where it winds around, which could retain bodies.

10 Consequently, the uncemented section of the canal was searched in detail."

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, if you are correct, Mr. Bajcetic, that the two bodies that

14 are seen on the 8th in the concrete section of the canal were washed over

15 into the canyon, then would you agree that they ought to have been

16 recovered by the Serbian recovery operation that you observed and should

17 be recorded on the post mortem examinations that were conducted at

18 Hotel Pashtrik?

19 MS. ISSA: I'm objecting to that, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MS. ISSA: First of all, the witness has no way of knowing that;

22 secondly, that's assuming that those bodies had not, in fact, been

23 recovered. We don't actually know that at this point. And I think the

24 passages that Mr. Emmerson read from refer specifically to the lake, to

25 the water current, pushing bodies into the lake itself, as opposed to the

1 natural part of the canal, which is a distinction.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 You are here really asking for conclusions, Mr. Emmerson.

4 MR. EMMERSON: I'll put the question another way.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please put the question another way. I tend to

6 support Ms. Issa's reference to the passages you read.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

8 Q. Could you pause, please, before answering the next question to see

9 if there is an objection. Based upon what you observed during your visit

10 to the canal, and in particular what you say you saw in relation to these

11 two bodies, can you provide the Trial Chamber with any explanation as to

12 how those two bodies do not feature in any of the post mortem reports?

13 MS. ISSA: I'm objecting to that, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to have a factual foundation for

15 the --

16 MS. ISSA: That's correct.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. EMMERSON: Well, that's the --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson --

20 MR. EMMERSON: -- order in which the evidence is called. The

21 evidence of the forensic pathologist is to come.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Of course the Chamber doesn't

23 know that either at this moment, but one way or the other this assumption

24 should be clarified to the witness, either through a hypothetical

25 assumption, to say if these bodies would not be, would have an explanation

1 for that. That's a question -- and then of course Ms. Issa knows better

2 what, on the basis of disclosures, is still to be expected as evidence,

3 and if she would then strongly object, I would then suggest that we have a

4 bit of an earlier break and that you explain to Ms. Issa what you're

5 relying on and it's not just assumptions without any proper basis.

6 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very happy to put the question in that form, if

7 that is not going to be the subject of objection.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, would that be acceptable for you or would

9 you still object? Because in that case --

10 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, I don't -- perhaps the witness

11 might take his ear --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps the witness takes his earphones off.

13 Ms. Issa, it seems that Mr. Emmerson takes the view that these

14 bodies are not part of the reported bodies at Hotel Pastrik, I think, and

15 you seem to take a different position. Of course the -- Mr. Emmerson is

16 entitled to ask a possible explanation to this witness, who, well, was

17 participating in the investigations. If, however, you would have very

18 strong feelings as that these two bodies were covered by the post mortem

19 exercise at a later stage, then of course perhaps it would be good that

20 you inform Mr. Emmerson on where you find those two bodies in the records.

21 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, it's not a question of -- that

22 those two bodies were, in fact, part of the post mortem record; it's a

23 question of whether or not Mr. Emmerson is correct by suggesting that the

24 bodies were simply not there. We don't know that. There are a number of

25 bodies that were found in the natural part of the canyon by the forensic

1 experts, which Your Honours will hear about shortly. But we simply don't

2 know that, so Mr. Emmerson is actually assuming facts that are not in

3 evidence when he -- when he puts his question in that way. We do not know

4 if those two bodies formed part of the several bodies that were, in fact,

5 found in the natural part of the canyon.

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour. I know that

7 Mr. Emmerson --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- is more than capable of taking care of his own

10 presentation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: But the nevertheless you would like to assist him.

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would like the make the following comment. I

13 think Ms. Issa has, in a fundamental sense, avoided the Chamber's

14 question, and that's the real problem, that if Mr. Emmerson poses the

15 question in one fashion, it gives rise to an objection which is that it

16 calls for speculation. If he poses the question the Chamber has suggested

17 as to hypothetical, based upon evidence that we have received from the

18 Prosecution and Ms. Issa decides to object to the question on that basis

19 then we are in the exact position that you have suggested, where we need

20 to have a discussion between counsel to make a determination of the

21 precise evidence, because we are talking about two fully-fleshed bodies.

22 MR. EMMERSON: If I --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I do understand, Ms. Issa, is that you do

24 not disagree with Mr. Emmerson; that, as you said -- they were not

25 identified as such in the post mortem records. Is that correctly

1 understood?

2 MS. ISSA: They were not identified as those specific bodies that

3 were in the concrete canyon on the 8th; however, there are a number of

4 bodies that were found in the natural part of the canyon that -- which

5 could be any number -- it could be any one of those bodies. So my

6 objection --

7 MR. EMMERSON: In fact, it could not be.

8 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry, but my objection is that by suggesting to

9 the witness that the bodies simply were not there --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --

11 MS. ISSA: -- that's incorrect.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do it in a different way.

13 Mr. Emmerson, if you would ask the witness perhaps on the basis

14 that you were not able to find these two bodies among those who were

15 covered by the post mortem and whether the witness has any explanation for

16 that.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And then perhaps of course one of the next questions

19 could be whether there would be a possibility that the witness -- that the

20 bodies never had been there.

21 MR. EMMERSON: I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about

22 my position. If the Prosecution is able to identify from the finite

23 number of post mortem examination reports that are in their possession one

24 or two which they suggest are capable of relating to the two floating

25 bodies on the 8th then we would respectfully invite them to indicate which

1 they are. This is not the first time I've raised this issue.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. EMMERSON: And I wouldn't have made the submissions that I

4 have made, or asked the questions that I have made unless I had without a

5 basis for doing it. And if there is a basis to contradict what I'm

6 suggesting, then we would respectfully invite the Prosecution to identify

7 it, certainly before the forensic pathologists are called, which are the

8 bodies that they saw could be the two bodies seen in the video on the 8th

9 floating in the concrete section of the canal.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Ms. Issa, I've got one other question for you in

11 this respect that isn't it true under Rule 90(H), that Mr. Emmerson even

12 has a duty to put to the witness what their case is, and then of course

13 put questions in relation to that. And the case apparently is that these

14 bodies were not there at the time. So therefore, I think Mr. Emmerson

15 is -- even has a duty to put that to the witness before he asks further

16 questions about the matter.

17 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, it's true that he does have a duty

18 to put his case to the witness; the difficulty is he doesn't have a

19 foundation, in my respectful submission, to put it in those terms, that

20 the bodies simply were not there --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if that's his case he has to put it to the

22 witness; whether he has good reasons to do so or not, we'll find out if it

23 comes to the point of the presentation of the Defence case. But you can't

24 say you are not allowed because you have got no good reasons for that. We

25 are not yet at the stage where we can assess that properly. Perhaps you

1 may have the impression you can. The Chamber certainly has not, and the

2 Chamber has to supervise the proceedings, so Mr. Emmerson has a duty and

3 it will later turn out whether he had a good reason or not to take that

4 position. So to that extent, perhaps not hidden somewhere in the

5 questions but more explicitly Mr. Emmerson puts to the witness what the

6 Defence thinks the case is and then ask questions about that.

7 MS. ISSA: I do understand Your Honour's point, but my objection

8 was -- the basis of my objection is that through, his question,

9 Mr. Emmerson is assuming facts that are not in evidence and --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's --

11 MS. ISSA: And he has no foundation for his questions.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I would that's part of the definition of a leading

13 question. Leading questions are allowed in cross-examination, that is,

14 either you already suggest an answer to the witness, or that the question

15 includes assumptions on matters that are not yet proven. I mean, that's

16 exactly -- I think, that's at least how I learned, what a leading question

17 is.

18 MS. ISSA: I agree with Your Honour that that's -- he's permitted

19 to ask leading questions. My point is he's suggesting to the witness that

20 the bodies simply were not there on the basis of not -- of the post mortem

21 reports, and I'm -- my objection is that that's -- that's -- that would be

22 incorrect.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps -- perhaps, Mr. Emmerson --

24 MS. ISSA: But --

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- if you would just put it to the witness and I tend

1 to agree with Ms. Issa that you could not come to that conclusion on the

2 basis of the post mortem records because in the post mortem records there

3 seem to be quite a number of unidentified witnesses -- bodies,

4 nevertheless, you think that they teach you more.

5 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, the post mortem report records what

6 has been recovered. The age and state of decomposition of the remains,

7 those parts of the bodies that have been recovered and they are

8 photographed both in situ and during the PM -- post mortem procedure

9 itself. And it's on the basis of that and with the benefit of expert

10 opinion that I put the question that I do. I don't with to continue, to

11 use up valuable cross-examination time debating an issue which is, for

12 this witness, one which is put on an assumptive basis.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And at the same time you were wise enough not to

14 elicit any expert analysis by this witness of the post mortem records. So

15 let's leave it out for a second and you can put your case to the

16 witness --

17 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and ask questions about it.

19 Could you please put your earphones on again.

20 MR. EMMERSON:

21 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, first of all, if you assume for a moment - the

22 question I'm about to ask you proceeds on an assumption - assuming that

23 there is no post mortem report which relates to any set of remains that

24 could be either of those two floating bodies that are seen in the

25 videotape on the 8th, is there anything which you saw which might account

1 for that during the times that you were at the canal?

2 A. Now that you're mentioning the canal, you quoted sections of some

3 other reports. There are two sites involved. One is 200 metres off the

4 cascade, of the concrete section toward Lake Radonjic; and the other one

5 is 300 metres removed from the lake toward the canal, where there's also

6 sludge. On the other side, there is no sludge, so there is a difference

7 there as well.

8 Now, as for this other issue you're mentioning, I don't really get

9 the point of your question. The corpses were up at the cascade and then

10 they were down there in the canal. This is something you can see in the

11 footage. I don't see what else I can say about that.

12 Q. The question I'm asking you, Mr. Bajcetic, is: Assume for a

13 moment that there are no records showing that those two bodies were

14 recovered and taken to Hotel Pashtrik and examined - in other words, that

15 none of the post mortem reports on the remains that were allegedly

16 recovered could be either of these two bodies, assume that is the

17 position - was there anything that you saw or which you know about which

18 could explain how two bodies in the canal could go missing?

19 A. No, I can't.

20 Q. Now, I'd like you to turn, please, to the brown file for a moment

21 behind tab 1. This is a record made by the investigating judge - and I

22 won't mention his name - on the 17th of September, confirming the dates on

23 which the forensic team from Belgrade, led by Professor Dunjic, were

24 present at the scene and at Hotel Pashtrik. You with see that the first

25 date is the 11th of September and the last date is the 17th of September.

1 I'd like you to confirm, please, that the forensic team arrived on the

2 11th, that is to say the day after you were there?

3 A. I didn't have any contacts with the forensics team. I only knew

4 that they were operating in Hotel Pastrik.

5 Q. Well, there was a forensic team at the canal, was there not?

6 A. I know that. I was not together with the forensic team. I did

7 not have any contacts with them either when they were at the canal or when

8 they were on the hotel premises.

9 Q. I see. Let me just be clear. You were at the canal on both the

10 10th and the 11th; is that correct, Mr. Bajcetic?

11 A. No. I was at the canal on the 10th. I was in Dasinovac on the

12 11th.

13 Q. I see. So you never went to the canal on the 11th?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Very well. Certainly there was no forensic team at the canal when

16 you were there on the 10th, was there?

17 A. I don't think there was. Something was being done there. There

18 was a truck holding communications equipment or something.

19 Q. I think, if I may say so, that - and I'll be corrected if I'm

20 wrong - that the evidence is undisputed that Professor Dunjic and

21 Professor Aleksandric first arrived on the 11th. And I wanted in that

22 context to ask you to one matter of detail, if I could. Could you turn to

23 volume 2, tab 2, the following tab. Yes. Do you have that?

24 A. Could the volume be put a bit higher. Higher, please. Thank you.

25 Q. Can you hear me well now?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Could you turn to volume 2, tab 2, and behind letter B, first of

3 all, you'll find a photo -- two photographs. Although they're black and

4 white, can I ask you, please, if you look at the bottom photograph you can

5 see a still photograph of those two sets of fully-fleshed remains adjacent

6 to the wall of the canal. Do you see in the bottom photograph?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And those are the ones that you're referring to in the videotape

9 of the 8th, are they not?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And of one thing, or two things, we can be categorically certain

12 on your evidence. The first is that those two sets of remains had gone by

13 the 9th, is that correct, because they are not on the video footage for

14 the 9th in that position.

15 A. They weren't there on the 10th when I was there.

16 Q. Just take it in stages, please. On the evidence you have given we

17 can be certain from what you yourself have told us that those two bodies

18 which were there on the video on the 8th had gone from the concrete

19 section of the canal by the 9th, because you've told us that you viewed

20 that video and they had gone from that location by the 9th. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. I was quite clear. In the video showed to me by the cameraman, I

23 saw the two corpses and I do state for a fact that they weren't there on

24 the 10th when I was there.

25 Q. Thank you very much. So -- again, I'm just going from your

1 witness statement. You say in -- in paragraph 85 that those two bodies

2 are not on the footage in that location on the 9th or the 10th and that

3 the reason for that is that they are said to have been washed over by

4 heavy rains on the night of the 8th; correct?

5 A. Everything I said is true. On the 8th there were corpses to be

6 seen in the footage. On the 10th, they were no longer there because they

7 had been washed over by the water, and in order to prevent other corpses

8 from being washed over, the canal was closed. I believe we explained all

9 that.

10 Q. Yes. You -- just listen, if you can, carefully to my question.

11 Paragraph 85 of your witness statement, which I read to you a little while

12 ago and which you looked at, says that -- as far as those two bodies are

13 concerned says this: "... The two bodies which can be seen on the video

14 footage, recorded on the 8th of September, cannot be seen anymore on the

15 video footage made on the 9th and the 10th September." And you say a

16 little further on that the cameraman told you that they were present on

17 the 8th but that they were not present on the 10th. Now just so that

18 we're clear, you made a clear statement in your witness statement that the

19 two bodies we can see in the video footage for the 8th by the wall in the

20 concrete section of the canal, are no longer to be seen in the video

21 footage for the 9th - never mind the 10th, but for the 9th. Is that

22 correct, what you say in your witness statement?

23 A. Let me think it over a bit. On the 8th the corpses were present.

24 On the 9th - and I'm presuming on the basis of what the cameraman said -

25 that on the 9th, the dam at Gornja Luka village was closed and that the

1 corpses flowed on on the 9th and were not -- and could not be seen on the

2 10th. It's difficult to say now what exactly happened on the 8th and on

3 the 9th and on the 10th, but I can tell you for a fact is on the 8th the

4 corpses were there, on the basis of what the cameraman told me, and that

5 they were no longer there on the 10th when I was there, and that's the

6 truth.

7 Q. Very well. Well, let's use the 10th as our -- as our focus then

8 rather than the 9th, because you're certain from your own observations

9 that they were not there on the 10th; correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now would you just turn in tab 2 to letter A, which refers to that

12 photograph that I've just shown you. This is an extract from a transcript

13 of the evidence given by the pathologist Professor Dunjic in the

14 Milutinovic trial just immediately behind --

15 MR. EMMERSON: No, I'm sorry, the witness has it, in fact. That's

16 it.

17 Q. If you look at the bottom of the first page, line 122,

18 Professor Dunjic is asked by reference to that paragraph which is 6D97 and

19 he's asked: "Professor Dunjic, we should shortly see on the screen

20 photographs that we procured from a book, and they should relate to the

21 time when you were in that location. Is that the canal that we see on the

22 screen?

23 "A. Yes" --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 MR. EMMERSON:

1 Q. "Yes, that's the canal. Those two photographs were taken from the

2 direction of Radonjic Lake, and the place where the canal narrows down

3 faces Donji Radiste and Glodjane. That's the concrete part of the canal.

4 And the second photograph is something that I saw with my own eyes when I

5 was on the location. We see two bodies next to the right-hand edge,

6 depending on where you're looking from, two bodies that were floating and

7 that were later found in the earth-covered part of the canal, because this

8 is the concrete part. Out of the concrete part there is a waterfall and

9 then follows an earthen part. There were heavy rainfalls at the time and

10 these two bodies and a larger one were found in April."

11 Now, pause there for a moment, if you will. If it's right - and I

12 believe it is uncontested - that Professor Dunjic first arrived at the

13 canal on the 11th of September, then on your testimony he cannot have seen

14 those two bodies in the location where they appear in the photograph that

15 you have just looked at, can he, because they had gone by then. Is that

16 right? Pardon? I can't hear your answer, I'm sorry, is that correct --

17 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I think -- I -- before you -- before the

18 witness answers.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MS. ISSA: The passage -- perhaps he should take his headphones

21 off, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take off your headphones for a second.

23 MS. ISSA: There's a real lack of clarity, in my respectful

24 submission, in terms of what this passage refers to because if we see the

25 bottom part from where Mr. Emmerson just read from it says that the two

1 bodies were floating and they were found in the earth-covered part of the

2 canal because it was a concrete part. Then it continues on and talks

3 about the heavy rainfalls at the time. So I'm not entirely sure without

4 looking at the full context of the transcript and see what was said later

5 on is whether or not Professor Dunjic referred to what he saw on that day

6 or whether or not --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MS. ISSA: I mean --

9 JUDGE ORIE: We are not at this moment, Ms. Issa, we are not

10 judging the truthfulness of the testimony of Dr. Dunjic.

11 "The second photograph is something I saw with my own eyes when I

12 was at the location." There could hardly be any doubt as to that portion

13 of his evidence. I mean, don't ask me about reliability. The first part

14 of the answer is that the two photographs were taken from the direction of

15 Radonjic Lake, which apparently is not a reliable part of the testimony

16 because if you take it from Radonjic Lake, then of course it comes down to

17 you and not as on the second photograph. So therefore, what Mr. Emmerson

18 at this moment does is not to put the whole of the testimony, where there

19 is some ambiguity, the last line also is not very clear to me, but at

20 least there's one line which is abundantly clear: "This is what I saw with

21 my own eyes when I was there."

22 And Mr. Emmerson is now asking the witness, and he's fully

23 entitled to do so, to see whether this is inconsistent with what this

24 witness said. So either of the two must be -- perhaps still to be

25 explained, but it's not -- you can't accept the two of it, which is: I

1 arrived on the 11th. The photograph is what the witness -- what

2 Dr. Dunjic saw with his own eyes when he was there. And this witness

3 clearly testified on the 10th, perhaps also on the 9th, at least on the

4 10th with full explanation, these bodies were not there anymore. Then of

5 course we have another puzzle. Has Dr. Dunjic been there on the 7th or

6 what is the relation to April he mentions? That's all unclear. But this

7 is an acceptable question to this witness.

8 Yes.

9 MR. EMMERSON:

10 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, I'm not sure whether you have the question that I

11 asked you in mind, but just to remind you. You've told us by reference to

12 the photograph that we see at tab 2B that you can categorically state that

13 those two bodies that we see in that photograph were no longer in the

14 concrete section of the canal on the 10th when you attended. And I have

15 just shown you a transcript from the evidence of Professor Dunjic, who did

16 not attend the canal until the 11th and who, when shown that photograph,

17 says in terms: "The second photograph is something I saw with my own eyes

18 when I was on the location. We see two bodies next to the right-hand

19 edge, depending on where you're looking from."

20 Now, pausing there for a moment, I think you can agree, can you

21 not, that the testimony given by Professor Dunjic in the Milutinovic case

22 cannot be correct if what you've told the Trial Chamber about the position

23 of those bodies on the 10th is right?

24 A. I really don't know. I can't account for that. Anything I might

25 say after this I believe there's nothing for me to add.

1 Q. And would you agree --

2 A. There is a mismatch in the dates. The factual description is

3 okay.

4 Q. Well --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, at the same time you are asking the

6 witness something. He says: I do not know exactly when they arrived.

7 You put to him the document in which it is recorded that he arrived on the

8 11th. So it's a matter of logic if it's true what the document says then

9 even without the answer of the witness, there is contradiction. If not --

10 but this witness has earlier said that he had no direct contact with, so

11 therefore let's leave it as it is. I mean, inconsistency and

12 contradictions can be established not only through testimony but through

13 logic.

14 MR. EMMERSON: There is, of course, one remaining hypothesis.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. EMMERSON: Which is the possibility that the bodies were moved

17 again from the bottom section of the canal back up to the concrete section

18 of the canal.

19 Q. Would you have any reason to believe that the bodies were moved

20 back up?

21 A. Sir, I really don't know what you want from me. Nobody had the

22 reason to move corpses or to play with people or the corpses. I don't see

23 how anybody would want to play with human lives. That's the least of

24 anybody's desires. That's a fact.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, whatever people may want to do or have

1 good reasons to do, you say you have no reason whatsoever to believe that

2 the corpses that you said were video-recorded in the concrete part of the

3 canal on the 8th, that you said were not there anymore on the 10th. And

4 you have got no reason whatsoever to -- to assume even that they were

5 replaced there on the 11th. That's clear.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

8 MR. EMMERSON: Would that be a convenient moment?

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it would. Yes.

10 Madam Usher, could you already escort the witness out of the

11 courtroom then.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, how much time would you still need?

14 MR. EMMERSON: [Microphone not activated] 35 minutes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, same question to you.

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I need to confer with my colleagues before I can

17 give you a reasonable answer at this time.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you want to know what Mr. Emmerson is covering

19 in the next 35 minutes.

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey, do you have already -- I'm not inviting

22 you to speculate.

23 MR. HARVEY: Without speculating, I think I've probably got about

24 ten minutes, and again subject to further discussion with co-counsel.

25 JUDGE ORIE: The impression of the Chamber was right that on

1 Thursday the last session would not do. That was more or less accepted.

2 Nevertheless, if three counsel together could see whether they could

3 finish within one hour.

4 Mr. Emmerson, if perhaps you negotiate with your colleagues who

5 will put what questions, then we'll hear the result of such negotiations

6 or compromises or agreements at 11.00, when we resume.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, in response to the question the Chamber asked

11 in terms of the time that I need, I, after consultation with my

12 colleagues, feel that most efficacious and efficient use of time would be

13 to cede ten minutes to Mr. Emmerson and I will not be asking any

14 questions.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would mean 45 minutes. The Chamber is

16 inclined to have the next break at one minute to 12.00.

17 Mr. Harvey, you're the third --

18 MR. HARVEY: Not because I feel intimidated by that, but because I

19 feel it's the most sensible use of all our time, I'm also going to yield

20 my time to Mr. Emmerson.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, do you think you could finish by one

22 minute to 12.00?

23 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

25 MR. EMMERSON:

1 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, could you look at your witness statement again,

2 please, this time page 16, paragraph 69, where you're commenting on a

3 videotape of the recovery of remains at --

4 JUDGE ORIE: For the witness, Mr. Emmerson, it's page 22.

5 MR. EMMERSON:

6 Q. I'm sorry, page 22 of the Serbian original. Now, if you look at

7 paragraph 69, letter d, and paragraph 69, letter i, please, first of all,

8 just to remind yourself of what is written there. Now, is it correct then

9 that one of the two individuals whose remains were discovered at Dashinoc

10 was wearing a police shirt?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And from 69(i), can you confirm that in that police shirt were

13 found documents bearing the name Milka Radunovic?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did you establish why it was that he was wearing a police shirt?

16 A. I didn't establish why; however, at the time policemen used to

17 give parts of their clothes to their relatives. They would give them

18 shirts or vests.

19 Q. Do you know if, in fact, Milka Radunovic was a police officer or a

20 reserve police officer?

21 A. I don't know. I don't think so.

22 Q. Could you turn, please, to tab 1 and to the statement of Mr. Tomas

23 at paragraph 54. In that statement Mr. Tomas is recorded as saying: "I

24 recall" -- do you have that paragraph?

25 A. I do.

1 Q. Paragraph 54.

2 "I recall that Bajcetic found a personal ID and some other

3 documents among those items, but I cannot remember the names that were

4 mentioned on those documents. While we were at that location, a police

5 unit, MUP, arrived and I remember that one of the police officers

6 recognised one jacket that was found among the pieces of clothing as his

7 father's. I do not know the name of this police officer. I knew that he

8 was a police officer because he belonged to the police unit that had

9 arrived. I don't know what the unit's task was. I simply saw them

10 there."

11 And then a little lower down he says this: "I do not know any

12 further details in this respect because when the police officer recognised

13 his missing father's jacket, I took Zenelj Alija away from the scene so

14 that his presence would not cause any commotion."

15 Now, pausing there. Do you remember a police officer arriving

16 with a group of other officers who identified some of the clothing found

17 there as belonging to his own father?

18 A. A group of police officers arrived. There was some ten of them or

19 so, I believe that they were on the reserve strength, they came in a very

20 small lorry. And objective was for them to secure the room where the

21 on-site investigation was going on, and I don't really remember the detail

22 of a policeman having recognised his father's shirt. Bogdan Tomas was

23 maybe 30 or so metres away from us at that moment.

24 Q. Does the name Stanisa Radosevic mean anything to you in this

25 context?

1 A. No. I know of a man whose name is Slobodan Radosevic, whose

2 documents were also there. I don't know anybody by the name of

3 Stanisa Radosevic.

4 Q. We've heard evidence in this trial from Stanisa Radosevic, who was

5 the son of Slobodan Radosevic --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- describing that he attended the Dashinoc scene whilst there

8 were investigators there examining the remains, and I just want to see if

9 that in any way prompts your recollection of a relative of one of the

10 deceased being present in police uniform.

11 A. No. I did not talk to that person at all. His name doesn't ring

12 any bells. I am only familiar with the name of Slobodan Radosevic, whose

13 documents were there at the time.

14 Q. Can I ask you this: Were you aware that houses in Dashinoc had

15 been set on fire by Serb forces immediately prior to your visit to

16 Dashinoc?

17 A. I'm not aware of that.

18 Q. Did you see the village of Dashinoc at all whilst you were

19 visiting the site?

20 A. We came up to the two houses there. The people living there were

21 rather poor. The houses were very modest, and at the time we were there

22 they hadn't been torched. You had to go down a pathway, and on the

23 left-hand side you came up to those houses.

24 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, can you confirm for the Tribunal, please, that it

25 was the practice of the MUP and the PJP and the JSO to burn the houses of

1 Albanians when they moved in to take control of a village?

2 A. Besides being in Dasinovac and Rznic and on the lake, I did not go

3 to any other villages at the time.

4 Q. That doesn't entirely answer my question. From your knowledge of

5 being an RDB analyst in the area at the time and knowing of the clashes

6 that were taking place, can you please tell the Tribunal: Was it the

7 practice of the Serb forces to set fire to the houses of Albanians when

8 they took control of a village?

9 A. I don't know whether this was the practice. I don't think that

10 they had taken control over the villages. In none of the villages did the

11 Serb forces take over control. They didn't control the area at all.

12 Q. Mr. Stanisa Radosevic, who attended the scene that you've

13 described, has told us that the houses in the area had been burned down,

14 but that's something you don't recall at all, is it?

15 A. He was there, I suppose he resided there, and he would be more

16 familiar with the area than I was. I was there only for one day, nothing

17 else. I don't reside in the area.

18 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, you understand that the question I'm asking you is

19 about the practice of Serb forces as a whole. Is it your testimony that

20 you are not aware that Serb forces in that area around where you were

21 based had a practice of putting houses to the torch when they moved into

22 an Albanian village?

23 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'm not sure why this is relevant for

24 the --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know whether this

1 was --

2 MS. ISSA: For the purposes of this witness. He's indicated

3 several times he doesn't know.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he has evaded to answer the question, as a

5 matter of fact.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. EMMERSON:

8 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, is it your evidence that you were not aware that it

9 was the practice of Serb forces in the area where you were stationed at

10 the time when they moved into an Albanian village to burn the houses and

11 the crops and shoot the livestock?

12 A. I was very clear when I said that I don't know whether that was

13 the practice. There may have been such cases, that's true.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not focus on the semantic issue of what is

15 practice and what is not practice.

16 Are you aware of Serb forces burning houses and crops, whether

17 that happened if they were in Albanian villages?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say exactly. I know as I

19 was passing by on the Djakovica-Decani-Pec road that I also saw some

20 houses smoldering. Now, as to what village that was, who had burnt the

21 houses down, it's very difficult for me to say that, I really can't.

22 JUDGE ORIE: That's what you personally observed. In the -- in

23 your position did you ever receive information about such things that had

24 happened?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received information that certain

1 villages, i.e., certain houses had been torched. But pursuant to this

2 information, one couldn't really conclude that that was common practice

3 and that all the houses were torched when a village was entered.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said you could not conclude that this

5 was common practice, but that information was about houses and crops

6 torched by Serbian forces; is that correctly understood?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We heard about houses that were

8 torched. I don't know about the crops, but I repeat nobody ever told me

9 that this was practice, that this was customarily done when a village was

10 entered. I never received information to that effect.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And when you say, "when a village was entered,"

12 you mean to say when a village was entered by Serb forces. I leave alone

13 what kind of forces exactly.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the Serb forces which were part

15 of an armed conflict or which were engaged in an operation or in an

16 action.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

18 MR. EMMERSON:

19 Q. Did anybody ever give you a justification for why it was

20 considered legitimate to burn civilians' houses?

21 A. No.

22 Q. I want to move to another topic --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, in your question suddenly the houses

24 become civilian houses, which is as far as I understand not the testimony

25 of the witness so therefore -- but in view of the answer I think we can

1 proceed. But I would just like you not to hide these few elements.

2 MR. EMMERSON: If it needs to be clarified --

3 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, in view of the answer of the witness there's

4 no need. It's just for future occasions.

5 Please proceed.

6 MR. EMMERSON:

7 Q. Paragraph 65 of your witness statement, Mr. Bajcetic, you refer in

8 the last sentence of that paragraph to the recovery of a 30-year-old male

9 in a drain area, a concrete sewer, adjacent to the economic farm. This is

10 your own witness statement, Mr. Bajcetic, which is tab 14.

11 A. Just a moment, if you can bear with me, please. 14 -- oh, it's in

12 the other binder.

13 Q. At the end of paragraph 65 you refer to the recovery, inside a

14 concrete sewer adjacent to the economic farm, of a body of a man of

15 approximately 30 years old.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you recall that body being removed from the concrete sewer

18 yourself, were you present?

19 A. No, because I personally saw that and one of these men was

20 removing the concrete grid. The body was revealed. It was a 30-year-old

21 man in a jacket. The body was then taken out of the place where it was

22 positioned, but I did not stay up to the end. I did not attend that.

23 Q. Very well. Thank you. I'm going to put some passages from some

24 statements to you in connection with that body. Once I've done that I

25 want to ask you one or two questions about them but I'm going to put them

1 to you first. For your information that body was given a label of RE1 and

2 was subsequently, some time later, identified by DNA analysis as a man

3 called Mehmet Rrustemaj. If you would take the brown volume for a moment

4 and first of all, look at tab 7. There's just one line in that statement

5 I want to draw to your attention. In paragraph 11 -- this is a statement

6 made by the wife of Mehmet Rrustemaj. And as you will see in the first

7 line of paragraph 11, she records that her husband was last seen alive at

8 her home by her at 11.00 in the morning on the 30th of August. If you

9 would now turn, please, to tab 10 there is a further statement from that

10 lady, and on this I'm afraid you're going to have to rely on a translation

11 from the interpreters in the English and I'm going to read to you a

12 passage from the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 of that statement.

13 She says this: "Whilst my husband was alive he was always under

14 pressure from the Serbian police. He was beaten and tortured many times.

15 He was accused of keeping weapons, but in general it was well known that

16 my husband did not like Serbs. In particular -- in particular he had

17 problems with officers known as Rade and Milutin, they often used to beat

18 my husband in Gjakove police station where they both worked. Rade was a

19 small man and Milutin was small [sic], they both spoke perfect Albanian

20 although they were Serbs. My husband suffered with problems in his knees

21 due to one of the last beatings that he suffered at the hands of these

22 officers."

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, you misspoke when you said --

24 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- that Milutin was small as well. He was tall.

1 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry, "Milutin was tall". I apologise.

2 Q. She continues: "One of the other reasons my husband had problems

3 with these people is that my parents are from the village of Prekaz. My

4 father is from the Jashari family (who were killed by Serbian forces in

5 1998). My father was a second or third cousin of Adem Jashari. Our

6 family connection meant that the Serbian police always suspected Mehmet of

7 involvement with weapons. Everyone in this area knew of our family

8 connection."

9 Just pausing there for a moment, there's one further passage I

10 want to put to you before I put a series of questions to you. If you turn

11 behind tab 11 this is a statement from a man called Islam Rruci, who was

12 an acquaintance of the individual whose remains were recovered in that

13 sewer, Mehmet Rrustemaj. And on page 2 of his witness statement he says

14 this:

15 "I do not think that Mehmet had any problems with anyone apart

16 from the man named Rade who I know he was afraid of. I know that Mehmet's

17 house was often visited by Serbs. I'm not 100 per cent sure of the

18 reason, but I believe he was in dispute with the Serb Rade Vlahovic from

19 the village and he was afraid that this Serb might seek revenge against

20 his family. He was always having problems with Rade who was a civilian

21 police officer from Gjakove. They had argued over the market spot that

22 Mehmet sold honey from. I think Rade wanted the spot for a friend of

23 his."

24 Pausing there. First of all, you've told us that you know

25 Rade Vlahovic as an officer stationed at Gjakove police station. Is that

1 correct?

2 A. Yes, correct.

3 Q. Was there more than one Rade Vlahovic at Gjakove police station,

4 to your knowledge?

5 A. That I don't know.

6 Q. Was he a civilian police officer?

7 A. Yes, he was.

8 Q. Can you describe him for us, please?

9 A. He may have been around 170 centimetres tall, brownish hair,

10 medium build. I don't believe I would recognise him even now if I saw

11 him.

12 Q. I see. Are you able to shed any light on the suggestion that one

13 of the individuals whose remains were recovered during the investigation

14 had had prior problems with Rade Vlahovic from Gjakove police station?

15 A. I'm not aware of that at all.

16 Q. Very well.

17 I'll turn to another topic then, if I may, please. You have

18 described in your witness statement the fact that bullet casings were

19 collected from the area around the canal; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And I think some significance was attached to the fact that these

22 were bullet casings of Chinese manufacture; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Just explain to us what the significance of the fact that they

25 were of Chinese manufacture.

1 A. When the ammunition was used, that type of ammunition, apparently

2 the sound the ammunition made when fired was different from the sound

3 produced by the Serbian-made ammunition. I believe the difference was in

4 the charge itself and that they generally referred to that sort of

5 ammunition as crackers.

6 Q. So was Chinese ammunition associated with the KLA or with the Serb

7 forces or with both?

8 A. It was associated with the KLA.

9 Q. Did the Serb forces use Chinese ammunition?

10 A. No, to my knowledge they did not. I am not sure.

11 Q. I see. I just want to see if you can help us for a moment,

12 please. If you could just look in the brown file behind tab 4 for a

13 moment. Now, if you look in the first few lines of this document, you can

14 see the heading I think in the middle of the page: "Ambush plan."

15 Do you have that?

16 A. Yes, I see that.

17 Q. If you look above it, please --

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. -- does it record there an agreement between members of the

20 Secretariat of the Interior in Gjakove and members of the department of

21 state security in Peje and Gjakove?

22 A. Yes, I see that.

23 Q. This would be an agreement then between the SUP and the department

24 that you worked for; is that correct?

25 A. That's what it says here. We had never had such an agreement in

1 Djakovica, I'm sure about that -- at least I did not attend a single

2 meeting where such an agreement was reached. Whether something along

3 those lines happened, I don't know.

4 Q. I think the answer to that may lie in the date, because if you

5 look under the words "ambush plan," the first numbered paragraph refers to

6 an ambush that is to take place in January 1999, and I think by then you

7 had left, hadn't you?

8 A. Yes, yes, of course. It has nothing to do with my stay there.

9 Q. Yes, I understand that. You had left by then. Mr. Tomas, on the

10 other hand, was still there, wasn't he?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you can see in the lines at the top that the plan is directed

13 at information that terrorists located in Jablanica and Bucane will be

14 moving long the Kosuric-Glodjane-Nepolje road at a particular time; do you

15 see that?

16 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, just questioning the relevance --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with me.

18 MS. ISSA: -- if -- given the date that was referred to by my

19 friend, I'm not sure what the relevance is.

20 MR. EMMERSON: It's apparent.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I think the relevance comes clear from the previous

22 questions and from testimony the Chamber already heard on this matter

23 before.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

25 MR. EMMERSON:

1 Q. Could you now look to the paragraph with Roman numeral V. In the

2 second sentence of that paragraph does it indicate that: "The platoon

3 leader of the PJP is to provide grenade launchers and ammunition

4 manufactured in China ..."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And at VIII, Roman numeral VIII, does it record that in addition

8 to camouflage uniforms, boots, bullet-proof vests, and so forth, members

9 of the PJP should be equipped with long-barrelled weapons with two combat

10 ammunition sets, while each squad should have one hand-held launcher and

11 30 bullets manufactured in China; do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you think of any legitimate reason why the department that you

14 had been working for, state security, should enter into an agreement with

15 the PJP to issue members of the PJP not only with regular combat

16 ammunition sets, but in addition with 30 bullets manufactured in China?

17 A. I don't know, really. This is the first time I hear of these

18 facts, that's number one. And number two, I wasn't there in that

19 time-period. Presumably, this agreement was reached under circumstances

20 that were quite different from those when I was there. I cannot say

21 anything else about a period of time when I wasn't present there.

22 Q. I understand you can't comment on the plan that was reached,

23 although as you've told us a moment ago it was reached at a time when your

24 colleague Mr. Tomas was still serving in Gjakove. I understand that

25 you're not in a position to comment on the content of the plan. The

1 question I'm asking you is: Can you conceive of any legitimate reason why

2 it would be necessary in addition to regular ammunition to ensure that the

3 members of the PJP were carrying rounds of ammunition which are

4 associated with use by the KLA?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, that question has been put to the

6 witness and he has answered. And he said, "I don't know, really."

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. EMMERSON:

9 Q. Could you turn behind tab 5 for a moment.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I should have slowed down.

11 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

12 Q. I'd like you to look, please, at paragraph 160 of that document

13 which is an excerpt from the Prosecution's pre-trial brief in the

14 Milutinovic case. I think if you look at the allegation there made:

15 "Other concealment attempts were made in advance of the killings.

16 For example, in one MUP order of January 1999 troops were assigned to

17 ambush suspected KLA members and were ordered to use Chinese ammunition.

18 Chinese ammunition was habitually used by the KLA but not by the forces of

19 the FRY and Serbia. This deliberate attempt to frame the KLA for killing

20 Albanians played into later propaganda attempts by members of the joint

21 criminal enterprise to blame civilian casualties on KLA in-fighting."

22 Mr. Bajcetic, was there a policy within RDB Gjakove of which you

23 were aware to seek to implicate the KLA for crimes committed by or at the

24 instigation of the Serb forces?

25 A. At the time I was down there, I assert that this wasn't the case.

1 These matters that you have just read out from paragraph 160 are

2 completely new to me.

3 Q. I see. Well, you said a little while ago in answer to a question

4 concerning the canal that the idea of the movement of bodies was, as I

5 understand it in your testimony, one that you wholly rejected as a

6 possibility, the idea that the bodies were moved and manipulated by the

7 Serb authorities. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Could you --

10 A. I didn't know about any such thing for -- that's for sure, if

11 anything of the sort existed, that is.

12 Q. I see. Would you turn to paragraph 153 in that excerpt that I've

13 just given you. This is a reference in the first line to

14 Vlastimir Djordjevic, a man who, according to the statement I showed you

15 at tab 13, attended on the 8th with Mr. Tomas. And the allegation made by

16 the Prosecution in relation to Mr. Djordjevic is that he coordinated the

17 clearing up of bodies in seeking --

18 MS. ISSA: I'm objecting, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MS. ISSA: This is entirely irrelevant to the matter we're

21 dealing with in this particular case. He's obviously dealing with -- he's

22 obviously raising issues that relate to a different case entirely.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Emmerson

24 wants to hear from this witness whether he is aware to what extent we are

25 talking about here about incidents and whether it was anything more, and

1 he's entitled to do so.

2 At the same time, Mr. Emmerson, I don't remember that the witness

3 said that there was no possibility that they would have done it. I think,

4 as a matter of fact, the witness said that he could not understand one

5 reason why one would do such a thing.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And not about possibilities. So to that extent I

8 think you misrepresented --

9 MR. EMMERSON: I apologise.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 MR. EMMERSON:

12 Q. I just want to know how much of this you are aware of. I'll read

13 it again.

14 "Djordjevic coordinated, pursuant to Stojiljkovic's orders,

15 the 'clearing-up' of bodies in secret mass graves at several locations in

16 Serbia. Bodies were driven by MUP officers to one of several locations in

17 Serbia, including Lake Perucac, Bajina Basta, and the SAJ's own firing

18 range at Batajnica, near Belgrade. At Batajnica the bodies were placed by

19 MUP officers in a mass grave on the firing range itself. The entire

20 operation was conducted in secret.

21 "Djordjevic was personally involved in the operation. He spoke

22 via telephone and in person with low-level MUP officers regarding the

23 details of burial and his own driver was involved in driving some of the

24 trucks. Djordjevic said to a MUP officer that the burial would be part

25 of 'mopping-up' in Kosovo, a 'number one' secret. Several of these mass

1 graves were exhumed by authorities in Serbia beginning in 2001. Over 900

2 bodies have been exhumed thus far. Autopsies and DNA evidence, coupled

3 with the discovery of identity cards and other personal effects with the

4 bodies, will prove that the bodies belonged to persons killed in Kosovo

5 during the indictment period, including individuals whose names appear on

6 schedules to the indictment."

7 Now, Mr. Bajcetic, can I be clear, when you gave the testimony a

8 little while ago about being unable to conceive of reasons why bodies

9 might be moved around, were you unaware of these allegations against

10 Vlastimir Djordjevic?

11 A. I state that I absolutely did not know about this information. I

12 heard them over the media, but I do believe that they are -- that they

13 make no sense, in other words, but that's now up to this case to

14 determine.

15 Q. I see. You are aware, Mr. Bajcetic, that large numbers of remains

16 of Kosovar Albanians were dug-up at a grave at Batajnica in 2001 and are

17 still being repatriated to Kosovo?

18 A. Of course. It was publicised by the media. I did not know about

19 that until the media started reporting on that and until

20 Vlastimir Djordjevic was referred to as the person involved in that.

21 Q. And you know from the document that you've seen in

22 cross-examination today that a senior member of the SUP in the building

23 where you worked has recorded that very gentleman of attending this crime

24 scene of the so-called reconnaissance on the 8th of September, don't you?

25 A. I know, but I've already said that I was not aware of that at the

1 time and that I was in no way able to have any influence over who was to

2 compose that reconnaissance group.

3 Q. Is it still your evidence that you cannot conceive of any reason

4 or, indeed, any possibility of remains being moved by Serbian forces?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

6 MR. EMMERSON: By --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, what the witness said: "Nobody had the

8 reason to move corpses or to play with people or the corpses. I don't see

9 how anybody would want to play with human lives."

10 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

11 JUDGE ORIE: "That's the least of anybody's desires."

12 MR. EMMERSON: Very well --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Now to say whether the witness could conceive or

14 not. I mean, is his imagination at this time --

15 MR. EMMERSON: Very well --

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- worth to take part of your remaining 14 minutes.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. EMMERSON:

19 Q. You've heard the passage the Judge just read to you. Does that

20 remain your evidence, Mr. Bajcetic? I'm sorry, I don't think we're

21 receiving translation. Could you speak into the microphone, please. Does

22 that remain your evidence?

23 A. Yes, yes.

24 Q. Can I turn finally to one other topic from your witness statement,

25 paragraphs 67 and 68. You refer there to the finding of further human

1 remains towards the end of September near the economic farm, but you say

2 that you were not present when those remains were discovered or exhumed

3 but you know that the same RDB colleague --

4 A. [No interpretation].

5 Q. But you know that the same RDB colleague who made the

6 above-mentioned recordings was present when these remains were discovered

7 but you did not know whether he made any video-recordings on that

8 occasion.

9 Just for the sake of --

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Just for the sake of clarity, can we be absolutely clear. Can you

12 give us the name of the individual you're referring to?

13 A. That's the cameraman.

14 Q. Yes, could you give us his name, please.

15 A. I don't know whether his name should be mentioned or not. I'm not

16 sure if he should be called before the Tribunal. His name is contained in

17 the documents, but --

18 Q. Very well.

19 MR. EMMERSON: I'm happy for the witness to give that testimony in

20 private session.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 Then we turn into private session so that the outside world will

23 not know your answer.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 [Open session]

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 MR. EMMERSON:

20 Q. Two questions, if I may, on this topic. Could you turn to tab 6,

21 please, in the brown file. This document purports to be a record of an

22 on-site investigation conducted on the 23rd of September by an

23 investigating judge called Kemal Cindrak in relation to remains found at

24 the economic farm. And I just wanted to ask you about one aspect of it.

25 In the second main paragraph the report records that: "The scene," that

1 is to say the scene of this alleged finding, "was secured by," two

2 employees of Djakovica SUP. One of whom is named by Predrag Stojanovic.

3 First of all, Predrag Stojanovic, were you aware that he was a member of

4 the family whose premises was used to launch the 24th attack on the

5 Haradinaj compound?

6 A. I don't know about that.

7 Q. Do you know or did you know Predrag Stojanovic?

8 A. I saw him on several occasions. I believe he is a tall skinny

9 person. I didn't know him that well. I didn't know most of the people in

10 SUP for that matter.

11 Q. I see. Thank you. He was based at Gjakove, though?

12 A. Yes, yes, he was.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 A. I saw him. He was driving a lorry. This was his private business

15 or something. I don't remember.

16 Q. Do you know if he was a member of the PJP at any time?

17 A. I really don't know.

18 Q. Thank you. One final topic then. Paragraph 62 of your witness

19 statement, you refer to a term --

20 A. Which statement, please?

21 Q. Paragraph 62 of your own witness statement, which is tab 14 of the

22 yellow binder.

23 You say there in relation to your time at the canal: "I also

24 remember there was a turned-over vehicle with the bodies of a missing

25 young married Catholic Albanian couple."

1 And you say at paragraph 63: "The turned-over vehicle was

2 situated in the middle of the above-mentioned basin, which was about 4 to

3 5 metres beneath the concrete cascade."

4 Can you tell us, please, what you can remember about those bodies.

5 A. This car was below the concrete cascade. It's a larger area like

6 sort of a small lake. This was a car, and I can't recall the colour, and

7 the people who went down there recovered two bodies of a man and a woman.

8 They said at the time that this was a married couple, Catholic Albanians,

9 from the village of Skivjan between Djakovica and Decani. I don't have

10 any other information about them.

11 Q. Did you see where the bodies were recovered from, specifically?

12 A. No, I did not observe as they pulled the bodies out.

13 Q. And finally this: Were you given any information at the time as

14 to where the bodies were recovered from specifically?

15 A. No. It was only said that two Albanians from the village of

16 Skivjani, were missing and that the two bodies in the car were theirs.

17 Q. Yes, thank you.

18 MR. EMMERSON: Those are my questions.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, I then take it that you have no

20 further questions and that the same would be true for Mr. Harvey.

21 Then, Ms. Issa, we have to stop at one minute to 12.00 anyhow, so

22 I don't think it makes any sense to -- now to start re-examination, if

23 there's any need to re-examine the witness.

24 MS. ISSA: Yes, there will be some re-examination, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will have a break. At 12.00 there is a

1 swearing-in ceremony at this Tribunal where the Judges will attend. That

2 means that most likely we will resume at 20 minutes past 12.00, but it

3 could be a bit later depending on how much time the swearing-in ceremony

4 will take.

5 We stand adjourned until the end of that ceremony.

6 --- Recess taken at 11.55 a.m.

7 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, before I give you an opportunity to

9 re-examine the witness, I'd like to inquire with you whether you have any

10 difficulties in doing that where we have not yet received from the

11 Prosecution -- from the Defence an indication as to what documents they've

12 used they intend to tender. It might be that it doesn't cause you any

13 problem at this moment, and in that case I would invite Defence counsel to

14 notify the Chamber as soon as possible what are the documents tendered.

15 But if you say I've got problems with it now, I'll then give that

16 priority.

17 MS. ISSA: Perhaps out of an abundance of caution, Your Honour,

18 we might just do it now. If -- if it doesn't take too much time.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Abundance of caution -- if you need it. If you say:

20 I don't know how to re-examine the witness if I don't know, then we'll do

21 it now. If you say: No, I'm confident that I can re-examine the witness

22 and deal with it then, then Mr. Emmerson has -- and Mr. Guy-Smith and

23 Mr. Harvey have a bit more time to prepare.

24 MS. ISSA: That's fine, Your Honour, I can proceed now.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

1 Re-examination by Ms. Issa:

2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bajcetic.

3 A. Good afternoon.

4 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, the last session you were asked a series of

5 questions regarding allegations that bodies were moved to or dumped in the

6 Lake Radonjic canal. Are you aware of any bodies having been moved to or

7 been dumped in the Lake Radonjic canal area by Serbian forces?

8 A. No.

9 MS. ISSA: I'd like to call-up Exhibit P379, please.

10 Q. Perhaps while we're waiting for that. On Thursday, Mr. Bajcetic,

11 you were asked a number of questions about clashes taking place in the

12 Lake Radonjic canal area. And what I'd like you to do is to have a look

13 at the map that is on your screen at the moment, that's the same map that

14 you've marked during your examination-in-chief --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. -- where you've indicated that this area was inaccessible to

17 Serbian forces without staging an operation. Could you orient yourself on

18 that map, perhaps take a moment, and just specifically indicate where the

19 clashes took place in the Lake Radonjic canal area.

20 A. Most often the clashes were taking place in Nadeloc [as

21 interpreted], Dubrava, Glodjane, Ratis, Rznic, Dasinovac area. This is

22 the part where the clashes took place.

23 Q. Are you aware of whether or not any clashes took place in the

24 specific area where the bodies were ultimately found?

25 A. There were clashes in that area as well.

1 Q. And who did these clashes involve, between whom?

2 A. The participants in the clashes were members of the KLA and the

3 SUP.

4 Q. The SUP or the MUP?

5 A. To all intents and purposes, this is the same thing. The

6 secretariat is somewhat a lower unit at the level of a municipality,

7 otherwise the MUP and the SUP are practically the same thing.

8 Q. And on those occasions when you say there were clashes in this

9 area, can you indicate how long these clashes lasted?

10 A. Do you mean the -- how long they lasted, for example, a day, or

11 what did you mean?

12 Q. That's exactly what I mean. How long would a clash last?

13 A. Several hours in the course of one day, maybe three or four hours

14 in the course of one day.

15 Q. And after the clashes or particular clash would -- would be over,

16 what -- who had control of the area?

17 A. The SUP would then withdraw because there were no conditions set

18 in place for the check-points to be set-up and the area would be regained

19 by the KLA.

20 Q. And can you indicate when the clashes took place, specifically in

21 the Lake Radonjic canal area?

22 A. Specifically it happened in the cases when members of the KLA

23 attacked either a police patrol or a police check-point or information

24 would be received that civilians in the area were threatened. This would

25 result in a conflict. It was not possible to locate the perpetrators of

1 such attacks or issuers of such threats without an open conflict or an

2 action, an engagement.

3 Q. And during what time-period did this occur?

4 A. While I was down there between the 1st of July and the end of my

5 stay there, these clashes were a continuing occurrence. Sometimes they

6 were of lower intensity, sometimes of higher intensity.

7 Q. You mentioned, sir, that these clashes occurred when there was

8 a -- an attack on a police check-point. Can you indicate where the --

9 where these check-points were that were attacked to your knowledge?

10 MR. EMMERSON: If I may say so, if that's intended to focus the

11 witness on part of his answer, then I have no objection, but his answer

12 went much broader than that.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa.

14 MS. ISSA: I am focusing on part of his answer.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

16 MS. ISSA:

17 Q. Can you look at the map, sir, and orient yourself and answer that

18 question. I can ask it again if you need me to.

19 A. Most of the clashes were in the Babaloc-Rastavica area around

20 Prilep, Crnobreg [Realtime transcript read in error "Crnibreg"], mostly in

21 that part, and I can't see Streoc here, Donji Streoc as well. That's

22 where the clashes happened.

23 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, what I'm going to ask you to do at this stage is if

24 I can call-up Exhibit D32. And while we're waiting for that, can you --

25 can you explain why it is that the Serbian forces had to retreat after

1 such clashes took place?

2 A. For a simple reason. It was not possible to secure any logistical

3 support in the area. The KLA were in their own part of the field there.

4 That was their turf.

5 Q. When you say "that was their turf," what do you mean by that?

6 A. This means that the Albanian population prevailed there and the

7 KLA could count logistical support in the area.

8 Q. Was it ever possible during that period of time between July 1998

9 until the end of your time there -- or at least until the end of September

10 1998 for the Serbian forces to maintain control over the area after such a

11 clash?

12 MR. EMMERSON: I think "maintain control" requires specificity.

13 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

14 MS. ISSA: I think the witness understood my question,

15 Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- let me just re-read the question.

17 Yes. Ms. Issa, on the basis of the evidence the Chamber has

18 heard, perhaps it's good to be more specific because the time-period

19 covered is July until the end of September, where we know that -- at least

20 the testimony until now has made clear to us that the situation has

21 changed considerably, whether you're talking about early August, early

22 September, et cetera. So therefore, you're invited to get a more specific

23 answer to the extent the witness is able to give it.

24 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour.

25 Q. To your knowledge, Mr. Bajcetic, after the Serbian forces engaged

1 in a clash or one may refer to something as combat with the KLA, was it

2 possible for the Serbian forces to take control over the villages that you

3 mentioned or the Lake Radonjic canal area during that period of time?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Guy-Smith.

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I think the question as posed calls for

6 speculation and also outside of this witness's --

7 JUDGE ORIE: --

8 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- outside of this witness's knowledge and level

9 of expertise because, once again, the question of what "maintain control"

10 means becomes the issue.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to get -- you have described, Mr. Bajcetic,

12 to us that there were clashes, and since the conditions were not there to

13 have check-points there. Was there at any time when you were there, was

14 there a situation where the Serb forces did not withdraw immediately after

15 such clashes but were able to, partly or wholly, be in control of villages

16 or areas?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, not for a single

18 moment did the Serb forces control that area, save for the short period of

19 time when they were investigating the victims on the lake. They never had

20 any other form of control over those villages nor were they ever stationed

21 there.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And was that limited to the very small area, that is,

23 where the canal is, or was it a wider area?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was limited to that area, i.e.,

25 the road between the Djakovica-Decani road and that area between that road

1 and the Radonjic Lake was secured, and this lasted for the duration of the

2 investigation and the exhumation of the bodies.

3 JUDGE ORIE: And what do you consider the period of the

4 investigation? Is that to start on the 8th of any -- of September or any

5 earlier and lasting until when?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, this lasted for no

7 more than ten days.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

9 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

10 Q. Just to clarify your last answer, Mr. Bajcetic, when you say this

11 lasted for no more than ten days, which ten days are you referring to?

12 A. I'm referring to the period from the 8th, from the moment when the

13 bodies were discovered at Radonjic Lake, to the moment when the other

14 group of bodies were found in the Ekonomija sector, and the latter is

15 where I did not attend the event. Some bodies were found there, some

16 people were buried there, and after that we no longer had access to the

17 area.

18 Q. And why is it that after that you had no longer access to the

19 area?

20 A. The unit could not stay there without any logistical support. The

21 KLA army was on their turf there. Their houses were there. There were

22 people there who could provide them with all sorts of support.

23 Q. Okay. Now, if you look at your screen you'll see a map,

24 Mr. Bajcetic. I'd like to ask you to first orient yourself to this map

25 and to think about where precisely these clashes took place between July

1 1st, 1998, until the end of September. And with the assistance of

2 Madam Usher I will ask you, once you've oriented yourself, to draw a -- or

3 mark an X on the villages where the clashes took place --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

5 MR. EMMERSON: I'm just concerned at page 68, line 18, through

6 to -- I'm sorry, page 66, line 18, through to line 23 the witness has

7 given his testimony in word form. I'm not concerned as to whether or not

8 it be placed on the map. If it is to be placed on the map, then the

9 answers that he's given from page 66, line 18, through to and including

10 line 23, ought to be in his mind and marked on the map as well.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're mixing up -- now you're talking about

12 page 66, which apparently is a mistake, I take it you're referring to page

13 68, as you did before. I read in the transcript there: "Most of the

14 clashes were in the Babaloc-Rastavica area around Prilep," it says

15 Crnibreg, but it might be Crnobreg, "mostly in that part but I can't see

16 Streoc there, Donji Streoc as well. That's where the clashes happened."

17 MR. EMMERSON: In fact I was referring to 66, 18: "Most of the

18 clashes were taking place in Streoc, Dubrava," I think there is a

19 spelling error -- "Streoc, Dubrava, Glodjane, Ratis, Rznic," and the arrow

20 I think was Dashinoc area. "This is the part where the clashes took

21 place.

22 "Are you aware of whether or not any clashes took place in the

23 specific area where the bodies were ultimately found?

24 "There were clashes in that area as well."

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 Ms. Issa, is your exercise now to have that all marked on the map

2 because the Chamber now having heard this case for many, many months could

3 by heart take you to the villages on the map the witness was referring to,

4 apart from Streoc which didn't appear on the map. So if that's the

5 purpose of the exercise, I think we can do without. If there's any

6 further purpose, please proceed.

7 MS. ISSA: The only purpose was to clarify where the clashes were

8 which Mr. Bajcetic refers to but if Your Honour --

9 JUDGE ORIE: We know where the villages are --

10 MS. ISSA: Then I will move on.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

12 MS. ISSA:

13 Q. Mr. Bajcetic, on Thursday, in your testimony, for the Chamber's

14 reference at page 6447 of the transcript, you mentioned that Rade Vlahovic

15 could not reach the home of his parents, that's at lines 23 through 25.

16 My first question is: Where did Rade Vlahovic's parents live?

17 A. As far as I know, in Dasinovac as well.

18 Q. Why is it that he could not reach the home of his parents, to your

19 knowledge?

20 A. Because he would have been captured by KLA, and I can only assume

21 what would have transpired in that case.

22 Q. And how is it that you know this?

23 A. During that period of time, nobody moved, none -- no civilian

24 Serbs moved in the area, and especially not those who were working for the

25 SUP at the time.

1 Q. When you say "at that time," can you be more specific as to what

2 time you're referring to?

3 A. I'm referring to the time when I was there, between the 1st of

4 July and the 30th of October -- or the 30th of September, I can't be sure

5 of the date. During that period of time, no civilians moved around

6 freely, and especially not somebody who worked in the SUP. He -- such a

7 person would not have stood a chance if they had gone to that area.

8 Q. Referring you then to a copy of -- I don't know if you have a copy

9 of your statement in front of you, but referring you to paragraph 37 of

10 your statement --

11 JUDGE ORIE: It's the yellow binder under number 14.

12 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Paragraph --

14 A. Number?

15 Q. Number 14 in the binder. You say midway through that paragraph,

16 Mr. Bajcetic: "These two MUP officers could obtain such information

17 because they had close ties with local Albanians who did not approve or

18 did not support the KLA policy or the KLA activities. The family members

19 of these two MUP officers had refused to leave their homes despite all

20 kinds of pressure and harassment exerted by the KLA, but because the KLA

21 check-points -- because of the KLA check-points, these people could not

22 leave their villages anymore and they became disconnected from their

23 relatives because they could no longer travel and there was no means of

24 communication."

25 Now, when you say "these people could not leave their villages

1 anymore," during what time-period are you referring to?

2 A. I'm referring to the period between the 1st of July and the end of

3 my stay, for as long as I stayed. As I just told you, they could not use

4 the roads, they could not reach Pec, Decani, or Djakovica.

5 Q. You also refer to a second officer in your statement,

6 Momcilo Stijovic, and on Thursday at page 6413, for the Chamber's

7 reference lines 22 to 25 of the transcript, you say

8 that: "Momcilo Stijovic was helped by the Albanians to transport some of

9 his belongings out of his house by tractor. This was part of his effort

10 to evacuate his belongings."

11 Could you explain why Momcilo Stijovic had to evacuate his

12 belongings.

13 A. For the simple reason that he was unable to live there any longer.

14 After the pressure exerted on him, his life would have been hell. Most

15 likely he would have been killed, murdered.

16 Q. And just to clarify that --

17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to object to the

18 speculation made.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can't object against an answer, Mr. -- You

20 can later tell us that it was speculation, but Ms. Issa did not --

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I take your point.

22 JUDGE ORIE: -- call for such a speculation.

23 Please proceed.

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. How is it that you learned Momcilo Stijovic had to leave because

1 he was -- he had -- as you put it, his life was made hell?

2 A. Momcilo Stijovic told us that personally, that some Albanians had

3 helped him to have some of his belongings transported to Djakovica. He

4 told that to us in Djakovica.

5 Q. And to your knowledge, who exerted this pressure on

6 Momcilo Stijovic?

7 A. Albanians or, specifically, the KLA. They exerted pressure on all

8 the Serb families present in the area.

9 Q. Exerted pressure on them to do what?

10 A. To move out of the area, not only him but all of them, including

11 of course Momcilo Stijovic himself.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, these are rather general statements. If

13 you could lay a further factual foundation, then it certainly would assist

14 the Chamber. Please proceed.

15 MS. ISSA: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.

16 Q. How is it that you -- that you know, Mr. Bajcetic, that there was

17 pressure on all the Serbs to move -- to leave the area caused by the KLA?

18 A. It is quite clear to me that whoever was not in the area finds it

19 hard to understand. The entire Albanian population, among whom the KLA

20 was active as an organisation or a paramilitary organisation, wanted to

21 have the Serbs leave the area. That was the sort of pressure that was

22 exerted. The corpses found at Lake Radonjic served to show that it was

23 impossible for them to stay there because their life was in danger --

24 their lives were in danger, and that's the essence of the matter.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson --

1 MS. ISSA:

2 Q. But more specifically, Mr. Bajcetic --

3 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Emmerson would like to intervene.

4 MR. EMMERSON: I would, if I may. First of all, I'm at a loss to

5 understand how this type of general evidence arises out of

6 cross-examination. And secondly --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. EMMERSON: -- however the questions are put, the whole thrust

9 of the questions and answers and the interchange between counsel and the

10 witness is designed to elicit generalisation when the Trial Chamber has

11 heard specific evidence about specific time-periods. Had this material

12 been part of cross-examination, then the situation may have been

13 different, but in order to put it in its proper context - and I'm

14 obviously seeking to avoid the necessity to ask the Chamber for leave to

15 further cross-examine - but we've had quite a considerable amount of

16 evidence about Serb families voluntarily leaving the area in April, in

17 anticipation of what was perceived to be a situation in which the Albanian

18 population was arming itself, and to at this stage in this way invite this

19 line of -- it's not an objection to the form of a question, it's an

20 objection to an entire line of questioning.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, two issues. The first one, how does it

22 result -- how does the need to put these questions result from

23 cross-examination, that's the first one; and the second one is: Why rely

24 on general -- a general description rather than to rely on the rather

25 precise evidence the Chamber received earlier?

1 MS. ISSA: Well, firstly, Your Honour, as when I began this line

2 of questioning I specifically referred to page 6413 of the transcript of

3 28 June 2007, and my -- the questions arise specifically from the question

4 that was initially put by Mr. Emmerson to the witness which related to

5 Momcilo Stijovic and Rade Vlahovic. At line 21, Mr. Emmerson asked the

6 witness: "What do you base that impression on?"

7 The witness responded: "To put it simply, I base it on the fact

8 that at the time I heard from Momcilo Stijovic himself that Albanians had

9 helped him to transport some of his belongings and essentially evacuate

10 from the area."

11 So I was trying to perhaps get more specific evidence in that

12 regard.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now the second matter is about the general

14 character of the -- of the evidence. If you want to put questions to the

15 witness in respect of this, whenever he starts saying what happened in the

16 whole of the area with everyone, would you then please take him back to

17 more specifics. For example, you asked him, upon my urging you to do so,

18 how he knew, and then Mr. -- then you continued, Mr. Bajcetic, to describe

19 the situation, whereas the question of Ms. Issa was another one, that was:

20 How did you get knowledge of that? How could you make statements on

21 what happened with everyone? What was the source of your knowledge? And

22 you then continued to describe what happened to everyone rather than to

23 tell us what the source of your knowledge was. Could you please then

24 return to the last question -- I see that there are two Defence counsel on

25 their feet.

1 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I have nothing further to say about

2 the second objection. Your Honour has taken the point --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. EMMERSON: -- and I hope it will be heeded.

5 As regards the first, and the passage that Ms. Issa has refers to,

6 may I make it absolutely what the position of the Defence is: I

7 cross-examined this witness, page 6413, as to whether the information

8 allegedly provided by the two detainees Alija and Musaj was confirmatory

9 information to that which had previously been provided by Rade Vlahovic

10 and Momcilo Stijovic. And I asked the witness who they were and he

11 explained who they were and continued -- this is line 18:

12 "My impression is that both of them had been on friendly terms

13 from some Albanians from the area before the conflict and during the

14 conflict.

15 "What do you base that impression on?"

16 And the witness gave some information about transportation of

17 belongings. To say that a line of questioning which involves general

18 evidence about the movements --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think, Mr. Emmerson, may I interrupt you here.

20 A general line of questioning, I do agree. Some further specifics on

21 matters that were dealt with and where there's a sufficient link is

22 another matter. So if we get rid of the general line of the questioning

23 and limit ourselves at this moment to more specific questions, then

24 Ms. Issa may proceed.

25 Mr. Guy-Smith, you were on -- you're not anymore. I take it that

1 is a sign that Ms. Issa can proceed.

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I am somewhat worried because as I am reading the

3 transcript it seems as if it was Ms. Issa who was posing the question on

4 page 6413. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I've been back and forth on the

5 transcript a couple of times, at 6413.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was Mr. Emmerson who -- no, let me --

7 no --

8 MR. EMMERSON: I think as a matter of fact Mr. Guy-Smith is

9 correct.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I see on page 6412, Ms. Issa and then the questions

11 come and it's not Mr. Emmerson. That makes, by the way, the matter even

12 more problematic.

13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, precisely.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I now granted Ms. Issa an opportunity to put some

15 additional questions.

16 Ms. Issa, it -- when you are referring to those lines, you at

17 least created the suggestion that those were questions put in

18 cross-examination; they were not.

19 MS. ISSA: That was my mistake, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Since I granted something, I'm not

21 taking it back from you at this very moment, but would you please limit

22 yourself very much to one or two more specific questions.

23 MS. ISSA: I will.

24 Perhaps I'll just move on to a different area.

25 Q. Earlier today, Mr. Bajcetic, you were referred to paragraph 61 of

1 your statement and then you were referred to paragraph 62, and you were

2 asked some questions regarding the bodies or as to information that you

3 received about the missing young married Catholic Albanian couple. Just

4 to clarify, can you indicate who gave you this information?

5 A. I cannot pin-point the name of the person who provided the

6 information; however, when I was describing the way we came by

7 information, I explained that bit.

8 Q. And when did you receive this information?

9 A. I said that it was in early September 1998.

10 Q. I believe, Mr. Bajcetic, that you mentioned at one stage that you

11 had not been to the Lake Radonjic canal area before 10th September 1998,

12 and my question is: Why not?

13 A. That was Sreten Camovic's decision. He decided who was to go

14 where and when. He told me that I should go on the 10th, and that's what

15 I did.

16 Q. But before that -- before you found out about the bodies that

17 were -- that were located at the Lake Radonjic canal, had you been there?

18 Had you been to that area specifically?

19 A. No.

20 Q. And why is that?

21 A. Because it wasn't safe at all.

22 Q. Why was it not safe?

23 A. It wasn't safe due to the presence of armed members of the KLA in

24 the area. They held the territory. It's not just I that -- who wasn't

25 safe. It wasn't safe for anyone to go there.

1 Q. Were you aware of whether any other members of the RDB going there

2 before September 1998?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MS. ISSA: Those are my questions.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any need for further questions,

7 Mr. Emmerson?

8 MR. EMMERSON: Short of registering my concern about the line of

9 questioning which was interrupted and which Ms. Issa abandoned, I don't

10 propose to seek the Trial Chamber's permission to further cross-examine

11 the witness in relation to it.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 Mr. Guy-Smith?

14 MR. GUY-SMITH: No.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey?

16 Mr. Bajcetic, this then concludes your testimony in this court.

17 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

18 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to thank you very much for having

19 answered --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- the questions. I know it's quite far away from

22 your home, I'm also aware that you had to stay over the weekend which you

23 didn't like that very much. It's appreciated that you stayed and returned

24 on this Monday. I wish you a safe trip home again.

25 Madam Usher, would you escort Mr. Bajcetic out of the courtroom.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 [The witness withdrew]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, are you now able to give us the

4 documents -- the numbers of the documents you would like to tender?

5 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I can, but may I give -- may I give

6 Your Honours the numbers immediately after court rises. I intended to

7 tender those documents used in cross-examination.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then that's the starting point, then you

9 provide Madam Registrar with a list --

10 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- of those documents.

12 I take it, Ms. Issa, then the Prosecution is sufficiently informed

13 for the time being. We'll formalise the matters then once we've received

14 that list.

15 Then for the next witness I think we have a couple of procedural

16 issues, that is, protective measures; that is exclusion of certain areas

17 of the evidence as we find it in that 92 ter statement; and then third,

18 the redaction of the 92 ter statement or at least a response to the

19 suggestions made by the Prosecution to take out certain portions of the

20 statement to say it very briefly, that is the portions suggested in an

21 e-mail of the 28th of June by Mr. Dixon to, I would say, all relevant

22 persons relating to paragraphs 11, 13, 20, 32, 33, 55, 96, 98, 100, 170,

23 171, and then as far as ballistics are concerned we are talking about

24 paragraphs 184, and 186 up to and including 190.

25 MR. GUY-SMITH: There is one addition. We sent an e-mail --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- apparently it was not also sent to the Chambers

3 as I've seen here. The only addition to those mentioned by the Chamber

4 would be paragraph 97, the second sentence.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.

6 Is there any -- have the parties discussed, Mr. Dutertre, a

7 possible redaction of the statement so that there will be no further

8 objection against admission of a 92 ter statement into evidence?

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I received the

10 objections raised by the Defence teams in advance, and I want to thank my

11 colleagues. But unfortunately I wasn't able on Friday to meet with them

12 because I was unwell to tell them the position of the Prosecution, to tell

13 the Prosecution's position, concerning each of these objections. I can do

14 so now, if you so wish, going through paragraph by paragraph, following

15 the suggestions made by the Defence. I apologise for this delay, which is

16 due to something totally unforeseen and irresistible, I'm afraid.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether that's the most practical way of

18 proceeding. We also could move to one of the other matters, that is, for

19 example, protective measures, and then see whether the parties can resolve

20 some of the problems. For -- just give one example. If I'm looking at

21 paragraph 13, I think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Dutertre, that if you

22 would change the first line in the following way, to start 13 with: "The

23 last remaining Serbs were expelled or kidnapped from Decani and the area

24 on both sides of the Djakovica-Decani-Pec road," then the issue of the

25 armed conflict as a legal concept is taken out. At the same time, the

1 factual basis for it, "KLA bunkers and trenches were set-up off that road

2 but almost ... " would still be there, also including the last line: "The

3 KLA were firing at both civilian and police vehicles."

4 At least I get the impression that that would meet at least the

5 concern expressed that the first sentence of paragraph 13 is an expression

6 of opinion on a question of law for the Trial Chamber. So I can imagine

7 that sitting together and trying to resolve these matters would be more

8 efficient because we have quite a number of them. It would take us at

9 least the next half an hour, whereas the Chamber would perhaps prefer to

10 have this done outside the court. And the Chamber accepts that there were

11 good reasons not to do so until now, but half an hour left, perhaps we

12 could spend that in a better way. It would also allow the Chamber to

13 receive a new copy of the 92 ter statement with redactions.

14 Therefore, I would, as a matter of fact, prefer to go into closed

15 session and to deal with the protective measures. As far as the ballistic

16 evidence is concerned, the Chamber received this very morning I think one

17 hour ago, the response by the Prosecution. And perhaps it's better that

18 we take our time this afternoon to see what our conclusion should be on

19 the basis of the request filed by the Defence and the response given by

20 the Prosecution. So I therefore suggest that we first go into closed

21 session and -- or would private session -- let me just -- whether we can

22 go into private session or not depends on the protective measures asked.

23 I think they were quite limited. There were just - and therefore we would

24 have to move into closed session - was face and voice distortion only. If

25 that's the case, we have to turn into closed session first.

1 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

2 [Closed session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 6550-6558 redacted. Closed session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 [Open session]

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

2 I got French on the English channel, which is always pleasant for

3 my ears but ...

4 Yes. After the witness will start his -- the substance of his

5 testimony tomorrow, I do understand that the next two witnesses most

6 likely will be first Aleksandric and then Dr. Dunjic, but there is one

7 uncertainty about a witness to appear who has been subpoenaed, where we

8 are not fully sure on what will happen.

9 MR. EMMERSON: I indicated to the Legal Officer on Friday that

10 given the nature of that witness's testimony, were he to appear in

11 response to the subpoena, he is not a witness in respect of whom it would

12 be convenient for his testimony to be taken in my absence on Thursday.

13 May I place that formally on the record.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is now on the record. At the same time,

15 there are so many uncertainties about the present situation that we can't

16 resolve that now at this very moment.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Fine.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, you have put your concerns on the

19 record.

20 If there is no other matter at this moment to be raised, then

21 we'll adjourn until tomorrow the -- at 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom II.

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 3rd day of

24 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

25