Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6561

1 Tuesday, 3 July 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11 Before we start the examination of the witness, I would like to

12 invite the parties to inform the Chamber whether there has been any

13 agreement on taking out or redacting the 92 ter statement.

14 Mr. Dutertre, could you inform the Chamber.

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Prosecution sent its

16 comments to the Defence yesterday. We decided not to oppose certain

17 objections and we proposed a compromise solution for some of the other

18 objections. We have opposed some objections but suggesting that we ask

19 some supplementary questions to the witness as to the sources in

20 particular, and in other cases we objected to certain questions remaining,

21 including the question regarding ballistic proof. I can go into further

22 detail if you so wish, Your Honour, and tell you exactly what we, the

23 Prosecution, have agreed on.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have not prepared a redacted new version?

25 And is there any -- is there still disagreement, I mean whether you are

Page 6562

1 happy or not, whether -- this is not a matter but whether there is a

2 compromise on every --

3 MR. EMMERSON: No, there are --

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, there is not a compromise on

5 all issues.

6 MR. EMMERSON: There are at least five issues upon which --

7 JUDGE ORIE: I invited Mr. Dutertre to --

8 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

9 JUDGE ORIE: At least he started.

10 The five, which are they, Mr. Dutertre?

11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, I can tell you the points

12 where we have an agreement. We discussed paragraph 20. I'm not exactly

13 certain which five points the Defence is referring to because I proposed

14 certain compromise solutions, certain intermediate solutions. Perhaps the

15 Defence can explain further their position as regards our proposals

16 amongst the various points that I mentioned in yesterday's e-mail. I -- I

17 believe there are five points that we agree on, but there are a couple of

18 other points. I'm not perfectly clear what the position is.


20 MR. EMMERSON: Could I deal with it by reference to the Defence

21 list of objections?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so, and let me then get the list. Let

23 me just -- I'm afraid I have got it -- yes.

24 Yes, please do so, Mr. --

25 MR. EMMERSON: Paragraph 11 remains in dispute.

Page 6563

1 JUDGE ORIE: In dispute.

2 MR. EMMERSON: Paragraph 13 remains in dispute, despite the Trial

3 Chamber's helpful suggestion. In this respect Mr. Dutertre would seek to

4 rely on the existing wording, but to submit that that was a matter of

5 weight for the Trial Chamber. The objection of the Defence relates not

6 simply to the use of the term "armed conflict," but also to the words that

7 immediately follow that as the basis for the comment.

8 Paragraph 32 remains in dispute.

9 The first nine lines of paragraph 33 remain in dispute.

10 Paragraphs 96 and 98 which cover the same issue remain in dispute,

11 and paragraph 97, the second sentence, remains in dispute.

12 So far as paragraph 170 is concerned, the Prosecution proposal was

13 to edit the paragraph down to two specific sentences with an appropriate

14 factual foundation elicited in evidence in chief, the first of those

15 sentences, in our submission, would be capable of being admitted, but it

16 is not capable of being properly admitted in its existing form. In other

17 words, it's a matter for oral testimony and not, we submit, for a 92 ter

18 statement.

19 And the second passage, we respectfully submit, is -- ought not to

20 be admitted.

21 I don't know whether Your Honours have the Prosecution's e-mail.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I have the e-mail of the 28th of June, 12.41 p.m.

23 MR. EMMERSON: So that would be Mr. Dixon's e-mail.


25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Your Honours don't have the Prosecution

Page 6564

1 response in respect of that. So if we were to deal with it in detail when

2 I came to paragraph 170, that is a matter we would need just a little

3 further explanation. And of course paragraphs 184 and 186 to 90 remain

4 outstanding as regards the ballistics material, on which as Your Honours

5 know the Prosecution submitted a written response yesterday.


7 MR. EMMERSON: And if you would permit me at an appropriate moment

8 I should like to have five minutes by way of oral reply.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now the problem is the witness is waiting and

10 that's -- it was perhaps premature to ask the witness to come in. I

11 suggest that we give the witness an opportunity to have a cup of coffee

12 and not to attend.

13 Mr. Avramovic, there are still a few matters pending in relation

14 to your written statement and to some other matters. I had hoped that we

15 would resolve them in one or two minutes. I'm afraid it takes a bit more.

16 I think it's better to allow you to leave the courtroom for a while and

17 we'll call you back as soon as we are done with it.

18 Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Avramovic.

19 And I apologise, Mr. Avramovic.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, five minutes for you -- on the

22 ballistic issue.

23 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I may be able to do it in even less than five

24 minutes. Your Honours will have seen the submissions of the Prosecution

25 in this respect. We would respectfully submit that in order for any of

Page 6565

1 this material to be fairly tested, and therefore to be capable of being

2 fairly admitted at trial, it is necessary for the basis for an opinion to

3 be explored, that is, we would respectfully submit, is a fundamental

4 prerequisite for the admission fairly of evidence of opinion.

5 Now, in this instance what the Prosecution propose to adduce

6 through this particular witness is the contents of annex 66 to his witness

7 statement, which really represents nothing more than a further statement

8 from the witness about reports he claims to have read. Of those reports,

9 the only one which is available to the Defence is the report which is

10 annexed to the motion, dated the 2nd of December, 1998, from

11 Captain Milutin Visnjic. That report, as Your Honours are aware, refers

12 to a comparison between 14 cartridges found on the -- during the course of

13 the September 1998 investigation in the canal area with ultimately 24

14 cartridges which are recorded as having been found in the village of

15 Gramaqel on the 24th of March.

16 This witness, in effect, seeks to suggest that he knows that the

17 author of that report didn't mean Gramaqel, he meant Gllogjan,

18 notwithstanding that there was a police operation in the entirety of that

19 area on the 24th of March and that Gllogjan is separated from Gramaqel by

20 Shaptej and Dubrave. He's not in a position to give that evidence; only

21 the author of the report could give that evidence. And only the author of

22 the report could give that evidence by reference to the material that was

23 submitted to him and upon which he expressed that conclusion. None of

24 that material is available or has been exhibited nor is it explained by

25 the author of the reported.

Page 6566

1 Now, the first objection here is what this witness is doing in

2 annex 66 and what the Prosecution seek to elicit from him is a

3 glosso-interpretation on a report written by someone else which says

4 something different than that which he says it says and which is

5 unsupported by any material which is capable of building the bridge by

6 reference to contemporaneous records. So that is point one in terms of

7 fair admission.

8 Point two is that none of the working materials from which this

9 Trial Chamber could make any evaluation of the reliability of the opinion

10 expressed by Captain Visnjic even were his report to say what

11 Mr. Avramovic wrongly says it says. None of the contemporary material or

12 the workings is available for inspection nor can it be fairly tested by

13 the Defence nor evaluated by the Trial Chamber. There is no expression of

14 analysis as to the basis directly for the comparisons, as to whether they

15 are individual or collective comparisons or as to whether or not the --

16 what the likelihood of coincidence is or the recurrence of those types of

17 markings. But more fundamentally, none of this can be evaluated.

18 It can't be evaluated because there is nothing more than a

19 conclusion in Captain Visnjic's report with no workings or base material

20 to explore. None of the notes are available, there is no second-opinion

21 report and none of the casings can be compared.

22 The net result is leaving -- there are essentially two groups of

23 objections, either of which in our submission should result in the

24 exclusion of this material. The first is there is no basis for building

25 the bridge which Mr. Avramovic wishes to build in order to contradict the

Page 6567

1 report upon which he relies as to where the casings from which the

2 comparison is drawn were found. But more fundamentally even if that

3 bridge could be built, the net result is the material can't be tested and

4 therefore the validity of the conclusion can't be evaluated.

5 Now, the Prosecution recognise in their motion in response the

6 weaknesses of this material, but seek to suggest that the admissibility

7 threshold set by the Tribunal's jurisprudence establishes a bar so low

8 that they are able to get over it by merely asserting that a conclusion

9 exists, because that's what this evidence amounts to. We respectfully

10 submit that any reasonable Trial Chamber viewing this material as it

11 stands would inevitably come to the conclusion that nil probative weight

12 could be attached to it, if the conclusions cannot be fairly evaluated.

13 And if that is the position, it ought not, in our submission, to be

14 admitted because material which is of nil probative value is not material

15 which in our submission satisfies the threshold of relevance. But more

16 fundamentally there is an 89(C) objection as to the fairness of admitting

17 material that cannot be properly tested or evaluated. So it's not simply

18 sufficient for the Prosecution to fall behind the mantra that this is a

19 matter of weight. In order for fair evaluation to take place, as a matter

20 of fair trial requirements, in our submission, the foundation material

21 must be available so that a conclusion can be assessed and the Trial

22 Chamber can determine what weight appropriately to attach to it. And if

23 the appropriate weight can't be fairly evaluated, then the evidence can't

24 in our submission be fairly admitted.

25 So we respectfully submit that the Prosecution's response misses

Page 6568

1 the point and it is, and never can be, an answer in a situation such as

2 this to say the Defence can cross-examine upon it, which is really the

3 last refuge of the desperate advocate in the context of an argument like

4 this, because how can the Defence cross-examine upon it, one asks

5 rhetorically. The Defence can't possibly cross-examine upon it because

6 the material upon which such cross-examination would be based has not been

7 served and is not available. So anything which would go to an evaluation

8 of the weight to be attached to it is simply unavailable to the Defence

9 and unavailable to the Trial Chamber. And shorn of that material, this is

10 evidence with no probative weight whatsoever but very considerable

11 potential for unfairness. That is our submission.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I take it when you referred to the

13 fairness requirement under Rule 89(C) that you were referring to 89(D)?

14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry. Yes, quite right.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Because 89(C) deals with the probative value.

16 Mr. Guy-Smith.

17 MR. GUY-SMITH: We have joined in the submissions made by

18 Mr. Emmerson, and in addition wish to remind the Chamber that we also have

19 filed an objection to the report itself. So we are in a position where

20 not only do we adopt those arguments made, but also procedurally we are in

21 a position where it would be inappropriate for the Chamber to consider

22 that report given the nature in which it was recently forwarded to the

23 court on June 28th as an expert report.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey.

25 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, we support the arguments advanced by

Page 6569

1 Mr. Emmerson. We discussed these matters in detail outside the court, and

2 we join, in its entirety, with his position.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, any additional submissions to be made?

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have listened

5 with great care to the comments made by the Defence, and indeed they came

6 back to the arguments that were presented in the motion that they

7 submitted to exclude ballistic evidence. The information provided by

8 Mr. Avramovic in annex 66 and that apparently we would not be able to

9 evaluate such conclusions. As regards the argument relating to the

10 bridge, indeed, there's nothing artificial in Mr. Avramovic's note, which

11 was drafted several years ago. It's not a recent document and it's fairly

12 commonplace for the police to draft such summary records, including the

13 various evidence, the various elements of evidence, that they have

14 collected in such an inquiry. This is normal procedure and this was

15 explained in the second addendum which was presented last Thursday where

16 it is stated how and why he went from the name Gramocelj to Glodjane and

17 why Gramocelj was mentioned in one report and Glodjane in the other. I'm

18 not going to go back to the substance because you're informed of these

19 matters. They were -- information was given to both parties.

20 As regards the second argument relating to the ballistic evidence

21 that it's a mere conclusion, this is the best evidence possible which is

22 available to the Prosecution; and therefore, we presented this under Rule

23 94 bis in Milutinovic and decided that we would be able to ask any

24 questions that were related, questions that the Defence has just

25 mentioned. So we believe that at this point, from the point of view of

Page 6570

1 admissibility, of course it's up to the Chamber to decide after

2 cross-examination, to determine the relative importance of this report and

3 the explanations that are to be given by Mr. Visnjic, and therefore I do

4 not agree with the points made by the Defence regarding the ballistic

5 evidence.

6 As regards the other issues, Mr. President, sir, I have developed

7 the arguments in my response and I do not intend to repeat those here this

8 morning because everyone has knowledge of those arguments. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

10 MR. EMMERSON: I think there may be an error on the transcript,

11 Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- Dutertre, isn't it true that the Visnjic report is

13 an attachment to the 92 ter statement?

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The report is annexed to the 92 ter

15 statement made by Mr. Avramovic, today's witness, but it's also annexed to

16 the hearing -- the Visnjic hearing. So it's both in the 92 ter statement

17 and the ballistics report as well. It's annex 63.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From a procedural point of view, if we would

19 admit the 92 ter statement you could just withdraw the application for the

20 report to be admitted under 94 bis, isn't it, because it's in evidence?

21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, that would be a possibility.

22 I shall leave it up to the Chamber to decide, given the fact that the

23 Defence did express the desire to perhaps cross-examine Mr. Visnjic.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- give me one second.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 6571

1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered all arguments. The

2 Chamber will now give its rulings, but not the full reasons. We would

3 like to formulate them in detail.

4 The Chamber - and I'm exclusively now talking about the

5 ballistics, nothing else - the Chamber does not exclude the evidence of

6 Mr. Avramovic in relation to the ballistics as we find it in the

7 paragraphs mentioned by you, Mr. Emmerson, but the Chamber does not admit

8 the Visnjic report as an attachment to that. There is an application for

9 the admission of the Visnjic report under Rule 94 bis. Objections have

10 been made in that respect, among them that Mr. Visnjic does not qualify as

11 an expert. The Chamber will consider those objections, but the Chamber

12 has already made up its mind that if it will admit the report, it will

13 certainly grant the Defence the right to cross-examine Mr. Visnjic. So

14 therefore, any suggestion that this report could be -- could be admitted

15 without Mr. Visnjic appearing as a witness is rejected.

16 It may be that before finally deciding on the admission of the

17 Visnjic report the Chamber will invite the parties to make further

18 submissions; that is a possibility. The parties will hear from us. We'll

19 give our reasons in more detail.

20 Just in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the mere fact that a

21 witness writes down in a report that he tells us that in report so-and-so

22 an expert -- or I don't know whether it's an expert, in a certain report

23 some conclusions are drawn, does not mean that the Chamber, on the basis

24 of that, would just accept that as being the full truth. At the same

25 time, the Chamber is aware that it -- excluding the evidence now might

Page 6572

1 cause us problems to overlook the whole of the evidence presented at the

2 end of the case and we are usually evaluating the evidence in the context

3 of the totality of the evidence presented.

4 I do not further expand on the reasons. You'll hear about them in

5 more detail. That is as far as the ballistics are concerned.

6 Now, what remains are the relevant portions, and let's go through

7 them one by one; I'm afraid that's the only possibility.

8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour.


10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could the Chamber please advise me

11 as to what has to be drafted for the main hearing and the addendum. I see

12 that under paragraph 197, I understood that we were to delete the last

13 sentence, but for the rest it was a bit more complicated for the other

14 addendum. Could I have the Chamber's instructions as to how we could

15 redraft this appropriately.

16 JUDGE ORIE: It's unclear what you mean by that we have to delete

17 the last sentence. Is that what the Chamber ruled?

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] In annex 63 of paragraph 197

19 there's a reference to the ballistics report. I am not absolutely certain

20 what you want the Prosecution to redact, given the decision that you have

21 just made. The draft -- what you want us to draft regarding the decision

22 you've made, that is, for the main hearing as for the second addendum.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to find my way in this rather chaotic

24 situation. The second addendum is about the Gramocelj-Glodjane issue. Is

25 that -- I'll just get it in front of me.

Page 6573

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, that's it. Exactly.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid I haven't got a hard copy with me, but ...

3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, it's not quite clear to me, as a matter

5 of fact. I've -- you made reference to annex 63 of paragraph 197. Let's

6 just have a look at that.

7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This annex is, indeed, the

8 ballistics report of Mr. Visnjic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps I've got an incomplete version of --

10 197, where do I find that exactly in the 92 ter statement? It goes to 193

11 for me.

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's paragraph 187,

13 187.

14 JUDGE ORIE: That already resolves one matter.

15 In 187, reference is made to the Visnjic report. As we said, the

16 annex is not admitted. That means what the witness says here is at this

17 moment -- well, to say in the air. It's just something which is not

18 supported by that material. At least if we would make a redaction here,

19 we would not even know that - and I don't think that that's the problem,

20 that there exists a report - but at least what it now says, last line is

21 that it did not specify the casings, which might be good reason not to

22 accept findings, we don't know yet. So the Chamber did not give you any

23 instruction at this moment. The Chamber, as a matter of fact, wants

24 further to consider whether or not to admit the report not as an annex to

25 this statement, but as a 94 bis statement. The Chamber has not made up

Page 6574

1 its mind yet, may ask for further submissions. And again, one thing is

2 clear, that that report where the author is known should not play a role

3 without Mr. Visnjic being present to be cross-examined.

4 And I am aware, Mr. Emmerson, that you consider cross-examination

5 could not be effective under the present circumstances. So therefore no

6 further instructions as far as that is concerned at this moment.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Might I, just picking that point up and

8 Mr. Dutertre's issue, might I just invite Your Honours' attention to

9 paragraph 189, which is essentially the paragraph to be read with addendum

10 number 2 --


12 MR. EMMERSON: -- in which this witness purports to re-read annex

13 6 -- the -- the original crime scene report, and there was the Visnjic

14 report, as referring not to Gramaqel but to Gllogjan.


16 MR. EMMERSON: In other words, paragraph 189 is him interpreting a

17 document which Your Honours currently do not admit.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Of course it goes without saying. If we would have

19 to go through it line by line and say here a reference is made, there a

20 reference is made, I think the line of the Chamber may be clear, that we

21 are not taking out a semicolon here, an "A" there, a letter "3" there.


23 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear that if we would consider that the Visnjic

24 report assists in a way as to be admitted, the Chamber then -- of course

25 these references may play a role there; if not, then of course they are

Page 6575

1 just without -- I mean, giving comment on something we have not --

2 explicitly not admitted --


4 JUDGE ORIE: -- of course then that comment will be ignored by the

5 Chamber.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Very well. So admitted, so to speak,

7 pro tem.

8 JUDGE ORIE: It could be at a later stage if we would decide that

9 Mr. Visnjic is not an expert or if we would decide the report is

10 non-admissible because for whatever reason it's late, then of course all

11 parties could apply and say would you please take out this or would you

12 please take out that as well. Whether there's any need to do so, of

13 course I understand that if you want to perform your duties that you might

14 insist on that. At the same time, the Chamber is -- as you may have

15 noticed before, the Chamber is looking at substance rather than at form,

16 although lawyers never should ignore the form.

17 Is that clear by now?

18 Then let's go through the -- let's try to resolve that as quickly

19 as possible. I do understand that paragraph 11 has not been resolved.

20 MR. EMMERSON: And Your Honours will see that the essential nature

21 of the objection follows the objections as taken with prior witnesses in a

22 similar category, that where generalisations and conclusions are drawn and

23 if they're tendered to show the basis for an investigation or the

24 witness's area of responsibility, then it is our submission that they are

25 not admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents. And paragraph

Page 6576

1 11 is essentially unsourced generalisation.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do it one by one.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, could you tell us under what 65 ter

5 number the consolidated witness statement is introduced in the report so

6 that the other Judges are, to the extent that they have no hard copy with

7 them, able to follow it on the screen.

8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It's number 65

9 ter 1401, 1401. The two addendums, if I may, are 1496 and 1497.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: The -- as far as paragraph 11 is concerned, the

14 Chamber denies the objection.

15 At the same time, Mr. Dutertre, if you would not give more

16 detailed factual foundation for it, the evidence might not be of much

17 support for the Prosecution's case.

18 Next paragraph is 13. I gave a suggestion yesterday,

19 Mr. Dutertre, just --

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] If I may, the Prosecution is not

21 opposed to that suggestion, that is, that there be a constructive debate;

22 and therefore, we accept that, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you changed your mind since yesterday? Is

24 that -- but, Mr. Emmerson, you had more I think.

25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Your Honours will see my concern --

Page 6577


2 MR. EMMERSON: -- and it may be that it falls within the rubric of

3 the observation that Your Honours have just made in relation to the

4 paragraph 11, but my concern in addition is the sentence reading -- or

5 that passage of the sentence which reads: "When the last remaining Serbs

6 were expelled or kidnapped from Decan and the area on both sides of the

7 Gjakove-Decan-Peje road," and then certain villages are given.


9 MR. EMMERSON: That again, in our submission, in the absence of

10 specific material when the Trial Chamber has heard specific evidence is --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, then it will not surprise you that the

12 Chamber will say -- take the same position there that further factual

13 foundation has to be laid. Or at least that, Mr. Dutertre, that is what

14 would -- would improve the support this evidence could give to the

15 Prosecution's case. Then we take out: "The armed conflict started around

16 21st/22nd of April ..."

17 And you redact it in such a way, Mr. Dutertre, that the date is

18 kept: "... is the date on which the last remaining Serbs or kidnapped or

19 expelled from Decan," and we will hear from the witness how he knows that

20 this happened at those days. But "the armed conflict" and "the start of

21 the armed conflict" is taken out. I take it you find the appropriate

22 redaction for that.

23 Then we move on to paragraph 32. The issue on 32 was last two

24 sentences: "From the description of the victim given by Kalamashi crime

25 inspectors who were interviewing him made conclusions about the identity

Page 6578

1 of this person. I'm not sure if their conclusions were that the victim

2 was Milovan Vlahovic or Milos Radunovic."

3 This actually says: Conclusions were drawn, what the conclusions

4 were, I do not know. That's -- I don't know, Mr. Dutertre, to what extent

5 you think that unknown conclusions could support your case.

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards this

7 passage, the witness remembers that conclusions were drawn by others and

8 everyone, therefore, recognises the speculative nature of such comments

9 and it's up to the Chamber to evaluate the sentence as such. And the last

10 sentence that's correlated with it indicates that it could have been one

11 or the other victims. It does indeed show that the testimony is somewhat

12 fuzzy, but I don't think it's inadmissible.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's the probative value? What could we

14 conclude from this? Because you are saying that it's evaluation rather

15 than -- now, what does this prove, that it could be these two persons,

16 just as it could be everyone?

17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, according to

18 what the witness stated and the way I understood it, this means that

19 according to the crime inspector's conclusions, it was one or the other of

20 these two individuals that was the victim. The Prosecution, however, is

21 not going to make a major point out of these two sentences, Your Honour.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Last two lines have to be redacted, Mr. Dutertre.

24 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour.


Page 6579

1 MR. EMMERSON: Could I be permitted one tangential observation at

2 this point. I haven't raised it as a separate issue.

3 JUDGE ORIE: We have dealt now with the last two sentences. They

4 are out.

5 MR. EMMERSON: They are out. Thank you very much. And the first

6 nine sentences of the next paragraph cover the same territory. But may I

7 mention one matter at this stage which relates to both of these

8 objections. I have not sought to object, and neither have those

9 representing either of the co-accused, to the admission through this

10 witness, of the witness statements allegedly recorded as having been made

11 by Bekim Kalamashi during this course of his detention. And plainly,

12 rather like the passages of the witness statement that was sought to be

13 tendered by the investigator, Mr. Haverinen, those passages have been

14 understood by the Defence as being tendered not to show the truth of their

15 contents but to show the purpose and the progress of the investigation; in

16 other words, to justify the decision to go to the canal.

17 And it is on that basis that no application has been made to

18 exclude those statements themselves, a proper examination of them is a

19 matter which may assist the Trial Chamber, but not, as we submit, as being

20 potentially evidence of the truth of their contents, not least because the

21 maker of the statement has disavowed the truth of the contents, but

22 leaving that aside, it would not, in our submission, be appropriate for

23 those statements to be admitted on that basis.

24 So the passages that we are now dealing with, and Your Honours

25 have just excluded the last two sentences of paragraph 32, are expressions

Page 6580

1 of opinion by somebody other than the witness, reported by the witness as

2 to what statements are being admitted not as to the truth of their

3 contents properly meant at the time.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear to me. Let me re-read the ...

5 With the same caveat as given before, the first nine lines of

6 paragraph 33 are not excluded.

7 We move on to paragraph 96. Last sentence: "It seemed to be used

8 as some kind of prison and also used as training area." That clearly is

9 opinion, Mr. Dutertre.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would say that

11 perhaps it's at the boundary between opinion and observation. It results

12 from the various objects that the witness saw on the site. In addition,

13 he is a police officer, a crime investigator, and he makes a comment on

14 the basis of things that he saw and took note of. So I don't think it's

15 inadmissible.

16 JUDGE ORIE: We're talking about the last line of 96. We find in

17 97 what seems to be a more factual description. Could we not leave the

18 opinion out and ...

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Last line of 96 is excluded. At the same time, may I

21 add to that to the Defence that, of course, if a witness comes to the

22 conclusion that in Europe it's light at night and dark during the day,

23 then of course if you would leave it in, that would not necessarily mean

24 that the Chamber would follow such opinions and conclusions. And this is

25 obviously not a conclusion the Chamber would accept until and unless it

Page 6581

1 would reach on the basis of the facts presented to it the same conclusion.

2 Then we are at 98.

3 MR. EMMERSON: I think Your Honours passed over the second

4 sentence of 97.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. I'm -- that's the -- if I may say the

6 Guy-Smith.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. As regards the

10 sentence in paragraph 97, I suggest that I will ask additional questions

11 to the witness, as I stated in the response I sent yesterday to the

12 Defence.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We excluded, and of course you are entirely

14 free to ask any questions about the witness which would give support to

15 what is here presented as a conclusion. So that's excluded. Then we have

16 paragraph 98.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The Prosecution also believes that

21 paragraph 98 is based on elements that were observed by the witness from

22 the point where he was situated, in particular in paragraph 99 the witness

23 observed targets, when he comments the video that he was shown he could

24 see the targets. So this insertion in paragraph 98 is based on objective

25 elements, based on things that the witness saw on site.

Page 6582

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's see whether the Chamber would reach the

2 same conclusions. Mr. Dutertre, paragraph 98 should be redacted in such a

3 way that the facts remain, that is, that behind the farm that the witness

4 located an area where there was several obstacles erected; and further,

5 that there was an area with barbed wire. If you would like to ask the

6 witness whether looking at this it brought something in his mind and what

7 it brought into his mind and why it brought it in his mind, then you are

8 free to do so. It could be that a comparison of the facts he observed

9 here with, for example, facts he observed earlier in his life when he saw

10 military educational training compounds, that's fair, but not to be

11 presented in this way as a -- as an opinion which you, as a matter of

12 fact, invited the Chamber to put everything together and to see whether

13 all the factual elements -- and I do understand that we have to first look

14 at 99 and only then at 98 in order to understand that where there is an

15 area where obstacles are erected that gives the impression of a training

16 ground. I can tell you that I know of a lot of areas where obstacles are

17 erected which do not remind me of a military training ground. So there

18 best be more and you can explore that matter when examining the witness.

19 Then we have paragraph 170, I think, but there was -- it was not

20 entirely clear to me what the remaining issue there was.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. If I can assist with that.


23 MR. EMMERSON: The Prosecution have agreed to confine -- sorry,

24 let me make it absolutely clear. The objection begins at the end of the

25 first sentence after the bracketed reference to annex 68. The Prosecution

Page 6583

1 have agreed to remove the remainder of that paragraph, except for the

2 following sentence: "Isuf Hoxaj was a police informant for petty

3 crimes ..."

4 And the next-but-one sentence: "Isuf Hoxaj went missing in the

5 Dulje pass between Prizren and Stimlje."

6 Now, first of all, as far as the first of those two sentences are

7 concerned, the Defence would accept that if the witness is in a position

8 to lay a proper evidential foundation for that, then the information in

9 itself is capable of being admitted. But in order to know whether that is

10 the case, it's a matter which, in our submission, should properly be

11 explored orally rather than through a 92 ter.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we're talking about the first sentence which

13 is --

14 MR. EMMERSON: "Isuf Hoxaj was a police informant for petty

15 crime ..."

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course.

17 MR. EMMERSON: As far as the second sentence is concerned --

18 JUDGE ORIE: That he went missing --

19 MR. EMMERSON: In a particular location. In our submission that

20 ought not to be admitted. It ought not to be admitted because on any view

21 it cannot be information that is capable of being reliable. Apart from

22 anything else, the words that follow make it clear that the witness has no

23 real information to give. He doesn't know when it happened, he thinks it

24 was the beginning of 1998, he doesn't remember the circumstances, he

25 doesn't know whether he went missing with Hajrulah Gashi or not. In

Page 6584

1 itself, that information, which in any event, is inconsistent with the

2 testimony of Witness 8, in our submission, ought not to be admitted on any

3 basis.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if everything that is inconsistent with Witness

5 8, would that have to be excluded? There you are --

6 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry I --

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Emmerson, I don't know whether that's really

8 what you meant.

9 MR. EMMERSON: Parenthetically, at the end of the submission I was

10 making, I was drawing your attention to the place described is not the

11 place that Your Honours have heard evidence about.


13 MR. EMMERSON: Be that as it may, what is clear from what is set

14 out in this witness statement is that there is nothing that the witness is

15 able to give which is capable of materially assisting the Trial Chamber to

16 understand the evidence surrounding the disappearance of those two

17 individuals.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I do intend to

21 ask supplementary questions to the witness as regards to the origin of the

22 information mentioned in the first sentence, that is, that Isuf Hoxaj was

23 a police informant for petty crimes. I don't really see that there's any

24 major difference in nature between that and the second sentence, and of

25 course I can put questions to the witness to ask him how he learned that

Page 6585

1 Isuf Hoxaj disappeared. I can ask him such questions and I don't see what

2 makes this information inadmissible.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, to be -- to be quite clear, so the Defence

4 proposes to take out: "He was a sort of a con man and was often seen in

5 the company of policemen. He was probably killed because of being a

6 police informant." That to be taken out, to be excluded.

7 And then the next line: "In," but then to exclude all the

8 remainder or at least --

9 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, may I clarify --

10 JUDGE ORIE: No, you said: "Isuf Hoxaj went missing," that should

11 be excluded as well.

12 MR. EMMERSON: If I can take it from the beginning: "Isuf Hoxaj

13 was a police informant for petty crimes," we would respectfully submit

14 that is most appropriately dealt with once it is clear whether the witness

15 has an evidential foundation from which to make a comment.


17 MR. EMMERSON: The next two sentences: "He was a sort of a con

18 man and he was probably killed ..." It is agreed that that should be

19 removed.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is agreed.

21 MR. EMMERSON: The following sentence, given what follows, is of

22 no evidential value to the Trial Chamber and the information that follows

23 on from that: "I don't know when he went missing ... " is -- and to the

24 end of the paragraph is agreed.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 6586

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not quite sure

2 what the Defence is suggesting to keep or to remove. I thought that the

3 Defence accepted that we keep the first sentence: "Isuf Hoxaj was a

4 police informant for petty crimes," the rest would be deleted, and that

5 there was still disagreement as regards the sentence: "Isuf Hoxaj went

6 missing in the Dulje pass between Prizren and Stimlje," and now I must say

7 I'm a bit confused as to what has been decided.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is not confused. The Chamber has not

9 decided anything yet but will now do so.

10 Paragraph 170, excluded are the two sentences: "He was a sort of

11 a con man and was often seen in the company of policemen. He was probably

12 killed because of being a police informant."

13 The remainder including the sentence: "Isuf Hoxaj went missing in

14 the Dulje pass between Prizren and Stimlje," is not excluded. At the same

15 time, Mr. Dutertre, where the witness explains in rather -- in some detail

16 at what he does not know, the Chamber, of course, in order to accept the

17 place where Isuf Hoxaj was missing on the basis of this evidence would

18 certainly need to know on what basis the witness states that Isuf Hoxaj

19 went missing in that specific place.

20 Then I think we dealt with all the matters.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. May I take this just very brief moment to

22 make one observation. I think none of us wishes to use the Trial

23 Chamber's valuable time in editing witness statements --

24 JUDGE ORIE: No, as a matter of fact what I suggest for the next

25 time is I call you at 10.00 at night, hear from you whether you have

Page 6587

1 reached any conclusion, have someone available who will put everything on

2 the record and we'll do it between 10.00 and 12.00 at night and not

3 between quarter past 9.00 until a quarter past 10.00.

4 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. May I make perhaps an additional and

5 alternative suggestion, which is that given that these are 92 ter

6 statements and that they, therefore, represent material which can

7 perfectly properly be admitted orally, if there is to be any doubt -- and

8 it must be clear now to the parties and certainly to the Prosecution what

9 the natures of the objections and the likely rulings will be, if there is

10 any doubt about a passage in the witness statement there is nothing to

11 stop the Prosecution excluding it from the 92 ter statement and eliciting

12 it orally.


14 MR. EMMERSON: None of us wishes to be in the position, as I say,

15 of using the Trial Chamber's time to conduct an exercise which is

16 essentially arid because the material can be dealt with just as well

17 orally as it can in writing.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I fully do agree that we would have needed less

19 than an hour to elicit the evidence as you would have sought to have it

20 admitted, Mr. Dutertre, on paper, to elicit it orally from the witness.

21 May the witness be escorted into the courtroom again.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 [The witness takes the stand]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Avramovic, I hope that you had some coffee.

25 Mr. Avramovic, I would like to remind you that you are still bound

Page 6588

1 by the solemn declaration which you gave at the beginning of your

2 testimony, which until now was not on matters of substance for the case.

3 You'll now be examined by Mr. Dutertre, who is counsel for the

4 Prosecution.

5 Mr. Dutertre, you may proceed.

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. Would you

7 like me to present the witness statement, although they have not been

8 redacted as of yet under 92 ter --

9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... portions not

10 admitted, that does not mean that the attestation, that is, whatever he

11 said -- well, I'm not going to anticipate on what the attestation will be,

12 but that could be made for the statement in its entirety and then

13 admission would be limited to the parts we discussed before. So please

14 proceed.

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 One other question, or rather, a comment. You have a consolidated

17 version in Serb language, you have the English translation, and there are

18 two addendums. In addition to that, and all of these documents have been

19 sent to the Chamber, there's also an index which enables you to find your

20 way through the various annexes and the pages and paragraphs under the 65

21 ter statement.

22 Now, as regards these annexes, from a technical point of view, you

23 recall that for Mr. Sefa [sic], a previous witness, these annexes were

24 physically annexed to the consolidated statement and that they all

25 received an exhibit number, which was not a problem because this was the

Page 6589

1 only witness making statements regarding those annexes. In this case,

2 however, several witnesses have been questioned on these annexes and

3 others will in the future also do so, which is why I suggest that each of

4 the annexes be given a separate exhibit number; and in order for us to

5 keep things straight, that there be a clear numbering so that the

6 Prosecution and the Defence not have to go wading through the document

7 system in order to find the appropriate documents that have been referred

8 to.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I take it that that causes no

10 specific difficulties?

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar would like to have the list. She'll

13 check whether she received it already or otherwise -- Madam Registrar has

14 not received the list. The staff of the Chamber has received it, so if

15 you would please provide Madam Registrar with the list and then we'll

16 proceed.

17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Indeed,

18 we're removing annex 63 from the list. I believe I asked -- I gave the

19 usher two binders with the main statement, the annexes, and the addendums.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please now proceed, because we would like to

21 hear the testimony of the witness, Mr. Dutertre.

22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes.


24 [Witness answered through interpreter]

25 Examination by Mr. Dutertre:

Page 6590

1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Avramovic, in May/June 2007 you gave a

2 consolidated statement, where you referred to certain annexes, and a

3 supplementary statement. These documents are to be found in the binders

4 that are being placed in front of you. Do you recognise these statements,

5 the annexes, as being the statement that you made?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The questions that were put to you during the session, if you were

8 to be asked the same questions today, would you respond in the same

9 manner?

10 A. I would.

11 Q. Does this represent a true and faithful version of your witness

12 statement?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you very much.

15 I'm now going to ask you various questions. When you respond, you

16 are, in fact, responding to the Chamber, so please do look at the Judges.

17 Mr. Avramovic, my first question relates to paragraph 170 of your

18 consolidated statement, the main statement in which, and I quote the

19 statement: "Isuf Hoxaj was a police informant for petty crimes."

20 I would like to ask you, please refer to the written copy of your

21 statement, I'd like to ask you how you know that Isuf Hoxaj was a police

22 informant for petty crimes?

23 A. I know this from conversations with my colleagues who worked with

24 him.

25 Q. Could you give us the names of the colleagues with whom you had

Page 6591

1 those conversations?

2 A. I can't recall their names, but these are colleagues from the

3 crime police. They are crime inspectors.

4 Q. Where were these colleagues based?

5 A. Djakovica.

6 Q. And where did you have these conversations with them?

7 A. At my work-place in the Djakovica police.

8 Q. Before you left Kosovo in 1999. Is that right?

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. And --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Would Mr. Dutertre repeat the question, please.

12 There was an overlap with the interpretation.

13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Could you please tell us, Mr. Avramovic, what exactly were the

15 words that your colleagues used as regards Mr. Isuf Hoxaj?

16 A. He was an informant of the service in relation to some petty

17 crimes, burglaries, forced entries into shops, and so on and so forth, and

18 he would inform the police about the identities of the perpetrators of

19 these crimes. And he would often socialise with them, he would be in

20 their company.

21 Q. Well, when you said he spent time with them, you mean he spent

22 time with your colleagues?

23 A. Yes, yes.

24 Q. I'd like to turn to another sentence in paragraph 170 and I'm

25 going to read it in English: [In English] "Mr. Isuf went missing in the

Page 6592

1 Dulje pass between Prizren and Stimlje."

2 [No interpretation]

3 A. I think it was officially recorded in the report submitted by his

4 family, which stated that he went missing.

5 Q. [No interpretation]

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. [No interpretation]

8 A. I recall that it was his son who reported him missing, if I recall

9 that well.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] There's no interpretation of my

11 questions.

12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... But I see that on

13 page 32, line 5, the question was not interpreted but at the same time I

14 see that the witness either continued his answer or answered the question.

15 Could you please repeat that portion of the question and answers,

16 Mr. Dutertre.

17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour. The

18 question on line 3, page 32 was whether or not the witness has access to

19 the report himself. And the second question on line 5 was whether he

20 remembers anything else about that report.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So apparently it has been translated into the

22 language of the witness, but there appears no translation in English, and

23 that already starts at page 31, line 25.

24 Now, those who are listening to the English channel, have they

25 received interpretation of these questions?

Page 6593

1 MR. EMMERSON: I think the last question was the only one I did

2 not receive interpretation of, but the answer made it clear what the

3 question had been.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not try to fully explore what is a

5 transcription problem and what's an interpretation problem. Let's

6 proceed. It seems that the witness has -- from the gist of his answers, I

7 take it that he has understood the question. Perhaps you summarize it for

8 him, Mr. Dutertre, and then we proceed.

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. Again, the last question was

10 whether or not the witness remembers any other details regarding the

11 report that he himself had access to. This was the question in line 5, if

12 I'm not mistaken.

13 Q. You stated that the son reported that he had gone missing. Do you

14 remember anything else?

15 A. That's the only thing I remember. I don't recall any other

16 details.

17 Q. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, I'm looking at the clock. We'll have a

19 break. Would this be a suitable moment?

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, no problems. This would be a

21 good time.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll first ask the witness to be escorted out of

23 the courtroom.

24 Mr. Avramovic, we'll have a break for close to half an hour,

25 and -- but I have one or two questions remaining for Mr. Dutertre.

Page 6594

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, since you suggested to tender all the

3 annexes, annex 65, that is the case file and the report on the attack in

4 Pljancor against Maslovare. The report says that it's with 16

5 photographs; I find only 12, not necessarily to be dealt with at this very

6 moment, but perhaps you would check that in the break.

7 Then may I draw your attention -- what you see at the same time in

8 this -- in this report is that the sketch attached to it, the sketch of

9 the crime scene, that the legenda are properly translated. However, if I

10 look at annex 64, which is the report on -- well, let's say 24th of March

11 events, there I find several sketches. But I found only in relation to

12 one of them the key, and all the others are without. I wonder how you

13 would imagine the Chamber to understand those sketches without having a

14 translation. If you could please clarify this after the break.

15 Then we'll have a break until 11.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

17 [The witness takes the stand]

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

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, before we continue, two observations.

20 First of all, the list of annexes to the 92 ter statement describes the --

21 the documents as attachment so-and-so without giving a proper description.

22 It's very difficult to find your way through it. That's one.

23 Then second, I see that you've old ERN numbers, new ERN numbers.

24 It is very confusing that in the 92 ter statements you're referring to old

25 ERN numbers that are not the ERN numbers that appear as the last ones

Page 6595

1 accepted, but usually to the ones stricken out. I don't know what's the

2 purpose of giving new ERN numbers and striking out the previous one and

3 then striking out again the number before that. It confuses me. I don't

4 know what the issue is.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards the second

6 comment, the reason is that during the witness statement we presented the

7 documents with the old ERN number and they were then recompiled so that a

8 new ERN was given to the annexes. That's why in the document -- in the

9 index you find both the old ERN and the new ERN number, but in fact at the

10 time when the statement was taken we only had the old ERN number. It was

11 only thereafter that a new number was given to those documents.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, but when I'm reading a statement and

13 when reference is made to the ERN numbers, then I first have to go to that

14 list to find the new ERN numbers. And I always was under the impression

15 that the ERN numbers were to identify -- to give a unique identification

16 of a document. Now, what's the sense of adding new ERN numbers where the

17 document is identified by the old one?

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's simply because

19 the whole -- all of these various documents were put into a new package,

20 and therefore -- in fact, some of the annexes had handwritten markings and

21 represented new exhibits. And that is why a new ERN number was given.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's still -- I see that, of course on the

23 document you write "annex 59," which of course is -- I mean, if the

24 document is identified with sufficient precision, I also see that then

25 the -- the investigator again signs that document. What the use of all

Page 6596

1 that is entirely unclear to me, but -- so to the extent it can be avoided,

2 please do so. Then do you have --

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] We shall do so in the future, Your

4 Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have further information about the two

6 issues I raised, that's the 16 and the 12 photographs and the translation

7 of the sketches -- at least the keys to the sketches in the 24th of March,

8 1998, investigation?

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honours, as regards the

10 photographs, a number of them are missing. Having checked the system, it

11 seems that the original document does not include those photographs. We

12 must, however, check in the evidence section whether or not the documents

13 include those photographs or not or whether they're only accessible on a

14 screen and whether that is the explanation for the reason why those

15 photographs, those three or four photographs, are not included. We are

16 continuing our research. When we tried to open the document with the

17 present ERN number, the photographs do not appear.

18 As regards your question regarding translation, we are checking.

19 Apparently these translations are not available, but we are doing our best

20 so that the translations will be provided to the Chamber and to the

21 Defence as soon as possible.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that. The Chamber would highly

23 appreciate it. If by reading these documents we find the shortcomings on

24 first reading, it surprises a bit that where you have thoroughly, I take

25 it, investigated these documents that this did not come to your mind.

Page 6597

1 Please proceed now.

2 Mr. Avramovic, we'll continue to hear your testimony.

3 Please proceed.

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Avramovic, I have a few questions for you regarding paragraph

6 11 of your statement. You stated that in January and February 1998, many

7 civilian cars were attacked while travelling at night on the Djakovica-Pec

8 road. Could you tell us how you know that bit of information.

9 A. I know because I participated in many investigations into those

10 attacks.

11 Q. Can you tell us how many investigations you participated in

12 regarding attacks on civilian cars on that road?

13 A. I actually inspected several vehicles that had been attacked

14 during that period. I performed on-site inspections.

15 Q. Just to clarify your own -- that clarifies your role in these

16 investigations, but how many investigations are we referring to? How many

17 investigations did you participate in regarding these events?

18 A. I participated in several, five or six maybe, but I know that my

19 colleagues also participated in several investigations of that kind.

20 Q. Could you tell us how many events, to your knowledge, how many

21 attacks occurred in the months of January and February on civilian cars on

22 that road?

23 A. I don't know the exact number, but there must have been a dozen or

24 so or even maybe more.

25 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Avramovic, you have stated in paragraph

Page 6598

1 11 in your statement that the victims were Serbs and that after a while

2 the police discovered that the Albanians who travelled at night, in order

3 to be recognised as Albanians and not be attacked, left the inside light

4 on in their cars. And therefore, those vehicles, when the light was on,

5 were not attacked. Could you tell the Court how you found out about that

6 information?

7 A. I learned that from my colleagues who had become privy to that

8 information.

9 Q. Do you remember the names of your colleagues who gave you that

10 information?

11 A. No.

12 Q. At what point in time did you learn about this information from

13 your colleagues? I understand you don't remember their names, but do you

14 remember when they told you about this, what period of time it was?

15 A. I learned that somewhat later, maybe a month or two months after

16 the events.

17 Q. How did your colleagues obtain this information, do you know?

18 A. I suppose that this was in the interviews with the members, or

19 rather, terrorists who had been captured, I suppose so. That's the most

20 plausible explanation I have.

21 Q. Thank you very much?

22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like to show a video

23 sequence from the video V00-601, 20.24, 1 minute and 59 seconds.

24 We're going to be showing this --

25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... text being spoken?

Page 6599

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Have you provided the booth with the transcript?

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are subtitles.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm aware of that. Have you oriented yourself to the

5 procedure followed in this courtroom as far as sound or videos is

6 concerned?

7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I don't believe the transcript has

8 been given to the interpreters, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Before playing it, would you please do so, because

10 otherwise we can't proceed. The procedure here is, Mr. Dutertre, and you

11 should be aware of that, it should have been discussed within your team,

12 that in order to have a full transcript in the two languages of this

13 Tribunal, that the one interpreter follows on paper whether the text of

14 the transcript reflects the words spoken, whereas the other interpreter,

15 who most likely is not able to follow the speed of speech, translates on

16 the basis of the written transcript so that we have a full transcript in

17 both languages. That's the procedure that has been explained again and

18 again, and I'm surprised that you have not been -- you have not prepared

19 for this procedure to be followed.

20 Therefore, it's of no use at this moment to play the video. If

21 you please would prepare the transcript to the interpreters' booth so that

22 we can do that at a later time.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm very sorry. We're

24 going to be transcribing the transcript very rapidly. I shall then go on

25 to another question.

Page 6600

1 JUDGE ORIE: I take it there is a written transcript, it's just a

2 matter of printing out, isn't it, because if you have to start

3 transcribing now, then that would cause --

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, the transcript exists. It's

5 just a question of copying it and sending it out.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please take care that it will be there

7 soon.

8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The Defence has received the

9 transcript.

10 Q. Mr. Avramovic, from March 1998 until the end of August 1998, what

11 information did you have, if you did have information, regarding the

12 disappearance of individuals in the zone that you have described and

13 sketched in annex 2, that is, a zone that was not safe for reasons of

14 security?

15 A. We had information that all Serbs who had remained in the

16 territory had been kidnapped, also that anybody who attempted to enter the

17 territory was also kidnapped.

18 Q. How did the police receive such information?

19 A. From the relatives of those who had gone missing, from various

20 sources working for the service, and also from the terrorists who had been

21 captured and brought in for interviews.

22 Q. How many individuals from -- in the period March to August 1998,

23 how many disappearances did you hear about? How many individuals had been

24 said to have disappeared?

25 A. We heard that all the Serbs who remained living in the territory

Page 6601

1 had been kidnapped. We heard of all those instances.

2 Q. Do you remember --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, could we just clarify that.

4 Does that mean that in the area there was no Serb remaining who

5 had not been kidnapped?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: When was this -- this exercise completed then? I

8 mean, on from what moment all Serbs had been kidnapped?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The end of April/beginning of March

10 1998.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.

12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Did you say the end of April/beginning of May or

13 beginning of March? I didn't understand.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Beginning of March 1998.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, to describe a moment --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, I misspoke. It was

17 May.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation].

21 Q. Mr. Avramovic, how did you yourself learn about this information?

22 You -- did you hear it from your colleagues? Did you read reports? Were

23 there police meetings? What is the source of your knowledge, your own

24 knowledge, of these kidnappings and disappearances?

25 A. In several ways. I saw documents, reports, on the missing

Page 6602

1 persons, and also in talking to my colleagues.

2 Q. After this period of March, April, and May, were there other

3 persons of ethnic origin other than Serb, not Serb, were there other

4 disappearances in the same zone?

5 A. There were Albanians who were loyal to the state.

6 Q. Mr. Avramovic, do you remember the names of both Serbs and

7 Albanians who disappeared during that period and that you yourself have

8 knowledge of?

9 A. I remember the names. As I've already told you, those who

10 remained in the territory who didn't manage to flee were the Radosevic

11 family, the Radunovic family, two members of the Ministry of the Interior,

12 Zdravko Radunovic. I can't remember all the names at the moment, but

13 there were quite a few.

14 Q. When you mention two members -- two individuals who worked for the

15 Ministry of the Interior, do you remember their names or not?

16 A. I believe that it was Rade Popovic and Nikola Jovanovic, and also

17 Nenad Remistar.

18 Q. When you refer to Albanians loyal to the government, what do you

19 mean by that? You used that expression a moment ago in a previous answer;

20 what exactly do you mean by that?

21 A. Those Albanians did not want to take up the arms and fight against

22 the state.

23 Q. Fine. Thank you. Mr. Avramovic, I'm going on to another topic.

24 In paragraph 41 and 42 of your statement, you explain that an

25 investigation team was set up to go to the lake --

Page 6603


2 MR. EMMERSON: Just before Mr. Dutertre continues, I haven't

3 objected during the course of that last passage of examination-in-chief to

4 the absence of specificity or means of knowledge in respect of individual

5 cases, either in respect of the Serbs or in respect of Albanians

6 described. I haven't done so on the assumption that this is information

7 which is being elicited, as before, in order to show the basis for

8 investigation rather than as being tendered to show the truth of its

9 contents. But plainly, if Mr. Dutertre wishes to rely as evidence for the

10 truth of its contents on assertions of kidnapping, something more detailed

11 by way of foundation would need to be laid. I forebear from objecting and

12 interjecting, but on that basis.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, is that clear and ...

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Am I to understand that that

15 applies to the whole series of questions I've put to the witness or just

16 the last one?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I think you referred to the series of

18 questions.


20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Join.

21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Avramovic, did you participate in investigations of cases of

23 kidnapping of Serbs or Albanians that you mentioned a moment ago?

24 A. No, I didn't participate because it was impossible to carry out

25 on-site inspections in that period -- territory during that period of

Page 6604

1 time.

2 Q. Can you explain why it is that it was impossible to carry out

3 investigations in that territory.

4 A. Because that territory was under the control of the KLA.

5 Q. The knowledge, your personal knowledge, of these cases of

6 disappearances, therefore, comes from the families having lodged

7 complaints and your discussions with colleagues; is that true?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you have any other precise information on one of -- one of the

10 other cases of disappearances that you mentioned earlier in your

11 testimony?

12 A. Please repeat your question. I did not understand your question.

13 I'm sorry.

14 Q. You mentioned a number of names, in particular two police officers

15 of Serb origin who disappeared. Could you give us more detail about the

16 cases of these two police officers?

17 A. On the basis of the reports that were submitted at the time, we

18 did not make any inquiries. I know that they went in the direction of

19 Rastavica, as they were supposed to be transporting food supplies; they

20 were on duty. That's what I can tell you.

21 Q. And how did you learn that those two individuals had disappeared,

22 that is, those two precise individuals?

23 A. We learnt this from their superior officers, who reported them

24 missing.

25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes: Can the other microphone

Page 6605

1 for the witness be switched on, please.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you.

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Avramovic, you mentioned the name of Nenad Remistar. Do you

5 have any additional details regarding what happened to that person?

6 A. To my knowledge, he was kidnapped as he was going back from his

7 home in Glina, or rather, he was going to work and he was travelling along

8 the Djakovica-Pristina road.

9 Q. What is the source of that information, please?

10 A. The report filed by his relatives and by his superior officers.

11 Q. Did you read that report yourself?

12 A. I don't remember, but I believe I did.

13 Q. You mentioned the names Radunovic and Radosevic. Could you give

14 us more details about what happened to those persons, and then I'll ask

15 you afterwards how you learned about that information.

16 A. They weren't able to leave their houses in the villages where they

17 resided. They were kidnapped and their relatives reported them missing.

18 Q. Did you speak to the family members yourself?

19 A. I did, because their sons were also members of the Ministry of the

20 Interior.

21 Q. Thank you very much. I would like now to discuss paragraphs 41

22 and 42 of your statement. You have stated that an investigation team was

23 set up in order to go to the lake, and once the SUP had questioned the

24 individuals who had been arrested on September 3rd. My question is as

25 follows: Did the entire investigation team arrive at the same time or did

Page 6606

1 you arrive one after the other in time?

2 A. The entire investigation team, I indicated in this document,

3 arrived at that site at the same time.

4 Q. When you discovered the bodies at the concrete wall at the end of

5 the canal, how did you report this information to your hierarchy?

6 A. Most probably over the radio communication.

7 Q. Thank you very much.

8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like now to call up the

9 video V0061 [as interpreted] from --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Would you ask Mr. Dutertre to repeat the

11 reference, please.

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It's video V000-6011, minute 3, 11

13 seconds to 3.36 seconds, and there's no transcript for this.

14 [Prosecution counsel confer]

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] We normally can put it on, turn it

16 on from here, but it doesn't seem to be running.

17 JUDGE ORIE: It is on my e-court screen.

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Can we please start the video.

19 [Videotape played]

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could we stop the video just there,

21 please.

22 Q. Mr. Avramovic, the object that we can see in the left corner of

23 the video, can you tell us what that is?

24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Perhaps we should back-track just a

25 tiny bit. Thank you.

Page 6607

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recognise this. It is most

2 probably a piece of timber or a stump or something.

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation].

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Can we continue playing the video.

6 [Videotape played].

7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Microphone not activated].

8 [Interpretation] Can we back-track just a tiny bit.

9 [Videotape played].

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation].

11 Q. Mr. Avramovic, can you tell us when, what day, this video was

12 taken?

13 A. Most probably on the 11th of September, 1998.

14 Q. Well, was it the same day that the bodies were removed or was it

15 before or after?

16 A. Which bodies are you referring to?

17 Q. I'm referring to the initial phase of the investigation by the

18 forensic specialists that came from Belgrade to remove the bodies, to

19 examine the bodies.

20 A. At that time, the exhumation only started at that site, so

21 probably this footage was made before the start of the exhumation.

22 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Avramovic. On this video that seems to

23 be taken from the wooden bridge that crosses the canal, we cannot see the

24 bodies discovered that were close to the wall, the bodies that were at the

25 surface of the water. Can you tell us approximately at what part of the

Page 6608

1 wall these bodies that were removed were found near the wall, that is, the

2 bodies that were removed by the forensic specialists?


4 MR. EMMERSON: I'm -- first of all, I don't understand the premise

5 for the question. There's no evidence at all so far that bodies that were

6 close to the wall were removed by forensic specialists. So if that is

7 something that Mr. Dutertre wishes to put to this witness, it would be

8 helpful to know the basis for the question.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, Mr. Dutertre, you guided the witness

10 to paragraphs 41 of his statement, where he describes how they decided to

11 form a crime scene investigation. And then he describes in paragraph 42,

12 43, and then 44, I took it that this is in chronological order. And then

13 in paragraph 44 he arrives at the canal at the 9th of September. So if

14 you take him to 41, I'm a bit surprised that we suddenly are at the 11th

15 of September. Could you please clarify that and could you also keep in

16 mind what Mr. Emmerson just said.

17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. In fact, I had

18 gone on to another topic after the arrival of the team, and this video was

19 filmed on the 11th. And in the witness statement at paragraph 118, the

20 witness states that bodies were exhumed close to the wall of the canal.

21 So, in fact, it's on the basis of the consolidated witness statement,

22 indeed, for reasons of clarity I probably should have referred to

23 paragraph 118 before I showed this video.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that apart from whether

25 it was the 11th of September, Mr. Dutertre, you know that there is a bit

Page 6609

1 of confusion about the date. So I would very much like you to -- to

2 further verify what makes the witness think that this video was on the

3 11th, but apart from that I think Mr. Emmerson also complained about the

4 bodies near to the wall being exhumed by experts, I think that was part of

5 his problem --

6 MR. EMMERSON: Could I just make it clear.


8 MR. EMMERSON: It's page 48, line 1.


10 MR. EMMERSON: The question asks: "On this video that seems to be

11 taken from the wooden bridge that crosses the canal, we cannot see the

12 bodies discovered that were close to the wall, the bodies that were at the

13 surface of the water. Can you tell us approximately at what part of the

14 wall these bodies that were removed were found near the wall, that is, the

15 bodies that were removed by the forensic specialists?"

16 Now, the natural reading of that question is asking about the

17 removal of the bodies that were found at the surface of the water close to

18 the wall.


20 MR. EMMERSON: As to which there has been no evidence of their

21 removal; on the contrary.

22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I think there's been a mistake. I

23 was referring to the bodies that were on the earthen side. In fact, I

24 wanted the witness to indicate approximately where the bodies were that

25 were found at the surface close to the wall of the canal on the earthen

Page 6610

1 side.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then, Mr. Dutertre, then to talk about the

3 bodies that were at the surface of the water does not clearly guide the

4 witness to the -- to bodies that were not in the water.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I don't believe that I

6 said "surface." I don't believe I said that in French.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll -- I don't remember, as a matter of fact, but

8 then please formulate your question again so that there could be no -- no

9 confusion whatsoever. Please proceed.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

11 Q. Mr. Avramovic, it would seem that this video is taken from the

12 bridge that crosses the canal. On this picture here, you cannot see the

13 bodies that were discovered at the surface on the earth alongside of the

14 canal wall. And I'm referring here to the bodies that were found on the

15 earth and not in the water. Can you tell us where those bodies found on

16 the earth, where they were found on this picture?

17 A. The bodies were on the right-hand side of the canal next to the

18 concrete wall, and I'm saying on the right-hand side of the canal, toward

19 the end, as we see it here on the still.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Dutertre, just for the basis of your

21 question, what paragraph of the statement you are actually referring to?

22 Because you're now talking about bodies not in the water, along the water

23 but on the earth, where do we find that in the statement of the witness?

24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] In particular, in paragraph 118,

25 Your Honour, it was stated clearly that there were bodies along the wall.

Page 6611

1 And I believe that there was another passage earlier in the statement.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just be clear. Where do you see "along the

3 wall"?

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The statement -- the witness

5 says, "at the canal wall" --


7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Then "all the bodies at the canal

8 wall."

9 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the same. The canal wall could be inside

10 the water, could be outside the water, could be in the canal, could be a

11 lot of things. So therefore, I'm a bit confused. But try to be as

12 precise as possible, Mr. Dutertre, but -- so first of all, seek

13 confirmation of your assumptions in the question, although you -- as a

14 matter of fact, it's not -- it's a bit leading then as well.

15 But would you agree with Mr. Dutertre that bodies were found

16 outside the canal, along the wall but on the earth?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, on the external side of the

18 wall.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now Mr. Dutertre asked you to tell us exactly

20 where, looking at this picture, those bodies were located. Could you tell

21 us? Was it on the right-hand side or was it on the left-hand side?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the right-hand side.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Was it in the --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As we see the canal now, along the

25 external right-hand side wall of the canal.

Page 6612

1 JUDGE ORIE: Who is now moving where we had a clear picture of

2 what we would like to see, who is now moving everything so that we can't

3 follow it anymore? Could we get the same picture back? Yes. Perhaps we

4 go directly to 3, I think it was, 36, something of the kind.

5 Yes, could we stop there again, 3.33.

6 Now, if someone could move the -- without disturbing the picture,

7 could move the cursor at the right-hand side -- at the right side of the

8 canal wall. Is that a possibility? Yes.

9 You see an arrow on your screen at this moment. Could you tell us

10 whether it was more up or more down that these bodies were located?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Up the picture, further beyond.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Further beyond.

13 Could the cursor be moved upwards, and would you please say stop

14 if we reach the point --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Further. There.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The cursor is now pointing at that portion just

17 right of the wall on the right-hand side of the canal at the location

18 where the water goes down and is not visible anymore.

19 Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I've

21 finished with this video.

22 Now, I would like to have another video shown to the witness, and

23 for this there is still no transcript of the conversation. It's

24 V000-6011, 4 minutes, 18 seconds, to 4 minutes, 42 seconds.

25 It can be played now.

Page 6613

1 [Videotape played]

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Can you stop here, please.

3 Q. Mr. Avramovic, could you tell us what it's -- what is on this

4 picture?

5 A. We can see the end of the concrete canal, the right-hand side of

6 it, and I believe we can already see a body lying down on the earth, to

7 the right of the wall.

8 Q. Thank you very much.

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Can you play on the video.

10 [Videotape played]

11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Q. Mr. Avramovic, could you show us -- could you tell us on what day,

13 actually, this video was shot?

14 A. On the 11th of September, 1998.

15 Q. Could you tell us who made it?

16 A. It must have been filmed by Petar Ilincic.

17 Q. Could you describe the last sequence you've seen, what does it

18 show us, what does it represent?

19 A. This shows the bodies that were recovered along the right-hand

20 side of the canal.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Avramovic.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, for the sake of the record you

23 indicated that you would play until 4.42. The video was played until

24 4.52. Please proceed.

25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 6614

1 Could you now show V00-6001 [as interpreted] from minute 6.01 to

2 6.23, and there again there is no transcript.

3 [Videotape played]

4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] You can stop here.

5 Q. Mr. Avramovic, same questions as before. On what day was this

6 video shot?

7 A. On the 11th of September, 1998.

8 Q. And who actually made this video?

9 A. I think it was Petar Ilincic.

10 Q. Could you comment this footage?

11 A. It shows the bodies recovered along a side of the canal.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could we now play V00-600 -- 601 --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre --

15 MR. DUTERTRE: -- 6011.

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- these videos, are they already part of any

17 exhibits? Or do they need exhibit numbers? Yes?

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. In the index

19 the whole video is mentioned. I think it is the one-but-last page, page

20 9, third line from the bottom.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's 65 ter 865, and that covers everything

22 or ...?

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It covers the whole video, which is

24 V000-6011 to 13. Therefore, those sequences are extracted from this

25 video.

Page 6615

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would now like to see V000-6011,

3 15.7 through 30 seconds.

4 [Videotape played]

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] You can stop here. Can you

6 back-track a bit, please. Perfect.

7 Q. Mr. Avramovic, this sequence seems to have been shot as from the

8 end of the wall of the canal at the level of the fall, waterfall. Could

9 you show us on this picture - and we'll use the cursor as we've already

10 done - and you will tell us approximately at what place the bodies were on

11 the ground which were discovered.

12 A. A bit upwards where the cursor was previously next to the canal.

13 Further up. Somewhere around this place.

14 Q. Is this an accurate description if I say that the cursor is

15 vertically at the level of the small cascade -- at the top of the small

16 cascade and horizontally -- it's rather difficult to describe. There

17 seems to be a person, you can see something until the background, at the

18 level -- it's rather difficult to describe this accurately.

19 Mr. Avramovic, could you tell us what can be seen here exactly?

20 What is it?

21 A. I think it's some sort of grass.

22 Q. The cursor was there, if I remember rightly, at the horizontal

23 level of a sort of bush or shrub.

24 A. It's supposed to be a body, but it's quite unclear because it's

25 been obscured by the shrubbery there.

Page 6616

1 Q. Indeed.

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know if this

3 description of the position of the cursor is what you can see and does it

4 suit the needs of --

5 JUDGE ORIE: To be quite honest, Mr. Dutertre, I do not know

6 exactly what you are asking the witness to describe. What I see at -- the

7 cursor is now above the year 1998 at approximately two-thirds up on the

8 picture, where I see the vegetation to be a bit more brownish than on

9 other parts along the canal where it appears to be more green. And I also

10 see that there is something on the wall, which in general appears as

11 yellow but there seems to be something on that wall or close to that wall

12 of a brownish/greyish colour. And I don't know what you actually asked

13 the witness to describe.

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I had positioned the cursor on a

15 feature which is in the background, which I would have used as a reference

16 point to situate the cursor indicating the place where the bodies were.

17 But your own description related to the date 1998 in order to situate the

18 cursor and the shrubs which are greyer or greener seems to me, they find

19 exactly where the cursor is indeed.

20 JUDGE ORIE: It's still totally unclear to me if I -- what now do

21 you want the witness to describe as what he sees? You said it's -- it is

22 an area in the vegetation? Is it what I see on that wall? What --

23 perhaps we -- the cursor is now on -- I would say on a line of vegetation

24 which goes along the wall, although not immediately close to it, where it

25 appears mainly as in green colour where it's more brownish. Is that what

Page 6617

1 you want the witness to describe what that is?

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, indeed.


4 So you are invited, Mr. Avramovic, to describe what you see

5 exactly on the place where the cursor now is.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is some sort of vegetation,

7 some shrubbery that obstructs the view of the bodies.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That's an answer, Mr. Dutertre. Please proceed.

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Mr. President, I'd like to come back to the first video, V00-6011

11 [as interpreted], minute 20.24 to 20.59. Transcript was given to the

12 interpreters.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the procedure -- I take it the

14 interpreters -- most of you still remind what the procedure was. I'm not

15 quite sure whether every one of you were present at earlier occasions. So

16 one follows by reading the transcript and listening whether the transcript

17 reflects what is said and the other interpreter tries to translate, to

18 interpret, and then might be a bit behind. Please proceed.

19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The video can be played,

20 Mr. President.

21 [Videotape played]

22 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "How the noses were tied above the

23 feeding troughs?

24 "Yes.

25 "Those are most probably --

Page 6618

1 " -- Hairs" --

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Avramovic, on what day was this video made?

4 A. 11th September 1998.

5 Q. And what is the time which appears on this picture?

6 A. 12.12.

7 Q. Could you tell us who made this video?

8 A. I'm not sure, but I would say it was Petar Ilincic.

9 Q. Mr. Avramovic, I am now going to move the cursor on the picture

10 and I will ask you to comment and tell us what it is?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Mr. Dutertre, could we first ask the

12 witness whether he was present when this video was taken.

13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Avramovic, were you present, on the premises, when this video

15 was made?

16 A. Yes, I was there.


18 MR. DUTERTRE: [No interpretation]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Has it been considered to take samples of the hair

20 because I do understand that hair was found there. Were ever samples

21 taken of those hairs?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that they were taken

23 together with the cables, but there was no possibility to perform any DNA

24 analysis at the time so --

25 JUDGE ORIE: But have they been kept?

Page 6619

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

4 Q. Mr. Avramovic, could you show us where this video was made?

5 A. This is the Ekonomija in Rznic village. This is the former cattle

6 farm, livestock farm, I suppose.

7 Q. Thank you. Could you show us what you can see where the cursor

8 is, just explain to us what you can see.

9 A. I can see an electrical cable which is tied to the trough.

10 Q. How many other cables like this one did you find the day this

11 video was shot?

12 A. I believe there were some dozen or so.

13 Q. And what was your reaction when you saw these cables?

14 A. Well, we assumed that this is where the kidnapped persons had been

15 kept because the farm had not been operational for a number of years prior

16 to that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

18 MR. EMMERSON: I, as Your Honours know, object to this line of

19 testimony and if there is a factual foundation, if there's material --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but of course Mr. Dutertre, in view of the

21 answer could have asked the witness what made him -- what -- on what was

22 the assumption based, other than the cables with hairs on it.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] That was my intention.

Page 6620

1 Q. Mr. Avramovic, for what reason did you think - and I'm going to

2 read the transcript on this - you think that the presence of these cables

3 showed that people had been held at that place?

4 A. I've told you, the farm was not operational, and during the

5 exhumation similar cables were found around the bodies of the deceased.

6 They were tied around their bodies.

7 Q. Do you remember the markings of bodies where the cables were or

8 one or two or three, was it something like that?

9 A. I can't remember any markings, but there might be some featured in

10 the photos, the part of the photo documents. Maybe one could see those,

11 and I'm referring to the bodies that were found by the canal on the earth,

12 the soil by the canal.

13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Avramovic, I would now like you to see another

14 video footage, V000-6012, minute 36.22 seconds to 37.22 seconds.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Microphone not activated]

17 [Interpretation] You can stop here. Can you back-track a little,

18 please, to have a more clear picture, a clearer picture. Thank you.

19 Q. Mr. Avramovic, could you tell us when this video was shot?

20 A. 15 September 1998.

21 Q. Who made this video, Mr. Avramovic?

22 A. I'm not sure, but again I believe it was Petar Ilincic.

23 Q. Could you show us the place which is represented on this video?

24 A. This is the end of the concrete part of the canal and the

25 beginning of the canyon, right beneath the cascade, the waterfall, that

Page 6621

1 forms this little lake.

2 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us what is this car which can be seen?

3 A. This car was found, but when we found it, it was upside down. It

4 was found at the end of the concrete portion of the canal in the little

5 lake.

6 Q. Could you tell us when this car was found, if you can remember?

7 A. It was noticed on day one, but we did not pay any attention to it.

8 I believe that it was only located properly on the 11th or the 12th,

9 that is, several days later when the flow of the water was stopped and the

10 level of the lake was some -- somewhat reduced.

11 Q. You indicated that it was seen on day one, what do you mean

12 by "day one"?

13 A. It was noticed on the first day, but we did not pay a lot of

14 attention to it. I've already told you that it was customary on Kosovo to

15 throw things like household appliances, cars, and stuff like that into the

16 rivers or lakes. So when we first spotted the car, we did not pay too

17 much attention to it.

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Could you --

19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

20 Q. When did you -- when was the car upside down? You told us that

21 originally it was upside down?

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This is what I wanted to ask. You said "day one"

23 and then "first day," but which day was that?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A few days later the -- the attempts

25 were made to take the car out of the canyon, and they tied a cable around

Page 6622

1 it and the other end of the cable was tied to a truck. And that's how

2 attempts were made to recover the car from the water.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And on what day had the car originally been

4 discovered?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most probably on the 11th or on the

6 12th it was spotted, but we only approached the car on the 11th or the

7 12th, when the level of the water was reduced.

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This is a little unclear now to me -- can you --

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I am going to

10 reformulate the question or ask another question.

11 Q. You said, Mr. Avramovic, that this car had been noticed on the

12 first day, noticed, and that you didn't pay much attention to it. When

13 you say "first day" or "day one," what are you referring to exactly, what

14 was the first day, what was day one, first day of what?

15 A. The first day, on the 9th, when we actually started our on-site

16 inspection.

17 Q. So the first day when you arrived yourself, personally, is that

18 it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Mr. Avramovic, could you tell us - and I'm going to move the

21 cursor - what are -- what is this -- what are these holes at the back of

22 the car? Could you comment on these holes at the back of the car?

23 A. Those are probably traces of bullets, of projectiles, I would say.

24 Q. Thank you. I would like now to --

25 MR. EMMERSON: Just before Mr. Dutertre moves on and in order to

Page 6623

1 save time at a later stage, might the witness be invited to indicate the

2 stage at which the car moves from its roof to its wheels.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that this was on the 15th

4 of September, 1998.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Avramovic, in your consolidated statement you mention the fact

7 that a lock was closed in order to see the level of the water go down, and

8 my question is the following -- decrease the level of the water: Who

9 actually gave the order to shut the gates of this lock?

10 A. The judge in charge of the on-site inspection, the investigating

11 judge.

12 Q. And who actually closed these gates physically?

13 A. Most probably a police officer who knew where that could be found.

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I refer to all this, Mr. President,

15 paragraph 64 of the consolidated statement.

16 Q. Mr. Avramovic, in this context, do you remember what was the

17 precise day when the lock was closed?

18 A. I believe it was on the 10th September 1998 -- or maybe on the

19 11th.

20 Q. Could you describe for us what were the weather conditions when

21 you arrived on the first day. Was it fair weather? Was it raining? Was

22 it normal weather?

23 A. When we arrived, it was cloudy and it started raining later in the

24 day. I believe that the rain continued throughout the night.

25 Q. You told us that the exhumation started you think on the 11th of

Page 6624

1 September, paragraph 65 of your statement, and at paragraph 124 of your

2 statement you say that the bodies finished on the 16th of September --

3 exhumation was finished. So the people who took part, did they work every

4 day during this period by the canal?

5 A. Yes, most probably.

6 Q. What do you mean by "most probably"? Were there some days

7 when ...

8 A. If you're referring to forensic experts, they were there on a

9 daily basis.

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Avramovic.

11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I have no other questions,

12 Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre.

14 I think it would be best to have a break now, Mr. Emmerson, if you

15 are the first one to cross-examine the witness.

16 MR. EMMERSON: I am, Your Honour. Yes.


18 We'll have a break until ten minutes to 1.00.

19 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

20 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Avramovic, you'll now be cross-examined first by

23 Mr. Emmerson, who's counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

25 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:

Page 6625

1 Q. Mr. Avramovic, I want to take you, please, first of all, to the

2 series of arrests and interviews that you describe from paragraph 23 of

3 your witness statement. First of all, can I ask you to confirm that a

4 group of men were arrested on the 3rd of September in the area around

5 Kodralija by officers of the PJP?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you see them on their arrival at Gjakove police station?

8 A. No, but I saw them when they were brought over to my office.

9 Q. And how soon after their arrival was that?

10 A. Some 15 to 20 minutes, perhaps.

11 Q. And were they all brought to your office together?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Were they brought one after the other?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And so you saw all 11 of them, did you?

16 A. Most of them.

17 Q. And where within the building is your office or was your office at

18 the time?

19 A. On the first floor.

20 Q. I want to suggest to you --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I never know how to interpret "first

22 floor," "ground floor." That seems to be not the same --

23 MR. EMMERSON: Different traditions.

24 Q. When you say "the first floor," do you mean the ground floor or

25 the floor immediately above the ground floor?

Page 6626

1 A. Not the ground floor, the first floor.

2 Q. Thank you. And they'd been arrested by armed PJP officers in the

3 course of a combat operation. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Had any of them been beaten, as far as you could tell, by the

6 officers who'd arrested them?

7 A. I wouldn't say that.

8 Q. It's right, isn't it, that some of them were brought in in their

9 underclothes?

10 A. Possible.

11 Q. Well, you saw them within minutes of their arrival, Mr. Avramovic.

12 Were they in their underclothes, some of them?

13 A. I believe that some of them were, yes.

14 Q. Did you understand why that would be, men who were involved in a

15 combat operation, do you understand how they could come to be brought in

16 wearing only their underclothes?

17 A. Most probably their clothes were taken off as they were frisked

18 for possible weapons. I don't think that they were arrested in their

19 underclothes.

20 Q. So they were made to undress, in effect, and then brought to the

21 police station in underwear, some of them?

22 A. Most probably.

23 Q. And I'm going to suggest to you that most, if not all of them,

24 were beaten and showing signs of having been beaten before they arrived at

25 Gjakove police station?

Page 6627

1 A. I don't recall that. They might have been once they left my

2 office, but whilst they were there with me, no.

3 Q. I see. So that's something that might have happened inside

4 Gjakove police station; is that what you're saying?

5 A. Possibly.

6 Q. Is that something that the officers at Gjakove police station were

7 accustomed to doing, beating suspects?

8 A. I can't say. I wouldn't be able to tell you that.

9 Q. I'd like you to take the brown file that's in front of you,

10 please, and to turn to tab 20. Now, you've exhibited to your witness

11 statement a number of statements allegedly taken from a man called

12 Bekim Kalamashi, and this is a witness statement made by Mr. Kalamashi in

13 May of last year. I think you read English; is that correct,

14 Mr. Avramovic?

15 A. I understand a little.

16 Q. Well, perhaps we can pick it up on page 2. I'll read it into the

17 record where the witness is describing the events of the 3rd of September.

18 You can see that date at the top of page 2, can you, the very top line

19 of page 2. Do you see that? If I can pick it up, please, in the fourth

20 paragraph where the witness describes what took place -- I'm sorry, in the

21 third paragraph.

22 He says: "The Serbian forces eventually found us and kept us all

23 together. They separated the younger men from the old, the women and

24 children, and this left 12 of us together. We were arrested by the

25 Serbian police. We were forced to take off all of our clothes down to our

Page 6628

1 underwear. We were made to do this whilst our families watched. They

2 said they were looking for weapons."

3 Then he makes a comment about whether that was true or not.

4 And he continues: "We were beaten with rifles and kicked before

5 we were taken back towards the village where they made us lie down in the

6 road. There were some paramilitary soldiers there" -- I'm sorry, "some

7 paramilitary soldiers that were there. They then began to beat and kick

8 us while we were on the floor. They hit us with the ends of their rifles.

9 They were not the police because they wore different uniforms."

10 Pausing there. The PJP, did they wear different uniforms from the

11 regular MUP?

12 A. Yes, they wore blue camouflage uniforms at the time.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 "All of us were then placed on to a truck. Amongst us were my

15 cousin Naser Kalamashi and my good friend Zenelj Alija. From Kodralija

16 [Realtime transcript read in error "Zhabel"] village they took us all to

17 Gjakove police station." Kodralija is the reference rather than Zhabel as

18 it appears in the transcript.

19 It continues: "Some of the people who were arrested took some

20 clothes with them but many were only in their underwear. We were

21 handcuffed and transported to the police station all in one truck."

22 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading, Mr. Emmerson.


24 Q. "When we arrived at the police station, they separated us and

25 started to beat us. I was put in a basement. I was not with all of the

Page 6629

1 others. I was constantly being beaten in all the time that I spent there.

2 I was taken to be interviewed. It was in an office on the fourth or

3 fifth floor of the station, separate from the room where I was being

4 detained. I was interviewed by the police there. It was then that I was

5 spoken to. I was given trousers to wear because I was only in my

6 underclothes."

7 Pausing there. Was Mr. Bekim Kalamashi one of the men you told us

8 about who was brought in in his underclothes?

9 A. Possibly.

10 Q. "The interviewer only spoke to me in Serbian language. I could

11 not understand what he was saying because I do not speak Serbian. I was

12 beaten all the time I was in the room by two or three officers that were

13 present," and the witness has then added in manuscript at the end an

14 addition: "I was burned with cigarettes on my forehead in three places

15 and twice on my right hand."

16 He then says that he was kept for a total of 12 days. He

17 describes being taken to the area of the canal together with Zenelj Alija

18 and a third man and being shown dead bodies and being accused of various

19 things. And he continues: "I know that when we got there, the police and

20 military were already there. I could not see a lot because we were told

21 to look at the floor. I did not take the police to the site or even

22 mention it when I was being interviewed. The morning I was taken there, I

23 had no idea where I was going until I got there."

24 And then just over the page, on page 4, he says: "I was forced to

25 sign a document in the time that I was kept at the police station, but I

Page 6630

1 do not remember if it was when I was being interviewed or if it was while

2 I was in the basement. I was beaten so badly I really did not remember

3 too clearly when this was. I do not know" -- sorry, "I do know that I did

4 not tell the police anything about the canal area. I couldn't -- I

5 couldn't have because I knew nothing about it until I was taken there. I

6 was only 17 at the time, very scared."

7 And then on page 5, two lines into the second paragraph, he says

8 in addition: "I did not say anything to the police about this area or the

9 area of Jablanica because, again, I knew nothing about them."

10 Now, pausing there, Mr. Avramovic, these men that were detained on

11 the 3rd of September, they were beaten systematically in Gjakove police

12 station over a number of days, were they not?

13 A. I don't know about that. I only know about the time they spent

14 with me.

15 Q. I see. They were beaten, I suggest, and forced to sign

16 confessions in which words were put into their mouths by the interviewing

17 officers drafting up statements that contained information that none of

18 these men had provided. That is the suggestion I'm putting to you.

19 A. That's their version of events. That's their statement.

20 Q. Could I ask you, please, just to help me with some of the

21 documents that you've produced. First of all, just to orientate

22 ourselves, at tab 16 in the brown bundle - some of these are exhibits to

23 your witness statement, and so for the sake of the record as we go through

24 I'll indicate which they are, and this is annex 5 - do we see there a

25 document that purports to be an interview with Bekim Kalamashi conducted

Page 6631

1 on the 3rd of September?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And again, for the sake of the record, the translation at 16B has

4 mistranscribed the date as being the 5th of September, but it's clear - I

5 think you can confirm, Mr. Avramovic - from the original that this

6 document is dated the 3rd of September; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And there's only one interviewing officer recorded for that first

9 day, and that is a man called Rade Vlahovic; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you know Rade Vlahovic believed that his parents had been

12 abducted by the KLA?

13 A. Most probably.

14 Q. Most probably you knew it?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Does it appear from this record then that Rade Vlahovic was left

17 alone with Bekim Kalamashi?

18 A. It is possible.

19 Q. Were you aware of any discussions within Gjakove police station

20 about the appropriateness of leaving a man who believed his parents had

21 been abducted by the KLA alone to interview a suspect?

22 A. It wasn't down to me to decide about that.

23 Q. And the question was: Were you aware of any discussions about it?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. Behind tab 17 is a second document, allegedly an interview with

Page 6632

1 Bekim Kalamashi. Can you confirm that this is recorded as having taken

2 place on the 4th of September? This is annex 8 to your witness statement;

3 you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And again, Rade Vlahovic is recorded as one of the interviewing

6 officers, although on this occasion he is accompanied by Ranko Markovic;

7 do you see that?

8 A. Yes, I see that.

9 Q. Thank you. I now want to look, if I can, with you, please, at

10 tabs 19 and 20 together. First of all, look at tab 19 -- I'm sorry, tabs

11 18 and 19 together. I do apologise. Tab 18 is annex 10 to your witness

12 statement and tab 19 is annex 11. First of all, if we could just look at

13 tab 18, this is a document that purports to be an interview with

14 Bekim Kalamashi on the 5th of September; do you agree?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And the interviewing officers for that interview on the 5th are

17 recorded as Rade Vlahovic and Ranko Markovic. Do you see that at the end

18 of the interview?

19 A. Yes, I see that.

20 Q. Now if we could look, please, at tab 19. Can you please just

21 compare the first page of tab 18 with the first page of tab 19 and confirm

22 that with the exception of the manuscript writing that

23 says, "Bekim Kalamashi," these pages are identical. Do you see that?

24 A. It is possible that they are identical.

25 Q. Well, it's not merely possible, Mr. Avramovic. They are

Page 6633

1 identical. If you would like to look just opposite the hole-punch in tab

2 19, can you see the word "Alija" with an A that is out of place? Do you

3 see that? Tab 18, opposite the second, that is the bottom hole-punch, do

4 you see a line beginning "Isuf Ismajilji i Dugadjin Aljija"; do you see

5 that?

6 A. Yes, I see that.

7 Q. It's the same page of script, isn't it, it's exactly the same. Do

8 you agree?

9 A. I should have to read the entire text to be sure about that.

10 Q. Well, we can obviously read it for ourselves, but if you would

11 just like to cast any comparison across and, indeed, look at the last line

12 on the page if that helps you, the proposition I'm putting to you is that

13 this is not merely the same information, it is exactly the same page of

14 script. Do you agree with that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. Now compare, if you will, pages 2 of each document,

17 and for this purpose, if you look at the second hole-punch can you find a

18 paragraph beginning: "Poznato". Do you see that? Page 2, at the bottom

19 hole-punch, just opposite the hole-punch, can you see a paragraph

20 beginning: "Poznato," P-o-z-n-a-t-o, do you see that?

21 A. I do.

22 Q. And three lines further down, can you see a line beginning:

23 "sledeci". Do you see that?

24 A. I do.

25 Q. And the word after that has the same typographical error in the

Page 6634

1 two pages, does it not?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. These pages, too, are identical, the same page of script, is it

4 not?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Yes. Now look for me, please, at the interviewing officers that

7 are recorded at the end. Do you see that Rade Vlahovic had disappeared in

8 the second one and been replaced by Ljubisa Novovic --

9 A. Yes, but the last page -- I see that, but the last page is not

10 quite the same.

11 Q. Exactly so. The last page has been changed, hasn't it, not merely

12 the text but the record of the officers attending the interview?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. We can make a comparison for ourselves of the changes between

15 those two documents in the last page through the translations,

16 Mr. Avramovic, but if I can take it shortly, you've read these documents,

17 have you?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In the third page of the first document, the account that is

20 recorded is one which involves the speaker, supposedly Mr. Kalamashi,

21 claiming to have been told about certain events at Jablanica by his uncle,

22 Fazli Muljaj and the second version has him actually committing those

23 crimes that are alleged in that document. Do you agree with that, having

24 read the two?

25 A. Can you refer me to the exact portion of it, please?

Page 6635

1 Q. Yes, I can. In the first version of page 3, can you find the

2 passage which deals with the arrival at Jablanica, which you will find

3 just roughly halfway down the page. Rather than go through it line by

4 line -- perhaps you just read it to yourself and confirm that in the first

5 version of events the recorded account suggests that Mr. Kalamashi was

6 given information by his uncle, Fazli Muljaj about things that had been

7 done in Jablanica and that he left there the following day and received

8 further information from his uncle a month later. Do you see that?

9 A. I see here that he stated that he had personally participated in

10 it, and I'm referring to that first statement we are looking at.

11 Q. I see. Do you see a passage that reads as follows: "That same

12 night, as during previous days, Lahi Brahimaj and his brother Nazmi

13 questioned the abducted individuals regarding the whereabouts of their

14 sons, to which they replied that they were working and some of them were

15 in the police. I heard from my uncle, Fazli Muljaj from Jablanica, that

16 they, particularly Lahi Brahimaj, beat and tortured the abducted Serbs by

17 throwing them into a pool that was 170 metres deep."

18 Do you see that passage? Do you see that? Yes.

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. And a little lower down: "I left Jablanica the following day and

21 returned to my house. The next time I saw my uncle, which was a month

22 later, he told me that they had killed the elderly captives."

23 Do you see that?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. And in the second version, in respect of the same passage, again

Page 6636

1 reading it to yourselves, do you see a record saying in relation to that

2 same passage, following the reference to questioning: "We all beat them.

3 Then we all beat them. After beating them, we took them to the basement.

4 Actually, it was 150 centimetres deep."

5 And then a little lower down: "As they were unable to find the

6 coins, we continued mistreating and beating them over the next five or six

7 days."

8 Do you see that?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. And then a little further down: "Two weeks later, when I went to

11 visit my uncle, I asked him where they were."

12 Do you see that?

13 A. I do.

14 Q. You see, Mr. Avramovic, what I want to suggest to you is that the

15 document behind tab 18 was a draft of a false witness statement and that

16 the officers concerned then decided to improve the account on page 3 by

17 putting Mr. Kalamashi personally present.

18 A. I wouldn't say that. If this statement were valid, it would be

19 signed. He was probably changing his story as he was being interviewed.

20 Q. I see. Well, can you help us about this, please, what explanation

21 is there for the fact that the interviewing officers for these two

22 interviews have changed?

23 A. I don't know. I can't say.

24 Q. I see. Can we turn back now, with that information in mind, to

25 tab 16 --

Page 6637

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, earlier you called tab 16 annex 10,

2 where it appears to be annex 7.

3 MR. EMMERSON: I do apologise. I've just been handed a note to

4 the same effect.



7 Q. Now, help me, Mr. Avramovic, if you will. Would you agree that

8 though the typescript is not the same, the document that is recorded as

9 reflecting an interview on the 3rd of September at tab 16 is identical in

10 substance to the first page and a half of the statements at tabs 18 and

11 19?

12 A. There are differences in these texts. They are not absolutely

13 identical.

14 Q. I agree with that. There's the odd word here and there, which is

15 slightly different, but essentially they follow sentence by sentence and

16 sentence structure by sentence structure the same pattern, don't they?

17 A. Yes, and it's all about one and the same topic.

18 Q. Thank you. And purports to be an interview on the 3rd. Now, if

19 we look behind tab 17, something that purports to be an interview on the

20 4th, I think you can confirm, can you not, please, picking it up in tabs

21 18 and 19 you will find the same information there on page 2 verbatim?

22 A. Which portion of page 2 do you have in mind, please?

23 Q. Very well. If you'd like to -- I can do it through the

24 translation passage, but if you would like to look at the dates, the first

25 date that clearly appears behind tab 17 is the 25th of September. Do you

Page 6638

1 see that?

2 A. Yes, 1978. That is probably the date of birth.

3 Q. And immediately after that, can you see a passage that says: "I

4 know that my father's brother, Ismet Kaljimasi, who also lives in

5 Kodralija village took part in two attacks on a police check-point on

6 Rakovina village."

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, if we look behind tab 18 in the English version on page 2,

10 three paragraphs up from the bottom, we have a paragraph that begins: "I

11 know that my father's brother, Ismet Kaljimasi, who also lives in

12 Kodralija village, took part in two attacks on a police check-point on

13 Rakovina village."

14 Now, do you find that in the Serbian? It should be about halfway

15 down page 2 beginning: "Poznato"?

16 A. Yes, I found -- I found it.

17 Q. These are not genuine records of interviews conducted on the 3rd,

18 the 4th, and the 5th, are they? These are drafts of statements to which

19 Mr. Kalamashi was going to be beaten into signing?

20 A. I wouldn't know.

21 Q. Let me move on then to another topic. You describe in your

22 witness statement at paragraph 42 what is suggested to have been a

23 reconnaissance mission of the canal based on the information provided by

24 Bekim Kalamashi and others; is that correct?

25 A. It is possible. I don't have the statement with me. I can't

Page 6639

1 confirm that.

2 Q. Well, you'll find the unsigned version of your statement behind

3 tab 15 in the yellow file, and I think there's no material difference. Do

4 you have paragraph 42?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. In the last few lines of that paragraph you suggest that two KLA

7 terrorists, Bekim Kalamashi and Zenelj Alija, were with us and took us to

8 the first location, which is at the end of the concrete canal at the point

9 where the concrete canal was leading into the natural canyon."

10 Can I ask you this, please, Mr. Avramovic: Had you seen those two

11 men at any point between the time of their arrival on the 3rd of September

12 and the time that you went to the canal, accompanied with them on this

13 reconnaissance mission?

14 A. I saw them on the first day. As soon as they were brought in they

15 were registered, photographed, and their finger-prints were taken. After

16 that, I did not see them up to that other date.

17 Q. I see. Looking at the list of individuals who you have recorded

18 as having been on the initial reconnaissance mission, I want, if I may,

19 just to see if I can prompt your memory. Paragraph 42, if you could keep

20 a finger in that, could you turn now behind tab 13, and I'm going to ask

21 you to look at a witness statement without mentioning the name of the

22 person who made it. Can I take it that if you look behind tab 13, tab 13

23 in the bundle. Mr. Avramovic, you'll need to change to tab --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in the yellow bundle, 13.


Page 6640

1 Q. Now, first of all, if you could look at the front page of that

2 witness statement, without mentioning the name of the person who made it,

3 that I think is somebody you know; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And, indeed, was he your superior?

6 A. Yes.

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 JUDGE ORIE: Should we go into private session.

12 MR. EMMERSON: Very well, very well.

13 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session, and we redact the last

14 line.


16 Q. Was --

17 [Private session]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6641

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 [Open session]

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

15 Mr. Emmerson, would you leave me three and a half minutes before

16 we adjourn to read a decision.

17 MR. EMMERSON: I will do.

18 Q. If you could turn to paragraph 13 of that witness statement. Now,

19 bearing in mind the list that you gave in paragraph 42 of your own witness

20 statement, you can see there a list of the individuals who this witness

21 has recorded as having taken part in the first reconnaissance mission to

22 the canal on the 8th of September, and as you can see there is a reference

23 there to the fact that Bekim Kalamashi was taken on that alleged

24 reconnaissance mission.

25 Now, I can help you to this extent, Mr. Avramovic. Apart from

Page 6642

1 yourself, which both of you agree were there -- was there, you are agreed

2 that Dragutin Adamovic was there on this mission, Sreten Camovic,

3 Dusan Dragovic, Goran Mitic, Dejan Jovovic, and Slavisa Jovanovic were

4 present.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now we can see that the witness whose statement we are looking at

7 the at the moment records that you were also accompanied by

8 General-Colonel Vlastimir Djordjevic and Lieutenant-General Obrad

9 Stevanovic. Can I please have your comment on that?

10 A. It is possible that they arrived later. I can't remember.

11 Q. Is it possible that they were with you, as this witness statement

12 says they were, when you set off from Gjakove police station and made your

13 way to the canal?

14 A. As we set off from the police station, they were not with us.

15 They might have joined us somewhere on the way, but I wouldn't even

16 remember that.

17 Q. I see. Can you help us about this, neither of you appear to have

18 recorded Bogdan Tomas as having been present in that first reconnaissance

19 mission. Was he with you or not?

20 A. That name doesn't ring any bell.

21 Q. Thank you. You listed three members of the RDB: Sreten Camovic,

22 Dejan Jovovic, and Sava Jovanovic. So you knew those three; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you know that -- did you know that Mr. Tomas was involved in

Page 6643

1 conducting interviews of some of these suspects?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Is it your testimony that you do not know who Bogdan Tomas is?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that's the position even today, is it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How many alleged members of the KLA went with you to the canal

8 that day?

9 A. As far as I can remember Zenelj Alija and Bekim Kalamashi.

10 Q. Were they handcuffed to Serbian personnel?

11 A. I don't remember.

12 Q. Do you remember if anybody had specific custody of Zenelj Alija?

13 A. No, I don't remember.

14 MR. EMMERSON: I see the time.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Avramovic, we'll finish for the day. I need

16 another two minutes for another procedural matter, but I would already

17 like to instruct you, as I did yesterday, that you should speak with no

18 one about the testimony you have given already or you're still about to

19 give. We'd like to see you back tomorrow at 9.00, not in this courtroom

20 but in Courtroom I.

21 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Avramovic out of the

22 courtroom.

23 [The witness stands down]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would like to deliver a decision, a decision

25 on the Prosecution's motion of the 28th of June for the testimony of a

Page 6644

1 witness to be heard via videolink.

2 On the 1st of June, 2007, the Chamber issued a subpoena ordering

3 the witness in question to appear before the Tribunal in order to give

4 testimony. The subpoena was served on the witness on the 14th of June.

5 The witness accepted the subpoena but stated that he was not willing to

6 travel to The Hague.

7 Following the service of the subpoena, a representative of the

8 Victims and Witnesses Section visited the witness in person. On the 26th

9 of June, the Prosecution received a report from the Victims and Witnesses

10 Section describing its contact with the witness. In order to keep this

11 decision in the public domain, I will leave out details tending to

12 identify the witness. The details are found in the partly confidential

13 Prosecution motion. In sum, the Prosecution was informed that the witness

14 had serious health problems, a sick wife, as well as several children for

15 whom he is caring.

16 On the 29th of June, the Defence informed the Chamber that they

17 did not object to the motion being granted.

18 The Chamber finds that the journey to The Hague would involve

19 great discomfort and risk for the witness, due to his ill-health and

20 family circumstances. Further, the Chamber finds the expected testimony

21 to be sufficiently important and the mode of delivery of the testimony to

22 be compatible with the accused's right to confront the witness.

23 Considering all these circumstances, the Chamber finds that the witness

24 should be allowed to fulfil his duty to testify at a place other than the

25 seat of the Tribunal. We therefore grant the motion.

Page 6645

1 The Prosecution has tentatively scheduled for this witness to

2 testify on Wednesday, the 18th of July, 2007. The Chamber invites the

3 registry to make the necessary arrangements to facilitate the witness's

4 testimony via videolink on or around that date.

5 This concludes the Chamber's decision on the Prosecution's 28th of

6 June, 2007, motion for videolink.

7 Mr. Emmerson.

8 MR. EMMERSON: I see the time and I'm very anxious not to detain

9 anybody. My only concern is in relation to the planning of the remainder

10 of the week. The witness for whom a subpoena was due to be returned --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I could inform you about that. The subpoena has

12 been delivered, although what I understand not in person.


14 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore it's quite unclear, also for the

15 Chamber, what to expect.

16 MR. EMMERSON: So far as timing is concerned, again subject to the

17 Chamber's direction, it is likely that the cross-examination of the

18 present witness will take a little time tomorrow. I, again subjected to

19 directions, would expect it to last the best part of two sessions. And

20 for that purpose, I take into account all Defence counsel. But it does

21 mean that at some point some stock-taking will need to take place.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think still there is the suggestion on the

23 table to have the expert witnesses come after this and perhaps the next

24 witness to be examined in chief only --


Page 6646

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- so that the Defence could then fully focus on

2 that.

3 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Just in practical terms, there are quite a

4 large number of procedural issues still outstanding. I'm just in

5 practical terms wonder whether there is sufficient time during the course

6 of this week for that --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's clear we can't resolve the matter now;

8 there are too many uncertainties at this moment. But your concerns on how

9 to proceed this week are shared by the Chamber.

10 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Anything else? If not, then we'll adjourn until

12 tomorrow, the 4th of July, 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom I.

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

14 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of

15 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.