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
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.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
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
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.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Your Honours don't have the Prosecution
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.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
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,
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
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 --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
22 MR. EMMERSON: No.
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
1 just without -- I mean, giving comment on something we have not --
2 explicitly not admitted --
3 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- of course then that comment will be ignored by the
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
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 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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
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
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.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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
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.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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]
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
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.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
23 WITNESS: NEBOJSA AVRAMOVIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Examination by Mr. Dutertre:
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
10 A. I would.
11 Q. Does this represent a true and faithful version of your witness
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
25 Q. Could you give us the names of the colleagues with whom you had
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
7 A. I learned that from my colleagues who had become privy to that
9 Q. Do you remember the names of your colleagues who gave you that
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?
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
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.
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
8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The Defence has received the
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
19 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
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
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
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
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes: Can the other microphone
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
1 wall these bodies that were removed were found near the wall, that is, the
2 bodies that were removed by the forensic specialists?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. EMMERSON: It's page 48, line 1.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
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
4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The statement -- the witness
5 says, "at the canal wall" --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Then "all the bodies at the canal
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
1 you want the witness to describe what that is?
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, indeed.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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?
25 "Those are most probably --
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.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
17 Q. So the first day when you arrived yourself, personally, is that
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
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
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
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
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.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 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:
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?
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
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
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?
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
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.
23 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 two pages, does it not?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. These pages, too, are identical, the same page of script, is it
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?
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
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
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 --
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.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. EMMERSON:
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
12 A. There are differences in these texts. They are not absolutely
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
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
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.
25 MR. EMMERSON:
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.
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
15 MR. EMMERSON:
16 Q. Was --
17 [Private session]
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
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
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
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you know that -- did you know that Mr. Tomas was involved in
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
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
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.
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.
13 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
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 --
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- so that the Defence could then fully focus on
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.