1 Wednesday, 4 July 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Is the Defence ready to continue cross-examination of the witness?

11 The Chamber has received two new documents, 31A and B, to be put

12 in the brown or in the yellow binder?

13 MR. EMMERSON: In the brown binder.

14 JUDGE ORIE: In the brown binder.

15 MR. EMMERSON: And may I indicate as well, during the

16 cross-examination of this witness, I am likely to refer to a forensic

17 report served by the Prosecution in French at the back end of last week.

18 We are having copies of the French made available. There is no English

19 translation available, but the content of the passages which I would wish

20 to put to this witness are tolerably clear.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 The Chamber is further able to orient itself in the French

23 language as well, so it should not ...

24 [The witness entered court]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a few brief

2 preliminary comments. I did what was necessary so that the translations

3 of the missing legends in document 64 be done, and as for annex 65 there

4 was the issue of the missing photographs that you pointed out quite

5 legitimately. The document is not available. In fact, we don't have that

6 page, and that's why it is not in the annex. It's not that it was

7 forgotten. It was simply because the Prosecution does not have that. The

8 Evidence Unit doesn't have that document.

9 Thirdly, as regards the forensic report that Mr. Emmerson has just

10 referred to. The translation is underway and has not been finished as of

11 yet.

12 And the last point regarding a future witness, Professor Dunjic,

13 who will be available tomorrow, and the annexes will be in the e-court

14 system so that we will be ready for the examination-in-chief.

15 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated]

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for the update, Mr. Dutertre.

18 One other matter, there was a witness who would have to appear

19 today. The latest information is that the witness finally received the

20 message that he was expected today but that he's unable to come today.

21 That's the latest message that the Chamber received. So, in scheduling,

22 we don't have to consider anymore the possibility that he would appear.

23 Then, Mr. Avramovic, may I remind you that you're still bound by

24 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

25 Mr. Emmerson will now continue his cross-examination.

1 Mr. Emmerson, you may proceed.

2 WITNESS: NEBOJSA AVRAMOVIC [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

5 Q. Yes, I want to start, if I may, this morning, Mr. Avramovic, by

6 asking you some questions about the dates and documentation that you were

7 responsible for in relation to what you claim to have been the first visit

8 to the canal. Could you start, please, by looking at paragraph 44 of your

9 consolidated witness statement, which is I believe tab 15 in the yellow

10 bundle. You will need both the yellow and the brown file.

11 Now, at paragraph 44, you are recorded as having written, and this

12 is a statement very recently signed by you, in June of this year: "I

13 think we arrived at the Lake Radonjic canal area around noon. I think it

14 was on the 9th of September, 1998. I'm quite sure it was on the 9th of

15 September, 1998."

16 What was it that made you sure that it was the 9th of September

17 that you arrived?

18 A. The video footage that was shown to me at the time.

19 Q. So it was purely the date on the video, was it, that caused you to

20 indicate that it was the 9th of September?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can we then turn to paragraph 50, please, where you refer to annex

23 14 to your witness statement, which is a photograph album, and you'll find

24 that photograph album behind tab 26 in the brown folder. Perhaps you

25 could take that for a moment.

1 Now, you say in your witness statement that this photograph album

2 was compiled by your colleagues and yourself. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. If we look for your purposes the first two pages of the Serbian

5 text, and for the Trial Chamber and those of us following in the English

6 they are translated at 26b, we can see that these documents bear the date

7 of the 8th of September. Do you see that?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Why does -- do these documents bear that date?

10 A. Because we were referring to the scene of crime investigation

11 record that we made. And it was later on that we realised that the date

12 was wrong, and I explained that in my statement. All the documents we

13 produced bear that date because we were referring back to that. That's

14 why we have the date of the 8th.

15 Q. I see. You were referring back to the scenes of crimes register

16 to remind you the date upon which you should be recording dates in the

17 documentation you created. Is that the position?

18 A. It's not really a register. It's a book of records of all the

19 scenes of crime we attended.

20 Q. But this photograph album was compiled long after the 8th of

21 September, wasn't it?

22 A. Roughly, one month later --

23 Q. Yes --

24 A. -- two months at most. I'm not sure.

25 Q. I see. So you compile an album of photographs two months later,

1 between one and two months later, and then date the document the 8th of

2 September, back-dating it by reference to a crime scene register. Is that

3 the position?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And then at paragraph 51 of your witness statement, you refer to

6 this album of photographs; and based on that. You say: "There could be a

7 mistake on the video, and I am unsure if we visited the scene on the 9th,

8 or rather, the 8th."

9 Is that the position?

10 A. Yes, since the -- the time to which the video-recorder was set was

11 wrong, that led me to my conclusion.

12 Q. Leaving the time on the video-recorder out of the equation for a

13 moment, what you tell us in paragraph 51 is that by reference to the date

14 that appears on this album of photographs and by reference to the date

15 that appears on another document you compiled in -- or another document

16 that was compiled in relation to the finding of bullet casings, you have

17 come to believe that the date of the visit may have been the 8th and not

18 the 9th. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes, at that point in time.

20 Q. And yet you tell us that the date of the 8th here is a date that

21 was taken from an error in the crime scene register. Is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So based on an erroneous entry in the crime scene register, the

24 date of the 8th appears on the documentation; and you then take that date

25 as a basis for saying you may be mistaken in relation to the date of your

1 visit. Is that the position?

2 A. Yes, but we noticed that error only recently.

3 Q. I understand that, and that is a function, I suggest, of the fact

4 that these documents were created in order to suggest that the canal scene

5 was discovered on the 8th, when, in fact, it was not?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Can we then look at paragraph 52 of your witness statement and

8 have some clarification of that, please. Paragraph 52 reads as follows:

9 "After having reviewed the register of crime scene investigations

10 of SUP Djakovica in Jagodina on the 31st of May, 2007, I noticed that

11 there was something illogical about the date of the crime scene

12 investigation at Lake Radonjic.

13 "The two preceding investigations are entered into the register as

14 taking place on the 9th of September, 1998, and then the Lake Radonjic

15 investigation is entered as taking place on the 8th of September, 1998,

16 which is probably a mistake and the reason we subsequently used this date

17 in our forensic reports as a reference point."

18 You see that in paragraph 52 of your witness statement?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Now let me see if I've understood this correctly. On the 31st of

21 May of this year, just a little over a month ago, you consulted a document

22 in Jagodina at the SUP Djakovica office. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you know that that document has been requested, do you, by the

25 Defence and Prosecution for production?

1 A. I didn't know that. I didn't know that this particular document

2 was requested.

3 Q. Very well.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, the document was not

6 requested from this particular witness, but rather the Serb authorities

7 because they are the owners, so to speak, of the document. But it's not

8 up to -- it was not requested from the witness as such.

9 JUDGE ORIE: No. But if Mr. Emmerson asks questions about it, it

10 could be that he knows something about it. But his answer is that he

11 didn't know.

12 You say you didn't know. Do you know by now?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I hear of it.

14 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

16 MR. EMMERSON:

17 Q. Let me be clear. You looked at this document, and help me to make

18 sure I've understood the position correctly. There were three entries you

19 focused on. And in order as they appeared in the book, there were two

20 that were dated the 9th; and then entered into the back after those two,

21 there was one dated the 8th. Is that the position?

22 A. Yes. And the one following it was entered under the date of the

23 10th of September, 1998.

24 Q. I see. So that we're clear, there is an entry for the 9th, then

25 another entry for the 9th, then the Lake Radonjic entry for the 8th, and

1 then a further entry for the 10th. Is that right?

2 A. Yes. This shows that there was an error most probably there.

3 Q. Yes. And the reason you say there must have been an error, and

4 that it is illogical, is that because if these entries had been entered in

5 the correct order, you would expect to find an entry relating to the 8th

6 to be before any entries relating to the 9th. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes, because the register has entries in a chronological order.

8 Q. Exactly so. And they're entered as the investigation is opened.

9 Is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So they're entered at the same time as in contemporaneously with

12 the opening of the investigation?

13 A. Upon return from a scene of crime.

14 Q. Yes. Now, the illogicality that you perceived in this register

15 led you to conclude that the date of the 8th was an error. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And that the correct date should have been the 9th if this was a

19 genuine record?

20 A. The register is genuine, and it should have had 9th as the date.

21 Q. So that would mean, based on that inference, Mr. Avramovic, that

22 your testimony is that the visit to the canal must have happened on the

23 9th, and that all of the records you completed which refer to it starting

24 on the 8th are inaccurate because of this error in the crime scene

25 register. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Dutertre.

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I have an objection to that

4 question because it calls for speculation on the part of the witness, who

5 explains in paragraph 52 that it is most likely an error. He does not say

6 that it's certain. He's being asked to speculate on various dates, and I

7 believe he should not have to answer those questions. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he has answered the questions meanwhile,

9 Mr. Dutertre. And, of course, he spontaneous -- yes.

10 Mr. Emmerson, of course, taking the witness to certain explanation

11 of the error --

12 MR. EMMERSON: His own explanation --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course, you are leading him a bit

14 there as well. To some extent, it's his own explanation. To what extent

15 it's logical. If an 8 appears after two times after 9, it could be that

16 the 8 is wrong. It could be that the two times 9 are wrong, that they

17 should have been 8s.

18 Well, there are several explanations possible, not this one to be

19 the necessary and logical -- and, of course, one of the things is the

20 whole line of questioning - it came into my mind but Judge Hoepfel reminds

21 me of that - of course, you are talking about genuine records. Sometimes

22 people forget to make an entry into a register and do it not in the

23 chronological -- I take it you are aware that all these thoughts --

24 MR. EMMERSON: Of course.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- Come into our minds.

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. EMMERSON:

3 Q. I want then to understand your final position on this,

4 Mr. Avramovic. Are you saying that the journey to the canal that you took

5 part in was on the 8th or the 9th or that you just don't know?

6 A. I believe it was on the 9th.

7 Q. Thank you. Well --

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Can you say why you believe that?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on all the other documents

10 that I saw subsequently.

11 MR. EMMERSON:

12 Q. I see. And which documents are they that you saw that referred to

13 it as being the 9th?

14 A. Various documents. A request by the judge to engage a group of

15 forensic experts and things like that. I can't remember which documents

16 those are, but they fall in nicely with the chronology of the events.

17 Q. I see. So you've reviewed a number of documents, have you, that

18 bear the date of the 9th as relating to the date of the first visit. Is

19 that correct? Have I understood your evidence correctly?

20 A. I know when the first day was, when the second day was, who went

21 to the site for the on-site inspection; and based on all that, I concluded

22 that it was on the 9th.

23 Q. Yes, I see. Thank you.

24 Now, with that in mind, I want to ask you, please, one or two

25 questions about the route that was taken to the canal. First of all, can

1 you confirm, please, that the route that you took on the first day,

2 whenever it was, was via Donji Bites and Shaptej?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And from Shaptej to the canal, how did you travel?

5 A. By vehicles from Saptej to the Ekonomija; and then from the

6 Ekonomija to the canal, we went on foot.

7 Q. So you didn't, for example, drive through the village of Gllogjan?

8 A. No.

9 Q. You went over land, across dirt tracks, did you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Was there any physical difficulty for you and the other Serbian

12 forces to make your way from Donji Bites over land to the canal?

13 A. Save for the bad road, there were no other obstacles.

14 Q. It's perfectly possible for Serbian officials to get to the canal

15 area from Donji Bites. Is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you saw, is it correct, VJ forces positioned at Donji Bites?

18 A. Yes. I believe I saw them somewhere around Donji Bites.

19 Q. And were there MUP forces stationed in that area as well?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. With the VJ?

22 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you whether they were together.

23 Q. Well, from what you saw, were they in separate positions or were

24 they in the same position geographically?

25 A. I wouldn't know. I can't remember whether they were together.

1 Q. There had been VJ and MUP forces stationed in that area around

2 Bites for some considerable number of months, had there not?

3 A. I don't know. I'm not sure that they had been there already for a

4 number of months before.

5 Q. Can I be clear, is it right then that on the route that you took

6 you drove your vehicles all the way up to the economic farm?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And from the economic farm, you walked to the canal?

9 A. Yes. Bekim Kalamashi, Zenelj Alija were leading the way. They

10 went in front of us, and that's the route that they took to lead us there.

11 Q. And at any point before you got to the economic farm, did you and

12 your colleagues dismount from the vehicles?

13 A. No. It wasn't safe.

14 Q. At any point en route to the canal, did you and your colleagues

15 come under hostile fire?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Was there ever an occasion when a mortar or mortars were shot at

18 your group en route to the canal?

19 A. As far as I can remember, no.

20 Q. And was there ever an occasion when there was an exchange of fire

21 between the MUP officers who were accompanying you and the KLA or others

22 who were firing upon you?

23 A. No. There was no resistance at all.

24 Q. And just to be absolutely clear about it, we have heard a

25 suggestion in this case from two witnesses, one who claims to have been

1 there and one who reports what he was told, that en route to the canal the

2 group with which you were travelling was attacked, that there was an

3 exchange of fire, and on one account that there was a two-hour delay

4 whilst reinforcements had to arrive. None of that is true, Mr. Avramovic?

5 A. I'm not aware of all that.

6 Q. And was there any firing at the canal? Was there any shooting at

7 the canal whilst you were there on the first day you attended?

8 A. We could hear gun-fire.

9 Q. Whilst you were there at the canal?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And where was that gun-fire coming from?

12 A. From various directions. It's very difficult for me to remember

13 where from exactly. One could hear gun-shots from all over the place.

14 Q. Very well. I want to ask you now, please, about paragraph 45 of

15 your witness statement, and if you could have a look at that and also at

16 paragraph 57.

17 In paragraph 57, you refer to the fact that when you arrived

18 there, there were a few bodies floating in the canal which seemed to have

19 been killed recently. Can you give us an indication of how many bodies

20 you saw floating in the canal, first of all?

21 A. I'm not sure. I believe that there were two.

22 Q. I see. And, at paragraph 45, you say that by the second day they

23 had been washed away. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes, in the course of that night.

25 Q. So you can be clear, can you, that when you attended on the second

1 day, whenever that was, those bodies had gone?

2 A. Yes. It had been raining, the water was high, and it washed them

3 away.

4 Q. Did you ever see those two bodies being recovered from the canal

5 at all during the times that you were there?

6 A. I can't be sure of that, but they should be among the bodies that

7 were found subsequently in the canyon.

8 Q. Yes. They should be, and my suggestion is that they are not. And

9 the question I'm asking you is whether you ever saw them being removed?

10 A. No, I can't say that I did.

11 Q. Did you ever see them again anywhere after the first day?

12 A. I don't know. I can't remember.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You used the word "removed," whether you ever saw

14 them being removed. It's unclear whether you mean removed from the

15 concrete part of the --

16 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I see --

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- or from any other place. It could create

18 confusion.

19 MR. EMMERSON: I ought to clarify that question.

20 Q. Did you ever see those two bodies being taken out of the water,

21 either in the concrete section of the canal or lower down in the canyon?

22 A. I suppose that they were removed from the canyon because the water

23 washed them away into the other part of that canal, to the natural canal,

24 to the canyon.

25 Q. I understand that that is the account that you are purporting to

1 give to the Trial Chamber. The question was: Did you ever see them

2 yourself being removed from either the concrete section or from the

3 canyon?

4 A. Not from the concrete section, and most probably the bodies were

5 recovered in the canyon. I'm almost sure of that. I did not see them

6 having been removed from the concrete part of the canal.

7 Q. Did you see them being taken out of the canyon, yes or no?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object. The

10 witness has said he doesn't know. The same question has repeated several

11 times. I don't see what the witness can add to his previous answers.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, I think the witness can.

13 But, Mr. Emmerson, perhaps you should put the question in a

14 different way. The logical sequence of questions would be, where the

15 witness now has testified that he did not see these bodies, which as far

16 as the evidence goes until now were the only bodies in the concrete

17 section of the canal, that logical sequence would be: Have you seen

18 bodies taken from the canyon? Have you verified at any time whether these

19 bodies were the same as you saw before in the concrete canal. And then,

20 finally, if that gets affirmative answer, how the verification was done.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's the logical --

23 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

25 MR. EMMERSON:

1 Q. You heard Judge Orie's questions. Let me put them to you in

2 order. First of all, did you see bodies being removed from the canyon

3 section?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you see any body that you believed to have been those two

6 bodies that had previously been floating in the concrete section of the

7 canal, did you see those bodies removed from the canyon yourself?

8 A. I don't know. I can't remember exactly. I can't assert anything

9 with any degree of certainty.

10 Q. Very well. And finally this: Did you ever see them yourself in

11 the canyon section?

12 A. I don't know. There were a lot of bodies, so I can't be sure that

13 any of the bodies had been washed away from the concrete portion of the

14 canal. I would have to be a hundred per cent sure in order to give

15 evidence to that effect.

16 Q. So is the position this: You don't know how those bodies came to

17 no longer be in the concrete section of the canal on the second day?

18 A. I know. There had been a lot of rain. The level of the water in

19 the canal rose during the night, and the bodies were washed away from the

20 concrete portion of the canal.

21 Q. Very well. That, so that we're clear, is your supposition?

22 A. It's supposition, but it's also fact.

23 Q. I see. Let me move on.

24 JUDGE ORIE: The matter is clear. Please proceed.

25 MR. EMMERSON:

1 Q. Let me move on. You were shown yesterday by Mr. Dutertre a piece

2 of video footage which showed a vehicle in the canal, the right-way up

3 with its boot open, and the camera was shooting into the open boot. Do

4 you remember seeing that piece of footage?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you identified that footage for us as having been taken on the

7 15th of September, which indeed is the date that appears upon it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you told us yesterday that it was on the 15th of September

10 that the vehicle was turned from it roof on to it wheels; correct?

11 A. We tried to recover the vehicles from the canyon with the help of

12 the tow services. That's why the vehicle was moved. It was not found in

13 the place where it was originally spotted, towards the middle of the

14 canal. It was moved to the edges and it was turned so it was no longer

15 upside down, but it was on its wheels.

16 Q. I understand that. And the turning operation you told us took

17 place on the 15th. Is that correct?

18 A. Most probably on the 15th.

19 Q. We have footage for the 12th and the 13th which shows the vehicle

20 on its roof, which would seem to accord with your recollection that it

21 must have been turned over either on the 15th; or if not then, then on the

22 14th?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. But you can help us to this extent, there was no operation going

25 on in the canal on the 14th, was there, because of the flow of water?

1 A. Possible.

2 Q. Recalling that piece of footage which you were shown yesterday of

3 the open boot, could we please look at paragraph 64 of your witness

4 statement. You say there that during your first visit it is possible that

5 you saw the car in the canyon but didn't pay attention to it; and then in

6 the last sentence of that paragraph, you say: "Later on, in the trunk of

7 this car, a body of a woman was found. It later turned out that it was

8 the car of the Frrokaj family, and that the woman was Ilira Frrokaj."

9 Now, pausing there. How do you know that the body was found in

10 the trunk of that car? Did you see that yourself?

11 A. Yes. I saw the body. The -- a leg could be seen protruding from

12 the trunk, and the body was later on recovered and I tended to that.

13 Q. So just to be clear, did you see the body in the boot of the car,

14 in the trunk of the car, when it was opened?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. And, presumably, that occurred after the car had been

17 put on its wheels. Is that correct?

18 A. No. While the car was still on the roof, we opened the trunk and

19 the body just fell out of the trunk because the vehicle was upside down at

20 that moment, and you have that on -- in one of the photos. You can see a

21 body by the car, and that is also featured in video footage. The body

22 just fell out of the car.

23 Q. Well, I don't think your memory is correct, Mr. Avramovic, that

24 the body in the boot is featured in any of the photographs or in any of

25 the video footage.

1 A. You can't see it in the trunk, but you can see it by the car, on

2 the ground, after it had fallen out of the trunk.

3 Q. I see. And Petar Ilincic, was he there when it was falling out of

4 the trunk?

5 A. Most probably.

6 Q. With his camera?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. I want to move on now, if I may, to ask you one or two

9 questions about the Dashinoc site. Now, if we look at paragraphs 77 to 78

10 of your witness statement, you say there that your impression is that you

11 went to the Dashinoc site on the 11th of September, that you have viewed

12 the footage on that -- for that occasion, which also indicates the 11th of

13 September. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, if we look at tab 27 in the brown file, which I think is

16 annex 20 to your witness statement, that is a plan showing the area around

17 Dashinoc where that recovery occurred. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And did you compile that plan?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you just help us as to why it's dated the 10th of September?

22 A. I've already explained. This is tied to the book of on-site

23 inspections. If the 9th was the first day, this should be on the 11th,

24 and this is the error that has been tied to the whole situation, the error

25 that just goes on repeating itself.

1 Q. Yes. That's what we're trying to understand. You're saying that

2 the reason this says the 10th is because the entry in the book that

3 records the first visit as the 8th must be an error. Is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And if the entry in the book had been correct and had said the

6 9th, you would have put the 11th on this plan, which would correspond with

7 the video. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So that is yet another reason for you to believe that this visit

10 did -- first visit cannot have taken place on the 8th. Is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thank you. In the addendum to your consolidated witness

13 statement, Mr. Avramovic, the first addendum, you deal with a number of

14 sets of remains that were placed into the same coffin at Hotel Pashtrik,

15 and you refer there to a photograph of the coffin and to the fact that it

16 contained remains labelled D2, D3, R27, R33, and R35, all of which were

17 interred into the same coffin. Do you recall that?

18 A. Yes, as far as I can remember.

19 Q. Those five bags were put together. I just wanted to be clear, if

20 you could help us. First of all, the "D" exhibits were retrieved from

21 Dashinoc. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did anybody ever give you an explanation as to why remains that

24 were found in Dashinoc were taken to the canal area rather than direct to

25 Hotel Pashtrik?

1 A. Because that was the base for investigations. This was something

2 like our headquarters for the team. In order to save us the journey back

3 to Djakovica every day, we set up our headquarters there throughout the

4 investigation.

5 Q. These remains from Dashinoc were taken to the canal at the end of

6 the day, were they not?

7 A. After the investigation was over.

8 Q. On the day in question?

9 A. Yes, on that day.

10 Q. And by that stage, there was a mortuary in Hotel Pashtrik, wasn't

11 there?

12 A. I'm not sure, but it is possible that this was still not provided

13 for.

14 Q. I see. Well, we'll hear other evidence about that. Did you

15 transport these bones to the canal yourself?

16 A. The entire team, all of us who were present, we travelled in

17 several vehicles.

18 Q. And the majority of the remains from the canal were removed on the

19 11th and taken to Hotel Pashtrik. Were you aware of that?

20 A. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't say that most of them were removed.

21 I believe that this was done over a number of days, a few days at least.

22 Q. By the time you got back to the canal that evening, remains were

23 already being taken to Hotel Pashtrik, were they not?

24 A. Possible. I can't remember.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I don't see where the witness said

2 where he went back to the canal in the evening. He did not say this in

3 the -- his witness statement after the operation in Dasinovac. I think

4 this is not sufficiently precise. Could the question be reformulated or

5 be more specific.

6 MR. EMMERSON: I put that from the evidence of Mr. Tomas.

7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, but the witness gave a version

8 in his own -- in his consolidated statement of the facts. And, perhaps,

9 one should refer to what he says himself, and later maybe he can be

10 interrogated about what the other witness says.

11 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, let's be clear here. If Mr. Emmerson

13 would refer to the witness's earlier testimony or statement, he should

14 reflect that very precisely. If, however, Mr. Emmerson puts a leading

15 question to the witness in which he suggests that something happened, then

16 Mr. Emmerson is entitled to do that unless it comes down to pure

17 speculation, having no reasonable foundation whatsoever.

18 But if Mr. Emmerson refers to what another witness said earlier,

19 just in factual terms, then he's entitled to do so. Of course, the next

20 step might be that if there's any inconsistency, to put that inconsistency

21 to the witness. But I think, as a matter of fact, that the question as

22 such is not inadmissible.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

24 MR. EMMERSON:

25 Q. Just to be clear, was the bag of bones opened when it went back to

1 the canal?

2 A. I can't remember.

3 Q. Can you think of any reason from what you were being told why the

4 bag might have been opened at the canal?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Going back to the addendum to your consolidated witness statement,

7 can you just help us, please, as to how it could come about that two bone

8 samples from the Dashinoc site could have become separated from the

9 remainder of the Dashinoc bones and buried into a coffin or put into a

10 coffin along with three sets of remains from the Lake Radonjic site?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I object to this question,

13 Mr. President. The operations of post mortems themselves and the results

14 of the doctors who made those choices and the autopsies they did, I don't

15 think the witness can answer the question why certain remains from

16 Dasinovac may have been put in this coffin with other remains.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Well, that's --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, if the witness doesn't know, he's tell

19 us. Whether he does know or not, it's certainly not something that he

20 could under no circumstances know. So Mr. Emmerson is entitled to ask

21 him.

22 MR. EMMERSON: I think, if I may say so, the witness purports to

23 give an account of it in his witness statement in the addendum.

24 Q. So just to be clear, Mr. Avramovic, you say in the addendum to

25 your witness statement that these five different set of remains were put

1 in the same coffin. Now, you'll probably recall that the families of

2 Slobodan Radosevic and Milan Radunovic took away the bulk being of those

3 remains of those two individuals, which were separately buried in coffins

4 with their names on it. Do you remember that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you may or may not know this, but DNA analysis has established

7 that the bones that went into this joint coffin included the bones of one

8 of those two individuals. Did you know that?

9 A. No. No, I didn't.

10 Q. You saw them being put into the same coffin. I just wanted to

11 understand from you, if you can give us any explanation of what you saw,

12 either at the canal or at Hotel Pashtrik, which could account for the fact

13 that part of those two individuals had been put into a coffin with the

14 remains of other individuals allegedly found at the canal?

15 A. I don't know. I don't have an explanation, but you ought to put

16 that question to the forensics themselves.

17 Q. It must follow, mustn't it, that at some point the bones from

18 Dashinoc were separated?

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. I see. Can we look at paragraph 181 now of your witness

21 statement, where you refer to a series of further sets of remains that

22 were recovered from various locations close to the economic farm later on

23 in the month, you say about a week later. Do you see that?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Now, if I put it to you that the date of that recovery is recorded

1 in official documentation as the 23rd of September - and we've got the

2 records in the yellow file, if you would wish to see them - are you in a

3 position to confirm that that is correct?

4 A. Yes, a week from the end of the exhumation process, therefore,

5 from the 16th. That's what I had in mind when I was giving the statement.

6 Q. Very well. So that would take us exactly to the 23rd; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, pausing there, if you would. If you could just look behind

9 tab 8 in the brown file, there is a note there of an interview between the

10 Office of the Prosecutor and a man called Blerim Tahiraj. Blerim Tahiraj

11 is the son of two individuals called Tush and Ramiz Tahiraj who were

12 labelled as RE2 and RE3 in the recovery operation you indicate in

13 paragraph 181.

14 And if you would turn to paragraph 8 in that statement, you will

15 see that the son of one of these -- I'm sorry, the son of this couple, RE2

16 and RE3, records that his parents were last seen alive when they left home

17 from Skivjan on the 6th of September. Do you see that? Do you see that,

18 paragraph 8?

19 A. I don't have the translation here.

20 Q. I understood you read English, Mr. Avramovic. Have I got that

21 wrong? Do you not read English?

22 A. I understand quite well, but it's a bit more difficult with

23 reading.

24 Q. Very well. Let me read it to you, the relevant passage. On

25 paragraph 8: "On the 6th of September, both my parents, Ramiz Tahiraj and

1 Tush Tahiraj" --

2 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading, Mr. Emmerson.

3 MR. EMMERSON: I'll stop for a moment.

4 Q. -- "left from Skivjan about 11.00 a.m. by a red Lada car towards

5 the direction of the village of Pozar."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. I won't read the rest of that paragraph, except the sentence that

9 reads: "They took the route from Skivjan through Novo Sello."

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then paragraph 10: "After one or two weeks of their

13 disappearance, one Serb, Moma Derlovic or Drelovic, who was a suspended

14 policeman, told my brother, Valdet, on the phone that he checked prisons

15 in Peje and Gjakove, and that my parents were in prison but their names

16 were not made public."

17 Do you see that?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. Did you know a police officer or did you at the time by the name

20 of Moma Derlovic or Drelovic?

21 A. I believe it's Momo Drljevic, a suspended police officer.

22 Q. So there is a suspended police officer by that name?

23 A. Drljevic is his name. Momo Drljevic is his name.

24 Q. And where was he stationed before he was suspended?

25 A. In Djakovica.

1 Q. In the same building that you were working?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And what was he suspended for?

4 A. I don't know. Some embezzlement or something like that.

5 Q. If you look at paragraph 12 now, the witness there tells the OTP

6 that "we had heard these rumours that Serbs captured people in Novo Sello

7 on the 6th of September, 1998," and then he says that on his way to Pozar

8 on the 7th of September some people, mostly old ones, said the police and

9 paramilitary were capturing people on the 6th of September.

10 Did you know that there was an operation going on in Novo Sello on

11 the 6th of September?

12 A. No, I didn't know that.

13 Q. Mr. Avramovic, last week the Prosecution served upon the Defence a

14 detailed forensic report by an international team of forensic analysts

15 from France that reviewed the records and photographs in connection with

16 these remains.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to the use

19 of this report. In fact, the witness himself did not produce this report,

20 which is an expert report, and I do not see how Mr. Avramovic could make

21 any statement as regards an expert forensic report.

22 JUDGE ORIE: We don't know yet what the question is Mr. Emmerson

23 will put.

24 Mr. Avramovic, Mr. Emmerson will now complete the question he

25 started to put to you; but before you answer that, would you please pause

1 for a second.

2 MR. EMMERSON:

3 Q. Mr. Avramovic, the analysis of the remains of those two

4 individuals by an independent forensic specialist team concluded that at

5 the time of their discovery on the 23rd of May [sic], those remains had

6 been dead for a maximum of 15 days and a minimum of eight days, which

7 would place the date of their death at some point between the 8th and the

8 15th of September. My question is: You were present in and around the

9 canal on a number of days between the 8th and the 15th of September, were

10 you not?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

15 JUDGE ORIE: 23rd of May causes me some --

16 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, 23rd of September --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please pose the question so there can be no

18 confusion whatsoever.

19 MR. EMMERSON:

20 Q. Sorry, just to be clear. The independent analysis of those

21 remains has concluded that at the time of their discovery on the 23rd of

22 September, they had been dead for a maximum of 15 and a minimum of eight

23 days, which would place their death at some point between the 8th and the

24 15th of September.

25 Now, I just want to be clear. Those were the very dates that the

1 Serbian team were operating in and around the canal. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you turn now, please, to tab 9. This is a witness statement

4 made by a man called Ahmet Maxhuni who is the father of an individual

5 called Refik Maxhuni, who was body RE4 found during the course of that

6 23rd of September operation in the area around the economic farm.

7 You can see, if you turn to paragraph 6 of his witness statement,

8 he says: "My younger son Refik is dead. He was arrested by the Serbian

9 police in 1998; and after that, I have never seen him again alive. Later

10 in this statement, I will describe the circumstances of his arrest."

11 In paragraph 14 he sayings: "On the 4th of September about 6.40

12 a.m., Refik left our apartment. He did not want to tell me where he is

13 going. He just informed me that he should back soon. He took all the

14 money he had, all 4.000 German marks with him. I advised him to leave the

15 money at home, but he did not want to do it.

16 "About ten or 15 minutes later, I looked through the window in my

17 apartment's room. I noticed that my son Refik was stopped by the Serbian

18 police patrol on Street Mother Teresa.

19 "The distance from the place where he was stopped to the window of

20 my apartment is about 70 metres. The window is coming out towards the

21 direction of Hotel Pashtrik. I could easily see everything. My apartment

22 is located on the fifth floor, and the visual at this morning was rather

23 clear.

24 "Looking through the window, I saw four Serbian police officers

25 dressed in blue camouflage uniforms" --

1 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading, Mr. Emmerson.

2 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry.

3 Q. -- "Two of them had automatic guns and two had personal arms."

4 If you could turn over to paragraphs 21 and 22: "I did not see if

5 my son had been searched, neither if his hands had been tied. I noticed

6 only that these policemen surrendered him and took him away in the

7 direction of Piskote area, where the Serbian police check-point was

8 situated.

9 "At this moment, last time I have seen my son alive, I remember

10 having very bad feeling that I could not see him again."

11 Do you see those passages?

12 A. He was able to see all that from that distance? Yes, I see that.

13 Q. Now, the independent forensic analysis has concluded that the

14 remains of Refik Maxhuni, discovered on the 23rd of September, had been

15 dead for a maximum of 15 and a minimum of eight days, Mr. Avramovic.

16 Again, that is the period that you and your colleagues were

17 present in the area around the canal; correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Would you turn now, please, behind tab 28. This is a witness

20 statement to the Prosecution made by Vahdete Kuqi who is the wife of a man

21 called Safet Kuqi, who is established by DNA to have been body RE6. If

22 you could look at paragraph 3, as she described her husband in the last

23 four lines, she says: "Although my brother, Sahedin Shehu, was a member

24 of the KLA in Gllogjan and my husband was always a supporter of what my

25 brother was doing, he never did anything to join. Of course, at that

1 time, all the Albanians were supporters of the KLA.

2 "On the 6th of September, 1998, my husband left the family home on

3 a bicycle to go to the Zhdrelle, a village seven kilometres from Gjakove

4 in the direction of Lake Radoniq."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. If you look at paragraph 6, you can see that the witness confirms

8 that that was the last occasion on which she saw her husband alive. Do

9 you see that, first sentence of paragraph 6?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now would you turn behind tab 29, where there is a witness

12 statement made on the 5th of September --

13 MR. EMMERSON: And the signed version is 29B, Your Honours.

14 Q. -- by a man called Skender Gllojani, who says in the third

15 paragraph on the first page, that he has known Safet Kuqi since his

16 childhood. Do you see that?

17 This is on the first page, Mr. Avramovic, halfway down the first

18 page he says: "I can say that I have known Safet Kuqi since my

19 childhood."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. And a little bit further down: "I am aware that Safet disappeared

23 on one of the days early in September. I know that his wife Valdete spent

24 a lot of time and effort to try to find out what happened to him."

25 If we turn to page 2, please, he describes the incident on the

1 occasion where he last saw him alive. Page 2, third paragraph: "We were

2 walking towards the direction of Gjakove, when I saw that walking towards

3 us was Safet. He was with his bicycle and alone.

4 "As I got nearer, I saw a police car that was travelling along the

5 same road coming towards us. It was a Zastava model of car. As I got to

6 the point where Safet was stopped, two police officers got out. Both of

7 them were in uniform. They stopped Safet, and I could see that they were

8 talking to him.

9 "I continued walking towards them. As I got closer, one of the

10 police officers saw us and pointed his rifle at me. I saw that it was a

11 sniper rifle. He said to me, as I drew nearer, words to the effect:

12 'Don't come back here. It's not allowed to walk in this area.'

13 "I carried on walking with the others, but I saw that, as I was

14 walking away, the other police officer with Safet was holding his driving

15 licence. I saw him rip it up and throw it down. I did not have any

16 chance to ask what they were doing with Safet. I saw Sindzelic pointing

17 the rifle at Safet, guarding him, while Gojko began to beat him.

18 "I could hear that the police officers were swearing at him and

19 were saying the same things to him such as that he did not know -- such as

20 that did he know that he was not allowed to walk around in that area.

21 "I recognised the police officers. I knew them as 'Gojko' and

22 'Sindzelic.' I only recall these first names at the moment but others

23 know who they are, and I will try to find out the other names. I

24 recognised them as being police officers for a long time in the Gjakove

25 area."

1 Do those two names of police officers ring any bells for you,

2 Mr. Avramovic: Gojko and Sindzelic?

3 A. As far as I remember, Sindzelic was the chief of the traffic

4 police force.

5 Q. And Gojko?

6 A. Most probably a traffic policeman.

7 Q. I see.

8 "After this, I never saw Safet again; and to my knowledge, neither

9 did anyone else. I know that the day I saw him was the last time he was

10 seen. I know this from conversations with Valdete and the fact that the

11 clothing he was wearing when I saw him was exactly the same as what he was

12 wearing on the day he disappeared."

13 Now, Mr. Avramovic, again, remains discovered on the 23rd of

14 September; again, independent international forensic analysis is that they

15 had been dead -- he had been dead for a minimum of eight days and a

16 maximum of 15 days at the time of his recovery; and, again, those were the

17 dates upon which you and your colleagues were in full control of the area

18 around the canal. Is that correct?

19 A. It's not that we were in full control of the area. We were in the

20 immediate vicinity of the canal of some 200 or 300 metres, and that was

21 only for the time we spent there.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I'm moving on to a new topic. I have

23 two topics to cover. Would that be a convenient moment rather than --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we have a break, I would like to briefly

25 discuss the remaining issues of scheduling for today and tomorrow.

1 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Avramovic, we'll discuss matters which are

3 not directly related to you but related to the witnesses still to come.

4 Therefore, the break starts already for you.

5 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Avramovic out of the

6 courtroom. We'll see you back in approximately half an hour,

7 Mr. Avramovic.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 JUDGE ORIE: There has been some discussion on who would be the

10 next witness. I think yesterday, at approximately 5.30, I was called by

11 one of the Legal Officers, saying that the proposition that Professor

12 Dunjic would be the next in line to testify was impossible because the

13 documents -- numerous documents had not been uploaded yet.

14 Then I see that the other witness, that is, Mr. Aleksandric - I

15 think is Professor Aleksandric - was the one who would be available but

16 might have difficulties to stay until Thursday, and, therefore, that was

17 the reason, initially, preference was there for Professor Dunjic.

18 Then yesterday, at 20 minutes past 6.00, I think that this message

19 that the Chamber would, under those circumstances, prefer to hear

20 evidence, and, therefore, if the material to be uploaded for Professor

21 Dunjic was not uploaded, that we would then have to hear Professor

22 Aleksandric.

23 Now it was this morning that -- but if there has been any earlier

24 communication, please tell me, Mr. Dutertre. It was this morning that I

25 learned that the materials for Professor Dunjic were uploaded. That's

1 information I think I received at quarter past 9.00 this morning, already

2 in court, and that, therefore, the Prosecution would, despite the

3 information of yesterday that it was not possible to hear the testimony of

4 Professor Dunjic, nevertheless, would have Professor Dunjic as next in

5 line.

6 Is that correctly reflecting what happened, Mr. Dutertre?

7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The

8 annexes regarding Professor Dunjic will be uploaded and available

9 tomorrow. So the witness will be available tomorrow for the Chamber, if

10 there is time to hear him. Indeed, Professor Aleksandric is available for

11 examination-in-chief by the Prosecution, so the order would be Aleksandric

12 first, if you agree; and then if time remains, Professor Dunjic.

13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then I see that one of the problems also is

14 that I do understand that Professor Aleksandric is not available for

15 cross-examination until after the summer recess.

16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, he could stay until -- he

17 could stay until tomorrow evening and then --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could you ask Mr. Dutertre to repeat because he

19 was interrupted by -- there were --

20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] He would only be available after

21 the summer break of the court otherwise.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand.

23 Now, my question to the interpreters: Is there still something

24 missing, because -- or is everything now on the record?

25 Mr. Dutertre, there was -- the English interpretation asked you to

1 repeat the line where you started saying: "Well, he would stay until --

2 he could stay until tomorrow evening and then --"

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. And then after tomorrow

4 evening, he would only be available for cross-examination after the summer

5 break.

6 JUDGE ORIE: We know what the problems are to start the

7 cross-examination of either of these two experts this week.

8 MR. EMMERSON: Can --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. EMMERSON: Just in order to be fair to all parties to the

11 Prosecution, if I can just indicate in two or three sentences, the

12 chronology from yesterday afternoon. It was an occasion in which there

13 was a round of telephone calls between Mr. Zahar, Mr. Re, and myself, in

14 an effort to see how best to utilise the time. And, originally, it was

15 thought that Mr. Aleksandric could not be here on Thursday, and that there

16 was difficulty with uploading the exhibits for Professor Dunjic.

17 So the object was to try to use the last part of today with

18 Professor Dunjic, if possible, and then to call Professor Aleksandric so

19 that his examination-in-chief and cross-examination could take place in

20 one go after the summer recess, so that one doesn't have

21 examination-in-chief this side of the summer recess and then a very long

22 gap between that and cross-examination.

23 But we're entirely in the Trial Chamber's hands, given that, as I

24 understand it, we're all proceeding on the assumption that neither will be

25 cross-examined this week.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Since I take it the two experts are present here, the

2 Chamber would like to hear as much of their evidence, even if that would

3 mean that they could not be cross-examined any earlier than after the

4 summer recess. We'll consider the matter over the break.

5 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. Whichever witness is called to testify,

7 issues concerning their 92 ter statements have yet to be resolved,

8 although suggestions were made 24 hours ago, at least with

9 Mr. Aleksandric, and we have yet to receive a response.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The reason why I'm a bit concerned about these

11 developments is that if overnight the information changes, is Dunjic

12 uploaded, yes or not; of course, the materials uploaded; and then I do not

13 know -- I do not know in the evening hours which 92 ter statement to take

14 to read. I mean, I move from Aleksandric to Dunjic. We have expert

15 reports filed on the 12th of January.

16 For myself, but I take it the same for my colleagues, we would

17 like not to be surprised at 9.00 in the morning that we might have looked

18 at the wrong material. Therefore, if anything changes - and it's the

19 second time that I'm now referring to late at night - if everything

20 changes after 6.00, the parties are requested to inform the Legal Officer

21 so that I can change the document in front of me, if need be, at 10.30 at

22 night.

23 Similarly, as I said before, the Chamber doesn't want to spend any

24 time anymore on rather futile issues on which wording is still acceptable

25 in a 92 ter, which is not. And if the parties, now having the experience

1 how the Chamber approaches these matters, are not able to resolve them, I

2 am firm that I want to be called at 10.00 at night or at 7.00 in the

3 morning in order to resolve these matters rather than to spend time on it

4 in court.

5 MR. EMMERSON: Can I, just for the sake of the next witness, I

6 think the last communication that emanated from the Trial Chamber was to

7 indicate that the next witness ought to be Professor Aleksandric.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on the assumption that -- on the assumption that

9 the material for Professor Dunjic was not uploaded. So from the

10 information I now received that uploading the material for Professor

11 Dunjic will not be ready this morning.

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Tomorrow.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We still have an option to hear perhaps, but

14 we'll consider that, the testimony of Professor Dunjic tomorrow, the

15 testimony in chief.

16 Now the times scheduled. Professor Aleksandric was three and a

17 half hours. Is that correctly understood? Professor Dunjic was for one

18 hour, one hour and a half?

19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Approximately that, yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next question, Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Guy-Smith,

21 and Mr. Harvey: How much time would we still need with Mr. Avramovic?

22 MR. EMMERSON: So far as I'm concerned, 45 minutes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Forty-five minutes.

24 Mr. Guy-Smith.

25 MR. GUY-SMITH: I have the sneaking suspicion I will be very

1 short, based upon my conversation with my colleagues.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey.

3 MR. HARVEY: I may be even shorter than Mr. Guy-Smith.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is the negative minutes. You gain time

5 rather than to --

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's usually a good thing, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- lose time. Yes. Unfortunately, we can't go back

8 in time.

9 So, therefore, the Chamber can be confident that Mr. Avramovic

10 will conclude his testimony in the next session. We'll consider then how

11 to proceed. We have a break until 11.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

13 [The witness takes the stand]

14 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, before we proceed, I understood from

16 the questions you objected against the use of a certain report, which just

17 by hearing seems to be exculpatory in its nature.

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, a recent report

19 has been received and some information has been used in an exculpatory

20 manner by the Defence, indeed.

21 JUDGE ORIE: But I think it was only one week ago that I reminded

22 the Prosecution of their duty that disclosure that arrives late is not

23 only to be disclosed to the other party but to the Chamber as well.

24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, I will have to check, but I

25 believe this document has been given to the Defence before you had made

1 that reminder, but we will apply it a posteriori.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No. You have to apply the rules is what we expect

3 you to do and not a posteriori. So, when reminded that this statement

4 taken in January from a witness has to be disclosed to the Chamber as

5 well, because it's late disclosure, I think what the OTP should have done

6 at that moment was to go through the files and see whether there was any,

7 let me say, non-routine disclosure which could have an impact on the case,

8 and disclose it immediately to the Chamber as well because that's what the

9 Rules tell you to do.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I must tell you that

11 this is something that the Prosecution received very recently. It's not

12 as if it were something that were already in the system and that had not

13 been disclosed. We received it recently.

14 JUDGE ORIE: But if you receive it and if there's a reason to

15 disclose it, late disclosure should also be disclosed to the Chamber.

16 That's what the Rules tell you. I'm not blaming you for not having been

17 in a position to do it any earlier. I mean, if you receive it, of course,

18 you can't do it any earlier. But the Rules say if you receive such

19 material late and if you disclose it at a late stage, then you should

20 disclose it to the Chamber as well. That's the simple message I give to

21 the OTP at this moment.

22 MR. DUTERTRE: [No interpretation]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

24 MR. EMMERSON: I provided to the Trial Chamber a copy of the

25 report. Without going into the detail of the contents at this stage, I

1 mentioned certain matters in relation to the RE bodies. Your Honours will

2 see the terms of the instructions that went to the experts; and in

3 particular, they were asked to give an accurate estimation of the date of

4 death and to give an estimation by reference to the appearance of the

5 remains in situ, as to how long they had been in situ. And there are on a

6 body-by-body bases analysis of those matters, and they are collated

7 together in tables and conclusions at the end.

8 Suffice it to say for these purposes that the estimation is that

9 the remains found adjacent to the canal wall are of some considerable age,

10 either one or, one to two, or two, or three, or more than three months,

11 but that the conclusion of the forensic experts is that they had been in

12 situ, each of them, for a very short period of time.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just for my information, then we'll continue.

14 This report has been made on the request of whom?

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It was the Prosecution, and the

16 Prosecution intends to present a motion to that effect soon.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information, Mr. Dutertre.

18 Mr. Emmerson.

19 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.

21 MR. EMMERSON:

22 Q. Mr. Avramovic, could you please turn to paragraph 15 of your

23 witness statement. You there refer to a map upon which you have marked

24 the main Gjakove to Peje road and an area you've marked in yellow which

25 you describe as an area which was "unsafe for Serbs." Is that correct,

1 "unsafe for Serbs" is what you meant to say?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And: "... and the police to go, unless they wanted to be killed.

4 It was unsafe for the police to travel to these areas until they were

5 liberated in September 1998. The police did not travel there. They just

6 used the Djakovica-Decan-Peje main road, which was the only road which

7 could be used, although it was still very dangerous."

8 Do you see that passage?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Let me be clear what your evidence is in this regard. It is your

11 evidence that there was no police operations conducted in the areas to the

12 west and east of the main Peje to Gjakove road prior to September?

13 A. Possible.

14 Q. Sorry. Is that the testimony you are giving in paragraph 15 of

15 your witness statement, that the police never went into the territory that

16 you've marked on that map?

17 A. That's true. They never went in depth of that territory, as far

18 as I can remember.

19 Q. I see. I'm going to suggest to you that that's simply not true,

20 and that you know full well that the paramilitary police were frequently

21 conducting operations in those areas throughout the period from April to

22 September.

23 A. I'm not aware of that.

24 Q. And that there was a substantial VJ battalion stationed in the

25 area of Lake Radoniq from February to September?

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Dutertre.

2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could Mr. Emmerson make his

3 question a bit more precise when he refers to the area of Lake Radonjic.

4 It's somewhat vague.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I have pointed earlier at some confusion about zones,

6 areas, et cetera.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: So for the witness to know precisely what the

9 question is, you should be more precise. Please proceed.

10 MR. EMMERSON:

11 Q. There were VJ forces stationed to the west and south of Lake

12 Radoniq, immediately adjacent to it, from February to September is the

13 suggestion.

14 A. It is possible, but it was to the south, next to the dam by the

15 lake; and as for the area to the west, I wouldn't know. I don't think

16 that this is correct, that this is true.

17 JUDGE ORIE: West and south is something perhaps to be clarified.

18 Please proceed.

19 MR. EMMERSON:

20 Q. And, specifically, that there was Serb forces on the summit of

21 Suka Bitesh during this period?

22 A. It is possible.

23 Q. It is possible. Well, let's look if we can briefly at policing

24 operations. Could you turn behind tab 33 for the moment in the brown?

25 JUDGE ORIE: That is the one just provided, and I don't know

1 whether it is inserted.

2 MR. EMMERSON: It is inserted. It was disclosed to the Defence

3 last night.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the tab number.

5 MR. EMMERSON: Tab number 33.

6 Q. Now, this, Mr. Avramovic, is a report, a regular combat report, of

7 the 125th Motorised Brigade command, that is a VJ brigade based in Peje,

8 dated the 30th of April. Do you see that?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. Paragraph 1 refers to information available on the 29th of April

11 and says this: "According to the information available, on the 29th of

12 April, the MUP forces from the Klina village searched a part of the

13 terrain in the Iglarevo village, and they had found nothing."

14 And then it goes on: "The Decan-Pezar-Jablanica road is

15 controlled by the terrorists at the exit from Decan. In the course of the

16 day, two dead bodies were found on the said road near the Dasinovac

17 village that the terrorists had kidnapped and killed some time ago."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Well, pausing there for a moment, it's clear there, is it not,

21 therefore, that at the end of April, there were MUP forces in the area

22 around Dasinovac?

23 A. Ah, it is possible, at the beginning.

24 Q. The beginning is possible but not later on. Is that the position?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. So, by the end of April, do you accept that there may well have

2 been MUP forces in that area?

3 A. As far as I can see, MUP forces are not mentioned here. The only

4 thing that is mentioned are VJ forces in Iglarevo.

5 Q. The first line of paragraph 1 refers to MUP forces. Do you see

6 that?

7 A. Yes, but the territory mentioned is the territory of Klina, which

8 does not belong to the municipality of Djakovica. This is the

9 Pec-Klina-Iglarevo road area.

10 Q. Very well. Can you help me about this: What do you know about

11 two bodies having been found in the area of Dasinovac as early as the end

12 of April?

13 A. I can't tell you anything. I don't know anything about that.

14 Q. That would have been reported to the area for which you were

15 responsible, would it not?

16 A. Yes, if we were sent to the site. But it is also possible that no

17 on-site inspection was carried out; and for that reason, I'm not familiar

18 with the case.

19 Q. Can we, with that in mind, please, turn to tab 24 in the bundle --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson --

21 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry.

22 JUDGE ORIE: -- just for my understanding, I do understand that

23 Pezar is the same as Pozar.

24 MR. EMMERSON: That's my assumption as well; and if you look in

25 the original, it looks as though it may well have been Pozar rather than

1 Pezar.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the report says two dead bodies were found on

3 this road. It doesn't say by whom. Is there any reason to follow your

4 suggestion that it was found during an operation by this brigade?

5 MR. EMMERSON: Well --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know. I'm just looking.

7 MR. EMMERSON: -- it's a matter for textual analysis in paragraph

8 1.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

10 MR. EMMERSON: So, as I understand the witness's testimony, he

11 accepts that by the end of April, the MUP were or may have been entering

12 those areas.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

14 MR. EMMERSON:

15 Q. You see, we've heard testimony, Mr. Avramovic, from a senior RDB

16 official in this court, that there were regular operations being conducted

17 by the MUP into that territory, once or twice a week, during the period

18 from the 1st of July. Can you help us with that at all?

19 A. I'm not familiar with that.

20 Q. I see.

21 A. This may have been the case along the road, but not in depth of

22 the territory in my view. I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with all that.

23 Q. I see. Because the evidence that we have heard from Mr. Bajcetic

24 is that operations and clashes were taking place even in the area of the

25 canal where the bodies were found between the 1st of July and the 8th of

1 September.

2 A. I'm not aware of that.

3 Q. I see. Could you then behind tab 24 look at paragraph 3.9. Tab

4 24, as you can see, is a Pristina Corps command document dated the 18th of

5 August and signed by commander Colonel-General Nebojsa Pavkovic.

6 At paragraph 3.9 --

7 A. Please repeat the tab number.

8 Q. Tab number 24?

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. Do you see that?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. So, for the 18th of August, there is an instruction at 3.9 to:

13 "Withdraw the 52nd Bomber Regiment from Radonjicko Jezero to the Kosovski

14 Junaci barracks and transfer the positions to MUP forces."

15 Do you see that? Do you see that passage?

16 A. Yes, but it does not specify the part of the lake, any part of the

17 lake.

18 Q. Well, I understand that. It indicates, does it not, that: "The

19 forces from the battalion in the old barracks in Gjakove, the strength of

20 one company, are to be on standby."

21 Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Was there a transfer of MUP forces into the area around the lake

24 in August, to your knowledge?

25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like to object to this

1 question, which is vague, again, referring to the area around the lake in

2 August. We don't know exactly where we're referring to, and we don't know

3 what the date is either.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, whenever you are talking about the area

5 around the lake or the canal area, I would like you to define it as

6 precisely as possible, because earlier you referred to another witness who

7 I think described the operations to take place in certain villages, which

8 you then now summarized as in a certain area.

9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You pointed to that, and, therefore, I would prefer

11 you then to refer to this testimony as another witness said that in such

12 "villages as."

13 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And that may be close to the canal area, but let's

15 not, as a natural inclination, to expand or to --

16 MR. EMMERSON: Can I respond to this because it's an objection

17 that keeps being raised in different forms. Two dimensions to it. The

18 proposition that I put to the witness in relation to the evidence of

19 Mr. Bajcetic arose out of the specific question and answer given in

20 re-examination in which he was asked: Were these clashes taking place in

21 the specific area in which the bodies were recovered at the end of the

22 concrete section of the canal? And he confirmed that they were. So one

23 can't really get much more specific than that.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

25 MR. EMMERSON: So far as the material concerning the deployment of

1 forces around the lake is concerned, I can go only on what the material in

2 front of me says. And the material here in front of me refers to

3 stationing the positions at Radonjic Lake and reinforcing them by

4 replacing the 52nd Bomber unit with the MUP. Now, I can't put a more

5 specific proposition than that which is revealed upon the documents.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Obviously, if the witness is in a position to

8 say --

9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. If he knows something about

10 it --

11 MR. EMMERSON: Then we can ask a supplementary question for him to

12 clarify.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's proceed this way.

14 MR. EMMERSON:

15 Q. Could you turn to tab 31, please, Mr. Avramovic. This is a

16 slightly earlier order, dated the 8th of August. Again, it's an order of

17 the 125th Motorised Brigade, and it's signed by commander Colonel Dragan

18 Zivanovic. Do you see paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7?

19 "BG-52 with reinforcements shall support the attack of the main

20 forces of MUP 2nd Detachment, Pristina CPJP," that is special police units

21 company, "and the SAJ on the axis of Radonjicka Suka to Saptej to Rznic,

22 and with part of its forces shall participate in coordinated action on the

23 axis of Donji Bites village to Gramocelj to Saptej village."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes, but this is just a plan. It doesn't mean that the operation

1 actually took place during that particular period of time, as far as I can

2 tell from here.

3 Q. Just bear with me, Mr. Avramovic, because we've all watched a

4 videotape in this court, twice now, which shows paramilitary police

5 officers taking control of Gllogjan and Irzniq on the 11th. So before you

6 make comments such as that, please, forebear, I'm simply asking you at

7 this stage to confirm what we see in the documents.

8 Paragraph 2.7: "BG 549-3 shall support the attack of p/s of the

9 MUP 9th Detachment and the Prizren CPJP on the axis of Erec village,

10 Erecka Suma, Babaloc village, and Rastavica village."

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Yes, I can see that.

13 Q. So, at least, Mr. Avramovic, we can agree that on the 8th of

14 August, there was a plan for coordinated action for the MUP - that is to

15 say, the PJP - and the SAJ to engage in military action from Radonjicka

16 Suka - that is to say, Suka Bitesh, the hill immediately to the west of

17 Lake Radoniq - towards Shaptej and Irzniq; and also on an axis from Donji

18 Bites village - which is to the west of the lake, as I'm sure you

19 remember - towards Gramaqel and Shaptej. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And a similar operation from Erecka Suma towards Babaloc and

22 Rastavica. Do you see that?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Now, as I said a moment ago, we in this courtroom - and we can

25 play it for you, if you it would help you, but I think it would simply

1 take up time at this stage - have watched footage of paramilitary police

2 taking control of Gllogjan and Irzniq on the 11th and 12th of August. It

3 is your evidence that you were unaware that there was a major offensive

4 taking place at that time, involving the MUP, the SAJ, the PJP, and the

5 VJ?

6 A. It is. I wasn't aware of the locations mentioned herein.

7 Q. I see. Were you aware that there was a major coordinated attack

8 between the VJ, the SAJ, and the PJP in the area to the east of the main

9 road towards Gllogjan and Irzniq at the beginning of August? Were you

10 aware of that?

11 A. No, I wasn't, not at the time.

12 Q. And were you aware of it when you signed a witness statement,

13 saying the police never travelled off the main road before September, were

14 you aware of it then?

15 A. No, I wasn't.

16 Q. So you weren't then aware of it before you came into the witness

17 box. Is that the position?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So how were you in a position to sign a witness statement saying

20 that the police never travelled off the main road, Mr. Avramovic, if you

21 don't know one way or the other what's going on on the ground? Why did

22 you put that in your witness statement?

23 A. That is my statement, and that's the knowledge I had or I have.

24 Q. You don't say in your statement: "I have no knowledge one way or

25 the other." You make a categorical assertion for something that is

1 palpably false. Now, can you explain to us how that comes about?

2 A. I don't know. There may have been an error in interpretation.

3 Q. I see. What about the end-of-May period, Mr. Avramovic, were you

4 aware that there was a major joint VJ and MUP operation in the areas of

5 Streoc and Lybeniq, for example, in which --

6 A. I don't know about that.

7 Q. I see.

8 A. That borders with the territory of the municipality of Pec, or

9 rather, I believe it falls under that municipality.

10 Q. I see. So --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

12 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask clarification for one question.

14 Mr. Avramovic, Mr. Emmerson told you about the footage shown to

15 this Chamber of paramilitary police taking control of Gllogjan and Rznic

16 on the 11th and 12th of August, and then he asked you whether you were

17 unaware of a major offensive taking place at that time.

18 And your answer was: "It is. I wasn't aware of the locations

19 mentioned herein," which was not entirely clear to me. Did you mean to

20 say you were aware of this operation, but not where it took place? Or did

21 you mean to say that you did not even know about these locations to exist,

22 or where to find them? What was exactly meant by this answer?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, there was a great

24 deal of fighting along the road itself. I did not know about them

25 reaching that location; namely, Glodjane.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear to me now.

2 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

3 MR. EMMERSON:

4 Q. Could you turn behind tab 22, please, for a moment, and if you

5 could look at the second paragraph. This is a record of observations by

6 the team from the British Military Attache's office in Belgrade on the

7 11th and 12th of May in the Ponosevac area.

8 Do you see the first paragraph refers to: "The area of Ponosevac,

9 Djakovica, Pec, and Decani being patrolled by elements of the JSO and PJP

10 in a very heavy-handed way. Villagers have fled north to Junik."

11 Do you see that paragraph?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Paragraph 2 in relation to Ponosevac: "Road from south to

14 Ponosevac 'carpeted' in empty cases, including 40-millimetre grenades.

15 Villages south of Ponosevac deserted, livestock slaughtered in fields,

16 houses sprayed with gun-fire. Ponosevac empty except for JSO/PJP, who are

17 carrying out patrols from Decani using APCs," and various other types of

18 equipment are recorded. Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Were you aware of those operations being conducted in the early

21 part of May in the Ponosevac area?

22 A. Yes. I knew that there was fighting around Ponosevac.

23 Q. And were you aware of the fact that Serbian forces had forced the

24 civilian population out of Ponosevac, killing their livestock and burning

25 their houses?

1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I object about this question. The

2 witness is a crime scene technician, a policeman. He is not part of units

3 taking part to fights. I don't think he is a specialist of these matters,

4 and I don't think he can answer all these detailed questions,

5 Mr. President.

6 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I'm testing the assertion of his witness

7 statement.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.

9 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

10 MR. EMMERSON:

11 Q. Were you aware that the tactics used by the MUP forces included

12 forcing the civilian population out, burning their houses, and killing

13 their livestock?

14 A. No, I wasn't.

15 Q. Have you never come across, in your time in Djakovica as a police

16 technician, information that the MUP and PJP forces were engaged in

17 house-burning operations?

18 A. Most probably there were individual cases.

19 Q. I see. But you don't accept that it was a policy?

20 A. I didn't know of any such policy, if there was one.

21 Q. You see, we've heard evidence from the British Military Attache,

22 who attended the canal on the 8th of September, that there were houses in

23 the area still on fire and 300 joint PJP and VJ forces engaged in

24 levelling villages, such as Prilep, to the ground so that they were

25 standing at only 30 centimetres high.

1 Is that something that you were unaware of in September,

2 Mr. Avramovic? Is that something you were unaware of?

3 A. I know that there was fierce fighting going on in Prilep.

4 Q. Could you turn behind tab 32 for a moment, please.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, could you just help me out. Ponosevac,

6 I usually have no difficulties in quickly finding.

7 MR. EMMERSON: To the west of the main road south of Junik.

8 JUDGE ORIE: South of Junik. I'll find it.

9 Please proceed.

10 MR. EMMERSON:

11 Q. Now, if we could look behind tab 32, can you find page 5, for a

12 moment, please, in that selection. This is an interview or a record of an

13 interview conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor in July 1999 with a

14 man called Ersad Colovic, who, as you can see under the heading "military

15 service," was assigned to the 3rd Army Pristina Corps 549th Brigade on the

16 8th of June 1998. And he explains the name of his operation; that is to

17 say, 1st Motorised Platoon, 3rd Squad, stationed in Djakovica barracks.

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. With three commanders there recorded: Commander Milan Markovic,

21 the squad commander; Lieutenant Rade Radojevic, the platoon commander. Do

22 you know that name at all?

23 A. No. They were most probably members of the army.

24 Q. Let me see if I can prompt your recollection. Mr. Radojevic was

25 convicted of murdering civilians on the 16th of September of 2002. Does

1 that prompt your recollection?

2 A. No.

3 Q. You weren't aware that one of the commanders who was stationed

4 near to the lake, as this man was, was subsequently convicted of murdering

5 Albanian civilians?

6 A. No, I wasn't aware of that.

7 Q. Very well. And then a company commander called Janos Sel. Do you

8 see that?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. Major Janos Sel. Now, If we can pick it up, please, at page 9,

11 under the heading -- do you see the heading at the bottom of page 9:

12 "Killings in the villages." Do you see that?

13 A. I do.

14 Q. So under that heading, if you could just turn to page 10, just

15 halfway down the page, if you can see a sentence that begins: "We

16 operated in the Radojicko Jerzero area. We first operated around

17 Silman-Baka and Babaj Boks areas and then headed north-east towards

18 Radojicko Jezero." Do you see that?

19 A. I do, but, again, it does not state which reach of the lake

20 exactly, because Babaj Boks is on the opposite side, facing the border

21 with Albania. And Lake Radonjic is to the north-east with Babaj Boks.

22 That is the north-east section of Lake Radonjic.

23 Q. Exactly so. We will come to the precise locations in just a

24 moment. Be patient. What the witness is there telling the OTP is that he

25 headed from Babaj Boks north-east to Radojicko Jezero, and you say that

1 would take you to the northern end of the lake. Is that correct?

2 A. Until the eastern or south-eastern reach of it, on the dam.

3 Q. Very well. Carry on on page 11.

4 "From Siman, we started moving north-east towards Radonjicko

5 lake. We were walking. We spent time around the lake until late August."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. I do.

8 Q. "Between Siman and Radonjicko, we went around two other villages.

9 They were populated villages.

10 "At the lake area, we attacked a number of villages: Raskoc,

11 Rakoc," and although it says "Donja Brits," in geographical terms that

12 must, I think, be Donji Bites and Gornji Bites. Do you see those two

13 references there?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. Do you know where Rakoc and Raskoc are, don't you?

16 A. On the northern side of the lake, in the direction of --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness repeat the name of the location.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat the name of the location

19 you --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Raskoc and Rakoc.

21 MR. EMMERSON:

22 Q. We can see them on our map on the northern tip of the lake, just

23 on the eastern side, I think. Is that correct?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Whether the witness can tell us what we see on the

25 map, he has nothing from Defence.

1 MR. EMMERSON: Let me put it to him in words, rather than take

2 time with the map.

3 Q. They are on the northern tip of the lake on the eastern side. Is

4 that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Close to the area where the canal joins the lake, would you agree?

7 A. I think it's on the opposite side of the lake. It's not that

8 close, really.

9 Q. Let me read on, because he then describes the other areas. Donji

10 Bites and Gornji Bites, they are on the western side of the lake, are

11 they?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And, in fact, you went through one of those villages on the

14 occasion that you visited on either the 8th or the 9th. Is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Let's just pick it up, if we can, just halfway down the page.

17 "Most of the people killed were killed in their yards while they

18 were trying to flee. We used to use anti-tank anti-armour launchers into

19 houses. This killed a lot of people. Orders were to kill people in their

20 yards or in front of their houses. Not everyone was killed. One group we

21 would get orders to kill everyone, so we would kill everyone. With other

22 groups, we would be under orders not to kill, so we would let them all go.

23 The Major made these orders and the 2nd Lieutenant sometimes, mostly the

24 Major.

25 "The largest group of persons killed that I am aware was ten

1 persons (women and children). This happened in Gornji Bites. It was in

2 August. We entered the village. We were under orders. We found the

3 group, and we were under orders to kill them, so we did.

4 "In 70 per cent of the villages we entered, the major would rape

5 at least one woman." And then he describes some further details in

6 relation to that.

7 He then says: "The women were in their 30s and 40s, men in their

8 50s, and two children about 12 or 13 years old. They were all killed by

9 rifle. They were killed in a group. They were moving in a group in one

10 of the side streets. That's where they were shot. No one lived. They

11 all died. They were all executed. They were shot at by two squads who

12 received orders to kill. One of those squads was my squad. Here one

13 could avoid shooting in the people because of the distance if they want.

14 The Major could not control who was shooting where."

15 He then says this: "We stayed in the area that night. The next

16 morning the bodies were gone.

17 "The Major was always near us during the attack because we were

18 positioned near the centre of the attacks being the 3rd Squad. There were

19 maybe five or six other men killed that day besides these ten, but those

20 are the ones I saw. This was a large village.

21 "The dead bodies would not be there the next morning. They were

22 collected by the militia." And then he refers over the page to leaving

23 the lake area in mid-September.

24 Now, as a crime scene investigator, Mr. Avramovic, were you aware

25 in mid-August of there having been a killing of a large number of people

1 in Gornji Bites by Serb forces?

2 A. No, I wasn't aware of that. Had I been aware of it, probably a

3 crime scene investigation would have been conducted, but these were

4 members of the VJ of the Yugoslav Army. They did not inform the police

5 force of their actions.

6 Q. So, if it's true that the bodies were cleared up afterwards by the

7 militia, can you just help us as to what the word "militia" might refer to

8 in this context?

9 A. I don't know. Perhaps the military police, perhaps the civilian

10 police.

11 Q. I see. But none of this was information that ever came through to

12 you?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. Was there a practice of moving bodies, as far as you were aware,

15 after killings in the villages in order to cover-up the Serb crimes?

16 A. I'm not aware of that.

17 Q. You are aware, of course, of the large numbers of bodies

18 transported to Serbia and recovered in the mass graves in Batajnica?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You told us, yesterday, that Lieutenant-Colonel Vlastimir

21 Djordjevic you thought may have attended the canal scene on the first day.

22 Is that right?

23 A. It is possible. I don't remember, though. There were quite a few

24 dignitaries. There was a crowd of people there on that day.

25 Q. I have one final topic I want to ask you questions about, and it

1 concerns the ballistics parts of your evidence. I can do this briefly.

2 Could you please turn --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Emmerson.

4 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Behind tab 32, we find in English two interviews --

6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- not real statements, and we now and then find

8 references to times so that's something happened for about 20 days or --

9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- it happened in August.

11 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: But to find the proper time-frame causes me quite

13 some difficulties.

14 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I can indicate how Your Honour can work that

15 out in relation to this particular statement.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. EMMERSON: The witness was assigned to the 3rd Army Pristina

18 Corps on the 8th of June, 1998.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what we, I think --

20 MR. EMMERSON: Under the heading "military service."

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. EMMERSON: If you turn to page 12, he indicates that he

23 deserted as a result of these crimes on the 15th of May, 1999.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 MR. EMMERSON: So, when he refers to August and September, he must

1 be referring to --

2 JUDGE ORIE: You mean there's only one August in that period --

3 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- and one September?

5 Mr. Dutertre, if you could assist me further, apart from August

6 and 20 days, I'm just trying to orient myself since it's been put to the

7 witness, and I'd like to fully understand what exactly it is that is put

8 to the witness. If there's nothing to add, Mr. Dutertre, then Mr.

9 Emmerson.

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.

11 MR. EMMERSON: It is, in fact --

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, nothing to add.

13 MR. EMMERSON: It is, in fact, possible to trace through the

14 witness's account of the time and to be clear, at least to the extent he

15 is referring, to a period in July and August.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The Prosecution is asked to switch off the mike.

19 MR. EMMERSON: I won't take a lot of time on it at the moment,

20 but --

21 JUDGE ORIE: No. The matter has been sufficiently clarified for

22 the time being.

23 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you. Thank you.

24 Q. Could you turn, please, to Exhibit 66 to your witness statement,

25 which ought to be in the black file of exhibits. This is the document you

1 have produced concerning ballistics analyses. Do you have that?

2 No. This is -- you won't find it in the yellow file. You had it

3 in front of you yesterday. That was the file of exhibits that was

4 produced by yourself attached to your witness statement, and I'm looking

5 at annex 66.

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters have not been provided with the

7 black file.

8 MR. EMMERSON: Very well. In which case, I shall read very

9 slowly.

10 Q. Can I just check to make sure we're looking at the right document.

11 Does the document that you have upon it, does it have a number at the top

12 left U0164231? Yes. Thank you.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, if you look at the third paragraph beginning on the 24th of

15 March, and then if you could please look at the second sentence in that

16 paragraph, it reads, in the English, as follows. I'll just read it

17 slowly.

18 "In the ballistics expert report 03 number 234-1-216/98, the

19 expert concluded the following: ..." And this is, I'm told, the exhibit,

20 for the sake of the record, which is P448.

21 "The casings sent for analysis had been fired from ten different

22 fire-arms, and the casings were identical to," and then there are three

23 bullet points. Do you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you know what has happened to the ballistics report that you

1 refer to there under the number 234-1-216/98?

2 A. This report exists in the Djakovica SUP and is part of the file,

3 the original I mean.

4 Q. It's not part of the papers that you've handed over or exhibited

5 to your witness statement, is it?

6 A. No.

7 Q. When did you last see that report?

8 A. Two years ago, and it does exist.

9 Q. Perhaps we may get to see it in due course, but can I ask you,

10 please, about these bullet points. First of all, this is you summarizing

11 what was in that report, is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You say in the first bullet point: "29 casings," that is, 29

14 casings which were allegedly found in Gllogjan on the 24th of March, "29

15 casings were identical to 29 casings found at the scene of the terrorist

16 attack on the house of Stevan Maslovaric, in the village of Pljancor on

17 the 7th of March."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. If you can drop down two bullet points, it also says, "29 casings

21 were identical to eight casings found during the crime scene investigation

22 into a terrorist attack on the house of Stevan Maslovaric, in the village

23 of Pljancor on the 7th of March."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes. The other 28 casings or 29, if I recall well, because quite

1 a few casings were found at the scene of crime. 158 in total were found

2 there as a result of that visit attack.

3 Q. So can I be clear, is it a coincidence then that 29 in the first

4 group match 29, and 29 in the second group match eight?

5 A. AK-47 rifle uses cartridge magazines of 30 bullets each, and

6 there's always one bullet less in it, so that there would be no jamming.

7 So it is the common practice with some soldiers to take one bullet out, in

8 order to prevent the jamming of the rifle, and that's the AK-47 rifle or

9 the Kalashnikov, which has 30 bullets in each of those magazines. That's

10 why it's mentioned here as it is.

11 Q. Do you know if the 29 casings in the first example are the same or

12 different from the 29 casings in the second example?

13 A. I believe they're different.

14 Q. And what do you base that on, Mr. Avramovic?

15 A. This was written based on the expert's report; in other words,

16 this is just - how shall I put it? - this is just an overview of the cases

17 of terrorist attacks that were somehow connected.

18 Q. Yes. And so far as the second part of your record is concerned,

19 in relation to the recovery of casings from the canal, the indication is

20 that 24 casings were identical to 29 casings found at the attack on the

21 house of Stevan Maslovaric, near the village of Pljancor. Do you see

22 that?

23 A. Not 24, this was a typing error. It should read 14, instead of

24 24.

25 Q. Very well. It should read 14, but, in fact, it was typed with, I

1 think, a "2" and a "1" at different times. Do you know whether the 29

2 casings, that 14 are said to have been identical to, were the first or the

3 second of the two 29 casings that are referred to in the first part of the

4 group of bullet points?

5 A. I can't say anything about that.

6 Q. And, when it refers then to the 29 casings found during the crime

7 scene investigation in Gllogjan, do you know if that is a reference to the

8 first 29 said to have been found at Stevan Mas -- at Gllogjan and to have

9 been connected to the ones found at Stevan Maslovaric's house, or the

10 second 29 that you say are different?

11 A. I can't say. I can't say anything with any precision. I should

12 have to consult the report. Maybe the expert did not specify anything.

13 When we send our reports, we say exactly the number of casings and he

14 didn't do that. All these casings should bear a marking on all of them,

15 and he never specified any of that.

16 Q. And you don't know, from your own records, whether the comparison

17 is with individual markings identifying it as an individual weapon or with

18 a kind of weapon with you, do you?

19 A. One individual weapon, based on the findings.

20 Q. And on what do you base that?

21 A. This is based on -- on the ballistic report.

22 Q. Well, I won't take you to it, but the ballistics report doesn't

23 say that, Mr. Avramovic.

24 A. When a ballistics expert says that the casings are identical, that

25 means that they were fired from one rifle, not from two similar rifles.

1 When it says "identical," then it means that they were fired from one and

2 the same rifle, because every rifle has its particular characteristics.

3 So when a ballistics expert says "identical," he means just one

4 individual rifle.

5 Q. And did you ever have an opportunity to study the basis for those

6 conclusions?

7 A. I'm familiar with the proceedings because I went through the

8 ballistics training that had to do with the identification of casings and

9 rifles from which the bullets were fired.

10 Q. My question was: Did you ever have an opportunity to study the

11 basis for the conclusions in the report that you have considered?

12 A. No, I didn't have that opportunity.

13 Q. And, finally, this: Paragraph 187 of your statement contains the

14 following two sentences, and you are referring here to the report of

15 Mr. Visnjic: "The report did not specify which casings matched with the

16 casings found at the crime scene. The ballistics report did not specify

17 the casings."

18 What did you mean by that?

19 A. If you look at the request that we forwarded to the ballistics

20 expert, together with the casings, you will see that we have described

21 exactly under what numbers were what casings fired, but he ignored that.

22 For example, there was number 1, 20 casings; number 2, 30 casings. But

23 the in his response, he did not replicate our request.

24 Q. His report refers to casings found in Gramaqel, doesn't it?

25 A. Yes, that's what you can find in the report.

1 Q. And you have transposed that in your exhibit 66 to Gllogjan,

2 haven't you?

3 A. Yes, because that investigation is filed under the name Glodjane.

4 I don't know how he came by his data. It's the same case, Glodjane.

5 Q. You say it's the same case. You didn't see the documents from

6 which he was working, did you?

7 A. He was working on the basis of our request that we forwarded,

8 together with the casings. There may have been an error in the request.

9 Maybe it says "Gramocelj," but I'm not sure. I don't have it on me. I

10 can't consult. I can't check.

11 Q. How do you know what it was that he was comparing? How are you in

12 a position to say he was comparing the Gllogjan rather than the Gramaqel,

13 when your request was simply to compare the Lake Radoniq canal casings

14 with any casings that they had on file? How do you know?

15 A. Every piece of mail that is dispatched is recorded under name.

16 Every document is tied to that number in order to avoid any possible

17 misunderstanding.

18 Q. Well --

19 A. This is the 03 number that you have on top of every document.

20 Q. Yes. Just to be clear so that we all understand, the request that

21 you sent to Mr. Visnjic to conduct comparisons was a request to conduct a

22 comparison between the 117 cartridges found and any cartridges deposited

23 in a collection in Pristina. Isn't that correct?

24 A. Yes, with a collection of cartridges that were tied to the

25 terrorist attacks.

1 Q. And you don't know which ones he is comparing them with, do you?

2 A. Most probably the entire collection.

3 Q. So, when he's making the connection with Gramaqel, on what basis

4 do you say he meant to say Gllogjan? What basis have you for making that

5 assertion?

6 A. Based on the number under which it was recorded, the 03 plus the

7 date of the event. There were very few events taking place on the same

8 date. On that particular day, there was just one terrorist attack, and

9 there could have been no confusion about that.

10 Q. Well, just pause with me for a moment, if you would, please,

11 because there is no number, is there - perhaps you can help me - on the

12 expert's report which enables you to see which file he was comparing it

13 with, is there?

14 A. There is a number as part of the heading, which is relative to our

15 number, the number of our request.

16 Q. Yes, that's the number of your request, and you've told us your

17 request was to compare the canal casings with any casings in collection;

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is there any number in Captain Visnjic's report which connects to

21 the casings allegedly seized in Gllogjan, any number?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. --

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to be

24 certain that the witness has the appropriate report in front of him

25 because this had been excluded. I want to be absolutely certain he has

1 the proper text in front of him.

2 MR. EMMERSON: Very well. It's Exhibit 63, I believe. Yes, annex

3 63 is the report and annex 62 is the request.

4 Q. Just have a look at that quickly.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could a -- perhaps a hard copy of both of these

6 documents. 62 is not excluded, I think, 63 is. I leave it -- it was upon

7 your --

8 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- request, at least Defence request, to exclude 63.

10 For these purposes, you would like to withdraw that?

11 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I'm not withdrawing it. It's just that in

12 order to understand the witness's testimony ...

13 Q. You see, if you look at Exhibit 62, that's your request, is it

14 not?

15 A. Yes, it is.

16 Q. And that doesn't make any specific reference, does it, to the

17 Gllogjan file?

18 A. This refers to Radonjic lake and Dasinovac.

19 Q. And it asks the experts to compare the casings to all casings in

20 the collection; correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And, then if you turn to annex 63, there is the report which we

23 can see reaches a conclusion about Gramaqel on the 24th of March. And you

24 told us a moment ago that you could connect that with Gllogjan because of

25 a reference number in the report. Could you tell us, please, what

1 reference number in the report you're there referring to?

2 A. In the report the date is what matters.

3 Q. So it's the date --

4 A. The date of the terrorist attack. I thought there would be a

5 reference number, but I could not be sure of that before I actually

6 consulted the document. On that day there was just one terrorist attack,

7 just one on-site investigation. There could have been no confusion about

8 that.

9 Q. So let's be clear. You withdraw the testimony indicating that

10 there is a reference number. Is that right?

11 A. I believe that there was a number, but you're right, it's not

12 there.

13 Q. On the 24th of March, there was a substantial operation in which

14 Serb forces, including special forces, entered into Gllogjan through

15 Gramaqel. Is that not correct?

16 A. I believe that it was from several directions, but I don't know.

17 I'm not sure.

18 Q. Exactly so. There was fighting all over the area on the 24th of

19 March, including in Irzniq and surrounding villages, was there not?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. How do you know that the comparison here being made is with

22 specific casings seized in Gllogjan rather than Gramaqel?

23 A. Because we were the only body authorised to send casings for

24 ballistics analysis; in other words, what my colleagues found in Glodjane

25 was sent for analysis. There were no other casings. We were the only

1 ones to send requests for ballistics analysis.

2 Q. Were you there when they were found?

3 A. No, but my colleagues were.

4 Q. Do you have any record available of where they were found, those

5 particular casings?

6 A. I believe that there must be sketches here on the file.

7 Q. We'll look to see if there is a reference to the specific

8 cartridges in issue. Finally this: You say in your addendum, addendum

9 number 2, that the reason you can make a connection is because the

10 Haradinaj family home is located near the border between Gllogjan and

11 Gramaqel.

12 There is no border, Mr. Avramovic, between Gllogjan and Gramaqel.

13 Between Gllogjan and Gramaqel are the villages of Dubrave and Shaptej.

14 Isn't that right?

15 A. Saptej is somewhat to the north and Dubrava is in between.

16 There's no border. This is a misunderstanding.

17 Q. Yes. The Haradinaj family home is close to the border between the

18 municipalities of Gllogjan and of Dubrave; correct?

19 A. Yes, that should be the case.

20 Q. And so Gramaqel is some considerable distance further on?

21 A. Two or three kilometres maybe.

22 Q. Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I'm looking at the time.

24 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm so sorry. I've concluded with my

25 cross-examination.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

2 Mr. Guy-Smith.

3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, as much as I would like to sally forth, I

4 don't wish to cover a ground that has been covered, and, therefore, I have

5 no questions of this witness at this time. I'm satisfied --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- with the state of the record.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey, still less time needed than Mr. --

9 MR. HARVEY: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

11 Mr. Dutertre, any need to put further questions? I already can

12 tell you that the Chamber for very practical reasons has to adjourn four

13 minutes from now. How much time would you need?

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Approximately ten minutes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I suggest that we have the break now, and

16 we'll have a break for 20 minutes. And may I remind the parties that very

17 often already halfway the Chamber fully understands what the issue is and

18 whether there's any formal border or whether there's a village in between,

19 the Chamber by now can know these details.

20 And, of course, to put questions to the witness with the certainty

21 that sometimes there is no logical answer to be given, the Chamber

22 sometimes has a preview or a feeling that that would be the case.

23 MR. EMMERSON: I apologise.

24 JUDGE ORIE: If the parties would please keep that in mind for the

25 remainder of the examination.

1 We'll have a break for 20 minutes. We'll resume at 20 minutes to

2 1.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, you may proceed.

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Re-examination by Mr. Dutertre:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Avramovic, yesterday you indicated that you

9 had seen a number of individuals who had been arrested on September 3rd in

10 your office, and that you saw part of those people the first time you went

11 to the lake. My question is as follows: When you saw those individuals

12 who had been arrested again, did you notice any signs that they had been

13 beaten on these individuals?

14 A. No, I didn't.

15 Q. And, more generally, did you notice any other signs of poor

16 treatment?

17 A. I could only see that they were tired.

18 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to go on to another topic which

19 relates to the issue of the dates of your first visit to the lake. You

20 indicated that you thought that the first visit took place on September

21 9th, in particular you indicated that this was on the basis of documents

22 that you consulted later on, that you saw later on, and you mentioned in

23 particular a document which was a document by -- made by the investigating

24 magistrate.

25 My first question relating to that is as follows: Did that

1 investigating magistrate, or rather, was that investigating magistrate

2 present the first time you went to the lake?

3 A. No, he was not present. It was only on the following day, on the

4 10th, that he arrived on the site for the first time. I'm talking about

5 September 1998.

6 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to refer to paragraph 106 of your

7 witness statement, in particular a request made by Judge Gojkovic dated

8 September 9th, 1998. This is annex 26 of your consolidated statement. My

9 question is as follows, if you would be so kind as to answer: Do you know

10 whether or not the judge wrote the text before he himself went to the

11 lake, that is, when he found out about it; or after he went to the lake,

12 having seen the actual site; or later on?

13 A. I believe that he did it based on the information that we

14 collected on site. The team reported back to him, and I believe that the

15 document was drafted based on that, before he came to the site.

16 Q. Thank you very much. I'd like to go on to the third item. On

17 page 11 of the transcript, this morning's transcript, Mr. Emmerson asked

18 you the following question, and I shall read it out in English:

19 [In English] "It's perfectly possible for Serbian officials to get

20 to the canal area from Donji Bites. Is that right."

21 And your answer was: "Yes."

22 [Interpretation] I would like to ask you to clarify that answer.

23 When you say "yes," do you mean that it was possible to go to the canal

24 from Donji Bites on that particular day, that is, when you went to the

25 lake for your first visit; or are you referring to the previous period,

1 that is, the period before this visit, that in general it was possible for

2 the Serb forces to go to the canal before that date?

3 A. No, I said only that day. It was not possible on any of the

4 previous days. On that day, this was the only safe road to the site.

5 Q. Thank you very much. Another issue, Mr. Avramovic, which is still

6 related to the canal, however. When you arrived at the canal the first

7 day, were there other members of the police or Serb officers there? Did

8 they arrive in the afternoon?

9 A. They arrived after us. They were the first ones to arrive, the

10 investigating team and security. The other teams arrived after us, but I

11 don't know when.

12 Q. Thank you very much. I would like to go on to something

13 completely different.

14 You indicated that you participated in the recovery of the bodies

15 that were discovered on September 23rd, 1998. My first question on this

16 topic is as follows: Between the date of your first visit and the 16th,

17 when you indicated that the recovery of bodies, that is, the first series

18 of bodies, the recovery had been completed. So, again, I -- between the

19 first day and the 16th, did you go to the precise places where the bodies

20 were subsequently found on September 23rd, 1998?

21 A. We didn't go. It was a very large area to search. That's why all

22 the bodies were not found immediately there. Bodies were concealed. Some

23 branches and twigs were strewn all over them.

24 Q. Thank you very much. I have an additional question on this same

25 topic. On the 23rd, was this the first time that you saw those bodies?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. I would like to go on to one last point. You

3 indicated that on March 24th, 1998, when Mr. Otovic, the police officer,

4 was killed, that was the only incident that occurred on that day, in the

5 territory that we're referring to around Gllogjan. Can you tell the Court

6 whether or not there were police investigations carried out on that day?

7 A. There may have been some events, but the only case about which an

8 investigation was carried out was that event in Glodjane and that

9 particular terrorist attack.

10 Q. Thank you. I'd like to refer to paragraph 188 of your

11 consolidated statement as well as annex 64. I'm particularly interested,

12 Mr. Avramovic, in two documents whose ERN numbers are as follows -- in

13 fact, there are two. It's document U002-5418 up to U002-5422.

14 My question, Mr. Avramovic, is: Is this document a document that

15 results from the investigation carried out in March -- March 24th, 1998,

16 following the event that took place in Otovic, the Otovic event?

17 A. Just a moment. Let me locate that.

18 Q. Fine, take your time.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. [Microphone not activated]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecution.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Dutertre.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] For information, it's 64 [as

24 interpreted] ter 1465.

25 Q. I will put my question differently. Is this document the result

1 of an investigation carried out following the death of Mr. Otovic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I would like to ask you to take a look at page 4 of this document,

4 which is a sketch. Both in the Serb and English-language versions, there

5 is a word that is "key" or "legend."

6 [In English] "... with cartridge cases beside the window in which

7 fire was opened in the direction of the patrol."

8 [Interpretation] Can you see that passage?

9 A. Not just one casing. There were several.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, is that the page of what you said there

11 are translations now but the Chamber has not yet?

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Well, I do have some additional

13 copies.

14 JUDGE ORIE: These are exactly the -- that was, of course, the

15 concern of the Chamber where it had no agenda, when it asked for full

16 translations. So additional copies, I would say, the Chamber is the first

17 one to get copies here.

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] So it's on page 4 in the

19 English-language translation.

20 Your Honour, this is my last question.

21 Q. The casings that are mentioned in this sketch, are they the

22 casings that were collected during the investigation carried out following

23 the death of Mr. Otovic?

24 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry, before the witness answers that question.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 MR. EMMERSON: My understanding is that this witness was not

3 present.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 Mr. Dutertre, I think the first matter that should be clarified as

6 to whether the witness is the author or whether he personally attended

7 when these casings were found.

8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Avramovic, were you -- were you personally present when this

10 investigation was carried out?

11 A. I wasn't, but I know a colleague of mine who was.

12 Q. What is the name of that colleague?

13 A. Veselin Nesovic.

14 Q. Well, Mr. Avramovic, how can you know then that the casings

15 mentioned on this sketch were the casings collected by Mr. Nesovic, the

16 colleague you mentioned, or one or other of the individuals who were

17 present?

18 A. These were the casings he brought over from that scene of crime as

19 part of the standard procedure, and I know this because there were no

20 other casings found and there were no other scenes of crime attended on

21 that day.

22 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Avramovic. I have no further questions.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Just one point, if I may. The

24 corrected version of the consolidated statement is now in the e-court

25 system, and I would like to request the -- I would like to tender both the

1 document and the annexes in evidence, as well as all of the annexes for

2 which exhibit numbers I believe have already been given meanwhile.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it with the exception of 63 again. Yes.

4 MR. EMMERSON: We haven't, in fact, seen the amended version.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I take it that if the amendments are made

6 properly, that we'll then hear from you.

7 Any further --

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: I have one or more questions to you, Mr. Avramovic,

10 but let me just ...

11 Questioned by the Court:

12 JUDGE ORIE: You told us that you recently reviewed the entries in

13 the crime scene register. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And now where exactly - I think you gave us the place

16 where they were stored - was that in?

17 A. In the Djakovica SUP, in Jagodina.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, are all the materials stored in Jagodina

19 in relation to this case, or just this crime scene register?

20 A. Everything that we were involved in doing. Original photographs,

21 original photo album photographs, the negatives, all of that is kept in

22 Jagodina.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the casings you sent in ...?

24 A. The casings were sent to the SUP in Pristina and were kept there

25 because of the collection that they were keeping.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then another question is: Were ever any

2 bullets sent in for comparison in relation to, as you called them,

3 terrorist cases?

4 A. I believe that they were, but I don't recall whether they existed

5 in relation to this particular case. If there were some found at the

6 scene of crime, then they must have been sent.

7 JUDGE ORIE: But you're personally not aware of any bullets being

8 seized, well, let's say, at the Lake Radonjic canal, the concrete part?

9 A. I know that bullets were found in the bodies during autopsies.

10 JUDGE ORIE: And do you know what happened with those bullets?

11 A. I don't.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.

13 Then, Mr. Avramovic, this concludes your evidence. I'd like to

14 thank you for coming to The Hague and for answering all the questions that

15 have been put to you. I wish you a safe trip home again.

16 Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Avramovic out of the

17 courtroom.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, has a list already been prepared in

20 relation to the previous and this witness in view --

21 [French on English channel]

22 JUDGE ORIE: [No interpretation]

23 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, I'm very sorry.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I usually switch to 5 if I want to hear French.

25 Mr. Emmerson.

1 MR. EMMERSON: The answer is that there is a work in progress as

2 we speak, both in relation to Mr. Bajcetic and in relation to

3 Mr. Avramovic, and we will be in a position to provide the details to

4 Madam Registrar by the end of the morning today.

5 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it also to the Prosecution?

6 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Dutertre or Mr. Re, you're both present.

8 Your next witness would be Professor Aleksandric, as far as I understand?

9 MR. RE: Yes. Professor Aleksandric is the next witness. He's

10 here, available to testify now. Ms. Issa will lead that witness through

11 his evidence, Mr. Dutertre, and I will be in the court.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 But Ms. Issa is not. Oh, you're hidden. Ms. Issa, I should have

14 not said this.

15 MS. ISSA: It's no problem.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I couldn't see you from here.

17 Mr. Emmerson.

18 MR. EMMERSON: There's been a discussions between the parties

19 about redactions to the Rule 92 ter statement.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. EMMERSON: They have not all been agreed. What we propose

22 from this side of the bar is that Your Honours have the Rule 92 ter

23 statement; it be marked for identification; the discussions continue,

24 objections be taken to testimony as it is elicited orally; and then, if it

25 is necessary, at the end of the testimony to seek the Trial Chamber's

1 ruling on any particular passage, that come be done prior to this a

2 decision on admission. Is that acceptable to the Trial Chamber?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, Is that acceptable to you for the time being

4 MR. RE: As a provisional measure, yes. I sent a letter, I think,

5 to the Trial Chamber and to the parties setting out the eight areas of

6 disagreement remaining.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll proceed on this basis.

8 Then, this morning, I said at a certain moment that I thought

9 Mr. Dunjic also was a professor. I usually do not use titles if it's in

10 relation to experts, so I hardly call anyone "general" or "minister" or

11 anything like that. I think, however, calling someone as "professor," if

12 he appears as an expert in the field in which he is a professor, that is

13 different. This is just to explain my approach of this matter.

14 Is Professor Aleksandric nearby, Madam Usher?

15 Mr. Re.

16 MR. RE: While he's coming in, I perhaps could assist the Trial

17 Chamber on his way in. Ms. Issa has prepared or we have had prepared a

18 binder in relation to -- a photograph album for the Trial Chamber's

19 assistance and that of the Defence of the photographs which we will show

20 the witness during his examination-in-chief. That could be distributed

21 now.

22 In relation to his 92 ter statement, there are a number of

23 proposed attachments and exhibits. A chart has been drawn setting out the

24 proposed exhibit number in one column, with a 65 ter number in the other.

25 We had to put a virtual number on what we anticipated was going to be the

1 next number available in the court. So, assuming we are up to P456 and

2 it's still current, this is the proposed list of exhibits for the witness,

3 and if that can be distributed to the Defence and to the Trial Chamber,

4 which I have been has been circulated.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we have seen such a list. It has been

6 informally communicated already to the Chamber's staff. There's, of

7 course, one pending issue. We now slowly moved from 94 bis to 92 ter.

8 Are we receiving all the evidence through the 92 ter statement with

9 attachments, with additional testimony in court? Or should we still

10 decide the -- I think there were four statements that were filed on the

11 12th of January, if I do not make any mistake, that were then presented as

12 expert reports under 94 bis.

13 [Prosecution counsel confer]

14 MR. RE: We originally, yes, did file a proposed statement under

15 Rule 94 bis as a proposed expert report.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. RE: I doubt there's any disagreement from the Defence

18 Professor Aleksandric is a qualified expert; however, in the

19 circumstances, we simply propose to lead what would normally be an expert

20 report by 92 ter, lead some oral evidence, and have him cross-examined in

21 the end. You actually come to the same result in the end.

22 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, only the 92 ter statement finally will

23 contain the whole of the evidence the Prosecution wants to present in

24 relation to Professor Aleksandric --

25 MR. RE: That's correct.

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- of course, with all the attachments?

2 MR. RE: Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: So the 94 bis, 12th of January, has been dealt with.

4 This raises some other questions since Professor Aleksandric has

5 not yet entered the courtroom. Is there any challenge to Professor

6 Aleksandric being an expert? I mean, this is not whether you would agree

7 with all the methods he has used, but just whether he qualifies as an

8 expert.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: There's no disagreement that he qualifies as an

10 expert. There may be some disagreement as to the extent of his expertise.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Okay. Mr. Harvey, same position as far --

12 MR. HARVEY: I take the same position, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, I noted that earlier you were on your

14 feet, and then once I gave priority to someone else you --

15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perfectly fine. And it was taken care of.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Thank you.

17 Ms. Issa, the Chamber would very much like to deal with the two

18 expert witnesses before the end of tomorrow's hearing. So, if you would

19 please keep that in mind, there will only be examination-in-chief at this

20 moment.

21 [The witness entered court]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon --

23 THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated]

24 JUDGE ORIE: -- Professor Aleksandric.

25 THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated]

1 THE INTERPRETER: The microphones are not switched on.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 Professor Aleksandric, before you give evidence in this court, the

4 Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration

5 that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

6 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Professor Aleksandric. Please be seated.

10 You'll first be examined by Ms. Issa, who's counsel for the

11 Prosecution. And I take it that she has explained to you that the Chamber

12 already received a lengthy statement in which you give already quite

13 extensive report on your activities. So please be aware that the Chamber

14 is aware of that.

15 Ms. Issa, please proceed.

16 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 WITNESS: BRANIMIR ALEKSANDRIC

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Examination by Ms. Issa:

20 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Aleksandric. Dr. Aleksandric.

21 A. Good afternoon. I'm listening to you.

22 Q. Okay. Just to -- just for the record, Dr. Aleksandric, would you

23 please state your full name.

24 A. Branimir Aleksandric; father's name Vitomir.

25 Q. And your date of birth is what?

1 A. I was born on the 21st of September, 1949, in Belgrade, Serbia.

2 Q. And, just very briefly, sir, you're presently a professor and

3 director of forensic medicine the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the

4 University of Belgrade. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You are also a professor of forensic medicine at the faculty of --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, let's be very practical. This is paragraph

8 1 of the --

9 MS. ISSA: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- statement of Professor Aleksandric.

11 Professor Aleksandric, in your statement, you've listed your

12 present positions, a lot. The Chamber is aware of that.

13 Please proceed, Ms. Issa.

14 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Perhaps, sir, I can just ask you a couple of quick questions just

16 in brief. Can you indicate how many crime scenes you've attended over the

17 course of your career, that's not contained in your statement?

18 A. In my career, it was not part of my job to attend scene crimes --

19 crime scenes. However, in my 30-odd years of career and experience, I

20 would join the police force to attend crime scenes of certain murders in

21 Belgrade. As far as mass graves are concerned, this was the first time I

22 worked on that, save for Batajnica in 2002. I also have some experience

23 in exhuming bodies in Bosnia in the course of the war there.

24 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, Professor Aleksandric, during the course

25 of -- during the week of June 11, 2007, you gave a statement to the Office

1 of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you've reviewed that statement in the Serbian language, which

4 is your language, is that right, to make sure that it's accurate?

5 A. Yes, correct.

6 Q. And you signed that statement and found it to be accurate. Is

7 that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I would ask that the witness be shown

10 P456, Exhibit P456.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And that is, Ms. Issa?

12 MS. ISSA: Sorry. That's the 92 ter statement.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 Has a number been assigned? By whom? That is good cooperation

15 between the registry --

16 MS. ISSA: It has, yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: That's great.

18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Since it's not the final version yet, it doesn't make

20 that much of a difference whether it's shown through Sanction or whether

21 Madam Registrar should show it. Yes. I've on my screen now a curriculum

22 vitae.

23 MS. ISSA: That's the wrong exhibit.

24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the wrong one? I don't know who -- I take it

25 that comes from the Prosecution, then if you could show us the right one.

1 MS. ISSA: Yes.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We've got it now in front of ourselves.

4 What's your question, Ms. Issa?

5 MS. ISSA:

6 Q. [Microphone not activated]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for Ms. Issa.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, microphone, please.

9 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry.

10 Q. That's your statement and your signature, is that correct,

11 Dr. Aleksandric?

12 A. I can't make out any of this. I can't see it properly, but

13 whatever I signed, that's true.

14 [Prosecution counsel confer]

15 MS. ISSA:

16 Q. If you can just look at the very bottom of the screen.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a possibility to zoom-in or not?

18 MS. ISSA: Yes, there is. We're just about to do that, Your

19 Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes. [Interpretation] Yes, those are my initials.

22 Correct.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I would ask that the witness be permitted

2 to have a hard copy of his statement to refer to it --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MS. ISSA: -- as he goes along in it.

5 JUDGE ORIE: May a hard copy be provided to Professor Aleksandric.

6 Ms. Issa.

7 MS. ISSA: Yes. I'd like to just tender the --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Issa, the Rules require two matters to be

9 tested: The first one to be whether it reflects what he said, the second

10 is - I didn't invent the Rule - that whether the witness would give the

11 same answers if the same questions would be put to him.

12 MS. ISSA: Certainly, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: So, if you would, please, seek that.

14 MS. ISSA: I will.

15 Q. Sir, after that you reviewed you statement, you've now indicated

16 that that is your signature. Does that statement reflect what you would

17 say in court today if you were asked about the same matters?

18 A. Of course.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A decision on admission will be -- will be

20 given at a later stage when the matters of any redactions have been

21 settled.

22 Please proceed, Ms. Issa. But the document is now marked for

23 identification.

24 MS. ISSA: Yes. Thank you.

25 Your Honour, perhaps to save time just at the outset, I would like

1 to indicate I would be tendering all the exhibits at the end of

2 Dr. Aleksandric's testimony.

3 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine.

4 MS. ISSA:

5 Q. Dr. Aleksandric, you refer to, in paragraph 7-8 of your statement,

6 receiving a request from the investigative Judge Gojkovic from the Pec

7 district court during September 1998; and in paragraph 9 of your

8 statement, you say that you were assigned to a team to investigate the

9 crime scene. Can you just indicate how did you first learn of the bodies

10 at the Lake Radonjic canal?

11 A. The request from investigating judge was dated the 9th of

12 September, and I believe it was received by the institute on the 10th of

13 September. It was a request addressing the institute to assign a team

14 that would go down into the field, inspect the site, to recover the

15 bodies, and perform autopsies of any remains found.

16 In the course of the 10th, we, the colleagues, agreed amongst us

17 who would go and Snezana Veljkovic, the head of our department, officially

18 accompanied this team. And this document bears the date of either the

19 10th or the 11th of September. Professor Dunjic and I, my colleague

20 Jecmenica, and Radivoje Krajisnik were assigned that team.

21 Q. And in paragraph 12 of your statement, you say that you arrived at

22 the Lake Radonjic canal area on 11 September. Did you see any bodies upon

23 arriving?

24 A. When we arrived in the area next to the canal, we immediately saw

25 several corpses lying on the ground. These were the bodies that we were

1 able to see in that patch of grass. Most of the bodies were covered by

2 earth and only parts of their bodies were visible.

3 Q. All right. Turning then to Exhibit P452, if you can look at your

4 screen and just explain what were your first observations.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, perhaps this is an exhibit -- witnesses

6 comment on what they see, therefore, it should be perfectly clear, either

7 on the basis of the running numbers at the bottom or by the correct or not

8 correct dates and times indicated on the videotape, what the witness was

9 looking at and to what he comments. So could you please then say start at

10 this time or start at 4.30.

11 MS. ISSA: Certainly, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because otherwise it's totally impossible later

13 to know what the witness actually saw.

14 Please proceed.

15 MS. ISSA: All right.

16 Q. I think it started around 4.40.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could we restart it now. I don't think it did at

18 4.40 because it is now at 4.42, that's 2 seconds.

19 MS. ISSA: If we could then --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Restart --

21 MS. ISSA: -- restart the portion, please.

22 [Videotape played]

23 JUDGE ORIE: It starts at 3.55, approximately.

24 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. What begins at 3.35?

1 It says here 11.22. I don't understand what starts at 3.35. I'm not with

2 you. You've lost me. It says --.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- on the footage, the date is 11 of

5 September and the time is 11.22 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Aleksandric, there is a counter a little bit

7 further down, red numbers. It has been established by now --

8 THE WITNESS: Okay, okay, okay.

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- It has been established by now that at least the

10 time - I'm not saying anything more - the time being, I think, somewhere

11 in the middle of the night might not be correct. Therefore, this is just

12 administrative matters we'll be able to handle. Just concentrate on what

13 you see and answer the questions in relation to that.

14 Could we go back to 3.55 or 3.56.

15 MS. ISSA: If we could just go to the --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the left wall of the

17 concrete man-made canal. Its interior side leads to the water-flow show

18 many signs of damage, of bullet damage. This is the plateau next to the

19 right exterior wall, and here the camera zooms-in on the place where the

20 group of bodies were found, either on the surface of the ground or very

21 close to it.

22 This is the video footage that the cameraman did before we started

23 marking the bodies. This is just a general view of the situation.

24 MS. ISSA:

25 Q. All right. And did you meet anyone when you first arrived at

1 the --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, the video stops at 4.42. Please proceed.

3 MS. ISSA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. Did you meet anyone when you first arrived at the scene?

5 A. Yes. There were lots of police officers there who secured the

6 area and the general area. There was a lorry, ready to transport the

7 bodies. There was also a tent that had been put up for logistics

8 purposes. This is the tent where we used to eat in or take our

9 refreshments during the breaks.

10 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, but what I would like you to explain is

11 that you indicate in paragraph 12 of your statement that you met with the

12 Serbian police who were already at the scene, and then you say that: "The

13 police found the bodies about two days before we arrived at the scene."

14 Can you indicate how you knew that the police found the bodies two

15 days before you arrived at the scene?

16 A. The conclusion was simple. If we arrived there on the 11th and

17 Judge Gojkovic's document was dated the 9th, that's two days. But also we

18 heard that two days before our arrival the bodies were found. So based on

19 those two things, I drew my conclusion.

20 Q. Who did you hear this from?

21 A. From Judge Gojkovic and from the police officers who were there.

22 Q. Now, you also say in paragraph 13 that immediately after you

23 arrived at Lake Radonjic you then went to the Ekonomija farm. Is that

24 correct?

25 A. Correct. When we arrived and when we took stock of that part of

1 the canal, immediately after that, the police took us to the Ekonomija

2 because a body had been found there as well. So they wanted us to inspect

3 that place as well.

4 Q. How far is the Ekonomija farm to the canal?

5 A. In my free estimate, as you go down the road, it's 300 metres. We

6 were taken there by a lorry -- actually, by an off-road vehicle.

7 Q. When you arrived at the Ekonomija farm, can you just briefly

8 describe what you saw there?

9 A. The police showed us the place where the body had been found. It

10 was a canal; and in that canal which was covered with mobile plates, a

11 body was found, a body of a man. We marked the body immediately, we

12 recovered it, we put it on the lorry, and we returned to the original

13 canal since the police did not find any other bodies at the Ekonomija.

14 Q. Just to clarify, when you refer to "it was a canal," in paragraph

15 54 of your statement, you say that at the Ekonomija farm, one body was

16 found indeed the drainage canal. And that's what you're referring to; is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you also describe in that same paragraph, 54, that the crime

20 scene was marked at the site RE1, then photographed and filmed. You just

21 indicated you marked the body. Can you indicate -- can you just explain

22 briefly why you marked it with RE1?

23 A. As we arrived at the Ekonomija where the police had found one

24 body, we marked it as "RE" which stood for place Rznic, that's R, and "E"

25 stands for Ekonomija, and number "1" stands for body number 1. This was

1 the code that we agreed on immediately, and the bodies that would be found

2 300 metres from there by the canal would be marked with letter R standing

3 for Rznic, and then we would use numbers in sequence to mark every

4 subsequent body, in order to make a distinction between the site called

5 Ekonomija and the site at the canal or at along the canal. That's why we

6 used two different markings.

7 Q. And in paragraph 55 of your statement, you describe the farm as

8 having two large rooms, stables for livestock with an automatic watering

9 trough, and that there were seven electrical cables covered with plastic

10 isolation, separately with dead knots to a horizontal medal rod, near

11 seven watering troughs for livestock. Can you indicate what was the

12 significance of finding those cables?

13 MR. EMMERSON: I think Your Honour will anticipate the objection

14 to that question and the nature of opinion evidence it is seeking to

15 elicit.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, is it clear to you what the objection is?

17 MS. ISSA: Well, not entirely, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think it is that -- I take it, Mr. Emmerson,

19 that you would consider the expertise of this witness to be mainly in the

20 field of forensic medicine and not in forensic science in general.

21 MS. ISSA: Well --

22 MR. EMMERSON: The objection is that it is not for -- within the

23 competence of this witness to be expressing opinions as to what he thought

24 might be the purpose, which is I think the object of the question, for

25 which items of cabling that he saw when he attended may have been put

1 there or how they got the there or what they were for.

2 MS. ISSA: That's not the object of the question; sorry, Your

3 Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps you put the question in such a way that

5 there's no confusion. I take it that we would rather first go through the

6 facts as far as wire is concerned, and then -- at least that's how it is

7 presented.

8 Please proceed.

9 MS. ISSA: All right.

10 Q. Can you -- I've just indicated a description that you have in your

11 statement as to this cable. Can you provide us with any further

12 description of the cable that was found at the farm?

13 A. Those were electrical cables that are normally used in

14 construction for electricity. Those cables were somewhat stronger, the

15 size of a finger. I don't know any technical specifications of these

16 cable. At one end they were closely and firmly tied to a bar above the

17 trough, and on the other end they showed a very clean cut.

18 There were seven of them, and we found some burned newspapers at

19 the level of the area where the cables were cut. Later on by a body that

20 we marked as R-8 near the canal, we found a segment of an identical cable.

21 Q. Okay. Did you find this cable anywhere else in your processing of

22 any other crime scene or similar cable anywhere else?

23 A. I can't remember exactly. I believe that it was found only by

24 body number 8 or by some other body. In any case, you can consult my

25 daily report to be sure of the number of the body by which it was found.

1 Q. Now, when you say it was found by some other body, what other body

2 are you referring to? Where was that other body located?

3 A. I said that I believe that this was by the body marked as R-8,

4 which was found next to the concrete part of the canal, a body that was

5 among the first group. I believe it was body R-8, but I'm not sure so you

6 shouldn't hold me to it.

7 In any case, I concluded that answer by saying that you can make

8 sure about the number of body by which the cable was found if you consult

9 my daily report.

10 Q. All right. Well, we'll get do that at some point, but I would

11 like to turn to Exhibit P609. Can you look at your screen?

12 A. Yes. That is the transversal bar, and here you can see a

13 policeman holding the free end of the cable, whose other end is firmly

14 tied to that bar by a very special type of knot that we refer to as dead

15 knot.

16 Q. Okay. And that was taken at the -- that depicts the farm. Is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes, that's the Ekonomija, the farm.

19 Q. You also mentioned that some burnt papers were found underneath

20 the places where the cables were found, were tied. Did you -- what made

21 you take notice of that?

22 A. We searched the area very broadly, and we made note of any detail

23 that might prove to be of interest for a forensic investigation. And we

24 did not find the burned papers anywhere else along the transfer bar but

25 the places where the cables were tied. That's what made it so

1 interesting.

2 Q. Was there any other -- was it significant to you for any other

3 reason?

4 MR. EMMERSON: Again, I think it's plain where Ms. Issa is going

5 with this. She's seeking in different forms of question to elicit opinion

6 evidence, which is the subject of an objection.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know yet what she's seeking. Whether it

8 was significant to you for any other reason, then, of course, we will hear

9 whether it was and for what reason. And if that would amount to any

10 opinion evidence which is not within the field of expertise of the

11 witness, we'll then -- I take it then --

12 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I think, if I may say so, the witness has

13 given -- I'm not going to press the objection, but the witness has given a

14 description of the circumstances in which this material was found and

15 supplementary question --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do agree.

17 Ms. Issa, you see that there's some concern about drawing

18 conclusions which might not be in the direct field of expertise of this

19 witness. Could you please keep that in the back of your mind when putting

20 the questions to the witness, because if you make them too vague then, of

21 course, there is a risk that that evidence comes to us.

22 On the other hand, as may be clear to you, this is an expert

23 witness. He can give opinion evidence; but, of course, if there would be

24 any trace of any opinion which is not inside what we expect to be his

25 field of expertise, then, of, course we would need a further foundation

1 for that. And then we can decide whether such opinion is or is not within

2 his field of expertise.

3 At the same time, Mr. Emmerson, you also -- you can develop some

4 expertise, even if you would ask a general expert in forensic science,

5 they sometimes develop some additional expertise on matters closely

6 related to that. If we would find such expertise, then, of course, we

7 would have to explore on what it is based and how this expertise was

8 gained. So, therefore, let's try not to work on the square millimetre and

9 square centimetre when a field of hectares would be enough.

10 I'm looking at the clock, Ms. Issa.

11 Professor Aleksandric, we stop at a quarter to 2.00.

12 One second, please.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn, Professor Aleksandric, until tomorrow,

15 9.00, in this same courtroom. Could I already invite Madam Usher to

16 escort you out of the courtroom.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: I've forgotten. One second, one second. You

19 understand, one second. I'd like to instruct you that you should not

20 speak to anyone about your testimony, the testimony you have given up till

21 now, or the testimony still to be given tomorrow. Is that clear?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that. You shouldn't worry.

23 [In English] Thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And it's my duty to tell you.

25 [The witness stands down]

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Issa, I noticed that quite a portion of the

2 evidence you elicited from the witness clearly appears in his 92 ter

3 statement. Would you perhaps give it some additional thought overnight

4 how to focus on those matters that really need further explanation so that

5 we finally will be able to finish the two expert witnesses tomorrow.

6 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, I will. It was just a matter of

7 getting some context at the start, but I will certainly bear that in mind.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 We stand adjourned until 9.00 tomorrow, same courtroom.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of

12 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25