1 Tuesday, 17 July 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Mr. 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, Mr. Registrar.

10 I'd like to turn into private session for a moment at the

11 beginning of this hearing.

12 [Private session]

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 6949-6950 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 [Open session]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, you're on your feet.

20 MR. EMMERSON: Just to indicate we sent to the Trial Chamber an

21 e-mail identifying and attaching the extracts from the testimony of

22 Mr. Bajcetic which was the basis for certain questions put to the present

23 witness yesterday, an extract of the testimony of Colonel Crosland

24 commenting on the individuals that one sees in uniform in the videotape

25 that was played yesterday.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. EMMERSON: As well as comments on the translation issue

3 arising from the single sentence at the end of paragraph 51 of this

4 witness's consolidated witness statement.

5 So far as the videotape is concerned, it may be -- I don't know

6 that the discussion that passed between Your Honour and I yesterday

7 afternoon was potentially at cross-purposes. It is not the suggestion of

8 the Defence that any of the individuals depicted in the passage of video

9 that we see are VJ officers or at least --

10 JUDGE ORIE: For me the main issue --

11 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- was to better understand in terms of reliability

13 and credibility whether what the witness said, whether we could accept

14 that, yes or no.

15 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And from what I read from Colonel Crosland's

17 testimony, that does not point in any other direction because he says it's

18 police and it's special police forces. He doesn't point at any moment at

19 VJ, apart from the matter I raised yesterday already, that is, that

20 sometimes vehicles change in colour.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. And Your Honour will recall the general

22 testimony as to the modus operandi of Serbian operations; in other words,

23 shelling by the VJ and there is evidence in the videotape.

24 JUDGE ORIE: The matter is perfectly clear after having re-read

25 that.

1 I haven't read your e-mail because access to the web mail from a

2 distance is a bit disturbed at this moment.

3 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I gather there was a difficulty overnight, but

4 I think that it should all be available and it was certainly copied over

5 to Mr. Zahar, so it should come through, if it hasn't come through already

6 over the course of the morning for the record.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, are you ready to continue the

8 cross-examination, Mr. Emmerson?

9 MR. EMMERSON: I am.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you escort the witness into the

11 courtroom.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Zlatkovic.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, I'd like to remind you that you're

16 still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your

17 testimony yesterday. Mr. Emmerson will now continue his

18 cross-examination.

19 Mr. Emmerson, you may proceed.

20 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you very much.

21 I'm not sure that the witness has his consolidated witness

22 statement bundle with him in the witness box. There should be a -- in

23 addition to the brown and yellow file there should be a large grey or

24 black file. Thank you very much.

25 WITNESS: RADOVAN ZLATKOVIC [Resumed]

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

3 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, could you turn up paragraphs 60 and 61 of your

4 witness statement, please. Now, if you could just read those paragraphs

5 over to yourself for a moment.

6 A. Yes, I've read it.

7 Q. Thank you. You there refer to two statements, both dated the 5th

8 of September, recording interviews with Bekim Kalamashi, one signed and

9 one unsigned. And in paragraph 61 you comment on the fact that the names

10 of the interviewers are different, and you say that: "This is because he

11 was re-interviewed by other investigators to check whether he was telling

12 the truth."

13 Now, pause for a moment, if you would. Can you help us about

14 this. Do you specifically recall the decision to have him re-interviewed

15 twice on the same day or to have him re-interviewed on the 5th after an

16 earlier interview?

17 A. There were two groups of people who did the interviews. Another

18 inspector was added on who interviewed him, and they wanted to check the

19 facts and see whether it was true or not. That's why one statement is not

20 signed and one is, but both statements are in the document.

21 Q. So just -- we can proceed in stages. You have a specific

22 recollection of this incident, do you, yourself, of a decision being taken

23 to conduct the second interview on that day?

24 A. Yes, yes.

25 Q. Were you involved in the decision? Did you make the decision or

1 were you party to the decision to re-interview him on that day?

2 A. We agreed on it together that an interview had to be carried out,

3 that he might say something more, something of interest to the service.

4 So the second statement is a whole statement, just like the first one.

5 Q. So was the second statement taken afresh?

6 A. Yes, yes. It was a new statement. One was signed and the other

7 was not, but both are in the file.

8 Q. Yes. Just so that we're clear --

9 A. I think, I have to say that, one more inspector signed the

10 statement. In fact, three inspectors signed it. I don't remember exactly

11 but that's what I think now.

12 Q. Well, we'll look at it in a moment. I just want to understand

13 exactly what your testimony is on this. Were you present during the first

14 interview yourself at all?

15 A. As I told you yesterday, I looked in occasionally because I had

16 other work to do, I was engaged in other investigations while these people

17 were conducting the interview, but from time to time I dropped in and

18 listened for a while. But if I was needed for an investigation elsewhere,

19 I left. Later on I collected all these statements, and based on those

20 statements I wrote up criminal reports or expanded criminal reports, which

21 I submitted to the public prosecutor's officer in Pec.

22 Q. Thank you. I'm not asking -- I'm not seeking to limit your

23 answers, but if you could just focus on the question that I'm asking and

24 answer it directly and as shortly as possible, we will make better

25 progress. The answer that you've just given, do we understand from that

1 that you do recall that you did enter the room at least once during the

2 first of the two interviews on the 5th? Is that your evidence?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. And on the second of the two interviews on the 5th,

5 did you enter that as well?

6 A. Yes, more than once.

7 Q. Now, you say -- you just told us at page 8, line 4, that the

8 second statement was a new statement taken afresh; is that correct?

9 A. Yes, that's correct. That's correct.

10 Q. Just so that we understand what you mean by that, it's a new set

11 of interviewers who go in with a blank sheet of paper and compile the same

12 account to see if the two are essentially accurate; in other words, the

13 two statements contain the same information?

14 A. Yes, precisely so.

15 Q. And so, again, there's no doubt about it, the second statement is

16 a fresh account written by different police officers but coming from the

17 same person?

18 A. Yes, yes, yes. Some of the policemen were the same, but another

19 one was added on. I think his name was Ljubisa, but I can't be sure

20 because of the lapse of time. But he participated in that, I think.

21 Q. Very well. So one of the policemen who had done the first

22 interview stayed in and did the interview all over again afresh but with a

23 different partner this time. Is that the position?

24 A. I think there were three. Zivorad Stankovic, Vlahovic Rade, and

25 Ljubisa Novakovic, at least that's what I think now. It was a long time

1 ago and I don't have the documents in front of me so I can't see who

2 signed. But I think it was Ljubisa -- or rather Zivorad Stankovic,

3 Rade Vlahovic, and Ljubisa Novovic [as interpreted].

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I think in your last question I think

5 you misrepresented the previous answer of the witness. Would you please

6 be precise in that respect. Thank you.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I see. I'm sorry.

8 Q. Can we -- can I just be absolutely clear what your testimony is.

9 There were two officers involved in the first interview; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And were they Ranko Markovic and Rade Vlahovic?

12 A. It's possible that Ranko Markovic was there. I don't remember

13 precisely. I know about Rade Vlahovic and Zivorad Stankovic. As to

14 Ranko Markovic, whether it was him or Ljubisa Novovic, I can't recall,

15 because it's been nine years since then.

16 Q. I see. And when the second interview began, there had been a

17 change of personnel. Can you just explain to us, to be absolutely clear,

18 what the change of personnel involved.

19 A. The change involved these people wanting to see whether he was

20 telling the truth. That's why the second statement was taken, to see

21 whether he was telling the truth. According to the law on criminal

22 procedure in force in Serbia at the time, a statement can be taken two or

23 three times over, in order to see whether a suspect is telling the truth

24 or not. That's how it was under the law.

25 Q. And in order to perform that comparison, just so that we've all

1 understood, when the second statement is taken, it's taken completely

2 fresh in order to see whether the content of the second statement is the

3 same as the independent statement that was taken before, is that right?

4 And then you do a comparison?

5 A. Yes, and it was true. The statement was exactly the same. A word

6 may have been different here or there, but essentially it was the same

7 statement.

8 Q. Can we look in the brown file, please, Mr. Zlatkovic, at tabs 19

9 and 20, which contain these two statements -- I do apologise, 18 and 19.

10 It's my mistake. Now, Mr. Zlatkovic, we've all had an opportunity to look

11 at these statements before, and if you would just like to flick over

12 between the first page of the statement that is behind tab 18 and the

13 first page of the statement that is behind tab 19, these are not two

14 different accounts made for the purposes of comparison, nor are they,

15 indeed, a copy of the text. It's the same document with the same

16 typographical errors. It is precisely the same sheet of text.

17 A. I know it was like this, but one can do a graphological analysis

18 to find out whether it's the same text or not. I know that two statements

19 were typed out.

20 Q. Well, we don't need to do a graphological analysis, Mr. Zlatkovic.

21 You're lying about this evidence, I suggest. It is perfectly obvious

22 looking at the pages, the position of the words on the pages, and the

23 typographical errors, that this document, page 1 of the first and page 1

24 of the second, is precisely the same sheet of text. Would you like to

25 look at the second, that is to say, the bottom hole-punch, just as an

1 example. We can find many, but just as an example, opposite the bottom

2 hole-punch can you see the word "Alija" at the end of the page? Just

3 take -- no, Mr. Zlatkovic, you're looking on the wrong page. Look at the

4 front page. Look at this bottom hole-punch, please, and if you look

5 opposite, can you see the word "Alija" with an "A" displaced. Would you

6 like to look at the same position on the other sheet. You see? Do you

7 see that?

8 A. Maybe the machine was not working properly. Your Honours, I don't

9 think a Defence counsel can tell the witness he's lying. He can say I'm

10 not telling the truth, but he can't insult me like this.

11 Q. Would you --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, you're not familiar with the practice

13 in the common-law-oriented situation, where in cross-examination some

14 stronger words which you're not used to and I'm not used to in my own

15 system either, but to put to a witness that what he tells is in the

16 opinion of the Defence counsel not the truth, he is allowed to say so.

17 And you can say either: You're right or you're wrong. That is one of the

18 features of the system and is not, as such, meant to insult, but is just

19 meant to press a bit where Defence counsel gets the impression that he has

20 not heard the full truthful answer. So just for your explanation, that is

21 a -- well, kind of a tradition or a feature of a system which if you're

22 not used to it is a bit surprising in the beginning.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. EMMERSON:

25 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, if you'd like to turn to the second --

1 A. Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. If you'd like to turn to the second page of the statement behind

3 tab 18, you could look in the second line. I just want you to look at

4 certain features. Page 2, if you could look in the second line, do you

5 see the word "familiju" do you see that? At the second line of the second

6 page, right at the top?

7 A. "Familiju", yes.

8 Q. If you would like to compare the "F" in the two statements, I

9 think you'll find they are identical. Do you agree?

10 A. Yes, it's identical, yes.

11 Q. Would you look at the third paragraph, please, on page 2 beginning

12 "od grupe" now, in the second line of that paragraph, can you see the

13 name "Kalamashi." Page 2, please, not page 3. Page 2, the third

14 paragraph, second line, can you see the word "Kalamashi"?

15 A. Ismet Kalamashi.

16 Q. No, above that, can you see the name there? Can you see the

17 mistype on the last letter -- yes, do you see the mistype on the last

18 letter of "Alji"?

19 A. I do.

20 Q. Would you like to compare that, please, with the same page in the

21 statement behind tab 19.

22 A. I see that, and I'm certain that there was something wrong with

23 the typewriter. I can confirm that, because there was no need for one set

24 of people to sign one statement and the other set of people to sign the

25 other statement. There was no need for that whatsoever. I am certain

1 that this was a case of a bad typewriter.

2 Q. Very well. Well, we'll just carry on then, if we will. If you

3 would like to look halfway down page 2, please, you'll see there's a break

4 in the text halfway down page 2 and immediately after the break there's a

5 paragraph beginning "poznato" do you see that -- yes, that's the one --

6 A. It says: "I know that my uncle --"

7 Q. Yes, you've got the right paragraph. Now, look at the second line

8 of that paragraph at the word "Kodralija." Do you see the typographical

9 error in "Kodralija"?

10 A. Yes, with an "L".

11 Q. Would you like to compare that, please, with the other statement.

12 A. Yes, one can see that.

13 Q. And if you'd just like to go a little further down, can you see a

14 further paragraph beginning "poznato" about 12 or 13 lines down, do you

15 see that? Yes?

16 A. I know that in the vicinity of Volujak --

17 Q. Exactly.

18 A. -- A policeman was captured, Remizani Kalisne [as interpreted].

19 The following members of the KLA participated in his capture.

20 Q. Do you see where the name "Remistar" appears in that paragraph?

21 In the passage you've just read to us, Mr. Zlatkovic, can you see

22 the name "Remistar"?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Yes. And immediately beneath the name "Remistar" is a word that

25 has been overtyped. What is that word, please?

1 A. "Members," "clanovi".

2 Q. Could you look at that word in the statement in tab 19, where

3 precisely the same overtyping appears.

4 A. "Members," "clanovi". Correct.

5 Q. And you agree, do you, that precisely the same overtyping appears

6 there as well?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You see, Mr. Zlatkovic, if the evidence you've given on oath to

9 the Trial Chamber were the truth, it would mean that not only did

10 Bekim Kalamashi use exactly the same words in exactly the same order, but

11 that the person typing them typed exactly the same words in exactly the

12 same position on each of these first two pages. That's not at all what

13 happened, Mr. Zlatkovic, is it?

14 A. I'm telling you, there was no need for Ranko Markovic to sign one

15 statement, the statement that he had taken --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and the other to be signed by

18 Rade and Ranko -- yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Whether there was any reason to do certain things is

20 another matter. Mr. Emmerson draws your attention to the fact that apart

21 from the wording to be exactly the same, that typographical errors are

22 also exactly the same. Whether there was any reason to do that or not is

23 another matter, but Mr. Emmerson first wants to establish whether your

24 testimony that this statement was freshly taken and -- or whether it was

25 just a copy of the statement taken earlier, whether -- which of these two

1 is the truth.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying this: We agreed that the

3 statement should be taken again. Now, the person who typed these

4 statements, whether he made mistakes on purpose or perhaps lied to me when

5 he said that the statement had been taken again, I wouldn't be able to say

6 because I went in and out, I did other things, and I gave you my

7 explanation. I'm telling you that I was told that the statement had been

8 taken for the second time. I gathered this material, and based on that I

9 filed a criminal complaint. Now, it's up to you, whether you're going to

10 accept that or not as a statement.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, your testimony earlier was that the statement

12 was freshly taken, and I now do understand that you say whether it was

13 freshly taken or not, that was what was told to me. And Mr. Emmerson is

14 now putting to you that at least at first eye they seem exactly the same,

15 and therefore Mr. Emmerson might be surprised that an experienced police

16 officer would not have noticed the similarity of these two statements.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you, I agreed about this

18 with them. I saw that it was identical, that the man said the same thing.

19 I didn't pay attention to grammatical errors or typos. Typos are quite

20 natural. It says there "Bekim Kalamashi" and that's Bekim Kalamashi. To

21 tell you the truth, I didn't really look at that. I gathered these

22 statements in order to file a criminal complaint. It's possible that

23 something was done. I can't claim otherwise. However, it had been agreed

24 that the statement should be taken again, and when I went into the room I

25 saw them talking to the man.

1 JUDGE ORIE: And you agreed that the statement as it's on paper is

2 not a fresh statement but is just the same as the other one?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now looking at these letters, it

4 seems to me that the statement is identical. That's what it seems to me.

5 However, they talked to him twice, different people talked to him and

6 different people signed statements. They signed it. You can see that for

7 yourself.

8 JUDGE ORIE: One additional question: You earlier said that it

9 might be the typewriter that caused the problem. Do you still consider

10 this to be an explanation?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to me that's most

12 probable, that's the most probable explanation. Those typewriters were

13 bad, and they simply caused these mistakes. One can see that each letter

14 was punched several times and that mistakes were made.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, isn't it true that if a typewriter is not

16 functioning well, that the failures and the mistakes repeat themselves

17 systematically?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The people who use typewriters are

19 familiar with that. For example, a letter T is typed in a certain manner,

20 up or down; letter H. The people typed these statements themselves.

21 They're not professional typists, no, they're just regular people who

22 learn to do this on their own.

23 JUDGE ORIE: But if at one moment the word "clanovi" shows a

24 mistake, whereas at another moment exactly that same word is typed without

25 any error, then could it still be the typewriter or must it be a human

1 failure or a human mistake -- a human error?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible that it was a case of

3 human error. As I told you, people were tired at the time. They worked

4 around the clock. There were a lot of people taken into custody and they

5 had to interview all of them. So it's possible that they even did this

6 during night-time.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And would you expect under those circumstances the --

8 would you expect under those circumstances that people would make the same

9 mistakes at the same moments?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That shouldn't be the case.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, please proceed. May I draw your

12 attention to the following, that of course in order to make two statements

13 the same, all key features should be the same and there should be -- but

14 at the same time there should not be differences. If you look at page 1,

15 if you look at page 3, you see that there are other matters to be explored

16 as well.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Absolutely, I'm going on to deal with those now, if

18 I may.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. EMMERSON:

21 Q. Just before I do, I just want to understand one thing. You've

22 given us evidence already that you, yourself, entered the room during the

23 second interview more than once; correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you told us a little earlier on that during the second

1 interview a new statement was taken afresh.

2 So can we assume that you saw that statement being taken afresh

3 during the second interview with your own eyes, Mr. Zlatkovic?

4 A. I saw them as they were writing down the statement by hand. Later

5 on it was typed up and delivered to me in my office, the typed version.

6 Initially, as they were taking the interview, they were writing down the

7 statement by hand. That's our routine method. Later on the statement is

8 read out to the person in the language that he understands, be it Serbian

9 or Albanian, and then the person signs it if he accepts it as his own

10 statement.

11 Q. Just pause there. So your testimony is quite clear that on the

12 second occasion when you walked into the room, the statement was being

13 written out in manuscript?

14 A. The interview was being conducted and they were writing down, so

15 they were taking down notes and later they were typed up.

16 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, if the typed version of those notes

17 is the statement we have at tab 19, then leaving the typewriter and the

18 typographical errors completely to one side, it would have to follow,

19 wouldn't it, if your evidence is the truth, that Mr. Kalamashi used

20 exactly the same words in exactly the same order, word for word, on the

21 first two pages of that statement in both interviews, if your evidence is

22 true?

23 A. He's a smart man and I'm sure that he had the story down very

24 well. He can tell it twice in the same way.

25 Q. And in the same exact words in the same order with the same

1 punctuation?

2 A. I'm telling you, he's a very intelligent, smart, young man,

3 somebody who knows how to tell the story. He knows the situation and he

4 tells it as it should be told. Now, as to the exact word order, I don't

5 know.

6 Q. Well, Mr. Zlatkovic, let me put the suggestion to you very

7 clearly. These are not the words of Bekim Kalamashi at all. This

8 statement and the two of them represent part of a conspiracy, an

9 agreement, between you and the other officers whose names appear at the

10 bottom of this statement, to fabricate a statement, which Mr. Kalamashi

11 was then beaten into signing?

12 A. And how do you -- do you think we knew the people that he listed?

13 I didn't know them. I am not from the area. I have no idea who these

14 people were who he mentioned. He was the one who mentioned these people.

15 I didn't. I didn't know Brahim Aljaha [as interpreted], Ljah Zenelji. I

16 didn't know who they were. He gave us these names. How could I have

17 invented that?

18 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, the first statement is a draft of what was going to

19 be put to him, as words were put in his mouth; and the second statement is

20 identical for the first two pages and then changes on page 3 to improve

21 the false account that you were putting into his mouth.

22 A. That's what you think, counsel, but I'm telling you there are

23 many, many names here and I couldn't have invented them. I don't know

24 these people at all. Don't know them, never saw them in my life. He told

25 me that, or rather, he told this to my colleagues. My colleagues conveyed

1 this to me and I wrote criminal complaints on that basis.

2 Q. You see, Mr. Zlatkovic, you've looked at two earlier statements

3 that were made by Mr. Kalamashi, haven't you, in the course of preparing

4 your statement? You refer to them in paragraph 57 of your witness

5 statement and paragraph 58 of your witness statement, statements allegedly

6 made by Bekim Kalamashi on the 3rd and the 4th of September. Do you see

7 those, yes? No, in your own witness statement you've referred to two

8 other statements made by Mr. Kalamashi.

9 A. Which two other do you have in mind? These two -- no, these are

10 the two statements.

11 Q. If you look at your own witness statement, Mr. Zlatkovic, at

12 paragraphs 57 and 58, you deal with two other witness statements allegedly

13 made by Mr. Kalamashi. Do you see those? Do you see the reference in

14 your statement, Mr. Zlatkovic, to those two statements made on the 3rd and

15 the 4th?

16 A. It's these two statements, these are the ones that I was referring

17 to.

18 Q. Is that right? If you look at your witness statement pages --

19 paragraphs 57 -- your own witness statement at paragraphs 57 and 58, you

20 refer to a statement made on the 3rd and a statement made on the 4th of

21 September. Do you see those?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. We have those statements in the brown file behind tabs 16 and 17.

24 I'm not going to ask you to turn them up because we've looked at them

25 already, but if I suggest to you that the content of those two statements

1 is essentially the same as the content of the first two pages of the

2 statement of the 5th, would you be in a position to explain to us how that

3 might come about?

4 A. I didn't understand you.

5 Q. The content of the two statements that are said to have been taken

6 on the 3rd and the 4th come together to be reflected in the content of the

7 statement on the 5th --

8 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Dutertre.

9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I think we could give the

10 opportunity to the witness to have a look at these two statements.

11 MR. EMMERSON: They're in the brown file behind tabs 16 and 17.

12 Q. You've seen those statements before?

13 A. This one which is a supplement to the statement, it speaks about

14 the capture of the policeman near Volujak, the policeman called Remistar.

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Most likely, he remembered this later and then stated it.

17 Q. And just so that we're clear, Mr. Zlatkovic, you were present at

18 one point or another in each of those interviews yourself, were you,

19 including those first two?

20 A. Yes, I was present occasionally --

21 Q. Thank you --

22 A. -- however, the conversation was in Albanian and I don't speak a

23 word of that language. Later on when it was brought to me, it was brought

24 to me in Serbian and that's how I read it.

25 Q. Thank you. I'd like to turn now, if I may, to what occurs on your

1 account in consequence of these interviews. Could you look, please, at

2 paragraph 65 of your own witness statement. You there give dates as the

3 possible dates upon which you went to the Lake Radoniq area.

4 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, do we -- does the witness have -- he has

5 it on the screen. I see.

6 Q. Do you see paragraph 65 of your witness statement, Mr. Zlatkovic?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. There you say that: "It could have been on the 5th, the 6th, the

9 7th, or the 9th of September."

10 Can you help us about that. These men were arrested on the 3rd of

11 September and you knew that they were being interviewed, according to you,

12 on the 3rd, the 4th, and the 5th. When you made this statement, what was

13 it that made you think that the visit to the canal could have been as

14 early as the 5th?

15 A. Well, a lot of time elapsed. I didn't know exactly when that was.

16 I knew that it was in early September. That's what I was told, from the

17 5th onwards. They were captured on the 3rd and brought in, and that's

18 when they were interviewed.

19 Q. So again, just so we're clear about this, you don't mention the

20 8th as a possible date in the list that you give there. You say the 5th,

21 the 6th, the 7th, or the 9th. Why did you omit the 8th as a possibility?

22 A. Perhaps it was just an omission. It could have been a typo or it

23 could have been a mental slip on my part. I can't explain it now.

24 Q. I see. But can you help us now? Is it possible that you were at

25 the canal as early as the 5th?

1 A. No, no.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I just wanted to state that the

4 witness has already answered -- the witness has answered, so my objection

5 is moot.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. EMMERSON:

9 Q. If we look to paragraph 68 of your witness statement, you say:

10 "There was an operation in early September," namely the operation to go

11 to the canal. You describe here events occurring between the 4th and the

12 8th of September. Let me read the statement -- the paragraph in full.

13 "The operation in early September 1998 I referred to above was

14 made between the 4th and the 8th of September. The area was full of

15 terrorists. The operation had to take place first in order for the MUP to

16 reach the Lake Radonjic."

17 Now, just let's be clear, if we can, please. What operation was

18 it that took place between the 4th and the 8th of September?

19 A. That was the operation carried out by police forces with the SAJ,

20 and as I said I saw that one tank was used while I was present when we

21 were on our way to Lake Radonjic. I went through Prilep via Rznic to

22 reach Lake Radonjic.

23 Q. Yes, well, I'll come to your route into the lake in a moment. Can

24 we just have it clear, please, for the record. Is it your testimony that

25 beginning on the 4th and continuing to the 8th of September, there was a

1 Serbian police and SAJ operation to clear the area up to and including the

2 canal? Is that what you're telling us?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. And you mentioned the route that you took to reach the

5 canal, and I think we find this in your witness statement at paragraph 70,

6 that you went there through Prilep and Irzniq. Now, were you with

7 Bekim Kalamashi or Zenelj Alija when you went to the canal for the first

8 time?

9 A. Bekim Kalamashi came to the canal. I don't know who brought him

10 there. He may have been with me because I was in the same vehicle as the

11 technicians and the people taking photographs, but I don't think he was in

12 my vehicle. As for Zenelj Alija, he was brought there by others because

13 he was supposed to show some victims -- show the whereabouts of some

14 victims who had been shot and buried near --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the place, please.

16 MR. EMMERSON:

17 Q. Sorry, could you repeat the place you were just referring to where

18 Zenelj Alija was supposed to be indicating bodies. The interpreter didn't

19 pick it up.

20 A. Zenelj Alija was taken by other operatives to Dasinovac to

21 indicate some places there where some civilians were buried.

22 Q. I see. Just so that we're clear, I'm asking you about the very

23 first day you went to the canal. Now, is it your evidence that

24 Zenelj Alija was at the canal or not?

25 A. No, no, that was quite far away from the canal. Dasinovac is

1 further away from the canal. It's on the Ratis-Jablanovac road.

2 Q. So, again, just to be absolutely clear, did Zenelj Alija go to the

3 canal? Was he taken to the canal on the first day, yes or no?

4 A. I don't remember. I only remember seeing him at Dasinovac.

5 Q. You do remember, though, seeing Bekim Kalamashi at the canal, do

6 you?

7 A. Yes. Bekim Kalamashi showed me the canal.

8 Q. I see. And if you just look at paragraph 79 to 80 of your witness

9 statement. In paragraph 80 you suggest that the information given by

10 Kalamashi and Zenelj Alija was video-recorded, and you say this: "This

11 shows them pointing out the specific areas where the bodies were."

12 Do you see that?

13 A. I don't see it on the screen, no.

14 Q. I think it's coming.

15 MR. EMMERSON: It might be quicker if the witness had --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there's the canal --

17 MR. EMMERSON: -- had the paper copy of the statement available to

18 him. I'm asking about 79 and 80 which is on the next page but one.

19 Q. Now, looking at paragraph 80, Mr. Zlatkovic, you say there that

20 there is video footage showing Mr. Kalamashi and Mr. Alija pointing out

21 specific areas where the bodies were. Can I ask you this: Have you ever

22 seen footage showing Zenelj Alija or Bekim Kalamashi at the canal?

23 A. I saw Zenelj Alija near Dasinovac indicating that spot.

24 Q. Yes, I understand that and we've seen that piece of footage as

25 well. The question I'm asking you is: Have you ever seen any footage of

1 Bekim Kalamashi or Zenelj Alija at the canal?

2 A. No, not at the canal.

3 Q. Well, just focusing on Mr. Kalamashi, what was it that caused you

4 to say in paragraph 80 of your witness statement that there was a video

5 which showed them, that is the two of them, pointing out specific areas

6 where the bodies were found? What made you say that if you've never seen

7 a video of Mr. Kalamashi at the canal?

8 A. I saw a video of Zenelj Alija. I'm sure that Bekim Kalamashi was

9 also filmed, but I never saw the video. Bekim Kalamashi came to the canal

10 and showed where the executions had taken place.

11 Q. But you've not managed to see that captured on any of the videos

12 that have been shown to you, Mr. Zlatkovic, have you?

13 A. I wasn't shown that footage, but I'm sure it exists.

14 Q. Just to be clear about it, I mean, you would expect, wouldn't you,

15 that to be one of the most important pieces of footage because the reason

16 for taking those men there was to show the world that it was they who had

17 led you there; isn't that right?

18 A. Could you repeat your question. I didn't understand it.

19 Q. Yes. Mr. Zlatkovic, the reason for taking Mr. Kalamashi to the

20 canal was so that you could demonstrate to the world that it was he who

21 had pointed out the bodies; isn't that right?

22 A. No, not to show the whole world, but for him to show us where to

23 find those people because their families had been searching for them for a

24 long time.

25 Q. But being realistic about it, Mr. Zlatkovic, you knew where the

1 canal was, didn't you?

2 A. We did, but we weren't sure. We thought we might be set up, that

3 someone might inform the terrorists we were coming and they might kill us

4 there.

5 Q. You told us yesterday that there was an armed Serbian check-point

6 in the village of Irzniq from the 12th of August right up until your visit

7 in September, and Irzniq police station runs right next to the canal, does

8 it not?

9 A. Well, not right next to it. If someone wants to kill you, they

10 can do it five steps away from a police station, ambush you there and kill

11 you.

12 Q. The route you took through Prilep and Irzniq, you have now seen a

13 piece of video footage and you indicate, I think, in your witness

14 statement that you believe your visit to the canal was on the 8th. Is

15 that correct?

16 A. I think so, yes.

17 Q. As you were driving through Prilep and Irzniq, did you notice any

18 VJ forces there?

19 A. Only that tank I mentioned.

20 Q. And where was that single tank that you noticed?

21 A. Well, I was near the canal, it arrived from the direction of Rznic

22 and passed by the cherry orchard and went off I suppose in the direction

23 of Ratise.

24 Q. See, Mr. Zlatkovic, we've heard evidence in this court from the

25 British Military Attache to Belgrade who took the same route on the same

1 day that you took through Prilep and Irzniq. And what he saw was a

2 combined force involving the VJ, the MUP, the PJP, and the SAJ

3 approximately 300 or so forces in the area burning properties, burning

4 haystacks, looting houses, and firing randomly at people's properties

5 without any return fire. Did you see any of that, Mr. Zlatkovic?

6 A. I didn't see that. I didn't see that. I'm sure there was

7 fighting because the forces went through first and then we arrived, but we

8 were not going to fight. In war, all technology is used.

9 Q. Well, what did you see when you went through Prilep, just describe

10 it for us, please.

11 A. Well, there were houses that had been destroyed or semi-destroyed,

12 but that had been going on for months, that fighting. So I can't say who

13 destroyed them. I didn't participate in that. My only task was to carry

14 out the on-site investigation, nothing else, and who it was that did

15 burning and looting, I'm sure there were people on both sides who did that

16 because when there's a war on there are casualties on both sides and

17 there's damage on both sides.

18 Q. Did you see properties on fire on your way through Prilep and

19 Irzniq?

20 A. Anyone could see that, sir. Anyone could see that, journalists

21 went through, the diplomatic mission saw that.

22 Q. Exactly. And did you see a combined VJ and MUP force of 300

23 people approximately?

24 A. There were various uniforms around at the time. They had received

25 some new uniforms, camouflage uniforms, those members of the PJP. As for

1 the army, the only thing I saw belonging to the army was one tank. But I

2 can tell you that there were attacks by terrorist groups on Decani and

3 some villages near Decani were burned then. In Decani, a policeman

4 sitting on the road was seriously wounded. There was an attack like that

5 carried out by terrorist groups.

6 Q. When you got to the canal, Mr. Zlatkovic, you tell us in your

7 witness statement at paragraph 81 that the area around the lake, and maybe

8 for a number of kilometres, was secured by uniformed police officers from

9 this first visit onwards 24 hours a day. Is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So if we take the area where the concrete canal ends, are you

12 saying that for an area of several kilometres around that position the MUP

13 maintained control?

14 A. During this anti-terrorist action that was carried out, they were

15 securing that area. They were securing that area because corpses had to

16 be found. So the police were securing the area up to Lake Radonjic from

17 the very beginning of the canal to Lake Radonjic.

18 Q. And did that include the economic farm area?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. But that was under Serbian control from the 8th of September

21 onwards?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Did you see international representatives

24 and media representatives --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

1 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

2 JUDGE ORIE: The witness used yesterday a different word and we

3 also find it in the statement "Perparimi farm" or something like that.

4 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we just make sure that economic farm is the

6 same as the farm --

7 MR. EMMERSON:

8 Q. The farm that you're referring to when I use the expression

9 "economic farm," is that the place where a body was found whilst you were

10 there?

11 A. Yes, it's a cooperative. It's called Perparimi in Albanian. In

12 Serbian the name is Bratstvo.

13 Q. But just to be clear, that is the economic farm where a body was

14 found whilst you were on site?

15 A. Yes, yes.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. In front of the farm, yes. The building of the farm.

18 Q. Well, now, there's one aspect of your evidence in relation to this

19 search operation that I just want to focus on with you, if I may. Can you

20 look, please, at paragraph 91 of your witness statement.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before we do so, Mr. Emmerson.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to be very sure -- no, that's taken out.

24 Not, the Perparimi farm is usually 175 but that's now out. But if you're

25 talking about the economic farm and the Perparimi farm, is that the same

1 for you, Mr. Zlatkovic?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perparimi is a cooperative which was

3 in charge of that farm. It's a broad area where sour cherries and

4 hazelnuts are planted. It's a huge area. The cooperative itself also had

5 stables and cow-sheds, and the name of all that was Perparimi, and the

6 farm was part of that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And -- yes, and Ekonomija farm was part of that, you

8 said. Is that correctly understood?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 MR. EMMERSON:

12 Q. If you can just turn to paragraphs 90 and 91 of your witness

13 statement, Mr. Zlatkovic, please, the document you've got open in front of

14 you, could you find paragraphs 90 and 91, please. Mr. Zlatkovic, could

15 you find paragraphs 90 and 91 of your witness statement, please, on the

16 paper version you have in front of you.

17 Now, you describe earlier in your statement --

18 JUDGE ORIE: It is already on the screen at this moment.

19 MR. EMMERSON: Very well. Thank you.

20 Q. You described earlier in your statement arriving, you believed, on

21 the 8th; then on the following day meeting the investigating judge there

22 on the 9th. And then at paragraph 90 you pick up events that took place

23 the next day, on the 10th. And you say this: "On the following day, I

24 came again to the canal area. I believe it was the 10th of September,

25 I'm not sure. It was less rainy, but the water flow in the canal

1 increased due to the water coming from the Streoc mountains.

2 "We tried to locate more bodies. We found bodies in the woods

3 above the canal on the right side, looking towards Lake Radonjic, and in

4 the canyon and one body at the farm. We also found some bodies in

5 Dashinoc [sic]."

6 You then deal with a plan at paragraph 92, and at paragraph 93 you

7 say: "I think it was on the same day, I think -- I don't remember

8 exactly. On the same day we found some bodies in Dashinoc [sic]."

9 Now, I just want to be clear about this. In paragraph 91 you

10 speak about finding bodies in the woods above the canal on the right side

11 looking towards Lake Radoniq and in the canyon and one body at the farm.

12 Now, it appears from your statement, Mr. Zlatkovic, that you are

13 indicating that these bodies were found on the 10th; is that correct?

14 A. In this case, I couldn't recall the precise date when this

15 happened, but I know that on the 10th the investigating judge arrived and

16 we carried out an on-site investigation, and we set out from in front of

17 the farm, or rather, the Perparimi cooperative, the cow-sheds, and in the

18 sewage channel we found a body. The head was facing west. The hands were

19 raised behind the head --

20 Q. Yes --

21 A. -- the jacket was --

22 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I don't want to take time on the

23 details of the body that's found in the drainage canal. I'm asking you

24 about the bodies that you refer in the same sentence to having been found

25 in the woods above the canal on the right side looking towards

1 Lake Radoniq. Now, you would agree, I imagine, that it appears from your

2 statement as though those bodies were found on the same day as the body

3 was recovered from the farm?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, the witness said that he

6 didn't remember exact dates when it happened. So this is line 9, page 33.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I'm grateful to Mr. Dutertre for seeking to

8 come to the witness's aid, but I seek to cross-examine and probe his

9 evidence in respect of this matter.

10 JUDGE ORIE: But at the same time, Mr. Emmerson, if the witness

11 says already in his statement, not only now in cross-examination, that

12 he's uncertain about the dates that it does make much sense to -- of

13 course you could seek to find out whether his recollection could assist

14 him in getting better information. But at the same time, going on for the

15 dates forever is not assisting the Chamber.

16 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

17 JUDGE ORIE: It could lead to confusion.

18 MR. EMMERSON: I'll take him, if I may, to a later portion of the

19 statement dealing with the same issue.

20 Q. Could you turn to paragraph 112 of your witness statement. And

21 for this purpose, Mr. Zlatkovic, I wonder if I could ask you, please, to

22 turn also at the same time to tab 36 in the brown bundle. What I'd like

23 to do with you is, first of all, if the usher can just take you to tab 36.

24 This is annex 24 to your witness statement, and it's an aerial

25 photograph on which you have marked certain numbers. And it's the

1 sequence that I'm interested in. We could just for your -- to remind you,

2 Mr. Zlatkovic, if you look to your own witness statement at paragraph 105,

3 you will see the passage where you deal with this map. And you say that

4 you've looked at the aerial photograph and you have marked on it "areas

5 numbered 1 to 8 which relate to locations I recall seeing dead bodies on

6 different days during the Lake Radonjic area investigation."

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 106 you say that on the first day you saw

10 two bodies in the water, and you've marked on the map a figure 1 to show

11 where those two bodies were seen. And you say: "On the same day I saw a

12 number of bodies on the ground along the canal in the" -- and you had

13 marked the position number 2. And we can see that on the map. And you

14 say: "Later on bodies were dug-up in that area," and you've marked that

15 as position number 3.

16 Then at paragraph 107 you say: "On the second day," so that would

17 presumably be the 9th, "I saw the same bodies as the first day at

18 locations 1 and 2 and I also saw a body beside a car at the end of the

19 waterfall, which I marked number 4." And we can see that on the map.

20 "There were other bodies," you say, "I saw alongside the canyon which I

21 numbered 6 and 7."

22 I want to be clear on this, it's a little difficult to see on the

23 map, but you've also marked a number 5 right by the wooded area on the

24 right-hand side of the canal as we look at it. Can you see where you've

25 put the number 5?

1 A. Yes, yes. I see it.

2 Q. Pausing there for a moment. You say at paragraph 108 that you

3 can't recall which day it was you saw those bodies in that position, and

4 you say they were found by Dragan Stojanovic. Is that correct?

5 A. Dragan Stojanovic and the group of policemen with him, but I said

6 here, sir, that I cannot recall precisely, and I said that in my

7 statement, whether it was here because I can't see where the farm is here

8 or whether it's where I marked the spot with a number 8 or 9 or something

9 like that. There was a woman here and a man who was in a sack. The woman

10 was completely naked except for a pair of black sandals on her feet.

11 Q. Well, we'll come back to what you actually --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

13 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

14 JUDGE ORIE: In order to have matters perfectly clear on the

15 record. The marking of number 5 is not easy to detect. May I take it

16 that you and the witness - and I'm also addressing you, Mr. Zlatkovic -

17 when you talked about number 5 that you were talking about the marking

18 made exactly to the right of where we find number 6 at the edge of a

19 wooded patch there where it becomes cultivated land again? Is that where

20 you located the 5? Mr. Zlatkovic, could you follow me or -- I'm still

21 talking about annex 24 --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I understand you

23 completely. And I will mark it again with a number 5. It's on the edge

24 of the road.

25 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to mark it again, but I just want to

1 be sure that whomever later reads the transcript of this hearing can find

2 number 5. So it was correct that it is to the right of the marking of

3 number 6 where the wooded -- small wooded area again transforms into

4 cultivated land. Is that the place you are pointing at?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

8 MR. EMMERSON:

9 Q. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Zlatkovic, your testimony is that

10 you're now not sure whether you saw any bodies in that location; is that

11 correct?

12 A. I cannot be specific as to whether the bodies were found precisely

13 there. I did see the bodies myself. There was several of them, a naked

14 female body with just black sandals and a male body which was in a sack.

15 Q. Well, let me just be clear about this. Can you help us as to what

16 9 and 8 are meant to indicate, just for clarity, please?

17 A. Number 8 indicates location where we found a jaw, a jaw and a

18 human skirt. Number 9, as I have stated, I can't see whether this is the

19 farm or not so I marked this, meaning to say that it's possible that it

20 was by number 9.

21 Q. I see. Can we then look at paragraph 112 of your witness

22 statement, please, and I just want to be absolutely clear what it is you

23 are telling us about those two bodies that you say that you saw. You say

24 at paragraph 112: "At location 5, I was with Veselin Vesovic,

25 Nebojsa Avramovic, and Ljubica Djordjevic. I don't remember if there was

1 anyone else there at that time. I remember seeing two bodies at this

2 location, one of which was in sacks which were placed on the torso and

3 legs. It was naked, except for the black sandals on the feet. The other

4 body was female and was, I think, a complete body."

5 Now, pausing there for a moment. You indicate here that you saw

6 two bodies. Can I be clear, was it you who discovered them or had someone

7 else found them first?

8 A. No, no. A policeman found them, and I came and ordered to conduct

9 an investigation with the technicians, because the policemen were the ones

10 who searched the terrain initially.

11 Q. I see. And just to be clear, in the area where you saw these two

12 bodies, there were two bodies not three; is that correct?

13 A. Two bodies. There were two bodies. Later on --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Dutertre.

15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Can you be more specific. Are we

16 speaking about the location where there were the two bodies? Was it the

17 very location or was it a wider area? Could the questions be more

18 focused, please.

19 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

20 Q. You describe location number 5 in paragraph 112 as a location at

21 which you found two bodies or saw two bodies that had been found by

22 others. The question I'm asking you is: At location number 5 were there

23 two bodies or could there have been three?

24 A. I didn't say that it was at location number 5. I marked another

25 location. I'm not familiar with this terrain. It's been a long time and

1 I can't tell now whether this was the farm or not. There were some cherry

2 trees there. This is why I marked another location with a number 9,

3 meaning that it might have been there. There were two bodies, however.

4 Q. That's the critical question. At this finding, at this site that

5 you're describing, you saw two bodies, not three?

6 A. I saw two bodies there.

7 Q. Now, your statement --

8 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I'm looking at the clock.

10 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether this would be --

12 MR. EMMERSON: It's certainly as convenient a moment as any, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 Then perhaps first. Mr. Zlatkovic, we'll have a break for

15 approximately half an hour. We would like to see you back again after the

16 break.

17 Madam Usher, could you already escort Mr. Zlatkovic out of the

18 courtroom.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you still need?

23 MR. EMMERSON: No more than 20 minutes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: No more than 20 minutes.

25 [The witness stands down]

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey, how much time would you need?

2 MR. HARVEY: I think about half an hour, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith?

4 MR. HARVEY: Maybe 40 minutes.

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Approximately the same.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take it that Defence counsel --

7 Mr. Emmerson, you took quite some time --

8 MR. EMMERSON: Yes --

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- to wrap up and such a time that the time asked for

10 by Mr. Harvey and Mr. Guy-Smith are still fitting in the next session.

11 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That means that you might have to take a little bit

13 less and other counsel are encouraged to be as concise and as efficient as

14 possible.

15 We'll have a break until 11.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

17 [The witness takes the stand]

18 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, a few practical matters. The

20 Chamber grants the request for testimony to be given by videolink for

21 Witness 10, not pseudonym 10, but 10 order of appearance. Since that's a

22 rather urgent matter, I already give now the decision, the reasons to

23 follow. That's one.

24 The Chamber is still considering annexes 4 and 10, and at least,

25 Mr. Dutertre, looking at annex 4, this is a document, criminal charges

1 brought against the person. Now, I think it's general knowledge that

2 bringing charges against someone, you would usually not do that without

3 having reason to do that, but these are charges, nothing else. At the

4 same time, if you look at the third page, Mr. Dutertre, I read: "From the

5 aforementioned, there is a reasonable doubt that unidentified terrorists

6 have performed the criminal act terrorism to the detriment," and then the

7 persons mentioned. In a criminal charge, as a matter of fact, I would

8 expect that there are reasonable reasons to believe or reasonable reasons

9 to suspect rather than that there are reasonable reasons to doubt. A

10 reasonable doubt is not usually a basis on which you charge a person. So

11 would you please verify whether this is really the document you would like

12 to have admitted, and perhaps whether there's any translation issue. And

13 that's one.

14 Then on annex 10, Mr. Emmerson, you have used that document --

15 well, not extensively, several portions you used to cross-examine the

16 witness.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore now to say it's not admitted, and have all

19 the cross-examination in. At the same time, the document gives more or

20 less a summary of what the opinions were formed at that time on the basis

21 of unspecified investigations, to say it broadly. That's how the Chamber

22 will consider it, not more and not less. I don't know whether the

23 objection against admission, also in view of the extensive use made of

24 this document during cross-examination stands, because then we would have

25 to take out certain portions.

1 MR. EMMERSON: I think it's for Mr. Guy-Smith. It was not my

2 objection.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, perhaps what would be the best course

5 of action would be if the Defence can have a moment where we can thrash it

6 out among ourselves and we will get back to you with regard to that

7 particular item.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time you're very much encouraged to

9 do that in the next break --

10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Understood.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- because Mr. Dutertre is entitled to know what is

12 and what is not admitted into evidence as far as his annexes are

13 concerned.

14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Understood.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.

16 MR. EMMERSON:

17 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, can we go back to paragraph 112 in your witness

18 statement, please.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I earlier noticed that you are now

20 cross-examining on that portion of the 92 ter statement which is not

21 tendered and not -- will not be admitted into evidence.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay, then I take it then that you are

24 operating under Rule 90(H) or --

25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm -- I'm not specifically operating under any

1 rule, Your Honour. I'm simply cross-examining on the content of a

2 statement made by the witness at this stage. It's not tendered --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. EMMERSON: -- by the Prosecution 92 ter --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But usually --

6 MR. EMMERSON: -- and wasn't elicited in chief.

7 JUDGE ORIE: But if you -- okay. Please proceed. I hear at this

8 moment no objections by Mr. Dutertre, but I'd just like to draw the

9 attention to the fact that we are in -- perhaps not entirely clear what is

10 as far as what exactly the basis of the questions is.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. EMMERSON:

13 Q. I'd like you to look, please, at paragraph 112 of your witness

14 statement, Mr. Zlatkovic. Your hand is resting on it at the moment, I

15 think. All right. Now, in this paragraph you say a number of things I

16 want to ask you about. First of all, you say that when you saw these two

17 bodies you indicate that the body that was in the sacks was naked except

18 for a pair of black sandals on the feet. You told us a little while ago

19 it was the body of the woman that was naked.

20 A. No, no. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. The female body

21 was completely naked with black sandals on the feet, and the male body was

22 in a sack.

23 Q. Well, that obviously is something that you recall having been

24 shown some photographs, but look, if I may ask you to, please, at the way

25 that you have written your statement.

1 "I remember seeing two bodies at this location, one of which was

2 in sacks which were placed on the torso and legs. It was naked except for

3 the black sandals on the feet."

4 You agree that your statement indicates that it was the body in

5 sacks that was naked except for sandals on the feet. Do you see that?

6 A. Most likely there was a mistake in translation. I remember well

7 that the male body was in a sack and the female body completely naked, had

8 sandals on the feet. It's possible that there was a translation error.

9 Q. Let's just --

10 A. I was present there.

11 Q. Let's just --

12 A. The male body was already decomposing, and one could smell the

13 decomposition process.

14 Q. Well, let's just test your suggestion that there's a translation

15 error, Mr. Zlatkovic. If you'd like to look four sentences further down,

16 do you see: "I don't" -- a sentence which reads: "I don't remember the

17 clothing on the female"? Do you see that?

18 A. It's possible that something was inserted when the translation was

19 done. I remember the female body. It was quite a large woman and I can

20 describe it now. It's possible that the translators made a mistake.

21 Q. I see. So in this paragraph at one point it reads to indicate

22 that it is the man's body that is naked, and at another point it indicates

23 that you don't remember what the clothing was on the woman's body. But

24 you tell the Trial Chamber that you have a completely clear recollection

25 that the woman was naked and the man was clothed. Is that the position

1 we're to understand?

2 A. It is my position that the female body was naked except for the

3 sandals on the feet. The male body was in a sack.

4 Q. And then, if I can ask you about this, please, Mr. Zlatkovic. You

5 say: "I was there when the forensic team recovered these two bodies."

6 What forensic team are you there referring to?

7 A. Dr. Dunjic's and Dr. Aleksandric's teams.

8 Q. So we can be clear that Dr. Dunjic and Dr. Aleksandric were still

9 at the site when those two bodies were found, on your testimony?

10 A. I think so.

11 Q. And you saw them because you say: "I was there when the forensic

12 team recovered those two bodies."

13 So you saw those two bodies being recovered by the forensic team;

14 is that right?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, you --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not the forensic team. I stated

17 earlier that --

18 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, in your questions you're mixing up

20 teams and persons.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Very well. Let me be absolutely clear then.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, if we read that part of the

24 statement that was not submitted under 92 ter, I would rather that we read

25 the portions in their entirety because after the sentence that was read

1 out by Mr. Emmerson we find another sentence that is very clear with

2 regard to the presence of the witness when a forensic team recovered the

3 bodies.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, you're invited to --

5 MR. EMMERSON: Put the whole passage.

6 JUDGE ORIE: -- to have the context included.

7 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very happy to do that.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MR. EMMERSON:

10 Q. Your statement reads: "I" --

11 JUDGE ORIE: You start now reading, Mr. Emmerson, you're aware of

12 that.

13 MR. EMMERSON: I am, so I'll do it slowly.

14 Q. Your statement reads: "I was there when the forensic team

15 recovered these two bodies, and I saw them putting numbers on them but I

16 don't remember the numbers. I didn't see the bodies being removed by the

17 forensic team. I don't remember being at that location for all of the

18 time. I was there when the photographs were photographed."

19 Now, pausing there, Mr. Zlatkovic, the passage I'm asking you

20 about is the sentence which reads: "I was there when the forensic team

21 recovered these two bodies." And you've just told us a moment ago that by

22 "forensic team" you meant Professor Dunjic and Professor Aleksandric. Is

23 that correct?

24 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said, "the team of Professor Dunjic's" --

25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, very well.

1 JUDGE ORIE: So please try to identify that. That's a similar

2 observation as -- Mr. Zlatkovic, perhaps you could tell us where you spoke

3 about the team whether the two persons heading the team, Dr. Dunjic and

4 Dr. Aleksandric, were present at that time, one of them, two of them, or

5 none of them?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The entire team consisted of four or

7 five physicians and a technician. I can't tell you this in more specific

8 terms. This was nine years ago. The policemen found the bodies. I know

9 both Dr. Dunjic and Dr. Aleksandric because I spent the most time with

10 them out on the field, and I don't know the other members of their team.

11 The policemen found the bodies, pulled them out, and then they were

12 processed by the forensic team. Now, as to who exactly was present, I

13 wouldn't be able to tell you that because that was nine years ago, whether

14 Dunjic was there, whether Aleksandric was there, one of them was present.

15 MR. EMMERSON:

16 Q. Very well. When you say "one of them was present", you mean

17 either Dunjic or Aleksandric; is that your position?

18 A. It's possible that the third one was there. There was a woman and

19 three physicians.

20 Q. Very well. So one member of the Belgrade forensic team was

21 present when those bodies were found and recovered; is that right?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Processed is what the witness said --

23 MR. EMMERSON: Very well --

24 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's not the same.

25 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

1 Q. Were processed. Whilst those bodies were still on the site, there

2 was a member of the Belgrade forensic team there?

3 A. The bodies were found. It was reported by policemen who conducted

4 the search of the terrain, and then the investigation team arrived

5 together with the forensic experts to look into it.

6 Q. Yes. I'm going to put the question again until -- maybe my

7 problem -- well, I'm --

8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I believe that the question has

9 been put to the witness several times. The witness has said that he had

10 to say. He told us repeatedly that this happened nine years ago. The

11 question is being repeated several times, and I object to this.

12 MR. EMMERSON: I'm --

13 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether we get the same question --

14 MR. EMMERSON: Yes --

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- because I see that the question is not fully

16 answered, at least that's what Mr. Emmerson believes and we will see --

17 MR. EMMERSON:

18 Q. I just want to be absolutely clear so we know what you mean

19 by "processed." Is it your testimony that whilst those two bodies were

20 still at the site where they had been found and before they had been taken

21 away from the area, there was a member of the Belgrade forensic team that

22 saw them on the site where they had been found?

23 A. I've been repeating my answer, counsel. I've done it several

24 times so far. I don't know what else to tell you. That's all I have to

25 say.

1 Q. You haven't, in fact, answered the question that I'm asking you so

2 I'll ask it to you again and ask you to give me a yes or no. Was there a

3 member of the Belgrade forensic team present at the site where those two

4 bodies were found before they were removed, yes or no?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre --

6 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Objection. Not to the fact that

7 the question is put, but then the witness should be given a full picture

8 of what he said about the bodies starting with paragraph 112 up to 114 --

9 JUDGE ORIE: No, the witness has given already -- there's a rather

10 clear question.

11 Mr. Zlatkovic, that question is whether a member of the Belgrade

12 expert team has been present at the place where the bodies were found

13 before they were removed. That's a rather simple question.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there were a lot of

15 people at the site. There were technicians, there were investigation

16 organs, judges, and among them there was a member of the forensic team.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And -- but again then, was there among all

18 those people, was there a member of the forensic team from Belgrade

19 present at the exact location where the bodies were found before they were

20 removed? Not whether they saw the bodies perhaps at a distance later, but

21 at, they say it in Latin, "in situ," that means at the very location, was

22 there a member of the expert team of Belgrade present, whether with a lot

23 of other people -- just was there anyone present of this team?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there was.

25 MR. EMMERSON:

1 Q. Thank you?

2 JUDGE ORIE: That's a clear answer.

3 Please proceed.

4 MR. EMMERSON:

5 Q. If you would just like to look behind tabs 38 and 39 in the brown

6 bundle, they're immediately after the one you have open. If you can just

7 turn over to 38 and 39, please. Just the other way, Mr. Zlatkovic. Yes.

8 Now, you've been shown these photographs while making your statement, and

9 at paragraph 116 of your statement you indicate that the --

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Is it 38, 39 or 37 and

11 38?

12 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, 37 and 38. I apologise.

13 Q. Behind tab 37 are two photographs which you've annexed to your

14 witness statement as annex 25, and at paragraph 116 of your statement you

15 indicate that these photographs show the man in the sack and that you can

16 identify this as the person that you saw. Is that correct? That

17 photograph there, Mr. Zlatkovic.

18 A. If you're referring to the person who was in the sack, we

19 assumed - at least that's what people said - that it was most probably a

20 policeman who had been kidnapped at Kulina [phoen] Pec of Roma ethnicity.

21 Q. Please, listen to the question and answer it, okay. Tab 37 shows

22 two photographs. In your witness statement at paragraph 116 you say that

23 you recognised that photograph as the person that you saw, one of the two

24 people that you saw. Is that correct?

25 A. Again, I don't understand your question.

1 Q. In your witness statement at paragraph 116, you are shown this

2 photograph and you say in terms that these two photographs, of them the

3 top photograph shows the man in the sack that you are referring to at

4 location number 5. Now, is it your evidence that this is the person that

5 you say that you saw as one of the two people described at location number

6 5?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Now -- and we can see the number 3 there. If you

9 could turn, please, to 38 you then say at paragraph 117, and this is annex

10 26 to your witness statement, that these two photographs you recognise as

11 being a photograph of the other body that was in that location, a body of

12 a woman. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, if you could, please, turn to tab 6 in this

15 bundle. This is a record compiled by Investigating Judge Cindrak on the

16 23rd of September, concerning the finding of three bodies in a hazel

17 orchard. Do you see that? Do you have the document?

18 A. Yes, yes.

19 Q. Perhaps the usher would just help you open the file properly so

20 that it's not inconvenient for you to look at. Thank you.

21 Now, so that we're clear about this, could you help us with the

22 translation of the third paragraph. Could you read the third paragraph

23 out to us, please.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, usually helping out with the

2 translation is not something that's done through the witness by the

3 interpreters.

4 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

5 JUDGE ORIE: We have an English --

6 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.

7 JUDGE ORIE: -- translation. So if you want to put that to the

8 witness, fine.

9 MR. EMMERSON: I'm happy to do that.

10 Q. Could you look at the third paragraph, please, and at the last

11 sentence of it. Does that indicate where these bodies were found?

12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Can he have the time to read the

13 entire document so that he knows exactly what we're speaking about,

14 because when the question is put to it as to whether it is at that

15 location that the bodies were found.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, were you able to read the document?

17 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

18 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, thank you.

19 Q. Can you help us, first of all, as to where it is that this records

20 indicates the bodies were found? Look at the third paragraph and the

21 final sentence.

22 A. It says that two unknown bodies were found, one next to each

23 other, and a third 7 metres further away.

24 Q. Yes. And we'll look at the numbering in just a moment, but can

25 you look, please, at the third paragraph and the final sentence. Where is

1 it describing those bodies as having been found?

2 A. At a distance of 2 and a half kilometres from the village of Rznic

3 along a village road leading by the hazelnut orchard on the left-hand side

4 of the country road. There is a valley where in the bushes bodies were

5 found.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 A. Next to the ravine, 10 metres.

8 Q. Is this record indicating, Mr. Zlatkovic, as far as you understand

9 it, that these bodies were found 10 metres from the ravine?

10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Now, please. Which ravine are we

11 speaking about? Could we be more specific.

12 MR. EMMERSON: Let me go on what is in the record --

13 JUDGE ORIE: The witness can answer the question.

14 MR. EMMERSON:

15 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic?

16 A. I have already said that I can't say exactly where this place is

17 because a lot of time has elapsed. On the aerial photograph, I cannot

18 recognise the place. Was it next to the lake or was it further away? I

19 don't know.

20 Q. Very well. My question put simply - if you can't answer it,

21 please say so - is: Does this record indicate that those bodies were

22 found 10 metres from the ravine or canal?

23 A. 10 metres from the road.

24 Q. Thank you. The record is dated the 23rd of September. Do you see

25 that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And it indicates that the investigating judge - this is the end of

3 the first paragraph - went to the scene with the above-mentioned team and

4 performed an on-site investigation, and you are listed as one of those who

5 attended. Is it the position that you attended with the investigating

6 judge?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And this was on the 23rd of September?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Now, by that time, Mr. Zlatkovic, there were no

11 members of the Belgrade forensic team present in the area, and according

12 to the evidence of the Belgrade forensic team these bodies were removed

13 before the forensic team had an opportunity to see them. Can you help us

14 about that, please?

15 A. It's possible they were taken out of that part, out of the ravine.

16 Q. No, Mr. Zlatkovic, according to the Belgrade forensic team, no

17 member of their team was present or saw these bodies until they were at

18 Hotel Pashtrik. In other words, there was no member of the Belgrade

19 forensic team given an opportunity to see them in situ, because they were

20 removed by the police before the forensic team arrived.

21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] On this point, the consolidated

22 statement of Professor Dunjic provides us with some information.

23 Indeed --

24 MR. EMMERSON: I'm --

25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] -- I can't go into detail, but he

1 went in situ at a given point in time --

2 MR. EMMERSON: That's not --

3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] -- and he described what he did --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, you can insist that Mr. Emmerson points

5 us to the -- in the question Mr. Emmerson said: "According to the

6 Belgrade forensic team no ..." et cetera. You can ask Mr. Emmerson to

7 give us the source for that so that we are able to verify. If he doesn't

8 give a source or if the source says anything else, I would expect you to

9 object.

10 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I'm perfectly happy to have the source and

11 the paragraph numbers identified from each of the -- of Professor Dunjic's

12 records. But for the sake of absolute clarity, the evidence of

13 Professor Dunjic is that by the time he returned the bodies had been

14 removed, and there can be no question about that. And whatever

15 Mr. Dutertre might wish at this stage to introduce that is the position on

16 the evidence of Professor Dunjic. He was called back from Belgrade and

17 that by the time he arrived the bodies were in Hotel Pashtrik. I'm happy

18 to have the paragraph number identified. I'm sure Mr. Dutertre is

19 familiar with it.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Quite. That's what he stated, but

22 he added something to the effect that he went in situ. He gave

23 references, and I believe that the counsel failed to see the paragraph

24 where he said that he went on -- in situ.

25 MR. EMMERSON: Not at all. I --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, if you would like to raise this issue

2 in re-examination, you're perfectly entitled to do so. And Mr. Emmerson

3 has heard that you, at least, fear that he's making a mistake.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Well just to be absolutely clear, the reason

6 why I laid the foundation that I did with this witness about there being

7 members of the forensic team there before the bodies were removed was

8 specifically because I have it very firmly in mind what Professor Dunjic

9 has to say.

10 Q. Now, I'm want to be clear to you and I'm going to put it to you

11 absolutely clearly, Mr. Zlatkovic --

12 JUDGE ORIE: I take it what he said not what he has to say.

13 MR. EMMERSON: What is recorded in his statement. And I'm being

14 handed a note indicating that, yes, just for the record and for Your

15 Honours and Mr. Dutertre paragraph 149 of the consolidated witness

16 statement reads as follows: "The MUP removed these bodies from that

17 location the same day and transported them for forensic purposes to the

18 premises of the garage of Hotel Pastrik." And it was the following day

19 that he was informed and called from Belgrade.

20 Q. Now, I just want to be clear, Mr. Zlatkovic. The evidence of the

21 forensic experts is that their team was not there whilst these bodies were

22 in situ and they were not called until the day after they had been

23 removed. Now, you told us a moment ago there was a member of the forensic

24 team present whilst the bodies were in situ. What is the position,

25 please?

1 A. Do you mean that Dr. Dunjic might remember? He's older than I am,

2 and maybe he can't recall. He went to Belgrade and back more than once.

3 I was 50 years old at the time and I'm sure my memory was very good. The

4 only mistake is that the forensic technicians should have filmed it, and

5 then we could have shown here who was there and who wasn't.

6 Q. Yes. And was it filmed or photographed?

7 A. No, that's what I'm saying. It should have been.

8 Q. I see. You can see on this record, Mr. Zlatkovic, that it records

9 three bodies being found, bodies that are numbered 1 and 2 were found

10 immediately together, and body number 3, the body in sacks, was found 7

11 metres apart. You told us in your evidence that you saw two bodies, not

12 three, and you identified body number 2 that you just looked at a

13 photograph of a moment ago as one of those two bodies. From your

14 recollection, Mr. Zlatkovic, were there three bodies or two?

15 A. To the best of my recollection there was a woman and a man, who

16 was in a sack. As for the third body, I can't remember it but of

17 course --

18 Q. Thank you --

19 A. -- I have the right to forget something.

20 Q. I see. Now, those two bodies that you identified in the

21 photograph, Mr. Zlatkovic, they were subsequently given the labels RE-3

22 and RE-4. Number 2, that is the woman, was given the label RE-3; and

23 number 3, that is the man in the sack, was given the label RE-4. And we

24 have evidence in this case that RE-3, the woman, was last seen alive on

25 the 6th of September; and RE-4, the man in the sack, last seen alive on

1 the 4th of September being taken into the custody of Serb police in

2 Gjakove police station -- no, I'm sorry, in Gjakove. Now, your evidence

3 as I understand it is that between the 4th and the 8th of September the

4 Serb police were clearing this area. Is that right?

5 A. Yes, but I don't know where this information comes from.

6 Q. I --

7 A. I don't have that information available. As I said, my only task

8 was to conduct on-site investigations.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, it's of no use to put to the witness

10 where these people were seen last. I mean, that's asking for starting to

11 thinking about what conclusions that would justify. Let's just focus on

12 what the witness can tell us.

13 MR. EMMERSON: Very well. I've got two final topics, if I may,

14 and I'll deal with them briefly.

15 Q. You gave some evidence in chief to Mr. Dutertre about a man called

16 Isuf Hoxha, and you described him as a poor man who lived on some farm.

17 Where was the farm, please?

18 A. It was the Duvanska Kolonija from Djakovica towards Drin. It's

19 linked to Djakovica.

20 Q. I see. Was it a farm in the countryside?

21 A. No, no, they used to grow tobacco there so the people who lived in

22 those sheds called this the Duvanska Kolonija, which means the tobacco

23 colony.

24 Q. That's where Mr. Hoxha lived, is it?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. In one of those sheds on the tobacco colony?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And that's where you claimed to have visited him, is it, and seen

4 the photograph on his wall that you told us about?

5 A. Once with the chief of the criminal police. He was friendly with

6 him and he went to visit him.

7 Q. So did you go and visit him there, Mr. Zlatkovic?

8 A. I was there with Slobodan Kovac, but that was in 1997.

9 Q. I see. And where was he living in 1998?

10 A. Most probably it was there, but I don't know because I only saw

11 him about town but not -- I didn't go there.

12 Q. I see. And you told us that he was involved in gambling. Is it

13 correct that he ran an illegal gambling operation?

14 A. Well, every kind of gambling is illegal, let me tell you. Only

15 the state-run gambling enterprises, but everything else is illegal.

16 Q. And did he get into trouble with the Serb police over this from

17 time to time?

18 A. I don't know if he was ever brought in because of that, but he

19 would drop in on his own, of his own accord. I would see him standing

20 there, chatting with someone. He had friends there. That man Kovac was a

21 friend of his.

22 Q. So although he was known to be involved in various kinds of

23 illegal activity, including gambling, he got on well with the Serb police?

24 A. I think yes, because he went there, I think he did get on well

25 with them.

1 Q. Was he paying bribes to Serb police officers, as far as you know?

2 A. I don't know what he could use to bribe them with. He was a poor

3 man. I think maybe they overlooked his gambling in order to get

4 information from him.

5 Q. I see. And finally this, if I may. You gave some evidence about

6 the incident on the 24th of March, 1998, in Gllogjan. Can we be

7 absolutely clear. By the time you arrived, the focus of the exchange of

8 fire had moved away from the area around the Haradinaj compound into the

9 village of Gllogjan; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you, yourself, never approached the area where the shooting

12 was taking place in Gllogjan?

13 A. That was the first time I entered Glodjane with Milan Stanojevic,

14 he brought me there Slobodan Kovac and some projectiles landed there

15 coming from various sides. We were in some of the houses there

16 overlooking Mr. Ramush's house.

17 Q. And did you conduct any investigation at all amongst the civilians

18 of Glodjane about what had happened on that day or did you base your

19 investigation solely on what police officers told you?

20 A. The police officers did bring some people and paraffin gloves were

21 taken to see whether they had fired shots. These were Albanians for the

22 most part. They didn't say anything, and all this was based on what the

23 police officers said. What was certain was that this one policeman was

24 killed and that there were wounded on both sides as well as people killed

25 on both sides because people wouldn't say anything, quite simply.

1 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, we have seen in this case, and it's been admitted

2 into evidence at the request of the Prosecution, a report conducted by an

3 organisation -- published by an organisation called the Humanitarian Law

4 Centre into the events -- amongst other things, into the events of the

5 24th of March, which records that amongst those arrested a number of the

6 witnesses who were arrested by the police described being beaten. Were

7 you present whilst people were being interviewed after the 24th of March?

8 A. No, I wasn't present, but I know that some were released right

9 away, immediately, and others were released in the morning. It was mostly

10 the state security who worked with them. I didn't.

11 Q. I see. And the Humanitarian Law Centre inquiry also records that

12 whilst some witnesses believed that the police patrol had been shot upon,

13 others said that the patrolmen fired first. Did you ever make any

14 inquiries of the civilian witnesses as to who shot who first in the course

15 of this incident, other than the account that you received from

16 Momo Stijovic?

17 A. I couldn't talk with those people because I didn't see them again.

18 Even if someone had wanted to answer a summons, he wouldn't dare come.

19 Q. I see.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I'm -- remember what you said --

21 MR. EMMERSON: I'm happy to conclude my cross-examination at that

22 point. The document from which I was putting extracts from the witness is

23 Exhibit P6, the "Spotlight" report.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.

25 I'm working from left to right, so Mr. Harvey you're now in this

1 position, you're the second one, unless you have arranged that you would

2 take another sequence.

3 MR. HARVEY: I'm happy either way, Your Honour. Mr. Guy-Smith was

4 going to go next, but I don't mind working --

5 JUDGE ORIE: All right, fine, if that's what you expected, then

6 Mr. Guy-Smith is --

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm amenable.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start.

9 You'll now be cross-examined, Mr. Zlatkovic, by Mr. Guy-Smith, who

10 is counsel for Mr. Balaj.

11 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:

12 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, when you were at the Haradinaj compound on the 24th

13 of March, you received information from a gentleman whose name is

14 Zoran Djordjevic; correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And Zoran Djordjevic was a member of the State Security Service

17 and he worked under the auspices of Mr. Janisevic [phoen], the chief of

18 SUP in Pristina; correct?

19 A. No, it's a mistake. Zoran Djordjevic is a policeman who was

20 assistant commander at the police station in Djakovica.

21 Q. Mr. Djordjevic worked with two other police: Dragan Jasovic and

22 Momcilo Sparavalo, did he not?

23 A. I don't know those people at all.

24 Q. Very well. When you say you don't know these people at all, are

25 you telling us that you've never heard their names before or that you

1 never worked with them or know of anybody else who has worked with them?

2 A. I truly don't know who these people are. There were a lot of

3 policemen there, a lot of people passed through the SUP buildings in

4 Djakovica and Decani. I had no contact with those people.

5 Q. Now, you worked for both SUP and MUP, did you not? Is there --

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 Q. And during 1998, the period that we've been discussing, from March

8 through September, which one of those organisations or groups were you

9 working with?

10 A. As a crime inspector for homicide and sexual assaults, I covered

11 the area of Djakovica and Decani. When the events of 1998 began, or

12 rather, they began in late 1997, my task was broadened to include

13 terrorism and perpetrators of terrorist crimes.

14 Q. And when your duties broadened, as you've put them, to include

15 terrorism and perpetrators of terrorism, at that time you were working

16 with MUP; correct?

17 A. Are you referring to the MUP of Republic of Serbia or the one of

18 Pristina?

19 Q. That's correct -- of Pristina, of Pristina.

20 A. All right. I simply sent dispatches on my action taken on the

21 ground. I sent it to the Pristina MUP and they, in turn, forwarded it to

22 Belgrade.

23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... It's fair to say that during

24 this period of time, MUP and SUP and the State Security Service were all

25 working together compiling information to deal with, as you've told us,

1 terrorist issues; right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Now, in your statement when you first learned about, as

4 you've put it, terrorist issues in 1997, you were told by soldiers, as

5 you've told us at paragraph 16, that Albanian farmers were the terrorists;

6 correct?

7 A. Yes. I think in 19 -- well, let us not argue about the date, I'm

8 not sure. I think it was late in 1997 or early in 1998, in January.

9 There was a bus travelling between Pristina and Djakovica. There were two

10 or three soldiers on that bus.

11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... the question is very simply

12 this: You were present when a statement was made that the terrorists were

13 armed Albanian farmers; correct, farmers?

14 A. Precisely so. That's how they described those people, that they

15 wore typical shoes called opanci worn by farmers.

16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... terrorists, you equate that

17 term at all times with people who were members of the KLA, correct? And

18 that's what you've told us at paragraph 18 of your statement?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Could you tell us, please, what information you had to assert, as

21 you do at paragraph 42 of your statement, that in September Albanian

22 terrorists had taken off their uniforms and mixed with the villagers?

23 A. Would you please repeat that question.

24 Q. Surely. Could you tell us, please, what information you had to

25 assert, as you do in paragraph 42 of your statement, statement that you

1 made and we've been discussing for the past days, that in September

2 Albanian terrorists had taken off their uniforms and mixed with villagers?

3 A. When the group with Kalamashi was brought in, they all wore

4 track-suits. The second group, when they surrendered weapons in Donji --

5 or rather, in Istinic --

6 Q. Now --

7 A. -- when they were surrendering weapons, the older people waited

8 for the policemen and a large group of young people with sun-tan were all

9 in track-suits, based on which we concluded that they were the KLA

10 fighters or terrorists, as they were referred to at the time.

11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Major -- excuse me. That's

12 information that you received from Major Milic, which is reflected I

13 believe --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And Major Milic told you that captured members of the DTS sabotage

16 and terrorist forces were wearing civilian clothes and were armed with

17 long weapons; right?

18 A. Yes. They allegedly discarded uniforms.

19 Q. Do you know a gentleman who was a police officer with MUP by the

20 name of Milovan, last name is Cimesa, I could be pronouncing it

21 incorrectly, C-i-m-e-s-a, who was a deputy platoon commander and had as an

22 assignment the control of the roads of Pec-Gjakove?

23 A. I don't know him.

24 Q. Mr. Cimesa says in a statement that he gave to the Office of the

25 Prosecutor, recently received by the Defence - and I'm referring to 6 --

1 U0156871 for the benefit of counsel, paragraph 10 - "however, we never got

2 to see the KLA terrorists, but it must be said that 1998 most of the KLA

3 fighters did not wear uniforms, so it was difficult, if not impossible, to

4 distinguish them from ordinary civilians."

5 Do you agree with that statement, sir?

6 A. It's not that there were no people in uniforms. There were

7 definitely several terrorists whose names I don't have now, but you can

8 find it in the OTP documents, who had been arrested in Crnobreg and some

9 other locations wearing uniforms and then under their uniforms they had

10 track-suits.

11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... do you agree with Mr. Milovan

12 Cimesa, a deputy platoon commander of MUP, that 1998 most of the KLA

13 fighters did not wear uniforms, so it was difficult, if not impossible, to

14 distinguish them from ordinary civilians, yes or no?

15 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, Mr. Guy-Smith --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: This answer doesn't assist the Chamber in any way.

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well. If it doesn't assist --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Why not? Because you asked the witness to say yes or

22 no. First is: Was it that they, the majority, wear or not wear uniforms;

23 and the second is whether it was difficult to distinguish them from

24 civilians which could be done by other matters. So a simple yes or no on

25 this composite question is really not what we are seeking.

1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, then, I do apologise as I want to help you

2 out.

3 Q. Do you agree with the statement?

4 A. I agree.

5 Q. Thank you. When the people were arrested on September 3rd, there

6 were a number of individuals who were brought to the police station for

7 questioning; correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You've mentioned a couple of those names, I believe, one was

10 Zenelj Alija, another was Bekim Kalamashi; right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Also brought to the police station was Hashim Alija, Riza Alija,

13 Isa Alija, Agron Alija; correct?

14 A. There were a lot of people. I knew the two that my team worked

15 with, but there were more of them, not just five or six, more of them.

16 Some were released right away and some were kept in order to conduct an

17 interview.

18 Q. The names I've just mentioned, those were people who were also

19 brought to the police station for questioning at that time. They may not

20 have been working with your specific team, but they were also brought to

21 the police station at that time; correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Also brought to the police station was Naser Kalamashi, Arben

24 Alija, Ismail Turaku, Enver Turaku, Gani Zeku, Hazir Kalamashi, and

25 Haxhi Alija; right?

1 A. As I said, there were several people. I don't know their names

2 except for the two I mentioned, Bekim Kalamashi and Zenelj Alija.

3 Q. Did you receive information in your capacity as an inspector of

4 homicides that two people at least were killed in Kodralija village by

5 Serbian troops, and that would have been Hashi Alija and Halil Alija?

6 A. There was fighting there, at least that's what the policemen said.

7 Q. Well, in your --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, are you referring to what -- in early

9 September was a recent event or any longer period of time?

10 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, in early September at the time --

11 JUDGE ORIE: On that time?

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, at that time.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. GUY-SMITH:

15 Q. When you were obtaining information about what happened at the

16 village of Kodralija, you've told us they were fighting, which I

17 understand. Did you get any information and make any determinations about

18 what Albanians, if any, were killed and whether they were civilians or, as

19 you term them, terrorist fighters?

20 A. The only information I have is that they were ambushed outside of

21 the village. There was a patrol of ten people. They opened fire and a

22 conflict erupted. Nobody informed me. It's possible that their superiors

23 were informed, and I was not their superior. They had their own

24 commanders, deputy commanders, and assistant commanders. It's possible

25 that they were informed. If they knew that somebody was killed, they had

1 to write a report.

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... whether or not Albanian

3 citizens, I mean -- by that I mean non-fighters, were killed, were beaten

4 by Serbian participants in this fighting be of importance to you in your

5 capacity as a senior police officer who was investigating homicides and

6 terrorist activity?

7 A. It's possible that something was concealed from me. I can tell

8 you that I arrested several policemen in relation to such cases. In

9 Decani a family of Osa [phoen] was killed and I arrested a policeman

10 called Jovanovic and he was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison.

11 Q. Did you arrest anybody in relation to the incident on September

12 3rd, 1998, where it is reported that a 73-year-old man and a 23-year-old

13 boy were killed by Serbian troops who were not fighting?

14 A. I did not have such information. Whenever there was information,

15 I'm telling you, you can verify that, it's all documented. Two families

16 were killed in Decani and I arrested Jovanovic Slobodan, who was sentenced

17 to 18 years for that crime.

18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that you have this

19 information because something could have concealed from you is that you

20 were not the superior commander for those fighting forces so that

21 information, if it went anywhere, went somewhere other than within your

22 line of command; right?

23 A. It's possible. I was not the commander. I was not these people's

24 superior.

25 Q. Okay. During the time that you were stationed in the area, were

1 you aware of an information source called the Kosovo Daily Reporter or

2 Daily Reports?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Did you have an opportunity to -- excuse me --

5 A. Is it in Albanian? Is it published in Albanian? Because I don't

6 speak Albanian.

7 Q. Did you have an opportunity to speak with your colleagues who

8 spoke or read Albanian, understood Albanian, such people as -- excuse me.

9 Such people as Vlahovic about the reporting that was being done concerning

10 Serb operations in various parts of Kosovo, and specifically with regard

11 to what happened in the Kodralija village on the 3rd of September?

12 A. No, no. Nobody read it out to me or said anything to me.

13 Q. No one ever informed you during the period of time that you were

14 investigating the specific incident that we've been talking about that

15 local activists in Kodralija said that 12 Albanians who were arrested in

16 the village were taken to the Serb police station virtually nude? You

17 never heard that?

18 A. I found those people in a kitchen. They were dressed. Now, as to

19 what happened en route, I don't know. There are all kind of savages.

20 It's possible that people mistreated them. But when they arrived at the

21 police station, they were fully dressed. Now, as to what happened en

22 route, whether they were mistreated, I don't know. Everything is

23 possible.

24 Q. I take it then you also were never informed that there was

25 information from the same service that such people as Zenelj Alija,

1 Bekim Kalamashi, Naser Kalamashi, to name but a few, had been reported to

2 have been tortured by the Serbs at the police station in Gjakove?

3 A. I don't know what that amounted to. Nobody beat them or

4 mistreated them in my presence. They signed the statements, and following

5 that they were detained by the investigative judge upon approval of the

6 regional public prosecutor. I think that they were released from prison

7 first they were in Dubrava and then in Nis and then released later.

8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

9 JUDGE ORIE: The translation ends now. Please proceed.

10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise.

11 Q. Bekim Kalamashi was a young boy. How old was he, 17? 20?

12 A. I remember that he was young, 17 or 18. Let me tell you, there is

13 a doctor in prison. Once somebody is admitted to the prison, a doctor

14 always examines them. If somebody has a doctor's certificate about being

15 tortured --

16 Q. During the time that the questioning of these young men was going

17 on, there were other people being questioned at the police station, too,

18 weren't there?

19 A. It's possible.

20 Q. When you say "it's possible," are you saying to us now that that's

21 something that might have happened or that's something that you know did

22 happen?

23 A. I think that it certainly happened because some people were

24 released immediately once it was established that they had not

25 participated in combat. Some people were held. There were a lot of

1 people working there, state security, other policemen, and so on, and I

2 wasn't informed of everything that was going on.

3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... as a matter of fact, you have

4 told us that one of the things that you were doing was you were collecting

5 statements that were being taken of interviews; right?

6 A. I wrote criminal complaints based on statements that were taken.

7 Q. Well, what you told us earlier today was that you collected all

8 these statements and you wrote criminal reports or expanded criminal

9 reports - and that's at page 8, line 17 - and that's what you did; right?

10 A. Criminal complaints or reports are filed based on statements.

11 Q. And it makes sense what you were doing was collecting as much

12 information as you could in order to file a comprehensive criminal report;

13 right?

14 A. Yes. I analysed the information, and based on that I wrote

15 criminal complaints.

16 Q. And the information that you analysed, Mr. Zlatkovic, came from

17 sources above and beyond that information that you received as a result of

18 the interviews you've talked about so far today, those by Mr. -- that were

19 conducted by Mr. Vlahovic and Mr. Marinkovic [sic]; right?

20 A. No, no. The information came from some confiscated material, an

21 order issued by Mr. Haradinaj, military rule-books. There was a lot of

22 information in that material. We translated that. We analysed it, and

23 then we filed criminal complaints.

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, it's now approximately the fifth or

1 the sixth time that you put your next question when the translation has

2 not finished. Now my --

3 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I move this back I can do it.

4 JUDGE ORIE: What wonders me, seeing that this repeatedly happens,

5 I take it that you're listening to the English channel?

6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, as opposed to the French, which is what I

7 oftentimes do in order to slow it down.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you're now listening to the English channel,

9 that means that it seems you're more interested in your next question than

10 in hearing the final part of the answer.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.

13 Q. You received information as a result of the interview taken by

14 Bogdan Tomas of Ljulj Musaj, did you not?

15 A. I have never heard of Bogdan Tomas.

16 Q. Are you -- are you telling us that during the period of time that

17 you were at the police station you never had contact with or discussed

18 issues concerning the canal with Bogdan Tomas from the State Security

19 Service?

20 A. I don't know any such man.

21 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Bogdan Tomas testified at this very

22 Chamber concerning his involvement in interviewing people, and

23 specifically Zenelj Alija?

24 A. No, no. Just a moment, please. Let's clarify this. Maybe he

25 could have --

1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

2 A. All right.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like the witness to finish what he just said.

4 You said: "Maybe he could have ..."

5 Who is "he" and what could he have?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say that maybe this

7 man Bogdan Tomas, whom I don't know, I've never heard of this last name in

8 my life, maybe later on when Zenelj Alija was in prison in Pec or

9 somewhere else, he might have spoken to him, but I have never heard of

10 Bogdan Tomas.

11 MR. GUY-SMITH:

12 Q. Okay. When you went out to the canal, you saw Zenelj Alija at the

13 canal; correct?

14 A. No, I saw Zenelj Alija in Dasinovac. He indicated the crime scene

15 in Dasinovac.

16 Q. When Zenelj Alija was seen in Dasinovac, he was in custody, wasn't

17 he?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And the person who was watching him was Bogdan Tomas, right, and

20 you know that to be the case?

21 A. I certainly don't know that. I can swear by anything you like

22 that I don't know Bogdan Tomas and whether he was watching Zenelj Alija or

23 not. Maybe when he was arrested permission was given from the prison for

24 him to be brought there, maybe it was all done there.

25 Q. During the time that you were questioning people at the police

1 station before you went to the canal, who did you speak with from the

2 State Security Services concerning this matter?

3 A. I don't remember.

4 Q. Keep any notes?

5 A. I don't know. I don't have my notepads any more.

6 Q. When did you get rid of your notepads, sir?

7 A. When I retired.

8 Q. As an experienced police officer collecting and analysing

9 information, are you telling this Chamber that there are no reports or

10 notes that you forwarded contemporaneously during this investigation to

11 any headquarters or sources concerning the information that you claimed

12 was gathered by all of the various investigative forces involved in this

13 incident?

14 A. That's what you say. Officially, everything is in Belgrade,

15 probably in the analytics department, but I don't want to keep any

16 personal files nor do I need any.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, I'm looking at the clock. I'm also

18 rather concerned about -- and I'm not only addressing you but also

19 Mr. Emmerson on the time you took this morning. How much time you would

20 still need?

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Not much.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Approximately, because I have to decide whether to

23 have a break now or not and then the difference between 7 and 14 minutes

24 is great -- or I should say five and ten minutes.

25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Eight.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Eight. Then I'll keep you to that and we'll have a

2 break in eight minutes from now.

3 MR. GUY-SMITH:

4 Q. I'd like to ask you one question with regard to a view of

5 Judge Radomir Jokovic [sic] and see if you share this view. You know who

6 Judge Radomir Jokovic is, correct?

7 A. Not Radomir Djokovic but Radomir Gojkovic.

8 Q. Radomir Gojkovic has stated in a statement made to the OTP that:

9 "The Albanians settle their quarrels by death; it is their rule of

10 nature."

11 Do you agree with that?

12 A. I don't know. Let me tell you --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.

14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I'd like to know what the relevance

15 of this question is in this case.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that Mr. Guy-Smith is seeking to find out

17 about the attitude of this witness on certain matters, but whether he has

18 to agree with another person, yes or no, on this respect, a direct

19 question would have done as well, Mr. Guy-Smith. I'm ...

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- not interested in the answer to the question.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. GUY-SMITH:

24 Q. With regard to the type of activities that you were investigating,

25 which I believe are similar to the type of activities that the judge was

1 investigating, would it be fair to say that the most common type of crime

2 as you would characterise it that you had to deal with was the charge of

3 persons coming together to take part in hostile activities for terrorist

4 crimes?

5 A. Excuse me just a moment. Let me focus on this. Could you repeat

6 the question.

7 Q. Yes. The activities you were investigating which are similar to

8 the activities and type of activities that the judge who we were just

9 referring to was investigating, was the charge of persons coming together

10 taking part in hostile activities for terrorist crimes?

11 A. [No interpretation]

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't have an answer. I don't have an answer. I

13 don't know if you do. I don't know if any translation --

14 THE INTERPRETER: The witness said: "Joining," but it was not

15 clear.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer to this question.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so. In a Yugoslav

18 criminal law there is a crime of conspiring for criminal activity, and

19 this also includes terrorism. And Radomir Gojkovic said, I agree with it,

20 because that's what it says in the criminal code, the Yugoslav Criminal

21 Code, which is today the Serbian Criminal Code.

22 MR. GUY-SMITH:

23 Q. In the activities that you were investigating were such things as

24 the digging of trenches, the supplying of food, or the joining together of

25 groups of people who had a disagreement with and wished to be free from

1 Serbian rule; correct?

2 A. That's correct because that's what the criminal law envisaged, and

3 we were only a service which was supposed to enforce that. And who joined

4 together with who, that was well-known --

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm not sure --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- who conspired with whom.

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- how many minutes I have left and I don't want

8 to abuse them.

9 JUDGE ORIE: You have two minutes left.

10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Two minutes left.

11 Q. During your compiling of information, did you receive a criminal

12 report on September 6th from Rade Vlahovic concerning his personal

13 circumstances?

14 A. Through the duty service, a criminal complaint was filed

15 concerning his parents going missing.

16 Q. And on September 6th, did you also receive a criminal complaint

17 from Mr. Radunovic?

18 A. Mr. Radunovic also filed a criminal complaint on the 6th of

19 September about his parents going missing and allegedly his house being

20 looted.

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Your Honours, I have both of those documents

22 released available in the system, which I would like the witness -- I have

23 them in English and they also are in Serbian. I have the Serbian at this

24 point in hard copy --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Are they uploaded in the system?

1 MR. GUY-SMITH: They are uploaded in the system, I have two

2 copies, hard copies, in Serbian and I have it uploaded in English.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 Madam Registrar, that --

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would be --

6 JUDGE ORIE: The first one would be about Mr. Vlahovic --

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Vlahovic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: -- And that would be number ...?

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: 729 -- 2D00729 in the system the second one is

10 2D00731 in the system.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the first one about Mr. Vlahovic

12 would be number ...?

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit Number D148,

14 marked for identification.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And the other one, that is the document in relation

16 to Mr. Radunovic would be ...?

17 THE REGISTRAR: The next one would be Exhibit Number D149, for --

18 marked for identification.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

20 MR. GUY-SMITH:

21 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, did you have a chance to take a look at those two

22 documents?

23 A. Yes, I read them even before this.

24 Q. With regard to the first document D148, is that the report that

25 was filed?

1 A. Yes this is it, and Rade Vlahovic filed a criminal report with the

2 SUP of Djakovica, saying that his parents were missing and that his house

3 had allegedly been looted.

4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

5 A. The second document, Ljubisa Radunovic also filed a criminal

6 report, saying that his parents were missing and that allegedly his house

7 had been looted.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Last question, Mr. Guy-Smith.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH:

10 Q. Those two documents that we've just discussed, that is the first

11 time that reports were filed concerning these incidents; correct?

12 A. Yes. Allegedly Rade Vlahovic and Ljubisa Radunovic, as they were

13 both policemen and their brothers were probably in the reserve police

14 force, were unable to visit their villages so they couldn't check whether

15 their parents were alive or not. After this action, they found that their

16 parents were missing, and that's why they submitted these criminal

17 reports.

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Previous translation continues] ...

19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break.

20 Is there -- these are not the usual documents.

21 I take it that you want to tender them?

22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will, yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 Is there any objection against these two documents? No. Then

25 they are admitted into evidence.

1 Mr. Guy-Smith, I can imagine that I said your last question that

2 it's not a very satisfactory way of concluding, unless this is just what

3 you wanted to establish. Of course we haven't seen yet the dates of those

4 documents, therefore we do not know how surprising it is that in relation

5 to the events that they were filed at that moment, not any earlier, not

6 any later. If that is what you're aiming at and if that was your last

7 issue, then after the break I'll give you two minutes more to establish

8 what you want to establish.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps in view of some of the other questions, it

11 might have been wise to come with these questions first and to ask about

12 focus on terroristic activities at a later stage --

13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Only what happened was that I reversed my pile.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, take care that it doesn't happen again.

15 We'll have a break for 20 minutes until ten minutes past 1.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 1.12 p.m.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, the 120 seconds start now. If you

19 come right to your point --

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to ask the date of the document; I'm

21 going to sit down.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

23 MR. GUY-SMITH:

24 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, do you still have before you the --

25 JUDGE ORIE: If you just want to establish the date of the

1 document, it's now in evidence, we can read it.

2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that was my feeling beforehand, but since

3 you mentioned the issue of --

4 JUDGE ORIE: No, I didn't know --

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Fine --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Then --

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm stopping now.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 That was the most effective use of 30, 40 seconds we've ever made

10 --

11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, you'll now be further cross-examined

13 by Mr. Harvey, who is counsel for Mr. Brahimaj.

14 Please proceed, Mr. Harvey.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Harvey:

16 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, we don't have much time, I'm going to come to the

17 point quickly. I want to ask you some questions about Jabllanice and what

18 you believed to be a KLA stronghold in Jabllanice. You understand me?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In addition to documents that you recovered from houses and

21 various locations, one of the most important sources of information for

22 your investigations was speaking to what you called "loyal Albanians".

23 Would you agree with that?

24 A. Not just I. Everybody called them loyal Albanians.

25 Q. Well, what did -- what do you mean by the expression "loyal

1 Albanians"?

2 A. Well, what I meant by the expression "loyal Albanians" was people

3 who did their jobs, who did not rise up against the authorities, the Serb

4 police, the army, the officials, and so on and so forth. They paid their

5 taxes regularly, didn't cause any damage, and so on.

6 Q. People who were opposed to the KLA, for one thing?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. People who were helpful to the police in letting you know about

9 the movements or suspected movements of KLA members?

10 A. Yes, precisely so, but not all Albanians did that. There were

11 people who were peaceful, they did their jobs, they worked in their

12 factories, ran their private businesses, and simply did not get involved

13 in politics. They weren't interested in politics. They just did their

14 jobs.

15 Q. One source of information was through the families of police

16 officers and police reservists; correct?

17 A. Yes, and individual policemen who didn't want to leave in the

18 1980s when almost all the Albanians left their jobs in the civil service

19 or state services. They lived in villages, had family connections, and so

20 on.

21 Q. You also got information from poor people like Isuf Hoxha, right,

22 people for whom the police did favours?

23 A. I mentioned Jusuf Hoxha as a poor man, but there were also wealthy

24 Albanians who had strong enterprises and who gave information. For

25 example, some businessmen in Djakovica, some businessmen in Pec, some

1 businessmen in Decani. That was the area I covered. They also provided

2 information because they complained that people from the KLA were asking

3 them for money to obtain weapons, ammunition, and so on. That's how we

4 got information also.

5 Q. During the period of 1998, the police also made use of loyal

6 Albanians to whom they gave weapons to contribute to local security, as it

7 was put?

8 A. Yes, correct.

9 Q. So these were --

10 A. But that's done in all countries.

11 Q. These were -- I'm not talking about police officers or reservists;

12 I'm talking about civilians to whom the police gave weapons, yes?

13 A. No, we misunderstand each other. What I'm saying is that

14 everybody gives weapons to individuals who ask for them because that's all

15 the police can do for them, and then later on they do favours.

16 Q. One family for -- that did favours to the police from time to time

17 was known as the Jakupi family. Do you remember the Jakupi family?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. Mushk Jakupi, do you remember him?

20 A. Yes, yes, an elderly man.

21 Q. And he had quite a large family who were all known to help the

22 police from time to time?

23 A. Yes, yes. They were in the local police force.

24 Q. Some were in the police force and some were just civilians who

25 were helpful to the police; correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, when you obtained information from informers, from people

3 like Isuf Hoxha or the Jakupi family, how was that information recorded?

4 Did you take statements or did you simply make reports?

5 A. Well, they were registered informants, as we called them

6 associates. They exist everywhere in the world.

7 Q. Of course they do. And you maintained a register, as you put it,

8 of informants; right?

9 A. I didn't have such people in Kosovo because I didn't speak

10 Albanian; however, I received information from my colleagues who spoke

11 Albanian and who cooperated with them. I only knew those people by sight.

12 Q. I apologise, the English language is poor in this respect. You --

13 by "you," I meant plural, you, the Serb police, the MUP. Now --

14 A. Well, yes, but let me give you an example. One person contacted

15 one registered informant, not ten policemen. One policeman would gather

16 information from one source, and then that was registered and used in

17 further operations.

18 Q. In addition to a register of the names of the informants, there

19 was presumably also a register of money paid to informants; correct?

20 A. I don't know about that. I wasn't in charge of that, and in my 40

21 years of service I was never given money to distribute to our registered

22 informants. I was dealing with homicide, and there was no money to give

23 out there.

24 Q. You were dealing with what you referred to as terrorism, and one

25 of the aspects of investigating terrorism is that many members of the

1 general public are reluctant to speak to the police when the police

2 question them. Isn't that true?

3 A. I didn't understand you. Could you repeat it, please.

4 Q. Well -- perhaps it's self-evident. I'm not going to pursue that

5 because of the time.

6 I want to ask you about a particular person, and I want to ask you

7 in relation to paragraph 29 of your statement where you say -- you refer

8 to people being kidnapped and taken to camps at Jabllanice or Gllogjan,

9 and you say that you learned information about this from people who

10 escaped and that statements were taken from them in Gjakove. Do you

11 recall making -- you recall that in your paragraph 29 of your statement?

12 A. Sometime in July, I think it was July. A large group of people

13 were kidnapped from Orahovac. Those people were kept in Jablanica. Some

14 of them fled from Jablanica and came to the Djakovica SUP. Then they said

15 that there were camps, and another person who told us about the camps was

16 Bekim Kalamashi.

17 Q. You refer to statement being taken at SUP Djakovica. Apart from

18 Bekim Kalamashi -- apart from Bekim Kalamashi and Zenelj Alija, are you

19 aware of other statements taken at Djakovica about Jabllanice?

20 A. I remember that somebody interviewed them, the policemen did.

21 These people were hungry, they were taken to the kitchen and fed there.

22 And then somebody interviewed them. Now what happened to those statements

23 afterwards, whether they were assessed as useful or not, whether they were

24 given to the prosecutor's office and what happened to them afterwards, I

25 truly don't know that.

1 Q. I want to ask you about one particular individual --

2 MR. HARVEY: And for this we need to go into private session for

3 just one moment, please.

4 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 [Open session]

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

23 MR. HARVEY:

24 Q. Have you heard of the person whose name I just gave you, Witness

25 6?

1 A. I don't know him. Judging by the name, I would say that he was a

2 Catholic Albanian, but I really don't know.

3 Q. Well, if that's a guess, sir, it's a good one. On the 25th of

4 July of 1998, he has told this Tribunal on that date he left Jabllanice,

5 and between the 25th and the 30th of July, 1998, he spoke with Mr. Camovic

6 at the Pashtrik Hotel in Gjakove.

7 First of all, sir, do you -- did you ever from time to time have

8 coffee together with Mr. Camovic in the Pashtrik Hotel?

9 A. Never, or rather, let me tell you this. On the 14th of May,

10 1999 -- I left Djakovica on the 15th of May, and before I left, the

11 evening before, I had coffee with him.

12 Q. As for July of 1998, you didn't socialise with Mr. Camovic?

13 A. He was chief of state security and I was an ordinary operations

14 officer. He was much, much higher than I was.

15 Q. Were you aware that he had information about Jabllanice?

16 A. I'm not aware of that, but most likely he did have that

17 information because I saw him socialising with Albanians.

18 Q. Did you provide Mr. Camovic with information about Jabllanice?

19 A. Unless he received the information that we had obtained from

20 Bekim Kalamashi. As for me informing him personally, no, that wasn't

21 possible. All I knew about Jablanica came from Bekim Kalamashi, and I

22 also heard about it from policemen once I got there who had told me that

23 five to six years prior to the events it was already impossible for them

24 to go to Jablanica. Now, as to why, I don't know that.

25 Q. In paragraph 31 of your statement you say that the first attempt

1 by MUP to push the Albanian terrorists away from the Djakovica-Pec road

2 towards Jabllanice, Djakovica municipality, and regain control of that

3 road was done on the 2nd of August, 1998. You recall that in your

4 statement, sir?

5 A. Yes, yes.

6 Q. I want to ask you some -- I want to ask you some questions about

7 that operation. First of all, were you involved in any aspect of that

8 operation yourself, sir?

9 A. I personally wasn't involved. I came to Rastavica in order to

10 conduct on-site investigation because the unit had already engaged in

11 combat and in case somebody got killed and if the terrain was liberated,

12 then we would come in to conduct on-site investigation and I just came

13 into one room there.

14 Q. You did not go to Jabllanice?

15 A. No, no.

16 Q. But you are aware that there was a full-scale offensive against

17 Jabllanice on the 2nd of August, 1998, aren't you?

18 A. They began with it, but it was halted at around 10.00, I guess.

19 The combat was halted in the area leading towards Decani. What went on

20 there, I really don't know.

21 Q. Why do you say it was halted around 10.00? What are you basing

22 that on?

23 A. Well, it was impossible. Let me tell you, the Albanians were

24 really well-organised and when the police forces moved ahead they

25 descended down some 10 to 20 metres only from the main road. And then the

1 combat was halted and then they came back. I don't know what was

2 happening towards Jablanica, Crmljane, and other locations. In this area

3 here, the combat was aborted, halted.

4 Q. I'm asking you specifically about Jabllanice on the 2nd of August.

5 Are you saying that MUP forces did not enter Jabllanice on the 2nd of

6 August?

7 A. I'm telling you I don't know. I don't know because Jablanica is

8 far away from Rastavica. I don't have any information about whether they

9 entered or not. It's possible that they did and it's possible that they

10 didn't. I don't know.

11 Q. Well, perhaps we could have on the screen your annex -- well, I

12 think you have it in front of you, your annex 7 at page U0167550. Do you

13 have your annex 7 in front of you, sir?

14 A. I have it here on the screen.

15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This is the English version, isn't it, Mr. Harvey?

16 MR. HARVEY: I seem to have the Serb version.

17 Anyway, may I take it that everybody does have in paper form annex

18 7 if not on the screen before them.

19 Q. The relevant page in B/C/S I'm reminded is U0167557, and the part

20 that I want to direct you to, sir, is given the number KU 73/99. Do you

21 have that?

22 JUDGE ORIE: It's on page 6 of the B/C/S document, the bottom half

23 of the page.

24 MR. HARVEY: Sorry.

25 [Defence counsel and usher confer]

1 MR. HARVEY:

2 Q. Do you have the passage now, sir?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Have you found it, Mr. Zlatkovic, at the bottom of

4 page 6 --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine, it's fine. I have it.

6 MR. HARVEY:

7 Q. Now, it's right to say, isn't it, that whenever -- this -- first

8 of all, this is a report compiled by you, isn't it, if you go over to the

9 next page I think you'll see your signature on this report.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And it's right to say that nowhere in any of these reports do we

12 see that any attack has been carried out by MUP or SUP. Attacks are

13 always recorded as having been carried out by terrorists, aren't they?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And this report was compiled in February of 1999. Why was it

16 compiled so late, so long after the events of the 2nd of August?

17 A. It was compiled because it was then that they learned that that

18 group had been active there. That was the intelligence they received.

19 Sometimes policemen would go out to patrol, and those patrol groups were

20 reinforced. They had 10 to 15 policemen in them because it was known that

21 terrorists were active in a certain area. Whenever policemen would enter

22 a village, they would open fire and then fighting would erupt and somebody

23 would be killed. That's my explanation.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, it seems that this is not an answer to

25 the question. Mr. Harvey would like to know why a report was only made in

1 February 1999 on events that had taken place already early August 1998.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was then that they learned that

3 the perpetrators of the crimes of terrorism were people listed in a

4 criminal complaint. It was then that they learned when they gathered the

5 information.

6 MR. HARVEY:

7 Q. Are you seriously suggesting that you didn't commence to gather

8 information about the killing of Zelko Bozic on the 2nd of August, 1998,

9 you didn't begin your investigation until February of 1999?

10 A. No, no. They started gathering information right away; however,

11 the names of perpetrators were not known. Later on we learned the names

12 of the organisers of the crime and then we filed a criminal complaint

13 against them.

14 Q. Well, this is not what we have here a criminal complaint, is it,

15 KU 73/99 or is it? What does "KU" stand for?

16 A. It stands for criminal register, KU number, criminal register for

17 crimes that are listed as crimes, they are filed in criminal register.

18 Criminal complaint is filed, is registered, in the criminal register.

19 This is why it was assigned this KU number.

20 Q. And where is that criminal register today, sir, in Belgrade or

21 Jagodina?

22 A. It is most likely in Jagodina because SUP Djakovica because

23 relocated to Jagodina.

24 Q. Jagodina. Thank you for correcting me. Now, you indicated ...

25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

1 MR. HARVEY:

2 Q. You indicated that at around 10.00 on the 2nd of August, the

3 fighting at Jabllanice had ceased, if I understood you correctly. Is that

4 your position, sir?

5 A. No, I apologise. I said that at around 10.00, or perhaps a bit

6 later, I'm not sure of the time, the fighting stopped in the area between

7 Djakovica and Decani, not in Jablanica. Jablanica is in a quite a

8 different place. Jablanica is a -- a surrounded by forests, it's in a

9 valley, and it's I don't know how many kilometres away, but quite a way.

10 It is impossible to hear any firing or any weapons, no.

11 MR. HARVEY: Your Honours, I note the time.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. HARVEY: I do have, I'm afraid, this has taken longer than I

14 had anticipated and I have cut a lot of my questions out, but I do have

15 quite a bit more for this witness and he is important to my client's case.

16 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you still need?

17 MR. HARVEY: The way we're going, no less than half an hour,

18 Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And --

20 MR. HARVEY: But I know Mr. Dutertre has told me --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre needs another 15 minutes from what I

22 understand. I don't know how many questions there are from the Bench,

23 that means that we'll not finish today.

24 Mr. Zlatkovic, I do hear that you're still available tomorrow, but

25 only in the morning and not very long, but one hour tomorrow. Would that

1 be a possibility?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I just need to make it

3 to Amsterdam for my plane, if I could be assisted in that --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but I'm willing to assist you as

6 much as I can.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm informed that the time we would need would still

8 allow you to be in time at Schiphol airport.

9 That means that we'll conclude for the day. May I add that the

10 Chamber -- and Mr. Harvey, I'm not specifically addressing you, you're

11 always -- since you're the last, you're always -- of course you might

12 think that you are the one to be blamed, you're certainly not. But the

13 Chamber was not in every respect impressed by the efficiency of today's --

14 of today's cross-examination. But let's not spend too much time on it.

15 Let's improve for tomorrow.

16 Mr. Dutertre, you're on your feet. Anything to be raised before

17 tomorrow?

18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Not really, but with respect to

19 annex 4, because a question was put about annex 4, there is a translation

20 error. I've been told that it should read "reasonable ground" and not

21 "reasonable doubt." We'll upload a new version of the document, of the

22 translation, as quickly as possible in the e-court system.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre, for that. At the same time,

24 everyone, parties included, are invited to detect these kind of mistakes

25 which appear already from the logic itself.

1 Mr. Harvey -- then, Mr. Dutertre, do I understand that 92 bis

2 would be possible, as we discussed earlier the issue of -- the issue of

3 having a officer ready to make the 92 bis attestation rather than to hear

4 testimony through videolink under 92 ter?

5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the way I understand

6 the matter, subject to Mr. Re's correction, I think that we can hear the

7 next witness under Rule 92 bis.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see, Mr. Re, you are nodding yes, so that's

9 confirmed.

10 Mr. Zlatkovic, I again instruct you not to speak with anyone about

11 your testimony, whether already given or still to be given, and we'd like

12 to see you back, tomorrow morning, 9.00 in this same courtroom. We stand

13 adjourned until tomorrow, 9.00, Courtroom III.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 18th day of

16 July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25