1 Wednesday, 18 July 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Good morning to you as well, Mr. Zlatkovic. Mr. Zlatkovic, I'd
12 like to remind you that you're still bound --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the
15 solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your testimony Monday.
16 Then, Mr. Harvey, are you ready to continue your
18 MR. HARVEY: I am, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 WITNESS: RADOVAN ZLATKOVIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Harvey: [Continued]
22 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, yesterday we finished at a point where I was asking
23 you about KU 73/99, which you have at annex 7 to your statement.
24 That's U0167557 in the Serbian original. Do you have that in front of
25 you, sir?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You told us yesterday that you believe that the original documents
3 in relation to this investigation would be in Jagodina. Is that correct?
4 A. I said yesterday that certain information can be found in
5 Jagodina. That's correct. What you asked me yesterday as to why I
6 submitted a criminal complaint so late, I can tell you this: Everywhere
7 in the world it is a well-established fact that when it comes to serious
8 crimes it takes time. It can take from one to four years. I could have
9 submitted a criminal complaint even five years after the crime once I
10 gathered information that I needed about the perpetrators of the crime.
11 Q. We were looking yesterday at the operation that you describe in
12 paragraph 31 of your statement to push the KLA from the Djakovica-Pec road
13 towards Jablanica. Would you agree, sir, that the Brahimaj family were
14 part of the target of that operation?
15 A. It's true. Not only from the Djakovica-Pec-Decani, but also from
16 the Djakovica-Glina-Pristina road. In just one week at Rakovina, the
17 police members were attacked on that road eight to nine times. The
18 terrorist groups kept provoking police forces and you can find this
19 information in this report.
20 Q. You were stationed in Rakovina during this operation?
21 A. No, I was stationed in Djakovica. On the 9th of August, I was
22 present in Rastavica when the combat began.
23 Q. No, I'm sorry, it's the 2nd of August that I'm focusing on
24 particularly. Were you in Rastavica on the 2nd of August?
25 A. I was in Rastavica on the 2nd of August and on the 9th of August.
1 I came there so as to be present and conduct an on-site investigation
2 should any of the policemen be killed.
3 Q. Did you conduct any on-site investigation into the killing of a
4 policeman on the 2nd of August in Jablanica?
5 A. No, it wasn't safe there because strong forces of Ramush Haradinaj
6 and others were there in large numbers.
7 Q. The -- I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same
9 MR. HARVEY: Could we have, please, Defence exhibit -- or court
10 exhibit D81 on the screen.
11 Q. While that's coming up, sir, let me just explain, the document
12 you're about to see is an order or a report, rather, on the combat tasks
13 carried out on the 5th -- carried out by the 15th Armoured Brigade. And
14 you'll see, sir, in the first paragraph there of the report it's written:
15 "Between the 25th of July and the 6th of August, 1998, MUP units were
16 engaged by decision of the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija along the
17 following axes ..."
18 And then a number of different axes are recorded, and it's the
19 last one that I want to draw your attention to. It's written in the
20 English translation as Gradanica village. In fact, that should be
21 Grabanice. Can you see where it says that?
22 A. Grabovica.
23 Q. Grabavica?
24 A. Grabovica. I think it's Pecka Grabovica, it's near Pec.
25 Q. And can you -- you're actually looking at the Serb original. Does
1 it not say "Grabanica"?
2 A. I have only heard of the village of Grabovica. It's possible that
3 a village of Grabanica exists as well, I'm just not aware of it.
4 Q. And then the next point is Bandera trig 490, yes?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The next point is Glodjane village?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The next point is Jablanica village?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If -- in order just to clarify what we're looking at here --
11 MR. HARVEY: If we could have displayed P10 now. Thank you. And
12 if we could focus in the -- towards the top right-hand quarter of the map.
13 Thank you.
14 Q. Now, sir, do you see -- first of all, can you see Jablanica there?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if you follow in a line from Jablanica almost directly -- if
17 you were to draw a north-eastern line from Jablanica, do you see Gllogjan?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You see Bandera?
20 A. Yes, that was a stronghold of terrorists.
21 Q. Which one was? This whole area?
22 A. That whole area, especially Bandera. They had planted mines there
23 on a number of occasions, killing policemen.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.
25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when mention is made
1 of Gllogjan, which Gllogjan are we speaking about? Because there's
2 Gllogjan which is the village where there is Mr. Haradinaj's house and
3 there is another one, so I'm not quite clear about that.
4 MR. HARVEY: I will --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, the witness is asked to look at the
6 map. The Gllogjan where Mr. Haradinaj lives is not on the map at this
7 moment, not visible. So therefore, where Mr. Harvey said "Jablanica"
8 north-east could be only one Gllogjan, that is the Gllogjan between
9 Grabanica and Jablanica.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. And then if we follow that line again from Bandera we come to
13 Grabanica. Do you see that? And following the line north-east:
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I appreciate it's a long time since you were involved in this
17 operation, sir, but it was a very substantial MUP operation, wasn't it?
18 A. It was definitely a substantial MUP operation because that road
19 had to be opened up, not only that road but the road leading towards
20 Pristina as well. That's why it was done. As I told you yesterday and
21 the day before, the terrorist forces from -- on both sides of the road
22 were present and one couldn't travel on those roads. You can see it in
23 the documents. A lot of civilians were killed on those roads, not just
24 policemen, but civilians, soldiers, and I don't know who else. You can
25 find it in the material the names of the people who were killed.
1 Q. Because if we go back to KU 73/99, the document in annex 7 to your
2 statement where you recorded: "At about 1600 hours on the 2nd of August,
3 the terrorist group led by Ramush Haradinaj and the other reported
4 individuals which operated in the village of Jablanica ..." I'll miss out
5 the next bit, "carried out a terrorist attack against members of Republic
6 of Serbia MUP. On that occasion, the criminal terrorist group killed the
7 policemen Zeljko Bozic, member of MUP, Pristina SUP."
8 If one simply read that as it stands, it looks as if this is just
9 a random attack on an individual policeman, doesn't it, sir?
10 A. I don't know how you read this, but this is standard terminology
11 under Yugoslav law. We had received a report that in the Jablanica region
12 in one of terrorist's operations, the policeman was killed. It is certain
13 that the police force responded. Based on that I wrote a criminal
14 complaint, or rather, a report which was sent to the regional public
15 prosecutor in Pec, who was then supposed to take action based on that.
16 Q. What action was taken based on that, sir?
17 A. Well, no action was taken. The file was sent, and then the
18 regional court and the prosecutor's office in Pec had to be relocated to
19 Serbia to Leskovac, so no further action could be taken under those
20 circumstances. This is why the file was sent here.
21 Q. This was a major attempt to effectively wipe out the KLA in the
22 Jablanica area, wasn't it?
23 A. Not only in Jablanica. In the entire area where there were units
24 of the KLA. Let me tell you, it is not our fault that the constitution
25 provided for that. Whenever there's a rebellion in any country not just
1 in Serbia or Yugoslavia, you know what the state does, they use the police
2 force, the army, they use whatever they can in order to quash the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, you're not accused at this moment.
5 You're just asked whether there was a major attempt to effectively wipe
6 out the KLA in the Jablanica area. No one says -- no one asks whether you
7 were entitled to do that, but I think what is the matter on Mr. Harvey's
8 mind might be that where in the report it seems or it looks as if there
9 was just some terrorists attacking a policeman that Mr. Harvey, on the
10 basis of these documents, seeks to establish whether this was just such an
11 incident or whether there was a major operation going on which might shed
12 a different light on the event. No one is questioning at this moment
13 whether and on the basis of what you were entitled, but just to establish
14 what were the circumstances in which the event took place that is
15 described in this report. So there's no need for you to -- to justify or
16 to defend. Just answer the questions. Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for your
18 guidance. It wasn't just that the policeman who was killed participated
19 in this operation; no, the entire unit participated but one policeman was
20 killed. That's my response.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Harvey.
22 MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. I want to turn to what you discovered as a result of this
24 operation and for those purposes could you have the brown folder in front
25 of you, Mr. Zlatkovic, and it's 34A for you and 34B for non-B/C/S
2 MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Madam Usher.
3 Q. Now, this is the document that you've already looked at with
4 Mr. Emmerson that's dated the 20th of August of 1998, and it
5 begins -- it's the official note. If we look at the very first page in
6 the Serbian original, U0169447, underneath the Tribunal number there,
7 there is a handwritten number 541 of 98. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, yes, I can see that.
9 Q. Can you enlighten us as to what that stands for?
10 A. This is the number that this official note was registered under in
11 the register, the one that I told you that existed in Jagodina. I don't
12 know where the state security office is located now. I don't know whether
13 it's in Jagodina or it's -- it could be Vranje, perhaps, and you can look
14 it up there. But this is the number that the note was registered under.
15 It means that the note exists. It was registered under this number in one
16 of the register books, and you could look it up.
17 Q. Well, I'm grateful for that guidance. You see, I appreciate that
18 you say you have not seen this document before it was shown to you by
19 Mr. Dutertre this past Sunday. Is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. We suffer from the same difficulty. We didn't see it until
22 Monday, but you say there is a register from which this document was taken
23 that ought to be available for all of us to look at probably in Jagodina?
6 Now, the note reads: "Through our priority work on collecting
7 information about S/C/Serbs and Montenegrins who have disappeared or been
8 kidnapped, we have found out that the persons who were being detained in
9 Jablanica and Glodjane during the last actions in these villages have been
10 killed and thrown into a canal located above the village of Saptej that
11 leads to Radonjicko Jezero lake."
12 Again, I appreciate that you weren't the author of this document,
13 but would you agree that written on the 20th of August where we see there:
14 "During the last actions ..." Are we to interpret that during the last
15 actions carried out by MUP and SUP in August and that that was the source
16 of the information, the priority work on collecting information, that's
17 where this information came from?
18 A. Precisely.
19 Q. Thank you. And we see a number of references to intelligence
20 information. I just want to ask you this, if you would turn, please, to
21 the second page at the top in the Serb original there is -- it's the
22 second paragraph on the second page. It says: "The RDB state security
23 department centre was informed of the gist of the statement by dispatch
24 number 529 of the 19th of August, 1998."
25 First of all -- first of all, there isn't a question. If you just
1 wait for the question, sir. The dispatch number 529, again is that
2 another register number like the one that we saw at the beginning?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. And --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- There might be some confusion. The original
6 says "529." The English translation says "527." Let's first establish
7 that. And then another matter is that the handwriting to which you
8 referred at the very beginning is not appearing in the translation. It's
9 just good for the record to know that the handwriting that's 541/98 and
10 some other handwriting only appears on the original.
11 MR. HARVEY: Thank you for that clarification. Your Honour, I
12 was -- when I referred to 529, I'm looking at the top of page 2 of the
13 document, not halfway down where --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I'm -- my eyes moved too
15 quickly. I apologise for that.
16 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
17 Q. The gist of the statement, are we to deduce from that that a
18 number of statements were taken from information sources and then they
19 were condensed into a report giving the gist of the statement to the RDB?
20 A. Precisely, and that is why such a dispatch was sent to the RDB, in
21 order for them to take such actions as they were supposed to take because
22 they were superior to the other services and must have been agreeing on
23 the operation.
24 Q. Now, the statements to which this then refers, were they
25 also -- was it also your practice to file those statements in a register
1 or folder somewhere?
2 A. Yes, yes. As a rule this was registered in files. There are
3 still such registers and can be found. Only those registers that perished
4 in the bombardment cannot be found, but definitely the records exist and
5 you can ask them to be produced to you. There is a register. You can,
6 I'm sure, find the dispatch number 529, sent on such and such a date to
7 the RDB in Prizren or Pec or wherever. I'm sure it must be there.
10 Now, I want to come back to the 2nd of August and the actions
11 carried out by MUP forces then. In the context of something you said on
12 Monday, sir, at page 6913, line 1, of the transcript you said: "The
13 police decided to settle accounts with the terrorists and uncover the
14 perpetrators and free the people who had been kidnapped."
15 I want to examine what you mean by the expression "settle
16 accounts" in the context of the push towards Jabllanice. The units that
17 made up the attack that was launched beginning on the 25th of July, as we
18 have seen from the report from the 15th Armoured Brigade, did they include
19 the special anti-terrorist unit?
20 A. They certainly did. Well, perhaps not the term to "settle
21 accounts" perhaps does not reflect what I wanted to say. There was a
22 great problem there. Eight or nine attacks had been launched over several
23 days at the Rakovina check-point. Several policemen got killed there.
24 The road was practically blocked. In the event of a policeman getting
25 wounded, there was no way of taking him to the hospital. There were women
1 there who were ill and who needed urgent medical treatment, there were
2 women in labour. They should have been transported over to the Pristina
3 hospital, but there was no way of doing that. There was constant fire,
4 and that was the reason why it was decided to carry out the terrorist ...
5 Q. That was the reason it was decided to settle accounts, wasn't it?
6 A. Well, certainly for that reason.
7 Q. Right. And the other units involved.
8 [French on English channel]
9 MR. HARVEY:
10 Q. Sorry, we had a bit of interference, let me just ask that question
12 Was the Munja unit, M-u-n-j-a, involved?
13 A. I can't remember. They had various names. I apologise for this.
14 I think that the Munjas were from Djakovica, or rather, from Pec, and I
15 had never been in touch with them. They were ordinary policemen, let me
16 tell you. They merely underwent some training, some anti-terrorist
17 training, but they were just ordinary men like all the others. It's only
18 that they were given these names like Munja, so that they might be
19 distinguishable in combat.
20 Q. You're suggesting that the Munja were just ordinary policemen? Is
21 that what you're saying?
22 A. Precisely. It was a unit composed of ordinary policemen. I don't
23 know whether the Munja were from Djakovica or Pec, but they were ordinary
24 policemen who simply accepted such burden upon their shoulders to carry in
25 combat. They were mostly young men.
1 Q. They were hand-picked criminals, weren't they?
2 A. No, no, no. Please. These men are active today. You are free to
3 go and seek for them. You can go to Pec or Djakovica. You will find them
4 active and working today. You will see that they are no criminals. They
5 were men who were in the service, had been admitted into the service and
6 undergone training before these events. Then the war broke out and they
7 were young. They were willing to show what they had learnt.
8 Q. They were willing to commit war crimes, weren't they?
9 A. Well, I don't know about that. That's what you are saying. I
10 don't know who they committed war crimes against.
11 Q. They were led by a man called Mrvti, weren't they,
12 M-r-v-t-i [sic]? My pronunciation might be a bit off.
13 A. Well, you check it out in Pec through the Pec SUP. I don't know
14 who this Mrtvi person is, I really don't know.
15 Q. It's a nickname, it's not his actual name. It means "the dead,"
16 doesn't it?
17 A. That's quite clear to me, the fact that this is his nickname.
18 Maybe he styled himself that way or maybe that's what they called him
19 since childhood, but you can check it out. I'm sure it's quite easy to
20 check that out through the Pec MUP, whether he had been on the service,
21 which schools he completed. I'm merely referring you to that, that's all.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, I think the question is rather simple:
23 Are you aware of a man called - although not being his own name - Mrtvi,
24 who led a certain unit. Did you hear about that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I never
1 heard of any such man. I heard of Munja but not of a person called Mrtvi.
2 JUDGE ORIE: There was another question put to you which I think
3 was not clearly answered, perhaps also because of the way in which it was
4 put to you. But were there any members of this unit, Munja, that had
5 criminal records?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When they were admitted in the
7 police, they must not have had any criminal records. Therefore, at the
8 moment when they were admitted on to the police force, they certainly did
9 not have any criminal records. I'm sure of that. Now, I don't know about
10 what happened later on. I don't know whether they were amnestied in any
11 way. What I'm sure of is that a person cannot be admitted into the police
12 force if he has a criminal record. Such persons are normally vetted and
13 that's all this is to it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And that's the normal situation, but perhaps in
15 situation which are not quite normal, could it have happened that members
16 of this unit were admitted despite perhaps the fact that they had criminal
17 records? Are you aware of any such thing?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know. I don't know.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Harvey.
20 MR. TROOP: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. The -- I gave you the name Mrtvi. Does the name Nebojsa Minic
22 mean anything to you, because that I understand was the given name of that
24 A. Well, that's more like it. This person is some -- was arrested
25 somewhere in Latin America and brought over to The Hague, I believe, to be
1 held responsible for the crimes he committed. I read it somewhere in the
2 papers. I can tell you that much, but I don't know the man and I don't
3 know whether he, indeed, committed what he is charged with. But he wasn't
4 in Djakovica, he was in Pec. What I told you is what I was able to read
5 in the papers. I don't want to come across to you as a one-sided person.
6 I really want to present the situation as it was on both sides and I want
7 to tell the truth. And thank you for telling me this. This is the man.
8 This is the name, the given name of that person, if he was extradited. I
9 know that he was somewhere in Latin America.
10 Q. He was the head of that unit, wasn't he, Munja?
11 A. Possibly. I'm not sure whether he was the head of the unit. He
12 might have been at the head of the squad or something like that. He may
13 have led a group to commit crimes. Everything is possible when there's a
14 war on, but you are certainly on the right track now that you've given me
15 the name because I have read in the papers that he is a suspect.
16 Q. In the document I showed you earlier from the command of the 15th
17 Armoured Brigade, reference is also made to the Brazil Unit. Are you
18 aware of the Brazil Unit and what its job was?
19 A. I had never had any dealings with the army, believe me, never. I
20 cannot tell you anything about the army. I was an operative, but I had
21 nothing to do with the army.
22 Q. Well, we better put that back on the screen, if we may, please,
23 D00081, because this does not appear to be an army unit from what we see
24 in the document.
25 Now, if you would look, please, at the second full paragraph, the
1 one at the top of the page that you have in front of you now.
2 A. Yes, I can see that.
3 Q. All right. Does it say: "The MUP forces engaged," and we're not
4 talking about the VJ here, we're talking about "the MUP forces engaged
5 consisted of the 1st and 2nd" --
6 A. And the Brazil Unit. MUP, SAJ, and Brazil.
7 Q. Okay. You've read that over to yourself. Now, is it your
8 testimony that the Brazil Unit was not a unit of police at all but was a
9 VJ unit?
10 A. I don't know. This is the first time I hear of the Brazil Unit.
11 Q. Is it possible, do you believe, that a Brazil Unit could have
12 existed within the MUP and you would have been unaware of it?
13 A. I didn't hear anything about it and I really cannot tell you
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, two things.
17 First of all, the same question has been put to the witness several times,
18 and the way the question was phrased this last time was clearly of a
19 speculative nature. So I would like to object to this.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the question has been put, the question has
21 been answered.
22 Mr. Harvey, are you going to --
23 MR. HARVEY: I'm not taking it any further.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then -- then there's no need at this moment to
25 give a ruling on the matter.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
3 Q. The job of those units between the 25th of July and the 6th of
4 August in relation to Jablanica was, among other things, to seize any
5 documents that could be helpful to the MUP. Is that correct?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.
7 Before you answer the question, Witness, Mr. Dutertre.
8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The question
9 is: "The job of those units..." Et cetera. What units are we talking
10 about? Could Mr. Harvey tell us what units he's referring to.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey, several units have been mentioned. Could
12 you please be precise.
13 MR. HARVEY: Yes, I was referring back to that previous paragraph
14 that I had just read from Defence Exhibit 81. I thought it was clear, but
15 apparently not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your question would include all of the units
18 MR. HARVEY: All of the units engaged in this operation, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you'll repeat them for the witness.
20 MR. HARVEY: Certainly.
21 Q. All of those units engaged in this operation against the KLA
22 during that time-period, the 25th of July and the 6th of August, among
23 their responsibilities was to try and obtain as many KLA-related documents
24 as possible. Do you agree with that?
25 A. I do agree with that, and to recover the dead bodies. There were
1 stories of them being in Jablanica, Dasinovac, Volujak, Lake Radonjic.
2 That was the objective of the operation, to obtain the information because
3 the attacks were happening all the time and that was why the action was
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Harvey --
6 And you, Mr. Zlatkovic, I take it that when you are talking about
7 the tasks or -- of these units, that you do not include the Brazil Unit of
8 which you just testified you were not aware of its existence?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I'm speaking of the
10 ordinary police force, the SAJ, and of nothing else.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Mr. Harvey, that's the reason why I granted the objection that
13 it's very difficult to ask a witness what were the tasks of a unit he just
14 testified he doesn't know of. So therefore I took it that the answer
15 mainly focused on what the -- what the aims were of the units
16 participating to the extent this witness knows.
17 MR. HARVEY: Of course, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
19 MR. HARVEY: And that was the question as well.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
22 Q. The -- you had information before the 2nd of August or before the
23 25th of July, indicating that there might be bodies in Jabllanice, is that
24 correct, from your last answer?
25 A. Yes. Jablanica was a tough nut, because according to the stories
1 when I arrived there in 1997 to deal with homicides, policemen told me of
2 this village that they had never entered the village for seven or eight
3 years, that they had entered the village once and were driven out. It was
4 common sense telling us that something was going there. There was no law
5 enforcement there. The police force could not have any -- could not gain
6 any access to that area, and that's all.
7 Q. Well, I understand that point exactly, but that meant the only way
8 you could find out anything about what was happening in Jablanica was from
9 people who became informants to the police. Is that correct?
15 Q. In addition to that gentleman, you recall I mentioned the name of
16 a witness to you yesterday who has already testified to this Tribunal, and
17 we give him the number Witness 6, and you indicated to us that from his
18 actual name you were able to deduce that he was probably a Catholic
19 Albanian. Do you recall that, Witness? I see you nodding your head? If
20 you could --
21 A. Yes, I recall you saying that yesterday. Other than that, I never
22 saw the man. It is quite possible that I read in the material earlier on
23 that his son had been killed. He was in Jablanica for some time. Then a
24 delegation was sent, he was at the head of the delegation from Jablanica,
25 asking that he be released. This was in the statement by Bekim Kalamashi.
1 Most probably his son was released later on, if that's what you're
2 referring to. I never saw this Catholic in my life.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
4 MR. HARVEY:
5 Q. Well, I'm sorry, I understood from you yesterday that you knew
6 nothing about this man at all, but now it appears that you do have quite a
7 bit of information about him.
8 A. You did not put a specific-enough question to me. Had you asked
9 me whether this man's son had been kidnapped - and I am still not claiming
10 that - I would have given you the same reply I gave you today. I worked
11 on that material and I know that one man from Batosane [phoen], either a
12 young man or just a man, was kidnapped, was held in Jablanica for a while.
13 Bekim Kalamashi told us this. Then a delegation went there, the
14 delegation that he had allegedly seen as they travelled through Crmljane,
15 asking that he be released from prison. They did not release him, and
16 later on he allegedly heard that the man had been released. Now, I don't
17 know whether it's the same man. Had you asked me this yesterday, I would
18 have replied.
19 MR. HARVEY: I think we need a redaction at page 19, it's just
20 come off my screen, line 19 --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar --
22 MR. DUTERTRE: 20.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- Would you please prepare that redaction.
24 MR. HARVEY: Page 19.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey, yesterday you said you would not need
1 less than half an hour. I interpret that in my own way that is perhaps 40
2 minutes, 45 minutes, otherwise you should have said not less than an hour.
3 The witness has to travel rather soon. So therefore you've now taken 50
4 minutes and I'd like you to finish.
5 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, I'm -- I will have two more questions,
6 if I may. Your Honour has already noted that a number of the witness's
7 answers have been lengthy and not necessarily responsive. I'm doing my
8 best to keep within bounds but I do apologize for having gone over what I
9 had anticipated.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Two questions. Please proceed.
11 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
12 Q. When the MUP and SUP forces entered Jabllanice, are you aware that
13 they not only seized documents on the 2nd of August, they also set fire to
14 homes, in fact destroying some 100 houses in Jabllanice on that date. Are
15 you aware of that?
16 A. No, I wasn't there.
17 Q. You were listening on the radio to communications. Are you saying
18 you were completely unaware of any documents being seized from Jabllanice,
19 first of all?
20 A. We have some documents that are part of evidence here. Now,
21 whether they come from Jablanica or Babaloc, I really don't know that.
22 The documents were found about the command, the military establishment,
23 and some other matters. Let me tell you, nobody's going to announce over
24 radio, We are setting houses on fire. No. They normally say, We have
25 been attacked. We are pulling out. You know what people normally say
1 when they are in the army and in combat.
2 Q. Were you ever asked to conduct an investigation into the killing
3 of the mother and grandmother of Lahi Brahimaj, who were hacked to death
4 on that occasion on the 2nd of August, 1998?
5 A. Let me tell you, I was not informed about that. But if that is
6 true, I am shocked to hear that. I fully condemn that. All I was asked
7 to do was to find the perpetrators of the crime in Decani where four
8 people were killed. I did that very quickly in a course of a couple of
9 days, arresting Dragan Jovanovic, a policeman, who was sentenced, who was
10 on trial in Pec and in Leskovac. I have trouble because I testified --
11 Q. We're short of time and your answer to my question is simply: No.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
14 Mr. Dutertre, the witness is supposed to leave in approximately
15 ten minutes. Could you please be as efficient as possible.
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. There
17 were many questions I wanted to put to the witness, but I'll only deal
18 with the most significant issues, and as a result I will not necessarily
19 adopt a chronological or logical order in my questions.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Dutertre:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zlatkovic, page 6940 of the transcript
22 yesterday you seemed to be saying that there was a Serb check-point in
23 Rznic from the 12th of August to the -- until the Serb offensive in
24 September. Do you remember stating that?
25 A. I said that.
1 Q. Did you go yourself to that check-point in Rznic, Mr. Zlatkovic?
2 A. I did not go to the check-point. I went a couple of times to
3 Prilep. In front of a mosque there there was a check-point where some
4 policemen had been killed, so that's where I went.
5 Q. Fine. How do you know that this check-point in Rznic remained
6 there after the 12th of August in Rznic?
7 A. Well, I heard that on the radio communication. It was also
8 discussed in meetings, that that check-point was constantly under attack.
9 The policemen kept complaining because fire was opened from mortars on the
10 check-point, and I think that even some people were wounded.
11 Q. I'd like to read out a report by the European Commission
12 Monitoring Mission dated 19th of August, and I'd like to ask your comments
13 about this. This document has been tendered and admitted. The MFI number
14 is as follows: 311.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Whilst the documented is being brought up, can I
17 seek an assurance that this is an issue that arises out of
18 cross-examination because I don't recall this document having being
19 referred to.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.
21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It seems to me that one of the
22 witnesses commented or gave some comments about this document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: In re-examination you're supposed to limit yourself
24 to what had been raised in cross-examination, because otherwise you should
25 have raised it in the examination-in-chief. That's what Mr. Emmerson is
1 telling us, and it's not that in re-examination that you -- everything is
2 open to you to revisit what has been visited by another witness.
3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, but the witness
4 has been put many questions about the check-point at Rznic during
5 cross-examination, and I believe that with this document we can shed some
6 light on the -- what is stated about that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please read, then let's see what happens. Let's also
8 not lose time. Is it on the screen now, the document?
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, it is. It's a document dated
10 19th of August, 1998. I would like to have a look at paragraph 3, we
11 could scroll down a bit maybe and the last sentences are as follows:
12 [In English] "There is evidence to suggest that UCK has already slipped
13 back into the ruins of the villages taken by Serb security forces last
14 weekend principally Lodza, Rausic, and Rznic. This has led to fears that
15 the Serb security forces would recommence their offensive this coming
17 [Interpretation] Mr. Zlatkovic, can you comment on this document,
19 A. I think, actually not that I think, it is a fact that immediately
20 after that they withdrew. First the farmers, the elderly men came and
21 some children who were there with cattle, whereas in fact those were the
22 people who informed the KLA about the movements of Serb forces. They came
23 to that area and then they started targeting the check-point in Rznic,
24 targeting from mortars and rocket-launchers, the hand-held ones.
25 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, in your statement you mentioned the second
1 operation that took place in September, paragraph 33 up until paragraph 43
2 of your statement. And I would like us to have a look at paragraph 43 in
3 particular where you state that a check-point was set up in Rznic and
4 Prilep. Why was a check-point or check-points set up in Rznic and Prilep
5 if there had still been a check-point in Rznic since the 12th of August?
6 A. The KLA forces kept attacking non-stop, and that's why the road
7 was important. People needed to receive food-supplies because people
8 living in that town had no more food and the road had to be opened.
9 Q. Yes, but I was wondering about the meaning of re-establishing a
10 check-point in Rznic during the September offensive if the check-point had
11 been set up on the 12th of August had remained there the entire time?
12 A. They strengthened the check-point precisely for those reasons.
13 The winter was approaching and the population needed to receive supplies.
14 One didn't know when they were going to take up that territory again
15 because they started coming back, started receiving reinforcements and
16 attacking. There was rumour that the OSCE was supposed to come, that the
17 police was supposed to withdraw from all check-points, and this is why it
18 was set up in this way. We started creating multi-ethnic police force at
19 the time. Albanians were members of it, too.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness now goes in details you're not
21 seeking. Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, let me move on to another
24 Q. At page 6911 of the transcript yesterday, lines 16 to 25, and page
25 6912, lines 1 to 8, Mr. Emmerson put questions to you about one of the
1 attacks led against one of the MUP units on the 9th of August next to
2 Glodjane, a MUP unit that was conducting regular assignments. That's what
3 you stated. Mr. Emmerson tried to clarify what you meant by "regular
4 assignments," and you stated that it was a regular unit. I'd like things
5 to be very clear. Do you mean that the offensive led on the 9th of August
6 towards Glodjane by the -- that MUP unit or on that MUP unit was directed
7 against a regular unit because it was not an uncontrolled unit and because
8 it was a unit that was there officially or do you mean that it was a unit
9 that would regularly patrol the Glodjane area?
10 A. What I was going to say is that that unit was supposed to perform
11 regular patrols, not only in Glodjane, Babaloc, the village of Dubrava and
12 some other villages in the area. I can't remember their names. Let me
13 tell you, this was the territory of Serbia and, naturally, police had to
14 enter and be able to enter all settlements in case there was a problem
15 with law and order and there was a problem with law and order because they
16 had started digging trenches, wearing -- bearing weapons and carrying
17 mortars and so on, firing at peaceful citizens and so on, that's why the
18 police wanted to enter.
19 Q. Are you aware that at some point the police station of Rznic was
20 closed down?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell us what was the impact of the closure of the Rznic
23 police station on patrols, did it have an impact on the way patrols could
24 be conducted in that particular area?
25 A. This station was closed down after Otovic was killed, and the
1 terrorists moved into the station after that. Since there were reports
2 from citizens, an electrician reported that he had been mistreated by some
3 people, he was unable to do his work. And as a result, the police wanted
4 to maintain law and order in that area, but for the well-known reasons it
5 was impossible.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zlatkovic, if you would please listen carefully
7 to the question. The question was: What was the impact on patrolling
8 after they had left, not why they had to leave but what was the impact on
9 patrolling the area after the police station was closed.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I'm not sure I quite
11 understand what you say. What impact ensued? Well, the impact was that
12 the police was unable to enter the territory because it was under the
13 control of terrorists.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.
15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Let me move on to another topic, and that is the involvement of
17 the army in the 11th of August operation. Page 6920 at 69 -- to 6922 of
18 the transcript, Mr. Zlatkovic, you were asked about what you knew about
19 the involvement of the army in that particular offensive of August -- in
20 August, and you stated that you did not see any military personnel at page
21 6920 of the transcript. And you also stated that you were not aware of
22 the involvement of the army, and that's to be found at page 6922 of the
23 transcript. Please let me put my questions before answering. At
24 paragraphs 36 of your statement, you said that you were in Rastavica
25 during the offensive and that you were listening to what was going on on
1 the police radio. Listening to the conversations of your police
2 colleagues who were taking part in fightings around Glodjane and in that
3 area -- did you hear anything, listening to these conversations, did you
4 hear anything indicating that the infantry was present around Glodjane and
6 A. No, I didn't hear anything.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, I asked the witness at the time: "You
8 emphasised and you made clear a distinction between what you saw and what
9 you perhaps learned ... " and then I asked him whether in these days
10 whether he was aware of the army being involved in the operations. I mean
11 you could ask him whether he had not heard it by telephone, that he did
12 not receive a Telefax on it. That answer is clear. There's no reason to
13 revisit it.
14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry to rise to my feet but in this context
15 the witness was asked and answered to the effect that between the 9th and
16 the 11th of August, he himself entered the territory to conduct on-site
17 investigations into each of the incidents he reported.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's move on. That's all on the record, now.
19 Mr. Dutertre, the witness has to leave so would you please put
20 your last question to the witness.
21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 Q. Mr. Zlatkovic, yesterday you talked about the loyal Albanians. Do
23 you know if some of these loyal Albanians were reported missing during
24 that period of March to September 1998?
25 A. Well, those people who disappeared were mostly the ones who were
1 loyal people or perhaps there could have been some feuds between them.
2 But normally those were peaceful, law-abiding citizens who paid taxes and
3 did everything they were supposed to do.
4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Microphone not activated]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre.
6 Is there any need for further questions?
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have very few, very short questions, Mr. Zlatkovic,
9 and I'd like you to answer them as short as possible. In your statement
10 although not in the portion that is admitted into evidence, you say you
11 believe that 124 cartridges were found at the Lake Radonjic area. There
12 is no report at that part of your statement as an annex sourcing this.
13 What made you believe that there were 124?
14 A. Your Honour, I'm sure that it is contained in the report, the
15 figure of 124 cartridges. Perhaps there were more than that, but the
16 technicians gathered 124 cartridges and they took it to the institute for
17 ballistic expertise in Pristina. Stojan - I don't remember his last
18 name - analysed this. I'm sure that that fact exists in the report or in
19 the documentation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So --
21 A. I apologise. Even the cartridges from Dasinovac.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that this was the operation
23 covering Dasinovac and the Lake Radonjic canal area. So I do understand
24 that your recollection stems from the report made on cartridges found
25 during that investigation.
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have one question about something you said
3 earlier today. I'll just find it. You said you were not aware of any
4 person by the name of Mrtvi, I think you said, as a leader of a certain
5 unit. You said you didn't know that name. Is that correctly understood?
6 A. I said, when I heard the nickname from counsel, that I didn't know
7 that nickname. But once counsel mentioned the given name, then I
8 remembered that I read in the papers that that man had been captured
9 somewhere in Argentina or Brazil or somewhere. I knew the given name
10 because that was the name mentioned in papers, and he was apparently
11 implicated in some crimes. Now, whether that's true or not, I don't know.
12 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, you testified at that moment: "This
13 is the name, the given name," of that person, which suggests that hearing
14 this given name, that you link that to a name you were aware of, whereas
15 you earlier testified that you didn't know about that name. That
16 surprised me. Do you have an explanation for that?
17 A. I read all that in the papers once he was captured, either in
18 Brazil or I don't know where, and it was then that I remembered. During
19 combat I really knew nothing about him. Now, when this happened, when he
20 was captured, the papers kept writing about him for several days, his
21 photograph was in the papers and I wanted to tell the Court that I learned
22 about that from the papers.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Then also learned about the name
24 Mrtvi; is that correct.
25 A. In the papers, the nickname Mrtvi was also mentioned, and there
1 were photographs of him in a uniform with other people. It was in the
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I understand. I have no further questions
4 for you. The only thing, I have to apologise, in an earlier question I
5 put to you, I think it was on Monday, I suggested that you had testified
6 about two houses where the police had sought shelter in the -- on the 24th
7 of March. That was incorrect because your testimony clearly was that
8 there was one house where you sought shelter, so I -- to the extent I
9 confused you at that moment, I apologise for that.
10 I have no further questions.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No need to apologise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: There are no further questions. You are excused,
13 Mr. Zlatkovic. I'd like to thank you, although I'll do it very quickly,
14 for coming to The Hague and answering all the questions. And I sincerely
15 hope that, although we went some ten minutes over the scheduled time that
16 you'll be in time at the airport and have a safe trip home again.
17 Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Zlatkovic out of the
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want to thank Your Honours and the
20 Prosecution and all who assisted me, as well as Defence counsel, for
21 inviting me to come here and state what I know. I stated what I know in a
22 most correct way. Thank you very much.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE ORIE: One thing slipped out of my mind, Mr. Guy-Smith, and
25 that is that I more or less promised Mr. Dutertre that he would be aware
1 of annex 10 when starting re-examination, and we are still waiting for an
2 answer. I should have done it. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear that
3 answer anyhow.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: We have discussed annex 10 amongst ourselves, and
5 we are -- although I had taken the initial position that on behalf of the
6 Balaj Defence we objected to the annex in toto for the reasons stated.
7 Concerning the manner in which the annex was used, there is one portion of
8 the annex which we object to now, and that is the portion that deals with
9 reference to ballistic reports.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Mr. Dutertre, that objection, would you agree? Would you not
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would need to read through this
14 particular portion. I would need to know what the nature of the objection
15 is in relation to that particular excerpt. Could Mr. Guy-Smith be more
16 specific? I would be grateful.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, if you would have an -- a possibility
18 to help us out. Let me just see now.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: In the English version, I have it as page 2, it's
20 0188-2451 is the ERN number. There -- it starts with the word in bold
21 caps -- excuse me, in caps: "Attachment," and then it says: "Official
22 dispatch of authorised official" --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is that on page 2 of the English you said?
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's on page 2 of the English as I have it --
25 MR. EMMERSON: Can I assist?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. EMMERSON: I think, and we've been trying to trace this
3 through, I think the position, essentially, is that there is an error in
4 the translation in the English, in the sense that the English translation
5 skips two pages. And it's possible to see that as between the English
6 translation for page 2349, which then skips to 2453. I've given -- yes.
7 Your Honour will have an English translation that runs to 15 pages, I
8 believe, and page 15 begins 2439 to 2450, does Your Honour have that?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. EMMERSON: I think if you look to the next page of
11 translation, it begins 2453 with a document headed: "Attachment 1.2" --
12 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, let me just have a look. That
13 one starts 2451 --
14 MR. EMMERSON: Ah, Your Honour has that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 2452 --
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Starting with the words: "Attachment 1.2" --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see on this -- I have got two annexes 10, as a
18 matter of fact, and one is complete and one is not complete.
19 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So, you see, I have all versions available. There I
21 see: "Official dispatch of authorised official Nebojsa Avramovic recorded
22 under PU1422/98 of the 4th of December and then four ballistic reports are
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's where your objection goes to?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, is that clear to you now? That is the
3 attached -- I don't know whether they are attached to --
4 MR. EMMERSON: No, they're not --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: They're not attached.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, the mere reference to attached reports
7 which are not attached, that's where the objection goes?
8 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry to speak across Mr. Guy-Smith, but there
9 are three preceding paragraphs which ultimately seek to do much the same
10 as Mr. Avramovic sought to do in his witness statement, namely to
11 summarize what the conclusions of the disputed ballistics evidence was
12 understood to be --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. EMMERSON: -- And it culminates in a reference to those four
15 reports, none of which are either attached or available. And as Your
16 Honours will recall on the last occasion, the position taken by the Trial
17 Chamber was that the admissibility of the forensics evidence, the
18 ballistic comparison, was a matter to be determined in due course in
19 respect of the calling of the ballistic witness himself.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what the Chamber suggested to --
21 MR. EMMERSON: And further pleadings are due in next week in
22 respect of that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre.
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The document that is attached at
25 annex 10, as I see it here in Serbian, stops at page 2450 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- if the parties could please sort out
2 this --
3 MR. DUTERTRE: [No interpretation].
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- And see on what version what objections are made
5 and what -- whether there's any opposition from the Prosecution. Then the
6 Chamber would like to hear -- but I do see that the focus is on the -- the
7 presentation of the results of ballistic evidence, ballistic
8 investigations, and that -- that seems not to be the focus of the annex 10
9 as a whole. It's just a certain element in it where the Defence takes
11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] If you allow me, Mr. President, one
12 last point about the annexes. In annex 5, I discovered an error similar
13 to the one you identified in annex 4 with relation to a reasonable doubt
14 or reasonable ground. This has been corrected now and the document has
15 been sent or filed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I take it then that the correct document
17 has been uploaded and that the Defence has been informed about the matter,
18 Mr. Dutertre?
19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I've just been told that the
20 document has not been uploaded yet, but it -- that should happen very
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You will provide a copy to the -- to the
23 Defence so that they are aware of this change.
24 Then before we have a break, for the next witness, the next
25 witness which -- who will testify through a videolink, protective measures
1 were asked for. The Chamber understood that the Legal Officers of the
2 Chamber had been informed by the Defence that there were no objections to
3 grant the protective measures as sought.
4 Is that correctly understood?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is correct, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That means that the reasons to follow that the
7 Chamber decides that for the next witness to be heard through videolink,
8 that face distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym are granted, and the
9 registrar -- yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, and I don't know how the -- how the
11 Chamber or the Prosecution wishes to handle the matter. Considering the
12 nature of the testimony that I think is going to be adduced with regard to
13 this witness, we may well be in private session for --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Wherever there's need to go into private session on
15 the basis of the substance of the testimony which might identify him, of
16 course special caution is asked for the Prosecution and the Defence.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Based on where I believe this testimony is going,
18 it would directly affect other witnesses who previously had been granted
19 anonymity of some form or fashion.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That is, of course -- Mr. Dutertre, I don't know
21 whether it's you who is going to take the next witness or Mr. Re. I can
22 imagine that from what the Chamber expects will be the substance of the
23 testimony, we have seen that there is a 92 ter statement for this witness,
24 that much of it could not be easily elicited in open session without
25 violating protective measures granted in respect of another witness.
1 MR. RE: We are quite aware of it, we have considered it, and we
2 will take all necessary precautions during the testimony to ensure that
3 the full protective measures are -- full efficacy is given to the
4 protective measures.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In this respect, I further would like to ask
6 your attention for the following. I do understand that another witness
7 for which the Prosecution has considered whether or not to hear testimony
8 through videolink, but who will now be a 92 bis witness, that the
9 protective measures granted to that witness -- for that witness pre-trial
10 might not be fully sufficient. And therefore, if you are going to submit
11 the 92 bis statement, that your special attention is asked for any
12 application for further protective measures for the trial stage.
13 MR. RE: We will do that. It may be that we submit two, a
14 redacted and an unredacted version.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll have a break, and after the break
16 we'll continue with a -- we'll start -- it will be open session, but we
17 need 30 minutes to prepare for the videolink. So therefore, we'll resume
18 at ten minutes past 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.16 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid whatever confusion, although the
22 courtroom looks as if we are in private session, we are not.
23 Nevertheless, the screens are down since on the computer screens of the
24 parties one sees the undistorted view of the witness who will testify and
25 the public should not view that. So therefore, the public at this moment
1 is limited to the screens and not a direct view of the Chamber, but
2 nevertheless, we are not in closed session.
3 The next witness, Mr. Re, will be Witness 56?
4 MR. RE: Yes, Witness 56.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Who will testify through a videolink, and I do
6 understand that Witness 56 is a 92 ter witness?
7 MR. RE: That's correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now before we start, the Chamber has received a
9 92 ter statement. The Chamber has also received I think four objections
10 from the Balaj Defence but is aware that further discussions have taken
12 Mr. Guy-Smith, is there anything remaining from the objections,
13 apart from --
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is correct. Further discussions have been
15 had and we also received an e-mail from Mr. Re with regard to our
16 objections. It's our understanding with regard to the objections
17 contained in paragraphs 5, 15, and 16, this information will be led and
18 further enhanced, therefore, the problem will not exist. With regard to
19 paragraph 9, the issue is simply with regard to the definition of
20 understand, and if we are using "understand" to mean, which I believe that
21 we are, an information was related to this witness and based on the
22 information that this witness obtained he is making certain assertions,
23 then we have no difficulties, as opposed to "understand" being a
24 conclusion. If --
25 JUDGE ORIE: If a witness can testify about what came into his
1 mind when he heard a certain story, that is interpreting what someone
2 tells you. If someone tells me that he drove very fast with his car, I
3 would understand that as to be certainly a speed above 25, 30, 40
4 kilometres. That is, you can testify about what came into your mind,
5 which is a matter of fact, whether that is correct or not might depend on
6 whether we're talking about a real car or about a toy.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't think so that's where -- I don't think
8 that's where my concern lies and I would agree with you if you take the
9 same hypothetical and the issue is I understand that the individual
10 driving the car was speeding or violating the traffic laws, I would take
11 issue with the issue of understanding.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Because there are too many other component parts
14 that are involved in that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever the matter is, the Chamber of course has
16 considered it having looked at and the Chamber does not find this part of
17 the statement to be inadmissible. Of course, I can understand that you
18 would like to further explore perhaps in cross-examination that part to
19 better understand to use the wrong word what the witness at that time
20 understood, but it's not a matter of non-admission.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: We maintain our position --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- We maintain our position with regard to it
24 being a legal conclusion which is inappropriate for this witness to
25 testify about.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Very briefly --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise. Part of the reason so the Chamber
4 understands my concern is that by virtue of the manner of this
5 presentation of evidence - and that I mean the 92 ter statement - there is
6 an aspect of leading that occurs that otherwise would not necessarily
7 occur. And the difficulty that I think that is presented oftentimes - and
8 I won't belabour the point - but the difficulties presented oftentimes is
9 that where you have a written statement, the information quite frankly, is
10 leading. And we see what happens with regard to witnesses when they
11 testified viva voce they oftentimes do not, as we would say, come up to
12 proof as opposed to what is being said in their written statements. It is
13 for that reason that I'm concerned about it where you have such a thing as
14 a legal conclusion.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that. Whether it's a legal
16 conclusion or whether of course some words have both a legal meaning and a
17 factual meaning, therefore -- but as I said before, the Chamber does not
18 exclude this portion of paragraph 9 from admission on the basis of your
19 objections but of course I have not heard any other objections.
20 MR. EMMERSON: No, I have nothing to add to that. I simply wanted
21 to clarify to make absolutely certain that we're all working from the same
22 documents, that Your Honours have an original statement taken on the 29th
23 of May --
24 JUDGE ORIE: 29th of May, 2006.
25 MR. EMMERSON: -- together with a further statement of the 10th of
1 July which amends the 29th of May statement --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. EMMERSON: -- and therefore for my purposes, I've simply
4 struck through the words that the witness seeks to amend in the earlier
5 statement so as to remove --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I must admit -- I am aware of the two. I am
7 just looking at the second one --
8 MR. EMMERSON: Paragraph 3 of the second statement --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. EMMERSON: -- seeks to essentially delete --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, yes --
12 MR. EMMERSON: -- delete a portion of paragraph 5.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I just wondered whether they had any impact on
14 paragraph 9, but it has not.
15 MR. EMMERSON: No.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is fully aware that there is a correction
17 more or less in the July 2007 statement to the 29th of May 2006 statement.
18 Mr. Re, are you--
19 MR. RE: We are. Just to clarify in relation to there being any
20 misunderstanding about what Mr. Guy-Smith's understanding is. He said it
21 is our understanding with regard to the objections the information will be
22 led and further the problem will not exist. The communication we had is
23 that -- we intend to tender the statement and ask further clarifying
24 questions from the witness.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well the decision of the Chamber anyhow is that
1 it's not excluded from admission.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then do we have at this moment a connection with
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: We have a videolink with Pristina at this moment. In
7 Pristina Witness 56 is present, but before we address Witness 56, could
8 the representative of the registry confirm that there is a videolink which
9 works well.
10 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Good morning, Mr. President, good
11 morning Judges. This is --
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do not hear at this moment. Could you please repeat
13 it, I couldn't hear you.
14 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Good morning, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I now --
16 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Judges, good morning --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I now hear you well. Is both the audio and video
18 working well in Pristina?
19 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Yes, it is working.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to address the witness. Witness 56 --
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour. We're not getting any
23 JUDGE ORIE: You're not getting it on audio? Not video, not audio?
24 You have to put the Elmo button to get it on your screen.
25 MR. EMMERSON: We have video but very weak audio, hardly any --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You have to adjust the volume.
2 Just -- we again try the audio --
3 Madam Registrar, would you please say a few words.
4 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Good morning again, Mr. President.
5 How are things in The Hague?
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just checking now whether Defence counsel can
8 MR. EMMERSON: It is just about audible. There is a very high
9 level of interference but it is just about audible.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If there would be any problem also a problem for the
11 interpreters and the transcribers then -- but perhaps Madam Registrar in
12 Pristina is a bit far away from the microphone. Could you please come a
13 bit closer to the microphone and see whether it's any better.
14 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] So, Your Honour, can you hear me
15 better now?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, still the quality of the audio is rather poor.
17 Is there any way the technicians could assist us in improving the audio
18 quality and could you speak another few words, Madam Registrar, in
20 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Here we can do something with the
21 volume. We are checking right now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I think the quality now has far improved.
23 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] It's getting better.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you speak another few words and just see
25 whether the court reporter is now better able to hear you.
1 I do understand that the court -- the transcriber receives the
2 sound now from Pristina in an acceptable quality but the sound from this
3 courtroom isn't reaching her. Could the technicians assist in having this
4 fixed as well. So it would be me now who would have to continue to speak
5 rather than Pristina.
6 [Trial Chamber and technician confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that one of the problems is that
8 using the proper channels that Madam Registrar in Pristina now is also on
9 the Albanian channel rather than on the English channel. That causes some
10 problems. Let's proceed and see how it works.
11 Witness 56, can you see me and can you hear me?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You can't hear me?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't hear you. No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That is to some extent a surprising answer because I
16 asked whether you could hear me. Let's go step by step. Can you see me
17 on the screen?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have no problem at all. I
19 know what happened to me, and nothing else than what happened to me at
20 that time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, but let me --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You may write what you want, but I
23 know what happened with my sons and I was not allowed to speak --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56 --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can take me wherever you want --
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not going to take you wherever I want. I
2 just wanted first to verify whether you can hear me.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what you are saying. I
4 know what happened to me in 1986 -- 1998, that they took my son, and then
5 they brought him back --
6 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was at 1.00 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One second. I first want to be sure
9 that you can hear my voice in a language you understand. Can you or can
10 you not?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then at -- we'll soon come to the point
13 where we would like to hear what you have to tell us. Would you please
14 not speak when I'm speaking because that's very difficult for the
15 interpreters. The first thing we'll have to do is after I have
16 established that you can see me and that you can hear me, that you give a
17 solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
18 nothing but the truth. The -- so therefore, I would like you to repeat
19 these words in your own language, since I do understand that you have
20 difficulties in reading I'll just tell you. Would you please repeat the
21 following words: I solemnly declare ...
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you --
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Witness 56 --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you what happened to me --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness 56 --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know nothing other than that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56, we'll come to that very soon, but there
3 is a rule which says that if a witness tells his story, he first has to
4 give a solemn declaration so I am seeking your cooperation in order to
5 make you -- have you making that solemn declaration. And I invite you to
6 repeat the words I speak to you and then we'll come later to your story.
7 So first would you repeat: I solemnly declare ...
8 Could you please repeat those words: I solemnly declare ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what you are saying to
10 me, solemnly, what is this solemnly?
11 JUDGE ORIE: What I am inviting --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you that on the 11th of
13 May --
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One second --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They came and took my son --
16 JUDGE ORIE: One second --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and I know nothing other than
18 that, and I know no one --
19 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I will wait for you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56, I'll explain to you. I'll first tell you
22 what solemn declaration we would like to hear from you because you have to
23 give such a solemn declaration before you tell your story. I'll later ask
24 you to repeat it, but what I'm going to invite you to do is to give a
25 solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
1 nothing but the truth. But you have to speak those words before you tell
2 us what happened and before you answer any questions that will be put to
3 you, and those questions later will be about the events you already
4 started to talk to us about.
5 So therefore, could you please repeat the words I now speak to
6 you, the meaning of those words being that you'll tell us the truth. So
7 could you please repeat the following lines: I solemnly declare ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I speak? Can I? Look here,
9 whatever I know I have said, what happened to me in 1998 when they took my
10 son and his wife and I don't know where they took them. They were four or
11 five people --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56, Witness 56, we'd very much --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then they brought them back --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are going to deal --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know nothing other than that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, and we are going to hear that from you, but
17 before we do so, we first need you to confirm that you will speak the
18 truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's a procedural
19 rule. That's a rule of procedure which applies, and you first will have
20 to give that solemn declaration; and then after that we'll ask you who you
21 are, what happened -- at least Mr. Re will do so.
22 So therefore, first would you please repeat my words because only
23 after you have repeated them we can hear all the things you want to tell
24 us. So therefore, I try it again. Would you please repeat the following
25 words: I solemnly declare ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no other words to tell you.
2 I know nothing other than what I've already said. I went to my staff and
3 then informed them, and then two people came, two commanders came to my
4 house, but they didn't allow me to speak at all --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know more than what
7 happened --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no other words to say.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56, we would like to hear what you are
11 telling us as a witness, as a witness in a courtroom. And a witness in a
12 courtroom, before he answers any questions, before he answers any
13 questions - and I do understand that you can't say anything more than
14 perhaps you know or that you have told already - but before we can hear
15 your answers to the questions, you first have to make a solemn declaration
16 that all your answers will be truthful. And therefore, it's for that
17 reason that before we put questions to you that I'd like you to repeat my
18 words, because then we can continue and then we can hear what you have to
19 tell us. So therefore I invite you again, prior to the substance of your
20 testimony, first to confirm that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
21 and nothing but the truth. So therefore, could you please repeat the
22 following words: I solemnly declare ...
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I already told you, only those
24 words I want to repeat now. They took my son and his wife at 1.00.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Who else is in the room, Madam Registrar?
1 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Your Honour, we have an interpreter
2 here ready to explain the witness this procedure --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the witness was speaking to the
4 interpreter who is present. Now I'll take a different approach.
5 Witness 56, we will put questions to you later, but I first want
6 to know from you if questions will be put questions to you later. But I
7 first want to know from you if questions that we put to you, and if you
8 give answers, are you going to tell us the truth. Could you please answer
9 that with a yes or a no?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already told the truth about
11 what happened to me. I know nothing more than that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And whatever you will say today, that will be the --
13 whatever -- whatever you will say today, that will be the truth as well?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I already told you is the
15 truth; namely, that they took them away and what they did I don't know,
16 and then they brought them back home. And then after that I went to the
17 headquarters and informed them of what happened. And then these two
18 people came to my house and took notes. They didn't allow me to speak.
19 And I didn't know the commander, I didn't know anyone. This is what I
20 want to tell you what happened.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- I do understand that that's what you want
22 to tell us. We might have quite some questions about it, but before we
23 can put those questions to you, I'd like to know from you, as you said,
24 you earlier told the truth, I take it that today you will tell us while
25 answering questions you will tell us the truth as well, isn't it? Could
1 you please answer that with a yes or no.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told you I don't know Togeri. I
3 know no one. They were dressed in the same way. I don't know Toger at
4 all. Only when I saw him in The Hague --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what I told you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56, Witness 56, I'll now try to explain to
8 you what the procedure today will be. I do understand that you want to
9 tell us what you've told already before -- please listen to me and wait
10 for a second.
11 Now, in a courtroom the procedure is as follows. First you are
12 confirming that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
13 the truth, that's the first stage. Then after that, specific questions
14 will be put to you where reference will be made most likely to what you
15 already told before and what is on paper and some additional questions as
16 well. And then after that this will conclude your testimony, but we
17 cannot --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing else to tell you,
19 sir. I'm sick. I'm 75 years old. I'm not feeling well. I'm disabled.
20 You can do what you want.
21 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing more than that.
24 [Trial Chamber confers].
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chambers suggests, but would like to hear from
1 the parties, if they would disagree that Madam Registrar in Pristina
2 takes, at a quiet moment now during a short break, takes the opportunity
3 to explain to the witness what I apparently am not able to explain in a
4 way which seems to have any effect. Therefore, the suggestion is --
5 Madam Registrar in Pristina, you have understood what I said; that we have
6 a break for approximately ten minutes, that again the procedure is
7 explained to the witness and that we'll then see whether we can make any
8 progress after that.
9 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] [Indiscernible]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Initially if that is the procedure that's going to
12 be used, I would ask that that conversation be recorded or memorialised so
13 that we can make sure that we are all fully cognizant of what transpired
14 during that conversation.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Any other submissions by the parties?
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: The reason I'm asking for that is so that the
18 Chamber is in a position to assure itself that any issues concerning
19 competence or understanding of what the procedure is before any testimony
20 is taken is memorialised in such a fashion that we don't have any doubts
21 about that, because it is, in fact, the predicate before a witness can
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, your request is denied.
24 Madam Registrar in Pristina is instructed to explain the
25 procedure, what is expected from the witness, and not to touch upon any
1 substance of the testimony. Madam Registrar is not a party and it is --
2 this is, although very transparent that it takes place, is just preparing
3 the witness from a neutral person in order to be able to receive his
5 Madam Registrar, the line in English is not very clear, but I can
6 see your face. Have you understood my instructions well? If you would
7 nod yes, that would be visible from here.
8 THE REGISTRAR: [In Pristina] Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We even understood that you said "yes, Your Honour."
10 Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: So all parties are clear, I implicitly trust the
12 registrar --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't understand your words to be of any doubt in
14 that respect --
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I hope there is some way that we can have some
16 form of memorialisation of this because I think what is going to occur it
17 is going to be some give-and-take in conversation as between a potential
18 witness and --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I am aware of that. If there is any reason at
20 any later stage to get information from Madam Registrar in Pristina, we'll
21 hear the reasons why that's necessary at that point in time. And of
22 course, I have no doubts knowing Madam Registrar in Pristina that her
23 memory serves her.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I officially make the request and I think it goes
25 directly to the issue of the competence that we may be -- of this
1 witness --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- the competence of him to testify, understand the
4 proceedings and it also directly relates to the issue of the 92 ter
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break until -- yes, Mr. Re.
7 MR. RE: Just very briefly. In relation to the oath itself or the
8 solemn declaration, I just draw Your Honours' attention to Rule 90(A), and
9 of course Your Honour the Presiding Judge is reading from it. In our
10 submission, although the words -- there is a -- a declaration is actually
11 prescribed there: "I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth," and the witness is supposed to
13 make the following declaration, in our submission for the purposes of the
14 proceedings and the spirit and literal meaning of the declaration, it
15 would be sufficient, as Your Honour tried I think, just for the witness to
16 say, if asked, something along the lines of: We're going to ask you some
17 questions; do you promise to tell the truth or just something like
18 that --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I already tried to not be formalistic, some
20 would say unduly formalistic. Others would say that it would be my duty
21 to be formalistic, but I approached the matter in both ways until now.
22 Madam Registrar -- Witness 56, we'll disconnect for the time being
23 and Madam Registrar will explain to you how we will proceed and at what
24 moment you can tell your story. But we'll take a break of ten minutes and
25 we'd like to see you back after these ten minutes.
1 We stand adjourned until five minutes past 12.00.
2 --- Break taken at 11.54 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.
4 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, just before we proceed, I notice that
5 Mr. Re made some submissions on the procedure just before we rose, to
6 which there was no Defence response --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll not give that any follow-up until the
8 Defence has had an opportunity to respond to that.
9 Witness 56, again, can you see me, can you hear me?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 56, the Chamber would like to hear from you
12 whether you promise that when answering questions whether you promise that
13 you'll speak the truth.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I'm telling you, the
15 truth, what happened to me --
16 JUDGE ORIE: And you are --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everything that happened to me, I
18 told you the truth.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And what you are going to tell us will be the truth
20 then as well?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everything, the truth, mine is the
22 truth. There is no other truth.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber intends to proceed on the basis of what
25 the witness just told us.
1 Mr. Guy-Smith.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is understood. I would like to interpose for
3 the record my concern about what has transpired for approximately, if the
4 transcript is correct, 17 minutes with regard to a discussion which was,
5 as I understood it, an explanation of the solemn declaration. I
6 understand that there was a technical ability to memorialise the
7 conversation. I understand there was a technical ability to videotape the
8 conversation. And I watched a fair amount of it in which I saw what
9 seemed to me - and it's my interpretation from the body language and the
10 movement of the bodies and arms - a spirited and heated conversation
11 between Witness 56 and the interpreter.
12 I don't -- I also believe there was a telephone conversation
13 between the registrar in Pristina and Legal Officer here concerning what
14 occurred, but since we have no memorialisation of it, we don't know
15 whether -- excuse me, whether or not the conversation was confined to the
16 issue of the solemn declaration or, indeed, whether or not, as he has
17 previously done already today, Witness 56 made other factual statements
18 concerning the subject matter of these proceedings.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: We need to have this memorialised because it could
21 become -- it could become an issue -- it could become an issue with regard
22 to Article 21, fair trial rights; it could become an issue with regard to
23 cross-examination; it could become an issue with regard to credibility; it
24 could become an issue with regard to bias. And the failure to have a
25 memorialised record of what happened, what transpired in the 17 minutes I
1 vigorously object to, especially in light of the fact that there was a
2 technical way to have it taken care of without detriment to any party.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the record, Mr. Guy-Smith.
4 Ms. Gustafson, as I said before, the Chamber is willing to proceed
5 not in any way to anticipate on what will happen but is willing to proceed
6 with the examination-in-chief of the witness. It is suggested to you that
7 in view of the experience we had until now that perhaps first, before
8 putting specific questions to the witness, that the witness is invited to
9 tell us what he wants to tell and then to go to more specific questions.
10 Witness 56, we will proceed, and it will be Ms. Gustafson who will
11 now put questions to you. Would you please carefully listen to the
12 questions put to you by Ms. Gustafson and then answer them.
13 Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand these things.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Wait and hear what questions will be put to you,
16 Witness 56, and please answer them. If you would look at your screen you
17 will most likely see Ms. Gustafson in a second, who will address you.
18 Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.
19 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/56
20 [Witness appeared via videolink]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Ms. Gustafson:
23 Q. Good morning, Witness 56 --
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honours --
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Can the camera show Ms. Gustafson.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON:
2 Q. Good morning, Witness 56.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honours, if we could briefly go into private
4 session in order to identify the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON:
7 Q. Witness 56 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please, Ms. Gustafson.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 7100-7130 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 For the public, I give the following information. We heard the
23 testimony of Witness 56 through a videolink with protective measures. The
24 Chamber would not be surprised if in the near future the parties would
25 like to make submissions on to what extent the evidence given is
1 admissible evidence and to what extent it will assist the Chamber in
2 making any determinations in this case.
3 The parties are informed that tomorrow we'll not start at 9.00.
4 We'll start at 10.30.
5 Mr. Guy-Smith.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, could we go into, I believe, closed session
7 for a moment.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into closed session.
9 [Private session]
11 Page 7133 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
24 MR. RE: In relation to the witness who just testified by
25 videolink, Witness 56, our submission would be -- I'm not talking about
1 the ultimate submission, just about the private nature of the testimony.
2 Our submission -- preliminary submission is 95 per cent of it probably
3 could be made public. I take it the Trial Chamber would invite the
4 parties to submit to the Trial Chamber those parts which should be
5 redacted. We could do that very quickly.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the parties are even invited to agree upon
7 it so that we don't have to receive four submissions, but if the parties
8 could agree one submission would do. And, of course, it is important
9 perhaps also in view of what still might happen in relation to this
10 witness that the public will have an idea on how the testimony was given,
11 how it was received, what happened during the session because the trial
12 should be public.
13 We adjourn until tomorrow morning, 10.30.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day of
16 July, 2007, at 10.30 a.m.