1 Thursday, 18 August 2011
2 [Prosecution Opening Statement]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
10 number IT-04-84bis-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj,
11 Idriz Balaj, and Lahi Brahimaj.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 Could we have the appearances for the day, please, starting with
14 the Prosecution.
15 MR. ROGERS: Yes, good afternoon, Your Honours. Paul Rogers
16 appearing for the Prosecution together with my team, Priya Gopalan,
17 Ms. Daniela Kravetz, Ms. Barbara Goy, and Mr. Aditya Menon, and our case
18 manager today Mr. Colin Nawrot.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 And for the Defence, starting with Mr. Haradinaj.
21 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, Ben Emmerson on behalf of
22 Mr. Haradinaj, together with my learned friends Rod Dixon and
23 Ms. Annie O'Reilly and Mr. Andrew Strong.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
25 And for Mr. Balaj.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honour, Gregor Guy-Smith
2 appearing on behalf of Mr. Balaj with Ms. Colleen Rohan and
3 Mr. Chad Mair.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
5 And for Mr. Brahimaj.
6 MR. HARVEY: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Richard Harvey
7 appearing for Mr. Brahimaj, together with Mr. Paul Troop,
8 Ms. Sophie Rigney, and Mr. Luke Boenisch.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.
10 Mr. Rogers.
11 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, first of all you should have a bundle
12 of documents which we have produced which are copies of the slides that
13 we will be showing during the course of the opening this afternoon.
14 Your Honours, sometimes it's easier to see them in the hard copy than on
15 the small screens because I know that there is variable quality sometimes
16 on the screen itself, and so that's why we have produced them I hope to
17 be of some assistance to the Court.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
19 MR. ROGERS: Your Honour, the crimes alleged in this partial
20 re-trial cover a short time-frame, between about the 19th of May, 1998,
21 and approximately the end of July 1998. The crimes for which these
22 accused are to be held criminally responsible in this trial were, the
23 Prosecution says, all perpetrated in the KLA prison at Jabllanice in the
24 municipality of Gjakove, western Kosovo.
25 Your Honours, the counts allege murder, torture, and cruel
1 treatment against the laws and customs of war. They were comitted
2 pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise involving the three accused,
3 Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj, and Lahi Brahimaj, in which we say
4 collaborators, spies, and those suspected of treachery or opposition to
5 the KLA were targeted. The victims were beaten, tortured, and in some
6 cases murdered, regardless of their ethnicity, be they Serb, Roma,
7 Egyptian/Ashkali, or Kosovar Albanian, whether they were Christian or
8 Muslim. And in relation to Counts 1 and Count 6 involved, say the
9 Prosecution, the direct participation of all three accused.
10 The crimes charged in this indictment occurred in the context of
11 an armed conflict which existed from and including the 22nd of April,
12 1998, throughout Kosovo, between Serbian armed forces and the Kosovo
13 Liberation Army, of which all three accused were leaders.
14 The Kosovo Liberation Army was fighting what it considered was a
15 war of liberation, as its name implies. The accused pursued that aim,
16 and in so doing sought to control, to the exclusion of enemy forces, the
17 area defined in the indictment as the Dukagjin Operational Zone, forming
18 part of the municipalities of Decani or Decan, Pec Peje, Djakovica
19 Gjakove, and Klina, Kline. And, Your Honours, I will adopt simply for
20 ease of reference the Albanian version of the towns' names to avoid
21 having to repeat them all the time. And, Your Honours, they did this by
22 suppressing real or perceived opposition.
23 While they were fighting a war and thus using legitimate force,
24 they also pursued illegal means to achieve their aim: They mistreated
25 civilians who were or were perceived to be opposing the KLA. This case
1 is about the implementation of the common purpose in the village of
2 Jabllanice in the Gjakove municipality.
3 Your Honours, I'd first like to orientate the Chamber, if I may,
4 as to some of the geography in the area the subject of the indictment.
5 Your Honours, showing on your screen now is a slide of the whole of
6 Kosovo, and Your Honours can see that it shows all the municipalities and
7 it also shows the national boundaries -- Your Honours, I hope it's on
8 your screen. I'm grateful.
9 It also shows the national boundaries. Your Honours can see
10 starting in the -- on the right-hand side of the page Serbia and then
11 going down south to Macedonia, across to the west, to Albania, and north
12 then into Montenegro. And Your Honours can see to the west of Kosovo on
13 the borders with Montenegro and Albania, starting in the north, the
14 municipality of Pec, you can see the town of Pec really forming the
15 centre of that municipality slide. Moving south into Decan and the town
16 of Decani marked just in pink. And moving forward south from there to
17 Gjakove and the town Gjakove marked at the bottom in the centre, rather,
18 of that municipality.
19 And then if we travel north from Gjakove, you will find the
20 municipality of Kline. And what is not shown on this particular side is
21 there is a road - and I will show you the next slide in a moment - there
22 is a road which joins Gjakove and Kline.
23 Your Honours, the area of Kosovo is about a quarter of the size
24 of the Netherlands, with a population of approximately 2 million. And
25 Your Honours can see from this municipality map that the area that we're
1 concerned with is within about a quarter of the size of Kosovo itself.
2 So we say it's a relatively small area that we're dealing with.
3 Can I show you now the next map. Your Honour, this is a map that
4 the Prosecution have put together to try to identify or at least
5 highlight the main towns and villages that you'll be hearing about. One
6 of the problems with the more detailed topographical maps is they're very
7 crowded with lots of contour lines, and it's hard to see sometimes where
8 everything is. But just to orientate you around this map, if I may,
9 starting on the left-hand side of the map to the top left-hand corner
10 you'll see the town of Peje. And then if we travel along the red road,
11 and these are the main roads we say that are linking the main towns, we
12 travel along the main road to the east. Imagine yourselves driving along
13 through Zahac, down to Zajmovo, which is marked by the rivers, in
14 conjunction with the rivers, and then just a little north to Kline. Then
15 there's the village of Dolac and then we get back in the car and drive
16 south, passing Dolovo, carrying on the road and passing the Lake Radoniq
17 and then arriving in Gjakove. Pausing briefly in Gjakove to point the
18 car back towards Peja and drive up to Decani. And on the way to Decan on
19 the right you will see the village of Gllogjan. That is the village in
20 which Mr. Haradinaj has his family home and which forms one of the
21 headquarters, we say, of the KLA in this case, not to be confused with
22 another Gllogjan, which is a Catholic village of Gllogjan, and I'll
23 identify where that is very shortly.
24 Your Honours, very broadly, we say, that within the red road
25 area, the KLA had through the indictment period substantial control of
1 that area. Outside the red road area and along them represented areas of
2 conflict with Serb forces. Now, Your Honour, that's not to say that
3 there was no conflict within the areas bounded by the roads, particularly
4 in the west around Mr. Haradinaj's villages and in the Lake Radoniq area,
5 but that the Prosecution says the KLA had a broad measure of control in
6 that central area.
7 Your Honours, can I take you back to the village of Zajmovo just
8 south of Kline, back on the road there, and you'll see just to the west
9 of Zajmovo on the other side of the river a village called Grabanice.
10 And Your Honours will hear a reasonable amount of evidence about the
11 events in Grabanice. Travelling south-west from Grabanice, we come to
12 Catholic Gllogjan, and south of Catholic Gllogjan is Jabllanice, which
13 will form really the main centre-piece for the evidence that you'll be
14 hearing during this case. And then south-west of Jabllanice is the
15 village of Zhabel, which you will also hear something about.
16 You can take the map off, please.
17 Your Honours, can I deal now a little with what the Prosecution
18 says is the evidence relating to the development of the KLA in this area,
19 the road-bounded area which broadly we call the Dukagjin area.
20 Your Honours, I will then, after I have dealt with that, turn to the
21 development -- first deal with the geographical control, forgive me, and
22 then I will turn to the development of the organisation of the KLA within
23 the Dukagjin area and address the consolidation of what we say is
24 Ramush Haradinaj's control of the KLA within that area.
25 Dealing first, if I may, with geographical control.
1 Your Honours, the first two KLA headquarters established in the Dukagjin
2 were firstly in Jabllanice, in the Gjakove municipality, the oldest
3 headquarters in western Kosovo, and under the control of Lahi Brahimaj,
4 also known as Maxhup, or Gypsy, and he was Ramush and is
5 Ramush Haradinaj's maternal uncle. And secondly, in the village of
6 Gllogjan, in Decan, under the control of Mr. Haradinaj, also known as
8 Your Honours, in 1998, Colonel John Crosland was the British
9 military attache to the embassy in Belgrade. He produced the map in the
10 last trial to show the area known as the Dukagjin between March and May
11 1998. Your Honours, if I can show you, please, that map that he produced
12 in the trial. He described the black line which overlaps in part of the
13 blue as showing the boundary of this area and said that throughout Kosovo
14 there was several groupings of the KLA and in particular of this area of
15 the Dukagjin. He marked the blue line to show the Peje to Decani road as
16 a place where he described were "shoot and scoot tactics," that's the
17 phrase that he used, employed by the KLA against Serbian forces in the
18 early part of the conflict. The road he described had become a thin red
19 line or a front line for Serbian forces, who were trying to prevent the
20 flow of men and materials from Albania where the Kosovo Liberation Army
21 was arming itself, into Kosovo itself. And Your Honours will recall from
22 the first map that I showed you how close to the borders of Albania and
23 indeed Montenegro these municipalities are.
24 Serb forces, he said, had been unable to hold the mountainous
25 area along the Albanian border and had fallen back effectively along this
1 road, and he described many battles being fought along and around the
2 road. And Your Honours will note from this map that the village of
3 Gllogjan, Ramush Haradinaj's village and the headquarters, is within the
4 cluster of circles immediately to the right of the bottom half of the
5 blue line. In fact, you can see two rather poorly formed blue circles,
6 and just to the right of those rather poorly formed blue circles is a
7 circle and in there is the village of Gllogjan. On a larger-scale map
8 it's clearer to see, but I think Your Honours have the general picture.
9 Your Honours will find all these maps in your bundle and in the
10 bundle it's at page 3.
11 Your Honours, as the KLA grew during 1998, it began to establish
12 control of parts of the territory of Kosovo. And in relation to this
13 indictment, by April to May 1998 the KLA in the Dukagjin area had
14 established what we describe and others have described as a free area,
15 substantially free of Serb control. Again, I make it clear that does not
16 mean there were not attacks and incursions, but nevertheless
17 substantially the area was under KLA control.
18 And Colonel Crosland, again in the first trial, drew a map to
19 indicate this area of control between about March and June/July 1998.
20 And again broadly you can see that the area marked in red inside the
21 boundaries of the three roads, and this is the area that Colonel Crosland
22 indicated, and you can see in there written KLA, was what he described as
23 basically a KLA area, and the Serbs would stay on the outside and attempt
24 to dominate and influence areas by shelling into that area. He said:
25 "... the Serbs took up a position that they could, if you like,
1 contain the fighters within this area by dominating the roads ... so
2 Serbian security forces would go off the road a short way, make a raid,
3 re-arrange a few houses rather badly," as he put it, "and then withdraw
4 back out because they did not feel safe in that area."
5 And, Your Honours, that's the 65 ter number 04022, and it's a
6 transcript reference at page 3029.
7 Indeed, Your Honours can see that Colonel Crosland's map shows in
8 blue pockets of Serb forces along the road area, including near the
9 southern part of Lake Radoniq and inside that area and in and around the
10 high ground to the south of that area. And whilst there were incursions
11 into the area and indeed later full-scale assaults by Serb forces, the
12 Prosecution says broadly this was the zone of influence and control
13 established by the KLA with the Serbs on the outside.
14 Your Honours, in addition you will hear evidence from Nebojsa
15 Avramovic, who was a police officer working as a crime technician in the
16 Djakovica SUP, a part of the Ministry of the Interior forces, the Serbian
17 police. He'd been in that position since 1996, and he produces a map as
18 an annex to his statement of roads that were regarded as unsafe by Serb
19 police between April and September 1998. Your Honours should have that I
20 think on the screen now. And Your Honours will see three markings, three
21 coloured markings, A, B, and C. C represents the road from Djakovica to
22 Prizren at the bottom of the map, Djakovica being at the bottom. I hope
23 Your Honours are now becoming familiar with what is really a triangle of
24 roads running between Djakovica, Peje, and Kline. And at the bottom is
25 Djakovica. The road running from Djakovica to Prizren marked C he said
1 was a road that was free to travel upon. If it's easier for
2 Your Honours, it's at page 5 of the map bundle. It may be a little bit
3 clearer, actually, there, but anyway.
4 The area marked A, the portion of the Djakovica to Kline road
5 which is marked A, he said was safe for Serb police to travel upon --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt.
7 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, forgive me.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is -- where is A? Is it on the left corner of the
10 MR. ROGERS: It's on the -- yes, it's on the left-hand -- the
11 right-hand road, forgive me, running between Djakovica and Kline. It's a
12 little unclear, but it's marked in orange or red. Does Your Honour have
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm grateful to you. Thank you so much.
15 MR. ROGERS: Thank you. That's the section of the road running
16 from Djakovica to Kline.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the safe area?
18 MR. ROGERS: That's the safe area. And if Your Honour remembers
19 the map I've just shown you where there were Serb forces noted by Colonel
20 Crosland in that southern part of this area, that may have some
21 correlation between those two things. But north of that in the area
22 marked B, the witness describes that being -- as an area which he says
23 was completely blocked by the KLA from April to September 1998. That was
24 his statement. And, Your Honour, we say it is significant that in that
25 area marked B two of the victims in the indictment were abducted. They
1 were Witness 6 and Nenad Remistar, a Serb traffic police officer.
2 I should indicate, Your Honours, that the map -- this map isn't
3 presently on the 65 ter list because it was omitted from -- by accident
4 from Mr. Avramovic's statement. I will move in due course to admit it
5 formally, but I mention that now in case so there's -- in case my learned
6 friends are trying to find it. It has been disclosed.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Nowhere is it part of the 65 ter statement with
8 regard to this statement.
9 MR. ROGERS: It is. We'll deal with that later.
10 Your Honours, the Prosecution, moving on, says it can be seen by
11 looking at Colonel Crosland's maps, assessing his evidence, and looking
12 at other maps and evidence produced by KLA commanders and Serb commanders
13 there is a general consensus about the broad areas of control established
14 by KLA forces between April and September 1998 and broad agreement as to
15 where the confrontation lines ran. Essentially there was a free area in
16 which the KLA had greater freedom to operate away from the confrontation
18 Your Honours, turning now to organisational development of the
19 KLA. Your Honours, Colonel Crosland described the KLA in the early part
20 of 1998 as a fledgling organisation. Your Honours, the evidence will
21 show that during the period between March 1998 and September 1998 the KLA
22 was developing into a more organised force, from village-based commands
23 to more regional commands, and a more military-style hierarchical
25 KLA witnesses including Rrustem Tetaj, Jakup Krasniqi show that
1 between March and April 1998, villagers in many villages in the Dukagjin
2 area began to organise themselves in support of the KLA into defence
3 units, often electing a village commander, appointing guards, and setting
4 up check-points at village entrances. The KLA also had a General Staff,
5 but at least until June 1998 the General Staff had no main building. All
6 three accused were commanders within the KLA. Ramush Haradinaj, based in
7 Gllogjan; Lahi Brahimaj, based in Jabllanice; and Idriz Balaj, who had
8 moved from Jabllanice to Gllogjan and had been appointed as commander of
9 a special unit known as the Black Eagles by Ramush Haradinaj.
10 Just as the KLA, Your Honours, began to consolidate its control
11 over the Dukagjin area, so too Ramush Haradinaj consolidated his control
12 over the KLA.
13 Your Honours, it's significant, the Prosecution says, that
14 Ramush Haradinaj, together with his maternal uncle, Lahi Brahimaj, had
15 been at the forefront of the development of the KLA in the Dukagjin area
16 since the earliest days of the KLA as a movement in 1994. In the
17 Dukagjin area, the subject of the indictment, the Prosecution says the
18 organisation of the KLA was greatly assisted by the two main headquarters
19 being within the same extended family. Gllogjan, controlled by
20 Ramush Haradinaj, and Jabllanice by Lahi Brahimaj, his maternal uncle.
21 Within the Kosovar Albanian clan-based culture, the Prosecution
22 says these familial ties have great significance. Indeed, witnesses
23 describe being married not just to an individual but to an entire
25 The Prosecution says it's quite clear that these familial ties
1 lay at the heart of the initial organisation of the Dukagjin Zone and its
3 In a compilation of interviews with Ramush Haradinaj entitled "A
4 Narrative About War and Freedom" --
5 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry, I think Mr. Rogers is aware, because I
6 indicated to him in advance, that I would at this stage rise because he
7 is about to seek to present, we say again misleadingly, to the
8 Trial Chamber a document which he suggests is a series of interviews but
9 is in fact a book published by a journalist called Bardh Hamzaj. There
10 is no evidence - and the Prosecution has none - from the author of this
11 book as to the provenance of the contents. There is no evidence as to
12 the source of the descriptions or statements he attributes to
13 Ramush Haradinaj. There is nothing to suggest that the book was
14 authorised or ever adopted by Ramush Haradinaj or written with his
15 authority. And for that reason, the previous Trial Chamber, rightly,
16 regarded it as worthless evidence and excluded it on the basis it was
17 impossible to understand what ought to be clear as to its provenance or
18 to be in a position to distinguish between truth, falsity, hyperbole, or
19 fact, propaganda, or accurate reporting and that there was nothing to
20 corroborate it.
21 So that before Mr. Rogers again, I say misleadingly, launches
22 into the suggestion that this is a record of interview, it's rights right
23 that Your Honours should know it is nothing of the sort, it is again
24 forensic rubbish, and it's material about which there is an outstanding
25 application of exclusion in which the Defence rely precisely the same
1 arguments that persuaded the previous Trial Chamber to throw it where it
2 belongs, namely, in the bin.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. -- I just want you to respond to that
5 MR. ROGERS: Yes, let me. You would like me to respond?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you wish to.
7 MR. ROGERS: Yes, Your Honours, of course this is an opening. In
8 due course, no doubt, there will be litigation about whether or not the
9 document should be admitted. It's a slightly puzzling position on the
10 part of the Defence because my understanding is that in the original
11 trial there was no dispute as to the authenticity or admissibility of the
12 book initially until my learned friends took objection to it at some
13 later point in the course of the proceedings --
14 MR. EMMERSON: Simply wrong I'm afraid.
15 MR. ROGERS: I don't think so.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
17 MR. ROGERS: But in any event, Your Honours, we can litigate this
18 in due course when it comes to it.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just make a general comment. I find the
20 opening to verge on testifying and introducing exhibits which are not
21 marked as exhibits yet but which are documents that make an impression in
22 the mind of the Chamber. And to the extent that at this point there is
23 now a dispute about the authenticity and the provenance, the relevance of
24 the book that you are about to refer to, the Chamber feels constrained to
25 apply the rules of admissibility before it allows you to continue talking
1 about that. You've got to authentic it. You've got to bring in a
2 witness to say he's the author of the book. All the requirements for
3 admissibility. Because we -- the Chamber cannot accept that we hear what
4 you are going to say only to throw the book out later. The book might be
5 out, but the mind -- it's still in the mind. And the purpose for
6 admissibility is to make sure that the mind of the Chamber is not
7 coloured by what might turn out to be inadmissible.
8 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, my understanding is that in this
9 Tribunal often the practice has been for documents and for material which
10 is on the 65 ter list to be referred to during the course of the opening
11 because Your Honours of course are professional Judges that are able --
12 well able to take away from your minds such things that may or may not in
13 due course be ruled to be admissible. And for that reason, these
14 documents and documents like it are normally permitted to be opened
15 during the course of the opening and in due course if there are any other
16 matters which need to be removed, then they are removed at the stage at
17 which the evidence is litigated. Your Honours, much of the evidence in
18 this case is hotly contested. There are a large number of outstanding
19 applications relating to admissibility of evidence at a very early stage
20 in the proceedings, and none of those have yet been decided.
21 So, Your Honours, my submission is that Your Honours should hear
22 the opening. It may assist Your Honours to determine admissibility in
23 any event to hear what the relevance and the contexts of the documents
24 are and then to -- in any event, to adjudicate in due course. Because we
25 say that the material that I'm putting before Your Honours is highly
1 relevant and that the authenticity of the document can be established and
2 we can litigate whether or not it was admitted at the last trial. But my
3 recollection is it was --
4 MR. EMMERSON: I'm so sorry. It's really worrying when the
5 Prosecutor stands up to make an opening submission in which according to
6 this document he has no less than five separate extracts of this book and
7 he doesn't even know, despite the fact that we've pleaded it in our
8 opening brief, that this document was excluded on grounds of having no
9 probative weight. That is a staggering state of affairs, frankly, from a
10 man opening a case for the Prosecution.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just make a few comments. First of all, I
12 just want to say I accept that the Chamber is composed of professional
13 Judges who are able to disabuse their minds of things that are
14 irrelevant. However, it is also constituted of human beings, and you
15 will realise that in the guide-lines that have been given, the whole
16 question of MFI-ing documents is being forbidden precisely for that
17 reason. If you are going to get one document you may be able to disabuse
18 our minds of its contents. If we are going to get 150, it becomes pretty
19 difficult, humanly impossible to do so, and therefore this Chamber
20 intends to keep to a very bare minimum any documents that come in which
21 may later have to be thrown out.
22 MR. ROGERS: Your Honour --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I finish my comments?
24 MR. ROGERS: Forgive me, yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to reiterate what the Chamber
1 mentioned yesterday, this is a new trial, and anything that has to be
2 proved here has to be proved here. The arguments that things were proved
3 in the previous trial do not make any sense at all and reference to the
4 fact that things were thrown out, therefore they must be thrown out here
5 doesn't make any sense. I would like -- will you please let me finish,
6 Mr. Emmerson?
7 Anything that is objectionable must be objected to here and the
8 ruling will be made here, and the ruling of this Chamber is not going to
9 be dependent on whether the ruling of the previous Chamber was consistent
10 with our ruling. I just want to make that quite clear to all the parties
11 right at the beginning.
12 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, we have, I hope, A, entirely
13 understood that, and B --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You don't behave like you do.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Well, can I just be absolutely clear on what we do
16 understand the position to be. The ruling of the Appeals Chamber
17 indicates that whilst the Prosecution is not precluded from seeking the
18 admission of evidence that was excluded in the previous trial, the fact
19 that it was excluded in the previous trial will be a material
20 consideration for the new re-trial Chamber in determining whether its
21 admission is justified according to different standards of relevance.
22 That is the test that the Appeals Chamber laid down in its most recent
23 ruling. It therefore cannot simply be said that the previous trial
24 rulings are irrelevant. What is most troubling is that there is a basic
25 minimum of professional duty on Prosecution counsel to acquaint
1 themselves with what is the factual position on the document they are
2 seeking to rely upon.
3 I am assuming that Mr. Rogers did not intentionally intend to
4 mislead the Trial Chamber, but there can be no question but that he is
5 aware, because it says so in our opening brief, A, that objection is
6 taken to the admission of this document, and B, that it was excluded by
7 the previous Trial Chamber on the grounds it was probatively rubbish, if
8 I can paraphrase your -- provide Your Honours with the ruling.
9 Your Honours will want to consider that ruling in accordance with the
10 Appeals Chamber judgement to determine whether the Prosecution has laid
11 down some different evidential foundation justifying a different approach
12 because otherwise we'd have two Trial Chambers reaching opposite
13 conclusions on precisely the same legal and factual material.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that happens every day.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Well, it can happen, but no Trial Chamber would
16 want to do that without first acquainting itself, as the Appeals Chamber
17 indicated, with the course of the proceedings before. But be that as it
18 may, for Mr. Rogers to stand up and put it forward to Your Honours on the
19 basis, A, that there was no objection in the previous trial, and B, that
20 the mattered document was not excluded, it indicates at best a
21 significant lapse of professional standards and leads me to a more
22 general concern.
23 Your Honours will see in this bundle at page 22 another map
24 hand-drawn. This map, this is the bundle of exhibits that the
25 Prosecution proposes to put before you in opening. This map was drawn by
1 Shefqet Kabashi as a part of his witness statement. Now, that witness is
2 due to testify tomorrow, and as Mr. Rogers well knows there are very
3 serious reasons to doubt whether he will in fact do so. So for him to
4 seek to introduce before Your Honours as though it were evidence what is
5 in effect part of the statement of a witness who he knows he may be
6 unable to call --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you, Mr. Emmerson. This is not
8 the time for the Defence to argue its case or to make --
9 MR. EMMERSON: Of course not.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are on an objection of one book and I'm not
11 looking at that map you have just shown to me.
12 MR. EMMERSON: Very well.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are on the objection of the book that
14 Mr. Rogers is about to talk about, about which you stood up to object.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Yes --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just give me a chance.
17 You stood up, I was -- I said to Mr. Rogers can I make a few
18 remarks, and you stood up before I made my last remark, which was going
19 to be a repetition of what I had said a little earlier to Mr. Rogers, and
20 I think what you are doing, you are going over and over again same issue
21 using different exhibits. If you can just listen to what I'm saying and
22 let me -- let the Chamber make a ruling on what Mr. Rogers is about to
24 MR. EMMERSON: I'm entirely in Your Honours' hands.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
1 Mr. Rogers, I remind you the last comment I wanted to make, I
2 think it is important, therefore, where there is a dispute between the
3 parties about the admissibility of a document that it be admitted in the
4 normal course. I do not agree with you that the Chamber can read the
5 document to determine its admissibility. Admissibility is determined
6 before the document is tendered, and only on -- on being admitted may it
7 be published to the Chamber.
8 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, I understand that, but it's quite
9 normal to put before the Court, I believe, documents that the Prosecution
10 intends to rely upon during the course of the trial as part of the
11 Prosecution's opening, and often there is contests about the
12 admissibility of those documents and the weight or whatever that may be
13 attached to them.
14 Your Honours, I must take up Mr. Emmerson because he's made a
15 number of very serious allegations against me personally. Your Honours,
16 I entirely agree with him that it is incumbent upon counsel to check
17 their facts, and I did check my facts, and I have in front of me an
18 e-mail sent by Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Dixon on the 9th of January, 2007, in
19 the course of the last trial dealing specifically with the book that I am
20 referring Your Honours to in which they state it is admitted by the
21 Defence for Ramush Haradinaj that the book entitled "Story of War and
22 Freedom" from which I am quoting was compiled from a series of interviews
23 with Mr. Haradinaj by Bardh Hamzaj. There is no dispute as to the
24 authenticity or admissibility of the book in its entirety.
25 How or why the Trial Chamber failed to admit it in the last
1 occasion I don't know, but they did and they took their own decision for
2 their own reasons but that's my understanding [Overlapping speakers] --
3 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, for the sake of the record that is
4 simply wrong. There was no agreed fact to that effect, and if
5 Mr. Rogers --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Rogers has not alleged it's an agreed fact.
7 He alleges an e-mail coming from you --
8 MR. EMMERSON: It's absolutely clear that objection was taken
9 during the trial and the decision on the Prosecution's motion to tender
10 documents on its Rule 65 ter exhibit list of the 30th of November, 2007,
11 at paragraph 6 to 7 excluded that document on the grounds that it lacked
12 any probative weight.
13 MR. ROGERS: I agree it was excluded. It's a remarkable decision
14 in the context of what was admitted by the Defence and the clear
15 relevance and probative value of what the defendant himself has to say
16 about the organisation of this zone, the relationship between himself and
17 his uncle, Lahi Brahimaj, and others who are also subject to this
18 indictment. And, Your Honour, respectfully to try to rule it out at this
19 stage of the proceedings would be wrong. Your Honours should hear what
20 it has to say, especially in the light of the fact there appears to be no
21 objection to authenticity. Whatever the arguments may have been that
22 were taken up last time around, I'm surprised my learned friend is
23 reverting to arguing that it should not be admitted, given the clear
24 statement that it's not -- that it's authentic.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see you, Mr. Guy-Smith.
1 I just want to say this to you, Mr. Rogers, the Chamber is not
2 saying you may not tender that document. The Chamber is saying you got
3 to tender it and prove its admissibility before you tender it. The
4 practice of not just referring to a document that will be used but
5 actually wanting to give the content of that document in opening
6 undermines the whole process of admissibility of evidence into the
7 record. And this Trial Chamber I would imagine would allow you to make
8 reference to the document that that book, to say that it will be used.
9 And at the appropriate time when you do have a witness through whom you
10 can tender the document, do so. That way we will hear that later doesn't
11 make any difference from hearing it now. The only difference is that you
12 want us to hear it now before it's an exhibit. That's my problem. And
13 you are welcome to say you will be tendering a document, a book, that is
14 going to tell us what you think you -- the Trial Chamber should know
15 about Mr. Haradinaj, but not try to tender it now when you don't have
16 [Overlapping speakers] --
17 MR. ROGERS: As an exhibit. I can deal with it in that way --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
19 MR. ROGERS: -- in which case. Your Honours, in that case I will
20 deal with it like this --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: In deference to Mr. Guy-Smith.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour. I believe that the
23 colloquy that you just had with Mr. Rogers takes care of my point.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: I was going to suggest we are dealing with
1 opening statements and not with arguments about the admissibility of
2 evidence at this point in time.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, can I deal with it like this. During
5 the course of the trial the Prosecution will produce to you a document in
6 which the Prosecution says the accused Ramush Haradinaj indicated that he
7 was the -- one of the first persons in the Dukagjin group along with
8 Lahi Brahimaj, his uncle. And that together he and Lahi and his other
9 relatives, they established the 1st Dukagjini group of the KLA. He also
10 speaks, we say, of his return to Kosovo from Albania and in -- the
11 Prosecution suggests that when he first returned he went to Jabllanice
12 where he spent days checking equipment and that he accepted individuals
13 into the organisation of the KLA, and those people included
14 Lahi Brahimaj, Shkelzen Haradinaj, and Luan Haradinaj.
15 There was then a period of time when he continued his activities
16 outside of Kosovo between 1994 and 1998 and then returned to Kosovo to
17 where, we suggest, he had created the first base and the base he had
18 assisted in developing in Jabllanice. And he developed his network, a
19 document we suggest says that he helped create the network in the
20 Dukagjin area, and worked in close co-operation with his brother Daut,
21 Shkelzen Haradinaj, and Lahi Brahimaj, also known as Maxhup.
22 Your Honours, when the Haradinaj family compound in Gllogjan was
23 attacked on the 24th of March, 1998, by Serb forces, Mr. Haradinaj was
24 seriously injured. Indeed, soldiers from Jabllanice were sent to
25 Gllogjan to help repel the attacks, but it was in Jabllanice that he and
1 others sought refuge. It was in Lahi Brahimaj's home, away from the
2 confrontation lines, in the relative safety of Jabllanice that he
3 recovered from his injuries. Inevitably, as the armed conflict
4 progressed, we say, the nature of the close co-operation between the two
5 headquarters and the family network changed. Rrustem Tetaj, a former
6 career JNA artillery officer and KLA commander will describe the changing
7 nature of the command structure of the KLA. He will recall going to
8 Gllogjan in April 1998, shortly after the Serb attack on the Haradinaj
9 family compound, which was in March 1998, in order to join the KLA.
10 There he was introduced by KLA soldiers in Gllogjan to Ramush Haradinaj
11 as the commander. And at this meeting with Ramush Haradinaj, also
12 present with him was Idriz Balaj, introduced by Mr. Haradinaj to
13 Mr. Tetaj as Togeri or Toger, whom Ramush Haradinaj described as a person
14 experienced in warfare.
15 Your Honours, Mr. Tetaj will say that he was accepted as a KLA
16 member and commander in the immediate area of the Gllogjan headquarters.
17 And he describes, together with another KLA commander, Shemsedin Cekaj,
18 the organisation of the KLA moving from village-based commands who were
19 co-operating together, to a more formal subzone structure under the
20 authority of subzone commanders. This occurred towards the end of May
21 1998 at a meeting organised by Ramush Haradinaj, where both Mr. Tetaj and
22 Mr. Cekaj became subzone commanders, as did Ramush Haradinaj himself.
23 Another subzone commander will give evidence that village commanders
24 reported to the subzone commanders and that Ramush Haradinaj would be in
25 charge of the zones. What is clear is that Ramush Haradinaj was seen at
1 this time as a person with significant influence in the area and one to
2 whom great respect was owed within the Albanian culture.
3 Shemsedin Cekaj preferred in the last trial to adopt
4 Mr. Emmerson's suggestion when cross-examined that it was
5 Ramush Haradinaj that was trying to organise things in that area and that
6 the relationship at this time was that of Ramush Haradinaj being first
7 among equals. Cekaj stated in the course of evidence that
8 "Ramush Haradinaj was someone who was very important and enjoyed great
10 Your Honours, can I show you now, please, a map showing the
11 division of the subzones in May 1998. It's a map that was drawn by
12 Mr. Tetaj in the last trial, and he explained - just give me a moment to
13 turn it up in the book - it's page 9 in the map book. Your Honour, we
14 can in due course produce larger versions of this to make it a little bit
15 more clearer, but if Your Honours look to the left of the map and in the
16 area where you now know the Gllogjan headquarters to be, you will see
17 that he has drawn on the map a subdivision of that area, and you can see
18 that they marked 1, 2, 3, and 4.
19 Starting at the bottom, it's a little unclear but there is a
20 number 1 in the middle of the circle. You can see the slightly hatched
21 area to the right, and then if you just come into the centre of the
22 circle you can actually see a number one. Above that is 2, 3, and 4.
23 Now, he explained, Mr. Tetaj, that it was agreed that Ramush Haradinaj
24 would become the commander of subzone 1, that he, Tetaj, would be the
25 commander of subzone 3; and that Shemsedin Cekaj would be the commander
1 of subzone 2. Your Honours, it perhaps doesn't matter at this stage who
2 the commander of subzone 4 was, but you can see it was divided in May of
3 1998 into this area. And Your Honours, this subzone organisation
4 continued through May 1998. And we say that Ramush Haradinaj, and the
5 evidence will show by looking at minutes of various meetings that were
6 held, and the testimony of witnesses that spoke about this, that
7 Mr. Haradinaj recognised that whilst he had established formal control of
8 the subzones around Gllogjan, the family ties with the Jabllanice
9 headquarters were no longer sufficient for the efficient operation of the
10 whole zone, thus requiring the establishment of a formal structure to
11 control the whole area.
12 And, Your Honours, we submit that in evidence that we hope will
13 be admitted in due course in relation to what Mr. Haradinaj himself may
14 have said about this, that the -- by the 23rd of June he had managed to
15 establish control of the subzones and consolidated them to the point
16 where he was able to unify KLA headquarters. And that that had occurred
17 by the 23rd of June and from the 23rd of May 1998. And as that
18 developed, he then began to oversee in a more authoritative manner the
19 activity of the Jabllanice headquarters itself to balance it between
20 Jabllanice and Gllogjan.
21 So essentially, midway through this indictment period
22 Mr. Haradinaj, the Prosecution says and evidence will show, that he had
23 consolidated by the end of the indictment period complete control of the
24 two areas of the Jabllanice and Gllogjan and that transisted over the
25 course of the indictment period. By the middle of the indictment, and
1 particularly with the counts, by the middle of that period he had
2 consolidated control over both.
3 And he describes in a -- well, there's a minute at least of a
4 meeting in which he is recorded as saying -- this is a meeting on the
5 23rd of June, 1998, in Jabllanice. It's on Your Honours' screen now.
6 Obviously we haven't put all of the minute there. We've just taken the
7 relatively parts, we say. It's the 23rd of June, 1998, in Jabllanice.
8 We've just put the top section so you can see who it's said were present.
9 This is in e-court 00141 at page 2. So you can see who was present and
10 that's translated. And then there's a handwritten part which starts
11 "Ramush Haradinaj" and the translation shows underneath that at this
12 meeting he was saying:
13 "In order to help one another in future we have to supply the
14 entire people with weapons, 16 years old and above."
15 And then this:
16 "Other things, we need to be positioned well, organised.
17 Friendly and family connections are not enough. I can help as a friend
18 or a relative, but I cannot make someone else do the same."
19 And then there's a reference to territory which I needn't trouble
20 Your Honours with. It's there for completeness.
21 Your Honours, we say this shows that there was a transition and a
22 recognition on his part that there was a need for formal organisation to
23 move away from what were family connections, family ties, and a more
24 loose organisation to something that needed to function better and that
25 this occurred on the 23rd of June, 1998.
1 Your Honours, now turning to speak a little bit more about the
2 accused themselves. Your Honours, I've already indicated that
3 Mr. Haradinaj was, we say, one of the founder members of the KLA
4 resistance movement together with his uncle and that, as a result of the
5 fire-fight that took place -- and witnesses will say that as a result of
6 that fire-fight that took place at his family compound, that his
7 reputation within the area grew. They describe how KLA soldiers and the
8 population in general regarded Ramush Haradinaj's actions as heroic acts
9 of defiance effectively and came to revere him as a commander of the
10 zone. As one KLA member Witness Hasanaj described it: "God in heaven,
11 Ramush on earth."
12 As he continued his organisation of the area and consolidated his
13 control on the 26th of May, 1998, Mr. Haradinaj became leader first of
14 all of the Gllogjan regional staff encompassing the subzones already
15 described and in that capacity exercised authority over military and
16 civilian matters. Gradually he expanded and then established more formal
17 control on the 23rd of June, when at a meeting with the Jabllanice staff,
18 and the minutes will be adduced in evidence, Mr. Haradinaj was
19 appointed - and I'm not sure that this is particularly in dispute but my
20 learned friends will indicate later - was appointed as commander of the
21 operative staff of the Dukagjin Plain formalising his overall command of
22 the Dukagjin zone, including Jabllanice and the new formations
23 headquarters were based in Gllogjan.
24 Lahi Brahimaj, also known as Maxhup, was the commander of the
25 KLA's strategic stronghold in Jabllanice during the indictment period the
1 Prosecution says. He was also a member of the KLA General Staff as
2 finance director. It comes from a number of witnesses, including
3 Zoran Stijovic, Petar Shala and others.
4 At the meeting of the 23rd of June, Mr. Brahimaj briefly became
5 the deputy to Mr. Haradinaj before he was replaced by Mr. Haradinaj some
6 sort while later by Nazmi Brahimaj, Lahi Brahimaj's brother.
7 Idriz Balaj, also known as Toger, was initially recruited as a
8 KLA training officer based in Jabllanice where he trained new KLA
9 soldiers. Your Honours will hear evidence or receive evidence from
10 Petar Shala and Zoran Stijovic about that. After the 24th of March 1998
11 attack on the Haradinaj compound, he transferred to Jabllanice from
12 Gllogjan. Your Honours, we say that indicates how the headquarters were
13 co-operating even before the 23rd of June.
14 On the 24th of April, 1998, Mr. Haradinaj appointed Mr. Balaj as
15 the commander of the Black Eagles, a rapid reaction unit, and that comes
16 from a number of sources, Mr. Shala, Mr. Haskaj, Mr. Cekaj, and others.
17 And Your Honours will recall it is he who sat with Mr. Haradinaj when
18 Rrustem Tetaj came to offer his experience as a former JNA officer in the
19 Yugoslav Army to develop the fighting capability of the KLA. Indeed,
20 Mr. Balaj was often seen together with Mr. Haradinaj throughout the
21 indictment period, and a number of witnesses will testify to that,
22 Witness 17, 80, Kabashi, 29, Pappas, and Stijovic.
23 It is Tetaj that speaks of Togeri, as amongst other things, a man
24 who had a repetition for kidnapping and killing Albanian Serbs and Roma
25 in the Dukagjin area in 1998. He also said that he had not himself
1 witnessed these things and that many bad things were laid at the door of
2 Togeri. In fact, he said this: "Everything bad that happened was
3 attributed to him." It doesn't mean, Your Honours, that it wasn't done
4 by him. I accept that. But evidence of general reputation is
6 He confirmed, however, that Toger and his men were entering
7 villages looking for people who were wanted and that he had seen names
8 written in Toger's notebook, but he did not know why they were there. He
9 confirmed that there were lists of people circulating that had been drawn
10 up to compromise individuals.
11 Your Honours, it's the Prosecution case that throughout the
12 indictment period regardless of the issue of formal control that the
13 accused worked closely together to advance the goals of the KLA in the
14 Dukagjin area which included through the commission of crimes and at the
15 detention facility those crimes being committed in particular at the
16 detention facility which had been established in Jabllanice.
17 Witnesses describe Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj, and
18 Lahi Brahimaj together at Jabllanice at the place in which the detention
19 facility was located, which was a property owned by a relative of
20 Lahi Brahimaj and is central to the crimes charged in this case.
21 Your Honours, it's the Prosecution case that these accused sought
22 to establish KLA control of the zone, not just through an armed struggle
23 against Serbian forces, forces that they regarded as occupying powers,
24 but also through the brutal elimination of opposition by civilians who
25 were or were perceived to be collaborating with Serb forces or otherwise
1 not supporting the KLA, regardless to be whether they were Serb, Roma,
2 Egyptian/Ashkali, or Kosovar Albanian.
3 They thus pursued a common criminal purpose which involved
4 commissions of crimes against persons perceived to be spies and
5 collaborators with Serbia or Serb forces or otherwise considered not to
6 be supporting the KLA. Members of the KLA abducted, interrogated, and
7 mistreated those persons and often murdered them. And these acts of
8 violence created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation within the
9 population of the Dukagjin zone and elsewhere in Kosovo where the KLA was
11 Your Honours, within the free area described by the witnesses I
12 have already addressed, away from the immediate confrontation lines, the
13 KLA were able to act more openly. As Shemsedin Cekaj put it: "Along the
14 main road, Peje to Decani to Gjakove, the villages that were close to the
15 road were at risk, and the KLA soldiers were positioned there, in those
16 villages, while in the internal parts they could carry out other duties,
17 secondary duties, or be with their families. So the situation was like
18 that, that they also carried out other duties, family duties, or other
19 personal business."
20 Your Honours, we say that with that greater freedom, the KLA and
21 these accused could consolidate their control of the area through the
22 rooting-out of opposition whether it be Serbs, Albanians, or other
23 ethnicities, and those suspected of collaboration or treachery in any way
24 were targeted. Indeed, from 1994 the KLA had publicly claimed
25 responsibility for murders and other attacks against collaborators and
1 others not supporting the KLA through its communiqués, which have been
2 put into the evidential bundle of the 65 ter lists, and to the KLA
3 communiqués to the Kosovar Albanian and Serb populations published in the
4 media between 1994 and 1998.
5 For example, on the 11th of December, 1997, the KLA introduced
6 itself in its communiqué number 40 by announcing that it had turned "the
7 barrel of a gun against the invader and traitors." That's -- comes
8 within the 65 ter numbers of 00953, 00931, 00340, pages 3324 to 3325.
9 Throughout 1998 the KLA announced and claimed responsibility for attacks
10 and punitive measures against collaborators, and they claimed
11 responsibility for attacks against Serbian police. On the 4th of March,
12 1998, the KLA General Staff publicly declared "death to enemies and
13 traitors." That comes from Jakup Krasniqi, 00328, page 37, and
15 The threatening language of the communiqués, we say, leaves no
16 room for doubt as to what will happen to those suspected of
17 collaborating. In its communiqué number 42, it declares that on 13th
18 February 1990, but given the context, Your Honours, it must be 1998,
19 Mustafe Kurti, a collaborator with the occupier, was liquidated. And
20 immediately underneath, on 19 February, 1998, the criminal
21 Nebojsa Cvejic, a member of the Serbian police force was liquidated at
22 Luzhan near Podujeve.
23 In a communiqué in December 1997, the KLA declared that on the
24 evening of 28 November 1997, Dalip Dugolli, a collaborator and one of
25 Milosevic's most trusted men, was killed.
1 And in its communiqué number 39 from November 1997 the KLA
2 declared: "The Albanian nation abhors the aggressor and its terrorism;
3 it detests and despises traitors and betrayal that jeopardise and risk
4 the fate of our liberation war."
5 Your Honours, it's clear that the targeting and elimination of
6 collaborators was threatened and encouraged from the earliest beginnings
7 of the KLA.
8 And it's also clear that this aim continued into 1998. In
9 particular, the KLA issued a further communiqué, number 47, from Pristina
10 on the 12th of May 1998, and published in Pristina in the Koha Ditore
11 newspaper in Albanian on the 13th of May, 1998, in which the KLA
12 declared -- Your Honours have there the document which is in e-court
13 00328, and then we've taken the part that we are wishing you to look at.
14 And in there it says:
15 "On the orders of the UCK, UCK or KLA General Staff, successive
16 operations against invasion troops were carried out in operational zone
17 number 1, that is the operational subzones of Drenice, Erenik, Dukagjin,
18 Pashtrik, and Llap. In the course of bitter fighting on the front, the
19 invading forces suffered major human and material losses. Throughout
20 this period, operations were also carried out against Albanian
21 collaborationists who, despite earlier warnings, did not abandon their
22 anti-national courses of action."
23 Your Honours, in addition, contemporaneous Serb security service
24 and police reports - and I am conscious of what Mr. Emmerson said
25 yesterday about those documents and the source of the content of them,
1 but nevertheless Mr. Stijovic and other Serb police witnesses produce a
2 large number of reports, for what they are worth, in which there are
3 complaints of violence and intimidation by members of the KLA and against
4 those not supporting them or deemed spies and collaborators --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just interrupt you? Would that be a
6 convenient time to take a break?
7 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, if I may have five minutes and then it
8 will be because I'll be turning to the counts. I may not even be five
10 Your Honours, the fact such targeting was carried out in the
11 Dukagjin zone in July 1998 is borne out in the evidence of Witness 17.
12 He described being given a list in July 1998 by the KLA commander of
13 Baran valley area, Din Krasniqi, who the Prosecution says had been
14 appointed by Ramush Haradinaj. Your Honours will get that from the
15 evidence of Mr. Hasanaj. And on that list were a number of wanted
16 persons, some variously described as collaborators. Amongst those on
17 that list was Zenun Gashi who was also abducted by the KLA and whose body
18 was later recovered, among others, at the Radoniq lake, and there will be
19 evidence relating to his abduction and death in this case. And also on
20 that list was Skender Kuci who is a named victim in Count 5. He was seen
21 at Jabllanice, and there he was beaten and tortured and ultimately
22 murdered whilst in KLA custody.
23 Your Honours, in the context of this conflict which also involved
24 the legal use of force, the Prosecution says these accused adopted
25 illegal means to achieve their goal of control. Those illegal means are
1 described in the indictment and they form the subject of the six counts
2 which I'll be turning to very shortly, and it's through the adoption of
3 those illegal means that the accused became part of the joint criminal
4 enterprise. Indeed, they worked together to torture, cruelly treat, and
5 murder those considered traitors to the KLA cause. Each of the accused
6 shared the intent to murder, cruelly treat, and torture the victims.
7 Haradinaj, Balaj, Brahimaj, other KLA soldiers, including other members
8 of the Brahimaj family worked together to suppress and eliminate
9 perceived opponents through murder, cruel treatment, and torture
10 committed at the detention facility in the KLA barracks in Jabllanice.
11 And, Your Honours, the crimes to which I will now turn are
12 examples of the suppression and elimination of the perceived opposition
13 by the KLA.
14 And, Your Honours, that is, I hope a convenient moment.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
16 We will take a break and come back at 4.00. Court adjourned.
17 --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, Mr. Rogers, may I apologise to
20 you for taking you by surprise before we went for the break to asking you
21 whether it was a convenient time. And may I apologise to everybody for
22 having not mentioned the times for sitting. When I first came here I was
23 told that a 30-minute break is an absolute minimum for purposes of
24 delayed broadcast and for corrections by the stenographers. So the only
25 way you could get that was to divide the time such that we sit for one
1 hour, 15 minutes, then take a 30-minute break. So at least we will not
2 be taken by surprise. We are now going to after quarter past 5.00 before
3 the next break.
4 MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're most welcome.
6 MR. ROGERS: I should try to keep an eye on the clock from here.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
8 MR. ROGERS: A little difficult to see, but I will try.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll be your eye.
10 MR. ROGERS: [Overlapping speakers] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll
11 have several reminders.
12 Your Honours, turning now to consider the individual counts on
13 the indictment. Your Honour, Count 1 on this indictment alleges murder,
14 cruel treatment, and torture in relation to three victims: Ivan Zaric, a
15 Serb; Burim Betja; and Agron Berisha, two Roma/Egyptian. Your Honours,
16 witnesses will, in dealing with this count, will say that as part of the
17 conflict, the armed conflict, around 19th of May, 1998, Serbian forces
18 attacked the village of Grabanice - and Your Honours will recall I
19 mentioned this village will have some significance, and this is the first
20 place in which it does - in the municipality of Kline. Your Honours,
21 witnesses describe the nature of that attack. They say that there was
22 two days of shelling, albeit less on the second day, followed by a
23 full-scale ground attack. But despite that attack and despite the armed
24 conflict, those living in that area still had to try to survive and the
25 essentials of life had to carry on.
1 Your Honours, at the time of the attack around the 19th of May,
2 1998, three young men or boys, the three victims, went from their village
3 of Dollc, which is about 10 kilometres from Grabanice, to mill their corn
4 to flour at the Grabanice mill. According to Witnesses 31 and 66, the
5 young men went together to mill their grain on a horse-drawn cart. One
6 was Ivan Zaric and the other two were the Roma that I mentioned. They
7 came from a small community where Serb, Roma, and Catholic Albanians
8 lived in harmony together. Normally this journey would take a couple of
9 hours, but these three young men/boys never returned.
10 Witness 80 describes seeing them that day at the mill at
11 Grabanice. He says that there were two Albanian -- who he calls children
12 aged between 16 and 17 on a cart that came to the mill. And third person
13 remained outside on the horse. The two Albanian children, he says, were
14 related and from the village of Dollc. He said they were polite. He
15 describes seeing them being taken from the mill by two members of the
16 KLA, Hazir Morina and Shaqir Krasniqi, and they were taken to a house in
17 Grabanice nearby where those two men beat the boys with sticks. The two
18 men then declared that they were taking them to Jabllanice. A few days
19 or so later Witness 80 describes seeing them again, this time what he
20 refers to as a prison in Jabllanice. By this time he himself had been
21 detained and was working in the kitchen of that prison area in a barracks
22 or a type of headquarters. He locates that place on the left-hand side
23 of the road from Zhabel. Your Honours may recall that Zhabel is to the
24 south of Jabllanice, and he says it was near a mosque and cemetery and
25 what he describes as an ambulance station.
1 Your Honours, I'm going to show you now a series of photographs
2 of the village of Jabllanice and the location of where the Prosecution
3 says witnesses will identify the prison or barracks building and some of
4 the pictures of the buildings themselves. A number of these have already
5 been shown to witnesses in the last trial and identified particularly by
6 Witness 3 and Witness 6 as the place where they were detained in
8 And Your Honours, perhaps I can just take you through this small
9 slide show. My learned friends have got copies of these as well.
10 Your Honour, the first slide is page 13 of your map bundle. This is an
11 aerial photograph looking at the village of Jabllanice and you can see
12 the main road running through Jabllanice, and the view in this photograph
13 is looking essentially from the direction of Catholic Gllogjan towards
14 where Zhabel would be. And if you follow the road starting in the bottom
15 right-hand corner of the photograph and follow it down into the
16 photograph, you see the mosque on the hill and there's a little cemetery
17 behind, and to the side you can just see some of the gravestones actually
18 as you turn the bend in the road. And on the bend in the road you see a
19 red brick building and some objects in front and the cemetery area there.
20 Following around the road you can see it turning into the distance and a
21 little group of red-tile-roof buildings. And beyond those
22 red-tile-roofed buildings is the facility at which the Prosecution says
23 these individuals were detained.
24 I turn you now to the next map, photograph. This is an aerial
25 view of the village, and if I then just turn you over straight away
1 because this document is in e-court 03036, page 2, we've annotated the
2 next slide just to try to orientate or help orientate around where we
3 are. And this time you can see Catholic Gllogjan is to the north and
4 Zhabel to the south, and the place at which we say these individuals were
5 detained is the building shown on the left-hand side of the road coming
6 out from Zhabel as you enter the village of Jabllanice. Your Honours can
7 see it there circled. Actually, if you imagine driving your way in on
8 that road as you come up and you come around the bend where the wooded
9 area is, that's the area of the point of the two meeting roads where the
10 mosque is. You can imagine looking at it from both directions, just to
11 help orientate a little bit about the geography of this particular area.
12 Turning the page, there's the first photograph of the building,
13 and actually if you do a comparison, I don't know, maybe you can from the
14 physical documents, you can see in 15 the shape of the building outlined,
15 the one that's circled, and then you can sort of pick it up a little bit
16 from this photograph, 16, e-court page 2 in 03037, and you can see the
17 road going into Jabllanice. This is map page 16, photograph that's being
18 shown. And a walled area, red-tiled building to the left. And if you
19 look along the wall going into the photograph you can see what appears to
20 be a ruined sort of gate which appears it had a top on it at some point.
21 If I can turn the page to the next slide, 03037, e-court page 3,
22 you will see the gate, this time really coming from the direction of
23 Catholic Gllogjan. And just in -- the top of the wall in the left-hand
24 side of the photograph you can see poking above it the red tiles of the
25 previous building.
1 Turning to the next slide or the next page if you're looking into
2 this book, this is in e-court at 00357, and now we have a view from
3 inside the compound -- I'm sorry, Mr. -- I'm sorry, I didn't see you
4 stand up.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Harvey.
6 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, it's -- something I do not like to do
7 is interrupt a colleague in full flood, but there has been substantial or
8 there's been a reasonable amount of correspondence between the parties as
9 to how these photographs should be labelled. Up until now they have been
10 labelled, in my submission, properly and neutrally. Photographs 18 --
11 pages 18, 23, 25, and 26 contain language that we considered to be
12 inflammatory, which Mr. Rogers knows we consider to be inflammatory, and
13 we have objected to him that we will not concede any such wording as
14 "prison" or "detention facility." And Your Honour has already made
15 mention of the fact that the more documents a Court sees which contain
16 potentially prejudicial language, the more worrying it is. I simply rise
17 to say I would ask Your Honours to simply take a pen and delete the words
18 "prison" or "detention facility," that these are matters that have not
19 been proved and, we submit, will not be proved.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Rogers, do you have any response?
21 MR. ROGERS: [Microphone not activated]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone, Mr. --
23 MR. ROGERS: Sorry. I thought it had been taken off. I must say
24 I didn't notice that it had remained there on that particular photograph,
25 although I think that photograph has been identified by one of the
1 witnesses. If Your Honour just bears with me, I'll see if I can just
2 check that. I may be wrong, but I'll just see if I can check that.
3 MR. HARVEY: I'm sorry, Your Honour, what is at issue is not what
4 has been identified by a witness but what will be proved by a witness,
5 and labelling documents in advance in this way is as much as putting a
6 photograph of the accused in the bundle and saying "the guilty man."
7 It's not the way it should be done in my submission.
8 MR. ROGERS: That wasn't the intention. If my learned friend is
9 unhappy, we can very easily delete the word "prison." It's what the
10 Prosecution says is the prison. It will be a matter for Your Honours to
11 determine whether it is or is not.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what you allege?
13 MR. ROGERS: Yes, I hope that Your Honours can deal with it in
14 that way and neutralise anything that may be upsetting my learned friend.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure.
16 MR. ROGERS: So Your Honour --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Whether you call it prison or not --
18 MR. ROGERS: You will determine.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- we will find out from how it was used?
20 MR. ROGERS: Indeed. Your Honours will determine what you think
21 it was in due course. We say the building on the right-hand side of this
22 photograph is the prison, and when I come a little bit later in my
23 presentation I'll show you some other photographs which have been
24 identified by witnesses, saying that that is the prison. And indeed,
25 witnesses for whom there has been a conviction.
1 So perhaps we'll come to it when we come to it. But let me just
2 orientate you a little bit around this photograph. You can now see
3 looking into it, first of all, the gate coming on the right -- the
4 left-hand side of the photograph, and then there's a -- what appears to
5 be a long building of some sort in front of the wall, the red-bricked --
6 red-faced building which appears to have a number of windows in it and no
7 roof at this time when this photograph was taken, which the Prosecution
8 says is some -- some good while after the actual events themselves.
9 Clearly it's a ruin and was not, we say, at the time.
10 Then on the right-hand side of the photograph is the taller
11 red-tile-roof building, red brick-faced. It appears to have no plaster
12 on it which we say is the prison. It was used as a prison.
13 Turning the page, I'm happy to say the neutral language is there
14 which I hope would be on all of them. This is in e-court at 03037 and
15 page 4, and that gives you another view of the building we say contained
16 the prison. We say it has four rooms to it, two at the front, one behind
17 the bush, and then others behind those two rooms. And if I can just draw
18 your attention to the man in the picture, you can see him kneeling down.
19 On the right-hand side of the building at the ground level appear to be
20 two black holes and a man kneeling. Your Honours, we say that's the
21 basement, cellar area, underneath this building which forms part of the
22 witness's narrative, he'll just say some were detained. And if I take
23 you to the next photograph, we're now moving into where the man was
24 kneeling, and you can see there the two -- I don't know what to describe
25 them, windows or holes, whatever they may be, two holes looking in to
1 what appears to be a water-filled basement. If we take the next
2 photograph --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: How do we determine that it's a water-filled?
4 MR. ROGERS: If we take the next photograph, Your Honour, 03052,
5 e-court page 1, this is a photograph of the basement and can see it is
6 water-filled. That's not to say it was always water-filled, but in this
7 photograph it is and witnesses describe how at certain times of the year
8 it filled with water, not always but sometimes.
9 Your Honours, so having orientated you around the photographs,
10 can I take you now to the descriptions of some of the witnesses of what
11 happened. Witness 80, we say, describes the building shown in the
12 photographs. He said it had -- the prison building, he said it had red
13 tiles -- I'm sorry, the whole building had red tiles, was close to the
14 road with a wall, and had double gates, topped by a small roof and had a
15 yard. And he says, Witness 80, that it was there in that yard area that
16 he saw the three victims of Count 1 again. This is -- now he'd been
17 detained there to take you back to the narrative and he says he saw the
18 three again there. Although, he says, they were so badly beaten that he
19 could hardly recognise them.
20 Your Honour, he says that the building belonged -- that place,
21 the photographed place, belonged to a relative of Lahi Brahimaj. He says
22 that as you entered the yard there is a building immediately on the left
23 which had red tiles at the time and was a long covered building with only
24 one floor. The wall close to the road, he says, was part of the
25 building. And he said it was that area that was a kitchen or eating
1 place. In addition to that building, he said, within the compound area
2 was another, and that other building he says was the prison.
3 Your Honours have seen the photographs showing what appear to be two
4 buildings. It was, he said, square-shaped with a roof which he described
5 had four triangles. He said it had a floor and a cellar basement. With
6 four rooms, two at the front and two at the back, with a corridor through
7 the middle. He says it was built with red brick, unpainted and
8 unplastered, so that you could see the mortar between the bricks.
9 He says that he saw who he describes as children being taken from
10 the basement cellar area of the prison building. He saw KLA soldiers
11 taking them from the cellar, these being, the Prosecution says, the
12 victims. And he says that the "big fry," he refers to saw them being
13 taken out as well. And, Your Honours, we say that the big fry he refers
14 to are the three accused, Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj who he says was
15 known as Togeri, and Lahi Brahimaj.
16 He says he saw the three young men or boys being taken into the
17 yard, and there the soldiers beat them while the three accused watched.
18 One of the two boys spoke Albanian and was calling out to their mothers
19 "kuku nana jeme," and crying out for help to anyone that would help them,
20 pleading. He says they were beaten with sticks, thought that their arms
21 were broken as they were not in a proper shape and were not being held in
22 their normal positions. He says they were battered, broken, and abused,
23 this is what the Prosecution anticipates he will say when I say "he
24 says," that's our understanding of the evidence he will give, and that he
25 was -- one of them was, as he described, peeing himself, wetting himself.
1 All of this while the accused watched on.
2 He said, as he refers, boys were being -- were tied to what he
3 describes, we say, as some sort of tree or wooden pillar. They were
4 brought out in front of the kitchen area, which he refers to as a -- like
5 an open mensa or a canteen. They were tied to these wooden pillars with
6 wire with their hands tied behind their backs. Their clothes were wet as
7 though they had been detained in the basement of the prison and they were
8 trembling. He describes Idriz Balaj and a man called Bandash beating
9 them, torturing them, and that Mr. Haradinaj was seated in the kitchen
10 area. Lahi Brahimaj was standing. And he describes this way, that for
11 him, Lahi Brahimaj, this was funny. That's the description he gives.
12 He goes on to say that Lahi Brahimaj joined in the beating. He
13 used everything, shoes, sticks, and he refers to the children -- again,
14 he keeps saying "children," that's just the way he describes them. He
15 says they couldn't stop the children peeing, I'm not suggesting they were
16 very young children, but that's his description. One was crying "mother
17 oh mother" in Albanian.
18 He says that during the beating Lahi Brahimaj accused the boys of
19 being sent by the Serb army. They were found to have 100 Deutschemarks
20 in their pockets. And he says that in order to save themselves when they
21 were beaten they said, "Yes, the Serb soldiers gave it to them." But he,
22 the witness, did not believe that was true. He didn't think they were
23 the type of people the Serbs would be sending, as he put it, without a
24 single day of education.
25 The beating, he says, continued for about 20 minutes. He then
1 saw Idriz Balaj take a large sharp knife from a sheathe hanging on his
2 belt. Balaj said "I am only here to kill people." He placed the knife
3 on the ear of one of the three and then sliced off the ear whole. The
4 other two boys, he says, screamed. Immediately after that the beating
5 continued and Witness 80 heard Lahi Brahimaj and Idriz Balaj, Toger,
6 speak about giving them papers to Drenica. That expression, he says,
7 meant that they would not be seen anymore, that they would be executed.
8 And he said after the ear cutting he couldn't watch anymore, went
9 to the back of the building, the kitchen, area, canteen, pretending to do
10 so something.
11 In addition to Witness 80, the Prosecution says Witness 81 will
12 provide evidence corroborating the account of this witness and providing
13 his own account of what he saw.
14 Your Honours, we recognise that there are internal differences
15 between the accounts of the witnesses and between their own accounts, and
16 Your Honours in due course will need to assess the weight to attach to
17 each of their evidence should they be heard. But they are central to
18 this count so I must open them.
19 Your Honours, Witness 81 broadly, we say, corroborates the
20 account of Witness 80. Witness 81 was a member of the KLA but he was not
21 based in Jabllanice. He had been, he says, sent to the prison and there
22 had met Nazmi Brahimaj and Lahi Brahimaj, who he knew as Maxhup. He
23 describes, he says, the prison being located on the road to Zhabel at the
24 end of the road out of the village of Jabllanice as you travel towards
25 Zhabel. And, Your Honours, it clearly is.
1 He describes the prison as being on one level with a roof and a
2 basement, like an abandoned-type house with no windows or doors and no
3 paint or plaster on the outside walls. There were four rooms, he says,
4 two at the front and two at the rear. And there was a basement, he says,
5 that was partly filled with water. He says that in the basement was
6 seven prisoners, three young men, a Serb and two Roma, and four more
7 elderly people, two men and two women, between -- caution with "elderly,"
8 between 40 and 60. He assumed the women, he says, were Serb because they
9 were not wearing the typical "shamija," head-scarf, worn by Albanian
10 women. He said the prisoners looked as though they'd been beaten and
11 looked very thin.
12 Later that same day, Witness 81 saw Lahi and both
13 Ramush Haradinaj and Idriz Balaj. He had known Ramush Haradinaj since
14 1995 and had met him several times since March 1998. He describes the
15 relationship between Ramush Haradinaj and Lahi Brahimaj as one where
16 Ramush Haradinaj referred to as Lahi Brahimaj as "dajko," meaning
17 maternal uncle. He says the Brahimaj's were based in Jabllanice and the
18 Haradinajs in Gllogjan, but essentially they were all one big family.
19 Sometimes that morning when he had arrived at the prison he was
20 told to go outside by Lahi Brahimaj. He saw the two Roma and the Serb
21 victim being taken from the basement. We say that is who he saw. There
22 were about 12 KLA soldiers outside, including the three accused. He
23 describes the prisoners being sworn at, interrogated, and beaten because
24 they were considered to be Serb spies. He heard, he says,
25 Ramush Haradinaj swearing at them and insulting them, saying things like:
1 Where are your Serbian forces? I shall kill you and fuck your Serbian
2 mother. He says they were interrogated in Albanian but mainly by
3 Lahi Brahimaj but also by the other two accused, Togeri and
4 Ramush Haradinaj, about the whereabouts of Serb forces. Lahi Brahimaj
5 and Idriz Balaj were swearing but they were mainly beating them.
6 Lahi Brahimaj, he says, used a baseball bat. Nazmi Brahimaj and
7 Ramush Haradinaj also joined in the beating. Toger said, "This is how
8 you treat the enemy." Haradinaj punched one of the Roma several times
9 with his fist until the boy fell to the ground. And he explains that
10 later, sometime later in 1998, Ramush Haradinaj told him that he,
11 Ramush Haradinaj, hated Roma.
12 The Roma boys were screaming in Albanian, "Please don't kill us.
13 We are with you."
14 Towards the end of the beating he saw Idriz Balaj cut off the ear
15 of the Serb boy with a knife. Lahi Brahimaj then hit the boy on the head
16 with a baseball bat causing one eye to bleed heavily. He says
17 Idriz Balaj grabbed the Serb boy by his hair on the back of his head and
18 took out the bleeding eye with his knife. He then turned to the two Roma
19 and stabbed them several times to the chest area. Witness 81, he says,
20 heard Ramush Haradinaj and Idriz Balaj say to the soldiers present "take
21 them to Drenica," this was, he says, an expression learnt in the KLA to
22 mean liquidate or execute prisoners, in particular Serbs, but also
23 Albanians and Roma considered collaborators.
24 He says the reason the phrase was taught was to avoid prisoners
25 panicking if they were to learn of their fate. Ramush Haradinaj then
1 said to him, Witness 81, and others standing by, "Take them to Drenica to
2 Father Adem." A reference to Adem Jashari, a KLA commander killed in an
3 attack by Serb forces and regarded as one of the KLA's first martyrs.
4 Although Witness 81 was from a different command, he acted out of respect
5 for Ramush Haradinaj. He took the prisoners he had come for out of the
6 compound together with other local KLA members. They were taken to the
7 ambulance station first but they did not leave there alive. Their bodies
8 were later dumped by local KLA.
9 Your Honours, turning to Count 2 -- and I can say, Your Honours,
10 that the bodies of these three victims have not been recovered.
11 Turning to Count 2, this is a count relating to murder, cruel
12 treatment, and torture, and the victims of this count are Uke Rexhepaj
13 and Nesret Alijaj, two Roma/Egyptian men.
14 Witnesses 54, 78, and 79 provide evidence that on the 20th of May
15 1998, at around the same time as the events in Count 1 and the Serb
16 attack on Grabanice, two Ashkali/Roma/Egyptian civilians, Uke Rexhepaj
17 and Nesret Alijaj, who were related, were abducted while cycling on the
18 road between Grabanice and Dollovo to feed their cattle. Their family
19 has never seen them again. Although in 2003 Uke Rexhepaj's clothing was
20 later identified among artefacts being displayed by the ICRC for the
21 purpose of identifying those missing from Kosovo.
22 Witness 54 said that they were abducted by armed soldiers and
23 taken away in a car. They were taken to Jabllanice where they were seen
24 by Witness Kabashi, a member of the KLA, the Prosecution says, based in
25 Jabllanice since 9 April 1998. He describes them as two men of Roma
1 ethnicity who were related, father-in-law, he says, and son-in-law. He
2 had seen them earlier that morning in Grabanice being detained by KLA
3 soldiers with others at a Serb house. He says they were being accused of
4 being Serb collaborators.
5 He says that at Jabllanice their hands were tied behind their
6 backs with wires, he saw them in the prison at Jabllanice, and they were
7 being kept there for only one day. He spoke with Brahimaj,
8 Lahi Brahimaj, about the prisoners, and he describes Lahi Brahimaj as the
9 main commander of the KLA hierarchy in Jabllanice, together with
10 Alush Agushi. Lahi Brahimaj told him they were being sent to Drenica and
11 he confirms, like both Witnesses 80 and 81, that that meant they were to
12 be executed. The Prosecution says that both these victims were murdered
13 whilst in the custody of the KLA.
14 The prison Kabashi describes being in a house used as a barracks
15 belonging to the relatives of Lahi Brahimaj and located on the road to
16 Zhabel on the outskirts of Jabllanice village, about 500 metres from
17 Lahi Brahimaj's own home. And he drew a sketch to show where the prison
18 and barracks were located. Your Honours, that is the sketch Mr. Emmerson
19 has already referred to, but in our submission it shows largely what is
20 already clear from the photographs and from the aerial photographs and
21 the witness -- evidence of others where the location of this place was.
22 And Your Honours can see, shown I think on the screen, that the
23 map that he -- sketch map that he drew --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Emmerson.
25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm going to have to object for the same reasons
1 as before. This is part of his witness statement. It's not right for
2 the Prosecution to seek to admit it at this stage.
3 MR. ROGERS: It's part of his evidence that the Prosecution
4 expects he will give. He's here and I hope that Your Honours can just
5 look at it now and deal with it now.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
7 The Chamber did make its remarks a little earlier before the
8 break about tendering documents, exhibits without witnesses. And it's
9 all very well to say you will show a sketch to --
10 MR. ROGERS: No, Your Honour, I'll leave it.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, sir.
12 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, he, Kabashi, explains that he had seen
13 other prisoners detained there from when he first went in early April
14 1998, and two men, Afrim Morina and another Idriz, he didn't know his
15 other name, being detained as spies, and Lahi Brahimaj kicking one or
16 other of them.
17 In addition he describes other beatings and torture for other
18 individuals, in particular one Roma from Budisalc village near Kline, who
19 he describes being severely beaten and cut with a bayonet and so badly
20 injured that he died. As far as Kabashi himself could ascertain, his
21 only crime was to have been carrying a camera while travelling from
22 Budisalc to Kralan. The victim saying the camera was for his pictures of
23 his marriage, but he was being beaten on suspicion of taking pictures of
24 KLA positions.
25 Your Honours, turning to Counts 3, 4, and 5. Your Honour, I
1 intend to deal with these together because the evidence of the witnesses
2 is so overlapping, to try to separate them out is very problematic, so I
3 hope Your Honours will forgive me for taking them together.
4 Again, they involve murder, cruel treatment, and torture.
5 Count 3, the victim is a -- a Witness 6, a Catholic Kosovar Albanian.
6 Count 4, the victims are Nenad Remistar, a Serb traffic police officer, a
7 Bosnian man whose name is unknown, who worked for the Serb power company
8 Elektrokosova, and three Montenegrins whose names are not known. And
9 Count 5 the victims are Witness 3, a Kosovar Albanian; a man called
10 Pal Krasniqi, a Catholic Kosovar Albanian; and Skender Kuci, a Kosovar
12 Your Honours, amongst the victims that Shefqet Kabashi mentioned
13 was a man who he said will have been abducted between Kline and Gjakove.
14 This man, he said, had a Mercedes car which was taken by the KLA
15 commanders at Jabllanice. Kabashi gives his first name and place of
16 birth which is the same as that of Witness 6 and describes this man as
17 being badly beaten. Witness 6 is a Catholic Albanian civilian who was
18 abducted on Friday, the 13th of June, 1998, whilst he and his family were
19 driving in his Mercedes Benz 200 vehicle along the Gjakove-Kline road.
20 He left home about 11.30 that morning to go to Kline. He and his family
21 had passed through Grabanice and been turned back at the entrance to
22 Dollovo by Serb soldiers. But on the way back to Gjakove he was stopped
23 again along the main road at a place between Gjakove and Kline by
24 approximately ten KLA soldiers wearing a mix of camouflage and civilian
25 clothes. His car was searched. He was detained at the roadside for
1 about two hours with his family. He had a pistol on him which was seized
2 together with all documents. This is the evidence that he gave. He says
3 he had a licence for the pistol but it was a police-issued weapon, and
4 issued to reserve police. It had in fact been his father's. He also had
5 on his person a photograph of himself with a retired Albanian policeman
6 in police uniform. After about two hours of his detention of his
7 detention at the side of the road, another car came along the road. The
8 soldiers fired some shots and then brought the car to near where he was.
9 It was a light blue Opel Kadett with Gjakove licence plates beginning DJ.
10 Soldiers asked if he recognised the car, but he said he didn't. Shortly
11 after this, about 20 minutes later, Witness 6 and his family were taken
12 in the two vehicles, the Kadett and the Mercedes, towards Jabllanice. He
13 was in the Kadett with his wife, and a soldier and the children were in
14 the Mercedes. Inside the Kadett he saw some photographs. They were of a
15 policeman who worked in Gjakove whom he knew as Nenad. Nenad was from
16 the Binxh village in Kline municipality and worked in Gjakove. Witness 6
17 believed Nenad was a Serb or a Montenegrin who worked as a policeman.
18 Your Honours, this man, this Nenad, the Prosecution says is Nenad
19 Remistar. He was the owner of a light blue Opel Kadett, was a Serbian
20 traffic police officer, and he is the victim of Count 4 in this
21 indictment. It's our case that he was abducted at the time the Kadett
22 was stopped on the road on 13th of June 1998. He left his home
23 travelling to work at about half past 1.00 in the afternoon. He had gone
24 in the blue Kadett, and he is described as having short light brown to
25 blond hair - there is significance of this - blue eyes and clean-shaven.
1 He never returned home from his trip to work that day, has never been
2 heard from or seen since. His body has not been recovered.
3 Returning to Witness 6, on the way to Jabllanice, now travelling,
4 they stopped in a convoy stopped in Neople village where his wife and
5 children were told to get out. He wasn't allowed to leave and they
6 travelled on to Jabllanice. They arrived at Jabllanice and he was taken
7 into the compound, to a room close to the entrance of the compound of the
8 building the Prosecution describes as the prison. He says he was
9 initially taken to a single-storey house with red bricks and four rooms
10 in the middle of the courtyard, and he identified this photograph,
11 showing I hope now, as the four-room house. Your Honours can see it's
12 the same photographs -- part at least of the same photographs you have
13 been looking at and the man kneeling in the corner there.
14 He went on to describe the basement and said there was water in
15 the basement, and he was held in the building for six weeks, being
16 released on the 25th of July, 1998.
17 Once he was taken into the building he was placed in one of the
18 rooms and beaten by soldiers until he describes them being exhausted. He
19 says one after the other, sometimes with a baseball bat, sometimes with
20 other things, whatever they could lay their hands on, is part of his
21 testimony. During the six weeks he was there he was beaten often. One
22 of the beaters was Lahi Brahimaj, known as Maxhup, the others were Nazmi
23 Brahimaj, Lahi's brother, and his cousin Hamza. They were the initiators
24 of the beatings. But on the first day and night of his detention, he was
25 kept in a building different from the four-room building. He was kept
1 there with a man called Nenad he had seen in the photographs in the car,
2 and he drew on a photograph, which I think is being shown now, in the
3 last trial the room in which he was initially kept that first night,
4 photograph 65 ter 00333. And Your Honours can see it's in the long
5 building as the entrance to the compound.
6 It was here, he says, that Nazmi Brahimaj beat him until he, the
7 victim, lost consciousness. He was beaten with a baseball bat on his
8 legs and his arms.
9 He was tied with rope to Nenad in the same room. They were both
10 beaten. He said, "We stayed there all night and we were beaten and
11 tortured and we had lost consciousness, me and Nenad." Nazmi and a group
12 of soldiers took turns to beat them, Nazmi Brahimaj. He was with Nenad,
13 he says, for 24 hours and then Nenad was taken away by two soldiers.
14 When he was taken away, he, Nenad, wasn't able to walk. He said they
15 both had, he and Nenad, the same injuries. They were both moved after
16 the first night to the four-room building. Witness 6 was kept in the
17 room on the left side of the building as you enter. He was not kept with
18 Nenad. He didn't see him again and didn't know what happened to him.
19 The Prosecution says the account of what happened to Nenad
20 Remistar is picked up by Witness 81. I'll return to Witness 6. Still
21 with Nenad Remistar. Witness 81 describes returning to Jabllanice about
22 three weeks after the ear-cutting incident. This would appear to fit,
23 the Prosecution says, with the abduction of Nenad Remistar on the 13th of
24 June, 1998. He describes, Witness 81, being sent to the prison at
25 Jabllanice in order to take two Roma and an Albanian prisoner to
1 Novoselle where there was another KLA prison. He had an order to take to
2 Lahi Brahimaj which he delivered. He saw the three prisoners who he had
3 to take and said they were not too badly beaten. He said there were a
4 total of 15 prisoners and was present when Lahi Brahimaj interrogated and
5 beat a policeman called Nenad who had blond, fair hair. He was
6 questioned about patrols and check-points. His hands were tied behind
7 his back and he was beaten by Lahi Brahimaj all over his body with a
8 baseball bat. He was already hardly able to stand, he says, before this
10 Witness 81 took his three prisoners away to Novoselle, returned
11 to Jabllanice the next day, he had gone to take three prisoners to
12 another place and had become somehow involved with the interrogation of
13 this witness -- this victim. He returned the next day to discover that
14 this victim, Nenad Remistar, and two other Serb policemen he said who
15 were also detained in the basement, and all the other prisoners, had
16 gone. He did not ask Maxhup -- the prisoners in the basement had gone.
17 He didn't ask them what had happened but understood, he says, they had
18 all been killed. Doesn't explain any more about that.
19 Returning to Witness 6, he wasn't kept in the basement, he was
20 kept in the rooms. He said for the first four weeks he was kept locked
21 in the room on the left-hand side of the building and saw no one other
22 than those that came, he says, to torture him. He couldn't tell day from
23 night because he was locked in the room and beaten, wasn't allowed out,
24 and the window was barred with wooden planks. He was given a piece of
25 bread and marmalade, a little to drink, filthy water in glass jars, he
1 was sick and he was often unconscious. They took his watch and he was
2 almost naked. He couldn't count the assailants because they were
3 numerous. This is his evidence. For the second two weeks he had more
4 freedom to move and had better food and was able to eat bread and beans.
5 And after about two weeks of his detention, they brought four other
6 prisoners, he said, a Bosnian and three Montenegrins.
7 Your Honours, it's fair to say that this witness is a little
8 unclear about precisely the periods of time between the six weeks for how
9 long he was kept, whether it was two or four weeks before he was allowed
10 a little bit more freedom, but Your Honours will no doubt be able to deal
11 with that when you read and understand his testimony. But essentially he
12 gives an account of increasing amounts of freedom. And then
13 describing -- during this detention period, these four other prisoner, a
14 Bosnian and three Montenegrins -- the other victims in Count 4.
15 The Bosnian was a Muslim working in Decan in the Elektrokosova
16 company. The four were together with Witness 6, the four new people --
17 the Bosnian and three Montenegrins were with Witness 6 for about three
18 days he says. He describes how the four men were beaten during the three
19 days that they were there. They were beaten with baseball bats, they
20 were stabbed with knives, their clothes were covered in blood. He
21 describes the victims being pricked with knives all over their bodies,
22 about 1 centimetre deep, three of them. They were bleeding and because
23 of the beating they spat blood. They were covered in blood. That's his
24 testimony. There was blood on the floor. He says that during the
25 beatings Nazmi Brahimaj and Hamza were there.
1 On about 10.00 in the evening on the third day the four men were
2 taken away. He never saw them again. During the beating of the man from
3 Elektrokosova, the soldiers were telling him, you are working for Serbia,
4 you are working for Elektrokosova, and you are interrupting the
5 power-supply, all the time the KLA soldiers were beating him.
6 Throughout the time he was detained there, Witness 6 saw
7 Lahi Brahimaj continuously, regularly. Asked what this meant, he said,
8 "Well, two days would not pass without seeing Lahi Brahimaj ..."
9 That was his testimony. He went on to describe the three, three
10 men, coming to beat him regularly with baseball bats and fists. He said,
11 "For two weeks, I didn't know where my face was, where my neck was. I
12 was all swollen up because of the beatings."
13 They also sent others to beat him. All three, Lahi Brahimaj,
14 Nazmi Brahimaj, and Hamza Brahimaj weren't there all together at the same
15 time. When asked about his conditions of detention he said, "During my
16 stay for the first three weeks there was nothing in the room, only the
17 floor. No covering, no blankets, nothing."
18 About two weeks before he was released he had a little bit more
19 freedom. It appears he could move around, this time in the village a
20 little. Three other people were brought in at that time. One was an
21 Albanian man from Zahaq brought in the boot of a car in a metallic
22 Mercedes and he was beaten, the Prosecution says, and tortured until he
23 died. When he arrived, the man in the car, they took him from the trunk
24 of the car and beat him, they being Nazmi Brahimaj, Lahi Brahimaj, and
25 others. He says he was ultimately sent for treatment -- the man was
1 ultimately sent for treatment, but he died. That man was kept in a room
2 different from Witness 6 and was beaten by Nazmi and Hamza. The
3 Prosecution says that man, the man in the Mercedes from Zahaq was
4 Skender Kuci, the victim in Count 5.
5 Later again they brought two other prisoners. One was
6 Pal Krasniqi, another victim in Count 5. He was wearing sports clothes,
7 a blue track suit, and Witness 6 was shown a photograph of Pal Krasniqi
8 and was able to identify the man as one of the men who was brought in.
9 He says Pal Krasniqi was a Catholic. The other man who came a few hours
10 after Pal Krasniqi is, the Prosecution says, Witness 3, another victim of
11 Count 5.
12 These two men, Pal Krasniqi, Witness 3, and Skender Kuci were put
13 together in one room. He, Witness 6, says he saw Pal Krasniqi and the
14 other man, Skender Kuci, being beaten with a baseball bat, and describes
15 them being in a horrifying state. He didn't see Witness 3 being beaten.
16 Pal Krasniqi and the other man, Skender Kuci, were beaten continuously on
17 the second day of their detention. Witness 6 goes on to describe how the
18 three, he says, tried to escape. He says Witness 3 was able to get away
19 but the other two could not. They couldn't walk fast. They were
20 recaptured, beaten, and tortured again. Hamza Brahimaj beat them.
21 Skender Kuci was later taken to Irzniq, but Pal Krasniqi was left in
22 Jabllanice. In the time the other man, Skender Kuci, was there,
23 Witness 6 describes him as lying down with his eyes closed. He said he
24 was fat and also swollen because of the beating, so his eye -- he could
25 not open his eyes. He was all swollen. He was fat but because of the
1 beating he said, "I thought his clothes could not contain his body
2 because of the swelling." That's at transcript 5337 of the last trial.
3 Witness 6 describes Pal Krasniqi as beaten up very badly. He
4 could not eat or drink anything. Witness 6 remembers being released on
5 25th of July 1998. He saw Pal Krasniqi shortly before he left Jabllanice
6 and says this: "There was blood on him, he was spitting blood. His body
7 was all blue and black because of the beating, swollen. He was lying
8 down on the floor. I would bring him some water. He was in this shape
9 for a week. Then I was released and left that place and I don't know
10 what happened to him." He never saw him again. And he didn't know why
11 he had been imprisoned.
12 Your Honours, Pal Krasniqi's body was recovered from the Lake
13 Radoniq canal by Serb investigators on or around the 8th of September
14 1998. It is the body labelled R9. An autopsy revealed that the cause of
15 death was multiple gun-shot injuries to the head, trunk, and upper limbs.
16 Witness 6 was never given any reason as to why he himself had
17 been imprisoned, but it's clear, Your Honours, from the transcript in the
18 last trial in answers to questions, I think, by Mr. Harvey in
19 cross-examination that he was being beaten and when he was being beaten
20 he was being questioned. And during the questioning he was asked whether
21 he had stayed in the company of Serbs. He said they accused me of
22 staying with Serbs. Asked further about that he said: Lahi and Nazmi
23 were saying this. Lahi and Nazmi accused me of staying with Serbs.
24 In answers to Judge Orie in the transcript he said: "That night
25 when we arrived there, they asked such questions. Then they continued to
1 torture me. And then they, the soldiers came and told me, you are a spy
2 of Serbia." As a Catholic Albanian he explained he was not, he felt,
3 considered an Albanian, he said, for them, and even now they do not
4 consider me an Albanian. When he was released he was given some papers,
5 stating that the staff of the subzone of Dukagjin had ordered his car and
6 revolver be confiscated, signed by Nazmi Brahimaj as deputy commander.
7 And in addition he had a paper saying that he, the accused, was
8 being conditionally -- said the accused, was being conditionally released
9 by the staff of the subzone and that if he were to repeat his "mistakes,"
10 he would be prosecuted. He said he didn't know what his mistakes were.
11 He confirmed that Lahi Brahimaj and his brother mistreated him
12 continuously. Indeed, the Trial Chamber found beyond a reasonable doubt
13 that Lahi Brahimaj personally participated in the torture and cruel
14 treatment of Witness 6 and convicted him of the crimes of torture and
15 cruel treatment as violations of the laws or customs of war.
16 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, I should just give notice at this point
17 that the Defence for Lahi Brahimaj objects to the use of any reference to
18 convictions. As Your Honour has said repeatedly, this is a trial de novo
19 and if the issue of conviction is sought to be relied on by the
20 Prosecution in any degree, then we wish to brief that because we believe
21 it to be completely contrary to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Rogers.
23 MR. ROGERS: Your Honour, I had indicated to Mr. Harvey in
24 advance of today's hearing that I intended to open his convictions and
25 unfortunately he hadn't mentioned this to me before I did. I shan't
1 mention it. I think it's a matter of record, in any event, that they
2 exist, but we can deal with what the evidential value of them is or may
3 be in due course. I take note of what he says, that there is an issue.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for taking note, and thank you. Are you
6 Yes, Mr. Harvey.
7 MR. HARVEY: I just want to clarify that I thought I had made it
8 abundantly clear to Mr. Rogers that I would take this position. I am
9 surprised that he is surprised. That's all.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
11 MR. ROGERS: Your Honour, I carry on.
12 Your Honours, by the 25th of July, 1998, and after
13 Ramush Haradinaj's appointment as commander on the 23rd of June, 1998,
14 the Dukagjin zone had been organised with Ramush Haradinaj as the
15 commander. Lahi Brahimaj was appointed his deputy initially, but by the
16 25th of July, 1998, Ramush Haradinaj had replaced him with
17 Nazmi Brahimaj, which may go some way to explain how the papers that
18 Witness 6 believe was signed by Nazmi Brahimaj as deputy commander.
19 Your Honour, the witness after his -- suffered the attacks that
20 he had says that he continues to have trouble with his left arm and with
21 pain in his kidneys.
22 Your Honours, I just turn to deal a little more now with Skender
23 Kuci, Pal Krasniqi, and Witness 3.
24 Witness 3 was a member of a political party, the LDK, which was a
25 political party supporting Ibrahim Rugova, leader of the LDK and whose
1 ideal had very broadly, I don't want to get into the entire political
2 history, but very broadly had been for a "peaceful path," solution to the
3 situation in Kosovo. Witness 3 had been a village guard in Grabanice and
4 was at that time in position when the Serbs attacked the village, going
5 back now into the 19th of May, 1998. On the 21st of May he had to
6 withdraw from the village to Jabllanice, passing through Gllogjan, and on
7 the way he met Lahi Brahimaj, who was very angry, he says, and Alush
8 Agushi, who accused him of being a traitor for abandoning his post.
9 In his testimony in the Limaj trial, Shefqet Kabashi described
10 how the villagers of Grabanice had fled the shelling to Gllogjan,
11 Catholic Gllogjan. He described how the leaders, who he said were
12 Lahi Brahimaj and Alush Agushi, who's another KLA member and named JCE
13 member, asked the villagers of Grabanice why they had left, why they had
14 fled. And he then said this in his transcript:
15 "At that time it was very difficult to leave your place."
16 Asked what he meant by this, he said:
17 "Because the time was very difficult and it was difficult to
18 leave your place of course. It was better to stay there and get killed
19 than to flee."
20 Witness 3 stayed for about a week in Jabllanice. He moved around
21 a bit. He stayed for about a week in Jabllanice until the 31st of May,
22 when he went to stay in a house in Zhabel belonging to a man called
23 Tal Zekha.
24 Your Honours, can I just very briefly go into private session and
25 then very quickly out again?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
2 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much, Madam Registrar.
23 Yes, Mr. Rogers.
24 MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Another man was also in Tal Zekha's house. He too had been
1 forced to leave Grabanice on the 21st of May in the Serb attack. But KLA
2 soldiers came for that other man and the other man was forced to leave
3 there by KLA soldiers who kicked and beat him, witnessed by Witness 3.
4 He was taken away with someone called Fadil Fazliu. One of the KLA
5 members that took them was called Ujku, or Pjeter Shala was his name,
6 also known as Ujku. He was, the Prosecution says, a member of the MP of
7 the KLA and a member of the JCE. He wore a black uniform, was shouting
8 abuse at the other man and Fazliu as they were taken downstairs, all the
9 time calling them traitors.
10 Lahi Brahimaj began looking for Witness 3, the Prosecution says,
11 around the 30th of June, 1998. He appeared -- Lahi appeared, at
12 Tal Zekha's house, where Witness 3 was, and asked Witness 3 to go with
13 him to Jabllanice. The car being driven by Lahi Brahimaj was a Mercedes
14 car that it is said belonged to Skender Kuci. Lahi took Witness 3 to
15 what he called the staff -- what Witness 3 called the staff headquarters
16 in Jabllanice, where there was a prison. He was shown this paragraph and
17 identified this as the place where he had been taken. And so perhaps
18 it's not offensive to call it Jabllanice prison on this one because this
19 is -- the witness identified as the prison he was taken to.
20 He said he was kept prisoner in the building on the right-hand
21 side in the photograph consistent with the --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: We have no pictures.
23 MR. ROGERS: Oh, I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. ROGERS: Picture. We have vision. All right. Thank you.
1 He says he was in the building on the right-hand side of the
3 After he was taken there --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Harvey.
5 MR. HARVEY: I'm sorry, lest silence be thought to be consent, it
6 is still objectionable, Your Honours. I hate to interrupt, but it really
7 is no good keeping on plugging away with labels that should never have
8 been on photographs in the first place.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. --
10 MR. ROGERS: I hear, I hear what is said.
11 Your Honours, the witness describes being detained in that
12 building on the right-hand side where he was put into a room. Other
13 people came in and they beat him. There were two other people there.
14 One was called Skender Kuci. Witness 3 was beaten with baseball bats
15 until he lost consciousness. He says he was detained two nights and
16 three days, but was himself only beaten on the first day. He had his
17 hands tied at night, as did the other two men. He said Nazmi Brahimaj
18 was one of his attackers. He kicked him. The others beat Skender Kuci
19 and the other man. They were terribly injured, the two other men. He
20 said Skender was black on one side, the other man was swollen.
21 Skender Kuci was crying in pain and moaning, but the other could not
22 move. He further described the condition of the other man, that the
23 Prosecution says is Pal Krasniqi, as follows:
24 "He was beaten to a pulp. He was not in a position to get up,
25 let alone walk in the courtyard. He used to pee in his pants."
1 At one point Witness 3 describes being taken into a room next to
2 the one he was beaten in. There he appeared before Lahi Brahimaj who
3 accused him of supporting the Serb police. There were two women in the
4 room as well. Lahi told them to practice on him and the women started to
5 beat him as hard as they could with what he described as a kind of
6 telescope on his hands. This lasted five or ten minutes. Lahi, he said,
7 had a revolver, which he said to Witness 3 he should use to kill himself.
8 Another man in the room told Witness 3 to admit everything. He said,
9 "I'll cut your throat and then you will have to admit everything."
10 Witness 3 decided that at that point it was time to run away.
11 When he returned to the room where the other two were, he decided
12 he was going to run away. He escaped through a side window, did not see
13 Skender Kuci or the other man, Pal Krasniqi, again.
14 Your Honours should have a photograph I hope -- no? Yes? I'm
16 Which the witness marked during the course of the last trial, and
17 he marked two rooms, one on the right he said was the room that he
18 escaped from and is marked SK, together with Skender Kuci, and the room
19 on the left marked L is the room he says that he went into where
20 Lahi Brahimaj was and where he was beaten on his hands.
21 He ran out of the building towards the Prosecution says is a
22 brook or a stream at the end of this compound area and escaped. He says
23 Skender Kuci followed him but he didn't make it.
24 After his escape, sometime later, he saw Lahi Brahimaj again.
25 Lahi took him to his -- Lahi Brahimaj's house, and there accused him that
1 Skender Kuci had promised the witness, 3, 10.000 Deutschemarks to help
2 him escape. Lahi slapped Witness 3 around the face, forced him into the
3 boot of the Mercedes car, and drove him to the staff headquarters, he
4 describes the staff headquarters. Lahi drove him around in the trunk of
5 the car and kicked him, and at some point he stopped the car, opened the
6 trunk, and carried out what the Prosecution would describe as a mock
7 execution. Lahi pulled out his gun and asked -- or a gun and asked
8 Witness 3 if he should pull the trigger. Witness 3 said yes and Lahi
9 fired. He saw a flame and heard a click and felt some pain but realised
10 he had not been shot. Thank you. Lahi Brahimaj shut the trunk and drove
11 off to Gllogjan to the home of Ramush Haradinaj.
12 Your Honours, Witness Kabashi also describes seeing Skender Kuci
13 and Pal Krasniqi at Jabllanice in June or July 1998. In fact, around the
14 10th of July, 1998, Pal Krasniqi had gone to Jabllanice to join the KLA
15 and worked for a few days before being arrested as a spy and detained in
16 Jabllanice prison. Kuci's name had appeared on a list of wanted persons
17 around the 12th of July, 1998, which I mentioned earlier on, the list of
18 wanted persons. Kuci's brother had been a police officer. He was
19 abducted, Kuci, from his home in Zahac, also the home village of
20 Witness Kabashi and taken to the Jabllanice compound in his own
21 Mercedes Benz car where he was detained and beaten.
22 Kabashi saw Kuci there and spoke to him and was told that Kuci
23 had been accused of being a spy. He spoke to Lahi Brahimaj about Kuci
24 and Brahimaj said that he, Kuci, was a big fish, which Kabashi took to
25 mean a Serb spy. Kabashi said it wasn't true and that Lahi informed him
1 he believed that Kuci was working for the Serb secret service. He also,
2 Kabashi, saw Krasniqi -- Pal Krasniqi looking very scared, somebody that
3 he had known, Pal Krasniqi, for a long time. And Krasniqi told him that
4 he had admitted to being a spy under torture in order to make the torture
5 stop. He said he had gone to join the KLA in Jabllanice, but after a few
6 days he was accused of being a spy and imprisoned. Kabashi was troubled,
7 went home that night, and talked to his family about the condition of the
8 two men, who urged him to try to do something to save them. But when he
9 returned the next day Skender Kuci was in a very bad way, his belly was
10 bloated. He asked those in the imprisoning the men what had happened,
11 and they said that Skender and a man from Grabanice had tried to escape.
12 It appears, Your Honours, from the evidence that KLA subzone
13 commander Rrustem Tetaj, who had involvement in what subsequently
14 happened with Kuci, became aware of the detention of Kuci and informed
15 Mr. Haradinaj who together they went to Jabllanice in order to seek the
16 immediate release of Skender Kuci. Haradinaj spoke to Nazmi Brahimaj,
17 calling to Rrustem Tetaj, who responded that Kuci had tried to escape and
18 had been slightly injured and that he would be released as soon as he
19 recovered. Ramush Haradinaj ordered that he be taken to the hospital in
20 Irzniq. He was taken to the hospital but died of his injuries. His body
21 was buried initially near to the mosque and cemetery in Jabllanice and
22 was ultimately exhumed and moved. An OMPF autopsy reveals records of
23 multiple fractures to his body.
24 Kabashi provides a little further information as to who were
25 responsible for beatings generally. He said those who usually beat the
1 prisoners were Lahi Brahimaj, a man called Bandash, Pjeter Shala known as
2 Ujku; Idriz Balaj, and two others, and he describes Mr. Balaj as being
3 the cruellest. He recounts a particular incident relating to another man
4 called Jah Bushati. Two protected witnesses, who will corroborate, the
5 Prosecution says, Mr. Kabashi's account, as they recount how, to some
6 extent at least, as they account how Jah Bushati was detained at the
7 Jabllanice prison around the spring of 1998, and so severely mistreated
8 while in detention that he could barely walk. He like the other victims
9 in this case was detained and mistreated by the KLA at Jabllanice on
10 suspicion of being a Serb collaborator.
11 Your Honours, I'm conscious of the time. I have one count left
12 to deal with. Is this a convenient moment to break?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is indeed if it's convenient to you. We will
14 take a break and come back at quarter to. Court adjourned.
15 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Rogers.
18 MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Your Honour, I turn now to deal with Count 6. Your Honour, this
20 is a count of cruel treatment and torture.
21 Your Honour, turning to the victim's detention at Jabllanice, he
22 was detained by the KLA, the Prosecution says and he says, because he was
23 a supporter of the LDK, of Ibrahim Rugova, its leader, and he did not
24 agree with the KLA strategies and actions. In particular, he says he was
25 ordered by the KLA to kill eight LDK supporters, an order which he
1 refused to obey. Lahi Brahimaj, Nazmi Brahimaj, and Alush Agushi gave
2 him a list of names of LDK members that included his own nephew, Riza.
3 And they asked him to kill those on the list particularly because no one
4 would suspect him.
5 Your Honours, he fled his own home village along with other
6 villages following the Serb attack on Grabanice on the 19th of May, 1998.
7 The KLA, including Lahi Brahimaj, accused, he says, the men of Grabanice
8 of being traitors because they had not defended their positions against
9 the Serb attack. Towards the end of May -- sorry, when I say "he says,"
10 Witness 3 stated that position.
11 Towards the end of May 1998, the victim says he was abducted from
12 a house in Zhabel, pursuant to an order for arrest, he says, was signed
13 by Ramush Haradinaj and which he says he saw. Pjeter Shala, also known
14 Ujku or Wolf and Arbnor Zejneli and other KLA members were involved in
15 this abduction during which the victim was kicked, beaten, and called a
16 traitor. He was taken to Jabllanice, he says, where he saw other
17 villagers, about 20, who had also been made to go there. Lahi Brahimaj
18 was swearing at them in the yard of the compound of the building we've
19 already identified. He was saying: If you don't go to free your
20 village, we will kill you, kill you all, and you won't have any place in
21 Kosovo. He describes other KLA leaders being present, such as
22 Mr. Haradinaj, Nazmi Brahimaj, Alush Agushi, Naser Brahimaj, and
23 Gani Brahimaj. Lahi Brahimaj, he says, asked the villagers to return to
24 the village to send out the Serbs. Some were calling Lahi uncle so that
25 they may be saved he says, but Lahi said: There is no uncle here for
2 During that time, that period in the yard, Lahi Brahimaj
3 introduced Ramush Haradinaj to the gathered people as the commander
4 Ramush Haradinaj. They --
5 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry to rise. Can I just ask Mr. Rogers to
6 check whether at page 69, line 1, he meant to say Witness 3 or somebody
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Rogers.
9 MR. ROGERS: Your Honour, no, I did mean to say Witness 3.
10 That's my reference to the men at Grabanice being traitors is from him,
11 Witness 3.
12 MR. EMMERSON: Can it be made clear that the source of the
13 testimony being summarised is not Witness 3. The allegation that is
14 being summarised in relation to Count 6 is not derived from Witness 3.
15 MR. ROGERS: No, that's correct.
16 MR. EMMERSON: So the remainder of the passage that has been
17 cited, although Mr. Rogers has not identified the witness or victim he is
18 referring to, is not Witness 3.
19 MR. ROGERS: No, no, that's right. That one piece was from
20 Witness 3. That's why I interjected it in case Your Honours thought I
21 was talking about this witness.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. Okay. Thank you so much.
23 Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
24 MR. ROGERS: Does that meet the concern?
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
1 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, just returning to the story.
2 Yes, Mr. Brahimaj introduced Ramush Haradinaj as the commander.
3 They were seated in the kitchen or canteen area of the barracks or prison
4 building, and the villagers were standing in the yard. He says
5 Mr. Haradinaj warned the villagers that they could not live in Kosovo
6 unless they first freed their village from the Serbs. The villagers
7 themselves left after some time. And the victim, however, remained in
8 Jabllanice for a short period before in fact he was released. He wasn't
9 free for very long. Your Honours will of course have to dovetail the
10 story with other parts of the story that we have given so far.
11 The victim says that in the end of June or beginning of July 1998
12 four KLA soldiers stopped him on the road between Kosuriq and Catholic
13 Gllogjan. They handcuffed him, put him in the trunk of a car, and drove
14 him to Jabllanice. In Jabllanice the victim saw Ramush Haradinaj, Balaj,
15 Lahi and Nazmi Brahimaj, and others, but on this occasion Lahi Brahimaj
16 allowed him to go home, told him he had to come back whenever he,
17 Lahi Brahimaj, called him.
18 Sometime later between mid-July and August 1998, the victim says
19 he was captured again and this forms the main subject of Count 6. Lahi
20 and Nazmi Brahimaj and other KLA members abducted him in Grabanice. He
21 says they tied his hands with wire, threw him into the trunk of a car,
22 where it appears a number of the victims have ended up, and took him to
23 Jabllanice. Lahi Brahimaj threatened the victim with execution if he did
24 not forget Ibrahim Rugova. Lahi Brahimaj called Haradinaj, told him to
25 come to Jabllanice because they had arrested the victim. In Jabllanice
1 the victim says he saw Haradinaj, Balaj, and Alush Agushi, and this was
2 at the prison building that I have identified.
3 Haradinaj ordered the beating of the victim, he says, by saying:
4 So you brought him, go ahead and do with your job then, words to that
5 effect --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. --
7 MR. EMMERSON: Again, I'm pausing because I wouldn't want
8 Your Honours to be under any misapprehension. I don't know whether it's
9 necessary to go into closed session or not, but Your Honours are fully
10 aware of the identity of the witness who's testimony is here being
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
13 MR. EMMERSON: And the relationship that that has with other
14 parts of the opening. I simply say it because you may be left with the
15 impression that what you are hearing is an account from multiple witness
16 when in fact it's an account from a single witness which crosses a number
17 of counts.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
19 MR. ROGERS: Your Honour, I hope I hadn't left you with that
20 impression. If you have, I'm sure it's been fully corrected.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I didn't have that impression.
22 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours, in Jabllanice the victim says he saw
23 Haradinaj, Balaj, and Alush Agushi. The victim says Haradinaj ordered
24 the beating of him saying: So you brought him, go ahead with your job
25 then. The victim says Lahi Brahimaj, Nazmi Brahimaj and KLA soldiers,
1 including one named Bandash, beat the victim. The victim says he was
2 kicked and hit with wooden sticks or baseball bats.
3 The victim says Balaj threatened him with a pistol to his temple
4 and said: I never beat people. I am here to kill them. The victim says
5 it was Haradinaj that controlled his beating to the extent that he
6 stopped and started it. The victim was hit so hard on his genitals that
7 he fell to the ground. Haradinaj grabbed his hair, spat in his face, and
8 called him a traitor.
9 After being beaten, the victim was thrown into the water-filled
10 basement in a four-room building on the compound and he was regularly
11 beaten in the yard.
12 Following his detention in the basement, Lahi Brahimaj
13 interrogated the victim and ultimately discovering that he had some use
14 and that he could cook, Brahimaj forced him to work in the kitchen in the
15 detention facility area in Jabllanice.
16 A few weeks later the victim finally escaped from Jabllanice
17 during an impending Serb attack.
18 Your Honours, in concluding my opening remarks, the Prosecution
19 says that having considered all of the evidence in this case and having
20 heard the submissions of all the parties, Your Honours will be left
21 satisfied and sure - or put it another way - satisfied beyond a
22 reasonable doubt that each of the accused is guilty of the crimes alleged
23 in this indictment.
24 Your Honours, those are my opening remarks.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
1 Mr. Emmerson -- before you start, Mr. Emmerson, I see Mr. Harvey
2 is on his feet.
3 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, I'm only on my feet for one reason and
4 that is because it does surprise me, it's a normal thing to do in opening
5 a case, to inform the Judges of that which I am sure you are well aware,
6 that -- which counts are faced by which accused. And as Your Honours
7 will recall, I hope, Mr. Brahimaj is before you only on one -- Counts 1,
8 2, 4, and 6. That wasn't made clear in the opening and I feel it
9 requires underscoring at this stage.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for that, Mr. Harvey.
11 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: We -- I'm sure the Chamber is aware of the
13 indictment and have read the indictment. We are aware of the counts that
14 Mr. Brahimaj faces.
15 MR. HARVEY: It's just that his name was mentioned frequently in
16 relation to Counts 3 and 5 as well, and I just thought it was worth
17 underscoring at this point. Thank you.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: We thank you for the underscoring. Thank you so
20 Mr. Emmerson.
21 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, on a similar note, the concern that I
22 had which I raised just a moment ago about the manner in which
23 Prosecution are presenting the evidence emanating from a single witness,
24 which we understand is being put forward in this way in order to ensure
25 that there can be no tracing or cross-referencing through the indictment
1 which might, in one way or another, undermine protective measures, but it
2 will become very important for Your Honours to realise that so far as
3 Mr. Haradinaj is concerned - and I shall deal with this in a little
4 detail in a moment or two - it is a single witness in respect of each of
5 these counts who is making the allegations that you have heard, now
6 potentially corroborated by a further witness. And I'll deal with
7 numbers in due course, but it's -- one can be left with the impression
8 that there is more than one source, where in fact, as Your Honours will
9 see, it becomes very important in due course in analysing this case, just
10 how narrow the impugned source of this information really is.
11 Can I indicate before I start that the submissions that I'm going
12 to make to you now are made solely on behalf of Ramush Haradinaj.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: We understand that. Thank you so much.
14 MR. EMMERSON: And, Your Honours, I take it as my starting point
15 that this is a new trial. It is not - as Judge Moloto has emphasized
16 more than once - to be approached as the step-child of the original
17 child. It is in effect a fresh trial but it is one in which the
18 Prosecution is re-hashing or seeking to re-hash old allegations on which
19 Mr. Haradinaj was found guilty by the trial -- found not guilty by the
20 Trial Chamber in the previous proceedings.
21 We recognise at the outset that this Chamber is not bound by
22 findings of fact either way returned by the previous Trial Chamber, and
23 anything that I say now or during the course of this trial is subject to
24 that overarching understanding. But as the Appeals Chamber has held, it
25 doesn't follow that what occurred at the previous trial is irrelevant.
1 Certain issues, for example, are res judicata, decided and unappealed.
2 Others, including disputed issues of admissibility, whilst they remain
3 open, have been subject to guidance from the Appeals Chamber that the
4 reason they remain open is because different questions of relevance may
5 arise. Plainly, if no different questions of relevance arise and if the
6 Prosecution chose not to appeal a previous ruling in the previous
7 proceedings, then it would be difficult for them to persuade you that it
8 is not res judicata. So to that extent, the previous trial can't simply
9 be ignored. Much will depend on the issue to which its relevance may
10 impinge. But it will be, we say, particularly relevant in relation to
11 the two witnesses, Shefqet Kabashi and Witness 80, who were the basis for
12 the Prosecution's appeal that resulted in this partial re-trial.
17 (redacted) There's no getting away from the fact that
18 if it were not for the absence of those two witnesses from the original
19 trial, we wouldn't be sitting here in this courtroom today. The Appeals
20 Chamber considered that more should have been done to hear their
21 evidence, and as a result it ordered this partial re-trial on a confined
22 number of allegations relating to the KLA headquarters at Jabllanice, a
23 separate stronghold outside Mr. Haradinaj's immediate area of control.
24 Can I ask that you be shown the map on which the Prosecution
25 relies and which is to be admitted by agreement in evidence, which is
1 1.000/0026. It's been shown to you already.
2 It's page 9 in the hard copy bundle. So it says I000/0026 rather
3 than 1.000. It looks like this.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: We've got it.
5 MR. EMMERSON: And Mr. Rogers opened this to you a little earlier
6 on, and he showed you that there were numbers --
7 MR. ROGERS: [Microphone not activated]
8 MR. EMMERSON: I have it as page 9 myself.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 9.
10 MR. ROGERS: [Microphone not activated]
11 MR. EMMERSON: And this was a map marked by Rrustem Tetaj, one of
12 the subzone commanders appointed in the emergence of what was a fledgling
13 organisation. Your Honours will have appreciated that command structures
14 such as they were within the Kosovo Liberation Army during the indictment
15 period were horizontal rather than vertical, that the organisation was
16 very much a fledgling developing and emerging throughout the indictment
17 period. And this map represents an attempt at organisation in the early
18 stages of the indictment period on or around the 23rd of May. And as
19 Mr. Rogers told you, the unchallenged evidence is that there were four
20 subzones and four subzone commanders of whom Mr. Haradinaj was one,
21 Mr. Tetaj another, and Shemsedin Cekaj a third. And you will see if you
22 look at the areas they are marked.
23 The important point for Your Honours to note from this map and
24 really the key point at the outset of these proceedings is Jabllanice's
25 location. If Your Honours look just roughly halfway down the map on the
1 middle crease to an oval just past the right-hand side of centre, you
2 will see Jabllanice. It's an area on the opposite side of the Dukagjin
3 zone from the four subzones that were created on the 23rd of May. It
4 existed wholly outside the four subzones that were created on the 23rd of
5 May and wholly outside any area of responsibility that could on any view
6 be attributed to Ramush Haradinaj.
7 It is not without reason, Your Honours, that the Prosecution has
8 never made an allegation of command responsibility in these proceedings.
9 The reason is because there were no effective command structures in place
10 at any time during the indictment period which would have allowed the
11 Prosecution to invite the Court to seek to ascribe responsibility for a
12 failure to prevent or punish the commission of crimes.
13 So we are dealing with a very unusual case to come before this
14 Tribunal, the case of an emerging fledgling organisation, seeking to
15 bring together local village commands under a single unified control over
16 a nine-month period. I say that is important because obviously at any
17 given time it's going to be vital for Your Honours to consider what the
18 nature of the organisation and reality on the ground was. What you know
19 from this map, which Mr. Rogers himself urges upon you, is that at this
20 time at least Jabllanice operated entirely independently from the four
21 subzones that had been created by the end of May. True it is that there
22 were attempts made thereafter to increase co-ordination between different
23 pockets of KLA activity in western Kosovo and elsewhere, but the notion
24 that there was a leader or leaders operating a vertical command structure
25 is and would be misconceived and cannot and is not alleged by the
1 Prosecution. That's a very important starting point.
2 Your Honours may come to the conclusion, having heard the
3 evidence, that some crimes at least were committed. You may conclude
4 that some crimes were committed at Jabllanice, but the issue as far as
5 Ramush Haradinaj is concerned is whether he participated, authorised, or
6 condoned those crimes, or was party to a joint criminal enterprise that
7 they be committed.
8 There is no suggestion, nor could there be on the evidence, that
9 Ramush Haradinaj ever had day-to-day operational control over Jabllanice.
10 There is no suggestion nor could there be on the evidence that he was
11 ever present at Jabllanice other than on particular occasions. And with
12 the exception of two witnesses who I'm going to focus on in this opening
13 and who Mr. Rogers knows and recognises his case against Mr. Haradinaj
14 stands or falls on, with the exception of those two witnesses, Witnesses
15 80 and 81, there isn't a single witness who suggests that
16 Ramush Haradinaj ever did anything or was even present at Jabllanice
17 whilst anything untoward was occurring.
18 Witness 6, who Mr. Rogers has placed emphasis on, was detained at
19 Jabllanice for six weeks. He never saw Ramush Haradinaj once. Witness
20 3, again who Mr. Rogers extensively relies upon, was allegedly detained
21 and ill-treated at Jabllanice and elsewhere, but as you heard he was
22 eventually taken, so it is alleged, to Gllogjan; not as Mr. Rogers
23 mistakenly suggested to Mr. Haradinaj's home, but to the KLA headquarters
24 in Gllogjan, where he came across the commander. Gllogjan was, of
25 course, at that point under the command of Ramush Haradinaj. The
1 commander, faced with a man who was alleging ill-treatment by KLA
2 officials form Jabllanice, fed him, housed him, made him safe. This is
3 his evidence. And the following morning gave him a clear assurance that
4 nothing untoward was ever occur to him again and nothing untoward ever
6 Skender Kuci, a man you've heard something of whose remains were
7 subsequently discovered and who died in Jabllanice -- oh, sorry, sorry, I
8 should rephrase that, who died having been detained in Jabllanice on
9 Prosecution's case, as Mr. Rogers adverted to in glancing terms, the
10 evidence of Rrustem Tetaj, which is admitted by agreement, is that he who
11 was, you've heard, was a subzone commander on the opposite side of the
12 Dukagjin zone from Jabllanice was made aware that a man called
13 Skender Kuci was being detained there. He took that information, he
14 says, to Ramush Haradinaj. What was his response? Immediately with
15 Mr. Tetaj to drive right across the zone to find out what was going on,
16 to discuss the situation, according to Rrustem Tetaj, with Nazmi
17 Brahimaj; and then to order that Skender Kuci be released to a military
18 hospital where he could be properly treated --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt you. It's been brought to
20 the attention of the Chamber that it is probably desirable to redact
21 lines 22, 23, 24, 25, of page 75, and line 1 of page 76 because of
22 something that you said, Mr. Emmerson --
23 MR. EMMERSON: Well, if it's a reference to Witness 80 and 81,
24 it's going to be impossible to conduct this trial without those
25 references, so I don't think it's anything more than that, is it?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know.
2 MR. EMMERSON: I don't know who's suggesting it should be
3 redacted or why, so I can't really respond. Shall we deal with it at the
4 close of the proceedings or is it necessary to deal with it now?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's deal with it -- the problem is that by the
6 close of the proceedings it will have gone out by the time if it is --
7 MR. EMMERSON: Perhaps if somebody could point out what the
8 concern is.
9 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
10 MR. ROGERS: Your Honours ...
11 Your Honours, it may be better to briefly have a discussion in
12 private session while we deal with the issue, whether we need to be in
13 private session.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we please do so.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 294-295 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
14 Yes, Mr. Emmerson.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, this is the first time that this
16 Tribunal or any other international criminal tribunal, has held a full
17 re-trial following an acquittal. And it is in a number of other
18 important respects unique as well. So before embarking on this
19 unprecedented process, I want, if I may, just to say a little about how
20 we got to this point. It's over six years now since Mr. Haradinaj was
21 first indicted. At the time he was a serving prime minister in the
22 provisional institutions of self-government established under the
23 auspices of UNMIK, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo. He was widely
24 regarded as an excellent political leader, one who could unite Kosovo,
25 secure the support of the international community, and who was committed
1 to the protection of the rights of those pockets of Serb national
2 minorities remaining inside Kosovo's boundaries after the war.
3 As such, he represented a potent political threat to Serbia,
4 which was at that time uncompromisingly committed to preventing Kosovo
5 from achieving secession and independence and uncompromisingly committed
6 to seeking the decapitation of its political leadership. It is widely
7 and publicly known that high-ranking Serbian officials made forceful
8 representations to the Office of the Prosecutor seeking to have
9 Mr. Haradinaj prosecuted. The crimes against him in the original
10 indictment were based upon a dossier of evidence collected by the Serbian
11 intelligence service, the RDB, itself, an organisation that was known to
12 engage in the basest methods of evidence manipulation.
13 Remarkable as it may seem to those outside this courtroom, the
14 case against Mr. Haradinaj, as it was advanced by the Office of the
15 Prosecutor at the original trial and as it is advanced here, was and is
16 based primarily on an investigation conducted by the Serbian intelligence
17 services themselves. It is now a matter of public record that lawyers
18 appointed to advise Madam del Ponte told her from the outset that there
19 was no sustainable case against Mr. Haradinaj. She had to change her
20 legal team more than once. In the end she found a team that was prepared
21 to draft an indictment and prosecute the case. But when the case came up
22 and was put up for examination at trial, it predictably fell to pieces.
23 I say "predictably" because it had been predicted by her own lawyers.
24 There were five witnesses put forward at the original trial who
25 gave direct evidence against Ramush Haradinaj. Four of them testified at
1 the first trial. In the case of two of those four, the Trial Chamber
2 found them to be wholly unreliable on core aspects of their evidence,
3 namely, the supposed identification of Mr. Haradinaj, and reflected that
4 in the judgement. And in the case of the other two, the Trial Chamber
5 having heard their evidence in chief declined even to allow it to remain
6 on the record because they were so demonstrably unreliable and their
7 allegations and evidence so fantastic that their testimony had to be
8 interrupted by the Trial Chamber and stopped before they could even be
9 subjected to cross-examination. That is the type of material that this
10 corrupted Serbian investigation generated and still generates. Neither
11 of those two witnesses, I'm pleased to say, are relied on by the
12 Prosecution in this re-trial, but it must be the case, therefore, that
13 they accept that two of the witnesses that they put up as direct --
14 giving direct testimony against Mr. Haradinaj at the original trial were
15 witnesses who could not conceivably be considered reliable witnesses of
16 truth, two of a very small number.
17 So it was in that context of a case so limpingly and appallingly
18 put together and based on such flimsy and wholly unreliable evidence that
19 the original Trial Chamber came to consider the evidence of the fifth
20 witness who gave evidence against Mr. Haradinaj. The man who we know as
21 Witness X. He was number five and he did not in fact testify. I'm going
22 to return to him in a moment or two.
23 As the Prosecution case inevitably unravelled last time round, it
24 became clearer and clearer that there was no case for Mr. Haradinaj to
25 answer. The Defence accordingly called no Defence evidence, another
1 unique feature of these proceedings. In acquitting Mr. Haradinaj of all
2 charges and finding that the JCE alleged against him then, and still
3 alleged against him, did not exist at all, the original Trial Chamber
4 effectively agreed that there never was a case for him to answer. There
5 could, we say, be no clearer endorsement of Mr. Haradinaj's innocence
6 than an acquittal by a Trial Chamber in the absence of any need to mount
7 a Defence case at all.
8 The Appeals Chamber in its judgement took a different view,
9 holding that the absence of two crucial witnesses - I won't name
10 them - had fatally undermined the original Trial Chamber's verdict, not
11 as regards the JCE as a whole, but solely as regards to six counts
12 concerned with Jabllanice. That decision came as a surprise to all
13 concerned, not least to the Prosecution themselves. They had not been in
14 a position before the Appeals Chamber even to assert that either of those
15 witnesses would be willing to testify at any potential re-trial.
16 Surprising, therefore, that such a re-trial should be ordered on that
17 basis, but a surprise as much to the Prosecution as to the Defence. And
18 yet here we are once again predictably enough in exactly the same
19 position all over again with neither of those two witnesses currently
20 indicating a willingness to testify. (redacted)
24 Shefqet Kabashi has indicated that for principled reasons he does
25 not wish to testify in these proceedings. He has made it clear over and
1 over again that his unwillingness to testify is not because he is afraid
2 of anyone and not because anyone has offered him any kind of inducement.
3 It is because he does not consider that the Prosecution has acted fairly.
4 More importantly, even if he were to testify, his statements do not make
5 any allegation of criminal conduct at all against Mr. Haradinaj. Indeed,
6 in his latest interview with Mr. Rogers, he complained loudly and
7 vociferously about the injustice of putting Mr. Haradinaj on trial all
8 over again. He was given numerous opportunities to testify at the
9 original trial, but steadfastly maintained that he didn't want to
10 participate and wasn't prepared to do so. We will see tomorrow whether
11 anything has changed. The important point, though, in his case is that
12 he made his own choice for his own reasons, reasons which have nothing to
13 do with any fear or any alleged intimidation.
14 (redacted) I apologise, can I ask
15 for a redaction.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we have a redaction, please. Twice.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Witness X is a very different kettle of fish. The
18 Prosecution, as I indicated, relies on statements that that witness made
19 which include direct allegations of -- concerning the acts and conducts
20 of Mr. Haradinaj across several of the counts on the amended indictment.
21 Like Shefqet Kabashi this man was also given multiple opportunities to
22 testify at the original trial and he came up with a veritable smorgasbord
23 of reasons why he shouldn't be required to do so. Arrangements were made
24 for him to give evidence via compelled videolink, but he steadfastly
25 refused to come and testify.
1 In his case, Your Honours, we say there are very strong
2 motivations for him not to want to give evidence. That's not because of
3 any genuine fear of the consequences of telling the truth, but because
4 the whole of his testimony is a demonstrable series of lies. There are
5 overwhelming challenges to the credibility of the inconsistent accounts
6 he's given, not least of which is that a key witness, Witness 6, on whom
7 Mr. Rogers places heavy reliance and who was at Jabllanice throughout the
8 six-week period and who was shown a photograph of Witness X, was
9 completely categorical that he had never been there during the time that
10 he claims he was detained in the same room in which Witness 6 claimed he
11 was detained.
12 Another witness who's been mentioned -- another individual who's
13 been mentioned by Mr. Rogers and who gave evidence at the previous trial
14 is a man called Fadil Fazliu who's cited as a victim in Count 6. He
15 testified last time round that the allegations made by Witness X, which
16 he would have been present at, had they occurred, simply did not happen.
17 How does the Prosecution respond? How does a fair Prosecutor respond?
18 They just drop Fadil Fazliu from their witness list because it doesn't
19 fit in with their case. It would be a matter for Your Honours to
20 consider how to redress that obvious unfairness, but he's cited as a
21 victim and Mr. Rogers doesn't have the courage to put him in the witness
23 Not only that, there is incontrovertible forensic evidence that
24 establishes beyond the peradventure that the allegations that Witness X
25 makes simply cannot be true. I'm not going to elaborate the details in
1 opening, but there is forensic -- independent forensic expert evidence
2 about the manner in which certain injuries could have been inflicted
3 which give an unequivocal lie to the central allegations that this man
4 has made, no surprise then that he is less than keen to make them on oath
5 in front of an international tribunal.
6 Your Honours, there are very many reasons, it doesn't take me to
7 point this out, there are very many reasons why a witness might choose
8 not to testify. One possible reason, of course, is that they are
9 genuinely afraid of telling the truth. There is no suggestion, though,
10 and I want to underline this, and I will come back to it, despite some of
11 the rumours and labels that have been attached to this trial, there is no
12 suggestion - and never has been - that Mr. Haradinaj has ever been
13 responsible for intimidating any witness, directly or indirectly, and
14 there have been repeated judicial findings in the proceedings to date to
15 the effect that he has not.
16 Notwithstanding that fact, a view has gained currency that the
17 original trial was flawed by intimidation. There are, as we say, and I
18 don't need to labour the point, many other reasons why a witness like
19 Witness X might not want to give evidence on oath in support of
20 statements he's made to the Prosecution, foremost amongst these, of
21 course, is his realisation that he's lied and that his lies will be
22 exposed before the world. That is the position, we say, with Witness X.
23 He has prevaricated throughout about testifying and given a range of
24 reasons why he's not willing to do so, but the real reason will become
25 clear if he ever does finally testify, because if he does give evidence,
1 an outcome which is still open to very serious doubt in view of his
2 previous conduct and his current stated position, he will, we say, be
3 exposed as a liar and a perjurer.
4 In short, we are beginning this re-trial precisely where the
5 original trial left off. I'm going to ask for what I'm about to say to
6 be redacted is probably the easiest way of doing it rather than going
7 into closed session because it's a sentence or two. Very well, closed
8 session, please.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, are you asking for closed session?
10 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we please have a closed session -- private
13 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
15 Yes, Mr. Emmerson.
16 MR. EMMERSON: So far as Mr. Haradinaj is concerned, there is
17 only one witness who makes any allegations against him, and that is
18 Witness 81. This witness was first put in contact with the Prosecution
19 in October 2010, that is more than two and a half years after
20 Mr. Haradinaj's acquittal. By the time he gave his first account, the
21 allegations made by the Prosecution and made on the basis of Witness X's
22 evidence had been very widely reported and were publicly known. They
23 were well-known and easy to mimic, and yet in the detail it is clear that
24 the attempt at mimicry has failed. It's another extraordinary feature of
25 this case that supposedly out of the blue and after its appeal, the
1 Prosecution now has a new witness brought to its attention who purports
2 to corroborate Witness 80. Mr. Rogers rightly recognises, because he
3 knows what's coming, that there are major inconsistencies.
4 Well, I'm -- see, this is the difficulty because Mr. Rogers in
5 open session has made the point that I've just made without any concern,
6 namely, that it's a corroborating witness of Witness 80. I'm afraid I'm
7 being held to a completely variable and unworkable standard.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed. We know why we did what we did
10 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.
11 The timing and circumstances in which Witness 81 came to the
12 attention of the Office of the Prosecutor cast very serious doubts on his
13 integrity and credibility. As Mr. Rogers acknowledges and as we would
14 put it, his statements are riddled with inconsistencies, and he makes
15 assertions throughout that are demonstrably false. But all that is a
16 matter for cross-examination if he attends. But it is right that at the
17 outset that Your Honours should know what kind of man he is.
18 This witness, the only witness who is currently expected to
19 testify against Mr. Haradinaj in this re-trial, is a man with a lengthy
20 criminal record, including numerous offences of dishonesty, who has been
21 found by an international tribunal to be a wholly unreliable Prosecution
22 witness. In a prosecution in Kosovo, and I won't mention it in order
23 risking identifying him, in a prosecution in Kosovo before international
24 judges appointed by UNMIK, he made a statement, complainant statement,
25 alleging that he had been seriously mistreated and abducted. His
1 statements to the investigating judge were at first instance admitted at
2 trial and he was not required to give evidence viva voce because he
3 claimed that he had been intimidated. That well illustrates the danger,
4 if I may say so, of taking allegations of intimidation at face value
5 coming, as they do, from tainted witnesses. Because on appeal to the
6 Supreme Court of Kosovo, again comprised of international judges
7 appointed by the UN, it was found, we say, inevitably that his statements
8 were not credible and a re-trial was ordered to assure that he could be
9 cross-examined and give evidence viva voce. At that point, the
10 Prosecutor withdrew the charges rather than proceed in reliance on his
11 testimony. Other witnesses in the same trial alleged that their evidence
12 had been actively manipulated by the Serb police, a feature which, as we
13 shall see, has also beset this investigation and these proceedings.
14 Your Honours should also know that one of his previous criminal
15 convictions is for making false allegations of criminal conduct to the
16 police; in other words, attempting to pervert the course of justice. He
17 has form, in other words, for lying to the authorities at least twice and
18 to the court at least once in an effort to procure a conviction of
19 another. Precisely what we say he is doing here. It is, Your Honours,
20 most surprising that a responsible Prosecutor is prepared to rely on that
21 sort of evidence before an international criminal court and to stake its
22 reputation on such a dubious witness. It is all the more surprising if,
23 as now seems likely, he ends up being the only witness in relation to
24 Mr. Haradinaj upon whom the Prosecution can directly rely. He is the
25 sort of witness, Your Honours, upon whom one simply would not hang a cat.
1 Since the inception of these proceedings, the Prosecution has
2 sought to hide behind bogus allegations of witness intimidation made by
3 wholly unreliable witnesses like this man as a pretext to conceal the
4 evidential shortcomings in a prosecution that should never have been
5 brought in the first place. There is, it appears, every reason and
6 indication to believe that Mr. Rogers intends to continue in that
8 For the rest of the charges, Your Honour, the Prosecution relies
9 on the same vague JCE that was found not proven in the original trial. I
10 want just to say a word or two, if I may, about the content of the
11 material that that then gives rise to. There are really three broad
12 categories, and they have each been mentioned with different degrees of
14 The first is the material that's going to be put before you by
15 the "head of analytical department of the RDB," Serbian intelligence
16 services, a man called Zoran Stijovic. To the chagrin, surprise, of the
17 previous Trial Chamber, this man admitted in answers to me -- to
18 questions from me and from Judge Orie that the methodology used to obtain
19 the sort of material Mr. Rogers wants you to look at includes torture,
20 blackmail, and bribery, informants who were either ill-treated or
21 threatened or bribed or very often blackmailed; in other words, put into
22 a sexually compromising position and then exploited. Much of the
23 material is anonymous. Mr. Rogers in the end said to you, well, it's
24 there for what it's worth. It's hard to imagine a Prosecutor putting it
25 with less enthusiasm. It's there for what it's worth. Well, I'll tell
1 you what it's worth, if I may, it's worth nothing.
2 Secondly, KLA communiqués. It's suggested that you ought to draw
3 an inference of a joint criminal enterprise involving Mr. Haradinaj from
4 the publication of KLA communiqués. In order to understand how this
5 works, it's necessary to look at some of the material about how the
6 Kosovo Liberation Army started to come into existence, but the so-called
7 General Staff was an organisation loosely comprised of individuals mainly
8 based outside Kosovo who had very little connection with officers or
9 officials on the ground and certainly was not directly issuing commands
10 or the subject of any command structure in relation to the Kosovo
11 Liberation Army in western Kosovo and in the Dukagjin region generally.
12 Their press spokesman was a man called Jakup Krasniqi, who gave
13 evidence at the previous trial, and who is the author of these
14 communiqués. None of these documents were authored by Mr. Haradinaj or
15 issued on his authority. They don't reflect the policy of Mr. Haradinaj
16 or of the KLA in the Dukagjin area, and none of the communiqués relates
17 to any alleged incident on the indictment in relation to Jabllanice.
18 Evidence about the communiqués was given at trial which led to serious
19 doubts about their reliability and the accuracy of their contents. And
20 the original Trial Chamber found them to be unreliable propaganda tools
21 which frequently exaggerated successes and minimised set-backs and
22 failures and that's why they found, as we will invite you to find, that
23 no policy of kidnapping, killing, or mistreating civilians can be
24 inferred from that material and certainly nothing which could conceivably
25 be linked to Mr. Haradinaj, who did not operate within a command
1 structure issued -- or instructions or communiqués issued by the
2 so-called self-styled General Staff.
3 Black lists was the third examples that Mr. Rogers gave you. He
4 suggested that there was good evidence of the KLA maintaining black lists
5 of targeted civilians, and he told you that you would be entitled to
6 consider the testimony of Witness 17 who received a black list containing
7 a list of names, including the name of Skender Kuci, one of the victims
8 in the six counts and whose remains were subsequently found.
9 Witness 17 was the head of a brigade of soldiers who entered
10 Kosovo under the banner of the FARK, the F-A-R-K. They were an
11 independent army from the Kosovo Liberation Army and there was a period
12 of time during which there were conflicts between the two groupings after
13 the FARK entered across the mountains from Albania into Kosovo.
14 Thereafter, thereafter there was a process of integration, although a
15 rather unhappy truce and alliance existed between the two. The barracks
16 at Baran, which is to the north of the area shown as being within the
17 four subzones, was commanded by Witness 17 on behalf of FARK. Nothing,
18 as it happens, directly to do with the separately operating Kosovo
19 Liberation Army. He received at some point a list of names. He doesn't
20 know who gave it to him, he says. He doesn't know what its purpose was,
21 he says. He didn't even know where it had come from or when he had
22 received it, but one thing he was sure of is he never brought it to
23 Ramush Haradinaj's attention and it certainly didn't come from him or
24 through him or anyone associated with him.
25 So what are we left with? A man's got a list and on the list is
1 a name of a victim who it appears was detained at Jabllanice and
2 subsequently died. But who is that victim? That victim is Skender Kuci.
3 Skender Kuci is the man who Rrustem Tetaj informed Ramush Haradinaj was
4 being detained and who Ramush Haradinaj immediately travelled across the
5 zone in order to secure the release of. Hardly, we say, consistent with
6 an allegation of joint criminal enterprise. It is no surprise,
7 Your Honours, that lawyers advised this case shouldn't be brought and no
8 surprise that the previous Trial Chamber dismissed it.
9 There are as well considerable areas of evidence upon which the
10 Prosecution is proposing to rely at which, in our submission, are wholly
11 irrelevant for the limited issues that you have to consider concerning
12 Jabllanice on the opposite side of the Dukagjin zone.
13 First of all, there is a section of the Prosecution's opening
14 brief and an indication that they intend to rely upon an incident on the
15 18th of April in Gllogjan in which members of the Stojanovic family were
16 beaten by a mob, if I can put it that way. Those allegations formed the
17 basis of Counts 3 and 4 of the original indictment upon which
18 Mr. Haradinaj was acquitted. It's an allegation that predates the agreed
19 date of the start of armed conflict and is not therefore subject, in any
20 event, to the requirements of international humanitarian law. It has
21 nothing whatsoever to do with Jabllanice. It's far removed in space and
22 time from any of the allegations on this indictment. It can't be relied
23 upon as evidence of system or bad character because the Prosecution
24 accepts Mr. Haradinaj was acquitted of it and that is res judicata, and
25 it was in any event a spontaneous attack by local villagers in response
1 to the fact that the Serb forces had used the Stojanovic family home as a
2 military facility in order to launch an attack which resulted in the
3 death of three teenagers and a vast amount of damage and injury in the
4 village of Gllogjan. It has got nothing to do with this case but once
5 again because the Prosecution is driven at this stage to try to put
6 anything it can together, they are scraping the barrel.
7 Another classic example. FARK, I've already indicated the
8 background. FARK entered Kosovo from Albania. There was a period of
9 conflict and a number of incidents of conflict between the two forces
10 immediately after FARK brigades came in. They were eventually resolved
11 with the two forces integrating and distributing responsibility, and out
12 of all of that complex background the Prosecution have selected a single
13 incident on the 4th of July, again in Gllogjan and Irzniq, on the
14 opposite side of the Dukagjin zone from Jabllanice, in which it is said
15 that there was a confrontation and one of the FARK soldiers was shot.
16 Well, if -- even if that's right, the reason you find no reference to it
17 in the original Trial Chamber's judgement is because it's got nothing to
18 do with the allegations on this indictment. It's a desperate stuff --
19 it's got nothing to do with the allegations on the indictment because ti
20 has got nothing to do with civilians or opponents. It was, if anything,
21 part of a military conflict between two armed forces and it's got
22 absolutely nothing to do with the detention of civilians or others at
23 Jabllanice occurring, as it allegedly did, many miles away in Gllogjan.
24 Part of the conflict between two Kosovar Albanian armed forces many miles
25 removed. So nothing, we say, to do with this case. But a clumsy attempt
1 to clutch at straws precisely because the Prosecution has no credible
2 evidence that Mr. Haradinaj ever participated in, authorised, condoned
3 any of the crimes against civilians that are alleged to have been
4 committed at Jabllanice and that is what this partial re-trial is truly
5 all about.
6 As Your Honours know, there's plenty of evidence from the
7 original trial about command structures within the KLA during this early
8 period of its development. I just want to draw up four short themes in
9 the time that remains. First of all, the evidence shows that in the
10 period of the indictment the KLA was struggling to establish itself.
11 During the first half of 1998 it was made up of a small number of
12 committed fighters like Mr. Haradinaj together with a much larger number
13 of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteers, village guards. The essential
14 point as I opened at the very outset is that its structure was horizontal
15 not vertical, that's why there is no allegation under Article 7(3) of the
16 Statute. At that point in its history, the KLA lacked any formal or
17 effective command structure and the attempt that Mr. Rogers has made to
18 lay at the door of Ramush Haradinaj, commander at the opposite side of
19 the Dukagjin zone, crimes that were allegedly committed in his absence
20 inside Jabllanice is feeble.
21 Most of those who fought for the KLA were villagers who returned
22 to their daily lives when they weren't involved in the fighting, fighters
23 by night, farmers by day. And as it's said by one of the witnesses in
24 the original trial, Mr. Haradinaj was in reality the commander of those
25 who chose on any particular day to follow him. The level of
1 co-ordination between the different villages where the KLA was able to
2 set up village defences was minimal. It has to be taken into account
3 that all of this took place during repeated Serbian offences into the
4 area with which we are concerned.
5 One of the points of interest in Mr. Rogers' opening was his
6 suggestion that there was a free area within which the KLA was
7 effectively free to operate. In the original trial the Prosecution
8 called that an area of total control and they relied on that map by
9 Colonel John Crosland to establish what the boundaries of that total area
10 of control were until Mr. Crosland gave evidence of course, and when he
11 gave evidence - and assuming Mr. Rogers has actually read the transcript
12 he will know what it was that Colonel Crosland actually said, which is
13 that it would be completely inappropriate to make the suggestion that the
14 boundary he had drawn represented an area of total control. On the
15 contrary he said -- and just to find out the precise terms:
16 "Paramilitaries used to terrify the civilian population from the Bosnian
17 war stationed in Gjakove and Peje. I would have been surprised if those
18 forces hadn't entered the zone like flies to a jam pot."
19 So, we're dealing with a situation which was porous, where there
20 were conflicts involving Serb forces, very poorly armed, very poorly
21 trained, not trained at all in effect, village volunteers, struggling to
22 create some sort of co-ordinated structure. That is the context in which
23 Mr. Rogers wants you to hold Mr. Haradinaj responsible for crimes that
24 were committed in his absence in a facility on the opposite side of the
25 Dukagjin zone over which he was not the effective commander.
1 The evidence, Your Honours, shows that there was certainly no
2 common agreement in respect of commissions of -- the commission of crimes
3 in detention facilities by the KLA at all and certainly no such agreement
4 in relation to Jabllanice. Leaving those two witnesses aside, X and 81,
5 there is no direct evidence at all implicating Mr. Haradinaj. He was on
6 the evidence hardly ever there. He certainly did not exercise day-to-day
7 effective command and control, and of the three witnesses who did testify
8 to his direct intervention, one was Rrustem Tetaj, who testified to his
9 intervention in Jabllanice in order to secure the release of an injured
10 person who'd been wrongly detained there, the second was Witness 3 who
11 said they -- ill-treated at Jabllanice. When he arrived at Gllogjan, he
12 was protected and given a treatment to ensure he was never ill-treated
13 again. And the third, another desperate attempt by the Prosecution,
14 relates to a man called Achilleas Pappas, who was a member of the
15 European Community Monitoring Mission, who was briefly detained on the
16 opposite side of the zone from Jabllanice, as he was driving into a war
17 zone. In other words, there was a Serbian offensive going on on the day
18 and he drove in a Land Rover directly into the line of fire. He was
19 stopped by KLA soldiers and treated in a manner which, on his
20 description, was inappropriate, rough-handled, and rude, until
21 Mr. Haradinaj turned up. And as soon as he turned up, Mr. Pappas was
22 treated with complete courtesy and professionalism, and in his own words
23 given a proper handling and sent safely on his way, and he described
24 Mr. Haradinaj as having been professional in his dealings with him
1 Your Honours, as a soldier, we make no secret of the fact that
2 Mr. Haradinaj was hard, brave, and effective. His targets were
3 combatants, not civilians. Faced with the overwhelming fire-power of the
4 Serbian forces, he and others managed to put together, to cobble
5 together, a force sufficient to defend civilian enclaves in an area which
6 was subject to a Serbian, effectively, scorched-earth policy. He led
7 always by example and never expected anyone to fight battles he wasn't
8 prepared to fight himself. He managed to fight off with a handful of
9 people the Serbian offensive on Gllogjan which has become known as one of
10 the key moments in the Kosovar struggle for liberation from the
11 domination of Serbia. But as you will hear from any witness of
12 credibility, he is, was, and always has been a fighter of honour. The
13 targeting of civilians was never one of Mr. Haradinaj's military
14 objectives, and he never ordered or condoned the ill-treatment of
15 detainees. That sort of dishonourable conduct is the very antithesis of
16 the principles which have guided him.
17 As prime minister of Kosovo after the war, he was widely praised
18 by the international community for his hundred days in office. He was
19 regarded as a leader who genuinely reached out to the Serbian population,
20 who sought to forge a common and integrated future for Kosovo, but his
21 time in office was cut short by the OTP's indictment, just as the Serbian
22 authorities intended that it should be.
23 He resigned immediately the indictment was issued and he
24 voluntarily surrendered himself to the ICTY, in stark contrast as the
25 Trial Chamber at the time noted, to the attitude of other leaders who'd
1 been indicted by this Tribunal. And it's interesting as we start to move
2 into the evidence, it's just interesting to ask Your Honours to bear this
3 in mind. This is a man who believed and fought for his country's
4 statehood. He believed and fought for it to the point of making ultimate
5 personal sacrifices. He carried the body of his own brother 17 miles
6 over the mountains from Kosovo into Albania when he'd been shot by the
7 Serbian forces. His family have made huge sacrifices for Kosovar
8 statehood, and it's in recognition of that statehood that when called
9 upon to answer to charges before a serious international tribunal, he
10 immediately resigned, called for calm on the streets of Kosovo, completed
11 his parliamentary obligations for the morning and flew to The Hague. Not
12 surprisingly he gained credit for that. He was released on provisional
13 release and continued in full conformity with the requirements of the
14 Trial Chamber to exercise only political activity in private.
15 Now, I say that because his commitment and the respect that he's
16 shown to this Tribunal deserve reciprocation. We're in a situation now
17 where a real shoddy re-trial is being mounted and we would ask
18 Your Honours to approach it with the robustness that it deserves.
19 Mr. Haradinaj's respect stands in the starkest possible contrast to the
20 way in which the Prosecution has conducted itself. Putting forward
21 witnesses like Witness X who haven't even shown this court the time of
22 day and have refused orders to testify or make themselves available for
23 cross-examination because they want to hide behind their lies. Despite
24 the fact that they've made very serious allegations against an honourable
25 political leader.
1 Your Honours, we respectfully submit - and I don't want to cause
2 the need to go back into open session - but we respectfully submit that
3 there are two witnesses in relation to these proceedings without whom we
4 would not be here at all. No doubt faced with the background of the
5 previous Trial Chamber's frustration at the endless continuing
6 prevarication, Your Honours will do what the Appeals Chamber directed
7 should be done and give those witnesses a fair opportunity to testify.
8 But to depart from legal language for a moment, enough is enough.
9 The credibility of this Tribunal depends on a robust trial here. These
10 two witnesses should not be permitted to wag the dog, so to speak, and to
11 hold up these proceedings indefinitely to keep Mr. Haradinaj further in
12 custody. Bring them on we say.
13 Those are our submissions.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Emmerson. We note the time. I
15 guess this is an appropriate time and a convenient time to break up for
16 today. The matter stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon, 2.15, same
17 courtroom. Court adjourned.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Friday, the 19th day of
20 August, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.