Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 45096

1 Tuesday, 4 October 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9:02 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may continue.


8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

10 Q. Mr. Janicevic, the OSCE, as you know, reported regularly on what

11 they observed. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of their

12 observations generally?

13 A. Yes and no.

14 Q. Why yes?

15 A. Well, because sometimes their information was not objective.

16 Q. Give me an example.

17 A. The example of Kacanik, for instance.

18 Q. We'll come to Kacanik later. Anything in relation to the earlier

19 period or Racak?

20 A. I didn't read their reports on Racak.

21 Q. Very well. Before I come to look at some of their reporting,

22 Shukri Buja was the KLA leader in your area, wasn't he?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. He made a statement in the course of 2001, which is an exhibit in

25 this case. It's Exhibit 212, which we're going to look at. Tell me, by

Page 45097

1 September 2001, the Serbs had left and the -- not the KLA, but the

2 interests served by the KLA were in the ascendancy in Kosovo; correct?

3 A. The interests of the KLA in the sense of the interests of the

4 Serbs? I don't understand your question.

5 Q. Well --

6 A. The interests of --

7 Q. The Serbs had left Kosovo in large numbers.

8 A. They were expelled. They did not leave of their own accord.

9 Q. Those seeking independence for Kosovo, or even the irredentists

10 seeking joinder with Albania, were better placed in 2001 than they were in

11 1999; correct?

12 A. Well, of course they were in a better position.

13 Q. What I want to know is, right before we start looking at his

14 statement, are you going to be able to give any reason why Shukri Buja

15 should tell untruths in the year 2001 about the deployment of his forces

16 in Racak and thereabouts in January of 1999? Can you think of any reason

17 why such a man should tell untruths about that part of his own history?

18 MR. KAY: That's a very difficult question to answer. I mean, in

19 the adversarial system it's one of the golden rules that you don't ask a

20 witness to comment on what someone else may have been thinking or what

21 they may have given evidence about before. You should ask them what they

22 saw or knew or heard themselves. It's impossible for this man to answer

23 it.

24 MR. NICE: I highly disagree with my learned friend. He has

25 expressed general knowledge about the area, and we know that what happens

Page 45098

1 is that when witnesses are confronted with things that they find

2 difficult, they sometimes say - I'm not, of course, suggesting it about

3 this witness - that the person has made something up and then they have to

4 give a reason for it. I want to know if this witness can identify now, in

5 advance, any reason that he can think of from the circumstances why a

6 supporter of the KLA should, in 2001, be untruthful about what had gone

7 before. He may not be able to answer, but if he can, I'd like his

8 assistance.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll allow the question.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will have to ask Shukri Buja

11 that, first and foremost. I've never spoken to him. I don't know what he

12 thinks.

13 MR. NICE: Very well. Your Honours should know that Shukri Buja

14 gave evidence in another case, in the Limaj case, and was called by the

15 Defence and was effectively turned hostile at the application of the

16 Prosecution in respect of part of the history he gave about 1998, but

17 nothing, as I am advised, that related to what is said in the statement he

18 gave in relation to these proceedings, but you should certainly know that

19 and have it in mind, if it's judged helpful in any way to the accused.

20 Your Honours, I have had provided copies of Shukri Buja's 1990 --

21 2001 statement, although it's an existing exhibit, as it occurred to me it

22 might be helpful for you to have it recopied as I hadn't asked you to

23 bring it with you.

24 Q. Going into the background to this limited extent, going back to

25 1998, Shukri Buja says that he was abroad at the time, a journalist, and

Page 45099

1 he was in Switzerland, having been convicted and served some time in

2 Kosovo for being a demonstrator, and he says this, Mr. Janicevic, he says

3 that following the killings of the Jasharis in March of 19 -- of Adem

4 Jashari in March of 1998, the KLA received quite an increase in support

5 and a lot more people joined up.

6 Just as a matter of fact, is he right about that?

7 A. I don't know whether he's right. I don't know how many people

8 joined up after Adem Jashari got killed -- after the death of Adem

9 Jashari, rather.

10 MR. NICE: If we can lay on the overhead projector, please, page 4

11 of the statement, with copies for the Chamber, if they'd like them, and

12 for the accused, of course. The B/C/S version of this does exist and it

13 will be coming down to assist the witness if he wishes it, but at the

14 moment I just want to see, if we look at his statement ...

15 Q. I don't believe you necessarily read English, and if not, I'm

16 sorry we haven't got the B/C/S version for you yet, but he in his

17 statement identifies seven zones of the KLA under Azem Syla, and as to

18 number 6, identifies Nerodimlje, which included Lipjan and Stimlje. Does

19 that appear to you to be about correct as an analysis of the structure of

20 the KLA?

21 A. I don't understand the translation here. Azem Syla was the first

22 commander of the KLA.

23 Q. Yes?

24 A. Azem Syla from Kisna Reka.

25 Q. And he -- this is the statement of Shukri Buja. He says that of

Page 45100

1 the seven zones, the sixth was Nerodimlje and that included Stimlje and

2 Ferizaj. Do you accept his analysis, in broad terms, given in this

3 statement?

4 A. I agree with that part of the statement. The zone of Nerodimlje

5 included that area, the area of the SUP of Urosevac, but that zone was

6 established only in the autumn of 1998, not, as you had put it,

7 immediately after the killing of Adem Jashari.

8 Q. At the top of the next page, please, Mr. Nort. The number of men

9 attached --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice is asking the witness about

13 Urosevac, and under number 6, Nerodimlje, there is no mention of Urosevac.

14 MR. NICE: Ferizaj is the alternative name for Urosevac. You can

15 see that on the atlas.

16 Over to the top of the next page, please, Mr. Nort.

17 Q. Mr. Buja estimated the number of men attached to zone 6 as between

18 1.400 and 1.700 at various times. Do you dispute that calculation by him,

19 the commander, of the numbers available to him?

20 A. According to our information, during the war, after the 24th of

21 March, there were over 2.000 terrorists in the area.

22 Q. So you think he was better supported than he calculates.

23 If we go over, please, Mr. Nort, to I think it's page 6 but it may

24 be slightly different in this, the way the printout comes.

25 He says -- yes, at the bottom of this page, dealing with the

Page 45101

1 process of arming, that they -- between March and May of 1998, a big

2 influx took place, and he explains that people had to be escorted to

3 Albania to get weapons. There were about a thousand, mostly young people,

4 escorted in groups of 2 to 300 per day. He said they had no difficulty in

5 buying weapons but it was hazardous getting them back, with a lot of men

6 being killed from ambushes.

7 Does that fit with your recollection, being on the other side, of

8 setting up ambushes to stop groups of KLA young supporters bringing their

9 weapons in?

10 A. Please, you are talking as if you were the KLA spokesman. First

11 of all, these young groups were not ambushed. They illegally crossed the

12 state border. The state border is a line that is protected on both sides,

13 guarded. On the other side, they had absolute support, on the Albanian

14 side; and on the other side, of course they did not.

15 Q. Mr. Janicevic, let me make it quite clear: I'm not on one side or

16 the other. As you know, this Tribunal prosecutes people on all sides of

17 this conflict. I just want to know if what Mr. Buja said is true and

18 accurate, that people came from Albania with weapons and the Serb forces

19 tried to ambush them. Is that about right?

20 A. It is correct that they went to Albania, that they illegally

21 crossed the state border, and that they came across military patrols or

22 whatever the military did by way of organisation - I don't know whether

23 they really had ambushes - but many managed to get in and vast quantities

24 of weapons were brought into the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

25 Q. Pretty much what he says. Next page, please, Mr. Nort. Top of

Page 45102

1 the page. He says that he was in command of two brigades, one on the

2 Stimlje to Ferizaj area and one on the Kacanik-Strpce area. Does that fit

3 with your recollection, by way of intelligence, of what Shukri Buja was

4 doing?

5 A. Yes, from the month of November 1998, but excluding Strpce. In

6 the area of Strpce they did not have a single brigade.

7 Q. Well, next paragraph -- move the page a little please, Mr. Nort.

8 He says: "We had bunkers and trenches in the area above and around Racak.

9 I was given the plans of the bunker and trench positions in the village,

10 which I approved, and the work commenced in the beginning of December

11 1998."

12 Does that fit with your recollection of what happened there?

13 A. Our information indicated that it had started a bit earlier, a

14 month earlier, that it was continued only in the month of November, that

15 is.

16 Q. Very well.

17 A. Around Racak, around Belince, and down the Crnoljevo gorge by the

18 road, on the left-hand side facing Prizren.

19 Q. He says that the civilians and KLA soldiers dug the bunkers and

20 trenches. Does that fit with your understanding, that it was civilians

21 and soldiers who dug the trenches?

22 A. Our information was that they were making the villagers dig

23 trenches. They were coercing them, and they even kidnapped some for ten

24 or 15 days so that they would complete the job, and then they would

25 release them.

Page 45103

1 Q. Very well. If we go on to the -- oh, he says in the next

2 paragraph: "The bunker and trench positions were to protect the Luzak

3 gorge and to offer an escape route for Racak villagers." Does that fit

4 with your understanding of the purpose of the trenches?

5 A. No.

6 Q. What do you say the purpose of the trenches was if it was

7 different from what Mr. Buja says?

8 A. The purpose of the fortification of that area was to protect the

9 terrorists from possible clashes with the police and the military and to

10 protect the Luzak pass, the area of Luzak, because Luzak-Laniste was the

11 main road, for their purposes.

12 Q. Well, clearly the trenches --

13 A. They could not protect the villagers, because practically there

14 weren't any villagers in Racak.

15 Q. I'll come to that in a minute. And of course the trenches were

16 there to protect the soldiers, and I accept that and I'm sure he does.

17 If you go on, please, Mr. Nort, to the next page, top of the page,

18 I think.

19 Yes, well, actually in the middle of our screen he says that there

20 was a company command in Rance and they had four houses there with about

21 30 to 40 soldiers. Is that about right?

22 A. Our information was that there were between 100 and 120 soldiers.

23 Q. Is he right about there being four houses that they had at their

24 disposal?

25 A. I don't know how many houses, but our information was that they

Page 45104

1 have a terrorist group there that involved between 100 and 120 members.

2 Q. He then, in the next paragraph, says that in July or August there

3 was a Serb offensive and that they had to evacuate villagers from Zborce

4 in the municipality of Stimlje and that that place was levelled to the

5 ground as a result of shelling. Is he right that there was shelling at

6 Zborce?

7 A. He is right that they expelled citizens from Zborce. That's

8 correct. And also, he's right that there was terrorist action in the

9 area. However, that the village was razed to the ground, that it was

10 levelled, he's not right on that.

11 MR. NICE: Well, Mr. Nort, if you could turn on, please, I think a

12 couple of pages, and I'll see whether we -- could you go on two pages,

13 please. Yes.

14 Q. He deals, at the top of this page -- and I may be able to find it,

15 I've now got the B/C/S, but I'm afraid that I may have difficult without

16 Ms. Dicklich in finding the B/C/S parallel, so to save time I'll read it

17 to you in English.

18 He speaks of the officer killed in Dulje, in the Suva Reka

19 municipality, and he says this: That he later learnt that the local Serbs

20 put on police uniforms and took part in the attack on Racak as revenge.

21 He got this information from civilians in Vitina.

22 Now, just thinking back, and I'm going to pause then in my

23 examination of this statement of Mr. Buja, is it the case that there were

24 civilians dressed as soldiers or as policemen involved in the attack on

25 Racak?

Page 45105

1 A. That is an absolute untruth, not to say a pure lie.

2 Q. Very well. Can we now, please, look at another --

3 A. Just one more thing, please. The way you translated it for me, he

4 says that he learned about it in Vitina. Vitina is 35 kilometres away

5 from Stimlje. It is a completely different municipality. The

6 municipality and city of Urosevac are between the two and Vitina was the

7 area of the SUP of Gnjilane at the time. How could he learn anything from

8 civilians at that time?

9 MR. NICE: Very well. Can we now look, please, at another source

10 of information, this one contemporaneous. It's part of Exhibit 321. The

11 Court may recall that the blue book as entered into exhibit is not

12 entirely correctly or perfectly page ordered. It's always been a

13 possibility that we replace it by a better ordered set but we haven't done

14 that yet, so I'm using the exhibited document, and the page references for

15 Mr. Nort can be found at the top right-hand corner. So we start with

16 13555.

17 Q. What we have here, Mr. Janicevic, is a diagram prepared by the

18 OSCE on a daily basis, with supporting statements, and they set out what's

19 been happening on the day in question. And I just want to go through a

20 few earlier entries before we get to Racak to see if you agree that they

21 appear to be reporting things accurately. So although it's a little hard

22 immediately to get used to the notation, if you look at the top, this

23 relates to the 3rd of January, between midnight and midnight. And as to

24 your area, you'll see a little box there with a number 2 there. That

25 relates to Stimlje. And it says at 0900 hours their group 5 reported

Page 45106

1 information about a murder that occurred in Stimlje and the deceased man,

2 Enver Gashi, was shot by two assailants. Do you remember that incident?

3 A. Yes. I spoke about that incident here, as a matter of fact.

4 Q. Indeed you did.

5 If we go on, please, Mr. Nort, and the pages run backwards in

6 number, to 13553, and we'll lay that on the overhead projector.

7 But before we do, as to the man Enver Gashi, do you remember a

8 visit from the OSCE representative Tommy Olofsson on the 4th of January,

9 the following day, when he spoke to you about this?

10 A. You mean before the killing of Enver Gashi?

11 Q. No.

12 A. That was my understanding, the previous day.

13 Q. No, the following -- my mistake if it was, I apologise. Olofsson

14 visited you on the 4th of January. That's the day after. Do you remember

15 that visit?

16 A. Olofsson visited me practically every other day. I cannot

17 remember the exact content of our conversation on that particular day.

18 Q. Is it right, putting this very briefly because it's only a

19 peripheral issue, that they were of the opinion that in fact it was the

20 Serbs who carried out this killing and they didn't necessarily accept the

21 version that was advanced to the effect that it was the Kosovo Albanians

22 who'd carried out the killing?

23 A. Mr. Olofsson didn't say that to me. He only asked me about this

24 particular case, when it happened, who was killed, and whether we had any

25 information about this. I said that we still did not have any

Page 45107

1 information, that an on-site investigation had been carried out, and that

2 we're searching for the killer, the perpetrator of that crime.

3 Q. Very well.

4 A. And that our assumption is that it's the terrorists.

5 Q. Well, we'll look just at one other page, 13553, and I'll read the

6 relevant part of this to you. Again, it has the OSCE patrol giving an

7 account of what had happened. I needn't go through it in detail, but

8 saying that a witness overheard men in Serbian dressed in black civilian

9 clothes, getting into their car, saying, "Hurry up," and driving off.

10 Do you remember his raising that as an explanation for what had

11 happened, that Serb speakers had been overheard?

12 A. You mean that Tommy Olofsson mentioned that explanation?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. No. I don't remember him saying that to me.

15 Q. Move on to another topic -- sorry?

16 A. Excuse me. If I may.

17 Q. Yes, of course.

18 A. The second or third time we met to discuss this issue,

19 specifically this case, we had already received information that this

20 killing was perpetrated from a VW Golf vehicle that had been seized in the

21 Dramjak village during the kidnapping of nine persons about a week before

22 this event, and that corroborated our suspicion that it was the terrorists

23 who were responsible.

24 Q. And indeed the OSCE monitors challenged the identity of the

25 vehicle, challenged its colour, whether it was black or black and red. Do

Page 45108

1 you remember that?

2 A. I said a moment ago I can't remember the colour. It could have

3 been grey, maybe red. I don't know. It was a long time ago.

4 Q. 13596, please, Mr. Nort. The last preliminary matter before we

5 come to Racak.

6 A. But if you allow me.

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. The police did not know what kind of vehicle it was until they

9 talked to his family - to his brother, I believe - and it was his brother

10 who described the vehicle. There was no dilemma about the colour of the

11 vehicle. We took the word of his brother, because he was the only

12 eyewitness.

13 Q. 13596, last preliminary matter, please. Another report, this time

14 for the 4th of January, your area, Stimlje, and it's said that, if we look

15 at the box -- wrong page, I think. 13596 at the top. It may be 546. No,

16 it's -- it's 546, Mr. Nort. My apologies. I misread it. 13546.

17 This for the 4th of January, box number 1 in the top right-hand

18 corner, says that an unconfirmed report was received on the 4th of January

19 for Stimlje, that a truck with MUP passed through the town of Belince,

20 firing weapons. No person or building was hit. But just try and give us

21 a picture of events. Were things that bad by the 4th of January that your

22 police would be driving through towns, just firing weapons?

23 A. First of all, Belince is not a town, it's a village along the road

24 from Suva Reka to Stimlje on the left-hand side. In that sector,

25 terrorist attacks and provocations were a daily occurrence. They were

Page 45109

1 carried out from trenches on the left-hand side of that road.

2 I didn't hear of any such case as you describe. Maybe they fired

3 as they drove through, but only if they were being shot at.

4 Q. Mr. Nort, page 13445, if my reading of the figures is correct,

5 please.

6 This is for the 10th of January, as you'll see, and if you look at

7 number 2 in the bottom left-hand corner, it sets out that on this day RC1,

8 a different group, reported a MUP patrol had been ambushed in the vicinity

9 of Slivovo. Is that correct?

10 A. Yes, correct.

11 Q. Thank you. Page 13426, please, Mr. Nort.

12 For this day, the 10th of January, the OSCE reported that tensions

13 remained high in the Stimlje area as a result of two ambushes against MUP

14 patrols within three days. However, the KLA commander south of Stimlje

15 said he had no knowledge of the second ambush, and so this might, in the

16 assessment of the OSCE, suggest that the KLA command and control structure

17 wasn't solidified.

18 So two points: Were tensions indeed high as a result of ambushes

19 at this stage on MUP patrols?

20 A. The tensions in Stimlje itself were very high because the

21 population was mixed. There were no tensions within the MUP, because

22 there was no reason for that. It was not the first or the last attack on

23 the police. I already said that on the 10th January, 1999, 25 members of

24 the police, the army, and civilians were killed in terrorist attacks.

25 Twenty-five were seriously injured.

Page 45110

1 It's impossible -- it appears impossible to me that Mr. Shukri

2 Buja didn't know anything about that.

3 Q. So far we're finding accurate reporting from the OSCE, are we not?

4 Nothing inaccurate in what they reported.

5 A. No, it was not.

6 Q. Page 13406, please, Mr. Nort.

7 We're now on to the 11th of January, just a few days before Racak,

8 and here we see, at the bottom left-hand corner, that team 5 reported that

9 the VJ had positioned a combat team in the vicinity of EM, and the number

10 is given, immediately to the west of Stimlje.

11 Is it right that as early as the 11th of January the VJ were

12 positioning themselves west of Stimlje?

13 A. The army of Yugoslavia had positions west of Stimlje, according to

14 the agreement. It didn't take up those positions then. It had held them

15 there since the arrival of the verifiers.

16 Q. Well, if you look --

17 A. Since October.

18 Q. Very well.

19 A. And that was on Canovica hill.

20 Q. We may find more support for the accuracy of the OSCE reports at

21 page 13396, then, on that topic, where the same position was slightly

22 differently expressed, and they said this, as to the force to the west of

23 the Stimlje, they said, "These are believed to be the same forces, VJ

24 forces, that have been operating in the area since the KLA ambushed the

25 MUP patrol on the 8th of January, killing three MUP. They have continued

Page 45111












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 45112

1 to change positions daily but array themselves primarily south-west,

2 towards suspected KLA positions in the hills to the south-west of

3 Stimlje."

4 Is that accurate to your knowledge?

5 A. That's not true, and I'll explain why it's not true. The army had

6 one combat group deployed on Canovica hill. The police had six

7 observation posts in the gorge, that is west of Stimlje, along the road,

8 and there were 30 people on each post. That is a total of about 200 men

9 on those observation posts. The army did not move from that area.

10 And I'm sorry I omitted to say this before: They had another

11 combat group pursuant to the agreement in Dulje, and maybe verifiers

12 noticed movement in that direction. And it's about ten kilometres from

13 Dulje to Stimlje, not more. That unit also belonged to the 243rd

14 Motorised Brigade, I mean the unit that was in Dulje.

15 Q. I may have time to deal with the question of whether the

16 employment was strictly within the agreement later, but we'll move on to

17 page 13387, please.

18 Now, this -- sorry, 13387. If we look at this, please -- no, it's

19 13389. I misread the number again, Mr. Nort. I do apologise; my mistake.

20 What the OSCE reported here at number 6 for Stimlje is that the

21 KLA told them - that's the OSCE - that over a thousand people had been

22 displaced in the vicinity of Stimlje, and the combat team, that's the OSCE

23 -- I'm not sure about that -- first reported several days ago remains in

24 the area oriented west south-west. Forget that.

25 A thousand people displaced already by this time. Were you aware

Page 45113

1 of civilians moving, being displaced by the 12th of January?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Very well. Can we now look at -- can we go back, Mr. Nort -- just

4 leave the file where it is. Can we put Shukri Buja's statement back on

5 the overhead projector at about page 11.

6 A. May I have that statement in Serbian, please?

7 Q. Yes, I'll try and find it for you and the right page straight

8 away, if I can. Yes. It's at the foot of page 11. Coming your way.

9 Okay. Foot of page 11.

10 And if you could hand -- Mr. Nort, if you could take this for the

11 witness, please.

12 You see, what Shukri Buja says in his statement is that on the

13 following day, on the 13th of January, and you can see it there in the

14 B/C/S, he spoke to the villagers in Racak and told them of the dangers of

15 a possible attack. He advised them to leave for their own safety, but

16 many stayed as they believed they could flee when the danger arrived.

17 Now, pausing there, do you accept that -- perhaps did you have

18 knowledge of the fact that many villagers did indeed leave Racak on or

19 about the 12th, 13th of January?

20 A. I do not accept that, and I have no reason to believe that

21 civilians had to run away from the police. I really don't. Anyone who

22 addressed the police for assistance received it.

23 Shukri Buja is right when he says that they advised them. They

24 advised them everywhere, including Malopoljce. They emptied the village

25 there and set up their base. Racak is not the only case.

Page 45114

1 Q. It appears he is accurate in saying that he --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: The answer to the question is yes, by the sounds of

3 it.

4 MR. NICE: Yes.

5 Q. But just looking at this same part of his statement to try and get

6 context, he says that Seselj was in the area - well, we've heard about

7 that from him - and that he made an inflammatory speech. Do you remember

8 Seselj talking about retaliation? Just from the previous paragraph, but

9 do you remember Seselj talking about retaliation for the killings of Serb

10 police officers?

11 A. Please. Seselj has never been in Stimlje, and he doesn't even

12 know where it is, let alone having made a speech there. I don't think

13 that he even passed through, because he mostly travelled --

14 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

15 A. -- to Pec or Djakovica.

16 Q. Did you know about --

17 A. Do you mean to say that he made a speech to the citizens of

18 Stimlje from a helicopter, asking for retaliation?

19 Q. Mr. Janicevic, that's not what I'm suggesting and I suspect you

20 know that. The speech, as is revealed in the statement, was in Pristina.

21 Do you remember him making a speech in Pristina, seeking retaliation?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Well, let's go back --

24 A. No. I didn't hear about that speech he made in Pristina, as you

25 say, and I don't know that he demanded retaliation. Seselj was here

Page 45115

1 recently; you could have asked him.

2 Q. Now, if we stay with the statement that you're looking at, and

3 perhaps, Mr. Nort, you'll turn it over to the next page. He says that

4 most of the villagers of Cesta had left the area, didn't know Racak was

5 going to be attacked. "We had information from the people that had been

6 arrested that an attack was going to happen but not where or when. The

7 people who were arrested were only asked questions about KLA positions,

8 weapons ... strength and power that we had."

9 Pausing there, is it right that a lot of people were arrested and

10 asked questions about KLA positions?

11 A. It's not true that many people were arrested --

12 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

13 A. First of all, if you would allow me to finish. Even that is not

14 true. They were certainly not brought in to be questioned about such

15 things like the positions of the KLA, the composition of their units, et

16 cetera. We didn't need that sort of information. We had operative

17 sources in the very headquarters of Shukri Buja.

18 Q. It's certainly true that a very large number of statements of one

19 kind or another were produced by, for example, your subordinate Jasovic,

20 weren't they, Jasovic and Sparavalo?

21 A. Correct.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask you, what was the point of all these

23 statements and reports that Jasovic and Sparavalo made if it wasn't to get

24 information about the KLA? And indeed, in your evidence earlier, you said

25 that people were arrested or detained and questioned, I think.

Page 45116

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they were arrested, they were

2 brought in, and they were questioned. I'm not arguing with that. But

3 it's not correct that the only reason, the only purpose for such

4 questioning was to find out about the KLA. There were other things to

5 interview them about, such as weapons, possession of weapons, mutual

6 conflicts, thefts, other criminal offences. And by the way, they were

7 asked about that as well.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there's not a great deal in the statements,

9 as far as I can recollect, about these other matters, but the point that

10 was put to you just now by Mr. Nice was they were asked questions about

11 KLA positions, weapons he specifically mentioned, strength and power.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly they were asked about

13 that.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: So your blanket denial that a lot of people were

15 not arrested doesn't seem to tie in with the evidence you gave us earlier.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, taking somebody in for

17 an interview and arresting them are two different things. If you bring

18 somebody in, or even invite them for an interview, that does not mean it's

19 an arrest. An arrest, according to our law, implies detention, remand in

20 custody for over 12 hours. That's what we qualify as detention. Taking

21 somebody in was not regarded as an arrest, according to the laws that

22 applied at the time.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: What was the law?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Taking somebody in for questioning

25 is an operative tactical method in operational work. According to the Law

Page 45117

1 on Internal Affairs and the Law on Criminal Procedure, a police officer

2 was entitled to bring in a person whom he suspected of having links with

3 criminals or having perpetrated a criminal offence, for questioning, after

4 which the person would be released, and the questioning would make place

5 on the unofficial premises.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: And how long could a person be detained on that

7 basis?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not detention. The

9 questioning would take as long as necessary but not more than 12 hours.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: What is it if it's not detention when you compel

11 someone to go to the police station to answer questions?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying to tell you how it is

13 stipulated in our law. Under our law, that was not considered to be

14 detention. Detention started once a decision was issued --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: With all due respect, Mr. Janicevic, that's playing

16 with words. If you compel someone to go to a police station against his

17 will, then what can you call it other than detention?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bringing in a person for an

19 interview. That's what it was called under our regulations.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I'll leave it to you, Mr. Nice, to see if you can

21 -- if you wish to even try, to get any clearer explanation than that.

22 MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

23 Q. Before we come back to, perhaps, His Honour's question, could you

24 look at the next sentence in what Mr. Shukri Buja says in his statement.

25 Dealing with the people who were brought in, he said this: "None of them

Page 45118

1 were KLA, and they were all badly beaten."

2 Now, let me remind you about a couple of questions I asked you

3 yesterday about your experience with other police forces, about whether

4 the standards in your police force slipped below what was really the

5 proper standard, and let me just remind you you were obviously in a state

6 of crisis with some of your territory held by the KLA, some held by the

7 MUP, the VJ, and the Serb forces.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: What date is this, Mr. Nice?

9 MR. NICE: This is -- well, Mr. Buja's speaking generally, but the

10 particular date is the 13th of January, so it's on or before the 13th of

11 January that he's speaking about.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

13 MR. NICE:

14 Q. So take your time, Mr. Janicevic, before tying yourself to a

15 position that you might think you have to give. Were people in your

16 police station beaten up to give information?

17 A. This suggestion of yours, Mr. Nice, is not correct. I, as chief

18 of the Secretariat of the Interior, or my associates were never addressed

19 with a complaint about maltreatment or beating.

20 Q. And let's go further with electrocution. Were people subject to

21 torture by electrocution to provide information?

22 A. That is a blatant untruth. I assert this because if it had

23 happened, I would certainly have known and the person who had done it

24 would certainly not have continued to work in my secretariat.

25 Q. What month in 1995 did you start your position at Urosevac police

Page 45119

1 station?

2 A. On the 15th of June, 1995.

3 Q. And before that, where were you?

4 A. I was president of the municipality of Strpce.

5 Q. We may look at it later, but did you -- first of all --

6 MR. NICE: Would Your Honour just give me one minute.

7 [Prosecution confer]


9 Q. It's right, isn't it, that as a matter of law the police are

10 obliged to respond to any form of public complaint about their work? Is

11 that right, as a matter of law? Article 54, I think, of the inspectorate

12 for monitoring legality of work. You have to monitor media reports and

13 take action in respect of them. Right? Are you aware of that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Spotlight is a magazine, a publication of which you're aware?

16 A. I am not aware of it. Never heard.

17 Q. I see. It's a humanitarian organisation's publication. Is that

18 the sort of material that wouldn't find its way through to the police if

19 it was disseminated in Belgrade to the ministries?

20 A. Well, it would probably find its way through, but I never received

21 one.

22 Q. We can see it later, if we have the time, but a magazine in

23 January or February, of Spotlight, gave a detailed account of

24 electrocution by way of torture at your police station. Did nobody at

25 your police station respond to that? Because by the law, they were

Page 45120

1 actually obliged to do.

2 A. These stories about electrocution, you could hear rumours going

3 round, even before, from members of individual groups, however, we never

4 established nor did we ever find any such apparatus or device for

5 electrocution of persons on the premises of the secretariat. So I say

6 once again that is just a lie. It's a blatant lie and nothing more than

7 that.

8 Q. Just a minute. Pausing there.

9 A. If somebody came, especially -- may I be allowed to complete what

10 I'm saying?

11 For somebody to reach their goal, their objective, and the

12 objective was to create chaos in that area and distrust in the powers that

13 be, they had to do things of the kind that you're telling us about now.

14 They had to disseminate misinformation, for example. And I have hundreds

15 of Albanian friends, for example, and none of them ever said that they had

16 heard anything like that or seen anybody who had suffered from any

17 electrocution devices or anything like that. I have hundreds of friends,

18 and I'm still in contact with them to this day.

19 Q. Where did these rumours -- when you say rumours of electrocution

20 torture, presumably you're saying rumours of electrocution torture at your

21 police station. Where do these rumours come from; within the police

22 station or outside?

23 A. No, not in my police station, no, that's not what I meant. Not in

24 my police station.

25 Q. We'll come back to this, but just tell me this: We've seen that

Page 45121

1 Shukri --

2 A. First of all, may I add something? You're talking about just one

3 police station. The SUP of Urosevac had four police stations or, rather,

4 five under it; the one in Urosevac, in Stimlje, in Strpce, in Kacanik, and

5 the police station for the traffic police.

6 Q. Looking at Mr. Buja's statement, here he is in 2001 giving an

7 account of people telling him they'd been held, detained, or whatever it

8 may be, and beaten in order to give information. Just help me, if you

9 can, and don't, of course, if you can't: Can you think of any reason why,

10 when the Serbs have gone, been expelled, Mr. Buja should make this up as

11 part of his account, why he should falsely say that people were

12 complaining of being beaten up to give information? Can you give us an

13 explanation for that if you want to?

14 A. Shukri Buja, at the end of February, I believe, pursuant to orders

15 from the KLA was appointed commander of the Karadak zone, and during his

16 time, that is to say while he was the commander of the Nerodimlje zone,

17 there were a number of killings, both of Serbs, Albanians, and Roma as

18 well. There were kidnappings that have still not been cleared up.

19 In the Gnjilane area, where he was until the end of the war, there

20 were hundreds of Serbs and Roma killed, hundreds of persons kidnapped or

21 disappeared without a trace.

22 So think about it. Why would Shukri Buja talk about that? I

23 wouldn't be able to sleep peacefully if I were in his place. Just give it

24 some thought. If he's not in a position to clarify certain circumstances

25 now, the truth will out. The truth will always out. It emerges of its

Page 45122

1 own.

2 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I shan't pursue that question any further

3 because I haven't been given an answer to it, but there it is.

4 Q. Can we go back to the file, please, of OSCE documentation, just to

5 try and stay broadly chronological, and it's page 13377, please, Mr. Nort.

6 That brings us through to the same day, the 13th of January.

7 And on this occasion, according to box number 6, the KLA commander

8 in Stimlje area told a reporting group that VJ forces were within 200

9 metres of KLA positions. The last position was in the vicinity of

10 Belince, west of Stimlje. Now, is that, do you think, correct?

11 A. Whose positions were in Belince? I'm not quite clear about that.

12 Q. VJ. The VJ forces are within 200 metres of --

13 A. No, that's not correct.

14 Q. Where were they, then?

15 A. That's not correct. The army was at Canovic Brdo, hill, which was

16 at least 700 metres -- a minimum of 700 metres from Belince.

17 Q. Can we go to page 13372, please. Let's just recognise where we

18 were while it's coming to you. There's an approach to battle and war with

19 armed units on both sides, really serious things, with people dying and

20 being killed, but this is what was reported to a combat team on the 13th

21 of January, last three lines: "The KLA commander reported that villagers

22 trying to get to Stimlje or to Urosevac are regularly arrested and

23 tortured with electricity in an attempt to get information about the KLA

24 from them."

25 So here is a report to the OSCE, before Racak even, of torture by

Page 45123

1 electricity, presumably at your police station, because Stimlje and

2 Urosevac are likely to come to your police station. It's true, isn't it?

3 Your police station was a centre of unlawful violence used against people

4 who were detained.

5 A. That's not true. Let me just tell you something, since you're

6 speaking about bringing people in and detaining them.

7 At one point, Tommy Olofsson came to see me about 9.00 in the

8 morning, I don't know what day it was, and he asked me, he said, "I was

9 informed today that a person was kidnapped together with a tractor and

10 taken to the police station in Stimlje." I took a telephone -- I picked

11 up the telephone in his presence, called the chief of that police station,

12 asked who had been detained, brought to the police station, and why. The

13 person was brought in with a tractor full of timber, of wood that he had

14 stolen in the socially owned, state owned forest, and they reported it as

15 a kidnapping. So the information that the verifiers received they should

16 check out first and then write reports of this kind. And I claim that

17 there was no torture, no abuse, no beatings, no torture by electricity in

18 my secretariat.

19 Q. Can we go, please, to 13364, Mr. Nort. One day before Racak, the

20 14th. See how things are developing.

21 Now, what is said here in box number 5, in the bottom right-hand

22 corner, is that it was reported that fighting and shelling occurred at

23 Luznica and Javor and that the VJ would not allow the KVM patrols into the

24 area. Now, is there really any reason why the OSCE should have got that

25 wrong?

Page 45124

1 A. I don't know. You would have to ask somebody else that. Luznica,

2 Javor, they're on the territory, as far as I know, of Prizren, not

3 Urosevac.

4 Q. We looked at them yesterday.

5 Mr. Nort, could we go to 13359 for a little more detail.

6 This was their calculation. They said that they -- "RC1 reported

7 that explosions had been heard in the vicinity of Javor and Luznica since

8 0830 in the morning. When they sent a patrol to investigate, they were

9 turned back in the vicinity of Dulje."

10 And then they made this observation: "This could be the precursor

11 of a major battle throughout the Stimlje area. A report at 2055 hours

12 stated that the tanks firing on the above village were from the Urosevac

13 Brigade."

14 Now, tell us, please, when was the plan to attack Racak made?

15 14th, 13th, 12th; when?

16 A. Just a moment, please. Which village? I'm not clear on which

17 village.

18 Q. Racak. When was that plan made to attack Racak?

19 A. The plan to attack Racak, there was never any plan, but there was

20 a plan for anti-terrorist operation in Racak, and a proposal of that plan

21 was sent to the Staff on the 12th of January.

22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, can you see the place of village of Javor

23 and Luznica and Dulje as well?

24 MR. NICE: Yes. Let's get it on the --

25 JUDGE KWON: My understanding is they are in Suva Reka.

Page 45125

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. The Suva Reka

2 municipality.

3 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour will remember that they were referred

4 to yesterday in the report of this witness himself, at least Luznica was.

5 JUDGE KWON: Horseshoe was mentioned.

6 MR. NICE: And horseshoe. And if you look at page 11 of the map

7 Exhibit 83, you'll find them - I suspect you've found them already - in

8 row P, boxes 20 and 21.

9 JUDGE KWON: But how the operation in Javor and Luznica could be

10 related to -- as a precursor to Stimlje operation, there I have difficulty

11 following that.

12 MR. NICE:

13 Q. Was the Racak operation part of a wider operation, Mr. Janicevic?

14 A. No, Mr. Nice. The Racak operation, or the anti-terrorist

15 operation in Racak has nothing to do with Luznica and Javor. Well, take a

16 map and have a look. It's an area of 50 kilometres, if not more. Now,

17 you make out this horseshoe effect and let's see what it looks like on the

18 basis of what you say.

19 I explained yesterday that it was a printing error with the report

20 we saw. It was Luzak, not Luznica.

21 Q. Well, help me with this before we move on, I'm trying to be

22 chronological: It happens, doesn't it, that there was a meeting of very

23 high officials in Pristina on the 15th of January. Do you remember that

24 visit of the high officials meeting with -- the Serb government was

25 meeting there; is that right?

Page 45126

1 A. I heard about that from the information media, but I don't know

2 what happened at the meeting or anything else about it.

3 Q. But the decision about Racak was a decision of the Joint Command,

4 wasn't it?

5 A. That's not true. Not correct.

6 Q. Well, whose decision was it, then?

7 A. A decision of the MUP staff. What Joint Command are you referring

8 to anyway?

9 Q. Radosavljevic has been interviewed by the Office of the

10 Prosecution, and he's also spoken on -- at length on the television in the

11 "Death of Yugoslavia" film preparation -- preparation for the film "Death

12 of Yugoslavia." And he's a policeman, isn't he, senior to you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. He's in charge?

15 A. He was the appointed commander of the operation on behalf of the

16 Staff.

17 Q. By whom was he appointed, then?

18 A. The MUP staff.

19 Q. Well -- well, if only the MUP staff appointed him, tell us,

20 please, how it was that the MUP and the VJ could act together in an

21 integrated way without putting each other at risk. How did that come

22 about?

23 A. I said during the examination-in-chief that on the 14th of January

24 a meeting was held in the -- on the premises of the SUP of Urosevac,

25 attended by Radosavljevic and all the participants in the operation and

Page 45127












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 45128

1 the command -- the Commander Krsman Jelic was called of the 243rd Brigade,

2 where the plan was put forward for an anti-terrorist operation, it was

3 proposed and he took note of that by way of information so as not to

4 intervene at any point in time when the police starts entering Racak and

5 takes steps to effect a blockade. The role of the army in this case, in

6 this particular anti-terrorist operation, was just that, nothing more. I

7 have no reason to lie. I have no reason to cover up anything, not a

8 single reason.

9 Q. And if it be the case, can you think of any reason why

10 Radosavljevic should attribute the Racak operation to the direction of

11 something called the Joint Command?

12 A. I don't think he would have any reason to do that, because links

13 with what you referred to as the Joint Command, although I don't know that

14 anything like that existed, had no links at all, nothing to do with that.

15 Q. Let's look, please, at some entries for Racak itself from OSCE to

16 see how much they appear to have seen.

17 Mr. Nort, if you'd take us, please, to page 13354.

18 This tells us -- this is for the 15th of January, and this tell us

19 that there was a report -- bottom right-hand corner -- it tells us two

20 things, actually. If we look at number 6: "The VJ are constructing and

21 camouflaging a new position in the vicinity near the Dulje pass." That's

22 to the west and in the area of both Dulje and the other place we were

23 looking at. But as to Racak, it says: "Reported at approximately 0700

24 hours, fighting and shelling started south-west of Stimlje in the villages

25 of Belince, Racak, and Malopoljce."

Page 45129

1 They seem to be about right there, don't they?

2 A. They are absolutely not right.

3 Q. What, no attack on --

4 A. And here's why, and here's why: From 0300 hours, the Operative

5 Pursuit Group had already entered Racak, and 30 men, 30 policemen of the

6 pursuit group were behind the lines held by the terrorists, and they were

7 in Racak. Do you really think that somebody would be mad and start

8 shelling the village, bombing the village in which his own men were

9 located?

10 And I also state with full responsibility, based on reports and

11 from what I heard because I was at a distance of 200 metres from Racak,

12 that not a single shell fell in Racak, not a single shell coming from the

13 army or the police that day until the afternoon hours.

14 Q. Well, how -- 200 metres from Racak. What period of the day were

15 you 200 metres from Racak?

16 A. I was at the police station there.

17 Q. Stimlje.

18 A. The police station, that's where I was. 200 to 250 metres away

19 from the entrance to Racak. That's the police station. That's where it

20 is.

21 Q. And that's the Racak police station or the Stimlje police station?

22 A. The Stimlje police station is located at a distance of about 250

23 metres from the very entrance into Racak from the direction of the special

24 institution there, 200 to 250 metres. If you don't believe me, take a

25 look at the map and check it out.

Page 45130

1 Q. We'll see it later because I think we'll get some footage of the

2 special hospital, probably, special institution.

3 Well, let's look at something else that was revealed by OSCE. On

4 page 13351, please, Mr. Nort. A bit more of the detail. This is how they

5 were keeping an eye on the territory generally.

6 Elsewhere they reported that a large convoy of 275 MUP was seen

7 approaching Prizren, miles away -- kilometres away. The local chief of

8 police stated this was only a mismanaged but otherwise normal monthly

9 rotation of police officers, stating that they were being relieved to

10 return to Serbia for a rest. However, the question was raised by OSCE,

11 given the increased tempo of the battle being fought in the vicinity of

12 Stimlje, this rotation should be closely monitored by KVM to ensure the

13 additional police not being used as reinforcements.

14 Now, it's right, isn't it, that by manipulating rotation of forces

15 that was permitted by the agreement, you could temporarily increase the

16 number of forces that were available. Was there on the 15th of January of

17 1999 an effort being made to increase the number of forces available

18 because of the scale of this attack?

19 A. No, Mr. Nice. On the 15th of January there was a regular rotation

20 of the observation posts where it was usually the policemen of the reserve

21 force who were deployed there at those posts. So there was a shift

22 rotation; those who were at the observation posts went home, and the new

23 arrivals took up their duties, which lasted a fortnight. That was the

24 regular fortnightly shift.

25 Q. Following page, 13350, please, Mr. Nort. This is what OSCE

Page 45131

1 themselves reported, and you've made the point that they were present and

2 that their vehicles could be seen at some parts of the day. They say

3 this: "RC5 reported that an attack by combined VJ/MUP forces started in

4 the vicinity of Stimlje at approximately 0700 hours. The towns of

5 Belince, Racak, Petrovo and Malopoljce came under attack. Fighting and

6 shelling were heavy throughout the day. This attack follows the VJ/MUP

7 build-up in the area which occurred last week after the KLA ambushed a MUP

8 patrol. It follows on the heels of the VJ/MUP engagement of KLA forces

9 for several days in the Decane area. It is expected that this battle will

10 continue tomorrow. KVM patrols are, for the most part, being denied

11 access to the battle area."

12 Now, that's a quite specific series of observations by OSCE about

13 shelling throughout the day and where. Are you saying this is completely

14 false?

15 A. The only thing that is correct here is that Racak was dealt with

16 in an anti-terrorist sense. Everything else is not correct. I don't know

17 what the purpose of this is, but it is pure untruth, and I claim again and

18 state that not a single soldier was engaged in this anti-terrorist

19 operation. The verifiers were informed. They were at the posts as of

20 7.00 a.m. Later on, at 10.00, another Verification Mission vehicle

21 arrived and they were there throughout the day while this operation lasted

22 at the observation post. And that particular vehicle, after the attack

23 launched by the terrorists against the police who were in Racak, it drove

24 down into Racak.

25 If they are objective, if they are even a little objective, they

Page 45132

1 should have told the truth. And the truth is this: The truth is that it

2 was only the forces of the MUP who entered the area of Racak, that it was

3 a pure police operation, that the terrorists -- they started to arrest the

4 terrorists, however, a clash broke out, a conflict, and what happened

5 happened. There was no shelling, and I state again - I state again - that

6 not a single shell fell on Racak. Had it fallen, some of the policemen

7 would probably have been killed, some of the men who were there --

8 Q. Let's --

9 A. -- at 11.00.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the OSCE would have received this by

11 way of a report. It says RC5 reported so-and-so.

12 MR. NICE: Yes.


14 MR. NICE: It's Regional Centre 5. It's their team.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's their team.

16 MR. NICE: Yes. If Your Honour looks -- remembers the maps with

17 the squares, the various observation teams are described by RC1, RC2, RC3,

18 RC4.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: They are getting reports from their own teams.

20 MR. NICE: Their own people, yes. Of course, they sometimes

21 report what they have been informed.

22 Q. So I'm not inviting you to attribute --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his answer, please.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please repeat what you just said.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information was received mostly

Page 45133

1 from the citizens, from citizens of Albanian ethnicity living in that

2 area.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: So for that reason you're saying it would be

4 coloured?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only for that reason but I do

6 claim and state that, objectively speaking, it was only in Racak that

7 things happened that happened, but not as it is written down there. There

8 was no shelling. Yes, the police did enter. Yes, they did search the

9 terrain. Yes, they did fight with the terrorists. Yes, a certain number

10 of terrorists did die in the clash with the police, but there was no

11 shelling until 11.00. At 11.00 there was a cannonade from mortars

12 coming from the Luzak area, Petrovo and that Crni Put as they call it,

13 from the direction of Petrovo and Malopoljce. The first shell that fell

14 was a mine from a 60-millimetre mortar, theirs, their mine.

15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Janicevic, you said that there were a couple of

16 VJ positions around Racak, one in -- one to the north of Racak, which is

17 the position of 243rd Motorised Brigade, and one to the east of Racak. I

18 don't remember the name of the hill, but they were positioned there.

19 Could you give me the total strength --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

21 JUDGE KWON: -- of VJ which were positioned around Racak?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Around Racak?


24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were two combat groups, one at

25 the very entrance in Belince, which is 3 to 400 metres away from the

Page 45134

1 entrance to Racak. Next to the police checkpoint that was there, there

2 was also a military checkpoint, and it served to protect the communication

3 lines, the roads, because that's where there were frequent attacks

4 launched by terrorists; on roads, on military convoys, patrols, police

5 patrols, and citizens. So that was -- they had a Praga there. How many

6 men man a Praga, I don't know. Probably four or five.

7 And there was another checkpoint at the hill called Kostanje which

8 is about two and a half to three kilometres away from Racak. So that's

9 where they were. They were above the church and school building in

10 Stimlje. And that's where the observers were of the Verification Mission,

11 next to them on that location, and next to the others too.

12 JUDGE KWON: They had Pragas; did they have a tank as well?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether they had a

14 tank. All I know is that they had two Pragas at both checkpoints. There

15 was Praga at each point. But those points were not established that day,

16 set up that day. They were checkpoints that had been there for a month

17 prior to that.

18 JUDGE KWON: So you do not say that they didn't have a tank. You

19 don't know whether they had a tank or not.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether they did or

21 not. I was informed that it was a question of Pragas being there on both

22 those points.

23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

24 MR. NICE:

25 Q. I thought you were only 200 metres from Racak, from where you

Page 45135

1 would be able to see where they were. So either they did or they didn't

2 have tanks. Which is it? Or wasn't there a window in the police station

3 that gave you a view?

4 A. Please, this way we will never be able to reach the end. Could

5 you please put a map up so that I can show you where Racak was, where the

6 access roads were, et cetera. When I arrived at the police station in

7 Stimlje on the hill of Kostanje, I saw a police patrol and a military

8 patrol, a military checkpoint which was there, which had been there a

9 month before that, and it was supposed to protect that part of Stimlje

10 from possible attacks by the terrorists.

11 The other checkpoint was at the pass near Belince, facing Racak.

12 That's where the Praga was.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

14 --- Recess taken at 10:32 a.m.

15 --- Upon resuming at 10:57 a.m.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

17 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I want to move on to -- I'm staying

18 chronological wherever I can, but I want to play, to remind us, extracts

19 from a Defence video which is said to be the Reuters Defence video for the

20 15th of January. That's the way it's been indexed, I think. And at the

21 time that it was produced we hadn't made any inquiries. I'll explain what

22 our current position is when we've had a look at it and I've asked a few

23 questions, but I'd ask Mr. Reid to play selections of this, or organise

24 the playing of selections of this on Sanction just to remind you of what

25 it contained in general terms, and we'll stop at the place where the OSCE

Page 45136

1 vehicles are said to be seen.

2 Q. Perhaps you'd look at this, please, Mr. Janicevic.

3 [Videotape played]


5 Q. Just pausing there. That thing is said to be, although it doesn't

6 show up very well, the OSCE vehicles, and we can see vertical structures

7 beside them and a building to the left.

8 I'll go back to the beginning and we'll just look at various clips

9 from this.

10 [Videotape played]

11 MR. NICE: That's an overview in daylight hours of the village.

12 Here we see a vehicle going through the village, again daylight, armed.

13 Q. Now, this is a video that's been played to us in the course of the

14 Defence as coming from Reuters and as relating to the 15th of January. Do

15 you know one way or another if that was taken on the 15th of January or on

16 a subsequent day?

17 A. I think that it was on the 15th of January, because on the

18 following day we did not have any access to the village. The next day,

19 the village never entered -- the police never entered the village.

20 Q. You see, Mr. Janicevic, just as a matter of detail to help you and

21 to remind the Court, the way this has been provided to us is without

22 soundtrack, so we don't know what the broadcasters were saying. There's

23 plenty of material, I accept, not only coming from you but also from

24 Radosavljevic in his interview and possibly even elsewhere, to suggest

25 that Reuters and AP and other journalists may have been around on the

Page 45137

1 15th, but at present Reuters are unable to accept, I understand, that they

2 had any footage on the 15th. So we're left in a state of uncertainty as

3 to where this material comes from.

4 With that information, and I think I'm giving you all the

5 information that's available to me, when we saw the soldiers moving

6 through the village, of course they were armed but there was either little

7 or no sound of fighting or anything of that sort, and it looked not

8 exactly peaceful but it looked comparatively safe, from what we could see.

9 Can you explain at what time of day this was or anything else about what

10 it is we've been asked to look at by the Defence, because it's a Defence

11 video. Can you tell us what it really shows?

12 A. Well, I don't know what else to say to you. We can see that it's

13 daylight, most probably in the morning hours. The verifiers' vehicles can

14 be seen here. I'm not mistaken, two or three of them at the same spot, as

15 far as I can see on the picture that we can see now, that is.

16 Q. There is, of course, no guarantee that the vehicles, even if this

17 is the 15th, there is no way of asserting or knowing at what time the OSCE

18 vehicles got into position. And if I were to suggest to you that OSCE

19 monitors Marcusson, Giovanni, Fantini and Rose Jendensten, and maybe

20 others, didn't locate until about 10.45 in the morning, would you accept

21 that?

22 A. Well, perhaps some of them didn't arrive, but I claim that two

23 vehicles of the verifiers were up there by the checkpoint, this police

24 checkpoint here, at 7.00 in the morning, and also on the road to Kostanje.

25 Two vehicles belonging to the verifying mission were there at 7.00 in the

Page 45138

1 morning. Later on, I was informed that at about 10.00 another vehicle

2 came and positioned itself there. It's probably that person called

3 Giovanni as you said just now.

4 Q. And you see the -- do you know what is meant by "hill 685," by the

5 way? It may be an OSCE reference rather than a reference you may

6 understand. Do you understand what they would be referring to by "hill

7 685"?

8 A. Probably an elevation, but I don't know which one.

9 Q. And you see, I'm going to suggest to you that, as we saw in their

10 report for the 24 hours of the 15th of January, throughout the afternoon

11 they saw tanks and mortars firing towards Petrovo, Malopoljce. Do you

12 accept that that was happening?

13 A. No. No, I do not accept that because that's not the way it was.

14 There was shooting, there was mortar fire, but from the other side. I

15 skimmed through this statement now. Shukri Buja himself says that mortar

16 fire started around 11.00 from the direction of Petrovo, firing at Racak.

17 There was mortar fire indeed.

18 Q. Well, let's look at Shukri Buja's statement next, still staying

19 with the 15th of January. And it's about page 12, I think, in the

20 English, my version still being slightly different from the one on the

21 screen, but never mind. And the way, in summary, Shukri Buja analyses the

22 day is that he says: "On the morning of the 15th --" next page, please.

23 No, bottom of the page, thank you. On the morning of the 15th, the

24 shooting began about 6.00 to 7.00. They were in a bunker. They had

25 soldiers there. He said that the Serbs got to their positions -- next

Page 45139

1 paragraph. Yes, it's there. That they -- three rounds were fired from

2 his gun to signal there was a problem -- from their gun, the KLA gun, to

3 signal that there was problem. Enver got killed pretty well immediately.

4 This is at the bottom of the page. There were 47 soldiers there since

5 October to November 1998.

6 If we go over the page, please, Mr. Nort.

7 Then he explains that -- third paragraph: The soldiers left the

8 house and headed for their positions, were sure that their army would be

9 there. They were in a crossfire. They tried to escape. Those that

10 survived managed to get over the hill to Luzac. Then the unit commander,

11 Afet Bilalli, nicknamed Qopa, as you've told us, was shot and injured.

12 Now, all of that, no reason to doubt his accuracy there, is there?

13 A. Shukri Buja is partly telling the truth, that --

14 Q. Which part of it is untrue?

15 A. Well, if I understood this correctly, because I didn't understand

16 the translation sufficiently. Could you please give me a reference in the

17 Serbian text so I can follow it. You read out an entire page and now I'm

18 supposed to remember all of that.

19 Q. Let's see if we can find it for you just a little bit more slowly.

20 If you go to your page 12, and if you look at the -- first of all, if you

21 look at the second paragraph on that page, you will see the description of

22 their having 47 soldiers there since November 1998. In the paragraph

23 above that you'll see the reference to the bunker and to the heavy

24 machine-gun in the bunker. If you go to the foot of the page, you'll see

25 a description of the soldiers leaving the house and getting caught in

Page 45140

1 crossfire. And if you go over the page, you'll see, I think, maybe at the

2 foot of that page, you'll see a reference to Qopa being injured.

3 Is there any part of this that is actually untrue or is this

4 conceivably completely accurate, subject always to such difficulties as

5 there are --

6 A. Apart from the number of soldiers. Apart from that, I think that

7 what else Shukri Buja said was correct. The number of soldiers, according

8 to our verified information, was 80 in the area of Racak.

9 Q. If we to over to what is I think still page 13 on the English and

10 13 in your version, please, we see -- further down or the next page,

11 Mr. Nort, I think, maybe. Mr. Nort, next page, please. I think. Top of

12 the page. Sorry, it is the foot of the previous page. My mistake. Last

13 paragraph on the previous page.

14 And for you, Mr. Janicevic, page 13. You'll see at the top of the

15 page a reference to Sadik Mujota, where he says this: "Another two

16 soldiers, Sadik Mujota, from Mullopolc, was staying with his relative and

17 also a soldier Mehmet Mustafa, 62 ... in Racak, this house is located

18 above Sala Mustafa's house and the command is located below it in the

19 direction of the village. They were leaving the house for the direction

20 of the shooting when they were shot. They were attached to the Racak

21 unit. When the firing started it was the duty of all soldiers to go to

22 the command and that is what they were doing at the time."

23 And then this: "After Sadik was killed, his 15-year-old daughter,

24 Hanumshahe, was killed while running to him. She fell on top of him. She

25 is the only civilian that is buried with the soldiers."

Page 45141

1 Now, no reason to doubt him on that, is there?

2 A. There is reason to doubt that this was a civilian. Secondly, have

3 you thought about where Sadik Mujota came from? He's from the village of

4 Malopoljce. Malopoljce is two and a half kilometres away from Racak.

5 What was he doing in Racak? He and his son and his daughter, we had

6 information that from the very beginning, from mid-1998, were in the

7 terrorist organisation of the KLA. All three of them.

8 Q. You see, there's no challenge that -- sorry, Your Honour?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: It says that plainly. Where is the problem?

10 MR. NICE:

11 Q. You see, Mr. Janicevic, there is no doubt that Sadik Mujota, who

12 the Serbs regarded as a very serious terrorist, we know that, was a member

13 of the KLA. What's in dispute, maybe, is whether his 15-year-old daughter

14 Hanumshahe was a civilian or a member of the KLA. Now, he says she was

15 innocent. She was running towards him. He was staying in the village.

16 Isn't he right about that?

17 A. Mr. Nice, I'm saying yet again we had information to the effect

18 that Sadik Mujota, his son, and his daughter all belonged to the KLA.

19 That they were in Racak, that they were in Racak where they belonged to

20 the substaff of the Racak group of the KLA.

21 Q. Well, indeed there are documents going to suggest that his

22 daughter is - or was - involved in the KLA, and we'll be taking you to

23 those in due course, but what do you say was the level of your

24 intelligence about her being a member of the KLA? Remind us or remind

25 yourself and tell us.

Page 45142

1 A. On the basis of what I know, I assert that she was a member of the

2 KLA.

3 Q. Detail -- Mr. Janicevic --

4 A. And I assert that she was a bit older than 15, Mr. Nice.

5 Q. On any reckoning, this was a young woman or a teenager who is

6 dead. So would you --

7 A. Yes, with a rifle in her hands.

8 Q. Will you please do us or her memory the courtesy of giving us the

9 detail of why you say she was a member of the KLA when the KLA commander

10 says she wasn't. The detail, if you please.

11 A. Mr. Nice, the commander of the KLA says that nine KLA soldiers

12 were killed in Racak, and he said that he had 47 soldiers. I am telling

13 you that from their Staff we have operative information that there were

14 about 80 members of the KLA in Racak and that the girl in question, who

15 regrettably got killed in this clash with the police, got killed in the

16 clash, was together with her brother and her father, a member of this

17 terrorist group.

18 Q. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'd like you, please, to give

19 us the detail of why it is you say she's a member of the KLA. If the

20 answer is you can't, say so and we'll move on.

21 A. Sir, I've told you on the basis of which information I'm stating

22 that. Operative information and intelligence indicated that, that she was

23 a member of the KLA, too, and we've looked at that in the previous

24 documents. Why would somebody say that someone was a member of a

25 terrorist organisation if that person was not a member?

Page 45143












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 45144

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you direct us to the document in which it's

2 recorded that she was a member of the KLA?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot direct you this instant

4 because there's about a hundred statements that indicate that, that only

5 talk about this Racak group. We've already been through that.

6 MR. NICE: I'll take Your Honour to the --

7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Janicevic, how do you know she had a gun with her

8 when she got killed?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not see whether she had a

10 rifle in her hands, but she certainly would not have got killed had she

11 not had a rifle in her hands. Nobody would have shot at her if she didn't

12 have a rifle in her hands. Had we found anything out along those lines,

13 either I or the commanding officer in Racak, measures would have been

14 taken against a person who would have shot at an unarmed person.

15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

16 MR. NICE:

17 Q. Let -- can we stay for a minute with one other paragraph - you've

18 already looked at it - on Shukri Buja's statement. It's on the same page.

19 Little bit further down, I think. Can you move the page down, please, Mr.

20 Nort. Maybe the next page. There we are. That's fine.

21 In this statement, as you've already explained, Shukri Buja

22 identifies nine KLA soldiers killed in Racak, and indeed you can look

23 elsewhere and there's a reference to others who were killed elsewhere at

24 the same general time. You know, don't you, that dying for the KLA was a

25 matter of honour for many people. Don't you?

Page 45145

1 A. It's a matter for honour for who, Mr. Nice?

2 Q. It's a matter of honour --

3 A. I mean, a matter of honour? Well, I am telling you that at least

4 50 per cent of KLA members were forced into going out to fight. There is

5 information to that effect. There is intelligence. Call other witnesses.

6 Call other Albanians. Protect them. I'm telling you that they will tell

7 them what happened -- tell you what happened.

8 Q. We've seen books of the glorious fall of the KLA. We've heard

9 accounts or we've discussed accounts of people wanting to be credited as

10 dying for the KLA even when they had not done so, possibly because they

11 could get a pension or financial benefits. There were many reasons why

12 people would want to be described as dying, when they did die in battle,

13 for the KLA. Do you accept that?

14 A. They certainly did die.

15 Q. You see --

16 A. Many certainly did die.

17 Q. What I want your help with is this, if you possibly can, it's why

18 I asked you the question I did at the beginning that Mr. Kay objected to:

19 We see in his statement made in 2001 that Shukri Buja identified nine

20 people of the KLA who died in battle on the 15th of January. He makes it

21 clear that none of the other people who died in Racak, the 40-odd people

22 who were found in Racak dead, were members of the KLA. I want you to help

23 us, if you can, with whether there's any reason you can think of why those

24 who died gloriously in battle, or even if not gloriously, in battle,

25 should not be credited with their correct KLA status. Can you think of

Page 45146

1 any reason?

2 A. Are you sure that this status had not been credited them?

3 Q. If you think of a reason in the course of your answering questions

4 to me, don't hesitate to interrupt me and we'll come back to that topic.

5 MR. NICE: Now, with the Court's leave, I want to ask this witness

6 some questions about what --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just say something now in

8 relation to this question, this question that you put to me just now?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. I had occasion to view the funeral in Racak when Walker came to

11 the mosque, when 40 coffins were lined up with the bodies of the persons

12 who died in the terrorist -- anti-terrorist operation. All the coffins

13 were covered with an Albanian flag, the Albanian flag, all of them. That

14 happens only when a soldier is killed, a policeman, or a state official in

15 the interests of the state.

16 Q. You made that point a couple of days ago or yesterday, and what

17 you're suggesting is that there would have been some pride, if your

18 account is right, there would be some pride in them dying for the cause.

19 Can you think of any reason why these people and their bereaved relations

20 would not claim them to have been KLA activists in death, especially if

21 that role would bring them financial benefit in the form of pension? Can

22 you think of any reason, Mr. Janicevic, why people would do that?

23 A. You mean would they be proud after their death, after they had

24 died? That's how I understood your question.

25 Q. Yes.

Page 45147

1 A. Is there reason for these people who got killed not to be proud of

2 the fact that they died for the KLA?

3 MR. NICE: I'm going to move on. I've given him a chance to deal

4 with it.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you tell me, please, if Shukri Buja's

6 statement was drafted after the indictment was public?

7 MR. NICE: Yes, certainly.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 MR. NICE: But of course it was taken on the usual terms,

10 certainly.

11 Your Honours, I wish to ask this witness some questions about what

12 Goran Radosavljevic said in an interview, for his comments on those

13 answers. We have a copy that can go on the overhead projector. The Court

14 will remember that I've played to other witnesses what Goran Radosavljevic

15 said to "The Death of Yugoslavia" interviewers, and I don't think there's

16 any need to repeat that material. It will be in the Court's mind, having

17 heard it twice.

18 In light of the Court's practice, I am of course not seeking to

19 put this material in as an exhibit, simply to have the witness's comment

20 on the answers given.

21 Q. While we're getting it positioned on the screen, Mr. Janicevic,

22 when did you last speak to Goran Radosavljevic?

23 A. The end of 2000.

24 Q. To your knowledge, is he still alive and well?

25 A. I know that he's alive. I don't know whether he is well. That's

Page 45148

1 a relative thing.

2 MR. NICE: If the video booth could focus, to assist our reading,

3 on the bottom right-hand sector of this double page and enlarge it.

4 Q. In the course of interview, and you'll see the format of this

5 interview, Mr. Janicevic, we have both the English and the interpretation.

6 So it's possible to see the whole interview as it's played out with

7 sequential interpretation.

8 He was asked: "The next topic is basically the Racak interview --

9 Racak issue." And asked: "If you could describe, give us an overview of

10 what the planning for Racak and the conduct of the operation?" You will

11 then see --

12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, because there's a controversy as to the

13 correctness of this interpretation, how about seeing the video ourselves?

14 MR. NICE: This is not a video -- it may be a video. This is an

15 OTP interview.

16 JUDGE KWON: I see.

17 MR. NICE: And it is a transcription of both the English and of

18 the B/C/S spoken by the interviewee.

19 JUDGE KWON: I see. Thank you.

20 MR. NICE: What happens is you have the interviewer asking the

21 questions, you then have the -- as we're looking at it there on the

22 screen, you have Mr. Coo asking, "If you could describe, give us an

23 overview ..." You have the observation -- you have the interpreter

24 putting that --

25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

Page 45149

1 MR. NICE: -- then you have the reply. And if we then turn over

2 the page in the English, please, we have the answer: "Based on the

3 information that would arrive as was the case with the paper that we just

4 saw."

5 Now, if we go down the page a little bit, what he says is this --

6 that's fine, thank you very much. He's asked the question: "Based on the

7 fact that it was known --" Sorry, he makes the answer: "Based on the

8 fact that it was known that a certain family from the village killed many

9 members of the police." He then went on to say: "It was decided on a

10 joint action of the police and the army against this village so we would

11 attempt to reach the terrorists to get their equipment."

12 Q. Do you accept what is recorded in this interview, that it was a

13 joint operation, a joint action of the police and the army?

14 A. I do not accept, and I don't see any reason for Goran

15 Radosavljevic to say this. First of all, if it had been a joint operation

16 of the army and police, the police would never have had to leave Racak at

17 1500 hours after a strong counter-attack by the terrorists, if the army

18 had been helping them.

19 Around 150 policemen were involved. Around 400 terrorists mounted

20 a counter-attack, and that's why the police had to withdraw.

21 Q. Well, he deals with the reason for the army's involvement a little

22 later, but if the video booth and Mr. Nort would take us to the top

23 right-hand part of this double sheet, he's asked: "Just before we go into

24 it. Do you recall where the intelligence came from or the information

25 that you based the operation on?" And his answer is: "The Secretariats

Page 45150

1 in Urosevac."

2 Do you agree with that answer?

3 A. I have no choice but to repeat myself a hundred times. I told you

4 that my secretariat made a draft operations plan relying on prior

5 intelligence and information about the activities of the terrorist

6 organisation. The MUP staff approved this plan and the operation itself.

7 A member of the Staff was appointed to lead this action. He was also

8 appointed leader of the Operative Pursuit Group. There's nothing

9 disputable about that.

10 Q. We go to --

11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, I don't follow this interpretation. It

12 seems that Radosavljevic spoke a bit longer than "The secretariats in

13 Urosevac."

14 MR. NICE: Yes. What you get is his answer, the interpreter says:

15 "The secretariats in Urosevac"; he says, "Prizren"; the interpreter says,

16 "Prizren"; from, he says --

17 JUDGE KWON: The sentence which precedes "The secretariats in

18 Urosevac" contains something related to Pristina and Pristina?

19 MR. NICE: That's correct, absolutely right, because what's

20 happening is you're getting exactly what flows -- what comes from the

21 tape, and so that he speaks in his own language, the interpreter starts

22 the process of interpretation, he interrupts, "Prizren," and so the

23 interpreter says "Prizren." He then says "State Security," he then says

24 "and Military Intelligence Service." So that if and when it happens that

25 the interviewee speaks over --

Page 45151

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

2 MR. NICE: I'm sorry, I'm addressing the Court.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is addressing the Court, so when he has

4 finished, Mr. Milosevic, we'll hear from Mr. Milosevic.

5 MR. NICE: You're getting exactly what's coming. There's no

6 summarising, it's exactly what words come onto the tape. And in this

7 particular example it would appear to be the case that the interpreter

8 gives an answer, saying, "The secretariats in Urosevac," and Radosavljevic

9 corrects that answer. And we can see why as well, because if you look at

10 the answer given from "Iz Podrucnih..." et cetera, he makes no reference

11 there in the first part to Urosevac. He makes reference to, apparently,

12 Pristina and it's corrected to Prizren.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, you wanted to say something.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon noticed the difference, the

15 discrepancy between the lengths of answers in Serbian and in English, and

16 I think it would be a logical solution to let the witness read the

17 sentence so we can see what the matter is.

18 The sentence is: "From local secretariats, that is secretariat of

19 Pristina or, rather, not secretariat of Pristina but the secretariat in

20 Urosevac." And the interpreter only says "The secretariat in Urosevac."

21 That's what the sentence in Serbian says. And then the conversation goes

22 on, but it's just a continuation, it's not a correction of what was said

23 previously.

24 MR. NICE: It seems to me the accused is right on that, that

25 that's the answer that's given.

Page 45152


2 MR. NICE: Can we go to the next page very briefly and then, more

3 significantly, to the page after.

4 Q. The next page, bottom right-hand corner, one detail here. That's

5 fine.

6 In the interview he says, through the interpreter: "They were

7 told that there were no civilians in the village." Is it right that you

8 were told - is this your position - that there were no civilians in the

9 village or did you know there were civilians in the village? Tell us.

10 A. We knew that there was a total of about 50 civilians in the

11 village.

12 Q. Thank you. Can we go to the next page, bottom left-hand sector to

13 begin with, and we see PC, Mr. Coo, saying: "The next steps, you had the

14 meeting, you developed this plan. What would the next step be to

15 transform this plan into an order?" The question is interpreted.

16 Mr. Radosavljevic gives an answer which is to this effect: "After the

17 meeting all the participants that were in charge of their units signed the

18 plan." He then said: "Since the VJ and the MUP participated, one plan

19 went to the Joint Command."

20 So he uses the word "Joint Command." He goes on to say: "And as

21 far as I know, this plan was approved."

22 Do you agree with the two parts of that answer given by

23 Mr. Radosavljevic, first that both parts signed the plan; and second, that

24 the plan went to the Joint Command for approval?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will the Chamber give me leave to

Page 45153

1 explain where this plan was made and where it was approved and who

2 approved it in order not to be engulfed in these lies, because Goran

3 Radosavljevic is lying, and I'll explain even why he's lying. May I, Your

4 Honour?

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was on the 12th of

7 January. Prior to that, operative intelligence was sent to the MUP staff

8 in Pristina about the events taking place in Stimlje municipality on the

9 axis towards Dulje, in the Crnoljevo gorge, and on the Pristina-Urosevac

10 road.

11 On the 12th, at my briefing with my commanders, I agreed that we

12 would make a draft plan for an anti-terrorist action to be submitted to

13 the Staff in Urosevac because we knew by that time that there was a large

14 terrorist group of about 80 men headed by Afet Bilalli, nicknamed Qopa,

15 who were mounting daily attacks on the road, targeting anything that

16 moves. They were kidnapping innocent people, stopping traffic, attacking

17 police and army convoys. The last in the series of attacks was the attack

18 on Slivovo village where policeman Przic was killed. I sent this plan to

19 Pristina, to the MUP staff.

20 I asked leave from the Chamber to explain how the plan was made,

21 and the president of the Chamber allowed me to do so. May I continue?

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Come to the point, yes.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I arrived at the Staff, I

24 presented this plan in the presence of Staff Commander Lukic and head of

25 department Vlastimir Djordjevic. I told them about everything that was

Page 45154

1 going on. They had known some of this information from before. They

2 looked at the plan, and they accepted it.

3 Goran Radosavljevic, as Staff member, was appointed to lead this

4 action. The action was agreed to take police on the 13th. However, on

5 the 13th, it was not carried out because the weather did not allow it. It

6 was too cold and there were other problems as well. We postponed it until

7 the 15th.

8 On the 14th, in the evening, at the office of the head of SUP,

9 that's where I was, in addition to company commanders, the chief of the

10 police station was invited, Goran Radosavljevic as well, as well as the

11 leader of the Operative Pursuit Group and platoon commanders, and

12 Colonel --

13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear which colonel.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- who was only invited to acquaint

15 himself with the plan. There was no signing. Nobody signed.

16 Radosavljevic, the Colonel Krsman Jelic, or anybody else. The plan was

17 only approved, and the approval process is done on the map, including the

18 participation of the head of department, because all the pre-conditions

19 had been created for mounting this anti-terrorist operation and for

20 eliminating this terrorist group that had already wielded a lot of evil in

21 this area.

22 Goran Radosavljevic appointed his deputy, late Mr. Mekic, to lead

23 this group, and he appeared in this area at 3.30. He hadn't been there

24 before. He had radio communication with his subordinates before, but he

25 only showed up on the spot at 3.30.

Page 45155

1 The Operative Pursuit Group was on the positions that they had

2 occupied in the morning, and they were told to go down, although it had

3 been previously agreed for them to hold those positions until the on-site

4 investigation team arrived. As soon as they did, the terrorist attack on

5 a huge scale started. I had never seen anything like it before. They

6 were shooting from all sides, and the policemen on the on-site

7 investigation team had to pull out quickly.


9 Q. Rather move away from the issues that we were dealing with and

10 I'll come back to your description of the attack shortly, but

11 Radosavljevic was your superior, wasn't he? Goran Radosavljevic was your

12 superior?

13 A. He was not exactly my superior, but he was the superior of that

14 anti-terrorist group that mounted the operation.

15 Q. Can you give any explanation for how he, out of his own mouth,

16 refers to a body in place in January 1999 known as the Joint Command?

17 A. Goran Radosavljevic was a major on the police force at the time,

18 and he was leader of the Operative Pursuit Group. I don't know the answer

19 to your question. You would have to ask him. I really don't know.

20 MR. NICE: Next page, please, Mr. Nort.

21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Janicevic, did you say that Colonel Krsman Jelic

22 was the only person that participated at the meeting on the 14th from VJ?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The only

24 representative of the army of Yugoslavia as commander of the 243rd

25 Motorised Brigade who attended this meeting only for information purposes,

Page 45156

1 to acquaint himself with the plan of the operation to avoid friendly fire

2 during the operation.

3 JUDGE KWON: Nobody else.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nobody else. I claim that with full

5 responsibility.

6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.


8 Q. If we can go to the next page, left-hand side, middle of the page.

9 Mr. Coo asked Radosavljevic: "You recall -- I know that you don't

10 know the VJ unit name -" something he dealt with earlier - "but the type

11 of units, were the VJ providing infantry or artillery or tanks or all of

12 the above?" And he said, "I think it was a tank unit. They had other

13 armoured vehicles within it also."

14 Right about that, was he?

15 A. There was an artillery tank unit that was part of the border

16 battalion, as far as I know and as far as I understand things military.

17 Q. Can we go on one, two -- can we go on four pages, please,

18 Mr. Nort. One, two, three, four. And if I can just look at the top to

19 make sure we're at the right place. Yes.

20 Halfway down that page, on the left-hand side, Mr. Coo asked

21 Radosavljevic: "Why was it necessary --" further down. That's fine.

22 "Why was it necessary to have VJ infantry as well? Was there not

23 sufficient MUP personnel to do this?" Answer: "Yes. The police didn't

24 have enough men."

25 Is that the truth of why this joint plan went to the Joint

Page 45157

1 Command?

2 A. No, Mr. Nice. The police had 130 men involved in that

3 anti-terrorist operation, and according to plan, there was not a single

4 one more. That was enough to perform this assignment and to eliminate the

5 activity of this terrorist group, because we opted for a different system

6 of blockade and encirclement.

7 Q. Then finally, on the bottom right-hand side of this sheet, please,

8 I think you'll agree with this material: " ... General Djordjevic was

9 close to the scene, was he in a police station or a command post?" And

10 Radosavljevic said: "I later heard he was in the police station, and I

11 met him at night in the evening."

12 Next page, top left-hand corner, please, Mr. Nort.

13 "Which police station was that?"

14 "The police station in Stimlje, which was the closest police

15 station."

16 Then a couple of questions further down: "General Lukic, was he

17 in the immediate area of the operation ..." Answer: "I think he was in

18 the Staff, because I talked to him through the radio a few times."

19 Do you agree with all that about Djordjevic and Lukic?

20 A. Lukic was at the Staff and Djordjevic was at the Staff too.

21 Q. And at the police station --

22 A. But -- may I just explain, please. At 11.00, Djordjevic came to

23 the police station in Stimlje with his driver. He came to make inquiries,

24 to find out how the operation was coming along, and at 11.30 he left for

25 Pristina. Therefore, Goran Radosavljevic had not the slightest chance to

Page 45158

1 meet him at the police station in Stimlje.

2 General Djordjevic spent 30 minutes at the police station all in

3 all.

4 Q. What about contacts with --

5 A. He didn't even sit down.

6 Q. [Previous translation continues]... did you make phone calls to

7 Mr. Sainovic or did --

8 A. What contact?

9 Q. Were there phone calls made to Sainovic from your police station?

10 A. I have never spoken to Sainovic in my life.

11 Q. Were you aware of his speaking to anybody else at your police

12 station?

13 A. Nobody from the police station, no. No, not from the police

14 station.

15 Q. The position is that there had to be a joint operation and a Joint

16 Command because of the believed, and indeed accurately believed, presence

17 of KLA in villages other than at Racak. They had to be pinned down,

18 didn't they, if you were to get into Racak, to stop them coming to the

19 Defence of those in Racak?

20 A. That's not true.

21 Q. If you look at your own Defence tab 13, you had 60 in Rance, 200

22 in Petrovo, 40 in Malopoljce, a hundred in Racak, and 50 in Luzak, you

23 couldn't go into Racak without defending yourselves against what the KLA

24 from those neighbouring locations might do, could you?

25 A. Since you don't know the configuration of the terrain, you keep

Page 45159












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 45160

1 saying such things. I'm telling you that we could do that. The police

2 was there -- the police who were there from 6.30 onwards were able to

3 protect the on-site investigation team and prevent anyone else from

4 entering the village. However, due to a mistake in command, it so

5 happened that the terrorists were able to reoccupy the positions that they

6 had been driven away from before 6.00 a.m.

7 Q. Indeed, if you looked at, or if we look at Shukri Buja's

8 statement, he makes it quite clear that in the middle of the day they were

9 defeated, but by the end of the day they'd retaken positions. Do you

10 agree with that observation of him?

11 You can find that in the English version at about page 14 in a

12 paragraph beginning: "At 11.30 hours I gave the order to regain the

13 positions." And you'll find that, I think, at the foot of page 13.

14 A. I found it.

15 Q. So he describes defeat, retreat, and retaking of positions. He's

16 right about that, isn't he?

17 A. Retaking of positions. It was due to the error made by the

18 commander leading the operation.

19 Q. But as a matter of fact, in Shukri Buja's analysis of what

20 happened on the 15th, where he says that the KLA were caught by surprise,

21 a number got killed, they withdrew, they then retook positions at 11.30,

22 he's accurate in his description of what happened.

23 A. Yes. His description is correct, but look at the paragraph before

24 that. The soldiers were coming into Luzak one after the other, and the

25 stories were so confusing that some said that only three to four survived

Page 45161

1 and the rest were killed.

2 If several or maybe dozens fled from the front line and the rest

3 were killed, what would that have meant?

4 Q. Shall we go on to the next paragraph but two and then I think I'm

5 finished with Mr. Buja's statement probably. There may be a couple of

6 points, but if we look on a couple of paragraphs we see -- it will be

7 either further down the page, Mr. Nort, or the next page. Next page,

8 please.

9 And for you, Mr. Janicevic, it will be on page 14, I think, where

10 at the top or in the middle it says these two things: First it says,

11 "The deputy commander reported that the second plan of action was achieved

12 that the Luzak border was controlled. We concluded that the Serb Forces

13 were not going to fight through the night, and we decided to attack at

14 1600 hours to regain the positions and to find our missing soldiers. It

15 was not the first time that the Serbs did this. It was characteristic of

16 them not to fight throughout the night. They usually just shelled areas

17 after dark."

18 Is he right about that? Is that the way the VJ operated?

19 A. Not true. I have explained how it came about that the police left

20 Racak and that the terrorists were able to retake their positions from

21 which they had mounted that attack.

22 Q. Well, one thing is clear, that following their retreat and

23 temporary defeat, they retook possession of the territory, and they

24 remained in possession, because when we see the video the following day of

25 Ambassador Walker and General Drewienkiewicz and others observing the

Page 45162

1 bodies, we know that there were KLA soldiers present. So they regained

2 the territory, and they kept it, didn't they, for the 16th?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, I want now to go to some of the documents in the collection

5 of Racak documents. I don't know if the Chamber has brought those with

6 them, but we'll lay them on the overhead projector if not. And I want in

7 a minute to go back to that document we were looking at yesterday, but I

8 want to explore your knowledge, please, Mr. Janicevic, on the 15th.

9 You were at the police station. I accept it's only a couple

10 hundred metres away from the beginnings of Racak, although there's a hill,

11 I think, there. What was your source of information in the course of that

12 day as to what happened?

13 A. Information that I received through radio communication from the

14 participants in the action.

15 Q. Very well. And when did you return to Urosevac police station,

16 what time?

17 A. Sometime around 1900 hours. I can't remember exactly, but towards

18 evening.

19 Q. Was that after the return of the various forces from the area, the

20 police forces?

21 A. The police forces stayed in the area. Just one platoon returned,

22 and that one was attacked, by the village of Kosare, I think it was, while

23 they were returning to the police station, from a hand-held rocket

24 launcher.

25 Q. Would you like to look at this document, which I think we looked

Page 45163

1 at yesterday. This is tab 5 of the Racak documents, but it is, as an

2 exhibit, 156, tab 16; alternatively 320, tab 27.

3 Now, Mr. Janicevic, this is a document of yours, isn't it?

4 A. I said yesterday that that was so.

5 Q. Sent at 1932 hours in the evening.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Why didn't you produce this document to us as one of your

8 documents? Because you didn't.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his answer.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please repeat the answer, Mr. Janicevic.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I didn't have it. I wasn't

12 in possession of it, Your Honour, this document, and so I -- and I

13 couldn't find it in the archives of the Urosevac SUP either.

14 MR. NICE:

15 Q. You looked for it, did you?

16 A. Well, I didn't ask for this document specifically. I asked for

17 all the documents that would be relevant to these proceedings, but this

18 document wasn't there.

19 Q. This one simply wasn't there, was it? It's a document of the kind

20 that had to be retained, didn't it? Because it was indeed produced, I

21 think, to the Prosecution in various ways.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So it was just a mistake, then, in your records; is that right?

24 A. Yes, Mr. Nice. Had we stayed at the positions we were until 1999,

25 all the documents would be here. All the documents would be in their

Page 45164

1 proper place. But unfortunately, we weren't able to stay on there and so

2 most of the documents were lost without any trace. And what you managed

3 to find in the ministry, the headquarters of the ministry, or the centre,

4 communications centre, that's it, and perhaps some other document which

5 the members of the police had taken with their personal archives and the

6 cases that they were involved in and that they were issued and needed to

7 return.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be given a copy of that

11 document to have a look at it, please?

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Did you have it?

13 JUDGE KWON: It was given yesterday.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I don't have it.

15 MR. NICE: Well, I can't keep producing it every day, the same

16 thing.

17 JUDGE KWON: It was produced long ago in the Racak binder.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It was produced in the Racak binder.

19 MR. NICE: I don't think I have a spare hard copy for him today.

20 He'll have to watch it on the overhead projector.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Kwon will make his available to you,

22 Mr. Milosevic.

23 MR. NICE: And I did invite the parties, including the accused, to

24 bring their Racak papers.

25 Q. You see, this was sent to Belgrade, wasn't it. Crime

Page 45165

1 investigation administration, police administration, operations centre

2 Belgrade. This would be a document kept in multiple copies, wouldn't it?

3 A. Of course there ought to be multiple copies. Under normal

4 conditions, of course.

5 Q. If we look at what's said on it as a document coming from you --

6 let's see what is said. On the first page, reference to 0300 hours. The

7 next paragraph, that the battle with terrorists lasting until 1530 hours.

8 The terrorist group was liquidated with maximum effort. Reference to the

9 encircling operation and an injured policeman, Trajkovic. Then the

10 reference to the horseshoe ambush that we covered yesterday.

11 We'll just look at the second half of that, so I'll read the

12 paragraph: "The horseshoe ambush was applied in the blockade and it was

13 laid between the villages of Luznica and Rance, behind terrorist trenches

14 and connecting trenches. During action by the unit and attempts to arrest

15 members of the terrorist gang, police fell into the ambush. They opened

16 fire at the same time and after some hours of fighting they were

17 liquidated. Even though they'd been called on to surrender, none of the

18 terrorists wanted to do so."

19 Can you just explain the meaning of that paragraph and the basis

20 of your information on which it was based.

21 A. Well, the dispatch explains it. There's just an error in the fact

22 that it's not Luznica but Luzak and Rance.

23 Q. Yes. So that takes us to a slightly different part of -- or a

24 significantly different part of the territory, but what you're describing

25 is -- we can't see it on this map, we can only see it on the bigger map --

Page 45166

1 efforts to arrest the terrorist gang, but even though called on, they

2 didn't want to surrender. What does that mean?

3 A. It means that they took up arms and opened fire at the police.

4 Q. So in the trenches.

5 A. On the trenches and from the houses and from the yards, from the

6 street.

7 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that? Where's the reference,

8 please, to houses, yards, and streets in this report of yours made the

9 same day on the basis of information coming to you?

10 A. This is a preliminary report. You see it says here that about 60

11 members were liquidated. It's still not a report after an on-site

12 investigation having been conducted.

13 Q. Are we going to find a report of yours that says something about

14 the locations of the places where people died, or will it always read as

15 though they died in the trenches, Mr. Janicevic?

16 A. How do you mean "always read that they died in the trenches"?

17 Q. Did you ever set out an account based on information suggesting

18 that these people who were found had died in streets and in yards and in

19 houses? Did you ever?

20 A. I'm not a man of letters, an author to write stories. I wrote

21 reports on the basis -- or, rather, to my superior command about what I

22 received from the people who took part in the action.

23 Q. All right. So let's go to the next paragraph of this document

24 that you didn't bring with you, which starts off with: "About 60 members

25 of the Albanian terrorist gangs were liquidated."

Page 45167

1 Well, 60 is a bit much because -- no, it's not, actually, if you

2 add the KLA nine plus the 40-odd of the people who were found, it's

3 getting up towards 60. How did you get the figure of 60 on the very day,

4 the 15th of January, when you hadn't seen the bodies yourself, please?

5 A. On the basis of the report that my subordinates provided. On the

6 basis of assumptions of the anti-terrorist actions that had been

7 completed. And if you read what it says at the end here, you'll see.

8 These are not the exact data, not the right facts, that an investigation

9 would take place and that after an on-site investigation has taken place

10 the number of killed members of terrorist bands would be ascertained.

11 Q. You see, it is quite close, isn't it? It's quite close, 60 to

12 about 50, the mid-50s, of people who died in Racak in the course of that

13 day's operation.

14 Tell us, did individual soldiers from whom we haven't heard

15 report, "I think killed two people here"? "I think I killed one person

16 there"? Is that what happened?

17 A. No, that's not how it happened.

18 Q. Well, then, how were you able to put "about 60"?

19 A. The leaders of the organisations of units who worked there, the

20 platoon commanders and the company commander, they wrote a report, and on

21 the basis of their assessments, they estimated that about 60 Siptar

22 terrorists were killed in that operation. That is their assessment.

23 Q. Did you have these reports before you by 1932 hours when you

24 dictated or typed this document?

25 A. They conveyed it to me orally, and after that, the next day, I

Page 45168

1 received a written report as well.

2 Q. So somewhere, although it may not have been found, there's a

3 written report setting out about in total -- or giving an account that

4 totals about 60 dead people; correct?

5 A. In those reports it says that these people were killed in combat

6 and in the fighting with members of the police, and I'm sure there are

7 reports of that kind in the ministry. When they gave you this, they

8 should have given you that, too, which would be the foundations for this.

9 Q. You can be sure, Mr. Janicevic, that we have asked every person we

10 can for documents, and we have found no document thus far that gives an

11 account of people dying and where they died.

12 Shall we read on, because this is your document contemporaneous.

13 You deal with Marinkovic, and then you say this: "No civilians were hurt

14 during the execution of the operation." How do you know that?

15 A. On the basis of the report, Mr. Nice. I asked whether there were

16 any civilians who had been killed or injured, and they told me there were

17 no casualties, and that was contained in the written report.

18 Q. You then saw three Brownings, two carbines, and 36 automatic

19 rifles were found. That's the only reference to the weapons that were

20 found at that stage, yes?

21 A. In the stage when the anti-terrorist operation had been completed,

22 is that what you mean? At the end of the operation?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. Well, that's the only place in this particular dispatch, yes.

25 Q. And the truth is that those weapons, those 36 automatic rifles,

Page 45169

1 were either found in their base or they were found in trenches, but they

2 weren't found anywhere else, were they? That's where they were found,

3 those 36 weapons?

4 A. According to the reports which I received, all the weapons were

5 found -- or, rather, only one rifle which was handmade was found in the

6 command at headquarters. Everything else was found on the spot around the

7 people who had lost their lives in the fighting.

8 Q. [Previous translation continues]... people who had lost their

9 lives. Well, tell us a bit more about that, because this is, you see, the

10 very first time that this Court has ever heard about this. So you tell us

11 about it. You tell us what your source of information is, and where it's

12 recorded, and so on.

13 A. The source of my information, and I'm repeating this for the

14 hundredth time, were the reports from the leaders or commanders of the

15 platoons and companies and the pursuit group at that time. Those people

16 who were in the field, on the ground, they are the ones who submitted

17 reports and told me what had happened on site.

18 Q. Very well. And an exact count of 1.802 rounds had already been

19 made, had it?

20 A. Pieces of ammunition, pieces.

21 Q. Now let's move on --

22 A. Rounds.

23 Q. [Previous translation continues]... -- may, to tab 6, please, in

24 the same document.

25 This is a document that's only available in English. It's report

Page 45170

1 from one of the OSCE monitors. It starts off on the 15th of January,

2 saying that they heard of the engagement west of Stimlje, that this group

3 arrived when most of the firing had stopped, at 1730 hours, that they

4 assisted in the movement of casualties, four adults and one child. They

5 had a direct given for a meeting the following morning. Then on the

6 following morning, on the 16th of January when there had been a briefing,

7 they went off and had a meeting with the MUP chief in Urosevac. That

8 would be you, would it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. At this stage, the OSCE, and we can see this from the foot of this

11 page, were aware of numbers of people being killed, apparently at close

12 range, and at that stage it was thought a group of ten who appeared to

13 have been mowed down. There was also a 12-year-old boy and some other

14 males.

15 So that was the state of knowledge of the OSCE when they came to

16 meet you. And the next thing that I want you to look at, please, is tab

17 7A, which is your own document. This is at tab 64.8.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Is tab 6 an exhibit?

19 MR. NICE: Yes, tab 6 is an exhibit. 180.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: And it refers to a report of the meeting with the

21 MUP chief in Urosevac being attached. Is that the document, the second

22 page of the document?

23 MR. NICE: No, I don't think it is, and I think we'll have to find

24 that a little later for you. It comes about tab 9, I think.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: That's okay. Thank you.

Page 45171

1 MR. NICE: Tab 9.

2 Q. But I want, first of all, to look at this document, which you have

3 produced yourself as tab 64.8, and this is dated the 16th of January of

4 1999. We can see that, if we look at the last paragraph, it must be a

5 late document because it purports to cover the whole period of that day,

6 although at the first paragraph -- no, maybe it covers the period until

7 1700 hours. When did you write this document?

8 A. Well, I can't remember exactly when I wrote the document. I wrote

9 documents of this kind all the time. Probably after the conversation.

10 Q. In which case then it may help the Chamber if we instead move to

11 tab 9 first. No, in fact I'm going to change that so the Chamber has

12 things in order. If we go to tab 8 first. This is not a document you can

13 help us with very much, but I'll just draw it to everyone's attention.

14 This is -- picks up the accounting process when the OSCE went and spoke to

15 Petrovic, the liaison officer for the VJ.

16 Now, you weren't there at this meeting, which was at 10.37 in the

17 morning.

18 A. Petrovic, no.

19 Q. I'm trying to give a sequence to events. The OSCE went to

20 Petrovic. This was Maisonneuve and others. That's the right -- we can

21 see Maisonneuve at the top and Petrovic and Gilbertson and others, the

22 interpreter.

23 And then did you know this: That they raised with Petrovic -- in

24 the middle of the page but further down, Mr. Nort, please.

25 Maisonneuve suggested to Petrovic: "Who coordinated tank fire on

Page 45172

1 the civilian houses when no persons were firing back, when there was smoke

2 from chimneys, with families in basements?" He said, "Professional armies

3 don't do these things but we may expect it from the MUP." He went on to

4 say that: "The execution of 50 people is of War Crimes Tribunal stuff."

5 Petrovic had nothing to say to that and indeed went on to say what

6 they were doing was normal tasks and exercises.

7 Now, did you know -- did Petrovic get in touch with you, as his

8 opposite number, to tell him what the OSCE were inquiring into?

9 A. As for the name of Petrovic, I hear that name for the first time.

10 I knew quite a number of army officers, but this man Petrovic, perhaps if

11 I were to see him I might recognise him, but just going by the name, no

12 man by the name of Petrovic contacted me at all or asked me about the --

13 my contacts with the verifiers, with the OSCE.

14 Q. You can see as well on this page he also, however, said that

15 Stimlje was done by the MUP with a Praga, AVs, and one tank. Can you

16 explain how your military counterpart, as he was, liaison officer

17 counterpart in any event, would be suggesting that the -- a tank and

18 Pragas were involved in the overall Stimlje attack?

19 A. There was no attack on Stimlje. I beg to differ.

20 MR. NICE: Well, that exhibit, Your Honours, was -- or is 177.

21 If we can go to tab 9, which is Exhibit 179, this --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it's time for the break.

23 We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

24 --- Recess taken at 12:19 p.m.

25 --- Upon resuming at 12:44 p.m.

Page 45173

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

2 MR. NICE: Tab 9 of the Jasovic -- of the Racak papers is Exhibit

3 number 179. It's on the overhead projector. It's in English. And it

4 records the second meeting that they had with the OSCE - Maisonneuve,

5 Gilbertson, and others - with you, at 11.14 on the morning of the 16th,

6 asking what happened in Racak. You maintained that you were in charge of

7 four communities, including Stimlje, and you spoke of terrorist attacks,

8 the police blocking the roads to Racak, and of meeting strong resistance

9 to entrance at Racak. Do you remember saying those things? Not remember,

10 do you accept that you would have said those things?

11 A. What I remember saying, that there was an attack at the entrance

12 to Racak? Is that what you're asking?

13 Q. Do you accept that you would have told the OSCE that police

14 blocked the roads to Racak but met strong resistance at the entrance to

15 Racak?

16 A. I told the OSCE that the police this blocked Racak from the

17 Stimlje access, not only the road, and that it came upon strong resistance

18 on the 15th at the very entrance to Racak at 0700 hours.

19 Q. But then you went on to explain about the terrorists who had been

20 killed. Do you remember the last document we looked at? You gave a

21 global figure of 60, which is roughly right for the total number of people

22 killed.

23 You may not read English, but you can see what's been recorded by

24 the OSCE. You said 15 terrorists were killed. Why did you say that?

25 A. I said that in the clash with the police, at least 15 terrorists

Page 45174

1 were killed, because those are the figures that -- that was the figure

2 that we had. That was the established figure.

3 Q. What do you mean established --

4 A. I didn't want to misinform, because --

5 Q. What you do you mean "established"? Because you'd sent a telegram

6 the previous day, and you told us about your sources of information, where

7 you said about 60 members of the Albanian terrorist groups were liquidated

8 and no civilians were injured. Why have you suddenly reduced the total

9 number of people killed to approximately the correct number of terrorists,

10 as you would describe the KLA? Why have you reduced it?

11 A. The first official information that went to the Staff and was

12 published by the Staff was that at least 15 terrorists had been killed.

13 Until an on-site investigation is carried out --

14 Q. Where did you find that?

15 A. In the dispatches of the Urosevac SUP sent out to the Staff.

16 Where you found the other dispatch that you read from a moment ago, that's

17 where you'll find the other one as well.

18 Q. No. The one -- we're dealing with things in date order. Do you

19 remember I said to you yesterday it's important isn't it, you know this as

20 a policeman, to look at documents contemporaneous to events. On the 15th

21 of January, you sent a message, a carefully crafted message, to Belgrade,

22 saying 60 members of Albanian terrorist gangs were liquidated. No ifs or

23 buts about it. Now, when the community, the international community

24 appears, you spoke only of about 15, which is about right, because as well

25 as the ones who died in Racak, there were others who were killed in the

Page 45175












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 45176

1 location. We can find reference to that. Why are you suddenly changing

2 your position, please?

3 A. I'm not changing my position. What I told you was this, and I

4 state again, that the first piece of information that went to the Ministry

5 of the Interior and the MUP staff was -- referred to at least 15

6 terrorists. Now, until the end of the investigation, nobody --

7 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

8 A. -- had the right -- please may I be allowed to finish?

9 Q. You may, but I want you to --

10 A. Well, I can't show you that, but you have all the mechanisms to

11 access that material. So when you received the dispatch, you could have

12 received the other one. It's a short one, just five or six lines.

13 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

14 A. So you could have taken that as well, and it was dated the 15th.

15 Q. Is this something you've remembered all morning while I've been

16 asking you methodically, almost slowly times, to go through the history,

17 is it something you've always remembered that you sent a first record of

18 15 going? Is that right? And that somehow that record's been mislaid or

19 lost or gone up in flames?

20 A. Please, at the moment you asked me about Vlastimir Djordjevic,

21 whether he came or not, I said then, too, that Vlastimir Djordjevic

22 received information in the police station of Stimlje whereby, according

23 to knowledge gained so far, at least 15 terrorists had been killed,

24 according to what we knew up until that time.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

Page 45177

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice is giving the witness the

3 impression that he's quoting from the document, and the witness cannot

4 read English. And he said a few moments ago that it was 15, whereas what

5 it says in the text is, "Suspect 15 terrorists killed."

6 MR. NICE: That is exactly what it says.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we note that, Mr. Milosevic.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the witness doesn't know.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, he knows now.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think he still knows,

11 because it hasn't been interpreted for him. I am on the Serbian channel,

12 but I haven't heard the interpretation.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, would you just read that portion so

14 that it may be interpreted.

15 MR. NICE:

16 Q. Mr. Janicevic, the OSCE monitors, seeing you at 1114 hours on the

17 16th of January, 1999, recorded your explanation as the following, and I

18 quote: "Suspect 15 terrorists killed." And to set it in context, you're

19 recorded then as saying: "Tried to find them, no one in village, went to

20 forest and bunkers little bit up from village."

21 Now, back to where we were. Tell us, please, what was the

22 document --

23 A. Please. Could you repeat this last bit? Who was it that went to

24 the forest and who was it that they couldn't find?

25 Q. These are your words recorded by OSCE in obviously abbreviated

Page 45178

1 form. I will repeat them. "Suspect 15 terrorists killed. Tried to find

2 them, no one in village, went to forest and bunkers little bit up from

3 village."

4 That's what you're recorded as saying.

5 A. I don't know. This is sheer confusion.

6 Q. Oh, is it?

7 A. That's not what I said. This is not what I talked about when I

8 talked to the representatives of the OSCE. I told you what I told them.

9 If they shortened things in order to save paper or time or whatever, I

10 told you what I said to them. I said that at least 15 terrorists were

11 killed in the fighting. That is an official figure until the on-site

12 investigation was carried out, and that is what I pointed out to them.

13 Until the on-site investigation was carried out, we could not give the

14 exact information as to how many casualties there were. Mr. Gilbertson at

15 one point got up and said, "Sir, we're already carrying out an on-site

16 investigation." And I said, "Mr. Gilbertson, in what capacity are you

17 carrying out an on-site investigation? Are you an investigating judge,

18 are you a policeman, are you the district public prosecutor? In what

19 capacity are you carrying out an on-site investigation? And he said to

20 me, please, it's been 27 years now that I've been a policeman and I know

21 how this is done. I'm not challenging that, but in my country, and it's

22 still my country, on-site investigations should be carried out in

23 accordance with the laws of my country. That's what I said to them and I

24 have no reason to lie. I have no reason to lie or not to say the truth,

25 to tell the truth.

Page 45179

1 Q. One possibility might be that the observers revealed that they now

2 knew the truth, and you knew you were caught. It might be that they

3 revealed to you what they'd seen or what they'd heard about the total

4 number of people killed, and you knew at that stage you were only ever

5 going to be able to identify about 15 who were terrorists. Is that what

6 happened?

7 A. That's not true. That is not true.

8 Q. Isn't it?

9 A. That's not true that that's what I thought. You don't know what I

10 was thinking, Mr. Nice.

11 Q. Well, tell me. You seem to have a good recollection of what

12 Mr. Gilbertson said.

13 A. Please. I thought what I said. I said that at least 15

14 terrorists, to the best of our knowledge, got killed in the clash with the

15 police. Further on, I said that they would get official information at

16 the moment when the on-site investigation finishes, because that was the

17 plan, that on that day the on-site investigation team should go out to the

18 actual site. And he answered to me that they were already carrying out an

19 on-site investigation. Since they were carrying out the on-site

20 investigation, they know best what was going on.

21 But again, I claim, had there been any intention -- let me just

22 finish. Please let me finish. Had there been any intention along the

23 lines of what you've been saying about what you're trying to prove, do you

24 think we would have informed the verifiers to be there at 7.00 in the

25 morning to observe the entire course of the anti-terrorist operation?

Page 45180

1 Would we have informed the media?

2 Q. You're moving off the topic.

3 A. That's the point.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: How was the conversation between the verifier and

5 yourself recorded?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The verifiers were probably taking

7 notes of their own. I kept notes of my own. I reported to my superiors

8 and they probably reported to their superiors, through an interpreter.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you see them taking notes at the time when

10 you spoke, so that when you said at least 15 were killed, did you see them

11 write that down?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see that. I didn't see

13 whether they wrote it down or not, but I assume they did.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: So that's what you said, at least 15 were killed,

15 and they apparently wrote down, "Suspect 15 killed."

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see whether they wrote it

17 down.

18 MR. NICE: May I --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I, as head of the secretariat, did

21 not have the right to provide information without an investigating judge,

22 because the investigation had already started. The investigation had

23 already started, and the investigating judge is the only person who can

24 provide information to the public and to the Verification Mission as well.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

Page 45181

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that day that person was in

2 Stimlje.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we appear to be fighting shadows again

4 because there doesn't seem to be a dispute that at this stage the figure

5 was 15. What's concerning me more is if we went back to tab 5 --

6 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I -- if you're looking at tab --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and the bottom paragraph on the first page --

8 MR. NICE: Yes, certainly.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: -- where there's a link made between 60 and the

10 presence of the investigative judge. I don't know if you want to explore

11 that at all.

12 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I may do. In fact, in my sequence of

13 questions it wasn't one I thought of but I may come back to it, and I'm

14 grateful for that.

15 JUDGE KWON: If I can understand the point of questioning here.

16 So it is your point that when he said, "Suspect 15 terrorists had been

17 killed," this is true?

18 MR. NICE: Yes.

19 JUDGE KWON: So it is that he lied to the Belgrade when he

20 reported in a dispatch when he said 60 terrorists were killed.

21 MR. NICE: 60 is the total number of people killed.

22 JUDGE KWON: Total.

23 MR. NICE: 45 plus 9 is about 60.

24 JUDGE KWON: But he says here Albanian terrorists. I see the

25 point.

Page 45182

1 MR. NICE: Yes. And if the Court will allow me, there's a

2 sequence of questions and you're going to see how things develop.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice.

4 MR. NICE: If the Court will allow me, we'll see how things

5 develop.

6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I'll leave it to you.

7 MR. KAY: If I can deal with one matter, because page 2 of this

8 document the witness is asked to confirm a precise figure right in the

9 middle - I don't want to be accused of leading or anything like that - and

10 the Trial Chamber will see the response.

11 MR. NICE: Only too happy to take the witness to it, and indeed I

12 probably will in any event.

13 MR. KAY: Well, I hope so, because it says, "Can't say precisely."

14 JUDGE KWON: Page 2 of tab 9.

15 MR. KAY: Yes. Page 2 of the document. I'm doing it off the

16 original exhibit.

17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we've found it.

18 MR. KAY: Yes.

19 MR. NICE:

20 Q. Now, if I can go back to where I was. Mr. Janicevic, I want you

21 to -- not to divert from the question. Focus on it, and then we'll move

22 on.

23 You must understand that there is an inconsistency between writing

24 on the 15th of January in the document to which His Honour Judge Bonomy

25 has just drawn your attention that 60 members of an Albanian terrorist

Page 45183

1 gang were liquidated, and indeed that the investigative judge came onto

2 the scene but couldn't investigate matters further, and your then writing

3 -- not writing, your then being recorded the following day as saying

4 "Suspect 15 terrorists killed," or as Mr. Kay helpfully reminds us, can't

5 say precisely it was 15 but something about that.

6 Now, can you explain, for example - and I'll give you a few

7 possibilities - why didn't -- could -- is there a document that you sent

8 to someone that says, "Well, we've heard it's 60 but we only know about

9 15"?

10 A. Please, I don't know whether the interpreters are not capable of

11 translating what I've been saying. I am speaking very clearly in my

12 mother tongue. I said that in the clash with the police, according to our

13 knowledge, at least 15 terrorists were killed. I did not say that that is

14 what was suspected, that they were killed or wounded, but that that is

15 what is believed. That is the information we had when we had these talks

16 on the 15th of January.

17 On the 15th of January, the on-site investigation started at 1530

18 hours. Danica Marinkovic, investigating judge, and the deputy district

19 public prosecutor were at the investigation. At that moment, the

20 Secretariat of the Interior no longer -- is no longer in charge. We stop

21 giving any information about the site itself and what is going on there.

22 The dispatch that was sent to the MUP is by way of information,

23 and it can be corrected during the course of the investigation or the end

24 of the investigation.

25 Well, what I can tell you is that even now we don't know how many

Page 45184

1 got killed there. Although Mr. Nice is trying to prove that there was 45,

2 I'm saying even now that I don't know how many. First of all, we did not

3 carry out the on-site investigation. Officially we never fully completed

4 the on-site investigation.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you tell me how the figure changed from 60 to

6 15?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no change. The dispatch

8 that was sent to the Ministry of the Interior at 1900 hours on Friday the

9 15th is on the basis of free estimates of members of the police who were

10 engaged in the anti-terrorist operation. These are their reports. That

11 was their assumption. One platoon said, for example, ten. Another one

12 said 20. Another one said 30. So the figure adds up to about 50 or 60.

13 That's just an assumption. That is an assumption that was not confirmed

14 and that can either be confirmed or refuted ultimately at the end of the

15 on-site investigation, because the investigation is the one that resolves

16 the entire problem. However, we could not complete it on the 15th or on

17 the 16th or on the 17th.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: So how did it -- by 11.00 the following morning,

19 how had it changed to 15 - simple question - without the investigation

20 having proceeded any further?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, the answer is

22 very simple too. The answer is simple too. On the 15th of January, the

23 official information that was bandied about was at least 15 terrorists.

24 That is the official information. What was sent to the ministry was

25 unconfirmed, unofficial, and that can only be confirmed by the end of the

Page 45185

1 investigation, whether it was 40, 45, 49, or 60. Really, I still do not

2 know the actual number of fatalities because we have not completed the

3 investigation. Not because we didn't want to but because we couldn't.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Why -- I mean, others may be satisfied with this.

5 I'm bamboozled by it. How do you manage to write to your official body,

6 one step up from you, the Staff, and tell them 60? Why do that when the

7 best you can actually say is there's at least 15? I mean, there's a huge

8 discrepancy between these figures.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the dispatch of --

10 containing the words "about 15" went to the MUP about 1400 hours, stating

11 that at least 15 terrorists were killed in the fighting with the police.

12 This dispatch --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, I haven't seen that document, have I?

14 MR. NICE: No, we haven't seen it. It's not available.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: So it went from at least 15, up to 60, and then

16 back down to at least 15; is that what you're saying?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Please clarify it.

19 MR. NICE: Let me put the position to you and then --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, the translation was

21 wrong and that's why the witness reacted, that that was not mentioned.

22 Because Mr. Bonomy said, as far as I can see in the transcript, 15 and

23 then 60, and then down to at least 15, and the Serbian interpretation said

24 50, 5-0. So the Serbian interpretation was wrong. Instead of saying 15,

25 as Mr. Bonomy said, the Serbian interpretation was 50. That is why the

Page 45186

1 witness is reacting, that that figure was never mentioned.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.


4 Q. You see, what happened, Mr. Janicevic, was this: When the OSCE

5 came in on this morning, you realised that you'd been caught because they

6 suggested to you a high number, and you knew, and you gave the game away

7 that you could only ever prove that 15 of the people who died were

8 terrorists, and without being able to set a better plan, you just told the

9 truth. That's what happened, isn't it? They suspected a high number, and

10 you knew you could never prove that high number were terrorists.

11 A. That's not correct, Mr. Nice.

12 Q. Did the OSCE come in and suggest a higher number?

13 A. That's not correct, Mr. Nice.

14 Q. You're sure about that, are you? Are you sure about that? Are

15 you?

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat what he said.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Janicevic, please repeat what you just said.

18 The interpreters didn't get it.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The OSCE suggested that the number

20 was larger than the number they heard from me, that's correct. But what I

21 said to them was that we have unverified information, but until the

22 investigation is completed, we will not be able to give them anything

23 officially because we don't know the actual number of fatalities.

24 MR. NICE:

25 Q. Well, let's go and have a look at the document that will help us a

Page 45187

1 little bit on this. It's one of your own documents, and I think you've

2 just remembered what you wrote. It's tab 64.8. And you can have the

3 original. We'll have to come back to the tab we're looking at, otherwise

4 we'll get bogged down forever, but I do need to go back to it. Let's just

5 look at what you actually said yourself by way of a record of this

6 meeting. On the 16th of January, the day after your previous document,

7 you wrote to Belgrade -- well, the MUP staff in Pristina you wrote, and

8 towards the bottom of the page - bit further down, please. B/C/S coming

9 your way, I hope. Thank you very much. "On the 16th of January, 1999 --"

10 perhaps you could make sure the witness has the B/C/S version. He will

11 want to check the figures. From 11.00 to 12.00 a meeting was held with

12 Dilbedson, Maisonneuve, and the chief of the Urosevac SUP.

13 It goes on: "They asked questions concerning the police operation

14 in Racak, which had been carried out in order to catch a terrorist group

15 which had been stationed in that village and for which there had been

16 information and intelligence to the effect that it had carried out eight

17 terrorist acts in the Urosevac SUP ..." And it goes on a bit. Go over to

18 the next paragraph.

19 "When Vel --" that's Vel Dilbedson -- "asked what kind of police

20 operation it was, he was told it was a classic police operation, which had

21 been held in order to catch a terrorist group and put an end to its

22 further activity in the area. He was told that Racak village had been

23 blocked from the direction of Stimlje and the Stimlje-Racak road ..."

24 It goes on a bit, further down that paragraph, and if I miss

25 anything anybody wants me to read, they'll shout. "Having searched the

Page 45188

1 village, despite fierce resistance from the terrorists, who dug in, the

2 police took control of their positions and liquidated a number of

3 terrorists, while some terrorists withdrew in the direction of Krsine

4 hill. Several policemen neutralised the fire from the Browning and the

5 machine-gun was taken to the centre of Racak to an on-site

6 investigation ..."

7 Next paragraph: "They were also told --" So you're simply, in

8 this document, you're setting out what you said to the OSCE, not

9 necessarily what was true. You said: "They were told that the police had

10 not chased any terrorists beyond the trenches and connecting trenches,

11 towards the woods, except for a group of policemen who had been sent to

12 neutralise the Browning and who had carried out the assignment and

13 returned to the centre of the village."

14 Next paragraph: "Vel was interested solely in 'who planned the

15 police operation, what weapons ... police members from other areas ...'"

16 and so on.

17 Next paragraph: "When he said that more than 50 civilians had

18 been killed in the Racak village area, he was told that, according to our

19 information, at least 15 terrorists had been killed and no civilians at

20 all, and that the policemen had not been able to continue searching the

21 terrain for security reasons and so we did not know whether more

22 terrorists had been killed."

23 Now, then, would you like to explain to us how 15 went down --

24 sorry. How 60 went down to 15, even qualified in the way you've got it

25 here? How did you identify the 15 as terrorists?

Page 45189

1 A. I'm going to repeat this to you once again, but please listen so

2 that you'd be able to understand.

3 On the 15th of January, a dispatch was sent to the Ministry of the

4 Interior and to the Staff, informing them around 1400 hours that the

5 operation was still underway and that, according to preliminary

6 information, in the fighting at least 15 terrorists were killed. The

7 investigation started at 1530 hours. The investigation team went to the

8 site. At that moment, no one, according to the law, had the right --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Bonomy would like to ask a question.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: I want to interrupt at that point because that's

11 the very point that Mr. Milosevic corrected the translation of from 15 to

12 50 a short while ago, and now the witness is again, according to the

13 interpretation I'm getting, saying 15 at 1400 on the 15th. So we're

14 become -- it is in fact from 15 up to 60 and back down to 15.

15 Please carry on. The point would have passed if it hadn't been

16 made just now.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are talking about

18 two different days, the 15th and the 16th of January. On the 15th of

19 January, one dispatch was sent to the Ministry in which it was stated that

20 in that area, in fighting with the police, at least 15 terrorists were

21 killed.

22 On the 16th, a group of verifiers came to the SUP with a view to

23 receiving information as to what was going on there or what had happened

24 there, although they knew better than we did what was going on on the

25 ground. They asked me, and I told them what I knew and what I had to tell

Page 45190

1 them. I had to tell them, because the investigation had already started.

2 Until the investigation was completed, I as an authorised official did not

3 have the right to give any further information except for what was said to

4 the public by the investigating judge. Had the investigation been

5 completed, the investigating judge would have given the exact number of

6 terrorist casualties and everything that happened on the ground, but I

7 cannot give a different explanation.

8 The fact that the dispatch went on the 15th, on the evening of the

9 15th, I said that this was a dispatch that was still not accurate. This

10 was information that was gathered from the field and that was being

11 checked out. This is information that arrived after the anti-terrorist

12 operation in Racak was completed, and that is checked only through an

13 investigation and at the end of the investigation. This dispatch is of an

14 internal nature in order to inform the MUP staff only, and the ministry.

15 MR. NICE: Your Honours, in the absence of any document supporting

16 the suggestion that only 15 were identified at any time between the 15th

17 and 16th, whether coming from this witness, coming Danica Marinkovic, or

18 anyone else --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, that's not what I said.

20 I did not say that they had been identified.

21 MR. NICE: I was addressing the Court.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.

23 MR. NICE: In the absence of any document supporting the

24 suggestion, I can probably take this line of questioning no further in

25 light of answers I'm getting.

Page 45191












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 45192

1 Q. But what I would be grateful for you now to look at, please,

2 Mr. Janicevic, is the same document you're looking at, and a couple of

3 paragraphs before the paragraph that deals with 50 and 15, where you say

4 this: "They were also told --" Up, please, Mr. Nort. "They were also

5 told that the police had not chased the terrorists beyond the trenches and

6 connecting trenches, towards the woods, except for a group of policemen

7 who had been sent to neutralise the Browning and who had carried out the

8 assignment and returned to the centre of the village. As they were

9 returning to the village, they had been under fierce fire and so the

10 investigation team could not continue the on-site investigation ..."

11 So that from your note of what you told -- no, let's go back to

12 the previous paragraph as well. It's the end of the previous paragraph,

13 please, Mr. Nort, a bit further up. The other way. Up. Down, then.

14 You're quite right. Perfect.

15 The -- you relay what you told the OSCE in these terms: You

16 describe the, as you say, attack, and you deal with the distance of 500

17 metres from the trenches a heavy machine-gun. "Having searched the

18 village, despite fierce resistance from the terrorists who had dug in, the

19 police took control of their positions and liquidated a number of

20 terrorists, while some terrorists withdrew in the direction of Krsine

21 hill."

22 So if you put that passage and the following paragraph together,

23 there is no evidence of people being killed in the streets or in houses,

24 and it appears that everyone who has died, apart from any who were killed

25 at the machine-gun point, has died in a trench. Do you accept that?

Page 45193

1 A. Well, I do not accept that, but I do accept that they got killed

2 near the trenches, most probably; either in the trenches or near the

3 trenches.

4 Q. Very well. And indeed it's from the trench or from the base that

5 all the weapons were seized.

6 A. According to the reports I received, right next to the terrorists

7 who were killed.

8 Q. In the trenches. And if we go back to tab --

9 A. And next to the trenches.

10 Q. Let's now go back, if we can, to what was tab 9, just to see how

11 the OSCE recorded the same thing.

12 You see, the OSCE recorded this in a broadly similar way. Said:

13 "15 terrorists killed. Tried to find them, no one in village, went to

14 forest and bunkers little bit up from village. Believe their central HQ

15 in Juznice where a large group opened fire with a 12.7 millimetre gun.

16 KLA used snipers, Chinese MGs, fired mines towards police and Chinese

17 81-millimetre mortar." Then this: "Over the hill ..."

18 Then this: "Police searched until ... bunkers, stopped because of

19 fire, and after forcing personnel out of bunkers who ran over hill,

20 finding weapons ..."

21 All right. Same again. Killed in the bunkers, weapons in the

22 bunker. Do you accept that's what you told the OSCE?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you now look, please, at this document, which is -- in the

25 collection of papers known as the Racak papers it's tab 33, but it's

Page 45194

1 Exhibit D299 tab 397, introduced through Stevanovic, and I think not

2 otherwise available to us until then.

3 This is a document that you spoke of, and perhaps you'd just

4 remind us what it is. That's the -- can he have the B/C/S original,

5 please.

6 It's a chronology of events in the village of Racak. I want you

7 to look at it and confirm that you know what it is.

8 THE INTERPRETER: It is very difficult for the interpreters to

9 follow with all the shuffling.

10 MR. NICE: Very sorry.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Judges were asked to ensure that their mikes

12 are off when they are not speaking, and the other parties should do the

13 same.

14 MR. NICE:

15 Q. Just remind us, please, what this document is. It doesn't have a

16 date on it. It was produced by the witness Stevanovic, Obrad. Would you

17 tell us what it is, please.

18 A. This is the chronology of events in the village of Racak, a

19 document that I drew up after the event upon the request of the district

20 public attorney and the Ministry of the Interior. The last page bearing

21 the signature is missing. 19th January.

22 Q. So by the 19th of January, then, you had a pretty good idea, from

23 reports coming to you, of what had happened, didn't you?

24 A. Those reports were reflected in this document, chronology.

25 Q. All right. And I only want you to look at one place. I'll just

Page 45195

1 find it for you. In the English version it's on page 3, and for you,

2 Mr. Janicevic, it is on the second page and it's the third paragraph and

3 the fourth paragraph, I think. Fourth and fifth paragraphs.

4 It goes like this: "Despite the --" oh, by the way, perhaps we

5 ought to focus on the previous paragraph since you've drafted this

6 yourself.

7 Did you draft this carefully? Did you?

8 A. Well, as carefully as I was able to do at that time.

9 Q. So you see Luznica turns up again in the previous paragraph, the

10 place you say is of complete irrelevance. Here you have got police force

11 members approaching the village of Racak and attempting to capture members

12 of the terrorist gang and inviting them to surrender. And they retreated

13 from the village towards Krsine hill, the village of Luznica. The

14 operation was perhaps rather larger than you've described in your recently

15 produced maps, wasn't it? It covered a much wider territory, and it's

16 impossible for to you acknowledge the truth of that.

17 A. Just tell me on which page I can find that.

18 Q. Yes, certainly. It's on the second page, and you'll find -- I

19 think you'll find Luznica mentioned at the end of the fourth paragraph,

20 probably. Yes. One, two, three -- the end of the fourth paragraph, where

21 you see Luznica, Rance, Petrovo, and Stimlje all referred to.

22 A. Yes, I can see that, but it's a typo.

23 Q. Oh, it's another typo?

24 A. It cannot be Luznica by any means. Please, Krsine.

25 Q. [Previous translation continues]... typographical error?

Page 45196

1 A. The person who typed this, the typist who did this does not

2 distinguish between Luzak and Luznica. Look at it and compare for

3 yourself: Luznica, Krsine, Rance.

4 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

5 A. Luzak is -- Luznica is 15 kilometres away.

6 Q. Very well. [Previous translation continues]...

7 A. The other places are close by. We're just mentioning villages

8 around Racak. Rance is a village. Petrovo is a village.

9 Q. Despite the pursuit and the appeals to surrender, the terrorist

10 group refused to surrender and kept opening heavy fire at the police force

11 members from all the stated types of weapons. The terrorists fiercely

12 attacked the approaching police from the previously prepared trenches and

13 bunkers. Forty Siptar terrorists, most of them wearing uniforms of the

14 so-called KLA, were liquidated in the said exchange of fire."

15 First point: It was 60, it's gone down to 15. It's now gone up

16 to 40, which is pretty well spot on for the number of people who died who

17 were not acknowledged as KLA, couple under. How did we get 40 Siptar

18 terrorists?

19 A. This is the number established after the completion of the on-site

20 investigation.

21 Q. Let's read -- would you be good enough to read for us, please, the

22 first sentence - it's a quite long sentence, so fairly slowly - of the

23 next paragraph.

24 A. "By capturing the trenches and bunkers used by the Siptar

25 terrorists, apart from the said bodies, the police force members also

Page 45197

1 found and seized 36 automatic rifles of Chinese make, one Browning

2 12.7-millimetre light machine-gun, two machine-guns, 1.802 bullets of

3 different calibres, six hand grenades of Chinese make, two hand grenade

4 bags, one Fisher Price hand-held radio transmitter, one pair of

5 binoculars, one rifle-cleaning kit, two automatic-rifle magazines, one

6 army rucksack and other military equipment. Apart from the bodies, a

7 large number of cartridge cases of different calibres, which the

8 terrorists fired at the police, were also observed and seized. The battle

9 with the terrorists lasted until 1530 hours."

10 Q. There is no doubt, is there, from reading, as you would say, a

11 carefully prepared report on the information available that all the people

12 died in the trenches and all the weapons were found in or around the

13 trenches. That's what it says.

14 A. That's what it says.

15 Q. Which brings us back, then, to the plans that we started looking

16 at yesterday made by you and your colleague in his flat. Would you like,

17 please, to point us to any document, and we can go through all the

18 documents in the Racak collection, we can go through all of your

19 documents, but you must know, can you point us to any document generated

20 at any time until the maps you and your colleague prepared in his flat

21 about three and a half weeks ago, that suggests people were killed in the

22 ravine, on footpaths, in houses, on streets, or in yards?

23 A. I cannot tell you that because I don't have any such document.

24 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

25 A. I told you yesterday, or maybe another day earlier on, that this

Page 45198

1 was drawn up based on what is remembered.

2 Q. Just focus on my question, if you can be -- if you wouldn't mind.

3 If what you and your colleague are saying is accurate, then these

4 documents that you produced are inexplicable because your colleague,

5 through you, shows that people died all over Racak, not just in trenches,

6 and I want you to tell us whether we can find any document available to

7 you, written by you that suggests people were found other than in the

8 trenches.

9 A. This is the document that I wrote based on the reports who were

10 there on the ground. That's one.

11 Second, have you ever been to Racak, Mr. Nice?

12 Q. You're not allowed to ask me questions -- well, you're allowed to

13 ask me questions, but I don't answer them, but Mr. --

14 A. Because I want to tell you --

15 Q. -- Janicevic, you can assume that I have some knowledge of the

16 area.

17 A. I want you tell you that there were two rows of trenches in Racak,

18 in the village itself. There was one bunker in the village, within the

19 village of Racak itself. Look at the photos made by your own people --

20 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

21 A. -- how the trenches are laid out and where they lead.

22 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

23 A. I first saw that yesterday.

24 Q. But I think you've confirmed that so far as you are concerned, all

25 the people died in bunkers -- in trenches. Now, perhaps the usher would

Page 45199

1 be good enough to take one of the --

2 A. Or the immediate vicinity.

3 Q. Or the immediate vicinity, yes. Of course.

4 If you would take the large map.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Nice is asking his

8 questions improperly. If you look at the transcript, during explanations

9 provided by Mr. Janicevic concerning the maps, he used the word "bunker"

10 or "shelter" at least ten times explaining the maps, not "trenches." He

11 was saying bunker, bunker, bunker, shelter. That word was widely used in

12 his explanations. Communicating trenches are something different. In the

13 chronology document, in here, reference is not really made to

14 communicating trenches. It's not about that. It's something else.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

16 MR. NICE:

17 Q. Have a look at the map that's on your right-hand side now, or the

18 aerial view. Have a look at it. Do you know what it is? Forget the blue

19 stickers for the time being. Do you know what that map shows? The little

20 figures, 2, 5, 1, 4. Do you know what that map, that aerial view is?

21 A. Racak village. I can't see the numbers. Sorry.

22 Q. Forget the little blue stickers for the time being, but look at

23 the numbers: 6 on the hill there, 4 on the left, 5, 2. Do you know

24 anything about what happened at those locations?

25 A. This is part of the settlement, part of the populated area in

Page 45200

1 Racak. That's where the populated area begins. That's where the village

2 of Racak begins.

3 Q. Where does the village of Racak --

4 A. The map is not very clear, to me.

5 Q. I see. Well --

6 A. The village of Racak is this part, and this too.

7 Q. Your -- I've mislaid my maps. Can we look at the maps, Exhibit

8 70, that you produced yesterday. You don't recognise an aerial, but you

9 appear to recognise -- that's all right, I've found them. These maps. Do

10 you remember these maps?

11 A. We can use that.

12 Q. You can sit down. We'll hand them to you. Now, you say the

13 aerial isn't very clear, but do you understand the map any better?

14 A. The image is clear but it's too large. I've never had occasion to

15 work with aerial photographs before.

16 Q. Well, if we look at your colleague's drawn map or overdrawn map

17 and we remind ourselves that he, not you, has placed positions of deaths,

18 people dying, all over the map; not just at trenches but elsewhere. Do

19 you see that?

20 A. Can I have the map, please?

21 Q. Yes, it's coming your way. Exhibit 70. Well, I'm looking at 0300

22 to 0830. Then we'll look at the second one. The third one doesn't have

23 any deaths -- oh, it does have some deaths on it, yes.

24 Some of them are recorded as being at or near trenches, according

25 to the legend, but others are nowhere near trenches. That's right, isn't

Page 45201

1 it?

2 A. On this map, it's not right.

3 Q. Well, we've tried to do our best to represent what's shown on your

4 map by reference to where the bodies were found. Perhaps you'd like to

5 look at this document. Yes, there are two or maps, but --

6 A. Even on the other map --

7 Q. You see, what we find -- I want to distribute this as a visual

8 aid. Obviously, like any visual aid constructed on the basis of a map as

9 small scale as the one produced by the witness is, subject to possibility

10 of error or inaccuracy.

11 You see, your -- what we've done here, to explain it, is the

12 following: The original map, at places like -- if you follow the original

13 numbering on the map, 1, 2, 3, and then 3 is broken down into various

14 sublocations, 3/6, 3/7, and 3/8; and 4, which is 4/9; 5, which is 5/10, 6

15 -- 5 is 5/10 and 5/11 and 5/12; and then 6, which is number 13, that

16 original map shows the positions where bodies were found by OSCE on the

17 16th.

18 Now, your colleague has drawn bodies being found, according to his

19 memory, in certain locations. So that if we start off at the top, it's

20 slightly obscured by the line, but the place 3/8, said by the OSCE to be a

21 place where two bodies were found, Ijet Emini -- I beg your pardon, one

22 body was found, we see that, according to your map, at roughly the same

23 place some eight bodies were found. So 3/8, roughly eight bodies.

24 If we go to the left of that, where the original map of the

25 Prosecution was marked 4/9, which was a scene where, as the legend shows,

Page 45202

1 one, two, three, four, people were killed -- sorry, three people were

2 killed, he's recorded on his map, at roughly the same place, six bodies

3 were found.

4 If you go to the position marked 3/7, where the OSCE found two

5 people, if we look at the top we can see that your colleague found, or

6 says, that two people were killed there.

7 Now, those are some of the most closer matches. There are several

8 which are very distant in comparison. But one way or another, your

9 colleague, for whatever reason, seems to have been placing bodies at

10 roughly the places where the Prosecution said those bodies were found. Do

11 you understand that?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you look at the screen in front

15 of you right now, you will see that Mr. Nice's question is taking up the

16 entire screen. I don't know what this witness can possibly answer to a

17 question that more resembles a lecture.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. It's time for you to put a

19 question. We have had occasion to reprimand Mr. Milosevic for the same

20 practice.

21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I have explained the position of this map

22 I hope in a way that will help.

23 Q. And what I'm suggesting to this witness is revealed by this map,

24 is that for whatever reason your colleague was actually revealing that the

25 bodies found by the OSCE on the 16th indeed probably -- or not probably,

Page 45203

1 certainly died where they were found. Do you follow that?

2 A. I don't understand that at all.

3 Q. [Previous translation continues]... way?

4 A. First of all, I can see there are similarities between the one and

5 the other map. There are similarities. I claim that the person who made

6 this map did not have any opportunity to see the other, had no occasion or

7 possibility nor knew of the other map's existence. He drew his map based

8 on the reports and from his own memory.

9 Q. You see, until now the suggestion has been advanced, somewhat

10 hesitantly from time to time, I think, that the Racak bodies were moved

11 around after they died in order to make it look like a massacre. Well,

12 what we know from your accounts given to and for the international

13 community and certainly until the 19th of January on your own evidence was

14 to the effect that everyone died in a trench or near a trench. The

15 international community found the bodies spread all over Racak, none of

16 them near trenches, and many or most -- many if not all of them

17 photographed where they were found, and we'll look at those tomorrow. And

18 your colleague, by this map, for whatever reason, is confirming that they

19 were found scattered around the village and not in trenches.

20 A. I have never said that the international community said what you

21 just mentioned. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

22 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

23 A. My colleague, that's my second point, made his map from his own

24 memory. I'm just responding to the question as it was interpreted to me.

25 Q. Very well. Well, if it's ever suggested, Mr. Janicevic, if it's

Page 45204

1 ever suggested that these bodies found in Racak were taken from their

2 initial positions and moved around, that's not a suggestion you'd accept,

3 is it?

4 A. I don't quite understand. Could you repeat it?

5 Q. Yes. Do you suggest that the bodies found by the OSCE on the 16th

6 and photographed had been moved from their positions, or do you accept -

7 you're the man in charge - that the OSCE found the bodies where

8 they died?

9 A. It's not just that I don't accept that all of them were killed

10 where they were found. A number of them were, but another number was

11 moved. It is a fact that the bodies were manipulated --

12 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

13 A. -- and not by the police. Not by our side.

14 Q. [Previous translation continues]... which ones were moved?

15 A. The bodies that were found in the gully were moved. I had

16 occasion to read Ambassador Walker's statement.

17 Q. Where from?

18 A. On the Internet. I found his statement on the Web. I had an

19 opportunity to see it, and I remember a portion where he says that he had

20 been informed by a verifier that there is another number of bodies further

21 up in the gully, and he was asked if he wanted to see them, and he said he

22 had had quite enough.

23 Why didn't he go there and record them then and there to clear it

24 up, who did it and how it happened. If it was a crime, then perpetrated

25 by whom?

Page 45205

1 For one entire night, the bodies were left lying there in order to

2 provide room for manipulation.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we have to end the hearing now. We

4 will adjourn and resume tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day

7 of October, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.