1 Tuesday, 16 October 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

6 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours. I have two points to inform

7 the Trial Chamber.

8 First of all, regarding the schedule of the current witness,

9 Mr. Hutsch will certainly be here through the end of our session on

10 Thursday, so there is no worry about finishing.

11 JUDGE PARKER: If we take that long.

12 MR. SAXON: If we take that long, absolutely.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you Mr. Saxon.

14 MR. SAXON: Absolutely, Your Honour.

15 Second point is that Your Honours may recall that yesterday my

16 colleague, Mr. Mettraux, showed Mr. Hutsch a newspaper article that

17 referred to a letter from the Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte. During the

18 breaks yesterday, I searched for such a letter, first in the

19 correspondence of Madam Del Ponte, then in the Deputy Prosecutor, and then

20 in the office of the Chief of Prosecutions.

21 During one of the breaks, I found a letter from the Chief of

22 Prosecutions to the attorney for Mr. Hutsch, as well as a letter from the

23 attorney, a prior letter from the attorney, which had precipitated this

24 letter in response from the Chief of Prosecutions. The letter from the

25 Chief of Prosecutions was sent to Mr. Hutsch' lawyer, I believe, on the

1 15th of September, 2005. And yesterday afternoon, at about 6.00, I

2 provided copies of both letters to -- to counsel for the Defence.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

4 Are we ready for the witness then?

5 MR. SAXON: Yes, please.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir. Can I remind you of the

9 affirmation which applies still.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 JUDGE PARKER: And Mr. Mettraux was in the course of his

12 questioning.

13 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 WITNESS: FRANZ-JOSEF HUTSCH [Resumed]

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux: [Continued]

16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hutsch.

17 A. Good morning, Mr. Mettraux.

18 Q. Do you recall last night, when we parted, we were discussing a

19 request by the Defence to obtain the -- a set of notes, reporter's note,

20 that covered the date 5 to 24 of August 2001. Do you recall?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I would like to clarify a matter, which to me was very clear on

23 the record. And is it correct that, in response to the question that I

24 put to you, you indicated that those notes, which, in particular the notes

25 of the 10th and 11th of August of 2001, contain material which related

1 both to the events, which you say you witnessed in or around Ljuboten, and

2 information pertaining to other events, and it is based on that fact that

3 you declined to provide the notes to the Defence? Was that the correct

4 understanding that?

5 A. Was the correct understanding.

6 Q. Is it correct also that's not what you told the Prosecutor when

7 they asked you for those letters?

8 A. I don't understand the question.

9 Q. Can you recall what you told the Office of the Prosecutor when

10 Mr. Kuehnel contacted you asking for those letters -- I'm sorry, for those

11 records, reports?

12 A. I think the first answer that I gave was that that has to do

13 nothing with my -- with my testimony, and the second is that there are

14 information in it that covering a long period of working there, and that

15 they are just under my protection of sources.

16 Q. Well, I'll ask to you look at what is Rule 65 ter 1D238,

17 Mr. Hutsch.

18 Mr. Hutsch, this is a letter which responds to the Defence request

19 which I showed you last night. It is a letter from Mr. Saxon and dated

20 20th of April of 2007. You will recall that the point -- the number which

21 related to our request in relation to this notes was number 2.

22 And under number 2, in this response, Mr. Saxon writes that after

23 your contact, Mr. Hutsch refused to provide this material and state that

24 they contain no reference to the event in Ljuboten.

25 So is that what you told the Office of the Prosecutor, Mr. Hutsch?

1 A. In a very short context, yes.

2 Q. But you agree that, a minute or so ago, you indicated that, in

3 fact, those notes contained inter alia information that pertained to your

4 observation in regards to the event of Ljuboten. Do you agree with that?

5 A. As far as I know, you were requesting all the notes from the 5th

6 up to the 24th of August; is that right?

7 Q. That's correct, and your response --

8 A. No, no, sorry. And I said that this is a very short, very short

9 sentence of a, what I would say, 45-, 50-minute long phone call, where I

10 exactly expressed, explained why I wouldn't give this material out of my

11 hand. And if I'm counting right, you were asking for material for my

12 investigation notes over 19 days, and just three days or four days were

13 covering the Ljuboten event -- events.

14 Q. But in your discussion with the Prosecutor, and contrary to what

15 are you claiming now, Mr. Hutsch, you told the Prosecution that none of

16 those notes, aside those of the 12 and 14th August which we mentioned we

17 had already, you say contain --

18 [Overlapping speakers]

19 A. Well, just show me where it is written --

20 Q. -- no --

21 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please bring up --

22 THE WITNESS: -- nowhere is this written in this answer --

23 MR. METTRAUX: -- what is --

24 THE WITNESS: -- because you are concluding my answer --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters would say

1 like to ask Mr. Hutsch to observe the pause after the questions.

2 Thank you.

3 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Hutsch you are being asked to slow down after

4 the question and take a little break before your answer.

5 Q. In this response, as it is taken the Office of the Prosecutor, it

6 says: "Mr. Hutsch refused to provide these materials and state that they

7 contain no reference to the events in Ljuboten."

8 Do you see that?

9 A. And that's right for all my notes between the 5th and the 10th and

10 the 13th and from the 14th afternoon going up to the 24th.

11 Q. So that's, in any case, what not the Prosecutor recorded in this

12 note. Is that correct?

13 A. That's right.

14 Q. And you've just made it up. Is that correct?

15 A. That's what I told Mr. Kuehnel when we had the phone call. On the

16 other hand, Mr. Mettraux, because we are exactly again in the point where

17 you're going to manipulate, just let's come back to yesterday to your

18 cross-examination. Is it right that you cross-examined me to the 10th of

19 August yesterday?

20 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I think it is for me to ask the question and not

21 for --

22 [Overlapping Speakers]

23 A. But you were --

24 Q. -- you to ask question --

25 A. -- you were fabricating yesterday with the two testimonies of two

1 witnesses, and you confrontated me with these witnesses. What I did is I

2 was just investigating in the Internet the testimony of these two

3 witnesses. We were discussing yesterday the matter of the 10th of August,

4 and you confrontated me with two testimonies of witnesses from the 11th of

5 August to falsify my testimony. That, Mr. Mettraux, is the reason why we

6 stop in this moment any testimony without a interpreter in German

7 language.

8 And just you confrontated me with the testimony of Mr. Bolton, and

9 it is very clear that Mr. Bolton is speaking about a crowd in content with

10 the 11th of August. Mr. Bolton confirmed that there was a check-point on

11 page 16712, a permanent check-point, like he said, on the street from

12 Radisani to Ljubanci to Ljuboten. He was on page 1668. He said all

13 these events are going on on the 11th of August; and on page 16670, he is

14 describing the crowd as a event of the 11th.

15 And then the witness, who I think M-048, who did his testimony on

16 the 25th, is talking about that there was crowd of 2.000 people on the

17 11th of August, and I think that is what the people had been in the front

18 of Ljubanci.

19 So what you did yesterday is you made the Chamber believe that my

20 testimony was wrong, but we were just discussing the 10th, and that,

21 Mr. Mettraux, is shameful. You --

22 [Overlapping Speakers]

23 Q. Mr. Hutsch --

24 A. -- do you agree with me that you are a fabricator.

25 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch we're going to come back to the 12th of August

1 and the issue of the crowd and the statement of Mr. Bolton, because we

2 have located the material that is relevant to this issue.

3 But at this stage, Mr. Hutsch, I will just ask you to answer the

4 questions that are being asked to you.

5 So do you agree, sir, that, in fact, the reality is you have no

6 notes for the period 10 and 11 of August of 2001. That's why you refuse

7 to provide them to the Prosecution. Is that correct?

8 A. I would like to answer in German.

9 JUDGE PARKER: The position with German interpretation is that

10 limited interpretation will be available tomorrow. It will enable the

11 answers of Mr. Hutsch given in German to be translated into English. It

12 will not allow your questions to be interpreted into German. That is the

13 first and the earliest that it has been possible to arrange for German

14 interpretation.

15 Now, at the moment, Mr. Hutsch, the Chamber, you will appreciate,

16 has heard the evidence. It doesn't interfere with the questions of

17 counsel. It evaluates, in the end, whether there is force in what counsel

18 is putting to you or not.

19 Please understand, therefore, that if there are questions which

20 you think to a impartial audience would not be a fair and balanced

21 question, that the Chamber evaluates that at the end of all the evidence

22 and weighs up the consequences. So don't think because we are silent we

23 know nothing.

24 Secondly, the sort of issue that you're talking about would

25 appear, to me at least - I haven't had a chance to my fellow Judges - but

1 it would appear, to me at least, not really to involve any issue

2 concerning a difference between English and German language, but to

3 involve your concern that Mr. Mettraux' questions are being selective when

4 he picks pieces of evidence that has been given or pieces, or pieces even

5 from a statement of a witness who has not yet given evidence but may come

6 to give evidence. We don't know. You feel that in selecting pieces of

7 that he is putting to you as a fact something which isn't borne out by the

8 actual evidence that has been given.

9 Now that's something that I really don't think involves any

10 difference between English or German. You have just demonstrated how very

11 well alert you are to those issues and your capacity for putting your

12 contrary view, and they are things which we weigh in due course.

13 So can I just leave you with thoughts to reflect upon.

14 THE WITNESS: Okay.

15 JUDGE PARKER: And I think we all appreciate that you're having to

16 work in a second language and that you're familiarity with that language

17 cannot be as easy as in your first language; but, on the other hand, you

18 are demonstrating a very clear capacity to communicate in English. You

19 may feel that you could do it more readily in German, but you are not

20 being pushed for time. You are given time to think about it and you can

21 take more time, and you can certainly take more time to answer, if you

22 feel you need to have more time. So you don't have to rush with a short

23 answer and then allow the matter to move on. You've taken more time this

24 morning, for example, to go back over yesterday.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

1 JUDGE PARKER: So we're sitting and we're absorbing and we're

2 weighing up. Be aware of that, Mr. Hutsch.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 JUDGE PARKER: And, of course, Mr. Saxon will be able to

5 re-examine later as well.

6 Carry on, please, Mr. Mettraux.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I'd like now to turn to what is Exhibit P308, please.

9 This is your reporter's notes of the 12th of August of 2001, and I'd like

10 to go through a few of your annotations in this document.

11 Do you have the document in front of you, Mr. Hutsch?

12 A. Not yet.

13 MR. METTRAUX: Can I ask the registry please to turn to the next

14 page of this document. Thank you.

15 Q. Mr. Hutsch you can see this is the first annotations which is

16 contained in your notes of the 12th of August, and it refers to what you

17 say is a telephone conversation between Mr. Beqiri and there's a number of

18 information. It took place at 7.48 hours, and it refers to a number of

19 events which you can read, including that Ljube Boskoski said to be on his

20 way to Ljuboten. Can you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Were you ever able to verify the information of Mr. Beqiri or did

23 you take any step to verify this information?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And is that correct that is the reason why you didn't reproduce

1 this particular exchange in your statement to the Prosecutor, or could it

2 be the reason why you didn't reproduce it in your statement to the

3 Prosecutor?

4 A. No, I wasn't asked.

5 MR. METTRAUX: If we can turn to the next page, please.

6 Q. The next event or indication that I would like to turn to is the

7 one at 8.03 hours. Can you see it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And, in there, there's a reference to Hermelin BTR support; and,

10 in the parenthesis, there is a "3." Am I correct to understand that "3"

11 refers to the one Hermelin and two BTR-80, which you referred to in your

12 testimony and in your statement? Is that how it should be understood?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. If you can turn then to the -- the next annotations which is at

15 8.20 hours, it says: "Carsten telephone MUP attack on direct orders of B,

16 conflict between Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior about

17 conduct according to VM," that is Ministry of Defence, "no NLA in

18 Ljuboten." You have indicated that "Carsten" is Carsten Hoffman; is that

19 correct?

20 A. That's right.

21 Q. And Mr. Hoffman was and still is a fellow journalist. Is that

22 correct?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. And did you ask Mr. Hoffman where he obtained that information

25 from, which you say he transmitted to you?

1 A. No. I didn't do, because we phoning over cell phone, and it was

2 clear that they were intercepted.

3 Q. And is that correct that you were not able to verify the

4 information which was provided --

5 A. That's right.

6 MR. METTRAUX: Can we please turn to the next page, please.

7 Q. Then, there's an annotation at 8.27 and 8.34.

8 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can go to the next page, please.

9 Q. There's a annotation of another phone conversation with the same

10 person, Mr. Beqiri of the NLA, and then two annotations the at 9.25 and

11 9.28. Can you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you refer to information that you received from the army

14 that there was no NLA in the village. Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And can you tell this Chamber who you received that information

17 from?

18 A. I think we already discussed this point.

19 Q. Well, could you give the name of the person who you say gave that

20 you information.

21 A. No, I can't.

22 Q. Well, could you indicate what position this person held in the

23 army, you say?

24 A. No, I can't.

25 Q. And what's the reason, Mr. Hutsch, for you refusing to disclose

1 the name of this person, whom say gave you information?

2 A. These persons are still working in the army, and what I think is

3 that they will come under pressure.

4 Q. Then, at 9.28, there's another annotations which says, "trying to

5 found out if they are 'Alis,' as printed."

6 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page.

7 Q. "Operation supposedly only by the MUP."

8 Do you recall who you say you received that information from?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Do you recall whether that person was in any position of authority

11 or any particular institution that you can recall?

12 A. Yes, it was.

13 Q. And can you recall what institution that would be?

14 A. No.

15 Q. I'm sorry. Can you or can you not recall what institution?

16 A. I can't.

17 Q. Can you recall the position of that person?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Can you recall the identity of is this person?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Then, I will ask to you look at the next annotations in these

22 notes, Mr. Hutsch. This is that is made at 9.48 hours, and it

23 says: "Telephone Ejup Hamiti, they -- or we are trying to leave village

24 through river-bed, going to Radisani, OSCE not allowed into the village."

25 Can you see that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And can you recall having had that phone conversation with

3 Mr. Hamiti that morning?

4 A. Not me. It was my interpreter.

5 Q. Can you recall if it was your interpreter that called Mr. Hamiti

6 or the other way around? Can you recall that?

7 A. No, I can't.

8 Q. But, in fact, it's, again, a false story, isn't it, and one that

9 you picked up from the Human Rights Watch report. Is that correct,

10 Mr. Hutsch?

11 A. It is your conclusion.

12 Q. Well, I would like to show you what is Exhibit P3252, please.

13 This is it, again, the report of Human Rights Watch.

14 MR. METTRAUX: And I'd like the registry, please, to turn to page

15 U000-0111, please, and I'd like the registry, please, to focus on the

16 middle of the page, please. Thank you.

17 Q. If you look at the centre of the page, Mr. Hutsch, you will see

18 there's an indented part of the document, which starts with the words,

19 "Because of the big offensive."

20 Can you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And it starts like this, it says this: "Because of the big

23 offensive, we left the village and headed for Skopje. We headed down to

24 the river as bullets were flying over our heads; then we had to stop by

25 the river. We couldn't go farther down because we would have reached

1 Radisani. We heard that the OSCE buses were not allowed to come into the

2 village by the police.

3 "Then, after some of my cousins spoke on the phone, we headed

4 towards the asphalt road. We went one by one because there were many old

5 people and children and we had to help them to the main road from the

6 river."

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And that's where you took your story from, isn't it, Mr. Hutsch?

10 A. Again, your conclusion presented as fact.

11 Q. Well, I'm asking you a question, Mr. Hutsch. Is that correct that

12 you took that story and implanted it in your note from the Human Rights

13 Watch report. Is that correct?

14 A. It is incorrect.

15 Q. Well, you see, Mr. Hutsch, there's a person who has testified

16 before this Tribunal about this particular incident or this particular

17 event.

18 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is transcript of the 24th of

19 August of 2007 at page 4094.

20 Q. And he was asked, Mr. Hutsch, whether he or Mr. Hamiti, who was

21 with him at the time, did any phone call at the time when they were going

22 around or along the river, as described in this document.

23 And the question was this. It is at line 23: "You describe, at

24 paragraph 32, that somebody from this group around Ejup received a phone

25 call, telling them there were a lot of angry Macedonian villagers from

1 Radisani waiting outside Radisani," and we're talking about the 12th of

2 August, Mr. Hutsch?

3 A. At what time?

4 Q. It is not mentioned there, but --

5 A. Oh, sorry.

6 Q. -- it says -- well, we'll come to the time in a minute, sir,

7 because that is going to be the next issue.

8 "Do you recall saying that?"

9 "Yes I do."

10 "Can you now recall who among the group received that phone call?

11 "I couldn't say for sure, because many people had phone, mobile

12 phones, that they kept talking all the time. And how to say it, I said

13 that. We heard that it was dangerous to go in the direction of Radisani,

14 because people there were very angry, so we should change course.

15 "And is that correct, however, and to the extent that you can

16 recall, Mr. Murati, is that correct that it was neither you, nor Ejup

17 Hamiti, who received phone call? Can you recall that?

18 And the answer of this person was: "Neither of us had a phone."

19 So, do you agree, Mr. Hutsch, that you made up that story based on

20 the Human Rights Watch report, thinking that you were safe claiming that

21 they had mobile phone access, since it was mentioned in the Human Rights

22 report? Is that correct?

23 A. Would you show me where I wrote that it was a mobile phone

24 connection that with we had with Mr. Hamiti?

25 Q. Well, are you suggesting that as he was walking down the river,

1 trying to escape the village, he had a fixed phone with him, Mr. Hutsch?

2 A. Will you show me where in writing that Mr. Hamiti was still on his

3 way? As far as I remember, in my German notes, I wrote that he planned to

4 go.

5 Q. Well, your description of it, Mr. Hutsch, is that they were going

6 at the time: "They are -- we are trying to leave village through river-bed

7 going to Radisani." That's what you said, Mr. Hutsch.

8 A. Would you show me the German translation? Probably, it will

9 become much more clearer in my notes.

10 Q. Well, it's Exhibit P308. This is -- in the German version, this

11 is N003-0009, in the German. Do you have that in front of you,

12 Mr. Hutsch?

13 A. Yes, I have. So what I see is I wrote in German: [Foreign

14 language spoken]. So, at 9.48, Mr. Hamiti is describing a plan that

15 isn't still realised because we have the word "versuiten." I don't know

16 if Mr. Hamiti was still at his house in this time or whether he was going;

17 but, again, you are presenting your conclusions as facts.

18 Q. Well, I'm not presenting anything as fact --

19 [Overlapping Speakers]

20 A. You are doing --

21 Q. -- Mr. Hutsch. The question was asked also of Mr. Ejup Hamiti.

22 The problem you is not only the existence, or otherwise, of a phone

23 available to Mr. Hamiti, but also about the timing, at which you say this

24 conversation took place, and you say 9.48. I will read out to what you

25 ask about the time what Mr. Murati said about that.

1 He was asked: "And I think you had indicated to the Prosecutor

2 that you went down the stream with Ejup at around 12.45 to 1.00,

3 approximately; is that correct?"

4 "Yes."

5 "And is that correct also that you went down the stream on that

6 day with Ejup only on one occasion; is that correct?"

7 "It is."

8 So the truth is, Mr. Hutsch, is that you didn't know the time at

9 which they had attempted to make that walk down the stream, because it

10 wasn't mentioned in the Human Rights Watch report. You thought you were

11 safe mentioning that time in your note, but, in fact, it did not happen at

12 9.48 but at a time between 12.45 and 1.00. Is that correct?

13 A. Again, at, let's say, 10.00, this group around Ejup Hamiti could

14 create this plan that they realised between 12.45 and 1.00. Well, it is

15 your conclusion, like all the time.

16 Q. Well, I'm putting it to you, sir, that it is, again, one of the

17 things you fabricated in those notes, and I would like to turn to another

18 one.

19 A. I don't want to hear the word fabricate not of you, because you

20 were fabricating yesterday a lot of things.

21 Q. Let's look at the next entry on your notes. It's a reference to

22 the information press office of the Ministry of Interior, something that

23 says, "Ljube on his way to Ljuboten." Can you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. METTRAUX: And if we turn forward to the next page, please.

1 Q. You see, at 11.23 hours, there's, "information press centre,

2 Ministry of Interior, Boskoski in Ljuboten."

3 Do you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And do you recall that, during your examination-in-chief, there

6 was some discussion about the information which you claimed to have

7 received from the press information office of the Ministry of Interior.

8 I believe that what you said was that you were unable to provide

9 the names of the employees of the press office information of the MOI

10 because you did not know them. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's right, because I didn't have a discussion with them.

12 That was part of the work of my interpreter, of my Macedonian interpreter.

13 Q. Is that also correct that you claimed to have had many or frequent

14 contacts with the MOI press information office on the 11th of August.

15 That would be the Saturday. Do you recall saying that to the Prosecution?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Well, what I'm putting to you, sir, is that you had no such

18 contacts; and by "you," I mean neither you or the person whom you say

19 accompanied you with the MOI press information centre. Do you agree with

20 that?

21 A. No, I don't agree.

22 Q. And the reason why you didn't have any such contacts, Mr. Hutsch,

23 is that at the time, in Macedonia and in the Ministry of Interior, there

24 was no such thing as a press information office. Is that correct?

25 A. There was some spokespersons. If they were really established as

1 a press information centre, I don't know.

2 Q. But the thing is, in your statement, Mr. Hutsch, you told the

3 Office of the Prosecutor that, at this stage, you would -- you did not

4 know the names of those people you said had you talked to, but that you

5 would undertake to do so in the future. Do you recall saying that?

6 A. Yeah, if I was asked again, I will -- I will give a phone call to

7 my interpreter and ask him if he remembers who he spoke to; but, on the

8 other hand, you will say there were no spokesperson for the Ministry of

9 Interior in this time. Is that what you would like to say now?

10 Q. Mr. Hutsch, isn't that correct --

11 A. Could you answer my question?

12 Q. No, Mr. Hutsch. It is not for me to answer your question.

13 Is that correct, Mr. Hutsch, that you were actually asked by the

14 Defence to provide a great number of references to the people who you say

15 you talked to, information on 24 different issues, and that you refused

16 almost to all of them to provide that information? Is that correct?

17 A. Not to all of them.

18 Q. No, not to all of them, Mr. Hutsch. That is correct.

19 A. So why do you ask incorrect?

20 Q. Almost all of them, I said. But I will direct your attention more

21 specifically to this.

22 MR. METTRAUX: If we could see Rule 65 ter 236, please, and if we

23 can turn to this.

24 Q. This was the letter sent by the Defence to the OTP asking them to

25 provide us with information.

1 MR. METTRAUX: And if could you look at the third page, this would

2 be 1D00-2657.

3 Q. You see, if you look at paragraph 13, please, 1-3, it says that:

4 "In his statement of 25th to 27th of August, 2005, at paragraph 85,

5 Mr. Hutsch says that at 10.07 a.m." That is the same note as in your

6 notes, "he had a phone call with the press information office of the MOI.

7 "The Defence wishes to receive from you the name of the person

8 whom Mr. Hutsch says he talked to on that occasion. If Mr. Hutsch cannot

9 remember the name of that person, we ask you to obtain the name from the

10 legal -- language assistant, which is said to have had that phone

11 conversation."

12 That's what we asked the Prosecution. Do you recall what you

13 answered to that question when it was asked of you, Mr. Hutsch?

14 A. No, I don't recall.

15 MR. METTRAUX: Well, if we can look at Rule 65 ter 1D238, at point

16 13, please.

17 Q. The record that was made of your conversation with Mr. Kuehnel is

18 this: "With to the representative of the Ministry of Interior, Mr. Hutsch

19 did not record the name of this person. Mr. Hutsch simply refers to he or

20 she as the ministry spokesperson."

21 So at the time, when you were being queried by the Prosecution

22 about this matter, you didn't offer to make a phone call to find out who

23 this person was. Is that correct?

24 A. I don't remember.

25 Q. And the reason why you didn't make that offer, Mr. Hutsch, is

1 because there is no such person. Is that correct?

2 A. It is your conclusion again.

3 Q. But I would like you to have a look at Rule 65 ter 1D310, please.

4 What will appear in front of you, Mr. Hutsch, is a statement by a

5 person called Tatania Najdovska-Trajkovska, which was taken by the Defence

6 of Mr. Boskoski.

7 And if you can look at the first paragraph, you will see what --

8 that we made the request; paragraph 2 contains her details; paragraph 3

9 contains her current occupation; and I would like to start at paragraph 4.

10 This person says this: "Starting in May 2001, I worked for a

11 period as the Chef de cabinet of the Minister of the Interior, Ljube

12 Boskoski."

13 Paragraph 5, it says: "When the Interior Ministry spokesperson,

14 Stevi Pandorovksi, resigned from his post at the end of May or the

15 beginning of June, 2001, I cannot recall the exact date, I became the only

16 person responsible for dealing on behalf of the Minister with questions

17 from journalists and the media in general.

18 "I began to take care of relations with the media, while

19 Mr. Pandorovski was still there, because the Minister was not satisfied

20 with his work. Then Minister, Mr. Boskoski, wanted as much information as

21 possible to be published in the media and was not satisfied with

22 Mr. Pandorovski in that respect.

23 "In August 2001, Mr. Pandorovski had not been replaced, and I was

24 effectively doing his job as a spokesperson. Ms. Natalia Ivceva also had

25 several responsibilities regarding contact with the media. Ms. Ivceva

1 dealt especially with issues of a international character. When

2 journalists were in questions, we sometimes worked together.

3 "In my work, I had frequent and regular contacts with Macedonian

4 and foreign journalists. I was the person whom journalists usually called

5 when they needed information on the activities of the Ministry.

6 "I never had contacts with any one named Franz-Josef Hutsch. This

7 is the first time that I have heard his name."

8 I will stop there for a second to ask you this, Mr. Hutsch: Is

9 that correct that in Macedonia, in the year of 2001, and to work as a

10 journalist you were required to register yourself with the then Ministry

11 of Information, which would then allow to you obtain certain passes to go

12 around the country? Are you aware of that?

13 A. I was aware of that, but I didn't do that.

14 Q. And that's correct you never registered yourself as a journalist?

15 Is that right?

16 A. That's right --

17 [Overlapping Speakers]

18 Q. -- well, let's go on reading --

19 A. -- in Macedonia.

20 Q. In Macedonia. Let's go on reading the statement of

21 Ms. Najdrovska-Trajkovska. She says this: "Asked by the Defence, I

22 confirmed that in August of 2001, or throughout 2001, there never was a

23 Ministry of Interior press and information centre. When journalists

24 needed information, they contacted me.

25 "Asked by the Defence, I can say that I was not contacted by any

1 journalist or the interpreter of any journalist on 10, 11, or 12 August,

2 2001, in regard to what happened in Ljuboten village.

3 "Asked by the Defence, the practice of the Ministry of Interior

4 was not to publish information on ongoing operations. Information was

5 released after the completions of operations."

6 Can you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And, in fact, there was, as Ms. Najdovska-Trajkovska mentioned,

9 never any press centre that you or your interpreter could have contacted.

10 Is that correct?

11 A. It is written it has not press information centre, yes. We are,

12 again, in a semantic discussion.

13 Q. And also what can you inferred from that statement, at the least,

14 is that that's not the person whom you say your assistant talked to. Is

15 that correct?

16 A. That's done by witness that is close to the accused, yes.

17 Q. And what do you mean by that Mr. Hutsch? Do you mean that she is

18 wasn't being truthful?

19 A. You are perfect in conclusions; not me.

20 Q. Well, I think it may interest the Trial Chamber, not myself,

21 Mr. Hutsch, to know what you mean by that?

22 A. I'm just looking to that, that a person, a witness, Ms.

23 Najdovska-Trajkovska, is giving a statement on your request for your

24 accused that promoted her.

25 Q. And do you think that this renders her unable to tell the truth,

1 Mr. Hutsch?

2 A. No. But not more than, for example my interpreter.

3 Q. Well, perhaps you should give us the name of this interpreter,

4 Mr. Hutsch, so that we can verify the reliability of that person. Would

5 you like to do so now?

6 A. Mr. Mettraux, after a lot of people in Macedonian became a lot of

7 trouble because they were potential witnesses for this case, I never will

8 hand over the name of my interpreters. There's a responsibility that is

9 a little bit stronger than your tricks.

10 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Hutsch. Could you explain what you mean by my

11 "tricks"?

12 A. Your tricks is that you confrontate me with testimony and quotes

13 by other witnesses that are nothing to deal with the thing that we are

14 discussing.

15 Q. I see, Mr. Hutsch. Well, we'll turn to another statement which

16 might assist you further.

17 MR. METTRAUX: This is at Rule 65 ter 1D338, please.

18 Q. And what will appear in front of you, Mr. Hutsch, is a statement

19 of a person called Natalia Ivceva, which is the person to whom Mrs.

20 Najdovska-Trajkovska was referring.

21 As you can see, it is a statement given by Natalia Ivceva. It is

22 dated 26th of April, 2007. It is, again, a statement was taken by the

23 Defence of Mr. Boskoski.

24 And if you look at paragraph 1, you will have her details; and

25 paragraph 2, the fact that we asked her to provide information; and in

1 paragraph 3, the place or the position which she held at the time in

2 August of 2001. It is that she worked for "the Ministry of Interior as

3 assistant minister for International Cooperation and European

4 integration."

5 "In the organisational set up, I was in charge of the sector which

6 was directly subordinated to the Ministry.

7 And then at paragraph 4, Ms. Ivceva says this: "In this capacity,

8 alongside other work the job entailed, I was in contact with journalists,

9 both Macedonian and foreign. Journalists usually addressed requests for

10 information to the Minister, whether verbally or in written from. If

11 these requests refers to the Minister's activities, I would forward them

12 to the head of office or to the Minister directly, depending on the nature

13 of the request."

14 "Tatania Najdovska-Trajkovska was the Interior Minister's head of

15 office and was at the same time the person from the Ministry of Interior

16 authorised for contacts with the press."

17 Then at paragraph 6, it say this: "I do not know -- sorry, "in

18 2001, we did not have a press centre or press information centre at the

19 MOI. Statements and information came from the Minister's office. I do

20 not know a journalist by the name of France Joe Hutsch, and I do not

21 remember ever being in contact with a person with this name or anyone who

22 was petitioned me on his behalf.

23 "I was not in touch with a single journalist or a interpreter

24 working for a journalist on 10, 11, and 12 August 2001, with regard to the

25 events in Ljuboten."

1 So here, again, Mr. Hutsch, we have the only other person working

2 in relation to press matter in context with journalists at the relevant

3 time; and not only has she never heard of you, but she makes it clear that

4 she was never contacted on the 10, 11 or 12th of August, with regard to

5 the events of Ljuboten. Is that correct?

6 A. So, probably, you can explain who was dealing with all the press

7 questions and requests concerning the mine incident in Ljuboten. Who was

8 doing that and who was satisfying the interest of journalists all over the

9 world in that thing? Because both spokespersons of the Ministry of

10 Interior, they don't give any statement to that. Is that right?

11 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, I will ask you to focus on this question. We

12 asked the witness, or this person in any case, about the events of the

13 10th, 11th and 12th of August, and the only matter that is of concern at

14 this stage is your suggestion that you or your interpreter contacted the

15 press information centre or a spokesperson, someone you claimed to have

16 been a spokesperson, of the MOI on the 12th, but also on the 11th of

17 August of 2001.

18 But, in fact, I'm putting it to you that you never had such

19 contacts, Mr. Hutsch. Is that correct?

20 A. That is incorrect. Like I said, and if you just go in a logical

21 way, a little bit deeper, then you will find that we have had a incident

22 at the 10th at 8.20. That was the reason that we have had a Ljuboten

23 incident in general. What you are trying to present to the Chamber is

24 that there was no press and information contact because both spokespersons

25 that you present here say there were no contact to a single journalist or

1 interpreter with these events.

2 Q. Well, I'm going to ask it another way, Mr. Hutsch. Do you have

3 anyone that can you name from the Ministry of Interior who you say was

4 contacted by you or by your language assistants on the 11th or the 12th of

5 August of 2001?

6 A. We are talking about the 10th, the 11th, and the 12th. Like I

7 said, it's something that I have to -- to ask my language assistant.

8 Probably he knows; probably he doesn't know. I don't know. But

9 definitely he was doing phone calls, and he was passing this information

10 to me, like I was writing that in my notebook.

11 Q. So the answer to my question is: No, you are unable to provide

12 the name of any one person within the Ministry of Interior whom you say

13 had you contact with or your language assistants or 11th or 12th of

14 August, 2001. Correct?

15 A. That's correct. In this moment, I'm not.

16 Q. I'd like to go back or go forward in time on that day. Do you

17 remember saying in your evidence in chief that you, at first, were in the

18 first observation point, and that at a certain point in time you moved to

19 a different location. Do you recall saying that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And at -- on the 27th of June of this year, at page 2724 to 2727,

22 you said that you moved from point 1 to point 2, at around 8.30, and reach

23 point 2 at around 8.45 or 9.00. Do you recall that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you explained that the reason for you to move from observation

1 point 1 to observation point 2 was that, from approximately 8.30 onwards,

2 could you not follow what was going on in the village because there was a

3 hill which was blocking your view. Is that correct?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. So can you just say how you went from observation point 1 to

6 observation point 2? Did you go by foot, by car?

7 A. By car.

8 Q. Is it correct that you mention -- you had mentioned originally

9 that the time at which you had travelled or moved from observation point 1

10 to observation point 2 had taken place, not at 8.30 as you said in your

11 evidence in chief, but at 10.45. Is that correct?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. And the first time you suggested that the time had been incorrect

14 was during a proofing session with the Prosecution on the 19th of June of

15 2007. Is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Is it also correct that the reason why you changed the time in

18 your evidence is because you realized that some the observations, which

19 you claim would you have been able to do from observation point 1 during

20 the period between 8.30 and 10.45, could in fact not be made from that

21 point. Is that correct?

22 A. It's not correct.

23 Q. Do you recall, Mr. Hutsch, to say that you had kept your notes in

24 chronological order. You said that to the Court yesterday again. Do you

25 recall that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you also say that on the transcript of the 26th of June of

3 2007, at page 2693, you said this: "I was using a notebook or, yeah, a

4 notebook, where I wrote in all the things that I saw in the moment when I

5 took it, when I saw it. And I had a time so that I watch first my clock,

6 I wrote the time inside, and then I wrote the notes that I was seeing in

7 this moment."

8 Do you recall saying that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if we look, again, please, at what is exhibit P308, that's,

11 again, your reporter's notes, Mr. Hutsch.

12 MR. METTRAUX: And I'll ask the registry to go to the sixth page

13 of that document, please.

14 Q. And if you look at the bottom of the English and it's also the

15 bottom of the German in fact, there's an annotation at 11.00 hours:

16 Explosions, RPG, MG-80, fire, northern part Ljuboten, slowly." Can you

17 see that?

18 A. Yeah.

19 Q. And if we can go to the next page, it goes on to say: "Moving

20 south, nine houses burning. Reinforcements approximately one platoon from

21 Ljubanci to Ljuboten."

22 Can you see that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And is that correct that it's in fact the first annotations which

25 you made in your notes from your new observation post?

1 A. No, Mr. Mettraux. Since yesterday, you don't want to accept that

2 there's a combination between a map and a notebook, and what you are doing

3 now is you present just this notebook without the map.

4 Q. Well, what I'm putting it to you to you, Mr. Hutsch, is, there

5 again, you are making things up. The reason for it being that the events

6 which you recounted in your statements, which you say you observed between

7 the time 8.27, in particular to 9.17 - it's at paragraph 76 to 80 of your

8 statement - you could not have observed them. But I will read a paragraph

9 to you.

10 MR. METTRAUX: If we can show what is Rule 65 ter 1D234, please,

11 and if the registry could please go to page 12 that's 1D00-2578. Perhaps

12 we can start with the top of the page.

13 Q. You will see, it's the previous page referred to 8.27 hours and

14 then 9.17 hours, and then you recount a number of incidents in paragraph

15 77, 78, and 79.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Then if you go to the bottom of the page, please.

17 Q. There's a reference to you're notation at 11.00, which I have

18 just read out to you, and I asked you whether that was your first

19 annotation from your new from your new position, and you said, "No,

20 Mr. Mettraux."

21 But at paragraph 86, of your statement, it say this: "11 hours,

22 this is the first entry in my notebook which was done from a new

23 observation post." Can you see that?

24 A. In this notebook, yes.

25 Q. That was the question before, Mr. Hutsch, and it say this: "Due

1 to the above mentioned problems, I could not see a part of the progress of

2 the attack because my view was blocked by the hill 631. I moved now

3 directly on the hill 631. I marked this position on attachment PP5,

4 titled 'second part of attack, 11.00 hours,'" and then there's a sentence,

5 and you said: "I moved there at around 10.45."

6 Can you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And, in fact, that is what you told the Prosecution originally,

9 and perhaps we can show you what is now Exhibit P315, please.

10 Do you recall being shown that picture by the Prosecution,

11 Mr. Hutsch?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And this is a picture that was presented by -- or prepared by you,

14 I'm sorry. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And if you can see on the top right-hand corner of the picture,

17 that's the picture which you prepared, and it says: "My observation

18 point -- position," I'm sorry, "from around 10.45 hours." Do you see

19 that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that's again what you told the Prosecution at the time. Is

22 that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And only later, when you realised that the original position, as

25 you say you had, did not allow you to observe what you say you observe,

1 have you change your version and placed the time to 8.30. Is that

2 correct?

3 A. That's not correct.

4 Q. And that directly contradicts your notes, is that correct, which

5 mentions that your first observation on that day from that position was at

6 11.00. Is that correct?

7 A. No, Mr. Mettraux. It doesn't contradict my -- my notes. It

8 contradicts my reminding. And as far as I know, Mr. Saxon sent you a memo

9 where I was correcting my -- my testimony on this point.

10 Q. And what you were correcting, Mr. Hutsch, as in another respect,

11 as we will come now, is things which you had come to realise were false

12 and could be exposed as such. Is that correct?

13 A. No, Mr. Mettraux.

14 Q. Well, let's look at another one. It's not a important one,

15 perhaps, but it is a telling one.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is Rule 65 ter

17 1D234, please.

18 Q. It is, again, your statement, Mr. Hutsch, the statement of 25, 26,

19 27 of August of 2005.

20 MR. METTRAUX: And I will ask the registry to turn to page 6 of

21 the statement. This is at 1D00-2572, and if we could focus, please, on

22 paragraph 34.

23 Q. Mr. Hutsch, this refers to what you say happened on the 11th of

24 August, 2001. That's the Saturday, and it relates in particular to what

25 you say happened at a alleged check-point in Radisani.

1 I will read out to you what paragraph 34 says: "We negotiated

2 with police officers to allow to us pass. The morale and conduct of these

3 people were not good. It was clear to me that around six of these persons

4 were police reservists and two of them were regular police officers."

5 And then you say: "After we gave some bottles of beer and bribing

6 them with 20 euros, we were allowed to pass."

7 Can you see that in your statement?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. And is it correct that, in a similar proofing note that was

10 provided to the Defence, you suggested a correction to that particular

11 paragraph. Do you recall that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And the correction was that, in fact, you hadn't given 20 euros to

14 the police officers but 50 Deutschemark. Is that correct?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. And the reason for you to do that, Mr. Hutsch, is that not only

17 was your original version improbable, but it was openly false. Is that

18 why you changed it?

19 A. It's your conclusion again.

20 Q. Well, the reason why you changed is that on the 11th of August,

21 there was no such thing as the euro. Is that correct?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. And when you realised that, you changed your version to the DM,

24 the Deutschemark. Is that correct?

25 A. So that means that the investigator also is involved in this big

1 mysterious theatre?

2 Q. Well, that's your view, Mr. Hutsch.

3 A. It's your view.

4 Q. There are other problems, Mr. Hutsch, many other problems with

5 your statements and the evidence which you have sought to give to this

6 Chamber, and there's only a few that we will have the time to go through

7 together. One of them has to do with your observations that you made

8 about what you say was mortar fire, and I'm talking of the 12th of August

9 of 2001.

10 Do you recall making a annotation or, I believe, the first

11 annotation which you made in your notes of fire activity witnessed

12 personally by you at 0803. And if you need me to show you the notes, I

13 will certainly do so.

14 A. Yes, I know that I was writing that.

15 Q. And what you said at 8.03 is that what you witnessed at the time

16 was mortar fire from the army, directed into position in or around the

17 village. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Mr. Hutsch, did you see at about the same time any mortar coming

20 from positions that were not army positions?

21 A. There were coming mortar fire from outside the village, north of

22 the village, as far as I know, or I remember into the village, yes.

23 Q. And did you become aware or did you -- were you aware at the time

24 that some of the mortar fire that was directed towards the village had

25 come from NLA positions?

1 A. No.

2 Q. So was it your belief at the time, as far as the record that

3 you've made for these proceedings, that all fire had come from the army?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you later become aware - and I'm talking after this period,

6 the August of 2001 - did you become aware that actually some of the fire

7 had come from the NLA? Did you ever become aware of that?

8 A. No.

9 Q. So if witnesses were to testify in this case that, in fact,

10 several of the mortars, which were fired around that time, did not come

11 from army positions, as you say, but had been fired onto the village by

12 NLA positions, you would have seen none of that. Is that correct?

13 A. That's right.

14 MR. METTRAUX: And, Your Honour, simply for the record, I refer to

15 the transcript 7th of June, 2007, 1674 to 1675; and also the evidence of

16 M-083, 25th of May, 2007, page 1494 to 1495, 1516; and also M-053, 13th of

17 June, 1993, 1994, also 2001 to 2002.

18 Q. But I would like to show you another document, Mr. Hutsch.

19 MR. METTRAUX: And this would be Exhibit 1D23, please.

20 Q. This is, Mr. Hutsch, a so-called spot report. This is prepared by

21 the OSCE and is dated Skopje, 14th of August of 2001. It is provided to

22 us by the Office of the Prosecutor.

23 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can go down to the bottom of the page,

24 please.

25 Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the section under the

1 subheading "Central Area." Can you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And it talks about the events of Ljuboten; I mean, as can you see

4 from the rest of the document. And if you can locate a paragraph which

5 starts with the word, "It now seems clear."

6 Can you see that? Can you see that paragraph?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. It says this: "It now seems clear that ethnic Albanian armed

9 group mortar fire brought to bear on to the ethnic Macedonian part of the

10 village originally sparked the fighting, and at least a covert presence of

11 EAAG, did in fact exist in the village."

12 My question is simply were you aware of any of the information

13 contained in that document at that time?

14 A. No.

15 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is 1D24,

16 please, Exhibit 1D24.

17 Q. Mr. Hutsch, this is another document prepared by the OSCE. It's

18 another report, and this one is a special report about the events in

19 Ljuboten.

20 MR. METTRAUX: And I'll ask the registry, please, to turn to the

21 third page of that document.

22 Q. I'll ask to you locate a paragraph that starts with the words, "On

23 12 August at 0805 hours." Can you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And it say this: "On 12 August at 0805 hours, the first mortar

1 round fell on the village. It landed in the vicinity of the orthodox

2 church in the Macedonian section of the village. Two more rounds

3 followed, each closer to the church. All three are believed to have been

4 120-millimetres mortars. These are more likely to have been EAAG rounds

5 than government, and were the first shot fired into the village.

6 Thereafter, the army fired on the Albanian side of the village with

7 smaller calibre mortar."

8 Mr. Hutsch, I'll, again, ask you the same question: At the time

9 were you aware of any such information?

10 A. No.

11 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please now be shown what is -- Rule

12 65 ter 1D507, and I'd like the registry --

13 Q. Mr. Hutsch, first, this is a statement taken by the Office of the

14 Prosecutor. It's dated the 27th of October of 2003, and it is taken from

15 a person called Suad Saliu.

16 MR. METTRAUX: And I will ask the registry please to move to page

17 4 of that document, and if you could please focus on paragraph 9 and

18 enlarge it somewhat.

19 Q. This the statement of Mr. Suad Saliu, Mr. Hutsch, and he at the

20 time was a member of the so-called 114th Brigade of the NLA. That is what

21 he said: "As Macedonian forces were about to enter the village, Hoxha and

22 Limaj ordered to open mortar fire. They obviously discussed the situation

23 with Bushi, with whom they were in contact on mobile phone.

24 "About six or seven mortar rounds were fired. Our mortars

25 targeted the army positions. I think that five round missed the target,

1 while two hit the army positions." And then he says that "Macedonian

2 security forces were beating the villagers of Ljuboten. And after the

3 mortar rounds impacted, Macedonian security forces started to withdraw

4 from the village."

5 Sir, did you see any of those six or seven mortars to which

6 Mr. Saliu is referring?

7 A. I didn't see the mortars. I just saw the impacts in the area of

8 the orthodox church.

9 Q. And did you relies at that time that they had been coming from the

10 NLA positions?

11 A. No, I didn't.

12 Q. You've indicated, I believe, in your statement, and again in your

13 evidence, that at some stage, in mid-September of 2001, you say you were

14 then employed by the embassy -- the German embassy in Skopje; is that

15 correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And you have also indicated, I believe, that your superior, direct

18 or incompetent direct - you may specify this - was a person called Peter

19 Matthiesen. Is that correct?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And in your role, in your capacity in this job, I suppose, I will

22 ask you: Did you have access to any sort of intelligence collected by the

23 embassy or Mr. Matthiesen at the time?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And did you discuss at any point your visit or what you say were

1 your visits in Ljuboten with him?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And did Mr. Matthiesen share with you what he knew of those events

4 as well?

5 A. Some parts of that what he knew.

6 Q. Did he share with you that he knew that the NLA had tried to

7 capture the village on a number of occasions?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Did he tell you that the first few mortars that had been fired on

10 to Ljuboten had come from the NLA positions?

11 A. No, he didn't.

12 Q. I'd like to show you a document, Mr. Hutsch.

13 MR. METTRAUX: That's Exhibit 1D224. There's an original in

14 German, Mr. Hutsch. I will give you the number.

15 Q. Perhaps, you can look at the German one which appears to be a

16 better or more accurate record of what happened.

17 This is a document dated 16 August of 2001, and it is written

18 by -- it comes from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany. It

19 says, "Military attache, Lieutenant-Colonel Peter H. Matthiesen," on the

20 top-left corner. Can you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then it has a subheading saying, "Information on Ljuboten."

23 Can you see this?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And then there's a general paragraph, under the subheading

1 "General," which is a sort of a brief summary of some comments of

2 Mr. Matthiesen. Can you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And then, if you go down to the next section of that document,

5 there's a subheading saying, "Two Accounts of Events." Can you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And if I can draw your attention to the first paragraph, it

8 says: "The NLA, National Liberation Army, tried to capture the town in

9 several hit and run attempts but was prevented from doing so by Macedonian

10 security forces."

11 Can you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And then he says that: "The attack by security forces of 12th

14 August was led by the Macedonian part of the town against the centre of

15 the town."

16 Is that correct?

17 A. That's what is written there.

18 Q. And then a sentence, if you can look at the German, starts with

19 the word: [Foreign language spoken]. Can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And, in the English, there was a typo because the sentence should

22 read: "There is no doubt that first three mortar attacks were aimed at the

23 security forces."

24 Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And it says: "It was the Macedonian forces which then followed by

2 using further mortars." Can you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that's information which your superior, Mr. Matthiesen, had

5 not shared with you, Mr. Hutsch; is that correct?

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. There's another issue which I would like to raise with you,

8 another observation which you made about what you said you saw at the

9 time. You've given evidence here about this on the 26th of June of 2007

10 at page 2698.

11 Do you recall that you gave a indication to the Prosecution that

12 you remembered that some of the mortars that had been used, you believed,

13 by the army used a system of delayed ignition. Do you recall that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you will agree that, in fact, you never see or you never saw

16 such a thing. Is that correct?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Well, another witness came to testify in this court, a member of

19 the army, Mr. Hutsch, and he was asked about this particular material or

20 this particular ammunition that you say wasn't used on that day. That's

21 witness M-083. It is on 27th of August of 2007. It's at page 4185 to

22 4186. I will just read it out to you.

23 The question is this: "The army had, on these positions,

24 82-millimetres and 120-millimetre grenade launchers. Is that correct?"

25 And then the question continues: "Can you concur with me that

1 these units that were in the village of Ljuboten near the army of the

2 Republic of Macedonia at the time, in August 2001, did not have nor did

3 they use mortared grenade with delayed," and then it says "ignition." It

4 should have said "ignition."

5 And then he said: "No, no. There was no way that this would be

6 the case. We never had such shells. We never used them."

7 So, in fact, and contrary to what you claim, Mr. Hutsch, there

8 could not have been such shell because they were simply not in use in the

9 Macedonian army at that time. Is that correct?

10 A. That's correct. But are you falsifying, again, what I said,

11 because I said that I didn't see the impacts. That means the impact flash

12 on the ground, and that my conclusion from that was that they were using

13 shells with -- with delay ignitions. So it was just my conclusion.

14 Q. Well, what you said is this. It is at page 2698 on the 26th of

15 June 2007: "Did you notice anything in particular about the impacts or

16 the explosions of these shells?"

17 "What I think is that they were using delayed igniters."

18 "Ignitors, you mean?"

19 "Yes."

20 "Which is the same as detonators?"

21 "Yes."

22 And then there is an exchange with the interpreter, and Mr. Saxon

23 goes on to ask: "The so-called delayed ignitor or detonator, how did they

24 work?"

25 "They are working in a way that the explosion is going around 15

1 up to 20 metres over the target. So that means, especially, if you are --

2 if you look -- like to destroy so-called soft targets, you have a bigger

3 circle on the ground to hit them."

4 Do you recall saying that?

5 A. Yes. And I feel confirmed because I said what I think is that

6 they were using "delayed ignitors."

7 Q. But again, Mr. Hutsch, you making a statement about things without

8 verifying them; is that correct?

9 A. The complete investigation going on to Ljuboten is based -- that's

10 the reason why it never was published because I never investigated to the

11 end. I don't have a point of view what was going on in Ljuboten at that

12 day. That's what I was writing there in my notes, and that's what I saw.

13 I didn't confirm whether if there was any -- I didn't confirm any one of

14 the phone call, one of the speeches, one of the other guys told me. I

15 didn't investigate that.

16 Q. Well, wouldn't it be the truth, Mr. Hutsch, that the reason why

17 you never published the piece about this event was because you were not

18 there. You never entered the village on the 12th.

19 A. It's your conclusion again.

20 MR. METTRAUX: Would that be a convenient time, Your Honour?

21 JUDGE PARKER: We were running on for extra time to meet your

22 convenience, Mr. Mettraux.

23 MR. METTRAUX: Certainly, in that case, I will continue.

24 Q. Mr. Hutsch, do you recall that you told the Office of the

25 Prosecutor that you understood the operation to have finished at 12.15.

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And if I can take to you your statement for a second, once again.

4 MR. METTRAUX: It's Rule 65 ter 1D234.

5 Q. I'd like to take you to paragraph 94 of your statement, which

6 would be at page 13, 1-3, of your statement, and it is page 1D00-2579.

7 MR. METTRAUX: And if the registry could please focus on paragraph

8 94, please.

9 Q. Mr. Hutsch, you said the following to the Office of the

10 Prosecutor, it says this: "Between 1330 and 1450 hours, I left my

11 observation position and was driving towards Radisani. I was driving

12 into the direction of Skopje. We went from there on the road connecting

13 Skopje and Ljuboten. Along this road was another check-point. We

14 approached this check-point from the south side."

15 Just so that we understand the path that you say you took there,

16 is it the fact that you actually went back down the road through Radisani,

17 which you had used that morning, towards Skopje and then return towards

18 the village from the south side, I believe you said. Is that how it

19 happened?

20 A. So we went to Skopje and from then we went north to Ljuboten and

21 another -- another village close to the village Skopje Rastak, I think.

22 Q. And on your way down to go to Skopje, you went through Radisani,

23 as you had, you say, on the way up. Is that correct?

24 A. We were passing Radisani, yes.

25 Q. And did you notice anything abnormal or out of the ordinary when

1 you went down at that time, or was it the same as when you came in?

2 A. In Radisani, there were some people in the street listening to

3 that what was going on in -- in Ljuboten.

4 Q. Did you notice anything else, Mr. Hutsch?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did you see perhaps a crowd - I'm using the word "crowd"- of angry

7 civilians?

8 A. In the outskirt, yeah, in the outskirt, at the entrance of

9 Radisani, but a crowd? There were some people there, yeah.

10 Q. You see, Mr. Hutsch, this is the crowd of people which we were

11 discuss being yesterday, and I'm going to show you a document.

12 MR. METTRAUX: This is Rule 65 ter 1D925.

13 Q. So I'll go through first through the first page with you. This is

14 a daily log sheet; and as you can see, it's dated the 12th of August of

15 2001. It has come in the hands of the Defence from the Prosecution.

16 And if you look at the bottom of the page, please, you will see it

17 comes from the archives of the OSCE mission in Skopje?

18 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can go back up this page, please.

19 Q. You will see there are a number of columns at the top. Can you

20 see that? It says, "Ser, time, source," and so on. Can you see those?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I would like to draw your attention to the fourth fifth and

23 sixth column. It says, "event, remarks, and action." Can you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And if we can turn to the fourth page of that document, I'll ask

1 you to look at the annotations under number 23 of that document, please.

2 Under the column events, it says this: "Reports that 200 plus refugees

3 from Ljuboten are on their way from the village to Radisani."

4 Can you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And then under remark, there's a annotation which says: "They are

7 moving from Ljuboten south-west in direction Radisani by following the

8 river. At the entrance of Radisani, near the bridge, grid 371591, a crowd

9 is gathered with iron pipes in their hands waiting for the refugees."

10 Can you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then in the last column which is action, it says: "Team will

13 meet the refugees together with ICRC on their way along the river."

14 It says: "CMC," that is the Crisis Management Centre, "was

15 informed about the crowd at the bridge. The later body promised to send a

16 police team on that particular spot."

17 So that crowd of people, Mr. Hutsch, this is -- or those would be

18 the people whom you should have known had you gone through on that day, as

19 you claim you did. That's the group of people to whom Mr. Bolton

20 referred, Is that correct, and which you never mentioned in your own

21 statement?

22 A. First, I never asked what was going on in Radisani; second, like I

23 quoted, Mr. Bolton was talking about a crowd on page 1670 on his

24 testimony. This incident is located on the 11th of August, and we were

25 discussing all these matters around the 10th, because we were just

1 discussing the 10th yesterday. You were confrontating me with this in

2 combination with the 10th.

3 Q. That's not correct, Mr. Hutsch.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. What happened is this: You were read not the passage which you

6 are now referring to. You are correct. The passage you are referring to

7 refers to the 11th. The passage which was read to you of Mr. Bolton's

8 evidence was of the 12th, and what I'm putting to you now is that as

9 referred by Mr. Bolton, although he didn't use the word "crowd" in

10 relation to the 12th, is the same group of people that is referred here in

11 the report of the OSCE. Do you agree with that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And that's a group of people which you had made no mention of in

14 your statement, any of your statement, and yesterday took issue with the

15 suggestion that, in fact, there was a crowd there Radisani. You also

16 mentioned a particular location at the bridge in Radisani. Do you recall

17 that?

18 A. Yes, on the 10th. We were discussing the 10th, the Friday --

19 Q. Mr. Hutsch --

20 A. -- and you were confronting me exactly with this point. You were

21 making me believe, or you tried to make me believe, that that happened on

22 Friday, not on Sunday.

23 Q. Mr. Hutsch, what I'm putting to you is that had you been where you

24 said at the time, you would have seen a huge crowd of people armed with

25 iron pipes and other items, and you not have been able, as you said, to

1 travel where you said you did. Is that correct?

2 A. No, that's not correct.

3 Q. You see, Mr. Hutsch, this evidence is also reiterated by other

4 witnesses who have testified in this trial: Witness M84 at page 1498 on

5 the 25th of May. He was talking against of the 12th of August, and he

6 says: "During that time from the village, from Radisani, hundreds, maybe

7 more, people were running with shovels, with forks, with axes, with

8 hunting guns. They were running down to fight with the population from

9 Ljuboten."

10 You could not have missed that, Mr. Hutsch, had you been there.

11 Do you agree with that?

12 A. First, there is not a line how long this operation takes; second,

13 as far as I know, we have a report that 200 plus refugees from Ljuboten on

14 the way from the village to Radisani; and, then, we have another crowd

15 that is moving from Radisani to the north.

16 It is not written here where exactly, first, that happened; second

17 I know that they are -- I think it was in a story from Vojska Naki from

18 the World Newspaper. This incident is mentioned, so it was known to me

19 that something happened like that, but I didn't have a own -- an own eye

20 on confrontation between villagers of Ljuboten and villagers of Radisani.

21 What I saw is that there were people in the street. They were

22 angry,, they had things in their hands, yes, but I didn't see a

23 confrontation; and the second is that --

24 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I will stop you here. You are making things up,

25 aren't you? You mentioned this nowhere, nowhere in your statement, not

1 in the first one, not in the second one, not in the three proofings with

2 you had the Prosecution. What you are doing now, Mr. Hutsch, is you're

3 trying to mold your story to evidence with which you are confronted.

4 Do you agree with that?

5 A. Mr. Mettraux, if I read yesterday these two testimonies of the

6 two -- two witnesses in a right way, there were a lot of things they

7 didn't say because they never were asked. I can just tell you that when I

8 was giving my first testimony, you will exactly that there is difference

9 between the two testimonies I gave to the Prosecution.

10 First is that what I saw myself in the time from 10th up to the

11 12th, or 14th if you want so; and the second was what I was doing when I

12 was member of the German embassy. We had to wait for waiver that was

13 coming from the German Ministry of Defence in this time. That was the

14 reason for the second meeting.

15 And if you see that especially on the events of the 12th what was

16 going on in Ljuboten, we was going on, I will say, in the night up to

17 11.30, 12.00, 1.00, I think, I left the Tribunal. I wasn't asked. And if

18 you start in the morning at 8.00 and you are giving this testimony to the

19 Prosecution, because we were under time pressure as now as well, I

20 didn't -- I didn't mention that.

21 And if I remember right, and if I recall my testimony with

22 Mr. Saxon, he didn't ask me as well. You are the first who is asking me

23 in this moment.

24 Q. Is your evidence this, Mr. Hutsch: Now you claim that you that

25 you, in fact, saw angry villagers with axes and other instrument, as is

1 clear from this document, hundreds of them, on the road which you claim

2 you passed, including the very bridge which you mentioned, and you did not

3 make a note of that or did not think it was relevant, when in fact it

4 would have prevented you from going where you say you go.

5 Is that your evidence?

6 A. First, the road wasn't blocked; second, I didn't see hundreds of

7 them; third, there is no time when this crowd disappeared or was

8 destroyed, and there is no, as far as I see, any mark or any notice what

9 happened with this crowd. We have just that at 12.50, a source, "C-2,"

10 reports that that happened and that happened.

11 What I think is there were no direct observation from an OSCE

12 member, because he said, in results, the team will meet the refugees

13 together with ICRC. So what I didn't see, and I can't say that, I didn't

14 see a confrontation between villagers, and that people have been in the

15 street if you are just going - you have to pick me up - but, for example,

16 the road up to Blace in the same time was blocked by the Macedonian World

17 Congress, if I'm right.

18 Also, a crowd of people that changed between 150 and, I would say,

19 up to 3.000, it was normal. Things like that have been normal, that angry

20 people have been in the street, for example, in front of the parliament.

21 These days with a lot of people and angry crowd, it was normal.

22 It was --

23 Q. You see, Mr. Hutsch, I will stop there. Yesterday, when I asked

24 you those questions, you took issues with the suggestions that I made that

25 there was a crowd of people and accused me to have misled the Chamber

1 about this; therefore, suggesting, at the least, that this wasn't true.

2 Is that correct, Mr. Hutsch?

3 A. They were telling me that happened on 10th, that means on Friday.

4 Now you present another document that happens on Sunday.

5 So we were discussing yesterday the Friday, and you confrontated

6 me with material that you said that belongs to the Friday, and there was

7 not such a evidence on Friday. There was --

8 [Overlapping Speakers]

9 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch --

10 A. -- not such a incident.

11 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Hutsch, you were being --

12 JUDGE PARKER: I think we're going to have to interrupt this

13 conversation, Mr. Mettraux. We have run on a little longer in the

14 expectation it might finish, but not so.

15 We must break now and will resume at a quarter past.

16 --- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m.

17 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

19 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I'd like to move on to a different point. But before

21 we do that, I would simply like to come back on two statements which you

22 made.

23 You recall just before that you suggested that you were asked

24 questions about this crowd in Radisani, in relation to the 10th of August,

25 and that I tried to mislead you, and also that the statement of Mr. Bolton

1 referred to not the 12th but the 10th. Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Well, I draw your attention to the transcript. It is of yesterday

4 at page 6206, and it starts at line 8. This is my question --

5 A. I would like to see that.

6 MR. METTRAUX: Is it possible to show yesterday's transcript?

7 Q. So I think you will have to believe my reading, Mr. Hutsch?

8 A. That's very difficult, Mr. Mettraux.

9 Q. Well, it reads like that. The question is: "Well, first, I'll

10 ask you this."

11 JUDGE PARKER: We can manage it, Mr. Mettraux, with some

12 difficulty.

13 MR. METTRAUX: That would be wonderful. It would be page 6206,

14 please.

15 Q. And I'll ask to you look at line number 8, Mr. Hutsch. Can you

16 see that?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Do you have page 6206 in front of you?

19 A. No.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. METTRAUX:

22 Q. Do you have it in front of you, Mr. Hutsch?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. I'll ask to you look at line 10 on that page. It reads like that.

25 That was my question: "Well, first, I'll ask you this. You've indicated

1 that at the check-point on that day, on the 12th, you saw a number of

2 policemen, and I think you mentioned a number. Did you see anyone else at

3 what you call the check-point?"

4 And you answer: "Just police officers."

5 And then I go on to say: "Well, you see, this evidence is

6 directly contradicted, once again, by the evidence of another witness, who

7 has already given evidence in this case and who had come precisely from

8 the village of Radisani on that very day and who went towards the village

9 of Ljuboten."

10 And I continue: "But contrary to you, this person did not mention

11 any check-point in Radisani, but what he mentioned is that there was a

12 immense crowd of civilians is there. So you I would agree that what he

13 saw," and then I said: "Your Honour, that would be Mr. Bolton. It is on

14 7th of June, 2007, page 1686 to 1687."

15 But before I proceed to Mr. Bolton, do you agree that it was clear

16 that I was asking you about the 12th not the 10th, as you seem to allege

17 this morning. Do you agree Mr. Hutsch?

18 A. No, I don't agree, because if we're going up a little bit more up

19 in this testimony or in this page, you will see that we were just

20 discussing the 10th, and I didn't check in this moment that you were

21 talking about the 12th. That is, again, one of the -- the points that I

22 would like to answer in German.

23 We were just discussing the matter on Friday. If we are going

24 upstairs, you will find that you said: "Let's come to the Friday," things

25 like that, and you just put in, in this question, the 12th. We were

1 discussing the complete Friday incidents, and you put in line number 9

2 and, I didn't check that.

3 Q. Mr. Hutsch, all of the previous questions that came before this

4 one related to your annotations on the 12th of August, including at 6.03

5 in the morning and 7.11. And, on that page, it is very clear that it

6 refers to not to the 10th, as you seem to allege, to explain the problems

7 with your evidence; but starting at page 6203 and goes on to the page that

8 I read to you, it is the 12th.

9 The accusation which you've made and the allegation that you're,

10 in fact, talking about the 10th and not the 12th is just another

11 invention to get out of your lies. Is that correct?

12 A. No, Mr. Mettraux.

13 Q. And I'd like to show you also the statement of Mr. Bolton, which

14 I've cited to you at the time. It was 7 of June of 2007, and I mention in

15 the transcript it was page 1686 to 1687. And in the middle of page, it

16 starts in those words, that's a question: "Sir, we left off at 12th of

17 August, and I would just like to ask you two or three more questions about

18 that day. The first one is: You would confirm that did you not enter the

19 village on that day. Is that correct?"

20 "That's correct."

21 "And do you understand properly that the reason why you did not or

22 could not enter the village on that day was because of the animosity of

23 the civilians, or some civilians in any case, that were around the

24 village, and the animosity which they showed to your team. Is that

25 correct?"

1 "There was, when we tried to approach the village initially.

2 Right at the beginning, following the mine strike, there was animosity

3 from the villagers in Ljubanci. Subsequently, we did not meet with

4 animosity when trying to approach Ljuboten from the other direction which

5 was further to the east avoiding Ljubanci," and then it goes on.

6 The rest of the passage is at the next page that I've read to you,

7 but I want to save time here.

8 Do you agree, again, Mr. Hutsch, that the passage which I read to

9 you, contrary to your allegations of this morning, referred clearly to the

10 12th of all? Do you agree with that?

11 A. No, I don't agree, because the page I mentioned, that was on the

12 Internet available, it is page 1668.

13 Q. But the page you're mentioning, sir, relates to the 11th August.

14 As you said --

15 [Overlapping Speakers]

16 A. Exactly. The page --

17 Q. -- the page that was read to you by me relates to the 12th. Do you

18 agree?

19 A. -- that you showed me now is to the 12th, yes; and the three pages

20 I mentioned was 1668, page 1670, and page 1671, and these refer to the

21 11th.

22 Q. And do you agree with me, Mr. Hutsch, that I did not read those

23 pages to you, did I?

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters kindly ask

25 that pause be maintained between questions and answers.

1 A. I didn't -- I don't know which pages exactly you were presenting

2 me. You were presenting exactly this incident, and this incident took

3 place like not on the 10th. It was taking place in on the 11th.

4 But we are just dancing in a circle. You are putting in some

5 questions out of the content and you're putting in that, and that shows me

6 that we have to continue in German. That's a problem.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, should I proceed in English?

8 JUDGE PARKER: I think you can, if you're moving on.

9 MR. METTRAUX: Yes.

10 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I'd like to move on to something else. It's the next

11 annotation which you've made in your reporter's notes of the 12th of

12 August of 2001, and I'll bring up the document, once again, so that could

13 you look at it.

14 MR. METTRAUX: This would be Exhibit P308, please, and I will ask

15 the registry to go to page 9 of that document, please.

16 Q. Mr. Hutsch, do you see a annotation here at 1449 hours. Do you

17 see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And is that correct that it's the last annotation that you made in

20 those notes, and -- well, is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I believe that you've told the Office of the Prosecutor that

23 what happened there is that you had reached a check-point, which you say

24 was located at the entrance of the village of Ljuboten. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes. And in experience with the discussion with you, I would not

1 say it was a check-point. It was a police presence.

2 Q. And what you say you saw on that occasion is a scene of beating.

3 Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you also suggested to the Office of the Prosecutor that a

6 number of individual or members of the MOI had been involved in this

7 matter. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And what you claimed also is, that despite what was going on, you

10 managed to bribe your way through this police position, which you called

11 check-points, up to that day, and that you entered the village. Is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And what you said is, in that village, you claim to have

15 recognised a number of individuals, including Mr. Johan Tarculovski, and a

16 person called Goran Stojkov. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. But is it correct that in those notes that you say you took on

19 12th of August 2001, there is not a word about what you say you saw in the

20 village. Is that correct?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. And there is not even a word of the fact that you entered that

23 village. Is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. And the explanation which you gave for that, Mr. Hutsch - and

1 again, correct me if that is not put properly - the suggestion was that

2 you stopped taking notes at the time when you entered the village because

3 that could draw attention on to you and create security issues for you and

4 the people you were with. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the concern that you had is, if the people who were in the

7 village understood who you were and what you were doing, they could get

8 worried and could turn on you. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. In other words, you didn't want them to know that you were a

11 journalist and visiting the village in that capacity. Is that correct?

12 A. No.

13 Q. What do you mean "no"? I'm sorry.

14 A. I'm answering your question.

15 Q. Well, are you saying that you did not try to hide the fact that

16 you were entering the village in a capacity as a journalist? Is that what

17 you're saying?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. And what, if anything, then would have prevented the people who

20 were concerned could turn violent on you?

21 A. Experience shows that if you start to make notices in front of

22 people, or if you start to work with a camera in front of these people,

23 you will be in certain danger, and that is what I tried to avoid. In the

24 moment when you don't show the people that you are making notices or that

25 you are working with a camera, the danger slows down for you.

1 Q. But you agree that had you entered the village in the manner that

2 you said you did, the people would have known that you were a journalist.

3 Do you agree with that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that was because you say you had a big press sign stuck to the

6 car, which you say you drove through the village. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What I'm putting to you, sir, is that the absence of notice is not

9 because you were afraid of the consequences that could happen to you, but

10 because you never entered the village. Is that correct?

11 A. No.

12 Q. And that's not the only abnormal thing about your evidence on that

13 point, and I would like to read to you paragraph which is taken from your

14 statement of August of 2005. That's at paragraph 14.

15 It says this, you the told the Prosecution: "Normally, I do take

16 my notes and drawings directly at the time of the events, or, immediately

17 after."

18 Do you recall saying that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And in that case, Mr. Hutsch, you didn't take any notes after you

21 came out of the village, after 5.30. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Yes, you did; or yes, you didn't?

24 A. Yes, I didn't.

25 Q. And, in fact, you witnessed -- or you witness what you believe to

1 be the scene of very serious crimes, but did not make any record of it,

2 despite the fact that you would have been the only journalist able to

3 enter the village on that day. Is that your evidence?

4 A. No. I don't know if there had been other journalists as well in

5 side. There must have been journalist inside, at least Macedonian ones.

6 Q. But you agree that you made many notes, prior to that time, of all

7 sort of incidents, some that could be regarded as important, some as

8 irrelevant, but did you not make a single note of what now say you saw in

9 the village. Is that correct?

10 A. It's incorrect, because I draw a sketch of one body I saw, or two

11 bodies I saw. What you are trying to say is that Ljuboten, in the

12 afternoon of the 12th, was the big story, and that wasn't. Exactly

13 that's where you over high exactly that -- that theme: If you saw how

14 many journalists were reporting about what was going on in Ljuboten.

15 Q. What putting it to you the reason why there is no note is that you

16 never entered the village?

17 A. That's your conclusion, again, like all the --

18 [Overlapping Speakers]

19 Q. Let me --

20 A. -- like all the times before.

21 Q. Let me finish, Mr. Hutsch, please.

22 What I'm putting to you is that the reason you made no notes,

23 either during or after you visited the place, is because you never entered

24 the village and because no one else published information as to what had

25 happened on the 12th up to that point, unlike what happened to the visit

1 of Human Rights watch and OSCE at a later stage; in other words, you did

2 not have information on which to build your story. Is that correct?

3 A. That's incorrect, because like you said, yourself, three years

4 later all this information was available. So what was the problem? The

5 problem was that especially in the Balkans, and especially after the

6 experience in Bosnia and in Kosovo, you deal very carefully with the word

7 "massacre." Like you said, yourself, or like you pointed out from my

8 testimony in the Milosevic trial, until today, I don't know what really

9 happened, for example, in Racak in Kosovo.

10 For that reason, you know exactly, if you go to a scene like that,

11 you have to be very careful with that what you are doing. If there would

12 have been time, if there would have been a importance for the story, I

13 would have tried to investigate the story, but there were no reason for

14 that because, on Monday, we have had the Ohrid Agreement. On Tuesday, we

15 had the discussion in Germany if we would send German soldiers under

16 French command to -- or British command to Macedonia.

17 It was just a story probably for the people in Macedonia but not

18 for the people in Germany, and what are you trying to say here is that

19 this would have been a story for the people in Germany that would have

20 been interesting for them, but that wasn't.

21 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Hutsch, that this story, as you call it, made

22 it several international media outlets? Are you aware of that?

23 A. Yeah. I know that, for example, I think Nick Wood was reporting

24 about that, but then have you to see that possibilities of Nick Wood and

25 the BBC, and you to have to see the possibilities of the Hamburger

1 Adenblatt. We have had, all in all, three pages with politics, and we

2 were one of the leading newspapers who were reporting about the conflict

3 in Kosovo and Macedonia.

4 Q. Well, let me ask you this, then: Are you saying that entering the

5 village and seeing the scene that you claim you had seen, the commotion

6 that was going on, you had no story; however, you claim that two days

7 later you return to that same village? Were you hoping to get a story two

8 days later, Mr. Hutsch?

9 A. Yes. I was thinking that there could be a story, and I tried to

10 convince my editor in chief or head of the political section, Ekbar Nisla

11 [phoen], that he would allow me to investigate that. But after a long

12 discussion that took place on Tuesday - and I think it was intercepted as

13 well this conversation of 45, 50 minutes - we came to the conclusion that

14 the reality is we have the Ohrid Peace Agreement, and German soldiers will

15 be involved in this peace task force. If we bring now a story about

16 Ljuboten and investigate Ljuboten, we have to -- to investigate as well

17 the pressure that was on the Macedonians in Tetovo area where they were

18 forced to leave as well, after the Ohrid Agreement.

19 We had the problem that we had, I think, 11 or 13 missing

20 Macedonians in Tetovo area who were killed by the NLA, and we had several

21 other problems. So we said this story, Ljuboten, isn't leading us to --

22 to a point that the German people should be informed about.

23 And when I'm informed to write, we were doing just a -- I think we

24 were writing just something from the agency, maybe ten lines, that there

25 have been skirmishes in Ljuboten area, in response of my story from 10th

1 and 11th, where I was doing a story about the mine incident and how this

2 mine incident would be a danger for the peace process. That was before

3 the Ohrid agreement.

4 Q. Is the short answer, Mr. Hutsch, that you published no paper,

5 whether on the 12th or on 14th or after, about the events of Ljuboten.

6 Is that correct?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. Is it also correct that in your notes, what is you called your

9 reporter's notes of 12th of August 2001, there is not a single reference,

10 for instance, to an encounter with Mr. Tarculovski. Is that correct?

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. No reference to any type of gun which you say he was wearing at

13 the time.

14 A. That's right.

15 Q. And setting aside your little drawing that appears on the 14th of

16 August, is it correct that your notes of 12th contain no reference to any

17 dead bodies in Ljuboten, which you claim to have seen. Is that correct?

18 A. There's a sketch with two dead bodies.

19 Q. We are going to come to that. Do you agree that the sketch, which

20 you say you did on the 12th, appears on your note of the 14th? Do you

21 agree with that??

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So, we'll set them aside and we will come back to them.

24 Is it also correct that, in your notes of the 12th, there is no

25 reference to any of the people that you claim to have seen in the village,

1 including Mr. Goran Stojkov?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. No story about a BTR having driven through a pool of blood. Do

4 you agree?

5 A. I agree -- no, I don't agree, because it is in the sketch, if I'm

6 recalling that right.

7 Q. Well, I'm asking about your notes at this stage and the time that

8 is relevant after you claim you entered the village. Would you agree that

9 there is nothing that in those notes that would match this. Do you

10 agree?

11 A. You're right.

12 Q. There is no reference to the ammunition, the 9-millimetre

13 ammunition, which five years later you recall seeing on the scene. Is

14 that correct?

15 A. I have to see the sketch.

16 Q. Well, we'll -- I can show you the sketch, if you want.

17 MR. METTRAUX: That's Exhibit P320; and in the German one, it

18 would be starting -- it would be page N003-0017.

19 Q. And, Mr. Hutsch, at this stage, I'm asking you about your notes of

20 the 12th.

21 Do you agree that, in those notes of the 12th, there's no

22 reference to any police cars in the village. Do you agree with that?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. And, in fact, as we mentioned earlier, there is not a reference to

25 any single incident which you've later told to the Office of the

1 Prosecutor and to this Chamber, which you claim to have witnessed in the

2 village?

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. There's one particular issue or one particular point that I would

5 like now to ask you a few more questions about. You will recall -- I will

6 just ask you a few general questions first.

7 You recall that you've indicated to me today, but also to the

8 Prosecutor earlier in your statement, that on the 12th of August, you saw

9 armoured vehicles, and I believe you mentioned the Hermelin and two

10 BTR-80. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I would first like to ask you about the BTR-80, if I may. We will

13 go to the Hermelin in a bit later. Do you recall saying that the BTR, the

14 two BTRs that you said you saw, were mounted with what you believe to be

15 14.5-millimetre machine-guns. Do you recall that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you remember mentioning that you saw those BTR vehicles on the

18 10th. Do you recall that?

19 I can turn to your statement if it is of assistance.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. You remember. Do you recall saying to the Prosecution also

22 that you saw those vehicles on the 11th? Do you recall?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you recall that you also, here in court but, again, to the

25 Prosecutor in your statement as well, mentioned seeing those vehicles in

1 varies parts of the village in Ljuboten on the 12th of August. Do you

2 recall saying that to the Prosecutor?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And I will briefly summarise - and, again, correct me if the

5 summary is inaccurate - but in paragraph 64 of the statement, you said

6 that you saw them as part of the so-called "northern attack." Is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You say you saw these vehicles in the centre of the village, or at

10 least one of those vehicles in the centre of the village. That's

11 paragraph 91. Do you agree?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Also at the entrance of the village, paragraph 107?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you mention the tracks of a BTR in the centre of the village,

16 paragraph 116?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you also said that you saw them, at least one of them, at the

19 graveyard, is that correct, paragraph 140?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that would mean that you claim to have seen those at least on

22 five occasions during that day. Is that correct?

23 A. That's correct, yes.

24 Q. And I understand, with your military experience, the BTR-80 is a

25 vehicle that would be quite familiar to you. Is that correct?

1 A. Not familiar me.

2 Q. But that's a vehicle that you knew about. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what I'm putting to you, sir, is that, in fact, you never saw

5 any such vehicles on that day. What I'm putting it to you is that, as

6 with other parts of your stories, you are piecing events and information

7 from different times, different location, different sources, and trying to

8 piece them into your story. Do you agree with that?

9 A. I don't agree. But probably, probably I'm wrong about what is the

10 BTR, and I should have better said that it was an APC and not to -- to be

11 so precise.

12 Q. Well, what you're doing, Mr. Hutsch, is to pull out of a hole,

13 don't you, because the BTR-80, you mention it many, many times in your

14 evidence and in your statement. Is that correct?

15 A. It's correct.

16 Q. And, as a military man, would you know what the BTR-80 is, as you

17 acknowledged a minute ago?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So what, in fact, you call a BTR-80, it varies in parts of your

20 statement. Now you are trying to suggest that it is a different vehicle.

21 Is that what you're doing?

22 A. No. I'm trying to say that it was an APC.

23 Q. Well, I'll read to you, for instance, what you said in paragraph

24 64 of your statement: "The northern attack was formed by around 100

25 police officers. This front was supported by one Hermelin and two BTR-80.

1 You didn't mention any APC or any other category of vehicle, and

2 it goes on to say this: "The Hermelin car was equipped with a light

3 machine-gun fixed with a mount on the APC," and that's referring to the

4 Hermelin. "I think it was a 7.62-millimetre machine-gun. The Hermelin was

5 in grey colour.

6 "The two BTRs -- the two BTR-80 were both equipped with a 14.5

7 machine-gun -- millimetre machine-gun."

8 And if we look at paragraph 20, for instance, of your statement,

9 it say this, and it talks about Friday, 10th of August: "The leading

10 vehicle was a BTR vehicle followed by one police jeep-type Cherokee," and

11 so on.

12 At paragraph 36 of your statement, it say this and talks about

13 Saturday, the 11th of August: "In Ljubanci, I have seen several positions

14 of the army and the police. On several occasions, the police and army

15 were present at the same time. The scene was a mixture of already

16 prepared positions and temporary presence of units. Some of the units

17 were gathering around APC/BTR-80."

18 So in all cases, and I think there are three or four other

19 reference, Mr. Hutsch, where you specifically stated that this vehicle,

20 this armoured vehicle, is a BTR-80. Is that correct?

21 A. It is correct, and I have to correct my testimony in this way: I

22 will say it was a APC --

23 Q. Well --

24 A. -- like I mentioned in my testimony before as well.

25 Q. Well, what I'm putting it to you, sir, is that the Office of the

1 Prosecutor recorded you on five or six occasions, and the transcript of

2 this Tribunal recorded you also making references to a BTR-80, and you

3 never suggested it was anything else. You are now realising that, in

4 fact, those vehicles did not exist at the time in Macedonia. Is that

5 correct?

6 A. That's wrong.

7 Q. Well, I'm going to show you a statement.

8 MR. METTRAUX: This is Rule 65 ter 1D314, please.

9 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I will ask you to focus on paragraph 10 of your -- of

10 this statement, please.

11 This is, again, a statement taken by the Defence of Mr. Boskoski,

12 and it is taken from a person called Nikoletka Mitanova. And if you look

13 at paragraph 5, it says that, in 2001, this person worked as a assistant

14 of the Minister of the Administration for Finance and Other Common

15 Matters. And at paragraph 7, it says: "In 2001, my tasks included

16 preparing the budget of the MOI, following and controlling of the

17 financial transactions, control of realisation of completed purchases in

18 the sector for material, working and following of the completed

19 investments in the ongoing year."

20 I will ask to you look at paragraph 10, please, where it say this

21 is: "Further more, the police did not have BTR-80 vehicles at its

22 disposal; namely, the Ministry attempted to purchase few such vehicles for

23 the police, but we did not succeed in receiving one during that year. It

24 was either 25th or 26th August that we were finally able to purchase some.

25 I also recall a document which can prove this fact."

1 And then, at paragraph 11, it says: "After the crisis ended in

2 November 2002, machine-gun were mounted on some of them."

3 And before I ask you a question, sir, I'd like to show you another

4 document which is Rule 65 ter 1D316.

5 What will appear in front of you, Mr. Hutsch, is a letter by the

6 Ministry of Interior. It is the Cabinet of the State Secretary, and it is

7 stated the 19th of June of 2007. It's a letter that responds to two

8 particular queries that were made by the Defence of Mr. Boskoski, and I

9 will ask to you look at the second part of that document, if I may. It's

10 at the bottom of the page. Thank you.

11 It says: "As a response to item 3 and 4 of your request, and in

12 attempt to provide information as a answer, a telephone conversation was

13 held with Branko Trajanovski, head of the department for training and

14 support in the Department for Special, posebna, Units in the CPS.

15 "We were informed that in 2001 the police have received BTR-80

16 vehicles for the first time in the end of the month of August; whereas,

17 weapon was mounted on them in 2002."

18 Do you agree that what those documents or the statement and the

19 letter suggests, Mr. Hutsch, is that, in fact, on 10, 11, or 12th of

20 August of 2001, there was no such BTR-80 vehicles in the Ministry of

21 Interior. Do you agree with that?

22 A. That's what these papers or documents suggest, but have I photos

23 here. One here from March 2001 in Tetovo. I think it is a Reuters

24 picture that shows police forces with a BTR-80. I have another picture in

25 the streets of Tetovo also in March 2001 that shows BTR and police

1 officers, which clearly identify it was a BTR-80. There is another

2 picture that is from August 2001, and it is done by Reuters, I suppose.

3 That shows a BTR-80, and I think it is a T-55, I'm not sure, with police

4 forces on it. Probably, it--

5 [Overlapping Speakers]

6 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I --

7 A. -- it is need to be explained --

8 Q. Mr. Hutsch, we would be very grateful if could you provide those

9 pictures to the parties and give us information as to the dates of those

10 documents and where they were obtained from.

11 A. I think you will find them with Reuters, with AFP, and with EPA,

12 with the news agencies, and they will have the exact date when these

13 pictures was taken. I think both accused will confirm that these pictures

14 are made during the street fightings in -- in spring in Tetovo.

15 Q. Well, we'll look into that, Mr. Hutsch, and now I will turn to the

16 second vehicle, which you say --

17 JUDGE PARKER: These documents, are you wanting to tender them or

18 have them marked Mr. Mettraux.

19 MR. METTRAUX: Well, we would be grateful if they could be marked,

20 and we will do an investigation with the Prosecutor, perhaps, that may be

21 necessary in relation to this matter.

22 JUDGE PARKER: The three photographs will be marked for

23 identification.

24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D239, marked for identification, Your

25 Honours.

1 MR. METTRAUX:

2 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Hutsch, as you mentioned earlier, that you also

3 claim to have seen a Hermelin vehicle with a 7.62-millimetre gun on top of

4 it on the 12th of August of 2001?

5 A. Yes, that's what I claimed.

6 Q. But, in fact, there was no such vehicle in the village on that

7 day. Do you agree with that?

8 A. I don't agree with that.

9 Q. Well, first, do you agree that the Hermelin which were delivered

10 at the time to Macedonia did not have guns mounted on them. Do you agree

11 with that?

12 A. I don't agree with that.

13 MR. METTRAUX: Well, in that case, could the witness please be

14 shown what is Rule 65 ter 1D320, please.

15 Q. Mr. Hutsch, what will appear in front of you is the statement of

16 the person, who you say became your superior at some stage in September of

17 2001. It is Mr. Peter Matthiesen who gave a statement to the Office of

18 the Prosecutor.

19 MR. METTRAUX: And I'd like the registry, please, to turn to the

20 fourth page after that document, please, and if we could focus, please,

21 on paragraph 14, please, 1-4.

22 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I will ask you to look at what is more or less the

23 middle of that paragraph. It starts with the word, "However." Can you

24 see that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And what Mr. Matthiesen says is this: "However, in the time

2 before the armed conflict, Germany delivered material to the army and

3 police such as first aid material, cars, technical equipment, and also

4 armoured carriers such as APCs known as Hermelins. The aid was always

5 delivered on the restrictions to avoid that the material could be used

6 against the civilian population in Macedonia.".

7 Can you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And he says: "For example, the Hermelins were delivered without

10 any mount for machine-guns on top of the APC."

11 Can you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what Mr. Matthiesen suggests is, in fact, the Hermelin that

14 were given, at least as far as Germany is concerned, to the Macedonian

15 authority were given without this machine-gun mounted on top of it. Is

16 that correct?

17 A. Without German machine-guns.

18 Q. Well, what they said is that there was no mounts on the Hermelin

19 which they gave or sold to the Macedonian authorities. Is that correct?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And are you aware of any other countries that sold or gave

22 Hermelins to the Macedonian authorities?

23 A. Just to prove that I am saying the truth here, we have another

24 picture, I think it is Reuters as well, that shows Hermelins with what I

25 think is the Russian machine-gun 7.62-millimetres that was put up to the

1 Hermelin by the Macedonian security forces.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please be

3 asked to speak into the microphone, please.

4 A. [Previous translation continues]... that you are not right. When

5 I am right, this photo was taken in the area of Ljuboten, and that means

6 north going to Tanusevci.

7 MR. METTRAUX:

8 Q. Well, what is correct, Mr. Hutsch, is that guns mounted Hermelin

9 were mounted on the Hermelin after the events to which you refer. Is

10 that correct?

11 A. That's incorrect.

12 Q. And what you do here, again, is as you did with many other aspects

13 of your evidence, is to piece different aspects of things seen in one part

14 of the country events known from a different time and try to fit them into

15 your story. Do you agree with that?

16 A. I agree that are you doing that.

17 Q. Let me show you Rule 65 ter 1D314.

18 This is the same statement, Mr. Hutsch, of Nikoletka Mitanova,

19 which I read to you a moment ago. I will ask you this time to look at

20 paragraph 8 and 9, and it says this: "During the 2001 crisis, the police

21 had Hermelin vehicles at its disposal. Some of them were purchased from

22 Germany. During the 2001 crisis period, not a single Hermelin had machine

23 gun mounted on it. They were used for transport of the police forces in

24 the area where the risk of attacks were significantly higher."

25 I'll now ask to you turn to what is Rule 65 ter 1D316. It is

1 again this letter, Mr. Hutsch, that I have shown you a moment ago.

2 I will draw your attention to, this time, the first section of

3 that letter, and it say this is. This is, again, the letter of the State

4 Secretary, Mr. Goce Duklevski [phoen], to the team of Mr. Boskoski, and it

5 says: "For items 1 and two of your request, we inform you that the

6 Ministry of Interior Affairs has dispatched information to the Minister of

7 Defence, with the Act," and then there is a number, "where among else it

8 is stated that, quote/unquote, 'During the armed conflict in the Republic

9 of Macedonia 2001, all the members of the police used armoured vehicles

10 Hermelin, but only for the purpose of transportation of persons due to the

11 facts that there were not fixated weapons on this armoured vehicle.'"

12 Would you agree that what this suggests - the letter is not very

13 helpful, I agree - but do you agree that the statement of Ms. Mitanova is

14 that, in fact, during the crisis period - and that would be until the 13th

15 of August, one would think - the Hermelin were not, or the Hermelin of the

16 police in any case, were not mounted with machine-guns.

17 Do you agree that's what the statement suggests?

18 A. That's what the statement says.

19 MR. METTRAUX: And if we could go into private session for a

20 moment, please.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

22 [Private session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6301 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

24 JUDGE PARKER: We should marked for identification the fourth

25 photograph.

1 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to Your Honour.

2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D240, marked for identification, Your

3 Honours.

4 MR. METTRAUX:

5 Q. But, in fact, sir, you were doing semantics here. The reality,

6 from the evidence of Mr. M-037, is that there was no gun. What are you

7 trying to suggest now is a play of word about the concept of mounting.

8 What I'm putting to you that there was no gun, whether mounted or

9 otherwise, placed on the top of the Hermelin in the village. Do you agree

10 with that?

11 A. I don't agree with that because that is exactly not what Mr. M-037

12 said. Mr. M-037 said that there was no mounted machine on gun on the top,

13 that there was just installations. But what I say is there was a

14 machine-gun there. If it was mounted, okay. I'm not precise in this

15 point, and we are doing exactly the semantic discussion.

16 Q. Well, not only are you claiming to have seen things, Mr. Hutsch,

17 that could you not possibly have seen at the time, but what you do also is

18 that you place things in the wrong places. I'm going to give you a

19 example.

20 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown exhibit P296,

21 please. This does not appear to be P296.

22 JUDGE PARKER: I think this is a protected witness, is it,

23 Mr. Mettraux.

24 MR. METTRAUX: Yes. That is not the document in question, Your

25 Honour, that we're asking for. So we'll skip this one for the moment.

1 JUDGE PARKER: It hasn't been published outside the courtroom.

2 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful, and we will come back to it when we

3 have located the exact reference.

4 Q. Do you recall saying on the 21st of June of 2007 in this courtroom

5 - it is at page 2525 to 2527 - that you recall a command and logistic

6 centre of the army that was placed at the children's rest house which is

7 close to the Saint Nikola monastery. Do you recall that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And could you say what's the basis of that knowledge of yours? Is

10 that a visit or is that information which you obtained from other people?

11 A. Partly, I got this information from other people; partly, I saw

12 vehicles, logistical vehicles, going into this direction.

13 Q. So --

14 A. If, if I remember right, it was not possible for to us enter

15 exactly this area because there was a barrier and a guard.

16 Q. So are you not claiming, Mr. Hutsch, that you actually went into

17 that location. Is that correct?

18 A. That's absolutely correct.

19 Q. Then I'd like to ask you to see another document at this stage.

20 MR. METTRAUX: That would be -- well, we can return to the

21 previous point.

22 Q. Apparently, it has been located now, Mr. Hutsch.

23 MR. METTRAUX: So that would be exhibit P296, and I'm grateful to

24 the registry.

25 Q. Do you recall, Mr. Hutsch, that this is one of the drawings which

1 you made on the 27th of August of 2005 and which you gave to the Office of

2 the Prosecutor. Do you recall?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And do you recall making a number of annotations of what you said

5 were MUP gathering assembly areas, I think you called it, and other

6 logistic centres which we just discussed right now. Do you recall that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And can you explain when or on what basis, rather, you prepared

9 that particular drawing?

10 A. Partly, from what I saw myself; partly, from things that we were

11 told or I was told.

12 Q. So could you indicate, for example, what you say you saw yourself.

13 For example, I think I count four MUP assembly areas. Is that -- are

14 those things which you say you saw yourself?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And we've seen already about the logistic centre. You've

17 indicated that you actually didn't visit the site. Is that correct?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. And what about the school which you've indicated there?

20 A. I was passing once the school.

21 Q. And what about the football field where you located the MUP

22 assembly area?

23 A. That's what I saw as well, that there was a crowd of police

24 forces.

25 Q. Okay. Next to the football field; is that correct?

1 A. Sorry?

2 Q. Next to the football field?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Well, he'd like to read out to you a passage from the evidence of

5 another witness who has testified in this case. It is Mr. Mitre Despodov

6 who testified here on the 26th of June 2007, and it is at page 2672. I

7 will go on for a couple of pages.

8 It starts like this, and the question is: "In the village of

9 Ljubanci, there was a police check-point by a house of Brace the so-called

10 Chinese wall?"

11 The answer is: "This is how people call it, but the precise

12 location is across the nearby the football playing field.

13 "Is that correct that right at the football place, the playground,

14 there was a police check-point?"

15 "Yes, that's correct. This is a crossroad that goes to the

16 village of Ljuboten and towards the children's holiday resort."

17 Then the question: "Is it correct that the football playing field

18 is away from the school where your post was, around three to 400 metres?"

19 "Yes, more or less."

20 "This means that the football playing ground is not across the

21 school. Is that correct?"

22 "No."

23 And then the Defence of Mr. Tarculovski asked the witness to be

24 shown the document, which I wrongly numbered as P296, which was in fact

25 D296, which led to the -- it is the same picture, but with our number.

1 And then, if you go to page 2674 of this same witness, he is being

2 asked that: "According to your statement, this is a sketch which is

3 incorrect, since the football field is located at another position,

4 another place. Is this correct?"

5 "Yes."

6 "This means that the person who drew the sketch, prepared this

7 sketch, does not correspond with the sketch of the village."

8 "Yes."

9 "Can you observe on this sketch, in the middle above the football

10 feed, you can see a cross with a circle beneath it?"

11 "Yes."

12 "If this is the location on the command of the 2nd Infantry

13 Company, I'm sure that it won't be correct that say that members of

14 Ministry of Interior are located on the positions marked with the

15 lettering 'MUP.' You can see three different positions indicated."

16 "Yes."

17 "This means that this information on this sketch, according to

18 your opinion, is incorrect?"

19 "No."

20 "Very well. Thank you. This means that this sketch is

21 inaccurate."

22 "Yes, it is inaccurate."

23 This was the evidence Mr. Despodov.

24 I'd like to read out to you another part of the record of the

25 proceedings, and this time this is the evidence of a person called Mario

1 Jurisic who testified on the 6th of July of 2007.

2 And he was asked, again, by counsel for Mr. Tarculovski, he was

3 asked this: "In the village of Ljubanci, there is a football stadium or

4 football playing field. Do you know about that?"

5 "Yes."

6 "Is it correct that it is quite a distance from the school where

7 the command was stationed?"

8 "Yes."

9 And then the counsel asked: "Could the witness please be shown

10 the Exhibit P296."

11 And the question is: "Towards the middle of the sketch, can you

12 see a place marked with 'school,' in English."

13 "Yes, I see it."

14 And the question is: "Can you see that next to it, from the left

15 hand side of it, there is the football field as it is written."

16 "Yes."

17 "Is it correct that there is no football field there at that

18 location? It is not where the football field in the village of Ljubanci

19 is located?"

20 And he says: "I have a problem with the orientation on this map.

21 So there is further exchange, and then at the next page, it is

22 page 3370, is the following exchange: "Could you explain to us where is

23 the football field actually located? Where on this map would it actually

24 be located, in your opinion, from the school?"

25 "It should be right from the school."

1 "Thank you. Could I ask for the assistance of the usher to help

2 the witness to use the stylus and mark the location of the football

3 field."

4 And the witness said: "Roughly here. I can't be more precisely

5 because this is a sketch, but it would be somewhere here."

6 And then the document, which has been marked by Mr. Jurisic, was

7 admitted as 2D28.

8 MR. METTRAUX: I would like the registry to bring up Exhibit 2D28.

9 Q. So you can see, Mr. Hutsch, this is the same drawing as was shown

10 to you before with one difference, and it is a red square marked by the

11 witness Mr. Jurisic.

12 As can you see, Mr. Jurisic placed the football pitch, not where

13 you say you saw it with a gathering of MUP persons, but on the other side,

14 towards the village of Ljuboten. Do you agree with that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And that's something which you told me earlier you had observed

17 yourself, is that correct, the location of the football pitch?

18 A. I observed police forces in the area of the football field, and

19 that's what I think it was by the first witness confirmed. Probably,

20 three years, four years after the incident, I don't remember exactly where

21 the football field might have been. Yeah.

22 That might be my mistake on this points, but I don't understand

23 what we are discussing about now: Where is the football field in

24 Ljubanci, or if there have been police forces in Ljubanci?

25 Q. Well, the relevance of this, Mr. Hutsch, is, as you said, not

1 necessarily the real location of the football pitch, but the fact that you

2 are unable to place particular matters which you claim to have seen with

3 your own eyes and are ready to make drawings and present to this Chamber.

4 MR. METTRAUX: There's another one I would like to show, and it is

5 exhibit P317.

6 Q. Do you recall, Mr. Hutsch, this was a picture that was shown to

7 you by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 27th of June.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. The transcript is at 2748 to 2749, and you made a number of

10 annotations on this document. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And do you recall, in particular at page 2748 and following, you

13 made a particular annotation as to a place where you said there was a

14 check-point. Do you recall making that annotation with the word "CP"?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And this is what you see with the number 2 in your drawing. Is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness now please be shown what is Exhibit

20 223, please; exhibit P223, please.

21 Q. Do you have the picture in front of you, Mr. Hutsch? That should

22 be the same view, if you wish, with a different marking. Can you see it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Sir, this picture was shown to a villager, Mr. Mahmuti Ismaili,

25 who testified before this Trial Chamber. He was shown, as you can see,

1 the same picture as was shown of you, and he was asked a number of

2 questions about this particular matter.

3 I would like to read to you the passage in question. It is the

4 23rd of May of 2007, and it's at page 1345 through 1346. It starts with a

5 request by the Prosecution that a picture be shown. It is 19921 which is

6 this picture without the marking.

7 The witness is asked this: "What do you recognise on this

8 picture?"

9 "On this picture there was the police check-point."

10 And it says: "Where was the police check-point, please?"

11 "Here. The main police check-point was here."

12 And the question was: "Can you please encircle where you believe

13 that the check-point was."

14 And he says: "The check-point was a little bit closer, but you

15 can't see it here, and here it was where they made us lie down on the

16 ground. The women were separated from the men. You can't see the

17 check-point here."

18 And then a further question by the Prosecutor: "Witness, you just

19 said that you can't see the check-point, but you also said you were -- you

20 can't see it in the picture."

21 And then the question is: "You also said that there was a

22 location where you were asked to lay down. Can you encircle that place,

23 please."

24 And that is the circle that Mr. Ismaili made.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Kindly slow down a little

1 bit Mr. Mettraux, please. Thank you.

2 MR. METTRAUX: Then, he is being asked: "Do you know the name of

3 this place? And he says: "Kodra e Zajmit."

4 "Is there another name for Kodra e Zajmit?"

5 "I don't know. This is the part of my field, my father's field,

6 and we called it "Kodra e Zajmit" meaning "Zajmit's field."

7 "Where is the places where you have been beaten?"

8 And he says: "Here, the place that I encircled."

9 Then, it was received as a exhibit, P223.

10 Do you agree, Mr. Hutsch, when the Mr. Ismaili was asked whether

11 there was a check-point that visible anywhere on this picture, he said

12 that there wasn't. Do you agree with that?

13 A. No, Mr. Mettraux. We are again in a semantic discussion; and

14 before I answer, I would like to see how I was defining all these circles

15 and lines I was doing there. Because if I see that right, a small circle

16 that this witness made, it's around 50 metres in the circle.

17 And what I say is, in this complete time, there were much more

18 space where the things took place; and, definitely, this witness said at

19 this point when have been -- women have been separated from men, and that

20 happened exactly in this area.

21 So in the moment, I can't see the widespread, and we have had the

22 problem. If there's a check-point, if there is a police presence, if

23 there's a control post, whatever, we have had that for the last two days

24 or this day and the last day of my further testimony, and it is a semantic

25 discussion again.

1 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, what I'm putting to that you is that you claim

2 to have seen something that someone from the village did not see on that

3 very same location. What I'm putting it to you is that whereas Mr. Ismail

4 was being truthful about this matter, you weren't. Do you agree with

5 that?

6 A. No. We are talking about a check-point, and there was. That's

7 what I said in my experience in the discussion with you. It might be a

8 police presence, and that is exactly the problem. This witness could

9 testify in his mother tongue and not me, and we are now in a conflict for

10 the right words in English. That is neither mine nor your more tongue.

11 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, don't you think there would be something

12 awkward, to put it that way, that, as you suggest, a jeep vehicle with

13 press markings on it should be stopped at what you claim was a check-point

14 there, and that no one from the village claimed to have seen that vehicle.

15 Would you agree that this would be awkward?

16 A. That is something I can't imagine because villagers would have

17 seen us.

18 Q. And that's the point, Mr. Hutsch. The strange thing about it is

19 that the villagers did not suggest that they had seen you. Is that

20 correct?

21 A. So I'm wondering that, on the other side, you are on a delay with

22 all the witnesses. On the other side, you had the possibility to have the

23 testimony of all villagers.

24 Q. Well, I'm going to put it differently --?

25 A. It is a little bit astonishing.

1 Q. I am going to put it differently to you, Mr. Hutsch. I am going to

2 put it those terms. Do you agree that not a single villager from Ljuboten

3 on the 12th of August of 2001 could possibly have seen you in the village,

4 since you did not enter the village? Do you agree with that?

5 A. Again, it is your conclusion that you buy or that you sell as a

6 reality.

7 Q. And the reason why not a single villager could have seen you where

8 you say there was a check-point on that particular location is because you

9 were not there. Do you agree with that?

10 A. No. I think that you should tell me what is in your eyes a

11 check-point, and then we will find if I would say that the check-point or

12 police presence or whatever else. We are in a circle again.

13 Q. Well, I think, Mr. Hutsch, there's more than a problem of circle

14 here, and I'd like to show what you is exhibit P19, please. Thank you.

15 Mr. Hutsch, do you recall being shown this picture of Mr. Sulejman

16 Bajrami --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. -- by the Office of the Prosecutor. Do you recall that you were

19 asked by the Office of the Prosecutor to make a number markings on this

20 picture? Do you recall that?

21 A. Yes.

22 MR. METTRAUX: And could the witness please be shown what is

23 Exhibit P319, please. Thank you.

24 Q. Do you recognise the drawing Mr. Hutsch?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And, again, correct me if my summary of what I say is incorrect,

2 but I understand you to have been saying that the red drawn up body on the

3 top of the picture was actually the same body as we see on the picture

4 that you said it had been moved slightly. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And what you told the Chamber is that at number 2, where the feet

7 of what you say, was the body of another person lying down at the time

8 here. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And what you say is number 3 was the casings or casing residue

11 from weapons that had been used. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And the distance between the bodies and the casings you estimated

14 at between three and ten metres. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The number 4, you said, refers to what you say you had identified

17 as a bullet casing. That is correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In your statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, I believe you

20 also said that you had been told that the second body, which would be on

21 the second picture, was that of Muharem Bajrami. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I'm grateful with that.

24 You see there is a problem with this particular assertion of yours

25 that there were two bodies in this place. What I'm putting to you, in

1 fact, Mr. Hutsch, is that your belief was that the blood, which appears or

2 which can be seen on the picture, was the blood of another person;

3 whereas, in fact, it is the blood of the body of the person Sulejman

4 Bajrami that has been pushed to the side.

5 What I am putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that there never was a

6 second body and that you have invented it. Do you agree with that?

7 A. No, I don't. That's what you see here as well. Under the body,

8 there is no -- no evidence for any blood. So it was clear that this body

9 was moved and that this bloody -- that the blood, I didn't say that was

10 belonging to anybody.

11 Q. What I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that there was never a

12 second body to be seen on this picture, contrary to what have you

13 claimed. Do you agree with that?

14 A. No, I don't.

15 Q. What I am putting to you is that you realised, at some stage

16 during the preparation of your evidence, that there was a problem with

17 that, with this picture. Do you agree with that?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And the problem is this, Mr. Hutsch: You have referred to a

20 little drawing several times that you made, you say, in your notes of the

21 14th of August; but in this courtroom, you have claimed for the first

22 time, or to be more precise for the second time since you mentioned it in

23 the proofing, that, in fact, you had done the drawing on the 12th,

24 although in the record it's of the 14th. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And the reason why there was a problem, and you realised that

2 there was a problem, Mr. Hutsch, is this. You were shown by the

3 Prosecutor pictures of this particular body taken on the 14th of August,

4 and there was not two but one body. Is that correct?

5 A. That's incorrect, because the first time I saw this photo was when

6 we prepared my testimony here one day before.

7 Q. But you realise that you could not claim that there were two

8 bodies on the 14th of August, when there was photographic record from that

9 date showing clearly that there was in fact only one body. Is that

10 correct?

11 A. No, that's incorrect.

12 Q. And what you did is to then claim that, in fact, you had prepared

13 this little drawing, which I will show to you in a minute, and

14 said: "Although it appears in the notes of the 14th, I did it on the 12th

15 when I saw these two bodies." Is that correct?

16 A. It is incorrect.

17 Q. But, in fact, what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that this is

18 another one of your fabricated stories. Do you agree with that?

19 A. No, I don't.

20 Q. Is that correct that in the two lengthy statements that you

21 mentioned -- that you had - I'm sorry - with the Office of the Prosecutor,

22 the only place where you mentioned the body of Mr. Sulejman Bajrami, which

23 we can see on in picture, is in relation to the 14th of August of 2001.

24 That's when you claim to have seen him. Do you agree with that?

25 A. No, that's wrong.

1 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Hutsch, that you didn't mention the body of

2 Mr. Sulejman Bajrami in your notes of the 12th?

3 A. I was. I was drawing him there.

4 Q. And you agree, Mr. Hutsch, that the only place where he appears in

5 your statement and in your notes, these reporter's notes, is on the 14th,

6 do you agree with that, not on the 12th?

7 A. That's wrong.

8 Q. Well, let me show you your statement.

9 At page 8 of your statement, it would be again Rule 65 ter 1D234.

10 At paragraph 51, you start recounting the events of Sunday, 12 August of

11 2001. Your discussion of this particular day, the 12th of August of 2001,

12 goes up to paragraph 148, where you say: "On Sunday 12 August 2001, there

13 was no official comment of the Ministry of Interior about the police

14 operation in Ljuboten, and there was no comment in reference to the killed

15 persons. The only official information was the television footage and

16 comment broadcasted on the same evening."

17 MR. METTRAUX: I will ask the registry, please, to bring up page

18 21 of the statement. That will be 1D00-2587.

19 Q. And if you look at paragraph 148, that's the paragraph I just read

20 to you, and then it goes on at paragraph 149 saying: "Only two days

21 later, on Tuesday, 14 August 2005 [sic], late afternoon, it was confirmed

22 that there were persons killed in Ljuboten, but that they were for sure

23 terrorists." It goes on in this paragraph.

24 And at paragraph 150, you are saying this: "It was the same day

25 when I was visiting Ljuboten the second time with a lot of my journalist

1 colleagues. For this day, I kept another reporter's notebook. I attach a

2 copy of this notebook to my statement."

3 And then this in paragraph 151: "The most significant events on

4 these days, I can summarize in following subjects: The corpses of the

5 killed bodies were still in the village. At the least the body Murahem

6 Bajrami, 65 years, full name are identified, was moved from his original

7 position. Being asked, I mean the body of the older man which was lying

8 beneath Sulejman Bajrami. This was the name which was told to me."

9 It also mentioned that: "I also visited the crime scene where

10 Rami Jusufi was killed. I spoke with his father Elmaz Jusufi."

11 Do you agree that, as far as your statement is concerned,

12 Mr, Hutsch, those comments about the two bodies are made in the part of

13 your section that deal with your alleged visit on the 14th. Do you agree

14 with that?

15 A. We were going to -- no. I don't understand this question in this

16 moment.

17 Q. I can rephrase it again. Is that correct that you only refer in

18 your statement to the body of Sulejman Bajrami and having seen them, and

19 the moving that you say went on the description in paragraph 151 which I

20 just tried, in that section of your statement which relates to the 14th of

21 August?

22 Perhaps, I can shorten the question and make it simpler for you

23 because it wasn't very clear.

24 Do you agree that the description which you give of the two bodies

25 next to each other and the fact that one had been moved is made in the

1 context of what you say was your second visit on the 14th of August. Do

2 you agree with that?

3 A. Yeah. That this older man, he was taken away from this place. If

4 I have the scene right in my mind, the street is -- it's going a little

5 bit down; and, on other side, there is the entrance of a house. On this

6 Tuesday, if you were opening the door, left hand, the older man was lying.

7 Q. Well, the short answer to my question was: Yes, you made those

8 comments in the context of 14th of August. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if we can look at your reporter's notes, once again, of this

11 date.

12 MR. METTRAUX: It is exhibit P320, please, and I would like the

13 registry to show to Mr. Hutsch page N003-0017.

14 Q. Mr. Hutsch, that's the drawing. Do you recognise the drawing that

15 you made --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. -- of what you said you saw, Mr. Hutsch?

18 At this stage, do you agree that this drawing was made in your

19 notes, reporter's notes, not of the 12th but of the 14th of August. Do

20 you agree with that?

21 A. I don't agree with that.

22 Q. Are you suggesting that it does not appear in the notes which you

23 have dated the 14th of August of 2001?

24 A. That's right. But I think I was telling here, to the Chamber as

25 well, that I was doing this sketch on the evening of the 12th.

1 Q. That's what you said, Mr. Hutsch, but you never said it before you

2 came to The Hague. What I'm telling to you, what I'm putting to you,

3 Mr. Hutsch, is that you made up that story, which contradicts both this

4 reporter's notes and your own statement because it had become impossible

5 for to you suggest that you could have seen those two bodies on the 14th

6 next to each other. Do you agree with that?

7 A. No, I don't agree.

8 Q. And what I am putting to you further, Mr. Hutsch, is not only was

9 it impossible for to you see that on the 14th, but could you not even see

10 it on the 12th. Do you agree with that?

11 A. I don't agree.

12 Q. And what I am putting to you, so that it is clear, Mr. Hutsch, I'm

13 putting it to that you lied about this. Do you agree with that?

14 A. No, Mr. Mettraux.

15 Q. Well, I'm going to show you a something else again.

16 MR. METTRAUX: And if we could bring up what is Exhibit P19 again.

17 Q. Do you see, Mr. Hutsch, that that is the same -- do you recognise

18 that is the same picture that I showed you a moment ago? Do you recall?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Well, this picture, Mr. Hutsch, was shown to another person,

21 another witness in this case, and this person is Mr. Isni Ali, who

22 testified in this case on the 13th of July of 2007. This would be at page

23 3494, 3459, and it goes on to 3496 where the document is admitted.

24 I would like to read out to you what this person, Mr. Isni Ali,

25 told this Trial Chamber.

1 MR. METTRAUX: As we do so, I'll ask the registry to bring up

2 Exhibit 2D32, please.

3 Q. Mr. Hutsch, this is in response to questions by my colleague,

4 Mr. Apostolski, on the 13th of July of 2007, and Mr. Apostolski asked

5 first: "Could the witness please be shown the exhibit P19." That's the

6 picture you still have in front of you.

7 He was asking this of the witness: "Can you tell me, can you

8 recognise Sulejman Bajrami in this picture, in this photograph?"

9 "No. He was killed here on this place, on this spot."

10 "Can you tell me at what time you passed by his body on Sunday."

11 "At about 6.00, we went there above and I saw -- I saw him from

12 the other side."

13 "When we're speaking -- we are speaking about 6.00 in the

14 afternoon?"

15 "Yes, in the afternoon, at about 6.00. I don't know the exact

16 time."

17 Mr. Ali was talking about the 12th of August, Mr. Hutsch.

18 The question of Mr. Apostolski is this: "Was his body at this

19 location where you were passing by."

20 "No. He was closer to the street."

21 Then Mr. Apostolski says: "Could I ask for the assistance of the

22 usher to help the witness mark the location where we are seeing the body

23 of Sulejman Bajrami."

24 Question: "If you could circle that in the photograph, the

25 location where the body of Sulejman Bajrami was lying."

1 The witness did so.

2 "Could you please use a arrow to show where his feet were facing?

3 Would this circle be his head?"

4 "This way," the witness said, "and I didn't really have time to

5 see where was foot or where were his fingers. I didn't get very close to

6 see where he -- where was exactly his finger. My family was behind me."

7 And then further down the page, well, His Honour Judge Parker

8 said: "Could I just note for the record that number 1 depicts the head

9 and number 2 the feet."

10 Then Mr. Apostolski asked a further question, and he says: "Did

11 you see any other body, apart from the body of Sulejman Bajrami,

12 immediately next to his?"

13 "No, no. There was no other body."

14 "So, if anyone else were to state before this Court that next to

15 the body of Sulejman Bajrami there was another body, it would not be

16 correct?"

17 And he says: "A little further, to the door of Sabri Ahmeti, was

18 lying the body of Muharem," he called it, "Muharem Bajrami, 20 to 30

19 metres further; and, here, next to Sulejman Bajrami, there was no one. He

20 was alone."

21 What I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that this story that you

22 made up is completely false, and that you never saw this scene from inside

23 the village. Do you agree with that?

24 A. Now I would like to see first what I was drawing, and I will see

25 that exactly my drawing and the drawing of this witness is quite similar.

1 Q. But, you see, Mr. Hutsch --

2 A. Let me finish, please.

3 Second, if I recall right, the older body, I was doing an arrow

4 that he was laying a little bit out of the window of the picture.

5 Probably, we have to check that with the transcript that I said that he

6 was a little bit out of the -- of the picture.

7 And I was doing, and that's what I saw a few minutes before, that

8 I was doing a arrow that he was in this direction.

9 Q. Mr. Hutsch, what you're doing is you're misleading the Court.

10 That's what you're doing. Do you agree?

11 A. That's exactly what I'm saying all the time from you.

12 Q. What I'm putting to is what Mr. Isni Ali was the truth, which is

13 the body that you see on this picture was before the 14th, or at some

14 stage between the 12th and 14th when it was placed on the side of the road

15 where it is now, at the time on the 12th of August, it was only in the

16 middle of the road where Mr. Isni drew it and where the blood is. There

17 was no other body.

18 As Mr. Isni pointed out, the body which claim was there was, in

19 fact, 20 or 30 metres away from that scene. Do you agree with that?

20 A. I don't believe that it was 20 or 30 metres.

21 Q. Well, what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that, once again,

22 you fabricated this story from the material which you got from Human

23 Rights Watch. Do you agree with that?

24 A. No, I don't agree.

25 Q. Do you recall you were wondering how someone could have drawn or

1 could have made up the little drawing that you say you did first on the

2 14th, then on the 12th, without having been in the village? Do you recall

3 asking me that?

4 A. Yeah.

5 Q. Well, I think I can assist you here, Mr. Hutsch.

6 MR. METTRAUX: And I will ask the registry to show Rule 65 ter

7 1D348.

8 Q. Mr. Hutsch, this is the Internet version of the report of Human

9 Right Watch concerning -- the title is "Crimes Against Civilian Abuses by

10 Macedonian forces in Ljuboten, August 10 to 12, 2001."

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And if you look just under the title, there's a reference to

14 "photo gallery." Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Well, if you click on that photo gallery, Mr. Hutsch, you would

17 reach that.

18 MR. METTRAUX: That is the next page of that document, please, and

19 if we could enlarge perhaps the centre of the pictures, please, the middle

20 pictures.

21 Q. I apologise for the definition on the picture, Mr. Hutsch, this is

22 not of great quality, but if could you look at the picture in the middle.

23 You will see on the picture which says "46K" that's the picture or a

24 slightly different shot of the same picture that was P19. Is that

25 correct?

1 A. It is impossible for me to say that.

2 MR. METTRAUX: Could we turn to the next page, please, and that

3 would be if you click on the picture marked 46k. And if the registry

4 could go a little bit lower in this picture, please, a little bit down.

5 Thank you. And a little bit to the right, please.

6 Q. See, that's the picture of Mr. Sulejman Bajrami which was freely

7 available on the Internet on the Human Rights web site, and it shows the

8 body of Mr. Bajrami. This is not the same picture as you were shown.

9 There are one or two details which are different, but it is the same

10 location, and the pool of blood is there.

11 What I am putting to you, sir, is that your little drawing, that

12 you made in your note of the 14th, you based it on this picture. Do you

13 agree with that?

14 A. I don't agree, because in my drawing there is a second dead body.

15 Q. And that was your mistake, wasn't it, that you claim there was a

16 second body there, where in fact there was no one. The body which had

17 been in this pool of blood was the same one as we see on the picture, as

18 Mr. Ali said. Is that correct?

19 A. That's your conclusion.

20 Q. Well, isn't that correct, Mr. Hutsch, that you have indicated

21 earlier that you didn't publish a piece on the 12th because there was low

22 interest on the part of your editorial. Is that correct? Do you recall

23 saying that, that you couldn't convince your editor.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And do you recall that, when asked by me about why you didn't

1 write the story on the 14th, you said that you had been given a different

2 assignment in Tetovo. Do you recall that?

3 A. What's a different assignment?

4 Q. That you said you had been asked or requested to cover another

5 story for your newspaper. Is this correct? Do you want me to rephrase

6 it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is it correct?

9 A. That's correct that the story should be another one.

10 Q. Is it correct that, when you testified in the Milosevic case, you

11 testified that you had been to Racak at the time when there was activity

12 about the "massacre"?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you were also asked, during the Milosevic proceedings, why you

15 did not publish an article about this story. Do you recall that?

16 A. I don't remember exactly.

17 Q. Well, I will help you perhaps, but perhaps can you recall why you

18 didn't write the piece at the time.

19 A. It was the same because it became unclear for me what was really

20 going on. And to investigate, to research a thing like that is very

21 expensive, it is very expensive, it costs time. It is for a journalist

22 doing that in a serious way nearly impossible to finish that within two

23 days, three days.

24 Q. Well, your answer at the time -- the question that was put to you,

25 and this is Prosecutor from Milosevic. It is IT-02-54-T. The date is

1 12th of October 2004. The page is 32935.

2 The question that was asked of you was this: "Having considered

3 the scene at the ravine, where else did you go after that if you take us

4 further on your route through Racak from that moment?"

5 And then there is your answer. You were examined by Mr. Kaye: It

6 was about 2.00, 1400 hours, that I left the scene of the crime, went down

7 to the town, and left for Pristina. Basically, this was because I was

8 given a different assignment by my own paper, but the other reason was I

9 wanted to finish my report."

10 So, once again, Mr. Hutsch, you had claimed to have been to a

11 significant incident in the conflict in the Balkans. And when asked why

12 you didn't publish the piece about this matter, your answer was: "Well, I

13 was given a different assignment by my own paper." Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct, yes.

15 Q. And he never published any paper about Racak either. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yeah, but probably you would tell the Chamber for what newspaper I

18 was working in this time.

19 Q. Well, I don't think this is very relevant at this stage,

20 Mr. Hutsch?

21 A. It is absolutely relevant.

22 Q. Well, if you feel you have mention this paper, you should be free

23 to do it.

24 A. That was a weekly, Stern; and exactly for a weekly, there is

25 nobody interested in actual news, like in a daily. They are just

1 interested in background stories.

2 Q. And by contrast, a daily would be interested in that sort of

3 story. Is that correct?

4 A. That is absolutely correct.

5 Q. And the Hamburger Adenblatt is a daily. Is that correct?

6 A. That is correct.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Would that be a convenient time, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: We were planning to go for five or ten more

9 minutes, Mr. Mettraux, but if you have run out the steam.

10 MR. METTRAUX: Certainly not. We can continue for as long as you

11 wish.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE PARKER: It seems that there is a view that probably the

14 cross-examination would be more efficient if it was continued tomorrow,

15 Mr. Mettraux.

16 MR. METTRAUX: It would be refreshed in any case, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. So that we might then adjourn now and we do

18 so for the reasons that you raised yesterday, and we continue tomorrow

19 morning at 9.00.

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.59 p.m.,

21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 17th day of

22 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

23

24

25