1 Monday, 17 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around the

6 courtroom assisting us.

7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to

9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor

10 versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12 Both parties I think have indicated that they would like to

13 address the Chamber. Prosecution first -- or is there any logical order

14 in the matters you would like to raise? Or is there nothing?

15 MR. RE: I don't believe I -- good afternoon. I don't actually

16 believe I indicated anything I wanted to address. I think Mr. Emmerson

17 was going to address the witness for tomorrow --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Which might be --

19 MR. RE: But we would seek to call Mr. Dourel tomorrow and I think

20 he would wish to address the Trial Chamber on why he doesn't wish Mr.

21 Dourel to give evidence before the Chamber.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, is that the issue you would like to

23 raise?

24 MR. EMMERSON: There were two issues. There's one relating to the

25 next witness and the exhibits that the Prosecution has given notice of its

1 intention to tender through the witness and then there is the issue of the

2 witness to come, Mr. Dourel. Can I deal with Mr. Dourel first.

3 Your Honour will have seen the Prosecution's proposed amended

4 witness list which gives rise to a number of issues which will call upon a

5 response from the Defence. One of them and the only one that is pressing

6 in the sense that it presses against the Prosecution's intention to put

7 Mr. Dourel in the witness box tomorrow is that as the Trial Chamber will,

8 I think, appreciate, Mr. Dourel's report is, in effect, a comment on

9 certain of the conclusions reached in Professor Lecomte's report. And

10 when the Prosecution indicated its intention to as Mr. Dourel to the

11 Prosecution's witness list, certainly so far as we were concerned our

12 consent at that stage was certainly premised on the assumption that the

13 Prosecution intended to call Professor Lecomte to give evidence before the

14 Trial Chamber, she having been on the Prosecution's witness list since the

15 outset.

16 And Your Honour will recall that during the course of the evidence

17 of Professor Aleksandric, the Prosecution through Mr. Re indicated that it

18 would indeed tender Professor Lecomte's report and Professor Aleksandric

19 was dispatched with a request to provide a critique of it. Mr. Dourel's

20 is also a critical aspect of Professor Lecomte's report. So when the

21 Prosecution's proposed amended witness list was filed on Friday it came as

22 some surprise to me to discover that the Prosecution intended to abandon

23 Professor Lecomte and not to call her to give evidence before the Trial

24 Chamber, particularly since there is to be evidence from two witnesses

25 which is in effect a comment on the evidence that was to be elicited from

1 Professor Lecomte.

2 So there are two difficulties as matters currently stand.

3 Mr. Dourel is on a proposed list, it's obviously rather short notice to be

4 calling forensic evidence of that nature, particularly when we haven't

5 heard from the author of the report upon which he is, in effect, being

6 invited to comment so that she hasn't set out her conclusions and the

7 relevance of insect and larvae to the conclusions that she drew. And so

8 as a matter of logic, there are really two issues that arise. One is the

9 circumstances in which it would be right for the Trial Chamber to have

10 Professor Lecomte's evidence before it and the second is the order in

11 which the evidence is to be called.

12 As I say, we have no objection to the Prosecution adding

13 Mr. Dourel, providing Professor Lecomte is called before the Trial Chamber

14 to explain her conclusions and her reasoning as well.

15 If the Prosecution is adamant that it will not call Professor

16 Lecomte, despite the way in which the matter has proceeded thus far, then

17 I suppose the reluctant position that we would have to adopt would be to

18 invite the Trial Chamber to call Professor Lecomte, but even then it would

19 be certainly more logical for Professor Lecomte to give evidence before

20 those who comment upon her conclusions to give evidence.

21 So the main concern that I have is that in effect the Prosecution

22 has added Mr. Dourel and taken away Professor Lecomte on whose conclusions

23 he is being invited to comment. So that is our immediate concern.

24 There are, as I say, a number of other issues about the way in

25 which the Prosecution re-ordered its witness list which require to be

1 addressed, but they don't need to take up Trial Chamber time at the moment

2 and could be addressed in the course of a short written submission to the

3 Trial Chamber.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re --

5 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I join in Mr. Emmerson's remark but would only

8 like to add that in the filing with regard to the submission of this

9 particular witness's report, that's Mr. Dourel's report on August 16th,

10 the Prosecution states the Prosecution requested this report on the 25th

11 July 2007. It clarifies and provides further details about forensics

12 issues relating to the September 1998 body recovery operation at the Lake

13 Radonjic canal site which were the subject of the two expert reports of

14 forensic expert Professor Dominique Lecomte. So it is very clear that

15 this was a supplemental report to follow in light of that information that

16 had been obtained by the Prosecution with regard to the forensic

17 pathological issues that exist in this case.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.

19 MR. RE: Professor Lecomte has provided two reports. The first

20 one was on the 27th of October last year and the second one was on the

21 15th of June this year. The original purpose of a report from Professor

22 Lecomte was to examine or have an outside expert examine the methodology

23 of the Serbian forensic recovery process in 1998 and to give an

24 independent and learned critique and commentary on how it was carried

25 out. As you're aware, her conclusions are generally that it was carried

1 out as well as it could have been under the circumstances. The

2 Prosecution is satisfied, having heard the evidence of so far Professor

3 Aleksandric and Dunjic that her conclusions are consistent with the

4 evidence that the Trial Chamber has heard and the Trial Chamber could, in

5 our respectful submission, come to that conclusion themselves without

6 Professor Lecomte's -- without burdening the Trial Chamber with additional

7 witnesses and Professor Lecomte.

8 Professor Lecomte provided a second report this year, and it

9 appears to the Prosecution that Professor Lecomte went outside the area of

10 her expertise in providing an opinion which she was probably not as well

11 equipped to make in relation to the presence or otherwise of larva in

12 bodies or in a forensic site as someone who has that particular area of

13 expertise as a specialty. When Professor Aleksandric testified in July,

14 the Trial Chamber, in fact, the Presiding Judge, Judge Orie, asked

15 questions of Professor Aleksandric directed towards to the presence or

16 otherwise of larva or maggots in the bodies of what he was observed when

17 he was carrying out -- when -- at the time. To cover a gap between what

18 we saw as a deficiency in Professor Lecomte's second report and the

19 questions the Trial Chamber was asking, on the 25th of July or in that

20 week we asked -- we sought an expert, a suitably qualified entomologist

21 and it's a highly specialised field, forensic entomology, and we found all

22 sort -- the opinion of Mr. Dourel, Laurent Dourel, Lieutenant Laurent

23 Dourel of the national gendarmerie of France, and you can see from the

24 curriculum vitae which is filed with his report that he has 700 expertise

25 since 1992, of which about 70 to 80 have been have been in relation to

1 forensic entomology solely. He is a world expert in the area of forensic

2 entomology, and particularly in Europe. If anyone is qualified to give

3 the opinion the Trial Chamber it appeared to us was seeking to find more

4 information on, that is presence or otherwise of larva or maggots when

5 bodies are recovered in situ, it is Mr. Dourel or someone of his

6 expertise.

7 I just correct myself. A moment ago I said he has 700 expertise,

8 it's actually the institute for which he works in Paris, not him -- not

9 Mr. Dourel himself. And on that basis we obtained the report and we put

10 him on the witness list.

11 Why are we calling him tomorrow? Well, the Trial Chamber is aware

12 of that, as are the Defence, in that we had a difficulty obtaining other

13 witnesses next week because the witnesses we had planned to call became

14 unavailable. And Mr. Dourel is in Paris and he was the easiest and most

15 convenient witness to call in the time available. We filed the motion on

16 the 17th of August this year, and we -- and the Defence has had his report

17 since the first week of August, the week after we obtained the report, had

18 it translated into English. So the Defence in our submission should be

19 well prepared to cross-examine Mr. Dourel on this issue because they in

20 fact should have been prepared to cross-examine Professor Aleksandric,

21 Professor Dunjic when they testified in July so in our submission there

22 can be no prejudice to the late notice. Of course, if there is any issue

23 we would of course listen to any submissions that Defence counsel would

24 make about the need they would have to -- for additional time to prepare

25 their cross-examination. But at the moment it doesn't appear to us in our

1 submission that they would need it.

2 So those are the reasons why we seek to add him to the list. It

3 provides -- the evidence he provides is not merely a commentary on

4 Professor Lecomte's report and in fact it is not intended as a comment on

5 Professor Lecomte's report, it's actually intended to fill a gap in

6 relation to the presence or otherwise of maggots and what it means in

7 relation to how long the bodies might have been there and it's something

8 which in our submission Professor Lecomte is not qualified to comment on

9 in the same way that Mr. Dourel is. So in our submission he is the most

10 appropriate witness to cover that particular area of expertise.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

12 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honours, on the 23rd of April of this year,

13 Mr. Dutertre wrote to Professor Lecomte and her colleague, drawing

14 attention to questions that had been raised about the integrity of the

15 crime scene and the possibility that bodies may have been moved post

16 mortem, and basing themselves no doubt on their knowledge of her sphere of

17 expertise, they asked her to address four specific questions with that

18 potential outcome in mind. First of all, an estimation of the date of

19 death for each body based on the available video, photographic, and post

20 mortem findings; secondly, the period for which, that is to say the period

21 of time for which each body had been in situ at the site where it was

22 recovered; thirdly, any other forensic medical conclusions capable of

23 being drawn; and fourthly, "to submit any other comments that may be

24 useful for determination of the authenticity of the three crime scenes

25 where the relevant bodies were discovered."

1 Professor Lecomte then goes through each set of remains one by

2 one, looking at the state of the remains, not simply at the question of

3 dipteral larva, although that is one of the factors that in some instances

4 she chooses to refer to, but also the presence or absence of complete

5 skeletons. What inference is there to be drawn from the location of the

6 skeleton and the missing bones where they are missing, and a variety of

7 other indicia which lead her to express certain conclusions. If I can

8 summarize it very briefly, her conclusions in respect of the remains

9 recovered adjacent to the canal are consistent with the proposition that

10 the remains had been moved sometime shortly before they are recorded as

11 having been found.

12 Just to take a random illustration, she will say, for example, in

13 respect of a particular set of remains that the date of death can be

14 placed at more than three months, not taking account of all of the

15 environmental features, including larvae but not confined to it, it is her

16 opinion that the body has been in situ for a very short period of time.

17 She also draws certain conclusions about the bodies that have been removed

18 from the indictment that were recorded as having been discovered in and

19 around the economic farm.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Emmerson, could you please come closer to

21 the microphone, you are very hard away from it and the interpreters are

22 having a hard time.

23 MR. EMMERSON: I do apologise.

24 The remains that were recovered in and around the economic farm

25 where she has drawn conclusions about dates of death, which are consistent

1 of the dates of reported disappearance and would place those dates of

2 death at a time after the area had been secured by Serbian forces.

3 Now, plainly she is an important witness in evaluating the other

4 evidence that the Trial Chamber has heard, and for Mr. Re in effect to

5 suggest that her conclusions are premised solely upon the presence or

6 absence of dipterous larvae and the development of insects in relation to

7 the bodies is obviously inconsistent with the way in which she expresses

8 herself in her report.

9 As far as cross-examination is concerned, I have to say candidly

10 that because of the way in which her report was presented and the way in

11 which the Prosecution then served the report of Mr. Dourel, it had been

12 our confident expectation that Professor Lecomte would explain her reasons

13 to the Trial Chamber and that therefore Mr. Dourel's gloss or

14 qualifications of what can be inferred from dipterous larvae would be

15 before the Trial Chamber as part of the overall picture of the evidence.

16 So that is the position as we submit it.

17 It would in our submission be quite wrong for the Prosecution now

18 to be permitted to substitute, effectively, a witness who supports their

19 case for one who arguably does not -- or indeed to suggest to the Trial

20 Chamber that the conclusions that Professor Lecomte expressed in direct

21 answer to questions that the Prosecution expressly put to her and must,

22 therefore, have concluded were within her expertise should now be

23 discarded on the basis that somehow overall her conclusions lie outwith

24 her expertise. So, Your Honour, those are our submissions.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.

1 MR. RE: Can I just briefly respond. Only one thing in relation

2 to whether or not we would call Professor Lecomte. In a sense, we're in

3 the Trial Chamber's hands. I mean, the Trial Chamber is clearly making

4 the assessment at the end of the case. If it's of assistance to the Trial

5 Chamber, if you're of that view, we will call Professor Lecomte, if you

6 feel that it's necessary to get a complete picture as to how the forensic

7 process was carried out by the Serbs at the -- Serbian authorities at the

8 time.

9 However, we would not rely upon that portion of her second report

10 in which she bases an opinion in relation to the presence or otherwise of

11 larvae because now despite what Mr. Emmerson's just said, she has in our

12 submission gone outside her area of expertise and she wouldn't be the

13 first expert before this Tribunal or any other to have done so, in an

14 attempt to be helpful. So if it's of assistance we would make application

15 to put her back on the list. We make it clear, we don't rely upon that.

16 Mr. Dourel we would say is the preferred expert in that particular area.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You've said several times Professor Lecomte is

18 not the first expert in this field and she went beyond her expertise.

19 That's -- the first sentence suggests that there are better ones and the

20 second sentence suggests that she should have stayed out it at all.

21 MR. RE: What I meant was clearly in the experience of everyone in

22 this courtroom experts sometimes go outside their area of expertise. I

23 just mean that in general. What I meant in the second -- in relation to

24 the second area, having read her opinion we are of the view in relation to

25 the larvae and the presence of maggots, et cetera she is wrong and

1 Mr. Dourel the expert in that particular field of forensic entomology is

2 correct and we do not wish to put her second report or that portion of it

3 in which she expresses an opinion which we say, A, goes outside her

4 expertise and, B, is wrong.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the matter during the first

7 break. We don't find it useful to do it at this very moment, but we'll

8 give it full priority today.

9 MR. EMMERSON: Could I just invite the Trial Chamber whilst doing

10 that, for example, to have a look at her conclusions and the reasons for

11 them, in respect just to take as an example of body R-3 where she

12 concludes the body has been dead for three months and one of the bases for

13 her conclusion that the body has only been in situ for a short time is

14 that there has been no colonization of the remains, not by dipterous

15 larvae but by grass or branches that one would expect to have grown into

16 it if it had been there since it had died. That's the sort of general

17 conclusion that she reaches quite independent of the issue of larvae

18 development.

19 JUDGE ORIE: You would say it's not just the little animals, but

20 there's more.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly. Can I --

22 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's -- well, hold on for a minute.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith would like to --

24 MR. GUY-SMITH: There also remains another issue which is what is

25 the propriety of the Prosecution moving at this time based upon the

1 information they have received from Professor Lecomte and withdrawing her

2 from the witness list. There's also another legal issue with regard to

3 the prosecutoral duty and obligations to in the broadest sense seek

4 justice and to assist the Trial Chamber independent of the specific issues

5 as they relate to factual matters that have been presented through her

6 report, and we would, if the Court deems it appropriate, wish to give

7 submissions on that issue.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, there's another question I would have, that

9 is: Is this now -- but perhaps my memory doesn't serve me well enough.

10 Is this the first time that you take the position that the report of

11 Professor Lecomte on this specific aspect is going beyond her expertise or

12 have you expressed this view also at a time when we just had received this

13 report and where others were invited to comment on it. Was it -- at that

14 time did you already say there was no need to comment on that because that

15 part of the report is -- was beyond her expertise anyhow, so we'll not

16 rely on that, we'll just ignore that.

17 [Prosecution counsel confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Is my question clear?

19 MR. RE: If your question is directed to when did the Prosecution

20 form the view that Professor Lecomte --

21 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether you expressed that view for

22 the first time, is that today or was it done earlier? Perhaps, if you

23 hadn't developed it, then you couldn't express it, that's clear. But I

24 just wanted to know if my memory serves me well if my recollection is that

25 I'm now -- it's now for the first time put that Professor Lecomte here

1 went well beyond her expertise as far as this aspect of her report is

2 concerned.

3 MR. RE: It probably is the first time we've expressed it in

4 court, but clearly the fact that we sought Mr. Dourel's expertise in July

5 meant that we were thinking about it and especially when the Trial Chamber

6 asked questions to Professor Aleksandric and it became an issue. From

7 when we got it we were concerned about what it said, but whether we

8 expressed it in court before, I don't think so.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Of course for the Chamber to give specific attention

10 to whether the concerns are about the conclusions or about the methods and

11 the expertise of the witnesses -- yes.

12 Anything else at this moment?

13 MR. EMMERSON: Not on that matter. May I turn to the question of

14 exhibits with the next witness.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. EMMERSON: Briefly. This morning Mr. Re notified the Defence

17 and the Trial Chamber of a number of exhibits that he proposes to seek to

18 use with the next witness. I don't think there's any question about

19 protective measures in respect of the next witness. I'm pausing.

20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is not aware of any -- next witness, no

21 protective measures applied for nor to be expected.

22 MR. RE: There are no protective measures sought.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. EMMERSON: So far as Mr. Repic is concerned, the -- I don't

25 know whether Your Honours have seen the e-mail that was sent by the

1 Prosecution, but in effect the suggestion is that through this witness the

2 Prosecution seeks to use four statements taken from arrested, detained

3 suspects between June of 1998 and March of 1999 concerning the

4 disappearance of Rade Popadic and his colleague. Your Honours will recall

5 Rade Popadic's remains, partial remains, were recovered from the canyon

6 section in September.

7 These statements, Your Honours, are statements that were not taken

8 by this witness whose testimony from his statement makes it clear that he

9 himself has no knowledge, direct or indirect, of the circumstances of

10 their death beyond the fact that having been dispatched from Baballoq to

11 Junik, the two individuals did not arrive at their destination. And we

12 respectfully object to the admission through this witness of statements

13 taken allegedly from suspects under interrogation, who from the content of

14 their statements do not appear to have any direct knowledge and cite no

15 source for allegations that are made that these individuals were arrested

16 and detained and captured and then killed as opposed, for example, to

17 dying in some other way perhaps in the context of an exchange of fire.

18 So they are four statements taken by the security service, and we

19 respectfully object to their introduction through this witness. And

20 indeed given that they are individuals who could properly testify, the

21 Prosecution has given no intention of any intention to take statements

22 from them or to call them. They can be in our submission of no probative

23 value to the Trial Chamber in those circumstances. They're not in the

24 same category as the statements that were examined in relation, for

25 example, to Zenel Alija and Bekim Kalamashi where it was by common

1 agreement that those statements were not put forward as evidence of the

2 truth of their contents but as evidence of the progress of the

3 investigation that was taking place and its integrity. But these, as we

4 say, late statements are in our submission entirely outside that

5 category. This witness is not in a position to speak to them. I think

6 Mr. Re can confirm he's never seen them before. I don't know whether he's

7 been shown them since he arrived in The Hague, but they are entirely

8 outside any evidence that he is in a position to give and we would

9 respectfully submit that they should not be admitted or indeed used in

10 evidence with this witness.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, would you please respond to that. Also a

12 distinction has been made by Mr. Emmerson between the Kalamashi statements

13 et cetera which he said served some other purpose. Just from the e-mail I

14 cannot see what purpose, what probative value you find in the four

15 statements, the fact that they were given or the truth of their content.

16 I'm not aware of that. Please respond.

17 MR. RE: Well, I express some surprise that Mr. Emmerson has

18 decided to use court time to debate this particular issue when I informed

19 him earlier when he rang me that I did not intend to tender those two

20 statements through the witness but merely have them marked for

21 identification. And when a witness from the DB testifies within the next

22 few months -- sorry, next few weeks, to have that person identify where

23 the statements have come from. The only reason why I would show them to

24 this witness and have them identified as Serbian government statements is

25 to set the process in chain. I'm not intending to tender them through

1 this particular witness.

2 I will make the appropriate submissions at the appropriate time

3 about their relevant and probative weight, given that they are

4 corroborating each other and the events with which this witness will

5 testify about. So my intention is not to tender them, but to show them to

6 the witness, have the witness identify them as Serbian government

7 statements, taken by DB or MUP and leave it at that for the moment.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, it would be more appropriate for these

10 statements to be tendered at a time when he has an appropriate witness to

11 deal with that information as opposed to doing it in this fashion. At

12 this time -- and I echo the remarks made by Mr. Emmerson. And it's really

13 cluttering up the record. There's no reason for this to occur at this

14 time. There is no indicia of reliability whatsoever. We have no

15 information at all concerning the circumstances under which these

16 statements were taken --

17 JUDGE ORIE: But I do understand from Mr. Re the main purpose of

18 having them marked for identification and to ask the witness about is to

19 say are these the kind of statements that were recorded at the time and

20 not tendering them, so to that extent if you say would it be more

21 appropriate for these statements to be tendered at a time he has an

22 appropriate witness to deal with that information, as far as the content

23 is concerned, I think that Mr. Re takes the same position. As far as -- I

24 mean, if we would have to recall Mr. Repic at that time to say, Well, this

25 is a kind of document --

1 MR. GUY-SMITH: He won't.

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- produce them at the time --

3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Which he won't. The witness who he seeks to

4 tender the statements through theoretically should be in a position to say

5 these are the kind of statements that are taken by the Serbian police at

6 certain times based on the information that I have from Mr. Re is that he

7 plans on doing that.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Of course the Chamber doesn't know exactly through

9 which witnesses these statements will then later be tendered. Let me just

10 consult my colleagues -- or is there any other -- Mr. Harvey, you have

11 been --

12 MR. HARVEY: I join entirely in everything that's been said, Your

13 Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber within the limits just set out by Mr. Re,

17 that is, he's not going to tender these documents, that, therefore, he's

18 not relying on the truth of the statements which are therein but mainly

19 focusing on the format of the statement as such, the Chamber will not

20 disallow Mr. Re to do that. But as may be clear, of course the Chamber is

21 not aware yet of the circumstances under which Mr. Re thinks that he could

22 tender them as far as to their content. And of course the Chamber will

23 then consider whether it's appropriate to do that. And if they then are

24 tendered and if we would decide that they would be admitted, then of

25 course we have a statement of the present witness on -- on the format.

1 Of course the Chamber is not aware whether it will be a person who

2 made a lot of these statements who will be the witness later on through

3 which to tender or someone who gave the statement who might not be fully

4 familiar with the usual way of putting statements on paper. So therefore,

5 within the limited -- within the limited purpose set out by Mr. Re, the

6 Chamber will not disallow him to have these documents marked for

7 identification.

8 MR. GUY-SMITH: With that in mind, when Mr. Re chooses to have

9 those documents marked for identification, just so that we don't have a

10 slippage in terms of issues that come up in the future, could he please

11 identify specifically for the record that these are the documents we have

12 been discussing.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, if you at a certain moment tender them say

14 you remember these are the documents already -- he will have to do that

15 because he will have to refer to the MFI number, which eventually might

16 become an exhibit number. So therefore, I think the procedures in place

17 already make it reasonable to expect --

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Fine, I'm in your hands.

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- that attention will be drawn to that.

20 MR. RE: For the record, they're in Rule 65 ter Exhibit 1973

21 [sic], four documents within that one.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's not exactly what -- but let's -- there

23 seems to be no problem in this respect.

24 Mr. Re, are you ready to call your next witness and who's going to

25 examine the witness?

1 MR. RE: Me.

2 JUDGE ORIE: It will be you.

3 MR. RE: Mr. Rade Repic, I call him.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 Mr. Usher.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Repic. Can you hear me in a

8 language you understand?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, yes, I can.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of

11 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you

12 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13 Mr. Usher will now hand out this solemn declaration, the text of it. May

14 I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Repic. Please be seated. You'll

18 first be examined by Mr. Re, counsel for the Prosecution.

19 WITNESS: RADE REPIC

20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 Examination by Mr. Re:

22 Q. Good afternoon. Your name is Rade Repic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Your date of birth is the 2nd of December, 1965?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And you are currently an officer in the Serbian gendarmerie?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What rank do you hold?

4 A. Lieutenant-colonel.

5 Q. And you're based in Novi Sad?

6 A. No. I live in a town in western Serbia and I work in Novi Sad.

7 Q. That's what I meant, but I'll take you through -- I'll just take

8 you through some brief details. You went to JNA military academy in 1986?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. From 1990 to 1992 you worked in the MUP in Belgrade as an

11 assistant commander of a police station?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And from 1992 to 1995 in Mali Zvornik, assistant commander of a

14 police station there?

15 A. I started off as deputy commander and I very soon became a

16 commander of the police station.

17 Q. And from 1995 to 2001, were you the commander of the police

18 station at Sabac in Serbia?

19 A. The Loznica section within the secretariat of Sabac.

20 Q. Did you join the PJP, or the special police forces, of Serbia?

21 A. Yes, I did, in 1992.

22 Q. What was its role within the Serbian MUP?

23 A. The role of the special police units, the PJP, in the period

24 between 1992 and the end of 1999 was to maintain law and order, which had

25 been disrupted in areas such as Belgrade and so on and so forth and to

1 assist certain units such as the units in Kosovo where security situations

2 were impaired.

3 Q. How did the duties of the PJP differ from those of the regular

4 police?

5 A. The difference lay in the fact that the equipment which the PJP

6 units had was of a higher level, the training they underwent was stricter

7 and more complex, and the unit -- the tasks performed by the PJP units

8 were of a more complex nature and involved emergency situations,

9 incidents, and so on.

10 Q. What was the difference in weaponry the PJP had compared with

11 those of the regular police?

12 A. In Serbia all the members of the MUP had short-barrelled and

13 long-barrelled weapons. The PJP units, in addition to these weapons,

14 whenever the units were used as formations they were also wielding

15 machine-guns and anti-aircraft machine-guns, which meant that they did

16 have more sophisticated weaponry.

17 Q. What about vehicles?

18 A. The vehicles, too, differed of course. The regular police forces

19 used passenger vehicles, whereas the members of PJP units used all-terrain

20 vehicles as well, such as Mitsubishi, Nissan makes, TAM-100s, I don't know

21 how to explain this, but these were trucks.

22 Q. What about armoured personnel carriers, did the PJP have those?

23 A. They had APCs, but also these were combat armoured vehicles.

24 Q. Tanks?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Kalashnikovs?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. RPGs?

4 A. Can you repeat, please?

5 Q. Rocket-propelled grenades.

6 A. I apologise, I -- you mean hand-held rocket-launchers?

7 Q. Yes. Did you have them in the PJP?

8 A. Yes, we did.

9 Q. And how did the uniforms of the PJP differ from those of the

10 regular police?

11 A. The regular units of the Ministry of the Interior, i.e.,

12 policemen, wore quite a different uniform which was blue in colour with

13 short-sleeved shirts and peaked caps, whereas members of the PJP units

14 wore camouflage uniforms with greyish colours. They wore caps and

15 protective equipment.

16 Q. So they were distinctively different?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. The reporting chains, how did they differ from those of the

19 regular police, that is, the subordination upwards?

20 A. The chain of command within the PJPs started off with the squad

21 leader, who had up to ten men under him; the next in line was the platoon

22 commander who had 25 men; the next level is that of a company commander

23 who had about 130 to 150 men under his command; and then the commander of

24 a battalion or a detachment who had three to four companies under him

25 depending on the formation.

1 Q. What I'm after is how they reported upwards as compared to the

2 regular police? Was there a separate reporting chain of command?

3 A. Yes, there was a separate chain of command. From the lowest level

4 the reporting went up to the highest level. The squad commander reported

5 to the platoon commander, the platoon commander in turn reported to the

6 company commander, who reported to his detachment commander.

7 Q. What I'm after is: Who did they report to after that, the

8 minister of the interior or someone else?

9 A. The detachment commanders reported to the gendarmerie commander or

10 to the person authorised by him, the person who had been authorised by the

11 gendarmerie commander to be in charge of a given action.

12 Q. Where did General Obrad Stevanovic fit in here, what was his job?

13 A. General Obrad Stevanovic was assistant to the minister at the time

14 and was in charge of PJPs.

15 Q. Was that a separate reporting line to that of the normal police?

16 That's all I want you to tell us.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In 1998, were you a company commander in the PJP, that is, you

19 just described having about 130 to 150 men under their command?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. What did your duties as a company commander involve, just very

22 briefly?

23 A. Duties of a company commander are to take care that his unit is at

24 full strength, to conduct training of his unit, to prepare his unit for

25 activities out in the field, to be in command of the unit in the course of

1 security-related activities and tasks, to deal with any problems that may

2 arise, and to report on any important events or problems to his immediate

3 superior I suppose.

4 Q. And in 1998 who was your immediate superior when you were a

5 company commander?

6 A. My immediate superior was Colonel Branko Prljevic.

7 Q. And where was he based?

8 A. I don't understand fully.

9 Q. Where did he work from? Where was he physically located?

10 A. It's difficult to answer that question. In 1998 we had various

11 assignments and actions, and this dictated where he was based. We can say

12 that he spent most of the time in the northern part of Kosovo, that's to

13 say in Kosovska Mitrovica.

14 Q. Were you deployed to Kosovo in 1998, just yes or no?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How many times?

17 A. Between four and five perhaps, I can't tell you exactly, but not

18 less than that.

19 Q. When did you first go there in 1998?

20 A. I wouldn't be able to give you the exact date, but I believe it

21 was in March of 1998.

22 Q. Did you say March?

23 A. March, yes.

24 Q. Why did you go to Kosovo the first time?

25 A. We were sent to Kosovo for the first time in order to assist the

1 local security forces because the security situation in Srbica was quite

2 disrupted.

3 Q. Where did you go in March 1998? Where were you deployed to?

4 A. In the month of March of 1998 we were deployed to the hunting

5 ammunition factory and the local police station.

6 Q. How long were you there for?

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the name of the

8 location.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every time I was engaged in Kosovo,

10 I was engaged for the duration of four to six weeks. I wouldn't be able

11 to tell you for that particular occasion. I could tell you that I was

12 there for about a month.

13 MR. RE:

14 Q. When did you go to Junik?

15 A. We went to Junik in the second half of May.

16 Q. When you say "we," did you take a unit with you from Sabac?

17 A. Of course. When I say "we went," I meant my unit and I.

18 Q. How many were in this unit?

19 A. I don't recall the exact number, but the entire company went

20 there. I suppose that there were around 130 men.

21 Q. How did you get there, by bus?

22 A. We travelled to Kosovska Mitrovica by bus and then via Istok and

23 Pec to Decani, Junik, and Babaloc. We travelled in a convoy with escort.

24 Q. What do you mean by an escort?

25 A. By an escort I meant the security assistance provided by PJP

1 members who were supposed to be relieved by that particular reinforcement

2 and who were in APCs.

3 Q. How long did your unit remain in Kosovo in the Junik area in May?

4 A. The entire month of May and part of June, perhaps until mid-June.

5 Q. Why was your unit sent to Junik?

6 A. Just as was the case with the month of March, we went to Junik to

7 assist local police units.

8 Q. Why did they require assistance?

9 A. In that period, the intelligence obtained and the local situation

10 indicated that the members of Albanian ethnicity started organizing armed

11 units by arming their members, and they started attacking settlements that

12 were predominantly Serb as well as Albanian settlements that had sided

13 with the Serbs, loyal to Serbs.

14 Q. And which group was doing this?

15 A. Do you mean which group exerted pressure?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. Our intelligence at the time indicated that these were Albanians

18 from the local settlements near Decani around Junik and around Djakovica.

19 Q. Did your intelligence tell you anything about the existence of the

20 KLA?

21 A. In this period they were working intensely on building up the KLA.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I would like to have one clarification.

23 Witness, you said in that period the intelligence obtained and the

24 local situation indicated that the members and they started attacking

25 settlements, members of what exactly were you referring to?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was referring to persons who gave

2 their allegiance to the KLA.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But members, because the previous question was

4 about assistance to local police units. So when you were referring to

5 members you were not referring to members of the police units but members

6 of another type of organization?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Perhaps I wasn't clear

8 enough. I meant the local authorities, our colleagues who worked in local

9 police stations.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you said that those members of those who

11 were working in the police stations, they started attacking and

12 reorganizing -- they started attacking settlements which were

13 predominantly Serb but also Albanian settlements that had sided with the

14 Serbs. Is that -- so police persons organizing themselves to attack local

15 settlements or -- I'm still struggling with the word "member" you used or

16 was it your intention to say that by organizing themselves and attacking

17 settlements they became members of those units or that finally performed

18 these attacks?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will clarify this. We were sent

20 there to help the local authorities, i.e., the local police units because

21 ethnic Albanians, members of the Albanian people started arming themselves

22 up. As a result of this, vehicles travelling along roads came under

23 frequent attacks, as did settlements predominantly inhabited by Serbs.

24 And there was pressure put to bear on Albanians who were loyal to Serbs,

25 to Serb representatives of the local authorities.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

2 MR. RE:

3 Q. A little earlier you said that when you arrived you came in buses

4 with armed escort. You said you were in a convoy with armed escort. Why

5 did you require armed escort?

6 A. Escort was necessary because from Sipolj, which is a place on the

7 outskirts of Kosovska Mitrovica, all the way through to Decani and

8 Djakovica, along that route there were frequent attacks on vehicles driven

9 by civilians and particularly targeted were police vehicles travelling

10 individually.

11 Q. What was your information about who was doing the attacking?

12 A. The information I spoke a moment -- spoke of a moment ago which

13 indicated that local Albanians were getting organized, those who were

14 loyal to the KLA more and more, and that as they were getting armed their

15 attacks increased and their armed formations grew.

16 Q. What weaponry did you take with you to Kosovo in May 1998?

17 A. The regular weapons I already mentioned that PJP members normally

18 held which were short-barrelled weapons, pistol; long-barrelled weapons,

19 rifle; machine-guns; and hand-held rocket-launchers.

20 Q. Were there refugees in the Junik area?

21 A. Yes. In the Junik and Babaloc areas there was -- there were

22 refugee settlements holding the population that fled from the areas of

23 Albania, Croatia, Bosnia, and other war-struck areas at the time.

24 Q. Well, let's go to Junik. Where were the refugees in Junik?

25 A. As you set off from Decani in the direction of Junik, about a

1 kilometre ahead of the village of Junik there is a refugee settlement

2 holding, or rather, which held or had about a hundred houses complete with

3 infrastructure and ready to receive and accommodate refugees.

4 Q. Where were those refugees from? What was their ethnicity?

5 A. As I said, the refugees came from Albania among other places. I

6 do recall that there were two or three families from the village of

7 Vrane. This remained etched in my memory. There were also refugees from

8 Bosnia and Croatia there.

9 Q. Were they Serbian refugees from Bosnia and Croatia?

10 A. I suppose that they were Serbs -- or at least most of them were.

11 I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly now. Perhaps there were people of

12 other ethnicities too.

13 Q. Had the accommodation been built specifically to house the

14 refugees or was it already there when they arrived?

15 A. I don't know what had existed in the area before the refugee

16 settlement was built. What I do know for a fact is that the settlement

17 was brand new, it had been recently built, it had the necessary

18 infrastructure, the roads, the community building, health centre, police

19 station, all the necessary infrastructure you need to have for a

20 settlement to operate.

21 Q. Let's go to the refugees in Babaloc. Can you describe the refugee

22 situation there?

23 A. Two-thirds of the unit under my command was based in Babaloc. The

24 situation was identical as in Junik. The refugees from these regions also

25 had their accommodation there. The refugee settlement was identical to

1 the one in Junik in terms of its structure, size, resources, and so on,

2 except that it was located 4 to 5 kilometres or perhaps even 6 to 7

3 kilometres from it. It was on the left side of the road travelling from

4 Decani to Djakovica. What was more characteristic is that it was further

5 in the territory under the control of the KLA during that period of time.

6 Q. What was the ethnicity of the refugees then accommodated in

7 Babaloc?

8 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you that precisely, but I know for a

9 fact that they came from different regions.

10 Q. Were they Serbian, to your knowledge, or Serb?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You just said two-thirds of your unit was based in Babaloc. Was

13 the other third based in Junik?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Were the members of your unit staying in the same accommodation as

16 the refugees?

17 A. That's correct. In both refugee settlements we used houses on the

18 outskirts for accommodating our unit, the houses that did not have

19 refugees living in them.

20 Q. Were you in Junik or Babaloc?

21 A. I was in Junik.

22 Q. What was the security situation in relation to the refugees in

23 Junik and in Babaloc, firstly dealing with Junik?

24 A. Upon my arrival in Junik, my arrival and that of my unit, we

25 realised that the situation was a bit more favourable in Junik and this is

1 why we opted to base there only one-third of the deployed unit. The

2 village of Junik was known as one of the largest villages in the former

3 Yugoslavia. The estimates were that the village had between 7 and 9.000

4 inhabitants at the time. During that period of time in cooperation with

5 the commander of the local police we went frequently into the village for

6 patrol duty. We communicated with local residents, and we visited the

7 Serb houses which were on the outskirts of Junik, a couple of them were.

8 Q. Were there any attacks on refugees in Junik during the month you

9 were there from May to June 1998?

10 A. During that period of time, there were no instances of provocation

11 by Junik residents against the refugees, in the refugee settlement. The

12 refugees mostly encountered problems when they went to Decani for their

13 own personal needs. On their way there, they would be met and mistreated

14 or their IDs checked by illegal organs, that is to say, uniformed

15 individuals representing the KLA.

16 Q. How did you come to know about this?

17 A. Fortunately, the majority of people who had encountered problems

18 returned back to the refugee settlement and this is how we learned about

19 this.

20 Q. You said the majority returned back. Are you suggesting that some

21 didn't return?

22 A. Well, I wouldn't be able to say precisely. There were cases where

23 it was reported that a certain refugee had not returned; however, it

24 remained unresolved whether they had been taken away by the KLA or whether

25 their departure from the refugee settlement was of their own accord.

1 Q. A moment ago you said that some refugees would be met and

2 mistreated or their IDs checked by people representing the KLA. What do

3 you know about them being mistreated?

4 A. Well, the mere fact that an armed group of people stopped you on

5 the road, that they took you out of your car, searched you, confiscated

6 your documents, IDs, and so on, made your situation unsafe and it was

7 certainly unpleasant for people experiencing this.

8 Q. Let's go to Babaloc. You talked about Junik. Let's go to the

9 refugees and the security situation of the refugees in Babaloc in May/June

10 1998. How did it differ from Junik?

11 A. The difference between the refugee settlement in Babaloc and that

12 one in Junik was that the one in Babaloc was closer to the villages where

13 the KLA was in majority and where it was almost impossible for local

14 authorities to operate in safe conditions. One couldn't send a single

15 patrol of local policemen to carry out any task in the villages that were

16 in the hinterland of Babaloc. In addition to that, there were daily

17 provocations against the village of Babaloc, the refugees in the Babaloc

18 refugee settlement, and the units securing them. Those were armed

19 provocations.

20 Q. Can you just please describe to the Trial Chamber what you mean by

21 armed provocations; what happened?

22 A. When I say "provocations," I'm referring to a situation where you

23 had daily problems with your security organs who were in observation

24 posts, where they were supposed to take -- to ensure safety of the

25 citizens, and they came under fire, they were fired at. So we needed

1 trenches, we needed to ensure safety for those people so that they could

2 carry out their duties properly.

3 Q. Where were these observation posts?

4 A. In the outskirts of the settlement, near the Rastavica

5 intersection, near the villages around Radonjic Lake and at the elevation

6 which is above Babaloc, I'm now having difficulty remembering the exact

7 toponym, but it was some sort of an elevation, feature.

8 Q. Are you referring to Erecka Suka?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You referred a moment ago to -- you said one couldn't send a

11 single patrol of local police to carry out any task in the villages that

12 were in the hinterland of Babaloc. Which area are you referring to when

13 you say the hinterland of Babaloc?

14 A. Towards Radonjic Lake, towards the following villages: Rznic,

15 Dubrava, and another five or six villages there, towards the lake, on the

16 left side of the road travelling from Decani.

17 Q. Was the MUP or PJP able to go into that area at that time, that

18 is, the villages you just referred to?

19 A. Well, unless there was a dire necessity, even PJP would not enter

20 those villages because it had already been clear what was under the

21 control of the KLA. And protection was provided only in order to unblock

22 the roads and in order to ensure normal daily activities for people.

23 Q. Can you just clarify what you mean by the last line, "protection

24 was provided only in order to unblock the roads," which roads are you

25 referring to?

1 A. I'm referring to the main roads between the following centres:

2 Djakovica, Decani, Pec, and when I say that we did not enter villages

3 unless there was a dire necessity, I mean to say that we did our best to

4 avoid provoking any clashes.

5 Q. You mean with the KLA?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. When you were there in Junik and Babaloc in May to June 1998, did

8 you or your unit go into those villages, that is, to the left of the road

9 from Decan?

10 A. We were not given such tasks.

11 Q. Were there any attacks on refugees in or from Babaloc in May/June

12 1998 when you were there?

13 A. I don't remember that any longer.

14 Q. What was your information about how many KLA were in the area on

15 the left of the Decan road?

16 A. Our official intelligence indicated that during that period of

17 time in that sector around a dozen or so villages in that area, there were

18 already 600 armed and trained members of the KLA. There was information

19 indicating that there was a far greater number of armed men who only

20 possessed weapons but did not have full equipment, uniform and everything

21 else.

22 Q. Were there any KLA check-points to your knowledge on local roads

23 or main roads in that period in that area?

24 A. There were local check-points and there were armed guards in front

25 of every village on the local roads. I would use a military term for

1 them, in fact, and I would call them ambushes and not guards.

2 Q. How did you know they were there?

3 A. Every attempt on the part of local authorities was thwarted either

4 by stopping them, checking them, or opening fire against policemen.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I'm looking at the clock. Would this be a

6 suitable time to have a break?

7 MR. RE: Indeed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll have a break until a quarter past 4.00.

9 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we -- I give you an opportunity, Mr. Re, to

12 continue the examination-in-chief of the witness, the Chamber has

13 considered the -- has considered the issue raised in view of experts to be

14 called. First of all, Mr. Repic, I have to deal with a matter which

15 doesn't affect you in any way at this moment, so I apologise for raising a

16 matter. Just Ignore what I'm saying. I'm addressing the parties at this

17 moment.

18 Mr. Re, the Chamber is inclined to believe that it would assist

19 the Chamber to hear all the expert evidence related to the matters we

20 discussed before the break. That would mean that it is suggested that you

21 would call the expert Lecomte and not only the expert Dourel. At the same

22 time, the Chamber is a bit concerned about having witnesses here, sending

23 them back home, recalling them in order to respond to all the criticisms.

24 I think that a well-accepted - but please correct me when I'm wrong - a

25 well-accepted difference between witnesses and experts is that usually

1 experts, unlike witnesses, are allowed to attend the testimony of other

2 experts so that they have first-hand knowledge of what the other expert

3 said.

4 I also do understand that you have some difficulties in getting

5 other witnesses for later today. So the Chamber has asked itself whether

6 it would still be possible to explore the possibility of having witnesses

7 Lecomte and Dourel in court, both of them by let's say Wednesday and

8 Thursday. I do understand that it doesn't entirely fit into your plans,

9 but at the same time -- of course the Chamber is less concerned about who

10 comes first and who responds at what moment to whatever criticism the one

11 has expressed in view of the opinions of the other. So there is still an

12 opportunity that the expert could even follow the proceedings if it would

13 be impossible to have two experts together in court. It would still be a

14 possibility to -- even the internet would or a videotape or video -- DVD

15 would make that possible, because it doesn't make much sense to put all

16 kind of questions to experts, referring to what the other expert said with

17 the -- the expert himself is far better equipped to understand what the

18 other expert had said.

19 Mr. Re, at this moment the Chamber has not made any decisions, but

20 I think we understood at least from what you said that you were willing to

21 seriously consider what the Chamber -- what the Chamber thought would

22 assist it.

23 MR. RE: If the Chamber wants Professor Lecomte, we will call

24 Professor Lecomte. In terms of the scheduling, I understand that

25 Mr. Dourel is available on Tuesday and Wednesday this week only and then

1 not again until October. I have no idea about Professor Lecomte and I

2 don't know about her ability to read an English transcript and I very much

3 doubt there would be a French transcript available by Thursday.

4 JUDGE ORIE: We have no transcripts available, but I always have

5 to ask the technicians to what extent the French channel with the video

6 would already be available and I do not know whether the French

7 translation can be followed on the internet. I think it could. I'm not

8 quite sure, but certainly something to explore because then we could even

9 consider to invite -- of course to the extent possible, I don't know

10 whether Professor Lecomte has -- might have a very busy schedule, but if

11 she could follow part of the testimony given by the expert Dourel and then

12 join Wednesday, that even might be a solution. But the Chamber would

13 suggest that you actively explore possibilities to have the evidence of

14 both these experts before the Chamber, and preferably in such a way that

15 we don't have to do things five, six times. That would be our

16 suggestion.

17 If there's any comment on it which the Chamber would have to

18 consider, then of course the Prosecution -- the Defence is in a position

19 to raise that now, although we don't want to have a full debate again on

20 the matter, but just if this is totally unworkable or fundamentally

21 opposed by the Defence, then of course we would like to know.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Not at all, subject to practicalities, it's a

23 course that in our submission commends itself.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 Then, Mr. Re, having dealt with this matter you're invited to

1 continue the examination with the witness.

2 Mr. Repic, we now turn to you again. Again apologies for dealing

3 with other matters which were of some urgency.

4 Mr. Re.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. Mr. Repic, before the break -- just excuse me for one moment.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if one of the parties could assist me, I

8 tried to find a photograph Babaloc hill on which the settlement appears,

9 but I can't find the number at this moment. If anyone could help me.

10 MR. EMMERSON: I am in a position to deal with that during

11 cross-examination.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but could you give me the number already so that

13 I can --

14 MR. EMMERSON: I can. It's D111 and D112.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.

16 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

17 MR. RE:

18 Q. Before the break we were -- I was asking you about the KLA

19 check-points and you were telling the Trial Chamber that you would call

20 them ambushes and not guards on the village entrances and exits. In the

21 period you were there, May/June 1998, was there any difference in the KLA

22 activities at night to those in day; and if so, can you tell the Trial

23 Chamber what was happening at night?

24 A. Our information, what we were able to observe and register from

25 our positions, positions from which we secured these two settlements,

1 indicated that there was a certain activity of Albanians in the hinterland

2 of the Junik village; that is to say in the area between Junik and the

3 state border with Albania. All of that was taking place during

4 night-time, late evening and early morning hours, where on a nightly basis

5 we registered movements of a large number of motorised vehicles,

6 tractors. There was certain activity which was not typical for a village

7 which doesn't have illumination and all of that. All of this activity

8 indicated that there were certain preparations going on. People were

9 coming and going from the state border.

10 Q. What were they doing?

11 A. We supposed that during that period of time the activities that we

12 could directly observe meant that they were using local roads to go to the

13 state border and then bring in weapons and ammunition, that is to say

14 military equipment, from the state border back.

15 Q. Now, moving --

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: To the extent that that answer is speculative I

19 think causes problems. He can say what he observed and I have no

20 difficulty with what the gentleman observed. With regard to what was the

21 purpose of any movement, there's no information whatsoever at this point

22 that develops that point other than the speculation on this witness's

23 part.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time the question was clear what

25 they were doing, and the witness spontaneously gave the answer as he gave

1 it. So therefore Mr. Re can proceed, and it's rather a comment to the

2 testimony than anything else at this moment, Mr. Guy-Smith.

3 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

4 MR. RE:

5 Q. Moving to another area now, and that is Rade Popadic and Nikola

6 Jovanovic. Who was Rade Popadic?

7 A. Rade Popadic was a member of the Ministry of the Interior and he

8 worked as the head of sector in the Secretariat of the Interior in Sabac.

9 That was his regular job as policeman, and then within the PJP unit he was

10 a platoon commander from the Secretariat of the Interior in Sabac.

11 MR. RE: Could I just interpose for one moment and ask through the

12 Trial Chamber whether the Defence have given us the notification of the

13 exhibits they intend to use in cross-examination. We're just trying to

14 locate them.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Has this notification been given?

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, to the extent that we are going to rely on

17 any exhibits is those that have already been forwarded to them.

18 MR. RE: We can't find them. We kindly ask if they would send

19 them --

20 JUDGE ORIE: The question is whether it was sent by e-mail or any

21 other way?

22 MR. RE: I just can't find them in our trial support account. I

23 just ask if they could resend it because we can't locate it.

24 JUDGE ORIE: If you could send another copy, that would be

25 appreciated.

1 Mr. Re, where I earlier said to Mr. Guy-Smith that it was comment

2 on the testimony rather than anything else, of course would not mean that

3 an answer which starts by saying: "We supposed that during that period of

4 time the activities that we could directly observe ..." There is some

5 intrinsic problem is what is just a supposition and what is an

6 observation, which is of course not clear in the answer.

7 MR. RE: I'll develop that.

8 Q. If you recall, Mr. Repic, a few moments ago, you told the Trial

9 Chamber that based on your observations you supposed that they were going

10 to the state border and bringing in weapons and ammunition, that is,

11 military equipment from the state border of Albania, what did you see or

12 hear that led you to conclude that they were bringing in the weapons in

13 from Albania?

14 A. Given that this was during night-time, it was difficult to see

15 anything. But what one could hear and conclude based on observation and

16 registering all movements was that there was an activity of motorised

17 vehicles from the village of Junik using local roads in the direction of

18 the border. I can also add that there was a situation where there was no

19 electricity in an entire region and then quite -- quite unusually you see

20 a hamlet that is all illuminated because they have generators producing

21 power, then in the military sense it means that it is a good orientation

22 point for whoever is moving from the border without using any lights.

23 Q. What time of the night are you talking about, the sudden

24 illumination occurring?

25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, he didn't say "sudden."

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.

2 MR. RE:

3 Q. Whatever type of illumination, sudden or otherwise, what time of

4 night are you talking about it occurring?

5 A. This occurred in the late evening hours starting from 11.00 p.m.

6 through to 5.00 a.m., but at any rate it was night hours.

7 Q. What led you to believe that weapons were coming from Albania,

8 that is, the traffic was coming from Albania as opposed to going the other

9 way?

10 A. I will go back to the official information that we received from

11 both military and civilian bodies collecting intelligence, which indicated

12 that in the period before 1998 there was the toppling of the regime in

13 Albania, and the weapons of the sort we're discussing could be purchased

14 at low price. All the supply channels of the then-KLA originated in

15 Albania, since the possibilities of purchasing weapons there were on the

16 increase.

17 Q. Just what I'm trying to get at is: What was it about the

18 illumination of the village between 11.00 and 5.00 which led you to

19 believe it was being used to guide people bringing weapons from Albania?

20 A. If you look at it topographically, the state border with Albania

21 is at a given level above the sea. The border area goes down into a

22 valley where the villages of Junik, Babaloc, and others are situated, as

23 well as the road from Pec to Djakovica. If you need to complete any sort

24 of activity without the assistance of the state border and the area around

25 the border, you only need one landmark which is well illuminated. If you

1 end up in a valley, the moment you go uphill again you will be able to

2 observe the landmark that will serve as an orientation point for your

3 journey.

4 Q. How many times did you see this in May/June 1998?

5 A. I can't give you the precise number. Several times in that period

6 of time. Since we worked in shifts, I suppose that others who were

7 present there observed the same sort of thing.

8 Q. And what was the PJP response to seeing this?

9 A. Specifically, I can only speak of the PJP members who made up my

10 company. Since we had the specific assignment of securing the refugee

11 settlements of Junik and Babaloc, we responded to what we saw by reporting

12 to the superior commands with a view to taking certain measures.

13 Q. Did you go out at night to see what was happening? Did you send

14 some patrols out to those illuminated villages is what I'm asking.

15 A. I did not.

16 Q. Why not?

17 A. I've tried to explain to you that my task was to secure the

18 refugee settlement. Such a type of engagement would run contrary to the

19 task that I had been given.

20 Q. Were you aware of any other, apart from your own unit within the

21 PJP, any other unit of the MUP or the PJP responding to villages

22 illuminated at night by perhaps going up and seeing what was going on?

23 A. Since the locations were situated on the other side - let me

24 explain this to you in topographic terms - on the other side of these

25 settlements and that other side having been under the KLA control. I

1 don't know whether any of the units attempted to enter those villages and

2 find out what was going on and why. I think that would have been far too

3 risky and would have incurred unwanted consequences.

4 MR. RE: Is there anything else on that that the Trial Chamber is

5 interested in?

6 JUDGE ORIE: There's only -- the witness in his last answer

7 said "locations were situated on the other side" and that other side

8 having been under the KLA control. That's not entirely clear what you

9 mean by the other side, the other side of something, or could you please

10 further explain that.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to explain this once

12 more. The state border with Albania is located at a certain level above

13 the sea. From the state border inwards, the land goes downhill slightly

14 leading to the villages that I spoke of, Babaloc and Junik and others, and

15 this is the road leading from Decani to Djakovica. On the other side of

16 that particular road, the -- there is higher ground, it's a gentle slope,

17 and it was on that side that the illumination could be observed, that sort

18 that was used as an orientation point, as a reference point. Had it been

19 otherwise, the lights would not have been visible.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Last question is: You explained all this to us

21 as why you thought they were smuggling -- smuggling, why they were

22 importing weapons. Now, could a similar observation not observed whatever

23 other contraband or even whatever other legal stuff to be imported or I

24 mean, where's the link with the weapons specifically?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since we're discussing the period of

1 time when the KLA was working intensively on setting up armed formations

2 and was arming at a much greater speed than before, we concluded that this

3 is the sort of merchandise that was involved. Given the period of time,

4 or rather, it could have been other merchandise, generally speaking. But

5 given the period of time and the circumstances in which it was going on,

6 we inferred that weapons were the merchandise that was being smuggled.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

8 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

9 MR. RE:

10 Q. Now, I've asked you about Rade Popadic. Who was Nikola Jovanovic?

11 A. Nikola Jovanovic was a member of the Ministry of the Interior

12 holding the rank of sergeant, and he worked in the local police station of

13 the municipality of Ljubovija. He was a young person, he wasn't married,

14 he was a good person and a good member of the KLA.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: His rank was

16 corporal.

17 MR. RE: I think you just said "good member of the KLA." Was that

18 the correction you made?

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The MUP.

20 MR. RE:

21 Q. Were both Rade Popadic and Nikola Jovanovic members of your PJP

22 company?

23 A. The mistake you mentioned is something I haven't heard, but I do

24 repeat. They were good members of the police and they were members of the

25 company I was in command of.

1 Q. Did they come with you from Sabac in May 1998 to Junik?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Where were they accommodated?

4 A. They were accommodated in the refugee settlement of Junik.

5 Q. Where were -- where was your unit getting its food and daily

6 supplies from when you were based in Junik?

7 A. The logistics support of my unit was received from the Djakovica

8 secretariat and we received our food-supplies from the kitchens of the

9 Djakovica secretariat.

10 Q. How did they get from Djakovica to Babaloc and Junik?

11 A. In that period of time, precisely due to frequent attacks on

12 police vehicles travelling individually and without escort, we resorted to

13 all sorts of things, to go at unpredicted times, to use different types of

14 vehicles, to have our PJP members travel in civilian clothes in order to

15 be as inconspicuous as possible and avoid possible provocations en route

16 as far as possible.

17 Q. How often was your unit being supplied with food from Djakovica?

18 A. On a daily basis.

19 Q. How many times per day?

20 A. Once.

21 Q. What happened with Rade Popadic and Nikola Jovanovic? Go back to

22 the last day you saw them.

23 A. The last day I saw them alive we had regular morning activities

24 which meant getting up, touring the units, conducting controls and

25 inspections in the military sense. I had a morning meeting with Rade

1 Popadic in order to exchange information and issue tasks and solve

2 whatever current issues there were. We went to -- which involved also

3 going to the Djakovica secretariat and picking up the food-supplies for

4 the entire unit for the day and returning to Junik.

5 Q. Are you saying you had a morning briefing?

6 A. It could be put that way, yes.

7 Q. At about what time approximately in the morning?

8 A. Most often it took place between 7.30 and 8.00. There was no

9 strict time set aside for the briefing. It was dictated by the

10 obligations and tasks the unit was faced with.

11 Q. To the best of your recollection, what was the date that you last

12 saw Rade Popadic and Nikola Jovanovic?

13 A. If I remember correctly, it was on the 23rd of May.

14 Q. 1998?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How sure are you about the correctness of that precise date now,

17 nine years later?

18 A. You see, you're right in saying that nine years later a person may

19 make a mistake with regard to the date. I believe it was on the 23rd of

20 May; if I'm mistaken, don't take it against me.

21 Q. What did you decide at your morning briefing with Mr. Popadic in

22 relation to obtaining the food-supplies in Djakovica?

23 A. On that day we agreed that we would use a civilian vehicle that

24 had been provisionally seized by the Junik police unit, and we agreed that

25 Rade Popadic and another PJP member should take the vehicle and head for

1 Djakovica and that -- ultimately that they should return to Junik.

2 When I say another member of the PJP, I want to stress the

3 following. According to the schedule, instead of Nikola Jovanovic,

4 another person was assigned to that task, but because of some private

5 commitments the schedule was changed that morning and Rade Popadic and

6 Nikola Jovanovic went on that task.

7 Q. Can you remember what sort of car they had?

8 A. I remember that it was confiscated vehicle and I believe it was an

9 Opel Kadett if I'm not mistaken.

10 Q. Were Mr. Popadic and Jovanovic in civilian clothes or in uniform?

11 A. They were in civilian clothes with official weapons.

12 Q. What do you mean by official weapons?

13 A. Official weapons to be carried on duty meant long-barrelled

14 weapons, that is to say rifles --

15 Q. Do you remember whether --

16 A. -- pistol.

17 Q. I'm sorry, are you saying rifles and pistols?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. Do you remember whether the car had number plates, its

20 licence plates, or not?

21 A. Yes, it had licence plates issued to the local secretariat.

22 Q. What -- are you saying police number plates? This is the civilian

23 car which had been requisitioned?

24 A. No. They were civilian licence plates that were from the area of

25 Djakovica.

1 Q. What food-supplies were they supposed to obtain in Djakovica?

2 A. From the MUP secretariat in Djakovica, the kitchens there, they

3 were supposed to collect two sets of lunch packets for the following day

4 and a cooked meal for that day.

5 Q. Are you saying a hot lunch?

6 A. Yes, yes, a hot lunch, that's to say a cooked meal.

7 Q. And was that for your unit both in Babaloc and in Junik?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Were they supposed to travel to Djakovica, pick up the food, drop

10 it in -- drop some in Babaloc, then return to Junik with the remainder of

11 it; is that the plan?

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: If Mr. Re --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

14 MR. GUY-SMITH: If Mr. Re could refrain from leading from now on.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re. Please proceed.

16 MR. RE:

17 Q. What was the intended route and plan, Mr. Repic?

18 A. The plan was that Rade Popadic and Nikola Jovanovic should take

19 the vehicle and go to the Secretariat of the Interior in Djakovica and

20 pick up the lunch packets and the hot meal, and then on their way back to

21 drop by in the refugees' settlement in Babaloc, which was en route, to

22 unload the meals for the unit there and to resume their journey to Junik

23 bringing the rest of the meals intended for the unit there.

24 Q. Did they have an armed escort or were they in convoy?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Why not?

2 A. That's a good question. Had we known what was going to happen

3 next, they would not have left without escort.

4 Q. Now, you said a moment ago that this was a daily collection or

5 supply of food for your units. What was the normal practice in sending

6 your members to collect food in Djakovica in relation to escorts and

7 convoys?

8 A. Since these were daily activities involving a greater number of

9 journeys and a great many men plus the intention being not to draw the

10 attention of the KLA members to that -- to that particular travel, we

11 decided not to give the men who were supposed to do that particular task

12 any escort on their way to Djakovica and back.

13 Q. Did they make it to Djakovica?

14 A. Yes, they did make it to Djakovica. They reported to us over the

15 radio that they had picked up the food-supplies and that they were on

16 their way back to the unit.

17 Q. Did they make it to Babaloc?

18 A. Yes. We were in touch with them on their arrival in Babaloc

19 because they had -- had a problem. The vehicle they were using broke

20 down, and my deputy who was in command of the part of the unit in Babaloc,

21 we -- that's to say me and my deputy solved the problem by unloading the

22 food-supplies and loading them into a Mitsubishi van.

23 Q. Just to clarify your last answer, you say you solved the problem.

24 Who loaded or unloaded the food-supplies in the Mitsubishi van? Are you

25 saying you did it or someone else did it?

1 A. As they arrived in Babaloc, they delivered part of the

2 food-supplies to the unit stationed in Babaloc. Together with the

3 colleagues in Babaloc, they unloaded and reloaded the rest of the

4 food-supplies for the unit in Junik; that is to say, they did it with the

5 colleagues there.

6 Q. Now, what about this Mitsubishi van, whose van was it?

7 A. That was a vehicle belonging to the Ministry of the Interior and

8 it was issued to the Secretariat of the Interior in Sabac.

9 Q. Was it one you had brought with you from Sabac?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Were there any official markings on it to indicate it was a

12 Ministry of the Interior vehicle or what colour was it?

13 A. It was gold metallic or yellow metallic colour, and the only

14 police markings were the white M licence plates -- I apologise, not white

15 but blue.

16 Q. Do you now remember whether it had number plates or licence plates

17 on it on that day?

18 A. I cannot give you an answer because that vehicle was in Babaloc

19 and not in Junik with me.

20 Q. Who authorised them to use that vehicle to travel between Babaloc

21 and Junik?

22 A. I gave the consent after consultation with my deputy who was in

23 Babaloc. I approved for that vehicle to be used to travel to Junik.

24 Q. What's the distance, the approximate distance, between Babaloc and

25 Junik and how far should it have taken to drive between the two under

1 normal circumstances?

2 A. If my recollections are still right, I think it's just 6 to 7

3 kilometres away. Since it's an asphalt road it takes a maximum of ten

4 minutes to cover that distance.

5 Q. Did Mr. Popadic and Jovanovic make it back from Babaloc? Did they

6 ever arrive in Junik?

7 A. They didn't.

8 Q. How long did you wait for them after authorising the -- the use of

9 the Mitsubishi?

10 A. Since they radioed when they finished the loading and unloading

11 and when they were ready to start, we waited for some 30 minutes and then

12 we realised that something was wrong, that there was a problem. First we

13 thought that the vehicle broke down again or that they had an accident en

14 route and for that reason they did not arrive back on time. We tried to

15 establish radio contact with them, and that was not successful.

16 Q. Did you go looking for them?

17 A. Yes. After half an hour and after checking with our colleagues in

18 Babaloc, who confirmed that they had departed towards Junik, I sent out a

19 patrol consisting of two vehicles and we went from Junik to Babaloc. We

20 expected to come across them on that road; however, we didn't and we

21 didn't find any trace indicating that there had been an accident or a

22 problem with the vehicle.

23 Q. Was there a shop on the road between Babaloc and Junik?

24 A. On the road to Junik itself, there wasn't; however, after the

25 Rastavica intersection towards Decani, on the left side there was a

1 village shop.

2 Q. Did you stop there?

3 A. We went there as well, believing that they could have gone there

4 to buy something in the shop, but even that was unnecessary because they

5 had been travelling from Djakovica.

6 Q. Did you confine your searches to that main road or did you go off

7 it looking for them?

8 A. Other than travelling to that local shop, we didn't venture out

9 anymore. We went back to Junik, and I informed my superior command about

10 the event.

11 Q. Why didn't you go off the main road to look for them?

12 A. That's quite a large area, there are many roads there. It was

13 impossible to allow a policeman who was much younger and much less

14 experienced to venture off the route that was set out to them, let alone

15 to use some local roads. That's what we believed, that they were there in

16 the immediate vicinity.

17 Q. Why did you believe that?

18 A. Rade Popadic is an experienced policeman, a very responsible

19 person, and an officer who knows very well what is an order and what it

20 means to make a detour from the route that was given to them. The mere

21 fact that it takes ten minutes to travel between Babaloc and Junik was the

22 final order for him.

23 Q. When you said he's very experienced, was he born in 1956,

24 specifically the 15th of June, 1956?

25 A. He was older than me, and I think that he was born in 1956. I'm

1 not sure about the date.

2 Q. What other searches were made for Mr. Popadic and Mr. Jovanovic

3 after that when you went looking on the main road for them?

4 A. Upon my return to Junik I informed the superior command, and after

5 some two hours they dispatched a police helicopter. We tried to search

6 through the broader area of Junik and Babaloc. We inspected the roads

7 from Decani to Djakovica.

8 Q. Was that in a helicopter or in a vehicle?

9 A. In a helicopter.

10 Q. Why didn't you go in vehicles into that area?

11 A. It simply wasn't safe to enter that area without a strong unit and

12 without an organized manner of entry.

13 Q. How long did the search go on for?

14 A. Well, that entire afternoon, for a couple of hours until the dusk.

15 Q. What about the next day and the days after that?

16 A. On the following day we had another incident. At the same

17 location another colleague was attacked. That, in turn, meant that we

18 sped up an operation that comprised of special measures to sweep the

19 terrain.

20 Q. Who was the colleague who was attacked, what was his name?

21 A. Miladin Novakovic.

22 Q. What was his -- what was his role?

23 A. Miladin Novakovic was a member of the Djakovica Secretariat of the

24 Interior, and he served as a squad commander of police in Junik.

25 Q. You said at the same location he was attacked. Which location are

1 you referring to?

2 A. Rastavica intersection, the intersection for Junik.

3 Q. What happened to him? How was he attacked?

4 A. In the morning hours, as he was travelling to Junik in his private

5 vehicle, it was a red Kadett, he was fired at, he was ambushed, and he was

6 wounded in the lower part of his body, his legs. He was fortunate enough

7 to be able to jump out of the car, start shooting himself, and get into a

8 canal, a ditch, that was by the road, from where he managed to get to

9 Junik and was helped there by the colleagues securing that village.

10 Q. How far was that from where they were based in Babaloc that this

11 am -- I'm sorry, this attack took place?

12 A. 500 to 600 metres.

13 Q. What were you told about who the attackers were?

14 A. Since they helped him in the Babaloc refugee settlement, they gave

15 him first aid there and then transferred him to the Djakovica hospital.

16 When they transported him there, he told them that he was fired at by the

17 KLA members from automatic weapons. I think he even said quite

18 specifically that they wore black uniforms, but I'm not quite sure about

19 that.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Three answers

21 previously, the location was not Junik, it was Babaloc, as in he managed

22 to get to Babaloc and was helped there by the colleagues.

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. Did you know someone called Srdjan Perovic?

25 A. Perovic, yes.

1 Q. Who was he?

2 A. Srdjan Perovic was an officer of the secretariat in Pec. He

3 completed land forces academy in Belgrade. I knew him personally, and in

4 the several meetings that we had, briefings, exchange of information in

5 Pec, we met there.

6 Q. Okay. What happened to him?

7 A. After my deployment in Junik and Babaloc, I was deployed to secure

8 the settlement in Decani. That was our stay in Crnibreg. That was

9 sometime in June, and on one of my visits to Pec we learned that Srdjan

10 Perovic, together with a couple of policemen, tried to complete an

11 official task in a village near Pec, at which time he was ambushed. The

12 colleagues who were with him were killed; and according to the information

13 that was given at the time, Srdjan Perovic was captured and later killed.

14 Q. What was your information about who did the ambushing?

15 A. That was the information given at official briefings. It was

16 based on intelligence and talks with colleagues who had sent Srdjan

17 Perovic out on a mission and were in radio contact with him until the

18 critical moment.

19 Q. Who was supposed to have been responsible for the ambush, based on

20 the information you just said?

21 A. Members of the KLA were responsible from the area of the village

22 of Lodza or whoever was there in that area at that time.

23 Q. All right. Let's just go back to Mr. Popadic and Jovanovic for a

24 moment. Were they ever seen again after leaving Babaloc for Junik on that

25 day in May 1998?

1 A. No, they were never seen again by anyone.

2 Q. And what about the vehicle, the Mitsubishi van, was that

3 recovered?

4 A. After involving the helicopter in the search and after completing

5 an infantry -- police infantry search of the terrain in the broader Junik

6 and Rastavica region, we didn't manage to find the vehicle. After some

7 time, I'm not sure exactly how much time, the vehicle was located and

8 identified as a vehicle belonging to the secretariat in Sabac.

9 Q. Can you now remember where it was found?

10 A. I saw that vehicle subsequently, but I cannot remember at which

11 location exactly. I know it was in an area around Decani, between Decani

12 and Djakovica, a village there. I'm not sure exactly how it was called.

13 Q. You said you saw it. Where did you see it, in what

14 circumstances? I mean, how did you come to see it?

15 A. Upon receiving information that the vehicle had been found, first

16 I was told that the vehicle was found camouflaged in some bushes. They

17 tried to explain -- describe the environment to me. They said that there

18 was a creek, a stream, and that the vehicle was concealed by bushes or

19 branches. I wanted to see the vehicle. I went there. It had been

20 retrieved from that initial location, and based on its appearance, the

21 colour, and so on, I was able to see that that was the vehicle they drove

22 on that critical day. There were bullet traces on the car, the windows

23 were broken and there was some other damage as well.

24 Q. Just describe what you mean by bullet traces. What did you see?

25 A. There was damage indicating that fire was opened, that the car was

1 damaged by ammunition, by bullets.

2 Q. Was the vehicle recoverable, could it still be used?

3 A. The vehicle was not usable. It was in quite a poor condition.

4 Later on it was repaired, though, and is being used to this day.

5 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit P10, that's a

6 photo -- that's a map.

7 Q. I'm going to show you a map of the Junik-Babaloc area which will

8 come up on the screen in front of you, and I want you to draw several

9 things -- make several markings on it. The court usher will assist you

10 with the pen.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist the witness in the

12 use of the electronic pen.

13 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I think we've got the same problem with this

14 one in that it's extremely difficult to read unless it's --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't know what you are --

16 MR. RE: I'm going to get him to mark three things, the area under

17 KLA control at the time, to hach that in.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MR. RE: Where the refugee settlement was in Babaloc and where it

20 was in Junik.

21 JUDGE ORIE: We have -- of course, for Babaloc we have detailed

22 information about that. We have seen a picture. We have Mr. Crosland

23 explaining that it was next to the road and closer to the road than to the

24 village Babaloc. Therefore, that seems to be covered. I don't remember

25 that we have similar information about the location in Junik. Please, you

1 know, Mr. Re, you can zoom in and zoom out, but once you start --

2 MR. RE: Yeah.

3 JUDGE ORIE: -- marking, then there's no further zooming in or

4 zooming out anymore.

5 MR. RE: Can you highlight this bit here. I can't read it. I

6 doubt whether the witness can read it. It's too small.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see this well, but I don't

8 know what you want me to do.

9 MR. RE:

10 Q. I want you to mark in where the refugee settlement in Junik was --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then it would be good to have Junik at least

12 on the map --

13 MR. RE: Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- because as I see at this moment. Could we move a

15 bit -- yes. Junik is just -- the problem with this map, Mr. Re - I don't

16 know whether it's a problem or not - is that Junik is only half -- or at

17 least the name is not -- it's the bottom left corner where the legenda

18 where I at least expect Junik to be.

19 MR. RE: I'll give him a hard copy and ask him to look at this and

20 mark what he sees on the hard copy on the screen. I think that might

21 assist, because he can see it. I can show him again --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Just I think -- could we work on the basis of what we

23 have now on the screen. Of course I do not know since not all of Junik is

24 on the map and since ...

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Can you see where the refugee settlement is on that particular

2 map? You can see Junik where it says "nik," n-i-k, at the bottom and

3 there's a road going to Rastavica?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can you mark it with an X.

6 A. You want me to mark where the refugee settlement was?

7 Q. Yes, with a large X.

8 A. [Marks].

9 Q. Can you make it bigger.

10 A. [Marks].

11 Q. All right. It's now a circle but that's fine. You mentioned

12 earlier there was an area you said was under KLA control -- you want to

13 say something?

14 A. You told me that I encircled it. I marked it exactly the way the

15 settlement looked. It was on both sides of the road to Junik.

16 Q. And there's a circle with an X inside. That's great. The area I

17 want you to mark is just -- if you could -- just look at me for a moment,

18 Mr. Repic, can you just hach, cross the area in.

19 A. I have a correction. We can see the factory here, it is quite

20 clear on the map. The map -- the factory was in the settlement, so if I

21 can make a correction. I made a mistake and I can -- in my marking.

22 Could I correct it.

23 MR. RE: [Previous translation continues]... can we just put --

24 and start again?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Another way of dealing with it is - we have not yet

1 assigned a number - to have this now again on the screen clean, forget

2 about the markings made until now and then restart the whole exercise.

3 Would that be a way of doing it? So forget about this one, not to be

4 marked, not to be tendered, just to have P10 again, zoom in again, and

5 then have the marking at the right place. Although we also have an

6 instrument for undoing. Now we have it clean again.

7 Mr. Repic, we have the same map now. If you do the marking again

8 at the right spot.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The map is topographically plotted

10 into, or rather, the factory is topographically plotted into the map.

11 It's in the centre of the refugee settlement.

12 MR. RE:

13 Q. Thank you. Now the next thing I want you to do is the area into

14 which the MUP and PJP would not go which you said was under KLA control, I

15 want you to hach it in, that was the area you said to the left of the

16 road.

17 A. On the left side of the road when you observe it from which side?

18 Q. Where you said it was. I don't care whether it's left, right, or

19 centre, just the area that you said was under KLA control.

20 A. [Marks].

21 Q. All right. You've circled Rastavica, Prilep, Rznic, Glodjane, and

22 Dubrava. What about the roads in between those particular villages and

23 the areas in between those villages, did you consider them to be under KLA

24 control at the time as well?

25 A. Yes. I circled the villages themselves, the strongholds

1 themselves, whereas if we speak of the area they had under their control,

2 then it would cover all of this including Babaloc, save for the area where

3 the refugee settlement was, even Erecka Suka would come under the area

4 they controlled, and of course we can extend it further like this.

5 Q. And just so the record's clear, you've put a circle on the road

6 around -- the road leading to Babaloc, and that's the area which was not

7 under KLA control or a semicircle from the main road. Okay.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could that be -- Mr. Registrar, that would be

9 number ...?

10 THE REGISTRAR: P918, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please verify with the witness

12 whether KLA control was only exercised on that side of the road or whether

13 on the other side of the road similar observations were made.

14 MR. RE:

15 Q. What about the other side of the road, were there areas under KLA

16 control there?

17 A. Yes. They were present in other villages, too, Junik, which I

18 said a moment ago was relatively peaceful and stable remained so until the

19 PJP action. Later on they showed their true colours and made it quite

20 clear that this too was a very strong KLA stronghold.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

22 MR. EMMERSON: Could the witness just clarify that last answer,

23 please. He had indicated that Junik remained relatively peaceful until

24 the PJP action.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could find a bit more details, Mr. Re,

1 about when that action took place and what it consisted of.

2 MR. RE:

3 Q. Mr. Repic, you heard what the Judge said. When -- what was this

4 PJP action and when did it occur?

5 A. Immediately after the after the attack on Miladin Novakovic. This

6 attack on him sped up an action by a local PJP which covered the area of

7 Junik and Rastavica through to Decani along the main road. The objective

8 was to have the police sweep the area, search the area.

9 Q. All right. I'm going to show you another document.

10 MR. RE: I'm going to show him 65 ter 1972 which is the police

11 investigation into the circumstances of the death of the -- or the

12 disappearance of his two colleagues. It will take too long in my estimate

13 to show it to him in e-court, so I can show him a paper copy and have him

14 identify it and it can be displayed while doing that.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed in this way. At the same time, I take

16 it that it's being uploaded for us. You can give that to the witness,

17 Mr. Usher. I think Mr. Registrar needs more information.

18 MR. RE: 1972. English would be good.

19 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to put questions to the witness in

20 relation to that, perhaps it would be better to have it in the original

21 language. Of course the Judges can consult the English translation.

22 MR. RE: Of course.

23 Q. Mr. Repic, the document in your hand, is it the police

24 investigation of case 3/IV-070 relating to the investigation into the

25 disappearances of Mr. Jovanovic and Mr. Popadic? Is it?

1 A. The document I have before me has the format of a criminal report

2 and a case file the way it is produced in the MUP of Serbia. Of course I

3 haven't had time to peruse the contents.

4 Q. All right. I'll put it this way. You didn't take part in the

5 investigation yourself?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And you haven't seen this before arriving in The Hague?

8 A. No.

9 Q. But so far as you can tell, it appears to be an official

10 investigation into those deaths, based upon your experience of all those

11 years in the MUP?

12 A. Yes. This is the format of criminal reports as they are drafted

13 in Serbia.

14 Q. And if you go to the first page you will see the date of

15 disappearance is given as the 24th of May, 1998 --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --

17 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm sorry, I think we dealt with the matter as

18 far as Mr. Re had indicated it in advance that he was going to deal with

19 it. I think beyond that --

20 MR. RE: I can ask him about the difference between the date here

21 and the date which he remembers, they're one day out, I mean nine years

22 later.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I think as a matter of fact, was the witness quite

24 clear in -- yes. Now, Mr. Re, I think that -- is it just to establish

25 that there is a difference or which is the right one?

1 MR. RE: His memory is slightly different to what's recorded in

2 the official contemporaneously recorded --

3 JUDGE ORIE: What should the Chamber do with that?

4 MR. RE: The preferred date we will be submitting ultimately is

5 the 24th of May.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that's the substance of what happened. It

7 could well be that the witness is right. That's exactly I think the point

8 that -- but let's move on to your next question.

9 MR. RE: Our submission will be ultimately it doesn't matter

10 whether it's the 23rd or the 24th of May.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, it doesn't matter that much that -- I think the

12 witness already said that to the extent his memory served him, he gave a

13 date, but it's very difficult after nine years to know that for sure,

14 isn't it, and it's not the only evidence we have on the event, is it. And

15 the Chamber is -- of course we'll -- at a certain moment we'll have to

16 assess what any difference in material we received -- what assessment to

17 be given to that. Please proceed.

18 MR. RE:

19 Q. Can you please just look through that and you'll see some

20 photographs of a van.

21 MR. RE: For the benefit of the screen there it's U0156110, 6111,

22 6112, 6113.

23 Q. I just want you to have a look at those photographs which show a

24 van and a car. What can you say about that van and that car?

25 A. Since these are black-and-white photographs which were presumably

1 taken at the very scene where the vehicle was recovered, but based on the

2 damage and the appearance of the car, I can confirm that this is the

3 vehicle that I subsequently had occasion to see.

4 MR. RE: Might that be marked for identification?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: As P919, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Marked for identification only.

8 Mr. Re, do I understand that a car and a van -- a van is not a car

9 and is just a car -- is that well understood or -- it's not my native

10 language but --

11 MR. RE: A van --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I know, yes, both automobiles, but please

13 proceed and if there's -- if it's clear to everyone then it's clear to me

14 as well.

15 MR. RE: Okay.

16 Can 65 ter 1973 please be displayed.

17 [Prosecution counsel confer]

18 MR. RE:

19 Q. I just want to show you pages 0168 and 0169 and just to ask you

20 whether that is an official criminal charge issued by the MUP in Djakovica

21 on the 26th of May, 1998, signed by Radovan Zlatkovic to authorise an

22 investigation. But you won't find it in the documents you've got there,

23 it's on the screen; but if it assists, I can give you a hard copy if it's

24 quicker.

25 A. Yes, this is the same KU number, 307/98, and the format is that of

1 a criminal report which has been filed before the district public

2 prosecutor in Pec.

3 MR. RE: Could that also be given a number.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

5 THE REGISTRAR: P920, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, marked for identification only.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. And the final document I wish to show you for Exhibit -- sorry, 65

10 ter number 1971. I'm going so show you four documents.

11 MR. RE: I don't want them displayed because if I tender them

12 they'll be under seal. They've been given to us -- I don't want the names

13 of the people who have given the statements displayed at the moment. But

14 what I want you to do is just read the four dates of the four statements:

15 One is the 22nd of June, 1998; ERN U0169639 to 9641; the next one is 3rd

16 of September, 1998, U0169644 to 9647; the third one is the 15th of

17 September, 1998, U0169648 to 9652; and finally the 23rd of March, 1999,

18 U0169659 to 9663. They purport to be statements given to the state

19 security department, that's the Serbian DB, in Pec on those dates. What I

20 simply want to ask -- want you to tell the Trial Chamber is if these are

21 or appear to you to be official statements in official statement form of

22 the type you would encounter if given to a Ministry of the Interior organ

23 such as the Serbian state security in 1998.

24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think this question goes a bit farther than

25 his --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether they have the appearance, that's -- I

2 take it -- well, I listened carefully. They -- if these are -- appear to

3 you the official statements in official statement form of the type you

4 would encounter if given to a Ministry of the Interior organ such as the

5 Serbian state security in 1998, it's quite a lengthy formulation, but I

6 take it that you would like the witness to tell us whether these documents

7 just on the basis of their appearance are similar to statements as used in

8 criminal investigations at the time. Is that --

9 MR. RE: Do they for all intents and purposes look the same as

10 other statements given to the MUP at that time.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether they are forgeries or not is not a

12 matter but whether they look the same.

13 Yes.

14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm just hoping that Mr. Re will then establish the

15 basis for that. I'm hoping Mr. Re will then establish the basis for

16 that. I'm looking at the statements as they appear, perhaps it's the type

17 face or the official stamp --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Or the format.

19 MR. RE: That's why the witness is here as, a long-standing MUP

20 man.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you ask him why he recognises this as

22 the type of -- one problem of course is that -- do we have it on our

23 screen, let me just check --

24 MR. RE: If he says yes, I will certainly ask the follow-up

25 questions; if he says no then --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed. Yes.

2 Do you recognise these documents as similar to those you're

3 familiar with as produced as statements; and if so, why?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There are four records of

5 statements taken before me, and according to their form and contents they

6 are consistent with the type of statements taken in the Ministry of the

7 Interior of Serbia. The heading which states the person giving the

8 statement, his personal background and the time at which the statement was

9 taken and the body by which it was taken, whereupon the contents of the

10 statement itself follow. Finally, the statement is signed by the citizen

11 involved and the authorised official.

12 MR. RE: On that basis, could they be marked for identification.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

14 THE REGISTRAR: As P921, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we have a look at the four documents as

16 well.

17 Mr. Usher, could you ...

18 MR. RE: If they get ultimately admitted, I will -- we will simply

19 extract those four from the larger range, but they can be handed to the

20 Trial Chamber.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, the witness is looking at something and

22 then I would like to have a look at it as well.

23 MR. RE: Of course.

24 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I'm used to.

25 Could they be given to the witness for a second again in this

1 order as I just gave it to you.

2 Defence counsel has an opportunity to look at it I take it because

3 it's in their system. Yes.

4 You said something you recognised this as, among other matters, on

5 the signature. Now, the one on top of the bundle I gave you that is pages

6 8 to -- up to and including 11 out of 27 pages, there seems to be not a

7 signature and also no signatures at the bottom of the page which we found

8 at all others. Could you explain that? We have an idea, but I would

9 rather ask you to explain what we found at the bottom of the page and what

10 we found at the last page instead of a signature.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said that these were

12 statements, I was referring to their format. I wasn't focusing on all

13 four of the statements to see whether they were indeed signed. But there

14 is the form which I described a moment ago, the heading, the statement

15 itself. There is that much there. Now, as to why there is no signature,

16 I don't know. I do see a blob here, perhaps someone's finger-print.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what came into our mind as well, but was

18 that usual if someone couldn't read or write that he would put a

19 finger-print on the place where others would sign? Was that a usual way

20 of ...

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There is no other way to affix

22 a signature, other than by placing a finger-print. There has to be some

23 sort of trace.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that is -- thank you for that answer.

25 Mr. Usher, could you please retrieve the documents again from the

1 witness.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MR. RE: I've finished, Your Honours. That's my

4 examination-in-chief.

5 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- okay. Then let me just see whether -- I'm

6 just verifying whether we already -- whether a number was already assigned

7 to the four statements.

8 MR. RE: 921.

9 JUDGE ORIE: 921. That's the four as a bundle together?

10 MR. RE: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I add to that that the four statements apparently are

12 parts of a bigger document because the numbering at the bottom which

13 indicates that there might have been 27 pages, this does not cover all 27

14 pages, there are interruptions.

15 MR. RE: Before you --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. RE: The inquiries of Professor Lecomte have revealed that she

18 is not available this week because she is testifying in court in Paris.

19 She is checking her schedule for early October and will get back to us --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. RE: -- tonight or tomorrow.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will further consider that matter.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 Then we'll have a break. Mr. Re has finished his

1 examination-in-chief; that means that after the break you will be

2 cross-examined by Defence counsel, Mr. Repic.

3 We'll have a break until 20 minutes past 6.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 5.59 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 6.33 p.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for returning late.

7 Mr. Emmerson, the Chamber would need five minutes at the end of

8 this session for the other matter which is still pending.

9 Mr. Repic, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Emmerson, who is

10 counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.

11 Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.

12 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:

13 Q. Mr. Repic, I wonder if you can help me first of all with the

14 titles of the companies of PJP that were deployed in western Kosovo during

15 the period that you were there. First of all, can you help us, the 24th

16 Detachment or 24th Battalion, where was that based?

17 A. I'm not aware of that. I do not belong to that establishment, and

18 that is at a level above a level of a company, to which I belonged.

19 Q. Yes, I understand that. But each company has a number, is that

20 right, 3rd Company, 4th Company, 7th Company, and so on?

21 A. Within a detachment there are companies from 1 to 5, and as for

22 24th Detachment, that means nothing to me.

23 Q. Can you help us about this. What was the number of your company?

24 A. 2nd Company.

25 Q. Thank you. And can you give us the designation of the detachment

1 or battalion to which your company was attached?

2 A. The 31st -- the 35th Detachment.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, just one or two general questions, if I may, to

4 start with. You mentioned weaponry and the differences between weapons

5 used by the PJP and other constituent forces, and you mentioned

6 anti-aircraft machine-guns being one of the weapons that were used by the

7 PJP; is that right?

8 A. Yes, I mentioned that, that is integral part of the weapons of

9 armoured combat vehicles.

10 Q. Would the PJP have been armed then with howitzers?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Can you give us, please, the name of the weapons that the PJP used

13 as anti-aircraft machine-guns?

14 A. I am aware of two types, the Russian DSK and the Browning.

15 Q. And can I just ask you briefly about ammunition. Did the PJP use

16 Chinese ammunition?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Now, you've told us that you arrived in Kosovo in March of 1998

19 and you first were transferred to Junik in the second half of May. Can I

20 ask you, please, first of all, do you remember when in March it was you

21 arrived, at the beginning or at the end of March or somewhere in between?

22 A. I will not be able to give you an exact date. I was there during

23 March, but I don't remember more than that.

24 Q. All right. I'll come back to that if I may. And your last tour

25 of duty there was June 1999; is that correct?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. I want to ask you, please, first of all about joint operations

3 between - and this is not specifically your company, but PJP companies

4 more generally as far as you are aware - joint operations between the PJP

5 and other specialist anti-terrorist forces. First of all, is it right

6 that the PJP used often to work in joint operations with the JSO?

7 A. They did have joint operations, but not frequently.

8 Q. And would there be occasions when PJP units would be subordinated

9 to the JSO?

10 A. I don't know of a single case where there was resubordination to

11 the officers of the JSO.

12 Q. Do you exclude the possibility that that could have happened or

13 are you simply telling us you don't know one way or the other?

14 A. Given that these are two different formations, I can even say that

15 that possibility is excluded.

16 Q. Can I ask you to be shown the red binder. There's one or two

17 documents I want you to help us with if you could, please. I wonder if

18 you could start by just turning behind tab 1. You may need the usher's

19 assistance in this. Behind tab 1 in the file you will find first in

20 Serbian and then there is an English translation of a report dated the

21 24th of June, 1998, signed by the gentleman whose name you mentioned

22 earlier, Srdjan Perovic. Do you have that?

23 A. [No interpretation].

24 Q. Does that document indicate that in June, or rather, from the 29th

25 of May to the 20th of June three platoons of the 3rd Company of the 24th

1 Detachment of the special police unit were directly subordinated to the

2 JSO?

3 A. Yes, that's what it says there.

4 Q. And when it's there referring to the special police unit, could

5 that be anything other than the PJP? Could it be a different

6 organization?

7 A. I don't know. It says that the 3rd Company of the 24th Detachment

8 was resubordinated to the JSO. I cannot comment upon this. I don't know

9 who drafted this or how.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, in -- when you said could it be

11 anything else other than the PJP, I noticed that in the translation the

12 abbreviation is not followed --

13 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly. That's why I asked --

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- but in the original of course we see "PJP." The

15 question would then be: Are there -- is there more than one PJP. Yes,

16 please proceed.

17 MR. EMMERSON:

18 Q. Looking at that document and assuming it to be genuine, do you now

19 accept that the answer you've given us a moment ago that it's not possible

20 that there could be resubordination because there are two different

21 formulations or formations, do you agree that that's an answer that needs

22 to be reconsidered?

23 A. Based on my personal experience I know that officers of the JSO

24 never commanded the officers of the PJP. Given what is stated in this

25 document, yes, there is a possibility that there were such cases.

1 Q. We've heard testimony in this court from Colonel John Crosland,

2 the British military attache to Belgrade, who - and I'm referring here for

3 the record to transcript 3095, line 13, although there are other

4 references - who describes an incident at the end of July when he came

5 across a joint PJP and JSO strike force preparing to launch an attack near

6 Malisevo with the operation as a whole being commanded by a man who used

7 the name Legija. You presumably know who Legija is, do you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Just for the record, that is Milorad Ulemek, is it not?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So again I'm suggesting to you that the testimony we have heard in

12 this court is that on another occasion, too, the PJP forces were being put

13 at the disposal of the JSO.

14 A. I have to repeat my answer. Based on my personal experience I can

15 say that I have never participated in any operation where we were

16 resubordinated to the officers of the JSO.

17 Q. And you'll bear in mind in answering my questions that I'm not

18 solely asking about your company but about your knowledge of the

19 operations of the PJP more generally in Kosovo, please. So if you know

20 anything about the operation of the PJP beyond your own company, please

21 bear in mind that I'm asking you questions more broadly.

22 The Brazil Group was a constituent part of the JSO, was it not?

23 A. I have never heard of this group.

24 Q. Could I ask you, please, just to turn behind tab 2 in this

25 bundle --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, is it your intention to tender

2 what we find under tab 1?

3 MR. EMMERSON: I should certainly refer to it on the record, Your

4 Honour, and ask for it to be at least marked for identification at this

5 stage and that is --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Then it needs a number.

7 MR. EMMERSON: Defence document 1D6D0001.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be marked for

9 identification as D162.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.

12 MR. EMMERSON:

13 Q. Tab 2 is a report signed by Colonel Dragan Zivanovic, commander of

14 the 125th Motorised Brigade of the VJ which was based in Pec, I think you

15 can confirm; is that right?

16 A. As far as I am aware, this unit was based in Kosovska Mitrovica,

17 but I do not exclude a possibility that I'm mistaken. This is an army

18 formation.

19 Q. Thank you. And tab 2 is 65 ter number 1945.

20 I just want to ask you, please, if you could just cast your eye

21 down the entries that appear under number 1, and there are a series of

22 bullet points there describing joint operations beginning on the 25th of

23 July and running through to the 6th of August just between the figure 1

24 and the figure 1.2. Can you in summary, please, confirm for us that that

25 is a description of a series of joint operations along certain designated

1 axes involving a joint force of VJ, PJP, and what is described as the

2 Brazil Group?

3 A. I see this document for the first time and superficially glancing

4 at it, I don't know how I can comment upon this, whether this is a report,

5 whether they participated in it, I don't know.

6 Q. It is a report. It is produced by Colonel Zivanovic, and it is

7 describing a series of engagements, as you can see from the opening words,

8 and what I'm putting to you - and to some extent it may be plain from the

9 words themselves - but what I'm putting to you is that this is describing

10 a series of joint operations in which the PJP were working alongside the

11 Brazil Group and a series of combat groups of the VJ. Would you agree

12 with that?

13 A. Again, I have never heard of a group called Brazil. That's why I

14 can't tell you whether this is true or not. You're asking me something I

15 don't know.

16 Q. Very well.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, perhaps the date of the document and

18 the earlier answers makes it not very logical to ask further questions to

19 the witness, of course, until something suddenly would come into his mind

20 but that's not what I reasonably could expect at this moment to happen.

21 MR. EMMERSON: Could I just, if I may, ask one or two generic

22 questions about the document.

23 Q. If you could look, please, at the last bullet point under 1.2

24 which on the Serbian text is on the first page six lines up from the

25 bottom. In the English translation it reads as follows: "On the

1 remaining axes, Brazil Group (106 men) carried out deep wedging and

2 burning operations on all axes, while the 4th PJP Detachment secured

3 points on the lines achieved."

4 I wonder if you could help us, please, do you know what that

5 expression "deep wedging and burning operations" means?

6 A. With all due respect to Mr. Zivanovic, this is the first time that

7 I hear the term "burning" or "progorevande" in the original. I know what

8 wedging is, but I have never heard of the other term and I don't know what

9 it means.

10 Q. You see, as a general proposition, Mr. Repic, we have heard

11 testimony in this court that the PJP along with the JSO and the SAJ were

12 used as ground troops to enter villages under cover of VJ shell fire,

13 where they would then burn houses, shoot livestock, burn haystacks, and

14 destroy the infrastructure to make it impossible for civilians to remain.

15 Now, can I ask you this, please: Were you ever aware of the PJP -- never

16 mind your unit but other units of the PJP engaging in those kind of

17 burning operations while you were in Kosovo?

18 A. I'm not aware of that.

19 Q. Presumably you've heard those allegations made since the time you

20 were in Kosovo, have you not?

21 A. I haven't heard of such a description of events. This is a crime

22 and I cannot comment upon this.

23 Q. When you first arrived in Kosovo you were based in Srbica; is that

24 right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Can you give us some idea of the geographical proximity between

2 Srbica and the villages of Prekaze and Likoshan?

3 A. Srbica as an administrative centre is located some 2 kilometres, 1

4 to 2 kilometres from the village of Prekaze; and as for the distance to

5 Likosane, I don't know exactly.

6 Q. Somehow perhaps you could help us to date your arrival a little

7 bit more specifically. Presumably you were aware of what took place in

8 Prekaze on the 5th of March?

9 A. My arrival followed that event. It was five to seven, up to ten

10 days later.

11 Q. Thank you. So that helps us date your arrival around the middle

12 of March; is that right -- well, I claim it is right. When you arrived

13 was there already a PJP detachment in Srbica?

14 A. Yes, there was a PJP detachment in Srbica and we came to relieve

15 them.

16 Q. And presumably in the handover that took place you had discussions

17 with them as to what operations they had been involved with?

18 A. I don't remember that we had such discussions; however,

19 subsequently through intelligence briefing we learned about some details

20 concerning our execution of the task during the time we were there.

21 MR. EMMERSON: I see the time.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Emmerson.

23 MR. EMMERSON: I just have one final question, if I may --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, yes.

25 MR. EMMERSON: -- which I think with be a short answer.

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you keep it short.

2 MR. EMMERSON:

3 Q. Were the PJP involved in the operations at Likoshan and Prekaze,

4 as far as you know?

5 A. I don't know which period of time you're referring to. I really

6 don't know. I don't know if they participated.

7 Q. I'm talking about the attack on the Jashari compound on the 5th of

8 March, ten days before you arrived and relieved the PJP contingent that

9 was there. Were they involved in the operation at Prekaze on the 5th of

10 March?

11 A. If I understood you well you asked me something about Likosane and

12 now you're asking me again about Prekaz. Another matter is this: You

13 want me to tell you about the activities of a unit to which I do not

14 belong. All I can do is suppose that they had a certain role, a certain

15 task in that operation, but I cannot confirm this.

16 Q. Very well.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Would that be a convenient moment?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at the same time, Mr. Repic, you just said I

19 can't say anything else then what their task may have been. Sometimes you

20 hear things from others, which is -- could be relevant as well. So

21 therefore, if you were asked whether they were involved you are expected

22 to at least tell us what you personally observed or experienced but also

23 if you arrived ten days later and you heard other PJP members telling

24 about what happened ten days ago, then you're supposed to - you're under a

25 duty - to inform the Chamber about that as well.

1 So therefore, if you have any personal knowledge, tell us; if you

2 heard something, although it's not your personal observation, you

3 nevertheless should give it as part of the answer. But you could of

4 course say that you don't know whether it's true or not, but this is what

5 A, B, or C told you, yes, or what you read in a document or whatever.

6 Whatever your source of knowledge is, be clear on that and give us as

7 complete information as possible.

8 Mr. Repic, we'll finish for the day as far as you're concerned.

9 We'd like to see you back tomorrow quarter past 2.00 in this same

10 courtroom, but I instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about

11 the testimony you have given today and you're still about to give

12 tomorrow. Then I'd like the usher to escort the witness out of the

13 courtroom. We'd like to see you back tomorrow.

14 MR. RE: Your Honour, while the witness is leaving --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. RE: -- just a tiny matter. Exhibit MFI P921, could I ask

17 that that be kept under seal for the moment, that's the four DB

18 statements. There are names in those statements which I don't think

19 should be public at the moment.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was that not yet indicated -- but at least they

22 are under seal for the time being.

23 The other matter is the testimony of Mr. Dourel. As I said

24 earlier, the Chamber would prefer to have -- to receive all the evidence

25 in relation to what the experts, Aleksandric, Dunjic, Dourel, and Lecomte

1 gave their expertise. At the same time, the Chamber finds under the

2 present circumstances no reason at this moment not to start hearing the

3 evidence by Mr. Dourel. At the same time, the Chamber would like to make

4 sure that the expert Lecomte receives a copy in whatever form, preferably

5 in her own language, of the testimony of Dourel so that we don't have to

6 repeat everything.

7 Now, the witness Lecomte has not yet been called, has not given

8 any evidence, so therefore, Mr. Re, would it be possible for you to

9 provide, either in audio/visual form or by getting hold of the French

10 transcript, as you may be aware of is produced in a relatively short time,

11 and to provide that to witness Lecomte so that she can prepare herself for

12 the testimony. At the same time, I think the Chamber has specifically

13 invited Professor Aleksandric to comment on the Lecomte report. If that

14 information, but that should be done through the Victims and Witnesses

15 Section, if that written comment would be available, the Chamber would

16 like to receive that as quickly as possible so that it is available

17 already when the expert Lecomte testifies.

18 MR. RE: I understand that Professor Aleksandric I think was on

19 holidays and was returning I think today and the report will be available

20 this week or the beginning of next week, that's my understanding.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have the details as far as timing in my

22 mind. I remember that we also invited the expert Dunjic that if he

23 wanted -- I think he has been provided with the report, but we did not

24 specifically ask him to give any comments. But if the Victims and Witness

25 Section would verify with Professor Aleksandric whether he has already any

1 comments put on paper and to provide them as soon as possible so that we

2 have a full picture of this type of evidence.

3 Then finally, Mr. Re, is our understanding correct that apart from

4 the expert Dourel that we have no further witnesses for this week?

5 MR. RE: Unless something happens tomorrow, we are attempting to

6 facilitate.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please keep the Chamber updated as good as you can in

8 relation to any developments. Then we'll adjourn for the day. We'll

9 resume tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day of

12 September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25