1 Monday, 22 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have half an hour to 40 minutes
7 left with this witness.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to ask you, Mr. May, to
9 extend my time a little bit, because in the meantime, I received some
10 information, because people have been reacting to this testimony, and it
11 can be easily shown that this witness absolutely is not telling the
13 JUDGE MAY: Let us see how we get on. But at the moment, it's 30
14 to 40 minutes.
15 WITNESS: WITNESS K32 [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE MAY: I should say this: The transcript is not working at
18 the moment. A transcript is being taken, but it's not running on our
19 screens, and that's why you're getting it blank. It will apparently be
20 repaired, it's hoped, by the break. We don't want to hold up the trial.
21 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
22 Cross-examined by Milosevic: [Continued]
23 Q. Since you presented inaccurate information regarding the
24 activities of your unit, I have several questions in connection with
25 that. Do you know that in your unit during 1998 and 1999, 63 members of
1 this unit were killed and 300 were wounded?
2 A. I know about a small number who got killed, not a number that big,
3 no. And the troops were getting killed for no good reason whatsoever on
4 our side. And as for the KLA, I don't know about that.
5 Q. I don't know what this means that "the troops were being killed
6 for no good reason whatsoever." What does that mean?
7 A. How do I explain this to you? For example, I know of a particular
8 case when soldiers were driving in a military vehicle and then one soldier
9 got killed by another soldier. His rifle went off and killed him by
10 hitting him in the head.
11 Q. All right. You explained that, that soldiers were being killed
12 because of the poor organisation.
13 A. Yes, that's it.
14 Q. And I'm telling you that 63 were killed and 300 were wounded. Are
15 you trying to say that these were not casualties due to combat but that it
16 happened due to poor organisation, that they killed each other and wounded
17 each other?
18 A. As for this figure that you've given, it's not correct.
19 Q. All right. There are official data to prove this. However, do
20 you know that in the area that this unit was in, that is to say Prizren,
21 Suva Reka, Orahovac, and Djakovica, 230 soldiers and 72 members of the
22 police got killed in combat with the KLA and in the bombing, and 538 were
24 A. That's not correct.
25 Q. All right. And do you know, in connection with those lootings,
1 and you said that you took part in them as well because you were seizing
2 goods from shops without paying these goods. You said that you did that
3 too; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know that proceedings are under way before the military
6 court in Nis against 45 members of your unit and the entire brigade? As
7 for the entire brigade, it's over 300. And two are being tried for
9 A. I don't know about that.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, there is a list here, a list
11 of persons submitted to the Court in relation to what this witness has
12 been speaking about. This testifies to the fact that he has not been
13 saying the truth, and I would like to have this admitted into evidence, if
14 you want to take it, of course.
15 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let the list be produced. Yes. It can be
16 shown to the Prosecution. Yes, we'll go on and the Prosecution can have a
17 look at that.
18 Mr. Usher, if you'd like to sit down.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In relation to the two prisoners, do you know that in addition to
22 having civilian trousers that they had KLA uniforms on the upper part,
23 also flak jackets and automatic rifles, vests and also ammunition?
24 A. I did not see that. They had jackets on.
25 Q. All right. What you did see or what you did not see is something
1 that we explained last time.
2 Do you know that the house that was hit by a tank in the village
3 of Mece, as you described it, was not in the village of Mece at all? It
4 was at the entrance into the village of Granovik.
5 A. I showed the house and they said it was the village of Mece.
6 Q. Who said that to you? How come? Where's the house? How do you
7 know about all of this?
8 A. I was there. I've been telling you that very nicely.
9 Q. Is it true that this house was turned into a bunker and on the
10 northern side it had sandbags?
11 A. That's not correct.
12 Q. And on the other side it had a trench that was dug and from that
13 house the KLA kept under fire the police checkpoint and the bridge. Is
14 that right or is that not right?
15 A. That's not right.
16 Q. What was that?
17 A. It is not right.
18 Q. But that's what it says in the official reports, Mr. K32?
19 A. It seems to me that you've got everything, don't you.
20 Q. Is it correct that the fighting in the village of Mece went on for
21 three days and that the KLA attacked from position 385 from Rakovina?
22 A. I don't know, but I do know that we were there for three days.
23 Q. Do you remember that anybody got killed? For example, a
25 A. I know that a policeman was wounded. Whether he was killed, I
1 really don't know.
2 Q. The name of the policeman is Lilic. He's from Belgrade?
3 A. I don't know whether he got killed, but anyway --
4 JUDGE MAY: You must pause, both of you, between question and
5 answer. Yes. Next question.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. All right. Since you claim that you were listening to various
8 communications, how were these communications upheld?
9 A. By radio transmitters, the small ones.
10 Q. Oh. And I have information here stating that radio communications
11 were forbidden and that communications were only going through the local
12 PTT cable and the relay.
13 A. Then -- well, I was only blind and deaf.
14 Q. I don't believe that because you look very healthy to me. It must
15 have been a different reason?
16 A. Well, of course I saw it.
17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Witness K32, now, you may find it irritating to be
18 asked these questions, but nonetheless, can I remind you you're in a
19 court. Just answer them. If you disagree or if it's not true what is
20 being put to you, just say it's not true.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. All right. What was the code that the brigade commander used when
24 you listened to him speaking? You said that it was by way of a radio
25 transmitter, whatever. What was his code? Did he use his name and
1 surname or did he use a code name?
2 A. A code name. A code name. There is also a password for this but
3 I can't remember the password.
4 Q. What was that?
5 A. I cannot remember the password.
6 Q. So you can't remember what he used but you remember what he was
8 A. Well, so many years have gone by. I can't remember every little
10 Q. Is it correct that your father who came to visit you in Nis and
11 who then took you to the army was involved in transferring Albanians to
12 Plav and then towards Italy?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And he took money for this endeavour?
15 A. No.
16 Q. There is information about this, data to prove it. And is it
17 correct, Mr. K32, that the main link was a certain Bujevic, sorry, Rujevic
18 with a "R," Rujevic, a tinsmith from Pec whose nickname was Bajo?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And he was staying with you during the NATO address while his
21 brother was in Pec throughout and later on got a job with the UNMIK police
22 in Kosovo.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Is it correct that they tried to get you to testify here in order
25 to settle your accounts and so that they would forgive you your debts?
1 A. No.
2 Q. It is precisely this Rujevic --
3 A. No, no, no.
4 Q. Oh, no. Right. Okay. You said that the terrorists were not very
5 well-armed and that they had hunting guns for the most part.
6 A. Well, I did see one hunting gun.
7 Q. All right. Please take a look at the information contained here,
8 what was seized at the state border, May 1998, December 1998. I'm going
9 to submit this into evidence. It only refers to this unit. Let me just
10 quote a few items from this list. Automatic rifles, 762, Chinese made,
11 418 of them. Semi-automatic rifles, Chinese made, 453. Ammunition, for
12 example. There are different items here. There are a hundred items. But
13 ammunition, 114.550 pieces. Then in boxes in crates, how many hundreds of
14 crates. Albanian ammunition of different calibres. 111.152, et cetera,
15 et cetera. Mortar mines, 60 millimetre, 117 cumulative mines, Chinese
16 made, 271, et cetera, et cetera. Bullets for 127 heavy machine-gun
17 Browning, and then another heavy machine-gun, 10.000, et cetera.
18 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer, Mr. Milosevic.
19 Witness K32 --
20 Just a moment.
21 Witness K32, do you know anything about this list which is being
22 read out or anything about these type of arms for the KLA?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that we found weapons. What
24 Mr. Milosevic mentioned, as a matter of fact.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please take this into
1 evidence and also as proof that the witness is not telling the truth.
2 JUDGE MAY: That is matter of comment and that will be for us to
3 decide, but we will certainly take the document. Show it, please, to the
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Tell me, how many times in March and April 1999 were you at
8 Vrbnica, the Vrbnica border crossing, and what business did you have
10 A. At the Vrbnica border post?
11 Q. Yes, yes.
12 A. A few times. A few times. I can't remember exactly.
13 Q. All right. We were talking about the village of Mece. And tell
14 me now, you say that your combat group was the second combat group and
15 that it was in the village of Damjane; is that correct?
16 A. Yes. Yes, yes.
17 Q. And do you know that in the village of Damjane was the 3rd combat
18 group, not the 2nd combat group?
19 A. As far as I know it was the 2nd combat group.
20 Q. All right. Where were the troops put up in the village of
22 A. In houses, in abandoned houses and in the schools too.
23 Q. In houses?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. In the village of Damjane?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And as far as I know, it is correct that the army were staying in
3 the cooperative building outside the village and also in metal containers
4 that were placed to the north.
5 A. Yes, yes. In those containers, too.
6 Q. What was that?
7 A. They were also put up in containers.
8 Q. I asked you were they were put up in containers and you said it
9 was in the school and houses, and now you're saying, yes, in the
10 cooperative and in the containers the way I put it. So this is completely
12 A. It was in the schools and in the houses and in the containers.
13 Q. All right. All right. Since you say that the army was in
14 Albanian territory, two kilometres into Albanian territory, were you ever
15 at the border?
16 A. No, no. I was nearby.
17 Q. Were the border buildings in front of you?
18 A. Well, yes. I was they border post myself.
19 Q. Well, if these buildings, these huts at the border were right in
20 front of you and if you were facing Albania, how were you then in the
21 territory of Albania itself?
22 A. I know that soldiers told me that they got into Albanian
23 territory, two kilometres into Albanian territory.
24 Q. Oh, somebody got in.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. That's what you're claiming?
2 A. No, it's not that what I'm claiming. That's what I know.
3 Q. How many persons got killed from the ranks of this 3rd combat unit
4 in the village of Damjane, from your unit in particular?
5 A. One person got killed.
6 Q. What was the name of that soldier?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Do you remember Petar Markovic?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And do you remember the other two soldiers who also got killed?
11 A. No. I know, as concerns one of them, that a container fell,
12 toppled, and killed him that way.
13 Q. All right. Did you see Colonel Delic while the fighting was going
14 on near Retimlje and Mamusa?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Because there was no fighting in your area.
17 A. No.
18 Q. So you do not have information about the soldiers who were
19 killed. You have no information about the members of the MUP.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am going to tender a list of
21 soldiers who were killed in this area that this protected witness of
22 yours, K32, has been testifying about. There's also a list of members of
23 the Ministry of the Interior who got killed.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Also in that territory.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Tell me, you stated that an NCO, together with his soldiers,
3 killed about 15 civilians?
4 A. Something like that.
5 Q. What was the name of this non-commissioned officer and what unit
6 did he come from?
7 A. I mentioned that in my statement.
8 Q. I can't hear you.
9 A. I mentioned that in my statement.
10 Q. Tell me what his name was if you mentioned his name in your
12 A. Rajko.
13 Q. His name was Rajko? And do you know that everybody wants to
14 testify about the fact that you lied about this killing of a civilian and
15 that that is a notorious lie?
16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that is a comment, as you know. Now,
17 you can put to him, if you want, that his evidence isn't true and then he
18 can answer it, but running comments of that sort do not help and are not
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic --
22 JUDGE MAY: What's suggested is that you haven't told the truth
23 about the killing of the civilian by the NCO. Now, you can answer that.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the truth about the murder
25 of those civilians. That's the truth. And there are more witness who is
1 can testify to that, people who were together with him.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You, Mr. K32, explained that approximately in this way, if I
4 remember correctly and if I made correct notes on Wednesday, they killed a
5 mother and her baby and 13 or 15 civilians, that all soldiers were
6 shooting, that you were there and that everybody was shooting except for
7 you. You were the only one who wasn't shooting.
8 A. I was shooting too, but not at the civilians.
9 Q. All right. All right. You were everywhere and you heard Delic
11 A. I didn't hear Delic then.
12 Q. And then you said that on orders, you set a house on fire. Is
13 that correct? And then you were asked how you set that house on fire. Do
14 you know that you disappointed them a great deal when you said you used a
15 lighter, because we have heard here many times that there were special
16 rifles for that purpose.
17 A. I used a lighter to torch that house.
18 Q. So you claim that you saw that murder, this assassination of the
19 15 civilians.
20 A. I didn't see it, but I was close by. However, I saw another five
21 persons who were killed.
22 Q. Wait a second. You claim that you took part in this killing of
23 those 15 civilians with a proviso that you were not shooting at them. You
24 say that you were shooting at the roof.
25 A. That's not what I said. I didn't say that I was there.
1 Q. You didn't?
2 A. No. I said I was close by, and I was shooting.
3 Q. Look, did you see the murder of those 15 civilians or not?
4 A. I saw dead civilians.
5 Q. What did you say?
6 A. I saw dead civilians.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. You say you saw dead civilians, which means you didn't see their
10 killing. How can you claim then that you know who killed them? You know
11 the name of the sergeant when you didn't see the incident.
12 A. I saw the sergeant and his soldiers there, so it means that it was
14 Q. So it's your conclusion based on that -- I see. Could then
15 somebody else come to the conclusion that it was you who killed them since
16 you were there and you were seen?
17 A. If I happened to be there, somebody could conclude that I killed
19 Q. But you didn't kill them.
20 A. I didn't say they killed them. I saw they were there.
21 Q. They were close by?
22 A. No, that they were exactly there where those people were.
23 Q. All right. I see -- I think that this matter is now clear. Let's
24 go on.
25 You said on the 4th of March you were quartered in the village of
1 Trnje; is that correct?
2 A. Not on the 4th.
3 Q. I can't hear you.
4 A. On the 24th.
5 Q. Oh, I see, on the 24th. I had heard you saying the 4th.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Until the 25th of March, in the area of Trnje village, there was
8 no police or army units.
9 A. There were on the 24th. Oh, I'm sorry. On the 24th, the bombing
10 started, which means we left our barracks on the 24th, and on the 25th we
11 went there.
12 Q. So now you agree with what I'm saying.
13 JUDGE MAY: The witness said on the 25th of March, in his
14 evidence, about Trnje that he received an order to go there to cleanse the
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And in the operation near Retimlje and Studencane when you were in
18 Trnje village, did somebody from your brigade get killed?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And did you hear about the deaths of three soldiers, Slobodan
21 Gasparic, Bojo Jovanovic, and Vladimir Mirkov, and eight other soldiers
22 who were wounded?
23 A. No, I didn't hear about that.
24 Q. You didn't? Did you hear about two MUP members that were killed,
25 Ivica Spasic and Zeljko Kirkner, and seven wounded policemen?
1 A. I didn't hear about that either.
2 Q. All right. Tell me, you were a soldier. Are you familiar with
3 the rules of the service of the army of Yugoslav, being a soldier?
4 A. What do you mean?
5 Q. As a soldier, during your training you had to be familiarised with
6 the rules of your service.
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. Do you know that those rules of service set out very clearly that
9 a soldier must not execute an order which constitutes a crime, a criminal
10 offence, and must instead inform his superior officer about such orders,
11 somebody superior to the person who issued the order in the first place.
12 Do you know about this rule?
13 A. I don't quite understand your question.
14 Q. All right. Since you were constantly in the vicinity of Delic --
15 A. I wasn't all the time.
16 Q. Since you were a driver, who were the drivers? What were the
17 names of the drivers who served Delic in 1998, 1999?
18 A. One of them was from Bijelo Polje, and I don't know his name.
19 Q. Okay. What was the name of the driver of Delic's who was wounded
20 during the attack of Albanian terrorists on the vehicle? Do you remember
21 at least that? He was a colleague of yours.
22 A. That the driver was -- was wounded while I was on record as a
23 deserter. That was the first driver who was wounded.
24 Q. All right. Tell me, how come that your unit was able to shoot at
25 Jeskovo village when from their position, they couldn't even see the
2 A. They could. They could. It's a village situated in a
3 depression. There are no more than 15 houses in it.
4 Q. Here you have a map indicating those positions, including a
5 legend. You can see Jeskovo village there and you can put it also on the
6 ELMO, if you wish, of course, to use it.
7 Do you have any idea how much ammunition you spent when you were
8 shooting for half an hour?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You don't, do you?
11 JUDGE MAY: Let's go back to this map. If it goes on the overhead
12 projector, we can all see it.
13 Yes. Mr. Milosevic, what's the point about this map, what it
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that the position of
16 his unit was such that they were unable to even see the Jeskovo village
17 from it. And secondly -- but I'll ask him about it anyway.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Since all the terrorists were wearing uniforms and were
20 well-armed, where did you see civilians?
21 A. I saw them moving around the village.
22 JUDGE MAY: Well, now --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At 8.00 in the morning.
24 JUDGE MAY: Let's stay with this map for a moment. We've got it
25 here. Mr. Milosevic, where does it come from?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I got it from my associates or,
2 rather, through my associates from Belgrade over the weekend. I got it
3 this morning, rather, because I can't see my associates during the
4 weekend, according to your rules. I got this map this morning, and it was
5 drafted by competent people who have in their position official data about
6 the events concerned. And all data indicate that this witness is not
7 telling the truth.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. You said that. Now, we can see a marking with
9 "Delic" on it. Is that where the unit was supposed to be?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As it is described on the map, that
11 is the real situation. That is the reality concerning the positions of
13 JUDGE MAY: We can see the village above where Delic is supposed
14 to be, Jeskovo.
15 Now, can the witness help us with this: Does that set out the
16 position as you remember it or not?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This map is inaccurate.
18 JUDGE MAY: Can you help us what the real position or not?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The real position -- that was --
20 that was it, not here.
21 JUDGE MAY: Where were you?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was where Delic was, and we
23 were around here.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. And did you go into the village?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did. We did.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, let that also be exhibited. It may be
2 sensible to have some numbers. I will ask the Registrar to deal with
4 MR. RYNEVELD: If I just might at this point: We've been shown a
5 series of some three other sets of documents and then this map. No
6 problem with the map, but with the other documents, I want to point out
7 that, A, they're not translated; B, they were not shown to the witness.
8 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll admit them subject to objection in due
10 MR. RYNEVELD: Could they perhaps be marked for identification?
11 Especially the first document. It appears to be something that should be
12 shown during the part of the Defence case. I mean, I don't really object
13 to them, I just don't know what they are. And they weren't shown to the
14 witness. Their probative value certainly has not been established.
15 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, show them, please.
17 JUDGE MAY: We'll mark them for identification, and the map we'll
18 mark as an exhibit. In due course they can be established or not. I
19 don't think there's much point showing them to the witness; they're simply
20 lists. Yes, let's go on in that way.
21 THE REGISTRAR: The first list, Your Honours, will be marked for
22 identification as Exhibit D23, the second list will be marked for
23 identification as D24, and the third list will be marked for
24 identification as D25, and the map will be marked as D26.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Very well. So I assert that all the terrorists were wearing
2 uniforms and were well-armed. And I'm asking you, where did you see
3 civilians, in view of the fact that, according to my information, the
4 civilians were located in villages Lodja, Zagradska, Biluca and Pociste
5 and nobody ever touched them?
6 A. I never -- I don't remember ever saying that.
7 Q. I'm not saying you stated that. I'm saying that that is my
8 information, whereas you say that you had seen civilians there.
9 A. Yes, I did see civilians.
10 Q. And was the entire event monitored by OSCE representatives?
11 A. They couldn't monitor it because we didn't allow them to.
12 Q. Do you know that three OSCE vehicles were present there from 9.00
13 a.m. to 7.00 p.m.?
14 A. They were at the entrance to the village and the army didn't let
15 them go any further.
16 Q. You mean they were not on the site where the immediate shooting
17 took place?
18 A. That's what I mean.
19 Q. But how did you see them?
20 A. When we were withdrawing, retreating, Mr. Milosevic, we saw them
21 parked as an intersection far away from the village, and the army wouldn't
22 let them pass further.
23 Q. How do you know the army didn't let them pass any further?
24 Because in my report it says that the precise event that you describe was
25 attended by three OSCE vehicles and representatives from 9.00 a.m. to 7.00
2 A. I know more about it, Mr. Milosevic, than you do because I was
3 there, and what your report says is not true. I understand that you are
4 defending yourself.
5 Q. Let's not go into whether you understand me or not. It's quite
6 obvious that you don't -- you're not telling the truth.
7 A. This is the truth and the whole truth. Let those people confirm
8 that the army wouldn't let them pass through.
9 Q. You claim, on page 6, in paragraph 2 of your statement that you
10 were ordered, when the NATO bombing started, to mop up Albanian villages
11 and to order everyone to leave Kosovo and go to Albania. That is what you
12 write. But you say in essence most of those people were actually killed.
13 A. I didn't state that.
14 Q. What?
15 A. I didn't state that, but that's what it was like. That's what
16 happened. Unless you did something.
17 Q. I didn't add anything to your statement. On page 6, it says: "We
18 were told that an order had been issued to mop up, to clear out Albanian
19 villages and tell everyone to leave Kosovo and go to Albania, but in
20 practice, most of those people were killed."
21 So were you or were you not telling the truth when you said that?
22 A. I don't know what they actually noted, but what I said was that
23 villages which were evacuated where people were expelled in Kosovo -- how
24 shall I explain this? Everybody was driven out, told to go to Albania.
25 We had orders to expel all civilians and drive them towards Albania.
1 Q. Did you get an order to the effect that you should drive everyone
2 out and tell them to go to Albania?
3 A. We did have such orders. I didn't receive them personally, but
4 the army did.
5 Q. I understand, but you were part of that army.
6 A. Yes. I took part in that.
7 Q. Did you hear the order being issued to drive people out to
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Who issued the order?
11 A. Those NCOs of ours.
12 Q. Do you know that at the given your statement you said: "Delic
13 said that those people should be removed from the village and that he's
14 not interested in where they were going to go.
15 A. Mr. Milosevic, you are now using the statement about the period
16 before the bombing or about the period during the bombing, and you are
17 confusing me by jumping from one to the other.
18 Q. I don't understand what you're saying?
19 JUDGE MAY: The point that he makes, so you can understand it, is
20 this: that Delic's order was given in an earlier period. The period that
21 you were asking him about is the period of the NATO bombing, and what he
22 complains of is that by jumping from one to the other you're confusing
23 him. The Court can understand that.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Fine. So your NCO told them to drive them out to Albania?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you do that?
4 A. We did.
5 Q. So you expelled them and saw them off too?
6 A. I was an eyewitness to an incident where a woman was told to go to
7 Albania, and we killed her father, her grandfather, and her brother. I
8 know that for sure.
9 Q. So you escorted those villagers from the village to the Albanian
11 A. No, we didn't escort them. We just told them to go away.
12 Q. You just told them to go.
13 A. Yes. We had no need to escort them because they had company.
14 Q. You are saying that basically most of those people were killed,
15 that's what you said. So who went to Albania if most of them were killed?
16 A. Honestly, when the bombing started, Mr. Milosevic, the first five
17 days, killings took place in villages where I was. And later, I would run
18 into columns of people who were forced to go to Albania. They didn't go
19 there of their own free will.
20 Q. Okay. I understand now. Columns of people filed away to
21 Albania. How could they have formed columns if you said you killed most
22 of them?
23 A. We didn't kill all of them. We didn't kill all of them. A small
24 part of them was killed in the first five days.
25 Q. But it is your assertion that most of them were killed and a small
1 number were sent to Albania.
2 A. That's not my assertion. I said something different.
3 Q. What did you say?
4 A. You keep confusing me.
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've now had the 40 minutes
6 allotted. We will give you another ten. If you ask too many questions of
7 a witness, he will become inevitably confused, particularly if you put
8 confusing things to him. So keep it separate, these questions, and keep
9 them clear.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought I was asking very clear
11 questions, Mr. May.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you were not being very clear,
13 you know.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. On page 6, in paragraph 2, you say -- however, before that, you
16 said that you had said something different. Those were your words. What
17 was it you said actually?
18 A. In which paragraph?
19 Q. Not in any paragraph, but when I asked you whether it was your
20 assertion that most of those people were killed and a small part of them
21 was expelled to Albania, so those are two versions --
22 A. Those are not versions, Mr. Milosevic. In the first -- we are
23 talking now about the time of the bombing. In the first five days, there
24 were killings of civilians in villages. Five days later, we retreated to
25 our barracks, and it is common knowledge who issued orders to people to
1 leave their villages and go to Albania. That's the PJP, the special
2 police units. You know that.
3 Q. Okay. You say that when you entered the village, you split up
4 into teams. Give me the names of the soldiers who were in your team.
5 A. The names of the soldiers?
6 Q. In your team, yes.
7 A. I can't give you their names. I can't give you their names. They
8 will come here and sit in this chair.
9 Q. You say that in every house certain groups of soldiers killed
11 A. Naturally.
12 Q. What did you say?
13 A. Naturally. They didn't come there for no purpose at all.
14 Q. What do you mean?
15 A. The army killed people, Mr. Milosevic.
16 Q. That means that all the inhabitants of the village of Medevce were
18 A. That's correct, all of them, all that we found there.
19 Mr. Milosevic, one thing; I meant Trnje village in the context of what
20 you've just said.
21 Q. So you mean all the locals of Trnje village were killed?
22 A. Yes, all who were there when we got in.
23 Q. And that happened when you split up into groups and killed them?
24 A. Yes. They tried to run across the fields and run away.
25 Q. But when you talk about dead bodies, you say that you saw five
1 dead bodies which you went somewhere to bury.
2 A. No, not above the village but away from the village.
3 Q. You say five people?
4 A. No, not five people, five women.
5 Q. Five women? You said that they were buried precisely by those who
6 killed them.
7 A. They were with us.
8 Q. What?
9 A. They were with us. They were watching us bury them.
10 Q. Let me just check this in your statement, because this is the
11 first time I hear you mention five women. I want to see if that's what
12 you wrote.
13 A. Five women.
14 Q. Here you say on page 7: "We drove to the far end of the village."
15 The captain ordered you to collect the bodies of women and children and
16 the elderly. "However, the bodies of the children and most of the women
17 were no longer there."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then you mention these five bodies. So if that was indeed the
20 way it happened, how come you had only five people killed? If that was
21 such a mass killing with teams romping around the village and killing
22 people all day, how come there were only five?
23 A. Because we only found there three elderly men and five women. And
24 before we came, somebody took away the rest.
25 Q. Don't you think this -- please look at this part of your
1 statement. It is good for the public to hear this, although they can't
2 see your face.
3 You say on page 6: "There were no incidents of rape..." You say,
4 "There were no incidents of rape, but only because there was no time for
5 that. Had there been time, that would have occurred too."
6 A. It surely would.
7 Q. Do you know about rapes? Had there been any rapes?
8 A. No, there weren't any, but if we had had time, there would have
9 been rapes.
10 Q. Now, please explain. How did you come to the conclusion that
11 something that never happened would have happened had there been time?
12 JUDGE MAY: We'll just pause one moment. Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, a soldier who killed
14 a young girl in that same village, one soldier whose last name was
15 Milosevic --
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. You mean to say I was there too?
18 A. No. He was from Kosovo himself. He moaned and cried because he
19 had killed her.
20 Q. You mean he cried because --
21 A. Because "I didn't get to rape her first." He killed her before
22 she was raped.
23 Q. You say that some soldiers were with you from Montenegro. Tell me
24 the names of those soldiers from Montenegro so that we can hear from
1 A. I can't tell you the names.
2 Q. Do you know them or do you know --
3 A. I know, but I don't want to tell you.
4 Q. It's your obligation.
5 A. It's not my obligation, because one of those soldiers is supposed
6 to come here and sit in this chair too.
7 Q. Well, tell us at least his name, the one who is coming to
9 A. No. I don't have to say it.
10 JUDGE MAY: The witness declines to do so.
11 Now, Mr. Milosevic, you've got about a minute more, so that's time
12 for two questions.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right, Mr. May.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. At the end, you were saying, and I have to skip a lot of questions
16 here, but ultimately it doesn't really matter because everything is pretty
17 obvious here. You were asked towards the examination-in-chief about your
18 discussions with the commander whom you drove to various meetings. And in
19 response to that, you answered that you really didn't talk to him.
20 A. Well, I didn't talk to him much, but I'm not deaf, and from what
21 he did say I could get an inkling into his thinking.
22 Q. If you didn't talk to him, how could you make any conclusions?
23 Did he talk to himself?
24 A. At one point he said all of those people should be driven out of
25 this country.
1 Q. You heard him say that?
2 A. Yes, he did say that. And in reply to that, I said, "Yes. Yes,
3 of course."
4 Q. And whom did he mean?
5 A. Albanians.
6 Q. Okay. Tell me, did you discuss that with other soldiers?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You didn't?
9 A. No.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Have the amicus any questions?
11 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.
12 MR. RYNEVELD: Just a couple, if I may.
13 Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:
14 Q. Witness, it's been suggested that you've been lying to this
15 Court. Would there be any benefit or any gain to you for coming here to
17 A. Can you put that in clearer terms? I didn't really...
18 Q. Why are you here to testify? How did you come to come to the
20 A. How I did it? Well, let me tell you concretely first and
21 foremost. These women I buried, that we buried, until I spoke of this, I
22 could not get any peaceful sleep. Do you see what I'm saying? That was
23 my objective. And to say all the rest. So that means, you know, these
24 five women that we buried, this tortured me for a long time.
25 Q. All right. Is there any benefit, any gain to you personally for
1 coming here to testify? Did anyone promise you anything?
2 A. No. No, I have no benefit. The only benefit is that my
3 conscience is clear.
4 Q. Thank you, Witness.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE KWON: Witness K32, thanks to the summary offered by the
7 Prosecutor, I notice that you took some investigators to the place where
8 you took the bodies of five women. Did you take them also to the place
9 where you buried them?
10 A. No. No.
11 JUDGE KWON: Why was that?
12 A. Because when we set out, they told me that they had found that
13 immediately and that there was no need for that. So we went elsewhere.
14 The man who was there, he knew about it already. He just asked me to tell
15 him which house they were from.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 JUDGE MAY: Witness K32, that concludes your evidence. Thank you
18 for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Wait for the blinds to be drawn up. Yes.
21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there are a number of administrative
22 matters that it would be convenient to address now, given that we lost
23 time last week and that presently we're scheduled to include sittings on
24 this Friday. I have to make it plain that we have more evidence available
25 for this week than can sensibly be accommodated within the week, and
1 indeed one of the things I'm going to ask the Chamber to at least consider
2 is the possibility of extending the sittings into next week should that
3 be --
4 JUDGE MAY: No. Arrangements have already been made. That is to
5 be part of the preparation time for the next part of this case.
6 MR. NICE: So be it. Then if we can start -- to help the Chamber
7 with its understanding of the decisions I have to make about evidence to
8 be called, if we can start with K34, for whom particular arrangements
9 have, of course, been made. It's very desirable that he should be
10 concluded this week. Indeed, I make that something of a priority. If we
11 allow two days and perhaps one session for him, then that would mean we
12 should start his evidence in the last session on Wednesday. Advancing
13 that notional start time, if there's any matters that have to be taken on
14 Thursday or Friday.
15 The other most substantial witness listed for this week, of
16 course, was K33. He's here.
17 The Chamber has had submitted by him a paper drafted, I think, by
18 his lawyer and with a translation, and I think that the amici have just
19 recently --
20 JUDGE MAY: We haven't had that. Nothing from him.
21 MR. NICE: It came directly to Your Honour on the 19th of July in
22 a letter --
23 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. Yes, I have you. Yes.
24 MR. NICE: That identifies an issue that he wants to raise.
25 Really it's an issue between him, I think, and the Chamber, given that
1 he's a witness here under subpoena.
2 JUDGE MAY: If I'm thinking of the right matter, we've made an
3 order in relation to it. But we may be talking eliptically.
4 MR. NICE: The letter of the 19th of July, or the document of the
5 19th of July from K33 explains his difficulties in giving evidence in the
6 absence of the lifting of restrictions on his speaking about state and
7 federal secrets. If you haven't seen it, then you obviously should see
8 it. It has a Registry number on it.
9 JUDGE MAY: It has got lost in the system. It's somewhere in the
10 system. No doubt it's going around the building, but it hasn't come to
12 MR. NICE: I'm alarmed that this has happened. Let me explain the
13 position, and K33 knows that I'm going to explain the position and to do
14 so publicly.
15 K33 is the pseudonym for Mr. Lilic, the former president of
16 Yugoslavia, who is here under a subpoena to give evidence and is happy
17 that his name should be known. Happy that it should be known once the
18 time came for him to give evidence, although I gather, as has been
19 happening from time to time, the local newspapers have published this
20 information and indeed published his pseudonym in breach of all sorts of
21 obvious orders of this Court.
22 His concern, and he would like to address the Chamber about it
23 directly himself, is that he is at present in the position of not being
24 able to give evidence about facts or about documents that constitute state
25 or federal secrets without being at risk himself. And his document
1 submitted on the 19th of July deals with this.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: At risk from whom, Mr. Nice? At risk from --
3 MR. NICE: Prosecution in Serbia --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: By the national authorities.
5 MR. NICE: Yes, the national authorities. Various steps have been
6 taken since he was first in contact with the Office of the Prosecutor.
7 Various steps have been taken to relieve him of that risk, and it's been a
8 long process and it is only just coming to some conclusion now. But it is
9 not completely resolved, and until it is completely resolved, there would
10 be severe limitations on the evidence that Mr. Lilic can give if he is to
11 be free of the liability and risk that understandably concerns him. And
12 so that's his position.
13 And with a witness who is here under subpoena, it's a position
14 that he should probably identify himself to the Chamber. Indeed, he might
15 even, in certain circumstances, be allowed to be represented by a lawyer,
16 although he has no lawyer with him today, his lawyer having drafted the
17 document that I would invite you in due course to read.
18 That's part of the problem so far as Mr. Lilic is concerned.
19 There is another part of that problem reflected in a filing that I think
20 you have all seen. That comes from another party, that party wishing to
21 have that matter dealt with in closed session, at least at this stage.
22 And I would invite the Chamber, so far as Mr. Lilic is concerned and in
23 order to plan ahead - and I think planning ahead is what's going to be
24 required - to hear from Mr. Lilic so that you can understand his position,
25 and then to hear from the other party.
1 So far as that other party is concerned, I haven't yet seen the
2 document filed here because I think the Chamber made a decision over the
3 weekend to delay serving it on the Prosecution and the amici until this
4 morning. I have to say that I've seen a draft of it having been in
5 discussion with the party concerned on Friday. In discussion with but
6 having no part in the drafting of the document save to suggest to them
7 that if they wanted the matter to be dealt with in closed session, they
8 should put that on top of the document so it shouldn't be missed.
9 So I would be grateful for the opportunity of seeing the document
10 as finally filed, and I would suggest that once the Chamber is acquainted
11 with Mr. Lilic's position and then acquainted with the up-to-date position
12 of the other party, we can plan more confidently how to deal with that
13 very important evidence.
14 JUDGE MAY: But before we go on, there's a more general matter
15 which concerns the Pre-Trial Conference which didn't take place last week
16 and must take place this week.
17 MR. NICE: Indeed.
18 JUDGE MAY: And that must be taken into consideration. That will
19 have to take place on Friday, I would anticipate, at the last possible
20 moment of the week. I don't know if there's any extra time available for
21 sitting this week. I suspect there isn't going to be.
22 The other matter -- I mean, is Mr. Lilic going to tell us anything
23 more than you've told us?
24 MR. NICE: Possibly -- possibly a little more, but I'm concerned
25 that because it is in part a matter between him and the Tribunal, that he
1 should set his position out. It's the witness coming in answer to a
2 subpoena, saying -- well, not I want to set the subpoena aside but, "At
3 present, I can't answer the full terms of a subpoena or the implied terms
4 of this subpoena because of these problems that are outstanding." And of
5 course, although the authorities are cooperating - and I'm delighted that
6 they're cooperating, I'm delighted that they're now indeed prepared to be
7 represented here and to send, later this week, I think, lawyers to assist
8 the Chamber - Mr. Lilic may be require, or alternatively, we on his behalf
9 may be assisted by the Chamber's observations or orders, if it's able to
10 make them, in relation to Mr. Lilic's problem.
11 I can tell you this, that the --
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE MAY: Let's hear the witness and we'll then consider the
14 matter further.
15 MR. NICE: Your Honour, thank you very much. Although he has been
16 in -- will Your Honour just give me a minute.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MR. NICE: Your Honour, although I'm asking that the witness be
19 allowed to speak to you directly, I should say that he's been, of course,
20 with the Office of the Prosecutor over the last few days, preparing the
21 proof of evidence that we hope will reflect evidence he can give in due
22 course. It is by no means finally completed, and I'm quite sure that it's
23 not going to be possible, given all the constraints of time, for his
24 evidence to be started and completed this week. That's clear. So I would
25 ask that his addressing you about his role as a witness doesn't in any way
1 trigger the moment when he can no longer be in touch with us about the
2 substance of his evidence for it will still be necessary for us to deal
3 with him on those issues.
4 JUDGE MAY: So you're saying that even if we do start his
5 evidence, we can't complete it this week.
6 MR. NICE: Not given the time constraints that there are and not
7 given the priority that I have put on K34 being completed this week, for
8 other reasons of which the Chamber will be aware, practical reasons, that
9 I judge must have priority.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will hear Mr. Lilic on this narrow point. He
11 need not be under any form of declaration for this. He won't be treated
12 as a witness.
13 I suppose one thing we'll have to consider is whether it's worth
14 calling him at all in those circumstances.
15 MR. NICE: I beg Your Honour's pardon?
16 JUDGE MAY: Whether it's worth calling him at all.
17 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, we're in Your Honour's hands, of
18 course, but I know that he would like to make his position plain.
19 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll certainly hear him on that point.
20 MR. NICE: Yes. And I think that one of the problems is that the
21 document which has been submitted on Friday -- and I am truly concerned
22 that it hasn't found its way to you --
23 JUDGE MAY: It has now.
24 MR. NICE: Oh, good. It is translated, but actually the
25 translation, for whatever reason, is itself not entirely easy to follow in
1 parts. And for my part in particular, the discrimination that's made in
2 the document between the various state bodies and federal bodies concerned
3 is not entirely clear. I'm sure this isn't the fault of the original
4 document; it may be a consequence of the translation, I just don't know.
5 It will probably be easier to hear from him.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we'll hear Mr. Lilic, then.
7 MR. NICE: While he's being brought in, to save time, so far as
8 the other party is concerned who wishes to be heard in closed session, my
9 information is that they have a representative here to address you today
10 in respect of their filing, should you wish it, but he -- he may or may
11 not be a lawyer, but he's not the lawyer that they would wish to have
12 address you for purposes of full legal argument. And the paper that
13 they've submitted, or the submission that they've made contains
14 interesting arguments which require a little research, particularly the
15 topic of state dignity, which you will have seen referred to. And they
16 told me yesterday that they intend to send a lawyer possibly Tuesday or
17 Wednesday so that that matter could be more fully ventilated with the
18 assistance of their legal representations later in the week.
19 All these -- all these matters, of course, mean that the start
20 time for K34 may have to be accelerated or advanced if other matters are
21 going to have to happen before the end of the week.
22 [Mr. Lilic entered court]
23 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lilic, we're not going to ask you to make a
24 declaration. If you'd like to take a seat.
25 Mr. Nice, since this is a Prosecution witness, you may want to
1 start the proceeding.
2 MR. NICE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
3 Mr. Lilic, you're not being invited to take the solemn declaration
4 at the moment because you're here simply to explain your position to the
5 Chamber so far as giving evidence generally is concerned. I have to tell
6 you that the filing of yours dated the 19th of July - last Friday - did
7 not find its way to the Judges before this morning's hearing so they have
8 not yet had an opportunity to consider it, and it may be the easiest
9 course for you to explain your position as to giving evidence generally
10 and the constraints that you believe exist on giving evidence and how
11 those constraints may, in due course, be lifted. If you could explain
12 your position briefly to the Chamber, that would assist.
13 MR. LILIC: Thank you very much, Mr. Nice.
14 Mr. May, by your leave, may I inform you at least in a few
15 sentences about the core of this problem?
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
17 MR. LILIC: Mr. May, Your Honours, according to your order of the
18 5th of July that was handed over to me on the 11th of July through the
19 District Court in Belgrade, I am before the Prosecution of the Tribunal as
20 a witness. I wish to point out that my presence in The Hague is an
21 expression of my respect for a UN institution, for the Trial Chamber, and
22 for you personally, and my objection to the Trial Chamber is a product of
23 the need to protect myself and my family from the very serious sanctions
24 stipulated by the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia, due to the fact that the
25 Federal Ministry of Justice, the Federal Government, and the Supreme
1 Defence Council of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not act in
2 accordance with the recommendations that were handed over to Mr. Markovic,
3 the federal Minister of Justice, by Mr. Nice on behalf of the Prosecution
4 on the 4th of July, 2002 and about which there is an official document,
5 and I'm sure that Mr. Nice can interpret that.
6 I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to point out that I
7 have no objections with regard to the work of the investigators and the
8 prosecutors of the Tribunal. On the contrary, the understanding of the
9 prosecutors of the seriousness of the situation that I happen to be in
10 because of the rather strange, I would say, behaviour of the government of
11 Yugoslavia, the authorities of Yugoslavia, and also the effort made by the
12 Prosecution in order to redress every possible misunderstanding make it
13 incumbent upon me to thank them for their understanding.
14 The core of the problem is that, from Belgrade, there are no
15 concrete or clear decisions with regard to the testimony or giving
16 evidence or against it. At least, I'm not aware of any such decisions and
17 no such decisions have been made available to me. Therefore, I have been
18 compelled to address the Trial Chamber for these reasons. I personally
19 believe that it is in the interest of my country and the people that I
20 belong to that the truth be presented in public before this Trial Chamber
21 regardless of whether it will bring personal benefit to someone or
22 personal disadvantage to someone. I believe that the truth is beneficial
23 to all. And motivated by that principle, I am going to testify before
24 this Trial Chamber, publicly, without any special protection, so that it
25 would be made available to all, and this would eliminate the possibility
1 of any speculation. And I believe that in the future, this would
2 encourage other witnesses to speak before this Trial Chamber.
3 In order for this to happen, two decisions have to be made by the
4 authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. First and foremost,
5 that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should express their approval of
6 my testimony, that they should agree to it. That prerequisite has been
7 met, in my opinion, because your subpoena, your order was handed over
8 through the District Court in Belgrade. And the Court is in charge of
9 that, according to article 5 on the law on cooperation with The Hague
10 Tribunal. And secondly, what is was even more important for me and which
11 is the core of the problem that I'm facing, it is also necessary for the
12 competent authority - I underline this - the competent authority in the
13 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should free me from keeping a state secret
14 and military secret and also to make it possible to have the necessary
15 insight into documents from that period. This is simply required by the
16 special position that I was in from 1993 until the year 2000.
17 I wish to inform you of the following as well: Last week in
18 Belgrade, meetings of the National Committee for Cooperation with the
19 Hague Tribunal were held and also the government of the Republic of
20 Serbia, the government of the Federation, and also the Supreme Defence
21 Council of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Except for the sessions of
22 the government of the Republic of Serbia that were held, one was on the
23 9th of July and the other one was on the 18th of July, where this
24 particular subject matter was looked into, not from a single other level
25 of authority do I have any decision in writing, because it was not handed
1 over to my lawyer.
2 The decisions that were reached do not meet the necessary
3 requirements for two reasons. First of all, they pertain only to the
4 field of Kosovo and Metohija and only in part; and secondly, they were
5 given by the institutions that are not really in charge in my particular
6 case. The Supreme Defence Council, at their session of the 19th of July,
7 did not even look into the possibility of freeing me from keeping a state
8 and military secret, and that is the only competent authority in my
9 particular case.
10 The Supreme Defence Council only passed a decision that certain
11 documents that were required by the OTP could be made available to the
12 Office of the Prosecutor, and in view of the very clear consequences
13 stemming from the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
14 practically the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rejected the previously
15 given approval for me to testify when your subpoena was handed over.
16 This assertion of mine can be seen the best from the following
17 fact: In Article 40 of the law on cooperation between the Federal
18 Republic of Yugoslavia and The Hague Tribunal, it is explicitly stipulated
19 that as regards all questions pertaining to my position as a witness, it
20 is the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, rather, it's
21 Article 97 that are relevant, and this article reads as follows: "A
22 witness who would by his or her statement infringe upon the duty of
23 preserving a state secret, a military secret, or an official secret until
24 the competent authority --" and in my case it is the Supreme Defence
25 Council of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- "frees him of keeping
1 such a secret, cannot be heard as a witness."
2 Or rather, Mr. May, if anybody in the Federal Republic of
3 Yugoslavia were to file a report against me, if I did not have an
4 appropriate decision of the Supreme Defence Council of the Federal
5 Republic of Yugoslavia, whose president I was when these documents were
6 conceived of and the use of these documents before this Trial Chamber has
7 to be approved by the Supreme Defence Council, then I would be accused of
8 revealing state secrets, military secrets, or official secrets, and there
9 are serious speculations in this regard already in the Federal Republic of
10 Yugoslavia in certainly daily newspapers and in certainly weekly
12 MR. NICE: If I can just invite you to pause there, because some
13 of this comes fresh to the Chamber, they not having had the chance, for
14 administrative reasons, of seeing your paper in advance.
15 Can I just summarise the position, and you'll correct me if I'm
16 got it wrong and then add anything that you still need to add.
17 The processes for freeing individuals of liability for revealing
18 state secrets are in place and are being worked through in respect of your
19 case and in respect of documents to which you may refer and we simply
20 don't know at the moment the final position from the authorities on
21 whether you're going to be free of liability in respect of particular
22 documents. But regardless of that, you take the view that the only
23 authority that can free you ultimately from liability is the Supreme
24 Defence Council and its president, which is Mr. Kostunica. And therefore,
25 what you are seeking and what you have so far not been able to obtain is
1 an express approval by that body or by him to your giving evidence, and
2 you are concerned for your vulnerability if that approval is not
3 forthcoming; is that correct?
4 MR. LILIC: Yes, precisely, Mr. Nice.
5 MR. NICE: And so that there can be no doubt about the efforts
6 that have been and the time over which efforts have been made, this was
7 the subject of correspondence between you and President Kostunica as long
8 ago as the beginning of February of this year; is that correct?
9 MR. LILIC: To be more precise, on the 22nd of January this year.
10 MR. NICE: Thank you. Now, your having explained your position
11 and I having summarised the position about your need for the approval
12 of -- approval of the Supreme Defence Council or the president, and the
13 Chamber now knowing that the mechanisms are in place and we are working
14 our way through the procedures to deal with particular documents - we
15 don't have a final view on particular documents from anybody yet - is
16 there anything else that you feel you should add to the statement you've
17 already made to clarify your position?
18 MR. LILIC: [Interpretation] With your permission, only a few more
19 sentences. I would not like the impossibility for me to testify about
20 these matters that relate to state and military secrets be considered as
21 contempt of court. This is my basic human right not to expose myself to
22 criminal Prosecution in the forthcoming period. It is precisely for that
23 reason that I kindly ask you, Mr. May and Their Honours the other Judges,
24 to look into this matter. We have given a detailed explanation of this
25 obviously quite complicated procedure.
1 Bearing in mind the fact that I do believe that the institution of
2 a witness before an international Court enjoys the highest standards of
3 human rights and, according to Sub-rule 90(E), should make it possible for
4 the competent authorities of Yugoslavia to make the appropriate decisions.
5 Why do I insist on the signature of the president, Mr. Kostunica,
6 and an appropriate decision of the Supreme Defence Council? Precisely
7 because that is the highest body that adopted most of these documents that
8 will possibly be discussed here. As far as I know, that is the authority
9 that can free a person from keeping such a secret, and in my situation,
10 this is a rather special thing. The document that I have filed with you
11 gives a detailed explanation, and I thank you for your attention on this
12 occasion. Thank you.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Lilic.
14 Mr. Nice, the witness rightly referred to Rule 90(E) which, of
15 course, is a privilege against self-incrimination. The witness would
16 certainly have that. But I'm not sure that I by any means follow what
17 you're asking the Trial Chamber to do. Practically, this is a matter
18 which has to be sorted out by others and not, I would have thought, by the
19 Trial Chamber. We would, of course, hear, if it was proposed to call
20 witness now, as was proposed, we would hear the witness. We would, of
21 course, have to inform him that he wasn't obliged to answer any questions
22 which might incriminate him, although we would have a power to compel him
23 to do so, but I suspect we would be more likely to tell him he didn't have
24 to incriminate himself, and then we would see how we got on. But that
25 might not be the most efficacious way of hearing the evidence. It may be
1 more practical, it seems to me, speaking for myself, to adjourn the matter
2 for it to be resolved elsewhere.
3 MR. NICE: Your Honour, what I had in mind -- in a sense this is
4 perhaps a happy fit with the reduced time we now have as a result of the
5 loss of time last week. What I have in mind is that, the Chamber now
6 knowing from his own lips the witness's position and having other material
7 before it and the potential to hear legal argument later in the week when,
8 incidentally, Mr. Lilic will still be present in the building, I think the
9 Chamber at the end of that exercise, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday, may be
10 in a position to make orders or, alternatively, to set a timetable within
11 which the whole process of Mr. Lilic's obtaining release from liability
12 may be considered in order that sooner, rather than later, he can give the
13 maximum possible evidence, evidence that will be of extreme value to this
14 Tribunal and will touch on documents of very great value. So I think --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, when you applied for the issuance of a
16 subpoena, all of these matters were not laid before the Chamber. I have
17 no recollection of being privy to all of these matters.
18 MR. NICE: When we applied for a subpoena, we were at an earlier
19 stage in our understanding of the position, both with the witness and with
20 the authorities, and of course the position in relation to the authorities
21 is and always has been that we are making the best possible efforts at all
22 times in an unfolding position so far as their cooperation is concerned.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Speaking for myself, I don't see why this witness
24 should be subject to the regime of a subpoena at this stage. I think it
25 is essentially a matter between the Prosecution and the witness and his
1 authorities, and I rather resent having been, I think, used in this way.
2 MR. NICE: If I may say so, there's two entirely different issues
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure that they're entirely different at
6 MR. NICE: I'm saying I --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Had all of these matters been laid before me, I
8 would not have agreed to the issuance of a subpoena in relation to this
10 MR. NICE: All the matters that could be laid before the Chamber
11 were laid before the Chamber. I think it was His Honour Judge Kwon who
12 eventually dealt with it on the day in question. And as the witness
13 himself I think will make plain, a subpoena a was necessary to secure his
14 attendance and thus it was applied for and granted. And there's certainly
15 no question of material not being made available. Everything that was
16 known to us at the time, and material, was laid before the Chamber. And
17 the final position of the witness in relation to documents that he could
18 or could not deal with only became finally plain in the course of the last
19 week. Negotiations have been pressed ahead with at the maximum possible
20 rate. Without a subpoena, the witness could not have been here. And that
21 is quite clear. And this is a witness of the very greatest of
22 importance. And if this Chamber is to have the best evidence before it,
23 it needs this witness and, therefore, the subpoena that brought him here.
24 But in any event, the matter was dealt with by His Honour
25 Judge Kwon, as I recall. And indeed I recall the event, but I can't
1 remember the hour of the day. I think it was getting towards the end of
2 the normal working day, and His Honour Judge Kwon very kindly remained
3 available to assist, and we remained available to assist and provide all
4 information to him.
5 JUDGE MAY: The upshot is this: that we can't deal with the
6 witness now. We will make time available to consider this matter in the
7 rest of the week. There's no point, I would anticipate, hearing the other
8 matter which we were to hear and from the other party until later in the
9 week. We will consider that over the adjournment.
10 Meanwhile, you've got other witnesses here, have you?
11 MR. NICE: Yes. I will alert the other party to that and come
12 back to you with their estimated time of arrival, as it were, by lawyer.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
14 MR. NICE: And providing we're all provided, that is, provided the
15 amici and we are provided with their filing as is, which I think is
16 probably possible now, and we will be able to do the necessary research
17 into that.
18 The remaining evidence, I think, will probably conveniently fill
19 the balance of the time, is the witness Mr. Karleusa who will come next
20 and who will take a session or so at the very least.
21 JUDGE MAY: And we have a matter to resolve about the documents.
22 MR. NICE: Indeed we do. He's followed by another witness on the
23 same topic. There are then two crime base witnesses. One way and
24 another, I think those witnesses will take probably four sessions, which
25 will take us well into tomorrow.
1 So providing we keep an eye on the necessary start time to
2 conclude 34 -- K34 by the end of the week, I think there is time for
3 another session devoted to the issues of Mr. Lilic's evidence generally
4 and associated issues and also to deal with the so described pre-trial
6 May I respectfully suggest that when one thinks about the problems
7 that Mr. Lilic's evidence raises, they may not be wholly unconnected with
8 the problems that arise in relation to Rule 70 in respect of which
9 decisions are awaited. They are not Rule 70 issues, but I can see myself
10 that there's a connection, and it seems --
11 JUDGE MAY: We have noted that.
12 MR. NICE: Therefore, since we want to move forward with this
13 witness and any other witnesses who will raise similar or whose evidence
14 may raise similar difficulties, it might be desirable to try and have all
15 that in mind at the same time.
16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lilic, we'll consider your statement, of course,
17 and as you've heard, during the latter part of the week we'll have a
18 hearing about it, and obviously you'll be informed.
19 We'll rise now.
20 Mr. Milosevic, we'll hear you in due course. We're going to
21 adjourn now. This is really a matter between the Prosecution and the
22 Trial Chamber and the witness.
23 We're adjourned now. Five past eleven we'll be back.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You did not give me an opportunity
3 to voice an objection regardless of the fact that you didn't know what I
4 wanted to object to.
5 JUDGE MAY: No, because it's nothing to do with you. But if you
6 want to address us you can, very briefly.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I know, everything that's
8 going on here has to do with me, as I understand it.
9 JUDGE MAY: Not this. It's a dispute -- it's a dispute involving
10 the Prosecution and its witness. Now, we need to get on, but you can
11 address us for a few minutes and explain to us why it's to do with you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me, please, to point out
13 something very illogical, a disparity between what Mr. Nice has indicated
14 and what Judge Robinson said. It was a matter of issuing a subpoena. Mr.
15 Nice said that the subpoena was necessary for the witness to come here,
16 which is absolutely incorrect, because it is written in the witness
17 statement that he is ready to testify before The Hague Tribunal, so that a
18 subpoena was not necessary for him to come here since he himself expressed
19 this readiness in writing and signed it.
20 Secondly, regarding the revelation of state secrets, if such a
21 problem exists and is still unresolved, then how is it possible for this
22 witness to make a statement to the other side in which all that is
23 contained in the statement is written? Therefore, the whole matter is
24 completely illogical.
25 And third, this is not the first time that the other side is
1 keeping witnesses under protection until the very last moment in order to
2 limit the possibility of gathering facts and evidence in practice and
3 then, immediately before their testimony, they disclose their names and
4 statements as if nothing had happened before at all. So the regime of
5 protecting the witnesses proves that for the umpteenth time before this
6 Trial Chamber, this protection was totally unnecessary.
7 All these are things that you should bear in mind not only in this
8 case but also in future cases when the other side attempts to repeat this
10 JUDGE MAY: If there was any suspicion of bad faith in the
11 applications which the Prosecution make for protection, they would be
12 rejected. What we have done in this case, if such applications are made
13 and granted, is to ensure there is adequate time for the Defence to be
14 prepared, and it is the avoidance of prejudice to you that we have in
16 Very well. We will now move on to Mr. Karleusa. There was an
17 objection to some of the documents. The question is what will be a
18 convenient way to deal with that. It was made in a very general way.
19 MR. NICE: Your Honour, Mr. Shin is dealing with this witness.
20 He's at your disposal. As to a convenient way of dealing with arguments,
21 he's certainly in a position to deal with them either ahead or as we come
22 to the individual document at its time in the evidence.
23 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, what would be convenient?
24 MR. KAY: Your Honour, it's probably convenient if we outline the
25 issues for concern. For those purposes, it would probably be best to have
1 the index of exhibits to be tendered through the witness which sets out
2 the documents.
3 There's no objection to him being a witness. He's quite capable
4 of being a witness before this Tribunal; it's the exhibits that he
5 produces that we say should be of concern to the Trial Chamber.
6 The first two documents in the list, Annex 1 and Annex 2, are
7 newspaper articles which the witness produces and exhibits. They were
8 written by a journalist and concern the matters surrounding the discovery
9 of this truck in the river.
10 In relation to that matter, it's not material from that -- from
11 those articles that has anything to do with this witness. They are
12 articles written by a completely separate journalist. And in relation to
13 that, we remind the Trial Chamber of the observations made by the Judges
14 during the evidence of the witness Tanic concerning journalistic comment.
15 JUDGE MAY: That was in cross-examination, as I recollect, and
16 there is a distinction in this: That we admit hearsay here, and certainly
17 in my experience we've admitted newspaper articles. What we don't admit
18 is comment by journalists and journalists' opinion. If they are reporting
19 facts, well, that's matter we will have to consider, but it's in a
20 different category to the journalistic opinion and comment which was the
21 -- I suspect which was the -- objected to in Tanic.
22 MR. KAY: Yes. Your Honour, within these two articles, there is
23 comment by the journalist over the issues that the Court is trying. He
24 makes, in the first article, Annex 1, conclusions about knowledge and
25 responsibility concerning the refrigerator lorry incident. The opening
1 paragraph of the article is phrased this way: "The following story will
2 show that the police, district, and municipal public prosecutors,
3 investigating judge, and the police, top officials of the Serbian MUP knew
4 about the incident and later took part in covering up the crime." And
5 it's in relation to that proposition and the matters that he reports
6 within that article that we point out to the Trial Chamber that go beyond
7 reporting factual events as they happened within the Kosovo region.
8 Article 2, which is found at tab 2, is again written in very much
9 the same terms, concluding at the end with: "Nevertheless, we believe
10 that the authorities, above all, the police, the prosecutor, or somebody
11 else must go public and explain whether this event occurred or not and
12 thus put a stop to dangerous rumours that are spreading at lightning speed
13 and disturbing the public."
14 So it's hearsay and hearsay that recognises that it's hearsay.
15 And in relation to the information within those articles, there's nothing
16 within it that Mr. Karleusa, in his evidence, doesn't give. And of course
17 he is reporting directly as the witness who had a responsibility to
18 investigate the matter. It's making the distinction in that way that for
19 those purposes, Annexes 3 and 4, which are communiques from his working
20 group, we cannot raise any objection to. They're working documents. He
21 was charged with the job of investigating the matter. Under the Rules of
22 the Tribunal, that would be probative evidence, and the Tribunal can give
23 such weight as it feels fit in assessing the evidence at the end of the
24 trial. But what those annexes do is provide the relevant material at
25 which the newspaper articles are purely surplusage.
1 The next body of evidence to be considered is from tabs 5 to 24,
2 which are witness statements produced to the working group of which Mr. --
3 Major Karleusa was the commander, of statements made by people to him when
4 he was investigating the matter.
5 So far as I can determine from the documents, and I would be
6 corrected if I'm wrong, but they're not signed by the makers of those
7 statements. Let's take, for example, at tab 5, the witness Golubovic. We
8 have in this file his statement in B/C/S followed by an English
9 translation, and the final note is, "Note compiled by the working group."
10 So it's notes of Major Karleusa's working group in speaking to this
11 potential witness during his investigation of the lorry in the water.
12 All those series of statements up to 24 are in exactly the same
13 form. So 5 to 24, we raise this issue, that these are unsigned statements
14 to an investigator. If put into evidence, the accused doesn't have an
15 opportunity to cross-examine the makers of those statements and to put his
16 case on the matter. To reflect language we've used elsewhere during our
17 oral -- during our written responses and observations to the Court, it's a
18 back-door route, as we would see it, of getting evidence in before the
19 Tribunal through an investigator that doesn't have the opportunity of
20 being challenged.
21 These were statements that were produced not from what appears to
22 be judicial proceedings and therefore taken before a juge d'instruction
23 with a declaration of the truth, in that form. It appears to have been a
24 working group commission, as the witness describes himself, that was
25 charged with the duty of investigating the matter, but beyond that, for no
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts. Pages 8348 to 8356.
1 further purpose.
2 If I move on to the last group of documents, which is 25 to 28,
3 these are notes of the working group whilst charged with this particular
4 duty, and they are documents arising within the course of that, would be
5 probative under the Rules of Evidence of the Tribunal in the usual form.
6 JUDGE MAY: Is there any summary in the other papers of what these
7 witnesses say? Does the communique do that or is it on different matters?
8 MR. KAY: The communique is on more general matters. If we go to
9 3 and 4 -- let's go to 3 first. It recites -- yes. It doesn't summarise
10 each of the statements. It is an overview of the total mass of the
11 paperwork. So Your Honours won't find a summary of witness 5, a summary
12 of Witness 6 or 7, but an overview.
13 JUDGE MAY: It does, looking at 3, appear at least to summarise
14 the conclusions which were reached.
15 MR. KAY: Yes. In following the cases and authorities of the
16 Tribunal, that sort of report has been admitted in evidence and the Judges
17 have decided what weight they will give it. The position with the witness
18 statements from 5 to 24 is that is actually taking the statements of those
19 other people that aren't created within a judicial process. They're
20 unsigned in this particular indication, in this particular -- as indicated
21 to me from our documents, and take it a step further. The accused there
22 is deprived from cross-examination of the makers of those statements.
23 It's a self-evident fact that Major Karleusa, in reporting what
24 he's reporting in his witness statement and how one anticipates that he
25 will give evidence, is giving evidence in relation to a matter with which
1 he was not personally involved other than what he saw and the photographs
2 he saw and what he can tell the Court about that. So it inevitably has a
3 limited use about it.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Shin.
5 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, if I could respond to the points raised
6 by my learned colleague and also make a suggestion. I'll address first
7 the issue relating to the newspaper articles.
8 With regards to the newspaper articles, the Prosecution does not
9 intend to tender those exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted in
10 the articles. Rather, the Prosecution will seek to tender the articles as
11 evidence of the genesis of the investigation, basically to explain how it
12 is that the investigation came about.
13 Indeed, the witness's testimony will indicate that to a large
14 extent his job in fact was to test the allegations in those newspaper
15 articles, and it is actually the publication of those articles and at the
16 times that they were published that is the important matter there.
17 With regards to the statements, the -- Mr. Wladimiroff had raised
18 last Wednesday two issues; authentication and inability to cross-examine
19 the persons interviewed in those documents. Addressing first the point of
20 authentication, the statements referred to by the amici curiae are not in
21 fact statements. More precisely, they're official notes of interviews
22 conducted by police investigators, and that is indicated on the documents
24 As a technical matter, there are actually 22 of such interview
25 notes in addition to tabs 25 to 24 [sic], and that's including two
1 documents within tab 7. As Your Honours will have noted, there's also tab
2 28, which is a document of a similar nature. In addition, of course,
3 there are signed statements within the binder of documents.
4 As has been pointed out, the official notes of interviews are not
5 signed. What they bear is a signature block, if you will, of the working
6 group itself. The witness will be able to explain what the significance
7 of that is.
8 The witness will also be able to explain what these -- how these
9 interview notes were made, what the format used was and why that format
10 was used. Basically the witness will be in a position to authenticate
11 these documents, and of course the witness will be available for
12 cross-examination on those matters.
13 The Prosecution submits that these documents are analogous to
14 documents that have previously been admitted in this case by -- prepared
15 by the organisations Human Rights Watch and the Organisation for Security
16 and Cooperation in Europe. The Prosecution submits that these matters
17 should go to the weight and credibility of the documents rather than to
18 their admissibility.
19 The Prosecution notes also that these documents constitute a body
20 of raw material that was available to the witness in the course of
21 carrying out his investigations. In that light, the Trial Chamber would
22 be in a better position to assess the witness's testimony with these
24 The second point that had been raised last week was that of the
25 inability to cross-examine, and the point was touched upon again by my
1 learned colleague just now. The Prosecution submits again that this is a
2 matter that should not be a bar to the admission of these documents, and
3 again I'm speaking of tabs 5 through 24 and tab 28, those 22 documents,
4 but, rather, would go to -- these are -- I'm sorry. These are matters
5 that would go to the weight and credibility to be assigned to these
7 The witness is, of course, available for cross-examination on
8 these documents, as just noted. As noted, he will explain the methodology
9 behind the creation of these documents and is available for
10 cross-examination on that. Furthermore, with these documents, the Trial
11 Chamber and the accused and the amici as well will themselves be in a
12 position to assess consistencies and inconsistencies, if any, among the
13 interview notes. And of course, cross-examination could be conducted on
15 The amici have accepted that the communiques can be the subject of
16 cross-examination, and the Prosecution submits the same should be held for
17 the interview notes.
18 Finally, the Prosecution submits that the accused or the Trial
19 Chamber, with these interview notes, would be in a position, if it so
20 chose, to hear further from these witnesses to the working group, and in
21 that way would be in a position, where appropriate, to cross-examine some
22 of the people who had provided information to the working group in the
23 course of its investigations.
24 As to my suggestion, it may be preferable, perhaps, to hold off on
25 making a decision as to the admissibility of these documents until we get
1 to them with the witness's testimony in that at that point, the -- we may
2 all be in a better position to understand the documents and put in a
3 better light some of the issues that have been raised with regards to
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, do you want to say anything
7 about this?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is completely -- it is abundantly
9 clear that the other side, through this witness Karleusa, who said himself
10 he had not seen any of it himself, starting with the refrigerator lorry
11 and ending with the rest, is trying to introduce through him another 20
12 witness statements which have been marked as annexures and consist of
13 notes and interviews. And as Mr. May himself said, those are not even
14 witness statements.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. Mr. Kay said those
16 were Prosecutor's notes made during interviews in the course of which
17 certain instructions are issued.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And in addition to that, according
19 to the Law on Criminal Procedure which was governing this procedure at the
20 time when the interviews were conducted, such statements cannot be used in
21 a court of law.
22 I am just trying to explain what the crux of the matter is,
23 although the amicus from Yugoslavia, who is a professional in these
24 matters, can better explain it than I can.
25 So these notes are now annexed to the witness statement of
1 Mr. Karleusa, and Mr. Karleusa himself is not a prosecutor, or a Judge,
2 nor could he have been authorised in any way officially to take statements
3 which could be used in investigative or court proceedings. He is a police
4 officer who collected information from various people and was part of a
5 working group which made these notes. So it is very arguable, from the
6 legal point of view, and he is appearing here as an informer about certain
7 interviews which were conducted.
8 On the other hand, the testimony of investigators has already been
9 challenged and disputed here, although those investigators had taken
10 statements themselves in person. So this matter is very much disputable
11 and disputed, and I believe Mr. Kay is completely right. And from the
12 aspect of the law on criminal procedure, these statements are completely
13 devoid of any value.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Shin but very briefly.
15 MR. SHIN: Your Honour, if I may very briefly. The accused has
16 raised several points that I will address. First, the Prosecution would
17 submit that Mr. Karleusa is in a situation entirely distinguishable from
18 that previously addressed with the Office of the Prosecutor investigators
19 in that he is not in any way in any form of relationship with the Office
20 of the Prosecutor and is indeed here in response to a subpoena.
21 Secondly, I would just point out that Mr. Karleusa himself will be
22 able to explain his degree of involvement in the creation of these
23 interview notes.
24 And finally, I would just state that of course given the time
25 constraints under which we're operating, one can only imagine the amount
1 of time that would be necessary to hear all of the witnesses from this --
2 regarding this very important evidence of notorious events. It's a very
3 complex area, and we will actually have the witness who has conducted the
4 investigations into these complex matters and be questioned as to how
5 those investigations were questioned and what the findings of that working
6 group were. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll consider this.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE MAY: We will admit these documents apart from the newspaper
10 articles which we think add nothing, which we'll not admit. But we will
11 admit the official notes on this basis: We do not admit them as exhibits
12 in the sense that they are evidence of the truth of what is contained in
13 them. They are admitted as part of the working papers on which the
14 witness relied, who can be cross-examined about his investigation.
15 They're admitted as part of the investigation, but the Trial Chamber will
16 not take them into consideration when deciding as to the truth of what
17 they contain. It will be the evidence of the witness which will be the
18 subject of consideration by the Trial Chamber, but he can refer to the
19 statements when giving his evidence if he wishes, if he's asked about
20 them, and they will be admitted, as I say, as part of his investigation.
21 I would add this: The witness is in a different position to those
22 of the Prosecution investigators. The witness is not part of the
23 Prosecution. He's not an investigator of the Tribunal. So to that
24 extent, he's independent. In addition to which this investigation was not
25 conducted as part of the investigation in this particular litigation. It
1 was conducted for other purposes, national purposes, and therefore, it has
2 that degree of independence about it.
3 Accordingly, the Trial Chamber will admit 5 to 28 as documents as
4 part of the investigation.
5 We'll have the witness, please.
6 MR. SHIN: Excuse me, Your Honour. Prior to the arrival of the
7 witness, may I raise one point with regards to those tabs?
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
9 MR. SHIN: I would just point out that tab numbers 25, 26, and 27
10 are, of course, of a different nature, those documents, and are in fact
11 signed statements. The first is an official note signed by a police
12 officer, and the second two are also statements signed by the person
13 making the statement and, therefore, are in fact of a different nature
14 from tabs 5 through 24 and 28.
15 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll have that in mind. We've admitted them.
16 We will have it in mind when we consider what weight, if any, to give
18 MR. SHIN: Thank you.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 WITNESS: DRAGAN KARLEUSA
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
24 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.
1 Examined by Mr. Shin:
2 Q. Good morning, Witness. Would you please provide us your full
4 A. I am Dragan Karleusa, born on the 1st of January, 1947, in
5 Belgrade. I am a professional policeman, a member of the Ministry of the
6 Interior of the Republic of Serbia.
7 Q. You are by ethnicity a Serb?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And by religious profession you are Eastern Orthodox Christian?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did you lead a police working group investigating
12 allegations of a refrigerator truck containing corpses found in the
13 Danube? Just yes or no, please.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Before -- before we get to questions about that investigation, I'm
16 going to ask you some background questions. You mentioned -- you
17 mentioned that you were a police officer. What is your current
19 A. I am deputy head of the crime -- the organised crime
20 administration. The administration for combatting organised crime. I am
21 a captain by rank.
22 Q. How long have you been in that position?
23 A. I have been in this position since October 2001.
24 Q. And what city do you work in?
25 A. I beg your pardon. I have to correct myself. Let me just
1 remember. Since October 2001. Yes, that is right.
2 I work in Belgrade.
3 Q. Thank you. Before that, what position did you hold?
4 A. I was deputy head of the administration for the crime prevention
5 police in the Ministry of the Interior.
6 Q. And was that also in Belgrade?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In that position as deputy head of crime police, how many -- how
9 many police officers did you supervise?
10 A. The crime police covers the entire territory of the Republic of
11 Serbia, all secretariats of the interior, that is, several hundreds of
13 Q. And are those people that you supervise, are they all detectives?
14 A. Detectives, heads of departments, various other supervisors, et
16 Q. Mr. Karleusa, how long have you been a police officer?
17 A. I have been with the police since 1975.
18 Q. And how many of those years have you spent doing detective work?
19 A. Since 1977.
20 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did you receive a subpoena, a kind of a court order
21 from this Trial Chamber, to attend to give evidence?
22 A. Yes. Yes. I got this subpoena through the Federal Ministry of
23 Justice, and it was handed over to me through the District Court in
25 Q. When did you receive that subpoena?
1 A. I received it a few days before I departed to come here.
2 Q. Did that subpoena indicate what would happen to you if you failed
3 to comply with its terms?
4 A. Yes. I was cautioned in that subpoena that if I do not respond to
5 it, I would go through sanctions as envisaged by the statute of this
6 Tribunal, and that was specifically stated.
7 Q. And are you in fact here in response to that subpoena?
8 A. Yes. Yes. I responded to the subpoena in accordance with the law
9 on cooperation between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and this
10 Tribunal, and that is my duty as a citizen and as a professional.
11 Q. Mr. Karleusa, are you aware of an article published on the 1st of
12 May, 2001, in a magazine called "Timok Crime Review" regarding a
13 refrigerator truck found in the Danube River?
14 A. Yes. Yes, I'm aware of that.
15 Q. Did you read that article?
16 A. I did.
17 Q. Could you briefly tell us what the subject of that article was?
18 A. In the text, it was stated that sometime around the beginning of
19 April 1999, from the Danube in the area of Tekija near Kladovo, a
20 refrigerator truck was noticed, and it was taken out, and in it were many
21 human corpses.
22 Q. Mr. Karleusa, in May of 2001 when this article was published, what
23 was the reaction by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the MUP, in reaction
24 to that publication?
25 A. The Minister of the Interior, Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic, gave
1 instructions to establish a working group, and I was appointed head of
2 that working group. Our mandate was specified, that is, to look into all
3 the related facts, that is to say, when all of this did exist or not.
4 Q. And who conveyed to you the instructions from the Minister to
5 create this working group and when was that?
6 A. The Minister's instructions were conveyed to me directly by
7 General Sreten Lukic in his office as soon as this was published and made
8 known. So this was the beginning of May 2001.
9 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, may I request to go into private session
10 very briefly regarding the identities of other persons in the working
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
13 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 MR. SHIN:
1 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did you indicate that you are the head of the
2 working group? I'm sorry, were you appointed the head of the working
4 A. Yes. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Karleusa, I'd like to ask you some questions about how the
6 working group functioned. Could you please tell us what specifically was
7 the mandate of the working group? You had alluded to it previously.
8 A. The working group was supposed to investigate the matter to see
9 what this was all about, to establish the relevant facts, whether this
10 indeed did exist or not. If so, then to investigate all the circumstances
11 under which this happened and to compile a report about this and provide
12 the necessary documents if all of this were correct.
13 Q. And, Mr. Karleusa, just very briefly, when you say the relevant
14 facts, that's with regards to this refrigerator truck found in the Danube;
15 is that correct?
16 A. Yes. Yes. That was the primary task. That is how these
17 activities started. That is to say, whether the event that was described
18 in the review we mentioned was actually something that did take place, and
19 if so, what actually took place.
20 Q. Mr. Karleusa, what actions generally did your working group take
21 to carry out that mandate?
22 A. The group carried out appropriate preparations, appropriate
23 operative preparations. We went to the area where it was alleged that the
24 refrigerator truck had surfaced. This is the area of the Secretariat of
25 Bor, the municipal office of the interior of Kladovo. And we went to see
1 where this possibly did take place.
2 Then we carried out many operative checks. We carried out over 30
3 interviews with official persons and civilians, that is to say persons who
4 then and later could have known something about these events or who
5 themselves participated in the events concerned.
6 Q. Mr. Karleusa, when you refer to "official persons," could you
7 explain a little, in brief, what you mean by that?
8 A. Well, this is only natural. First, we carried out an interview
9 with the then acting head of the SUP of Bor, Mr. Caslav Golubovic. Then
10 we talked to then investigating judges, the deputy public district
11 attorney, the district attorney, and other attorneys in Kladovo and also
12 policemen from the local police in Kladovo and in Bor.
13 Q. Mr. Karleusa, I'd like to turn now to the results of the working
14 group's investigations. First, in the course of the working group's
15 investigations, was it able to establish whether that May 2001 article was
16 the first public report of a refrigerator truck found in the Danube, in
17 Tekija more specifically?
18 A. No. According to the knowledge that we obtained then, it was
19 stated that there had been a previous article in the same crime review of
20 Zajecar published in September 1999.
21 Q. And the subject of that earlier September 1999 article, could you
22 briefly state what that was, please?
23 A. Approximately the text was similar. It was alleged then that
24 there had been a car accident, that a refrigerator truck had surfaced, and
25 that tens of human corpses had surfaced as well. Similar to what was
1 published later in May 2001.
2 Q. In September of 1999 when that earlier article was published, were
3 you aware of that article?
4 A. No. No. Neither I nor the members of the working group were
5 aware of the existence of that article.
6 Q. As far as you knew before the work of the working group proceeded,
7 did you have any knowledge of how the MUP reacted to that September 1999
9 A. I was not aware and I did not know how the MUP had reacted.
10 Later, we did find out something about this, but at that time we did not
11 know a thing about it.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. We'll get to that, what you found out later.
13 We'll get to that a little later on.
14 In September of 1999, who was the Minister of Internal Affairs in
16 A. It was the late Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic.
17 Q. Mr. Karleusa, you mentioned that the working group took over 30 --
18 I'm sorry, interviewed over 30 persons and took certain other actions in
19 carrying out its investigations. On the basis of that work by the working
20 group, was the working group able to identify facts and information that
21 it could and in fact did corroborate?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Let's -- let's turn to what some of those corroborated facts are
24 now. Did the interviews and other actions carried out by the working
25 group corroborate the existence of this refrigerator truck in April of
2 A. Yes. It was corroborated from several sources.
3 Q. Could you mention briefly what some of those sources are? Just
4 briefly and just some of them.
5 A. For the most part, these were policemen that we had talked to in
6 relation to this case. Most information was provided by the technician
7 who then carried out the on-site investigation. In addition to him, the
8 others we talked to as well.
9 Q. What specifically did the investigations of the working group
10 indicate about the truck, the physical refrigerator truck itself?
11 A. We established that the case had indeed occurred, that at the
12 mentioned time, in the area of the village of Tekija, a refrigerator truck
13 did surface and that tens of corpses were found in it - 86 to be precise -
14 that these corpses were afterwards transported by trucks to Belgrade, in
15 the direction of Belgrade, et cetera. That is all that was then stated by
16 the persons who took part in taking the bodies out of the refrigerator
18 Q. If we could just move back for a minute there, Mr. Karleusa. Was
19 -- did the investigations of the working group indicate any markings on
20 the truck that were indicia of where it may have come from?
21 A. On the site itself, it was established that on the door of the
22 refrigerator truck it says Progres Exporta Klanica Prizren, export
23 slaughterhouse Prizren. And on this basis, there could have been an
24 indication as to where the truck had come from, but we could not establish
25 that for sure.
1 Q. What did the investigations of the working group indicate about
2 where the bodies removed from the truck were taken?
3 A. The result of all the interviews was that we established that the
4 bodies that were taken out of the refrigerator truck were taken to the
5 area of Batajnica in the immediate vicinity of the 13th of May MUP
6 exercise centre.
7 Q. And what did the investigations of the working group indicate
8 about the final location of the refrigerator truck itself?
9 A. It was established that after the bodies that were taken out of it
10 were taken out, they were transported to Petrovo Selo, to the firing range
11 there, and that is where the lorry was actually torched and destroyed.
12 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did the investigations of the working group indicate
13 who, if anyone, in the MUP leadership coordinated or ordered these actions
14 that you've just described?
15 A. The activity of transporting the bodies taken out of the
16 refrigerator truck, according to the information we received from
17 officials that we talked to, and according to their statements, this
18 activity had been ordered by the then head of the public security sector,
19 General Vlastimir Djordjevic.
20 Q. Did the investigations also indicate who implemented those orders,
21 who actually removed the bodies and removed the truck?
22 A. The order of General Djordjevic went through the head of the SUP
23 of Bor, and then on the spot, the SUP of Kladavo. And the bodies,
24 according to their orders, were carried out by the policemen of Kladovo
25 and some of Bor with the assistant of civilians from the company called
1 Komunalac. They helped them carry the bodies physically.
2 Q. Mr. Karleusa, could you tell us, did the working group interview
3 the head of the SUP at Bor? Just yes or no, please.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when you say the SUP, could you just explain, very briefly,
6 what administratively the SUP is?
7 A. SUP is an abbreviation for the Secretariat of the Interior. Bor
8 was the secretariat for that region, and it has a few OUPs under it, like
9 of Negotin, of Kladovo, et cetera.
10 Q. Did the working group in the course of its investigations speak to
11 the persons who had carried the bodies from the refrigerator truck and
12 moved them elsewhere?
13 A. Yes, it did. It talked to all the persons who were accessible at
14 all, both policemen and civilians.
15 Q. And with regards to the persons who had removed the bodies and
16 taken them elsewhere, did they acknowledge that those actions had been
17 undertaken by them when the working group spoke to them, or at least did
18 some of them acknowledge that?
19 A. Yes. All of them acknowledged that; those who were taking the
20 bodies out, those who were loading the bodies onto trucks and those -- I
21 mean, there were two trucks involved, and those who drove these two trucks
22 to Belgrade as well.
23 Q. So you had mentioned earlier policemen of Kladovo and the
24 civilians from the company Komunalac. These were among the people who
25 acknowledged that these events had occurred and they had taken part in
1 them; is that correct?
2 A. Not only them. This was confirmed by the head of the then SUP,
3 then also the deputy district attorney, the district attorney in Negotin,
4 the -- the public prosecutor of the municipal court in Kladovo, et cetera.
5 Q. Indeed, all the facts that you have just discussed now
6 investigated by the working group, have they been -- have witnesses told
7 you about all of them, either -- I'm sorry. Stop there.
8 I'm sorry, let me repeat that question. Indeed, all of the facts
9 that you have just discussed now, investigated by the working group, have
10 witnesses spoken about them or acknowledged their involvement in the
11 events to the investigators of the working group?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did the investigations of the working group indicate
14 how the removal of these bodies by civilian workers from Komunalac, how
15 they were paid?
16 A. Yes. That was established from their statements, from the
17 interviews they gave. Their statements coincide. For this job, they
18 received an adequate compensation. I believe it was 2.000 dinars per
20 Q. What funds did these monies come from, as far as the investigation
21 of the working group were able to identify?
22 A. Based on the existing documents that we were able to collect at
23 the time, it was established that the funds used to recompense the work of
24 those people were taken for -- from the treasury for special purposes of
25 the MUP of Serbia, the Ministry of Interior of Serbia.
1 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did the working group's investigations indicate the
2 extent to which in April 1999 information about these events could be
3 publicly disseminated?
4 A. According to what the head of the Bor SUP said at the time and
5 what other people said, especially the public prosecutor from Negotin, we
6 found out that at the time, the entire case was proclaimed to be some sort
7 of secret, a state secret, namely, that it cannot be discussed and that it
8 should be and must be closed to the public, that all information should be
9 barred from the public, everything that had to do with the extraction,
10 with the removal of this truck from the water and with the removal and
11 transport of the bodies.
12 As far as I am aware, we also established that the entire
13 operation was given a working name, namely Depth 2, and that it was an
14 operative code name for the whole activity.
15 Q. Mr. Karleusa, just to go back for one minute to the funds used to
16 pay the workers loading the bodies. I believe - at least, I have in the
17 translation - that was based on documents available to you. Was that also
18 -- was the working group also -- did it obtain that information from
19 witnesses that it spoke to as well?
20 A. Yes. Namely it was the then deputy head of the office of
21 Mr. Djordjevic. And the man's name is Slobodan Borisavljevic.
22 Q. We'll get to that a little later. Thank you.
23 In addition to the facts that you have just discussed, were there
24 other facts that the working group was able to corroborate in the course
25 of its investigations?
1 A. We managed to establish where the bodies from the truck, that is
2 from both trucks, were eventually brought, and we found out the exact
3 location where they were buried.
4 Q. Were these facts and other facts that the working group was able
5 to establish, were they made available to the public in Serbia in a
6 document or documents?
7 A. Yes, they were. Everything that the working group was able to
8 establish in the course of its work was announced at a press conference in
9 the form of communique or a press release that was distributed to the
10 representatives of the press and the media.
11 MR. SHIN: Could I have the usher please show the witness the
12 binder of documents, in particular with reference to tabs 3 and 4.
13 JUDGE MAY: The binder should be given an exhibit number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Prosecutor's Exhibit
16 MR. SHIN:
17 Q. Mr. Karleusa, I would ask you to take a look at tab number 3 and
18 tab 4. Please take a moment to review those documents. And when you're
19 finished, I'll ask you some questions about them.
20 Mr. Karleusa, do you recognise those two documents?
21 A. Yes, I do recognise them.
22 Q. Could you please describe to us just very briefly what they are.
23 A. These are two communiques titled "Information," or "Briefing," and
24 they contain all the facts that we were able to gather with regard to the
25 refrigerator lorry case. From the contents, we can see what it is all
1 about. The working name is "The refrigerator lorry case." We described
2 how the working group was established, what was their primary reason for
3 it. We described the course of our work, where we had been, what we had
4 done, what interviews we had conducted, and so on and so forth.
5 Q. Mr. Karleusa -- if I could just check the transcript. You had
6 indicated that these contain -- these two documents contain all the facts
7 that your working group was able to gather with regards to the
8 refrigerator truck. Would it be correct to say all the facts you were
9 able to gather up to the time of the dates on those documents? In other
10 words, you were able to gather further facts after the dates -- the second
11 document; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Karleusa, are there any inaccuracies in those two documents
14 that were revealed by current or subsequent investigations?
15 A. In the document called "Information number 2," there is one
16 inaccuracy, as we established at a later stage. Namely, it says that in
17 this refrigerator lorry, when the bodies were extracted, certain bodies
18 wearing KLA uniforms had been found. In the course of subsequent
19 interviews with witnesses, those witnesses stated that it was not true,
20 and we established that this particular piece of information was
22 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, the reference to the KLA uniforms is in
23 the English on the first page, at the very bottom of the first stage.
24 Q. As far as you know to this day, Mr. Karleusa, were there any other
25 inaccuracies in those two documents revealed by subsequent investigations?
1 A. No.
2 Q. You've mentioned that the working group undertook interviews. Did
3 the working group make a record of the interviews it conducted?
4 A. All the interviews that the working group conducted on the ground
5 were reflected in appropriate official records. These records were
6 drafted by the operative personnel of the working group. They are called
7 "Official Notes," and they reflect everything that was said during those
9 Q. With regards to these interviews, how many did you personally
10 actually conduct?
11 A. I did not personally interview any of the witnesses or other
12 interviewees. This was done by several other members of the working group
13 and I participated in many of these interviews together with other members
14 of the working group.
15 Q. Mr. Karleusa, when you say that you participated, does that mean
16 that you were present during those interviews?
17 A. Yes. For the most part, I attended all interviews. There may
18 have been only a couple which I did not attend.
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Shin, the time has come when we should have an
20 adjournment. Is that a convenient moment?
21 MR. SHIN: Certainly, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Karleusa, we're going to adjourn now for 20
23 minutes. Would you remember, please, in this adjournment and any others
24 there may be not to speak to anyone about your evidence until it's over,
25 and that does include the members of the Prosecution team.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
5 MR. SHIN:
6 Q. Mr. Karleusa, if we could return to the points where we had left
7 off. You had -- you had just indicated that you attended nearly all of
8 the interviews. As the leader of the working group, were you -- did you
9 review all of the interview notes made by the working group, including the
10 ones that you did not attend?
11 A. Yes. I am familiar with all of our documents, Official Notes, et
13 Q. Mr. Karleusa, referring to the binder of documents in front of
14 you, could you please review tabs 5 through 24, and tab 28. If you could
15 look at them one at a time and just indicate when you have completed that
16 review, I will ask you some questions regarding those documents.
17 A. And 28 too.
18 Q. Yes, tab 28.
19 Mr. Karleusa, have you had an opportunity to review
20 those 22 documents?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recognise those documents, Mr. Karleusa?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. Could you explain briefly, what are they? Just briefly, please.
25 A. They are Official Notes made by the working group relating to the
1 interviews we conducted with people on the ground or anywhere else,
2 persons we thought we should talk to. And as I said before, those were
3 people who knew or could have known something about these events.
4 These are summaries of what those people have said. You see that
5 it is not a traditional statement, it is a summary of what those people
6 told us.
7 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did you provide those documents to the Office of the
9 A. No.
10 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, the Office of the Prosecutor has received
11 these documents from Yugoslav authorities in response to a request for
12 assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor.
13 Q. Mr. Karleusa, I'd like to ask you some questions about the ways
14 and the manner in which those documents were prepared. Was there a
15 particular format used for these interviews in creating the document?
16 Just yes or no, please.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Are all those -- all 22 of those interview notes set out in that
20 A. Yes. The format is very similar.
21 Q. Mr. Karleusa, I'll take you -- I'd like you to explain that
22 format, and perhaps the best way you could do that is if you looked at tab
23 5 as an example.
24 MR. SHIN: And if I could have tab 5 placed on the ELMO, please.
25 Q. Mr. Karleusa -- I'm sorry. Are you okay over there? Okay.
1 Mr. Karleusa, could you first explain to us what is written in the
2 upper right-hand corner of the first page of that document.
3 A. It says, "The refrigerator lorry case." That was the working name
4 of the operative and other activities of the working group.
5 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, now turning to the left hand at the very
6 top of that page, there are four lines, four brief lines. Could you
7 please explain to us the significance of those four lines.
8 A. That is the so-called heading. The first line says: "The
9 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia." In the second line,
10 it says, "Crime investigation administration." Follows the date. In this
11 case it's the 12th of May, 2001. Belgrade. That is the base of the
12 Ministry of the Interior and the crime investigation administration.
13 Q. And below that you see, centred on the next line -- could you
14 explain to us what that says and what that means.
15 A. You see as a title that it's written "Official Note." I have just
16 explained what an Official Note denotes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 A. It is a record of all that the persons we interviewed said.
19 Q. You had mentioned earlier the term "summary" in describing what an
20 Official Note was. Could you explain a little further? You had also
21 said, I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that it contained
22 everything that the witness had said.
23 A. This is a record of all that is relevant from what the witness
24 said, because that constitutes the essence and the crux of his statement
25 or her statement, all that we believe to be important. We did not record
1 unimportant and irrelevant details because, as you know, in every
2 interview you hear a lot of things that are not really relevant or
4 Q. Mr. Karleusa, turning to the first paragraph of this tab 5
5 document, could you briefly explain what the significance of the
6 information in that first paragraph is. Briefly, please.
7 A. This is an introduction which is common to all Official Notes. It
8 explains what triggered this operative and investigative work. It refers
9 to the communique of -- made by the district public prosecutor. It
10 explains the task of the working group and the findings that we eventually
12 Q. And turning to the next paragraph below that, could you explain
13 what the significance of the information contained there is.
14 A. The principal detail you see here is on whose orders the working
15 group was working, at what time and with whom the interview was conducted,
16 and below that follows what the interviewee said.
17 Q. Turning now to the last page of that document, tab 5, could you
18 please explain what that -- the very last line in which a time is referred
19 to, what the significance of that is.
20 A. This is an indication of when this interview was completed. And
21 at the beginning, you can see when it started.
22 Q. Mr. Karleusa, below that you see, over on the right-hand side at
23 the very end of the document, some writing. What does that signify?
24 A. It indicates who compiled this Official Note. And in this case,
25 it says this was done by the working group.
1 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did the members of the working group individually
2 sign any Official Notes or were they all signed in this manner?
3 A. No. The members of the working group did not sign individually.
4 And this was the way it was signed on behalf of all of them together.
5 That was the way we determined that we would do this.
6 Q. Does this mean that all of the members of the working group were
7 present at each interview?
8 A. No, it does not necessarily mean that all the members of the
9 working group were present, but I know that the majority was. It was
10 always at least two or three and never one single member alone.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, if you're following along in the summary,
13 I'll return to paragraphs 8 and 9 later.
14 Q. Mr. Karleusa, I'd like to ask you some more questions about the
15 manner in which the working group carried out its investigations. Were
16 there senior MUP officials, past or present, whom the working group tried
17 to interview in the course of its investigations? Just yes or no, please.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who was the most senior of these officials, past or present, that
20 the working group attempted to interview?
21 A. It was Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic, the then Minister of the Interior,
22 that is, in the year 1999.
23 Q. Was there any record made of this attempt to interview him?
24 A. Yes, there is such a record.
25 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, if we could go into private session very
1 briefly just to ask one question about one document.
2 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 MR. SHIN:
22 Q. Mr. Karleusa, we're now back in public session. Who was the next
23 in order or seniority by rank among senior MUP officials whom the working
24 group attempted to interview?
25 A. That was General Vlastimir Djordjevic.
1 Q. When was it attempted to interview him?
2 A. Immediately after the working group was set up and commenced its
3 activities according to its mandate, we attempted to interview
4 Mr. Djordjevic, and we had a preliminary, brief interview with him before
5 we obtained the relevant information as indicated here.
6 Q. What did General Djordjevic tell you when the working group
7 attempted to interview him?
8 A. It was a very brief preliminary interview. We emphasised that we
9 just wanted a brief word with him. And in response to the question what
10 he knew about these events, he said simply, "What happened, happened.
11 What can I tell you?"
12 Q. In the context of that preliminary interview, had you -- had the
13 working group made it clear to General Djordjevic what the subject matter
14 of the interview was?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And was his response in the context of that subject matter?
17 A. All that he said can be summarised in this one sentence I quoted
18 to you, with the proviso that we emphasised we would come back for a
19 longer interview with him. When we come back from the field, that we
20 would invite him for an interview again.
21 Q. And where was this preliminary that you've just discussed? Where
22 was that held?
23 A. This conversation took place in the building of the Ministry of
24 the Interior in Belgrade, in my office.
25 Q. Mr. Karleusa, you had just mentioned that your intent was to
1 interview him again. Did you interview him again?
2 A. When the decision was made to invite Mr. Djordjevic for an
3 interview, he was no longer within our reach. We could no longer access
4 him. We didn't know where he was. We tried various ways of locating him,
5 and when all this failed, an all-points alert was issued to the police.
6 Q. Was the working group subsequently ever able to locate General
8 A. No. No. The working group did not manage to locate him. There
9 were different stories going round, even in the press, but to the present
10 day, we do not know where Mr. Djordjevic is.
11 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, apart from this attempt at a preliminary
12 interview with General Djordjevic, were there other persons interviewed by
13 the working group who told you about General Djordjevic's knowledge of the
14 refrigerator truck or involvement in how it was dealt with afterwards?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you name just one or more of those persons? You don't need
17 to name them all.
18 A. Well, the statements of these persons are contained in this
19 material here. One of them is the then head of the SUP Bor, Mr. Caslav
20 Golubovic, Slobo Borisavljevic, et cetera.
21 Q. Thank you. In addition, did the working group receive a statement
22 from someone who was working with General Djordjevic regarding General
23 Djordjevic's knowledge or involvement in the refrigerator truck case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Mr. Karleusa, could you please turn to tab 27 in the binder of
1 documents in front of you. Could you briefly review that document,
3 Mr. Karleusa, do you recognise that document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you explain, very briefly, what it is.
6 A. This is a statement given by Mr. Slobodan Borisavljevic, who was
7 then head of the office of the Minister of the Interior. He gave this
8 statement at my oral request, and he explains here, when all of that
9 happened, who informed him of it, how this information came through, what
10 happened to the refrigerator lorry, that it surfaced in the Danube, that
11 there were corpses in it of men, women, and children, et cetera, who
12 informed him thereof, et cetera. So this contains what he stated and how
13 General Djordjevic was informed about this.
14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, apart from General Stojiljkovic and
15 General Djordjevic, were there other senior officials at the MUP, past or
16 present, whom the working group attempted to interview in this case?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you just briefly tell us who those persons were and what the
19 working group learned from them.
20 A. There were a few generals. General Petar Zekovic, General Stojan
21 Misic, Dragan Ilic, Obrad Stevanovic, and so on. In response to the
22 question what they knew about this and questions related to their possible
23 participation in this and what they could explain in this regard, they
24 denied having participated in any of this or knowing about any of this.
25 Q. Mr. Karleusa, were the materials gathered by the working group,
1 including these notes of interviews, were they provided by the working
2 group to other organs in the course of the investigations being carried
4 A. We handed these materials only to the Prosecutor's office in
5 charge. Specifically in this particular case, the public prosecutor's
6 office in Belgrade.
7 Q. Let's turn now to what -- what resulted from the investigations
8 carried out by the working group. You've mentioned now that this material
9 was provided to the prosecutor's office in Belgrade. Were there other
10 prosecutors in Serbia to whom the working group provided materials it had
11 either gathered or created itself?
12 A. Yes. These were prosecutors' offices in Negotin and Uzice
13 respectively. They were in charge of their respective territories.
14 Q. Just as a point of clarification, when I referred to material
15 created by the working group, I'm referring specifically to the interview
16 notes. Does that change your answer?
17 A. We submitted our Official Notes to the district attorney's office
18 in Belgrade. And with the rest of the materials that pertained to the
19 refrigerator lorry case and the materials from the jurisdictions of
20 Negotin and Uzice, those public prosecutors' offices, we submitted
21 directly to them. That is to say for the cases that took place in their
22 respective territories.
23 Q. Mr. Karleusa, how often did the working group inform the
24 prosecutors of developments in the investigation?
25 A. We were in direct contact with the prosecutors and they were
1 informed about the course of our work. And when to a great extent the
2 compiling of Official Notes and other documents was completed, then
3 through an official document we submitted all of this specifically related
4 to the refrigerator truck case to the public prosecutor's office in
6 Q. Specifically with regards to the material provided to the
7 prosecutors, did that material include indications as to the location of
8 an unmarked grave or unmarked graves? Just yes or no, please.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How many locations or sites, if more than one, did the material
11 indicate the location of unmarked graves?
12 A. Three.
13 Q. Could you please name those three places.
14 A. The first one is Batajnica, in the immediate vicinity of Belgrade.
15 The other one is Petrovo Selo, near Kladovo. And the third one is the
16 shore of Lake Perucac, near Bajna Basta.
17 Q. Were exhumations conducted at each of those sites?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Mr. Karleusa, have you yourself visited each of those three sites?
20 A. I did.
21 MR. SHIN: Usher, could the witness please be shown Exhibit 172.
22 My apologies. I should have mentioned that earlier to the usher.
23 Q. Mr. Karleusa, could you please take a look at the map there. Does
24 this map -- could you just point out the locations of those three places
25 that you've indicated, on that map.
1 A. The first locality is Batajnica, near Belgrade. The second one is
2 Petrovo Selo, near Kladovo. And the third one is on the banks of the
3 Drina River or, rather, the shore of Lake Perucac.
4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, to help us understand the functioning of
5 the working group and how it interacted with the prosecutors' offices and
6 other organs, let's turn specifically to how events unfolded relating to
7 that first site, Batajnica. How did the working group learn that there
8 might be an unmarked grave there?
9 A. We learned about that from the statements of persons who knew
10 about this locality.
11 Q. And this was --
12 A. And their Official Notes are contained in this material here.
13 Q. After the interviews led to information identifying the location
14 of that site, what did the working group do next?
15 A. In order to carry out a preliminary check, or, rather, to
16 establish whether this is correct, whether the statements are correct and
17 the information we received, we carried out some preliminary excavations
18 on the spot and we engaged forensic experts from the appropriate centre of
19 our Ministry of the Interior.
20 Q. And did that preliminary check support the existence of human
21 remains at that site? Just yes or no, please.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What did the working group do next specifically?
24 A. On the basis of what we learned, we informed the district public
25 prosecutor in Belgrade.
1 Q. Did -- to your knowledge, did the prosecutor inform any other
2 person or organ about the material and information you had provided him?
3 A. Of course. He informed the investigating judge about this, and
4 the investigating judge, the district attorney, and all of us went to the
5 site itself, and the investigating judge gave instructions to have an
6 exhumation and an autopsy of the bodies carried out.
7 Q. What actions did the investigating judge and the prosecutor take
8 after receiving that -- after receiving that information? I believe
9 you've indicated these orders.
10 A. I have already answered in connection with that. The
11 investigating judge ordered an exhumation and autopsy to be carried out,
12 and he engaged forensic experts from the Institute of Forensic Medicine in
13 Belgrade, and the district public attorney ordered the collection of
14 further information about this in order to throw more light on this event.
15 Q. Did that first grave at that Batajnica site, did it have a
16 designation that was given to it?
17 A. Yes. The expert team, of forensic experts, that is, that were
18 carried out -- that were carrying out the exhumation, they designated this
19 as BA1. That was supposed to mean Batajnica 1.
20 Q. And were other graves also located at that site?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How many?
23 A. According to what we knew, there were about five.
24 Q. And how many of those five have been exhumed or are undergoing
1 A. During the course of last year, the summer of last year, two
2 graves were exhumed - that is to say BA1 and BA2 - and nowadays, the
3 exhumation of BA3 is under way. It is undergoing exhumation.
4 Q. And was the process by which those other sites were identified for
5 exhumation, was that similar to the process you've just described about
6 the way the working group worked in connection with the office of the
7 prosecutor and the investigating judge?
8 A. Yes. Roughly it was the same.
9 Q. Mr. Karleusa, what did the exhumations in Batajnica 1, BA1, what
10 did they yield?
11 A. According to the report of the expert team that was carrying out
12 the exhumation, and according to what we could find out by being present
13 there ourselves on the site, at least 38 bodies were exhumed, as experts
14 say. Other objects were found as well that were then presented for
15 further processing.
16 Q. And you've just indicated that you were present there at the site,
17 either you or other members of the working group.
18 A. Yes. We were present for quite awhile.
19 Q. At the Batajnica 2 site, BA2, what did the exhumations last summer
21 A. According to the report of the experts who were carrying out the
22 exhumations, a total of about 270 bodies was exhumed. And in that mass
23 grave, some other identifying objects and documents were found.
24 Q. Mr. Karleusa, did the exhumations -- you've made a reference to
25 some objects. Did they yield indicia, whether among those objects or
1 others --
2 JUDGE MAY: Do we not have the evidence about this? Mr. Wilson
3 gave evidence, as I recollect, about these matters.
4 MR. SHIN: Mr. Fulton.
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Fulton I meant, yes.
6 MR. SHIN: And in his evidence, Mr. Fulton had indicated that this
7 witness, Mr. Karleusa, was a senior Serbian police officer present at the
9 JUDGE MAY: Time -- you know, we are pressed for time. He's been
10 giving evidence for some time. This is a matter we've covered. So if
11 there's a relevant new matter, cover it. Otherwise, there's no need to go
12 over it again.
13 MR. SHIN: Certainly. If I could just conclude on this point
14 before moving on to the next, then.
15 Q. Mr. Karleusa, very briefly, did the exhumations yield indications
16 as to who was buried in those graves or where they were from?
17 A. From the interviews conducted with the persons who did this, who
18 transported the bodies and buried them, we conducted interviews with these
19 people, and we know who did that, at least in respect of what we just
20 referred to. There were indications where these corpses came from.
21 However, we are not certain of that because only personal identification
22 cards were found, and the personal identification cards found were in the
23 name of persons who were ethnic Albanians, so that was the only indication
24 of their possible origins.
25 Q. Very briefly on Petrovo Selo. What did the exhumations reveal
1 there? Very briefly, please.
2 A. In two mass graves, a total of 77 bodies were exhumed, and that is
3 where some documents were found as well.
4 Q. And very briefly on the Perucac Lake site. How many -- what did
5 the exhumations reveal there?
6 A. On the shore of Lake Perucac, at least 48 bodies were exhumed.
7 And it was the expert team of the Military Medical Academy from Belgrade
8 that was carrying out the exhumations.
9 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, in the course of your investigations,
10 did your working group learn of meetings during which the removal of
11 bodies from Kosovo was planned? Just yes or no, please.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How many such meetings were there?
14 A. Three.
15 Q. Taking the first meeting in chronological order, when did that
16 take place according to the information provided to the working group?
17 A. The first meeting in relation to this was held in the office of
18 the then president, Mr. Milosevic. It was held in the month of March
20 Q. And according to the information provided to the working group,
21 could you briefly mention who else was present at that meeting, as you can
23 A. According to the information we received, in addition to
24 Mr. Milosevic, the meeting was attended by the then head of public
25 security, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, General, and General Radomir Markovic,
1 the then Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, and some other persons.
2 Q. Very briefly, please, Mr. Karleusa. What was the subject of that
3 meeting as far as information --
4 A. The need was discussed to conduct a clearing operation, as it were
5 called, and also to eliminate any trace of anything that may fall within
6 the interest of The Hague Tribunal.
7 Q. Did the working group make this information that came into its
8 possession available to the public?
9 A. Yes. Yes, it did make it available to the public through a press
11 Q. And was that set out also in one of the communiques prepared by
12 the working group?
13 A. That is precisely what I've said. What we found out we made
14 public in our press release.
15 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, just in the interests of moving quickly
16 here, I refer you to tab 3. In the English that's page 4, the second full
18 Q. Okay. Mr. Karleusa, I'd like to move on, actually. Mr. Karleusa,
19 where did the working group learn at that March 1999 meeting? What was
20 the setting?
21 A. Towards the end of into 2001, I attended a meeting where I
22 reported on the proceedings of the investigation related to the
23 refrigerator truck when I was informed about the statement made by
24 Mr. Radomir Markovic. That is to say that he said this in his statement,
25 and that is roughly what we conveyed in our press release.
1 Q. When you say "statement made by Radomir Markovic," to whom did he
2 make that statement as far as you understood?
3 A. He made this statement to the members of the State Security
4 Service that discussed this matter with him.
5 Q. And when you say you attended a meeting where you learned about
6 this, what type of meeting was it?
7 A. It was a regular meeting where I also provided information as to
8 how far the investigation related to the refrigerator truck had gone.
9 Q. Who are what types of people were present at that meeting?
10 A. The leadership of the MUP.
11 Q. Mr. Karleusa, turning to the second meeting -- I'm sorry, the
12 second meeting of the three I mentioned earlier. When did that meeting
13 take place?
14 A. That meeting took place immediately after the first one we
15 referred to, in the office of Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic.
16 Q. Who else was present according to the information available to the
17 working group at that meeting?
18 A. According to the information given by the same source, just like
19 the previous one, it is said that General Vlastimir Djordjevic also
20 attended this meeting, and Mr. Dragan Ilic, also a general.
21 Q. Very briefly, Mr. Karleusa, could you indicate what was discussed
22 according to the information available to the working group? What was
23 discussed at that meeting?
24 A. At that meeting, it was agreed how to carry out the instructions
25 they had received at the office of then president Mr. Milosevic. And
1 Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic gave Generals Djordjevic and Ilic the direct task
2 of carrying this out.
3 Q. Mr. Karleusa, was this information that the working group
4 obtained, was that also made public in that -- in that communique?
5 A. It was not. I can't remember exactly. I don't think so. Perhaps
6 it is actually there, but I really need to take a look here.
7 Q. Could I direct your attention, Mr. Karleusa, to the last page of
8 tab 3.
9 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, that's the third paragraph, page 4 of tab
10 3 in English.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I can see it here. That's
12 right. We did make it public.
13 MR. SHIN:
14 Q. Mr. Karleusa, in this paragraph and the paragraph above it, do
15 these two paragraphs accurately reflect what your working group learned,
16 or is it consistent with what the working group learned of these meetings?
17 A. Yes. According to the statement of Mr. Rade Markovic.
18 Q. Mr. Karleusa, turning to the third meeting, when did that third
19 meeting take place?
20 A. Somewhat later. It was held somewhat later. And there is an
21 appropriate document concerning that.
22 Q. Who was present in that meeting according to the information the
23 working group received?
24 A. General Djordjevic was present, General Dragan Ilic, and somebody
25 else. I don't know exactly.
1 Q. And was the subject matter at that meeting the same as the subject
2 matters of the two other meetings?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Karleusa, could you please turn to tab 26. What is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, tab 26. I'm sorry. Could you explain what
8 that document is.
9 A. Lieutenant Slobodan Borisavljevic, at my request, gave a statement
10 of his own. The statement was given on the 23rd of May, 2001. It says
11 here that in the building of the city committee of the SPS in Belgrade, a
12 meeting was held where General Djordjevic informed General Ilic that it
13 was decided that on the territory of the Kosovo and Metohija the terrain
14 was supposed to be cleared and that it was necessary to send expert
15 assistance to our people in the field. For this assistance, he designated
16 two police officers to go to Kosovo and to render assistance to the local
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, we've heard the term "cleansing" in the
19 cleaning of territory or of battlefield. That term in Serbian is, I
20 believe, "asanacija." What is the ordinary meaning of that term, as far
21 as you know?
22 A. As far as I know, "asanacija" is a normal term that means removing
23 victims, casualties from the battlefield, human remains, livestock
24 remains, chemical materials, et cetera.
25 Q. Based on the context in which your working group learned of this
1 term as it was used in these three meetings, does that appear to you to be
2 the meaning that term had in connection with those three meetings?
3 A. It seems that it was used in a different meaning.
4 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, I'll just be a few more minutes.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
6 MR. SHIN:
7 Q. Mr. Karleusa, as far as you are aware, how did the public react to
8 the work of the working group? If you could briefly describe that,
10 A. When the results obtained by the working group were made public,
11 the public in Serbia became divided. May I proceed?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Shin, you asked the witness if the term was
13 used in the same way in those three meetings, and he said it seems to him
14 that it was used in a different meaning. I think you should ask him what
15 was that different meaning.
16 MR. SHIN: Certainly.
17 Q. Mr. Karleusa, could you please explain your previous response when
18 you say the term was used in a different meaning? Could you explain what
19 you meant by that? What different meaning did it have? And we're
20 referring to the term "cleansing," which is "asanacija" in Serbian.
21 A. The very fact that according to the statement of Mr. Markovic, it
22 was said that a removal of all traces should be carried out that might be
23 subject of interest to The Hague Tribunal or, rather, that all bodies of
24 civilians should either be dug up or found in some other way and
25 transferred to a different locality means, as far as I'm concerned, it
1 seems to me the term "asanacija," "clean-up," cannot be used in its
2 regular, right meaning.
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Karleusa, you were describing the reaction of the
4 public to the work of the working group. Did you personally have any
5 impact from the reaction of the public to the work of the working group?
6 A. Since the public has been divided in terms of their views on the
7 results of the investigation carried out by the working group and that the
8 majority of citizens know what this is about, but there is this other side
9 that does not approve of this, I personally had negative experience in
10 relation to this.
11 Q. Could you very briefly specify what you mean by negative reaction.
12 A. Since I was the one presenting the findings of the working group
13 to the public and, therefore, I appeared in public, I received several
14 letters with threats, very serious threats, including death threats.
15 Q. Mr. Karleusa, would you have attended to give evidence if you had
16 not received the subpoena?
17 A. No, I would not have come.
18 MR. SHIN: I have no further questions. Your Honours, I offer the
19 binder and the tabs within it, with the exception of tabs 1 and 2, into
20 evidence in accordance with the decisions of the Trial Chamber earlier.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've got an exhibit number for it which has
22 already been given, so it's been admitted.
23 Mr. Karleusa, if you'd be back, please, tomorrow morning for
24 cross-examination. If you'd be back at 9.00, we'll go on then. Thank
1 We will adjourn now.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day of July,
4 2002, at 9.00 a.m.