1 Wednesday, 13 March 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

7 WITNESS: BAJRAM BUCALIU [Resumed]

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

10 Q. [Interpretation] We left off yesterday with this big -- well, big

11 hump of paper and it says "Timetable" and a "Log." Do you consider that

12 this log should have been kept in the Albanian language?

13 A. Yes. I think it should have been kept in the Albanian language

14 because that was the case until before 1990s, as I said.

15 Q. First of all, that's not how it was. And the logbook is kept in

16 Serbian for purposes of transport. What do you think at the railway

17 station in England? Is it kept in English or what language? And in

18 France in French, in Germany in German? What do you think?

19 JUDGE MAY: That's not for the witness. He's given his view about

20 it.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. How, for example, could a controller coming from Belgrade, from

23 the headquarters, how would he be able to control the work going on at the

24 railway station where you were employed? How could he look through the

25 traffic logbook if he didn't know the Albanian language, in a company

1 which was a state-owned company and owned by the State of Serbia, in

2 fact?

3 A. In such cases, either we translate it or the controller from

4 Belgrade, if that was the case, he would have asked a colleague in our

5 department.

6 Q. All right. I think that's quite sufficient by way of an

7 explanation. I think any reasonable person understands what it means.

8 You said that there was a board in two languages which had been

9 taken down in Urosevac, which is not true. Throughout that time, it

10 always said "Urosevac" and "Ferizaj," the two names. Am I right or am I

11 not?

12 A. This is pure lie, because since when I worked from 1982 to 1989,

13 it was first "Ferizaj" then "Urosevac." After 1990s, that signboard was

14 removed and then it was written only "Urosevac."

15 Q. Yes. Only the same sign, it said "Urosevac" and "Ferizaj." But

16 let's leave that for a moment.

17 At the entrance to your own village, on both sides there were

18 signs both in Albanian and in Serbian, the name of your village; is that

19 correct? There were name plaques in both languages; is that right?

20 A. Yes, that's right.

21 Q. Do you know who Njazi Asllani is from your village?

22 A. No. There isn't anyone by this name in my village.

23 Q. All right. He is the registrar in your office. Does that jog

24 your memory perhaps?

25 A. Yes. There is a Njazi in -- I mean, that was -- used to work in

1 my office, but he's not from our village. He worked there in that office.

2 Q. All right. But he was an Albanian; is that right? He was working

3 in your village, an Albanian?

4 A. Yes, he was Albanian.

5 Q. Did he issue documents to you in the Albanian language or in the

6 Serbian language?

7 A. I can't tell now, but when I needed to have a document, of course

8 I got it in the Albanian language. Then I never had to have a document,

9 to ask for one, so I don't know. But until 1989, all the documents we

10 used to get in the Albanian language.

11 Q. I'm asking you about after 1989. Did he issue documents in the

12 Albanian language to you or not?

13 A. I can't say anything now because, as I said, I never asked for a

14 document after 1989, so I don't know what he did. But I don't think that

15 they must have been in Albanian language. Probably they must have been in

16 Serb.

17 Q. All right. But you know whether in those ten years Albanians

18 received documents in the Albanian language or not. Surely you know

19 that. Just say yes or no. I don't mind what your answer is; just give me

20 an answer. That's the easiest possible thing to ascertain. Just say

21 "Yes, they did," or "No, they didn't."

22 A. I can testify to what I saw and experienced in my workplace, where

23 the Albanian language was not used. In relation to other documents that

24 you are asking, I cannot testify anything, because I don't deem it

25 necessary to say anything about that here.

1 JUDGE MAY: We have now spent half an hour on this question of

2 language, which is completely peripheral, Mr. Milosevic. Let us move on

3 to another topic.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question of language is a basic

5 question, because untruths are being spoken here which claim that there

6 was some sort of discrimination.

7 JUDGE MAY: In the view of the Trial Chamber, it is a peripheral

8 issue. Now, move on.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The topic that I haven't exhausted

10 and which was broached by the witness himself is the question of

11 constitutional changes, so I asked what rights were curtailed with these

12 constitutional amendments, to the Albanians and to him. He spoke about

13 language. So was any right curtailed with the advent of these

14 constitutional changes? What did he experience?

15 JUDGE MAY: You have explored that very fully over the last half

16 hour. Now, you've exhausted the topic. Move on.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does that mean that there is no

18 other right which he says he lost with the constitutional changes except

19 for the one referring to language?

20 JUDGE MAY: That is the one that he's referred to in his

21 examination-in-chief and your questions must be directed towards it. Now,

22 let's move on to another topic.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You said that the Albanians who used the Albanian language were

25 deprived of a percentage of their salary. I say that nobody was punished

1 because of that in that way. Do you insist that they were punished? Do

2 you maintain that?

3 A. Yes, very much so. We were docked certain shares of our salary.

4 We don't have written statements to prove that, but many people have been

5 punished for using their language, in this case, the Albanian.

6 Q. So that means when you received your salary, they would take away

7 out of your hands that percentage and wouldn't give you a slip of paper

8 saying that you were in fact being penalised; is that what you're saying?

9 A. You could see the payroll, in which it was reflected that

10 so-and-so was docked his salary, but we haven't kept those papers, because

11 more than a decade has passed. As far as I'm concerned, all my documents

12 were burned, and this happened to many other Albanians, so it was

13 impossible for us to have these papers to show here.

14 Q. I don't challenge that you can't show documentation, your

15 documents here, but not because they were burned. How come you didn't

16 have any documents, when there was no fire?

17 JUDGE MAY: He explained that. He said they were burned.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If that's an explanation

19 that you're satisfied with, then I'm satisfied with that too.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. In the written statement which you gave, you said that you were

22 penalised, up to 30 per cent of your salary was deducted, and yesterday

23 you said that your salary was docked up to 50 per cent of your salary. So

24 when is it that you're speaking an untruth?

25 JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question.

1 It's said that in the statement you referred to 30 per cent, now

2 you refer to 50 per cent. Can you assist us to which of those is right?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't say 30 or 50. I only

4 say 15, 1-5 per cent, and up to six months. I said over a period of up to

5 six months. This is what I said.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. It says here:

8 "If, for example, an Albanian would write out a ticket for a

9 passenger with the name of the station of departure and destination in the

10 Albanian language, 30 per cent would be deducted from his salary."

11 That is what it says in your written statement, what I read out.

12 Yesterday you said 50 per cent, and that is what it says here on the

13 computer. So one of the two is obviously not true, and I say that both

14 those facts are not true, but you gave two completely different

15 statements.

16 But never mind. We're not only talking about that. You said

17 yesterday, as we're discussing the differences of this kind, you said

18 yesterday that the Serbs set fire to four houses on that particular day,

19 and it says so in exact terms here.

20 JUDGE MAY: Which day are we dealing with?

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just find it. Just a

22 moment. Although I assume that you all have this. Just a moment. In the

23 first witness statement, one, two, three, four, five, the sixth paragraph,

24 at the beginning, it says:

25 "On the 5th of April, 1999, at around 9.00, the army, while

1 leaving the village, set fire to two houses which it had previously taken

2 over."

3 That is what it says in the statement. And yesterday your

4 witness, or rather, the witness of this indictment, said that four houses

5 were set on fire. Probably --

6 JUDGE MAY: Now, there is a divergence between your statement

7 about the 5th of April when you refer to two houses being set on fire and

8 your evidence yesterday when you said there were four houses. Now, can

9 you clarify that, please?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. I don't think it's very

11 important, because that was only the beginning that I said. Then

12 afterwards, many other houses were burned. It may happen that I gave the

13 wrong date about the first four houses that were burned.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think that you have some of

16 your own Rules and Regulations and obligations to take measures with

17 respect to false testimony, which is quite obvious here.

18 JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic. That is a comment. Now, if you've

19 got any other questions of this witness, ask them.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I have. I've just begun.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. I did not understand what you actually noticed with respect to the

23 movement of trains, the passage of trains. Yesterday, when you were

24 examined in chief, you said there were some sort of irregular train

25 running, so an extraordinary, irregular train which was not on a regular

1 line according to the timetable and log book, traffic logbook, and so it

2 did not stop at Urosevac. And then you say, according to the timetable,

3 it should have stopped there.

4 Now, my question for you is the following: How could it have --

5 should have stopped there, according to the timetable, if it wasn't a

6 regular running train on the timetable itself? How do you explain that?

7 A. Of course I can explain. If Your Honours allow me, I need a

8 little bit more time, if you think. Please tell me. You give me back the

9 log and I will explain to you.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness have the exhibit, the log.

11 JUDGE KWON: Let the witness have the original.

12 MS. ROMANO: Yes, I have.

13 JUDGE KWON: That's better.

14 THE REGISTRAR: The log is Prosecution Exhibit 63. It was already

15 exhibited yesterday.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We took the example of train number

17 37893. This train is a normal train, a regular train that passes through

18 Ferizaj. When there is -- there are more passengers, they add a "3"

19 number. This is, this train should run according to the regular train.

20 That is, this train should normally have stopped in Ferizaj because that

21 part, "7893," stops. So when we add the "3," it is almost the same train,

22 and it should have stopped.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. But it did not stop. So how come? What happened?

25 A. It didn't stop because it was full with passengers, and then it

1 left in the direction of Han i Elezit.

2 Q. So it didn't stop because there was no room in the train; is that

3 right? It was full?

4 A. That's right. It was full.

5 Q. And who decides whether a train is going to stop or not; the

6 stationmaster or the signalman, the dispatcher? Who makes that decision?

7 A. Usually the decision can be made by the most important authority

8 for Fushe Kosove, that he should order that the train mustn't stop. But

9 in extraordinary cases, even the dispatcher might do that.

10 Q. And in public traffic, urban traffic, when a bus is full, it

11 doesn't stop at a bus-stop, for example. What seems to you to be out of

12 the ordinary there?

13 A. But in the case of train circulation, there isn't such a rule.

14 Please. The train has to stop, no matter if there is room or not. It is

15 a rule. I think everybody should know that. Everybody has taken a

16 train. This is the case everywhere, in the West countries and

17 everywhere.

18 Q. All right. The point here is that the stop -- sorry, that the

19 train didn't stop at your station; is that right? Am I to understand what

20 you're saying like that? And you said that when there was no room in the

21 train, when the train was full, then the stationmaster would call the bus

22 company to help with the transport of the passengers. Was that standard

23 practice?

24 A. Normally this was not a standard practice. We didn't have such

25 instances before, but that happened that time when people were transported

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 even by trucks, lorries, or by freight carriages, which was not -- which

2 was a very unusual thing. My point was that unusual things kept occurring

3 then.

4 Q. All right. You said that you heard from the priest about the

5 killing of three persons.

6 A. Yes, that's right.

7 Q. In your first statement, you said you heard about it on the 14th.

8 Yesterday, you said you heard about it on the 13th. But at all events,

9 you did not see those bodies, and you did not see anybody actually being

10 killed; is that right?

11 A. It's true that these three killings I didn't see myself, but the

12 fact is that people were killed on the 13th at about 8.00 p.m., and I

13 found out about that on the next day, on the 14th, at about 10.00. It is

14 likewise true that when we did return to the village, we found new dead

15 bodies. Not the three ones that I mentioned earlier but four other

16 persons. They were thrown in a well or a ditch maybe. Then we found the

17 remains of two elderly people who were burned in their homes, who were my

18 neighbours. But the bodies of the three that were killed on the 13th of

19 April, we have never found them to this day.

20 Q. How come in the written statement you gave you didn't mention

21 these new bodies?

22 A. In my written statement, which I gave in April 1999, I have

23 mentioned only three people who were killed and four who were taken

24 ransom, hostage. But after our return from -- to the village, we found

25 the bodies of these four people who were taken hostage. And then I can

1 give you even the names of those two who were burned in their own home.

2 And I couldn't give them in my first statement because this -- I found

3 this out when I returned home.

4 Q. When you returned home. You mean after the war; is that right?

5 A. Yes. Yes, after the war.

6 Q. So that means that when you returned, you didn't find any fresh

7 bodies that day, but you heard about it when you returned home after the

8 war; is that right?

9 A. [No audible response]

10 Q. In your written statement, you emphasised, in passing but you did

11 write it specifically, that you saw two truckloads of Serb families: men,

12 women, children.

13 A. Yes, that's true. I didn't say they were full of people, but I

14 said many -- I said I saw some Serb families getting off the train and

15 coming to Ferizaj. This is the truth.

16 Q. It says in your statement that you said they were jam-packed,

17 overfull, jam-packed with Serb families.

18 A. I don't know what is written there. I know what I said and what

19 the situation was like in reality.

20 Q. Well, there's an old well-known proverb that when you don't tell

21 the truth, you have to remember minutely what you said beforehand.

22 JUDGE MAY: Is that a question?

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm asking whether he knows of

24 that proverb, a proverb to that effect.

25 A. I don't know that old proverb, but that does not apply to me.

1 That might apply to you, the accused.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. I'm asking you. I just wanted to know whether you had heard of

4 the proverb. But anyway --

5 JUDGE MAY: You got the answer. If you ask questions like that,

6 you must expect answers like that. They're not helpful. Now, let's move

7 on.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. So you saw Albanians on the move and Serbs on the move, in trains

10 in Urosevac, both Albanian families and Serb families. You claimed that

11 Albanian families were fleeing out of fear from the Serbs. Do you have

12 any assumption as to why the Serb families were fleeing?

13 A. I don't know when they went away. What time are you talking about

14 here?

15 Q. I am talking about these Serb families that you talked about. I'm

16 only talking about what you talked about in your written statement.

17 A. Those Serb families didn't leave. They came to Ferizaj, I said.

18 They got off the train and remained in Ferizaj. They didn't leave

19 Ferizaj. I can't tell you from where they came, but it was from the

20 direction of Fushe Kosove maybe, whereas the Albanian families left out of

21 terror exercised against them by the Serb police and army.

22 Q. Well, according to your testimony, there weren't any such measures

23 in your village except that you had heard that three men had got killed.

24 Is that right or is that not right?

25 A. Yesterday I was -- we passed very quickly over these events that

1 happened in my village, and I was therefore unable to speak in greater

2 length about what happened then in my village. But since I have the

3 opportunity to answer to your questions, then I can explain to you, if

4 Your Honours allow me, to tell you what real terrible things happened to

5 us during all that time, and the accused can get convinced that it

6 was -- whether it was a right decision to leave the village or not.

7 JUDGE MAY: Just deal with it briefly.

8 A. When the Serb Chetnik forces occupied our village, it was really

9 horrible just to see, to look at them, Distinguished Honours, let alone to

10 have anything to do with them. They were bloodthirsty people. You could

11 see in their eyes their thirst for blood. They kept in their hands knives

12 stained with blood. Only to look at them, it was terrible, let alone to

13 have anything to do with them or to stay with them in the village.

14 Then they started to loot and raid the village all over. First

15 they took away all our vehicles of all the inhabitants of the village and

16 they drove around the village with our own very vehicles, showing off.

17 Then they started to rob us of our money. Every day they came and

18 asked us to give them money, and you had to give them money, because they

19 were armed, and we have given them money.

20 Then our sons, for nine or ten days, dug trenches for them, for

21 those Chetnik forces, and they maltreated them every day. The accused

22 would say that I was not there to see it, but my brother was there, and

23 many other witnesses, who can testify to what these young people went

24 through in the course of their labour for those forces. They were

25 threatened every day that after they finished digging the trenches, they

1 would have to kill them, because this is what they did in Bosnia too, they

2 were telling them. You can imagine yourselves what position we were in at

3 that time, when every day we heard threats that, "You are going to get

4 killed tomorrow."

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. How come you said none of that yesterday or in any one of your

8 written statements, what you've been saying just now?

9 JUDGE MAY: We need the statements. Can we have the copies,

10 please. There's going to be cross-examination about it.

11 MS. ROMANO: Yes, Your Honour. There are two statements.

12 JUDGE MAY: In fairness to the witness, he wasn't asked about this

13 yesterday, but you can ask him, Mr. Milosevic, about the statements.

14 What's said, Mr. Bucaliu, is that there is no mention in your

15 statements of this other maltreatment of villagers by the paramilitaries.

16 Can you help us as to that?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Distinguished Honours, I may

18 have not said it in my statement, and I don't know how that has come about

19 because I have said all these things even when I was giving the

20 statement. Maybe they haven't written it down because then the statement

21 would have become very lengthy. I don't know. But this is what I said

22 even during the time I gave my statement. I don't know if they have taken

23 down all of them.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. All right. This explanation is sufficient. Let's go back to

1 yesterday, to what you said yesterday. You explained that they had

2 forbidden you any kind of movement in the village except from 7.00 a.m. to

3 7.00 p.m. and that they told you that at no cost should you leave the

4 village, and you said that you were very frightened. How did you leave,

5 then? How did you leave the village when they had forbidden you to leave

6 the village and when they did not allow you to move around from 7.00 a.m.

7 to 7.00 p.m., only in that period?

8 A. I explained that. On the day that the Chetnik forces came, they

9 showed us the rules of how we could go out from our homes. I said that

10 they told us that we could leave the village only with their own special

11 authorisation, and they had closed both exits to the village. Then a

12 Chetnik called Milja, another called Musa, who were the most active in our

13 village, they told us that, "You cannot leave the village because if the

14 infantry troops of Clinton come to these lands, you will become our shield

15 and you will fight together with us." That is, they wanted to use us as

16 human shields or as cannon fodder, as we say. And this made us even more

17 afraid, fearing that one day they would really mistreat us and use us for

18 that purpose. But we stood there, nevertheless, until after all what we

19 went through, until the first killings came. If the accused denies that,

20 I don't know. He can do what he wishes.

21 Q. I am putting the following question: How did you leave the

22 village if it is true that they had forbidden you to leave the village?

23 How did you manage to leave the village, all of you together, as you had

24 put it?

25 A. I have explained the way how we managed to leave. I don't want to

1 repeat. If they saw us or not, if they wanted to prevent us or not, I

2 can't say, but we went, as I said, through that valley. Maybe they were

3 not very close, positioned very close to the place from where we left.

4 Maybe they didn't see us leave, because the emptying of the village lasted

5 only 30 minutes.

6 Q. All right. That assumption that they did not see you is probably

7 probable. Is it your claim that you did have paramilitaries in the

8 village?

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, he said that.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Who is this Mile person that you've mentioned as somebody I cannot

13 make out? Who is this person? What's his role? Who is this man anyway,

14 this man you've been calling Mile? In all these events, that is.

15 A. Mile and Musa were two rabid Chetniks and I know that they were

16 their names. This is all I know. But I also know our neighbour Milan

17 Rudovic was always seen in their headquarters. He was in uniform and kept

18 going to the headquarters of the Chetniks. And he may know better who

19 Mile and Musa were. We couldn't know more than that, than the pseudonyms

20 they used.

21 Q. And who knows better who Mile and Musa were? I did not quite

22 understand what you've been saying.

23 A. The person who may give you better information is my neighbour

24 Milan Rudovic, who was wearing uniform, Serb uniform, and who used to stay

25 with them all the time at their headquarters.

1 Q. Did you believe these claims? Did you believe that they wanted to

2 use you as a human shield?

3 A. When we saw what people they were and how they were behaving with

4 us, we believed everything they said, everything bad that they said, with

5 the exception of anything good.

6 Q. But according to what you said, nobody stopped you, nobody

7 directed you in a certain way, nobody made you go in a certain direction.

8 So is that correct?

9 JUDGE MAY: It's right. Just say yes.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I need to explain. I just

11 can't say no or yes.

12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Bucaliu, we've heard your evidence on the point.

13 It's right, isn't it - you haven't said otherwise - that nobody directed

14 you to go to a particular place when you left the village?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, nobody told us where

16 to go, but they threatened us at --

17 JUDGE MAY: No. We'll get on more quickly if you just answer the

18 questions shortly.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go on?

20 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. You worked in Slovenia as a signalman, and you came to Urosevac in

23 the late 1970s, and then you continued to work as a signalman; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes. I did my school in Slovenia and worked there for one and a

1 half years. Then in 1982, I started to work in Ferizaj train station.

2 Q. In 1987, you caused an incident when you let a fast train go by

3 and it hit a freight train. There were many injured persons, and you were

4 suspended from work for six months. And then instead of being dismissed

5 altogether, you were returned to work but you got a job as a cashier in

6 the commodities department, and you remained in that position before the

7 war and during the war; is that correct?

8 A. Yes. It's correct that there was an accident in 1987. There were

9 accidents, but this happens everywhere. It's nothing extraordinary that

10 happened. I went even to -- I was taken to police stations and taken to a

11 detention cell, but after that, I was never punished. And that is true

12 that I continued my work for a time as inspector of goods or commodities

13 as then as a cashier.

14 Q. And you stayed there all the way up to April or, as it says here,

15 May 1999?

16 A. I worked there until 24th -- sorry, until -- yes, on the 24th of

17 March in my workplace, but in the station, I reported until the 14th of

18 April.

19 Q. And do you know the names of Mahmut Shabani, Muhail Rexhepi, Medi

20 Hoxha [phoen], and Yseni Ysen who worked with you?

21 A. Yes. They were my colleagues. I know them.

22 Q. Precisely at that time these four men reported to Ilic, the

23 trainmaster, and informed him that they had orders from the KLA to go,

24 with the explanation that they would return earlier in that way. However,

25 as opposed to them, I here have a note that you did not report to the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 trainmaster as they did.

2 JUDGE MAY: There are two questions there, two questions there.

3 Do you know about the four men it's alleged having orders from the

4 KLA to go?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is ridiculous, distinguished

6 Honours. I can't say anything to testify that -- to that because it is

7 equally true in their case, like it was in my case. That is, we were

8 ordered not to work any more there. It's not true at all what the accused

9 is alleging here.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. So it is your claim that you did not get orders from the KLA to

12 leave the workplace?

13 A. No. There wasn't any KLA in that part where I lived, and I've had

14 never any contacts then with KLA, and I never got any orders from them.

15 Q. All right. And do you know Ramadan Muharemi who worked there as

16 well?

17 A. Yes. He was also another colleague.

18 Q. He also reported to the trainmaster, and he said that due to KLA

19 pressure, he had to leave. He had to sell his house in the centre of

20 Urosevac and to move, because he was not an Albanian, he was a Roma. He

21 did that indeed, and he moved to Subotica where he's been living until the

22 present day, and he can confirm this. Do you know about that?

23 JUDGE MAY: What is the question? Do you know anything about

24 that?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know Ramadan Muharemi. He was a

1 cleaner in our station and he then worked there. He was in Ferizaj after

2 the war for a long time. Then he why left his house -- it was three or

3 four months after the war. He stayed in the Ferizaj station for only

4 three or four months. I don't know where he is now. If he said that he

5 has left the village for this reason that you are claiming, I don't know

6 about that.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Is it correct that you held meetings at the warehouse of the train

9 station, and when salaries were handed out, you collected money for the

10 KLA? Yes or no.

11 A. No, that's not true.

12 Q. And is it correct that you were involved in smuggling foreign

13 exchange, and that is to say, to and from Slovenia, relying on your old

14 connections?

15 A. That's not true either. The accused is trying to catch at a straw

16 because he's seeing that he's drowning. So he is saying things here which

17 I don't think matters for this Court either.

18 JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Bucaliu, it's for us to decide what matters.

19 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Do you know a person by the name of Ymer Neziri?

22 A. Ymer Neziri, yes. He's my neighbour.

23 Q. Together with Ymer Neziri, you participated in the demonstrations

24 of 1981.

25 JUDGE MAY: No. We've been back to 1981 before. We're going to

1 move on.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not dealing with 1981 in

3 relation to the demonstrations. I want to ask him whether he remembers

4 that together they were breaking windowpanes on the department store

5 called Napredak. That is the department store from Djakovica and

6 Urosevac. And they also took goods from that store, and there is a

7 document to prove that.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you recall that?

10 JUDGE MAY: You are making a series of allegations against this

11 witness which you will have to produce some evidence to support. At the

12 moment, they are pure allegation.

13 We will allow the witness to answer this one and shortly.

14 It's alleged that you were breaking windows in a demonstration in

15 1981. Were you?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that at that time I was in

17 Slovenia, in the school. You can say what you want.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's the answer. He was Slovenia at the

19 time. Now, let's move on to something more recent and more relevant to

20 the indictment.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything is related to the

22 indictment, everything that has to do with the witness, and the validity

23 of his statements, the reliability and authenticity of them.

24 JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure we're going to be helped, even if he was

25 breaking windows in 1981, in deciding whether he's telling the truth about

1 events in 1999.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about credibility,

3 please.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I'm talking about credibility too. It's a

5 question what is relevant to credibility.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. All right. The first cousin of witness Bajram Bucaliu, who is

8 also called Bajram, do you remember when he was caught in 1987 at the

9 Bulgarian border and 300 kilogrammes of drugs were found in his van?

10 JUDGE MAY: What is the relevance of what his cousin was doing,

11 even if his cousin was doing it? It's totally irrelevant.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is a well-known fact that the

13 entire family was involved in smuggling tobacco, weapons, and drugs.

14 JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can put that to him.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are genuine lies. That's not

16 true at all, that my entire family, or even members of it, were ever

17 engaged in illicit activities or trade.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Is it correct that your father was in prison in Nis because of

20 smuggling?

21 JUDGE MAY: No. I think this is enough. Attempts to smear

22 witnesses do not help the Court. They don't help anybody. If you've got

23 an allegation to make involving the witness's credibility, then you can

24 put it, as you have done, but to start attacking his own family is not

25 relevant.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was just asking questions which

2 relate exclusively to the facts and not to any kind of value judgement,

3 but let's move on from that topic to another area.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. As the witness explained the reasons which, according to him, were

6 the reason for the departure of citizens from his village to Macedonia, I

7 have the following question: In the neighbouring villages, that is to

8 say, in that area, the neighbouring villages of Talin -- Talinovac

9 [phoen], Nekodim, the village of Varos, Tankosic, Gadnje, Trebno, Plesina,

10 Mirosavlje -- I have been asked by the interpreters to speak more slowly.

11 So the villages of Talinovac [phoen], Nekodim, Varos, Tankosic, Gadnje

12 Trebno, Plesina, Mirosavlje, all of mixed composition, and the village of

13 Rajovica, where the inhabitants are purely Albanian, the inhabitants,

14 throughout the time, remained in their villages; is that true? Is it true

15 that the villagers in all these surrounding villages did not move but

16 stayed in their villages throughout? Is that right?

17 A. I don't know about all these villages you enumerated. I knew

18 about the neighbouring villages which were all emptied of people. I said

19 Kamoja [phoen], Sore [phoen], Bibaj, and Varosh. These four villages,

20 they were evicted from Albanians [sic].

21 Q. NATO bombed a large storehouse area belonging to your cousin,

22 where your father and brother were employed; is that correct or not?

23 A. NATO had struck that object after we had left the village, because

24 in that place, military forces were deployed, which were there even when

25 we were there, but the bombing came after we left the village. And not

1 only that facility was bombed, but all other facilities. Two tanks were

2 burned and a truck was burned from this bombing.

3 Q. Do you know why a warrant was issued for [indiscernible] Bucaliu,

4 your first cousin?

5 A. I am Bajram Bucaliu. I don't know what was issued. I don't

6 understand that.

7 Q. Have you got a first cousin whose name is Brahim Bucaliu, that is

8 to say, your uncle's son on your father's side?

9 A. Yes, I have a cousin called Brahim, and there's another one called

10 Brahim too.

11 Q. I'm referring to the person who has a house between the railway

12 station and bus station. Have you been able to identify him now?

13 A. Yes, I can identify him, yes.

14 Q. Do you know why a warrant was issued?

15 JUDGE MAY: Do you know -- first of all, do you know if a warrant

16 was issued?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about a

18 warrant. How could I know anything about that? I don't know anything

19 about that, no.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. All right. I won't pursue this and go on with my questions

22 relating to that.

23 Does your family own a gas station on the Urosevac-Pristina road?

24 A. Yes. Not my direct family, but my relatives or cousins do have a

25 gas station. Two cousins, in fact.

1 Q. And do you work at that gas station yourself?

2 A. Yes, I work there now at the gas station.

3 Q. Is that a gas station that was built by your cousin Nazmija

4 [phoen]?

5 A. Yes. Muhamet, his son. It's his son, Muhamet, who built the gas

6 station.

7 Q. Was the gas station built on the property of a Serb called Milivoj

8 Injic [phoen], on his land?

9 A. That's not true. He built it on his own property, on property

10 that he had bought with his own money.

11 Q. Do you remember the bombing when Bajram Reka's house was hit? And

12 otherwise, next to the house of Bajram Reka, you have a field that you

13 own, so I assume that you know about that.

14 A. Around the house of Bajram, there's no land, but I know that the

15 house of Bajram Reka was used as a centre for the Chetniks. Bajram Reka

16 and all his family and all the neighbours were thrown out of their

17 houses. And it was there that the Chetnik staff had their centre. Tanks

18 didn't destroy the house. They were near the building, but the house

19 itself was not. It was the tanks which were burned. The house itself was

20 not touched. And a truck was destroyed from the bombing.

21 Q. And do you know whether anybody fell victim to the bombing? Were

22 there any casualties?

23 A. I don't know about that. No Albanians, at least, from our

24 village. As to the forces, the military forces, I don't know. I couldn't

25 tell you.

1 Q. You claim that none of the Albanians at the time were either

2 wounded or injured or killed, that there were no casualties. Is that what

3 you're saying?

4 A. That's true. We weren't there -- the houses weren't bombed. That

5 happened after we left. Everything took place after we left.

6 Q. All right. But when you returned, do you know that all the Serb

7 houses were set fire to except the house belonging to Dragutin Veljkovic

8 [phoen]?

9 A. Yes, they were burnt. They were all burnt down, both Serb and

10 Albanian houses, yes.

11 Q. Did you go, just before the aggression, to the village of Biba at

12 Osman [phoen] and Nabi Biba [phoen] to attend meetings there?

13 A. I don't know what time you're talking about, but I was an activist

14 of the LDK, and it's possible that I was there.

15 Q. And the meetings that you held, were they in connection with the

16 KLA activities?

17 A. No. We had nothing to do with the KLA. We didn't even know

18 anything about the KLA at the time, and we had nothing to do with their

19 activity, with such activities.

20 Q. All right. Let's go back to the end of your statement, what you

21 said at the end, and your departure for Macedonia. Is it true that in the

22 meantime you went back from Macedonia, back to Urosevac, for short

23 periods, at certain intervals, before you finally went back after the war?

24 A. Well, the first day we tried -- on the 15th of April, we tried to

25 cross the border, but we couldn't. When we tried to get to Macedonia on

1 train and were returned to Ferizaj, that's the only time. That's not true

2 what you're saying.

3 Q. I'm asking you: Did you go back now and again? I don't claim

4 that you did; I'm asking you.

5 A. No, that's not true. I didn't return. I was in Stankovec for

6 about a month, which the accused said didn't exist, but I was there.

7 JUDGE MAY: Deal with it shortly, if you would. The answer is you

8 didn't go back.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't, because --

10 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter about the reason.

11 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Did anybody take away your documents when you went to Macedonia?

14 A. No, they didn't take away our documents.

15 Q. Did anybody direct you to go to Macedonia, tell you to go?

16 A. They didn't tell us to go, but we went to Macedonia. We were

17 accompanied by the police, by the police and the army. They didn't say to

18 go to Macedonia, but they accompanied us, escorted us to the border.

19 Q. I understood that they drew your attention to the fact that you

20 shouldn't leave the railway line because it was -- that you shouldn't go

21 along the railway line because it was mined and somebody might be killed.

22 Not to go outside the lines.

23 A. Yes, that's what they said. We were afraid. That's what they

24 said, at any rate. I don't know if it was true. So we kept on the rail

25 track.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Well, it was undoubtedly true. But do you consider that they

2 helped you in that way or that they were doing something evil towards you

3 by telling you not to leave the railway tracks and not to lose your lives

4 by doing so?

5 A. I don't know what they were thinking, whether they were trying to

6 save our lives or not. I told you what happened.

7 Q. Well, I'm asking you how you -- what your understanding was of

8 this gesture on their part. How did you understand it?

9 A. I don't know what I understood. They just said, "Keep on the

10 train tracks." And I know they said that. What they thought, what their

11 reason was, I don't know. We didn't think about that.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no more questions.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. As

15 Slobodan Milosevic today brought up the statements himself and presented

16 them to Witness Bucaliu, it will be easier for me to focus on matters

17 which he did not touch upon when asking the witness questions. So let me

18 start off with the list, the list that was brought in and presented as an

19 exhibit.

20 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bucaliu, on the 24th of March, it says that

22 you were not working, as you said. Is that correct?

23 A. On the 24th of March, I was working.

24 Q. That's why I'm asking you. So on the 24th of March, you were

25 still working. Now, on this list, do you see that half the column has not

1 been filled in and that on that day particularly not half the trains

2 passed by. At least, there were half as many trains as there were the

3 previous day, because four, six, seven trains passed by on that particular

4 day, whereas the previous day many more trains passed by. How do you

5 explain that?

6 A. On the 24th, trains were moving, but on the 25th, there were no

7 trains.

8 Q. How do you explain that, that after the bombing started, the NATO

9 bombing started, not only did the number of trains not increase, not only

10 was there more in circulation, but on the 24th and 25th of March, on one

11 day there were no trains at all, and on the 24th of March there were half

12 as many trains as usual. How do you explain that? And you said that the

13 number of trains increased.

14 A. It's possible the 24th, 25th, up to the 29th, it's possible that

15 there were no trains. But from the 29th on, there are no -- lots of

16 notes.

17 Q. As far as I can see here, and I'm looking at it, I have the 29th

18 in front of me and that's where I'll end, the 29th, and then it goes on to

19 the 1st of April, there were trains, and you said, depending on what the

20 last figure was, whether it was an odd number or an even number, that that

21 meant that the train was moving in one direction or in another direction.

22 Now, when the last digit is 0, what does that mean?

23 A. The 0 is an even number. It's an even number.

24 Q. Now, if you look at the list dated the 29th of March or any other

25 after that date, you will see at that there are about seven, seven trains

1 moving in one direction and seven trains moving in another direction. So

2 the number of trains was equal going to Macedonia and from Macedonia.

3 A. But that's normal. Every train that goes to Macedonia has to

4 return. They can't all stay in Macedonia.

5 Q. All I'm saying is that there were no upsets in the timetable, that

6 everything took place regularly, that trains moved regularly in both

7 directions, as stipulated in the timetable. Is that correct?

8 JUDGE MAY: So we can understand it, this is -- just a moment.

9 So you're putting that up until the 29th of March or on the 29th

10 of March, the timetable was working normally.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And onwards. It was working

12 normally afterwards too. Trains moved in a regular fashion after that

13 date, going to and from.

14 JUDGE MAY: The witness's evidence was there were more trains on

15 the 3rd of April. That's the date that he dealt with in his evidence.

16 What is suggested is that you're wrong about that and there

17 were -- the trains were running normally. What is your answer to that

18 suggestion?

19 Less the witness answer.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only tell you that the trains

21 up to -- the trains were running regularly. They were going in both

22 directions. And after the beginning of the bombings, there were more

23 trains, and they were exceptional trains running an exceptional -- an

24 exceptional schedule. There were also regular trains, normal trains, but

25 most of them then were irregular trains. That's what I said yesterday. I

1 said there were regular and non-regular trains.

2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Because you are looking at the date

3 of 29th of March, I don't see any trains in this log between 25th of March

4 to 28th of March. Am I right? Could you check up this matter?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right. There were no

6 trains from the 25th to the 28th.

7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted. I wanted

9 to reach the 3rd of April, in fact, and I have it here in my hand.

10 Q. If 0 is an even number, as you yourself say, then seven trains

11 left in one direction towards Macedonia and seven trains returned from

12 Macedonia on that day in April. That's what I wanted to hear. I wanted

13 to hear the witness's explanation of that. Nothing changed.

14 A. No, it changed. I said on the 3rd of April, I told you how they

15 passed through -- how the trains passed through Ferizaj. They didn't stop

16 there except for the train 37897, which stopped in Ferizaj, and the other

17 train that returned from Elez Hani. Aside from that, all the other trains

18 just passed through Ferizaj.

19 Q. No. My question wasn't that. Yes, I know. You explained that.

20 You explained that. All I'm doing is noting that you said that nothing

21 changed. There were no irregular trains. Seven regular trains went in

22 one direction, and according to the timetable, they returned from the

23 opposite direction as the timetable states.

24 JUDGE MAY: His whole evidence is that the trains were irregular.

25 That's the whole point of his evidence.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's why I'm asking, Mr. May --

2 Judge May. That's what I'm asking, because --

3 JUDGE MAY: Why are you challenging it? What is the basis of your

4 challenge to this evidence which he's given?

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not challenging it. All I'm

6 doing is saying that I think the documents show that for the most part

7 everything ran regularly, that a certain number of trains run in one

8 direction, a certain number of trains ran in the opposite direction.

9 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... more quickly.

10 We'll ask the witness.

11 Were the trains running regularly that day or not, according to

12 the document which you have in front of you?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're talking about this date --

14 there's a lot of dates, but let's take this one here. According to the

15 list, there is no regular train. They are all irregular trains.

16 According to the numbers we have here, you can see that they are irregular

17 trains.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I won't pursue the

19 matter. I think there is a logic that has to be applied, but I'll leave

20 it to the Trial Chamber to assess.

21 Q. What I wanted to ask in connection with everything that was said

22 here with respect to the events at the railway station, I won't go back to

23 the language problem, the language issues, but in your previous statement,

24 that is to say, in your statement dated the 16th of -- no, the 29th of

25 August, 2001, you said that the money fines were prescribed generally

1 because for the train tickets, the name of "Urosevac," the place, was

2 written in the Albanian language, "Ferizaj," as the ultimate destination;

3 is that right?

4 A. I said there were times when it was -- it was questioned why was

5 it written "Han i Elezit" on the ticket. A friend of mine was punished

6 for that because he wrote it "Han i Elezit."

7 Q. I wanted to ask you something else in fact. You work at the

8 railways, in the railways, and you've been working there for many years.

9 You know the problems that existed. When you leave Kosovo, it's not a

10 large, a great distance. When you leave Kosovo -- the Albanians travelled

11 a great deal. They went to Bosnia and Montenegro, passed through Serbia

12 on their way to third countries, and they used that main road a lot

13 through Croatia. And you know that very often there were problems on the

14 railway lines, at railway stations, that when you write "Ferizaj" most

15 people, not in Kosovo but further on in Yugoslavia, which existed until

16 1990, that there were problems because they couldn't tell where the people

17 had -- where the point of departure was for these passengers, that they

18 were even asked to leave the trains because of that. Is that true? Did

19 you know about that problem?

20 A. I don't know anything about that. There may have been certain

21 problems. I think the inhabitants of Yugoslavia itself didn't have any

22 problems whereas people abroad, from abroad, might have had a problem with

23 that.

24 Q. Let me now go on to the statement. Slobodan Milosevic has focused

25 on the statement. But I should just like the witness to explain one

1 point. He said on the 2nd of April, when the army arrived, when the army

2 came to your village, Witness, and you explained that there was an

3 officer, that you had a conversation with him, but in your statement, you

4 told the investigators that, "The officer had said that they were the

5 regular army and that we should not flee." Was that it? Is that what he

6 told you, that you shouldn't flee because they were the regular army? Is

7 that what he said to you and is that what you've said in the statement?

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, so that we can follow your

9 examination, will you tell us where this is; which statement and where we

10 can find it.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The statement is dated the 24th

12 and 25th of April. It is his first statement given in 1999. And on page

13 1, paragraph 4 is what I'm referring to. In the English version, the one

14 you have, that is --

15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we have it.

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Is that correct, that he said, "We are the regular army, and you

18 needn't flee"?

19 A. Yes, that's true. That's what he said. But later, we found out

20 that that was not the case at all. He did say that. He said, "There's no

21 reason to leave. We are the army. Don't be afraid of us." That's what

22 he said.

23 Q. But you also said over the past two days that you left but that

24 nobody told you to leave, that nobody demanded that you leave.

25 A. Yes. We stayed in the village for several days after that.

1 Q. And then you decided to leave the village?

2 A. Yes, on the 14th of April.

3 Q. Thank you. Now we come to your second statement, dated the 16th

4 of June, and the English version -- in the English version, it is on page

5 4. Page 4. And the date is the 15th of April, the date that is

6 mentioned. And you say, "That first morning, the 15th of April, 1999,

7 once again at the railway station I saw the police." Is that right? Is

8 that what you said? Is that right?

9 A. Yes, that's right.

10 Q. Next you go on to say, "They were looking at what was going on and

11 tried to introduce a certain amount of law and order." Is that what you

12 said?

13 A. I didn't think they were -- say that they were trying to introduce

14 law and order. I didn't see anything particular. I was just there.

15 Q. That's what it says in your statement.

16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise, but they haven't got

17 a copy of the statement.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. All right, but what is important is the following. You say:

20 "At the station, there were about ten policemen. I didn't notice

21 whether they were preventing people or directing people in which direction

22 to go."

23 Is that correct?

24 A. They didn't tell anyone where to go. They -- people were

25 leaving. It didn't matter where they went.

1 Q. Thank you. Two paragraphs lower down -- so they didn't address

2 you in any way or make any suggestions to you, did they?

3 A. Not at the station in Ferizaj, no.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, two paragraphs further down, you state the

5 following --

6 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you. It's now a minute past

7 11.00. Are you going to be many minutes longer?

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Two more minutes. Two more

9 minutes.

10 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Two paragraphs lower down, you state the following: Vule, you

13 mentioned Vule. Who is Vule?

14 A. Vule was the station head at Han i Elezit.

15 Q. In your statement, you said: "Vule offered to see my family and

16 myself off to the border, to escort me, together with the policemen, but I

17 didn't take up his offer." So he offered to transfer -- transport you and

18 your family, but you didn't accept the offer because it wouldn't have been

19 honourable for you to leave your fellow villagers; is that right?

20 A. Yes, that's true, because the station head at Elez Han, after the

21 first day when we couldn't get across the border into Macedonia, offered

22 to help me and my family, but because I was with all the other people who

23 were in the train, I didn't want to accept the offer to cross the border

24 just with my family. And then the next day, we tried and got across.

25 Q. Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge May, with the Court's

2 indulgence, I wanted to clear up one more matter, and it is to be found on

3 paragraph 3 of the second statement, on page 1. After the break, may I be

4 allowed to clarify one more point, after the break, in that second

5 statement of his?

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn now for half an hour.

7 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just want to draw

11 your attention to the third paragraph in the second statement, please.

12 Q. Mr. Bajram, earlier on you said that all the way up to 1998, you

13 did not support the KLA.

14 A. Yes, that's right, because at the beginning the KLA was something

15 which I knew nothing about, so how could I respect it?

16 Q. Also you said then:

17 "I thought I could not do anything against Serbia, and I knew

18 that it would be hard to achieve anything without some help from outside

19 the country."

20 A. Yes, this is what I thought then, because having to deal with such

21 a major military force like Serbia was, I would normally think that we

22 would suffer great consequences.

23 Q. You said that, "When the bombing started, I changed my position."

24 What did you mean by that?

25 A. It may coincide with the bombing, but when I saw what one

1 man -- one human being can do to another human being, from what I saw

2 happen in my village, it was but normal and clear to all of us that if

3 you -- that if we sat cross-legged, we would be killed just the same.

4 Then I had to change my mind.

5 Q. Before I put another question to you, let me ask you the

6 following: Once, as you said, you helped a KLA soldier when the unit

7 withdrew due to the presence of strong Serbian forces. In which way did

8 you help him?

9 A. Yes. There was a great offensive of the Serb forces against the

10 KLA positions in the Sharre Mountains, and the KLA had withdrawn. In so

11 doing, the son of a colleague of mine happened to be left behind in the

12 village, and my colleague asked me to help him, to transfer him from -- to

13 take him to another place.

14 Q. How big was this unit that was retreating? How many men were

15 there in that unit?

16 A. I have no information about their number. I can't tell you.

17 Q. All right. Do you know whether before the bombing and after the

18 bombing there were clashes between the KLA and the army and the police of

19 Serbia?

20 A. I know about that after I read in the information media. Yes,

21 there were clashes.

22 Q. I'm just asking you the following. That's why I've been asking

23 you all these other questions. Due to these clashes between the KLA - I

24 mean before the bombing and after the bombing - did that lead to the

25 withdrawal of the population, either Serb or Albania, from these areas

1 where the fighting was taking place?

2 A. That is not true. It's not that it was because of the NATO

3 bombing that we left the village, either we Albanians or Serbs. The

4 Albanians left because of the tragedy perpetrated against them by the

5 Serbs, while the Serbs stayed there and didn't leave. I can testify to

6 this in several ways.

7 I may tell you -- I may cite only an example when I was in town

8 and the alarm went off about -- for the NATO airstrike, and I could see

9 the Albanians, that none of them left the town because they thought that

10 NATO doesn't shoot at the civilians, doesn't strike at the civilians, and

11 that was the case, while the Serbs left. They tried to find shelter in

12 cellars, in other secure places.

13 Q. You said in your statement here - I don't want to show it to you

14 yet again - that you and all your people gathered together during the

15 bombing in one house. While the bombing lasted, that is.

16 A. Yes. We got together in a house. Not because of the bombing but

17 because we felt safer in the face of the Chetnik forces who were in the

18 village. Because if it were for the bombing, there were no place we could

19 go because there wasn't any shelter for us. But the fact is that we felt

20 so secure, so safe that only the fact that when bombing started on the

21 24th of March it was a great joy for us because it was there that we saw

22 our salvation.

23 Q. There were power cuts often from the 24th onwards. That's the way

24 you had put it as well.

25 A. Yes. The power was cut at about 8.00 p.m. and came -- was

1 released in the morning.

2 Q. Let me ask you one more thing. Did this have anything to do with

3 the bombing?

4 A. I think that this was so to make it easier for the Chetnik

5 military forces to do what they intended in the night, to circulate freely

6 without being seen. And this is what happened, because the people, the

7 three people, were killed precisely when the power was cut, Emin Zeka and

8 his two sons.

9 Q. This happened every evening? The first five or six days, the way

10 you had put it.

11 A. During the time I was in the village, this is what happened. The

12 power was cut off every night.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Any re-examination?

15 MS. ROMANO: Yes, Your Honour, two areas just.

16 Re-examined by Ms. Romano:

17 Q. Mr. Bucaliu, on cross-examination you were asked about the 2nd of

18 April when the army came to your village and they told you that they were

19 the regular army and that you should not flee. But you continued saying

20 that it changed after. What changed?

21 A. Yes. That situation changed because that army, which described

22 itself as a regular army, started to burn our homes, to raid and loot. So

23 the very army that told us not to be afraid started to do all these

24 things. So they didn't suit action to words.

25 Q. Mr. Bucaliu, did you see them burning the houses, and did you see

1 them looting?

2 A. Yes. I saw them burning the houses. As to the looting, I can

3 give my own example. They took away my car, my tractor, and so.

4 Q. Thank you. Also on cross-examination, you answered that you

5 decided to leave on the 14th of April. Did you want to leave?

6 A. I don't know if there is anyone in the world to wish to leave his

7 own property, home, everything at the mercy of such Chetniks and to leave

8 his home and his fatherland. If there is someone to think that, to leave

9 his home and go to an unknown destination, I don't think that this can

10 happen. But for us, it was important to save our lives. We didn't feel

11 any pains at leaving behind all our properties. The only concern for us

12 was to save our lives.

13 Q. So was there any particular moment or particular fact that made

14 you decide that you were leaving at that moment?

15 A. Yes. As I said during my testimony, apart from various acts of

16 maltreatment, looting and raiding, they started to kill people. That did

17 it, when we heard that people were starting to get killed. Then we

18 decided to leave, because we were afraid that the same thing might happen

19 to us. And this is shown by the people who were left behind, Fehmi Hoxha

20 and his wife, my first cousin, who we found only their remains, when we

21 returned, in their burned house.

22 Q. Mr. Bucaliu, that applies also to the other people that left with

23 you; do you know if that was the same -- they would have the same fear as

24 you had?

25 A. Yes. Yes. It was normal for all of them to feel the same thing.

1 When we start to hear that people began to be killed, nobody had anything

2 to say. It was chaos. It was confusion prevailing among all of us. We

3 didn't know where to go. It was quite spontaneous when we started to flee

4 the village on -- through the road that I always -- already explained to

5 you.

6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bucaliu.

7 MS. ROMANO: No more further questions.

8 Questioned by the Court:

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Bucaliu, so I can be clear about this

10 question of the regularity of the movement of the trains, I'd like the

11 usher to give you the logbook and for you to look at each day from the

12 24th of March until the 3rd of April. And I'd like you to comment on the

13 question of the movement of the trains on each day; how many trains there

14 were, whether the trains were full, matters of that kind which are

15 relevant to the question of the regularity of the movement of the trains.

16 So each day from the 24th of March.

17 A. As I said earlier --

18 JUDGE KWON: Could you please put the log on the ELMO, please.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you now looking at the 24th?

20 A. This is the 24th March.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many trains were there that day?

22 A. On the 24th of March, there were seven trains running: three in

23 one direction, apparently four in the opposite direction.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what is your evidence - remind me - as to the

25 average number of trains each day?

1 A. The average number was six: three in one direction, three in the

2 opposite. That was the regular schedule. Six trains over 24 hours.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: So on the 24th, we had three and four. And were

4 the trains full, are you able to say, on the 24th?

5 A. On the 24th, I don't think they were full, because I was at work,

6 and the trains had only two carriages each and were not full. But after

7 the 24th of March --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next day now, the 25th, and give us the same

9 information on the 25th.

10 A. On the 25th of March -- there are no notes until the 29th of

11 March. If I may continue from 29th onwards --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Until the 29th, there's no record in your logbook

13 of the movements of the trains?

14 A. No, there isn't any.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why is that?

16 A. I can't be sure why that is, but probably the trains didn't run.

17 I can't remember precisely this particular time, but this is what can be

18 inferred from the log.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Let's move to the 29th, then, the

20 next day when you have information. How many trains were there on the

21 29th?

22 A. On the 29th, there was only one train. It has come up to Ferizaj

23 station and has returned, from what I see in the log.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any indication as to how many passengers were in

25 that train?

1 A. There isn't any indication as to the number of passengers.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move to the 30th.

3 A. On the 30th, there were two trains, I see here. On the 31st,

4 there were more trains.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Just -- we haven't finished with the 30th.

6 Two trains in each direction or just one direction?

7 A. One in the direction of Ferizaj, one in the direction of Fushe

8 Kosove; opposite.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And the 31st?

10 A. On the 31st, there were eight trains; four in one direction and

11 four in the opposite direction.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: And any indication as to the capacity, the number

13 of passengers?

14 A. No. Unfortunately, no, I don't see any records here about the

15 number of passengers. As you can see, there are records only about the

16 number of trains that passed through. As to the number of passengers,

17 this is taken down at the departure station.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move to the 1st.

19 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. In terms of a capacity problem, I'd

20 like to clarify this matter. You testified that the reason the train did

21 not make a stop at Ferizaj station, you explained the reason as being due

22 to the fact that the train was full; is it right?

23 A. Yes, that is right. When I was there, I saw such trains passing

24 by and not stopping, and they were full of travellers.

25 JUDGE KWON: According to this log, not only the trains with odd

1 numbers, but those with even numbers didn't make a stop at Ferizaj

2 station. Does that mean that trains from the border were also full?

3 A. In very rare cases they have been full, as the case was with our

4 train when we returned back from the border to Ferizaj station. But in

5 other cases, the trains that went were full; when they returned, they were

6 empty.

7 JUDGE KWON: But also some empty trains did not make a stop at

8 Ferizaj station; am I right?

9 A. Yes. When they returned from Han i Elezit to Ferizaj, they were

10 empty. Sometimes they did not stop, from what I see in the log.

11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's continue. I think we were at the 1st of

13 March -- 1st of April, rather, 1st of April. How many trains were there

14 on the 1st of April?

15 A. On the 1st of April, there were seven trains.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Give us the breakdown as to the direction. How

17 many in the direction of the border, going to the border?

18 A. Four went to the border direction, three returned from Han i

19 Elezit.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: And is there an indication as to the capacity?

21 A. No, there isn't any indication as to the capacity. Unfortunately,

22 no such records are ever kept.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: 2nd of April.

24 A. On the 2nd of April, there were 13 trains.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And give us the breakdown as to the direction.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Seven in the direction of Han i Elezit and six in the opposite

2 direction, from the border to Fushe Kosove.

3 JUDGE MAY: Now, can you tell by looking at the log whether these

4 were regular or irregular trains?

5 A. On the basis of the number of the trains I see here, all these

6 trains were irregular trains, I mean not normal trains, and from the log,

7 not regular -- not a single regular train has run. All have been

8 irregular trains.

9 JUDGE MAY: Did they stop at Ferizaj or not?

10 A. On the 2nd of April, only train with number 14395 [as interpreted]

11 stopped. It came to Ferizaj at 6.08 and left at 15 [as interpreted]. The

12 other trains didn't stop.

13 JUDGE MAY: And how can you tell that they didn't stop?

14 A. I can tell from this arrow that you see here, which shows that it

15 has only passed through the station. The train that stops, you see a mark

16 the time when it has arrived, how long it has stopped, and when it has

17 left the station. So this train 4935 [as interpreted] has come at 6.08

18 and has left at 7.15. And you can see the same with other trains have not

19 stopped at Ferizaj, and we come at another train here that has stopped,

20 and so on.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And is the situation the same as to the capacity;

23 you are not able to say whether the trains were full on that day, the 2nd?

24 A. I didn't keep a diary for every day, but most of the time that I

25 was there, and I saw with my own eyes, the trains were full of people.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. On the 3rd, the last day now, the 3rd of

2 April, how many trains were there?

3 A. On the 3rd of April, there were 16 trains.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many in the direction of the border?

5 A. Seven towards the border.

6 JUDGE KWON: Isn't it 14? Could you count it again?

7 A. Yes, 14. You're right.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did they stop at Ferizaj?

9 A. Only the train number 37897 stopped at Ferizaj, and the other one

10 from the border stopped at 1456, 1458. The other trains didn't stop at

11 Ferizaj at all. There, at the bottom, you can see trains stopping at

12 Ferizaj, et cetera.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Were they regular trains?

14 A. No, none of them were regular trains.

15 JUDGE MAY: Did the trains normally stop at Ferizaj?

16 A. The Ferizaj station is one of the largest stations, and all major

17 trains, all international trains, always stopped in Ferizaj. All

18 passengers trains stopped, because it's one of the biggest stations in

19 Kosova.

20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Bucaliu, that concludes your evidence.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] One thing was not done, Your

22 Honours. These two statements that were made by the witness to the

23 investigator, they did not receive a number.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. They will be exhibited.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Witness statement dated 24, 25 April 1999, will be

1 Prosecution Exhibit 64, and the next one Prosecution Exhibit 65.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, what is it, Mr. Milosevic?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that I have the right to an

4 additional question with respect to what has been said so far after my

5 cross-examination, the re-examination. Do I have that right or not?

6 JUDGE MAY: No. No, you can't have another question. The only

7 question you could ask would arise from the questions which the Judges

8 ask. If you want to ask anything about the train timetable, you could.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only on the basis of what the Judges

10 asked; is that right?

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, about the train timetable.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] About what Judge Robinson asked.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can ask about.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We just heard the witness answer

15 that on the 25th, 26th 27th, 28th there were no trains and that on the

16 29th there was just one train which arrived at Urosevac and returned, went

17 back.

18 That means that for practically five days there was no

19 communication and traffic towards Djeneral Jankovic. And then the next

20 five days are taken, of which the first two days was regular traffic and

21 in the following three days, it was doubled. Now, if we make an average

22 for the first five days in which there was no traffic and the next five

23 days in which traffic was increased, can we note there that, on an

24 average, there was a regular number of trains running over a period of ten

25 days. Because if there are no trains five days, then it is quite normal

1 that over the next five days, traffic is increased. Can we draw that

2 observation? Can we take note of that? That is my question. Is that

3 what we are able to conclude?

4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that is a comment. The witness has

5 given his evidence about the number of trains and you can address us on it

6 and on the average.

7 Now, Mr. Bucaliu, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give

8 your evidence. You are free to go.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have --

10 JUDGE MAY: No more questions. No, Mr. Tapuskovic. The witness

11 has been here long enough and answered enough questions.

12 Yes. You're free to go.

13 Let the original of that document be given to the Court.

14 The witness can go.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

18 MR. NICE: Patrick Ball, please. The Chamber has his report. I

19 don't think it yet has his curriculum vitae. I'm not sure about that. It

20 has a supplement to his report, or an addendum.

21 Your Honour, I'm proposing to take the report shortly but to

22 explain it in terms that are comprehensible to non-experts, and I hope

23 that's an acceptable course.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge May.

25 JUDGE MAY: There is a way to address a Court, Mr. Tapuskovic,

1 which you should bear in mind. Yes. Let the Senior --

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.

3 JUDGE MAY: Let the Senior Legal Officer come up.

4 [Trial Chamber and Senior Legal Officer confer]

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge, I was on my feet. I

7 didn't think you saw me on my feet.

8 Before Patrick Ball comes in, as the amicus curiae, we decided to

9 set forth certain matters in respect of that. So my I please have several

10 minutes during which I can set forward some of our positions with respect

11 to --

12 JUDGE MAY: Just keep the witness out for a moment, please.

13 Yes?

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] What I want to say is the

15 following: We first of all have to clear up the status that the next

16 report entitled Killings and Refugee Flow in Kosovo, March to June 1999,

17 and it is dated the 3rd of January.

18 Patrick Ball has the status of an expert witness. Now, during

19 disclosure and all the addendums, the Prosecution refers to Rule 94 bis.

20 That means that it acts according to Rule 94 bis, and the report plus the

21 additions may be considered as expert evidence.

22 I agree with the President of the Chamber, presented two days ago,

23 that the report can be read and should be read by at least two members of

24 the amicus curiae. I read it on time. I have my assistant, and I have

25 become well-acquainted with the report when it was disclosed, since the

1 very beginning. However, that is not what I want to bring up here,

2 whether the amici have read the report or not or which language. But what

3 we're discussing here is the accused and his guaranteed minimum rights,

4 according to Article 21 of the Statute, and one of these rights is to

5 provide the accused enough time to prepare for his defence.

6 For the first time, the report of Mr. Ball, in the English

7 language, was served on the 18th of January, 2001, to both the accused and

8 the amicus curiae. This disclosure of the material and the report, with

9 some exceptions, was performed simultaneously. We took that. Then we

10 received another copy of that same report in English and became acquainted

11 with it. In its lists, the Prosecution, with respect to the order of

12 witnesses dated the 7th of February and the 8th of February, indicated to

13 us that the translation would be disclosed on the 18th of February 2002,

14 but it was disclosed three weeks late, exactly three weeks late.

15 The Rule is, Rule 94 bis and the amended Rule of the 20th of

16 December, 2001, when on the 6th of March when we were given an addition,

17 provides for the fact that expert witness reports should be disclosed

18 within a time limit prescribed by the Trial Chamber or by the Pre-Trial

19 Judge.

20 This Trial Chamber, on the 11th of January, issued an order

21 confirming the oral orders given from the pre-Status Conference on the 9th

22 of January, and it was decision number 4 or order number 4 which states

23 the following, and I'm going to read it out word-for-word:

24 "Written statements by all witnesses who are to testify in person

25 must be disclosed to the accused in a language which he understands before

1 the beginning of trial. The witness whose report has not been disclosed

2 in this way can be called exclusively with permission by the trial --

3 pre-trial Chamber."

4 That is what the order states. After a request made by the

5 Prosecution after the 18th of January, the Trial Chamber changed its order

6 of the 11th of January. Therefore, after that, at the request of the

7 Prosecution on the 18th of January, the Chamber changed its order dated

8 the 11th of January, extended the time limit for disclosure, and in point

9 3 of that order, of the order of your Trial Chamber, it states that the

10 accused and the amicus curiae should make maximum time of the time

11 disposal and prepare for cross-examination of these witnesses, although

12 the Trial Chamber, at the trial, will take into consideration all demands

13 and requests for deferring cross-examination because of insufficient time

14 for preparation. That was your own decision.

15 And the report of expert Ball is very complex. It requires

16 knowledge of the material in hand and methodology.

17 As the amicus curiae and the obligations entrusted to us, I wanted

18 to draw your attention to these circumstances to ensure a fair trial for

19 the accused, and we therefore consider the Trial Chamber should assess

20 whether disclosure was conducted in keeping with the Rules and Regulations

21 and whether it is in keeping with the time limits prescribed.

22 If the Trial Chamber decides that disclosure in the language

23 understood by the accused was done within the stipulated time limit, we

24 are of the opinion that the position of the accused set out on the 11th of

25 March towards the end of the day at trial, when he said he didn't have

1 enough time to prepare for this expert witness, namely Mr. Patrick Ball,

2 that there was reason enough to defer cross-examination as you yourself

3 provided for in your order dated the 21st of January, 2002.

4 Thank you. And I apologise, Judge May, for the misunderstanding a

5 moment ago. I really was on my feet because I didn't think you had seen

6 me standing.

7 Those, then, are our reasons and our position. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

9 MR. NICE: The report was disclosed in accordance with the Rules

10 in English on several occasions. It was on 18th of January first, on the

11 6th of March second. I can deal with the addendums and appendices and

12 matters of that sort which have different dates. The B/C/S was forecast

13 as being available at an earlier date than in the event CLSS were able to

14 provide, but it was certainly provided at the first available

15 opportunity. The material has been available for the accused to read by

16 himself or his associates, and in our respectful submission, the evidence

17 should be taken not just in chief with deferred cross-examination but in

18 full now.

19 What I propose to do is to go through, as I've already suggested,

20 the report in a way that will make its concepts understandable by the lay

21 observer, reader, or listener, and it may be that any question of

22 deferment could be considered at the end of the examination-in-chief.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE MAY: We'll hear the evidence in chief.

25 MR. NICE: The witness can come in, please.

1 It may be the Chamber, before the contribution from

2 Mr. Tapuskovic, was checking on the documents it had before it, which is

3 the report itself, and then there's the addendum, which is a three-page

4 document, I think, and the curriculum vitae, which I think you don't

5 have.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

7 WITNESS: PATRICK BALL

8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. If you'd like to take a seat.

11 Examined by Mr. Nice:

12 Q. Full name, please.

13 A. My name is Patrick Ball.

14 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I propose, rather than going slavishly

15 through a curriculum vitae, with the Court's leave to produce as an

16 exhibit his curriculum vitae, simply to ask him a couple of questions

17 about his background, if that would be acceptable.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 MR. NICE: Curriculum vitae, then.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 66.

21 MR. NICE:

22 Q. Dr. Ball, you, I think, have university degrees, ultimately a

23 Ph.D. in Sociology.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Sociology, including matters of statistics?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Have you, in the course of passing those various exams, which are

3 set out in the curriculum vitae, used statistics?

4 A. Yes, quite a bit.

5 Q. And for the last how many years have you been full-time engaged in

6 working as a statistician?

7 A. Full time since 1997, I think all of my work has been quantitative

8 and analytical. Quite a bit before that, but not full time.

9 Q. Have you, for some years, focused on human rights events and the

10 application of disciplines of sociology and, in particular, statistics, to

11 those events?

12 A. Yes, since 1991.

13 Q. And so if we look - and this comes on the fourth and fifth pages,

14 I think, of your curriculum vitae, fifth and sixth - working in reverse

15 order, have you worked on projects in Sri Lanka; Kosovo; Guatemala; South

16 Africa, for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; Haiti; Guatemala

17 again; Ethiopia, two projects, I think; and El Salvador?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Dr. Ball, in the course of working for human rights events as a

20 statistician, did you develop something of a relationship with the

21 organisation Human Rights Watch?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. And did you find yourself lecturing them or addressing courses in

24 some way from time to time?

25 A. I give talks at Human Rights Watch offices in New York and

1 Washington, yes.

2 Q. And in the course of your lectures to them, did you focus on

3 something, perhaps a bit of an obsession or a bee in your bonnet?

4 A. I often spoke about the difficulty of understanding a massive

5 phenomenon with purely qualitative methods; that is, if the human rights

6 event being studied has more people involved than you can easily

7 interview, then perhaps statistical methods would assist an understanding

8 of.

9 Q. And does that explain how you first became involved in the Kosovo

10 project --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- at least for the preparation of this report?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did Human Rights Watch get in touch with you in April of 1999?

15 A. First in March of 1999.

16 Q. March of 1999.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Inviting you to do what and to go where?

19 A. They asked me to assist them in the field, perhaps to design my

20 own project, not a Human Rights Watch project, but they saw the need for a

21 project like the ones I had done in the other countries you had listed.

22 So they invited me to accompany them to Albania to design such a project.

23 Q. I'm going to remember, Dr. Ball, to leave a gap between your

24 answer and my question, because as we are speaking the same language,

25 there's the risk that we will overtax the interpreters otherwise.

1 A. Understood.

2 Q. Did you go to Kosovo, and in particular, to a border point in the

3 south-west?

4 A. I went to Albania, actually, and --

5 Q. Sorry, yes, to Albania.

6 A. Yes. And then to a border point in northern Albania.

7 Q. Which is on the south-west of Kosovo?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. When there, did you notice something about the method or methods

10 of recording events that was going on?

11 A. Yes. There were two methods by which refugees were being counted

12 as they crossed the border from Kosovo into Albania.

13 Q. Two different methods, being what?

14 A. The first were registries prepared by the Albanian border guards.

15 They had developed a form on which they attempted to register the name, or

16 the surname, the year of birth, the place of residence or location, and

17 the quantity of each party or group that crossed the border from Kosovo

18 into Albania. That was the first method.

19 Q. The second?

20 A. The second were teams of observers from UNHCR and the OSCE, or

21 former OSCE mission in Kosovo, who maintained head counts with mechanical

22 hand-held counters that they reported to UNHCR, I believe in Kukes, the

23 Albanian town some distance from the border, a few kilometres, and then

24 those were recorded in daily press reports in Tirana.

25 Q. To a statistician, is there any significance or value in matters

1 being recorded not in one way but in two or more?

2 A. Yes. Having two measurements of the same thing is enormously

3 valuable because we can compare the two and determine how they might

4 differ, and then if they differ, which might be more important, reliable,

5 or sound.

6 Q. And I'll take the story comparatively swiftly and then get to the

7 report. Did you return to America to seek initial funding for a project

8 and did you obtain funding from, I think, the Ford Foundation?

9 A. Yes. I returned to America --

10 Q. If it's yes, yes will do.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I'll deal with how you obtained some of the records, in any event,

13 when you were back at the border crossing shortly, but I just want to

14 conclude the question of funding. Were there earlier publications by you

15 or by you and others in relation to the work you did, publicly available?

16 A. Earlier than the current report.

17 Q. Yes, earlier than this report.

18 A. Yes. There were two.

19 Q. Were they funded by the Ford Foundation or were they funded by the

20 second funder, to whom we'll turn?

21 A. The first report, entitled "Policy or Panic?" was published in

22 March of 2000 and was funded by the Ford Foundation and the John D. and

23 Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Institute for Civil Society, all

24 American private foundations.

25 The second report, published in September of 2000, entitled

1 "Political Killings in Kosovo," was published with the American Bar

2 Association and Central and East European Law Initiative, and it was

3 funded by funds provided to ABA/CEELI by the US government.

4 Q. And is that the funding that leads to the report that's before

5 this Court --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- today?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you make any presentations to the United States funders?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. One or more than one?

12 A. I made one presentation in July 2001.

13 Q. Did you have any further contact with the United States funders

14 other than that?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Let's go back, then, to your return to the border once you had

17 started the process of obtaining funding for the project, and you can deal

18 with this very shortly, I think. Did there come a time when it was not

19 possible to go with safety to the border point, where you believe records

20 to have been?

21 A. Yes. When I returned to the border in early June 1999, the border

22 post had been fired upon a few days previously. A journalist had been

23 seriously hurt and the border guards decided to withdraw several hundred

24 metres into Albania, to a point where they believed they would be safe.

25 Q. To cut this long story short, I think you believe the records to

1 be in the border post, or some of them.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Eventually you went to the border post yourself.

4 A. Yes, I did, personally.

5 Q. With an accompanying guard. Did you find some records?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. Which type of records did you find? Did you find the first type

8 or the second type that resulted from the clickers?

9 A. I found the border guards' registry forms.

10 Q. And did you gather those up --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- bring them back, and use them as part of your source material?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Before we now move to the report itself, at that early stage, was

15 there any divergence between the total numbers of people moving that you

16 can tell us about at that post?

17 A. Divergence --?

18 Q. In numbers, at that early stage.

19 A. After we had obtained the records and keyed them into a database,

20 we looked at the number of people reported each day crossing the border

21 and compared the numbers reported by UNHCR to the numbers reported by the

22 border guards.

23 Q. So this is right at the beginning, raw material?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did the figures differ, and if so, what was each?

1 A. They differed on some days, and all of the days on which they

2 differed were days of very heavy flow over the border. And in every

3 difference, the registries by the border guards were fewer; they were

4 smaller numbers than the UNHCR figures.

5 Q. And the two different figures were?

6 A. The total figures that there were 272.000 people registered by the

7 border guards, and four hundred, four thousand [sic] people registered in

8 the UNHCR daily counts reported in their daily press reports.

9 Q. So the clickers reported more than the handwritten records?

10 A. That's correct.

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that the report that has

12 already been made available should become an exhibit, and I'm proposing in

13 due course that we might use a version of the report which I've got here,

14 page by page laid on the overhead projector so that those listening and

15 watching can understand the points we're making. But first of all, may

16 the report become an exhibit, Exhibit 67.

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

18 MR. NICE: I'm afraid not every page is numbered, because the

19 first thing I want to look at, very briefly, is the Scholarly Review

20 Panel, which comes two pages after the last numbered page, page 69.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 67.

22 MR. NICE: And if the usher would be so good, what we can do with

23 our loose-leafed version is make available to the usher - it might be

24 easier that way - pages to which I'm referring, and then he can display

25 them. It's two pages after 69, the Scholarly Review Panel. If that could

1 just go on the ELMO, please, the overhead projector.

2 Q. You'll see that on the screen in front of you. Did you, in

3 accordance with -- well, you must tell us if it's in accordance with

4 practice. Did you submit drafts of the report that's been produced to a

5 scholarly review panel?

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. Is that standard practice for reports of this general kind or not?

8 A. This is a bit more rigorous than reports submitted to non-expert

9 groups. Things that are published in professional journals are reviewed

10 according to a standard and formal process. Since we were submitting this

11 to the Office of the Prosecutor, we had to create a panel of reviewers who

12 could give this equally rigorous review.

13 Q. Did they review it on two occasions?

14 A. They did.

15 Q. At each review, did you receive advice as to further steps to be

16 taken, further elements to be introduced into the report?

17 A. That's correct, yes.

18 Q. And we see listed various names: Dr. Helge Brunborg, Dr. Ronald

19 Lee, and Dr. Francoise Seillier-Moiseiwitsch, the first three. Do any of

20 those occupy particularly senior positions in the world of statistics?

21 A. I consider that all three of them occupy senior positions.

22 Dr. Brunborg formerly worked for the Office of the Prosecutor here and is

23 very well regarded in international demography, in addition to his --

24 Q. Well, that's enough for these purposes. Dr. Ronald Lee?

25 A. Was formerly President of the Population Association of America,

1 the Professional Association of Demographers in the United States.

2 Q. And then Dr. Francoise Seillier-Moiseiwitsch?

3 A. She is the chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American

4 Statistical Association.

5 Q. Well, that's all I need to ask. Others can ask about other names

6 if necessary. Just this: At any stage in the review process, did you

7 either reject the advice you were given by the panel or did the panel ever

8 challenge your conclusions as unacceptable or in any doubt?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Is that no to both?

11 A. That's no to both. That's correct.

12 Q. Thank you. Now let's go to the report.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

14 MR. NICE: Yes.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Earlier the witness said that since he was

16 submitting the report to the Office of the Prosecutor, I wanted to find

17 out whether the report was commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor or

18 whether it was done independently and then submitted.

19 MR. NICE:

20 Q. Can you give us the history of that? You've already told us that

21 your earlier two reports or the two earlier reports with which you were

22 associated were published publicly. Just explain how it was that you were

23 involved with the Office of the Prosecutor.

24 A. After I completed each of the previous two reports, before they

25 were made public, I came to The Hague and gave brief presentations to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 people here at the Tribunal, covering the basic findings of the report.

2 On that basis, I was asked by people in the Office of the Prosecutor if

3 this evidence would be sufficient to go -- to bring before the Court, and

4 I answered that, in order to bring it before the Court, it should be done

5 with additional data and in an even more rigorous fashion.

6 They assisted me, negotiating with the Organisation for Security

7 and Cooperation in Europe for a third source of information, and they

8 provided me, the Office of the Prosecutor provided me with a database of

9 exhumation records based on the fieldwork of the exhumation teams.

10 At no time did the Office of the Prosecutor suggest findings or

11 suggest what I should conclude. They did ask me to do this with the

12 highest scientific standards, and they emphasised the importance of that.

13 MR. NICE: We're going to see some of these matters reflected at

14 two places in the evidence in the course of the morning or the early

15 afternoon.

16 Q. Before we turn to looking at particular pages of the report and in

17 order to have exhibits in good order, can we produce one exhibit that's

18 outside the report, which is an example of the record you took from the

19 border crossing point, which I think was Morina, wasn't it?

20 A. Yes.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 68.

22 MR. NICE: Thank you. Which I think has a translation with it.

23 If the original can go onto the overhead projector. And the -- if the

24 original could go onto the overhead projector - thank you very much -

25 briefly so those viewing can see it. And then having been viewed, if the

1 original can go -- well, no. We can now look at the translation, putting

2 that on the overhead projector in English.

3 Q. Can you just tell us, please, Dr. Ball, what this particular page

4 is.

5 A. This is one of the 690 pages that I recovered from the border post

6 at Morina.

7 Q. And it shows, in respect of individuals, their name, their address

8 - that is the address from which they had come - their year of birth, and

9 what does the last column help us with? Do you know?

10 A. That's the total number of people in their group that crossed the

11 border with them. Only the name of the head of household or head of the

12 party was registered.

13 Q. So that name number one from Suhareke, 27 people in that party, is

14 that what you're saying? It says "Tool type" I see on the translation,

15 but --

16 A. I don't think it's "Tool type." Yes, that's what it means.

17 Q. Thank you. I think it will be helpful if we go first of all to a

18 first graph which we can find on page 5 of the report, and then we'll come

19 back a few pages to fill in a few blanks, but let's go to page 5 first of

20 all.

21 MR. NICE: We have both text and the graph, but I'd like the unit,

22 if it can, to focus on the graph, please. Thank you.

23 Q. This is one of many graphs that we're going to be looking at.

24 This is -- or several, not many. This is an "Estimated total refugee flow

25 over time," and in the vertical axis it's "People leaving their homes,"

1 and we can see the dates concerned moving along the bottom. Yes.

2 Now, this particular graph, was this a graph simply drawn from the

3 raw material that you were able to collect? We'll discover what sources

4 of raw material you had in due course, but yes or no, was this a graph

5 that was provided from raw material?

6 A. No.

7 Q. All right. What was it, then?

8 A. The raw material consisted of the border records we discussed

9 earlier, supplemented by the UNHCR reports and a number of other smaller

10 sources.

11 Q. Yes. Am I or am I not using the word "raw material" correctly?

12 You had other sources.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. We'll identify them in due course. Having various sources of

15 material, you then read from the material whether someone's left their

16 home in the period 24th of March, 25th of March, 26th of March, and so

17 on.

18 A. Uh-huh.

19 Q. You total up the figures from all sources, making such allowances

20 for duplication as you have to, and then you've got this particular

21 graph.

22 A. We also corrected for the time it takes people to travel to the

23 border --

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. -- from their homes.

1 Q. We'll come to all those details in a minute. Yes.

2 A. With that clarification, yes.

3 Q. Right. To a statistician and perhaps to anybody, is there a

4 characteristic in this particular graph?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Namely?

7 A. There seem to be three quite distinct phases or points at which

8 refugee flow is high. First, the flow rises to high points during late

9 March and early April. Then this declines to a relatively much lower

10 point. It rises again to a peak in mid-April, subsequently declining to a

11 low point in later April. Then toward the end of April and early May, it

12 rises in a series of small peaks, finally declining toward near zero for

13 the remainder of the period.

14 Q. So three peaks, as it were, and two troughs?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. We're going to see something similar in other graphs a little

17 later, but immediately what does that shape suggest when contrasted with,

18 for example, the possible assertion that there was a constant cause

19 causing people to become refugees in the way suggested by the line?

20 A. This pattern would not be characteristic of a constant cause. The

21 stop-and-start pattern of the peaks and troughs suggests more strongly a

22 cause that itself started and stopped.

23 Q. Well, again we'll break this down in due course into a little bit

24 more detail, but did you from some stage then in the project, once you

25 became aware of these peaks and troughs, consider three possibilities as

1 causes or possible causes for peaks and indeed troughs?

2 A. Having seen this graph and others with this characteristic pattern

3 of peaks and troughs, we concluded that there must be some cause.

4 Accordingly, we considered three possible causes that might account for

5 this peak and trough pattern.

6 Q. Namely?

7 A. Those were, first, that KLA activity, in particular clashes with

8 Serb forces, could be a cause; second, that NATO airstrikes might have

9 been a cause; and third, that Yugoslav force activity might have been a

10 cause.

11 Q. At the end of the exercise, when we reach your conclusions, in

12 general - just yes or no - is it possible to identify causes or is it more

13 the scope of the statistician in this sort of work to consider what causes

14 may be excluded?

15 A. The methods we used test hypotheses. Each of the three causes I

16 proposed, we treated as a hypothesis. The methods allow us to reject

17 hypotheses or to find that data are consistent with a hypothesis; however,

18 the matters do not allow us to prove a hypothesis.

19 Q. With that overview of what you found yourself engaged in and the

20 scope of the statistician's skill, range of his potential skill as applied

21 in this case, can we now go back, please, to page 3. There are one or two

22 things I wanted to clarify in the report, and it will be helpful to have

23 those pages on the overhead projector so that people can follow what I'm

24 asking about.

25 And "Data and analysis," paragraph 1.2, you set out, as we already

1 know, that you went to Morina, which is the one border point in the

2 south-west of Kosovo, north of Albania.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Could one border point be sufficient? What's your comment on

5 that?

6 A. This border point could be sufficient because, according to the

7 available data, I believe that more than half of all Kosovar Albanians who

8 left Kosovo did so through this point. In the report mentioned earlier

9 that looks specifically at refugee flow, we found that all the other

10 evidence available from other border points in Albania as well as the

11 border points in Macedonia and data from Bosnia, Kosovars who went to

12 Bosnia, suggest that their movement patterns and departure patterns were

13 substantially similar to the patterns found among refugees who entered

14 Albania.

15 So, yes, I believe these data are sufficient for these

16 conclusions.

17 Q. The second bullet point of the same paragraph turns from the

18 material you had in respect of refugee flow to the data you had in respect

19 of killings, because as we're going to discover, you were looking at

20 simultaneously -- not simultaneously. In the course of your work, you

21 were looking both at refugee flow and at killings.

22 Set out there and just run through for us the sources of

23 information you had to tell you when, where, and whatever else you knew

24 about killings.

25 A. We learned about killings from interviews conducted by the

1 American Bar Association, Central and East European Law Initiative, and

2 their partners, interviews that they conducted, as well as interviews

3 conducted by Human Rights Watch and interviews conducted by the

4 Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We --

5 Q. So that - just pausing - are three, as it were, narrative

6 records.

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Right. And then you had a fourth record or fourth source.

9 A. Yes. And those were the exhumation records of the exhumations

10 conducted by international teams on behalf of the Tribunal.

11 Q. So you did not have and therefore did not rely on witness

12 statements of the ICTY, OTP?

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. You did h