1 Wednesday, 24 July 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can have up to one hour and a half,

7 if you require it, to cross-examine this witness.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I move on to the

9 cross-examination, Mr. May, I would just like to note something that is

10 quite obvious. The last two witnesses were the witnesses whose

11 examination was the slowest since the very beginning, obviously with the

12 intention of using up time, and you could see that for yourself. And for

13 reasons that will become more obvious later --

14 JUDGE MAY: No. This is not a proper point. They were witnesses

15 who required some careful examination. This is important evidence. And

16 there was no question of time wasting. If there was, we would have

17 stopped it. Now, let's move on.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is why I did object, because

19 you usually object to what I do. We heard questions for ten minutes about

20 the licence plates on the truck, which was so relevant.

21 WITNESS: BOSKO RADOJKOVIC [Resumed]

22 [Witness answered through interpreter]

23 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Radojkovic, in June 2002, you gave statements

25 to the investigator of the OTP; is that right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What is your health like now?

3 A. Fine.

4 Q. How good was your health at that time, on the 1st and 3rd of June

5 when you gave your statement to the investigators of The Hague Tribunal?

6 A. I was fine.

7 Q. Is it true that when speaking to the working group of the MUP you

8 gave your statement practically from a hospital bed at the medical centre

9 in Kladovo?

10 A. Yes, in hospital, but in a proper room for that kind of an

11 interview.

12 Q. Why were you in hospital then?

13 A. I had some ailments in my chest. My blood pressure was a bit up.

14 That was it.

15 Q. In the note, it is mentioned that you had had an apoplexy. When

16 did you have an apoplexy, the one you mentioned to the working group?

17 A. In 1985. It was the doctor who mentioned it, not me.

18 Q. And the statement that you gave to the working group was on the

19 14th of May, 2001; is that right?

20 A. Yes. That's when they talked to me, when they interviewed me.

21 Q. Was that one interview or several interviews?

22 A. Yes. There was one interview in Kladovo.

23 Q. Were there any other interviews apart from that one?

24 A. A few days later, in the ministry in Belgrade.

25 Q. So they asked you to come to the ministry in Belgrade to have

1 these other interviews; is that right?

2 A. No. I asked for it. I asked to have an interview in Belgrade as

3 well.

4 Q. And which were the members of the working group who talked to you

5 on the 14th in Kladovo and which members talked to you in Belgrade?

6 A. In Kladovo there were three members of the working group. One of

7 them was Captain Karleusa. The other two men, I can't remember their

8 names now, but they're still at the MUP.

9 Q. Tell me, in Belgrade, were they the same interlocutors or did you

10 talk only to one of them?

11 A. No. All three were there. Perhaps at one point Mr. Karleusa went

12 out. For about ten minutes or so he was absent.

13 Q. In that conversation was there a tape recorder there? Was it tape

14 recorded or did they only take notes about the interview with you?

15 A. No, they only took notes.

16 Q. Did you -- when you talked at the medical centre and the physician

17 in charge who gave his approval for you to be heard, was he present or

18 not?

19 A. No, he was not present.

20 Q. As mentioned in the Official Note of the working group, on page 5,

21 paragraph 3 of the Official Note, when you speak about the mining of the

22 refrigerator truck, you said: "I finished that and I went to hospital."

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Why did you go to hospital then?

25 A. That was in 1999, in April. I didn't sleep on the 13th, for three

1 days, and I was exhausted. My biorhythm probably went wrong so I went to

2 see a doctor, a specialist in internal medicine, and he gave me some

3 tranquiliser injections so I could fall asleep.

4 Q. Who were the doctors who treated you?

5 A. The specialist in internal medicine was Dr. Misa - I can't

6 remember his last name now. He's an experienced doctor.

7 Q. Are they the same doctors who gave their approval to have an

8 interview conducted with you on the premises of the medical centre for you

9 to talk to the members of the working group?

10 A. No. Approval was given by Dr. Rzogic, a specialist neurosurgeon,

11 the one who treated me in 1985 for this minor apoplexy. There was a

12 surgeon, Dr. Mitrovic, and there was Dr. Sinisa, who was director of the

13 hospital.

14 Q. Not at a single point in your statement that you gave to the

15 investigators of this institution here you do not mention that immediately

16 after that event that you say occurred in April 1999 you went to hospital.

17 Why did you not mention that?

18 A. When the investigators of the Tribunal at the ministry of Serbia

19 in Belgrade presented the official notes to me that were compiled by the

20 working group on the basis of the interviews that were conducted with me

21 in 2001, I was surprised. I wondered how come they had it, but I realised

22 that that was it. So I didn't really repeat anything from the statement

23 to them. And I said yes, that is the core of the matter. So my statement

24 given to the investigators is very brief because I go by what I said to

25 the working group of the Ministry of the Interior, with just a small

1 reservation.

2 Q. As for this reservation, I saw that in the note it says in your

3 statement that some of the corpses wore KLA uniforms, and then you

4 corrected that. Is that right? Was it something like that?

5 A. No, Mr. Milosevic. I never stated that in the refrigerator truck

6 there were corpses with KLA uniforms or any other type of uniforms that

7 the KLA used in Kosovo. But a document was presented to me. I think that

8 it was a summary or something, or this was the statement of Mr. Karleusa

9 where he mentioned that in the refrigerator truck there were some KLA

10 uniforms. However, I corrected that. I said no, there were no KLA

11 uniforms. There was a confusion with another case. That is what

12 Mr. Karleusa got wrong.

13 Q. Oh. So it was Karleusa, not you who said in your statement that

14 there were KLA uniforms, and you corrected that statement, going by what

15 you think that you saw; is that right?

16 A. Yes. Except that I'm not sure whether it's the statement of

17 Mr. Karleusa or whether it's some kind of a report. At any rate, it was

18 mentioned that in the refrigerator truck there were KLA uniforms, and that

19 is not correct.

20 Q. If Karleusa did not include this in the report, who could have

21 included it in the report?

22 A. I really don't know. If I were to see this document where this is

23 mentioned, that there were KLA uniforms there on the corpses in the

24 refrigerator truck, then we would certainly see who wrote that because I

25 really cannot assert anything now.

1 Q. In your statement to the working group, you say that as for the

2 refrigerator truck that was protruding from the Danube, you found out

3 about it on the 5th of April, 1999, during the NATO aggression; is that

4 right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And then you went to the scene and you saw the truck. The next

7 day when you came, did you see any changes on it or did you see the same

8 thing?

9 A. The same thing that I saw on the 5th of April.

10 Q. Do you know that according to the testimony of some people who saw

11 the refrigerator truck fall - and there are about ten of them - they claim

12 that the refrigerator truck fell into the water, and it was a one and a

13 half tonne truck and the one in the picture is five or six tonnes, as far

14 as I can see. Is that story of theirs correct, that there was perhaps a

15 bit of confusion or something like that, something that you could point

16 to? Did anything look suspicious to you when you came there?

17 A. No. I didn't hear these comments. As for this refrigerator truck

18 that I have been referring to, it was a seven and a half tonne truck.

19 Q. All right. You gave this set of photographs here that you took.

20 A. Yes. I gave the negatives.

21 Q. But I assume that when the prints were developed, that you

22 recognised them as those that you had taken; is that right?

23 A. No -- yes.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. It was an

25 interpreter's mistake. The witness said, "Yes."

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. I have a few questions to put to you. Are they in the same order

3 that you took them in?

4 A. I don't know which order you have there in your hands.

5 Q. It's the way they've been stapled together. Why don't you look at

6 it yourself.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please have this given to

8 the witness, and I would like them to be placed on the overhead projector

9 so that I could ask him something.

10 JUDGE MAY: This is first of the photographs, is it?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The whole set of photographs.

12 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have the set.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Can you compare that to the set you got. I imagine that you did

15 not change the order in your own set. Is that the right order?

16 JUDGE MAY: They should be numbered in the top right-hand corner

17 in each case.

18 Are those the photographs, Mr. Radojkovic? Do you recognise them?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, those are the photographs.

20 JUDGE MAY: If you would put them on the overhead projector,

21 please.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please give me a copy of

23 these photographs. Could you give me a copy of the photographs because I

24 would like to put some questions to Mr. Radojkovic.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Please look at photograph number 1, for instance. You can see an

2 opening there on the back of the truck, and the door is broken along the

3 right edge. And then on photograph number 2, that can be seen as well.

4 It is closer up, isn't it?

5 Perhaps it's a deformed triangle. That's the best way to put it.

6 Or, for example, like a big arrow head. So it's the entire right side

7 that is ripped; is that right? Please look at photographs number 1 and

8 number 2.

9 A. Yes. But what has to be disregarded is the reflection of the

10 truck on the water, because the weather was very fine.

11 Q. I'm not taking that into account at all. I'm just looking on the

12 -- I'm looking at the right edge of the right door, the very edge of the

13 box that is ripped, and there is a triangular shape that is present on

14 both photographs 1 and 2.

15 As for the other photographs that we will be looking at, for

16 example, photograph 3, then photograph 4 -- I don't know where else it can

17 be seen, the back of the truck. Here. This photograph is number 6135.

18 That's the number. K022.

19 This ripped edge cannot be seen here at all. Look. This is the

20 photograph here.

21 JUDGE MAY: Now, wait a moment. Let the witness deal with it.

22 You're being asked, Mr. Radojkovic, about the rear, and taking

23 photographs 2 and 3, you can see the rip in the rear, and then it's said

24 if you look at photograph number 10 or 9, 8 -- 7, 8, and 9, the rear

25 appears to be different.

1 Now, you gave evidence about this yesterday, but perhaps you would

2 repeat to us how it comes about that there's a rip in the first two

3 photographs but not in the others.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The rip in the truck, the back of

5 the truck, that's photograph number 1, yes. And then photograph number 2,

6 number 3.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Please show photographs 1 and 2 on the ELMO so that we can see

9 what we're talking about. Number 1 and number 2.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please

11 speak into the microphone.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This darker part here, is that the

13 rip that you're referring to?

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's the rip. That's what he's talking about.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. As far as I can see, that is a rip in the back door by the right

17 edge in the back of the truck. Is that right?

18 A. Precisely.

19 Q. On photograph number 2, it can be seen even better.

20 A. The closer the truck gets to the bank, the closer up the

21 photographs are.

22 Q. The rip can be seen on the right edge of the truck; isn't that

23 right?

24 A. Yes, towards the middle.

25 Q. The protrusion moves towards the middle then; right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Photograph number 2, and then this rip moves along the right-hand

3 side of the truck. Already on the other photographs, no rip can be seen

4 on the right edge.

5 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Which photographs are you referring to

6 without the rip?

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the very next one, Mr. May. Then

8 take the last one. Take the one but last. Take the one before the one

9 but last. Take a few photographs from the other end and you will see that

10 there's not a rip on a single one of them on the right-hand side of the

11 rear of the truck.

12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's deal with this in an orderly fashion. The

13 photographs being referred to are 8, 9, and 10. Let's put those on the

14 ELMO.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I assume that you have them

16 in front of you. It's so obvious, isn't it?

17 JUDGE MAY: I do, but I thought you wanted people to see them.

18 Anyway, they should. Yes, 8, 9 and 10.

19 Now, then, Mr. Radojkovic, would you answer please now the point

20 that I made earlier. You gave an explanation yesterday but would you

21 repeat it so the accused can hear it: How does it come about that there

22 is a rip in the first few photographs but none in the second?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On photographs 8, 9, and 10, there

24 is no writing on the door either. The inscription that was on the truck,

25 that is to say --

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 JUDGE MAY: Don't worry about that.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is to say that I took those

3 photographs after I had done some work on the truck. That is to say, when

4 I closed up that rip also, when I pushed in the two legs and arms, and

5 when I closed it.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. All right, Mr. Radojkovic. If you did these photographs -- if you

8 made these photographs after the work you did on the truck, let us

9 disregard them. Let us then look at the first two photographs or, rather,

10 since the first one is somewhat smaller and the other is a close-up, let's

11 look at photograph number 2. Photograph number 2. Could you please put

12 it on the ELMO.

13 This one doesn't work. Sometimes it does work, sometimes it

14 doesn't work. Oh, it works now.

15 So could you please put photograph number 2 now. Can it be seen

16 quite properly and vertically on the right-hand edge of the back of the

17 truck there is a rip and then towards the middle of the right-hand side of

18 the door it is there in the shape of an arrow; is that correct?

19 A. I agree.

20 Q. Now, where is that rip on the next photograph, on photograph

21 number 3? On photograph number 3, there is no such rip. It should be

22 here, here where you're holding the pointer, as far as I can see. On that

23 side. On that side, on the previous photograph, there is a rip. On this

24 side on this photograph, it's quite different. It's a completely

25 regularly shaped rip. Oh, this went off on my monitor. Oh, all right.

1 So are you sure it's the same truck?

2 A. Yes, yes, Mr. Milosevic, quite sure.

3 Q. How do you then explain this kind of difference in terms of the

4 place where the rip is and also in the shape of the rip between

5 photographs 2 and 3?

6 A. I explained that yesterday. While the truck was being pulled out

7 of the water, Zivadin Djordjevic, a diver, was in the water all the time.

8 He wore his diving outfit. He was trying to get the wheels straight. He

9 was doing his best in order to pull the truck out. He informed me that

10 there was something that was protruding out of the truck, and since I was

11 wearing normal clothes - I mean, I had gone to work - it was very deep

12 there so I could not get in. But as the truck was getting out, I mean he

13 kept trying to close this as much as he could.

14 Secondly, what you can see here on photograph 3, on the upper

15 part, this sort of flat thing, that is part of the back of the door.

16 There is -- there is some kind of wood there on the back of the door.

17 Q. Let's not waste any time, Mr. Radojkovic. I'm not asking you

18 about diver's outfits or any such thing.

19 JUDGE MAY: No. But you have raised a point about this rip and

20 the witness must be able to finish his explanation about it.

21 Now, is there anything more you wanted to say?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a bit embarrassed that this is

23 being brought into question now. I would kindly ask the Court to ask the

24 Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade for the original of the negative.

25 They have it.

1 JUDGE MAY: Don't be embarrassed. No need at all.

2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Radojkovic, you earlier said that the picture

3 number 3 was taken before you did something on the truck. Please take a

4 look at number 9. Could you take a look at picture number 9. Do you

5 think the image, number 3 and number 9, look similar? Which is suggested.

6 Picture number 3 was taken after you did some repair job on the truck; is

7 that right?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Number 3 was certainly not

9 taken before this opening was closed. After all, the negative would show

10 everything.

11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, please go on.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to say that it's open to the Prosecution to

13 provide any evidence that it wishes in rebuttal in relation to this point.

14 JUDGE MAY: We've got no interpretation.

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear anything until

16 right now.

17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters didn't hear what you

18 said. But if it was argument about this point, let's try and move on.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, what I was saying was that

20 I'm using materials that you presented -- or, rather, that the other side

21 presented. These are these photographs. And I believe it is quite

22 logical for me to ask for an explanation of an obvious difference in the

23 damage on the back side of the truck that can be seen in photographs 2 and

24 3 respectively. You believe that the witness did answer these questions,

25 and now I have further questions.

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, on this photograph number 3, can it be seen that

3 you had already removed the chain and padlock and that the refrigerator

4 truck was practically open; is that right?

5 A. No. Photograph 3 does not show that. The chain and the padlock

6 are still there.

7 Q. Please, where are the chain and padlock on photograph number 3?

8 A. I don't know if we're looking at the same photograph.

9 Q. It's the third one. It's this one up here.

10 A. Yes, yes here. In the upper part, at the end of the white thing.

11 Here it is, the chain and the padlock. It's a thin chain. It is thinner

12 than my small finger. See, up here. That is where the chain is and the

13 padlock. On the original photographs, this can be seen a bit better,

14 because the padlock happened to be turned to the back side so you could

15 really see it quite properly.

16 JUDGE MAY: If you look at the next photograph, 4, you have it

17 more clearly. Is that it?

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. All right. Tell me, please, was it on the first day that you

20 opened this with an instrument?

21 A. No, not on the first day. On the 5th of April it was noticed, and

22 the 6th of April it was removed -- moved out to such a distance that we

23 could open it.

24 Q. Did you continue making photographs then? You said you made a

25 part of the photographs on the 5th and a part on the 6th.

1 A. Right. Right.

2 Q. Now, give me answer to a very important question. How come that

3 when you opened this refrigerator lorry and saw the bodies, here in your

4 statement, it says: "It is my job to investigate crime scenes, to

5 establish what happened. It was my job also to secure potential evidence

6 and investigate all kinds of crimes starting with burglaries and up to

7 murders. I was also trained as a police scene-of-crime photographer.

8 That is also my responsibility."

9 So you are a qualified crime investigation inspector, photograph,

10 and so on. You opened the door. How come you didn't make a single

11 photograph of the corpses inside?

12 A. Yes, I opened the door. It is two doors, actually, a double door.

13 There were 30 people operating the cranes around me. There were some

14 people near the village of Tekija who were, it is true, at a certain

15 distance on the road and near the edge of the woods. So I thought they

16 could see it. I opened the door and immediately closed it. It didn't

17 matter, because the corpses weren't going anywhere. I could come back in

18 an hour or two and open the door again.

19 Q. Please. Yesterday when you said you returned on the second day -

20 and I believe it was Judge Kwon who asked you, but I'm not sure - what

21 time it was, you said between 12 and 1300 or perhaps a little later.

22 Between 12 and 1300 hours is a very good time for taking photographs. As

23 you said you could do it in an hour or two, why didn't you? I assume that

24 you were able to photograph the bodies that you had found inside.

25 A. Yes, I was able, but the investigating judge had to come, the

1 public prosecutor had to come. By that time, I just informed them of the

2 contents. And the investigating judge said he didn't even want to look;

3 it was in the jurisdiction of the District Court. So I went to see my

4 boss and tell him what had been found in the refrigerator lorry.

5 It is a big job. It surpasses my abilities or the abilities of

6 the police station where I work.

7 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, you are a qualified police inspector, and you know

8 very well that evidence has to be collected from the scene of the crime

9 immediately, without delay. The scene of the crime is photographed

10 immediately, and all the clues are gathered without delay. How come you

11 didn't make a single photograph of the bodies?

12 A. I will explain, Mr. Milosevic. When Tomislav Milojkovic,

13 president of the District Court in Kladovo at the time, the investigating

14 judge, stated that it was not within his competence, the district public

15 prosecutor was invited to come from Negotin, and it was agreed that the

16 public prosecutor from Negotin and the investigating judge should come,

17 and once they come and gave me orders to take photographs, I would have

18 done it, but I didn't get such instructions.

19 Q. So are you saying that until the investigating judge comes, the

20 scene-of-crime officers are not allowed to take photographs of the scene

21 and collect evidence that would later help establish facts? You are not

22 going to tell me that without the permission of the investigating judge

23 you cannot photograph the place.

24 A. Under the law on criminal procedure that applied at the moment,

25 the police was able to do that. According to the new law, they can't even

1 do that.

2 Q. You have been an inspector for a long time, for many years. You

3 had a camera with you. You made pictures of the refrigerator lorry. The

4 point of this whole story are the corpses, and we can't see the corpses

5 anywhere. How is that possible? How is it possible that you didn't make

6 a single photograph of the corpses?

7 A. I didn't. There aren't any.

8 JUDGE MAY: He has answered that now twice, so there's no need to

9 repeat the question. And of course there is a photograph showing a foot.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I really cannot

11 understand this. Yesterday, it wasn't clear even to you until we

12 clarified in my cross-examination of Mr. Karleusa that those corpses have

13 not been even exhumed or found, nor does anybody know where they are at

14 all, because he came to testify about the refrigerator lorry, and instead

15 he testified to the exhumation of bodies in Batajnica.

16 JUDGE MAY: If you want to put to the witness - and if it's your

17 case you should - that there weren't corpses in the truck, then you should

18 put it to him so he can deal with it, if that is your case.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what happened. I'm

20 just trying to establish how it is possible that the competent police

21 officer who arrives at the scene, finds corpses there, and it is one of

22 his duties, among others, to make photographs of the refrigerator lorry

23 from the side, from the front --

24 JUDGE MAY: You have made that point several times. He has given

25 his answer. It will be a matter for the Court to consider in due course.

1 There's no point going over it again.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Is it the usual practice, Mr. Radojkovic, when you go out to the

5 scene of the crime to immediately make photographs of whatever you find

6 there?

7 A. Yes, and that's precisely what I did.

8 Q. Except for the main thing, the corpses; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. All right. All right, Mr. Radojkovic. Do you know anything about

11 the following: These corpses that you found there have not yet been

12 exhumed, identified, found anywhere. Are you aware of that as a police

13 officer?

14 A. Yes. I know that they have not been found, located yet.

15 Q. You said yesterday during examination-in-chief - and we will

16 perhaps come back to that later - that the death of these persons, and you

17 spoke as a man with experience, which I believe you are, occurred two or

18 three days before you found them; is that correct?

19 A. Yes. That was my assumption.

20 Q. Now, if death had occurred two or three days before you found them

21 in the Danube, do you have any idea for how long they might have been in

22 the Danube? Was it one day in the water, a day and a half, for instance?

23 A. Judging by the changes on the skin of the fingers and toes, they

24 had not been in the water for more than a day and a half or two.

25 Q. Two days?

1 A. A day and a half at the most.

2 Q. All right. A day and a half or two. And they were killed two or

3 three days before you found them.

4 A. That's my opinion.

5 Q. If we subtract this one day and a half before -- from this two and

6 a half days or three, they were killed shortly -- a day before.

7 A. Well, unless they were frozen in the refrigerator lorry.

8 Q. We'll deal with that. If death occurred two or three days before

9 they were discovered, is it possible or probable -- and I'm asking you as

10 a crime investigation inspector, is it possible that in that short period

11 of time they could have been killed, buried, exhumed, and then transported

12 by that refrigerator lorry to the Danube? Is it possible that they had

13 already been buried and then dug out?

14 A. No. I don't think they had been buried at all.

15 Q. You said at one point that the truck was taken to Petrovo Selo and

16 a grave in Petrovo Selo was also mentioned. And I read in this press

17 release that was mentioned when Karleusa was cross-examined that these

18 graves might date back to 1945 or 1955. Did I conclude correctly that the

19 lorry was taken to Petrovo Selo empty?

20 A. Yes. An empty lorry was taken on a flatbed truck to Petrovo Selo.

21 Q. All right. I'm interested in one little detail. At first glance,

22 it is a very minor detail.

23 I beg your pardon, I can't locate this in my papers. It must be

24 in this note.

25 You speak, and you spoke yesterday, about blowing up 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 refrigerator lorry using industrial explosives; is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And here a term is used which nobody uses where we come from, and

4 namely that is "explosives for production." Have you yourself ever used

5 this term "explosives for production"?

6 A. I'm not familiar with the term.

7 Q. It's not familiar to you. Well, it's not familiar to me either.

8 In our country, we say "industrial explosives," explosives used in the

9 economy as opposed to those used in mines, quarries, et cetera, but there

10 are no explosives for production.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am pointing this out, Mr. May,

12 because I believe that this was originally written in English and then

13 translated into Serbian, because no native speaker of Serbian would ever

14 say "explosives for production." And even the man who was quoted here

15 believes this to be a very odd term, "explosives for production,"

16 "manufacturing explosives." And he gave his statement in Serbian.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Isn't that true, Mr. Radojkovic?

19 A. Yes. The interview was conducted in the Serbian language.

20 Q. I thought that much. I just wanted to make it plain. Because as

21 far as this testimony and their engineering is concerned - no offence

22 meant to you - there are many odd things. However, let's move on.

23 You invited a diver to come. I won't dwell on that. And now

24 let's come back to the issue of the photographs. You gave the explanation

25 you gave, but please explain -- okay. You didn't make certain

1 photographs, although you said yourself that they should be made

2 immediately at the scene of the crime, but did you also draft a dispatch

3 and send it to the competent secretariat of the MUP in Bor, which is also

4 your responsibility?

5 A. On the 5th of April, 1999, in the evening, I visited the scene of

6 the crime together with Nenad Popovic, crime investigation technician.

7 Q. Was it on the first day?

8 A. Yes, it was the first day. I don't know whether a dispatch had

9 been sent to the Bor SUP. I didn't send any.

10 On the next day, however, the 6th of April, when the refrigerator

11 lorry had already been opened, I personally wrote a dispatch to the Bor

12 SUP. I signed it together with my -- and my boss signed it, Milan

13 Stevanovic. Police stations at that time were dispersed around the

14 secretariat. It was a very unpleasant dispatch, written in elliptical

15 terms to the SUP of Bor because there was a war going on, and basically I

16 invited them to get involved.

17 Q. All right, but did you make a report on your on-site

18 investigation?

19 A. No, I didn't.

20 Q. All right. On the 5th of April, as you have said yourself, you

21 have already completed some investigative work: You established that

22 there was a lorry in the water, you established the type of truck, the

23 damage on it. Was it your duty also to make a report, a record of your

24 findings? Why is there no such record?

25 A. I don't know whether the record was drawn up. The operative

1 employee was supposed to do that, Mr. Popovic.

2 Q. Wasn't it your duty to make note of all the findings that you had

3 by that time; that there was a lorry in the water, the type, the damage,

4 et cetera? You had a diver there who had already completed certain work;

5 is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. But you didn't make a record. Why?

8 A. I, as a crime investigations technician, do not make records.

9 Q. All right. But do you go out to investigate scenes of crimes

10 without an inspector?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Why did you do so this time?

13 A. Because the lorry was at a 30-metre distance in the water, 30

14 metres away from the bank, and we had just gone there with the idea of

15 seeing whether it was there at all and what it was. All you could see was

16 the tip of this trailer box. You can't see much. The depth of the water

17 at that place is 12 metres.

18 Q. All right. You photographed the lorry except the time when it was

19 in the water, only when it was pulled out with all of its four wheels.

20 A. I don't think it is among these photographs, but I do have one

21 photograph taken on the 5th where you could see it. I believe it is on

22 the negative.

23 Q. But it's not here?

24 A. No, it's not here. I believe it exists on this negative that I

25 have kept. There is one photograph where you can only see this trailer

1 box and this dirty strip on the upper corner from the dirt in the water.

2 Q. You spoke about that yesterday, about this dirty strip. You can

3 see it on this first photograph. How do you explain that these dirty

4 strips are missing on the rear side of the box? Because a chassis is a 3D

5 thing. You can't have a dirty strip on one side and not the other, if

6 that is indeed what you are trying to explain. Where it ends on one side,

7 it should continue on the other side, depending on the position of the

8 truck, but I suppose it should be visible too.

9 A. Mr. Milosevic, the right side of the truck, of every truck, is

10 always cleaner. The lateral sides are always cleaner than the rear and

11 even than the front, because the wheels always spray dirt and mud and

12 stuff. So on the lateral side, you can clearly see this dirt strip, this

13 mark made by the water.

14 Q. Well, it doesn't make sense to me, and that's why I'm asking all

15 these questions.

16 Could you please tell me, you say two human feet were protruding

17 from the lorry and nobody noticed it except you.

18 A. No, that's not what I said.

19 Q. Who else noticed them?

20 A. Djordjevic, the diver, noticed it before I did.

21 Q. But I mean except for you and the diver.

22 A. Mr. Milosevic, there were 20 of us there. We were trying to

23 conceal it somehow so that not everybody sees it. I was there with Nenad

24 Popovic, Momcilo Sujranovic, all of my colleagues. People from the

25 hydroelectric power plant saw it. There is one photograph, and I don't

1 know, Your Honours, if you have it. You can see people standing around

2 the truck.

3 Q. I want to ask you one more thing. You tried to explain in your

4 statement that nobody saw it. Everybody backed off to a certain distance,

5 and I do see people on one of the photographs, so they must have seen it.

6 I don't know which number this photograph is, but you can see at least two

7 men standing here except for you who were taking the photo.

8 A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. But when I said I told the people to back

9 away, not to see the bodies in the truck, it was not the only reason. It

10 was realistic to expect that there were explosives laid in the truck. Why

11 should we all get killed if I had to?

12 Q. Well, I understand your care for your men. That's very kind on

13 your part and nobody questions your professional care for your underlings.

14 But I understood from what you were saying a moment ago that you wanted to

15 conceal this at any cost. Why? For what reason?

16 In your normal practice when you investigate crime scenes, is it a

17 rule to cover up whatever you are doing, apart from providing normal

18 security around the scene of the crime so that nothing can be touched and

19 tampered with? Why were you trying to conceal anything on this occasion?

20 A. It was very unpleasant, embarrassing as a job to pull out this

21 truck. And the job was a very time-consuming one. With those feet and

22 arm protruding all the time, there were a lot of machinery operators,

23 employees, workers who had to do this work in the vicinity of the truck

24 all the time and watch this all the time, these feet and arm. So I don't

25 see anything unusual about the fact that we first closed the door and then

1 continued pulling it out. There was no ill intention involved. It was

2 just out of respect for those people. How could you come close to that

3 truck to handle it while -- and attach a cable while a human arm or foot

4 is protruding all the time?

5 Q. It is your job to conduct the investigation on this site. It is

6 -- I understand that you didn't want your men traumatised. I understand

7 that was your motivation. But that's not your job. Your job was to make

8 photographs. You are paid to be exposed to such traumatic experience.

9 JUDGE MAY: We have been over this matter now, particularly the

10 photographs.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right, Mr. May.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Please tell me, as an eyewitness and an experienced crime

14 investigation technician, how did you assess the cause of this damage on

15 the truck? Because we didn't really understand each other on this point.

16 How come there is a difference between what is depicted on various

17 photographs?

18 JUDGE MAY: We've also been over this point. Unless you've got a

19 new question, Mr. Milosevic, we're not going to return to it.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Tell me now, you say you closed this damaged part with nuts and

23 bolts; is that right? Screws.

24 A. I think it was screws. And Zivadin Djordjevic gave them to me

25 from his bag.

1 Q. How long did you keep the door open?

2 A. Three or four seconds.

3 Q. So your entire perception took place during those three or four

4 seconds while you kept the door open?

5 A. Yes. I climbed up to the box and I looked inside. I think that

6 the door was not wide open either. I think only the right side of the

7 door was open a bit so that I could go in.

8 Q. All right. Already on that day, on the 6th, that is - that is the

9 second day - if I understood you correctly, there was a crime inspector

10 with you there on the second day.

11 A. Yes, since the morning.

12 Q. And did you and he compile a report on what you had seen and

13 found?

14 A. No. Only a telegram was sent to the SUP Bor.

15 Q. So it was known then to you, or rather, you knew what was in the

16 truck. You opened the door, you saw it. You, the crime inspector, and

17 you did not record this at all. You did not write a report.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Do you know how to answer this question: Why did you not do that?

20 JUDGE MAY: He has already explained; it wasn't his job.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, perhaps you haven't

22 noticed. I asked him whether a crime inspector was with him at the time,

23 and he says that that is his job, the crime inspector's job. So I'm

24 asking him whether the two of them compiled a report then, and he says

25 they did not.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer this question?

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A crime policeman was with me, Nenad

4 Popovic. We saw that. We returned to the police station, and we

5 presented this to the head of the SUP and the head of the department, what

6 we found and what was in this refrigerator truck. In practice, we never

7 actually made reports on the site itself. We don't have the right kind of

8 equipment for doing that.

9 As for the situation on the scene itself, it can be described in a

10 report a day or two or three days later. But all of this would move under

11 the jurisdiction of the District Court in Negotin, and it is the

12 investigating judge who compiles this kind of report. We could only

13 compile an Official Note which we would then present to the investigating

14 judge. Since Negotin is 60 kilometres away from Kladovo, nothing was

15 written except for this telegram that I wrote, my superior -- supervisor

16 signed it, and we sent it to the SUP Bor.

17 Q. All right. But in that statement of yours, you say that this man

18 of yours in Kladovo, right, your boss --

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. -- said that this had to be concealed. Did you ask him why?

21 A. In the evening, at a small meeting of the local police where I

22 was, Nenad Popovic, Milan Stevanovic, Vukasin Sperlic, the head, perhaps

23 somebody else was there as well, the objective was not to conceal it. We

24 were in favour of the following solution: This inscription on the truck

25 that was on the right-hand side that said Progres Export Slaughterhouse

1 Prizren, that we hide that so that it would not attract the attention of

2 the workers who were trying to get the truck out of the Danube; secondly,

3 so that the Romanians would not be observing us perhaps from their

4 military ships that were there in a bay towards Osava [phoen]. I mean, I

5 don't know, they were about a kilometre away from us, they could notice

6 this easily, but they were going all around and they could think all sorts

7 of things.

8 Q. You spoke about that yesterday, so I don't want to dwell on that.

9 The next day, the 7th of April, in the statement that was compiled by the

10 working group, you went to the scene again and you saw a truck full of

11 coffins and also an undertaker's vehicle.

12 A. Yes. I saw it on the road, on the road. That this came from

13 Kladovo. A truck from -- a truck with coffins and also an undertaker's

14 vehicle.

15 Q. I do not see the link between the two, that's why I'm asking you.

16 Because you say that these corpses were taken somewhere. They were not

17 taken in coffins, as far as I understood.

18 A. No.

19 Q. What happened to these coffins? What's this all about? I simply

20 cannot link that part of your statement to the other part where you say

21 that they were driven away in a truck or something.

22 A. I understand your question. A truck was sent from Kladovo, from

23 the public utility enterprise there, with a certain number of coffins. I

24 don't know exactly how many. And there was also an undertaker's vehicle.

25 I saw this, and I knew immediately that that's not the way this can be

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 done. This was already around 11.00 or 12.00.

2 I knew that actually SUP Bor did not know anything about this

3 then, because I wondered myself, What are we going to do with these

4 coffins? First of all, all of Kladovo and Negotin, I think, cannot

5 collect 80 coffins in one day.

6 Q. I don't understand. Did you say ten?

7 A. I said 80. Then the truck with the coffins went back, because we

8 did not even have radio communication with the police in Kladovo from the

9 site itself.

10 Q. I understand. So you returned the truck because you thought that

11 that was not the right way to resolve this. Did I understand you

12 properly?

13 A. Yes. Four or five coffins could not resolve this situation.

14 Q. Yes. And then here it says in this note -- I don't know. What is

15 yours and what is -- now, look. It says here Bosko, and I imagine that's

16 you; right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. On page 6 of this Official Note, it says: "Bosko has information

19 that on a certain day, about 2200 hours until 2230 hours, people who were

20 coming back from the funeral, as they were moving along the road towards

21 Tekija or the tunnel from Golubinje Kazan noticed two jeeps and men in

22 uniforms, in camouflage uniforms. When they were passing by, the people

23 in camouflage uniforms jumped into the ditch in order to hide. They

24 noticed that the people in uniform were looking in the direction of the

25 Danube, most probably at the refrigerator truck that was floating towards

1 -- the refrigerator truck that was probably thrown before the second

2 tunnel in the direction of Kladovo." Could you explain this to me.

3 Q. Mr. Milosevic, in the brief statement that I gave to the

4 investigators of The Hague Tribunal, I said and I asked that this Official

5 Note that you also have and that the Court has and that the Prosecutor

6 has, that I fully support it until that part, because that is what I did

7 with my own hands and that is what I saw with my own eyes. As for the

8 second part, I said that I did not give this to the Tribunal. I never

9 would give this to the Tribunal. I gave it to the working group, as to my

10 colleagues, and that can be used only for further investigations in the

11 police, not the Tribunal. And nobody in the Tribunal asked me about this

12 here either. There's no need for that. So this is just talk.

13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Radojkovic, you're being asked about it now, and

14 one way or another, the information is before us. Now, can you help us

15 about this, as to any information you may have had about how the truck got

16 into the water?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Everything that

18 is written in that statement is what I heard, but none of it was checked.

19 It's not for me to check. It is for me to notify others and then they

20 will check what is relevant.

21 JUDGE MAY: No, of course, we understand that. It's not for you

22 to check. But this is what you heard, is it, what's in this note?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, I am asking you -- I mean, I want this to be clear

1 to you. I'm asking you about this because I did not get this from you. I

2 did not get this from the working group. I got it from this false

3 prosecution. They are the ones who are abusing this. So I would like to

4 clear this up with you to see what the truth is and what is not the truth.

5 Because it is amazing to me that somebody is coming back from a funeral

6 at 10.00 p.m. Please, who is buried at night in our part of the world?

7 Where did you get that kind of information? "Bosko has this information,"

8 et cetera. You heard from someone that someone had seen that. You did

9 not see it yourself.

10 A. No. I am -- that's what I'm saying. I don't even know how the

11 Tribunal got this. I never would have given this to the Tribunal.

12 Q. But it's not -- it's something that you saw, that's what matters

13 to me. So this was just hearsay. You told those people at the SUP what

14 you heard from someone else.

15 A. Precisely.

16 Q. Right. That is what I want to clarify. Look at another example,

17 another example on the very same page of that note.

18 A. I read it. I know all of it.

19 Q. I want to read it to you.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they cannot follow this

21 speed.

22 JUDGE MAY: Now, I'm stopping you. You're going too quickly for

23 the interpreters. If you're going to read out, remember to read slowly.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I'm going to

25 read slowly.

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. On page 5 of this so-called phantom note, phantom Official Note

3 that nobody signed, it says: "Petrovic Zivojin saw something, a security

4 guard. He saw something." It doesn't matter. He worked and then he

5 conveyed this to Ljubo, a driver in Tekija, and then Ljubo Maksimovic told

6 Bosko Radojkovic about this.

7 Please. This is not hearsay. This is a third degree hearsay.

8 One person sees something, then he tells a driver about it, and then this

9 driver tells a third person, and then this person tells Radojkovic.

10 Please, I'm asking you, Mr. Radojkovic, is this a serious thing?

11 Can -- can this kind of allegation be based on such hearsay?

12 A. Mr. Milosevic, I told my colleagues in the MUP what I really

13 heard, and I really think that it is not proper for it to be in the

14 Tribunal now because this is not verified facts.

15 Q. Do you know who gave this here?

16 A. No. I don't know. I first saw this when I saw the investigator.

17 Q. Well, your minister, Dusan Mihajlovic, all this hearsay here. I'm

18 not the one who gave it to them, that's for sure, and it's not you either,

19 from what I can see.

20 A. No, it wasn't me.

21 Q. This is just a mistake. Never mind. It says Gornji Milanovac. It

22 is obvious that it was written by somebody who did not live in that area.

23 Because in that area, nobody even says "Donji Milanovac," they just say

24 "Milanovac" and half the people don't even know that a Gornji Milanovac

25 exists; is that right?

1 A. Yes. I noticed that mistake too, but that's not for me.

2 Q. It's not for you. I am just indicating things that are quite

3 clear to me, bearing in mind the fact that I know that area, like all of

4 Serbia, very well but that part in particular, that nobody from there

5 could put it that way. And that could not be your statement, because you

6 are from there.

7 Look at what it says here: "Rumour has it that before this case

8 --" Please. This in is an Official Note that describes the interview

9 with Bosko Radojkovic. No one else; Bosko Radojkovic. "Rumour has it,"

10 et cetera, et cetera. That's what it says here.

11 Now, please, I don't know whether I'll be able to find it in here

12 straight away. Let me find it. You informed your chief of police -- here

13 it is. That is page 4.

14 "I informed him about the existence of 30 corpses." So I imagine

15 that when you were telling your chief of police how many corpses there

16 were, you were giving them -- him your assessment, that there were 30

17 corpses. How did later on -- how did it turn out later on that there were

18 50 or 56 or 58 or whatever? Can you explain this to me?

19 A. Yes. I'll try. When I opened the door, the corpses were up to

20 the door itself, and then there was a bigger, bigger pile towards the

21 middle of the box and then deep inside there were less of them. When I

22 looked in, I saw just one pile of corpses, and of course since - how

23 should I put this? - this is sort of like a small pile, a small stack, I

24 was not sure whether the corpses went all the way to the end of the

25 refrigerator truck. But superficially, on the basis of what I could see

1 in a few seconds --

2 Q. Let's not waste any time. That was your assessment and that is

3 what you told your chief of police.

4 A. To be quite frank, my assessment was that there were even more of

5 them, but I didn't dare include that in the note.

6 Q. All right. I am really interested in one thing: The reservists

7 of the DB were present, the state security. I have been -- I was there

8 for a long time, and I never heard of DB reservists. Could you have said

9 something as nonsensical as that, that there were DB reservists, state

10 security reservists there?

11 A. No, I did not say that.

12 Q. That's what the note about your statement contains. And who knows

13 what else others would say, others whose statements are being tendered

14 here into evidence where -- and now you have --

15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes. Ask a question.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll be brief, Mr. May.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Please. Did you say that the same night, at fifteen past one

19 a.m., four men in camouflage uniforms came in jeeps to Djerdap, et cetera,

20 et cetera? Did you state that?

21 A. Yes, I stated that, that I had heard that.

22 Q. That you had heard that?

23 A. Yes, that I heard that. That's precisely what it says. That is

24 this other part of the statement that I expressed my reservations about to

25 the investigators at The Hague Tribunal, because it is something that I

1 heard about.

2 Q. It's the customs officer who heard about this and he told his

3 friend and this friend told you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you included that in an Official Note?

6 A. No, Mr. Milosevic.

7 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, do you think that if somebody hears a rumour,

8 perhaps it may prove to be true, but does the police then try to find out

9 what the actual facts are? The investigating judge, does he try to find

10 out what the actual facts are or is everything just taken for granted?

11 A. Mr. Milosevic, as a policeman, I am duty bound in respect of

12 everything that I hear from other citizens. Whether it's a crime or any

13 other event, it is my duty to inform my service about that. If I do not

14 do this, that means that I commit at least a disciplinary infraction. So

15 then people work from this kind of information. And a service that may be

16 interested in will then further check the information that I provided.

17 Q. You say that you held the door open briefly and that you saw a

18 pile of corpses. Did you come to any conclusion as to who these people

19 were, where they came from, how they were killed, where they were killed,

20 except for what you assessed, that they were not dead for more than two or

21 three days, et cetera?

22 A. In this respect, I could only notice the external injuries they

23 had, those that were visible to the naked eye. I noticed how they were

24 dressed. But where these people were from, that is something that could

25 not be concluded on the basis of anything.

1 Q. Do you know that General Djordjevic ordered an autopsy to be

2 carried out and that it was impossible to carry it out because of some

3 reasons there, because it was not possible to do it in Kladovo or

4 whatever?

5 A. No. Throughout the proceedings, I was near the Danube, by the

6 Danube. I was on the bank of the Danube. And those people who talked to

7 somebody else, using phones, whatever, they were about two kilometres away

8 from me, at the border crossing in Tekija. So I did not hear any of that.

9 Of course, I could assume that possibly these corpses would be

10 transported to Belgrade and that then the exhumation -- no, rather, the

11 autopsy would be carried out, because we really did not have the manpower

12 or the equipment.

13 Q. Please tell me, because there are many things here that are really

14 -- I mean questions.

15 How come this -- how come this mention of the Kurds? Who launched

16 this idea concerning the Kurds?

17 A. Since this attracted a lot of attention in Tekija and in Kladovo,

18 people started talking about it a lot. This is right by the road between

19 Kladovo and Belgrade. People go to work, many people saw this, and then

20 people were wondering what to do with this? And then we sort of thought,

21 well, let's invent a story. Let's say that perhaps they were Kurds or

22 some kind of asylum seekers who were trying to flee from Yugoslavia

23 because of the war, because the bombing, that they were trying to flee to

24 Romania, because there was a case like that, a true case with Kurds, with

25 asylum seekers nearby in Golubovac. So we thought that we could use a

1 similar kind of story.

2 Q. I am not bringing into question anything in relation to you now.

3 Yesterday when Karleusa was testifying, I presented official information

4 of the State Security Service here and also the Official Note of the

5 public prosecutor of the municipality, the -- in connection with the

6 criminal group that was led by the brother of the owner of this crime

7 review newspaper. And it also includes some members of the police. Do

8 you know anything about this local group of criminals?

9 Let me just add one more thing; it's not only that they smuggled

10 cigarettes, weapons, et cetera, but they also transported people across

11 the Danube and then they also charged 500 German marks per person. Do you

12 know anything about this?

13 A. I know that there were asylum seekers and that people were being

14 transported, but who does this, I really don't know. Secondly,

15 Mr. Vitomirovic is in Zajecar, and that's pretty far away. We are

16 functionally related to Bor, to the Bor district. So we have less

17 communication with Zajecar.

18 I am not aware of that, whether these persons took part in that.

19 Q. You don't know? You don't know about the village of Sipikovo

20 towards Vidin and all that, these transports? You call that the

21 transport of asylum seekers; is that right?

22 A. Well, I don't know how to put this. From Afghanistan, from Iran,

23 from the Sudan, from Nigeria, I encounter these people. I don't know

24 whether they are asylum seekers or immigrants or whatever.

25 Q. Never mind. It doesn't matter what we're going to call them. 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 said Sudan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, et cetera. It doesn't matter. Who is

2 organising this operation?

3 A. I really don't know. Secondly, as for Sipikovo, I've just heard

4 about it. I know that it's somewhere towards the Bulgarian border. The

5 municipality of Kladovo borders Romania only.

6 Q. All right. Kladovo is on the border that is actually the Danube.

7 I don't want to go beyond your area, but that's quite clear. Doesn't it

8 seem to you, Mr. Radojkovic, in view of the fact that you know yourself

9 not only about Zajecar but also about your own area, about this smuggling

10 of people from different countries that you mentioned and so on, every

11 piece of dirt that is committed by these gangs, these criminal gangs,

12 should all that be ascribed to the police that were defending the country

13 during the war?

14 A. I did not say that I knew who the intermediary was in the

15 smuggling of these asylum seekers, I said that I knew that there were

16 asylum seekers.

17 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, I am not asking you here. I mean, this is not a

18 hearing about who these people are. You know that this is a phenomenon

19 that does exist in that area where the state border is and that is no

20 rarity at that section of the state border.

21 A. Yes, I know about that.

22 Q. Now, since you said that it was only the second time that you

23 talked to the working group that there were 86 bodies in the truck and

24 they all had head injuries inflicted by various instruments and that only

25 one body, a boy aged 18 to 20 - and yesterday you said from 17 to 20,

1 never mind - so a young man, he had an entry/exit wound. So nobody had

2 been killed by firearms. All of them were killed in some different way.

3 Now, my question is the following as related to such a claim with

4 regard to these 86 bodies, and also it should be seen that there are

5 wounds in the chest. A layman can see an entry/exit wound. But for this

6 kind of claim as to the cause of death, I assume that you will agree that

7 this would have to involve a detailed examination of the bodies; is that

8 right?

9 A. My assertion yesterday was not the way you are putting it now.

10 What I stated yesterday was that this young man, who was about 17, 18, 20,

11 he did have an entry/exit wound.

12 Q. I'm not questioning that you stated that.

13 A. I just said that I saw him and that I'm making an assertion about

14 him because he was naked and you could see the chest wound properly. As

15 for the others, who were dressed, I did not look, because how could I as

16 they were being dragged? They could only, what, fall in? I said that I

17 only saw that he had an entry/exit wound. None of the others, I didn't

18 claim anything about the others. I only said what I saw. I saw that he

19 had an entry/exit wound.

20 Q. Did I read that somewhere or did it seem to me -- I don't want to

21 look through this note again -- that you actually said that for the most

22 part, they were killed by some instruments that they had been hit with?

23 A. Yes, that's what I stated.

24 Q. So apart from opening the door of the refrigerator truck and

25 taking part in the transport of the bodies, objectively speaking, you had

1 no other contact with these bodies. You did not examine them in any way.

2 A. I agree with that statement, Mr. Milosevic. Yesterday I said and

3 I can say only now what I saw with my very own eyes. In order to note

4 certain injuries, it is sufficient to cast a glance. You don't really

5 need an examination. I can tell you that I saw, during my regular work,

6 murders committed by an axe. I saw slaughtered corpses. I saw corpses

7 with slit throats not related to this in any way. I have seen violent

8 deaths along a broad spectrum, and I know how injuries are sustained. I

9 know what I can assume.

10 So as for what I saw in the refrigerator truck, I was in a

11 position to say, "Well, this could have been the result of that." The

12 statement I gave to the working group of the ministry had only one

13 objective in the description of these corpses; when they get to these

14 corpses, when they exhume them, because they were probably buried later,

15 so that on the basis of these wounds and on the basis of this clothing,

16 they could say, "Right, those are the bodies that were taken out of the

17 refrigerator truck." Because I said that even my boots are in that truck,

18 the ones that I threw after I finished this. And also red gloves that I

19 had on my hands. So that this would be a trace, this would be a lead so

20 that they could recognise this.

21 So the description I gave to the working group of the MUP had only

22 that objective. How all of this reached the Tribunal, I don't know.

23 Q. That's not the question that is being raised here anyway. As an

24 experienced policeman, when the bodies were being transported from the

25 refrigerator truck to other vehicles, did you try to check the clothing

1 and to ascertain the identity at least of some of these persons?

2 A. Yes. In case of a few men, when time allowed me, I put my hand

3 into their pockets or whatever, and I didn't find anything. In the case

4 of a little girl, the corpse of a little girl who was about 7 or 8 years

5 old, she had a rucksack, a little bag.

6 Q. What did she have?

7 A. She had a little bag, a little rucksack or whatever. Momcilo

8 Sujranovic, Nenad Popovic, my colleagues who were with me, we were looking

9 at this little girl together. We opened the bag. The two of us opened

10 this bag. She had a UNICEF notebook, A4 format, and in that bag were some

11 colour crayons and a little doll. And in the notebook, there was only the

12 drawing of a house and some little flowers, nothing else. We opened that

13 in order to see what this was and who these people were. No documents

14 were found on the corpses.

15 Q. I think it's enough about this phantom refrigerator lorry.

16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've got four minutes left.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. May. I think there

18 is no need for me to cross-examine this witness about all the parts of his

19 statement which he describes himself as not factual but derived from

20 hearsay and rumours, and they abound in this case, as you can see.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Let me ask you one more thing about this. You set the

23 refrigerator lorry on fire; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And after that, you blew it up.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You did that on your own initiative or was it somebody who told

3 you to do it?

4 A. It was the head of the Bor SUP who told us to do that.

5 Q. So the only thing that was your initiative was this story about

6 the Kurds. The rest you didn't do of your own accord.

7 A. It wasn't really an initiative. It was just conversation. We

8 were just thinking aloud how to present some sort of story to the public.

9 There were various versions, and then somebody said, "Well, let's plant a

10 story, say it was the Kurds or something." And I said yes, that would

11 make things easier.

12 Q. We discussed this working group and this article written by

13 Vitomirovic. And this Ilija Matic, head of state security, you heard

14 about him?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Both of them are members of this new party, New Democracy, headed

17 by Dusan Mihajlovic.

18 A. I don't know about that.

19 Q. You don't know about that?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And both of them are members of this criminal group that I

22 mentioned yesterday?

23 A. I'm not aware of that.

24 Q. All right.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No further questions, Mr. May.

1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay.

2 MR. KAY: No questions.

3 JUDGE MAY: No questions.

4 Mr. Ryneveld, it is time for the break.

5 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I will have just a few questions. Do

6 you want me to do it before the break or after the break? But there are

7 four very brief areas that I need to re-examine upon.

8 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could do it before the break, if they're

9 brief.

10 MR. RYNEVELD: Fine. I'll do it very quickly

11 Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

12 Q. First of all, sir, the photographs that you were shown --

13 MR. RYNEVELD: Could the witness be shown, please, photographs 2

14 and 3 in the set of ten.

15 Q. First of all, sir, as a professional photographer, would you agree

16 that camera angles make a difference with respect to what can be seen?

17 A. Yes. And also the progress of pulling out the truck. The nearer

18 it comes to the bank of the river, the resistance of the water increases,

19 because the dragging accelerates and the water resistance pushes the rear

20 side towards the interior. The damage on the door resulted from the force

21 which acted from inside towards the exterior. The pressure of the bodies,

22 in other words, resulted in this damage. The slit increased. It is quite

23 normal for these plywood doors to return to their original position, at

24 least to some extent, once the whole vehicle is removed from the water.

25 Q. One final question on the flap or the hole, as it were. On

1 photograph number 2, you as the cameraman are standing to the right of the

2 vehicle so that -- shall we say that piece of wood or whatever it is that

3 is attached to the right part of the frame is facing inwards, is it, and

4 cannot be seen? Do you see what I'm talking about?

5 A. Photograph number -- which number did you say?

6 Q. Well, let me just see if you've got the same one on the screen

7 that I've got. Yes. Now, you're standing to the right and you're facing

8 towards the left and so the flap visible in number 3 would be away from

9 the camera; is that correct? Do you see the one I'm talking about that is

10 immediately adjacent to the right-hand edge of the box? That would be

11 bent inwards; correct?

12 A. Photograph number 2 depicts the refrigerator lorry in the form in

13 which it was removed from the Danube. No work had yet been done on the

14 rear of the lorry.

15 Q. Right.

16 A. That is an original photograph of the original state of the lorry.

17 Q. On photograph number 3, you're standing at a different angle.

18 You're standing to the left of the back of the truck and you are

19 photographing into the side of the -- from the other side; is that

20 correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So we're looking at it from two different angles.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. Move on.

25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, I wonder in fact whether it would be

1 more convenient to have the break.

2 MR. RYNEVELD: I will have a few questions, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE MAY: That will give you more time.

4 There's one matter which I've got to deal with before the break

5 and that concerns the preparations for the programme tomorrow.

6 We have a Pre-Trial Conference for Bosnia and Croatia. We also

7 have to have a closed session hearing. What we propose is this: That we

8 will have the Pre-Trial Conference at 9.00 tomorrow morning. It will be

9 followed by the hearing in closed session, and then we'll continue with

10 the evidence.

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, thank you. I've been giving thought to

12 what order of witnesses is most appropriate, given the two crime-base

13 witnesses and K34 who are here to give evidence this week. Jemini, one of

14 the two crime-base witnesses may in due course, I don't know, be the

15 subject of a ruling that in part or whole can be given under 92 bis. And

16 in any event, because he comes to deal with a particular matter raised in

17 relation to an earlier witness's evidence, will be fairly short. It's

18 really three passages of conversation that he has to give, and my strong

19 temptation is to take him next in the hope that he will be finished

20 effectively in one session, and then to turn to K34. My estimation is

21 that K34's evidence will probably take, in chief, between one and two

22 sessions. That will then stretch into tomorrow, leaving some of tomorrow

23 and Friday for cross-examination, hopefully being in a position then to

24 take the one outstanding crime-base witness at the end of the week.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll look at Isuf Jemini. We've just been

1 given the document in relation to him. We'll give a ruling about --

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. According to my list, no

5 Jemini should follow now, but Musa Krasniqi. And I was told yesterday

6 that K34 would be next followed by Musa Krasniqi, not Jemini or Jemini.

7 JUDGE MAY: There's a narrow point in the case of Mr. Jemini. We

8 have to get K34 in. We'll look at it.

9 We will adjourn now for 20 minutes. Would you be back, please,

10 Mr. Radojkovic, then.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

13 MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher, before you sit down, could you please

14 put this photograph on the ELMO.

15 Q. Mr. Radojkovic, during the break I found the original photograph

16 rather than the copies that we've been dealing with. Would you look at

17 that original photograph, number 3, as it were, in this series, and is

18 that a clearer photograph? It doesn't seem to make much difference on the

19 ELMO, I'm afraid.

20 Is that the original photograph, sir, of this --

21 A. Yes. Yes, this is an original photograph, and visibility is much

22 better. You can clearly see the foot, the arm. The arm is less visible

23 because -- but I see it because I saw it with my own eyes. Perhaps it's

24 more difficult for you. Here is the arm, here is the foot and the other

25 foot.

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. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I've shown this original photograph

2 to the amici and also had an opportunity, through the court clerk, to show

3 it to Mr. Milosevic. I wonder whether the usher could show it to Your

4 Honours while I ask a couple of questions, if I may.

5 Q. Sir, just so that I'm clear about what you were saying, this

6 photograph was taken once the truck had been pulled out of the river

7 further than the previous photographs, photographs 1 and 2; is that

8 correct? It's closer in on the bank?

9 A. Yes. This photograph was taken when the rear wheels or the rear

10 part of the truck was already pulled out to the gravel bank of the river,

11 and it is after this photograph that the patching was done.

12 Q. Yes. Now, I'm just going to ask some specific questions. When

13 the truck was submerged in the water, did the box itself with the bodies,

14 did it fill with water? Was there water inside as well as bodies?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. As you pulled the truck out of the water, did the water come out

17 of the truck?

18 A. Yes. And that was precisely the difficulty in the course of

19 extracting the lorry. The difficulty was that the trailer box was full of

20 water, increasing the weight of the lorry.

21 Q. Yes. And in the process of the water escaping the box through the

22 hole in the back, is that -- do you have any explanation as to how it is

23 that the bodies are now shown and the flap is now -- seems to have been

24 closed? Is that as a result of the force of the water coming out of the

25 back of the box during the process of extraction?

1 A. No. The flap, the damage to the door had to occur earlier. The

2 water could flow into the trailer box through other channels as well as

3 through that opening. But in the process of extraction, the water flows

4 out, and when the lorry is pulled out to a certain extent, the cable is

5 dragging the truck and then the water resistance pushes back the door to

6 its original position.

7 Q. And does that --

8 A. Pushes back the flap.

9 Q. And does that explain, to some degree, the reason why the flaps or

10 the damage to the door looks different from photograph 2 to photograph 3?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thank you. Sir, you were extensively cross-examined with respect

13 to the official notes of the working group for the MUP. Now, you did not

14 prepare that document, did you? You're not the one who authored it.

15 A. No. I didn't write this.

16 Q. You provided the information that is contained in that working

17 note; is that correct?

18 A. Correct. I gave that information verbally.

19 Q. You have recently had an opportunity to read the working notes;

20 correct?

21 A. Yes. When I saw them in the hands of the OTP investigator.

22 Q. When you read those in the Cyrillic script --

23 MR. RYNEVELD: Tab 8, Your Honours, of the Exhibit 274.

24 Q. -- did you agree that what you told the working group was

25 contained in that report? In other words, was the information they

1 recorded accurate?

2 A. Yes. To the OTP investigator, I said that I had read the Official

3 Note, and I said it was accurate. I only had reservations about the

4 second part of that statement. I said it was intended more for my

5 colleagues, not the Tribunal. It was intended for my colleagues to follow

6 up on the work that had already been done.

7 Q. Yes. It's not that the information was inaccurate; you didn't

8 expect to see it in the report in our hands. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes. This information was provided to the working group to enable

10 their continued operative work, that is, the checks they were running. I

11 didn't expect to see it in a report before this Tribunal because they deal

12 with hearsay and with rumours.

13 Q. And the evidence in chief that you were asked to give in this

14 courtroom by the Prosecution was restricted to that information about

15 which you had personal knowledge, not hearsay or rumour; is that correct?

16 A. Yes. I testified about what I have done myself and what I have

17 seen with my own eyes.

18 Q. Yes. There is some suggestion about the statement that you made.

19 Sir, is what happened in the taking of your statement that you were --

20 that the original document that was produced was in English. There was a

21 conversation in Serbian with the investigator, it was translated into

22 English and then retranslated into Serbian. Is that what you understood

23 happened, or do you know?

24 A. No. First -- the first time I saw the Official Note it was in the

25 Serbian language, and I was then shown an English translation of that

1 Official Note, but I don't understand English and I cannot say whether it

2 was a good translation or not.

3 Q. Sorry. I'm not talking now about the Official Note. I'm talking

4 about a witness statement that you gave to investigator John Zdrilic on

5 the 1st of June, 2002 and Monday the 3rd of June, 2002 in the presence of

6 an interpreter whose name also appears. That's what I'm talking about.

7 The original statement there was taken in English; is that

8 correct? You're nodding your head.

9 A. Yes. Correct.

10 Q. Final question: It was suggested to you by the accused that among

11 these 86 bodies, and I'm talking now about the 17-to-20-year-old man, that

12 there were no gunshot wounds. Can you explain to the Court what you mean

13 by an entry/exit wound? When you talk about an entry/exit wound, do you

14 mean a gunshot entry/exit wound, or some metal object entry -- tell us

15 about that.

16 A. On the body of that young man, on the chest there was an

17 entry/exit wound inflicted by a projectile. When you say an entry/exit

18 wound, it means that a projectile or a bullet enters and exits the body on

19 the other side. So you have an entry wound and an exit wound.

20 Q. Were you able to determine from your experience whether or not

21 that projectile was like a bullet or like a stake or some object? Are you

22 able to tell us?

23 A. I am certain that it was inflicted by a projectile, because I have

24 seen many such injuries. A projectile is a bullet.

25 Q. Thank you. And this is the same young man who had, I believe you

1 gave evidence earlier, that his hands were tied behind his back with wire;

2 is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. RYNEVELD: Those are all my questions in re-examination.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Radojkovic, that concludes your evidence. Thank

7 you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 [The witness withdrew]

10 JUDGE MAY: Now, the -- Mr. Nice, the future progress. We've

11 considered the position. What we have in mind is we really ought to get

12 on with K34 as soon as possible.

13 I've discovered a document which suggests that counsel has been

14 granted to him. Do you know anything about that?

15 MR. NICE: Counsel has been with him on all substantive proofing

16 sessions. He wasn't there this morning when matters have just been gone

17 over again. Yes, he has been available to him.

18 JUDGE MAY: It's limited to that. I mean, it's not proposed that

19 counsel comes into the courtroom.

20 MR. NICE: I don't think so, no.

21 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Then the next matter is this: That

22 Mr. Jemini is here but being taken out of order. I gather it will take a

23 little time to get K34 here.

24 MR. NICE: Yes, it will.

25 JUDGE MAY: It seems to be sensible, for that to be put in hand,

1 K34 to be got. But it may be that we can use the time for Mr. Jemini to

2 start with, but it may be also that the accused isn't ready to

3 cross-examine and we would find that understandable because, of course,

4 the order has been changed.

5 MR. NICE: Yes.

6 JUDGE MAY: We have in mind to admit it, the statement, under Rule

7 92 bis. Of course, we will have to hear the accused on that and we will

8 do so now, but what may happen is that we will have Mr. Jemini in chief

9 and put the cross-examination off until tomorrow or a suitable time.

10 MR. NICE: Entirely as Your Honour pleases. Although admitted

11 under 92 bis, I will have to deal, of course, with the three particular

12 conversations that he overheard, conversations he can speak to.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

14 Mr. Milosevic, two matters. First of all, it's proposed that

15 Mr. Isuf Jemini should give evidence or, rather, his statement should be

16 admitted under the usual Rule, and we will hear you on that.

17 The second matter is this: You may not be ready for

18 cross-examination, in which case we would be prepared to put

19 cross-examination in his case off until tomorrow or Friday so you would

20 have time to prepare.

21 So two questions for you to answer: Do you oppose the admission

22 under Rule 92 bis, apart from your usual objection; and secondly, are you

23 prepared to cross-examine now, or would you wish to cross-examine at a

24 later date?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can cross-examine him today

1 without delay, but I believe it makes sense for you to bear in mind

2 although I did get his statement in due time, if what you are constantly

3 curtailing you call time allowed, but I understand that you want me to

4 cross-examine him under 92 bis, and I object to that because that

5 radically, drastically shortens my cross-examination time. I understood

6 that he would not be under 92 bis. I have prepared a large number of

7 questions, prepared for a witness whom I expected to testify in the normal

8 way, and then I see that he is introduced under 92 bis and my time is

9 considerably shortened.

10 So I agree to him being introduced under 92 bis, providing that

11 you allow me enough time to cross-examine himself properly.

12 JUDGE MAY: This is Mr. Jemini, not Krasniqi.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have Krasniqi's statement, of

14 course. I just protest against this practice of the OTP, who constantly

15 keep changing the sequence of witnesses. But they cannot take me by

16 surprise and find me unprepared to cross-examine witnesses.

17 JUDGE MAY: We have that in mind, that if there is an alteration,

18 it may impact on your ability to prepare for cross-examination, and if you

19 find a difficulty about it, then you must apply to us and we will consider

20 whether to grant you time. But if you're ready to deal with Mr. Jemini,

21 we will admit his statement under Rule 92 bis. I would anticipate the

22 usual rules will apply about length, but in view of what you've said, we

23 will consider the position during your cross-examination.

24 Yes. Well, we'll hear Mr. Jemini then.

25 MR. NICE: May he be brought into Court. And while that's being

1 done, the Chamber may wish to refresh its memory in relation to the

2 earlier relevant evidence. The map at page 10 and Exhibit 216 relate.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.

5 WITNESS: ISUF JEMINI

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

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

9 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

10 MR. NICE: I think the Court already has copies of the 92 --

11 Rule 92 bis package. May these be distributed to others who require them

12 and may the witness please have a copy of the statement in front of him.

13 Examined by Mr. Nice:

14 Q. Is your full name Isuf Jemini?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Mr. Jemini, did you make a statement to an investigator of the

17 Office of the Prosecutor on the 11th of June of this year?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Have you since then and while at court attested to the accuracy of

20 that statement in front of an officer of the court?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And is the statement that you produced true and accurate?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. NICE: May first of all for those viewing the map, the general

25 map, at page 10 be laid on the overhead projector, and its grid reference

1 or grid box is K and L 22 and 3 that we need to be focusing on, please.

2 And I will read, until it comes to a material passage that has to be given

3 live, a summary which will be a shortened form of the summary that the

4 Chamber already has.

5 The statement of this witness, a Kosovo Albanian born in the

6 village of Celine, which we can see to the centre and right of the map,

7 thank you very much, shows that he is a co-owner of a factory and a

8 married man with three children who was awakened on the 25th of March of

9 1999, by an explosion sometime between 5.00 and 6.00 in the morning,

10 following which he went to discover a Praga armoured vehicle in his yard

11 -- not in his yard, saw from his yard a Praga armoured vehicle on the

12 Prizren road, firing continuously into the village, with about 20 soldiers

13 nearby. That Praga continued shelling Celine throughout the day, and

14 women and children went to the yard of Reshit Rexhepi's house in the

15 centre of the village, the witness observing two tanks situated on an

16 overlooking hill.

17 The witness, with his nephew Agim Jemini, who has already been a

18 witness at this hearing, went to the house of Sadri Jemini, an uncle.

19 That house was only partly completed, and the witness used a ladder to

20 climb into a roof space, pulling the ladder up after them, the better to

21 secure their safety.

22 We've seen and now if I could turn to Exhibit 216, please - our

23 copy will do for the overhead projector - we've seen already that from

24 that top storey of a partially completed building, the witness and his

25 nephew were able, when looking through the window opening, to have a view

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 of the neighbouring house within the compound and of other houses. They

2 could hear -- or this witness could hear shelling from the Praga and the

3 tanks. And between or sometime at about 10.00, he saw a number of shells

4 hitting several of the houses.

5 He also had a view from the roof by lifting a roof tile. He could

6 see a little of what was happening outside, and he saw hundreds of MUP and

7 VJ enter Celine from the direction of the village school on the main

8 Prizren-Gjakove-Krusha e Madhe road. He saw the school set on fire and

9 observed houses burning and heard the sound of continuous gunfire, seeing

10 beneath his positions MUP and VJ personnel who spoke in Serbian.

11 I turn from the summary to live evidence.

12 Q. Mr. Jemini, do you understand and indeed are you able, when

13 necessary, to speak Serbian?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In the course of hearing what you heard, did you hear any

16 reference to or use of a code? If so, what code?

17 A. I heard that the code was the number 444.

18 Q. Did you hear from the window opening a particular conversation

19 that you remembered? Just yes or no.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was this a conversation between two people on the ground or in a

22 building nearby or whatever or was it between a person and somebody being

23 heard on a radio?

24 A. This conversation, we were in the attic. We were able to overhear

25 this conversation on the radio. And the number 444 was used, and the

1 question was what was the situation like in Celine, and the answer was

2 "The situation is all right." And the question was, "Was the massacre not

3 a bigger one than Racak?" And the answer was, "Not only was it bigger,

4 but the massacre was twice as big as Racak."

5 Q. We will come to that once more, but before I do and by reference

6 to the photograph on the overhead projector to your left, can you explain

7 to the Judges where the conversation was or was apparently coming from?

8 A. Yes. In that --

9 Q. Would you point to the photograph on the projector for our

10 assistance. Thank you.

11 A. In this, you can't see the position where we were ourselves

12 because we were inside the house. We were sheltering on the platform of

13 the roof rafters, and the voices that we heard were in the lane by this

14 house about ten metres away. And the Serbian police were positioned in

15 this house all the time. So the conversation was heard from this house,

16 which is near the road, and we overheard this, as I said.

17 Q. The particular exchange concerning Racak, you've given us it in

18 your own language, but just for the purposes of this trial, can you tell

19 us, please, what you actually heard said in Serbian, please.

20 A. Yes. [In Serbian]: "Was it bigger than the massacre in Racak?"

21 And the answer [In Serbian]: "It was twice as big as Racak."

22 Q. Thank you. Was that the only apparently significant conversation

23 or exchange you heard from your vantage point or did you hear other things

24 said?

25 A. There were several conversations of this kind, and I heard others

1 which I don't remember.

2 Q. We'll come to those, if I can possibly jog your memory, in a

3 second or so, but did you stay in this position in the house?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And I'll come back to another -- perhaps something you overheard

6 in a second.

7 MR. RYNEVELD: Going back to the summary, Your Honours, at the

8 moment on page 6, although we'll go back to the last sentence on page 5,

9 the witness's statement goes on to reveal how the MUP moved into the half

10 completed house some 15 metres away, apparently using it as a command

11 post. And the following morning, at about 8.00, his father, together with

12 the parents of Agim, the earlier witness, and the witness's cousin

13 Muharrem and his wife Zade, entered the compound.

14 The parents of Agim or one of them, Sadri, went to the second

15 floor and spoke with the witness and Agim through the entrance to the

16 attic. At that stage, he was told by this witness to leave the village.

17 Now, I turn again to live evidence.

18 Q. Mr. Jemini, in giving instructions of the kind you did to your

19 relations through the opening in the attic roof or floor, were you

20 concerned as to what would happen to them if they stayed in the village?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Had you heard things that gave you reason to give them this

23 advice?

24 A. Yes. When Agim's father came up to us in the attic, we told him

25 to go down because the offensive was not over, and we told him about some

1 -- he said that the offensive was over and that people had been killed in

2 the village, but we told him that the offensive was not over and that we

3 had heard that it was still continuing along the Bellacerkva-Krusha e

4 Madhe road and they had abandoned the main road and were using village

5 roads.

6 And we had come to the conclusion that the offensive was not yet

7 over, and they would still be present on that section of the road. So we

8 told them to gather in the village with other members of the family.

9 Q. Did you have any particular concerns for what might happen to

10 people moving around in small groups? If so, why?

11 A. Yes. We had heard something said on the radio as they talked

12 among themselves, that anybody seen moving about in a small group of up to

13 10 persons would be liquidated without warning. So we understood from

14 this that if groups were smaller, they might survive.

15 MR. NICE: I return to the summary. I can conclude from the

16 summary, although it touches the death of the father of this witness and I

17 might ask him for a word or so about that.

18 Q. Following the advice you gave, were you brought food by your

19 nephew Agim's mother, advising her --

20 MR. NICE: Sorry. The witness explains that they were brought

21 food by Agim's mother, they advising her to leave. Shortly thereafter, a

22 group of 20 to 30 policemen approached from the direction of Bela Crkva,

23 burning houses as they moved, entering the yard of the witness's home and

24 burning a house there.

25 The group of people present, including the relations and in

1 particular including this witness's father and the parents of Agim, with

2 others, were brought out of a basement, robbed, asked if they had more

3 money. Agim's father and the parents of -- Agim's father and Muharrem

4 responded that they had money in their homes, to which they were taken to

5 collect that money.

6 The witness heard Agim's mother asking the policemen, "We did

7 nothing. We are innocent. Why are you mistreating us?" The witness

8 heard the -- a policeman tell the group to go to the side of the house,

9 this being a group that included, of course, his own father. The group

10 did as instructed, and the witness saw the police take up firing

11 positions. He was unable to look. He heard a single shot followed by a

12 burst of automatic fire. He was told thereafter by Agim what had

13 happened. And having the courage to look, he saw a pile of bodies on the

14 ground. The police continuing callously looting and burning houses,

15 although they did not attempt to burn the houses, including the one in

16 which he was hiding that was under construction.

17 He remained in that roof space with Agim all the afternoon and

18 evening. They saw the MUP taking away looted property on a tractor and a

19 truck, and they heard other destruction and saw some evidence of it. At

20 about midnight, they descended from the roof space and crawled away about

21 the one kilometre from Celine towards Zrze. Passing the bridge at Belaja

22 River near Bela Crkva - of which, of course, the Tribunal has heard

23 evidence - when there, they noticed the bodies of old men, children, and

24 younger men in the river, on the river bank and beneath the bridge, the

25 witness estimating a group of some 30 bodies clustered together.

1 They eventually arrived at Zrze, some five kilometres away, taking

2 about three and a half hours to get there, Zrze appearing to be intact.

3 With Agim, he remained at a house in that village for about two

4 days, until on the 28th of March a fellow Celine villager, Behajdin Fetahu

5 arrived in Zrze, telling them that the entire Celine population had been

6 captured by Serbs in the Pisjak woods, being robbed of their valuables and

7 identification documents. And so it was on the following day, the 29th of

8 March that the witness, with others, went to those woods where they

9 sheltered for the following four weeks. During the day, they remained in

10 the woods, going to Celine for food at night, burying the bodies they

11 found them -- found there. And he remembers burying three families in one

12 grave, a total of 22 persons.

13 On the last day of April, the witness and Agim joined a column of

14 refugees and entered Albania. Later, on the 18th of June, accompanied by

15 family and friends, he returned to Celine, where they set about the

16 process of reburying the victims who had been buried where they'd been

17 found. Eventually, he located the bodies of his father and Agim's parents,

18 and they were subsequently exhumed and identified.

19 The witness's evidence in the statement is that 82 persons were

20 killed in Celine, of whom 75 were Celine residents and seven had gone

21 there as guests.

22 May the witness's 92 bis statement and associated documentation be

23 Exhibit, and I think it's 276.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Correct, Your Honours. That will be Prosecutor's

25 Exhibit 276.

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] In your statement, you say that you could not

4 leave Celine on the 25th of March, 1999, because you did not have freedom

5 of movement; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that's right.

7 Q. Who restricted your freedom of movement?

8 A. The Serbian police and the army restricted our freedom of

9 movement. It was impossible to travel on the paved road from Celine to

10 Prizren and other towns.

11 Q. All right. In which way was this freedom of movement restricted?

12 A. If you're talking about the time after 25th of March, it's very

13 simple: Our movement was restricted in the sense that we couldn't even

14 leave our house let alone go any further than that.

15 Q. On the same page of your statement where you speak about this

16 restriction, you say that in Celine there were many internally displaced

17 persons from neighbouring villages; is that correct?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. Tell me, how is it possible that these displaced persons came to

20 Celine if there was no freedom of movement?

21 A. These people had not been displaced after 25th of March, they had

22 been displaced for months on end, in previous times when it had been

23 easier to move.

24 In our house alone, we had 24 displaced people from other

25 villages, but they had been there for six months before the final

1 offensive of 25th of March started.

2 Q. All right. Further on, you say that between 5.00 and 6.00 in the

3 morning the shelling of the village started, as you put it, by the Serb

4 forces. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Further on, you say that you went into the yard and saw soldiers,

7 vehicles. You say that soldiers were lying down; is that correct?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Q. How far away from you were these soldiers and that vehicle that

10 you referred to?

11 A. They were about 500 metres away.

12 Q. Could you see from that distance who they were shooting at, the

13 soldiers?

14 A. The -- we didn't see the soldiers that were positioned there, but

15 we saw the armoured vehicles and the Praga firing in the direction of the

16 village.

17 Q. But my question was whether you saw who these soldiers were

18 shooting at.

19 A. That morning at half past five, they were shelling the village.

20 They were only shelling the village. So that the population were trying

21 to shelter in the woods or in different valleys. Then --

22 Q. All right. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that on page 2,

23 paragraph 7, you refer to this shooting. And in that same paragraph, you

24 say that on that morning not a single house had been hit. Is that correct

25 or not?

1 A. On that morning, they shelled in order to stop the villagers

2 fleeing the village. Their intention was to capture them all in the

3 village.

4 Q. I'm not asking you about your comment of possible motives. I am

5 indicating to what you said in your statement, that that morning not a

6 single house had been hit. Is that correct or is that not correct?

7 A. That morning, they weren't hit at that time, but later they were.

8 And I saw several houses burning.

9 Q. Please. You say, and I am reading your statement to you because

10 you are not answering my question directly, that is paragraph 7 on this

11 first page of the statement. Since there is a cover page, this is, in

12 essence, the first page. You say that you saw a Praga vehicle. You say

13 that you saw it firing continuously into the village for the entire day,

14 with small pauses. "I did not see it hitting any houses during the

15 morning period."

16 So you state that they were shelling the village, and you say that

17 they did not hit a single house. So not a single house had been hit.

18 Is it correct that then the army and the police were responding to

19 KLA attacks in the area, in the area of your village?

20 A. It's not true what you say. I said before, before when the

21 shelling started --

22 Q. Mr. Jemini, say yes or no. I have many questions for you, so

23 there's no need to elaborate. So it's not correct. They were shooting,

24 they did not hit a single house, and they were not responding to KLA

25 attacks. So who or what were they shooting at then? Do you know?

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. I can't answer your provocative questions with only yes or no. It

2 requires an explanation. And if Your Honour will allow, I will explain.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning, at 5.30 in the

5 morning when they started shelling, they didn't shell the houses directly.

6 They -- they fired around the village. But later on, I saw houses in

7 flames.

8 So after an hour, they started shelling houses, burning houses,

9 and the police and army infantry entered the village. That's how it

10 happened.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. You say here that the soldiers were lying on the ground by the

13 railroad, that they had taken positions because they had been attacked,

14 and now you say that the army and police entered the village, and here you

15 say, "I did not see any members of the MUP."

16 So what is correct, Mr. Jemini?

17 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't think the witness has got a copy

18 of the statement. The accused hasn't identified the passages to him.

19 There is a habit or a pattern of putting multiple questions with the

20 effect of confusion. The witness should have a copy of the statement, in

21 my respectful submission.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Does he have a copy of the statement?

23 MR. NICE: Your Honour, he apparently has one but he should have

24 the passage brought to his attention.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, yes, yes. Mr. Jemini, would you look at the

1 seventh paragraph. It says, you will see, that between -- "At about 5.00

2 to 6.00, Serb forces began shelling the village," and you could see a

3 Praga armoured vehicle parked on the main road to Prizren and soldiers

4 deployed around it. You say the Praga was aimed towards the village and

5 you saw it firing continuously into the village for the entire day, with

6 small pauses. You did not see it hitting any houses, you say, during the

7 morning period. That was the point that the accused was drawing to your

8 attention. You now say that they started -- it started shelling the

9 houses after an hour.

10 You're next invited to comment on the next passage: "I saw

11 approximately 20 soldiers near the Praga. They were just there lying on

12 the ground near the railway track. I did not see any MUP."

13 Now, Mr. Milosevic, what's your question about this passage?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I put a question.

15 JUDGE MAY: It wasn't clear. What was it?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He said, the witness said, that the

17 village had been shelled from the morning onwards and then that they did

18 not hit a single house. Now when speaking here, he said that they were

19 not shooting at the village but they were shooting at the surrounding area

20 around the village, and that coincides with my question whether they were

21 actually engaged in a conflict with the KLA that was outside the village,

22 in the surrounding area. And then he responded to me that there was no

23 KLA there. And then I asked him, because he said the army and the police,

24 I asked him why he mentioned the police now when he says here, "I did not

25 see any MUP in the -- at this stage."

1 JUDGE MAY: I don't follow the question. He said the village was

2 attacked by the VJ and the MUP, but at this stage he's not talking about

3 the attack, he's talking about shelling in the presence of soldiers.

4 Now, unless you've got a question about this, let us move on.

5 Your time will be limited, as you know, and much of it is taken up with

6 these repetitive questions.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Please. You said that the village was shelled, and now you say it

9 was not the village that was shelled but they were shooting around the

10 village. Now, make up your mind; was the village shelled or were they

11 shooting around the village?

12 JUDGE MAY: He's answered that question. We can see the

13 discrepancy in his statement, and it will be a matter for us to decide

14 what weight to give it. There's no point going on asking the same

15 question again.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right, Mr. May. I

17 wanted to know what the truth was finally in the witness's opinion,

18 whether they were shooting at the village or around the village, but I

19 never heard an answer to that question.

20 JUDGE MAY: He's given an answer.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If he's given an answer,

22 then it must be recorded in the transcript.

23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. In 1998, were you in your village, Celine, during the summer?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. How far away is your village from Orahovac?

2 A. As the crow flies, about ten kilometres.

3 Q. So your village can be considered the closely surrounding area of

4 Orahovac; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And do you know that in the period between the 17th until the 22nd

7 of July, in the area of Orahovac, 39 Serbs and Albanians were taken away

8 by KLA terrorists?

9 A. No, I don't know about this.

10 Q. Do you know at least that criminal reports were filed in this

11 regard at the court in Prizren? And there's no point in quoting numbers

12 of these criminal reports or anything. Have you heard about this at all,

13 that this was reported?

14 A. I heard, but these reports were framed. We never trusted these

15 reports.

16 Q. And do you know who is Gjelaj Hajdatoni?

17 A. I've only heard his name, and I know that he was a KLA commander,

18 but I don't know any more about him.

19 Q. Do you know whether he was the leader of this gang for the area of

20 Orahovac?

21 A. I don't know of there being any gang in the area of Rahovec, any

22 gang of Albanians.

23 Q. Well, they called it the KLA. Do you know at least that, that

24 there was a KLA group in the area of Orahovac?

25 A. That was the Kosovo Liberation Army and was present not only in

1 the Rahovec area but all over Kosova.

2 Q. That much is true. And since I'm asking you about your immediate

3 environs, do you know that the KLA intended to take over Orahovac and

4 expel the entire non-Albanian population precisely at that time?

5 A. No, I don't know about that.

6 Q. And are you aware of the