1 Thursday, 14 April 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 8.03 a.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: This Status Conference will shade imperceptibly I

6 hope into the trial. We will sit first session until 9.35, a 30-minute

7 break; then 10.05 until 11.40, another 30-minute break; and then 12.10

8 until 1.45.

9 This conference has come about as a result of something that

10 happened, an exchange between Mr. Milosevic and myself some weeks ago. We

11 were looking at the progress of the Defence case, and I remarked then to

12 Mr. Milosevic that continuing at this same pace at the end of 150 days he

13 would have had no more than 100 or 120 witnesses. Mr. Milosevic then

14 commented to the effect that that only served to illustrate how unreal and

15 unfair the entire system and entire allocation of time was in relation to

16 him. I was, naturally, very concerned about that, bearing in mind that

17 the Prosecution called about 300 witnesses. So I caused an inquiry to be

18 made into the number of written statements utilised by the Prosecution in

19 the presentation of their case, and the result of that inquiry is in a

20 document that was circulated yesterday to all parties.

21 It shows, Mr. Milosevic, that for the Croatia indictment, there

22 were slightly more written statements than live testimony. And for the

23 Bosnia indictment more than twice as many written statements as live

24 testimony. And the Kosovo indictment, written statements exceeded live

25 testimony by almost two-thirds. And looking at the three indictments as a

1 whole, you will see the figures on the second page. Total number of

2 Prosecution witnesses, 352. Total number of live witnesses 114. Which

3 means that only about a third of the witnesses testified live. The rest,

4 two-thirds, gave testimony by way of written statements. And then, of

5 course, added to that is the fact that a number of these witnesses had

6 their statements admitted without cross-examination, some 15 per cent.

7 So that would explain why at the end of the 150 days assigned

8 Mr. Milosevic might not have adduced evidence from more than 100, 120, 130

9 witnesses.

10 It means, therefore, Mr. Milosevic, that you have to take account

11 of what is open and available to you through the Rules by way of written

12 statements, 92 bis, 89(F), and the other facilities that are open.

13 I should say that as far as 92 bis and 89(F) are concerned, those

14 matters are not entirely unrelated to some of the issues which are

15 outstanding for consideration by the Trial Chamber as evidential questions

16 raised by the -- by the Prosecution.

17 The Status Conference, of course, will be open to the parties to

18 submit other points, but we don't want to -- to stray too far, and we have

19 a limited time, and I thank the Prosecution for the notes which they

20 submitted on the 13th.

21 I want first, though, to hear from the parties in relation to the

22 opening remarks that I made in relation to the use of written statements

23 by the Defence and the impact that that might have on the progression of

24 the trial. I'll hear first from Mr. Milosevic, then Mr. Kay, then

25 Mr. Nice.

1 Mr. Milosevic, any comments on the opening remarks? Or if you

2 prefer to speak last, you can have the benefit of speaking last. It's a

3 benefit in some -- in a particular sense.

4 We're not hearing --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English?

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I assume if I say something

8 now I can also say something later on, if I have something to say. And

9 you indicated quite rightly, Mr. Robinson, in commenting on these figures,

10 the figures that you presented in this internal memorandum, with the

11 proviso that I should like to draw your attention to some other aspects of

12 that interpretation.

13 In the total, as you yourself said, only one-third of the

14 witnesses testified live, viva voce. I think that that goes to the

15 detriment of the principle of the public nature of the trial and greatly

16 so. I assume that Mr. Nice can respond to that by saying that all the

17 documents are accessible to the public, of course, and that they can be

18 placed at their disposal or, rather, that they are at their disposal being

19 produced on the Internet and so on. However, the general public doesn't

20 use that type of information, and it is only what is going on here live

21 and what is stated here viva voce can truly be considered to be public and

22 open to the public. So that you know my position full well. I would like

23 witnesses who testify here to testify publicly.

24 And second, even this one-third of witnesses, we would have to

25 look at how many of them testified in fact in closed session of the people

1 testifying viva voce, and based on an agreement with the Prosecution. So

2 that that percentage, if taken that percentage into consideration, the

3 overall percentage would be lower.

4 I think that this is a very vital question of principle, and I

5 don't think that we should look at it simplistically.

6 As far as the overall time is concerned, total time, you quite

7 rightly presented my view, that is to say, that this just illustrates how

8 little time I was given in the first place for all three large

9 indictments, that is say, Kosovo, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

10 extensive indictments. And I'd also like to draw your attention to the

11 fact that parallel to calling witnesses I have to see and interview the

12 witness beforehand, and the time for that is far shorter, incomparably

13 shorter, in fact, than Mr. Nice has for his witnesses, Mr. Nice and his

14 associates, of course. And this boils down to one meeting and a fairly

15 short one at that and completely inadequate time for preparation. So this

16 is very short time on all counts. And of course you can expect that I

17 shall be asking for a prolongation of that time, extension of the

18 deadline.

19 Now, with respect to the bill [In English] Use of time

20 [Interpretation] mathematics provided by the Registry, I have nothing to

21 say on that score. I assume that the people who have counted up the time

22 are very responsible individuals and are keeping records responsibly.

23 However, I should like to draw your attention to one aspect of

24 this matter. In your decision, in your ruling, you said that with respect

25 to the time that I myself have for the examination-in-chief the opposite

1 side has 60 per cent of that time, of the time I use, for their

2 cross-examination, which would mean --

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm trying not to get into that

4 particular question today, and in fact the Prosecutor had been disposed to

5 discuss that particular question, and we made a decision to the contrary.

6 So let's not get into that question. We'll deal with that on another

7 occasion.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I just wanted to draw your

9 attention to the fact that if for every ten hours that I have, the other

10 side has six hours. And if you compare the figures, then you'll see that

11 the balance has been upset. I expect you to do a minimum, and that is to

12 look at my time in relation to the time used up by the other party so that

13 we have the 10-to-6 ratio prevail as you yourself said.

14 Otherwise, I am doing my best to use my time as rationally as

15 possible, both in terms of preparation and in terms of my

16 examination-in-chief and my questioning here, that it be useful so that

17 you can see what actually happened and learn what actually happened. And

18 I am bearing in mind the fact that we have accusations made here where

19 everything has been turned topsy-turvy, upside down, or, rather, in which

20 highly improbable things are being asserted. So it is quite justified for

21 us to hear the witnesses, to hear the arguments put forward so we can gain

22 an insight of everything that is going on. So that the time factor is not

23 just a technical factor, technicality, it is a factor of essential

24 importance and basic importance for asserting the elementary principle of

25 truth. And in that respect, I expect you to have great understanding for

1 the work in hand and the time it requires.

2 So much from me. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

4 MR. KAY: Just considering the principal issue in terms of

5 evidence when we're looking at the allocation of time. It is the written

6 evidence, the oral testimony debate that really this centres upon. And

7 during the course of the Prosecution case, the jurisprudence was changed

8 at the Tribunal in relation to the use of Rule 92 bis and the development

9 of Rule 89(F).

10 On behalf of the Defence, it has to be said that the use of

11 Rule 92 bis and its procedures are more suitable as a Prosecution vehicle

12 for the adduction of evidence. I think it would be fair to submit that

13 that was a development within the Rules largely for the benefit of the

14 Prosecutor, and its emphasis as a tool for the Defence has not really been

15 something that has been fully countenanced in the cases before the

16 Tribunal. It's not been something that is available for the Defence, not

17 been something that was envisaged the Defence would avail itself of to a

18 great extent. And the submission on behalf of the accused comes down to

19 this: That as he sees it, the issues are best on his behalf heard through

20 viva voce evidence rather than the use of the technical rules for the

21 introduction of evidence in a written form which may suit the progress of

22 a case for the Prosecutor.

23 As we're dealing with the narrow issue here, I put that before the

24 Trial Chamber as a matter of consideration on the use of the Rules to,

25 from his point of view, maximise what is available within this allotted

1 period of time.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you not consider, Mr. Kay, that a lot of the

3 evidence that is being presented in this particular case by the Defence is

4 eminently suitable for presentation in writing? Just take as an example

5 the witness we have concluded. The bulk of his testimony in chief could

6 have easily been presented in writing because it was factual, and it could

7 have been supplemented by questions on issues that the accused was

8 concerned to emphasise and then it could have been cross-examined within a

9 reasonable scope and concluded in probably a third or certainly a half of

10 the time in which it was concluded. And it's a type of evidence that I

11 suspect is in this case rather different from the scenario that you're

12 envisaging, where Defence evidence of criminal responsibility might have

13 to be presented viva voce. I understand the point. But I think this way

14 this case has developed or evolved that there is evidence of a nature very

15 similar to the Prosecution evidence that you are categorising as suitable

16 for these two Rules.

17 MR. KAY: Yes.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down. Thank you.

19 MR. KAY: It's a resource issue for the Defence in relation to

20 getting people to provide written reports. And I had experience of that

21 when dealing with matters the end of last year on the Racak incident

22 itself, asking for a report that could have been used, perhaps, as written

23 testimony, or going through the Rule 94 bis channel. You're faced with a

24 demand of, well, pay me for 300 hours.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand. Again, I understand that point. But

1 my problem with that is that that's rather an academic issue because the

2 will isn't there to even start that process at the moment. Mr. Milosevic

3 is not interested in following that course, so we don't know realistically

4 what the outcome would be. It's -- you are dealing with and he material

5 different situation for a number of reasons.

6 MR. KAY: Yes. I just flag that up, though, on this use by the

7 Prosecution of the written methods of production of evidence against the

8 Defence being able to. There is a resource issue and a time issue to get

9 witnesses to undertake such projects. And in terms of supervision and

10 work preparation to get a proper statement taken rather than an interview

11 requires, and the Prosecution would no doubt acknowledge this, several

12 people being involved in the process, facilities, resources to take a full

13 and proper statement of 20 pages, say, as we've had from the Prosecution

14 through various Rule 89(F) witnesses. It is difficult for Defence

15 resources to often achieve what seems a very desirable and worthwhile way

16 of producing evidence. There are practical problems that are faced.

17 On the matter of the will, I can't deal with that, and I have to

18 leave that to Your Honours.

19 Those are my observations on this narrow issue at this stage.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

21 Mr. Nice.

22 MR. NICE: Your Honour, not very much that I need to say on this

23 topic. The Chamber should in our respectful submission stick absolutely

24 to its original time allocation and the accused should be reminded of that

25 because of two things. First, the potential to use written evidence has

1 been drawn to the accused's attention by the Prosecution and by the Court

2 I think really from the beginning of his Defence case and various points

3 throughout it.

4 Second, the accused persists in misunderstanding the reason for

5 and value of public trials that happen in this court under the expansive

6 adversarial system, even if they would not have necessarily have happened

7 in other countries. And the purpose of open and public trials is to allow

8 public supervision of the judiciary and the executive where the executive

9 is involved so that it can be seen that what they do is fair. It is not

10 to provide entertainment. Still less is it to provide an opportunity for

11 propaganda.

12 Now, the accused is quite unashamed in saying that he's not

13 speaking to you. He's speaking to a different audience. He's not indeed

14 addressing matters necessarily forensically. He's addressing different

15 matters through the medium of a public trial, the public nature of which

16 is fully available.

17 For example, the accused correctly says that I would say the

18 material is all available to those seeking to inquire into it, and so it

19 is. And indeed in the Defence case or indeed in the case as a whole

20 there's been very little closed-session testimony, far less than any or

21 most other cases here. And therefore, if he persists in presenting his

22 case on a false premise as to the value, significance, or utility of the

23 public nature of the trial, then he has own himself to blame for the fact

24 that he will not be able to get as much evidence in in the allotted and

25 reasonable time as he otherwise could.

1 Turning to Mr. Kay's observations about the different utility of

2 92 bis or 89(F) for the Prosecution as opposed to the Defence. There may

3 be some merit in that observation so far as 92 bis and what is referred to

4 as crime base evidence. Not a phrase I've ever liked. Crimes, I suppose,

5 is a better term. Where it could reasonably have been expected that the

6 evidence would be unchallenged in whole or in part in the event that

7 didn't turn out. But that argument says nothing about the general utility

8 of 89(F) which can be used for absolutely any type of evidence, and indeed

9 in our respectful submission should be. In my personal submission, should

10 be in all cases and for nearly all evidence in all Prosecution and Defence

11 in order to make the best use of the finite and limited resources of this

12 Tribunal as a whole. So that there is absolutely no reason for the

13 accused not to use 89(F) or 92 bis.

14 Mr. Kay is of course correct that preparing written statements

15 takes some time. Two points or three on that.

16 First, and as a matter of fact, the Court has regularly enough --

17 I was going to use the word "court" but perhaps "detective" is a better

18 neutral phrase, witnesses speaking from quite extensive notes and may have

19 judged that to quite a significant degree the exchanges between the

20 accused and the witnesses are -- follow a prepared format. Nothing wrong

21 with that. But of course it's only a small step between prepared format

22 with supporting notes and a disciplined written statement

23 characteristically as the Chamber will recall from the Prosecution's side

24 of about ten sides or less of fairly broadly spaced type.

25 Second point: The accused is not in a position simply because he

1 has elected to represent himself to pray that in aid on matters where he

2 should be assisting the Chamber to the most efficient use of time. He has

3 associates. He has Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins there to assist him. It is

4 well within his ability with his resources or with further resources that

5 he can obtain and deploy to prepare written statements for all the

6 witnesses that he seeks to call and to rely on the provisions of 89(F)

7 which will of course impose a much greater burden on the Prosecution which

8 will have to be cross-examining witnesses at a much more swift rate, one

9 following the other.

10 So those are two -- two points that I would draw to your

11 attention. If he chooses not to rely on 89(F), then that is his choice

12 with consequences that will be determined by him.

13 Your Honours, I should also make this point, and it's one of the

14 points I touch in on the notes for this Status Conference: The more

15 particularised the advance notice given by a party to another party of

16 evidence to come the more it should be possible for cross-examination to

17 be both prepared and limited. Not only will it be possible from time to

18 time to make concessions and thus to eliminate altogether at a first read

19 of a document something from the list of issues facing the Trial Chamber,

20 but it should be possible and I think usually is to make better use of

21 time in cross-examination. And that, of course, is particularly important

22 in relation to evidence that is of an expert nature although coming in in

23 the guise of factual evidence and other problems which I refer in the

24 notes provided in advance.

25 I have nothing else, I think, to say on the narrow points raised

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 so far.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

3 Mr. Milosevic, anything in reply? Briefly.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I see nothing to which there is

5 any need to reply.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, on the notes that you produced, I'm not

9 sure whether we have time to go into all of them, all of the points, but

10 you might wish to highlight two or three.

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm much obliged. It may help if I

12 summarise the Prosecution's position in this way: Is of course very

13 concerned about the overall length of the trial timetable. Potentially as

14 it stands even more so were there to be any question of prolongation, and

15 its concerns are not just either particular to the staff members or to the

16 resources of the Office of the Prosecutor but much broader than that.

17 There are many reasons why this trial should be brought to a timely

18 conclusion.

19 With that in mind and with the assumption that we would invite the

20 Chamber to say it is entitled to make that adequate resources will be made

21 available to Office of the Prosecutor, to the assigned counsel and to the

22 accused to meet any demands that the Trial Chamber makes of us as parties,

23 we would press you to notify the accused and the rest of us immediately

24 that steps to the conclusion of this trial will be seamless, that there

25 will not be an expectation of or allowance for breaks between the end of

1 the Defence case, rebuttal, rejoinder. I omitted to deal with Rule 98,

2 but any Rule 98 witnesses, closing arguments, written and oral, that it is

3 in everybody's interests, and it is a major interest that a timetable

4 should be set and requirements should be made of all of us that this case

5 proceeds without breaks to its conclusion.

6 I have set out in the document which is an internal document but

7 available of course to the parties particular mechanisms by which that

8 should be done.

9 The second point which I've touched on already is that the only

10 interest, the only legitimate interest that this trial has is the forensic

11 interest of getting a fair result. It's not a case where there is any

12 legitimate interest in the accused having more publicity of the type he

13 candidly acknowledges he seeks. And with that in mind, I've set out some

14 specific proposals for how the closing stages of this trial should be

15 dealt with in order to assist the Court and to serve no other purpose, and

16 in particular, how the accused should be confined firmly both as to

17 written submissions under I think it's Rule 95, is it, closing

18 arguments -- sorry, Rule 86, and as to oral submissions, and I would

19 press the Chamber to consider the wisdom of that and to make preliminary

20 orders now so that the accused knows he has to prepare a written argument

21 that will deal with the legal and factual issues on a count-by-count

22 basis, to assist the Chamber and to allow for responsive arguments from

23 ourselves or assisting arguments from the assigned counsel if their

24 involvement is requested.

25 Similarly, the issue of the accused giving evidence or making an

1 unsworn statement should in our respectful submission be confronted

2 immediately for the following reason -- two reasons: One, the accused is

3 already in default in respect of an order that he should announce whether

4 he's on his own witness list. Two, if he is going to make an unsworn

5 statement or give evidence, that will take some time. Time should be

6 allotted to it, then deducted from the 150 days, and that will then put

7 the Chamber in a better position to supervise as it can his use of the

8 time dividing it between the three indictments.

9 And so we would invite the Chamber to deal with that as soon as

10 may be or immediately to avoid the risk that the accused will simply push

11 the Trial Chamber into a corner where it is obliged to give him more time,

12 which is probably his sole interest at the moment apart from getting the

13 evidence before you. One suspects that his underlying objective will be

14 to get more time to make this trial last even longer than it's lasted

15 already.

16 The third point I deal with at paragraph 15. This trial is

17 proceeding at the pace of just over 12 hours of court sittings a week. By

18 any international standards, that is of course a very short sitting per

19 week. The accused's health was the reason for coming down to this low

20 level of sitting. His health appears to have been robust but for a viral

21 infection. We know the history of his health record and of the issues

22 that led to the imposition of counsel, I think, and may have led to his

23 now following the medical regime rather more precisely.

24 There is every reason for the Chamber to reconsider the number of

25 days sitting. And before the accused responds to that in a predictable

1 way, let me make the Prosecution's position quite clear. If the accused

2 is able to sit five days a week, the fact that he chooses to represent

3 himself is no reason for sitting any less. The interests of the Court,

4 the institution as a whole, and the general public are in having this --

5 having this case determined in a timely way, and if he is now fit to sit

6 either five or four days a week, then the Court can and in our respectful

7 submission should proceed on the basis that he has the resources available

8 to him should he wish to use them to enable that period of time to be used

9 in court.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is a matter that I raised some weeks ago and

11 indicated that we had it under active consideration. I indicated that we

12 were considering inquiring of the doctors whether the accused would be

13 able to work one day more per week for perhaps three of the four weeks in

14 a month. We do have it under active consideration, as I said, and we will

15 make a decision on that issue soon.

16 MR. NICE: I'm grateful and pleased to hear that on behalf of the

17 Prosecution.

18 Perhaps I should flesh out in one sentence one other technical

19 point arising from the possibility of rebuttal and rejoinder cases and our

20 concern about it, and our concern that there should be - I've touched on

21 it already - no interval between the close of one part of the case and the

22 start of the next. It should all be seamless with no gaps of any kind.

23 And although I can think of no phrase I would personally more enjoy

24 delivering or no sentence than the sentence there is no application to

25 call rebuttal evidence and I am ready to make my closing argument, it is

1 but least probable that I won't be in a position to deliver that sentence.

2 With that in mind, and given that the accused is under an

3 obligation to present his evidence indictment by indictment, I would

4 invite the Chamber to allow or encourage the presentation of filings on

5 possible rebuttal witnesses periodically through the balance of the

6 accused's case, perhaps most conveniently one after the close of his

7 Kosovo evidence and one after the close of his Croatia evidence, in order

8 to either rule on them before the close of the Defence case or at least to

9 make some provisional decisions or to communicate some provisional

10 decisions so that preparations can be made in order that there could be no

11 argument that time would be required between the close of case and calling

12 of rebuttal evidence, if any, once the final decision is made as to what

13 rebuttal evidence, if any, might be allowed.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you have anything more to add?

17 MR. KAY: Yes, on a number of issues.

18 Can I tell the Court, because looking at point 7 of the

19 Prosecution's submissions, assigned counsel not to address facts in

20 closing arguments, we think that that would be very wrong and unfair if

21 such a provision was to go through. We're in fact currently working on a

22 response to the Prosecution fill-box, and so we're going through the

23 evidence from the beginning and putting in an extra column onto their

24 fill-box and responding to the arguments that they have put in there on

25 evidential matters.

1 It has to be done, and we believe it's a very valuable guidance

2 for us to do for the Trial Chamber is as you go through it, and you'll

3 see -- it's not a criticism of Mr. Nice, but there are vast passages of

4 text that are replicated throughout, applied to counts and allegations,

5 some of which bear actual -- actually no relevance to the evidence that

6 was heard, and we feel the Trial Chamber would be led into error if it

7 followed the Prosecution arguments without any other party putting in a

8 counterweight.

9 On matters of law, we propose to put in a brief at the end of this

10 on the legal issues so that we address the facts within the fill-box and

11 put in a legal document containing legal argument as a separate vehicle.

12 We've had several attempts over the last two months in finding a way of

13 dealing with everything, and as we started one way we looked at an

14 unwieldy document. We then went back to the drawing board and started

15 again, and that's the approach we found most helpful, we believe, having

16 been through various prototypes on the way to where we are now. And we've

17 done it early because we realised that it would take time to work out the

18 best shape.

19 So we feel that that would be essential for the Trial Chamber.

20 Whether the accused puts in his own written argument or addresses the

21 Court orally on matters of law and fact, that it would be helpful.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That is certainly the view which the

23 Chamber takes. And in fact, I was considering issuing an order requiring

24 the assigned counsel to prepare such a brief. We would definitely be

25 helped by a brief from the assigned counsel on the legal issues which, of

1 course, can't be separated from the evidence, from the facts.

2 MR. KAY: Yes.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: And I would rather hope that as the trial

4 progresses assigned counsel would be taking notes of important issues that

5 arise, some of which I have highlighted and which are in the interests of

6 the accused, to raise points in that brief which the accused may miss

7 himself.

8 MR. KAY: Yes.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because assigned counsel, from the experience

10 which they have, may have a sharper eye for that kind of detail. So most

11 certainly we will be expecting a legal brief from assigned counsel.

12 MR. KAY: I can say in fact we started this project in December.

13 As I said, it took awhile to get the right shape because it's big, the

14 subject we're dealing with, and we looked to providing narrative, and none

15 of that really worked, we felt, and so we've gone into the fill-box area.

16 So it's under way, and the Court will have a concluded document at the

17 end. How much time there is between the close of evidence and the

18 submission of final briefs will be another matter. I think that that's

19 best -- best addressed nearer to the -- when we're looking at the rebuttal

20 evidence so that we have a timetable for that, then, and a more realistic

21 hold on the overall evidence.

22 We're also including within it as we progress issues, submissions

23 on the evidence you're hearing from Defence witnesses and how that

24 counters various Prosecution witnesses so that the Court has a map, if you

25 like, of the issues from each witness, on a paragraph and count basis.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

2 MR. KAY: So those are the matters that I raise. I don't know

3 whether the Trial Chamber wanted to hear on additional matters, whether

4 they wanted assigned counsel to submit any evidence independently. We've

5 been discussing this matter between ourselves on whether there would be an

6 expectation. We haven't developed anything or put anything before the

7 Court to date, but it's been at the back of our mind. As yet we don't

8 know the full extent of the Defence evidence, but we were looking at

9 issues such as the use of 92 bis by us using transcript evidence from

10 other trials at the Tribunal, if there was helpful Defence expert

11 evidence. And we've again in December or -- no, before then, started

12 reviewing experts in other cases that the Defence have called and whether

13 we would independently put that in to assist the accused.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Perhaps you might want to submit a filing

15 on that.

16 MR. KAY: Yes. If that's helpful to do so. Again, it's one of

17 the issues we've been turning over as to where we go in relation to some

18 of the evidence and issues in the case.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, are you in a position to assist at all in

20 point 12?

21 MR. KAY: Yes, I am. I know the associate for the accused,

22 Professor Rakic, has been dealing with this issue. He hasn't actually

23 been here since the end of last year.

24 This is under way. I've actually made a draft and have this under

25 hand first of all for the Americans. It may well be that something is

1 being issued next week for the US embassy as well as directly to the

2 witnesses themselves, and I have worked on that in relation to Albright

3 and Clinton. In relation to the UK witnesses, I have in fact met the

4 legal advisor yesterday and to open up channels there. So this is an area

5 I have gone into, appreciating the issues concerning the accused.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: It should, of course, be addressed as quickly as

7 possible.

8 MR. KAY: Yes.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because we wouldn't want to have an application,

10 say a week before the end of the time allocated for the Defence.

11 MR. KAY: No.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: An application to deal with these witnesses.

13 MR. KAY: I'm trying to be as conclusive and consult as widely as

14 possible on number 12, and I actually started from my end at the end of

15 last year, and as a result of things a few weeks ago decided to just get

16 on with it myself and do research on the issues and to try and meet as

17 much as possible observations that I had received from the US legal

18 advisor Mr. Kay when I met him at the end of last year.

19 So that -- that I hope will in respect of two of the concerned

20 countries, those internationals, something that's concluded in fact within

21 three or four weeks, and then look at the other outstanding internationals

22 from Germany and France. There may be a few other UN figures within it,

23 but it's under -- under review now. So it's not being left to the end.

24 I've started on it.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

1 Mr. Milosevic.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, first in

3 relation to what Mr. Kay was speaking about now or, rather, in relation to

4 the question that you put, I wish to remind you that in the month of

5 February last year, through the liaison officer I provided a list of these

6 witnesses. This is called the list of hostile witnesses starting with

7 Clinton and all the others are there. So it's been 13 months now.

8 Shortly after that, the liaison officer sent these letters to the

9 respective embassies. The results and the replies have not been here yet.

10 I drew your attention to that a few months ago. So there is no delay in

11 relation to that that can be linked to any activity of mine. I acted in

12 good time. Even before my half-time started I dealt with this matter. So

13 please bear that in mind.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, I can't allow you

15 to make a comment of that kind without a response on behalf of the

16 Chamber. It is true you have raised that issue several times, but on each

17 and every occasion that you have raised it, it has been pointed out that

18 you have not followed the required procedural requirements. And as a

19 matter of fact, the last time you raised it I told you that if you

20 insisted on raising it without meeting the procedural requirements, I

21 would dismiss the application, and I did so orally without prejudice to

22 your right to resubmit a proper application meeting all the requirements.

23 You're being assisted in this regard now by -- by Mr. Kay, and we

24 expect to have an application in proper form. And once that application

25 is made, the Chamber will give it all the consideration that it deserves.

1 It doesn't matter who the person is. If the requirements are met, the

2 Chamber will issue a subpoena for that person.

3 You're being assisted now, and we expect to have a proper

4 application in as soon as possible.

5 You may proceed.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, as far as I can

7 remember, precisely then when I spoke about it last time, that was a few

8 months ago, I heard that Mr. Kay informed you here that he was working on

9 it.

10 Now, as for what Mr. Nice suggested, I think that his suggestions

11 are highly incorrect. His suggestion is to work without any breaks

12 whatsoever. He claims, and I wrote that down here, that the aim of this

13 accused is to make this last as long as possible. I think that with any

14 common sense, no one could draw that kind of conclusion, that anyone can

15 have that kind of intention of dragging things out. My aim is to present

16 the truth, and that requires time. That is not identical to any other

17 kind of aim of having this extended for as long as possible. That is

18 nonsense.

19 Finally, as for this proposal of Mr. Nice's to increase the number

20 of days here to over three days a week, I wish to remind you of the fact

21 that you adopted that proposal on the basis of the request put forth by

22 the doctors a few years ago. Since that had not been observed, you

23 brought me to a situation in which I had deteriorated health problems

24 which were then of a greater length than would otherwise have been

25 expected.

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 So if -- since we are talking about chronic cardiovascular

2 problems here, during this year if my health has improved then this place

3 should be advertised as a kind of spa for treating such problems. If you

4 read what the doctors wrote about my health condition which was not any

5 kind of excess. This was a lasting problem. It was quite clear that

6 there could not have been any kind of improvement. Perhaps there only

7 could have been a stagnation once it was ruled that we would be working

8 three case a week. On the contrary. I have a request that is quite the

9 opposite, to have longer breaks. Otherwise, you will not give me any

10 opportunity of getting any rest whatsoever.

11 Even today under these conditions I can get some fresh air only on

12 Saturdays and Sundays, because objectively speaking, during the week I

13 have only those two days left to talk to witnesses, those two days when we

14 do not work here. So it's only Saturdays and Sundays that I can get some

15 fresh air.

16 The conditions are, therefore, highly unfavourable. That is why I

17 believe and assert that this kind of proposal made by Mr. Nice is

18 ill-intentioned.

19 There is another thing I wish to say. As for the list of hostile

20 witnesses, I'm going to give it some more thought. But I think I will

21 take Rudolf Scharping, the former minister of defence of Germany from that

22 list, because in the meantime he made a statement to the effect that he

23 had been manipulated. So it's not necessary really to establish who it

24 was who manipulated him. It is those who should be held responsible for

25 his manipulation that should deal with that matter. So I will probably

1 get him off that list, and this will be my contribution to decreasing the

2 number of persons on the said list.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

4 MR. NICE: May I make a couple of points relating to what my

5 learned friend Mr. Kay said about the fill-box document and about factual

6 submissions.

7 First, as the Chamber may recall, we are reformatting the fill-box

8 document into the standard computer system that is operated by the OTP.

9 Indeed it may be possible at some stage to offer to the Chamber, to the

10 accused and indeed of course to Mr. Kay instruction in how that system, if

11 it comes in the computerised system, can be used to retrieve evidence by

12 various criteria.

13 I would, of course, be only too pleased to receive from Mr. Kay or

14 Ms. Higgins corrections or observations they want to make about the

15 document before it's submitted to the Chamber because there's no need for

16 the Chamber to be burdened with shortcomings that are not significant for

17 final deliberation but that would otherwise be irritating, and I hope

18 Mr. Kay or Ms. Higgins feel they could do that. They are I know finding

19 the document helpful.

20 Coming back from the details of that this: My observations about

21 whether the assigned counsel should make factual arguments is one of

22 principle. Once a person elects to present his case himself and find

23 himself put in the driving seat to the extent that the accused has at his

24 own request been put, then the factual case he argues is his case, and it

25 may not be either right that there should be two factual arguments. It

1 may not indeed be what he wants, and we've heard many occasions where he

2 has diverged from arguments advanced by Mr. Kay.

3 So on factual arguments, I would maintain the Prosecution's

4 position that there is neither the need nor is it desirable that factual

5 arguments should be advanced independently by Mr. Kay from those advanced

6 by the accused. Of course if Mr. Kay prepares a factual argument, whether

7 structured on the Prosecution's computerised recording of and scheduling

8 of evidence and the accused says, "Yes, please, I'd like to present that

9 as my argument," then all to the good because he takes the benefit of it

10 and it would obviously go in. But if there are any freestanding factual

11 arguments by the assigned counsel different from those advanced by the

12 accused, the Chamber will be in the difficult position of knowing which

13 case it is to respond to.

14 Fundamentally, as I say, a person who elects to conduct his own

15 case is bound by the consequences of that decision insofar as factual

16 arguments are concerned.

17 On the topic of internationals, I'm not quite clear from what

18 we've been told whether my learned friends and the accused are working

19 cooperatively together or separately. The assertion by the accused that

20 he has sent letters requesting witnesses to at least two embassies is

21 something that I may wish to return to, but I simply say I'm not in a

22 position to know whether that's the case or not. Certain it is that the

23 accused has been told on every conceivable occasion of the need to get on

24 with these applications because of the time two of the governments

25 concerned take to process them. As I've indicated, longer probably than

1 already is left in his case between now and the end of the year. It would

2 normally be longer than you would actually take to get these witnesses

3 processed through two of the governments.

4 And lastly: If by himself or by Mr. Kay or Ms. Higgins he is

5 seeking to call internationals of one kind or another, then I would press

6 the Court to take that into account into the supervision of his allocation

7 of time between the three indictments in the same way as I pressed the

8 point in relation to his giving of his own evidence. Because any of these

9 witnesses may take a lot of time, and late application to call them,

10 whether by neglect of court rules or otherwise, should not operate as a

11 way of forcing the Chamber to extend the reasonable period of time that it

12 has allowed the defendant, the accused, to present his case.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I did mention that and say that it would be

14 unreasonable to make such an application a week or two before the end of

15 the time period allocated. The Chamber would not accept that as a basis

16 for prolonging the Defence case.

17 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm obliged, and I have nothing else to

18 say.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Of course the Chamber will be considering all

21 these matters, and if it considers it appropriate will issue an order, but

22 there are one or two matters which it might be useful to raise.

23 If we are to extend the sitting days from three to four, we

24 wouldn't do that without the benefit of advice from the doctors because,

25 in the first place, we're sitting three days a week as a result of the

1 advice of the doctors, and we wouldn't change that regime without having

2 their views.

3 But it was occurring to the Chamber, Mr. Kay and Mr. Nice, and Mr.

4 Milosevic, that today we are sitting from 8.00 to 9.35, then 10.05

5 to 11.40 and then 12.10 to 1.45, whether that sitting period could not be

6 considered as an alternative. We would end up with roughly three hours --

7 or two and a half hours per week more.

8 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, that will not advance the hours that

9 many of us come here in any event. So we can manage it; although I

10 recognise the very considerable additional strain it would place on my

11 immediate resource. But as I've already explained, if the Chamber makes

12 demands it's up to the Office of the Prosecutor, the assigned counsel and

13 the accused to find the resources that are available to them to meet those

14 reasonable demands, and we will do that.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is something that we would consider without

16 necessarily seeking the advice of the doctors. If we are going to sit for

17 an additional day or longer per week, we would certainly have to have the

18 advice of the doctors.

19 Mr. Kay.

20 MR. KAY: We're here already by then anyway, so it doesn't make

21 any inconvenience to us. So it's not a problem at all.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's just an idea which has just occurred to us.

23 MR. KAY: Yes.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: And there are a number of ramifications which

25 would have to be considered. There is staffing and administrative

1 implications which would have to be considered.

2 MR. KAY: Sometimes the half-hour break during the course of the

3 day gives you, well, obviously more time than 20 minutes, but I mean to

4 say you can get more done in little preparations and things, copying of

5 documents, circulation of documents, reading of documents in that time,

6 which can be quite helpful on the day.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, that's the fourth day,

9 then, which you're going to add but in a different way, in a roundabout

10 way.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: It would not be as long as a day, Mr. Milosevic.

12 It's just two and a half to three hours. A day is about four hours.

13 Mr. Milosevic, there's one matter that I might raise with you.

14 Mr. Nice mentioned the question of whether you would be giving evidence or

15 making an unsworn statement, a matter addressed in our omnibus order of

16 the 17th of June in which we said that the accused shall indicate whether

17 he intends to give evidence, when he intends to do so, and how long he

18 anticipates his evidence would take.

19 No time frame was set within which you should make that

20 indication, but I ask the question of you now: Whether you intend to give

21 evidence and when and how long do you anticipate it would take.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, meaning you do not intend to give evidence?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do not intend to, no.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does that mean, then, that you would make an

1 unsworn statement?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've already made two statements and

3 made an opening address, opening statement. And I don't want to testify

4 because I would have to take the solemn declaration before an institution

5 which I consider to be illegal.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you haven't answered the question whether you

7 will make an unsworn statement. Do I take it that you will not make any

8 statement at all then?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As I said, I have already made two

10 statements here and made an opening statement as well. And I have the

11 right for my closing statement as well as far as I'm able to understand.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you do have a right to make a closing

13 statement.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 MR. NICE: Your Honours, if I can just interrupt.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

17 MR. NICE: I want to say I don't take the observations of the

18 accused as an answer to a very clear question. But that drives me to link

19 this point with one of the little points I made in my agenda for today

20 where I suggested that at the closing arguments stage the greatest

21 assistance would be given by a dialogue between the Chamber and the

22 parties following the presentation of written --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: I thought we had been past that stage.

24 MR. NICE: I know, but -- that's what I suggested, that the

25 parties would be obliged to answer questions. And I had that in mind when

1 I come back to say that here the Chamber asked the accused a very direct

2 question and he really declined to answer it. I would press the Chamber

3 to get an answer from him because it impacts both on the timetable and

4 will also drive him to recognise that the time may come if my arguments on

5 the agenda are there where he will have to enter a dialogue with the

6 Chamber.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: What's the question you say wasn't answered?

8 MR. NICE: I'm not sure he's answered the question as whether he's

9 going to make a closing unsworn statement. The first three answers --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: He has given a very clear answer that he is neither

11 going to give evidence nor seek to make any other statement than a closing

12 argument.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's my understanding.

14 MR. NICE: That's your understanding.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And obviously closing arguments might lead to the

16 Court having a hearing at which it wants further information from --

17 further submissions from the parties and that would be a matter for him at

18 that stage to decide how he participated or didn't participate.

19 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours, if the understanding is -- if the

20 understanding is that his reference to his closing argument is under

21 Rule 86, I have nothing further to say.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, there are two matters I would wish

24 to raise with you. On a rough calculation, as of today we are about

25 one-third of the way through the 150 days. We're about 50 days now. And

1 that's a very rough assessment based on the earlier calculations.

2 Can you give some indication of how far you are from the end of

3 the presentation of the Defence case in relation to Kosovo?

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we just clarify one point,

5 Mr. Bonomy? Looking at your paper for the purposes of this present Status

6 Conference, I see on it that up until now I have used a little less than a

7 quarter, and this is what it says here.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: I think --

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 88, 360. So that would make it a

10 little less than a quarter of my time.

11 I have indicated when Mr. Robinson said that wasn't the topic of

12 our discussion here today, I did say that with respect to your ruling that

13 the ratio should be, as you said, that the opposite side would have the

14 right to use 60 per cent of my time. So for all of my ten hours, 6 hours,

15 the ratio of 10 to 6 and vice versa. For every six hours used by

16 Mr. Nice, ten hours that I use. Ten of my hours.

17 So as you can see, according to the arithmetic so far, without

18 entering into the time you previously allotted, because the Prosecution in

19 cross-examination says here 58 hours, 43 minutes, et cetera, et cetera.

20 So let's say 60 hours. Let's bring it to a round figure. So with respect

21 to their hours, I -- that should give me 100 hours already that I should

22 have had 100 and not 88 because it is in the ratio of 10 to 6. That's the

23 portion that you yourselves set. So in that respect I assume that you're

24 going to make the right corrections using basic arithmetic at least.

25 And I should like to say straight away here and now so that you

1 don't say that I have overstepped my time that I am going to ask for more

2 time, because without a doubt I will need more time in order to hear the

3 relevant witnesses for the indictments of that been stipulated here. And

4 that is in the interests of justice and fairness, and not in the interests

5 of using up more time or prolonging the proceedings as Mr. Nice said, that

6 that's what I was trying to do, to drag it out. Please believe me, I

7 don't take any pleasure in prolong -- in my association here with

8 Mr. Nice.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder now if you'd be good enough to address the

10 question I asked you, and that was if you could indicate how far you are

11 from the end of the presentation of your case in relation to Kosovo. In

12 other words, how many more hours do you think it will take to present that

13 case?

14 JUDGE KWON: And if I can add this: The statistics in relation to

15 time used by you was taken as of 10th of March. I'm afraid you've passed

16 one-third already by now. I'm not sure about the exact data.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I take that on board, Mr. Kwon,

18 absolutely, what you've just said. But I'm just using the statistics that

19 I have available, the facts and figures available. I don't wish to make,

20 to construe anything else and to do my own additions. But I realise there

21 is a time lag between the time that the statistics were presented and the

22 time that we hold our discussions here. But if you have the available

23 statistics, then that's sufficient to have a discussion on this.

24 Now, Mr. Bonomy, I can't answer you were question exactly as to

25 how much more time I need for Kosovo. All I can tell you is this: That

1 I had planned my timing and my schedule, and in doing so I thought that I

2 would be using a little more than a third of my time for Kosovo, a little

3 more, but not half my time which I have at my disposal.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. And the second matter that I wish to

5 raise to you is in relation to point 14 of the document produced by the

6 Prosecutor. We are conscious of your right to present your defence as you

7 see fit, and we're also conscious of the fact that the preparation of very

8 detailed 65 ter summaries would have been a considerable burden at the

9 stage of the pre-Defence case stage. However, the tendency recently has

10 been for you to produce fairly brief lists of witnesses. I'm not

11 complaining about that. That -- because of the time the witnesses take

12 creates for me no problem. It may create certain difficulties for the

13 Prosecutor. But it did strike me that it might be possible for you to

14 produce better summaries of -- of the evidence you intend to lead from

15 these witnesses in these little lists that you give us on a weekly basis.

16 For example, it's pretty useless to be told that a witness will

17 give evidence about personal knowledge of events in Kosovo. And it would

18 help us a great deal to know what he will be giving evidence about, but

19 I'm almost certain that it would assist your presentation of your defence

20 case if you were to identify in advance what these issues are. Indeed, I

21 am quite certain that we would be able to give greater assistance in

22 directing the attention of the witness to the really relevant issues in

23 the case if we had a better summary in advance.

24 Now, is there a possibility that you could amplify these summaries

25 in a way that would be of assistance both to the Trial Chamber and to your

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 own presentation of the evidence?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, certainly there is, yes.

3 And I have no reason, apart from the time constraints, for me not to do

4 that. So I'll do my best to give more complete summaries, to amplify my

5 summaries. Yes, because this is a rather scant description, and you're

6 quite right when you say that it's not sufficient when you read that a

7 witness will testify to his own personal knowledge about the situation in

8 Kosovo. That doesn't tell you a great deal. I quite agree.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I will do my best. I shall

11 endeavour to go about this in a better way or, rather, to give you more

12 extensive summaries.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: And sorry, there was -- there was one other matter

14 I did omit to remember initially.

15 Point 13. For exactly the same reasons, Mr. Milosevic, in both

16 your interests and ours, from the point of view of a proper assessment of

17 the evidence, it would be helpful if you could identify now - I don't mean

18 this minute; I mean fairly quickly, in the next few days - the expert

19 witnesses, those who are properly classed as experts who will be called by

20 you throughout the trial, so that we can make adequate arrangements for

21 the production and consideration by the Prosecutor of the reports of these

22 experts.

23 Now, would you be able to produce an indication of the expert

24 evidence that you are likely to lead without committing yourself finally

25 but likely to lead in the course of the remainder of the trial so that we

1 can try to develop a programme for the preparation of any necessary

2 witness reports?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. Bonomy. And I'll do

4 that through my liaison officer.

5 Now, as far as the summaries are concerned to which you pointed,

6 please bear in mind this: The Trial Chamber stopped working when the

7 opposite side stated that they had finished, and that was a time when I

8 was in bed. And I was given six weeks to provide you with a list of

9 witnesses and evidence and exhibits, and that is why the summaries are as

10 brief as they are.

11 Now, I assume that there are better conditions for the summaries

12 to be written in a more useful way for you and for the list of witnesses,

13 et cetera.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I hope I made it clear to you that I understood

15 that there were good reasons why these -- these summaries came in the form

16 they did initially, and I'm grateful to you for considering improving the

17 situation.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe we are at the end of the Status

19 Conference, and we will take a break now for 30 minutes and resume with

20 the trial at 10.00.

21 We are adjourned.

22 --- Recess taken at 9.29 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 10.04 a.m.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I was trying to remember were you on

25 your feet on this issue?

1 MR. KAY: Mr. Nice had finished and I was to reply.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

3 MR. KAY: And it was -- I won't take long doing it as I made my

4 primary submissions yesterday, but it's as a result of the questions of --

5 or comments by His Honour Judge Bonomy concerning the fairness of it as to

6 what is happening with this witness.

7 Since those observations by His Honour, we have been able to read

8 the transcript of the proceedings in which Jasovic has given evidence in

9 the other trial, the Limaj trial, and it is clear that the Prosecution are

10 calling him as a witness of truth. They did not challenge his account of

11 the matters and were putting him forward to the Tribunal as a witness upon

12 whom the Court could rely.

13 Within this courtroom, it is the intent of the Prosecution not to

14 approach the witness in the same way. The Prosecutor is an indivisible

15 organ. That's why it's called the Office of the Prosecutor. And in my

16 submission it is unfair to the accused, and I'm drawing on the fairness

17 that is within the articles within the Statute of the Tribunal for the

18 Prosecution merely because the accused is calling or seeking to call this

19 witness to then adopt a contrary point of view having called him as a

20 witness in another case. That is unfair to this accused. And it's simply

21 done on the basis that because an investigator or Mr. Saxon went to see

22 the three witnesses over the weekend and took statements in which they

23 denied that the content of their statements was true and they made

24 allegations of forgery or oppression against this witness that the simple

25 word of that witness has been taken. There has been no investigation by

1 the OTP on this matter. It has gone no further than the assertions of

2 those witnesses. And it was clear to call of us in relation to the

3 deponent who said that his signature had been forged and he hadn't signed

4 it that it seemed certainly at first blush looking at it that it was the

5 same handwriting and that it may well not have been a truthful assertion,

6 but none of those issues have in fact been investigated by Mr. Nice and

7 the Prosecutor. They've just gone into further than saying, Mr. Milosevic

8 wants to call this witness, it's on this basis, we oppose. We don't.

9 We're not prepared to accept anything that he calls on his behalf without

10 even looking into it, or even interviewing Mr. Jasovic about it.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are the issues in Limaj in relation to which the

12 witness testified the same as the issues in relation to which he would

13 testify here?

14 MR. KAY: Yes. It's about his knowledge of people who were

15 members of the KLA and his investigations as a police officer in the

16 Orahovac area, Stimlje area. So it's his conduct as a police officer, and

17 he's being called on that basis.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, I don't think I suggested it was an issue

19 of fairness. I was asking whether it was appropriate for this to happen,

20 and that means, I think, that if it's an issue at all, it's not an issue

21 necessarily of admissibility. Indeed it may be a situation in which the

22 evidence has to be led for aught yet seen, but I still have this idea in

23 my mind that the Prosecutor has to take a stand at some point one way or

24 another. It may not be now. It may have to be later, once the

25 evidence -- or the witness's evidence has been explored in two

1 proceedings. At that stage he can't, as I see it, have it both ways.

2 You can't imagine, for example, in a domestic jurisdiction. I see

3 no difference here. A situation here where a police officer is charged

4 with serious crimes against honesty or against the administration of

5 justice and the prosecutor in that country presents that man as a truthful

6 witness in another trial. I just can't envisage that situation occurring

7 when he is the subject of allegations of perverting the course of justice

8 and dishonesty. However, it may be that these have to be explored more

9 fully before that decision is taken. I don't know.

10 MR. KAY: Yes. I noticed Your Honour's word "appropriate" and so

11 I then thought, well, how do we fit this into the jurisprudence when there

12 are no guidelines which is why I went to the articles and to me it then

13 became, if I was writing a text, a fairness issue where I was placing this

14 that it's unfair. And we all know in domestic jurisdictions where cases

15 have been overturned or stopped because there's been a contrary position

16 concerning a police officer in one trial and his evidence in another.

17 And it does seem that the Prosecution are prepared to shoot from

18 the hip on an issue concerning this accused, Mr. Milosevic, and make

19 assertions without investigating them. We all saw the handwriting of the

20 statement. It was mentioned why don't you get a handwriting expert. But

21 none of those investigations were pursued to get to the bottom of him as a

22 witness. And he has been called in that trial as a witness of truth.

23 So on those issues may -- may I make those points before the Court

24 in addition to the ones I made yesterday, which I won't repeat.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

1 MR. NICE: May I -- sorry, if the accused is going to contribute,

2 there's one matter of correction that I'd like to make at some stage and

3 perhaps later would be better if the accused is going to speak.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, without going into all

6 of these procedural matters, I would like to remind you of something that

7 is undoubtedly evident.

8 When it comes to this witness, you had an opportunity to acquaint

9 yourself with many facts concerning the terrorist activity in 1998 and

10 1999. This terrorist activity, the killing of people, ambushes,

11 abductions of Serbs, Albanians, killing of policemen, troops, both Serbs

12 and the Albanians, all of this has been discussed and presented here at

13 length. Now let us see who are we dealing with here.

14 Jasovic is a police inspector who based on the documents I placed

15 in this binder that I wish to tender into evidence collected, gathered

16 facts at a time when the community or the state was dealing with terrorist

17 activities in Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, at that time he collected

18 facts on the terrorist activity in Kosovo and Metohija in order to

19 identify members of the Kosovo Liberation Army which publicly announced

20 its terrorist acts. He did that in order to identify the members of this

21 organisation so that the police could arrest them and have them face the

22 justice.

23 I'm now putting a very simple question to you: Is there a single

24 police force in the world which in the course of identifying members of a

25 terrorist organisation collects false or wrong information that can be of

1 no use in order to reach or to locate these members of terrorist

2 organisations?

3 He interviewed many individuals, and based on these interviews,

4 many details emerged about individuals who were members of the terrorist

5 organisation in an area where this inspector worked. He was an inspector

6 in the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac which covers the

7 municipalities of Stimlje, Racak, Petrovo Selo, Malopoljce, meaning the

8 precise area.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, there are examples the world over of

10 police forces fabricating cases against terrorists. It's an important

11 area of miscarriage of justice in some of the most renowned systems in the

12 world.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, you have to have

14 something else in mind. This is an attempt by police to reach, to locate

15 these terrorists. How is the police going to reach these terrorists if it

16 is using wrong information? The particular people that the police

17 interviewed, most of them were not even indicted or arrested. No. They

18 were simply interviewed in order to gain information. And then the

19 policemen would draft a note based on that, and this document would be

20 given to somebody to sign it. There were always two police officers

21 drafting or writing these notes.

22 Since all of these official notes have been translated, you will

23 see for yourself that they contain a large number of facts, that many

24 facts can be identified and cross-checked from various sources based on

25 the fact that a lot of other people had been interviewed.

1 In addition to that, I would like to stress that all of this

2 activity took place in 1998 and 1999. Therefore, it has nothing to do

3 with any potential witnesses in this case or with the -- with Rule 92 bis.

4 These are the documents which were created in the course of duties of

5 police officer who in his attempt to collect as many facts as possible

6 about the terrorist organisation and the perpetrators of the most grave

7 crimes created these notes precisely in order to identify, locate, and

8 arrest these perpetrators.

9 Therefore, this involves a whole series of activities which were

10 undertaken in order to apply the law and to act in accordance with the law

11 in the course of police activities aimed at locating and apprehending

12 these people.

13 Therefore, there are a large number of interviews here. I even

14 drafted a table, rather not I myself but my associates who went over these

15 statements, and concluded, for example, that out of 40 persons who were

16 killed in Racak and who were identified, 30 of them are mentioned in the

17 statements of the persons interviewed as members of the KLA. One person

18 is mentioned in as many of nine statements of various persons. Some of

19 them are mentioned in fewer statements. Some are mentioned in five, in

20 four, in three, most often in three or two statements, and there are some

21 that are mentioned in four and in nine statements.

22 Therefore, one can see very clearly that this is very relevant

23 information which sheds light on a very important aspect of trying to

24 establish what exactly happened in Racak.

25 Gentlemen, you have to bear in mind that I have been accused by

1 the opposite side for murder of these 40 people in Racak, and I maintain

2 that none of the policemen who participated in the activities in Racak

3 ought to be accused of murder because this was a police action. Shukri

4 Buja who was a commander there explained to you that at a time when the

5 police was entering Racak it was exposed to a very heavy machine-gun fire

6 started by precisely members of the KLA. Therefore, you can see that it

7 was a very grave conflict. And here in these documents, you can see that

8 in Racak itself, in Petrovo, in Rance and in surrounding villages there

9 was a very wide presence of the KLA which was very active. This is

10 precisely -- these are precisely the issues covered by this police officer

11 in his work.

12 In addition to that, based on the interview I had with him, you

13 will be able to see that in Urosevac where he served as a police officer

14 in the SUP there, there were several police inspectors who were Albanians.

15 They performed the same duties. Some of them later on perished after our

16 forces withdrew from Kosovo and Metohija. You will see that even now this

17 inspector maintains contacts with Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija from

18 his current place of work. He continues to maintain contacts. Therefore,

19 it is completely logical to have this witness heard here.

20 In addition to that, Mr. Nice said, and I noted this down, that in

21 this trial it became apparent that are reasons to doubt Jasovic's claims.

22 I'm not sure that it became clear. I did not see it clearly for myself.

23 What I saw is that Mr. Nice presented three statements here, three

24 statements taken last week from three Albanians who claim that they had

25 been forced and so on, that they had been under duress and so on.

1 Gentlemen, let me tell you that there is not a single person

2 who -- who lives today in Kosovo under the KLA terror and who will go on

3 to admit that he or she had given some information to the police

4 concerning the KLA activities. Not even the families of the KLA victims

5 from that period of time dare testify about how their dearest and closest

6 had been killed because they are afraid for their lives.

7 Therefore, this is not a case where we have witnesses who could

8 confirm what they had said, because then they gave a statement to the

9 police of their own free will.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think we have got the gist of

11 your submission.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, one of the submissions that Mr. Kay made

13 related to the evidence of a person commonly known as Captain Dragan.

14 MR. NICE: Yes.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And Exhibit 391. You said nothing on that subject.

16 MR. NICE: No. That was --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: I've had a look at part of the transcript in

18 relation to that, and while it seems confusing to say the least, it does

19 appear that something in the order of 10.000 or more documents were

20 introduced in the space of a moment or two in the course of his evidence.

21 On a different interpretation they weren't introduced but I gather the

22 general understanding is they were.

23 Now, what have you to say about that? How does that differ from

24 what's being proposed here?

25 MR. NICE: I think these documents were introduced as a resource

1 for consideration later going to show where particular people may have

2 been at the time that they were engaged in combat. That was the purpose.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: What's the difference between that and what's

4 proposed to be done with the documents we're now considering?

5 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, first of all, there is not a

6 question of where individuals fell or were involved in combat. This is a

7 much more focused issue as to whether particular people identified as

8 victims were members of the KLA, they having been identified as victims in

9 the indictment. So it's a much more focused issue, and it doesn't go to

10 the generality that might be proved by a mass of evidence of individuals

11 fighting in particular places under particular banners. So it's different

12 to that extent.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I have difficulty seeing this distinction. What's

14 the difference between evidence that says these people are KLA fighters

15 and evidence that says these people are Serbs who have fighting in Bosnia

16 and Croatia? What's the difference?

17 MR. NICE: The two points I've made. One is it's a mass of

18 evidence which would be beyond being called individually and is properly

19 dealt with on this basis until challenged and disproved. And it goes to

20 show not particular events. It goes to show the generality of where

21 people were fighting. And turning it to the role of victims named in

22 indictments whose particular status has to be proved not because, for

23 example, the generality of people in the KLA operating in particular ways

24 at this time might need to be established and indeed of course is conceded

25 in the most general terms but for quite specific purposes related to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 particular counts in the indictment. So there are distinctions,

2 significant distinctions.

3 And where you've got a mass of evidence of the kind that's

4 produced by Dragan that is beyond being dealt with individually, the

5 Chamber is entitled to apply a different approach, bearing in mind that if

6 the issue was ever challenged, either specifically or generally, the

7 method of adduction of the evidence would be a matter of weight, and we

8 have yet to see the degree to which, if any, that material is going to be

9 challenged. Not material, the conclusions that we might invite to be

10 drawn from that material which I think has hardly been considered in

11 detail since.

12 If it is challenged, then we'll have to wait to see what if any

13 value there is in that material. But it may not be challenged because it

14 may actually be that the accused's case on that point is not counter to

15 the general effect of the evidence. It may be a matter of interpretation

16 of the legal consequences of what was happening.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, while I've read the evidence the case, I have

18 to confess that these 10.000 or whatever pages have not been the subject

19 of my scrutiny as yet. But can I take it from all you've said that

20 there's no point here about these being documents which were prepared by

21 someone whose interests or against whose interests they are now being

22 used? There's not that distinction involved here?

23 MR. NICE: Well, no, I -- this particular witness produced them in

24 an administrative way for other purposes as part of his so-called charity,

25 I think, and simply to recall where people had been engaged. So there is

1 no particular issue as to his having an interest to serve, that's true.

2 Incidentally, Ms. Dicklich advises me that a representative sample

3 was admitted as exhibits, but I don't think anything turns on that because

4 it's the principle that Your Honour has in mind. I'm happy to deal with

5 it.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm unclear about what it was you have to

7 say. But there are -- different interpretations might be made of it.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. NICE: Yes, to be specific, and I'm very grateful to

10 Ms. Dicklich. The CD itself was marked for identification as 391 tab 1

11 and then tabs 2 to 8 of 391, a representative sample, were actually

12 admitted. But, Your Honour, I'm don't -- I'm not going to -- that's just

13 as a matter of detail. Your Honour's point which I must deal with remains

14 of course for consideration.

15 But apart from the factual differences, apart from the fact that

16 we don't yet know to what extent, if any, there will be a real dispute

17 between the parties over the underlying facts of these documents because

18 it may actually be a matter of interpretation in law of what if anything

19 flows from that that will be the defendant's -- or the accused's

20 interests. There is this significant difference that here we are looking

21 at identified individuals of manageable numbers identified as victims of

22 particularised crimes.

23 And, Your Honour, if I can turn to the couple of points I would

24 wish to make arising from the things that the accused and Mr. Kay have

25 said.

1 It is now clear that the accused is relying on these records to

2 show that some 30 of the victims were active members of the KLA. I

3 haven't yet got through to finding 30 such names. I just tell you what

4 the latest check if I'm able to -- Your Honour, just give me a minute.

5 So far we've only identified, I think, one person clearly on the

6 list who is named. There may be confusion as to other names arising from

7 the multiple naming of -- or the different naming of individuals, and it's

8 going to be a large exercise in analysis to find out first of all what

9 these statements purport to say. Obviously Mr. Kay's table would be of

10 assistance as would -- sorry, the accused's table would be of assistance

11 if he wants to provide it. But at the moment we are not in a position to

12 understand 30 named members of the KLA.

13 But if there are as many as 30 named, then this is clearly

14 something that the Prosecution has got to investigate, because for the

15 same reason as I've said on several earlier occasions, if the

16 investigation turns out to require some concession to be made by me then

17 of course I'll make it and as soon as I possibly know that's my duty.

18 And the arguments that are raised by both the accused and by

19 Mr. Kay to which I'll turn simply highlight the need for the witnesses

20 themselves to come and give evidence about what they knew of KLA

21 membership. And I say that notwithstanding the accused's generalised

22 assertion that no one in Kosovo at the moment is going to tell the truth

23 about these things because that simply is an assertion he cannot

24 realistically make, but I make it also because Mr. Kay's observation when

25 he said it would be unfair for us to take a contrary view means that I'm

1 basically obliged -- a point I made yesterday but I must emphasise, I'm

2 basically obliged on his analysis to accept all these statements as

3 gospel, simply because this witness has been called in another case,

4 something I plainly cannot do. So they are all of these arguments this

5 morning point yet again to the desirability on important matters or the

6 necessity on important matters to go to the live witnesses first and not

7 to consider hearsay or secondhand hearsay, all of which support the

8 argument to exclude the evidence.

9 But Your Honour, can I add just a couple more points. First of

10 all, I quite understand Your Honour -- His Honour Judge Bonomy's concern

11 about the possible need for a prosecution office ultimately to take a

12 single view on a particular witness. Whether that applies in these cases

13 is a matter that would in our submission require a little more careful

14 consideration of all the circumstances, not least as exemplified arguably

15 in this or these very cases because what may be said by witnesses about

16 one side of events may be more likely to be acceptable than what they say

17 about the other.

18 So that I turn to this point, dealing with the examination,

19 cross-examination, and re-examination of Jasovic in the other case. He

20 was not being asked about the same topic as he's being invited to come and

21 give evidence here. He was being invited in that case, as I understand

22 it, to give evidence about the Serbs as victims essentially in a case

23 which was charging Kosovo Albanians. So of course he in his position with

24 his background, it may be argued, I'm not going to make this argument, but

25 it might be argued would be more likely to be telling the truth about all

1 that.

2 Now, he was then cross-examined by counsel who had already raised

3 arguments about the mistreatment of prisoners at the police station, again

4 as I understand it. He was then cross-examined on the basis of the

5 statements that we then obtained and had to be handed over and on the

6 basis of other material going to show misbehaviour at this particular

7 police station.

8 And in re-examination, which I suspect would commend itself to

9 this Chamber as a model, in re-examination the -- unless I've missed

10 something, runs from page 5452 to 5453. He was asked four questions of a

11 general nature, none of which I think can really be said as aimed at

12 rehabilitating him on the particular point of the cross-examination about

13 mistreatment. So that whether the Prosecution in that other case were

14 taking a position specifically on the issues that would arise in this case

15 is far from clear.

16 Your Honour, when my learned friend says that we shoot from the

17 hip, I really think that is a little bit of flourish that isn't justified.

18 When this material was raised with us, what did we do? We went and

19 inquired into it in the only way that was available to us at the time. We

20 brought it back, handed it over to all the parties including as necessity

21 to the other case as soon as we could and any other exercises that may be

22 possible will be dealt with as soon as can be, but I'm not quite sure what

23 else we could have done.

24 And in this case, were this witness's evidence were allowed to be

25 given in principle or at all over our objections, there would be a great

1 deal of investigation to be done before I could responsibly take a

2 position on the questions I should ask him.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's assume for the moment, Mr. Nice, that the

4 purpose of the evidence was to show how the system worked and that the

5 product of the system led to the Judges being informed that there was

6 significant KLA activity in and around Racak. Would you quibble with the

7 evidence being used for that purpose?

8 MR. NICE: I doubt if I would because, after all, as the accused

9 himself has explained to you, a witness we called explained the role of

10 the KLA in Racak and indeed explained who fired the first shot on the

11 morning in question. And as the Chamber realises from our indictment and

12 opening and pre-trial brief, recognition --

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. This is completely

14 incorrect. This is quite incorrect. I mentioned Buja Shukri, the

15 commander from the KLA from Racak who was a witness here, and he was the

16 one who fired first in Racak. Not this witness. This witness was not in

17 Racak at all. He's not testifying about that at all.

18 Please bear in mind the fact that these are official documents of

19 the relevant authorities about what they knew at the time concerned. And

20 the direct link to this witness is the fact that he was the one who

21 collected this knowledge and compiled official notes about them.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, if we then take it just a stage further

24 to test where we end up, where does the -- the issue about how these

25 statements were obtained fit in? It may be said it doesn't matter. The

1 authorities are getting this information and it doesn't matter whether

2 they're getting it from policemen acting properly or improperly, or it may

3 be said that somehow or other there is a link between this false

4 information, allegedly false information coming in, the activity of the

5 police officers who obtain it, and the criminal responsibility of the

6 accused. Now, is there an issue of that sort surrounding the evidence of

7 Jasovic if all he gave evidence about was the extent to which statements

8 were obtained and submitted to the Judges?

9 MR. NICE: Going back two points. The accused completely misreads

10 what I was explaining. I was explaining --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you need to clarify that now.

12 MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

13 The second thing is my position in answer to Your Honour's

14 question was that I doubt if I would object to evidence coming from a

15 witness like this given the generality of reported KLA activity, and that

16 remains my position. I doubt if I would if it was restricted to that. I

17 would of course have to check before I could completely waive it through

18 that it was right to do so, and my means of checking it would be probably

19 different in their intensity because of the comparatively less

20 significance for the purposes of this case than the significance of

21 evidence that goes to the heart of a particular indictment -- a particular

22 count in the indictment.

23 So, for example, to expand on Your Honour's question and my

24 answer, if the evidence is adduced simply to show that, yes, there was

25 extensive KLA activity in a particular region at a particular time and I

1 happen to have the vaguest suspicion, guess, or even more that the

2 evidence may have been obtained unsatisfactorily but nevertheless the

3 evidence happens to be accurate, there's not a lot of point in my

4 burdening the Chamber with any relevant issue.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: What if it goes, though, to the point of saying

6 that the Judges -- the authorities were informed that as many as 30 of the

7 victims in Racak were reputed to have KLA links?

8 MR. NICE: Well, if that's what is going to be suggested was the

9 effect of this witness's evidence, then I think a great deal more inquiry

10 would be required of us, because if his integrity is open to doubt and

11 having statements to suggest that he has obtained evidence improperly, is

12 quite enough to raise the question of doubt. If there's evidence to show

13 or material to show that his integrity should be doubted, then we are

14 exploring or we would land up in a position of having to explore a police

15 system that matches not at all the ideal standards to which we would all

16 wish to aspire for our own countries and would mean quite inevitably that

17 we would invite the Chamber not to accept at face value for purposes of

18 the accused's state of mind the passage of information between one

19 questionable organ and another within this overall system. We'd have to

20 look at it a great deal more in detail.

21 Now, in fact, the accused hasn't said in terms that that's the

22 purpose I think for which he wants this information. He wants it to show

23 that these people were KLA, which goes right to the heart of a count in an

24 indictment. It was Mr. Kay who advanced in a slightly different

25 formulation from Your Honour's, the possibility that it goes to the state

1 of mind of the accused, but I can see Your Honour's formation as being

2 significant, and correct me -- not correct me, I'll be corrected if I'm

3 wrong, what Your Honour is suggesting is that if this information came

4 however erroneous or however incorrectly elicited from deponents, it could

5 justify an attack that would be criminal if it was better informed. I can

6 see that as an argument. But I'm not in a position on -- to concede that

7 it would be right for the evidence to go on that basis without a great

8 deal more investigation.

9 But, Your Honour, we would need it to be absolutely clear one way

10 or another the purposes for which this evidence is being adduced, and here

11 I repeat a phrase I've used earlier and on several occasions it's the

12 accused's case. He wants this evidence to show that up to 20 people of

13 those killed in Racak were KLA activists, and that's central to a count in

14 this indictment, and that's why I say, going back to my earlier

15 observation, that it shouldn't be adduced other than by the witnesses

16 themselves.

17 Now, I don't know if I've met Your Honour's various concerns. If

18 I may say so, I've -- I understand them better than perhaps I did

19 yesterday when I was last addressing them, particularly the point about

20 the Prosecution taking a position, and I would invite you to allow that

21 argument to be put back for general consideration, and my suspicion is

22 that the -- or my guess is that the parties in both trials will -- and in

23 respect of both witnesses invite a fuller consideration of the overall

24 state of the evidence possibly in both trials before accepting that we are

25 driven to the position in this particular type of case where we have to

1 take a single stand. But that's for a later argument.

2 As to the last point Your Honours made about the evidence coming

3 in for particular purposes about the accused's state of mind and not being

4 admitted, if that's the implication, for the truth of the content about

5 the victims at Racak, that itself would require specific pointing by the

6 accused that's where he's going and would still itself require of me or of

7 those assisting in the Prosecution detailed investigation. And then --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: But because you would have to investigate the

9 alleged corruption of the system, it would not be a basis for excluding

10 this evidence. That goes to the heart of this case. Much more to the

11 heart of the case than the facts of Racak do.

12 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour is right that it might not go to --

13 might not be a basis for excluding the evidence, if it's only to be

14 admitted on the narrow basis, not the accused's basis. But I would still

15 need time before I could deal with it in cross-examination for all the

16 reasons I've advanced, not the least that I'm simply not in a position

17 to -- I'm not disposed to nor really I think allowed to take positions on

18 evidence until I know it's justified to take such a position.

19 A matter of detail just going back to Dragan's evidence. I'm

20 helpfully reminded by one of my colleagues that Dragan's organisation was

21 largely dealing with, I think, undisputed facts like date of birth and

22 place of death, allegedly undisputed but that sort of fact. And although

23 there are many things that could be said about and indeed probably adverse

24 to Dragan, in this particular role he was, as I've suggested, running

25 something like a charity after the events dealing with what happened to

1 people.

2 Membership of the KLA at the hands of the Serbian judiciary is

3 production of material by a party that may well have an interest

4 particular to the events in this case.

5 Thank you very much.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Trial Chamber's decision is that Mr. Jasovic

8 may be called. We will make a further decision as to when he can be

9 called and whether his evidence will be restricted to particular areas,

10 and that decision we will make very soon, perhaps by tomorrow.

11 So Mr. Jasovic doesn't need to be here today, Mr. Milosevic, and

12 you should call another witness.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't hear that.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. The interpreters still

16 cannot hear the accused.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is your microphone on, Mr. Milosevic?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, it is on now.

19 I said I call witness Kosta Bulatovic.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So help me God on this day. I

23 solemnly declare that on behalf of my own honour that I will speak the

24 truth and nothing but the truth before this Tribunal.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

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 WITNESS: KOSTA BULATOVIC

2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

5 Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bulatovic.

7 A. Good morning, Mr. President.

8 Q. Mr. Bulatovic, first of all, please tell us where and when you

9 were born.

10 A. I was born in 1937 in the village of Dobrusa, municipality of

11 Istok in northern Metohija. That is on the road between Pec and Kosovska

12 Mitrovica. It is 12 kilometres away from Pec.

13 Q. Thank you. Tell us briefly what schools you completed and where.

14 A. I completed elementary school in Vitomirica [Realtime transcript

15 read in error "Vitina"] Near Pec, and secondary agricultural and

16 mechanical school in Vinkovci in Croatia. Then I completed a higher

17 school for the organisation of work in Belgrade, so my profession is

18 engineer of professional safety.

19 Q. Just to correct the -- correct the transcript. Vitomirica is the

20 place near Pec. In the transcript it says Vitina which is a completely

21 different place.

22 A. Yes. And it's far away from there.

23 Q. Where did you work after your education?

24 A. The first employment I had was in a factory in Pec and then at a

25 sugar factory that was still under construction then in Pec. After that I

1 got a job in the agricultural cooperative in Kosovo Polje, and then in the

2 agricultural industrial combine of Kosmet Export in Pristina.

3 Q. During the Second World War, during the fascist occupation, your

4 family was in Kosovo and Metohija where you all lived then; right?

5 A. Yes, in Dobrusa.

6 Q. Tell us briefly what happened to your family and your village

7 during the fascist occupation of Yugoslavia and that area where you lived?

8 A. Well, when the occupiers came to Kosovska Mitrovica, they divided

9 it into three zones. The occupiers divided it into three zones. The

10 German occupation zone was in Kosovska Mitrovica, and Pec was the Italian

11 occupation zone. So we were under the occupation of the Italian army.

12 Since the Serb people were outlawed in Kosovo and Metohija, there

13 were individual killings first and ultimately entire villages were

14 attacked. Many villages throughout Metohija were torched in this way.

15 There are very few villages that weren't. Only a few where the population

16 was mixed.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Bulatovic.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for His Honour, please.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Bulatovic.

20 Mr. Milosevic, kindly bring the witness to relevant evidence.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. How many houses did your village number and was it a Serbian

24 village?

25 A. Yes, it was a Serbian village. It had 384 houses to be exact,

1 Serb houses.

2 Q. Was your house set on fire?

3 A. Yes, it was. And when we fled across some meadows --

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I indicated the witness should be

5 asked questions that are relevant, that will adduce relevant evidence.

6 This is not relevant evidence.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a very short introduction

8 for us to see how the situation developed in general terms. So I'll get

9 through that very rapidly.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have had this kind of evidence before, this

11 introductory, this historical narration.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. I'll ask you this, then, Mr. Bulatovic, not of a historical

15 nature, my next question, but in view of the fact that you said your house

16 was set on fire, did you and the rest of the Serbs who were expelled from

17 Kosovo and Metohija, did you ever come back after the war to live in your

18 village?

19 A. Yes, we did. But that was before we were banned from returning

20 and when the ban came into the force by the provisional government before

21 the war had been -- had ended Popso Sljadovetrovic [phoen] signed this

22 ban.

23 Q. And tell me what was life like after the end of the war.

24 A. Well, --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: No more. No more questions on that. I am not

1 allowing any more questions on that. I am not allowing any more questions

2 on that issue.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson.

4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Bulatovic.

6 A. Yes. Go ahead.

7 Q. Tell us, please, what was the relationship between the Serbs and

8 Albanians for several decades after the war? What I'm asking about is all

9 the time after the war during that period of time while you were living in

10 Kosovo and Metohija.

11 A. Well, in our village, a local board or committee was set up after

12 the war, and the president was Ramalija [phoen] and somebody from a

13 neighbouring village. Of the 380 houses none of the Serbs could be

14 president of this board or committee which tells you what this new

15 political thought on the part of the Communist Party was like.

16 Q. All right. Tell me about the general relationships between Serbs

17 and Albanians.

18 A. Generally speaking the relationship between Serbs and Albanians

19 immediately after World War II were tolerant. There was tolerance. They

20 weren't bad, but the more time passed after the war the more the relations

21 deteriorated. For example, workers -- farmers' cooperatives were

22 performed in Serbian villages. I don't know of a single Albanian Siptar

23 village who had -- which had farmers' cooperatives of this kind.

24 Q. All right. Now, you say that international relations --

25 inter-ethnic relations were good.

1 A. Yes. At that time we could say that they were good.

2 Q. Now, to the best of your knowledge and experience when did these

3 relationships begin to deteriorate?

4 A. They began to deteriorate after 1948, and the inform --

5 informbiro, when the population from Albanian began coming in under the

6 guise of fleeing from Enver Hoxha's regime. They came to settle in

7 Metohija and later on Kosovo. So this led to the first disturbances

8 amongst the Serb population.

9 Q. And what happened next? What was the next stage that you

10 considered to be characteristic for raising tensions in Kosovo and

11 Metohija?

12 A. The next stage came when there were individual acts of violence

13 and killings of certain people, and this led to disquiet among the

14 population, especially when they learnt that Serbian land was being bought

15 up, especially in the Decani, Djakovica and Prizren area and that this

16 land was then given to the emigres from Albania.

17 Q. All right. And was 1968 a characteristic year in any way?

18 A. 1968 was a characteristic year because there was an outpouring of

19 demonstrations on the part of Albanians, pro-fascist in character, calling

20 for slogans, reading Kosovo Republic. That was the motto of the

21 demonstrations, that slogan.

22 Q. And that was in 1968, was it?

23 A. Yes, that was in 1968, when Tito was in Bugojno. And from there

24 he sent a delegation, a party delegation to Kosovo to attend the ceremony

25 there, and they were transported to Pristina by helicopter to quell the

1 situation.

2 Q. Did you continue to live in Kosovo Polje after those

3 demonstrations or did you decide to leave it and move out and settle

4 somewhere else?

5 A. At that time we did think about leaving Kosovo, but we considered

6 on the basis of the party conclusions, the conclusions made by party

7 forums both in Serbia and Kosovo and Yugoslavia, that this would not

8 repeat itself. We were given promises that this would not happen again,

9 that there would be no more violence, nor would Serb lands be taken over

10 forcibly or Serb houses taken over and other people settling in when they

11 began to destroy houses and roofs were destroyed and so on. Then cautions

12 were issued. Warnings were issued as in Vucitrn that this should not be

13 done any more but these acts continued with unabated tempo.

14 Q. Mr. Bulatovic, how long did you yourself live in Kosovo Polje.

15 A. I lived in Kosovo Polje until about 1993 when I moved to Pristina.

16 Q. You yourself are from Kosovo Polje and you say you lived there

17 until around 1993 and then moved to Pristina. So that's quite near, is

18 it?

19 A. Yes. It's seven kilometres away.

20 Q. I see. Seven kilometres. Right.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly be asked to pause

22 between question and answer. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're both being asked to observe a pause

24 between question and answer, Mr. Bulatovic and Mr. Milosevic, in the

25 interest of the interpretation.

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Bulatovic --

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if this witness has evidence about

5 the matters in the indictment, and I see from the 65 ter statement that

6 he's to testify as to police and other armed activities during the war in

7 Kosovo in the period referred to in the indictment. Bring the witness to

8 that area. We have heard a lot of the background. We have sufficient

9 background information on the matters leading up to the conflict. And if

10 he is to testify about the military and police and armed activities in

11 Kosovo in the period mentioned in the indictment, then let him do that

12 immediately and don't waste time.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, what you've just said

14 can only be a typing error, because Mr. Bulatovic is not testifying about

15 police matters. Perhaps you said politics and there was a typo error or

16 something like that. But as far as the political situation in Kosovo is

17 concerned and everything that went on, that's it.

18 And among other things, Mr. Robinson, I should like to remind you

19 that this witness here, Kosta Bulatovic was mentioned several times here

20 in this courtroom as one of the leaders of the Serbian resistance movement

21 and as a Serb nationalist. And he has spoken about the political

22 situation in Kosovo and Metohija, and we see -- we shall see whether these

23 qualifications are justified or not.

24 Some groups in Kosovo were mentioned here a number of times.

25 Kosta Bulatovic and others were mentioned in that regard, especially

1 during the cross-examination when Mitar Balevic testified, that witness.

2 So we now have the man, Kosta Bulatovic, and he will be able to tell us

3 about all those events. But he had nothing to do, absolutely nothing to

4 do with the police and is not testifying about police matters.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I merely read what is in the -- in

6 the 65 ter. Perhaps it's an error. But in the witness schedule for this

7 week it says, "Personal knowledge of military police and other armed

8 activities during the war in Kosovo in the period referred to in the

9 indictment." So I'm not certain whether that is a faithful transcription

10 of what is in the 65 ter, but it does mention the police.

11 In any event, I want the evidence to concentrate on the activities

12 that are referred to in the indictment. We have had enough background

13 information.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Bulatovic, you were a witness of the demonstrations both in

17 the 1980s and 1990s in Kosovo. Tell us briefly, please, what effect did

18 those demonstrations have on the conduct of the Serb population in Kosovo

19 and Metohija?

20 A. Well, I'll be brief. Both in 1968 and in 1981, the demonstrations

21 were the same, identical. And identical demands were made. They did not

22 differ in any way except perhaps in the distribution of the people taking

23 part in them. They were destructive in character, and of course as a

24 minority nation in the province of Kosovo and Metohija, the Serb people

25 were very much afraid because the authorities of the Kosovo and Metohija

1 government or Serbia and Yugoslavia did not take any radical steps to

2 address the situation and to prevent it and to bring law and order into

3 the area to prevent any repetition. The leadership was expected to do

4 that. The people expected them to do that, but it did not. It failed to

5 take steps, and then the people were in a quandary what to do. And then

6 at a meeting held in an old school building that has since been destroyed

7 in Kosovo Polje, it was destroyed so that it should not be a monument to

8 the first word spoken against terror against the Serbian people in Kosovo

9 and Metohija at a meeting of the working people of Yugoslavia, because we

10 have the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Alliance of

11 the Working People of Yugoslavia, and I got up at that meeting. I was the

12 first to get up and to criticise violence in general, and in particular I

13 addressed the provincial organs and authorities. Neither the committees

14 nor the state administration took any steps at all to combat violence and

15 the perpetrators of violence. So the people accepted this, and as an

16 honest citizen and individual, the people saw me and believed in me, and

17