⁶⁵⁷

Wednesday, 20 February 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we've --

THE ACCUSED: Mr. May, excuse me. Excuse me.

JUDGE MAY: No. Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic. We're going to deal, first of all, with legal argument. If you have any other matters, we'll deal with that at the end when we finish this argument. I want to raise something with Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: Yes, but it is urgent.

JUDGE MAY: What is the urgent matter?

THE ACCUSED: Completely personal.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. What is it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked yesterday of you that the programme of work should not be changed because I said that the prison administration authorised a visit for tomorrow afternoon, and you accepted that. You said the schedule wouldn't be changed.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] However, yesterday, late in the afternoon, the head of the prison informed me that the Dutch Foreign Ministry will not, this time, issue a visa to my wife, which it regularly did beforehand at a written request from your Registry and the Detention Unit's administration. And this time, too, the Detention Unit and the Registry did send in a request in the usual manner on time. They did so ⁶⁵⁸ well ahead of time.

I should like to prevail upon you to intervene to allow me to have this visit, because this is ill-treatment once again, mistreatment of me, because I will be completely isolated. My visits are usually not allowed, and this time my wife's visit has been curtailed. It is the only weekend that has Friday off for her to be able to make that visit. May I also remind you that other prisoners are entitled to visits and have visits for two weeks without any interruption. They have two weekly visits without interruption. The most I have been allowed to have visits for is three days and on one occasion five days, but this time, for completely unknown reasons, this visit has not been approved. I consider this to be part of my physical mistreatment.

So please could you prevail and do what you can to make the visit possible? I don't think that the Dutch Ministry has the right to curtail my right to a visit, and I don't think it has anything to do with the affairs conducted here. So could you please do your best to arrange everything with the Detention Unit and everything else, the travelling arrangements and the visa which has this time been -- not been approved. Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we have no powers in relation to this, but we hear what you say, and we will pass on what you've said, and we'll raise it with the Registry now.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice. ⁶⁵⁹

MR. NICE: We wish to call this morning Kevin Curtis. It was the suggestion yesterday by the amici that there are issues arising, I think -- or in fact, it may have been the Court itself that raised them. Can I set out why, in our submission, this evidence ought to be admitted and admitted in full at this stage.

The witness is the lead investigator for the Kosovo part of this trial, and the evidence that we seek to lead from him is a general history of the investigation into the trial -- sorry, into the matters subject to the trial, together with an overall analysis and overview of the effect of the evidence so far as the killing sites, as they're described, are concerned.

Now, the Chamber indicated yesterday that because there is, of course, hearsay involved in his producing evidence of that kind, that it might not be valuable to the Chamber. Such evidence is, of course, not barred by the Rules of this Tribunal, which doesn't have a rule excluding hearsay, and evidence of, as I am informed and understand, exactly the same general type has been admitted in other cases, or at least certainly in one other case.

In Krstic, for example, I believe, the investigator, Ruez, gave evidence along exactly the same lines, summarising the overall effect of what witness statements revealed in circumstances where, as here, the Prosecution adduced live evidence in relation to particular parts of that overall account given by the investigator. So it's not excluded, it always being a matter for the Chamber to decide in due course what weight to attach to any evidence, in particular, of course, to evidence that is ⁶⁶⁰ categorised in other jurisdictions as hearsay.

In our submission, there are two distinct reasons why the evidence should be submitted here, one in a sense procedural and one substantive, and I'll deal with them in order.

Looking at the trial overall, from a procedural point of view, as the Chamber knows, it's necessary for us to achieve economies wherever possible because of the scale of the case and because of the inevitable limitations of time. The Chamber knows already that amongst the things we are doing to try to save time is to present, in due course, dossiers of material relating to particular sites. This was partly at the request of the Chamber and has been temporarily halted pending resolution of admissibility issues there, but that's one way we're hoping to achieve economies. And of course, as indicated now for months, I think, our intention overall is to make extensive use of the provisions of 92 bis of our Rules, which allow written statements to go in as evidence, subject to particular safeguards and subject to representations that the accused may make in due course. I'll come back to 92 bis in a minute. These are amongst the things we have to do to try and achieve proper economy. Let me now tell you a little bit about the overall statistics. Over 1.300 statements were taken from witnesses in Kosovo, or in relation to what happened in Kosovo, touching on crime-based matters. Of course, it would be quite impossible for all those witnesses to give live evidence, even if a so-called crime-based witness's evidence only takes one of our one-and-a-half-hour sessions, and that might be optimistic. It wouldn't be possible to have that number of witnesses or anything like ⁶⁶¹ it.

The Chamber will know that the Prosecution made a selection of events that it could properly hope to deal with in a reasonable period of time, given its duty to prove that events complained of were widespread or systematic. And I think of the 24 sites that one way or another are subject to the indictment, or in respect of those 24 sites, well over 20 statements, on average, witness statements per site have been obtained. The same point arises and has always been in the Prosecution's mind; of course it wouldn't be possible for us to call live evidence from 20 witnesses for that number of sites. These are entirely averaged figures, but it wouldn't be possible if this trial were to be dealt with in a reasonable and timely way. So there has been a reduction of the number of witnesses the Prosecution would seek to present. First it was down to ten per site, and then - and this is just at the time that I became involved in this case - it became reduced further so that in respect of each incident or each site, however we define these matters, there will be something like five witnesses, and the present intention of the Prosecution being to deal with those by one or two live witnesses per site and, again subject to safeguards and representations, the balancing three or four sites being dealt with by adduction through the provisions of Rule 92 bis.

We hope, in presenting evidence in that way, that we will be providing sufficient evidence to establish both the substantive crimes and the widespread or systematic basis, but the evidence is necessarily not as complete for any individual sites as it would be if we either had all the ⁶⁶² ten witnesses or, indeed, I suppose for the events overall, if we had more of those balance of the 1.300 witnesses that we've had to exclude. And thus, for this witness -- or if this witness gives evidence, as the Prosecution would submit would be desirable, then the Chamber will, first of all, have more material to give it a fuller and more comprehensive view of events both individually and collectively.

And the Chamber will only have to look at one, probably any one sample of the witness's statement - and I know the Chamber now has the statement before it - to look at one of these accounts - Bela Crkva, for example, on page 6 - to understand how an incident that's described there will necessarily be being described in a -- not an incomplete way but to some degree a necessarily limited way if we only adduce the witnesses that we are currently intending to adduce by way of live witnesses or 92 bis. The evidence would be entirely sufficient, say the Prosecution, but it wouldn't give the Chamber the complete picture that emerges from the officers being able to consider all the other statements. So our first position is that it would be appropriate to take this evidence, to decide in due course the degree to which the evidence should carry weight but to have the evidence now and to have it in mind giving context. And this is very important, and it's important, in our respectful submission, for the Chamber and for the accused to have this evidence before it.

First, the Chamber may, in its own judgement and in light of the approach taken by the accused who is now clearly engaging in the trial process - and I'll come back to that in a second as well - the Chamber ⁶⁶³ may, in its own judgement, decide that in respect of particular areas or particular topics, it would wish to have further evidence. The Chamber does not, as I understand it at the moment, have the intention of looking at witness statements itself, and so it cannot know what the balance of available material is. By having this summary of the officer available to it, it can know where there would be more material that it could seek either the Prosecution to call or indeed call itself if it judged that to be desirable or necessary, and so it will be extremely valuable to the Chamber to have this summary before it.

I now turn to the accused, who, as I say, is engaging in the trial process, and that is enormously helpful for the trial process and for all of us, but for reasons he's given or for other reasons, he doesn't consider the printed material that's provided to him. The statements reviewed by the investigator Kevin Curtis will have been disclosed to him in one form or another, but it appears he will not have reviewed them himself or apparently have taken the advantage of having them reviewed by anyone else.

It's actually very important that the accused should know what the overall material is in order for him to be better informed when it comes to cross-examining or indeed making representations to the Chamber about sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence or making representations about whatever evidence should be called or indeed, in due course, seeking to call evidence from the same collection of evidence himself should that be his choice. And so by having the officer, the investigator, give evidence in this way, which won't take a very great deal of time but which will ⁶⁶⁴ provide a snapshot of the overall available material, we will be enabling the accused to perform his functions that much the better. Those are really the procedural reasons why -- procedural and associated reasons why, in our respectful submission, this material should be before the Chamber.

I then turn to the substantive reason, and it's this: From the accused's opening remarks, it would appear that there may be a head-on challenge to crime-base witnesses if they give evidence in line with what their statements forecast they're going to say. In those circumstances, it may be substantively significant to discover from the officer, from the investigator, that there are signed statements of a consistent kind from the numbers of witnesses of which he can speak. So that there are those two entirely separate reasons why, in our submission, this evidence should be for the Chamber.

Can I just turn to two other matters, one I forecast and one I must deal with. 92 bis, just so that we can have a view to where the trial will be going shortly: The Chamber will have seen from the latest version of the witness list that it has had, which I think was dated the 7th of February, and there's an updated version that I'll have made available to all parties as soon as I can, but --

JUDGE MAY: We have the 8th of February.

MR. NICE: Well, I don't think that's going to be materially different. And if we look at page 1, we see, in fact, we come to deportations first, which the second proposed witness, Steve Spargo, will deal with, but the overall pattern of evidence is the same. ⁶⁶⁵ The Chamber will see that, using the projected witness numbers on the left-hand side, numbers 4 and 5 witnesses give evidence of a particular location, and the intention is then to place before the Chamber the 92 bis statements of three further witnesses and then to move on in a live witness, number 6, to the next site, and to follow that with the 92 bis witnesses that relate to that site, and so on. I should say that the list has got slightly out of order so far as connecting 92 bis and live witnesses at the end, but I'll have that corrected in the next day or so. So that's the approach that we were intending to take. That's the approach we were intending to take in order to make matters as comprehensive to Your Honours as could be possible at any given time. And when we come to the sites known as killing sites later on, we'd open that particular passage of evidence with the presentation, if acceptable, of the dossier that would relate to the killing site, seeing how much of that material could go in by way of admission or agreement, and then have the live witness and then follow it with the 92 bis witnesses. So that that's the plan that has been made for the adaption of evidence. The accused has always been on notice by the provision of these witness lists for the last month, in law, of the 92 bis witnesses we intended to adduce. I suspect that he will tell us that he hasn't read those lists and therefore hasn't considered those statements. And it may be convenient, perhaps today, perhaps after one of the adjournments, if we give some thought to the best way of safeguarding his interests so far as this is concerned.

One way to deal with it would be as follows: For -- and perhaps ⁶⁶⁶ with necessary abbreviation of time otherwise provided for in the Rules as may be necessary, to give him notice publicly, before a particular witness is about to be called live, of the written statements that we seek to adduce thereafter under the provisions of 92 bis, possibly summarising very briefly what they will say. Because if he's not alert, or alerted, for whatever reason, to the 92 bis witness statements we seek to adduce, then his cross-examination may suffer as a result, and that would be unfortunate, and we obviously desire to help him. But that's a problem, and I'd perhaps return to it a little later when the Chamber has had an opportunity to think about it.

Then the last matter that I must deal with is this: Of the over 1.300 witness statements taken altogether in relation to crime base of Kosovo, a large proportion has been served on the accused in one way or another and on the amici, either as the original confirming materials or since then. The balance of witness statements are being further reviewed for Rule 68 purposes, particularly in light of the accused's indication of his defence from his opening remarks, and in that way we hope to safeguard his interests further, handing over, of course, any statements that appear to be Rule 68 relevant.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, let me quote you. You mentioned an overall analysis and overview of the effect of the evidence.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: And does it have to be done necessarily in the form of testimony of a witness? I'm asking whether it can be done in the form of opening statements or in pre-trial brief or any brief during the ⁶⁶⁷ trial. What's the difference between the arguments and evidence? And certainly the witness is entitled to testimony, what he knows, but the latter part of the statement -- I particularly read through the latter part of it. The overall analysis is -- I think it's not a kind -- it's totally hearsay and is of little probative value. What would you make the distinction between the arguments and evidence on this?

MR. NICE: Your Honour says that because it's hearsay, it's of little probative value. I would respectfully suggest that in this Tribunal, hearsay material is, of course, of a probative value to be assessed in due course. It may be little, it may be nil, or it may be substantial. But because it's capable of having evidential value, that's a reason for adducing it through a witness rather than simply advancing it in an opening statement or in a written brief, where the material may be said to have no evidential value. So it has to come in as evidence to have some evidential value.

As to its evidential value, that will depend on a number of factors, including the degree of cross-examination on it or on associated pieces of evidence by the accused, or indeed by the amici, and will also depend on such matters as the degree of consistency of evidence that may be spoken of if he's cross-examined by the witness, and so on. So that in our submission, of course hearsay, for obvious reasons, and in light of our own sometimes particular backgrounds in systems which exclude hearsay, of course hearsay has to be viewed cautiously. But the appropriate starting point, in our submission, is that it has value and that its value is to be assessed in due course, and that explains why we seek to put it ⁶⁶⁸ in as evidence.

JUDGE KWON: What I'd like to suggest is that the overall analysis could be done in the form of brief, and if you are -- in terms of time and efficiency, and if you are arguing that you need some more 92 bis statements or more witnesses, the Court will allow them in due course.

MR. NICE: Well, as to the last point, obviously we are very aware of the timetable that has been set for us and we are by no means confident, particularly in light of cross-examination, that there may not be difficulties in meeting that timetable. And although we would, of course, be optimistic that justified applications for additional witnesses would be met, we have to work on the basis that we may be kept to our present list of witnesses.

As to analysis -- and I can simply perhaps take Your Honour back to the example I gave from the witness statement, Bela Crkva. Just simply as an example, and I'm not going to read it out, for obvious reasons, but if the Court is good enough just to read through it and see the sort of details that are covered overall, the number of different issues that are covered, you'll see there's a large range of material covered and simply can't be covered by just one, or even necessarily in this case, the three witnesses currently identified, because it's quite a large story. And you'll see this on, I think, your list.

If you have the 8th of February witness list, you'll find it on page 15 of that list, witnesses numbered 50, 51, and 52, with 92 bis witnesses 83, 84, and 85. So this is an exception because of the scale of the event. We've actually proposed to call three witnesses rather than ⁶⁶⁹ two or one. But even so, the complete story is unlikely to be given by those witnesses, and the overall analysis of which the officer speaks would make for a more complete story, a more complete account, and would enable the Chamber and the accused to know both more about the events and, if there are issues to be joined between the accused and the Prosecution, enable him and the Chamber to know better how to deal with it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Your Honours, the issue here is the conclusions of this investigating police officer who has read a large number of statements of witnesses and then presents his own conclusions upon the content of that written material. There's no objection to him giving evidence about the means of investigation and events that he organised or caused to be done as part of the overall investigation so that Your Honours are advised of matters concerning geography, population, and other relevant details. The objection is to him really performing the role which Your Honour has correctly identified was really performed in the opening statement of the Prosecutor where they outlined their allegations against the accused and stated the events that happened that are the subject matter of the indictment. And really, this witness is doing no more, no less than that. He's repeating the allegations of the Prosecutor based on material that's been read by him. And in our judgement, it doesn't advance the issues within the case for the Trial Chamber to properly determine the charges against the accused. It's an analysis of a large ⁶⁷⁰ number of these sites with reference to events that he was not a witness to, descriptions of men describing killings or other events as being the responsibility of another party, and it's our submission that that fails the test to be properly considered as evidence in a trial. We understand that the Rules are wider within this Tribunal and it is a Tribunal investigating events and matters, as well as a court, and there is not a rule against hearsay, but courts have been cautious about the admission of such evidence because the Judges are aware of the problems that can arise with it. And on the scale of hearsay evidence, this is really the most extreme, where a witness has read the statements of a large number of people, then presents his conclusions to the Court. And really, the responsibility for drawing those conclusions are those of the Judges who are trying the issue, and that is the responsibility of the Judges in this courtroom. So we say that this evidence carries with it great dangers in that form.

I don't know if I can assist the Court any further.

JUDGE MAY: No. If you have the statement of Mr. Curtis.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: The Chamber's had a chance to look at it. If you look at page 4, there is there a description of the actions of the Prosecution, how they went about their investigation.

MR. KAY: I don't see there can be any objection to that, the means and procedures of the investigator.

JUDGE MAY: Page 4 and on to page 5. And I suppose the description of where a village is, for instance, if that's of assistance, ⁶⁷¹ again the witness can give evidence of that.

MR. KAY: Geography and orientation and layout, as well as maps produced. Again, we have no objection. Those are matters that are plainly useful to the Court.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: The accused would -- I'm sorry.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. The accused plainly wants to --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, in a moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're going to exclude this evidence apart from evidence of geography. Is there anything else you want to say to us but on this very narrow point, that's all?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to say something with respect to what I heard a moment ago. We are dealing with the suggestion of a complete abuse of the proceedings and prolonging the time for repeating the indictment and the job done by the Prosecution. We have heard the Prosecution. We listened to the Prosecutor and his associates and now we have to go on to listen to the Prosecutor's other staff members, everything within the corps of the Prosecution, all of which should have been contained in the opening statement of the Prosecutor. And in an illegal way, this repetition and the Prosecutor's accusations are being repeated to hurl these untruths and mask the truth. So we're going further and further away now. ⁶⁷² First of all we had the Prosecutor, then we had his advisors, then we had the clerks and staff, and we'll probably get down to the Prosecutor's driver and hairdresser and so on and so forth.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're with you. We're going to exclude it, so there's no need to make the point again.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, then I have another thing to say. I heard a name mentioned, Kevin Curtis. If I understood the name correctly, it was Kevin Curtis. Kevin Curtis is an individual who committed a crime, the crime of my unlawful arrest in Belgrade. He was the perpetrator of that.

JUDGE MAY: This is not an appropriate point. We're now going to rule.

Mr. Milosevic, be quiet, please. We've considered this evidence. We've had the opportunity of considering it during the adjournment. The reason we're going to exclude it is this: that it is the evidence of an investigator who's read a great many statements and come to various conclusions about them. Those conclusions he wishes to report to the Court.

The first objection, of course, is that this is purely hearsay evidence given by a witness who was not present, who didn't hear or see the events which he is going to relate. The fact that it is hearsay does not prevent evidence being given in this Tribunal; we admit hearsay evidence. But on the other hand, we do not admit evidence which is of limited probative value, if any, and in our judgement, to have the conclusions of the investigator relayed to us is of no probative value, as ⁶⁷³ Judge Kwon has already pointed out.

In these circumstances, what we would have heard would have in fact been a repetition of the Prosecution case about these various sites. As such, it is of no assistance to us, in our view. We shall hear the evidence of the witnesses. We will hear the submissions of counsel. That will inform us, first of all, of the evidence and of the case. In these circumstances, the evidence will not be admitted. I do point out that there are two of us here today and not three. If the Prosecution want to try to have the evidence admitted with three, they can do so.

Now, it's a matter for you, Mr. Nice, whether you want to call the witness on those matters which have been identified in the course of argument, that is, the means of investigation, the geography. Whether it's of any assistance to have that, I don't know. It's a matter for you whether you want to call it or not. We've got maps. No doubt we shall hear about the exhumations in due course when we come to the individual sites.

MR. NICE: My current disposition is probably not to call the officer at this stage, possibly call him later, but I'd like just a moment to discuss that, if I may. I'm certainly not going to seek to overturn your ruling by the presence of His Honour Judge Robinson. It may be that we will return to the issue or some of the issues in due course. I hope not, but it may be, but that's another reason for putting these witnesses back, I think in principle possibly not calling them at all, which will help with the limitation on witnesses to which we are subject in any ⁶⁷⁴ event.

Before I seek just a short adjournment to decide whether to call Mr. Curtis or Mr. Spargo at all, would it be convenient to turn to the 92 bis problem? Because if I don't call either of them, then we'll be directly into the first crime-base witness. If we look at the list again, the list of the 8th of February --

JUDGE MAY: Before you get there, there's Mr. Spargo.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry?

JUDGE MAY: Would it not be convenient to deal with him?

MR. NICE: Absolutely. If different considerations arise, yes, of course.

JUDGE MAY: Well, the different considerations, let me say we've had the statement and we're grateful we have looked at it, and he produces the map. Now, it seems to me the map may well be admissible as a tool, something which can be used during the course of the trial. Clearly the witness can't give evidence about what happened in the various sites, but -- and indeed whether a witness is necessary to produce the map, I don't know. It's something for you to consider. But certainly at first blush, it would appear there may be more merit in that particular argument.

MR. NICE: Very well. Well, can we -- can I have a word with Mr. Ryneveld about that? And what I was going to invite the Chamber to consider while I'm doing that is that, one way or another, we're likely to be on to the first crime-base witness, who is here in the building, very soon. If the Chamber looks at the witness list of the 8th of February, ⁶⁷⁵ there are two witnesses, numbers 4 and 5, and there are then proposed three 92 bis witnesses. As I say, the accused has been on notice for a considerable period of time that the intention is to produce those witnesses by the provisions of 92 bis.

A word or so about the process. The Chamber will be aware to some degree of what happens. The 92 bis process happens in the territory, and the formal acknowledging of accuracy of signature is probably done in the Albanian language.

JUDGE MAY: It may be helpful if, since the accused is representing himself, if you briefly introduce the Rule and the procedure so that it may be understood.

MR. NICE: Yes. The 92 bis provisions for proof of facts other than by oral evidence, at page 93 of the version of the Rules I have, allows a Chamber to admit "... in whole or part, evidence of a witness in the form of a written statement in lieu of oral testimony which goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused as charged in the indictment" and sets out a number of factors in favour of admitting the evidence in written form.

I should perhaps check whether the accused has been provided with a copy of the Rules. Of course if he hasn't, it would be helpful for him to have one on his bench.

JUDGE MAY: He has a had a copy of the Rules. I will check with the registry.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we'll provide you with a copy of the ⁶⁷⁶ Rules so you can have it during the court proceedings if you want to read it and follow.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [No translation]. Can I say something in response to what the Prosecutor has just said?

JUDGE MAY: Let him finish what he's saying now, and then we'll hear you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Go ahead, please.

MR. NICE: The Rules go on to list factors favouring admission of such evidence and factors against it. Rather than list them all, to assist the accused, factors against admission of such evidence include an overriding public interest in evidence being presented orally, an objection by a party demonstrating that the source and nature of the evidence is unreliable or that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value or that there are other factors making it appropriate for the proposed 92 bis witness to attend for cross-examination. There are then provisions about declarations that have to be made by the proposed witness, and they've been dealt with on recent missions to the territory, with the assistance of staff of the Registry, as the Chamber may know, and there's a requirement as to what the declaration of the witness has to verify. There are further provisions which needn't concern us, either at all or immediately, about dead witnesses or witnesses who have died. And then it says this, at (E), after dealing with the admission of transcripts of evidence:

"Subject to Rule 127 or any order to the contrary, a party seeking to adduce a written statement or transcript shall give fourteen days ⁶⁷⁷ notice to the opposing party, who may within seven days object. The Trial Chamber shall decide, after hearing the parties, whether to admit the statement or transcript in whole or in part and whether to require the witness to appear for cross-examination."

Rule 127 is the Rule, of course, which allows for variation, including abbreviation of time limits.

With that brief survey of the Rule and with an eye to the Prosecution's revised amended order of witnesses of the 8th of February, it would be my invitation to the Chamber to ensure by some means that the accused is aware ahead of the calling of the evidence of witnesses 4 and 5. Not only that it is our intention to rely on 92 bis witnesses identified thereafter, but possibly to give him some summary or to give him a further opportunity to read statements from those witness, because --

JUDGE MAY: We haven't got those statements.

MR. NICE: In which case they must be provided to the Chamber, and that can be done, of course, very swiftly.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, it may be more convenient to deal with Mr. Spargo now and then to return to this.

MR. NICE: Certainly. I obviously want the -- I would like the matter to be resolved, if we can, before we call the first witness.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course. Mr. Spargo.

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour has correctly identified the issues which Mr. Ryneveld and I had spoken of in advance anyway. There was a further matter concerning the video material, which we should mention. ⁶⁷⁸ That's an exhibit within his evidence. There are five videotapes, and we've both agreed that the news reporting - and one is what appears to be private video footage - is admissible as exhibits within the case, but the sound must be off. So if Your Honours look at these videotapes, the sound must be off, because again, rather like the issue with Mr. Curtis, they are the commentary and opinions of journalists and a selection of journalists. But the actual footage itself can be seen. I think Your Honours will know what I'm talking about, because it was all over the world and no passerby could have missed it. But to ensure the integrity of this trial, both parties have agreed that it would be wrong to have such sound on in looking at the videos.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, what is proposed to be done?

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. If Your Honour is asking only with respect to the videos or his evidence in chief --

JUDGE MAY: His evidence generally.

MR. RYNEVELD: -- I had proposed that this witness really -- I've prepared a summary, which I hope the Court has had an opportunity to --

JUDGE MAY: We haven't seen it.

MR. RYNEVELD: Oh, my goodness.

JUDGE MAY: We've seen the statement. We've had that, but not the summary. If we could have the summary now.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. I have prepared a summary, which includes which exhibits we propose to put in at what time. Basically, there are three categories of evidence that we had proposed. The first category is simply: This witness has produced maps, ⁶⁷⁹ computer-generated maps, based on the information of the statements by the witnesses, to assist the Court that, when the witnesses testify, that they will be able to see the routes taken by these refugees to the various border points. In other words, for each -- you perhaps saw one of those aggregate maps during the course of the opening. It was a colour map with different coloured routes. That was produced by Mr. Spargo. I do not propose, in light of Your Honour's ruling, to have him expound upon the narrative, unfold the narrative of what witnesses told him. But as a result of that, he created these maps.

And for each -- if you can see, perhaps, paragraph 3, I've got the overview map and the proposal for each exhibit. It's the aggregate map of the deportation routes. Then as you get -- for each of the deportation sites only, not the killing sites that I referred to, he will produce some maps that he created, including some town maps, and perhaps we have to have a vehicle by which these can be entered into evidence as proper exhibits.

When we then get perhaps to paragraph 11, where I talk about Djakovica, you'll note that there is, under proposed Exhibit K560, a one-and-a-half-hour video depicting destruction to houses, and part of which, a very small part of which, was shown during the opening. I propose to simply enter that video without the necessity of playing it. The Court can -- copies have been given to the amici; the accused has a copy. The Court can -- rather than take up valuable court time, the proposal was simply to mark it as an exhibit and the Court can then view it at a time not during court hours. And as I discussed with Mr. Kay, we ⁶⁸⁰ agree that, as I did during the opening, no sound. Because it's the footage, it's the visual impressions that are important, not a commentary by a journalist or the person taking it. That was the proposal. Then when we get to paragraph 17, you will note that paragraph 17 is under the heading of "Additional Evidence." In light of the Court's ruling today, I take the view that everything under paragraph 17 would be along the lines of a conclusion drawn by the witness, along the lines that we had originally proposed - it may be of assistance to the Court - by means of Kevin Curtis. I view paragraph 17 to fall within the Court's order, and I would propose not to adduce any of paragraph 17. Finally, at page 5, under tab -- under number 18, I have listed three potential BBC news tapes with various footage of the things depicted in this note, and again, I propose merely to tender the exhibits into evidence without playing them, in the interests of time. And again, all copies have been disclosed to all parties. And should the Court at some point wish to have a witness recalled after viewing the video, the witness is available for re-examination or cross-examination by any of the parties once they've had an opportunity to do so.

This is a discretionary matter as to whether or not the Court wants to admit that evidence, but parts of this evidence were shown in the opening. And that is my proposal for Mr. Spargo. I've had discussions with the amici, and as I understand it, they're agreed that paragraph 17 ought not be entered, and they -- and apart from the issue of sound in the videos, I understand there is no objection from the friends of the Court with respect to these issues. ⁶⁸¹

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Kay, is that right?

MR. KAY: Yes. Mr. Ryneveld set out the position that we had advanced.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, it's proposed now to call Mr. Spargo. You've heard the discussion about him. Is there anything you want to say about that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do wish to say something about that and about what the Prosecutor said earlier on, and I consider that to be my right, the right to react.

The Prosecutor said here that I was taking part in the proceedings, which is incorrect. I am not taking part in the proceedings, because I do not recognise the Court. But I did state here publicly that I will use every opportunity to address the public, every opportunity, and I have been given only one in the past seven months, to tell the truth. And what I am saying whenever I am given the opportunity of addressing the public, I think is my duty to have the truth be heard, even opportunities afforded me like the one we saw yesterday here.

Secondly, written statements by witnesses completely curtail the right of them being questioned. Every witness has to come here and we must be given a chance of asking those witnesses questions if the witnesses have anything to do with the accusations and indictment against me. I have heard that there are 1.300 written statements. I am then going to hand in to you 130.000 written statements, or 1.300.000 written statements of the victims of crimes that were perpetrated by the terrorists and NATO. I don't think you can abuse the proceedings and ⁶⁸² trial in this way.

Thirdly, relating to the issues as to the crime sites, the so-called crime sites, you are duty-bound to clarify, even in an illegal trial of this nature, that you can speak of a crime site only if you have any evidence and proof that I was present at the site of the crime and that I committed those crimes, or if those crimes actually did take place, and I have my doubts in the majority of cases. So you would have to have proof and evidence that I ordered the perpetrators of those crimes to carry them out; otherwise, what sense and meaning to the spots in which people were killed have to do with the accusations held against me, unless you have prior evidence and proof that this has anything whatsoever to do with me?

And it has absolutely nothing to do with me, but it does have something to do with the tactics of the Prosecutor, who wishes, here and now, to swamp and inundate the world public with countless examples of the sufferings of people during a war, without coming to the question, discussing the question of how come the war came about and how come the crimes were committed in Yugoslavia. So you can send this to Clinton, evidence of those crimes, and show him the crimes that were committed, to send them to Clinton and not to me. I had nothing to do with crimes and the crime sites, and all you're doing is swamping the international public with alleged facts.

I think this is an essential matter of substance, if you have no proof to show that I was on the spot or that I ordered the perpetrators of the crimes, and you have nothing of the kind. I have presented proof and ⁶⁸³ evidence to the contrary in opposition to all this, that crimes were being in fact prevented, that people were being brought to justice, and so on.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this is not the time for speeches and submissions except on the narrow issue we're dealing with. As to the relevance of evidence, that's a matter for the Tribunal to rule on, as we will.

Very well. Let's call the witness.

MR. NICE: I'm not sure where Mr. Spargo is exactly at the moment. I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to seek to put anything in through Mr. Curtis at the moment. I'll tender him in due course if I don't seek to call him for any particular part of his evidence, or possibly if things change, but we'll move straight on to Mr. Spargo. But can we just have a few minutes first to reorganise ourselves?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Ten minutes?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn.

--- Break taken at 10.34 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

MR. RYNEVELD: The Prosecution calls Stephen Spargo.

JUDGE MAY: I should say we'll go on now until 11.15 before we take the longer break.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration. ⁶⁸⁴

THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

WITNESS: STEPHEN SPARGO Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Witness, would you state your full name for the record, please.

A. My full name is Stephen John Spargo.

Q. And I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up, if you would, please. I understand, sir, that you are a police officer and you've been a police officer in Australia since 1977. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. You took up your occupation with the ICTY in what year?

A. In June of 2000.

Q. And you were assigned to the Kosovo investigation at that time?

A. That is correct.

Q. And prior to that, sir, in your capacity as a police officer, did you have any particular training in the capacity as an intelligence analyst?

A. That is correct.

Q. And did you, in the course of that training, become familiar with the creation of computerised maps?

A. That is correct.

Q. Sir, as part of your overall duties with the ICTY and this investigation, were you tasked at some point with analysing the various ⁶⁸⁵ statements of individuals from the Kosovo investigation and creating maps with respect to the routes that they allegedly took?

A. That is correct.

Q. Can you, in a very brief way to assist the Court, indicate how you went about performing that task so that the Court can understand the end product of what you produced.

A. The maps were created using a computerised programme called ArcView, which is a geographical information system. It allowed us to electronically plot lines on an electronic map of Kosovo.

Q. And the statements that you analysed, sir, I understand that there are some 1.300 some-odd statements in the archives from this particular file. Which statements did you actually use in order to trace these particular routes onto maps? Were they all 1.300 or a restricted portion of them?

A. The maps were compiled from the statements which are to be tendered as live witness or 92 bis before the Court.

Q. So these maps are based on the witness statements on the witness list tendered by the Prosecution in this case and none other?

A. That is correct.

Q. Before I actually get to those particular maps, sir, I understand that there is a Times Atlas map of the Balkans that is available. That may perhaps show the Court perhaps the layout of the Balkans; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Although it's not on the summary sheet, Your ⁶⁸⁶ Honours - we had intended to introduce this particular map through another witness - but I thought it may be of assistance to the Court if we tender a Times Atlas map of the Balkans. And we have copies here for the Court and for the various parties.

Perhaps you could show it to the witness, Mr. Usher. Until we get this process down, the first few exhibits may take a little bit of time. We'll get the process quickly.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 1.

MR. RYNEVELD: I have the original here to be marked as the Court exhibit unless -- it should be shown to the witness to make sure that ... Is it on the screen?

Q. Now, Witness, what has been tendered as Exhibit 1, is that a Times Atlas map of the Balkans?

A. It is.

Q. And perhaps you could point out to us where is Kosovo on this map and trace it with a pointer, if you have it.

A. Kosovo is located here.

Q. And you're now tracing Kosovo on the right-hand bottom of the screen that's on the camera. Ah. Thank you. All right.

A. Albanian border, Macedonian border, the border with Serbia proper, and the Montenegrin border.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: That is then Exhibit 1 in these proceedings, was formerly K5.

Thank you, Mr. Usher. ⁶⁸⁷

Q. Now, sir, you've told us that you were assigned the task of reviewing these statements, and from those statements, sir, without giving us any conclusions, did you in fact create an overview map of the routes described in those statements by the various witnesses by means of which they left Kosovo?

A. That is correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Might the witness be shown what we have marked as K6.

Q. On the ELMO at the moment, Witness, is what is presently marked as K6, and it appears to be a multicoloured diagram. First of all, what is that a map of?

A. It is a map of the province of Kosovo.

Q. Yes. And can you tell us, sir, where -- can you point out perhaps where the borders of Kosovo are again on this reduced map?

A. Of course. The Macedonian border is here, the Albanian border is here, the border with Montenegro, the border with Serbia proper.

Q. And for the record, you've simply outlined with your pointer, starting at the bottom right-hand frame near Macedonia. You've gone in a clockwise fashion around the borders of Kosovo; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, sir, how did this map come about? Did you create this or how did this come into being?

A. The basic map was created using the commercial software of ArcView. On that, I produced the coloured lines of each of the individual indictment sites for the deportation side of the second amended ⁶⁸⁸ indictment. Each of the colours on the map represents one particular deportation site.

Q. Perhaps, sir, we can just pick a colour and you could let us know for -- let's start at the very top. The green colour. What do those green lines indicate?

A. The green lines here are centred on the deportation site of Vushtrri.

Q. Yes.

A. And show the routes taken by the displaced persons at various times and then on their journey to the border crossings.

Q. And you're now tracing from what on the map -- you called it Vushtrri. Is Vucitrn another way --

A. Vucitrn is the same place.

Q. Yes, I see. And it seems to be going to an area marked as Pristina and then down towards what border?

A. It goes down through Lipljan, Suva Reka, Prizren, to the border at Qafe e Morina.

Q. All right. And let's take another colour. The orange one that seems to have -- around Mitrovica.

A. Mitrovica shows the routes of displaced persons from the indictment site at Mitrovica through various routes to the border at Qafe e Morina or to the border with Montenegro at Rozaje.

Q. All right. Now, I'm sorry, I skipped ahead. You showed us one of the green routes down to the Albanian border. There also appears to be arrows up towards Serbia to Novi Pazar. What is that -- what does that ⁶⁸⁹ indicate?

A. That route is one witness who travelled from the Vucitrn area through Mitrovica, Leposavic to Novi Pazar.

Q. Now, sir, rather than go through each of these colours on this particular map, I understand that you have subsequently generated maps for each of these particular routes in isolation; is that correct?

A. That is correct. In fact, the starting point was to create a map for each of the individual sites and then to amalgamate them together in one single map, which is this exhibit.

MR. RYNEVELD: Rather than go through all of the colours on this particular map, perhaps we could have that now marked as Exhibit 2 in these proceedings. So K6 becomes Exhibit 2; is that correct, Madam Clerk?

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 2.

MR. RYNEVELD:

Q. Witness, just to ensure that the interpreters have an opportunity to interpret my question before you commence your answer, would you please pause. I know it's difficult when we both speak the same language, but there is a pause that needs to be observed for translation.

A. Of course.

Q. Thank you. Sir, did you create a map for the Orahovac area?

A. I did.

Q. And I understand, sir, that you have produced some 13 maps under collective number K7 for the various deportation sites; is that correct?

A. That is correct. ⁶⁹⁰

Q. Do you have part of K7 available? I think we have it here.

MR. RYNEVELD: Perhaps during the break, Your Honours, we'll find a more efficient route by which these can be distributed in advance so that we don't have to wait.

Q. Very briefly, sir, could you -- I should wait for it to go on the ELMO. For the record, we now have a green colour near the word "Orahovac," is that correct?

A. That is correct. That is to define the deportation site, or the municipality in which the deportation took place.

Q. There are a number of communities listed immediately below the word "Orahovac," which is in large letters on the top right-hand corner of the map. What do they signify?

A. The names are the villages within that area, some of which were places where persons were deported from; others are mentioned as landmarks in the statements.

Q. All right. And just to be very brief about this, you created this map to reflect what the Court will hear in the statements. As witnesses refer to various towns and places and routes they took, these would then be traced in the green arrows on this particular map. And I believe you've already explained this to us: In the aggregate map, this is how they took the route to the Albanian border; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Exhibit 3, please, Your Honours, part of K7. Since I'm following the summary that the Court has, perhaps I could also now ask for Exhibit K8. ⁶⁹¹

Q. I understand, sir, that there is a collection of maps, which we have marked tentatively as K8, depicting each municipality as well; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And with respect to this particular community, you've prepared another -- this is a map that you would have prepared on computer?

A. These were maps which we obtained from a United Nations body in Kosovo who were responsible for producing maps for the area.

Q. Did you personally do anything to the map or add anything to it or make any markings on it or modify it in any way?

A. Some of the maps have annotations on them which are relevant to various incidents.

Q. Still dealing with the Orahovac municipality, sir, would you look at the ELMO and -- we'll get it on there. There we are. And this is a map that was then provided to you. Did you make any modifications to this particular map?

A. No.

Q. And the legend indicates the village boundaries, the railways, what would be the urban area. That would be in sort of the orange colour; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And the municipality boundaries and roads are also shown on this map?

A. That is correct. The thick grey line is the municipality boundary. ⁶⁹²

Q. And this map also includes the names of little villages and hamlets within that municipality?

A. It does.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: I've lost the number. Are we at 4 now?

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor Exhibit 4.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Have copies been distributed?

Q. Moving on, then, sir, to the Prizren municipality. First of all, again, the same process was adopted? And I'm not going to do this for each municipality, but again, you analysed the statements, you attempted to draw routes on a map depicting what those statements reflected; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. So if I can then turn to Prizren, part of K7. Is that on the ELMO? So it is. Very briefly, rather than have me do the talking, can you explain what the maps shows.

A. The map shows the routes taken by persons from the villages of Pirane, Landovica, and several areas within Prizren itself, and the routes taken to the border with Albania.

Q. And that line where the pink line arrow stops at the bottom left-hand corner, near a body, what is that purple-blue mark? What is that?

A. That area is a body of water.

Q. All right. So that particular area, is that the Albanian border?

A. That's correct. ⁶⁹³

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Exhibit 5, please, Your Honour.

Q. Still dealing with Prizren, part of the bundle that we referred to as K8 --

JUDGE KWON: Just a minute. You said Exhibit 5? Number 3?

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this map was submitted together with the other maps under Exhibit 3.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: My proposal -- well, it's up to the Court. If the Court wants to make it a bundle, as it was before, fine, unless we want to give them individual numbers.

JUDGE MAY: I think it would be more convenient to keep them together, refer to it as Exhibit 2 or 3 and Map 1, 2, 3, and 4.

MR. RYNEVELD: Fine. Excellent. Thank you. We'll do it that way. I'll let the clerk call the numbers, then, because ... So the map I've just introduced, that is, the map of Prizren that used to be part of K7, is now map what? 2 of Exhibit 3?

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 3, map 2.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. I'm waiting for translation.

Q. Moving, then, to the bundle K -- I guess now Exhibit 4, used to be K8 --

MR. RYNEVELD: Is that map on the ELMO? Not yet.

THE REGISTRAR: This is map 3 of Exhibit 3.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. And again, Witness, what is this map? ⁶⁹⁴

A. This map shows the municipality of Prizren.

Q. And is this the map that you received from another UN organisation?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you make any modifications?

A. On this map, no.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: I believe the clerk has indicated what map this is.

JUDGE KWON: Excuse me. Just for the clarification. That map is part of the Exhibit 4, not number 3?

MR. RYNEVELD: That was my understanding as well, yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: It was K --

MR. RYNEVELD: K8. It was part of K8 at one time, which I understood became Exhibit 4.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. 0214196. Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Staying still with the municipality of Prizren, and tab 24, if Your Honours have tab materials, under what was formerly K24, it's the town map of Prizren. I'm sorry. It was tab 11. It looks like this, Mr. ...

Q. Witness, you have on the ELMO what I understand is a town map of Prizren. How was this created and by whom?

A. This was created by the same body that made the municipality maps. ⁶⁹⁵

Q. And what does this map depict? I mean, by its name we know it's a town map, but there are arrows on it. How did they get there?

A. The arrows were placed on the map to show particular routes around and through the town of Prizren.

Q. And you're now referring to the green arrows and you're tracing -- for the record, you're tracing with your pointer from the top left corner of the map down to the -- down the side, and now the right side across to the left; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. And those are routes within the town of Prizren that are contained in witness statements --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in this case? Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 5.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. May we move on to the village of -- or the municipality of Srbica. This is again part of K7, followed by a map from K8.

Q. Just so that I'm clear, sir, this is one of the yellow routes that is depicted as well on that aggregate map you earlier introduced; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. And what does this depict?

A. It depicts the routes taken by displaced persons from the vicinity of Izbica to the Albanian border at Qafe e Prushit and to the Albanian border at Qafe e Morina. ⁶⁹⁶

Q. And there are a number of villages marked on the map as well, the smaller villages around Izbica; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Madam Clerk, do we have a number for that?

THE REGISTRAR: Map --

JUDGE MAY: Map 4, yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Map 4 of Exhibit 3. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, we'll adjourn now. I think at some time we're going to have put these maps in a binder or the like with tab numbers. Otherwise, it's going to be a recipe for confusion.

MR. RYNEVELD: I have that, but I understood that there was -- we'll certainly provide the Court with new binders. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: But we'll go on with the evidence meanwhile.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

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

--- Recess taken at 11.15 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.45 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour. Just to respond to Your Honour's comment as we broke for the break, I might say that we had originally provided bundles in tabs to all the parties, including to the amici, and a copy was served on the accused. We also, I believe, intended to have these bundles for the Court but that process was arrested when we understood that the Court wanted to have these matters dealt with document by document. So they were deconstructed. We're now in the process of ⁶⁹⁷ reconstructing them, and they will be given to the Court in the bundle form. We had them that way. But our apologies. Perhaps we misunderstood. So I apologise for the inconvenience for the Court getting these piecemeal.

JUDGE MAY: There's obviously been some confusion and misunderstanding.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. And as I say, my friends and the accused do have them in tabbed bundles.

Now, I believe if I can turn -- I believe I just finished tab -- or point 6 on the summary, and I'm about to go to the Suva Reka municipality, number 7 on our summary. And I hope to move at a slightly faster pace now that we have the process somewhat down. That would be map number 5 of the -- I'm going to ask the witness to now look at map number 5. That used to be K7. Is that on the ELMO? Yes. Thank you.

Q. Now, sir, very briefly, what is this?

A. This is a map showing the deportation routes from a number of centres in the Suva Reka municipality. From Belanica in two directions. From Suva Reka and from the village of Lesane.

Q. And do all of these routes go through Prizren? Am I looking at that correct? In other words, there are two sort of routes forming kind of a circle, joining at Prizren and then going on to the border with Albania?

A. That is correct.

Q. I see. Thank you. ⁶⁹⁸

MR. RYNEVELD: That was -- I guess that will be map 5, part of Exhibit 3, then. Is that right, Madam Clerk, if I have that correct?

THE REGISTRAR: That's correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Staying with that municipality and going to what used to be K8, would you please look at the map that's -- it's Suva Reka municipality. And just very briefly, again we have a legend on the top right-hand corner, indicating roads and railways and boundaries, et cetera.

A. That is correct.

Q. And did you make any modifications to this map or is this a map that you received as part of the investigative bundle?

A. There were no modifications made to this map.

Q. And just so that we know what we're talking about, what does this map represent? What is the purpose of this map?

A. It is a map of the municipality of Suva Reka, showing all of the villages.

Q. Again, we get the fine detail of little hamlets, et cetera, et cetera, that might be referred to by witnesses; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. I see.

MR. RYNEVELD: Madam Clerk.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 3.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Still staying with that municipality, in tab 12 of the binder that we had hoped to provide to the Court, but it was K46, is a town map of ⁶⁹⁹ Suva Reka. Do you have that? Here it is.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 6.

MR. RYNEVELD: That's on the ELMO. Now, there are two -- this is a town map of Suva Reka, and did you -- this is prepared by computers in the office of the ICTY; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And very briefly, sir, what is depicted in this map?

A. Apart from the municipal area of the town of Suva Reka, there are two additional points marked. Point 1 is marked as the Berisha household. Point number 2 is marked as a cafe.

Q. All right. And those red lines, sir, those, I take it, are major roads, are they, the red lines from starting at the top of the photograph working down to the bottom and then the one that sort of forms a triangle near points 1 and 2?

A. That is correct. That is the main road between Prizren and Stimlje, and this is a main road which takes you to -- I think it's Studencani.

Q. And at the very bottom of that map, we see that the road leads to -- there's a town called Prizren located at the bottom; is that correct? That's the road to Prizren?

A. That is correct. I see. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: I think it's already been marked as Exhibit 6.

Q. Moving on, if I may, then, sir, to the Pec municipality, or Peje, map 6 of Exhibit 3, please. Do you have that on the -- okay. That's on ⁷⁰⁰ the ELMO. Can you again, sir, very briefly describe what this represents.

A. It represents the routes taken by displaced persons from the city of Pec through Decani, Djakovica, Prizren, to the border of Qafe e Morina.

Q. That's near the bottom of the map.

A. That's correct.

Q. There also appear to be arrows leading upwards from Peje, or Pec, toward Montenegro. What is that?

A. The arrow on the bottom shows a route from Pec to Rozaje on the main road. The second arrow shows an alternate route through the mountains.

Q. All right. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: That was -- formerly K7 is now map 6 of Exhibit 3. Thank you.

Q. Part of K8, sir, you have a -- and that is for the Pec municipality, or Peje municipality. Just so that we're clear, Pec and Peje, those are just -- one is a Serbian way of expressing the name of the municipality, and Peje is the Albanian way of expressing the municipality; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. I see. So although on the map it says "Peje" and on your map it says "Pec," we're talking about the same municipality?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, this was one of those maps that was provided, showing all the little villages in the Peje or Pec municipality; is that correct? ⁷⁰¹

A. That is correct.

Q. The exhibit now on the ELMO. Right.

MR. RYNEVELD: I'm sorry. This is where I lose -- this is part of Exhibit 4, I believe it is, Madam --

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 4.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. And might I also ask you to look at Exhibit K55, or what we called K55, about to become an exhibit. That would be at tab 13 of the material that was provided.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 7.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Again, Witness, very briefly: I take it this is pretty self-explanatory. It's a town map of Pec, or Peje. Are the red lines -- perhaps you could tell us: The red lines, are those roadways?

A. That's correct. The red lines are the major roads --

Q. And how about --

A. -- through the city.

Q. -- the little cross-stitches, the black little hash marks? What are those?

A. Those marks there are the railway line.

Q. I see. And at bottom of this map - and I'm looking at it in a rectangle -- a horizontal, rectangle form - it says, "to Decani and Djakovica." That's the road to Decani and Djakovica; and to the north -- I'm sorry. To the top of the map, it's to Mitrovica; is that correct? ^{702 BLANK PAGE 714}

A. That's correct.

Q. And to the left, as I'm looking at the map, to Montenegro.

A. That is correct.

Q. And to the right, to Klina and Pristina.

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. Were there any other markings that you placed on this map that you want to point to the Court's attention?

A. No, there are not.

Q. Thank you. Let's move on, if we may, then. I'm now going to turn, if I may, to map 7, which is the Kosovska Mitrovica site. And first of all, part of K7 is now map 7. That's on the ELMO. Again, very briefly, sir, what does this tell us?

A. It depicts the routes taken by displaced persons from the city of Kosovska Mitrovica, through Klina, Djakovica, Peje, Istok, to border crossings at Qafe e Morina and at Rozaje with Montenegro.

Q. So again, sir, just so that I'm clear, the yellow markings on this map show us two major border exit points; is that correct? Is that what this shows, or am I wrong in interpreting this?

A. No. That is correct.

Q. One with the border of Albania, at the bottom of the map, and one at the border of Montenegro, near the top of the map; is that it?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the yellow lines are the various routes that people took to get there?

A. That's correct. ⁷¹⁵

Q. Many of them going through Prizren in order to get to Albania?

A. That's correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: That was map 7, part of Exhibit 3, Madam Clerk? Thank you.

Q. Turning then, if I may, to what was formerly part of bundle K8 for that municipality, Mitrovica. I see that on the ELMO at this point. Tell us about that, if you would, please, sir.

A. This is a map of the municipality of Mitrovica, with the major population centre towards the left-hand side of the map and with an annotation on the map with a green star.

Q. What does that mean?

A. Showing a transit location.

Q. And is there a particular name associated with what you've got as the green star? In other words, do witnesses refer to it as "transit location" or do they call it a -- by the name of a place or what?

A. They call it by the name of the village, which is Zabare.

Q. I see, Zabare Pristina and Donje Zabare?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's just -- now, is there a convergence there of roads or is that a -- that red line, that road goes through that green star, is that a main road or what?

A. It is.

Q. And again, the hash marks running from top of the map to the bottom, is that a railroad?

A. Yes. ⁷¹⁶

Q. And again, it shows the names of the various small little hamlets and villages that make up the municipality of Mitrovica?

A. It does.

Q. Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 5.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. K62 of Mitrovica. At tab 14 for my colleagues.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 8.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you very much.

Q. As soon as it's on the ELMO, Witness, you can describe what this is and any significant markings that would be of assistance to the Court.

A. This is a town map of Mitrovica. The blue line denotes water courses. The red lines are the major roads through the city. And the course of the railway line.

Q. Thank you, Witness. If I may then turn to the Pristina municipality, map 8, part of what we used to call K7. It is now Exhibit 3, map 8.

You created this map, and I take it the routes are in red. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And which major -- or is there more than one direction to a border shown on this or only one direction?

A. There are two directions shown.

Q. Yes.

A. One shows the major highway and railway line from Pristina and ⁷¹⁷ Kosovo Polje to the Macedonian border crossing at Djeneral Jankovic.

Q. That's on the bottom right side of the map?

A. That's correct. The second route is via Stimlje, Suva Reka, Prizren to the Albanian border at Qafe e Morina.

Q. Thank you, sir. Still on that municipality, if we can turn to the bundle K8. Do you have that?

A. Yes. This map shows the municipality of Pristina with the city of Pristina towards the left-hand side, and just off the map is the town of Kosovo Polje.

MR. RYNEVELD: It's on the left-hand side of the map, just for the record.

Q. And Pristina, that is a major city, I take it, in Kosovo?

A. Pristina is the principal city in Kosovo.

Q. And there's a confluence there of roads and railways, et cetera?

A. That is correct. The railway is shown.

Q. And again, all the small hamlets are listed, or many of the small hamlets are listed by name on this map?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Madam Clerk.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 6.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. K62. I would ask that you look at the town map of Mitrovica, which is found at tab 14. K69, town map of Pristina. I'm sorry, did I say Mitrovica? That was my mistake. Tab 15. This is a slightly larger ⁷¹⁸ map, taken because it's a larger city.

A. Correct.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 9.

MR. RYNEVELD:

Q. Now, sir, there is a legend on this, showing ten points by name and number; is that correct? And I'm not going to ask you to go through those. Those are depicted on this map?

A. That is correct.

Q. And otherwise, it's a town map, showing roads and railways, et cetera, and just gives the Court reference points to receive the evidence from the witnesses; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you very much.

MR. RYNEVELD: I'll just move on, if I may. Unless the Court wishes any clarification, I'll just enter it as an exhibit and move on. You've given it a number, Madam Clerk? I've failed to record it.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 9.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Turning, then, to the municipality of Djakovica, map -- I think it's map 9 of Exhibit 3, which was formerly K7.

A. Yes.

Q. You have it on the ELMO. There's blue lines. What does this show?

A. This shows routes taken by persons from the city of Djakovica through Prizren to Qafe e Morina, routes taken by displaced persons from ⁷¹⁹ the city of Djakovica to Qafe e Prushit.

Q. And that's also another location on the Albanian border?

A. That is correct.

Q. Does it also show routes of individuals as to how they got to Djakovica before they went on to those two Albanian border crossings?

A. That is correct.

Q. And those would be the villages to the left, on the map, of Djakovica; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Map 9 of Exhibit 3, please. Turning to K8, if I may. That would be -- that's of the Djakovica or Gjakova municipality. Again, that would depend on whether we're talking -- speaking Serbian or Albania; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And again this shows that particular municipality and the main city in it?

A. It does.

Q. And the various villages and hamlets in that vicinity. Is there also a confluence there of roads? In other words, those black marks and red marks, what are they?

A. There is the main road from Pec or Peje through Decani, Djakovica, and then on to Prizren. There are also the number of other roads which lead from Klina and other locations into the city and from the outlying areas, other villages in Djakovica municipality, into the city.

Q. Thank you, sir. If I could -- I'm sorry. ⁷²⁰

MR. RYNEVELD: Madam Clerk.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 4, map 7.

MR. RYNEVELD: Moving along.

Q. Moving along, what was formerly K79, Tab 16, the town map of Djakovica.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 10.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Now, that's on the ELMO, sir. Again, that's a town map of Djakovica?

A. It is.

Q. With the roads shown and also the site of the MUP building on the right-hand side of the map, near -- two-thirds of the way down; is that correct?

A. That's correct. And the VJ barracks.

Q. I'm sorry, where are they located?

A. Here.

Q. You're pointing now to about a third of the way down in the centre of the -- of the map?

A. That's correct. And also in the bottom left-hand corner.

Q. More VJ barracks at the bottom left-hand corner?

A. That's correct.

Q. Anything else that would be of assistance to the Court to have noted at this point, sir?

A. The river crossing here and the Tabak bridge.

Q. All right. And there's an arrow on the bottom corner, pointing ⁷²¹ to -- is it Prushit, Qafe e Prushit?

A. Yes. That's the route to Qafe e Prushit.

Q. Prushit. And what is that? Is that an Albanian border town?

A. That's one of the Albania border crossings. The main road here goes to Prizren.

Q. And by "here," just for the record, you're pointing to the red line leading to the right of the map, off the map?

A. That's correct.

Q. Past the MUP site.

A. That's correct.

Q. Yes.

A. And to follow that line to the top left-hand corner of the map is the road which takes you to Decani and Peje.

Q. All right. Thank you very much. And I think that's already been assigned a number by Madam Clerk.

MR. RYNEVELD: Now, Your Honours, the next exhibit, which I don't propose to show to the witness, is one that was known as K560.

Q. Witness, I understand that you are aware that this is a videotape of approximately an hour and a half long. Do you know what's on this videotape? Can you tell us what it relates to?

A. The footage on that videotape shows damage to a number of residential premises in Djakovica. It shows damage to a large part of the marketplace in the Hudum [phoen] area of Djakovica.

Q. All right.

A. It further shows, towards the end, shots in the cemetery at ⁷²² Djakovica, concluding with footage of graffiti painted on walls.

Q. Has part of that video been shown during a portion of my opening?

A. That's correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, copies of this video have been disclosed both to the accused and to the amici, and we propose, unless the Court orders otherwise, that that be marked as an exhibit at this point, without the necessity of playing it at this point.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let it be marked.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 11.

MR. RYNEVELD: If I may move to the next municipality, sir, Gnjilane. Part of K7 is the map. Again, red lines -- I guess these are all different colour reds, are they? They just don't --

A. That's correct. They don't print differently, and certainly on the ELMO they tend to look similar.

Q. I see. But in the aggregate, you can make the distinction between the various routes, or the nuances in colour shades?

A. Yes, you can.

Q. I see. All right. Now, this is a little bit more complicated. Perhaps you can tell us what these lines show.

A. These lines depict routes taken by displaced persons from various sites in the Gnjilane municipality, travelling both west, or to the left, to Urosevac, to the border at Djeneral Jankovic.

Q. It's the border of Macedonia, is it?

A. That's correct. To a secondary border crossing at Globocica, with ⁷²³ Macedonia. They also depict routes travelling to the right, or east, into the Presevo valley, and then south to the Macedonian border. Additionally, they show routes taken through the mountainous areas, into Macedonia.

Q. All right, sir. Part of K8 was the municipality map. Again the legend, again the names of the villages, and again showing the roads converging in Gnjilane; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Might that be marked.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 8.

MR. RYNEVELD:

Q. Turning now to paragraph 13, Urosevac. Referring now to part of K7. And perhaps you could simply describe what this map depicts.

A. This map depicts routes taken from a number of villages and from the town of Urosevac. The villages centre on Urosevac and then south to the border crossing with Macedonia at Djeneral Jankovic.

Q. And I see that there's a railroad line going from Urosevac to Djeneral Jankovic; is that correct?

A. That is correct. The main highway between Skopje in Macedonia and Pristina runs through the town of Urosevac and both the railway and the road feature.

Q. And the villages are to the east of Urosevac, going to Urosevac, and then straight, in sort of a southerly direction, to the bottom of the map, to Djeneral Jankovic; is that correct? ⁷²⁴

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: That was map -- sorry. Map 11, I believe, Madam Clerk. And the town map of Urosevac, please, formerly tab 17. There's no K8 for this site.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 12.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Once it's on the ELMO, just tell us what it is, please, and point out any sites that may be of assistance to the Court to accept the witnesses' evidence at a later time.

A. It is a town map of Ferizaj, or Urosevac. It shows the main highway, with Lipljan and Pristina at the top, Kacanik and the border crossing at Djeneral Jankovic on the right-hand side. It shows the railway line travelling through the town, with an indication as to the location of the railway station.

Q. Thank you. Moving, then, if I may, to the municipality of Kacanik, I only have one map to show you in this matter, and that would be formerly part of K7, map 12. That's now on the ELMO. There's a number of sort of purple-blue lines here that look like they're going to need some description.

A. These are routes taken by displaced persons through the border crossing at Globocica, Djeneral Jankovic --

Q. And Globocica, just for the record, that is a border crossing with what country or state or province?

A. With Macedonia. ⁷²⁵

Q. Macedonia. Thank you.

A. It also shows routes taken across the mountainous area to the east of Djeneral Jankovic, and it also describes the routes taken by persons who remained displaced within this area.

Q. And just so that I'm clear again: Djeneral Jankovic, that's also Macedonia?

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you. Moving, then, if I may, to Decani, two maps here, part of K7 and part of K8. First of all, let's go to map 13 of what was formerly K7, now Exhibit 3. So it's map 13. You have that on there?

A. Yes.

Q. And what does this show?

A. This shows the routes from a number of centres around Decani and then the path taken by the displaced persons through Djakovica, Prizren, to the border at Qafe e Morina.

Q. And again, that's on the border with Albania; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And this is through Decani, through Djakovica, Prizren, and then to the border?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you. K8 of that municipality, of that -- is there anything of particular significance you feel you should address the Court's attention to at this point on this map?

A. The municipal area of Decani is in the centre. Above that on the page is the municipal area of Pec, or Peje. On the bottom right-hand ⁷²⁶ corner of this map is the municipal area of Djakovica.

Q. And that's the community we just saw in the previous map?

A. Correct. It shows the -- many of the smaller hamlets and villages.

Q. Yes. Thank you. Finally, Vucitrn.

JUDGE MAY: Number for that.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 9.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Map 14 of what I propose is Exhibit 3, this is the Vucitrn map. Do you have that on there? And this is in green.

A. It is.

Q. What does that show?

A. It shows the movement of displaced persons from the town of Vucitrn and a number of villages into an area to the east or to the north-east of the city, and then various routes, one of which goes through Pristina, Lipljan, Stimlje, Suva Reka, Prizren, to the border at Qafe e Morina.

Q. And there appear to be arrows going to the north as well. What is that?

A. That is correct. It's a route which was taken from Vushtrri, through Mitrovica, Leposavic to the town of Novi Pazar in Serbia.

Q. When you say Vushtrri, that's Vucitrn?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. And part of K8 for that municipality, there's a map. What can you tell us about that? ⁷²⁷

A. It shows the municipality of Vushtrri, or Vucitrn, with the town being shown in the centre. To the top right -- sorry, to the top left is the city of Mitrovica. The main road between Mitrovica and Pristina is shown, along with the railway line between Mitrovica and Kosovo Polje.

MR. RYNEVELD: Number, Madam Clerk?

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 4, map 10.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. And Your Honours, again, a video, what was formerly marked as K131.

Q. You're familiar with that videotape, are you, Mr. Spargo?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And very briefly, can you tell the Court what is contained on that particular video?

A. That videotape shows footage of a large number of displaced persons moving through the villages in the Studime e Eperme area. It then shows a number of deceased persons and other incidents.

Q. And just so that the Court is clear, the source -- in other words, this is not taken by journalists or -- or do you know who the source of this video would be, most of the footage?

A. The footage on this was taken by one of the local inhabitants.

Q. So it's taken by a local inhabitant of Kosovo, sort of like a home video that was then turned over to the ICTY?

A. Correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: I see. Again, Your Honours, we propose to enter that as an exhibit without playing it. Again, all copies have been disclosed to all parties, including the accused. Again, Mr. Kay and I ⁷²⁸ have indicated that we're not relying on any sound. I don't think that one comes with sound, but we're not asking that any sound on any of these videotapes be part of the evidence, simply the video images.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Number, please.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 13.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Now, in the summary, Your Honours, I want to skip all of paragraph 17 and take us to the very last paragraph, 18, which talks about the proposed entry of three videos, videos marked in our exhibit list as K1, K2, and K3. Again, the proposal is that these be tendered much as I have the last two videos, and perhaps if we can deal with the first video, K1, Mr. Spargo can tell the Court briefly what it contains.

A. Video number K1 is a BBC compilation video of various news broadcasts. It shows displaced persons crossing the border at various times early in the conflict.

Q. When you say "at times early in the conflict," do I understand that is between the 26th of March and the 30th of March, 1999?

A. That's correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: If there is no objection, might that be marked as an exhibit?

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number 14.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Video referred to on our exhibit list as K2, sir. You're familiar with the footage on that video?

A. I am. ⁷²⁹

Q. Can you give us a very brief description of what we can expect to find on that? First of all, is it a BBC news tape?

A. All these three exhibits are press footage from the BBC via stories that were broadcast on the news service. This exhibit further shows displaced persons arriving at border crossings. Included in this is footage of persons walking along a railway line. There is footage also of persons on railway trains. There is additional footage of displaced persons in the camps in Macedonia and Albania.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Unless there's any objection, I think we're up to 15, Madam -- 15, Madam Clerk?

THE REGISTRAR: This was marked Prosecution Exhibit 15.

MR. RYNEVELD:

Q. And finally, Witness, the third videotape, K3 formerly in our exhibit list. What, if anything, does that depict, to your knowledge?

A. This again is a compilation of news broadcasts. It shows the city of Pristina. It shows displaced persons crossing the border and at refugee points. It shows one of the few pieces of footage taken inside Kosovo during the displacement of the Kosovo Albanians. It continues with additional footage of the arrival of KFOR in the city of Prizren.

Q. Is there anything on that video about damage sustained by NATO airstrikes?

A. The opening segment is a news broadcast taken in Pristina, showing damage to the post office building and other areas.

MR. RYNEVELD: Unless there's any objection, that would then ⁷³⁰ become Exhibit 16, I believe.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 16.

MR. RYNEVELD: And those are all the questions I propose to ask of this witness at this time, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: We shall have to see these videos in due course and view them out of court.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It might be helpful to know how long they are, roughly.

MR. RYNEVELD: Well, yes. Perhaps the witness can be of assistance with that. I've indicated that the first video, I believe, was an hour and a half, and I failed to note the amount of time on K1, 2, or 3.

JUDGE MAY: Is it recorded on the video itself?

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. There is, actually, Your Honours -- we can supply a precis in the binders, I believe, under tabs 1 -- tabs 2, 3 and 4, which I have here. Tab 2, for example, tells us exactly what is in there and gives us counter readings but not -- I can't find on this document under tab 2 the length of the video, just counter readings and then a very brief description of what it contains.

JUDGE MAY: Where would we find that?

MR. KAY: Shall I help the Court, as I viewed them last night? It's three hours 20 minutes, about --

MR. RYNEVELD: For all three aggregate.

MR. KAY: Yes, for all the videos. ⁷³¹

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: We can -- we do have these references with counter reading numbers, unless my learned friend objects that those be supplied to the Court so they could find the relevant passages.

JUDGE MAY: That might be of assistance.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Here is a reference for K1. Should I provide copies to the Court and to my learned friends after the break?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, during the adjournment.

MR. RYNEVELD: During the adjournment. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions of Mr. Spargo. Perhaps my learned friends.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, have you any questions of this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] You explained at the beginning that the routes that you drew in refer to individual people, the people that you questioned. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. How -- according to -- in your assessment, in your assessment, how many Albanian refugees passed out through those routes, left through those routes?

A. Based on the figures that were provided by the UNHCR, the greater percentage of persons displaced travelled through the border crossings at Rozaje into Montenegro, into Albania at Qafe e Prushit and Qafe e Morina, ⁷³² and the Macedonian border crossings at Globocica and Djeneral Jankovic.

Q. How many would you say? What number?

A. The number is documented by the UNHCR and numbers some 800.000.

Q. Eight hundred thousand, you say. You said that this occurred in the period from after the 26th of March onwards, from the 26th of March onwards. Is that correct? Is that what you said?

A. The deportation or the movement of people commenced in large numbers as of the 24th of March.

Q. They began on the 26th of March. How long did they go on for, these movements of people?

A. Until a day or two before the entry of NATO under the Military Technical Agreement.

Q. That means that all this movement was between the 26th of March and the end of the bombing; is that correct? You situate it between those -- in that period?

A. They are the limits, yes.

Q. Therefore, we have taken note of the fact that all the refugees fled during the bombing. Do you know --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. This witness has purely produced a plan. That is all he's done, brought a series of maps. He cannot answer any questions as how -- to how the refugees came to move or anything of that sort. As I understand it, that's the issue that we're going to have to decide.

Now, all he's done is produce a map, having read a series of statements. So can you confine your questions to those matters. ⁷³³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you please, the witness himself quoted dates, and the witness himself stated dates a moment ago. Let me move on to my next question. As he followed the movement of refugees, as he has testified here, from the area of Kosovo and Metohija, my question is:

Q. Did you see how many Serb refugees left Kosovo at that time?

A. That wasn't within the mandate of the inquiry I was conducting.

Q. Do you happen to know the UNHCR figures? You mentioned another figure by the UNHCR and that was that 100.000 Serbs left Kosovo during that same period. Are you aware of that fact? Yes or no, please.

A. What is this based on?

Q. On facts and figures put out by the relevant organs, those who followed refugees and information about refugees and their movements. Now, I'm asking you whether you are aware of that fact, of that figure.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Spargo, if you don't know, just say you don't know. No doubt we'll hear some other evidence about it, rather than having an argument with the witness -- or with the accused, rather. You don't know?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of the figures.

JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know the following, the number of Serb and Albanian -- how many Serb and Albanian inhabitants there are in Kosovo? What is the figure?

A. That was always imprecise, following the boycott of the Kosovo ⁷³⁴ Albanians in the 1991 census. I'm not aware of the exact breakdown or total numbers of the population.

Q. Do you know, at least roughly, the proportion between the Albanian and Serb population, the ratio, approximately?

A. My understanding was that the estimate was that the Kosovo Albanians consisted of around 90 per cent of the population, with the remainder being made up of both Serbian and other ethnic groups.

JUDGE MAY: Are we going to hear a witness, Mr. Ryneveld, who is going to deal with population? This witness hasn't so far.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. We do intend to call reports and witnesses to deal with precisely that issue. Dr. Patrick Ball's report and Ms. Blayo, these are demographers who will be calling evidence of that nature. That's not within the ambit of this witness's evidence, nor had I intended to lead that in chief, and I understand that cross-examination is normally limited to the led area in chief. However, if the witness is able to answer, I'm not objecting.

JUDGE MAY: You may not be, but it's a question of time. Mr. Milosevic, you can ask questions about the population to the witnesses who are going to deal with it, who are experts in the field and who will give evidence about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I know the answers to those questions. I just relied, in posing my questions, on the statement made by the witness, who said here a moment ago that it was not his job to ascertain how many Serb refugees left Kosovo. So that is why I wanted to hear from him whether he knew the proportion, the ratio, the population ⁷³⁵ ratio. And if he says that 800.000 people left and, according to official facts and figures, 100.000 Serb refugees left, then proportionately more Serbs left Kosovo because of the bombing than was the case with the Albanians.

JUDGE MAY: We will hear -- Mr. Milosevic, we'll hear argument about it. We'll hear it all in due course. Now, can we move on to the next point relevant to this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And that's all I'm doing. I'm dealing with points relevant to the testimony of this witness and nothing more than that. This testimony -- by this testimony, undoubtedly the Prosecution, when speaking of the movement of refugees and only the movement of one ethnic group, who are doubtlessly fleeing from the bombing, are being maliciously qualified as deportation.

JUDGE MAY: What is the question? We don't want comments. You can make them in due course. What is the question for this witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] We have seen that mention is being made continuously and reference made to refugees, what is being referred to is refugees, and including displaced persons within the frameworks of inside Kosovo, the territory inside Kosovo. We have also seen a great deal of maps in which the witness has stated in the affirmative the names of the towns, what they're called, where the roads are, where the railway lines are, where the rivers are, questions of that type.

Now, as the indictment -- as the Prosecution has brought this witness to speak about deportation, I should like to ask the witness the ⁷³⁶ following:

Q. Is there anywhere on these maps, the maps that we have seen, was there a collection centre, a camp, a concentration centre for deportation of any kind? I have not seen it on any of the maps that you showed us. Now, I'm asking you, did it exist or did it not? Yes or no, please.

A. There were concentration points, and the witnesses who will give either live evidence or through 92 bis will describe those.

Q. I asked you whether there was a concentration camp of any kind.

A. Is this a concentration camp in the form of what?

JUDGE MAY: If you don't know, say you don't know.

THE WITNESS: I don't understand the term he's using.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A point of concentration when somebody is travelling can be a railway station, for example. It can be a bus station too. It can also be a main road. And you have described to us those elements on the map. But what I'm talking about is any kind of -- the existence of any kind of organised place of concentration that was under guard, that was guarded, that was walled in, or anything of that kind. And as you have not included it in any of your maps, does that mean that it did not exist or did you fail to include it in your maps intentionally? So all I'm asking you is: Did it exist or did it not; yes or no.

A. There were points, which the witnesses will address, as to concentration areas. Due to the type of map we were looking to achieve, something simple to assist the Court in the direction people moved, we did ⁷³⁷ not include this type of information.

JUDGE MAY: It's suggested to you that you intentionally left information off the map. Would that be true or not?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. It was never the intention to put this type of information on the map. The witnesses we're relying on, they can describe exactly where these places were.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Does that mean that you are making up your lack of material facts by witnesses?

JUDGE MAY: The witness simply said he drew a map. Now, what is the question that arises from that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From that, it emerges that on the witness's maps there is nothing except roads, railways, rivers, and towns. You could have taken those maps ten years ago and you would see the same roads, railways, rivers, and towns on them. And when people are fleeing from a bombing, they move along roads and railway lines. They use the communication routes.

JUDGE MAY: Unless you've got any more questions, we're going to let this witness go.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have some more questions. I do.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that you worked as a policeman.

A. That's correct.

Q. How did you ensure the presence of individuals whom you ⁷³⁸ questioned, interviewed?

A. It was either by arresting them at the time, when they were found to be committing offences, or by invitation.

Q. I heard the first part of your sentence, but not the second. What did you say in the second part?

A. By invitation, by requesting them to attend at a police station for questioning.

Q. How did you select the individuals you invited to come to the police station for statement taking and questioning?

MR. RYNEVELD: Excuse me, Your Honours. As a matter of clarification --

JUDGE MAY: There is no relevance in this, I know.

MR. RYNEVELD: No, but also a point of clarification. Is he talking about in his former life as a policeman in Australia, or now, or -- I don't understand.

JUDGE MAY: I wouldn't worry for the moment. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is my question clear? I am asking how he ensured the presence of the individuals whom he questioned in Kosovo and Metohija and on the basis of whose statements he established this. I'm talking about those individuals, those persons. I'm not talking about how he ensured the presence of persons in his previous career. And I think I put it very clearly, so that your comment is completely unfounded.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic. Let the witness answer. ⁷³⁹ Did you interview any of these witnesses yourself?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

JUDGE MAY: He can't answer that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On the basis of what was all -- were all these documents devised? You talked to the witnesses.

You have brought in a witness who did not talk to the individuals upon whose statements he drew these maps, on the basis of whose statements the product of everything he set forward was made.

A. Investigators from the ICTY went out, spoke to witnesses and other persons, obtained statements from them --

JUDGE KWON: Excuse me, Mr. Spargo. Registrar, this is Exhibit 3 and map 1. Could you show that on the ELMO. This is just an example. You noticed there are some comments on the right bottom side. There are the source, and there's names up here.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

JUDGE KWON: Could you tell the Court what these names are.

THE WITNESS: Berisha, Elshani, Hoti, and Salihi. They are the witnesses who were selected which told the best accounts of the different events and will be either giving live evidence or via 92 bis.

JUDGE KWON: Have you interviewed them yourself?

THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

JUDGE KWON: You just saw statements of them.

THE WITNESS: That's correct. ⁷⁴⁰

JUDGE KWON: And you made the map on the basis of their statements.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, the witness claims that he drew up the maps on the basis of the statements made by the staff of the Prosecution; yes or no.

A. The statements were taken by the staff of the Prosecution from the Office of the Prosecutor. The testimony within those statements, as you will hear, will be the testimony of the witnesses.

Q. Do you happen to know who was present when the statements were taken from the witnesses that you mention?

A. I would need to refer to each of those statements to see who the investigating person from the OTP was and who the interpreters were at the time.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Spargo, as Judge May has told you, if you don't know, just say, "I don't know."

THE WITNESS: I don't know. I can't recall each individual case.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It therefore emerges that you just drew up the maps in conformity with instructions given you by the staff and clerks of the Prosecution; yes or no, please.

A. Based on the witness testimonies, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Any re-examination? ⁷⁴¹

MR. RYNEVELD: Nothing arising. Thank you, Your Honour. Questioned by the Court

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Spargo, did you say that all these maps are prepared, produced by you alone?

A. That's correct.

JUDGE KWON: I note some bundle of -- Exhibit 4, some town maps. There's a note: Analyst Alex Nereuta.

A. Nereuta Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Nereuta. Who is he?

A. He is one of the other analysts on the team I work for. He, in fact, did the -- perhaps we didn't make it clear. He did the municipality maps and the town maps, which are the other exhibits. The ones which show the routes taken by the displaced persons, they were the ones that I did.

JUDGE KWON: And the Corel Draw is some other separate programme other than ArcView you had used?

A. Corel Draw is another programme which was found to be best for taking those maps from the HCIC, the other UN agency, and making them fit to pages.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Mr. Spargo. Thank you for coming to give evidence. You're free to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: That would be a convenient moment to adjourn. Half past 2.00.

[The witness withdrew] ⁷⁴²

--- Recess taken at 1.01 p.m.

--- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Before my learned friend Ms. Romano takes the next witness, and indeed she and Mr. Ryneveld will be taking most of the crime-base witnesses, can I just revert to the 92 bis position? The history of service of materials includes this: That although the process of serving binders on the Chamber was arrested, for various reasons, it was completed in respect of the amici and in respect of the accused, so that for deportations, and indeed for killing sites, he's been provided with binders that contained 92 bis -- or proposed 92 bis witness statements. He may not have taken the opportunity to read them, but he's been provided with them, probably two or three times, but latterly specifically in relation to the issue of deportations, which is now coming up.

My concern, as I explained this morning, was to ensure that, when we come to consider whether these statements may properly be adduced under the provisions of 92 bis, there shouldn't be any technical shortcoming arising from his not having read them or claiming that he hasn't had an opportunity to read them and therefore not being in a position to cross-examine in light of what they contain.

And I don't know if the Chamber has had an opportunity to give any further thought to this or to give any thought to what routines we should adopt to ensure that he's best protected.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've in fact had a paper from the amicus on the ⁷⁴³ subject which we would need to consider.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we can really deal with any of the Rule 92 bis statements this week. Effectively, it seems to me the sensible course is to review the position at the beginning of next week or at a convenient moment next week in the evidence. There are matters of principle involved here, and it's important, of course, that we give them full consideration. In some ways, this may be the first time that the Tribunal has considered the use of Rule 92 bis, at least in an extensive way, and it would be helpful to have a full discussion, and, if possible, to lay down some guidelines for the rest of the case.

MR. NICE: Very well. We look forward to addressing the Court on that next week. Can I ask that it be not on Monday, for various reasons? I shall not be here on Monday, but I shall be here as from Tuesday again. And I believe there are a number of other administrative matters that have got to be dealt with, in particular with relation to the Bosnian Croatian parts of the indictment. So maybe there will be a convenient time that we can fix to deal with all these matters.

JUDGE MAY: At some time next week. Yes. Call the witness.

MS. ROMANO: The Prosecution call Agim Zeqiri.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

WITNESS: AGIM ZEQIRI

[Witness answered through interpreter] ⁷⁴⁴

JUDGE MAY: Stand up to take the declaration, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Examined by Ms. Romano

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, can you please state your full name for the Chamber.

A. Agim Zeqiri.

Q. Can you tell us when you were born.

A. On the 9th of June, 1952.

Q. And where were you born?

A. In Celina.

Q. What's your profession, Mr. Zeqiri?

A. I'm a farmer.

Q. Do you have any military experience or training?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, have you always lived in the village of Celina?

A. Yes, always in Celina.

Q. Can you tell us where Celina is located?

A. Celina is situated between Rahovec, Prizren and Gjakova.

Q. How close is Celina to the village of Prizren?

A. 17 kilometres from the city of Prizren.

Q. And how far is the village of Djakovica?

A. Gjakova is 16 kilometres.

Q. Are there other villages near Celina?

A. And there is Orahovac, which is 10 kilometres away.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, are you a Muslim? ⁷⁴⁵

A. Yes.

Q. And how many Muslims lived in your village before the war?

A. There was about 7.000.

Q. And all of them were Muslims?

A. Almost all of them, and there were five households who were Romany, gypsies.

Q. I want you, Mr. Zeqiri, to focus on the period before the NATO bombing, and 1998 until March 1999, and I will ask you some questions. Before March 1999, do you remember seeing the army in your village?

A. The Serbian army, you mean?

Q. Any army.

A. Well, the Serb army was present.

Q. And where were they present?

A. They were stationed on the main road, the main asphalt road, from early March 1998. They came and they were there two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon.

Q. When you say that they were there two hours in the morning and in the afternoon, what do you mean? Were they in Celina?

A. No. They were down on the main road. They were doing exercises in the direction of Gjakova.

Q. Could you see them from Celina?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. And did they wear uniforms?

A. Yes; army people with uniforms, tanks, everything.

Q. Are you able to me what colour is the uniform? ⁷⁴⁶

A. Like the colour of grass.

Q. What equipment did they have?

A. They had ammunition, they had machine-guns; they had everything.

Q. Did they have any vehicles?

A. Yes. They had tanks. There were armed vehicles, jeeps, armoured personnel carriers, pinzgauer.

Q. And prior March, 1999, prior to the NATO bombing, did you see police in your village?

A. Yes, they came from time to time to check up, make checks.

Q. What kind of checks?

A. They were looking for arms, for weapons. They were checking up.

Q. Was it usual for the police to come to Celina?

A. Well, they came. They used to come.

Q. And what did they used to do when they came to Celina?

A. They would go into people's houses and they would say, "Bring us your weapons." And if people had them or not, they would force them to go down to the police station in Orahovac.

Q. And what happened in the police station?

A. Their main objective was to get money out of you, and we had to find, come up with money and bring the money to them, and then there was no problem.

Q. Did it happen to you?

A. No, not to me. No, never.

Q. But it happened to other people from your village?

A. Yes, it did. ⁷⁴⁷

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, did you ever see roadblocks in Celina?

A. Yes, of course. Yes, there were. From the beginning of 1999, there were checks to get into the town of Gjakova and Prizren and to get into Orahovac. In all the towns, there were military centres, bases.

Q. Why did they have these roadblocks?

A. Because of us. How should I tell you? If we wanted to go into town, we couldn't -- you know, if we had anything, we couldn't dare go into town, because they would control you, they would check up on you, or even old people they would check up on. They would mistreat you.

Q. Who was checking up?

A. The police.

Q. And did they have uniforms?

A. Yes, police uniforms.

Q. Can you describe them?

A. They had like white gloves, and they would do the checking up. They would do the controls.

Q. Before the NATO bombing, also around 1998 and before March 1999, did you see members of the KLA in your village?

A. Well, from time to time. There weren't really any. They would cross through the town on the road from time to time. Rarely.

Q. And are you or were you a member of the KLA?

A. I was a village councillor and I did some -- I helped them with some minor services. That's about all.

Q. And by that time also, did you remember seeing any fighting between the KLA members and the VJ or the police? ⁷⁴⁸

A. No. No, I didn't see anything.

Q. Do you remember the day when the NATO bombing started?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. It was on the 24th of March.

Q. Where were you at that time?

A. I was at home with my family. We heard about the bombings in the evening on the 24th, but we were at home all the time.

Q. Who was with you in your home?

A. We were about 18 family members together, all together there at home.

Q. In your close family, how many members were there?

A. You mean the whole family?

Q. No. Just your close family.

A. There are 26 of us altogether. I'm the 27th, actually -- or the 7th. Sorry, the 7th.

Q. Was your wife with you?

A. Yes, she was with me. We spent the whole night all together, all of us. There were the children there. We were with the children. The family of my uncle and my own family, all together.

Q. Did anything happen in your village that night?

A. No, nothing happened that night.

Q. And what was your reaction to the NATO bombing?

A. What can I say for a reaction? We weren't really -- maybe we were satisfied because, well, the Serbs said that they were going to ⁷⁴⁹ attack us.

Q. And Mr. Zeqiri, on the next day after the NATO bombing, were you at home?

A. On the next day, the 25th of March, the army arrived up at the end of the village. They were stationed up there. They came maybe for five or ten minutes, and ...

Q. Were you at home?

A. Yes, I was at home.

Q. And did you see -- when you say that the army arrived at the village, from where did you see that?

A. We were in the courtyard of our house. I was with my uncle in the courtyard, and we could see it from there.

Q. How far were they from your house?

A. They were up at the end, one of the village, we were at the other end. Maybe a kilometre. About a kilometre away.

Q. Did they do anything? Did they fire shells?

A. Yes, they did. They started burning down a whole neighbourhood. There were infantry -- there were troops there, there was a school up there.

Q. So Mr. Zeqiri, when you say they're infantry troops, did the army come to your village, come to Celina?

A. Yes, in the afternoon. They surrounded the village entirely, around 3.00 in the afternoon. They surrounded the whole village.

Q. And at that time, you were at home?

A. I had gone out with my family and with a gypsy family, eight ⁷⁵⁰ people, who are neighbours of ours, right beside us. We went out about 20 metres away, down to a stream, with my uncle and all the gypsy family all together. We went out to the stream.

Q. Why did you leave your house? Wasn't it safe?

A. No. We weren't safe at the stream either, but we thought, if they came down to us, the infantry, the troops, they would come down along the main road and would burn all the houses and would maybe continue in that direction. That's the reason we went out towards the stream.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, when you say "they came," can you describe the uniform?

A. Yes. I saw uniforms, army uniforms and police uniforms.

Q. So you saw both, army and police?

A. Of course.

Q. After you and your family were at the stream, what happened after?

A. One of the villagers said to us that we should -- all the men, we should leave the women and go up 20 metres farther away so that we would be separated from the women and children. So we went up. We could see the bombing from -- as far as we could tell what was going on, but we could see it from up there.

Q. How many men went with you?

A. We were about seven or eight men altogether.

Q. And while you were hiding in that place, could you see the police or the army?

A. No, we couldn't see them from there, no. We went away because we were afraid they would get into the houses and would go onto the roof and ⁷⁵¹ shoot at us. We were down in a ravine. The family was hiding down in a ravine. That's why they were down there.

Q. Did anybody go back to check on the women and children?

A. Yes. Yes, yes. My uncle went down. Yes. Yes, I did. Some of us had gone to a house in the periphery, and I told my uncle, "Go and see what the women and children are doing, and then I will come back to join you."

Q. And what happened to your uncle?

A. The son of my uncle, Bajram, he too went down. I have never seen them ever since. Some others left. I was left alone with the gypsy man. He left me -- he went some five metres away to see if the other group went to the house in the periphery. I told him, "Don't go, because they will kill you." This is the words we exchanged together, and then we heard fire.

Q. You said -- what did you hear?

A. We heard the fire, the shots, and I saw that a bullet hit the gypsy. He came up to me, just turned his body in my direction. Then they fired him at him again and he fell down in a ditch. And then I left and hid until 12.00, in a stream down there.

Q. How far were you from this man that was shot?

A. With my uncle, you mean? No, with the gypsy.

Q. With the gypsy.

A. Some five metres, five or six metres.

Q. Did you see who shot him?

A. I saw him just falling down before my very eyes. ⁷⁵²

Q. But did you see who was shooting?

A. No, I did not. I couldn't see that. Only I saw him falling, as I said, down in front of my eyes, but I didn't see who shot him.

Q. And your uncle that went back to see the children and the women, have you seen him again?

A. No. I did not see him or my family or his family. No.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, where did you spend the night of the 25th?

A. The night -- I spent the night of 25th of March, as I was telling you, in a stream, with two or three, in fact, friends of mine. They were in Slaniste, in a little bit higher place. We were in a lower place. And they were firing just in vain. I heard fire shots all the time. Then after midnight, the firing stopped and I told my friends, "Let's go away from here." And then we climbed the mountain and went up to a meadow on top.

I wanted to go to see some cousins of mine. I hadn't seen them for 20 years. I wanted to visit them. And they saw me when I climbed the hill, and they started to fire, but then I ran. I went to a place where I stayed until two other friends of mine came and joined me.

Q. That is a place where you spent the night?

A. Yes. After midnight, I went to my cousin's, as I said. It was about 5.00, and I joined them. Then together with them, with a family - two families, actually - I went with them and stayed together until 5.00 in the afternoon. We found a hiding place in a mountain called Pisjak.

Q. When did you arrive in this place Pisjak? Were you alone? There were more people there? ⁷⁵³

A. Yes. There were over 5.000 or 6.000 people, people from five or six villages.

Q. Where is Pisjak located?

A. It is located, let's say, some three kilometres outside the village.

Q. And what happened while you were there? First of all, I want to draw your attention to the 28th of March. You were still in Pisjak at that time?

A. No. On the 27th I was there. As I told you, on the 26th, I joined my cousins. On the 27th, I was in Pisjak. On the 28th, at 10.00, we were surrounded from all sides.

Q. Surrounded by whom?

A. The army troops and the police.

Q. Were they wearing the same uniform that you described before?

JUDGE MAY: Don't lead the witness -- just a moment. Just a moment, please.

Ms. Romano, don't lead the witness on these rather crucial issues, please. Perhaps -- you can ask him what uniforms they were in.

MS. ROMANO:

Q. Did they wear a uniform?

A. Yes. They had put on army and police uniforms.

Q. The army, what colour of uniform, do you remember, they were wearing?

A. Some green uniforms.

Q. Did they have any insignia? ⁷⁵⁴

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of insignia? Can you describe?

A. You mean the police insignia? No. The army, no. Only the police. The day they surrounded us, they were black in their faces.

Q. We will get to the police. And what colour uniform of the police?

A. They had the gloves on. They had a white band on their arms and some red insignia also on the arm.

Q. Do you remember what was written in the band in the arm?

A. Yes: "Police." I could read "police."

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, what happened after the police surrounded you?

A. They surrounded us, and then a villager took some clothes, white clothes, and waved it, and we surrendered. We called the people, telling them, "We have surrendered."

Q. And what did they do after you did that?

A. After the people came there, we walked for some 20 metres, and they separated the women from the men, the women and the children.

Q. When you say "they," you are referring to whom?

A. The army and the police, both of them.

Q. You told the Court that they separated men, women, and children. Can you describe how they did that?

A. We men were told by someone who had painted his face black, he told us, "Lie down on the ground." And we had to do that, to lie on our stomachs.

Q. When you say they had their face black, who are you referring to?

A. The army. ⁷⁵⁵

Q. They were -- it was masks or they were painted? When you say --

A. No. They had painted their faces black. It was not a mask.

Q. Did they have any weapons with them?

A. Yes, of course they had.

Q. Do you remember what kind of weapons?

A. Guns. Automatic guns, munitions.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, after they separated you from the women, what happened?

A. First, as I told you, they told us first to lie down. Then a young man, they took him away and we heard the fire shots. They killed him. And then we stayed there, lying on the ground. Then that man that I told you with his black face, he came there. When he came up to me, he stopped there for two minutes, let's say, and they started to kick me on my head.

Q. Who kicked you? Who kicked you?

A. That man that I told you with the black face.

Q. Where did he kick you?

A. With his -- he kicked me on the back of my head.

Q. And what did he do after?

A. Then he said, "Get up," and then he tied our hands. "Put your hands behind your waist."

Q. And after that?

A. We continued to keep our hands behind our backs, and then a friend of his appeared before us. He did not have anything -- he had a normal face. And then we continued to stand up. And in Serbian, he said -- this ⁷⁵⁶ was the words he said -- that means, "Shall we take them to Belgrade or to Albania?" That is the translation of the Serbian word he mentioned.

MS. ROMANO: Just a second. I don't ...

Q. Did he say anything else?

A. No, he did not. We continued to walk with our hands behind our head. They were behind us. When we came to the village, all the people were there, and we saw the village all in smoke.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, I'm going to interrupt you just for a moment. Coming back to Pisjak, where you were with the police or the army person, can you describe when they beat you, they continued beating you? What did they do to you before they started saying if they're going to Albania or not?

A. No, they did not beat us any more. Only that friend of ours, they shot dead, and me myself, they kicked. I didn't see anyone else.

Q. And where did they kick you?

A. On my head. They kicked me, with his boots on my head.

Q. Are you still suffering from this -- from the beatings that you received at that time?

A. Yes, I have problems. I will tell you later.

Q. Okay, Mr. Zeqiri. So after that ended, after they finished with this, did they send -- where did they send the men and the women?

A. We were walking, as I said, down to the village, and then when we arrived in the village, we saw the houses burning and we saw police and army troops coming from various streets of the village after they had set fire to the houses. And then when we went to the asphalt road, they checked, they searched in our pockets. ⁷⁵⁷

Q. Did they say, while you were walking -- all the time that you were walking, the police and the army were guiding you. At that time, did they say anything to you, to other villagers?

A. Yes, they were there all the time on our side.

Q. And they were saying anything to you or to the other villagers?

A. No. They searched, as I said. We asked the men before we arrived at the asphalt road, and then they told us to raise our hands up and raise three fingers. The police were there on both our sides. We were walking on the asphalt road.

Q. And where were they guiding you to?

A. To Albania.

Q. But before arriving to Albania, you mentioned a village that you stopped at. Where was this village?

A. The village in Krusa Mala, at the station. There were two policemen at the bridge, and we saw the police with automatic guns and they put us in a ditch up to our waist. And we had to go there, to obey their orders.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, they were guiding you from the hill -- down from the hill down to the asphalt and then from the asphalt to this village, Krusa Mala. During this time, the police and army were next to you?

A. Yes, they were with us. They escorted us all the time.

Q. Approximately how many people were with you at that time?

A. Our first group was composed of about 4.000 people.

Q. After you arrived in Krusa Mala, what happened in Krusa Mala? Did you stay there for a while? ⁷⁵⁸

A. After we arrived there in the Krusa Mala, we lined up in threes and we walked for about 20 metres, and then they told a young man from our village, a policeman grabbed him by the hair and ordered him to stay in the white line in the middle of the street. And he had a saw -- he had a saw and then he started to cut his hair with that saw.

Q. And what happened to this man?

A. Nothing. He just cut his hair with his saw and let him free. That young man was crying out loud.

Q. Did they do anything else to other villagers?

A. No. We continued to walk for about 50, 60 metres, let's say. A villager of ours couldn't speak; he was dumb. And one of the policemen told him, "Why aren't you shouting like your friends?" He couldn't say anything. He could not because he was dumb. And then the police hit him with his automatic butt, threw him down on the ground. When he got up to his feet again -- we left him there, lying down. When we arrived in Krusa Vogel, we waited for two hours there.

Q. You said he hurt this man because he could not shout "Serbia." Why was that? They were asking you, they were ordering you to shout anything?

A. Yes. Yes. They asked that man that I told you, the deaf and dumb man, "Why aren't you shouting like your friends?" Because they didn't know that he was in that condition. That's why they hit him.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, did you have to walk all the time, you and the other villagers, making the sign that you showed, the three-finger sign, and shouting, "Serbia"? ⁷⁵⁹

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So after you left Krusa Mala, where did they take you and the other villagers?

A. We stayed in Krusa Vogel for two hours, then they brought a big truck.

Q. Before we get to the trucks, where did you stay during these two hours?

A. When we arrived from Krusa Mala to Krusa Vogel, there we stayed for two hours, waiting. We didn't know what we were waiting for. But then we saw a big truck and they made us get on the trucks.

Q. Where did the trucks come from?

A. We saw the truck coming from the direction of Gjakova and Prizren. We got on it, and when we saw the truck, we felt happy.

Q. Can you describe the trucks?

A. I can't -- what can I say? A 508 model.

Q. A civilian or military truck?

A. Civilian one.

Q. Do you remember how many?

A. I was in the first group. I don't know. I saw the first one arrive. And as I said, we got on it, and then the others came later. I don't know. One I saw with my own eyes.

Q. So there were more than one?

A. I didn't see anything else myself.

Q. And do you remember who was driving?

A. No. No, I didn't know. ⁷⁶⁰

Q. Did the police or the army tell you to get into the trucks?

A. Yes. The police were there, close by, telling us, "Get on the truck quickly and leave."

Q. And after you were inside the truck, where did they take you?

A. They took us to Zhur.

Q. And from Zhur, where did you go?

A. From Zhur we went to Kukes, in Albania, and we walked from there to Albania.

Q. So after you arrived in Zhur, you left the trucks?

A. Yes, and then we started to walk.

Q. At any time, were you asked to show or to give any documents?

A. Yes. Yes. My friends, they were asked to show their ID, their passports. When we went to Granice, they saw that I was full of blood all over. They didn't ask me to show anything, they just let me pass. Some others, I saw them asking them, "Where are you going?" And then, "Show us your passport or IDs."

Q. And did anybody have their IDs taken?

A. Yes. Yes, definitely.

Q. When you were in Albania, did you receive any treatment?

A. Yes. When I arrived, it was evening, with my group there. As I said, I was injured. It was past midnight. And we went -- we were taken to the hospital, we who were not feeling well, and they offered us the first emergency aid and we spent the night there.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, coming back just to -- by the time you were at the border, you and the other villagers, did the people at the border, did ⁷⁶¹ they keep the documents of the villagers?

A. Yes. My first cousin also, he had his passport taken, and the other villagers too.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, after you were separated from your family at that time at the stream, have you seen them again? You said no. So do you know what happened to your family?

A. I didn't know anything about my family. When I went to Albania, as I told you, on the next day that we left the hospital of Kukes, they put us on some trucks and took us to Elbasan. They gave us some apartments to live. On the next day, I went to Elbasan hospital and I was hospitalised for 12 days. Then they took me to Tirane and I stayed there in the hospital for 12, 13 days.

Q. When did you hear back from your family?

A. I heard about my family when I left the hospital.

Q. What happened to them?

A. I heard about them. First my cousin in Germany, he called me and he told me, "Be brave, because your family and my family have all been killed." Because I didn't know anything about them for two or three weeks. My cousins knew, but I didn't know anything.

Q. Did you return to Kosovo, Mr. Zeqiri?

A. Yes. I and my cousins, my uncles and their families have been living in Germany for 32 years. They heard about my misfortune and about the fact I was in Tirane, and my cousin came to fetch me from the hospital and took me to Germany and hospitalised me, and I stayed in hospital for 12 days. I stayed with my cousins until the end of 1999. ⁷⁶²

Q. And the reason you were in the hospital was anything to do with the beatings that you received?

A. Yes, of course. I told you, they hit me on my head. And when the soldier told us, "Get up and put your hand behind your back," they started to kick me in my waist and my kidneys both, two soldiers kicked me and they made me an invalid. They hurt me.

Q. What do you mean, an invalid? Do you have any long-term damage because of the beating?

A. Yes. Now I am permanently an invalid.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, after you returned to Kosovo, did you go back to your village?

A. Yes. I went straight to my home.

Q. And how did you find your home?

A. I found my home burnt. They had burned all the homes, with the exception of a few homes. All the good homes -- my home -- I'm sorry, my home was not burned. It was one of the few homes that were not burned. The others, the best homes in the village, they were all burned. I had three cows. Two they had slaughtered, one they had taken away. They had looted all my home. I didn't find anything there when I returned from Germany. It was all empty.

Q. Mr. Zeqiri, during that time, did you want to leave your house at the time during the conflict before the war -- during the war?

A. No, never. I never thought, neither I nor my family nor my uncles wanted to leave the village. Where to go? That was my hometown. That was my place, the place of my fathers and forefathers. ⁷⁶³

Q. So why did you leave?

A. We left because of -- to save the children, seeing that the village was being torched, we were scared. That's why. We didn't know that things would come to that pass. Who knew that they would kill 75 persons from my village?

MS. ROMANO: I don't have any further questions

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zeqiri, how many in your family were killed? You said you heard they were all killed. How many were?

THE WITNESS: From my family, 16 members. We were 18. Out of them, only myself and a nephew of my uncle were saved.

JUDGE MAY: And what age? Can you tell us, just very generally, what age were those who were killed?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I can, certainly. The eldest was 62, the youngest one a year and a half.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Was your village a purely Albanian one?

A. All of us were Albanian. They were no Serbs. There were five or six families of gypsy, of Hashkali Gypsies.

Q. You have said that a military unit was on the asphalt road outside of the village two hours before noon and two hours after 12.00. Did the unit actually enter the village?

A. Yes, of course they did. I said earlier, they came in and they started burning the village down, the police and the army. ⁷⁶⁴

Q. I was referring about what you said in the beginning, that the police and the army spent two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon outside of the village on the asphalt road; they were on duty there. Did they enter the village at that time or during that time?

A. No, they didn't enter the village. They stayed on the main road for two hours. They didn't come in. No, they didn't enter the village.

Q. What did they do on that main road?

A. They stayed there. They observed the villagers. They did sort of military exercises, with binoculars.

Q. So that means that the army had their exercises near the village, on the road, two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon; is that right?

A. Yes. They just did military exercises, nothing else.

Q. You have said that you would see members of the KLA in the village. How many of them were there in the village?

A. I don't know the exact number. We didn't really have KLA in the village. They just came through. I don't think in 1998 we did even dare go down onto the main road, or they didn't dare to use the main road. So maybe women or old people would use the main road, but not them.

Q. But how many members of the KLA were there?

A. I don't really know what you mean.

Q. You have said that you would occasionally render services to them, since you were a village councillor, that you would occasionally assist the KLA, so do you know how many of them were there?

A. They were just people -- passersby. They came from Krusa Vogel, ⁷⁶⁵ Krusa Mala, and they went up through the village, through Celina. I didn't know them. I didn't really need to know them either.

Q. But you have said that you had helped them.

A. We sent them food up to the staff, the officers, and when they were passing through.

Q. You would send food to them through whom?

A. Well, some of the people from the village would send them food.

Q. But you said that you personally had helped them. In what way?

A. We didn't really help them in concrete terms. It was just like with food and stuff, and with clothing.

Q. And that aid in food and clothing, was it something that would assist you in estimating how many of them were there?

A. I don't really know. What can I say? Two or three hundred, might have been.

Q. Your village, therefore, assisted or supported a unit of two or three hundred KLA members. Are you sure there weren't more than that, more than 300 members?

A. No, there weren't more than that.

Q. So a maximum of 300, according to you?

A. Yes, that would be the minimum.

Q. So minimum 300?

A. Yes.

Q. On that day, when you said that you watched the bombing - this is as far as I remember your evidence - you said that you watched the bombing on the 25th of March. ⁷⁶⁶

A. On the 24th, in the evening.

Q. What was bombed on that day?

A. I don't really know. I don't know concretely what was bombed.

Q. Looking from your village, can you tell me in which direction were the bombs coming from? To the east or to the west?

A. We didn't really see anything directly ourselves. We just saw the flashing of light, noise.

Q. Where was the noise coming from? From which direction?

A. I think from Gjakova the noise was coming, from that direction.

Q. How far is it from there to the Albanian border, as the crow flies?

A. What do you mean? From there -- to hear the noise?

Q. Yes. How far is it to the Albanian border, as the crow flies?

A. What do you mean? On foot?

Q. No. I don't mean on foot. Can you tell me how many kilometres is there, even if you walk on foot?

A. I can't really tell you the number of kilometres, but I can just tell you about the noise, the roaring of guns, but I don't know the exact distance.

Q. All right. Let's leave that aside. When the shooting started in your village, who was the first to shoot? Was it the army or the KLA?

A. The army, the Serb army.

Q. So the army started shooting first. Well, from which direction was the KLA shooting, then? ⁷⁶⁷

A. I didn't see any KLA at the time when they surrounded our village.

Q. So where was the KLA, then, this KLA that was supported by your village?

A. I don't know where they were at the time. I don't know where they were.

Q. So you are claiming that the KLA did not shoot?

A. I didn't see the UCK. They didn't shoot. There weren't any there on the 25th of March when our village was surrounded. I didn't see any UCK, there weren't any there.

Q. Very well. So you said that before the 25th of March, this unit, this KLA unit, had 300 members. Can you tell me: What were they armed with? What weapons did they have?

A. They had rifles and automatic weapons, machine-guns.

Q. Did they have machine-guns?

A. I don't really know. I didn't see any.

Q. Were you able to see whether they had mortars?

A. I really didn't see any, no.

Q. Did they have any vehicles?

A. No.

Q. So they all had only rifles and automatic rifles, and nothing more than that?

A. I didn't really -- I didn't see anything else, so I can't really say anything else.

Q. So when the army started shooting, the KLA did not shoot in your village? ⁷⁶⁸

A. No. I didn't see anything. To tell you the truth, I didn't see them. I didn't see anything. I did not see it.

Q. You didn't see anything? And you said that only -- that one gypsy was killed, the one that was on the road.

A. Yes. Yes, he was killed.

Q. Yes. You saw him being hit by a bullet five metres away from you, and in that fight, that was the only civilian that got killed; is that right? So when the 6.000 of you from several villages gathered in the mountains up there, how many members of the KLA were there among you?

A. No, there were no UCK. There weren't any, I didn't see any. No, I didn't see any.

Q. Let us go back to something you said prior to that. You told us that prior to the bombing, prior to the attack, police would enter your village; is that right?

A. As I said, they were stationed with tanks and military vehicles, Pinzgauer military vehicles down on the road, on the road to Morina down from the school.

Q. But you said that police would come to your village to look for weapons; is that right?

A. That was in 1989. We're talking about the war now. That was different. That which you're talking about is 1989.

Q. All right. I am asking you about what you said about the police coming into the village, searching for weapons. Is that how it happened or not?

A. Yes. ⁷⁶⁹

Q. How many weapons did the police find in your village?

A. Before the war, you mean?

Q. Yes, that's right. Before the war.

A. What they did was they came to a villager and they said, "Give me your guns," and would try to take them away and take him away.

Q. Well, did they then seize the weapons?

A. They were looking for weapons but they didn't find any, because what they really wanted was money. That was their objective, was money.

Q. So there were no weapons in the village?

A. If the person didn't have any weapon to give to the police, they would take him down to the police station and would hold him there until he gave up money. That was what they wanted, was the money.

Q. Very well. So let's take that as a starting point. If they did not surrender their weapon, the villagers would be taken to the police station; but if they did surrender the weapons, would they then be taken to the police station?

A. No. That's a different matter. That's a different matter. The elders of the village gathered together and they would find four or five rifles and give them to them, because, as I said, the soldiers were down on the main road, stationed, and they would shout, with a microphone, they would say, "Give us your arms or we will shoot at the village." And so we were obliged to find rifles and give them to them.

Q. And how could you find the rifles if you didn't have any?

A. Well, there were five or six rifles in the village. We could find them around in the village. And we had to give up the rifles, because ⁷⁷⁰ there weren't any others. It was the old people, the older village elders who gathered and tried to find the rifles so that they wouldn't burn down the whole village. Because that was their purpose. They wanted to burn down the whole village.

Q. And how do you know that they wanted to burn down the village in case you did not surrender the weapons?

A. When the soldiers were stationed in the morning, they would say through a megaphone, "Give up your arms or we will burn the village down." So then they would go off in the direction of Gjakova and then in the afternoon, at 5.00 in the afternoon, they would come back, on their way back to Prizren, and they would stay about two hours in the afternoon there. And in the afternoon too they would shout into the microphone, "Give up your arms, and if you don't give up your arms, we will burn down your village." That's what they said.

Q. Did you have a local policeman in your village?

A. You mean in our village, you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. No, we didn't -- there was no policeman in our village, no.

Q. Did you have an Albanian from your village serving as a policeman?

A. No. No, there wasn't. No.

Q. You said -- and I wrote this down very carefully, how you described that they looked for weapons and then took to the police station in order to extract money from the villagers. But you also said that you were never subjected to this; is that right?

A. No, not to me, my family. ⁷⁷¹

Q. So you are here testifying about something that you heard had happened to others; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you give us a first name and a last name of a person to whom this happened? Can you tell us about a villager who told you that this had happened to them? What is the name of the person?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us the name of the person who told you that this had happened to them, this event that did not happen to you personally?

A. Yes. It happened to Lulezim Zeqiri.

Q. Did it happen to anyone else except Lulezim Zeqiri?

A. No. I don't know of any others.

Q. So it only happened to Zeqiri; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. He was the only one from whom they sought money? Is Zeqiri alive?

A. Yes. Yes, he's alive.

Q. I apologise. I did not hear the answer.

A. Yes.

Q. So he's alive. Very well.

A. Yes, he's alive.

Q. When asked by the Prosecutor whether you saw barricades on the roads, you said that those were checkpoints. This is how you described them.

A. Yes. At the entrance into Prizren and the entrance into Gjakova and into Rahovec. ⁷⁷²

Q. Therefore, can you tell us how those barricades looked?

A. There were sandbags there and a little traffic sign for the police.

Q. So policemen stood behind sandbags, and there was also a traffic sign indicating that police was there; is that right?

A. They were surrounded by sandbags on the road, and there were police -- there was a sign of the police, and then they had white gloves and longish gloves up to the elbows.

Q. And what about the traffic? Did it move along the road?

A. Yes. The people went back and forth, yes.

Q. That means that those were actually not barricades but, rather, police checkpoints; yes or no?

A. There were checkpoints, and the old people could go. They were allowed to go through. Checkpoints, for controls.

Q. So those were not barricades, then?

A. No, no. They weren't really barricades. They were checkpoints.

Q. And why were sandbags in that spot where police stood? Why were the sandbags there?

A. Well, all the police had them. They used them as surroundings for -- all of them had them.

Q. What was the police protecting itself from with these sandbags?

A. What do you mean, "protecting"?

Q. Well, why was the police, then, behind these sandbags? What was the purpose of these sandbags, if the police was actually there to check the drivers' documents and so on? ⁷⁷³

A. I don't really know.

Q. Did the policemen have those sandbags in 1997?

A. No.

Q. And then why did the police put sandbags around checkpoints in 1998, then?

A. I don't know what their objective was. I don't know.

Q. Do you know why are sandbags used or why are they placed around a checkpoint? What is their purpose?

A. No, I don't know. I've never been interested in that. I've never had anything to do with that, so I don't know.

Q. Do you think that these sandbags are used to protect from the bullets?

A. They will know what they're for.

Q. So you don't know why sandbags are placed, do you?

A. It's never interested me. I don't know. So that's my view: I don't know.

Q. So you know that there weren't any sandbags in 1997, but in 1998 they were placed there?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see the KLA shoot at police members?

A. No, I never did.

Q. Did you ever hear of the KLA members shooting at police?

A. No. Personally, I don't know of any case.

Q. Did you ever hear of a policeman being killed by the KLA?

A. No, I don't know anything about that. ⁷⁷⁴

Q. So you never heard that a policeman was killed by the KLA?

A. I personally don't know of any case, no.

Q. Do you have television in your village?

A. Yes, we have television, but most of the time there's no electricity.

Q. All right. But at least at some point during the day there is electricity?

A. Yes, maybe. I don't know.

Q. I'm not talking about the present time; I'm talking about the time before the war. Did you have electricity then?

A. Well, there was from time to time, yes.

Q. So even before the war, you didn't have electricity in your village; is that what you're saying?

A. No. There was electricity from time to time, but on a regular basis, no.

Q. So were you able to watch television from time to time, then?

A. I was never interested in watching television, and I wasn't interested in watching the news. I was interested in my own family and raising my family, and I wasn't interested in all these other things.

Q. Did you personally, in your house, have a television set?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And you never happened to hear from anybody about the killing of a policeman by the KLA?

A. No. I don't know anything about it. I can only tell you what I've seen with my own eyes. I didn't see anything. ⁷⁷⁵

Q. Did you hear of any kind of activity on the part of those 300 members of the KLA who were alongside your village - you say that they weren't actually in your village - but those 300 whom you supplied with food and clothing? Did you hear what they did, those 300 that you mentioned, that you talked about?

A. No.

Q. So you don't know anything about their activities?

A. Nothing, no.

Q. Did you ever hear that the KLA had killed an Albanian?

A. No. I don't know anything about that.

Q. Did the KLA kill anybody, as far as you know?

A. I don't know anything, no.

Q. Let's go back to the checkpoints that you talked about.

JUDGE MAY: Before you do, we should finish this in five minutes. Are you going to finish the cross-examination, Mr. Milosevic, in five minutes?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think I'll be able to complete in five minutes, Mr. May. I have a little more to ask this witness, because this is an obvious matter --

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- especially as --

JUDGE MAY: We'll deal with it in the morning. We'll sit tomorrow at half past 9. We shall now be sitting in the afternoon, so we'll sit the whole day.

Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.07 p.m., ⁷⁷⁶ to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st of

February, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.