1 Monday, 15 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: There's a problem with the audio system. We will have
7 to adjourn for five minutes. We will rise for five minutes.
8 --- Break taken at 9.07 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.15 a.m.
10 JUDGE MAY: Colonel Crosland, how long can you remain with us
12 THE WITNESS: As long as necessary, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MAY: Thank you for that. What we'll do is this: We will
14 sit for two sessions today; an hour and a half, and then we'll take a
15 break, and then another hour and a half.
16 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
17 WITNESS: JOHN CROSLAND [Resumed]
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
19 Q. [Interpretation] Do you know anything about the infiltration of
20 foreign terrorists in Kosovo? For example, terrorists of Al Qaeda? That
21 was my last question, in fact. And you said that you had no knowledge of
22 that. That was where we left off. And among other things, you said that
23 in Malisevo in July, you saw only one possible individual from the Middle
24 East but that you saw no further evidence of Al Qaeda activities or any
25 other terrorist organisation; is that right?
1 A. That's correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
2 Q. Tell me, in Malisevo at that time, did you ask the leaders of that
3 terrorist group, the KLA, who the man was you saw amongst them whom you
4 assumed was a terrorist from the Middle East?
5 A. I did ask various people, but they were not willing to tell me who
6 he was, and so I left it at that.
7 Q. And did they -- did you ask them what he was doing there?
8 A. I think it was fairly obvious what he was doing there. He was
9 part of the disparate group involved with the Kosovo Liberation Army.
10 Q. But in your statement and the part relating to Malisevo, I don't
11 see that you informed your government about that. Am I right?
12 A. It is correct, Mr. Milosevic, it is not written in the statement
13 that I informed my government, but I did actually make mention of it
14 during my other reports.
15 Q. All right. Now let me ask you this: Do you have any information
16 as to the following - and I'm going to quote briefly a passage from the
17 interview before the Committee for International Relations of Congress -
18 it is dated October, the 3rd of October, 2001, and it was a presentation
19 made by Winston Kalistrala [phoen], the former head of the
20 counter-terrorist operation, CIA group. And he says that bin Laden was
21 against his own monarchy in Saudi Arabia, that he was expelled by their
22 service there and that he went to the Sudan where he organised camps,
23 training camps, for Islamic activists and for practically all the major
24 Islamic countries. And the quotation is as follows -- I'm going to ask
25 you whether you had knowledge of any of this.
1 A. Mr. Milosevic, that's --
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. Just a moment. I see
3 that nobody in the public gallery is getting the sound, is able to hear.
4 JUDGE MAY: We're going on with the trial. That's simply a matter
5 for the public. Let's go on. The witness, I think, knows nothing about
6 this anyway. This is somebody giving evidence to the Senate International
7 Relations Committee in October 2001.
8 Do you know anything about bin Laden in Bosnia -- or in Kosovo,
10 THE WITNESS: As I've said, Your Honour, the only possible person
11 was this one person I saw in Malisevo. I don't have any knowledge of this
12 document that Mr. Milosevic is referring to.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. I'm not asking you whether you saw the document. That's not the
15 essential point. I wish to read out what it says here for you to be able
16 to respond and tell me --
17 JUDGE MAY: Look, there's no point putting something to him about
18 which he knows nothing. A great deal of time is spent in this trial with
19 your reading out documents and things about which the witnesses know
20 nothing at all. So move on to another topic.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I assume that the British
22 intelligence service has knowledge of the role of Al Qaeda. And if it did
23 not have any knowledge in 1998, I'm sure that after the 11th of September,
24 it did have.
25 JUDGE MAY: You've got the answer. He doesn't know, apart from
1 the man in Malisevo. Now, that's the end of it. If you want to put that
2 evidence before us, you can call the man who gave evidence to the
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. All right. And do you know this: That at a national symposium on
6 drug terrorism on the 4th of December, 2001, among other things, it was
7 noted that there were links between drug trafficking and terrorist
8 organisations and that it is maintained that those links are very well
9 documented. And of course, mention is made there of the KLA and others;
10 Chechena and other radical groups. Are you aware of that? You have that,
11 for example, on the 4th of December, 2001. That's when that took place.
12 The Justice Ministry. Drug enforcement administration. Do you know
13 anything about that?
14 A. Mr. Milosevic, I think everyone knows that terrorist organisations
15 are involved in drug and Mafia trafficking. I don't really see what this
16 has got to do with Kosovo.
17 Q. Well, it does have something to do with it because the Albanian
18 drug Mafia are the main smugglers of drugs. And it also is connected
19 because it financed terrorist organisations which were infiltrated from
20 outside into Kosovo and that's why I'm asking you whether you know
21 anything about that. And is it possible that your service knows nothing
22 about that?
23 A. I never said that my service or the British government
24 intelligence services knows nothing about the drug trafficking. Of course
25 they know about that. You will also be well aware that there was a lot of
1 drug trafficking that went on in Belgrade. I presume your service knew
2 also about that.
3 Q. Yes. Our services very often arrested members of terrorist groups
4 for the most part and seized the goods.
5 JUDGE MAY: We're not going to waste time on this. Now, move on
6 to another topic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In answering questions during the examination-in-chief with
10 respect to Racak, you said that you were in Racak on the 15th of January
11 and that you had arrived there sometime around 1400 hours. Is that right?
12 A. As far as I can remember, that is correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
13 Q. You maintain that you saw that the village of Racak had been
14 shelled by the police and army. Tell me now, please, how many houses were
15 destroyed or damaged in Racak? Did you see any damaged or destroyed
16 houses in Racak?
17 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, the majority of the houses were
19 Q. Tell me, please, do you have any knowledge as to how many
20 inhabitants of Racak were killed or wounded by those shells that were
21 allegedly launched on the village?
22 A. I think, if I remember rightly, something like 31 to 35 bodies
23 were brought out of Racak after that operation, but I can't remember
24 exactly, no.
25 Q. Well, all right, then. Do you know that not a single person, a
1 single individual who lost their lives in the fighting around Racak was
2 not killed by shrapnel or shelling or grenades but exclusively from the
3 fire of infantry weapons? Are you aware of that fact?
4 A. Yes, I am. Yes.
5 Q. Tell me, then, how is it possible, Mr. Crosland, then, for the MUP
6 and the army to keep shelling Racak without --
7 JUDGE MAY: He has given his explanation. He's told us what he
8 saw. It's not for him to speculate. It will be a matter which we will
9 have to decide.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May, but I think --
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.
12 Mr. Crosland, I noticed you said that 35 bodies were brought out,
13 and also I noticed the 10th of July, when you firstly gave evidence, you
14 also mentioned some seven or eight bodies of KLA members were brought
15 out. Could you clarify "bring out the bodies"?
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, as far as I remember, in a gully close
17 to this village called Racak, approximately 30 bodies were found. And
18 again, I believe seven or eight were possibly from the KLA.
19 JUDGE KWON: So you use the term "being brought out" as meaning
21 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour. I believe they were
22 found in this gully.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 THE WITNESS: By Ambassador Walker and other people.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please go on, Mr. Milosevic.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. All right. You say that from 1400 hours onwards, you were there
3 and that you were there in the throes of heavy fighting. Do you know that
4 after 1400 hours, when the fighting had already stopped, the police
5 withdrew and that the local commander of the KLA here testified that at
6 1600 hours they had already taken control of the village again? Do you
7 know about that?
8 JUDGE MAY: He can -- I'm sorry to interrupt but the witness can
9 only tell us what he saw or heard while he was there, and he's given his
10 evidence. Now, it's for you in due course to address us on it, if you
11 wish. If you want to suggest, of course, that there was no fighting and
12 that the witness is wrong, you can do so, if that's your case. But
13 there's no point in reading out things that other people have said. He
14 can't comment on that.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not reading out at all what
16 other people said, Mr. May. All I'm doing is placing the statement of
17 this witness in a relationship with the facts that were ascertained here,
18 and that is that on the 15th, around 1500 hours, the operation was already
20 JUDGE MAY: No. I'm not going to allow this. This is not the
21 time for comment, as you know well, or speeches.
22 Colonel, it seems to be suggested, or in case it's being suggested
23 that you're wrong and there was no fighting at 2.00 when you arrived, can
24 you give us, please, your comment on that?
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the fighting had more or less subsided
1 by about 2.00 in the afternoon. That and the -- what Mr. Milosevic is
2 saying, that the KLA possibly had retaken possession of the village by
3 4.00, 1600, I think happened time after time after time within the
4 province of Kosovo. That rather pointed to the futility of a lot of the
5 Serbian security operations that nothing had been achieved by destroying
6 their villages. A tactic that had been employed by the Serbian security
7 forces is at the basis of what this investigation is all about.
8 JUDGE MAY: What the witness in fact said, according to my note,
9 was this: That he arrived just after the main conflict but there was still
10 activity going on, and covering fire was being provided into Racak.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I'm claiming, that
12 at the time the witness arrived and that he says he watched the conflict,
13 that the conflict had in fact been over by then.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. A moment ago, you said you saw members of the Verification
16 Mission, and you said that during your examination-in-chief as well. So
17 in Racak, on the 15th of January. And your answer was that you had seen
18 them and that you believe you saw Ambassador Walker as well; is that
20 A. That is correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
21 Q. And when asked whether you were there when the conflict was going
22 on, you said yes, because you were there when the main conflict began.
23 JUDGE MAY: No, he didn't say that. I've just read out my note of
24 what he said. He arrived just after the main conflict.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 7949, that page of the transcript,
1 Mr. May. There you have it. Your own transcript of Wednesday, the
2 LiveNote on Wednesday.
3 The question was:
4 Q. Did you see members of the Kosovo Verification
5 Mission [in English] while you were there?
6 The answer was:
7 A. I did [Previous translation continues]... [in
8 English] Ambassador Walker but I can't remember
9 precisely. Perhaps you would.
10 Q. Were you there when the actual conflict occurred?
11 A. I arrived just after the major conflict had
12 arrived, but there was considerable activity ongoing
13 that afternoon and throughout the day.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's not disputed that he said it. Now, can we
15 move on to some more relevant point? What is the point you're trying to
16 make with him?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely the opposite from
18 what you said a moment ago, that he didn't say it, Mr. May.
19 JUDGE MAY: We are not going to waste further time on this. I've
20 read you out my note which coincides with what the transcript said.
21 There's no point arguing about it. Now, have you got any more questions
22 for him?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tell me this -- yes, I have many
24 more questions. I've just started my cross-examination, Mr. May, and I
25 don't know why you ask me that.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Tell me, when did you exactly see William Walker in Racak? What
3 time was it?
4 A. Mr. Milosevic, I told you, I arrived about 2.00 in the afternoon
5 and, as far as I can recall, I remember seeing Mr. Walker sometime during
6 the afternoon period. This was a highly fluid and difficult area where
7 operations were still going on and people were coming and going throughout
8 the afternoon.
9 Q. And did you talk to him on that occasion?
10 A. I did not talk to him on that occasion, no.
11 Q. And tell me where you were on the 14th of January. That is to
12 say, on the eve of the events in Racak.
13 A. As far as I can remember, I think I was in Belgrade, having just
14 returned to Belgrade from the United Kingdom. I was preparing to come
15 down to Kosovo the following day.
16 Q. All right. Now, about the events in Racak, as you were there on
17 the 15th of January, did you draw up a report of any kind?
18 A. I sent -- there's a written report, as I think has been explained
19 to you, and I used to be in communication by other means back to both
20 Belgrade and to the United Kingdom.
21 Q. Well, tell me why, then, this report was not included with all the
22 other reports that you have presented here, as Racak is an essential
24 A. As I said to you when I was in court last week, Mr. Milosevic, I
25 didn't choose the reports. It was chosen by other people. I can't answer
1 that question.
2 Q. You want to say that you gave them all 70 of your reports and that
3 they selected the several reports that were presented; is that it?
4 A. My reports were the -- or are the -- in the keeping of the
5 Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom, and which reports are passed
6 across to this court, I do not know.
7 Q. You mentioned the killing of three Serb policemen and the conflict
8 and clash between the police force and the Ahmeti group on the 28th of
9 February, 1998. Were you present when this police operation was waged?
10 A. Do you mean -- which operation do you mean, when the three MUP
11 were killed or when the operation took place at Likosane?
12 Q. Yes, when the operation took place on the 28th of February.
13 A. No. No one was present because the whole area was sealed off. I
14 was touring with another defence attache and we came in shortly after we
15 were allowed through. That particular area was sealed for a number of
16 days by your security forces.
17 Q. And do you have any knowledge that on that occasion there was
18 fighting between the terrorists and the forces -- the security forces?
19 A. Yes. I have knowledge that there was fighting, yes.
20 Q. And were those people killed in battle?
21 A. I can't answer that because I wasn't there. All I know is that 26
22 people were buried north of Likosane a couple of days later, as witnessed
23 by the BBC.
24 Q. All right. On Wednesday, you said that 16 persons were killed,
25 that 16 of them were killed in that operation. Now, this 26 now, does
1 that mean that somebody from other operations who had lost their lives
2 were buried or what?
3 A. No. The information was that these 16 had been killed in Likosane
4 or around that area, and the further ten were seen being taken alive, we
5 believe to Prizren -- sorry, to Pristina, beg your pardon, and were
6 returned dead. You will have to or someone will have to answer that
7 question; I can't answer that question.
8 Q. Are you suggesting -- are you suggesting that somebody took the
9 people to the prison, killed them there, and brought them back dead?
10 A. That is the suggestion, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
11 Q. Well, how come such a - how shall I put it? - drastic event is not
12 mentioned in your reports, that somebody took off the prisoners, killed
13 them, and brought them back dead?
14 JUDGE MAY: It is. It's mentioned in the statement which I've got
15 in front of me. Paragraph 4.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Tell me this: I understood that you were in Donje Prekaze when
18 the fighting was going on there. Is that correct or not?
19 A. No, I was not in Donje Prekaze when the fighting was going on
20 because the whole area was closed down. I was probably the first person
21 into Donje Prekaze directly after the fighting.
22 Q. So you weren't there actually when it all went on. You weren't
24 A. No, of course I wasn't present.
25 Q. All right. Do you know about the fact that the members of the
1 Ministry of the Interior on several occasions before they opened fire
2 called out to the group of terrorists led by Jashari to surrender?
3 A. I've heard that from various sources, yes.
4 Q. Did you know that when they didn't want to surrender, that they
5 asked them to let the women and children leave, to leave the house?
6 A. Yes. Yes, I've heard that.
7 Q. Do you know for which major crimes, and I'm thinking about
8 numerous killings, Adem Jashari was prosecuted for, and the other members
9 of his group?
10 A. I do not know the details, Mr. Milosevic, no. I know he had --
11 there was indications that he had been involved in various activities,
12 yes. But I don't see, you know, this is what is leading to the very
13 deliberate and totally destructive attack that took place on Donje Prekaze
14 which involved armoured vehicles firing at 30 metres. I think that
15 explains the difference.
16 Q. Well, an Albanian who was a protected witness here talked about
17 what happened, and this completely coincides with what I myself am
19 JUDGE MAY: No need to, and in fact you can't ask this witness to
20 comment on what some other witness has said.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Tell me this, then: Who gave you access to that locality and
24 allowed you to tour the spot after this operation?
25 A. I believe it was the MUP or the PJP commander in charge in Srbica
1 allowed us in, and we photographed the bodies that were at the southern
2 entrance to Srbica in a low, one-storey house just on the southern
3 entrance to Srbica. And there were, I think, as I've said in my
4 statement, 54 bodies; men, women, and children.
5 Q. On page 3 of your statement, paragraph 4, you claim that during
6 that period of time there were a series of KLA attacks against the police
7 force; is that right?
8 A. That's correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
9 Q. Now, do you know how many such attacks took place in the course of
11 A. We used to be updated by your General Staff on the number of
12 attacks, and I can't remember the details now. But I'm not disputing the
13 fact that there were attacks. I'm disputing the fact that the actions
14 carried out by your security forces really did very little to restore the
16 Q. Well, whether they helped or not, do you realise that at the end
17 of 1998, the facts say that to all practical intents and purposes the KLA
18 was not capable of launching any more operations at all, that they had
19 been totally neutralised?
20 A. With respect, Mr. Milosevic, I'm not certain that's correct,
21 because within -- if I remember rightly, between October and November,
22 whilst your forces had gained the initiative in the early part of the
23 autumn, the Kosovo Liberation Army did get or appeared to receive new
24 supplies. I don't think I've, you know, been in dispute with you that
25 there is, there was and has been a terrorist problem within Kosovo. What
1 I am suggesting is that the way your tactics carried out, as has now been
2 proved, is actually highly unsuccessful and that the burning and
3 destroying of villages - sometimes several times over; crops, petrol
4 stations, the workshops, all the other infrastructure of life - has done
5 nothing actually to help the situation.
6 Q. We're talking about something else now. In the autumn of 1998,
7 since you were there, I believe that you remember well that the situation
8 had calmed down, that they even brought weapons in on tractors and handed
9 them in. The security situation was almost completely restored to normal,
10 and then, practically, there was a new stage when the Kosovo Verification
11 Mission came. Regardless of whether you want to confirm this or not, they
12 saved the KLA. Is that right or is that not right? They made it possible
13 for the KLA to be revitalised. Is that right or is that not right?
14 A. Mr. Milosevic, to answer a question yes or no of that magnitude is
16 JUDGE MAY: Without yes or no, perhaps you could comment on it if
17 you think you can, Colonel.
18 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the arrival of the Kosovo Verification
19 Mission was a part of the process of attempting to bring this troubled
20 area to peace. To blame them for an uprise in the KLA, I think is grossly
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You see, the commander of the KLA, Ramush Haradinaj -- there's
24 even a book that was published, I can give it to you as a present, in
25 English, he says: " [Previous translation continues]... [In English]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 saving for KLA."
2 JUDGE MAY: That's his comment. You can tell us about it in due
3 course. Now, do let us move on.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. And since frequent meetings are referred to here with the
6 representatives of the British, American, French, Canadian, et cetera, as
7 he says here, missions, KDOM, et cetera, and then it says: [Previous
8 translation continues]... [In English] in itself of NATO airstrikes that
9 would follow later on." [Interpretation] Is that correct? Is that
11 JUDGE MAY: Where are you reading from? Where are you reading
12 from in the statement?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm reading from the book, Ramush
14 Haradinaj's book. The book of commander Ramush Haradinaj. And after the
15 war --
16 JUDGE MAY: No. Move on to ask him some questions about his
17 evidence or about his statement, not the opinions of people in books.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is not opinion, Mr. May. I'm
19 asking him whether they helped the KLA recover, and did they, with the
20 KLA --
21 JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer: "No." Now, you must learn not
22 to argue with the witnesses. You have to accept their evidence. You can
23 argue the case to us in due course, but there's no point arguing with the
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I never argue with
1 witnesses. As far as I can see, it's you who's arguing with me all the
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Now, Mr. Crosland, do you know that in 1998, 1.854 terrorist
5 attacks were carried out by the KLA in Kosovo and Metohija? That is
6 approximately more than four per day, on average. However, the number
7 went up after the Verification Mission arrived, considerably so. Do you
8 know anything about that?
9 A. As I've said to you, Mr. Milosevic, we used to get -- or I used to
10 get fairly regular briefings from your General Staff, General Dimitrijevic
11 and other people, and that figure would have been given to me. But let's
12 put it into context with other operations and other areas that I've been
13 involved in.
14 Of course the security forces will document every single minor
15 action that the opposite side does in order to build up their own
16 statistics, but I don't really see where this leads us. I was fully aware
17 that there was a serious situation developing in Kosovo, as I've said to
18 you and I put in my reports, and I reported this accurately on both sides.
19 I don't really know what else I could do. I could not influence the
20 situation apart from report it both back to your Vojska Yugoslavia General
21 Staff in Belgrade and to my authorities back in the United Kingdom. That
22 is clearly documented in all my evidence.
23 Q. Is it uncontested that the objectives of the attack, or rather,
24 the targets were the members of the Ministry of the Interior, the members
25 of the military but civilians as well, both Serbs and Albanians and
1 Muslims and members of other ethnic communities in Kosovo? They were
2 killed, they were kidnapped, they were robbed, et cetera. Do you know
3 about that or did you not know about that?
4 A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, I knew about that. But you must bear that in
5 context with what your security forces were doing to something like 2 to 3
6 to 400 villages that I saw burned to the ground. So it's not unnatural
7 that people took revenge. I'm afraid reconciliation in the Balkans is not
8 a word that's very much known about, "osveta." More "osveta" and less --
9 a bit more "pomirenje" and less "osveta" would be a better thing all
10 around. More reconciliation and less revenge.
11 Q. And in 1998, Mr. Crosland, was there a major increase in terrorism
12 in Kosovo? Is that being contested?
13 A. Mr. Milosevic, no. I've told you that in my reports, that the
14 situation initially started at the latter end of 1997 when I first had
15 talks with General Perisic and General Dimitrijevic and then grew in
16 intensity during the early part of 1998. There was then a Serbian
17 security offensive in July, August, September, which led inevitably to the
18 Holbrooke mission. There was a relatively quiet period, but during that
19 period, as I've already said, the Kosovo Liberation Army appeared to get
20 more supplies into the area, then a resumption of Serbian activity --
21 security force activity just prior to Christmas and then with Bozic and
22 Serbian New Year, there was a quiet-ish period in mid-January until we
23 came to the Racak affair.
24 Q. And then this notorious Racak happened; right? And then, as you
25 mentioned here, you presented your views to Dimitrijevic and two other
1 generals, that they were getting involved in a long campaign with few
2 chances of success. That's what you said. Now I'm asking you as a
3 military man who has experience, I imagine, in fighting terrorism as well.
4 What would a shorter campaign entail, in your opinion?
5 JUDGE MAY: What's the relevance of this?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance, Mr. May, is that this
7 witness, as a soldier, as a professional soldier, is challenging what the
8 police and army did in their struggle against terrorism. So I would like
9 to hear his position, what this would look like in the organisation of his
10 army and his police.
11 JUDGE MAY: I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems to
12 me totally irrelevant. Let's move on.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Crosland, to what extent did your intelligence activities
15 focus on gathering data on the KLA, its manpower, weapon levels, and so
17 A. Mr. Milosevic, within the Kosovo region, I reported back on the
18 KLA that one saw and their activities as is laid out in those reports or
19 other reports that you may not have seen, I don't know. As far as
20 externally, that is the duties of various UK services of which I was not a
21 part of, as you well know. I was accredited to your -- to Yugoslavia.
22 Q. All right. On page 4, in paragraph 5, you mention that the MUP
23 forces were sufficient to deal with an average rebellion. The question is
24 whether keeping 50 per cent of the territory under terrorist control is
25 something that you consider to be an average rebellion.
1 A. I think if you're referring to the situation in the middle of the
2 -- the early part of the summer in Kosovo and Metohija, I spoke with
3 several of your senior staff and queried as to why they were allowing the
4 Kosovo Liberation Army to control, I think it was three of the major roads
5 across Kosovo and Metohija.
6 Q. So that is correct, of course. These three main routes that are a
7 precondition for life in Kosovo and Metohija were blocked in certain
8 places by the KLA; is that right?
9 A. Yes -- [Previous translation continues]... Sorry.
10 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- yes. What you were going to say,
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Mr. Milosevic. And I used to travel
13 this area on more or less a daily basis, and these positions, these KLA
14 positions, were not of any great strength or depth, could not have been
15 attacked? That is the question you must ask your security forces. As
16 I've referred to, this is a question of tactics. If your security forces
17 had concentrated on purely the Kosovo Liberation Army defensive positions,
18 I don't think there would have been a problem. But when they went into
19 villages to destroy villages for no other reason than they wished to take
20 these villages down - and the excuse I was given was that it provides
21 cover along the routes - I don't find that very convincing when some of
22 these routes were completely irrelevant to the operations. Major routes
23 were blocked, the wooded area in the central part of Kosovo, which
24 although quite difficult to operate in was by no means impossible with the
25 number of troops that your forces had deployed on the ground against, I
1 would suggest, probably in the early part of 1998, my ‘guesstimate’ or -- of
2 the numbers of the KLA was probably about 3 to 400 hard-core at the very
3 most. So not a great deal of people.
4 But I can't answer the question why your forces did not use the
5 tactics to clear these people out of what were quite clearly illegal
6 defensive positions. Even when I went through their positions and their
7 headquarters in Malisevo, the KLA would not recognise my licna karta as
8 defence attache to your country and I informed them that I was allowed to
9 go anywhere I liked within the country of Yugoslavia; there was no legal
10 rule here. I put the question back to you; it is up to your forces to
11 have carried out the correct tactics.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Well, we're not talking about tactics here, Mr. Crosland. We are
14 talking about crimes and the behaviour of a terrorist organisation that
15 killed many people. Are you denying the right of the legal forces to
16 fight terrorism?
17 A. Mr. Milosevic, no. I'm actually -- as I tried to explain to the
18 Vojska Yugoslavia General Staff, that if your forces attacked the KLA in
19 these illegal positions, as I've already explained to you, then I don't
20 think anyone would have had any problem. What was the problem was the
21 total wanton destruction over half of Kosovo against a population that,
22 yes, was mainly Albanian. But I think there is a political side to this
23 that has not been looked at. And even the situation now, there is no
24 military solution to Kosovo. There very rarely is a military solution.
25 We in the military have to come along when the political side has failed
1 to find a solution.
2 Q. Mr. Crosland, does it seem to you perhaps that the fact that there
3 was a great intensity of terrorist activities and, therefore, reactions of
4 the forces to such intensive terrorist activities is something that you
5 have been calling systematic damage or attacks at some peaceful villages?
6 Haven't you confused certain concepts, Mr. Crosland?
7 A. Mr. Milosevic, not at all. I understand perfectly well, having
8 been involved in counter-terrorist operations, attacks on terrorists or
9 groups of terrorists by security forces are one thing, and that is pure
10 military business. But for troops or security forces to go around razing,
11 looting, burning crops, houses and businesses is not part of a proper
12 military operation. This is just wanton destruction and revenge against,
13 in the majority, innocent people.
14 Of course I'm not, you know, saying that there was not support in
15 the villages because these people are Albanians. There was probably
16 nearly 2 million Albanians living in Kosovo. They undoubtedly had some
17 support. Can you not see that if you go and burn and loot most of the
18 villages in central Kosovo, who are just pure farmers and people doing
19 their job of work --
20 Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. Please answer my questions. Do you know
21 that many houses in Kosovo, and perhaps even entire settlements like the
22 Prilep you mentioned, were used as fortifications and KLA terrorists
23 operated from there against the army, against the police? They blocked
24 roads, they made normal life impossible, they committed numerous crimes.
25 So do you know --
1 JUDGE MAY: What is the question?
2 Colonel Crosland, you're being asked about the use of settlements
3 such as Prilep as fortifications which were used for operations against
4 the police and the rest of it. Is that right or not?
5 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, within the area of Prilep there was,
6 yes, a Kosovo Liberation Army area of operations. The point I am making,
7 Your Honour, is that the major town of Decani, which is an old and
8 interesting town with Visoki Decani, one of the great monasteries of
9 Serbia, the entire Albanian area within that town was systematically burnt
10 out as a revenge. And my point is: What does this revenge achieve? It
11 achieves nothing. Kosovo is now under NATO control with the Albanians.
12 Does that mean you've had a successful --
13 JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps, Colonel, you too could restrict your
14 answers. Time is limited. You say that within the area of Prilep there
15 were KLA.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. There were scattered within
17 several areas of Kosovo, areas that were semi-controlled by the Kosovo
18 Liberation Army, of which I knew about and of which I reported back on.
19 And we get back to the same old thing about the tactics employed, yes, by
20 both sides, I would accept that. But you don't -- if you fight terrorism
21 with civilian terrorism, i.e., going around razing villages, all you do is
22 drive more people to support the terrorists. It's as simple as that.
23 I don't condone terrorism. I never will and never have. But the
24 heavy-handed and wanton destruction in the majority of innocent areas and
25 the crops and all the associated infrastructure can only push more people
1 to fight against your forces. I think that is what has happened.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Crosland, let us clarify this situation. You said that 50 per
4 cent of the territory was held by the members of the KLA for a while.
5 You're talking about fighting all over Kosovo. You're talking about the
6 damage done, about the victims, et cetera. Please give me a precise
7 answer to this question: Was this area -- were these areas under long and
8 heavy fighting between the Ministry of the Interior and the KLA?
9 A. No. There was -- Mr. Milosevic, there was a period in early 1998,
10 after the two assaults on to Likosane and --
11 Q. All right, you said "No" by way of an answer, so let's go on,
12 Mr. Crosland. So there was not protracted and heavy fighting in that
14 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. The question was: Was there
15 an area under protected and heavy fighting, and you began to answer,
16 Colonel Crosland. Now, could you complete your answer. You started with
17 a period in early 1998.
18 THE WITNESS: After that initial period at Prekaze and Likosane,
19 there was then an area of stalemate in the early part of the summer before
20 your forces built up. And during that time, the KLA, as I have said,
21 controlled three of the major roads through. I say
22 "controlled"; they sat on these routes in pretty thin defensive positions.
23 For some reason - I can't answer that question - your forces allowed them
24 to stay there.
25 Now, with the amount of forces you had in Kosovo, you could have
1 carried out operations against these defensive areas which could possibly
2 have succeeded. For some reason, your forces did not and contented
3 themselves with destroying the surrounding villages and all the
4 infrastructure, which I've said on many occasions. Now, that only would
5 have made more people join the liberation movement against your forces.
6 And I don't understand the reason you did this. As I said, it was not a
7 military solution.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Colonel.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. All right. Can I infer, on the basis of what you've been
11 claiming, that the security forces did not attack KLA strongholds, that
12 they left them alone and then they went out to burn peaceful villages, to
13 kill the livestock and damage these places? Is that what you are
14 claiming, Mr. Crosland?
15 A. That's exactly what I'm saying, Mr. Milosevic, because around the
16 Drenica, there was something like 45 vehicle checkpoints manned by squads
17 of men. And during this period, the Drenica was under fairly heavy attack
18 by your forces on more or less a daily basis.
19 Now, I can't answer the tactics and why your men did these things,
20 I can only report to you what I saw. And as I reported back to your
21 General Staff, I said, "I don't understand what you are trying to achieve,
22 because you are tying more and more men up on operations that are
23 achieving nothing and leaving them open to attacks by the Kosovo
24 Liberation Army to what we call penny packeting, little dots here and
25 there all over the map that really control nothing. But there was no --
1 if you're going to get down to tactics, there was no night patrolling by
2 your forces and there was very little holding ground apart from what they
3 actually saw from their defensive positions.
4 You could see where the Kosovo Liberation Army walked up 2 or 300
5 metres away and then walked around the position to carry out whatever
6 activities there were doing. And if your forces call that controlling the
7 situation, then I'm afraid I disagree. That is the basis of my statement
8 saying that your forces were employing the wrong type of tactics. I made
9 this clear to various people, including General Perisic during our talks
10 in Beograd. I had recognised, amongst other people, that there was a
11 terrorist problem, that actually, your forces were failing to deal with
13 Q. All right. Tell me, please, since you say that these were some
14 kind of weak positions at certain places in Kosovo, that that's what the
15 KLA did in Kosovo, so how did then these poorly armed and few members of
16 the KLA manage, as you had claimed yourself, to control 50 per cent of the
17 territory in spite of such well-armed and numerous troops of the military
18 and the army, again as you have been claiming?
19 A. Mr. Milosevic, I've already stated that they had various
20 roadblocks across these three areas, with some supporting positions. But
21 they were not seriously, you know, defended positions. If your forces had
22 attacked those positions in a proper, organised manner, I'm sure they
23 would have succeeded. Now, why they did not, I don't know. You will have
24 to ask that question to the relevant personnel concerned.
25 Q. And do you know that the most frequent targets of terrorist
1 attacks were precisely members of the army of Yugoslavia? Did you manage
2 to find that out during your contacts with the generals that you
3 communicated with?
4 You say that you noticed that there was evidence of coordination
5 between the army and the police, the MUP, and their actions; is that
7 Now, tell me --
8 JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. You've already asked him one question,
9 you're now going on to a second.
10 The question was: As far as you could understand from your
11 contacts, were the target of attacks members of the army of Yugoslavia? I
12 don't know if you can answer that or not.
13 THE WITNESS: The major attacks were against the MUP forces
14 initially, although on the border there had been attacks against the
15 Vojska Yugoslavia positions, particularly on the Albanian frontier. And
16 that was well documented and evidence was produced by your General Staff,
17 to me and other people, of these ongoing attacks. And I was well aware of
18 the attacks on the MUP and the other security forces and of the funerals
19 that took place back in Serbia of these people who had been killed on
21 I think throughout my time, I observed, as a military man, that
22 when someone is killed in operations, one respects what he is doing for
23 his country.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right. Do you know that the border of Yugoslavia only in 1998
1 was violated several hundreds of times through arms smuggling from
2 Albania, transfers of well-armed and equipped groups of terrorists who
3 were trained in camps in Northern Albania and so on? So several hundreds
4 of times. Do you know that?
5 A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, I do, and I explained that to you the last
6 time I was in court, that the information initially came from your General
7 Staff covering this area of the border between Albania, which, as you are
8 well aware, is a historical smuggling and contraband route.
9 Q. All right, then. And do you consider that the army should have
10 refrained from its basic duty to protect the state borders and to protect
11 the populace and its members and all the facilities and communication? Is
12 that what they should have done?
13 JUDGE MAY: He has accepted that. He's accepted there was a right
14 to do that. Move on.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. All right. And tell me this: What is there illogical in the fact
17 that you saw that the army and MUP were cooperating? Was it logical for
18 the police and army of one and the same state, when faced with the danger
19 and crimes perpetrated by terrorism, should cooperate? Is that something
20 that is not standard practice otherwise? Is that something unusual?
21 A. Under your constitution, Mr. Milosevic - and I would be very
22 careful about lecturing you about your own constitution - but the Vojska
23 Yugoslavia had a priority to protect the national border and 500 metres.
24 And that was written down in the constitution. As I said before, this
25 then spread to other areas when the situation deteriorated.
1 Q. Mr. Crosland, of course that is not written down in the
2 constitution. At least it is easy to ascertain what the constitution
3 stipulates. But let me ask you this, because quite obviously you don't
4 know the provisions: Do you know the law on defence, the law on the
5 Yugoslav army? Do you know the rules of service for the army and all the
6 rules and regulations that regulate the elements under which the army
7 functions in all aspects and fields, let alone the constitution? That is
8 not something that is written down in the constitution. No 500 metres or
9 borders or whatever.
10 Do you know about all these rules and regulations?
11 A. That was what was told to me by your foreign liaison service as
12 part of the Ministry of Defence. Now, of course I do not know the full
13 details. I don't know the full details of what the British army's
14 constitution is. So to answer that in the affirmative, under oath, would
15 be illegal. That is not the point. The point you're asking is the
16 cooperation between the VJ and the MUP. Of course they would cooperate as
17 the situation got worse. It's how they cooperated, by using direct and
18 indirect fire into villages, is not part of modern way of doing -- dealing
19 with the situation. Did it provide the right answer? The answer is quite
20 clearly no.
21 Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. This lack of information on your part as
22 to rules and regulations probably had, as a consequence, a completely
23 erroneous explanation for certain behaviour and conduct. But we will come
24 to that in due course.
25 JUDGE MAY: You can stop the comments and just get on with the
1 questions. You're taking up much too much time with these lengthy
2 questions. I will remind you, you've got now 25 minutes left.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that can't be possible that I
4 only have 25 minutes left, Mr. May, in view of the fact that I have used
5 up very little of my time and this is a very, if I can put it that way,
6 long, lengthy witness as to the things he is asserting.
7 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's not only possible but it's the
8 fact that you've got 25 minutes left. Two hours was what you were given.
9 You've spent most of it arguing with the witness. Now, let's go on.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. All right.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Let's be a little more efficacious, Mr. Crosland, with the
14 On page 6 of your own statement here, you say on the 20th of
15 August that the club of military attaches, General Ojdanic, the Deputy
16 Chief of Staff, presented reasons for the joint operations of MUP and the
17 army in the Malisevo area and other areas because he said that they were
18 in keeping with one of the four assignments in Kosovo, tasks in Kosovo.
19 And then first, the protection of communications and roads in Kosovo,
20 maintenance of the border security, protection of the army facilities of
21 Yugoslavia, protection of units of the army in barracks and in the field,
22 et cetera.
23 Now, regardless of this unwieldy interpretation of one of the four
24 tasks or assignments, do you know, nevertheless, Mr. Crosland, that
25 according to the rules of service of the army of Yugoslavia in peacetime
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the army of Yugoslavia can be deployed, of course, for all these tasks
2 that you were explained to as being legitimately done by the army of
3 Yugoslavia and also many other assignments and tasks? And I should like
4 to mention in particular the struggle against sabotage and terrorist
6 So according to the rules of service, the rules and regulations
7 and their provisions - and you refer to the constitution in a highly
8 incompetent way - the Yugoslavia army, under those rules and regulations
9 that are valid and that you can read through, can be used, may be used
10 against sabotage and terrorist groups; it can be used to protect the
11 communications and roads; it can be deployed for the purpose of dealing
12 with any situations where military facilities have come under attack or
13 the army itself has come under attack, of course in order to protect the
14 state borders in-depth, et cetera, and so on and so forth. So where is
15 the problem there?
16 JUDGE MAY: What is the question you're asking? You've gone on
17 for two minutes but we've got no question. What is it?
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Is it clear to you that there is nothing that is unlawful there in
20 the Yugoslav army's actions?
21 A. Mr. Milosevic, you're missing the entire point. We had stated --
22 we had pointed out to your General Staff that it is quite clear that the
23 Vojska Yugoslavia army was highly involved in the operations throughout
24 the middle of 1998. It was your General Staff, Colonel General Ojdanic,
25 who refuted it completely until I showed him a video and other evidence
1 that this was not true. So I don't understand your question.
2 Q. As far as I can see here, Ojdanic presented the reasons for this
3 joint activity on the part of the army and MUP in the area of Stimlje and
4 Malisevo, and he said -- he did not deny -- he did not deny -- you
5 yourself said that they were in keeping and in conformity with the tasks
6 of the army in Kosovo, and then he went on to enumerate the protection of
7 the communication lines, ensuring the borders' security, protection of
8 units in barracks, and otherwise. And therefore, he precisely explained
9 the reasons for which it was completely legitimate and legal to -- and
10 lawful to use the army and why the army's activities were lawful. And I
11 enumerated the provisions and rules and regulations, as I said that what
12 you had said did not exist in the constitution but I said what the rules
13 of service for the Yugoslav army stipulate. Now, why should that be
15 JUDGE MAY: We are wasting time here. The witness has already
16 been over this. The point, Mr. Milosevic, is not whether the army should
17 or should not have been deployed or what the constitution said or didn't
18 say. The point of the witness's evidence was the use of artillery against
19 the villages, undefended villages, the destruction it caused. Now, that's
20 the point you should be concentrating on.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, first of all, there were no
22 attacks on undefended villages in Kosovo. Now, I'm asking the witness the
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Whether a facility or a house or a fortified village or any
1 facility of that kind from which fire is opened on the army and police is
2 a legitimate military target or not.
3 A. Mr. Milosevic, you know full well that under the Geneva
4 Conventions you are not entitled to fire artillery or anti-aircraft
5 weapons that are specifically designed to attack aircraft at ground
6 targets. Now, these tactics were used, as I have stated under sworn oath,
7 throughout Kosovo against many, many villages. Both artillery,
8 self-propelled artillery, normal towed artillery, main battle tank,
9 including multi-rocket launching systems which were fired, I saw being
10 fired into Junik --
11 Q. I heard you. I heard you, Mr. Crosland. You said that a
12 20-millimetre cannon was used, is that right, anti-aircraft gun,
13 20-millimetre one. That's what you said was used.
14 Now, as you're a soldier yourself, answer me this: Is there
15 anywhere in the armaments of any army a cannon which is of smaller calibre
16 than the 20-millimetre one? Is there a smaller calibre gun than 20
17 millimetres at all in the arsenal of weapons?
18 A. Mr. Milosevic, there are many, many calibres, from 9 millimetre to
19 556, 762, 12.5, all the way up to 20, to 30.
20 Q. I'm talking about cannons. You're talking about artillery
22 A. Of course a cannon cannot be under 20 millimetres. A gun, top
23 of --
24 Q. Well, that's what I asked you.
25 A. I told you --
1 Q. So is there any smaller calibre for a cannon than this
2 20-millimetre one? So it means that this was the smallest calibre cannon
3 that was used for those targets that you're talking about. And secondly,
4 it is not correct, Mr. Crosland --
5 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with the calibres, first of all,
6 since you've raised it.
7 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the direction of your question.
8 Various military equipments come in various calibres. Machine-guns go
9 from 556 to 762; heavy machine-guns of 12.5. And all these were used in
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I'm not asking about the calibre of weapons now. I'm asking you a
13 very specific question, and that is: Is there a cannon? I don't know
14 what the interpretation was. Perhaps it was "gun." I meant cannon
15 because gun can mean a rifle, because you said 5.6, et cetera. So cannon,
16 is there a cannon with a smaller calibre than the 20-millimetre calibre
17 and your answer was no, that such a cannon does not exist.
18 Now, let's go back to more important questions, please. You're
19 claiming, therefore, that General Dimitrijevic explained to you the fact
20 that Pavkovic was not adhering to orders from the General Staff.
21 A. That was General Dimitrijevic's words to me, yes.
22 Q. All right. They were General Dimitrijevic's words, the ones that
23 you're quoting here. Now, what I'm asking you is this: Do you imply and
24 understand that it is possible, in any army whatsoever, for any event that
25 occurs in the course of a day that a daily report should not be drafted
1 which is then sent to the higher command, superior command? And as this
2 was the army command, in this case it would be the General Staff. That it
3 is not passed on to the General Staff? What is your opinion as a
4 professional soldier? Is it possible that a report of this kind would not
5 be sent on straight away, informing the General Staff of each and every
6 incident that took place in the course of that day?
7 A. Mr. Milosevic, I can't answer for your Vojska Yugoslavia staff.
8 I'm telling you the indications that General Dimitrijevic and General
9 Perisic gave to me on several occasions which are itemised in my summary
10 report. I would hope - sincerely hope - that there was a proper brief
11 given back to your Vojska General Staff and to yourself as the
12 Commander-in-Chief. I don't know that because I'm not privy to that
14 Q. All right. But your assertions are, to put it mildly, strange.
15 At least, they appear strange to me from the aspects of ethics and seem to
16 be quite unbelievable. And at the end of this particular page - it is a
17 long one with all the points - you talk about the discussion with
18 Dimitrijevic on the 3rd of October, and you said that he said that General
19 Pavkovic was trying to create a name for himself.
20 Now, my question to you is based on this doubt, Mr. Crosland. I
21 doubt that a general would --
22 JUDGE MAY: We're now having yet another speech. First of all, it
23 doesn't matter what the evidence seems to you, it's what the witness said
24 happened, and your views about it are totally irrelevant.
25 Now, what is the question? You've asked something about General
1 Pavkovic was trying to create name for himself.
2 Did somebody say that to you, Colonel?
3 Just a moment.
4 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, yes. This came up in the two
5 discussions on the 3rd of October and the 5th of November with my
6 ambassador, that this was the feeling from members of the General Staff,
7 that General Pavkovic was now acting outside the normal chain of command,
8 direct back to Beograd and to Mr. Sainovic and Mr. Milosevic.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Please. As I asked you this question as referring to
12 professional soldiers, is it possible that there should not be reporting
13 about each and everything that the army is doing in the field? Now,
14 according to the rules of service and the provisions regulating the army's
15 activities, it is duty-bound, even when it comes to sabotage, terrorist
16 groups, and protection of borders and the protection of communication
17 lines and the protection of itself and it is being shot at, do you really
18 think that the commander of the rank of an army commander for each
19 specific situation, concrete situation where soldiers are being shot at or
20 when a border hut is being attacked at the border or a group is passing by
21 that it actually has to ask the General Staff whether to proceed in
22 keeping with its duties to protect the borders, to protect its unit, to
23 protect the communication lines, to react against sabotage groups that it
24 is -- that it has spotted, and only once it receives orders from the
25 General Staff can it carry on in performing its duties. Is that what
1 you're saying? Is that what you're assuming?
2 A. Mr. Milosevic, that is completely untrue. I have never said or
3 stated that a field commander should not act on his own initiative. Of
4 course the commander of the 3rd Army from Nis, Colonel General Pavkovic,
5 had to act on his own initiative. What was indicated by your General
6 Staff at both CDS - chief of defence staff - and chief of
7 counter-intelligence, was that it was outside their chain of command. They
8 have to answer that question. I cannot answer that question. This was
9 the feeling that they had, that they no longer, as chief of defence staff
10 and as chief of counter-intelligence, had a control of what was going on
11 in Kosovo. You must ask those three gentlemen concerned what they meant.
12 They indicated to us General Pavkovic was acting directly to
13 yourself on a different order of battle to what was going on in the chief
14 of defence staff. That is the allegation. Of course a field commander
15 has got the right and must have the right to react to the situation on the
16 ground. And I never -- I've never gone against that feeling.
17 Q. And is it clear to you that his reactions, this reaction to the
18 situation on the ground, is it clear to you that this reaction of his on
19 the ground must be and was in conformity with the orders given down the
20 chain of the command -- down the chain of command? It could not have been
21 outside the chain of command, because in that case, he would have to bear
22 the consequences because he has to report back about everything. And I
23 maintain that General Pavkovic was not acting outside the chain of
24 command, was not acting outside his own competencies and authorisations,
25 regardless of the fact that you say that Dimitrijevic and Perisic told you
2 A. Well, in that case, Mr. Milosevic, then you and General Pavkovic
3 must be responsible for what happened in Kosovo. And that included the
4 destruction, massive destruction of civilian population and infrastructure
5 around Kosovo.
6 Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. Do you feel it to be probable - and
7 that's why I'm asking you the question because I think it is impossible
8 and quite improbable - that generals in the General Staff - you've
9 mentioned the chief of the General Staff and the chief of the security
10 service - should, with you - you were a foreigner, you were a colonel, a
11 colonel of a foreign army - should talk to you about a colleague of
12 theirs, the commander of the 3rd army of the Pristina Corps? Does that
13 seem to you probable that he was doing this in order to make a name for
15 JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Milosevic, you've missed the point. It's
16 exactly what the witness said happened. It's no good your saying it
17 doesn't seem probable. It's what happened, he says. If you say he's not
18 telling the truth, of course you can put it to him, but there's no point
19 saying it's not probable. It's what he said actually happened.
20 Now, do you want to challenge it? You can. The witness can
21 answer it.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, precisely because I
23 consider this to be so improbable, I'm asking the witness whether he just
24 conjured that up or maybe it was the impression he gained.
25 THE WITNESS: Mr. Milosevic, I am under oath, and I have written
1 in several statements exactly what has happened. And on one occasion, on
2 November the 5th, I think I'm correct in saying, there was also a meeting
3 with General Dimitrijevic attended by my ambassador where this again was
4 stated, that things were not as they should have been. And I suggest if
5 you want to find out the answer, that you ask the gentleman concerned.
6 But because of my good relationship with the Vojska Yugoslavia and what I
7 had done for the Vojska Yugoslavia in helping to save the lives of six
8 soldiers, during the evacuation from Kosovo I-49 Brigade out of Prizren, I
9 got an accolade from General Simatovic for helping to withdraw that
10 particular brigade and about 12.000 Serbs back to Strpce that may not have
11 happened. So please do not accuse me of not looking after the aspects of
12 the Vojska Yugoslavia.
13 The welcome that I received when I went back to Belgrade in 2001
14 was a very generous welcome by your Vojska Yugoslavia General Staff.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. I assume that you're well acquainted
17 with British military doctrine and you are a soldier of the British army,
18 and that one of the elements, for example, is to protect dependent
19 territories, regardless of the fact whether they are thousands of
20 kilometres away.
21 Now, your country, did it not deploy its own forces on countless
22 occasions not only to fight terrorism but also to protect the dependent
23 territories of its --
24 JUDGE MAY: That's irrelevant. Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, my question is: How, then,
1 can a member of that army consider that the Yugoslav army should not have
2 taken part in the struggle against --
3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have -- you have missed the point
4 of the witness's evidence, which I've pointed out to you already and I
5 will again. The point that he's made was that destruction caused by the
6 use of artillery against villages, the point that he's made was the
7 disproportionate response which was shown by your forces against the KLA.
8 That's the point. It's been the point throughout this trial, and not one
9 which you seem to have grasped.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think I have grasped that
11 essential point, and with the example of Prilep, which was highly
12 fortified, it had walls of concrete, and it was built as a fortification
13 in order to cut off the main communication line.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Now, you, as a soldier, do you consider that the deblocking and
16 removal of such a fortification and stronghold which Prilep had been
17 turned into can be done with infantry weapons, without the use of
18 artillery? And how many victims and casualties should this cause, would
19 this have caused? Speak as a professional soldier. Go on.
20 A. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. The area of Prilep was a KLA
21 stronghold, and your forces attacked it on many occasions when I was
22 present in that area. Did they succeed in holding that area? No.
23 Because you tactics were strong. And you can raze a village, as you did
24 on many occasions, drive the population out, and within a matter of hours
25 the population came back because they had nowhere else to go. The point
1 I'm making is that your dispositions in Kosovo were totally inept and a
2 very small number of terrorists initially - it grew later on - kept at bay
3 a considerably larger number of forces. If they had been -- if they
4 carried out operations in a far more professional way, I dare say the
5 outcome would have been different.
6 If you insist on going around, destroying everything that you
7 suppose or your forces suppose is to do with the Kosovo Liberation Army,
8 then your intelligence is not as good as it is meant to be. If you
9 destroy the civilian population, inevitably you drive more people to
10 support what was and is, and I have admitted, a terrorist organisation.
11 We have had many, many incidents in Northern Ireland. We didn't
12 go around destroying towns in Northern Ireland. The IRA probably
13 destroyed more because of their bombing. And it's taken us 35 years to
14 reach a partial, and I stress "partial," political initiative.
15 What was totally lacking in Kosovo was any form of political
16 initiative. As I've said, there was this air of revenge and never any
17 reconciliation. And now Kosovo is still not part of Serbia. And there
18 are many Kosovo --
19 JUDGE MAY: Let us not pursue the future.
20 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Well, all right, then. Tell me this, because you mentioned
23 Prilep: Does the opening of communication lines constitute a legitimate
24 object, goal?
25 A. Mr. Milosevic, I spoke to your General Staff. I asked Colonel
1 General Vilickovic [phoen], who, sadly, was killed in Kosovo, why hadn't
2 you opened the three channels of command across Kosovo, from Pec to
3 Pristina, through Ribnik to Stimlje, Caraleva and Suva Reka, and he looked
4 at me blankly and I had said, Well, they are not strong positions. How
5 much more can I say? Correctly directed operations may, and I stress
6 "may," have got you much better results than these completely wanton
7 destruction of areas that achieved very little, because most of these
8 areas came back under the Albanian influence very shortly afterwards as
9 your troops withdrew to more static positions. I can't answer why they
10 did that. That's something that you must ask your own generals.
11 Q. Well, that specific village, Prilep, Mr. Crosland, was emptied of
12 the civilian -- of its civilian population and turned into a KLA
13 stronghold, fortification, in order to block the main communication line.
14 Are you aware of that or not?
15 A. Mr. Milosevic, I drove up and down the road from Djakovica to
16 Decani, Pec more times than I care to remember, and I used to follow the
17 beer truck that used to go around delivering beer to your positions, which
18 was a great morale booster, and they were two very brave soldiers. Prilep
19 definitely was a KLA area, and I've told you that several times. But
20 razing it to the ground did nothing but actually harden the resistance in
21 that area. And in the end, did you win that contest? I would suggest no.
22 JUDGE MAY: I think we've got beyond argument. Mr. Milosevic,
23 you've got five minutes left and then you've had your time with this
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think, Mr. May, that this
1 kind of cross-examination of a witness that is claim -- presenting a mass
2 of assertions, I cannot conduct this cross-examination in full within the
3 time limits and time constraints you've given me. So I have no options
4 but to use up the time I have. But this is an example of the fact that I
5 have 50 more questions that I would like to ask this witness but won't
6 have time to do so. But we'll have to deal with that separately.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Please, Mr. Crosland, you are claiming that after the agreement
9 which was reached between myself and Holbrooke, the army withdrew, in
10 keeping with the agreement, and then two or three days later returned to
11 its positions; right? Is that what you're saying?
12 A. Mr. Milosevic, that's absolutely correct. And I was there when
13 the three battle groups withdrew back to Prizren, Pristina, and Urosevac.
14 And I actually informed the various powers that be that if we did not get
15 people in place - KDOM or whatever it happened to be - then the KLA may
16 well fill that vacuum. I issued that warning to various people. So I was
17 aware of the very fluid situation in Kosovo at the time. I cannot be held
18 responsible for what other people did. I reported, as my duty, as a
19 professional soldier --
20 Q. Please. That's not what I'm asking you. That is not what I'm
21 asking you. Until now, everybody established that we observed the
22 agreement, that we diminished our own forces, withdrew our forces, and it
23 is the first time that I hear this from you that we are tricksters who
24 withdrew our troops and then returned them two or three days later. If it
25 were so, why doesn't the Verification Mission say so in any one of its
1 reports that we actually returned what we had withdrawn. And even General
2 Naumann here claimed, in order to prove that we increased our presence,
3 that we had, for example, 500 policemen more, which is about 5 per cent.
4 Even that were correct, it would have constituted no more than 5 per cent.
5 How can you claim that once we withdrew our forces, we returned them
6 immediately behind the backs of the Verification Mission? Is that your
8 A. Mr. Milosevic, that's correct. Your Vojska Yugoslavia withdrew,
9 as I've already indicated to you, quite correctly, back to their
10 respective brigade barracks. The MUP, other elements, also withdrew. But
11 within the next week or so, I myself saw many, many MUP returning on a
12 roulement basis. Now, if the Kosovo Verification did not see that, it was
13 perhaps because they were back in their bases. Some of us worked
14 extremely long hours. And we're not silly, we know when people come back
15 in and out using the cover of darkness. So perhaps the Kosovo
16 Verification Mission did not see that. I can't answer for them. I am
17 making a statement and I am confident and prepared under oath to say that
18 the MUP were roulement in and out, came back in as just a large number
19 very shortly after this. Your Vojska Yugoslavia did withdraw back,
20 correctly, despite some attention from the Kosovo Liberation Army, to
21 their barracks. And I have given them credit for that.
22 Q. All right. Do you know that it was the MUP precisely according to
23 that agreement that had 10.024 of its own people in Kosovo at the time?
24 Did you have the obligation to cooperate with the Verification Mission?
25 Because there was the British KDOM, too. And also there were British
1 verifiers in the Verification Mission. How come you did not draw the
2 attention of the British verifiers and British KDOM to that? And that the
3 fact that you have been claiming that the MUP returned after the agreement
4 was signed is something that you didn't draw their attention to then. You
5 are making this claim only now in 2002.
6 A. Mr. Milosevic, that is completely untrue. The British KDOM were
7 based in Prizren, which, as you know, is in the western side of Kosovo.
8 The withdrawal of the MUP went out around the ring road of Pristina to
9 Podujevo, and on to Nis, Prokuplje, et cetera, et cetera. They came back
10 in through that route because we were based not far from Kosovo Polje, the
11 obelisk there, in a house there. So that is where we saw these people
12 come in and out. It was nothing to do with the British KDOM because they
13 were not responsible for that area. People responsible were in the
14 Pristina, Podujevo and eastern areas. Now whether they saw or did not
15 see, I have no idea. That is there are job, not mine. But I made my
16 reports back and they are stated in my reports as sworn evidence.
17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this will be your last question.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What was that? Was this my last
19 question or am I supposed to put one more question to him?
20 JUDGE MAY: One more.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Crosland, we've quoted here from the month of January a
23 meeting that was held in London. It was your government with the
24 participation of Secretary Cook and high officials, at which it was stated
25 that most violations of the cease-fire were caused by the KLA. I assume
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that that was established in your reports as well. In your reports as
2 well, not only in the reports of the Verification Mission, because I
3 assume that your government receives information both from the Ministry of
4 Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and also from verifiers as
5 well. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Crosland?
6 A. Yes, of course our government receives reports from all sorts of
7 agencies. And the allegation that the majority of attacks were by Kosovo
8 Liberation Army is possibly correct. What is -- that is respected.
9 Unfortunately was the return of your forces --
10 JUDGE MAY: I don't think we need to pursue that part.
11 Mr. Wladimiroff, do you have any questions?
12 MR. WLADIMIROFF: There is no matter to assist the Court, Your
14 JUDGE MAY: If you can be very quick.
15 MR. RYNEVELD: Nothing arising in re-examination. Thank you.
16 JUDGE MAY: Colonel Crosland, thank you for coming to the Tribunal
17 to give your evidence. It's now concluded and you are free to go.
18 And the Trial Chamber will adjourn for 25 minutes.
19 --- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.
22 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. Very briefly, before we
23 call the next witness, Dr. Baccard, who will be very brief, I wonder if I
24 might raise a few administrative matters, some of which are somewhat
25 urgent in the sense that they affect the witness after Dr. Baccard.
1 In the first instance, I want to point out to the Court that the
2 Prosecution intends to call Mr. Karleusa live, and I believe the Court has
3 had an opportunity of seeing both his statement of that of Mr. Radojkovic,
4 who we propose to call pursuant to Rule 92 bis, because, as you might be
5 able to determine from their statements, the evidence overlaps and
6 therefore could be part of the cumulative in nature. So I just want to
7 alert the Court to our intention of proceeding in that way, if the Court
9 I also wanted to point out that Witness K32, you may have before
10 you at the moment an application to have him proceeded with under Rule 92
11 bis. On reflection, that is a witness that I will be calling, and the
12 subject nature of his evidence might be better if I were to call that
13 evidence live. And again, that's for Your Honours to determine.
14 Finally, and perhaps more urgently, after Dr. Baccard, who I think
15 I'll take no more than 15 minutes with, on the list you have the next two
16 witnesses, Merita Dedaj and Merfidete Selmani, and those witnesses we have
17 requested to proceed with by way of Rule 92 bis, and thus far I'm not
18 aware whether a ruling has in fact made its way to us, so I'm just asking
19 about that.
20 JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Ryneveld, there hasn't been a ruling because
21 we didn't realise there was any plan to call these immediately. There's
22 been a change in the order.
23 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm told that's true, Your Honour, and that's our
24 fault and my apology. So it's as a result of us changing the order that
25 it now requires the Court's permission for us to call them by way of 92
1 bis. So I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Court has been tardy in
2 giving the ruling, it's just that, in order for us to be able to call them
3 in that way, I wanted to alert you to it.
4 JUDGE MAY: We will have to consider that when we've heard
5 Dr. Baccard's evidence.
6 Let me deal with one other matter while we are awaiting the
7 witness. We will approve the calling of Mr. Coo in chief before the
8 recess, cross-examination after the recess.
9 We have considered the statement of Mirjan Krasniqi, which was
10 mentioned in evidence last Wednesday in connection with Suva Reka and
11 during the evidence of Shyhrete Berisha. There was an application by the
12 accused to exhibit the statement. The statement was marked for
13 identification. The application now is to -- that it should be made part
14 of the Prosecution case under Rule 92 bis.
15 Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what I've said about the statement of
16 Mirjan Krasniqi which you asked should be exhibited. There's now an
17 application we're considering that it should be exhibited or it should be
18 admitted, rather, under Rule 92 bis. The Prosecution have made that
20 Do you want to say anything about that?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you know my general position
22 that every witness should be cross-examined.
23 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll consider that.
24 Can we have the witness, please.
25 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. I hope the usher is getting Dr. Baccard.
1 There we are.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 WITNESS: ERIC BACCARD [Recalled]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Baccard, thank you for coming back. There's no
6 need to take the declaration because you're already under it, you having
7 made it once already. If you'd like to take a seat.
8 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, while the witness is getting
9 directions, I might just alert the Trial Chamber to the location that this
10 evidence refers to Cirez, which you will find at page 6 of the Kosovo
11 Atlas number 2, and about dead centre in the page where you see on the
12 left-hand side column there's a 5 and at the top there is a 90. Where
13 those two intersect, about a half an inch to the right of the intersection
14 of 5 and 90, you will see Cirez, C-i-r-e-z. That's the location that this
15 evidence will be pertaining to.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.
17 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
18 Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:
19 Q. Dr. Baccard, at the conclusion of your evidence last day, you were
20 asked to review the pathology reports carried out by the French team with
21 respect to individuals found in three wells in the village of Cirez in
22 Kosovo; is that correct?
23 Sorry. I didn't get a response because the microphone wasn't
25 A. I said yes. I said yes to your question.
1 Q. Thank you very much. Now, sir, what information did you have
2 available to you in order to review the autopsy reports and express an
3 opinion at this courtroom today?
4 A. The material that I used that was given to me was -- is found in a
5 binder called "Sexual assaults," with the reference number K1054, K1062,
6 which include the analyses, report of Dominique Lecompte and Dr. Vorhauer
7 as well as a scene examination report that was prepared by the team headed
8 by a division head Mr. Dominique Gaillardon.
9 MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher, would you show the witness a binder of
10 material, please.
11 Q. Very briefly, Dr. Baccard, is this the binder that you indicate
12 you were shown and does it contain the information you used in order to
13 prepare your subsequent report?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 MR. RYNEVELD: I would tender that binder as an exhibit in these
16 proceedings, if I may, Your Honour. Copies were -- were distributed
17 earlier, but I believe last date they were handed up and returned. So I
18 do need these -- this binder marked with an exhibit number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 261.
20 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
21 Q. Now, then, Doctor, very briefly, can you tell the Court what the
22 subject matter of this autopsy report concerned? In other words, how many
23 individuals and what were the circumstances to the best of your
24 information and belief?
25 A. According to the documents that were given to me, we're talking
1 about exhumations and autopsies that were carried out by the French
2 forensic team on the 2nd and 3rd of July, 1998 -- 1999, rather, and there
3 were eight female victims who were taken out of three wells. Four women
4 were in well number 1, one was in well number 2, and three other women
5 were in well number 3.
6 Q. Now, very briefly, sir, in the autopsy reports, were these
7 individuals given specific numbers? In other words, were they assigned
8 particular numbers in order to keep the data straight?
9 A. Yes, that's correct. Each of the victims was given a number, a
10 code number with several letters; SI, which is representing Cirez, P for
11 well - "puits" in French, "well" in English - the letter C for body,
12 "corps" in French.
13 The wells were numbered from 1 to 3 since there were three wells.
14 SIP 1, 2 and 3. And the bodies were numbered from 1 to 4, which was the
15 highest number of victims in 1, letters from C1 to C4.
16 Q. So just if I have it correctly, if you have a number such as
17 SIP1C1, that would mean -- SIP1, would be -- that's the first well, and
18 then the body would be C1. That would be the first body in the first
19 well; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. I see. All right. Now, sir, were the pathologists able to
22 ascertain the ages of the individuals that were exhumed from these three
24 A. Yes. The age was determined. The victims were also identified by
25 their relatives. The ages went from 18 to 60.
1 Q. And if you haven't already told us, the sex of the individuals in
2 the wells? Were they all women?
3 A. Yes. There were eight victims. They were all women.
4 Q. Sir, were the pathologists able to determine how long the bodies
5 had been in the wells at the time they performed their exhumations on the
6 2nd and 3rd of July, 1999?
7 A. That estimate, which showed the amount of time that they were in
8 the water, but it was approximate, the time that the forensic pathologists
9 had was completely compatible with staying in water which would be for
10 about two and a half months.
11 Q. So two and a half months, from early July, would be roughly what,
12 mid-April 1999?
13 A. Approximately that, yes. I can agree with that.
14 Q. Sir, did the autopsy determine a cause of death on any or all of
15 these women?
16 A. The cause of death which the French pathologist noted was the same
17 for all the victims; that is, they were drowned.
18 Q. Drowned. Now, these -- to the best of your information and
19 belief, these bodies were found in a well; is that correct? Or in a
20 series of three wells.
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And you indicate, sir, that the symptoms were consistent with
23 having been immersed in water for a period of time. So there was water in
24 these wells?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. And just so that I'm clear, if they died from drowning, does that
2 mean that these -- what does that tell you about whether or not the
3 victims were alive before they went into the well or not? Are you able to
5 A. Yes. And I mentioned this on page 2 of the addendum which I
6 drafted on the 23rd of May, 2002. The conclusions of my colleagues, who
7 were French pathologists, was that the cause of death was death through
8 drowning. The report does not -- the autopsy does not specify whether
9 additional examinations were carried out, but the observations that were
10 made under microscopes were completely compatible with the death by
11 drowning. So it is death -- well, that was -- those persons were drowned.
12 Q. Sir, to your knowledge, was any attempt made to determine whether
13 or not there had been evidence of sexual assault on any of the victims?
14 A. Yes. That was systematically checked by the French pathologists.
15 Obviously the state of preservation of the bodies represented an obstacle
16 to bringing out the diagnosis. However, in two cases, it was possible for
17 the experts to say, yes, that two of those victims had been subjected to
18 sexual aggression. That is SIP1C1 and SIP1C2 which showed signs that were
19 very, very clear that -- clearly indicated that there had been sexual
21 Q. Now, did you yourself have an opportunity to study the photographs
22 and the autopsy reports, and did you personally come to any conclusions
23 about whether or not the autopsy reports were correct in their findings?
24 A. Yes. I myself examined the autopsy reports and the photograph
25 albums. And in order to answer your question in respect of the two
1 victims, in the first case the victim that is SIP1C1, we saw clinical
2 signs associating the presence of red blood at the opening of the vulva
3 and an abrasion-type lesion on the left thigh that pointed - I say pointed
4 - to sexual assaults.
5 Things were much clearer in respect of SIP1C2, because that victim
6 also showed red blood at the vulva opening. She had lesions which showed
7 traumatic violence on the upper third of the -- on the right thigh and the
8 upper third of the left leg. And also, she was completely naked. That
9 is, the lower half of her body was completely naked. And therefore, as
10 regards that second case, the diagnosis showing sexual assault pointed
11 more to that and could be considered as most probable.
12 Q. Now, Doctor, of the eight women exhumed from these wells, you say
13 that there was an assessment that two had been sexually assaulted based on
14 what you've just told us. Due to the state of putrefaction or
15 decomposition of the other bodies, was it possible to make a determination
16 whether or not they were not sexually assaulted? In other words, was it
17 possible that they had been or could you rule it out?
18 A. As I said, at first the state of preservation of the bodies, which
19 showed putrefaction of the tissues and also a rather long amount of time
20 spent in the water, made the experts' work difficult. And the lack of
21 clinical signs, macroscopic clinical signs in the general sphere of the
22 lower limbs showing traumatic lesions, the fact that those signs were not
23 there does in no way eliminate the possibility of a diagnosis that there
24 had been sexual assaults.
25 Q. I see. Finally, Doctor, you have provided a two-page report dated
1 the 23rd of May, 2002; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 MR. RYNEVELD: Might that report now be tendered as an exhibit,
4 Your Honours? And once it is, I believe those will be my questions.
5 Thank you.
6 I might say, Your Honours, that I do not intend to show the
7 witness the photographs. The binder that was marked as a previous exhibit
8 refers, and if the Court wishes, I can perhaps indicate some of the
9 photographs with numbers, but I don't propose to put them on the ELMO in
10 respect of the witness -- the victims and their families.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 262.
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, have you any questions for the witness
13 related to the evidence which he's given about this report?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Baccard, do you know how far away the wells
17 were from one another? Where the bodies were found, that is.
18 A. No, I don't know. In the reports of the crime scenes, I did see
19 them. It was indicated there, but I can't tell you now.
20 Q. Did I understand you correctly that the assertion is being made
21 that the women whose bodies were found in the wells had been detained at a
22 particular place? Is that right?
23 A. I can't answer that question. It does not deal with the report
24 that I was asked to draft.
25 Q. As an expert, do you have any logical explanation as to why the
1 bodies of these women were found in three separate locations, in three
2 different wells?
3 A. I have no explanation in respect of the distribution of the
4 victims into the three wells.
5 Q. And do you know when the village from which these women were - as
6 far as I can see, that's the village of Kozica - when it was free of the
7 official state authorities, the security forces?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did it occur to you that it would be necessary to establish that
10 in view of ascertaining the time when you claim that these bodies were in
11 these wells, in the water, et cetera?
12 A. That point was not part of the expert mission that was given to
13 me, the purpose of which was to check on the French pathologist expert
14 reports and the crime scene analyses.
15 Q. And do you know which party in the conflict did these bullet
16 casings or shell casings of 105 millimetres belong to, the ones that were
17 found near the wells in Cirez?
18 JUDGE MAY: That's not part of the witness's report.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I wish to draw your
20 attention to the fact that in the addendum to the report it says that
21 Mr. Baccard pointed out that he had studied the on-site investigation
22 reports, and this was carried out by Dominique Gaillardon, if my
23 pronunciation is correct, so it was included in the reports, and I can see
24 by what is being distributed --
25 JUDGE MAY: It's not part of his expertise.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you know how high the concrete wall of the well was?
4 A. Which well are you talking about? That should appear in the crime
5 scene analysis report.
6 Q. Did you bear in mind that, because it was your duty to view the
7 scene itself in order to ascertain what had happened, how high is this
8 wall? I see in some photographs it's made of concrete, in others, it's
9 made of wood.
10 A. I was not to look -- I did not have the opportunity to look inside
11 at the reports but, rather, look at the reports that had been drafted, so
12 I limited myself to what was the mission that had been given to me.
13 However, this appears in the expert report that Mr. Gaillardon prepared.
14 Q. All right, Mr. Baccard. Only a short while ago, I got this binder
15 with the photographs where these wells can be seen. So I've had much less
16 time to look at this than you did, and I can see that the walls around the
17 wells are either made of wood or of concrete and that they are quite high.
18 And in these details, one can see that even on the edges of these walls,
19 one could sustain injuries. So I'm asking you what kind of injuries can
20 be sustained from the edges of these walls. Because you state what the
21 injuries were like and the place where they did take place. I imagine
22 that you had to be interested in that, how these edges could injure a
24 A. In general terms, I would say that the type of wound that could be
25 caused by a traumatism to the body from wood or concrete are usually
1 superficial. They are usually abrasions.
2 Q. All right. Now, you said some kind of abrasions on the inner side
3 of the upper part of the leg. Can these injuries be sustained when one
4 jumps over such a fence? And we can see on the photographs that they are
5 quite high and that the edge is pretty sharp.
6 A. Each type of abrasion has to be looked at in respect of where it
7 is. Its location on the inner side of the thigh could be possibly
8 connected to other traumas. But when they appear in a -- along with other
9 symptoms which show red blood and open orifices and the fact that the
10 lower half of the body is naked, the interpretation becomes completely
12 Q. All right. But do you exclude the possibility -- what I
13 understood you to say was this, let's take it one by one: You concluded
14 that those women drowned in the well; right?
15 A. I didn't understand. I read the autopsy reports where my
16 colleagues concluded that there had been death by drowning, and I judged
17 that the comparison of the autopsy reports and the photographs was also
18 compatible with this diagnosis.
19 Q. There's water down there. But do you exclude the possibility, for
20 example, of this kind: That the victim wanted to hide herself, that she
21 jumped over the edge and that while she was jumping over these rough
22 edges, these abrasions were caused, as you call them, on the inner side of
23 her upper thigh and that, later on, she drowned; that nobody threw her
24 there into the well. Would that be a theoretical possibility, plausible?
25 A. It is possible to have that hypothesis, but that does not explain
1 the red blood on the vulva, on the vulva opening, that is.
2 Q. Very well. And do you know what the surface of the interior of
3 the wall is, from the top to the surface of the water? Are there any --
4 any protrusions or anything like that?
5 A. According to the photographs that I saw, apparently there were
6 kind of irregularities. There were some protrusions within side the -- on
7 the inner part of the well.
8 Q. Tell me, what type of injuries can be caused from those
9 protrusions? What injuries to the body with these rough edges?
10 A. That would depend on the size of the trauma that the body
11 experiences when coming up against those rough spots. They could be skin
12 abrasions or wounds, fractures. All would depend on the violence of the
14 Q. Yes. But in view of the dimensions, the size that I can see on
15 the photographs, I assume that you measured all this and that this was --
16 these were some very narrow wells. Not wide wells but narrow wells. So
17 what injuries do you think this could cause to the body? Are they similar
18 to the ones that you observed? Can this type of injury be incurred if an
19 individual wanted to hide and had to jump over a well, even if a person
20 wanted to commit suicide or anything else, but to jump there, could such
21 injuries be sustained of the nature you've described or do you exclude
22 that possibility?
23 A. As regards the relationship between the wounds and the well
24 itself, that was studied and suggested by the autopsy report of the French
25 expert. In one case there was the victim, SIP2C1, who had an injury to
1 the scalp in the front part of the skull, and the experts noted also that
2 within the well there were traces of blood on the wall of the well.
3 Q. And on what parts of the body would these injuries be localised
4 if, for example, the individual had jumped over this edge herself? Let us
5 suppose that the person wanted to hide and jumped inside or was thrown
6 inside, bearing in mind the width of the well, as we have seen, was
7 narrow? Would these injuries differ in the latter case and in the former
9 A. That would depend on the position of the victim when she went into
10 the well, whether she were to fall head-first or whether she was thrown in
11 or whether she jumped in feet-first.
12 As regards this case, there was a wound on the forehead.
13 Q. All right. That was the case with one of the victims, this injury
14 to the forehead.
15 Now, tell me this: The injuries on the bodies of these women,
16 would they be more intensive than the ones you described had they been
17 thrown into the well? Would they be more marked? Or like this particular
18 case, the situation that I described to you?
19 A. As regards the lesions and the skin abrasions on the inner part of
20 the thighs, it would be very unlikely that the lesions were caused by a
21 fall, because since -- on the inner side of the thighs, this is an area
22 which anatomically is protected when one falls into a narrow well.
23 This also concerns the two victims for whom there is suspicions of
24 sexual assaults. There were other traumatic lesions that were noted on
25 five of the other victims, and they are fractures of ribs, which were
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 caused before death. This concerns those victims who were mentioned at
2 the bottom of the page of the report, the bottom of the first page,
3 SIP1C1, SIP3, SIP3C2, SIP3C3. They had rib fractures.
4 Q. All right. But I asked you about this protected part of the body,
5 as you called it, the inner thighs. Could those injuries have been
6 sustained while jumping over the rough edges of the well? Because they
7 weren't -- these parts of the body weren't protected because you put one
8 foot forward, one leg forward, and then the other if you want to jump
10 A. One has to understand that the state of the bodies did not allow
11 us to have a very precise autopsy, given the putrefaction caused by how
12 long they had been in the body [sic]. In fact, nothing allows us to
13 eliminate the possibility that you've mentioned, but once again, that
14 hypothesis does not allow us to explain the presence of blood at the vulva
16 Q. Yes. I understood your understanding that it wasn't easy to
17 establish whether they had in fact been sexually assaulted or not and so
18 on, but as you're talking about blood, as you've just mentioned blood,
19 could you answer this specific question: In the false environment such as
20 the interior of a well -- moist environment, I'm sorry, does the hemolysis
21 of erythrocytes take place, dissolving?
22 A. What is the question?
23 Q. My question is: In a moist environment, you have a humid, moist
24 environment, you said that these bodies had been immersed in water for two
25 and a half months, so in this kind of circumstance, in a wet, moist
1 situation, does the hemolysis of erythrocytes take place or their
2 dissolution. Dissolving, dissolution?
3 JUDGE MAY: What does that mean in ordinary language? Can you
4 help us, Dr. Baccard, as to what the accused means or not?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We're talking
6 about a destruction of red globules. "Hemolysis" means the destruction of
7 the red globules, corpuscles, rather, excuse me. And that phenomenon can
8 occur, and in the report, it was made clear that the experts mention the
9 presence of red blood, and we're not talking about any kind of liquid
10 related to putrefaction but, rather, in respect of the other openings that
11 showed mucous, like the mouth, there was no red blood, and that the red
12 blood was only noted at the vulva opening.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. So my question is that this is a case of decomposition in this
15 moist environment over a period of two and a half months. Now, my
16 question is: Can you prove the origins of hemolysed blood, Dr. Baccard?
17 A. That could be possible with a microscopic analysis of the cells
18 which appear in the blood, but I really don't see what the point of this
19 question is. There was blood on the vulva opening. There was blood on
20 the vulva opening. That's what it was.
21 Q. All right. I apologise if I interrupted you. Please go ahead.
22 A. No. No, no, it's all right.
23 Q. Fine. And tell me, after what period of time after death does the
24 blood in the body lose its characteristics because of the decomposition
25 and decay that sets in, and putrefaction, under the conditions in which
1 these persons were to be found?
2 A. It varies, and one cannot give a specific estimate. It depends on
3 temperature, it depends on the type of water, it depends on the way the
4 body is more or less protected by something. It's impossible to make a
5 specific evaluation.
6 Q. So it is not possible to estimate this, make a specific estimate.
7 And after what period of time is it not possible to ascertain the person's
8 blood type?
9 A. That also depends on the state of preservation of the blood. If
10 there's sampling under scientifically standard conditions, then it's
11 possible for a long time. But everything depends on the condition of the
12 blood that's been conserved or preserved, and it's very difficult to
13 answer that question.
14 Q. And tell me, please, Dr. Baccard, what is decomposition fluid?
15 A. It is a -- it's a phenomenon which is related to hemolysis and the
16 destruction of tissue in the chest area, inside the thorax, or within the
17 various body cavities. It's kind of a -- it's a mechanism which is
18 involved in putrefaction.
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've had now more than 20 minutes
20 with this witness. The Prosecution were quarter of an hour. You can have
21 half an hour in total, which will give you rather less than ten minutes
22 more with this witness. It is more than sufficient to cross-examine on
23 this very narrow point, in the view of the Trial Chamber.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Could you tell me in
25 advance, Mr. May, then, please? Because as far as I know, you have cut
1 down my hour to 45 minutes, now you're cutting it down further to half an
2 hour, as far as I can see. I've already mentioned once that pre-emption.
3 I see that you can see in advance that I'm -- whether I'm going to ask a
4 relevant or irrelevant question, what is allowed in cross-examination. I
5 am not aware of the fact that this exists in court practice anywhere in
6 the world.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, you've got about seven minutes left.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Tell me, please, Dr. Baccard, with bodies that have drowned and
11 with decomposition and putrefaction set in, does the -- do the fluids ooze
12 out, and in what part of the body does that take place, this loss of
13 fluids and liquids?
14 A. As I was saying, they would take place within the thoracic
15 cavities, but also within the abdominal cavity.
16 Q. And from the professional viewpoint, is it more correct to say
17 that at the opening, vulva opening, if a woman is assumed to have been
18 assaulted, whether there will be putrefactory liquid or blood present,
19 what would you say, in view of the fact that the person had drowned?
20 A. My colleagues, the pathologists, said this was not putrefaction
21 that was coming but it was actually red blood. Ordinary blood which is
22 putrefying has a kind of a blackish colour or a brownish colour to it.
23 Q. All right. Tell me, can you assess the fact that the blood was
24 blood caused by sexual assault if the corpse has been immersed in water
25 for two and a half months? Are you able to establish fresh or vivid red
1 blood present or not?
2 A. The hypotheses which comes to one's mind when one sees this bright
3 red blood at the vulva opening is that the victim, throughout the time
4 that she was in the water, had her thighs closed against one another and
5 that the vulva orifice was protected by the large lips and allowed
6 avoiding of contamination by the water. That is what I would think.
7 Q. All right. And tell me this: Is it completely reliable what you
8 are stating? Is this something that represents a general -- generally
9 accepted rule or is this merely a possibility from the aspects of your
11 A. I think that in this case I go back to what was said both by the
12 French pathologists and what I put in the conclusion of my report.
13 In light of the state of the bodies and the amount of time they
14 were in the water, it was not possible to have an exact diagnosis. In one
15 case, SIP1C1, the observations were compatible with the diagnosis of
16 sexual assault; and for SIP1C2, the diagnosis seemed more than compatible
17 and really pointed to various things. We cannot go further than that.
18 All of this is related to the limits that are caused by how -- the state
19 of preservation of the bodies. This is not an exact diagnosis.
20 Q. So it's not an exact diagnosis then. Now, did I note this
21 correctly when I looked through your report: None of the drowned women
22 had any traces which would indicate that they fought against someone or
23 that they were thrown forcibly or were injured as they were defending
24 themselves in any way? None of this was noted on any of the bodies;
1 A. That's not correct. As I have already said, five of the victims
2 showed rib fractures which were caused before death. One of them had a
3 wound on the scalp. As regards the others, the lesions that were noted
4 showing skin abrasions are described for victims SIP1C1 and SIP1C2. So
5 they did show traumatic lesions.
6 Q. Yes, but is it logical that in the case of violent behaviour
7 toward somebody that the injuries would be found on their hands and arms
8 which the victim would use to defend him or herself or if they were
9 forcibly detained or thrown into prison or thrown anywhere else? So did
10 you detect any of these - how shall I say? - defence injuries, injuries
11 sustained during a person's defence?
12 A. I think that you didn't or you weren't able to look at the
13 photographs of the bodies. The state of preservation of the bodies was
14 very, very poor, and this once again is related to putrefaction and the
15 amount of time that was spent in the water.
16 Q. Well, that's what I was looking at, precisely that. So the
17 post-mortem on the bodies of these women, as far as I was able to see from
18 the report, did not register any of these what we call protective or
19 defence injuries which one would expect if somebody was forcibly thrown
20 into a well. They would have sustained injuries while defending
21 themselves. So how can you explain that?
22 JUDGE MAY: The witness has already answered that. He's referred
23 to the five cases of rib fractures.
24 Now, one more question, Mr. Milosevic, and then that's the end of
25 your examination.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In your response to a question from Mr. Ryneveld when you said
3 that there existed, although it was not easy to ascertain the assumption
4 that the two victims had been sexually assaulted, is it possible to claim
5 that the others were not sexually assaulted, raped? Although you said
6 that it was very difficult to ascertain that in these two cases. And you
7 said that you could not exclude that possibility. Now, can you explain
8 that to us? Because what you're doing is with two victims, you say that
9 the possibility existed but there was no probability or possibility with
10 the other two. Now, what are your professional guidelines on the basis of
11 which you say that this cannot be excluded with the other two bodies,
12 where no possibility of that was established in the first place?
13 A. I repeat that as regards the two victims that I've spoken about,
14 C1 and SIP1C2, the diagnosis of sexual assault was, for one of them,
15 compatible with the signs found on the body, and for the other, highly
17 As regards the other victims, in light of the state of
18 preservation, which was very poor, of the bodies, and the immersion for a
19 long time in the water, the pathologists were not able to bring out
20 microscopic signs which allow us to conclude with that diagnosis. But the
21 absence of those signs does not allow us to exclude this type of assault
22 in light of the fact that the bodies were extremely degraded and that
23 preservation showed highly evolved tissue degradation which does not allow
24 us to exclude that possibility.
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Wladimiroff?
1 MR. WLADIMIROFF: I have nothing to ask, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Ryneveld.
3 MR. RYNEVELD: Nothing arising. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Doctor. You're free to go.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 JUDGE MAY: We will need to see these statements. We haven't got
7 them with us. Can you give us some copies?
8 MR. RYNEVELD: Absolutely. Yes, Your Honour. Ms. Romano will be
9 handling the next two witnesses, but ...
10 JUDGE MAY: We will look at these.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're considering now whether we should
13 admit the statements of Merfidete Selmani and Merita Dedaj under Rule 92
14 bis. Before we decide, it's right that you should have the opportunity to
15 make any objection you wish to. We note your general objection that all
16 evidence should be given verbally and not by written form. We've heard
17 that. Is there anything else you'd like to add in these cases?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not sure I'm clear on what
19 you're asking me, but as you say, you know my general objection and you do
20 whatever you like anyway, I don't see ...
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will admit them subject to cross-examination.
23 MS. ROMANO: Your Honours, the next witness we'll be calling is
24 Merita Dedaj, the first one. And, Your Honours, I also point out that the
25 villages that the witness will be mentioning, and it's mentioned in her
1 statement, are located on page 9 and 10 of the atlas. It's right in the
2 middle. It is in the Gjakove area. And it refers to villages such as
3 Meja, Korenica, Guska, Babaj. They're all in the middle of the page, both
5 While we wait for the witness, Your Honours, I also would like to
6 inform the Court that the witness this morning brought with her several
7 photos, and we reviewed the photographs with her, and we selected I think
8 approximately four or five photos. I have copies in black and white here,
9 and I suggest or, with the permission of the Court, that I put the photos
10 on the ELMO and I explain what the photos are and the Court makes a
11 decision about the admissibility as an exhibit.
12 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 WITNESS: MERITA DEDAJ
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
18 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd like to take a seat.
20 Examined by Ms. Romano:
21 Q. Witness, can you please give your first and last name to the
23 I will repeat the question. Can you please give your first and
24 last name to the Court.
25 A. Yes. My name is Merita Dedaj.
1 Q. Were you born on 8 January, 1983? Yes or no.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Were you born in Guska in the Gjakove municipality?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Witness, did you give a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor
6 on 8 April 2000?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And on 12 July of this year, did you attend a meeting with an
9 officer from the Registrar of this Tribunal, and did you review your
10 statement and did you make an addendum of your statement to clarify and
11 correct some dates? Do you remember that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And at that time, did you confirm that the contents of your
14 statement are correct and true?
15 A. Yes.
16 MS. ROMANO: Might the statement and addendum be tendered into
17 evidence, Your Honours?
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let it have an exhibit number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 263, the original, and 263A
20 for the redacted version.
21 MS. ROMANO: The witness is from Guska village, Gjakove
22 municipality. She was 16 years old and still attending school in 1999 and
23 lived with her parents, one sister, and three brothers. She witnessed the
24 killing of nine males on 27 April 1999. Amongst these men were her
25 father, uncle, and cousin.
1 Serbian forces controlled the area where the witness lived from
2 autumn 1998. VJ and police constantly patrolled the area, which is
3 close to the Albanian border.
4 On 29 March 1999, VJ forces led by Dragan, one of the VJ
5 commanders, expelled the witness and other villagers from Guska, giving
6 them one hour to leave. The villagers headed for Korenica and en route
7 they were escorted by VJ vehicles. On arrival in Korenica, the witness
8 stayed in a field with other displaced persons. She stayed there for one
10 A week later, the displaced persons left in a convoy numbering
11 1.000 people. On arrival at Orize, the convoy stopped and people were
12 ordered to return to Korenica. The witness describes the atmosphere of
13 fear created by the Serb forces.
14 On 27 April 1999, at 6.30 a.m., the VJ forced entry into the house
15 where the witness was staying. The occupants were ordered out of the
16 house. The men were beaten and robbed, and the women and children were
17 separated from the men and ordered to leave. As they left, the women and
18 children were made to make the Chetnik sign and shout "Serbia."
19 The witness saw her father, uncle, a cousin, and five other men
20 being lined up against the wall of the house. From a distance of
21 approximately 20 metres, she heard multiple shots lasting two minutes. On
22 turning back, she saw the men falling to the ground. The witness could
23 not judge whether these men were dead, but none of them were seen again,
24 and they are all listed as missing persons by the ICRC, International
25 Committee of the Red Cross.
1 As the witness left Korenica, she heard gunfire and saw houses
2 burning. The witness and others formed a convoy and walked towards
3 Djakovica. En route, she saw two unidentified dead bodies covered with
4 blankets being placed on a VJ truck by soldiers. The convoy was ordered
5 to follow the truck.
6 On arrival at Bishtazin, the convoy was stopped at a checkpoint.
7 Serb police abducted a number of men from the convoy, most of whom have
8 not been seen since. The witness and her relatives sheltered in the
9 village until the end of the war.
10 On returning to her village, the witness saw that her house had
11 been ransacked and looted and the cattle had been killed.
12 Gjon Dedaj, her uncle, took several photographs of both her family
13 home and the home of Pjeter Dedaj.
14 If the usher could show the witness or put on the ELMO the
15 photographs in this order. Thanks.
16 Q. Witness, the first photograph is of your house taken by your uncle
17 when you returned to Kosovo. It shows damage to the interior. Is that
19 A. Yes. It's here. That's my house which was ravaged, ransacked.
20 This is right after the war.
21 Q. Thank you. The second photo, please. This is a photograph of
22 Pjeter Dedaj's house, and also taken after the return to Kosovo, showing
23 the damage. Pjeter is your uncle; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. The third photo. That photo, Witness, shows uniforms
1 left by the Serb forces in the house of Pjeter Dedaj; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you also seen the interior of the house, and have you also
4 seen these uniforms that are depicted in the photo?
5 A. Yes. Yes, I've seen them. I did see them.
6 Q. The other photo, please. Is this the same house of Pjeter Dedaj,
7 and it also shows the uniforms left by the Serb forces?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you, Witness.
10 MS. ROMANO: Your Honours, the Prosecution submits the photos into
11 evidence. And I have copies here with me. They are black and white, due
12 to the time.
13 JUDGE MAY: Next number, please.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 264.
15 MS. ROMANO: That's all, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Have you got questions for this
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] It was my understanding that you gave a statement
20 to the investigators of the International Crisis Group and then to the
21 investigators of this institution. How were you in a position to give a
22 statement to the investigators of the International Crisis Group and then
23 to the investigators of this institution here?
24 A. Of course I was able. I came back after the war, and they came,
25 and I was in a position to give them a statement about what I had seen.
1 Q. And how old were you when you gave your statement first to the
2 investigators of the International Crisis Group and then to these
3 investigators from here?
4 A. I was 16. It was right after the war.
5 Q. Did you give all your statements in the presence of your mother or
7 A. No. I was alone at the time.
8 Q. And your mother and your aunt, did they give any statements to the
9 mentioned investigators?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And the two of them were with you all the time; right? During the
12 period that you describe in your statement, that is.
13 A. Could you repeat the question, please?
14 Q. Your mother and your aunt, were they with you all the time during
15 these events that you describe in your statement?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But they did not make any statements.
18 A. No.
19 Q. I would first like to remind you of page 1 of the statement -- or,
20 rather, it's page 2. You say: "The Serb forces, the VJ, and police were
21 deployed in our area from autumn 1998. This is an area near the border,
22 as they were constantly patrolling this area. As far as I can remember,
23 there were no incidents between Serbian forces and villagers in that
24 period. In that period of time, I did not see any paramilitary units in
25 our area. I used to go to school, to Gjakove every day on foot, and I
1 never had any problems with the police checkpoint that had been set up in
2 Brekovac. Only once they addressed me by saying that I had to greet
4 Later, you say that you went to Korenica, and you say that during
5 that week, you did not see a single crime that had been committed there.
6 And now let's go back to the beginning. You continue by saying
7 that: "On the 24th of March, 1999, the NATO airstrikes against Serbia
8 started. From that day, my family and I could not go out any more."
9 And now my question is the following: From the 24th of March,
10 when the NATO airstrikes began against Serbia, why could you and your
11 family not go out any more?
12 A. We didn't dare to go out because the police had a checkpoint
13 there. They were everywhere. And they would take all the men away.
14 Q. You claim on the same page and in the same paragraph that the army
15 forces, on the 25th of March, went to the villages of Deve and Babaj, and
16 you say that they executed eight civilian men there. How do you know
17 that? You were not there. How do you know that they killed eight men
19 A. Because the commander of the army, called Nikola Micunovic, also
20 known as Dragan, came to my uncle's house and told him to go and bury the
21 eight dead bodies.
22 Q. So you found out from your uncle or from your uncles that he
23 buried eight bodies; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could he tell you, because he was asked to bury them, how these
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 people got killed?
2 A. No. He didn't know how they had been killed. He just knew that
3 they had been killed and he was told to go bury them.
4 Q. So you heard about these people from him, and he did not know how
5 they got killed. Why do you then say that it was the army that killed
6 them? On the basis of what did you infer that it was the army that killed
8 A. The army commander was the one who came. And there were two other
9 soldiers with him who called my uncle and told him to go and bury the
11 Q. Yes. But my question pertains to something else. I understand
12 that he called your uncles to go bury the dead there, but on the basis of
13 what did you conclude that the dead people got killed by the army?
14 A. Well, it was well-known that the soldiers killed them.
15 Q. I did not understand that. How did you know that it was the army
16 that killed them? Who told you that?
17 A. That's what -- that's what my uncle said.
18 Q. Yes. But your uncle went there to bury them. So he went there
19 when they were already dead and when the commander asked him to go and
20 bury them. How could he --
21 JUDGE MAY: What the witness has said, what the witness has said
22 is that it was well-known that that is what happened and that her uncle
23 told her. Now, she can't take it any further than that. That's what her
24 uncle told her and that must be the extent of her evidence.
25 It's now quarter to, and we will have to adjourn.
1 Ms. Dedaj, we have to adjourn for the day now because there's
2 another case that's got to come into this courtroom. So I'm afraid I must
3 ask you to come back tomorrow morning to conclude your evidence. Would
4 you be back, please, at 9.00 tomorrow morning, and would you remember
5 during the adjournment not to speak to anybody about your evidence until
6 it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team.
7 Could you be back, then, at 9.00 tomorrow morning.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of July,
11 2002, at 9.00 a.m.