Defense Witness Gives General Opinions and Few Facts About Violence in Kosovo

March 8, 2005


The Prosecution began its cross examination today of Defense witness Dietmar Hartwig, a former West German military officer and self-described 'head' of the European Union's Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission (hereinafter 'EU-KDOM'). Much of the testimony elicited from Mr. Hartwig during both Mr. Milosevic's direct examination and the prosecution's cross-examination failed to describe in any detail events on the ground in Kosovo between December 1998 and March 1999. Instead, Mr. Hartwig's testimony was presented at a level of generality based only in small part on the witness' direct personal experience, and formed largely through reports of others and hearsay.


Mr. Milosevic did not use Mr. Hartwig's testimony to refute any specific allegations of criminal behavior by Serbian security forces in Kosovo. Instead, he used the witness to testify that in general, Serbian actions in the province were often initiated as a reaction to KLA provocation. The witness however, could not testify to much first hand knowledge of incidents where he personally saw an attack by the KLA and a reaction by the Serbian security forces. Instead, he based most of his testimony on reports from the field provided to him by other members of the EU-KDOM.


The defense (and to a lesser degree the Prosecution) attempted to use the witness more as an expert entitled to give an expert opinion (which he was not) rather than as a first hand fact eyewitness. Mr. Milosevic asked Mr. Hartwig whether Serbian forces used 'disproportionate' force in responding to KLA attacks. Judge Robinson allowed the witness to give a legal conclusion (as to whether disproportionate force was used) in addition to his first hand observations of the type of force used noting that prosecution witnesses had been allowed to comment on proportionality. Mr. Hartwig noted that Serbian security forces used heavy machine guns only if under intense fire but noted that he only heard reports that artillery was used in later stages of the campaign.


The Prosecution also sought Mr. Hartwig for his opinion, asking him whether he 'accepted' findings reported by Human Rights Watch, the OSCE Verification Mission and others that Kosovar Albanians were forced from their homes due to actions by Serbian security forces. Mr. Hartwig however responded that he did not have first hand knowledge of the reasons why the Kosovar Albanians fled.


Mr. Milosevic surely must have been disappointed with the performance of his witness when he asked Mr. Hartwig about Serbian efforts to avoid civilians casualties. 'I haven't heard anything about this' the witness responded. The Prosecution effectively chipped away at Mr. Hartwig's evidence noting that drafts of the witness's reports provided little detail to rebut extensive narration of atrocities committed by the Serbian security forces from other sources. Furthermore, the witness was unable to provide copies of the final reports he reputedly submitted, but could only produce draft versions. Additionally, the Prosecution suggested in no uncertain terms that Mr. Hartwig's writings (including a warm letter he wrote to Serbian police commander General Lukic that stated that Mr. Hartwig's impressions of the situation in Kosovo were strongly influenced by his contact with Lukic) displayed a blatantly pro-Serbian bias, an accusation which the witness staunchly denied.