Paponjak testimony concludes after 10 hours – with defense evidence presented, cross-examination (and re-direct) focuses on credibility
Paponjak testimony concludes after 10 hours – with defense evidence presented, cross-examination (and re-direct) focuses on credibility
Milosevic concludes direct examination without exploring potentially probative video footage
Slobodan Milosevic finally concluded his scheduled five-hour examination of Colonel Radovan Paponjok, after 10 hours of questioning. Colonel Paponjak headed the Pec Secretariat of the Interior (SUP) traffic division. On Monday 9 May, Mr. Milosevic again presented videotape footage of several victims of the Dubrava prison complex including a segment showing a corpse marked with a crude label bearing the name 'Janusz Krasniqi' – a bombing victim of NATO air strikes the former Yugoslav President claimed, but one which the Prosecution had listed in Schedule J of its Kosovo indictment as having been killed by Serbian gunfire. If Milosevic could prove that even one name on Schedule J was killed by NATO and not his forces, he could cast at least some reasonable doubt on the Prosecution charges. The video footage however, did not clearly indicate the mode of death. The body appeared in tact, fully clothed and the victim's face was uncharred.
The accused however did not explore the contents of the tape any further than indicating the name on the label. Mr. Paponjok was not asked to describe his first hand observations as to the state of the victims – whether they appeared to have been shot or bombed – as Jackie Rowland had testified to nearly three years ago.
It was difficult to see what the testimony of Colonel Paponjok accomplished and why it took 10 hours to complete. Mr. Milosevic had claimed that the witness was 'head' of the Pec SUP (he was only head of the traffic division) and a person of his rank could easily replace the testimony of several other lower ranking officials. However, Colonel Paponjok provided only limited first-hand knowledge of events at Dubrava and while he directly witnessed some of the events in Pec that the Prosecutor had claimed constituted deportation, he acknowledged that nearly ten thousand Kosovo Albanians had gathered in the town center and then fled towards the border.
Cross examination effectively demonstrates that witness was not in a position to observe Dubrava events first hand
On 10 May, the Prosecution completed its cross examination of Colonel Paponjak, by effectively chiseling away at the reliability of the witness to present evidence in support of Mr. Milosevic's claim that the scores of persons killed at the Dubrava prison in Istok, Kosovo died as a result of NATO bombs and not cold-blooded Serbian fire.
The questioning got off to an unsteady start with Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice unable to elicit from Colonel Paponjok that the Dubrava prison complex was being used for military purposes and asking seemly unrelated questions about Pec SUP officials working with infamous paramilitary leaders such as Arkan in Bosnia (these questions were not developed in any depth after the witness abruptly denied any knowledge of such allegations).
Prosecutor Nice was then however able to cast significant doubt on the ability and appropriateness of this witness to present documentary evidence about the Dubrava prison killings because Colonel Paponjok was but an ordinary 'traffic policeman.' Under a sustained barrage of questions about his credentials, Colonel Paponjok conceded that he had never led a murder investigation, never lead a burglary investigation nor a serious drugs case and that he had no knowledge of criminal matters but could mostly testify to traffic matters. How then, Prosecutor Nice asked, could he sign off on a police report detailing what happened at Dubrava prison where nearly one hundred inmates were killed – purportedly by NATO bombing, but also where it is alleged in the indictment, by Serb security force fire. 'How can you tell us these violent things didn't happen if you haven't even investigated a burglary?' Nice queried.
The Prosecution also used Human Rights Watch's (HRW) Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo to test the reliability and credibility of the witness. Mr. Nice asked if the witness had heard of alleged police brutality documented in the report and if so, why an investigation was not conducted by his SUP. Court-assigned defense counsel Stephen Kay objected on the grounds that Mr. Nice was simply 'reading from a book' and asserting the views of the HRW's authors as fact to impeach the witness. Mr. Nice has done this before – citing to various internet web pages or other HRW or OSCE reports in his cross examinations. The purpose was not to use such reports as fact, per se, but to raise the fact that contemporaneous criticisms and allegations of misconduct existed and had been publicly and widely reported by such organizations as HRW, but that no serious investigation was done in response.
Mr. Nice however did also cite to British military intelligence reports as well as Lord Paddy Ashdown's observations of widespread arson of Albanian homes in Kosovo during 1998 – something that the witness denied seeing.
Regarding Dubrava prison, Mr. Nice pulled no punches with the witness, pointedly asking, 'you know nothing to counter suggestions that prisoners were lined up in the sports field and were shot.' The prosecutor asked whether Colonel Paponjok saw any signs of bombing wounds on corpses he observed at a nearby cemetery, to which the witness responded, 'I cannot comment on it.' When asked when exactly NATO last bombed the Dubrava prison, the witness also was unsure. The witness also conceded that he was not present in the prison complex on the 23rd of May 1999 after the alleged killings of the prisoners took place.
Prosecutor Nice also questioned the witness about the accused's alternative theory that any person in Dubrava who was found to be shot (if any were) may have been killed while trying to escape. Mr. Nice asked why the Pec SUP did not investigate this possibility. The witness responded that it was outside his SUP's purview and instead in the realm of the Ministry of Justice. Importantly, Mr. Nice questioned the witness on why no forensic evidence accompanied his report – 'can you show us evidence that external examination of bodies was carried out? Where is the evidence that bodies were examined for cause of death?' Colonel Paponjok testified that death from 'bombing' was incontestable and scientifically concluded (possibly referring to Serbian forensic expert Dr. Stejovic's purported examination of the Dubrava victims.) When asked where Dr. Stejovic's report was, the witness answered, 'That's in the possession of the Investigating Judge.' Colonel Paponjak then conceded that he never personally witnessed any autopsies being conducted.
Mr. Nice had achieved a powerful and thorough impeachment of the witness's ability to present an alternative theory to the Dubrava prison killings. He was also able to discredit some of the documents that the witness brought – including a report entitled, 'Bombing on the 24th of May' by asserting that there was no NATO bombing on that date. Mr. Nice summarized his impeachment by arguing that the witness did not give any detailed answers, he did not author the documents and had very little first hand knowledge of the events he testified to.
Prosecution goes beyond what is necessary to impeach witness
With his principal task completed, however, Mr. Nice continued to attack the credibility of the witness asking whether he signed off on the report to 'hide what really happened.' Mr. Nice argued that the witness prepared his report on Dubrava for the purposes of defending the accused, not as part of routine police work. Surprisingly, Prosecutor Nice also suggested that the witness and his traffic police colleagues were heavily involved in digging up bodies from Pec – victims of Serbian forces – sorting the victims by gender or KLA membership and transporting them to
Milosevic's attempt to rehabilitate the witness and his documents
Before his re-direct, Mr. Milosevic was instructed by Judge Robinson to keep it short and to the point. Mr. Milosevic actually made a laudable attempt to rehabilitate the witness and his documents. Mr. Milosevic elicited from the witness that although he did not have personal first hand knowledge of some of the events in his reports, he personally examined all of the documents used and worked closely with those who authored the content. In rebutting Mr. Nice's suggestion that Colonel Paponjok's report was drafted in order to assist Milosevic's defense before the ICTY, Mr. Milosevic asked who ordered the report to be drafted. The witness testified that it was Dusan Mihajlovic, then-Serbian Minister of the Interior – who helped send the accused to
