Notify me of new HIR pieces!
The Hague Tribunal Found
Almost No Bodies In Kosovo
So they said the numbers were. . .beside the point!
Historical and Investigative Research - 4
On November 1999, the Hague Tribunal prosecutors gave a press briefing about the forensic investigations they were conducting in Kosovo after NATO bombed Serbia. The Tribunal then gave an official summary of the press briefing.
At this November 1999 press briefing, the Hague prosecutors revealed that they had found very few corpses in Kosovo -- a mere 2108 bodies after 7 months of forensic investigations. And this despite earlier NATO claims that the Yugoslavs had been massacring as many as 100,000 Albanian civilians. In fact, that was not even the highest figure they gave: at one point NATO had the nerve to say that as many as 500,000 men (that’s just the men!), could have been murdered by Milosevic’s forces.
These allegations, which talked about such frightful numbers of Albanian civilians killed, came with comparisons of the Milosevic regime to Hitler’s Germany and to Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Since these are regimes that killed vast numbers of defenseless civilians, the point of the allegations and comparisons was to make NATO’s bombing of Serbia appear justified. So NATO was stating a principle: that large numbers of civilian deaths constituted just cause for NATO to violate international law and intervene in the sovereign state of Yugoslavia by bombing their civilian infrastructure and their civilians (which bombing is a crime of war, by the way).
And yet, when they found almost no bodies in Kosovo, the Hague prosecutors explained that…the numbers didn’t really matter. A dramatic about face.
The Hague prosecutors said many such interesting things at the November 1999 press briefing. Let us take a look.
The Tribunal’s official summary of the briefing says del Ponte referred to the fact that “There had been a lot of speculation about the number of people killed in Kosovo,” and that “Some people had expected the Tribunal to provide the definitive answer.” However, del Ponte explained, “her task was not to prepare a complete list of war casualties …[and]… it was not her mission to compile a complete census of deaths.”
Sounds a bit defensive. But one can understand it. The Hague Tribunal is wholly owned and operated by NATO, and charged with prosecuting Milosevic for the war crimes that NATO alleged he was committing. So for the Hague prosecutors to state in 1999, after 7 months of work, that their investigators had found no more than 2108 corpses on all sides, was to confess in the same breadth that they had been dishing us propaganda with the ridiculous figures of 500,000 and 100,000 supposedly massacred Albanian civilians. Hence the defensive attempt to divert. Numbers? What numbers? No, the Hague Tribunal is not really in the business of counting dead bodies!
Some reporters tried to make an issue of the numbers anyway. “…A correspondent suggested that the number of actual deaths might be roughly half of the reported 10,000 to 11,000 victims,” (which had been scaled down from the earlier figures of 500,000 and 100,000). Another reporter asked “whether genocide charges could be filed if the death toll were lower,” and deputy prosecutor Graham Blewitt replied that “‘it's really not a numbers game to determine whether or not genocide has been committed.’ It was purely a legal question as to whether or not the accused had the specific intent to commit the crime of genocide.” For her part, “Ms. Del Ponte added that genocide was the organized intention to destroy systematically an ethnic group or a group of people. What was important was not only how many had been killed, but how they had been killed.” Del Ponte also said that “…confirming identification [of the dead bodies] was not the primary objective of her office.”
The Hague prosecutors were so defensive that they became incoherent. Not only did the numbers not really matter, but they were not primarily concerned with identification.
Keep in mind that NATO and the Hague Tribunal had brought scores of forensic experts from different countries to dig up and investigate the contents of various supposed mass-grave sites all over Kosovo. This process went on from the time NATO entered Kosovo in June 1999 until August 2000. The question is, if the numbers of dead and the identities of the bodies did not matter, what on Earth were these forensic experts supposedly investigating?
As I explained in Part 1 of “The Freezer-Truck Hoax,” prior to the NATO bombing, NATO was estimating 2000 deaths on all sides from Yugoslav army vs. KLA fighting. If, after the bombing, The Hague investigators could not, in seven months of work, find more than 2108 bodies, then by NATO’s own numbers no more than 108 people had died during the bombing. This matters because the allegation was that the massacres of civilians had supposedly taken place during the bombing. Furthermore, any Albanian civilian deaths among the 108 could easily be attributed to the terrorist KLA, which proudly took credit for killing uncooperative Albanian civilians, and on NATO’s bombs, which were primarily falling on civilian targets, including long convoys of open tractors full of. . .Albanian civilians!
This means...what? Apparently, that The Hague had discovered a new principle: violating international law to intervene in the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, by dropping NATO bombs on its civilian infrastructure, is justified if... -- well, apparently, even if NATO's own numbers suggest that zero Albanian civilians may have been killed by the Yugoslav government.
This is a rather strange principle.
Perhaps the The Hague prosecutors were short of memory. Perhaps they forgot they were prosecuting Milosevic for ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity.’ To bring such charges against Milosevic it is necessary (though not sufficient) that there be evidence suggesting that the number of Albanian civilians killed by Milosevic’s government is greater than zero.
So the numbers obviously matter.
Moreover, the first step in any such investigation has to be finding out who the dead people are. Why? Because if the bodies belong to dead Serbs, then their deaths cannot be evidence of genocide against Albanians. So how can del Ponte say that “confirming identification was not the primary objective of her office”? How can she say that what matters is only “how they had been killed”?
This is absurd.
And to top that absurdity, the Hague prosecutors actually wanted to have it both ways. Though they said out of one side of their mouth that the numbers didn’t really matter, out of the other side they seemed to promise cartloads of bodies in the months to come.
…but stay tuned for lots of
The Hague's summary of the press briefing says that, according to Del Ponte, only “one third of [the reported 529] gravesites had been examined, and work had been completed at 195 sites. In total, 4,266 bodies had reportedly been buried in those sites. To date, 2,108 bodies had been exhumed.” Del Ponte added further that “…Despite the completed exhumations, it was still not known how many bodies would be found. More than 2,000 had been found, out of a reported total of 11,334.”
In other words, Del Ponte was suggesting that she might eventually have a final tally more than five times greater than what she claimed to have already at this November 1999 press briefing.
This was simply dishonest: Del Ponte had no reason to expect large numbers of bodies, and she knew it. Consider how she summarized her evidence. She said there were
In other words, not what you would expect from a genocide.
How “much smaller” were most of the graves that in fact did turn out to have bodies? It is interesting that del Ponte should leave this vague. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reported a month later, “While more than 300 reported grave sites remain to be investigated, the tribunal has checked the largest reported sites first, and found most to contain no more than five bodies…” In fact a large proportion of these were individual graves! That’s how “much smaller” they were. Does Del Ponte’s evidence look remotely like what one would expect from a genocide? Given that the biggest sites were examined first and were found to have almost no bodies (when they did have bodies), why was Del Ponte saying that perhaps she would find many more?
She was in fact disagreeing with her own forensic experts:
 claimed after several weeks' work that the real total was much nearer 2,500.
[End Quote From the Scotsman]
Consider also what was reported in the Wall Street Journal:
[Start WSJ Quote]
“British and American officials still maintain that 10,000 or more ethnic-Albanian civilians died at Serb hands during the fighting in Kosovo.
... The KLA helped form the West’s wartime image of Kosovo. International human-rights groups say officials of the guerrilla force served on the Kosovo-based Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms... Journalists later cited the council’s missing-persons list to support theories about how many people died in Kosovo, and the State Department this month echoed the council’s recent estimate of 10,000 missing. But the number has to be taken on faith: Western investigators say the council won’t share its list of missing persons.”
[End WSJ Quote]
This makes clear that the figure Del Ponte was using, the “reported total of 11,334” (around 10,000) came from the terrorist KLA, and that it was based on an alleged list which the KLA never let anybody see. These are the same terrorist thugs who had lied many times before about Serbian atrocities (you may read about a particularly dramatic example of such lying here).
The final official figure, after completing the investigations in August 2000 was 2,788 bodies found, which agrees nicely with the figure 2,500 that the forensic experts on the ground, such as Pujol, were predicting even as Del Ponte pretended otherwise (see above). The number 2,788 is only slightly higher than the earlier 2,108 figure. Thus, for Del Ponte to have suggested, absurdly, in November 1999, that she might get 5 times as many bodies as she currently had betrays a certain nervousness about the low body count. And yet she torturously explained that the numbers supposedly didn’t matter.
She really was trying to have it both ways. But this does make sense, because the Hague Tribunal, where Del Ponte was Chief Prosecutor, is an appendage of NATO.
The things Del Ponte Didn’t Say
But, in a way, the most interesting thing in the press briefing is not what Del Ponte said but what she didn’t.
As I explain in Part 1 of The Freezer Truck Hoax, two years after the Nov. 1999 press briefing, in April 2001 a story appeared whose purpose was to explain a large discrepancy. This is the discrepancy between the figure of about 10,000 Albanian civilians supposedly murdered (this was the much-scaled-down claim that the enemies of the Serbs finally settled on), and the figure of 2788 total corpses which The Hague gave as the final, total number of bodies found (which they tended to count as massacred Albanian civilians, when they weren't).
What did this new story say? That while NATO bombs rained on Serbia, Milosevic’s forces had supposedly gone around unearthing the alleged victims of the supposed massacres from their graves (thousands of them!), and then hauling them away in freezer trucks to prevent discovery of the evidence. And that, according to the freezer-truck story, is why the Hague investigators had only found 2,788 bodies. With these allegations, for which not one shred of evidence was ever presented, Milosevic was illegally abducted and sent to The Hague.
Let us now see if we can reconcile this freezer-truck story about hiding evidence that became a media ‘scandal’ in 2001, with the things Del Ponte said and didn’t say in her November 1999 press briefing, two years earlier.
Of the 2108 exhumed bodies which had been found so far in November 1999, Del Ponte said at the press briefing that they...
[Start Press Briefing Quote]
“…did not necessarily reflect the actual number of actual victims, because evidence of grave tampering had been discovered. There was also a significant number of sites where the precise number of bodies could not be counted. In those places, steps had been taken to hide the evidence. Many bodies had been burned, but the forensic evidence was nonetheless consistent with witness accounts of the crimes.”
[End Press Briefing Quote]
As I argue in some more detail in Part 2 of The Freezer Truck Hoax, what Del Ponte did not say here is very important, because the above quote establishes two things:
(1) Del Ponte was not shy about telling the press that the body count was low because evidence had supposedly been tampered with.
(2) According to The Hague, investigators were taking statements from alleged witnesses.
It is immediately noteworthy, therefore, that Del Ponte did not say that witnesses were coming forth to talk about a particularly dramatic form of grave tampering: digging up the bodies and hauling them away in freezer trucks.
But what makes it downright shocking that Del Ponte said not a word about the freezer trucks is her statement that “sometimes the reports of buried victims were not borne out at all.”
Why is this so shocking? Because it establishes a third point.
(3) According to The Hague, investigators went to some alleged graves and found them empty.
Given Del Ponte’s defensiveness about the low body count; given her insinuations that many more bodies would be found; and given that she was not too shy to say there had been grave tampering in order to explain the embarrassing dearth of bodies… -- given all that, if she was finding alleged graves empty, one would expect her to talk about the freezer truck allegations. And loudly.
But she didn't.
And why not? After all, what better way to mitigate The Hague prosecution’s and NATO’s profound embarrassment at finding almost no bodies in Kosovo? What better way to explain the discrepancy between the bodies found at the time of the press briefing (2,108, improperly counted as massacred Albanians) and the figure of 10,000 allegedly murdered Albanian civilians that the KLA, NATO, and The Hague tribunal were all defending? It is simply incomprehensible that Del Ponte did not talk about the freezer-truck allegations in 1999.
Unless, of course, nobody was making any such allegations in 1999, in which case it is comprehensible. But if nobody was, then the freezer-truck story is a lie. A lie that got invented later, in April 2001, when NATO decided it was now time to somehow get Milosevic to The Hague.
Should any doubt remain, then it
evaporates upon a short reflection. Because when The Hague announced its
final body count in August 2000, having completed its forensic
investigations, the grand total was only slightly higher than the 2108
bodies which The Hague claimed to have in 1999: the final tally was
2,788. At this time, once again, nobody said anything
about freezer trucks hauling bodies away, and in fact no allegations of
cover-up were made at all:
Below is the Hague's official summary of the November 1999 Del Ponte press briefing.
BRIEFING BY WAR
CRIMES TRIBUNAL PROSECUTORS
The new Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda told correspondents this afternoon that her task was daunting and required the continued support of the Security Council and the international community.
The Chief Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, appeared at a Headquarters press briefing with Graham Blewitt, Deputy Prosecutor of the Yugoslavia Tribunal, who underlined the challenges facing the court. They were introduced by Fred Eckhard, Spokesman for the Secretary-General.
Mr. Blewitt said that through the creation of the two Tribunals, the international community had designed a powerful enforcement mechanism for international humanitarian law. Indeed, the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had already reported to the Security Council the "total defiance" shown by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in refusing to surrender those indicted and accused. As a result, Serbia was becoming a "safe haven" for those accused of serious war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo.
"This situation cannot be allowed to continue", he went on. Further, Croatia could not be allowed to withhold its cooperation on the basis of its unilateral decision that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to investigate the operation of its armed forces in operations “Storm” and “Flash”.
He said it was essential for the success of the Tribunal that States not be permitted to dictate to its independent prosecutor what events should and should not be investigated. The subjects of international criminal law were individuals, not States or entire peoples. Decisions about individual investigations and prosecutions lay with the Tribunal's prosecutor.
The Chief Prosecutor had recently completed her first visit to the former Yugoslavia, visiting Skopje, Pristina, Sarajevo, Banja Luca and Zagreb, meeting with officials in all locations. She had also met with the commanders of the Kosovo Security Force (KFOR) and the NATO led stabilization force (SFOR), as well as with the Secretary-General's Special Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. The Prosecutor had visited exhumation sites in Kosovo and a mortuary site in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There she had seen first-hand the human remains of the victims.
Continuing, he said the Prosecutor would also travel to Rwanda to visit her Office there. She would spend several weeks in Kigali and Arusha. She had already met the Chief Prosecutor and Military Prosecutor of Rwanda, as well as the Rwandan Ambassador in Brussels. That meeting was the first time that Rwandan officials had visited the Rwandan Tribunal in The Hague. Since then, however, the Tribunal's relations with the Rwandan Government might have been affected by the latter’s reaction to the Tribunal Appeals Chamber’s decision to release one of the Rwandan accused and dismiss the charges against him.
He said the Prosecutor was very concerned about the circumstances of that case and about the Court's findings of delays so great as to amount to a violation of the rights of the accused. She had very much regretted the criticism of the Office of the Prosecutor for not having acted diligently in that prosecution, but she would have to spend some time in Rwanda to better understand the situation. Meanwhile, she would reserve any further comments about the work of the Rwanda Tribunal.
Ms. Del Ponte spoke on the issue of arrests made in connection with the Yugoslavia Tribunal. She said that, in Bosnia and Herzegovina where international forces were present, 14 of the accused had been detained by SFOR since July 1997; four had been detained this year. She hoped the momentum would be sustained and the figures would continue to rise. That successful record was most encouraging; she would work hard to maintain that level of cooperation with SFOR and continue to press for increasingly strong action against all of the accused who had not yet been arrested, including those at the highest level.
She said there were accused individuals who were "beyond the reach" of SFOR; their arrest posed quite a different question. The Tribunal itself could do only so much. She required the support of national governments and international institutions. Moreover, she could not overemphasize the support that the Security Council could give the Tribunal.
Much of her work this year had concerned Kosovo, she said, explaining that her office had had to act quickly before evidence was lost. For the past five months, her office had been working with forensic personnel from 14 countries who had contributed forensic pathology and crime scene teams, the last of which had left Kosovo on 31 October. She now had a preliminary analysis of the first findings, although not all the forensic reports had been completed.
There had been a lot of speculation about the number of people killed in Kosovo, she went on. Some people had expected the Tribunal to provide the definitive answer, but her task was not to prepare a complete list of war casualties; it was rather to gather evidence relevant to criminal charges. Her initial focus, understandably, had been to investigate those places listed as crime scenes in the indictment against President Slobodan Milosevic and other leaders. Her work had expanded beyond that investigation, but it was not her mission to compile a complete census of deaths.
Nevertheless, she said, her staff had collected some relevant statistics, given that it might be some time before all of the evidence was presented before a court, and given the legitimate public interest in the nature of her findings in the meantime. She had received reports of 529 gravesites, including those where exposed bodies had been found. As of today, approximately one third of those gravesites had been examined, and work had been completed at 195 sites. In total, 4,266 bodies had reportedly been buried in those sites. To date, 2,108 bodies had been exhumed.
Continuing, she said that figure did not necessarily reflect the actual number of actual victims, because evidence of grave tampering had been discovered. There was also a significant number of sites where the precise number of bodies could not be counted. In those places, steps had been taken to hide the evidence. Many bodies had been burned, but the forensic evidence was nonetheless consistent with witness accounts of the crimes. The figures themselves might not tell the whole story. She would not expect the forensic evidence in isolation to produce a definitive total, although it could help to establish the total number of dead.
She said the overall pattern of killing was coming into focus: there was a large number of relatively small sites; she did not typically find hundreds of people. A few sites had contained the remains of some 100 people, but often the number was much smaller, and sometimes the reports of buried victims were not borne out at all. Many of the bodies, including those of women and children, were positively identified, and often the names of individual victims were well known. Again, confirming identification was not the primary objective of her office.
In summary, she said she had in her possession invaluable documentation of what had happened to many people in many places in Kosovo. There was no substitute for that kind of accurate information, as that evidence would eventually stand up in a court of law. She was preparing now for next year, when she hoped to complete the investigation of crime scenes and mass graves. She wished to complete the forensic investigation of all remaining sites as soon as possible. There was a continuing risk that some of them might be disturbed prior to that examination. Despite the completed exhumations, it was still not known how many bodies would be found. More than 2,000 had been found, out of a reported total of 11,334.
Given the same level of resources next year, she said it was possible to finish the entire forensic programme in a single season. Her goal was to complete the task; it could not be left half-finished. There was a lot of work remaining, but she would not allow the Kosovo investigations to detract from other prosecutions relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. The year 2000 would see a full range of activities from the Office of the Prosecutor.
Asked about possible Security Council intervention to secure the cooperation of the Croatian Government, she said the Government’s position was not very clear. It had indicated its willingness to find a solution; its objection had referred to a lack of jurisdiction. She had therefore asked the Council to intervene in order to force Croatia to cooperate with the Tribunal. The Council must decide the nature of any intervention. The President of the Tribunal was writing two letters to the Council on the matter. The Prosecutor underlined that such cooperation was necessary, especially in order to obtain documentation concerning operations “Storm” and “Flash”.
Given the reference to a total of 11,334 reported deaths in Kosovo and to some 4,000 reportedly found in the gravesites, a correspondent asked about the whereabouts of the other 7,000 bodies.
Ms. Del Ponte said it must first be determined whether there were 7,000 more bodies to discover. The information she had was from such sources as witnesses and non-governmental organizations. It must be made clear if that number were real or not. So far, she had exhumed some 2,000. It was winter, and the work would have to wait until spring.
When a correspondent suggested that the number of actual deaths might be roughly half of the reported 10,000 to 11,000 victims, Mr. Blewitt said it was difficult for the Prosecutor's Office to comment on numbers quoted by other sources. It had fairly strong reports of more than 4,000 missing victims, and the forensic investigations had been aimed at those identified sites that were associated with those victims. As the investigation continued next year, it might be possible to reconcile the numbers. The results of the forensic work would be announced and would provide some certainty about the actual number of victims.
Asked whether genocide charges could be filed if the death toll were lower, he said "it's really not a numbers game to determine whether or not genocide has been committed". It was purely a legal question as to whether or not the accused had the specific intent to commit the crime of genocide. Other evidence would be used to establish that fact. He was in fact investigating whether or not genocide had occurred, a definitive pronouncement on that would be the issuing of indictments.
Ms. Del Ponte added that genocide was the organized intention to destroy systematically an ethnic group or a group of people. What was important was not only how many had been killed, but how they had been killed.
To a series of follow-up questions concerning the findings, Mr. Blewitt said more than 500 sites had been associated with the 4,000 bodies. He had only completed examination of 195. Estimates of 11,000 bodies had been derived from news reports, including an estimate by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of some 10,000 victims.
Ms. Del Ponte added that, by next year, all bodies would be exhumed from all sites, which would provide a better indication. She was working on the investigation, case by case. She could only disclose what she had found in the course of that investigation. She did not have enough information to provide a fuller answer.
Asked if all the victims found so far had been ethnic Albanians, the Chief Prosecutor said yes, most had been Kosovo Albanians, but she had indications that numbers of other ethnic groups would be found.
Mr. Blewitt said there were a number of small graves where Serb victims had been identified through the forensic work, but the victims had been predominantly Kosovo Albanians.
Were the suspected killers Serbs attempting ethnic cleansing? another correspondent asked. Ms. Del Ponte said most of the suspected perpetrators were Serbs but there were other suspects, including Muslims. There was also an open inquiry about KLA activity.
Another correspondent asked how many people who had been indicted but not yet arrested were believed to be in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Was it "normal" for the prosecutor to have to "press" the police, in this case SFOR, to make arrests? Was she satisfied that they were really doing all they should?
Ms. Del Ponte said it was true, a public prosecutor must not press the police to make the arrests; it was for her to provide the arrest warrant or order, and for the police to execute it. The SFOR, however, was military in character and not a police group. She was asking SFOR and KFOR to be "more proactive" in searching for the suspects. Many of the fugitives have been free for many years. The time had come to arrest them. Some of them were in Serbia, but normally they crossed borders. She had therefore requested that attention be paid to the borders.
She said she was very satisfied with SFOR's performance in the light of the arrests that had been made. The SFOR was really cooperating with her, and she was confident there would be more arrests.
Asked if she intended to look into the possibility that NATO had committed war crimes, she said she had received many reports about such NATO intervention, and was looking very carefully at them. She would take a decision about that and make it public, but that was not her priority. Asked why not, she said her priority was the open inquiry she had found upon taking office on 15 November.
Mr. Blewitt said that the selection of sites to be investigated had been based primarily on the existing indictment against President Milosevic, to another question. The seven particular villages or sites named in that indictment were his number one priority. He had selected other sites based on various criteria that he was not at liberty to disclose. They had not been based solely on the number of victims; several factors had been considered.
Asked if she had been satisfied with the support expressed by Member States in the Security Council, Ms. Del Ponte said she was very satisfied because she had received important support. She had asked the Council to make an intervention against the States which were not cooperating with her Office; she was awaiting a response.
The priority was the open inquiry she had found upon undertaking her function on 15 September, she replied to a question about why the alleged killing of civilians by NATO was not her priority. She had many ongoing inquiries, including some related to NATO activities.
 “WASHINGTON - As many as 500,000 ethnic Albanian men are missing and may be victims of Serb genocide, the State Department reported yesterday, igniting new fears about the breadth of Slobodan Milosevic's brutal siege in Kosovo. Amid allied reports of mass executions by Serb forces in more than 60 Kosovo villages, State Department officials said no fewer than 100,000 Albanian men are unaccounted for and may be lying in mass graves throughout the separatist province. "Based on past practice, it is chilling to think where those 100,000 men are," said State Department spokesman James P. Rubin.
The number of missing men could be as high as 500,000, the State Department said, "if reports of widespread separation of men among internally displaced persons within Kosovo are true." With the chaos in Kosovo, and the lack of international observers there, State Department officials said, the dimensions of the refugee crisis may not be known until peacekeeping forces enter the territory.”
 “It is a big word, genocide, but it was tossed around lightly during the Kosovo conflict. NATO officials made comparisons to the Holocaust of World War II and to the Khmer Rouge slaughters in Cambodia, in which more than a million people died.” Daily News (New York), October 24, 1999, Sunday, Editorial; Pg. 49, 637 words, THAT KOSOVO 'GENOCIDE'- THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP, BY LARS-ERIK NELSON.
 Here is an example: “The clandestine Albanian separatist
movement Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) has vowed 'multiple vengeance
for the innocent deaths' in the Serbian region's central Drenica
area, in a statement published Wednesday…The UCK, a group that wants
the province to secede, has claimed responsibility for numerous
deadly attacks against Serbian civilians and Albanians loyal to the
Belgrade regime.” SOURCE: Agence France Presse, March 04, 1998,
International news, 243 words, "Albanian separatists vow 'multiple
SOURCE: Agence France Presse, March 04, 1998, International news, 243 words, "Albanian separatists vow 'multiple vengeance'"
 The Wall Street Journal, December 31, 1999. WAR IN KOSOVO WAS CRUEL, BITTER, SAVAGE; GENOCIDE IT WASN’T. by Daniel Pearl and Robert Block
 The Guardian (London), August 18, 2000, Guardian Home Pages,
Pg. 3, 1001 words, Serb killings exaggerated by west: Claims of up
to 100,000 ethnic Albanians massacred in Kosovo revised to under
3,000 as exhumations near end, Jonathan Steele. for an
analysis of this article, see:
for an analysis of this article, see:http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/bodycount_steele.htm
 The Wall Street Journal, December 31, 1999. WAR IN KOSOVO WAS CRUEL, BITTER, SAVAGE; GENOCIDE IT WASN’T. by Daniel Pearl and Robert Block
The Scotsman, November 19, 1999, Friday, Pg. 12, 635 words,
KOSOVO WAR CRIMES TEAM STICKS BY ITS DEATH TOTAL, Severin Carrell
NOTE TO THE READER:
If you arrived here directly (e.g. through a search engine) be advised that this piece is supporting documentation for the following main article, which you are welcome to consult:The Freezer Truck Hoax: How NATO framed the Serbs