1 Monday, 28 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.18 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-06-90-T, The Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 First of all, the Chamber would like to apologise for the late
11 start due to the fact that one of the Judges was locked up in an area
12 without a functioning ID and couldn't get out anymore.
13 Before the Prosecution calls its next witness, I am informed that
14 the Prosecution teams would like to raise a procedural matter.
15 Mr. Kehoe.
16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Last night, there was a list of
17 exhibits that were sent to the Chamber. There was no agreement on this
18 recitation of these documents, this list, and I understand there is an
19 agreement with the Prosecution that the Chamber should not examine this
20 document until there is further review by the respective parties.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Or Mr. Russo.
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, pardon me. The document which was sent
25 last night was sent in response to the Court's direction. I believe the
1 last time was during the redirect examination of Mr. Munkelien, and it
2 appears that the transcript at page 1697, line 1. I attempted to move
3 these documents in across the bar table, and the Court instructed us:
4 "If there are certain matters for which you went to present these sitreps
5 to the Trial Chamber, please explain briefly."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, I see a number on my transcript which,
7 apparently is not right. It is now 1697. Thank you.
8 MR. RUSSO: The Chamber indicated: "Please explain briefly what
9 you are drawing our attention to and then seek it to be admitted, and
10 then we will hear from the Defence whether there are any objections to
11 that, so that we have a focussed view on bulky material which we
13 The document sent to you last night, or actually I sent it to
14 Mr. Nilsson and I copied the Defence, essentially it is a spreadsheet
15 which directs the Court's attention to the facts in each document which
16 we believe the Court should focus on. That document was sent to the
17 Defence over a week ago, and I asked them if they wanted to add anything
18 to that summary, if they had a problem with the language that was used
19 and to see if we could agree on some of the facts contained in there.
20 As I indicated in the e-mail to Mr. Nilsson, the parties could
21 not agree as to the content about summaries; nevertheless, I thought it
22 was very clear that the Court wanted those summaries, and so I provided
23 those in electronic format and intended to move them across the bar table
24 today when I move the sitreps into evidence.
25 MR. KEHOE: You Honour, the difficulty and the reason why these
1 analysis are not accurate is, for example, when it is -- of course, this
2 is tailored to the OTP's case and is not necessarily a recitation of
3 information in here that is accurate. The difficulty comes from when
4 there are multiple sources of information. For instance, if a soldier or
5 officer in the ARSK provides information to an UNMO, and that's put in
6 this document, then it is part of what the recitation is. And by looking
7 at this document, Your Honour, you're going to get a very misleading view
8 as to what the document is. That's why it needs additional work.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I never had the impression that, by summarizing
10 documents to two or three lines, that that could replace the document or
11 that would be the basis on which we could work. At the same time, we
12 often receive documents with 20, 30, 40 entries of all different kinds,
13 and then we just do not know what the purpose of the document is. That
14 is certainly an area which is supposed to be highlighted.
15 I think that's what the Chamber asked for, not to get the 40
16 entries without knowing that the Prosecution wants to draw our attention
17 to one, two, or three, or seven or nine.
18 Now, therefore, if we receive such a summary - and I see them for
19 the first time this morning, so I'm not yet contaminated - then we know
20 at least where to look for what, and then of course we will rely upon the
22 Now, apparently you, Mr. Kehoe, and I don't know to what extent
23 the other counsel share your view, are not happy with this. Of course,
24 if in the summary, it says, well, units X, Y, and Z, shelling intensively
25 villages A and B, then of course we do not automatically take that for a
1 fact. We just notice that in the report with the source mentioned, that
2 this was reported or observed or whatever.
3 Now, what I would like to do is, if you say it is not accurate, I
4 don't know in -- of course, I take it that the selection made and perhaps
5 the phrases used are OTP selections and OTP phrases which doesn't come as
6 a surprise.
7 Now, how are we going to resolve there problem, because what we
8 have is a large amount of material which has relevant content, although
9 not all of it is relevant. Therefore, my question is when the parties
10 coming up with any other better suggestion as to how to focus the
11 attention of the Chamber to the most relevant portions, then I'm open for
12 that. I'm not open for lengthy litigation: On line 7, this is not
13 correct. You know how I resolve these matters, that if you can't agree
14 on that, then I will re-open or I will send you the schedule for the 7.00
15 morning meetings and the 10.00 at night meetings, where all these matters
16 will be resolved by the parties with my assistance.
17 How are we going resolve the matter, that is what I want to focus
19 MR. KEHOE: I think we can resolve the matter, Your Honour. We
20 have a week off coming up. We resolve the matter at this juncture by
21 going through this and removing, for instance, commentary that is
22 included in there, or how this is being presented as commentary, and then
23 we can re-address it when we return back two weeks from today.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, to what extent do you need this material
25 with the witness? I take it that in the one hour and a half you have
1 scheduled, that you will not go through details of the all this material.
2 MR. RUSSO: That's correct. However, I would like to address
3 Mr. Kehoe' suggestion. I did send this spreadsheet to the Defence over a
4 week ago. I don't honestly believe that an additional week is going to
5 produce the results that the past week has failed to produce. They were
6 asked to review the summary I made and asked to add or comment. They
7 didn't indicate any suggested changes, nothing.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Have they expressed before today their lack of
9 satisfaction with the way you dealt with it?
10 MR. RUSSO: They indicated by e-mail, I believe it was on
11 Saturday and Sunday, that they simply didn't agree. I asked them
12 specifically what didn't they agree to, and we couldn't down to the
13 specific level.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So you are rather pessimistic about what could be
15 one in the next week. Now, I see everyone standing or trying to stand.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could speakers switch off
17 their microphones after they have finished because we cannot hear the
18 person who is actually speaking.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 We, as a Defence group, all three of accused counsel met and
22 discussed this issue. This is the third actually summary of exhibits
23 that we have received regarding Mr. Ermolaev, and none of the summaries
24 are consistent or at least we've had to look at every single one. There
25 are 78 or 79 different entries, which means that you have to look at
1 everyone and make sure that they all much up, and I spent last night
2 until about 10.00 with this new set that we got last night to match up to
3 see what was consistent and what was inconsistent with the other
4 documents that we received.
5 Mr. Cayley sent an e-mail outlining our objections; and,
6 obviously, we have not reached a reasonable and amicable conclusion to
7 this. I think Mr. Kehoe's suggestion is a good one. But when we get the
8 list of exhibits, for example, the last one that we received, the dossier
9 had some documents that were removed, and we had to bring that up to the
10 Prosecution's attention, and then they told us, well, some of them were
11 removed because they were either duplicates or they were previously
12 marked. So it is not as simple as, We gave you the documents a week or
13 two ago, and we didn't hear anything from you.
14 That is simply not the case.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, life is almost more complicated than at
16 first sight.
17 May I be very practical.
18 MR. RUSSO: Please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the Defence is willing to
20 further specify the problems they have with these document, that we don't
21 have to go into detail in relation to these documents with the witness.
22 Perhaps, in cross-examination, you might touch upon certain matters.
23 Okay. We'll then hear those specific matters, but we'll certainly not go
24 through all of them.
25 So to leave all those which are not specifically addressed during
1 the examination-in-chief or during the cross-examination, to leave them
2 for next week, when we're not sitting, you are not very optimistic, but
3 the Defence is really excited to show to you that your pessimism is not
4 well founded; and then if you do not agree, then I take that week off to
5 draft my schedule for the early morning or late evening sessions, in
6 which we will resolve the matter without any doubt.
7 Mr. Russo, is that agreeable to you.
8 MR. RUSSO: Quite understood, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, but I do have to say that I relish
11 the early morning.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. You see how being locked up
13 for a quarter of an hour strengthened my thinking about how to resolve
14 difficult problems.
15 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I take that as an admission.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see how we can proceed.
17 Is there any matter at that moment, Mr. Kuzmanovic?
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, are you ready to call your next witness?
20 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour. The Office of the Prosecutor calls
21 Witness 111, Mikhail Ermolaev.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Ermolaev.
1 I take it you do understand the English language and you can
2 express yourself in that language.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this Court, the Rules of
5 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you
6 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 The text is now handed out to you by Mr. Usher. May I invite you
8 to make that solemn declaration.
9 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
10 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: MIKHAIL ERMOLAEV
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Ermolaev, please be seated.
13 You will first be examined by Mr. Russo as counsel for the
15 Mr. Russo.
16 Examination by Mr. Russo:
17 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.
18 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, can you please state your full name for the court.
19 A. My full name is Ermolaev, Mikhail, and father's name Mihajlovic,
20 the full name.
21 Q. Thank you. And do you recall giving two statements to the ICTY,
22 one dated 14th of May, 2002, and the other dated 2nd of December, 2007?
23 A. Yes, I do confirm.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up 65 ter
1 number 4791 and 65 ter number 4792.
2 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, looking at the screen, can you tell me if those are
3 the two statements to which we have referred?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And did you have a chance to review those statements before
6 coming to Court today?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is the information contained in those statements true and
9 accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
10 A. Yes. The information contained in those statements are true and
11 accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
12 Q. And do those statements accurately reflect the answers you gave
13 to the interview questions at that time?
14 A. Yes. Those statements accurately reflect my answers given.
15 Q. And if you were asked those same questions here today, would your
16 answers be the same as in those statements?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time, I would move to mark for
20 identification and admit 65 ter numbers 4791 and 4792.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any objections against admission of the
22 statements under rule 92 bis?
23 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour. The only thing I would ask is
25 if we could get dates for 4791 and 4792 for our own reference.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We have no 65 ter numbers.
3 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I can provided those.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. RUSSO: The 65 ter number 4791 is the statement dated
6 14 May 2002, and 65 ter number 4792 is the statement dated
7 2 December 2007
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: These are the dates on which they were signed,
10 because I see on the cover page of the first one, 25th, 26th June, 1997
11 and 14th of May, 2002; and on the cover page of the other, we find the
12 1st and 2nd of December, 2007.
13 Madam Registrar, the first one being 4791, the 1997, 2002
14 statement, would be number?
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P94, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P94 is admitted into evidence, since there are no
18 4792 the 2007 statement, Madam Registrar, would be number?
19 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P95, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P95 is admitted into evidence.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Russo.
22 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President. And with the Chamber's
23 permission, I would like to read a brief summary of the witness's 92 ter
25 JUDGE ORIE: You have explained to the witness the procedure of
1 informing the public of what is in the statement?
2 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
5 Mr. Ermolaev is a retired captain of the 2nd rank of the Russian
6 navy. In July of 1995, he was stationed in the UN Sector South as the
7 Deputy Senior Military Observer. Prior to that time, he had served in
8 two previous UN missions, including in Tuzla and Sarajevo, Bosnia
9 those cities were shelled.
10 Mr. Ermolaev became the acting Senior Military Observer for
11 UN Sector South in late July 1995 and held that position throughout
12 Operation Storm. He was present in Knin during the artillery attack
13 which took place on the 4th and 5th of August, 1995, and his apartment
14 was strung by an artillery shell while he was inside.
15 During Operation Storm, he directed the operations of the United
16 Nations Military Observers in Sector South. He reviewed the incoming
17 reports from all UNMO teams in Sector South and released all of the daily
18 and update sitreps from the UNMO teams in Sector South during Operation
19 Storm and sent those to the UNMO HQ in Zagreb.
20 In the weeks and months which followed Operation Storm,
21 Mr. Ermolaev continued his role as the Deputy Senior Military Observer
22 and made assessments of the humanitarian rights situation in Sector South
23 based on the information reported to him by the UNMO teams in
24 Sector South.
25 Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It would be very practical if the daily sitreps are
2 annexed to P95. We will seek, in view of the matters that we discussed
3 earlier, that they are not yet part of the admitted statement, but they
4 will be tendered after your discussions, to receive separate numbers.
5 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
7 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Maybe the discussion left
8 me behind, but I understand the issue was with regard to the summary, not
9 to the documents themselves.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I might have misunderstood that; and, of
11 course, the summaries are not to be admitted into evidence but just the
12 sitreps. Let's then, apart from whether it is an attachment or not, are
13 there any objections against the admission of the sitreps as such,
14 because if not, we'll ask Madam Registrar to prepare a list with the
15 exhibit numbers.
16 MR. KEHOE: Not to admission of course, but to weight, but I
17 understand Your Honours prior rulings on that score.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that clear. So the only remaining issue is
19 then the summaries focussing on certain parts of these sitreps.
20 Nevertheless, I would like to have them admitted as separate documents,
21 which is for references far easier.
22 Therefore, Madam Registrar, if you could prepare a list of all of
23 the attached documents to this statement, especially the 2007 statement
24 where they are all listed, and then provisionally assign numbers to them
25 so that we could proceed.
1 Mr. Russo.
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, if you could please turn to your first statement,
4 that is P94, and turn to page 5.
5 MR. RUSSO: And, Your Honour, I apologise. May I have the
6 assistant of the court usher. I would like to give hard copies of the
7 statements to the witness, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It seems very practical.
9 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11 MR. RUSSO:
12 Q. Now, Mr. Ermolaev, on page 5 of P94, you discuss a meetings which
13 you attended with General Cermak, and I'd like to you please explain the
14 circumstances of that meeting to the Court.
15 A. Circumstances, at least as I understand it, the main purpose of
16 the meeting was that the first meeting with General Cermak when he took
17 over control as the person in charge for the situation in Sector South.
18 This was the primary aim to be presented. So the delegation included our
19 sector commander, chief of civilian affairs, and head of civilian police,
20 and myself.
21 Q. Can you recall the date or approximate date of this meeting?
22 A. Well, approximate date of this meeting was maybe the -- that was
23 the 6th or the -- 6th or the 7th of August.
24 Q. I believe you have indicated a few of the people who were in
25 attention at the meeting. Can you please tell the Court everyone you
1 remember attending that meeting?
2 A. So, initially, I got information from General Forand that we had
3 a meeting, and the delegation included according to the agreement signed.
4 So it included General Forand; and Civilian Affairs from Jordan
5 remember his name; so there was another Canadian there, who I hope - this
6 was about seven years - that was supposed to be chief UN military police
7 sector; and myself.
8 Q. And who was in attendance from the side of the Croatian
10 A. From the side of the Croatian authorities was the governor
11 himself, General Cermak, with assistants and liaison officer who were in
12 charge of providing communication with the United Nations in the sector.
13 Q. And during this meeting, did the issue of freedom of movement for
14 UN personnel, was that issue discussed?
15 A. Yeah. That was the primary mission of these negotiations because
16 we clearly understood that mandate we had terminated. And so that's why,
17 after we received from our central headquarters from Zagreb, new
18 instructions on our activity. So that's why our first primary mission
19 was to obtain freedom of movement and start operations, particularly of
20 civilian police and United Nations Military Observers as it was
21 envisioned in the agreement. So the freedom of movement was the main
22 issue on the agenda.
23 Initially, General Cermak stated that such freedom of movement
24 would be given exclusively for civilian police.
25 Q. Do I take that to mean that he was not agreeable to freedom of
1 movement for United Nations Military Observers?
2 A. Yes, absolutely correct. He was absolutely against it. Then I
3 just informed him to return bark to the document side between Croatian
4 authorities and the United Nations, where it was officially stated and
5 underlined that UNMOs as well are to conduct such a mission. Then there
6 was a liaison officer, so his legal advisors, and they invited him to go
7 out. They went out for several minutes and then they returned back, and
8 General Cermak said, "Yes, okay. I allow UNMOs to have freedom of
9 movement but only on the roads which will be given to you later."
10 Q. And did that limited form of movement, did that comport with your
11 understanding of the agreement between the United Nations and the
12 Republic of Croatia
13 A. Yes, for sure. Because we have clear understanding from Zagreb
14 our United Nations command, as well as, you know, we had offered a great
15 flow of information from all conflicting sides from the United Nations
16 and different levels, et cetera. As well, the UN Security Council
17 strengthened the decision signed. And on the 10th of August, they decide
18 any time, full access to any place we want to go.
19 So that's why I do consider that such restrictions of movement
20 officially stated by General Cermak was not in compliance with the
21 agreement side between the government and the United Nations.
22 Q. And during your time in Sector South, can you tell the Court
23 whether or not your UNMOs were ever actually given complete freedom of
24 movement in Sector South?
25 A. Well, you know, frankly speaking, during wartime within the
1 Balkans, whether in Bosnia
2 United Nations structures absolutely freedom of movement. But here
3 particularly we had strict restrictions. So, at the first stage, we were
4 blockaded, first of all. I mean, all of our UNMOs positions, United
5 Nations Headquarters Sector South, we couldn't even go out. So, I mean,
6 there was no absolutely freedom of movement.
7 So the second stage was, maybe within two weeks, the most severe
8 restriction of movement; then gradually, more or less, due to the
9 relations, different team leaders on their local levels, due to the
10 decisions taken by -- on different levels as well of the United Nations
11 and Croatia
12 September we had, let me say, relatively enough information to be able to
13 assess situation on the ground. By the first month for sure and next,
14 because of the restriction of movements, I assess that information
15 collected was maybe, I don't know, 5 per cent to 10 per cent.
16 Q. Thank you. And I'd like to go back now to the artillery attack
17 on Knin on the 4th and 5th of August. Then if you could please refer to
18 your second statement - I believe that it is P95 referring specifically
19 to paragraph 8 - where you indicate that you were in your house in Knin
20 on the morning of 4 August when the shelling attack again and that your
21 house was hit by a shell.
22 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up 65 ter
23 number 4769. Thank you.
24 Mr. President, Your Honours, I would ask again for the assistance
25 of the court usher. I will be asking the witness to mark two locations
1 on this aerial photo of Knin.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, can you please assist the witness, but I
3 take it after we have the map on our screen.
4 Mr. Russo, could you first tell us whether you would need the
5 whole of the photograph because once marking starts it is difficult to
6 zoom in and zoom out.
7 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, it would probably be best if just a
8 portion which indicates the area of the northern barracks and its
9 surrounds could be enlarged. I believe the witness will indicate two
10 locations in that area.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Loading maps and photographs takes time now and
12 then, Mr. Ermolaev, but there it is.
13 MR. RUSSO:
14 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, looking at this map and with the assistance of the
15 court usher, I believe the Prosecution marks in red, if you could please
16 circle the location of the area of your house as you recall it.
17 A. I assume it should be somewhere in this area.
18 Q. Thank you. And you also indicate in your statement that your
19 house was located near a school. If you could, please also --
20 Actually, I'm sorry, before we move to that, could you please
21 place an "A" next to the circle you've drawn.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. And please now, if you would, circle the school which you
24 referenced in your second statement?
25 A. Should be like this, out of this.
1 Q. And please place a "B" next to that?
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours, at this
5 time, I would move for this document to be marked for identification and
6 admitted into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
8 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Judge.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I see no objections.
10 Madam Registrar, that would be number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P96, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P96 is admitted into evidence.
13 Please proceed Mr. Russo.
14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, the school which you have marked as "B" on that
16 map, can you tell the Court whether or not during your time in Knin
17 whether you saw any military use being made out of that facility by the
18 army of the Republika Srpska Krajina.
19 A. Personally, myself, I didn't see it; and I can say that I never
20 seen, myself, military usage of this school by -- by the army of the
21 Republika Srpska Krajina.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, referring again to your second statement, this
23 time at paragraph 13, where you discuss a document which is entitled
24 "Provisional assessment of damage caused by HV OPs 4 to 6 August 1995
1 MR. RUSSO: And, Madam Registrar, if we could pleas up on the
2 screen, Exhibit P64.
3 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, looking at document P64, is this the document to
4 which you refer at paragraph 13 in your second statement?
5 A. Yes. This is the document I referred in paragraph 13 of my
7 Q. And can you please tell the Court when was the first time you
8 actually saw this document?
9 A. Can you please specify your question of when did I see it?
10 Because I wrote it, I prepared it with my staff.
11 Q. This is the --
12 MR. RUSSO: If we could please enlarge the "from" section and the
13 paragraph 2, that entire part there.
14 Q. I want you to look again at the date and the "from" line, and
15 tell me again, if you recall, that whether or not this is the document to
16 which you are referring in paragraph 13 of your second statement?
17 A. This is a provisional assessment. Sorry. I just saw got your
18 point, you know. I thought that was my summary report about the
19 situation there.
20 No. This document is a provisional assessment of damage caused
21 by, yes. No, I never saw this document. The first time I just saw it
22 and I put it down in my statement on the 2nd December when I saw it for
23 the first time.
24 Q. Thank you. And during your time as either the deputy or the
25 acting Senior Military Observer for Sector South, were you ever made
1 aware of any UNMO report concluding that the shelling damage in Knin was
2 concentrated around military targets?
3 A. Do you mean should I comment on [indiscernible] provisional
4 assessment that I have in front of me?
5 Q. No, sir. At this point, I'm only asking whether or not, during
6 your time in Sector South when were acting as the deputy or the Senior
7 Military Observer, if you can recall, any UNMO report at that time
8 concluding that the shelling of Knin was concentrated only around
9 military targets.
10 A. No.
11 Q. And --
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, pardon the interruption.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I take it the word "only" doesn't reflect at least
14 to what the document says.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Correct. The other thing I would ask is if the
16 other microphone got turned on. His voice is fading in and out, and the
17 microphone is off on the right side. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, the report doesn't say that it was "only
19 concentrated". It was "concentrated on," which, of course, is not
20 related to exclusivity.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. RUSSO: I understand, Your Honour. Let me rephrase the
23 question to be more precise.
24 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, during the time as either the deputy or acting
25 Senior Military Observer in Sector South, were ever made aware of any
1 UNMO report concluding that the shelling damage in Knin was concentrated
2 in the area of military targets?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you. And as the Deputy Senior Military Observer in
5 Sector South, would you have expected to be informed of such a report if
6 one had, in fact, been sent out by the UNMO HQ?
7 A. Well, no doubt about it, that any such an important conclusion
8 because actually when SMO was presented, my main function then was Chief
9 of Staff. So such a document, which is so important and sensitive, it
10 couldn't be issued without my consideration as well and consultations, no
11 doubt about it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, just for my understanding. On the
13 transcript, the transcribers could not hear, and neither could I, what
14 you said, "because actually when," and then something is missing, "was
15 presented, my main function ..."
16 THE WITNESS: Right. I mean, that when I was in charge of
17 Sector South, I mean alone without Colonel Steinar. So then, for sure, I
18 just looked it throughout and released. If he was there as well himself
19 as Chief of Staff as well, I looked through and discussed it.
20 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
21 Q. And I think you have indicated his first name, but can you tell
22 the Court please, at the date that this document was sent, that is the
23 18 August 1995
24 that time?
25 A. According to this paper, SMO Sector South, so it was supposed to
1 be Norwegian Colonel Steinar, Senior Military Observer Sector South,
2 because on that particular date, for one week, the whole headquarters and
3 those UNMOs who spent these days during Operation Storm in headquarters,
4 so being under stressed and et cetera. So Zagreb United Nations
5 Headquarters asked to give situation leaves, and we all went to Zadar for
6 several days CTO and we spent these days there.
7 Q. I want to be clear about what you just said. Are you indicating
8 that you were not present --
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. -- when this report was sent?
11 A. For sure. We departed. We departed on the 17th, or something
12 like that, and we got one week CTO. We spent them in Zadar. So I was
13 out of headquarters. The main bulk of those were there with me, so they
14 were out as well. So I was really surprised a bit when I saw such a
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ermolaev, please, I apologise for the lack of
17 knowledge on the abbreviations. What does CTO stand for?
18 THE WITNESS: Leave days.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. RUSSO: Just to clarify, Your Honour. I think it refers to
21 compensatory time off.
22 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, can please you tell the Court whether or not the
23 Senior Military Observer Steinar Hjertnes ever mentioned to you that he
24 believed that the shelling damage in Knin was concentrated around
25 military targets?
1 A. No. I do not remember that we clearly discussed it and I have
2 such clear his conclusion about what happened there.
3 Q. And referring again to your second statement at paragraph 13, you
4 indicate that you do not agree with the conclusions regarding shelling
5 and other damage?
6 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, excuse me. With regard to the leading,
7 if we can just ask the question as opposed to the leading.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, you're invited to refrain from leading.
9 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I hadn't --
10 JUDGE ORIE: But, at the same time, of course, paragraph 13 in
11 the second statement is in evidence. To that extent, I have not checked
12 immediately whether the question put to the witness was in addition to
13 what we find to paragraph 13, whether it was leading or not. But if your
14 problem, Mr. Kehoe, would be that making reference to what we find in
15 paragraph 13 is already leading, then my answer is that it is in
16 evidence, and to that extent permitted to do so.
17 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour. I was simply making
18 reference, as the Court suggested, to the conclusion already contained in
19 paragraph 13.
20 Q. And I would ask, Mr. Ermolaev, if you could please focus on
21 paragraph 2 of the provisional assessment, and explain to the Court why
22 you disagree with the conclusions of paragraph 2.
23 A. Well, first of all, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact
24 that it is not an official statement of the Senior Military Observer
25 Sector South. This is internal document, and from Senior Military
1 Observer to commander Sector South.
2 Q. Let me stop you right there. What is it that you mean that it is
3 not an official report?
4 A. I mean that we did not have, within United Nations structure, I
5 mean UNMOs, at least for my years working with the United Nations, that I
6 see such an unprofessional, unqualified report.
7 Q. You indicated earlier, as indicated also in the report, that it
8 is sent to the commander of Sector South. Were the reports from the
9 UNMOs in the HQ typically sent to the commander of Sector South or were
10 they typically sent elsewhere?
11 A. With Sector South, I mean, you know, that all branches of the
12 United Nations which was supposed to go over their functions, whether the
13 United Nations civilian police, whether human rights, whether others,
14 they have their independent chain of command. And when we cooperated and
15 we closely cooperated with all those branches, and if there was, let me
16 say, a request from any branch, whether from ICRC, whether from human
17 rights, we prepared information and just give it to them. So that's why
18 there might be a request from SMO Sector South, maybe some specific.
19 But to me, it is absolutely -- I cannot understand, because, I
20 mean, if such a statement, I mean, according to the procedure we have
21 everywhere, so if you state something, then you should justify your
22 conclusions because then it will be delegations against the same Croatian
23 side that they allegedly shelled Knin and military objectives. This is
24 absolutely not acceptable.
25 If they conducted research, there must be great references,
1 houses, analysis that close to this objective within, let me say, 50, 100
2 metres. There is it military objective so we know all such objectives in
3 general on both sides. So, to me, it is not justified. It just claims
4 that several damages, 21 damages, were observed where these damages --
5 well, to this document, I have more questions than answers, I'm sorry.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, moving to paragraph 14 of your second statement,
7 where you discuss an UNMO report entitled @Comprehensive survey report on
8 humanitarian violations from HQ Sector South," from 7 August to 13
9 September 1995.
10 MR. RUSSO: I would ask, please, Madam Registrar, if you could
11 pull up 65 ter number 1122.
12 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, looking at 65 ter number 1122, do you recall this
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And is that your signature which appears at the top of the
17 A. Yes, surely.
18 Q. And can you please tell the Court what this report is based on?
19 A. Sir, this report is based on the data collected by United Nations
20 Military Observers within the time-frame which is stated here, from
21 7th August to 13 September.
22 Q. And looking at paragraph 1, under the main heading, "Main basic
23 conclusions and findings," and in that paragraph, it indicates a number
24 of figures of destroyed houses and villages searched, and there is an
25 Annex A, which is referenced as the source of that information.
1 MR. RUSSO: Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up 65 ter
3 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, looking at 65 ter 4728, can you tell the Court
4 whether this is the Annex A which is referenced in paragraph 1 of the
5 comprehensive survey report?
6 A. Yes, I do confirm it.
7 Q. And do you recall what this document here is based on?
8 A. So to answer this question very briefly and shortly, the report
9 was based on daily reports we received from UNMOs, and we had some
10 specific meeting before my departure for CTO. We gathered all team
11 leaders in HQ Sector South. So Senior Military Observer Colonel Steinar
12 as well was there. So I conducted the meeting, and there was a human
13 rights team leader, this American person; and he briefed about the
14 situation, the taskings. And together with civilian affairs, human
15 rights, somewhere by this date we worked out such a table, and we
16 instructed our teams, as well as just the alongside with their main
17 mission, to start collecting information according to this table that we
18 have in front of us.
19 Q. Thank you. And turning, again, to the comprehensive survey
20 report, this time at paragraph 3, where it indicates the type of HRVs
21 committed by Croatian army and police, can you please tell the Court what
22 HRVs stand for?
23 A. Human rights violations.
24 Q. Thank you. And in that paragraph 3, there is an Annex C which is
25 referenced as the source for the information regarding HRVs.
1 MR. RUSSO: And, Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up
2 65 ter number 508?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, before doing so, the previous document that
4 was on our screen, do you tender that as evidence or is it already in
5 evidence? I saw similar lists.
6 MR. KEHOE: It is already in evidence, Judge.
7 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, it is not already in evidence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It is not already, no, because this is the one which
9 is with the signature of this witness.
10 Now, is there any need, if the witness has identified this
11 document, and if the parties would agree what that document apart from
12 this signature is the P and then the number, would that be sufficient or
13 do we have to add another 20 pages?
14 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I had intended to move into evidence the
15 report and both annexes as separate documents with separate P numbers;
16 however, if the court wishes --
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. To the extent that the annexes are already in
18 evidence, although not with the initials of the witness, then it produces
19 a lot of paper. Then if anything, if we agreed that this is the document
20 that was attached to the --
21 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, these documents are not in evidence.
22 The document which appeared at annex A is the earlier version of a
23 document which is already in evidence. The same with Annex C, it is an
24 earlier reiteration of a document which is already in evidence, not the
25 same document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
2 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, I believe if we go back to 65 ter
3 4728, that's the prior exhibit, Your Honour, if we can go back to that.
4 I do believe that that is the document that has the signature of
5 Mr. Antilla at the bottom of it. Now, if counsel is saying it's got a
6 the different date range, and if this is incorporated into the other
7 document, I'm not certain if that is the case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: This is a very practical matter. It is clear
9 Mr. Russo says it is an earlier version of a similar document containing
10 all kind of data. Then you're invited to sit together with Mr. Russo and
11 see, together with him, whether there is any need to add more paper; or
12 whether this is it another document, a previous version, and therefore
13 allows us to compare. In that case, it makes sense --
14 MR. KEHOE: It makes sense.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- to have it admitted into evidence. If it is the
16 same, then, of course it does not make sense.
17 Please proceed. Yes. You are tendering them now already or --
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I would like to at least complete
19 establishing the foundation, if we could, again, please pull up 65 ter
21 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, looking at 65 ter number 508, is this the Annex C
22 which is referenced as the source of information for paragraph 3 of the
23 comprehensive survey report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, at this time, I would ask that have
2 marked for identification and admitted the survey report 65 ter number
3 1122, the 13 September 1995 survey which is 65 ter 4728, and the human
4 rights violations summary which is 65 ter number 508.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll go one by one. Any objection against the
6 survey report, 65 ter 1122?
7 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, and I see that you consult the your
9 colleagues, Mr. Kehoe.
10 Madam Registrar, survey report would be number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit number P97, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P97 is admitted into evidence.
13 Then we come to the next one, that is the 13th of September, 1995
14 survey, 65 ter 4728. Any objections?
15 MR. KEHOE: Just consistent with what we said before, being
16 similar or the same document that came in under Mr. Ermolaev's testimony.
17 MR. RUSSO: I believe he means Mr. Munkelien's testimony.
18 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry. Mr. Munkelien's testimony. I apologise.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, if you will discuss briefly during the
21 next break with Mr. Kehoe the content and the differences of these
22 documents, then we will hear after the break whether there is any reason
23 to forget that number again.
24 Madam Registrar, the 13th of September survey would be number?
25 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit number P98, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P98 is admitted into evidence.
2 Then, finally, human rights violation summary, 65 ter number 508,
3 any objections?
4 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, that is similar to the document that
5 came in, too, with Mr. Munkelien.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, also a previous version or --
7 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So I take it that you will explain to Mr. Kehoe
9 during the break.
10 MR. KEHOE: It is it not a previous version. What this document
11 is that there are very time segments in the Munkelien document, and one
12 of the time sequences is 7 August 1995
13 as we move through subsequent pages, it takes it on from 9 September 1995
14 through October and then on. So this is -- this actual document is the
15 same exact part of a larger document that came in with Mr. Munkelien.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
17 MR. RUSSO: This particular document, insofar as it is the exact
18 Annex C which is appended to the comprehensive survey report, it has
19 independent significance and probative value as being that particular
20 document, which this witness is able to identify as the source of the
21 information upon which he made the assessments in the comprehensive
22 survey report.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say it is the same; but by being attached
24 to this report, we better know the basis on which the report was drafted.
25 MR. RUSSO: That is correct, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, is it really necessary to have
2 additional paper into evidence which at least duplicates that? Is there
3 any dispute about this document being attached to the report and that the
4 witness has told us that that was on the basis of this material that the
5 report was drafted?
6 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I don't think there is any dispute that
7 if the witness says it was part of the report, it was part of the report.
8 My issue is simply it is now of -- Mr. Munkelien has put this in with
9 other things along the same title -- under the same title.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, Mr. Kehoe, you're invited to present this
11 material in such a way that the Court is fully informed about the links
12 between and relation between the one document and the other. If the
13 document has any new content, of course it makes sense; or if it is more
14 limited in its content, it makes sense to have it admitted into evidence.
15 But if it only produces more paper, then it does not make sense.
16 We, at this moment, we will -- I'm a little hesitant, to be quite
17 honest, where you said, Mr. Russo, that at least if I understood you
18 well, that the content that is the text appears exactly in the same way
19 in a document which is already admitted into evidence, if I understood
20 you well.
21 MR. RUSSO: Yes. The observations recorded do overlap.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So, for the previous document, you had the benefit
23 of the doubt. For this document, Mr. Kehoe has the benefit of the doubt.
24 So we will not assign a number to this document at this moment, and we
25 will hear from you after the break.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, regarding the matters reported in the comprehensive
4 survey report which you sent, the burning and the looting and the other
5 human rights violations to which you refer, was any of this, as far as
6 you know, protested to any Croatian authorities?
7 A. Yes. So the contents, as a rule, so they were given at different
8 levels. So, on the sector level, on the sector level, so the main source
9 from liaison with Croatian authorities was office of General Forand. He
10 mainly kept this relations and put down all protests of Sector South.
11 And at least I clearly remember we discussed with him several protests
12 which further on he put down and sent to appropriate authorities to
13 General Cermak office, yes.
14 There was as well, as I know, on our headquarters, Mr. Akashi,
15 United Nations Force commander, they had their own levels of protesting
16 this or that. But on Sector South level, yes, that was office of General
17 Forand; and we send protests against what was reported by battalions and
18 UNMOs, yes.
19 Q. You indicated in your answer that these protests were sent to
20 General Cermak's office. Can you recall or were you aware of any
21 responses to any of these protests having been received from General
23 A. Well, I clearly remember one, and I think that I put it down
24 here. That was, I think, in September, where we informed -- just before
25 just specifying as well, sometimes protests were sent as the final
1 resort; because in August we agreed, I mean through human rights and
2 civilian affairs, that if we saw something I mean not good, something
3 criminal, so we reported it to UN police and Croatian police and then
4 they investigated it. Sometimes there was no need for such an
6 But I remember, in September, we received with General Forand and
7 we discussed it. We received a relatively strange, to me, a weird
8 answer, when we strongly suggested General Cermak to stop this human
9 rights violations and to take control, final control, of the sector. And
10 we received a challenging answer from this gentleman which were really
11 shocked. I was terribly sorry when I read his answer. It was stated
12 that, allegedly, within one month in Sector South, after he took over
13 command, no one burning of house, no one looting and anything, that
14 everything is excellent.
15 It was really a challenge that demonstrated to us that this
16 person was absolutely not in the context of what was going on terrain.
17 We immediately prepared and send him other justifications that he doesn't
18 control the situation on the ground.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I have no further questions for the
21 witness. I just want to be clear about the admission of the sitreps
22 which I provided on a spreadsheet to Madam Registrar, if we could have
23 those marked and admitted. We can certainly it that during the break or
24 at another time when the witness is not present.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with it. Madam Registrar is preparing
2 the list with the numbers; and once they're there, a decision will be
3 given on admission.
4 I think it would be good to have the break a bit earlier. At the
5 same time, I have one additional question to you, Mr. Ermolaev, in
6 relation to your last answer, and specifically on whether it is a logical
7 conclusion that you present or that it's anything else.
8 You said that you were really shocked by the answer, the answer
9 saying that "no burning of houses, no one looting, and everything is
11 You said: "That demonstrated to us that this person was
12 absolutely not," and then what did you say, "he was not well-informed
13 about the matters." It doesn't appear on the transcript clearly. Then
14 that you immediately prepared and sent him other justification, "that he
15 doesn't control the situation on the ground."
16 Now, was this that he was not informed, because that is what I
17 was not aware of what happened on the ground, was that your logical
18 conclusion or were there any other reasons to establish that or to assume
20 THE WITNESS: Well, thank you for that very good specific
21 question because you do understand that sometimes we need to --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, I could put the question in a more direct
24 If someone says, no burning of houses, no looting, if you
25 observed that there were burning houses and there was looting, then that
1 leaves open various logical conclusions, one of them being that the
2 person is not informed about what happens; another possibility is that
3 someone does not give or does not want to admit information he has
4 available to himself. I mean, there are several options; therefore, I am
5 asking, is this a conclusion you have drawn; and then, of course, I would
6 like to know why you have drawn this conclusion, rather than other
7 conclusions, or is it in relation to other information you had that you
8 concluded that he was not fully aware.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, I got your point and I return them back to
10 answers and conclusions. So by saying that, I meant that there is no
11 doubt about that situation in the Sector South, General Cermak knew much
12 better than I knew or General Forand, no doubt about it; because all main
13 roads and all operations of Croatian police was under his direct command,
14 and he got all information which was -- and he knew the situation there.
15 So the conclusion here, as I mentioned, for sure, on the basis,
16 the reports are received from UNMOs and other reliable United Nations
17 sources cannot allow me to argue that he didn't know anything about
18 what's going on in the area of his responsibility.
19 So if not, so, then logical conclusion is that such an activity
20 might be coordinated and conducted from such a level, if such an answer
21 was given.
22 Secondly --
23 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it step by step.
24 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
25 JUDGE ORIE: What you're telling us now is not that it
1 demonstrated that he was not aware of what happened, but that he knew
2 fairly well what had happened, and that you're now suggesting that it may
3 have been orchestrated. Now, of course, again, if you're talking in
4 terms of logic, it could be that you are aware, but you'd rather not tell
5 that without any indicator that it was organised, but you just don't want
6 to admit what you know. Then, again, these are two separate questions.
7 If I do not give or if I do not reveal my knowledge of a certain
8 situation, then, from a logical point of view, that doesn't say anything
9 about who is responsible for the existence of that situation, and it
10 seems that you're linking the two of them now.
11 I'm trying really to find out what is logic, what is observation,
12 what are the facts which were known to you, which caused you to draw
13 these conclusions.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I have identified until now, say, two facts. The
16 first one is that you were aware of reports about burning and looting,
17 and that you had substantial knowledge of burning and looting.
18 The other matter is that you got an answer which says no burning
19 and looting. These are the two elements that I have at this moment.
20 THE WITNESS: Right.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now what else do you have for drawing any
23 THE WITNESS: I a little bit just can't follow you. I am really
24 sorry. So we just regarded, I mean, the conclusions we made about the
25 protests and the system that existed there, and we had the facts that --
1 we made reports, we put facts to General Forand, and he sent protests to
2 General Cermak, okay, and General Cermak answered that there were no
3 looting there.
4 So that's it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. What I'm trying to find out, in your statement,
6 you say it demonstrated that he wasn't aware; and, therefore, you would
7 send him information. But if I hear your testimony now, at this moment,
8 it is that you didn't believe him that he wasn't aware.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, logically, yes. I mean, there are two
10 options as you mentioned. Whether he didn't know about it, whether he
11 knew and sanctioned it, according to my logical conclusion, as military,
12 right, former military, and organisation of police in any country, and
13 particularly in, well, everywhere. So I'm due confident that General
14 Cermak knew particularly well what was going on in his area of
16 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're telling us now is that the answer did
17 not demonstrate that he wasn't aware and that he did not have control, as
18 we find in his statement; or that you rather say, no, this answer
19 demonstrated that he was not telling us the truth and that he may well
20 have been in control.
21 THE WITNESS: Right. Absolutely correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So that is quite different from what we find in your
23 statement. Therefore, I'm trying to find out whether we're talking in
24 terms of logic and on the basis of what known facts exactly.
25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. It is a bit, in English, in any case,
1 it is not your native language, and sometimes you have misspelling and --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, I'm suffering from the same problem
3 with English not being my native language. At the same time, also I can
4 imagine that if you respond in a certain way, that is to provide with
5 information, that in the back of your mind you have the feeling that
6 you're providing him with information not primarily because he needs that
7 information but just to let him know that you have that information. I
8 mean, that's the kind of logic I can understand behind such a step,
9 especially since you tell us now that you are not convinced at all that
10 he was not informed about the matter.
11 THE WITNESS:
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's try always to keep clear on our mind
13 what are the facts, what are the conclusions, and if there are any
14 conclusions on what they are based.
15 We will have a break until 11.00, when you will be cross-examined
16 by Defence counsel.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ermolaev, before you will be cross-examined, I
20 will deal with a few practical matters.
21 The parties have been provided, I take it, with a list by Madam
22 Registrar. Have you seen that? That's the list starting with P94.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honours, just to confirm that with
24 Mr. Russo, that is the entire dossier that was given to us; correct?
25 MR. RUSSO: This is the last version which excised the documents
1 which had already been admitted into evidence and the documents which are
2 going to go in through another witness. So this represents the last
4 JUDGE ORIE: The list I have, yes, looks like that. It is new to
5 the extent that P numbers appear, where, of course, in any earlier
6 versions, there could be no P numbers yet. So we see that the P94 was
7 the first witness statement; P95 was the second witness statement;
8 P96 was the aerial view marked by the witness; then we have P97 and P98.
9 Now these are the two out of the three that were tendered by you,
10 Mr. Russo. I do understand that you only insist at this moment on P97 to
11 be admitted into evidence, and that for P 98 and the third document which
12 was not yet marked for identification that you agreed with the Defence
13 that there was no need to tender that.
14 MR. RUSSO: Actually, Your Honour, it was my understanding that
15 P98 was already admitted into evidence; and with respect to the another
16 document which was 65 ter 508, we will be withdrawing that one since it
17 is a --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I thought that you were also agreed on P98 not to be
19 tendered, but that is apparently not the case.
20 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, it is technically a different date
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is a different document, the content is not
23 exactly the same.
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we leave that as it is. So, P97 and P98, there
1 is no reason to revisit P98. Then for 65 ter number 508, where I gave
2 the benefit of the doubt to the Defence, you do not insist on tendering
3 it anymore.
4 So that is now off the list, it has not received a number.
5 Then we have the other documents which are now P99 up to and
6 including P170. These are the documents attached where there were no
7 objections. They were already admitted into evidence but they have now
8 received numbers, and the only remaining matter in this respect are the
9 summaries and how to draw the attention of the Chamber to the most
10 relevant portions of those documents.
11 Having dealt with that, I think it is clear to everyone.
12 Yes, Mr. Cayley.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 In respect of the documents that you have just referred to, P99
15 to P170, I don't actually have that list, so I have the 65 ter numbers.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. On this list, we see also the 65 ter numbers.
17 If at any later stage you would find that the 65 ter numbers you had on
18 your list do not correspond with the 65 ter numbers on this list, please
19 inform us and then we will reconsider the admission or at least to give
20 further possibility to argue about it.
21 MR. CAYLEY: And if you would excuse for me on a couple of
22 occasions calling the 65 ter number, as opposed to the Prosecution
23 Exhibit number, I will do my best to try and find them as I go through.
24 But I think once I call that number, the exhibit number will become
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see. It is not perfectly clear your
2 last observation, Mr. Cayley. But at least as to what you said, I do not
3 have this list. I take it, then, when working on the basis of your
4 exhibit list with the 65 ter numbers, you will compare what we find here
5 and see whether the 65 ter numbers you focussed on, when you did not
6 object to admission, are the same as the ones we find here and to which P
7 numbers are assigned.
8 MR. CAYLEY: I will do my best to locate it as I go along, Your
9 Honour. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then the order of cross-examination, Mr. Cayley,
11 you're on your feet, do you remain on your feet?
12 MR. CAYLEY: I do remain on my feet, Mr. President, thank you,
14 JUDGE ORIE: You will first be examined, Mr. Ermolaev, by
15 Mr. Cayley who is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Cayley:
17 MR. CAYLEY:
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ermolaev. I would like to direct your mind
19 immediately to the matters which the Presiding Judge was asking about
20 before the break, concerning the letter that you stated Mr. Cermak sent
21 to General Forand in response to a letter from General Forand.
22 You will recall that, in essence, you stated in your evidence
23 that Mr. Cermak stated that no one is burning, no one is looting,
24 everything is excellent.
25 Do you recall stating that before the break?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. CAYLEY: If I could please call up 65 ter number 2557.
3 Q. Now, this, Mr. Ermolaev, is the letter that was sent by General
4 Forand to Mr. Cermak. You will see, in the second paragraph, where
5 General Forand is referring to the burning of houses and driving the poor
6 and the destitute from their homes: "Driving poor and destitute persons,
7 homeless from their land, in contravention of the policy of the
8 government of Croatia
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Have you seen this letter before?
12 A. I say that I saw a lot of paper, particularly here. So,
13 generally, I do feel it. But to say that I particularly saw this, I
14 cannot just remember.
15 Q. You can't confirm you have seen the letter before. Thank you.
16 MR. CAYLEY: If we could now please look at 65 ter number 4186.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, do you tender this?
18 MR. CAYLEY: I'm sorry. Yes, I do, Your Honour, I do.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection, Mr. Russo?
20 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that number would be?
22 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit number D144, Your Honours.
23 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I think we have just -- yes, D 144,
25 yes. D144 is admitted into evidence.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. CAYLEY:
3 Q. Now, Mr. Ermolaev, here you see the response to that letter from
4 Mr. Cermak, and I would direct you to paragraph 3 of that letter, in
5 fact, paragraphs 2 and 3, beginning: "In the same letter, you state
6 that ..."
7 A. Yes, I do remember this letter.
8 Q. And this is the letter that you were referring to in your
10 A. Yeah, right, absolutely.
11 Q. Have you read paragraphs 2 and 3? I'm not going to read them out
12 because the Judges --
13 A. Oh, yes, for sure, for sure.
14 Q. Now, first of all, let's establish the letter doesn't say, does
15 it, everything is excellent?
16 A. Well, to me, such a phrase, I ask you to give me evidence of at
17 least one case of driving --
18 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, I am going to interrupt you. The question I had
19 for you is: You recall, in your evidence, that you stated that
20 Mr. Cermak said that everything was excellent, and I need you to answer
21 my question and state whether or not that's what the letter actually
23 Does it say that, in the letter, that everything is excellent?
24 A. Yeah, I got your question in point. You see, then, I should
25 formulate it in a lit bit more clear way. I cannot recollect, I mean,
1 all letters by heart. I can only relate, you know, general feelings of
2 what was there, the substance of the letter.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you here. Mr. Cayley, you don't need
4 the witness to tell us that the words, everything is excellent, appears
5 in this letter. Your point is clear.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. You also stated in evidence that Mr. Cermak said that no one is
9 burning and no one is looting. Now, the letter does not say that either,
10 does it?
11 A. Can you show me the full text of the letter, please?
12 So here we have a statement when General Cermak was astonished at
13 the statement of General Forand Sector South report, as you previously
14 showed me, about persecution of the poor and the miserable from their
15 land, which I consider are strong words and ungrounded accusations,
16 right, in such a phrase where he claims that are there are no criminal
17 activity against local population in such activity including all these
18 facts that were reported by UNMOs and battalion, right.
19 Q. Now, in the next paragraph, General Cermak is asking for
20 evidence, isn't he? He is asking General Forand to provide him with
21 evidence of people being driven from their homes and their homes being
23 A. [No verbal response]
24 Q. You have to audibly respond, Mr. Ermolaev.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And he states also, doesn't he, that he is ready to go with
2 General Forand to prove the truth in any case at any time, doesn't he?
3 That's what he states in the letter?
4 A. Absolutely, correct, that is stated in the letter.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, if that document, please, could be
6 marked for identification.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection, Mr. Russo?
8 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit D145, marked for
11 identification, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And that is the next step. It is now admitted into
13 evidence, D145.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. In your evidence this morning, Mr. Ermolaev, you also stated
17 that: "Mr. Cermak had all main roads and all operations of the Croatian
18 police under his direct command, and he got all information," and there's
19 a gap, you pause, "and he knew the situation there."
20 Do you recall stating that this morning?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who was the chief of police in Knin?
23 A. With all contacts between Croatian police and United Nations
24 police, they were carried out by United Nations CIVPOL. So they were in
25 charge of cooperating with Croatian police. I didn't cooperate. I did
1 not recall his name.
2 Q. Now, when you came to the conclusion that you offered this
3 morning, that Mr. Cermak was in control of the Croatian police, what
4 research did you carry out while you were serving as a military observer
5 in Sector South to come to that particular point of view?
6 A. So, we had different channels and institutions, I mean, in
7 Sector South, UNMO, ICRC, human rights, civil police, and et cetera. All
8 institutions worked according to their channels of cooperation with
9 Croatian authorities; and through their channels of information, they
10 presented their facts and concerns. That was done by United Nations
11 civilian police if they found out something that was done by done by
12 European community monitors and others.
13 So the role of UNMOs regarding to, if I properly got it,
14 concerning the human rights violations, that was not the proper mission I
15 had there. You must clearly understand. So that is why we had
16 subordinative function. And if and when we found something, we reported
17 it to human rights --
18 Q. Can I stop you, Mr. Ermolaev, because I want to come straight
19 back to the question, and I'll make it more direct and more simple for
21 Who told you in the Croatian police that Mr. Cermak was their
23 A. Well, first of all, no one -- I never spoke to Croatian police
24 myself and discussed such a question of who is in charge in Sector South.
25 Q. No. The question is who in charge of the civilian police, the
1 Croatian civilian police, not Sector South, so to be clear.
2 A. Right. I never discussed who was in charge of this or that
3 structure within the governmental authority of Croatia. So the only
4 thing that at my level I knew and reported when we met with General
5 Cermak and General Forand, I was informed that General Cermak is in
6 charge of general activities in the territory, for sure. I clearly
7 understand that he had some other person in charge of different
8 directions or activities that was organised there.
9 Q. But nobody expressly every told you that he was in charge of the
10 Croatian civilian police?
11 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. The question has been asked
12 and he answered.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Cayley.
14 Please proceed. The objection is granted.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. If we could go back to a subject which you yourself mentioned a
17 moment ago, and that is that you, as UNMOs, were not previously prepared
18 for human rights monitoring.
19 Now, I'm right in saying that, prior to the re-taking of the Knin
20 region by the Croatian military, your job was to monitor military
21 activity in Sector South and the zone of separation. Is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, after the 5th of August, your role changed, didn't it, to
24 the monitoring of human rights violations. Is that right?
25 A. Yes, generally.
1 Q. And in your statement, you make it quite clear, and you can refer
2 to it, if you wish, it's on page 2 of your statement. Let's look at it
3 so that we're absolutely clear about this.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You're talking about the earlier statement?
5 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, I am, Mr. President, thank you. It is P94.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P94.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
8 Q. And, Mr. Ermolaev - it is one, two, three, four - it's the fifth
9 paragraph on the 1st page. Do you have that? It's your first statement.
10 I am sorry.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It is the long paragraph, I take it, which appears
12 on the first page after the cover page, which is numbered page 2.
13 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Page 2, right. No, I have it.
14 MR. CAYLEY:
15 Q. Now, just so you have that in front of you, would it be fair to
16 say that most of the UNMOs had little or no experience in the monitoring
17 of human rights violations?
18 A. I would say yes, and I would like to just specify it a bit.
19 When we discussed with General Forand on the new circumstances
20 when our mandate actually finished, and at the same time we received, you
21 know, agreement between Croatian authorities and the United Nations, with
22 the new functions which are not typical for us, we write a conclusion
23 that we need to at least get some training and understanding of what does
24 it mean. And we organised, first of all, on commanding level, some sort
25 of a training where ICRC, human rights, they lectured us what is the
1 topic. I mean, it is police case, investigations, and we were never
2 trained. So, and then before my departure for CTO to Zadar, we conducted
3 a meeting with team leaders where we tried, I mean, at least explained
4 what we could. And together with civil affairs and chief -- well,
5 American human rights violations, he had 45 minutes briefing to our team
6 leaders how it should be done, what we should report to him, and how he
7 will react when he get such information.
8 Q. So it would be fair to say that for much of the earlier work, at
9 least in August, it was on the job training, really, in terms of
10 monitoring human rights violations by UNMOs?
11 A. Yes. We clearly and vividly, so, in my position, was that the
12 only mission of UNMO is just to, if we find out, I mean, something
13 concerning particularly these issues, I mean, sensitive and which are in
14 the hands or responsibility of United Nations police and human rights
15 violations, we just immediately report it to them and then they keep on
16 going. So a lot of information even I do not know, because we just
17 informed them; and then it was their responsibility to conduct
18 investigation who was killed where and et cetera.
19 So I have --
20 Q. Thank you. Just to go back very briefly to your time, to your
21 service prior to the 5th of August in monitoring the military activity,
22 you monitored the military activity of both sides, didn't you, the
23 Croatian military forces and also the forces of the ARSK?
24 A. Yes, to the extent we could.
25 Q. And you had to do that, didn't you, because, as UNMOs, you needed
1 to be impartial, didn't you?
2 A. Yes, for sure.
3 Q. I'll come back to that point later.
4 But if we could move on, and what I intend doing, Mr. Ermolaev,
5 is to move to discrete typicals. I will tell you as we move to each one,
6 so that you can address your mind to that particular matter. If we could
7 now, please, talk about freedom of movement.
8 Now I'd like you to please to turn to page 3 your first
9 statement, that is P94, your statement taken and, I think, finally signed
10 on the 14th of May, 2002.
11 One question I do have for you: You started making this
12 statement in June of 1997 and you didn't, in fact, sign it until 2002.
13 Why was that?
14 A. I can't even recollect.
15 Q. Would it be fair to say that an investigator came to see in 1997,
16 took a proportion of the statement, and then came back nearly five years
17 later to complete the statement and sign it?
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I don't know if that's fair to say, but
19 I think it's fair to say that it's speculation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's an unclear question; that's my problem. If a
21 statement is taken, it means that questions are put to someone, that he
22 answers those questions, and then usually put that down on paper.
23 What I'm interested in is whether you saw in 1997 already put on
24 paper what your answers were during the interview that was then held; do
25 you remember?
1 THE WITNESS: No. I cannot confirm nor deny whether the text
2 that I wrote in 1997 and 2002 are identical.
3 JUDGE ORIE: This is where we're now talking about the text that
4 you have written. What the Chamber has in evidence before it is a
5 witness statement which, at least, suggests that it was the result of an
6 interview rather than writing down a statement, because the name of an
7 interviewer appears on the cover page, being Vyacheslav Anfinogenov, and
8 the language that was used during the interview.
9 But perhaps I leave it in your hands, Mr. Cayley, to find out how
10 this statement finally found its way to paper.
11 MR. CAYLEY:
12 Q. So, just to go try and go step by step, Mr. Ermolaev, and to be
13 absolutely clear, do you recall seeing anything on paper during the first
14 two days of the interview, 25/26 June 1997? Did you read anything on
15 paper on that occasion.
16 So was a typed text presented to you on the second -- at the end
17 of the second day of the interview that you were able to read and check
18 and correct?
19 A. I do not remember.
20 Q. When the -- but to be clear, it's clear from the statement that
21 you didn't sign anything until 2002, did you? You don't recall signing
22 anything on the 25th or the 26th of June of 1997?
23 A. No, no.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, you said you would take it step by step;
25 and on the basis of one of the previous answers, I think one step is not
1 yet dealt with.
2 When you were interview, you said "whether my statement of 1997."
3 Did you right a statement, or were you interviewed and did someone else
4 put your answers on paper, or did you provide him with a written
5 statement as guidance for questions to be put to you? Do you remember
6 how it happened in 1997?
7 THE WITNESS: I can't quite say for sure.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Because you said you're not certain that it was the
9 same. Let me just find that part of your answer.
10 Yes, you say: "No. I cannot confirm nor deny whether the text
11 that I wrote in 1997 and 2002 are identical," which suggests that at
12 least one or perhaps even both of these statements were not put on paper
13 by someone else on the basis of the answers you had given but, rather,
14 that you, prepared or wrote a statement yourself.
15 If you don't recall, please tell us, but my question arises out
16 of your answer.
17 THE WITNESS: Well, I try to, but I cannot be precise and say
18 that I remember this with precision and what was the difference between
19 these two cases, and why in 1997 I was first interviewed and then only I
20 signed it, you know, five years later. I do not remember. I, as well,
21 do not remember whether I was only orally interviewed by representatives
22 of the Tribunal or I made -- was answering some questions in written
23 form. Well, to my regret, I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
25 MR. CAYLEY:
1 Q. Do you recall in the second interview 14 May 2002, the second
2 visit, whether or not you were asked any questions during that period or
3 were you simply presented with a statement to read, correct, and sign?
4 A. I think that I just made a statement of what -- I mean, of what
5 main feelings I had. To what extent there was some questions or not,
6 asking me, I just do not remember. But I cannot exclude that there might
7 be -- that some questions were asked.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I don't know whether you want to
10 explore that matter further.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, not at this moment. We will consider it; and at
12 the very end, we may come back to it.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
15 Q. Now, witness, if could I please direct you to page 3 of this
16 statement, and it is in this part that you -- do you have that in front
17 of you.
18 A. Oh, yes.
19 Q. And this is where you set out the new duties of UNMOs, and the
20 paragraph that I'm actually interested in is - the one, two, three - the
21 fourth paragraph down. It's a two-sentence paragraph beginning:
22 "Carrying out surveillance immediately in all areas."
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yeah, yeah.
25 Q. Now, when you're talking about surveillance there, you're talking
1 about surveillance in respect of human rights violations; yes?
2 A. Yes, according to new mission we received from the United Nations
3 headquarters Zagreb
4 Q. And your understanding, at least when you made this statement, is
5 that you would be able to carry out all surveillance, except those in
6 which the security situation does not permit such surveillance. That was
7 your understanding; yes?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, were you aware of the meeting -- in fact, let me rephrase
11 Did you attend the meeting between Mr. Akashi and the Croatian
12 authorities on the 7th of August at Sector South headquarters?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were you aware that that meeting took place?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Where were you at that time on the 7th of August?
17 On the 5th of August, I think you said --
18 A. On 7th August, there is no doubt that I was at headquarters
20 Q. But you didn't attend the meeting between Mr. Akashi --
21 A. No.
22 Q. So you don't know what took place at that meeting?
23 A. No.
24 MR. CAYLEY: If, please, Your Honour, the next item that I'd like
25 to show, actually, is a video recording of that meeting between
1 Mr. Akashi, the special representative of the Secretary-General, and the
2 Croatian authorities, including General Cermak. That is a meeting on the
3 7th of August. There is a transcript. The booths do have it. And if,
4 please, the transcript and the video could be marked for identification.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll do that once we have looked at it.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
7 [Videotape played]
8 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
9 "REPORTER: 'During his visit to Knin, Yasushi Akashi spent most
10 of the time in the UNCRO barracks where 800 civilians had taken refuge
11 during the fighting for the liberation of the town. Here, the UN
12 Secretary-General Special Envoy spoke to commander of the Knin garrison,
13 General Ivan Cermak.
14 "Following an one hour discussion conclusions which represent the
15 implementation of the agreement with the Hrvoje Sarinic were presented.
16 "General Cermak had given us an affirmative response regarding
17 full respect of everything that had been agreed. Starting tomorrow, the
18 UN and similar organisations will be able to move freely around Knin and
19 its environs. From the day after tomorrow, freedom of movement will be
20 extended into other areas, but this will depend on the situation in the
22 "General Cermak and I agreed to call on people to stay here
23 because they have nothing to be afraid of. Those who want to leave must
24 be enabled to leave safely.
25 "On behalf of the Croatian army, General Cermak has given full
1 guarantees for all human rights and has guaranteed security to all the
2 citizens of Knin.'"
3 "CERMAK: 'Already today, we will talk with the people who took
4 refuge in the UNCRO camp.'"
5 "INTERPRETER: 'Starting from today, we shall begin speaking to,
6 we shall begin interview the people who found refuge here in the UN
8 "CERMAK: 'To the women and children ...'"
9 "INTERPRETER: 'We will speak to the women and ...'"
10 "CERMAK. "... will be enabled freedom of movement.'"
11 "INTERPRETER: 'Women and children will be allowed freedom of
13 "CERMAK: 'Return to homes ...'"
14 "INTERPRETER: 'And return to their homes, as of now.'"
15 "CERMAK: 'Complete social and human protection ...'"
16 "INTERPRETER: 'They will be afforded complete welfare and humane
18 "CERMAK: 'Men of military age will be enabled ...'"
19 "INTERPRETER: '... will be given a humane and fair treatment
20 during interviews.'"
21 "CERMAK: 'All those who have not committed any crimes against
22 the Republic of Croatia
23 "REPORTER: 'The current conditions in the UN barracks are best
24 known by those who have been here for two days already.'"
25 "WOMAN: 'When our army entered, we got out and they told us not
1 to be afraid, that nothing will happen to us, that we should go across
2 the road where will there is a shop, and that we would be returning home.
3 Then they said it was best if we went, I don't know where; and then they
4 we brought us here, that it will be something for a short time only and
5 that we are returning to our homes.'"
6 "REPORTER: 'As we have learned from Yasushi Akashi, these people
7 should begin leaving the barracks today in accordance withe agreement
8 that had been reached.'"
9 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, just to be clear -- Mr. President,
10 to be clear about the transcript and the subtitling, you can see that
11 what we have actually done is put in what the interpreter interpreted,
12 and then what Mr. Cermak and Mr. Akashi actually said, and that's in
13 brackets, and you will see that in the transcript as well.
14 Those exhibits, the video itself, is 2D02-001, if that could be
15 marked for identification.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
17 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit D146.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that covers the transcripts as well, Madam
21 Registrar. D146 is admitted into evidence.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. If the transcript, please, could be
24 brought up on the screen, and I just want to look at the first page.
25 Q. You'll see, Mr. Ermolaev, I'd like to direct attention to where
1 it begins General Cermak. Do you see the second sentence where it
2 begins: "Starting tomorrow." Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, in essence, what was said here is that the following day, on
5 the 8th, freedom of movement would be given to the UN to move freely
6 around Knin; and then from the day after tomorrow, the 9th of August,
7 freedom of movement would be extended to all areas, depending on it's
8 situation in the field.
9 Is that your recollection of what was agreed at that meeting?
10 A. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.
11 Q. Now, if we could now, please, very briefly, look at another
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, have we dealt with this one and also
14 about the issue about especially the situation in the field?
15 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I'm actually going to come back to it,
16 but there is a connected video that I would like to play now which
17 doesn't really fit in anywhere else.
18 If, please, we could now play 2D02-0011, and this is a video from
19 the 9th of August.
20 [Videotape played]
21 "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover].
22 "REPORTER: 'Mrs. Mladenka Skaric is the first of the 840 Knin
23 civilians who took refuge five days ago in the UNCRO barracks to return
24 home today. When we wished her all the best in the freedom of her and
25 Croatian Knin, she told us about Milan Martic last Knin moments.
1 "SKARIC: 'When I went down to the cellar, I found President
2 Martic down there who was naked from waist up and barefoot, in his pants.
3 When I saw him, I said, "Mr. President, all of the newspapers in the
4 world should write about a president sharing the fate of his people in
5 the cellar."
6 At 7.15 he left us.'"
7 "REPORTER: 'And while you are watching as cards for returning
8 home are filled for a large number of Knin residents who will remain in
9 Knin, let us say that this is a result of an arrangement of today between
10 Dr. Goran Dodig, General Ivan Cermak, and Peter Pasic, government's
11 commission for Knin.'"
12 "DODIG: 'I have seen General Cermak for the first time today.
13 The way in which he is trying to resolve this, his goodwill and concrete
14 steps with which he really wants to resolve the destiny of these people,
15 in the best possible way, fascinated me.
16 'And this is a guarantee, along with the principle stands of the
17 Croatian government, Croatian leadership, and President Tudjman, that
18 everybody has a right to a free choice and those who will remain here
19 will have citizenship rights.
20 'And I think that this on-the-spot conduct like General Cermak's,
21 I think this is the best guarantee that the situation will be resolved
22 very soon to mutual satisfaction.'"
23 "CERMAK: 'They will be granted as of tomorrow full protection
24 and all civil rights in Knin, a public kitchen will be introduced with
25 them. We have to urgently, with the help of civil authorities, which,
1 there you are, have also from today started functioning in Knin. We, as
2 a military structure, in all this are helping, so it goes as fast as
4 "REPORTER: 'For the very, a statement from Glisa Kablar of Knin
5 and, as he himself says, a citizen of Croatia of Serb nationality.'"
6 "KABLAR: 'I intend to stay here because this is my homeland and
7 this is, from the liberation, my state as well. Therefore, I don't plan
8 going anywhere else, but living here and staying here. And with these
9 people, regardless of how they came to argue and clash, regardless of all
10 that, I am staying here, to live and to work.'"
11 MR. CAYLEY: If, please -- I'm sorry, Mr. President, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.
13 MR. CAYLEY: If that could be marked for identification -- I'm
14 sorry. It has been marked for identification. If it could be admitted
15 into evidence, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
17 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit D147, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: D147 is admitted into evidence.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. CAYLEY:
23 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, you recall the civilians that were in the UNCRO
24 camp, don't you, during or at least prior to that time-period, yes?
25 A. Yes. I just recollected on particular that when this interview
1 was taken, for sure, yes.
2 Q. Do you recall them also leaving the UNCRO compound around this
4 A. Yes, for sure, because we live together there, right.
5 Q. Now, you saw in that video and it was very -- sort of went
6 through very quickly, that Mr. Cermak was talking about opening a soup
7 kitchen or public kitchen. Were you aware of that?
8 I can read the transcript back to you. You're looking at me
9 slightly puzzled.
10 A. Yeah.
11 MR. CAYLEY: If we could bring the transcript up, please, the
12 second page.
13 Actually, it is in your -- it's -- can you just take it down a
14 little bit, can you scroll down, please. I think it must be over on the
15 next page. It is where it says: "Ivan Cermak," at the very bottom.
16 It's the text that appears under the ... yeah.
17 Q. Now, do you see there, the Ivan Cermak -- sorry, do you have that
18 in front of you, Mr. Ermolaev?
19 A. Yeah, I have, but I don't have a transcript of your comments here
20 on the left side. Can we adjust it? No, that is the video. Can you
21 adjust a little bit because I see myself here.
22 Oh, thank you.
23 Q. Do you see that --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- the first paragraph? Were you aware of a public kitchen being
1 opened in Knin?
2 A. I do not remember about such a direction or a reporting about the
3 actual functioning of this structure.
4 Q. You don't, okay. That's fine. Thank you.
5 MR. CAYLEY: If, now, I need to present to you another UNMO
7 If, please, P111 could be shown to the witness.
8 Q. Now, just to orientate you, Mr. Ermolaev, I'm going to show you
9 an UNMO daily sitrep which was actually released by you on the 7th of
10 August, and it concerns the matters that we have already been speaking
11 about, and I want to show you three pages of this document.
12 Now, you will see on the first page under highlights, do you see
14 Now the highlights are the parts of the document that you as the
15 Deputy Senior Military Observer would have drafted; is that right?
16 A. Well, as a rule, all daily sitreps are drafted by my officers.
17 We have chief operations officer, chief military information officer, and
18 then I am just reviewing it. So they prepare the draft; I'm just
19 collecting or editing if there's some discrepancies, just finalise it and
20 release it, yes.
21 Q. So it is not the case that you always drafted the highlights.
22 That was often done by your subordinates?
23 A. Well, the drafts are prepared by usually the person who is in
24 charge, the duty officer together with the operations officer that
25 prepare, and so partially they prepared as well highlights, if needed. I
1 just included if I had to draw attention to something. So it was
2 depending on the situation and depending on the analysis of the situation
3 of the day. You know, I mean, routine work, yes.
4 Q. Could you read through paragraph 1. Just read it to yourself and
5 familiarise yourself and then I have some questions for you.
6 A. Yes, I read it.
7 Q. Do you recall releasing this particular report?
8 A. Yes, for sure.
9 Q. And you recall essentially, and I'm just going to clarify this
10 with you, reporting that the restrictions on movement were going to be
11 lifted the next day, on the 8th of August?
12 A. For sure.
13 Q. And slightly differently from how you characterized it in your
14 statement about the security situation, which I don't criticize you for,
15 but you see you say in the third paragraph, second sentence, that there
16 will be some areas where security cannot be guaranteed.
17 You see that?
18 A. Third paragraph?
19 Q. It's the paragraph 1 and then it's the third paragraph with the
20 little dash before it. It starts: Croatian authorities stated that ...
21 A. Yes, for sure. I mean -- yes.
22 MR. CAYLEY: Now, if we can now, please, turn to -- if I give --
23 is it best if I give you the ERN number to go to the next page. The ERN
24 number begins -- the last four digits are 9577, please.
25 Q. And this, Mr. Ermolaev, to orientate you is a summary of a
1 meeting that you had with Mr. Cermak on the 7th of August in the evening,
2 after this meeting between Mr. Cermak and Akashi in the morning -- the
3 meeting in the morning between Mr. Akashi and Mr. Cermak. You
4 subsequently had a meeting with a delegation of individuals which you
5 referred to in your evidence.
6 MR. CAYLEY: It is actually the next page, please. That's it.
7 Thank you.
8 Q. Now, you see at the bottom of the page, and if you could read
10 A. Sector South would receive information about the areas. You mean
11 this phrase -- about security of UNMOs.
12 Q. If could you read from C, summary of the meetings, down to the
13 bottom, and then let me know when you have read that and then we will go
14 over the page.
15 A. Oh, okay.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. Yeah, I read C.
18 Q. And if we could just for completeness before I ask you any
19 questions so that you have read the entire section --
20 A. Right.
21 Q. -- if we could go over to the next page, please.
22 And if you simply read down to where it says: "Conducted on 8th
24 Have you completed reading it?
25 A. Yes, I completed reading it.
1 Q. I wanted to go back to the page before to ask you some questions,
2 but just while we're on this page were you aware at this time that one of
3 Mr. Cermak was functions within Knin was the reestablishment of the water
4 supply and the electricity supply? Since he mentions it in section that
5 you have just read to yourself.
6 A. Right. So such issues as mentioned here, they were raised by
7 General Forand and addressed to General Cermak, I mean the problems we
8 experienced and whatever. And he was particularly in charge to carry
9 out, I mean, water supply or some other functions so we -- I cannot say.
10 That's why, I mean, if there was some requests they were reported to
11 General Cermak by Mr. Forand, that's all that I know.
12 Q. Just to clarify your answer, you're not aware that General Cermak
13 was in charge of those issues, water supply and electricity supply?
14 A. I do not know, you know, hierarchy and system of governors of
15 General Cermak, and the only thing we did so that if we had some, you
16 know, concerns, problems and et cetera, they were reported through the
17 channel of General Forand to General Cermak; so that's all that I know.
18 Q. So General Forand is really the best placed person to answer to
19 the communications that took place between UNCRO Sector South and
20 Mr. Cermak, yes?
21 A. I stated it in written and in oral form, because exclusively it
22 turned out particularly in Croatia
23 down there, that most communication regarding Sector South activities and
24 liaison with Croatian authorities, as long as we had some, you know, some
25 admin matters through our liaison team in Zadar which was responsible to
1 ensure the cooperation between UN battalions, you know, high command as
2 well as UNMOs with Croatian military authorities. But the system of
3 United Nations, I mean military observers in Zadar was used as the base,
4 as the place. So all letters of protests were sent through my team there
5 in Zadar. They had direct contact with General Forand's office and he
6 sent protest or information he regarded necessary to do.
7 MR. CAYLEY: If we could please go back to the prior page in this
8 document. Have I some questions for the witness on that.
9 Q. Now, the part that interested me, Mr. Ermolaev, is the -- you see
10 where it say, C, summary of meetings. Do you see that?
11 A. Yeah, I saw it already, yes.
12 Q. And if could you please go down to the sentence that begins:
13 "From ..." you see there that you met with Mr. Cermak for a 31-minute
14 period on the 7th of August. You're included. You met in the former RSK
15 headquarters with newly posted military governor of Knin, General Cermak
16 and SKALO. Sector South delegation was told that: "UNMO, CIVPOL and
17 other humanitarian would be able to monitor within Knin town boundaries
18 and other areas but on 8 August afternoon would receive info about the
19 areas where security of UNMOs and other humanitarian agencies can..." and
20 then over the page, "cannot be guaranteed."
21 Now is that an accurate reflection of what happened at that
22 meeting on the 7th of August which you attended?
23 A. I already mentioned, and I want to confirm that, yes, it is
24 absolutely exact. I mean, the feelings that I remember from this meeting
25 and I put it down here in written form, yes.
1 Q. But you didn't mention at all, did you, that General Cermak at
2 first refused freedom of movement for the UNMOs. That is not contained
3 in this report, is it?
4 A. Yeah. You see, during negotiations with conflicting parties, so
5 we bypass several stages, so usually in the final report I put down final
6 result, and that is the most important to me. And usually, I mean, the
7 negotiations themselves and I do not put it down in report. We just put
8 only facts that we received, oral promise from the government that we
9 get, you know, everything that is stated here, right.
10 Q. But this meeting was about the fundamental issue of freedom of
11 movement, wasn't it? Freedom of movement for UN agencies, UNMOs, UN
12 CIVPOL and UNCRO within Sector South. That's what it was about, wasn't
14 A. That was about, and we received oral confirmation that
15 General Cermak supports it. That is why I put it down into daily sitrep.
16 Q. But since the issue of freedom of movement was such a fundamental
17 issue, it seems very surprising that you didn't put down that
18 General Cermak initially refused freedom of movement. Do you accept
20 A. No. To me, I mean, I do understand that, you know, I mean, it is
21 a little bit difficult for any person, particularly in such circumstances
22 to take proper decision. And whenever he consulted with his, you know,
23 legal advisors and et cetera, he turned back and articulated the correct
24 decision that UNMOs, according to the agreement, are allowed. So to me
25 this is the fact so that is why I didn't put it down because it is
1 working, you know, situation and I did expect because I saw him for the
2 first time and I just thought that everything would be as we agreed upon
3 on that day.
4 Q. He agreed to exactly what you wanted on that day, didn't he,
5 Mr. Ermolaev?
6 A. Well, I can't say that I wanted something. So we just received
7 an order. We changed the character of UNMOs' operations. So I had to
8 follow the instruction that I received, so I was completely satisfied
9 with the promises I received from General Cermak that night, yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, in terms of the situation on the ground at that
11 time, you yourself mention in your statement that areas off the main
12 roads within Sector South were often mined. Is that right?
13 Let me rephrase the question a bit. It's not a very good
14 question. Was there a danger of mines in the more remote areas away from
15 main roads in Sector South?
16 A. So generally, there was such a risk, and - is it again the mic? -
17 and such risk existed and -- yeah, this is the fact.
18 Q. And also in -- we'll come to this later on this afternoon. There
19 was also a significant number of fighters, armed fighters from the ARSK
20 forces within the Sector South area, who had either not fled or been
21 captured by Croatian military forces. Is that right?
22 A. Let me put it in such a way, in some specific areas according to
23 information we received from Croatian colleagues, so there was such
24 resistant -- yes.
25 Q. So it would be fair to say that at that time nobody could
1 guarantee the security of the UNMOs on the ground because of these risks,
3 A. I fully agree and support your statement that within the -- let
4 me say, first several days for sure in some remote areas it was some
5 risky operations just to go there and monitor situation, particularly if
6 there was some terrorists or anti-terrorist activities, yes.
7 Q. And when you're talking about "anti-terrorist activities" here
8 you're referring to Croatian forces clearing the territory of enemy
9 combatants, yes?
10 A. I mean, those about these operations we had permanently received
11 from General Cermak if there was supposed to be some mopping-up
12 operations, so we received several times information about it, yes.
13 Q. And you're a military man, that's a normal military procedure,
14 isn't it, by any armed force to clear the terrain of former enemy
15 combatants. Can you answer the question?
16 A. Yes, for sure. I just confirm that in any military so, I mean,
17 mopping-up operations in the territory is to be conducted and will be
18 conducted; no doubt about it.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, what is the issue whether mopping-up
21 operations are usual procedure? Is that in dispute or are we talking
22 about how mopping up took place? I'm just trying to bring into my mind
23 again what were the really issues in dispute in this case.
24 MR. CAYLEY: I think at least in some of the material that I have
25 read, that these mopping-up operations are considered by the Prosecution
1 as a cover for committing human rights violations and so what I wanted to
2 establish through this witness was that these operations did take place,
3 General Cermak did pass on information about them, and that they were
4 perfectly proper and normal military operations.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you have done that by that last question?
6 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It is good that you firmly believe in that. I mean
8 if a mopping-up operation is considered by the Prosecution to be a cover
9 up for human rights violations, and the question of whether mopping-up
10 operations are usual military procedure, of course that does not give any
11 answer to the real issue. The real issue being: What happened during
12 these mopping-up operations? I mean, that's -- I -- I'd like the kind of
13 questions and the kind of answers, but let's get to the core of what this
14 case is about and you have explained it so clearly not whether mopping-up
15 operations are normal. We're talking about how they took place.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. CAYLEY:
18 Q. Now, to your knowledge within those mopping-up operations
19 specifically within your knowledge, were there any crimes that were
20 committed that you know about personally?
21 A. Well, first of all, we just reported all violations which took
22 place within the course of such mopping--up operations and -- or just
23 without officially declared mopping-up activities, because you do clearly
24 understand that it was not a permanent procedure that all, you know,
25 mopping up of each village and each city and et cetera, et cetera, they
1 were reported to the United Nations, no. So only -- so in any case, we
2 usually tried to monitor and visited such villages and if we received
3 information that there was some -- some cases that happened during such
4 operations, or on everyday basis, yeah, or if we saw, I mean, UNMOs saw
5 something, so, and then that was a reporting procedure.
6 Q. But, again, can you give any specific examples of where you
7 linked in your mind crimes that you saw with a mopping-up operation?
8 A. We had different reports, for example, in September there was
9 conducted mopping-up operations in some part of Sector South, and when it
10 was started and within this course I went there myself, just to have a
11 look what was going on, on the ground, within the framework, and on the
12 declared so-called mopping-up operations. Well, at that particular date
13 that I was there, so I spoke with the local Serbs. There was more than
14 30 or 40 in that villages, so -- and we -- they gave us information that,
15 for example, this or that killings took place then and there, for
16 example, this -- two houses and they were just killed and buried in front
17 of the doors, et cetera. So my responsibility was that I received as
18 unconfirmed information from locals to human rights and, you know, just
19 to confirm or disconfirm whether they were killed or not, I do not know.
20 Then another example, for example, on the main road, UNMOs, on
21 23rd August, found two bodies of dead Serbs. So we reported to civil
22 police and Croatian authorities so that there are two bodies along the
23 main road, so please take them away. And after a week in September, I
24 sent a car there to check whether these bodies were taken away, but they
25 were only moved there and covered with a blanket and the head was thrown
1 in the house [sic].
2 So I mean, sometimes, you know, it is not the case, if you want
3 other examples. So I mean now we just -- during such operations mostly
4 what we could see when we entered the zone, when and if we are
5 authorised, we could see burned houses, we could see killed livestock or
6 we could see that this livestock was transported to south in the south
7 direction in the special vehicles.
8 That's the consequences of mopping-up operations.
9 Frankly speaking, I never received and never saw and we didn't
10 discuss it, I mean, what are the main results, what are the main
11 outcomes, how many people were found, what happened to them, how many
12 prisoners of war. We never received updates or just answers or no
13 detailed reports, so that's why I -- that's -- the main conclusion then
14 is that after we checked mopping-up areas, we found dead bodies, blasted
15 houses, blood, and if there was some people left, they described, you
16 know, the situation that happened. We cannot confirm or deny what they
17 told us, but, I mean, we just relay this information to human rights and
18 civilian police because that is not function of UNMO to, you know,
19 investigate what really happened there.
20 Q. And you were not able to specifically link the mopping-up
21 operation with the crimes that you saw on the ground. Correct?
22 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. I believe the witness's last
23 answer covered that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The whole issue we're dealing with is a bit of
25 a different one. Are mopping-up operations normal, acceptable procedure.
1 What exactly -- and that of course appears to be the issue: What
2 is a mopping-up operation? Let me just give it a try, Mr. Ermolaev.
3 Is a mopping-up operation an operation in which you clear the
4 terrain from military presence after intense combat activities have taken
5 place? Would that be a definition more or less of a -- of a mopping-up
6 operation? Because you're talking about mopping-up operations --
7 THE WITNESS: No, I think that more correct may be -- there must
8 be another for sure terminology. Maybe, I don't know, so I need some
9 time just in English language. Maybe later on I try to -- it's a little
10 bit another definition because mopping it's like cleansing, you know.
11 And mopping, when you've taken control of the ground that means, at least
12 as we military understand it. So if there, let me say, some enemy
13 soldiers left there and you take control over the situation so -- and I
14 do not think that, well, a little bit proper English for it. I do not
16 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, if now, for approximately five to ten
17 minutes, questions have been put to you in relation to mopping-up
18 operations without explanation on what is exactly understood by
19 mopping-up operation. And where you have difficulties to define it, then
20 that exactly demonstrates the concern I earlier expressed what we're
21 actually talking about.
22 Mr. Cayley, if you want to put any further questions in relation
23 to mopping-up operations you should first explain to the witness what
24 you --
25 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I had some specific questions. I mean,
1 I opened it up because that's what I understood from you that you wanted
2 me to do. But this issue I'm going to address it later with a specific
3 example that the witness refers to in his statement so I can come back to
4 it at that point. And in fact I can go back to the point that we were
5 discussing before this whole freedom of movement.
6 But I notice that the time is running towards the break, so I can
7 either start that now or wait until after the break.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I just want you to know that if you have not defined
9 what a certain type of operation is and if the witness says he doesn't
10 know exactly in the English language how to define it, that the probative
11 value of whatever comes out of such an examination is limited, very
12 limited. The Chamber always has insisted on the best productivity
14 I'm not going to tell you or to have a debate exactly on put this
15 question or put that question or deal with this matter. I just wanted
16 you -- to explain what my concern was.
17 Your reference to the break was a good one.
18 We'll first ask the usher to escort Mr. Ermolaev out of the
19 courtroom. We have a break for approximately 20 minutes, Mr. Ermolaev.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at the clock to know when the break is one
22 way of looking at the clock. I look at the clock in a bit of a different
23 way; that is, how much time you would still need.
24 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I believe that I will probably require
25 the rest of the session and some more time tomorrow.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's as vague an answer as I would have given
2 if I were in your position.
3 Yes, some more time tomorrow.
4 MR. CAYLEY: I'm going to make another excuse and consult with
5 lead counsel.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. Then I'll hear meanwhile from other
7 counsel what they think they would need.
8 Mr. Kuzmanovic, meanwhile.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We've decided the
10 order. I'm going to be going second and I will take approximately an
12 JUDGE ORIE: Approximately an hour. Mr. Kehoe, you will be third
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Judge. I have a couple of questions. As I
15 probably -- depending on my colleague Mr. Cayley, I don't really know all
16 the areas he is going to cover. Certainly we're not going overlap but
17 I'm certainly not going to re-tread or go over that again which he goes
18 over. But I can't -- I would think an hour and a half, two hours at the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will consider it.
21 Mr. Cayley.
22 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, the first session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Tomorrow the first session.
24 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That would bring us then -- it would take a little
1 less than the whole of the morning session. Let's just see, the first
2 session. Mr. Cayley asks for that. Then Mr. Kuzmanovic you said one
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Approximately an hour, give or take, 15 minutes
5 either way.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you, one half to two hours.
7 MR. KEHOE: I'd say definitely two hours, Judge.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Two hours. Brings us to ... so you would be through
9 tomorrow's session, which is effectively only four hours.
10 We will consider it.
11 We'll have a break and resume at ten minutes to 1.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has briefly considered timing, and we'll
15 come up with some further details later, but the Chamber is, at this
16 moment, takes the view that the examination of this witness could be
17 finished by tomorrow. That will mean that some time should remain for
18 Mr. Russo, for questions by the Bench. If we provisionally assess the
19 time needed for that at 45 minutes, that would mean that tomorrow for
20 Defence there would be approximately three hours left. That's what the
21 Chamber takes as a starting point at this moment, and of course, always,
22 views on these matters are provisional, because you never know what
23 happens during the cross-examination or further examination. But this is
24 what the Chamber has in mind, in view of the way it went until now.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could please have
2 P114 on the screen.
3 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, just to orientate you, this is an UNMO daily sitrep
4 from the 10th of August. It was actually released by Lieutenant-Colonel
5 Hjertnes, not by yourself. And what interests me on this particular
6 document is the second page, which is 9588, and paragraph 1 under B,
7 ground activity.
8 Now, you saw the date of the document, Mr. Ermolaev, is 10th of
9 August, yes?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And this in fact demonstrates that by the 10th of August, the
12 headquarters patrol of UNMO, the UNMO Sector South patrol was in fact
13 patrolling the region, yes?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now if we could, please, go to page 9590. And the paragraph that
16 interests me here is the first paragraph. If you could just read that
18 Have you read that, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. First of all, do you recall that event taking place on the 10th
21 of August, that the headquarters patrol was stopped at Benkovac by the
23 A. Well, it's -- I want to say that I cannot remember, I'm sorry, on
24 each case, each statement today what happened particularly at that time
25 at Benkovac or any other area. So, but if it is stated there, that means
1 that it happened, right.
2 Q. Now in your statement at page 6, and this is P94 that I'm now
3 referring to. Do you have your statement in front of you?
4 A. Oh yes. Page.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I advise the person to choose a better ring tone,
6 but apart from that, mobile phones ringing in court are usually seized
7 and -- yes. Well, it seems that a need for the telephone conversation
8 has diminished.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Ermolaev, sorry about that. It is your first statement, page
12 6. Do you have that in front of you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what interests me is the first paragraph and the last
15 sentence within that paragraph and it begins after the word --
16 General Gotovina's name is misspelled there. You will see that it says:
17 "It should be outlined that even on the authorised by Cermak roads very
18 often UN military observers were stopped at the Croatian check-points and
19 were not allowed to proceed with the carrying out of their functions."
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you recall that as being a fact, yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, I'd like to show you one last document on this particular
25 subject and then I will have a series of questions for you.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Now, the -- one moment, Mr. President. Thank you.
2 Could I please have 65 ter 1194, please, brought up on the
3 screen. And if this, please, Mr. President, could be marked for
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
6 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit D148.
9 JUDGE ORIE: D148 is admitted into evidence.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. CAYLEY: If we could go over the page.
12 Q. You see on the first page there it is speaking about the
13 restriction of freedom of movement, Mr. Ermolaev. Do you see that,
14 paragraph B?
15 A. Mm-hm, yes.
16 Q. And it's talking about the various sectors. And then if we go
17 to -- over the page it speaks about Sector South.
18 A. I can't read it.
19 Q. Yeah. If you read that second paragraph where it says "SS,"
20 standing for Sector South.
21 Have you read that? It's the second full paragraph.
22 A. "This week UN CIVPOL ..."
23 Q. Yes, that's right. Thank you.
24 A. Yes, I have read it.
25 Q. Was that your experience on the ground, that on occasions local
1 commanders of police or HV units essentially restricted freedom of
2 movement in a particular area?
3 A. Yes. We received different information from different teams, at
4 least as I recollect it, that there were different reasons mentioned, and
5 I do believe that in general, so usually they met some, well,
6 check-points or where they were bypassing and they were stopped with the
7 different [indiscernible] or whatever and they were prevented with
8 proceeding with their functions, yes.
9 Q. And those local commanders were acting at variance with what had
10 been agreed on freedom of movement at a higher level, yes?
11 A. Can we just rephrase, please. At variance, I --
12 Q. I'm sorry. Those local commanders who were restricting freedom
13 of movement were not acting in accordance with what had been agreed on
14 freedom of movement between the Croatian authorities and the
15 United Nations. Yes?
16 A. Yes. We do consider, you know, that - I'm just speaking about
17 not CIVPOL, it is a bit not my area - that UNMOs didn't get full freedom
18 of movement at any time and without explanations what they're doing here,
20 Q. I'm not -- you're last response is a little unclear to me.
21 The question that I had for you was, was it your experience on
22 the ground as UNMOs, and I don't have an UNMO document that reflects this
23 is why I'm showing you a UN CIVPOL document, you understand that?
24 A. No, no, but generally it's --
25 Q. What is expressed in that paragraph about, you know, this -- the
1 discretion of HV police commanders exercising their discretion on freedom
2 of movement, was that your experience, what's reflected there?
3 A. Generally, yes.
4 Q. Thank you. If please the witness could be shown --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, this document, page 1 and page 4
6 apparently has markings on it which in copying the document give the
7 effect of a redaction. The Chamber cannot read the whole of the
8 document, bottom of the first page, page 4 as well. Is there any
9 possibility that you upload a copy which does not have this disadvantage.
10 MR. CAYLEY: It's a Prosecution document, so I can certainly
11 consult with Mr. Russo or Mr. Tieger about having a document without
12 redactions uploaded into the system, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Russo, I take it you're ready to assist
14 Mr. Cayley in this respect.
15 MR. RUSSO: Always, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. CAYLEY: If, please, we could have D92.
18 Q. Again, Mr. Ermolaev, not a document that you released as the
19 Deputy Senior Military Observer, but one, nevertheless, that I would like
20 to ask you a few questions about.
21 Now in paragraph 1, you'll see in the second sentence: "All
22 check-points in the area of Knin are now manned by the Croatian police."
23 And the date of that report is the 18th of August, 1995.
24 Do you recall that taking place, that all check-points were
25 occupied by the civilian police in the area of Knin by the 18th of August
1 of 1995?
2 A. Yeah, a very good question. So at least as I remember and
3 recollect, as soon as General Cermak arrived and took over command over
4 the sector, so of this terrain, territory, so I do feel myself that he
5 took over control and check-points from military not later than maybe
6 three or four days after the end of OP Storm. So I think that in Knin
7 area that was maybe not later than 10th of August. I cannot recollect it
8 exactly, but -- well, my understanding and my feelings that as soon as he
9 arrived in Knin and around Knin, so there were check-points and
10 everything, they were taken out from military no doubt about it, yes.
11 Q. That was not actually the question that I put to you, and that is
12 not what the report says. The question I put to you is whether you
13 recall that by the 18th of August all check-points in the area of Knin
14 are now manned by the Croatian police. I asked specifically about the
15 police. Do you see -- do you see that, the second sentence there in the
17 So, you see, it doesn't say that General Cermak took over all the
18 check-points, and as I say, the question I have for you is: Do you
19 recall on the ground that that is it what took place by the 18th of
20 August, that the civilian Croatian police had taken control of all of the
21 check-points in the area of Knin?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. Let's --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, no need, I take it, to draw your
25 attention to the fact that the answer, although not to your question, was
1 given and is, well, it's a rather sweeping statement. I don't know
2 whether you want to explore whether there is any factual basis for that.
3 I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that this is now evidence,
4 not to say what weight to be given to it but --
5 MR. CAYLEY: I can explore it, Your Honour.
6 Q. What evidence on the ground did you see to demonstrate the fact
7 that the police were manning now running all of the check-points? Did
8 you see uniformed members of the police by the 18th of August on
9 check-points in and around Knin?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, you might have misunderstood what I
11 said. Let me just check it exactly what point it was. It was about the
12 role of Mr. Cermak. You see that the witness said after he had arrived,
13 yes. "As soon as General Cermak arrived and took over command over the
14 sector, so of this terrain, territory, that he -- so I do feel myself
15 that he took over control and check-points from military not later than
16 maybe." So this witness by these answers, by this answer suggests that
17 it was all under Mr. Cermak's control.
18 MR. CAYLEY: I was actually coming back to this issue later.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If you come to that fine, but the witness answered a
20 question which was not put to him, but of course the answer is there on
21 the record.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. CAYLEY:
24 Q. Witness, we'll address the issue immediately. I do want to come
25 back to the position of Mr. Cermak.
1 But can you tell the Judges who told you that General Cermak had
2 taken over all of the check-points within the area the Knin? Who gave
3 that you information?
4 A. So generally we have differing sources of information to be able
5 to analyse situation development on the ground. So from different
6 source, reliable, unreliable, United Nations reliable sources, et cetera.
7 So if we received such information that -- particularly about what you're
8 just asking about, that means that United Nations Military Observers saw
9 themselves these check-points and they reported that they saw it, or, in
10 addition, we received information that there is change of -- and
11 establishment of check-points on the main roads and they're manning and
12 their timetable and et cetera. So then it is summarizing and then it is
13 it put down in daily highlights.
14 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't have a great deal of time
15 and I wanted to put the question to you directly again and I will
16 rephrase it.
17 I'm right in saying that nobody specifically told you that
18 General Cermak was in charge of all of the check-points around Knin, did
20 A. Well, I do not see here any mentioning in daily sitrep about
21 General Cermak, so -- and that's why I just not to raise such questions
22 to me repeatedly. I would just use then governmental authorities,
23 because we're just returning back to specify. So if we see the fact and
24 file it down, there is rotation, there are, you know, block roads and
25 check-points established and that military handed over their control of
1 the zone. And it is not the question, I mean, whether it is it direct,
2 under the command of Mr. Cermak or through his deputies and those
3 responsible for this one, it is like the same we have within the United
4 Nations everywhere.
5 So my point is that, yes, it was reported. It was seen by United
6 Nations Military Observers that such rotations from military to
7 structures in charge for the situation in the terrain took place and that
8 was what an OPs officer put it down so to me it is very clear.
9 Thank you.
10 Q. But, now, again, you're referring to the report itself which is
11 speaking of the Croatian police taking over the check-points, aren't you?
12 That's what you're referring to when you give that answer?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. There's nothing in this document, is there, that suggests that
15 General Cermak was ever in control of the check-points in the area of
16 Knin, is there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Yes, you're agreeing with me?
19 A. Yes, I agree with you that in this particular sentence there is
20 no name of General Cermak, yes.
21 Q. And you can't tell the Court, can you, that anybody ever
22 positively told you that General Cermak was in charge of the check-points
23 in the area of Knin, can you?
24 A. No, I can't.
25 MR. CAYLEY: If, please, we could look at the last page --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, nevertheless, I would like to understand
2 exactly what the testimony of the witness in this respect is.
3 In one of your earlier questions you suggested that these
4 check-points, that the position of Mr. Cermak had to do something with
6 Now, you also -- your testimony is that at a certain point these
7 check-points were manned by the police. Did you consider Mr. Cermak to
8 have any hierarchical position within the police which would make him
9 such that the functioning of the check-points was in any way related to
10 his position or ...
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, we do consider that, because, you know, all
12 the protests and information sent about human rights violations filed and
13 presented to General Cermak's office mentioned such cases, and we
14 repeatedly received from him information that there was -- that he would
15 take appropriate measures and all means available to ensure that the
16 security and order on the roads, with the local population will be
17 controlled and monitored and that was insurance given. And we see here
18 clear evidence when General Cermak was in Knin in our location there,
19 headquarters, in where he promised that he will provide and he will
20 ensure it.
21 So that's why I'm confident that if a person states that I'm in
22 charge of this terrain, I do not think that I can blame, you know, chief
23 of police of Knin, or whatever his name, I was asked just for what was
24 happening there.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And then we have to split up two periods. We're now
1 talking about the period where the check-points were manned by the
2 police, whereas at least this Chamber has received some evidence that at
3 earlier stages there was a mixed composition of the -- of the crews, that
4 is military and police.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, for the two periods, say, I assumed on the
7 basis that he responded to complaints we addressed to him that he must
8 have had something to do with -- and he gave his commitments. So that is
9 your position, on the basis of that you concluded that, as you said in
10 one of your answers that: "I feel myself that he took over control and
11 check-points from military not later than maybe three or four days after
12 the end of Operation Storm."
13 Now, when it was still -- these check-points were still of mixed
14 composition, do you consider that the explanation that you just gave
15 about involvement or -- is that for these early stages after he arrived
16 or is it only after the police had taken over these check-points from the
17 mixed -- mixed composition check-point teams?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. If that were the question, I'm sorry, I just
19 didn't properly just -- I got your idea, yes.
20 Yes, we had, you know, gradual change of the composition of
21 check-points, so initially for sure they were military. Then in some
22 areas, well, specified areas let me say so, there were mixed check-points
23 and they were reported by United Nations UNMOs about such mixed
24 composition, particularly when you go out to the north and some more
25 dangerous areas there. So it was gradually and the same --
1 JUDGE ORIE: And did you at that time, when they were still of
2 mixed composition in some areas, did you also address Mr. Cermak and did
3 you receive answers from Mr. Cermak at that time?
4 THE WITNESS: During Operation Storm, I mean, all our addresses
5 and discussions about new mandates and how we implemented it and what we
6 found were reported and informed to Mr. Cermak office, whether they
7 were on military mixed composition of check-points or whenever, because,
8 you know, in headquarters and everywhere, we were presented that this is
9 the focal points of Croatian authorities.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And you received on from the moment that you started
11 addressing Mr. Cermak responses from him or through his office.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sometimes we got some and we already seen one
13 of such report. And at least to the best of my knowledge, I do not
14 recollect that we had ever addressed any just information or protest on a
15 sector level to anyone but Mr. Cermak.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
18 MR. CAYLEY: If we could please go -- this is the last page of
19 the report that we are just been looking at, Mr. Ermolaev, and you will
20 see that there is a section there on restriction of movement. And you
21 will see it is talking about "01 Sibenik team." So that is the UNMO team
22 Sibenik; yes?
23 A. Mm-hm.
24 Q. Is that a "yes"?
25 A. Yes, yes. Sorry.
1 Q. And you will see there that, at 1815 hours, Bravo east of Drnis
2 Croatian police. The Croatian police ignored the letter from General
3 Cermak concerning freedom of movement?
4 A. Mm-hm, right. Mm-hm.
5 Q. Now, you have previously -- you have previously given evidence,
6 and it is in your statement, too, that it was your experience that on
7 occasions General Cermak's authorisation to travel on roads was not
8 accepted by the local authorities in the area who were controlling the
9 check-point. Do you recall that?
10 A. Yes, for sure.
11 Q. And this is a specific example of that, the Croatian police
12 actually ignoring Mr. Cermak's authority?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you aware of this particular example?
15 A. I was aware of everything, you know, on that days; so, yes.
16 Q. You were aware of this example?
17 A. At that days, yes, for sure.
18 Q. Okay. Do you know why his authority was ignored on that
19 particular day in Sibenik?
20 A. You know, on 18th of August, I'm sorry, I was in Zadar, you know.
21 I had my CTO, so I cannot just remember and just know what really
22 happened there, because I was on my CTO, as I have already told.
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. I'm sorry. I was not at the mission. So I was, but --
25 Q. Now, I'd like to actually move now to another topic with you, and
1 that is regarding General Cermak's authority within the region. I want
2 to, first of all, read back to you part of your statement, and this is
3 the first statement, Mr. Ermolaev.
4 It's the page -- page 6, paragraph 3, where you state: "I assume
5 that General Cermak purposely or not, but did not prevent the clearly
6 seen by anyone gross human rights violations in the area of his command
7 and control over the troops on the ground?"
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, I would like to show you a document which, I think, it needs
11 an exhibit number.
12 MR. CAYLEY: That's --
13 JUDGE ORIE: The new procedure is, Mr. Cayley, you put the
14 document to the witness, once the witness has answered questions about
15 the witness; and the Prosecution will tell us whether there are any
16 objections against it, and then it will be -- a number will be assigned
17 to it and then we will decide on admission.
18 MR. CAYLEY: I have actually lost the transcript, Your Honour.
19 For some reason, it is not -- it's back now.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We do not assign numbers when the document is
21 presented to a witness, but once the witness has answered questions about
23 MR. CAYLEY: I understand, Your Honour. The document is, in
24 fact, 2D02-0017.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Ermolaev, what interests me in this document is not the
1 content but it is an order from General Cermak, and you will see that it
2 comes from the Ministry of Defence, main headquarters HV, garrison town
3 Knin, and Mr. Cermak signs as the commander.
4 Now, the question I have for you is this: Do you see what I have
5 just read out, so that we're following each other?
6 A. Yeah. I haven't read it yet, but I see it just in front of me,
7 "I order," yeah?
8 Q. Yes. And you see in the first paragraph, at the top of the page,
9 it has four lines. The last line reads "garrison town Knin"?
10 A. Right, I see it.
11 Q. And you see that Mr. Cermak at the bottom right-hand corner signs
12 as the commander.
13 A. Yes, I see it. Mm-hm.
14 Q. When you were serving in Sector South, were you aware that that
15 is what Mr. Cermak's official position was within Sector South, as the
16 commander of the Knin garrison?
17 A. No, I didn't know about it.
18 Q. Did you ever speak to anyone about what official position
19 Mr. Cermak occupied during this time?
20 A. When we had, you know, our first meeting, and while presenting
21 there and discussing situation in Sector South in the area of our
22 responsibility, and particularly in Knin, my conclusions, my assessment,
23 and understanding was that General Cermak was in charge of the whole
24 territory; at least as I just remember it today.
25 Q. That was your impression. Did General Cermak or anybody else
1 ever tell you that he was this charge of the whole territory, as you put
3 Do you understand the question?
4 A. Yes. So, we saw this clearly in this film as well, at least as I
5 got. It was a little bit quick. But, generally, everywhere and when we
6 put protests about human rights --
7 Q. Can I interrupt you, because I need you to answer the specific
8 question that I put to you, and the question is this: Did General Cermak
9 or anyone else ever tell that he was in charge of the whole territory in
10 Sector South?
11 A. It is a little bit, you know, strange question to me, because all
12 activities and reports were sent to General Cermak; and he answered and
13 he asked us to send him examples not only about the Knin garrison - let
14 me finish - but about situation on the ground.
15 So, alongside with that, I cannot confirm now exactly that, I
16 mean, the position you mentioned. I started recollecting something about
17 it. But at least as I'm confident, there was no one, another one, who
18 would accept the reports that were prepared about the activities in
19 Sector South.
20 Q. Were you aware, if at all, of the legal responsibilities of the
21 garrison commander in Knin?
22 A. So I know, as just turning back, all our requests to, you know,
23 to prepare, for example, water supplies, to do something --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to focus.
25 Mr. Cayley, you have asked the witness whether he knew that the
1 position Mr. Cermak held was that of garrison commander. He said he
2 didn't know that. So why ask about specific functions of a garrison
3 commander if the witness doesn't even know that that was the position of
4 Mr. Cermak. Of course, the Chamber has received quite some evidence on
5 that. I mean, to elicit from this witness --
6 MR. CAYLEY: I will move on Mr. President. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 MR. CAYLEY: We need an exhibit number for this document, Your
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Mr. Russo, any objection about the fish farm? That is what the
12 document is about.
13 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit D149.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D149 is admitted into evidence.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. CAYLEY: One moment, please, Mr. President. Thank you.
19 If we could please have P147, and, if, please, we could go --
20 Q. Just to orientate yourself, Mr. Ermolaev, this is a report from
21 the 11th of September of 1995. Were you back from leave then and back at
22 work by that time?
23 A. Yeah. I think I returned back after -- it was about a week only,
24 so, I mean, that is 11 September.
25 MR. CAYLEY: If we could please go to page five.
1 THE WITNESS: The only thing that I may need some time to
2 recollect, or maybe later, about when I departed, because then I
3 departed, you know, in --
4 MR. CAYLEY:
5 Q. You departed in October; you recall that, yes?
6 A. In October?
7 Q. Yes?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you leave later than that; is it that your evidence?
10 A. I think that I arrived to the mission area on the 1st
11 October 1994. So, according to rules, I was supposed to depart on the
12 1st of October after one year. I am not quite sure.
13 Q. I think you mentioned it in your statement, and we can certainly
14 go back it that when you departed.
15 A. Right. Okay.
16 Q. Now, the page that interests me is page 5. It is 9730 and it's
17 paragraph C, and if you could read that paragraph.
18 Now, the part that interests me is what is stated about General
19 Cermak, and you can see there that it states that: "His headquarters was
20 in Knin and that he deals with non-operational matters."
21 Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And on non-operational matters, like the last order, getting fish
24 farms working again; yes?
25 I'll put a question to you: Do you understand the meaning of
2 A. Well, in such particular context, I do not understand it.
3 Q. Could it be that being non-operational is a senior military
4 officer who it not involved in military operations? Would that be a fair
5 explanation of what that means?
6 A. Yes. I do agree that that that means that non-military activity,
8 Q. And that would include, if one was not involved in military
9 activity, it's also the case, isn't it, that that individual would not be
10 in command of troops on the ground, would they?
11 A. No. But it is clearly stated here that General Gotovina has his
13 Q. That's not the question that I put to you. What I'm saying is
14 that if an individual was non-operational, logically that person would
15 not have soldiers under their command in the field, would they?
16 A. Well, I would not like to discuss logic, so let me comment a bit
17 about this summary of meetings.
18 So, first of all, that information was received from senior
19 Croatian liaison officer, and we received all information from all
20 parties. And as a rule, such information is the information they, you
21 know, mostly want us to receive. And, to such extent, I do not consider
22 it is as a fact or just something telling to me that if some liaison
23 officer told something to someone, this is not a fact and we just put it
24 down; I mean, all such meetings with liaison officer. But I can assure
25 you all such information we very critically considered what information
1 we received from liaison officers of conflicting parties or any other
2 sources which is not confirmed by United Nations Military Observer, yes.
3 Q. This report --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I have to interrupt, Mr. Cayley. You're asking the
5 witness now to interpret two words, and you are drawing all kind of -- or
6 you're suggesting to the witness to draw all kind of logical conclusions
7 from that: "Would it be logical that if you're ..."
8 Let me just ask one question, not for you to answer, but just
9 that the question was on my mind.
10 The question on my mind is: Does it make any difference whether
11 it says General Cermak who does not deal with operational matters or
12 whether it reached General Cermak who deals with the non-operational
14 The whole line of questioning is full of suggestions of -- of if
15 you're dealing with non-operational matters, that you're not dealing with
16 operational matters, which is, of course, all fine if there is a factual
17 just basis for that. But it looks as if we are interpreting medieval
18 literature texts, something like that, and that is not what greatly
19 assists the Chamber.
20 If the witness knows anything about what was said and how it was
21 said, and whether that assists us in how to understand this, fine. But
22 if we start looking at it this way, and just the question I put to, not
23 again to be answered, but whether that would make any difference, must
24 make clear to you of how little assistance this kind of -- I don't know
25 the English word.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Exegesis -- [Overlapping speakers].
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. CAYLEY:
4 Q. These reports, Mr. Ermolaev, were transmitted up the UNMO chain
5 of command to headquarters in Zagreb
6 A. That is daily sitreps, yes?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Yes, all daily sitreps at some time, usually in the evenings,
9 were reported to HQ Zagreb, by all means.
10 Q. And one of your functions, as the Deputy Senior Military
11 Observer, was to ensure that the information contained within the reports
12 was as accurate as possible; yes?
13 A. So, generally, as I mentioned already, so that information we
14 received from UNMOs was supposed to be prepared and put into daily
15 sitreps by military information officers, OPs on duty officer, who were
16 directly responsible that all information reported from UNMOs is
17 correctly included; and if they had some questions, to clarify. So they
18 got there contact with the source of information, particularly that this
19 or that team, and they were supposed, you know, to clarify, and so put in
20 daily sitrep maximum clear and understandable things.
21 When such a report, after that, so this report on everyday basis,
22 if it was not emergency case, so everyday basis, it was reported to the
23 HQ Zagreb, yes.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you.
25 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President, I anticipate moving to
1 another area. I notice the time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is it not much time left.
3 Mr. Ermolaev, I first inform you about that we will adjourn for
4 the day. We'd like to see you back - and I'm looking to you, Madam
5 Registrar - tomorrow morning, 9.00, in this same courtroom, and I
6 instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about the testimony
7 you have given until now or you are still about to give. We'd like to
8 see you back tomorrow morning.
9 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Ermolaev out of the
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Give me one second.
14 Mr. Cayley, I'm just trying to find it, but have I some
15 difficulties about what number it got, the letter about the fish farm.
16 MR. CAYLEY: It is D149, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D149. Thank you.
18 Yes. Why was I trying to revisit this document, Mr. Cayley, was
19 because it so clearly demonstrates what kind of difficulties we find
20 ourselves in this kind of - again, I don't know how to pronounce the word
21 which doesn't appear - exegesis, yes, because the letter starts: "For
22 the sake of operational necessities to organise the work ..."
23 So if we start focussing on what means "operational," we suddenly
24 see here the word "operational." If you, of course, take that out of
25 content, then, of course, you could put or the Prosecution could put
1 questions to the witness like: Is it true that, although not for
2 operational matters that, nevertheless, for the operation of in relation
3 to fish farms, there was ..."
4 I mean, that is exactly the kind of exegesis, which, as I said
5 before, does not greatly assist the Chamber. At least, I do not give
6 that meaning, I can't talk for my colleagues, for the use of the word
7 "operational" in this context. I take it Mr. Misetic will explain to us
8 it is wrongly translated, and that it again demonstrates that that is not
9 the way we should deal with the matter.
10 Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: I have just a point for 30 seconds unrelated to
12 this, and I wanted to let the Chamber know.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. At this moment, let me check one
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 The Chamber doesn't change its view, at this moment, that the
17 time available tomorrow would be the whole of the morning session for the
18 Defence minus 45 minutes. The parties are, of course, invited to agree
19 on how to divide that time. If you are not reaching agreement, then
20 please inform the Chamber and then the Chamber will have to make further
22 Mr. Kehoe, you had something -- oh, no, Mr. Misetic, I'm
23 confusing you two.
24 MR. MISETIC: It needs a private session just for 30 seconds,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We turn into private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Page 2378 redacted. Private session.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of April,
16 2008, at 9.00 a.m.