1 Wednesday, 21 May 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in this courtroom.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Mr. Tchernetsky, before you'll be further cross-examined, I would
13 like to remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration
14 that you have given at the beginning you have your testimony; that is,
15 that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
17 Mr. Kehoe, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Tchernetsky.
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, Mr. Kehoe is counsel for
20 Mr. Gotovina.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
22 WITNESS: ALEXANDER TCHERNETSKY [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Tchernetsky.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, I would like to cover a couple of topics,
3 several topics that were covered not only during your direct examination,
4 but also that were covered in your witness statements.
5 MR. KEHOE: And if we could begin the discussion with the Cetina
6 period -- area, and I'd like to bring up on the map 1D23-0035, if I
8 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, this is an original map, a working map from the
9 latter part of July of 1995.
10 MR. KEHOE: Your Honours, obviously, it has Croatian on it. I
11 have taken the liberty of designating some of the Croatian translations
12 in English; and, for ease of reading, Your Honours, I can likewise show
13 you that as well, which is 1D23-0036.
14 What I've taken the liberty of doing here, Your Honours, is if
15 you could see the individual boxes that are in the -- starting with the
16 upper left-hand corner, where it says: "Work map, start 25 July 1995,
17 end 30 July." This is not -- this is a map which is a working map. The
18 blue line is a line which was, in fact, the confrontation line. The red
19 line is where the HV forces wanted to be in -- on the July 30th, 1995.
20 So, if you see over in the right-hand corner, we have some other
21 designations which notes "defence military secrets, summer 1995." And if
22 we can just down a bit, it says: "Commander Major-General Gotovina Ante
23 Gotovina." If we move over to the left, it shows, just a bit, the
24 Croatian command post. And, Your Honour, I have also circled - if we
25 with could move up just a bit, Mr. Monkhouse -- the town of Knin, the of
1 Strmica, and the town Bosansko Grahovo.
2 Those are the overlays -- the additions to the original map that
3 you were made; but, suffice it to say, we will discussing this map over
4 the course of both the Cetina issues, Your Honours, as well as the
5 Strmica issues that were addressed by the witness yesterday.
6 Q. Now, if we could just -- taking a look at this particular map,
7 Mr. Tchernetsky, if we can look at the bottom left-hand portion near the
8 confrontation lines. Mr. Tchernetsky, that area is basically the Cetina
9 valley, is it not?
10 A. I can see the Cetina valley here.
11 Q. And the particular designation there is an designation for the --
12 excuse me, the 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps of the army of the
13 Republika Srpska which was in Vrlika. Is that right?
14 A. Yes. In Vrlika, there were military units of the RSK.
15 Q. And how far was the -- Vrlika from the confrontation line that
16 was designated here in blue?
17 A. I cannot recall exactly, but it was five to seven metres [as
18 interpreted], as I far as I remember.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, if the witness says that he sees the
20 Cetina valley, perhaps we could use the cursor, not to mark it, but at
21 least that we have an idea what is on the mind of the witness.
22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I will gladly have him mark it as a
23 separate exhibit --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I am not seek to have additional. But if the
25 witness could at least tell us where he sees the Cetina valley, then I'm
1 better able to follow his testimony.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not very visible on the map.
3 I cannot show you exactly because it doesn't show population centres, at
4 least not that I can read it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You said you see Cetina valley. Could you, with the
6 cursor mark, indicate approximately --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that this is Cetina
8 valley, this valley, as far as I understand.
9 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I can help the witness. Maybe, it
10 might be easier, for the working purposes, if we move to D153. Now that
11 we have this specific on this map, we can move to D153.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine.
13 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I am going to be moving and talking
14 about these. But, at this time, if I can move into evidence the working
15 map which is 1D23-0035, and then the map with our additions on it which
16 is 1D23-0036.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
18 Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map, 1D23-0035, becomes Exhibit
20 D219, and the map, 1D23-0036 becomes Exhibit D220.
21 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Registrar, if we can blow up --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the first one, D119, that is the first
23 one. No, let me just ...
24 MR. KEHOE: That's the first one, Judge.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's the working.
1 MR. KEHOE: 219.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D219 is admitted into evidence, and then the second
3 one, Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the second map was the map with the
5 red circles. It was 1D --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was the one that was marked D220.
7 I take it no objections, then, Mr. Russo; therefore, it is also
8 admitted into evidence.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: In an answer above, the
10 witness's answer was five to seven "kilometres," not "metres."
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for the correction.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Registrar, if we can just blow up the bottom
14 portion of that.
15 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, if we look at the Cetina valley, is that an
16 indication to you of the approximate area the Cetina valley that you
17 discussed yesterday?
18 A. If that is the territory that is marked by red here, then it's
19 not. The Cetina valley, I'm showing now on the map, is what we called
20 Cetina valley. It's this area.
21 Q. And it's in and around what you are pointing to as the village of
22 Cetina. Is that right?
23 A. It's around the village and further to the south.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. The valley, itself, is to the south of the population centre of
2 Q. And you also mentioned yesterday the town of Kijevo. And how far
3 is Kijevo from -- along that road, how far is Kijevo to Cetina?
4 A. From Vrlika towards Knin, approximately halfway.
5 Q. I'm sorry. Could you give us an approximate kilometre distance
6 from Kijevo to Cetina?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, we have a map with a scale.
8 MR. KEHOE: That's fine, Judge. Okay.
9 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, we're going to move on.
10 MR. KEHOE: I apologise for that, Your Honour.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, how many times -- before the Operation
12 Harvest, how many times had you been to the Cetina valley area during --
13 from the time you got there in June of 1995 until Operation Storm on the
14 4th of August?
15 A. In the Cetina valley, before the beginning of Operation Harvest,
16 I was there at least three times; and in the course of that operation, at
17 least two or three times again. So, in total, about six times within
18 that month.
19 Q. And during that period of time, sir, when you were there, the
20 three times prior to Operation Harvest, were you driving through with
21 other UNMOs?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And, likewise, when you were there the two to three times during
24 Operation Harvest, that was a week period of time. Correct?
25 A. Yes, yes. Operation Harvest lasted for seven or eight days in
1 the end of August, just before Operation Storm.
2 MR. KEHOE: Now, sir, you --
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that there is a mistake with "end of
5 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, Judge. That's right, end of July.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. Now, sir, there were long stretches of time where you were not in
10 the area. Is that right? You and the other UNMOs were not in the Cetina
12 A. As far as I'm personally am concerned, that's true. But this
13 route was part of the constantly covered routes by our UNMOs, and that
14 area was controlled on a permanent basis.
15 Q. Now, if we can put this in a military context in July of 1995,
16 during this period of time, General Gotovina and his troops were moving
17 up the Dinara mountains and threatening the area of the Cetina valley and
18 also Grahovo through a series of attacks, weren't they?
19 A. No. I know that there are many ways of using artillery and
20 mortars, one of such ways is to use had a harassing fire against the
21 enemy in order to keep him under constant tension, to disorganise his
22 work, and to force retaliation which would discover his deployment of
23 forces. I believe that there, just as in Strmica, the Croatian side used
24 precisely this way.
25 However, in fierce violation, in blatant violation of prior
1 agreements, this fire was used also against population centres, not
2 only --
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my question was very -- my
4 question was this: If we could put this in a military context of 1995,
5 during this period of time, General Gotovina and his troops were moving
6 up the Dinara mountains and threatening the area of the Cetina valley and
7 also Grahovo through a series of attacks, weren't they?
8 A. No. It was not General Gotovina who threatened the area. It's
9 the Croatian army that used such ways as harassing fire that could cause
10 retaliation from the certain side. That is one of the normal --
11 MR. KEHOE: [Previous translation continues] ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question was whether at that
13 point in time, troops, as Mr. Kehoe said, under the command of
14 Mr. Gotovina, whether they at that time were moving up the Dinara
16 Could you first answer that question.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot know that because it was
18 happening in a territory that was not controlled by our group, by our
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- if it was happening.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That is a clear answer. You say, I do not know, I
23 could not know.
24 The second part of the question was whether, by this movements of
25 troops, the area of Cetina valley and Grahovo were under attack. Do you
1 know that? Can you confirm that? Do you have knowledge of that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether the Croatian
3 army was under fire.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. The question is not whether -- whether they --
5 by moving, whether they attacked the forces --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as Grahovo is concerned, it
7 was the territory of Bosnia. It was not within our mandate. We have
8 never been there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Well, sir, you did a -- let's make this simplistic. You did a
13 crater analysis in Cetina. Is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you made a determination that the firing had come from the
16 area of Bosnia, right?
17 A. Yes. From the territory of Bosnia, from the direction of
18 Bosnia --
19 Q. And --
20 A. -- from the Dinara mountains area.
21 Q. And if we look at the map on the screen, that is on the other
22 side of the blue confrontation line, right?
23 A. Yes. Fire was directed at this territory that I'm showing on the
24 map, the area of Cetina, and it came from the mountain range.
25 Q. Now, sir, the crater analysis that was done, were you called in
1 to do that crater analysis by the army of the Republika Srpska Krajina?
2 A. No. Our assignments came from the sector headquarters, along
3 with the protests from the Serbian side.
4 Q. Well, the protests came from the army of the Republika Srpska,
5 didn't it?
6 A. I don't know what kind of an authority, civilian or military,
7 initiated these protests. I received my assignments from the commander
8 of the UNMOs.
9 MR. KEHOE: I made -- there was a -- I misspoke there, Your
10 Honours. I meant to say that the protests came from the army of the
11 Republika Srpska Krajina. Very different from the army of Republika
13 I do believe, based on the answer, Judge, that the answer would
14 be the same because he just doesn't know.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying, once again, I don't
17 know who made these protests, civilian or military authorities of the
18 republic of Serbian Krajina. Our team received its assignments from the
19 headquarters of the sector.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. I understand, sir. Now, with regard to the actual crater
22 analysis, you were obviously not there when that firing took place.
24 A. Correct. We were not there during the firing. We were sent
25 there to investigate the outcome.
1 Q. And, sir, as a person that has been -- had a career in the
2 military, you're familiar with the concept of mobile targets, aren't you?
3 A. I don't quite understand.
4 Q. Well, you are familiar with the concept of equipment moving, be
5 it tanks or APCs. Those are pieces of military equipment that can move.
6 Isn't that right?
7 A. Naturally.
8 Q. Now, since you were not there, you don't know if there was any
9 type of APC or tank or other piece of military equipment belonging to the
10 army of the Srpska Krajina in Cetina when the HV fired, causing the
11 crater analysis that you analysed. Isn't that right?
12 A. In those locations where we found -- where we found craters,
13 there were no traces of movement of any machinery, and there were no
14 traces of vehicles of such mobile units, as you are suggesting.
15 Q. Well, you mentioned to us that you saw a MRL, a multi-barrel
16 rocket launcher, in Kijevo yesterday. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes. And I can confirm that there was an anti-aircraft gun in
18 position in Kijevo. I cannot remember the exact calibre, but it was 57
19 or 76 millimetres.
20 MR. KEHOE: Let us go to P -- excuse me, D86.
21 Q. Now, sir, here's a photograph of an M-77 multi-barrel rocket
22 launcher. Now, you mentioned to us yesterday, at page 3176 on line 17:
23 "In the area of Kijevo, as far as I remember, we saw a piece of
24 artillery, a rocket launcher in position.
25 Now, was it a rocket launcher like this, sir?
1 A. I'm sorry, but maybe it was misinterpreted. I'm going to look
2 through the transcripts. I said yesterday, and I'm saying it again
3 today, it was an anti-aircraft artillery piece, an anti-aircraft gun. It
4 was either 57 or 76 millimetres in calibre. I cannot remember exactly.
5 You are showing me, on this photographs, launchers of the kind
6 that I have not seen.
7 Q. I show them to you, sir, because you mentioned yesterday that you
8 saw a rocket launcher in Kijevo.
9 Now, did they have --
10 A. I was saying the same thing yesterday, that I saw an
11 anti-aircraft gun. I was not talking about rocket launchers. I was
12 talking about an anti-aircraft gun.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, there may have been a translation issue.
14 There are ways of checking that, but the testimony of the witness, at
15 this moment, appears that it was not a rocket launcher but an
16 anti-aircraft weapon.
17 MR. KEHOE: I understand.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. KEHOE: I'm operating from yesterday's transcript.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not blaming you, I'm trying to --
21 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, sir, did they have multi-barrel launchers, mobile rocket
23 launchers, in the Cetina valley or in Vrlika or in Kijevo? Do you know?
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I can please ask him to maybe just
25 take it one at a time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. KEHOE: That's fine.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do not mind here, as a matter of fact, because
4 either the answer is, yes, there were, and then we can specify; or they
5 were not, and then we have covered all three in one stroke.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of my entire stay in
8 the territory of Serbian Krajina, I did not see any rocket launchers
9 during any of my missions in that territory.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. Well, could one of the reasons that you didn't see them there was
12 because you were not permitted to go into the military storages for the
13 army of the Republic of Serb Krajina?
14 A. I cannot comment on that.
15 Q. Well, if I may --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what the Serbian side
18 was guided by when it refused to allow us into the places where heavy
19 weaponry was stored.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We have two questions, as a matter of fact, whether
21 he was allowed; that's the first one. And the second is whether that
22 could be a reason. I could answer that question. If it was not allowed,
23 that could be a reason.
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. KEHOE:
2 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, you were not allowed to go into the Serbian
3 military storages to check for heavy weapons, were you?
4 A. Yes. Our team, at least during my tenure in that team, we were
5 not allowed to go into military storage points that were in the territory
6 covered by our team.
7 Q. So, logically, you don't know -- were there military storage
8 facilities in and around the Cetina valley area?
9 A. No. I'm speaking about collection points that were organised in
10 accordance with the agreement on cease-fire. Officially, these sites
11 came under the jurisdiction of UNMOs. They were supposed to be under
12 their control.
13 Q. And where were those collection sites?
14 A. They were two such collection sites in the Knin area, and one
15 was - I can't remember the exact name of the settlement - but it was
16 halfway on the road between Knin and Drnis, somewhere halfway through.
17 In accordance with the mandate, they were under the control of
18 observers; however, we were not given access to such sites. And in all
19 such cases, protests were drawn up, and they were forwarded to the
20 Serbian side by the sector headquarters.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, let me ask you, going back to the Kijevo
22 situation with the anti-aircraft gun, I mean, do you know what that
23 anti-aircraft gun was firing at and what it was protecting?
24 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. There has been no testimony
25 that that anti-aircraft gun was fired at anything.
1 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I think, logically, one can draw that if
2 they have an anti-aircraft gun several kilometres away, that the question
3 is where is it pointing and what is it firing at, I mean, if the line is
4 five kilometres away at most?
5 JUDGE ORIE: You're giving the answer, more or less, Mr. Kehoe.
6 MR. KEHOE: Well, no, I am just explaining -- I'm answering the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, you're not answering the
9 objection. You could ask the witness whether he has seen it firing or
10 whether he has any knowledge in what direction it was targeting.
11 At the same time, I get the feeling that it takes us quite a
12 while to make a point. If there were in the movable targets, that the
13 witness might not have observed before he entered the area, where he did
14 the crater analysis, that he might not have known about such a target at
15 this moment. That appears -- if that is your point.
16 MR. KEHOE: Well, I don't understand your question, Judge. I
17 mean, there is a --
18 JUDGE ORIE: We started with the crater.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And, apparently, from the earlier answers of the
21 witness, it appears that he has never seen any military target where he
22 found a crater. And I think we are now spending quite a lot of time on
23 the possibility that there may have been a moving target in that area. I
24 mean, that point was clear to me already seven minutes ago. If that's
25 the issue, ask the witness directly whether he knows anything about
1 moving targets in the area. Because he said he didn't see any trace of
2 that, that doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
3 MR. KEHOE: That's right.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's all clear.
5 MR. KEHOE: That's fine.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So please come to your point, make your point, if it
7 is the point. Of course, I never know what your point will be, but this
8 came into my mind approximately seven minutes ago.
9 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, in response to that. That is true
10 that he doesn't know if it was there, but the Prosecution put them on for
11 this particular purpose to try to prove that there is an indiscriminate
12 fire going into the Cetina valley, when this witness doesn't know --
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. But that was clear already seven
14 minutes, as I said before.
15 Yes. It's not the first time that we are in a courtroom,
16 Mr. Kehoe, the, Judges, yes.
17 MR. KEHOE: I understand that, Judge.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. KEHOE:
20 Q. Now, taking this, sir, did you see where this anti-aircraft gun
21 was pointed? I'm talking about the one in Kijevo.
22 A. Anti-aircraft guns are intended for air targets, in the case of
23 an air-raid, air attack, so they're not pointed anywhere. It's just that
24 if there's -- if enemy appears in the air, these anti-aircraft guns are
25 pointed at this enemy.
1 MR. KEHOE: One moment, Your Honour.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Now, with regard to the air attack, you noted that the
5 anti-aircraft guns are intended for air attacks, in case of an air
6 attack. Was there a weapons depot in Kijevo that the anti-aircraft gun
7 was protecting?
8 A. I don't know about any such depot.
9 Q. I'm sorry. Well, do you know what it was protecting?
10 A. I don't know that such a depot existed in Kijevo.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question now was whether you
12 knew what it was protecting. You told us already that you were not aware
13 of a weapons depot, but it could be other things that were protected,
14 other facilities. Do you know what it was that this anti-aircraft gun
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't know that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 MR. KEHOE:
19 Q. Now, sir, let me read to you -- you know Mr. Ermolaev, do you
20 not? He was your --
21 A. Yes, I know him.
22 Q. And reading from his transcript from 28 April 2008, page 2436,
23 from line 15 through line 17:
24 "Now just going back to the Cetina valley, there was a
25 restriction of movement by the UNMOs in the Cetina valley in July of
1 1995. Correct?
2 "Answer: 'Yeah, correct.'"
3 So, in fact, sir, in July 1995, there was a restriction of
4 movement on the UNMO, wasn't there?
5 A. I can neither confirm nor deny, because as far as I'm concerned,
6 I was never subjected to any restriction of movement myself.
7 Q. Well, sir, let me turn your attention to D154, page 7 of 21.
8 MR. KEHOE: Now, if we go to blow up the top of that page and it
9 notes that the subject of the meeting is: "The lifting of the
10 restriction of movement. The security situation UNMO team, ARSK,
11 official stated. UNMO teams should have freedom of movement in the area
12 of the 1st Battalion of the North Dalmatia corps." That's in Vrlika, I
13 think we established before. "But to secure their safety, there must be
14 permission from the liaison officer in Knin."
15 So, Mr. Tchernetsky, before you went into the area of the
16 1st Battalion of the North Dalmatia Corps which included the Cetina
17 valley, you had to ask permission of the ARSK in Knin, didn't you?
18 A. No. As far as I remember, we went to Cetina without any
20 As for the check-points of the positions of the 1st Battalion of
21 the Dalmatia Corps, we went to Vrlika on our way there and we would
22 receive -- we would contact the liaison officer there. This was at the
23 demarcation line or the line of confrontation. It was precisely there.
24 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, before an UNMO team went to the Cetina valley,
25 this UNMO report indicates that they had to go to the liaison officer in
1 Knin first to get permission. Is that right?
2 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. First of all, that is not
3 what the report indicates; and, second of all, the witness has already
4 testified several times that he never experienced any restriction of
5 movement, and he did not have to ask for permission.
6 JUDGE ORIE: These are not the same questions, whether he
7 experienced any hindrance when going to the area.
8 Are you aware that before you went to the Cetina area, that
9 permission was sought from the liaison officer in Knin? Are you aware of
10 any such thing?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. The procedure
12 was as follows: When the inspection was made of Serbian positions at the
13 confrontation line, we would normally receive permission from Serbian
14 military authorities. When patrolling our regular routes, including the
15 ones in the Cetina area, we did not seek any such permissions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It depended on the purpose of your tour --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether permission was obtained.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Well, sir, Mr. Ermolaev was your supervisor -- I'm sorry.
22 MR. KEHOE: I didn't mean to cut off an answer, if there was an
23 answer, Judge.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you were about to say something, please do so.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I don't want to add anything.
1 Everything is fine as it is.
2 MR. KEHOE:
3 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, when Mr. Ermolaev told this Court that there was
4 a restriction of movement in the Cetina valley in July of 1995, would it
5 be he or another supervisor among the UNMOs that would have been the
6 person to go down and get permission from the liaison officer in Knin?
7 A. I repeat, once again, that our team did not come across any
8 obstacles when moving in the Cetina area. While conducting inspection of
9 Serbian positions at the confrontation line, in accordance with the
10 instructions from the headquarters, we had to inform the Serbian side
11 about that, and we had to receive permission from the liaison officer.
12 The Serbian positions were to the south, much more to the south,
13 from the Cetina valley.
14 Q. And when you got permission to go into the area of the
15 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps, before you got there, the army
16 of the Republika Srpska Krajina knew that the UNMO team was coming,
17 didn't they?
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, the witness testified about permission
19 to go to the confrontation line. Now we're broadening the area to the
20 area of the -- of the 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps.
21 MR. KEHOE: I'm simply reading the situation report of what the
22 ARSK officer said.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine. But I think that we should, first
24 of all, orient ourselves to what the witness said; and if you are quoting
25 from some other source, then make it clear that you are quoting from a
1 report, rather than repeating what the witness said.
2 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. KEHOE:
5 Q. So, Mr. Tchernetsky, when you were moving - and I'm reading from
6 the report - in the area of the 1st Brigade of the North Dalmatia Corps,
7 and you had secured the -- their permission from the LO in Knin, before
8 you got there, the Krajina Serb army knew that you were coming, didn't
10 JUDGE ORIE: Again, this does not reflect what we have in
11 evidence. We have in evidence this line of this report, and we have the
12 statement of the witness.
13 Mr. Tchernetsky, if you just went for inspection, not visiting
14 Serbian positions, would the - let me check exactly what - would the
15 Krajina Serb army be aware of you going into that area? So I'm now
16 talking about the normal inspection tours.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already spoke about that, Your
18 Honour, and I will repeat.
19 When conducting planned patrols, we did not inform about the
20 direction of movement of our patrol teams. These plans changed
21 periodically, and sometimes we visited the same site twice in a row. The
22 Serbian side was not informed about that, not on a single occasion,
23 except, as you have understood me correctly, except for the inspection of
24 immediate combat positions of the Serbian troops at the confrontation
1 JUDGE ORIE: Even if on inspection tours you did not inform them,
2 do you have any clue as to whether they knew even without being informed
3 by you?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, because, let me
5 say, once again. Our plans were periodically changed, and the order of
6 touring certain regions changed periodically.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But they could be informed by check-points or in any
8 other way, is that right, so apart from whether they knew of your plans?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot know, Your Honours, how
10 they controlled the movement of our patrols and our observers, so I
11 cannot comment on that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Yes. I mean, throughout July, Mr. Tchernetsky, there was, in
15 fact, a deterioration of the -- with the freedom of movement in the areas
16 controlled by the North Dalmatia Corps. Isn't that right?
17 A. No. No additional obstacles existed. I do not remember them.
18 We patrolled our area in accordance with the plan, and I don't remember
19 coming across any difficulties or hindrances in our movement. There was
20 certain areas we were not allowed to enter. That's how it was in earlier
21 July and in late July, and this situation was reported on.
22 Q. Well, again, Mr. Tchernetsky, Mr. Ermolaev, on page 2434, line 4:
23 "Question: So, you would agree with me, Mr. Ermolaev, that in
24 July, in order to move into the area of the 1st Brigade of the North
25 Dalmatia Corps, you had to have the permission of the army of republic of
1 Serb Krajina, didn't you?
2 "Answer: Yes. But regarding July and answering yes, I mean we
3 had general deterioration with the freedom of movement, I mean, in this
4 side as well. Right, absolutely correct. Not only there, not only in
5 this area."
6 Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, do you disagree with the comments and
7 testimony of Mr. Ermolaev?
8 A. No. This confirms, once again, the first part that you read,
9 that Mr. Ermolaev said that in order to visit the positions of the
10 1st Battalion, we had to obtain the permission from the Serbian military
11 authorities. I said the same thing. When inspecting their positions, we
12 needed to first go to the headquarters of the brigade and receive
13 permission and escort by liaison officers of the Serbian army. But that
14 was only if we inspected their positions.
15 As for deterioration of the situation, when it comes to movement,
16 I don't know. Mr. Ermolaev was in the headquarters of the sector. I can
17 only testify about the area of responsibility where our group worked; and
18 in that area, I do not remember that there was any deterioration in terms
19 of the freedom of movement.
20 Q. So, Mr. Ermolaev [sic], if the army of the republic of Serb
21 Krajina had a tank in Cetina, you would have had to have the permission
22 of the liaison officer in Knin to examine that, wouldn't you?
23 A. I think so, because we had access to other areas, to other
25 MR. KEHOE: I will note that Mr. Ermolaev - and I won't belabour
1 this, Judge - says the area of the 1st Brigade of the republic of Serb
3 Q. Now, in fact, sir, the --
4 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to page -- excuse me. I apologise to the
5 translators for coughing into the microphone. I'm sorry. D155 --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 MR. KEHOE: D155, please.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, in fact -- excuse me. In fact, General
9 Gotovina did order a cease-fire to allow the harvest to go forward,
10 didn't he?
11 A. Forgive me. This is the first time I see this document. Can I
12 please go through it?
13 Q. I apologise, sir. Absolutely.
14 A. Yes, I have read the document now.
15 The only mistake that I see in it is that the work is conducted
16 under the escort of the UNCRO patrols -- UNHCR, rather, UNHCR, and not
17 under the civilian police of UN. Actually, the people worked under the
18 protection of the UNMOs and under the protection of the civilian police
19 of the UN.
20 Q. General Gotovina did allow the harvest to go forward and stopped
21 firing, didn't they?
22 A. Yes. In the presence of our monitors and in the presence of the
23 monitors from civilian police, there was no firing.
24 MR. KEHOE: Let's turn to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question was whether
1 Mr. Gotovina gave his permission for unhindered - now let me read it
2 literally - did allow the harvest to go forward.
3 Do you know anything about whether Mr. Gotovina took such a
4 decision, apart from what you read on a document that you said you have
5 never seen before?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know anything about that
7 earlier. I didn't.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that. May I take it that the answer
9 that you just gave, is that based on what you saw in this document?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the Chamber is not assisted by a witness
12 reading a document, and then without any further factual basis to
13 interpret whether it is true or not true what's in that document. I
14 mean, we've seen that document, we have read that document. Now the
15 witness has read the document as well. The only thing he could tell us,
16 unless you establish a proper basis for anything else, is to read and
17 interpret what the document says. That's as far as matters stand now.
18 Of course, the witness has testified, and that's what he knows,
19 is whether they were fired at or not. I mean, that is his personal
20 knowledge, but this type of seeking confirmation of what is in a letter
21 the witness has never seen before and that he has no knowledge whatsoever
22 about who ordered and whatever, does not assist the Chamber.
23 MR. KEHOE: If I may.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. KEHOE: The inference coming from the Prosecution case is,
1 during the direct testimony, was that the firing stopped simply because
2 UNCRO went there and -- or CIVPOL went out there and they were protecting
3 the harvesters from doing that; when, in fact, from this document where
4 General Gotovina meant with General Forand, which we have in Exhibit 157,
5 he agreed to allow the harvesting to take place.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The document is in evidence, isn't it? It's just a
7 question of what this witness could add to that.
8 MR. KEHOE: That is exactly right, Judge. What I am here to
9 counter, Judge, is the inference from this witness that the only reason
10 why they were there was to counter HV fire, and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I fully understand. At the same time, Mr. Kehoe,
12 the Chamber does not expect a witness to have full knowledge of
13 everything we know about. And if the witness, even if that would be an
14 inference, I don't think that he is specifically said that this was not
15 under instructions et cetera, he just observed what he saw.
16 Now the witness has limited knowledge. That's clear. The
17 Chamber has, in fact, far more knowledge. And I take that in the
18 examination of Mr. Forand, we will find out more. We know this document.
19 We are not in this courtroom to give such information to the witnesses
20 that they are better able to make better inferences of what they have
22 We are here to listen to what the witness observed, and we'll put
23 together with the assistance of the parties all the bits and pieces of
24 the evidence, and whether this witness has finally a knowledge which
25 allows him to make proper inferences, yes or no, is not something we
1 should worry about too much.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. KEHOE:
4 Q. Now, with regard to your work in the Cetina valley,
5 Mr. Tchernetsky, you noted that you were with CIVPOL and you were taking
6 turns in the fields, is that right? Did I understand you correctly?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 Q. Now, you were there to ensure not only that the HV didn't fire
9 but also that the ARSK didn't fire. Isn't that right?
10 A. No. We were there only to demonstrate the UN flag, that would
11 prevent the Croatian side from firing, because earlier that area was
12 under fire only from the Croatian side.
13 Q. Well, were you -- were you aware of the request by General
14 Gotovina, prior to agreeing or prior to allowing the harvest to go
15 forward, were you aware in any of your discussions at UNCRO or UN
16 headquarters that, excuse me --
17 A. Excuse me. What request are you talking about?
18 Q. I'm not finished, sir.
19 Were you aware of the request by General Gotovina or anybody from
20 the HV staff that in order to agree to stop firing on to the Cetina
21 valley, UNCRO had to control the ARSK firing positions from the Cetina
22 valley? Were you aware of that?
23 A. I knew nothing about the existence of such an order. I saw it
24 for the first time here in this courtroom; and that confirms, once again,
25 that before that order, the area of Cetina valley was under fire.
1 MR. KEHOE: That doesn't exactly answer my question, Judge. I
2 don't whether I want to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you whether you want to insist on
4 receiving an answer on the question.
5 Of course, the witness said, but I don't know whether he was
6 confusing, that he was not -- he knew nothing about such an order. Where
7 he were talking about a request, I don't know whether that is any
8 confusion about that. Then he started drawing conclusions, which are his
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. Well, quite simply, and without going into the particular exhibit
12 were you aware that the HV was requesting UNCRO to control firing
13 positions of the ARSK in the Cetina valley in order to allow the
14 harvesting to go forward? Were you aware of that?
15 A. No, I was not aware of that. But as I was within my team, I
16 worked in the field, not in the headquarters, and any information about
17 requests from the Croatian side is something I wouldn't know. I didn't
18 know about.
19 MR. KEHOE: I will just refer Your Honours to D157, page 2, and
20 move on.
21 Q. Now, sir, if we look for one more moment at D154 and go back to
22 the page we were at, this is again the UN CIVPOL report of the 4th of
24 MR. KEHOE: If we go to page 7 of 21, and just blow up that top
1 Q. And, again, we go to that next paragraph in there, and this is
2 the ARSK official: "He also stated that the security situation was
3 deteriorating do to HV reinforcements at the Dinara," and he gives grid
4 references of it.
5 If we go down two indentations: "Peace is only possible if UN
6 establishes zone of separation, Krajina and Bosnia deployment of heavy
7 weapons, 40 kilometres from the zone of separation."
8 Were you aware, sir, that -- the first thing, were you aware that
9 the HV had moved up the Dinara and was reinforcing their troops in the
11 A. As far as I was able to observe that, whether there were troops
12 of the HV or HVO, I didn't know. But in the area of the Dinara
13 mountains, we saw movements of heavy weaponry. I personally saw a tank,
14 or maybe two, and I saw army personnel moving.
15 Q. Now, sir, during your discussions at UNMO headquarters, were you
16 aware that the army of the republic of Serb Krajina wanted to have both
17 sides move weaponry 40 kilometres from the zone of separation?
18 A. No, I was not aware of that. I was not in the headquarters, and
19 I didn't know about that.
20 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, when you were at the headquarters and talking to
21 the members of your team, did you discuss the possibility that the ARSK
22 was complaining about HV activities and shelling because they were trying
23 to buy time and they wanted the protection of the UN? Did you discuss
25 A. No, we did not.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
2 A. At least, I did not participate in any such discussions.
3 Q. Now, let us move back, if we can, and we'll move ahead to a
4 separate issue and that would be the Strmica issue, again in July.
5 MR. KEHOE: And if we can move back to D220. It's probably the
6 easiest one to work with.
7 Q. Now, again, Mr. Tchernetsky, this map has the confrontation line
8 of the 25th of July in blue and the area where the HV wanted to move
9 lined in red, not all of which was successful, but just for the sake of
10 looking at this particular map.
11 Now, Strmica was on the road from Knin to Bosansko Grahovo and
12 then on to Drvar, wasn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And from the early part of July into -- well, let me -- did you
15 know about HV advances up the Dinara towards Grahovo through the early
16 part and up to mid-July of 1995?
17 A. Officially, we were not informed about that, but there were
18 rumours; although, the headquarters did not officially give us notice.
19 Q. Well, you knew, sir, that the -- HV was threatening Grahovo,
20 didn't you?
21 A. At what time?
22 Q. Well, throughout July of 1995, sir, going into the latter part of
24 A. I cannot tell you. I have never given it any thought. Was I
25 aware of Grahovo or not? It was not in our area of responsibility.
1 Q. Well, Mr. Tchernetsky, you do know that Grahovo fell to the HV on
2 the 27th/28th of July, 1995, don't you?
3 A. I don't recall precisely, but it's likely that this information
4 did reach us. But I cannot remember clearly.
5 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, let's put this in context a little bit. Let me
6 show you a video of 1D23-0001, a video from mid-June 1995 with Milan
7 Martic speaking - excuse me - and in Grahovo, I'm reminded.
8 [Videotape played]
9 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "We are not facing defeat, nor will
10 we suffer defeat. I am convinced that we have the strength, quite enough
11 strength to oppose our enemy who is not as strong as he would have us
12 believe. They are united, the Muslims and the Croats, because the US and
13 Germany demand this of them. But they are not stronger than us. I
14 affirm that. I know this. I know that Serb fighters were always better
15 and will be better.
16 "Now, as well, we are aware of the situation and we have
17 mobilised all forces in the Knin corps. And in all the corps of the
18 Republika Srpska Krajina, there is a state of full readiness. This
19 morning, we had a meeting to this effect, where we put everything into a
20 state of full mobilisation and readiness.
21 "We know that the loss of Grahovo is major, and this territory --
22 we know what this territory means. If we lose Grahovo in this territory,
23 all of Krajina will be lost, and we are aware of that. And it is for
24 this reason that I have come here to tell. I've come to tell you that
25 Grahovo mustn't fall under any circumstances, and that not a single piece
1 of Serb territory can fall
2 "From this moment on, it is imperative to halt the Croatian
3 Muslim aggression. We are sending reinforcements from all areas, from
4 Knin, Bankovac, and all the parts of Republika Srpska. And the forces
5 are already here, and be assured their aggression is being stopped. And
6 at this time, even though it is risky to be telling you this, but I stand
7 firmly behind this claim, the situation will change.
8 "In order to accomplish all of this, we need to be fully
9 disciplined. The need is so great that we have not tasked the command of
10 corps with this task. It is instead under the command of both
11 Main Staffs; that is, that the command of General Mladic and General
12 Mrksic who are jointly launching this operation.
13 "We no longer have any reason to hide from anyone the fact that
14 we are joint defending ourselves. If the Muslims and the Croats can
15 create a joint army, so can we. We shall demonstrate this through our
16 actions. I tell you, we have our joint army and our joint strength.
17 This is not a parade. But we shall demonstrate this through actions.
18 "We have the right to this, too; and for this reason, we have the
19 right as one nation to create a unified army and to create a unified
20 state, and we are creating it and we have no shame. We are not ashamed
21 of it.
22 "I was told today by the highest international institutions that
23 we mustn't create a joint state. I said we will, and there is no other
24 option for us because the only way for us to survive is to create a joint
25 state. And one of the basic preconditions for the creation of this joint
1 state is our unified army, and we shall demonstrate this for the first
2 time. You know that we have already demonstrated this in Bihac in
3 penetrating the corridor.
4 "And in all other areas, we fought together; but in this case, we
5 no longer have any reason to hide from anyone. Whom should we be hiding
6 from? Because we are fighting for our land and not for someone else's
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Tchernetsky. I was just waiting for the
10 translation to come through.
11 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, this video-clip from HVTV, 1D23-001, we
12 will move into evidence at this time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
14 MR. RUSSO: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D221, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D221 is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. KEHOE:
19 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, in order to supply the Bosansko Grahovo
20 area through Knin, you have to travel up through Strmica, don't you?
21 A. The main road, the most convenient road from Knin to Grahovo,
22 goes through Strmica. That's correct.
23 MR. KEHOE: Let us put 1D23-0033 on the screen.
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I could, just before the questioning
25 starts about this exhibit, if this is something which is again pieced
1 together from original documentation, we would ask for the provenance of
2 the document.
3 MR. KEHOE: Clearly, Judge, based on the witness's testimony
4 right now to supply Grahovo, he would move up the road that was going, as
5 the witness just said, through Strmica into Grahovo. The item that we
6 have noted there is Grahovo. It notes the date of 27/28 July 1995, which
7 is the date that Grahovo fell.
8 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, that's not -- well, I was referring to
9 the clear outlined arrows which indicate a thrust from the middle and two
10 from the sides, and that seems to indicate to me troop movements. I'm
11 wondering if that is something which is pulled from a contemporaneous
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes. I mean, Your Honour, we will gladly provide the
14 information supporting what the troop movements were of the various
15 brigades under the command of General Gotovina when Bosansko Grahovo was
16 attacked. There was, in fact, a flanking manoeuvre.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Does this give you sufficient information at this
18 moment for us to proceed?
19 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. KEHOE:
22 Q. Now, you noted for us during the course of your testimony, and I
23 do believe you put it on a map of an area through Bosansko Grahovo, the
24 road through this village that had been shelled prior to your getting
25 there on the 30th of July. Is that right?
1 A. Either the 29th or the 30th, one of the last days of July.
2 Q. Well, even prior to that time, you talked to us about shelling in
3 the area of the town of Strmica. Is that right?
4 A. Yes, correct.
5 Q. Now, if we look at this particular map, that area that you
6 designated, if I may --
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. That area that you designated is, in fact, the supply route that
10 the ARSK used to take personnel and supplies from Knin through Strmica up
11 into Grahovo. Isn't that right?
12 A. I cannot be the judge of that, because as to any massive
13 movements of army troops or military equipment towards or out of Grahovo,
14 I didn't see that.
15 Q. Well, sir, part of the job of the UNMOs was to look to see what
16 kind of movement was taking place among the RSK, wasn't it? Not just
17 you, I'm talking about all the UNMOs.
18 A. Yes, that's correct. Such movements were easiest to keep an eye
19 on from Strmica, where they were positions of the Kenyan Battalion
20 overlooking the road itself, and the command of the Kenyan Battalion
21 regularly reported to the sector staff headquarters about any movements
22 on that road.
23 Q. Well, let turn your attention to P209.
24 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me. At this time, Your Honour, I will tender
25 the item that's on the screen right now, which is 1D23-0033.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
2 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This becomes Exhibit D222, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D222 is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. KEHOE:
7 Q. Now this is the map that you drew yesterday; and in the area
8 of R2, that is the road that goes right up through Strmica up to
9 Bosansko Grahovo, isn't it?
10 A. Yes, that's the road.
11 Q. And consistent with Mr. Martic's statements, if they were
12 supplying Bosansko Grahovo through or from Knin or even Bankovac, they
13 would drive up through this road into Bosansko Grahovo, wouldn't they?
14 A. I was not informed of intentions of the Serbian side as to what
15 route to use to supply, but it is quite likely that this is the shortest
16 way to Grahovo and that it would be used.
17 Q. Now, prior to the actual shelling taking place, you were getting
18 complaints, or I think you noted for us -- and let me just back up for a
19 second so I can just put this in context, in fairness to you. I'm
20 looking at your testimony yesterday, on page 3180 at lines 10 and 11.
21 Sir, it is your testimony yesterday. It is not in the
22 statements, Mr. Tchernetsky.
23 MR. KEHOE: Judge, I am just trying -- he is looking at the
24 statements, and it is actually his testimony.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, Mr. Kehoe will read from what you
1 said yesterday, rather than the statement that was put on paper earlier.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now I don't have yet the Tuesday transcript with the
5 full numbering of pages. I still have the daily numbering of pages.
6 MR. KEHOE: Frankly, Judge, I'm not sure what that one is. I
7 think it is 3180. Is that the final?
8 JUDGE ORIE: For me, it goes from 1 to 86, and then usually there
9 will be finalised and then get the sequential numbering.
10 If you give me two or three words, then I will find it.
11 MR. KEHOE: How about - let me see - let's say: "With
12 cooperation ..."
13 JUDGE ORIE: Cooperation. I will find it. Thank you.
14 MR. KEHOE: I don't know cooperation, per se, with.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's yesterday's transcript page 9, line 23,
16 apparently. That is where it says: "It was in the end of July we
17 received an assignment from ..."
18 That's the beginning of the answer, is that it?
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, just by way of clarification, is the
22 3180 not the official page?
23 JUDGE ORIE: It will be the official page. Usually, the pages
24 are numbered on the day itself from starting at 1, and then they become
25 part of the consolidated transcript, and then they get sequential
1 numbering, where we start somewhere in 3.000. It might be that number.
2 It usually comes during the day.
3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you give me the specific words, then it is easy
5 to find.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, you noted on line 10 to line 12, "This
9 investigation ..."
10 Talking about your trip to Strmica on the 30th: "This
11 investigation was performed at the request of the ARSK command and with
12 cooperation of the military units of the army of the RSK."
13 A. It was on orders of the headquarters. We had the liaison officer
14 of the 7th Corps of the ARSK with us.
15 Q. Now, by the way, when you went into the Cetina -- you had a
16 liaison officer from the ARSK that went up there to Strmica with you, you
17 just said. Is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was that also true when you went into Cetina?
20 A. I was talking about Strmica, about the Strmica incident to
21 Cetina. We went alone without any military from the RSK.
22 Q. Now, going back to Strmica, you went to Strmica with a liaison
23 officer because there were restriction of movement there, weren't there?
24 A. No. The thing is that the command of the ARSK addressed the
25 sector headquarters with a protest against the fire targeting Strmica;
1 and in order to show us exactly where the targets were so that we
2 wouldn't wonder about, they gave us this liaison officer.
3 Q. Were there restrictions of movement on the UNMOs in the Strmica
5 A. In Strmica, there was no restriction of movement.
6 Q. Let me turn no your attention, again, to Mr. Ermolaev's testimony
7 on the 29th of April, 2008, page 2449, line 3 to line 5:
8 "Question: So when it came to going to the Strmica area, there
9 were restrictions of movement on the UNMOs?
10 "Answer: Yes."
11 Do you disagree with that, sir?
12 A. I disagree with that. At least our team of UNMOs did not come
13 across any such restriction in the area of Strmica.
14 Let me say this, again. Strmica was an area where the Kenyan
15 Battalion was located. We patrolled, they patrolled, and we visited them
16 almost every day.
17 Q. But you did pick a liaison officer up before you went there from
18 the northern barracks, didn't you?
19 A. We picked up the liaison officer from the corps headquarters, so
20 that he could show us specifically the places where shells hit so that we
21 wouldn't search the entire territory.
22 Q. Well, sir, isn't it a fact that when you got up into the Strmica
23 area, you picked up another ARSK colonel who was there to show you where
24 the impacts were? Isn't that a fact? So, in fact, two ARSK officers are
25 with you.
1 A. No.
2 MR. RUSSO: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour,
3 I --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Just one, just one. One whom
5 we picked up from the corps headquarters, and he escorted us to Strmica
6 and took upon himself to show us the places that he were shelled.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, is there still --
8 MR. RUSSO: I will withdraw that, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. So your testimony, Mr. Tchernetsky, is when you got up to the
12 Strmica area, you did not pick up another ARSK officer to ride with you?
13 A. No. We already had one officer with us. We didn't pick up
14 anybody else. The liaison officer from the corps was already with us.
15 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I notice it's 10.30. I don't know if
16 you want to us to break.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If this would be a suitable moment to take a break,
18 we will. Yesterday, I think you indicated that you would need two hours.
19 MR. KEHOE: Actually, I said at least two hours, Judge. I have a
20 little bit going through this stuff, so that's probably --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You're urged to finish your cross-examination within
22 the two-hours that you mentioned.
23 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I will do my utmost to do that. There
24 are many issues that were set forth in the 92 ter statements that need to
25 be addressed, in addition to these two larger issues, and I will do it as
1 quickly as possible.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe I do understand there are a lot of issues.
3 As I said before, we look at what is presented as evidence in chief, we
4 look at how cross-examination is conducted. I refer to my earlier
5 observations about what we try to achieve and what does assist the
6 Chamber and what does not assist the Chamber, and that it should not be
7 our main concern whether the witness leaves this courtroom with full
8 knowledge of what he has not observed and to draw the right inferences.
9 Please keep that in mind.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 11.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, as far as the issue about multi-rocket
15 launchers or anti-aircraft guns is concerned, I was informed by the
16 interpreters that the terms used by this witness yesterday and today is
17 the same. Apart from that, one of the Judges on this Bench understands
18 Russian, and it is his recollection, although he admits not being a
19 military expert, that the witness talked consistently about an
20 anti-aircraft gun.
21 Of course, it's still usually, if we want to correct the
22 transcript or the translation, there's a formal procedure for that. I,
23 however, suggest that, where you're still free to seek such a
24 verification, that at least it's now put on the record that two sources
25 have confirmed that the witness spoke about an anti-aircraft gun.
1 MR. KEHOE: Well, I accept Judge Gwaunza's explanation because I
2 know of her expertise in Russian.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. KEHOE: Just kidding, Judge. Point of levity.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I feel a bit hurt by the fact that you consider not
6 to be fluent in Russian. But if that is your position, Mr. Kehoe, I will
7 accept it.
8 MR. KEHOE: Well, Judge, just know that --
9 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, it is, I think, the moment to also
10 express our gratitude to those who are translating into Russian. I
11 follow channel 7 frequently in order to have the pleasure of listening to
12 the Russian translation as well.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. KEHOE: I was just reading from the transcript.
15 Q. If I may, Mr. Tchernetsky --
16 MR. KEHOE: If we can go to 65 ter 2518.
17 Q. And, now, just highlighting the top portion the 27th of July,
18 this is a letter from Lieutenant-General Mile Mrksic of the ARSK.
19 In the first paragraph, Mr. Tchernetsky, it says: "For several
20 days now, the Croatian army HV and the Croatian defence counsel have been
21 constantly firing their artillery and tanks on the Drvar-Grahovo-Knin
22 road without interruption. Operations was the most intense the 24th,
23 25th, 26th, and 27th of July."
24 MR. KEHOE: Before I move to the map, I would offer this item
25 into evidence and I will begin to ask some questions about it as well.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
2 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D223, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D223 is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Your Honour. If we could move our
7 attention to D172.
8 Q. Now, this is map previously received in evidence,
9 Mr. Tchernetsky, that has circled Knin, Strmica, Grahovo, and Drvar.
10 Now, if we go to the top, Drvar, at that time in July, was the
11 headquarters of the 2nd Krajina Corps of the army of the Republika
12 Srpska, wasn't it?
13 A. I didn't know about that.
14 Q. So you had no knowledge of where the -- the Bosnian Serb army's
15 headquarters was. Is that right?
16 A. I didn't know that.
17 Q. Are you familiar with the road in that the ARSK was supplying
18 Bosansko Grahovo from Drvar down into Grahovo in July of 1995?
19 A. This territory was outside of our area of responsibility, outside
20 of the area of responsibility of UN monitors. We were supposed to work
21 only in the territory of Serbian Krajina. We had no jurisdiction in
22 Bosnia, and we didn't make -- we didn't go there to patrol there at all.
23 Q. I understand that, sir, but did you have any intelligence about
24 the location of the 2nd Krajina Corps in Drvar?
25 A. I was in the team of observers. Let me put it this way: We
1 collected information that was needed in accordance with our mandate.
2 The information was provided to us by the headquarters. Now, what kind
3 of information the headquarters received, I don't know about that.
4 Q. So, without moving on, I will take that as a "No," sir.
5 MR. KEHOE: Let us move to D161. If we could just go into
6 private session just briefly, Judge.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
8 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Let's then also move on.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. Mr. Tchernetsky, I show you a document that was put together by
10 the assistant commander for logistics for the army of Serb Krajina, a
11 Mr. Bjelanovic, and I show you this page, and I want to take you to the
12 fourth bullet point on this document and it begins with "Assistance."
13 Now, you noted that, during your direct testimony, there were no
14 military installation in Strmica, and this document notes that:
15 "Assistance in the removal of RSK/MUP material from Strmica installation,
16 everything that the army could used was allocated." Were you aware that
17 there was a joint MUP/ARSK installation for supplies in Strmica?
18 A. No. As far as I know, and as far as we could observe, in
19 Strmica, there were no military positions or firing positions at all.
20 The closest military base of the Serbian army was much more to the south
21 of Strmica. It was in the Golubici area. Golubici area is one of those
22 areas that was closed off for our patrols. We were not given access to
23 that area.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... so you were unaware of this
25 joint installation.
1 MR. KEHOE: Let me move on to page 3 of this document.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was nothing in Strmica.
3 MR. KEHOE: Let us move on to the next document -- page 3. I
4 take you to about the middle of the page: "Due to not being able ..."
5 Q. Okay. Now, it notes in on the second bullet point, as you see:
6 "Due to not being able to conduct work in the Strmica maintenance support
7 company, the troops were ordered to redeploy units, assistance."
8 Did you know there was a maintenance support company in Strmica?
9 A. In Strmica itself, we did not see any presence of the Serbian
11 Q. Staying on that page, and moving down to the next entry on the
12 30th of July, of 1995, it notes that Mr. Bjelanovic, Colonel Bjelanovic:
13 "I took part in making plans for attacking operations for Dinara 95."
14 Did you know, sir, that the ARSK planned to attack the HV and
15 began that plan in the late July of 1995?
16 A. No, we did not know about such plans.
17 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to the next page, and this is for the
18 31st of July.
19 Q. Towards the top of the page before the entry of 8.02, on that
20 last sentence: "On the Grahovo-Strmica road, the Ustasha laid mines on
21 two bridges in order to prevent deployment of our troops and their
22 replenishment with materiel."
23 Now, were you aware that that, in fact, took place, that while
24 the ARSK was trying to replenish troops on that road, that the HV had
25 planted mines?
1 A. No. We were not informed about that.
2 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to D62.
3 Q. D62, sir, is, again, another note from Colonel Bjelanovic dated
4 30th July 1995, Planning of Operation Dinara.
5 Were you aware, sir, that they were moving troops beginning on
6 the 31st of July to Strmica to begin this operation? Did you see that or
7 did you observe any troop movements in that regard?
8 A. I can't remember now, with precision, whether it was 30th or 31st
9 of July. It's been 13 years. But at any rate, all movement that was
10 recorded by our patrols was included in the daily reports to the
11 headquarters sector. So you should refer to our reports.
12 Q. Based on your recollection, if it is in the sitrep or not, sir,
13 is it your testimony that you don't recall any troop movements up into
14 the Strmica area in late July of 1995 by the ARSK?
15 A. There was no major movement. I don't remember that we observed
16 any major movement in that area. But, occasionally, we would come across
17 some military vehicles or small columns that were, as a rule, moving in
18 the direction of Golubic.
19 Q. And then from Golubic, if you move in the direction of Golubic,
20 the next major town up is Strmica, isn't it?
21 A. Yes. Some seven or eight kilometres to the north of Golubic is
22 where Strmica begins.
23 Q. Now, likewise, just to cover one other issue in this page, in the
24 indentation, it says, "7th Corps." It notes that there is an organi
25 department. Do you see that, sir?
1 Now, an organi is an M-77 rocket launcher, a 128-millimetre,
2 isn't it?
3 A. As far as I remember, our team of monitors never reported on any
4 movement of rocket launchers. We did not observe that.
5 Q. Okay, sir. Let me turn to the exact date that you there were.
6 And if I may, one of the individuals that you went up there was an
7 individual by the name of Peter Marti, wasn't he?
8 A. If you're referring to the visit to Strmica, then, yes. Peter
9 Marti, Pavel Komper, Felix Anglada. They were with us they were members
10 of our patrol team.
11 MR. KEHOE: Let me bring up a portion of Mr. Marti's diary,
13 Q. Now, this has two notations to it: Saturday, the 29th of July,
14 has the list of people on the team. You being one of them.
15 30th July, 1995 on Sunday: "Sundays are always a bother. After
16 a rather chaotic start, double patrol to Strmica for the crater analysis
17 after the false alarm at 0030 hours. Samuel, Alfons, Felix, and I were
18 up in the middle of the night, despite the curfew to report on the
19 shelling, but then only to HQ. On Sunday morning, we drove to Strmica
20 for the crater analysis. We picked up the LO at the Northern Dalmatia
21 Corps, but then there was artillery shelling from Strmica on the western
22 side of the hill about one kilometre away."
23 Now, yesterday, in your testimony at --
24 MR. KEHOE: Again, Your Honour, there is the page 3183. And if
25 you want to pull up the words "provided support," I think could you find
1 it, Judge.
2 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, if I can just correct a portion of the
3 reading, I believe the document actually says: "There is was shelling on
4 the western hillside, about one kilometre away." I think Mr. Kehoe read
5 it as "on the west side of the hill," which I think it is two different
7 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that, and I did not find it a reason to
8 intervene, but you have drawn our attention to it.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE: I apologise.
11 Q. Now, in your testimony yesterday, you noted on line 22 --
12 actually in two locations. You noted on line 22 and 21: "And after the
13 shelling, we did not investigate the areas that were to the west that
14 provided support during the shelling."
15 Now, in looking at your testimony yesterday, and then Mr. Marti's
16 diary, was there outgoing shelling by the ARSK while you were up there on
17 the 30th of July?
18 A. No. The RSK did not fire. There was no fire coming from their
20 Q. So, when you told us yesterday that the area to the west provided
21 support during the shelling, is it your testimony this there was no
22 firing from that area?
23 A. I apologise. I did not utter anything of the sort yesterday.
24 Perhaps, it was wrongly interpreted.
25 Q. Well, sir --
1 A. I could not have said anything yesterday about the response fire
2 coming from the RSK because there was none.
3 Q. Now, you also noted that, previously, you hadn't picked up any
4 other ARSK officer. Let's continue down on this.
5 You said: "After waiting at the roadside, we continued at the
6 edge of Strmica. We picked up Colonel Dokovic."
7 Do you recall that now, sir?
8 A. This is not my statement. This is the statement of Peter Marti.
9 My statement is that we picked up the liaison officer in Knin. Why there
10 are discrepancies? Well, after the first shells, the -- or, rather, the
11 liaison officer was with us with the car. After the first shells fell
12 down, he jumped out of the car, went to the first shelter which was right
13 next to the road, and hid over there. We started turning our vehicle
14 around, and we drove away.
15 After some time passed, one of our cars went back to pick up the
16 colonel, the liaison officer. For the rest of the journey, he was with
18 This is simply a nuance that Peter didn't explain sufficiently.
19 Q. So you did, in fact, have a Colonel Dokovic with you as well?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... what do you
22 mean --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 MR. KEHOE: As well as the liaison officer that they picked up
25 from the Northern Dalmatia Corps --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, but that --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Was the liaison officer that accompanied you, was
4 that a Colonel Dokovic or that was any other person?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember the last name, but
6 his rank was that of a colonel.
7 JUDGE ORIE: There was one person with you, not two persons, the
8 one who you picked up.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Staying with this. Now, there was -- Mr. Marti then says: "Then
13 there was more artillery shelling that caused to us take shelter at the
14 farmhouse along the road."
15 So was there a second episode of shelling?
16 A. Yesterday, I testified about that. As soon as we arrived to the
17 northern positions of the Kenyan Battalion, the first shells landed, the
18 first explosions took place. It was precisely then that the colonel
19 jumped out of the car and hid. We started turning our cars and driving
20 back, and then one of our cars went back to pick up the colonel. Then
21 these shells started falling again, and we were forced to abandon our
22 cars and to seek shelter in one of the neighbouring houses. It was a
23 case where this shelling lasted for quite sometime.
24 Q. Well, just on that point, and with Mr. Marti's comment on that
25 and this is --
1 MR. KEHOE: Just for the sake much clarity, I will just give the
2 statement of Mr. Marti of December 14th, 2007 at paragraph 28.
3 Q. He notes: "I have recorded in my diary on 30 July ..." this is
4 at paragraph 28, "... 30 July, that on the way to conduct a crater
5 analysis in Strmica, we came under fire from five or six shells. The
6 shells were coming from the east, from the direction of Grahovo. There
7 was a Serbian check-point nearby, but I cannot say what the target was
8 meant to be."
9 Is it your testimony that it was more than five or six shells as
10 was told by Mr. Marti to the Office of the Prosecutor?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you're apparently quoting from a portion
12 which is not available to us at this moment.
13 MR. KEHOE: If I can, I will bring up it just for demonstrative
14 purposes, Judge. It is 1D23-0002, and that would be paragraph 28 of that
15 document. It is one, two, three, four --
16 JUDGE ORIE: That is not his diary but apparently a --
17 MR. KEHOE: A statement given to the Prosecutor.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KEHOE: Paragraph 28. If we could just highlight
20 paragraph 28. That 's what I read, Judge.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. Now, is it your testimony, Mr. Tchernetsky, this was more than
24 five or six shells?
25 A. Yes. The first instance of shelling was precisely as you
1 described. It is my understanding that Peter Marti described in this
2 instance first salvo, and then the shelling continued for quite sometime.
3 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn our attention to D163, quickly.
4 Your Honour, I will tender the actual excerpt from the diary,
5 which is 1D23-0021 into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
7 MR. RUSSO: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
9 Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D224.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D224 is admitted into evidence.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. KEHOE: If I can now just bring D163, page 2, bottom
14 paragraph: "D, Sector South."
15 Q. It notes that: "The situation in the sector remains tense,
16 especially in Sector East corner of the sector, where 115 artillery
17 shells were fired or impacted: 30 HV, 88 RSK."
18 Another sentence down: "The ARSK are reacting to the events in
19 Bosansko Grahovo by deploying forces. However, the HV so far does not
20 appear to close with or cross the border. The sector assessed the
21 Croatian efforts. In the face of ARSK, opposition as unlikely in the
22 Dinara. The situation at Strmica is being monitoring closely to foresee
23 the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which might spill over into the
24 sector and ensure the security of UN troops."
25 As an UNMO --
1 MR. KEHOE: I'll let the translation go through.
2 Q. As an UNMO, Mr. Tchernetsky, did you learn the firing point of
3 the RSK for those 88 rounds that they fired?
4 A. I didn't know that.
5 Q. On the next -- that next couple of lines down. Did you learn
6 during the course of your time that, in late July, the RSK was reacting
7 to owe vents in Bosansko Grahovo by redeploying forces. Did you learn
9 A. I did not.
10 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment here, Judge.
11 Sorry to people in the interpretation booth.
12 Q. Let me change the subject matter here, given that I don't have
13 much time, sir. Now, you noted, during the course of your witness
14 statement --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, just for your information, you have got
16 until 12.55.
17 MR. KEHOE: 12.55?
18 JUDGE ORIE: 11.55.
19 MR. KEHOE: I thought it was Christmas, Judge.
20 Q. Staying on this particular topic, moving to the topic of
21 information, you noted that you were in the area of Bosansko Grahovo
22 where you maintain that you found some documentation concerning the
23 shelling by the HV. Is that right?
24 A. It was much later, after Operation Storm. In joint patrolling
25 together with the representative of the sector staff, as far as I
1 remember, Danish Captain Thomas, we got assignments from the senior UNMO
2 to try to penetrate Grahovo from the side of Strmica. However, at the
3 entrance to Grahovo we were stopped, then we attempted to drive through
4 mountain paths, mountain tracks.
5 And not far away from one of the roads in the woods, we found an
6 abandoned headquarters of what we presumed was an artillery unit, where
7 we found documents and a number of other items, including supplies,
8 abandoned sights, aiming devices, et cetera.
9 It was before the border. We did not cross the border with
10 Bosnia, and we were not able to.
11 Q. Well, sir, when was that?
12 A. I cannot give you the exact date.
13 Q. Well, what was your job up there, sir?
14 A. Our assignment that we were given was to assess the consequences
15 of the operation and the level of damage to the town of Bosansko Grahovo.
16 Q. Well, sir, if you were not in Bosnia -- let me back that up.
17 You say -- you told the Office of the Prosecutor that your Senior
18 Military Observer did not want to include the information that you had in
19 a sitrep because he thought that you would -- or they would be accused of
20 spying, right?
21 A. Yes, that is so. Because those were Croatian documents, they
22 were marked secret, and that's why he refused to include them in the
23 daily report. Instead, he suggested to me that I drive them to the
24 headquarters of our mission in Zagreb, which I did the next day.
25 Q. And you maintain that you were not in Bosnia when you did this.
1 Is that right?
2 A. To the best of my recollection, no. It was before the border
3 with Bosnia. We didn't cross the border. The border goes along the
4 mountain range, and we were this side of the mountain range.
5 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment, Judge.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. KEHOE:
8 Q. Is it your testimony now, sir, that you were not in Bosnia at the
9 time, but Steinar Hjertnes didn't want that stuff -- those items
10 published anyway? Is that your testimony?
11 A. I cannot now be precise about the location where the Danish
12 captain and I found this abandoned headquarters. But, Steinar, yes, the
13 documents were Croatian, they were marked "secret," and that is why
14 Steinar didn't want to take the responsibility of including them in his
15 report. Instead, he instructed me to turn them over personally, which I
17 Q. And you don't have them now, do you?
18 A. I turned them over to the headquarters of our mission. I
19 reported to the deputy of the chief military observer, an English
20 Colonel. I cannot remember his name now, and he turned it over to the
21 information department.
22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I can have the map that Mr. Russo
23 turned over, about the area where Mr. Tchernetsky found these items.
24 MR. RUSSO: Your Honours, I think I can assist. I actually have
25 a portion of this that I had intended to go into, so I did another one of
1 those blow-ups for this. It is 65 ter 4940.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's look at it and then, Mr. Kehoe, tell us
3 whether it's a useful excerpt from this map.
4 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, I will tender to the Court, during
5 the proofing session, we received a document that was marked by the
6 witness that clearly showed that it was in Bosnia, and I will tender that
7 back to the Trial Chamber. But this is not the document that was
8 tendered to us by the Office of the Prosecutor from the proofing session.
9 But we will offer that across the bar.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
11 MR. RUSSO: That's fine, Judge.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And --
13 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I did not load that map into e-court. I
14 was going to have him actually mark it here in court on this particular
15 exhibit, in order to save some time.
16 JUDGE ORIE: There's been, Mr. Tchernetsky, quite a lot of
17 discussion on whether you found the items in Bosnia and Herzegovina or
18 not. Did I understand your testimony well when you said -- when I heard
19 you saying that you thought you would still be in Croatia or at least in
20 the -- but that you're not certain about that.
21 Is that well understood?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correct, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
24 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment, Your Honour.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, I do, in fact, have a copy of what
2 the -- was tendered to us in the supplemental information sheet of
3 18 May 2008.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way or is there any dispute about
5 whether it was on the Croatian side of the border or on the Bosnian side
6 of the border, and how vital is the matter?
7 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I, quite frankly, don't know what the
8 confrontation line was on that particular day was, but I certainly
9 disagree --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... we're talking about
11 state borders, rather than about confrontation lines, isn't it?
12 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Judge.
13 MR. RUSSO: I have no idea. I have no dispute about whether or
14 not it was in Bosnia.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So, if the Defence takes the position that it would
16 have been in Bosnia, you would not challenge that.
17 MR. RUSSO: That's correct Your Honour.
18 MR. KEHOE: We'll move on, Judge.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
20 MR. KEHOE:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Tchernetsky, with this document, you didn't keep a copy,
22 did you?
23 A. No, I didn't make copies.
24 Q. And you have not been shown any copies of that during the course
25 of your meetings with the Office of the Prosecutor, have you?
1 A. The copies of those documents that I found, or, rather, we found,
2 were turned over to the headquarters, and I never saw them again. In the
3 course of proofing, I was not shown copies of these documents.
4 Q. Now, when you say that "we" turned them over to the headquarters,
5 who is the "we" -- excuse me. That "we" found and turned over, who is
6 the "we"?
7 A. I'm telling you, again, that I was accompanied by a
8 representative of the Sector South headquarters, Captain Thomas from
9 Denmark, to the best of my recollection. I can't remember his name.
10 Q. Now, in P205, your supplemental statement of 6 December 2007, you
11 note in paragraph 8: "The Croatian maps and artillery plans showed enemy
12 positions that did not, in fact, exist. Specifically, they showed enemy
13 positions in areas which I knew personally -- excuse me, I personally
14 knew to be entirely civilian without any military targets.
15 "Although I cannot recall the specific villages or areas
16 indicated, I do recall that these documents showed the presence of tanks
17 where I knew there were no tanks or other military hardware present."
18 Do you see that before you in your statement, sir?
19 A. Yes, I saw that. Not only that, I pointed that out to the senior
20 UNMO when I showed him that plan, to Steinar.
21 Q. Putting aside the fact that you can't identify the villages or
22 areas, were you in those villages or areas on either the 4th or the 5th
23 of August, 1995, during Operation Storm?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So, if you weren't in those villages or those areas, you don't
1 know whether or not -- well, you don't know whether or not a mobile
2 vehicle, such as a tank, was in that village on the 4th or the 5th, do
4 A. In addition to tanks, there were other positions indicated on
5 that map that did not exist in reality, at least not until the end of
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tchernetsky, the question was whether, not being
8 present in those villages, whether you knew or did not know whether or
9 not there was a mobile vehicle, such as a tank, in that village or those
10 villages on the 4th or the 5th August.
11 Do you know? Don't you know?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About the presence or absence of
13 mobile military hardware in those population centre, I certainly couldn't
14 know anything.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
16 MR. KEHOE:
17 Q. Did you go back to these villages and areas after you got this
18 report and do a shelling analysis; and if so, do you have it?
19 A. No. I did not go back there with that specific objective. I did
20 not receive such an assignment.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question in this respect.
22 Did you return to those villages at all?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I mean to say those villages
24 remained in your areas of responsibility mand we continued to control
25 them after Operation Storm, to inspect them.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever find any mobile vehicle, such as a
2 tank, which was apparently not able to function anymore?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Neither before nor after the
4 operation, there was no mobile military equipment in those population
5 centres that were mentioned. We did not find any, and we didn't find any
6 damaged equipment either.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE:
9 Q. Well, Mr. Tchernetsky, the areas that you were talking about
10 after Operation Storm came under the control of the Republic of Croatia,
11 didn't they?
12 A. Precisely.
13 Q. And the documents that you allegedly found, you found at the end
14 of September 1995, didn't you?
15 A. I don't remember dates. I've said so before.
16 Q. Well, it was well after Operation Storm, wasn't it?
17 A. Yes, it was well after.
18 MR. KEHOE: Just by point of clarification, Judge, that this was
19 what he was talking about --
20 Q. What you're talking about in these alleged documents was targets
21 that you supposedly saw on a piece of paper that were from prior to
22 Operation Storm, right?
23 A. The document was called plan of artillery preparation for that
24 area, so that document concerned the preparatory stage of the operation.
25 Q. I'll move to another subject.
1 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I know I have a limited time and maybe I
2 can handle this across the bar, because it was an issue that came up
3 during the course of the testimony of the witness. A document was
4 received in evidence which is - actually, it was received by the Defence,
5 D65, and Mr. Russo touched upon it - which is a CIVPOL report of August
6 12, 1995, concerning the homicides of Mile Milivojevic and Ilija
7 Milivojevic. We discussed that previously.
8 I'm a little asking for Your Honours' guidance in this sense on
9 these particular issues, given the fact that the autopsy reports from
10 Ilija Milivojevic is D7, and that was entered into evidence with a cause
11 of death being unascertained at autopsy. Mile Milivojevic, which is D8,
12 his, likewise, has an uncertain death.
13 The UN CIVPOL report notes, in D635, that it is impossible to see
14 how the two men died. That is the centre of the item. Then in the
15 clarification schedule, filed by the Office of the Prosecutor pursuant to
16 Your Honour's instructions, the notation in the clarification schedule of
17 the murders notes that the cause of death is uncertain. That is a
18 document filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on 29 March 2007.
19 I raise this issue in from the standpoint of the Defence being
20 prepared to meet the evidence, yet it is unclear notwithstanding some
21 questions in this regard exactly what we are meeting. The OTP is
22 uncertain as to the cause of death, the autopsy report has no cause of
23 death, and --
24 JUDGE ORIE: But it's created six years after the event, isn't
1 MR. KEHOE: Well, it is. The autopsy report -- well, I submit to
2 the Your Honour that a shot to the cranium would be evident until the
3 cranium --
4 JUDGE ORIE: That will leave traces.
5 MR. KEHOE: It is in conjunction --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You ask our specific attention for the several
7 sources of information we have on the potential causes of death or the
8 causes of death unknown in relation to these persons.
9 MR. KEHOE: If I can be a bit more precise, to answer the first
10 question, Judge, and it goes to the CIVPOL report received in evidence,
11 D65, from the 12th of December, which notes that the police officers at
12 the time were impossible to see how the two men died. It just makes it
13 -- excuse me.
14 I apologise, it is 12th of August, 2005.
15 In an effort to meet the evidence presented by the Office of the
16 Prosecutor, i.e., through the 65 ter statements of this witness or the
17 exhibits, it renders it virtually impossible to answer, when there is no
18 cause of death not only from the autopsy, but also from the particular --
19 JUDGE ORIE: This is rather argumentative, what we could conclude
20 from what pieces of evidence. Of course, we have heard only part of the
21 case, but these appears to be important sources of information.
22 Now, what would you ask the witness about?
23 MR. KEHOE: Certainly, certainly, with regard to --
24 JUDGE ORIE: We're not going to show all the reports. That's --
25 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE -- exactly the type of exercise which I discourage you
2 to make, to give the full information then ask the witness to draw
3 inferences which finally the Chamber will have to draw on the basis of
4 the complete evidence.
5 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I'm asking the question because I'm
6 accepting your discouragement, and I simply raise this issue because at
7 this particular juncture, on this particular scheduled killing, it is
8 impossible to know what the Defence is called upon to meet because it is
9 impossible to know what the Prosecution's position is when there is no
10 cause of death and there is this type of convicting information. In the
11 normal course of events, and certainly we wouldn't do that, we would go
12 through the litany of questions.
13 But I understand Your Honour's --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I do not what this witness could add to that. I see
15 the point.
16 MR. KEHOE: Well, I --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You could ask him whether he is certain about what
18 he observed or not, and say that there were other reports which says that
19 cause of death was unknown, and whether he sticks to what he knows about
20 it. Then that's approximately where it ends, unless you have specific
21 reasons to believe that there are certain aspects in the testimony of
22 this witness which could be attacked thoroughly on the basis of these
24 For example, if the documents say he was shot to the left of the
25 head, and if the witness would have said to the right, that could ask
1 very specific points, but I leave it finally up to you. What I want to
2 avoid is that if the witness is clear in what he says he has seen, that
3 we put all the pieces of information and then say, You must be right,
4 isn't it? That, of course, finally is not a way of --
5 MR. KEHOE: I raise the issue, Judge, simply, I'm sure you
6 appreciate the difficulties from the Defence side of answering a homicide
7 when the cause of death is uncertain. That's the difficulty. To the
8 extent that if we eliminate this --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I correct you. It's difficult. Cause of
10 death can be established by all means of evidence, and you have drawn
11 your attention specifically now to the fact that experts in autopsies and
12 other documents say that the authors of those documents could not
13 establish a cause of death. That is not the same as no cause of death.
14 That's for the Chamber finally to decide on what basis of what evidence
15 we will or we will not accept that a person died due to a specific cause
16 of events.
17 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KEHOE: With regard to this, this is my last question, Judge.
20 Q. With regard to the particular incident that took place on the
21 12th of August, where you supposedly saw these two bodies, you note in
22 P204 on page 4, the first full paragraph, and you said that: "Because of
23 the fact that our office was close to that house, I went to the site and
24 was present when the bodies were removed."
25 Now, in fact, sir, you were not present when those bodies were
1 removed, were you?
2 A. When the bodies were being removed, I was at the office; and
3 since the office is next to that house, I observed the whole thing, the
4 whole process. I had just come back from a patrol. At the beginning at
5 the request of our landlady, me and the Polish colleague entered the
6 house. We saw the dead bodies. After that, we reported to the sector
7 staff about it, the sector south told me to turn it over to the
8 UN CIVPOL, and further investigation was conducted by UN CIVPOL. But the
9 bodies were removed eventually by the Croatian police and by an
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tchernetsky.
12 MR. KEHOE: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, any need to re-examine the witness?
14 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No need.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I have a question.
18 Could, please, D152 be put on the screen.
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we turn to the last five pages of this
22 Mr. Tchernetsky, do you recognise what this is?
23 A. Yes. This is the list of the RSK soldiers that I found in
24 Podinarje and subsequently turned over to Croatian authorities with
25 participation of other international organisations.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you -- do you recognise the signature?
2 A. Yes, this is my signature.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Can we move to the next page, please.
4 Could you tell us what it is, and whether this is also your
6 A. Yes. This page was also signed by me. This is the list of
7 civilians of persons that we found in Podinarje and recorded, registered.
8 Subsequently, most of these people were sent to Serbia.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we move to the next page.
10 Could you confirm that this is -- could you tell us what this is?
11 A. Again, this is one of the lists. I wouldn't be able to say
12 exactly from which area; perhaps Podinarje again. This could be just
13 another copy, just in handwriting -- handwritten.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a similar list? It is apparently not the same
15 list, is it?
16 A. This is a list from a different region, Your Honours. As I told
17 you, we also looked for people in that area, registered them, and then
18 provided humanitarian and medical assistance to them.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we then move to the last page of this
21 The signature on this page, which is still in front of you, is
22 yours as well?
23 A. Yes. My signature, again, and the date is 18th of May, 2002.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 And now the last page.
1 Your signature as well?
2 A. Again, my signature.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... similar list?
4 A. Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 I said to the last page, but I have forgotten one, I'm afraid.
7 The previous one would be the same questions in relation to this
9 A. Yes, Your Honour. My signature. This is a list that I provided
10 to investigators as a sample of the kind of work that we did.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
12 I asked the witness these questions because D152 was admitted
13 into evidence; and to that statement, which is the same statement as
14 P204, that statement, the T1 to T5 were attached where they are not
15 attached to P204, which apart from these attachments is the same
17 In the statements, T1 to T5, where we find those markings on
18 these documents, are mentioned. So, therefore, we have at this moment
19 D152 that is the statement of Mr. Tchernetsky. Date of the interview is
20 18th of May 2002, with five pages attached to it, admitted into evidence.
21 We, at that time, said that we would review whether admission was
22 appropriate on the basis of the attestation of the witness if it would
23 appear. The witness has not only attested to the statement itself, but
24 also now to the five attached pages to it.
25 Of course, we could now do a rather complex exercise to get rid
1 of P204, but let's leave it for the time being as it is. D152 is the
2 May 2002 statement of Mr. Tchernetsky with the attachments, and P204 is
3 the same statement but now without the attachments.
4 That was the purpose of this short exercise.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that the parties would agree that on
7 the basis of the evidence just given by the witness, that there is no
8 reason to review the decision to admit D152?
9 Yes. I see all the parties agree with that.
10 Mr. Tchernetsky, this concludes your evidence in this court. I
11 would like to thank you very much for coming and for answering the
12 questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I
13 hope you have a safe trip home again.
14 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Tchernetsky out of the
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the --
19 Mr. Russo.
20 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I just wanted to inform the Court
21 that -- you mentioned there is a formal procedure for revisiting the
22 transcript, translation issues. I have been informed by one of the
23 Russian colleagues on our team that the witness's references to the word
24 "control" in indicating movements of the UNMOs, that he was actually
25 saying "monitor."
1 In any event, I would like the Court's guidance on exactly how to
2 pursue that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It depends. If you have any reason to believe that
4 what we see on our English transcript is not reflecting accurately what
5 the witness said, and if it is an issue which is of sufficient importance
6 to be corrected, then please tell us exactly, page, line, et cetera, and
7 then we could apply for a review of, first of all, what was said and then
8 how it was translated.
9 MR. RUSSO: We'll do that in a written submission, Your Honour,
10 if that is --
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you make a brief written submission, then it can
12 be passed on to CLSS, and if need be to the audio visual unit, and then
13 you'll find out.
14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Russo, usually, it is better to do
16 these kind of things when the witness is still there, because if the
17 parties would agree on that there might be a flaw or a shortcoming - and
18 I emphasise that I'm always surprised how little, how small the number of
19 requests is and, therefore, how excellent the quality of work of our
20 interpreters is - but if there is any reason to raise such an issue,
21 preferably to be done when the witness is still there, or seek
22 clarification in re-examination, asking, When you use that word, what do
23 you mean by it exactly, et cetera. Then that saves us the risk of having
24 to recall the witness.
25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I will be reviewing that to, first of
1 all, determine whether or not it is a matter of sufficient weight, and I
2 will certainly address the Defence on that before approaching the Court
3 with a written submission, if necessary.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear.
5 Now, before we start with the next witness, I was informed that
6 there was a procedural issue to be raised before the witness enters the
7 courtroom. I must admit that I haven't brought yet my material for the
8 next witness, so it could well be that I'm unable to fully understand
9 what the issue is.
10 But let's hear from you, Mr. Kehoe. Can we deal with the matter
11 in -- the next witness will give his testimony in open session without
12 protective measures from what I understand. It will be Witness 110.
13 Mr. Kehoe, what is the issue you'd like to raise?
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. The issue is concerning the series
15 of UN CIVPOL reports that are -- that the Office of the Prosecutor is
16 attempting to tender. I took the -- well, laboured through the actual
17 reports in congestion with Mr. Elleby's 92 ter statements. Any number of
18 these documents, and there are approximately over 60, as I go through
19 them, there are numerous documents that Mr. Elleby says, "I don't know
20 anything about them because I wasn't even there." He left on October 1st
21 of 1995. He says, "It looks whatever it is, but I wasn't there."
22 That encompasses --
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's quite a number.
24 MR. KEHOE: Quite a number --
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... there has been
1 communication bout two series of documents, the ones when he wasn't there
2 and the other ones which he did not personally observe.
3 MR. KEHOE: Or that he doesn't anything about, better still.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. KEHOE: It would be different if, in fact, they got back and
6 they sat around and there was some consultation about a particular item,
7 but his 92 ter statement says that he doesn't know anything about them.
8 Obviously, on those particular exhibits, those particular CIVPOL
9 reports, we are objecting to their admission through this witness for
10 those reasons. There are documents that -- I mean, then there are a
11 series of documents that they intend to propose that are frankly in line
12 with what one of the other protected witnesses that testified here then
13 backed off of during or prior to the testimony when the Office of the
14 Prosecutor came in and said when this witness said he saw all these
15 bodies, he really didn't.
16 Those are some of the documents that the Prosecution attempts to
17 bring into evidence. Suffice it to say, Judge, I mean, with regard to
18 cross-examination, it is difficult, of course, to cross-examine a witness
19 where on these documents --
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... quite easy, isn't it? He
21 can't tell us anything about it.
22 MR. KEHOE: I guess the difficulty then comes in, and I guess
23 what happened last week is a good example of that, is when we deal with
24 an individual scheduled killing like we have, where this person gives
25 this story about having seen all these bodies, and then when you talk to
1 the person or the Office of the Prosecutor talks to them on the eve of
2 coming in here, and they said: Well, I didn't see those bodies at all";
3 when, in fact, they used it as count in indictment, as well as part of
4 the clarification schedule. It just makes it very difficult and
5 virtually impossible to cross on.
6 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, if the witness doesn't know
7 anything about it, it is rather easy; although, the Chamber has a
8 difficulty then, isn't it?
9 MR. KEHOE: This is true.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I fully agree with you that if it would admitted
11 into evidence, that what wight to be given to that material is not an
12 easy matter. I think that is it even more difficult than the
13 difficulties you face during cross-examination.
14 MR. KEHOE: Judge, I didn't mean to be selfish and just discuss
15 my position. I understand the position of the Trial Chamber. But from
16 the standpoint of the Defence, I just wanted the Court to appreciate my
18 JUDGE ORIE: To be honest, of course, we'll consider the matter
19 over the break, and I couldn't say that we were not aware of this type of
20 objection to be expected. But we'll use the break now to see whether
21 your objection should result in non-admission of these documents. We
22 have a list of which specific documents you oppose against and the two
23 categories, the one is he wasn't there anymore and the other one was he
24 didn't observe personally on what was reported.
25 Could I ask: From the submissions made by the parties, I have no
1 information yet that the other Defence teams would join in this
3 Mr. Kay.
4 MR. KAY: We do, Your Honour. We have no particular interest in
5 information within those documents, so it wasn't a matter which concerned
6 us, but the submission by Mr. Kehoe we would support entirely.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kuzmanovic.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Likewise, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
10 MR. KEHOE: I have one other aspect. It's not that particular
11 problem, but just an agreement with the Prosecutor.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But, first, to conclude this aspect.
13 Do you think you've made your position sufficiently clear.
14 That's just for us because we'll consider the matter and we'll decide the
15 matter. So, therefore, I just want to be sure that where you took only a
16 couple of minutes --
17 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Judge, I just --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not inviting to you keep talking, but I want to
19 make sure. I mean, this is an important issue. You are seeking to the
20 non-admission of quite a number of documents; and, therefore, I want to
21 verify whether you think that you have explained your position
22 sufficiently and whether you got the impression that the Chamber
23 understood your submissions sufficiently.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, that's the -- Your Honour, has the crux
25 -- the Bench has the crux of our position on those documents. I don't
1 want to belabour that point. I mean, these documents are documents that
2 could come in through other witnesses, where we would be able to talk
3 about some of the other matters contained therein, as opposed to somebody
4 that doesn't know anything about them. But Your Honours that the kernel
5 of the argument presented by the Defence.
6 I do have one other item --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. KEHOE: -- with regard to the summary of the dossier --
9 JUDGE ORIE: That is the summaries on the on the Excel sheet,
10 were the summaries are.
11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, it looks like one of these.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What is the purpose of tendering that into
13 evidence where there is a dispute whether the summary is right or wrong?
14 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I had not intended to send that in as an
15 item of substantive evidence. I was simply responding to the Court's
16 concern expressed earlier about voluminous documentation, and pointed to
17 the Court the portions of the documents that we thought were at issue.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is there agreement between the parties that your
19 summary is not what we should look at, but, if we admit into evidence
20 these documents, that we should look at the documents and that a summary
21 is the just an effort to assist with us a risk to confuse us.
22 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge. I talked to Mr. Tieger about this
23 last night, and we agree at this time that the summary aspect of this
24 document would be removed and that we would work with the Prosecutor to
25 come up with a summary that's in there. We have done that with regard to
1 the other documents, and we are just going to duplicate that. So, in the
2 not too distant future, we will have that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I noted now what Excell can do for you, that is,
4 sorting, taking out portions, adding portions, is now fully explored.
5 We'll consider the objections. We will wait until we see the new
6 Excel sheet with other information as agreed between the parties.
7 Any other matter before the break?
8 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
9 MS. FROLICH: Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MS. FROLICH: Your Honour, if I may, would it proper if I just
12 now respond briefly to the Defence objections, or would it be better --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may do that, and I apologise for not
14 having invited you to do so.
15 MS. FROLICH: First of all, good afternoon, Your Honours.
16 I think the position of the Prosecution, with respect to the
17 admission of several documents and with respect to similar documents in
18 the past, has been clear. We are not seeking to admit these documents
19 based on the witness's knowledge about the incidents or any presence that
20 he may have been in Knin or not at the time, but based on his position as
21 a Sector South chief of CIVPOL and his position to authenticate these
22 documents by the way they were formatted, they were reported, they were
23 formulated, et cetera. So there are other factors that go to
24 admissibility of these documents. We never purported to say that the
25 witness knew actually anything about these documents which would, indeed,
1 go to the weight of these documents.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You, more or less, say it is more than tendering
3 them from the bar table, although the witness may not have detailed
4 knowledge about the documents but he may have been informed about.
5 MS. FROLICH: Documents, on their face, are sufficient, I
6 believe, to be admitted on their face across the bar table. But in
7 addition, the witness authenticates them and explains the reporting
8 procedure, which adds somewhat to their admissibility, I believe.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Kehoe, just for our information, is there
10 any specific reason to be very cautious about the authenticity of the
11 documents as such, or is there any reason to believe that there's any
12 forgery involved? I'm just asking.
13 MR. KEHOE: No, Judge, none whatsoever. I did not -- and if I
14 made that kind of inference, I didn't mean that in any fashion. I'm just
15 talking about simply, as an advocate, representing our client just being
16 able to meet this evidence. You know, that is the crux of the argument,
17 as I said, yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information. We will have a
19 break, and we'll resume at quarter to 1.00 and then we have one hour with
20 the witness.
21 Will it be you, Ms. Frolich, who examines this witness?
22 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We stand adjourned until quarter to 1.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered how to proceed with the
2 objections you raised and that were joined by the other Defence counsel.
3 We'll proceed in the following way --
4 Ms. Frolich has disappeared behind the lectern, but ...
5 MS. FROLICH: I apologise, Your Honour. I was not receiving any
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, now ...
8 Ms. Frolich.
9 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The drilling has not stopped yet. Security is
11 trying to find the culprit.
12 Ms. Frolich, The next witness to appear, which is Witness known
13 until now as Witness 110, Mr. Elleby, I take it that in the beginning of
14 his testimony, you will seek the attestation in order to have his
15 statement admitted under Rule 92 ter.
16 MS. FROLICH: That is correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are invited to put in this context a few
18 questions to the witness in relation to what you seek him to establish,
19 in relation to the documents, the attached documents. I do understand
20 that you say that he may recognise the format, or he may have reviewed
21 them and not seen any persons which he is not aware of, or whatever. But
22 what you explained to us earlier, what your purpose was to establish
23 through this witness, not, as far as I understand, the truth of the
24 content, at least not in relation it those documents Mr. Kehoe is
25 objecting to, that is, the documents that were created when the witness
1 wasn't there anymore, or the documents where the witness has no personal
2 knowledge of the events described in the documents.
3 Now, you are invited to do that in relation to a selection you
4 can make yourself: One example out of the first series, that is, where
5 the witness wasn't there anymore. Another example out of the second
6 series Mr. Kehoe objected to.
7 That is not to take hours, but just try it find, I take it, that
8 you want him to confirm that this is the format used, and that, well,
9 whatever you consider relevant in this respect. The Chamber would not
10 expect this to take anything more than perhaps two or three minutes.
11 The Defence, before we finally decide on admission, will have an
12 opportunity to put similar questions but also limited to that aspect, not
13 other aspects, and then the Chamber will decide on admission of the
14 statement and the annexes.
15 This is the procedural solution the Chamber has established now,
16 and then we'll give a decision. It might well be that if we would decide
17 whether it will be admission or non-admission of these two series, that
18 we would write down the reasons later, so reasons to follow. The Chamber
19 reserves its position in that respect, whether we would immediately give
20 the full reasons for such a decision.
21 Is it clear to you? Clear to you, Mr. Kehoe.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Judge. I don't want to belabour the point. I
23 mean, obviously, I don't want it ask unnecessary questions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You're always invited not to ask unnecessary
1 MR. KEHOE: My questions candidly, Judge, would be limited to
2 what I laid out in our motion, which is: Mr. Elleby, you weren't here at
3 the time, or you don't know anything about this event.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Two shorts questions, perhaps two short answers.
5 You even could agree on this with Ms. Frolich.
6 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I got my information from the
7 supplemental 92 ter statement -- not the supplemental, the second 92 ter
8 statement where I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: What I wanted to say is that, of course, I fully
10 understand your tradition, that you put the question: Isn't it true that
11 you left that day and isn't it true that this document comes from a later
12 day and isn't it true that this day is after the first day? But you also
13 could say, I've got no further questions, where it is apparent that the
14 witness had left already on the basis of his 92 ter statement.
15 Let's try to deal with it as efficiently as possible, but we want
16 to give a fair opportunity to understand exactly how Ms. Frolich wants to
17 introduce these documents, and to give a fair opportunity to Defence.
18 For example, if she chooses an example which gives a totally different
19 format what we usually see, then, of course, you could challenge that
20 issue as well. Yes.
21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, in review of these documents, I don't
22 think the format is too different. I may be mistaken.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's not start guessing about it. It might
24 that be Ms. Frolich has a perfect format or a non-perfect format. We'll
1 Ms. Frolich, are you ready to call the next witness, which the
2 Chamber understands will be Jan Elleby?
3 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Elleby, I take it.
7 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Elleby, first of all, can you hear me in a
9 language that you understand?
10 THE WITNESS: I hear you, and I do understand you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require you to
12 make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, whole truth, and
13 nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out to you by the usher.
14 May I invite you to you make that solemn declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
16 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated Mr. Elleby.
18 WITNESS: JAN ELLEBY
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich.
20 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Examination by Ms. Frolich:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Elleby.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 MS. FROLICH: First of all, with the assistance of the usher, of
25 hard copies of the witness statements could be provided to the witness.
1 Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 MS. FROLICH:
4 Q. Mr. Elleby, could you please state your full name for the record.
5 A. My full name is Jan Elleby.
6 Q. Did you give four statements to the investigators of the Office
7 of the Prosecutor on 17th September, 1995, and that is 65 ter 4867;
8 14 September 1997, and that is 65 ter 4868; 10th October 2005, 65 ter
9 4869; and 19th and 20th February, 2008, which is supplemental witness
10 statement, 65 ter number 4870.
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Do you have these four statements in front of you?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. After your statements were recorded, did you have a chance to
15 read them in a language that you understand?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you sign the English copies of these statements?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Did you have a chance to review these statements, in the language
20 that you understand, the day before yesterday?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And did you have a chance to make corrections to a couple of
23 these statements?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 MS. FROLICH: Mr. President, can I have permission to lead the
1 witness through these corrections that he has made.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there is no objection from the defence,
3 please do so.
4 MS. FROLICH: Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Elleby, in your 1997 statement, on page 2 - that's also
6 page 2 in B/C/S, 65 ter 4868 - you mentioned you had meetings with
7 Mr. Romanic two to three times a week.
8 Did you, in fact, have only two to three meetings in total with
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. In the same statement, on page 3 - that's page 2 in B/C/S - you
12 mentioned receiving 15 to 20 reports of burnt houses everyday from
13 5th August to the 1st of October.
14 Can you, from this distance in time, confirm that number?
15 A. No. I cannot confirm the number of written reports.
16 Q. Thank you. In your 2008 supplemental statement, in paragraph 6 -
17 that is 65 ter 4870 - you mentioned there were 30 to 50 CIVPOL monitors
18 in Sector South after Operation Storm.
19 Did you, in fact, mean to say that there were 25 to 30 monitors?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. And when you authenticated -- in the same supplemental statement,
22 when you authenticated the document under 65 ter number 662, which is the
23 18th of August, 1995 damage assessment document, you said you could
24 observe more damage in Knin than noted in that report.
25 Is that, in fact, correct?
1 A. No, that is not correct.
2 Q. What would be your observation based -- what would be your --
3 what you say about the amount much damage that you could observe in Knin?
4 A. The amount of damage mentioned in the text in the document is
6 Q. Thank you. If I could just remind that you since you and I are
7 both speaking the same language here, if you make a short break between
8 each question and answer, so that the court reporters can keep up with
10 A. I'm sorry. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 Now, taking into account these corrections, do these statements
13 taken together accurately and truthfully, to the best of your knowledge,
14 reflect what you said at the time that the statements were being taken?
15 A. Yes, they do.
16 Q. Would you give the same answers today if you were examined on the
17 same matters?
18 A. Yes, I would.
19 Q. I would ask that these four statements be tendered into evidence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Ms. Frolich, of course, we have not seen
21 them. The witness has apparently statements in front of him. Could we
22 just have them on the screen, if only the first pages, so that we can
23 identify those documents.
24 MS. FROLICH: Yes, I apologise. I wanted to save some time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. But this should be kind of a
2 MS. FROLICH:
3 Q. Mr. Elleby, do you see on the screen in front of you -- what do
4 you see on the screen in front of you?
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think there is no problem leading the witness
6 there, but just to have them on the screen.
7 Also, Mr. Registrar, that we're not talking -- that we're talking
8 about same statements and about nothing else.
9 MS. FROLICH:
10 Q. Yeah. Mr. Elleby, is this your 1995 statement?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 MS. FROLICH: And I believe that is 65 ter number 4867.
13 And if we could go to -- Mr. President, should I show the page
14 where witness signed?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you show him at one spot or perhaps at the
16 end his signature, that would suffice.
17 MS. FROLICH:
18 Q. Mr. Elleby, is this -- is this the statement -- is this the last
19 page of your statement, and do you recognise the signature?
20 A. It's not my signature, but it is the last page of the statement.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. FROLICH: Could we move on to 65 ter --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any place where he has put a signature on
25 MS. FROLICH: No. I believe, on this statement, that there is no
1 signature of Mr. Elleby, but he has confirmed --
2 JUDGE ORIE: But this is the statement that you reviewed.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MS. FROLICH: If we could move on to 65 ter 4868.
6 Q. Mr. Elleby, is this your 14 September 1997 statement?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. And is this your signature at the bottom of the page, in English
10 A. Yes, that's my signature.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, you earlier referred to the
12 September 1995 statement, where, I take it, you wanted to refer to the
13 17th of September, 1995 statement --
14 MS. FROLICH: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- and where this is the statement given the 14th of
17 MS. FROLICH: That is correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. FROLICH: Could we move on to 65 ter 4869.
20 Q. Mr. Elleby, is this your 10th of October, 2005 statement?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Is this your signature at the bottom of the page, or one of the
23 three signatures?
24 A. Yes. The top signature is mine.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. FROLICH: And could we move on to 65 ter 4870.
2 Q. Is this your 19th and 20th February, 2008 statement?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. And is this your signature in the bottom left corner of the
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Frolich, I take it that the reports,
9 et cetera, will be dealt with separately?
10 MS. FROLICH: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Registrar 4867, the 17th of September, 1995
12 statement would be?
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P214, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P214, from the submissions, I learned that there is
15 no objection against it.
16 P214 is admitted into evidence.
17 65 ter 4868 will be?
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P215, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, also no objection; therefore, P215 is admitted
20 into evidence.
21 Mr. Registrar, 4869, the 10th of October 2005 statement?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P216, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. 216 is admitted into evidence.
24 Finally, the supplemental witness statements of the 19th and the
25 20th of February, 2008, 65 ter 4870, is?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P217, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No objections against P217; therefore, admitted into
4 Ms. Frolich.
5 MS. FROLICH: Thank you. Could we have 65 ter number 2147,
6 please, on the screen.
7 Q. Mr. Elleby, what do you see on the screen in front of you?
8 A. I see a fax message from UNCIVPOL headquarters in Zagreb.
9 Q. And how do you know this is a -- this is a CIVPOL headquarters
11 A. It's a -- I recognise this because it's a form that what was
12 usually used. This is sent in October after I left the mission, it looks
13 like, on 29th of October, but the format is quite known.
14 Q. Did you ever use this sort of format -- or, rather, have you ever
15 seen this sort of format before?
16 A. I have. I recognise the format.
17 Q. Have you seen similar reports before?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. Where?
20 A. At my work in -- in headquarters in Knin.
21 Q. And when was that, sir?
22 A. That was from -- that was from the mid-May until the end of
23 September 1995.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. FROLICH: Now, could we have 65 ter number --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I have one or two additional questions.
2 Is it the way of addressing the persons, the way the abbreviation
3 is used in this document, is this what you usually found in reports of
4 this format?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. As far as I remember, this
6 was -- this was quite a usual message from the headquarters sent to more
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Including the ICTY, I see, is that so?
9 It is even another source for this document, Mr. Kehoe.
10 So it is the usual way of those who were addressed. Is there
11 anything in this document which would cause any concern as to whether it
12 would not fit into what you used to see?
13 I'm not saying there is. I'm just inviting you to carefully look
14 at the document.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 The only thing is that this message was sent after I left the
17 mission. But besides that, I don't see any addresses or names who look
18 strange. I mean, these kind of documents are pretty difficult to read,
19 but I think this is how it looked.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Ms. Frolich.
21 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Could 65 ter 3449 be called up, please.
23 Q. Mr. Elleby, what do you see on the screen in front of you?
24 A. What I see is an incident report from Sector South. This is
25 concerning the Knin station, it's a reported murder from the date of 23rd
1 of August, it is signed by station commander in Knin station, and I know
2 or recognise his name.
3 Q. What -- just a point of clarification, when you say "commander of
4 Knin station," it says at the bottom "Knin UNCIVPOL station." Would that
5 be correct?
6 A. I'm sorry. Yes, that is the Knin UNCIVPOL station.
7 Q. Is there anything else that tells that you this is a CIVPOL
9 A. Yes. I recognise the format which was in the computers that we
10 used; and, again, I recognise the signer of the document.
11 Q. And, again, who was the signer of the document?
12 A. The signer is the leader of the Knin UNCIVPOL station.
13 Q. And his name is?
14 A. Petro Romassev.
15 Q. Did you know him?
16 A. Yes, I know Mr. Romassev. I used to work with him.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Elleby, how would these reports be -- I apologise. How
18 would this kind of report be generated?
19 A. After the monitors have seen something on their patrols, they
20 would go back to the station and they would, on the computer, write
21 incidents reports like this. They would carry it to their UNCIVPOL
22 station commander, and he would read it and he would sign it, if there
23 were no corrections to be made.
24 Q. Thank you. And where would this report go?
25 A. This report would go to the HQ, the headquarters, in Knin to my
1 staff, to my coordinators, and they would gather all the reports. We
2 would discuss them, and they would be faxed to headquarters in Zagreb.
3 Q. Are you familiar with the incident described in this report?
4 A. No, I don't remember this incident.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. FROLICH: Mr. President, if that is sufficient?
7 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, an opportunity will be given,
8 which is a bit extraordinary procedure, Mr. Elleby. We're just now
9 talking about these two documents.
10 Is there any additional questions one of the Defence counsel
11 would like to put the witness in relation to these documents?
12 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour. There's just those two issues
13 brought up by the OTP.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that that's true for all of the Defence
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the objections against admission of the
18 two series of documents is denied by the Chamber. We'll give the reasons
19 in a written decision. At the same time, Ms. Frolich, now we have dealt
20 with 65 ter 2147 and 3449. Of course, there's a whole series, I take it,
21 you want to tender, and I take it that you want to ask the witness also
22 whether he has reviewed those documents.
23 Are we working on the basis of what I call list 3?
24 MS. FROLICH: I'm sorry. I don't know what you're referring to
25 as list 3.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, we had the -- first of all, we
2 had a 65 ter list, and I think you made in your motion an application to
3 have five documents added to the Rule 65 ter list.
4 MS. FROLICH: Yes, indeed.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now it might come to your mind that at least
6 two of these documents were already included in the exhibit list motion
7 of the 7th of March; and, therefore, two out of these five have already
8 been added to the list on the 15th of May.
9 Then, I think, three documents are remaining out of those five:
10 The first one is the minutes from the meeting with civilian police dated
11 30th of August, 1995; UN Knin incident report, 1st of September, 1995;
12 UNCIVPOL incident report, 30th of September, 1995. The first of these
13 documents, two pages; the others each one page.
14 In the Cermak and Markac responses, we have found no objections
15 against this, and the response by the Gotovina doesn't deal specifically
16 with adding these three documents to the 65 ter list.
17 MR. KEHOE: It doesn't, Your Honour. I would mention, with
18 regard to these documents, some of these documents refer to, as I
19 mentioned previously, the incident that we had with the protected
20 witness, concerning the murders that he initially told the OTP that he
21 did see --
22 JUDGE ORIE: We're just at this moment talking about adding to
23 the 65 ter list. That's the request by the Prosecution, no objections by
24 the other Defence teams, and you have not dealt with the matter --
25 MR. KEHOE: No --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- which the Chamber understands to be that there is
2 no objection against adding these three documents to the 65 ter list.
3 MR. KEHOE: That's right.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we have, then, Ms. Frolich, we were then
5 provided with a list of associated exhibits in the Rule 92 ter motion in
6 paragraph 10. There we have 66 documents, yes? I call that list 1.
7 MS. FROLICH: Okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Then you've also provided us with two exhibit
9 lists to be used with this witness. One dates from the 7th of May of
10 this year and I call that list 2; and one on the 19th of May, and that is
11 list 3. Both them are in Excel format.
12 MS. FROLICH: Right.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber noted that list 2 adds five documents to
14 list 1. But in list 3, we find four exhibits removed from that list.
15 Surprisingly, among those four removed are two that were just added. I'm
16 talking about the picture bearing initial of witness 110, and the
17 photograph of the Puma Brigade badge. That is added in list 2, and
18 immediately then removed on list 3. The same is true for the map of
19 Sector South, which was added on list 2 and then taken away again on
20 list 3.
21 I'm just trying to find out what exhibits we're talking about if
22 you're seeking admission. So what finally then remains is list 3. Is
23 that the basis on which we'll proceed?
24 MS. FROLICH: I need to clarify -- I think that a mistake has
25 been made in removing the picture bearing initial of Witness P-110, which
1 is 65 ter number 4828. In fact, I do not have -- I do not have that
2 version of the exhibit list. I'm not sure where the confusion arised at
3 this moment, but --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please check whether that picture, which
5 you say you didn't want to remove, whether that actually appears. It
6 could be that we overlooked it.
7 MS. FROLICH: I do not have a copy of that list. My case
8 manager --
9 JUDGE ORIE: You can take your time to verify that.
10 And the map of Sector South, was that intentionally removed?
11 MS. FROLICH: That was intentionally removed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Intentionally added, and then intentionally removed
13 again. Well, then, at least we know what we are talking about.
14 The other two documents, which do not appear anymore on list 3,
15 appear to be the UNCIVPOL Sector South survey of human rights violations
16 of 26th August 1995, which seems to be an incomplete version of a
17 document with 65 ter number 1859.
18 MS. FROLICH: Mm-hm.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then the other one, which we couldn't find anymore,
20 is the UNCIVPOL headquarters weekly report, 10th to the 16th of
21 September, 65 ter 1194.
22 I'm not seeking at this moment to discuss this in full detail,
23 but I just draw your attention to what the Chamber observed and noted.
24 MS. FROLICH: Can I just offer a few clarifications on that?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if can you give them.
1 MS. FROLICH: First of all, we have informed yesterday the court
2 officer that we seek to withdraw several exhibits from this list on
3 account that -- which were similar versions of one and the same list of
4 human rights violations, for the reason that one of the documents was
5 already admitted. It became D00179. It was 65 ter number 4251.
6 There were three documents, in addition to that document, on our
7 list of associated exhibits that we would wish to withdraw at this stage,
8 and these were 65 ter numbers 1 -- excuse me, 65 ter numbers --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, you said you sent this to the court
10 officer. Did the Chamber staff receive a copy of that?
11 MS. FROLICH: I believe so.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we then make a consolidated list of the
13 documents you're seeking to be tendered into evidence, because I had not
14 learn by heart all the 65 ter numbers you just mentioned. If you could
15 please come up with a consolidate the list.
16 MS. FROLICH: There is just one more clarification.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I hate to interrupt. Could we get that in
18 chronological order, because as they stand now, the documents are not in
19 chronological order.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I've seen that. The response by the Prosecution was
21 that Excel gives, as I hinted at already this morning, excellent sorting
22 facilities; but that, of course, requires the date to be as an entry in
23 the specific date format, and I do not know whether that has been done or
24 not because that allows everyone to sort the date.
25 Ms. Frolich, I see, on this Excel sheet, once the date appears as
1 04 August 1995, another one is 08/09/1995, which gives me an impression
2 that the dates have not been -- that the entries of dates are not in a
3 specific format which allows for sorting, and I think that was the
4 response of your case manager.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I did try, and I miserably failed.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, the next time, if anyone
7 creates a Excel sheet with dates in it, please choose the format which
8 allows for sorting.
9 MS. FROLICH: I do apologise for any confusion or extra effort
10 that was had to be put into searching of the spreadsheet. We did
11 endeavour to sort documents chronologically and enter the right format.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But were you able to sort them according to
13 date? Let me just have a look.
14 I see that list 3, at least the version I've got now in front of
15 me, is apparently in chronological order.
16 I don't know whether that version is available to you,
17 Mr. Kuzmanovic. It starts with 24th to 30th of July, 1995; 4th of
18 August, 5th of August, 6th of August; 4th and 11 of August.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, are you referring to list 3.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: My list 3 is not in chronological order. The
22 exhibit list --
23 JUDGE ORIE: As always, the Chamber appreciates if the parties
24 assist the Chamber. Here, the Chamber can assist the parties because our
25 staff has created a list 3 in chronological order. So, therefore, if
1 that would assist you, the legal officer might be able to distribute
2 copies. Whether it will be the final list, four plus five, minus four,
3 et cetera, is still to be seen. But at least it gives you some
4 assistance I hope.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, having dealt with this bookkeeping, rather,
8 you have now an opportunity to examine the witness.
9 MS. FROLICH: I have just one more issue. One of the other
10 documents on the list, which was 65 ter 1194, was also admitted before as
12 JUDGE ORIE: I asked to you provide with us a consolidated list;
13 and, of course, everything that shouldn't be there will be taken out.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. FROLICH: At this point, I would like to move to tender all
16 these exhibits.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think that we will deal with it tomorrow morning,
18 to give a decision on the matter, and once you have provided us with a
19 consolidated list and once Mr. Kuzmanovic has had a look at the
20 chronological list.
21 MS. FROLICH: All right.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We proceed at this moment. Of course, we have now
23 the specific objections still there.
24 Mr. Kehoe, how are we going do deal with that, because, of
25 course, we find some of it in your written submission. We have dealt now
1 with the two general objections, and there are also some specific
2 objections, isn't it?
3 MR. KEHOE: The specific objections, of course, with regard to
4 some of these documents. I mean, obviously, the document that counsel
5 just referred to, and I believe that is 65 ter 3449, and that deals with
6 a homicide. Many of these documents deal with homicides that Mr. Elleby
7 simply doesn't know anything about because somebody else did them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. KEHOE: In those instances, Judge, in order to meet these
10 documents, I just -- if Your Honour decides to bring these documents in,
11 then we have some leave to, for instance, tender across the bar. Then as
12 soon as we gather them, we give them to the OTP. These are
13 investigations that were conducted by the Republic of Croatia at various
14 times in various theatres on many of these matters.
15 That's the only way --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... you would say that would
17 give a balance to written reports on killings, then also written reports
18 on investigations and killings.
19 MR. KEHOE: That's right, sir.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, can you answer to that right away?
21 MS. FROLICH: Well, we certainly have no objections to bringing
22 in additional documents that would refer to possible investigations that
23 have been conducted, and we are certainly -- as the Defence is aware, we
24 are trying to gather our own documents into -- to serve them in a form of
25 a bar table motion on this subject as well.
1 So this is not an issue that is in dispute; but at this moment,
2 we would still tender CIVPOL documents --
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... now, have we asked to the
4 witness already whether -- perhaps I am bit confused here.
5 Have you asked the whether the witness reviewed the whole set of
6 the documents and whether he came to any different conclusions compared
7 to what he told us on the basis of the two examples.
8 MS. FROLICH: I have not asked him that anymore questions --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think that would be an
10 appropriate question put to the witness first, and then I will invite you
11 to continue. Then we'll see whether, tomorrow, we have a consolidated
12 list, if you could. It seems that there is no major disagreement about
13 you tendering then from the bar table investigative reports about events
14 described in the other reports.
15 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Just a matter as housekeeping, for
16 instance, on the Varivode matter, I mean, I think that there are --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if you give Ms. Frolich - we're sitting
18 tomorrow in the afternoon - give her information as to what events that
19 are specifically bothering you in some detail, and then we could see
20 whether you could elicit some oral evidence on those, if the witness has
21 any evidence or knowledge about it.
22 If you would inform Ms. Frolich about that.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will now not decide yet on admission, but
25 use the remaining 12 minutes for you to examine the witness.
1 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich.
3 MS. FROLICH:
4 Q. Mr. Elleby, we mentioned your statement that you gave to the
5 Office of the Prosecutor on 19th, 20th of February 2008.
6 Do you recall, at this time, were you able to review a number of
8 A. Yes. I understand the question was that if I was shown a number
9 of documents during the interview, the two days in February, and I was.
10 We were running through many documents.
11 Q. What kind of documents were these?
12 A. Most of the documents were -- were inc-reps, incident reports.
13 There were also some documents written by myself and other CIVPOL
15 MS. FROLICH: Now, if we could bring up again P217, I believe
16 that was the statement, 65 ter 4870. If we could go to page 5,
17 paragraph 24.
18 Q. Mr. Elleby, do you see the table in front of you?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. What is this table? Can you explain.
21 A. The table is a list of documents that we were going through in
22 February, and I was asked about my knowledge and if I could say that
23 these documents were authentic or not.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. FROLICH: At this stage, Your Honour, I believe, if there are
1 no other issues you would wish me to raise with the witness with respect
2 to these documents.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Not as far as I'm concerned. But still ten minutes
5 MS. FROLICH: Thank you.
6 Just one additional item. There are three incident reports that
7 were added that were on the exhibit list that was sent, both, I believe,
8 numbers 2 and 3, that were not in the 92 ter motion, and these were also
9 documents that I wanted through this witness. They were listed in the
10 Prosecution second motion to amend the exhibit list, which has been
11 granted in the meantime, but the witnesses has not authenticated them in
12 the same manner as other CIVPOL documents.
13 Would you like me to lead these documents separately, each of
14 them, or can they be admitted on the same basis as previous CIVPOL
16 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against -- I mean, apart from the
17 general objections and not -- but any reason to deal with it in a very
18 specific way or just to --
19 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the same --
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- in the same fashion; that is, include them in
21 your consolidated list.
22 MS. FROLICH: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MS. FROLICH: Then I would like move to tender these documents as
25 well, and thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, you are invited, once the consolidate
2 the list is there, to see whether you can provisionally assign P numbers
3 to these documents, so that we don't lose time in court tomorrow.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. FROLICH: I would like to move on to read to the 92 ter
6 witness summary for Mr. Elleby.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 MS. FROLICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Jan Elleby was an UNCIVPOL, or United Nations Civilian Police,
10 monitor in Sector South in Knin, from mid-May to the end of
11 September 1995. In his capacity as the deputy chief and later chief of
12 CIVPOL in Sector South, he was familiar with the reporting system within
13 UNCIVPOL, its structure, mandate, and monitoring system.
14 The mandate of CIVPOL was to monitor the work of the Croatian
15 civilian police and report human rights abuses. Mr. Elleby received
16 incident reports from CIVPOL monitors in the sector and forwarded them to
17 CIVPOL headquarters in Zagreb. His main task was to inform the Croatian
18 civilian police of the incidents reported by his monitors and supervise
19 his staff who also reported incidents themselves to the police, attend
20 meetings with the chiefs of police administration for Knin and Zadar, and
21 monitor their responses. He authenticates a number of CIVPOL incident
22 reports and other CIVPOL-related documents.
23 Mr. Elleby was in Knin during and after the shelling attack on
24 4th and 5th August 1995. He provides evidence about the pattern of
25 shelling and its effect on the civilian population. He provides evidence
1 about HV soldiers and civilian police looting and burning in Knin in the
2 aftermath of the shelling, the restrictions of movement placed on the UN
3 personnel, and the reasons given by Croatian authorities for the
4 restrictions. The witness observed graves in the Knin cemetery. He also
5 observed burning and destruction outside of Knin in the town of Kistanje
6 and on the road from Knin to Drnis.
7 Mr. Elleby provides evidence that neither the military nor the
8 civilian police did anything to stop the looting and destruction, that
9 the Croatian civilian police did very little or nothing in response to
10 notice of the crimes committed that was provided by CIVPOL, and that they
11 largely ignored the reports or denied Croat responsibility. The Croatian
12 military authorities had full control of the area in Knin and its
13 surrounds during the first few days of Operation Storm, and no one else
14 but the military authorities had access to it. Mr. Elleby also observed
15 members of the Croatian special police in Knin and heard about the
16 special police closing off areas during clean-up operations.
17 That concludes the summary, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Still five minutes to go, so please
20 MS. FROLICH: Could we please bring up diagram 65 ter 4942.
21 Q. Mr. Elleby, could you briefly explain what the place of CIVPOL
22 was in UN structure in Sector South, but otherwise in Croatia?
23 A. CIVPOL was structured with a headquarter in Zagreb, and there was
24 a commissioner to whom I was subordinated as a sector chief. When I was
25 a deputy sector chief, I was subordinated to the sector chief in
1 Sector South which was Mr. Norman Boucher from Canada.
2 We did restructure in Sector South after Operation Storm; and in
3 the headquarter, there were some coordinators subordinated to me, and we
4 had under the headquarter some CIVPOL stations where it was a station
5 commander and some monitors.
6 Q. And could you tell us what relationship of CIVPOL to other UN
7 agencies was?
8 A. Yes. CIVPOL was just one of more branches in the headquarter in
9 Knin. There was a military, of course, and the head of headquarter was a
10 general. Then there was CIVPOL, we had UNHCR, Red Cross administrations.
11 I don't remember if there were anymore. Anyway, there was morning
12 meetings everyday where the general sat at the end of the table.
13 Q. Could you explain the relationship of subordination that is shown
14 in this diagram?
15 A. In the sector, after I became a sector chief, there was a deputy
16 who was assisting me, and the coordinators were responsible for one area
17 each. No matter what the incident was, there was investigation,
18 operations, or human rights, and they were reporting to me what was going
19 on in the -- in their area of responsibility. They got the knowledge
20 from station commanders which, again, got their knowledge from -- from
21 the monitors.
22 Q. Who reported incidents to the civilian police?
23 A. There were more levels of information, and the station -- the
24 UNCIVPOL station commanders had contact with the Croatian police. The
25 coordinators had contact with the Croatian police. And I had some
1 meetings with the head of police in Knin and -- and the officer he was
2 subordinated to in Zadar, and I also had meetings with a high level
3 officer in Sibenik.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Frolich, I'm looking at the clock, and I'd like
5 to adjourn for the day.
6 Before I do so, Mr. Gotovina, Mr. Cermak, and Mr. Markac, there
7 might be some delays in your transportation to the detention unit for
8 very practical and good reasons. So if you have to wait a bit longer
9 than usual, just be informed that there are practical reasons which do
10 not allow to do it any quicker.
11 Then we will adjourn for the day and resume tomorrow, 22nd of
12 May, in the afternoon, quarter past 2.00, in Courtroom I.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of May,
15 2008, at 2.15 p.m.