1 Wednesday, 4 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
11 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Mr. Forand, before we continue, I'd like to remind you that
14 you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave at the
15 beginning of your testimony yesterday.
16 Mr. Kay, are you ready to continue your cross-examination.
17 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 WITNESS: ALAIN ROBERT FORAND [Resumed]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Kay: [Continued]
21 Q. First matter I want to deal with this morning, General Forand, is
22 the matter you said yesterday evening towards the end of your evidence
23 that you had only received three letters from Mr. Cermak, when I was
24 asking you questions as to why you didn't recognise him as the garrison
25 commander of Knin.
1 Do you recollect that?
2 A. Yes, sir. I think what I said is I thought I had received only
3 three letters. There was not an affirmative that it was only three.
4 Q. Shall we just look at that issue, because you were putting it as
5 an excuse as to why you didn't recognise his title as the "Zborno Mjesto"
6 of Knin.
7 MR. KAY: Your Honour, over night, we have collected together a
8 bundle of correspondence from Mr. Cermak to General Forand.
9 Mr. Usher, if could you put that there. It is before General
10 Forand, and there are 15 letters from -- in the name of General Cermak to
11 General Forand, one of which is not signed by General Cermak, and we will
12 be looking at that later in the evidence.
13 Now, it hasn't been uploaded into e-court yet obviously, because
14 it was a matter that arose overnight. Some of these letters are
15 duplicates of letters that are already in, but it makes the point in the
16 collection. I'm really seeking Your Honour's guidance or direction as to
17 how the Court wants to deal with the issue in this way. We have put it
18 together as a collection to make a simple point, without making it too
19 complicated and going through each letter.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following, Mr. Tieger, and please let
21 me know whether you would agree with that: That a list of letters which
22 are not yet in evidence, the letters attached to that list, and then
23 adding to that list the details of letters that are already in evidence,
24 and then to tender this from the bar table and give Mr. Forand an
25 opportunity to read these letters over the break and then perhaps answer
1 questions as to whether he has received those letters or whatever comment
2 he has in relation to the letters now presented to him, in view of his
3 testimony of yesterday.
4 Would that be practical solution?
5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, I may not --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Your microphone is not on, but I will switch mean
7 off then.
8 MR. TIEGER: Same problem, Your Honour. I think it is blinking
9 and not -- okay.
10 Your Honour, thank you. It seems to be a practical solution.
11 One issue occurs to me, and that is that if the documents are going to be
12 shown to the witness as documents which he may or may not have received,
13 it is probably helpful to identify which of the documents are
14 translations conducted here rather than documents he would have received
15 at the time. I see there are a lot of English documents which we
16 recognise as being translations of B/C/S documents but which the witness
17 may not.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would consider this to be among the
19 questions that will be put to him once he has had an opportunity to read
21 Mr. Forand, we're more or less now claiming one of your next
22 breaks, instead of having a cup of coffee, to just go through this bundle
23 of letters and to see to what extent you recognise the content or whether
24 remember to have seen them.
25 Would that be okay, as far as you're concerned?
1 THE WITNESS: No problem, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Kay, if you would prepare that list for
3 later filing, and if we leave now a bundle with Mr. Forand, and then I
4 take it that after the break you put the questions.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KAY:
7 Q. Sometimes, General, this issues can be taken quite shortly, and I
8 will just ask you in view of the fact I haven't been typing these
9 overnight, but I got them obviously from a collection which the
10 Prosecution had whether you would like to revise your testimony of
12 I'm just giving an opportunity over that issue.
13 A. Well, obviously, you know, just looking at the first one, all the
14 letters that were addressed to me I should have received. I didn't
15 remember them. I based my comment yesterday on what I had seen in the
16 folder that I was provided, which had, if I remember well, only three
17 letters. But I'm sure that all the letters that General Cermak wrote to
18 me I received, you know, either personally or through my Senior Liaison
19 Officer. I have no problem with that.
20 The comment you made, when I said yesterday, it was not the only
21 reason, you know, that it was three letters. It was the fact that in all
22 of letters that I sent to General Cermak, it was addressed as the
23 military commander and he never made allusions or told me that that was
24 not his right title.
25 Q. A bit like always addressing someone with the wrong name, whether
1 you tell them you've got my name wrong.
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. Thank you. Let's then look at what this position was. First
4 document we're going to look at it is D31, an exhibit previously produced
5 in the trial.
6 This is a document dated the 5th of August and concerns the
7 appointment by the president of Croatia of General Cermak to be the
8 commander of the Knin garrison.
9 Can you see that, General Forand?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And the previous holder of that position of commander of the Knin
12 garrison was Major Gojevic, who became the deputy commander. Can you see
14 A. Yeah, I see that.
15 Q. Now, this document was issued on the 5th of August and concerns
16 General Cermak's appointment to that position that I told you he held
17 rather than military governor. And "ZM" that you saw on the letters from
18 General Cermak to you stand for "Zborno Mjesto," commander of the
19 garrison. So there you can see that that was his official appointment?
20 A. I never saw that letter personally.
21 Q. No. When you were in Knin, you had a press office. Did you
22 receive information from the press officer about matters of interest that
23 were happening in relation to Croatian policy in your area of
25 A. The press officer that was there was not under my responsibility.
1 He was working for UNCRO headquarter. And, obviously, if there was
2 something of interest, he was assisting, if I remember well, at our 8.30
3 meeting, so he would pass it on to everybody at that time.
4 Q. Shall we look at a newspaper article that came out on the 6th of
5 August, D36.
6 MR. KAY: Exhibit D36, please.
7 Q. This newspaper report of the next day from a paper called
8 Slobodna Dalmacija, which will shortly be on your screen, again is a
9 public statement in the press about General Cermak's appointment on the
10 5th of August. And in the translation there, you will see that that
11 appointment was to be commander of the Knin garrison, and Major Gojevic,
12 the deputy commander, having previously been the commander. Gojevic you
13 knew to be General Cermak's deputy. Is that right?
14 A. I don't remember that Major Gojevic -- I don't remember that at
16 Q. Didn't you meet him on the 5th of September with General Gotovina
17 at the meeting when you went to the quarters, the new office of General
19 A. No. I don't remember him.
20 Q. Didn't you have dealings with Major Gojevic as General Cermak's
22 A. I don't remember that individual at all.
23 Q. Very well. You can see there in this article General Cermak,
24 during 1990 to 1991, was an advisor to the president; then an assistant
25 minister of defence; and, in 1993, minister of economy in the government
1 of Croatia
2 August, that General Cermak was actually in civilian life, he wasn't a
3 serving army officer?
4 A. Well, not at that time, because I don't remember ever seeing that
5 article or I don't remember being briefed, you know, on that particular
6 article. But as I said yesterday, maybe three weeks afterwards, there
7 was a social function where we had exchanged a few words, and he told me
8 that he was a reserve officer at that time.
9 Q. Did you know that he was a civilian, in fact, until appointed on
10 the 5th of August?
11 A. I don't remember exactly if he was a civilian up to the 5th, but
12 I remember he told me that he was a businessman, yes.
13 Q. Yes. Did you think he was a serving army officer at that time
14 that he was a military man?
15 A. No, because he had told me he was a reserve officer. That's why
16 yesterday when you told me at that time that he was the - I don't know if
17 could call him like that - the mastermind of the artillery plan. To me,
18 in myself, I did not believe him and I never passed that information to
19 anybody, expect I think I passed it on when I was interviewed by the ICTY
20 people because they were asking me, you know, what I thought about
21 General Cermak.
22 Q. And there's an issue between us over your account on that matter,
23 as you appreciate, because I suggest to you he had insufficient knowledge
24 of the English language to give you that information in a conversation.
25 A. Yeah. I remember that we don't agree on that. Yes, sir.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you have any knowledge of the structure of the
2 Croatian armed forces at that time?
3 A. No, sir. I still don't today.
4 Q. So you were unaware of the responsibilities of the person that
5 you were dealing with. Is that right?
6 A. Well, unaware in the sense of his overall responsibility; aware
7 of the fact that he told me that he was responsible for the Knin region
8 which corresponds to my sector of responsibility.
9 Q. Was it that you thought he was responsible for the area over
10 which you had command because that is the terms in which you were
12 A. Well, I certainly thought that he was responsible because I had
13 been told by General Gotovina, when I had raised with him the looting and
14 the burning and the conduct of the military personnel, to refer those
15 matter to General Cermak.
16 Q. Should we just have a look at that statement that you just made
17 there, because if we go to Exhibit 359, the meeting on the 8th of August,
18 and it's page 3 of that sitrep, you can see there the report of the
19 meeting that you had with General Gotovina. And nowhere in that report
20 is there any statement that you raised the issue of crimes with General
21 Gotovina, crimes by the Croatian army. Is that right?
22 A. Yeah, it's not there. But in the supplementary that was
23 deposited yesterday by the Prosecutor, I said that I recall that I had a
24 discussion with General Gotovina, but it does not appear, you're right,
25 on that sitrep.
1 Q. What this sitrep shows is that, in fact, you did very little
2 talking at all. Isn't that right?
3 A. That's what it says there, yeah.
4 Q. It's sole reference to what you say was asking permission to
5 bring your COs
6 A. Yeah, because at that time, you know, we still could not get out
7 of the camp.
8 Q. Now, when you went to Gotovina, to see General Gotovina on the
9 8th of August, you were just raising matters that were of concern to the
10 UN, weren't you, to you as commander, Sector South, UNCRO?
11 A. Yes, that was my only responsibility.
12 Q. Yes. The issue of crimes being committed was not something that
13 you had gone to see General Gotovina about.
14 A. No, because he is the one who invited me to visit him.
15 Q. Exactly. So he was speaking to you and was telling you what the
16 situation was going to be as between Croatia
17 of its own territory, and you, as the UNCRO commander, who was on their
18 territory. That's what that meeting was about, wasn't it?
19 A. I don't remember exactly those --
20 Q. You weren't there raising issues with General Gotovina outside
21 your own concerns of getting UNCRO out of Croatia. Isn't that right?
22 A. Yes, I would assume, yeah.
23 Q. And, in fact, when you were interviewed in 1996, 1997, 1998 --
24 1999, sorry, you never mentioned that you went to see General Gotovina on
25 the 8th of August and discussed crimes being committed at that meeting.
1 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. TIEGER: This might not rise as a general matter, because I
4 think it is significant here, I think the witness should be pointed to
5 those passages of the particular statements where that -- I mean, either
6 to review the statements in their entirety or to be pointed to the
7 passages where that meeting is referenced, because I think it would be
8 pertinent here. And I don't say anything more at this time in the
9 presence of the witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think --
11 MR. KAY: I can do it this a long way, Your Honour, and time is
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. At the same time, Mr. Kay, I
14 noticed, and I will address that, that the witness is -- I will say one
15 word about that.
16 There are other matters such as how Mr. Cermak was appointed,
17 where the witness can hardly add anything, where you really take your
18 time to put quite a lot of things to the witness. So I do understand
19 that time is important it is, however, a matter of how to use the time,
20 what to prioritise. And I can imagine that, in view of what I just
21 heard, that it makes some sense to briefly take him through these
23 MR. KAY: Well --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Forand, I noticed the following: On the last
25 few questions about what was raised and what was the subject of this
1 meeting, you more or less followed what Mr. Kay suggested to you. At the
2 same time, earlier today, you said, talking about the sitrep, "Yeah, it
3 is not there. But in the supplementary that was deposited yesterday,"
4 you said that you recall having a discussion with -- no, no. I have to
5 withdraw that.
6 Please try to listen very carefully to what Mr. Kay puts to you
7 and try to focus on whether you agree with him or not, try to be very
8 price in these matters.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
11 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. I certainly don't want to make
12 this more cumbersome and lengthy than necessary. Is it helpful if I draw
13 Mr. Kay's attention to one particular --
14 MR. KAY: I'm going to cut it short in view of the way the
15 intervention occurred, and I was astonished by the intervention because
16 we go to the statement in 2008, Exhibit P333.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 MR. KAY: Paragraph 7.
19 Q. And in 2008, for the first time, you mention that on the 8th of
20 August, you complained to General Gotovina about the lack of discipline
21 of his troops. They were looting and burning in the town, and then you
22 say: "General Gotovina referred me to General Cermak for these and any
23 other complaints."
24 MR. TIEGER: I do need some guidance, Your Honour. I hear
25 comments from counsel that I should do this in redirect. But if the
1 witness is being lead to a portion of his statement in what appears to be
2 a conflation of two issues that suggest something that to him that is not
3 fair, I feel I should rise and try to ensure that it is addressed clearly
4 before redirect.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think you should wait, Mr. Tieger. At the same
6 time, Mr. Kay, what I did before is I have drawn the witness's attention
7 that where he, at one moment, says that the issue of crimes has been
8 raised and that he in his last statement -- didn't say in the sitrep
9 nothing is there, but in his last statement he said something about it,
10 if then at a later stage he says, Well, following your suggestions what
11 the subject was, that we might lack precision there.
12 At the same time, it is perfectly fair if you put to the witness,
13 and I think we can do it in such a way at this moment, that you, Mr. Kay,
14 see, for the first time, that the witness raises the issue during his
15 last interview. I also mention to you that -- I draw your attention to
16 the fact that most important is whether the recollection of the witness
17 is firm in this respect. And, of course, you can put questions to him,
18 Why didn't you say this any earlier. But, finally, what important is
19 whether his recollection is firm on that; and, of course, you can explore
20 where he didn't say it earlier or that his recollection is not firm on
22 Mr. Forand, I take it that you followed some of the discussions.
23 Mr. Kay showed that he was a bit surprised that issues were raised only
24 recently in your last statement, and he would like to ask you some
25 questions about that.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
2 MR. KAY:
3 Q. Well, how did it come about that you recalled it here in 2008,
4 12 years later, and didn't recall it earlier?
5 A. Because obviously, you know, I was preparing myself to come and
6 be a witness here; and the more I read, you know, what I had put in my
7 presentation and the more I thought about it, I realised, you know, that
8 I had spoken those words to General Gotovina.
9 Q. Was it suggested to you in any way that this was a subject that
10 was raised? Was it suggested to you by anyone?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Well, there it is.
13 MR. KAY: I want it look at exhibit 65 ter 4028, which is a
14 presidential transcript of President Tudjman, and if on that document we
15 can go to 03049095, which is page 20 of the document.
16 Q. This, again, is from the Prosecution documents and is part of a
17 discussion in the president's office with various people - Ivo Sanadar,
18 Mr. Zuzul, others - concerning the Canadians. And a reference in the
19 middle of the page by Mr. Zuzul, the Canadians: The Americans received
20 an official request to assist the Canadians in pulling out of Knin.
21 This transcript dates from the 7th of August, 1995. Is that
22 right that there was assistance sought by the Canadians to pull out of
24 A. Never heard about that one, sir.
25 Q. And you can see below that the president says: "And another
1 thing, tell them I appointed as commander of the Knin garrison
2 Colonel-General Cermak, a former minister, a serious man to solve those
4 Again, from the president not saying that General Cermak was a
5 military governor but he was commander of the Knin garrison. Do you see
7 A. I can see that, but I never saw that document, sir.
8 Q. All right. And that's what General Cermak had told you, wasn't
9 it, that he was there to help you as commander of Sector South in the
10 problems that you had ending your mission. Isn't that right?
11 A. I don't remember those exact words, but we were to discuss with
12 him and to work with him, you know, if any problem arise, yes.
13 Q. And it wasn't a matter that he had command over the same area
14 that was your area, Sector South. He never said that to you.
15 A. I don't remember. What I remember is that he told me that he was
16 the individual responsible for the Knin region, which, in my view, was my
17 whole area of responsibility.
18 Q. So, to be fair to you, you were looking at it from your
20 A. Well, I don't remember, sir, which perspective I should had been
21 looking then.
22 Q. Very well. Did you know --
23 MR. KAY: Your Honour, if I can make that extract an exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D296.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I take it that there is no
3 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D296 is admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KAY: Thank you.
7 Q. Did you know that there had been discussions about help and that
8 you wanted to see General Cermak, between other international
9 politicians, representatives, and the president's office in Zagreb
10 the help you needed to withdraw from the region?
11 A. I don't know what you're talking about. I never heard about that
12 one either.
13 Q. Well, did you know that, in fact, the president's advisor, one of
14 his special advisor, Mr. Sarinic, who signed the agreement with
15 Mr. Akashi, in relation to your problems stated that Mr. Cermak was the
16 "koschnik" of Knin?
17 A. Never heard about that, sir.
18 Q. No. Did you know at the time who a man called "koschnik" was and
19 what he did?
20 A. I don't remember that name.
21 Q. A man who was appointed as the administrator of Mostar?
22 A. No, sir, I don't.
23 Q. To revitalize the city there and to bring the parties together in
24 Mostar. Did you know that?
25 A. No, sir.
1 Q. When Mr. Cermak came to Knin, you met him on the 7th of August,
2 when Mr. Akashi came to your camp. Isn't that right?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And at Exhibit D29, we can see the report that was filed by
5 Mr. Akashi of what Mr. Cermak said at the time.
6 MR. KAY: Is that up on the screen? Thank you.
7 Q. If we look at page 1 of that report, one can see that Mr. Cermak
8 was concerned with restoring water and electricity and about the removal
9 of HV troops. Would you agree with that?
10 A. That's what is written there, yeah.
11 Q. Would you agree with that as well, in your dealings with him, on
12 that day --
13 A. Yeah --
14 Q. -- of the 7th of August?
15 A. I don't know exactly if it was discussed on the 7th at that
16 particular meeting, because I had a subsequent meeting, you know, in the
17 evening with him. Yes. I believe that he told me that his
18 responsibility was to restore normal life, you know, as quickly as
20 Q. Yes. And on that 7th of August, if we look at page 2 of
21 Mr. Akashi's report, at paragraph 4, he was professing a strong desire
22 for all those people still in Knin in your camp to remain living there
23 and not to leave the region. Do you recollect that those were the
24 statements that he was making at the time?
25 A. I don't remember exactly at that time, but I know that he made
1 that statement to the refugee themselves, I think, the following days.
2 But at that particular meeting, I don't remember. But if Mr. Akashi
3 remember, then, yes.
4 Q. I don't want to have to show a film, as my time is limited, but
5 we have a film of him saying this, that the --
6 A. I said that I agree, you know, because I remember that he had
7 said that to the refugee themselves.
8 Q. Straight away, would you agree, when he got in that camp, he was
9 pledging support to try and sort out that problem that the UN was dealing
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And straight away, he was making statements that damage would be
13 repaired and that these people should stay and be allowed to live freely
14 and without hindrance. Would you agree with that?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. All his statements on that day were publicly supportive of trying
17 to resolve, peaceably and amicably, the problem that was within your UN
18 camp of the displaced persons. Is that right?
19 A. Yes, sir. Like I said, I don't remember at that particular
20 meeting; but that meeting at night and subsequent meeting, those words
21 were proffered by General Cermak.
22 Q. Yeah.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, for your planning, I inform you that we'll
24 have an earlier break of the first session; that is, quarter past 10.00.
25 There are some urgent matters I have to deal with, and that has to be
1 done at that time. I just inform you so that in your organisation of
2 your cross-examination, that you know that we'll have a break 15 minutes
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes.
6 Just dealing with the issue of the military governor, coming back
7 to that, if we could look at a document, P330, Exhibit P330 -- oh, no,
8 sorry. That's the statement. My mistake. It's P347, Exhibit P347.
9 Q. This was your letter on the 5th of August requesting a meeting
10 with the military governor and sent to General Gotovina, saying you
11 urgently request a meeting, as there are a number of issues concerning
12 the displaced persons: "There has been a significant amount of
13 destruction and looting. I'm not satisfied the Croatian army is fully
14 under control," and referring to freedom of movement.
15 At what time on the 5th of August did you issue this letter?
16 A. I don't remember, sir.
17 Q. Right. If we turn to 65 ter 1977, this document is "Points to be
18 discussed with military governor, HV commanders, UN operations," and it's
19 got written on it: "Copy given to Captain Lukovic, 6th of August," at
21 Was this a document drafted by you or someone in your office?
22 A. Well, I would have to see what date was it produced.
23 Q. It says: "Copy given to Captain Lukovic 6th, Aug 1995, 1000
25 A. But on the opposite there, it seems to indicate the 11th of
1 kolizar -- kolivaz [phoen]. Is that August?
2 Q. It's August.
3 A. It doesn't make sense, you know, if it was produced on the 11th,
4 that we had given it on the 6th. I don't know who wrote that.
5 Q. Where do you see the 11th?
6 A. On my screen, just to the right of it.
7 Q. Forget the one on the right there.
8 A. Because the one I'm looking at --
9 Q. It's not the same --
10 A. It's not the same?
11 Q. -- document. Yeah, forget that. Look at the English -- no.
12 We've --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think we now moved to the worse; that is, where we
14 would expect to have a B/C/S translation to the right of the document, we
15 find on the left. Then the next step was that we now had the wrong
16 document in English as well.
17 MR. KAY:
18 Q. Just look at the left-hand side. This is an English written
19 document rather than a translation.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Points to be discussed with the military governor. Was that a
22 document written by you, drafted by you, or any hand that you had in it?
23 A. Well, it was not drafted by me, but the points that needed to be
24 discussed had been identified by me, yes.
25 Q. Right.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, there seems to be, however, a problem not
2 necessarily caused by you, but that document that was just on the right
3 of the screen is the translation attached to this document, and
4 apparently is not the translation of this document.
5 So there must be a wrong attachment. If it was a document that
6 was uploaded by the Prosecution, you're invited, Mr. Tieger, to check
7 that, because what appears to the B/C/S translation is, at least what is
8 attached as the B/C/S translation, certainly is not a translation of that
10 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
11 MR. KAY: Thank you. Yes, it is not one of mine, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why I'm addressing it.
13 MR. KAY: Thank you.
14 Q. Do you recognise that document and is it a document that you took
15 with you for your meeting on the 8th of August?
16 A. Well, I recognise the document because it's a situation report.
17 I don't have the date that it was written. I didn't bring the situation
18 report with me because it was written after the meeting. But obviously
19 the points, you know, that are highlighted there are points that I wanted
20 to discuss or have discussed in that situation report with General
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. KAY: Can that document be admitted into evidence, Your
25 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection, Mr. Tieger?
1 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. And, of course, I understand the
2 issue with the translation and will attend to that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we assign a number to the English
4 original, which is ERN number 00901522. This will be admitted into
5 evidence, but the Prosecution should report on uploading a proper
6 translation of this document.
7 Mr. Registrar, it would be admitted under number?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D297, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: D297 with the proviso I just expressed is admitted
10 into evidence.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. KAY: Thank you. Next document, can we look at P348, Exhibit
14 Q. This is a sitrep of the 6th of August, released by you. We only
15 need to look at the first page and paragraph 1, where you have concerns
16 with the current situation in Knin and Sector South: "I will be
17 discussing those points at my level with the Croat liaison office in
18 Knin; however, I would appreciate if those points were discussed with
19 Croat authorities in Zagreb
20 What was the level you were referring to as the Croat liaison
21 office in Knin?
22 A. If I remember well, it was at Captain Lukovic level.
23 Q. He's the naval officer we mentioned yesterday?
24 A. Yeah, the one that I met a couple of times, if I remember well.
25 Q. And also referred to on the points to be discussed document in
2 A. Yeah, that is what was written, yes, sir.
3 Q. You gave him a copy of that?
4 A. I must have. I don't remember exactly, because in those days we
5 were discussing that Captain Lukovic would take a position within my
6 headquarters. That was the initial discussion that had taken place, and
7 I don't remember the reason why it then came to. But we never had the
8 liaison -- Croat liaison officer within my headquarters.
9 Q. Did it come about, in fact, that you had one of your UN liaison
10 officers within Mr. Cermak's offices in Knin, the garrison HQ?
11 A. It's not clear. I don't remember exactly if we tried to have one
12 and for whatever reason it didn't work, but my Senior Liaison Officer,
13 Lieutenant-Colonel Tymchuk, went there on a daily basis.
14 Q. Yeah. He was within the office area of General Cermak in Knin.
15 Is that right?
16 A. Well, I don't think he had a place, you know, permanently there,
17 but he was going on a daily basis to visit the office of General Cermak.
18 Not always with General Cermak, I think with his staff.
19 Q. We can ask him about that.
20 In this document here, that you appreciate it if these points
21 were discussed with Croat authorities in Zagreb, what did you have in
22 mind or what was the position in relation to discussion in Zagreb
23 do you mean by that?
24 A. I mean my headquarters, UNCRO headquarters, with their
25 counterpart on the Croat authority, to discuss the point that I would be
1 raising. At that time, what you have shown me before now, I have some
2 recollection. It was not part of a situation report, but it was a list
3 of points that I wanted to address, to whoever was in charge in the Knin
5 Q. Right.
6 A. And at that time, the only contact I had was with Captain
8 Q. Right. In relation to what you told us yesterday about what you
9 had seen, the crimes, problems that you had, were those problems also
10 matters that you were referring up your chain of command to the
11 headquarters in Zagreb
12 A. Yes, sir, because on every situation report that I was making
13 daily, and sometime more than one time a day, a situation report
14 describing the situation within all of my area of responsibility on a
15 daily basis to my headquarters at UNCRO.
16 Q. And what was the purpose of sending it to the HQ in Zagreb
17 was the action to be taken from there?
18 A. Well, it is a normal way of doing business in the military, where
19 you report the situation on a daily basis; and, hopefully, you know, if
20 it's something requesting intervention, I was hoping, you know, that they
21 would do it.
22 Q. So the information that you were giving them from Knin passed up
23 the command to Zagreb
24 deal with, as well, to help your problems. Would that be right?
25 A. In certain case, not all the case, the other case was reporting
1 what we were seeing. And in some certain instances, it was a specific
2 request that was included in the sitrep asking them to take action.
3 Q. Yes. And we haven't heard evidence about this yet, but the
4 system that was in play with the headquarters in Zagreb and the
5 information that was going back to the command in Zagreb that was
6 information and facts that they could deal with themselves.
7 You weren't the only person having to deal with the problems in
8 Knin, would that be right, on a global level, or an overall picture?
9 A. Well, at UNCRO itself, I was the only organisation reporting to
10 my headquarters. The UN civil police were reporting to their own
11 organisation, and they belong to UNPROFOR. The human rights people also
12 were a different route. The military observers also was a different
14 Q. And you told us yesterday you weren't responsible for those other
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. They reported to separate headquarters in Zagreb. Would that be
19 A. That's right. And the majority of the time, I could not vouch
20 all the time, but the majority of the time we were receiving an
21 information copy of what they were sending to their responsible
23 Q. Yeah. And having informed the headquarters in Zagreb, the
24 matters of which you were complaining of, were matters that your
25 superiors could deal with in Zagreb
1 A. I was hoping, yes, that they could be dealing with it, yes, sir.
2 Q. Yes. And when you're reporting about crimes, that they can take
3 it at a higher level from you to a higher level than the local level to
4 the officers with which they worked in Zagreb.
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. I just now want to turn to something that you raised of
7 Mr. Cermak telling you about the normalization of life in Knin as being
8 something with which he was concerned.
9 MR. KAY: If we turn to a document which I have, 2D03-0085.
10 Q. We have a letter dated the 8th of August which is also in that
11 collection we produced earlier this morning, General Forand, which is
12 from General Cermak to you in which he mentioned in order to return
13 normal life an order in Knin and open up and restore traffic. Was this a
14 letter that was received by you?
15 A. I must have received that. I don't remember. But like I said
16 earlier, every letter that General Cermak addressed to me, I have to have
17 received it at my headquarter.
18 Q. It was an established system --
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. -- between you --
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. -- through the liaison officers. And you agree that when you met
23 General Cermak that he told you that that was one of his tasks, was to
24 normalize life in Knin. Is that right?
25 A. Yes, sir. But I thought it was more in Knin but also the region
1 of Knin.
2 Q. And to revitalize and get business going within Knin, was that a
3 subject that he raised with you?
4 A. I don't remember the business part, but I remember that he
5 mentioned many times that he wanted the activity to return to normal.
6 Q. Yes. And he was writing a letter such as this to you, which
7 reflected conversations that you had had with him in meetings between
8 each other. Is that right?
9 A. It must have been. I don't remember exactly, but it must have
10 been part of the conversation. I remember sending a letter - I don't
11 know if it is in response to that - saying that we have provided help.
12 And if some of my equipment that had been stolen would have been able, I
13 could do more also.
14 Q. In fact, we're going to look at that in some detail and the paper
15 trail of those letters in a moment, General Forand.
16 MR. KAY: Can we look at the next document, P388, Exhibit P388.
17 Q. This is another document written by him to you on that day, of
18 the 8th of August, referring to the refugees in your camp. And he wanted
19 to address their problems, to see that passes are issued to all who want
20 to leave the camp and go on living in the area of Knin.
21 He wrote: "We will provide all of the conditions of normal life
22 for them," and then refers to drawing up a list.
23 Just dealing with page 1, first of all, again that was very
24 consistent with his statements to you at the meetings about wanting to
25 help all the people inside your UNCRO compound. Is that right?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And that was, in fact, a major problem that you had on your hands
3 at that time to deal with.
4 A. You're talking about the people within my camp?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And it was an unexpected problem for you. On the 3rd of August,
8 you would not anticipated you would be dealing with such a situation.
9 A. Certainly not.
10 Q. Yes. It was something that you were not prepared for within the
11 camp to have to provide for?
12 A. No, because the camp was not suited to have that many people to
13 be taking care of.
14 Q. Yes. On page 2 of this document - and we'll be returning to it
15 later, but just so that it's covered - the question of interviewing men
16 between the ages of 18 and 60 was a matter that was provided for within
17 the Akashi-Sarinic agreement, as to the relationship between the UN and
18 the Croatian authorities. Is that right?
19 A. I don't remember exactly, but what the letter -- not the letter
20 but the report that you showed early from Mr. Akashi discussed that it
21 was matter that would have to be further developed because there seemed
22 to be a problem in the way that the interview would be conducted.
23 Q. Yes. The Court has seen the document earlier, and I'm just
24 referencing it here as it is part of this correspondence that has been
25 previously exhibited, the Akashi-Sarinic agreement.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kay, could you give the numbers so that we
2 can --
3 MR. KAY: Yes. I'm not so good with numbers as I used to be when
4 I was younger, and we've had -- I hate to say it, but I'm always needing
5 help on that thing, and it is my own number which makes it even worse.
6 JUDGE ORIE: For us to have a look it, we need a P number.
7 MR. KAY: Yes, I do appreciate it. Someone will hopefully
8 provide it.
9 MR. TIEGER: I'm told by Mr. Du-Toit that it is D28.
10 MR. KAY: That's it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That is the safe way, I'm told.
12 MR. TIEGER: Not to take credit, Your Honour.
13 MR. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Du-Toit. We know that that provision is
14 within that particular document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I can confirm that it is D28.
16 MR. KAY: Next document I want to look at is a document
17 2D03-0087, dated the 8th of August, 1995.
18 Q. It's a document, we'll see, where Mr. Cermak, writing the third
19 letter on that day, requests your help with repairing the waterworks in
20 Knin with the aim of normalizing life and work and the return of
21 refugees, considering it was damaged during combat operations.
22 Do you recollect receiving that? It is, in fact, in that little
23 bundle that will you have got.
24 A. Like I said, I have received it. I don't remember it, but I
25 remember that in the sitrep we talk about the fact that we provided that
1 help to General Cermak.
2 Q. Yes, sir. Again, part of your joint discussions of working
3 together on these issues to try and get normal life to Knin after the
4 combat operations.
5 A. Let's say it was advantageous to me also because I needed water
6 for my camp.
7 MR. KAY: May we admit that document as an exhibit, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, Mr. Tieger?
9 Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D298, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D298 is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. KAY: I'm reminded I did not ask for 2D03-0085 to be admitted
13 as an exhibit. I apologise.
14 MR. TIEGER: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You are very good at numbers apparently, Mr. Kay.
16 What was it again?
17 MR. KAY: Good at reading Post-Its.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But what was it?
19 MR. KAY: It was document of restoring normal life and work in
20 the town of Knin
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
22 Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D299, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D299 is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. KAY: Thank you. If we look at the document 65 ter 3221.
1 Q. When it comes up on the screen, General Forand, it's a document
2 from General Cermak dated the 9th of August called, "an information," in
3 which General Cermak made a statement to establish trust and continued
4 coexistence in the liberated territory: "We hereby inform all the
5 population of Knin that has fled that the follow is guaranteed to them,"
6 and then a number of very important rights.
7 Was that a document that you saw at the time?
8 A. I don't remember, sir.
9 Q. Would it be right to say that General Cermak went to the camp on
10 several occasions to meet a committee of the internally displaced
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. And that was all with a view, discussions were taking place
14 because he was working to assure them that they would be safe in the
15 region and that they would have rights, liberties, homes, security,
16 matters that we can see in this list?
17 A. I was not privy to those discussions, but I remember that General
18 Cermak, when he was coming to talk to the displaced persons committee,
19 that was to address those particular points.
20 Q. Yes.
21 MR. KAY: And I have no need to go any further into that matter.
22 May that be admitted into evidence, please, Your Honour.
23 MR. TIEGER: No objections.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D300, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D300 is admitted into evidence.
2 MR. KAY: If we can just look at one last document before the
3 break at quarter past, it is Prosecution 65 ter 3256, now Prosecution
4 Exhibit 389.
5 Q. It's a letter that you wrote on the 9th of August to General
6 Cermak concerning the UN equipment referring to various matters, and
7 again at the end, saying your staff would like to, again, take up
8 residence in Knin and contribute to the normalization of life. Can you
9 see that?
10 A. Yes, sir. What I see is him complaining about the fact that they
11 had cleaned their accommodation, and they went back and again it had been
12 broken into it.
13 Q. Yes. There is no issue between us, General Forand, that crimes
14 were being committed. Can I make that entirely clear?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. I'm dealing with particular matters here concerning General
17 Cermak's defence.
18 But both you and he knew in your meetings, as between him and
19 you, that that was the intent, was to normalize life in Knin?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And he was not excluding any particular people or ethnic group
22 from what he wanted.
23 A. That is what he was telling me, yes, sir.
24 Q. Yes. We will look at other issues after the break.
25 MR. KAY: But that is a convenient moment, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break, and we will resume at 20
2 minutes to 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Kay, the Chamber briefly
6 discussed during the break the course of this cross-examination, and
7 wondered to what extent some of the issues raised are in dispute.
8 Mr. Tieger, for example, from what we see from the letters, the
9 prominent role Mr. Cermak may have played in the restoration of water
10 supply, et cetera, is that an issue or are we just testing whether the
11 witness was aware of all that, which seems to be of very relative
13 MR. TIEGER: With respect to the precise question the Court asked
14 me, no, that doesn't seem to be an issue. I can imagine that in certain
15 circumstances, those generic issues may give rise to some contention that
16 then becomes in dispute. But, no, I think, as a general matter, then the
17 Court's impression about that is accurate.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So a lot of these, I would say, are civilian
19 affairs, how to get abandoned cars or destroyed cars from the streets and
20 where to leave them.
21 Mr. Kay, if these matters are not in dispute, of course I see
22 that there's an interest of the Cermak Defence to give weight to that,
23 whether the best and the most appropriate way of doing that is to put it
24 to the witness, who then reads the letters and say may I have received
25 them, could be, could not be. Apparently, the witness when he gave his
1 statements was not focussing on these kind of matters, which does not
2 mean that this was not part of reality at the time as well.
3 The main question is whether how to present those elements in
4 such a way that the Chamber becomes fully aware of it, and it might be
5 that testing the awareness of this witness about it might not be the most
6 efficient way of doing it.
7 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I take the indication from the Court. If
8 I may just be permitted to say that we are building a defence and that
9 takes time. We are working in a system where the statement of the
10 witness goes in, in evidence, in great detail, not from an investigating
11 judge but from OTP investigators and others and, as we would say, doesn't
12 create the whole picture available.
13 We were concerned that he had only seen three letters,
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. KAY: And they were --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not blaming you for the three letters.
18 MR. KAY: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I was focussing on other matters.
20 MR. KAY: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But then again if you say this witness doesn't give
22 the complete picture, I think, as a matter of fact, that there is no
23 claim that the statement of the witness gave the complete picture of how
24 Mr. Cermak performed all of his duties, and mainly focussed on what
25 appears to the focus of the Prosecution here.
1 I'm not -- I'm not making jokes, but whether he cared well for
2 his family is also a part of a person, whether he cared well about his
3 duties which were primarily focussing on the well being, the welfare of
4 the those remaining in the city, seems to be not that much in dispute.
5 And, therefore, there might be other ways of completing the picture.
6 Whereas, at this moment, the Prosecution has taken a portion of
7 reality and says this is relevant, primarily relevant, for our case, and
8 to some extent rightly so, because whether he was perfect in restoring
9 the water supply is of limited relevance.
10 I'm not there's saying no relevance, but it is of limited
11 relevance for the charges brought against him.
12 MR. KAY: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. If you want to add, fine; but,
14 otherwise, please proceed.
15 MR. KAY: I take Your Honours' points. In fact, I've come to the
16 end of this section.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I should have been --
18 MR. KAY: [Overlapping speakers] ... no. There was just two
19 questions further to ask that had been raised to me that I overlooked,
20 and we were moving on to more mainstream issues.
21 But how someone spends their time in what they do is relevant to
22 the case, in our submission.
23 JUDGE ORIE: As I earlier said, things are not irrelevant but are
24 of limited relevance compared to other aspects of the case.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. KAY:
2 Q. We're going on to deal with other matters soon, General Forand.
3 MR. KAY: Could we look at a document, which the Defence submit
4 as 2D03-0010.
5 Q. And it is just continuing from the relationship between
6 Mr. Cermak and the people in the camp. I bring it to your attention
7 because allegations are made in this case that there is a certificate
8 there on the 15th of August from a man called Branko Pupavac, who was
9 head of the refugees committee of Sector South camp.
10 Do you recognise this document?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Have you seen another document similar to this?
13 A. Well, I receive one from them, the committee, and named all of
14 the displaced people, but it is not this.
15 Q. So you received a similar acknowledgment, did you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. And did you know Branko Pupavac who was head of the
18 refugees committee?
19 A. Well, there was one. I don't remember his name, but there was an
20 individual with whom I was speaking once in a while.
21 Q. Yes. Well, there it is, and thank you very much.
22 MR. KAY: Could that document be admitted, Your Honour, into
24 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D301, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. D301 is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. KAY:
4 Q. We're now going to deal with issues of command or control by
5 General Cermak on the ground. And it's right, is it not, we've seen it
6 in a document exhibited as P361, at page 3, at page 3, in which you have
7 written here: "General Cermak claims total authority other the area of
8 Sector South and grants freedom of movement, but HV units in CanBat 1
9 area of responsibility, in particular Benkovac, deny General Cermak's
10 authority and even his existence."
11 Can you see that? It is in the middle of the second page.
12 A. I have page 3.
13 Q. I'm sorry. This document has been duplicated in the system
14 again, and I've referred to a wrong 65 ter that it came under.
15 MR. KAY: But it's page 2, and my apologies.
16 Q. But it is P361 in the middle of the page, under C, fourth line?
17 A. Yes, I see that.
18 Q. And I think it's -- this is a sitrep that you saw. Is that
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And was that a problem for you in relation to the denial on the
22 ground of General Cermak's authority, he having issued passes to the UN
23 to freely move in the area?
24 A. Yes, sir. Well, it was an issue. We were told that we could
25 travel freely --
1 Q. Yes. And --
2 A. -- with that pass that had been provided, and that was not the
3 case. So, yes, it was creating an issue.
4 Q. Yes. So you were put on notice that there was a denial of
5 General Cermak's authority or even his existence?
6 A. On the -- on that sitrep which covers the 8th to the 9th of
7 August, yes, sir.
8 Q. Yes. Did you discuss that with him, as to the denial of his
10 A. It must have been raised because it was a problem, you know, that
11 we were facing. So I'm sure that I raised it with him, but I don't
12 remember clearly.
13 Q. You referred, in a document yesterday, to him referring to his
14 area of responsibility as being vast.
15 MR. KAY: Can we look at a document that is a report of the same
16 meeting, on the 24th of August, to see how that was expressed. The
17 document that I'd like to look at is Exhibit D151, and it's page 2 of
18 that document in paragraph 5.
19 Q. It's the last five lines, and it's a meeting at which Mr. Al-Alfi
20 was present, as well as you and a number of other people.
21 And the record made here is that General Cermak made it clear
22 that: "In his opinion, the area is very vast and he would be lying if he
23 told us nothing of this sort would continue to happen," and it goes on to
24 referring to the issuing of orders.
25 In your record, it says his area of responsibility is vast. Do
1 you see the different meaning from "area" and "area of responsibility"?
2 A. Well, I would say that area of responsibility is more clear than
3 just area, yes.
4 Q. As a military expression, would be -- would that be the way you
5 would contextualize the phrase in this situation, even if he had said
6 "the area is vast"?
7 A. In my army, we say area of responsibility.
8 Q. Right. And so that could be interpreted even if he had said
9 "area" in that form. Is that right?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 We're now going to turn to those missing UN vehicles which deal
13 with an issue concerning what power he had. And we can take the position
14 from a -- first of all, because I want it deal with all the documents
15 relating to this as it's a chain of documents, with a document called
16 2D03-0089 of the 8th of August. And it's an internal memo to you from
17 someone called Mr. Hoey: "UN vehicles in the hands of the ..." and he's
18 called it HVO.
19 Do you recognise this as something that came to you concerning
20 three documents that were stolen?
21 A. I don't remember exactly, but it was addressed to me so I must
22 have seen it.
23 Q. And this started a chain of issues concerning the UN property
24 that was being stolen, and that you asked General Cermak to get back. Is
25 that right?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 MR. KAY: If we go to the next document, which is 65 ter 3220.
3 And may we admit the last document into evidence, Your Honour. I
5 JUDGE ORIE: No objections from the Prosecution.
6 Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D302, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: D302 is admitted into evidence.
9 MR. KAY:
10 Q. If we look at 3220, you reported to General Cermak, didn't you,
11 about the missing vehicles and wanted him to get them back. Is that
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And we see here an order that he issued to the military police
15 and Knin police to find those three vehicles on the 9th of August. And
16 that, no doubt, was something that you wanted him to do?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 MR. KAY: Can we next look at a document on the -- can we
19 admitted that into evidence, please.
20 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
22 Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D303, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D303 is admitted into evidence.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. KAY: The next document I'd like to call up is exhibit 65
2 ter 867.
3 Q. And while that's coming up, would it be right to say that you got
4 no report back from General Cermak that the police or military police had
5 found those vehicles?
6 A. As far as I recall, no, sir.
7 Q. Exactly. On the 12th of August, this document shows that General
8 Cermak reported to the Split Military District, command, Chief of Staff:
9 "On several occasions, General Forand, commander of UNCRO forces, has
10 informed us of inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Croatian army."
11 It refers to several vehicles stolen, engineering equipment, and the
12 vehicles have been seen re-painted. Referring to the fact that he had
13 made several attempts without success, and requesting that that officer
14 assist in informing Croatian army unit commanders in the Split Military
15 District of a need to urgently return the equipment and prevent similar
16 acts occurring?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
18 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour. I understand the problem from
19 yesterday because I was reading from a hard copy document and not
20 simultaneously aware that what was being read from not what was tracking
21 on the screen and not available to the witness or the -- or other
23 The first part of the document was, for Mr. Kay's information, as
24 he continued to read, we couldn't see what was in the document on screen.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The part starting: "As we have attempted on
1 several occasions," was not completely shown on the screen.
2 Next page.
3 MR. KAY: Page 2, yeah. Thank you.
4 Q. Sorry, General. I'm unable to exactly see because of all
5 obstructions with what you see. You can take it from me, I'm not making
6 this up. I'm telling you as it is.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And, presumably, those are steps that you wanted General Cermak
10 to take?
11 A. Definitely.
12 Q. Do you note, though, that he is unable to issue such orders to
13 other commanders in the Croatian army in the Military District for the
14 recovery of this property?
15 A. Seems to be the case. I don't know the Chief of Staff. Who is
16 that Chief of Staff, at what level is it addressed, I don't know.
17 Q. Chief of Staff was General Ademi?
18 A. Which I don't know.
19 Q. Did you meet him?
20 A. Never, no, sir.
21 Q. Shall we go to the --
22 MR. KAY: May we admit that into evidence, please, Your Honour.
23 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D304, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D304 is admitted into evidence.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. KAY: Can we go to 65 ter 2060.
4 Q. This is a document issued on the 13th of August, 1995, by the
5 commander of the Split Military District, General Gotovina. Page 1 there
6 refers to the report - this is an unrevised translation - regarding the
7 theft of the vehicles. And you see that an order was issued to the
8 commanders requiring their return, damaging the state interests of the
9 Republic of Croatia
10 MR. KAY: Can we turn to page 2.
11 Q. All commanders to be informed about this order. And you can see
12 that it is forwarded to all those brigades, battalions, companies, and
13 logistic bases as an order concerning your property.
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. And do you note that General Cermak didn't have the power to
17 issue it to those divisions within the Split Military District?
18 A. That seemed to be the case.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. KAY: May that be admitted into evidence, Your Honour.
21 MR. TIEGER: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D305, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D305 is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. KAY:
1 Q. And in those list of people to whom the order was referred to,
2 the Knin garrison is not even included. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 MR. KAY: Can we go to exhibit 65 ter 5034.
5 Q. This is an order - when it comes up on the screen - that was
6 issued by one of those commanders in the Split Military District
7 concerning your vehicles and your property, dated the 13th of August. It
8 refers to the previous order issued. It refers to the stealing of
9 vehicles, inappropriate harmful conduct, and then we can see the terms of
10 the order on page 1.
11 MR. KAY: Let's turn to page 2.
12 Q. And then how it goes through the system from the operations group
13 commander, Colonel Kotomanovic, and to whom it is to be delivered to,
14 those particular regiments and brigades.
15 Again, do you notice that this is not a document from the Knin
16 garrison, the Zborno Mjesto, General Cermak?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Or from any order from him, but within the command of the Split
19 Military District?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 MR. KAY: Can that document be admitted in into evidence, please,
22 Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
24 MR. TIEGER: No objection.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D306, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D306 is admitted into evidence.
2 MR. KAY: Can we turn to Prosecution Exhibit 389.
3 Q. A document produced yesterday, written by you, General Forand, to
4 Colonel Cermak.
5 And the second paragraph is what we're concerned with on this
6 issue, the second sentence, about: "Is there any progress on locating
7 the three UN vehicles taken from the garage in Knin while being repaired?
8 I would appreciate more timely information on freedom of movement."
9 You wanted information, as you told us yesterday, from General
10 Cermak, as to that was happening on this issue. Is that right?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Do you notice from the chains of command, though, that General
13 Cermak was not within those particular units that were passed this order
14 to deal with?
15 A. From what you've shown me, yes, sir.
16 Q. Yes. Did you appreciate that General Cermak did not, in fact,
17 have the position within the structure of the Split Military District to
18 deal with these issues for you? Did you appreciate that at that time?
19 A. At the time, no, sir. But based on what you've shown me,
20 obviously, yes.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you.
22 MR. KAY: If we turn now to a document dated the 26th of August,
23 P375, Prosecution Exhibit 375.
24 Q. And it's another letter that you wrote which we looked at
25 yesterday dated the 26th of August, and it's a letter that you wrote to
1 General Gotovina.
2 The first sentence starts: "As discussed in our meting on the
3 8th August," that's the Knin castle meeting that I have already asked
4 questions to you about this morning.
5 You recollect that, General Forand?
6 A. Yes sir.
7 Q. "I'm working in concert with the military governor of Knin,
8 General Cermak, to conclude the UNCRO mission in Sector South and to
9 return units to their home nations."
10 You refer to a number of issues. And on that page, we see that
11 there are increasing number of hostile acts being carried out by Croatian
12 army soldiers against UN peacekeepers.
13 MR. KAY: Let's go to page 2, the paragraph beginning: "On the
14 second issue."
15 Q. "While I am pleased with the level of cooperation that General
16 Cermak has shown, I am sure that he is very frustrated to find that his
17 authority is limited in certain areas. I cannot understand how joint
18 investigations by UN and Croatian military police can be denied access by
19 junior Croatian army officers to areas that both our military police
20 believe contain UN equipments," and then you refer to Drnis and the
21 compound in Drnis.
22 And it's on this issue of authority that I'm now going to ask
23 you, as I have: Would it be correct to say that you began to realise
24 that General Cermak did not have authority over those Croatian army
25 troops who were in that region?
1 A. I believe that what I was thinking in those days that I was
2 finding it very difficult to understand that since he was responsible for
3 the whole Knin region, that when he was telling us that he was taking
4 care, you know, of things that we were advising him was happening, that
5 it didn't seem to have no impact at all.
6 So, yes, I was questioning what is his authority, based on what
7 he is telling me and the problem that we were encountering, you know, as
8 we were moving throughout our area of responsibility.
9 Q. As we see, you were pleased with the level of cooperation. Would
10 it be right to say that you had a good working relationship with him?
11 A. Oh, yeah. Every meeting that I had with General Cermak, you
12 know, they were cordial, civilised. The only thing that bothered me is
13 that all the problems that we brought to him, nothing seems to happen.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. And it is continuously referred in my letter to him. But the
16 meeting were very good. I mean, we had never had any shouting match. It
17 was very cordial, very civilised.
18 Q. His door was always open to you. Would that be a fair expression
19 to say?
20 A. Yeah, I would say that.
21 Q. And you were welcome to go to his office in the garrison command
22 in Knin?
23 A. I never had any problem. Every time we asked for an appointment,
24 we had the appointment. And the same for him when he asked to meet with
25 us, there was never any problem.
1 Q. Yes.
2 MR. KAY: Just if we can pull up a photograph, actually. D226.
3 Q. It's just a photograph of the buildings. Do you recognise, where
4 it says "ZM Knin," what that building is?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Was that the office where General Cermak was?
7 A. I believe so, yes, sir.
8 Q. And the office next door, where it says "IZM, ZP Split," do you
9 recognise that building?
10 A. I cannot say that I recognise that one.
11 Q. Did you ever go into the headquarters of the Split Military
13 A. I don't remember. Maybe it's there that I met General Gotovina
14 on the -- in September, in the 5th of September, but I don't remember.
15 Q. Sure. Just concentrating on the building, where it says "ZM
16 Knin," you went in there how many times?
17 A. It's more than ten times, but I don't remember exactly.
18 Q. Would it be right to say that it was a building with which had --
19 of great activity. There were many things happening in there.
20 A. As I recall, yes, sir.
21 Q. Do you recollect that there was a big dining-room and a public
22 kitchen at the building?
23 A. I don't remember that, no.
24 Q. Right. Did you go into General Cermak's office?
25 A. Yes, a couple of times. And also there was a sort of a
1 conference room, you know, when we were more people that were required to
2 be there.
3 Q. Yes. Would it be fair to say that, in your dealings with General
4 Cermak, you were able to notice that he was dealing with many different
5 issues and things, not only military matters?
6 A. Well, it's hard for me to stay because I don't understand Croat,
7 but there was a lot of activity taking place even while we were having
8 our meetings.
9 Q. Yeah. That's all I'll ask you about on that matter.
10 Let us now go to another matter that was raised yesterday, which
11 was the occupation of camp at Civljane.
12 MR. KAY: Actually, there are more matters on this I should
13 cover, Your Honour. I'm sorry about that, but it's important that I
14 cover some other matters relating to this.
15 Let us go to 65 ter 3069. It's a document that was also produced
16 yesterday, I think.
17 Q. It's record of minutes of a meeting that you were present at on
18 the 29th of August with General Cermak, Mr. Al-Alfi.
19 If we go to page 2, right at the foot of page 2, Mr. Al-Alfi also
20 deals with the issue of the stolen UN vehicles. You were present at this
21 meeting, because it seems that the vehicles --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, for the record, we have to identify exactly
23 what's on our screen now. If you say it's 65 ter 3069, is that one of
24 the documents admitted into evidence? I'm just trying to go through my
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is among the four documents, I do
3 understand, Mr. Tieger, where were not all the necessary follow-up, that
4 they slipped in half, and --
5 MR. TIEGER: Correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- do not appear on the list.
7 And, Mr. Registrar, do you have an exhibit number for it?
8 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour. There haven't been any exhibit
9 numbers assigned for these four documents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please prepare that, then, Mr. Registrar,
11 so that we have -- let's do it right now so that we have better basis to
12 continue to work.
13 Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the four documents are as follows:
15 65 ter number 04162 becomes Exhibit P408; 65 ter number 03069 becomes
16 Exhibit P409; 65 ter number 3544 becomes Exhibit P410; and 65 ter number
17 3531 becomes Exhibit P411.
18 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I remember, there were no objections
19 against those four documents. In the absence of any objections P408,
20 P409, P410 and P411 are admitted into evidence.
21 And we have now on our screen 65 ter 3069 which is now P409.
22 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, with regard to the document that is
23 on the screen, we did raise an issue with regard -- concerning the
24 interpretation -- the translation, excuse me.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Translation, yes. I remember that. May I take it
1 that for P409 that the draft translation, which is even an earlier stage
2 than the unrevised translations, that it will be checked whether the
3 translation is in every respect correct.
4 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, just to make that clearer, in
5 connection with yesterday's discussion, we were going to liaise with the
6 Defence because Mr. Misetic and Mr. Kehoe had concerns about a particular
7 portion, as I understood it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: At least, could we get an explicit report to the
9 Chamber, either by you or by both parties, so that we can strike it off
10 our pending issues list.
11 MR. TIEGER: The document is being looked at as we speak, in
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
15 MR. KAY: Yes.
16 Q. The issue of those stolen vehicles was raised at the meeting with
17 Mr. Al-Alfi, as we see on page 2, because, is it right, they still
18 weren't returned to you despite the orders within the Split Military
20 A. They had not been returned, yes, sir.
21 Q. Yes. And General Cermak said he'd submitted it: "It is
22 embarrassing for me. The answer is still in the negative. I will repeat
23 my orders," and wanted details about the vehicles seen two days ago.
24 That's on page 3. We have no need to clock that up. I just said out of
1 MR. KAY: And the last document on this matter is 65 ter 1727.
2 Q. It's dated the 11th of November, 1995, issued from Split Military
3 District, a warning regarding stolen UNCRO vehicles. Again, four
4 vehicles stolen. A warning that the conduct was inappropriate.
5 And on page 2, we can see that it was issued by General Gotovina
6 to the troops but signed by General Ademi.
7 MR. KAY: Can that be enter into evidence as an exhibit, Your
9 MR. TIEGER: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 307, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: D307 is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. KAY:
14 Q. General Forand, I've just referred to those to deal with all
15 information that is there so that no one says I missed something out or
16 anything like that?
17 I'm now going to turn to the theft of the engineer equipment
18 which was high-value property of yours, wasn't it?
19 A. High value, and required also for the dismantling of the
20 observation posts.
21 Q. Yes. We know from the exhibit you produced yesterday,
22 Prosecution 391, which we can pull up on the screen, that you wrote,
23 again on this matter on the 11th of August, to General Cermak about the
24 theft of this equipment and giving great details in relation to the
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I am just wondering. We are just entering
2 now a new subject. I mean, quite a lot of questions have been asked to
3 this witness, or at least documents shown to him, about if I could call
4 it the internal follow-up of his complaints, where he apparently had no
5 knowledge whatsoever about this follow-up. If we ask him one question
6 whether he was aware of any internal follow-up on his complaints which
7 was not addressed to him, and if his answer is no, then you might perhaps
8 agree with Mr. Tieger on tendering into evidence from the bar table any
9 correspondence. Of course, whether that correspondence reflect what is
10 was done or not down, if the witness doesn't know, it is of no use to put
11 that to him. Then at least we have these documents in evidence, and that
12 the Chamber then has received the information that where this witness
13 says, "My complaints remained without a response," that at least there is
14 internal documents which deal with the matter.
15 MR. KAY: Yes. Your Honour, our difficulty is this, and I'm not
16 doing it to be controversial, but when this witness is interviewed and
17 his statements taken and go into evidence, none of this is put to him.
18 And our problem is that we are facing evidence in this courtroom of a
19 serious nature where the witness has not been briefed and put into
20 possession of the information, and assertions are made about General
21 Cermak --
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. The only thing I'm addressing is that
23 if this witness says, "I never received from Prosecution side, or from
24 wherever, any information about internal correspondence on the matter,"
25 then, of course, you could put all the internal correspondence to him and
1 say, "Have you seen it?" The answer is no. "Does it say this and this?"
2 He reads the documents. He reads exactly what we read. That's it. So
3 what it adds at this moment, I mean, we're not here to inform this
4 witness about the complete documentation that does exist. We are here to
5 hear from this witness what he can tell us about, what he knows about it.
6 Apparently, these are matters - and I'm again referring to the
7 internal communication in writing - where he has appears to have no
8 knowledge whatsoever. So, therefore, it is for the Chamber important to
9 receive the material. And if there's anyone who could tell us more about
10 it, fine, we'll then hear at a later stage, but then at least the
11 documentation in evidence.
12 MR. KAY: Yeah. I understand Your Honour's point entirely --
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... it saves time --
14 MR. KAY: -- and guidance on the matter. But what it does go is
15 to control; and, Your Honour, yesterday, heard evidence from the
16 Prosecution about these matters. This wasn't done, that wasn't done
17 by --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I fully agree with you, that you say the internal
19 documentation shows that it was different. But whether it is of any use
20 to put it to a witness who says, "I have got no knowledge about that,"
21 then, of course, the document should speak for themselves. And if you
22 give the documents to the Chamber, the Chamber will read them and we'll
23 learn what is in these documents. And whether the witness goes home with
24 a mother complete picture, yes or no, of course might be important for
25 him, but it is not important for the determination the Chamber has to
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. KAY: Yes.
4 Q. Why I'm asking you these questions is because you gave evidence
5 yesterday about Mr. Cermak having responsibility, and the documents that
6 I'm putting to you show that he couldn't even issue orders to get your
7 equipment back. He tried to help you and he issued orders to the police
8 and military police, but he could go no further within the -- within the
9 system. He didn't have the command and control of these troops that you
10 may have thought he had.
11 A. Well, in my view, you know, he had the command over those troops,
12 and I was not aware of all the inside paperwork that have you shown this
13 morning. It's the first time I have seen that.
14 MR. KAY: Your Honour, that is my problem, because the witness on
15 the previous line of questioning admitted, "Well, I didn't know he didn't
16 have control over these troops to issue ..." --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Kay, it is more complex, I think. This
18 witness has told us what his impression at the time was. You show him a
19 number of documents he is not aware of, and what these documents exactly
20 tell us, whether there was command and control, is still to be seen. I
21 mean, this witness just can read the documents, just as the Chamber can
22 read the document at this moment.
23 If I go an order to A, B, or C, then this witness who has told us
24 clearly that he had not insight in the command structure, whether by
25 looking at the latter giving instructions to A, B, and C, whether that
1 for all purposes excludes that he could have given orders to D, E, or F
2 is of course a matter of a conclusion, where the witness says he is not
3 fully aware of this.
4 We will have to put everything together at the very end: This
5 correspondence, internal correspondence, what the witness tells us, also,
6 including that he was not aware of any of these documents. We could
7 follow the same procedure: Give him five letters, six letters, ask him
8 whether he knows about it, whether he was familiar with the issues dealt
9 with in these correspondence. If he says no, then we have the documents.
10 The witness can't add anything to that. And, of course, we then have to
11 consider whether the witness, when he gave his impressions about what was
12 within and what was outside of the command and control of the accused,
13 whether he had sufficient material to form such an opinion. That's it.
14 I think I have been clear enough on --
15 MR. KAY: I understand.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- the direction the Chamber would like this to go.
17 MR. KAY: Absolutely.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. KAY: Your Honour, what I will do on this collection of
20 documents, I will take up Your Honour 's suggestion. We can put them to
21 the Prosecution, and see if they will agree such measures in relation to
22 the two issues that I was going to deal with: Engineering equipment --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What we even could do is if we have a list of
24 those documents, we could invite the witness to just go through it and
25 say give an answer to the first question, whether he has ever seen the
1 documents and, second, whether he had any awareness of what he finds in
2 those documents as well as; for example, investigations, orders,
3 whatever. If so, he could tell us; if not, then we just leave it to the
4 documents we have available at that time. That will then be part of the
5 puzzle the Chamber will later have to make.
6 MR. KAY: Well, I'm grateful for Your Honours' suggestions; and,
7 of course, we are listening to them and we will certainly follow them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. KAY:
10 Q. One matter in relation to this issue, which I can put into you,
11 as it is a letter written by you.
12 MR. KAY: I'd like to see 2D03-0002.
13 Q. It's a letter from you, dated 14th of August, about the camp at
14 Civljane. I was going to put in further documents on this, but I will
15 put in a document that you actually wrote.
16 And you can see this letter on the 14th of August that you were
17 still concerned that the camp at Civljane was occupied, and you said: "I
18 cannot accept that these soldiers, a few minutes from Knin, do not obey
19 your orders."
20 Did you have a telephone conversation with General Cermak about
21 this matter?
22 A. I don't remember. I don't think I would have had the telephone
23 conversation. If I am sending him a letter, I think that's sufficient.
24 Q. The matter of "a few minutes from Knin, do not obey your orders,"
25 had you been told by someone that his orders were not being obeyed? How
1 did you get that information?
2 A. Quite obviously, they were still in camp, so ...
3 Q. Right. Had that been communicated to you, though, as a fact?
4 A. Well, the Kenyans Battalion was reporting, you know, that the HV
5 soldiers were still there.
6 Q. Thank you. I am going to turn to another matter now.
7 MR. KAY: Can that be admitted into evidence, before I do so.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
9 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D308, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: D308 is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. KAY:
14 Q. And in your statement of the 6th of June, 1997, Prosecution
15 Exhibit 331, page 19, line 19, you were referred to broaching subjects
16 with General Cermak and concerning continued human rights violations.
17 You said in this statement: "I never received an adequate answer. He
18 always denied it. No, it did not happen, no, they were not responsible.
19 It was Chetnik terrorists who did it in order to put the blame on the
20 Croats," and what have you.
21 And what I want to do now is actually refer to you a series of
22 documents which show that is an inaccurate reflection of General Cermak's
23 position to you concerning crimes being committed, General Forand.
24 Do you understand?
25 A. Yeah, I'm waiting.
1 Q. Would you agree that, in fact, he did admit crimes were being
2 committed and that statement in your interview is inaccurate?
3 A. It was accurate. It happened couple of times where initially he
4 was putting the blame on the Chetniks, you know, about the activity that
5 was taking place for that. Eventually, this sentence, you know, was no
6 longer part of the discussion we've had.
7 But, initially, he was blaming it on the Chetniks. And when I
8 say, you know, that I never received an adequate answer, if you look at
9 all the letter that was sent to General Cermak raising the looting, the
10 burning, and those other activities, they were carrying on. So, for me,
11 when I say that, that's the fact that I never received an adequate
13 Q. Let's just look at that because it may be important, I don't
14 know, to the Trial Chamber.
15 MR. KAY: But it's 11th of August, 1995, 65 ter 580. 11th of
17 Q. When you wrote it him then on the 11th of August, you refer in
18 the first paragraph to a meeting concerning his honest efforts to control
19 the situation and you protested the activities.
20 It's right, he was not denying, even then, that crimes were
21 happening of which you were complaining? Isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Actual meeting, that's what he said.
24 MR. KAY: Can that be admitted into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: I'm almost certain it's in evidence, Your Honour.
2 It was raised yesterday, to the best of my recollection, and was part of
3 the package. It may be part of a sitrep appended to a larger document
4 and may not have turned up for that reason. But I think we have a
5 duplicate. I'm looking for it right now.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you would look for it, and then respond.
7 Meanwhile, you can continue, Mr. Kay.
8 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. There are certainly duplicates
9 of this letter in the 65 ter list.
10 Let's go to D56 --
11 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, before we leave this document, I
12 believe it is P363.
13 MR. KAY: Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If that is the case, we actually must have a double,
15 because that appears on the list as 0576; whereas, it was called up under
16 number 65 ter 580. But, for the time being, I will check on P363,
17 whether it is the same document.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. KAY: Thank you.
20 Next document is D56, 18th of August.
21 Q. It a meeting that was held, and the notes of this meeting were
22 sent to you.
23 MR. KAY: If we turn to page 3.
24 Q. "During the meeting, I brought to the attention of General Cermak
25 our concern about continuing reports of houses and farms set on fire,
1 looting. Asked measures taken from his side to stop such acts. General
2 Cermak shared the concern with us, expressed his unhappiness about its
3 continuation. He promised tough action against those who commit such
4 abilities, and then gave an explanation: 'It may be carried out by
5 civilians who return to the area and seek revenge.'"
6 Another admission, would you agree, of crimes that were being
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 MR. KAY: If we go to Prosecution Exhibit 374.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I meanwhile can clarify that the letter that was
11 shown, 11th of August, is the fifth page out of nine in P363.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 P374, if we turn to page 3, paragraph 6, another sitrep.
15 Q. This is the one we've referred to already where you have written,
16 or someone in your team, "his area of responsibility is vast."
17 I've showed it to you in the other document where the crimes were
18 referred to: "He responded by attributing acts to bandits in army
19 uniforms." He said: "Sincerely regretted. Such acts were contrary to
20 the policy of the government of Croatia
21 You agree an admission of those crimes?
22 A. I don't understand your question.
23 Q. Yeah. Well, you said, in your interview, that he was always
24 denying it, and I'm saying again, and I have got several documents here
25 that we can go through, where he actually admitted that there were
1 crimes. There was --
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. He admitted there was looting, burning, what was being put.
4 A. You're right. The word "denying," that maybe I should not have
5 used in my statement. To me, what I wanted to say was the fact that it
6 was reported and nothing was being done about it .
7 Q. Yeah. Would that --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, it is also fair, I think, to then -- you're
9 focussing very much on page 19 of the witness statements, and then lines
10 17, where it says: "Every time."
11 Of course, on that same page, we find: "He responded that he
12 could not control some of these things that were going on." So,
13 therefore, on the same page, we find a reference to repeated denial, but
14 also a reference to admission that these things went on. And since
15 you're focussing so much, I think it is fair to the witness to put that
16 he might not have been fully consistent in his statement in this respect.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. So you would agree with that - I've got more documents here, and
20 I don't want to bear on the patience of the Court by going through them -
21 where he is quite plainly is saying these crimes are happening?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Do you accept that?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Thank you very much.
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, again, I might adopt Your Honour's
2 suggestion in relation to that, and put in just a little schedule so that
3 those documents which save court time are referred to, to Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, that is an agreeable procedure?
5 MR. TIEGER: Of course, Your Honour. We're very receptive to
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's proceed.
8 MR. KAY: Thank you.
9 Q. There is one document, however, that I do want to refer to
10 specifically, because it was dealt with at great length in your evidence.
11 MR. KAY: That is the letter of the 3rd of September, 65 ter
12 number 1922. I apologise for not having the exhibit number.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll find it.
14 MR. KAY: Again, that's because of duplicates in the system.
15 And if we could focus on the bottom of the page, not that part
16 actually. In the Croatian, if we could focus on the signature on the
17 bottom of this page.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I believe that's D145.
19 MR. KAY: Thank you.
20 Q. This is the "name me one crime" letter that you referred to
21 yesterday. Do you recollect it?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. And you've got the bundle of correspondence from Mr. Cermak to
24 you. And you have -- in the break, have you been able to flick through
25 and see the letters that he actually -- that he wrote?
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. How they were written, the length of the letter, what was said?
3 A. Yeah. I have seen all of that. And as I mentioned, you know, if
4 it was addressed to me, I would have received it.
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. There is only one which was in Croat which I didn't understand --
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. -- and it was not translated.
9 Q. No. That's just within the system and the system will correct
10 that. But it is there for completeness so that nothing was missed out,
11 and it comes from an electronic base that I will mention no more about.
12 A. Thank you.
13 Q. This letter was written on the 3rd of September. You saw, on the
14 5th of September, in Knin, General Gotovina and with him Mr. Cermak's
15 deputy. Do you recollect?
16 A. I recollect seeing General Gotovina on the 5th; and after that, I
17 think there was a meeting with General Cermak.
18 Q. Should be -- we'll stay where we are, rather than moving around
19 too much.
20 But do you recollect in the sitrep we saw yesterday about that
21 meeting on the 5th of September with General Gotovina that there was
22 another person present who was General Cermak's deputy?
23 A. I remember, yeah. In the sitrep, I think his name is mentioned,
24 but I don't remember the name.
25 Q. That was the Gojevic I mentioned to you before. Remember we were
1 looking at the appointment today?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you corrected Mr. Tieger when you looked at the letter
4 written by Brigadier-General Janvier?
5 A. Yes, where he was associating that General Cermak was at the
6 meeting with General Gotovina, which was not the case.
7 Q. Which was not the case. Do you recollect that at this time, at
8 the beginning of September, that Mr. Cermak was not in Knin --
9 A. I don't remember.
10 Q. -- between the 1st of September and he returned on the 7th of
12 A. No, sir, I don't remember.
13 Q. Right. Did you look at this letter here, dated the 3rd of
14 September, and consider it as being a different letter in style than the
15 ones you'd previously received from General Cermak?
16 A. Well, based on what I seen during the break which I had not
17 remember those letter and based on the other letter, yes, it was
18 different. And as I said yesterday, I was a little bit surprised by the
19 content of that letter, based on all the other letters that I have been
20 sending to General Cermak.
21 Q. Based on what he said to you in your meetings about crimes and
22 what was happening, we've looked at it, he had admitted things were
23 happening. And as you said, you had a very cordial relationship with
25 A. Yes, sir.
1 Q. Would you agree that it didn't seem his style?
2 A. Well, let's say that I didn't question. I was, like I say,
3 surprised by the content of the letter.
4 Q. It has got his name at the bottom, but did you ever look at the
5 signature at the bottom to see who signed it?
6 A. No, sir. Because when I get the letter, it's the translation
7 that I receive. I don't get the original --
8 Q. Yeah.
9 A. -- in the sense that it has been translated by the translator
10 that was at my headquarter.
11 Q. I'm told to correct the transcript. I can't say when the witness
12 said yes. Perhaps Mr. Cayley who is observing it may, because I can't
13 see the transcript.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. It's line 23 on page 62, the
15 answer give the witness is "I can't say," and I heard him say, "Yes,
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then put the question again to him and see
18 what his answer is. The question, Mr. Forand, was: "Based on what he
19 said to you in your meetings about crimes and what was happening, we've
20 looked at it, he had admitted things were happening. And as I said, you
21 had a very cordial relationship with him."
22 What was your answer to that question?
23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The question is rather complex because it refers to
25 both to meetings and that you've looked at it, that he admitted things,
1 that the relationship was very cordial. That is quite a number of
2 subjects in one question.
3 Whether the witness said "yes" or "I can't say," in view of the
4 complexity of the question, perhaps you split it up, Mr. Kay.
5 MR. KAY: My mistake. I was trying to do it in a short way. It
6 seems never to work.
7 Q. You previously agreed you had a good working relationship with
8 Mr. Cermak. Is that right?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. He treated you with respect. Is that right?
11 A. Yes, it was very civilised, yes.
12 Q. And he accepted to you that crimes were being committed?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. He had accepted that it was a problem in the region?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. And would you agree that this was not in the same style of his
17 manner of communicating with you?
18 A. Yeah, it was not the same style. That's why I said I was
19 surprised when I received that letter. But I never queried or it never
20 crossed my mind that he would not have signed it, because as I said what
21 I received was the translated portion, and I only see from who was signed
22 it without the signature.
23 Q. Yes?
24 A. I'm not sure that, looking at the signature, if I have been able
25 to decipher if it was from him or not.
1 Q. Did you appreciate that at the meeting on the 5th of
2 September with General Gotovina, that General Cermak's deputy, Major
3 Gojevic, was there because General Cermak was not in Knin?
4 A. I don't remember that, sir.
5 Q. Right. Would you usually call or have a meeting with the deputy
6 of General Cermak?
7 A. I don't recall that I ever went to a meeting if it was not
8 General Cermak that was present.
9 Q. Yes.
10 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I asked for admission of a 65 ter document
11 1922, because the one that is in the court system of D145 does not have
12 this translation with the signature -- the original with the signature.
13 JUDGE ORIE: D145 is presented as an English original, and seems
14 to be a translation of that same letter, but with it seems some -- it
15 might be of Mr. Al-Alfi, at least, on the date 5th of March, 1998. So
16 someone has recognised that document.
17 The typewriting is also different from the English translation of
18 the original. So, for that reason, we can't just consider 1922 to be the
19 same as D145. Therefore, any objections against the tendering of a
20 document which apparently has the same content, because the language of
21 the translation and D145 appears to be literally the same?
22 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. I had been about to raise the same
23 point, and there is no objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
25 MR. KAY: I'm very grateful.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D309, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: D309 is admitted into evidence.
4 MR. KAY: Just the last matter on this subject.
5 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Cermak had been in the Croatian media
6 condemning looting and crimes in the region?
7 A. I don't recall that, sir.
8 Q. No. Thank you.
9 MR. KAY: That now deals with those matters.
10 Your Honour, we took an early break, I recollect.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And as a matter of fact, I would like to have,
12 then, the second break earlier as well. That will be within five to ten
13 minutes from now, if that is a suitable moment.
14 MR. KAY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. The next matter I want to deal with is the issue of the displaced
16 persons about which you gave evidence yesterday.
17 We've already dealt with statements made by Mr. Cermak at the
18 UNCRO camp on the 7th of August. I questioned you about that earlier
19 today. That was on that subject.
20 MR. KAY: Can we look at Prosecution Exhibit 359 and turn to
21 page 3.
22 Q. This is your meeting with General Gotovina, paragraph 3, where
23 the matter of the war criminals was raised by him at that meeting on that
25 Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And did you recognise, at the time, that the issue of anyone that
3 was in your camp, sheltering, who had committed war crimes in previous
4 conflicts was of great concern to the Croatian authorities?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And did you recognise that that was part of the agreement between
7 the UN and the Croatian government that Mr. Akashi had signed?
8 A. I don't remember that part, sir.
9 Q. Right. I want to have a look at that issue, as it's been a
10 matter raised in this trial against Mr. Cermak.
11 MR. KAY: If we turn to P388.
12 Q. And Mr. Cermak, on the 8th, is writing and asking for the list of
13 refugees. And on page 2, we've already referred to the identity of any
14 men between the ages of 18 and 60.
15 Did you know that it was -- that the matter of people being aged
16 between 18 and 60 was the category taken because of the mobilisation of
17 people -- of men within that age bracket for military service?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. Yeah.
20 MR. KAY: If we turn now to 65 ter 1148, page 2 of that document,
21 paragraph 1 of page 2.
22 Q. That refers to negotiations that you were having with General
23 Cermak and progress was unable to be achieved, and that shortly General
24 Cermak will not - there is an suggestion - will not have a say in this
25 matter, and it was a matter as to who would assume real responsibility
1 and decision-making powers.
2 Did you appreciate that General Cermak was acting as a conduit on
3 behalf of his government dealing with you on this issue?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. And you, yourself, was acting as a conduit on behalf of the UN
6 authorities. Is that right?
7 A. Exactly, sir.
8 MR. KAY: If we can go to 65 ter 1145 and page 3 of that
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, also for the previous document, could you
11 also for the links that are supposed to be possible on the transcript
12 give the P number, if it has a P number. If not, then it needs an
13 exhibit number to be assigned it. We were talking about 65 ter 1148,
14 isn't it?
15 MR. KAY: It has not been admitted yet, Your Honour. May I
16 admitted that into evidence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may tender it.
18 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D310.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D310 is admitted into evidence.
22 And so now we move to 65 ter 1145 -- no.
23 JUDGE ORIE: P42.
24 MR. KAY: P42. I'm sorry, Your Honour. I thought the other one
25 was a duplicate, and that is why we stopped in our stride in relation to
1 the other matter. It does get a little confusing at times.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, if we are talking about 65 ter
3 documents, if it ever comes to that, that either the Appeals Chamber or
4 historians will look at these transcripts, they have to find their way
5 through this material, and then we have to know whether it is an admitted
6 exhibit or whether it's just a document which was once uploaded in an
7 e-court system.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. We're looking at page 3 of
10 this document, P42, paragraph 5.
11 Q. This is an HRAT report from Mr. Flynn, with whom you were
12 liaising on this issue. Is that right?
13 A. Yes, sir. I was working with Mr. Al-Alfi, and I think Flynn was
14 working for Al-Alfi.
15 Q. Yes. And the matter of the modalities of interviewing had yet to
16 be agreed between the parties. Is that right?
17 A. Yes. There was some on- going discussion.
18 Q. For quite a time between --
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. -- you as a conduit and General Cermak as a conduit. Is that
22 A. Well, in that instance, it was more the responsibility of Al-Alfi
23 than myself. He was the one that was communicating with Zagreb.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you.
25 MR. KAY: Your Honour, that's the moment for the break.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
2 We will have a break and we will resume at 25 minutes to 1.00.
3 Mr. Kay, is it your intention to provide any of these bundles to
4 the witness so that he can just go through it, and if he has anything
5 that is familiar to him or if he wants to add anything to what he sees,
6 to give him an opportunity to do so. If we hear from him, then we will
7 deal with the specific exhibit. If we do not hear from him, then it will
8 be tendered from the bar table; and as we already understand, there will
9 be no objection. Yes.
10 Mr. Forand, we're spoiling your breaks.
11 THE WITNESS: No problem, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Hopefully, it will result in finishing your
13 testimony this week, which the Chamber is very much determined that
14 should happen. We have added all the times of Mr. Kay, Mr. Kehoe, et
15 cetera, all the times. That brings us to approximately the remaining
16 three days. If you take off approximately 10 per cent of that, then,
17 Mr. Tieger, would you have some time for re-examination. If you say, No,
18 I would need seven hours for that, the Chamber would like to know about
19 it. But if it would be limited to half an hour up to 40 minutes, then we
20 could conclude the testimony of this witness this week.
21 That's what the Chamber urges the parties, and also the Defence
22 teams amongst themselves, to agree on, on how to schedule that exactly.
23 If you don't reach an agreement, of course, the Chamber will assist you,
24 help you out.
25 We resume at 25 minutes to 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The parties have had a brief conversation with the
4 senior legal officer about the way in which we proceed at this moment and
5 have expressed some doubt as to whether the guidance the Chamber gave
6 would lead us in the right direction.
7 I'm not going to say too much about it, but the witness, at the
8 time, has made observations and has translated these observations into,
9 sometimes, conclusions. Now, the parties are establishing, at this
10 moment, that the witness may not have had full information, that there's
11 documentary evidence which may have been unknown to the witness, and that
12 if wee have known, he might have adopted different conclusions.
13 Now the Chamber of course is, first of all, focussing on what the
14 witness observed, and the Chamber is not inviting the parties to see
15 whether the witness would change his mind on the basis of documents that
16 are put to him, because the Chamber is mainly and primarily interested in
17 what the witness saw.
18 And, of course, sometimes you can't avoid conclusions, as not
19 specifically referring to this witness, if someone enters a house in
20 uniform and then comes out, and suddenly the house is set fire, if then
21 the person says, "I can't imagine an other thing and that person must
22 have put that house on fire," then that is still a conclusion, and still,
23 of course, for the Chamber to consider how compelling such a conclusion
24 its, because it is finally the conclusions of the Chamber that count and
25 not the conclusions of the witnesses primarily.
1 And starting from this point of view, to see whether the witness
2 would change his opinion on the basis of documents he could just had a
3 glance on and without knowing, doesn't really assist. More important is
4 that the Chamber is aware of the type of documentation which apparently
5 has not been available to the witness, and it is important to establish
6 that, and whether that would lead to any conclusions different from the
7 conclusions the witness had on his mind is primarily for the Chamber to
9 Now, if the parties would like to test with one or two documents
10 whether these are really documents the witness has no knowledge about,
11 then the Chamber would not oppose that. But to go through a whole series
12 of documents for of the first to learn that he isn't aware for the
13 second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the same doesn't
14 assist the Chamber.
15 However, the Chamber is interested in looking at those documents
16 because to the extent the authenticity is not contested by the
17 Prosecution which has not been done, which wasn't the case until now,
18 then the Chamber, at least, when we have all of the evidence before us,
19 is aware that there is documentary evidence which deals with matters
20 apparently related to what a witness testified about, but also unknown to
21 the witness.
22 That is, again, some short guidance. And if there is any
23 specific document on which the Defence would want to focus, fine; but not
24 through the whole of series and receiving the same very short answers,
25 "no," "you're right," you know the kind of answers. If this would
1 further guide the parties, then we can proceed.
2 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm grateful for the guidance, and I know
3 that in the spirit of fairness that the Court is giving it in. Our
4 position from the Defence side is that allegations are made, and we
5 believe he was served a partial picture, part of the story.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Give us the remainder of the picture, and then --
7 MR. KAY: I am trying through the documents. All the subjects
8 that have I raised in cross-examination are exact topics that Mr. Tieger
9 covered in his four hours yesterday, in a very rapid form, which on first
10 blush gives one flavour of the case. But from our position, and it is
11 for the Court to accept or reject this, from what I'm submitting to you
12 is that there is documentation in here that provides an entirely
13 different picture.
14 We know this is going to be a long case, it's a complex case, and
15 we're doing it to help the Court, as soon as possible, to be aware of
16 substantial issues of disagreement which I know the Court wants.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's no problem. The only thing we're talking
18 about is whether the other part of the picture or the other picture in
19 which way it will be presented in this Court, and what is the use of
20 trying to also inform the witness that he might not have had the complete
21 picture. It's for us to know whether the witness had a complete picture
22 when he gave his statements, rather than to send him home fully informed
23 about all of details.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. KAY: Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Kehoe.
1 MR. KEHOE: May I just say one matter, Your Honour.
2 My reservation or thought on Your Honours' guidance is this:
3 Many of the witness statements, not the least of which is General Forand,
4 expresses certain conclusions based on certain facts. That is in the
5 record; and, certainly, the Office of the Prosecutor has done -- has not
6 taken any steps to redact those conclusions from those statements.
7 I suppose, based on Your Honours' comments, are we to conclude
8 that that is going to given no weight, given the fact that it is a
9 conclusion as opposed to an observation on a fact? And I say that
10 keeping in mind a rule that Mr. Tieger reminded me of sometime ago, Rule
11 90(H)(ii), concerning the cross-examination of a witness and the duty of
12 counsel to put the witness -- counsel shall put to that witness the
13 nature of the case of the party for whom the counsel appears which is in
14 contradiction of the evidence given by the witness.
15 And I think that that certainly, from our case and I don't want
16 to speak completely for my learned friend, but I think that is what we're
17 talking about. And in the best efforts to try to give the full picture
18 to the Chamber, that is what we were trying to do, especially since these
19 conclusions, not just by General Forand but by others, are sitting out
20 there in these 92 ter statements.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, that is an issue, I must say, the
22 way in which this rule is applied, that you have to put to the witness if
23 you go -- first of all, let's not forget that is not for
24 cross-examination, in general, but especially if you go beyond what was
25 presented in examination-in-chief, as far as I'm concerned. But let me
1 just check the rule.
2 MR. KEHOE: It is 90(H)(ii). The one I just quoted from was
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is not just in cross-examination, but
5 cross-examination of a witness who is able to give evidence relevant to
6 the case of the cross-examining party. That's, of course, not all of the
7 cross-examination, but it is fine. I mean, it's not difficult to do
8 that, I would say, and does not necessarily need to present all the
9 documents to the witness. If you say, "Witness, it is the case of the
10 Defence that when you, on the basis of your observations, you would have
11 drawn wrong conclusions because you were unfamiliar a lot of other
12 documents," and then ask him, "Were you aware of the existence of these
13 documents?" Then put one or two to him, that is fine.
14 But to go through 20 documents and then to find out that he has
15 no knowledge of any of these documents, that, of course, take as lot of
16 time. We could, if you want to, present that documentary evidence to the
17 Chamber, in support of the Defence position that the witness was not
18 fully informed about everything that happened and what he observed or the
19 conversations he had. It gives limited information and not the full
20 information. Then, of course, if we see these 20 letters, we'll know
21 that he was at least short of 20 letters of information.
22 What then the meaning of those letters is, is, of course, the
23 next question and not for the witness to determine, because whether there
24 are other documents that would contradict or other evidence by other
25 witnesses who contradict those letters or support those letters is not
1 for the witness to determine, mainly because what we would then invite
2 him to do, where he is perhaps not blamed, but at least it's put to him
3 that he had no full information when he made these statements, we would
4 then invite him to do the same thing; that is, with a little bit more of
5 information, to again draw conclusions or give states.
6 Whereas, it is finally for the Chamber, at the very end, having
7 heard all of the evidence, to see what the right conclusions are.
8 Mr. Tieger, you were on your feet, but you desperately sat down
9 again. Was there anything more?
10 MR. TIEGER: Not so desperately, Your Honour, just courteously, I
11 hope. No. I was only going to suggest that perhaps we could move
12 forward with this witness's testimony. I don't know the extent to which
13 the discussion implicates issues which any of the parties feel will arise
14 in the course of the remaining examination.
15 I had the impression, having participated in the discussion with
16 the senior legal officer, there was concern about possible future
17 situations in which the guidance, if applied in a certain way, might
18 hamper the Defence, but I don't know that the witness needs to
19 participate or sit by while we participate in discussions of hypothetical
21 JUDGE ORIE: If any such issue arise in the future, the Chamber
22 is always open to discuss it, to explain what and why it wishes to
23 proceed in a certain way, and will carefully listens to the questions.
24 Mr. Kehoe, you added one question of whether the conclusions of
25 no weight will be given to it. Well, no weight, it, of course, all
1 depends on what type of conclusions there are. To say no weight
2 whatsoever, of course we consider it in the totality of -- sometimes, we
3 might give no weight at all to the conclusions; and sometimes, in the
4 totality of the evidence, we might say, well, this is what the conclusion
5 should it be.
6 So, therefore, the Chamber will also carefully check to what
7 extent, if a witness draws any conclusions, whether the Chamber, on the
8 whole of the evidence, would draw similar conclusions, and then whether
9 we give weight to the conclusions of the witness or whether we draw our
10 own conclusions, would then appear to be the same or different ones from
11 the witness is a bit of a semantical issue.
12 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Your Honour, and I don't what to
13 belabour the point, but the witness is here and maybe we can address it
14 in another form. That, of course, is the crux of the matter for the
15 Defence, that those are out there. And the issue of if you had this
16 other information, I'm not talking about General Forand at this point,
17 but just hypothetically any witness, would that call into question the
18 conclusion that you gave on page 3, paragraph 44 of your statement, and
19 that is the issue that concerns the Defence most.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that.
21 I can say the following: That in one of the previous cases on
22 which I have been sitting, the parties, especially on the 92 ter
23 statements, always had a huge battle on what line to strike, whether
24 there was a bit of a conclusion in it, or where it came to opinions. And
25 I think it took a great effort to redact these statements in every
1 respect. I observed that this has not happened before this Chamber. I
2 would not encourage the parties to do it because it leads to lengthy
3 conclusions where the parties do or do not agree on what exactly is a
4 conclusion or just a logical consequence of the factual observations by
5 the witness.
6 It took us a lot of time. I don't think that it changed that
7 much. But, finally, the parties stopped having similar battles when I
8 had indicated that if the parties could not agree on striking certain
9 portions, yes or no, that they're invited at 7.00 in the morning or at
10 10.00 at night to further discuss the matter in my presence, and then I
11 would give them the guidance what could be struck or not.
12 I'm telling this because the parties should be aware that not
13 being a jury, but being a Bench of professionals, that we have many, many
14 years of training to make clear distinctions between what are
15 conclusions, what are opinions, and what are facts observed, and also
16 which conclusions are so compelling that it's just impossible to desist
17 from them and others which are far less compelling and which the Chamber
18 might not adopt on the same basis as the witness may have done, which
19 does not exclude for the possibility that the Chamber draws similar
20 conclusions on the basis of the evidence as a whole.
21 Mr. Forand, I take it that you have never been subject to these
22 kind of discussions which are mainly about the law of evidence, which
23 keeps lawyers busy for centuries already, and especially since lawyers
24 come from different areas of the world. It keeps them divided also. I
25 can't instruct to you forget about it. But if you didn't like it, that
1 meets full understanding from all of us, and I speak on behalf all.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. KAY:
4 Q. In the spirit of that, General Forand, I'm going to skip certain
5 documents in a chain which would have dealt with the full issue of the 55
6 displaced persons inside UNCRO battalion locations. In particular, you
7 remember outside the UNCRO compound in Knin, you had the other battalions
8 spread around the region, and some of those had become harbours of people
9 where they had come to stay.
10 You remember that particular issue?
11 A. I do, sir.
12 Q. Let me turn to a document which is P369 which is one of your
14 While it is coming up, it wasn't only you involved in this. It
15 was Mr. Flynn, Mr. Al-Alfi, and other agencies, all dealing with this
16 issue. Is that right?
17 MR. KAY: If we turn to page 3 of this document.
18 THE WITNESS: Which issue are you talking about?
19 MR. KAY:
20 Q. The 55 -- or 50 to 55 displaced persons in your other compounds.
21 A. Well, I was involved because it was my troops that had those
22 people, but obviously the thing that pertained to the IDP situation or
23 solution was now in the hands of Mr. Al-Alfi.
24 Q. Yes.
25 MR. KAY: And for the Court's reference, there's a document, D56,
1 from the other agencies dealing with this matter, and I say that, as an
2 Exhibit, to link it for the Court.
3 Q. If we go to page 3, this document says: "General Cermak and
4 Senior ..." -- what is SLO-SS, Senior Liaison Officer?
5 A. That is Lieutenant-Colonel Tymchuk.
6 Q. Yeah.
7 A. Sector South.
8 Q. It was agreed that all refugees now in unit locations should be
9 relocated to Knin. General Cermak showed a great deal of flexibility and
10 cooperation in compromising to finally resolve this long-standing and
11 difficult issue. Once agreement was reached, rapid action followed.
12 There was a conference, there were joint teams. All refugees will be
13 offered the option of moving to Knin under UN protection or returning to
14 their homes.
15 And that's what was the of the object of the exercise, was to get
16 these people into Knin so that the whole plan of dealing with these
17 people could be progressed forward. Is that right?
18 A. Yes, sir. It was also in the view of eventually when they would
19 be able to move out, you know, of Sector South.
20 Q. Yes. There is link document to this that's not an exhibit from
21 HRAT which I will skip, and we will go straight to a letter from you to
22 General Cermak, 2D03-0012.
23 I'm going to the end of the story, missing out bits in between.
24 You understand?
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. And it's a letter dated 19th of August. It's to you from General
2 Cermak. It hasn't been seen by the Court before, and it's a letter of
3 appreciation assistance in moving displaced persons: "Dear General,
4 thank you very much for your assistance in escorting 51 displaced persons
5 under UN protection from camps throughout Sector South to my headquarters
6 in Knin yesterday."
7 You refer to him giving support to the UN, professional response
8 of Croatian army military police, your liaison staff. You express
9 sincere gratitude, and you look forward further opportunities for close
10 cooperation in a common purpose about the transfer of those persons from
11 the UNCRO camp to destinations of choice in the near future.
12 Is that right that General Cermak was extremely helpful on this
14 A. As described in that letter, yes.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: Just a very minor matter, but Mr. Kay inadvertently
18 began by saying, "It is to you from General Cermak," and I think he
19 wanted to indicate the opposite.
20 MR. KAY: Thank you very much, yes, as we can see.
21 Q. And that was, again, one of your problems that he and you had to
22 face during that time in August, and from which -- and in respect of
23 which both of you were working together. Is that right?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 MR. KAY: Can we have that made an exhibit, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No objection, Mr. Tieger?
2 Then, Mr. Registrar, that would be?
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D311, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D311 is admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KAY: Thank you.
7 Q. The next matter which was raised in detail yesterday was the
8 issue of those who were to be interviewed as suspects for war crimes,
9 which was a big sticking point between the Croatian government and
10 the UN. Is that right?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Now, have I here a whole massive section of documents, but I
13 don't intend to take you through every one, and I will follow the Court's
14 guidance on it.
15 We've dealt in part with that by referring to the fact that D28,
16 the Akashi-Sarinic agreement, contained provisions to deal with this
17 particular issue, as you recollect?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Just to set the terms of reference.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Kay, it is the second time that you raise
21 this issue. As a matter of fact, from what I see in that agreement, it
22 does not deal with people being interviewed as suspects. What it deals
23 with, as far as I can see - and I think this is it paragraph 3, but I'm
24 now talking from the top of my head - that is says that everyone is free
25 to leave but not those who have committed, and I think even war crimes,
1 not crime, but war crimes. It doesn't say anything about starting
2 investigations on those who have committed and who have not.
3 So, if you say interviews are dealt with, that is, in my view, if
4 not a whole step, then at least half a step too far.
5 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. We agreed today that the modalities had to be sorted out. It was
7 appreciated that the document did not deal with the precise way to
8 resolve this issue. Is that right?
9 A. Yes, it was. If I remember well, I think General Cermak wanted
10 to interview those people outside of the camp, and the direction I got on
11 that is that would not be the case. It would be inside, and those were
12 the discussions that were ongoing.
13 Q. Yes. Do you agree on this issue, as on the other issue, that
14 General Cermak was acting as a conduit for his government in making
15 representations on this issue?
16 A. For this issue, yes.
17 Q. And the positions that he held in relation -- or the points of
18 view he put forward eventually, both you and he agreed, had to be
19 resolved at a higher level between the UN command in Zagreb and the
20 government of Croatia
21 A. Well, I was not aware of him, you know, that who he was going to
22 in order to get the direction. Me, I was aware that I had to go back to
24 Q. Is it correct that, in fact, members of the Croatian government
25 became involved directly in this matter to resolve the issue?
1 A. I don't remember that, sir.
2 Q. I'm afraid then we have to look at some documents?
3 JUDGE ORIE: I can imagine that if the witness says, "I don't
4 remember," that is different from "I don't know anything about it." So,
5 therefore, you can see whether the documentation could help the witness.
6 MR. KAY: I'm grateful to Your Honour, and I am trying to follow
7 the spirit of Your Honours' ruling in the best way that I can.
8 Let's just start with a document here, D56.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from dealing with the witness, is this a
10 matter in dispute, Mr. Tieger, that is also, I mean, whether the witness
11 knows anything about it, whether he could further assist us and whether
12 it is an issue which is in dispute.
13 And the issue apparently being at what level both, if I could
14 say, interlocutors even if would be in writing at what level
15 decision-making primarily took place.
16 MR. TIEGER: I don't believe so Your Honour. I don't -- I
17 obviously don't know precisely what point with respect to who got
18 involved counsel has in mind, but the general matter that has been
19 raised, no, it's not in dispute.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If this serves as additional guidance, please
21 proceed, Mr. Kay.
22 MR. KAY: I'm very grateful to Your Honour for that intervention.
23 Q. Page 3 of this document, which was a document that was sent to
24 you as well, and I'm just referring to the bottom half of the page.
25 A list was needed of the displaced persons because people had to
1 know who was within the camp, isn't that right, General, that list had to
2 be compiled?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And we see in the last paragraph: "From our discussion, we also
5 understood from General Cermak that the idea of carrying out
6 investigations ... may be limited to a very small number of displaced
7 persons, probably between 10 and 20 ..."
8 And in this regard, General Cermak pointed out that the Croatian
9 authority would ask for those people to be handed over.
10 And were you aware of the fact that General Cermak thought that
11 this was going to actually be a very small number of people that were to
12 be considered or investigated, to be handed over as war criminals to the
13 Croatian justice system?
14 A. What I remember is that - I don't know exactly because I don't
15 know when that letter that I have in front of me was signed - at one
16 point, there was 62 persons initially that were considered. And at the
17 meeting, General Cermak said probably that number would be lower. But
18 this letter, I don't remember, you know, this.
19 Q. I have skipped up the chain, but it is the 18th of August, this,
20 when it first started to come together as a concrete problem.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. Would you agree that, how I put it in that way, that it took a
23 few weeks to bring it up as an issue as to what was going to happen? It
24 wasn't immediately dealt with from the 8th of August.
25 A. No. If I remember well, I think there was a request initially
1 from General Cermak to provide the list from the 18 to the 60. I suppose
2 we -- I don't remember, but we must have provided that list. So that
3 started early on. But, yes, I agree with you, it took a long time to
5 Q. Yes. And that was something that took from this date of the
6 18th of August until the final movement of the people on the 16th of
7 September. Is that right?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Yes. Thank you.
10 There was also, is it not right, a great degree of correspondence
11 over the actual identities of the people, the listing of the people
12 within the camp, 687 persons being submitted on one list and then a later
13 list with more people being submitted on the list?
14 Do you recollect that as a particular issue?
15 A. I don't remember that, because I think it was Mr. Al-Alfi that
16 was compiling that list, so I don't remember.
17 Q. Right. I've no need to stick on that.
18 On the 21st of August, again, there was a discussion about this
20 MR. KAY: 65 ter 1220. This is no cover sheet. It goes straight
21 in the document, so it is the first page.
22 Q. And we see that General Cermak asked to see you about this matter
23 of the displaced persons. And in paragraph, 2 he refers to the fact he
24 had been provided with a list of 687 persons.
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. Out of a population of 731. Then General Cermak indicated he had
3 a list of 74 persons under suspicion of war crimes, which he said he
4 thought the list was too long and could be shortened, which is what you
5 mentioned before. Is that right?
6 A. Yeah. I mentioned the number 62, but, yes.
7 Q. Yes.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour, in relation to the chain of documents on
9 this, that's all we need to look at.
10 May this be admitted as an exhibit.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I have no objection. I'm just checking
13 to see if it was a portion of a larger document already in evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, could you assist Mr. Tieger.
15 MR. KAY: It's one that we got off the list as 65 ter 1220,
16 and --
17 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I think it is part of P403.
18 MR. KAY: Right.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's no need further to -- it is now on the
20 record where to further find the document.
21 MR. KAY: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. KAY:
24 Q. Then the process was the list of the 74 suspects were required to
25 be handed over. Is that right General Forand, as you recollect it?
1 A. I don't remember that particular point, but it would make sense,
3 Q. And the UN side were looking for details as to the type or the
4 nature of the allegations that were to be raised against these particular
5 individuals. Is that right?
6 A. Yes. From what I remember, the direction that we had received,
7 or that Mr. Al-Alfi had received, was they need to have some certain
8 proof against those individual. Once these proof would have been
9 presented to Mr. Al-Alfi, he would go back to the UN in Zagreb, present
10 it to the lawyer, and they would agree or not, you know, if it was
11 sufficient information in those description.
12 Q. Yes.
13 MR. KAY: Can we look at a document dated the 21st of August,
14 1995, 2D03-0049.
15 Q. While this is coming, I will just introduce it. This is a
16 document of the 21st of August which came from the security and
17 information service, SIS, and was sent to General Cermak, and was the
18 list of the 72 people who were those under discussion as to what the
19 allegation was in relation to those people. And we can see on page 1
20 their names, and on the right-hand side a description of the nature of
21 the allegations.
22 MR. KAY: That's a four-page document. We've no need to look
23 into it any further unless anyone wants to.
24 Q. But the point of presenting it is to say, did you see this
25 document, the one that came from the Croatian side, which was to help
1 identify in your camp those who were suspected of war crimes?
2 A. No, I don't remember seeing that, sir.
3 Q. Did you personally have any dealings in relation to that aspect
4 of the issue as to the nature of the crimes and the particular
5 individuals, or was that someone else within your UN people in Knin?
6 A. From my point of view, it was Mr. Al-Alfi that was taking care of
7 that. I never got involved in those discussion.
8 Q. Because it was outside your responsibility.
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may this document be admitted as an
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
15 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D312, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D312 is admitted into evidence.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. KAY:
21 Q. Do you recollect if there was an issue as to whether the UN would
22 receive the information in a particular form --
23 A. I don't --
24 Q. -- whether service of the notice by the Croatian authorities had
25 to be done in a particular way and the protocol associated with it? Do
1 you recollect that particular issue?
2 A. No, sir. Like I said, you know, I was not involved and it's not
3 something that I got involved at all in it.
4 MR. KAY: Can we look at P374.
5 Q. This document of the 24th of August is from HQ UNCRO, Zagreb
6 we see on the first page --
7 A. I --
8 Q. Haven't you got it on your screen, General Forand?
9 A. But it is not from UNCRO, it is from my headquarters.
10 Q. Is it from your headquarters?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I have got HQ UNCRO, Zagreb
13 A. No. It is from the headquarters Sector South to headquarters
15 MR. KAY: Again, it may be -- well, I know that this is a
16 document that has been in the system several times over, and I have a
17 version of it that comes out with that on top. So we'll ignore what is
18 on my document. I'm sure it's got the same information.
19 Can we go to the next page of the document.
20 Your Honour, I'm trying to find because there's a document in
21 different forms in the system which derails me.
22 Can we see if I can have 65 ter 2477.
23 Sorry about this. But, again, Your Honour, it is just a feature
24 of the system which makes it difficult to manage.
25 Q. That is the one that I have got, which has got HQ UNCRO Zagreb on
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. This is what I was referring to, and it's the same date and I
4 think even the same time as the one --
5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, it appears to be me a different time.
6 This one, I see, is 2403. PSAT 374 is an August 24th, 2030 hours.
7 MR. KAY: Right. Yeah.
8 Can we go to page 3 of this document. Thank you. Yes. That's
9 the letter there from Colonel Tymchuk, which is the part that I was
10 looking for.
11 Q. Do you recognise this letter from Colonel Tymchuk?
12 A. I don't remember, no, sir.
13 Q. The letter refers to: "If General Cermak is unable to proceed in
14 this way, as we have agreed, then commander Sector South would like to be
15 informed in writing of the position of the government of Croatia, so that
16 the necessary higher level negotiations may begin to resolve this issue."
17 Do you recollect that, concerning the manner in which the
18 allegations of war crimes against individuals were going to be dealt
20 A. What I remember is that they had some -- there was some
21 discussion between myself, Al-Alfi, and General Cermak about the
22 possibility that those that were not accused of being war criminal would
23 be allowed to be sent to Serbia
24 that were accused by the Croat of being war criminal.
25 Q. Yeah. Would it be right say that you, General Cermak, and
1 Mr. Al-Alfi, and probably Mr. Flynn, were looking at ways of trying to
2 solve this problem through different means?
3 A. Well, I don't know if it was through different means. I know
4 that we discussed it with General Cermak, because the problem I was
5 having is trying to maintain the feeling of these people within my camp,
6 which was creating a problem. So one way to alleviate that problem was
7 to remove those people that were not considered war criminals. So we had
8 started those discussion with General Cermak, which initially looked good
9 but it didn't -- it didn't happen.
10 Q. No.
11 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may this be admitted as an exhibit.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D313, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D313 is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. KAY: Again, moving along through the documents, may we look
18 at 65 ter 2467, which is Exhibit P374, which was the previous document of
19 the 24th of August at 2030.
20 Q. And this is one of your sitreps. And if we just turn to page 3,
21 paragraph 4, where you are writing on the issue of those that need to be
22 considered, we see that the number is now 62 from 74 in paragraph 3.
23 But it was the position in paragraph 4 that it was now clear that
24 the matter could not be resolved at Sector South level. "It must be
25 pursued between higher level in authorities and the government of
2 Is that right?
3 A. That's what is written there, yes. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And that goes back to what I was putting to you about Mr. Cermak
5 acting on behalf of the government of Croatia. He didn't actually have
6 the authority to conclude the matter under his own decisions.
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Would you agree with that?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Thank you. The story of the matter continued over a number of
11 days into September. Is that right?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Do you recollect that there was also an issue of the parties
14 taking legal advice on the position within international law, as to where
15 these people could be questioned and their manner of surrender?
16 A. I was aware, through Mr. Al-Alfi that, yes, that matter was being
17 discussed at a higher level.
18 Q. Yes.
19 MR. KAY: If we could go to a document, 65 ter 762, which is a
20 report from Mr. Akashi to Mr. Annan, and turn to page 3 of this report
21 and look at paragraph 1.
22 Q. This concerns you and General Cermak. And we can see about the
23 context of the United Nations and that: "An issue has arisen as a result
24 of a further oral agreement made on the 21st of August, 1995, between
25 General Cermak, representing Croatia
1 the United Nations, being disputed by the Croatian authorities."
2 Do you recollect that you and General Cermak had actually agreed
3 in an informal way how to resolve the matter some days earlier.
4 A. Yes. We thought, you know, that we had the -- an agreement that
5 those people that were not accused of being war criminals could leave my
6 camp to go to Serbia
7 Q. And do you recollect that, in fact, Mr. Cermak was overruled by
8 that, and what he had agreed with you was not accepted by the Croatian
10 A. Yes. I think, not too long after that or during that period,
11 either a meeting I had with General Cermak, with Mr. Al-Alfi, or a letter
12 I received from him, indicated that it would not be so, that the
13 agreement could not be -- could not be put into effect.
14 Q. And do you recollect that, after that, that brought the Croatian
15 government into the matter, trying to negotiate directly with the UN in
16 relation to these people?
17 A. I don't remember that, except as I told you before, I was not
18 involved in the dealing per se. It was Mr. Al-Alfi, and the direction
19 was coming from UN Zagreb.
20 Q. Yeah.
21 MR. KAY: May that be admitted into evidence, please, Your
23 MR. TIEGER: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the transcript reads "no objection,"
25 and --
1 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's what I thought you would say.
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D314, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D314 is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. KAY:
7 Q. I'm moving on through the account, which is it right to say that
8 for several weeks, again, the dispute as to how to deal with the
9 individuals continued until mid-September when it was resolved.
10 A. Yes, sir. I left, I think, on the 11th or 12 September to come
11 back to Canada
12 Q. Yeah.
13 MR. KAY: Your Honour, there are a number of documents in this
14 matter which contain the full account, full story, which I'm going to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Would there again be a possibility, perhaps, that
16 this apparently is, of course we have not seen it yet, but the
17 administrative follow-up of what the witness has described. Is there any
18 way that we would give these documents to the witness, to invite him, not
19 only to spoil his coffee breaks, but perhaps even part of the day,
20 quickly scan through them, and see whether something is familiar to him
21 or whether there's anything in it which he would like to comment on?
22 MR. KAY: I'll be frank. The crux of this evidence is really for
23 the Trial Chamber --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course.
25 MR. KAY: -- and fleshing out the whole picture which has been
1 referred to, in part, in the Prosecution case. But we have been able to
2 put together the entire narrative, and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that's all documents in relation to this, no
4 statements by persons, but just the type of --
5 MR. KAY: Letters from Croatian government ministers, from the
6 office of the president, taking over this matter from the hands of
7 Mr. Cermak, and simply --
8 JUDGE ORIE: And most likely not ever have been to the knowledge
9 of this.
10 MR. KAY: That's right, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We could also limit. Of course, we'd like to
12 receive all these documents in evidence, unless there is any objection
13 against it. But, of course, if the witness -- I mean, my suggested way
14 to proceed is not to spend time on matters on which the witness can't add
15 anything to what is in the documents and, at the same time, that if the
16 witness is in a position, if he has knowledge of the documents, to tell
17 us what he knows about it.
18 We could, for example, ask the witness to look at the documents
19 and just report to us whether he has ever seen these documents before or
21 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I know he won't have, but it is --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
23 MR. KAY: I can confess that is done for the knowledge of the
24 Trial Chamber, and that is, in our view, a legitimate aim that we have in
25 this case --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. KAY: -- to present facts fully to you, as Your Honour said
3 at the start of this trial.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I just made the suggestion that in order to
5 avoid that the witness would have some useful information on these
6 documents and then not to miss that. But if you all expect that he
7 doesn't have any specific knowledge about the documents, then let's just
8 look at the documents.
9 MR. KAY:
10 Q. I want to go to the end of the story because we know that the
11 people came out of the camp, and a number of people were taken to be
12 interviewed under agreements reached between the Croatian government and
13 the UN. Is that right, putting it in a summary?
14 A. That's what I was told when I came back from Canada, yes, sir.
15 Q. Yes. Should we just look at a document dated 18th of September,
16 1995, 2D03-0082.
17 MR. KAY: The Court may remember I asked the Colonel Leslie
18 something about at the end of his examination, whether he recalled
19 writing a particular document; and for the Court's assistance, this is
20 the document that has now been found.
21 Q. We have a review of the matter by Colonel Leslie in this
22 document, which is an assessment. And in the second paragraph, it says:
23 "The initial cooperation of the Croatian military appeared to be
24 outstanding. Colonel General Cermak, military governor of Knin,
25 friendly, helpful, when we met with him on Wednesday, the 14th of
1 September, 1995, to discuss the movement plan, and he donated a truckload
2 of clothing and arranged for food and juices for the displaced persons
3 ... and the Croat police also appeared good ..."
4 And this is an account of the transfer which, sadly, when it left
5 Knin, was perhaps not so pleasant and there was trouble en route. But
6 were you aware that the view of UNCRO was that Colonel-General Cermak had
7 been outstanding in his cooperation to resolve this matter?
8 A. As I said, I was in Canada
9 about the -- the problem that they had once they had left Knin. I don't
10 remember the staff officer that briefed me, you know, raising praise of
11 General Cermak, but it seemed to have gone well in Knin itself, yes.
12 Q. Yes.
13 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may this document go in as an exhibit. It
14 was one, you will remember, I couldn't produce on my feet with Colonel
16 MR. TIEGER: No objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D315, Your Honours.
19 MR. KAY: And the next matter --
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you would allow me to admit into evidence,
21 Mr. Kay, it might be of assistance.
22 MR. KAY: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm trying to finish a
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.
25 D315 is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. KAY: Next document is 2D03-0101.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you leave your microphone open, everyone can
3 enjoy your short conversations.
4 MR. KAY: I need a remote control, and it would be easier, Your
5 Honour, otherwise I might knock over some water.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That is within the competency of the registrar, not
7 the Bench.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. KAY: This is the last document before the break.
10 Q. This is a document from Colonel Karel Blahna, acting Sector South
11 commander. This was written while you were in Canada?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. It says: "Your Excellency, Ministry of Defence of the Republic
14 of Croatia
15 was carried out in accordance with UNCRO and Sector South commander's
17 That would be your plan. Is that right?
18 A. Well, yes, even though I was not there, all the staff working for
19 me, obviously I take the responsibility of it.
20 Q. And it refers to the particular transport of the inhabitants. In
21 paragraph 2, it refers to the international organisations. One of the
22 key persons of success of this mission was Colonel General Ivan Cermak
23 and his liaison officers, Captain Lukovic, Lieutenant Mrsa, Ensign Dondo.
24 Thanks to their initiative and responsible actions, this mission was done
1 "Please, relay my personal gratitude and thanks to Colonel
2 General Ivan Cermak for the quick and professional arrangements."
3 Signed by Colonel Blahna, "job well done."
4 Was that reported back to you?
5 A. I don't remember, but it -- I mean, it is there, it is signed,
6 so, yes.
7 Q. Yes.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may this be admitted into evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: No objection, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D316, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: D316 is admitted into evidence.
14 We have to adjourn for the day, Mr. Kay, but not before I have
15 one question for you.
16 You have described D312 as a list of 72 people who were those
17 under discussion as to what the allegation was in relation to those
19 May I ask you to consider whether this is a fair description of
20 what a list is, especially in view of the word "allegation", and perhaps
21 all lawyers in this courtroom listen fairly well, that apparently under
22 number 35, the allegation just says "lawyer," of a person of almost 70
23 years old. I don't whether sometimes it is being the wife of or a
24 relative of, so, whether these are really allegations or just clues to
25 what apparently has raised whatever suspicion.
1 We adjourn. Let me just see. I got a message. Mr. Registrar
2 gave it to me. We will adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow
3 morning, 9.00, Courtroom I.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of June,
6 2008, at 9.00 a.m.