1 Wednesday, 9 July 2008 2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours, good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 The Chamber apologises for the late start, this being due to the
12 fact that the Chamber wanted to further deliberate on the admission of
13 the statements of Mr. Janic.
14 The Chamber received courtesy copies of the positions taken by
15 the parties; that is, what the Gotovina Defence further would submit, as
16 the e-mail says. We also have received a courtesy copy of the Markac
17 further submissions. And we received a short note of the Prosecution in
18 response to, apparently, the Gotovina Defence submission. I don't know
19 whether it also covers the Markac Defence. I think only the Gotovina.
20 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 The Chamber has considered this as the points of view, although,
23 Mr. Misetic, the e-mail of the Gotovina Defence reads that the further
24 submission would be as follows. I didn't understand this to be that you
25 want to repeat it today, but you just submit it.
1 Now, the Chamber has developed a system that e-mail exchanges of
2 a purely practical nature can just be sent to the Chamber's staff. If
3 there's some substance in it, then it is put on the record but just
4 referring to it. These, however, are submissions which are of greater
5 importance and therefore the Chamber invites the parties to the extent
6 it's not done yet and whatever the format is but that this will be filed
7 as submissions made to the Chamber and which the Chamber has also
8 considered in reaching decisions.
9 The issues are about admission into evidence of the statements by
10 the witness Janic. That is one statement of 2004, and -- and the
11 transcript of an interview he has given when he still was a suspect at
12 the time in the presence of Mr. Nobilo.
13 The two have been marked for identification yesterday. I have
14 forgotten about the numbers, but we could ...
15 MR. MIKULICIC: It's 552 and 553, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: 552 -- thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
17 The Chamber has considered all the submissions, and has, of
18 course, read the statements, and the Chamber has decided to admit them
19 into evidence. Exceptionally the Chamber will give the reasons for its
20 decision, in writing, in due course, because of the nature of the
21 objections made, the Chamber considers that we could not just say that we
22 admit them into evidence, that's it. We will give the reasons in which,
23 of course the objections will be dealt with properly.
24 That, however, takes a bit of time, but the decision is that P552
25 and P553 are admitted into evidence.
1 Is there any other matter at this moment which needs attention
2 before we ask the usher to escort the witness into the courtroom.
3 Mr. Misetic.
4 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. I just wanted to clarify
5 procedurally or ask for the Court's guidance on how you wish to deal with
7 This issue that we've dealt with concerning this witness on the
8 statement concerns other witnesses that will be coming down the line as
9 well. And for that reason, we have taken no decision on what we wish to
10 do but under the interlocutory appeal rules there's been one decision
11 issued in writing issued by the Chamber yesterday and you've now
12 indicated there will be a future decision in writing.
13 Is it safe to safe to say that we can wait for that written
14 decision before taking any --
15 JUDGE ORIE: That is -- I will consider this with my colleagues,
16 because we are -- of course, we're heading to the recess. Of course, the
17 Chamber would like very much to have this decision delivered before the
18 recess. We'll work hard on it. But, as said before, some important
19 issues, legal issues have been raised in view of this.
20 We, the Chamber, of course, has the power to extend times, if you
21 request a certificate and if would you ask -- because that's what you
22 would need and if you ask for additional time to give the reasons for
23 that certificate, that might give you sufficient room and we'll consider
24 whether that would be a proper solution for -- I see that you -- the two
25 decisions are to some extent, of course, related. You even related them
1 in such a way that you even commented on a bit on the decision of
2 yesterday, you consider this to be important for the decision.
3 MR. MISETIC: Today.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Today, yes, I have seen that. I have also seen the
5 response by the Prosecution to that.
6 Let's not be -- over-formalistic. The decision of yesterday
7 stands anyhow; of course, it could not be denied that there is certain
8 overlap in the matters.
9 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And whether -- what is revisiting and what is giving
11 follow up, is not, at this moment, to be further discussed.
12 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll -- it is clear what your problem is.
14 Then, any other matter?
15 Ms. Mahindarante --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- are you ready to continue the
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher.
21 The parties may have seen that some follow-up was given yesterday
22 as to give the technical facilities for the witness, if he wanted to do
23 that to review the interview and --
24 May I take it, Ms. Mahindaratne, that one of the first things
25 you'll do is to ask the witness whether there -- what corrections he'd
1 like to make --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... statements.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Janic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you are still bound
8 by the solemn declaration that you gave yesterday at the beginning of
9 your testimony.
10 I further would like to ask you the following. I noted that,
11 apart from a binder you have got at this moment, I take it that that's
12 the binder with your interview, that you also have another notebook
13 present. You're supposed not to consult anything without explicit
14 permission by this Chamber, and I take it that during your examination
15 reference may be made to your interview and/or statement and then, of
16 course, you can look at that so that you can follow the question and can
17 verify what actually is in the statement and what the transcript of the
18 interview is about.
19 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President.
21 WITNESS: ZDRAVKO JANIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Janic.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. Now, last --
4 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, I have forgotten one thing. There was
5 another request that was to add nine witness-related documents to the
6 Rule 65 ter list. I do not remember that there was any objection against
8 I see no objection. So that -- that motion is -- a motion filed
9 on the 24th of June, 2008
10 the Rule 65 ter list is granted, as requested.
11 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Janic, yesterday after court adjourned, you were provided
14 with the transcripts of your interview conducted in 2005 as well as
15 your -- an English version and a B/C/S version of your statement provided
16 to the OTP into 2004.
17 Now, have you reviewed them overnight, as you were instructed to?
18 A. I did. I managed to go through it. I -- I didn't look at every
19 single detail but I did take some notes. Yes, I've had a look, in short.
20 Q. And yesterday you said that with regard to your 2004 statement,
21 that is the first statement, there were a couple of minor translation
22 issues and you said that those did not, in fact, go to the gist -- the
23 substance of the statement. Are you in a position to tell us today what
24 those translation inaccuracies are?
25 A. Well, I can say now that I stand by both of the statements that I
1 made and there are no errors that are substantial. There may have been a
2 couple of mistranslations, at least the way I see them, that suggest a
3 different context from the one originally suggested.
4 I can go and have a look at my notes.
5 I do believe also that I should make a number of addenda to some
6 of the statements that I made, because the ones that I originally made
7 were not entirely complete.
8 Q. Mr. Janic, are you looking at some notes. Are those notes that
9 you prepared while reviewing your statements last night or what
10 exactly -- can you tell us what notes you're looking at right now?
11 You're looking at a black diary book right now.
12 A. Yes. For example, item 28. It reads: "We have no contact with
13 the military units." And I said, "with our military units."
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, one microphone at a time
15 while the speaker is speaking. We can't hear the speaker. Thank you.
16 A. It further says that we came across no civilian villages during
17 our operation. Well, all villages were civilian so I think this wording
18 is erroneous.
19 Item or paragraph 33 which says that the --
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I just wanted to ensure that we're on the
21 correct paragraph, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the witness is now referring to the
23 paragraphs in his 2004 statement, because there, I also see, "We did not
24 have any contact with the military units on our right flank," and what he
25 now adds to that is that he meant to say "with our military units."
1 So we now move on to, you said, 33.
2 A. That's right. That's right.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... 22. 22. Let
4 me just -- 28. 28. Please give us your further positions on 28.
5 I'm now confusing matters. 22, you said.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 28. 28.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Yes, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please go ahead.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My intervention about paragraph 28.
13 It reads here that: "We did not come across any civilian villages."
14 This must be a mistranslation. All villages are civilian, right?
15 Civilian and non-civilian.
16 And then on to paragraph 33. It reads: "The regular police had
17 already prepared groups of police officers." Now this is a
18 mistranslation. If you look at the operational area itself and the
19 second echelon, that is following the special police and the army, there
20 were police echelons of the blue, regular police. The blues. And their
21 task as soon as the special police and the military liberated a certain
22 area, they were to go in and establish civilian authorities and police
23 control over those areas for the purposes of safety and everything else.
24 So my statement was police units had been prepared or were at the ready,
25 not officers. That's what I was talking about. Officers are individuals
1 and units number more men. So that was the gist of this portion of my
2 statement back then.
3 I do have several other paragraphs with additional explanations
4 which I might as well provide, when we come to appropriate questions.
5 There is another error that I noticed, and that is paragraph 68.
6 It reads: "The Lucko unit was sent back to Zagreb and was no longer
7 allowed to be involved in these operations." That is not what I stated
8 at that time. It wasn't that it was not allowed. It was simply not used
9 again for reasons that I stated at a later stage in my 2005 statement.
10 Not reasons, actually, but I simply explained why this unit was no longer
11 used for the purposes of the search operation afterwards. There is
12 therefore a mistranslation. The allegation here is not quite accurate.
13 There is another one, paragraph 77.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Just to verify what you say, 68, we should
15 understand it as: "I know that the Lucko unit was sent back to Zagreb
16 after that and were not further involved in such operations in the
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they were simply not involved.
19 It's not that they weren't allowed to be involved.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's clear.
21 If you have another error, please address it.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 77, the last sentence. It reads:
23 "Crimes committed by military police were investigated by the military
24 police and serious crimes could be investigated in cooperation with the
25 civilian authorities. Prosecution of a serious case would be undertaken
1 by the ministry of justice." Therefore, you know it is about the state
2 prosecutor, so I think it's a mistranslation.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before you correct it, could I invite you to speak a
4 little bit slower, because the interpreters have really no chance to
5 follow your speed of speech.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So you said that is a mistranslation. Please tell
8 us how we should read it.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One should understand that
10 prosecuting was not done by the ministry of justice. I'm not talking
11 about the ministry, I'm talking about the state prosecutor, the state
12 attorney. The bodies in charge of prosecuting crimes that occur in the
13 line of duty. It's not the ministry of justice that did this, so this is
14 a mistake.
15 These would be my technical suggestions about my 2004 statement.
16 When we go on discussing this, I do have several addenda to make which I
17 think should be made, but this is it as far as the technical observations
18 were concerned.
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I then take it, Ms. Mahindaratne, that will you
20 put questions to the witness that, if these questions touch upon any of
21 the issues in which you consider, Mr. Janic, that something should be
22 added, you will do that at the time. And at the end of the
23 examination-in-chief, you will be given an opportunity to tell us whether
24 things you thought of importance to add but were not yet touched upon,
25 that you will have an opportunity to add at the end of your
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, I will do, so Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. Mr. Janic, do you recall when members of the Office of the
6 Prosecutor met you for what was going to be a proofing session on
7 6 May 2008
8 that you were now on the list of witnesses for the Defence for
9 Mr. Markac, and you have provided a statement to the Defence.
10 A. I remember that. I said exactly what you now quoted. I saw you
11 that time and there was another gentleman who was with you.
12 Q. And do you recall when you said that I asked you if the statement
13 you had made to the Defence was different in content to the statements
14 you had made to the Office of the Prosecutor, and you, in fact, said that
15 there was only one truth and that you gave both parties the same version.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You also informed us at that stage that when we met you, you had
18 had a number of discussions with Defence counsel for Mr. Markac, with
19 regard to your potential testimony in this court. Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, since you arrived here in The Hague, have you had any
22 discussions with any persons about your testimony; not after you came to
23 court yesterday, before?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Going to 1995, Mr. Janic, you were the chief of the
1 anti-terrorist department of the special police during Operation Storm.
2 Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, during Operation Storm, what were the principle tasks the
5 special police sector carried out? And I'm referring particularly to the
6 task of the anti-terrorist department.
7 A. I was simply part of the control structure in the special police,
8 and we carried out certain tasks within the framework of Operation Oluja.
9 My department was not something separate within the chain of command. I
10 was working down one of the chains of command of the special police
11 during Operation Storm.
12 Q. I think you misunderstood my question, Mr. Janic.
13 My question was: What was the principle task of the special
14 police sector? That is, what did the units of the anti-terrorist
15 department do during Operation Storm. What was their responsibility and
16 were their operations?
17 A. Yes, I understood your question to be about my section only, of
18 which I was head. You were asking about the special police as a whole.
19 Is that right?
20 Q. Yes. I was asking about the 19 units within the anti-terrorist
22 A. [In English] Okay. [Interpretation] Right. It was a special
23 police sector, as you said. It was one of the three components of the
24 Ministry of the Interior. There was the crime police in internal
25 services of the Ministry of the Interior; there was the regular police;
1 and the special police. Those were the three components.
2 As part of Operation Storm, the special police was given the task
3 to work with the principle part of the whole operation, with the staff of
4 the Croatian army, the special police were given their own area of
5 responsibility as part of that operation. And the tasks set were quite
6 specific. We were to work out of the Mount Velebit area, break through
7 the enemy lines based on a plan produced by the Main Staff and we were to
8 establish control over the Obrovac-Gracac road, over the Gracac-Gospic
9 road, and also to simply liberate the occupied territory of the
10 Republic of Croatia
12 So this would be a generic description of our objectives and
13 tasks. There were further individual objectives but this was the general
14 one. The final objective being reaching the state border with Bosnia
16 in liberating our entire area of responsibility and re-establishing
18 Q. After the initial attack was completed, the special police was
19 used what is referred to as mop-up operations, isn't it, to search the
21 A. That's right. There's one thing that I would like to say,
22 because when I look at the documents, I see the term "clean-up" being
23 used all the time. And this is something that might connote ethnic
24 cleansing, especially to an untrained eye as it were.
25 There is something I need to explain about this. This is police
1 lingo, police jargon. And when we say mop-up or clean-up, we mean
2 searching an area in order to restore safety to an area that had
3 previously been affected by war operations. These were police actions
4 and the objective was to restore safety to any area and clear the area of
5 maybe some remaining minefields, enemy soldiers, weapons that were
6 discarded, ordnance, mines, explosives, bombs, and so on and so forth.
7 Q. Mr. Janic, I'm sorry to interrupt. It is understood I was -- I
8 never suggested that. It was a precursor to my next question.
9 If I could take to you paragraph 4 of your 2004 statement.
10 Now, you state there that the role of the special police was the
11 same as it today, anti-terrorist protection, hostage situations,
12 protection of important individuals, helicopter unit, arresting dangerous
13 criminals, and cooperation with the police units.
14 That presupposes that members of the special police had powers to
15 arrest any person suspected of or being seen committing a crime. Is that
17 A. Members of the special police are police officers of the Ministry
18 of the Interior, and like any other police officer, they have a status of
19 an official with all the powers that comes with it, like any other police
21 So if there are any league grounds for taking action and
22 implementing these powers or taking these powers, they would have the
23 right to do it, but of course it must be done on a legal basis. They
24 cannot do it on their own or without any cause.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call for document number 1816, please.
1 Q. Mr. Janic, you will see in a moment a document on the screen in
2 front of you. If you could also have the English version.
3 I appreciate you might not have seen this document?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. You have seen this document. And this is an order issued by the
6 minister of interior, Mr. Jarnjak, setting up the command structure of
7 the special police. Is that correct?
8 Mr. Janic, I asked you a question. This is -- you said you're
9 familiar with this document. This document says that it is setting up a
10 structure in view of imminent operations to come and this is dated
11 22 July 1995
12 Now, is the command structure or structure -- the hierarchy set
13 up here, does it accurately reflect the command structure that operated
14 during Operation Storm?
15 A. No, it does not. This was an order for a particular operation,
16 which was not carried out, but it was setting up readiness for a possible
17 operation which never actually took place before Operation Storm. The
18 structure in Operation Storm, the command structure was different. These
19 were special police units, one battalion strong in Zadar, and their
20 purpose was while our forces were in combat with Serbian forces on the
21 border. And in view of the fact that our forces were withdrawn from
22 Zadar to the border, the defence line around Zadar were weakened so the
23 special police received an order that in the event of an attack around
24 Zadar, they should strengthen the defence lines and be there in case of
25 need, but it was not necessary and the forces that were set up under this
1 order did not actually take any action.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I move to tender this
3 document into evidence, please.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections, Mr. Registrar, that
6 would be number ...
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P554.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P554 is admitted into evidence.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, in paragraph 6, you say that: "There were 19
11 special police units within the anti-terrorist department."
12 Were all those 19 units deployed in special -- during Operation
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Can that be scrolled down, please? Is paragraph
15 6 in the Croatian or the English or -- are you still speaking of the same
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, I'm sorry. I have moved on to paragraph 6
18 of the statement. We can move out of this document.
19 Q. If I could take you back to paragraph 6, Mr. Janic, of your
20 statement. In paragraph 6 you refer to the 19 units of the special
21 police forces which were deployed in Operation Storm.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if I may call document number 5305, please.
24 Mr. President, we have, for practical purposes, we have put
25 together a document setting out the 19 units, and given the source from
1 where we've obtained that information. Just for practical purposes to
2 save time so that we do not have to go through each and every unit in
3 court, and, in fact, I have sent that document to the Defence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any objections against the way in which
5 Ms. Mahindaratne wants to proceed?
6 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed as you suggest.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. Mr. Janic, are those 19 units correct, the indicated units on
10 this document?
11 A. Not quite. But, in effect, it is from these towns. They were
12 from these towns.
13 In order for this list to be complete and correct would be if you
14 said under 1 it should be the special police units of the police
15 administration Bjelovar-Bilogora. But here it just says
16 Bjelovar-Bilogora, so it's incomplete.
17 Q. Yes. That was actually taking me to the next question which is:
18 Except for the Lucko unit which is indicated at number 9, all the other
19 units were units attached to the special police administration named
20 here, isn't it, so they would be known as special police unit as you just
21 suggested, Dubrovnik
22 A. Not the special police administration but the police
23 administration of a particular district because they were attached to the
24 police administration as part of that structure. They were part of the
25 Bilogora -- for instance, the first one, the special unit of the police
1 administration of the district of Bjelova-Bilogora. So it was not part
2 of the special police, it operated within the structure of the police
3 administration in their area.
4 Q. Sorry, Mr. Janic, that's what I meant to say. I used the words
5 special police but what I meant was the police administration and you
6 just correctly explained it.
7 And while we're on this document, there's a reference to the unit
8 at number 17, Vukovar-Srijem police administration.
9 Before I ask that question, all these units also had code-names.
10 Isn't that correct?
11 A. They did have some Monikers, they weren't really code-names.
12 Each unit would call itself something. Sometimes they would use animal
13 words or names, but officially, those names did not exist. The only
14 names which were official were what was in documents within the
15 Ministry of the Interior. The other names did not really exist because
16 they were never written down. Because it was wartime, everyone
17 identified with their unit in some way so they also gave their units some
18 names that were unofficial.
19 Q. Now, the unit attached to the police administration of
20 Vukovar-Srijem was identified as Delta, wasn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that unit was based in -- pardon my pronunciation, Vinkovci.
23 Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. May I call document number 2532, please?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, is it your intention to -- the
2 list, to tender that.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
5 Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 05305 becomes Exhibit number
8 JUDGE ORIE: P555 is admitted into evidence. Nevertheless,
9 Ms. Mahindaratne, I see on my screen a footnote but it doesn't really
10 appear. Oh, I see it on my ...
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, that is just --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see it. Thank you. [Overlapping speakers]
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, before we go on to the document that is just
17 coming up, if I could take to you paragraph 10 of your statement, this is
18 the statement of 2004. You state that you received orders from -- you
19 said: "We received our orders from the assistant minister Mladen Markac
20 who was head of the department for special police and would report to
21 that department. Sometime in 1992 or 1993, the department for special
22 police changed to become the special police sector, which then was one of
23 the three branches of the Ministry of Interior, criminal police,
24 fundamental police and special police. This situation remained until
25 2001 when it became the special police command."
1 And -- if I could take you to paragraph 23 of your statement, you
2 go on to say: "The Main Staff of the Croatian army was in command of
3 this military operation and during the course of the operation I received
4 my orders from General Markac. We in the special police coordinated with
5 the military ... "
6 The rest I don't need to read.
7 Now, what we -- have you seen the document which is on your
8 screen Mr. Janic? It is, in fact, addressed to you.
9 A. If you allow me to comment on paragraph 10, because I would like
10 to add something, and I wasn't too precise, I noticed, so I would like to
11 explain further. May I?
12 Q. Yes, please.
13 A. In Article 10 I said that I received orders from the assistant
14 minister, but in this phase he was the chief of a department. He was not
15 assistant minister yet. He became assistant minister in 1995.
16 At this time he was the chief of a department. At one point he
17 became the chief of sector, and while he was the -- when he became
18 assistant minister I did not receive any orders from him but, rather,
19 from the chief of sector, who was my direct superior in the chain of
20 command. In other words, I did not receive orders from the assistant
21 minister but from the -- my chief who was Mr. Sacic at the time, so I
22 just wanted to clarify this. It doesn't really affect the substance but
23 I felt I needed to explain it.
24 Q. Mr. Janic, you have a document in front of you which is an order
25 addressed to you, amongst others, issued by Mr. Markac. Since this is an
1 order addressed to you, you probably must have seen this.
2 Are you familiar with this order?
3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. And this is an order issued by Mr. Markac for a mop-up operation
5 soon after or I see this is the 28th of September, 1995. This is
6 pursuant to Operation Storm, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And pursuant to this order, was this mop-up operation carried
10 A. I can't say exactly now. I'm sure it wasn't fully implemented.
11 In other words, that the entire area was searched. But I do know that
12 later, in 1995, and beginning of 1996, the searches were not as intense,
13 so I'm not really sure at this point, but I'm sure that you have -- that
14 you have been able to reconstruct all these sweeps and searches, and I'm
15 not sure that they have all been implemented. I know we did it in
16 Karlovac, in Petrova Gora --
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the third place.
18 A. -- the Plitvice waterfalls, but I cannot remember whether this
19 was implemented in all the other areas. So I think it was planned in
20 order to determine what the liberated area was and based on that, to make
21 an assessment and once the assessment was made to see whether it was
22 necessary to carry out the searches or not.
23 So this was not really an order for searches, but, rather, for
24 carrying out a security assessment in order to carry out searches.
25 So I think that was in fact the gist of this order.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. At line -- at page 20, lines 14
3 and 15, the question was posed and it says that: "This document -- this
4 is pursuant to Operation Storm, isn't it?"
5 I don't see anything in the document. Perhaps we can get a
6 reference to this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, were you intending to give a
8 time-frame or a causal relationship? If the latter, pursuant to, suggest
9 that there is.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Causal relationship, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Causal relationship. Then Mr. Misetic invites to
12 you give you -- to give us a factual basis for that.
13 May I take it that if it cannot be found in the document itself,
14 that you would object against leading?
15 MR. MISETIC: I would, indeed, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Ms. Mahindaratne.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Let me rephrase then.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the question has been answered although not on
20 a specific issue whether this was pursuant to or not, so if you want to
21 revisit the matter do it in other words; and if you are satisfied with
22 the answer from a factual point of view on what this order was about and
23 what it was actually seeking to be done, then you can just move on and
24 then --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will move on, Mr. President.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I tender this document into evidence,
4 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
5 Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P556.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P556 is admitted into evidence.
8 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call for document number 821, please.
10 Q. And, Mr. Janic, we have a few more documents like that, but I
11 don't intend to go through all those documents with you. I will just
12 show you one more document and we will move on.
13 A. Well, I can resume here. I see that in effect this is an
14 entirely identical order but this one refers to Sisak, the area of Sisak.
15 And in the meantime, I have thought about this a bit. These are orders
16 for Karlovac and Sisak, the purpose being to carry out an assessment, a
17 security assessment of the area and once the assessment was made to
18 determine whether it was necessary to conduct searches or not.
19 In general, not much was done after the security assessment was
20 made except in Sisak, in the area of Zrinksa Gora, because I think in
21 1996 there were still problems there. There were several attacks on
22 people. There were some straggling soldiers who attacked villagers so
23 there was really a need to search that area. And if you have enough
24 information, I assume that you know that this operation ended with a
25 suicide of a soldier who spent some two years there and he killed a man
1 and in the end it turned out that this operation was justified.
2 Q. Mr. Janic, I just wanted to bear out the fact that -- as to
3 whether you were familiar with the document.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move this document into
6 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Then, Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P557.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P557 is admitted into evidence.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Mr. Janic, taking you back to your statement, if I could take you
11 to paragraph 52, you refer to the unit commander of the Lucko unit being
12 Mr. Turkalj and assistant commander being Mr. Celic. And that's a
13 reference to Mr. Josip Celic, isn't it?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Now, did all 19 units have the same structure? Was there a
16 commander -- a unit commander and an assistant commander?
17 A. They had a similar structure. They were not all of the same
18 number. Some had one or two assistants, but, in general, the structure
19 was the same, or rather similar.
20 Q. Now when -- in the course of operations when you were in fact the
21 coordinator of operations, and your testimony, based on your statement is
22 that your principle task was to coordinate between the units, whom did
23 the unit commanders or the -- if it was an assistant commander who
24 commanded the operation, report to in the course of an operation?
25 A. Do you mean Operation Storm, or the search operations following
1 Operation Storm?
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... start off with the search
4 A. They were -- they would report to the commander of the operation
5 for that day. For instance, if it was me, all the commanders would
6 report to me, because I would command them on that particular day.
7 Q. And within the unit, how were the units structured? Were there
8 platoons and I think you use a different term, groups, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry. Are we talking about
11 same time-frame within Operation Storm or just in the search operations?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. The search operations I just referred to, I'm referring to search
15 A. Unit structures were -- from the time when the units were
16 established, they did not change. They remained stable. And I'm
17 referring now to a unit's structure. Each unit had a commander, two or
18 three assistant commanders. Below the assistant commanders were the
19 platoon leaders who commanded the platoons. And then at the level of the
20 platoon leader, there were also instructors for special training. They
21 were specialised in various areas, for instance, sharp shooting, divers,
22 alpinists who conducted training of men, but they also participated in a
23 particular operation because they were at officer level.
24 Below that, within platoons, there were group leaders, and these
25 groups consisted of special police members. Let me just add that there
1 were also deputy -- deputy group leaders, and there was a strictly
2 defined vertical chain of command.
3 Q. Now, in a given mop-up operation, a search operation, if a unit
4 was searching a particular area, and there are several platoons taking
5 different lines, who would be commanding those separate platoons? Would
6 it be the special instructors?
7 A. The platoons were commanded either by the platoon commanders, if
8 they took part in that particular operation on that day; or else by
9 instructors. It wasn't strictly defined that only the platoon commander
10 who was within the structure, the commander of that platoon that he would
11 have to command that particular operation, because people -- there was
12 rotation of men. Sometimes they were ill or they were on leave. So it
13 was possible that an instructor from the unit commanded a platoon
14 depending on the particular action.
15 They were all responsible for their own tasks and it was
16 considered that if a person was, let's say, a sharpshooter instructor
17 that he could command an action of -- a platoon in an action of 25 to 30
18 men, in which case he would be responsible for the men and he would be
19 responsible for that particular task.
20 Q. And to whom would the person who commanded the platoon, be it a
21 special instructor or the platoon commander, report in the course of a
22 mop-up operation?
23 A. They would report to the main commander of that unit. Sometimes
24 that would be the unit commander; for instance, on a certain day, in a
25 certain operation, one unit participated in the operation, and it
1 numbered 50 men and had two platoon commanders. Sometimes this --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last
3 portion of his answer. He was speaking too fast.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to repeat the last part of your
5 answer, because your speed of speech is, again, too high.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, so I will repeat now.
7 The units were commanded in such actions. For such actions there
8 would be a particular commander for each unit. For instance, there would
9 be a unit commander who would command an action, let's say, a search
10 operation, sometimes it would be a platoon commander, sometimes because
11 they would be -- they would be working in shifts, if it would be
12 commanded by the assistant commander.
13 In other words, in that particular case, everyone would report to
14 the assistant commander, because, in that particular action, he was the
15 main commander in that area.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. Now, have you described the available communication system --
18 just available to the special police in the course of an operation at
19 paragraph 53. If I could take to you paragraph 53 of your 2004
20 statement, which is P552. And there you go on to say that: "We had
21 Motorola radios for communications and I remained in contact with the
22 various units at all times. The units would normally report to me at the
23 halfway point of the search and then just before they arrived at the
24 finish point. At the finish point, we would have a one-minute debrief
25 and then we would head back to Gracac. If nothing had happened during
1 the search, then the commanders did not need to brief me and I would see
2 them back at Gracac."
3 And in fact, just before I go on to the -- to the question. Now,
4 that contact you referred to at the finish point, was that also with the
5 persons who commanded the platoons or only with the unit commanders? I'm
6 referring to the one-minute debrief at the end of the operation.
7 A. This was only for unit commanders. There were five units, say,
8 if there were five units there were five men who met me.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, I wish to take you to your transcripts of your
10 interview, which is P553, and I'm referring to transcript on 5307, the
11 first set of transcripts.
12 Mr. Janic, if you could look at the transcripts on your desk.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: V000-5307. 65 ter is 5218; I beg your pardon,
14 Mr. Registrar.
15 Q. And, Mr. Janic, if I could take you to --
16 A. Can you tell me the page number again, please.
17 Q. Yes, I beg your pardon. Page 75. And I'll just read out the
18 relevant part.
19 "So talking of communications, you as one of the overall
20 commanders, you had direct communications with people like the person in
21 charge of artillery and Mr. Sacic." It goes on. "And did you have
22 communication with other commanders that were involved in the actual
25 Next page. "What were you working on, Motorolas?"
1 If you just skip the next few lines. Your answer is right at the
2 end and it is translated. "For communication within, between the attack
3 commanders, or with the staff, one channel of communication was used, and
4 for the internal communication --"
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Can we have that on our screens, please. We
6 don't have access to the -- on our computers to 65 ter document, so if we
7 could get to that portion of the screen, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, the transcripts -- do you have
9 copies of the transcripts? I filed it with the 92 ter submission.
10 MR. KUZMANOVIC: We do but at this table we don't have access to
11 anything in my -- other counsel at the other table have the material. So
12 if we have it on the screen for us to see it, I appreciate it. Thank
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, unfortunately, the only thing that
15 is in e-court is the B/C/S translation of the transcript.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Let me give a spare copy. I might have a
17 spare copy of the transcript. Mr. President, if I could have a minute?
18 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think that there could be a B/C/S copy
19 because the transcripts give everything that is English, then B/C/S,
20 answer in B/C/S translated into English. So, therefore, if there's any
21 way to get it on the screen ...
22 Yes. I think, as a matter of fact we have page 76 on our screen
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It is now, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Janic let me read out: "For communication between the attack
3 commanders or with staff, one channel of communication was used and for
4 the internal communication within one line of the attack, there was a
5 different channel, so I had two actual Motorolas with me."
6 So in the course of an operation, just to make it clear, was it
7 that you could monitor the communication that was taking place within the
8 unit which was out there in the field?
9 A. I see that you're confusing Operation Storm and the search
10 operation that followed. If you look at the 2004 statement the portion
11 that you asked me about, that was about the search operation. In the
12 2005 statement the relevant portion is about Operation Storm itself.
13 There were two systems and if you allow I would like to explain what the
14 communication system was in the Operation Storm and then what the
15 communication system was in the search operation that followed.
16 May I please be allowed to explain now?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are two entirely different
20 JUDGE ORIE: One thing, Ms. Mahindaratne. I think, as a matter
21 of fact, on page 76 we find a reference to attack and not mopping-up
22 operations. So what was said there seems to be related to
23 Operation Storm rather than to the operations that followed.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will ask another
25 question and clarify it and move on, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Janic, Ms. Mahindaratne will put other questions to you.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. Mr. Janic, now in the course of a special police operation - I'm
6 talking about a mop-up operation here - did you maintain contact through
7 your Motorola that you had with the unit commanders who were out on the
9 A. Yes. During the search operations, I only ever communicated
10 and -- with and coordinated these units through their commanders. If
11 there were five units that I was working with, I had five people that I
12 was communicating with. I was exercising control through these people
13 and they gave me feedback and what exactly was going on. I wasn't in
14 touch with people within a certain unit.
15 Each of the units involved in any of the actions had their own
16 internal channels of communication, which I was not in on, in a manner of
17 speaking. Even technically this was not possible. It wasn't possible to
18 establish communication in this way given the fact that I was
19 communicating with commanders on a channel normally described as a
20 duplex. This is a repeater connection and the range is far greater.
21 Whereas units, within their own structure, used the so-called simplex
22 which is a communication system that has no transmitter, it has no
23 repeater, and can only work between two sets of stations. There is no
24 repeater magnifying the signal. Therefore it is the lie of the land that
25 is very important for this type of communication and the lie of the land
1 also imposes certain limitations on this type of communication.
2 Therefore, my answer to you is: During the search operations, I
3 was in communication with unit commanders alone.
4 Q. And were the unit commanders in communication --
5 JUDGE ORIE: One moment.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry.
7 Q. And did the unit commanders maintain communication with the --
8 the platoon commanders or the special instructors in the course of an
9 operation, through the simplex system?
10 A. Yes. That was the only way. They themselves were not in touch
11 with each of their men or physically near them. They had to talk to
12 their subordinated officers, platoon commanders in this case, and from
13 them they received situation reports. They had to go to them for that,
14 and they were in communication with these people by using this simplex
16 Q. And at the -- or how did the platoon commanders or special
17 instructors report to the unit commanders? Was it in writing or
18 verbally? Logically, in the course of an operation, they can do it in
19 writing, but at the end of an operation did they submit written reports
20 to their unit commanders?
21 A. I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You mean platoon
22 commanders, did they submit reports to unit commanders? Is that what
23 your question was about?
24 Q. That's correct. That was my question.
25 A. Yes. Needless to say, they were duty-bound to submit any reports
1 and any steps they took along their own axis of operations and they
2 submitted these reports to their own unit commander. Needless to say,
3 any unit commander knew exactly what had been done based alone on what a
4 platoon commander told him. When a platoon commander told him that
5 certain steps had been taken or that certain events had occurred, then he
6 knew or whenever the platoon said it's all right, nothing happened. Then
7 the unit commander would go back to me, nothing happened and everything
8 was okay.
9 Q. And at the end of the day did the unit commanders, based on the
10 reports they received from the special instructors or the platoon
11 commanders submit written reports to you?
12 A. Unit commanders?
13 Q. That's correct.
14 A. Yes, yes. They would normally talk to me first. They would
15 debrief me or I would debrief them on the ground, and as soon as they
16 were back in Gracac, they would file a written report.
17 Q. Let me take you, Mr. Janic, to your interview, and that is 65 ter
18 number 5219. This is the second set. Page 96 to 98. I'm sorry, page
19 97. I was correct the first time. It's page 96, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, for reference at a later moment,
21 it would be better if you refer to the exhibit numbers rather than the 65
22 ter numbers, which will not be available or it needs a lot of ...
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I will refer to it right
24 now. It's just that Mr. Registrar needs the 65 ter number to call up the
25 document on e-court. It's 65 ter number 553, the second set,
1 Mr. President -- sorry, Exhibit number 553, the second set. I have to
2 keep referring to the 65 ter number, Mr. President, because I think
3 Mr. Registrar requires it to bring it up on the e-court.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If that is the case, I do not fully understand the
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: I now understand that the exhibit number was
8 assigned to a series of documents, which are known under their own 65 ter
10 Thank you.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. Mr. Janic, you go on to say: "It was normal for the unit
15 commanders to report back to you on a daily basis on what had happened
16 during the search."
18 "First of all, they would verbally report to me in the field
19 itself and then they came to the headquarters where they actually had
20 equipment to write on then they would also write a written report."
21 Okay. So the written report, would that -- you mention
22 equipment. Would that just be a handwritten report or a typed report?
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Scroll down, please, thank you.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
25 Q. Your answer is: "It was handwritten and the report that I wrote
1 was also handwritten and submitted it to members of the internal control
2 who then based on this handwritten report would then write a report and
3 it was typed."
4 "Okay. So based on your handwritten report, when the various
5 commanders handed their handwritten reports to you, did you use to get a
6 verbal report?" And there is a conversation about it.
7 And then around page 98, line 20: "Yes. And then I would submit
8 all these together to the members of the internal control."
9 "So you would submit your report together with the handwritten
10 reports from the commanders, would you?"
12 So, as you stated, what you would get from the unit commanders
13 would be a handwritten report based on which you would submit a
14 handwritten report to inner control, together with the handwritten
15 reports of the unit commanders, and then based on that, a typewritten
16 report would be submitted?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could you find a moment within the
19 next one or two minutes for a break?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I can, Mr. President, this is a good time
21 because I'm moving on to another --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Another subject.
23 Then we will have a break, and we resume at 11.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Mr. Registrar, may I have document number 2465, please.
4 Q. Mr. Janic, let me take you to your 2004 statement; that is P552.
5 If I could take you to paragraph 49. You refer to being the coordinator
6 for a series of searches, including a village called Grubori.
7 Now, we have here in front of you on the screen, Mr. Janic, a
8 document which is an order issued by chief of special police sector,
9 Mr. Sacic, Zeljko Sacic, dated 24 August 1995 and it's addressed to the
10 commander of the Lucko unit.
11 Now, the -- the operation that you referred to in paragraph 49,
12 was it an operation conducted pursuant to this order that you see on the
13 screen? I know the order -- the operation included other units, but
14 the -- the operation which included Lucko unit, was it pursuant to this
15 order? Are you familiar with this document that's on the screen?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 As far as I know, in relation to this order, the unit was called
18 up, because on the 25th and 26th of August, there was a special operation
19 that was organised which had to do with securing the route that the
20 train, the so-called Freedom Train from Zagreb to Split was supposed to
21 take. I think that is why the unit was called in, to secure that route
22 for that train to travel safely. That train carried President Tudjman or
23 the high-ranking state official, Zagreb-based diplomats and therefore it
24 was necessary to secure the area.
25 First thing that we did was search the area and as the train was
1 passing through, we spent that time securing the actual route that the
2 train took on its way to Split
3 Q. Mr. Janic, the document refers to the operation. It is named
4 Oluja-Obruc. Now, was that the name given to the special police mop-up
5 operations carried out after the completion of the initial attack in
6 Operation Storm?
7 A. As far as I remember, the name itself, Oluja-Obruc stems from an
8 order by the commander of the Main Staff of the Croatian army,
9 Mr. Cervenko, who was the staff general. There was this first search
10 operation following Oluja. This entailed the search of Petrova Gora, the
11 objective being the same as all the other search operations. The
12 objective being to restore safety to all these areas. It was called
13 Oluja-Obruc and then by default, as it were, all the other operations
14 that followed kept the name, Oluja-Obruc.
15 This was a document issued by the chief of the Main Staff. This
16 was an order to the special police to search the Petrova Gora area. I
17 remember the name because this was the first such document mentioning
18 that name or moniker, if you like, and then it simply went on like that,
19 by default as it were, and then it was applied to other operations too.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
21 evidence, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
23 Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P558.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. I just want you to --
2 JUDGE ORIE: P558 is admitted into evidence.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Mr. Janic, I just want -- before we go off this document I just
5 want to you take note that according to this order it is indicated that
6 the engagement to last around seven days. That is -- that from that
7 point onwards, Lucko unit is being asked to be engaged in special police
8 mop-up operations for seven days from that point or could you clarify
9 what that means.
10 A. That's what it says but as for the deadlines, the number of men
11 involved or the number of days a certain unit that would be involved, all
12 this was not something that was set in stone. For example, I was an
13 operative on the ground and I was in charge of certain tasks. If any of
14 the following tasks required a smaller number of people, of men than the
15 number of men that I had in Gracac, then I would simply release some
16 units. I would let them go, let them leave. And if you have this
17 seven-day specification it could have meant seven. It could have meant
18 10. It could have meant 14, depending.
19 There was no need to abide blindly by anything that any
20 particular order stated in relation to a certain operation. For example,
21 I see a number of men here being specified as 65 and I know for a fact
22 that a unit came with 40 men for this particular action. This wasn't
23 something that was set in stone. And it is not something that was
24 strictly complied with. There were a lot of things to take into account.
25 This had been after the completion of most of the war operations. There
1 were a lot of wounded and sick men. Some of them were on sick-leave
2 therefore the numbers didn't really count as such.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm under a time
4 constraint and I would be grateful if you could keep your responses as
5 short as possible.
6 A. [In English] Mm-hm, okay. Okay, okay.
7 Q. In paragraph 49, the paragraph that we just referred to, you
8 mentioned that there was six units involved in this operation, and you're
9 referring to the Plavno area. And you go on to say: "There were seven
10 packages including the maps for each of the commanders and one for myself
11 as coordinator."
12 So beyond the Lucko unit, were there other five units involved in
13 the operation in Plavno area? Is that what you're saying?
14 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
15 Q. And would there would be similar orders issued to those other
16 five units like this?
17 A. Probably. But this doesn't necessarily mean that all the units
18 arrived on the same day. Some of the units may have been in the area
19 since the completion of Operation Storm. Maybe they had never gone back
20 to base, as it were, to begin with.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call for document number
22 772, and that's a map.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, while that document comes up on in screen, in
24 paragraph 49 you refer to receiving a map. You say: "There were ...
25 package including maps."
1 And did that map indicate the area that was to be searched and
2 what units would be searching those areas?
3 A. I think so.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, could we focus on that main
5 area where there -- there are letters in red.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, to save time I will quickly ask you questions
7 about this map and you could respond.
8 There are not quite horizontal but lines going from a
9 north-westerly direction to south-easterly, slanting those lines. Do
10 those lines indicate the axis of the search operations?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And at the beginning of those lines, there are some letters in
13 red. I'm not referring to the figures, I'm referring to the alphabetical
14 letters. And if you look from the map from the north-westerly direction
15 towards south-easterly, it starts at the top "OS." Does that refer to
16 the unit Osijek
17 A. Yes, that is the unit.
18 Q. And thereafter, the next unit is "ATJ." That is the Lucko unit?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The next unit is "ST." Is that Split?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. The next is "SB" and that would be Brod Posavina. For the
23 record, B-r-o-d P-o --
24 A. Slavonski Brod, yes.
25 Q. And the next one is "ZG," that would be Zagreb?
1 A. That's right, Zagreb
2 Q. And the next one is "SIKT." And could you tell us what that unit
3 is? I'm unable to pronounce it.
4 A. That is probably Sisak Kutina. Probably, I think that's what it
6 Q. Thank you for that. Now the Lucko unit axis goes right through
7 Grubori, doesn't it?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could focus, Mr. Registrar, on that
9 area -- no, if you go up a little. Yes. There is a figure number 17.
10 Yes, that area.
11 Q. Now the Lucko unit's path goes right through the Grubori village,
12 doesn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this map in
15 evidence, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
17 Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P559.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P559 is admitted into evidence.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask one clarifying question to the
23 The previous document we saw about the seven days' engagement
24 where you said not necessarily to be seven days. Now, you related that
25 to the train, and you referred to the 25th and the 26th of August.
1 Now, looking at the period of time indicated which, as you said,
2 could be longer, depends on how much people you would need, on the 24th,
3 seven days, that brings you to the 31st, which is far beyond the dates
4 you mentioned in relation to the train, which was the 25th and 26th.
5 So how strict or how strong is that relation with the train in
6 this order?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is related. I know,
8 because I was there and I was in charge of securing this route, and I
9 know that the Lucko unit was called up for the train. I wasn't in
11 the person who was in Zagreb
12 normally what is sent to all other units. But as far as I know, and I
13 know personally that we were called up there in order to secure the route
14 for the Freedom Train. As far as I know that's what it was, and I was
15 the commander on these days, so my knowledge should be correct.
16 I don't have any other information in respect of that, and all I
17 can say is what I've just said. Because this was the highest level
18 security in a zone that was not completely secure, it was logical to
19 assign this unit. Where you had the highest level of government
20 officials, it was normal to have a highest level security unit called to
21 provide security.
22 That's what I know about that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But could you then further illustrate for us
24 how you provided that security for the train. Were you located near the
25 rail track -- I mean, what should I understand the security to --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in simplest terms this --
2 what we did is what is generally done in such cases, so you had security
3 in the immediate vicinity of the tracks but also in-depth security
4 covering a certain area left and right of the tracks. And, of course,
5 all along the route in what was once temporarily occupied territory. So
6 from the moment where that -- where that territory began we would have
7 our men, up to the end of the route in the formerly occupied territory.
8 The police had to provide security for this train to pass
9 through. We were not the only police units, the special police. There
10 were also many regular police there with a large number of men.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Mr. Registrar, may I call document number 740, please.
15 Q. Mr. Janic, while the document is being brought up, you provided a
16 copy of your report that you submitted regarding this operation to the
17 Office of the Prosecutor, did you not, at the initial interview?
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 Q. Now, is this the report that you provided to the Office of the
21 A. Yes. This is the report that I provided to the Prosecutor,
22 while -- during the suspect interview in Zagreb.
23 Q. Actually, perhaps to remind you, Mr. Janic, you provided this
24 document to the Office of the Prosecutor, in fact, in 2004 at the witness
25 interview. If you see paragraph 58 of your statement of 2004, you marked
1 it as ZJ/2?
2 A. [In English] Okay.
3 Q. I just wanted to point that out to you.
4 A. [In English] Okay.
5 Q. Now, did you base this report on the reports -- written reports
6 submitted to you by the unit commanders who conducted the operation in
7 Plavno on 25th August?
8 A. [Interpretation] Yes. It was based on oral reports, the
9 debriefings, and then following that, they also submitted written reports
10 in Gracac on the basis of which I compiled my report.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we just move on to page 2 of both B/C/S and
12 the English translation, to the report on Lucko unit's activities for
13 25th August, what is recorded there is that the search of the terrain was
14 carried out by 45 policemen along with Djurici village, Orlovac and
15 places are indicated. During the search there was no fire contact and no
16 MTS was found.
17 Do you recall the report submitted to you by Mr. Celic who was
18 the commander of the Lucko unit, at least the assistant commander who
19 commanded the operation on 25th, his report to have this same report,
20 include the same report? Was it consistent with this?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, I just want to just point out one other thing and we will
23 come to it later on in relation to another document. In page 1, I'm
24 sorry, Mr. Registrar, to go back on page 1 of both the English and the
25 B/C/S. With regard to the report of Zagreb police administration unit,
1 it says: "In Pasici village, a suspicion male person was found and
2 handed over to the regular police force for criminal processing."
3 I just wanted to know that's because we will come to it later on.
4 Now in this report, in relation to all the units, it is recorded that
5 there was no fire contact. Can you explain what fire contact is?
6 A. Where? Where do you mean, do you mean the Zagreb unit?
7 Q. No. I meant in relation to each of these units the report is
8 that there was no fire contact. I just wanted you to explain what fire
9 contact meant.
10 A. That meant that on that day, on the 25th, according to the
11 reports of all the six unit commanders who carried out the search on that
12 day, according to their reports, none of these units had fire contact.
13 In other words, they did not clash with the terrorists, with the enemy
14 and so on, with anyone. There was no fighting. And according to the
15 commander's reports, that's how it was and that's what I put in my
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this document
18 into evidence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P560.
21 JUDGE ORIE: P560 is admitted into evidence.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Mr. Janic, let me take you to paragraph 53 of your 2004
24 statement, P552. There you refer to the operation taking place and
25 around the fourth line you say: "When the search began, the drivers
1 would stay with the vehicles and then drive around to pick up the unit at
2 the completion of the search."
3 Now, did your units who took part on -- in this operation, travel
4 in a convoy of vehicles on that day?
5 A. Do you mean at arrival there or our departure towards the end
6 point? I didn't quite understand. Would you please repeat your
8 Q. Yeah. At whatever end, was there a convoy, a number of vehicles
9 logically you would have used, isn't it, to transport the troops from the
10 base to the field and back?
11 A. Each unit went separately on its own. There were -- if there
12 were six units that would mean that there were six columns. If we were
13 all to move together we would block traffic. Each unit went on its own.
14 We knew the times when we were supposed to be at the destination and we
15 had to abide by that schedule, and we did not get there in one column.
16 Q. I was actually -- when I referred to the vehicles, I was
17 referring to the vehicles within a unit. For instance, Lucko unit would
18 have travelled in several vehicles, isn't it, 45 men?
19 A. Yes, probably. That's how it should have been. I did not see
20 this for myself because I didn't travel with them but I know that that's
21 how it was normally done, so I suppose that they, too, came in one
23 Q. Let me show you, Mr. Janic, a clip of a video of some vehicles
24 and could you identify them as you might recognise them, just if you
25 could take a look at this.
1 Can you tell us if the vehicles shown there are similar to the
2 vehicles in which the special police units travelled, you know, while
3 they were on operations, mop-up operations.
4 [Videotape played]
5 A. Yes, these were the types of vehicles that we used. About like
7 I can't see the registration plates and I can't be certain that
8 these are police vehicles but this is the type of vehicle that we used,
9 although we weren't the only ones. If I could see the plates, I could
10 tell you for sure whether these were police vehicles in fact.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, for the record, this is P28
12 that I just played.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And that really, in fact, brings me to my next
16 Q. Mr. Janic, we do have confirmation that they are in fact vehicles
17 used by the Lucko unit.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call, Mr. Registrar, document number
19 671, please.
20 Q. Mr. Janic, we had the number -- the number plates were seen and
21 recorded and later identified as vehicles used by the Lucko unit on 25th
23 A. I cannot comment on this.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: This is just a bar table submission,
25 Mr. President. I don't intend to ask any questions from the witness
1 about these documents.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In your question, you refer to use and here we
3 find the vehicles to be located in.
4 But since the witness said that if he would look at the licence
5 plate, he could confirm or deny that these were vehicles used by your
6 unit, in this document you find the licence plate numbers.
7 Could you have a look at them and then ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a letter from the chief of
9 the car pool in the Ministry of Interior. These are vehicles that were
10 used in 1995. They had these licence plates and they were assigned to
11 certain units. I see that some were in -- assigned to the Lucko unit,
12 but I can't see the connection, really, between these plates in this
13 document that would point to these same vehicles being there on that
14 particular day. If I -- if I could see it on the photographs --
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... don't worry
16 about that. I mean, these numbers were not directly taken from the
17 photographs but were recorded by -- so therefore -- but just if this
18 would be the number plates, could you confirm that these, then, are the
19 vehicles that your unit used?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if it says so in this
21 official document, it means that these licence plates were used by this
22 unit. I did not quite understand your question. I don't understand what
23 you mean.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier you said: "If I could see the numbers, then
25 I could confirm that these were vehicles used by us." Now here are the
1 numbers, although not directly visible on the photographs, but at least
2 numbers that were recorded.
3 Now, on the basis of these numbers, can you confirm what
4 apparently is also confirmed in this letter, that these were vehicles
5 used by your unit? Or at least that the numbers were assigned to
6 vehicles of your unit.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me explain it this way.
8 Lucko, at this time, had about 30 vehicles and I'm not sure whether these
9 particular vehicles with these plates were in the field then. I cannot
10 really confirm that. The units was in the field, it had certain vehicles
11 at its disposal, what the plates were and which particular vehicles, I
12 really can't tell.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that. The numbers you find in this
14 letter where you earlier said, If I would have the numbers, I would know
15 whether these were police vehicles used. Is -- looking at these numbers
16 could you confirm that these were police vehicles?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These plates were police plates
18 used on police vehicles, 010, 0319, that is a plate of a police vehicle.
19 But I can't tell whether this particular vehicle was there on that day.
20 I -- there is no way I could know that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I see that.
22 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
24 evidence, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P561.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P561 is admitted into evidence.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document 5223 and
4 that is a similar document, Mr. President, I will just tender it into
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at the document. Do you want to
7 put any question to the witness in relation to this document?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. It's a similar document,
9 another identification of one vehicle.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any objections against admission, more or
11 less --
12 MR. MIKULICIC: If we could see the document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's on the screen now. At least I have it on
14 my screen.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P562, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P562 is admitted into evidence.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document number 746,
22 Q. Mr. Janic, while the document comes up, if I could take you to
23 paragraph 63 of your 2004 statement. That is P552. You say: "During
24 the preparation for my interview today, I searched through the archives
25 in relation to this operation," and you're referring to the operation in
1 Plavno valley on 25th August. "And I had also spoken to Josip Celic
2 after he had been interviewed. During that search, I found a handwritten
3 report written by Celic which was different to the report that Celic
4 submitted to me on 25th August 1995
5 referred to the operation in Grubori and stated that there had been a
6 conflict with remaining soldiers of the Krajina army and that some
7 civilians, including elderly ladies were killed. I do not recall any
8 mention of a prisoner being taken."
9 Mr. Janic, is this the report that you saw in the archives in
10 2004 which you say was different to the original report submitted to you
11 by Mr. Celic?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, before seeing this report in the archives, were you ever
14 informed of this version of events by any person?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Now I'd like you to take note, Mr. Janic, and we will come to
17 this later on that this report includes a reference to two special
18 instructors Franjo Drljo and Bozo Krajina. I'm just pointing that out
19 and we will come to that later on.
20 Now --
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just tender this document
22 into evidence, please, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P563, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P563 is admitted into evidence.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, when you searched the archives for your
3 preparations, did you see your report, that is the report that we just
4 saw this morning, which is P558 -- I'm sorry. P560. And let me tell you
5 what you have said about it.
6 If I could take you to your interview in 2005. That is 5309.
7 P553, the third transcript, 5309. Page 109. Mr. Janic, that's the third
9 The question goes: "When you say you went to the archive and you
10 couldn't find the report which Mr. Celic had submitted to you, can you
11 tell me actually how you went through the archives? Are all the
12 documents relating to the Plavno operation kept in one particular file
13 but there is not a huge bunch of these documents there are five or six
14 reports were held, kept in one binder so."
15 Going on to the next page --
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, we don't have that. It just came
17 on the screen. Thank you.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can we move to the next page, page 110.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If you don't mind, if you could wait for it to
20 come up on the screen for us to be able to follow. Thank you.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: For very practical purposes, if you receive
23 electronic copies of filings including attachments if you copy them to
24 whatever you have available but I see you are not using laptops on which
25 you could easily reproduce them.
1 And also do I understand that you have no access to the -- to
2 what is called on my screen Legal 2005 which allows you access to all the
3 documents that were uploaded?
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Correct, Your Honour. I'm sorry to interrupt.
5 The situation here at this table is that we only have what is shown to
6 the witness at this table. We don't have the other screens, we don't
7 have access to LiveNote, we don't have access to the Ringtail or
8 anything. So, that's why -- I don't want to print -- the transcript's
9 very long --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. I'm just trying to understand what
11 your problem is and to see how we could -- Mr. Registrar, could at any
12 point could we find out whether optimal use is made of all the three
13 screens of which, apparently, only one is available for ...
14 MR. MIKULICIC: This is the benefit of Courtroom II, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I'm trying to do my utmost best always
16 to -- not to avoid Courtroom II.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: We definitely understand, Your Honour. It's
18 just at this table and it is just difficult here.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, during the break I'll see if we
21 have a spare copy back in the office and I'll try to bring that down.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's proceed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we move to page 110 --
24 Q. You say: "It is not a big binder and this binder which did not
25 contain my report or Celic's report, original report, it only contained
1 this new report that I have never seen before."
2 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, again if we could get a page
3 reference. That is not on my page 110.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It is on page 110 of the revised --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Last couple of lines, isn't that true. No, it says:
6 "It only contained this new report that I have never seen before,"
7 appears on my copy on the fourth line from the bottom on page 110. And,
8 of course, we should be in 5309 and not in 5308 or 5307, if we are
9 talking about the third portion.
10 MR. MISETIC: I see the problem now.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You see that the transcript, on the top of the page,
12 you always find a reference to either 5307, 5308 or 5309.
13 MR. MISETIC: My apologies, Your Honour. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Then you go on to say: "This new report that I have never seen
17 before and which contained information that was new for me and it's just
18 a sheer luck that have I kept my report, you know, for all these years so
19 that's why it exists still."
20 So the report that you handed over to the OTP is the -- is from
21 the copy that you kept personally, in your personal custody and you did
22 not see a copy -- or the original of that report in the archives?
23 A. Maybe the context is not quite right. When I said this about
24 sheer luck, this is not quite what I meant. I simply didn't submit my
25 report. I showed my report and then based on my report, another report
1 was drawn up by the internal control people and submitted to the
2 Main Staff. I took my own copy back. I placed it in my folder and I
3 never handed it over because I always keep my reports. That's why I have
4 my copy. No one else could have had it since it was with me, throughout.
5 It couldn't have been in that binder. I never handed my copy
6 over. I kept it for myself.
7 Q. Mr. Janic, but -- we'll come to that in a moment as to what did
8 you with your reports.
9 I will come to that later, Mr. Janic.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: But, for the time being, Mr. President -- I'm
11 sorry. Mr. Registrar, can I have document number 741, please.
12 Q. Now, your testimony, Mr. Janic, was that the unit commander
13 submitted handwritten reports and they were then typed by the inner
14 control before sending them on.
15 And, in fact, taking you back to what you said about your report,
16 your testimony so far has been that you submitted your report to internal
17 control branch along with the handwritten reports of the unit commanders.
18 So, in your statement and your transcripts, and so far what you
19 stated in the morning is that you submitted your report to the internal
20 control, together with the handwritten reports of the unit commanders.
21 That's what you said this morning, isn't it?
22 A. That's right. They gave reports to me, and then I would submit
23 this. We're talking about the internal control. Formally speaking, this
24 was a headquarters of the special police in Gracac. Technically, the
25 internal control people were in charge.
1 Formally, I handed over the reports to the staff at Gracac.
2 Q. And your handwritten report, too, was handed over to the staff at
4 A. Yes. For them to use my report to base their report on and then
5 I would have my copy back and keep it. It wasn't really a strict as
6 perhaps you think it was. I took the option of handing my copy to them
7 so they could use it to draft their report. I would then get my own copy
8 back and put it away.
9 Q. Mr. Janic, let me take you to what you said about this -- for
10 practical reasons let me just deal with this document first so that we
11 don't have to go to and fro.
12 This is the identical report from Mr. Janic but a typed version,
13 isn't it? The document that we saw the handwritten report a moment ago.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I believe you said report from Mr. Janic. It is
15 a report from --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. I'm sorry, a report from Mr. Celic. We saw just before P561 --
18 I'm sorry, P563. That is the report from -- the handwritten report from
19 Mr. Celic. Now, this is the typed version?
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Sorry to interrupt. If we have possibility to
21 see the written report on the screen as well so the witness could
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We just saw it.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Yeah, we did, but it is not on the screen right
25 now. We could only --
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well. I think it is up to Mr. Registrar
2 as to how to do that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would it be possible to have -- I
4 think it was -- yes. Now we have in the B/C/S, we have the -- that's
5 P563 then, I think, yes.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could have the B/C/S version of 741
7 so that the witness could compare.
8 Q. Mr. Janic, the typed version, with the exception of the last
9 line, from the handwritten version being omitted, the typed version is
10 identical to this report, isn't it?
11 A. As far as I can see, yes.
12 Q. So this would indicate that this is -- Mr. Celic's handwritten
13 report is being typed and submitted by internal control branch. The
14 typed version would indicate, as you said this morning, that it has been
15 prepared at the internal control branch. Is that correct?
16 A. Not quite. Celic, on the 25th, the afternoon of the 25th
17 submitted to me, both his oral and written reports, based on which I
18 drafted my own report. What I see here is not what happened. I don't
19 know about this happening.
20 Q. I'm not talking about the fact, just scenario. What I would say
21 is a report, a handwritten report is typed at the stage of the internal
22 control branch, isn't it?
23 A. I have no idea about that.
24 Q. Very well.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
1 evidence. I just want to note for the record that the last line on the
2 typed report, the last line from the handwritten version is missing in
3 the typed report.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, no objections.
5 Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P564, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P564 is admitted into evidence.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. Mr. Janic, with regard to what you said about the -- as to what
10 happens when you submitted your report to internal control branch, let me
11 take to you your interview transcripts, and that's the second part, 5308,
12 page 96.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: I could only say in this moment that the report
14 was not submitted to the inner control which is not said on the top of
15 the document but to the staff of the Oluja-Obruc operation. So I would
16 like if --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Ms. Mahindaratne referred to earlier
18 testimony on where reports were sent.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is so, Mr. President, I'm referring to --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Whether that is specifically true for this document,
21 of course, is still another matter but that was the usual way in which
22 reports were handled.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Mr. Janic, let me take you to page 96 of 5308. Actually, let me
2 take you to page 98, the relevant part, you've dealt with the reports.
3 You say: "Yes, and then I would submit all these together to the members
4 of the internal control." Yes. Then there is a discussion about what
5 happens with those reports.
6 And if you go to page 100: "Okay, but handwritten reports,
7 namely, the ones submitted to you and yours, what would happen to them
8 afterwards? They remained within the inner control and would they
9 eventually be archived?"
11 "And have you looked in the archives at any time since then to
12 see that any of your reports are there?"
13 "Yes. I actually gave you my report last time I saw you. Yes."
14 Now you're referring to the copy that you gave. "But this is the only
15 report I found, I have found one report and a copy of which I have given
16 to you." That is with regard to another copy. You said that you didn't
17 see your own report and the report of Mr. Celic.
18 "That's right."
19 "But obviously during the course --" and then there is another
21 Now, your report, as you said in your interview, your report and
22 the handwritten reports were submitted to inner control branch, according
23 to what you say here, and archived, weren't they?
24 MR. MISETIC: This is a matter of procedure and the way the
25 question was phrased there. I believe we're getting into impeachment of
1 the Prosecution's own witness. That question was not posed as a
2 clarification but, rather, as impeachment which I think is improper on
3 direct examination. If she wants to clarify something, I think it should
4 be specifically pointed out which portion of the statement she thinks
5 needs clarification and then ask the witness to clarify whether something
6 that he said before is inconsistent with that.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just refresh the memory
8 of the witness, you know?
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are not yet at the point of impeachment.
10 I think that Ms. Mahindaratne is entitled to, well, whether to refresh a
11 memory but at least to point at a matter where the statement and the
12 testimony are not fully congruent.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Janic, if you could clarify your statement here as we
16 understand it, since you're clearly saying that you submit your report to
17 the inner control branch and they are archived. And this is what have
18 you said on record. Perhaps -- I appreciate it has been some time. You
19 know, it has been 13 years so I just want to point that out to refresh
20 your memory.
21 A. Yes, in principle, that was the case. I didn't submit all of the
22 reports. Sometimes, depending on the situation, I would just hold the
23 occasional report back. There were no strict rules regarding this. It
24 wasn't set in stone. There was no book of rules, no set of rules, for
25 this. In most cases I was the highest ranking man at the staff. So,
1 more often than not, I did as I saw fit. I would submit a report, I
2 would hold another one back, so I stated here that I submitted reports.
3 Yes, indeed. I did submit a lot of reports but by no means all of them.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I just seek some clarification.
5 You earlier said that if you would have submitted a report, it
6 would be returned to you and then you kept it. Now, and that is also
7 where you said that it is not by chance but that is what happened.
8 Now, in this statement you say handwritten reports would stay
9 with the internal or inner control. Do you remember what actually
10 happened with the report we saw earlier, the report you produced, whether
11 that was returned to you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I took that one back. That
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you submitted it and you got it or took it
15 then back after -- was it your understanding -- was it your understanding
16 that your report was processed in the way reports usually were processed;
17 that is, to be the basis for the production of reports further and higher
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. You see, my
20 report only mattered to the extent that it was used to draft another
21 report at the special police staff in Gracac. That was then used for the
22 benefit of the Main Staff of the Croatian army; that was the purpose of
23 my report. As soon as that was drafted and e-mailed to the Main Staff,
24 the purpose of my report no longer mattered because the main report had
25 now been dispatched. It was identical to my report. It had different
1 headings, different signatures. The name on the document was different.
2 It wasn't mine and the address was the Main Staff. My report by this
3 time ceased to matter and sometimes I would have my own copy back and
4 sometimes I just left it there. That would be my explanation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So if we're talking about reports, we're talking
6 about content and we're talking about the physical documents. Do I
7 understand your testimony to be that you passed the document to internal
8 control, that then the content would be processed in new reports, other
9 physical documents, and that after that, either your original handwritten
10 report would stay with the inner control, or would be returned to you and
11 then to be kept by you?
12 Thank you.
13 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is right, Your Honour.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, if, in fact, the report for this particular day
17 was given back to you, that presupposes that you would have the original
18 of this report, isn't it, and not copy?
19 A. I think the copy that I handed over to you was based on the
20 original. Yes. I do have the original in my possession, yes.
21 I think I even showed to you back in 2004. Not you personally
22 but whoever was there at the time.
23 Q. Are you able to produce the original to Court?
24 A. I don't have it on me, if that's what you mean. I do have it
25 back in Zagreb
1 here. I'm not entirely certain that what I have in my possession is the
2 original of that document, but I'm inclined to believe so.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I think it might be of importance
4 to know whether the original is still in the hands of the witness. And I
5 would like to invite you to check in Zagreb whether you have the original
6 there, and I would like to instruct you then to give it. I don't know
7 what would be the most appropriate person to give it to, Mr. Registrar,
8 you'll receive further instructions on that.
9 So you have to -- if you have the original, you should keep it
10 and follow the instructions, which doesn't mean that it is lost for you
11 but at least it is available for inspection by the parties and by the
13 THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Mr. Registrar, can I call up document number 739, please.
18 Q. Mr. Janic, this is a third report that has come into the
19 possession of the Office of the Prosecutor on the 25th of August incident
20 and that is also purportedly issued by Mr. Celic. And the content are
21 identical with the exception that this has an additional paragraph, that
22 is paragraph 2. It says: "An order was received from the chief of the
23 terrorism department regarding civilians who are encountered in this area
24 and their treatment in accordance with international law. On my part I
25 issued an order to everybody to treat civilians according to
1 international law, identify them and take them to safe areas."
2 You also, for the record, you note it is a typed report.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't wish to ask any
4 questions. May I submit this into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
6 Mr. Registrar.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may comment on it but let's first complete
9 the formalities.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P565.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P565 is admitted into evidence.
12 Please, Mr. Janic, tell us what you'd like to tell us.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About paragraph 2, I was going to
14 say that the day before the operation, on the 24th, it was particularly
15 brought to our notice about the Plavno valley, that there was still many
16 people there who remained in the area as opposed to most of the
17 population who had left for Serbia
18 people remaining in the valley. Our attention was drawn to that fact.
19 Unlike other areas, most of which were waste and deserted, there were
20 still lots of people living there. Just for us to know, just for us to
21 take into account, just in case we encountered those people to make sure
22 we knew they were there. The UN had a list of those people, they were
23 taking care of them and they were supplying them with food. Just in case
24 we saw anyone moving ahead of us in the village as units were moving
25 through, just so they knew what was going on. Just so it never even
1 crossed their minds that this was some sort of an activity but, rather,
2 people remaining in the valley. So this was specially brought to our
3 attention, and there were particular orders about this so that we were
4 mindful of the fact in order to avoid any possible incidents.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, what we saw was -- we saw three reports dated
8 25th August which contained a version completely different to your
9 original report on the day's activities for the Lucko unit. And I'd like
10 you to take a look at your interview transcripts, page 25, the third set,
11 5309, of P533 -- I'm sorry, 553.
12 If we move on to page 25 -- I think it is on the screen now.
13 Let me -- have you found the place, Mr. Janic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You go on to say this. You were asked the question: "During the
16 course of the day as the commander of the search were you at any time
17 notified that any kind of resistance of conflict had taken place?"
19 "And all the time you've been within the special police have you
20 never known an incident where sort of terrorists have been encountered
21 where it has not been reported back to the command?"
22 You say: "No, never."
23 And as we can see, looking at this map that we're been referring
24 to today, looking at the map to the left flank of the Lucko unit
25 anti-terrorist unit. I believe the special police from Osijek
1 administration. Yes.
2 And to the right flank, I think we said earlier that was Split.
3 And then you're asked a question: "If during the course of a
4 normal search such as this if terrorists were encountered, would you
5 normally notify either through your commander or through some other means
6 the units on your flank to warn them?"
7 And I'll read the English translation. You say: "Entire forces
8 of the entire operation would be regrouped to concentrate in that -- on
9 that soon, to cut off all possible exits and to, in a way, neutralize the
10 threat that this, that these people, person, posed."
11 At paragraph -- page 29, if you move on to the next page,
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 "And if you had encountered terrorists and some managed to
14 escape, you would certainly alert, amongst others, the people that would
15 be at finish point because you are flushing them possibly in that
17 "Of course. I mean, there were no significant forces, forces at
18 the final point because they were mostly drivers. Of course, there were
19 check-points every -- every few at certain distance just because of such
20 possibilities but there won't be some sort of random behaviour. If
21 terrorists were encountered, then the entire operation, all the forces in
22 this operation would be reorganised in order to act on that threat."
23 "And that would, I assume, be commanded by yourself? You would
24 delegate who was to go where, would you?"
1 "So at the end of the search you said you weren't made aware
2 during the search that anything had happened?"
4 Now, Mr. Janic --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, based on what you knew of -- now what you knew
10 happened on 25th August in the Plavno valley operation, were you
11 surprised to see Mr. Celic's report of this new version?
12 A. Well, when I first set eyes on it, yes. I can't say I wasn't.
13 Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Celic as to why a different report of this
14 nature had been submitted without your knowledge, when, you being the
15 operation commander, you had no idea about anything of this nature?
16 A. I never asked.
17 Q. Why not, Mr. Janic? Wouldn't it be logical to ask him if you saw
18 something different to what he submitted to you originally?
19 A. You see, all of this was going on back in 2004. There was a
20 certain time lag between the two things, quite a long one, actually.
21 Meanwhile, there had been thousands of other problems and things to deal
22 with. I simply didn't feel a need inside me to go see him and ask him
23 about that.
24 Q. Moving on, Mr. Janic.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I call up document number
1 350, please.
2 Q. Mr. Janic, now, were you at any time after operation -- I'm
3 sorry, after the 25th of August, asked to submit a report or questioned
4 by Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic or any other authority within the special
6 A. No, never. I never discussed this with anyone except with the
7 investigators in 2004, 2005. In other words, I never discussed this with
8 Mr. Sacic or Mr. Markac.
9 Q. Were you ever informed by Mr. Celic or any other special
10 instructors within the Lucko unit that after the 25th of August there was
11 some inquiry about this operation?
12 A. No, I'm not familiar with that.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, have you ever seen this order that is on the
14 screen right now? It's an order dated 1st September 1995 issued by
15 Mr. Turkalj, the commander of the Lucko unit, addressed to Mr. Celic and
16 the four special training instructors involved in the 25th
17 August operation in Plavno valley?
18 A. I have never seen this report, or, rather, this order. I have
19 never seen it.
20 Q. And it is an order pursuant to the order of the assistant
21 minister of the interior, Mr. Mladen Markac, regarding events during the
22 terrain search and it says 26th August here, in Grubori village.
23 Now I know there was an operation on the 26th. The operation
24 involving Grubori village, was it on the 25th or the 26th?
25 A. On the 25th.
1 Q. So we can take this as a mistake. And the next paragraph it
2 says: "You must submit a full report of actions by groups under your
3 command and of any slain and captured enemy soldiers and any civilian
4 victims during the terrain clearing operation. And you must also submit
5 a list of the names of men in your group?"
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
7 evidence, please.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections, Your Honour, apart from the
9 conclusion of Ms. Mahindaratne that it was obviously mistaken, the date.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the conclusions of Ms. Mahindaratne are not
11 evidence. It's the document which is sought to be admitted.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P566.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P566 is admitted into evidence.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call up document number
16 3417, please.
17 Q. Mr. Janic, English version is still not there. But, Mr. Janic,
18 you can see the B/C/S version while the English translation comes up.
19 Can you tell me, have you seen this report before or the fact
20 that Mr. Turkalj submitted reports of Mr. Celic and three special
21 instructors --
22 A. No, I haven't seen it, nor do I know about it.
23 Q. Now, in this report, it is recorded in the last line that special
24 training instructor Franjo Drljo did not submit a report.
25 Now we saw from the evidence before that Mr. Drljo was also
1 involved in the Plavno operation. Now were you aware that Mr. Drljo had
2 been asked to submit a report? Now we just in fact saw Mr. Turkalj's
3 order about it, that he had refused to submit a report, did you know
4 about such a situation?
5 A. No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you said that he refused to a
7 submit a report. This document tell us that he did not submit a report.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President I will rephrase it.
9 It's already on record --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think -- I think it is not of that
11 importance to now put again the question to the witness. It is just to
12 encourage to you to be as precise as possible and not give
13 interpretations which find no direct support in the text itself.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. My apologies.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, can you tell us if your subordinate commander is
17 ordered to submit a report and he does not submit the report, would there
18 be some consequence from that action?
19 A. Which commander do you mean? The unit commander, the commander
20 who commanded the unit who was supposed to report to me, or someone else?
21 Because in the context in which you have framed your question, that's
22 what I understood.
23 Q. Let me make it clear. If the unit commander, now in this case
24 the commander of the unit Mr. Turkalj, orders a special instructor to
25 submit a report and he does not submit the report, what happens? Is
1 there some consequence ensuing that, from that action?
2 A. Well, there certainly should be some consequence, and this would
3 be one of the breaches of discipline, and in case this posed a problem,
4 the unit commander would, within his powers move to take disciplinary
5 action against that person. Now I don't know if the claim is that the
6 person refused to obey the order, then the commander would have to move
7 to take disciplinary action. But whether he has done that or not, I
8 don't know.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I move this document into evidence,
10 Mr. President.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Since there is no objection, Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P567.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P567 is admitted into evidence.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call up document number 738, please.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, while that document comes up, after the 25th
18 August operation in the Plavno area, did you see any written reports by
19 any special instructors?
20 I see you're looking at the screen now.
21 A. In the days following the operation, I did not see any reports,
22 and the platoon commanders did not submit reports. I saw this report for
23 the first time in 2004 or 2005, when I was interviewed, and when requests
24 were sent to the ministry or via the ministry to me where I was supposed
25 to hand over some documents and that is the time when I saw some of the
1 reports, including this one. Before that, never.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, you said that platoon commanders did not submit
3 reports. Can you clarify that, because I asked that question earlier,
4 and I think perhaps we were not clear as to what we were talking about.
5 Are you suggesting that platoon commanders, special instructors
6 did not submit written reports. Is that what you said?
7 A. Yes, exactly. In most actions that we carried out, platoon
8 commanders did not submit written reports at the end of the day after an
9 action to their commander. Rather, they briefed the commanders orally.
10 So if there were five platoons and five platoon commanders, all these
11 five platoon commanders would report orally at the end of the day and say
12 the action went on in such-and-such a way. And then -- and then it was
13 at the end of the day, it was unified and submitted to me and then I
14 would further send it to the staff, the headquarters and so on.
15 So this was the procedure.
16 I can say that there were no occasions when it was necessary to
17 submit a special report because of some specific event on that a
18 particular day, but generally speaking, they did not submit written
20 Q. Now, this document is dated 25th August 1995, and it's typed.
21 Now, at any time, Mr. Janic, did the special instructor and I
22 think you kept referring to platoon commander, just for clarity of the
23 record, when I say platoon commander, in a given instance, if a platoon
24 is commanded by a special instructor in an operation, what you said
25 applied to the special instructor too. Isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Now, at any time did this particular special instructor inform
3 you of this version of events?
4 A. No. I did not have any physical contact or any other contact,
5 radio contact with them. As in most other cases like that, I
6 communicated with the Lucko unit via their commander, Mr. Celic. So I
7 did not personally have contacts with platoon commanders.
8 Q. Now, according to this report, with the 12 men and including the
9 special instructor, these 13 men never entered Grubori, according to this
10 report, and there is no reference to any houses catching fire or people
11 getting killed in the cross-fire, which were reported in Mr. Celic's
13 And I want to ask you: In this report, there is reference to
14 three special instructors. It says: "We were --" sorry, three groups.
15 It says: "The mop-up of the terrain of remaining Chetnik groups in the
16 area. At the initial position we held a brief meeting with the assistant
17 commander of the Lucko unit, Mr. Celic, and we split into three groups."
18 Now we saw in Mr. Turkalj's order it was addressed to four
19 special instructors. Are you aware as to how many groups were involved
20 in the Plavno valley operation within the Lucko unit?
21 A. No, I don't know. The unit was assigned its area of operation
22 and from the beginning to the end, from the initial to the final point of
23 their area of responsibilities, I did not go into detail as to how they
24 would carry out the searches. I left it up to them and their commander
25 to decide the tactics of the search, which columns, which groups and so
1 on. I did not go into that detail, and as a commander, I did not tell
2 them how to go about it. So --
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last words of
4 the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your last words which were
6 not caught by the interpreters.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Uh-huh. I said I was not the one
8 who decided on the tactics to be used by a unit within its area of
9 responsibility. That would be decided by the commander of the unit
10 himself who would decide on the tactics to be used in carrying out the
11 searches. He would do it independently, and I felt that they had
12 sufficient experience to know what kind of methods to use, whether they
13 would use groups or lines or columns, convoys, I don't know. I didn't go
14 into those details. Whether they were groups, I wouldn't know that
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I am looking at the clock.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I note it, Mr. President.
18 One question and I'll tender this document, and then we could --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Mr. Janic, I just want to point out three names which will be
22 relevant in regard to a document that will come up very soon, and that's
23 at number 5, Zdravko Lancar -- I beg your pardon for my pronunciation.
24 It's L-a-n-c-a-r. At number 7, Ante Jurdenic; and at number 12,
25 Adolf Krizmanic.
1 I just want you to take note of those three names, Mr. Janic, for
2 reference later on.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
5 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
6 Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P568.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P568 is admitted into evidence.
9 We will have a break and resume at five minutes to 1.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Ms. Mahindaratne, I would like
13 to briefly address the Defence. There is a motion pending which asks for
14 videolink for two witnesses. In view of the time needed to prepare for a
15 videolink, the Chamber wonders whether we could get a quick response,
16 whether there is any objection to that request to hear the testimony of
17 those witnesses. I take it you're aware of --
18 MR. MISETIC: I'm aware of the motion, Your Honour, I have not
19 actually spent a lot of time thinking about it. If we could get back to
20 the Chamber tomorrow and I'll let you know what our position is.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay.
22 MR. KAY: We filed this morning and we have no opposition.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: We do not have any opposition either.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Misetic, we're waiting for you then.
1 MR. MISETIC: It is related to one of the witnesses. I don't
2 have an objection to the second witness --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, of course, I would have to know which
5 MR. MISETIC: Correct. If you wish to know, I'll let you know
6 now which is -- I don't know if she is a protected witness or not which
7 is why I didn't mention the name.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's also the reason why I was uncertain,
9 and you never know whether witnesses finally are seeking protection or
10 not. So therefore --
11 MR. MISETIC: Correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- would it be possible to review the matter and
13 especially since preparation takes sometime, if it would be possible for
14 you to even informally take a position --
15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- this afternoon, that would be appreciated. Yes.
17 Then Mr. Nilsson would know --
18 MR. MISETIC: That's fine, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- what to do.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I just wanted to thank -- we got
21 copies of the transcript for Mr. Kehoe and myself. Just thank the
22 Prosecution for that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, there are a number of documents
2 that I intend just to make bar table submissions and not go through the
3 witness. I will -- if I could have, Mr. Registrar, document number 752.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if you do not go through these
5 documents with the witness and if you want to tender them from the bar
6 table, why spend time on it in court, or would you like the witness to
7 look at it or...
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I believe the witness --
9 it might just be necessary for the witness to at least --
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see what questions you would have, even if you
11 would not go through it.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. Mr. Janic, this is a report from the same special instructor
14 identical report to what we saw before with an additional paragraph. I'm
15 not going to ask you any questions. I just wanted to show you since you
16 were the operations commander and ask if you had anything to offer?
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
18 evidence, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if you offer the witness something, then
20 at least you should give him time to read the document, isn't it?
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Otherwise it doesn't make much sense.
23 Are you familiar with this document?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've just read it. I have no
25 comment on it, nor anything to add to it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then it is now tendered into evidence.
2 No objections.
3 Then Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P569.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P569 is admitted into evidence.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call up document number 757, please.
8 Q. While that document is being brought up, Mr. Janic, did you know
9 of a special instructor called by that name, Stjepan Zinic, was in within
10 the Lucko unit? Are you familiar with that name?
11 A. The name is familiar. It's Stjepan Zinic.
12 Q. We have a further report from -- dated 25th August by a second
13 special instructor, Mr. Bozo Krajina. Are you familiar with that person?
14 Was he a special instructor within the Lucko unit?
15 A. Yes, I know the man. He was instructor of the unit -- within the
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
18 evidence, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
20 Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P570, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P570 is admitted into evidence.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call up document number 742, please. It
24 is a report by the same special instructor with an additional paragraph.
25 Mr. President, may I tender this document into evidence, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Here again, I think we should have a -- at
2 least a chance to see it. It's now on our screen. We have the ... yes.
3 No objection.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P571, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P571 is admitted into evidence.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call up document number 771, please.
8 Q. Now I would have a question for you on this document, Mr. Janic.
9 If could you take a look at this.
10 First question: Are you familiar with the person,
11 Mr. Branko Balunovic as being a special instructor within the Lucko unit?
12 A. Balunovic
13 Q. I'm sorry. Yes?
14 A. Yes, I know him.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if I look at my left screen -- no
16 no, it's fine.
17 Please proceed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. Now according to this report, he reports that the groups under
20 the leadership of instructors Bozo Krajina and Franjo Drljo faced
21 resistance in the hamlet of Grubori. And if you note, I don't know
22 whether you recall, I asked you in relation to a previous document to
23 take notes of three names, Zdravko Lancar, Ante Jurdenic and
24 Adolf Krizmanic. Now those three names are listed here as -- if we could
25 go down, at number 3, and if we could move -- and on the English one to
1 next page. At number 6, Ante Jurdenic; and at number 7, Adolf Krizmanic.
2 Now is it possible for the same members, same men, to be in three
3 platoons -- two platoons of the same unit in the course of one operation.
4 This is in relation to the Grubori operation, the Plavno valley operation
5 on 25th August. Three persons are listed under two groups. Is that
7 A. Well, obviously there has been some mess-up. Someone who wrote
8 down the list of names of men in his groups probably made a mistake.
9 They couldn't physically be in two places.
10 Q. And I'd like to you take note of the signature on this document,
11 Mr. Janic, which will be relevant in relation to the next document we
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I please move this document into evidence,
14 please, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
16 Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P572, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P572 is admitted into evidence.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have document number 768,
21 Q. This is also a report by Mr. Balunovic with that extra paragraph.
22 What I'd like to -- you to note, Mr. Janic, is the difference between the
23 two signatures.
24 MR. MAHINDARATNE: I don't know whether it is possible,
25 Mr. Registrar, to have P572 and this document, the B/C/S versions, on the
1 same -- on the screen together.
2 Q. Do you note a distinct difference in the signatures?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, what if the witness says no? What
4 do you expect the Chamber to do?
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, I should have left it for submissions.
6 I'm sorry, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, you could ask whether the witness
8 recognises one of the signatures. That would be a question that might
9 assist. Of course, I would not know the answer.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. Mr. Janic, do you recognise any one of these signatures as being
12 the authentic signature of Mr. Balunovic?
13 A. No, I don't. I think you probably need an expert witness here
14 who could establish whether this was -- and which signature is actually
15 his. I can't really tell, and I don't know if they're authentic.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move this document into
17 evidence, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, if you have got one second for me.
19 Ms. Mahindaratne, I see above the signatures I see in the one
20 document, "ISO Branko Balunovic, v.r." The v.r. are not appearing in the
21 other document. Now I'm just checking on whether we have any -- let me
22 just check what we find in the English translations as a difference.
23 Perhaps v.r. could be -- could be perhaps easier explained if you
24 would not oppose that I ask those who speak --
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Maybe I could be of assistance, Your Honour.
1 V.r. means "by own hand." So that means that signature is under the
2 typed name put by own hand of the man who is signed the document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Not necessarily to be the person whose name
4 appears there or is it just the opposite way?
5 MR. MIKULICIC: No, just the opposite way. V.r. means by own
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that, I would say, in the primary
8 school handwriting more or less that would be the original.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And the other one would be ...
11 MR. MIKULICIC: Who knows.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, at least we have an additional puzzle
13 but there is no objection against admission of the document into
15 Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P573.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P573 is admitted into evidence. And that's the
18 document without the v.r.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, when you went to the archives in 2004, or
22 subsequently, did you see these documents of the three special
23 instructors in the archives?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call for document number 745, please.
1 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, this is a report on the completion of assignment
2 for 24th August. And this is dated 25th August. Submitted by
3 Mladen Markac, or under the name of Mladen Markac to the chief of
4 Main Staff of the HV.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could go to second page, Mr. Janic could
6 see under whose authority the document has been issued. Page 3 on the
7 English version.
8 Q. Now, would this report have -- would this be based on a report
9 submitted by you. First let me ask you a question: Were the coordinator
10 for the operation on 24th August? Did you command a mop-up operation on
11 the 24th?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we go to the first page of the B/C/S
13 version, perhaps Mr. Janic can follow the report.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: If I may suggest, maybe it will be wise to let
15 the witness read the whole document and then he could probably answer all
16 the questions.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's what I suggested that we could do.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Janic, could you please inform us once you have
20 gone through the first page so that we move to the second.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I think I was commander that
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
24 Q. And would this report be based on a report submitted by you for
25 that activities of that day?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before, Ms. Mahindaratne, there was a suggestion
2 that the witness would read the whole of the document first and I invited
3 him to tell us if had gone through the first page.
4 Do you feel a need to read the whole of the document, in order to
5 answer --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you read it. You read more quickly that I can.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Mr. Janic, would this report be based on a report submitted by
12 A. Yes. This report was produced by the head of staff, he was
13 normally someone from internal control, he drafted this report based on
14 my report. The headers were changed. It was typewritten and e-mailed to
15 the Main Staff. It reads: "Commander Mladen Markac," but more often
16 than not he wasn't there nor was the report ever signed. It was always
17 e-mailed so it was formal purposes that this was always there,
18 Commander Mladen Markac. He would go everyday - I'm not sure if it was
19 the mornings or the evenings - to the Main Staff. It is not as if the
20 general bade his time there waiting for this to be signed but, rather, as
21 soon as they would technically produce this report for the Main Staff,
22 they would simply dispatch it and mail it there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: I just notice some misinterpretation in the
25 translation. That would be in line 2 -- line 3, I'm sorry.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you have concerns about the interpretation, you
2 could ask the witness to repeat his answer, or to read the -- but not to
3 say what the right translation would be.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: Of course.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We could ask the witness.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: It is concern to the -- well, this is a third
7 line, where witness mentioned so it was translated the head of staff.
8 But he was telling something else.
9 So could we -- could Ms. Mahindaratne --
10 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
11 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, that's the word that the witness been using
12 so --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Leader of staff, not head of staff.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Leader of staff.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Mr. Janic, who do you refer to as the leader of staff?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. No, my question was whom do you refer to as leader, who was the
20 A. I think I've said that before, normally it was someone from
21 internal control. One of their functions was also leader of staff
22 technical leader of staff. It wasn't like in a movie. This was a modest
23 operation. There were normally two or three men who were involved in
24 this. So the person producing that report could probably be termed the
25 technical leader of staff.
1 Q. Now -- so based on what you just said, the fact that Mr. Markac's
2 signature or his seal is not on a document which is being forwarded to
3 his, you know, to the chief of Main Staff or some authority does not --
4 it's not considered as improper within the practice of the special
5 police. Is that correct?
6 A. That's right. These reports were submitted by e-mail. It wasn't
7 possible to physically sign them or indeed to stamp them. That's how it
8 was. That's how it worked.
9 Q. That does not, for instance, render the authenticity of the
10 document questionable.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: This particular document or any document?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm asking about generally reports going under
13 Mr. Markac's name without his signature or the seal.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I think we need to speak about a particular
15 document and not talk about things that he doesn't know or hasn't seen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can ask the question in general terms on
17 the basis of the experience this witness may have had with several
18 documents and you can focus your question on a single document; both
19 questions are admissible.
20 Ms. Mahindaratne, it seems that you were heading for the general
21 question. Perhaps you repeat it for the witness.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
23 Q. Mr. Janic, could you -- let me repeat my question. The fact that
24 Mr. Markac's signature or his seal is not on a report sent under his
25 name, does that render the authenticity of that document questionable, in
1 your mind?
2 A. Not the one that I'm looking at. This was the established
3 practice. Reports were sent from Gracac to the Main Staff. There was no
4 way to sign them or to stamp them simply because they were invariably
5 e-mailed. As to any other kind of correspondence exchanged between the
6 general anyone else, I know that there was always a signature and a
7 stamp. But this is about reporting from Gracac to the staff. This was
8 always e-mailed to the Main Staff. There was no signature there, and
9 there was no stamp there. There was an automatic thing. The technical
10 leader of the Gracac staff would submit such reports on a daily basis.
11 There were as many reports as the searches that were conducted and they
12 were always unsigned, because they were e-mailed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
15 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then the number would be,
16 Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P574, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P574 is admitted into evidence.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document number
20 1848, please.
21 Q. Mr. Janic, do you note -- this is a report submitted by -- for
22 the activities of 25th August. And you could go through the first page.
23 Then we'll move on to the next page. And you will see under whose
24 authority it has been issued, who has signed it.
25 This is identical to the -- to your report that we tendered in
1 evidence this morning, P560, isn't it?
2 A. As far as can I see, yes.
3 Q. So this would be the report that you said would be submitted
4 based on your report, onward from the point that you handed it over to
5 inner control branch?
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to page 2, Mr. Janic
8 could take a look at this report.
9 Q. You can you see that it is going under the authority of
10 Mr. Markac. And, in fact, Mr. Markac's signature is there.
11 Do you recognise his signature, Mr. Janic?
12 A. It's been a long time since I last saw his signature. It might
13 be, but I can't be positive.
14 Q. Now -- I'm sorry, Mr. Registrar, if we could go back to page 1.
15 We see on the top of this report there is an indication that it has been
16 cancelled. There's a handwritten notation saying it is cancelled.
17 Can you explain what that means? Does that mean that this report
18 has been submitted and been withdrawn, or it's been written and
19 cancelled? Can you please explain, since you would be the person who
20 could explain this.
21 A. I'm sorry, I can't. I didn't produce the report myself. I
22 didn't submit this report, nor did I look closely at it. Whenever I
23 submitted my report, that was all I had to do for that day and then I
24 would just move on and therefore I'm unable to explain this.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
1 MR. MISETIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm looking at the
2 original document and I can't find the word cancelled, so ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: Storno, would that ...
4 MR. MISETIC: Storno. Okay. Thank you.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
6 Q. Mr. Janic, I didn't ask you if you knew about this document. My
7 question was when a report within the special police had a handwritten
8 indication that it was cancelled, what did that mean? Who could cancel a
9 report? Now this report bears Mr. Markac's signature. Who could then
10 cancel the report once Mr. Markac has signed the report?
11 A. I have no idea. I had nothing to do with this. It certainly
12 wasn't for me. Who was it, it's not something that I can tell.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: If could I assist the Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: I can recognise the handwriting text on the
16 original document which is not --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But --
18 MR. MIKULICIC: -- translated --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it is reported as illegible on the
21 Ms. Mahindaratne, you see that we have the word Storno above
22 the -- the address and we have some handwritten -- handwriting below it
23 with two - how do you say that, exclamation marks.
24 If -- shall we do a contest who can read best. Mr. Mikulicic, if
25 could you read what is there, then we could.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: It is written non-valid.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please tell us.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: In Croatian it is written "nevazece."
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then could we here from the interpreters
5 that if "nevazece" would be pronounced, that you would then translate as
7 THE INTERPRETER: Invalid, yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then one puzzle appears to have been resolved.
9 Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I tender this document into evidence,
11 Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it after you have thanked Mr. Mikulicic
13 for --
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President, thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Mikulicic, any objections? No. No
17 Yes, only on the handwriting.
18 Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is becomes Exhibit number
21 JUDGE ORIE: P575 is admitted into evidence.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, were you ever informed at any stage by Mr. Markac
24 or any person in the inner control branch that the report that you
25 submitted was incorrect and that, therefore, the report which was
1 submitted based on your report had to be cancelled or withdrawn or
2 anything to that effect?
3 A. No. I never spoke to the general or any of the staff leaders
4 about this.
5 Q. And if in fact a report that you submitted was considered to be
6 incorrect, would you expect to be informed of that or at least inquired
7 about it, by somebody, either within the inner control branch or
8 Mr. Markac, or Mr. Sacic?
9 A. Well, there definitely would have been people asking questions if
10 something in my report was factually inaccurate or a situation
11 mis-described, as it were. This would require further clarification, but
12 no one asked any questions which led me to believe that my report for
13 that day was now all done and dusted. The next day meant a new job for
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call up document number
16 1853, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahadaratne, one question in relation to the
18 last document we've seen. Will the Chamber hear any further evidence on
19 to what this has been attachment 6, as the document tells, and whether
20 there was any further -- whether the 0907 and the -- well, what is in the
21 translation considered to be a signature, but at least some kind of a --
22 a letter or something, what that means. Will the Chamber hear any
23 further evidence on that?
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. If you're referring to the
25 handwritten text on the top of this -- is that what you're referring to
1 Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm referring to the two portions of handwritten
3 text that we have not dealt with yet. That is, first, that is attachment
4 6, and if you find a document and if it is attached -- if it called an
5 attachment, then, of course, the first question is attached to what.
6 We also find, you see that also in the translation, a kind of
7 a -- it looks like a P or something like that with 0907 under it.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Which might be - I'm not saying it is - but that
10 comes to my mind that might be a reference to a date, for example, or
11 someone authorising something. That's not uncommon.
12 Therefore, I asked myself whether the Chamber would receive
13 evidence on these elements of this document in the future.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. At this stage we do not
15 have any evidence to indicate what that is. These documents have been
16 sent to us in response to a request for assistance, separately not with
17 the attachments. Not in the regular order these documents would have
18 been in the archives or wherever they were in its original form.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Mr. Registrar, if I could call document number 1853.
23 Q. Mr. Janic, this is a second report being issued under
24 Mr. Markac's authority on the operation for 25th August.
25 Have you seen this document before?
1 A. Yes, I have, but at a later stage. I didn't see it back in 1995.
2 It wasn't until sometime later that I saw it.
3 Q. Can you tell us when you saw it and where?
4 A. I think in 2004, when I was going through all these documents to
5 do with this.
6 Q. Did you see this in the archives or somewhere else?
7 A. Yes, yes, that's where.
8 Q. And just so we don't waste too much of time, do you note,
9 Mr. Janic, that the report in relation to the five other units except the
10 Lucko unit is the same as Mr. Markac's previous report that we just
11 looked at, with the exception of the report for Mr. -- for Lucko unit?
12 MR. MIKULICIC: I believe this is something for the Chamber to
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Even a matter the parties could agree upon
15 that the one text does not contain a certain portion. I mean, that -- I
16 think you could put the question to everyone who can read.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will move on.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Do you note, Mr. Janic, the report on the Lucko unit. In the
21 B/C/S version, it is at the bottom; English version on page 2.
22 A. Yes, I see that.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
25 Q. Now, at any stage did Mr. Markac discuss these events with you,
1 this particular version of events with you?
2 A. No, never.
3 Q. Did Mr. Sacic discuss this particular version of events with you?
4 A. No, not he either.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President I move this document into
7 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P576, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P576 is admitted into evidence.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I call document number
11 5221, please.
12 Q. Mr. Janic, while the -- the document is already up on the screen,
13 if I could take you to paragraph 11 of your statement, 2004 statement.
14 You refer to there being 15-day reports which would explain what the unit
15 had done in the previous 15 days.
16 Now what we have here is a report going from 21st August to -- if
17 you go to the last page and we don't have to -- not yet. It is the 3rd
18 September. It is a 14-day period.
19 Is this the type of report that you referred, in terms of 15-day
20 report for all the units?
21 A. Well, I have never seen this document. The report that I was
22 talking about was more extensive. You probably have a copy of those as
23 well. It was more extensive. It told you about everything that a unit
24 did, all of its tasks that it carried out. It wasn't just about war
25 operations, as it were, but also about their tasks in their own county.
1 Any information regarding training problems, to do with vehicles,
2 logistics, that sort of thing. That kind of report would be more
3 extensive. It talked about all the segments of a unit's work and there
4 would always be a section about any disciplinary steps taken against any
5 individual members of a given unit. It's certainly more extensive, more
6 elaborate than the kind that I'm looking at now, which, by the way, [as I
7 said, I have never seen this before.
8 Q. Do you know who composed this report?
9 A. No.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can we just move on to page 5 in both English
11 and B/C/S versions, please.
12 Q. Now, there's a report for 25th August for all the units that
13 participated in the operation on 25th August. If you note the column
14 Lucko unit, the information that's there is consistent with the report
15 you submitted, isn't it? The line for Lucko unit is at number 6.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could just go down, Mr. Registrar.
17 Q. That data is consistent with the report that you submitted it?
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I tender this document into
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P577, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: P577 is admitted into evidence.
24 Ms. Mahindaratne I'm looking at the clock. We have to finish in
25 two minutes. Could you give us an indication as --
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I could just call one last document, Mr.
2 President, and tender it into evidence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Would that conclude, then, your
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you still need?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I think I believe, Mr. President, about two
8 hours more.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I will have a look at your original
10 estimate which was four hours and I will ask Mr. Registrar to give me the
11 full details of how much time you used until now.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I was under the impression that
13 we had estimated five hours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then I just checked that. Let me then --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg your pardon if I have made a mistake.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No I'm not saying -- I may have made a mistake or
17 perhaps even others may have made a mistake. For me, we will verify the
18 time you indicated, and Mr. Registrar never makes a mistake so I will ask
19 him how much time you have used until now.
20 Please, then, take your last two minutes.
21 Please proceed.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call Exhibit number P505, please.
23 Q. Mr. Janic, while that document is coming up, were you ever asked
24 by the minister of the interior or any official of the Ministry of
25 Interior to submit a report regarding the events in Grubori at any stage,
1 perhaps in 2004 or 2001, or any stage?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, have you seen this report? And -- before. In fact, I think
4 this report was shown to you at the interview.
5 A. I'm not certain, but I don't think so. I don't think so.
6 Q. This is an report issued under the authority of Mr. Markac. And
7 if we could --
8 MR. MIKULICIC: Supposingly.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Under the authority. I didn't say issued by
11 Q. Do you note the version in that regarding the Grubori events,
12 have you ever been informed of this particular version of events?
13 A. No. This strikes me as unbelievable. Therefore, my answer is
15 Q. Now, Mr. Janic, are you aware that sometime in 2001, the county
16 prosecutor for Sibenik initiated an investigation into the Grubori
17 incident. You yourself was, in fact, asked to provide certain material.
18 A. What is the question?
19 MR. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I have just been told that it
20 is 1345. Do we adjourn at this stage or do we --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we do adjourn at this stage but you said you
22 needed to put one document to the witness and put one question and I was
23 waiting for that to be finished.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I already did that, Mr. President. We do --
25 this would it be for the day, Mr. President. I assume.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will adjourn.
2 First of all, please communicate with the Chamber staff if the
3 information is not correct. I do understand that on the revised witness
4 list that four hours was scheduled for this witness; that's one.
5 Second, three minutes ago you had used three hours and 41
6 minutes, which means that you have used now three hours and 44 minutes.
7 Therefore, I would invite you and encourage you to seek a way such that
8 you stay within your time-limits and report tomorrow morning to the
9 Chamber to what extent you think you will be able to do that so the
10 Chamber will consider how much time will further be granted.
11 Then, Mr. Janic, I'd like to instruct you, as I did yesterday,
12 again, that you should not speak with anyone, whomever it is, about your
13 testimony, whether already given or still to be given. I further inform
14 the Defence, and, of course, if it is not unrelated, that Mr. Janic has
15 indicated that he would very much like to leave on Friday. We will see
16 what is possible but also to keep in mind to what extent it will be
17 possible to finish cross-examination by Friday.
18 Mr. Misetic.
19 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, at this point we have no questions for
20 him. I'm not sure about the Cermak Defence.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, we're waiting to see how things develop
22 and then we can give you a better idea tomorrow, but it would not be very
23 long at all.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, I can imagine that you have some
25 questions for the witness. Could you give us an indication as to how
1 much time you'd need.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: Well, a few questions, of course. And that means
3 I will probably have six hours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Six hours. From what I hear now, it should be
5 possible to finish your testimony this week, Mr. Janic. We're trying to
6 do our utmost best but, at the same time, you will understand that this
7 Chamber has to guarantee a fair trial to the accused and, therefore, is
8 not unlimited in its managerial tasks.
9 We will adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, the 10th
10 of July, 9.00 in the morning, same courtroom.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of July,
13 2008, at 9.00 a.m.