1 Thursday, 4 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
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 Ms. Mahindaratne, is the Prosecution ready to call its next
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And before we continue, do you know whether you or
15 the witness applies for protective measures?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the Prosecution is not applying
17 for protective measures because we do not have instructions from the
18 witness; however, the witness indicated that he may seek protective
19 measures, and for that reason, if we could go into private session when
20 we walks into the court.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, private session would not do, I take it. It
22 depends on what kind of protective measures the witness is seeking.
23 I, therefore, suggest that we would have to go into closed
24 session, out of an abundance of caution, unless -- in this situation
25 where this is an indication that there may be an application by the
1 witness himself or herself to apply for protective measures, the most
2 safe way of proceeding would be to ask the witness in closed session.
3 I do not hear of any objections; therefore, we turn into closed
5 [Closed session]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 The Chamber would like to make a short statement with regard to
15 you, Mr. Mikulicic, as Defence counsel for Mr. Markac. This statement is
16 about your relationship, if any, with the next witness, Mr. Celic.
17 The Prosecution is seeking to tender a suspect interview which
18 was held on the 25th and the 26th of November, 2002.
19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: As I said, the Prosecution is seeking to tender a
23 suspect interview held with the witness on the 25th and the 26th of
24 November, 2002, pursuant to Rule 92 ter. During this interview,
25 Mr. Mikulicic, you were representing the witness.
1 The Chamber has been informed that the parties have exchanged
2 views about this by e-mail. And according to this exchange,
3 Mr. Mikulicic, you have explained that you were only representing this
4 witness during the said interview and that you had had no contact with
5 him since then; and, therefore, you consider that there is no conflict of
7 The Chamber expresses some concern in relation to the position
8 you've taken, but perhaps even more about the explanation you have given,
9 because, as far as the Chamber is -- on the basis of the interpretation
10 of your obligations as Defence counsel and, of course, I'm primarily
11 referring to the Code of Professional Conduct, Article 14, it is not only
12 a matter whether you have any contact with the witness up till today, it
13 is also a matter of whether you obtained any information when you still
14 had contact with the witness that would be useful for the Defence of
15 Mr. Markac, but you would be prevented from revealing such information,
16 due to your obligation of confidentiality in relation to the witness.
17 And, of course, that dilemma, if would you have such information, which
18 you might be under an obligation to keep for yourself and not use for
19 your present client, that would, of course, also block you in sharing
20 that information with Mr. Kuzmanovic, for example.
21 The Chamber is aware that the matter raised is a question which
22 only you can answer. I bring to your attention that the Chamber had some
23 concerns reading your explanation why there was no conflict of interest,
24 because the Chamber, interpreting your obligations here, thinks that the
25 analysis should be slightly different and should include also whether or
1 not you of received, from the witness, any information you could not use
2 because there would be the conflict of interest, and not whether you had
3 contact with the witness at any later stage. That, for the Chamber, at
4 least, seems not to be the right test.
5 At the same time, you are the only one who can answer that
6 question; and, therefore, we just bring this to your attention and we
7 would urge you to act in such a manner that would safeguard the integrity
8 of these proceedings. So I'm not saying what you should do because the
9 basic question is whether you ever gained such information, an element
10 which was not included in your explanation, that there was no conflict of
12 Therefore, the Chamber has addressed you on this matter.
13 This concludes the statement of the Chamber in this respect.
14 Then --
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, would you like me to answer the
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we take it that if any such information would
18 be at your disposal, that you would act accordingly. Even answering the
19 question, whether you received information of this kind and to what
20 extent it would block you, might already be a breach of confidentiality.
21 So the Chamber is not seeking an answer to that. The Chamber has drawn
22 your attention to what the Chamber considered not to be a full and
23 complete analysis of the situation --
24 MR. MIKULICIC: I see, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- and urges you to include in your considerations
1 the matter that we have just brought to your attention.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: Then, Your Honour, I appreciate your explanation.
3 The only thing I could say at that very moment is that I'm always
4 behaving myself as an officer of the court, and I will always have in
5 mind that if something that occurred that could jeopardize my position in
6 this proceeding, I will surely raise this question before the Bench.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic. It is a mixed issue. It
8 relates both to your position as an officer of the court and also to your
9 position as a faithful servant to the interest of your clients.
10 I have made this statement on behalf of the Chamber, and I'd like
11 to proceed. I thought it better not to raise the issue in the presence
12 of the witness. Of course, Mr. Markac was entitled to be present during
13 this statement.
14 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to call your next witness?
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Celic
17 into the courtroom.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning again, Mr. Celic.
20 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Celic, before you give evidence in this court,
22 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require to you make a solemn
23 declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
24 but the truth.
25 May I invite to you make that solemn declaration, of which the
1 text will now be handed out to you by Mr. Usher.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
3 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Celic.
5 Please be seated.
6 Mr. Celic, you will first be examined by Ms. Mahindaratne who is
7 counsel for the Prosecution.
8 Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 WITNESS: JOSIP CELIC.
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Celic.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. Could you please state your full name.
16 A. I'm Josip Celic.
17 Q. What is your current occupation?
18 A. I work in the mobile unit of the traffic police at the police
20 Q. And were you within the special police sector before you came
21 into the present branch?
22 A. Before I was transferred to this job, for 14 years, I worked in
23 the anti-terrorist unit, Lucko, of the special police.
24 Q. And in 1995, what position within the Lucko Unit did you hold?
25 A. I was assistant commander of the anti-terrorist unit, Lucko.
1 Q. In 2001, were you appointed as the commander of the Lucko Unit?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And thereafter, at some stage, did you cease to hold that
5 A. Yes. I was transferred to another job.
6 Q. When was that?
7 A. That was in 2004.
8 Q. Mr. Celic, on 25th and 26th November, 2002, were you interviewed
9 by members of the Office of the Prosecutor as a suspect in the
10 investigation relating to this case?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And was that interview conducted in the ICTY Zagreb field office?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you informed at that stage that you had certain rights, one
15 of which was to be represented in the course of the interview by an
16 attorney of your choice?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And were you represented by Mr. Goran Mikulicic, who is present
19 in court today, in the -- during the entire course of that interview?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was that interview conducted via an interpreter?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. When the members of the Office of the Prosecutor asked you
24 questions in the course of that interview, did you answer those questions
1 A. Yes, yes. I did my best to remember the whole truth. I pointed
2 out several times that I could not say exactly what the time was, but did
3 I my best to tell the whole truth.
4 Q. And was that interview video-recorded?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And at the completion of the interview, were copies of the
7 video-recorded interview handed over to your attorney?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And, again, Mr. Celic, in 2005, 13th and 14th January, 2005, were
10 you interviewed by members of the Office of the Prosecutor for a second
11 time as a suspect in this case?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was that interview also conducted in the Zagreb field office,
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And were you represented in the -- during the entire course of
17 that interview by an attorney of your choice?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And was the interview conducted via an interpreter?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And when the members of the Office of the Prosecutor asked you
22 questions at that time - this is the second interview - did you answer
23 those questions truthfully?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was that interview video-recorded?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And at the completion of the interview, were copies of the video
3 records handed over to your attorney?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, if you were asked those questions that were asked
6 of you by the members of the Office of the Prosecutor in January 2002 --
7 I'm sorry, in November 2002 and January 2005, today here in court, would
8 your answers be the same? And when I say that, I'm not talking about the
9 language and the words, but would the content and the substance of the
10 answers be the same as those you provided in the course of those
12 A. Basically, yes, of course. However, I would like to point out
13 that between the first and second interview, since quite a bit of time
14 had elapsed, I could not say what the exact time difference was in terms
15 of what had happened. So, during the second interview, perhaps the
16 time-frame was somewhat different than during the first interview.
17 However, I have been doing my best all along to tell the truth, the whole
18 truth, and everything as best I remembered it.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Celic. I'll just quickly bring up the two videos
20 so you can just identify a couple of seconds of each, so you could
21 identify in Court that they are, indeed, the interviews.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could play 4124.
23 Q. Mr. Celic, I'll just play a little bit, just the first few
24 seconds, and can you identify whether this is, indeed, the interview.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. Is that the video recording --
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Please keep playing.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
6 Q. -- of the interview in 2002?
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Could you play 5274, please.
9 [Videotape played]
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. Mr. Celic, was that the video recording of the second interview
12 in 2005 that was shown on the screen?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move into evidence
15 the video tapes of the two recordings with the corresponding transcripts,
16 and there are three tapes for the 2002 interview and three tapes for
18 JUDGE ORIE: You have provided Mr. Registrar with the relevant
19 65 ter numbers?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. For the record, I will
21 read it out: 65 ter 5384 for the 2002 interview, which comprises of
22 three tapes, V000-4124, 4125, and 4126; and the 2005 interview is 65 ter
23 number 5385, comprising of three tapes, V000-5274, 5275, and 5276, with
24 the corresponding transcripts.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I remember will, there are no objections by
1 any of the Defence times. Is that correct?
2 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the 2002 interview, 5384, would be
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P761.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P761, including video and transcript, is admitted
7 into evidence.
8 And the 2005 interview, 5385, Mr. Registrar?
9 THE REGISTRAR: That becomes Exhibit number P762, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: P762, in the absence of any objections, is admitted
11 into evidence.
12 Further, Ms. Mahindaratne, I just use the opportunity that there
13 was an application to add some documents to your 65 ter list. From all
14 Defence teams, we received information that there is it no objection to
15 that, so that request is granted.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I be permitted to have two
19 binders of the transcripts handed over to the witness. It's with the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, would you please provide the
22 binders to the witness.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, while that is being done,
24 before we proceed, there are three corrections to be made in the English
25 transcripts - it's correct in the B/C/S - if I could just read that into
1 the record.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you then allow me for one second to get the ...
3 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 There's a correction to be made in P761 - that's the 2002
6 interview - section 2. That is 4125 at page 9. The name "Zdravko Janic"
7 has been recorded as "Ratko Mladic." The same mistake has been made at
8 page 16, too. This is only in the English transcript.
9 The second correction is again in P761, part 3. That is 4126,
10 page 21. There's a reference to "HRT" which should be corrected as
12 The third correction is in P762, the 2005 interview, part 3,
13 page 193. There's a name "Stakic"; it should be correct the as "Sacic."
14 Those are the corrections, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections to that, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I thought that it's just a matter of translation,
18 transcribing, and that it doesn't change the original; so, therefore, I
19 didn't ask whether there were any objections.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call for document P558,
23 Q. Mr. Celic, you have been provided with two binders, and they're
24 clearly marked as to which is the 2002 transcripts and the other one is
25 2005. And in each of those binders, there are three parts, so as we go I
1 refer to each part and you could turn to that.
2 Now, your testimony is that on 24th August, 1995, the Lucko Unit
3 commander Mr. Turkalj called you and gave you an order regarding the
4 Oluja-Obruc mop-up operation. That's correct, isn't it? It is already
5 stated by you.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, you will see a document on the screen. Do you recognise
8 that document? Is that the order that was given to you by Mr. Turkalj?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Pursuant to this order, you commanded on the ground, you were the
11 ground commander for two operations; that is, on 25th, in the Plavno
12 valley and the second one on the Knin-Drnis road in the area in front of
13 the -- in the area of the Promina hills.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In the course of those two operations, whom did you report to as
16 your overall operation commander?
17 A. Mr. Zdravko Janic, the head of the department for combatting
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have document P559,
21 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, in the course of the interview, you identified
22 the map that was used for the operation on the 25th, and if you could
23 identify the map on the screen. It will take a while. You, in fact,
24 identified the axis of the Lucko Unit on that map.
25 Is that the map that was used for the operation on the 25th?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And you -- in your transcripts, you identified the axis of the
3 Lucko Unit as that line that starts with LATJ.
4 A. With the communication in the -- or the road in the valley, the
5 main road in the valley.
6 Q. And according to this map, the Lucko Unit is -- was the only unit
7 was to go through the area covering Grubori, isn't it?
8 A. When we're talking about in depth, the situation in depth, then
9 the answer is yes.
10 Q. Just to clarify, in the interview, you were asked to identify
11 what that area is which is marked as a tie, and testimony was that's the
12 area which was marked as having a bigger probability of having
14 Now, in relation to that, if you could just point out where
15 Grubori is.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Usher, if you could give a pointer to
17 Mr. Celic.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the right colour which is --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes. I believe, Mr. President --
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- blue for the Prosecution.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry. Blue.
22 Q. If you could just mark --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon. Red for the Prosecution.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. If could you just mark --
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could just focus on
2 that area, can we have a close-up. That area that indicates as a tie,
3 you know --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness starts marking, let's have the
5 map zoomed in such a way, then perhaps you would guide, Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could just -- can you note the figure 25
7 in red. If you start from north and if you come down, that's right. If
8 you take it up a little bit further, yes, that's right. Then take it to
9 east, to your right, that's right. If you could just -- yeah, that's
10 correct. That should do.
11 Q. Mr. Celic, can you identify Grubori on the map? I could assist
12 you if you -- but I think you would be far more familiar with this map
13 than me.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, this map is already in
17 evidence; however, this marked map, does it get a new number or does it
18 remain --
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. The marked map receives a new number, but I
20 missed the marking, Ms. Mahindaratne, so could you assist me. Is that
21 just to the left of the --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's to the -- it's more towards west, to the
23 west of that area which is marked as a tie.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we make the marking a bit more clear,
25 because now it seems to be lost more or less in other red markings which
1 are there already. Could the witness perhaps --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
3 Q. Mr. Celic, could you sort of make it --
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- enlarge it or put a circle around it.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
6 Q. Can you please circle around that marking you just made?
7 A. [Marks]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now it becomes more clear. No more markings?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. Could that get some sort
10 of exhibit number?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P763.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P763 is admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Mr. Celic, your testimony was -- I will read it to you, if you
17 could turn to the 2005 transcript, part 2, page 55. You stated that --
18 I'm reading your -- on that page, the second answer, and about four
19 lines --
20 JUDGE ORIE: What page?
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. Page 55.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Page 55. Now, I see we have two different sets of
23 pages. First of all, if we open the rather lengthy document of 679 pages
24 in the Adobe format, then, of course, we have consecutive numbering;
25 whereas, if you refer to the numbering of the various tapes, then it
1 starts with each new tape and new numbering starts.
2 Could you always clearly indicate whether we are in 4124, 4125,
3 and what page we are so that we can find it.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will go by the
5 ERN also. I'm referring to specifically the 2005 interview. That is
6 P762, part 2; that is V000-5275; and page 55.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President? Have --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please --
10 MR. MIKULICIC: I believe it should be an interview from 2002,
11 and not 2005.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: This is 2005.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay. I'm sorry.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could take to you 2005, the second tape,
15 that is V000-5275 - I think Mr. Celic has found it - if we go even by the
16 92 ter submission. It's page 55, and it starts with a B/C/S answer --
17 sorry, B/C/S interpretation there.
18 Mr. President, do you have the page?
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, I don't. I have not found it yet, but I have to
20 find my way through there almost 680 pages, which we have all kind of --
21 what I would prefer, as a matter of fact, that since it has been tendered
22 as one annex to your motion at the time, that you refer to the overall
23 paging, which means somewhere between 1 and 679. Otherwise we have to
24 find the section exactly which matches with your numbers. Sometimes we
25 find them at the bottom, sometimes we find them at the top, then we have
1 to find the right section, and then within that section the page number;
2 whereas, this is an overall paging covering everything.
3 But I take it that have you not been prepared for that.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, because in the 92 ter
5 submission, we -- I do believe we paginated from 1 to 600. What we did
6 was we submitted the -- the transcripts in three separate sections. I
7 think on the e-court, though, what happened was one 65 ter number was
8 given to all three transcripts, all three sections, of a particular
9 transcript. So unless you're following the e-court -- is that what
10 you're following, Mr. President, or do you have the hard copy of the
11 transcripts with you?
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. Printing 700 pages where you can look at them
13 on the screen three times, that's 2.000 pages, that is a half a wood
14 spent on printing.
15 So we are working from the e-court version.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
17 JUDGE ORIE: I see that at least some of my colleagues have the
18 hard copies. I'm more used to working in the electronic versions.
19 Please proceed, because with the assistance of my colleagues, I
20 will be able to cope.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In fact, Mr. President, Defence counsel have
22 it because I already e-mailed them in advance and requested that they
23 bring in hard copies to court.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is -- yes. If you would, next time,
25 extend that to the Chamber as well, so that we are prepared. Let's not
1 waste any further time on it. Problem has been resolved.
2 Please proceed.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Mr. Celic, this is what you say: "All group commanders were
5 required to inform me if they encountered armed resistance. Nobody
6 called me and reported anything of that sort to me."
7 Now, you're talking about the operation in Plavno on the 25th.
8 There you go on to say, the next answer: "Once they arrived at the final
9 destination, they reported to me verbally that nothing had happened."
10 Then if could I ask to you go down a few pages, down to page 58.
11 This is your first response on that page, and the last two lines, where
12 you said: "On the contrary, when they arrived at the end point, they all
13 reported to me that nothing had happened, that there had been no
15 Then, further down, on page 64, if you could turn to page 64, you
16 say, and this is your first response: "While I was waiting for them at
17 the end point, I recall that I had already started writing the report
18 that I was writing based on the map. I just needed information of their
19 arrival time and whether there had been any interventions during the
20 operation and which ones."
21 Then a few lines down, you say: "As these people told me that
22 there were no interventions at that time, that everything was all right,
23 I already had the report. And I added that in the course of the
24 operation, the unit did not encounter any resistance; and when we arrived
25 in Gracac, I submitted that report."
1 So this is an obvious question, but since it has not been
2 properly stated. Now, that report, what exactly did it say? Because we
3 don't have that report here, and I'm referring to the original report
4 when your group commanders had reported that nothing had happened and
5 there were no interventions. What did your report say? Was it
6 consistent with what the group leaders said, or did you write -- report
7 something else?
8 A. What it states in the report is the following: On the 25th of
9 August, at such-and-such a time, we received an assignment to search the
10 terrain from the first to the last line. The line is described where the
11 place is -- described; and then the report at the end, which means that
12 when the assignment was set, there were no interventions and that was the
13 end of the report.
14 So the substance of the report was that when the task was carried
15 out, nothing happened.
16 Q. Now, when you were interviewed in 2002, Mr. Celic, you indicated
17 that you may have had a copy of that report. But in 2005, you were not
18 certain about that, and you did inform the members of the Office of the
19 Prosecutor that you would be able to find a copy and provide it to us.
20 Now, do you have a copy of that original report with you, either
21 here or somewhere else?
22 A. The report was supposed to be in the archive, or rather, should
23 be in the archives of either the command or the unit. I don't know
24 whether they sent it to you and whether they found it at all.
25 Q. Do you have a copy with you?
1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. Did you look in the special police archives whether there was --
3 this report was there, either in preparation to come for this -- for your
4 testimony or before that?
5 A. I never went into the archives.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call for document P560,
8 Q. Mr. Celic, now, your testimony was that you submitted this report
9 to the operation headquarters. And you believe that you handed it over
10 to Mr. Janic. Now, we will see -- I appreciate you may or may not have
11 seen this report that's on the screen. Do you recognise this report?
12 Have you seen this report before?
13 A. No.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to page 2.
15 Q. Do you note, Mr. Celic, this is an --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Page 2 of the English version also,
17 Mr. Registrar.
18 Q. This is an report on the Lucko Unit's activities on the 25th;
19 this is submitted by Mr. Janic.
20 Now, is this consistent with the -- with the original report that
21 you submitted to Mr. Janic?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, I'm going to ask you a series of questions about
24 matters you're familiar with; and so that we don't waste much time, let
25 me, once and for all, take you to that part of your testimony.
1 If you could turn to 2005 interview.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is P762, for the record.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if would you give me the numbers
4 under which the documents were filed, they are sequentially numbered,
5 then I would have no problems in finding it in the electronic version.
6 So the --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... at the top of the pages,
9 if you give me that number, I will find it.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will do that, Mr. President. It is 5276.
11 Is that the number? V000 --
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking in terms of 13.680, the numbers at the
13 very top of the hard copies. It says IT-06-90-T and then we have a page
14 number based on the filing of this document.
15 You see that in your hard copy?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I don't have that here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I see Mr. Cayley has them, Mr. Mikulicic doesn't
18 have the draft, the version prior to filing and the version after filing;
19 and the version after filing contains this number, which would certainly
20 assist me.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President. I actually have it with both
22 sets of numbers. So if Ms. Mahindaratne actually states what the smaller
23 number is, the 112 number, then I can give you that larger number.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley. I apologise.
1 Mr. President, after the break, I will bring in a filed version , you
2 know, to assist the Court.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It is 2005; that's P762, part 2; that would be
5 5275, and page 70.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Which is, Mr. President, page 13467; that's page 70
7 of 112.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
12 Q. Mr. Celic, you were asked this question: "Okay. When was the
13 first you heard that obviously there had been a problem in the village of
15 And your response is: "I said last time, as well. I believe it
16 was the next day. I'm not sure but I believe it was the next day.
17 Mr. Sacic and Mr. Markac called me to the headquarters, and that was the
18 first time I found out that something had happened there."
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could go down two pages down to
20 page 72, that is in the same section, page 72, two pages down.
21 Q. You say: "I believe I was personally called by Mr. Janic or
22 somebody from headquarters -- or somebody from the headquarters to report
23 to Mr. Sacic or Mr. Markac."
24 "You don't remember to contacted you?
25 "I couldn't be -- I'm not sure -- 100 percent sure.
1 "But you say you were called and you had to report to General
2 Markac and Mr. Sacic?
3 "They had called me to inform me that something had happened.
4 They already had my report. That was the first time I had learned that
5 something had happened."
6 And, Mr. Celic, if you could go down three pages, to page 75,
7 where you were asked: "Did you go to where they set up their command in
9 "That is right.
10 "Did anyone accompany you to go and see Mr. Sacic and Mr. Markac?
11 "As far as I remember, no."
12 Then the next page: "And when you arrived there, were you seen
13 by both of them, Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic?
14 "Yes, and there was an additional gentleman who was there, too.
15 "Okay. Who was that?
16 "Mr. Pavlovic from the communications department. He was in the
17 headquarters in charge of communications."
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, when you are reading --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sorry.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- your speed of speech goes up.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. And before I ask you the question, Mr. Celic, I'd like to also
23 show you your 2002 interview on this same issue.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is P761, part 2, which is 4125, page 40.
25 Q. And in your version, which is the B/C/S version --
1 MR. CAYLEY: Sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Mahindaratne. That,
2 Your Honour, is page 13791.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
5 Q. Mr. Celic, in the B/C/S version, it is page 37. Have you found
6 it? And in the English version, it starts at the bottom, page 40.
7 I will read it, then you'll know, Mr. Celic, where we are: "I
8 believe that it was the next day. I'm not sure. I cannot say exactly
9 what time. I was called by General Markac and Mr. Sacic, when they
10 called me and told me that I had submitted a report which said that
11 nothing had happened and that they had information that something had
12 happened, to which I answered ..." --
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's going on to the next page.
14 Q. Page 41: "... with which I answered that that was the report I
15 got from my group leaders or group commanders. And they told me there
16 was nothing; and in case there was something, they should call them and
17 ask them. And I can't say exactly how long the conversation lasted, but
18 after that they told me to write a new report, another report."
19 In terms what time this was, you say: "I cannot say for sure,
20 but I think it was before 9.00."
21 Now, if you move to the next page in the English transcript, you
22 were asked the question: "When you were told this by Mr. Markac and
23 Sacic, that an incident happened, did they tell you what had happened?
24 "They told me that there was an armed conflict. I don't remember
25 now the exact words they used, but there was an armed conflict, and
1 something had happened there and that I wrote in my report that there was
3 Then you go on to say - and you are probably with what you said,
4 Mr. Celic - that from there you were taken to another room and the report
5 was dictated to you by Mr. Sacic.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now, Mr. Registrar, if we could have document
7 P563, please.
8 Q. Now, your testimony was, Mr. Celic, that in that other room,
9 Mr. Sacic dictated to you a second report to be submitted in relation to
10 the incident; and parts of what you were supposed to write were written
11 by Mr. Sacic on the reverse of your original report, which is the report
12 that we don't have. Is that correct?
13 A. What you said -- well, I would like to differentiate between two
14 points. With respect to the event itself, I can describe to you -- well,
15 I believe Mr. Zdravko Janic called me to the headquarters; and at the
16 headquarters, General Markac was there and Mr. Sacic was there. And at
17 that first interview, they asked me what happened -- what actually
18 happened because they probably expected that I knew something.
19 However, at that point in time, the only thing I did know was
20 that nothing had happened. And after that -- so you mention something
21 about them taking me into another room. That's not true. I went with
22 Mr. Sacic to the operative part, to another area, and I wrote the report
23 with him. So not with Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic, but only with Mr. Sacic.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... say that "they" took you,
25 but what I told you was what you have exactly us, and I can read what you
1 said. But what I asked you was -- well, your testimony so far is that
2 Markac and Sacic spoke to you, and you were asked to write another
3 report. Then Mr. Sacic took you from there to another room, and he
4 dictated a new report to you. That was your testimony.
5 My question was -- you have said that in the course of that new
6 report being dictated, Mr. Sacic also wrote parts of what you were
7 supposed to write on the reverse of your original report.
8 Now, my question was: Is that the one that is missing today, the
9 one that we don't have here, but the one that you said might be in the
10 special police archives? Did you understand what I said?
11 A. The report is correct. But let me emphasise once again and don't
12 misunderstand me, but the interpreter keeps using the plural saying that
13 "they" took me away and that "they" dictated to me. I was only with
14 Mr. Sacic and not with Mr. Markac. But that's the report.
15 Q. Yeah. My question to you is: When you were taken from that room
16 where you spoke to Mr. Markac and Sacic, you were taken out of that room
17 by Mr. Sacic to another room and the report was dictated to you. Is that
19 Well, let me read what you have said about that, so that there is
20 no further confusion.
21 A. As far as the report is concerned, that is correct.
22 Q. Yes. My question to you is this -- you were asked this: "As a
23 result of what you had said, did they still tell you that you had -- you
24 have to got to do a new report?
1 JUDGE ORIE: You are reading.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It is it, again, at
3 2002, the same section we were in, 2002; P761, section 2, 4125, page 43.
4 Q. That's the section I was reading on, Mr. Celic, if you could
5 follow this when I read this.
6 You were asked a question: "As a result of what you had said,
7 did they still tell that you have got to do a new report?
9 "Did they tell you that you got to do it on your own?
10 "It was dictated to me.
11 "Okay. By whom?
13 "Okay. Was that after you had spoken to your four group leaders?
14 When he dictated it to you, had you had a chance to speak to your four
15 group leaders, before you had -- you heard what Mr. Sacic had to say?
17 "So, in fact, he repeated -- the fact the report that was
18 dictated to you by Sacic, basically you had no knowledge of what he was
19 telling you?
21 "So were you put in a very difficult position? And after he had
22 dictated this report to you, were you obliged to sign it?
23 "Yes. I wrote it and I signed it."
24 And if you could go to section 3, that is 4126.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is, again, 2002, 4126, page 2.
1 Mr. Cayley, are you able to -- that is section of 3 of 2002.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. That is page 13785.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. You were asked this question, Mr. Celic: "When it was mentioned
5 that you -- mentioned to you that you got to do another report, was
6 Mr. Markac present? "
7 Your response is: "Yes."
8 Then: "Who actually told you got to do a new report?
9 "After that conversation, that talk, I went with Mr. Sacic to a
10 separate -- to another room, and that's where I had to do -- I had to
11 write it."
12 Then you were asked the last question: "Okay. And your report
13 was handwritten, was it?
15 So your evidence that that is what I, in fact, asked you, that I
16 didn't mix it up. My question was this: Now your evidence is clear you
17 spoke with Mr. Markac and Sacic, you were asked to write another report,
18 Sacic took you to another room, and you wrote a new report.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we go down a few pages down, that is
20 the same section, page 93. I'm sorry. This is 2005, 2005, section 3;
21 that is 5276.
22 Q. Mr. Celic, if you could look at the 2005 interview, your second
23 interview. Not the first one; the second interview.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
25 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, excuse me, Ms. Mahindaratne. Your Honour, that
1 is page 1331 -- I'm sorry. It is page 13331.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. And if you look at the third part, Mr. Celic, and if you move to
6 actually page 94, you say this: "In your report that you say was
7 dictated by Mr. Sacic, you mention a prisoner.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry.
10 If I may have a minute, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I find the prisoner on line 21 of this page 94,
12 Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I was trying to really
14 find another section.
15 Anyway, let me move on without wasting time.
16 Q. Now, when Mr. Sacic dictated the new report to you, did he or did
17 you have a copy, or did he have the original of your original report, the
18 one that you submitted that that there was no incident? You know, in
19 your first report where you said there was no intervention, was that
20 report there?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What did Mr. Sacic do with that report, did you see? Did you
23 leave it in his custody? Did you bring it back? What happened to that
24 report, your original report?
25 A. That report was handed in a day earlier. Now, whether it was
1 photocopied or not, I don't know. I believe it was. He showed me the
2 report at the moment when we wrote the new report, when I was supposed to
3 write the new report. I had this report in front of me because from that
4 report, I got out information concerning the directions involved.
5 Q. Yeah. My question is: Once the new report was written, what did
6 Mr. Sacic do with your old report, the one that we do not have here today
7 and you said might be in the special police archives? That's what I'm
8 asking you. The old report, what did Mr. Sacic do with the old report?
9 A. I won't know.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, can we try to have this clarified.
11 You said Mr. Sacic showed you the report. It was in front of you
12 because you took some information from that. Did you take it at the end?
13 Did Mr. Sacic take it with him at the end? Did anyone else take it with
14 him when you had written your new report?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that that report,
16 together with all other reports, was in the same file and that it does
17 exist somewhere in the archives.
18 Now, whether there was a copy or whether there was an original,
19 I'm confident that that was the original and that a copy exists, too, and
20 I believe that this report is somewhere in the archives.
21 JUDGE ORIE: My question was a different one. I'd like to take
22 you back it that room where you write your second report and where the
23 original report was in front of you. Who took those papers with him when
24 you left that room?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I left the documents there. Who
1 took them, I don't know.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, do you note the document on the screen. Do
6 you -- can you recognise it? That's a report written by you; is that
8 A. Yes, this is my second report.
9 Q. Is this the report that was dictated to you by Mr. Sacic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, your testimonies at the time Mr. Sacic dictated this report
12 to you, when you wrote this report, you did not know or you were not
13 aware of this incident, nor did you know any of these details. So did
14 you ever raise it with him or ask him as to why you were being asked to
15 write these details when you don't even know about it?
16 A. Well, actually, at that point in time, I knew that nothing had
17 happened. Since he was my superior, not for a moment did I think that
18 what he was saying was not the truth. He had full authority as far as I
19 was concerned, and I acted on orders, I wrote out the report as he told
20 me to do, and I did not check the information involved.
21 Q. Did you ask him from where he got that information, based on what
22 he was dictating this incident to you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now, at the time, Mr. Markac was in the same building, wasn't he?
25 You had just met him before you went to this other room with Mr. Sacic.
1 A. After the -- after leaving the room where they were together, I
2 did not see Mr. Markac. Maybe he was in the building; maybe he went out
3 into the field. I don't know. It is possible that he was indoors; it is
4 possible that he left from the moment when we parted. I did not see him.
5 Q. Now, after this -- after writing this second report, did you ever
6 meet with Mr. Markac and ask him why you were made to write a report that
7 you had no knowledge about?
8 A. I did meet him many times, but we never talked about that. At
9 that moment, Mr. Sacic, who was chief of sector, gave me this
10 information, and I did not doubt it. I had no reason not to believe him.
11 Q. But going to that part I was going to read to you earlier on, you
12 were the commander on the ground of that operation. In your experience,
13 is it possible that units -- or your unit could meet with resistance and
14 an event, as described in this report, could take place without that
15 being reported to you?
16 A. That was not supposed to happen, but obviously it did happen.
17 None of the leaders of the groups who were out in the field informed me
18 about an armed conflict. So, if there were a conflict at any point in
19 time, it was their duty to report to me as to what was going on. I did
20 not receive this information. On the contrary, I received information
21 from all group leaders that nothing had happened.
22 Q. And when Mr. Sacic was dictating this to you, he gives details
23 about a prisoner what was taken; and, in fact, the name of this prisoner
24 is also given. As the operation commander, you were aware that no
25 prisoners were taken in the operation.
1 Now, did that fact at least not lead you to realize at that time
2 that you were being asked to write a false report?
3 A. As for detainees, prisoners, I did not see any prisoners at any
4 point in time and there weren't any. I would have known. I would have
5 either -- or rather, they would have taken them to the line, and they
6 were document bound do tell me about this. There were no prisoners.
7 Now, whether some other unit entered our area, whether they had
8 prisoners, I don't know. At that moment, I did not think about that. I
9 trusted Mr. Sacic. I believe what he said. It was a large area. There
10 were a lot of units there. And quite simply, at that point in time, I
11 believe that things were the way he had put them. Not at any moment did
12 I doubt what he was saying.
13 Q. Okay. I will move on.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I note the time is this a good
15 time to take a break?
16 JUDGE ORIE: It is, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 Could I ask, however, one clarifying question.
18 You said, "There were a lot of units there."
19 What units are you referring to?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if we were to return the map,
21 I could tell you. The map shows what units were there: Osijek, Split
22 I'm speaking for memory now. I don't know if there was Rijeka
23 something else. But it is evident on the map what units were there. You
24 can see that on the map, about 500 to 600 men, four or five units.
25 However, we can always see that on the basis o from the report from Chief
1 Janic. I remember Osijek
2 JUDGE ORIE: But let me ask you: The report is talking about the
3 unit which I understand to be your unit.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, if you said perhaps another unit may
6 have taken someone prisoner, the report reflects that the unit which you
7 said is your unit took prisoners.
8 I'm asking you this because you said, Well, it might have been
9 another unit, but the report states that it was the unit, which means, in
10 this context, your unit.
11 Would you agree with me on that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. I wanted to say in
13 relation to prisoners that our point of departure and our ending point
14 were the same. All units came to this ending point, like we did. And I
15 wanted to say I don't know whether other units had prisoners, but I
16 wanted to point out that our unit certainly did not have any prisoners.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the new report
18 states that prisoners were taken by your unit.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Obviously, this
20 information is incorrect.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Celic, and everyone else, we will have a break,
22 and we resume at 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Mr. Registrar, may I have P566, please.
3 Q. Mr. Celic, now, your testimony was that after this, you know,
4 writing of the report on the 26th with Mr. Sacic, once you went to
6 report on this incident. And could you see -- do you know the document
7 on the screen? Do you recognise this document? Is this the order that
8 Mr. Turkalj gave you?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Now, as far as you're aware, up until this time - that is, when
11 Mr. Turkalj ordered you and the four group leaders to submit a report -
12 were there any reports that been submitted by anybody who participated in
13 the operation on 25th which supported the version that was dictated to
14 you by Mr. Sacic on 26th?
15 Did you understand what I said?
16 A. I understand what you're saying. As far as I know, no. No one
17 submitted any reports to me; that is to say, that after the action was
18 offer, I just received a verbal/oral report. I'm the only one who wrote
19 a written report, and I doubt that anyone else did. It is possible that
20 I am not aware of that; but, as far as I know, no one else did.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I have, Mr. Registrar, document P564,
23 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, your evidence was that in response to
24 Mr. Turkalj's order, you submitted a typed version of the same report
25 that you hand-wrote when Mr. Sacic dictated.
1 Now, is this the report that you submitted in response to
2 Mr. Turkalj; that is, a typed version of your handwritten previous
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Now, you -- your testimony is that you submitted this in response
6 to Mr. Turkalj's order which was dated 1st September, as we just saw it.
7 Why did you back date this report to the 25th, instead of inserting the
8 correct date? Because if this was submitted in response to the
9 1st September order, it should be the 1st September or a date thereafter.
10 A. I just copied the report that had been written on the 26th of
11 August. The report that I wrote on the 26th of August is also dated the
12 25th of August, and I thought that that report was identical. I inserted
13 the same date. I had no special reason not to put this date, or any
14 other date for that matter.
15 Q. Now, did anyone instruct to you back date this report?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, this report is identical in content to your handwritten
18 report that we saw earlier, with the exception that in your handwritten
19 report, there is the last line says that: "The task was completed at
20 1600 hours and that no one was injured or wounded."
21 That line has been omitted from the report. Was there any
22 particular reason why you omitted the timing the operation was completed
23 from this report?
24 A. There was absolutely no reason, except for this report that have
25 you here, there is yet another report that differs, in terms of a
1 particular section, because I was the first one to write a report out in
2 the field. This is the typed up version. There is no reason for the
3 change. However, on the basis of this report that had been typed out,
4 the group leaders, in accordance with the commander's order, had to
5 submit reports as well. After they did that, they inserted a section
6 which was truthful, of course, and I said how civilians should be
7 treated. That is what I said at the point of departure.
8 In Gracac, I did not include that after their reports were
9 written up, then this section was included in my report. So then there's
10 this other report that differs from that point of view. But the question
11 that you put to me, well, there was no reason why the time was not
13 Q. So, following what you just said, it was after you submitted this
14 report that the group leaders submitted their reports on the incident,
15 the typed versions.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And since you mentioned the other report with the extra
18 paragraph, I'll call that document.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have document P565,
21 Q. Now, while that document is being brought up, Mr. Celic, I'd like
22 you to look at your 2005 interview. Mr. Celic, if could you look at your
23 2005 interview, section 2, that is 5275, page 102.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. President, it is page 13435 on the
25 filed version.
1 Q. Now, there, you're referring to that -- your next report, which
2 we have just brought up on the screen.
3 You say [sic]: "Okay. Before the break, I asked you to mark the
4 document JC-6, which was, in fact, a document which had an extra
5 paragraph of a report dated 26th August 1995
6 has an extra paragraph in it. This is an extra paragraph relating to the
7 treatment of prisoners, et cetera."
8 And your response is: "That is the same one, I believe. In
9 fact, I know this is the same one that was written that day, except for
10 this: This one was the one that the secretary added this paragraph. It
11 wasn't written later. It was written, I believe, the same day that we
12 were writing the reports in Zagreb
13 Now, so, my first question is: You submitted that typed version
14 and the group leaders also were there in Zagreb at the time, isn't it, in
15 this office location where you're typing and submitting reports.
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. And whose secretary was it who inserted that additional
19 A. All the reports that were handwritten were typed up by the
20 secretary of the commander. Since my report was written first, after
21 that, it was the group leaders who wrote their reports. I believe, since
22 she had typed this out, that the group leaders actually wrote the
23 reports; and then after that, well, that was true. That paragraph was
24 quite true. That is the only thing I added to my own report, and this
25 was typed up by the secretary; that is to say, she did the typing for all
1 of us.
2 Q. Now, when you say the "secretary of the commander," whom are you
3 referring to? Who was the commander? Whom are you referring to?
4 A. When I'm talking about "the commander," I'm just talking about
5 the commander of my unit, Mr. Turkalj.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear what the witness
7 said before that, due to background noise.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. Mr. Celic, could you repeat what you said. The interpreter could
10 not hear. You said something. Could you repeat your response?
11 A. When I'm talking about "the commander," I'm talking only about
12 the commander of my unit, Mr. Josip Turkalj.
13 Q. So it was his secretary that inserted this paragraph?
14 A. That's right, and I do believe that I said that.
15 Q. And who instructed her to insert this paragraph? I'm not
16 challenging the veracity of the content of that paragraph, Mr. Celic, I'm
17 just asking who instructed her to insert that paragraph.
18 A. I do believe that that was me, since she wrote all the reports
19 and she knew who wrote what. And the leader of the groups all wrote
20 that, and without a doubt that was the truth. And when that was typed
21 out, when they all tabled the report, I probably said that that portion
22 should be put into my report.
23 Q. Now, the content of this report is identical to your handwritten
24 report that you wrote, which was dictated to you by Mr. Sacic. Now, did
25 the secretary have a copy of that ? Did you bring in a copy? How is
1 that the secretary ended up typing an identical report with identical
2 content as your handwritten report?
3 A. She copied it out from the report that I wrote and brought in. I
4 don't want to misspeak. The possibility does exist that I brought it
5 with me, and there is also the possibility that it was returned to us.
6 But I do believe I brought it with me because, according to the operative
7 assignment in the field, it was my duty to submit a report in the field.
8 But I'm also duty-bound to report to the commander about the engagement
9 of the unit, so I do believe that I probably had a copy of that report
11 Q. So the secretary basically copied or looked at your handwritten
12 report and typed out the two versions that we looked at, the typed
13 versions. Is that correct?
14 A. She either looked at it or I read it out, but it's the same
15 contents, the some contents from the same report.
16 Q. Now, I'd like you to look at -- in your 2005 interview,
17 Mr. Celic, if could you go to part 3.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And this is 5276, page 46; that is the filed
19 version, page 13377.
20 Q. And you said the group leaders also wrote reports, and you go on
21 to say your response there: "Of course, I saw them because the secretary
22 wrote all the reports; and I probably, as I read those reports, I saw
23 that individual people had written that paragraph and that version
24 without that addition might have already been printed. And after I saw
25 that, I cannot confirm whether all the members had written that or just
1 some; but after that, I added this paragraph."
2 So at this place, while these reports were being written,
3 obviously, it seems that there has been a comparison of reports, your
4 report vis-a-vis the reports of the group leaders for -- to ensure
5 consistency. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes. I did have an insight in all -- into all the reports.
7 Q. And it was at that stage that addition was taken to have this
8 additional paragraph inserted into the reports, yours and the four group
9 leaders -- I'm sorry, three group leaders' reports?
10 A. As for me, yes, but I do believe they already had it written
11 down. I am sure that some of the leaders of the groups had written that
12 down, so we wrote it on that basis, because if we didn't have it, I don't
13 believe that I would have added it.
14 Q. Now, at the time these reports were being submitted, was there a
15 discussion amongst you and the group leaders as to why they informed you
16 previously at the end of the operation that there were no interventions,
17 and now, here, you are writing a completely different report on the
18 incident? It is logical that there would have been a discussion, isn't
20 A. Correct. On the basis of this order and even before that,
21 together with Commander Turkalj we were in the Grubori area itself, and
22 we saw for ourselves that something had happened. Now, the commander
23 asked, on the basis of these written reports, asked what had happened. I
24 had nothing to state in that portion because I know that nothing
25 happened. And the leader of the group -- the leaders of the group tabled
1 the report, but we didn't discuss it so I had nothing to say. I was just
2 given the possibility of saying that they conveyed to me that nothing had
4 And after that, I wrote the report with Mr. Sacic, in which I set
5 out all these facts, the facts contained in the report; and after that,
6 all the group leaders had to write whether anything happened, and what
7 happened, and who knew what. But let me state once again that, at first,
8 I didn't know that anything had happened. Quite the contrary, I knew
9 that everything was quite all right.
10 Q. I'm not contesting that, Mr. Celic. My point is, firstly, did
11 you ask the group leaders at this time -- because you were the first to
12 write the report when Mr. Sacic dictated it to you. Did you ask them if
13 they reported this, that there was something happening, to Mr. Sacic or
14 whether they had reported it to someone else other than yourself? Did
15 they tell you that they had spoken with Mr. Sacic before you spoke with
16 Mr. Sacic on the 26th?
17 A. Nobody told me, and I'm quite convinced that nobody had spoken to
18 them. That's my opinion. But the best thing would be for you to ask him
19 because I can't really say. I'm quite convinced that nobody talked about
20 it at the time.
21 Q. So, as far as you knew, when Mr. Sacic dictated the report to
22 you, the group leaders had not talked to Mr. Sacic or informed him this
23 or any incident in Grubori?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes. You already asked this question,
1 Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I don't think I did, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the witness answered it already. You didn't
4 ask. As a matter of fact, you asked the witness to enter into a debate
5 with you on what was logical under the circumstances, yes or no. So
6 apart from putting a leading question and the Defence apparently did not
7 object, then you even added to that what you would consider to be the
8 logical answer, which I would invite you to refrain from doing.
9 Then the witness said it was his opinion that no one had talked
10 to Mr. Sacic when Mr. Sacic dictated the report, which is to be
11 understood as that this witness certainly has no knowledge that he did,
12 because otherwise he could not have expressed that opinion as being the
13 whole truth.
14 So, to that extent, Mr. Mikulicic is to some extent right that
15 the witness has already included in his answer --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President --
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the previous answer, the
18 answer to your question.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document P572,
22 Q. Mr. Celic, while that document is being brought up,
23 Mr. Balunovic, one of the group leaders, is a close friend of yours,
24 isn't it? This is an close friendship. You said that in your testimony.
25 That is why I suggested that to you.
1 A. Could I ask you to repeat the surname, please.
2 Q. You know, the group leader, Balunovic. I will give you the exact
4 A. You probably mean Balunovic, Balunovic.
5 Q. I'm sorry if my pronunciation wasn't right. Yes. He is the
6 person I'm referring to, one of the group leaders of Lucko Unit.
7 Now, was there a close friendship between you and him?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And as such, are you able to recognise his signature by any
11 A. Of course, he was my subordinate and I roughly know what his
12 signature looks like.
13 Q. You, in fact, testified that -- your testimony is that you saw
14 the reports of the group leaders. Can you identify the document on the
15 screen? Have you seen this document?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could go to the next
17 page, so that Mr. Celic can see the -- see as to who wrote it.
18 A. Yes. I do believe that that is his signature. Sometimes he
19 writes his name out in full, first and last name; sometimes not. But I
20 would say that that was his signature, gentlemen.
21 Q. Now, having seen this report, did you ever ask him why he wrote a
22 report such as this, when his initial report to you on the incident was
23 that nothing had happened; or did you ask him the circumstances under
24 which he submitted this report?
25 A. At the time he wrote the report, I know that he was the left
1 flank; and as he was on the left flank, since we were down there together
2 where the incident happened, I was convinced that he knew nothing either.
3 Because two or three days after the event itself, both he and I had to go
4 to Gracac and convince ourselves that something had happened. So by
5 going into the field, in the territory, he didn't know what had happened.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... not talking --
7 A. So just by that --
8 Q. No. I'm not talking about whether he knew or not.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could, Mr. Registrar, go back to
10 page 1.
11 Q. In this report, there is -- this is a report on an armed clash.
12 My question to you is: Now, your -- what Mr. Balunovic reported to you
13 at the end of operation was that there were no interventions, there was
14 no resistance whatsoever; however, this report has a reference to an
15 armed clash. So did you not ask him why he didn't say so previously, if
16 there had been armed clash; or why he is now submit ago different report?
17 Did you ever have that conversation with him?
18 A. That's precisely what I wanted to tell you. Before writing the
19 report, together with Mr. Balunovic, I was duty-bound to go to Gracac to
20 the very spot, to the very locality; and during that arrival, nobody knew
21 what had happened. At that point in time, he, too, was convinced that
22 nothing had happened. But, afterwards, when we went down there and when
23 we saw that something had happened, we wrote the report and Branko
24 Balunovic wrote the report stating that something had in actual fact
1 So I do believe that what he said after the action itself, after
2 the action was completed, was truthful; that is to say, that he did not
3 know what had happened because that's what he told me.
4 Q. So when you say you went up there and saw something had happened,
5 what you mean is that you're referring, in fact, to your visit to Grubori
6 with Mr. Balunovic and Mr. Turkalj, isn't it? That's what you're
7 referring to, that's when you saw three bodies and some houses had been
8 burned, that's what you just referred to, wasn't it?
9 A. That's right. But that's the answer to your question about why
10 Branko Balunovic didn't tell me that something had happened immediately
11 after the action. That means we went back to Zagreb after the action.
12 From Zagreb
13 about. And during that conversation, he kept telling me that nothing had
14 happened. So, then, he knew nothing right up until the point that we got
15 there. That's what I wanted to tell you.
16 Q. So, what you're saying is having visited Grubori and seeing the
17 three bodies - you said you saw only three bodies in your testimony - and
18 having seen the burnt houses, then you realized that something had
19 happened and you came back to Zagreb
21 That's your testimony. Is that right?
22 A. Let me clarify this about the report. I was the only one who
23 wrote the report before, the second day, on the 22nd [as interpreted], in
24 Gracac itself, when we talked about something having happened; and then I
25 believe that something really did happen. However, I personally saw the
1 dead bodies myself and saw what had happened, but the report had already
2 been written before I had seen that.
3 Q. Mr. Celic, it's been recorded as 22nd --
4 MR. MIKULICIC: I am sorry. Just for the sake of correction, in
5 the transcript, it was written that the second day was "the 22nd," which
6 is obviously not what witness said. It was "26th."
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's what I was trying to say, yes. It's
8 the 26th, Mr. President. It is not contested.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, not contested.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, I noticed that you put the question to the
11 witness several times which apparently there was some communication
12 problem perhaps.
13 Mr. Celic, what Ms. Mahindaratne apparently wants to hear from
14 you is the following: It was reported to you, initially, that nothing
15 had happened. You told us that Mr. Balunovic reported this and that you
16 were convinced that this is what he observed on that day.
17 Now, what Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know, as far as I
18 understand, is that whether you ever discussed with Mr. Balunovic, being
19 a good friend of yours, what happened that at a later stage he writes and
20 signs a report, which is quite different from what he reported to you and
21 what you believed to be what he observed, whether you ever discussed this
22 new report giving all kinds of not only of information which is
23 inconsistent with the first report, but also gives all kind of details,
24 which might be difficult to state on the basis of the observations
25 apparently Mr. Balunovic made on the day itself.
1 Did you ever discuss this with him?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did, and I'll try and make
3 myself clear.
4 We discussed it on the day when, in fact, he -- when we received
5 an order to report down there to see what had happened. Now, on the way
6 to Grubori and Gracac, he was still convinced that nothing had happened,
7 and that is the oral report he gave to me, after the action itself.
8 So, at that point in time, he said he knew that nothing had
9 happened. That's what I was trying to say.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But later he produces a report in which it's
11 not only stated that something had happened, which you are convinced he
12 did not observe himself, and gives further details on matters, names on
13 matters which, according to your testimony, he had not observed himself
15 So did you at any later stage discuss with him why he wrote and
16 signed a report which you considered could not be based on his personal
17 observations on that day?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You asked me whether we were good
19 friends. We are good friends, and I really did believe him when he said
20 that nothing had happened. And I believe that his report stemmed from my
21 report, as to the details, because he didn't flow about the names or the
22 years, nor did I know about that, so I wrote what was dictated to me.
23 So I'm convinced that this report of his partially stemmed from
24 the report that I had or the one that I was supposed to write, and I'm
25 convinced also that regardless of the report, he did not know what had
1 happened, or rather, that's what he told me. But --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, are you aware of your report, the report that
3 was dictated to you, ever being provided to Mr. Balunovic? Did he tell
4 you, or did you see it?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He must have seen it. I'm
6 convinced -- not convinced. I'm sure that I had that report with me when
7 we were all supposed to write a report, myself and the four group
8 leaders. I must have had the report with me because it was in an
9 identically typed out version, and I wrote my report by hand. I didn't
10 type it out in Gracac. It was written in hand, by hand. And as the
11 secretary wrote the identical report in Zagreb, without a doubt he must
12 have seen my report. He should have seen it, and he must have seen it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So that is a conclusion, he must have seen it
14 because he didn't have the details available to him; but, factually, did
15 you see that it was handed to him, or did you -- I mean, apart from
16 concluding that he must have seen, have you any direct observation on
17 whether it was handed out to him, whether it was in his hands, whether
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say directly, but I can
20 say that we were all invited to the meeting. I am referring to the
21 meeting we had with Commander Turkalj. And since Commander Turkalj and
22 myself and Mr. Balunovic went back from the site of the events, there was
23 a written order asking us all to write a report. And at that point,
24 Mr. Turkalj had my report -- had my report; and, probably, I had my
25 report, too. And Branko Balunovic could have seen it, he could have
1 extracted the details. Now, whether anybody specifically gave it to him,
2 whether did Turkalj or I did, or the secretary, I don't know. The
3 secretary had the report, it was accessible, it wasn't stored in an
4 archive anywhere and not inaccessible. So, whether somebody actually
5 handed to him, perhaps I did, perhaps the secretary did, perhaps the
6 commander did, I can't really say for sure now.
7 But, without a doubt, at that point in time, on that day, he
8 could, anybody could have accessed that document because we didn't have
9 hide anything, the report was on the table for everybody to see.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, my last question on the matter: When you were
11 in Zagreb
12 can you exclude with certainty that the reports were already prepared and
13 typed out, or are you sure that the secretary typed out the reports that
14 were made at that moment by those who had to report?
15 So were reports already there? Can you exclude for that
16 possibility or can you not exclude for that possibility?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do believe that they hadn't been
18 typed out in advance and composed; and for 99 per cent certainty, I can
19 exclude that possibility because the information from my report was not
20 something that the secretary could have come by until she had seen my
21 report, until I had brought my report. Whether it was sent by fax to the
22 commander, I don't know. You would have to ask him that.
23 However, I'm quite convinced that nobody had the details and
24 information until my report reached Zagreb
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Celic, do you recall when you wrote the report? This report
4 writing took place in Zagreb
5 the order, which was 1st September, or sometime after that?
6 A. I don't want to give you the wrong information. But if the order
7 was written on the 1st, then it could have been the 1st of September or
8 the day after, depending on where they were, whether the people were in
9 the field. After the field, they were either on furlough having free
10 days or somewhere. And if he received the report, it is possible that
11 not all the group leaders attended the meeting that day. Upon receiving
12 the order, he called us all in. However, as I say, that could have been
13 on the second day, because everybody attended the meeting. But perhaps
14 the best thing would be to ask him because I don't want to say something
15 that may not be quite right.
16 Q. And do you know if -- as to whose report was typed first? Was it
17 your report which was typed by the secretary first, before the group
18 leaders; or were their reports typed before yours? Would you know that?
19 A. I am convinced that it was my report.
20 Q. You explain as to why you, in fact, back dated your report,
21 because you said you merely followed your handwritten report. Now,
22 Mr. Balunovic report is also back dated to 25th August. Do you know if
23 anyone instructed the group leaders to back date their report?
24 Mr. Celic, is the interpretation still proceeding? Because
25 you're not responding to my question.
1 A. Yes, yes. Yes, I'm listening to the interpreter.
2 Now, as far as the date is concerned, nobody said what date
3 should be put. Whether that is a mistake or not, I don't know. But
4 since the event took place on the 25th, then the report should have been
5 tabled the same day, and we placed that same date there. If the
6 commander's report was on the 1st of September, maybe that should have
7 been the date. But we didn't pay attention to that, nor did anybody tell
8 us to back date. There was no discussion about that, nobody looked at
9 that especially, or dealt with that.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now, Mr. Registrar, may I have document P573,
12 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, you will see on the screen now an identical
13 report as the one we just saw of Mr. Balunovic with an additional
14 paragraph, just like your report, mentioning that the unit was instructed
15 to comply with international humanitarian law. I think it's at the
16 last -- yeah, the one before the last paragraph, before the list of names
17 are indicated.
18 Now, it seems that he, Mr. Balunovic, too, has submitted a second
19 report with that additional paragraph. Now, I'm not going to go through
20 all the group leaders report, and we have tendered into evidence two
21 reports from each of the three group leaders; one without the paragraph,
22 one with the paragraph.
23 Now, was there some kind of consensus at that time that this
24 paragraph should be inserted?
25 A. While the group leaders were writing reports, everyone had his
1 own office and everyone wrote in his own office. When we gave it to the
2 typist to type it up, well, quite simply, you can see that the reports
3 were coordinated in terms of those specific parts. Somebody had written
4 something and somebody else had written something else. But if we're
5 talking about what I wrote in my own report, it was good for it to be
6 clued in the report because it was actually the truth. And that was
7 conveyed to all the soldiers at the very beginning, that there were
8 civilians and that it had to do with civilians.
9 So this is something that was not mentioned in the report, but
10 the content is true; and I believe that, at the time, the reports were
11 coordinated at the secretary. Somebody had written something up,
12 somebody else had not, and then when you see that they were not all the
13 same, then these portions could be included.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could move on to page 2.
15 Q. My first question is: Did you see this second report of
16 Mr. Balunovic also in Zagreb
17 A. The first and the second were all written on the same day. I'm
18 convinced that it was all written on the same day.
19 Q. Now, on the face of it, the signature is different to the
20 previous one. Do you know Mr. Balunovic to use this type of signature,
21 or is it someone else placing his signature on his behalf?
22 A. I'm convinced that this is his signature, but the best thing
23 would be for you to ask him to have an expertise of the handwriting
24 carried out. But I'm convinced that he is the one who signed it.
25 Q. I asked it merely because you identified the previous signature
1 also, which was different. The two names are written differently, and
2 you said that certainly looks like his signature. That is why I asked
3 you, Mr. Celic.
4 A. In view of the fact that he was my subordinate, at that moment, I
5 was assistant commander, and he was an instructor for specialised
6 training; and during every assignment, every task, he was supposed to
7 report to me, and I have quite a few of his reports. And I know that
8 sometimes he signed his full name and surname and sometimes he just
9 signed this way. So I am convinced that this report and the other one
10 have his signature on them. I repeat that once again. But perhaps the
11 best thing would have to have an expertise carried out, and then he could
12 give his views on it.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document P568,
15 Q. And while that is being brought up, Mr. Celic, did you see the
16 reports of the other two group leaders, too; that is, Mr. Zinic and
17 Mr. Krajina's reports?
18 A. Yes, I did see all the reports.
19 Q. And are you aware that the two of them, too, submitted a second
20 report with that additional paragraph? Did you see that second report of
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, did you ask this Mr. Zinic -- Mr. Zinic, as to the veracity
24 or the truthfulness of this report, why he was now submit ago different
1 A. I shall repeat once again. From that meeting that I talked
2 about, at that moment, he and Mr. Balunovic did not know that anything
3 had happened. But on the basis of my report, they wrote the other
4 reports. Everybody had to state their views because it was obvious that
5 something had happened, but I'm convinced he did not know at that time
6 what it was that had happened.
7 Q. And was it the case for Mr. Krajina, too, the group leader? I
8 could actually have that -- his report brought up.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have --
10 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness would answer the question, please.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I just wanted to show him
12 the document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for Branko Balunovic and Stjepan
15 Licnik [phoen], they had the left flank of the search, in accordance with
16 my orders. So, I'm convinced that since Grubori is in the middle or
17 rather, on the right side, I believe that they could not have been at
18 that position. That is why I believe what they said; that is to say, two
19 group leaders were on the right-hand side, one of them was Mr. Krajina.
20 Now, whether he did see something or did not see something, I cannot say
21 because he had also told me nothing had happened. But the report says
22 something different.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could bring up document
24 570, please, P.
25 Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Krajina in Zagreb at the time
1 that you were citing these reports?
2 A. At that meeting, we all took part in the discussion, and
3 Mr. Krajina also did not know that anything had happened.
4 Q. And, so, did you ask -- can you tell us, do you know what the
5 basis of Mr. Krajina's report is, which is on the screen right now?
6 I'm sorry. Before that, let me ask you a question. Did you see
7 there report in Zagreb
8 A. Yes. This is Mr. Krajina's report.
9 Q. And did you ask him why he was submitting this version of events;
10 or is it the same for him, too, that he was following your report?
11 A. I think that the best thing would be for you to ask him that, but
12 I will try to explain it from my point of view.
13 He was also on the right-hand side and that happened where he
14 was. He also stated that nothing had happened at the initial position,
15 and it is undeniable that this was in his area and he was to report on
16 that, as we have all seen. Now, whether he did see that something
17 happened or not, whether these officers were from his group, I really
18 can't say, I don't know. But the event itself took place in his area,
19 and I believe that that is why he wrote this report.
20 Q. And based on your experience, if, in fact, there was an actual
21 armed resistance in this area, was there any reason for any of these
22 group leaders not to report that fact to you? Do you see any reason?
23 A. On the contrary, it would be their duty to report, so that we
24 would resolve the situation in the best possible way. It was their duty
25 to report on anything, had anything been happening in the field.
1 Q. While you were waiting for these units, did you hear any noises
2 or sound or some indications that would have indicated to you that there
3 was, in fact, an armed resistance or some form of conflict taking place
4 in the area; explosions, continuous gun-fire, et cetera?
5 A. If I knew how to put this event into a context of time, I could
6 give you a far more accurate answer.
7 However, I said in my statement that I went out and I came back
8 because I came across civilians; and, together with Commander Janic, I
9 got into the car and we went to the other position that is quite far away
10 from this position.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my question was: Did you
12 hear? That's only my question. Was there any indication to you while
13 you were waiting either at the start position or at the end that there
14 was some form of armed conflict taking place in the area? I'm talking
15 about explosions, continuous gun-fire. Was there any such evidence?
16 A. Not explosions, but occasional gun-fire was heard. I wanted to
17 explain another thing to you. If there was an explosion, since this is a
18 hill that it pretty high, and perhaps at that moment I was on the other
19 side of the hill, there is the possibility of not hearing the explosion.
20 But while I was there, I did not hear any explosions. However, gun-fire
21 was heard, either from a rifle or a gun, but the gun-fire had nothing to
22 do with any kind of combat, open fire.
23 It was occasional gun-fire, in order to have a lineup or whatever
24 else. I personally also fired a bullet from my rifle, in order to signal
25 to the driver to come to my position. So you could hear shots every now
1 and then; but that there was a large-scale conflict or you could hear
2 explosions, no.
3 Q. The gun-fire that you heard, the occasional gun-fire, was it in
4 that -- in the context that you were such that would not alert you that
5 there was some form of armed clash was going on, or was it the kind of
6 gun-fire in that context you were --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Excuse me, Ms. Mahindaratne. Has that question not
8 been answered already by the previous answers?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will move on.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
12 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, your evidence was that of the four group leaders,
13 three submitted reports; but Mr. Drljo, the fourth leader - pardon my
14 pronunciation if I did not pronounce that name right - refused to submit
15 a report.
16 And if could I take to you to your 2002 statement, that's part 3
17 of 2002.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's page 11; in the filed version, it is page
20 Q. And if I could read -- a question is put to you: "I just want to
21 clarify this point. After your three men were asked to submit reports
22 your four -- actually, four group leaders, and Franjo Drljo refused, who
23 did you actually personally report his failure to submit a report to?"
24 And your response is: "All of them, and to my commander. I said
25 that to my commander, Mr. Turkalj, and he informed Mr. Markac and Sacic.
1 So they knew about it."
2 Next question is: "But were you present when he actually -- did
3 you actually witness him telling Sacic and Markac?"
4 Your responses: "I believe they knew that; and, again, the day
5 when I wrote the report I believe that he was called. I believe, again,
6 I don't know who was present at the meeting, but I believe they knew.
7 They called Franjo Drljo and they talked to him, because I had to write
8 the report that day. The others had to write it later."
9 Now, first and foremost, you refer to Franjo Drljo being called
10 on a day that you had to write a report. Which day are you referring to?
11 Because you wrote reports on two days, on 26th and Mr. Sacic dictated,
12 and then later on, pursuant to Mr. Turkalj's order. Which day was
13 Mr. Drljo called?
14 A. Mr. Drljo was called in when we were all in Zagreb and when we
15 wrote our reports in Zagreb
16 the only one who was there and Mr. Sacic. No one was there, no one else.
17 And I believe that the unit was already on its way to Zagreb, on the
18 basis of a written order that was issued by Mr. Turkalj then. We were
19 all present at that meeting, I and the four group leaders. And that is
20 when we were all told that we all had to submit reports in Zagreb
21 believe that that was on the 1st of September, but I don't want to give
22 you any kind of misinformation.
23 Q. And you say that you believe that Mr. Turkalj informed Mr. Markac
24 and Sacic of Mr. Drljo's failure to submit a report. Now, what's the
25 basis for that response? What makes you think that Mr. Turkalj
1 telephoned Mr. Markac or Sacic? Do you know that for a fact, were you
2 there, or did Mr. Turkalj inform you?
3 A. At that meeting, Mr. Turkalj, the then-commander, read out the
4 written report that he had received -- or rather, he issued a written
5 order to us. And on the basis of this written order, he was duty-bound
6 to submit reports and a response, and I am convinced that he had to write
7 something in that report of his that he had to submit to the sector. It
8 was his duty to inform the sector, to send all our reports. If someone
9 had not done that, then he would have to write why that had happened.
10 That was his duty, and that is how I believed that he had no inform the
12 Q. And when you say that "they called," you refer to somebody
13 calling Franjo Drljo. You said: "They called Franjo Drljo and they
14 talked to him." Whom do you refer to as "they"?
15 A. I'm not sure whether somebody had called him or not; but
16 probably, if someone was supposed to call him, it should have been the
17 commander. I cannot say. I would be wrong if I would say that it was
18 Mr. Sacic or Mr. Markac. I guess that I would misspeak. I really do not
20 What I know are the facts. On that day, he was called by
21 Mr. Turkalj, like all of us, and that is when he knew this. Now, whether
22 anybody discussed that with him, apart from the commander, that I really
23 cannot say. I don't know. I can just make assumptions, but I'm not
24 sure. Quite simply, I don't know.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document 625,
1 please, P625.
2 Q. Mr. Celic, in the meanwhile, if could you look at your interview
3 of 2002, section 2, page 30 going on 31. Actually, in your section, in
4 your version, B/C/S, it's page 28 to 29.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In the filed version, it is page 13800.
6 Q. Now, you have been questioned, Mr. Celic, about the fire-arms
7 that your unit was carrying in the course of the Oluja-Obruc operation on
8 25th and 26, and you say this: "The short weapons that you call the
9 pistol and the long weapons; and the long ones, they were different types
10 of rifles."
11 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Could we be advised of the more specific details
14 relating to this document. I mean, who is issuing the document, when was
15 this document issued. We have -- we have no indication on that topic on
16 the document itself.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Overlapping speakers] ... this is --
18 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment, I think what Ms. Mahindaratne was
19 doing was she was just quoting for the witness his statement; and then,
20 of course, we except her to add a question to that.
21 Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. I'm citing of your interview records. Then you describe the
24 weapons that -- that your unit had, and you say: "Automatic rifles from
25 the former JNA."
1 And you were asked a question: "Did you have any form of support
2 in the way of artillery or anything like that?
4 "Did you have any weapons shall we say for launching grenades?
5 "No, we didn't. For that type of operation, we didn't have that.
6 "So the only weapons that your men carried were handguns, like
7 pistols, resolvers, and rifles, and then you say hand-grenades.
8 "Again, I cannot say exactly who was carrying what type of
9 weapons, for example, if somebody had a sniper rifle. But from the heavy
10 artillery like mortars, we didn't have that."
11 Before getting to the document, I also want to show you another
12 part and ask you the question, Mr. Celic.
13 If I could take to you to your 2005 interview notes, to
14 section -- to part 2 of 2005.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's 5275, page 14 to 15. In the filed
16 version, it is page 13523.
17 Q. And, there, you were asked: "Mr. Ceric, you said you had a
18 Motorola for communication. On this particular day, was there a
19 necessity for your men to take, should we say, the anti-tank armoury with
20 them, you know, the weapons we discussed earlier?"
21 And you say: "Nobody carried it, as far as I know."
22 Now, my question is: Were the weapons that were carried by the
23 unit recorded; as in, were weapons issued to the individual members of
24 the unit recorded somewhere?
25 A. As for weapons, all members of the unit were issued with basic
1 weapons, long barrelled or short barrelled, a gun, a pistol, and a rifle.
2 You asked me about automatic weapons. There are different types:
3 The automatic rifle used by the former JNA, their rifles; Ultimax; SAR;
4 FAR [phoen]; Heckler. All of that was recorded in the personal files of
5 the soldier.
6 When going out into the field, if a soldier has two or three
7 rifles, he could take any one of them. It was not particularly pointed
8 out what it was that he had to take. Those are basic weapons. There are
9 also specialised weapons. Officers belong to different groups. You
10 mentioned sniper shooters within a unit. Where there were 100 or 120
11 men, there were ten men who were sniper shooters. There was the
12 possibility for a soldier not to take an automatic rifle, but, rather, a
13 sniper rifle, because he had also been issued with one of those. No one
14 stopped them from doing any kind of thing.
15 As for anti-armour weapons --
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my question. The first
17 question was: Were - and then you answer it - all weapons issued to the
18 personnel of the unit recorded? Is there a record of the weapons issued
19 to the personnel?
20 A. As for weapons, yes.
21 Q. And weapons such as anti-tank weapons, any hand-held rocket
22 launchers, that type of weapons, how were they issued? Were they issued
23 to the individual members or as a unit in general?
24 A. Only to individuals in the unit. As for anti-armour weapons,
25 when you're talking about hand-held rocket launchers, not everyone could
1 have those.
2 I will explain. They are RPGs, and they're not supposed to be
3 used only once. So a soldier would be issued with that weapon and that
4 was recorded in the files and everyone knew, but then there were also
5 Zoljas that were supposed to be used only once. That was not included in
6 the personal files of the soldiers concerned. If there was a particular
7 action involved, if the security assessment was that there would be
8 anti-armour combat, then the soldiers could take these weapons,
9 specifically Zoljas, one or two, take them out into the field. But these
10 weapons were not included in the said person's personal file.
11 Q. And did you have any information that during the operation on
12 25th and 26th, the Oluja-Obruc operation, that you would face anti-armour
13 combat? Was there any such report to that nature in advance of the
15 A. As for the strength, I cannot say exactly. This is to say that
16 we had received information that, perhaps, in this area, there were some
17 terrorist groups that were still left behind, because in the immediate
18 vicinity, there was fighting going on.
19 So there was the possibility of someone being there, someone
20 having stayed behind. I cannot say how strong these terrorist groups
21 were exactly. However, in view of the terrain, of course, we did not
22 except any kind of heavy weaponry to be there, or something like that.
23 Personnel was expected, if any.
24 Q. And, to your knowledge, do you know if the weapons that you
25 described as Zoljas or anti-tank weapons -- you have already said they
1 were not -- were there not, but were Zoljas carried around on 25th and
3 A. Never going out into the field. Soldiers were issued orders as
4 to what kind of weapons they were supposed to bring along. They knew
5 that they had to have long barrelled and short barrelled weapons,
7 Now, in Operation Storm or from earlier on, a soldier could have
8 had a Zolja. No one could have stopped anyone from carrying a Zolja, but
9 this was not pointed out, that any kind of anti-armour weapons were
10 supposed to be taken along. Since people were psychologically and
11 physically fit and prepared, this was no problem for them to carry a lot
12 of gear.
13 Now, whether people actually did, I really cannot say; however,
14 it was not said to them specifically that they should. I believe that
15 probably some of the men did carry such weapons, because in terms of
16 tactics, and not only for anti-armour combat, if the enemy has a
17 fortified position, then anti-armour projectiles can be used. I'm
18 convinced that someone must have had something like that.
19 Q. Did you see, as far as you're concerned, did you see members of
20 the unit carrying Zoljas, either on the 25th or the 26th?
21 A. I don't want to say anything that is wrong, but the line was long
22 at the initial position. And before going out into the field, people did
23 not take weapons and come to see me; rather, before going out, they would
24 go to their vehicles, they would take all their equipment and go out into
25 the field. I personally did not see this personally, but there is such a
1 possibility. I personally did not see this, though.
2 Q. And I do not in you answered this, Mr. Celic. If Zoljas are
3 issued, are they issued to the members individually or as a unit?
4 A. Not individually. During the previous actions, he could have --
5 anybody could have picked up a Zolja.
6 Q. So, if Zolja has been issued to the unit, that would be on record
7 somewhere, isn't it?
8 A. Well, let me give you an example from Operation Storm, Action
9 Storm itself. When we set out to the action, we came out onto the road
10 the next day, and it was our task to take control of that communication
11 line. Now, before we reached that position -- or before we reach a
12 position, we don't know whether we will have to engage in fighting,
13 whether there will be fire or not. So people do take a certain amount of
14 ammunition, as much as they can carry, in fact.
15 So, at that position, where with certainty our vehicles and
16 logistics can reach us, as we were brought water and food, they also
17 bring us ammunition. So, quite possibility, people use up the
18 ammunition, and Zoljas are brought in a van, too. So we could have had
19 ammunition and we could have the Zoljas, too. So, if somebody needed a
20 more of anything, they could take it, and there wasn't any separate
21 record kept about that.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, do you recognise the document on this screen?
23 A. No. I do -- I am familiar with the information there, but not
24 the document.
25 Q. Did you not have to submit lists of the weapons that the
1 Lucko Unit carried on 25th August 1995
2 subsequent investigations that were conducted into the Grubori event?
3 A. I don't remember this document. I can't say that I've seen it.
4 I think that we had to supply documents, and the information is clear to
5 me, the names and the surnames and all that; but I can't say just off the
6 top of my head whether Stepjan -- well, was issued such-and-such. I do
7 know the names, though.
8 Q. Well, I wasn't asking you for details. I was trying to figure
9 out if you would be familiar with the entire document.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could go into the
11 next few pages.
12 Q. Mr. Celic, if you could just take a look at this document and let
13 us know if you have any familiarity with this document.
14 A. Specifically, as far as my name and surname is concerned,
15 everything that it says here is absolutely correct. Those are the
16 weapons that I was issued. Now, of course, I can't say with any
17 certainty about anybody else who had what weaponry. But when it comes to
18 my name and me personally, I can confirm that the information there is
19 absolutely correct.
20 Q. Do you remember at any stage in 2004, 2003, or 2005, were you
21 asked by Mr. Janic to submit or to compile a list of the weapons and
22 details of the personnel who were involved in the 26th August operation,
23 on 25th, in the Plavno area. Do you recall submitting a list to
24 Mr. Janic?
25 A. Well, I really can't answer that. I think that when the
1 investigation started, that details were called for, where asked. Now,
2 who had what, I don't think that we could have known that, so I can't
3 really answer that question. I think they asked for details from the
4 entire unit, who was issued what; but whether on that day anything
5 specific was asked for, as to who was there and what rifle, I really
6 can't tell you more about that.
7 Q. No, no. You misunderstood my question, Mr. Celic. My question
8 is: Were you, at some stage in 2004 or 2005, requested by Mr. Janic to
9 compile a list of the personnel of the Lucko Unit, what weapons were
10 issued to them, et cetera? Were you asked by Mr. Janic, in 2004, to
11 compile a list of the list -- the men who were attached to the Lucko Unit
12 and the weapons issued to them?
13 That's my question, not as to whether you knew what they really
14 carried on 25th August.
15 A. Yes. I understood you to ask with about the action, but I do
16 believe that when the investigation started, he did ask for this report
17 and that it was submitted, but I am not 100 percent sure. I do believe
18 it was, though, for the entire unit, not for the day, but what all the
19 people were issued.
20 So my answer is, I do believe it was.
21 Q. Okay. I'll move on.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. It is
23 approximately the time where we usually have a break. I don't know
24 whether you are --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. This would be a good
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll have a break, and we'll resume at a
3 quarter to 1.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: While waiting for the witness to come into the
7 courtroom, I already inquire with the parties about the scheduling, not
8 because as to often put a bit of pressure, but rather to know whether the
9 next witness should remain available.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, could you give us an indication.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I believe I might take my full
12 four hours, Mr. President, but I have already cut down a lot in the
13 course of the break, so it is possible that I could finish before the end
14 of the day. If that happens --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then the witness will be cross-examined on from that
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the other parties give me any indication.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Of course, it depends on the further direct
20 examination by Ms. Mahindaratne, but I believe I wouldn't take more than
21 two hours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Other Defence teams.
23 MR. CAYLEY: Nothing arises, Your Honour, for us, at the moment.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: Nothing for us either, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That means that there's a fair chance that
2 we'll finish tomorrow by somewhere during the second session. This might
3 be information which is relevant for the next witness in line.
4 Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Mr. Registrar, may I call for document number 1857, please.
7 Q. Mr. Celic, your testimony was that a few days after the
8 operation, Mr. Turkalj ordered you to go to Grubori accompanied by
9 Mr. Balunovic, and Mr. Turkalj also went with you. Then you further said
10 that when you went to Grubori on that occasion, you saw three bodies and
11 a few burnt houses, and you could not remember exactly when you went to
13 Now, in the course of the interview, you were shown this
14 document. Can you recognise this document?
15 Now, this is a report from Mr. Dondo to Mr. Cermak, and I think
16 you saw this in the course of the interview and talked about what you
17 could offer about this.
18 A. I was shown this during the interview.
19 Q. That's correct. My question is this: Now, in this report,
20 Mr. Dondo reports that of 25 houses, some 20 houses and many farm
21 buildings set ablaze, and five bodies were recovered. This is dated 26th
22 August. It further records that the bodies would be removed on 27th
24 Now, your testimony was that when you went to Grubori, you saw
25 three bodies. I'm just trying to get at the date that you went to
1 Grubori, Mr. Celic. Now, if, in fact, it was correct that bodies were
2 removed on the 27th, considering that you saw the bodies, could it be
3 that you visited Grubori on the 27th August? Is that a possibility? Are
4 you able to confirm that?
5 A. With respect to what you just said, yes, absolutely, that
6 possibility does exist. On the 25th, we had a search of the terrain
7 there, and then on the 26th in a second area, then we went to Zagreb
8 the possibility does exist that that was the 27th. Yes, I do believe
9 that was what it was.
10 Q. And the other fact I wanted to point out in this report is, now,
11 in this report, Mr. Dondo reports to Mr. Cermak that of 25 houses, 20
12 houses were set ablaze. Your testimony was that you saw only a few
14 Can you explain that? How is it that you did not see the other
15 houses that were set ablaze?
16 A. I didn't say that they were burning, but that that they had been
17 set ablaze.
18 Now, as the configuration of the hamlet is such, you don't have a
19 classical form of street where one house backs straight to another. They
20 are all scattered houses, and the terrain is slightly hilly. So, on the
21 route that I passed, I just saw a few. I didn't go all over the area.
22 And from the position that I was in, I couldn't see that all the houses
23 were burning; but where I did pass by, I saw some. I don't know that
24 there were 25 houses set ablaze. If there were, I did not see them
25 because I didn't pass by that whole area.
1 Q. When you say "the whole area," did you walk around the whole
2 village of Grubori? That's my question. When you say "area," are you
3 referring to the village?
4 A. No, I'm not referring to the village. I just passed by a few
5 houses, and it's a hamlet. There were a few houses on one side and a few
6 on the other. I don't know where the village starts and how many houses
7 the village has. But just on the road that I went, that was probably
8 Grubori, and I'm quite convinced I didn't go through the whole village,
9 only that area where this happened.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move this document
11 into evidence.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As P764, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P764 is admitted into evidence.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
18 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, your testimony was that when you went to Grubori
19 on this day, that you saw three bodies. You also saw Mr. Cermak in
20 Grubori with other people, you say, from his office and an HTV crew, and
21 you saw Mr. Cermak being interviewed by the HTV crew.
22 You also said that prior to going to Grubori, you were informed
23 that Mr. Cermak would be there in Grubori on the day you went. Now, who
24 gave that you information?
25 A. I think it was Mr. Turkalj.
1 Q. Now, did you hear what Mr. Cermak was telling the TV crew? Did
2 you catch perhaps excerpts of that interview?
3 A. No, I did not. I knew Mr. Cermak before that personally. I went
4 up to him, said hello; but what he actually said, I couldn't hear because
5 I wasn't nearby when the interview was taking place.
6 Q. And did you see Mr. Cermak walking around in the village, perhaps
7 going through that area where there were burnt houses, or where the
8 bodies were?
9 A. We all went together. It was a group of people. I can't tell
10 you how many of us there were exactly, but we were a group. Mr. Cermak
11 was there, I was there, Commander Turkalj was there, and people from the
12 Cermak security, and I assume we went past that way together. And when
13 we passed, we saw what happened; but I was in the group together with my
15 Q. Now, in the course of, you know, walking around, did you hear
16 Mr. Cermak discuss anything about the Grubori incident with Mr. Turkalj
17 or any other person present in the group, or perhaps yourself?
18 A. While we were passing -- well, there's a small path through the
19 hamlet and we couldn't all be at the same time because it was a narrow
20 path, and we went by in a column of seven to ten metres, one behind the
22 And as far as that event goes, I remember that I was with
23 Commander Turkalj all the time, and we were looking to see what had
24 happened. We passed by the houses to see where the bodies were, and so
25 on, and where the houses were.
1 Q. Now, in your testimony, you also say that you saw civilians
2 speaking to the TV crew and, you believe, with Mr. Cermak. Did you -- my
3 question is: Did you see the civilians speaking to him, or are you not
4 certain about it? Was that a guess? Because you said "I believe they
5 spoke with Mr. Cermak." That is what your testimony is.
6 A. I will try and depict the facts as I know them.
7 It was a small village, a hamlet; you could see the path; you
8 could see civilians, I can't say how many of them there were. But there
9 were some elderly women, and it was they, in fact, who indicated to us
10 where this had happened. And since we were going along in a column, I
11 couldn't really say what they were talking to -- what they were talking
12 about with the TV crew and with Mr. Cermak. But I know that there were
13 civilians, and we were shown the bodies and where the houses were, and so
15 Q. Now, you said that after that visit, you went to Knin to
16 Mr. Cermak's office and had lunch there, and you say that Mr. Sacic also
17 was present. Did you see Mr. Sacic and Mr. Cermak discuss or have a --
18 talk to each other?
19 A. During the investigation itself, I couldn't determine the time,
20 whether can he wept to Knin before or after, I assume it was afterwards.
21 So, at the meeting, there was myself, Mr. Turkalj, Mr. Cermak, and Mr.
22 Sacic, and the event was discussed. All of us discussed it. All of us
23 were in one room and discussed what had had happened.
24 Q. And you said this was Mr. Cermak's office. How do you know it
25 was Mr. Cermak's office?
1 A. Well, since there were soldiers there; and since I know that the
2 headquarters was in Gracac and not Knin, Knin was closer to this place
3 than Gracac was. So it was logical that we went there, and that's where
4 the army was, the police -- or the military, rather. I know that the
5 police weren't there and that's why I was convinced that it was
6 Mr. Cermak's office, and I hope that that is, indeed, the case.
7 Q. And when you said you had a discussion, you said, Mr. Turkalj,
8 Mr. Cermak, Mr. Sacic, and yourself, you all talked about the incident.
9 Did you, at that meeting, talk about the fact that, you know, after the
10 incident, none of the group leaders had reported to you anything? Did
11 you recount what you have told us at that meeting?
12 A. Precisely. I do believe that that is the case. I didn't have
13 anything to say with respect to the event itself. Mr. Sacic and
14 Mr. Turkalj knew that, and Mr. Balunovic knew that. Mr. Cermak could not
15 have known that. But I said on the occasion that, quite simply, I didn't
16 know what had happened. Quite the contrary, I knew that nothing had
17 happened, so I couldn't talk about it really.
18 I was asked to say what had happened, but I said that according
19 to what I knew, nothing had happened; whereas, Mr. Sacic knew something
20 more judging by what he said. That's what I wrote; whereas, in actual
21 fact, I did not know of that event.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Balunovic was also at this meeting, wasn't he?
23 A. I do believe he was because we were together all the time, so I
24 do believe that he was there, too. Mr. Turkalj was there for sure, I was
25 there for sure, Mr. Sacic was there fur sure, and I do believe that
1 Mr. Balunovic was there, too, because there was a quite a lot of people
3 Q. Was Mr. Cermak there? Because you're talking about the meeting
4 in Mr. Cermak's office when you went down to lunch there.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did anybody, Mr. Cermak or Mr. Sacic or Mr. Turkalj, talk - or
7 Mr. Balunovic since he was group leader who would have been in that
8 area - about the incident at that meeting; or did Mr. Balunovic tell them
9 about what he could offer about the incident at that meeting?
10 A. Well, I do believe that all of us spoke and that we discussed it
11 with him, too. But I'd also like to repeat and say that I don't believe
12 that at that point in time that he knew that anything had happened, just
13 like me. I didn't know, I couldn't describe the event. All I could say
14 is that the group leaders had told me no nothing had happened. That's
15 all I could have said, and I think that is the same thing that he could
16 have said.
17 Now, whether he said something more than that, I really can't
18 say, I don't know. Perhaps you should look at his statement and see for
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, the expression "nothing had
21 happened" is heard many, many times.
22 I do understand that we're talking about a lunch after a joint
23 visit to Grubori. Could you please, in your line of questioning, include
24 several possible events: The first one being whether there had any
25 combat or like activity. Of course, the witness testified already what
1 he knows about that; the second, about the houses set ablaze in Grubori;
2 and the third, that civilians were found dead in Grubori.
3 Because if I read an answer, "All could I say is that the group
4 leaders had told me nothing had happened," that, of course, apparently
5 refers to reporting, but not the actual knowledge of the witness after he
6 had been to Grubori.
7 So could we always clearly distinguish between these several
8 elements, and also distinguish between what time, what was said, and what
9 we have to assume on the basis of the evidence given by this witness was
10 known at the time.
11 Please proceed.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, this lunch in Mr. Cermak's office, this took
14 place after you, Mr. Turkalj, and Mr. Balunovic have -- had already
15 visited Grubori and you saw those bodies. Is that correct?
16 A. I think it is. Now, I wasn't able to be precise in my statement.
17 As to time, I had my doubts as to whether it was before or after the
18 visit to Grubori. So I couldn't says whether it was before or after, but
19 I do believe that it was afterwards; that is to say, that the visit came
20 first and that we went over there later on. That's how I think it was.
21 Q. Now, do you remember going to the Grubori in the morning or in
22 the evening? When you saw these bodies, was it morning?
23 A. It was all during the day because I know that pursuant to orders
24 on that day - and if we're talking about the 27th and I do believe we are
25 - then we had to be in Gracac at 7.00 in the morning. So Mr. Balunovic
1 and I arrived in Gracac at 7.00 a.m.
2 went to Grubori straight away; and then, afterwards, to Knin. That's
3 what I think happened. But it was daylight throughout. It was day when
4 we arrived in Gracac, when we were in Grubori, and when we were in Knin.
5 It was day throughout, during the day.
6 Q. And how long does it take to go to Grubori from Gracac,
8 A. Well, I don't know, perhaps an hour to hour and a half. It
9 depends when you move off the main road. You have to drive slowly. So
10 it might take one to one and a half hours.
11 Q. So when you met at Mr. Cermak's office for lunch that day, you
12 had already -- I mean, is it the case that you already had seen the
13 bodies and the burnt houses?
14 A. When I was in Grubori, I saw the bodies and the houses, but let
15 me try and be precise. I think that if you look at other reports, you
16 will be able to define whether that was before or after the meeting. I
17 believe that we went to Grubori first; and, of course, saw the bodies and
18 houses there. That is what I think, and that we went to Knin afterwards.
19 That's what I think happened, but I leave the possibility that we might
20 have gone to Knin first. I can't be absolutely sure.
21 Q. Now, you kept saying that whenever certain questions were asked,
22 you said: "I could say only what I knew, which was that nothing
24 Now, when you said "that nothing happened," were you referring to
25 what was reported to you at the end of the operation on the 25th? Is
1 that what you're referring to? Because you knew at some stage that there
2 were civilians killed and houses set on fire, so what did you mean when
3 you said "nothing happened"?
4 A. What I was asked to do is this: To say what we had seen and to
5 say what I knew about that, and I said that the only thing that I was
6 this: That the group leaders were duty-bound to report to me, to inform
7 me of an armed resistance, of a conflict, that there had been firing, or
8 anything that might have happened in the field. They should have
9 informed me straight away; if they couldn't have reached me, then at the
10 final line.
11 So my information at that time was that everything went well,
12 that there was no combat, that there wasn't a armed conflict, no firing,
13 which means that nothing had actually happened. Now, after the Grubori
14 visit, and I think that after we had been to Knin, I was asked to say
15 what I knew about it, because my unit went past that way, so it was my
16 duty to know what had happened in the area. But I said at the time that
17 I did not know.
18 Q. So when you say "nothing happened," what you're referring to is
19 the reports you referred -- the reports you received from the group
20 leaders at the end of the operation. Is that correct?
21 A. That's right. It was oral reporting, not a written report. The
22 reports were made to me by the group leaders orally, oral reporting.
23 Q. Now, at this lunch, did Mr. Cermak ask you, If that is the case,
24 how is that there are civilians killed, houses burnt? How is that --
25 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I'm going to object now at this stage
1 because I've lead a lot of the leading go, and I think it would be more
2 appropriate if Ms. Mahindaratne actually asked, What did Mr. Cermak say,
3 not actually put it to the witness in that fashion.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will rephrase. I
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Mr. Celic, do you recall what Mr. Cermak asked you about this
9 incident? Did he ask you anything?
10 A. Well, the conversation went like this: Mr. Sacic spoke mostly,
11 and he was the highest ranked person there. Now, specifically, I cannot
12 claim whether Mr. Cermak asked me whether such-and-such had happened and
13 whether I know such-and-such, whether I know what happened, because it
14 was Mr. Sacic that did most of the talking.
15 Q. And do you recall if Mr. Cermak asked Mr. Sacic anything?
16 A. Well, I don't want to give you the wrong information. The event
17 was discussed, everything was discussed. There was a lot of us in that
18 room, and I'm sure you have the information and details about what was
19 discussed. Because if I were to tell you now, I might make a mistake.
20 All I can say is that in general terms, we discussed the event, what had
21 happened, when it happened, what unit had passed by that way. I couldn't
22 say for sure, because I had received a report that nothing had happened,
23 so I couldn't really discuss the matter much.
24 Q. Let me move on, Mr. Celic, to the operation --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'd like to ask the witness to
1 tell us what Mr. Sacic, who, as you told us, was speaking most being of a
2 higher rank, what did he explain or what did he tell about when you said
3 about what had happened? But what did he say about any combat during the
4 25th, about the houses apparently set ablaze, and about the civilians
5 that were dead?
6 What did he tell at that meeting about these three subjects?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in view of the time that's
8 passed by, I wouldn't want to quote exactly what he said, but I believe
9 that he spoke in the context of the report that I had written -- or
10 rather, that he had told me to write. And I imagine that he explained
11 what had had happened within that context, but I cannot say decidedly now
12 that he said such-and-such a thing. I mean, I really couldn't do that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So what he explained was roughly in accordance with
14 what he had dictated to you write in your report?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that that is exactly the
17 JUDGE ORIE: When having lunch, were you sitting at one table or
18 how were you positioned?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not say for sure whether
20 lunch was before this meeting or afterwards. I think it was afterwards.
21 It was a biggish room, there were separate tables. I think that they
22 were all in that room, but I don't know how it was that we were sitting
23 exactly. I cannot remember.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You make a distinction now between the meeting and
25 lunch. That meeting, how were you seated, how was this organised? Were
1 you sitting around a table, were you standing, was there one person in
2 front of the others?
3 Explaining what actually happened, how was that meeting
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am making a distinction because
6 we had the meeting before lunch, not during lunch. There was this room;
7 and in addition to the people from the special police that I have already
8 mentioned, there were some from the military, some from the police. I
9 don't know exactly how many were there. There were quite a few people
10 there. We were in this one room. I don't know if the table was a round
11 table; but at any rate, we could all see each other, and that is what was
13 Right now, I could not give the exact seating arrangement, and I
14 could not tell you what the room looked like. Definitely, it wasn't over
15 lunch. We had the meeting, and then we went to lunch. I think it was
16 after that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: How do I have to understand that meeting to take
18 place? Was it one person speaking, the others listening, and then
19 another person speaking, and then the others listening; or was it a kind
20 of a structured discussion?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is what I could say:
22 Since it had to do with us - that is to say, our unit, my unit - we were
23 asked -- I mean, well, to say what it was that had actually happened. I
24 believe that Mr. Sacic did most of the talking about this because he knew
25 the most about this.
1 I don't know what you mean, how this was structured. Quite
2 simply, what was required was to see what had happened and Mr. Sacic had
3 the most to say.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And do I then understand that he addressed the
5 others who were present and said so that everyone could hear his words?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm convinced that the answer is
7 yes, because it was one single room, unless he spoke to someone sitting
8 right next to him at a particular point in time; but, otherwise,
9 absolutely you could hear everything.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Were you sitting next to him, or were you sitting at
11 a distance?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were all in a single room. I
13 did not sit right next to him. Perhaps I was a few metres away. It
14 wasn't very far away.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
16 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
18 Q. Mr. Celic, I will move on to the operation the day after 26th.
19 But before that, let me just show you a document.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could call -- it's 65 ter
21 number 5398.
22 Q. Mr. Celic, your testimony was that before you started the
23 operation on 25th, you were advised that there would be civilians in the
24 area. Do you recognise this document by any chance, or do you know who
25 compiled this document?
1 A. No. I'm not aware of this document, and I don't know who
2 compiled it.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this document
4 into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: Do we have any specific on that document?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, but we do -- I could
8 include it into a bar table motion. At this stage, I don't have it.
9 This is document that we have received from -- in response to RFA from
10 the Croatian government, as one of the documents collected in the course
11 of the Grubori investigation.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes. But do we know when this document was typed
13 or written or who write it?
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No. That is what I was trying find out from
15 the witness. It can be connected to another list which has already been
16 admitted into evidence, a list civilians found in the Plavno area on the
17 25th, which is a much larger list. And this is it part of that list.
18 You know, at least the names are contained in that other list, which is
19 already in evidence. This is it relevant because of a matter that was
20 raised by the Cermak Defence, as to the origins of that list of
21 civilians, which is why I have tendered this into evidence.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay. Since we don't know who the author is,
23 since we don't when document has been produced, I certainly object to the
24 admissibility of this document.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The other list, Ms. Mahindaratne, would be?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, at this stage, I don't have
2 that list. May I --
3 JUDGE ORIE: You referred to that and you say this list is more
4 or less an extract, apparently a handwritten extract; and then, of
5 course, I would, in order to get a proper understanding of what you tell
6 us, I'd like to look at that other list, or the Chamber might want to
7 look at that other list as well, to see how it was introduced, what we
8 know about the other list, be able to compare whether this list really is
9 an extract or whether it is different, whether the other list was
10 handwritten as well.
11 Well, a lot of questions, but then we have to know what the other
12 list --
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could give me just a couple of minutes,
14 Mr. President, I'll give it --
15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have it marked for identification. I take it
16 that the Chamber will not take a decision anyhow, immediately.
17 Mr. Registrar, could is a number be assigned to it.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P765,
19 marked for identification.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. I take it that you will
21 provide with us the relevant information as soon as possible.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document P580,
1 Q. Mr. Celic, I'd like to you look at your 2002 statement, and
2 that's P761, part -- third part, page 39.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And in the B/C/S version, it's page 38; in the
4 filed version, it's 13747.
5 Q. There's a discussion about the operation on 26th August; and at
6 page 39, right at the bottom in the English version, you say -- you refer
7 to that operation and you say: "The group went through the village. I
8 don't know how and in which way because I was in a lower point than the
9 village was, but it was seen that the houses were on fire."
10 Going on to page 40: "At which point, I was called by General
11 Markac whom, after the search, I also again, at the end point, I had been
12 waiting for."
13 And you say: "Again, my group leaders or commanders of the
14 groups also reported to me that there was no contact, any contact
15 whatsoever with anybody."
16 Now, this is a reference to the operation on the 26th, in the
17 Promina area, isn't it?
18 A. [No interpretation]
19 Q. And do you recognise the document on the -- I appreciate you may
20 not have seen the document, but isn't this operation that Mr. Markac has
21 informed the Split Military District and Knin -- it is referred to as
22 forward command post. Isn't this the operation that was conducted in the
23 Promina area? This is what you have spoken to about in the course of the
25 A. I have never seen this report, I mean this piece of information;
1 however, according to the information concerned in the area where we
2 were, on the 26th, well, on the basis of our report -- or rather, my
3 report from that day, you can see exactly what the positions were.
4 Q. That's what I wanted to point out. Now, in this report of
5 Mr. Markac, there's a reference to a village called Ramljane. Pardon my
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It is R-a-m-l-j-a-n-e, for the record.
8 Q. Now, at the interview, you have been referring to houses being
9 set on fire in a particular village. Is that the village you're
10 referring to, Ramljane?
11 A. I think it was. But if you have my report, you will be able to
12 see exactly whether that it is. On the basis of my recollection, I would
13 say that that's it, but, then, you do have my report. That is where I
14 refer to all the tasks and locations, and you will be able to see from
15 there; however, I believe that that is the case.
16 Q. Now, were the group leaders in this operation also the same four
17 group leaders as on 25th August?
18 A. I think so, or perhaps I subdivided the unit into two groups
19 there view of the terrain, but I think so, yes.
20 Q. And you say that you were at a lower point than the village was,
21 but you could see that the houses were on fire.
22 Now, was it the case that, just like on 25th, you did not
23 accompany the unit on its axis; or can you explain exactly what happened,
24 with regard to yourself?
25 A. When carrying out such tasks, it wasn't my duty to go out with
1 the men. My duty was to be the coordinator between the unit and other
2 units; that is to say, I take care of my unit. I have group leaders who
3 are supposed to report their positions to me, if there's an armed
4 conflict, and I convey that further. At that point in time, I'm not
5 duty-bound to with be the unit, although did I go on the first day. When
6 I gave specific orders to the group leaders, when I sent them out into
7 the field from the initial position, then I went to the ending point.
8 That is to say, that it was not my duty to go out in the field
9 with the many; on the contrary, I was supposed to be the coordinator for
10 the unit. And that's where I stayed there in this last position after
11 they were sent out, and then I went to the point where their task was
12 supposed to end.
13 Q. What did you mean by: "I did go on the first day."
14 When you say "the first day," what are you referring to? Was it
15 the 25th August operation that you referred to?
16 A. Precisely, precisely. You can see that from the report that I
17 set out with the unit, and then I returned. Since I came across
18 civilians, you see that I went with the unit. On the second day, I did
19 not go, and I wanted to explain that, that it was not my duty to go.
20 Q. Now, on this day also, was the overall operations commander
21 Mr. Janic?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And can you explain, when you saw that you were at a lower point
24 than the village but it was seen that the houses were on fire, now was
25 this right at the beginning of the operation or after a little while the
1 unit had already moved on? After how long the operation started did you
2 see the houses were on fire?
3 A. I cannot give you an answer with any certainty. On the road
4 between Knin and Drnis, you actually turn right from that road in order
5 to reach the localities that we're discussing, and then you climb up into
6 the hills. When you go back to the main road, you cannot see -- or
7 rather, you cannot see the houses.
8 However, you can see smoke far away. So if the smoke goes very
9 high, then you can see it. So, at first, when I was at the position, I
10 did not see anything on fire. After leaving that position, it was
11 obvious that houses were on fire. I could not say exactly say what time
12 this was; but, certainly, after some time, after the soldiers [as
13 interpreted] set out to carry out their task.
14 Q. Now, between the time the soldiers had moved on and the time you
15 saw the smoke, did you hear any gun-fire or explosions?
16 A. Yes, it could be heard.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Sorry to interrupt. It is the matter of
18 correction translations. I see in the transcript that the word which
19 witness used was translated as "soldiers"; and, afterwards,
20 Ms. Mahindaratne repeated this word, but this is not what the witness
22 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it is not --
23 MR. MIKULICIC: We could ask the witness what was the real word,
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... ask the witness to repeat
1 what he said.
2 Could I ask you to again fill in part of your answer, which I
3 will read to you. You said: "I could not say exactly what time this
4 was; but, certainly, after some time, after the," and then that is the
5 part to fill in, "had set out ..." --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Members of the unit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Is that what you were looking for, Mr. Mikulicic.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Ms. Mahindaratne, could you refer to "members of the unit."
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, you don't have to apologise. I mean, it is not
14 your fault that you took it from the transcript.
15 So, perhaps, you repeat the question, starting on page 88,
16 line 1, with the adapted language.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
18 Q. Mr. Celic, let me repeat my question. Now, from the time the
19 members of the Lucko Unit moved on the operation and to the time that you
20 started seeing the smoke rising, did you hear gun-fire?
21 A. Yes, it could be heard.
22 Q. And what type of -- I mean, is it the way -- now you describe on
23 25th what you heard was sporadic gun-fire, but was this sporadic gun-fire
24 or was this continuous gun-fire which may have indicated to you that
25 there was combat activity?
1 A. You just mentioned the 25th. I don't know what you mean.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... in relation --
3 A. This operation was on the 26th.
4 Q. I said in relation to the 25th operation, you said when you heard
5 gun-fire it was sporadic. I said, likewise, on the 26th, the gun-fire
6 that you heard, was it just sporadic gun-fire, once in a while; or was
7 there continuous gun-fire which may indicate -- which may have indicated
8 to you that there was combat activity?
9 A. Well, on the basis of what was heard and what was seen, one could
10 conclude that there had been contact. It wasn't a single firing of a
11 rifle by way of a signal. You could hear the kind of gun-fire that meant
12 that there was some kind of contact.
13 Q. Did you hear explosions?
14 A. Well, I don't want to give you any kind of wrong information;
15 but, yes, yes, gun-fire was heard. I believe that there was an
17 Q. And, I certainly wouldn't know what a Zolja sounds like if you
18 fired one, but could you hear from where you were whether there was
19 Zoljas being fired?
20 A. Well, I couldn't state that specifically.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, you tell me -- actually, you have told us in the
22 interview that at the end of the operation, your group leaders reported
23 to you that there was no contact and any contact whatsoever with anybody.
24 Your language is: "My group leaders or commanders of the group also
25 reported to me that there was no contact, any contact whatsoever with
2 Now, did you ask them, If there was no contact, what was that
3 gun-fire I heard; or did you inquire from them what the sounds were all
5 A. When we are talking contact, we are talking about combat contact.
6 In view of the fact that it was heard and seen, that houses were on fire,
7 it was obvious that this had been contact. There is a report by
8 Mr. Janic, and then he said that he would come and that General Markac
9 would come; and we were all waiting for him there at the line, at ending
10 line where we were supposed to report on combat contact because this was
11 in the immediate vicinity.
12 Q. My question is not about what you saw in terms of the houses on
13 fire. But your group leaders, as you told us, came to you and said that
14 nothing had happened. Now, what you say is you heard this noise, you
15 heard gun-fire, which indicated to you that will there might have been
16 combat activity.
17 Now, did you ask them, If, in fact, nothing had happened, what
18 was that gun-fire all about? Did you ask them what it was?
19 A. At the last line, since I did not go with them, I took a
20 different route, we all met up eventually. I met up with the members of
21 the unit and Janic and General Markac and Mr. Sacic.
22 When we met up there, then we discussed what had happened. It
23 was my duty to report to the General there on the task that we had, where
24 we had passed, and what had happened. In that report, I explained what
25 group took what direction, who had what task. And what was specifically
1 stated there was who went in what direction and also where the houses
2 were and what had happened and one group leader had passed that way.
3 After that was located, when I said which group leader had gone
4 that way, General Markac talked to him so that he would tell him what it
5 was had happened and so on.
6 Q. And that group leader was Mr. Drljo. Isn't that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, if you could look at your 2002 interview notes, and
9 section 3, page 14 in the English translation; B/C/S 39.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's the filed version 13746.
11 Q. That's the page we were at earlier on, and you go on to describe
12 that operation. You say: "So we are going back to the start point where
13 we are meeting General Markac, who told to us wait for him. On that
14 occasion, I submitted to him my report where the search took place, and
15 he wanted -- he personally requested to be told who was there; to which I
16 told him that in that area in question where the houses were burned or
17 set on fire was the group of Franjo Drljo, commander; to which he spoke
18 to him and was asking him what was his direction of movement.
19 "However, he was saying that he went around the village. It
20 seems that General Markac insisted and in a way maybe even actually put
21 the pressure on him. He wanted exact details, where, what was his
22 direction of movement for his group. At the end, he told him, yes, that
23 his group went through that village where the houses were on fire. And
24 with that, Drljo also directed a few ugly word towards General Markac."
25 Around further down that page, you say: "But it was from the
1 start point, and once we were at the end point, it was obvious that the
2 houses were set on fire, and it was very obvious that it was our unit who
3 went through there. And General Markac asked him what happened and how
4 come these houses were set on fire. And after that verbal argument or
5 conflict, the conversation was concluded, and we went to Zagreb."
6 Now, there's no reference whatsoever -- and you also reiterated
7 all these in more detail in your 2005 interview. There's no reference
8 whatsoever about any combat activity, is there?
9 A. Well, when I explained to the General what our tasks were and who
10 went which way, then he continued talking to him. In this conversation,
11 the group leader did not specify what axis he had taken. As a matter of
12 fact, he showed something different since the General insisted --
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... please. I'm interrupting
14 you because I'm running out of time.
15 Now, my question is: You described the conversation that took
16 place between Mr. Markac and Mr. Drljo; and right along, what you refer
17 is the unit going through a village and the houses being set on fire.
18 Now, let me ask you the first question: Was there any reference
19 by Mr. Drljo, or did you hear Mr. Drljo telling Mr. Markac that they had
20 met resistance in that village?
21 A. I can't say 100 percent. I think that he might have done because
22 the General himself insisted on knowing the exact details and
23 information. And when the leader of the group in talking to him saw that
24 the General insisted, he said that he passed by that way and that there
25 was fighting. And he was angry in his responses, and I think he
1 mentioned everything. And I know that on that same day, we had to
2 establish the facts because it was obvious, it was evident that there had
3 been contact.
4 after that conversation, Chief Janic asked to talk to me and to them and
5 to the members, and I don't think that anybody challenged that there had
6 been contact and that something had, in fact, had happened and that two
7 enemy soldiers had listen cited and that they opened fire. I think that
8 that was established that that's what actually happened.
9 Q. What did you see? What did you see at this place that made it
10 obvious to you that there was contact? Did you see evidence of spent
11 bullets or any indications that there has been combat, or is it the burnt
13 A. Exclusively on the basis of what the members of the groups said
14 and who passed by that way.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. We're
16 past a quarter to 2.00.
17 How much time would you still need?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I believe about half an hour, Mr. President,
19 so, perhaps, I'll resume tomorrow morning.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. There's no way that we could take
21 that half an hour now.
22 We'll consider the time which will be available to you. Also, I
23 do know what the plans are for the next witness. I'm looking at you
24 Mr. Waespi. Is the next witness available tomorrow?
25 MR. WAESPI: Yes, she is.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Prepare, Ms. Mahindaratne, for focussed, to the point, further
3 examination, and the Chamber will consider what time will be given to
5 Mr. Cayley.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Your Honour, just for your planning purposes,
7 we'll have about half an hour to an hour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that information.
9 We'll further consider the matter. We'll also, of course, ask
10 our registrar to make the correct calculations which will conclude the
11 time that the Chamber has taken. On the basis of that information, we'll
12 give you further guidance. I don't know whether that would still be this
13 afternoon, but we'll try to give you it already today.
14 Then, first of all, Mr. Celic, I instruct you that you should not
15 speak with anyone, whoever it is, about the testimony you've given today
16 and about the testimony that you are still expected to give tomorrow.
17 We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 because we resume on
18 Friday, the 5th of September, 9.00, in Courtroom I.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.
20 to be reconvened on Friday, the 5th day of
21 September, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.