Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9319

 1                           Tuesday, 23 September 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

 9     everyone in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-06-90-T, The

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Mr. Kardum, before we continue, I would like to remind you that

13     you are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning

14     of your testimony.

15             Mr. Margetts, you may proceed.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17             Mr. President, just before I continue, just in terms of my

18     expectation of the time that it may take to complete the

19     examination-in-chief, there may be some matters that arise between the

20     parties in respect of documents during the course of this morning's

21     session; and taking into account those matters, I hope to be finished the

22     examination-in-chief by the end of this first session.

23                           WITNESS:  IVE KARDUM [Resumed]

24                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

25                           Examination by Mr. Margetts: [Continued]

Page 9320

 1        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Kardum.

 2             I'd like to move on to another topic this morning, and that is

 3     the role of the civil protection department in the sanitization of the

 4     terrain.  And you don't have your statements before you, but if they

 5     could be provided to you that would be very helpful.

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr.  Registrar, for the parties and the Trial

 7     Chamber, I'd like to refer to the 2004 statement.  That's 65 ter 5273 at

 8     paragraph 22.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  For the transcript, Mr. Margetts, if a reference

10     would be made to P896, then people could more easily find it at a later

11     stage.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Your Honour.  That's correct.  It's P896.

13        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if we could refer to paragraph 22 of your statement,

14     please, and you refer in the second sentence there to the humane

15     sanitization of the area that was to be undertaken by the civil

16     protection, and it was also said that the crime technicians should attend

17     and take photographs and number each body.

18             I'd like to show you now some minutes of the crime police heads

19     in Zagreb for the 6th of August, 1995.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr.  Registrar, if you could please produce

21     on the screen 65 ter 4551.

22             And for the assistance of the parties, that was tab 48 in the

23     exhibit list.

24        Q.   Now, first, Mr. Kardum, if you can see the screen on the right

25     there --

Page 9321

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  On your list it appears as being D234, which, again,

 2     Mr. Margetts, for those who might look at our transcript later --

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- they will not be able to identify documents on

 5     the basis of their 65 ter numbers.

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  D234 is the 6th of

 7     August minutes of the crime police chiefs.

 8        Q.   You can see this document here, Mr. Kardum.  It has the date "6

 9     August 1995" at the top, and it says in the heading that these are

10     minutes taken at the board meeting of the heads of the crime

11     investigation department held on the 6th of August, 1995.  And then

12     you'll see the names of the persons present.  We've already referred to

13     Mr. Benko and Mr. Nadj in the course of your evidence, and there are

14     names, also, of other department chiefs.

15             Now if I could refer you to Item 2, that refers to the

16     functioning of the department for war crimes and terrorism, and refers at

17     Item B to the work of the collection centres.  And then, if I could refer

18     you to Item 3, and that's what I'd like you to pay attention to.  And if

19     you could just read through Item 3.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr. Registrar, that's at the bottom of the

21     page of the B/C/S, so if that could be highlighted.

22        Q.   And then, Mr. Kardum, once you've read the text there that

23     appears under the heading AD-1, if you could indicate, and then we can

24     move to the next page.

25        A.   I've read that.

Page 9322

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, we could please move to the next

 3     page, and just the portion there that sets out the assignments, and

 4     there's a reference to both Mr. Maric and Mr. Cemerin, and then a

 5     reference to Mr. Zidovec who is to liaise with the HV regarding hygiene

 6     and sanitation measures.

 7        Q.   Can you please confirm that these assignments set by the chiefs

 8     of the crime police department are the forensic assignments that you were

 9     referring to in paragraph 22 of your 2004 statement.

10        A.   Your Honours, this is the first time that I see this text.  This

11     is a text from the ministry.  I've never seen it before, and we in the

12     police administration including that one of Zadar and Knin received a

13     quite different document from this one.  But as a rule, as far as I can

14     see, for at least from this portion that I have managed to read, this

15     coincides with what was done in the field.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum, and now you just referred to a document

17     that you would have received in the field.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr. Registrar, if I could please move to 65

19     ter 4951, and that's tab 58 for the parties on the exhibit list.

20             And, Mr.  Registrar, if you could just move to the second page in

21     the B/C/S.  Oh, thank you, Mr. Registrar, just down --

22        Q.   You'll see there, Mr. Kardum, that this is signed by Mr. Maric

23     who is mentioned in the crime police department minutes for 6 August.

24             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr. Registrar, if we just go up to the top of

25     the document again.  Thank you.

Page 9323

 1        Q.   You'll see that it's dated the 6th of August, and it's addressed

 2     to the criminal police chiefs.

 3             Is this the document that you received that you were referring to

 4     in the course of your last answer?

 5        A.   Yes.  I received this document, but in a different form.

 6     Obviously your source is directly the MUP because I got it from the

 7     teleprinter and this one is type-written, as did the other chiefs of the

 8     criminal police of the other police administrations.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

10             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, if this document could be given an

11     exhibit number and entered into evidence, please.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Since there are no objections.  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P898.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  P898 is admitted into evidence.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17        Q.   Mr. Kardum, how many sanitation teams were there operating in the

18     field during August of 1995?

19        A.   I don't know how many teams there were because the sanitation of

20     the field was not within my competence.  The sanitation of the terrain

21     was exclusively within the competence of the civilian protection, and it

22     was supported according to this order -- or rather, according to another

23     order, they were supported by us in terms of forensic services.  As in

24     Zadar, we did not have enough crime scene examiners.  The forensic

25     service people, they came from other police administrations.  Those were

Page 9324

 1     Varazdin, Split and Dalmatia.  I think in Knin, in the area of Knin, it

 2     was the Split-Dalmatia administration that gave them support.  In the

 3     Lika area, it was from the Medjugorje or the Varazdin police

 4     administration.  As I already said, I only had 12 crime scene examiners

 5     in the holding centre for POWs, and they were doing, also, their daily

 6     work so that they could only partially support the people doing the

 7     sanitation work in the field.  But this was regulated by a different

 8     order, not this one.

 9        Q.   Ms. Kardum, just in terms of the numbers of crime scene examiners

10     you had, you said you had 12 crime scene examiners who were engaged in

11     the holding centre for POWs.  Did you have any additional crime scene

12     examiners to those 12, or is that the full complement of crime scene

13     examiners that you had?

14        A.   Crime scene examiners, the forensics, examiners of the crime

15     scene.

16        Q.   Yes.

17        A.   Yes.  Yes, there were -- these jobs are very extensive, every

18     on-the-site investigation requires the presence of crime scene examiners

19     to attend the scene and to make these sketches --

20        Q.   Yes.  Yes, in terms of their activities, that's other issue.  I'm

21     just interested in the resources you had at your disposal, and you said

22     that you only had 12 crime scene examiners in the holding centre for

23     POWs, and they were also doing their daily work, and they could only

24     partially support sanitation.

25             My question is in addition to these 12 crime scene examiners, did

Page 9325

 1     you have any other crime scene examiners, or did you only have 12 at your

 2     disposal in the month of August 1995?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, page 6, line 13 and 14 the answer is

 4     "yes."  The witness verified with you whether your question was about

 5     crime scene examiners.  You said yes.  And then the witness answered your

 6     question that he had - at least that's how I understood your answer -

 7     that you had additional crime scene examiners.

 8             Is that correct?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Unfortunately, that may my

11     question was not put in the best way.  I provided an option to him.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then put it now in a better way.

13             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   Did you have any additional crime scene examiners to the 12 that

15     you were engaged in the POW centre?

16        A.   The 12 crime scene examiners that I had in my police force prior

17     to the Oluja were taken over -- they took over -- in addition to the

18     regular duties, which they normally did, they also took over assignments

19     in the POW holding centre and partly also supported the sanitation

20     effort.

21             For these jobs, civilian protection also was given people from

22     the Split and Dalmatia people -- police administration.  I don't know

23     whether one or two.  One of the men was --

24        Q.   Yes, yes.

25        A.   -- Sutor [phoen] by his last name and then two or three people

Page 9326

 1     from --

 2        Q.   Yes.  Mr. Kardum, I think it's abundantly clear now on the

 3     record, but just to be certain, you only had 12 crime scene examiners

 4     subordinated to you during August 1995, correct?  And if you could answer

 5     yes or no, that would be very helpful.

 6        A.   That is correct.

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.  Now, when the crime scene examiners were

 8     engaged in their sanitation tasks, how many of them went to the scene

 9     where the bodies were found?

10        A.   I don't know.  I never was with them at such places.  They only

11     assisted the civilian protection people and did precisely those jobs

12     which were assigned to them by telegram from the MUP, which I believe

13     arrived on the 5th of August, 1995, and I'm sure that have you that

14     order.  I suppose that one CSE went to attend the scene, possibly two of

15     them.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.  I'd now like to refer you to your 2007

17     statement, and that is now P897, and I'd like to paragraph you to

18     paragraph 8 of that statement.

19             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if P897 could be displayed.

20        Q.   And, Mr. Kardum, if you go to paragraph 8 of your 2007 statement,

21     and you will recall this having reviewed it yesterday.  There's a

22     reference to the Knin police administration daily log of events, and

23     there is a reference to 30 bodies discovered in August of 1995.  And in

24     the final sentence of paragraph 8, you confirm that there's no reference

25     to the criminal police, and you say you do not recall being informed of

Page 9327

 1     any criminal investigation into any murder in Knin in August 1995?

 2             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if I could please have displayed on

 3     the screen 65 ter 4559, which is also D235, the exhibit D235, and is

 4     located at tab 49 of the exhibit list.

 5        Q.   Mr. Kardum, this is, again, minutes of the crime police chiefs.

 6     And, again, it's the -- it's the heads of the crime police in Zagreb and

 7     the minutes of their meeting.

 8             You'll see that Mr. Benko is not present but Mr. Nadj is, and

 9     you'll see that the agenda is both tasks in relation to clearing up the

10     terrain and tasks in relation to collection centres.

11             And I'd like to refer you to Item 1.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, that's just under AD-1 there.

13        Q.   And if you could please read through the reference there for

14     Agenda Item 1, Mr. Kardum.

15        A.   I see this document for the first time.  I have had no occasion

16     to see this document generated in the ministry so far, and as such it had

17     never been sent to us.

18             I'd just like to comment on this AD-2 part of it.  Where it says

19     --

20        Q.   Mr. Kardum, I'll give you an opportunity to comment in relation

21     to Agenda Item 2.  My first question is in relation to Agenda Item 1.

22     Now, if you've had an opportunity to read that, I'd just like that ask

23     you the question.  Is the reference there to that -- to the tasks of

24     clearing up the terrain where it states that:  "Our task is to carry out

25     the identification of persons in the prescribed manner, and it is not

Page 9328

 1     necessary to conduct on-site investigations."

 2             Is that consistent with the records that appear in the Knin diary

 3     and your reference to the fact that you did not investigate killings in

 4     Knin in August of 1995?

 5        A.   No, it is not.  This is not consistent with the actual state of

 6     affairs, although this order or these minutes quite clearly state their

 7     business.  I will give you a few examples where we did this, investigated

 8     criminal offenses in the area of Knin:  Gosic, a criminal offence of

 9     murder of seven civilians which happened on the 27th of August in 1995.

10     We investigated that, and we apprehended the perpetrators.  This process

11     took a long time.  However, that area was transferred from the Zadar-Knin

12     PU to the Sibenik PU.  So it was returned to its original area of

13     Sibenik, to its competence.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Kardum, if you could just at this stage --

15        A.   If you will allow me, I can document this by further examples.

16     We investigated these offences in 2001 or 2002.  We also detected the

17     perpetrators, also, from the 5th or 6th of August --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, first of all, you asked the witness

19     whether this was consistent with his statement, and he explains to us now

20     why it's not consistent.  At the same time, we do not need details at

21     this moment.  If you say it's not consistent because we investigated a

22     murder seven civilians committed there, then we -- at this moment we do

23     not need how exactly the investigations went on, to whom the case file

24     was passed, et cetera.

25             So give the examples which demonstrate the inconsistency, but

Page 9329

 1     make it very brief.

 2             Please proceed.  You've given us one example.  There's another

 3     one.  Could you very briefly describe the other example, that is date,

 4     place, kind of -- the kind of investigation.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can give you more examples of our

 6     investigations if you would like me to.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:

 8        Q.   Yes, Mr. Kardum, if you could just specify in addition to the

 9     Gosic investigation in August of 1995, what other investigations into

10     killings did you undertake?

11        A.   Dragina Punos, a person killed on the 5th or 6th of August, 1995.

12     Parts of the body were found in April 1996, and an on-the-site

13     investigation was carried out by the investigating judge, a pathologist,

14     and on the basis of the parts of the body found, the cause of death could

15     not be established, but by later processing in the --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  You apparently are referring

17     to an on-site investigation in April 1996.  Mr. Margetts was asking you

18     about the consistency with your statement, and your statement is about

19     August 1995.

20             So on-site investigations on dead bodies found in August 1995.

21     Could you give us another example apart from the Gosic incident?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the exact date,

23     whether it was August, the end of August, or the beginning of September.

24     Sava Babic was a person who was killed, and we tried to find the

25     perpetrator.  Then Savo Sulaja [phoen], Manda Tisma [phoen].

Page 9330

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I could ask you -- you said you're not certain about

 2     the date of Sava Babic.  Could you tell us the place?  What was the place

 3     where Sava Babic was found?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure whether it was in

 5     Nevosevci [phoen] or Mokro Polje.  I think in Mokro Polje in the Knin

 6     area, the general area of Knin.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:

 8        Q.   Yes, Mr. Kardum, the reference in your statement as His Honour

 9     has pointed out is to the on-site investigations conducted in

10     August 1995; and similarly, the minutes that we're referring to are

11     directives for the conduct of the forensic examiners in -- from the date

12     7 August 1995.  And so that's what we're interested in:  The activity of

13     on-site investigation that you conducted in that period, not in relation

14     to crimes that may have occurred in that period but the actual activity

15     of your forensic examiners in that period.

16             Now, in addition to Gosic, can you tell the Court of a specific

17     investigation conducted in August 1995?

18        A.   I've just mentioned them.  The ones that I've already listed,

19     they were conducted at the end of August.  Some of them were also

20     conducted in September and some even a few years later.

21             I just want to make something clear.  Item 1 is consistent with

22     the actual situation.  In other words, partly consistent, where the

23     hygiene and sanitation of the field was carried out.  A team went out and

24     found a decomposed body.  So obviously that person had died at some

25     earlier age.  We did not investigate how this person was -- how this

Page 9331

 1     person died but just carried out the instructions as contained in the

 2     order from August -- 1995.

 3             We were also afraid that there may be some epidemics, and we

 4     simply acted on the order.  As I said, I've never received an order where

 5     it said that we should not conduct investigations.  At least, I never got

 6     such an order.  Maybe the civilian protection did, but I was never told

 7     not to conduct an investigation.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

 9        A.   Furthermore -- I apologise.  But when soldiers are concerned, the

10     Croatian civilian police did not conduct investigations into Croatian

11     soldiers, where victims or killed persons, dead persons were soldiers.

12     We just considered this to be deaths in combat, and there was no need to

13     conduct an investigation.

14             Now, if there was -- if there was any illegal activity, then we

15     would contact the military police and then perhaps engage in some joint

16     investigation, joint queries, and so on.  However, there were no such

17     cases.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one question.  You said when

19     soldiers are concerned, the Croatian civilian police did not conduct

20     investigations into Croatian soldiers.  Were you focussing just on

21     Croatian soldiers or on whatever kind of soldiers?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I wasn't clear

23     enough.  We did not conduct investigations in the cases where the victims

24     were Croatian soldiers.  Is it clearer now?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear.

Page 9332

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I'm not talking about Croatian

 2     soldiers as perpetrators but as victims.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But you say, We did not investigate Croatian

 4     soldiers.  If the soldiers would be, for example, Serb soldiers of the

 5     ARSK, would you then investigate?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're talking about combat, a

 7     battle that was on the 5th of August, we did not investigate it

 8     regardless of who was killed, whether Serbian or Croatian soldiers.  For

 9     us, these were casualties in combat and we did not consider that we

10     needed to carry out an investigation.  Had we learned that a Serbian

11     soldier was arrested and then illegally detained or that a crime -- a war

12     crime had been committed, then we would get involved by informing the

13     crime service of the military police and then investigating the matter

14     with them together because what we were concerned with was the crime

15     itself, not the perpetrator.  That was the second stage.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

17             MR. MARGETTS:

18        Q.   Just in relation to this issue, Mr. Kardum, you did address the

19     issue of soldiers suspected of committing crimes in your 2004 statement,

20     and that's at paragraph 25.

21             MR. MARGETTS:  That's P896.  And paragraph 25, Mr.  Registrar, if

22     that could please be presented on the screen.

23        Q.   And, Mr. Kardum, if I could refer you to what you said.  You

24     said:  "If a soldier was suspected of committing a crime, it was the

25     responsibility of that soldier's command to report that fact to the

Page 9333

 1     military police who had their own crime police."

 2             And then you refer further on to:  "The military police could ask

 3     for help from the civilian police if they needed it."

 4             And:  "When a crime is reported to the civilian police, they

 5     report that crime to the military police."

 6             Now, I'd just like to refer you to a document.  It's 65 ter 1735.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  If that could be presented on the screen, please,

 8     Mr. Registrar, and that's at tab 63.

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Kardum, you'll see that that document is dated 12

10     August 1995.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr.  Registrar, if we could go over the page,

12     if -- over the page to see who the author of the document is.

13        Q.   Now the author is Mario Tomasovic, assistant commander for

14     political affairs.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  And Mr. Registrar, if we could please return to

16     the first page in the B/C/S.

17        Q.   And you'll see that this is a 12 August 1995 warning to the

18     assistant commanders for political affairs.  If you just read through

19     that document.

20        A.   I've read the first page.  Could I see the second page, please.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Kardum, have you completed reading that document?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MR. MARGETTS:  I refer back to the first page of the B/C/S,

24     please, Mr.  Registrar.

25        Q.   And Mr. Kardum, the first part I'd like to refer you to is the

Page 9334

 1     start of the second paragraph, which is the sentence that appears above

 2     the bolded type.  And this document refers to the irresponsibility of

 3     individual soldiers, non-commissioned officers, AND officers who

 4     compromise the Croatian army and state through their inappropriate

 5     conduct and acts.

 6             And then if we look below, enumerated at 1 to 4 are various acts

 7     and indicates that it's necessary to prevent these acts.  That's "the

 8     continued torching and destruction of facilities and property; killing of

 9     livestock; confiscation of property; and inappropriate conduct toward

10     remaining civilians and prisoners of war."

11             My first question is this:  You were on the territory at this

12     time; did you observe these acts, these acts that are enumerated 1 to 4?

13        A.   Your Honour, this is the first time that I see this document.

14     It's a military document, not a document by the civilian police.  There

15     is no mention made of the civilian police anywhere, and I think it

16     doesn't concern the civilian police.  And I don't think it is an

17     appropriate for me to comment any -- on any part of this document.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kardum, the question is not whether you would

19     comment on it.  The question was whether you observed things as described

20     in this letter.  That is, the continued torching and destruction; the

21     killing of livestock; confiscation of property; and inappropriate conduct

22     toward remaining civilians and prisoners of war.

23             Did you observe these kind of things?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there were such things, and we

25     took action against the perpetrators at this time.  The killing of

Page 9335

 1     livestock, I'm not sure about that.  I never saw that.  This is the first

 2     time that I hear of it.  I know that there was collection of livestock,

 3     gathering of livestock, but whether there was killing of livestock, I

 4     don't know about that.

 5             The treatment or the conduct toward members and soldiers of the

 6     peace forces, I'm not aware of that either.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:

 8        Q.   And, Mr. Kardum, you indicated that, yes, you're aware of such

 9     things, and you said you took action against the perpetrators.

10        A.   Some of the things.

11        Q.   And in this document here, the referenced individuals are

12     soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers who compromise the

13     Croatian army.

14             Did you, in the crime police, take action in August 1995 against

15     individual soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers of the

16     Croatian army for the perpetration of the acts listed at 1 to 4?

17        A.   We did not take action toward officers.  We didn't have any

18     non-commissioned officers.  Whether there were some soldiers, I don't

19     know.  I know that we did run into some soldiers, privates, confiscating

20     property or taking property away, actually.  But it's hard to precisely

21     say whether someone was a soldier or not because at this time

22     demobilisation was in process, so whether someone was a soldier at the

23     actual moment that's -- I wasn't really aware of that.  However, there

24     were lists and registers, and your team had the opportunity to gain

25     insight into all such registered complaints, and we were asked to submit

Page 9336

 1     someone hundred or so complaints.  This was done through the Ministry of

 2     Justice.  But whether there were some privates or not involved, I can't

 3     really tell.  Mainly, the issue or the crime at stake was the taking-away

 4     of property, but I have to stress again that I'm really not sure whether

 5     at that particular point in time there were privates or not, whether

 6     there were soldiers or not, because there were a lot of people taking

 7     stuff away who were wearing uniforms.

 8        Q.   So, Mr. Kardum, you've referred to the fact that we've had the

 9     opportunity to take lists and registers.  So the action that you took, is

10     that recorded in the crime registers?

11        A.   I don't know.  I don't know.  Maybe not.

12        Q.   In accordance with the procedures that the crime police adopted

13     in terms of recording the action they took, in terms of the extent to

14     which those procedures were followed, would it be the case that all of

15     your -- all of the actions you took were in those -- were recorded in

16     those crime registers?

17        A.   I don't know.  The crime police department did not have crime

18     registers.  We did not maintain them.  But as I've already mentioned,

19     each criminal complaint was registered in the log-book.  Before it was

20     forwarded to the district attorney, it was entered in the crime register

21     of the police station, of the police station on whose -- on the territory

22     of which the crime had been committed, unless -- unless the perpetrator

23     was a minor, in which case that complaint would have been submitted at

24     the place where the minor lived and not where the crime was committed.

25        Q.   Are you able to indicate to the Court specific examples of action

Page 9337

 1     that your crime police took during August 1995 against Croatian soldiers

 2     in relation to incidents of the burning of houses?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Did your crime police take any action against any Croatian

 5     soldiers during August 1995, in relation to incidents of the burning of

 6     houses?

 7        A.   I'm not sure at this point in time.  I think we did not record

 8     such incidents.  However, I do have to say that --

 9        Q.   Mr. Kardum --

10        A.   -- when torching of houses was in question --

11        Q.   -- I didn't ask you about the recording.  I asked you whether you

12     took any action.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps the witness could finish his answer.  You

14     said you did not record such incidents; however, you had to say

15     something.  Would you please complete that answer.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we had major

17     difficulties with the torching of houses because the lay of the land was

18     as it was.  It's a hilly area, a large area --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I stop you there.

20             You said:  "I think we did not record such incidents.  However

21     ..." The question was whether you took any action.  So what -- I,

22     therefore, would like to know whether, although not recorded, you

23     nevertheless took action in relation to torching incidents.  Did you?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Action was taken.  But as

25     I've already said, if you were following closely, about two per cent of

Page 9338

 1     the entire police force was under my command.  The police was focussed on

 2     covering the area with uniformed policemen.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we -- no.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And as for me --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not seeking broad explanations but, rather,

 6     focus on you said:  We did not record such incidents.  However, we took

 7     action.  Could you give one example of such action taken although not

 8     recorded.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I recall, for instance, that

10     we processed a policeman who had torched six houses.  He was a member of

11     our police force, the regular police, and he torched six houses in a

12     village in the Knin area with two women burning to death in those houses.

13             We processed this incident --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. -- no.  The question was focussing on

15     torching committed by Croatian soldiers, not by policemen, not by

16     civilians.  Did you take any action against Croatian soldiers suspected

17     of being involved in torching houses, August 1995?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that there were such

19     suspicions that Croatian soldiers torched houses.  It's possible that

20     there were such incidents, but I really can't recall now.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

22             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

23        Q.   Mr. Kardum, I'd now like to refer you to crime police chief --

24     the minutes of the crime police chiefs of 12 August 1995.

25             MR. MARGETTS:  That's 65 ter 5024, Mr. Registrar, if you could

Page 9339

 1     please display that on the screen.  It's tab 50 in the exhibit list.

 2        Q.   Now, this is the 12th of August, 1995, the same date as the

 3     previous document that we saw.  Again --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  The previous document has received no exhibit number

 5     yet or ...

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  That's an omission.  I would

 7     like to move that into evidence, and if I could have an exhibit number.

 8     Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That was 65 ter 1735 or ...

10             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, 1735.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  1735.  I hear of no objections.

12             Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P918.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  P918, and for those who are surprised by the

15     numbering, that's, of course, caused by the meanwhile-prepared list in

16     which provisionally exhibit numbers are assigned to documents attached to

17     the 92 ter statements and which goes until P917.

18             P918 is admitted into evidence.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. MARGETTS:

21        Q.   Yes.  Mr. Kardum, you'll see again that at this particular

22     meeting on the 12th of August, the department chiefs were in attendance,

23     and for a part of the time so was minister -- Assistant Minister Benko.

24     And I'd just like to refer you to the first paragraph under Agenda Item

25     1.  And you will see that Mr. Milinovic and Mr. Turkalj agreed following

Page 9340

 1     consultations with Mr. Grujic and civilian protection duty officer that

 2     the procedure in the newly established centres for reception of persons

 3     refusing to go to Serbia will be carried out the same way as in admission

 4     centres for civilian persons.  And the crime police is to check the list

 5     of persons with the purpose of possible detection of wanted persons or

 6     perpetrators of crime.

 7             Now my question is, and it relates back to the issues we

 8     discussed yesterday and also provoked by these minutes:  Why were the

 9     civilians in the reception centres?

10        A.   Your Honour, why were civilians in reception centres?  This

11     question is put to me.  Perhaps my level is not high enough to answer

12     that question.  However, I will clarify it.

13             First of all, when civilians were brought in - and I don't know

14     under whose instructions or whose order - it wasn't from the police --

15     from the Zadar-Knin administration.  However, the fact is that those

16     civilians did not possess Croatian documents.  They had no documents

17     whatsoever on them.  And they were brought to these holding centres or

18     reception centres primarily so that they may be issued documents, and as

19     I've already mentioned, most of these people were elderly, infirmed, and

20     many of them were mentally retarded.  I'm sorry I have to use that term,

21     but that's how it was.  These were persons who had been abandoned by

22     their families who took care of them in the past and who left, leaving

23     them behind.

24             I think that the treatment of civilians was always guided and

25     exclusively guided by humanitarian principles of caring for those

Page 9341

 1     individuals.

 2             Assuming that this question may arise here, I brought with me a

 3     document, a list of police officers, our police officers, who -- who

 4     brought with them from the Srb area 12 civilians, produce their documents

 5     at the police station in Lapac, and returned them on the same day to

 6     their homes.

 7             However, in the early days that was not possible because there

 8     was a large number of civilians, and those services were just being

 9     established.  Many of these people needed medication.  Many needed to be

10     hospitalised or treated and so on and so forth.  So what is at stake here

11     is the following:  They had no documents - that was a fact - their

12     documents had to be produced for them, and most of these people were

13     incapable of taking care of themselves.  So when they arrived at the

14     reception centres, they were not within the competence of the civilian

15     police.  They were within the competence of the organisation for refugees

16     and the Red Cross.

17             As for this portion of the text which says that the treatment

18     will be same as in admission centre for civilian persons and that crime

19     -- criminal complaints will be -- or criminal action will be taken

20     against any who disobey this order, that is true.  For instance, I can

21     give you an example of Zoran Cvjianovic for whom it was determined that

22     he had killed Josip Zelic, that he was perpetrator.

23        Q.   That's fine.  I'd just like to refer you back to these minutes

24     and the reference is to persons refusing to go to Serbia.  Now, at that

25     stage, a lot of Serb civilians, were they not refusing to go to Serbia,

Page 9342

 1     or in fact, were they electing to go to Serbia or to leave the territory?

 2        A.   As far as I know, these people had a number of possibilities.

 3     One was to remain at their homes; another was for them to go to Serbia,

 4     to stay with their relatives because members of their families had

 5     already gone there, younger family members; and the third option was for

 6     them to go to third countries.  It was their own choice, and they made

 7     it, but that was not a result of the work in the police administrations.

 8             As can you see, these documents were produced in the Ministry of

 9     the Interior, and the authors and participants of and participants in

10     these documents are known persons, and none of these persons is directly

11     subordinate to me.

12             So perhaps it would be more proper to ask these persons for

13     comments on such matters.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.  When we looked at -- a moment ago, we

15     looked at P918, and we looked at the four incidents of crime that were

16     occurring on the territory, and you said you'd observed those -- those

17     events.

18             Do you think that those events had an impact on the remaining

19     Serbs and affected their actions as to whether or not they left or

20     remained on the territory?

21        A.   I don't know.  That is hard to comment on because at those

22     moments those areas were isolated in a way.  People from one village

23     could not know what was happening in another village in order to be able

24     to make decisions on that basis to the effect I'm going to leave this

25     area or I'm not going to leave this area.  But in principle, I know that

Page 9343

 1     Croatian humanitarian organisations visited those people, took relief in

 2     food and other aid to them and that the state even helped them in money.

 3     In fact, we registered in the field that our policemen looked after these

 4     people and so did Croatian soldiers.  In many instances, I heard very

 5     nice words by Serbs in respect of those soldiers.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me stop you -- let me stop you there.  The

 7     question was not how well people who had remained in the villages were

 8     looked after.  The question was whether you think that the crimes

 9     described in the other document we just saw - that is the continued

10     torching of houses and confiscation of property - whether that would have

11     influenced the choice of those who were in the reception centre, the

12     choice whether to return to their homes or to leave for Serbia.  That was

13     the question.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether those people

15     actually were aware what was happening.  If they were not there, how

16     could they know?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, please proceed.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President I'd now like to --

19             MR. MISETIC:  Sorry.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Sorry.

21             MR. MISETIC:  Just a housekeeping matter, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

24             MR. MISETIC:  A housekeeping matter.  We're referring to P918,

25     but I've found that that document is already in evidence as D645, just

Page 9344

 1     for the record.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  D645.  That would then -- that's the letter from

 3     Mario Tomasovic.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Although there is no date on your list, Mr. -- it

 6     was the --

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  12th of August, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  12 of August.  Could you please verify so that --

 9     perhaps, Mr. Registrar, you also can compare with D645, and if it's the

10     same document, then I think P918 could be vacated and used again.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  And, Mr. President, if 65 ter 5024, the 12

13     August 1995 minutes from the meeting of the crime police chiefs could be

14     given an exhibit number and admitted into evidence.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 5024 would be

16     ...

17             THE REGISTRAR:  That becomes Exhibit number P919, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P919 is admitted into evidence.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, possibly if we've vacated P918,

21     would it be possible for this exhibit to be given that number?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's possible, this one or the other one,

23     but since it has not been finally -- I asked you to verify -- I asked

24     Mr. Registrar to verify and only then to vacate that number.

25             MR. MARGETTS:  Okay.

Page 9345

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but it certainly will be used if it's available.

 2             Please proceed.

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 4             Mr. President, I'd now like to refer to a document which is D510,

 5     and it's at tab 44 or it's 44 on the exhibit list.  And Mr. Registrar, if

 6     that document could please be displayed, in particular page 4 of the

 7     English and page 5 of the B/C/S.

 8             Now, there's just been a discussion between the parties and

 9     agreed amendment to the translation of this document, Your Honours, and

10     I'd like to bring your attention to that amendment, for the reason that

11     the document was previously introduced into evidence during the course of

12     cross-examination of an earlier witness, Witness 86.  And I'd like to

13     just indicate to Your Honours the amendments.

14             You'll see, if we look at Section 3, "Taking In" -- headed:

15     "Taking In", if we look at the last line of the first paragraph, and --

16     or the last sentence refers to -- at the conclusion sentence:  "An

17     official shall take in a military person if this cannot be carried out

18     by..."  Now, the words "may not" have been replaced with the word

19     "cannot."

20             The same amendment has been made in the second line of Section 4,

21     where it says that "MUP officials.  If this cannot be carried out..."

22     The previous words were "may not".

23             And, Mr. Registrar, if we could go down in the English, please.

24     Your Honours, there was a sentence that had been missed in the

25     translation, and it's -- it commences six lines from the bottom of the

Page 9346

 1     page, and that sentence is:  "Therefore, for a legal implementation of

 2     the means of coercion against a military person, it is essential to find

 3     out whether it was possible for the military police to have intervened in

 4     a timely manner."

 5             And I just put that on the record that this amended translation

 6     has now been uploaded, and during the course of the examination of the

 7     previous witness we didn't have the benefit of that additional sentence,

 8     and the -- the additional information that we received from the amendment

 9     of the words "may not" to "cannot" in Sections 3 and 4.

10        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you can look on --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, I do understand there's agreement on

12     this.  Therefore, Mr.  Registrar, then the D510, the translation can be

13     replaced by the now-revised translation.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you can look at Section 5 of the document that's

17     displayed.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, possibly if we can bring up Section

19     5 more to the centre of the screen in the B/C/S.

20        Q.   And, Mr. Kardum, please indicate when you've completed reading

21     this page and we can move to the next page.

22        A.   I've read it.  I don't know what it is that you want from me.

23        Q.   Okay.  And then if you can just pay attention to the remainder of

24     Section 5 there.  Please indicate when you've completed reading that.

25        A.   Yes, I have.

Page 9347

 1        Q.   Now, you will see in the section on this page here, the reference

 2     in the second-last sentence to the fact that for the -- for means of

 3     coercion to be implemented by a civilian policeman against a military

 4     person, it's essential to find out whether it was possible for the

 5     military police to have intervened in a timely manner.

 6             And you have referred to the relative authority of the civilian

 7     police and the military police over military suspects, and I'd just like

 8     to ask you:  Is that consistent with your understanding?  That is, if it

 9     was possible for the military police to intervene in a timely manner,

10     then the civilian police were not able to intervene against a military

11     perpetrator.

12        A.   I don't quite understand the question.  Would you be so kind as

13     to repeat it.

14        Q.   Yes.  Mr. Kardum, in your statement you've referred to the fact

15     that the primary responsibility in terms of the reporting of crimes and

16     the apprehension of military suspects was the responsibility of

17     commanders, in terms of reporting it to military police, and the military

18     police, in terms of apprehending the military suspects and investigating

19     the matter.

20             So, this document here states that, in fact, if it was possible

21     for the military police to have intervened in a timely manner, then the

22     civilian police did not have the legal right to intervene against a

23     military perpetrator.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm going to ask that the question be

25     put in its full context.  The next sentence puts that in context and says

Page 9348

 1     that it's not just a question of what -- how we define -- it should be

 2     put to him.  The next sentence, I think, is key.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. -- let's do it as complete as possible,

 4     not leaving out the details.

 5             Could you please rephrase your question, Mr. Margetts.

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 7        Q.   You'll note, Mr. Kardum, that Mr. Misetic has indicated that the

 8     following sentence also is relevant to this question, and so look -- I'll

 9     take the words of the following sentence, and that is it concludes that

10     the implementation of coercion by authorised officials being the civilian

11     police would be considered illegal should it be established that the

12     military police had been able to intervene in due time.

13             Now, is that consistent with your understanding of the relative

14     authority of the civilian police and the military police over suspected

15     military perpetrators?

16        A.   I don't know where these instructions were generated at all.  I

17     see them for the first time, but I do know this.  If a military was the

18     perpetrator of a criminal offence, he would be handled by the military

19     police.  If that person was in civilian clothes, then the civilian police

20     would handle up to the moment until that person is identified as a member

21     of the military staff.

22             At that time, the civilian police would then so inform the

23     military police.  That is the way we proceeded.  And if possibly the

24     civilian police found a military in the commission of a criminal offence,

25     they would detain that person and inform the military police which had

Page 9349

 1     the obligation to take over such a person for further processing.  I

 2     believe that I was clear on that.  Those were the rules of behaviour,

 3     rules of conduct which we observed, but this is the first time that I see

 4     this in written form.  I'm not sure whether I quite understood your

 5     question.

 6        Q.   Yes, Mr. Kardum.  You did, and I thank you for the answer.  I'd

 7     now like to refer you to a document which has been introduced into

 8     evidence as Exhibit D49.  That's at tab 5 or number 5 in the exhibit

 9     list.  It's an order of Josko Moric.

10             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr.  Registrar, if that could please be

11     brought up on the screen.  It's an order of Josko Moric dated 18 August.

12        Q.   You will have reviewed this document in the course of your

13     reading of your materials yesterday, and it is referred to in your

14     statement, paragraphs 9 and 10 of your 2007 statement.

15             So I'd like to move you to straight to paragraph 5 of this order,

16     if I may.  And you'll see at paragraph 5 there's a reference to, again, a

17     situation where the military police cannot perform a task, and that task

18     is the task described in Item 4, that the civilian police will do it

19     alone.

20             Now, is that also consistent with your understanding of the

21     distinction between the role of the civilian police and the military

22     police, or does that in any way change the normal arrangements; that is,

23     where the military police cannot perform the task of on-site

24     investigations and forensic and operative criminal processing, then the

25     civilian police will do it alone, irrespective whether the perpetrate

Page 9350

 1     wears a Croatian army uniform or not.

 2             So that means that there will be instances where there are

 3     suspected military perpetrators and the civilian police are conducting

 4     the on-site investigation and forensic and operative criminal processing.

 5     Is that consistent with your understanding of the -- of the relation

 6     between the military police and the civilian police, or does this order,

 7     in fact, change that in any way?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I'm just going to object because I

10     think it's a very compound question, and I'm not sure I'm following what

11     the question actually is asking for.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  You're concerned whether the witness --

13             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Margetts, is there any possibility that

15     you make the question less of a compound question?

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  And I'll --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  And I'll make it more grounded in the actual

19     events.

20        Q.   After the 18th of August, 1995, did you conduct on-site

21     investigation and forensic and operative criminal processing in cases

22     where you suspected that the perpetrator was a military person without

23     any assistance or -- from the military police?

24        A.   I don't know why you assume that we cannot know who a perpetrator

25     of a criminal offence if we don't know who the perpetrator is.  This is

Page 9351

 1     not the way --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues]

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it goes.  If we have a criminal

 4     offence, the way we proceed -- we actually proceed according to the

 5     criminal offence in question, and only after having investigated the

 6     criminal offence we come by information that the possible perpetrators

 7     are members of the army, we would in that -- such case certainly inform

 8     the military police, and then we would agree on our further procedure

 9     with them.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you -- let me stop you there because you

11     are not focussing your answer on the question that was put to you.

12             You have seen in paragraph 4 of this document that there should

13     be an agreement between -- that at least the police administration

14     chiefs, I understand the civilian police administration chiefs should

15     meet with the commanders of the military police battalions that we found

16     in paragraph 1.

17             Then in paragraph 4, it says that they should agree that an

18     on-site investigation and forensic and operative criminal processing

19     should be conducted after every case of torching of houses and illegal

20     taking-away of people's moveable property.

21             Now, in paragraph 5, we find that if the military police cannot

22     perform the task, the task I just mentioned, that the civilian police

23     will do it alone, even if the perpetrator wears a Croatian army uniform.

24             Now, the question was, did you ever conduct an on-site

25     investigation and forensic and operative criminal processing just on your

Page 9352

 1     own, without the military police against a perpetrator wearing a Croatian

 2     army uniform, where the military police could not perform those tasks?

 3     Did this ever happen?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did conduct on-site

 5     investigations not knowing who the perpetrator was, and we did not

 6     conduct the processing without the knowledge of the military police.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you said you did conduct on-site investigation

 8     no knowing who the perpetrator was.  Did you ever conduct an on-site

 9     investigation in case it was reported to you or where you had reasons to

10     believe that the perpetrator was wearing a Croatian army uniform?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'd have to think about it to

12     try and remember because I did not attend the on-site investigations.

13     Yes, there were some cases of that.  I just remembered.  There were --

14     there was, for instance, the report of the criminal offence of rape in

15     Knin and that the injured party suspected in advance, I believe, a

16     uniformed person to have been the culprit.  I will not say a soldier, but

17     a person in uniform.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  This --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was -- that criminal offence

20     was solved and so on.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, this document talks about the cases of

22     torching of houses and illegal taking-away of people's moveable property.

23     At the same time, Mr. Margetts, it seems not to be perfectly clear

24     whether in paragraph 5 where reference that made to the tasks also would

25     refer to the limitation of the type of crimes involved.

Page 9353

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   So, Mr. Kardum, can you refer to any instance in August 1995

 4     where you suspected that there was a military perpetrator and you

 5     proceeded without the involvement of the military police to investigate a

 6     crime of the torching of houses or illegal taking-away of people's

 7     moveable property?

 8        A.   I think that there exists a large number of such criminal

 9     offences of the unlawful seizure of property with the perpetrators being

10     the Croatian soldiers, and these cases haven't been processed by the

11     Croatian police.  This usually happened in this way.  The Croatian police

12     had check-points, that it had manned for a while together with the

13     military police.  I don't know exactly on what dates, but we do have the

14     relevant records.  And when people passed by those roads, it often

15     happened that a Croatian soldier would be passing through, carting off

16     some stolen property or property that he could not prove was his

17     property.  So we would process such a soldier, seize such property, and

18     prosecute the person in question, file a criminal complaint, and most

19     often in cooperation with the military police.  In any case, the military

20     police was informed of it.

21             All such criminal complaints are documented.  They are filed in

22     our criminal registers and have been referred to the district attorneys

23     in charge and so on and so forth.

24             In Zadar, we had a murder case where a Croatian soldier had

25     killed a civilian in an argument, in a brawl.  I believe that the

Page 9354

 1     civilian was also a Croat.  His name was Bencun, as -- if I remember

 2     correctly.  The military police was informed, and the civilian police and

 3     military police co-operated and conducted the on-site investigation.

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Mr. Kardum --

 5        A.   The investigating judge was duly informed --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You are giving us now details of where you

 7     worked together when the question was focussing on situations where the

 8     military police could not perform the task and that you did it alone.

 9     That was the question, and that is what you read in paragraph 5 of this

10     document.

11             Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

12             May I ask you really to focus your answers, listen carefully to

13     the question, and focus your answers not on the whole of the situation

14     but specifically on the circumstances that were mentioned in the

15     question.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  I do have another topic that

18     I'd like to move to, and I could start that now if that would be

19     convenient, or...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, would it be your last topic or would it...

21             MR. MARGETTS:  Yeah.  Mr. -- well, there's this topic and then

22     there's just one further matter, which may be --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  How much time would you need?

24             MR. MARGETTS:  I think about 15 minutes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I think it's better to have the break first.

Page 9355

 1             Now, one of the advantages of working against a time set for a

 2     break is that often parties are more disciplined, so after the break,

 3     just imagine that there would be a break after 15 minutes.

 4             We'll have a break, and we resume at five minutes to 11.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, it's the first of your 15 minutes.

 8     Please proceed.

 9             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10             Madam Registrar, if I could please call up 65 ter 5469.  Just for

11     the party's reference, this is not on the exhibit list because this is

12     the document that Mr. Kardum presented to us yesterday.  We've had a

13     translation of the document --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, may I take it that Defence has also had a

15     opportunity to look not only at the original but also at the translation.

16             Yes.

17             MR. MARGETTS:  And so if we could move that into evidence and it

18     could be given an exhibit number, please.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.  Madam Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P920, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  P920 is admitted into evidence, which gives me an

22     opportunity to return to P918, where it was said that this was the same

23     document as D645.  Although the content of the document seems to be the

24     same, the documents are not identical.  Apparently, they come from a

25     different source.  Apart from some handwriting, which seems not to be

Page 9356

 1     very important, the stamps on the document on the second page are not put

 2     in the same position; and D645, I take it that at the back it stands for

 3     a copy or that there's a copy taken from some archives which does not

 4     appear on the other one.

 5             So, therefore, not knowing exactly what the importance of that

 6     could be under any circumstance, we leave 65 ter 1735 at this moment to

 7     be P918 and not to vacate P918.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, the other document that is on our screen, the

10     document the witness brought yesterday.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  That's correct.  And if that

12     P920 could be admitted into evidence, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes, you have not --

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Sorry, Your Honour. [Overlapping speakers]

15     Correct.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think I said so already on page 36, line 22.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

19             Now, Madam Registrar, if you could please display P57 on the

20     screen, and that's page 64 of the B/C/S and page 54 of the English,

21     please.  Yes.  Madam Registrar, I apologise.  It is in fact D57; that's

22     my error.  The Knin police station log-book.  It's item -- Tab 4 on the

23     exhibit list, formerly 65 ter 4473.  That's D57, please.

24             And, Madam Registrar, if you could move on the B/C/S copy to page

25     03622706, so that will be nine page earlier than the page that's

Page 9357

 1     currently displayed.  And the entry in the English, Your Honours, that

 2     I'm looking at is the Entry 180 which is currently displayed in the

 3     English.  And that's the one at the bottom of the screen.  And correct,

 4     that's the entry we're looking at.

 5        Q.   Mr. Kardum, could you please look at Entry 180.  This is the Knin

 6     police station daily log of events, and you'll see that there's a

 7     reference there.  There's a report in relation to a person being killed,

 8     and the duty officer -- the operational duty service of Zadar-Knin was

 9     informed, and they referred the person making this entry to crime police

10     chief Kardum who passed on the case to operational officers of the Knin

11     district police administration, crime police.  And then it follows.

12             Do you recall receiving this information from the operational

13     duty service of the Zadar-Knin police administration?

14        A.   I don't remember this.

15        Q.   And if I could refer you to the reference there --

16        A.   I can't see the date.

17        Q.   It's the 25th of August, 1995.

18             Now, if I could just refer you, it says that you passed on the

19     case to operational officers of the Knin district police administration,

20     crime police.  Who were the operational officers in Knin at that time,

21     that is, the 25th of August, 1995.

22        A.   On the dates here, mentioned here, there were no crime police in

23     the police station Knin except those two who worked at the reception

24     centre for civilians in Knin.  But I can see here a name mentioned, "I.

25     Petkovic."  I think this should be the fourth person, Ivica Petkovic.  He

Page 9358

 1     was a police officer of one of the police stations in Zadar.  I have no

 2     idea why his name is coming up here, and I don't know what this other

 3     name -- what this thing could be.

 4             As for Zeljko Zvilic, that's another name.  At this time, he was

 5     working in Gracac.

 6        Q.   And are they both criminal police officers, are they, Zvilic and

 7     Petkovic?

 8        A.   They were detectives.  Zvilic was a detective.  I don't know

 9     about Petkovic.  I don't know if he was a uniformed policeman, whether he

10     was a regular police or a crime police officer.  I'm not sure.

11        Q.   And you say Zvilic was a detective.  Was he subordinate to you?

12        A.   Between me and him, there were other people in the chain of

13     command.  If he was an officer of the second station, then there was also

14     the assistant for the crime police of the second police station.  This is

15     the Zadar police.

16        Q.   And could I just clarify.  You referred to two criminal police

17     who worked at the reception centre.  Yesterday, you mentioned three

18     persons who worked there.  Was it two, or was it three persons who worked

19     at the reception centre in Knin?

20        A.   That's correct.  There were three police officers, but I can't

21     recall these two names.  I know that Zjelko Zvilic worked in Gracac.  I

22     don't why his name appears here.

23        Q.   And Mr. Kardum --

24        A.   And as for the Petkovic person, I really can't recall.  I don't

25     know if he was assigned there or not.  I said that I remember three

Page 9359

 1     names, Slavko Raspovic, Dejan Klanic, and Bozo Razov.  Whether there was

 2     anyone else, I cannot confirm with any certainty.

 3        Q.   When these three crime police were involved in a criminal

 4     investigation for a serious offence such as killing, were you informed of

 5     that investigation?

 6        A.   I should have been informed, and I was aware of almost all

 7     investigations if we're speaking about investigations into murders.

 8        Q.   And at the time that the criminal police became involved, would

 9     they immediately inform you?

10        A.   Yes, they informed me, and I had two men in my department who

11     worked in the same field.  They were inspectors for violent crime, sexual

12     crimes and murders.  One of them was Ivica Ducic.  He had a university

13     degree; and the other one was Krsmis Ivicevic [phoen].  He was a high

14     school-level educated policeman, and these two men mainly investigated

15     such criminal offences.  The detectives would only assist them.

16        Q.   Now --

17             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, I intend to refer to a document

18     that has been admitted into evidence under seal, and I wonder if we could

19     go into private session.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9360











11  Pages 9360-9366 redacted. Private session.















Page 9367

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12             Mr. Margetts, you may proceed where you addressed the issue by

13     mistake to some extent also in private session, the issue of the material

14     and the way in which you'd like to present that to the Chamber.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.

17             There are two issues that are the subject of some disagreement

18     between the parties.  The first issue is raised by the Cermak Defence,

19     which relates to the absence of the crime registers from the 65 ter

20     exhibit list of the Prosecution.  The second issue is an issue raised by

21     the Gotovina Defence in relation to the table that the Prosecution has

22     produced.

23             If I may first address the issue of the source documents - that's

24     the crime registers - and the history of our acquisition of those and our

25     submission now to have them added to the 65 ter exhibit list, the history

Page 9368

 1     is that the crime registers were received in two batches in late

 2     December, on the 20th of December and then the 31st of December.  They

 3     were processed in the ordinary way.  They consist of approximately 270

 4     pages of information, and they have been submitted for translation.

 5             The translation of these materials has only been completed in

 6     August of this year, and similarly the cross-referencing of these

 7     materials to other materials we have and the production of the table has

 8     been completed also relatively recently.

 9             The materials were disclosed, again, in two batches.  Three of

10     the crime registers were disclosed to the Defence in early June of this

11     year, and four of the tables were -- or the registers were disclosed to

12     the Defence in early July of this year.

13             So that's the history of the disclosure of these materials and

14     the current situation that they're not on the exhibit list.  Of course,

15     they were received many months after we filed the exhibit list, and the

16     translation was complete a number of months after we filed our last

17     application to add documents to the exhibit list, and that calls for the

18     necessity of this oral application today.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you why it took so much time between

20     receiving these documents and to disclose them to the Defence?  It seems

21     that there's the 20th of December you mentioned and then 31st of

22     December and then disclosure, so approximately half a year later.

23             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  The disclosure of these

24     documents followed the analysis of the materials rather than preceding it

25     and was in conjunction with the analysis of the materials I could -- I

Page 9369

 1     may better say because our final analysis followed the translation of the

 2     materials.

 3             So it was -- they were not immediately disclosed for the reason

 4     that the Prosecution itself did not grasp the entire relevance and -- of

 5     the materials upon their receipt but did have a better grasp of the

 6     materials at a later time.

 7             And just in relation to the materials and their relevance to this

 8     -- the issues that arise in this proceeding, one of the main reasons I

 9     have asked that the -- the witness remove his earphones is the fact that

10     throughout the course of this examination there has been multiple

11     references to these registers as part of the procedure for the reporting

12     of crimes and the record of crimes in these registers being one of the

13     first steps in initiating any investigation into crimes.  Necessarily, a

14     lot of the information that's contained in these registers is duplicated

15     in complaints that go to the prosecutor's office, and in some sense the

16     information in these registers underlies the information and to some

17     extent repeats the substantive information that we find in Exhibit D511

18     and that we find in D568.

19             So our submission is that these crime registers are relevant, as

20     one of the -- the first steps in determining whether or not any specific

21     crime would be investigated; and, secondly, that these crime registers

22     are effectively source material that underlies the previous submissions

23     of D511 and D568.

24             So we say there's nothing novel in these registers.  There's

25     nothing novel in terms of the issues that these registers address; and in

Page 9370

 1     fact, we did an analysis and 360 of the entries that appear in these

 2     registers in fact appear in D511, and another number, I think 48, just

 3     off the top of my head, or a number in and around 48, of the entries that

 4     appear in these crime registers appear in source material obtained by the

 5     Gotovina Defence, and that material was utilized in the production of the

 6     previous exhibits D511 and D568.

 7             So at this stage we say these are probative.  They are the source

 8     material, and they are not -- they don't present novel information.

 9     There's nothing in them that -- that at this stage is dramatically new to

10     the parties.

11             Furthermore, in terms of their presentation -- in terms -- so we

12     say they will be a very useful addition to the exhibit list and very

13     useful to the Trial Chamber in their consideration of the nature of the

14     activities of investigation of crimes.

15             As regards this witness, quite clearly he has indicated already

16     that he would be able to look at these registers and provide useful

17     information in relation to their source and their method of compilation

18     and the use that they were put to, and it's for that reason that we bring

19     this application, and it's for that reason that we do so with this

20     witness present.

21             Similarly, and if I could move on to the table of crimes that

22     we've produced, we -- again, I'll reemphasise the submission I made in

23     short form when we -- before we moved out of private session.  And that

24     is that this effectively -- the table effective presents the information

25     in the crime registers in a form which is digestible and we hope useable

Page 9371

 1     by the Trial Chamber.  So as for the submission in relation to the crime

 2     registers, we say there's nothing new or novel in this table.  It just

 3     assists both the parties and the Trial Chamber in handling this

 4     information and using this information, and again, it would be useful for

 5     this witness to be given the opportunity to comment on the table that

 6     we've produced and the information that that table conveys.

 7             Your Honour, that concludes my submissions.  If there are any

 8     particular questions you may have ...

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber would first give an opportunity to the

11     Defence to respond.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             We object to the admission to the 65 ter list of both the chart

14     created by the Prosecution and the other underlying registers for now.

15             As I had indicated to Mr. Margetts, the issue for us at this

16     moment is not relevance or probative value because we haven't been -- we

17     haven't had a fair opportunity to even look at the documents.  As the

18     Chamber is aware, throughout the course of these proceedings the

19     Prosecution has from time to time added or asked or filed a motion to add

20     additional documents to the 65 ter list.  I think all three Defences have

21     been very reasonable in consenting to the admission of those documents.

22     Typically because the documents are one or two pages, maybe a few more,

23     we have a reasonable opportunity to review the documents and to prepare

24     for cross-examination of the witness.

25             The specific problems here for the Defence are, for example, the

Page 9372

 1     compilation by the Prosecution, which purports to be somewhat of a

 2     summary of the underlying documents, is itself approximately 100 pages

 3     long.  That should indicate to the Trial Chamber, if the summary is 100

 4     pages, how much underlying material we have to go through in order to

 5     assess -- assess the reliability of, A, what the Prosecution has put

 6     together; and, B, to see if in the underlying materials there may be

 7     evidence that we would put to the witness in cross-examination to counter

 8     whatever inferences the Prosecution will try to make either with the

 9     underlying documents or the exhibit that they have prepared.

10             I would note that in the Exhibit D568 which was the Defence

11     exhibit, it took the Prosecution roughly two months to put together on

12     paper their specific objections to review all the materials that we had

13     submitted.  It took them two months to go through that and then to file

14     something with the Trial Chamber identifying specifically what they

15     object to.

16             We here received the chart I believe on Thursday night - it may

17     be Wednesday night, but it's Wednesday or Thursday of last week - for the

18     first time.  That had never been disclosed to us before.

19             With respect to the issue of the disclosure to the Defence of the

20     underlying documents in June, I believe at status conferences or at 65

21     ter conferences the Gotovina Defence alerted the chamber and the

22     Prosecution to the problem of disclosure under Rule 66(B) and Rule 68,

23     which I believe is the case here.  We do get rolling disclosures from the

24     Prosecution but not a notice that says we received these documents and we

25     will be filing a motion pursuant to Rule 65 ter because we intend

Page 9373

 1     ultimately to use this exhibit at trial.  For us, there's a big

 2     difference in how we prepare or how much time we spend reviewing a

 3     thousand pages if the Prosecution tells us, for example, this could be

 4     exculpatory material that we're disclosing to you under Rule 68 or it's

 5     66(B), which is sort of a broad category that does not indicate that the

 6     Prosecution intends to use this material at trial.

 7             In addition to the question Your Honour posed about why if the

 8     documents were received in December they only were disclosed in June, we

 9     have the additional question, which is:  If the documents were sent for

10     translation in June, why not give us notice that -- here's the

11     disclosure; by the way we've asked for translations, and we intend do

12     file a motion to amend the 65 ter exhibit list to add them.  In addition

13     with this witness in his 92 ter submission, there is a request to expand

14     the Rule 65 ter exhibit list, which I believe there was no objection to

15     in terms of the requests that are in writing with the 92 ter motion.  Now

16     we have several hundred if not thousands of pages to go through on an

17     oral motion even after the written 92 ter submission asking for quite

18     voluminous material to be added and put to this witness.

19             Now, what I indicated to Mr. Margetts was, all we are asking is

20     for we need a fair opportunity to review the materials; and at this

21     point, Your Honour, I can say to you that if they are allowed to put this

22     to the witness, we are not in a position to cross-examine this witness on

23     this material.

24             I did say to Mr. Margetts that after we'd had a few weeks to go

25     through the material and see if there's an objection, we may agree with

Page 9374

 1     him that there's probative value in these documents, that they're

 2     relevant to this case, and that they should be admitted to the Rule 65

 3     ter list and admitted before the Chamber.  The problem is when we receive

 4     something on a Wednesday or a Thursday night before a Monday witness

 5     involving this volume of material, we simply cannot reasonably be

 6     expected to be able to cross-examine a witness on it, particularly where

 7     the Prosecution has now alerted the Chamber that they want to put -- that

 8     they are moving to amend the 65 ter list because they need to put matters

 9     to this witness, which from our perspective only further emphasises the

10     fact that if, in fact, this is material that they need to put to this

11     witness, it will likely mean that it's material that we would want to

12     cross-examine the witness on, and we're not in a position to do it at

13     this point.

14             So for that reason, Your Honour, our position is that it not be

15     put to this witness at this time because the Defence not able to

16     cross-examine on it and that we be given a reasonable amount of time - I

17     would ask for a couple of weeks - to go through the material, see if we

18     have any objection to it, and then see if we can't put this material to

19     another -- a witness.  There are additional witnesses that are -- that

20     will be, I believe, competent to address these matters.  I won't be more

21     specific than that in open session, but future witnesses that might be

22     able to address the underlying documents, and there we may have more of a

23     fair opportunity to put questions to future witnesses about these issues.

24             Thank you, Your Honour.

25             MR. KAY:  Nothing to add, Your Honour.  It's a question of

Page 9375

 1     adequate notice for the 65 ter list.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  I have nothing to add to my learned friend's

 3     submission.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We apparently have two issues.  The one is the way

 5     in which this document was compiled.  I wonder whether it would be of --

 6     whether it would be useful at all to put questions to a witness on how

 7     you put together this information rather than perhaps put questions to

 8     the witness in relation to the underlying material.

 9             So may I take it that this is a matter of giving easy access to

10     the Chamber to the material which we find in several source documents,

11     and that, therefore, there's no need to put questions to the witness to

12     that and that we could take -- leave to say that the Defence could take

13     its time to see.  Because if it's just compiling information which is

14     already in other source material, then it primarily is a verification of

15     whether things are put on the right lines and whether the links which are

16     apparently created here are relevant or irrelevant links.  That seems to

17     be the first or - as a matter of fact, rather - the second issue.

18             Mr. Misetic.

19             MR. MISETIC:  I would agree with you, Your Honour, and again, let

20     me say that our position is simply as it relates to putting questions to

21     the witness about the materials.  If the Prosecution wanted to proceed as

22     we did with D568, which is to MFI it, give us an opportunity to go

23     through it, and get back to the Chamber on what our position is --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And then we are talking about the tables --

25             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.

Page 9376

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- not about the material on which this table

 2     relies.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.  And my second suggestion to Mr. Margetts

 4     was that if in fact much of this material is simply repeating what's

 5     already in D511 and D568, then if there are questions that need to be put

 6     to the witness, I would suggest that we put the D exhibits to the witness

 7     if in fact there is no difference or no substantive difference between

 8     the D exhibits and what the Prosecution has put together.

 9             But my issue is with putting the questions to the witness and not

10     having an opportunity ourselves, then, in cross-examination to do the

11     same with the witness.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I do understand that all of the

13     information contained in this put-together document must be somewhere

14     else and that the underlying material that questions could be put to the

15     witness in relation to that.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Well, even the underlying material hasn't been

17     disclosed to us of the intents to use it with this witness so --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There, of course, is an issue.

19             MR. MISETIC:  And it's not on the 65 ter list.  That's the issue.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but part of it is not on the 65 ter list, I do

21     understand, and other of the material covered by this.

22             MR. MISETIC:  As I understand -- I could be wrong, and

23     Mr. Margetts will correct me if I'm wrong.  As I understood it, it was

24     the exhibits that they are now asking to put on the 65 ter list, the

25     underlying documents plus the exhibit or the document that the Gotovina

Page 9377

 1     Defence sent to them as the source material for D568.  But even that

 2     document, the underlying document that we produced to them is also not on

 3     the 65 ter list as I understand it.

 4             So I'm not aware of --

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  The -- one of the -- a

 6     substantial list that is very similar to the underlying document that the

 7     Defence have submitted to us is on the 65 ter list being a very extensive

 8     summary of Prosecution's presented by the Ministry of Justice of Croatia

 9     to the Prosecution, and that is on the list.  So a lot of the material

10     that's reflected in this table is also reflected in that document.

11             Mr. President, I just had two small observations and possibly a

12     practical proposal, and that is -- a very small observation is that the

13     table, albeit it in small font, is not over 100 pages.  It's 38 pages.

14             The second observation I have to make is that the process for

15     D568 and our review of it and why it took two months, it's a very

16     different situation here because it was the lack of information in D568

17     that caused us to have to look to other sources and caused us to take

18     time.

19             So we still maintain our submission that the document is not too

20     extensive and that because of its comprehensiveness, clarity -- and

21     clarity, it is possible to -- for the Defence to grab hold of it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's not talk about 38 or 100 pages because

23     one picture comes to my mind.  You know that sometimes Bibles are

24     produced in a size of one centimetre by one centimetre.  Whether that

25     says anything about the information you would have to digest if you read

Page 9378

 1     is -- let's not -- it's perfectly clear, 38 or 100 pages, that my eyes

 2     might suffer under it in any way.  Yes.  Then -- yes.

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  I do have a practical suggestion.  The real issue

 4     is a substantive and full cross-examination.  The parties differ as to

 5     whether that's possible.  The Defence submit that it's not.  If it were

 6     possible for this witness to see the source crime registers and at least

 7     authenticate those materials, albeit that we'd have to go into the

 8     substance of those materials, that would be a helpful step in this

 9     process.  Given his position, he seems the best witness to do that.  And

10     so we'd suggest that step at a minimum.  We accept Your Honours'

11     observations in relation to the table in effect that the table is the

12     work product of the Prosecution.  We consider it very helpful in

13     focussing the witness and also providing substantial information to the

14     witness that he could respond to, and we do think it may be helpful --

15     well, it would be helpful for him to be examined on it, but we also

16     accept that it -- it is not essential that this witness be examined on

17     that table.

18             So our practical way forward, our suggestion may be that we

19     present the underlying source documents to the witness.  We have him

20     review them.  He's already made substantial comments about their

21     relevance and their particular use in the crime investigation system, and

22     potentially once the Defence have had the time that they've requested to

23     review the material, it could be that it may be useful for the witness to

24     be called back to address these materials and for him to be examined in

25     relation to the -- these materials at a later time.  So I'll just leave

Page 9379

 1     that option open as well.

 2             Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Margetts.

 4             My recollection is not very clear.  D568, which is a document

 5     which has some resemblance of what we see in front of us now, I tried to

 6     find out when it was admitted into evidence and when it was disclosed to

 7     the Prosecution for the first time.  Could you ...

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I believe it was admitted through Witness 86,

 9     correct?

10             MR. MARGETTS:  There are two exhibits that I have referred to,

11     Mr. President.  One's D511, and D511 was presented during the course of

12     the cross-examination of Witness 86.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yeah.  That was on, as we find in your submission,

14     the 14th of July.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  And we accepted the good faith representations

16     made to us by the Defence in relation to the source of that material,

17     albeit secondary sources.  We had no objection once we were able to

18     discuss it over the break with the Defence, and we immediately consented

19     to its admission because we could understand its utility for the Trial

20     Chamber, plus the very practical way forward that the Defence had

21     advanced by presenting that table.

22             In regard to D568, the issue is a very different one.  Again, we

23     accept the representation as to source, and we're happy for its --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That put very specific question in relation to

25     D568.  Mr. Margetts, you are -- well, I noticed that sometimes people in

Page 9380

 1     answering a question go a bit broader than what is really asked to them.

 2             Then, therefore, the two-month included the summer recess.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  It did.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Well, yes, it did, and I think there was --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  14th of July.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  -- some communication between us about that.

 8             But just so we're clear, in specific response to your question,

 9     D511 came in through Witness 86.  D568 is a bar table submission by the

10     Defence in response to an issue that had arisen, I believe, with Witness

11     86, which would have been filed off the top of my head sometime in early

12     to mid-July, if I'm not mistaken.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Correct.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber considers that there's no need to

18     immediately decide on the admission of the -- of the put-together

19     document, the 37 pages.  Therefore, the Defence will have time to

20     consider what objections there are, if there will be any.

21             Mr. Margetts, the Chamber will allow you to put questions to the

22     witness in relation to the underlying source material to the extent it is

23     not on your 65 ter list and to the extent it has not been announced as

24     exhibits to be used in relation to this witness.  The Chamber will very

25     carefully listen to the type of questions that are put, the information

Page 9381

 1     that we receive in the answers, and we'll then either proprio motu or on

 2     an application by the Defence teams consider whether additional time

 3     should be given to prepare for further cross-examination on matters which

 4     we could not deal with at such short notice.

 5             That is how the Chamber would like you to proceed, and perhaps

 6     it's wise if you receive any other additional material soon to disclose

 7     it.  If it's irrelevant, then the Defence might complain about being --

 8     being loaded with irrelevant material.  At the same time, we now get

 9     criticism that you have not provided to them in due time material that

10     finally appears to be relevant.  I am afraid that we'll never finally

11     resolve this dilemma, but that's for the future.

12             You may proceed as I indicated, and please keep in mind what the

13     limits are, that by putting certain questions you might even create more

14     complicated procedural problems as there are already now.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

17             Madam Registrar, if you could please present on the screen 65 ter

18     5288.

19             Mr. President, we did have with us a binder with the -- the

20     Croatian versions of the registers.  It may be helpful if I provide that

21     binder to the witness.  I'll just check.

22             Yes, Madam Usher.

23             And, Mr. President, I've just presented a binder to Mr. Kardum

24     that contains the crime registers that are listed sequentially on the

25     exhibit list from numbers 37 to 43.  That's 65 ter 5288 through to 5294.

Page 9382

 1        Q.   Mr. Kardum, you have before you crime registers from the police

 2     stations of Gracac, Obrovac, Benkovac, Drnis, Knin, Donji Lapac and

 3     Korenica.  I'd first like to refer you to the first crime register in

 4     your binder, and if you could please have a look at that crime register,

 5     and you could confirm that that is the crime register for the Gracac

 6     police station containing the entries from August 1995 to December 1995.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we see on the screen also what the witness is

 8     looking at because at this moment it seems to be correspondence rather

 9     than a register which appears on our screen.

10             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Madam Registrar, if we could move forward to

11     past -- it would be about the third or fourth page.  Okay.  That's the

12     first page of the register itself.  The documents prior to that, the

13     correspondence that I referred to in my submissions indicating the

14     receipt of that from the officials of the Croatian government.

15        Q.   Mr. Kardum, have you had opportunity to go -- just look at the

16     entries in that register and confirm that that is the fact the register

17     for the Gracac police station?

18        A.   I only assume that this is the crime register from the police

19     station of Gracac because I have never seen this crime register.  I can

20     only see by the last names that it could be that.  I do not have the

21     original in order to be able to confirm that for you.

22        Q.   But it is your -- it is consistent.  Its layout and the

23     information contained in it, is that consistent with your understanding

24     as to how crime registers were compiled in the period August 1995 to

25     December 1995 in the police stations under your command?

Page 9383

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.  If you could now move to the second

 3     tab in the binder --

 4        A.   Just not confuse some things, please.  Police stations were under

 5     the commander of the chief of the -- or commander of the police station.

 6     A police station is an organisational unit of the Ministry of the

 7     Interior, whereas the department of the crime police is not an

 8     organisational unit.  It is just a form.  So we had police stations, we

 9     had police administrations, and the ministry; three levels, in other

10     words.  I'm just a department as a part of the police administration.

11        Q.   Yes, Mr. Kardum, and you're absolutely right to correct me there.

12     I did misspeak.  Of course, the police station was not under your

13     command.  I was indicating that this would have been compiled by members

14     of the crime department who were subordinate to you and, that's -- that

15     is correct, is it not?

16        A.   Yes, it is correct.  But it -- this was so for a short period,

17     but in the middle of September police stations started functioning just

18     as all police stations in the Republic of Croatia.  They had their normal

19     organisational form:  The commander of the police station, his assistant

20     inter alia, also for the crime police, and then specific workers within

21     the crime police organisation, because initially in this area the police

22     stations did not have their own crime police.  That was not envisaged in

23     the organisational scheme.  They were to have the crime police but not

24     under the command of that police station, in other words.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the question was focussing primarily on the

Page 9384

 1     format we see on the screen as the format of records kept; and where

 2     Mr. Margetts misspoke, I don't think that there's any basic

 3     misunderstanding in this respect, that you confirmed that this is how

 4     information was recorded within the police structure.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if I may.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I understand that, as well, how Your Honour

 9     formulated.  If the question was intended to talk about subordination,

10     however, then I think --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think that Mr. Margetts misspoke, more or

12     less, and that he was not focussing on subordination but primarily on the

13     format.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then what we see on our screen at this

16     moment, the witness I take it sees more because the 14 columns, we see 7

17     on our screen whereas the remaining 7 appear in the translation but only

18     on the next page of the original.

19             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  If we could move to the next page on the --

20     on the screen, Madam Registrar.  And, yes, Mr. President, the further

21     seven columns appear on that next page.

22        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you could now refer to the next tab, which is the

23     crime register for Obrovac.

24             MR. MARGETTS:  And Madam Registrar, if we could please have

25     presented on the screen 65 ter 5289.  And, again, if we could have the

Page 9385

 1     first page.

 2        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you could refer to the next tab in your binder.

 3             Mr. Kardum?  The next document in your binder behind the tab,

 4     which can I see from here is a red tab.  And if you could just review

 5     that document and confirm that that's the crime register for Obrovac

 6     police station for the period August 1995 to December 1995.  I think you

 7     have a staple there in the document that may be -- you can take the

 8     document out if that would assist you.

 9             You will see, Mr. Kardum, on the first page that this has an

10     8-digit number, 0624-4405.  Can you see the 8-digit number on the first

11     page that you have just separated there?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And can you confirm that this is the crime register for Obrovac?

14        A.   I suppose it is.  I could confirm that only if I saw the

15     original.

16        Q.   Well, in -- then can you confirm that that is consistent, again,

17     with the layout and the nature of the information that is contained in

18     the crime registers compiled by police stations and specifically

19     consistent with the information compiled at that time by the police

20     station at Obrovac?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, Mr. Kardum, I have the same question for the next document

23     in the binder.

24             MR. MARGETTS:  So if we could move to the next tab.  And Madam

25     Registrar, this is 65 ter 5290.

Page 9386

 1        Q.   And this time, Mr. Kardum, the first page before you is

 2     0624-4440, and then the next page along with the actual entries --

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  If, Madam Registrar, we could move to the next

 4     page on our screen.

 5        Q.   -- has an 8-digit marking, 0624-4441.  And can you confirm,

 6     Mr. Kardum, that that document you're looking at is consistent with the

 7     crime register maintained by the police station of Benkovac in the period

 8     August 1995 to December 1995?

 9        A.   I don't have it in that order.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness please

11     be asked to speak into the microphone.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kardum, could you come a bit closer to the

13     microphone.  The interpreters have some difficulties in hearing you.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I don't have it arranged in

15     that order.  You said it was Drnis and then Benkovac.  It is the same

16     thing as before.

17             MR. MARGETTS:

18        Q.   So do you have before you the page on the left-hand side there

19     marked 0624-4441, an 8-digit number stamped on it?  Well, the 8-digit

20     number on the page you're now looking at is that 0624-4440.  Could you go

21     back to the cover page.

22        A.   No.  Where is that?  At the bottom?

23        Q.   Okay.  Could you read that 8-digit number out, please.

24        A.   0624-4441.

25        Q.   And this document that you have, a part of which or, in fact, the

Page 9387

 1     first page of entries is 0 -- is marked 0624-4441, is that consistent

 2     with the crime register that was maintained by the police station in

 3     Benkovac for the period August 1995 to December 1995?

 4        A.   I assume that it is.

 5        Q.   Mr. Kardum, could you please move to the next tab in your binder?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Margetts, I noticed that at

 7     least in the Obrovac document that "lagenda" appears on the bottom of the

 8     page, which is not a translation of what appears in the original but

 9     apparently is some kind of an assistance for non-native-speaking persons

10     to understand what the entries mean.  I put this on the record so if

11     there's any issue with that, that I'd like to hear from the Defence.  If

12     the abbreviations or the explanations are not accurate, that the Chamber

13     would be informed about it.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And normally if, in the translation, anything

16     appears which is not just a translation, Mr. Margetts, the Chamber would

17     like to be informed.

18             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President, and we will endeavour to

19     complete that legend as well.  I note that there are some entries where

20     the expansion is unknown.

21        Q.   Mr. Kardum, could you please refer to the next tab and to the

22     document behind that tab.

23             Now, just move past that correspondence, if you may, and if you

24     could read out the -- that page there.  Stop there.  Move back.  That

25     page there in your hand there.  Could you read out the 8-digit reference

Page 9388

 1     number on that page.

 2        A.   0624-7911.

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  And Madam Registrar, if could you please present

 4     65 ter 5292 on the screen.

 5        Q.   Mr. Kardum, can you please confirm that the document you have

 6     before you is consistent with the crime register for the Knin police that

 7     was maintained in the period August 1995 to December 1995.

 8        A.   This is very fine print in the paper that I have so that I can

 9     hardly read a word of it, but according to its form I suppose that it

10     could be that, yes.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

12             Now, if could you now turn back the pages in the binder and you

13     could find the tab that is marked Drnis.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Maybe if Madam Usher could assist the witness in

15     moving through the binder.  Thank you.

16             And, Madam Registrar, if we could please have 65 ter 5291

17     presented on the screen.

18        Q.   Mr. Kardum, do you have before you a page which is marked with an

19     8-digit stamp, 0624-7886.  Mr. --

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And is this document you have before you consistent with the

22     crime register maintained by the Drnis police station in the period

23     August 1995 to December 1995?

24        A.   The police station in Drnis was not a part of the Zadar-Knin

25     police administration.

Page 9389

 1        Q.   Are you able to indicate whether or not the document you have

 2     before you is consistent with a crime register maintained by the Drnis

 3     police station?

 4        A.   I was never in the police station of Drnis.  I never worked in

 5     it.  It was never a component part of the police administration in which

 6     I worked.  I can assume that it is consistent with it, but it's just an

 7     assumption on my part.  That is as if you were asking me a question about

 8     the police station in Slavonia or in Zagreb.

 9        Q.   Then I'll ask you this:  Is the form of the document in front of

10     you and the nature of the information entered in the document in front of

11     you consistent with a crime register?

12        A.   All the crime registers were identical at the level of the entire

13     state, I believe, so there is no reason for the one in Drnis to be

14     different from the one in Knin or Zagreb or elsewhere.

15        Q.   And Mr. Kardum, if could you now move with the assistance of

16     Madam Usher -- and I apologise, Madam Usher; there are two to go - to the

17     tab marked Donji Lapac?

18             And again, Mr. Kardum, could you look at the first page there.

19     Is the -- and could you read out the number that's stamped on that page?

20        A.   0624-7977.

21        Q.   And, Mr. Kardum, the same question again.  Is this consistent,

22     this document you have before you, consistent with the crime register

23     maintained in Donji Lapac during the period August to December 1995?

24        A.   I assume that it is.  Just as I said in respect of the other

25     ones, I can also say the same in respect of this one.

Page 9390

 1             MR. MARGETTS:  Madam Registrar, if we could please present 65 ter

 2     5293 on the screen.

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Kardum, the final one -- and, Madam Registrar, if you

 4     please move to the next page of the B/C/S on ... yes, okay.  Thank you.

 5             Now, Mr. Kardum, if you could please now move to the final tab,

 6     and that is the tab for Korenica.  And again, if could you read out the

 7     8-digit number on the final page.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  And Madam Registrar, if you could please present

 9     65 ter 5294 on the screen.

10        A.   0624-7997.

11        Q.   And, Mr. Kardum, are you referring to the last page of the

12     Korenica documentation?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Could you move through and refer to the first page in that tab.

15     I apologise.  I meant we'd move to the last document.

16        A.   0624-7980.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.  And Mr. Kardum, is that consistent with

18     the crime register maintained for the Korenica police station in the

19     period August 1995 to December 1995?

20        A.   I assume that it is because I can see the signature at the end,

21     and that it was certified by the commander, Mr. Ivica --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't hear the last name.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the last name you mentioned,

24     the commander Mr. Ivica ...

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ivica Ugarkovic.

Page 9391

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's on the last page.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.

 4             MR. MARGETTS:

 5        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Kardum.  That concludes my questions.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And thank you very much, Mr. President.  That

 7     concludes my examination.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I see the binder that was shown to the

 9     witness.

10             Mr. Margetts, for Drnis, where do I -- under what binder do I

11     find Drnis?

12             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, the tabs are marked --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let me just ...

14             Yes, we see, for example, in the Drnis, we ...

15             Let me just try to understand what you are actually presenting,

16     Mr. Margetts.  The first page in the translation starts with lagenda,

17     number, date of entry.  I do not find any of these in the original first

18     page that was just produced to the witness, do I?  Apparently, that's

19     0624-7886.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. MARGETTS:  The --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And the first -- I find something to the left at the

24     top, 20-06-95.  And then in the next column -- or are these the ...

25             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  It seems to me and I think

Page 9392

 1     that the issue is this, that up at the right-hand corner of the first

 2     page of the translation there's a reference to it being a partial

 3     translation.  And it seems that it actually commences --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  -- at page 0624-7897.  And the explanation would

 6     be this, that the translations are ongoing, and the entries that have

 7     been selected and represented here are the ones relevant to this

 8     proceeding, and at this stage the translation is not complete in respect

 9     of all entries.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you are referring and you are taking the

11     witness to a page which may be there in the original but certainly is not

12     there in translation, although the translation at the top says that it --

13     it refers to the same numbers, isn't it?

14             MR. MARGETTS:  Yeah.  It refers to the same range.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So we have nine pages there, we have in the

16     original.  We have many more, and now you say that we are -- it is

17     presented to the Chamber -- a selection is presented to the Chamber, and

18     I'm just trying to find out where -- that's the first page, the first --

19             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  It seems to me --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- entry is --

21             MR. MARGETTS:  -- 0624-7987.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and that's the -- that's Entry 105, date of

23     entry, the 10th of October.  Is that --

24             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Your Honour --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  105, 10th of October.

Page 9393

 1             MR. MARGETTS:  I find this curious, Your Honour, because it seems

 2     that from that date there is a continuing entry to each entry number

 3     indicating that in fact this is not a selection related to the nature of

 4     the offences but is merely a partial translation from a period.

 5             I expect that the earlier period would have also been translated,

 6     and that may be it has not been uploaded into --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But Mr. Margetts, I'm doing my utmost best to

 8     -- on my computer to find originals, copy, et cetera, et cetera.  You

 9     just put to the witness, do you see that number, is it the same as

10     everything; and then only by carefully looking at it we see that

11     apparently something the witness looks at and which starts in June 1995,

12     what you're presenting to the Chamber is a selection of this document

13     translated starting somewhere in October.

14             I don't know how you have handled the further use of this

15     material and what happened after that, but would you strongly contradict

16     me if I say chaos?

17             MR. MARGETTS:  Well --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You would contradict me, wouldn't you?

19             MR. MARGETTS:  I wouldn't contradict you directly.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Not strongly.  Yes.

21             MR. MARGETTS:  I'd indicate --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let matters be clear.  This could be returned to

23     Mr. Margetts.

24             MR. MARGETTS:  It seems to be that the uploaded translation is

25     incomplete, Mr. President.

Page 9394

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But finally, the Chamber will have to

 2     understand what it sees on the screen.  The Chamber will have to

 3     understand what the witness confirms and what the witness does not

 4     confirm; and therefore, more precision would be required.

 5             You have got 20 minutes to think about it, but you have no

 6     further questions to the witness, but everyone has 20 minutes to think

 7     about precision.  We'll do the same.

 8             We will resume at 10 minutes to 1.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, from the fact that you are on your

12     feet, I take it that you will be the first one to cross-examine the

13     witness.

14             Mr. Kardum, you'll first be examined by Mr. Mikulicic.

15     Mr. Mikulicic is Defence counsel for Mr. Markac.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Kardum.  As Your Honour

20     Judge Orie told you, I am the Defence counsel for Mr. Markac in this --

21     in these proceedings.

22             Now let me ask you at the outset, do you know personally

23     Mr. Markac?

24        A.   Mr. Defence counsel, I've never personally been introduced to

25     Mr. Markac.  I have only heard of him in the media.  I also know that he

Page 9395

 1     was the assistant minister for the special police, but I've never had

 2     occasion to be introduced to him or to work with him.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now go back and think about the historical

 4     context of the events that are at issue here in these proceedings, and I

 5     would like to refer to you paragraph 4 of your 2004 statement.  This is

 6     Exhibit P896.

 7             You said that at this time - in other words, immediately before

 8     the outbreak of hostilities - about 85 to 90 per cent of the population

 9     of Zadar was Croatian; and yet, the ethnic composition of the police

10     administration was such that about 70 per cent of the police force was of

11     Serbian ethnicity.  Is that consistent with what you remember?

12        A.   Yes, absolutely.

13        Q.   After the tensions began to escalate of multi-ethnic nature, many

14     people of Serb nationality left the area, including the policemen?

15        A.   Yes.  The police were the first to leave.

16        Q.   Some of them transferred to Zadar.  They were transferred there,

17     but some of them also left without any permission, just on their own free

18     will?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   I assume that of those police officers who were of Serb ethnicity

21     and who left the police administration of Zadar were trained police

22     officers, correct?

23        A.   Yes.  Most of them were trained police officers.  Many of them

24     had attended police academy or the cadet school.

25        Q.   How did this situation affect the work of the police in Zadar in

Page 9396

 1     view of the fact that at one point in time they were left with a large

 2     number of experienced police officers gone?

 3        A.   It was difficult to conduct all the police duties, especially so

 4     because the war broke out.  Now, the war did not break out immediately.

 5     In the -- before the war, there were many incidents.  People were killed,

 6     and many police officers were attacked and killed, and some of them were

 7     of Serb nationality.  Many of them survived only because they claimed

 8     that they were Serbs.  Others accused Croats of these crimes.

 9        Q.   I apologise, Mr. Kardum, but we have a limited amount of time, so

10     let us please focus on the matters at hand.

11             Now, I would like to ask you:  In the organisational sense, how

12     did the -- what was the position of the office itself, the police force?

13     How did they try and make up for the large number of people who were

14     leaving?

15        A.   It was very difficult.  We tried to bring in new people, but very

16     often these were people with very little police experience.  They would

17     just attend brief police courses of a few months, and then they would be

18     assigned the simpler jobs; whereas the people who had some experience

19     were assigned to more complex duties after undergoing difficult training.

20        Q.   I understand.  Mr. Kardum, I failed to mention at the beginning,

21     but we should both try - both you and I - to make a brief pause between

22     question and answer and answer and question to allow the interpreters to

23     interpret what we are discussing here in the same language, to interpret

24     it into a language that the Court can understand.  So please make brief

25     pauses after my question.

Page 9397

 1             We know that a large number of policemen - we've heard it here in

 2     this case - that a large number of policemen were engaged in the

 3     establishment of the Croatian army, which was just then being

 4     established; and this, too, probably had an effect on the regular

 5     manpower of the police in Zadar, the police force in Zadar.  Is that

 6     correct?

 7        A.   Absolutely.

 8        Q.   So now we can discuss the events that are under review here in

 9     these proceedings, the events in the second half of 1995.  In this

10     context that we've just mentioned earlier, how would you assess the

11     manpower levels of the police force of the police -- the Zadar-Knin

12     police administration, in terms of the number of men and also their

13     specialities?

14        A.   At the beginning of the military police Operation Storm, we were

15     set up in such a way to cover the free territory of the Republic of

16     Croatia in the area of the Zadar-Knin county.  This included the town of

17     Zadar and about -- and an area of about five or six kilometres around

18     Zadar, or -- I apologise, I should actually say five -- six to ten

19     kilometres from Zadar, covering that area.  And we also covered the area

20     of Biograd.

21             In this period, we were preparing the police forces in Zadar for

22     the duties on the border, filling the posts at the border posts --

23        Q.   Would you please allow me to guide you, and then we will be more

24     focused.

25             Now, in your opinion, did you have a sufficient number of police

Page 9398

 1     officers, and were they qualified enough to conduct these important

 2     assignments?

 3        A.   No, we did not, so that we had to bring in men from elsewhere; in

 4     other words, the level, the manpower levels were reached with men from

 5     Zagreb; Benkovac received some men from Rijeka; Gracac, also from Rijeka;

 6     Lapac received some men from Split and Zadar.  So we in Zadar did not

 7     have sufficient manpower levels to actually do all the -- carry out all

 8     the duties.

 9        Q.   You've just answered my last question.  So this was the situation

10     in the police and also the crime police during and after Operation Storm?

11        A.   That's correct.

12        Q.   On January 1, 1995, you became the chief of the crime police.  At

13     this time, the chief of the police administration was Mr. Cetina, and his

14     deputy was Mr. Pavlovic.  Is that correct?

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   There were -- you had some 50 subordinates in your chain of

17     command, of whom about 12 crime scene examiners, and I'm talking here

18     about the months of August and September 1995.  Is that correct?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   Mr. Kardum, you've already mentioned briefly the types of jobs

21     that the crime police had to deal with.  In addition to your regular

22     duties that are in the purview of any regular police, which is the

23     discovery of crime perpetrators, traces of crimes and so on, you also had

24     to engage in conducting interviews with people who were brought to the

25     collection centres, correct?

Page 9399

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   This was a demanding exercise, wasn't it, in the first two weeks

 3     after Operation Storm?

 4        A.   Very demanding.

 5        Q.   I was just told by my colleague, and I will put a question to you

 6     because I don't want to anticipate.  Now, when you said that police

 7     stations were -- that the opening -- the new vacancies were filled by

 8     people who came from other areas, tell me, did they know the area that

 9     they were going to work on?

10        A.   No, they didn't.  We -- even we didn't know the entire area.  I

11     have to explain something.  The Knin area was always under Sibenik.  The

12     Lika was always under the Gospic police station.  Only in 1993 - and this

13     was done on paper, in fact - they established the police administration,

14     the Zadar-Knin police administration, but it did not really follow the

15     county lines.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you here.  I don't know whether you're

18     interested to know the whole historic explanation of why they had no

19     knowledge of the terrain, or that it is for the time being sufficient to

20     establish that.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will move on, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   So this was one additional difficulty that certainly reflected

25     the day -to-day work of the police in this area, correct?

Page 9400

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   We mentioned the various duties that the crime police had to

 3     conduct.  This was rather sensitive work, and I'm referring here to the

 4     investigation of mass graves, which were left behind once the earlier

 5     authorities left the area.  This was also a demanding job, wasn't it, for

 6     the crime police?

 7        A.   That's correct.  At the very outset when Operation Storm began,

 8     among other things, we were assigned this task as a priority.  One of the

 9     priorities was to find mass and individual graves were Croats were

10     buried; the purpose of this would be to exhume their bodies.  In some

11     cases, many of these were already of several years, and a lot of work was

12     done in this respect.

13             Your Honour, I have to address you now.  I could not resist but

14     bring a document that I believe no side here or no party here possesses,

15     which describes the brutality of the powers, the authorities there.

16             If you allow me, I would like to hand you this document so that

17     can you see how a high political figure --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kardum, if there's any information you consider

19     to be relevant, you can give it to the parties.  The parties will then

20     look at that material.  They'll consider to what extent it supports or

21     does not support the case they are presenting in this court, and then if

22     one of the parties considers it to be relevant, then it will be put

23     before us, and then -- and the scope of the evidence we're supposed to

24     hear here is entirely in the hands of the parties and the Chamber itself.

25     And on what the basis of what you just told us I see no reason already to

Page 9401

 1     invite you at this moment to provide us with material, as you said, you

 2     could not resist to bring to our attention.  So you may provide it to the

 3     parties if you want to during your next break, or Madam Usher will assist

 4     you in giving it to the parties.

 5             Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] So we said -- we described all the duties that

 8     had to be performed by the crime police in the regular period, when I'm

 9     referring to the pre-war period, something which is not in normal times

10     the regular duties of the police?

11        A.   That's right.  These were our first experiences with POWs, with

12     mass graves, our first experiences in prosecuting war crimes and similar

13     offences, so that we often wondered, not knowing exactly the delineation

14     between a war crime and other offences, et cetera.

15        Q.   This is quite clear.  Let us look at Document P494 together.

16     This was a document which was introduced by the OTP.  It was tendered

17     into the file and is in fact a document which was issued on the 4th of

18     August by the assistant minister of the interior, Mr. Josko Moric on the

19     4th of August.

20             By this document -- this document in effect regulates, or rather,

21     orders the establishment and organisation of a collection centre.  You

22     have already referred to that, so that we will go through the first part

23     of this document very quickly.

24             On page 2 it says that a commander of the collection centre

25     should be appointed, and if I'm not wrong there was another person who

Page 9402

 1     was excluded, as it were, from your criminal police department so that

 2     you remained without another person.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter could not hear the witness

 4     cause he overlapped with counsel and ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The interpreters could not translate what you said

 6     because there was an overlap with the words spoken by Mr. Mikulicic.

 7     Could you re-start your answer.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.

 9             This was a key person at least as far as I was concerned.  Adem

10     Mehmedovic.  He was the general crime department head.

11             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Thank you.  In Item 4 of this document, which can you see on the

13     screen, it is further stated that every collection centre should take

14     particular care and create conditions in keeping with the

15     Geneva Conventions and the obligations stemming therefrom, enumerating

16     what they are - running water, maintenance of personal hygiene,

17     sufficient number of lavatories, two meals a day, personal hygiene,

18     toiletries, soap, and such - and, of course, to ensure the permanent

19     attendance of medical and sanitary staff.

20             My question is this:  In your experience and according to the

21     information that you have, were these requirements observed in the

22     collection centre in Zadar, the way you perceive that today?

23        A.   They were absolutely observed.  All the apprehended persons had

24     hot water.  There were some -- I can't say right off the cuff, but I

25     believe seven or eight lavatories, or rather, bathrooms.  Through the

Page 9403

 1     Ministry of Justice, I submitted this book, which I believe the OTP, has

 2     of the registered medical checkups of all persons and so on and so forth.

 3        Q.   These collection centre, or rather, this collection centre that

 4     we are specifically speaking about right now, the one in Zadar, was also

 5     visited by representatives of international organisations including the

 6     Red Cross, were they not?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   These representatives have unhindered contact with persons who

 9     were in the collection centre?

10        A.   Absolutely.  This was what we had to ensure for them according to

11     the order.  They were to speak in close quarters with each of the

12     individuals who were there, and they availed themselves of this right.

13     Of course, they did not talk to all the persons there, but selectively

14     they did talk to a number of individuals, and we were not to be present

15     at those interviews.

16        Q.   To the best of your recollection, Mr. Kardum, did the Red Cross

17     or any other international organisation raise any particular objections

18     in respect of the conditions in the collection centre?

19        A.   No.  There were no objections that were communicated to us.  In

20     fact, after these first contacts in the first talk that we had with them,

21     they told us in brief that everything was okay.

22        Q.   Thank you.  You have already told us that members of the police,

23     both in military police -- including the military police brought people

24     to the collection centre and that a certain procedure was envisaged in

25     terms of how to handle -- process every individual brought there, right?

Page 9404

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   We should go through that particular issue a bit later.

 3             But before that, I should like that ask the registry to bring up

 4     on the screen a document which is on the 65 ter list, which is 5277.

 5             This document which you will shortly see on your screen was

 6     sent on the 21st August, 1995, by the police administration of

 7     Zadar-Knin.  We can see in the top right-hand corner Operative Action

 8     Return, and the date is indicated, it is sent to the Ministry of Interior

 9     to crime police department in Zagreb.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it, Mr. Margetts, that you want to add

11     that it's not only on the 65 ter list, 5277, but it has been

12     provisionally assigned P909?

13             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, precisely, Mr. President.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We just recently

16     received the list.  So I'm not --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I received it at the same time.  Yes.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  I do --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  But I do understand that when preparing your

20     cross-examination you had not this list yet available.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay.  I'm grateful for your opinion, Your

23     Honour.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] So we said that this was a document which, in

25     effect, constitutes a summary and that a description of events in the

Page 9405

 1     work of the collection centre in the sports hall Mocire in Zadar.

 2             I should like to draw your attention to -- to the conclusion in

 3     this document, which is on page 4 in the original version, and it states

 4     that as of the 4th of August, when the reception centre was established

 5     and open up to the 19th of August, when it was closed, it had been a

 6     centre for POWs in Zadar.  And then it goes on to say that a total of 183

 7     persons had been processed.  That is stated on page 3 in paragraph 2,

 8     Item 3.

 9             With all these persons your people conducted interviews, did they

10     not?

11        A.   Yes, they did.

12        Q.   In your estimation in that period during the two weeks that

13     transpired, how much time was actually spent for that particular

14     exercise, for that particular job?  Could you give us an estimate?  And

15     how many people were engaged on that?

16        A.   The people were distributed in two shifts, approximately -- I

17     can't say with precision, although I do have that list somewhere, but I

18     think it was 20 people working per shift.  The shifts worked for 12

19     hours, and then they would have free time for 12 hours and then again be

20     on a shift.  Very much time was spent on this.  Some people were not

21     ready to talk.  Others lied.  Yet others had to be taken to see the

22     doctors.  Yet others told the truth only after other people had told that

23     they were -- had been somewhere at some particular place or time, and so

24     these interviews sometimes had to be repeated.  But at any rate, we had

25     to finish the primary interview within 48 hours with the particular

Page 9406

 1     individuals and then transfer that person to the district attorney or

 2     release that person, or if they so wished, send them to the reception

 3     centre for civilians.  But according to the law, we could not detain them

 4     for more than 48 hours.

 5        Q.   I understand.  So if during this brief interview, which was a

 6     summarized form of a crime processing of an individual, if it was

 7     established that there were reasonable grounds to believe that that

 8     individual had committed a criminal offence, a punishable criminal

 9     offence, then you would institute proceedings against such an individual,

10     file a proper complaint, and so on and so forth.  Is that correct?

11        A.   Yes, it is.

12        Q.   And this document further states or further contains the table of

13     183 registered persons who passed through the centre, and the action or

14     the measure taken in respect of each individual is referred to.

15             Let us save time, and we will not go through all that, but we can

16     note that some were taken to Court; some others were released; others yet

17     were taken to hospital, and so on and so forth.

18             If we go on through this document, then we can see in conclusion

19     that there are statistic figures given on page ERN 06105017 where it is

20     stated that a total of 183 persons had been received, that 67 were

21     released to a reception centres for civilians; a total brought before

22     Courts were 115, and that six persons were transferred to other police

23     administrations.

24             According to what you remember, is this consistent with the

25     actual situation?

Page 9407

 1        A.   Yes, it is.  I apologise, yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Be so kind as to look at another document, which is

 3     also on this list, the 65 ter list.  The document is 5283.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC:  My learned friend will help me with this document

 5     as well as --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  P906.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  P906.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Or am I making a mistake?  No, I mentioned 5238, and

 9     it should be 83, which does not appear on the list, if I'm ...

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  It's 65 ter 5283.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Is not on the list of documents attached to the 92

12     ter statement but perhaps is on the other list.  I'll just check.

13             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's number 46, and it hasn't

14     been introduced previously.  It's the investigations file.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, for Mr. Marko Bogunovic and it's not referred

17     to that in the course of the examination-in-chief, so it hasn't received

18     a number.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay.  Then I will deal with this document.

20        Q.   [Interpretation], Mr. Kardum, what you see before you is a

21     document.  It is the Z-1 form.  Do you recognise it?

22        A.   Yes.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Will the witness please be asked not to overlap

24     with counsel.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I again remind you not to start to answer the

Page 9408

 1     question when the interpreters have not yet an opportunity it translate

 2     the words of Mr. Mikulicic.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   We have to bear that in mind, Mr. Kardum.  The interpreters are

 5     having a hard time.

 6             So this is a document that would be filled in for each individual

 7     brought into the reception centre at which document was filled in by your

 8     people, was it not?

 9        A.   Yes.  Yes.  These documents were filled in by my people.

10        Q.   So we can see here, we have the basic particulars of the person

11     concerned.  Now, to go to page 2, or rather, page 3 because page 2 is

12     identical to the first one but without a photograph.

13             Then we see a form Z-2.  This form Z-2 is somewhat different.  It

14     has four model questions which your people were, I suppose, to ask of the

15     interviewers -- interviewees?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   The first question was whether the interviewees, the people who

18     had been brought to the collection centre, whether they had any

19     information about minefields or any other explosive barriers or

20     obstacles; some had and others didn't.  Wasn't that not the case?

21        A.   Yes, it was.

22        Q.   In this concrete example, Mr. Marko Bogunovic informed your

23     people - I'm reading - that minefields were between Stankovci and

24     Vukosici from Cista Mala, Polaca, to Benkovac exclusively on the hills.

25     And further on in Item 2, that in the village of Lepora near the

Page 9409

 1     transformer station there is an house in which there is a depot.

 2             What would be done with this kind of information obtained by your

 3     people from people in the reception centre?

 4        A.   We most often referred these -- this information to the special

 5     police, particularly when we knew that there were some larger quantities

 6     of weapons or equipment in depots or hordes of ammunition because our

 7     special police had lorries with which it could transport such means, and

 8     it had a specialised staff for explosive devices to handle such

 9     equipment.  We would inform the ministry --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- what is the relevance -- of course, if you

11     find out and the witness already testified yesterday that the interviews

12     were focussing on the existence of minefields, for example, of course you

13     take appropriate measures to either find that material, use it, protect

14     your population against it, but that's not what this case is about.  The

15     Chamber earlier had to establish that 30 to 40 per cent of your questions

16     are repetitious.  Mr. Mikulicic, could you please try to focus on new

17     information the Chamber will receive rather than to go through the whole

18     of the examination-in-chief without much adding to that.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will do so, Your Honour, but my intention was

21     to present that the police, so-called, fundamental police was not

22     equipped for that kind of job.  So they need to pass the information to

23     some others units.

24             But I will proceed, Your Honour.  I will move on.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] In Item 21 of your 2004 statement, you said that

Page 9410

 1     with your people you managed to cover the area as far as that was

 2     possible.  What I would like to know is, what was the procedure when, for

 3     instance, the police station or somebody individually came across a body,

 4     a dead body, or a place that one could assume was a place where a crime

 5     had been committed?  What was the obligation of the fundamental, of the

 6     regular police in such a situation?

 7        A.   Such information came most often to the police station because

 8     that is how they were laid out in the field, and the police station had

 9     -- police stations had regular police only after the 28th or the 29th of

10     August or the beginning of September.  It was only after that date that

11     they had some criminal policemen as well.  They were obliged to inform

12     the operations duty service of the police station of any such incidents,

13     and then the chief of that service would also be informed.

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, it -- obviously, we have some

15     problems with the transcript.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It seems that we missed part of the answer.

17             Could you resume there where you said -- now we have --

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Now we have.  Okay.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It apparently was a technical problem what

20     appears on our screen.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay.  I'll move on, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Thank you for this answer, Mr. Kardum.

25             Now, tell us, did a regular police officer who was in the field,

Page 9411

 1     did he have a duty to provide security for the -- to block off the site

 2     of crime and to make sure that any traces of the crime were preserved.

 3     That seems pretty obvious, right?

 4        A.   Yes, that was his primary duty.  That was the primary duty of the

 5     regular police.  Once they reached the site of a crime, they have to

 6     secure the crime and make sure that any -- that any traces be recovered.

 7        Q.   That is clear.  However, what was the procedure if already at

 8     this first level one could observe that there were other unauthorised

 9     individuals who had been on-site and that the site itself had already

10     been altered?  What would the procedure be then?

11        A.   In that case, the person conducting the investigation, be it the

12     investigating judge or a police inspector, in other words, a crime police

13     officer, they would have to note that in the note, and they would have to

14     describe the alterations to the crime scene and what type of alterations

15     and how altered they were.  I don't know if this is a proper reply to

16     your question.

17        Q.   It is.  Now, to the best of your recollection, in view of the

18     fact that there were many members of various international organisations

19     in the field, I mean here, the civilian police of the UN, the monitoring

20     teams of the UN, and the European Community who often came to the sites

21     where crimes had been committed, were there instances where they actually

22     contaminated the crime scene?  Was that possible, and what is your

23     observation that?

24        A.   That was quite possible.  As the chief of the crime police, I

25     never, not in one instance did I receive any information about a crime

Page 9412

 1     having been committed by a member of an international organisation.  I

 2     think our colleagues who were there could not really be -- take pride in

 3     the fact that they didn't inform the chief of the crime police because

 4     even they - and this would be only one person - would receive information

 5     from another source, especially in view of the fact that members of the

 6     international organisations and the domestic Serbs, people who were from

 7     our area, trusted those organisations, those members more than they did

 8     the local police.

 9             We have to bear in mind that this was the time following a 4-year

10     war, and it was difficult for a person to suddenly begin placing his

11     trust in the Croatian police as being the police that would protect them

12     and so on and so forth.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, your question was clearly about

14     whether the crime scene was ever changed or contaminated, but now the

15     answer had almost nothing to do with that.  Why not ask the witness to

16     answer your question, the question simply being whether although --

17     whether it was possible.  I can tell you, Mr. Mikulicic, everything is

18     almost possible, but apart from that detail, did you ever receive a

19     report on a specific crime scene which was contaminated by members of an

20     international organisation, having changed or contaminated the crime

21     scene?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible that there were such

23     cases, but I can't really recall.  I can't give you a specific example.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't exclude the possibility,

Page 9413

 1     though.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed.

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  My colleague just stressed my attention to the

 6     fact that we have some problems in translation, and this is concerns to

 7     the previous answer of the witness when I asked him --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take that the suspicion of international --

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- having committed crimes.  That came as a bit as a

11     surprise as a matter of fact.

12             MR. MIKULICIC:  That's right, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, if you could seek a clarification of that

14     part of the answer, that would put record straight, I would say.

15             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Kardum, probably because we are speaking too fast, the

17     interpreters are having difficulties.

18             I asked you whether you received complaints or reports from

19     members of international organisations on crimes committed.  What was

20     your reply?

21        A.   I never received any complaint or report from any member of an

22     international organisation on a crime having been committed.

23        Q.   Did you have meetings with members of international organisations

24     to discuss how to improve the work of the police in discovery of

25     perpetrators of criminal activities?

Page 9414

 1        A.   I can't really recall, but I think we did have one such meeting.

 2     I think I had one such meeting, but I can't really recall how many

 3     persons were present.  I think there were several members of several

 4     international organisations present, but I can't tell you exactly who

 5     they were.

 6        Q.   Let's take an example.  If a body was found in the field and if a

 7     member of the regular police came out to the field, how was the

 8     assessment made, whether this body was there as a result of a criminal

 9     offence or whether the death was of natural causes or perhaps collateral

10     damage as a result of the combat activities; and who made this type of

11     assessment?

12        A.   To be honest, I don't know who would make such an assessment, but

13     I assume that special attention was always given to the way the body

14     looked.  If the body was decomposed, and this was on the 10th, 12th, or

15     14th of August that the body was found, then what would be noted was that

16     the body was decomposed, and then this would be attributed to sanitation

17     activities.  But who actually made the assessment, whether this was done

18     at a headquarters of the operations, operative action, I really couldn't

19     tell.

20        Q.   Well, my question also has to do with the procedure that was in

21     place.  Now, if this dead body was of an individual who was -- who died

22     either of natural causes or as a result of the combat activities, then

23     the hygiene and sanitation measures would have been implemented by the

24     civilian protection, right?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.  They would conduct the sanitation of the

Page 9415

 1     terrain.

 2        Q.   However, Mr. Kardum, you told us that the team that would go on

 3     site in order to conduct the hygiene and sanitation measures also had in

 4     its ranks a crime scene investigator.  Is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.  There would always be one crime scene examiner, and if you

 6     recall that communication from Mr. Maric, I think, of the 5th or 6th of

 7     August, it was sent from the Ministry of the Interior, it actually

 8     referred to prints being taken in order -- fingerprints in order for the

 9     identity of the body to be established.  If that was not possible, then

10     the identification would be impossible.

11             The other thing that had to be done is that the body would have

12     to be photographed.  There would have to be two photographs made, and

13     these photographs would have to be sent undeveloped to the Ministry of

14     the Interior in Zagreb.  I don't know what they did with the undeveloped

15     film there, but we couldn't have done it on our premises because we

16     didn't have the equipment for it.

17        Q.   Thank you.  So if it was assessed that a body that was found on

18     the ground was not of a person who was a victim of a crime, then the

19     crime police would not have to take any steps, correct?

20        A.   That's correct.  The crime police in those cases would not take

21     any action.

22             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would now like us to take a

23     look at a document.  This is a document --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I seek one clarification.

25             Your testimony was that if -- well, let's say on the 12th of

Page 9416

 1     August, you would find a body which was already decomposed to some

 2     extent, that you would attribute it either natural death or combat

 3     activities.  Is that correctly understood?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  We wouldn't attribute it to

 5     natural causes.  We would only establish that the causes were natural if

 6     a pathologist was also on the scene of the crime.  There were such cases

 7     where the pathologist, a forensic expert, would be there, and then that

 8     forensic expert would establish that there was no violence involved.

 9             This was done on Form KT-10 for each body, each individual.

10     However, if the body was decomposed, then the civilian protection would

11     collect that body before the photographing was done.  They would place a

12     metal plate next to the body with a number, and if the body was

13     identified based on some identification mark or identifying mark, then

14     the name of that person would also be included on the plate.  If not,

15     then we would just write unidentified, "NN."

16             So what would be entered on these forms would be the first and

17     last names of the person; the status of this individual, whether it was a

18     civilian or a soldier, depending on what uniform that person had on at

19     that time.  There were some other items that had to be entered in the

20     form, but in any case there would be the place where they were buried,

21     the identification number, and the serial number.  They did not

22     necessarily correspond.

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  Should I move on, Your Honour, or should I --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm just a bit puzzled by what we find as an

25     answer on page 93, lines 21 and following.

Page 9417

 1             The KT-10 form would be filled in by whom?  Would it be the

 2     forensic experts?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crime scene examiner.  They

 4     would be the one to fill it out.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The crime scene examiner would always be present if

 6     the sanitation services would remove a body?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So they would never remove a body unless a

 9     crime scene examiner was present and would fill in such a form?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  No, no.  There -- an on-site

11     investigation was not always conducted when the KT-10 form was filled

12     out.  The KT-10 form would have to be filled out in every single

13     instance, but that does not mean that there was an on-site investigation

14     conducted as well.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not talking about an on-site investigation.  I'm

16     just talking about a sanitation team who would go to a place where a body

17     was found which was to some extent was decomposed after a couple of days.

18             What kind of report would be made, and by whom exactly?  So the

19     first question, whether in such circumstances there would always be a

20     crime scene examiner accompanying the sanitation team that took care of

21     the body.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And they would always fill in such a form.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And now do I understand that dependant on the

Page 9418

 1     assessment of the cause of death, it would then be decided whether

 2     another investigation, an on-site investigation was needed or what one

 3     would do?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes.  You could say -- say

 5     that.  That was one of the criteria on the basis of which the on-site

 6     investigation would be conducted.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So the -- those who were in charge of sanitation

 8     would then return to where they came from and leave the crime scene to an

 9     on-site investigation.  Is that -- so they would not take the body; they

10     would leave the body where it was, return to their own premises, and an

11     on-site investigation would then be conducted?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know if they would

13     leave the scene.  They would -- more often than not, they would wait for

14     the other group to come.  This would be in outlying areas.  They would go

15     there by car, so they wouldn't go back until a district attorney arrived,

16     in the case where a police team would come and carry out -- conduct the

17     on-site investigation.

18             In these cases too, many of these incidents would be attributed

19     to human sanitation, subjected to human sanitation.  So --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the place where

21     the witness -- that the witness mentioned.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You said in these cases, too, many of these

23     incidents would -- were attributed to human sanitation, subject to human

24     sanitation, and then you added something the interpreters did not hear.

25     Could you repeat that, please.

Page 9419

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In some cases where classic on-site

 2     investigations were conducted, full investigations where the pathologist

 3     would be there, the district attorney, the investigating judge, so

 4     everyone was in the field, in those cases, those victims, too, were

 5     subjected to human sanitation.

 6             Now when did this not happen?  This did not happen when there

 7     were no family members present who could show where the person could be

 8     buried.  In all other cases, these persons were also subjected to human

 9     sanitation.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps I need a bit more explanation on what

11     exactly "human sanitation" means in this context.  That might not be

12     fully clear to me.

13             I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Mikulicic.  We have to stop for the

14     day.

15             Mr. Kardum, we'll adjourn for the day, and we'd like to see you

16     back tomorrow in the afternoon in this same courtroom.  And I would like

17     to instruct you as I did yesterday that you should not speak with anyone

18     about the testimony, whether already given or still to be given.

19             We will adjourn and resume at the 24th of September, quarter past

20     2 in this same courtroom.

21                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 24th day of

23                           September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.