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]
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
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
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 --
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.
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.
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
1 Varazdin, Split
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
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
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
21 For these jobs, civilian protection also was given people from
22 the Split
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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].
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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]
11 Pages 9360-9366 redacted. Private session.
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
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
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
1 may better say because our final analysis followed the translation of the
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 adequate notice for the 65 ter list.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: I have nothing to add to my learned friend's
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
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.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- not about the material on which this table
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President. It seems to me and I think
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
25 Now, in your opinion, did you have a sufficient number of police
1 officers, and were they qualified enough to conduct these important
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
6 Lapac received some men from Split
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
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?
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?
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
24 According to what you remember, is this consistent with the
25 actual situation?
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.