1 Wednesday, 24 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
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, may I remind you that you are
13 still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your
15 Then Mr. Mikulicic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Can you give us any indication as far as time is
18 MR. MIKULICIC: I could complete my cross-examination within an
19 hour, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the other parties, could they give an
22 MR. MISETIC: Approximately an hour and a half, Your Honour.
23 MR. KAY: I have no questions, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that means that there's a fair chance that
25 somewhere in the middle of the second session, certainly not later than
1 the end of the second session that we could conclude the testimony of the
3 Mr. Margetts, unless you would have hours an hours for
5 MR. MARGETTS: No, not at all, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. Then I ask this, also, for the other
7 witness waiting so that we do not keep him unnecessarily.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: I thank you, Your Honour.
10 WITNESS: IVE KARDUM [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic: [Continued]
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Kardum. Today we shall
14 latch onto where we ended yesterday, and we shall go back to the question
15 of sanitization and civilian protection.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] D348. Can I ask the registry for
17 D348, please.
18 Q. So, Mr. Kardum, we said that civil protection was the
19 organisation that was in charge of sanitising the terrain upon the end of
20 combat activities. You will now see a document compiled by the chief of
21 the police administration in which you work, Mr. Ivan Cetina, the date
22 being the 8th of August in which the Ministry of the Interior sent to the
23 operational headquarters of the action Return numerical data on mobilised
24 forces of civilian protection.
25 So if we look at page 2, we shall see that there were a total, on
1 the 8th of August, 1995, that is, a total of 157 members of civilian
2 protection mobilised to sanitize the terrain, clear up human corpses; 27
3 of them to clear up animal carcasses; 24 persons for pyrotechnical -- for
4 clearing mines and explosives, that is.
5 What was the use of the crew for the clearing up of mines and
6 explosives in the sanitization of the terrain?
7 A. Your Honours, as far as I remember the mines and explosives
8 clearance crew had written order and obligation to check for mines and
9 explosives, every corpse and the surroundings of every body or animal
10 carcass and to see whether the area around any such found bodies was
12 Q. We see that of de-mining of -- of the CSEs, there was 16. You
13 said yesterday that these teams, sanitation teams had to have one
14 forensic technician because there might be the suspicion of a crime
15 having been committed, right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. And then we have general-purpose civilian protection units who
18 were engaged in rounding up livestock. Do you remember, Mr. Kardum, what
19 kind of a uniform members of the civilian protection wore, if any?
20 A. As far as I can remember, members of the civilian protection had
21 some sort of a blue uniform, something similar to the reserve police
22 force uniforms, if they wore any, that is. If they didn't, they had
23 civilian clothes with some patches on the left sleeve where was some sort
24 of an orange-coloured mark, I think.
25 Q. Thank you for your answer. If we were to look at the following
1 page in this document, we would see a list of persons found during the
2 sanitization of the terrain. You can see that, of course, this was a
3 routine procedure in sanitizing the terrain, was it not? Have you
4 encountered documents of this kind?
5 A. Yes, I have, except I saw them in a different form, a tabular
6 form, but they reflected more or less this. They contained these
7 columns, serial number, identification number, status, the place of
8 burial, et cetera.
9 Q. Thank you for your answer.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Just for your reference, Your
11 Honours, similar documents have been also tendered under Exhibits D351
12 and 352. They are only -- they only concern different periods but are on
13 the same subject.
14 Q. I'd like that ask you, Mr. Kardum, something that we already
15 broached yesterday; namely, if when examining the terrain you found a
16 body with obvious signs of violence which would indicate that a crime had
17 been committed, then you would inform the competent police station about
18 it, would you not?
19 A. Yes, exactly.
20 Q. The police station would then, through its operative duty
21 service, inform the operative duty -- operations duty service in the
22 Zadar police administration, which was competent over Knin in terms of
23 crime, and then a team would be set up to conduct the onsite
24 investigation. Is that right?
25 A. Yes. The central police station would, as a rule, inform the
1 operations duty service of the police administration but certainly during
2 the period when the operations headquarters at the level of that police
3 administration was functioning. They would also in parallel inform the
4 criminal police and the investigating magistrate in order to conduct an
5 on-site investigation.
6 Q. So the on-site investigation team would comprise the
7 investigating judge, who would be - so to speak - the leader of the
8 on-site investigation to be conducted. The competent prosecutor and the
9 forensic technicians or the crime scene examiners and, as you said, the
10 forensic medicine exert expert or the court pathologist as you said
11 yesterday. Is that right?
12 A. Yes, that is exactly so.
13 Q. Would you agree with me as a connoisseur of crime forensics that
14 it is only the court expert who was the competent person to competently
15 conclude what kind of injury had been sustained by the body that was the
16 subject of the on-site investigation, and of what nature such wound or
17 injury was or what it listen inflicted by, and that was his basic role,
18 was it not?
19 A. Yes, absolutely. But I do have to say, also, this, Your Honours,
20 that the police, the regularly uniformed police was under the obligation
21 to provide combat security in these instances because there was always a
22 danger of some remnants of enemy troops in the area being active. And in
23 fact, I saw once a document in which a Chief Cetina instructed the police
24 stations in the area of the PU Knin that they must provide combat
25 security to on-site inspection teams when they attended the scene as well
1 as to civilian protection teams.
2 Q. Thank you for this explanation. Let us go back to the on-site
4 So after the on-site investigation has been conducted, minutes or
5 a record is drawn up there on; and if any doubt is established -
6 suspicion, that is - as to the commission of a criminal offence, then the
7 police conducts what is referred to as the preliminary processing. Is
8 that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In this preliminary processing, certain measures, i.e.,
11 informative interviews are conducted; material evidence is possibly
12 collected; and once the processing is finished, the compiled file is
13 submitted to the district attorney to the competent prosecutor for his
14 decision, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. After that, the district attorney, i.e. the prosecutor's office
17 decides whether to institute criminal proceedings, namely conduct an
18 investigation or indict the -- the suspects or not. Namely, this is
19 exclusively within the competence of the prosecutor's office, right?
20 A. Yes, that is correct.
21 Q. In so doing, the police, which conducted the preliminary
22 processing of this file, is -- has no further influence on the further
23 procedure, right?
24 A. Yes. It is the investigating judge who is completely in charge
25 of all further procedures. He can possibly instruct the police to take
1 some further investigating measures.
2 Q. Can you remember, Mr. Kardum, how many court experts,
3 pathologists, and district attorneys and investigating judges were
4 available to cover the territory of the Zadar-Knin police administration?
5 A. As far as I can recall, there were just two pathologists;
6 Dr. Josip Duela [phoen] was one, and Dr. Kevarica [phoen] was the other
7 one. I'm not sure whether there was a third one. I don't think so. Of
8 investigating judge - this the county court in Zadar - 's competence
9 because municipal courts are not in charge of such cases but only county
10 courts [as interpreted]. I believe that there were five or six
11 investigating judges who were also to cover all subject matters and as
12 many, I believe, district attorneys or prosecutors.
13 Q. Thank you. To the best of your recollection, what was the
14 average duration of such a procedure from the moment there was a report
15 about the -- being a suspicion about a crime having been committed up to
16 the moment when this entire process conducted by the police and
17 investigating judge reached a court?
18 A. I don't understand your question. The on-site investigation's
19 duration or what?
20 Q. No, no. What was the total duration of the entire procedure if
21 we add up the on-site investigation, the police processing of the case,
22 the investigation undertaken by the investigating judge up to the moment
23 when perhaps an indictment would be filed before the competent Court.
24 How much time would relapse between the beginning of this process until
25 the file appeared before the Court?
1 A. It depends on the particular case. Some of the cases are still
2 going on, and work is still in progress in respect of them. Where we
3 file the complaints, criminal complaints against unknown perpetrators, we
4 still have some of those cases before courts still unfinished. But
5 normally, the normal standard duration would be a couple of months.
6 Q. Thank you for this answer. In this connection, I should like you
7 to see a document, Mr. Kardum. That is D179.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] If I can ask the Registry for
9 that document.
10 Q. You will see a document which was issued by the civilian police
11 of the United Nations on the 19th of September, 1995, which was sent to
12 the chief, Ivan Cetina, in which document, or rather, which document says
13 that they are submitting a list, a detailed list of all murders that were
14 reported by UNCIVPOL from the 4th of August.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: I think this document should be under seal. I'm
16 just reminded by my case manager. Is it the case?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then it should not be shown to the public.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't realise it the first
20 JUDGE ORIE: And if need be, Mr. Registrar, a redaction should be
21 made, and we should -- I don't know what your questions will be, Mr. --
22 whether we have to turn in private session.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: I don't think it's necessary.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. [Interpretation] So a gentleman from UNCIVPOL, Jan Elleby, in
2 fact, is attaching a list in his opinion of all murders and, at the same
3 time, requesting what the results of the investigations were, the names
4 of suspects, any arrests made and so on and so forth.
5 Tell me, Witness, do you know whether such requests by the
6 civilian police of the UN were heeded by the police administration,
7 whether they reacted to them by some communication, or did they have any
8 contact with the police of the UN?
9 A. As far as I know, we did not reply to these letters, but we did
10 take action pursuant to them. Now, of course, whether the chief of
11 sector did that, whether he replied or not, I really wouldn't know,
12 whether the Chief Cetina did that.
13 Q. Well, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
14 Now, if we take a look at the next page --
15 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the next page
16 of this document.
17 Q. -- and I would like to remind again that the title of this
18 document was "Murders Reported To CIVPOL." Now, if we take a look at
19 Item 4, it says there that on the 14th of August, a decomposed corpse was
20 found and that the cause of death was impossible to ascertain.
21 According to you, is this type of report or complaint sufficient
22 to indicate that murder is in question?
23 A. Absolutely not. As it says there, it's impossible to ascertain.
24 Q. In cases as mentioned here, also in items 5, 7, 9, and so on -
25 let's not go through all of them - but mention is made that bodies were
1 found badly or not badly decomposed. In your experience, what is the
2 likelihood to determine the cause of death in this state when the body is
3 in this state, and I mean prima vista; in other words, your forensic
4 technician, can he determine it on the site if the body involved is
6 A. Our forensic technicians did not mention the cause of death in
7 most cases. They would usually determine that the body was decomposed,
8 and that's what they would note. And these bodies, that is a -- most
9 frequently, this was the case that the civilian protection actually
10 removed such bodies.
11 Q. So in such instances as mentioned here, there would be no police
12 investigation and no processing of a case.
13 A. No, unless we received some subsequent information that a body
14 found in this condition had actually been killed violently.
15 Q. I understand. Now, I would like to refer you -- or let's now
16 touch upon another matter, the matter of the killings or the murders in
17 Varivode as you mentioned in your statement.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could the registrar please show
19 us Document 65 ter 2638.
20 Q. Mr. Kardum, the document that will come up on the screen in a
21 minute was produced on the 3rd of October, 1995, at the 72nd battalion of
22 the military police, and it was forwarded to the police administration of
23 the military police, and it mentions murders in the village of Gosici
24 And if you take a look at this, you will see that in Gosici on the 27th
25 of August, a multiple murder was committed and that measures were taken
1 to investigate and to research this, and it was concluded that
2 unidentified perpetrators who used a motor vehicle, most probably of TAM,
3 a TAM
4 Now, you told us that on occasion of this murder, a police
5 investigation was conducted as well. Is that true?
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. Can you recall whether you had in the course of this
8 investigation any contacts with the military police?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I move for this document to be
11 admitted into evidence and be assigned a number.
12 MR. MARGETTS: No objections.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D800.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D800 is admitted into evidence.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 [Interpretation] Could I now please have 65 ter 3158 on the
19 Q. The document we're going to see now, Mr. Kardum, deals with the
20 issue of -- of a murder in Varivode, which occurred on the 29th of
21 September, 1995. This document also is from the military police, and the
22 chief of this administration, Mr. Lausic, informs in it the minister of
23 Defence of the steps taken in order to solve this crime, to solve this
25 I would now like you to look at the third paragraph, where it
1 states that an assistant of the Ministry of the Interior informed the
2 military structures that nine bodies of civilians were found, civilians
3 that had been shot on the 29th of September in Varivode. And further on,
4 it is stated that the motor vehicle that was mentioned also in the crime
5 in the village of Gosici, the vehicle TAM 2001, camouflage -- of
6 camouflage colour.
7 Further on, it is noted that operational and tactical measures
8 have been agreed as part of the criminal processing and that they will be
9 conducted jointly by the police and the military police.
10 Can you recall that such measures were taken and conducted
11 together with members of the military police?
12 A. Yes. I even remember that the military police service was headed
13 by Mr. Ante Glavan [phoen]. I think he was a highly placed individual in
14 the crime service of the military police in Zadar at the Ministry of
16 Q. I would just like you to note that this document was produced on
17 the 4th of October and that measures were taken as of the 2nd of October,
18 once the report that a murder had been committed arrived.
19 If we look at the second page of this document --
20 A. I apologise. I would just like to say that measures were taken
21 -- in this particular case, measures were taken on the same day, the 27th
22 of September, so it is not true that the investigation began on the 2nd
23 of October. Rather, it started on the 27th of September. It is possible
24 that the crime police -- the crime military police, actually, joined in
25 the investigation on the 2nd of October.
1 Q. That's exactly what I would like to discuss here. This matter
2 here is discussed from the aspect of the military police and not the
3 civilian police.
4 Now, if we take a look at the fourth paragraph on the second
5 page, it is stated there that in order to solve this multiple murder in
6 Varivode, an operational plan of implementation was put together and that
7 intensive searches were under way.
8 Now, according to your rules of service, the creation of an
9 operational and implementation plan is not done for every crime but only
10 for crimes that are of greater significance or multiple crimes?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I move that this document be
13 enter into evidence.
14 MR. MARGETTS: No objections.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D801.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D801 is admitted into evidence.
18 I have one additional question. You said that already on the
19 27th of September the investigations started. At the same time, I found
20 in the document somewhere that the persons were killed on the 29th, which
21 seems inconsistent with your testimony.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. As far as I
23 remember -- I apologise. Maybe my memory is faulty, but if I recall
24 this, this incident was on the 27th of September.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: If I may be of any assistance in that matter,
1 Your Honour, 27th of September --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: -- is the date of the incident in village Gosici,
4 and --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, perhaps I have then --
6 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one of the problems if you have to look
8 at these documents so quickly that...
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Yeah, of course.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 [Interpretation] Could the registrar please show us Document 65
13 ter 3287?
14 Q. Mr. Kardum, we are still examining the multiple murders in
15 Varivode. We can see in front of us a document also produced by the
16 military police. This document is actually a report to Major-General
17 Mate Lausic, who is the chief of the administration, a report on what
18 measures had been taken that far. In view of the fact that this
19 operation of investigating the murder of -- committed in Varivode was a
20 joint operation between the civilian and military police, I would like to
21 ask a few questions about this.
22 Now, first of all, we can see here the individuals who took part
23 in this operative action, and so we can see that Mr. Franjo Djurica from
24 the Ministry of Interior, or rather, the police was there. He was a
25 member of the team, and he was the sector chief in the police. And then
1 we have the crime investigation department chief, Mr. Turkalj, and Mr.
2 Ivica Cetina, the chief of the police administration, Zadar-Knin.
3 Have you ever participated in this operation and implementation
4 plan in the Varivode crime?
5 A. I apologise. There's an error here. It's not Ivan Turkalj. It
6 should be Milan Turkalj. And to answer your question, yes, with the
7 then-assistant minister of the interior, Mr. Marijan Benko and Ivan Nadj
8 and Milan
9 men from Zagreb
10 processing of this crime and also some other crimes.
11 As far as I can recall, this team that is mentioned here was
12 really a team that was supposed to draw up a plan of measures that should
13 assist us in further investigations of similar crimes.
14 So this was in support of the work of the basic -- or rather, the
15 regular police.
16 Q. But in any case, this murder, this crime received a lot of
17 attention, and serious steps were taken to solve it. Isn't that right?
18 A. Yes, absolutely. And I have to repeat that the investigation was
19 conducted by the assistant minister of the interior who was in Zadar. He
20 was conducting it from Zadar directly where he stayed for some 25 days,
21 up until the day when a terrorist group, Gama al Islamia, conducted an
22 attack, a terrorist attack on the Rijeka
23 planting a bomb, a truck -- a bomb truck there.
24 Q. All right. Let's not discuss that now.
25 Now, if we look at page 3 of this document, we can see the
1 measures that were taken as of 6.00 on the 7th of October up until the
2 10th of October. You can see that under Item 3. Identification papers
3 of 1282 HV members were checked, and 1050 HV vehicles were searched; 17
4 men were searched, also HV members; and also, because of looting of
5 property, the following HV members were brought in, and then a list of a
6 total of 36 individuals who were brought in under suspicion of theft of
8 Now, on the next page, page 4, it is also stated that the
9 identity of 69 civilians was established; that 28 persons were removed
10 while attempting to steal property; 11 were warned; while 9 were turned
11 over to the Ministry of the Interior as persons caught perpetrating
12 criminal offences of -- the criminal offence of stealing property.
13 In Item 4, it says that in the course of this operative action,
14 92 staff were engaged on various tasks every day, or daily, and that the
15 number was strengthened by 20 additional members of the anti-terrorist
16 military police platoon.
17 So this indicates that this was a significant operation that, of
18 course, produced results in terms of the number of perpetrators that were
20 A. As can you see from the text itself, yes.
21 Q. Page 5 of this document, please, Item 1, in which the murder in
22 the village - it says here "Gorsic," but obviously this is the village of
23 Gosici - so a murder that was committed on the 27th of August and where
24 the description of this motor vehicle is given.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Further on, some other cases are mentioned or incidents which
2 were investigated. This is an overall report.
3 And in closing, in Item 6, I would like to draw your attention to
4 the conclusion where it says that it was noted that there are facts
5 indicating that uniforms of Croatian soldiers are abused by civilians who
6 were actually civilians but wearing military uniforms; and also, mention
7 is made that there have been some crimes that haven't been solved and
8 that they were committed by members of the Croatian army.
9 My final question regarding this document, Mr. Kardum, is the
10 following: Is your recollection of these events consistent with what
11 we've seen in this document here, in brief?
12 A. This document was produced by the military, but it is very
13 consistent with what I remember, and I just have to say there was a
14 similar document produced by the civilian police; in other words, in the
15 course of our daily activities and precisely during this period of time.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, the reason I wanted to show you this document
17 was precisely because this was a joint operation conducted by both the
18 civilian and criminal police.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Now could I move for this
20 document to be admitted into evidence, please.
21 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D802.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D802 is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. In view of the cooperation between the -- of the civilian police
2 with members of the military police, do you remember that this
3 cooperation was also manifested at joint control and check-points that
4 were organised and set up in the territory of the Zadar-Knin police
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You have already told us in your testimony so far something about
8 the fact that the civilian police, in fact, did not have the authority,
9 did not have too extensive powers vis-a-vis members of the Croatian army
10 but in that respect required the assistance of the military police, and
11 that was one of the reasons why the check-points that had been set up
12 were, in fact, mixed.
13 A. Yes, exactly so.
14 Q. If at a check-point by searching persons or some stopped vehicles
15 it was discovered that a certain substances or things, rather, were being
16 transported that were probably deprived from the commission of a crime,
17 such effects would be seized, would they not?
18 A. Yes. Against receipt, which was issued by the police on seized
20 Q. Please look at Document 3D01-0143.
21 You said a receipt. Now, you will see, Mr. Kardum, a specimen of
22 a receipt on the temporary seizure of objections. We shall zoom in on it
23 for you to see it better, and I'm going to ask you not about the content
24 but whether this is the model of a -- the document on the basis of which
25 items would be confiscated from persons holding such suspicion items.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. A copy of this document, of this receipt would also be given to
3 the person from whom the items were confiscated, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the other copy would be kept by the official who actually
6 confiscated the property?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. We see specifically that this is a receipt which was issued by
9 the 7th police station in Obrovac and that a certain person -- or rather,
10 that 40 sheep were confiscated from a certain person. This was something
11 which was routinely done at check-points, right?
12 A. Yes, right.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I please move for a number
14 for this document, Your Honours.
15 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number D803, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D803 is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Let us now take a look at another receipt.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I just want to mention that we
22 collect around 500 document like this four that I intend to show just for
23 the purposes. I don't think that it's necessary all 4 or 500, these
24 documents, to be entered into the court file as an evidence. Maybe, it
25 is my suggestions, that Defence could make a kind of list of these
1 documents, and with the exchange of opinions from the Prosecution office,
2 we could -- we could tender this -- this list as -- as a document to be
3 in evidence from the bar table.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
5 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President. That would be acceptable to
6 us. Of course, a number of these confiscated items will also be
7 reflected in crime registers and reflected in court files and other
8 material that we've probably already submitted, so reconciliation with
9 those other files would also be useful.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So then we would have kind of a stipulation that the
11 parties agree that 500 of these type of documents and then give some of
12 the detail --
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Just to show the type of procedure that has been
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and perhaps one or two examples, then, attached
16 to it. Yes.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: I will give four examples just for the purposes
18 of what I have just been --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for your --
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Now we have, of course, the problems with the
21 translations from that amount of documents, it is obvious.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one of the advantages of forms, that
23 they usually have the same language, all them. But of course, what is
24 filled in by hand is another matter.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber appreciates your effort to keep the
2 number of pages within limits.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 [Interpretation] Can I ask the Registry to show us Document
5 3D01-0145, please.
6 Q. We shall see a similar, or rather, an identical form, a receipt
7 issued in this case by the police station in Gracac where also an
8 automatic rifle, nine calves which were being transported on
9 such-and-such truck with such-and-such licence plates were confiscated
10 from a person.
11 What I should like to draw your attention to, Mr. Kardum, is the
12 fact that this person was stopped at the Stikade military check-point.
13 Can we then conclude that in this case this is -- in this case we had
14 members of the regular police together with the military police manning
15 this check-point?
16 A. I believe that that was the case.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I please have a number for
18 this document, Your Honours.
19 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number D804, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D804 is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at Document
25 Q. The document we are about to see is practically identical, an
1 identical form, however, this time issued by the 72nd Battalion of the
2 military police. And it states that such-and-such soldier -- that items
3 were confiscated from such-and-such soldier with number -- serial number
4 9 inclusive.
5 Mr. Kardum, the way you perceive this, this is an identical
6 example to the previous two which we have just seen except that it was
7 issued by the military criminal police, right?
8 A. Yes. Because -- because Zlatko Lopac is a soldier, and it is so
9 written here.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I please move that this
11 document be assigned a number?
12 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D805, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D805 is admitted into evidence.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I have another one which is very
17 similar to those first document that I entered, so I don't think that
18 it's necessary to...
19 Q. [Interpretation] So Mr. Kardum, we saw in which way the
20 check-points functioned, the check-point blockades. If it would be
21 established by further processing that the -- there -- the confiscated
22 items had been stolen, then you would also file a criminal complaint?
23 A. Yes, absolutely. In fact, I saw that there was the mark "KU 83"
24 on one of these receipts meaning that already at that moment, that
25 particular case already had been the subject of a criminal complaint
2 Q. Yes. This is the receipt that we have just entered as evidence,
3 D803. Obviously, that receipt was part of a criminal file and as
4 material evidence was actually treated as such in the procedure before
5 the competent court, right?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, before the document disappears from
8 our screen, D -- I think it's D805, it says receipt for temporarily
9 confiscated items, and then we find them listed. What made the
10 confiscation of a temporary nature? Could the witness perhaps --
11 MR. MIKULICIC: I could cover that topic, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would cover that. That's fine, yes.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
14 Q. [Interpretation] So you heard His Honour's question. This
15 receipt says that the items confiscated are temporarily confiscated.
16 A. I apologise. All the receipts issued by the police were issued
17 on standard uniform forms. Now, the final decision whether the item in
18 question would be seized for good or not would be brought by court. We
19 would just indicate that there was the ground of suspicion that it might
20 have been the subject of a criminal offence, but the final decision was
21 on the police. But we can see here on the left side that this particular
22 receipt already has a number, a criminal complaint number, which is KU
23 156, meaning that a complaint had already been filed by the crime police.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could we perhaps have the original moved up a bit so
25 that we have -- that we can view -- yes, now we can see it.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: I think we have a problem with the translation,
2 Your Honour. Just -- my learned colleague reminded me of that, as it
3 regards to the -- who is -- who was authorised to reach the final
4 decision referring to the confiscated items.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could perhaps ask the witness to tell us.
6 Who finally was the authority -- who was authorised to make the
7 final decision in relation to the confiscated items?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Court, exclusively the Court.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay. We could proceed, Your Honour, if you
11 don't have any further question on the topic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I have, as a matter of fact, a question which
13 is triggered by the last answer of the witness.
14 Now, receipt means that this document was given to the person
15 from whom items were temporarily confiscated. Is that correctly
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Those items were confiscated
18 by the police, and it would take them into custody. As a rule, they were
19 to be delivered with -- against a criminal complaint to the district
20 attorney, but in practice there was no rule where these officers would
21 store all that so that the police kept them in custody and very often in
22 these situations gave them to government commissioners, which is to say
23 to the people in charge in the municipalities. But in some cases, they
24 could also give it to some persons in the case of theft of wood, for
25 instance, or something which is of bulky nature that would be kept by the
1 person in question, you know.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It's not perfectly clear now. I understand a
3 receipt to be that someone signs or makes a record of objects being
4 handed over to another person. Now, who is here transferring the objects
5 to whom?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The police hands over these objects
7 to the district attorney with a criminal complaint.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The confiscated items, as a rule,
10 with the filed criminal complaint given by the police to the district
11 attorney. But as here we have bulky, voluminous things such as tiles or
12 wooden barrels that is not possible because of practical considerations.
13 That's why the police either keeps them in their own -- on its own
14 premises or has them stored elsewhere, but in situations like these
15 sometimes they would be entrusted to the perpetrator, or rather, to the
16 suspect to keep them until further notice. And that person was under the
17 obligation to keep such things until the final resolution of his case,
18 when voluminous objects were in question, large, bulky objects. If these
19 were -- that -- it was jewellery or some smaller items, they would also
20 be transferred to the district attorney's office with the criminal
21 complaint or would have been kept in the premises of the police station
22 in question.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the last line reads in English: "The
24 aforementioned items placed in safekeeping with the subject."
25 I do not fully understand what that means. Could we have a look
1 at the original.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously, these items were given
4 to that person for safekeeping or to keep them, to have them in his
6 JUDGE ORIE: Finally, soldier Zlatko Lopac, finally, was in
7 charge of keeping those goods, or is that how I have to understand it,
8 because they were confiscated temporarily from him? And now the
9 aforementioned items placed in safekeeping with the subject, is that the
10 person where these items were confiscated from? Is that how I have to
11 understand the document?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose so, yes.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: If I may.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic. I'm just trying to understand.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes. It's maybe -- it's maybe ambiguous on the
16 first sight, but we will cover this.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kardum, this receipt in fact shows that a
18 certain number of items were found on a certain person and they have been
19 listed, enumerated.
20 You said due to practical considerations, the voluminosity of
21 these items, they simply could not be sent to the district attorney as
22 such; and therefore, that person was ordered to keep them and could not
23 alienate them, could not sell them or in any other way dispose of them
24 until the procedure was over?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. So these are purely practical reasons and not legal
3 A. Yes, and this is the practice today as well. This is the routine
4 practice today, in fact.
5 Q. The items that were less voluminous would be rather -- would be
6 submitted to the district attorney's office in charge against a complaint
7 or would have been kept in storage under supervision?
8 A. Yes. But the district attorney always knew where the objects
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me now try to fully understand this document.
11 This is a list of rather large objects, wooden barrel, 150-litre
12 capacity, something that you just do not carry away; same true for three
13 wall kitchen cabinets.
14 Now, let's take this example. Where would these objects have
15 found? Where was it established that Mr. -- Soldier Zlatko Lopac was in
16 possession of these items? How would that have been established?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously, we will have to consult
18 the entire list; that is, KU 95-19697.
19 Obviously Soldier Zlatko Lopac was transporting these items on a
20 lorry, I presume, or in a van. Obviously, he had stolen them in the
21 occupied territory, taken them simply from somewhere in the occupied
22 territory and was unable to prove their origin, where he got them in a
23 legal, lawful manner.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So he was stopped somewhere, and you need,
25 really, a little truck to transport all these items. Yes.
1 Now, what would then happen to these items? Would they be taken
2 by the police, or was the person just allowed to keep them for that
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depending on how far this was from
5 any place where it could be stored in a warehouse. So for practical
6 considerations, however, from the legal standpoint, everything was done
7 as should be. The soldier signed that the items were confiscated. Also,
8 the authorised person signed a document, and it was sealed. And of
9 course, the district attorney was informed of it.
10 So the -- the only issue that remained unresolved was where these
11 item would say be kept until it was finally resolved legally what to do
12 with them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And at that very moment -- I'm just trying to
14 imagine what happens. I see a little truck being stopped with all these
15 goods in it. Now -- so at that moment the person who's transporting
16 these the goods is unable to establish that he is the rightful owner of
17 these items. Was it at that moment that such a document would be made or
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It would be made there on the
20 spot, and the person would be taken in for processing.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And what happened, then, with the goods? Because he
22 was still in charge of the goods, isn't it? Would he take them ...
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not necessarily, Your Honour. He
24 would be taken in for processing. In other words, the police - in this
25 case, the military police, but otherwise, it could be the civilian police
1 as well - they would try to determine where he got this from. They would
2 interview him where he got the items from, which village, what house, and
3 so on and so forth.
4 However, here, obviously, this was property of some owners who
5 had abandoned their homes. I assume that most probably these were Serbs
6 that had fled the area, and I doubt that it was possible at all to
7 determine the owner, the rightful owner of these.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you say such a document was created on the spot
9 where this person was stopped and where it was established that he was
10 transporting so many goods. Is that a correct understanding?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The items would be put on --
12 listed on a list. The person would sign this document that it was
13 actually confiscated from him; and in fact, this is a very powerful --
14 very powerful evidence. This is an exhibit for the Court, in fact.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now what would then happen? Police officers
16 there would -- what would the next step be?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This person would then be taken in
18 to the closest police station, and the crime processing would begin.
19 This person would be interviewed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: He would be interviewed immediately after he was
21 stopped and after this document would have been made. Where would the
22 goods, meanwhile, be? Because they were in his truck. Would the truck
23 be taken to the police station, as well, or ...
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, before being taken in, you said this is a case
1 where a court number -- I think you said a court number was already
2 assigned. How would you assign a number -- I'll just check what exactly
3 your words were.
4 MR. MISETIC: I don't think he said court number, Your Honour.
5 He said KU number.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- therefore, I'm verifying.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a police number, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: And the police number would be assigned on the
10 street where they were -- where these goods were found in the possession
11 of this person.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the police obviously
13 determined that it was -- that a crime had been committed; in this case,
14 aggravated crime or aggravated theft. The policeman would call his duty
15 service and request the next free number -- next available number in the
16 register, the police register, the KU number. So most probably, this
17 number was assigned as KU or the crime number, crime register number, 95.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And he would, then, be taken to the police station,
19 and after he had been processed, after he had been interviewed, he would
20 then leave again and be the one who should look after the goods so that
21 they would remain in his possession?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not necessarily. In this instance,
23 they would -- in cases such as these, they would have to actually discuss
24 with the direct attorney whether a red crime report should be written
25 out, in which case he would have to be taken in. If it was a regular
1 procedure, then there would be a white crime report, in which case this
2 person would not be detained.
3 And everything that I have said actually refers to civilians.
4 Now, this is a military case, and it may be that the military procedure
5 is a bit different to that of the civilian police.
6 JUDGE ORIE: What would the difference be?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't know the details of the
8 procedure of the military police. I think it was a similar procedure,
9 but I'm not absolutely sure because I didn't work on this case with them
10 from beginning to end. Because you can see here that mention is made
11 that the 71st Company of the military police, actually -- or the military
12 crime police was the one who investigated this.
13 So this case was investigated by the military police, not the
14 civilian police.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Just for -- yes, thank
18 you, Your Honour. Just for a clarification. I could point out at D804,
19 which is the very same receipt, where the truck has been mentioned in
20 which the supposedly stolen goods were found.
21 So in the D805, there was no mention any truck, but obviously it
22 has to be ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, you'll understand what the purpose of my
24 questions is to better understand what happens. If we have 500 documents
25 in which it says that the person who apparently was suspected of having
1 stolen them keeps them, then of course it becomes a very interesting
2 question what then happened afterwards. It might be misinterpreted by
3 other persons to see that people continue to transport these objects, and
4 then, of course, the follow-up issue of whether ever a court decision on
5 the final confiscation took place. I mean, this is a whole complex --
6 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- matter for which, of course, to fully understand
8 what those 500 documents you will list together with Mr. Margetts what it
9 actually tells us.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, and I can assure that the
11 Defence will cover there topic in a total -- of course, in due course.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: So from the very beginning where the stolen --
14 supposedly stolen goods were temporarily confiscated up to the final
15 court decision on the matter. So in that --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Kind of a chain of custody.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes. Yes, of course.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Misetic.
19 MR. MISETIC: I would just draw the Court's attention again to
20 D511 and D568 where you do have final results of -- not necessarily
21 concretely these particular confirmations, but do you have what happened
22 to the cases afterwards.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, we have not fully analysed all this
24 material yet, but since -- as the witness here could tell us about the
25 procedures that I take the opportunity, also, to hear from the witness
1 and not only study documents.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kardum, we will now broach the last topic
5 that I have for you, and that is the special police.
6 Within the Zadar-Knin police administration, there was a unit of
7 the special police as we saw in Exhibit P500, the commander of which was
8 Mr. Vrsajko. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In your 2004 statement, you said -- and may I refer you to
11 paragraph - just a minute, please - paragraph 52. You said that you did
12 not have too many contacts with the special police because these were
13 combat units. Is that a good interpretation of what you said?
14 A. I had occasion to meet with Mr. Vrsajko frequently. However, the
15 nature of his work and that of mine were very different, so we didn't
16 really overlap a lot except in the cases where we cooperated and we had a
17 fair, decent cooperation.
18 Q. In paragraph 53 of your 2004 statement, you said that as far as
19 you understood the check-points were later -- some check-points were
20 later manned by special and military police. Did you actually ever see
21 members of a combat unit such as the special police at check-points?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Maybe this is a misinterpretation or mistranslation, but did you
24 actually mean military police or civilian police?
25 A. I think this referred to the military police. The military
1 police would in those cases handle military persons, and the civilian
2 police would handle civilians.
3 Q. But there were no members of the special police?
4 A. No. As far as I can recall, no, because all the competences that
5 were within the authority, the powers of the special police were also
6 within the competence of the regular police.
7 Q. Mr. Kardum, you told us at the outset -- when you began your
8 testimony, you said that you didn't have any contacts with Mr. Markac.
9 You also just told us just now that you didn't have any contacts with the
10 special police because your work was different.
11 Now, I would like to ask you this in closing: Have you ever in
12 your experience received an order from anyone in the chain of command not
13 to investigate, an order banning or forbidding an investigation that you
14 were authorised to undertake by law?
15 A. No, absolutely not. Never.
16 Q. Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to issue such an order
17 to you, what would you do?
18 A. If I were issued such an order - and I'm just trying to think of
19 that -- such a situation, hypothetic situation - I would first inform my
20 immediate superior and ask him to tell me what his position was. And if
21 he agreed to that order, then I would request to have it in writing; and
22 most probably, I would resign.
23 Q. Am I correct in interpreting what you have said that your
24 position was that you would always act within the bounds of law and no
25 one could issue any orders to the contrary of that?
1 A. Absolutely.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have
3 no further questions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
5 Mr. Kardum, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic. Mr.
6 Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kardum.
10 A. Good afternoon.
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, may I please call up 1D54-0001,
13 Q. Mr. Kardum, while we're waiting for that to come up on the
14 screen, I have put together maps of your area of responsibility, which
15 we're going to show on the screen, and I'm going to ask you to look at
16 the maps and see if we have put this down on paper accurately.
17 You'll note on the first page, sir, the -- and I will note the
18 Court, there is, I believe, an English translation, but we will use the
19 Croatian version for the benefit of the witness. The brown line marks
20 the international border with Bosnia and Herzegovina; the green line are
21 the Kotar-Knin boundary line; and the yellow line is the boundary of the
22 police administration of Zadar-Knin. Does that accurately depict the --
23 your area of responsibility in the police administration, Zadar-Knin?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. MISETIC: Can we go to the next page, please.
1 Q. Now what we've done, Mr. Kardum, is include the police stations.
2 You'll see the -- a red circled -- red circles with the yellow are the
3 police stations within Kotar-Knin; the blue circles are the police
4 stations that are not part of the Kotar-Knin administration; and the
5 black circle is the location of the police administration itself. And
6 I'd ask you to take a look at this map carefully and see if we've
7 accurately depicted the various police stations and the police
8 administration on this map.
9 A. I think so. But I would have a few corrections to make, if
10 necessary, if you feel it appropriate. I think I should comment on this.
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. And I won't be -- all right. The police station Kistanje, for
13 instance, it existed as such and was operational. However, I think that
14 it was not within the police system, but in the day-to-day work there was
15 a need to have regular police between Benkovac and Knin, that area. So
16 then we decided to have an ad hoc outpost, police outpost in Kistanje,
17 which was an outpost of the Knin first police station. In other words, a
18 police branch or police outpost is of lower rank than the police station,
19 but I think that in the original document it was not envisaged as -- as
21 As for the rest, it is all right except that these blue ones at
22 the Kotar-Knin PU are border police, and the border police stations are
23 different in their work. They're different in their work to the ones
24 that you marked with the red circles.
25 Q. That's correct. And just to clarify, we did put the dates in of
1 when these police stations were opened up, and they're located on the map
2 as well.
3 So what I'm asking you is, these police stations actually did
4 exist in the month of August as part of your police administration,
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. MISETIC: If we could go to the next slide, please.
8 Q. Now, what we've done in the third slide is added -- first of all,
9 that black line, we've already in this case shown what the border was
10 between the Split Military District and the Gospic Military District.
11 You might not be familiar with that, but that's drawn in on this slide.
12 The blue line is the line held by the HV on the 3rd of August,
13 1995; and the red line is the line held by the ARSK on the 3rd of August,
15 Do you agree that that is your understanding of where the front
16 lines were on the 3rd of August, 1995?
17 A. I've never looked at a similar map to this one, but to the best
18 of my recollection, I think, yes, that that fully corresponds to the
19 actual state of affairs then.
20 Q. Looking at this map and looking at the yellow line, is it fair to
21 say that the majority of the occupied territory in Sector South fell
22 under the Zadar-Knin police administration?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. Now, this morning I wanted to put some numbers together for you,
25 and I'm sure the Court will correct me and will check my math later. But
1 prior to Operation Storm, is it your understanding or do you have an
2 understanding that the actual area that your police administration
3 covered - in other words, the actual area held by Croatian authorities on
4 the 3rd of August - covered roughly 1200 square kilometres? Is that
5 consistent with your recollection?
6 A. Yes. That is the area of the former municipalities of Zadar and
7 Biograd. Biograd has about 260 and Zadar somewhat under a thousand
8 square kilometres, these two former municipalities, and that is exactly
10 Q. After Operation Storm, do you recall that your area of
11 responsibility - and by "your," I mean the police administration
12 Zadar-Knin - expanded roughly five times what it had before Operation
13 Storm to cover roughly 6350 square kilometres of territory? Is that a
14 fair representation of how much your zone of responsibility expanded
15 after Operation Storm?
16 A. Yes, that is correct. We were a second-rank administration, and
17 the Zagreb
18 administrations were of the first rank. Then we became territorially
19 larger, both from the Zagreb
20 administration taken together. I often asked my chief, Cetina, then to
21 see to it from our Ministry of the Interior that we should become an
22 administration of the first rank, which would mean a much large number of
23 people and much more resources, et cetera. But this request could not be
24 accommodated so that this administration was reorganised, and a part of
25 the people went to Gospic where they had belonged before, and another
1 part went to Sibenik, to which they had also belonged before. I
2 apologise for this comment.
3 Q. Now, based on some of the answers you gave both to Mr. Margetts
4 and Mr. Mikulicic, we've established that you had as a high number 60
5 people working as your subordinates in the crime investigation section.
6 I've done the math, and, again, I trust that there are people in this
7 courtroom who will correct me if I'm wrong, but if you assigned all 60 --
8 or sorry. If you had these people, and you took -- you did two shifts
9 and had 30 people per shift out in the field, and none of them were
10 interviewing POWs at the POW centre. Before Operation Storm, one shift,
11 one person could cover 40 square kilometres of territory, which is 1200
12 square kilometres divided by 30; and after Operation Storm, one of your
13 subordinates had to cover 212 square kilometres of territory.
14 Now, is it fair to say, Mr. Kardum, that your police
15 administration was not adequately equipped to deal with the situation it
16 found itself in when its territorial jurisdiction expanded five times its
17 size in a matter of days?
18 A. Yes, exactly. I thank you for such a precise math. I do have to
19 add that at the very beginning of the Oluja operation I lost four people,
20 four of my men, three of them on account of an incident which they had
21 made, and there was a senior lady, operations officer who had a traffic
22 accident that morning, so that that number was further reduced.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Kardum, you are familiar with Operative Action Povratak,
24 are you not?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Are you aware that Operative Action Povratak began in 1992?
2 A. Yes, I am.
3 Q. Are you aware that the Croatian plans under OA Povratak were
4 based on the principle that the Vance Plan would be implemented and that
5 Serbian police officers would in fact remain in place when Croatian
6 authority was restored over the occupied area?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And are you aware that the MUP did not anticipate a situation
9 where all the police staff in the occupied area would leave?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, when we talk about the difficulties that you encountered -
12 and I believe you mentioned this in your testimony earlier - in
13 establishing the police administration in the crime investigative
14 section, the first and fundamental point was you didn't have enough
15 people to do everything that was required of you in terms of
16 investigations. Is that correct?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Now, before the break - let me just go over this issue - we went
19 through the issue of the receipt a few minutes ago, and you were saying
20 something about the practicality problem.
21 My question to you, sir, is: Was it your experience that if
22 police officers, either civil or military, were out in some remote area
23 of the police administration, wasn't it the case that sometimes given the
24 lack of resources at that time that all the police could do at the
25 check-point was issue a receipt and follow up with the perpetrator later
1 because you didn't have enough men to take off the check-point to escort
2 everybody to the police station for every criminal act. Is that correct?
3 A. That is quite true. But that receipt was always issued in two
4 copies, and a copy was kept and another was given to the person in
5 question so that we could always follow at all times whether the person
6 in question acted on instructions given him or not.
7 Q. Yes. But my question -- specific question is: Was it not the
8 case that if a police officer at a check-point took every person in that
9 was stopped at the check-point with having committed some criminal act,
10 that the check-points themselves wouldn't be manned because of the
11 shortage of police officers to cover the check-points? Do you understand
12 my question?
13 A. Yes, absolutely, I do. But the -- the check-points were priority
14 points that were not to be abandoned.
15 MR. MISETIC: I don't know, Mr. President. I think this might be
16 a good time for a break.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It certainly is, but not before I have put an
18 additional question.
19 I asked you earlier, Mr. Kardum, what would happen if a person
20 was stopped and where it was established that he was transporting these
21 goods? You told me that -- you told this Chamber that the items would be
22 put on a list, person would sign the document, and you said, This is very
23 powerful evidence. And then I said: What would next happen? Police
24 officers there would -- what would the next step be? You said this
25 person would then be taken into the closest police station and the crime
1 processing would begin.
2 That is an answer which is quite different from the last answers
3 you gave to Mr. Misetic. I asked you without even suggesting what the
4 next step would be, and you said they would be taken in.
5 Now, Mr. Misetic and -- ask you, Well, wouldn't that be bad for
6 the check-point? Wouldn't it be true that -- and then you said, no, the
7 check-point should not be abandoned.
8 Now, please tell me, were these people taken in as you told me?
9 Yes or no?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Misetic said if
11 this check-point was quite far, quite remote from the police station. So
12 if this was a check-point which was quite far from the police station
13 because these are large areas that we're talking about here. For
14 instance, between the police station in Knin and the close police station
15 in the direction of Zadar, Benkovac, you have about 70 kilometres.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand what a long distance is. Now -- so
17 therefore, your answer to my question should have been: It depends.
18 Sometimes they would be taken in; sometimes they would not.
19 Could you tell me, how -- what would be approximately the
20 percentage of those who would have been stopped with items on their
21 trucks which they could not explain as being their own -- being their
22 property? What would be the percentage that would be taken in, and what
23 would be the percentage of those who were so far that it was just making
24 a list and then not taking them? Would 5 per cent be taken in? Would 60
25 per cent be taken in? Would 80 per cent be taken in? Would 30 per cent
1 be taken in? Approximately. Of course, I do not ask you to give a
2 precise percentage, but approximately.
3 Let's start with the first question. Would the majority be taken
4 in, or would the majority not be taken in?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The majority would be taken in but
6 not by the people manning the check-points. Other police, most often
7 crime police members would come to get them if civilians were in question
8 because the criminal police was stationed in the police stations. I said
9 before that there were four or five of them in Benkovac who covered
10 Benkovac, Obrovac, and Stankovci; four or five of them in Knin in that
11 period who covered the area of Knin; and four of five of them in Gracac
12 who covered the area of Gracac, Lapac, and Korenica.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So you say the majority was taken in, mainly not by
14 those manning the check-points but by other police officers. Were there
15 sufficient police officers available to go to the check-point, take them
16 in and -- or was there any problem as far as the number of available
17 police officers was concerned?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that depended on the daily
19 events because the daily incidents, daily events also impacted the
20 possibilities of such officers to come and get these persons. But as a
21 rule, most frequently they would be taken in. But it is also depended on
22 the tape and nature, the severity, the gravity of the criminal offence
23 because there were people who were just smuggling or transporting,
24 rather, one sheep or one lamb.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would, then, such a list, although a very
1 short list, be made, as well, for one sheep or one lamb?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. We filed criminal complaints
3 even in such cases. Of course, these persons would often say this comes
4 from my relative or this is from my friend, it was given to me by a
5 friend of mine, and similar excuses and this dragged on for -- - ad
6 infinitum, but we always proceeded in this fashion.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you earlier told us that the majority would be
8 taken in. Could you be more precise? Would -- 80 per cent, would it be
9 a vast majority that would be taken in or just a little bit over half?
10 Could you give us further position as far as the percentage of persons
11 taken in is concerned?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is difficult for
13 me to say. There are documents, case files, and each case file shows
14 whether the person in question was taken in on the same day and
15 interviewed on the same day. But a free estimation that I could make is
16 that perhaps 70 per cent or more of such persons were taken in in this or
17 that way, one way or another.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for those answers.
19 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 20 minutes past 4.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.54 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
23 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 I forgot to tender the slides as an exhibit, and I ask that they
25 be admitted into evidence.
1 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That is Exhibit number D806, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D806 is admitted into evidence.
5 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Mr. Registrar, if I may now have Exhibit D9 on the screen,
8 Q. Mr. Kardum, if you look on the screen, this is an exhibit that
9 was admitted with a witness earlier in this case. It is a criminal
10 report regarding the murder of Sava Babic, and I'd ask to you take a look
11 at that page, and then we'll turn to the next page when you're ready.
12 A. I'm ready.
13 MR. MISETIC: We could go to the next page, please.
14 A. I've seen it.
15 Q. Is that your signature there?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, if we could go to page 6 in the English, which is also page
18 6 in the Croatian, I believe.
19 When you finish reading it, we'll turn to the next page,
20 Mr. Kardum.
21 A. Yes, I've read it.
22 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn to the next page, please.
23 A. I've reviewed it.
24 Q. Mr. Kardum, do you recall investigating the murder of Sava Babic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And do you recall preparing a criminal report in that case, which
2 I've shown you, as well as a special report in that case?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And do you recall sending the special report, in which it was
5 suspected that a soldier by the name of Mario Dukic, a member of the
6 134th Home Guard brigade -- do you recall sending that special report to
7 the military - sorry - to the military prosecutor in Zadar?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, I'm using this example. I'd like to you explain, given that
10 you recall the investigation how it is that the investigation was begun
11 and why it is that you filed a special report with the military
12 prosecutor in Zadar.
13 A. I understand your question. We had an incident, a murder that
14 occurred I think also in September in a village near Benkovac. I can't
15 remember with certainty the name of that place, but I'll probably
16 remember it as I speak.
17 A civilian of Serb nationality was killed then. His name was
18 Petar Botar. When we conducted an investigation, we found out that three
19 men committed the murder. These men were of Croat ethnicity. One of
20 them was Mario Dukic, and I think that at this time he was a member of
21 the 134th Home Guards brigade.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Regiment, interpreter's correction.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And when we learned of that fact,
24 then the military police also participated in the investigation, and
25 Mario Dukic and other two men were brought in. I can't claim with
1 certainty, but I think the other two were civilians.
2 During the investigation, it turned out that the murder had been
3 committed under the influence of alcohol by Mario Dukic.
4 I just need to add something, although it has nothing to do with
5 this murder. Petar Botar is the father of Branko Botar, a perpetrator of
6 a war crime at the detriment of a Croat woman during the occupation of
7 that territory, a woman from Perusic.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Or that person is from Perusic, interpreter's
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this occasion, we proved that
11 Mario Dukic committed this murder with a 7.62-millimetre pistol, and now
12 I can say for certain which murder occurred first. But because we found
13 a shell, a 7.62-millimetre shell on the crime scene where Babic was
14 murdered, we sent this shell to Zagreb
15 after a while, this -- we received a report from Zagreb that Petar Botar
16 and Sava Babic were murdered by -- from the same weapon or with the same
17 weapon, fire-arm, and it was concluded that the perpetrator was Mario
19 As a result, we prepared a special report and filed it with the
20 military prosecutor because Mario was, at this time -- at the time when
21 this crime was committed, he was a member of, as far as I can recall,
22 134th regiment, Home Guard regiment.
23 Mr. Attorney, if you do have any more questions I can answer
24 them. I just don't want to take up too much of your time with my length
1 Q. Well, what I'm interested in now is you've explained that at some
2 point because you had established that Mario Dukic had committed a
3 separate murder with a 7.62-millimetre shell and because you found the
4 same type shell at the murder scene of Sava Babic, you suspected that
5 Mario Dukic was involved in the murder of Sava Babic at that point. Is
6 that correct?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. Now, MUP, in your office, even though you suspected that Mario
9 Dukic, a member of the 134th Home Guard Brigade, had committed the
10 murder, MUP was still responsible for continuing the investigation of the
11 murder of Sava Babic. Is that correct?
12 A. No. At this point in time, we didn't know that he was the
13 perpetrator of the murder of Sava Babic. It was only later that we
14 confirmed this because all the weapons and the cartridges that were found
15 -- the cartridge that was found on the site of the murder of Sava Babic,
16 it was found that this cartridge was fired from the same pistol from
17 which the other person was killed.
18 Q. Understood, but --
19 A. Petar Botar.
20 Q. -- what I would like to know is, MUP carries out its
21 investigations of a crime until it confirms a suspect, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it's only after MUP has established probable cause that a
24 suspect of a crime such as murder is a member of the Croatian army that
25 the military police is then called in. Is that correct?
1 A. That's right. So what we are looking at is the crime itself, and
2 then only secondarily, the perpetrator, because we don't know who the
3 perpetrator might be. For us, there is a crime, and that has to be
4 resolved, and the perpetrator may be a civilian, a military person. We
5 don't know that at that point in time. If it's a member of the Croatian
6 army, then there's a specific approach. We have a duty to inform thereof
7 the competent military service.
8 Q. Now, you've answered that you were looking at the crime itself
9 and then only secondarily, the perpetrator, and that's the point I want
10 to talk about. Crime that's committed in the liberated territory, it is
11 MUP's task under Croatian law to investigate every crime and to gather
12 evidence that would lead to the conclusion as to who the suspect is in
13 that crime, correct?
14 A. That's right, if at the very outset the perpetrator is unknown.
15 Q. Well, tell us -- give us an example where at the very beginning
16 you know who the perpetrator is.
17 A. Well, for instance, at check-points, if one were to see a
18 military person transporting some stolen goods, then we would -- we would
19 register this as OP, the immediately known perpetrator; NN is
20 unidentified perpetrator; and the NO is subsequently discovered
22 Q. And let's take the situation now: A body is discovered, and the
23 -- an immediately known perpetrator -- in other words, the perpetrator is
24 not still physically on the scene when the body is discovered. It is
25 MUP's job to carry out the investigation if there's a basis do believe
1 that there was violence involved in the death of that person, to carry
2 out the investigation that would lead to establishing who is suspected of
3 that crime, correct?
4 A. Yes, absolutely.
5 Q. Now, even after you've identified a suspect such as Mario Dukic
6 after an investigation and you've called in the military police, MUP
7 still has a role in the investigation, does it not?
8 A. Yes. Then we worked on it together. You could say that we
9 cooperated. I think the military did not have specialised men for such
10 criminal acts and that it wasn't capable of conducting this investigation
11 on its own.
12 Q. So it was the MUP that had the specialisation pathologists,
13 ballistic experts, other type of expertise to provide in assisting the
14 military police in eventually prosecuting a crime before a military
15 Court. Is that correct?
16 A. No, it's not right. It was not a MUP that had the pathologist
17 and the experts, et cetera. The experts were independent experts. The
18 pathologists were physicians of a special -- having a specialisation who
19 could be recruited only at the order of the investigating judge, not at
20 the order of the police. So following an order of the investigating
21 judge, we could recruit the services of a physician, a pathologist, and
22 they he would then be assigned his particular assignment by the
23 investigating judge.
24 Q. Let's take the example of Mario Dukic and the murder of Sava
25 Babic. Who conducts the -- who conducted in that particular case the
1 ballistics analysis and any other type of expertise that was done in that
3 A. The expertise was undertaken by the competent experts in the
4 centre, the only such centre which existed at the time in Croatia which
5 was called Ivan Vucetic and was in Zagreb
6 I think. At least that's it how it should have been and should be.
7 Q. Was a civilian investigative judge involved in the investigation
8 of the murder of Sava Babic?
9 A. In the investigation of the murder of Petar Botar participated an
10 investigating judge and a district attorney, but that murder was
11 practically solved by the expert. The expert solved it on the basis of
12 what the investigating judge and the police had recovered at the scene of
13 the murder. During the on-site investigation, we found inter alia a
14 cartridge, and we sent that cartridge not knowing the perpetrator for
15 ballistic analysis in Zagreb
16 received the expert report of the expert from which it stemmed that on
17 the occasion of the murder of Sava Babic the same weapon was used as the
18 one that was used in the case of Petar Botar, and we had already detected
19 the -- or solved the murder of Petar Botar earlier, if you understand me.
20 Q. Let me ask you this question. Is it your understanding that the
21 jurisdiction for investigating crime where the specific perpetrator's
22 identity is unknown rests with MUP and that the jurisdiction of the
23 military police under Croatian law at that time only existed once the
24 identity of the perpetrator was confirmed as someone who is a member of
25 the Croatian army?
1 A. That's right.
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, I'm going to show two exhibits now
3 to the witness and then ask a few questions.
4 If I could have 1D54-0012, please.
5 Q. Now, this is a criminal report filed by you for the Gosici
6 murders. Can you just take a look at it and see if this is the document
7 that you prepared on 4 October.
8 A. Can I see the next page, please.
9 Yes. This is a document which was produced in the criminal
10 police department of the Zadar-Knin police administration. It is my
11 signature. Actually, it is typewritten that it is my signature, but this
12 was a signed propria persona and by somebody else.
13 Q. Your Honour, might I tender this into evidence, please.
14 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D807.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D807 is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if I could have 1D54-0007, please.
19 Q. Mr. Kardum, this is the criminal report you filed in the Varivode
20 case. I'd ask you to look through this document and see if you recognise
22 A. Yes, I do recognise this document just as in the first case, I
23 mean, in the case of the previous document.
24 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I tender the exhibit into evidence,
1 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D808.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D808 is admitted into evidence.
5 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, may we move into private session,
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 9473-9484 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, I'd now like to call up 1D54-0017,
8 Q. Mr. Kardum, if you could take a look at this and read through it
9 and tell me when you're finished. This is a criminal report you filed
10 against a Nino Starcevic, whom you identified as a soldier. I believe it
11 has to do with a theft. If you could take a look at it, and the date is
12 1 September --
13 A. I have seen the first page.
14 Q. The date is 1 September 1995
15 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page, please.
16 Q. And there's also a second perpetrator identified in your report
17 as a member of the 4th Guards Brigade and that these two gentlemen
18 committed the criminal offence of taking a motor vehicle.
19 A. Yes, I've read it.
20 MR. MISETIC: If we could go to the last page, please.
21 Now, it says "Ive Kardum" on the bottom. Is that someone who was
22 authorised to sign for you there?
23 A. Yes. This was signed by Ante Pogarilic. In these police
24 stations - I have to explain this - Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, Lapac,
25 Korenica, I was supposed to have a number of staff, 19 in each of these
1 stations, and at the head of them should have been the deputy chief of
2 crime police. And this person was should have had the authority to sign
3 criminal complaints.
4 However, since the whole service had not been set up properly,
5 there weren't -- there simply did not exist -- these people did not
6 exist, the deputy crime police chief, so that it was -- so that these
7 jobs were done by other men.
8 Q. Okay. Now, if you could explain here for the Court, the
9 perpetrator of the first one is identified as a soldier; the second one
10 is identified as member of the 4th Guards Brigade.
11 Can you explain to us how it is that you -- or someone authorised
12 on your behalf filed this criminal report for theft against persons who
13 are identified as soldiers?
14 A. This was probably done in agreement with the military police
15 because I saw here at the very bottom of page 2 where it says that the
16 official interview was done with the -- in the presence of the military
17 police with Ante Zilic, so I assume that the civilian police asked the
18 military police to conduct the interview with Ante Zilic and vice versa,
19 and they probably agreed that the complaint would be filed by the
20 civilian police. I'm not even sure that this is the proper procedure,
21 the way they did it, but the point was the job had to be done, and it
22 was. Now, whether a mistake had been made, that's a different issue.
23 Q. Okay. And it says who it was delivered to --
24 MR. MISETIC: And if we could turn to the next page -- or to the
25 bottom -- next page in English, please.
1 Q. It says to the Zadar municipal state attorney's office, the
2 analytics department, the department of organised crime prevention, and
3 to the archive.
4 So the criminal report wasn't filed with the military prosecutor
5 or the military police. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes. And in my view, that's a mistake. It's a procedural error.
7 Q. It would be your understanding as according to your earlier
8 testimony that the MUP could investigate this incident; once they'd
9 identified these three individuals as perpetrators who were members of
10 the HV, you would call in the military police to actually do the arrest.
11 Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, absolutely.
13 Q. Now --
14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I could -- I will tender this
15 exhibit into evidence as well.
16 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D809.
19 JUDGE ORIE: D809 is admitted into evidence.
20 MR. MISETIC:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Kardum, I'd like to take a hypothetical example. An HV
22 soldier, active duty, gets intoxicated, sits behind the wheel of a car in
23 Zadar, and gets involved in a fatal car accident, which results in the
24 death of another motorist, civilian. When MUP arrives at the scene, what
25 is MUP's responsibility?
1 A. Of course, the arrest of that member of the -- that army member
2 would be arrested. Then the MUP would also have to inform the military
3 police of that arrest of the incident, that they had arrested a member of
4 the army, that such a report would be also sent to the district attorney,
5 to the investigative judge. The investigating judge would conduct an
6 on-site investigation unless it is entrusted to the civilian police. If
7 entrusted to the civilian police, it will conduct the on-site
8 investigation; and then in agreement with the military police, further
9 investigating measures would be taken, and the district attorney would
10 ask the competent court to conduct an investigation.
11 Talking about this, some things which were carried out by the
12 police, even if by mistake, even if the police mischaracterized a
13 criminal offence, if it characterized a criminal offence as aggravated
14 theft whereas it was robbery or sent it to a not-competent tier of the
15 system, that is considered an error. But this is not a particular error
16 in this case.
17 Q. Who -- first, you said that the army member would be arrested.
18 Who conducts the initial arrest in Zadar of that HV soldier?
19 A. The police that happens to be first at the scene of the event or
20 closest to the scene of the event, if you're referring to either the
21 military or the civilian police, the police that is first there. Such a
22 -- we cannot let such a man irrespective of the fact that he's a member
23 of the Croatian army, we cannot allow him to escape, to continue doing
24 foolish things or to try and conceal his criminal offences, et cetera,
25 because we don't want him to escape. We want to prove that he was
1 intoxicated or the presence of alcohol in his organism, if that was the
2 case, and then we would inform the military police, and then we would
3 agree with them on the further course of action.
4 Q. Who secures the crime scene?
5 A. The scene of the crime would be secured. I don't know how
6 relevant that is, but I think it would be the civilian police, but then
7 again, it might be the military police because this is a military person.
8 It can be the civilian police or the military police or a combination of
9 both police forces. It will not be only the military police. Of that,
10 I'm certain because the victim is a civilian.
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar --
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 MR. MISETIC: May I have D97 on the screen, please.
14 Your Honours, we are -- we will give a hard copy of D97 to the
15 witness in Croatian. I noticed that there was a -- a translation error
16 in the English of D97 because it was missing one section, which I would
17 like to ask the witness about, and we, therefore, will show the amended
18 version on Sanction, upload the right version into e-court.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I hear of no objections. Of course, I
20 do not know whether the new translation has been uploaded already,
21 whether you have had an opportunity to review it, but...
22 MR. MARGETTS: I haven't had an opportunity to review it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But may I take it that...
24 MR. MISETIC: We've sent it to Prosecution as part of our
25 disclosure here. I think we -- Your Honour pointed it out back when we
1 tendered the exhibit and it wasn't -- it was never --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that if a completed translation is
3 provided by the parties, that that could -- that we could start working
4 on that basis, and if there would be any objections, that we would hear
5 after it has been verified.
6 MR. MISETIC: I think you'll see that it's -- I don't think
7 there's going to be any dispute about it so --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
9 MR. MARGETTS: It's at Tab number ...
10 MR. MISETIC: We put it at 14 in our disclosures to the OTP.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you.
12 MR. MISETIC:
13 Q. Mr. Kardum, if you could take a look at that document.
14 MR. MISETIC: And if we could scroll down in the English.
15 Q. This is a report from Minister Jarnjak to the state prosecutor,
16 Marijan Hranjski, dated 2 October 1995
17 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page in English, please. And
18 just so the Court is aware, what was missing before is under "Known
19 Perpetrators." It was blank. The three boxes were blank. We just put
20 them in so that it's reflected in the new translation.
21 Q. On the second page, Mr. Kardum, you will see that Minister
22 Jarnjak informs the state prosecutor of certain statistics, and he
23 reports that for the period of 22 August to 2 October 1995, in the police
24 administration Zadar-Knin, he reports 28 murders, 162 burnings, 3 for
25 mining, and 132 cases of removal of property.
1 And if we go down to the next graph or next table, it says,
2 Zadar-Knin, 192 on-site investigations were conducted during that roughly
3 6-week time-period. The known perpetrators, MUP had identified 28 HV
4 members, 194 civilian perpetrators, and 1 abuse of uniform with 15
5 unknown perpetrators.
6 Now, the first question is, can you tell us what "abuse of
7 uniform" means?
8 A. That was a frequently encountered problem in that period.
9 Namely, civilians would put on military uniforms and were not members of
10 the army or of the police. There were less such cases in terms of the
11 abuse of police uniforms. Most frequently these cases involved the abuse
12 of military uniforms.
13 Q. Is it consistent with your recollection that the Zadar-Knin
14 police administration conducted 192 on-site investigations during that
15 time-period. Does that sound right to you?
16 A. This seems a small number to me. I think that we had more onsite
17 investigations conducted, and the number of reported people was larger
18 but depends on when the data was received, when the information was
19 finally computer-processed, et cetera, because at that time we were only
20 establishing our computer database and system, so that -- perhaps that
21 might account for that. Otherwise, we in the police have this practice
22 that we have to finish all the paperwork within a month, so that has to
23 be done by the 4th or 5th of the month.
24 I notice here that the date given is the 2nd of October. I
25 believe that I saw in the earlier criminal complaints that both Gosici
1 and Varivode were processed on the 4th of October so that these
2 complaints were written later.
3 Therefore, I don't know whether the information on the
4 then-murder was also entered in the statistics process by the police at
5 that time.
6 Q. Okay. But do you also agree that for that time-period that the
7 MUP had identified 28 HV members as -- at least 28 HV members as known
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Then, Mr. Kardum, I'd like to take you back to your 2004
11 statement, which is P896, page 6 in the English, please. And this is at
12 paragraph 33.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, if you would read the transcript, after
14 the "Q" for "Question," you will see often "Previous translation
15 continues." Could I ask you to make a pause as well.
16 MR. MISETIC: Sorry. Yes, Your Honour.
17 Your Honour, I don't know if Mr. Margetts has had a chance to
18 review it, but I'm reminded to ask for permission from the Chamber to
19 replace the English translation that's currently with D97 with the
20 corrected version.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, I haven't had a chance to review it
22 properly. I'll attempt to do so at the next break.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's just the three categories added, unless
24 we -- may I take it that if I would look at the original, which I have
25 not done yet, it might well be that I could immediately, myself, verify
1 whether this comes close to what apparently is added to the translation.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. Mr. President, I have attempted to do that
3 in the binder but haven't found the original. I've sent an e-mail to
4 just some other staff to assist me.
5 MR. MISETIC: I can inform counsel that the erroneous page was
6 one we picked up from 65 ter 4444, so you should be able to find the
7 original uploaded there, and then we made the correction now.
8 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence is allowed to upload, and if there's any
10 problem, we'd like to hear from you within 24 hours.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. Thank you.
12 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. MISETIC:
15 Q. Mr. Kardum, at paragraph 33 of your 2004 statement, the first
16 sentence says: "After Operation Storm, we in the civilian police could
17 only conduct investigations where the military were not suspected."
18 That's not accurate, is it?
19 A. It is absolutely not true. I can tell you exactly what the
20 actual sense of this should be. What paragraph did you say this was?
21 Q. 33.
22 A. After Operation Storm, we in the civilian police could conduct
23 investigations until it was established that the perpetrator of a
24 criminal offence was a military up to that point. Once it was
25 established that it was a member of the military that was the
1 perpetrator, we were to inform the military police, and the military
2 police would then in accordance with the legal regulations seize itself
3 of the matter and continue the investigation, and we would then further
4 agree on the further procedure.
5 Q. We need to clarify this point further. It's -- it's not simply
6 that you -- once you identify that the suspect was in the military but
7 that you specifically identify the perpetrator by his identity and that
8 he is a member of the military. Is that correct?
9 A. No, I don't think that that is fully correct. The moment we
10 arrived at the conclusion that the perpetrator could be a military, we
11 would have to seek the assistance of the military police in order to get
12 to that person and interview that person. I don't know whether you
13 understand me. Namely, I believe that I gave a fuller response to this
14 question when I said that the criminal offence was what was meritorious
15 for us. It was not the perpetrator but the criminal offence that we were
16 guided by. When we had probable cause to believe that someone could be
17 associated with a criminal offence, we had to deal with that in a
18 different way.
19 Q. However, in a situation where the identity of a perpetrator is
20 unknown for an unknown crime, let's say you found a body, it would not be
21 enough for you to stop an investigation because you suspect that the
22 murder might have been committed by someone in a military uniform,
24 A. Yes, absolutely correct. That is just an assumption. In respect
25 of every killed person, one could assume that the perpetrator might have
1 been this or that person, a civilian or a military. It could have been
2 under, inverted commas, the friendly side, or some people could have been
3 -- some Serbs could have been killed by Serbs. We just have the criminal
4 offence. We do not have the perpetrator yet, and of course, the civilian
5 police is the competent one to act. But we did make a distinction here
6 in a certain way between all those events which were not connected to
7 combat. But if we knew about some combat activities directly, for
8 instance, if we came to Knin, the police came there on the 6th of August,
9 and we find an enemy soldier dead, we would not investigate such a case.
10 That would be handled by the sanitization or civilian protection crew,
11 and they would be responsible -- except, of course, if we found out later
12 that that body had been the victim of a war crime.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I was also looking at the clock. I'm
14 aware that quite a few questions were put by the Bench. Could you give
15 us an indication as far as time is concerned.
16 MR. MISETIC: I will try to wrap up in 30 minutes, Your Honour,
17 maybe less.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you would then, also, go over the one
19 hour and 30 minutes you indicated, but we'll ask Mr. Registrar to give
20 full and detailed information, including...
21 Then we'll have a break. We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, I would like just to inform the Chamber that
25 I -- for the rest of the week I wouldn't be present in the courtroom due
1 to some emergency that occurs suddenly, and my absence, of course, with
2 the consent of our client, Mr. Kuzmanovic will take care of the Defence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I hope that the emergency is not of a sad nature.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: Unfortunately, it is, but I'll be back on Monday.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we feel sorry for the emergency being of
6 a sad nature for you.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I think you're two minutes off from
12 your one hour and a half according to the registrar. Could you please
13 finish within the next 15 to 20 minutes.
14 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
17 Q. Mr. Kardum, you've have heard I have 20 minutes, so I need you to
18 be very succinct in your answers, and we'll get through this material.
19 You described in the Varivode case and in the Gosici case that a
20 type of task force was created with the MUP and the military police. Why
21 wasn't General Gotovina asked to be a member of the task force?
22 A. As I've already said before, we never contacted officers other
23 than the military police. We exclusively worked with the military
24 police. Furthermore, at the time in question, I don't even know where
25 General Gotovina was, and I never communicated with him, and if there
1 were someone to communicate with him it would have been someone at a
2 higher level.
3 We contacted the military police alone. We generally contacted
4 lower level officers.
5 Q. Did there ever come a time in the Varivode or Gosici case where
6 you recall somebody saying, we need to involve the commander of the
7 Military District in the investigation, given that we suspect that
8 soldiers were involved?
9 A. No, I don't remember that ever anything like that was mentioned.
10 Q. I will save time. I was going to play a video, Mr. Kardum, which
11 was D508, and it is Minister Jarnjak at a press conference on the 8th of
12 August when he was asked a question about allegations that the Bosnian
13 army had crossed over into Croatia
14 may summarize, Minister Jarnjak said the police will go in, secure the
15 area, conduct an investigation, and take appropriate steps once the
16 perpetrator is identified.
17 Why weren't more incidents of burning in your area of
18 responsibility investigated in August/September 1995?
19 A. I've already tried to explain this earlier. We were very busy
20 with the tasks that we had at the very outset. Even before these
21 incidents of burning of houses, we were given priority tasks, which were
22 to secure the reception centres; to find mass graves where people, Croats
23 had been buried during the occupation; finding and marking the minefields
24 in order to prevent civilians from getting there by error; and there were
25 many instances where mines and explosives were discovered. And most
1 often the regular police when they would discover something like that
2 would inform the military police so that hundreds and hundreds of tons -
3 and I know exactly what I'm saying, I'm very aware of my words - so we
4 found hundreds and hundreds of tons of mines, shells, huge amounts of
5 ammunition, guns, weapons. There was barely a house that didn't contain
6 ammunition and weapons and so on.
7 So this is why one of the reasons why we did not conduct many
8 investigations into these burnings of houses because there was a fear
9 that there were some mines planted in the house, and we were especially
10 afraid of the mine fields because we didn't know where they were.
11 We had losses in this area, both in civilian casualties and
12 military casualties, and I recall this particular day when I was in Knin,
13 one of our special officers, special policemen was killed, and his
14 father, the man -- the boy had returned from the front line. He had
15 brought with him a hand-grenade, and the hand-grenade went off, and he
16 got killed and so on and so on.
17 I have to say one more thing here. As I already mentioned, there
18 were some 12.000 house, Croat houses that had been burned.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Is this what you were seeking?
22 MR. MISETIC: I was trying to stop it.
23 Q. But I do want to you answer what you were about to say. There
24 were 12.000 Croat houses that were burned. How do you know that?
25 A. I know the villages. I was born in a village between Benkovac
1 and Knin. I lived there until my 14th year, and I know some of these
2 villages, and I know by their names whether they were Croat or Serb
3 villages and which villages Croats had been expelled from.
4 I just wanted to stress this: We did not carry -- we did not
5 conduct investigations into these Croat houses because an investigation
6 into an arson, an instance of arson would take at least one day.
7 Q. So you didn't investigate the houses, the Croat houses that had
8 been burned down during the 4-year occupation? Is that your testimony?
9 A. Well, I wasn't -- I wasn't there for four years. I only spent a
10 year and a half on those tasks. But, no, we did not investigate those.
11 Q. What I'm saying is, once the area was liberated, you didn't
12 conduct investigations of the Croat houses that had been burned down
13 prior to Operation Storm, correct?
14 A. No, we did not conduct investigations.
15 Q. How -- where does this number of 12.000 Croat houses come from?
16 A. Well, I can give you an approximation of the villages where most
17 such houses were.
18 Q. No, no. Did you --
19 A. This is my free assessment.
20 Q. Okay. You've mentioned the POW centres, and I would like to put
21 certain matters to you in order to get your response. The Prosecution is
22 making certain allegations about those centres, and I'd like to read them
23 to you and get your response to them.
24 In paragraph 43 of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief, it says:
25 "In the centres, they", meaning the Serbs who were in the centres,
1 "became even more aware of the systematic abuse of Serbs."
2 The first question is, did the Croatian authorities who were
3 running the centre purposely tell Serbs or try to instill fear in the
4 Serbs who were in the centres?
5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MARGETTS: We're first of all referring to those who were
8 running the centre. Of course, that could include this witness, but it
9 seems to exclude him. And now we're asking about their purpose in doing
10 something hypothetical that they may or may not have done. I don't think
11 he can speak to their purpose.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we will see what his answer is, if he says, I
13 can't say anything, or he says, I can only tell you about this, or I
14 could -- I heard from colleagues about all the centres. We do not know.
15 I think there is nothing inadmissible as far as the question is
17 Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, regarding these
19 centres, I stress once again that I'm proud of the way they were run -
20 the centre in Zadar, at least - and that the citizens of the Republic of
22 incriminating offences that they had committed during the occupation of
23 these areas of Croatia
24 to proceed as a legal state. And as far as I know, no one was killed in
25 those centres. No one was tortured. They were given medical assistance,
1 and some of them didn't even enter the centres.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. MISETIC: Let me --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please focus on the question.
5 Mr. Misetic, I leave it to you.
6 MR. MISETIC:
7 Q. The specific question is, with respect to the centre in Zadar,
8 did you ever see anyone trying to instill fear into the people who were
9 in the centre?
10 A. No, absolutely.
11 Q. Next allegation is at paragraph 115 of the Prosecution's
12 pre-trial brief, and in it the Prosecution contends that: "The Serb
13 civilians were brought to collection centres, and from these collection
14 centres civilians were systematically transferred out of Croatia
15 Now, was it your experience with respect to the civilian and POW
16 facilities in Zadar that the Croatian authorities were systematically
17 transferring people from those centres and out of Croatia?
18 A. As for the reception centre for prisoners of war, I claim with
19 full awareness of what I'm saying that not a single person was
20 transferred outside of Croatia
21 and there was an order of 5 August that civilian individuals can be taken
22 over, and this referred to all -- to all adults who had their papers.
23 They just needed to provide their information, but I don't know of any
24 instances of anyone being transferred to one outside of Croatia.
25 As for the centres, what I said about the centres, I claim this
1 with full responsibility because I have direct knowledge.
2 Q. With respect -- you mentioned the order of the 5th of August for
3 -- in the civilian centre that they could leave if they had their papers
4 and if someone came for them.
5 What would happen in the instance of somebody who didn't have a
6 relative, a friend, somebody who would show up and assist them in leaving
7 the centre?
8 A. They could leave the centre without any impediment unless the
9 person was obviously unable to take care of themselves. Such individuals
10 were placed in hospitals or other medical institutions, and when I say we
11 would send them to these institutions, I mean the Croatian authorities.
12 And in the end, when the schools were supposed to reopen on the 1st of
13 September, a number of individuals remained there. Most of them were
14 elderly and bedridden individuals, and they were hospitalised in a wing
15 of the Knin hospital. This was a new hospital buildings that had been
16 built, and this is where these persons were hospitalised.
17 Q. Finally on this topic, paragraph 125 of the Prosecution's
18 pre-trial brief. This is a question about the reception centre in Knin.
19 The allegation is that Serb civilians and surrendered RSK soldiers were
20 detained in Croatian barracks and collection centres where they were
21 regularly beaten and forced to work.
22 Now, you're the chief of investigations for Zadar-Knin police
23 administration. Did you ever receive reports of civilians in collection
24 centres being beaten or forced to work?
25 A. No, absolutely not. That is something that someone invented. I
1 was in Knin. I visited the collection centre there -- the reception
2 centre. They were not detained there, neither the civilians nor the
3 soldiers. They were just brought there. We could not detain anyone.
4 I've already said this. The police could not detain anyone. They could
5 only take someone in. The courts would detain people. God forbid that
6 we would ever try to force someone to labour, to work, either civilians
7 or soldiers.
8 Q. Mr. Kardum, I'd like to ask you about two deaths that are in the
9 Prosecution's further clarification.
10 MR. MISETIC: The first one is if we could call up P251, please.
11 Q. Mr. Kardum, this is an incident report filed by UNCIVPOL
12 regarding the discovery of the body of Gojko Komazec. Did you
13 participate in the investigation of the death of Gojko Komazec?
14 A. Yes. I have to stress that I had friendly ties indirectly with
15 this man, although I didn't know him. He was the uncle of a well-known
16 Croat basketball player, Arijan Komazec, and chance would have it that I
17 knew his uncle, Milan Komazec, who lived in Zadar. He was the father of
18 this basketball player, Arijan. And at some point in time, Milan
19 me and he said that he thought his brother was in this area, so then I
20 asked the commander of the police station in Gracac to inform me of any
21 -- anything he knew about a person named Gojko Komazec. He told me that
22 they had no information.
23 In the month of March 1996, the Croatian police discovered a dead
24 body on which documents were found bearing the name of Gojko Komazec in a
25 place called Vevudic [phoen], not far from Zrmanja, which is the border
1 area between Knin and Gracac. And on this occasion, the investigating
2 judge, a pathologist, and the district attorney were called. If I
3 recall, the pathologist determined that some bones were broken on this
4 body and this was probably caused by a fall from a high place. This
5 individual was then buried in the Zadar cemetery, a number was assigned
6 to this grave, and his -- the brother of Gojko Komazec knew of this. He
7 was aware of this.
8 Now, there was another man called Gojko Komazec who was born the
9 same year in the same place, but these are two different individuals.
10 One of them is the father of Jovan - this is the dead man - and the other
11 one was another person whose son's was Uras.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The son of Uras, interpreter correction.
13 Q. Thank you. The second incident is, there was a witness who came
14 to the Trial Chamber whose last name was Sovilj who talked about his --
15 members of his family that had been killed in the Gracac area. Did you
16 participate in the investigation of the murders of members of the Sovilj
18 A. Yes. We processed this case in 2001 or 2002, and we were very
19 careful. We paid a lot of attention to this investigation. A whole team
20 of men from my section was involved in this, including me personally,
21 because we were informed through a policeman who is a member of our staff
22 about a possible perpetrator or a probable perpetrator of this murder.
23 He told our policeman a story about a Croat soldier of Serb ethnicity who
24 murdered this man immediately in the wake of Operation Storm because of
25 some property issues that they had, and we paid a lot of attention to
1 this investigation. We find a lot of consistencies in their stories --
2 in his story. There were two members of this family, Sovilj Mira --
3 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter did not catch the other
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpreted] -- and they were buried in the
6 graveyard there.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We searched this home thoroughly,
10 and we found body parts, charred body parts. We think that they were
11 body parts because it was just a small pile of charred leftovers, and we
12 sent this to a forensic lab for them to determine whether these were
13 human remains or not.
14 We investigated this, whether the perpetrator was this Croat
15 soldier of Serb ethnicity, but so far we haven't been able to establish
16 whether he was the perpetrator of this criminal --
17 Q. Your Honour, how much -- do I have any time left? I have one
18 topic left. Let me --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I was listening to the French channel, so I missed
20 your last words. I see in the transcript only "Previous translation
22 MR. MISETIC: Sorry.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So I don't know what you had in mind.
24 MR. MISETIC: Do I have any time left? I have one topic left,
25 less than five minutes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If it's really less than five minutes.
2 MR. MISETIC: It is, and I'll stop if it's not.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And 4 minutes, 58 seconds is not less than
4 five minutes. That's approximately three minutes, yes.
5 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Can we have P918, please, on the screen.
7 Q. This is a warning that you were shown yesterday by the
9 MR. MISETIC: If we could get the English.
10 Q. I'm just going to ask you a few questions and then show you
11 another document. But in it, do you have any familiarity with how the
12 Ministry of Defence works? For example, do you note that this order does
13 not go through the military chain of command but it goes through the
14 political line? Do you have any knowledge of how the military functioned
15 at that time?
16 A. As far as I know, the Ministry of Defence has operating within it
17 the Main
18 commands the Croatian army on behalf of the president of the state,
19 whereas the ministry is to provide the logistical, legal, and other
20 support to the armed forces, namely everything which comes under the
21 chief of staff.
22 Q. If we could go, in light of the time ...
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. MISETIC: 65 ter 2052, please.
25 Q. This is a report, the next day from the chief of the political
1 affairs unit or from an assistant in the political affairs department to
2 the chief of the political affairs unit.
3 MR. MISETIC: And if we could go to the next page, please.
4 Q. And here it talks about the measures that were taken by the
5 political affairs branch to prevent crime before Storm.
6 MR. MISETIC: If we can go to page 3 of the English, please.
7 Q. It says: "Both before and after combat operations, we made the
8 maximum effort to indicate to members through the service the importance
9 of exemplary and dignified entries into towns."
10 Goes on to say: "They endeavour to prevent unnecessary
11 devastation of religious, cultural, commercial, and civilian buildings.
12 In cooperation with SIS and the military police, many attempts were
13 prevented. Despite the measures taken, a certain number of civilian and
14 commercial buildings were destroyed either in part or completely."
15 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn -- go to the bottom of the page
16 and then turn the page.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is four minutes now.
18 MR. MISETIC: Last question, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. MISETIC:
21 Q. "The number of such negative instances could have been reduced
22 with better and more coordinated work between the civilian and military
23 police and all structures of civilian and military government."
24 My question to you, Mr. Kardum, is that was your experience as
25 well, was it not? There was a lack of coordination between the civilian
1 and military branches that in addition to the problems that we talked
2 about at the beginning of my examination also contributed to the
3 inability to establish law and order quickly. Is that correct? And I
4 need a short answer.
5 A. Your Honours, to corroborate this statement is the fact that
6 cities such as Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, and Gracac were completely,
7 almost completely preserved. I was in Knin on the 7th of August, and
8 Knin was 90 per cent intact. Nothing had been devastated except the
9 Catholic church of St.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It seems not to be the answer to your question.
13 MR. MISETIC: May I have this exhibit marked, Your Honour? I
14 tender it into evidence, and I'm complete.
15 MR. MARGETTS: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D810.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D810 is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, you're still in a position that you have no
22 MR. KAY: Nothing arises, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Mr. Margetts.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, a number of issues have arisen, so
1 if I could deal with them as quickly as possible, I'd --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
4 Re-examination by Mr. Margetts:
5 Q. Mr. Kardum, I have a few further questions for you arising from
6 some of the answers that you've given to Mr. Mikulicic and Mr. Misetic.
7 The first matter that I'd like to discuss is notification of
8 complaints of crimes from international organisations.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if I could please have 65 ter 5486
10 displayed, and as that comes up on the screen I'll just explain. This is
11 not a document that's on our 65 ter list. It is a cover letter that was
12 disclosed in July 2007. The document that it encloses has been the
13 subject of -- is on our 65 ter list.
14 Q. Mr. Kardum, if you could look at that document there and confirm
15 that that's your signature there and you've directed this to the sector
16 of criminal police in Zagreb
17 A. This is my signature here, as far as I can see.
18 Q. Yes. And would have this letter been directed to Mr. Nadj?
19 A. Yes. The crime police sector as it is written here, to Mr. Nadj.
20 Q. I'd just like to show you the enclosure.
21 MR. MARGETTS: And, Mr. Registrar, if you could please present 65
22 ter 4623. And if you could just go to the top of the Croatian, as well,
24 Q. You'll see, Mr. Kardum, that there's your -- the facsimile number
25 of the criminal department and your name there and that it's from the
1 commander of Knin UNCIVPOL to the commander of the Knin police station.
2 And if we just look at a couple of examples, for instance, the first
3 example there. We have information about someone being captured by
4 Croatian soldiers. The second example is information about people being
5 killed by Croatian soldiers.
6 Do you recall receiving that and forwarding it on to Mr. Nadj in
8 A. Can I just go through it a bit, please?
9 Yes, I see this text, and I can see my first and last names
10 written up here.
11 Q. And can you confirm that you forwarded that to Mr. Nadj in
13 A. That is evident from the first section if that is a component
14 part of this letter.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, if could I have the cover letter
16 entered into evidence and together with this appendix to that cover
17 letter, so that's 65 ter 5486 and 65 ter 46 -- 623.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 MR. MISETIC: I don't have an objection to the admission, but I
21 think the purpose of the document should be put to the witness as to why
22 -- what the purpose is and why it's being admitted.
23 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. No contest from me. I do have another
24 document which is of a similar nature which I'd like to show the witness
25 and put the question to the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it seems that Mr. Margetts wants to establish
2 that this document was sent by the witness to Zagreb, and if he has any
3 further questions, we'll hear from him or, as a matter of fact, the
4 witness will hear from him.
5 Mr. Margetts, then, Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 05486, that becomes Exhibit
7 number P921; and 65 ter 04623 becomes Exhibit number P922.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P921 and P922 are admitted into evidence.
9 I don't know whether it's very practical to have it under two
10 numbers, but for the time being we leave it as this.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if I could please have document
12 identification 1D54-0033 produced on the screen.
13 MR. MISETIC: Again, Your Honour, this is the same objection
14 that's now the subject of a pending motion, just for the record.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, and Your Honour, this is a cover page which
16 -- as Mr. Misetic indicates that we've received from the Defence, and it
17 -- the enclosure is D179 under seal.
18 Q. But if, Mr. Kardum, you could please look at this document, and
19 could you confirm that, again, this is it a letter that you send to
20 Mr. Nadj; and could you please just have a look at the second
21 paragraph and confirm that you asked Mr. Nadj for further instructions as
22 to how to proceed?
23 A. Yes, that is my signature.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
25 So, Mr. Kardum, can you confirm that you in fact did receive
1 complaints from internationals in relation to crimes that had occurred on
2 the territory?
3 A. Can I please see the second page of this document?
4 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, does this move to a second page?
5 It did -- yes.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see that this document was
7 sent to Ivica Cetina and not to Ivo Kardum.
8 MR. MARGETTS:
9 Q. You can confirm, however, that you did receive this and this is a
10 list of complaints from internationals?
11 A. Yes. It was received by the police administration by the chief
12 Ivan Cetina. After talking about it, we forwarded it to the ministry,
13 and that was after the date which this document bears, which is the 27th
14 of September. Immediately after that date, we had this great project
15 that we embarked upon to process various crimes. I actually asked the
16 head for his instructions, meaning to ask for assistance. So he arrived
17 and the Assistant Minister Benko and with an entire entourage of police
18 officers who came to conduct this procedure about all these murders that
19 were referred to in the document. But I do have an objection to raise in
20 respect of the representatives of the international community because
21 they informed us about crimes that have happened on 4th or 5th of
22 August on the 27th. I wonder why did they not inform us immediately
23 because I believe that there are also some falsehoods in the text, and it
24 is a question of --
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. How they got by their information. One of the persons referred
2 to is Gojko Komazec.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, if I could have this marked for
5 identification in light of Mr. Misetic's reservations.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the English and the Croatian copies
7 on our screen at this moment. They are of different dates, the one 23rd
8 of September, 1995; the other one of the 19th September, 1995.
9 Now, it may well be that in the routine at that time that two
10 versions were not produced exactly at the same time, but could we look
11 again at the previous one where apparently this witness writes a letter
12 and forwards the ... because I'd like to look at the ...
13 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There, at least I didn't see that, that at
15 least there's specific reference made to a document submitted in a
16 language on a certain date, apparently not yet in B/C/S at that moment.
17 Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: I object on the basis of the motion that's
19 currently pending.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that's because of the disclosure of --
21 MR. MISETIC: Correct. It's not on the 65 ter list as part of
22 the disclosure.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's on the record. So apart from that
24 objection, there are no other objections. Then we'll deal with that
1 I'll discuss with my colleagues how to deal with it, either to
2 have them marked for identification. I think we admitted the previous
3 document where there was a similar objection.
4 MR. MARGETTS: The first one that I presented today was just one
5 that we -- had become relevant and I sought to add to the 65 ter list,
6 but it emanated from the Prosecution, so --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you earlier referred to a pending motion
8 and objection based on that, isn't it?
9 MR. MISETIC: Well, that motion has many or multiple components,
10 one of which is that these documents are not on the 65 ter list, but
11 there's also an Article 21 argument in the motion.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll further analyse what decisions on admission
15 were taken earlier and see whether we have to review those decisions in
16 light of the pending motion for this document. At least at this moment,
17 it will be marked for identification.
18 Mr. Registrar, that would be number...
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P923 marked for identification,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Mr. Kardum, at the start of your examination by Mr. Misetic, he
24 indicated the change in the geographic area that the police were
25 responsible for after Operation Storm, and I'd just like you to indicate,
1 was it the case that in that additional area, the Knin area and
2 surrounds, there was a very great change in demographics during and
3 immediately after Operation Storm; that is, did a lot of people depart
4 from at that territory?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is this an issue in dispute?
6 MR. MARGETTS: The issue being I --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I know. I do understand --
8 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- that you want to inform the Chamber of the fact
10 that if there's less population, there's less work to be done, isn't it?
11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But the fact you're seeking to establish seems to be
13 not in dispute. Please make a clear distinction between what you could
14 argue at a later stage and whether this is any fact that is in dispute.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's argumentative at this moment.
17 MR. MARGETTS:
18 Q. And in early August 1995, Mr. Kardum, there were many military
19 personnel on the territory, the newly acquired territory or liberated
20 territory under your police administration, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now --
23 A. "Many" is a relative concept. There were soldiers, yes.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if I could please have D49
1 Q. Mr. Kardum, I'm going to show you again the 18 August order from
2 Mr. Moric, and we dealt with that in the course of the examination. In
3 particular, we dealt with paragraph 5.
4 In this order, there's a reference by Mr. Moric, and if we could
5 just stay on that first page there, please, Mr. Registrar, for a moment.
6 There's a reference for Mr. Moric that you will see there, Mr. Kardum, to
7 the fact that there were many acts perpetrated by individuals wearing
8 Croatian army uniforms.
9 And if we can please turn over now to paragraph 5, you will see
10 that, again, this is the paragraph we looked at a day or so ago. It says
11 if the military police cannot perform the tasks, then the police will do
12 it, irrespective of whether the perpetrator wears a Croatian army
14 Now, at that stage, what was your practice in relation to these
15 incidents where the perpetrator was wearing a Croatian army uniform?
16 MR. MISETIC: If you could establish what time-period we're
17 talking about.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
19 MR. MARGETTS:
20 Q. The time-period, Mr. Kardum, indicated in this correspondence,
21 the correspondence is 18 August. So in the period from the 5th of
22 August to 18 August, and if there is a distinction, please make it, but
23 I'm also interested in the remainder of August.
24 A. This letter by Mr. Moric was sent by Mr. Moric, the assistant
25 minister of the regular police, to the chief of the police
1 administration. I'm not quite sure whether and when I received this
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- the question is not when you received it but
4 what your practice was at that time, between the 5th and the 18th of
5 August, if -- of course, in view of this instruction, whether you did act
6 alone irrespective of whether the perpetrator wore a Croatian army
7 uniform or not.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The practice was as I described it
9 before. Namely, we would detain them until the military police came. We
10 would process them if there was no military police, and then we would
11 subsequently inform the military police thereon, and I have described
12 this several times, I believe.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Did the practice change after the 18th of August?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in particular, no.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that you described the practice also
16 before the 18th of August.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. You were also asked about the process of sanitation, and I'd just
21 like to confirm with you that there were -- there was a distinct
22 responsibility for sanitation that -- that the civil protection
23 department had, and that was a different responsibility to the
24 responsibility of the criminal administration had for criminal
25 investigation. Is that correct?
1 A. I do not quite understand your question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any -- it seems so obvious to me that is
3 the whole line of the way in which the witness answered all of the
4 questions. Is there any need to --
5 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President. There appears to be an issue
6 that arose. If I could please have D233 displayed.
7 Q. This, Mr. Kardum, may assist you.
8 This is an order from Zdravko Zidovec, and you've seen this
9 before. It's been referred to in your 2007 witness statement. And if
10 you could just look at this order, you will see that Zdravko Zidovec, the
11 assistant minister responsible for civil protection, has indicated the
12 various tasks that will be performed in respect of the identification of
14 And so can you please look at that and confirm that there's no
15 reference in any part of this order to any investigative steps?
16 A. Zdravko Zidovec was the assistant minister for civilian
17 protection affairs, and what you have just stated is correct. He was not
18 in charge of the crime police.
19 Q. And it's the case that the forensic technicians that were
20 assigned to the sanitation teams were assigned to teams that came under
21 the jurisdiction of Zidovec and more immediately, Cemeron. Is that
23 A. No. They were under the jurisdiction of the assistant minister
24 for the crime police. They were part of the crime police, but at that
25 moment they were assigned to assist the civilian protection crews working
1 on the territory, and their specific assignments are spelled out in Items
2 1 and 2 of this order.
3 Q. And also, we had the opportunity to see the order that came from
4 Maric on the 6th of August. And similarly, the task prescribed was one
5 of identification, correct?
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 Q. And the issue that I want to ask you directly about is this.
8 A. Maric --
9 Q. The role that we saw prescribed by Zidovec's --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, it seems that your last question did
11 not receive -- the answer to your last question was not interpreted.
12 It's [Microphone not activated] appear on the transcript.
13 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. Can I -- the interpreter failed to
14 switch on her microphone. Can I repeat it? I know what it was.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you can repeat the answer, please do so.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He was the chief of all
17 forensic technicians at the level of the MUP. He was generally the chief
18 of all the forensic technicians.
19 MR. MARGETTS:
20 Q. Yes. That's not specifically my question. My question is, we've
21 seen Zidovec's order, and earlier we've seen Maric's order. We also had
22 the benefit of seeing the crime police sector minutes from the meetings
23 that were held in Zagreb
24 prescribed there, and it was one of identification, wasn't it? That was
25 the role that they were given.
1 A. That's right, and that is in Item 1.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I'm looking at the clock. How much
3 time would you --
4 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, I really -- I could complete the
5 examination in the next five minutes, certainly.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the Defence already indicate whether the
7 questions put until now trigger any need for further questions?
8 MR. MISETIC: I'm hoping that Mr. Margetts will put to him what
9 he wants to interpret this order as. If he does that, then I won't ask
10 any questions. If he doesn't, I'm going to put it to him in one
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then with the indulgence of the interpreters and
13 everyone else who assists us, I'd like to finish, as a matter of fact,
14 and that should be done within the next eight minutes unless this finds
15 strong opposition.
16 Well, I haven't -- as to the objections, I hear of no strong
18 Thank you very much already in advance.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts, and stick to your time estimates.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President. At Mr. Misetic's
21 invitation, I'll move straight to the issue, and that is this.
22 Q. That the forensic technicians who were assigned to the sanitation
23 teams, they performed the task of identification of the bodies, but they
24 didn't conduct any onsite investigation, did they?
25 A. I wouldn't agree with you completely because they photographed
1 the site -- the scene of the crime, which is part of on-site
2 investigations, which is part of the forensic technician's job. So not
3 completely, but in part they did perform some investigative actions.
4 Q. And those investigative actions are prescribed in the orders of
5 Zidovec and in the order of Maric that we saw?
6 A. That's right. Maric was a lower-level officer in the criminal
7 police. He was the subordinate to Mr. Zidovec, and I think that he even
8 referred to this order from Mr. Zidovec. He was the chief of all
9 forensic technicians in Croatia
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum. That concludes my questions.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, no further questions.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kardum -- yes.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, there is one issue, and that's the
16 exhibits that I need to tender. If we could attend to that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I take it that we'll deal with that
18 tomorrow --
19 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- and not ask more from those who are assisting us.
21 Mr. Kardum, this concludes your testimony. I would like to thank
22 you for coming the far way to The Hague and for having answered the
23 questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I'd like to
24 wish you a safe trip home again.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we adjourn, and we'll resume tomorrow,
2 Thursday, the 25th of September, quarter past 2 in the afternoon in
3 Courtroom I.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of
6 September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.