1 Monday, 10 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone, both in and just outside
6 the courtroom.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning 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 Ms. Mahindaratne, is the Prosecution ready to call its next
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. But prior to commencement
15 of examination, I have been informed by the Defence that -- that they
16 would like to address the issue of the admissibility of some documents,
17 and I think it might be efficient for both parties --
18 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to this witness?
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
22 Thank you.
23 I have some substantial comments on the admissibility of a number
24 of the documents that the Prosecution seeks to adduce through this
25 witness. I also understand that Mr. Mikulicic has some comments, also
1 Mr. Misetic.
2 You know already, I think, Your Honours, that the Cermak Defence
3 team filed three motions last week on Saturday, addressing this
4 particular issue, and I won't rehearse now all of the arguments that we
5 made then, but I will summarize the essence of those arguments.
6 Our objection relates to two categories of documents that the
7 Prosecution seek to bring in through this witness: First of all, a
8 series of MUP Ministry of Interior Official Notes which are in the form
9 of statements of certain witnesses, including one concerning Mr. Cermak;
10 and, secondly, we object specifically - and I think this objection will
11 be unique to us, and it won't be objected to by the other Defence team -
12 to three media articles, which I will deal with finally.
13 The MUP Official Notes first, and if it assists, Mr. President, I
14 can give you the 65 ter numbers of those documents. They are 65 ter
15 2344, which is an MUP Official Note of Draginja Djuric; 65 ter 3298,
16 relating to an MUP Official Note from Nada Surjak; 65 ter 6085, relating
17 to Veselin Karanovic; 65 ter 6086, relating to Marija Djuric; and,
18 lastly, 65 ter 4388, an MUP Official Note relating to Ivan Cermak.
19 All of those MUP Official Notes are addressed in the written
20 pleadings that we filed on Saturday. We would like to add a further
21 three documents now, orally, to our motion, which address those Official
22 Notes in respect of Nada Surjak, Veselin Karanovic, and Marija Djuric,
23 and they are these: 65 ter 327, relating to MUP Official Note for Zeljko
24 Sacic; 65 ter 2655, relating to Branko Balunovic; 65 ter 326, relating to
25 Mladen Markac.
1 Our grounds and, very briefly, Your Honours, because we argue
2 this matter in the three filings that we made on Saturday, these MUP
3 Official Notes purport to be witness statements. They are, in effect,
4 hearsay, and the ones that I have specifically reference that we object
5 to go to the acts and conduct, or the alleged acts and conduct, of
6 Mr. Cermak.
7 They have no indicia of reliability. They are, in effect,
8 summaries of an interview with a witness made by a Croatian police
9 officer, and it seems that they were made after the event, so after the
10 interview. They are not signed by the witness. They were not taken down
11 by the Croatian police for any form of criminal proceedings. They are
12 not contemporaneous with the events in question, in Grubori. This
13 witness who is coming before you today simply received these documents.
14 He cannot say anything about the truth of the content of these particular
15 notes. They are not formal statements in the sense, as we understand
16 them in this court.
17 Now, in particular, they go, as I have said, to the acts and
18 contact of the accused; and both the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal and
19 also this Trial Chamber in another case has advised extreme caution in
20 admitting out-of-court statements about the acts and conduct of the
21 accused which cannot be tested by the Defence.
22 What I mean by this is the following: We cannot cross-examine
23 this witness on the content of those statements, because he cannot speak
24 to the content of those statements.
25 And if we could, for a moment, Your Honour, please, go into
1 private session, because I want to address a matter which I think
2 absolutely exemplifies what I'm trying to say here.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
4 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Very briefly, Your Honours, in respect of three
18 media articles, 6102, 6103, and 3476. 6102 is an article entitled "Five
19 Chetniks killed." It makes no mention of events in Grubori at all.
20 There are unidentified sources within that document. It characterizes
21 acts and conduct of Mr. Cermak. We cannot cross-examine this witness on
22 the truth of the content of that particular journalistic article, which
23 is full of journalistic comment, and it is very difficult to separate
24 what is possibly attributed to Mr. Cermak and what is journalistic
1 The Prosecution should call, at the very least, the journalist
2 who wrote this article so that we can at least try and get to the bottom
3 of the nature of this article.
4 We make the same comments in respect of 65 ter 6103, and we make
5 the same comments in respect of 3476.
6 If you'd just allow me, Your Honour, one moment to consult with
7 my colleague, but I think I may have finished my submissions. Thank you.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour, I have no further comment.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
11 Markac Defence has notified that it will join the submissions by
12 the Cermak.
13 Mr. Mikulicic, would you like to add?
14 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would like
15 to add one more aspect, which refers to the Official Notes.
16 As for the formal legal value of Official Notes in Croatia
17 criminal proceedings, it will be explained to us by a witness at least in
18 cross-examination, the witness that worked on those issues for a number
19 of years.
20 However, I would like to remind everybody of the practice of this
21 particular Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber has already met with the
22 proposal of introducing Official Notes in evidence, however, when we were
23 faced with an Official Note drafted by the MUP of the Republic of Croatia
24 with respect to the witness was sitting in the courtroom. Then, for
25 procedural matters, the witness would be asked whether the Official Note
1 reflected the contents of the interview with the MUP official. Some
2 witnesses would confirm that that was the case with minor amendments.
3 However, some witnesses, for example, Stjepan Buhin, clearly stated that
4 the Official Note did not reflect the contents of the interview that they
5 had; and in such a situation, the Trial Chamber would disallow the
6 admission of such an Official Note into evidence.
7 Now we are faced with a difference situation. We are dealing
8 with the Official Notes of the persons who will not come to this
9 courtroom as witnesses, who cannot say anything about the veracity of the
10 notes; and the Defence does not have the possibility to cross-examine
11 such witnesses.
12 Thus, the Markac Defence conclusion and proposal is identical to
13 the Cermak Defence, and that is that there is it no grounds for these
14 Official Notes that the OTP proposed to be admitted to, indeed, be
15 admitted into evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 I would join in my colleagues with respect to notes that go to
19 specifically the acts and conduct of the accused, which I think is
20 particular situation here. This is where we join their objection.
21 I would also like to put on the record that, over the weekend,
22 the Prosecution filed its response to our 92 bis application where it
23 opposed the admission into evidence of a statement taken by the OTP, I
24 think even years before the statements taken that they are trying to
25 admit today that were taken by the MUP. Our position is that the
1 Prosecution cannot have it both ways. A statement taken by Prosecution
2 which the Defence would like to tender through the cross-examination of a
3 witness soon to be before the Chamber, to us, from the Prosecution's
4 perspective, should be more reliable than a note of an interview taken by
5 the Croatian police.
6 Nevertheless, we, in particular here with the Gotovina Defence,
7 are in the position where OTP is objecting to the admission of a
8 statement taken by the OTP, which we would seek certification for, on the
9 basis that OTP cannot cross-examination the witness that it, itself,
10 interviewed; while, on the other hand, today coming into court and
11 seeking to tender witness interview notes of the Croatian police, which
12 none of the three defendants can cross-examine.
13 Our broad interest here, Your Honours, is to try to achieve some
14 sort of coherent policy with respect to the admissibility of statements
15 generally. And if the Prosecution believes that statements given to the
16 Croatian MUP that cannot be cross-examined should be admitted, it is our
17 position that the Chamber should take a similar approach with respect to
18 statements taken by OTP, particularly where the Defence is proposing to
19 the follow the procedures outlined in Rule 92 bis.
20 Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Ms. Mahindaratne.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I first respond to Mr.
24 Misetic's argument. I think the jurisprudence here is very clear; that
25 is, a statement obtained for the purpose of judicial proceedings, the
1 current judicial proceedings, are statements which fall within the scope
2 of 92 bis, 92 ter, and 92 quater; and unless the requirements of those
3 rules are fulfilled, they cannot be admitted. However, a statement which
4 has been obtained or given to national authorities or other agencies, not
5 for purposes of this particular proceedings before court, are admissible.
6 I think that's the current jurisprudence, and, in fact, I can, if
7 necessary, cite the references in the Haradinaj decision and established
9 So there is a legal basis for the admission of this -- these
10 records of interviews conducted by officials of the Ministry of Interior.
11 Apart from that, Mr. President, there is also a factual basis
12 contrary to what Mr. Cayley said. This witness is in a position and he
13 has already through his supplementary statement identified these notes.
14 Those were interviews conducted pursuant to an investigation initiated by
15 this witness in 2001. And upon his instructions -- upon his
16 instructions, the officials of the Ministry of Interior conducted the
17 interviews and then submitted the interview notes to him, and he has
18 perused each one of them. In fact, in his supplemental statement, he
19 even goes on to say that he identified certain notations and markings on
20 these records of interview made by himself. So there is a factual basis.
21 Apart from which, based on these notes, the witness has made
22 certain indicia to continue with the investigation. So, it is not -- it
23 is material that these statements were made, they were recorded; and
24 based often these notes, the witness has made certain indicia.
25 So there is a factual basis and a legal basis for admissibility.
1 Apart from which, comparison of these statements, particularly if you
2 compare the record of interview between Veselin Karanovic and Marija
3 Djuric, there is consistency on the -- between the versions, which adds
4 to the indicia of reliability. This is a mere matter of whether that
5 goes weight that the Trial Chamber will consider at the appropriate
7 So my submission is there is a legal basis and factual basis for
8 admission of these notes for interview, and they differ substantially
9 from statements obtained by investigators of the OTP or investigators of
10 Defence for purposes of these trial proceedings.
11 With regard to the three press articles addressed by Mr. Cayley,
12 that is, 65 ter 6102 and 6103, they are enclosures to a document that is
13 65 ter 2572; that is, a memo sent by the current witness to the
14 Sibenik-Knin police administration, instructing them to continue with the
15 investigation. In fact, the witness has enclosed these two articles with
16 that letter and has sent it to the Sibenik-Knin police administration
17 giving them notice that based on those press articles that they are to
18 take certain investigative steps.
19 Now, the Defence has not objected to the letter; that is, 2572.
20 It is included in the 92 ter submission. These two press articles are,
21 in fact, enclosures. If you take away the attachments, the letter itself
22 is incomplete, so it does not make any sense to keep away the two press
24 Apart from which, the relevance of the press clippings is that
25 during the particular time is the fact that the crimes had occurred had
1 been published in newspapers, which goes to the issue of notice. So
2 Mr. Cayley's arguments on the inability to cross-examine the journalist
3 who wrote the press articles doesn't apply any longer, because it is a
4 matter that these incidents have been openly published and, as such, is
5 relevant and has probative value.
6 I have nothing further to add, Mr. President, unless there is any
7 particular issue you want me to address.
8 Mr. President, may I also add - I'm sorry for going back - the
9 Defence itself has admitted records of interviews made by MUP officials,
10 and if I just give a couple of examples: D902, an Official Note of
11 interview with Nikola Vucinovic, recorded by Zadar-Knin crime police
12 department; and D8904, the Official Note of interview of David Marincic,
13 by the Zadar-Knin crime police department.
14 These are not witness who were here for any part to
15 cross-examination, and the Defence itself has tendered those notes, so,
16 obviously, the Defence itself acknowledges the admissibility of records
17 of interview made by the Ministry of Interior officials.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if I did not misunderstand the
19 Defence, the issue is that under no circumstances, an Official Note of an
20 interview could be admitted into evidence, but that the main two issues
21 being the first one if they go to the act and conduct of the
22 accumulative. Even if they would perhaps not literally fall within the
23 frame of Rule 92 bis, that would be a reason not to admit them. The
24 second one is that there is no -- that the witness cannot be
1 Now, of course, admission and the need for cross-examination are
2 not absolutely values. If the other party does not find a reason to
3 cross-examine the witness or if it is about the matter which is dealt
4 with in other evidence, then, of course, is not whether you can admit OTP
5 Official Notes or not. The issue is whether, under the present
6 circumstances, in view of what the Defence has argued, whether these are
7 admissible exhibits.
8 I think that's the issue; isn't it?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, with regard to -- I would say
10 that that is not an issue on which admissibility is dependant on. That
11 is a matter that Court will -- which goes to the weight of the documents
12 and not admissibility. Apart from which, the Prosecution wants to tender
13 these notes to establish that these statements were, in fact, made at
14 that particular time; and based on which, this witness has taken certain
15 steps to continue with the investigation.
16 When weighing the -- the truthfulness of the contents of the
17 documents, the Trial Chamber will have other material which may
18 corroborate or may contradict, and the Trial Chamber will have the
19 opportunity to consider the truthfulness of the contents. For example,
20 one of the press articles that I wish to tender, in fact, corroborates
21 one of the Official Notes to which the Cermak Defence objected. For
22 example, the interview note of Journalist Nada Surjak is fully
23 corroborated by the press article to which also the Cermak Defence has
25 So these matters are matters the Trial Chamber will consider
1 under -- when considering weight to be given to these notes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I can imagine that the Defence would come up with
3 the argument that if one evidentiary element is non-admissible, that the
4 fact that another non-admissible element of evidence would corroborate
5 that, then that would not be of great help to solve the problem.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I would say that the press
7 article is clearly admissible because, in fact, the Defence has tendered
8 several press articles. I think, in fact, it was in Mr. Cermak's Defence
9 that started tendering numerous articles, but I don't want to split hairs
10 here, Mr. President. I just want to point out that the press articles
11 indicate that contemporaneously these incidents were published. Now,
12 just on that basis, they're admissible, so the press articles are
13 admissible items of evidence.
14 My point is that an admissible item of evidence, in fact,
15 corroborates these admissible notes, and, therefore, the issue argued by
16 Cermak Defence is without merit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you say that since you're
18 so confident that the Chamber will reject the objection raised against
19 the press articles, that under those circumstances you can invoke the
20 press articles as corroboration.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I didn't quite say that, Mr. President. I'm
22 never confident about that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you say they're clearly admissible, where the
24 Defence argues that they're not, so that shows at least some confidence
25 in the argument of this debate, and you anticipate already on that.
1 Mr. Cayley.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honours, if I might just briefly address
3 the comments of my learned friend.
4 The MUP Official Notes that are partly the subject of this
5 application are not formal investigative steps. They are not part of the
6 formal judicial investigation that would have taken place in the Republic
7 of Croatia
8 inquiries in the case. My understanding of Croatian law - and I think
9 that Mikulicic will be asking the witness about this - is that these are
10 notes taken by the police submitted to the public prosecutor, who would
11 then submit those to the investigative magistrate who would be the
12 individual who would take formal statements from these witnesses.
13 So, in terms of their status within Croatian proceedings, they
14 are very low, indeed; and you will see, in our motions, they are not
15 admissible as evidence in proceedings in the Republic of Croatia
16 know, respectfully, the Court is not bound by the law of other states,
17 but I do respectfully submit that it is a matter that you should consider
18 when deciding whether or not these particular matters are -- these
19 particular notes are admissible.
20 My learned friend also made the point that reliability goes to
21 weight and not to admissibility, and I would respectfully correct her
22 here, that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal identifies essentially a
23 tipping point. I call it a tipping point because yes, it is true that
24 admissibility goes to weight, but there comes a point in time when the
25 indicia of reliability is so low in a document that it essentially ticks,
1 and the particular item in question is no longer admissible particularly,
2 particularly, where it goes to central issues in the case, such as here
3 the acts and the conduct of the accused. I would refer Your Honours to
4 the 2000 Appeals Chamber decision in Kordic and Cerkez, which is cited to
5 in our pleadings.
6 I would also note the decision in the Haradinaj case which was a
7 decision of this Trial Chamber, which examined statements that had been
8 taken by national authorities --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, if I may interrupt you, it is now the
10 second time that you say it: You're right and you're wrong. You're
11 right to the extent that it is Trial Chamber I, and you're wrong to the
12 extent that the panel of Judges in that case, of course, that there is
13 only one overlap with this case, which is certainly a minority.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Well, I wasn't suggesting, Your Honour ...
15 [Overlapping speakers] ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no --
17 MR. CAYLEY. [Overlapping speakers] ... decision of this Chamber.
18 It's of another Trial Chamber in another case, in the Haradinaj case,
19 where statements that were taken by national authorities, so not by the
20 Tribunal itself, not by the Office of the Prosecutor, and which did
21 address the acts and the conduct of the accused that were found to be
23 I can read here from that decision at paragraph 11: "The Chamber
24 refused to admit the evidence," these were essentially statements
25 compiled by national authorities, "refused to admit the evidence and held
1 that admitting statements concerning the acts and conduct of the accused
2 given by persons without the possibility to examine them in court would
3 create a high risk of prejudice to the Defence."
4 Your Honours, we assert the same position here.
5 Lastly, my learned friend stated that this witness can admit
6 these documents because he has received them.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, you started reading, and I'm just trying
8 to find paragraph 11, because circumstances were rather specific there;
9 isn't it? You were quoting a line, a line saying that a similar caution,
10 even it if not 92 ter statements, is appropriate, and that this is of
11 even greater importance - it says "import" - when the sources are
12 anonymous or unclear and when the material itself contains signs that
13 warrant specific signs as to its reliability.
14 I do remember from that case that there was a rather strong
15 suggestion supported by evidence that people were ill treated when they
16 came to police statements where they statements which, of course, is
17 something which at least I have not found here, until this moment.
18 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, that is a distinction that can be made,
19 but you will see in our filings over the weekend that we do suggest to
20 the Court that there are a number of factors which make these particular
21 MUP official documents unreliable. Different, you're absolutely right,
22 Your Honour, to the situation in Haradinaj, but nevertheless unreliable.
23 I won't go through them, I rehearsed them to you in my first
24 argument, but we still maintain that they are unreliable, they can't be
25 tested, and we do respectfully say that the Court should be extremely
1 cautious about admitting them. In fact, we assert that they should be
3 Lastly, the last point I make is simply this: My learned friend
4 stated that this witness can admit these documents because he can
5 identify them because he received them. Well, frankly, I could admit
6 those documents on them because I have received them and I can identify
7 them, but I can't say anything about the content of these documents about
8 what the witness's has actually stated.
9 This particular gentleman, whilst he is the public prosecutor, he
10 was the public prosecutor on this case, he did not attend these witness
11 interviews, and he cannot give evidence to this Court on what was
12 actually said in those interviews.
13 That is all that I wish to say, Your Honours. Thank you very
15 JUDGE ORIE: As far as the press articles are concerned,
16 Mr. Cayley, where Ms. Mahindaratne says it is not because I think this
17 journalist would know what had happened, but the importance is this type
18 of publications appeared at the time. Therefore, it seems to me that the
19 evidentiary -- the probative value, rather, is in the fact that these
20 stories were published, rather than to the truth of their contents. Is
21 that correct?
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
24 MR. CAYLEY: Well, if the Prosecution is saying that that is the
25 only reason that these documents are being admitted, that is one thing;
1 but these documents do contain suggestions, assertions about the acts and
2 content of Mr. Cermak. I do believe that my learned friend was talking
3 about corroboration of these sources by other evidence that is before the
4 Court. On that basis, particularly bearing in mind that there is
5 journalistic comment, particularly bearing in mind that it is very, very
6 difficult to identify the sources of these stories, we would still object
7 to those newspaper articles because we cannot cross-examine this witness
8 on acts and conduct. Notice, I accept, is another matter.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
10 Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President, just briefly in response
12 on the 92 bis issue.
13 Ms. Mahindaratne attempts to make the distinction that the
14 statements taken by OTP were taken for purposes of this proceeding and,
15 therefore, they are inadmissible because Rule 92 bis requirements have
16 not been fulfilled. That seems to be a rather circular argument, Your
17 Honour, because the fact of the matter is we have asked for the Rule 92
18 bis requirements to be fulfilled, and the Office of the Prosecutor is
19 objecting to allowing us to fulfil the Rule 92 bis retirements, on the
20 basis that the statements are not subject to cross-examination by the
21 Prosecution and are otherwise not reliable.
22 So it is a rather circular argument to say that that is what the
23 distinction is between OTP statements and statements given to the
24 Croatian police.
25 The OTP's position in objecting to 92 bis application is
1 precisely that, A, they cannot cross-examine the statement given to them;
2 and, B, that this witness in the 92 bis filing was not disclosed by the
3 Defence and under Rule 65. Well, those two issues are at play here;
4 similarly, they are now trying to tender statements, albeit given to the
5 Croatian police, that, A, are not subject to cross-examination by the
6 Defence, and, B, involving witnesses who were not disclosed pursuant to
7 Rule 65 ter
8 So I would suggest, Your Honour, that the Prosecution is
9 attempting to have it both ways here.
10 More broadly, and just as a matter of policy and for guidance
11 from the Trial Chamber, on this issue that the -- any statement given to
12 a party in these proceedings, that statement is inadmissible, per se,
13 unless the requirements of 92 bis and Rule 92 -- and/or Rule 92 ter are
15 I would suggest that, Your Honour, that is an artificial
16 distinction being created. While I completely understand that principle
17 with respect to statements taken by a party and then being tendered by
18 that party into evidence, there is an clear policy that would not support
19 such a practice by either the Prosecution or Defence.
20 We are in a different situation here and one that, perhaps, I
21 might suggest was not contemplated by Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 ter, which
22 is that statement taken by the opposing party, where the opposing party
23 was the one who had the opportunity to interview the witness and to
24 record what it is that that witness said in the interview, should
25 indicate that that statement is at least as reliable for the Trial
1 Chamber as a statement given to a third party; in this case, the Croatian
2 police. And what I am -- would particularly seek some clarification or
3 guidance on is the fact that what is the real policy distinction or the
4 real issue of reliability if in fact a statement given to -- between a
5 statement given to an opposing party within these proceedings and where
6 we are attempting to fulfil the requirements of Rule 92 bis, why that
7 statement should be deemed less reliable than a statement given to a
8 non-party where the requirements of neither Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 ter
9 are being fulfilled.
10 I would suggest, Your Honour, that these are artificial
11 distinctions that the Prosecution, in light of the arguments that it
12 raised in opposition to our Rule 92 bis filing, should either be required
13 to allow statements in -- in cross-examination if in fact the
14 requirements of the rules are fulfilled; or, if not, then should not be
15 allowed to tender witness statements of non-parties into evidence,
16 because the principles should be the same, Your Honour.
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, the argument that you can't have
19 the cake and eat it, could you please respond to that.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I think it is, needless to say,
21 that 92 bis is a -- 92 bis, 92 quater is -- they are exceptional
22 situations; that is, unless the conditions are fulfilled for a 92 bis
23 admission, they would not admitted.
24 Now, in the same vein, where the Prosecution attempts to tender
25 statements under 92 bis, the Defence would object if the Defence is of
1 the view that we have not fulfilled the particular criteria that is
2 required for admission of a statement under 92 bis. And, likewise, in
3 the given situation, the Defence attempted to admit a statement where the
4 Prosecution was of the view that the -- the witness could be brought to
5 court and be subject to cross-examination, and unless the specific
6 conditions have been fulfilled, you know, we had the right to object and
7 I think the final decision as to whether it was a matter which warrants a
8 statement to be admitted under 92 bis will be determined by Court.
9 So the fact that we objected to that given situation where the
10 Defence attempted to admit a statement under 92 bis does not in any way
11 contradict what I stated earlier with regard to the fact that statements
12 which fall within the scope of 92 bis, 92 quater, and 92 ter, unless the
13 criteria is fulfilled, would not be allowed to be admitted, as opposed to
14 statements which fall outside that scope. I don't think the Prosecution
15 was trying to have the cake and eat it, contrary to what Mr. Misetic
16 stated. It is just that in that given scenario the Prosecution was
17 satisfied that it had a basis to file an objection because we were of the
18 view that the Defence had not fulfilled, or the situation had not -- was
19 not of a -- the required conditions which would permit admission under
20 92 bis.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer. I must admit that I have
22 missed the response by the Prosecution against this matter and, of
23 course, it is now put into play, so to say. So, therefore, I -- there
24 was a lot of material filed, whereas I usually and my colleagues are very
25 often very much available over the weekend. That's not the same for
1 every weekend.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I did not get you. Did you say
3 when you said you missed the response with regard to the 92 bis objection
4 or ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: My response now or the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no. Your response now, it was clear and well
8 understood what you said, but the written submissions.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We did not file written submissions,
10 Mr. President, but with regard to the 92 bis, I could get the objections
11 to Court.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But I think, as a matter of fact, someone said had
13 been filed over the weekend. So, therefore, this could also have been
14 perhaps an a courtesy copy already given. Yes, but I hope the parties
15 will understand that if the courtesy copies are flying over in the
16 weekend and if the Chamber is not receiving copies, usually we wait until
17 a matter is filed unless we have a specific reason to expect that
18 something comes in, in which case we often ask for a courtesy copy.
19 My recollection is that the -- that we asked when a response
20 would be filed, and I think the answer we got at that time, that it would
21 be on Friday. Ms. Mahindaratne, on the 92 bis. I think I specifically
22 asked for that because we saw that there was some urgency in that matter.
23 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I can advise you that the OTP did in
24 fact file it Friday evening and serve courtesy copies on the parties and
25 the Chamber on Friday evening.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but, nevertheless then, I have missed that --
2 those written submissions.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to
6 take much more of your time or go over the same grounds again. However,
7 the exchange of arguments between the OTP and the Defence teams somehow
8 implies that we're talking about witness statements. However, I repeat,
9 Official Notes compiled by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of
11 don't contain any information to the witness about their right and
13 This is simply a piece of paper produced by the MUP after an
14 interview with a certain person, X/Y. Thus, this is not a statement, and
15 such a piece of paper, especially in the absence of the person who --
16 from whom the -- that piece of paper originated, cannot be subject to
17 Rules 92, bis, or ter, or whatever other rules.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is clear if there is no attestation from
19 those person that they cannot be introduced or admitted under Rule
20 92 ter. But that seems not to be the primary issue. The issue primarily
21 seems to be whether there other avenues through which the statements and
22 then for what purposes they could be admitted into evidence.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just add one thing, just
24 in response to what Mr. Cayley said, just a minor -- just a correction.
25 This witness did not merely receive, and I said this before but I -- just
1 so -- just to respond to Mr. Cayley. These notes were obtained, recorded
2 pursuant to the witness's instructions. He was directing the
3 investigation. I just wanted to point out that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think you said that out already, but at
5 least -- and if so, it is now twice on the record.
6 This is now twice on the record as well, the evidentiary status
7 of these documents, under Croatian law.
8 The Chamber will need some time to consider both the written
9 submissions and an oral argument that has been made this morning.
10 It is difficult to forecast time we would need. The parties are
11 invited to remain stand by.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I was informed that there was a technical problem as
14 well, with moving from one kind of session into other kind of session, a
15 matter which needs the urgent attention of our technicians.
16 Therefore, under those circumstances, and which -- just looking
17 at the clock, if we would restart at 10.30, so then we have a relatively
18 long break now, and that with one other short break, we might come
19 through this morning. Therefore, the parties are invited to remain stand
20 by, well, let's say, on from 25 minutes past 10.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 9.55 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the various matters, and
24 gives guidance to the parties as follows.
25 On the admission of the exhibits which were objected, the Chamber
1 gives a final decision on one only at this stage. The Chamber will not
2 admit into evidence the Official Note compiled on the 10th of January,
3 2002, which relates to an interview conducted in the Zagreb police
4 administration on the 9th of January 2002 of, well, let's say, the
5 interview given by Mr. Cermak.
6 As far as the other exhibits are concerned, the Chamber invites
7 the parties to have them marked for identification if there's any
8 objection against any of these documents, because the Chamber has
9 difficulties at this moment, where the witness is still available, to
10 finally assess whether any reliability concerns are opposing admission.
11 So, therefore, we'll take advantage of the availability of this witness,
12 and at the very end, we'll decide on the admission.
13 Then there was another matter that is about a 92 bis submission
14 made by the Defence opposed by the Prosecution. At this moment, the
15 Chamber is struggling with the stage of the proceedings, and we'll still
16 have to finally make up our mind whether or not this is an appropriate
17 way of proceeding. That's an element which is entirely apart from the
18 other matter raised therein, that is, the strict 92 bis requirements, and
19 whether the position taken by Prosecution, what consequences that should
20 have finally for the decision to be taken on the admission of exhibits,
21 specialty the Official Notes that were or at least that will be tendered
22 and provisionally marked for identification.
23 At least, Ms. Mahindaratne, where you said you withdraw one, I
24 take it that then you will tender the others.
25 We'll see that in the context of the respective submissions from
1 both parties, and then take them into consideration. But the timing, at
2 this stage of the proceedings, of course, is a matter which is rather
3 separate from that, and, therefore, the Chamber is not in a position yet
4 to decide on that matter. But, of course, we'll have to do that soon
5 because the witness, through which this 92 bis material would be
6 introduced, is on the list rather soon.
7 So, therefore, if this may guide the parties on how to proceed in
8 the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, then the Chamber will
9 finally decide on the matter. Then the reasons for already now deciding
10 not to admit the Official Note in relation to the, if I could say, the
11 Cermak interview, those will be given at a later stage. That needs some
12 careful formulation.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I note you didn't mention anything
14 about the articles. Is that included?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Articles are included, yes, at the same level.
16 Also, we'll deal with them, you can put questions about them. There are
17 many elements in those articles as we have discussed before the break,
18 such as, that it was published, what was published. Apparently, there is
19 also mentioning of what supposedly had been said by the accused. So,
20 therefore, that will be dealt with in a similar way.
21 At the same time, just to give an example, there is corroboration
22 about many days of rain, for example. That is a relatively neutral
23 element in the whole of it, but, of course, it's a complex matter, and
24 we'll finally decide on whether it goes to weight or whether it goes to
1 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to call your the witness?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. The Prosecution calls
3 Mr. Zeljko Zganjer.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zganjer, yes. No protective measures?
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Zganjer. I hope that I pronounced
9 your name in the right way.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, sure, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Which also confirms that you can hear me in a
12 language you understand.
13 Mr. Zganjer, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of
14 Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that
15 you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration of which the
17 text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Zganjer. Please be seated.
21 WITNESS: ZELJKO ZGANJER
22 [The witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zganjer, I saw that you took some documents out
24 of your bag. If during your examination you would feel any need to
25 consult any document, would you please tell me so that it's clear when
1 you are and when you're not consulting your documents.
2 Mr. Zganjer, you will first be examined by Ms. Mahindaratne.
3 Ms. Mahindaratne is counsel for the Prosecution.
4 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zganjer.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. Can you please state your full name for the record, please.
10 A. Zeljko Zganjer.
11 Q. What is your current occupation?
12 A. At this moment, I am a lawyer in Zagreb; I have my own private
14 Q. On 8th December 2005 and 12th July 2006, were you interviewed by
15 members of the Office of the Prosecutor?
16 A. Yes, that's right. November 2008 and July 2006.
17 Q. How about 8 December 2005
18 interviewed in 2005, December?
19 A. I agree.
20 Q. In the course of those two interviews when the representatives of
21 the Office of the Prosecutor asked you questions, did you answer them
23 A. I answered truthfully and to the extent of my recollection of the
24 details involved. I was asked questions about the circumstances of some
25 things that happened five or six years before, perhaps even more.
1 Q. Now, were those two interviews audio-recorded?
2 A. Yes, tape-recorded.
3 Q. Did you meet with members of the Office of the Prosecutor on
4 4th and 5th November 2008?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were you provided with audiotapes and the corresponding
7 transcripts of those tapes in advance of that meeting?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. At that meeting --
10 A. If I may, I would like to clarify something. I was provided with
11 the tapes of my interview. During the actual interview, on the 8th and
12 9th of November this year, I was given an addendum to my previous
13 interview with the ICTY investigators which was something that had not
14 been forwarded to me via e-mail. I looked at the addendum, and I have
15 had a chance to familiarize myself with its substance before coming here
16 to testify.
17 Q. Mr. Zganjer, I was going to ask you about the addendum which is
18 the supplementary statement, if you would allow me.
19 At that meeting - you referred to "addendum," and we use the term
20 "supplementary statement" here - at that meeting, did you provide a
21 supplementary statement to the Office of the Prosecutor; that is, on the
22 4th and 5th of November, 2008?
23 A. Yes. I supplemented my statement, and I explained some things
24 during my interview with the Prosecutor on the 8th and 9th of November,
1 Q. Yes, I was getting to that, Mr. Zganjer. I don't intend to in
2 any event not to lead that evidence, so if you just allow me.
3 Now, at that meeting, did you inform the representatives of the
4 Office of the Prosecutor that you had reviewed the transcripts of your
5 previous two interviews and that you made -- wanted to make a
6 clarification. Subject to that clarification, subject the contents of
7 the transcripts were accurate and true?
8 A. That's true. What you suggest is true. There were
9 clarifications, and the transcript of my interview was made to reflect
11 Q. And last evening, or perhaps this morning, did you have the
12 opportunity to examine your supplementary statement that you gave on the
13 4th and 5th November?
14 A. Yes, I did have the opportunity.
15 Q. And did the supplementary statement accurately reflect what you
16 had stated to the members of the Office of the Prosecutor on 4th and 5th
18 A. Yes, it did. There were some additional explanations that were
19 furnished, which I believe resulted in a greater degree of precision.
20 Q. Now, are the contents of the supplementary statement true, to the
21 best of your knowledge?
22 A. Indeed, true to the extent that I can recollect.
23 Q. Now, if you were asked the questions that were asked of you by
24 members of the Office of the Prosecutor on 8th December 2005, that is,
25 December 2005 interview; on 12th July 2006
1 November 2008, today here in court, would your responses be the same?
2 When I say "same," one would not expect it to be verbatim, but would the
3 substance be the same?
4 A. Yes, no doubt. I believe it would be essentially all the same.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move into evidence
6 the -- the tapes and the transcripts of the two interviews, and I refer
7 to them by the 65 ter number and the supplementary statement. The first
8 interview, that is, the interview of 8 December 2005, is under 65 ter
9 6083, and that includes four transcripts.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections against admission of 6083.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
13 Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1046.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P1046 is admitted into evidence.
16 The next one would be, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 65 ter 6084, and that's the interview on 12th
18 July 2006. That includes five transcripts. Mr. President, I want to
19 clarify the record. There are six tapes but only five transcripts. They
20 capture all six, and let me explain. The tape bearing ERN number
21 T0005443 has side A and B, and there are corresponding transcripts to
22 that; then there are two tapes bearing ERN T0005444, which has side A
23 and B. There are two transcripts corresponding to those two tapes. Then
24 there are two final tapes, T0005445, side A and B; but there is only one
25 transcript which captured both tapes. So, hence, the five transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that clarification.
2 No objections against 6084.
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1047.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P1047 is admitted into evidence.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could call on the screen, Mr. Registrar,
7 6105; that is, the supplementary statement of 4th and 5th November.
8 Q. Mr. Zganjer, in a moment, you'll see on your screen a statement,
9 and if you could just look at it.
10 Is this the first page --
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We will wait for the B/C/S document to come
12 up, and, Mr. Registrar, if you could go to the bottom of that page.
13 Q. Mr. Zganjer, is that the cover page of your supplementary
14 statement provided on 4th and 5th November, 2008?
15 A. Yes, that's the page.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if we move to the not the
17 last page, but one before the last page, and if we could ...
18 Q. Mr. Zganjer, do you recognise your signature at the bottom of the
19 page, under the declaration, if you could wait for the B/C/S to come up.
20 Is that your statement that you just saw?
21 A. Indeed, that is my signature. There is no doubt about that.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move into evidence a
23 supplement statement, dated 4th and 5th November 2008, 65 ter 6105.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] No objections, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
1 Mr. Registrar, 6105 would be?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1048, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P1048 is admitted into evidence.
4 Ms. Mahindaratne, in view of the earlier guidance or ruling, may
5 I take it that documents you want to tender from the bar table, of
6 course, perhaps in relation with the remainder of the testimony of the
7 witness, that you would usually have it tendered, but that we already
8 know that if you would give that information at this moment, that
9 everything would be marked for identification for the time being.
10 Documents you will specifically deal with, of course, will get
11 immediately an MFI
12 final list has been produced.
13 I'm talking about the very practical matter of numbering.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If there's anything would you like to raise with the
16 witness during the examination-in-chief, I suggest that it will be given
17 the MFI
18 anything to be tendered from the bar table, then --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I have already
20 tendered 19 documents from the bar table of which I have --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But usually some documents are nevertheless
22 dealt with. I don't know whether that is it your intention or not. Then
23 sometimes that list becomes shorter. Then, of course, what then remains
24 is for the registrar to provisionally assign numbers; that is, to give
25 them MFI
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll keep that in mind. Whenever I deal with
2 a document in the bar table submission, I will inform the Court of that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 At the same time, Mr. Zganjer, I have to -- Mr. Zganjer, you're
5 looking at Ms. Mahindaratne, but I'm speaking to you at this moment.
6 Mr. Zganjer, this is also perhaps a good moment to explain to you
7 why you had to wait for a while. There were some procedural aspects of
8 documents you had been referring to, which were raised last Friday and
9 over the weekend and which were further discussed this mourning in court,
10 and the Chamber had to take some time to give a ruling and or to give
11 guidance on these matters. So that is why you had to wait for such a
12 long time before you were invited to enter the courtroom, just for you to
13 you know.
14 Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 One other thing, Mr. President, the Prosecution filed a motion to
17 add three documents, that is, 65 ter 6102 and 6103, in relation to which
18 there is an objection regarding admissibility, but this is with regard to
19 the motion to add, as well as 6088. Mr. President, they are documents
20 which were not in the 65 ter list, if I could have a decision.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
22 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, only that standing objection that
23 we've made in respect of those documents.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Which will finally materialise in our decision on
25 admission, rather than on being added to the 65 ter list; is that how I
1 have to understand it?
2 Then leave is granted, Ms. Mahindaratne, to add them to the
3 65 ter list, but this is not a decision yet on admission into evidence.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 May I read a summary of the witness's testimony at this stage,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You have explained to the witness the purpose of
9 this, I take it.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Zeljko Zganjer was the deputy to the head
13 state attorney of the Republic of Croatia
14 February 2006. During the period relevant to the indictment, and until
15 September 2002, he served as a county state attorney for Sibenik.
16 Mr. Zganjer provides information relating to the structure and
17 workings of the law enforcement and judicial system in Croatia
18 evidence covers the procedure followed by the military and civilian
19 police to investigate crimes, the involvement and role of the state
20 prosecutor and the investigating judge in such investigations, and the
21 procedure relating to the processing of crime.
22 The witness provides information concerning the investigations
23 and prosecutions undertaken by the Croatian authorities with respect to
24 crimes committed during and in the aftermath Operation Storm.
25 The witness was directly involved in, amongst others, the
1 investigation of the killing incidents in Gosic and Varivode. In 2001,
2 the witness initiated an investigation into the incident in Grubori which
3 occurred on 25th August 1995
4 That is all, Mr. President. I could move on with the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Ms. Mahindaratne.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I have permission of Court
8 to hand over the binder of hard copies of his statement and transcripts
9 to the witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That is usual practice, so since I hear of no
11 objections, you may hand it over.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. Mr. Zganjer, let me just explain, so that there won't be any
14 interruptions when you move. The binder right at the top has your
15 supplementary statement given in November, and thereafter the interview
16 notes are attached with tab markings which indicate which interview notes
17 are enclosed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document 2572,
20 Mr. President, this is a document which was included in the
21 92 ter motion, but in view of the guidelines with regard to documentation
22 received today, I'm calling it up right now.
23 So, Mr. Registrar, if you could take a note of it.
24 Q. Mr. Zganjer, if I could just take you to paragraph 13 of your
25 supplementary statement.
1 Mr. Zganjer, before you go to the document, if I could ask you to
2 look at paragraph 13.
3 At paragraph 13, for the record, P1048, you state that you're
4 shown a memo, dated 31st May 2001
5 the Sibenik-Knin crime police department. The memo concerns the killings
6 in Grubori in August 1995, and also attaches media articles relating to
7 these events."
8 And you refer to the memo -- the reference number of the memo.
9 Is that the memo you referred to in paragraph 13?
10 A. Yes, that is the memo. If I may just make one observation,
11 paragraph 13 talks about the 31st of March 2001; whereas, the memo that
12 I'm looking at on my screen bears the date the 31st of May, if I'm not
13 mistaken 2001. Nevertheless, the substance of the memo is consistent
14 with the one that I was thinking of. I do notice that one discrepancy
15 concerning the date.
16 Q. I think, Mr. Zganjer, it must be a translation error in the
17 Croatian version of the statement, because in the English statement which
18 you have signed, the date is correctly recorded as 31st May 2001.
19 Moving on, you have attached two media articles and sent it to
20 the Sibenik-Knin police administration, and you go on to say this, and
21 I'm reading paragraph 2 of the document which is on the screen: "For the
22 purposes of the criminal investigation processing, I am enclosing copies
23 of articles published in the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija," pardon my
24 pronunciation, "on 25th, 26th, and 29th August 1995, entitled 'Mopping-up
25 operation: Five Chetniks killed and Reaper with a machine-gun,' which
1 discussed the incident in Grubori hamlet in detail."
2 Then in the next paragraph, you go on to say: "In addition to
3 the persons referred to in the article, 'Reaper with a machine-gun,'
4 interviews also need to be conducted with citizens Draginja Djuric and
5 Marija Djuric, who, according to information gathered, have some
6 knowledge of the incident."
7 In the next paragraph, you say: "I reiterate may insistence that
8 all measures and actions set out in the aforesaid request be implemented
9 as a matter of urgency."
10 Now, what was the reason which led to you to send these press
11 articles to the Sibenik-Knin police administration? Why did you consider
12 that relevant to the investigation?
13 A. Any information on an incident that the state prosecutor happens
14 to be looking into might prove helpful in what we refer to as pre-trial
15 investigations. We work on collecting the evidence of any crimes and
16 their potential perpetrators. It is in that light that the media
17 articles should be viewed.
18 Again, as I said in the memo, these focussed on the incident in
19 Grubori. As far as I can now remember, actual names were given in those
20 media articles, names of citizens who knew something about what had
21 happened. Therefore, in my assessment, these articles were useful, or
22 potentially useful, in terms of helping us find out a number of things
23 that at a later stage in the proceedings might have proved helpful.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... regards to
25 the translation, Your Honour.
1 Again, it seems that we have a problem.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, if there is a problem, you know how
3 to resolve that. We invite then the witness to repeat a portion of his
5 MR. MIKULICIC: Of course, Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll ask specific attention of the
7 interpreters for that portion, and then if anything remains, then we'll
8 ask the witness to take off his headphones.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, I'm aware of it, Your Honour. What I'm
10 referring to is a statement of the witness, which was put into the
11 transcript under page 37 and line 10. It relates to the part of the
12 proceedings which has been translated as a "pre-trial investigation."
13 That kind of translation is something that is not accurate to the what
14 witness said.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll ask the witness to repeat what he said, and
16 then if there's any discussion, so that we first try to avoid whatever
17 mistake, and if then there's another matter remaining, then we'll look at
18 that. If you --
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay. Page 37, line 10.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I see what most likely the issue may be.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: I mean, this is specific to the Croatian law.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's follow the order I suggested, that is, that we
23 first exclude for any possibility that there is a mistake, and then if
24 there's any legal matter to be discussed, that we can do it.
25 Your answer was, and I now read it in English: "Any information
1 on an incident that the state prosecutor happens to be looking into might
2 prove helpful in what we refer to as ..."
3 Then could you repeat what you then said?
4 Because may I take it that that is the issue, Mr. Mikulicic.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what I thought it would be.
7 So what you referred to as what exactly?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was very specific. I said that,
9 at this stage, we were dealing with pre-criminal proceedings.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: I think this type of translation, as we are
12 facing now in the transcript, is more accurate.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apparently, what I understand your request for
14 clarification is such, Mr. Mikulicic, that you would say we have not yet
15 entered the stage where criminal proceedings have started, but have not
16 yet reached the trial stage, but this is a kind of an introduction to
17 what may become criminal investigation, criminal proceedings. Is that
18 correctly understood?
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. That is precisely what I had
20 in my mind.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
22 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 May I tender that document into evidence, Mr. President. As I
25 said, it is already included in the 92 ter submission.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1049.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P1049 is admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may have I document number
7 6103, please.
8 And, Mr. President, for the record, two articles referred to in
9 the previous document, that is, P1049, have been included, but we have
10 not been able to secure the third article. I just wanted to clarify that
11 for the record.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, these, at least all three of them, were
13 attached to the letter. Do you now keep them separate as you did before,
14 that is, that the articles are appear on your bar table list; or do you
15 consider the two newspaper articles to be attached and to be part of
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is so, Mr. President, as attachments to
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And they have been uploaded as such into
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. At the moment, this is
22 pursuant to the objection, so we have to adjust it. Accordingly, at the
23 moment, they are separate documents.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is exactly why I was asking. I said
25 P1049 is admitted into evidence, and, of course, this would not include
1 in accordance with the ruling I gave earlier or the guidance I gave
2 earlier. So what we have to do now is to have MFI numbers for the two
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. That is why, although
5 they are referred to in P1049, I would bring them up and deal with the
6 witness, so that the Trial Chamber would have relevant testimony required
7 for assessment of these documents.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, I do not know what specific
9 questions you would like to put to the witness in relation it this press
10 articles. Perhaps, apart from that these were the ones, I don't know
11 whether that's a matter which could be agreed upon by the parties.
12 I'm just wondering what exercise we're now engaging in.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I mean, if simply I think the point
14 you're make is if the witness received these documents, or if the witness
15 transmitted these document to the police, we don't disagree with that.
16 I mean, I think we can move very quickly.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... that is not an issue --
18 MR. CAYLEY: [Overlapping speakers] ... if that's the only
19 point, then --
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to put further questions, then, of
21 course, Ms. Mahindaratne, we'll have to look at them.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I have one further question.
25 If I could have on the English translation, Mr. Registrar,
1 number 06436582. That is the cover page, the caption under photograph.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Zganjer, while that is being done, you could obviously
3 follow the B/C/S document.
4 Under that photograph of Mr. Cermak and another person, it
5 reads --
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could, Mr. Registrar, focus on that
7 caption just below the photograph.
8 I wonder if it could be brought up further so that the witness
9 could read that small caption under the photograph.
10 Q. Mr. Zganjer, are you able to read that caption under the
12 A. Indeed.
13 Q. And it reads: "'If I had wronged Croatian, I would have fled
14 like the others did,' Veselin Karanovic explains to General Cermak in
15 Grubori." Is that correct?
16 JUDGE ORIE: "Is that correct," Ms. Mahindaratne, is not a
17 very --
18 MR. CAYLEY: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour, yes --
19 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to ask the witness that, unless there
20 is a translation issue.
21 Please put --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
23 I have one question relevant question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Come with relate question --
25 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, could I just for the purpose of the
1 record. I mean, you know what I'm go to say, Your Honour. She can't ask
2 questions -- asking the witness to simply read this article, trying to
3 establish the truth of the document, it's not a proper exercise, and I
4 object to it.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, that was not the objective
6 at all.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be clear. If we have an original and a
8 translation in which there is text, then there is no need to ask a
9 witness whether that is what the document reads.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I was just creating sort
11 of a preliminary question for the required -- the question that I want to
12 ask, which is relevant. It is not in any way an inappropriate exercise.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then first put that question to the witness.
14 And, Mr. Zganjer, I would like you to perhaps wait a second with
15 answering the question, so that if there would be any objection, that it
16 can be raised before you answer that question.
17 Ms. Mahindaratne.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. Now, in the course of the investigation initiated by you in 2001,
20 did the Sibenik-Knin crime police interview Veselin Karanovic and submit
21 the official record of that interview to you?
22 JUDGE ORIE: You may answer the question.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, I think
24 there was no Official Note reflecting an interview with Veselin
25 Karanovic. I don't think a record of that interview was ever submitted
1 to me, again to the best of my recollection.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, just one point. I'm not objecting to
3 that question, but I'm just objecting to the characterization. I think
4 Mr. Mikulicic has already stated this. My learned friend is using the
5 term "investigation," and this was not an investigation under Croatian
6 law. The investigation would have started at the point in time when the
7 investigative magistrate took matters up. This was actually prior to the
8 formal investigation, as far as I understand Croatian law. So I would
9 just ask that the questions be characterised in that fashion.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you're invited to express yourself
12 as precise as possible. On the other hand, there is no need to further
13 intervene if anyone makes a mistake, because if ever -- the Chamber is
14 now fully aware that it should clearly distinguish between all the
15 different stages of any efforts to find out the truth about matters that
16 have been reported and which may have a criminal implication, and this is
17 the general term for a very general, very general phenomenon which is
18 often referred to as an investigation at its different stages.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Mr. Zganjer, is it possible that you probably have forgotten.
22 Let me take you to paragraph 18 of your supplementary statement, where
23 you did, in fact, examine Mr. Karanovic's official record of interview.
24 A. I apologise, Your Honours. This note obviously exists in the
25 file. It was shown to me. I'm sure that I had it before me during this
1 interview, and I confirm that that was one of the notes that I had
2 received during the pre-criminal proceedings by the police. That's why I
3 would like to correct my previous statement, or, rather, what I said just
4 a while ago.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I move this into evidence,
6 and I do note --
7 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking for it to be marked for
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1050,
12 marked for identification.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And it keeps that status.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And I will just, from the bar table,
16 Mr. President, tender 65 ter 6102, which is the other media article.
17 Mr. Registrar, if could you bring it up and give it a numbering,
18 an MFI
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check to see what we have.
20 Yes, Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1051,
22 marked for identification.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Mr. Registrar, if I could have document number 6085, please.
1 Q. Mr. Zganjer, let me, in fairness to you, since you forgot, let me
2 just bring up Mr. Karanovic's statement, so that you can examine it and
3 which you referred to at paragraph 13 -- sorry, 18 of your statement.
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, I don't mean
5 to intervene, but it keeps getting called a "statement." It is not a
6 statement. It is an Official Note, and I think we need to be precise
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will rephrase.
9 Q. The official record of interview --
10 A. Yes. This is precisely the Official Note recorded after the
11 interview with Citizen Karanovic. You showed it to me either on the 8th
12 or 9th of November of this year during my interview.
13 Q. That was 4th and 5th, Mr. Zganjer. I just wanted to correct the
15 A. Very well. The 4th or the 5th, yes.
16 Q. Now, do you know what led to the criminal police to interview
17 Mr. Karanovic? Was it pursuant to your instructions or what was the
18 factor that led them to interview him?
19 A. It was very obvious; the reasons were quite clear. Veselin
20 Karanovic resided in the territory at the time, at the moment when this
21 incident occurred. The mere fact pointed to a possibility that he might
22 have certain information about the events that were subject of my
23 interest, as well as the subject of the police operations after the
24 incident that had taken place in Grubori.
25 Q. Now, can you tell Court as to what procedure or what methods did
1 the police follow in conducting these interviews? To start off, where
2 were these interviews conducted?
3 A. I personally was not present during that interview. I can't tell
4 you whether that interview was conducted on the premises of the police
5 administration of the county of Sibenik
6 conducted at the place of residence of Citizen Veselin Karanovic who was
8 As I look at the Official Note on the screen, I can't see where
9 the interview actually took place, but I allow that it may have been one
10 of the locations that I have mentioned.
11 Q. And how do those Official Notes assist you in your investigation?
12 Did you consider these notes as usual for your investigation?
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'm just going to object to the question as
14 being pretty leading.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, let me just --
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: At page 47 line 3, the question was: "... these
17 notes as useful for your investigation," and that's what I'm objecting
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I started off by saying --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. Of course, we could ask, "Did you
21 consider them useful or not useful." Of course, a question has to focus
22 on something and it's not on whether the witness liked the typewriting of
23 it or whether he preferred long or short ones. I mean, these are all
24 questions in relation to that.
25 So we have to focus one way or the other, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
1 Could you please tell us whether you consider these Official Note
2 useful or not useful for the work you had to do?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours, I
4 would like to clarify one thing.
5 This Official Note that we have in the file, according to the
6 Croatian penal code and according to the rules of the criminal procedure,
7 is not evidence. It is just --
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... no doubt. It's not the
9 subject of the question to you, that whether it is evidence or not. The
10 question was whether it helped you in performing your duties, and not
11 whether it could be used in evidence in court at a later stage.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, it was useful in this
13 pre-criminal proceedings. It was a piece of information provided by
14 Mr. Karanovic as to what he knew and what he might tell us in the
15 criminal proceedings against perpetrators, i.e., what he might be able to
16 provide as a witness in court.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may this document be tendered
18 into evidence. This is again a document included in the bar table
20 Mr. Registrar, if you would take note.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 No objections.
23 Mr. Registrar.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Subject to the MFI -- these are MFIs?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1052,
2 marked for identification.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it keeps that status for the time being.
4 Could I ask one additional question. Did those Official Notes
5 also provide information which you could us in giving instructions for
6 further investigations, further - I hardly dare to use the word
7 "investigations" - but how to proceed in your pre-criminal
8 investigations? Did these Official Notes help to you find your way?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, the contents of these
10 notes might help a state attorney in his further proceedings in the
11 pre-criminal proceedings. It all depends on the type of information and
12 its significance that a citizen offers during his interview with the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that, or I ask you, could
15 that trigger, for example, new areas of investigation? On the basis of
16 this information, would you use that, if of course relevant, to explore
17 matters dealt with in such Official Notes?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you will allow me, Your Honours,
19 I don't know what Citizen Karanovic said. But if Citizen Karanovic had
20 said that there was a witness in the village by the name X/Y who had been
21 an eye-witness to the events, then the words in his statement would
22 prompt me as a state attorney to order the police to conduct an interview
23 with the possible witness mentioned by Citizen Karanovic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 And, Mr. Registrar, if could I just call up 65 ter 1166.
3 Q. And, Mr. Zganjer, in fact, I didn't go according to the sequence.
4 I should have shown you this document first. This is the document sent
5 to you by the Sibenik-Knin crime police department on 16th July 2001. It
6 reads as follows, and I'm reading the first paragraph.
7 It says: "Further to your request and the documents sent to us,
8 please be informed that, to date, we have interviewed the following
9 persons: Draginja Djuric, Marija Djuric, and Veselin Karanovic. Please
10 find enclosed the three separate Official Notes that we compiled
11 regarding these interviews."
12 Is this note that you were sent the interview records of Veselin
13 Karanovic and Marija Djuric?
14 If I could take you to paragraph 17 of your supplementary
15 statement, Mr. Zganjer, you say -- you identified that document, and you
16 said: "This was received by me together with the enclose issues in the
18 This is the document, isn't it?
19 A. I confirm that this document was, indeed, given to me and that I
20 received it with all of these enclosures. I received it personally,
21 because if you look at the stamp in the upper right corner, that's where
22 I inscribed in my own hand the name of the case file that was given to
23 this case at the state attorney's office.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I move this document into
25 evidence, please, and this is again included in the bar table submission.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And it is not subject, as such, to the objections
2 from what I understand.
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1053.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P1053 is admitted into evidence.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have document P622,
8 please, P622.
9 Q. Now, while that document is brought up on the screen,
10 Mr. Zganjer, if I could take you to paragraph 24 of your supplementary
11 statement, you say: "I'm now shown a copy of the work plan drafted by
12 Ivica Vesel, and approved by Gojko Markovic, chief of general crime
13 department, dated 13th November, 2001, referred to above. This is a plan
14 to conduct an investigation into the deaths in Grubori in August 1995."
15 In the next line, you say: "This document was received by me and
16 I have seen it before. It was sent to me enclosed with a letter of
17 14 December 2001
18 Then about two lines down, you say: "In the course of the
19 investigation, the criminal police have gathered documentation referred
20 to under the heading numbered 2, documentation. One of the documents
21 collected from the special police administration and referred to in this
22 document is the response to the letter of Elisabeth Rehn, composed on 30
23 March 1996 by the special police sector and signed by the by the special
24 advisor to the minister, Mladen Markac. Special police and crime police
25 are both part of MUP, and, as such, these documents were collected by the
1 crime police through official means."
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now, if we could move, Mr. Registrar, to page
3 6 of the English translation and page 3 of the Croatian version.
4 Q. There in the documentation, the first paragraph reads: "The
5 special police administration provided the documentation compiled with
6 respect to the implementation of Obruc police operation within the
7 military police Operation Storm; namely, the following ..."
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if could you move, Mr. Registrar, to the
9 next page on both versions.
10 Q. There, just under that letter of Elisabeth Rehn, it reads in the
11 English version: "Official statement in reply," and, in fact, you
12 corrected that translation in proofing, where you said, "response to the
13 letter of Elisabeth Rehn, composed on 13 March 1996 by the special police
14 sector, and signed by the special advisor to the minister, Mladen
16 And, Mr. Zganjer, I showed this document to you because it is
17 relevant to the next document, and I will ask you the question. It is it
18 already in evidence.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: But while we're still on this document, if you
20 could move -- Mr. Registrar, if I can now call up document number 493.
21 Q. While that's coming up, I want to refer you to your statement
22 again, Mr. Zganjer. In paragraph 25 of your supplementary statement, you
23 read -- you say: "I'm now shown a copy of a report from the chief of
24 Sibenik-Knin crime police department, addressed to the Sibenik county
25 prosecutor, dated 8 February 2002
1 gathered during the investigation into the killings in Grubori. I
2 received this report and the enclosed files referred to."
3 Now, is this the document that you're referring to at
4 paragraph 25?
5 A. Yes, that's the document. I received it, and it bears the date
6 8 February 2002
7 will see in the right upper corner that I inscribed the markings of the
8 file in my own handwriting. This is the number under which this case was
9 filed in my office in Sibenik, and the number is K or D044/01, in my own
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... on page 1, if could I read
12 the heading, you say -- they refer to your communication, that is
13 Mr. Zganjer, your communication. Reference numbers are given, and the
14 first paragraph reads: "Through further action, following your request,
15 we have taken operative and criminal investigation measures and
16 accordingly gathered additional documents. The following documents are
17 enclosed ..."
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move, Mr. Registrar, to
19 page 2 of the English version as well as the B/C/S, the Croatian version.
20 Q. Under the heading contained in file number 3, it reads: "Special
21 police sector documents."
22 The second document enclosed is -- it reads in the English
23 translation: "Disclosure of information, "and you again corrected that
24 during the proofing to be an incorrect translation, and you said
25 "response regarding Elisabeth Rehn's letter, compiled on 13 March 1996 by
1 the special police sector, and signed by the special advisor to the
2 minister, Mladen Markac."
3 That document has been enclosed and sent to you with this letter.
4 Is that correct?
5 A. When it comes to the letter written by Elisabeth Rehn and opinion
6 on it compiled by the special police sector, it is signed by the special
7 advisor to the minister, Mladen Markac. This opinion can also be found
8 enclosed to the documents that were submitted to me. However, correct me
9 if I'm wrong, I believe that this opinion did not get to me with Mladen
10 Markac s signature. It arrived without that signature.
11 But I would like to see the document that is on the files of the
12 state attorney's office, and then I will be able to see whether I'm right
13 or not. I believe that the opinion that I received did not contain
14 Mr. Markac's signature.
15 Q. I will show that you document, Mr. Zganjer.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you will do that now, because I'm
17 seeking a time for a break.
18 If you would first like to --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Tender this, yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any objections?
21 MR. MIKULICIC: No objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
23 Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this becomes Exhibit number P1054.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P1054 is admitted into evidence.
1 If you want to deal with the signature issue right away,
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, that might be the logical thing to do before the break.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, actually, there are two other
4 issues with regard to this document. I wanted to deal quickly with that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then, I think, since many of you have been
6 waiting here on from 10.30 already in this courtroom, then I'd first have
7 a break.
8 Mr. Zganjer, keep this document well in your mind because further
9 documents will be put to you after the break.
10 We will have a break and we will resume at a quarter to 1.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Zganjer, I'd like to just go back to the document on the
16 screen; and below that document we just referred to, there is again --
17 this is at the bottom of the English translation and halfway through in
18 the Croatian version. It says: "Contained in file number 3," and you
19 think that is probably a mistake. You think it should read file 4. And
20 in file 4, you sent 17 Official Notes of interviews conducted with Lucko
21 anti-terrorist members.
22 Then under file number 5?
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could on the English translation move,
24 Mr. Registrar, to the next page, and remain on the same page on the
25 Croatian version.
1 Q. Under file number 5, you're sent material regarding the check --
2 regarding the vehicles observed at the incident seen in Plavno village,
3 25 August 1995
4 official record of interview with Ivan Cermak."
5 Now, you wish to see particularly the document we referred to
6 before the break.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could call document P505,
8 at MFI
9 Q. While that is being brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if I could ask you
10 to look at your supplemental statement. At paragraph 26, you say: "I'm
11 now shown a copy of a letter from Mladen Markac addressed to the minister
12 of the interior, Ivan Jarnjak, in response to a letter from Elisabeth
14 The report is dated 13 March 1996
15 number, which is the reference number on the document on your screen.
16 "This is a letter referred to about a document bearing 03500258
17 to 0259, as well as in the work plan, bearing number 03500519 to 0523.
18 This would be the letter I received. I believe I received a copy of the
19 original document which was sent to Minister Jarnjak. I'm now shown a
20 copy of this document without a signature. I believe the copy which was
21 sent to me did not have a signature. It is likely that the original
22 letter received by Jarnjak had a signature. I did not have any reason to
23 doubt the authenticity of the document since I received it from the crime
24 police through official channels."
25 Now, Mr. Zganjer, is this the document - I'm referring to the
1 document on the screen - is this the document you're referring to in
2 paragraph 26 of your supplementary statement?
3 And if you want to go into the next page, please let me know.
4 A. Will you please show me the next page, next page.
5 Yes, that's the document.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, this document is currently in
8 an MFI
9 established the basis for admission.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: I believe not, Your Honour.
11 There is no basis at all. The document is still unstamped,
12 unsigned, and has no official number in the head of the documents. So
13 the Defence very much doubts whether this is an authentic document, no
14 matter which was the sources that the witness has been obtained with this
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the witness has testified, and
18 in his words, he says, "I did not have any reason to doubt the
19 authenticity of the document since I received it from the crime police
20 through official channels."
21 Now, if the suggestion of the Defence is that there has been some
22 fabrication within the official channels, then it is up to the Defence to
23 tender that in evidence. I believe we have established a foundation on
24 the basis for admission of the document. There is a witness who
25 identifies the document and who says that he has received it in the
1 course of the investigation initiated by him. He has received it through
2 official channels and he says he has no reason to doubt the authenticity.
3 We are referring to here the state prosecutor who has received
5 MR. MIKULICIC: Well, as we are speaking on the subject, I will
6 ask my learned friend from the Prosecutor's bench to ask the witness of
7 the certain lack of signature stamp and the official number of the
8 documents; and, afterwards, my learned friend could ask the witness
9 whether this is an example of the usual official documents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. I think existence of stamps and signatures, we
11 don't have to put many questions to the witness in relation to that, I
12 would say.
13 Yes, although it would have been a matter -- of course, it is
14 triggered more or less by the discussion on admissibility of this
15 document, Ms. Mahindaratne, where I would otherwise would have expected
16 Mr. Mikulicic to deal with the matter in cross-examination.
17 Yes, I'm not blaming you, Mr. Mikulicic, let that be clear. But,
18 of course, I'm thinking aloud about where --
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, while you are thinking aloud, I
20 would also say something in that manner. I would like to think aloud.
21 The Prosecution had Elisabeth Rehn on the stand as a witness. Why did
22 they ask her if he ever received this document. That would the proper
23 way to establish the foundation --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
25 MR. MIKULICIC: -- not through the witness who is not issuing the
1 documents --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, we are -- Mr. Mikulicic --
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- we're not going to argue the matter in the
5 presence of the witness.
6 Let me just check.
7 Yes, Mr. Zganjer, could I ask you the following question: If you
8 were copied on a letter sent to, as in this case, Mr. Jarnjak, was it
9 common, uncommon, did it happen oft, did it happen sometimes, that the
10 copy you received would be an unsigned one, an unstamped one?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was standard procedure for
12 anyone sending a document to me to stamp it and sign it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that was not my question, as you may be
14 aware. It was about when you were copied on a document, in this case a
15 letter sent to another person. So if you were sent a copy of that
16 letter, whether it would always be signed and stamped.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document was sent to me, and I
18 said the following about the document in my statement: I believe this to
19 be an authentic document. Now, why did I say that? It wasn't the
20 veterinarian service that sent me this document. I got it from the
21 Sibenik-Knin police administration, which was an integral part of the
22 Ministry of Interior. That is the key to my belief that the document is
23 an authentic one because of its source and because of the person who
24 produced this document, regardless of the fact that the person did not
25 actually sign the document.
1 To me, it was Mr. Mladen Markac who produced this letter.
2 However, was this letter eventually forwarded to the minister of the
3 interior, Ivan Jarnjak, or not? Was it stamped and signed by Mladen
4 Markac for that person? I don't know. But here you have my reasons for
5 believing that this is an authentic document. It's about disclosure.
6 And in terms of substance, this is a response to the letter that
7 Ms. Elisabeth Rehn had previously sent to the Ministry of Interior.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One additional question: Do you remember any
9 incident ever that you would receive a copy of a document, which was not
10 addressed to you but just copied to you, from this same source, that is,
11 the Sibenik-Knin police administration, where the copy that was
12 September to you was not the same as what was sent to the person to whom
13 the letter was addressed?
14 Did you ever experience that something went wrong there?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regrettably, I cannot answer this
16 specifically, Your Honours. I simply don't remember. Nevertheless, it
17 is a normal course of action even for Official Notes that I was receiving
18 to be signed by whoever produced them and to be stamped by the relevant
19 police administration on its way out.
20 Despite all of this, some of the Official Notes were neither
21 signed nor stamped. Again, as I was receiving all these documents from
22 the Sibenik-Knin police administration, who, in turn, had probably got
23 them from the crime police police administration which was part of the
24 Ministry of Interior, at the time, I had no reason to question the
25 authenticity of these documents, despite certain formal shortcomings that
1 they may have manifested.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne. The Chamber will
3 decide on the admission of this document.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Mr. Registrar, may I call document number 4388, please.
7 MR. CAYLEY: This is the document that you decided is actually
8 not admissible in evidence. This is the interview of Mr. Cermak --
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Sorry, Mr. President. That was my mistake.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I withdraw that question.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. Mr. Zganjer, now, do you recall that memo that was sent to you by
15 the chief of crime police department on 8th February 2002, that we just
16 looked at a little while ago, where we looked at the files, and I'm
17 referring to P1054. You noted that you were also sent 17 official
18 records of interview with members of the Lucko Unit.
19 Now, in fact, if I could take to you paragraph 30 of your
20 supplementary statement, Mr. Zganjer, you state the following: "I was
21 also sent a number of Official Notes of interviews with members of
22 Lucko Unit or the special police, and I'm now shown these documents and I
23 can confirm that I received these documents from the Sibenik-Knin crime
24 police. I believe that the marking on the documents, some of the text
25 being underlined, were made by me."
1 Then you identify and authenticate six Official Notes of
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, there has been no specific
4 objection in relation to the admission of these six documents, with the
5 exception of the general, the blanket objection from the Gotovina
7 MR. MIKULICIC: That's not true.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry. With regard to Mr. Balunovic, I
9 beg your pardon, I will call the documents in, Mr. President.
10 Mr. Registrar, can I have document number 2653, please.
11 Q. Now, while that is being brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if I could take
12 you to the first document you authenticated. You referred to the
13 Official Notes of interview with Ivica Matanic compiled on 4 December
14 2001 in Zagreb
15 Is this the note you referred to and you recognise the markings
16 on the document?
17 A. [No interpretation].
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could both of witness's microphones be switched
19 on please. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see page 1 of the notes, but I
21 believe there might be another page.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Previous translation continues] ... could we
23 move to page 2.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the Official Note
25 that was delivered to me, and there was an attachment which is the
1 document that we spoke about a while ago. The underlining is, well, it's
2 just like that. It is a personal feature of my work. I use this to mark
3 out certain portions of the statement that I for various reasons might
4 find to be of particular interest.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this into
7 MR. MIKULICIC: I object this, Your Honour, on the very same
8 reason that we were talking about the Official Notes as an evidence on
9 the beginning of today's session and when you brought up the decision
10 that your final decision you will postpone until the results of the
11 proceedings. It could be marked as MFI but not as an evidence. That is
12 my position because we cannot --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that it is tendered into evidence, and
14 what you expect the Chamber in line with its earlier guidance would do is
15 to invite Mr. Registrar to mark it for identification, which is what I
16 have done by now.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1055,
18 marked for identification.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P1055 is marked for identification.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, there is five other notes, and
22 I understand there is an objection. May I just tender it from the bar
23 table, and I understand they will be marked for identification.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And those that will remain on the list you will
25 provide to Mr. Registrar, so that he can assign MFI numbers for those
1 documents as well.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document number --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, apart from that we have dealt with
6 the issue of whether this type of material is admissible into evidence,
7 is there any objection against trying to introduce it through the bar
8 table, rather than to put it to the witness.
9 Is there any issue? I'm just --
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I could only predict that the answer
11 of the witness will be exactly the same as it relates to the first one,
12 so I don't think it is worth time consuming to go through whole
14 JUDGE ORIE: That is understood. I want to avoid that we have
15 later overlooked some issues.
16 MR. CAYLEY: No, I think Mr. Mikulicic has said it perfectly
17 clearly. The objection stands. But if it's through the bar table, it
18 makes no difference to us.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Mr. Registrar, may I call for document D738, please.
22 Q. While the document is brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if you could look
23 at paragraph 31 of your supplementary statement. You say: "I'm now
24 shown a report from chief of Sibenik-Knin crime police department
25 addressed to county prosecutor Sibenik, dated 14th December 2001
1 report attaches notes of interviews carried out as part of the
2 investigation into the killings in Grubori."
3 Is this a document you identified by paragraph 31?
4 A. I must raise a matter at this point. I believe you've now read
5 out parts of paragraphs 31 and 33. Now which specific paragraph do you
6 have in mind by your question?
7 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Zganjer. I think you perhaps -- you didn't hear
8 me. I was reading paragraph 31. Let me read it again: "I'm now shown a
9 report from the chief of Sibenik-Knin crime police department, addressed
10 to county prosecutor Sibenik, dated 14th December 2001. The report
11 attached notes of interviews carried out as part of the investigation
12 into the killings in Grubori."
13 I'm asking you if this is the document you referred to in
14 paragraph 31?
15 A. Yes, that's the document.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move this into evidence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any objections?
18 No objections.
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I believe this already in evidence
21 as a Defence exhibit.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It is already in
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is already in evidence.
25 Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, the only question you put in relation to
1 this document to the witness is whether this was the document. The
2 documents that an ERN number. It's specified in his statement. Is there
3 any need to assume that what shown to him, as far as ERN numbers is
4 concerned, that there are any mistakes there, because otherwise -- or
5 would we go through all of the documents? Of course, there could be
6 mistakes. Since also the subject, especially in paragraph 31, even the
7 subject is mentioned, ERN number is given.
8 And I'm also looking at the Defence. Is there any need to verify
9 for all of these documents whether this is the document shown to the
10 witness? If so, we have quite lot of work to do.
11 MR. MISETIC: No, Your Honour, not from the Gotovina Defence.
12 MR. CAYLEY: I think we would take the same position. If this is
13 just a rehearsal of identifying ERN numbers, I agree, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Mr. Mikulicic.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: We are taking the very same position, Your
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, therefore, unless there is any
19 reason to have doubts whether there could be confusion as far as
20 documents are concerned, then there is no need to repeat in court what
21 the witness said already in his supplementary statement --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
23 Actually, I had intended to submit all these documents from the
24 bar table, but I particularly brought this document up because it
25 encloses an interview note of Nada Surjak, where the Cermak Defence
1 particularly --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you wanted to --
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Because of the specific objection in relation
4 to that Official Note, I believe that I want to bring it up in court.
5 That is the only reason.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But you only asked whether this is it the document,
7 and then you gave an ERN number. That is the only thing you did.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. Then I was going to go to
9 the contents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you want to put further questions. I took
11 it, but perhaps I'm wrong, that once you've put it to the witness, and if
12 you are seeking it to be admitted into evidence, that you've then dealt
13 with the document. But I might be wrong in that respect and then my
14 apologies for that.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Can I just before we embark on what my learned
17 friend has just notified the Court that she is going to ask the about the
18 content of the statement, again I don't need to repeat myself. My
19 understanding is that she wants to put questions about the Official Note
20 in respect of that particular individual.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I was going try get him to
22 confirm that he had received the note of Nada Surjak.
23 MR. CAYLEY: That's fine.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I would have remained silent, we might have
25 saved sometime.
1 Please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Zganjer, by this note, you have been sent four Official Notes
4 of interviews which includes the interview note of Nada Surjak, and I
5 want to take you to that particular note.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could call -- have on the
7 screen document number 3298.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, if I could save some time for the
9 court, we are ready to stipulate - I'm talking about the Markac Defence,
10 of course - we are ready to stipulate that all those Official Notes has
11 been received by the witness.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether that resolves all of your
13 concern, Ms. Mahindaratne.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. In which event, I
15 will move on, but let me just ask one question with regard to this
17 JUDGE ORIE: You're free to put any question.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Mr. Zganjer, do you note the document on the screen, and you
21 identified earlier on that you -- that certain notations on these
22 documents were made by you.
23 Are these underlinings made by you?
24 A. I am familiar with the document, and as for the interventions,
25 i.e., the underlining, that is what I did myself. I am the author of
1 these interventions.
2 Q. Can you tell the Court, in terms of underlining, what is
3 exactly -- what is the process you went through in reviewing these
5 A. Of course, I read these documents; and as I've already told you,
6 there are some things that seemed important and that's why I underlined
7 them. The underlinings would have helped me to focus on the important
8 bits of the text on a second reading.
9 I would call it a rationalisation of time, a time-saving
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may it be marked for
13 identification, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1056,
16 marked for identification.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It will keep that status for the time being.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could call document 3476.
19 This is also one of the press articles to which Defence objected,
20 Mr. President.
21 Q. And, Mr. Zganjer, I appreciate that you may not have seen this
22 document or press article.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could go, Mr. Registrar, to page 3 of
24 the Croatian version and in the English version 03524451. If could you
25 focus on that photograph, and if you could just take -- oh, yes.
1 Q. There is an photograph of reporter interviewing Mr. Cermak on
2 this -- in this picture. Can you tell Court who that reporter is based
3 on this article -- let me just make it shorter.
4 Do you agree that it was Ms. Nada Surjak, whom we just referred
5 to, who is seen interviewing Mr. Cermak in Grubori here?
6 A. I can see Mr. Cermak depicted in the photograph, there is no
7 doubt about that. And as for the lady depicted in the photo, I can just
8 see her profile. I might agree that this is Mrs. Nada Surjak, a
9 journalist of the Croatian Television.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May this document be given MFI status,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1057,
15 marked for identification.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I also, Mr. President, submit from the bar
17 table document number 3297, which is a memo which also attaches an
18 Official Note of interview.
19 And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have 3297.
20 I'm just submitting this from the bar table, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It has attached to the document official
23 record of interview, Mr. President, so considering the guidelines given,
24 although the cover sheet could be admitted. Since there is an attachment
25 which is a official record of interview, maybe it could be given a --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Cover letter, I'm a bit confused Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 I always understand tendering from the bar table to be that without
3 showing it or even presenting it to the witness, that you would seek it
4 to be admitted into evidence; whereas, what you're doing is you're
5 showing it to the witness and then saying you want to tender it from the
6 bar table, although no questions were put to the witness. So it seems to
7 be a kind of intermediate procedure.
8 Mr. Registrar, the cover letter, just the cover letter, would be?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P1058.
10 JUDGE ORIE: P1058 is admitted into evidence.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And page 2 and 3 may be given an MFI status,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Second, third page, the attached Official Note,
14 Mr. Registrar, would be?
15 THE REGISTRAR: P1059, marked for identification, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And it keeps that status for the time being.
17 Please proceed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I have document 6087, please.
19 Q. Mr. Zganjer, in this document on the screen, the chief of crime
20 police department reports to you on the following lines. He says:
21 "After additional action, following your request, interviews have been
22 conducted with General Mladen Markac and Mr. Zeljko Sacic concerning
23 their knowledge of events in the village of Grubori
24 when a number of people perished."
25 Now, in relation to that, at paragraph 27, referring to your
1 notes --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: This for the record, Mr. President, has been
3 tendered with the bar table motion, bar table submission.
4 Q. It says: "At entry 12 of my notes, I have made a note of
5 investigative plans to conduct an interview with the command structure of
6 the special police, Mladen Markac, and Zeljko Sacic, in order to
7 ascertain the type of weapons used at the time of the Grubori incident,
8 as a shell casing was found by the bed of one of the victims. We
9 requested details from the special police of the type of weapons
10 allocated to each officer at the time, and also requested ballistic
11 testing to ascertain whether the shell casing matched a weapon in
12 possession of the special police at the time. I do not believe we
13 received any such details of weapons used by the special police before my
14 tenure in Sibenik ended in September 2002."
15 Now, can you explain to Court what steps did you do when you did
16 not get the required information from the special police sector?
17 A. There is a conversation that I held with the police officials who
18 were involved in the criminal proceedings in this case. I made a note of
19 that conversation on the cover of my case file.
20 In that conversation, we looked at the possibility that you're
21 talking about at the moment, where I described in my statement under
22 bullet point 27. The photos from the place of the incident in Grubori,
23 as far as can I remember, depicts, or at least one of them depicts, the
24 body of an elderly man next to a bed. As far as I can remember, he was
25 shot in the head. That photo also it depicts a bullet casing.
1 I repeat, this is as much as I can remember after seven or eight
2 years. There was some indicia that the bullet casing found by that body
3 was in the possession of UN members, i.e., one of them who had taken the
4 photo originally.
5 We were then supposed to take steps to see whether we can get a
6 hold of that bullet casing. And since we had already identified that, in
7 the zone of responsibility in the area of Grubori, a special police units
8 was in place at the time of the incident, it only seemed logical that we
9 would try and get hold of the weaponry of that unit and of any written
10 traces as to the fact who of the members carried or had been issued with
11 what weapons.
12 We were supposed to identify the serial number or some other
13 identification marks of that weapon; and then if we were able to get hold
14 of the bullet casing, we were supposed to carry out ballistic expertise,
15 in order to establish whether the bullet had been fired from any of the
16 weapons of that particular unit. The only thing that we were able to
17 find of that bullet was its casing, nothing else.
18 If the ballistic expertise were to prove that, then based on all
19 the documents collected about the persons who had been issued with
20 certain types of weapons, we have been able to arrive at a possible
21 suspect or the perpetrator of the crime, which was the killing of that
22 elderly man who had been shot dead lying by his bed or in his bed.
23 I don't know what happened. I stopped working in Sibenik in
24 2002. I don't know whether anything was done to this effect. I repeat,
25 on the 15th of September, 2002, I left that position. I am -- I
1 continued working in the state attorney's office but in a different
3 However, there is an written trace of my conversation with the
4 police officials about this issue. You can find it on the cover of my
5 case file where I provided a summary of that conversation and my requests
6 towards the police as to what they were supposed to do with this regard.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Zganjer, were you given a further explanation by any
8 authorities as to why these steps had not been carried out during 1995,
9 soon after the incident, or until you instructed these steps to be
10 carried out in 2001?
11 A. Well, this may not have been exactly the subject of my interest.
12 In my statement that I provided to the investigators of the OTP of this
13 Tribunal, I stated very clearly when I had first learned about this
14 incident in Grubori. I also stated what I did with this regard after my
15 initial information.
16 It arises from what I stated and from the written documents on
17 the case file what my points of interest were and what dilemmas I had to
18 eliminate and what it was I actually wanted to establish.
19 Q. Mr. Zganjer, you may have misunderstood me. It was not a
20 criticism against you. My question was whether you had ever received any
21 information as to why these investigative steps had not been carried out
22 in 1995, soon after the incident when the matter was fresh, why nothing
23 of this sort this been done until you instructed the police to carry out
24 these steps?
25 A. I've already said, and I repeat, when I learned about the
1 incident in Grubor, I contacted my colleague in Zadar, an official with
2 the state attorney's office there.
3 Why did I contact my colleague in Zadar? I did that because of
4 area of Knin, including the area of the settlement, or, rather, the
5 village of Grubori, was also under the authority of the state attorney's
6 office of Zadar and the court of Zadar. Also, it was within the
7 jurisdiction of the police administration of the county of Zadar
9 I asked my colleague in Zadar whether he had ever received a
10 report on the incident in Grubori. He told me that he hadn't. I asked
11 him that either in 1998 or 1999 when the area of Knin, or the general
12 area of Knin, was returned to the county of Sibenik-Knin
13 within the jurisdiction of my office of the state attorney, the office
14 that I headed.
15 My colleague in Zadar did not know anything about that at all. I
16 suppose that the investigating judge didn't know anything either. Why
17 this was not investigated from the -- from the moment it happened in 1995
18 to sometime in 1999 or 2000, when I started investigating the whole
19 matter, I really wouldn't know. You would have to ask somebody else
20 about that.
21 Q. Very well, Mr. Zganjer. Based on this letter that is the
22 document on the screen, it is -- it indicates that it was upon your --
23 following your instructions that Mr. Mladen Markac and Mr. Zeljko Sacic
24 had been interviewed by the Sibenik-Knin crime police.
25 Now, what were your reasons to instruct the police to interview
1 Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic?
2 A. The reasons were very clear and very simple. I learned that
3 special police was active in the area, and I learned which unit of the
4 special police were active. It was only logical for me to ask for
5 Mr. Markac and Sacic to be interviewed because they belonged to the
6 structure of the special police units.
7 Q. And having interviewed them, did you receive any information or
8 assistance which facilitated your investigation any further from either
9 Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic?
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Objections. The witness didn't say that he
11 personally interviewed those --
12 JUDGE ORIE: I understood --
13 MR. MIKULICIC: -- individuals.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I understood this to be once interviews were held
15 with them, because apparently that's what the letter says: "Interviews
16 have been conducted with ..." That's how I understood it.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Now, the question to you was whether you received any information
20 or assistance which facilitated your investigation any further from
21 either Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, the
23 statements provided by Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic did not contain any
24 information that would shed light on the whole event.
25 I repeat, I really can't remember the contents of their
1 statements; but, by and large, they spoke of the alleged armed conflict
2 involving the special police of the Republic of Croatia
3 of the other party to the conflict, the members of the other party to the
5 I may be mistaken. I am trying to remember. There was a
6 difference there as to whether these people, the elderly people, got in
7 between the exchange of fire between the warring parties, or they were
8 allegedly executed by the members of the enemy army, because they had not
9 agreed to put up resistance to the Croatian armed force. Something along
10 these lines, roughly, was said. That was the position, as it were, that
11 one could discern from the statements of the members of the special
12 police including the statements provided by Messrs. Markac and Sacic, as
13 far as I can remember, as I sit here today.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tender this document into
17 MR. MIKULICIC: I have no objection, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1060.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P1060 is admitted into evidence.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And the attached statements, 65 ter 326 and
22 327, the Official Notes of records, will be tendered from the bar table,
23 Mr. President, later on.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We will find them then on the list, and I may take
25 it they will also be marked for identification.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: I will just add that, as it concerns to the
2 Official Note for Mr. Mladen Markac, that the Chamber already took the
3 position as regards to Official Note for Mr. Cermak. So it is the very
4 same procedural situation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, the special position was, of course,
6 raised by Mr. Cayley very specifically as far as Mr. Cermak is concerned.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Well, I had not to be repeated if I just accept,
8 on the same basis, all the reasons that Mr. Cayley has stated, that these
9 are the very same that the Markac state as well.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Without having it reviewed again, the Chamber
11 will give a decision soon, but perhaps not today.
12 Please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call document 1241, Mr. Registrar.
14 Q. And while that document is brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if could I
15 take you to paragraph 10 of your supplementary statement.
16 At line 4, you start off by saying: "I'm not aware of any police
17 or other investigation which was carried out into this incident," and
18 you're referring to the Grubori incident which you have referred to in
19 line 3, "prior to the investigation I initiated ..." --
20 A. I apologise. What paragraph is that?
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... paragraph number 10 of your
22 supplementary statement.
23 Do you have it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You refer to the Grubori investigation and you go on to say:
1 "I'm not aware of any police or other investigation which was carried out
2 into this incident prior to the investigation I initiated in 2001. If
3 the police had instigated an investigation, the investigating judge would
4 have been informed. In March/April 1998 following territorial
5 reorganisation, Knin came under the jurisdiction of Sibenik-Knin county
7 This is what you just stated a little while ago, too.
8 "Sometime after that, I began to receive information from
9 Amnesty International and Croatian Helsinki Committee concerning the
10 events in Grubori. I then contacted the police to ascertain what
11 information existed concerning this matter. Prior to 1998, the Zadar
12 county court had jurisdiction to initiate an investigation into Grubori.
13 Mr. Galovic, the Zadar state county [sic], confirmed to me that they had
14 not received any report from the police regarding the incident; and, as
15 such, there had been no investigation initiated by the Zadar county state
16 attorney. I personally believe that this matter should have been
17 reported to the state attorney and investigative judge on duty at the
18 time of incident."
19 Now, I appreciate you may not have seen the document which is on
20 the screen right now. That is a memo sent to the county public
21 prosecutor. It was a memo sent to the public prosecutor of the Republic
22 of Croatia
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could go to the next page.
24 Q. Is that the person you mentioned as your colleague in Zadar
25 county court?
1 A. You mean the county attorney's office in Zadar? Yes. Ivan
2 Galovic is his name. You're showing me a document bearing the date
3 18 December 2003
4 This is letter sent by the county attorney's office in Zadar.
5 This letter bears a stamp, and it was signed by Mr. Ivan Galovic, the
6 state attorney in Zadar.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could just go to
8 page 1.
9 Q. There in paragraph 1 he reports to the state attorney of the
10 Republic of Croatia
11 standard," that is could be a translation issue there, "report regarding
12 killings in the hamlet of Grubori."
13 Then the next paragraph reads: "2 and 4, regarding killings in
14 the hamlet of Gosic and village of Varivode
15 last name Borak in Gosic and seven persons with the last name Beric,
16 Dusan Djukic, and another person in Varivode, we filed an indictment
17 against Pero Perkovic et al for crimes under Article 34, paragraph 2 of
18 the KZRH Criminal Code of Republic of Croatia
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could move to next page.
20 Q. Right at the top, it says: "The county court in Zadar acquitted
21 the accused of the said crimes which were described in the first instance
22 judgement under items 4 and 7.
23 "The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia
24 of the public prosecutor, and on the grounds of erroneously established
25 facts, quashed the judgement pertaining to the said crimes.
1 "The case was then remitted to the competence of the county
2 public prosecutor's office in Sibenik on 4 October 1999."
3 That is correct, isn't it?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Let's go back to item number 1, please.
6 It is true, and it is confirmed by Mr. Ivan Galovic in this
7 letter, that they never received a criminal report or any other report
8 for the killings in Grubori. I'm referring you to the part of my
9 statement in which I said that, in a telephone conversation, I had
10 learned that myself from Mr. Galovic. That was sometime towards the end
11 of 1998 or beginning of 1999. I can't pinpoint it exactly the time of
12 that telephone conversation. In that telephone conversation, he
13 confirmed to me what he states in this letter dated 18 December 2003.
14 I would like to add that items 2 and 4 also reflect the truth;
15 that is, items 2 and 4 in this letter.
16 After it was quashed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of
18 public prosecutor's office in Sibenik and the county court in Sibenik,
19 and we're talking about a case --
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, can this document be entered
22 into evidence, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I hear of no objections.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: No objections.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1061.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I note the time, Mr. President, and I
4 apologise for the five minutes I have --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't want to interrupt the witness in
6 giving his last answer.
7 Ms. Mahindaratne, could you tell how much time you would still
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I believe about 30 to 40 minutes.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zganjer, we'd like to see you back tomorrow when
12 the examination will continue. I instruct you that should not speak with
13 anyone about the testimony you have given until now or the testimony
14 still to be given tomorrow. You should refrain from any conversation
15 with whomever on that subject.
16 As far as resuming tomorrow is concerned, unfortunately, the
17 Presiding Judge is not available and up until 10.00, and my consultation
18 with the other Judges was just about to learn whether they would continue
19 under Rule 15 bis. They decided that they will not, which means we will
20 resume tomorrow at 10.00.
21 Tomorrow, Tuesday, 11th November, at 10.00, Courtroom I.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day of
24 November, 2008, at 10.00 a.m.