Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13460

 1                           Thursday, 11 December 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning 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             Are you ready to continue, Mr. Mikulicic?

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  I am, Your Honour.

14             Good morning to everybody.  Good morning to Mr. Theunens.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Theunens, I would like it remind you hopefully for

16     the last time that you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you

17     gave at the beginning of your testimony.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours.

19             Mr. Mikulicic.

20                           WITNESS:  REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic: [Continued]

22        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Theunens.

23        A.   Good morning.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Yesterday you will remember, Mr. Theunens, we

25     showed you the order by General Cervenko concerning the role of the

Page 13461

 1     special MUP forces in Operation Storm, as the result of which or, rather,

 2     the order itself envisages two stages upon the completion of which

 3     another order would be issued and that the units of the special police

 4     had to be prepared for that other operation that is to follow.  I hope

 5     you remember that.

 6             Let us take a look at what happens after the special police units

 7     have carried out their assignments several days later.  Let's look at

 8     D550, please.

 9             Soon we will see document D550, which is an order for the

10     continuation of combat activities at D plus 1.  This is an order by

11     General Cervenko.  I suppose you had occasion to see just now on the

12     screen in front of you.

13        A.   Yes.  I believe I have also seen it before, but I'm not sure

14     whether it is included in my report.

15        Q.   Whether it is or not, let us look at item 2 of the order, which

16     states that combat activities are to be continued at an intensified pace.

17     What they are trying to indicate is that they want to ensure accelerated

18     advancement of the units.  Would you agree with me on that?  Not only of

19     those units but of the other forces involved in Operation Storm as well.

20     The dynamics, the dynamic pace, is something that is being insisted upon.

21     Is that right?

22        A.   I wouldn't necessarily draw the same conclusion.  General

23     Cervenko, at least in paragraph 2, simply orders to continue the combat

24     activities and intensify them.  But I think if we go further to the order

25     and maybe if we see that deadlines are imposed to fulfil or to reach

Page 13462

 1     certain objectives, that would give us a better indication as to whether

 2     or not General Cervenko wants to have combat activities or the tempo

 3     accelerated.

 4        Q.   Very well.  A question on that score which falls within your

 5     expertise.  Can you explain to us in a couple of sentences why in this

 6     type of combat when advancement is made toward the enemy and the first

 7     line of defence is being broken, why is it important to maintain the pace

 8     -- the achieved pace of advancement?

 9        A.   The main reason is what you want to keep the momentum, i.e., the

10     attacking force has obtained the initiative because they managed to

11     breach the first line of the enemy.  And now before the enemy can prepare

12     some kind of a counteraction or counterattack, it is important that the

13     attacking forces maintain the momentum and prevent the enemy from

14     reorganizing and preparing any kind of counter-operation.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, could we please have D552 on the

16     screen.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] What we're about to see, Mr. Theunens, is the

18     order for the continuation of combat activities on day D plus 2 also

19     issued by the chief of the General Staff, General Cervenko, which

20     envisages operations to take place on D plus 2.

21             In item 1, we can see that the order concerns the Split Military

22     District.  It says that the general areas of Otric and Srb need to be

23     seized and the state border -- one needs to come out on the state border.

24             Let us take a look at part 2 of your report, specifically page

25     285.  At least that's page in my copy.  We realized yesterday we had

Page 13463

 1     different enumerations.  The date I mentioned is the 7th of August and

 2     I'm referring to item 4.

 3             Have you found that portion where you say that the special police

 4     forces captured Mazin and Srb?  From the order we have on our screens, it

 5     follows that it was not the task of the special police units to capture

 6     Srb; rather, it was the task given to the Split Military District.  You

 7     base your conclusion on document 65 ter 00317.

 8             Can we therefore have the document called up, please.

 9        A.   Yes.  And it's on English page 281, I think the copy I'm using

10     and the others are using.

11        Q.   I'm using an English text, and it is page 285, so it is a

12     different version.  But any way you found it in your material?

13        A.   Mm-hm.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] You're referring in footnote 1153 to document 65

15     ter 00317.  And you say that this is the war path of the Ministry of

16     Interior of the Sibenik special police unit?

17        A.   Indeed.  And more specifically, I found it on English page 20.

18        Q.   Yes.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Could we have English page 20, please, on the

20     screen, of this document.

21        Q.   So what we see -- [Interpretation] What we can see on our screens

22     is the translation of a newspaper article wherein it -- wherein it is

23     stated that the units of the special police liberated the -- Srb.

24             Mr. Theunens, I'm somewhat surprised by the fact that in your

25     expert report you should be referring to daily newspaper articles as

Page 13464

 1     credible sources.  Isn't that a bit odd in view of the documentation you

 2     had at your disposal to review?

 3        A.   Not necessarily.  I mean, open sources can be an important source

 4     of information.  I think it is not just a newspaper article.  This is a

 5     newspaper article that is included in an official document published by

 6     the Sibenik special police unit called war path of MUP special police

 7     unit Sibenik, so my understanding was that if the Sibenik special police

 8     unit includes this in its official history of its activities, then there

 9     must be a good reason for that.  And from the methodology point of view

10     that would increase, in my view, the reliability of this particular

11     source for -- in this context, i.e., the reliability of the press source.

12        Q.   However, Mr. Theunens, newspapers as the source at the base of

13     your expertise regardless of what you say, to me, does not seem reliable

14     or credible.

15             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at D554, shall we.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, looking at the last sentence it was

17     comment that you do not consider newspapers to be reliable, which is fine

18     with me, but to say, Regardless what you say, I find newspapers

19     unreliable.  Where the witness explained why in these specific

20     circumstances, he considered this not just to be newspaper article is a

21     kind of comment and not very fair to the witness --

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  My position to the witness, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you say, Regardless what you say.  And give

24     your own opinion is not really what assists the Chamber.

25             Please proceed.

Page 13465

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] We can see D554, which is the summary report on

 3     the execution of Operation Oluja, Storm, which is the -- which is an

 4     official document.

 5             Have you seen this document before?  This is the official

 6     document from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia issued

 7     by the chief of the Main Staff, General Zvonimir Cervenko.

 8             If we turn to page 3 of the document for the date of the 8th of

 9     August, we shall see that it is stated therein that the forces of the

10     Split Military District liberated Srb.  In other words, by no means did

11     the specialists from the Ministry of Interior liberate Srb.  Do you

12     agree, Mr. Theunens, that this official document from the Ministry of

13     Defence of the Republic of Croatia makes statements that are different

14     from the newspaper articles you referred to?

15        A.   Just for your information, I have included this document, D554,

16     for example, on English page 131, and, indeed, there is an inconsistency

17     in relation as to who captured or took control over Srb.  I must say I

18     had not paid attention to that before and, indeed, if there would be a

19     specific analysis about who took Srb when, the different source would say

20     have to be compared and then we would try to find other sources in order

21     to determine what exactly happened and who took Srb.

22        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have the document we

24     just had on our screens - that's D552 - the order by General Cervenko to

25     continue combat activities on D plus 2.  And can we turn to page 2 of the

Page 13466

 1     document.  I'm interested in item 3.  [In English] [Previous translation

 2     continues] ... that would be the third page in English version, please.

 3     Yes, yes, thank you thank you it's okay.  Count 3.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] This particular item of the order of

 5     General Cervenko gives assignments to the members of the MUP, and it

 6     says:  "Upon capturing the Bruvno and Malovan saddles continue the attack

 7     towards Donji Lapac and capture this area in -- with the participation of

 8     the forces of the Gospic Military District on the left flank and the

 9     forces of the Split Military District on the right flank.

10             Mr. Theunens, it is without any doubt that the chief of the Main

11     Staff of the HV in command of Operation Storm issued assignments to

12     members of the special police.  I'm highlighting this particular fact

13     against the cases put forward in your report at page 281 of my copy -

14     that's item 9, under the date of the 5th of August - day two, in other

15     words, 1995.

16             I'll quote your report where you say:

17             "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ...  first two

18     days of operation the SJP command decides to initiate the third stage."

19             [Interpretation] In view of your experience and capacity of a

20     military expert, is it possible to conclude that in the continuation of

21     combat activities, a decision was taken in the command of the special

22     police and not at the Main Staff which was in charge of the operation?

23        A.   Your Honours, I would like to reply.  My reply would consist of

24     two components.  The first component can be found on English page 295 in

25     my version, under the title:  4, command and control and communications

Page 13467

 1     procedure over the special police during Operation Oluja --

 2        Q.   I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Theunens, but my question was very

 3     simple.

 4        A.   Yes, but I'm trying to answer your question.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Please do.

 6        A.   And there I state command and control, Mladen Markac, command of

 7     the SUP doing operation Storm is subordinated to the chief of the HV

 8     Main Staff and keeps him informed of the operations conducted by the SUP.

 9     So that is one important element.  I will read it out again for the

10     transcript.

11             Mladen Markac commander of the SUP doing operation storm is

12     subordinated to the chief of the HV Main Staff.

13             Now the excerpt you took from my report is based on Exhibit P614

14     where I copied the text of this document, whereby P614 is an official

15     document of the special police sector.  It's the analysis of progress of

16     Operation Storm.  So when you read out this section from my report,

17     obviously it has to be considered in the overall context where I clearly

18     state that the special police, i.e., Colonel General Mladen Markac and

19     subordinated to him the chief of the special police sector received their

20     orders from the chief of the Main Staff, General Zvonimir Cervenko.

21        Q.   Thank you for area answer, Mr. Theunens, but this was not answer

22     to my question.  My question was:  Have you ever experienced in your

23     expertise that the lawyer level of command has been reached their own

24     decision to continue with a combat operation, apart from the higher

25     command?

Page 13468

 1        A.   Initiative is an important aspect of --

 2        Q.   It is not initiative; it's a decision.  Because you said, Command

 3     decides.

 4        A.   But I say --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, initiative is not decision, but

 6     decisions sometimes result in decisions, so, therefore, if the witness --

 7     let's give him a fair chance to answer the question.  And as far as the

 8     question is concerned, apparently you are not seeking a comment on the

 9     situation in Croatia at that time but, rather, in more general terms.  If

10     you would clearly put that to the witness, there's a better chance that

11     he'll understand your question.

12             Mr. Theunens, the question is not about the situation in

13     August 1995 in Croatia but in more general terms.

14             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

15             Without going into too great details, initiative is one of

16     important or key qualities for military leaders at all levels.  Of

17     course, initiative has to fit, if I can express myself in that way, in

18     the overall concept, i.e., the orders of the superior, and again coming

19     back to what you quoted in my report from my report, it is stated,

20     indeed, that the SJP command decides to initiative the third stage of the

21     operation with the approval of the HV Main Staff.  And this is actually

22     what initiative is about and how, then, initiative can result in a

23     decision, obviously with the approval of the superior command.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:

25        Q.   Thank you for that answer, Mr. Theunens, but my position is just

Page 13469

 1     opposite, vice versa.  Okay, but we move on.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, could I have D322.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, we will be looking at order -- at

 4     an order for D plus 3, also issued by the chief of the Main Staff,

 5     General Zvonimir Cervenko, for the continuation of combat activities,

 6     which, again, calls for an energetic advancement.  It asks for the troops

 7     to come out on the borders, and it also says that the Split and Gospic

 8     Military District Commanders have to coordinate with the commander of the

 9     special police units of the MUP, the times of the attacks to take place

10     along the designated axes.  Can we have your comment on this, or is the

11     order, in fact, a logical continuation of the combat activities carried

12     out hither to?

13        A.   In my view, it is it a logical continuation of the earlier orders

14     and the earlier combat operations.  General Cervenko orders to reach the

15     border as soon as possible.  And, of course, as units of the special

16     police are operating on the -- on the boundary between the zone of

17     responsibility of the Gospic Military District in the north and the Split

18     Military District in the south, it is -- it is essential to ensure

19     coordination between these three groups of forces.

20        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

21             I would like to direct your attention to part two of your report;

22     in other words, for the 4th of August 1995.  In my copy that is page 278,

23     and the paragraph is number 4.  Please alert me when you find the

24     paragraph.  It starts with the word "Markac."

25             Mr. Theunens, I would like you to look at the portion of the

Page 13470

 1     paragraph where you state that at 1132 hours Markac reported on the

 2     artillery fire against his forces from Medak.  In the brackets you state

 3     that this was friendly fire.

 4             Can you tell us what is your source for the statement that this

 5     was friendly fire?

 6        A.   Could we see the document, please.

 7        Q.   I would refer to the document P614, please, and page 8.

 8        A.   Because I'm quoting from D555.  The war diary of the HV

 9     Main Staff.

10        Q.   We will come to it, Mr. Theunens.

11             So it is page 8 of the P614, and I would like to draw your

12     attention to 1215.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  For the English page that will be the previous

14     page, right, and 1215 is a time that I'm interested in.  Okay.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, look at the relevant portion of

16     the document, which analyses the course of Operation Storm and which was

17     sent to the Main Staff of the Croatian army from the special police.

18             Let us look at the entry for the relevant time, where it says

19     that the enemy opened artillery fire from Medak upon Marasovac.  My

20     conclusion, therefore, is that this was not friendly fire; it was enemy

21     fire.  [In English] You cited in your report, and this is D555.

22        A.   Yes, I mean, you're right, and it also states at 2000 on the same

23     page that Medak is liberated by SJP by.

24        Q.   The second day 5th of August, 2000?

25        A.   And that is footnote 1122 in my report.

Page 13471

 1        Q.   Now I would like to see the document D555, and that will be in

 2     the English version page 19.

 3             [Interpretation] What we are going to see is the war diary kept

 4     at the Main Staff where entries were made from the field during Operation

 5     Storm.  I believe you did have an opportunity to see this war diary, did

 6     it you not, Mr. Theunens?

 7        A.   Yes, I did, and I have quoted from it, the incident of the

 8     artillery fire is footnote 1098, in part 2 of the report.

 9        Q.   Yes.  And I would like to draw your attention to the number 139.

10        A.   Indeed.  I drew the wrong conclusion at the time when I wrote

11     this report, that, at the time of the artillery fire, Medak was already

12     taken by Croatian forces, which we have seen now is incorrect.

13        Q.   Thank you for that answer.

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, could I have 65 ter 1026, please.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] While we're waiting for the document,

16     Mr. Theunens, I wanted to ask you this:  You have come across certain

17     documents in which General Cervenko, the chief of the Main Staff,

18     reported the president, Dr. Tudjman on the course of Operation Storm.

19     President Tudjman was also the supreme commander of the armed forces.

20             This is one such report for the 7th of August.

21        A.   Indeed, I have come across such reports, and I have included a

22     number of them in section 2 of part 2 of the report.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 2 of

24     the document in the Croatian.

25        Q.   We are about to see page 2.

Page 13472

 1             Mention is made there of the special forces of the MUP after

 2     having take Malovan and Bruvno continued their combat and linked up with

 3     the forces of the Military District of Gospic in the area of Udbina.  The

 4     other portion of the special forces with the artillery support of the

 5     Military District Gospic took over Gornji and Donji Lapac.  The third

 6     portion of the forces were at the passes of Malovan and Otric.  These

 7     facts are known to you from the documents that you saw.  Is that correct,

 8     Mr. Theunens?

 9        A.   Indeed.  And I believe it's largely coherent with the reports of

10     the special police both the analysis P614 as well as reports by special

11     police units on the events of -- and the operations of the 7th of August.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, I have just been reminded from my

14     case manager that I didn't apply for an introducing into the evidence 65

15     ter 00317, which is a news article, so I would like to tender it.

16             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1098.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, the reason why I consulted with my

21     colleagues is because having media stuff into evidence always causes the

22     Chamber to -- to consider that, but in view of the answers of this

23     witness, that this document was attached to a report, and we heard no

24     further questions about it so apparently it is not challenged.  The

25     Chamber has no difficulty in those circumstances to immediately decide

Page 13473

 1     and to admit into evidence and D1098.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC:  May I tender into the evidence as well 65 ter

 5     01026, which is on the screen right now.

 6             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1099, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  D1099 is admitted into evidence.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             Mr. Registrar, could I have on the screen, please, P585, please.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] The document we are about to see is a report by

13     Colonel General Mladen Markac.  It actually came from the Ministry of

14     Interior and the head of special forces to the chief of Main Staff on the

15     lines reached by the special police joint forces.

16             I'd like to draw your attention to paragraph 3 in which it is

17     stated that the forces of the special police were mopping up the terrain

18     at the foot of Mount Velebit with an aim to destroy the enemy groups that

19     may have been left behind.

20             In the documents of the special police that refer to mopping up

21     such as this one, and we will see some others, the term used is

22     destruction of the leftover enemy or sabotage terrorist groups.  Do you

23     agree with me that that term was used in the reports of the special

24     police?

25        A.   It is for sure one of the terms that is being used.  And it is

Page 13474

 1     most often used, yes.

 2        Q.   Yes.  Now I would like to see a P577, please.

 3             [Interpretation] And this document, as we will see, there are

 4     tables which were made to complement the MUP special forces reports on

 5     the mopping up of the terrain you referred to those in the second part of

 6     your report, page 288, I'm referring to the 9th of August.  It is the

 7     last entry in paragraph 3.

 8             In your report, you mentioned the term "liquidated" as the term

 9     used to identify those members of the enemy forces that were killed

10     during the mopping up operation.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, search operation.

12             MR. MIKULICIC:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, if we look at the table in exhibit

14     577 for the 23rd of August, the ERN number is 06092942, we see there in

15     the column liquidated that the special police forces from the

16     Split-Dalmatia county registered three persons that had been liquidated.

17     Do you see that, Mr. Theunens?

18        A.   Yes, I see, and this is also --

19        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

20        A.   It's in my report on page 284 for the other page.

21        Q.   I would like to deal with this issue because I take issue with

22     this term, "liquidated," when reviewing the reports sent by

23     General Markac to the Main Staff, I did not come across a term, not once.

24     My question is this:  Do you know who made these tables that can be found

25     in Exhibit P577?  It is obvious that this some sort of statistics

Page 13475

 1     concerning the reports that were submitted by the special police to the

 2     Main Staff.  Do you know who was the author of those tables?  And I would

 3     also like to draw your attention to the last page in the stamp.  It says

 4     that this document came from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

 5     Croatia.

 6        A.   Well, I only see the English in front of me.  But if it is a form

 7     used, because maybe the stamp is just kind of a stamp for the archives or

 8     something that was put on it afterwards as I've seen on many other

 9     document.  Documents that were provided to OTP and that originated from

10     archives in state archives in Croatia often had stamps, where I had the

11     impression the stamp was put on the document at a later stage.

12     Unfortunately, I cannot really read -- I can see 25/04, but then on my

13     screen, I cannot read the year.

14             Any way, it says 2007.  Well, sorry I didn't notice that, so it

15     was a stamp probably that was put on the document afterwards, and which

16     has to do with archiving.  I was under the understanding this was a form

17     that was used by the special police sector, i.e., that had been prepared

18     by special police sector without any particular author being known.

19        Q.   I would like to put the following to you, Mr. Theunens.  In the

20     reports of the special police the term "liquidated" or to liquidate was

21     never used.  Let us have a look at the reports that refers to the 23rd of

22     April -- of August, in which we have the table stating that three people

23     were liquidated.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Mikulicic should not overlap and wait for

25     the end of interpretation.

Page 13476

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, you are invited not to overlap and to

 2     wait until the translation is finished.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  This is my problem, Your Honour.  I try to avoid

 4     it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you.

 7             So I was asking for 65 ter 2463, please, Mr. Registrar.

 8             Could we go on page 2 in English version, please.

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, this is a report of the special

10     police on the search of terrain that was sent to General Cervenko at the

11     Main Staff, referring to the 23rd, and that is the date for which the

12     tables state that three people were liquidated.

13             In item 3, we see --

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  We have a wrong document on the screen, but I

15     believe previously we have a right one.  So I repeat, it is 65 ter 2463,

16     page 2.  That's the right one.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, I would like to draw your

18     attention to paragraph 3 in the last sentence it says:  "[In English]

19     [Previous translation continues] ...  terrorist group (three armed

20     military conscripts) was destroyed in Sipkovac."

21             [Interpretation] That was the term used in the report of the

22     special police which is different from the term used in the summary

23     reports, that is to say, the tables.  That is obvious, is it not?  There

24     is no mention of the term "liquidated," rather, the military term is

25     used, stating that the terrorist group was destroyed?

Page 13477

 1        A.   Yes, we see that the term "destroyed" is being used here, whereas

 2     in other occasion in official form, the term "liquidated" is used.

 3        Q.   [In the reports of the special police units, could you show me

 4     one document of that kind.

 5             In the meantime could I tender this document into evidence, Your

 6     Honour.

 7             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1100, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D1100 is admitted into evidence.

11             MR. MIKULICIC:

12        Q.   But to save some time, Mr. Theunens, it is my statement the

13     wording "liquidated" is never used in the official reports of the special

14     police.  In the meantime during the break, if you could find one, I would

15     be happy to see it.

16        A.   Your Honours, I don't need more time.  As I put it in the report

17     on page 283, I said, A form, and then between quotation marks, "report by

18     the MUP special police sector" uses the expression liquidated to identify

19     members of the enemy force who have been search in [indiscernible]

20     operations.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The point seems to be clear.  Mr. Mikulicic finds it

22     important to emphasise that that word is not used in any report that it

23     could be identified as coming from the special police.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 13478

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, the next question I have has to do

 2     with artillery support received by the special police in its advancement

 3     during Operation Storm.

 4             In the documents you referred to and that I reviewed, the term

 5     "artillery support" is used.  Can you explain in the military sense of

 6     the word, what does it actually mean, artillery support?

 7        A.   Well, the official term should be fire support, but fire support

 8     can consist of artillery, close air support, as well as the use of

 9     mortars.  I use the concept artillery support, because I only address the

10     use of weapons qualified as artillery, i.e., cannons, Howitzers, and

11     multiple-barrel rocket launchers which are used to provide fire support

12     to the troops that are conducting a manoeuvre.  For example, if they

13     carry out an attack, an attack is traditionally described as a

14     combination of fire and movement.

15             The troops that are moving, they can also -- they will also use

16     fire, but, of course, there are certain limitations to their

17     compatibilities.  And that's why artillery, which will be static will be

18     called in to provide additional support against the enemy in order to

19     facilitate the attack or the manoeuvre of the manoeuvring forces.

20        Q.   This artillery support to the units of special police was

21     provided by HV forces.  Is that correct?

22        A.   Your Honours, it is a combination.  The special police has -- it

23     has its own artillery assets, and at the same time, there is, first of

24     all, artillery support being provided by HV units as well as examples of

25     individual artillery weapons being made available to special police

Page 13479

 1     units.

 2        Q.   Mr. Theunens, did you come across an example, in which HV forces

 3     resubordinated; that is to say, placed certain resources of theirs under

 4     the command of the special police forces?

 5        A.   I'm just trying to locate the artillery section in the part on

 6     special police.

 7             It's important to note that the provision of artillery support

 8     does not necessarily include subordination.  It can happen, but it

 9     doesn't have to.  Of course it includes coordination because the support

10     has to be provided at the right time in the right location and for the

11     correct duration of time because, otherwise, maybe it will be ineffective

12     or even worse, you will -- I mean, the own forces may be exposed to

13     friendly fire.

14        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I'm referring to page 310 of the second part of

15     your report, paragraph 5, which talks about the use of artillery by the

16     special police, and I have item 2 in mind, in which you state that --

17     well, you cite an example when the Split Military District handed over an

18     artillery piece to the special police.  The piece was a Howitzer.

19             Do you see that in your report, Mr. Theunens?

20        A.   Yes.  That is on page -- in my version, page 306, and it

21     corresponds with footnote 1279.  But I understand that we were talking

22     about a battery of Howitzers which is -- in general, six Howitzers.

23        Q.   And there you refer to a 65 ter document.  That is 4555 in

24     footnote 1279.  [In English] [Previous translation continues] ...  65 ter

25     4555.

Page 13480

 1             [Interpretation] What we are going to see, Mr. Theunens, is

 2     something you reviewed when drafting your expert report, is a report by

 3     the OG commander, Colonel Mladen Fuzul, the OG Zadar.  What is mentioned

 4     there is the handing over of a Howitzer battery of 122 millimetres from

 5     the OG Zadar to the special police forces.  Based on that document, you

 6     concluded that the OG Zadar handed over this Howitzer battery to the

 7     special forces of the MUP.

 8             However, Mr. Theunens, I would like to draw your attention to the

 9     introductory part of the order which refers to a document that we will

10     see shortly.

11             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour,

12     I would like to tender this document into the evidence.

13             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1101, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  D1101 is admitted into evidence.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, could we please have 65 ter 5633.

18        Q.   [Interpretation] What I'm going show you, Mr. Theunens, is a

19     document referred to in this order.  That is the agreement of the 6th of

20     August, 1995, number 8001/95-02/08.

21             It is clear from this document, Mr. Theunens, that on

22     Mr. Markac's request and in agreement with OG Zadar, the Chief of Staff,

23     General Zvonimir Cervenko, agreed that a 122-millimetre Howitzer battery

24     with ammunition as war booty of the special police should be handed over

25     for use to the command of OG Zadar.  Therefore, this is precisely

Page 13481

 1     contrary to the situation that you described.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please slow down.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Could I tender this into the evidence, Your

 4     Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But, first of all, you were invited to slow

 6     down for the interpreters.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  I'm trying to catch time, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Second, I take it that the question mark on the

 9     transcript means that you'd like to hear the comment of the expert.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  What I was intending to hear

11     from the expert is whether this is a completely opposite situation of

12     that one that he describes in his report, and he admitted it is, so we

13     can go on.

14             THE WITNESS:  It is, Your Honours, and I apologise for the error.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then Mr. Waespi.

16             MR. WAESPI:  No objections for the document.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1112, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D1112 is admitted into evidence.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             Mr. Mikulicic, the reason why I was waiting for the answer of the

22     witness is that we exactly at the same time got the invitation for you to

23     slow down, so I missed his answer.  But from what he says now, I must

24     take it that he had answered the question.

25             Please proceed.

Page 13482

 1             THE WITNESS:  And just to add, I must have missed this second

 2     document, because the second document explains the situation.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, I would like to pull up on the

 4     screen P505 MFI.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, in your report - in my version, it

 6     is page 321 the fifth chapter - where you mention military discipline and

 7     alleged serious crimes committed in the area of responsibility during

 8     Operation Storm.  I would like to assist you to locate that.  It is the

 9     Roman -- it is item aa, in small letters.  I believe it is page 321 in

10     copy.

11             Have you found it, Mr. Theunens?

12             THE INTERPRETER:  We cannot hear Mr. Mikulicic, Your Honour, he

13     is inaudible.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, I hear that it is difficult for the

15     interpreters to hear you.

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  I must pay more attention, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It is difficult for all of us.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, I apologise.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you.

21        Q.   Mr. Theunens, it's section five of your report which is titled

22     enforcement of the military discipline and so on.

23        A.   Mm-hm.

24        Q.   And I'm referring to the paragraph 1.  Signed as double small a,

25     aa, which starts with the words:  "On 26th August ..."

Page 13483

 1             Have you found it?

 2        A.   No, but I think we're talking about a different thing.

 3        Q.   In my report, it's page 321.  And 320, so it has to be minor

 4     difference in your version.

 5        A.   Yeah.

 6        Q.   So ... labelled as aa.  Never mind.  What I intend to do is the

 7     following:

 8             [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, you referenced a document which

 9     the Prosecution tried to tender into evidence on a couple of occasions,

10     and it was marked 505, and we still haven't heard from Their Honours

11     whether the document will be admitted or not because the Defence

12     challenged its authenticity.  Purportedly this is a letter from

13     General Markac to the minister of the interior, Mr. Jarnjak, about the

14     letter from Madam Elisabeth Rehn and the reaction to that letter.  I

15     would like to tell you, Mr. Theunens, that the Defence does not consider

16     this document to be authentic because of the absence of signature, stamp,

17     or a reference number, such as is normally assigned to every letter.

18     That's why I'm referring to that part of your report, where you mention

19     the disputed document, and I have to challenge that portion of the report

20     because of that.

21             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... regarding

22     this particulars portion of the report.

23             THE WITNESS:  It is on page 411 in the English version.  I mean,

24     I'm not familiar with the background.  I didn't know it was disputed and

25     whether it was MFI or not.  You just state there is no number, but when

Page 13484

 1     you look at the Croatian version, it says Boj, above Zagreb, and Boj, in

 2     my view, stands --

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  The portion of the official number is missing.

 4        A.   Oh.

 5        Q.   But it is not up to your expertise.  I'm just trying to show that

 6     you that this document is in dispute.

 7        A.   Okay.

 8        Q.   So we could go on.

 9             [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, I'd like us to talk about an

10     operation undertaken by special MUP forces and the HV after Operation

11     Storm was concluded.  What I have in mind are search operations.

12             First of all, going through the documents when drafting your

13     report, and in order to try and save some time, can we agree without

14     going through all of the documents that the operation of search or

15     mopping up of terrain was conducted by the units of the special police as

16     well as HV units, then military police units, as well as the special

17     units of the police called anti-terrorist platoons.

18             Do you go with this assertion of mine?

19        A.   I agree, and I would like to add that based on the documents that

20     I saw I came to the conclusions that these operations were predominantly

21     conducted by special police units, but as you mentioned also other types

22     of units participated in these clearing operations.

23        Q.   Thank you for that answer.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, may we have document 65 ter 2298

25     on the screen, please.

Page 13485

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] We will now be looking at a document which came

 2     from the HV Main Staff from General Zvonimir Cervenko, who, in this

 3     document, orders the forces of MUP to carry out mop-up and fully take out

 4     area of Petrova Gora.  This document also bears the date of the 10th of

 5     August.

 6             Do you know, Mr. Theunens, where Petrova Gora is?

 7        A.   Based on the fact that you asked the question, and I have also

 8     checked in the atlas the position Petrova Gora is.  My understanding of

 9     the use of Petrova Gora in this context was that we were talking about

10     the area known as Petrova Gora in the zone of Kordun, which is north of

11     Bihac, but I realize that there are different Petrova Goras.  However,

12     when I see the document, I see Topusko, Glina, and so on, and that

13     corresponds with that area.

14        Q.   That is correct, Mr. Theunens.  My question is whether you can

15     confirm that that location is outside of borders of former Sector South

16     where Operation Storm took place and it is charged in the indictment?

17             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... for the

18     record, Mr. Mikulicic.

19             THE WITNESS:  The Petrova Gora as included in this order, if it

20     is the one in the Kordun, is outside former Sector South.  Kordun was

21     located in former UN Sector North, and this is page 284 in my report.

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  May I tender this documented into evidence, Your

23     Honour.

24             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 13486

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number D1103.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  D1103 is admitted into evidence.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] If you recall, Mr. Theunens, I showed you a

 5     document yesterday from 1993 by General Markac in which it is stated what

 6     sort of operations the special police was supposed to undertake.

 7             In the document, those operations and activities are specified as

 8     those which need to be executed during search operations.  And it also

 9     serves as a definition of the measures undertaken by the special police.

10     Those are searching of the terrain in search of the leftover sabotage

11     terrorist groups, locating the warehouses with ammunition, locating any

12     minefields, and similar activities which form part of a search operation.

13     Do you agree with this assertion?

14        A.   Yes.  And it is also confirmed in D528, i.e., the 1996 brochure

15     which can be found in footnote 381 in part 1 of the report, English page

16     112.

17        Q.   Thank you for that answer.

18             [Interpretation] My next question, though it may seem odd, I will

19     put it any way.  Do you believe that the search and clean-up or mop-up

20     operations are quite legitimate operations normally carried out under

21     such circumstances?

22        A.   As a concept they are part of a military operations, and there

23     are rules and procedures how they conducted, so, indeed, I would consider

24     them by concept legitimate and kind of normal operations.  Everything

25     depends, of course, on the manner in which they are conducted, i.e., the

Page 13487

 1     execution.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Mr. Registrar, could I have 65 ter, please, 1386.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] In the mop-up operations carried out by the

 5     special police, the joint forces of the special policemen took place, the

 6     ones we referred to yesterday.  They were, to remind you, formed from

 7     elements of the units of the special police attached to police

 8     administrations.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC: [In English] [Previous translation continues] ...

10     65 ter 1386, please.  1386.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Certain police administrations set aside a

12     number of their special policemen to take part in search operations.

13     That's beyond any doubt.

14             What I would like to clarify with the help of the document that

15     is show up on our screens a moment ago is in what way was the

16     participation of elements of special policemen from police

17     administrations technically organised, whereas that when they were part

18     of these joint forces?

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  The hard copy of this document it is a -- maybe

20     we could go over the ERN numbers.  It's a 0605-3079.  On my copy, on my

21     hard copy is stamped like it is a ter that I cited but obviously there is

22     some mistake in it.

23             Could we try, then, over the number 0605-3079.

24             THE WITNESS:  Maybe this is an error in the ERN in my report.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  No, I'm not referring to the document in your

Page 13488

 1     report.  Obviously, this is a wrong number.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, the number on the screen bears the

 3     number you just gave, 0605-3079.  So, therefore ...

 4             MR. MIKULICIC:  I'm a little bit surprised at this.

 5             MR. WAESPI:  I think if you go to the last two pages, there is, I

 6     think, a different document.  Maybe that is it what you are looking for.

 7     So pages 2, 3, and 4, if you move on, so it might be --

 8             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, thank you for your help, Mr. Waespi.  That's

 9     the one.  So we find it.  It's okay.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, while we're waiting for the

11     English version of the document, I will tell you what it is all about.

12             It has to do with the request of the commander of a special

13     police unit, or, rather, of the unit from the Split-Dalmatia police

14     administration to the accounting service of that administration about the

15     payment of per diems.

16             Do you agree with me that it follows from this document that the

17     units which took part in the mop-up operation, namely, Operation

18     Oluja/Obruc which is mentioned in this document and we discussed it

19     before, were, in fact, financed by their respective police

20     administrations, and in this way they were reliant upon or tied to their

21     respective administrations?

22        A.   This document, indeed, indicates that members of the special

23     police unit Split-Dalmatia are paid daily allowances for their field

24     service by the police administration Split-Dalmatia.  I have not looked

25     into the aspect of the paying of daily allowances, because when I was

Page 13489

 1     reviewing documents that covered the aspects of command, control

 2     coordination, and, I didn't see any references or any -- yeah, references

 3     to the payment of daily allowances.  What I mean by that is that the fact

 4     that daily allowances are paid by organisation X, Y,or Z, does not have

 5     an implication for command, control, coordination, and reporting

 6     arrangements.

 7        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC:  Can this document be admitted into evidence,

 9     please.

10             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.  Obviously, the first page appears to

11     be out of sequence, but I'm sure we can remove that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The first page apparently being page 35 of something

13     and then the second page.

14             THE WITNESS:  Is also different.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Also -- so I take it, Mr. Mikulicic, what you're

16     seeking to be admitted into evidence is the third and the fourth page of

17     -- is there any way that you could upload these two pages and get rid of

18     the other two?  So that we can with focus on what makes sense to look at.

19             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  This is a

20     document from the Prosecution's 65 ter list.  I'm not sure that we, as

21     the Defence, may intervene into documents presented by the Prosecution.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I see no problem, that if you longer document in

23     which you're interested in a portion of it, that you upload that portion,

24     perhaps not under that same 65 ter number, but under another number, and

25     that we then admit into evidence the relevant portion of that document.

Page 13490

 1             Mr. Registrar, pages 3 and 4, of this document, once separately

 2     uploaded by the Markac Defence, will receive number.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1104, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  D1104, once uploaded, will be admitted into

 5     evidence.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, I would like to direct your

 8     attention to the following document, 65 ter 01085.

 9             This is an order by the chief of the Main Staff, General Zvonimir

10     Cervenko, dated the 11th of September, 1995, sent to General Markac,

11     where in it is ordered that by 20 September - I'm referring to item 1 -

12     the Special Forces of the MUP at the strength of some 2.000 men be sent

13     to the southern front, and we can see that what is referred to is

14     Metkovic in that part of the front line.  Mr. Theunens, it is indubitable

15     that a 2.000 strong contingent is taken out of their area in which they

16     were engaged up to that point and sent far to the south which is a very

17     long way away from Sector South.  Is it not?

18        A.   Your Honours, the southern, as it is translated, the southern

19     theatre of operations in the Metkovic area is the area which is -- I

20     would have to read a map, but I guess it is like 50 kilometres south of

21     Split, southeast of Split.  It's the wider area of Dubrovnik, and that is

22     what the order states.  Now, I don't know to what extent this order was

23     implemented.

24             I remember from my activities in UNPROFOR that there was, indeed,

25     an increased intention in that area, and that there were redeployments of

Page 13491

 1     Croatian forces noticed by UNPROFOR members in the wider Dubrovnik area,

 2     but then after a couple of days, it seemed that various units that had

 3     been sent were withdrawn, and that, yes, there were no significant

 4     operational developments.

 5        Q.   Thank you for your answer, Mr. Theunens.  However, what I wanted

 6     to demonstrate through this document is that from the area liberated in

 7     the course of Operation Storm, pursuant to an order by the Main Staff,

 8     2.000 special policemen were redeployed to area of Croatia that was quite

 9     a way away from that area.  Do you agree on that score?

10        A.   The order states that they have to be redeployed.  However, when

11     you look at English page 294, part 2 of the report, we see that the

12     clearing operations are still conducted, for example, between the 21st

13     and the 29th of September.

14             So it is not clear to what extent this order by General Markac

15     was implemented.

16        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I'm drawing your attention to the fact that this is

17     not General Markac order, rather, this is an order that comes from the

18     chief of the Main Staff, General Cervenko.

19        A.   Indeed.  And it's coherent with what I have explained earlier,

20     that is that the units of the special police prior to, during, and after

21     Operation Storm, are subordinated to the chief of the HV Main Staff, who

22     issues orders along the chain of command through the assistant minister

23     of the interior, Mladen Markac, or Colonel General Mladen Markac, and

24     then further on, to the special police units via the special police

25     sector.  So it is coherent with what we discussed earlier.

Page 13492

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted

 3     into evidence.

 4             MR. WAESPI:  No objections.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1105, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  D1105 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] For your reference is, Your

 9     Honours, in document P621, which is already an exhibit, the exact number

10     of members of the special police is mentioned, the number of those who

11     took part in Operation Storm.  For the record, I will state that the

12     number ranges from 1790, that was the head count on the last day of

13     Operation Storm, to 2450, which was their strength on the first day of

14     the operation.

15        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I still have a couple of questions left and only on

16     one topic.

17             While preparing your expertise that we've been dealing with for a

18     while now, which material did you study concerning the structure,

19     organisation, purpose, and role of the special police?  Did you have an

20     opportunity to come across scientific papers on the issue, or the

21     curricula of the training at the police academy, which had to be taken by

22     the special policemen?  Did you have occasion to read scientific papers

23     or articles on the matter?

24        A.   I have read articles on the special police.  Some of these

25     articles originate from a magazine known as, I think, it was Jane's

Page 13493

 1     intelligence review, where there were a number of articles, for example,

 2     one by somebody I knew, I mean, from my time in UNPROFOR, and he wrote --

 3     he published under the name Norman Eric, even though it's not his real

 4     name.

 5             I must say I was also familiar with the special police from my

 6     stay in UNTAES mission where we had access to -- okay, these were not

 7     scientific articles, but these were military magazines.  I was -- I

 8     personally discussed with some members of the special police at that time

 9     because they were located in a zone -- at least that was in summer 1996

10     where they were not allowed to be present.

11             Then I have also, of course, the material that is included in my

12     report.  There is, for example, P588, which is I agree or admit, a

13     brochure.  I have requested during the preparation of my report for more

14     complete documents or more specific documents in relation to the

15     organisation, role, and -- yeah, structure of the special police.  One of

16     the documents we obtained was, I believe, it is 65 ter 5031.  It has been

17     tendered now, but it's a document with the job descriptions.  For

18     example, we had a job description under title 280 of the chief of special

19     police unit.  I was very surprised by that document because it was

20     incomplete.  There should also have been a job description of the

21     assistant minister of the interior for example --

22        Q.   Thank you for your answer, Mr. Theunens.  We are quite short on

23     time.

24             Let me complete this topic, if I understand you correctly, you

25     read several newspaper -- several articles in specialized journals.  You

Page 13494

 1     spoke to some members of the special police, but you did not conduct

 2     specific research at the police academy in Zagreb or read any Ph.D.

 3     papers in order to gain specialized knowledge and an insight into the

 4     training required in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal,

 5     when it comes to the role of an expert witness.

 6             Mr. Theunens, it is true, is it not, that if one were to apply

 7     scientific criteria and the requirements of this Tribunal that when it

 8     comes to the structure, legislation, and the doctrine of use of the units

 9     of the special police in times of peace and in combat, you, in fact, do

10     not have specialized knowledge which is required by the ICTY of an expert

11     witness.  That's right, is it not, you do not have that specialist

12     knowledge?  This is your first case where you appear as an expert witness

13     to testify on the issues of the special police.  Is that right?

14        A.   Your Honours, there are a lot of questions included, but I will

15     just answer the last component.

16             I mean for the time being, unless I'm requested to also answer or

17     address other components.

18             It is correct that this is the first case where I have been

19     requested to write a report on the use and activities of special police.

20     However, I consider that, based on my education, training, and

21     experience, I am indeed qualified to address the topics I have addressed

22     in my report.

23        Q.   Thank you for that answer, Mr. Theunens.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  That concludes my cross-examination, Your

25     Honours.

Page 13495

 1        Q.   Thank you for answering my questions, Mr. Theunens.

 2        A.   You're welcome, Mr. Mikulicic.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We will have a break.  We will resume at five

 4     minutes to 11.00, but could I have a forecast.

 5             MR. WAESPI:  I have no redirect.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  I will stick within 15 minutes, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay.

 8             MR. KAY:  No, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which means that the next witness should remain

10     stand by.

11             We resume at five minutes to 11.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, you never know who is hiding from whom,

15     isn't it?

16             MR. MISETIC:  To your benefit or your -- I notice that you can't

17     see me now, Mr. President, but ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That is the factual description, who can see who.

19     The other was a bit more psychological.

20             Mr. Theunens, Mr. Misetic has some questions for you.

21             If there's any way of moving a tiny little bit, that would ...

22             MR. MISETIC:  Sure.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I will also try to move a bit.

24                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:

25             MR. MISETIC:  I think that's better.  Hopefully the interpreters

Page 13496

 1     in the booth can hear me from here.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any problem, we will hear from the

 3     interpreters or the transcriber.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6        Q.   Good morning again, Mr. Theunens.

 7        A.   Good morning Mr. Misetic.

 8        Q.   I would like to just address one matter, which came up in one of

 9     your answers on Tuesday.  It is at transcript page 13309, beginning at

10     line 16 and going on to the next page, through line 2.

11             In that line -- or in that paragraph, you say:

12             "However, keeping in mind, I'm sorry, that military discipline is

13     one of the, I will call it, core duties of the operational commander.  He

14     is the first one who is responsible, and it's only when there are

15     significant incidents or when the operational commander fails to fulfil

16     his duties that it's only then, that the military police, as well as the

17     military justice system, and military discipline system, of course, I

18     mean, the further steps intervene."

19             And so I'd like to ask you a few questions that are related to

20     this issue.

21             First, I think we've already seen that -- and I won't cover old

22     ground again.  I think we have already seen that in the meetings on the

23     2nd and 3rd of August about providing security in the area.  This was

24     done at the level of the MUP and the military police, and General

25     Gotovina was not present nor invited to be present for those meetings.

Page 13497

 1             My next question is if you can show me a document that is sent by

 2     the MUP to General Gotovina at any time in August or September alerting

 3     him or telling him that there is an issue of crime being committed by

 4     members of his units in the field.  It's a simple -- either there are

 5     letters, or there aren't letters.  And let me just tell you in advance, I

 6     will give you an opportunity at the end to provide any opinion or

 7     argument that you wish on what I'm about to do, but if you can just give

 8     me factual answers, and then at the end, I will give you an opportunity

 9     to provide your opinion.

10             Did you find any such letters from the MUP to General Gotovina?

11        A.   I don't remember seeing such letters from the MUP to

12     General Gotovina.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now, with respect to correspondence from Mr. Lausic to

14     General Gotovina, excluding any documents where the Split Military

15     District or any other Military District is copied on the correspondence,

16     I'm not asking you for documents where Mr. Lausic copies the Split

17     Military District.  I'm asking you:  Is there any direct correspondence

18     from Mr. Lausic to General Gotovina as the addressee, where Mr. Lausic

19     advises General Gotovina, that he as the operational commander, for

20     example, is failing in his duties which is causing the military police to

21     have to intervene, or something to that effect?

22        A.   Again, excluding the documents that are included in my report,

23     where General Gotovina as well as the other Military District Commanders

24     are copied, I have not seen such a specific letter or complaint from

25     General Lausic to General Gotovina personally.

Page 13498

 1        Q.   Okay.  With respect to correspondence from members of the

 2     international community and organisations, after General Gotovina's

 3     meeting with General Forand on the 8th of August, between 8 August and

 4     20 September, is there any correspondence between any international

 5     organisation that goes to General Gotovina to advise him of crimes being

 6     committed by HV soldiers in his area of responsibility?  By crimes, I

 7     mean, not -- excluding the issue of the UN vehicles.  We're talking about

 8     burning, murder, looting, et cetera.

 9        A.   My answer is the same as to the previous question.  I don't

10     remember seeing any complaints by members of the international community

11     or organisations to General Gotovina personally after the 8th of August,

12     1995.

13        Q.   Okay.

14        A.   Excuse me, I just would like to make one correction there.  There

15     is, of course, the ECMM report, which is not a direct letter of

16     complaint, but the ECMM report which I still have under 65 ter 3419, I

17     believe it has been tendered.  It can be found on page 323, part 2,

18     English version.  That report suggests that the ECMM monitors who had the

19     meeting with General Gotovina raised the matters of ongoing looting,

20     arson, and harassment.

21        Q.   I could go into that with you, but rather than getting into an

22     argument with you, that is why I limited the scope to the 20th of

23     September, 1995.

24        A.   Okay.

25        Q.   Okay.  Now, you, obviously, in your report reviewed many

Page 13499

 1     presidential transcripts, and in his cross-examination, Mr. Kay pointed

 2     out some of the transcripts, where people such as Dr. Radic are telling

 3     the president that the civilian authority in Knin is not functioning and,

 4     as a result, the burdens, and I'm paraphrasing now, that the burdens on

 5     General Cermak are increased as a result of the failures of civilian

 6     government.

 7             There are other presidential transcripts, some of which are cited

 8     in your own report.  Did you find a presidential transcript beginning

 9     4 August 1995 all the way to President Tudjman's death in December of

10     1999, where President Tudjman himself or someone speaking to

11     President Tudjman, mentions General Gotovina failing to take necessary

12     measures regarding the security situation in the Split Military District?

13        A.   I have not reviewed all of the presidential transcripts.  I

14     reviewed a number of transcripts for 1994 and 1995.  Maybe some later

15     ones like the one that covers the meeting between late President Tudjman

16     and General Cermak, but I have not seen in the transcript I have

17     reviewed, which again is not a complete review, any references by

18     President Tudjman or someone speaking to President Tudjman mentioning

19     that General Gotovina failed to take necessary measures regarding the

20     security situation in the Split Military District.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now, you touched upon a bit the relationship between

22     General Cermak and General Gotovina.  You have also mentioned in the

23     cross-examination that General Cermak had meetings with representatives

24     of the international community.  Did you find any reports from

25     General Cermak to General Gotovina about his discussions with the members

Page 13500

 1     of the international community?

 2        A.   I have not seen such reports, and I found that unusual, because I

 3     would expect that General Cermak and General Gotovina would have a lot --

 4     I mean, almost daily or at least regular communication, taking into

 5     account the specific nature of the situation in Knin.

 6        Q.   Well, why would you expect them to have daily communication?

 7        A.   Well, because, first of all, the regulations state that the

 8     Military District Commander is responsible for the work of the garrison

 9     commander.  We have discussed at length that military discipline is --

10     as, I call it, a core duty of the commander and is of key importance in

11     order to maintain the combat readiness of the armed forces and, in

12     addition, there is the element of the complaints of the international

13     community, and as we have seen, there are several orders to enforce

14     discipline from the various command levels which explicitly refer to the

15     reputation of Croatia which may be endangered by the continuous looting

16     and burning.

17        Q.   Okay.  That answer, though, presupposes, does it not that this is

18     the typical situation, for example, you cite in your document the fact

19     that General Gotovina appointed Ashley Minak to be the garrison commander

20     in Benkovac in September.  There is a distinction here though with the

21     relationship between General Gotovina and General Cermak, on the one

22     hand, and General Gotovina and the typical garrison commander who is of a

23     much lower rank than a Colonel General, correct?

24        A.   That is correct.  But again, taking into account the seriousness

25     of the situation, not only in Knin but in the surrounding area, even if

Page 13501

 1     the subordination relation between Generals Cermak and Gotovina is, at

 2     least based on the material I reviewed, not as cheer as what would one

 3     expect in the doctrine, it would still be at least from the military

 4     point of view logical that the two of them would meet as often as

 5     possible and coordinate their activities and also try to -- to use all

 6     the means they have available to them, in order to -- yeah, to solve the

 7     situation and end the ongoing crimes.

 8        Q.   Do you have -- did you see any evidence, for example, in the

 9     Split Military District log-book or any other evidence noting such daily

10     meetings between General Gotovina and General Cermak?

11        A.   No, Your Honours, I did a search in P71, for example, on the name

12     "Cermak" or "garrison commander," and I believe there was only one

13     reference at somewhere very far to the end, which, again, I consider

14     unusual.  I remember seeing General Cermak on the video you showed which

15     allegedly depicts or transmits the -- a meeting held on the 5th or the

16     6th of August.  Otherwise, no references to General Cermak in P71.

17        Q.   Let's close this issue.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could call up Exhibit D818 on

19     the screen, please.

20        Q.   While I'm bringing it up.  This is a request.  You cited it in

21     your report.  It's a request from General Gotovina to General Cermak.

22     Now, I understand that there are some documents titled "Order," but I

23     believe most of those documents that go to the garrison in Knin are also

24     copied to other garrisons, correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 13502

 1        Q.   But in their personal dealings, between the two men, I'm pulling

 2     up this exhibit, because when General Gotovina has to address

 3     General Cermak personally, is it typical -- or isn't it unusual if, in

 4     fact, there's a superior/subordinate relationship that the superior

 5     commander sends a request and gives his military greetings at the end as

 6     opposed to issuing an order, and then the typical last sentence would

 7     say:  I hereby make ... in this case it would say, I hereby make

 8     Ivan Cermak for executing this order.  Wouldn't that be the typical

 9     formulation that General Gotovina would usu when addressing a

10     subordinate, based on your review of all of documents of the Split

11     Military District?

12        A.   Yes.  And actually I would see less of a problem in the use of

13     the word "request."  Again, when looking at the word "request" in the

14     context of the contents of the document, but I was -- I found the use of

15     -- when you look at the first sentence, in future please do not ...

16        Q.   Let me just interrupt you, because I found that too, and there

17     may be in an additional translation issue there.  Because in the Croatian

18     it actually says [B/C/S spoken], which is not quite the same way -- it

19     doesn't give the same sense in the English.  You have raised the issue

20     now.  I wasn't going to raise it with the translation service.  I am

21     fully aware that it is improper to ask the interpreters to do this,

22     Mr. President, but I will leave it in your hands.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Three words only, isn't it?

24             MR. MISETIC:  Four words. [B/C/S spoken] [Interpretation]

25     General, sir, please.

Page 13503

 1        Q.   General, sir, please?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the words are put to you, but I heard them

 3     being spoken by the interpreters.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And, although against the rules, I appreciate the

 6     assistance.

 7             MR. MISETIC:

 8        Q.   Now, you have reviewed General Gotovina documents.  When he is

 9     addressing the OG commanders; when he is addressing other garrison

10     commanders, he doesn't say, Sir, please, right?  He doesn't have to say

11     please to anyone that is it subordinated to him?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   He doesn't address them as sir.  That's not typical in any

14     military, is it, that a superior addresses a subordinate as sir?

15        A.   I know that in some armies people love to use the word, sir, but

16     I mean, it is not a usual practice.

17        Q.   Now, you'll call from our meeting in January that I raised the

18     issue with you based on your experience in the Belgian army.  The

19     situation here is that General Gotovina and General Cermak both were of

20     the same rank at that time, Colonel Generals, correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Okay.  And can you tell us a little bit from a military

23     perspective, is it usual to put two soldiers of the same rank at the

24     level of Colonel Generals and have one in command of the other?

25        A.   It can happen.  And then in case there is a problem that may

Page 13504

 1     arise, I mean, the situation should be clear from the position they hold

 2     because one position should be higher or superior to the other one.

 3             Now, if you have two people with the same rank in a position at

 4     the same level but still a requirement for one having authority over the

 5     other in my army, but I don't know exactly for the Croatian army, the

 6     seniority in the rank, i.e., how many years does that person have that

 7     rank will determine then who has authority over whom.  But that is a very

 8     specific case where have you two people with the same rank holding the

 9     same position.  For example, two Brigadier commanders who are part of the

10     same corps.

11        Q.   I'm not going to say one had authority over the other.  But I

12     would agree with you that there is an -- in the collegiality between

13     officers of the same rank -- I'm not talking about command here.  I'm

14     just saying in terms of the respect between the two, the person who has

15     held the rank longer enjoys a certain level of deference or respect

16     because he has held the rank longer, in military culture I'm talking

17     about?

18        A.   Yes, but, I mean, the rank is a starting point.  And if they have

19     the same rank, then you lock at the position.  As I said well, one

20     position should be superior to the other.

21        Q.   Right.  Sorry to interrupt you, but I agree with you.  That is

22     how, typically, you would look at things.  But I think you in your own

23     report say the situation is not clear.  So what I'm trying to do is in

24     this type of situation where it is it not clear.

25        A.   Mm-hm.

Page 13505

 1        Q.   Okay, then what I'm saying is let's look to other factors.  And

 2     one of the things that I'd like you to tell us is in military culture,

 3     would you agree that the -- if there are two persons of equal rank in

 4     terms of the culture not in terms of now, you know, command issues, but

 5     just in terms of culture.  The culture is the person who has held the

 6     rank longer enjoys a certain deference, correct?

 7        A.   Yes, and even if he's at a higher age just as a matter of

 8     courtesy, without having any operational implications, the person with a

 9     higher age may be addressed in a more -- probably be addressed in a more

10     respectful manner but the person in the younger age, even if they have

11     the same rank and hold a position which is at the same level.

12        Q.   So as between these two men who held the rank longer of Colonel

13     General?

14        A.   I think Ivan Cermak was promoted to General -- Colonel General at

15     an early stage, but it was a reserve rank, but I have not seen any

16     distinction being made between reserve and active duty ranks.

17        Q.   Well, are you aware of the fact that General Gotovina was only

18     promoted to the rank of Colonel General a few days before Operation

19     Storm?

20        A.   Indeed, and I have referred to that in the report.

21        Q.   Okay.  So does the fact -- does this indicate to you why the

22     relationship between the two men wasn't as clear as you would expect

23     typically a Military District Commander and a garrison commander, the

24     typical relationship that they would have?

25        A.   It is obviously one of the aspects that should be taken into

Page 13506

 1     account when one tries to establish the relationship between the two.

 2     Another aspect as I addressed earlier would be --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Someone creates some noise.  And is invited not to

 4     do it.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, another very important aspect would

 6     be the communication between the two of them to see what is the nature of

 7     the communication, do we see orders being issued from one to the other,

 8     reports being provided by one to the other, other documents, what kind of

 9     wording is used in these documents.

10             Now, I must say what I really missed was, in addition to reports

11     of -- of communications between the General Gotovina and Cermak, was also

12     an order specifying the duties of General Cermak, because, as I have

13     tried to show in the report, based on his activities, I came to the

14     conclusion that his duties were much further ranging than the duties one

15     would expect from a, call it, traditional garrison commander as it is

16     stipulated in the doctrine.  And obviously the duties -- the fact that

17     General Cermak was exercising much wider duties and powers than a

18     traditional garrison commander should also be taken into account, when

19     analysing the relationship between General Cermak and General Gotovina.

20             I have an entry in the report where General Cermak states -- this

21     is 65 ter 751.  This is a report to the HV Main Staff dated 25th August.

22     General Cermak states that the Split Military District Command and the

23     Knin garrison command are constant coordination.

24             Again when we compare that with the doctrine, that is a --

25     unusual description because a garrison commander should, at least

Page 13507

 1     according to doctrine, be subordinated to the district commander, and

 2     coordination does not necessarily imply subordination.

 3        Q.   Okay.  My concern is basically with the issue of reporting, and

 4     so let me sum this up.

 5             There are no letters written by MUP to General Gotovina in this

 6     time-period, no letters written --

 7             MR. WAESPI:  I think these questions have been asked.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  I know.  It's leading to a question.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Leading to, yes.

10             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

11        Q.   Let me give you the background and then pose the question to you.

12             You agree with me that MUP doesn't write any letters to

13     General Gotovina in August and September, that General Lausic doesn't

14     write any letters to General Gotovina personally in August or September,

15     the international representatives of organisations don't write to General

16     Gotovina certainly between 8 August and 20 September, 1995.  You agree me

17     that you haven't seen any reports from General Cermak on his meetings

18     with the international representatives that go to General Gotovina.  I

19     think we covered the last time I questioned you the fact that this

20     meeting in Plitvice on the 15th of September is between the MUP and the

21     military police with no representatives of the Split Military District

22     present.

23             My question to you is:  Based on all of those facts, isn't it

24     logical to conclude that if, in fact, you were right that all of these

25     people had to act only because the operational commander "failed to

Page 13508

 1     fulfil his duties," that somebody over this six-week to two-month period

 2     would have thought it appropriate to make write General Gotovina a

 3     letter?

 4        A.   I would first like to clarify your interpretation of my answer.

 5     That is that my answer is based on the documents I have reviewed.  I do

 6     not know what is put in documents I have not seen.

 7        Q.   Well, we're not interested -- we're only interested in what you

 8     know based on what you reviewed, and obviously we could always in any

 9     case say there might be something out there that we don't know.  Let's

10     talk about what we do know.

11        A.   Indeed, but just for the accuracy, I wanted to mention that now.

12             I think the fundamental problem is that a military commander does

13     not have to wait for --

14        Q.   That's not my question, Mr. Theunens.  I'm just asking you based

15     on common sense and your knowledge of this -- the military and how things

16     work, isn't it extremely unlikely that if you were right that all of

17     these people had to act only because the operational commander failed to

18     fulfil his duties, isn't it extremely unlikely that no one would have

19     thought to write General Gotovina a letter in this time-period and say,

20     Hey, we're having a problem because you're failing to do your job?  Isn't

21     it extremely unlikely that someone wouldn't have gone to the president

22     and said, We're having all these problems because the operational

23     commander is failing to fulfil his duties.  You agree with me that that

24     is extremely unlikely?

25        A.   I think you take the answer I gave to a question, I think, it was

Page 13509

 1     by Mr. Kay.  You take that answer out of context because I provided a

 2     similar but more comprehensive reply to a similar question you asked me

 3     while you were cross-examining me.

 4             The doctrine is very clear on the duties of the commander, the

 5     commander has to maintain discipline.  He must keep abreast with the

 6     situation in his units, he must consider all aspects of the situation and

 7     assess it rapidly, i.e., it is husband duty to maintain discipline in

 8     thinks units, and this is done through the chain of command.

 9             During one of the breaks, I made a list of orders

10     General Gotovina --

11        Q.   Mr. Theunens, we've covered this ground --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, you are entering another area, what

13     should be done, and what should be -- what should trigger any activity,

14     et cetera.

15             Mr. Misetic is asking you, apparently, an assessment, he asks you

16     whether it would be logical to assume that someone would have stood up

17     and would is have said, General Gotovina, what's happening here?

18     Nothing ...

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  But when we look again at P71, for example,

20     so the operational diary, and the things being said at the meetings, the

21     daily command meetings, during operation Ljeto, for example, as well as

22     during Operation Storm, the people present are indeed complaining about

23     crimes committed, there is looting, there is burning.

24             MR. MISETIC:

25        Q.   Mr. Theunens, this is all stuff that you're now going back to

Page 13510

 1     what is being discussed internally in the Split Military District.  And,

 2     of course, every segment of the Croatian system has a certain role to

 3     play.

 4             But the issue is, you said that these other organs, the military

 5     police, the military justice system, et cetera, it's only when the

 6     operational commander fails to fulfil his duties that they have to

 7     intervene.  So let's take it out of the context of what's being discussed

 8     internally within the Split Military District, and I'm putting it to you

 9     that if, in fact, these other organs of the Croatian system, the military

10     police, the military disciplinary system, and others, the civilian

11     police, the civilian system, the international organisations on the

12     ground, and references in the presidential transcripts, let me just put

13     it to you, if, in fact, all of these people had to act because as you say

14     the operational commander was failing to fulfil his duties, isn't it

15     logical to conclude that someone, anyone, in those organisations, would

16     have alerted General Gotovina to the problem, if, in fact, they were

17     having to act only because he was failing to fulfil his duties?

18        A.   Indeed, but I wouldn't expect, for example, the civilian police

19     to do so.  We see the civilian police complains to the military police,

20     and that the military police administration issues orders via the

21     professional chain to the military police battalions, as well as the

22     document you asked me it exclude where General Lausic makes certain

23     suggestions in order to improve the situation which is sent for info to

24     the Military District Commanders.

25             More importantly, I would like to address -- to draw your

Page 13511

 1     attention to the orders issued by General Cervenko who is the best placed

 2     individual in this system of command and control because he is the chief

 3     of the --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, I'm going stop you.

 5             You what you are doing, is you are explaining how it all should

 6     have functioned.  Now -- and what actually happened.

 7             Now, Mr.  Misetic is putting, however, a different question to

 8     you.  The question being that if due to the failure to take action, the

 9     various units, but they're not in a military sense, but the various

10     bodies would have to act on their own behave would it be logical to

11     expect that one of these bodies would have said, Why do we not get

12     instructions?  Why do we have to act on our own?  Why is there no

13     effective command in this respect, to the extent that there was

14     subordination?  That's the question.

15             THE WITNESS:  I don't think I understand the question.  We

16     have --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me then try to -- for you, perhaps start

18     answering another question.

19             The issue is if General Gotovina did not take the proper action

20     and that he left it to all the others to figure out by themselves what to

21     do and what not to do, would it be logical to expect that one of these

22     elements, whatever you call it, would have sent him a letter or given him

23     a phone call, or address him and say, Why do we have to figure out for

24     ourselves?  Why don't you take the lead?

25             That's Mr. Misetic, how I understood your question more or less.

Page 13512

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.  Yes, Mr. President.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, I am confused, because I tried to

 3     answer the question based on my military background.  And I -- I mean,

 4     the most logical would be that the superior of General Gotovina, i.e.,

 5     the chief of the Main Staff, speaks to him and says, Look, I have

 6     receiving these reports from the military police, and it's not going

 7     well.  What are you doing?  What's happening?  I have so say, I have not

 8     seen such instructions or reports or -- or other forms of communication

 9     by General Cervenko to General Gotovina specifically.

10             What I have seen and that is included in the report are orders by

11     General Gotovina -- excuse me, General Cervenko to the Military District

12     Commanders to enforce discipline to take all necessary measures and so on

13     and so on, and we see that these orders are being forwarded through the

14     chain of command.

15             Again, from a military point of view, it would be unusual for the

16     civilian police to address General Gotovina directly.  What we have is

17     that --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that Mr. Misetic focussed his question on

19     internal military.

20             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

21             MR. WAESPI:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             MR. MISETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             THE WITNESS:  Well, we know that General Forand wrote him a

25     letter on the 5th of August.

Page 13513

 1        Q.   I think you know, Mr. Theunens, that I said between 8 August and

 2     20 September after General Forand finally got a chance to meet

 3     General Gotovina on the 8th, right, he never writes him another letter

 4     asking him to intervene on issues of crimes, right?

 5        A.   Well, I would say it's something have you to address with

 6     General Forand.  I cannot explain why he didn't do that.  He must have

 7     will his reasons.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Let me ask you one final point -- sorry.

 9        A.   No.  But I wanted to say, like, it is rather unusual for an army

10     that, unless you have really serious problems, that you expect the

11     representatives of the international community to assist you in -- in

12     actually notifying the commander that there is a problem in that army.

13        Q.   No, no, I'm not saying they were asking them to assist him.

14     Although obviously if the international community representatives or

15     persons on the ground see crimes, they should report it.  But what I'm

16     telling you is, there, in fact, was reporting being done and meetings

17     being held at various levels between the international agencies and

18     organs of the Croatian government.  Those weren't taking place concerning

19     crime between General Gotovina and those agencies -- and those

20     international agencies, correct?

21        A.   Correct.  But again, we don't know whether General Gotovina was

22     meeting --

23        Q.   What we don't know, we don't know, Mr. Theunens.

24        A.   No, no, exactly.  If there is it no meeting whatsoever between

25     General Gotovina and these representatives of the internation community,

Page 13514

 1     it is quite obvious that they cannot raise the issue of lack of

 2     discipline or crimes with him.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, I think that the question included the

 4     possibility, did you ask for a meeting for that purpose?

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Right.

 6        A.   Indeed.  I have not systemically reviewed requests by

 7     representatives of the international community, be it UNCRO, ECMM, ICRC,

 8     other organisations in the area for meetings with General Gotovina.

 9        Q.   Now you have raised the issue of General Cervenko.  Let me say

10     this:  General Cervenko on specific issues that he has with

11     General Gotovina, you have put in your report, that he did send very

12     specific orders to General Gotovina to report to him, one being this

13     alleged threat to Alun Roberts, right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And demanded that General Gotovina explain the situation.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi.

17             MR. WAESPI:  How does that arise out of the original comment?

18     This all much of it could have been raised in the original

19     cross-examination in -- between General Cermak and General Gotovina, and

20     we are, by the way, far beyond 15 minutes.

21             MR. MISETIC:  I understand.  Mr. President, the issue is I only

22     raised it because, I believe, the witness now in his answer said --

23     mentioned General Cervenko as being one of the persons who would address

24     with them, but if that's not in dispute with the Prosecution, that's fine

25     with me.  I'm just trying to point out that General Cervenko did raise

Page 13515

 1     specific issues that he had with General Gotovina, one of them being this

 2     alleged threat to Alun Roberts which is in evidence now.  And I was going

 3     ask Mr. Theunens if there is an similar warning or report or order from

 4     General Cervenko to General Gotovina saying, I hear that you are failing

 5     in your duties to maintain discipline.  Please report to me as to why

 6     this is.

 7        A.   In the documents I have reviewed, I have not seen a specific

 8     warning from General Cervenko to General Gotovina except for the Roberts'

 9     one.

10        Q.   Okay.  Mr. Theunens, I thank you very much for your time.  You

11     have been with us for so long that I'm already nostalgic, and you haven't

12     left yet, but thank you very much.

13        A.   The feeling is mutual, Mr. Misetic.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, Judge Gwaunza has a question for you.

17                           Questioned by the Court:

18             JUDGE GWAUNZA:  So, Mr. Theunens, during cross-examination, you

19     were shown some documents that you stated you had not seen before, and I

20     think you even said some of them were important and that had you seen

21     them, you would have made reference to them or used them in your

22     analysis.

23             My question is:  Do you think that the information contained in

24     those documents might have affected some of your conclusions, and, if so,

25     to what extent?  And perhaps it's a general question, but perhaps in your

Page 13516

 1     response you can be more specific in your answers, if you so wish.

 2        A.   Indeed, Your Honours.  It is correct that there are documents

 3     which I would like to have included even if it was just to be more

 4     complete in the report.  However, I do not remember that have I been

 5     shown any documents during cross-examination which would lead me to

 6     review any of, what I would call, significant conclusions drawn in the

 7     report.  It is obvious, for example, that I would have included a

 8     conclusion on, for example, the documents Mr. Kay showed, that the

 9     military police reports discussing or mentioning crimes and incidents in

10     the zone of responsibility of the Knin garrison, that they were not sent

11     to General Cermak.  This would certainly be something I would have

12     included because I consider it significant, even though in the context of

13     General Cermak, in my view, it does not affect the conclusion I drew that

14     he was the most senior military/civilian authority in Knin.  Because I

15     drew that conclusion based on the activities of General Cermak.  But it

16     would have been useful, as I said, to have these documents and then to

17     add a sentence in relation to the enforcement of military discipline;

18     however, General Cermak was not receiving reports compiled by the

19     military police, even though they were sent to his counterpart in the

20     Split garrison.  Than is the main example I remember now.

21             JUDGE GWAUNZA:  Thank you.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, I have got a question for you as well.

24             And for the parties.  It is relates to page 13234 at the end.

25             You were asked about Mr. Zidovec who is asking for the submission

Page 13517

 1     of information from the police administration, because they're necessary

 2     for compiling reports.  He wants information about the clearing up of

 3     bodies.

 4             The question was whether if Mr. Cermak was part of the operation

 5     for dealing with this matter, whether he would not have been requested to

 6     provide this information as well.

 7             Now, in your answer, you said -- you said:  "Not from the

 8     military point of view."

 9             And then I think it was Mr. Kay continued by saying:

10             "We're not looking at a military document.  We're looking at the

11     -- at a Ministry of Interior document."

12             My question to you is the following:  Is it usual if military and

13     civilian organisations, units, are participating in the same operation,

14     coordinated operation, cooperation between the various segments, is it

15     usual that the -- well, let's say, the civilian authorities would include

16     the military counterpart taking part in such an operation to report to

17     them on the matter as well?

18             So it's like cross-reporting from one system, military system, to

19     the other system, the civilian system, although working together and

20     being involved in -- in joint operations, perhaps even under the command

21     of one or at least -- where the one authority takes the lead and is in

22     charge of the operation, is it usual that you then would seek across the

23     division lines information for the purposes of reporting within your own

24     structure?

25             THE WITNESS:  I think there are several aspects, Your Honour, or

Page 13518

 1     several aspects.

 2             The military component and the civilian component will report for

 3     sure through their own chains.  However -- and it will depend on the

 4     nature of the cooperation or the situation we're looking at, there must

 5     be a system whereby they can exchange the information.  And one would

 6     also except there would be a consolidated report then, whereby the

 7     information that is reported through the military chain which is

 8     considered relevant for the civilians and vice versa is exchanged and

 9     available to all.  But such a consolidated report will include

10     information that is included also in the separate reports, but the

11     information that is included in the separate reports, all of it does not

12     necessarily have to be included in the consolidated report.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And who would ask for the consolidated report?

14        A.   It would depend of who is in charge and what has been agreed.

15     And it depends -- I mean, the civilians and the military are conducting a

16     particular activity.  Somebody or a body must have given instructions for

17     that activity and that body should then also be informed about the level

18     of implementation of the activity, i.e., to see whether the instructions

19     it has given are being implemented, and a consolidated report that --

20     that includes both civilian and military information would be an

21     appropriate manner to ensure this information of the body that has issued

22     the task, or that is in charge of the task.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Kay did apparently put some weight on

24     Mr. Cermak not being included in the persons or organs asked for

25     information.  Would you, from your experience, would you give a similar

Page 13519

 1     significance to Mr. Cermak not being included in those who were asked to

 2     report, in view of -- as an indicator for the role he played in the

 3     operation of clearing up bodies?

 4        A.   I believe I -- I stated that I was not aware of the existence or

 5     the activities of civilian defence clearing teams, which could well have

 6     operated outside the authority of General Cermak.

 7             The information I included in my report on the clearing of bodies

 8     was based on the reports provided by the Brigadier there, I don't

 9     remember his exact name, but Biskovic, or something to that effect.

10             MR. KAY:  Brkic.

11             THE WITNESS:  Brkic, thank you.  And did he not explicitly

12     mention the activities of civilian teams.  It is logical that the

13     civilian defence teams will send reports on their activities to --

14     through their civilian chain, the MUP chain.  It is also logical that if

15     General Cermak was in charge of the overall clearing of bodies that he

16     should have been informed, one way or the other, of the activities of the

17     civilian teams, and I don't remember seeing documents, specific

18     documents, sent by these civilian defence teams to General Cermak.

19             So the fact that the civilian defence teams sent reports through

20     the civilian chain - I think those were the reports Mr. Kay show - does

21     not allow to conclude or to draw conclusions whether or not they share

22     this information or similar information with Mr. Cermak, or General

23     Cermak.  Because what I have seen again, based on the documents, these

24     report chains are kept separate, even though there may be consolidated

25     reports whereby a document is sent -- is addressed to both chains to both

Page 13520

 1     the military as well as the civilian.  It's -- I mean, we're three-weeks

 2     into this exercise, but I don't remember a specific civilian document

 3     being also addressed -- I mean, not only through the civilian chain but

 4     also to the military addressees, except for military police reporting

 5     where we are talking about the orders -- and, no, and even there I

 6     believe it is still different or separate because, for example, when

 7     Mr. Moric complained to General Lausic about the ineffectiveness of the

 8     military police, and we see then that the General Lausic may forward the

 9     letter of Mr. Moric or takes out the relevant components for the military

10     police in a specific document he compiled or the military police compiled

11     themselves which is addressed to the military police units.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.  I have no further

13     questions for you.

14             MR. KAY:  Just one matter.

15        Q.   You mentioned civilian Defence, you mean civilian protection,

16     don't you?

17        A.   Yes, I'm sorry.

18        Q.   I have a correction, rather than a question.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That being clarified.

20             This means that this concludes your rather lengthy testimony in

21     this court.  Mr. Theunens, usually I would excuse you at this moment, but

22     perhaps we have to deal with quite a number of documents.  And

23     exceptionally I would ask to you stay with us when we're dealing with

24     that.  It might be that we need your help at any given moment, so if you

25     would be so kind to stay for another, perhaps, ten minutes.

Page 13521

 1             Because I would like to deal with -- especially the bar table

 2     documents at this moment.

 3             We have -- let's start with the Cermak bar table lists.  We have

 4     six submissions, Mr. Waespi.  The first one, on the task and job of the

 5     Knin garrison; second, passage of journalists at -- and other matters;

 6     various topics, and I gave the date, the 4th of December; the 5th is the

 7     daily reports of the 72nd Battalion.  That's number 5 of the 9th of

 8     December 2008; and, finally, the 6th one, criminal reports filed by the

 9     72nd Battalion of the military police directly to the military

10     prosecutor, also the 9th of December.

11             Now, I think we know that there are no objections against the

12     first and the third, which means that we have not heard the position of

13     the Prosecution on the second bar table submission, passage of

14     journalists and other matters, 3rd of December.

15             MR. WAESPI:  We have no objections to the second one either.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

17             The fourth, military police rotation of Knin Independent Company

18     members and other orders and reports by the Knin company, 5th

19     December 2008.

20             Any objections against those documents?

21             MR. WAESPI:  I think I responded last night to the Defence.  I

22     don't think there are objections to the fourth bar table motions either.

23             MR. KAY:  You did.

24             MR. WAESPI:  Can you --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You did object, or you did --

Page 13522

 1             MR. KAY:  It was agreed last night.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It was agreed.  That's --

 3             Then we move to the fifth, daily reports, 72nd Battalion, 9th of

 4     December.

 5             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, I believe that's the stipulation part.  We

 6     don't have an objection to -- as we said, to it coming in as a

 7     stipulation, that all these documents refer to the same issue and were

 8     sent to these ten addressees, and the Knin garrison isn't part it.

 9     That's -- we can agree on the stipulation.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Stipulation is the character of the documents, and

11     the documents as such are admissible.  Do I understand?  Or would we

12     refrain from admission at all?

13             MR. WAESPI:  The issue is just if we stipulate to that, you know,

14     the documents don't need to come in.  If the documents come in as well,

15     we need translations according to standard practice.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  But then if you have stipulations on the matter, Of

17     course, the Chamber would like to have it -- even if one -- if only in

18     one or two lines to have this stipulation clearly on the record.

19             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, we've drafted the stipulation in

20     uncontroversial terms.  We have listed the documents because those

21     documents will be committed to translation, there will be Defence experts

22     referring to them, if we get to that stage, and so they are material.  We

23     understand the problems of the translation department.  It's going to

24     take many weeks for them to deal with that, than is a way of dealing with

25     the issue now in a satisfactory way.

Page 13523

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So there is no urgency at this moment in the

 2     translation, the stipulation, and the list of documents can be put on the

 3     record.

 4             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you said uncontroversially you have formulated

 6     the stipulation.  How to have this on the record?

 7             MR. WAESPI:  I think during the next break, we'll just figure out

 8     these one or two sentences.  I see them before me, but perhaps we can

 9     just finalize them.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What the Chamber, then, at this moment expects you

11     to do is to read the exact formulation of the stipulation into the record

12     and to make a joint filing of the list, not the documents, the list of

13     documents that stipulation relates to.

14             If that would be filed, then we have, for the time being, a

15     complete record, and, Mr. Kay, further translations and how to use these

16     documents in any further stages of these proceedings when it comes to

17     that.  We'll wait and see, but we have resolved the issue as it stands

18     now.

19             MR. KAY:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.

21             So five receives a special treatment.

22             The sixth category, is that --

23             MR. WAESPI:  We have reviewed it last night.  We have no

24     objections.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

Page 13524

 1             Then, Mr. Registrar, you are invited on the basis of the first,

 2     the second, the third, the fourth, and the sixth bar table submissions to

 3     assign exhibit numbers to them.  No exhibit numbers will yet be assigned

 4     to the documents listed and to be filed as we find it in the fifth

 5     submission.

 6             MR. WAESPI:  I'm not sure you have addressed the third one, and

 7     maybe it's been dealt with.  We added a few comments in a separate

 8     Prosecution comment section, and I think that should be fine as well.

 9             MR. KAY:  That's been included, yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I received the Cermak Defence report saying

11     additionally the Defence and the Prosecution agreed on contents and

12     comments of the third bar table submission.  That is the description.

13     It's not about admissibility.  It is about how they are described and how

14     they will find their way in the list of exhibits.

15             May I take it, Mr. Kay, that the agreement is reflected in the

16     list as sent to Mr. Registrar to assign numbers to them?

17             MR. KAY:  Absolutely.  There have been several exchanges on this.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And, Mr. Registrar, who will have to finally

19     assign numbers to these documents, is provided with the final

20     formulation.

21             MR. KAY:  Number 5 which still has to be formulated into a

22     filing.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, 3.

24             MR. KAY:  Yeah.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm talking about 3, because that was the third

Page 13525

 1     submission which Mr. Waespi raised.

 2             Then the registrar, and I repeat that, is invited to the assign

 3     numbers to the exhibits we find in the first, second, third, fourth, and

 4     sixth bar table submissions.  And the Chamber will then, once numbers

 5     have been assigned, decide on admission.

 6             These were the Defence bar table submissions.

 7             I suggest that we first go to the Prosecution bar table

 8     submissions - let me find it ...

 9             MR. WAESPI:  Mr. President, I'm not sure that we have submitted

10     it to -- to Your Honours.  We did to the Defence last night.  This is a

11     fairly different to, you know, the 200 or so exhibits we wanted to have

12     admitted, you know, four, five weeks ago.  What we have at this point in

13     time are two separate submissions, one is a normal bar table motion.  I

14     think it is 12 documents that are referenced in Mr. Theunens's report.

15     Not discussed in court.  We would like to have these admitted, and I can

16     -- as soon as we have time shortly, can submit it to you.  And the second

17     document is a list of, I think, 29 documents.  These are all the

18     documents that have been referred to by Mr. Theunens in the course of his

19     examination but have not been entered, and a couple were added today.  So

20     we will submit this list.  We did already to the Defence.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You'll prepare lists for that so that we can deal

22     with those lists in a similar way as we dealt with the bar table

23     submissions, Although they are not really bar table submissions because

24     the list of 29 are documents that were dealt with during the testimony of

25     Mr. Theunens.

Page 13526

 1             MR. WAESPI:  This is correct.  The first one is more akin to a

 2     normal bar table motion.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll deal with them.  Then we have a few other

 4     documents which were MFIed and are not part of lists.

 5             The first one would be D01079.  I think, Mr. Mikulicic, it was

 6     you who tendered this document.  Yes.

 7             The issue for the Chamber was that you presented it,

 8     Mr. Mikulicic, as more or less a -- it was a document dated the 30th of

 9     December, 2005, a document -- a letter sent by the Ministry of Justice of

10     Croatia to Miroslav Separovic.  And you introduced it, it's a formal

11     document.  It states to some extent, the legislation, laws as applicable.

12     I think on that basis, you sought admission.

13             Mr. Waespi did not object, but the Chamber said we'd like to have

14     a closer look at this document.  Looking at this document, apart from

15     reflecting what we also heard during the testimony, that is, how the

16     structure was of the various judicial or semi-judicial organs and who was

17     appointed at what time, recruited from where, et cetera, it also contains

18     a factual section, and I ask you to read with me the very end of this

19     document, where it says:

20             "In conclusion, in the period your letter is regarding to, and

21     pursuant to the ZOUP decrees in force at the time, MUP disciplinary

22     courts were established, which conducted disciplinary proceedings, in

23     cases of disciplinary violations committed by the MUP officials on duty,

24     or regarding their duty.  In their proceedings a high number of various

25     types of penalties were dispensed."

Page 13527

 1             This is a statement, not of the law, but of facts; that is, how

 2     they functioned.  What the high number exactly would come down to, the

 3     various types of penalties in relation to what kind of violations of

 4     discipline, that's all rather factual.  Of course, the Chamber would have

 5     to digest that.  And to give it any sense, of course, you would want to

 6     know what the various types of penalties would be and what a high number

 7     would be, well, Mr. Waespi has not objected to it.  At the same time, the

 8     Chamber is, of course, concerned how to deal with it.  I mean, how to

 9     introduce this in the evaluation of the totality of the evidence.

10             It's not primarily the legal matters, what decrees were there,

11     who was -- because we heard about that a bit in the testimony as well.

12     But it's especially the -- this portion which I read to you, which

13     bothers us a bit, and if it does not bother Mr. Waespi, then, of course,

14     we would have to consider how to proceed, but I just put to you so that

15     we can finally decide on admission, or if you say, That is not really the

16     part which is of importance for us.  It was mainly the legal part and how

17     the structure was, then there might even be a possibility to come to a

18     commonly redacted the document.

19             But the factual part is without any -- at this moment without

20     sufficient support, factual support.

21             MR. WAESPI:  Yes.  A point I made yesterday, I would like to

22     receive that initial request from the Defence.  I think it was --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's another matter that was on the record, and

24     Mr. Mikulicic agreed that he would give that to you.

25             Has this been done already, or ...

Page 13528

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour this has been done in the way

 2     that we enter it, the request for the Defence into the system, and we're

 3     asking for the translation of the initial document, upon which was issued

 4     the documents from the ministry.

 5             On the other side, I can see clearly your point, Your Honour, and

 6     I would like to stress is that the only concern of the Defence as its

 7     regards to this document is a legal matter, so we are not paying much

 8     attention on the very bottom of the documents that have you just read.

 9             So, if it is possible to have this document entered into evidence

10     under these circumstances, it is okay with the Defence.  We will not be

11     asking more of it.

12             On the other side, we could explore the fact portions, so-called,

13     in the documents with another witness in due course.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Waespi.

15             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, I just would like to have a look at the

16     translated request, and then we can come to you with it.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I leave it for the time being to the parties for

18     whether the appropriate action to take would be, for example, to take out

19     the last three lines that deals with facts and have a -- have a redacted

20     version tendered into evidence and admitted into evidence or whether the

21     parties agree that at this moment no factual support for rather blunt

22     factual statements are there, so that the parties agree that the Chamber,

23     on the basis of this alone, could ignore this information.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, if that could be of any assistance,

25     we are prepared to withdraw the request for entering this document into

Page 13529

 1     the evidence until we would have a final translation of the Defence

 2     request for the documents, plus the tables that are attached to these

 3     documents that concerns to the sanctions that has been put upon the

 4     violation of the disciplinary.

 5             So maybe it will be the most practical solution that in this very

 6     moment, we will withdraw request for tendering this documents, and we

 7     will put it in front of the witness which we -- who we estimate it as a

 8     proper one in a due course.

 9             MR. WAESPI:  I think as a practical matter, it is probably safer

10     to keep it as MFIed because it has been referred to in the transcript.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Mikulicic, if you say the tables attached

12     to this document.  I, however, see that it is uploaded now as a two-page

13     document without any tables, so the reference to the tables in relation

14     to D1079 is unclear it me.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

16             The last reference in the documents is referring to the tables

17     which are originally attached to this document, and these tables we have

18     in our documentary evidence, prepared for Defence.

19             So we didn't ask for tendering those tables in a time when I was

20     requesting to tender two pages document into the evidence, but we believe

21     that the whole document could be show up to the proper witness in the due

22     course, together with the attached tables, which are basically referring

23     to the last portion of the documents that you have just been reading

24     aloud in the --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I note that no reference is made in this part

Page 13530

 1     of the letter to any attachment.  Therefore, I leave it up to you.  We

 2     keep it MFIed, and we further discuss, perhaps including the attachments

 3     with Mr. Waespi.  You see how it could be introduced.  For the time being

 4     it's clear to the Chamber that you're seeking to introduce the

 5     information of a primarily legal character and not about how --

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  Precisely, Your Honour.  And I think is a more

 7     practical solution just to solve the problem in a conversation with

 8     Mr. Waespi, and I'm sure we could solve it.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the Chamber waits for a report on that.

10             Then we have D01083 is still pending for translation.

11             Finally, we have the expert report by Mr. Theunens, P1113.  We

12     have the addendum to the report, P1114.  And we have the corrigenda to

13     the expert report, P115.

14             The Chamber at the time said that it would decide on admission

15     once we would have heard the testimony of Mr. Theunens.  Are there any

16     submissions to be made in addition to the many submissions already made

17     in respect of the admissibility of the report, its addendum, and the

18     corrigendum?

19             No need.  Then the Chamber will decide on admission.

20             Finally, I still have to find out further about P1118.  Can't

21     deal with at this moment.

22             Then we have P1138.  That is the Lausic report concerning

23     inspection.  It's a document dated -- it's about an inspection between

24     the 17th and the 20th of October, 1995.

25             When it was tendered, I think it was you, Mr. Misetic, you said,

Page 13531

 1     Well, we'll introduce the document or the full -- the broader, entire

 2     document.  That's what you said you do.

 3             Have we seen this document in that other broader?

 4             MR. MISETIC:  We have.  There is an technical issue, and I -- I

 5     let the Chamber decide how to deal with it.

 6             I don't have the number in front of me right now, and I trust

 7     that my case manager will assist me.  We introduced a document which was

 8     the overall inspection conducted by the Main Staff of the Split --

 9     inspection of the Split Military District.  I think that report is dated

10     30 October -- I'm sorry, it's the 25th of October, 1995 -- actually, no.

11             One moment, Your Honour.

12                           [Defence counsel confer]

13             MR. MISETIC:  We'll find the date, Your Honour, but there is an

14     inspection.  I believe, it is the 30th of October.  This report is an

15     attachment to that inspection.  We've tendered the inspection, and it is

16     now in evidence.  As a technical matter, the inspection was one 65 ter

17     exhibit, this attachment was a separate 65 ter.  So I don't know if the

18     Chamber wishes that we on the Defence add this report to the original

19     document so that it is all in one place, or if the Chamber doesn't have

20     any problem admitting the Prosecution's exhibit and our exhibit and then

21     somehow keeping track of the fact that they are, in fact, part of the

22     same report.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If it ever comes to that, the Appeals Chamber

24     might struggle with it or the Chamber when preparing the determinations

25     we'll have to make.

Page 13532

 1             I would be inclined to prefer an all-inclusive approach that

 2     diminishes that risks of overlooking something.

 3             The next question is, of course, would you add that to your

 4     exhibit?

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That would -- uploaded again.  But now including the

 7     document which was MFIed as P1138.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And then P1138 would be vacated.  Is that --

10     Mr. Waespi.

11             MR. WAESPI:  That's correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That being resolved, is there any other matter in

13     relation to the exhibits as far as we can deal with them now?

14             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, just for the record, what we were

15     discussing is Exhibit D987, and the Defence will then take -- sorry.

16     Exhibit P1138 MFI, and we'll upload it so that it is appended to Exhibit

17     D987.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It is now clear on the record.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, often we had to ask your assistance.

21     Now we asked to you wait, and we didn't further rely on you.

22     Nevertheless, thank you for that.  Usually I thank witnesses and experts

23     for coming a long way to The Hague.  I will refrain from that.  But this

24     does not in any way affect our thanks for your coming and having answered

25     many, many, many questions of the parties and of the Bench.

Page 13533

 1             You are excused.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I wonder whether it would be a good idea to deal

 5     with a matter in relation to the next witness before the break.  There

 6     was a -- let me just find it.

 7             Yes.  There was a Prosecution motion to add 11 documents to the

 8     65 ter list to be used with Witness 90.  The -- I think two Defence teams

 9     -- I think it was Gotovina Defence and the Cermak Defence did not object

10     to adding to them, but we received this morning a courtesy copy of a

11     response to be filed by the Markac Defence, which objects against

12     admission of these documents to the 65 ter list.

13             Does this trigger -- of course, the Chamber will have to decide.

14     We have received the submissions.  Is there anything else we would have

15     to deal with?  If not, we most likely will decide the matter during the

16     break.

17             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I guess from our standpoint, it

18     sort of also dovetails into the potential bar table submission matter

19     that is going to be made relating to this witness, again, using many of

20     the documents or some of the documents that are going to be proposed to

21     added to the 65 ter list.  I don't know if the Court wants to hear any

22     argument on the matter or not.  We have put our objections down with

23     respect to the specific -- the real issue is relevance.  It's really not

24     necessarily that the -- putting it on the list at this late stage is a

25     problem, but the real issue is the relevance of the document.

Page 13534

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Which, of course, affects both adding them to the 65

 2     ter list and at later stage admission into evidence.

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I think our submission really expresses our

 4     specific objections to the relevance of the documents, and it will go

 5     along way to expressing our submission on the bar table submission for

 6     some, if not all of the documents that were included on this list and

 7     others.

 8             So I guess I will not add anything more than what I have said and

 9     what's in our written submission are.

10             Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.

12             Ms. Mahindaratne.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if I could just in response to

14     the courtesy copy of the motion I received this morning, just point out

15     at paragraph 2, the Defence says that - the Defence for Mr. Markac - says

16     that it does not oppose the addition of the 11 documents to the Rule 65

17     ter exhibit list, and that is the only application the Prosecution has

18     made with the motion to add.  So if we take it with the two-step process,

19     if the Defence for Mr. Markac does not oppose the addition of the

20     documents to the 65 ter list, then I believe there is no objection for

21     the motion to add before Court.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I then take it -- that's how I understood

23     the observation just made is that even if you add them to the 65 ter

24     list, it says passe, then it opposes very much the arguments used and

25     that this will have an effect on admission which is the next step.  I

Page 13535

 1     mean, to be on the 65 ter list as such, doesn't hurt, if I could say so.

 2     If it is mainly on the basis of relevance.  Of course, relevance is also

 3     an important aspect of admission because, as we all know, it's relevance

 4     and probative value that are the key elements for a decision to admit

 5     evidence.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I don't have anything much to

 7     add to the motion where we have demonstrated clearly relevance and

 8     probative value, but if, of course, in the motion we do not go into

 9     detail, but if we go through the testimony of this witness, the

10     additional relevance and the additional probative value will be clear to

11     the Chambers.  But I believe we have clearly demonstrated relevance and

12     probative value in the motion to add.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I think it is a backward approach

14     to say we'll demonstrate how they're relevant when the witness testifies.

15     They need to be demonstrated now before witness comes on the stand.

16     Because to say that they are relevant without any real explanation for

17     why they're relevant without having the witness testify is the wrong way

18     to go with it.  Tell us the specific reasons why they're relevant for the

19     proposition they stand for in their 65 ter motion to add them to their

20     list, other than saying that they're relevant.  Just saying that they're

21     relevant means nothing.  The specific reasons for why they're relevant is

22     what we need to know.  Because they're not stated, and I won't go any

23     further, Your Honour.

24             Thank you.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  We have stated very clearly why they're

Page 13536

 1     relevant.  If it is necessary, I could do it even in court.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider the matter and decide.

 3             We will have a break, and we will resume at ten minutes to 1.00.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  There is an Latin saying litis finire oportet, which

 7     means at a certain we have to stop argument, and there should be an end

 8     to that.  Nevertheless, the Chamber decided to grant two minutes, and I

 9     will look at the clock, two minutes this time is 120 seconds to further

10     deal with the matter of the artillery documents, and the primary reason

11     why the Chamber grants a request to make further submissions on it is

12     that the Chamber, first of all, would like to know how disclosure

13     actually took place.  Whether it is appropriate or inappropriate the way

14     it was done, but we, of course, uploading in e-court is one thing,

15     releasing documents, not everything that's uploaded in e-court is

16     available to everyone.  That may be of some relevance.  So we would like

17     to know what actually happened, if the parties are agreement on that.  It

18     could be that just one of the parties says what is done.  Perhaps,

19     Mr. Russo, you would be the most appropriate person to do that.  And if

20     that's not challenged, then we do not have to spend time on that.

21             Therefore, it's -- Mr. Russo, you have 120 seconds starts in two

22     seconds from now.  They have started.

23             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Let me say first that

24     disclosure was made, we believe, on 20th May this year.  However, we were

25     unable to confirm what was actually contained on the CD that was

Page 13537

 1     disclosed on the 20th of May.  Out of an over abundance of caution, we

 2     re-disclosed the documents via e-mail on 9th December, and then uploaded

 3     into e-court.  So the disclosure was made at the very latest on the 9th

 4     December, via e-mail.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's 40 seconds.

 6             Mr. Misetic, your 120 seconds start now.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I believe we filed our response on

 8     the 2nd of December so that would mean at the time we filed our response,

 9     it was before this most recent disclosure.

10             The second issue is I'm not sure I understand Mr. Russo's

11     position because based on their position at footnote 7 of their reply

12     which was filed yesterday, it says that the translations of the eight

13     documents referred to in footnote 13 of the response were uploaded into

14     e-court in May 2008.

15        A.   And have been re-disclosed to the Defence.  So I don't know -- if

16     I understood Mr. Russo correctly, he is now saying that he believes there

17     was a that CD disclosed, but they can't show it.  The reply says that it

18     was disclosed by uploading into e-court which is why we had asked for a

19     very sort amount of time to so reply, which is that our position is that

20     uploading documents into e-court is not proper disclose under the rules.

21     That should be done under Rule 66 and 68, and the Defence does not have

22     an obligation to constantly monitor e-court to see if there's something

23     new in there and then to approach Prosecution to see if they intend to

24     disclose this, use it, et cetera.  So that's our position, Your Honour,

25     and if I'm mistaken on this, I will certainly work with the Prosecution

Page 13538

 1     to see how this disclosure was done in May.

 2             Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I take it that the inappropriateness --

 4     the Chamber just looked at your submission in which you are seeking leave

 5     to -- to make further submissions, and that's then part of what we've

 6     heard now in the 240 seconds.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Well --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Even less, but 240 seconds reserved for you.

 9             Mr. Russo, you reserved 40 seconds, I don't think you want to add

10     anything, would you?

11             MR. RUSSO:  I do not, Your Honour, other than to request leave to

12     be excused.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The remaining seconds certainly will assist

14     interpreters and transcribers to take a breath.

15             This -- the Chamber will, of course, decide the matter.

16             Mr. Russo, or do I have to address you for the next witness?

17             MR. RUSSO:  No, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Yes, Mr. Witness.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You were not visible for me at the moment.

21             First of all, the Chamber has considered the objections against

22     adding the 11 documents to the 65 ter list, where I would say 95 per cent

23     of argument was relevance, and only a small portion of the -- of the

24     objection made by the Markac Defence, only, was the fair trial issue as

25     we find it in paragraph 18 of the response.  The Chamber denies the

Page 13539

 1     objection.  If the late adding to the 65 ter list would cause

 2     considerable problems in preparing for the examination of this witness,

 3     or if investigation -- further investigations would be needed, of course,

 4     the Chamber expects the Markac Defence to address the Chamber on that

 5     specific issue.

 6             Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to call your next witness?  No

 7     protective measures, if I'm well-informed.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, in fact, we have not had any

 9     communication this witness at all.  Therefore, I do not know, and in an

10     abundance of caution, perhaps he could be brought it in a closed session.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then we have to go into closed session,

12     which means curtains down, although there is a fair chance that they will

13     be back up again in two or three minutes.

14             We turn into closed session.

15                           [Closed session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13540











11  Page 13540 redacted. Closed session.















Page 13541

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

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

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 5             Mr. Turkalj, you'll first be examined by Ms. Mahindaratne.

 6     Ms. Mahindaratne is counsel for the Prosecution.

 7             Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to examine Mr. Turkalj?

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11                           Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:

12        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Turkalj.

13        A.   Good afternoon.

14        Q.   Could be please state your full name for the record.

15        A.   My name is Josip Turkalj.

16        Q.   What is your current occupation?

17        A.   Currently I am employed in the Ministry of the Interior in the

18     police administration.

19        Q.   During 1995, what was your position within the special police

20     sector?

21        A.   In 1995, I was at the post of the commander of the anti-terrorist

22     unit, Lucko.

23        Q.   On 3rd and 4th February, 2004, were you interviewed by members of

24     the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 13542

 1        Q.   In the course of that interview when questions were asked from

 2     you, did you respond truthfully?

 3        A.   To the best of my recollection, as far as I was able to remember

 4     facts and details, yes.

 5        Q.   At that time, did you provide a signed statement to the Office of

 6     the Prosecutor?

 7        A.   I signed a statement that was read back to me from the English

 8     language.

 9        Q.   Was it read back to you in the Croatian language to you?

10        A.   Yes.  It was read out to me in Croatian.

11        Q.   After that, on 11th March, 2005, were you interviewed again by

12     members of the Office of the Prosecutor?

13        A.   Yes.  Another interview was conducted with me.  I'm not sure

14     about the date, though.

15        Q.   And on that occasion, when you were asked questions, did you

16     respond truthfully?

17        A.   Yes.  I tried to tell the truth at all times, to the best of my

18     recollection.

19        Q.   And was that interview video-recorded?

20        A.   It was video-recorded, but I did not view the recording.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document number

22     6160, please.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, were you provided with copies of your statement

24     of 3rd and 4th February, 2004, and the transcripts of your interview of

25     2005, about a few weeks back by the Croatian authorities with a request

Page 13543

 1     to review them in anticipation of your testimony here?

 2        A.   The statements were sent to me, yes.

 3        Q.   And did you examine your statement made in 2004?  Did you read

 4     it?

 5        A.   Yes, I did.  I reviewed the statement.

 6        Q.   Did the contents of that statement accurately reflect what you

 7     stated to the investigators and the members of the Office of the

 8     Prosecutor on 3rd and 4th February, 2004?

 9        A.   Essentially the contents are correct, though I would have certain

10     corrections to make in relation to four portions of that statement.

11        Q.   And can you -- we will bring up that statement on the screen,

12     Mr. Turkalj, and would you please then identify to us what these

13     corrections are.

14             Do you see the document on the screen?  That the statement you

15     made in 2004?  If you could perhaps --

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  Sorry to interrupt, if we could provide a hard

17     copy to the witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We could ask him.  I take it that if he has

19     identified four portions which are in need of correction.  Did you bring

20     your own copy where you made have made notes as to what to correct,

21     Mr. Turkalj?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have my copy of the

23     statement with me at the moment.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  We can --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then a hard copy, if that could be provided to

Page 13544

 1     Mr. Turkalj.  It is easier than to read from the screen.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  The binder also has a transcript.

 3        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, the statement is right at the top, under the

 4     tab number 1.

 5             And could you please tell Court -- refer to the paragraph numbers

 6     and tell us what the correction is.

 7        A.   I would like to make a correction in paragraph 50.

 8        Q.   And can you tell what the correction is.

 9        A.   I would like to correct the last sentence, where I said that we

10     were at a meeting in Knin, since this was not a formal meeting but an

11     informal conversation in relation to certain events where information was

12     exchanged on the life and circumstances in Knin prevailing at the time.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it meet your concern if we would make it:  I

14     left the room whilst the other persons present continued their

15     conversation?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be correct, had I left

17     the room ahead of the others.  But I noticed since I spent some five

18     minutes lingering in the corridor, that the others followed suit soon

19     after me.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That is not part of your testimony you give at this

21     moment.

22             So we then change:  I left the room whilst the other persons

23     present continued their conversation.  And we take out:  The meeting was

24     still going on.

25             Ms. Mahindaratne.

Page 13545

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 2        Q.   You indicated, Mr. Turkalj, that you had four.  What are the

 3     other three corrections?

 4        A.   I read the statement and would like to correct a statement under

 5     paragraph 61.

 6        Q.   Yes, please.  Go ahead, and let us know what the correction is.

 7        A.   In this part of statement, I highlighted the fact that with my

 8     associates, I asked from General Markac that Mr. Drljo be thrown out of

 9     the Lucko Unit, which was, I believe, translated differently.

10             We had informal conversations when we would happen upon

11     General Cermak that Mr. Drljo should be transferred to a different post

12     within the sector of the special police.  The reason behind that request

13     was the fact that Mr. Drljo did not fully respect the authority of the

14     superior.  It was difficult to work with him because of that fact, and

15     because of these minor difficulties, we believed it better for him to be

16     transferred to a new post, to a different post.

17        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I --

18             MR. KAY:  Sorry to interrupt.  Can we just have clarification on

19     the last paragraph there, because General Cermak's --

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That what I was on about.

21             MR. KAY:  Oh, thank you very much.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

23        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, you referred to General Cermak, or I think it has

24     been noted as General Cermak.  Did you mean to say General Cermak, or did

25     you mean to say General Markac?

Page 13546

 1             Let me read back to you what you have said.  You said:

 2             "We had informal conversations when we would happen upon General

 3     Cermak, that Mr. Drljo should be transferred."

 4             In relation to that sentence, did you mean to say, We had

 5     informal conversation when we would happen upon General Markac, or did

 6     you mean to say General Cermak?

 7        A.   My apologies.  It was a slip.  I was -- meant to refer to

 8     General Markac.

 9        Q.   So you informed us what you meant by paragraph 61.  Is there

10     anything there in paragraph 61 right now that you want to change?  What

11     you have stated is on record.

12        A.   Essentially that would be the extent of my correction and should

13     anything else arise, I will correct that during your examination.

14        Q.   You also said there were two others.  Are there any more

15     corrections, or is this it?

16        A.   I would like to make a correction under paragraph 65.  Give me a

17     moment, please.

18             In paragraph 65 of the statement, I said that Mr. Markac was

19     there, and I was referring to the general area, specifically somewhere in

20     the area of the village of Ramljane.  However, there as it stands now

21     could be understood as at the scene of the event.  I heard that

22     General Markac was somewhere in the vicinity of that place at the time

23     when the units were supposed to arrive there, but this general area I was

24     referring to was some ten kilometres away from that location.

25        Q.   That is on record, Mr. Turkalj.

Page 13547

 1             What is your last correction?

 2        A.   At paragraph 65, I would like to add that following these

 3     assignments - and this is something that isn't in the statement - I spoke

 4     to the commander of the action at the time, Mr. Janic, who told me that

 5     he had sent -- or, rather, that the unit had completed its assignment and

 6     that he had sent it to its base.

 7        Q.   Is that all, Mr. Turkalj?

 8        A.   There's another one at paragraph 69.

 9             In paragraph 69, I believe I was a bit at cross-purposes with the

10     investigators when it comes to the internal control department.  I would

11     like to make a correction in that regard.

12             Within the sector of the special police, there existed the

13     internal control department.  However, at the level of the minister,

14     there existed also the office for internal control which dealt with

15     matters of discipline and disciplinary procedure in relation to members

16     of the MUP and special police.  Therefore, this department for internal

17     control which was organised within the sector of the special police dealt

18     with the issue of discipline only at the level of statistics that they

19     received regularly from commanders of units or administrations in

20     relation to disciplinary procedures; whereas, the office for internal

21     control dealt more with security issues concerning terrorist groups,

22     matters concerning the manpower and materiel and technical equipment for

23     the special police, and so on and so forth.

24        Q.   Is that it, Mr. Turkalj, or are there any further clarifications

25     you would wish to make?

Page 13548

 1        A.   Those would roughly be all my corrections of the statement for

 2     the time being.

 3        Q.   Now subject to those clarifications, if you were asked the same

 4     questions that were asked of you by the members of the Office of the

 5     Prosecutor in 2004 and again in 2005 today in court, would your answers

 6     be the same, subject to the clarifications that you just provided?  And

 7     when I say same not verbatim but in terms of substance?

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I think, just for clarification,

 9     are you specifically only speaking of this statement?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We're talking about this statement at this moment.

11             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Not any other statement, beyond the one that we

12     see on the screen?

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President, I asked in 2004 and 2005,

14     because 2005 is a video recorded.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh.  Let me see, but you did not ask the witness

16     whether he received the transcript and that he has reviewed that.  I

17     think the earlier portion was only about the 2004 statement.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Let me ask that again, Mr. President.  I was

19     under the impression that I did.  I will ask him again.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

22        Q.   Let me first ask you with regard to this statement, Mr. Turkalj.

23     Subject to the clarifications that you provided today, would your

24     responses, if you were asked the same questions that were asked of you in

25     2004, would your responses be the same substance-wise as reflected in the

Page 13549

 1     statement which is in front of you on the screen?

 2        A.   I believe that the answers will be, if not the same, then very

 3     similar.  I will probably have to be recounting many of these issues from

 4     my memory, despite the fact that they are in the statement, and since I

 5     have taken the oath, I will, of course, be telling the truth.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, with regard to the transcripts,

 7     the witness has testified here that he spoke the truth and the interview

 8     was video recorded, so generally we don't go along the same way as we do

 9     with a typed written statement.  But I could ask him if he has reviewed

10     the transcripts and --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps we could ask him.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, now you were also provided with the transcripts of

14     your videotaped interview along with the statement; were you not?

15        A.   I have reviewed the transcripts.

16        Q.   And is it is, in fact, a videotaped conversation between you and

17     members of the Office of the Prosecutor.  Do have you any clarifications

18     to add to that, that can you recall?

19        A.   I have reviewed the transcripts, and I don't think that there is

20     any need to clarify that.

21        Q.   Thank you.  So if you were asked the questions that were asked of

22     you in 2005 by the members of the Office of the Prosecutor, would you --

23     would your responses be the same as those reflected in those transcripts?

24        A.   I believe that my answers will be the same.

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Turkalj?

Page 13550

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I wish to move the statement

 2     and the transcripts into evidence.  The statement is already on the

 3     screen.  If it may be given an exhibit number.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objections, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections from any of the Defence teams.

 7             Mr. Registrar, the witness statement dated 3rd and 4th

 8     February 2004 would be ...

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P1149, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Exhibit P1149 is admitted into evidence.

11             The witness statement dated the 11th March of 2005, which --

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  There are three 65 ter numbers, Mr. President,

13     between three sections.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Three sections.  They could be taken together, I

15     take it.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is transcript and video recording attached.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's correct, Mr. President.  Shall I for

19     the Court give the 65 ter numbers?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  6161, 6162, and 6163.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  They would receive together, Mr. Registrar, which

23     number?

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P1150, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  P1150 is admitted into evidence.

Page 13551

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, your testimony is that you were in charge of the

 4     artillery operations of the special police sector in the course of

 5     Operation Storm.

 6             Now, when you say you were in charge, were you directing all the

 7     artillery groups and the batteries attached to all the special police

 8     units in the course of the operation?

 9        A.   I directed the artillery along the axis of attack of the special

10     police, and in one particular battery out of the number you have

11     mentioned.

12        Q.   When you say "in one particular battery," that is what my

13     question was.  Were you directing in one particular battery, or when you

14     say you directed artillery operations to the special police, did you

15     direct the other groups and batteries attached to the other special

16     police units too?

17        A.   I'd like to make a correction.  I directed the artillery of the

18     special police with an addition of a -- an attached artillery battery

19     that was in the course of that day attached to the special police forces.

20        Q.   And when you say an additional artillery battery that was

21     attached, you're referring to the HV battery that was attached for the

22     purpose of the operation to the special police, isn't it?

23        A.   There was platoon from the HV.  There was a gun platoon that was

24     attached to us, a Howitzer platoon as well as a multi-barrel rocket

25     launcher.

Page 13552

 1        Q.   Yes.  So we have -- now prior to the commencement of the

 2     operation, did you receive a list of targets which were to be engaged in

 3     the course of the operation either from Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic?

 4        A.   A list of targets and potential targets is what I received from

 5     the employees of the internal control department.

 6        Q.   And what were those targets, if you could recall?

 7        A.   The targets were along the front line of the enemy defence as

 8     well as certain targets in depth behind their lines, command points,

 9     railroad junctions, warehouses of equipment and pieces, communications

10     centre.  That would be it more or less.

11        Q.   Now, were those instructions given in writing?

12        A.   They were clearly designated by the department.

13        Q.   Where would those lists be archived now, do you know, since

14     you're still in the Ministry of Interior?

15        A.   I can't provide an answer to that.  I don't know whether such

16     lists exist.

17        Q.   Now, at any stage as the person in charge of artillery, did you

18     send this list to either Mr. Markac or the chief of the sector,

19     Mr. Sacic, for their approval, or did they get involved in the planning

20     of the artillery operations with you?

21        A.   The artillery operation and the targets we engaged fell under my

22     authority.  Since Mr. Sacic was at the head of the staff of the special

23     police forces, I advised him of the targets, but that did not mean that

24     he necessarily needed to know where each particular target was.

25        Q.   Now, along with this list of targets that you received, did you

Page 13553

 1     receive any information from the inner control branch or any other

 2     department regarding the presence or absence of civilians close to those

 3     targets that you were supposed to engaged [sic]?

 4        A.   Once we received the targets, we still had no information as to

 5     any civilians in that area.

 6        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, you say:  We still had no information as to the

 7     civilians in that area.  Is that your information were that there were --

 8     when civilians or that you did not receive any information regarding

 9     civilians?  It's not very clear.  Can you clarify what you just said.

10        A.   I had information on the military targets in that area, given the

11     tasks which had been assigned to us in the course of an attack during

12     Operation Storm.

13        Q.   That's correct.  Now, my question was:  Did you have the any

14     information of the proximity of civilians or civilian settlements to

15     those targets?

16        A.   To a certain extent I could see how close the civilian

17     settlements were to the targets themselves.

18        Q.   Can you clarify that answer.  What do you mean you could see?

19     You knew that there were civilian settlements close to the targets.  Is

20     that what you said?

21             MR. KEHOE:  It's going to be --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you are misrepresenting the answer

23     of the witness.

24             The witness said to a certain extent, I could see how close the

25     civilian settlements were to the targets themselves.

Page 13554

 1             Your question gave a different version, although using the same

 2     words.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President, I did not intend to

 4     misrepresent, I read it --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I -- you put the question to the witness

 6     again.

 7             Although is it by visual observation that you saw that,

 8     Mr. Turkalj?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not by visual observation.  I

10     could see it on the map.  I could see clearly where each and every target

11     in the area was.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now perhaps just to -- you received maps.  The

13     targets were indicated on the map?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received a map of the area that

15     had been charted by the internal control department with certain

16     information.  I was the one to determine which targets were to be

17     engaged.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

19        Q.   And the map that was provided to you by internal control

20     department, did that map -- what were the military targets

21     [indiscernible] in that map?

22        A.   It is a topographic map of the area.

23        Q.   And my question was were the -- the military targets indicated

24     depicted in that map that was given to you by the inner control branch?

25        A.   I can repeat, that it was a topographic map of that area, with

Page 13555

 1     all roads and facilities marked.

 2             As for the targets, that is to say the information received from

 3     the internal control department as to the exact lotion of the targets, we

 4     used that to plot the targets.  Perhaps I can clarify.

 5             If a target was a cross-roads, and if it was presumed that new

 6     fresh forces were being brought in through that juncture, then I

 7     designated that as a target.

 8        Q.   Now, when you received -- when you listed out the targets, about

 9     -- approximately how many targets did you end up with as targets to be

10     engaged in the course of the operation?

11             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, that is a really broad question.

12     Targets where and at a what point in time.  It is so expansive.  If it

13     could be more specific, it would be appreciated.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We certainly will have to come to more specifics,

15     Ms. Mahindaratne.  If you have already in your mind where to go then --

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  perhaps there's a

18     quicker way of going there.

19             Please proceed.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   Are you able to answer my question?

22        A.   Yes, I am.  But I can't tell you what the exact number of targets

23     was.  There were many of them along the front line and then in the back.

24     There may have been over 100 targets.

25        Q.   Now, well, I'll come to this later on, Mr. Turkalj, I think we'll

Page 13556

 1     go area an area, and I'm no more interested in the targets in the area

 2     behind the front lines, in the depth.

 3             But can you tell me before we close for the day what were the

 4     rules of engagement that you received in planning your artillery

 5     operation, particularly with regard to engaging targets in the proximity

 6     of civilian areas?

 7        A.   It is a very comprehensive question.  It would probably take a

 8     while for me to answer it.

 9        Q.   Let me ask you:  Did you receive such instructions, either from

10     Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic?

11        A.   We received instructions from Mr. Sacic in the sense that

12     artillery support was to be provided to the special police forces along

13     our axis of attack.  We all knew what the axis of movement were, that is

14     to say the main axis of attack and auxiliary lines of attack of the

15     special police forces in that area.

16        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... You misunderstood me.  My

17     question is what were the rules of engagement as in were you informed as

18     to what you could target, what you could not, and in selecting particular

19     targets, what kind of precautionary methods you should take, that's what

20     I mean.  Rules of engagement.  Did you have rules of engagement in

21     considering artillery operations, within the special police?

22        A.   There were no rules of engagement for artillery per se.  What we

23     had in place was the tactics of artillery, based on which we acted upon

24     in the course of the operation.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I note the --

Page 13557

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you note the clock.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Mr. Turkalj, we will adjourn for the day.  We'd like to see you

 5     back tomorrow morning in Courtroom I, and I instruct you that you should

 6     not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether it is the testimony

 7     you gave already, or whether it is testimony still to be given.  And may

 8     I further invite you during your examination to refrain from seeking eye

 9     contact with others and focus on Ms. Mahindaratne or, at a later stage,

10     the one who examines you, to focus on that.

11             We stand adjourned, and we'll resume tomorrow, Friday, the 12th

12     of December, 9.00, Courtroom I.

13                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

14                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 12th of December,

15                           2008, at 9.00 a.m.