1 Tuesday, 9 June 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Mr. Waespi, there was a procedural issue you'd like to raise?
12 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Good morning, Mr. President.
13 I'd like to introduce to you Mr. Ryan Carrier, who is a new
14 member of the Prosecution team, and he'd like to address you on the next
15 witness, AG-58. And for that, I think we need to go into private
17 JUDGE ORIE: May we move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 18348-18353 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
21 Any other procedural matter to be raised?
22 Yes, Mr. Carrier.
23 MR. CARRIER: Yes, Your Honour. If I could be excused.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
1 MR. KEHOE: The only outstanding issue I think we had yesterday
2 was the video/audio clips that the Prosecution was going to look at that
3 we had moved to admit into evidence, and there was to be a report back
4 rather quickly. I don't know if it was yesterday or this morning, but
5 they were the two audio clips that were played with Ambassador Galbraith,
6 as you mentioned, a year ago.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the time, I think the main objection was
8 that it was not introduced in relation to any testimony by a witness.
9 That might have changed meanwhile, Mr. Waespi?
10 MR. WAESPI: I'm sorry. I have relayed it to Mr. Tieger
11 yesterday, and unfortunately I haven't heard back from him, so I'll make
12 a promise that we'll get it today.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't think that is such an urgency that we
14 could not allow to you come back to it later today.
15 MR. KEHOE: You noted, Mr. President, that it was not in relation
16 to the testimony of any witness. It was, in fact, used during the
17 testimony of Ambassador Galbraith who was present during these
18 discussions on the audiotapes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- and we are talking about --
20 MR. KEHOE: 1D33-0081 and 1D33-0082.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we don't have those numbers. Is it D1451 or --
22 MR. KEHOE: No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, let me just -- oh, yes, audio, yes. Let me just
24 have a look. If you give me one second to read it.
1 "It was not yet MFI
2 That's clear. It goes back to the 24th of June. I think I made a nasty
3 remark about one year. That's --
4 MR. KEHOE: Just for the record, Mr. President --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please.
6 MR. KEHOE: The comment was that, just so that counsel
7 understands it, it's at 5065, line 22, so if you want to go back and take
8 a look at Mr. Tieger on that, I think that might assist.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then hear from you after approximately
10 one year and two days, instead of one day. We'll hear from you.
11 Any other matter to be raised? If not, Madam Usher, could you
12 please escort the witness into the courtroom.
13 Mr. Waespi, I hardly dare to ask you whether you're ready to
14 cross-examine the witness, but ...
15 MR. WAESPI: I am, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would also like to hear later today on
17 the completeness of the transcript of P448. There was an issue about
18 whether the transcript was complete or not.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 WITNESS: MIOMIR ZUZUL [Resumed]
21 [The witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Zuzul. I would like to remind you
23 that the solemn declaration that you gave yesterday still binds you; that
24 is, that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
1 You'll now be further cross-examined by Mr. Waespi.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Waespi: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ambassador.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. I'd like to cover four areas with you this morning. I don't
6 think it should take that long:
7 Let's start with the first one. I'm not sure I -- I'm not sure I
8 fully understood you yesterday, your testimony, about the crimes or
9 events, as you call them, occurring, and your contacts with
10 internationals. That's at page 18327, and I quote from your testimony
12 "Since I primarily communicated with the international community,
13 I can say, to the best of my recollection, that in the immediate
14 aftermath of Operation Storm, I never learned that the international
15 community or anyone else should have information to the effect that these
16 events took place on a massive scale. Quite to the contrary."
17 And then you go on to mention Ambassador Galbraith.
18 Now, first of all, when you talk about events, what are you
19 referring to?
20 A. It is difficult for me to define precisely what these events
21 were. What I referred to yesterday, speaking from my memory, and what I
22 would repeat today as well, in my contacts with the international
23 community, I really do not remember that any specific concern was raised
24 in respect of some events that would be considered unacceptable by the
25 international community and which would have happened immediately
1 following Storm, such as inadequate protection of the civilian
2 population, burning homes and looting, everything else that was referred
3 to in the later accounts.
4 I have to draw your attention to the fact that we started
5 receiving opinions and reflections from the international community only
6 several weeks later. I wouldn't be able to tell you when, exactly, but
7 this is how I remember it.
8 When I said "our concerns," I meant to say that we had always had
9 in mind the fact that the strategic goal of Croatia was to become part of
10 the international community and that we did care about what sort of a
11 reaction the international community would have to a specific situation.
12 Q. But you personally, and you were an ambassador in various
13 capacities at the relevant time, a special envoy of President Tudjman,
14 have you never read any of the numerous documents and, indeed,
15 observations from international sources, United Nations, UNHCR, stating
16 that these events, these crimes in the aftermath of Operation Storm, did
17 take place on a massive scale?
18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I did not say that I did not read the reports and
19 that I did not hear of them. What I said yesterday, and repeat it today,
20 was, to the best of my recollection, and I might be mistaken because of
21 the lapse of time, such reactions from the international community
22 started coming in several weeks following Storm.
23 Q. So you do accept that the international community expressed huge
24 concerns about the burning and looting and that it did happen on a
25 massive scale? Do you accept that today, as you testify now?
1 A. I am testifying to the truth that I know and the way I know about
2 it. I cannot use your terms of "massive" or "many." This is not how I
3 experienced the contacts with the international community. However, I am
4 aware of such things happening following Operation Storm and perhaps in
5 the aftermath of other operations. It was my impression at the time that
6 these events were not massive, but I did not have an insight into the
7 situation. It was my firm conviction at the time, and I can take the
8 liberty of saying it here, that I never believed that it was part of a
9 systematic plan. These were un-wished-for events that followed the
11 Q. Let's look at just one example of a document you might have read
12 at the time or seen. D690, this is a statement by the head of UNHCR,
13 Ms. Ogata [Realtime transcript read in error "Rogata"]. Do you remember
15 A. Yes, yes, I knew Madam Ogata.
16 Q. And she signed or authored that statement on 10th of October,
17 1995, and on page 1 --
18 A. [In English] By the way, there is a wrong spelling of Madam --
19 it's not Madam Ogata, but Madam Ogata.
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zuzul, thank you. The transcript will be
22 reviewed after this court hearing so as to correct any spelling mistakes.
23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. WAESPI:
1 Q. Did you actually meet Ms. Ogata at the time she was in the
2 Balkans in the aftermath of Operation Storm?
3 A. I can't remember exactly whether I met with her in the aftermath
4 of Operation Storm, but I did meet with her on several occasions. Her
5 headquarters was in Geneva
6 and we had generally good cooperation.
7 Q. Let's look at this document, and if we can scroll down to the
8 bottom of the document. There, Ms. Ogata addresses this, quote, "serious
9 aggravation of the problem of ethnic intolerance and persecution in
10 recent days," and then she goes on to say that she was, quote,
11 "particularly appalled by the widespread violations of human rights that
12 have been taking place in the Krajina region since it was recaptured by
13 the Croatian Army in August. Burning and looting of Serb homes have been
14 carried out on a massive scale. The remaining Serbs, most of whom are
15 elderly persons, are being terrorised. My special envoy for the former
17 reports of what he saw."
18 That's at the top of page 2.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Move to the next page.
20 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President, top of page 2.
21 Q. Now, do you dispute what Ms. Ogata and her special envoy have
22 observed and report about?
23 A. I think that this report does not in the very least contradict
24 what I said. This report appeared in October, and I said that it was my
25 impression that there had not been any reactions from the international
1 community of this sort immediately after Operation Storm; rather, that
2 they started appearing in autumn.
3 As far as the information contained herein is concerned, I can't
4 attest to their veracity. I can give you my opinion of them, and I have
5 to say they -- the events, as they happened, could not in any way be
6 construed to support the existence of a previously-devised plan.
7 As you said, Ms. Prosecutor, this report dates from October,
8 which is more than two months after Operation Storm.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I try to avoid any further confusion.
10 Apparently, there are three issues: The first one, whether there
11 was burning and looting on a massive scale; the second is when the
12 international community addressed the matter; and then the third one is
13 whether there was a plan. I think the last question that was put to you
14 by Mr. Waespi was whether, apart from whether you learned about it,
15 whether you disputed that there was burning and looting on a massive
16 scale, and Mr. Waespi, in that context, put to you this document. But
17 let's clearly try to distinguish between the three elements in the
18 questions as I've just said them out.
19 I tend to agree with you, that this does not contradict anything
20 about when you learned it, because you said this document dates from
21 October. I see that you say, as far as whether it happened or not, you
22 cannot confirm the veracity of this report, and although not solicited by
23 Mr. Waespi, you added to it that you were not aware of any plan, if such
24 things happened, that they would be the result of a plan. Let's try to
25 clearly make a distinction between the three elements and the questions
1 that were put to you.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.
3 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. So, Mr. Ambassador, do you accept now that at one time the
5 international community reported, and you became aware of it, that there
6 were human rights violations on a massive scale occurring in the
7 aftermath of Operation Storm? Do you accept that now, irrespective of
8 the time that these reports came out?
9 A. If you'll allow me to say something in order to avoid any
10 confusion, His Honour has most helpfully distinguished between these
11 three issues at hand here.
12 I cannot really say to what extent the violation of human rights
13 occurred. I cannot really tell you what the definition of the word
14 "massive" in the context is. I can only tell you what my impression was,
15 and this is what the Judge referred to.
16 Secondly, at some point I did become aware of the fact that the
17 international community raised their concerns and presented the view that
18 human rights had been violated, in different reports, used different
19 formulations. Again, I can't talk about the magnitude of it. I
20 discussed the matter with all the officials of the Croatian government,
21 and I can tell you that there were concerns about it.
22 As for the third issue, regardless of what happened and to what
23 extent it happened, I never had an impression that this was the result of
24 a planned activity. It was always my opinion, and still is, that all the
25 events, whatever happened, was the result of the lack of preparedness for
1 what was to come after the liberation; to some extent, the lack of the
2 preparedness, to some extent due to chance, and still others due to the
3 situation on the ground, but definitely not as a result of an intention
4 for things to happen that way.
5 Q. Now, Ambassador Galbraith, whom you started to refer to as an
6 example of the contrary, that the international community did not report
7 at the time you mentioned about these massive-scale violations, that's at
8 page 18327, he testified here in this trial about the systematic
9 destruction of the Krajina. That's at page 4960, and he said that:
10 "This took place while the army was in control, almost from the
11 start that the looting and burning is taking place."
12 Do you dispute, take issue, with what Ambassador Galbraith, whom
13 you told us yesterday you consider to be a friend, testified about?
14 A. I can repeat here that I do consider Ambassador Galbraith a
15 friend of mine and as an individual who, both as a diplomat and a
16 politician, wanted to do good in Croatia
17 he relayed was true or untrue. From his diary, you were able to see that
18 we were frequently in contact. I don't recall hearing such views from
19 him in the aftermath of Operation Storm, which does not mean that I am
20 claiming that he did not hold such views at the time.
21 Q. In fact, he did testify that he raised these atrocities with
22 various leaders, in particular Mr. Susak, Granic, Sarinic, and also
23 Mr. Tudjman. You weren't aware of that?
24 A. When you use a formulation such as this one, they are very
25 general. Of course, this was a time when all manner of things were
1 discussed with great intensity. What, precisely, these issues were is
2 very difficult for me to pin-point. Certainly, there must be transcripts
3 of these conversations.
4 What I said and what I repeated today was that it was not my
5 impression that in the several weeks following Operation Storm, the
6 international community came up with information of, as you put it,
7 massive-scale violation of human rights and that there was specific
8 communication with the Croatian government on that issue. I did not have
9 that impression.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. But the army, the HV, the Croatian
11 government, they knew what was happening almost from day one. They
12 observed, themselves, that their troops were committing crimes. Do you
14 A. Again, this is something I can neither confirm nor deny. I don't
15 know what the Croatian Army knew. What I could know and should have
16 known from the Croatian government was the extent of the communication
17 between the Croatian government and the international community. Of
18 course, there was communication and there were reports. I think that the
19 communication had to do with the following. When -- or, rather, that
20 that communication came into play at the point when the events happening
21 on the ground reached a level that would be cause for concern. This is
22 what I was talking about.
23 Q. But are you denying now that it was members of the HV, of the
24 army, who committed some of these crimes, or do you accept that?
25 A. I can neither deny nor accept it. I am fully aware of the fact
1 that I am talking about the truth as I know it, under an oath. This
2 issue is not something I have knowledge about in order to be able to
3 either confirm or deny it.
4 Q. So even today, after all these years, in your capacity as
5 ambassador, special envoy, Geneva, New York
6 know that there was an admission there are documents from the HV
7 contemporaneous at meeting that HV committed crimes like looting and
8 burning right in the aftermath of Operation Storm? You still don't know
10 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor, you are putting an erroneous conclusion into
11 my mouth. I did see the documents. I know what they state. I don't
12 have reasons to doubt many of these documents. However, in my capacity
13 as a witness here, I can neither confirm nor deny reports about the
14 events on the ground which I did not observe or have any direct knowledge
16 As far as reports are concerned, I did see a great many of them.
17 And as you are well aware, they differed greatly, one from the other.
18 Q. What differed greatly, one from the other; reports about the
20 A. Yes, of course. There were different reports that differed
21 greatly in their estimation of the number of crimes, in their estimation
22 of the incidents being isolated or organised, the estimation of various
23 figures. There were differences in 10-fold or 50-fold figures, and I can
24 definitely claim that there were reports that had different accounts.
25 Again, I cannot state which of these were accurate.
1 Q. And what are these reports? Who was the author of these reports?
2 A. There were many informal and formal institutions producing
3 reports. To my mind, as an ambassador and a representative of Croatia
4 the international community, Madam Ogata's report was very important. We
5 also received reports from the Croatian government. We received reports
6 from other international organisations. But, again, despite the best of
7 my will and knowledge, I would not dare interpret these reports. Now,
8 ten years later, more than ten years later, I recall only a few of them.
9 You reminded me of some, but there were many, and I cannot interpret them
11 At the time, and this is something that was not mentioned at the
12 time, I don't recall anyone mentioning it at the time, that is to say, of
13 the existence of a plan, and now I can tell you that there was none, but
14 I cannot give you any sort of a qualification of the events on the
16 Q. Thank you, Ambassador. Let's move on to the next topic, and here
17 you actually did something yesterday you professed not to do, that's
18 talking about events that you weren't part of. That's the issue about
19 the translation of the Croatian word "toboze", if I pronounce it
20 correctly. Now, I accept the fact that you want to have it translated as
21 an adjective rather than a verb, and I don't want to go into that. I
22 just want to talk about the meaning of the word itself.
23 Now, yesterday, while you were testifying, we made a quick search
24 on the internet, and Your Honours, that's at 65 ter 7268, that resulted
25 in the following proposed translations for the Croatian word "toboze."
1 If we can get the document, please. Maybe if it could be enlarged as far
2 as possible.
3 Now, you see that there are all kinds of translations for the
4 word "toboze," and I quote because it's perhaps not that well legible,
5 "as a pretext," "would-be," "seemingly," "quasi," "professedly,"
6 "pretendedly," "ostensibly," "just for show," "smooth-faced." Now, do
7 you accept that all these English translations are valid translations for
8 the word "toboze"?
9 A. I fully accept, and I am grateful for that, because it is
10 indicative of what I wanted to draw your attention to; namely, that it's
11 a term which is very difficult to translate into English because there
12 isn't a term or a phrase that would clearly denote it. This is something
13 that follows from this document of yours.
14 However, when you translated in the way in which it was
15 translated in the document you showed me, then it does take on a very
16 specific meaning which, in my view, does not accurately reflect the
17 meaning of the sentence as uttered by President Tudjman, because if you
18 used one of the terms as proposed in the table here, you would see that
19 it would change the meaning of the sentence. That's one matter.
20 The other matter is where the term "toboze" was placed in the
21 sentence. In the original, it was placed behind the verb, whereas in the
22 translation it was placed ahead of the verb, and again it changes the
23 meaning of the sentence in the translation, regardless of the term used
24 to denote the original term.
25 If you'll allow me this suggestion. If a lexical analysis were
1 to be made of the manner of speech of President Tudjman, you would find
2 the term "toboze" being used in his speech far more frequently than is
3 normally the case in the Croatian language. I'm, of course, speaking
4 this from memory, and I'm not basing it on any expertise, but if you
5 analysed his speech you would see that -- you would see the high
6 frequency of the use of the word "toboze" in President Tudjman's speech,
7 next to the words -- terms such as "human rights," "freedom of press,"
8 et cetera. You would see that the way he uses this term next to, let's
9 say, "human rights," could be, in fact, interpreted by any of these words
10 that we have on the screen here. And there you would realise that the
11 term "toboze" did not relate to the term "protect" in that sentence, but
12 rather to the expression "human rights." And I do believe - or "civil
13 rights" - and I do believe that it does make a great difference when it
14 comes to the meaning conveyed.
15 Q. But, Ambassador, you do accept that while we see the translation
16 "ostensibly" here that was used yesterday by the live interpreters in the
17 booth, and also "pretending" which is the translation we have seen in the
18 written translation, your interpretation/translation, so-called, isn't
19 included here? You accept that?
20 A. Well, I think this is only part of the possible translations. In
21 the waiting room for witnesses yesterday, I found an even longer list of
22 possible translations.
23 But my main point remains the same. That word, "toboze," however
24 you translate it, applied to the second part of the sentence, not to the
25 verb preceding it. That was my main objection to the written
1 translation. You see that it's impossible to translate the word
2 precisely, but I believe everyone now, including the Trial Chamber, can,
3 on the basis of the proposed translations on this list, understand how
4 broad this term is, "quasi," "seemingly," "pretendedly," because this is
5 such a very imprecise term.
6 Q. Now, let me conclude this point with a final issue. Were you
7 aware that at the end of the sentence of President Tudjman, his comment
8 about what you called so-called human rights, that there was a chuckle by
9 him? Were you aware of that, or are you today aware of that?
10 A. Well, I was not aware of it then. But hearing that from you now,
11 I think it confirms what I've been saying. I knew President Tudjman very
12 well; I worked with him a lot; and I trusted him. But I also knew that
13 his understanding of certain concepts is not the same as the
14 generally-accepted understanding of those concepts broadly in the world.
15 And I'm not surprised that he chuckled when he said "human rights,"
16 because that reflects what he'd thought deep inside about this concept.
17 However, as a responsible statement, President Tudjman, even when he did
18 not have a deep understanding of these terms, he accepted them
19 nevertheless because he wanted the best for Croatia. But sometimes he
20 was prone to expressing his private reservations by using a word such as
21 "quasi," "toboze" in Croatian, or chuckling, but of course I cannot
22 comment on this specific situation.
23 Q. But in this context, the chuckling about so-called human rights
24 relates to the human rights of the Serbs living in Croatia; isn't that
1 A. No. What I'm talking about applied to the general concept that
2 we interpret in various ways. One way is the way it is interpreted in
3 Western democracies, and that is shared by me, personally, and by
5 I think that if President Tudjman had been, indeed, talking about a
6 specific plan, he would not have chuckled.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi, is it of any use -- I mean, as I earlier
8 said, we have to get expert assistance here, which certainly would avoid
9 us to look at words as "seemingly" with double "g," which does not
10 reflect a high level of expertise. We are more or less now, as I said
11 before, exegesis of texts. Of course, to a certain level you can do that
12 with a witness, but let's try to avoid that witnesses here are
13 interpreting chuckles they've not even heard. Were they loud, were they
14 not? I mean, let's try and -- apart from that, of course, the Chamber
15 will look at the evidence, including this sentence, in the entirety of
16 the evidence in that context. So therefore it has become apparent now
17 that the witness interprets the words the way in which they were
18 expressed, chuckles added to words which he hasn't heard, in his way,
19 whereas apparently you have a different opinion about the matter.
20 That's -- is it of any -- I do not expect that we get the final word by
21 putting another three or four questions to the witness.
22 MR. WAESPI: I can -- I hope to have moved away from that
23 linguistic aspect. I just wanted to have him confirm that in this
24 context, the President Tudjman chuckled about the so-called human rights
25 of Serbs in Croatia
1 point I wanted to ask the witness about.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The context of the sentence, but I'm doing it now,
3 is about them, isn't it? And I think that the Chamber would be able to
4 read that portion in the context, whatever the witness would say about
5 it. Of course, it's important to know from the witness what he observed
6 as the way in which President Tudjman used words. I'm hesitant to let
7 this go on for quite some time. So if you will have one final question
8 on the matter, fine, but let's move on.
9 MR. WAESPI: No, I'll move on to my third issue.
10 Q. Now, in your witness statement, D1485, in paragraph 6 - that's on
11 page 3 in my English version - towards the end you say that you, and I
12 quote, "actively participated in the establishment of the ICTY." How did
13 this come about, that you were actively participating in the
14 establishment of the ICTY?
15 A. Well, as everyone knows here, throughout the year 1990 I played
16 an active part in Croatian diplomacy. When the issue of establishing the
17 Tribunal arose, as you know, the Republic of Croatia gave its support.
18 We had a number of discussions and a number of reports made about the
19 significance of this Tribunal, the significance of the idea. And both
20 President Tudjman and I always supported the establishment of this
21 Tribunal. I don't think there are any differences between those of us
22 who were involved in diplomacy and others. Of course, Croatia considered
23 carefully all the aspects of the possible work of this Tribunal and
24 supported it.
25 MR. WAESPI: Thank you. I'll come to that in a second. But
1 before I go on, Mr. President, if the previous document, 65 ter 7268, the
2 translation issue, could be tendered, please.
3 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I guess in theory, I have no
4 objection. I guess I question the reliability, similarly to what you
5 pointed out, and "seemingly," isn't even spelled correctly. So I don't
6 know the person doing this translation, so --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It has been shown to the witness. The witness
8 commented on the list that was on the screen. To that extent,
9 Mr. Waespi, the Chamber has no problems admitting it into evidence, but
10 not as an authoritative linguistic list. As I said before, we'll have to
11 find better sources, without spelling mistakes, to deal with the matter.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be become Exhibit P2538.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Now going back to your comment about the support the
18 Croatian Government, you, and Mr. Tudjman gave to the ICTY, that's one
19 thing kind of supporting it, but when it came to obligations by the
20 Croatian Government in relation to their own documents, their own alleged
21 indictees, you obstructed the Tribunal or resisted what came from the
22 Tribunal, did you not?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
24 MR. KEHOE: With all due respect, Mr. President, what is the
25 relevance of this at this juncture? I do believe it is possibly a
1 subject of some Rule 54 discussion, but certainly of no pertinence here.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is overruled. The witness testified
3 about the support of Croatia for the Tribunal, and I think what
4 Mr. Waespi is doing is testing to what extent. And what he precisely
5 will address, we'll hear from him, but he's allowed to explore this
7 Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.
8 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Now as an ambassador, did you ever make a public statement that
10 the Croatian Government will resist subpoenas issued by the ICTY that
11 concerned documents related to President Tudjman?
12 A. I cannot recall precisely, and I don't see exactly what you're
13 getting at, but it's quite possible that I said, as an ambassador, that
14 Croatia will avail itself of all legal mechanisms, but in order to
15 present its views in this Tribunal, which does not always have to
16 coincide with the opinion of the Prosecution. What is certain, that in
17 all my time as a civil servant, as a minister, and as an ambassador, I
18 always supported the work of this Tribunal, and so did the government
19 that I participated in.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zuzul, would you please focus your answer on the
21 question. The question was not whether you always supported the work of
22 the Tribunal. The question was whether you had given a certain
23 statement, as far as you remember.
24 Mr. Waespi, please proceed.
25 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Let's pull up 65 ter 7263.
2 Q. This, Mr. Ambassador, might refresh your memory about a public
3 statement you gave -- might have given. And this is a three-page
4 document, but the actual article by the journalist, Roy Guttman, starts
5 in the middle of page 2, so if we could go to page -- yes, that's the
6 right page. And if we can scroll down in the English version. Yes.
7 That's a clip from an organisation, news organisation called
8 "Newsday," and it mentions you, Mr. Zuzul, Miomir Zuzul, as the Croatian
9 ambassador to the US
10 And then on page 3 there is the following quote:
11 "The Croatian envoy also said his government will resist
12 subpoenas handed down by the Tribunal for internal documents connecting
13 Tudjman and his aids with the war waged in Bosnia by Bosnian Croats."
14 So that was the extent of your support towards the ICTY and the
15 international community in this regard. Do you remember that quote?
16 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you've just done what the Presiding Judge had
17 cautioned me against. You first made a conclusion and then asked the
18 question, and the conclusion is wrong. You can find thousands of
19 documents confirming that I always cooperated with the Tribunal as the
20 representative of the Croatian government, even when that was difficult.
21 This sentence, the way it is phrased, you can see that it's a
22 report from a briefing at the embassy. It could have been interpreted
23 and written in any which way, but it meant only this: If Croatia were to
24 resist, it would resist with full respect for this Tribunal. And where
25 will it resist? Before the Court.
1 In the 1990s, you will remember, Croatia did react to certain
2 subpoenas, and that is a right that Croatia had. It certainly does not
3 mean contempt of the Court.
4 MR. WAESPI: I'd like to tender --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zuzul, first -- I'll give you an opportunity,
6 Mr. Kehoe.
7 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I recently heard you saying, "I don't know what
9 you're getting at." Let Mr. Waespi consider what he's getting at.
10 Second, you're saying, "You're doing exactly what the
11 Presiding Judge said I should not do." There is a difference between the
12 way in which questions are phrased, whether conclusions are put to you,
13 and the question is, "Is that conclusion right, isn't that the case,"
14 that's different from answers to be given by a witness. So therefore I
15 would invite you to refrain from commenting on the questions. Or if
16 there's any problem with the way in which Mr. Waespi formulates his
17 questions, the Chamber either will proprio motu comment on it or the
18 other party, and that might happen now, I don't know. But Mr. Kehoe is
19 on his feet; Mr. Kehoe is certainly able to object to any question which
20 is not put in a form which is appropriate and acceptable in this court.
21 Mr. Kehoe, I don't know whether you had this in mind or not.
22 MR. KEHOE: I did, Mr. President, and my brief comment --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Demonstrates that immediately, yes.
24 MR. KEHOE: My brief comment of course is the good-faith basis
25 for this, because I'm sure that the Office of the Prosecutor knows full
1 well, and the Court of course can take judicial notice of decisions of
2 the Appellate Chamber, that this particular issue was litigated two
3 months later and the Republic of Croatia prevailed on this particular
4 issue concerning subpoenas to the Republic of Croatia concerning the war
5 with the Bosnian Croats. So I do believe the good-faith basis will
6 require a full picture of that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although I think that, as it appears already
8 from the answer of the witness, that where the question is formulated
9 with certain limitations, that the witness apparently is fully capable of
10 putting matters in context in this respect. But thank you for -- you're
11 supposed not to comment on questions, but nevertheless I do understand
12 that your objection is that it's phrased in such a way that it may
14 Mr. Waespi, you may proceed.
15 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Just an issue in the transcript. On the previous page, page 28,
17 line 18, you said, Mr. Ambassador, at least it's transcribed as such,
18 that in the 1990s you will remember Croatia did react to certain
19 subpoenas and that it's a right that Croatia had. Did you say that or
20 did you say "did not react to certain subpoenas"?
21 A. As far as I remember, yes, Croatia did react. That's what I
22 said. I said it seems to me that towards the end of the 1990s, Croatia
23 did react, but it reacted before this Court.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to understand. Did you intend to say --
25 because you added to that "that is a right that Croatia had." Now, if
1 you follow an order contained in the subpoena, you usually would not say,
2 That's a right we had, but it's, rather, an obligation. Did you want to
3 say that Croatia
4 about it, because I have difficulties in understanding the -- following
5 the subpoena, reacting to it. Reaction could be positive, could be
6 negative, so therefore the word "reaction" is not unambiguous, especially
7 since it's followed by the words, and it had a right to do so, that I got
8 the impression, but please correct me when I'm wrong, that there was some
9 kind of a challenge in whether this subpoena was issued in accordance
10 with, well, let's say existing international law or whatever, because of
11 course the Chamber is aware that there has been quite a dispute about
12 what - especially when state security interests are concerned - what
13 subpoenas -- where a status under an obligation to, without any
14 reservation, follow an order contained in the subpoenas and where it is
15 not. That has been litigated in quite some detail.
16 Is that what you wanted to refer to or -- the word "reaction" is
17 not unambiguous. That's my problem.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection, and
19 I think you are completely correct, these are two completely different
20 meanings. The way I understood it, and it may not be the only possible
21 understanding, the way I understood the question of the Prosecution, it
22 related to a question, What would happen with the announced subpoenas, or
23 subpoenas that the Prosecution had already moved for, concerning the
24 Republic of Croatia
25 address the competent Trial Chamber and move that such subpoenas not be
1 issued, and that's what I think happened. The Republic of Croatia
2 exercised its legal right to react to the position of the Prosecution.
3 Now, when I think back, I think that was the discussion and that
4 was the legal right concerned. If the Trial Chamber had issued the
5 subpoena in question, I don't think a single Croatian government has so
6 far challenged a subpoena issued by a Trial Chamber. And in every
7 government that I participated in, every time cooperation was sought from
8 us, we cooperated, without any subpoenas.
9 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. WAESPI:
12 Q. Just to make it clear, because you earlier said at page 28, lines
13 15 and 16, that, you know, this was a press briefing and it could be
14 interpreted or written in any which way, did you say at that briefing, if
15 you remember after such a long time, words to the effect that the
16 Croatian government, and I quote from this article, "will resist
17 subpoenas handed down by the Tribunal for internal documents connecting
18 Tudjman and his aids with the war waged in Bosnia by Bosnian Croats"?
19 A. The way the Presiding Judge interpreted it, I would never utter
20 such a sentence expressing resistance to the Tribunal. If I said
21 anything like it, I only meant the right of the Croatia to challenge a
22 subpoena before the Court, I repeat, before the Court. But after a final
23 decision had been rendered by a Trial Chamber, I would never have said
24 that Croatia
25 Q. Do you know Journalist Roy Guttman?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. What's his reputation?
3 A. His reputation is good.
4 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
5 I'd like to tender this document, Mr. President.
6 MR. KEHOE: I'm somewhat perplexed, given where we're going with
7 this. Number 1, none of this is in quotes. But, more importantly, just
8 going back to my foundation to the effect that this was, in fact,
9 litigated and the OTP lost in front of the Appellate Chamber. I don't --
10 I'm concerned that the OTP is attempting to use this for a point that the
11 actual facts mitigate directly against, and that is that it was
12 litigated, consistent with what the witness said, and the OTP lost?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the litigation was quite complex, but let me
14 ask you a question, Mr. Zuzul.
15 Apart from how we should interpret your words, does this article
16 reflect what you said, or perhaps not in your exact own wording, but does
17 it more or less reflect what you said?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, now glancing through
19 the article, I think the answer is "yes," but I think in this passage,
20 which is just a small passage in the article concerning the support that
21 Croatia would give to the arrest of war criminals, we see that the tone
22 of the whole article is quite different. And there are no quotation
23 marks, so none of these are direct quotations. I certainly did not say
24 something like this, the way the Prosecutor is trying to interpret it.
25 It sounds completely different from anything I said. And despite all my
1 appreciation of Roy Guttman, I cannot accept that this is, indeed, a
2 sentence I uttered, the way it is interpreted here.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be MFI'd. The Chamber will
4 consider whether or not to admit it into evidence.
5 Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will become Exhibit P2539,
7 marked for identification.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Waespi.
10 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to turn to my
11 last topic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I look at the clock and see that it's 10.30.
13 Mr. Waespi, how much time would you need for your last topic?
14 MR. WAESPI: I think about 15 minutes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we would need to have a break first.
16 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi, please proceed.
20 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Before I start again, I want to report that we have no objections
22 to these video-clips that are connected with Mr. Galbraith. Actually,
23 Mr. Tieger told me last night, and I forgot.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 MR. WAESPI:
1 Q. Mr. Ambassador, in your dealings with the international
2 community, you were presented with a lot of concerns about the return of
3 the Krajina Serbs; isn't that correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And there are instances, at least one of them, that you tried to
6 shrug off these inquiries; is that also correct?
7 A. I'm not quite sure that I understand the question.
8 Q. That when members of the international community told you that
9 the Krajina Serbs should return, that you said, No, that's not an issue,
10 and you tried to divert their attention to other issues that are less
11 painful for you?
12 A. When you are faced with complex issues, and in diplomacy all
13 issues are complex, of course you will always try to place the emphasis
14 or draw the attention to matters that are favourable to you. I did not
15 have such discussions where I would say that this was not an issue or
16 that it should not be dealt with.
17 Q. Let's look at one of these issues.
18 MR. WAESPI: And, Mr. President, this is 65 ter 7261. And I'd
19 like to go to page 5 in English and page 12 in B/C/S.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Ambassador, this is a meeting at the Presidential Palace
21 on 9 September, 9 September 1995, and if we go to page 5 we will see a
22 reference by you to a Mr. Tarnoff. And I think we have heard about him
23 yesterday. Can you, if you recall, remind us who Mr. Tarnoff was?
24 A. I think that at the time Mr. Tarnoff was under-secretary
25 of state. Unless I'm mistaken, he was under-secretary of state for
1 political issues.
2 Q. And that's an American diplomat, then?
3 A. An American diplomat.
4 Q. Let me quote what you said in this meeting, and the president,
5 Tudjman, is present, Mr. Granic as well, and others:
6 "Miomir Zuzul: President, in connection with this Tarnoff, as
7 the minister was having lunch with the French, I had a chance to spend
8 some time with Tarnoff alone. He began. First he mentioned the problem
9 of Krajina Serbs. I replied swiftly that we have a lot more important
10 issues than this one, so that he did not insist on it."
11 Isn't that an example to show that the issue of Krajina Serbs was
12 clearly something you didn't want to talk about and didn't want to deal
14 A. Well, I think that this indicates precisely what I said.
15 I believe that we had many issues that we had to discuss with the United
16 States of America, and I wanted to make use of the opportunity to talk to
17 Mr. Tarnoff on these matters as best I could. I did not evade, nor could
18 I have evaded, as a diplomat, the issue of the problems faced by the
19 Krajina Serbs. Oftentimes, the information or the instructions I had did
20 not allow me to engage in specific talks, which does not go to say that I
21 evaded such talks. But in my discussions with such a high-level
22 representative of the US, I wanted to discuss matters that were of
23 paramount importance to me, which had mostly to do with the issue of the
24 peaceful reintegration of Eastern Slavonia.
25 Q. Following up on a comment you just made, did you receive
1 instructions from your government not to engage in specific talks about
2 the return of the Krajina Serbs?
3 A. I never received such instructions.
4 Q. So what were the instructions that you received or you mentioned
5 that did not allow you to engage in talks? What were you referring to?
6 A. I don't know how it was interpreted to you, but I said that I
7 never received instructions that would not allow me something. However,
8 as with any job, likewise in diplomacy and in our relations with the
9 international community, we said we had a certain hierarchy which was
10 that of the importance in our communication with the international
11 community. I said that there were more important matters that needed to
12 be discussed with the United States of America. This is what I referred
13 to, and I believe that Mr. Tarnoff accepted this. Had he insisted on his
14 point, I would not have refused to give him an answer.
15 In the State Department and elsewhere, I discussed many
16 problematic issue, which was only a normal thing to do in the relations
17 between two states.
18 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document.
19 MR. KEHOE: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be become Exhibit P2540.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. WAESPI:
24 Q. In fact, Mr. Ambassador, it is also correct, isn't it, that you
25 told a fellow ambassador that he should, quote, "forget about the return
1 of the Krajina Serbs, the return would only cause trouble"?
2 A. The way it is quoted here, I categorically state that it is not
3 an accurate representation, the way it is quoted here.
4 Q. Let's go to P458. That's an exhibit you have been presented with
5 by Mr. Kehoe yesterday, diplomatic diary of Ambassador Galbraith. And
6 the quote I'm referring to is on page 38, in e-court, and the diary
7 itself has a specific separate number, which is page 44. And you see on
8 the previous page that it's an entry of September 5, so let's see what
9 Ambassador Galbraith talks about in his diary.
10 The top of this page:
11 "I had dinner with some ambassadors (Russia, Spain, Canada), and
12 DCMs (UK, Germany, France), to discuss the situation. I was disturbed
13 when Zuzul, whom I consider a moderate and decent man, told me on
14 Saturday to forget about the return of the Krajina Serbs. 'Their return
15 would only cause trouble,' he said."
16 Do you accept what Ambassador Galbraith wrote in his diary?
17 A. I, of course, do accept that he wrote it, but I do not accept
18 that I said it and that it is a quotation of what I said. Mr. Galbraith
19 and I had many discussions on various issues, as you can see from his
20 diary. It may have been a conclusion that he arrived at on the basis of
21 a conversation which I do not remember at all. I don't remember either
22 the conversation or the sentence, but I cannot accept that this is the
23 sort of sentence that I would utter. I discussed with him and others all
24 the difficulties in the way of the return. As a diplomat, as an
25 intellectual, and as a psychologist, I was and am still aware of all
1 these problems. However, I would not have uttered a sentence which would
2 have implied that there should be no return. I definitely did not say
4 Q. Ambassador, there is evidence in this case that members of the
5 Croatian leadership publicly called the Serbs a cancer in Croatia. Do
6 you agree with such language?
7 A. Absolutely not.
8 MR. WAESPI: Your Honours, I'd like to go to 65 ter 7259, and
9 this is a "New York Times" article dated 15 July 1995.
10 Perhaps we can go to page 2.
11 Q. In the first few paragraphs, there are comments made by
12 Mr. Martic talking about retaliation against Croatian cities, and then a
13 comment by a Croatia citizen, Vera Golubic, who supports an attack
14 against the Krajina Serbs, despite Martic's threats against the cities
15 because, as she says, "it's better than being hostage to the Serbs for
16 years and years."
17 And then the article goes on as follows:
18 "Croatian envoy at the UN in Geneva, Miomir Zuzul, took a similar
19 position in an interview broadcast on Zagreb TV this week."
20 "'We have a cancer in our body,' Mr. Zuzul said. 'When you have
21 such a disease, you cannot wait forever.'"
22 Ambassador, you clearly adopt the language that Mr. Tudjman and
23 others publicly used; isn't that correct?
24 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor.
25 First of all, this is a quotation of a quotation, because it is
1 reported here that I stated this in another interview and not this one.
2 That's number one.
3 Number two, where do you, in this sentence of mine, see any
4 reference to Serbs? I don't see any. If I did say something like this,
5 if I did, which is possible, it has a meaning which is quite different
6 from the one you want to allude to. I am not referring to Serbs. This
7 has never been my position, and this has never been the sort of language
8 I would use in reference to another nation. I am referring to the fact
9 that a part of Croatia
10 disease in the Croatian body that could not be sustained as a state of
11 affairs. But I did not imply here, not by a far shot, that some other
12 nation would be the cancer on one's body, not in any way.
13 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2541.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zuzul, before I give an opportunity to Mr. Kehoe
22 to put more questions to you, I have one very specific question.
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier today, Mr. Waespi asked you about your
25 testimony yesterday, about that you did not receive information which
1 would allude to any massive violation of human rights. You said quite
2 the contrary, there was an intervention on the part of
3 Ambassador Galbraith when he joined a group of departing Serbs, possibly
4 in an attempt to prevent any adverse effects it may have. And then you
6 "I invited Ambassador Galbraith, and he was accompanied by an
7 entire high-level US delegation to the place where I grew up to attend a
8 large public event. My intention was for him to simply see what sort of
9 reaction the simple folk would have upon seeing him and the American
10 delegation, and that nobody would perceive his calls for the protection
11 of the civilians in a negative way."
12 Quite a simple question: Where did you take him? What is the
13 place where you grew up?
14 A. I took him to Imotski. It's a place in Dalmatinska Zagora,
15 where, on the 15th of August, a religious festivity is traditionally
16 celebrated, which is that of The Lady of Nativity, or, rather, The
17 Nativity of Our Lady, and it always attracts a large crowd of people.
18 Let me explain to you why was it that I invited him. We were
19 friends. There were negative reports in the Croatian media.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you would first give me more specific
21 information, where to find that place exactly on the map, so that I know
22 where it is, approximately. If you take one of the cities and then to
23 tell me to go south, or north, or west, or east, then I'll -- apparently
24 it's on the Dalmatian coast. Could you tell us where?
25 A. No, the town itself is not located on the coast. It's between
1 the coast and the Mount Biokovo on the stretch from Split to Mostar, by
2 the border with Bosnia-Herzegovina, but in Croatia. It's a small town.
3 You can find it on the map.
4 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, maybe I can help.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: If you go south of Split, you find it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just find -- I want to be quite clear to you.
8 I'm using Google Maps at this moment to see where. Okay, go south from
9 Split ...
10 MR. MISETIC: To a town called Makarska.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've got that.
12 MR. MISETIC: And then if you go north straight up, it's roughly
13 in that area. Imotski, it's on the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I see it, yes.
15 Just for my information, was there -- I'm trying to -- I do
16 understand why you took Mr. Galbraith there. Was that an area where
17 there had been combat recently or ...
18 A. It is not an area where fighting took place, but it was an area
19 from where great numbers of volunteers who joined the Croatian Army
20 hailed. It was an area of Croatia that was marked by the fact that it
21 was not directly affected by the war, but it had nevertheless given most
22 of the men who were subsequently killed as members of the Croatian Army.
23 I think that more than 100 men from that town were killed in the war.
24 The festivity involved was one that is held very dearly in
25 religious terms, but it is also an area that is characterized by strong
1 national sentiments. It is a matter that was proved through history.
2 In that area, before the war, during the war, and following the
3 war, a certain number of ethnic Serbs lived as well.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you gave this answer when you were questioned
5 about looting and burning and whether that took place on a massive scale,
6 and what concerns you had, and what you learned from the internationals.
7 I have difficulties in fully understanding how this would shed light on
8 the matters that were asked, because apparently this was a place where no
9 combat had taken place. May I take it that there was no burning or
10 looting in that area you observed when going there?
11 A. No, of course there wasn't.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Was that an area dominantly populated by Croats or
13 Serbs, or would it differ from one village to another?
14 A. The situation varies from village to village. Both Croats and
15 Serbs lived there. Let us say the village adjacent to the one where
16 festivities took place has the majority Serb population, and I do know
17 that they do still live there. Nobody tried to drive them out.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 A. Your Honour, it may be the case that I was giving my answer in a
20 different context because, in my view, what I referred to did not have to
21 do with mass-scale burning or expulsion, it was driving at something
22 else, and perhaps the context then made it unclear.
23 JUDGE ORIE: How did you travel to this place, from where,
24 because you said you took him there?
25 A. I was waiting for him there. I was already there. He arrived
1 that morning with the entire delegation from Split.
2 JUDGE ORIE: From Split. Thank you for those answers.
3 Mr. Kehoe, any further questions for the witness?
4 MR. KEHOE: If I could just follow up on what you just said.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, you are free to.
6 Re-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
7 Q. Mr. Ambassador, as usual, just taking the lead from the
8 President's questions, can you explain to us again, why did you bring
9 Ambassador Galbraith, and I think you noted it was Ambassador Holbrooke
10 as well and General Clark, I believe were the others, and correct me if
11 I'm wrong, why did you bring them to Imotski on Ascension Day on the 15th
12 of August?
13 A. Ambassador Galbraith, a few days before that when a group of
14 Serbs from Croatia was moving, leaving Croatia, and carrying their
15 belongings on tractors, joined this group. Ambassador Galbraith joined
16 this group. Some Croatian media criticised him and attacked him because
17 of this, because that was the time just after the military victory, and
18 there was a tendency among certain individuals, certain journalists, to
19 express different views.
20 I did not want Ambassador Galbraith, or Americans, or the
21 international community to get the impression that normal Croatian
22 people, ordinary Croatian people, see anything wrong with what
23 Ambassador Galbraith had done. I believe that he, himself, was rather
24 nervous because he wasn't sure what to expect of this normal Croatian
25 crowd. I even asked him to come to this improvised alter where about
1 20.000 to 25.000 Croats had come to celebrate a religious holiday and to
2 see for himself how these normal Croatian people, who were not coached by
3 anyone, who were not instructed by anyone, would react to him and how
4 they would receive him. And as he writes in his diary, he was greeted by
5 an ovation.
6 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
7 I have no further questions, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is there -- may I take it that the Cermak and Markac
9 Defence still have no questions for the witness? Which means,
10 Mr. Zuzul -- and please forgive me for not calling you "Ambassador."
11 It's my habit for whoever comes here, whether it's a military authority,
12 whether it's a diplomatic authority, just to address them as "Mr.," and
13 so on, in that respect. I treat everyone in the same way, including
14 Mr. Galbraith.
15 This concludes your testimony in this courtroom. We'd like to
16 thank you very much for coming to The Hague and to answer all the
17 questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench. And I wish you --
18 although you never know whether a diplomat then travels home, but finally
19 I wish you a safe trip home again.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please escort Mr. Zuzul out of the
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe or Mr. Misetic.
25 Mr. Misetic, are you ready to call your next witness? And we
1 will first deal with protective measures.
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we start to turn into private session.
4 [Private session]
9 [Closed session]
11 Pages 18394-18431 redacted. Closed session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 We'll adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, the 10th of June, 9.00,
17 Courtroom III
18 likelihood that we would immediately turn into closed session again.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day of June,
21 2009, at 9.00 a.m.