1 Thursday, 25 June 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in this courtroom and just
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 very much, Mr. Registrar.
12 One short procedural matter. D1537 was admitted into evidence
13 although it did not yet appear on the 65 ter list. There was no
14 objection. We have admitted it. It's the excerpt from the Lausic diary.
15 I take it, tendering it, that you intended first to seek leave to add it
16 to your 65 ter list and then to seek admission. But since there is no --
17 since there was no objection, I don't think that there's any problem with
18 that, although it is not the exact order in which we expect documents to
19 be tendered.
20 Any other procedural matters.
21 Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. We just wish to inform
23 Court last evening we gave notice to the Defence that we were going to
24 use two additional documents in the examination today, and starting from
25 that there were some discussions, and the parties have reached agreement
1 where the Defence agreed to stipulate to some facts based on which we
2 will not use those documents in the examination, and I wish to record
3 those stipulations into the record.
4 The first one is the Defence stipulates that Witness Boris Milas
5 knew and worked with the Gotovina Defence investigators,
6 Mr. Marin Ivanovic and Vlado Galic within the SIS.
7 The second one is that Luka Misetic, counsel for Ante Gotovina,
8 has visited the premises where witnesses were being proofed by the
9 Defence attorneys in the cases of General Blaskic and Dario Kordic,
10 within the Lora naval base in Split
11 proofings were going on, during 1998 in order to meet with the attorneys
12 for General Blaskic.
13 Stipulation number three is the attorney referred to as
14 Mr. Misetic in the MUP official record of interview of Witness
15 Boris Milas, that is 65 ter 7292, which is yet to be tendered into
16 evidence, is Mr. Luka Misetic, counsel for Ante Gotovina.
17 Stipulation number four, that Mr. Luka Misetic counsel for
18 Ante Gotovina, has no recollection of meeting with Witness Boris Milas
19 prior to 2007 but cannot exclude the possibility that they may have
20 exchanged greetings sometime prior to 2007.
21 Those are the four stipulation, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And they are now on the record.
23 The Chamber will consider whether it will invite the parties to
24 formally file this so that it gets the proper attention because, although
25 it's on the record, it might easily be overlooked, but we will consider
1 whether there is need for that. If the parties have any view on it, we'd
2 like to hear; if not, we'll just consider it.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President I have other matters to raise,
4 if I may, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: First, furthermore there are discussions going on
7 between the Defence and Prosecution. It is the position of the Gotovina
8 Defence at this point that concerning the allegations that have been put
9 to the witness about documents being hidden from the Prosecution in the
10 Blaskic case that the Prosecution has never alleged before the Appeals
11 Chamber that there was any document that they were seeking that had any
12 material impact on the -- on the Blaskic case that was withheld from
13 them, and there were four Rule 115 motions filed by the Blaskic Defence
14 on appeal. There is no public record of any Rule 115 motion by the
15 Office of the Prosecutor. It also, in a decision, cited yesterday that
16 there were, in fact, five grounds that the Prosecution sought to seek
17 revision of the appeals judgement, none of those five grounds had as a
18 basis that new documents had come to light as a result of concealment.
19 The Prosecution has indicated that the attorneys that worked on
20 the Blaskic case are not currently in The Hague, and, therefore, we will
21 address this matter later with the Chamber after the Prosecution has
22 consulted with their counsel in the Blaskic case about a proposed
23 stipulation to that fact.
24 Second, Mr. President, we wish to at this point -- I don't know
25 want to call it an objection but an observation with a potential
1 objection depending on how things transpire. But at this point, what we
2 have seen through two sessions with this witness is a collateral attack
3 on the witness, on the witness's credibility; and moreover, on the basis
4 of an innuendo that there is some sort of manipulation taking place with
5 the testimony or statement on our part, which obviously we take strong
6 objection to. We wish to cite the Chamber back to a decision that the
7 Chamber gave, and this is at transcript page 2064. It begins at line 8,
8 but it was an oral instruction to Mr. Kehoe during the cross-examination
9 of Mr. Leslie, and I will read it back.
10 "And therefore no problem to deal with the matter" -- and this
11 is now concerning collateral issues on credibility.
12 "But try to do it as efficiently as possible. Come to the point
13 right" --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down.
15 MR. MISETIC: The transcript says, "no ritual bounces as I often
16 say"; I believe, Mr. President, you say no ritual dances:
17 "Let's get to the point right away and let also not forget that
18 this case is not about mistakes or things witnesses have done wrong in
19 the past. Of course, if there are any issues that shed additional light
20 on reliability or credibility, of course, you can deal with the matter
21 but the core of this case is that this Chamber hears evidence about what
22 happened at that time and, of course, also that the Chamber receives
23 relevant information which assists us in assessing credibility and
24 reliability but try to find a balance and do it more quickly."
25 Mr. President, Ms. Mahindaratne has indicated she is going to use
1 four hours of cross-examination. We've used two sessions on collateral
2 matters. I'm not going to object or say that you should impose a
3 time-limit on collateral matters. However I do wish to note at that
4 point we have not addressed any matter concerning 1995. We would ask the
5 Chamber to strike a balance, and, in particular, this collateral attack
6 on the witness is of no value if, in fact, there is nothing that is being
7 disputed in terms of what is in the statement of the witness.
8 Finally, to the extent that the cross-examination by innuendo is
9 allowed, then, Mr. President, we file entitled to go into such matters as
10 Ms. Hartmann's allegations about various intelligence agencies that work
11 inside the Office of the Prosecutor, which she says control the work of
12 the Office of the Prosecutor, et cetera. She is certainly someone who
13 may have been in a position to know these things, whether those
14 intelligence agencies had an impact on this case or not, that is not the
15 type of evidence we thought at this point was relevant to this case. I
16 would agree that if there is something in this witness's testimony that
17 suggests that he has been manipulated, lied, gave false testimony, then
18 it is a relevant area to explore. But in and of itself, the examination
19 thus far, absent that, amounts to the same thing as us starting to read
20 back portions of Ms. Hartmann's book.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
23 Ms. Mahindaratne, is there any need to respond or do you agree
24 with Mr. Misetic that to find a proper balance is -- as it is always,
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Absolutely Mr. President. I believe that what
2 I have been doing so far is absolutely legitimate. It was -- there were
3 no innuendos. It was a direct challenge to the credibility of this
4 witness, and I will certainly go into the substance of his testimony.
5 But as one would have seen yesterday, there was a process which delayed
6 my ability to impeach this witness's testimony directly because there was
7 so many objections and interruptions, and I will take only about another
8 five minutes on this subject matter that was discussed yesterday and move
9 on to the substance of his testimony, Mr. President.
10 And I can certainly say I did not make -- there were no
11 innuendos. It was a direct challenge to the credibility of this witness
12 and to demonstrate to the Chamber his bias.
13 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, in defence of myself and other team
14 members, it is innuendo to say that he knows two members of my team and
15 then to explore whether he may have encountered me at some point without
16 any further suggestion of any wrongdoing on anyone's part, particularly
17 in terms of his testimony; and that is why I referred to it as innuendo.
18 I wholeheartedly agree that if there is basis to suggest there is
19 something in his statement that is false or suggested to him as an answer
20 or something to that effect, it is a perfectly legitimate area of
22 I haven't seen it at this point. We've asked whether that was --
23 there was something specific on that point. We have not received any
24 indication that that is the case. That is why we refer to it as
25 innuendo. You can see by the nature of the stipulations what the
1 innuendo is intended to suggest. Again, I have no problem with it if it
2 is going to be linked directly to something that this witness said in his
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, we'll find out after five minutes.
6 That's what I understand.
7 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to proceed?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be brought into the
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, while the witness is coming, I
13 wonder whether it might be a good time to tender the document which could
14 be tendered yesterday.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a good idea, and that was -- briefly describe
16 the --
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It was 65 ter 7292, which is the MUP official
18 note of interview with Mr. Boras Milas.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: I will object to that, Your Honour, as I did many
21 times before. This is not an interview that Mr. Milas gave to the police
22 officer. He clearly stated yesterday that the words in that piece of
23 evidence were not his words. Therefore, I think the only proper way to
24 tender this document to the evidence is to have an examination of the
25 police officer who just wrote this document. Otherwise it is no worth of
1 enlisting him -- enlisted this document into the evidence.
2 So this is my strong objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the witness has gone through
5 the record. He has confirmed that the record is based on his interview.
6 He has confirmed parts of the record, expect for one paragraph. He
7 confirmed that, in fact, the record is based on what he stated to the
8 investigator, and unlike MUP notice coming in without any identification,
9 the person who made the statement is present in court, authenticating and
10 verifying the content, confirming the contents.
11 JUDGE ORIE: At least part of it.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, if I may.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: It is no in dispute that witness had a
15 conversation with the police officer. What is in dispute is the subject
16 of this conversation as the police officer wrote it down in the Official
17 Note. It is true that witness confirmed that he had a conversation, but
18 this is the only thing. We should go through each and every sentence of
19 this document and ask witness whether he said this and that, and that
20 would be probably the proper way how to proceed with this document.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: The exhibit will be MFI'd for the time being.
24 Mr. Registrar the number would be.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2548,
1 marked for identification.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
3 Good morning, Mr. Milas.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Again our apologies that we're busy dealing with
6 other matters and not paying proper attention to your presence.
7 I would like to remind you that the solemn declaration that you
8 have given at the beginning of your testimony still binds you.
9 WITNESS: BORIS MILAS [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered though interpreter]
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to proceed?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
15 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]
16 Q. Mr. Milas, it is correct, isn't it, that you have worked with
17 Mr. Marin Ivanovic and Mr. Vlado Galic, the two Defence investigators who
18 interviewed you while you were in the course of your work within the SIS?
19 A. Marin Ivanovic and Vlado Galic conducted an interview with me in
20 January, February, and May --
21 Q. And Mr. Milas, please, if you could confine your response to my
22 question. My question is: You have worked with Mr. Marin Ivanovic and
23 Mr. Vlado Galic in the course of your work within the SIS, yes or no?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, that association, isn't that correct that association with
1 them relates, in part, to your mutual work secreting documents which were
2 required by the ICTY?
3 MR. MISETIC: Objective on foundation for the reasons that I
4 stated before. The Prosecution has not responded to my inquiry on that
5 point and -- nor has anything been established in terms of foundation to
6 support that question.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call, if I'm allowed, Mr. President, I
8 will confront the witness with the document.
9 Mr. Registrar, in the meanwhile, may I call document 7293,
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first look at the document to see if there is
12 any foundation.
13 MR. MISETIC: Let me just add, Mr. President, we had a discussion
14 about this last night, so if that is incorrect, I don't know why I wasn't
15 told of it last night.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may say, the discussion
17 did not relate to this particular documentation. I think Mr. Misetic is
18 fully aware what the discussion was about, and it was very clear that the
19 other documentation which already on the list -- the discussion was with
20 -- related to the additional two documents which were sent last evening.
21 But the other documents which were to be used in this examination were to
22 be -- we were free to proceed with that.
23 MR. MISETIC: The confusion is Mr. Waespi and I had a
24 conversation, and I was told that the three -- team were not in town to
25 answer the question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Certainly the Chamber has not been present during
2 this conversation. Let's proceed and see what we get on our screen.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, just to make the record clear,
5 Ms. Mahindaratne was present at all times during those phone
6 conversation, so there was nothing exclusive between Mr. Misetic and
7 myself, in relation to this topic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have that
10 document 7293 on the screen.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is on the screen, unless there is any
12 other document on the screen.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could just move to page 4 in the
14 English, and Croatian version page 3. I'm sorry before that,
15 Mr. Registrar, my apologies. If you could just go back to page 1; my
17 Q. Now, while we go to page 1, Mr. Milas, operation OA Put, as it
18 was known, was also one of the series of operations in place to secrete
19 documents and to prevent evidence from reaching the ICTY; isn't that
20 correct? You are familiar with the term OA Put?
21 A. I don't know that. This is the first time I see this document
22 referring to the OA Put. On the 5th of June, 2000, I told the
23 investigators that I was not familiar with the operative actions, both in
24 terms of the name or what they entailed.
25 Q. You know that this is a record dated 20th September, 1996. It's
1 a document going from Mr. Markica Rebic to the defence minister,
2 Mr. Susak.
3 And it reads, the subject, "Supplement to the work plan for OA
4 Operative Action Put," and it says, "enclosed for your information,
5 please find the supplemental to the work plan for the work of the defence
6 of General Blaskic, et al in the proceedings before the ICTY in
7 The Hague
8 If you could move now to, Mr. Registrar, to English page 4 and
9 Croatian version page 3.
10 There is it a work plan there.
11 And, Mr. Registrar, if you could focus on the first two cells.
12 The first cell indicates the task as conversation with all the
13 accused, the coordinate is indicated as one of the coordinates is MORH
14 SIS, then letters UN there. And the body in charge is MORH SIS. It says
15 U and the executors are V. Galic, S. Udiljak, and M. Ivanovic.
16 And cell number two reads the task:
17 "Integration and protection of the documentation of the accused
18 staying in the territory of RH
19 The body in charge MORH SIS, and executor, V. Galic, S. Udiljak
20 and M. Ivanovic.
21 Now two persons identified there, V. Galic and M. Ivanovic, are
22 Mr. Vlado Galic and Marin Ivanovic who interviewed you in relation to
23 this case; isn't that correct, Mr. Milas?
24 A. Precisely so.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I tender this document into evidence,
1 Mr. President.
2 MR. MISETIC: I'm going to object. The question and the
3 impeachment was: Isn't it true that you participated in secreting
4 documents from this institution through OA Put, with those two gentlemen.
5 Now, first of all, this document doesn't say that. So it is
6 improper impeachment. Second of all, it comes from a date when this
7 witness was not in the SIS, which he has already testified about. So
8 both purposes of the impeachment fail, and I object to the admission of
9 this document as impeachment evidence for a proposition that she hasn't
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I think the documentation so
13 far discussed and tendered yesterday establishes this witness's
14 connection to the series of operations where the objective was to secret
15 documents from the ICTY proceedings. Now, this document establishes
16 Mr. Galic and Mr. Ivanovic's involvement in the same type of activity.
17 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I --
19 JUDGE ORIE: The wording is, at least, different. Protection of
20 documents may need some further interpretation.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I just add one other thing, Mr. President?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In the documents that were tendered into
24 evidence yesterday, Mr. Marinovic -- I'm sorry, Ivanovic's name
25 transpires. It's a logical sequence where, you know, in these
1 documentation, a plan to assist the Defence of General Blaskic, you have
2 Mr. Marin Ivanovic and Mr. Galic's names listed as those protecting
3 documentation relating to the accused.
4 Then, in the documentation that was tendered yesterday, we have
5 this witness's and Mr. Ivanovic names transpiring as people who were
6 responsible for secreting documents, at least concealing documents.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well transporting documents.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Transporting document, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, choose your words very carefully,
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, and, of course, every party will have its own logic on
11 the matter.
12 MR. MISETIC: Mr, President, if I may.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. MISETIC: This is it collateral impeachment. This is not
15 direct impeachment on anything he said.
16 Now, I have asked the Office of the Prosecutor over the course of
17 the -- however long we have been in trial, because this issue
18 occasionally pops up, please tell me what documents were ever secreted
19 from you, kept from you; what RFA documents were you seeking that were
20 hidden from you? I never get an answer.
21 So now we're getting this, which is integration and protection of
22 the documentation of the accused. You are to infer means hiding
23 documents from the Office of the Prosecutor, but the Office of the
24 Prosecutor doesn't tie it to any specific RFA. If it is the case then
25 let's get to that document. But this is not the document that
1 established that.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: This document will be MFI'd.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2549,
6 marked for identification.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have to
10 tender two more documents, and I will move on to the next subject,
11 Mr. President.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, I just am going to ask you just two further
14 Isn't it correct that your department, SIS Split administration,
15 was, in fact, the point of receipt for the documentation that was
16 requested by the ICTY Trial Chamber in the case of General Blaskic from
17 the inception; that was May 1997. Your department was the point of
18 receipt of the documentation. That is my point to you.
19 A. It is not correct to the extent that in our department, indeed,
20 documents were brought there, but as to whether those documents were
21 sought by this Honourable Court - that is to say, The Hague Tribunal - I
22 have no knowledge of, for the simple reason that I did not see a single
23 document ever and that I simply didn't know that that may have been
24 someone's intention.
25 Through the Operative Action Haag, I didn't take part in it in
1 terms of knowing or receiving any tasks as well as knowing what the aim
2 of those actions are.
3 As far as the two other operative actions, Put and Istina, as
4 well as the OA Haag, I heard for the first time what they could actually
5 mean on the 5th of June, 2000, when there was the interview I had with
6 the two investigators. I had absolutely no knowledge of the type of
7 documentation, especially not such documentation as would be sought by
8 The Hague
9 consignment. I only carried the boxes up to the floor and on the boxes,
10 I could see signs: The 1st brigade, 2nd brigade, travel orders, or some
11 such things. I had been with the army for a number of years. Therefore,
12 I could logically conclude that these documents had to do with the
13 Croatian Defence Council.
14 Q. Let me show you two document, Mr. Milas, and I will move on.
17 [Private session]
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
5 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document 7295,
8 Q. And, Mr. Milas, we will see a document on the screen, which is,
9 in fact, a receipt --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you asked the previous one to be
11 under seal. If we now continue in open session to deal with the
12 document, although in a different way, would that affect in any way what
13 you asked us two minutes ago?
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, I don't see any indications
15 on this particular document, you know, a direct reference to the contents
16 of the previous document. This is a quite --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please then proceed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 I'm sorry, 7294.
21 Q. Mr. Milas, that's the record, receipt of taking over archives
22 issued on 22nd May, 1997
23 entire number of archives. Of --
24 JUDGE ORIE: If would you first wait until the question has been
25 formulated. If you then want to comment on the question or point at any
1 accuracy in the question, you are free to do so.
2 Ms. Mahindaratne.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only wanted to ask
4 for the document to be enlarged so that I could see it better. Okay.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
7 Q. This, in fact, reflects, Mr. Milas, that on 22nd May, 1997, your
8 chief, Mr. Mario Tomasovic, received, on behalf of the Lora base and your
9 department, an entire list of archives of documents relating to HVO and
10 many Military Districts.
11 Do you see that document? Perhaps you might want to go to the
12 next page.
13 A. I see the document. Could I see the next page, please.
14 Q. I think in the Croatian version it is only one page.
15 You can see who has signed and the seals?
16 A. I see that the document was signed by Major Miroslav Klepic. I
17 suppose he is a member of the HVO, and I can see that nobody signed the
18 document on behalf of the Lora base. We only see the name of
19 Mario Tomasovic written in -- by hand, but his signature is not there.
20 This is not his signature.
21 Q. But this document, in fact, reflects that these archives of
22 documentation were received at the Lora base in May 1997 at a time, in
23 fact, you were serving in that department. Does it not?
24 A. This record speaks of the contents of the HVO documentation
25 handed over at Lora. You asked me if it was signed. I can see that it
1 is not, but its contents indicate that this would have to do with the HVO
2 documentation. Thus, indirectly, one could conclude that it has to do
3 with that sort of documentation. However, I have never seen this
4 document before, and I don't know that the chief of the department,
5 Mario Tomasovic, would sign such a document, primarily because had he
6 actually signed the document, the seal of the Croatian army or the
7 Ministry of Defence would have had to be attached to it. From what I can
8 see, we only have the seal of the Ministry of Defence Mostar, the
9 Croatian Republic
10 is the first time I see the document.
11 Now, whether it relates to the document that we, indeed, archived
12 at the Lora facility, that's something I don't know.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I tender this document into evidence.
14 MR. MISETIC: Objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 The document will be MFI
17 MR. MISETIC: If I may also, Mr. President, for the record, I'm
18 not sure that I'm reading the subpoena and comparing it to the documents,
19 so I'm not sure that the documents sought actually are in the documents
20 identified in this --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I can't get the subpoena right away on my
22 screen. I was -- I did write down for myself to compare at least to
23 start with the dates and then to have a closer look at the subpoena.
25 Dates, subpoena was dated.
1 MR. MISETIC: 30 April.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon.
3 MR. MISETIC: I belive it's 30th of April.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Subpoena was dated 30th April, 1997,
5 Mr. President, with a order to report by 27th May, 1997.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a closer look. If you want to further
7 explain your objection.
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, because we we've now gone two
9 hours plus into this topic. Whether the Chamber now wants the Defence to
10 start introducing evidence about what archives were hidden, at what
11 location, whether they were subject of a subpoena, et cetera, we will be
12 glad to do that.
13 In the alternative, I would suggest that the Office of the
14 Prosecutor advise the Chamber whether any of the documents sought, in
15 fact, were kept from the Office of the Prosecutor in the Blaskic case, to
16 cut this story short.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, as I said before, the document
18 will be MFI
19 Let me try to understand what happens at this moment. It seems
20 Ms. Mahindaratne seeks to establish that the involvement of the SIS in
21 the preparation of the Blaskic Defence at the time, and the -- went
22 beyond what is usually the association between government authorities and
23 the defence of private individuals; whereas, we heard from the witness
24 that he explains the documentation you've shown as a neutral activity in
25 transporting documents without any knowledge of why these documents had
1 to be transported and by providing space, transportation to potential
2 witnesses, and providing them with coffee or other drinks at the time.
3 So, therefore, that apparently is the issue where
4 Ms. Mahindaratne seeks to establish certain matters. There is -- there
5 are suggestions which are vehemently challenged by the Defence. That is,
6 that the documents in itself allow for any further conclusions than what
7 the witness said.
8 That, apparently, is the issue at this moment. What you suggest
9 becomes clear from the way in which you are phrasing your questions.
10 Protecting documents is interpreted in a certain way by you; whereas,
11 other interpretations of what these documents say are given by the
12 witness, and the issue of interpretation of these documents, I think the
13 Defence urges the Chamber to stick as closely to the text as one could
15 I think I've, more or less, summarized what we've heard.
16 Ms. Mahindaratne, six time five minutes is half an hour. Could
17 you move on to your next subject.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I have concluded with
19 that section. I will move on.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The document on the screen should be MFI'd.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will become Exhibit P2551,
23 marked for identification.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may, Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Milas, now, in your statement you describe regular tasks of
4 the military police and extraordinary tasks.
5 Now this may be an obvious question, but isn't that correct that
6 the principal function, or should I say the main function of the criminal
7 military police, is crime prevention and crime processing; is that
9 A. The crime prevention service of the military police performs the
10 duties which, under the Law on Criminal Procedure, are normally carried
11 out by members of the MUP but only in relation to the crimes which fall
12 within the jurisdiction of the military court; in other words, crimes
13 committed by military personnel, crimes committed by citizens employed in
14 the service of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia
15 offences had to do with the performance of their duties and for other
16 criminal offences which such civilians or other such citizens commit
17 together with the military personnel.
18 Furthermore, the crime prevention service also processes the
19 offences committed by civilians but only in respect of those offences
20 which were, at the time exhaustively listed in the rules governing the
21 work of the units of the armed forces in Article 54 and which relate to
22 certain sections or chapters -- or, rather, certain, chapters or sections
23 of the crimes listed in the Criminal Code valid or in force at the time.
24 That's, in short, the duties the crime prevention service or criminal
25 investigation military police force.
1 Q. Now, that -- in order to reach -- carry out that function, that
2 would entail tasks such as identification and arrest of perpetrators,
3 search of premises, search for suspects and evidence, carrying out
4 forensic investigations, processing of criminal reports or charges,
5 producing suspects or accused before judicial bodies; isn't that correct
6 what I just read out? These are the regular tasks of the crime
7 prevention section of the military police, isn't it?
8 A. Well, for the better part of what you mentioned, that's correct.
9 On the issue of searches, the crime investigation military police
10 will issue an order, a warrant to that effect, when it has to do with
11 documentation or individuals, and this will be carried out or the -- such
12 a warrant for search will be acted upon by the search personnel of the
13 72nd Battalion.
14 The -- in other words, they would deal with all those criminal
15 investigations and processing which fall under the jurisdiction of the
16 military court in respect of those who are suspected of having committed
17 crimes that fall also within the territorial -- or, rather --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, that fall within the
19 subject matter jurisdiction of military courts.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Now, maintaining check-points and conducting military police
22 patrols, which part of the military police was responsible? The crime
23 prevention section or the general military police of the battalion?
24 A. Such tasks, based on a previously worked out plan, were performed
25 by members of the general police force. However, depending on the
1 personnel available, members of the crime investigation military police
2 would also sometimes man check-points. However, I'm not aware of many
3 such situations having transpired.
4 Q. And manning check-points and conducting military police patrols
5 was part of the regular tasks of the general military police; isn't that
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And isn't it correct that one of the objectives of maintaining
9 check-points and conducting military police was the detection and -- of
10 crime, detection of perpetrators; for example, at check-points people who
11 were looting goods would be stopped and detected and arrested, and
12 patrols would arrest perpetrators of crime? Isn't that one of the
13 objectives of check-points and patrols?
14 A. Among other things, it was the duty of those manning check-points
15 to do precisely what you said, but not only that. They would also
16 control the movement of persons going in or out --
17 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether that was one of the
18 objectives which already includes that there may have been others.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, you discuss the rules governing the structure and
22 operation of the military police of the armed forces. In your
23 statement --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could have P880, please.
25 Q. And in your statement, you go through an interpretation of how
1 you understand the -- how we understand Article 8 and 9 and 10 to be.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now, if you could go on to, Mr. Registrar,
3 page 6 of the English version, and perhaps page -- the relevant page
4 would be, in the Croatian version -- yes, thank you.
5 Q. Now, the tasks that we just discussed as regular tasks, are
6 enumerated in item 2 of Article 10, isn't that correct, prevention and
7 uncovering of crimes, identification and arrest of perpetrators of crimes
8 that fall within the jurisdiction of military judicial bodies, operative
9 and forensic investigation, and escorting the perpetrator of these crimes
10 to appear before the bodies in charge.
11 Isn't it correct that the tasks that we just discussed is caught
12 up in item 2?
13 A. Item 2 refers to the tasks of the one of the services; namely,
14 the crime prevention service.
15 Q. That's correct.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And now if you go back to page 1, the previous
17 page, Mr. Registrar.
18 Q. You see, Mr. Milas, the language in Article 9 is this:
19 "While performing their regular military police tasks, military
20 police units are subordinate to the commander of the Military District,
21 the commander of the HRM" -- there are many other entities mentioned but
22 we are interested in the first description.
23 So the regular tasks, now we agreed here in court what they were.
24 So when the military police carries out those tasks under this Article,
25 they're subordinated to the Military District Commander; isn't that
2 A. The tasks of the crime investigation military police are
3 performed solely ex officio on the request of a military prosecutor or
4 that of a military court. Not a single -- no order is necessary for
5 members of the crime investigation military police to act. They are
6 bound to act by the law.
7 Q. That is correct. But isn't it right that, based on what we
8 agreed, now we have agreed what the regular military police tasks of the
9 crime section was, we have agreed that maintaining check-points and
10 conducting patrols were regular tasks of the general military police.
11 Now on the face of this language, isn't it right that in the
12 course of these -- carrying out those regular tasks, the military police
13 was subordinated to the Military District Commander?
14 A. It is one thing to erect check-points, and the tasks listed under
15 item two that we've just looked at are a different matter altogether
16 because they relate to the duties of only the crime prevention service;
17 whereas the manning of check-points falls under the duties of the general
18 duty military police. The two should not be confused.
19 Q. Very well. Let's not debate on this, Mr. Milas.
20 Let me take you to Article 16 of this, and that would be at page
21 13 of the English.
22 MR. MISETIC: I don't know if it would be easier for the witness,
23 I hard copy of the statements if you --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, that seems to be a good idea, that
25 hard copies will be given to the witness.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. I'm just asking to go to -- not the statement, Mr. Milas, Article
5 16 of this on the screen.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And that would be, Mr. Registrar, page 13 of
7 the English version. I think on the Croatian, we are on the correct
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can the font be
10 enlarged, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Does this assist you?
12 THE WITNESS: [In English] It's okay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
15 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, do you see Article 16? And, in fact, I think
16 there is a typographical error in the second paragraph. We'll go with
17 the first paragraph, Article 16. It says:
18 "The military police shall carry out the tasks listed in these
19 rules through the following services: Security, search, patrol, escort,
20 duty, military traffic, safety, and crime prevention."
21 And the next paragraph reads this:
22 "The members of the military police carry out the tasks and jobs
23 of the services under paragraph 1," that is the first paragraph we just
24 read, "ex officio on orders of the senior commander of the military
25 police, on orders by the senior HV commander from," and this reads
1 Article 7, but it should be, I think the Defence will agree, Article 9
2 because Article 7 relates to a completely irrelevant subject, "Article 9
3 of the rules and requests from the body in charge, they carry out
4 specific jobs and tasks pursuant to an order issued by the senior
5 commander of the military police unit or the duty officer in the military
6 police duty service."
7 So do you see, Mr. Milas, this Article 16 provides that military
8 police carries out the -- their tasks which have to be carried out
9 through those services enumerated in paragraph 1, pursuant to an order
10 from the commander of the military police or, an order by the senior HV
11 commander, or an authorised -- I'm sorry, or body in charge.
12 So isn't it correct that amongst the -- the entities mentioned
13 there, the Military District Commander would also be authorised to issue
14 orders to the military police to carry out the tasks through the services
15 mentioned in paragraph 1?
16 A. [Interpretation] para 2 of Article 16 speaks of what I have
17 mentioned a minute ago, among other things, tasks are performed ex
18 officio, then following an order of a superior commander of the military
19 police, and upon receiving an order of a superior officer. The
20 distinction is made in the sense that part of the tasks falling
21 exclusively within the remit of the military crime police are done ex
22 officio. Performing tasks of that nature falls under the category of ex
23 officio. As for the tasks in Article 10, with ten items specified
24 therein, it is stated there that tasks are performed following an order
25 of a superior military police officer. If you look into the rules of
1 service of the military police, you will see that a superior officer of
2 the Croatian army, within a given territory, has the right to issue
3 orders to the military police. There is a distinction between the tasks
4 ex officio and then following an order of a superior commander and
5 following an order of a superior army officer. If you analyse the role
6 of the military police stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 16, you
7 realize that some of such services can, following a request of a superior
8 commander, can implement certain tasks. But when it says ex officio in
9 para 2 of Article 10 of the rules, mention is made of the crime military
11 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, isn't it correct that your immediate commander
12 was Colonel Budimir?
13 A. Colonel Budimir, commander of the 72nd MP Battalion.
14 Q. And isn't it right that you received your orders from
15 Colonel Budimir for your daily tasks, regular tasks?
16 A. Military orders pertaining exclusively to the military component
17 of the work of the military police, in that case, yes. As for the
18 prevention of crime, we received separate orders along our professional
19 chain of command, along which we also reported. When Mr. Budimir issued
20 orders, he didn't issue separate orders to the crime prevention service
21 in a way that it would be duty-bound to process a crime, or that it was
22 duty-bound to find the perpetrator. We were duty-bound to do that
23 ex officio.
24 Q. Yes. But what type of orders did General -- Colonel Budimir
25 issue to you?
1 A. Colonel Budimir never issued a separate order to the crime
2 prevention service. The crime prevention service, or, rather, its
3 employees, were duty-bound to act upon an order of the commander when he
4 issued an order that would include all segments of work of the military
5 police and need to be performed by, say, the 1st of December, and they
6 should forward their reports on activities undertake so that he, as the
7 commander, could draft an annual report and submit it to General Lausic.
8 If the 72nd Battalion participated in the implementation of an
9 action, such as the RAIS actions that loosely translate as order and
10 discipline, such operations following orders of Colonel Budimir would
11 have to do with all segments of the work of the military police and its
12 component, the military crime police, in the course of implementation of
13 such actions.
14 In the sense of issuing an order pertaining to an individual
15 offence or a group of offences, we never received such an order from the
16 commander of the 72nd Battalion for processing. We received certain
17 professional instruction and orders by the department of the crime
18 military police within the administration of the military police. As
19 soldiers, irrespective of the fact that we were employees of the crime
20 prevention service, we were duty-bound to abide by the military order in
21 the sense of arriving at the barracks --
22 Q. Mr. Milas, is it possible for you to keep your responses, you
23 know, brief, simply because of the time constraints. So, you know, but
24 all means say what you have to say but as briefly as possible.
25 Now --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, putting focussed questions to the
2 witness will certainly assist in achieving the goal you just mentioned.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President I will try --
4 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to apologise. I just try to assist
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
7 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, isn't it correct -- I'm not referring to specific
8 orders by General -- by Colonel Budimir saying, Go and process that
9 crime, in that sense. But isn't it correct that Colonel Budimir issued
10 you orders relating to maintenance of law and order, you know, general
11 orders in the crime section. You're in charge of crime detection and
12 processing in this particular area, in that type, orders relating to the
13 maintenance of law and order.
14 If you could answer with a yes or no.
15 A. It is not possible to say yes or no. He issued orders but never
16 in a way so as to specify separate tasks of the crime prevention service.
17 Q. Mr. Milas, I did in fact qualify it. I said -- I'm in the
18 relating to specific tasks. Did Colonel Budimir issue orders generally,
19 general orders in relation to maintenance of law and order in the
20 territory that came within your area of responsibility?
21 I'm not relating to specific tasks but general orders relating to
22 maintenance of law and order?
23 A. General orders, yes; but not in respect of the crime prevention
24 service, as such. For example, stepping up patrolling measures, asking
25 for IDs and bringing in people who did not abide by the military
1 discipline. Or, rather, in certain cases when the security alertness had
2 to be raised, all that fell within the remit of the military police in
3 terms of their powers and authority and the use of is what he could cover
4 in his orders, such as checking up check-point, the beat service, patrol
5 service in certain areas, checking IDs; but in such orders, it was not
6 explicitly stated that some tasks should be performed by the crime
7 prevention service as such. It is a normal thing that if a military
8 patrol comes across a person breaching military discipline or in the
9 course of committing a crime, then they would notify the crime prevention
10 service that was duty-bound to act upon that.
11 Q. Now, isn't it correct that you reported to Colonel Budimir on a
12 daily basis both orally and in writing?
13 A. That is correct, and I said so in the same time, not in writing,
14 though. It was done in the course of the morning briefings. In written
15 form, it was only when submitting monthly, semi-annual or annual reports
16 or if the chief of administration of the military police asked
17 Commander Budimir for a report on a certain event, then I, as the chief
18 of the crime prevention service, would draft that, and Colonel Budimir
19 would forward it to General Lausic. We report to the commander in
20 writing only by virtue of those monthly, semi-annual an annual reports.
21 Q. However, isn't it correct that you reported to the duty service
22 of the battalion on a daily basis. The reports of your section went to
23 the duty service of the battalion, 72nd Battalion, on a daily basis.
24 There were daily reports.
25 A. The duty service would be notified orally on the measures we
1 undertook when we would be notified by the duty service that we should
2 act, after having done so, we would report to them orally. They would
3 include the actions taken by us in their daily report that they forwarded
4 to various addressees.
5 Q. Now, those reports that you gave to the duty service included
6 reports on the work of the crime service section, about processing --
7 processes of crime or arrest, or whatever action the crime service
8 department has taken for the day; isn't that correct?
9 A. An officer tasked with processing a certain crime would advise
10 orally the duty officer at the duty office on the measures taken
11 following their notification of a crime.
12 Q. And that fact would be recorded in the -- the duty service log;
13 isn't that correct?
14 A. It would be recorded in the daily report of the duty service of
15 the 72nd Battalion, which was daily sent to several addressees.
16 Q. And among the several addressees was -- one report went to the
17 Military District commander; isn't that correct?
18 A. As far as I know, yes.
19 Q. Did you know that Colonel Budimir had daily briefings with
20 General Gotovina?
21 A. I don't know whether they met daily, and I have my doubts about
22 that, but he did probably participate in certain meetings when invited by
23 the Military District Commander, although I don't think it was on a daily
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I note the time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we briefly discuss the further order
2 of today's hearing, but I'd like to already invite Madam Usher to escort
3 the witness out of the courtroom.
4 We have a break of approximately half an hour, Mr. Milas.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, what you announced to be five
7 minutes was half an hour; therefore, I have some concerns.
8 Could you give us an indication as to how much further time you
9 would need.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I believe about two and a half hours,
11 Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Two and a half hours.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Or perhaps I try to keep
14 it in two hours.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, the Chamber has, as always,
17 monitored the way in which the cross-examination was conducted. The
18 Chamber is not unaware of some interruptions and some obstacles you met
19 during you cross-examination; nevertheless, the Chamber encourages you
20 very much to finish your cross-examination in the next session, which
21 would be a hour and a half. If you will not be able to do that, the
22 Chamber will then consider looking at how you used your time in that one
23 session, whether or not it will allow you any further time. And as a
24 general guidance, if you start your question by saying it is an obvious
25 question and then ask for a -- seeking long answers which takes up a
1 couple of minute, where one could have imagined that you would have
2 immediately put the next question and leaving out the obvious question,
3 but these are just -- try to keep your cross-examination focussed. And,
4 again, long answers are often the result of not focussed questions.
5 We'll have a break, and we will resume at 11.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milas, I ask you to -- to give focussed answers
12 on what Ms. Mahindaratne asks you, yes?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, just before the break you said that you were not
15 certain if, in fact, Mr. Budimir had daily meetings with
16 General Gotovina. Let me tell you this Trial Chamber has heard evidence.
17 The commander of the Knin military police, Mr. Bosko Dzolic testified.
18 And his testimony is at P875, paragraph 15 and P876, paragraph 6. And he
19 testified that Colonel Budimir in fact met with General Gotovina for
20 daily briefings. And that these meetings were conducted for
21 Colonel Budimir to give a report on the ground situation to General
23 Now, your testimony is that apart from -- let me also inform you
24 the Split Military District operations diary, P17 has been tendered into
25 evidence which records working meetings conducted by General Gotovina at
1 which a representative of the military police battalion is recorded as
2 attending those working meetings, and there are discussions recorded.
3 Now, your testimony is that General Gotovina did not issue a
4 direct order to you on crime prevention. Isn't it correct that, in fact,
5 General Gotovina did not have to issue you direct orders. His orders
6 were conveyed to you via Colonel Budimir?
7 A. It is correct that we performed our duties ex officio, which did
8 not require the issuing of any orders, including, those of the commander
9 of the 72nd Battalion.
10 Q. Now, are you aware that General Gotovina, in fact, did issue
11 orders to Colonel Budimir, to maintain law and order during and in the
12 aftermath of Operation Storm? Do you know that, in fact, General
13 Gotovina did issue such orders to Colonel Budimir?
14 A. I, myself, am not aware of this.
15 Q. Let me, in fact, show you what Colonel Budimir says about it.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May have I --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, one of the things that I'm asking
18 myself is this witness testified that there may have been meetings, but
19 he has some doubt on whether these were daily meetings or not. We do not
20 have to convince this witness. If he says, I do not know whether
21 Mr. Budimir obtained such orders which means can be the case, cannot be
22 the case. Apparently, that is at least how I understand his answer, that
23 could have been a focussed question: When Mr. Budimir gave you any
24 orders, did he ever tell you that he was passing orders that came from
25 General Gotovina? Because that is a factual question.
1 If the witness does not know, then he doesn't know. And we don't
2 have to convince him of the truthfulness of what others testified in this
3 Court. So, of course, I do not know what -- what direction you will go,
4 but up until now, I -- I got the impression that where the witness says
5 he doesn't know, that you want to convince him through documents put to
6 him that what he doesn't know might well be A, B, or C which is, of
7 course, not the purpose for which the witness is here.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President it is that his testimony and
9 statements are -- where he says that, in fact, General Gotovina was not
10 involved in issuing orders relating to crime prevention. I was going to
11 only address that part.
12 JUDGE ORIE: He also said that during these meetings, do but
13 please proceed, you are aware what is worrying me a bit.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, I hear you, Mr. President. I will move
16 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, yesterday you testified that Major Juric was in
17 fact -- was considered a commander of the 72nd Military Police Battalion.
18 Isn't it correct that Major Juric was withdrawn on the 14th of August?
19 A. Whether Major Juric was removed on the 4th of August, I don't
20 know that. On the 4th of August --
21 Q. Mr. Milas, I said 14th of August he was withdrawn.
22 A. It was interpreted to me as the 4th of August.
23 JUDGE ORIE: This has now been corrected. Was he withdrawn on
24 the 14th of August.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To my knowledge, Mr. Juric was not
1 removed. He was simply dispatched back to his earlier duties, back to
3 him initially.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. And isn't it correct, Mr. Milas, that Major Juric and Ante Glavan
6 and the other person you referred to was sent down from the military
7 police administration to coordinate activities, to assist with the
8 military police tasks and not to command the 72nd Military Police
10 A. General's order of the 2nd of August, 1995 is quite clear. I
11 believe that in item one the order clearly states that they will -- he
12 will be in command of the 72nd MP Battalion and elements of the 73rd
13 MP Battalion attached to the 72nd, and they will take part in the
14 performance of all the policing duties. In military terms, the task
15 issued was -- issued very clearly, where an order states that an
16 individual is superior to another individual, then he is, in fact, his
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, page 38, line 9 from what I heard from the
19 original, the witness started saying General Lausic's order.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. Now, you testified in your statement you say that Major Juric was
23 introduced to you at a meeting by Colonel Budimir. Now, in fact, let me
24 show you what -- how Colonel Budimir understood Major Juric's role to be.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if could I call 65 ter 7288,
1 please. And if you could go to paragraph 17, that would be on the
2 English page 4.
3 Q. You see --
4 MR. KAY: Your Honour as a practice, I'm sorry to interrupt.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. KAY:
7 As a practice, I am concerned about statements of a non-witness
8 not called by the Prosecutor being put to a witness as a way of asserting
9 the truth. And in my submission, that is not a practice that should be
10 accepted by the Court.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the Defence has, you know,
12 followed this practice throughout the course of the Prosecution's phase
13 of the case, where witnesses who testify on a particular position is
14 confronted with a contradictory question given by another witness,
15 particularly one -- another witness who, in this case, this is this
16 witness's commander who introduced this witness to Major Juric.
17 So there is certainly a basis to confront this witness with what
18 Colonel Budimir has stated on this. And this is a practice that has been
19 followed by the Defence throughout.
20 MR. KAY: Your Honour, if I can reply to that.
21 First of all, Prosecution have called their evidence, put their
22 case. Attempt to go use material in this way that is unchallenged by the
23 Defence in any form of cross-examination, analysis with the witness, and
24 asserting it as the truth to this witness, in my submission that is
25 absolutely contradictory to the principles of admissibility of evidence.
1 One can see as a device and tactical that it is -- undermines the
2 principle of the reception of evidence into a trial.
3 My learned friend justifies the use of the material by saying,
4 Well it's the contradictory position of the witness in a statement. We
5 don't know that. They never called the witness to support that. They
6 never -- it is a record of a statement taken by someone else. We don't
7 know in what circumstances. We don't know whether it would be adopted or
8 accepted. And the Defence would not be able to question the maker of it.
9 In my submission, the cross-examination should take this form:
10 That my learned friend asks this witness questions about what he knows
11 and about what he saw, and does not put statements made by others whom we
12 don't know whether they are correct or not. It doesn't help this witness
13 as to his own position to be told, Well, another person in another
14 statement said this about the matter.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- is it your intention to later then tender this
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I wish to merely confront
20 this witness with a contradictory question and see if he would reconsider
21 his testimony. And I have already, in fact, questioned this witness on
22 this particular position and obtained his answer and once that is done
23 there is a practice, in fact, in this process where we followed it.
24 Where once a question is asked from a witness, obtains an answer, and
25 then the contradictory question is placed before from him.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If my recollection is correct, we often said to the
2 Defence, if you want to use a certain statement then wait until you have
3 called that witness. I remember that we MFI'd several times statements
4 in respect of this.
5 One second, please.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, there are ways of achieving your
8 aim without using this statement.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, you can lead the witness if you would --
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't know whether I made
12 myself clear. I don't intend to tender the statement at all.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't intend to tender the statement, then
14 there are other means of --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's not do it on the basis of this statement,
17 which doesn't mean that you cannot ask questions about it.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, do you know that, in fact, Mr. Budimir has
20 described the role of Major Juric as that of a coordinator and not a
21 commander of the 72nd Military Police Battalion, and, in fact --
22 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that.
24 MR. MISETIC: Just for the record, now I would, unfortunately,
25 have to dispute the way that that was characterized, the second portion
1 of it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we have a problem, Mr. Misetic, because I
3 invited Ms. Mahindaratne --
4 MR. MISETIC: I understand.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- to do it in the way she wants to do it. Now
6 whether it mischaracterizes or not, the statement is apparently --
7 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Just described as not a commander is the
8 portion that I'm concerned about.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well. I'll strike out that last bit and
10 just rephrase.
11 MR. KAY: I'm sorry, if I can just -- because the way the
12 question was answered -- asked sums up the problem. This witness has
13 attempted to be persuaded, as Your Honour used the phrase before the
14 break, I think spotting a potential problem there, by being told what
15 someone else has said and will you change your recollection and evidence.
16 And it -- I think that that is a very danger practice.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I see the point. Let try to cut matters short.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I'm --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Milas, it transpires that Ms. Mahindaratne
20 received information from Mr. Budimir that he saw the role of Mr. Juric
21 rather in the -- as a coordinating role. In practice, so apart from what
22 the formal position was as being a commander, would you agree that his
23 role was primarily a coordinating role, rather than commanding in any
24 day-to-day work or operational work?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since I was present at the meeting
1 of the 3rd of August in the evening, to my mind, the relationship was
2 quite clear. Major Juric was the superior to the commander of the
3 72nd Battalion, and he had the duty to coordinate with commanders of
4 Military Districts, the most senior officers in the area and chiefs of
5 police administrations. This is what the order by General Lausic states,
6 and this is what, at this meeting at 2300 hours on the 3rd of August was
7 said to all those who were present, including Major Juric, Ante Glavan,
8 and Mr. Cicvaric from the administration.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Milas, I'm not contesting the fact that Major Juric may have
12 been, by function, superior, when he sent down [sic]. But it is your
13 terminology that he was a commander of the 72nd Military Police Battalion
14 that I tried to, you know, contest by letting you know what how Colonel
15 Budimir described his --
16 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm very concerned. My learned friend is
17 giving evidence. One of the important criteria for cross-examination is
18 that questions are asked, the witness is being attempted to be influenced
19 by showing her knowledge from some other -- which may be wrong, and it
20 can mislead the witness.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, there is no reason to explain to a
22 witness what you are contesting or what are you not contesting. Put
23 questions to the witness, and the witness has now told us twice that he
24 was appointed in a commanding position but that he was tasked with
25 coordinating functions as well.
1 Please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Now, you know Brigadier Biskic, don't you, Mr. Milas, you have
4 worked with him.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. He was a deputy to General Lausic in the military police
7 administration; isn't that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. In fact, Brigadier Biskic, himself, described --
10 MR. KAY: I'm sorry.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I'm trying to impeach the
12 witness --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let, let's, let's ... let's instruct the witness not
14 to answer a question. You said, "In fact, Brigadier Biskic himself
15 described." Where did he do that, did he --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In his statement, Mr. President, to the OTP,
17 and generally if we were --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But what applies for the previous statement
19 applies here as well. Please phrase your question in such a way that it
20 will not meet objections.
21 I think I gave you guidance.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, with respect may I say I'm
23 unable to understand where the Defence were allowed to, in fact,
24 cross-examine in this manner, you know, confront witnesses with
25 statements made by person who had not, in fact, been called to testify.
1 In fact, OTP statements were confronted -- were read back to witnesses
2 and confronted with the contradictory position and their views obtained.
3 Now we are merely following a practice that has been followed in
4 these proceedings for the last one year.
5 JUDGE ORIE: One major difference certainly is, Ms. Mahindaratne,
6 that during the Prosecution's case when there is not yet a witness list
7 for the Defence that matters are still open; whereas, here, the
8 Prosecution has presented its case.
9 Let me consult with my colleagues.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just say briefly, if I
13 wasn't clear, I'm not trying to introduce the content, substance of this
14 statement into the record, I'm merely confronting the witness with the
15 content --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: -- for impeachment purposes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, you tell the witness what someone
19 said, and as Mr. Kay said before, that would still be a matter to be
20 established rather than to be a fact and that, of course, may have been
21 one of the reasons why he went on his feet. Because you said for a fact,
22 this is what he said.
23 Now, of course, there are ways of phrasing such a question, where
24 it is not presented as fact, but where you, nevertheless, can ask the
25 witness something about what some person may have said to the
1 Prosecution. If I would tell you that someone told this, what would be
2 your answer to such a suggestion, which is different from, This person
3 said this and this and this, does that refresh your memory?
4 So there are ways of dealing with the matter in such a technical
5 way, Ms. Mahindaratne, I think that you would not be interrupted.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Milas, what -- I inform you that the Prosecution is in
8 possession of information --
9 MR. KAY: I am very concerned, because this is -- just put the
10 question. Just -- just whatever the information is whatever, whatever it
11 is, just ask the witness the question and allow him to deal with it. I'm
12 very concerned about procedure that seems to suborn a witness on the
13 basis of alleged or apparent information the Prosecution may have about
14 facts, which is, for them, nothing to do with this witness, and
15 attempting to suborn the witness in that way, in my submission, we are
16 not hearing the witness's evidence, we are hearing something else. It is
17 much better, just put the question, I put to you, I -- this daily
18 meetings happened, or, I put to you, meetings happened once a week, and
19 put your case.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I have asked that question, now
21 the witness has given an answer. Now the Prosecution has the right, the
22 cross-examining party has right, to confront the witness with
23 contradictory information.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start --
25 MR. MISETIC: May I say one thing, Mr. President?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. --
2 MR. MISETIC: Very briefly.
3 It is our position that the Prosecution, in cross-examination,
4 should put its case to the witness using whatever has been admitted as
5 part of its case thus far or whatever it will seek to admit in the course
6 of cross-examination to a witness, but put matters to a witness that will
7 not be part of the Prosecution case, we believe is improper.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, Rule 90(H) gives you an obligation
9 that if the witness contradicts what apparently is the Prosecution's case
10 in a certain respect that you put your case to him. Is that -- not by
11 saying that another witness said that, but by saying that the Prosecution
12 takes the position that, this and this and this.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I did that. My first question
14 to him was, Wasn't it correct that Major Juric, Ante Glavan, and other
15 person were sent in by the administration as coordinators, and
16 thereafter --
17 JUDGE ORIE: His answer apparently contradicted what your case
18 was. So then the next step is -- it is the Prosecution's case that you
19 are not giving the right answer because it's the Prosecution case that
20 this and this and this happened. There is no need at this moment then to
21 refer to statements which other persons have given.
22 So put your case to the witness. I do agree that's your
23 obligation under Rule 90(H), and that only appears once you start by
24 putting a leading question to the witness, and when he then, in his
25 answer, denies the correctness of what you have suggested to him.
1 Therefore, if he contradicts the Prosecution's case in his answer, then
2 you should put your case to him and say, It's the Prosecution's position
3 that this answer is wrong because we think this and this, and or we have
4 established or we try to establish that this and this is the case.
5 That's what Rule 90(H) requires you to do.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President beyond that, if the witness
7 still contradicts, am I allowed to then confront him with evidence from
8 other sources, or not evidence but information?
9 JUDGE ORIE: There is no evidence.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I corrected myself, Mr. President, information
11 from other sources.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Whether you say it, or whether Mr. X says or Mr. Y
13 says it, or Mr. Z says so, if the Defence has not had an opportunity to
14 cross-examine the witness, then your position isn't any different --
15 apart from that you have to prove your case, isn't any different from
16 what A, B, C, or X, Y or Z telling us.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Mr. Milas, I put it to you that Major Juric, Ante Glavan, and the
21 third person you mentioned were sent down from the military police
22 administration as coordinators to assist in the military police activity
23 and not as commanders, not to command the 72nd Military Police Battalion.
24 How do you respond to that? And if could you be brief with your
1 A. General Lausic's order is clear: If I, as a soldier, spoke about
2 coordination, whereas it is clear that they were superior, would be
3 irresponsible of me. General Lausic -- had General Lausic wanted to
4 appoint Mr. Juric coordinator, he would have noted down in his order.
5 Based on our experience from Operation Flash, General Lausic, for
6 that reason, drafted the order in such a way that Mr. Juric was superior
7 to the commander of the 72nd Battalion. If he had wanted him to act as
8 coordinator, he would have put that in.
9 In the order, he stated that, among other things, he also
10 coordinates work with the commanders in the area -- in the district area
11 with brigade commanders and chiefs of police administrations.
12 General Lausic was clear in his order.
13 This is how I see the order and the situation surrounding it. As
14 for who said what and who had what interpretation and impressions, that
15 is not up to me. I see that you have some other information or
16 statements, but you should put such questions to the persons who
17 interpreted the situation that way. I cannot offer a comment on someone
18 else's statement. I can tell you about what I know, because, at 2300
19 hours on the 3rd of August, I was at the forward command post in
20 Sajkovici when those officers from the administration came and when the
21 order was read out to us. I have no other impression of that event.
22 Q. Now, is it correct that Colonel Budimir never informed you that
23 Major Juric was his commander?
24 A. He didn't need to, since I was present then --
25 Q. Mr. Milas, my question to you is: Did Mr. Budimir -- or is it
1 correct that Colonel Budimir never informed you that Major Juric was his
2 commander? Not about your impressions. My question is whether
3 Mr. Budimir ever told you that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, you're creating confusion.
5 Your question was whether it was correct that he never informed
6 him. And now in your next question, you say: My question is whether
7 Mr. Budimir ever told that you that, which is in contradiction with your
9 Let me -- that's a different question.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Let me ask again, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so and we expect you, Mr. Milas, to
12 give an answer to what is asked, whether there was any need to do A, B,
13 or C, fine. The question was whether A, B, or C was done.
14 And Ms. Mahindaratne will now put the question in a rephrased way
15 to you.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Milas, that Colonel Budimir never told you,
18 never informed you, that Major Juric was his commander?
19 A. I don't understand the question, Your Honour. That he never
20 informed me? I don't understand.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Did he ever say, and I give you to options, to you:
22 Juric is my commander, or did he never say anything of the kind; that is,
23 that Juric was his commander.
24 Did he or did he not?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He never told me that. The order
1 was clear and there was no need it repeat it to me, for example.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether there was a need, I invited you to
3 refrain from introducing that. Your question [sic] simply is that he
4 never told you that, and you have already stressed several times that the
5 order was clear to you, so there's no need to give this as a further
6 explanation. The Chamber has heard your answers and, even without
7 repetition, will carefully consider your evidence.
8 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Mr. Registrar, may I have D850, please.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, your testimony was that the other officer who
12 came down with Major Juric, Ante Glavan, was considered as your
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to page 46 in the English
15 version -- before that --
16 Q. Do you recognise this document, Mr. Milas? This is a crime
17 report, the annual report of the criminal section of the 72nd Military
18 Police Battalion, dated 31st December, 1995, which is compiled by you.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Do you want to see the signature page?
20 Perhaps if you could go down on the Croatian version, Mr. Registrar.
21 Q. Do you notice, that is a report issued by you?
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 Q. And if you could move to page 46 of the English version and 29 of
24 the Croatian version. And there you're reporting on the activities of
25 the crime section of the 72nd Military Police Battalion for the year.
1 And you record as this:
2 "I wish to add that while carrying out their assignments, during
3 the operation and afterwards, members of the military crime investigation
4 police received unselfish professional and personal help from members of
5 the military crime investigation department Ante Glavan and
6 Ante Cicvaric."
7 Now that was reported by you; isn't that correct?
8 A. That is correct. This is the annual report of the crime military
10 Q. Now, these are the other two gentlemen who came down with
11 Major Juric from the military police administration. And in reporting
12 that they extended help to the crime section of the 72nd Military Police
13 Battalion, is consistent with my proposition to you, which was that they
14 were sent by the military police administration as coordinators to assist
15 in the work of the military police of the 72nd Battalion; isn't that
17 A. As regards Major Juric, the answer is no. As for Ante Glavan and
18 Ante Cicvaric, one could interpret it in such a way, because if
19 Ante Glavan came from the crime military police department and when,
20 under orders, he arrives in another formation, such as the
21 72nd Battalion, in professional terms, in a way, he becomes my superior,
22 professionally; but also, professionally he is there to assist me.
23 To draw a parallel or an example, we can take the Varivode
24 operation when the chief of the crime military police administration,
25 Spomenko Eljuga, pursuant to General Lausic's order, became a member of
1 the team, and automatically when in the field, he becomes my superior as
2 well as the superior of all those working on the various segments of the
3 crime military police. When someone from that level is in the field,
4 they are our superior.
5 To conclude, this is the annual report drafted and signed by me.
6 It includes the whole period.
7 Q. But it is correct, isn't it that what you -- when you refer to
8 Ante Glavan, you don't describe him as the commander in this report, the
9 commander of the crime section, but as a member sent from the
10 professional chain to assist in your work; isn't that correct?
11 A. It doesn't say here that he was the chief of the crime military
12 police at that point because that was my post. Much as in the operation
13 of Varivode, it didn't say that the chief of the crime military police --
14 Q. Mr. Milas, if you could confine your response to my question. My
15 question was: You do not report him as commanding your section but as
16 assisting your section. That is my question.
17 A. This is what is stated here.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 Now, Mr. Milas, if General Gotovina issued an order to you to
20 carry out any activity relating to crime prevention, an investigation,
21 would you have -- would you have refused to implement that order?
22 A. It's a hypothetical question. General Gotovina never issued such
23 an order.
24 Q. Mr. Milas, please, you have been asked by the Court to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, Ms. Mahindaratne.
1 It is a hypothetical question. Of course, you could ask the
2 witness whether, if such an order would be given, whether there would be
3 any legal impediment or any practical impediment for him, and then I take
4 it he will describe the structure. But, of course, the problem with
5 hypothetical questions is that you are talking about "an order." What
6 order would that be? But, therefore, I've -- I do agree with the witness
7 that it's hypothetical and would take half an hour to give all the ins
8 and outs on what might have been the considerations if such -- if an
9 order, of whatever kind, would have been put to him by Mr. Gotovina.
10 I invited you earlier to put focussed questions to the witness.
11 I repeat that invitation.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. Let me ask you this way, Mr. Milas. In the crime prevention
14 section of the 72nd Military Police Battalion, being the head of crime
15 section, was -- was there any impediment to implementing an order
16 received from the Military District Commander directly or -- either via
17 Colonel Budimir? Was there any problem in implementing such an order?
18 A. In the two different segments of the military organisation, that
19 would have been extraordinary. One section is the Military District; the
20 other the military police. That would have been unusual. If there were
21 orders to be issued by General Gotovina, he would have done that to
22 Mr. Budimir, in terms of relationship between the Military District and
23 the military police, because General Gotovina was a general of the
24 Croatian army and the commander of a Military District. He issues orders
25 to the commanders of units.
1 Q. So, if, for instance, General Gotovina has to issue orders to
2 the -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase that.
3 So let me ask this question: Isn't it correct that
4 General Gotovina had the authority to issue an order to the military
5 police to arrest any person he wished to have arrested, if that was
7 A. What would be the basis for General Gotovina to issue an order to
8 arrest anyone? Arresting needs to be preceded by certain legal
10 Q. Let me show a document, in fact, on that, Mr. Milas.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have P71, please.
12 Q. I'm going show you an entry, Mr. Milas, from the war diary.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could go to the Croatian version,
14 page 46, and the English version, page 83.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could the witness's other
16 microphone be switched on as well. Thank you.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
18 Q. Mr. Milas, this is a record of a working meeting between
19 General Gotovina and his subordinates, subordinate commanders.
20 And do you note that order where General Gotovina says:
21 "Write an order for the commander of the ZM Split Garrison and
22 arrest him."
23 Do you see General Gotovina issues an order to have --
24 A. No, no. I apologise. I don't see it.
25 Q. Can you see it now? It's at page 46 of the Croatian version. On
1 to the left -- no, if you could move to the page to -- yes, that's
3 Do you see that this is an -- in small text reference to
4 General Gotovina, and right in front of that, an entry where
5 General Gotovina wants the Split Garrison commander arrested.
6 Do you see that, Mr. Milas?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. Now that order would have to be issued to the military police,
9 isn't it, because that would be the organisation within the military
10 which could arrest an officer.
11 A. I don't see here that an order was issued to the military police.
12 It literally says "write an order to the commander of the Split Garrison
13 and arrest him."
14 I don't see it anywhere that it says that an order was issued to
15 the military police.
16 Q. Mr. Milas --
17 A. I don't understand.
18 Q. -- is that an order from General Gotovina or isn't that an order
19 from General Gotovina? How do you read that?
20 MR. MISETIC: I don't think that is what the witness is
21 indicating, and I'm looking at it myself, and there is some confusion.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the witness is invited to explain how he reads
23 this, which he started doing already. And more specifically
24 Ms. Mahindaratne would like you to reflect on whether this entry refers
25 to an order by General Gotovina.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. Could you answer my question, Mr. Milas?
3 A. I see it says General Gotovina, I read out the sentence, and I
4 don't know what it is that I'm supposed to comment on.
5 There was no order issued to the military police. It may have
6 been issued to the security service, or maybe a SIS employee, as an
7 authorised official was present at the meeting; and it may be that
8 General Gotovina asked the SIS employee to arrest someone, although I
9 don't see who and for what reason. I can't see it here. That is my only
10 comment because I can tell you that those working for the security
11 service had the right powers and could implement this.
12 Q. Let me move on, due to lack of time, Mr. Milas.
13 Now, isn't it correct that the crime section of the 72nd Military
14 Police Battalion maintained registers, crime registers?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And every time a criminal report was filed, the report would be
17 designated as what is known as a KU number; isn't that correct?
18 A. That was the rule.
19 Q. And that KU number would be recorded in the register; isn't that
21 A. That was the rule.
22 Q. Now, there was a central system within the 72nd Military Police
23 Battalion, isn't that correct, which assigned certain batches of KU
24 numbers to specific companies. For example, the Knin Independent Company
25 would be assigned a specific batch of KU numbers; the Sibenik Company
1 would be assigned a specific batch of numbers, so on and so forth?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And, for instance, if the company exhausted the number of -- if
4 they exhausted their assigned lot, they would then ask for addition
5 numbers from the central system; is that correct?
6 A. As a rule, they should.
7 Q. And, now, each company had their own crime registers; is that
9 A. Each company kept its own register.
10 Q. Whereas, in the case of the Knin Independent Company, because of
11 the nature of its formation, which was a temporary formation, their KU
12 numbers or their criminal reports were entered into the battalion crime
13 register; isn't that correct?
14 A. I cannot either confirm or deny this because these registers were
15 kept by administrators, and I'm not much familiar with that part of the
16 activity. But I can't deny that what you said was true.
17 Q. Now, through the KU numbers, isn't it correct that one could
18 assess the number of crime reports registered for a specific period?
19 A. This would, among others, be a way to find that out.
20 Q. And when you say "among others," the others would be the
21 corresponding reports themselves, not just the register, but the register
22 taken with the corresponding crime reports would allow a person to arrive
23 at the number of crime reports filed by a company for a specific period
24 of time; isn't that correct?
25 A. Every case had its own folder, as for a file, with a
1 classification designation and a KU reference. But, as I said, this part
2 of work was handled by administrators. Still, things should have
3 happened the way you described them. Every case had its case folder,
4 which contained the contents of the material contained in the file on the
5 left-hand side -- on the left-hand side, and all the documentation
6 relating to the particular case was contained in the folder bearing the
7 designation, class 215.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, we have gone through a number of crime registers.
9 The crime register for the Knin Company, which was actually the battalion
10 register, and the corresponding criminal reports, the crime register for
11 the Zadar Company and the corresponding criminal reports, and the
12 criminal reports for the Sibenik Company, and we have drawn up some
13 charts, and the Defence for General Gotovina has -- the Defence teams
14 have studied those charts and agreed that the data produced on the charts
15 are accurate vis-a-vis the crime register and the crime reports.
16 So I'm going to show you those three reports.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have 7296, Mr. Registrar.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, we have A3, the charts
20 reproduced on A3 charts.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If they are available --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Mr. Milas, let me give you bigger version. This is -- what is on
24 the screen right now is being given to you on a hard copy.
25 Now, what you are looking at, Mr. Milas, is a chart of the
1 crimes -- crime reports raised by the Knin Company for the period
2 August 1995 to April 1996.
3 Now you don't have to worry that the data may not be accurate
4 because the Defence team has already agreed that the data is accurate.
5 Now, according to this chart, we noted, the Prosecution notes,
6 there are only 13 cases of looting, you know, 13 crime reports raised in
7 relation to the crime of looting for this entire period by the Knin
8 Company, that is, from August 1995 to April 1996.
9 MR. MISETIC: I don't think that -- that was not my understanding
10 of the 13. I thought -- just for the, record, Mr. President, I
11 understood it that you were referring to the lotting committed between
12 August and 30th of September, 1995.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The 13 are the crime reports raised which is
14 relevant to the subject matter of this case.
15 MR. MISETIC: That is two different things.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm not sure what your understanding was.
17 MR. MISETIC: I understood you said there were 13 reports of
18 looting up until March, end of March 1996, and what I think what you
19 wanted to say is there were 13 reports of looting that occurred up until
20 30 September 1996
21 March 1996.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: What I'm saying is according to this chart,
23 there are 13 criminal reports raised for that entire period. There are
24 only 13. You know, it's not 13 crimes committed. It's the number of
25 criminal reports filed during the period but the crimes committed for the
1 period August /September. That is the indictment period. But the crime
2 reports have been filed during the period August to March 1996.
3 Have I made myself clear.
4 MR. MISETIC: I think you have repeated what had I said, so ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then it must be clear, isn't it, Mr. Misetic?
6 There's no confusion whatsoever.
7 If you take to us to one example so that we can see what you are
8 talking about.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
10 If you see, Mr. President, there is an column is you go up from
11 the top, there is a column called relevant to the indictment. This chart
12 has been prepared in such a way. The first block --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you -- columns are numbered, apparently. If
14 you give us the number.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Column number 13.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thirteen. Relevant to the indictment, there we are,
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Then you see if you go down around the 7th,
19 you have a yes there. Eight entries, yes. Yes, that would be the first
21 JUDGE ORIE: The 8th, yes.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's not numbered on the left-hand side.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And then from there, there are altogether five
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So let me just try to understand.
2 The eighth row, the first yes in column 13, is that a reference
3 to looting?
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because it says aggravated theft but should we
6 understand aggravated theft to be looting?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, that is the terminology used in
8 their -- the criminal reports. We have just exactly -- yes, reproduced
9 it as it is.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: When I say looting, Mr. President, there are
12 13 cases of looting for this period reported, but in terms of -- we have
13 assessed the material for all crimes which comes within the --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I asked you to take us to an example.
15 We've seep one example now. We -- put your questions to the witness.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. Now, Mr. Milas, let me tell you. There are -- we note that there
18 are only -- for this period, the Knin Company had raised only 13 crime
19 reports in relation to crimes committed during the period August and
20 September. And that, too, with regard to only looting, there were no
21 crime reports raised in relation to arson or killings.
22 So do you, as the head of the crime prevention section of the
23 72nd Military Police Battalion consider that number to be adequate number
24 of criminal processing for a company, for a period of August to, you
25 know -- for two months' volume of crimes?
1 A. The number definitely is not impressive. But it is conditioned
2 by the fact, and I don't know the figure, or, rather, the extent to which
3 the military police force or, rather, the 72nd MP Battalion had received
4 reports of members of the HV having committed crimes within the
5 jurisdiction of the military court. This does not go to say that they
6 did not receive reports, but were there any reports filed which would
7 make the military police responsible or have jurisdiction for it. The
8 figure is not very high, but it is the way it is.
9 There were other limiting factors in this. In the chart you have
10 drawn up, you have perhaps some five, six, or seven deaths of members of
11 HV outside of the zone of combat caused by suicide or other types of
12 accidental deaths, and the military police had to take all the steps
13 necessary to ascertain whether a death was a violent one or not. The
14 figure is the way it is.
15 Q. Thank you for that.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President I tender this chart into
18 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2552.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now may have I chart 2243, Mr. Registrar.
23 Q. And you will see, Mr. Milas, the next chart that will come up --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, it's 7297; my apologies.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. You can see, Mr. Milas, if you want to see a hard copy ...
3 A. There's no need for it.
4 Q. Okay, okay. Likewise, the Zadar Company for this period filed
5 only four criminal reports for this period.
6 Do you know that, Mr. Milas? You know, what do you have to say
7 about that number? Is there any reason why there is such a poor number
8 of crime reports filed by a company?
9 A. I could give you at least four reasons for it, but how far you
10 will allow me to explain why such were the developments during that
11 period of time is another matter. If you allow me to explain, then I
12 will give you the reasons.
13 Q. I'm sure, perhaps in re-examination, Mr. Misetic might ask that
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I tender this into evidence Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you have asked the witness a question.
17 Could you briefly mention the four reasons, that is, without
18 giving them in full detail; but, for example, you would say, We didn't
19 have sufficient men to do it. That's very short, and you don't have to
20 explain how many men you had, and how many men you would have needed,
21 et cetera; or, for example, no more such crimes were apparently
22 committed. That's also -- so could you briefly point at the four
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The vast territory we were
25 covering, insufficient staff, the number the reports we were receiving,
1 our engagements around the processing of prisoners of war, and covering
2 cases of deaths of HV members outside of the front line, and there were
3 quite a few of those, the causes of which were suicide, accidental death,
4 et cetera, where all the possible reasons of foul play had to be
5 eliminated before these deaths could be ascertained. These are some of
6 the reasons that might account for the number.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there because you started giving
8 further details on one of the reasons why you had to focus on other
9 matters, and you included there that death could have been suicide or
10 accidental death.
11 You have answered the question. Thank you.
12 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MR. MISETIC: We have no objection to the document be admitted
16 into evidence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Registrar, we are now talking about
18 the Zadar document.
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, that's 65 ter 07297, and that
21 becomes Exhibit P2553.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will move the next chart, 7299, into
25 evidence. That is the chart relating to the Sibenik Company.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And there's one relevant entry, is that --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's two, Mr. President. In the Sibenik
3 chart there are two relevant entries.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But for looting?
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Also for looting, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I see one for aggravated theft, and you said that
7 was the looting, and another one is under the heading of robbery.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Robbery, that's correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's looting as well.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Well, in the terminology that we use in our
11 trial, Mr. President that would come within looting.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's understood.
13 Could we ask the witness. Mr. Milas, we see a very limited
14 number, two, as far as the 72nd Military Police Battalion, 4th Company
15 Sibenik is concerned, are the explanations the same as far as the small
16 number is concerned?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Generally speaking, those would be
18 the major limiting factors. That's to say, factors limiting our work.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Would apply also to Sibenik.
20 Any objection against admission?
21 Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes exhibit P2554.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
24 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Finally, Mr. President just one last chart.
1 That is document number 7299. And that is a -- that's a chart which sets
2 out the total number of 7299.
3 If I could have a moment. I'm sorry, 65 ter number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, Your Honours, the previous document, the
5 one that's currently on the screen, 65 ter 7299, was admitted as P2554.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Sorry, Mr. President. I should have called
7 7298 before, but this seems like the final chart that we wanted to tender
8 into evidence.
9 If I could have 65 ter 7298 then.
10 MR. MISETIC: So that the record is clear, he was questioned
11 about, shall I assume, the Sibenik Company?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I .
13 JUDGE ORIE: I saw, at least of the last one, was for me, Sibenik
14 unless I was ...
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Could we just have the English version on the
16 screen for a minute, Mr. Registrar, so that we can follow up.
17 Is this 7298?
18 Mr. President, this is what should have been given the previous
19 number so maybe it could be given a number. What I meant to do was to
20 call Knin, Zadar, and Sibenik and then tender the final chart, but I
21 think maybe because I called the wrong 65 ter number ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I looked at what we were given in hard copy,
23 which was in the following order. Starting with Knin; second, Zadar; and
24 then the last one, Sibenik. And I don't think we received anything else
25 in hard copy, but --
1 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I believe 65 ter 7298 should be
2 Exhibit P2544, in light of that the fact that that was the exhibit put to
3 the witness.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I think what happened was --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to get on the screen -- I mean, it has
6 become an administrative matter. We know what questions were asked of
7 the witnesses, there were no objections to whatever table or chart, let's
8 move on, and let's try to get on the screen what you want to ask the
9 witness questions about, whatever number that would be. But try to
10 convince Mr. Registrar that ...
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can you call up on the screen
12 the previous document that was tendered into evidence. I think what
13 happened was one came before the other.
14 THE REGISTRAR: 7299?
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes. And if you could just have the entire --
16 maybe the English version on the screen.
17 This was the fourth chart, Mr. President, that I -- my mistake,
18 my apologies, I had called this up by the number. The third chart that
19 should have been called up was the Sibenik chart.
20 Q. This is a summary of all the 19 crime reports filed by the 72nd
21 Military Police Battalion during this period.
22 Now, Mr. Milas, I don't want to go through the same line of
23 questions again, but do you -- is it consistent from what you know that
24 the number, 19, crime reports that were filed by the battalion, all
25 companies of the battalion, was it ever discussed in your meetings as
1 being a low number either between you and Colonel Budimir, or amongst
2 senior officers? Was it a matter of concern for the battalion that there
3 was such a low number of crime reports filed by the battalion?
4 A. When you say 19, which period are you referring to?
5 Q. I'm referring to crimes committed in the period August and
6 September, but these reports have been filed during the course of
7 August to April 1996 -- August 1995 to April 1996?
8 MR. MISETIC: And if it could just be made clear to the witness.
9 There are 19 criminal reports filed that relate to crimes in this case.
10 That doesn't mean there were only 19 filed in total for other matters.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct.
12 Q. Mr. Milas, these are crimes that we selected, based on what is of
13 interest to the Trial Chamber. And that relates to crimes committed in
14 the Sector South area, of the southern part of the Krajina.
15 So has it ever been of concern to you that in the areas of Knin,
16 Benkovac, Drnis, Kistanje, where there was a volume of crimes that they
17 have only 19 crime reports raised by the 72nd Battalion and that, too,
18 only for looting?
19 A. I've said before that the number is not an impressive one.
20 However, if we had full information about the number of accounts or the
21 information received about HV members having committed such crimes, and
22 if we had information, I happen to know had a Sibenik had nine deaths in
23 September that fell into the category of deaths outside of the front
24 line. Definitely the number is not a significant one, but it would be
25 good to check how many reports were received by the operative duty
1 officer of the 72nd Battalion --
2 JUDGE ORIE: You have now told us how many death cases you had to
3 investigate which explains, perhaps, the low number, but you have given
4 an explanation already. Ms. Mahindaratne asked you whether it was ever
5 of any concern or whether you ever discussed the -- let me say the
6 relatively low number of reports in relation to looting during these two
7 months of time. That was the question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. I also spoke to
9 Mr. Marijan Babic in Zadar with Mr. Damir Simic in Sibenik, and I don't
10 recall who it was, maybe Mr. Perkovic who was, at the time, at the head
11 of the crime service about what why the numbers were as they were, and
12 they simply told me, We did not receive accounts about soldiers, active
13 servicemen having done these crimes. We did not receive reports of
14 actual soldiers, not just individuals wearing uniforms having committed
15 such crimes.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I have the document which
17 did not get an exhibit number tendered into evidence and that would be
18 7298. This has already been assigned an exhibit number.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How we will administratively with a matter is
20 a different point of view. I just received a note which I will try to
21 digest from Mr. Registrar.
22 The document is admitted into evidence.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And what number it gets and what number matches to
25 what, we will put that on the record without confusion as soon as
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
3 Q. Mr. Milas, you -- your explanation -- one explanation was that
4 the military police did not, in fact, receive notice of crimes and which
5 is why there is such a low level of criminal reports raised.
6 Let me, in fact, show you a document --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have P886.
8 Q. What you are about to see, Mr. Milas, is the military police
9 log-book for the Knin military police company for the period 11th
10 August to 11th November.
11 Can you tell us at least -- this document indicates entries only
12 from 11th August.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could just go to the first page so that
14 witness could look at it?
15 Q. Do you know why there aren't any entries before 11th August? And
16 if you could answer briefly, Mr. Milas.
17 A. I don't know why the duty service did not set that up for the
18 earlier period.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can we go to English, page 16 and the Croatian
20 version page -- yeah. 03577464, even B/C/S page 16.
21 It's -- Mr. Registrar, you should click on the second batch of
22 the -- in the English version, the second batch which starts with
23 03577452 ET2. Then in that, page 16.
24 Q. Okay. Do you see, Mr. Milas, on 23rd August at 8.10, there is an
25 entry, a report of a house on fire close to a police check-point, and the
1 report indicates that it was probably done by a member of the HV. And
2 the only action that is recorded against is that a patrol is sent, and it
3 reports that no one was found at the scene.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Perhaps the Chamber might not be able to see
5 the remarks. If the English version could be adjusted in such a way that
6 the column entitled remarks could come on to the screen, in the English
7 version. Thank you.
8 Q. There is no record of an investigation being conducted, no record
9 of a criminal report being filed? I'm going to take you to a couple of
10 entries to show you that, in fact, the military police did receive notice
11 of crimes committed by HV, particularly, I'm going to take you through
12 cases of arson, since there is no criminal reports filed against that
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could go to, on the same
15 batch, page 44, and in the Croatian version page 32.
16 Q. You see, this is on 5th September, 1625 hours.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I think on the English version you should go
18 down the page.
19 Q. There is a record of the -- from Knin police reports, this is MUP
20 officer's report, that the old hospital is on fire and that HV members
21 are not allowing the fire to be extinguished and the action taken is a
22 patrol is sent and it comes back saying it did not encounter HV.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, could you just move the page so
24 Court could see the English one.
25 Q. No record of an investigation or criminal report being raised?
1 And if I could just take you to two more entries.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: On the same page, same batch, page 50, English
3 version and Croatian version, page 35. That's on 7th September -- I'm
4 sorry, the English version should be page 50. Did we get the page 50?
5 Yes. At 1725, this is on 7 September, there's a record of four to five
6 houses on fire in Strmica, and HV members seen moving around the houses
7 and Madam Registrar, if you could --
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. 1725?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President, it's 1720.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
12 Q. For to five houses are on fire. Some HV Croatian army members
13 were seen moving around those. It says the only action taken by military
14 police is to notify fire brigade and then it says it is not possible to
15 extinguish fire because of terrain, no investigation, no crime report,
16 and one last entry.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar [sic], if we could go to page
18 55 of the English version and the Croatian, page 38.
19 There is no note at 2010:
20 "Knin police reports on the road towards Stara [sic], uniformed
21 men was seen setting houses on fire." And if you could move, Madam
22 Registrar, that page.
23 Q. And the military police doesn't take any action because it says:
24 "As it is dark, it is better that the patrols go out tomorrow?"
25 But do you note, Mr. Milas, just five minutes after that, there
1 is a report of an accident of military vehicle and a patrol is
2 immediately dispatched. The fact that it was dark doesn't affect a
3 patrol being sent to the site.
4 And if you go to the next page you see that, in fact, although
5 with regard to the case of arson, it is recorded that a patrol be sent
6 next day. There is no patrol sent, no action taken at all.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if you can could just move to
8 the next page.
9 Q. So what I'm trying to demonstrate to you, Mr. Milas, is that, in
10 fact, the military police had ample information that crimes were being
11 committed by members of the HV but did not take any action at all,
12 particularly when it came to arson.
13 Now, can you, as the head of crime prevention section, because it
14 is your department that is responsible to take action, explain to Court
15 as to what your subordinate personnel were doing when members of the
16 military were setting houses on fire?
17 A. I believe you have shown me four occasions or events that were
18 reported on. As far as I recall, in the first case, it is stated that it
19 is presumed that a HV member set a house on fire.
20 In the last example, it is stated that there were some uniformed
21 persons involved. This does not necessarily mean that they were members
22 of the HV. It is evident from all the four cases that a patrol was
23 dispatched to the site. However, the patrols did not come across any
25 As to whether the crime military police was notified about this
1 fact by the duty service, in a such a way that the crime military police
2 could take up any further investigation, that is something I don't know.
3 The facts are as stated therein, stating that the military police did
4 intervene and that a patrol was dispatched but that no perpetrators were
5 encountered. If at the point of reporting, identity is unknown, it is
6 difficult to assert or establish whether it, indeed, involved a member of
7 the HV and who that person was. That is extremely difficult.
8 I do not exclude the possibility that the crime police was not
9 informed of this case, because, maybe, those in the duty office concluded
10 that no HV members were involved.
11 Q. Now, in that last entry --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. How
13 much time -- I encouraged to you finish during this session. How much
14 time would you still need?
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Ten minutes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I inquire how much time re-examination would
18 MR. MISETIC: No more than ten minutes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No more than ten minutes.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Five minutes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, no questions.
22 MR. KAY: No, nothing arising.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We might get in trouble with the tapes. Yes.
24 That's confirmed.
25 Well, unless the interpreters and transcriber would have a
1 problem, the tape is ten more minute, Ms. Mahindaratne. Please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Now in that last entry that I showed you, Mr. Milas, there isn't
4 even a record of a patrol being sent to investigate the case of arson.
5 So can you explain us to as to why the military police was not taking any
6 action upon receipt of cases of crime being committed by HV?
7 A. As I have said, I don't know whether any measures were taken.
8 The measure that I see that was taken was the dispatch of a patrol to the
9 site. As for any other further measures, that is something that I can't
10 talk about now because I cannot see any such information from the duty
11 operations service log.
12 Q. Mr. Milas, now, you testified about being involved in the -- the
13 operation OA Varivode, which was an investigation into several incidents
14 of killings, and that was an operation set up at the level of the
15 Ministry of Interior, isn't that correct, where the police
16 administrations requested the assistance of the military police to assist
17 in the investigations?
18 A. I don't know how it was filed. I can only offer my comments in
19 terms of the order of General Mate Lausic, dating, I believe, the 4th of
20 October, 1995.
21 Q. Now, are you aware that in the course of that operation, one of
22 your subordinate officers, Damir Simic, was prevented by his company
23 commander, Captain Mrkota, from carrying out an investigation into the
24 activities of commander of the 113th Sibenik Brigade. Are you aware of
1 A. That Damir Simic was prevented from doing this? I don't know
3 Q. Let me show you a document.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could call up P1062, please.
5 Q. This is a report written by Mr. Ante Glavan, where he records
6 that Mr. Damir Simic was, in fact, prevented, and if I could take you to
7 page 3.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, page 3 of the English version,
9 and the corresponding page would be page 2 of the Croatian version.
10 Q. Do you see the paragraph --
11 A. Your Honours, could we please enlarge the document?
12 Q. If could you quickly read that, I will not read it out,
13 Mr. Milas. That reports that, in fact, Damir Simic was prevented from
14 pursuing this investigation.
15 A. I don't see that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which paragraph?
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, the previous page, Madam Registrar,
18 page 2.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And what paragraph now?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have a minute, Mr. President.
21 Yes, it's page 2 of the English version, and in the Croatian
22 version, it would be the paragraph before -- Madam Registrar, if you
23 could, yes. Yes.
24 Q. There you are.
25 Do you see that, Mr. Milas?
1 A. I see it in the second paragraph.
2 Q. Did you know this as head of crime investigation section? Were
3 you ever informed about this by Mr. Glavan?
4 A. After reading this, I can tell you that I didn't know about this.
5 I was not informed either in writing or orally by Mr. Simic, ever, as far
6 as I can recall. This would present a grave obstruction in terms of
7 performing his duties.
8 As far as I can recall, he never told me about this. As far as I
9 can see, this is a 2002 document that I have just read.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can we have P203, please. I
12 have just one minute, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One minute. Because I already announced because if
14 the tape stops, no one would know when we would resume. We will resume,
15 once the tape has ended, and we will stop immediately talking, and we'll
16 resume after break at ten minutes past 1.00.
17 You have one more minute, Ms. Mahindaratne.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. You will see the document on the -- yes.
20 Now, Mr. Milas, you testified that you went through Kistanje and
21 you did not see, you know, destruction which is consistent with it being
23 Now if we could go to paragraph 4, Madam Registrar.
24 Now, this is a report sent by Ante Gugic, head of security and
25 information section. Do you see that paragraph 4, Mr. Milas?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if you could go to the
2 previous page.
3 Q. Can you please read that paragraph 4.
4 Now, you visited Kistanje on the 11th. This is dated 8th. So
5 what you state -- testified before this Trial Chamber is quite
6 inconsistent with what Mr. Gugic is writing to Mr. Susak; isn't that
8 A. I said that I was in the centre of Kistanje with Glavan, Cicvaric
9 and Maduna. I did see a concern number of houses that were set on fire
10 and some showed signs of combat damage. But, at that point in time, I
11 could not see that there was any looting or alcohol consumption, although
12 I do not exclude that possibility. I can only tell you what I saw that
13 day, and we only briefly moved through the centre because we continued
15 Q. My last question to you is: Can you just say briefly how long
16 did you go through -- are you saying you were only in the centre very
17 briefly in Kistanje?
18 A. Seven or eight minutes, not more than that. We stopped in the
19 centre next to a destroyed statue. We had a look at it, there was a
20 monument, and then we moved on towards Obrovac.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, I will --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I changed the time when we resume.
23 We will have a break, and we will resume at a quarter past 1.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.56 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.22 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, just before that, there is
3 an -- for the record, the exhibits that were not tendered, the three
4 charts, there was the confusion and perhaps --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think they were all tendered.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President to be given a mark --
7 exhibit --
8 JUDGE ORIE: We have P2552, which is the Knin chart; we have
9 P2553, which is the Zadar chart; then and now the next one, questions
10 were asked about the Sibenik chart, although we had the consolidated
11 document on our screen, the 65 ter 7298, that is the Sibenik chart. That
12 should bear number P2554.
13 Then the next one, 65 ter 7299, if I could call it the
14 consolidated chart, that was admitted into evidence and now bears number
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Mr. Registrar, if I could have Exhibit P20 on the screen, please.
20 English, page 21.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Misetic:
22 Q. I'm going to pull this exhibit, Mr. Milas, on the screen just to
23 provide context for the video that I'm going to show. That is the
24 admitted testimony of a witness named Edward Flynn, was in Kistanje on
25 the 13th.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to this -- this is
2 leading the witness. This is showing this document --
3 JUDGE ORIE: If --
4 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the witness has already --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
6 MR. MISETIC: The witness has already testified on number of
7 houses and it's been extensively discussed so there is nothing I'm going
8 to lead him on, in terms of the number of burned houses in Kistanje.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We didn't know yet it would be limited to the
10 numbers. The witness has testified about the numbers. If you would
11 limit your questions to the numbers of houses then, of course, that is --
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, but if putting what another
13 witness has testified to this witness and then asking him questions would
14 amount to leading, this is, after all, the witness being called by the
16 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, there is nothing I'm going to put to
17 him, just the context of what it is that we are about to be seen on the
18 screen next. He is not going to be asked anything.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If you are going to show P26, we'll see some of
20 pictures, videos taken during a visit on the 13th of August, 1995
21 one witness testified about it in this court.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
23 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
24 Q. Mr. Milas, now, this video -- sorry, was taken on 13th of August,
25 which, according to your testimony, would have been, I believe, two days
1 after you were present in Kistanje --
2 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said that it was anything between the
3 10th and the 12th so one or --
4 MR. MISETIC: I picked the middle date [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
7 Q. Either the 10th or the 12th, but in any event, at least one day
8 before -- one day after you were in Kistanje.
9 Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit P26, which is a video
10 taken by Mr. Flynn on the 13th. And, Mr. President, I believe we're
11 going start at 2 minute and 12 second mark. And there won't be any
13 [Video-clip played]
14 MR. MISETIC:
15 Q. Mr. Milas, is this -- when you see a building that is familiar to
16 you, if you could let us know, if at all.
17 Is this building familiar to you?
18 A. I think that this is in the centre of Kistanje close to the
19 monument. I think so. I don't know.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I think that the monument should be somewhere near this house,
22 whether to the left or to the right or ahead it, yes, this is the
23 intersection in the centre.
24 Q. Stop me when you see a burned house.
25 That house appears to have been -- sorry. I guess I will ask --
1 the question. But obviously that is a house on fire. Do you recall
2 whether when you were in Kistanje that house had been already damaged or
3 otherwise in the process of being burned?
4 A. I can't remember at this time, no. Not this house.
5 Q. Was that one -- do you recall, if you can, at all, if that was
6 one of the homes that you had seen burned prior to the 13th of August?
7 A. Well, maybe. I can't give you a definite answer. The one that
8 was shown to me earlier, I think that I saw that one definitely. And if
9 it's the same direction, then perhaps that was the one. I think so, yes.
10 Q. Mr. Milas, that ... was that burned at the time that you were in
12 A. I think it was.
13 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Milas, this appears now that the car has been
14 turned around and going back in the other direction?
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, that evidence is not here. I
16 don't know on what basis Mr. Misetic read that part out as to this
17 appears the car is turned around going the other direction.
18 MR. MISETIC: We can do a comparison, Mr. President. If we can
19 go back to 3:06
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go a bit back first to 3 -- slower, please,
22 a little bit back, please.
23 Stop there, yes. Yes. Yes.
24 MR. MISETIC: Now if we could go to up to 3:23, please. And if
25 we can just let the rest of the video go, please. Okay.
1 Q. Mr. Milas, now, other than what we've seen on the screen, do you
2 recall any other -- seeing any other areas of Kistanje that had been set
3 on fire?
4 A. I said that I was in the centre at the start of the footage where
5 you could see the sign-posts. We went on to Obrovac. In other words, we
6 did not drive through Kistanje.
7 Q. My final question for you is, did you ever -- were you ever told,
8 was it ever suggested to you, or in any other way communicated to you
9 that you should investigate burnings? You meaning, the 72nd Military
10 Police crime prevention service?
11 A. Absolutely nobody ever issued such an order or ever -- ever sent
12 such a request. From the crime prevention service. At no point during
13 the military and police Operation Storm.
14 Q. I'm reminded to ask you: With respect to the crime of looting,
15 was it ever suggested to you not to process looting?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Milas.
18 MR. MISETIC: I have no further questions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm -- I'm told that I maybe was not
21 clear in my enunciation. The transcript should read that the question
22 was: Was it ever suggested to you that you shouldn't - meaning, should
23 not - investigate burnings. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No questions Mr. Mikulicic.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Just a few, Your Honour.
1 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Milas. I will now show you
3 a document that we looked at a moment ago, that's the military police
4 operations log and ask you to give us a brief comment.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: Mr. Registrar, could I, Mr. Registrar, could I
6 have please P886 on the screen and precisely page 4 on B/C/S.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Briefly, Mr. Milas, the operations log is a
8 document that was kept in the operations duty service of the military
9 police; is that right.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Various entries were made into that log based on reports received
12 in whatever way, be it in person, over the phone, or otherwise.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The operations log would also contain entries to the effect of
15 when the piece of information was received, by whom, what it was about,
16 and what was done as a follow-up; is that right?
17 A. Yes, that's the contents of the log.
18 Q. To your recollection and based on your experience, were entries
19 made to the operations log to the effect that any investigation has been
20 launched against a perpetrator, that an indictment has been issued
21 against a perpetrator, and everything else that will follow up once a
22 crime investigation was under way?
23 A. Well, that's, in fact, what the pre-typed columns of the log
25 Q. In other words when my learned friend asked you and asserted that
1 the operation log did not contain entries about criminal reports being
2 filed or investigations carried out, this isn't something that would
3 normally have been entered into the log to begin with; is that right?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. At the start of your testimony, what was mentioned was that while
6 witnesses were being proofed at Lora base, members of the SIS of the
7 Republic of Croatia
8 were services merely of a technical nature. Do you remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you confirm, Mr. Milas, that similarly, similar or identical
11 services were provided to the investigators of the OTP, when they
12 interviewed witnesses?
13 A. I don't know about Lora.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, you just said at the start of your
15 testimony, apparently you were referring to the start of the
16 cross-examination. It comes a bit as a surprise, although we're not
17 bound by the common law tradition, that where you have chosen not to
18 cross-examine this witness that you now take the opportunity to put
19 questions to the witness on matters which were raised in cross where you
20 were in a position to cross-examine the witness yourself on any matter.
21 It comes as a bit of a surprise. I didn't hear any objections by
22 Ms. Mahindaratne. I consulted with my colleague, who is more -- who was
23 educated in the common law tradition. So, therefore, it comes as a bit
24 as of a surprise, Mr. Mikulicic, that you start examining the witness on
25 matters which were not dealt with by Mr. Misetic even objected against
1 the time spent on that, and that you now suddenly jump in, to say so.
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I just want to the state that
3 Mr. Mikulicic and I discussed this, and he was going to address the
4 matter since both he, personally, and I, personally, felt called out by
5 Ms. Mahindaratne on certain portions.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, of course, your agreement on how to deal
7 with the matter should not interfere with what is the ordinary course of
8 examination of witnesses.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes. But unfortunately, I don't think
10 Mr. Mikulicic could have anticipated prior to the cross-examination, that
11 that was going to be an area for him and me to address.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. But if you agreed on who would cover what, then
13 you could have addressed the Chamber and said that Mr. Mikulicic seeks
14 leave to put further questions and then give the reasons for that instead
15 of just jumping up and -- at least not in accordance with the usual
17 I am not going to stop you at this moment, Mr. Mikulicic, but I
18 would like to ask you to be brief on the matter.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: I will be, Your Honour. My examination was
20 triggered exclusively by the cross-examination of Ms. Mahindaratne, and I
21 raise the theme that was not subject of the direct examination of
22 Mr. Misetic. So I will be very brief, Your Honour.
23 Mr. Registrar, could I have 65 ter 7288 on the screen, please,
24 just the front page.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Milas, you are -- do you know the person
1 called Robert Augustincic, Captain Robert Augustincic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell the Chamber where it is you now him from, how come
4 you know him and what his job is?
5 A. I know a person called Robert Augustincic, who is a member of the
6 military security agency and assigned to the intelligence administration
7 of the Main Staff of the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia
8 JUDGE ORIE: For my information, is this the document we
9 prevented Ms. Mahindaratne from further putting to the witness and now
10 you just call it up as if nothing had happened, as if we had not a
11 thorough decision on --
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I wouldn't go into the subject of
13 this document. This is not point of my interest.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 MR. MIKULICIC: My point of interest is the person who were
16 present at the examination of the witness by the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You can ask the witness about it.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But earlier, we made clear that since this is
20 not evidence, since this was not introduced, since there was no
21 opportunity to put any questions to the author of this document as to its
22 accuracy or the person who gave the statement, that we should refrain
23 from using this document and the first thing you are now doing is to use
24 it. You can ask the witness about what a -- and then the parties could
25 compromise on the matter [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 MR. MIKULICIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, I think my
2 point of using this document is complete different than the point that
3 was used by the Prosecution. I'm using this document, only the front
4 page, just to show that the person working for the SIS was present at the
5 examination of the witness, as he was present in the examination when
6 Defence was interrogating the witness. That is my point, nothing else,
7 nothing more.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You could have asked whether the witness know this
9 is person and then you could have sought ways to have the cover page
10 admitted into evidence, or to agree with the Prosecution that this was a
11 person who has been present at a moment where Mr. Budimir was
13 Even if you have different purposes, I think the objection was
14 more fundamental, that is, that there was no opportunity to question
15 anyone about this document, nor the person interviewed, nor the person
16 who put this statement on paper.
17 Ms. Mahindaratne.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, we are willing to stipulate
19 that Mr. Augustincic was present during this interview.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And then have you put --
21 MR. MIKULICIC: That he was a member of the SIS?
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We do not know that Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... that's a question you --
24 that's exactly what I suggested without using the document --
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I'm perfectly happy with that, and I
1 have no further questions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Yes, I think the question on the activities of Mr. Augustincic
4 have been answered.
5 No further questions.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Kinis has one or more question for you.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE KINIS: Mr. Milas, I have short -- two short questions.
11 Referring back to your statement, D1533, paragraph 12. In the
12 bottom -- in the end or last line of this paragraph, you -- you stated is
13 that -- actually, the discussion is about situation when Brigadier Biskic
14 issued a task to secure the depth of area with newly liberated areas.
15 And subparagraph (e) mention to travel only via the main roads,
16 to avoid side roads and shortcuts when travelling by night.
17 Could you, please, more elaborate on this issue, why you should
18 avoid side roads and not travelling during the night?
19 A. As far as I remember, Brigadier Biskic indicated this because in
20 quite a few places on side roads and country lanes, the roads were mined
21 back at the time when the area was occupied, and in view of what happened
22 on the 11th of August, 1995
23 the counterattack of the enemy over 20 members 141st Brigade of Croatian
24 army were killed and a great many wounded, the intention on the part of
25 Mr. Biskic was that the entire area was unsafe because of the mines and
1 explosives left behind and possible enemy stragglers. That's my opinion,
2 that that was the reason why he said that.
3 JUDGE KINIS: And following to this issue, I wanted to ask you,
4 whether -- deployment of military forces were only along main roads and
5 cities or -- or HV forces were also deployed in some remote areas at that
6 time, in ...
7 A. The military police performed their duties primarily in the areas
8 that were liberated at large intersections, wherever there were roads.
9 As for the -- or liberated area into the depth, security
10 assessments had to be made. One had to establish where the camps of the
11 enemy forces were and tasks had to be done by way of patrols.
12 JUDGE KINIS: Sorry --
13 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a problem with the transcript.
14 Mr. Hedaraly.
15 MR. HEDARALY: The main transcript is working, Your Honour, I
16 think it is the one on the individual screens.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If everyone uses the LiveNote button so as to
18 be able to follow the testimony of the witness.
19 JUDGE KINIS: I'm not asking you regarding enemy forces. I'm
20 asking about HV forces, which discipline you should -- should control,
22 A. That's what I meant.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the witness said
24 camps of Croatian army.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I said because members
1 of the Croatian army changed their camps. They went into the depth of
2 the liberated areas, and the military police was tasked with following
3 the movements of the Croatian army, and that's what I referred to in my
5 JUDGE KINIS: That means that all this military forces are only
6 deployed along main roads and cities and not in remote ares like villages
7 or which are connected with side roads.
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, we were not stationed in small
9 villages. Rather, in those places where there were command headquarters
10 of Croatian army. I'm saying, as far as I know because I was not
11 involved in that part of the operation, and I'm -- in my answer, I'm
12 actually referring to my experience.
13 JUDGE KINIS: Thank you. And the next question is following
14 paragraph, paragraph 13, you are talking about tasks which was issued in
15 meeting in Knin, pertain to handling war booty.
16 Did you get some instructions what consists war booty, and how
17 you should handle it?
18 A. To the best of my recollection, at the meeting on the 12th of
19 August in Knin, One of the points made by Brigadier Biskic was that the
20 war booty should, obligatory be handed over to the logistics bases of the
21 Croatian army. That stuck in my memory, that bit about war booty but
22 nothing else.
23 JUDGE KINIS: By directly consists war booty or window-frames or
24 stoves or fridges or televisions, et cetera. All it's possible to
25 recognises war booty.
1 A. TV sets would definitely not be considered war booty but certain
2 machinery, larger vehicle, trucks, loaders, roughly along those lines.
3 JUDGE KINIS: Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I keep it very short, Mr. Milas.
5 One question you referred to the experience you had 141st Brigade
6 where you said 20 people were killed and many were wounded. Were they
7 victims of mined roads or ...
8 A. As far as I know, Your Honour, they were killed in a
9 counterattack by enemy sabotage units in the area of Derala. This is the
10 road leading from Knin via Strmica to Grahovo. I'm not a military
11 expert. I can't give you a precise answer, but what was involved was
12 solely the counterattack and enemy fire at closer range.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So not mines on roads primarily.
14 A. In that specific case, no, again, to the best of my knowledge.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One last question. A lot has been said about
16 the role of Mr. Juric as being in command or as a coordinator. Since he
17 has been in the area only for a short while, could you tell us specific
18 actions he commanded over which were not to be qualified as coordination
19 activities? What kind of operations or orders or specific matters he
20 dealt with, as far as you remember, which could not be considered to be
21 activities of a rather coordinative nature.
22 A. I did not meet Mr. Juric, save for the meeting on the 3rd of
23 August. I was not present in any -- at any other meetings in which he
24 may have issued separate tasks to anyone. I had more contact with
25 Mr. Glavan and Cicvaric when we toured the employees of the crime
1 military police, and we limit the ourselves to that part of work of the
2 crime prevention section. Mr. Glavan was particularly tasked with POWs,
3 in the sense that he had to report to the MP administration on the number
4 of POWs processed on a daily basis. I didn't have extensive contacts
5 with Mr. Juric. I didn't -- I was not familiar with his daily activities
6 and schedule.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you said about his tasks was primarily
8 based on the decision by which he was appointed, but you had no direct
9 sight on how he performed his functions and what was where the focus or
10 emphasise exact was.
11 A. I can only refer to the order by General Lausic, nothing beyond
12 that because I was not familiar with it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
14 I have no further questions for you, Mr. Milas. I'd like to
15 thank you very much for coming to The Hague, for answering questions that
16 were put to you by the parties and questions that were put to you by the
17 Bench, and I'd like to wish you a safe trip home again.
18 Before we adjourn, I would first like to express my gratitude to
19 interpreters and transcribers for this additional ten minutes, which
20 allowed the witness to be further excused.
21 We will resume tomorrow, 26th of June, at 9.00 in the morning, in
22 Courtroom I, where we will have a hearing on the motion for the Chamber
23 to issue a restraining order, whereas the -- we resume evidence to be
24 heard Tuesday, the 30th of June, after tomorrow, at 9.00 in the morning
25 at -- in Courtroom III
1 Mr. Mikulicic.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, just one question, is it necessary
3 that our clients should be present tomorrow at the hearing?
4 JUDGE ORIE: If he prefers not to be present, we have a rather
5 technical hearing on a matter which is primarily of a legal nature and
6 not the core of the substance of this case. So if you were -- if
7 Mr. Markac and/or Mr. Gotovina or Mr. Cermak would choose not to be
8 present, then ...
9 MR. KEHOE: Our client says that doesn't want to be prevent
10 either. If he could be excused.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if I understand well, all three accused then
12 prefer not to be present --
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- tomorrow in court, and that is acceptable for the
15 Chamber. So it's just a matter of organizing and transportation,
16 et cetera, is cancelled as well.
17 Any other matter?
18 Then we adjourn until tomorrow, 26th of June, 9.00, Courtroom I.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.
20 to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day of June,
21 2009, at 9.00 a.m.