1 Thursday, 2 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
7 everyone in the courtroom.
8 This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. And, of course, a good
11 afternoon from the Chamber as well.
12 I'd like to move into private session for a short moment.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 19655-19658 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
20 Mr. Hedaraly, what I earlier said in private session, after I had
21 invited you to give your position before the weekend, may also explain
22 why it's relatively irrelevant, what you find in the statement, because
23 it's the exclusion of what is not in the statement which appears to be
24 the issue.
25 We will now invite the Defence to call its next witness.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
2 The Gotovina Defence will call Mr. Ivan Galovic.
3 Mr. President, before we do that, we do have pending a motion to
4 add 14 statements -- 14 documents to the 65 ter list.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, before the witness is brought
6 in, if I may address the Court.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We were served with the supplemental
9 information sheet. This is -- I'm referring to the first supplemental
10 sheet that was served on us, and I refer to paragraph 10.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just have a look. I have -- let me see.
12 Yes. We have the first part of proofing notes provided at approximately
13 10.30 this morning.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That would be the one, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That would be the one. Let me just open it. Yes.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if the Defence intends to
17 tender this particular document under Rule 92 ter, we would object to
18 paragraph 10, specifically, because in paragraph 10 the witness is asked
19 to express an opinion on the mental state of Witness Pero Perkovic, and I
20 believe this is an improper way for the Defence to address problems that
21 the Rules indicate in the testimony of the previous witness; and there's
22 no basis for this witness who's about to testify to express an opinion of
23 this nature. And for that reason, the Prosecution would object to
24 paragraph 10.
25 That's what I wanted to inform the Court before the witness is
1 brought in, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
3 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, we are not tendering the supplemental
4 information sheet. They haven't been translated. However, I will --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then the problem seems nonexistent.
6 MR. KEHOE: Well, I will -- that piece of information concerning
7 his work in the area as the prosecution, and what he investigated, and
8 what he concluded by that, could very well incorporate in his answer
9 something akin to what is in paragraph 10.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But then I take it that you'll clearly keep in mind
11 that the witness appears to be a lawyer and --
12 MR. KEHOE: He is a lawyer, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- not a doctor from whatever medical discipline.
14 And to ask a lawyer to explain what results from what kind of pathology
15 might go beyond his factual knowledge or his professional experience.
16 MR. KEHOE: I --
17 JUDGE ORIE: But it could be that if reports at the time were
18 brought to the attention of this witness in which experts take a specific
19 position, then perhaps if those reports would be available, we could have
20 a look at them, and then of course Ms. Mahindaratne may consider whether
21 or not she would have any objection against those reports to be admitted
22 into evidence without having had an opportunity to cross-examine the
23 relevant expert. But that's -- yes.
24 MR. KEHOE: If I may respond to that, Mr. President, and I trust
25 my colleagues across the well in the Prosecution's Office do this on a
1 daily basis, because heaven knows I did it for 20 years on a daily basis,
2 and that is when you look at pieces of evidence, confessions, a variety
3 of other things, and you go through an area and you analyse this, as a
4 professional, you come to certain positions, i.e., that this person has
5 put forward a defence that is not credible but, in fact, is grounded in
6 base motives for looting, burning, et cetera; and that they are
7 criminals, and any excuse they give for other conduct is dispensed
8 from -- is dispensed of by a Prosecutor when he or she comes to that
9 conclusion. That is professionally what a Prosecutor does.
10 And with regard to those particular issues, and there have been
11 many, many issues raised by the Prosecution that they have put on the
12 table, and here is a witness that has the capability, because of his
13 experience to the area, to provide the Chamber with his conclusions as to
14 what he saw, the information he had, and what he concluded, based on that
15 information, and then what he did. So I think that to the extent that it
16 is helpful to the Chamber - and I submit to Your Honours that it is very
17 helpful - it's important to see the sequence as to mentally and
18 physically how this witness got to the particular position he had.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with the matter. I'm just -- of course,
20 we are not talking about opinions in a rather general way, but we're
21 talking about -- let's wait and see what happens, and --
22 MR. KEHOE: I will say, just to go back to the Prosecution's
23 position, I would submit to Your Honour if we merely look at what the
24 Prosecutor did with now General Lesley, then Colonel Lesley, they put
25 together certain sequences of events and said, Based on these events,
1 what can you tell us about the shelling and the pattern of this shelling?
2 Well, he wasn't there when it was fired, and he certainly wasn't there at
3 the point when it was landed; but based on what he observed and what
4 information he had, he was allowed to give conclusions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kehoe, the line between the establishment
6 of facts and drawing conclusions is often difficult to draw, which
7 doesn't mean that where one would accept some conclusions and where the
8 Chamber would be able to make a distinction between what is a conclusion
9 and what is a fact, that they often are intertwined, that all conclusions
10 are of a kind to be presented as evidence by a witness of fact, even if
11 he has some professional experience.
12 We'll see what happens, and our attention is drawn by
13 Ms. Mahindaratne, in that she sees a problem in relation to the matter
14 which is dealt with in paragraph 10 of the first proofing note.
15 MR. KEHOE: I just -- Mr. President, before we do that, I just
16 have -- I don't know if we have any objection or non-objection concerning
17 the 65 ter documents.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the 65 ter documents.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
21 Now, Mr. Kehoe, on your list we find 13 where you say, We'll seek
22 admission, and in the application itself you're seeking 14. Have you --
23 the admission of 14 documents. So there is a bit of a problem there. I
24 did not explore it in full detail whether one is missing or whether one
25 is too much; but at least 13 are on the list, 14 are in your application.
1 I did count them.
2 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if we go to the actual motion itself,
3 going through A through N, there are, in fact, 14. I will concede that
4 if we go to the cover sheet on the appendix, it mistakenly says "13."
5 But there are, in fact, 14.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, no, but also on your list -- on your table of,
7 I think, consent or permission to be sought, we find there are only
8 13 boxes.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ORIE: You'll resolve the matter. There's no objection.
11 We'll try to resolve this matter when you have the whole team to assist
13 MR. KEHOE: Got you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness. I'll just -- Mr. Galovic.
15 Mr. Galovic, before you give evidence in this court, the
16 Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn
17 declaration. The text is now handed out to you by the usher, and I would
18 like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: IVAN
22 [The witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Galovic. Please be seated.
24 You will first be examined by Mr. Kehoe, and Mr. Kehoe is counsel
25 for Mr. Gotovina.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
2 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Examination by Mr. Kehoe:
4 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Galovic.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. Mr. Galovic, can you state your name for the record and spell
7 your last name?
8 A. Ivan Galovic, G-a-l-o-v-i-c.
9 Q. Mr. Galovic, let me take you back to the 18th of May of 2009. Do
10 you recall meeting members of the Gotovina Defence team that day, and did
11 you sign a statement that day?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I could bring up 65 ter 1D2695, and
14 if I could provide the witness with a hard copy which I've given to the
16 And I'm just waiting for it to come up on the screen in front of
17 you as well. It looks like two English copies, I think.
18 Mr. Galovic, do you recognise this statement that is before you
19 that you signed on 18 May 2009
20 A. I do. That's the statement.
21 Q. Did you have a chance to review it before you came to court here
23 A. I did.
24 Q. Mr. Galovic, in my discussions with you and some of my
25 colleagues, you made some corrections to that statement.
1 MR. KEHOE: And, Mr. President, with your permission, I'd just
2 like to go through some of these corrections. And if we could turn to
3 the second page of the statement, towards the bottom of the page in
4 English, at the paragraph beginning:
5 "At the pre-investigation stage ..."
6 It should be the second -- that page for you, sir, at the bottom
7 of the page, it now reads:
8 "At the pre-investigation stage, the police may temporarily seize
9 objects if there is a risk of deferral, and search apartments and persons
10 under the conditions provided by law ..."
11 Q. In our discussions, and correct me if I'm wrong, in our
12 discussions you changed that sentence to read:
13 "At the pre-investigation stage, if there was a risk of deferral,
14 the police may temporarily seize objects," and you strike "if there is a
15 risk of deferral," you strike those words, and continue on saying:
16 "... and search apartments and persons under the conditions
17 provided by law."
18 And strike the rest of that from "and" to the latter part -- last
19 part of that sentence with the words "by the law." Is that correct, sir?
20 So you do --
21 A. May I?
22 Q. Absolutely, sir.
23 A. I'm afraid that hearing you put it that way, there must have been
24 a misunderstanding. I can't see it here on the screen. The corrections
25 I made had solely to do with grammar. Nothing changed in substance,
1 merely certain phrases were repeated, and it sounded a bit strange. So I
2 only corrected it to the effect that if there is risk of deferral, police
3 may temporarily seize items and conduct searches of the apartment -- the
4 rooms and of the person. Is that right?
5 Q. Well, sir, let me read it the way I believe you told us, and then
6 you can tell me if it's wrong in that paragraph:
7 "At the pre-investigation stage, if there is a risk of deferral,
8 the police may temporarily seize objects and search apartments and
9 persons under the conditions provided by the law."
10 A. Precisely so.
11 Q. Let me take you to page 9 of the statement concerning the Gosici
13 And, Mr. President, at the beginning of the second line, there is
14 just a typographical error. Where it says "were no members," that should
15 be "were not members" coming from the Croatian to the English it should
16 be "were not members."
17 Going to the next sentence, where it says: "Ivica Petric and
18 Nikola Rasic," in that sentence, instead of "Ivica Petric," it should be
19 "Pero Perkovic"; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let us go to the last page of your statement. Page 11 in the
22 English -- the second-to-last page. Apologies. And I think it's the
23 identical in the B/C/S, or I've been informed, where you note at the end
24 of the answer concerning the number of prosecutions, you note that it
25 says you prosecuted 744 persons for aggravated larceny and battery. You
1 informed us that that was based on records that were in your office, but
2 that some records of cases that you prosecuted were in other locations
3 because of a change in territory; and that number should, in fact, be
4 higher, and that the statistics that you provided to us were the accurate
5 numbers; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. When I was giving the statement, I used the
7 information at the disposal of the Public Prosecutors' Office of the
8 Republic of Croatia
9 deal that much with the statistics at that time. The data is correct
10 insofar as it reflects the situation as it manifested itself at the time,
11 and in the meantime the territorial jurisdiction changed so that whatever
12 was under the jurisdiction of Knin, and this came under the jurisdiction
13 of the Zadar County Public Prosecutor's Office, some of that jurisdiction
14 went to Sibenik, more of it to the municipal structure in Benkovac,
15 Obrovac, Gracac, and to a certain extent Karlovac and Gospic. Thus the
16 disparity in the statistics. As for the records I refer to, that's
17 something that was sent on a monthly basis to the Ministry of Justice and
18 that specific data is correct and accurately reflects the figures of the
20 Q. We'll get into those in one moment. But just going back to the
21 statement, other than those clarifications that you gave us, does the
22 statement that's before you, the statement that you gave to the
23 Gotovina Defence team on the 18th of May, 2009, does that accurately
24 reflect what you told to the Gotovina Defence team at that time?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And is the information contained in there true and accurate, to
2 the best of your knowledge?
3 A. The information is true and accurate. However, as the
4 jurisdiction changed, certain matters were, by way of necessity, lost.
5 As a result, the situation cannot be presented as accurately as would be
6 required, although I subsequently retrieved certain information which
7 enabled me to do so.
8 Q. What I'm talking about is the statement itself. Is the
9 information that you provided in the statement that's before you, is that
10 true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Except for the changes.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if I examined you today on those same matters, in court
13 today, would your answers be the same answers to the Trial Chamber that
14 you gave to the Gotovina Defence team?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we would move for the
17 admission of 65 ter 1D2695.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1553.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
23 Mr. Kehoe, if we will at a later stage refer to pages, what pages
24 in the English version will you refer to? Because the hard copy and the
25 electronic version, we find no page numbers.
1 MR. KEHOE: The first correction that I brought to bear was on
2 page 2, the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: The first correction --
4 MR. KEHOE: Was towards the bottom of page 2, and the --
5 JUDGE ORIE: But what page -- including cover page, where does it
7 MR. KEHOE: Including the cover page, it's page 1 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: The cover page being page 1 --
9 MR. KEHOE: Page 1. Where it says witness statement being
10 page 2.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. KEHOE: The other change concerning Mr. Pero Perkovic is on
13 page 9 of the English; and the correction concerning the statistics is on
14 the top of page 11 in the English, all including the cover page as
15 page 1.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
17 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I advised the witness as to the
18 purpose of the witness summary, and at this juncture we would ask
19 permission to read that witness summary into the record.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
21 MR. KEHOE: This is the witness summary for Witness Ivan Galovic.
22 Mr. Galovic testified that he was appointed the district public
23 prosecutor in Zadar on 28 December 1990
24 ever since. Almost throughout the war, the Zadar County State
25 Attorney's Office was composed of the state attorney and two deputies.
1 The witness testified regarding the role of the civilian police
2 and military police in the prevention and discovery of perpetrators of
3 criminal offences, the procedure for investigations under Croatian law,
4 and the autonomous and independent nature of the State Attorney's Office.
5 Prior to Operation Storm, the territorial jurisdiction of the
6 Zadar County State Attorney's Office covered the areas of the territorial
7 jurisdiction of the municipal courts in Zadar and Biograd na Moru. After
8 Operation Storm, the territorial jurisdiction of the Zadar County State
9 Attorney's Office expanded to cover the territories of the municipal
10 courts in Zadar, Biograd na Moru, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac,
11 Donji Lapac, and Korenica. This latter territorial jurisdiction
12 continued until 27 September 1997, when the law changed.
13 The witness participated in processing the murders in the
14 villages of Varivode and Gosici. The witness testified that there was
15 never any pressure exerted on him to give up further prosecution.
16 Based on the records that remained in his office after the law
17 changed in 1995 -- 1997, excuse me, the witness testified that the
18 County State Attorney's Office in Zadar prosecuted 13 perpetrators of
19 murder very shortly after Operation Storm, involving a total number of 25
20 victims. The witness testified that the County State Attorney
21 in Zadar has no jurisdiction over the criminal offences of larceny, or
22 aggravated larceny, only over robbery. The witness testified that nine
23 persons were prosecuted for the criminal offence of robbery in his
24 jurisdiction, and the Municipal State Attorney's Office in Zadar and
25 Benkovac prosecuted 744 persons for aggravated larceny and larceny.
1 However, the witness testified that the more accurate numbers of
2 prosecutions are contained in his monthly reports from 1995 and 1996,
3 which include case files that he did not have access to when he first
4 compiled the numbers. These case files were later transferred from his
6 The witness testified that it was very difficult to prosecute the
7 criminal offences of arson and mining of houses because it was almost
8 impossible to discover the perpetrators in such a large territory. The
9 Municipal State
10 against unknown persons, and the Municipal State Attorney's Office in
11 Zadar received a total of 166 crime reports. The witness testified that
12 he believed that the motive of these cases was plunder and that the
13 buildings were burned in order to conceal the crimes.
14 That completes the summary, Mr. President.
15 If I may proceed, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
17 MR. KEHOE:
18 Q. Mr. Galovic, I would like to just touch on some of the items, and
19 just brief clarification of some items in your written statement. We're
20 not going to cover everything that's in there, because that's part of the
21 record already; but I'd like to focus on some of your experiences working
22 in the Government of Croatia
23 In page 2 of your statement, you indicate that you were appointed
24 the district public prosecutor and have remained -- in Zadar on
25 28 December 1990
1 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel speak a bit more slowly for the
2 benefit of the interpreters, please.
3 MR. KEHOE: My apologies. I will.
4 Q. Just briefly, Mr. Galovic, can you explain the role of the
5 district public prosecutor in the Croatian system?
6 And if I can caution you the way they caution me, just take your
7 time while you're doing that.
8 A. Let me first correct you. I have been a public prosecutor for
9 much longer. I started as an intern in the Municipal Public Prosecutor's
10 Office in Zadar in early 1976. On the 28th of December, I was appointed
11 county - or at the time it was called district public prosecutor - in the
12 then District Public Prosecutor's Office in Zadar. Therefore, in my
13 career as a public prosecutor, I have passed all the intermediate steps
14 leading to the position I have right now.
15 The post of the public prosecutor, under the Croatian
16 legislation, is above all and primarily to deal with the prosecution of
17 perpetrators of crimes. The detection of crime falls within the remit of
18 the police, but the duty of the public prosecutor is to direct their job,
19 with a view to bringing perpetrators of crimes to justice and have them
20 tried. This was the role I performed at the time. It implied the filing
21 of requests for the conduct of investigations, filing of -- or issuing
22 indictments, launching investigations, and resorting to extraordinary
23 legal remedies which we have under our legislation, and that would be it.
24 Q. Now, you -- Mr. Galovic, you just noted for us that the duty of
25 the public prosecutor is to direct the police job with a view to bringing
1 perpetrators of crimes to justice and have them tried, and that's at
2 page 20, line 9. Can you just briefly explain the relationship between
3 the public prosecutor, the police, and the investigative judge, in this
4 entire prosecutive [sic] -- investigative process?
5 A. The fundamental task of the police is to detect a crime and
6 perpetrators thereof, as well as to gather evidence so that a criminal
7 report could be filed with a public prosecutor.
8 The public prosecutor, based on what is contained in the criminal
9 report, decides on the course to be taken. One of the options is that if
10 the criminal report does not contain sufficient elements for launching an
11 investigation, then a request for additional processing has to be filed,
12 or if there is enough information already, then an investigation is
14 It's the investigating judge who comes into play at this point,
15 who decides on whether to launch the investigation. If the investigation
16 is, indeed, launched, then this is the official start of the criminal
17 proceedings. I'm highlighting this because it is only from this point
18 onwards that we can speak of evidence in its own right. Whatever had
19 been collected by the police before that point serves only as the initial
20 material intended for launching proceedings and is, in fact, excluded
21 from the file until such time as the investigation is closed.
22 When the investigation is closed, the file goes back to the
23 public prosecutor to decide if charges are to be brought or if
24 prosecution is to be given up on. If it is decided that an indictment
25 will be issued, then what ensues is a trial and then, of course, also the
1 appeals proceedings, depending on the developments in the course of the
3 Q. Mr. Galovic, one point of clarity. You mentioned just now that
4 there are -- is information that's collected by the police before the
5 investigative judge comes in, and that serves as the initial material
6 intended for launching the proceedings, but is not evidence, itself.
7 Would that initial information that you're talking about, used to launch
8 the proceedings, would those be the Official Notes that the police would
9 put in the file?
10 A. Among other things, yes. Or, rather, for the most part it's the
11 notes that constitute this sort of material.
12 Q. One last point of clarity. You noted that the investigation
13 begins with the investigative judge after information is relayed to him,
14 and he completes the investigation. Is there any type of criminal
15 process in the Croatian system where you, as the public prosecutor or the
16 municipal prosecutor, can issue a charging document without the
17 investigating judge coming into the arena?
18 A. It is possible. Let me only specify one issue: The
19 investigation is launched on the basis of a request for the conduct of
20 investigation, and the investigation will be closed only once the
21 investigating judge has decided that everything that could be gathered or
22 sufficient evidence has been gathered. And at that point the file goes
23 back to the public prosecutor.
24 I said that this case was possible where the public prosecutor
25 disposes of good-quality material in the criminal report enabling him to
1 proceed and directly issue an indictment. I think that this is valid for
2 all the crimes which incur a maximum sentence of eight years, which could
3 be the subject of direct indictments.
4 During the war, because of the circumstances prevailing at the
5 time, it was possible that the public prosecutor, in respect of each and
6 every crime, regardless of the prescribed maximum sentence, could make
7 such a direct decision to indict, depending, of course, on the material
8 contained in the relevant criminal report.
9 Q. And following up on that, Mr. Galovic: During this time-frame,
10 did you, as the public prosecutor, yourself, or the colleagues that were
11 working for you, did they file indictments or charges in the fashion that
12 you just described?
13 A. Yes, there were such proceedings. I repeat, it always depended
14 on the quality of material we had at our disposal. It boils down to the
15 principle of economy or efficiency, if you have that possibility.
16 Q. Mr. Galovic, let me direct your attention back to the period of
17 time around Operation Storm. I'm talking about July, August, toward the
18 end of 1995.
19 Could you tell the Trial Chamber how many lawyers, attorneys, you
20 had working with you in the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Zadar?
21 A. In my office, in the County Public Prosecutor's Office, there
22 were two.
23 Q. And how big was the rest of the staff, in addition to the two
24 lawyers and yourself?
25 A. If you're asking me about Municipal Public Prosecutor's Offices,
1 and I presume you do, one deputy was assigned to work in Knin. In the
2 Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office in Zadar, together with the
3 municipal public prosecutor, there were eight of them. There was the
4 lady public prosecutor and seven deputies.
5 Q. In page 6 of your statement, you noted the jurisdiction -- the
6 jurisdiction of the State Attorney's Office expanded after
7 Operation Storm. After that expansion of the territory that you were
8 covering, how many investigative judges did you have within this
10 A. Let me try and remember. There was a military prosecutor in
11 Zadar. I think there were other three, although I can't tell you
13 Q. Now, as you know, Operation Storm began on the 4th of August,
14 1995. Did you have any advance warning or knowledge that Operation Storm
15 was going to take place?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I'm a bit confused by the last answer.
17 You were asked about how many investigative judges there were,
18 and part of the answer was:
19 "There was a military prosecutor in Zadar, I think there were
20 other three."
21 Are we talking about investigative judges, or are we military
23 MR. KEHOE: I'll ask him to clarify that.
24 Q. Mr. Galovic, my question to you was how many investigative judges
25 did you have within your expanded territory after Operation Storm, and
1 your answer was:
2 "There was a military prosecutor in Zadar, and I think there
3 were --"
4 A. Not a prosecutor; an investigative judge, a military
5 investigative judge.
6 Q. So that there was a military investigative judge and three other
7 investigative judges?
8 I'm getting some feedback here.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm --
10 MR. KEHOE: Let me try this. Let me try this mike over here.
11 I think that will work, Mr. President. We'll try.
12 Q. Now, the three others that you were talking about, you were
13 talking about three other investigative judges; is that right?
14 A. I'm not certain, but, yes, more or less.
15 Q. Now, going back to my other question about Operation Storm, which
16 took place on the 4th of August, 1995, did you have an advanced warning
17 that Operation Storm was going to take place on the 4th of August of
19 A. No, there was no advanced warning.
20 Q. After Operation Storm, did the work in your office increase?
21 A. At least tenfold, at least.
22 Q. And when you say "tenfold," how long did this increase in work go
23 on, where you say it was a tenfold increase?
24 A. Throughout the period in which the military courts functioned,
25 until they were abolished.
1 Q. Can you give us an approximate date of that? Was it the end of
2 1995, into 1996; when was that?
3 A. Late 1996.
4 Q. Now, did you get any -- I'm sorry.
5 A. Let me add something. After that, all cases from the
6 Military Prosecutor's Office were then transferred to mostly the
7 municipal office, and some of them ended up in my office as well. This
8 included all criminal offences against the Republic of Croatia
9 And to make it clear for you, I'll tell you this: In 1997, when
10 those cases were deferred to us, since we kept records of persons, this
11 included some 10.000 persons. Our ordinary yearly burden or workload
12 would be 100 to 150 persons.
13 Q. Well, to meet this additional burden, Mr. Galovic, did you get
14 additional resources?
15 A. Unfortunately, no. In the meantime, the number of deputies
16 increased. I had one extra deputy. A year later, an additional two
17 arrived, and the same team is at work even today. So five deputies in
18 the crime -- Criminal Offences Department.
19 I can tell you that all that enormous work is behind us now
20 because all those cases fell under the application of the Law on Pardon.
21 However, all those cases had to be checked to see whether they contained
22 the elements of certain crimes which did not fall under that law. Only
23 after having analysed the cases in such a way could we propose those
24 cases to be included under the Law on Pardon.
25 Q. Taking the period after 19 -- after Operation Storm in 1995, with
1 this increased workload you said was tenfold, I mean you said that -- I
2 asked you whether or not your resources were increased, and you gave us
3 some numbers. And my question to that is: Were these increases in
4 resources adequate to meet this additional demand that was being placed
5 on your office?
6 A. It is difficult to answer that -- to that question. I'll tell
7 you this: With additional effort, it was possible.
8 Q. Let's talk a little bit about that effort, and let's talk a
9 little bit about the challenges. I mean, what else did you have to do --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, could I ask some clarification of some of
11 the answers.
12 You said the workload was tenfold. You said a yearly burden was
13 100 to 150 persons, and you were talking about, in 1997, cases deferred
14 to you, 10.000 persons. That seems to be 100 times rather than 10 times,
15 or at least 70 to 100 times. So, therefore, I have difficulties in
16 reconciling when you said it was tenfold, whereas it seems to be far
17 more. Could you explain that.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
19 It is difficult for me to say -- well, let me put it this way:
20 The figures, themselves, do not adequately reflect the increase of
21 workload. When I said "at least tenfold," what I meant was the
22 difficulty in performing the task which, if I can say, we inherited from
23 the Military Prosecutor's Office, in the terms of -- in terms of the
24 cases which fell under the Law on Pardon. That's why I was trying to be
25 cautious and not to deal with the figures which could be terrifying in
1 themselves. But in my approximation, the additional burden was around
2 ten times over.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you earlier used the word "deferred" to you in
4 1997. Do I take it from your last answer that they were deferred from
5 the military prosecutor to your offices?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And that was in 1997?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You said this included offences against the state of
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if you would skip those, so not talk anymore
14 about these type of cases, could you tell us how the workload developed
15 in relation to non-armed rebellion or linked cases? So that is thefts,
16 murders, breaking and entering.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The assessment that -- when I said
18 that the increase was tenfold, it had to do with the municipal offices in
19 Benkovac, Zadar, and Knin. Concerning the County Prosecutor
20 the increase was mainly in terms of the crime of murder, because at that
21 time we had 13 persons, 13 perpetrators, as well as 25 victims in the
22 cases we processed. Before that, annually the rate of murders was five,
23 at the most, if I recall correctly.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
1 MR. KEHOE:
2 Q. Just by way of clarity on the questions Judge Orie was asking
3 you, did this tenfold increase in work begin right after Operation Storm
4 and go from there on into 1995 and 1996?
5 A. Until the end of 1996.
6 Q. Now, let us go back to discussing the additional challenges that
7 your office and the Municipal Prosecutor's Offices had with these
8 increased demands. I mean, what did you do about that, and how did you
9 try to meet these demands?
10 A. There was a horrifying amount of work to be done. For example,
11 in Knin, where I had one deputy, I told him expressly that he should
12 proceed extremely resolutely and efficiently and to bring charges
13 immediately based on what the material he received, since it was possible
14 so as not to prolong any proceedings. Since there was a lot of work to
15 be done, I organised it in such a way that, by way of necessity, he was
16 helped by the personnel from the Zadar office because he was a deputy
17 from Zadar. There was no other way to disseminate work. We, from the
18 county office, helped as well. In any case, the meaning of it all was to
19 deal with this increase promptly. We did our best in doing so, and I can
20 tell you that I personally believe we succeeded to a great extent.
21 Q. And just to clarify this, we're talking about crime -- the
22 tenfold increase after Storm, this tenfold increase, how much of it was
23 related to crimes committed after Operation Storm?
24 A. All of them. All of the cases involved crimes committed after
25 Operation Storm.
1 Q. Now, you just mentioned -- I'm sorry, did I interrupt you?
2 A. I just wanted to say this: I don't know whether you're
3 interested, but I can tell you what position I took concerning the
4 crimes, what were my priorities. I can share that with you, if you wish.
5 Q. Please do.
6 A. My basic principle to make decisions at that time boiled down to
7 promptly processing what could be processed. Specifically, that included
8 the crimes of aggravated theft, theft, robbery, and this did not include
9 murders because that required investigations. But concerning the crimes
10 in which, for example, people were caught with stolen goods, such cases
11 could and were promptly processed.
12 Q. Now, staying with that, sir, I mean, why was that of such an
13 interest to you? Why was this of such an interest to you, to promptly
14 prosecute these theft and aggravated theft crimes with people who were
15 caught with property? Did you have a greater goal in mind? If you can,
16 explain it to us.
17 A. Yes, of course. The situation was simply chaotic. It was
18 necessary for the state, that is to say, for its judiciary, to send out a
19 clear message that such things would not and could not be tolerated.
20 That was what -- that was my driving force. If I tried to recollect that
21 period, I often referred to it as the phenomenon of a stampede. Once the
22 territory was liberated, those who had spent four years as refugees, and
23 those people fell under one category, once they went into their villages
24 they would come across their houses which had been completely looted, and
25 most of them even destroyed or burnt down, they simply set out to get
1 their stuff, as they often said. Their defence usually was that they
2 were not stealing, but getting back what was theirs. Of course, we
3 didn't tolerate that, except in those cases in which that could be
5 The other category, far more dangerous, comprised -- well, I
6 don't know how this would be translated, but scavengers, those who always
7 seized whatever moment or situation they could to loot and take away
8 whatever they could, under any circumstances. I can tell you that they
9 even looted my mother-in-law's weekend home in Karin, although I put a
10 sign on the door saying "Ivan Galovic, county state prosecutor." It
11 didn't help any. I found that sign somewhere in the garden later on, and
12 everything was taken from the house. I don't even know how they managed
13 to do so, given that the door was not a standard one; it is narrow. It
14 all had to be dismantled, taken out.
15 The only solution I saw in such a situation was to have such
16 people processed promptly, so that all of those who did not follow in the
17 same vein, by that point in time would be dissuaded from doing so and
18 that the perpetrators be adequately processed.
19 Q. You were talking about this situation being chaotic, and you
20 referred to your individual situation. And you mentioned that in the
21 village of Karin, you had a sign up in front of the house. What did that
22 sign say?
23 A. It said "Occupied," and the name of a person; probably a JNA
24 officer. And it also said "Mined." Later on, when I checked, I found
25 out that it was not mined, but some houses in Karin were. I believe two
1 looters lost their lives entering one of such houses, because to their
2 misfortune, they entered a house that had been booby-trapped.
3 Q. Mr. Galovic, I was talking about the situation in addition to the
4 item that you just gave us - thank you - but the situation where you said
5 that you had a sign with your name above your mother-in-law's house in
6 Karin, and it was looted anyway?
7 A. Yes. And that sign was taken off the door and thrown into the
8 garden. I found it somewhere in the yard.
9 Q. Were houses around your mother-in-law's house or other buildings
10 around your mother-in-law's house also looted, or was yours the only one?
11 A. They were all looted, including the school building which was
12 right next to my house, although there wasn't much to be taken away from
13 there. Everything was being taken away; toilets, fridges, furniture,
14 anything they could come across; that's why I called it a stampede.
15 Q. Now, in addition to this looting, sir, were houses being burnt by
16 these individuals as well?
17 A. That was the most frequent modus operandi. Once they were done
18 looting, they would set it on fire. In my belief, that was to cover up
19 any traces. For the most part, it was for that reason. There may have
20 been some other motives, but the primary motive was to loot, and then
21 those houses, for the most part, would be set ablaze.
22 When I talk about processing, it was relatively simple to prove
23 that the crime of theft or looting occurred, but it was far more
24 difficult to prove that the perpetrator in the case set the house on
25 fire. A common defence at the time was that they were simply salvaging
1 stuff from the houses which had already been on fire, no matter how
2 ridiculous that sounded. They were saying that they were not looting,
3 but simply saving the items from the houses which were on fire.
4 Q. Mr. Galovic, let me just follow up on one of your answers that
5 you gave. You said:
6 "When I talk about processing, it was relatively simple to prove
7 that the crime of theft or looting occurred, but it was far more
8 difficult to prove that the perpetrator in the case set the house on
10 Can you elaborate on that for us and explain what you mean by
12 A. I can refer you to the data. We had many reports for crimes
13 against general security of people and property. That is the legal
14 qualification. This included arson. We did not know and we could not
15 detect the perpetrators. And in some 40 per cent of the cases, we
16 couldn't even find the victims. We simply didn't know who owned those
17 houses. For the qualification of the act itself, this was not relevant,
18 but it was relevant in terms of the motive and any subsequent legal
19 qualification and any eventual changes to it.
20 Q. Mr. Galovic, in your work as the public prosecutor, was there a
21 relationship between the prosecution of these individuals for theft and
22 the prevention of arson?
23 A. Yes. If you eliminate or take off the scene those who stole,
24 then you would probably eliminate the cause of any further arson, if you
25 understand what I'm saying.
1 Q. Now, with regard to this looting that was taking place and, you
2 know, the burning that was taking place, this Trial Chamber has heard a
3 lot about check-points and police in the area, and police in the area
4 that had the ability to stop this type of crime, to stop looting and
5 burning in these areas. As the public prosecutor, what's your position
6 on that, sir?
7 A. The fact that there were so many criminal reports submitted,
8 which we then processed, speaks to the efficient conduct and work of the
9 police in detecting the perpetrators. However, trying to apprehend all
10 of them, given the size of the territory and given that a great many of
11 those people were -- was domicile population who knew the terrain
12 perfectly well, and they made good use of it, in my view it would have
13 been possible to do more only if we had prevented anyone from entering
14 that area. But you can't do that to a person who had been a refugee for
15 four years and now wanted to go in to see what happened to his or her
16 house. How can you prohibit that from happening? I believe the only way
17 would have been, perhaps, to have a policeman escorting every single one
18 of them to their home and again out of the territory. This is as graphic
19 as I can get.
20 Q. Now, on the looting issue, sir, you noted for us earlier in your
21 testimony that one of the defences that suspects had presented was that
22 they had their own -- what they were taking away was their own goods. Do
23 you recall that?
24 A. Yes. A great many of those people who were arrested at such
25 check-points with stolen goods, for which there were reasonable grounds
1 to believe they had been stolen, would say that that stuff was theirs or
2 that they found them in some abandoned houses or in a neighbourhood,
3 discarded. That was a rule, by way of the explanation they provided as
4 to how they got to that stuff.
5 Q. Well, in investigating their defence that the property they had
6 was theirs, during your investigation did you ever find out that that was
8 A. In several cases, yes. Or better put, we faced the problem of
9 the principle in dubio pro reo. In cases in which we could not prove
10 otherwise, we were forced to accept such defence.
11 Q. Now, one last question, before we change topics, on the actual
12 burning issue. Were you ever in Kistanje after Operation Storm, sir?
13 And if so, when?
14 A. I went through Kistanje on several occasions. The first time, it
15 was when we were establishing the Court and the Prosecutor's Office in
16 Knin. I was driving my deputy there to acquaint him with the nature and
17 the amount of work that was before him. And then a few days -- a few
18 times later, when I went to Knin to undertake supervisory -- supervision
19 of his work.
20 Q. Mr. Galovic, if Operation Storm commenced on the 4th, can you
21 give us an approximate time of your first drive through Knin?
22 Approximately, I'm not looking for an exact date. Sorry, not Knin,
23 Kistanje. Your first drive through Kistanje.
24 A. It must have been between the 10th and the 15th of August.
25 Q. And, Mr. Galovic, can you describe the level of burning that you
1 observed in Kistanje during this time-frame when you drove through?
2 A. At least to the extent of what one could see from the road while
3 passing through the center of town, it did not appear dramatic, unlike
4 Turanj, which is a place near Karlovac, which had the landscape as can be
5 seen on the moon, where everything was torched and razed to the ground.
6 Here, on the other hand, I did not observe anything that would go beyond
7 what one would expect to find in the wake of such an operation. We did
8 not receive a single report on that score in relation to Kistanje. At a
9 later date, perhaps, yes, for Knin.
10 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I'm looking at the clock. I'm about
11 to go into a series of reports with the witness at this juncture. I
12 don't know if this is a propitious time for a break.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is, but I would like to seek one
15 The last question that was put to you, you said you did not
16 observe anything that would go beyond what one would expect to find in
17 the wake of such an operation. Now, could you just give us a -- did you
18 see houses that were burned? And if so, approximately the number that
19 you saw?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I passed along the main road, I
21 could see very few badly-damaged houses. It's been a long time ago, but
22 what I can tell you about - how shall I put it? - with some degree of
23 certainty is that the impression I gained in Kistanje was not to the
24 effect that something out of the ordinary had happened there, or else I
25 would have instructed the police to investigate into that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That still does not answer my question. I asked
2 you: Did you see any burned houses --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- burned to the extent that they could not be used
5 anymore? So not a little bit of fire damage, but just burned houses.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can tell you that there must have
7 been several, but I can't be certain about it because, to go back to the
8 answer which will not prove satisfactory to you, and I'm sorry about
9 that, I did not have the impression that something had happened there
10 which was not to be expected. There were damaged houses, but, in fact,
11 my answer is I can't give you a precise answer. I can only speak in
12 terms of my impressions. I can't tell you how many -- how many of such
13 houses I saw, because I simply did not focus on the issue at the time.
14 What I am sure of is that had it been to the degree that would have been
15 memorable or etched in my memory, I would have noticed it, as I did, in
16 fact, in Turanj and other such places where the extent of damage was that
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you well understood that this is not a real
19 answer to my question.
20 If you don't remember, fine, no problem. Did you see any house
21 which was burned to an extent that it could not be used anymore?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did, I certainly did. But on
23 hearing this question of yours, I'm trying to visualise what I saw at the
24 time, and I'm unable to. It would be ridiculous to say that I didn't see
25 anything of the sort. Unfortunately, I can't recall that scene in
1 Kistanje which would leave the impression of total destruction, whereas
2 I can do that in respect of some other places. I can't give you a better
3 answer. I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But do I understand that you say, I saw at least one
5 house which was burned to such an extent that it could not be used
6 anymore, or do you say, I even don't remember that? Then I'd like to
7 hear it so that --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that the former is true.
9 In fact, I'm sure that the former is true, that I saw at least one house.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And you don't remember whether you saw a second
11 house or a third house which also had been burned to an extent that it
12 couldn't possibly be used anymore?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That I cannot give you a precise
14 answer to. I can't give you an answer in quantitative terms. I can only
15 speak about the impression I gained as I passed through Kistanje, and
16 I can tell you what I saw.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
18 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at quarter past 4.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The request to add 14 exhibits to the 65 ter list is
23 I do understand, Mr. Kehoe, that with some of these documents,
24 you would like to deal with them in a rather exemplary way, just a couple
25 of them, go through them, and then see whether it's necessary to go
1 through all of them. That's an acceptable approach, and we'll see how it
2 works out.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. On that score, Mr. Galovic, we would like to go and discuss for a
6 bit some of your reports to the Ministry of Justice that you discussed
7 previously, and I'd like to bring up 65 ter 1D2749 first.
8 Now, Mr. Galovic, just taking a look at this report dated
9 19 October 1995
10 can you just tell us, initially, why was this report sent?
11 A. In the briefest of terms, because the ministry sought it.
12 Q. And I note that you have a series of these that we will talk
13 about briefly that went to him on approximately a monthly basis. Is that
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Now, in the paragraph that notes criminal offences against life
17 and limb, it notes that:
18 "Criminal charges have been filed against nine persons ..."
19 And the reference is that the criminal offence is under
20 Article 35(1) of the Code. And what is Article 34 -- excuse me, under
21 Article 34 of the Code. What is Article 34?
22 A. It's paragraph 2, item 4, of that article, which is the qualified
23 crime of murder, whereas one of the reports had to do with simple murder
24 or ordinary murder, as it's called, under Article 34(1).
25 Q. If we move to the -- under section -- excuse me. Under the
1 section that's noted for offences -- criminal offences against personal
2 and moral degradation, and number 1 under that heading, we have criminal
3 charges filed against two persons for the criminal offence described in
4 Article 79(1) of the Code. What is Article 79?
5 A. That's the crime of rape. I can see that proceedings were
6 initiated against two individuals who were detained.
7 Q. If we can turn the page in the English, and I believe turning the
8 page in the B/C/S as well, and looking under the heading "Criminal
9 Offences Against Private and Public Property" at the top of the page.
10 Now, before we turn to the actual number of 309, if I could just ask you,
11 Article 127 of paragraph 2 of the Code, and Article 126, could you tell
12 us what those two articles are, respectively?
13 A. 127 is robbery; and 126, aggravated theft.
14 Q. Now, if we look at the number for that paragraph, it notes that
15 criminal charges have been charged against 309 persons for criminal
16 offences, for either robbery or aggravated theft. Of this number, are we
17 talking about unknown perpetrators in this number of 309 or known
19 Mr. President, I don't know if we're getting translation. Let me
20 just ask again.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please repeat your question.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
23 Q. With regard to this number of 309, Mr. Galovic, are we talking
24 about charges filed against unknown perpetrators or known perpetrators?
25 A. All of them were known. All the individuals were known,
2 Q. Now, of this 309 people, does this number include charges filed
3 against individuals who are claiming the status or who at one time were
4 in the HV?
5 A. No. As far as I know, the answer is "no".
6 Q. Now, can you, in this system -- so with regard to the
7 individuals, this 309 people, there were people that were out of the HV,
8 or what was their status of this 309 people, if you know?
9 A. In these reports?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. These relate to civilians only. Had they -- or were they
12 military personnel, then the report would have been filed with the
13 military prosecutor.
14 Q. Let me stay with that for one moment with regard to civilian
15 status. And you had Home Guard units that were moving out of the area.
16 Did you have some distinction between individuals who were HV soldiers or
17 who were back at home, and what status they had, when you made a decision
18 how to charge them?
19 A. It depended on the circumstances involved. The rule of thumb was
20 that an individual, including military personnel, committed a crime, and
21 if that person ceased being a member of the military, then the civilian
22 court and not the military court had jurisdiction over it. It is
23 possible, therefore, that certain individuals who committed crimes as
24 military personnel, and were in the meantime demobilised, then they
25 became -- or fell under the jurisdiction of a civilian court or a
1 municipal court.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
3 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, at page 41, line 7, the witness, I
4 believe in Croatian, added something with respect to the time-frame as to
5 when the person ceased being a member of the military, and if that could
6 perhaps be clarified.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, we're not certain that we had the whole
8 of your answer translated. You said:
9 "The rule of thumb was that an individual, including military
10 personnel, committed a crime, and a court, not the military court, had
11 jurisdiction over it.
12 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I believe you missed a line there,
13 line 7.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm sorry:
15 " ... committed a crime, and if that person ceased being a member
16 of the military, then the civilian court and not the military court had
17 jurisdiction over it."
18 Is part of your answer missing, especially in relation to when
19 the person ceased being a member of the military?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, it's the military
21 court which has jurisdiction over military personnel. However, in the
22 event where such a serviceman ceased being a member of the army before
23 the indictment is issued, then it is the civilian court which has
24 jurisdiction over that person.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That apparently clarifies the issue.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
2 MR. KEHOE:
3 Q. So going back to the -- just clarifying this, within this, for
4 instance, 309 people who had charges filed against them, did that include
5 a soldier who may have been arrested for looting while he was in the HV,
6 demobilised, and then the charges were filed? Would it include a person
7 like that?
8 A. As far as I know, that was not the case, although it is possible.
9 And I can give you a negative answer to a pretty high degree of
11 Q. Let me just ask you some further explanation on the difference
12 between -- before we move on on this, on the difference between robbery
13 and aggravated larceny. Could you give us what the legal distinction is
14 between Article 126, aggravated larceny, and robbery in Article 127?
15 A. Simple theft or aggravated theft is a property crime, whereas
16 robbery is a complex crime consisting of theft and force.
17 Q. Okay, sir. Let us continue on with this report. And if we could
18 move down to the next section, which notes the criminal offences against
19 general safety of people and property, and it notes that two people --
20 charges were filed against two people for Article 155(1) in connection
21 with Article 146(1). Could you explain that for us, sir?
22 A. That is the instance of setting houses on fire, and the two
23 persons are the perpetrators.
24 Q. Now, can you just explain, just briefly, the connection between
25 Article 155 and 146, as it's set forth in there?
1 A. Article 146 provides for the simple crime, and Article 155 is the
2 qualified crime, crime qualified by the property-related damage. In
3 other words, when talking about arson, it relates to the extent of
4 damage. This is the briefest of explanation I can provide.
5 Q. And I think if we go into the other criminal offences, and then
6 the latter two pages we have a set of more -- any number of articles,
7 Mr. President, they really are of very little consequence.
8 The total, of course, at the bottom, you note that for this
9 time-frame in the totals, criminal charges have been filed against
10 364 persons, and, in number 4, it is indictments were raised against
11 182 persons.
12 Your Honour, at this time we'll offer into evidence 65 ter
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1554.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. KEHOE:
20 Q. Now, you explained this to us briefly earlier today about, you
21 know, theft crimes and arson crimes. And as we look at these reports, I
22 mean, there are any number of theft crimes that you've charged, many of
23 them with -- excuse me, if I can. There were 309 charged with theft
24 crimes, and only two charged with arson charges. Is that an example of
25 what you were talking about, the difficulties with charging arson, as
1 opposed to theft crimes?
2 A. Precisely so. This transpires from the figures, themselves. It
3 was relatively easy to prove theft, and it was almost impossible to
4 detect most of the perpetrators of arson.
5 Q. Let us move to the next document, which is 65 ter 1D2750. This
6 is a report from the 23rd of November, 1995.
7 Now, correct me, Mr. Galovic, if I'm reading this wrong. Is
8 this -- and if we look at the general outset of this report from the
9 23rd of November, 1995, to the Ministry of Justice, under the criminal
10 offences against private and public property, it notes that -- well,
11 actually before then, the paragraph, it said:
12 "With respect to the information delivered in our report of
13 19 October 1995
14 And under the crimes for -- against private and public property,
15 you have filed against 705 persons. Now, these individual crimes, sir,
16 these crimes against public property under Article 127 and 126, was this
17 basically the largest -- was this basically the largest problem you had
18 in the area, or the largest part of your caseload, dealing with these
19 types of larcenist offences and robberies?
20 A. Correct. Not only was this the major problem, it also further
21 complicated the situation by being the generator of all the subsequent
22 crimes. The instances -- the high instances of theft engendered new
24 For instance, if an individual was caught in a house where theft
25 was committed, unfortunately such a person -- if the person happened to
1 be in a house where theft was committed, the person was quite often
2 either injured or killed. In all the cases where this could be
3 prevented, it was done so. I would be happy to tell you that the
4 practice was more successful than it was, but unfortunately it wasn't.
5 Q. Now, tell me, sir, when you saw this increase in these types of
6 theft and robbery crimes, was it -- were you presented with defences by
7 the perpetrators, such as, Well, we were just conducting mop-up
8 operations, or, We were out in the field in the end of August doing
9 mop-up operations? Did you get that defence? And we're talking about --
10 I'm looking at these reports going into the latter part of 1995.
11 A. Yes. In fact, there were frequent cases where such individuals
12 tried to account for their conduct, which I called bestial in many
13 instances, and I stand by that, by cushioning it into some sort of
14 patriotism or duty, where in fact it constituted the worst possible type
15 of criminality, and that's how I treated it.
16 Q. And when you say that you treated it in that fashion, what, as
17 the public prosecutor, did you do?
18 A. I brought charges in such a way that the contents of the
19 indictment made it quite clear who the criminals were and of what type.
20 In my mind, these were qualified murders for which the maximum sentence
21 prescribed was that of 20 years of imprisonment. We didn't have any
22 higher sentences under the legislation of the time. And I believe that
23 to be an adequate response by the state to that sort of conduct.
24 Q. Let us briefly just touch on two more, and we'll move away from
25 this subject, on these reports.
1 And if we could turn to 65 ter 1D2751.
2 I'm sorry, did I not offer that? If I could offer into evidence
3 65 ter 1D2750.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1555.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 If we can move just briefly to the next document, as I noted,
10 65 ter 1D2751.
11 Q. Mr. Galovic, as you can see, this is your report of 17 -- excuse
12 me, 12 February 1996
14 "Please find enclosed the requested information for the period
15 after the military Operation Storm, including 7 February 1996."
16 And you note that from the -- let's see, 1.219 persons reported,
17 according to the types of defences, then you list the offences that were
18 charged, including 1.150 offences. Now, up through this report, these
19 were running totals, were they not, from Operation Storm up through
20 7 February 1996
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we'll offer into evidence
23 65 ter 1D2751.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1556.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. KEHOE: And the last one on this score that we'll discuss in
4 court here, Mr. President, is 1D2752, a report of 4 March 1996.
5 Q. Mr. Galovic, this is another one of your reports again to the
6 Ministry of Justice, and the difference on this report, if you look at
7 the time-frame, this is -- you say:
8 "Please find enclosed the requested information for the period of
9 time from 8 February, to 29 February 1996
10 on 149 persons.
11 So from that report on, we're just talking about that particular
12 time sequence; is that right?
13 You're shaking your head, but --
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time we will offer into evidence
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1557.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
21 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, just seeking your guidance, I chatted
22 just briefly during the break, and with no objection from the
23 Prosecution, we do have a sequence of reports from Mr. Galovic going to
24 the Ministry of Defence that were part of that bundle -- excuse me,
25 Ministry of Justice, part of the bundle of documents that were part of
1 our 65 ter motion. I don't know if it's more expeditious to just read
2 out the 1D numbers and have them admitted at this juncture, or we'll
3 follow Your Honour's guidance.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that Mr. Registrar will -- since -- these
5 are all the 14 or the 13 that appear on your list?
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That way you indicated that you will seek leave to
8 add, and has meanwhile now been granted. I suggest that Mr. Registrar
9 will prepare numbers for those we have not yet dealt with, and that we
10 then avoid reading long numbers at this moment.
11 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll move on. We can take
12 care of numbers at the break with the Registrar.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. KEHOE: And we can move on to the last bit of the
16 Q. Mr. Galovic, I would like to talk to you a little bit about this
17 Varivode and Gosici investigation that begins in your report in 6 --
18 page 6 of -- not your report, your statement, D1553. And in your
19 statement, you discuss the incidents of Varivode and Gosici.
20 Just preliminarily, Mr. Galovic, can you explain to the
21 Trial Chamber why these incidents were prosecuted in a civilian justice
22 system and not a military justice system?
23 A. Because we treated those persons as civilians at the time of
24 prosecution. This was never in dispute. This is an issue of
25 subject-matter jurisdiction, and this is what the Court took care of.
1 This was never in dispute, and I can explain to you why it was so, as
2 well as why it was processed the way it was.
3 Q. Could you do so, sir, could you explain it?
4 A. A group of persons was involved which, in a rather large area,
5 although I'm not familiar with it in geographical terms, but I know which
6 locations it includes, were robbing and killing civilians. Since
7 Operation Storm had been completed quite some time before that, they
8 could not have been in that area for any military tasks. They were doing
9 this of their own accord, and this was proven by all the evidence
10 involved. This was not in question.
11 The crimes they committed were qualified as aggravated murders.
12 Two of them were charged with 16 qualified murders each, so there was a
13 total of 32 murders, seven plus nine, because there were two -- the two
14 of them were both in Varivode and Gosici. Seven in Gosici; nine in
15 Varivode; that's 16 for each of them. So 32 murders is what they were
16 charged with, and then including -- as for the other indictees, they were
17 charged with those murders that they participated in. I don't think we
18 could have dealt with the issue in a more qualified or rigorous manner.
19 I don't know whether you wish to ask me anything else. Perhaps
20 you can ask me specific questions, and I can be as specific as you want
21 me to.
22 Q. This group that was committing these crimes, I mean, how large
23 was this group of people? You talked to us previously about a group, and
24 I refer you to page 49, line 15. It says:
25 "A group of persons was involved which, in a rather large area,
1 I'm not familiar with it in geographical terms ..."
2 And I'm talking about the groups of persons. How large was this
3 group that was committing these crimes?
4 A. As for the -- for the known perpetrators, there were seven or
5 eight of them. There was indicia that there were several other persons
6 included in the group, but up to that point in time we were unable to
7 determine that. What we could ascertain is what we included in the
8 indictment and processed, five of them for Gosici, four for Varivode, out
9 of which two occur in the first group as well, so a total of seven
10 accused; one who killed a person in Zrmanja, that's eight. I think
11 that's it.
12 Q. Now, we've been talking about murders for this group. Did your
13 investigation reveal that these individuals were committing crimes other
14 than murders?
15 A. One couldn't talk of other crimes because the crimes, themselves,
16 were qualified as aggravated murders, murders for gain, motivated by
17 acquiring illegal gain. Specifically, this was simply taking away
18 anything that they could get to; a calf, a sheep, a lamb, a car, a
19 hunting rifle, depending on what it is that they found. They were simply
20 roaming about the area for about a month, pillaging and committing a
21 series of grave crimes. That was the result of our investigation, based
22 on which we brought charges. The Court joined three of our indictments,
23 that is to say, three proceedings which, in the investigation phase, were
24 separate. They were subsequently joined in trial, which confirms that
25 this involved a rather compact group. However, to my astonishment and
1 very unpleasant surprise, the Court acquitted them of the most serious of
2 crimes. Some of them were deemed guilty for individual murders, but as
3 regards the most difficult and serious crimes in Gosici and Varivode,
4 they were acquitted.
5 After that, the County Prosecutor
6 judgment and took it to the Supreme Court because of the erroneous
7 factual basis. The Supreme Court accepted that appeal, and it quashed
8 that part of the judgement, as well as repealing their appeal grounds in
9 terms of the first-instance court decision, and they also rejected parts
10 of our appeal which had to do with certain crimes encompassed by those
11 indictments and concerning our appeal because of the sentence they
12 received. We, as a matter of principle, appealed against the sentences
13 pronounced in such crimes. Sometimes we were successful, but more
14 frequently not so, unfortunately.
15 What I need to state is that the decision of the Supreme Court
16 was a confirmation that we did our work properly, that we qualified those
17 crimes properly, and that there was a sound basis for our indictments.
18 And in the new proceedings, I must confess, I expected that they would be
20 In the meantime, there was a change in territorial jurisdiction,
21 and that case -- or those cases ended up in Sibenik.
22 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, the case is still outstanding, and if
23 we could move into private session for one moment.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 19706-19709 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
21 MR. KEHOE:
22 Q. Mr. Galovic, we talked about Official Notes from the police that
23 are part of the file that you use, and we also talked about the Gosici
24 and Varivode killings. And I'd just like to show you several
25 Official Notes from the police, starting with D1544, marked for
1 identification, which is an Official Note of an interview of
2 Ivica Petric, 16 October 1995
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, these, in fact, are one of the
4 witnesses that the Defence had listed in their list of --
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could we briefly go into private session.
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 19712-19713 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
9 Just by way of clarity, I just want to ensure that the Chamber
10 knows that we are not going to call all of the witnesses that were on
11 that list that we had provided previously. I think that, you know, we
12 had made that submission before, so I want that to be clear, so the
13 Chamber has an understanding, because, as you know, from the submission
14 made, we intend to finish shortly after the break. So I don't want to
15 get sidetracked on that.
16 Q. So just turning to this document, Mr. Galovic, this is an
17 Official Note of Mr. Petric.
18 And if we can go to the next page, if we can just page through
20 As you can see on page 2, there is a discussion of Cakici on the
21 next paragraph.
22 If we can go to the next page.
23 Again, discussions by Mr. Petric of stealing sheep with
24 Mr. Perkovic, and going to the old man's house in Zrmanja. I mean, this
25 particular document -- this document, was that in the files of the Office
1 of the Prosecutor, and was it used in making a decision whether or not to
2 pursue the investigation against this crew that had committed these
3 murders in Gosici, Varivode and Zrmanja, and Cakici too?
4 A. Let me be more precise. Of course we had the material, because
5 it was on the basis of that material that we, in the Prosecutor's Office,
6 decided whether we had elements for a criminal investigation. This
7 meant, of course, the filing for an investigation and the filing of the
8 indictment subsequently. Yes, this is the material that we drew upon in
9 prosecuting these individuals, among other things.
10 Q. Well, let's go -- continue on with the next one, which is yet
11 another -- this is D145 [sic] that's MFI'd. It's another Official Note
12 of Mr. Petric, dated 17 October -- excuse me, "1545," did I say that?
13 D1545, MFI
14 Mr. Galovic, again looking at this particular document, as with
15 the other one, is this another item that would have been in your file
16 that you drew upon to decide whether or not to pursue this investigation?
17 A. Yes. By its very nature, it is the material contained in our
18 file which is the supporting documentation to the criminal report. The
19 police files the criminal report with a public prosecutor's office with
20 all the supporting documentation which provided the basis for us, first,
21 for investigations, then for the indictment, and ultimately for our
22 appeal, in which we were successful. If we go through it and read it
23 carefully, you will see that the gist of it is precisely what I was
24 referring to, what sort of individuals these were and what they were
25 doing on the ground.
1 Q. To -- I'm going to try to go through a series of documents right
2 now, Mr. Galovic, all related in the same time-frame, and just showing
3 you each one, as opposed to doing them one at a time, if I can. It might
4 expedite matters, but I will have one question similar to that last
5 question concerning all of them, and I think this might expedite, things,
6 Mr. President.
7 And if we can turn to D1540, which is an Official Note of 12 --
8 1540, MFI
10 And, Mr. Galovic, just for the record, you viewed these documents
11 in our office before you came in here today, did you not?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. KEHOE: I can turn to the next one, which is -- I'm sorry.
14 It is 65 ter 1D2730, and this is yet another Official Note by Mr. Rasic,
15 by the police, where Mr. Rasic talks about the murders in Zrmanja.
16 Mr. President, if I could have an MFI number for this at this
17 juncture. If we can just MFI
18 Mr. President, so 65 ter --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one which is not yet in the series.
20 MR. KEHOE: That's correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes marked for
23 identification as D1567.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just take a moment to
25 address this Court?
1 We have received two information sheets, supplementary
2 information sheets, as to what information this witness has provided in
3 the course of the proofing sessions, and none of these notes, in fact,
4 indicate that this witness was shown these documents and what he has, in
5 fact, said about those documents in the course of the proofing sessions.
6 And I believe the proofing session -- the notes are to give us notice as
7 to what, in fact, has -- what information the witness has provided in
8 relation to documents shown to him, so perhaps -- but Mr. Kehoe can tell
9 me --
10 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, number 1, it's in his statement
11 concerning this entire matter. Number 2, I gave notice to the
12 Prosecution that we were going to use these documents in discussions with
13 Mr. Galovic.
14 If I may, we have a series of documents on page 8 of the
15 statement. But, you know, in any event, Mr. President, this is the
16 subject of discussion that goes on, on numerous pages in the statement
17 concerning the -- Gosici and Varivode. And if we look at the pages,
18 themselves, we start on page 6, 7, going back over into 8, where those
19 are all issues that are referred to in some length by the witness. So I
20 don't know what else the Prosecution wants by way of a supplemental
21 information sheet. Certainly, these documents weren't a surprise.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, that wasn't my point. My point
24 was Mr. Kehoe's question indicated that the notes had been shown to the
25 witness either yesterday or today. That's, as I recall, what I gathered.
1 And, in fact, the statement has been compiled much before, not yesterday
2 or today. So my point was that there's no reference whatsoever in the
3 supplemental note of the discussions relating to Varivode and Gosici, in
4 relation to these notes. That was my point.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record now. Any consequence, in your
6 view, to be attached to what you've just said?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, I just wanted to place it
8 on record.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's on the record.
10 I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Kehoe. How much time would you
11 still need? Could we --
12 MR. KEHOE: I simply have, Mr. President, these particular -- the
13 rest of these exhibits just to show the witness and say, Take through the
14 sequence and say was this part -- I was just going to show them one by
15 one and then just ask an overall question concerning these Official Notes
16 being part of the file when you were making a decision to pursue an
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, would there be -- are these some
19 of the series we have already, or are these new ones?
20 MR. KEHOE: These are all the same series, Mr. President. The
21 last one is the only one that had not been in the series to date.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Wouldn't it be a practical way to proceed is
23 that Mr. Kehoe puts to the witness whether he has seen, prior to giving
24 testimony, statements given by this person, that person, that person, and
25 then to put his question in relation to that, rather than to show it to
1 him, he'll then say, Yes, and then --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I agree, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, let's try to resolve it in a practical
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
6 Q. No, Mr. -- just going through the rest of these, Mr. Galovic,
7 have you seen Official Notes by Mr. Nikola Rasic, Zlatko Ladovic,
8 Zeljko Mijic, Milenko Hrstic.
9 A. Hrstic.
10 Q. Right. That's the only Croatian name I can't get right. That
11 was a private joke. Hrstic. Those are -- all of those, sir, have you
12 seen those and reviewed those, and were they part of your file, and did
13 you take those into consideration to determine whether or not you were
14 going to pursue an investigation?
15 A. Of course. They were part of my file. All of them were part of
16 the file on the basis of which we took our decisions.
17 Q. One last question, sir. And you mentioned some of this in your
18 statement. But specifically, has anyone ever told you not to prosecute a
19 crime, when you were acting as the public prosecutor? Has anybody told
20 you or ordered you not to prosecute someone for a crime?
21 A. Never. To me, never. I don't really know -- I can't even
22 picture what that sort of situation would be, where somebody would ask me
23 to do that, and I can tell you that nobody ever dared tell me to take
24 decisions that would in any way go out of what was prescribed by the law.
25 And I can tell you that all the decisions I made, I made them
2 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. Galovic.
3 I have no further questions, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
5 I'd like to put on the record that the Chamber received an
6 internal memorandum sent by Mr. Monkhouse, copied to the parties, in
7 which he deals with the decision of this Chamber to assign numbers to the
8 series of documents. The numbers are assigned as follows: 65 ter
9 number 1D2753 up to and including 1D2761 have been assigned Exhibit D1558
10 up to and including D1566.
11 And there were these other reports sent by the witness to the
12 Ministry of Justice. There were no objections, Ms. Mahindaratne?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, no objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, D1558 up to and including D1566 is
15 admitted into evidence.
16 There are still two Bar table documents pending, I think, from
17 the Prosecution. Mr. Hedaraly.
18 MR. HEDARALY: That is correct, Mr. President. Mr. Waespi,
19 yesterday, indicated that transcript reference 19651, lines 17 and 18,
20 his intention to Bar table two documents. Those are 65 ter 343 and
21 65 ter 3183. A copy has been given to the Defence, and that those will
22 get back to us today.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yeah, I was a little tied up this morning, so --
24 JUDGE ORIE: So they'll hear from you at a later stage.
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is now on the record that they have been
2 tendered from the Bar table.
3 MR. HEDARALY: Just so that we don't have problems as we had in
4 the past, can we just could assign them a number, so that they don't fall
5 through the cracks.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Mr. Registrar, numbers for 65 ter 343 and 65 ter 3183.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 343 will become
9 Exhibit P2566. And 65 ter 3183 will become Exhibit P2567.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And pending a decision on admission, they are
12 Could I already inquire with the other Defence teams, how much
13 time they will need?
14 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I will require no more than
15 20 minutes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty minutes.
17 And the Markac Defence?
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, no more than ten minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five
20 minutes to 6.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, you'll now be cross-examined by
24 Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
25 Please proceed, Ms. Higgins.
1 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Cross-examination by Ms. Higgins:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Galovic.
4 A. Good afternoon.
5 Q. I'd like to start by asking you to clarify just a few points of
6 procedural law concerning the investigation of crime, given your position
7 as the Zadar county prosecutor.
8 If we go back to the point at which a crime has been committed,
9 after the commission of that crime, at the preliminary inquiry stage,
10 would it be right to say that it is the crime police who have the
11 responsibility to conduct informal investigations, or perhaps more
12 accurately the detection of crime?
13 A. Yes, that's the fundamental role of the crime investigation
15 Q. Now, once a crime has come to the notice of a prosecutor, is it
16 also right that under the Law of Criminal Procedure, he then, or she, has
17 an obligation to direct those preliminary inquiries? And I think it's
18 Article 41, if that assists you.
19 A. Definitely. It would be properly termed if we said that the
20 public prosecutor directed those activities, while the predominant role
21 is played by the crime investigation police, if the public prosecutor so
23 Q. Thank you. Is it accurate to say that the public prosecutor,
24 under the Criminal Procedure Code, is the only person who can request
25 that a judicial investigation into a crime be conducted?
1 A. Correct. For all the crimes which are prosecuted ex officio, the
2 public prosecutor is the only individual who can request that an
3 investigation be launched. Where a public prosecutor decides that there
4 are insufficient elements for the proceedings to be initiated, that
5 particular role can be taken over by the injured party or the victim.
6 Q. And to follow through the procedure, the prosecution's request is
7 then submitted to the investigating judge of the court that has
8 jurisdiction; correct?
9 A. Correct, the investigating judge who has both territorial and
10 subject-matter jurisdiction.
11 Q. And just as a further point of clarification, it's the
12 investigating judge who is the only person, under the Law on
13 Criminal Procedure, who can issue a ruling for an investigation to be
14 conducted; would that be accurate?
15 A. Correct, the only person who can issue a ruling for an
16 investigation to be conducted. However, where the investigating judge
17 does not agree with the position taken by the public prosecutor, the
18 panel will decide on the matter, a panel of judges.
19 Q. And once the investigating judge has ruled that there shall be a
20 formal investigation, would it be accurate to describe that investigation
21 as a court procedure conducted by the Court, itself?
22 A. Correct. That's the formal judicial procedure.
23 Q. And to put it in a final context, is it right that the
24 responsibility to formally investigate crimes lies both with the
25 prosecution and with the investigating judge, both of whom use the
1 police, of course, to conduct the work that needs to be done?
2 A. Actually, that's not the case. The formal aspect of the court
3 procedure lies in the hands of the investigating judge. The public
4 prosecutor may, through his activity and constructive work, assist that
5 an error is not made. He has -- of course, although the investigating
6 judge has the ability to resort to certain remedies to rectify any such
8 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now, as a county-level
9 prosecutor, the level of crime that you were dealing with is that you
10 would have been involved in the investigation and the prosecution of
11 criminal offences which may be punished by imprisonment of more than
12 ten years? Is that the right level of crime?
13 A. Yes. Let me just add that in addition to the fact that it had to
14 be within the jurisdiction of the County Public Prosecutor's Office, or,
15 rather, the County Court, that all these crimes for which the sentence
16 higher than ten for years of imprisonment is prescribed, and also for
17 those crimes which under the law had to be tried before a county court,
18 regardless of the sentence the crime incurs.
19 Q. Now, in your position as the county prosecutor of Zadar, just so
20 that we have an impression of your daily work and the sort of documents
21 that you would come across and have access to for review, could you
22 confirm for me that those documents would include the following:
23 Firstly, criminal reports, crime reports?
24 A. Of course. This is how the procedure is envisaged: The criminal
25 report is filed slowly with the public prosecutor. In the cases where
1 the criminal report is filed by the police, which is most often the case,
2 it has to contain all the elements that will enable the public prosecutor
3 to take an adequate decision. If the public prosecutor is not satisfied
4 with the quality of the report and the information contained therein, he
5 or she may seek an additional inquiry or an on-site investigation either
6 from the police or from the public prosecutor, depending on his
7 discretion as to where better-quality information would come from, and of
8 course he can attend to certain matters on his own.
9 Q. Now, you would also have had access to Official Notes and, in
10 fact, all documents relating to the judicial investigation, because you
11 would have been involved in the investigation from the start; is that
13 A. That's correct. The police is duty-bound to forward all the
14 material it has to the state or public prosecutor.
15 Q. And, again, so that we understand the width and breadth of your
16 remit as a county prosecutor, is it also accurate to say that you had the
17 right to oversee the work of the municipal prosecutor, as he or she would
18 also report to you?
19 A. Under the Law on Public Prosecutors' Offices, senior public
20 prosecutor, and that would be me in relation to the Municipal Public
21 Prosecutor's Offices, I had the overseeing role, and I am entitled to
22 take away any files from municipal public prosecutors I deem not -- who
23 are not doing their job well. I can transfer cases from one municipal
24 public prosecutor to another. I am entitled to oversee the work of
25 municipal public prosecutors. In fact, I am duty-bound to do that, since
1 the quality of my work is dependent upon it as well.
2 Q. Now, I understand from your statement and the evidence that you
3 have given today that after Operation Storm, the territorial jurisdiction
4 of the Zadar County Court was substantially increased, and you have
5 already cited the municipalities to which that jurisdiction extended.
6 Having briefly covered the range of documents that you had access to, and
7 the territory of which we are aware from your evidence, are you able to
8 estimate for us the number of case files that you would have reviewed in
9 the first three months, let's say, after Operation Storm?
10 A. You mean I, personally?
11 Q. You, personally, if you can say. And if you can give a figure
12 for your office, then please do so.
13 A. Due to the circumstances, the way I worked was that in this way
14 or another, I participated in almost every case, or, rather, in every
15 serious case where public prosecutors consulted with me. In the cases
16 where they found certain matters to be disputable or controversial, I
17 would be the last instance to make a decision, to make a ruling on that
19 As for the number, it is very difficult to give you the number,
20 because the number of cases was very high. We do have registers that
21 would provide you with correct information. In fact, the records that I
22 submitted here, which we sent to the ministry, indicate the high number
23 of cases worked on in that period.
24 Q. From what you had read and seen in your professional position,
25 are you able to identify for us any key reasons as to why individuals
1 were committing crimes in the period immediately after Operation Storm?
2 A. If you want me to answer the question, I have to go back to the
3 beginning, i.e., the year 1991, where, in the area where Operation Storm
4 took place, almost 100 per cent of the Croat population was driven out
5 of, their population was either looted or destroyed. For a period of
6 four years, these individuals were torn from their previous lives and led
7 a surrogate life, if I can put it that way. They were accommodated in
8 hotels. This was a cause of terrible frustration for them. I can say
9 that generations were destroyed -- generations of people were destroyed
10 simply by the fact that they were accommodated and given a life that they
11 were not accustomed to. I'm especially referring to the younger
12 generations here. They led a different sort of life and different sort
13 of customs, and then abruptly they were taken to a new environment. And
14 I'm referring to the rural-urban conflict. This situation did result in
15 the rise of criminality and drug abuse, et cetera, et cetera.
16 Now, in 1995, when this same area was liberated and these
17 individuals were given the opportunity to go back and see what remained
18 of their earlier lives, if anything, this necessarily resulted in a
19 shock. This prompted a phenomenon which was no longer stoppable. I
20 don't even have to tell you that we have similar situations in natural
21 disasters, such as floods, et cetera.
22 Under such circumstances, two categories of people emerged who
23 committed crimes. I think I referred to that earlier. The first
24 category is made up of ordinary criminals who lived for crime and by
25 crime. They were, in fact, the most dangerous sort of people. Now, the
1 second category, and mind you, I am not justifying them, I'm trying to
2 understand them, constituted a people who had lost everything and who
3 believed that they had the natural right to take that back, to reclaim
4 what was theirs. Of course, it was a crime that they committed.
5 Still, all these elements are relevant for deliberation and
6 ultimately for adjudication. That would be it.
7 I don't know if you have anything else that you'd like me to tell
9 But let me just say this: When we referred to check-points, it
10 was simply impossible to prevent people from going back into the area
11 en masse. You were not able to stop someone who wanted to see their
13 Let me tell you that this population -- there was also another
14 category of people who had their parents living in the area and had now
15 taken them into their flats in towns, et cetera, and they also wanted to
16 go back and see what had happened to their estate. This produced a spate
17 of people that nobody was able to control. I even dare say that under
18 the circumstances and with the resources we had at our disposal, we did
19 the maximum we could do. One could certainly not do more.
20 MS. HIGGINS: Mr. Galovic, thank you very much for that
22 Your Honour, I don't actually have any more questions for
23 Mr. Galovic, although I should bring to the Court's attention that the
24 first stage of my questioning was based on the Law on Criminal Procedure,
25 which is not currently in evidence before the Court. It is 65 ter 3423
1 and exists at the moment in partial translation form. It's a Prosecution
2 document. We had requested the relevant sections to be translated, and
3 that had been completed. And in my submission, it would be a helpful
4 exercise for the Law, as it exists currently, to be exhibited.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You say "as it exists currently." That's the
6 present state of the legislation or --
7 MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry. No, let me clarify. In terms of how it
8 exists, in the sense of we only have translated portions of it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, that's -- then I take it that it could be
10 a joint submission by the parties, I take it.
11 Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry.
13 JUDGE ORIE: There's one article you specifically refer to.
14 That's Article 41, I think.
15 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that already available in --
17 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, it is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So that we could, for a better understanding of the
19 testimony, we could already have a look at it, either by putting it on
20 the ELMO, because I do understand that finally we'll get all the relevant
21 portions in translation.
22 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, it would also assist the Court as an
23 aide-memoire. I'm very happy to produce just a very simple table which
24 illustrates where the points which I have made come from in the Law to
25 assist Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You mean not a formal tendering, just --
2 MS. HIGGINS: Just to assist the Bench.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that would be helpful. And if, in one
4 way or another, we could already have a look at Article 41, then that
5 would be appreciated.
6 MS. HIGGINS: Indeed.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Markac Defence ready?
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, you'll now be examined by
10 Mr. Kuzmanovic, who is counsel for Mr. Markac.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:
14 Q. Mr. Galovic, you became district public prosecutor in Zadar on 28
15 December of 1990, and your territory, at least at the time of the
16 beginning of the war in Croatia
17 and Biograd na Moru; correct?
18 A. Only in Zadar.
19 Q. And at least during the war --
20 A. Sorry. In Benkovac, too. In Zadar and Benkovac.
21 Q. When the war began, Benkovac was occupied and became part of the
22 RS -- ARSK, correct, or RSK; correct? Yes?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So the territory that you had, at least during the time of the
25 occupied part of Croatia
1 occupied and the Adriatic Sea; correct? And what I'm getting at is:
2 When Operation Storm occurred, you had already discussed how large your
3 territory became, you basically had the same resources you were using
4 after Operation Storm as you had before; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, the territory that your office covered after
7 Operation Storm, through and including September 27th of 1997, when your
8 territorial jurisdiction changed, included all the way up to the state
9 border with Bosnia and Herzegovina; correct?
10 A. On the one hand, all the way to the border with Bosnia and
12 Korana Bridge
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. The entire area of Lika, save for what remained within the
15 jurisdiction of Gospic, and the Sinj area, save for what later on became
16 the jurisdiction of Sibenik. The boundary is -- or, rather, the border
17 you refer to is on the eastern side.
18 Q. So essentially you had all of what was then at one time called
19 "Sector South "by the United Nations under your jurisdiction after
20 Operation Storm?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Even part of Sector North, which included up to Korenica;
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Now, included, obviously, there were Knin, Gracac, and
1 Donji Lapac within your jurisdiction after Operation Storm; correct?
2 A. Yes, all of it.
3 Q. Now, what I'd like to ask you: Specifically, in your work as the
4 district public prosecutor over this -- with jurisdiction over this
5 territory, I would like to know, from your recollection and your work
6 during that time-frame, whether any members of the Special Police of the
7 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia
8 your attention, as a public prosecutor, having conducted burnings or
9 lootings in the territory within your jurisdiction.
10 A. No, I did not receive a single report against members of the
11 Special Police. I had a case involving a policeman in Knin who was
12 charged with murder of two old women. There may have been others against
13 policemen, but not the Special Police.
14 Q. With respect to your role as a district public prosecutor during
15 this time-frame, and what I mean is the time-frame when your
16 jurisdiction -- up until your jurisdiction was changed in September of
17 1997, did you ever have an occasion in which the criminal police or
18 police who are assisting you had ever obstructed any investigation that
19 you wanted to conduct?
20 A. That was out of the question. They were unable to, and that was
21 simply out of the question, that they would obstruct me. They were
22 duty-bound to report to me on the activities undertaken by them. I
23 cannot simply imagine a situation where they would obstruct me in my
25 Q. Did you ever run into an occasion during this time-frame in which
1 the police were obstructing other members of the police, among
3 A. No. To the best of my recollection, there weren't any such
4 cases. I have to emphasise that throughout the time, I had exceptionally
5 good cooperation with the police. In saying that, I mean that they
6 report to me, consulted me, and asked me for advice on all matters.
7 Q. You were asked by Mr. Kehoe a question about whether anyone had
8 ever directed you not to conduct an investigation, and I'd like to get
9 more specific about that question.
10 My question to you is: During the time-frame in which your
11 jurisdiction included -- until your jurisdiction changed in September of
12 1997, did any member of the Croatian government, the Croatian Special --
13 the Ministry of Interior Special Police, or any government or military
14 official ever direct you not to investigate something or not to do your
16 A. No. I hope I will not be misunderstood. I am simply not the
17 sort of person who can be told something of the sort. Nobody ever had
18 any such demands to make of me, nor would they dare, if I may say so.
19 Q. And one final question. If a crime was reported to the police,
20 and for whatever reason -- I'll strike that question.
21 Crimes that occurred on the territory in which you had
22 jurisdiction through September of 1997 would be prosecuted specifically
23 by your office; correct? For example, if someone was accused of a crime
24 of burning or looting or murder in the territory in which you were the
25 district public prosecutor in the time-frame in question, you would be
1 the one prosecuting them; correct?
2 A. Correct, although I must state that depending on subject-matter
3 jurisdiction, it was dealt either by the county or the relevant Municipal
4 Public Prosecutor's Offices, depending on the type of crime.
5 Q. What I'm referring to also specifically, for example, if a member
6 of the Croatian special -- Ministry of Interior Special Police commits a
7 crime, that crime is to be investigated by the criminal police and
8 prosecuted by the state prosecutor or the district public prosecutor,
9 such as yourself; correct?
10 A. Not at my level, but one that would have the type of territorial
11 jurisdiction I held. When we're talking about the types of crime,
12 murder, yes. But for theft, that would be referred to a municipal
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. Galovic.
15 Those are all the questions I have.
16 Thank you, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
18 Perhaps earlier I have not been very practical in suggesting that
19 we would wait for the complete translation.
20 Ms. Higgins, I think you prefer to have already in evidence the
21 65 ter 3423, already to have it in evidence, and then to add any further
22 translations as soon as they are ready. That's perhaps a better idea
23 than to wait until it's ready.
24 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, with a clear caveat that we are still
1 waiting for further portions to be translated, could you already assign a
2 number to 65 ter 3423.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That becomes Exhibit D1568.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is, with this same caveat, admitted into
6 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Galovic?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, you'll be cross-examined now by
9 Ms. Mahindaratne. Ms. Mahindaratne is counsel for the Prosecution.
10 Please proceed.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Galovic.
13 Mr. Registrar, if I could have D1554 on the screen, please.
14 Mr. Galovic, you provided to the Court a number of reports where
15 you provide statistics of crimes prosecuted by your office, and I'll just
16 go through just one of those reports.
17 Now, these statistics were compiled as crimes prosecuted by you
18 in relation to Operation Storm, crimes committed in relation to
19 Operation Storm, isn't that correct, because it says that at the top of
20 the document?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Now, do these --
23 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, it says after. If I could
24 just clarify that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which causes me to -- which causes me -- I saw
1 that in all the documents; it's always after Operation Storm. Could you
2 give us a date when that starts, because not everyone considers exactly
3 in the same way what is to be understood by "after Operation Storm." Is
4 it after the start of Operation Storm, on the 4th of August, or is it
5 after Operation Storm had finished, and if so, when did it finish, as far
6 as you are concerned?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, in my area
8 Operation Storm was concluded on the 7th of August, 1995.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So the reports and the statistics are starting the
10 8th or starting the 7th?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to answer
12 that question, but in any case, that is the period.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear. Thank you.
14 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Now do the statistics also include crimes prosecuted by the
17 Municipal Prosecutor's Offices which came within your purview?
18 A. Yes, most of them.
19 Q. Now, after Operation Storm and until September 1997, when there
20 was a change in territorial jurisdiction, how many municipal state
21 prosecutors came within your jurisdiction?
22 A. The municipal prosecutor in Benkovac - he was alone at the time -
23 then the acting prosecutor in Knin, and the municipal prosecutor in
24 Zadar, with his deputies; 10 or 11 of them, as far as I remember, in
1 Q. And how many officers - and when I say "officers," I also refer
2 to assistant prosecutors - were there in Knin, in the municipal offices
3 in Knin?
4 A. No one, because we didn't have enough people. That is why I
5 organised the work in Knin in the way that the deputy prosecutor who
6 worked in Knin also heavily relied on the assistance of the Zadar office
7 and the county office, that is to say, my office, because alone, due to
8 the amount of work, he was unable to do that. We assisted him with any
9 copies, drafting of decisions, et cetera.
10 Q. And in addition to your two deputies, how many assistant
11 prosecutors did you have in the county office in Zadar?
12 A. Not one.
13 Q. Now, can you tell the Court as to how these figures have been
14 compiled? Now, you said that these statistics include crimes prosecuted
15 by the Municipal State Attorney's Offices as well as your office. Now,
16 what was the criteria used by you and those Municipal State Offices to
17 factor in certain cases as those relating to crimes committed after
18 Operation Storm and those that were excluded? What was the criteria used
19 by you?
20 A. The basic criterion was territory, the location of the crime.
21 That was the basic criterion. Any further criteria for legal
22 qualifications of the crimes was the gravity of crime. Data was gathered
23 based on a log-book kept by each State Attorney's Office, based on the
24 criminal reports. It is possible to extract all information about the
25 crimes committed within a certain period of time from that register by
1 type. This is how it was done. All that information was then collated
2 in my office. I personally checked it, added them up, and by way of
3 reports, sent the information to the ministry, since I was asked to do so
4 by the ministry.
5 Q. So when you added up -- when you checked that information, what
6 were you looking for? When you said "territory," are you saying that any
7 crime that was committed in the relevant area was taken on board into
8 these statistics? Was any other criteria applied?
9 A. It is possible to register all crimes committed. But in these
10 reports, they are separated into categories by articles. We have the
11 crime of murder, robbery, aggravated theft, theft, rape, illegal
12 possession of weapons, which was a mass occurrence, which posed an
13 additional burden to the work of mainly the police. These crimes, by the
14 logic of things, simply fell within the type of crimes committed in that
15 territory during that time.
16 Q. Did you factor in or did you consider the ethnicity of the
17 victim, if, for instance, it was a case of murder, as to who the victim
18 was, or did you take on board any killing incident?
19 A. I don't understand your question.
20 Q. Let me actually demonstrate it in a different way, Mr. Galovic.
21 Mr. Registrar, could we have document 7320, please; that's
22 65 ter.
23 And, Mr. President, for the record, this is, in fact, the
24 document, which will come on the screen, is a document that we have
25 obtained from the Defence, that is, 1D1543, which is a chart of --
1 containing data of prosecutions provided by this witness. We have
2 gone -- assessed the figures here vis-a-vis the material that we have. I
3 just wanted to let the Court know that in addition to what we have got
4 from the Defence, this document has highlights, you know. I will explain
5 as we go through, Mr. President, that we have made addition to this
7 THE COURT: Please proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, do you recognise this document which is on the
11 A. What I see before me, yes, and I see my signature as well.
12 Q. This is, in fact, attached -- we'll go through it. There's a
13 chart, and this is a chart that is summarising, in fact, cases of -- or
14 criminal processes conducted by you which you provided to the Defence;
15 isn't that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
19 MR. KEHOE: If we look at the top of this, this is addressed to
20 the Republic of Croatia
21 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said he recognises his signature and he
22 knows the document, so therefore let's see what comes out.
23 MR. KEHOE: Well, I just want to accurately portray who
24 Mr. Galovic sends this document to.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just check one second.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: My point was, Mr. President, that the witness
2 has provided this document to the Defence. It's not that it was
3 addressed to the Defence.
4 MR. KEHOE: The document was --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's wait for one second. Let me first re-read.
6 What we heard until now is that this is a document which the
7 Prosecution obtained from the Defence. The witness is asked whether he
8 recognises the document. He said he did, and he recognises his
9 signature. That's all we know. Let's just wait and see what the next
10 question will be, and let's see -- because no one has given any further
11 description of the document. Let's see what Ms. Mahindaratne wants to do
12 with this document. We can read it, unless there's any translation issue
13 there. We can see what is on our screen. Let's just allow
14 Ms. Mahindaratne to proceed, and then --
15 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. KEHOE: It goes to the comments by Ms. Mahindaratne on
18 page 85, line 15:
19 "There's a chart, and this is a chart that is summarised, in
20 fact, cases of prosecutions conducted by you which you provided to the
21 Defence; isn't that correct?"
22 This is a document that, as Ms. Mahindaratne knows, that went to
23 the Republic of Croatia
24 got it from the Government of Croatia, not from Mr. Galovic. Counsel
25 knows that.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's see.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I do know that; that's why I asked. But I can
3 -- to withdraw that question. I don't want to waste time, Mr. President.
4 I will just let that be stricken off, if there's a problem about it.
5 MR. KEHOE: Well, let me say --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... this is, in fact,
7 attached. It was said, we'll go through it. "There is a chart" - this
8 seems not to be a chart - "that is summarising --" I have one page in
9 front of me. I have got no idea whether there's more. I will check now
10 immediately. Apparently, there are five pages. The Chamber is not aware
11 of that.
12 What we've seen until now is that --
13 Ms. Mahindaratne, if you ask the witness whether this is a chart
14 et cetera, then it is wiser to have it on the screen so that the Chamber
15 can see what is attached to this letter. And let's try to, for you, to
16 be very precise. If you say, I say something which is not fully correct,
17 and that then would have been that -- that this one is provided by the
18 witness to the Defence, apparently that's not correct.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if the witness answered it,
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- I noticed that this one carries a
22 stamp not similar to many of the other documents we have seen.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: But, Mr. President, I don't want to waste any
24 further time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's verify first.
1 Did you provide this document to the Defence, Mr. Galovic?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Personally, no.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. There we are. Let's proceed, then.
4 MR. KEHOE: One further item on this particular document.
5 This document --
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you would like to discuss the document, the
7 witness understands English, from what I understand. If you start
8 commenting on documents in the presence of the witness, that's not what I
9 expect the parties to do.
10 MR. KEHOE: Well, I will only talk about this B/C/S being a
11 30-page -- six-page document, from what I can see, and the English
12 translation is four pages.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So you want to raise an issue that the
14 translation is not complete, or at least --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I explain, Mr. President?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if there's any explanation as far as
17 translation is concerned.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, it's a partial translation.
19 The translation gives the headings of the chart. This goes into several
20 pages. We have not reproduced the data from the original into the
21 translation, but the translation clearly provides the names, or wherever
22 the translation is required, the translation provides the necessary
24 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently some portions, therefore, are not
25 translated. But despite that, that we have full access to the content of
1 the document; is that correctly understood?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll see whether that's the case or not.
4 MR. KEHOE: Just one item. Let's be frank about this with
5 counsel. There's a selection of individuals that they have plucked out
6 of this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not --
8 MR. KEHOE: I just want the Chamber to know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not discuss the content of the document in the
10 presence of the witness. If you think that it's really necessary to
11 discuss the matter, then we'll have to ask the witness to leave the
12 courtroom for a while. And if that's the case, it's no problem, as far
13 as I'm concerned, but --
14 MR. KEHOE: The document -- it's fine, Mr. President.
15 Your Honour can, at your leisure, look at the B/C/S section and what the
16 Prosecution has done in their section, and I think it will be
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we will follow your -- at least I'll
19 follow your suggestion - yes, both the English and the translation on the
20 screen - for myself.
21 I see that it's a rather long table where the headings are, and
22 you've taken out the ones you would like to take us to, and --
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, we've only highlighted -- we
24 haven't removed any information, only highlighted those entries which we
25 consider to be relevant, and I want to take the witness through those
1 entries. Those that we consider to be potentially relevant to the
2 indictment are not marked. The highlights, in fact, identify those
3 entries which, in our assessment, are relevant to the indictment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's work on the basis of the original, you have
5 your partial English translation. At the end we'll see what is relevant
6 or is not relevant. I'll look at the document on the basis of the
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, if you could just follow
9 the original.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Which is a 36-page document.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And just so if I could explain, Mr. President,
12 the translation.
13 For each chart, while the headings are translated, we indicated
14 the top-most entry and the last entry in the particular specific chart.
15 That's how the translations have been prepared.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll see whether we need a full translation.
17 Let's work on the basis of the document as the witness can read it and as
18 you will take him through.
19 Mr. Kehoe, is that a solution for your problem?
20 MR. KEHOE: I'll see how it goes, Judge.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So will we.
22 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, we will go through the chart which is attached
25 to this letter. Did you compile this chart in August 2006, the chart
1 that's attached to this letter? Do you want to look at the chart or --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's show it to the witness so that he --
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could go to page 2.
4 Q. Mr. Galovic, are you able to tell if this chart was prepared by
5 you in August 2006?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, we have reviewed this chart, and we have reviewed it with
8 the aim of assessing the relevance of each of the entries that you have
9 included in these charts to the indictment. And what we have done,
10 Mr. Galovic, just by way of explanation, is we have highlighted those
11 entries that we consider as relevant to the indictment. And just so --
12 before I take you -- let me tell you the criteria that we have used, and
13 that was: the date of the offence, which we took as between 4th August to
14 31st September 1995
15 which are relevant to the indictment; the type of the crime, although
16 that's the article or the Criminal Code referencing the chart which must
17 related to an incident of killing or looting or burning; and the date of
18 the report that is reported in column 2, that is, the crime must be
19 reported to the competent state attorney prior to 1st April, 1996. We
20 have taken that as the outer period.
21 Now, let me take you to a specific entry.
22 If you could go to page 6, Mr. Registrar. There's no page 6 in
23 the English version. It has to be in the --
24 A. Excuse me. Can I ask you something?
25 Q. That --
1 A. I didn't understand what period you considered in the second
2 column as when it was -- when the criminal reports were reported or
3 received, because there are exact dates with each report. I see
4 somewhere "October." These are the dates when each of these criminal
5 reports were received by my office in the second column.
6 Q. That is correct, Mr. Galovic. That's what we considered.
7 A. Very well.
8 Q. And if I could just take you to page 6, entry number 6. That
9 relates to one case of Josip Jukica, and the type of crime is Article 103
10 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia
11 entry, that's entry number 7, there is the case against Zlatko
12 Vukasinovic. And he's charged under Article 206 of the Criminal Code.
13 Now, isn't it correct, Mr. Galovic, that Article 103 refers to
14 the act of -- the legal definition is "concluding a prejudicial
15 contract"? And if you disagree, we can pull out the Code and have a look
16 at it.
17 A. Yes, prejudicial contract.
18 Q. And Article 206 relates to the offence of falsifying a public
19 document; isn't that correct? If you want to look at it, I could --
20 A. 337, that article is "official misuse or abuse of position."
21 Q. The article that you have charged, 206, in fact refers to
22 falsifying a public document; isn't that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, can you tell the Court as to why you can consider concluding
25 a prejudicial contract and the offence of falsifying a public document as
1 offences relating to Operation Storm?
2 A. I did not. These are all offences committed, as stated in the
3 report, after Operation Storm. This is not my table, but a municipal
4 table. I see that this is from 1997, and 1996, on the 26th of July.
5 These were the dates of the offences. I see from the report, from the
6 table, that it was sent to the State Attorney's Office in 2006.
7 Q. So do I understand you to say that you -- when you provided these
8 statistics of crimes prosecuted by your office and the municipal public
9 officers, you counted all crimes prosecuted after Operation Storm within
10 your area of responsibility, notwithstanding what the crimes were?
11 A. You mean in this table?
12 Q. That's correct.
13 A. This table?
14 Q. That's correct.
15 A. Yes, all the crimes are following Storm. This methodology is
16 completely different from the methodology I followed when I sent reports
17 to the ministry, if you get my meaning. On the basis of this, one can
18 extract information as to which crimes were directly related to Storm in
19 the sense in which the crimes contained in these earlier tables were
20 related to Storm.
21 It's difficult for me to analyse each and every report. Well,
22 I can, if you allow me to and show them to me. I can tell you, however,
23 that each and every report clearly states the legal qualification of the
24 crime and the date on which the Public Prosecutor's Office was put on
25 notice of these crimes. There should be nothing disputable about that.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, could we go to the previous
2 page, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask one question first, and we have to
4 finish for the day anyhow, Ms. Mahindaratne.
5 We are talking about crimes committed after Operation Storm, and
6 item 6 gives us a date, the 9th of May, 1995; is that --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President, that's how the
8 chart -- those are one of the factors that we took -- considered when
9 marking these entries as irrelevant to the indictment. It's either on
10 the basis of the date of crime --
11 JUDGE ORIE: What is marked is irrelevant?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I -- what is marked is irrelevant for the
15 I can't say that everything is entirely clear to me yet, but I'll
16 ask my colleagues after we have adjourned.
17 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, by way of clarification, is this
18 irrelevant to the indictment, according to the Prosecution? That that's
19 their position; is that it?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct.
21 MR. KEHOE: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that's what Ms. Mahindaratne clearly
23 explained, that she -- so the marked items are for the purposes of -- as
24 we can see from the markings, for those purposes, are not falling within
25 this temporary scope and the territorial scope of the indictment?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President, as well as
2 those -- the crimes, crimes which related to the indictment.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So type of crime, date, and place are used
4 as --
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: There's one other criterion, Mr. President,
6 the period during which the prosecution was initiated; that is, the
7 time-period of -- time-period when the criminal report was filed or
8 received by the State Attorney's Office.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least clear how you -- what the markings
10 stand for.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And may I just say one more thing,
12 Mr. President.
13 We have marked it in such a way to assist Court and the parties
14 as to what aspect -- the marking is placed on that particular relevant
15 area where the criteria for the -- it to be relevant is identified. So
16 you would see the marking in --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- as I said to Mr. -- you just
18 explained to us what the markings are about. We'll not further discuss
19 this, this document, at this moment.
20 We'll have to adjourn for the day, Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 I'd first like to instruct you, Mr. Galovic, not to speak with
22 anyone about your testimony, whether that is the testimony you've given
23 already today or still will give tomorrow.
24 And let me first -- one question, Ms. Mahindaratne. Could you
25 give us a time estimate?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I believe two sessions
2 tomorrow. I might -- I might just go a little over two sessions, but I
3 will try to confine myself to two sessions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to see whether we can finish the testimony
5 of this -- whether we can conclude your testimony tomorrow, Mr. Galovic,
6 because we'll adjourn until tomorrow, the 3rd of July, 9.00. And for the
7 parties' information, Courtroom I. That's a change of courtroom from
8 what initially was scheduled.
9 We resume tomorrow.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.10 p.m.
12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 3rd day of July,
13 2009, at 9.00 a.m.