1 Wednesday, 8 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Before we continue, I expect that later today that we'll have
13 some time for procedural issues. I see you're here, Mr. Hedaraly. I
14 expect from you further report on P2550, because that's still due, from
15 what I remember.
16 I'm saying that we would have further time, because the next
17 witness is not available until tomorrow, isn't it, Mr. Kehoe?
18 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Mr. Zidovec, I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
21 the solemn declaration that you have given at the beginning of your
23 Mr. Carrier, are you ready to continue?
24 MR. CARRIER: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Before I start I
25 should just say that yesterday I indicated that I hoped to finish during
1 the first session. I think I will need to go a little bit into the
2 second session with the leave of the Court, but I will try to move it
3 along as quickly as possible.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, that leaves us sufficient time, and since
5 no other witness is waiting, I don't think that we have a major problem
6 there. Although it is of some concern to the Chamber if we have to wait
7 for other witnesses not being available.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
10 WITNESS: ZDRAVKO ZIDOVEC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Carrier: [Continued]
13 Q. Mr. Zidovec?
14 MR. CARRIER: Before we start, Mr. Registrar, could we please
15 have Exhibit D496 on the screen, please.
16 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is the order from General Gotovina, dated
17 11 August 1995
18 establishes a mixed detachment at the Military District level for
19 clear-up operations?
20 Were you aware that this order -- or, sorry, were you aware in
21 any way that this order was issued or that it existed during August 1995?
22 A. What I have on my screen is a document from the Split-Dalmatia
23 police administration.
24 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, P496; I apologise.
25 Q. I apologise, Mr. Zidovec. Now that you see P496 on the screen,
1 are you aware that this order was issued or that it existed during
2 August 1995?
3 A. I was not aware of it.
4 Q. Mr. Zidovec, I just want to go through this order in a little bit
5 more detail than you looked at it yesterday with Mr. Misetic.
6 At the beginning of the order you can see that it states that it
7 incorporates the Knin clear-up operations group, as part of this
8 detachment, and it mentions six other HV operations groups. And then on
9 page 1, point number 3, in the first point you can see that Boris Radovic
10 is appointed as coordinator at the detachment command level, and you
11 might recall that he was also appointed coordinator for animal, hygiene,
12 and sanitation measures under General Cermak's order, which is P506.
13 Just below that point 3, number 2, there is Boris Davidovic,
14 which we heard some evidence from you yesterday on. And the next one
15 down, Stanko Batur. The next person down is Mr. Vanjak, and he was
16 appointed civilian protection -- he was a civilian protection member, but
17 he was appointed as a member of the detachment command as well. Down
18 from that, Dr. Samardzija, that was somebody that was also appointed
19 under General Cermak's order. And page 1 in the B/C/S and onto page 2 in
20 the English, point 3, number 6. And following you see that there are a
21 number of different commanders of territorial operations groups that are
22 named as members of the detachment command.
23 And number 10 on that list you see that Major Ante Krasnic is
24 also appointed. Do you know this person, Major Krasnic, at all?
25 A. I don't.
1 Q. And Mr. Zidovec, page 2, point number 4, you can see that
2 General Gotovina has ordered that clear-up operations groups in
3 Novi Grad, Gracac, Zadar, Knin, Sinj, Sibenik, and Biograd all need to
4 have -- or have to contain certain elements, and among them on the list
5 are items 1 and 2, an operations group commander and a deputy. Item
6 number 3, explosive experts; item number 4, a forensic technician and
7 operative; item number 8 is a trench-digger; item number 10, five workers
8 for clear-up of human bodies.
9 And page 3 the English, point number 14, you'll see that another
10 item that's listed is a coach to be supplied by the HV in order to
11 transport civilian protection workers.
12 Now, Mr. Zidovec, these elements are basically the same elements
13 that you had ordered when you put together sanitation teams. Isn't that
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
16 MR. MISETIC: I don't know to -- I will be as vague as possible,
17 Mr. President. But I believe a portion should be shown to the witness
18 that hasn't been addressed if this line of questioning is going continue
19 and I will do it in redirect if necessary, but ... I don't know how you
20 wish me to --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You said a portion --
22 MR. MISETIC: Of this order.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- should be shown. Could you point at which
25 MR. MISETIC: Number 6 of the order.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, will you consider whether it would
2 assist the Chamber to also show number 6.
3 MR. CARRIER: Certainly.
4 Q. Point number 6, Mr. Zidovec, just so you can see it now, and
5 Mr. Misetic might ask you some questions about it later: Personnel and
6 equipment for items 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.10, 4.11, shall be provided by the
7 Zadar-Knin county police administration; this should have been a police
8 administration for item 5 and the Split Dalmatia police administration
9 for item 5(g). And below that, item 7:
10 "The transport professionals of the Split Military District are
11 assigned with items 14.12 and 14.4 [sic]; 14.4 being the coach for
12 civilian protection workers."
13 MR. MISETIC: Just so the transcript, I believe, Mr. Carrier
14 misspoke; it is 4.12 and 4.14.
15 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
16 Q. And, Mr. Zidovec, on page 3 in the English, page 2 in the B/C/S,
17 in the middle of the page just before item number 6, part of
18 General Gotovina's order is that Captain Radovic shall determine the
19 place or the parties that are to report under this order.
20 And on page 3 in the English and page 2 in the B/C/S, point
21 number 10 reads that:
22 "Clear-up should be carried out in line with the Ministry of
23 Defence health administration instructions, dated 15 October 1993." And
24 for your information that's Dr. Brkic's instructions that we mentioned
25 before. And it goes on to say under the law of international conflict,
1 and the first priority named there, is the removal of human bodies.
2 And on page 4 in the English and page 3 in the B/C/S, point
3 number 12 orders daily reporting to the HV regarding this order, and you
4 can see it is signed by General Gotovina.
5 And at the bottom there it says "dispatch to," and the people
6 mentioned in item 3 which includes all of the civilian protection people
7 that were listed there.
8 Were you aware of any of those people receiving this order?
9 A. I don't know about it.
10 MR. MISETIC: I am afraid I can't keep pace with the four
11 paragraphs of questions. So if I can just have a minute to --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Mr. Carrier, if you would give sufficient time for those who are
14 following, critically following your cross-examination to give time to
15 look at the texts as well.
16 MR. CARRIER: I'll try to slow down, Mr. President.
17 MR. MISETIC: If I could just have a minute.
18 Perhaps if Mr. Carrier is can assist me. When your question is
19 at the bottom there, it says "to," if you could just give me a
20 paragraph number.
21 MR. CARRIER: I believe I said page 4 in the English, page 3 in
22 the B/C/S. At the bottom it indicates this order was sent to -- or is
23 it, "dispatch to" with a colon next to it.
24 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Zidovec, starting where we left off yesterday, we were
3 looking at a report from Dr. Brkic to General Cermak, dated 12 August
4 1995, where he is reporting on the sanitation measures that took place
5 between August 12th -- or sorry, August 5th and 12th, 1995. That was
6 Exhibit D30. And, Mr. Zidovec, just for your information, there's
7 another report that's already in evidence that was sent on that same day,
8 which is D1059, and that was sent from Dr. Brkic and a Dr. Gotovac to
9 General Cermak reporting on the number of bodies collected, identified,
10 and buried, during the period 7 to 11 August 1995. And in that document,
11 those -- an October 1993 instruction from Dr. Brkic is also mentioned.
12 There's a -- also for your information and for my friends, it's
13 Exhibit D612, which is another report which in evidence, that one from
14 Dr. Brkic to General Cervenko, dated 29 August 1995, where he reports on
15 a clearing up of the terrain of human remains from 5 to 28 August 1995,
16 related to Operation Storm.
17 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think -- I don't want to object
18 too many times, but I think the Chamber has previously articulated that
19 we're not supposed to educate the witness about what's in evidence or
20 not. If there's a question, Was he aware of any reporting from person X
21 to person Y, the answer is, yes, fine, let's show it to him; if not, I
22 think that's fine as well.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
24 MR. CARRIER: Yes. The purpose, Mr. President, is simply, given
25 the position that he has taken, is to confront him with the weight of
1 evidence is that is already in evidence in the Chamber.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we usually start asking the witness about what
3 he knows. And if there is any need to further put to him certain
4 elements of evidence, then whether it's evidence or not, you just take
5 him to the -- take him to the exhibit and then put it to him.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, if I could just seek a little
8 clarification on that.
9 The issue I'm having is that when I don't agree with what the
10 position is, then I'm trying to show evidence in order to explore whether
11 or not --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether it is evidence or not is irrelevant.
13 There is a document which you would like to put to the witness and
14 whether that would be new for the Chamber or would already be in evidence
15 or what the status of the document is, is not -- there's no need to tell
16 the witness.
17 MR. CARRIER: On that note, I understand the court's position.
18 If I could just then explain that there are simply documents that --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
20 MR. CARRIER: That's fine. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, documents. And, yes, sometimes it might be
22 helpful to give us a clue as to where to find it.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
25 Q. And just -- there 's a document, Mr. Zidovec, and that's a report
1 from Dr. Brkic that General Cervenko just talking about. And in this
2 document, Dr. Brkic reported that during August 1995, he had visited the
3 entire front line. And he's quoted as saying: "Of course, corrected
4 what was to be corrected." And then he mentioned that others were
5 assisting him in the process of correction. This is regarding the
6 sanitation of human remains.
7 And finally in that same document, Dr. Brkic had reported:
8 "I hope that my presence, and needless to say, with the aid of
9 all the civil defence colleagues and with all other people engaged, I
10 helped [sic] that the assigned task be carried out thoroughly."
11 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, if we could please call up document
12 number 65 ter 2096.
13 Q. Mr. Zidovec, what's coming up on the screen is a report dated
14 20 August 1995
15 supervisory reconnaissance of clearing up terrain from human bodies after
16 Operation Storm."
17 And in that report, it's reported that this is a regular duty of
18 the ministry of -- the health administration of the Ministry of Defence.
19 And he goes on to say that that's the supervision of professional
20 work which had taken place between 18 August and 20 August.
21 MR. CARRIER: If we can go to page 2 in the English, still on
22 page 1 in the B/C/S, under the heading: "Work results of professional
24 You have a chance to just review that.
25 Dr. Gotovac is talking about civilian protection's collection of
1 human remains and whether or not it met the established standards. And
2 on page 3 in the English and page 2 in the B/C/S, the final paragraph on
3 those pages he reports:
4 "In all ... cases where discrepancies from established standards
5 were noticed, the police and civil protection staff members were given
6 verbal instructions regarding prompt elimination of failures. During
7 reconnaissance, we were met with good cooperation of professionals in
8 appropriate civil protection services who assured us that all apparent
9 failure would be eliminated as soon as possible."
10 Do you see that there, Mr. Zidovec?
11 A. Yes, precisely.
12 Q. And if I could please tender that document into evidence.
13 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I mean, I don't have an objection to
14 the document, but the transcript goes on for three, almost four pages
15 before the previous answer was given. And now read out a document and
16 say, Does that say that in that the document, yes, and then tender it
17 into evidence. I think there is nothing more than a bar table submission
18 at this point for this document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, any objection, if it would be a bar table
21 MR. MISETIC: Not if it is a bar table, Mr. President.
22 And I would have a standing objection to if we're going to go
23 through telling the witness what's in evidence and then reading portions
24 of the documents saying, Does that say that in the document? As I said
25 there's four pages of transcript before the last answer was given.
1 MR. CAYLEY: And as I said yesterday, Mr. President, I'm joining
2 Mr. Misetic on that issue.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Carrier, if have you no other questions than whether the
5 document says what it says, then there is no need to put it to the
6 witness, unless you would want to know more of the witness, such as
7 earlier you asked the witness whether he was familiar with a certain
8 document, a document, which I take it in the view of the Prosecution
9 contradicts the testimony of the witness. But to ask a whether a
10 document which is clear in its language says what is it says, is not of
11 great assistance as far as testimony is concerned. The document may be
13 Since there's no objection, apparently against it having been
14 tendered from the bar table, Mr. Registrar, that would be exhibit number?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P2572, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Mr. Registrar, if you could please call up Exhibit D603, please.
20 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is a special report, dated 8 August 1995, from
21 Mr. Cemerin and was issued under Povratak, and he is reporting on
22 civilian protection activities.
23 Did you receive this report?
24 A. This doesn't mention my name.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I didn't ask you --
1 A. But at this moment, I cannot remember having seen this document.
2 However, there's no reason for me to suppose that it was not sent to me.
3 Q. I take it from that answer your -- is it your position that given
4 that Mr. Cemerin, who is in charge of civil protection under you, as
5 assistant minister, if he was sending you reports during August about the
6 sanitation proceedings, you would have got this report or this
7 information in another form. Is that right?
8 A. That is right, yes, correct.
9 MR. CARRIER: If we could turn to page 2 in the English and
10 page 1 in the B/C/S.
11 Q. You will see there, Mr. Zidovec, that there are some times
12 listed, starting with the number 19, and the relevant date is August 5th,
13 1995. Can you see there that at 1910 it's reported by Mr. Cemerin that
14 the deputy minister had announced that "our units were entering Kijevo,
15 Drnis, Benkovac, Vrlika and Knin."
16 And just below that, Mr. Cemerin reports that, on the same day,
17 at 1917 hours, Dr. Brkic called and announced that he and his people were
18 going in first, in accordance with the agreement with
19 Vice-President Kostovic, and that basically the units were to prepare for
20 clearance from the next day onwards.
21 My question is, were you aware of this situation where there was
22 an announcement to go in, and then Dr. Brkic announced that in fact their
23 units were going in?
24 A. I simply cannot remember this document now, now I know that at
25 the time Dr. Cemerin was at Knin. He was preparing the organisation of
1 activities of civil protection. But I don't deny having seen this
2 document. But, at this moment, I cannot confirm that. But I'm still
3 waiting for a question with regard to this. I don't see what I could say
4 with regard to this document.
5 Q. The question was whether or not you were ever aware that
6 Dr. Brkic had basically over -- seems to have over-ridden a decision by
7 the deputy minister.
8 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, that is argumentative and contrary to
9 our interpretation of the document, so I would ask that he not argue with
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you give a certain qualification of
12 what is found in the -- in the document. You're invited to stick to the
13 text of the document.
14 MR. CARRIER:
15 Q. My question is were you aware, Mr. Zidovec, that a Dr. Brkic had
16 made this announcement at all, were you ever aware of it, or that there
17 was any doctor making any kind of announcement about units going in
19 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, again, I would ask that he stick to
20 the document, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If there is any dispute about the way in which a
22 document is summarised, then you are invited to stick strictly to the
23 text and quote that.
24 MR. CARRIER: I apologise, Mr. President. I had basically read
25 out -- I can read it out if that would assist.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do so.
2 MR. CARRIER:
3 Q. Mr. Zidovec, the document reads: "At 1910 hours the deputy
4 minister announced that our units were entering Kijevo, Drnis, Benkovac,
5 Vrlika, and Knin."
6 The next paragraph below that reads:
7 "At 1917 hours, Dr. Brkic called and announced that he and his
8 people were going first, in accordance with the agreement with
9 Vice-president Kostovic, and we were to prepare units for clearance which
10 should be clearing up the area in question from the morning (6 August)
12 Were you aware of any kind of agreement involving Vice-president
13 Kostovic or any kind of doctor named Dr. Brkic or a doctor from the army
14 or any kind of issue with about who was going in first in any place on
15 the 5th of August, 1995?
16 A. I was not aware of that. And if you allow, I don't know to who
17 this sentence refers; namely, at 1910 hours the deputy minister announced
18 that our units were entering Kijevo, et cetera. Who was that deputy
19 minister? I don't know who that refers to.
20 Q. Okay. Mr. Zidovec, on page 4 in the English, third
21 paragraph from the bottom, and page 3 in the B/C/S, Mr. Cemerin is
22 reporting that:
23 "On 7 August 1995
24 situation in the field was exceptionally poor, coordination with the HV
25 was unsatisfactory." And then in brackets, it reads that:
1 "50 civilian protection conscripts were brought to HV members" --
2 sorry. "50 civilian protection conscripts brought to HV members
3 travelled from Zadar to Knin for 7.5 hours so that on 6th August they
4 worked in Knin for only two hours."
5 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, on that sentence, we'd like -- in the
6 English, we'd like a translation check, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I take it the line between brackets which causes you
9 MR. MISETIC: Correct. In the parentheses.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we usually do not seek verification of
12 MR. MISETIC: I just wanted to know --
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- from our interpreters, but you want to put this
14 on the record. And what we could however do is if you would read the
15 relevant portion in the original and then we will receive interpretation,
16 and that's not kind of verification, but it might draw our attention to a
17 possible problem.
18 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
19 [Interpretation] "50 civil protection conscripts led my [as
20 interpreted] members of the HV."
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I did not receive translation of your words,
22 but interpretation.
23 MR. MISETIC: I heard it in my ear, so I -- in English. And it's
24 on the transcript at line 19.
25 JUDGE ORIE: There was a problem with my channel which I was on.
1 Could you please repeat the words in the original. I apologise
2 for not being on the right channel.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
4 [Interpretation] "50 civil protection conscripts led by members
5 of the HV."
6 THE INTERPRETER: It is "by" not "my," interpreter's remark.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We now have received the translation.
8 Could you put your question to the witness.
9 MR. CARRIER:
10 Q. Mr. Zidovec, given that clarification and what I had read to you
11 before, and given your position that all of the work regarding human
12 sanitation in this area was done, or sanitisation projects were done
13 independently of the military, can you explain what it was that was just
14 read to you about the HV involvement, at least in the report?
15 A. So the civil protection, namely the people who were on the ground
16 at Knin and in that entire area, did count on the logistical support of
17 the army, most of all when it comes to the provision of means of
19 As far as I know, those agreements mostly were not honoured, even
20 though I don't know why. In a snap-shot of the situation, the one we
21 discussed here yesterday, Mr. Cemerin, as the head of the civil
22 protection department and the chief operations officer on the ground,
23 informed me about what was agreed with the HV about the provision of
24 means of transportation to do the work necessary and mostly did not
25 function. They didn't work well.
1 MR. CARRIER: If we could turn to page 6 in the English and
2 page 5 in the B/C/S of this document. Four paragraphs up from the bottom
3 in the B/C/S and in the English. It reads that:
4 "About 20 bodies were picked up today in Knin," and just for
5 reference, it's not here, but the date, I believe, is 8 August 1995.
6 There's brackets: "(Stored in refrigeration until burial).
7 Dr. Brkic is causing concern problems, so Cicko asked for his activity to
8 be restricted. Until Mr. Cicko arrived, the burials organised by the
9 Zadar-Knin police administration and by agreement with Dr. Brkic were in
10 a common grave."
11 My question is, were you ever aware of any kind of agreement
12 struck in this respect between Mr. Cicko and anybody or any knowledge
13 about an agreement or any kind of knowledge about these burials that are
14 listed there?
15 A. If I am reading this sentence correctly, then it says organised
16 by the police administration of Zadar-Knin county, and until Mr. Cicko
17 arrived, the burials were in a common grave.
18 The Zadar-Knin police administration was doing -- was performing
19 these activities in agreement with Dr. Brkic. But when Cicko arrived, I
20 suppose that what this goes to say is that, of course, these, the things
21 mentioned here, happened, but once the -- once the responsible person --
22 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... finish that
23 answer, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No I think, Mr. Carrier is right. The witness is
25 explaining to us what he reads, apparently. If you would like to add any
1 questions later, fine. But do you have any personal knowledge of what is
2 described here, or did you learn about it at the time? That was the
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not know about this.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you're telling
6 us is just interpreting what you read at this moment. Is that correctly
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
10 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Zidovec, I'm -- I'm trying to understand how it would be that
12 this Dr. Brkic would be having contact with so many people from civil
13 protection, and you don't have any information about what was going on.
14 Can you explain how that's possible?
15 A. It may have been possible because this was probably about
16 operational agreements made in Knin at the time when the -- these people
17 were representing the civil protection. Whether the people in charge of
18 civil protection, namely the chief of department and the ministry, knew
19 about it is difficult for me to say. But it can be clearly seen from the
20 orders that we issued and signed that all civil protection members had
21 clear instructions about how to go about their work.
22 So, the concrete case mentioned here in this sentence isn't
23 anything that I was familiar with. In our orders, we explicitly pointed
24 out to the sanitation units to strictly adhere to the Geneva Conventions
25 and the civil protection conventions about the manner of burying human
2 Q. So is it the case that you just don't know what was happening on
3 the ground with regard to the collection of human remains during and
4 after Operation Storm?
5 A. I don't think that what you said is the meaning. Yesterday we
6 saw a document which Mr. Cemerin sent to my attention at the Ministry of
7 the Interior, and all activities that the civil protection had engaged in
8 until that moment in the sanitation process can be clearly seen from it.
9 We saw that document yesterday, so there is no need for me to
10 explain that to you. But that document, dated 11 August, doesn't mention
11 any one problem that you have shown in this document.
12 Q. So is your position that it was simply based on the information
13 that you had, you never actually had any first-hand knowledge of how
14 bodies were collected during that period?
15 A. I did not have first-hand knowledge. I got information in the
16 reports, like the one dated 11 August.
17 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D353 on the
18 screen, please.
19 Q. Mr. Zidovec, in your statement you said that there was no formal
20 or official communication between the HV and civil protection on the
21 collection of dead bodies and that you worked completely independently of
22 the military. You've made some qualification regarding some logistical
24 I take it that you're not aware of any separate reports coming
25 from the HV and from civil protection that contained almost identical
1 information about the sanitation operations.
2 Are you aware of anything like that?
3 A. No, I was not aware of it.
4 Q. And if you look at Exhibit D353, which is a one-page document in
6 MR. CARRIER: And, Mr. Registrar, I'm not sure whether it's
7 possible to show two documents in B/C/S next to each other. If it is
8 possible, can I have document number 65 ter 4976 in the B/C/S next to
9 that document, which is also, I believe, a one-page document.
10 Q. Mr. Zidovec, the document with the date, August 8th, 1995, issued
11 under Operation Povratak, from the Sibenik police administration chief,
12 Mr. Matic, which is on the right of your screen, lists 20 bodies that
13 were buried on the 7th and 8th of August, 1995. And if you look at the
14 other document, 65 ter 4976, which is a document the day after,
15 9 August 1995
16 the people killed, and that was filed by Major Krasnic. You can see at
17 the bottom.
18 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. Registrar, for scrolling down.
19 Q. And you will recall that this is the major had been appointed --
20 MR. MISETIC: If can he finish the question, and then I'll ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, please finish your question.
22 MR. CARRIER:
23 Q. You'll recall that that's the person that was appointed under
24 General Gotovina's order that we looked at earlier.
25 MR. MISETIC: And that is my objection, Mr. President. This
1 document is two days prior to the order of General Gotovina.
2 MR. CARRIER: I'll rephrase the question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
4 MR. CARRIER:
5 Q. I apologise, Mr. Zidovec, this is the person who was eventually
6 appointed under General Gotovina's order as one of the coordinators.
7 Now, looking at these two documents side by side, you can see
8 that the 20 people listed, other than items 4, 5, and 9 on the document
9 issued by Major Krasnic, the rest of the people listed follow basically
10 the same information listed in the Povratak document, and follow
11 essentially the same exact order, and even for the items that aren't
12 exactly the same, which are -- if you look at items 4 and 5, item 4 seems
13 to correspond with item 3, and item 5 looks like it might be the same
14 thing or pretty close.
15 My question to you is whether or not you can explain how it is
16 that an HV report, issued the day after that civil protection Povratak
17 report, contains such similar information, given your position that there
18 was no official or direct communication on these types of issues.
19 A. I cannot comment that. I can't comment the -- or, rather, the
20 report of the chief of Sibenik police administration was such that it can
21 -- it in no way relates to the report that is -- was shown here on the
22 left. We didn't know about it at all, at least I didn't.
23 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: It took me a while to find the portion of the
1 statement, but for the record, it is paragraph 20 of the witness's
2 statement, and I would not agree that the question accurately reflects
3 what the witness said in his statement.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it looks as if it has not influenced the
5 answer, but it's on the record, that --
6 MR. MISETIC: If in the future, if we are a going to cite to a
7 statement, if we could just -- he doesn't have to bring it up. If he
8 could say at paragraph such and such, we can then check it and make a
9 necessary objection on time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Could you refer to the relevant portions of the statement,
12 Mr. Carrier, if you are summarising the position which finally is not
13 exclusively found in the -- in the statement but that's at least part of
14 the evidence the witness has given.
15 MR. CARRIER: And just for the record, I didn't say it was in his
16 statement; I said it was position. It was my statement of his position.
17 I apologise; I understand the direction.
18 MR. MISETIC: Well --
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, there's nothing wrong with that. I didn't
20 criticise you for that. The issue is that if you're summarising the
21 position of the witness, then I expect that you take into account all the
22 evidence the witness has given. And if there is a specific written
23 portion of this evidence to be found in the statement, then it would
24 assist the Defence and the Chamber if you would briefly point at the
25 relevant portion of the statement. And of course if you would like to
1 refer to transcript passages, then, of course you are certainly invited
2 to do so. But I do understand that summarising the position of a witness
3 does not always allow for pointing at all the various references you had
4 in mind.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. CARRIER: Thank you. And if I could actually have that
7 document tendered, 65 ter 4976, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
9 Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2573.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. CARRIER:
13 Q. Mr. Zidovec, I'm going to turn to another topic. And in your
14 2007 statement you said that civil protection sanitation teams did not go
15 around looking for bodies and that you were informed by the police and
16 police administrations where the bodies were located. This is in
17 relation to picking up bodies connected to Operation Storm.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist us with the paragraph number,
19 Mr. Carrier.
20 MR. CARRIER: Paragraph 50:
21 "The civil police would notify us of bodies that needed to be
22 buried. There was never any discussion regarding" --
23 There's more. Paragraph 72:
24 "We did not go around looking for bodies. We were informed by
25 the police and police administrations where the bodies were located."
1 Paragraph 74:
2 "We were notified by the police administrations of the locations
3 of the bodies to bury," and it goes on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: A mere reference would have done under those
8 MR. CARRIER:
9 Q. Now, Mr. Zidovec, there are a number of Operation Povratak orders
10 which seem to emphasise that civil protection was to immediately carry
11 out a number of things, including reconnaissance and use words in --
12 there's orders that reflect words like finding, detecting, discovering
13 the bodies, and conducting burials.
14 MR. CARRIER: And I can -- if my friends want to look it up, some
15 of the exhibits I'm referring to are Exhibit D232, Exhibit D233, Exhibit
16 D601, Exhibit D603.
17 Q. And, Mr. Zidovec, yesterday you testified that civil protection
18 units -- you said a couple of things. First, that they were first to
19 reach the area where the bodies were located, and that it was the HV that
20 told you where to find the bodies. And I'm wondering whether or not you
21 can explain this apparent change in your evidence.
22 A. I think that I spoke on a couple of occasions yesterday in quite
23 clear terms that the information about the location of human remains was
24 something that we received solely from the police. There simply was no
25 other possibility for civil protection staff to cruise the area and
1 locate human remains.
2 Under the circumstances, it was impossible. And given the
3 resources we had at our disposal, it was impossible to organise. What
4 the flow of communication between civil protection staff was, and I mean
5 those who were in Knin, is something I have not sufficient knowledge
6 about, in order to be able to account for how certain members of the
7 civilian protection got by the information to enable them to dispatch a
8 sanitation team.
9 Q. Mr. Zidovec, in your 2007 statement, you said that the civil
10 police notified civil protection of bodies to be collected. And that
11 there was never any discussion regarding an investigation of the cause of
13 MR. CARRIER: And just let me find the paragraph reference,
14 Your Honour.
15 MR. MISETIC: It's paragraph 50, counsel.
16 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
17 Q. And you also stated that there was no need to issue instructions
18 on what to do, and basically in this paragraph you're talking about
19 whether or not foul play was suspected regarding the body, because you
20 only collected bodies where the death had resulted from combat
21 operations. And you also stated in your 2007 statement that if there was
22 a need for investigation, you assumed that it would have already been
23 carried out by the crime police.
24 And, Mr. Zidovec, during your testimony yesterday, I'm suggesting
25 to that you no longer assumed things and your evidence changed and you
1 indicated that -- or you gave quite a detailed description --
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I mean, at this point it is
3 argumentative. And if there are fact questions to pose to the witness, I
4 have no objection. But to characterise the witness's testimony, and it
5 is impossible check the assertions being made by counsel because there is
6 no reference to transcript lines, specific references to the statement,
7 et cetera, at this point I would object to the argumentative nature of
8 the questioning unless there's a foundation established first with some
9 questions and then can he put his case to him.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to invite Mr. Carrier to point as
11 precisely as possible to the references he has in mind. At the same
12 time, Mr. Misetic, if you want to put to a witness that his evidence
13 apparently was not consistent because that is what you're asking about,
14 then you can't avoid at least some characterisation of that evidence.
15 But if could you do that in the least argumentative language you
16 can find, Mr. Carrier.
17 Could you please rephrase your question.
18 MR. CARRIER: You already heard the first part, and I will go
19 about what you said yesterday. The transcript references are T19874,
20 T19916, T19916 again.
21 Yesterday you said, and this is different from -- or at least a
22 more fulsome account of the investigative procedures that were carried
23 out with regard to bodies that you didn't include in your 2007 statement.
24 You indicated that the forensic technician basically was required to
25 examine the body for cause of death, to fill in a detailed crime report
1 or forensic report, and that only after that was done by the technician
2 would the body be allowed to be buried. You also that on the basis of
3 this procedure and the detailed crime report, the crime police would take
4 further steps in the investigation.
5 Now, my suggestion to you is that you never mentioned any of this
6 when you were asked about these things by the Prosecution investigators.
7 Specifically about establishing cause of death, and I'm going to suggest
8 to you it doesn't make any sense given what you said in your statement
9 that when you were dealing with the bodies, you assumed that if there was
10 a need for an investigation, it would have already been carried out by
11 the crime police. And I'm going to suggest to you that your most recent
12 testimony is not consistent with what you said in 2007.
13 MR. MISETIC: Is there a question for the witness? We've --
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I'm going object. It's just
15 argumentative. It's a closing argument, not a question.
16 MR. MISETIC: The question implicit is, is your testimony
17 consistent? Apparently.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, the question could be how can you
19 reconcile your statement in this respect -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 MR. MISETIC: Well, there's four things that counsel put to him.
21 And is he supposed to answer all four things?
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is better, Mr. Carrier, if you would take them
23 one by one: you said this, you said that, you said that. How to
24 reconcile these points with what you said today or -- and put him to what
25 he said today.
1 To some extent, you have done it, but I must admit that it could
2 be more focussed, more to the point.
3 Could you give it another try.
4 MR. CARRIER: Certainly. The purpose is that it all relates to
5 the investigation of the bodies themselves.
6 Q. So number 1, Mr. Zidovec, cause of death. During your testimony
7 you gave a very detailed description, and you outline that there is no
8 obligation on the crime technician to figure out cause of death. In your
9 2007 statement you said that that wasn't the case.
10 MR. MISETIC: Can we get a reference for that in the statement,
12 Mr. President, disagree with that characterisation, and
13 therefore --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And apparently you disagree with all of the
15 characterisations. And at the same time we can't do without. We can't
16 read again the whole of the portion.
17 In your statement, Mr. Zidovec, you say there was never any
18 discussion regarding investigation of the cause of death of these bodies
19 we were directed to bury. Whereas, I take it that's what you want to put
20 to the witness, that if you testified yesterday about the procedure, that
21 is that a crime technician would go with you and would establish what the
22 cause of death was. So apparently Mr. Carrier has some difficulties in
23 reconciling your statement saying, Well, all these things like cause of
24 death to establish death, that was all not for us. We just were pointed
25 at certain place where a body was. We assumed that if there would have
1 been any difficulty as far as the cause of death was concerned that the
2 police would have dealt with that already. Whereas in your testimony you
3 said, We were accompanied, our people were accompanied, and they would
4 apparently, then, in the presence of the civil protection officers would
5 establish whether there was any question about the cause of death.
6 So that is not exactly the same, and Mr. Carrier is wondering how
7 this then can be reconciled.
8 Mr. Carrier is this -- I see Mr. Misetic is on his feet.
9 You disagree with my characterisation as well.
10 MR. MISETIC: I do. If we could look at paragraph 74 of the
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the same question arises, to what extent
13 50 and 74 are fully consistent.
14 MR. MISETIC: I have no problem if he wishes a clarification of
15 50 and 74. But to put to him that he said -- and this is -- the
16 objection is the question, and the question was, You said in 2007 --
17 sorry, you said [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: I read to him literally what his 2007 --
19 MR. MISETIC: Not your question; the Prosecutor's question. That
20 is what I was referring to, Mr. President.
21 And my objection was to page 26, lines 19 through 22.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, but I think -- I
23 rephrased the question more or less for Mr. Carrier. If have you no
24 problems with my question --
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- then you're invited to answer the question.
2 The question being: What was it? Was everything already clear
3 as far as cause of death is concerned? If there would be any need for an
4 investigation that it would have been taken care of already, and the only
5 thing you still had to carry out is to bury the remains; or was it that
6 in the presence of your people, with a crime technician, at that moment,
7 it would be determined whether there was any reason to further
8 investigate the cause of death.
9 That is apparently, Mr. Carrier, what is bothering you.
10 Could you tell us which of the two it was. Because we find
11 elements for both in your statement and testimony.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crime technician conducted an
13 examination of the scene where the body was found. This on-site
14 investigation comprises the activities I mentioned yesterday, which is
15 lifting finger-prints, preserving the scene, photographing the scene, in
16 order to produce something that is in the police jargon called the crime
17 report. The crime report eventually ended up at the relevant police
18 administration. The civil protection team had nothing to do with that.
19 Once the crime technician did his job, the sanitation team proceeded to
20 bury the remains.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Or not, if there was any reason for a further
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if, once such an
24 on-site investigation was carried out, the remains were taken somewhere
25 else. I only know that once the crime scene examination was done and a
1 crime report produced, the remains were buried.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So even if there were clear signs of a not natural
3 death, if that would have been established by the crime technician, then,
4 nevertheless, if a report was made, then the body would be buried anyhow.
5 Is that how I have to understand your answer?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that, if your people would go to a place
8 where a body was found, together with a crime technician, that the crime
9 technician would do his job and that, irrespective of what he found, your
10 people then proceeded to burying this person. They never had to go back
11 because the report was such that the bodily remains should not be buried
12 but should be further -- that a further investigation needed to be
14 Is that how I have to understand your testimony?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I don't know of a single case
16 where, on an order of the crime police, based on such a police report, a
17 body was taken for an autopsy or any other procedure envisaged by the
18 police rules. In other words, once the crime technician did his job, the
19 remains were buried.
20 JUDGE ORIE: In all cases, as far as you're aware of?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
24 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 If I could have Exhibit D234 on the screen, please.
1 Q. Mr. Zidovec, what's coming up on the screen right now are minutes
2 from a meeting of the heads of the crime investigation departments. We
3 looked at a different one yesterday, so you might recognise the format,
4 and can you see among the attendees there is was Assistant Minister
5 Benko; and the head of the MUP crime police, Mr. Nadj. Can you see that
6 at the top. And this is from 6th August, 1995.
7 My question is, did you ever have any discussions with Minister
8 -- Assistant Minister Benko about how investigations were to be conducted
9 or instituted with regard to the forensic technicians that were to
10 accompany civil protection?
11 A. I don't think so, because I did not consider myself capable of
12 discussing the matter or presenting any opinions on the matter.
13 Q. Now, you can see in this document that items are listed and under
14 agenda, item 1 is:
15 "Handling of hygiene and sanitation measures on the ground and
16 tasks of the Forensic Services Department regarding identification."
17 MR. CARRIER: And if we go to page 2 on the English and staying
18 on page 1 in the B/C/S.
19 Q. At the top of the page in English, it reads:
20 "The police and the Forensic Services Department are tasked to
21 work on the identification of dead enemy soldiers and dead bodies of
23 "If the identification of the body is possible, the body should
24 be buried under the established information ..."
25 And it goes on to say:
1 "If the identification is impossible, the body should be buried
2 under a number."
3 The next paragraph I'm going to summarize, but basically the
4 requirements that the body be finger-printed, possibly taking some
5 photographs and video, marking the time and place of discovery, and
6 that's for identification purposes.
7 And below that there's assignments, and Mr. Maric is assigned to
8 be coordinator for the different police administrations and should give
9 specific instructions regarding the identification. And that he's to
10 coordinate with a Mr., it says there, Cemeri.
11 My question, at this point, Mr. Zidovec, can you confirm that
12 that is actually Mr. Cemerin?
13 A. Yes, that is him.
14 Q. And you were aware that Mr. Maric was to coordinate, as it said
15 there, you were aware of that at the time, during August 1995?
16 A. Mr. Maric was the head of the centre for forensics at the
17 Ministry of the Interior in Zagreb
18 the authority to issue instructions like these.
19 Q. But you understood that, in 1995, during August and
20 Operation Povratak, he was assigned to coordinate with Mr. Cemerin on
21 those issues.
22 A. I think that this is a purely technical conclusion on
23 coordination, where the issuing and use of identification tags had to be
24 agreed on. This was an item placed by a dead body and nothing more than
1 Q. So I take you were not aware --
2 A. [In English] Sorry.
3 Q. I take it that you were not aware that Mr. Maric was assigned to
4 do anything other than -- what you're saying is just supplying body tags.
5 Is that how I'm to understand your answer?
6 A. [Interpretation] Yes. I think that this was the only purpose of
7 this conclusion.
8 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I'm noting the time. This would be
9 a convenient spot to break before I move to the next document.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll first ask Madam Usher to escort the witness
11 out of the courtroom.
12 We'd like to see you back after the break, after approximately
13 25 minutes, Mr. Zidovec.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, the last issue about the coordination,
16 of course, coordination is further described here. Coordination and
17 shall give specific instructions regarding the identification. I think
18 we should clearly distinguish between measures that were needed to be
19 taken to identify a -- the bodily remains, and any investigations needed,
20 in order to further establish the cause of death.
21 That may also explain - I do not say it does, but - with the line
22 that follows, which is the procedure of issue and use of identification
24 MR. CARRIER: And I hope that the next document will clarify that
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's all fine. But you just put to the witness
2 that he had a task to coordinate, and you didn't say anything about -- I
3 think what the purpose or at least the context of this coordination was.
4 MR. CARRIER: I believe I actually said in that respect after I
5 had read it to him.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see. Yes, but I think you read -- I
7 think -- if I made a mistake there, I will be glad to -- could you point
8 me at a ...
9 MR. MISETIC: Page 32, line 4, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was -- that was not about the passage of the
11 coordination, but it may be that you read that out.
12 MR. CARRIER: I think, Mr. President --
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... should give specific
14 instructions regarding the identification.
15 Then you asked whether this was Mr. Cemerin.
16 And then you asked:
17 "And you were aware that he was to coordinate that during the
18 time, you were aware of that, in August 1995."
19 Yes, and then a few lines later you said: "On those issues,"
20 referring to something that was said ten lines before, approximately,
21 after a lot of other questions.
22 The witness may have a better recollection of what was said ten
23 lines earlier than I had. Perhaps I should have had it.
24 We'll have a break, and we will resume at quarter past 4.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 3.49 p.m.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you may proceed.
4 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Mr. Zidovec, while the document is still on the screen, which is
6 Exhibit D234, under that -- on page 2 there's a heading assignment we
7 already looked at.
8 One of the things that Mr. Maric was assigned to was to
9 coordinate the different police administrations, and he was supposed to
10 give some instructions regarding the identification.
11 MR. CARRIER: And if we could turn to Exhibit P898.
12 Q. And while that is coming up on the screen, Mr. Maric [sic], this
13 is something that you looked at yesterday. And it was issued to the
14 crime police chiefs on August 6th, 1995
15 operating procedure for identification.
16 Now, on page 2 in the English, the procedure for dead bodies is
17 listed. And you can see there, there are a number of things listed, one
18 of the things being a form called KTO
19 I'm wondering if you know anything about that form.
20 A. I cannot say anything. It wasn't anything that I had to do with
21 in my line of business.
22 Q. And, Your Honours, at some point the Prosecution will bar table
23 that form. It's 65 ter 7333. We could do it now if time permits.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I could already ask whether there's any -- would be
25 any objection or whether the Defence teams would first like to look at
2 MR. MISETIC: If we could have a little while to look at.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then if possible, we'd like to hear from
4 you later today.
5 MR. CARRIER: Could we have it marked for identification.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2574, marked
8 for identification.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 MR. CARRIER:
11 Q. Mr. Zidovec, yesterday you testified that the forensic
12 technicians were supposed to produce detailed crime reports. And you
13 also said that these reports ended up in the police administrations, and
14 you said that at transcript page 19916. And if you look at the order,
15 and we're just looking at P898 from Mr. Maric. Under notice it says:
16 "Send forms KTO
17 And then below that, it says:
18 "Send unprocessed roles of film of the body for development to
19 this centre."
20 And both of those are supposed to be sent to the attention of
21 Mr. Maric.
22 Were you aware that the film, et cetera, in connection to the
23 sanitation units and the forensic technicians were being sent directly to
24 Mr. Maric?
25 A. What I know is the following. All forms filled out at the crime
1 scene were sent to police administrations where they were used for
3 Q. How do you know that?
4 A. Because I don't know to who else a crime technician from a police
5 administration would give their material, their crime reports, than to
6 the organisation for which they worked; namely, to the criminal police or
7 department of -- their respective police administrations.
8 Q. So you don't actually know; you're just assuming that that's
9 where they would go.
10 A. From the document that you have shown to me, it follows clearly
11 that the chief of the forensic centre required the chiefs of criminal
12 police in the individual police administrations to submit such documents.
13 I cannot believe that crime technicians would send their crime
14 reports directly to the forensic centre.
15 Q. Well, if you're referring to the document I just showed you, they
16 were being sent to Mr. Maric at the centre for forensic science in
18 Is that what you meant when you said it was clear where it was
19 going to?
20 A. I want to say that it is obvious here that Mr. Maric's letter was
21 sent to the heads of criminal police in the individual police
22 administrations, and the one thing that I can conclude from that is that
23 it was their duty to send or forward those crime reports to the forensic
24 science centre.
25 Q. Mr. Zidovec, was Mr. Maric the coordinator for all forensic
1 technicians that were attached to the civil protection units?
2 A. He was coordinator for the setting of procedures for
3 identification, but the structure of the criminal police is such that --
4 on instructions were forwarded to chiefs of criminal police and the
5 police administrations, and then they would pass them on along their
6 chain of -- along the hierarchy.
7 Q. Do you know if Mr. Maric was the coordinator for the criminal
8 police, if investigations were required for any bodies collected by civil
9 protection units that might require an investigation?
10 A. Mr. Maric was not a person who would conduct criminal
11 investigations. The criminal -- or, rather, forensic science centre is a
12 technical organisation. So they do their part of the work as part of a
13 criminal investigation. So, in other words, they verify and produce
14 evidence. That is my understanding of the work of -- of a forensic --
15 forensics lab in my country.
16 Q. Was there a coordinator assigned for criminal police, in relation
17 to sanitation units?
18 A. Unfortunately, I cannot provide an answer to that question,
19 because I don't know.
20 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could we please have D235 up on the
21 screen, please.
22 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is another set of minutes for the crime police
23 sector chiefs, this one held on August 7th, 1995, and you can see some of
24 the attendees. Those included chief of crime police, Mr. Nadj, and can
25 you see Mr. Maric's name as well. And on the agenda, item number 1 is
1 listed as tasks in relation to clearing up the terrain. And under AD-1,
2 which corresponds to that agenda item, it reads:
3 "Since in the area army activity war operations are being
4 conducted, it is crucial to carry out cleaning [sic] up the terrain in
5 that area, and it is our task to carry out the identification of persons
6 in the prescribed manner, and it is not necessary to conduct on-site
7 investigations. Mr. Maric will carry out coordination of the above."
8 Mr. Zidovec, were you aware in any way that there was a meeting
9 of the crime police sector chiefs or that Mr. Maric was involved where
10 they identified their task as carrying out the identification of the
11 bodies but there was decision, or there was at least comment made that no
12 on-site investigation was required?
13 A. No. Such a document -- or there was no need for such a document
14 to reach me because it has nothing to do with the activities I was in
15 charge of at the time.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. CARRIER: Your Honours, Mr. President, there are five other
18 sets of minutes related to meetings of the chiefs of the crime police
19 wherein Mr. Maric is involved in the meeting, and there's an agenda item
20 related to clearing up the terrain. And Mr. Maric indicates that there
21 aren't any problems, et cetera, in different parts, and in two parts
22 mentions Mr. Cemerin. Given the time constraints, and -- I think given
23 this witness's -- wasn't present at those meetings, but it is related,
24 I'd ask to tender those from the bar.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if those documents can be
1 identified, we'll take a look at them. We may have had an objection to
2 bar tabling these documents. The Chamber is aware that Mr. Kardum, who
3 was a chief of crime police in Zadar, testified as Prosecution witness.
4 And to that extent I need to check to see if these matters should have
5 been put to him.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much time --
7 MR. MISETIC: It depends --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- do you think you'd need?
9 MR. MISETIC: I need to first know what the documents are, so ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would have expected that Mr. Carrier would
11 have informed you about the documents he intended to use.
12 MR. CARRIER: They are on the exhibit list. I'll read them out.
13 JUDGE ORIE: On the exhibit list.
14 Could you please identify them so that the Defence at least knows
15 which ones you are actually referring to.
16 MR. CARRIER: 65 ter 7335; 65 ter 7338; 7339; 7340; 7341. And if
17 it assists, I'm looking through, and I don't see Mr. Kardum's name as
18 present in any of those.
19 But if they could be tendered into evidence under MFI numbers.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll already MFI
21 talking about.
22 Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 7335 becomes Exhibit P2575,
24 marked for identification. 65 ter number 7338 becomes Exhibit P2576,
25 marked for identification; 65 ter 7339 becomes Exhibit P2577, marked for
1 identification; 65 ter 7340 becomes Exhibit P2578, marked for
2 identification; and 65 ter 7341 becomes Exhibit P2579, also marked for
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
5 Mr. Misetic, before the break, you said that you would like have
6 a little while to look at P2574. Any response yet? That was the
7 document which Mr. Carrier sought to be admitted into evidence, in
8 which ...
9 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, for the Cermak Defence, we have no
10 objection. We've taken a look so ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and I see Mr. Mikulicic is --
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, we have no objections, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
14 MR. MISETIC: [Microphone not activated]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then the status the P2574 changes from marked for
16 identification to admitted into evidence.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 If I could have Exhibit D236 on the screen.
20 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is a report or order from you dated
21 18 August 1995
22 the second paragraph -- or in the first paragraph, you're describing that
23 there's a -- been a warning issued from several international
24 organisations regarding the burial of persons killed in the course of
25 Operation Storm that has been fully carried out yet.
1 And in the second paragraph, you're instructing that people look
2 for bodies, and if they find them, to have them urgently buried in the
3 manner established in the course of the operation (shorter identification
4 procedure carried out by the crime police and burial organised by
5 civilian protection)."
6 Do you recognise this document?
7 A. [In English] Yes.
8 Q. And can you explain what you meant by "shorter identification
10 A. [Interpretation] The shorter identification procedure, as applied
11 at the time, meant that all activities should be undertaken that would
12 have been applied under normal conditions; that is, at the beginning of
13 sanitation, when it was possible, of course. But we're talking about the
14 18th of August, so this is about two weeks after the period or two weeks
15 after the start of the sanitation of the ground, and we couldn't suppose
16 where bodies can be found, if any, and what the condition of the bodies
17 would be with regard to weather conditions.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I just wanted to know if you
19 could actually explain what the "shorter identification procedure" was.
20 A. Well, it means if it wasn't possible to identify a body by
21 finger-prints, then -- then that technique not be performed due to the
22 condition of the body, which may have been decaying already, due to the
23 general conditions.
24 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could I please have 65 ter 2459 on
25 the screen, please.
1 And we turn --
2 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is a document dated 23rd November 1995 from the
3 United Nations Centre for Human Rights field office, Zagreb. And in the
4 subject line on the first page it says:
5 "Meeting with Zdravko Zidovec, Assistant Minister for Interior,
6 in connection to the Security Council Relation 1019. Please find
7 attached a report on the meeting held with Mr. Zidovec."
8 Can you confirm that that's you and that you attended a meeting
9 on that issue?
10 A. Yes, I confirm that.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. CARRIER: And I ask that that be tendered into evidence. I
13 don't have any further questions on it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is the report attached or ...
15 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And you tender the whole of the document which is a
17 four-page document.
18 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Is it of any use to put to Mr. Zidovec, or are you
20 intending to do that, what is reported so that he has an opportunity to
21 either confirm or deny? That might assist the Chamber in interpreting
22 the probative value of this report. And it might be fair to Mr. Zidovec
23 as well.
24 MR. CARRIER: I didn't intend to, Mr. President. I understand
25 that this is actually on --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Oh. May I take that the report is about the
2 conversation that was held with Mr. Zidovec and whether that's an
3 accurate report or not? Of course, I haven't seen it until now. I see
4 that it's two full A4, two and a half full A4, in which I would expect
5 that it will be reported not only what the reporter said but also what
6 Mr. Zidovec said. And I take it that you want the Chamber to look at it
7 and to consider that.
8 MR. CARRIER: Potentially in relation to some numbers. I am
9 happy to go through it. I understand it is actually on the Gotovina
10 exhibit list as well.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if it is a conversation -- are you going
12 to use it, Mr. Misetic?
13 MR. MISETIC: I just finished my direct, Mr. President, so ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, this has now been raised in cross
15 so ...
16 MR. MISETIC: Obviously I think it is a pretty good document, so
17 if he wants to tender it, I don't have --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So if every one thinks of it as a reliable
19 document even in terms of the role that Mr. Zidovec has given in this
20 report -- I have got no idea; I haven't read it.
21 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, just from the perspective of 90(H), if
22 there is something in there that the Prosecution intends to rely on, I'd
23 ask that it be put to him. Otherwise, I mean, I don't have any objection
24 to the document coming in as a bar table or [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and there's no dispute about whether this
1 reflects more or less what was said, or is there any challenge to that?
2 Because that, of course, is it important for the weight --
3 MR. MISETIC: I cannot say that, Mr. President. I didn't go
4 through with the witness in proofing this document, so I have no idea
5 whether the witness would confirm that this is what was said.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, I consulted with my colleagues. We
8 tried to read through it very quickly, but, of course, if the parties
9 agree on the accuracy of the report, then the Chamber might take this as
10 a starting point, but --
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm checking right now. I have seen
12 the report, but I don't see that it is on our exhibit list, and perhaps
13 Mr. Carrier can point it out if it is. I may be mistaken, but I can't
14 find it here.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you'll understand that if at a later stage
16 we'd like it consider what weight to be given to it, and then if there
17 would be any dispute as to the content of the report and the content of
18 the meeting which was apparently held, that we would not have the witness
19 here anymore, so therefore --
20 MR. MISETIC: As I indicated, Mr. President, we think that any
21 matters of relevance should be put to him.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's use our time quickly to read ...
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, the Chamber suggests a very practical
25 solution for the matter, which is that either during the next break or
1 when we are dealing with procedural matters that a B/C/S copy will be
2 given to the witness so that he can tell us whether he finds any
3 inaccuracies in the report in relation to what he supposedly had said
4 during that meeting, that -- and if you would limit it to certain -- to
5 certain subjects, because it deals with killings, it deals with looting,
6 it deals with a lot of things, then please tell us because then we could
7 invite the witness to specifically focus his attention on those subjects.
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, my only comment was going to be if
9 quo ask for foundation for those statistics when the witness is asked
10 questions about it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, if I see the numbers, some of them --
12 MR. MISETIC: Right.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- approximately seem to be rather familiar to us.
14 But I suggest that we deal with it in this way so that the Chamber knows
15 to what extent it can rely on the report.
17 MR. CARRIER: Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Zidovec, at a later moment, you'll be able
19 to read through the document the Prosecution is now tendering, because
20 it's a report about a meeting you had with the person reporting, and so
21 that can you draw our attention to inaccuracies in this report, not
22 letter by letter perhaps, but whether it reflects in -- in general what
23 you said.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we proceed for the time being, Mr. Carrier, and
1 once we have a break, or when we're dealing with procedural matters,
2 Mr. Zidovec will be provided with a copy in his own language.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Mr. Zidovec, regarding your role in civil protection and fires
6 and fire prevention, et cetera, I was wondering if you were ever aware of
7 any order or decision made in the Ministry of the Interior to not
8 investigate certain instances of arson or burning.
9 A. I don't know of such a decision.
10 Q. And yesterday when you were testifying about reception centres,
11 you were asked a little bit about collection centres. Is it your
12 evidence that you don't really know anything that was happening with
13 regard to collection centres?
14 A. Are you referring to the reception centres for civilians?
15 Q. No, I'm asking if you recognise any difference between the words
16 "reception centre" and "collection centre," other than the obvious fact
17 that they're different words.
18 A. Collection centres were something that was completely outside of
19 the competence of civilian protection. Our role, if any, could only have
20 been an auxiliary one, in terms of assisting in the food supply and the
21 provision of medical care. I suppose that you mean to say that
22 collection centres were centres intended for prisoners or similar
23 individuals. In such centres, if this is what you're referring to, the
24 civilian protection did not have a role to play whatsoever.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: Just while we're on this point, first with respect
3 to the five bar table documents that, a few minutes ago, Mr. Carrier
4 tendered from the bar, P2576 MFI
5 reception centres. P2577 appears to be a document about collection
6 centres. And to that extent if there's matters in there that relate to
7 those issues, I would ask that if there is something relevant to that
8 issue that it be put to him.
9 And we cannot pull up in e-court P2578 or P2579, MFI.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Sometime there is a short delay -- or do you have
11 the 65 ter numbers?
12 MR. MISETIC: We do, and we couldn't pull it up either with the
13 65 ter or the P number.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, were you able to find the relevant
15 65 ter numbers?
16 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour, I was not. It appears they
17 haven't been released.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could that be done within the next 15 or 30 seconds,
19 Mr. Hedaraly.
20 Let's proceed for the time being and the invitation to deal with
21 the collection/reception centres seems to be relevant.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Zidovec, on the topic of reception centres, you stated that
25 you were only assigned to collect those people remaining, that were not
1 capable of living on their own and there was no plan or directive to
2 collect people who were capable of living by themselves. And you also
3 stated that the authorities would not transfer people to the reception
4 centres against their will.
5 My question is, would you be able to explain why there's
6 information that civilian women, children, and men were brought to
7 reception centres against their will and that they were guarded --
8 MR. MISETIC: Can we have some references, Mr. President, please.
9 I mean --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
11 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, Mr. President, I'm not sure whether or not
12 it's actually in dispute that there's evidence in this case so far on
13 what I'm putting to him, so --
14 MR. MISETIC: It is very much in disputes, Mr. President, and if
15 I can just state now my general objection to this.
16 The procedure thus far has been to put factual questions to a
17 witness and then confront him at the end with the argument if that is
18 what is. I don't deny that it's possible to do it in reverse, but then I
19 think the person is required, if you start from the back, that you're
20 going to lay the foundation then for the ultimate question subsequent to
21 that. We've been proceeding now with counsel giving essentially his
22 views of the evidence which is disputed.
23 So if we can go step by step and see exactly what it is that's
24 the basis for the question, then --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, of course, we might have another
1 problem, that what is -- Mr. Carrier is blamed for putting the evidence
2 to the witness, but now he does it in a rather general way. Let's say
3 that we have various types of evidence, disputed or not, but which
4 relates to this matter.
5 Let me just consult.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, let me put one or perhaps two questions
10 to the witness first.
11 Mr. Zidovec, do you know of any case where civilians were taken
12 to a centre - and I'm talking about civilians at this moment - where they
13 were taken against their will? And for this moment, I'm not making any
14 distinction between whether it is a reception centre or a collection
16 Are you aware of any case where this may have happened?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us where the reception centre closest
19 to the city of Knin
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to give you a
21 precise answer to that question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If it is not a precise answer, an approximate
23 answer. Could you tell us approximately would have been the distance
24 between the town of Knin
25 closest to it?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I note that there were centres in
2 Knin, Obrovac, Benkovac, and Zadar. I know of a centre located on an
3 island opposite Sibenik, the island of Obonjan
4 lived. But I suppose that the centre could have been housed in a school
5 building or in the vicinity of the Knin hospital.
6 JUDGE ORIE: There was a reception centre established in Knin
7 town itself?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember where that was located, in what kind
10 of building?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I don't know. I can
12 only guess that it may have been in a school building or the gym of a
13 school. I can't give you an exact answer.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you exclude for the possibility that
15 someone was taken to a school building in Knin, being a civilian, and
16 would have to stay there for a while, although that person did not wish
17 to go there and to stay there?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall ever seeing an
19 account of a civilian having been forcibly taken to a reception centre
20 for civilians.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us as far as collection centres and
22 reception centres are concerned, was there, to your knowledge, a
23 reception centre in Knin town?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said a moment ago that I believed
25 that there existed for a while a reception centre for civilians in Knin.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was talking about a collection centre, and
2 apparently a distinction is made between a sabirni centre and I think
3 what is called a prihvatni centre.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a problem in
6 To the best of my recollection, there was a reception centre for
7 civilians, which operated for a while in Knin.
8 If my memory is correct, eventually, to improve the general
9 conditions, it was transferred to Zadar, I believe, although I don't know
10 how many civilians were willing to go there at all.
11 There is one information I know of certainly, and that's
12 according to the information of the civilian protection, a bit under a
13 thousand individuals, 960 or 980 of them, passed through the reception
14 centre in Knin. The information can be found in the final report of the
15 civilian protection in the implementation of Operation Povratak,
16 following Storm. The report was compiled in early December of 1995.
17 Based on the information I know of, which comes -- comes from the
18 report, I can tell you that when it comes to reception centres for
19 civilians across the territory covered by Operation Storm, and I'm
20 pointing out that I'm referring to the entire territory, a bit under
21 4.000 persons went through these centres.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking you about those centres.
23 Do you know when the reception centre in Knin was established?
24 I'm talking about the reception centre.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember the exact date.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Was it right at the beginning of Operation Storm?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It may have happened in the first
3 half of August of 1995.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, as far as a collection centre, sabirni
5 centre is concerned, was there one established in Knin?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if such a centre was
7 set up in Knin, because it was not the focus of our interest.
8 The document shown to me by the Prosecution here clearly
9 indicates that the criminal investigation police engaged in preparations
10 for the setting up of collection centres. This is something I saw in the
11 document from the specialist meeting of the chief of the crime police
12 sector, but that's all I know about it. I saw that the persons involved
13 were those who were otherwise engaged in the investigations into war
14 crimes, and that's how I can conclude that it was they in fact who were
15 in charge of these centres and conducted their basic investigations
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do you conclude for the possibility that the
18 collection centre in Knin and the reception centre in Knin were located
19 on the same premises? Which would mean, if it is a school that both were
20 in that school.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can merely say that, with regard
22 to the collection centre for civilians, I'm sure that it was clearly
23 separate from the collection centre. But whether or not it was in the
24 same building, I really don't know.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you can tell us that it was clearly
1 separate, you must have some idea, isn't it, about their locations?
2 Otherwise, it's difficult to say that they were clearly separate.
3 A direct question: Were they in the same premises, a school?
4 Were they or were they not, to the extent you know?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I still cannot remember that
6 because I know that the civil protection was engaged in the support of
7 the population that was taken to the reception centres for civilians.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Could I seek from our interpreters, because the Chamber has
10 looked at the original documents now and then. A while ago the witness
11 talked about a collection centre for civilians.
12 Could we hear from our interpreters what word was translated in
13 this context, that is collection centre for civilians. Was that sabirni
14 centre? Could I --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters understood the witness to have
16 said sabirni centre, that is collection centre for civilians.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... then added for
18 civilians, which means that that this term apparently in some context is
19 -- well, let me not comment on it at this at this moment. I just wanted
20 to know whether there would be any possibility of a --
21 MR. MISETIC: If we could check that, Mr. President. I don't
22 think, if you read the sentence in its entirety, it makes sense.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, of course, I asked specifically, our
24 interpreters. And if you want to verify that, you know that there is
25 audio available in the original to verify what he said.
1 MR. MISETIC: Again, I would simply -- if you wish, I will do it
2 in redirect. But this sentence doesn't make sense as it currently
3 stands, in our view.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, of course, have you a possibility to ask any
5 further questions.
6 Mr. Carrier, I leave it further in your hands at this moment.
7 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, if I could just clarify something.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not -- I have not exhausted this subject,
9 but I just wanted to see whether some questions could put to the witness
10 and that we could receive some answers, hopefully without being engaged
11 in too many procedural issues.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. CARRIER: And just so it's clear, the purpose of citing his
14 evidence so far is that the foundation has been laid from the information
15 from before. And the Prosecution is clearly under an obligation under
16 Rule 90(H) to put contrary evidence to him. I don't plan to educate him
17 but taking him through pieces of evidence, but simply to put at least
18 contrary information to him. So that was the purpose of the style of
20 JUDGE ORIE: You would say you would have to put your case to the
21 witness if you are eliciting from him evidence which contradicts your
22 case in which is not in direct response what has been dealt with in
23 chief, Rule 90(H).
24 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
25 MR. MISETIC: I was going cite Rule 90(H) myself, Mr. President.
1 The witness, if there is an evidentiary foundation for the Prosecution's
2 position, then that evidentiary basis should be put to the witness to
3 give him an opportunity to refute it. But to simply make a general
4 assertion and then ask the witness whether he agrees with the general
5 assertion doesn't, in our view, provide much probative value as to the
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zidovec, do you understand and/or speak English?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand it.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zidovec, as I announced earlier, there was a
12 document, a report on a conversation you have had which is available in
13 your language. The Chamber thought that this might be an appropriate
14 time to invite to you read that but not in this courtroom.
15 Would you be willing to go through the document, and if there's
16 anything inaccurate in it, it's not a verbatim report on what you said,
17 but whether if you would say that the gist of what you are reported to
18 have said is incorrect, that you inform us about it.
19 Would you, for those purposes, please follow Madam Usher and read
20 that document.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to resolve what should and should not be
24 put to this witness.
25 We can't recount all of the evidence but, of course, there are
1 portions of evidence. I remember the evidence of a lady who said that
2 she was taken to -- I think she said, but forgive me I'm wrong, to the
3 school in Knin where she had to wait for 40 days. She was not allowed to
4 leave, at least that's my recollection. I have not checked that. And
5 then was taken to Zadar, I think it was a lady together with her
6 daughter. So that is evidence which at least suggests strongly that she
7 was taken there against her will.
8 We -- I think we also have documentary evidence, in which the
9 word detention or detainees is used. And I'll not go through all of it
10 at this moment, but there certainly are pieces of evidence which would
11 contradict what this witness said, and -- because he said that never
12 anyone was taken against his will to such a centre, apart from how the
13 centre should be qualified, what name they should bear, where they were
14 located, close to each other, not close to each other. This witness is
15 talking about 900 persons processed apparently through the reception
16 centre or collection centre for civilians in Knin.
17 Is there any way that we could agree on what is fair to put to
18 the witness and what is not fair to put to the witness against the
19 background of what I just said and which is certainly not an exhaustive
20 -- is not an exhaustive reflection of all of the evidence which is
21 directly or indirectly related to this matter.
22 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, from my perspective the issues are
23 much simpler than perhaps they may appear at first glance.
24 In my direct, I literally lifted verbatim from the Prosecution's
25 pre-trial brief on reception centres. And I posed four questions that
1 are the Prosecution's case from its pre-trial brief. I asked him, Were
2 the reception centres set up as part of a plan to remove Serb civilians?
3 JUDGE ORIE: The answer was no.
4 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Were Serb civilians forced to stay in these
5 centres? Was fear deliberately instilled in the Serbs civilians in the
6 centres? And were they systematically transferred out of Croatia
7 being in the centres?
8 I raised a fifth point which was that there no international
9 criticism in the reception centres in 1995.
10 If the Prosecution wishes to impeach him on those claims, then I
11 there is a proper process to impeach him on that case whether they wish
12 to use statements of witnesses who have appeared, whether there is
13 documentary evidence, et cetera. It is it improper, though, for council
14 to get up and say, The record says this, and how do you address that?
15 If they want to say there was a plan, that needs to be put to
16 this witness.
17 The issue of whether -- and Mrs. A said she felt that she was
18 held against her will might be relevant to one of these points but
19 doesn't address the overall picture, which is this is a JCE allegation.
20 He is the person at the top responsible for establishing and running the
21 centres. And in the overall scheme of a joint criminal enterprise, I
22 think the Prosecution needs to put their case as to -- as it concerns a
23 JCE to the witness.
24 How they wish to go about it is up to them.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Part of that case is that people were detained
1 against their will, whether this finally amounts to a plan, of course, is
2 also the case, but you don't have to put the whole case to the witness.
3 What you should put to the witness that he testified about never a person
4 being taken there. He said there was no plan.
5 MR. MISETIC: I believe the witness, and I could be easily wrong
6 here, I believe he said he didn't know of a person being forced against
7 their will --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. MISETIC: -- which is different from saying that a no one
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is, however, the Prosecution's case that one
12 or more persons were taken there against their will. So then it is fair
13 that that would be put to the witness. And I think would also be fair to
14 put the witness the documentary evidence which specifically focuses on
15 who should stay in what kind of centre and whether it is it about
16 detention of civilians.
17 You'll understand, Mr. Carrier, I don't have all the sources
18 ready because I prepare in a different way for these court hearings than
19 the parties do. Also this Chamber, of course, has no case to be put to
20 the witness because this Chamber has no case. Therefore, we ask
21 questions in a bit of a different way.
22 I think it would be fair to raise the issue about -- that we have
23 received evidence of a lady who reports that she was detained, and if you
24 have any other examples, you can summarize it, and we can't go through
25 all of the evidence. Further, I remember, and have you to forgive me not
1 having all the P numbers present, but I have a clear recollection of a
2 document in which centres and civilians being there and whether to be
3 kept there or not to be kept there, appears. I think it would be fair at
4 least to put those two matters to the witness and to say the witness that
5 it's the Prosecution's case that people were not voluntarily staying in
6 those centres.
7 MR. CARRIER: I have to admit, Mr. President, I'm slightly
8 confused on a couple of points. And if I could just seek clarification
9 and explain why.
10 The first being under Rule 90(H) the reason -- in the
11 cross-examination of a witness who is able -- I'm sure you know this, and
12 I apologise for -- partly it is for my own benefit. But in the
13 cross-examination of a witness who is able to give evidence relevant to
14 the case for the -- for the cross-examining party, council shall put to
15 that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom that counsel
16 appears. So my understanding of that was, number one, that it was simply
17 to put the nature, not specific pieces of evidence. And I appreciate
18 your point, Your Honour, but then in background to this in preparation,
19 my understanding is that Defence have also objected to saying, well,
20 putting it to a witness, well, this person said X or that person said
21 this. And it was also objected today that when I read things saying,
22 well, it's in evidence, so that was objected to, I should just say --
23 [overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. CARRIER: So that's why I'm confused.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I am aware of that. Could we try to find a fair
2 mixture that putting it in a general terms to the witness that this --
3 the case of the Prosecution is that people were not -- at least not all
4 of them were staying there. We heard evidence of someone who was taken
5 to a Knin centre, in a school building, from what I remember, and that
6 apparently contradicts your testimony, do you have any comment on that?
7 And perhaps the documentary evidence could be specifically put to him.
8 I -- there is --
9 MR. MISETIC: That's fine, Mr. President. If -- and just for the
10 record, if the Prosecution contends that there was international
11 criticism of the reception centres, if that could be put to him, because
12 he is the person in charge of them, and then can he deal with it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would, in addition, put that to the
14 witness as well, whether there was any international --
15 MR. CARRIER: I think Mr. Misetic already did that; he said no.
16 So you're saying if there's evidence -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... He said no, but isn't it
18 true that in cross-examination you try to challenge the credibility and
19 reliability of a witness. So if it is the position of the Prosecution if
20 a witness has testified about a matter in chief, that there's no need to
21 further explore whether he -- his answers were in accordance with the
22 truth, then it would come as a surprise to me.
23 MR. CARRIER: That wasn't my position. It was simply --
24 JUDGE ORIE: But that's what you said, I think.
25 MR. CARRIER: I think my point is that the reason that I've tried
1 to construct it in a certain way is to try to address the things that
2 he's mentioned, which is why I read it him first, as I explained, to try
3 to hit those points but ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that we take a break at this moment, that
5 you try within the next 20 minutes to reach, and I have tried to broker a
6 bit, to achieve an agreement with Mr. Misetic on what is appropriately
7 put to the witness and what is not necessary to put to the witness, and
8 then ask him questions. And then I'd also like to know how much time you
9 would further need.
10 MR. CARRIER: This was the -- the last bit. It's taken longer
11 than expected.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then my next question would be to Mr. Misetic and
13 other Defence counsel, whether what happened during cross-examination has
14 changed their estimate as to how much would be needed in re-examination.
15 MR. MISETIC: I think it is exactly what you said yesterday,
16 Mr. President. Maybe up to ten minutes, no more.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Fine.
18 If this Chamber comes back after the break, we expect a smooth
19 conclusion of the cross-examination. The parties are invited to assist
20 each other in making this happen.
21 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think on behalf of all of the
22 parties we would like to see you come back after the break, so ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, you would like to contradict what
24 Mr. Misetic just said?
25 MR. MIKULICIC: No, no, not at all, Your Honour. I would just
1 like to add that based on cross-examination from my learned colleague,
2 I'll need probably ten minutes as well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes. Let's then try to do the following.
4 We resume at five minutes to 6.00. Mr. Carrier will certainly conclude
5 within, then, the next ten to 15 minutes. Then it is quarter past 6.00.
6 Mr. Misetic would take another ten minutes. Mr. Mikulicic would take
7 another ten minutes, which brings us to 6.35. I include already that you
8 take a bit more, and the Chamber would at least have 15 to 20 minutes to
9 deal with some procedural matters at the end of this afternoon's hearing.
10 We would like to see you back in 20 minutes.
11 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you may proceed.
15 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Mr. Zidovec, regarding the reception centres, did you ever visit
17 any of these reception centres on ground in the first few weeks of
18 August 1995?
19 A. No, I haven't.
20 Q. Did you visit any of them during August, at all, 1995?
21 A. No, I didn't.
22 Q. Mr. Zidovec, you have provided evidence that people were allowed
23 to leave these reception centres that you were in charge of, of their own
24 free will.
25 This Chamber has heard evidence, for example, Exhibit P30,
1 paragraph 2, P1099, paragraphs 20 to 21 - and, sorry, page 2 on P30 - at
2 a reception centre in Knin there was about 150 women, children, elderly,
3 and that the Deputy Commander of that place in Knin told people from the
4 UN that these 150 people were not free to leave, and that was for their
5 own security.
6 Do you have any comment on that?
7 A. Our instructions how civilians in reception centres should be
8 treated were contrary to such a statement. I know that civilians were
9 able to leave the centre when they wanted to and some did, indeed, leave
10 and return to their homes.
11 In the first few days, on the 6th or 7th August, around that
12 time, I issued an explicit instruction for civilians in reception centre
13 -- centres to be allowed to leave such a centre, if -- if relatives come
14 to pick them up. And in that -- in that context, I demanded that, once
15 communication is set up between these civilians and their family, the
16 Red Cross be involved, which has a tracing service. The Red Cross, being
17 a humanitarian organisation, upon request of the civilians in the
18 centres, searched for their relatives who were willing to accept them.
19 So that was a way to leave for such civilians, they could go and stay
20 with their relatives. We considered that the most secure possibility at
21 that time.
22 Anyway, civilians were completely free to decide whether they
23 wanted to stay in the centre or join their relatives or return their
24 villages; that is, the places where they lived before.
25 Q. Now your answer says that you issued an order that people be
1 allowed to leave the centre if relatives come and pick them up, in that
3 And then you talk about --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... getting the Red Cross
7 A. Mm-hm.
8 Q. But you would agree with me that you're actually setting
9 conditions for whether or not they can leave so they're not actually free
10 to leave, under your order?
11 A. It is natural that such people were asked the question whether
12 they have anybody in the Republic of Croatia
13 And there were requests by people to join their relatives. And it was
14 possible to forward such a request through the Red Cross to their
15 relatives, and upon the receipt of the reply, stating that the relatives
16 were willing to accept them, we let these people go, and people did
18 I spoke to Mr. Cemerin and learned that in the early days, some
19 from our centre went -- well, let's call it a camp of the UN at Knin.
20 People from that camp came to our camp, and that is the essence of my
21 statement, that they were able to leave the reception centre of the civil
22 protection if they so wished.
23 People who wanted to return to their homes as soon as possible,
24 to them, we clearly -- we made it clear that in those areas there might
25 be some -- some threats to their security, but we were in no position to
1 prevent them from returning home.
2 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this Chamber has received evidence that people on
3 arrival in Knin were told by police to go to a school building in Knin
4 and, at that place, they were held, and during that time they were
5 guarded by policemen wearing uniforms with guns, and that they were not
6 allowed to leave. And that's after they had been actually stopped and
7 held in a basement first before being moved to Knin. And the reference
8 for that is P652, paragraph 17; P653, paragraph 11; P654. Transcript
9 reference 6718 and following. And though I cite some of the evidence,
10 I'm being selective because clearly, and just for the record, I can't be
11 comprehensive in terms of this so ... but I'm putting pieces of it to
12 you. So do you have any comment on that?
13 And actually before do you that, let me just -- there's also
14 evidence that people gather in the Knin elementary school, older people,
15 sick people, and there's a commentary by an international that it was
16 strange that there were 150 heavily armed and very aggressive police
17 people for 130 old people. And that is D741, page 11.
18 Any comment on that?
19 A. I have no comment to that. I can't comment.
20 Q. And some people -- there's also evidence that this Trial Chamber
21 has heard about people who were actually forced to leave their houses in
22 the countryside, and they were put in collection centres by the military.
23 That's P31, page 1, paragraph 2. Do you have any comment on that?
24 A. I have no comment.
25 Q. This Trial Chamber has also received evidence from different
1 Croatian authorities on the ground about collecting civilians and handing
2 them over to the Ministry of Interior, and there's a number of different
3 reasons, and I will go through them with you.
4 D57, one person noted that people were collected in order to give
5 them identification and also because there were some security concerns.
6 That's also at P897. A soldier reported that the default measure for
7 civilians found in the area was to transfer them to collection centres
8 for security reasons and to register them and conduct investigations,
9 et cetera, to see if they had any connection to enemy forces. There's
10 evidence from military police that testified they picked up people.
11 Sometimes it was because -- to protect them from harm; sometimes it was
12 so they could get ID. And that's at transcript reference 9128 and
14 More police evidence that military or police brought civilians
15 because they were incapable of living on their own. Some had been
16 abandoned, some were brought there voluntarily, some for their own
17 safety. That was all actually from one person. P897, paragraph 35; and
18 also transcript reference T9292.
19 Do you have any comment on that?
20 A. Concerning civilians who were in reception centres, we
21 interviewed them and collected information to issue them civilian
22 documents. It was required for that to get a document about the Croatian
23 citizenship, et cetera, so the procedure to establish their -- their
24 civil position was conducted.
25 When it comes to persons who were incapable of living alone and
1 had no one to take care of them, and I suppose those were mostly persons
2 who were unable to move, they were taken to the centres in vehicles.
3 Whether that was done by the police or civil protection, I don't know.
4 That may have differed from case to case. I know of some instances where
5 such people were transported by the civil protection, and there is no
6 reason to suppose that in some instances the police may have done so, on
7 the occasion of patrolling the ground.
8 When it comes to the activities of the military police, I cannot
9 comment that. Generally speaking, I can say that the reason stated for
10 protecting their security was something that everybody had warned of and
11 with good reason, because it was a very large area and with scattered
12 villages or hamlets that sometimes were made up of only a few -- of only
13 a few houses, and some of them lived alone or in households with two or
14 three persons. But it is clear that offers to stay safely at such a
15 reception centre was something that was reasonable to suggest to such
17 Q. Who decided which people were in incapable of taking care of
19 A. Such decisions weren't taken, but if you found someone abandoned
20 lying on their bed in a house or wherever, unable to move, you would
21 certainly suggest to that person or plead, for sanitary reasons or even
22 for providing food regularly, to transport that person to a centre where
23 medical and other care would be provided to them. Food would be provided
24 and hygiene.
25 Q. And in relation to what you just said, is it the case that simply
1 the need to provide food for people on a regular basis was sufficient to
2 bring them to the collection centre?
3 A. No, that was not the decisive factor. But at any rate, I know of
4 no single instance when the civil protection, that is our people in the
5 field, that they brought anybody to the reception centre forcibly. We
6 spoke to the people and explained them -- the situation to them. They
7 were simply left alone at the places where they lived.
8 Q. And this issuing an ID and interviews, et cetera, about
9 establishing people's, I suppose, nationality, did that happen at
10 reception centres?
11 A. In police stations, there were administrative services, which, in
12 our terminology, means regulating the civil status of persons. That is,
13 citizenship, issuing personal identification documents, or driving
14 licences, passports, and any other documents.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... for a second. I just want
16 to know, did it happen in reception centres?
17 A. No, it is impossible to issue such documents in reception
18 centres. We interviewed the people there, and the people produced the
19 documents they had. And based on those documents, checks were conducted
20 in police -- in the police administrations, in order to establish whether
21 the person in question was born in Croatia
22 in Croatia
23 to grant citizenship to someone.
24 Once the documents were made, if those persons were in the
25 reception centres, they were handed to those persons, and whoever was
1 able to move, went to the police station to receive their documents
2 because receiving such a document requires signing a form, et cetera.
3 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this Chamber has received evidence that from ECMM
4 reports - this is P815, paragraph 2 - that Croat authorities are taking
5 the Serbs to so-called collection centres in Gospic and Zadar for the
6 purpose of registration. And then it said:
7 "But this procedure has not yet caught all the people."
8 And the Chamber has also received evidence - this is from Flynn -
9 that he -- he was trying to get access to people that were kept in -- in
10 a school in Knin, that he had taken this up with General Cermak. That's
11 at T1241.
12 Do you have any comment or any information about that?
13 A. You mentioned collection centres. I have already said that
14 during that period, such centres were not under the jurisdiction --
15 Q. My question was, he was trying to get access to people who were
16 kept in a school in Knin, and I wondered if you had any comment on that.
17 I am sorry, I do apologise. I was looking at the wrong thing. I
18 did say collection centres.
19 Go ahead.
20 A. I don't know if international monitors, observers, were faced
21 with any obstacles to enter collection centres for civilians. But having
22 read the documents that you gave me and that refer to a meeting with
23 UN officials, I can say that at the UN centre in Knin, two or three days
24 after the end of combat actions, international observers suggested to the
25 population that happened to be there, to go to civil protection centre to
1 regulate their status. That is, their civil status. Whether or not the
2 observers had to produce a document that civil protection required them
3 to show at the entrance to the centre, I don't know. Many people were
4 roaming the place, wearing various uniforms. It is probable that civil
5 protection wanted to check who wants to enter such a centre or leave it,
6 or intends to stay there, et cetera.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
8 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not on the record, but I was looking at
10 the clock.
11 MR. CARRIER: I apologise, Mr. President. I'm just trying to
12 sift through the evidence. There is quite a few -- obviously there is
13 quite a few pieces of evidence, so I was trying to pick ones that were
14 representative or fair enough, given that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I consult ...
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, I think before the break I asked for a
18 kind of a mix. I think it would be fair at this moment to put to the
19 witness that his testimony about the reception centres where civilians
20 stayed at the time is quite different from the evidence, at least quite
21 different from some of the evidence that was produced by the Prosecution,
22 which, as may have been clear from the witness from now -- up till now,
23 that these reception centres were not places where people went
24 voluntarily, but that they were kept there for a shorter and longer
25 period of time and that they were not free to go, as the witness
1 testified, and then ask a general comment because we could go into
2 details for ages now. Because we have, of course, heard quite some
3 answers from the witness, which go all in a direction quite different
4 from what the Prosecution thinks these centres were.
5 So, therefore, if you conclude in a more general way, because,
6 otherwise, we -- I don't know whether this in any way violates the
7 agreement between the parties, but there comes a point where --
8 MR. MISETIC: I think you have the right to violation our
9 agreement, so I have no problem with it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, no problem with it.
11 Mr. Cayley, could you please --
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, if I may.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
14 MR. CAYLEY: I don't want to cut into time here, but I do have to
15 state that, for example, the use of evidence in confronting the witness
16 on page 65, line 18, where the statement was made, There's also evidence
17 that the Trial Chamber has heard about people who were actually forced to
18 leave their homes, houses, in the country side, and they were put in
19 collection centres by the military. And the reference for that is P31.
20 Well, when one looks at, P31 which is an HRAT report from
21 August 10th, there is a statement saying, Persons at the school in Knin
22 have started to leave, about 130 of 250 so far with safe passage cards,
23 "propusnicas," issued by the Ministry of Defence. And then there's a
24 discussion below that says:
25 "One woman reported being forced to leave her house in the
2 I mean, that's the kind of thing that's problematic about this,
3 Your Honour, and you know that -- I raise that simply to draw the Court's
4 attention to that one instance.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for doing that. It may well be that
6 Mr. Carrier has not -- at all instances he referred to, has achieved the
7 accuracy one would wish to achieve in this respect. I think, however,
8 that the -- what was put to the witness in more general terms, and the
9 answers of the witness sufficiently assist the Chamber so as not to urge
10 Mr. Carrier to proceed in this way.
11 Mr. Carrier, I earlier asked you to come to a conclusion.
12 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, if I could just respond to that,
13 because I'm just looking at it as well.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, I asked you to conclude, and otherwise we will
15 be here still at 7.30. I do understand that you might not be fully happy
16 with it. If there is any need to further explore this matter, you make
17 written submissions on the matter. It is not at this moment assisting us
18 in receiving the evidence from this witness.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Very quickly, Your Honour, just following on from
22 what my learned friend Mr. Kuzmanovic said. It's the reference that
23 Mr. Carrier gave in respect of my client. And if the Chamber -- I'm not
24 going to read it out, because I don't want to waste anybody's time, but
25 if you look at the reference on page 1241, and it's not exactly what
1 Mr. Carrier is saying.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are -- the questions have been put; the
3 questions have been answered. And there is some criticism, which will
4 not at this moment, I take it, change the testimony of this witness. And
5 if you want to respond to that later, Mr. Carrier, you will have an
6 opportunity to do so in all fairness. But let's try to proceed at this
8 MR. CARRIER:
9 Q. Mr. Zidovec, had you a chance to look at that UN document during
10 the break; is that right?
11 A. Yes. Yes, I have.
12 Q. And what you read there, is that an accurate record of your
13 meeting between the UN on the 23rd of November, 1995? Do you have any
14 comments on that or ...
15 A. I have only two minor points to make.
16 At item 4, it says the authorities provided their assistance to
17 prevent them from leaving, and a special agreement was signed with the
18 HVO. Well, I don't know if that is exactly what I said and whether this
19 is this exactly how I put it, and whether the two points were part of the
20 same context, so I would place a reservation on the sentence, although I
21 don't consider it decisive.
22 At item 8, paragraph 2, it says:
23 "Mr. Zidovec pointed out that in the course of Operation Storm
24 more than 105 civilian policemen and explosive experts did their job in a
25 dedicated and professional way. Of course, the number must be a typo.
1 Or perhaps Mr. Mamadi Diakite misheard the figure.
2 As for the rest, I think that it accurately reflects the topics
4 Q. Thank you. Now, just to sum it up, the evidence that this
5 Chamber has so far received -- is quite different from your evidence on
6 what reception centres were there for and whether or not people could
7 leave, et cetera. They weren't free to go, as you said. They were kept
8 there, on our evidence, by armed people, and they were brought there
9 against their will. And I just wondered whether you had any final
10 comment on the evidence in terms of that.
11 A. My comment is that it is only natural that such statements, I
12 mean, the statements made by me and the documents you have, differ. Now,
13 whether this will serve to complete the picture or whether you will have
14 at your disposal or whether you will be hearing statements that will
15 disprove the statements that were made to you and that differ from mine,
16 that's something that I cannot pass a judgement on. What I would like to
17 say at this point is that by the end of 1995, by which time I performed
18 the duties of civilian protection, I had never, from a single
19 international organisation, including EU monitors, ICRC, the
20 International Committee of the Red Cross, and other humanitarian
21 organisations present and active in the area for various reasons, heard
22 any comments which would call into question the legality of actions taken
23 by members of the civilian protection.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. CARRIER: No more questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Carrier.
2 Mr. Misetic, any need to re-examine the witness?
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
4 Mr. Registrar, if we could have -- well, let me ask first.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Misetic:
6 Q. Mr. Zidovec, are you, or did you receive information about how
7 many people were entering and exiting the reception centres in 1995?
8 A. The figure is roughly 4.100 civilians who went through, passed
9 through reception centres. According to the final data of the civilian
10 protection, as part of Operation Povratak, for the year 1995, the centre
11 in Knin accounted for roughly 1.000 of these 4.000 individuals --
12 Q. Would you -- as you sit here today, would you know how many
13 persons had passed through the Zadar reception centre as of
14 September 1995?
15 A. The information exists, but I cannot, unfortunately, remember it.
16 Compared to the numbers for other reception centres, I think that
17 the number is fairly lower than for the Knin centre.
18 Q. Let me show you Exhibit P2357, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
20 MR. CARRIER: I apologise, Mr. President, I don't want to
21 interrupt. But I'm just trying to figure out how this is a re-direct,
22 was this something that was raised during the cross-examination that
23 couldn't have been put to him in direct examination?
24 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, I think you'll see it directly
25 relates to the issues of whether people were free to leave, which is a
1 topic Mr. Carrier covered now within the last hour. And what those
2 numbers were.
3 Q. Mr. Zidovec, these are the statistics for --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But was the matter raised in cross for the first
5 time, or was it -- I mean, was it a matter which came up during
6 cross-examination and was not in any way touched upon in chief?
7 MR. MISETIC: I don't know if it has to be -- to re-direct that
8 it had been touch on in chief. The issue was --
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you deal with the matter in chief then, of
10 course, you can -- I think in re-direct any matter that arose during
11 cross-examination, but not everything to go over the same ground again.
12 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I only have ten means.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Very briefly, yes.
14 MR. MISETIC: So --
15 Q. Mr. Zidovec, if you look on this document, this is it now the
16 statistics for the -- the reception centres and where people were or
17 where they went to after passing through them. If you look at the column
18 for Zadar, it gives you the statistics. 366 were still in the centres,
19 seven placed in hospital, blank sent back to flats. And in the original
20 you'll see blank left to Serbia
21 then there's a total on the bottom.
22 Is that consistent, Mr. Zidovec, with what your understanding was
23 of where people were going and whether they could leave once they entered
24 the reception centres?
25 A. Yes, of course. Of course, they could leave.
1 Q. Was -- was there -- do you recall any issue regarding the use of
2 terminology, collection centre versus reception centre, and that that
3 issue had to be addressed by the Ministry of the Interior?
4 A. No. However, since I had the opportunity to have a look at the
5 document of my meeting with UN representatives, I remembered that, at the
6 time, for the term used here as collection centre, we in fact used the
7 term detention centre; whereas, reception centre was the venue receiving
9 Q. Okay. I'm going to pull up a document --
10 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, it's Exhibit P914.
11 Q. And just ask you if you recall having seen this document or have
12 any knowledge about it.
13 It's a document from the crime police sector, 8 August 1995, and
14 if you look towards the bottom:
15 "We are hereby informing you that in the future, instead of the
16 term collection centre for prisoners of war, you are to use the term
17 admissions centre for prisoners of war" --
18 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Misetic asked the question if he know anything
19 about reception versus collection centres and if there was ever a need by
20 the Ministry of Interior to deal with that. He said no. He is now
21 showing him a document, now he's reading him the document, without
22 actually asking if he had seen it first. And he's basically telling him
23 what it says, which is leading --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I could have asked the question. You may know that
25 I'm concerned, and not only me, with the terminology used here. Do under
1 those circumstances, it might have been one of our questions, so we'll
2 let Mr. Misetic go for a time being.
3 MR. MISETIC:
4 Q. Mr. Zidovec, my question to you is, you see that the last
5 sentence, it says:
6 "Instead of the term 'admission centre,' you are to use the term
7 'reception centre for civilians.'"
8 Since the reception centres were part of your portfolio, does
9 this refresh your recollection as to whether there was issue of the
10 terminology used within the MUP for how your reception centres were
11 supposed to be designated?
12 If you don't recall, that's fine too.
13 A. I can only say that the reception centre for civilians was never
14 in dispute, as a term. It was never controversial.
15 Q. Okay. Did the International Committee of the Red Cross have
16 access to the reception centres?
17 A. That's quite understandable. They would come either individually
18 or with representatives of the Croatian Red Cross. By virtue of its
19 status, the ICRC is entitled to interact with all civilians in reception
20 centres. There was nothing disputable about that, and it was quite clear
21 to all involved that they have unimpeded access.
22 Q. Did you have any meetings or receive with or receive any reports
23 from the ICRC in August or September 1995, as it relates to collection
24 centres -- I'm sorry, reception centres?
25 A. I had occasion to attend meetings with a delegation of the ICRC
1 in the course of these months in Zagreb, because back in 1995, I was one
2 of the vice-presidents of the Croatian Red Cross.
3 Q. And in that -- those meetings with the delegation of the ICRC,
4 did it -- was it brought to your attention that there was some dispute by
5 the ICRC about how -- about the conditions of the reception centres, and
6 whether people were -- had -- people's liberties were being restricted
7 within them?
8 A. I have already said and I confirm now that we had never received
9 any objections to the treatment of civilians in reception centres from
10 any of the international organisation, including the ICRC.
11 Q. Mr. Zidovec, thank you for answering my questions.
12 MR. MISETIC: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
14 Mr. Mikulicic.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, due to the circumstances, I give up.
16 I will pose no questions to the witness.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check, have the two documents you
19 thought should be put to the witness, they have been put to the witness
20 to --
21 MR. MISETIC: They have not, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then, in order to avoid -- you know that there were
23 two out of the five which caused Mr. Misetic some problems.
24 The other three, no objection against admission, Mr. Misetic?
25 MR. MISETIC: No, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Same, too, for the other Defence teams.
2 Mr. Carrier, two out of the five meet objections. You can do two
3 things. Either await for the decision of the Chamber, once we have
4 reviewed the documents; or stay on the safe side, put them to the witness
5 where apparently then, Mr. Misetic, no objections will further exist; or
6 withdraw them.
7 MR. MISETIC: For the assistance of counsel, it is P2576 and
8 P2577, which are 65 ter 7338 and 39.
9 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I'm just trying to look through it.
10 I'll just take a moment.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I don't have any questions on P2577,
14 which was 65 ter 7339.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, do you insist on putting it to the
16 witness in order give up your objections against admission, or is it
17 sufficiently dealt with by the terminology questions you --
18 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, I'll waive my objections.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You'll waive your objections in relation to --
20 MR. MISETIC: Both.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Both, yes. That's fine.
22 Mr. Carrier, I think you showed a UN document to the witness, he
23 received a copy in his own language. That has not been tendered, has it?
24 MR. CARRIER: I wasn't sure if it was MFI'd or not, but if it
25 hasn't, then could we please tender it into evidence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you assist us?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it wasn't MFI'd, but it would
3 become Exhibit P2580, marked for identification.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any objections against admission? There
5 are no objections. Therefore, P2580 is admitted into evidence.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please state the numbers of
8 the five MFI
9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That's P2575 up to and
10 including P2579.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And are admitted into evidence.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I have one final -- perhaps two final questions for
14 you, Mr. Zidovec.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE ORIE: You told us, you gave us the picture of old people
17 on their bed not being able to move, starving, not able to look after
18 themselves. Is that anything concrete that was reported to you, or is
19 that what you thought might have been the case when people were taken to
20 reception centres?
21 A. My attention was particularly drawn to several such cases by
22 members of the civilian protection, because they wanted centres for
23 social welfare and other local government bodies to take care of these
24 individuals, since it was impossible for the civilian protection to
25 provide for these peoples in the long-term. This involved medical care,
1 the -- maintaining hygiene standards, and a number of other reasons.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Was this done orally, or is there any document which
3 provides such a report?
4 A. One document which the chief of the civilian protection
5 department, Mr. Cemerin, sent to me, and which constituted an overview of
6 the situation as he saw it roughly on the 11th of August, referred to a
7 great many problems encountered by civilian protection officers in such
8 cases, as well as the problems they encountered in trying to transfer
9 such individuals to the care of social welfare centres and other similar
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you aware of people taken from reception
12 centres to such institutions to further take care of their social
13 welfare? Specific instances.
14 A. Unfortunately, I am not aware of it. As soon as the individuals
15 came under the care of such institutions, they fell within the purview of
16 the Ministry of Health and their structures within the local government
17 and administration. They were no longer within the care of the Ministry
18 of the Interior, the social protection -- the civilian protection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you -- thank you for that answer.
20 Mr. Zidovec, this concludes your testimony in this court. The
21 Chamber would like to thank you very much for coming the long way to
22 The Hague
23 the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a safe trip home again.
24 Madam Usher, could you escort the witness out of the courtroom.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would not be wise at this moment to deal
5 with procedural matters.
6 Although we have find time for it, perhaps tomorrow, if we try to
7 do with continue the first 15 minutes in the afternoon, which would mean
8 that we would start late, and I'm certain that we would not need more
9 than 15 minutes for it.
10 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume on Thursday, the 9th of
11 July, quarter past 2.00 in this same courtroom, I.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of July,
14 2009, at 2.15 p.m.