Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20722

 1                           Monday, 24 August 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.  The Chamber hopes that you had a good time off.

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

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-06-90-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             And, I think I would have to ask, first, after not having been in

13     court for over four weeks, whether there are any procedural issues of an

14     urgent character which needs to be addressed.

15             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I'll leave it to the Chamber when

16     you wish to address the issue of the next witness, and how you wish to

17     procedure, whether you wish to do that now or at some time later, but we

18     do need to address that, I believe, somewhat urgently.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think we should do it today.

20             Mr. Hedaraly.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  There are also a few issues regarding the experts

22     that will be testifying, and once again we leave it to the Chamber, if

23     that can be done at a later stage, but that also should be dealt with

24     fairly soon.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think, as a matter of fact that the next

Page 20723

 1     witness, that we should deal with that today, and as far as the expert

 2     witnesses are concerned, I prefer to deal with that not today.  The

 3     Judges will further consider a few matters this afternoon so that we are

 4     fully prepared for that.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  When I said today for the next witness, I'd like to

 7     move into private session.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 20724











11  Pages 20724-20727 redacted. Private session.















Page 20728

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 7             Mr. Misetic, are ready to call your next witness?  I do

 8     understand that no application for protective measures exists and that

 9     the next witness would be Mr. Bajic.

10             MR. MISETIC:  That is correct, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Usher, could you please escort the

12     witness into the courtroom.

13                           [The witness entered court]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Bajic.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bajic, before you give evidence, the Rules of

17     Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration, the

18     text of which is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.

19             May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

21     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Bajic.  Please be seated.

23             Mr. Bajic, you will first be examined by Mr. Misetic.

24     Mr. Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.

25             Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

Page 20729

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

 2                           WITNESS:  MLADEN BAJIC

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4                           Examination by Mr. Misetic:

 5        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Bajic.  Would you please state your full name

 6     for the record.

 7        A.   Mladen Bajic.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have the screen, please,

10     65 ter 1D2692.

11             And with the assistance of Madam Usher, if I could give the

12     witness a hard copy of his statement in Croatian.

13        Q.   Mr. Bajic, on the screen, we have a witness statement that you

14     gave to the Gotovina Defence on 21st of May, 2009.  Do you recall giving

15     this statement to an attorney for the Gotovina Defence?

16        A.   I do.

17        Q.   And is this -- is the statement that's on the screen the

18     statement that you signed on the 21st of May, 2009?

19        A.   Yes, and that's the statement.

20        Q.   Have you had a chance to review this statement before coming to

21     court today?

22        A.   I have.

23        Q.   And are there any changes that you believe need to be made to the

24     statement, corrections?

25        A.   No.  It was compiled and accurately reflects what I stated at

Page 20730

 1     that time.

 2        Q.   Okay.  At the time you gave this statement, did you give it to

 3     the best of your knowledge and in accordance with the truth?

 4        A.   Yes.  I told what I remembered, and everything I said was the

 5     truth.

 6        Q.   If I ask you the same questions today that you were asked at the

 7     time that you gave this witness statement, would you provide the same

 8     answers in court today that you did at the time that you provided those

 9     answers?

10        A.   Yes, absolutely.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honours, pursuant to Rule 92 ter I move to

12     admit into evidence 65 ter 1D2692.

13             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D1626.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

17             Please proceed.

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

19             As an administrative matter, I apologise, I failed to communicate

20     this with the Prosecution before court today, but at paragraph 7 the

21     witness discusses the basic criminal law of the Republic of Croatia.

22     That's paragraph 7 of the statement which is 65 ter 629.  And I would

23     just simply move to admit that into evidence on the basis of the

24     statement.

25             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.

Page 20731

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1627.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  D1627 is admitted into evidence.

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

 5             Your Honours, I have advised the witness of the procedure of

 6     reading a summary of the evidence, and with your permission I'd like to

 7     read out a summary.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you.

10             Witness AG-5, Mladen Bajic, has been the Chief State Prosecutor

11     of the Republic of Croatia since 2002.  From 3 February 1992 to 6

12     December 1996 he was the Deputy Military Prosecutor at the Military

13     Prosecutor's Office in Split, including during the period before, during,

14     and after Operation Storm.

15             In his statement, Mr. Bajic explains the laws that applied to the

16     work of the military courts and the military prosecutor's offices during

17     the time-period relevant to the indictment.  The Military Prosecutor's

18     Office operated within the system of the State Attorney's Office of the

19     Republic of Croatia, with all the rules of subordination that existed

20     there.  The military prosecutor was subordinated to the State

21     Prosecutor's Office and not the military.

22             In terms of the relationship between the civilian and military

23     police, Mr. Bajic testifies that the Ministry of Interior had general

24     jurisdiction for conducting criminal processing and in cases where, in

25     the course of the processing, it was established that the offence was

Page 20732

 1     under the jurisdiction of the military justice system, criminal

 2     processing would be taken over or conducted from the beginning by the

 3     military police.

 4             Mr. Bajic states that the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split

 5     consisted of the military prosecutor and a total of five deputy

 6     Prosecutors.  Mr. Bajic testifies that after Operation Storm, there were

 7     a large number of criminal charges or reports registered.

 8             And that concludes the summary, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             One second, please.

11             To start after the recess always causes some problems.  It comes

12     to my mind only that at 7.00 this morning, not only an issue of admission

13     into evidence of a certain document was raised, but also - and I had not

14     paid proper attention to that that - that the Prosecution had asked to

15     deal with the matter before the commencement of the testimony of the

16     witness.

17             Ms. Gustafson, this is all early morning issues.  Usually

18     objections against whatever document to be admitted into evidence are

19     dealt with if it comes to tendering it.  Nevertheless, you have

20     specifically asked to deal with the matter before the commencement of the

21     witness -- of the testimony of the witness.

22             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, Mr. Misetic has informed us this

23     morning that he no longer intends to tender the document, so the

24     objection is withdrawn.

25             Thank you very much.

Page 20733

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, thank you.  Which means that we can continue.

 2             Please proceed.

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

 4        Q.   Mr. Bajic, in your statement you discuss the issue of the general

 5     jurisdiction of the civilian police.  Let me ask you, if a soldier in the

 6     HV committed a crime in the period after Operation Storm but was

 7     demobilised prior to being indicted, who would have jurisdiction in that

 8     circumstance?

 9        A.   Exclusively the civilian police and the civilian judiciary.

10             MR. MISETIC:  If could I have 65 ter 1D604 on the screen, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Bajic, I'm going to show you a document prepared by you.

12     It's dated 23 October 1995.  I just want you to explain here -- if can

13     you review the document and explain to us why you are forwarding here the

14     criminal complaint to the civilian prosecutor's office, in this case.

15        A.   Precisely for the reasons I mentioned a moment ago.  The document

16     shows that the person reported was no longer a member of the Croatian

17     army, and therefore he fell no longer under the jurisdiction of the

18     Military Prosecutor's office, but the civilian prosecutor's office in

19     Split at the time.

20             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I tender 1D604 into evidence.

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1628.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D1628 is admitted into evidence.

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

Page 20734

 1        Q.   Can you tell the Court in an example like this, let's look at the

 2     period after Operation Storm, how frequently did it occur that a person

 3     would be suspected of being HV because they were wearing a military

 4     uniform and after further investigation you established that the person

 5     was in fact not a member of the HV?

 6        A.   Such situations occurred quite frequently.  In the aftermath of

 7     Operation Storm, according to the information I had at the time, a large

 8     number of members of the Croatian army were demobilised.  Of course, all

 9     of them kept their uniforms.  In the course of the proceedings, acting

10     upon such criminal reports, we always verified what the status of the

11     individuals was at the time the criminal reports were being processed

12     because the military jurisdiction was solely tied to the membership of

13     the Croatian army.  Precisely for that reason, while acting upon a

14     certain criminal report, we established that the person reported was no

15     longer a member of the Croatian army.  We had the obligation to forward

16     the case to the regular military prosecutor's office, depending on the

17     place where the crime was committed and depending on the territorial

18     jurisdiction.

19             We also had information to the effect that a large number of

20     perpetrators dressed -- were dressed in uniforms or wore Croatian army

21     uniforms solely for the purposes of facilitating the arrival at the crime

22     scene and the perpetration of the crime itself.  That's to say, to cover

23     up their traces during the perpetration of the crime.

24        Q.   Okay.  Mr. Bajic, let me just check your answer here at page 12

25     lines 22 to 23, the answer as translated into English is that while

Page 20735

 1     acting upon a certain criminal report we established that the person

 2     reported was no longer a member of the Croatian army.

 3             Who did you have the obligation to forward the case to then?

 4        A.   To the regular state prosecutor's office, depending on the

 5     subject matter and territorial jurisdiction.  If the crime fell within

 6     the municipal jurisdiction, then it would be forwarded to the Municipal

 7     State Prosecutor's Office, or inversely, depending upon the level of the

 8     territory.  We know that the -- this particular prosecutor's office in

 9     Split coved an area that was much larger than what other prosecutor's

10     offices normally had.

11        Q.   In your experience in the Military Prosecutor's Office, was it

12     practice for the Military Prosecutor's Office to conduct a criminal

13     proceedings and for commanders then to conduct parallel disciplinary

14     proceedings for that criminal offence?

15        A.   Criminal procedures are quite distinct from disciplinary are

16     procedures.  Military prosecutor's offices and military courts had

17     nothing to do with disciplinary procedures because there were separate

18     military disciplinary courts and military disciplinary prosecutor's

19     offices set up for disciplinary purposes.  The decision as to whether

20     minor or major disciplinary infractions, especially in the army, would be

21     processed depended on the commander who received notice of a member of

22     the army committing a breach of discipline.

23             If the act was a crime, criminal proceedings would primarily be

24     conducted because normally criminal proceedings also contained

25     disciplinary proceedings for the particular infraction that the soldier

Page 20736

 1     was reported for.

 2             In the event that the soldiers are in fact convicted, they -- or

 3     detained, they automatically would be discharged from the Croatian army.

 4     Of course, this would not be the case in the event that the acts were

 5     minor violations of disciplines but only in the cases of major violations

 6     of discipline where criminal responsibility was also determined.

 7        Q.   Okay.  If you could just clarify a little bit your answer at page

 8     14, lines 3 to 6 is:  "If the act was a crime, criminal proceedings would

 9     primarily be conducted because normally criminal proceedings also

10     contained disciplinary proceedings for the particular infraction that the

11     soldier was reported for."

12             I'm not sure that that is clear, and if you could just explain

13     what you mean by that?

14        A.   Can you point me to the item under which this is in the document?

15     Because I have -- oh, you mean the screen.

16        Q.   Yes, you just answered my last question with that portion which

17     was that you said that:  "In the event it was a crime, criminal

18     proceedings would primarily be conducted because normally criminal

19     proceedings also contained disciplinary proceedings for the particular

20     infraction."

21             Can you explain a little bit what that -- what you meant by that?

22        A.   Yes.  I said that a disciplinary breach is -- a far less serious

23     act.  If the soldier committed a crime and this was reported to the

24     military police by the commander, then the military police would report

25     this to us, whereupon we would examine the act to see whether it

Page 20737

 1     satisfies elements of a crime.  If so, criminal proceedings would be

 2     initiated.  In that event, it would become moot to conduct disciplinary

 3     proceedings against a person because the persons unlawful conduct would

 4     primarily be reflected in the crime.

 5             This would roughly amount to the relationship between a crime and

 6     a -- and a misdemeanour, roughly speaking.

 7        Q.   In your experience in the Military Prosecutor's Office could a

 8     commander conduct his own investigation into a crime parallel to the

 9     investigation being conducted by the military police and the Military

10     Prosecutor's Office?

11        A.   No.  He was not able to.  The commanders, just as was the case

12     with all the state structures in the Republic of Croatia, they were

13     duty-bound to file the report or inform the relevant organ - in this

14     case, it was the military police - on all the information they had at the

15     time, whereupon, the military police would launch and investigation in

16     the pre-charge proceedings, file a report to the relevant Military

17     Prosecutor's Office, which then directs the investigation depending on

18     whether the facts are established or not, the Military Prosecutor's

19     Office decides whether to file an official request for an investigation

20     before a court, whether it will file an indictment, or whether in fact it

21     will make a decision to dismiss the whole proceedings.

22        Q.   Now let me ask you along these lines.  A commander in the

23     Croatian army, if he has information that a crime has been committed,

24     what was the practice as to who he should inform of that criminal act?

25        A.   I'm not a professional soldier and I cannot tell you what exactly

Page 20738

 1     the procedure was within a given unit, depending on the position the

 2     commander had within the hierarchy of the Croatian army.  At any rate,

 3     once the commander learns of a crime having been committed or of

 4     suspicions that a crime was committed, the commander or the subordinates

 5     depending on what his practice was, would give notice of that to the

 6     military police who would then act on the information received.

 7     Depending on the seriousness of the crime, the military police would

 8     inform thereof the military investigating judge and the military

 9     prosecutor who jointly worked on the case.  If the acts committed were

10     not so grave, then the military police themselves would work on it.

11             If the act involved was a serious crime and then the military

12     police would first inform the military investigating judge who would

13     notify in his turn the military prosecutor, and they would jointly work

14     on what would then possibly become a future case.

15        Q.   If a commander has knowledge that the military police already

16     knows about a particular crime, does the commander, under the Croatian

17     system applicable at the time, have an additional duty to report it again

18     to the military police, if he is already satisfied that the military

19     police knows about it?

20        A.   It is difficult to answer hypothetical questions.

21             Of course, if he knows that the military police is already seised

22     of the event, it would be pointless to report to them the same thing.

23     However, the commander is duty-bound to help, together with his officers,

24     to secure evidence and facts that might be helpful for the future

25     proceedings.

Page 20739

 1             At any rate, my answer to the question, whether he should report

 2     this once more is no, he should not.

 3        Q.   Okay.  The question arises as to whether a commander could have

 4     reported a crime to the Military Prosecutor's Office directly.

 5             Can you explain whether he could have done that?

 6        A.   Yes, he could have done that.  Not just the commander, but

 7     anyone, under the legislation at the time and under today's legislation,

 8     all the state bodies are duty-bound to file a report to the civilian

 9     police or the military police, as well as the competent prosecutor's

10     office.

11        Q.   If a commander knows that the military police has been informed

12     about a crime, what further obligations does he have under the Croatian

13     system applicable at that time?

14        A.   There are no obligations in terms of reporting except pursuant to

15     requests of the military police or the public prosecutor or military

16     prosecution to give certain information, data, which would enable the

17     military prosecutors to determine whether a criminal offence exists and

18     as to the criminal responsibility or liability.

19        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 14 of your statement, you discuss the

20     role of the military police.  First, can you tell us which section of the

21     military police you worked with most closely in the period during and

22     after Operation Storm?

23        A.   Military Prosecutors, including me as Deputy Military Prosecutor,

24     at the time I exclusively dealt with and conducted the Criminal

25     Investigation Department within the military police, 72nd to 73rd

Page 20740

 1     Battalion of military police head quartered at Split, covering the same

 2     area that fell within the jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor's

 3     office in Split and even broader area than that.

 4        Q.   Can you describe for the Court how -- or the system of

 5     cooperation between the military crime investigation police and the

 6     Military Prosecutor's Office?  What were they obligated to do with

 7     respect to your office?

 8        A.   Well, yes.  The cooperation and communication could be divided

 9     into two parts, or groups of matters.  General part pertains to the

10     establishment of a general system of effective conduct and cooperation of

11     military police and military prosecution service.  This is conducted at

12     working meetings where Military Prosecutors and deputies would attend on

13     the one hand, and heads of the military police and crime investigation

14     department within the military police on the other hand to work out

15     effective and swift cooperation and exchange information about the work

16     of the military police to make it as effective as possible.

17             We have to bear in mind the fact is when the military police was

18     established in 1992, it was peopled by personnel who had not had

19     extensive experience in working in criminal cases and they had to be

20     assisted by all those who were knowledgeable of those things within the

21     system or by people who came into the service from public prosecutor's

22     offices who now the ropes, so to speak.

23             The other part of our joint work was work on specific cases, case

24     work.  For instance, after military police would file criminal reports to

25     the military, or when anybody else would report something to the Military

Page 20741

 1     Prosecutor's Office by the regular police, NGOs, citizens or whoever,

 2     military prosecutor, pursuant to Article 41, I think that it was that

 3     Article defining the role of the public prosecutor, was duty-bound in the

 4     pre-criminal proceedings to direct the inquiries and to seek from the

 5     military police and instruct them what to do, to create the conditions --

 6     to make a decision on such a criminal report, which means obtain

 7     information, facts, evidence, documents, whatever, which would enable the

 8     military prosecutor or the deputy military prosecutor seised of the case

 9     to determine whether the matter is a criminal offence or that there was

10     no sufficient grounds for suggestion suspicion or that there was no

11     criminal offence at all.

12             Such cooperation was done in several ways.  First, in writing, by

13     sending memos to the military police from the Military Prosecutor Office,

14     instructing them what to do pursuant to which Article of the criminal

15     procedure act.  In more complex cases we would have working meetings,

16     military policemen there.  Criminal investigation officers would come to

17     the military prosecutor's offices and together with the deputy military

18     prosecutor seised of the case, would tell them and agree on what should

19     be done in the case.  And thirdly, there were general meetings which were

20     concerned with general matters of how to proceed, the effectiveness of

21     work, et cetera.

22        Q.   Okay.  You described the scenario where what happens once a

23     criminal report comes into the Office of the Military Prosecutor.  What

24     about in a situation, for example, that the Military Prosecutor's Office

25     hears something in the media, an allegation that the Croatian Army

Page 20742

 1     engaged in a criminal act in some location.  Does the Military

 2     Prosecutor's Office, based on that information alone, have the authority

 3     to either open an investigation or request additional information or

 4     investigation by the military police?

 5        A.   Of course, public prosecutor's office, pursuant to the criminal

 6     procedure act of the time and today, is duty-bound to whenever they learn

 7     about a criminal offence, they have to make a note about that or prepare

 8     a note of information from the media, if it's reliable or indicative of a

 9     possible criminal offence.  After that, the prosecutor has to seek from

10     the military police or the civilian police, depending on the type, to

11     make inquiries or prepare criminal investigation, if necessary, to see

12     whether a criminal offence has been committed, and, if so, who was the

13     perpetrator, and we had such cases in our practice.

14        Q.   Just to clarify your answer.  Does that apply to both the public

15     prosecutor's offices and the military prosecutor's offices in 1995?

16        A.   Absolutely.

17        Q.   Okay.

18        A.   Yes, public prosecutors and military prosecutors had the same

19     powers, but the difference was in the jurisdiction.  If military

20     prosecutors learned that a specific criminal offence had been committed

21     on the basis of such information from the media or learned otherwise,

22     they could prepare an Official Note and seek from the military police to

23     do further inquiries, and we've had such cases, as I stated.

24        Q.   Okay.  The Court has seen examples of daily reports of the duty

25     service of the crime police of the 72nd Military Police Battalion, and

Page 20743

 1     they are in evidence, and amongst other entities who were served with

 2     that would be the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split.

 3             Can you tell us why you would have been receiving such daily

 4     reports from the duty service?

 5        A.   We received them for the deputy military prosecutor and the

 6     [indiscernible] -- prosecutor's office in general would be cognizant of

 7     what was going on on the ground and what were -- what was -- the military

 8     knew about possible criminal offences.  Those reports do not report only

 9     on criminal offences.  As you've seen, they contain information about

10     other events or incidents that were not criminal offences.  Military

11     prosecutor or his deputy would read those daily reports, and there was

12     enough ground for doing so.  They would seek further information or file

13     criminal reports on criminal offences where there was sufficient

14     suspicion of such offences having been committed.

15             In cases whose severity demanded that, after sometime we would

16     check whether criminal reports have been filed, whether the case file has

17     been opened, because criminal case files were not, as a rule, based on

18     such daily reports but on such additional information.  Those daily

19     reports were just an announcement that certain reports may be

20     forthcoming.  It was a summary of further communications or filings that

21     would materialise a couple of days down the road.

22        Q.   What were the duties of the military prosecutor in

23     circumstances --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel please.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I apologise.

Page 20744

 1        Q.   What were the duties of the a military Prosecutor in

 2     circumstances where the military prosecutor had information that a crime

 3     had been committed but the perpetrator of the offence was unknown?

 4        A.   After receiving a criminal report by the military police or

 5     others against perpetrators unknown, the military prosecutor or the

 6     deputy working on the case would seek further inquiries from the military

 7     police, if they had filed such reports about persons unknown, instructing

 8     the military police to get witness statements, information, evidence,

 9     that may help identify the perpetrator, file charges, and process the

10     whole case.

11             Of course, in the military prosecution system, we had fewer

12     criminal reports against perpetrators unknown, because if the

13     perpetrators were unknown, then such cases would be sent to the civilian

14     or regular public prosecutor's office because they had general

15     jurisdiction.  But there were situations, however, where injured parties

16     or those filing reports, in their reports against persons unknown, would

17     mention that the perpetrator was an unknown member of the Croatian Army,

18     and then the military prosecutor would then, first of all, try to

19     identify the perpetrator, given the presumption was that the perpetrator

20     was an HV member, seek the military police to get involved, and after a

21     while, if unsuccessful, forward the case to the general prosecutor

22     system, since the perpetrator has remained unknown up to that point.

23        Q.   In the KTN registers of the Split Military Prosecutor's Office,

24     there are some entries for unknown perpetrators, and you've explained one

25     of the circumstances.  Would there by any other reason that there would

Page 20745

 1     be unknown perpetrators identified in the KTN registers of the Split

 2     Military Prosecutor's Office?

 3        A.   Apart from the reason that I explained, when in a criminal report

 4     it was mentioned that a possible perpetrator -- or the unknown

 5     perpetrator, I correct myself, was a member of the HV, pursuant to the

 6     decrees that military courts and military prosecutors and military police

 7     worked, there were certain criminal offences where the military

 8     prosecutor had exclusive jurisdiction, crimes against Croatian Army, its

 9     materiel and munitions, they were registered -- such criminal offences

10     were registered in the military KTN of the military not the civilian KTN

11     registers.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D868 on the

13     screen, please.

14        Q.   Mr. Bajic, this is a report of items seized by the military

15     police at a check-point on the 8th of August, 1995.  Can you tell us what

16     the procedure is or would have been or should have been if a military

17     policeman seizes items at a check-point from a soldier who had improperly

18     obtained possession of these items.  What are the next steps?

19        A.   Pursuant to those reports, and I can see that there were a number

20     of them, military police had to conduct criminal investigation and with

21     respect to each soldier that was controlled at the check-point, and they

22     had to file criminal charges for theft or grand theft to the military

23     prosecution office, confiscate such items and issue a receipt, because,

24     ultimately, the court would hand down its decision on permanent or --

25     confiscation.

Page 20746

 1        Q.   Let me ask you about a situation now where some fires have broken

 2     out in an area where it's it reported that members of the Croatian Army,

 3     some members, unnamed, were in the vicinity of the houses that are on

 4     fire.  Who has jurisdiction to begin an investigation into that incident?

 5        A.   You see, it is dubious on the basis of what you asked me, whether

 6     there are sufficient grounds to suspect that those members of the HV

 7     perpetrated that criminal offence or the perpetrators were completely

 8     unknown and possibly civilians.  But regardless of that, in such a

 9     situation, forces of law as the law states have to undertake all the

10     possible and necessary measures to secure evidence and to conduct

11     inquiries or pre-criminal investigation.  And in such a case, both the

12     civilian police and the military police, whichever is closer to the

13     scene, should do, something or if the perpetrators are unknown, then

14     bodies of general jurisdiction would have primacy, which means civilian

15     police, and if there's grounds to suspect that the perpetrators are

16     military personnel, then the military police would be duty-bound to act.

17             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have on the screen 65 ter

18     1D602, please.

19        Q.   What we see on the screen, Mr. Bajic, is the monthly reports of

20     the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split beginning in the month of

21     July 1995.  For example, if we go to page 4 of the document, it's signed

22     by Ivan Simic.  Can you tell the Court who that was?

23        A.   Ivan Simic was the military prosecutor in Split.  And previously

24     Municipal State Attorney at Split, and Deputy Military Prosecutor of

25     Split.  He is a professional who, in 1992, was appointed as Military

Page 20747

 1     Prosecutor.  But this is my signature on behalf of Ivan Simic and this is

 2     not Ivan Simic's signature.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Well, could you tell the Court then, did you prepare --

 4     did your office prepare monthly reports in 1995, and, if so, why?  And to

 5     whom were you sending them?

 6        A.   Public prosecutor's offices, both municipal and county, are

 7     duty-bound to send a monthly operative report with statistics of their

 8     work and some major cases from their workload.  They send such reports to

 9     their superior prosecution offices.  The military prosecution officer had

10     to do so to the prosecutor general's office of the Republic of Croatia on

11     a monthly basis.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I will tender 65 ter 1D602, which

13     are the monthly reports from July to December of 1995.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you like to have them admitted

16     as one batch or -- one batch.

17             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1629.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  D1629 is admitted into evidence.

19             Please proceed.

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

21        Q.   Mr. Bajic, could you tell us were there circumstances after

22     Operation Storm where, in fact, persons were -- who were HV were

23     demobilised and then prosecuted through the civilian criminal justice

24     system and if so, how frequent an occurrence was it?

25        A.   After Operation Storm, this happened quite frequently, because a

Page 20748

 1     large number of HV soldiers were demobilised, and criminal reports filed

 2     while they were members of the HV, or it was presumed that they were, was

 3     forwarded to regular prosecution offices, to Split, Sibenik, Dubrovnik,

 4     et cetera, after verification that they no longer were members of the HV

 5     because membership of the HV was the condition for military prosecution.

 6     For military prosecutors to act on criminal reports up to the moment an

 7     indictment was prepared, because beyond that point, it was irrelevant

 8     which court took over.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Would you -- would you expect that the statistics of the

10     civilian court system, for crimes prosecuted after Operation Storm, would

11     also include such categories of persons?  In other words, they were HV at

12     the time of the commission but demobilised prior to the filing of the

13     indictment?

14        A.   Yes, of course, they were part of the statistics and records of

15     regular prosecutors.  And in terms of what I remember of the reports that

16     we submitted, we had statistics of persons prosecuted or processed by

17     both civilian and military prosecutor offices.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have on the screen,

20     please, 65 ter 308.

21        Q.   This is a report that was sent by the Republic of Croatia to the

22     Security Council, I believe, in January or February 1996.

23             MR. MISETIC:  If we could go to page 12 in the B/C/S, please, and

24     page 18 in the English.

25        Q.   A part of the report includes statistics of crimes prosecuted

Page 20749

 1     after Operation Storm.  And it reports on the military court in Split

 2     towards --

 3             MR. MISETIC:  The next page in the Croatian, please.

 4        Q.   It states that as of the filing of this report:  "Proceedings are

 5     under way against 66 persons as follows.  63 persons are charged with the

 6     criminal offence of aggravated larceny, and three persons charged with

 7     the criminal offence of murder."

 8             MR. MISETIC:  If we go back two pages in English, looking at the

 9     bottom of this chart.  The chart indicates that all 66 perpetrators in

10     the military court in Split were Croats.

11        Q.   Is that consistent with your recollections of how many crimes

12     were processed after Operation Storm, for the crimes of larceny and

13     murder, by the Military Prosecutor's Office, roughly speaking?

14        A.   Well, I can only believe the data in front of me.  But as per my

15     assessment, this was really so.  I do not doubt that we provided

16     incorrect [as interpreted] information when sought to provide information

17     and statistics.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I tender 65 ter 308 into evidence.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.

20             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1630.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

22             MR. MISETIC:

23        Q.   Mr. Bajic, at paragraph 17 of your statement, you indicate that

24     there were a total of six persons in the Military Prosecutor's Office.  I

25     should say six prosecutors in the Military Prosecutor's Office, that one

Page 20750

 1     of them was -- was charged with covering the Zadar area and one of them

 2     was charged with covering Sibenik.  Can you give us an assessment -- did

 3     you feel at the time and do you feel now that you had sufficient persons

 4     and resources to do everything that needed to be done in that area after

 5     Operation Storm?

 6        A.   Well, Military Prosecutor's offices were established pursuant to

 7     a decree on the organisation of military judiciary dated 1992.  That

 8     decree determined the number of officials, prosecutors and everything

 9     else.  Apart from -- you said there were six people, we had a deputy

10     military prosecutor in Dubrovnik.  At the time military prosecutors and

11     military judges, of course, were -- had a very large case load in terms

12     of the number of cases, exceeding by several times the norm of -- the

13     norm of cases for -- for each official, and for that reason, we worked

14     almost 24/7, because the number of cases per military prosecutor was five

15     times higher than that of ordinary civilian prosecutors.  We had the

16     military prosecutor and two deputies in Split; we had one deputy in

17     Sibenik, and in Zadar and Dubrovnik respectively.

18             Our colleagues in Split, including military prosecutor, would, on

19     occasion, travel to Dubrovnik, Zadar, and Sibenik to attend trials to

20     help our colleagues in criminal investigation in drafting of the

21     indictments, and to help them by taking up some of their workload so that

22     they could focus on their own cases, to help them tide over such dire

23     times.

24             And in connection with the work of Military Prosecutors, may I

25     say that the enactment of that decree meant the following:  The erstwhile

Page 20751

 1     deputy county or municipal prosecutors were transferred to military

 2     prosecutor offices which means that, in practice, I just pasted a label

 3     Deputy Military Prosecutor, instead of Deputy Public Prosecutor and wore

 4     a uniform, and everything else remained the same.

 5             In -- on the 6th of December 1996, the process was the opposite.

 6     I removed that label or sticker from my door and wore civilian clothes.

 7     Only some public prosecutors were transferred to the military prosecution

 8     services.  We could use all the administrative and other resources which

 9     served the civilian prosecutor offices, they worked for us, in effect.

10        Q.   Let me ask you this:  You talk about having -- your work burden

11     was five times that of the regular civilian prosecutor, and that you,

12     after Operation Storm, were working 24/7.

13             In addition to crimes committed by HV, how big of a burden did

14     you have placed upon your office by the processing of crimes committed by

15     persons who had participated in the so-called army of the RSK?

16        A.   Yes, we had a very high number of criminal reports filed against

17     civilians and against individuals who were members of the enemy army.

18             Such reports were primarily filed by the civilian police, and the

19     cases had priority at the time, because the reports filed against members

20     of the so-call SAO Krajina had to be processed first.  Primarily, if it

21     involved persons who were detained and such a practice continued until

22     the Law on General Pardon was enacted.

23        Q.   I think we'll have an opportunities to look at the KTN registers

24     later, but can you tell us why there are significantly more entries, for

25     example, for armed rebellion, in the KTN registers of the Military

Page 20752

 1     Prosecutor's Office than there are, for example, for larceny, burning, et

 2     cetera, after Operation Storm?

 3        A.   I must admit that I don't understand your question fully.  Could

 4     you please repeat it.

 5             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think it -- it should maybe be KT register.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  KT, sorry.  I'm confusing KT with my Internet

 7     service.  But I will fix that.

 8        Q.   The KT registers for the Split Military Prosecutor's Office, they

 9     have significantly more entries for crimes such as armed rebellion or

10     terrorism than for, for example, for larceny, theft, murder, et cetera.

11     Can you explain why there are substantially more entries for crimes that

12     could be considered crimes against the state in the KT registers after

13     Operation Storm?

14        A.   That can be explained quite easily.

15             In the aftermath of Operation Storm the Croatian army captured a

16     great number of members of the enemy.  At the same time, they came by

17     information revealing the identities of the individuals who were members

18     of units of the enemy army.  I specifically remember receiving such

19     information from the area of Vrlika which fell under the jurisdiction of

20     the Split Military Prosecutor's Office.  We came by lists of members of

21     certain units of and, having verified identities through the MUP

22     archives, as they were all -- or most of them Croatian citizens, we were

23     able to file indictments against them for armed rebellion and other such

24     crimes, as crimes against the -- the integrity of the territory, et

25     cetera.

Page 20753

 1        Q.   Okay.  Mr. Bajic, let me quickly turn to a different topic.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  If we could have on the screen Exhibit D680.

 3        Q.   This is the law -- the amnesty law that was passed in

 4     September of 1996.

 5             Can you tell us, this amnesty law, does it cover crimes committed

 6     during Operation Storm that would not be classified as a war crime?

 7        A.   Yes, of course, it does.  Under Article 1 of that same law, the

 8     definition is set out which states that the persons are -- amnestied who

 9     had anything to do with the armed conflict in the Republic of Croatia,

10     and the amnesty is granted for the period between the 17th of August,

11     1995.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  And the interpreter didn't hear the other date.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And of course, the crimes involved

14     were the ones comitted in relation to --

15             MR. MISETIC:

16        Q.   I'm sorry, the interpreter didn't hear -- it covers the period --

17        A.   [In English] Okay.

18        Q.   If can you start your answer again from where you said it covers

19     the period of -- from when to when?

20        A.   [Interpretation] 17th of August 1990, and the 23rd of August,

21     1996, as stated in Article 1 of the law.

22        Q.   And you were -- before I cut you off, you said --

23        A.   Of course, we have to bear in mind the fact that the act to which

24     this law is applicable had to have something to do with aggression, armed

25     rebellion, or armed conflict.  Otherwise, it does not fall under this

Page 20754

 1     law.

 2             Furthermore, the amnesty does not apply to war crimes.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, this is a good opportunity for a

 4     break, if the Court wishes to break now.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it is.

 6             We'll have a break and we will resume at five minutes to 11.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, you may proceed.

10             I have French on my English channel at this moment.

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

13             MR. MISETIC:

14        Q.   Mr. Bajic, I'm going to turn now to your role as -- your current

15     role as Chief State Prosecutor of the Republic of Croatia.  And --

16             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if could I have on the screen 65 ter

17     1D2940, please.  And this is an exhibit that is currently not on our 65

18     ter exhibit list, Mr. President.  We would seek leave to add it.  It is a

19     report from Mr. Bajic' office concerning the further clarification

20     killings which, as the chamber knows, we were given additional time to

21     try to investigate, and we would ask that we be granted leave to put this

22     on the 65 ter list.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections against adding to the 65 ter list.

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No, Your Honour.  The only matter is that this

25     was just disclosed to us on Friday, and in order to cross-examine we may

Page 20755

 1     need additional time but not a great deal, but over night at least.  I

 2     don't know how long Mr. Misetic intends to go today.  It may not be a

 3     problem anyway, but just to notify the Chamber of that.

 4             Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  But the first step is adding it to the 65 ter list

 6     does not meet any objections.  Therefore, leave is granted, Mr. Misetic.

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

 8        Q.   Mr. Bajic, do you recognise this list that is --

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Actually, if we could get the --

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. MISETIC:

12        Q.   Is this the list that was provided to Gotovina Defence concerning

13     the status of various killings that have been identified by the

14     Prosecution?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And I'm just going to draw your attention to one entry at the

17     moment and I'll get back to it in a few minutes.

18             MR. MISETIC:  But if we could go to entry number 153.

19        Q.   This is the killing of Stevo Vecerina, and you can see some of

20     the details there that were provided by your office and that the --

21             MR. MISETIC:  If we could perhaps use the Croatian version just

22     so that the witness can read it across.  Page 7 in the Croatian.

23        Q.   If you can take a look at that time.

24             MR. MISETIC:  And we'll flip it back to the English,

25     Mr. President, so that the Court can take a look at it.

Page 20756

 1        Q.   This the status of that case.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  And now if we could go to the English, which is

 3     page 6 in English translation.

 4        Q.   It says your office states that today there was a request for

 5     investigation, investigatory actions, you are interviewing witnesses, and

 6     the investigation is ongoing.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  And, Mr. President, I would ask that this exhibit

 8     be marked and I tender it into evidence, and I will be referring to it

 9     later again.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, I do understand no objections, but

11     you would like to reserve your position as far as time to prepare for

12     cross-examination is concerned.

13             Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours that will become Exhibit D1631.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D1631 is admitted into evidence.

16             Ms. Gustafson, we will hear from you whenever you feel that you

17     need more time.

18             Please proceed.

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

20        Q.   Mr. Bajic, first as a general matter, in the time-period

21     immediately after Operation Storm, and by that I mean August and

22     September of 1995, can you tell us what information the Military

23     Prosecutor's Office had that would indicate that Croatian Army personnel

24     may be involved in the murder of Serb civilians during or after Operation

25     Storm in the newly liberated areas, which were under your jurisdiction?

Page 20757

 1        A.   The information we had came solely from the criminal reports

 2     filed before us at the time, and which had to do only with the area

 3     covered by Operation Storm.  We also received information from the media

 4     on crimes committed in that region.

 5             However, the information we relied upon came solely from the

 6     criminal reports filed at the time.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if could I have Exhibit D802 on the

 9     screen, please.  And this is at -- if we can take a look at the cover

10     page, and then we'll be going to page 4 in both the Croatian and the

11     English.

12        Q.   Now, this is a report that was sent on the 11th of October, and

13     it is by a Colonel Kozic sent to General Lausic.

14             MR. MISETIC:  If we could now go to page 4 in both versions,

15     please.  If we could scroll down to paragraph number 5.

16        Q.   There's a report there that this is from the special operative

17     action Varivode and it talks about -- there was a separate request from

18     the MUP to include staff of the crime investigation military police of

19     the military police administration to coordinate forensic processing of

20     the unsolved murders of one or more of the civilians who remained

21     resident in the newly liberated areas following military and police

22     Operation Oluja ...

23             And then the next paragraph says:

24             "The engagement of the crime investigation military police to

25     shed light on these serious criminal offences began on 2 October 1995,

Page 20758

 1     when the first working meeting was held at 0830 hours, attended by the

 2     administration of the RH MUP and the military police administration

 3     staff.  It was at that meeting that this service received its first

 4     information of the murders, based on which it then acted.  Namely, the

 5     crime investigation military police was informed of 11 cases in which one

 6     or more civilians were murdered by unknown perpetrators.  Special

 7     emphasis was placed on cases which justified indications that the

 8     possible perpetrators or witnesses of a murder could have been members of

 9     the HV."

10             MR. MISETIC:  And if we turn the page, please.

11        Q.   It says:

12             "In only two cases information of a low level of verification

13     concerning the participation of HV members was presented," then

14     identifies the two cases as Gorsic and the second was in Zrmanja.

15             "All other information pertaining to these or other murder cases

16     pointing to possible involvement of HV members were of a much lower level

17     of verification and did not warrant the involvement of military police

18     crime investigators."

19             Now, you were in the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split during

20     this time-period and during OA Varivode.  Is this information consistent

21     with what your understanding was at the time of the possible involvement

22     of HV members in murders of Serb civilians in the months of August and

23     September 1995?

24        A.   The document which has been shown to me and is on the screen is

25     one that I am seeing now for the first time.  As far as I can see, the

Page 20759

 1     military prosecutor mentioned here was not involved in these cases.  I

 2     can also see that the entity responsible for all these cases was the

 3     civilian police which only sought the assistance from the military police

 4     in order to help them check the information that was of a low level of

 5     verification and which had to do with the possible involvement of

 6     Croatian army personnel.

 7             In -- therefore, the cases were conducted by the civilian police,

 8     and it was precisely the Gorsic and Varivode cases that were under the

 9     jurisdiction of the civilian police in Zadar first and then in Split.

10     The information on the -- this type of crime came from the media, and

11     there were no actions taken in respect of the military police as such,

12     and, besides, these allegations later on turned out to be true.

13        Q.   Can you -- I'm not sure if it was picked up.  Can you explain

14     again why you said no actions in this respect were taken by the military

15     police as such?

16        A.   The document on the screen indicates that the structure

17     responsible for the cases was the civilian police which called upon the

18     military police to assist them in verifying information that was material

19     for them for the evidence.  So the main role was played by the civilian

20     police; whereas, the military police was only charged with helping them

21     out in identifying perpetrators.  This is what follows from the document

22     we have on our screens.

23        Q.   Let me ask you just about your own recollection.

24             Do you recall hearing information, whether from the military

25     police or the media or any other source, that HV members were suspected

Page 20760

 1     of murdering Serb civilians during or after Operation Storm?  And I'm

 2     asking you about the time-period August and September 1995.

 3        A.   Generally speaking, I did hear, but I'm not sure if it was the

 4     Varivode-Grubori-Gosici cases, et cetera.  I heard stories about murders

 5     and other crimes committed within generally speaking, but I can't tell

 6     you to which particular case the information was related.  This is

 7     something that I don't know.  Although initially the media reports did

 8     create an impression that the perpetrators were members of the Croatian

 9     Army.  I can speak of the knowledge that I had, only through the cases

10     that I was seised of.

11        Q.   Okay.  If in fact the military police, at least as it is

12     reflected in this document, came up with two cases as of the 11th of

13     October, 1995 which had low level of verification concerning

14     participation of HV members, if your office felt, based on media reports

15     that there were other crimes that HV members may be involved in - crimes

16     of murder, I should say - could your office have instigated its own

17     proceeding without waiting for a report from the military police?

18        A.   This question is not specific, if I can put it that way.

19             If a notice of general information was received of murders having

20     been committed there, et cetera, one could not act upon such information.

21     However, since we received information from our colleagues in Zadar and

22     Sibenik, and I'm primarily referring to those prosecutors, had we

23     received information from them, then we could have sought additional

24     information from the civilian or military police pursuant to that

25     specific information we received depending, again, on who the possible

Page 20761

 1     perpetrators were suspected of being.

 2        Q.   If the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split had, in fact,

 3     received such information from the civilian prosecutor's office, or the

 4     civilian police, or any other source, would that information be reflected

 5     in the KT register of the Split Military Prosecutor's Office?

 6        A.   It would not have been.  That information would appear in a third

 7     register called KRDO which was the miscellaneous register for cases which

 8     did not yet have a criminal report, which did not such a degree of

 9     reliability as to indicate that a crime was committed.

10             I have to go back to Article 41 of the Law on the Public

11     Prosecutor's Offices which stated that the Public Prosecutor's Office was

12     primarily the prosecution body and the police was the detection body.

13     This is something that needs to be borne in mind when we're talking about

14     inquiries into information that crimes had been committed.

15        Q.   Now turning to the specific case of Varivode, can you tell us --

16             MR. MISETIC:  And, Mr. President, let me preface this by saying

17     that the witness may ask to move into private session, and I've advised

18     him that he could ask if his answer would require revealing details of an

19     ongoing investigation.  And so he may ask the Chamber for that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. MISETIC:  My question --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that Mr. Bajic has understood your

23     guidance being a professional himself.

24             Mr. Bajic, you heard what Mr. Misetic just said, and that's --

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 20762

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll hear from you if there's any need to go into

 2     private session.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. MISETIC:

 5        Q.   Mr. Bajic, my question is:  The Chamber has heard already from

 6     your deputy, Mr. Galovic, about the investigation and Prosecution of the

 7     Varivode case in the 1990s.  The Chamber has also heard from Mr. Zganjer

 8     in the Varivode case.

 9             My question to you is it's now been 14 years almost since the

10     Varivode Murders.  Can you explain to the court why that crime remains

11     unsolved and why it has taken so long for the State Prosecutor's Office

12     and the police and other relevant institutions to cover -- either uncover

13     the perpetrators or pursue charges against those who have already been

14     suspected of the crime.  And if your answer requires private session,

15     please ask the Chamber.

16        A.   Yes, can we move into private session, please, since what I'm

17     about to say is partly bound by official secret status.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, we should move into private session.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 20763











11  Pages 20763-20766 redacted. Private session.















Page 20767

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you.

14        Q.   Mr. Bajic, if I could ask you more generally, if you could --

15     you've had an opportunity to look at the Prosecution's further

16     clarification of killings, and can you give us some of the factors from

17     your perspective that hindered the ability of the Croatian state

18     authorities to investigate or prosecute some of the unsolved killings

19     that have been identified by the Prosecution in its further clarification

20     schedule.

21        A.   Well, maybe I should go back to what I stated earlier.

22             To wit, after the homeland war, the situation was that crimes

23     occurred in Croatia, whereby either witnesses or the suspects were in

24     other countries.  Cooperation between police and prosecution bodies in

25     the region was relatively weak and only over the past couple of years,

Page 20768

 1     thanks to different initiatives, we today have such a level of

 2     cooperation which enables us to bring some investigations further ahead

 3     to -- closer to the perpetrators and criminal prosecution.  I know about

 4     Croatia but also in other countries of the region, I know that by using

 5     information, exchanging of evidence and data, including the ICTY, we've

 6     managed to conclude successfully some criminal prosecutions of war crimes

 7     in the territory of Croatia.

 8        Q.   Let me ask you, following up on your question about -- or your

 9     answer about witnesses or suspects being in other countries.

10             Let's take the example, if the Office of the Prosecutor of the

11     ICTY was able to interview a witness in Serbia in the late 1990s or in

12     the early part of this decade, would the Office of the Prosecutor of the

13     ICTY then share that information with your office, contact you to let you

14     know that they have obtained evidence of a killing from a witness in

15     Serbia and ask you to pursue the matter further?

16        A.   In principle, on the basis of international cooperation and the

17     relations that we had in place, from the OTP of the ICTY, we received two

18     cases one was it's Ademi-Norac case and the one more is the code-named

19     Atlantis.  And on the basis of material received from the ICTY's

20     Prosecution office in the coded -- in the code-name Operation Atlantis,

21     we opened an investigation in the area of Poziga [phoen].  We have a

22     first instance court decision in that case, which involves dozens of

23     victims.

24             Others, no.  Only at the end of 2005 when the memorandum of

25     understanding were signed and also in connection with the exit strategy

Page 20769

 1     of the ICTY when we realized that the prosecution services in the region

 2     had to take over the task of prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes that

 3     had not been processed or detected, only then did things move ahead.

 4        Q.   Let's look at the example that I had highlighted earlier from

 5     Exhibit D1631, which is scheduled killing -- I'm sorry, further

 6     clarification, killing 153, which is Stevo Vecerina, and it's actually an

 7     event that relates to numbers 150 through 154 of the Prosecution's

 8     further clarification schedule.

 9             Mr. Bajic, the Chamber heard testimony about this incident from

10     Ms. Marija Vecerina and that transcript testimony is at page 6704 through

11     6754.

12             Now, Ms. Vecerina had provided some evidence to the Office of the

13     Prosecutor in the early part of this decade; and there was another

14     witness who also provided a statement in the late part of the 1990s to

15     the OTP.  Can you tell the Court when was the first time that the

16     authorities of the Republic of Croatia received notice that these five

17     individuals had been potentially murdered?

18        A.   I personally do not know anything about this specific case of

19     Vecerina, but I have to go back to the fact that in 2001 in Knin we

20     disinterred some bodies and 300 bodies were found there on that occasion.

21     The process of identifying those bodies is still ongoing, and, as far as

22     the current results are concerned, 124 individuals have been identified,

23     and for a majority of them it has been established that they were killed

24     and the cause were fire-arms wounds to the chest, head, and abdomen.

25     Most of them concerned information that we had received about the crimes

Page 20770

 1     occurring in the territory and concerning the cases that we mentioned

 2     today, Gorsic, Varivode, et cetera.

 3             I do not know anything about this particular case, but I must

 4     mention that after 2001, and after those individuals were identified, and

 5     when we heard explanations from experts saying that those persons were

 6     murdered at point-blank range, we opened a number of cases in the area of

 7     Zadar and Sibenik, and this is -- this goes a way of explaining why many

 8     of those cases have been registered as opened in 2004.  Most of them are

 9     registered in the KRDO registers, meaning that there is no sufficient

10     evidence pointing to a criminal offence or that we have no information

11     about the perpetrators.

12             Another thing, a number of relatives of those people that we had

13     no information who had been killed there, in the mid-2000 -- started

14     filing criminal reports or filing lawsuits about the killings after

15     they'd returned to Croatia or after they'd learned that intensive work is

16     going on in Croatia to uncover the perpetrators of such war crimes.

17        Q.   Okay.  Well, let me ask you generally speaking then, if -- was it

18     the case that in fact the authorities of the Republic of Croatia in many

19     cases didn't have any information that -- from witnesses that someone had

20     been killed until the filing of such criminal reports or lawsuits

21     sometime in the middle part of this decade?

22        A.   We have plenty of information and cases opened in such a

23     matter -- manner.  There's another fact which is noteworthy, and that is

24     claims for damages filed by injured parties related to the pre-criminal

25     investigation cases, and for those claims for damages to be valid,

Page 20771

 1     criminal prosecution against persons unknown have to be initiated, and

 2     this is another source of information that murders or crime -- criminal

 3     offences had been perpetrated.

 4        Q.   Now my question to you is:  Is there a reason that you know of

 5     that information, for example, witness statements given to the Office of

 6     the Prosecutor about killings that may have been given to the office in

 7     the late 1990s or in the early part of this decade, why didn't you

 8     request that -- such information from them earlier than the middle part

 9     of this decade?

10        A.   For us to be able to seek information, we first had to have that

11     information.  In similar cases where we had information about criminal

12     offences, we sought assistance from the OTP.  For instance, in a specific

13     case of Lora, in that case we sought information, and I believe that this

14     was the first case where we petitioned the OTP to find in their archives

15     information or evidence pertaining to that case and to deliver to us such

16     information or evidence.

17        Q.   Okay.  Do you have an understanding of why that information, once

18     it came into the possession of the OTP, wasn't turned over until the

19     middle part of this decade, turned over to your office?

20        A.   I do not know that, but I presume that that information was

21     supposed to be used in the proceedings before this Tribunal or cases

22     prosecuted by the OTP.

23        Q.   Okay.

24        A.   And because of the fact that the Prosecutors in the region know,

25     and it is generally known that in the ICTY's archives there is ample

Page 20772

 1     information and evidence about crimes committed, documents that can be

 2     used for local criminal prosecution and investigation in Bosnia, Croatia,

 3     Serbia, for that reason, we set up a joint system to facilitate the

 4     obtaining of documents that the countries of the region or prosecutors of

 5     the region could use in prosecuting war crimes.

 6        Q.   Let me ask you this:  The Chamber has also received evidence, and

 7     this is Exhibit P2345 and P2402, this is a report prepared by the

 8     Croatian Helsinki Committee about killings that took place -- allegedly

 9     took place during and after Operation Storm, can you explain to the court

10     why more killings weren't processed on the basis of the Helsinki

11     Committee report?

12        A.   I cannot tell you anything specifically about why things or more

13     has not been done pursuant to the Helsinki Committee's report.  I know

14     that that report, as a body of information in possession of the Helsinki

15     Committee, was forwarded to the competent police stations and

16     departments, and that they must have done what they could have done on

17     the basis of the information so provided.

18             In respect to the public prosecution service, I can tell that you

19     all the information which was corroborated by documents and evidence,

20     they were processed and, over the past couple of years, this approach has

21     been better and results have been better in terms of prosecuting such

22     crimes than they had been previously.

23        Q.   Do you know if the Croatian Helsinki Committee has ever turned

24     over a witness statement or other evidence to either your office or the

25     Croatian police with respect to any killing that's identified in the

Page 20773

 1     Helsinki Committee report?

 2        A.   I must admit that I do not recall receiving such reports.

 3             But, at any rate, had they been received by the Prosecutor

 4     General, they would have been processed, forwarded to the competent

 5     police authorities for further processing, particularly if they had been

 6     corroborated by certain documents or evidence contained therein.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8        A.   When I say I do not recall, I distance myself intentionally

 9     because I don't know which report you specifically refer to so I don't

10     want to make a mistake.

11        Q.   Let's me go back to an answer that you gave at page 13 line 1 and

12     ask if could you explain it a bit further.  In that answer you said we

13     also had information that a large number of perpetrators were dressed in

14     uniforms or wore Croatian army uniforms solely for the purposes of

15     facilitating the arrival at the crime scene and the perpetration of the

16     crime itself.  That's to say, to cover up their traces during the

17     perpetration of the crime?

18             Can you explain a little bit what you mean, how would they cover

19     up the crime by being in a Croatian Army uniform, and how would it

20     facilitate their arrival at the crime scene?

21        A.   Well, on the basis of the document that you showed me on the

22     existence of a check-point, it is evident that after it had been observed

23     by the competent authorities, that property crime was going on in the

24     area covered by Operation Storm, certain control mechanisms were put in

25     place to prevent such occurrences.  This is beyond question.

Page 20774

 1             Of course, civilians could not gain access undetected to the

 2     territory which was encompassed by the military police Operation Storm,

 3     and obviously it would be easier for them to pass check-points if they

 4     wore military uniforms.  These are the facts that we noticed when we

 5     processed certain cases, specific cases, because after -- after some of

 6     them were apprehended, brought before court, or when criminal proceedings

 7     were initiated against them, it was established that they had been

 8     demobilised, that they had ceased to be members of the HV, but they

 9     continued to wear HV uniforms.

10             Another thing, which was apparent to everybody living in Croatia

11     at the time, was that people used to wear either whole uniforms or parts

12     of uniforms, regardless of their status in the Croatian Army.  They

13     simply wore them.

14        Q.   You were both obviously the Deputy Military Prosecutor in Split

15     and at all times have been a prosecutor since that time, culminating in

16     your current position of the Chief State Prosecutor of the Republic of

17     Croatia.  Can you give us your assessment as to how effectively the

18     criminal justice system functioned in the liberated areas after Operation

19     Storm, in your assessment?

20        A.   You see, I can only speak in hindsight and starting from the

21     standards that we have today.

22             I said initially that both the military police and the military

23     justice system and the justice system in general had only been developing

24     or evolving at the time.  Many investigating judges, military and

25     civilian prosecutors -- or, rather, their numbers were quite few in

Page 20775

 1     relation to the cases emerging.  I will speak for the Military

 2     Prosecutor's Office, and that's why I said that we worked 24/7, all the

 3     three prosecutors who were working in Split had extensive experience from

 4     their previous career, and we had the support of the Civilian

 5     Prosecutor's Office whose resources we used, and we still had problems

 6     with insufficient personnel.  For this reason, quite a few cases were not

 7     processed as well as they should have been, speaking in hindsight, and

 8     have not therefore created conditions for trials to be carried out

 9     effectively.  The mistakes committed at the time still pose problems

10     which we are confronted with in processing these same cases.

11             The military police was set up only in 1992.  The way in which

12     the military police was organised had to be -- had in fact personnel that

13     was quite inexperienced, and time had to pass in order for them to gain

14     the requisite level of experience.  Their skills, again, were coupled

15     with the insufficient numbers of officers seised of cases.

16        Q.   Can you repeat that last sentence again, please.

17        A.   What I wanted to say was that the number of forensic officers or

18     the criminal investigation officers of the 72nd and 73rd Military Police

19     Battalions which the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split cooperated

20     with was quite low, and their ability to act in certain cases was called

21     into question.

22             In other words, they were unable to respond to all the requests

23     for forensic examinations that they received from competent military

24     prosecutors; plus, these same individuals, in the early days of the war,

25     were active participants in war activities as soldiers as well.

Page 20776

 1        Q.   Is there any -- you indicated that some of the case weren't --

 2     that there were mistakes and some of the cases weren't adequately

 3     processed.

 4             Can you -- in the addition to the factors that you have already

 5     stated, are there any other factors that would have caused or that you

 6     believe caused those cases to be inadequately processed, in addition to

 7     the lack of experience of military police?

 8        A.   I don't know what it is you're referring to, and I can't answer

 9     the question.

10        Q.   Let me ask it a different way.

11             Was there any -- from your experience at the time, was there an

12     intention on the part of certain individuals in your experience to not

13     prosecute crimes committed by Croats against Serbs or Serb property?

14        A.   No.  I personally was not, exposed to any sort of pressure from

15     anyone.  No such conversations were even broached with me, and as far as

16     I know, my fellow colleagues from the Military Prosecutor's Office in

17     Split did not have similar experience either.

18             We, as military prosecutors or deputies, better said,

19     communicated in our work solely with criminal investigation police

20     officers, and that was the level at which we communicated with the

21     Croatian army.  Perhaps the military prosecutor himself had a higher

22     degree of communication with them.  As far as we were concerned, these

23     were officers of the 72nd and 73rd Military Police Battalions.

24        Q.   Based on your knowledge of the work of the Military Prosecutor's

25     Office in Split, was your office uninhibited in its ability to prosecute

Page 20777

 1     Croats for crimes against Serbs, if you felt the evidence justified it?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Bajic.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I have no further questions.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Misetic.  Could I receive indications

 6     as far as times for cross-examination are concerned.

 7             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, we don't have any questions for the

 8     witness.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, I will have only a couple of

11     questions.  So it wouldn't take more than, let's say, 20 minutes.

12             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, I expect to be quite some time,

13     probably the remainder of today and most of tomorrow.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, are you ready to cross-examine the

17     witness.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  I am, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bajic, Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Markac,

20     and he is next in line to examine you, or cross-examine you now.

21             Please proceed.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Bajic.  As we speak the same

25     language, I kindly ask you to make a slight pause before answering my

Page 20778

 1     questions so that the interpreters could accurately reflect our

 2     conversation.

 3             Can you please clarify a constract [as interpreted] from the

 4     Croatian criminal legislation; namely, the filing of a criminal report

 5     against a perpetrator unknown.  Initially, you said that, save in

 6     exceptional cases, such criminal reports were filed before the civilian

 7     police or civilian prosecutor's offices.

 8             Whose duty was it, therefore, to investigate into and identify

 9     the perpetrators of the crime contained -- or crimes contained in the

10     criminal report?

11        A.   Before answering the question, I would like to recall the

12     jurisdiction of the military court and Military Prosecutor's Offices.

13     Their jurisdiction was over crimes committed against members of the

14     Croatian Army and for the crimes committed against the Croatian Army; in

15     other words, the military hardware, et cetera, that was the basic

16     division of jurisdiction.

17             If a criminal report -- or, rather, the criminal report is filed

18     by law enforcement personnel which, by definition at the time, included

19     the regular civilian police of the MUP, and the military police, each

20     within their own respective remit, which included the matters that I

21     referred to and had to do with the military police.

22             If a crime is committed against the armed forces, or in relation

23     to combat assets, in that case, regardless of the fact that a perpetrator

24     is unknown, the criminal report is always addressed to the Military

25     Prosecutor's Office.  However, if a crime is related to -- or, rather, if

Page 20779

 1     the crime is of the ordinary crimes which are not qualified and where the

 2     perpetrator is unknown, the regular prosecutor's office, or, rather, the

 3     civilian police have jurisdiction.  To the best of my recollection, the

 4     situation was such that there were indications of the fact that the

 5     perpetrators of crimes were members of the HV, either because they wore

 6     the HV uniform at the time, or because some of the members of the HV knew

 7     that the perpetrators were members of the HV.

 8             In such cases the criminal reports would be filed to the Military

 9     Prosecutor's Office.  However such cases were few.  The Military

10     Prosecutor's Office would, together with the military police, have the

11     priority task of establishing whether the perpetrators were indeed

12     members of the Croatian Army and therefore military personnel.  If they

13     established that the individuals were not HV members or if they failed to

14     come by additional information definitely pointing to the membership of

15     the HV, they would forward the case to the regular civilian prosecutor's

16     offices.

17             A handful of cases which involved perpetrators unknown that we

18     had came under the jurisdiction of the civilian police and the civilian

19     justice system.

20        Q.   An incident occurred in a given area resulting in deaths, an X/Y

21     unit was active in that particular area.  The civilian police was given

22     notice of that incident, and according to what you told us the civilian

23     police had the duty to initiate the pre-criminal proceedings with a view

24     to identifying the perpetrators.

25             Do you agree with me?

Page 20780

 1        A.   In principle, yes.  If it is -- there is a high degree of

 2     probability that the perpetrators were HV members.  This was an issue on

 3     the ground where commanders of both the civilian police and the military

 4     police, or the officers who were involved in it, cooperated on.  If this

 5     was something that they were able to do.

 6        Q.   Regardless of the subject matter jurisdiction of either the

 7     civilian or the military police, they were precisely the competent

 8     bodies, i.e., the police who were supposed to identify the perpetrators

 9     and investigate and collect evidence?

10        A.   Yes.  It is the law enforcement agencies who are charged with

11     crime detection and not the prosecutor's offices, either the military or

12     the civilian ones.  This is what Article 41 of the Law on Public

13     Prosecutor Offices states, and the prosecutor's office would only direct

14     and advise the civilian or military police, in order to allow them to

15     gather enough evidence or facts to complete the criminal processing.

16        Q.   Based on your personal knowledge and experience, was it the duty

17     of the commander of the unit to take certain steps at the same time with

18     a view to identifying perpetrators who were, at that point, unknown to

19     that same commander?

20        A.   Once the commander of the unit has reported the event to the

21     military police, he can -- he cannot conduct a parallel investigation.

22     This is something I know of and this is something I told Mr. Misetic.

23     The fact of the matter is that the commanders of units were, on their

24     part, duty-bound to assist the military police in establishing all the

25     relevant facts as expeditiously as possible which it needed in order to

Page 20781

 1     solve the case.  Similarly, they were supposed to assist the military

 2     prosecutor whenever he sought direct assistance from the unit, in

 3     providing him with all the relevant information, which would enable him

 4     to make decisions.

 5        Q.   Based on your experience and recollection, what was cooperation

 6     like between commanders and Military Prosecutors, where Military

 7     Prosecutors sought information from them?  Did commanders, for the most

 8     part, accommodate such requests from military prosecutors, or did they

 9     perhaps exert pressure for certain courses of action not to be taken?

10        A.   Initially they were very forthcoming.  There was some problems

11     but we resolved them through their superior commanders, and we were able

12     to be successful in these exercises.  In principle, they were forthcoming

13     and there was no pressure excerpted on military prosecutors in order not

14     to prosecute some matters.  I don't know which year this was, when we

15     processed one of the commanders of the 73rd MP Battalion in fact.

16     Therefore, if he wasn't able to secure such sort of status for himself,

17     then I'm sure he wasn't able to do so for others either.

18        Q.   Once you were appointed to the duty of the State Prosecutor

19     General of the Republic of Croatia, did you ever receive from a municipal

20     or county public prosecutors to the effect that they had been under

21     pressure from someone not to prosecute Varivode, Gosici, Grubori and

22     similar cases?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Thank you for your answers.  I have no further questions.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  That concludes my examination, Your Honour.

Page 20782

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

 2             One second, please.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hedaraly, will it be you who will cross-examine

 5     the witness?

 6             And I wonder whether it would -- or, no, you're just assisting

 7     Ms. Gustafson.

 8             Ms. Gustafson, would you prefer to start now and have to

 9     interrupt after 10 to 15 minutes, or would you rather start after the

10     next break?

11             Then we first have a break, and we resume at 25 minutes to 1.00.

12                            --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

13                            --- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bajic, you will now be cross-examined by

15     Ms. Gustafson.  Ms. Gustafson is counsel for the Prosecution.

16             Please proceed.

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18                           Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:

19        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Bajic.

20             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If could I have 65 ter 7380 up in e-court,

21     please.

22        Q.   Mr. Bajic, do you recall an interview you had with members of the

23     Office of the Prosecution on the 13th of August, 2009?

24        A.   Yes, I do recall that.

25        Q.   And is the document you see the screen the note that was prepared

Page 20783

 1     following that interview?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And did you have an opportunity at the time to review that note

 4     and make corrections to it?

 5        A.   Yes, I did.

 6        Q.   And are the contents of that note accurate, and do they reflect

 7     the truth, as far as you are aware?

 8        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 9        Q.   And if I asked you today the same questions you were asked when

10     you gave the interview on the 13th of August, 2009, would you give the

11     same answers that are stated there in that note?

12        A.   Yes, I would.

13             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, if I could tender 65 ter 7380,

14     please.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

16             MR. MISETIC:  No objection, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And since I do not hear from the other Defence

18     counsel --

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objections, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Mr. Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2603.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.  It is practice which

24     has slowly developed here that also during cross-examination 92 ter

25     statements are admitted.

Page 20784

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I have a few questions

 3     before I want to turn to the next document, but I'd just like to warn the

 4     Registrar that it's very large, and it's 65 ter 7370 in case that assists

 5     him in having it in e-court.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Bajic, you stated that in August and September 1995, you

 7     were working in the Split Military Prosecutor's Office and you were based

 8     in Split.  During that time-period, did you ever travel to the former

 9     Sector South or to any of the other areas that were liberated during

10     Operation Storm?

11        A.   If you mean by that Zadar and Sibenik, yes, my answer is in the

12     positive.  Sinj as well.  Yes, I did travel.  But I did not visit the

13     area of Knin and the surrounding area there.

14        Q.   So the closest you got to Knin, would that be the area of Sinj?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And is it right that, as the deputy -- as one of the deputy

17     military prosecutors located in Split, you didn't actually handle case

18     that arose out of the liberated areas.  Your cases arose out of the Split

19     areas; is that right?

20        A.   Primarily so, yes.  To tell the truth, I would occasionally

21     attend trials in the cases of the military court when it sat in

22     Dubrovnik, Sibenik, and Zadar.

23        Q.   Do you recall ever participating in any trial dealing with a case

24     of burning or looting or killing that occurred in the liberated area in

25     the aftermath of Operation Storm?

Page 20785

 1        A.   Allow for such a possibility, but I cannot recall specifically.

 2        Q.   And is it right that the cases that arose out of the liberated

 3     areas were generally dealt with by the deputy military prosecutors based

 4     in Zadar and in Sibenik?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   And what were their names?

 7        A.   Well, deputies in Sibenik and Zadar changed.  None of them

 8     performed their full term of duty; colleague Zganjer was in Sibenik, then

 9     after them, Ivic; in Zadar Ardena Bijlo [phoen] and, I think,

10     Denono [phoen], were at different times deputy military prosecutors

11     there.

12        Q.   And would it be fair to say that your main source of information

13     on crimes being committed in the liberated areas after Operation Storm

14     was from the criminal reports that were filed with the Split Military

15     Prosecutor?

16        A.   Yes.  As I stated, criminal reports, or reports that we used to

17     receive from the military police were the sole source of communication

18     and information about what was going on in that area, apart from the

19     reports in the media, which were accessible to all, but they were less

20     specific than what we received in criminal reports.

21        Q.   That actually brings me to my next question about information you

22     received from the media, which you were also asked about in direct

23     examination.  And in answer to one of those questions, you referred to

24     the division between the prosecution section of the criminal justice

25     system and the police, and stated that the police were the primary body

Page 20786

 1     responsible for crime detection.  And my question is:  In general, would

 2     the information contained in a media article contain sufficient

 3     information to form the basis of a criminal report or to launch an

 4     investigation?

 5        A.   You see, I can discuss this in two ways.  One, is from my

 6     position of a deputy military prosecutor, and information that such a

 7     person would receive during their everyday activities, or while on duty,

 8     and whatever information received during my duty hours, I would register

 9     in appropriate registers.

10             The other matter are information received by the military

11     prosecutor and -- who would decide which deputy is going to be in charge

12     of which matter.  All information received by Military Prosecutor's

13     Office, either during duty hours or in other hours, would be registered

14     in the appropriate register governed by the Law on Prosecutor Services,

15     the KT, KTR, KTN registers and all the others that I mentioned in being

16     interviewed by you which is reflected in this Official Note.

17             Another matter is when we talk about competence of civil police

18     and prosecution service.  Civilian police has general jurisdiction

19     when -- in cases where it is not known who is the perpetrator or where

20     there is no indication -- justifiable indication that the perpetrator may

21     be a military -- member of the military organisation.  And --

22        Q.   I apologise for interrupting --

23        A.   [In English] Okay.

24        Q.   I apologise for interrupting --

25        A.   Okay.

Page 20787

 1        Q.   -- Mr. Bajic.  I just wanted to get back to my question, which

 2     was just whether information you may have seen in the media would have

 3     been sufficient, in your view as a prosecutor, to form the basis of a

 4     report or to launch an investigation.

 5        A.   Of course, there are insufficient -- if there were such

 6     information there were individual information, and my colleagues who were

 7     seised of those separated them from the other information and acted upon

 8     them, but they were, as such, not sufficient, generally speaking.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Could I have 65 ter 7370, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Bajic, the document that should be coming up on your screen

12     shortly is the KT register for 1995.  And you have explained the three

13     log-books in your statement.  In the note of your interview to the

14     Prosecution, you referred to the KT, KTN and KTR log-books, or registers.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, KTR is in the translation explained

16     as expansion unknown.  Is there any way to --

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Certainly.

18        Q.   If could you explain to His Honour, Mr. Bajic, what the KTR

19     register contains.

20        A.   The KTR register is a register where information and data is

21     going to be entered into where information did not have the character of

22     a criminal report, because they do not contain sufficient elements to

23     lead the prosecutor to a conclusion that it went for a criminal offence

24     or a -- perpetrator of a criminal offence.  The R means "miscellaneous,"

25     which means that all other matters are going to be entered into that

Page 20788

 1     register.  In KT, we have entries on criminal offences where perpetrators

 2     are known and in the KTN we entered criminal offences where the

 3     perpetrators are unknown, so the R, meaning "miscellaneous," contains

 4     entries on all other information which could not be classified into the

 5     previous two registers.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  And if subsequently information was obtained that

 7     indicated that an entry in the KTR register did constitute a crime, would

 8     that then be transferred to either the KT or the KTN register?

 9        A.   That's correct.  It would be transferred into one or the other,

10     by either detecting the perpetrator or identifying the perpetrator, or

11     by -- while investigations of KTR entries being conducted, would unearth

12     indications that would lead the prosecutor to conclude that a criminal

13     offence has been committed, but the perpetrators is unknown, so that such

14     an entry would be transferred into the KTN, the perpetrators unknown

15     register under a different number.

16             There's another detail is [as interpreted] important.

17     Prosecutors could not approach the courts on of the basis of entries in

18     the KTR, whenever court is petitioned to examine witnesses or undertake

19     any other action to be done by the investigating judge, the prosecutor

20     had to transfer entries from the KTR into either of the other two per the

21     rule -- per the rules of the service.  Of course, I'm not saying that

22     this was done in each and every individual case.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And if you look on your screen --

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could have the original brought up --

25        Q.   -- do you recognise this page as a page from the KT register in

Page 20789

 1     1995?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And you have explained this register and the way the entries were

 4     recorded already, and that's in -- reflected in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the

 5     note of your interview with the Prosecution.  So I'd just like to look at

 6     a few entries so that this is clear.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could go to page 38 in the B/C/S.

 8        Q.   And in this document only the column headings have been

 9     translated into English as well as certain abbreviations.

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could look at entry 796, which is, I

11     believe, the second entry on the page.

12        Q.   Now, Mr. Bajic, this entry would have the number KT 796; is that

13     right?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   And this would be a report from the 72nd Military Police

16     Battalion, 3rd Company, Zadar; is that right?

17        A.   Correct.  That's correct.

18        Q.   And the criminal report number is 291/95?

19        A.   Yes.  Q291/95.

20        Q.   And if we look at the sixth column, this is a report against a

21     suspect named Frane, Mihanovic, and the victim reflected in the 8th

22     column is unknown; is that right?

23        A.   That's correct.  NN, meaning person unknown.

24        Q.   And in the next column, that indicates the provision of the

25     Criminal Code and the date of the commission of the crime which, in this

Page 20790

 1     case is a case of theft and aggravated theft; is that right?

 2        A.   Yes, theft and aggravated theft.  That's the qualification of

 3     this criminal offence.  It could be said Articles 125 and 126 depict

 4     criminal offences of theft and aggravated theft, yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to page 62.  And just for the

 7     court and the parties' reference, the entry we just looked is also

 8     reflected in Exhibit P2553 which lists the criminal reports of the Zadar

 9     Military Police Company.

10             If we could look at entries 884 through to 887 on this page.

11        Q.   And you've explained in your interview note with the -- interview

12     with the Prosecution that military units sometimes referred criminal

13     reports to the military prosecutor.

14             And if you look at entry 884, it says:  "MO-GS, ZZP Split.  VP

15     1108 Drnis."

16             Now, Military Post VP 1108 is the 142nd Home Guard Regiment.

17     Does this entry indicate a criminal report received from that unit?

18        A.   That's exactly it, yes.

19        Q.   And if we look at entry 886 at the bottom of the page.  This is a

20     report from VP 2138, Netkovic, which is the 116th Home Guard Regiment.

21     And this, I take it, would a report from that unit; is that right?

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23        Q.   And the crimes being reported here are Articles 153 and 154 of

24     the basic Criminal Code.  And those crimes are failure or refusal to obey

25     an order, and refusing to receive and use arms; is that right?

Page 20791

 1        A.   Yes.  That would it be, as far as I can tell from the reference

 2     number and the qualifications.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could go to page 100 --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, I'm just trying to identify, you said

 6     VP 2138 Netkovic, and that was in relation to -- oh, that was 884, 886.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I believe it's not on the screen anymore.  It's a

 8     little further up.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just trying to follow -- yes, yes, I see --

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 885.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yep.  One second.

12             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could move to page 110, please.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you mind to go back to the previous one,

14     because I have some difficulties in --

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  That was page 62.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

17             Yes, you read for 886, report from VP 2138 Netkovic.  Let me just

18     have a look.  I see VP 110 --

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  [Overlapping speakers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  No, that must be 885.  Is that my confusion?

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I may have misspoke.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, on page 67, line 6, you said, "And if you look

23     at entry 886 ..." and then you started reading what apparently is in 885

24     instead of 886.

25             Is that correct?

Page 20792

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I'm sure it is, Your Honour.  I apologise for the

 2     confusion.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm just trying to follow every step of

 4     question and answer.

 5             Then please proceed.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you.  If we could go to page 110.  And to

 7     the bottom of the page.

 8        Q.   And, Mr. Bajic, if you could look at entry 1056.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   This is a criminal report from PUZK, PP, Gracac.  That would be

11     the police station -- Gracac police station within the Zadar-Knin police

12     administration; is that right?

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   And this entry would reflect receipt by the Split Military

15     Prosecutor of a criminal report filed directly by the civilian police

16     where the information indicates the perpetrator -- or the suspect is a HV

17     member; is that right?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  And if we could go to page 120, to entry 1089,

20     which is -- right ...

21        Q.   And this entry says: "OP DO Knin," and then there is a KT number

22     and a KU number.  And this entry reflects a file being transferred from

23     the Municipal Prosecutor's Office in Knin to the Split Military

24     Prosecutor, where the information in the possession of the prosecutor

25     indicates the suspect is a HV member; is that accurate?

Page 20793

 1        A.   Yes.  Here the Municipal Prosecution Office of Knin refer the

 2     case to the Military Prosecutor's Office, from its KT register,

 3     accompanied by the appropriate KT register number, against three persons.

 4     Out of those three, two are mentioned as being members of the Croatian

 5     Army.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  So it's fair to say that every criminal report

 7     received by the Split Military Prosecutor's Office against a known

 8     suspect -- from whatever the source, would be recorded in this register;

 9     is that right?

10        A.   Absolutely, yes.

11        Q.   And this procedure of municipal or county prosecutor's offices

12     transferring files to the military prosecutor, where they discover that

13     the suspects, or one of the suspects is a HV member, was that a mandatory

14     procedure?  Where the civilian prosecutors required to transfer their

15     files in such circumstances?

16        A.   Yes, of course.  Because they did not have jurisdiction for

17     further actions, if they established that the reported person is a

18     Croatian soldier.  And pursuant to all laws and regulations, the

19     jurisdiction is in the hands of the Military Prosecutor's Office and the

20     military courts.

21        Q.   And you were asked in your direct examination about HV members

22     being demobilised prior to the filing of an indictment.  If the -- if the

23     criminal report was filed when the individual was an HV member, then they

24     were subsequently demobilised before the indictment was issued.  The

25     criminal report would still be reflected in this register; is that right?

Page 20794

 1        A.   It could be found in the register, but the register would also

 2     have an entry stating that the case was deferred to one of the civilian

 3     regular prosecutor's offices.  It would state the date of deferral or

 4     referral, and the entire entry would be crossed out with a line, meaning

 5     that the case no longer lay within our jurisdiction.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  And in relation to the filing of criminal reports by

 7     military units, if a military commander or a military officer within the

 8     Split Military District became aware of a member of the -- of a Split

 9     Military District unit committing a crime and he reported that crime to a

10     prosecuting authority, is there any other prosecuting authority, aside

11     from the Split Military Prosecutor, that he would report that crime to?

12        A.   No.  If he filed a report before the Military Prosecutor's

13     Office, he met his duty under the Law on Criminal Procedure; whereupon,

14     the Military Prosecutor's Office would formulate a case and send requests

15     for inquiries and criminal processing to the police, depending on the

16     contents of the report.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Could I tender this document, please.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

20             Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2604.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  P2604 is admitted into evidence.

23             Please proceed.

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             I would also like it tender the KT register for 1996.  I have no

Page 20795

 1     questions on it.  If Your Honours would like me to show it to the

 2     witness, I'm happy to.  If I -- if I could just tender it from the bar

 3     table with the 65 ter number I could also do that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If the parties agree on the documents have you in

 5     mind to be those registers, I think there would be no need to show it to

 6     the witness.

 7             Mr. Misetic.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  We have no objection, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Also not with the description of the document,

10     that ...

11             MR. MISETIC:  I trust Ms. Gustafson will call up the right 65 ter

12     number, yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I hope it is 65 ter 7371, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And, Mr. Registrar, that would ...

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2605.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could 65 ter 7372 brought up on the screen,

19     please.

20        Q.   Mr. Bajic, the document that should be coming up shortly is the

21     KTN register for 1995.

22             And while that's coming up, if I could just ask you the criminal

23     reports received against unknown perpetrators were received, generally

24     speaking, from the same sources as those for the KT register, and by that

25     I'm referring to principally the military police, civilian police,

Page 20796

 1     civilian prosecutors?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.  Although the order was somewhat different.  First, the

 3     military police, then the civilian police, and then the rest.

 4        Q.   I'm sorry, I don't quite understand that.  The order was somewhat

 5     different from -- from what?

 6        A.   Military police above all, followed by the civilian police and

 7     the others.  But, no matter.

 8        Q.   Is that the portion of the KTN register you see on the screen for

 9     1995?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And I have the same question with this register as with the KT

12     register.

13             Is it correct that every criminal report received by the Split

14     Military Prosecutor's Office, from whatever source, against an unknown

15     perpetrator and every criminal file against an unknown perpetrator

16     transferred from a civilian prosecutor would be recorded in this

17     register?

18        A.   Yes.  Yes, against an unknown perpetrator, yes.  It was

19     mandatory.

20        Q.   So together the KT and the KTN registers represent a

21     comprehensive record of the criminal reports received and transferred

22     criminal files to the Split Military Prosecutor's Office; is that right?

23        A.   That's right.  One most note that the KTR register also contains

24     a number of potential reports that may have subsequently been referred to

25     one of these two registers.  It only depends on the time-line and the

Page 20797

 1     dates you're looking at.  But, in principle, yes.  All the reports were

 2     contained either in the KT or the KTN registers.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson, could I seek clarification.

 4             The KTN register, we have the original on our screen at this

 5     moment, and I have the English translation.  Under 8 in the English

 6     translation we see "DO."  Under 9, we see "MUP."  Under 10 in the

 7     original it says "DO," where in the translation it says "MUP."  And under

 8     11, the original says "MUP" whereas the English translation says "DOD"

 9     which is a unexplained yet -- I have not looked at the other pages yet,

10     but at least it seems that 10 and 11 are not fully consistent in their

11     presentation.

12             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll request a revision

13     of the translation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and then perhaps also a further explanation for

15     DOD which seems not to appear in the original.

16             Please proceed.

17             MS. GUSTAFSON:  If we could go to page 3 of this document and

18     entry 69, please.

19        Q.   Mr. Bajic, you can see from the second column this is a report

20     received on the 20th of October, 1995.

21             And in the third column, the reporting authority, is that a

22     report received from the Military District Split, duty service?

23        A.   Yes, that is correct.  Split Military District, duty service and

24     number.

25        Q.   And if we look at the column for the nature of the crime and the

Page 20798

 1     date of the crime, this is Article 155 of the Croatian Criminal Code,

 2     which is series of offences against public safety, and refers to an

 3     incident dated 18 October 1995; is that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And in the fifth column where the details of the victim are

 6     normally located, this entry appears to have been partly whited out, and

 7     I'm wondering if you have any information or can assist the Chamber in

 8     what this entry relates to.

 9        A.   The person making entries into the register probably made an

10     error and therefore whited it out, which is not proper procedure.  One

11     should not white it out by merely cross out an error.  However, the entry

12     indicates that the case was referred to the civilian prosecutor's office,

13     i.e., the Zadar Public Prosecutor's Office, under that number.  This is

14     merely an opinion I'm offering.  In order to verify the actual situation,

15     I would have to look at both the case file and the register.

16        Q.   And more generally, if a military commander or military officer

17     in the Split Military District received information that Split Military

18     District soldiers had committed a crime, or he personally observed them

19     committing a crime in circumstances where he was not aware of their

20     specific identity, would he be able to file a report against unknown

21     perpetrators with the Split Military Prosecutor's Office?

22        A.   Yes.  Not only could he have filed a report, he must have had --

23     must have done that, and a report should have contained the elements of

24     the crime and information allowing further inquiries into the -- into the

25     perpetrators and their identification.

Page 20799

 1        Q.   When you said he -- not only could he have filed a report he must

 2     have had -- I would just like to clarify because "must" can have various

 3     meanings in English.

 4             Do you mean that not only he could have filed a report, he should

 5     have had; is that right?

 6        A.   Yes.  I'm invoking the Law on Criminal Procedure again, whereby

 7     all the public and state agencies have the duty to file a report to the

 8     competent body, which includes military bodies; soldiers, et cetera.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  There interpreter notes:  The witness also said

10     commanders.

11             MS. GUSTAFSON:

12        Q.   And when you said:  "The report should have contained the

13     elements of the crime and information allowing further inquiries into the

14     perpetrators and their identification," would such information, for

15     example, include the unit that the soldiers belonged to, if the commander

16     was aware of the identity of the unit?

17        A.   Yes, of course.

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honour, if I could tender this exhibit as

19     well as the KTN register for 1996, which is 65 ter 7373.

20             MR. MISETIC:  No objection.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 7372 will become

23     Exhibit P2606; the 65 ter number 7373 becomes P2607.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Both are admitted into evidence, but the Chamber

25     expects a brief report on the issue I just raised.

Page 20800

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour, we'll get that as quickly as

 2     possible.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is it correctly understood that not all the

 4     entries are translated, just the format.

 5             MS. GUSTAFSON:  The format and a number of the abbreviations that

 6     are contained --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But not the data contained in the various

 8     columns.

 9             MS. GUSTAFSON:  [Microphone not activated]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  At least that's what I did not find.  For example,

11     the KTN register, it's a three-page document of which the third page is

12     empty.  So it's just an explanation of the format, and you have dealt

13     with some of these entries specifically.

14             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour.  And they are -- we did it that

15     way because we simply didn't have time to translate the entire document

16     and also because the entries are largely but not exclusively names and

17     numbers.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that the Chamber, of course, is

19     limited in accessing the data contained in these reports and is focussing

20     mainly at this moment on what kind of registers were kept.

21             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, Your Honour.  We can request a full

22     translation.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I'm not insisting on it but I'm just --

24     usually if an exhibit is tendered and admitted into evidence, we usually

25     have a full translation, which makes every detail of information

Page 20801

 1     accessible for the Chamber.  I just, at this moment, establish that this

 2     is not the case in full with this document -- these documents, I should

 3     say.  I'm just pointing at the limits in --

 4             Mr. Misetic.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  I don't want to anticipate further

 6     cross-examination, and if I'm mistaken I am sure I will be corrected, but

 7     I think there is a chart that's been prepared which will list some of the

 8     entries that have been lifted from here, although could I be wrong, and

 9     the Prosecution and the Defence are in the process of finalising

10     agreement on which entries are relevant or not relevant.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That's good to hear.  I'm just, at this moment -- we

12     decided to admit something into evidence, and therefore I try to

13     establish what this exactly means with not a full translation of this

14     document available to the Chamber.

15             You may proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour, and I thank my colleague

17     as well.

18        Q.   Mr. Bajic, the Prosecution has examined each of the entries in

19     the KT and KTN registers starting from beginning of August 1995 and going

20     until the end of March -- beginning of August 1995, I should say, and

21     concluding at the end of March 1996, and this analysis indicates that

22     during this period of time no Split Military District units, commanders,

23     or officers reported any crimes relevant to the indictment in this case,

24     which is, roughly speaking, crimes related to looting, destruction, or

25     killing in the area of Sector South in August and September 1995.  And

Page 20802

 1     I'd just like to ask you if that analysis is in any way inconsistent with

 2     your recollection of the reports and cases dealt with by the Split

 3     Military Prosecutor at the time?

 4             MR. MISETIC:  If we could just get clarification, the question

 5     says "did not report," if we could just clarify.  The question, I think,

 6     is trying to be specific to one institution.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I'm sorry, I should clarify that I'm referring to

 8     filing criminal reports with the Split Military Prosecutor.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, is the question still clear to you,

10     Mr. Bajic?  In the registers on the relevant matters --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me be brief.  All the reports

12     received by the Military Prosecutor's Office, either in the form of KT,

13     reports against persons known, or KTN against persons unknown, were

14     registered in our registers.  In other words, all the cases received by

15     our office were registered and entered into the registers.

16             MS. GUSTAFSON:

17        Q.   So, in other words, you have no reason to doubt the accuracy of

18     the registers.  Is that what you're saying?

19        A.   No.  Let me just make this point.  A small number of cases were

20     entered into the KRDO register because it wasn't clear whether they could

21     indeed be qualified as crimes.  I also said that a small number of them

22     could have been entered into a strictly confidential register, but the

23     number was so small that it can hardly have an impact on the general

24     picture.

25        Q.   Let me just ask you a couple of questions about that.

Page 20803

 1             The KRDO register, is that the same thing as the KTR register?

 2        A.   Absolutely not.  The KTR register is one containing all

 3     information, filings and memos sent to the Military Prosecutor's Office

 4     which did not belong to the regular registers; primarily the KT

 5     containing reports against known persons and KTN against unknown persons.

 6     The prosecutors would also take certain steps and inquiries and would

 7     seek information in relation to KTR cases in order to find out whether

 8     the reports did amount to crimes.  Alternatively, if they found that the

 9     information was irrelevant, then they would merely make a note on the

10     folder of the case to the effect that there were no further grounds for

11     acting upon that particular report.

12             Let me just state that the KTR register did not, as a rule,

13     contain any reports against individuals known or unknown.  All these

14     reports were entered into the two registers you mentioned.

15        Q.   And the -- so the KRDO register, where you said was used for

16     situations where it was unclear whether it could be qualified as a crime,

17     if you had received a criminal report from a military commander against

18     known or unknown members of the HV for crimes relating to burning,

19     looting, or killing, are there any circumstances where that report could

20     end up in the KRDO register?

21        A.   No, they would end up in the KT register.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we get a lot of confusion at this moment.

23             If I invite the parties to look at page 79, line 16, there, it

24     seem what previously was apparently KTN, that is unknown persons, now

25     suddenly appears as KTR, but also linked to unknown persons.

Page 20804

 1             Can we try to find -- I do understand, Mr. Bajic, KT register

 2     contains all the reports on crimes where perpetrators are known.  KT -- I

 3     see you're nodding yes.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's the first.  KTN is the register in

 6     which all reported crimes with unknown perpetrators were registered.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  KTR is the register which, I think you called it

 9     miscellaneous.  That means all type of reporting, filing, et cetera,

10     where it is unclear whether it directly relates to a crime being

11     committed.

12             Is that correctly understood?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, the last category, and perhaps you would --

15     that is the KRDO register.  Could you try to summarise in one or one line

16     and a half what that register exactly contains.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the same KTR register which

18     was subsequently renamed into KRDO.  So it's an identical register, it's

19     the same register, which carried a different designation at different

20     times.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Again, then, KRDO also registers miscellaneous

22     reporting, filing, et cetera, where it's unclear whether it can be

23     directly linked to a crime being committed.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Gustafson.

Page 20805

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   And one last question, Mr. Bajic, is you referred to:  "... a

 3     small number of crimes could be entered into a strictly confidential

 4     register but the number was so small that it can hardly have an impact."

 5             What was the strictly confidential register for?

 6        A.   It was the register containing a handful or a dozen or so entries

 7     based on the documents received by the Military Prosecutor's Office,

 8     already bearing the designation "confidential" or "strictly

 9     confidential."  Under our regulations, where we received documents marked

10     this way, we have to register the case under the -- with the same status

11     until the time when the person sending the document to us asks for the

12     status to be changed, and we had, during a certain period of time,

13     documents that we received and we had to act upon, and they were

14     registered in this way.

15             However, they did not remain in that register for long.  It took

16     some time for the case to be investigated into, a month or two, and then

17     it would be transferred to the KT register.

18        Q.   And do you have any reason to believe that a criminal report

19     filed by a military commander or officer against an HV member for a crime

20     related to looting, burning, or killing in the aftermath of Operation

21     Storm would be filed within this strictly confidential register?

22        A.   No.  I can state with a great degree of certainty that the

23     register did not contain such entries.  However, there was the

24     possibility for the colleagues working out in the field to make a

25     mistake, because they were not experienced enough.  I was involved in

Page 20806

 1     some cases where I came upon cases being entered into wrong registers.

 2     There were no such entries made that were not supposed to be known,

 3     because there were -- simply were not such entries to begin with, and

 4     therefore they could not be part of the register.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honours, I'm about to move to another topic.

 7     I can start now or if you'd rather adjourn for the day ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it would be wiser to -- to finish for the

 9     day, and --

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Um --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I'd just like to if Mr. Bajic could be handed a

13     bundle of case files that I will referring to tomorrow so that can he

14     read them in order to expedite matters tomorrow.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The Defence is familiar with the content of

16     the documents.

17             MR. MISETIC:  I'm not sure so ...

18             MS. GUSTAFSON:  They're on the cross-examination document list.

19     I'd be happy to provide the numbers to Mr. Misetic.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  No objections.

21             Now, Mr. Bajic, you get some homework from Ms. Gustafson.  Could

22     you please look through it before tomorrow so you will be better able to

23     understand the questions Ms. Gustafson will put to you.

24             May I further urge the Prosecution, once it has made up its mind

25     as far as the next witness is concerned, to inform the Chamber, even

Page 20807

 1     informally, and, of course, copying the Defence on its position so that

 2     if there's any green light to be switched on, that it can be done as

 3     quickly as possible.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Certainly, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we adjourn for the day, Mr. Bajic, and we'd

 6     like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00.  But I would like to

 7     instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony,

 8     whether that is testimony you've given already today, or whether it is

 9     about the testimony you're expected to give tomorrow.

10             We adjourn and we resume tomorrow, Tuesday 25th of August, 9.00

11     in the morning, Courtroom III.

12                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,

13                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of

14                           August, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.