1 Tuesday, 25 August 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in the courtroom and those
6 just around assisting us.
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: Before we continue the examination of the present
12 witness, I would like to turn into private session for a second.
13 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
7 May I take it there are no other procedural matters to be
8 discussed at this moment. Therefore, Madam Usher, could you please
9 escort the witness into the courtroom.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Just to save time, Your Honour, while the witness
11 is coming up in, if I could have the Registrar to bring up P2604, at
12 page 38. Thank you.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Bajic.
15 Mr. Bajic, may I remind you that the solemn declaration you gave
16 yesterday at the beginning of your testimony is still binding you. That
17 is, that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
19 WITNESS: MLADEN BAJIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson will now continue her
23 Please proceed.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson: [Continued]
1 Q. And good morning, Mr. Bajic.
2 Mr. Bajic, I had just one additional question on the KT register
3 that we were looking at yesterday that I neglected to ask at the time.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could look at the second entry on this
5 page, which is entry 796.
6 Q. And this is one of the ones we looked at yesterday.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could then go to the next page of the
8 register where this entry continues.
9 Q. And you can see under column 32 it refers -- that column entry
10 states: "Judgement or first instance decision."
11 And that entry has a date of 6 December 1996 and refers to a
12 transfer of this case file to the municipal prosecutor's office in Knin.
13 And I'd just like to confirm with that you this entry refers to a
14 transfer related to the termination of the Military Prosecutor's Office
15 at that time, in December of 1996, and the transfer of all existing case
16 files from the Split Military Prosecutor's Offices -- office to civilian
17 prosecutor's offices.
18 Is that a correct understanding of that entry?
19 A. Yes. On the 6th of December, 1996, military courts and Military
20 Prosecutor's Offices were abolished, and all pending cases, or cases
21 where final decisions had not been taken, were referred to the regular
22 prosecutor's offices. The cases where final decisions were taken were
23 filed in the Split
24 found today. Thus, this particular file was referred to the Zadar
25 prosecutor's office on the 6th of December, and bears this particular
1 reference number that we have here.
2 Q. Thank you. And in contrast to this transfer of all the files in
3 December of 1996, if a case was referred to a civilian prosecutor's
4 office in circumstances where the suspect had been demobilised before the
5 indictment was issued or in circumstances where it was discovered that
6 the suspect was not a HV member, that would be entered in column 26 on
7 this chart, where it says: "Deferred to other public prosecutor's
9 Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on to another topic now which is the
12 duty that you referred to yesterday of commanders to file criminal
13 reports. And you testified yesterday about a general duty imposed on all
14 members of state institutions to file criminal reports when they become
15 aware of a crime. And I'd like to ask you a few more specific questions
16 about the duties of commanders in the Croatian army in relation to the
17 conduct of their subordinates.
18 And my first question is: You testified yesterday that you're
19 not a professional soldier. Do you have any specialised knowledge or
20 training in the duties of Croatian army commanders, vis-a-vis the conduct
21 of their subordinates?
22 A. No, I'm not a professional soldier, and I didn't attend any sort
23 of training. My answer had to do with the general provisions of the Law
24 on Criminal Procedure, i.e., Article 141 of the law of the time, which
25 provides for all public authority bodies and all state institutions and
1 their duty to report to the law enforcement agencies of all the criminal
2 offences they become aware of, including commanders of units.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to Exhibit P1007, please.
5 Q. In your testimony yesterday, you were asked questions about
6 criminal versus disciplinary proceedings and you explained that criminal
7 procedures are quite distinct from disciplinary procedures, and you said
8 that Military Prosecutor's Offices and military courts had nothing to do
9 with disciplinary procedures.
10 And --
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. -- in light of the fact that you've given evidence that these are
13 two distinct systems, I'd like to ask you, again, whether have you any
14 specialised knowledge or training in the structure or operation of the
15 system of military discipline that was in place at the time of Operation
17 A. No. And I have no other knowledge than the general knowledge a
18 lawyer would have.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we go to page 2 in the English and page 2
21 in the B/C/S of this document, please.
22 Q. Mr. Bajic, if I could direct your attention to Article 3 of this
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could move to the next page in the
25 English. I'm particularly interested in point 7, under Article 3.
1 Q. And you can see that, according to this Article, violations of
2 the Code of Military Discipline include commission of a crime for which
3 proceedings are initiated ex officio.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 10 in the English and
5 page 4 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. If you could look at Article 31, paragraph 1, where it says:
7 "In situations where the authorised officer finds that the
8 offence against military discipline is also a criminal offence, the case
9 shall be sent via regular channels to the authorised prosecutor; if he
10 thinks that it is in the interest of the service, he shall also initiate
11 disciplinary procedures."
12 Now, you were asked yesterday about the possibilities of parallel
13 investigations by military commander and by the military police, and
14 those questions were not very specific as to the type of investigation
15 involved. Would you agree, as indicated by these Articles of the
16 Military Discipline Code that a commander can conduct disciplinary
17 proceedings in parallel to a criminal investigation?
18 A. Absolutely. I said so myself yesterday that criminal procedure
19 or criminal proceedings are quite distinct from military disciplinary
20 proceedings, and I spoke of the criminal proceedings yesterday. In other
21 words, yes, it's possible.
22 Q. Thank you. I'd just like to move on to another topic briefly.
23 You were asked questioned yesterday about the case-load of the
24 Military Prosecutor's Office. And my question is simply this: To your
25 knowledge, did the Split
1 indict or prosecute a case because it was too busy to do so?
2 A. No. I'm glad that you put the question to me. I'd like to
3 dispel any possible doubts about the conduct of Military Prosecutor's
5 I tried to explain this yesterday, and I should clarify it today.
6 All criminal reports, absolutely all criminal reports filed before
7 military prosecutor in the Military Prosecutor's Office in Split either
8 against known or unknown persons, were received by us, registered in the
9 register and processed. The fact that there were five or six military
10 prosecutors and deputies did not have a bearing on either the quality of
11 their work or on the fate of these cases, whether they would be closed or
12 not. They were processed according to the pace when they were received,
13 and all those that were not processed by 6th December, 1996, were
14 specified and referred to regular prosecutor's offices, and they were all
15 brought to a close, according to the prescribed procedure.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, based on our analysis of the KT register, during
17 August and September 1995, the Split
18 of five reports against known perpetrators that are relevant to the
19 indictment in this case; and that's basically, as I said yesterday,
20 looting, destruction, and killings in a number of municipalities in
21 Sector South during August and September. And these are four cases of
22 aggravated theft and one murder case. And more generally, our analysis
23 of the same register, up until the end of March 1996, indicates a total
24 of 31 reports relevant to the indictment in this case. Two are for
25 murder, one is for robbery and the rest are theft cases. And there are,
1 in addition, 18 other criminal reports that relate to looting in the
2 liberated area after Operation Storm but they're outside the scope of
3 this indictment, either because of the time that they were committed or
4 the location.
5 And when you were asked about the number of reports related to
6 this indictment received in August in your interview with the
7 Prosecution, you stated that the number of crimes committed was actually
8 much larger - this is at paragraph 7 of your statement to the
9 Prosecution - but you noted that reports were also filed with civilian
10 prosecutor's offices, and you added that it was your recollection that
11 most of the crimes were committed in September, October, and November;
12 but I said you didn't analyse this yourself but that reports on this were
13 being submitted through the Ministry of Justice's offices for cooperation
14 with the ICTY.
15 So I'd just like to clarify that answer about your information on
16 the number of crimes that were committed at different times.
17 Is it right that your understanding that most of the crimes were
18 committed in September, October, and November is based primarily on
19 reports that Croatia
20 A. Yes. What I said under item 7 in my discussions with you when
21 you were in Zagreb
22 confirmed, this is my view of the matter. The material that you
23 presented which is based on the archives of the Military Prosecutor's
24 Office in Split
25 the situation at the time when I was deputy military prosecutor in Split
1 was that most of the documents at the time were filed before regular --
2 regular prosecutor offices in Sibenik, Sinj, Zadar, and Split. I was
3 aware of the actual figures only at a later date based on the information
4 that the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia
5 1995 when they -- when the ministry asked the prosecutor's offices to
6 report to the ministry on a regular basis on all the matters related to
7 Operation Storm. I recalled that in 2003 an analysis of the cases of the
8 sort was compiled, containing cases of all the prosecutor's offices from
9 Zadar, Sibenik, Split
10 the Ministry of Justice with a view to disseminating it to the
11 international community.
12 The information contained therein --
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajic. I -- I actually wasn't looking for all the
14 details. I appreciate your thorough answer but I just wanted to
15 understand the nature of the information that you were basing your answer
16 on. And I understand that it is based on reports on investigations and
17 prosecutions that were conducted, so I understand that your conclusion
18 that most of the crimes were committed in September, October, and
19 November, is based on statistics on the number of investigations and
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. And another thing you were asked about yesterday was
23 how frequently it occurred that a person would be suspected of being in
24 the HV because they were wearing a military uniform, and after further
25 investigation, it was established that the person was, in fact, not a
1 member of the HV. And you testified that such situations occurred quite
2 frequently in the aftermath of Operation Storm, "According to the
3 information I had at the time, a large number of members of the Croatian
4 army were demobilised."
5 And you added that:
6 "While acting upon a certain criminal report, we established that
7 the person reported was no longer a member of the Croatian army."
8 My question is this: Your conclusion that these situations
9 occurred quite frequently, is that conclusion based on the number of
10 criminal reports received by the Split
11 deferred to municipal Prosecutors when it was discovered the suspect was
12 not a HV member?
13 A. Well, partly on this sort of personal knowledge, and partly on
14 the fact that it was a well-known fact that after Operation Storm, a
15 great many members of the reserve forces were demobilised. For this
16 reason, all or most of the reports for Operation Storm were forwarded to
17 regular prosecutor's offices.
18 Furthermore, based on the information published in 2003, which
19 stated roughly that 4122 -- eight -- persons were entered into KT
20 registers of regular and military prosecutors and 2262 persons were
21 entered into the registers for persons unknown, led me to the conclusion
22 that most of the persons reported had, in the meantime, become civilians
23 and lost their status of HV members.
24 Q. In relation to the reports received by civilian prosecutors, you
25 don't have any specific information as to how many of those reports
1 involved civilians dressed in military uniforms, do you?
2 A. No, I don't have any specific indicators. What I know from
3 personal knowledge is that my office, at the time when I was the
4 prosecutor and in 1996, when these cases were being processed, on the --
5 there was a colleague from the Split
6 building and they consulted me on how these decisions and indictments
7 should be formulated. From these numerous contacts, I received
8 additional information to the statistics that I referred to a moment ago.
9 Q. Well, of the 49 criminal reports in the KT register that relate
10 to the crimes of burning, looting, or killing after Operation Storm in
11 the liberated area, 19 of them indicate, according to the register, that
12 they were deferred to municipal prosecutors. And as you testified
13 yesterday, these cases could have been deferred either because it was
14 discovered that the person was not a HV member at the time of the crime,
15 or because the person ceased to be a HV member before being indicted.
16 So the concrete information that you base your conclusion about
17 civilians in uniform on, would that concrete information be some portion
18 of these 19 reports that were deferred to municipal prosecutors?
19 A. I can't tell you with certainly where I got the information from,
20 whether it was from the cases themselves, or from conversations with my
21 colleagues, fellow prosecutors, who worked on them.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move now to 65 ter 7374.
24 Q. And, Mr. Bajic, this is the first tab in the bundle of case files
25 that I gave you yesterday, if you want to refer to the hard copies.
1 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I could just get some
2 clarification while switch to go a new topic. I'm not sure I followed
3 counsel's question at page 7, lines 13 through 15, that there were only a
4 total of five reports against known perpetrators in the KT register.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think I clarified that that was in August and
6 September. Reports received in August and September. That was my --
7 MR. MISETIC: Reports received but not for crimes committed in
8 August and September.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes.
10 MR. MISETIC: Okay. All right.
11 JUDGE ORIE: This being clarified, please proceed.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. This case, Mr. Bajic, relates to entry KT 989 in the register,
14 and it's -- is the conviction of two HV members for looting in Knin on
15 the 31st of August, and in that case they were stopped by the MP at the
16 Knin train station.
17 Did you have an opportunity to look at this case overnight?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to page 8 in the English and page
21 7 in the B/C/S.
22 Q. And the -- around the middle of the page it says -- it refers to
23 the defence of Marinko Sabljic, and according to his defence, he said:
24 "Upon their arrival in Knin Petar Vujnovac remained in a cafe to
25 have a drink there, while himself and Grubicic continued driving through
1 the town and they saw many trucks and soldiers near some houses loading
2 various objects on to those trucks."
3 And if we move to the next page in the English at the bottom,
4 it's the same page in the B/C/S and it refers to the defence of
5 Damir Grubisic. And he says:
6 "In the vicinity of the spot where they wanted to park the
7 vehicle, they saw some members of the HV taking various items from the
8 houses and loading them on to the trucks; it was right there that one
9 Croatian soldier asked them to transport for him some of those items that
10 were scattered in front of the houses to the railway station which they
11 accepted and loaded onto the truck ..."
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could look at another case now.
13 Q. I'm just going to point you to a few items, and I will ask you
14 some questions about it.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: This is 65 ter 7375.
16 Q. And this relates to entry KT 997 in the register. And it is the
17 conviction of a member of the 113th Brigade for looting in the village of
18 Kosovo on the 2nd of September, 1995. And the case file indicates he was
19 indicted on the 11th of November, 1995, and the judgement rendered on 1st
20 of February, 1996.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we go to page 5 of the English and page 4
22 of the B/C/S.
23 Q. At the top of the page in the English, it indicates that since
24 he's -- since the time of his indictment, the soldier in question has now
25 become an active member of the 72nd Military Police Battalion Company in
2 And a little bit further down on the page in English, the bottom
3 of the large paragraph the court says:
4 "Moreover, the reasons for the commission of this crime given by
5 the accused in his defence are not acceptable, because the commission of
6 such crimes must not be a rule for somebody to obtain some item that he
7 or she may need, nor may there be a justification in the fact that
8 everybody is 'loading and carrying things off, so why not me?'."
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to 65 ter 7376, which is the
10 third tab in your bundle. And this case is KT 1000. It relates to the
11 conviction of a number of members of the 204th Brigade for looting in
12 Golubic on the 8th of September, 1995. And if we go to page 10 in the
13 English and the seventh page in the B/C/S. And at the beginning of the
14 English it says:
15 "From the defence of the first accused Davor Zdrilic, it follows
16 that at the time of the commission of the charged crime he was a member
17 of the Croatian army, that is, they were in the Golubic area together
18 with young conscripts where there was the command of the 204th Brigade of
19 the HV. It has also been mentioned that in front of the command the
20 conscripts were loading various household items onto the trucks, which he
21 assumes were probably brought there by somebody."
22 And if we could move down to the middle of the page in the
23 English and to the next page in the B/C/S.
24 This refers to the defence of the second accused and it says:
25 "He stated in his defence that at the time he was a member of the
1 Croatian army at the guard post above Golubic and that he, after his
2 shift, came to Golubic and near the command saw a truck that had already
3 been loaded with various items, and since he wanted to go to Zadar, he
4 asked them to drive [sic] him to Zadar."
5 And if we could go to page 13 in the English and, again, the next
6 page in the B/C/S. Near the bottom in English and in the middle in the
7 B/C/S it states that the sixth accused Vlade Lukic states in his defence
8 that on the charged event they were in the position in the Golubic area
9 that is, that he was this charge of communications and that he remembers
10 that items required for the units were at that time taken from that area.
11 As for the charged event itself, he remembers that he loaded the tools
12 for himself onto the truck, but since it was already dark he cannot
13 recall whether anybody else loaded anything and which items they were;
14 however, he remembers that the commander allowed them to take the truck
15 to transport the items and that they can go home with it.
16 And if we go to the next page in the English and the next page in
17 the B/C/S. And it's near the bottom in the English and at the top in the
18 B/C/S. And it says:
19 "The witness Miodrag Pavic has pointed out in his testimony that
20 on the charged event 15 of them, military conscripts, were loading the
21 items listed in the indictment onto the truck under the order probably
22 given by the battery commander and that two of them, namely, himself and
23 Stipe Vulic, who were both conscripts, were designated to escort the
24 truck; however, he knew neither where they were going nor whom the said
25 items were for."
1 Q. Now, having read these files and based on your experience as a
2 prosecutor and as a military prosecutor at the time of these events,
3 would you agree that these cases contain indications, and I'm referring
4 specifically to indications such as large group of HV soldiers loading
5 looted items onto trucks in Knin, a soldier under indictment for theft
6 becoming a member of the 72nd Military Police Battalion and a large group
7 of conscripts loading looted items onto a truck in front of their unit
9 Do these indications indicate to that you looting was, to some
10 extent, accepted or permitted within the HV units at the time?
11 A. I absolutely agree with your conclusion. Besides, it is a fact
12 that I have to reiterate, that all reports of criminal offences submitted
13 to state prosecutors were processed, but the problem did not lie with
14 military prosecutor's cases but the cases which went unreported. Your
15 conclusions are valid. I concur with the conclusion that this was a
16 phenomenon which can be read in the explanations to the judgements from
17 testimonies of witnesses and opinions of judges and, indeed, such cases
18 were numerous in other -- in regular prosecutor's offices because of the
19 change of status of perpetrators.
20 Yes, I do agree with all you've said.
21 Q. Thank you. And just one minor question. On this last case, this
22 judgement was rendered on the 5th of November, 1998 and that was, of
23 course, after the Law on Amnesty was passed. And in your evidence
24 yesterday you stated that the amnesty law related to acts that had
25 something to do with aggression, armed rebellion, or armed conflict. And
1 I would just like to clarify with you that the amnesty law was not
2 applicable and that it did not amnesty crime such as burning, looting, or
3 killing committed after Operation Storm; is that right?
4 A. Absolutely correct. In the text of the general amnesty law dated
5 1996, it reads that the Law on General Amnesty shall apply only to
6 persons who committed their offences in connection with the war but it
7 shall not be applied to war crimes or criminal offences against
8 international humanitarian law, et cetera.
9 So in this case, when it concerns looting, robbery, theft, arson
10 committed after the operation or during the operation, the Law on General
11 Amnesty was not applied. This was not the goal and the purpose of that
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd like to tender these three case files, 65 ter
15 7374 through 7376, please.
16 MR. MISETIC: No objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 7374 becomes Exhibit P2608;
19 65 ter number 7376 becomes Exhibit P2609; and 65 ter number 7376 becomes
20 Exhibit P2610.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. P2608, P2609, and P2610
22 are admitted into evidence.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 If we could move now to D1619, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, could I ask one point, clarification.
1 Mr. Bajic, you said, yes, these crimes were not exempted from
2 prosecution because the Law on Amnesty did not apply. And you gave two
3 categories; the first is that the crimes, in order to be covered by the
4 Law on Amnesty should be crimes committed in connection with the war,
5 and, at the same time, they should not be war crimes or violations of
6 international humanitarian law.
7 Now, the categories here, were they not covered by the Law on
8 Amnesty because they were violations of international humanitarian law,
9 or were they not covered by the Law on Amnesty because they were not
10 linked anymore to the armed conflict?
11 Which of the two would apply here? Is it the time-frame; or is
12 it the character of the crime?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The criminal offences that we
14 discussed through those three documents could not be exempted pursuant to
15 the general amnesty law because they were not committed in connection
16 with the war.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Bajic, in front of you is an invitation on the screen dated
21 27 September 1995
22 and it's an invitation to a joint working session on 19 October 1995.
23 Do you recall whether you attended this meeting?
24 A. No, I did not attend it because this invitation did address all
25 military prosecutors. I was a deputy military prosecutor. I believe
1 that there were four or five military prosecutors in general. Apart from
2 that in Split
3 cetera. And this invitation was addressed to them. Deputy military
4 prosecutors did not attend, because the invitation did not involve them,
5 so I did not attend the meeting myself.
6 Q. Thank you. And the subject, according to this invitation, is for
7 the purpose of ensuring efficient prevention and removal of the observed
8 faults and punishable acts in the armed forces of the Republic of
10 the bodies of the Ministry of Defence, et cetera.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to D1621.
12 Q. Now, I understand you weren't at this meeting, but I would like
13 you to show you the conclusions from that meeting and ask you if you can
14 assist the Court, based on the knowledge that you have from the working
16 And I'd like to direct your attention, in particular, to items 6
17 and 7 where it says:
18 "The Ministry of Defence shall commit commands of the units of
19 the armed forces ... to act in accordance with the law regarding serving
20 of court summons to members of the armed forces ..."
22 "The Ministry of Defence shall commit units, the Main Staff, and
23 the commands of the Military Districts to meet the court requests fully
24 in a timely manner. Also regarding the submission of necessary evidence
25 for specific cases," et cetera.
1 And my question is: Based on your experience in the Military
2 Prosecutor's Office in Split
3 Military District Command in serving court summons and having them meet
4 court requests fully and in a timely manner? And I'm talking about the
5 time-period after Operation Storm.
6 MR. MISETIC: Object as to foundation, how this witness would
7 know whether the court was having problems serving summons.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do not see serving summons specifically
9 mentioned here. Apart from that, let's hear the answer of the witness
10 and let's find out what the basis of his knowledge is.
11 Could you please answer the question, Mr. Bajic.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At working meetings such as this
13 was, what was discussed was how to make the operations of military
14 prosecutors and military courts as effective and expedient as possible.
15 Because of frequent change of address and stations of different military
16 personnel and military units, there was -- there were problems in speedy
17 communication in requests of certain documents and in the -- in the
18 service of summons because we could -- we often had to postpone hearings
19 because soldiers did not heed summons, so I can see that military
20 prosecutors and military judges sought assistance at such a meeting as
21 this one, was based on their experience. This is how I see the whole
23 MS. GUSTAFSON:
24 Q. And did you personally encounter instances where hearings you
25 were involved in had to be postponed because soldiers didn't heed the
2 A. Yes, there were such occasions. There were such occasions. As I
3 say, the problem was the service of process, addresses, and failure to
4 appear before court but that was particularly problematic in 1991, 1992,
5 due to lack of respect to military justice system. But things improved
7 Those conclusions that we can see concern assistance sought from
8 the Ministry of Defence to help the processes that Ministry of Justice
9 was in charge of.
10 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to turn to ask you a few questions to
11 follow up on the --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, sorry to interrupt you.
13 You read paragraph 7 to the witness, which seems to deal
14 primarily with obtaining evidence, but you focussed your question on
15 the -- the serving of court summons, which seems to be the subject matter
16 of paragraph 6. I'm a bit confused by this --
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I was following up on an answer the
18 witness had given about problems serving summons, and I was just asking
19 him if he had personally experienced these problems. It was follow up to
20 his evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Please proceed.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON:
24 Q. Mr. Bajic, I would like to ask you now a few questions about the
25 evidence you gave on the role of the military police in preventing and
1 detecting perpetrators of criminal offences. And in particular in your
2 statement to the Defence at question 14 you said:
3 "After determining that a criminal offence has been committed,
4 the criminal" -- sorry, "The civilian police conducts criminal processing
5 of the case."
6 And you said:
7 "In the course of the processing of the case it would be
8 established that the perpetrator was a member of the military, the
9 military police would then take over the criminal processing."
10 And yesterday you expanded on than a little bit, and you -- in
11 particular when you were asked who had jurisdiction to begin an
12 investigation into an incident where it is reported that unnamed members
13 of the Croatian army were in the vicinity of houses that are on fire,
14 your answer was:
15 "You see, it is dubious on the basis of what you asked me,
16 whether there are sufficient grounds to suspect that those members of the
17 HV perpetrated that criminal offence or the perpetrators were completely
18 unknown and possibly civilians. But regardless of that, in such a
19 situation, forces of law, as the law states, have to undertake all the
20 possible and necessary measures to secure evidence and to conduct
21 inquiries or pre-criminal investigation and in such a case, both the
22 civilian police and the military police, whichever is closer to the
23 scene, should do something; or if the perpetrators are unknown, then
24 bodies of general jurisdiction would have primacy, which means civilian
25 police, and if there's grounds to suspect that the perpetrators are
1 military personnel, then the military police would be duty-bound to act."
2 I would just like to look at a couple of more concrete examples
3 which are contained in P886.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could have that on the screen.
5 Q. And this is the duty service log-book of the Knin military police
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 4 of the B/C/S and the
8 first page of the second English translation attached to this document.
9 And this is the page for 11th of August. If we could look at the entry
10 for 10.00.
11 Q. And according to this entry, information is received from the
12 40th Engineers Company, reporting shooting and arson in Kovacic hamlet.
13 And in the last column the remarks say that Cobra 40 patrol, which is a
14 military police patrol, is sent; report attached.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 16 in the English and
16 page 16 in the B/C/S. This is an entry from the 23rd of August. If we
17 could look at the entry for 8.10, which, I believe, is the first one.
18 Q. And this is information received from the Knin police
19 administration that some 100 metres from the police check-point at the
20 exit for Grude after a fire, a detonation took place, and it is assumed
21 that a HV member set fire to a house. And the remarks say that:
22 "A patrol sent, Mosor 31 ... at the scene no one was found."
23 And it says:
24 "No HV members were seen to be burning houses."
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 22 in the English and
1 page 20 in the B/C/S. This is a report from the 26th of August, and I'm
2 looking at the entry under 1641, which is number 6. This is a report
3 from Ivan Peric, civilian, owner of the house in Lukar. And it says:
4 "Slavko Peric, HV, is threatening him and his son Tomislav in
5 Lukar ... and a patrol was dispatched but did not find the HV on the
7 And finally, if we could look at entry on page 55 in the English
8 and page 38 in the B/C/S. And this is from the 9th of September. And if
9 we look at the entry under 2010, number 1. And this is report from the
10 Knin police administration that, on the road towards Stara Straza,
11 uniformed persons have been observed setting houses on fire. And under
12 the remarks it says:
13 "As it is dark, it is better that the patrols go out tomorrow."
14 Q. And my question is: The entries we just looked where the Knin
15 military police company is receiving reports of possible crimes by HV
16 members and sending patrols or, at least in that last case, deciding to
17 send a patrol the next day, would you agree that these are examples where
18 there are grounds to suspect that the perpetrators are military personnel
19 and, as a result, the military police is responding to these incidents?
20 A. I do agree.
21 Q. Thank you. And yesterday you were asked about what a HV
22 commander should do if he has information that a crime has been
23 committed, and you were asked questions about how often he should report
24 such a crime to the military police. And you prefaced your answer by
25 saying that weren't a professional soldier and you can't say exactly what
1 the procedure was within a given unit, depending on the position the
2 commander had, and I'd just like to explore the basis for your answers a
3 bit more.
4 Now, again, in your evidence yesterday and today, you have
5 explained your familiarity with the duty of members of state bodies
6 generally to report crimes, and you said earlier today also that you had
7 no specialised knowledge or training in the duties of commanders
8 vis-a-vis their subordinates.
9 So I'd like to ask you a similar question in respect of your
10 knowledge of the relationship between HV commanders and the military
11 police. In the note of your interview with the Prosecution, you
12 explained that you didn't have any direct knowledge of the daily actions
13 of the military police in their units. And this Chamber has received
14 quite extensive evidence, including from a number of military police
15 officials and military police officers, about the system of dual command
16 and control and subordination --
17 MR. MISETIC: I'm going to object. I completely disagree on the
18 characterisation of the testimony.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The structure of command and control, I take it that
20 without qualifying it, Ms. Gustafson, would do.
21 Please proceed.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON:
23 Q. Mr. Bajic, the Chamber has received extensive evidence about the
24 system of dual command and control and subordination --
25 MR. MISETIC: Same objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, the issue is --
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: I will rephrase. I understand.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: The Chamber has received extensive evidence about
5 the system of command and control and subordination that existed among
6 military police units, HV commanders, and the military police
8 Q. My question for you is: Do you have any specialised knowledge of
9 the structure and operation of this system of command and control and
11 A. No, I do not have any specialised knowledge, and I said as much
12 yesterday and this morning. I only know the fact that military
13 prosecutors and deputy military prosecutors were in direct communication
14 with representatives of the 72nd and 73rd Military Police Battalion who
15 covered the territory under the jurisdiction of the Split Military
16 Prosecutor's Office. That they were in communication, above all, with
17 the authorised officials or officers of the criminal investigation
18 departments of these units, and I knew that these units were under the
19 control of the military police administration in Zagreb.
20 As for the other relationships between various military
21 structures on the field, I don't know anything about them and don't want
22 to go into them. I only know that some -- that I communicated only with
23 the authorised officers of the criminal investigation sections of these
24 units on cases that the Military Prosecutor's Office was seized of. I
25 did not professionally communicate with others.
1 There are special rules governing the work of the military
2 police, and I'm sure that they contained all -- all the information.
3 Q. Thank you. And yesterday you were asked whether, in a situation
4 where a commander has knowledge that the military police already knows
5 about a particular crime, whether he has an additional duty to report it
6 again to the military police. And your answer included the statement
8 "If he knows the MP is already seized of the event, it would be
9 pointless to report to them the same thing. However, the commander is
10 duty-bound to help, together with his officers, to secure evidence and
11 facts that might be helpful for the future proceedings."
12 And I'd like to ask you a related but slightly different question
13 which is, in a situation that a HV commander is aware that the military
14 police knows about a particular crime committed by one of the commander's
15 subordinates and the commander knows that the military police is not
16 taking steps to ensure that that crime is investigated and punished, do
17 you feel that you have a sufficient knowledge of the systems of command
18 and control, subordination, and duties of HV commanders to tell the court
19 whether the commander should take further steps to ensure that that
20 subordinate is investigated and punished, and, if so, what those further
21 steps might be.
22 Do you think you have the knowledge and expertise to answer that
23 question, and, if so, please go ahead.
24 A. Yes, I can answer the question; at least according to what my
25 understanding was at the time when I was deputy military prosecutor.
1 In the situation as you presented it, the commander of a unit,
2 where he becomes aware of a case being obstructed by the military police
3 in relation to his subordinate, the commander should check on what steps
4 are being taken with the higher -- with his superior officer in the
5 military police hierarchy, or, rather, with the superior officer of the
6 military police, and, if so, he should seek to be received and discuss
7 the matter with the military prosecutor on the matter.
8 At any rate, throughout the time, or at least initially, he
9 should secure all the evidence and facts in order to enable the
10 prosecution structures to deal with the case as best they can.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could have D1631 brought up on the screen.
13 Q. And I'd like to move now, Mr. Bajic, to another topic, which is
14 the memo or the list, I guess, that you provided to the -- your office
15 provided to the Gotovina Defence relating to the status of a number of
16 alleged killing incidents.
17 And there's no cover memo or anything to this list so I'd just
18 like to ask you if I'm correct in my understanding that you were provided
19 with the list of 337 alleged killing victims listed in the clarification
20 of the indictment to this case. Is that -- and you were asked to provide
21 information in the possession of the state attorney on any investigation
22 or prosecution into each of these incidents.
23 Is that more or less what you were asked to do here?
24 A. I'm not quite clear on your question. You have to explain what
25 it is that you're referring to.
1 Are you referring to the data contained in the table; or are you
2 speaking in general terms?
3 Q. I'm asking, yeah, what you were asked to do specifically in
4 creating this table because the numbers in the chart correspond to the
5 numbers in the clarification to the indictment in this case, and there
6 are a total of 337 individuals listed in that clarification.
7 Were you provided with that list of 337 individuals?
8 A. I can't remember at this time. I would have to look at both the
9 query and the report. We did as we normally dealt with these matters,
10 both when we received requests from the Defence or the Prosecution. I
11 suppose we received this list of injured parties and then we checked the
12 Prosecution archives against the information and then dealt with the
13 matter. But I would have to check precisely to see whether these are the
14 documents that I have in mind.
15 Q. I'm just wondering, because the -- there are 88 victims or
16 individuals listed in this chart and they're not, as you can see, they
17 have numbers that start with 3, 5, 6, 7, but they are not sequential
18 throughout the chart. And I'm wondering if you were provided with a
19 larger list of names and that these were the 88 that you were able to
20 find information about an investigation or prosecution on.
21 Can you answer that?
22 A. Unfortunately, I cannot, because I don't have information on the
23 matter. Certain individuals in my office did the job, and I can't
24 explain why the sequential numbers were written as they were.
25 What should be done in this case is to locate the request and
1 everything else that was connected to that file.
2 Q. Okay. And if we look at the first entry, the case file number
3 says KN-DO-5/07. Does that entry indicate that a case file into this
4 incident was opened in 2007?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I take it that the same numbering system applies throughout
7 the entries in this chart, whereby the last two digits of the case file
8 indicate that -- the date that the case file was opened; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could look at entry number 7, Sava Babic,
11 which is at the bottom of this page.
12 Q. This chart indicates that Mario Dukic was convicted for murder in
13 relation to this incident. And in connection with that case, I'd like to
14 look at 65 ter 7378, which is the case under tab 5, which I think you
15 have already located in the bundle you have.
16 The first document here is a judgement of the Split Military
17 Court. And if we look at the first page lower down in the B/C/S and the
18 bottom of the English, and moving on to the second page in the English,
19 this indicates that the accused Mario Dukic a member of the 134th Home
20 Guard Regiment is convicted for the killing of Petar Botar in Kolarina
21 and sentenced to six years imprisonment.
22 And if we go to the next page in English and the next page in the
23 B/C/S as well. And if we move -- sorry. We can see that in the English
24 and moving on to the next page in the B/C/S that the accused Mario Dukic
25 as well as the other two co-accused are acquitted for the murder of
2 And if we can go to page 19 in the B/C/S and page 28 in the
3 English, this is a later judgement of the Zadar County Court that
4 confirmed these verdicts; namely the conviction of Mario Dukic for the
5 killing of Petar Botar, as well as the acquittal of the other two accused
6 for the murder of Sava Babic; is that right? [Microphone not activated]
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So where the chart indicated that Mario Dukic had been convicted
9 for the murder of Sava Babic that's not quite correct, I take it. It
10 should have been noted that he was convicted for the murder of
11 Petar Botar but acquitted for the murder of Sava Babic.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: If could I tender this case file 65 ter 7378,
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
16 MR. MISETIC: No objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry for the interruption. Your Honours, that
19 will become Exhibit P2611.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P2611 is admitted into evidence.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go now to 65 ter 7377.
22 Q. And this is the case that's under tab 4 in your bundle,
23 Mr. Bajic. And this case relates to entry number 107 on the chart, which
24 is the victim by the name of Manda Tizma [phoen]. And the entry states
25 that the county court in Sibenik and the Supreme Court of the Republic of
2 and convicted him to a sentence of four years and 11 months.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we go to page 8 of the English and page 7
4 of the B/C/S.
5 Q. I'd just like to confirm with you, Mr. Bajic, that this is the
6 judgement of the Supreme Court of Croatia which did, indeed, convict
7 Zeljko Sunjerga, who was at the time of the killing a member of the 15th
8 Home Guard Regiment for this incident; is that right?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: If could I tender this document, please.
11 MR. MISETIC: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2612.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm about to move to another topic,
16 so if it suits the Court, perhaps we can take a break now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will first have a break of 25 minutes,
18 which means that we will resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Ms. Gustafson, the Chamber would
22 like to inform the parties about a decision taken on the application for
23 eleven 92 bis statements to be admitted into evidence. The reasons will
24 follow, but in order to expedite matters, the Chamber grants the request
25 by the Defence to call the four out of the 11 witnesses for
1 cross-examination, but the Chamber decided that, proprio motu, that we'll
2 hear the cross-examination, the testimony given in cross-examination by
3 those witnesses through videolink, limited time. The -- there will be
4 limited time. We'd like to hear the testimony of those four witnesses in
5 cross-examination on one day, just in a short sequence of, perhaps, 30 or
6 40 minutes. That's still to be determined. The Chamber will then decide
7 on all 11 statements, whether or not to admit them into evidence.
8 The Chamber expects that there's no further need for proofing
9 these witnesses prior to them being examined, to them being
10 cross-examining and if the parties consider that there would be any
11 reason to further proof those witnesses, then the parties are invited,
12 first, to inform the Chamber. The Chamber will then consider those
13 reasons and see whether or not any orders should be issued in relation to
14 that matter.
15 That is -- one second, please.
16 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, I misspoke where I said that the
18 request for cross-examination was a Defence request. It was a
19 Prosecution request. That's the risk of doing it without a written text
20 before me.
21 Is this clear? The reason why we're giving this decision at this
22 moment is because it may take some time for the -- for the Defence and
23 the Registry to prepare for the cross-examination, and to have the
24 assistance of the victims and witness sections to get the witnesses at
25 the right place at the right time.
1 If it causes any further practical problems, you're invited,
2 first, to inform the Registry, and, if need be, there will be
3 communication with the Chamber.
4 Any questions in relation to this decision which, of course,
5 will -- reasons will be given at a later stage.
6 Then, Mr. Bajic, I apologise for -- well, not for wasting your
7 time at least because you could have had a longer break and not be
8 bothered by these kind of matters, although you're certainly familiar
9 with the possibility that this happens now and then in courtrooms.
10 Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue the cross-examination?
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON:
14 Q. Mr. Bajic, I'd like to move to another topic, but, pardon me,
15 just before I do that, you stated earlier that you couldn't remember the
16 exact request you received that caused your office to create the chart we
17 were looking at of investigations and prosecutions into individual
18 alleged killing incidents.
19 And I'm wondering if you would be willing to provide that request
20 to the Prosecution so that we could -- and the parties and the Court, so
21 we could better understand the basis for your chart. Would that be
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you were asked to describe factors that
25 hindered the ability of the Croatian state authorities to investigate or
1 prosecute the killing incidents listed in the clarification to the
2 indictment in this case, and you described various problems such as
3 witnesses or suspects being in other countries and weak cooperation with
4 police and prosecuting bodies in those countries in the past.
5 Now, the Chamber has received evidence that after Operation Storm
6 a system of sanitation was set up and implemented, involving members of
7 the MUP and HV, whereby corpses that were discovered in the liberated
8 territory were collected by sanitation teams and buried in cemeteries,
9 for the most part without an on-site investigation being conducted or any
10 criminal report being filed.
11 And yesterday you mentioned the 2001 exhumation at the Knin
12 cemetery where many of these victims were buried. So I do understand
13 that you are now aware of the existence of this sanitation system, even
14 if you didn't know about it at the time?
15 A. Yes. This is what I learned after those disinterments started.
16 This is what I learned subsequently. I repeat again, I did not work in
17 that area at that time.
18 MR. MISETIC: Just, Mr. President --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
20 MR. MISETIC: I think the question was unclear and so the answer
21 is unclear.
22 Was he aware of this sanitation system. I'm not sure if the
23 witness now says he is aware of how sanitation was carried out or he is
24 aware that bodies were buried and there was an exhumation in 2001.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, could you further explore what
1 exactly you were meaning and whether that is the same as the witness
2 means when he is talking about the sanitation system.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON:
4 Q. Mr. Bajic, do I understand correctly that you now understand that
5 there was a sanitation system implemented after Operation Storm in the
6 manner I described?
7 A. Yes, of course, now, I learned of that subsequently. First
8 information I received was after this major exhumation in Knin in 2001.
9 Q. And the fact that many of these individuals were simply buried
10 without an on-site investigation being carried out or a criminal report
11 being filed, that was another -- that is another quite significant factor
12 that has delayed the investigation and prosecution of these incidents; is
13 that right?
14 A. I concur. Because only after 2001 or, better said, 2004, when
15 first results of forensics examinations in that area become known, we
16 determined the identity of 128 persons after whom 104 were determined to
17 be killed at close range; 75 of them being killed around the time of the
18 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th August 1995 and the remainder of them were killed in
19 the subsequent 30 days.
20 This is what I remember from those documents from those case
22 And on the basis of those examinations concerning the
23 exhumations, we use such materials in the cases that are ongoing in the
24 area of Sibenik and Zadar.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move now to 65 ter 2273, please.
2 Q. Mr. Bajic, this is a report from the HINA news agency from the
3 8th of February, 2007.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we move down the page in the English,
5 there's a remark that is attributed to you. And in the third-last
6 paragraph it says:
7 "He," and this is referring to you, "said that since 2001,
8 authorities have taken a more serious approach to investigating crimes
9 committed by members of the Croatian army and the police, adding that
10 this was important to the credibility of Croatia's judiciary."
11 And then in the next paragraph it says, Bajic said that:
12 "Fair and legal criminal proceedings could contribute to
13 establishing the truth and help historians to give a final judgement."
14 First, I'd like to ask you if you recall making that statement
15 and if it accurately reflect what is you said.
16 A. Yes. It was my speech at a conference in 2007 at the Sheraton
17 Hotel, if I recall it correctly, attended by the participants whose words
18 are reflected here. I agree with my statements in this press release
19 except for the misquoted figures. If I may explain that, it may be
20 useful for you.
21 I know that this was so irrespective of what is written here. Up
22 to 2002, we had registered some 4.000 people reported in the criminal
23 justice system, not prosecuted but reported. Most of those cases were
24 tried in absentia, even in some cases there were indictments. In 2002, I
25 issued an instruction to all my public prosecutors to undertake a review
1 of the cases dating from 1991 onwards, because I thought that a large
2 number of cases were not processed as per the standards which are now
3 obtaining in Croatian and international judiciary. Many people were
4 processed for war crimes, although, based on the elements of the criminal
5 offence, pursuant to Croatian law, those criminal offences were more of a
6 character of armed rebellion, Croatia against the state, et cetera.
7 So to cut a long story short, from 2001 to date, out of the total
8 of slightly less than 4.000 persons, we have 1100 people prosecuted, the
9 others, the other cases were dropped or abandoned or those criminal
10 offences were re-qualified.
11 So expect for those figures stated here, everything else reported
12 here is correct.
13 Q. That you. Just to clarify the record, you're clarifying the
14 figures in the paragraph above the ones that I read out; is it -- that's
15 correct, is it not?
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I could seek some clarification on
18 the last answer.
19 You were talking about trials in absentia. Were they mainly
20 conducted against Croat, Croatian defendants or -- Croat defendants or
21 Serb defendants?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Trials in absentia used to be
23 conducted in Croatia
24 I, as a prosecutor general, issued an instruction to my prosecutors to
25 object to trials in absentia for the well-known reasons to all.
1 Those proceedings were conducted mainly against the members of
2 other armies. We did not keep records of their ethnic affiliations.
3 But mainly these were members of the enemy combatants and mainly citizens
4 of Serb nationality.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
8 Q. And your remark about authorities since 2001 taking a more
9 serious approach to investigating crimes committed by members of the
10 Croatian army and the police, would that include crimes committed in the
11 aftermath of Operation Storm?
12 A. Yes.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we -- oh, could I tender that document,
15 MR. MISETIC: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2613.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P2613 is admitted into evidence.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go now to 65 ter 4461, please.
20 Q. Mr. Bajic, these are the minutes of a meeting -- the meeting of
21 the 33rd Session of the council for cooperation with the ICTY. It was
22 held on the 6th of November, 1998.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could scroll down in the English and then
24 move to the next page in the English --
25 Q. We can see at the top of the English page there that this was
1 attended by a number of government -- Croatian government ministers and
2 other senior officials in the Croatian government.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we go to the -- look at the bottom of the
4 page in the B/C/S and move down in the English as well, we can see
5 there's one agenda item, which is:
6 "Defining the position of the Republic of Croatia
7 made by Attorney Rivkin in respect to the strategy of appearing before
8 the MKS
9 And if we could go to the next page in the B/C/S and also the
10 next page in the English. Participants discuss a -- or a number of
11 proposals are discussed in relation to this strategy such as filing a
12 case before the International Court of Justice against the FRY. And we
13 see Dr. Granic speaks in the middle of the page, at the time the ministry
14 of foreign affairs. He starts by saying that in his opinion, all the
15 proposals seemed bad from a political point of view.
16 And at the bottom of this paragraph he says:
17 "Second of all, in defining the Oluja operation, we, ourselves,
18 called it a military and police operation. So it was a planned
19 operation, and it was executed as planned. Our shortcomings surfaced
20 subsequently, after the Oluja operation, when we have not processed
21 possible perpetrators of war crimes."
22 And if we could go to the next page in the English and the bottom
23 of the page in the B/C/S. And this is Mr. Separovic speaking who, at the
24 time, was the director of the HIS. And he says that he "fully agreed
25 with Dr. Granic that filing the case would not stop the Tribunal from
1 investigating the Oluja operation ..."
2 And if we move down the page in the English and go to the next
3 page in the B/C/S where Mr. Penic speaks and he is, at the time, the
4 minister of the interior. At the beginning of the second sentence he
6 "Mr. Penic added that he deems that we are to blame for not
7 penalising those who commit the crimes in the aftermath of the Oluja, but
8 that the crimes were committed only by individuals or small groups of
9 people. We must not forget that the suffering caused to the Republic of
11 And, finally, if we could go to page 5 of the English and the
12 bottom of that same page in the B/C/S. These are the conclusions of
13 Dr. Ramljak, who was then the minister of justice. And under point 2, it
15 "Events that occurred after the Oluja operation. It seems that
16 it is necessary to reassess the strategy taken two to three years ago
17 related to not processing the events and crimes committed in the
18 aftermath of the operation, but we need to keep in mind that the council
19 for cooperation with ICTY and MKS
20 Q. Now, you've -- you've stated that the Croatian authorities became
21 more serious about prosecuting crimes committed after Operation Storm
22 after 2001, and here, in November 1998, we have senior members of the
23 Croatian government discussing the fact that crimes committed after
24 Operation Storm have not been processed, and the minister of justice
25 concluded that they should reassess the strategy related to not
1 processing the events and crimes committed in the aftermath of Operation
3 And my question is: Would you agree that under the regime of
4 former President Tudjman that there was a reluctance on the part of the
5 political leadership to investigate or process suspected HV crimes
6 committed after Operation Storm?
7 MR. MISETIC: I'm going objective on foundational grounds. Is it
8 a general question or is she asking him specifically about a comment in
9 the document? In that case, I would ask for foundation as to what this
10 witness knows about what the comment refers to.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's a general question, Your Honour, and I --
13 JUDGE ORIE: General question.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- I think the foundation has been laid from the
15 witness's position and remarks on the nature of these investigations.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, it was only, as
17 Mr. Misetic said, in that case I would ask for a foundation that if it is
18 not a general question. Let's first hear the answer of the witness.
19 MR. MISETIC: Just so it is on the record, he has been shown
20 documents but the question is not related to the documents that he's been
21 shown. In other words, not --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Not necessarily distinct from but not focussing on
24 MR. MISETIC: On it's document, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the question, Ms. Gustafson,
1 so that we're ...
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Bajic, my question was: Would you agree that under the
4 regime of former President Tudjman, there was a reluctance on the part of
5 the political leadership to investigate or process suspected HV crimes
6 committed after Operation Storm?
7 A. With respect to this question, I can say as follows: First of
8 all, we have to go back to the fact concerning my job during the
9 Operation Storm and later up to 2001 and 2002. At the time in question,
10 I was deputy military prosecutor until the end of 1996. After that, I
11 was deputy county prosecutor in Split
12 in Split
14 When I say Croatian authorities decided this or that, well, when
15 I came to the post of prosecutor general, I conducted an analysis of all
16 the cases, together with my associates. I analysed what has been done up
17 to that point. In respect to that, I think that in many cases things
18 took a wrong turn. I was against trials in absentia. I believe that in
19 many cases indictments were too wide, and in many cases crimes have not
20 been prosecuted, and I still believe that. Based on that, I issued
21 written instructions and there's a written record of that and the Court
22 can have them. Those instructions were to public prosecutors on how to
23 review the present cases or the cases at the time and -- but also to seek
24 from police anything of evidence for the cases that had not been
25 processed. As a prosecutor, I can talk about that. I cannot offer any
1 political assessment on the opinions and positions taken by some member
2 of the political leadership, because I do not have any immediate
3 knowledge of that other than what I read off the screen right now.
4 Q. Thank you. And do you know why the Croatian authorities waited
5 until 2001, six years after the events in question, to begin exhuming
6 individuals from the Knin cemetery in a situation where the MUP at least
7 knew where these people were buried and the fact that no on-site
8 investigation had been carried out because it was, in fact, MUP officials
9 involved in their burial.
10 Do you know why it took until 2001 to begin exhuming these bodies
11 and carrying out autopsies?
12 A. I don't know. I don't know. What I know, since I became
13 prosecutor general that on several occasions I launched initiatives to
14 the minister of police and other participants who could jointly collect
15 facts relevant for detection of perpetrators of war crimes to step up
16 their efforts to establish departments for war crimes, to adopt team-work
17 approach, to investigate at the levels of county prosecutors offices in
18 all counties, particularly those in the areas of Vukovar, Osijek, Zadar,
19 and Sibenik.
20 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that this time delay before the
21 exhumations were carried out was a factor that has affected the ability
22 to investigate and prosecute these cases. On top of that simple delay of
23 time, the fact that these bodies were in the ground decomposing for six
24 years, that's a further factor that has hindered the investigations; is
25 that right? The fact that the bodies had been decomposing for six years
1 and evidence had -- potential forensic evidence had been lost due to
3 Would you agree with that?
4 A. That's correct. The passage of time, as is known by everybody in
5 this courtroom, plays into the hand of the perpetrator and hinders those
6 who want to identify the perpetrators and prosecute criminal offences.
7 Unfortunately, this is true, yes.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajic. I have no further questions.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: At this time, I would like to tender the charts
10 that were circulated earlier. I believe we have agreement with the
11 Gotovina Defence, which are 65 ter 7381 and 7382.
12 MR. MISETIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 7381 becomes Exhibit
15 P2614; and 65 ter number 7382 will become Exhibit P2615.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is usually not aware of 65 ter numbers.
17 We're talking about which charts exactly?
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: I believe they were sent to the Chamber this
19 morning by e-mail.
20 JUDGE ORIE: This morning by e-mail. Let me check.
21 Yes, it is kind of an extract, and agreed upon between the
23 P2614 and P2615 are admitted into evidence.
24 Mr. Misetic, any reason to re-examine the witness?
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Misetic:
3 Q. Good morning again, Mr. Bajic. Just I have a few questions for
4 you to clarify a few matters.
5 You've testified on questioning by the Prosecutor about the
6 requirement -- you were asked about whether a commander has a duty to
7 file a criminal report with the Military Prosecutor's Office.
8 And my question to you is: If the commander informs the military
9 police of a criminal act, has he fulfilled his obligations under the
10 Criminal Procedure Code?
11 A. Criminal reports are primarily sent and submitted to law
12 enforcement organisations, be it civilian or military police. I answered
13 this question in this way today, if a commander reports something to
14 military police, he has discharged his obligation pursuant to the
15 Criminal Procedure Act, particularly if concurrently with that he has
16 secured the evidence, provided all the information to the detection and
17 prosecution authorities which are necessary to successfully the case.
18 Q. Well, but the first -- let me ask you, under the military
19 criminal justice system, which institution has the primary responsibility
20 of detecting crime within the military and securing relevant evidence?
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, this topic was discussed at length
22 in direct examination. I don't see how it arises from the
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: If it is clear and the Prosecution agrees with what
1 the witness just answered, then I won't proceed further. If it is still
2 this dispute, I think it needs to be clarified.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think as a matter of fact, the matter was dealt
4 with in examination-in-chief, then Ms. Gustafson asked questions to the
5 witness on what a commander would have to do if he had knowledge that the
6 military police, although aware of the crime, did not -- well, let's say
7 seriously investigate the matter or investigate the matter, and the
8 answer of the witness was that under those circumstances, a commander had
9 to either seek a hierarchical higher person to trigger such an
10 investigation, and if this would not result in an investigation, that,
11 under those circumstances, he would have to address the military
13 I see the witness is nodding yes. This summarises the more
14 detailed --
15 MR. MISETIC: That was not issue I was dealing with. I was
16 actually dealing with his testimony from yesterday, not today, where he
17 talked about filing of criminal reports with the Military Prosecutor's
18 Office, and I will pull it up right now, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we come to the objection of Ms. Gustafson. How
20 does this arise from cross-examination? You now refer to what he
21 testified yesterday.
22 MR. MISETIC: In cross-examination.
23 JUDGE ORIE: In -- the first very limited part.
24 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
1 MR. MISETIC:
2 Q. So, again, Mr. Bajic, the question was: Who has the primary
3 responsibility under the military criminal justice system at the time for
4 uncovering crime?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could you give us the reference, the
6 page reference of yesterday's --
7 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Or a few words which allows us to use WordWheel.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes, I will have it. Just one moment,
10 Mr. President.
11 Page 20798, beginning at line 26 [sic].
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, my problem is that page 20798 has 25
14 MR. MISETIC: All right.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least my ...
16 MR. MISETIC: I'll give you the sentence then. The question was:
17 "And more generally if a military commander ..." --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Generally. 16 ... same page line 16?
19 MR. MISETIC: Okay. I apologise for the error.
20 JUDGE ORIE: "And more generally if a military court ..."
21 That's on line 16.
22 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. My question is again: Who has the fundamental responsibility
1 under the military criminal justice system for uncovering crime?
2 A. The forces of law enforcement, which include the civilian and
3 military police.
4 Q. Do you know whether, once a commander forwarded information to
5 the military police that a crime was committed by an unknown member of
6 the HV, are you aware of whether, as a matter of practice, the military
7 police ever reported back to the commander about the results of the
9 A. I'm not aware of that, although I believe that, under the rules
10 governing the profession, they should have reported back. They should
11 have forwarded the criminal report to the Military Prosecutor's Office.
12 Q. No, no. Maybe -- I just want to make sure we're not talking past
13 each other. My question wasn't whether under the rules they should have
14 reported to the Military Prosecutor's Office. The question was: Would
15 they report back to the commander about what they had done in the
16 investigation of the criminal offence; and if your answer is yes, you've
17 cited to rules governing the profession, can you tell us what rules
18 specifically you're referring to?
19 A. I said that I was not aware of what the military police did, in
20 relation to those who had filed a report or given notice to it. But
21 under these standards, it is only natural that you should report back to
22 the party submitting a report about what was done upon the report, just
23 as the prosecutor's office, upon receiving a report, would inform the
24 reporting party on what was done. I'm drawing a parallel there.
25 Q. Can you tell us -- you're referring to the standards and this is
1 at page 48, line 17 of the transcript. What standards are you referring
2 to? Are you referring to specific written standards or are you speaking
3 about general practices?
4 A. I'm speaking about the general practice above all, because I
5 don't know what the rules governing the military police specifically say
6 in relation to this procedure.
7 Q. Okay. Then my question to you is: Do you believe you are very
8 familiar with the general practice of the military police in 1995 with
9 respect to whom it was reporting information to?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Now, you were asked a question about commanders conducting
12 investigations parallel with a criminal investigation. And I wanted to
13 just --
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: I would just like to clarify that that was
15 commanders conducting disciplinary investigations, just so there is no
16 confusion. Thank you.
17 MR. MISETIC:
18 Q. Commanders conducting a disciplinary investigation parallel with
19 a criminal investigation.
20 My question to you is: Did you understand that a commander would
21 conduct or could conduct a -- an investigation into a criminal act under
22 the umbrella of a disciplinary investigation at the same time that the
23 military police and the Military Prosecutor's Office were conducting
24 their own investigation into that criminal act?
25 A. Theoretically speaking, yes.
1 Q. What would the disciplinary investigation -- can you explain,
2 when you say "Theoretically speaking, yes," as a matter of practice, was
3 that the practice at the time?
4 A. I must admit that I don't know what the practice was like. But
5 if a criminal report was filed for a serious crime, then it was a
6 superfluous matter to engage in a disciplinary procedure as well, but, of
7 course, it depended on the commander and the commander's inclination
8 toward investigations.
9 Q. Now, you were asked -- you were shown some documents from a court
10 file, and it related to individuals in the Golubic area who were arrested
11 by the military police and prosecuted for looting. And you were asked
12 the question, first, whether you believed that looting was to some extent
13 permitted or accepted in the HV. And my question to you is if could you
14 explain that your answer to that question if, in fact, the military
15 police arrested these individuals and were put on trial, can you further
16 explain your answer to that question?
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could just clarify again. The question was
18 permitted or accepted within HV units, not within the HV generally.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. MISETIC: And military police, I believe, the question said.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's check what we believe what the question says.
22 Could you take us to the relevant --
23 MR. MISETIC: I will take it, but I'm certain that Ms. Gustafson
24 said by letting members --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's -- let's not pronounce ourselves on what
1 you certainly think she said. Let's first look at the transcript and if
2 there's any reason to -- for doubt whether the transcript expresses
3 exactly what Ms. Gustafson said, we can verify that, rather than to, in
4 the presence of the witness, tell what your recollection is, Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: This is now at page 15, beginning at line 17.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. 15/17.
7 One second.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: The question begins at line 25 of page 15.
9 MR. MISETIC: No, the question begins at line 17.
10 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second. I will slowly read to the
11 witness the portion of the transcript you want to draw his attention to.
12 MR. MISETIC: It starts then -- the specific portion is the
13 reference to the 72nd Military Police Battalion which is part of the
14 question, which is within line 21.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, that was a reference, a specific
16 reference to an individual who is -- who it was under indictment and
17 became a member of the 72nd Military Police Battalion. That was part of
18 the question that related to a specific fact in the judgement. The
19 actual question begins at line 25.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- the question is introduced by a
21 reference to the portions of the files read to the witness. I'll just
22 read both the introduction and then the question.
23 Mr. Bajic, I read from the transcript of this morning the
24 following. Ms. Gustafson said:
25 "Now, having read these files and based on your experience as a
1 prosecutor and as a military prosecutor at the time of these events,
2 would you agree that these cases contain indications, and I'm referring
3 specifically to indications such as large group of HV soldiers loading
4 looted items onto trucks in Knin, a soldier under indictment for theft
5 becoming a member of the 72nd Military Police Battalion, and a large
6 group of conscripts loading looted items onto a truck in front of their
7 unit command.
8 Do these indications indicate that, to you, looting was, to some
9 extent, accepted or permitted within HV units at the time."
10 That was the question which was put to you and you started your
11 answer by saying:
12 "I absolutely agree with your conclusion."
13 Mr. Misetic wants to put a question to you in relation to this
14 question and answer.
15 Mr. Misetic.
16 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Mr. Bajic, my question is -- that was your answer. In light of
18 the fact though that this information comes from a situation where these
19 perpetrators were arrested by the military police and put on trial for
20 it, can you explain why you would absolutely agree that you -- looting
21 was, to some extent, accepted or permitted within the HV units at the
23 A. Because, from the case files that were presented to me, these
24 were cases 1, 2, 3, that's how they were designated when I got them. It
25 follows undoubtedly from them that the theft or whatever you want to term
1 it, by members of the Croatian army in the civilian buildings in the
2 area, was widespread and this is something that follows from the
4 It is true that the military police, in these very three cases,
5 did react and filed criminal reports. It is also true that these three
6 cases saw the perpetrators processed and convicted. However, the fact of
7 the matter is that thefts like these, which were not processed and which
8 we knew had happened, had been far more in numbers. Such statements were
9 made in, among others, judgements themselves.
10 Q. Okay. Well, then to follow up on this, you were also asked some
11 questions about the applicability of the amnesty law to these particular
12 cases, and you said in a response to a question by the Presiding Judge
13 that these crimes would not have been covered by the amnesty, because
14 they wouldn't have been considered connected with the war. The judgement
15 came down in 1998.
16 I noted that the indictment alleged that the theft took place on
17 8th of September, 1995. Are you aware of - and I don't believe it is
18 disputed in this case - what military operation involving units of the
19 Split Military District began on the 8th of September, 1995; and you are
20 aware where that military operation was taking place on that date?
21 A. I'm not sure whether this was Operation Maestral or something
22 like that, that I heard from the media. But this stems from my general
23 knowledge and not my knowledge in the capacity of a prosecutor.
24 Q. If whatever these individuals were doing was connected with or
25 related to Operation Maestral, would it have fallen under the amnesty act
1 and, therefore, would not have been prosecuted in 1998?
2 A. The Law on General Amnesty has been well explained by me, I
3 believe. Looting and theft cannot be connected with the war, and this is
4 more than clear and I speak as a prosecutor now. What is connected to
5 the war as collateral event is something quite different, and cannot, in
6 any way, be related to looting, and, therefore, cannot be subject to the
7 Law on General Amnesty. At least that is my view of the matter.
8 Q. I'll just check your answer. It was interpreted as that you
9 said -- I'm sorry, interpreted that this event cannot, in any way, be
10 related to ...
11 Related to what?
12 A. To war operations.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Bajic, you were asked questions about the
14 processing of crime, and one of the questions put to you was that there
15 were only five criminal reports filed in August and September 1995
16 against members of the HV and that chart is now Exhibit P2614.
17 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could have that on the screen,
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Just to clarify, it was five criminal reports
20 filed in August and September against members of the HV for crimes
21 relevant to this indictment.
22 MR. MISETIC: Correct. That's correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. Mr. Bajic, we will flip through some of these pages which I
1 admittedly don't have in front of me. For example, if we could go to
2 page 8 in the English, please. I think there is only an English,
4 Now, you'll see in the grey these are the entries that the
5 Prosecution believes are relevant to the indictment. The yellow ones
6 are -- the grey entries, are those entries that relate to crimes
7 committed in the liberated territories and in the specific municipalities
8 which are the subject of this case. But you should know that the entire
9 liberated area in Sector South is not subject to the Prosecution's case.
10 The yellow entries indicate crimes perpetrated by HV members against --
11 I'm sorry.
12 MR. MISETIC: Maybe I'm on the wrong page. Let me -- I guess I
13 have to check with the Prosecution. I apologise for speaking
14 mid-sentence. I'm looking at a version that was circulated that has
15 entries 798 at the top in yellow, and I wondering whether the latest
16 version has been uploaded into e-court.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: We can check on that. I -- I have to check. I'm
18 sorry. It just got uploaded, so I will check right now.
19 MR. MISETIC:
20 Q. You'll have to take my word for it that, for example, entry 798
21 relates to a crime committed in the newly liberated area. It is
22 Zelengrad, as you can see; but Zelengrad technically, although formally
23 occupied territory on the crimes committed by HV, and the crime is
24 against Serbs or Serb property doesn't technically fall within this
1 So my first question -- and if we can scroll to another page. If
2 we can go to page 23, please.
3 The grey area are, again, limited to the Prosecution's case in
4 chief. The two white areas appearing on your screen right now are also
5 crimes committed in the newly liberated areas. The question is: The
6 relevant reports, for example, looking at number 12. Can you tell us the
7 procedure -- the report, it is one report but it has five persons
8 identified. The reports themselves contain multi-perpetrators in many
9 cases. Is that consistent with your recollection of how the system
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. If they are interconnected in terms of the manner of perpetration
14 then they would be in one report if they committed the crime together.
15 Q. By my count, and I'm just asking you whether this is
16 consistent -- this chart --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I think your last question was more or
18 the less the obvious. If under one number we have five names, then it
19 means that under that number five names are reported.
20 Now I take it that the witness has not calculated with him to
21 see -- isn't this a matter of evaluation of what we find here? Because I
22 already understand that you would say that there were far more persons
23 reported or represented and that's a matter of one plus one makes two,
24 and five plus five makes ten. Should we bother the witness with this
25 or ...
1 MR. MISETIC: I'm leading to the ultimate point, which is I'm
2 going put the question that was put to him about a reluctance to
3 prosecute and that was put, and I want to ask him.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness said that he couldn't express
5 himself on the reluctance to prosecute. He said what he tell us what
6 they did and he could not interpret acts or approaches or attitudes of
7 the political leadership.
8 MR. MISETIC: I wasn't going to ask him about the political
9 leadership. I was asking him about his office limited to that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but, of course, there was no question about
11 reluctance to prosecuted within his office.
12 MR. MISETIC: The question was: Was there a reluctance to
13 prosecute among the Tudjman regime, and that would be directly relevant
14 to him.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, political leadership.
16 MR. MISETIC: No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- was specifically mentioned there, I think.
18 MR. MISETIC: We can look at the question again.
19 This is at page 42, line 4.
20 JUDGE ORIE: 42, line 4. One second please.
21 MR. MISETIC: Sorry you're right, Mr. President. It says
22 political leadership. But ... as a technical matter, that reluctance
23 would have to play out because the question is: Was there a reluctance
24 on the part of the political leadership to investigate or prosecute?
25 JUDGE ORIE: And the witness said he could not tell us about what
1 the political leadership and he then -- I certainly remember that. He
2 said what he did. And, at the end, because I thought he was not
3 answering the question he said: "I could not comment on but I cannot
4 offer any political assessment on the opinions or positions taken by some
5 members of the political leadership."
6 So the question was about reluctance in the political leadership
7 and the witness said that he couldn't answer that question.
8 MR. MISETIC: Okay. May I ask him then whether in working as a
9 prosecutor he ever felt any reluctance by anyone who may have been in a
10 political position not to prosecute? Because these events would say have
11 been prosecuted by him or the offices he was working in, and I would just
12 like to confirm that if such an allegation is going to be made at the end
13 that the person who would have had to feel that reluctance, whether he
14 felt it or didn't.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it was implicit in his answer, I would say
16 when he said that, but please correct me, Mr. Bajic, when I'm wrong.
17 I under understood your answer to be that you did your job the
18 way you thought you should do it and that you had no --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- no signs of reluctance from the political
21 leadership that reached you which you could comment on as far as whether
22 there was such reluctance, yes or no, and these questions were based
23 mainly on reading of this report of the meeting.
24 MR. MISETIC: That's fine. I will move on, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
2 MR. MISETIC:
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajic. The next question is about the sanitation
4 measures. You were asked a few questions about that. You've testified
5 during your testimony here over the course of two days that you obviously
6 are conducting examinations -- I'm sorry, investigations into these
7 killing incidents. On the issue of how sanitation measures were carried
8 out, have you found that the -- or evidence that the way that bodies were
9 buried in Operation Storm was intended to cover up crime?
10 A. I think that I cannot answer the question in relation to this
11 specific issue, because the exhumations at Knin, which had to do with the
12 earlier sanitisation processes, all the general information about the
13 numbers of persons recovered there, the numbers of persons who were
14 identified in the meantime and the findings of the identification, I have
15 no additional information to what I just told you, save for the fact that
16 certain corpses were identified. That's all the facts I am aware of.
17 MR. MISETIC: I understand the confusion.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but, Mr. Misetic --
19 Mr. Bajic -- the first question we have to put to Mr. Bajic in
20 this respect is: Did you investigate the practice or system or
21 background of the sanitation that took place in 1995?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that if you do not find anything, if you
24 are not looking for something, to find out what happened, Mr. Misetic,
25 that --
1 MR. MISETIC: I understand your point, Mr. President. That's why
2 I had gotten up on my feet before when the question was posed and perhaps
3 there is some confusion, and my computer is now down.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, your question was highly suggestive to
5 the extent that the focus of any investigation was not exclusively on
6 trying to obtain evidence in relation to the human remains that were
7 found but that it was also focussing on and investigating the way in
8 which the sanitation was done in 1995, which, from what I understand from
9 witness now, was not the case.
10 MR. MISETIC: If I may just have one minute, Mr. President.
11 This is, again, I think discussed earlier today, and I just want to make
12 sure that I'm clear on the witness's position. So if we could -- just
13 one second.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you find the relevant transcript passage, please
15 give us the page.
16 MR. MISETIC: This is at page 34, beginning with my comment at
17 line 24.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to cut matters short.
19 You told us that you learned subsequently when the exhumations
20 had started that people had been buried without on-site investigations
21 being conducted. That's people were buried under what was called by
22 Ms. Gustafson as a sanitation system or perhaps a sanitation practice.
23 Now, you told us that you learned about that only at a later
24 stage. What Mr. Misetic is exploring now is whether, on from that
25 moment, when you learned about the sanitation system, whether you
1 explored and have drawn conclusions on why and how this sanitation system
2 came into practice.
3 Mr. Misetic, I think that's what you are trying to explore.
4 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the question, first of all, is: Did you
6 investigate, did you explore, did you reach any conclusions in respect of
7 the way in which this sanitation system was created, developed,
8 background, why it was done this way? Did you explore that, did you make
9 any findings in this respect?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally have no knowledge
11 about that, any knowledge. The country prosecutor's office of Sibenik is
12 seized of this case. They took part in the exhumation and by reviewing
13 their case and gaining insight into it, I could have given you a specific
14 answer to all your questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If they would have further explored that specific
16 aspect, but apparently the witness doesn't know, Mr. Misetic.
17 You may proceed.
18 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. On the subjects of exhumations, you were asked questions about
20 why exhumations began only in 2001. Do you recall at whose request the
21 exhumations were done in 2001?
22 A. I don't know that.
23 Q. Were you involved in the exhumations in 2001?
24 A. In 2001, I was with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Split
25 exhumation was at Knin, which is part of the Sibenik Public Prosecutor's
1 Office, which is outside of my jurisdiction which I'm trying repeatedly
2 to explain.
3 Q. Do you know -- do you know why 2001 was the year that exhumations
4 began? What was the factual basis which caused exhumations to begin in
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: The witness was already asked this question, and
7 he said quite clearly that he didn't know.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic is phrasing the question slightly
9 differently because he would very much like to have the answer.
10 Well, you've heard the question now --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
12 JUDGE ORIE: The answer is clear. The witness says, I do not
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me.
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness said, I don't
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is my mistake, not to wait for the
20 interpretation, but I'm afraid that this is the result of many, many
21 years in this Tribunal.
22 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. You were asked -- you were shown an article from HINA, which had
24 a quote from you, quoting you as saying that a more serious approach to
25 investigation began after 2001. And I just wanted to ask you to explain
1 the comment. Was it a less serious approach prior to 2001?
2 A. In trying to provide an answer to this question, I said, after I
3 came to the post of public prosecutor general of Croatia, I was of
4 opinion that a serious review of all war crimes had to be done. Those up
5 to the point. Analysing the type and number of cases, I established that
6 in a certain segment the scope was too broad, that there was a large
7 number of trials in absentia, and, on the other hand, that a large number
8 of criminal offences had not been detected and processed; and for that
9 reason I sought from all county prosecutors who were in charge of the
10 operations in the field to organise a system within their prosecutor's
11 offices, in such a way, to strengthen their departments dealing with war
12 crimes to coordinate their work with police and intelligence services,
13 and by doing so, try to obtain as much evidence as possible to enable
14 them to process those cases that had not been processed that far.
15 On the other hand, I also issued an instruction whereby trials in
16 absentia should not be allowed to happen from that point onwards and also
17 in the pending cases for them to reassess whether the indictments had
18 been drafted up to scratch, up to the standards that had been elevated on
19 the basis of knowledge, know-how, experience, information, to reassess
20 whether the criminal offences were really war crimes and not less serious
21 offences; and at the same time I was facing the facts that it was
22 exceptionally difficult to collect information about war crimes that had
23 occurred ten years prior to that date. I launched an initiate to
24 strengthen institutional cooperation with other prosecutors general in
25 the region to facilitate the acquisition of evidence from other countries
1 and evidence from the archives of this Tribunal. All this is -- led to a
2 fact that the number of earlier cases dropped from almost 4.000 to 1100
3 and that, on the other hand, we launched a host of new cases and that we
4 referred number of cases to other countries in the region, where people
5 residing there were prosecuted.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bajic, for your answers.
7 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I don't have any further questions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, any further questions?
9 MR. MIKULICIC: No further questions, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, any further questions? I also just
11 check as we usually do, whether my colleagues or whether I have any
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Kinis has one or more questions for you
15 Mr. Bajic.
16 Questioned by the Court:
17 JUDGE KINIS: Mr. Bajic, I wanted to ask you one question
18 regarding war booty because we had a lot of evidences that HV commanders
19 issued orders -- not orders or instructions which allowed to collect some
20 sort of war booty for military needs.
21 Did you ever receive any instruction which, in legal sense,
22 explained what war booty was? During your business as a military
24 A. No.
25 JUDGE KINIS: And did you distinguish these incidents where
1 collection of home appliances, households were conducted in organised
2 manner by militaries, and -- and separate such incidents and treated
4 A. No, in the same manner.
5 JUDGE KINIS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bajic, I -- I have one question in relation to
7 the statement you gave to -- to the Gotovina Defence.
8 You said in paragraph 4 that the military prosecutor, they wore
9 uniforms but were, in fact, acting entirely within the system of the
10 public prosecutor.
11 What you say, at least that's how I understood it, they are not
12 soldiers but they were wearing military uniforms. Did you wear a uniform
14 A. Yes, I did wear a uniform.
15 JUDGE ORIE: What -- I mean, was this a fancy uniform or were you
16 a member some unit or -- I mean, could you choose your own insignia or
17 what -- could you explain to us what uniform you were wearing?
18 A. Well, after the decrees were enacted at the end of 1991 on the
19 organising of the military justice system, the minister of defence, at
20 the proposal of the prosecutor general of Croatia, deployed the existing
21 deputy prosecutors from the existing prosecuting services or offices into
22 military prosecutor services.
23 And in 1992, on the 6th of February, I changed the label on my
24 door. I put military -- deputy military prosecutor instead of public
25 prosecutor and wore a uniform, which I received together with the
1 decision on my deployment. But the military prosecution service was part
2 of the prosecution service of the Republic of Croatia
3 instance body that we reported to, who took decisions on our decisions,
4 was the republican prosecution service or the central prosecution service
5 of the Republic of Croatia
6 While we wore the uniforms well, first of all, we received our
7 wartime deployment papers, and we wore them, because it was inconceivable
8 as per the standards obtaining at the time, for military personnel to be
9 prosecuted and tried by people not wearing uniforms, not being military
10 personnel. Of course, this has been abandoned since. I wore the uniform
11 until the expiry of my term of office on the 6th of December, 1996.
12 Apart from the technical support that we received from the Ministry of
13 Defence, we had no other obligations or duties towards the Ministry of
14 Defence. None whatsoever.
15 Moreover, second instances decisions on first instances decisions
16 of military courts were done by the county court in Split, for instance,
17 for criminal offences punishable by a certain number of years, and up
18 above that threshold the second instances decision on county court
19 decision was done by the Supreme Court of Croatia. As far as our
20 salaries are concerned, we received them from the Ministry of Justice
21 because we are part of that justice system.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you said in order to present an authority
23 over the soldiers of the Croatian army, was that exclusively then within
24 your office? Is that how I have to understand it? That if suspects
25 would -- or if -- if other persons, or did you also go into the field
1 and ...
2 A. Well, we wore military uniforms, both prosecutors and military
3 judges, during our term of office in the military justice system. As far
4 as going out into the field, those consisted of going at crime scenes or
5 reconstructions and these were the only outings that we had as military
6 prosecutors wearing uniforms. We did not take part in regular activities
7 or operations or actions of the HV because we were deployed within the
8 Military Prosecutor's Office or we deployed as part of the military
9 justice system. We had the status of a soldier.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, again, could you describe from your insignia
11 which unit you belonged to, which -- although I do understand that it was
12 not in any way functional, but what unit were you a member of when you
13 wore that uniform?
14 A. We were not members of any unit.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But what could other people think you would be a
16 member of, looking at your uniform?
17 A. They could not tell us apart from regular soldiers, because there
18 was no indication on the uniform to that effect. Maybe towards the end,
19 in 1996, but at the very beginning there were no insignia telling us,
20 military judges or military prosecutors, apart from regular soldiers. We
21 were deployed by a decision of the minister of defence at the initiative
22 and proposal of the prosecutor general. This is written in the decrees
23 that have been already been tendered into evidence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And what rank, according to your uniform?
25 A. I did not have any rank for the first couple of years, but in
1 1995 or 1996, towards the end, I was given a rank of captain.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Different subject, so we leave the dress to
3 impress behind us. This very special confidential register, you said
4 that existed with only a few entries and nothing remaining in that
5 register, what would one need to end up in this register? I mean, what
6 was so special about it?
7 A. The basic registers for the operation of public prosecutors are
8 those that we discussed in great detail when cross-examined by the
10 However, in public prosecutor's service and in the military
11 prosecutor service, as per the regulations which applied to both service,
12 they were identical. There were some registers with different degrees of
13 confidentiality. What was entered into those registers were memoranda,
14 letters or information coming from other state bodies which classified
15 their missives, and because of the rules then and which are applied still
16 now, the state body which receives a classified document should not
17 change its status without the approval of the author or the sender of
18 such classified document.
19 In specific cases, several cases, in my opinion mistakenly, this
20 is the only way I can explain that, ended up in the so-called VT or very
21 confidential register. But when there was established that there were
22 criminal reports, they were transferred or re-entered into the KT
23 register and processed.
24 So no special secrets lay behind that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Everything in this special registers finally ended
1 up in one of the ordinary registers. I'm trying to find out whether
2 there was any information --
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- of a very sensitive nature which was finally not
5 finding its way to the ordinary registers. I can imagine high-ranking
6 suspects or very specific crimes, corruption, whatever. I'll just trying
7 to find out whether there was anything in those registers which would be
8 different from what we finally find in the regular registers.
9 A. Everything that was material and relevant for a criminal report,
10 which means if information contained in a confidential document ended up
11 in the regular KT register and processed. And as far as can I tell you,
12 this happened in Split
13 register if it was necessary to keep them confidential, so that the
14 process -- processing be successful ultimately, and it was necessary only
15 for a handful of people to be aware of such information to successfully
16 conclude a case.
17 We went through those registers to use any information which was
18 necessary to successfully prosecute some recent cases but nothing
19 remained in those VT registers as closed cases. I mentioned this
20 yesterday, because I noticed that some prosecutors - for instance that in
21 Sibenik - re-- mistakenly entered a case into a VT register instead of
22 the KT register, and out of an abundance of caution, I mentioned that so
23 that you get the full information. And this was the only reason why I
24 mentioned it yesterday.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
1 Have the questions by the Bench triggered any need for further
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour, I just have two very minor
4 procedural matters to raise, but we don't need --
5 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to this witness?
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: In relation to the witness but he doesn't need to
7 be present for them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: One other question, Ms. Gustafson, yesterday you
9 said you would consider whether you would need more time. Is there
10 anything remaining there or ...
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: [Microphone not activated]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Bajic, this then concludes your testimony
13 in this court. Being a witness certainly is not the same as being a
14 prosecutor in court; I'm aware of that. I would like to thank you very
15 much for having answered all the questions that were put to you by the
16 parties and by the Bench, and I would like to wish you a safe trip home
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Bajic out
20 of the courtroom.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, it's 20 minutes to 1.00. There are a
23 few procedural matters which the Chamber would like to raise today. If
24 the matters you would like to raise in relation to this witness could
25 wait until after the break, that would be appreciated, and it may save
1 time for the coming days if we could deal with those procedural matters
2 after the break.
3 We'll resume at five minutes past 1.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.41 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 1.10 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few procedural items on the agenda. Let's
7 start with the first one.
8 Ms. Gustafson, you said you had two matters in relation to
9 Mr. Bajic.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. The first is P2614, which was
11 one of the summary charts that was just admitted into evidence. A
12 mistake was made. A version had been sent out last night. I had further
13 discussions with Mr. Misetic, a further version was then sent out this
14 morning. We then made a mistake and uploaded the incorrect version. As
15 Mr. Misetic noted in his re-direct, that has been now corrected with the
16 helpful assistance of the Registrar. So the correct version is now in
17 e-court under P2614.
18 And the other matter was that I neglected to tender 65 ter 4461,
19 which were the minutes of the coordination council from the 6th of
20 November, 1998, and I'd ask that that be admitted.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, any objections against 65 ter 4461?
22 MR. MISETIC: No objection, Mr. President. I -- I will note that
23 with respect to that document, I will seek a stipulation from the
24 Prosecution about one fact, but we'll do that at a late date.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2616.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P2616 is admitted into evidence.
4 Ms. Gustafson, I made a comment yesterday on some columns in a
5 document, where I had some problems to -- to find that the English and
6 the original was the same DO, DOD, has that been resolved?
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, the translation has been
9 created and an e-mail explaining the error was sent to the Chamber
11 JUDGE ORIE: It has not yet been transferred to us. But Defence
12 is aware of that as well. So, therefore, that matter has been resolved.
13 Then I would like to move to my next item, which is a statement
14 from this Chamber with regard to the expert report of witness Ivan Pokaz.
15 On the 9th of July of this year, the Gotovina Defence filed the
16 expert report of Witness Pokaz, of which the final translation was
17 communicated to the Chamber by e-mail on the 15th of July, 2009. The
18 curriculum vitae of Witness Pokaz was subsequently filed on the 16th of
19 July, 2009. On the 10th of August, 2009
20 notice, pursuant to Rule 94 bis, of the Rules, objecting to the report
21 and challenging the expertise and qualifications of the witness. The
22 Prosecution argued that the report should not be admitted into evidence.
23 The Prosecution moreover indicated that, whether or not the Chamber would
24 decide to admit the report, it would not seek to cross-examine the
25 witness, unless he would be called to testify viva voce.
1 On the 12th of August, 2009, the Markac Defence filed its notice,
2 expressing its wish to cross-examine Witness Pokaz.
3 On the 25th of August, 2009, the Gotovina Defence filed an
4 addendum to the report -- to the expert report of Witness Pokaz, which
5 elaborates on the use of quotation marks throughout the expert report.
6 The Chamber defers its decision on admission of the expert report
7 until after the testimony of Witness Pokaz. The Prosecution has in its
8 notice made detailed challenges to the report, and the Chamber finds that
9 the concerns of the Prosecution are not without merit. In particular,
10 the Chamber has concerns in relation to the transparency of the methods
11 applied by the witness and of the sources upon which the witness's
12 conclusions are based, and in this regard, the Chamber emphasises that an
13 expert is expected to give his expert opinion in full transparency of the
14 established or assumed facts he relies upon and of the methods used when
15 applying his knowledge, experience, or skills to form his expert opinion.
16 The sources used in support of any expert opinion must be clearly
17 indicated and accessible. If such transparency is lacking, this will
18 seriously affect the parties' and the Chamber's possibility to test or
19 challenge the factual basis on which the expert report -- on which the
20 expert witness reached his or her conclusions, and thereby to assess the
21 probative value of the expert report. The result might be non-admission
22 or that only limited weight can be attached to the expert report.
23 Therefore, before deciding on admission of the expert report, the
24 Chamber will allow the parties, taking into account the mentioned
25 guidance, to explore the opinions expressed by Witness Pokaz in his
2 And this concludes the Chamber's statement.
3 I add to this that leave is granted to the Prosecution to exceed
4 the word limit as requested in the notice.
5 I move to next item on the -- on my agenda, and we move into
6 private session.
7 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
2 There is an issue still pending, in relation to the European
4 Gotovina Defence on which documents are still missing. The Chamber has
5 received and it has been filed, I think, a letter written by Mr. Solana,
6 dated 13th of August. In the attachment to this letter, we find three
7 categories of documents, the first documents which were received by the
8 Prosecution - I think there are two - received by the Prosecution which
9 were then later redacted by the EU and given back to the Prosecution for
10 disclosure to the Defence. The second category in the attachment is
11 those documents that could not be found in a new review of the archives.
12 And then the third category was documents that apparently -- redacted
13 documents were delivered on a certain date to the Gotovina Defence. I
14 think it was the 1st of July, if I'm not mistaken.
15 Does that mean, Mr. Misetic, that those documents were received
16 directly from European Union Monitoring Mission or the European Union on
17 that date and not through the Prosecution, as was the case with other
19 MR. MISETIC: That is correct. We travelled to Brussels and
20 picked up the documents.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These were six documents from what I
23 The Chamber will consider whether and how to proceed. An
24 application is still made in this respect by the Defence, but the Chamber
25 would like to be informed about what documents are now still sought by
1 the Gotovina Defence.
2 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may, we will certainly work on
3 that expeditiously and get you a list. I want to be transparent, however
4 that -- in addition to the documents that the Chamber narrowed the issues
5 down to, we, in all likelihood will request from the Chamber a
6 reconsideration on the issue of one category of documents which are the
7 ECMM logs from RC Knin in Knin; and, therefore, there will be that
8 additional set of documents. We have good faith basis to believe that
9 they existed and that they would be highly relevant in this proceeding,
10 so we will add that in addition to the list that has been -- the
11 narrowing of the documents done by the Chamber.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't know whether we narrowed. We invited,
13 first, to focus on the documents for which, in this year of its
14 existence, were available to the Chamber. And from the answer by
15 Mr. Solana, we see that they have reviewed their archives in relation to
16 those documents. Of course, this whole procedure is -- is a bit blurred
17 here and there by documents sought, already available, or other documents
18 considered to be in existence, which there is still doubt as to whether
19 they do exist or not. So if we could get an update on -- on what you are
20 still seeking, and if there are any further indications of the existence
21 of such documents, of course, we would welcome that as well, so that we
22 have a -- an update as to the present position. This is not in any way a
23 commitment of the Chamber, other than that it will then seriously
24 consider whether, and how, to proceed.
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 These were the items on my agenda.
3 Any further procedural matters?
4 Mr. Hedaraly.
5 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President. There was an issue with the
6 exhibit list that we have received for experts Jones and experts Corn,
7 and there are some documents listed there that have not been dealt with
8 in the report. For Expert Corn, for example, we're talking about P1125,
9 General Gotovina's order for attack; D1205, Mr. Rajcic's attachment for
10 artillery; and P461, the Brioni transcript. And the issue,
11 Mr. President, is that we have not received any notice as to what the
12 opinion that is being sought by the expert on these documents is. We
13 don't even know, based on the report, whether he was provided those
14 documents, and if he weren't he is then going to be elicited opinions on
15 the stand, we will not have proper notice of those documents. The same
16 documents also have been on the exhibit list for Expert Jones, who is not
17 listed as an artillery expert; and, therefore we object to those as well
18 and I just want to put that on the record.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kehoe.
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, the opinions of the -- the
21 experts are contained in their reports as the Chamber can see. With
22 regard to the other documents that could potentially be employed, we have
23 given that list of documents to the Prosecution. And we're simply
24 following the procedure that the Prosecution employed in the direct
25 examination of Colonel Konings, for instance, where we received a
1 plethora of documents in addition to -- that had not been in his report
2 that they used during the course of their direct examination.
3 But the opinions that he -- that these experts are going to
4 employ are in the actual report. There's not going do be any divergence
5 from those opinions. We are simply giving the array of documents that
6 could potentially come up during direct examination.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think one of the concerns expressed by
8 Mr. Hedaraly is also whether these documents had been available to the
9 expert when forming his opinion. And perhaps, ver briefly, I earlier
10 read a statement with regard to the expert report of Mr. Pokaz and, of
11 course, much of what was said in this statement might also apply to these
12 expert reports. That is, the transparency and sources, assumed facts, of
13 course, sometimes we find them, as far as Mr. Corn is concerned, for
14 example, what facts he was given to base part of his opinion upon is
16 MR. KEHOE: Those item had been -- the factual items with regard
17 to Corn and with regard to anything that -- that was of a factual nature
18 has been provided to counsel. So there has been, for instance, with
19 Professor Corn, there was a series of --
20 JUDGE ORIE: We've seen that.
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But, of course, I think one of the concerns of
23 Mr. Hedaraly is that he might have a full overview of all the material
24 which was provided to or was available to the expert. And, of course, it
25 might not always be easy to -- to have a complete overview and we have
1 received submissions by the parties on whether there are any obligations
2 in this respect. We have not decided on that matter or we have not given
3 any orders, but we're working on it hard, where it seems that Defence is
4 primarily looking at the matter from a point of view of disclosure
5 obligations; whereas, the Prosecution's concerns seem to go more into the
6 direction of how to test the evidence if we don't have that information.
7 I'm not going to say anything further on it, but the Chamber expects soon
8 to give further guidance and/or orders to the parties in this respect.
9 MR. KEHOE: If I may just add one other issue. When the Chamber
10 is considering the obligations in this regard, I would ask the Chamber to
11 look at Mr. Konings report where, in fact, he cited two documents in his
12 report. And in conjunction with that, we were provided any number of
13 additional documents in a list provided by Mr. Russo that were provided
14 to the witness -- to the expert, Colonel Konings.
15 So the situation is clearly not dissimilar. [Overlapping
16 speakers] ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, what you are doing is you are opening
18 arguments on the matter. What Mr. Hedaraly did is that he did put a
19 certain matter on the record not really arguing the matter at this very
20 moment. We -- the Chamber is, of course, in possession of the positions
21 taken by the parties on what obligations there are. The parties are,
22 meanwhile, in relation to the Pokaz report, aware of -- of what the
23 Chamber needs to finally test of factual basis and to assess the
24 probative value of expert reports.
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not going to take it any further at this moment,
2 on the basis of the written submissions until now. The Chamber will
3 address the matter further shortly.
4 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any further matter?
6 There are no witnesses available until Monday, from what I
7 understand, which means that we adjourn and we resume and Monday, the
8 31st of August, 9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom I.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.36 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 31st day of August,
11 2009, at 9.00 a.m.