1 Tuesday, 22 September 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 When we adjourned last week, Wednesday, it was still in the
12 expectation to have a housekeeping session on Friday. The Chamber would
13 like to put on the record that, on the 17th of September, after
14 consulting the parties, the Chamber informally decided to cancel the
15 session of Friday, the 18th of September, 2009 and have the housekeeping
16 session on the 22nd of September instead; that is, today.
17 And the Prosecution has objected to the use of certain documents
18 with Witness AG-11 - Witness Corn - filed on 4th September, 2009, but
19 since the Gotovina Defence did not use those documents during the
20 examination-in-chief of Witness Corn, this objection has become moot.
21 Next item on my agenda is a question for the Prosecution. Four
22 92 ter witnesses testified on the 9th of September, and at the end of
23 their testimony, Ms. De Landri was unsure whether she wanted to tender
24 any further documents, and the Chamber would like to hear from the
25 Prosecution whether there is any intention to tender any further
1 documents in relation to the four 92 ter witness statements.
2 Mr. Hedaraly, I could guide you to page 21.247 of the transcript.
3 If you would prefer to check that, then I will put an asterisk on
4 there that we will hear from you soon.
5 MR. HEDARALY: If we could, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The asterisk is there.
7 I would like to go into private session for a short moment.
8 [Private session]
9 [Part of Private Session made public by order of Trial Chamber]
21 Chamber will now deliver its decision on the Gotovina Defence's and the
22 Prosecution's request for admission of evidence -- for admission of
23 evidence of Milan Babic, pursuant to Rule 92 quater.
24 On 15th of May, 2009, the Gotovina Defence filed a motion
25 requesting admission of parts of Milan Babic's plea agreement and
1 transcript of his trial testimony in prior cases before the Tribunal
2 pursuant to Rule 92 quater. On the 28th of May, 2009, the Prosecution
3 filed a response, not objecting to the motion. At the same time, the
4 Prosecution requested admission of further transcripts of trial testimony
5 of this witness, pursuant to Rule 92 quater.
6 Rule 92 quater provides that written statements or transcripts of
7 unavailable persons may be admitted, whether or not the written statement
8 is in the form prescribed by Rule 92 bis, if the Chamber is satisfied of
9 the person's unavailability and finds from the circumstances in which the
10 statement was made and recorded that it is reliable. Rule 92 quater
11 further provides that, if the evidence goes to proof of acts and conduct
12 of an accused as charged in the indictment, this may be a factor against
13 the admission of such evidence. In addition, the Chamber must also be
14 satisfied that the evidence meets the general requirements of
15 admissibility under Rule 89(C); namely, that it is relevant and has
16 probative value.
17 Considering submission by the Gotovina Defence that Milan Babic
18 is deceased and a report attached to the motion detailing the
19 circumstances of his death, the Chamber is satisfied that Milan Babic is
20 unavailable, pursuant to Rule 92 quater.
21 In order to rely on an evidentiary basis that is as broad as
22 possible, the Chamber will consider the material tendered by the Gotovina
23 Defence and the Prosecution together. The transcript excerpts offered
24 into evidence by the Gotovina Defence and the Prosecution contain
25 testimony of Milan Babic given in other cases before the Tribunal. They
1 were made under oath and were subject to cross-examination in these
2 proceedings. The Chamber is mindful of the fact that the parts of the
3 plea agreement which the Gotovina Defence seeks to have admitted came
4 into existence through an agreement of the parties in the Milan Babic
5 case. However, the Chamber also considers that the Chamber in that case
6 established that a sufficient factual basis for the plea agreement
7 existed. Moreover neither the Prosecution, nor the Cermak or Markac
8 Defence have expressed any concerns with regard to the reliability of the
9 relevant parts of the plea agreement. Furthermore, the Chamber has
10 received ample evidence that corroborates the main issues touched upon in
11 the transcripts and the plea agreement excerpt, such as Witness
12 Galbraith's testimony on the negotiations of the Z-4 plan. The Chamber
13 therefore finds that these documents are reliable for the purposes of
14 Rule 92 quater.
15 The main topics of the transcripts and the plea agreement excerpt
16 are Serbia
17 institutions of the RSK through imposing decisions or providing
18 assistance in form of financing, supplying arms, or employing the JNA.
19 This evidence relates to the question of the nature of the armed conflict
20 that is at issue in the Gotovina et al case and is therefore relevant.
21 The documents further describe the diplomatic negotiations prior to
22 Operation Storm, in particular, concerning the Z-4 plan, which
23 constitutes relevant background to the issues of this case. Evidence on
24 propagandistic Serb media reports instilling fears in the Serb population
25 in the Krajina of the Croatian government, as well as evidence on Serb
1 refugees after Operation Storm, also has relevance to this case.
2 In light of the nature of the tendered material, the Chamber will
3 simply disregard individual pages for which no relevance can be
4 established, rather than singling them out for non-admission. Since
5 reliability is a component part of the probative value of a piece of
6 evidence, there is no need to re-examine the probative value of the
7 documents at issue, as their reliability has already been established
8 within the context of Rule 92 quater.
9 Consequently, the Chamber finds that the transcripts and the
10 parts of the plea agreement of Milan Babic as tendered by the Gotovina
11 Defence and the Prosecution respectively meet the requirements of Rule 92
12 quater and Rule 89(C). The Chamber therefore admits them into evidence
13 under seal. The Chamber instructs the registrar to assign exhibit
14 numbers to the admitted documents and to inform the parties and the
15 Chamber of the exhibit numbers so assigned.
16 For the benefit of the transparency of the trial, the Chamber
17 invites the Gotovina Defence and the Prosecution to review whether a
18 request to rescind the protective measures pursuant to Rule 75(G) is
19 apposite, and inform the Chamber of their respective positions within two
21 And this concludes the Chamber's ruling on this matter.
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to deliver its decision on --
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your, Honour, I'm sorry for the interruption.
15 We're back in open session?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar, I was too impatient.
17 The Chamber would now like to deliver its decision on a part of
18 the Gotovina Defence's motion for admission of evidence of 11 witnesses
19 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
20 On the 22nd of July of this year, the Gotovina Defence filed a
21 written motion seeking the admission of 11 statements pursuant to Rule 92
22 bis. The statements were attached to the motion as Annex A. These
23 statements had already been tendered on the 16th of May, 2008, during the
24 cross-examination of Witness Vladimir Gojanovic.
25 On the 11 of June, 2008, however, the Chamber denied the
1 admission of these statements because the procedural requirements for
2 admission were not fulfilled at that time. On that occasion, the Chamber
3 noted that this did not mean that these statements could not be admitted
4 at a later stage with the required attestations. This can be found at
5 transcript page 4.819.
6 On the 29th of July, 2009, the Prosecution filed a response to
7 the Gotovina Defence motion of the 22nd of July stating that it did not
8 object to the admission of the 11 written statements if it could
9 cross-examine four of the witnesses whose statements were being tendered.
10 On the 25th of August, 2009, the Chamber granted the
11 Prosecution's request to cross-examine the four witnesses and decided
12 that those witnesses should be heard via video-conference link. A
13 written decision for the 25th of August, 2009 decision allowing for
14 cross-examination of those witnesses will follow.
15 The four witnesses testified on the 9th of September, 2009, and
16 their statements were admitted into evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter on
17 that day. These admissions can be found on transcript pages 21.342,
18 21.363, 21.390, and 21.409. In the present decision, the Chamber will
19 detail with the remaining seven statements attached to the Gotovina
20 Defence's motion.
21 Pursuant to 92 bis (A), a chamber may admit, in whole or in part,
22 the evidence of a witness in the form of a written statement in lieu of
23 oral testimony which goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and
24 conduct of the accused as charged in the Indictment. Some factors in
25 favour of admitting evidence in the form of a written statement include
1 that it is of a cumulative nature and that it relates to relevant
2 historical, political, or military background. Factors against admission
3 include, but are not limited to, whether there is an overriding public
4 interest in the evidence in question being presented orally and whether a
5 party can demonstrate that the nature and source of the written statement
6 renders it unreliable. Additionally, the statements must follow the form
7 required in Rule 92 bis (B) and be relevant and probative, pursuant to
8 Rule 89(C).
9 The Chamber notes initially that the seven statements do not
10 concern the acts or conduct of the accused. The Chamber considers that
11 the information contained in the statements is of a cumulative nature and
12 concerns similar facts provided in the oral testimony of the four
13 witnesses who were cross-examined on the 9th of September, 2009
14 parties were given ample opportunity to examine these four witnesses as
15 well as Witness Gojanovic on the information contained in the seven
17 Therefore, the Chamber decides to admit the seven statements,
18 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
19 While these seven statements meet the requirements for admission,
20 the Chamber will only determine the weight to be attached to them, if
21 any, in the context of the evidence before it as a whole, and more
22 specifically, the testimony of Vladimir Gojanovic and of the four
23 witnesses that were cross-examined on the 9th of September, 2009
24 response of the 29th of July, 2009, the Prosecution stated that it would
25 address the probative value of all 11 statements in its closing
1 submissions. The Chamber invites the Gotovina Defence to make similar
3 The Gotovina Defence informally told the Chamber that no
4 protective measures are sought for these seven witnesses.
5 The Registrar has informally told the Chamber that the
6 attestations for each of the seven 92 bis statements will be added to the
7 exhibit number previously assigned to each statement on the 16th of May,
8 2008 as follows: The statement of Ratko Despot, given on the 18th of
9 May, 2008, was assigned Exhibit D206.
10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'll deal with the technicalities in this respect at
12 a later stage and, at this moment, the Chamber limits itself to issuing
13 the decision that D206, D202, D196, D198, D207, D195, and D199 are
14 admitted into evidence and that the relevant attestations are attached to
15 these numbers. I should say attached to the Exhibits known under these
17 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on the matter.
18 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hedaraly.
20 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you.
21 While we're dealing on this topic I do have an answer for the
22 Chamber's earlier question.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the asterisk.
24 MR. HEDARALY: Yes. The one document that was not tendered was
25 65 ter 7395.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Was not tendered but is intended to be tendered?
2 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, it was shown to one of the witnesses, and I'm
3 tendering it now, in fact.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I invite, as soon as the Defence teams
5 have formed their opinion on admission, to hear from them.
6 MR. KAY: We have no representations, Your Honour, on behalf of
8 MR. KEHOE: We will just examine, if we could just have a moment.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll hear from you and then the Markac
11 MR. MIKULICIC: We have no representation as well, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then we will wait until we have received
13 the position of the Gotovina Defence. The asterisk remains.
14 Then the Chamber would like to deliver its decision on the Cermak
15 Defence's motion for protective measures for Witness IC-2.
16 On the 27 of August, 2009, the Cermak Defence filed a motion
17 requesting the trial-related protective measures of testimony in closed
18 session and pseudonym for Witness IC-2.
19 On the 10th of September, 2009, the Prosecution filed its
20 response indicating that it did not object to the request, and the
21 Gotovina Defence and the Markac Defence did not respond.
22 As the Chamber has held in previous decisions, the party seeking
23 protective measures must demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the
24 security or welfare of the witness or the witness's family, should it
25 become known that a witness has given evidence before the Tribunal. This
1 standard can, for example, be satisfied by showing that a threat was made
2 against the witness or the witness's family.
3 Witness IC-2 is a Croatian Serb currently residing in Croatia
4 The witness has indicated that his testimony could cause hostile
5 reactions in the Serb community of his hometown. He has expressed his
6 concerns for himself and his family. The witness is expected to testify
7 about how the Croatian authorities treated him after Operation Storm, as
8 well as about an event, which may identify him to the Serb community of
9 his hometown. Earlier this year, the witness received frequent threats
10 over the phone, as well as from neighbours and others in his immediate
11 surroundings. Recently, a person closely related to the events the
12 witness is expected to testify about, insulted and threatened the
13 witness, making reference to his pending testimony in The Hague. Around
14 the same time, one of the witness's neighbours damaged some of the
15 witness's property.
16 For these reasons, the Chamber finds that the Cermak Defence has
17 demonstrated an objectively grounded risk as to the security and welfare
18 of Witness IC-2, should it become known that he has given evidence before
19 this Tribunal.
20 The Chamber considers that, in light of the nature of the
21 anticipated evidence of the witness, the only effective way to protect
22 his identity is to hear his testimony in closed session. The Chamber
23 grants the motion for the trial-related protective measures of testimony
24 in closed session and pseudonym.
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on protective measures
1 for Witness IC-2.
2 Next item on my agenda is that the Chamber was informed that the
3 Gotovina Defence would tender from the bar table some documents, and the
4 Chamber wonders whether the parties are ready to deal with it at this
6 First, have the relevant documents been identified? Has the
7 Prosecution been informed about it? And has the Prosecution formed or
8 has it considered its position in relation to these documents?
9 MR. HEDARALY: If -- Mr. President, if we are talking about
10 housing law documents, there has been quite a number of exchanges between
11 the Prosecution and Mr. Misetic. We received a spreadsheet according to
12 the Chamber's guidance. We sent back our comments and asked for one
13 additional portion to be included. I think that that is fine so as long
14 as [indiscernible] and our comments are included we have no objection to
15 those documents being admitted subject to those conditions and to one
16 article being added.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: That is correct with respect to the housing law
19 documents, Mr. President. I believe you will also note that last night
20 we sent around an additional bar table. These are the documents we
21 received from the Prosecution I believe approximately one week ago.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's the Mladic order.
23 MR. MISETIC: Correct. It is not only Mr. Mladic's order but
24 there are other documents of the VRS from the time-period in the
25 indictment as well as in October, and we have asked to bar table those
1 documents as well, and we're just waiting to hear from the Prosecution.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's referred to as the Vaganj issue.
3 MR. MISETIC: Vaganj bar table we can really call it, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. HEDARALY: As indicated we just received these recently. If
6 we can just have a few days to review it, maybe even today, but we need
7 to look at them, and some of them are not translated so it may take a few
8 more days.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we hear from you this week?
10 MR. HEDARALY: If we have the translations by then, that -- then
11 it will be no problems. We'll -- we'll try to do it without the
12 translations by having a brief look through it. If we think it needs a
13 translation, we will inform the Court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber will hear from you this week,
15 either -- because the Prosecution has made up its mind in relation to
16 these documents or to it indicate that it needs further time since not
17 all translations are available.
18 The other ones, the spreadsheets and the exchanges, has this
19 resulted in ...
20 MR. HEDARALY: I think we have a spreadsheet with all the
21 documents, what -- the OTP's comments on each of them, so the documents
22 can be tendered and admitted. As long as those comments are as well
23 recorded, some are for the Chamber.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes, I have no objection to that, and I do believe
1 indicated earlier that's the agreement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the agreement. Has it been uploaded?
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And --
5 MR. MISETIC: The documents are in e-court in the range of 1D2936
6 through and including 1D2939.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That means four documents.
8 MR. MISETIC: That's correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please assign numbers to
12 these documents.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, 1D2936 through -- up through
14 and including 1D2939 will become Exhibit D1669 up to and including D1672
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. And since the Chamber --
17 although the Chamber appreciates the agreement of the parties that these
18 are admissible pieces of evidence, the Chamber would like to have a look
19 at it themselves before it decides on admission.
20 Mr. Hedaraly.
21 MR. HEDARALY: I just have two minor I guess questions more than
22 anything else.
23 First of all, how should the spreadsheet itself with the comments
24 of the Prosecution be conveyed to the Chamber? I don't think that is
25 uploaded in e-court, so I don't know if that should be e-mailed to
1 chamber. And second of all, there was an article that we requested be
2 added, Article 4. I don't know if that is in the -- in the number that
3 was just listed.
4 So those are the two questions that I have.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start with the last question, Mr. Misetic.
6 MR. MISETIC: The article has been added.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Has been added.
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is therefore part of the --
10 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- tendered documents?
12 MR. MISETIC: Yes. The second issue is I don't believe that what
13 Mr. Hedaraly's suggesting is part of -- the practice, the established
14 practice thus far, the Court will recall that I believe early on in this
15 case, we established a -- a practice whereby spreadsheets were provided
16 by the Prosecution for large UNMO reports and UNCRO reports, et cetera,
17 for the internal benefit of the Chamber to know what portions of the
18 documents the parties considered to be relevant but those -- the Defence
19 would add its own descriptions to the Prosecution's spreadsheet, but the
20 descriptions themselves and the comments wouldn't be added into e-court.
21 So they were provided to the Chamber so the Chamber could
22 understand what the parties believed to be relevant in the documents in
23 making determinations on admissibility, but I don't believe that comments
24 of the Defence were included in the Prosecution's description of -- of
25 the documents in e-court and, moreover, if I'm not mistaken, even the
1 comments of the Defence in these spreadsheets are not -- I will have to
2 check on it, but I don't believe they are the actual document description
3 in e- court.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, much depends on whether we have
5 argumentative comments or whether we have comments, which, for example,
6 say that the way in which the -- the document is referred to, just a
7 short description of the document is inaccurate, that's, of course, of a
8 procedural character rather than anything else. The Chamber of course is
9 unaware at this moment what kind of comments we would find on those -- on
10 those exhibits -- on those spreadsheets.
11 Mr. Hedaraly.
12 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to create confusion. I
13 was not suggesting that that be tendered as an exhibit. All I was
14 pointing out was that those comments were probably not included in
15 e-court, so I was simply asking how to convey those comments to the
16 Chamber to assist them in making its decision, so I didn't mean to intend
17 that that should be uploaded and given an exhibit number, but it should
18 be recorded somewhere so that Chamber can rely on it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It should be recorded to the extent it is relevant
20 for our understanding of what these documents are and where the Chamber
21 can find the relevant portions of it. I take it that if there are
22 comments which go beyond that that the most appropriate way to present it
23 would be during either closing argument or final briefs, whereas if it is
24 just about you're describing a document as dating 20th of September to
25 say, No, it is a document which bears two dates, 18th and 22nd. Comments
1 of this kind, I think, should be linked to the document directly;
2 comments of a different character might not have to be in any way
3 admitted into evidence together with that document.
4 Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: I have nothing further to add, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Then could the parties seek to agree what documents are proper at
8 this moment to be brought to the attention of the Chamber and whether it
9 is in a spreadsheet or in any other way could be done in a filing as
10 well; not necessarily to be admitted into evidence. Of course, if you
11 could come to an agreement as far as these technical aspects are
12 concerned, that would be appreciated. If not, then if the parties could
13 at least agree on whether it is information the Chamber should receive in
14 relation to the documents, directly related to the documents or whether
15 it's rather argumentative and should be put before the Chamber in the
16 future when the parties are arguing their cases, that would be
17 appreciated as well.
18 Could we hear from you within this week?
19 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then so we have two ...
21 Then the last matter on my agenda is the MFI list. Are there any
22 other matters before we move to the MFI
23 to deal with?
25 Then let's -- we -- I'll start with the -- I'll start with the
1 Defence list.
2 D1460, which is the Jagoda target list, on a Google Earth
3 overlay. I think the Chamber invited the parties to ensure that all
4 targets are depicted on the maps accurately. I think the Chamber, at
5 that time, pointed at some doubts it had in relation to this accuracy. I
6 have first a question: Has this resulted in any further corrections
7 apart from the issue the Chamber pointed at at that time?
8 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I do not believe it had any further
9 corrections. We did share the corrections with the Office of the
10 Prosecutor, and I believe we came to agreement on that score, and we have
11 uploaded those slides the new slides, pursuant to Your Honours' request,
12 with the corrections at 1D72-4002.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And are these slides now in addition to or
14 replacing the --
15 MR. KEHOE: Replacing, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Replacing. Which means that 1D72-4002 will now
17 become D1460.
18 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It has been uploaded. Since agreement apparently
20 exists, the Chamber admits into evidence D1460.
21 Next one is D1465, the Mladic diary of which I understand that it
22 has been uploaded in its entirety at the request of now both Prosecution
23 and -- Defence and Prosecution. It has been uploaded and parties
24 apparently agree on admission.
25 Mr. Hedaraly.
1 MR. HEDARALY: I didn't realize the whole diary -- I thought it
2 was the portions that were used and that have been uploaded 70-some pages
3 that were the portions used during examination of a number of witnesses
4 during the Gotovina Defence case. I don't know if I have misunderstood
5 something, but that was my understanding rather than the whole 300 pages.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, we have in fact uploaded excerpts of
8 the diary. The excerpts include everything we used with witnesses.
9 There are a few additional pages that I didn't put to General Mrksic just
10 in the interest of time but, nevertheless, we would like included which
11 is basically excerpts from August 1995, and those excerpts now are in
12 e-court as 65 ter 1D2976.
13 MR. HEDARALY: If Mr. Misetic would be so kind as to let us know
14 which portions were not useable, we will review it quickly, and then I
15 don't think there will be any objection, but if it has not been shown to
16 any witness, just so that we're aware what those portions say and then we
17 will give our position on that, which I suspect will be no objection, but
18 if we could just have that. For the portions that have been used with
19 witnesses we have no objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: When I said the complete diary, I think I was
21 inaccurate. Because, what I should have said is that the Gotovina
22 Defence had uploaded the excerpts even to the extent they were not put to
23 a witness. So therefore, D1465 contains more than the portions shown to
24 Witness Lazovic.
25 MR. MISETIC: In the present form, yes, it is the complete Mladic
1 diary which was uploaded prior to our Defence case beginning so we
2 couldn't be sure which portions would or wouldn't be used.
3 But I can advise the Prosecution that the portions that we are
4 tendering that weren't put to a witness are the portions that begin on
5 7th of August, 1995, which is numbered page 265, to the end of the
7 MR. HEDARALY: We'll take a look.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And when will -- will we hear from you,
9 Mr. Hedaraly?
10 MR. HEDARALY: In the next few days.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Next few days. This week.
12 Then I move on. D1508. There was an objection because the
13 document would lack foundation. Relevant transcript pages 18.758 up to
14 and including 18.761 and 19.154. It is about an intercept where Slobodan
15 Milosevic calls Momcilo Perisic. The -- D1508 is admitted into evidence;
16 the objection goes to weight to be attached to the exhibit rather than to
17 its admission.
18 We move on to D1527.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: D1527, Prosecution has objected to this document.
21 As a matter of fact, these are two documents. The Chamber does not admit
22 D1527 into evidence because the lack of probative value and also possibly
23 the lack of relevance.
24 I move to D1531. The Prosecution objected to this document, both
25 on the grounds of relevance and lack of foundation. The Chamber decided
1 that D1531 is not admitted into evidence due to lack of relevance.
2 I'll skip, for a second, D1569 and move to P462, which is a
3 document dated the 11th of August. There has been some confusion as
4 whether it was the 9th of August or the 11th of August, but as matters
5 stand now, it's a document dated the 11th of August.
6 Has a final translation been uploaded into e-court?
7 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... problem about the
10 MR. HEDARALY: Sorry. Yes, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Has been uploaded.
12 Then in -- on the basis of this now revised translation, is there
13 any objection against admission of P462, which is the presidential
14 transcript of the 11th of August, 1995?
15 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
17 MR. MISETIC: No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Same is true, from what I see, from the Markac
20 Then P462 is admitted into evidence.
21 I move to P2563, which is a criminal report against an
22 unidentified person who allegedly had committed rape.
23 Is there any objection against admission?
24 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
1 MR. MISETIC: May I just have one minute, Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, that -- that came up, I believe,
4 during one of my witness's testimony. If I could just take a look at it
5 and get back to you at the break, after the break, if I may.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'll put an asterisk at P2563.
7 MR. HEDARALY: If I can just assist, Mr. Misetic, I think you'll
8 remember. It was an Official Note from the Croatian police. That was at
9 the time where other Official Notes had been tendered by the Defence and
10 objected to by the Prosecution. So I think because of the Prosecution's
11 objection, Mr. Kehoe had objected to us tendering that Official Note. In
12 light of the Chamber's decision on those other Official Notes, I would --
13 I would -- I would think --
14 MR. KEHOE: I will go back and take a look. I do recall there
15 were some inconsistent positions being taken with regard to those and all
16 I just want to do is go back to the transcript and refresh myself a bit.
17 Thank you for your guidance. I just don't recall exactly on that
18 Official Note why we were objecting back and forth.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If you go back to the transcript I think pages
20 19.626 up to 19.630 would certainly assist you --
21 MR. KEHOE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Kehoe.
23 Then we have a series of documents, and I just -- that's 2597 up
24 to and including 2600, and I'm talking about P exhibits. There were
25 objections, and the Chamber wondered whether the Gotovina Defence, also
1 in view of the ruling on P2593, would still object to the admission of
2 these four documents.
3 MR. MISETIC: I remind Your Honour, P2593 was ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that was the decision about what has to be put
5 to a witness, whether all of the evidence should be put to a witness or
6 whether the case should be put to a witness. I hope you remember that
7 what the ruling was of the claim was in that.
8 MR. MISETIC: I do.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And that seems to be relevant for these -- seem to
10 be relevant for the objections against the admission of these documents
11 as well.
12 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, we understand the Chamber's ruling
13 for purposes of the record for the future, I think we need to preserve
14 our position and, therefore, we would stand on our position vis-a-vis
15 these as well, but we understand what the Chamber's earlier ruling was.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And would you not be surprised and it would
17 not be totally inconsistent with the Chamber's earlier ruling if he would
18 admit these four documents into evidence.
19 MR. MISETIC: I would not be shocked, Mr. President, and I trust
20 the Chamber understands why I take the position that we have to take as
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you just want to reserve your position that you
23 understand that it might be a consequence of that ruling --
24 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... that these documents
1 would be admitted into evidence.
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, another option would be that these documents,
4 if they would be tendered as bar table documents, were of course the
5 90(H) issue doesn't come into play, would there be any objections?
6 MR. MISETIC: To be perfectly honest, Mr. President, I'm not as
7 familiar with the Tribunal's case law on that narrow point as you are, so
8 I'm not certain that if a party tendered as a bar table submission
9 documents which it should have put to a witness that has already
10 testified whether that alleviates the Rule 90(H) situation or not.
11 So not having ever researched that issue for myself I can only
12 either -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 MR. MISETIC: -- or leave it in the claim's hands as to how you
15 wish to proceed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, either of the two. I leave it to you,
17 Mr. Misetic. If you say give me another couple of days to research it,
18 then that request will be granted. If you say, I leave it in the
19 Chamber's hands, then the Chamber will rule on the matter, so you have to
20 choose whether you want to make further submissions or not.
21 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I could have a couple of days then
22 to look into the issue myself.
23 JUDGE ORIE: This week?
24 MR. MISETIC: By Friday --
25 JUDGE ORIE: By Friday, close of business.
1 The Chamber noted that the P2035 which is a report of the
2 circumstances of death of Vade Sovilj seems to be a duplicate of P89.
3 The Chamber, therefore, has the intention to ask the Registrar to vacate
5 Could you please check, Mr. Hedaraly?
6 MR. HEDARALY: I just did, Mr. President, and we're fine with
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No further submissions in relation to that.
9 Mr. Registrar, you are invited to vacate P2035.
10 I can't say that the MFI
11 least made some progress and it gets shorter and shorter. Of course,
12 when I said that the Gotovina Defence had concluded the presentation of
13 its case, that's, of course, always with one reservation; that is, any
14 pending issues on the MFI
15 for all parties.
16 Is there any other matter the parties would say like to raise at
17 this moment?
18 Mr. Kay, I think it would be a bit chaotic if after the break we
19 would first start with some bits and pieces of the MFI list, and I think
20 it would perhaps be better, if there is any need to spend further time on
21 small issues or big issues, but just for a short moment, to delay that
22 and not mix up the start of the testimony of your first witness --
23 MR. KAY: I'm grateful --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- with all kind of procedural matters which are
25 distracting our attention from the evidence you want to present.
1 MR. KAY: I'm grateful, Your Honour, I prefer to call my evidence
2 now if that meets with the Court's approval.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that would be done, I take it, after the
4 break because it's quarter past now. I suggest that we take a break of
5 half an hour and that we would start to hear the testimony of your first
6 witness at 10.45.
7 MR. KAY: I'm much obliged, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We have a break until 10.45.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, is the Cermak Defence ready to present its
12 case and to call its first witness?
13 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may I call my first witness who is General
14 Feldi. He is an expert witness and his report and statement has been
15 served on the parties and the Trial Chamber, under Rule 94 bis.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Feldi. Can you hear me in a
18 language you understand?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
21 Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that you will speak
22 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the text is
23 now handed out to you by Madam Usher. I would like to invite you to make
24 that solemn declaration.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
1 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Feldi. Please be seated.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very much.
4 WITNESS: FRANJO FELDI
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examination by Mr. Kay:
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, you will first be examined by Mr. Kay.
8 Mr. Kay is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
9 You may proceed, Mr. Kay.
10 Q. Mr. Feldi, are you a retired colonel general from the Croatian
12 A. I am.
13 Q. And is your name Franjo Feldi?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. And did you provide an expert witness report for the Defence team
16 of General Cermak, which has been filed at this Court?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. KAY: Your Honour, if that report can be brought up on the
19 screen; 65 ter 2D00-744.
20 Q. This report is in two languages. You wrote it your own language;
21 is that correct, Mr. Feldi?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And we also have a translation here. And if you can just
24 identify there the front page of your report, which is on the screen.
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes, I can.
2 MR. KAY: Your Honour, as the parties know, this has been served.
3 It comes from Mr. Feldi, and I would like to move this report into
4 evidence and give it an exhibit number.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? Who's going present the
6 Prosecution's position in relation to this witness?
7 MR. CARRIER: It's -- I'm going to do that Mr. President,
8 Mr. Carrier, so I'm not unidentified.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You're not unidentified. But I see three possible
10 candidates and although you were in front, I will draw my conclusions
11 from that.
12 Mr. Carrier, any objections against the admission into evidence
13 of the report?
14 MR. CARRIER: Just one moment, Mr. President, sorry.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. CARRIER: No, that's fine. We have filed the objection to
17 the report, but it's fine.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And you primarily insisted on cross-examining the
19 witness, that's the position.
20 Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, that will become Exhibit
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
24 Mr. Kay, may I take it that any corrections, et cetera -- of
25 course, is this the corrected report already?
1 MR. KAY: Yes. Your Honour --
2 JUDGE ORIE: This is corrected because it says July 2009 and the
3 latest corrections came in at a later date.
4 MR. KAY: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: But this is the consolidated report including the
6 latest corrections which you have brought to the attention of the Chamber
7 only in the recent days.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour, yes. The corrigendum has been applied to
9 the document. A fresh document uploaded including the masses raised in
10 the corrigendum primarily involving the English document, and that is the
11 document that has now been exhibited before the Court.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. D1673 is admitted into evidence.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. KAY:
15 Q. Mr. Feldi, is it also correct that you were interviewed by the
16 Office of the Prosecution in July 2003 and a statement taken from you?
17 A. That is correct, yes.
18 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may we have 65 ter 2D00-738 on the screen,
20 And if we can go just further down the -- there we are.
21 Q. The document is in two forms of language there, Mr. Feldi. In
22 Croatian on the right-hand side but the original document taken in the
23 English language is on the left-hand side. And do you identify that as
24 being your signature?
25 A. Yes, that's my signature.
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, unless there's any issue, the parties have
2 all seen this document. It contains Mr. Feldi's signature on each and
3 every page. I propose not to call up every page, as I think that that
4 would be a waste of time, and it is the Prosecution's document and move
5 this document into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
7 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, given that this was taken pursuant
8 to these proceedings, I assuming there's a 92 ter procedure to be
9 complied with.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, usually even under a 92 ter the attestation
11 is -- it depends on -- the witness, of course, appears for
12 cross-examination, but usually the witness is asked whether he has
13 reviewed it, whether there's any -- whether he, at the time, made the
14 statement to the best of his recollection and to the best of his
15 knowledge in accordance with the truth, and whether he would give similar
16 answers. That's the usual way we deal with it so not to have it hanging
17 in the air somewhere.
18 MR. KAY: Your Honour, this was filed under 94 bis with the
19 report. 94 bis is a rule which refers to a statement and any report by
20 the expert witness. I'm quite happy to go through the 92 --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
22 MR. KAY: -- ter procedure if the Court wanted. But this
23 document was not filed under 92 ter; it was filed under 94 bis.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, of course, it's a bit of
25 a -- an animal of a mixed character. It is on the one-hand side it is --
1 it's a statement which would -- and at the same time if you introduce a
2 statement, your own statement, which is not primarily focussing on expert
3 matters, but, rather, on matters of fact then I think out of an abundance
4 of caution it would be good that we quickly go through it.
5 If you wouldn't mind I will do it in half a -- well, not in half
6 a second.
7 MR. KAY: I will do it, Your Honour, if you'd like.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please, please.
9 MR. KAY:
10 Q. Mr. Feldi, the statement that is before you that was taken by the
11 Office of the Prosecution in July 2003 have you read a translated version
12 of that statement into your own language?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. And in relation to that statement, were there any corrections
15 that you wanted to make to any of the content within the statement?
16 A. No, I don't have any significant comments to make. It mostly
17 boils down to certain terms which are more Serbian than Croat, really.
18 And then certain terms that were mostly employed by the personnel of the
19 JNA rather than the HV. But I don't have any substantial changes to
21 I only want to say that my statement had to do with Medak pocket
22 operation which was conducted in Lika in 1993 and not with Operation
23 Storm. Portions of the text in -- of my statement have to do with the
24 Croatian Army in general, its structure and activities, but they do not
25 relate directly to Operation Storm, either its course or its aftermath.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Feldi.
2 If you were asked the same questions today, which make up the
3 content of that statement, would you give the same answers today as you
4 did in the year 2003?
5 A. Mr. Kay, I believe that I would give the same answers. I can't
6 construct something that didn't happen at the time. I would repeat what
7 I said then if I was asked the same thing.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour, in those circumstances not having filed it
9 under Rule 92 ter but under 94 bis having undergone the procedure, that
10 may be a statement to be put into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, may I take it that there are no
13 MR. CARRIER: No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will become Exhibit D1674.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And it's admitted under this number into evidence.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. KAY: Your Honours, there are some documents in the
19 courtroom. It is a hard copy of the General's report, as well as a hard
20 copy of his statement, and he has also put together a collective of the
21 footnotes within his report so that if any issues arise he can refer to
22 the hard copy, if necessary. It might be sensible, if the Court permits
23 it, for them to be moved from the registry's bench and put near him so
24 that he may refer to any documents that -- that -- or the parties require
25 or he requires.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll follow your suggestion, Mr. Kay, and I
2 have seen in the footnotes some materials are in evidence; others are
4 MR. KAY: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see how to deal, especially with those who are
6 not yet in evidence, if we need to pay any specific attention to them.
7 MR. KAY: Exactly, so, Your Honour, my intention was to see what
8 arose during the proceedings and to deal with those documents that are
9 not exhibits. The parties may make exhibits as they go along. Anything
10 over that isn't exhibited that is of help to the Trial Chamber we would
11 propose to bar table in the same way that the Prosecution did with their
12 expert witness, Mr. Theunens.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
14 MR. KAY: Your Honour, in the circumstances, having exhibited the
15 report of General Feldi and the statement, I have no further questions to
16 ask of him, as his expert opinion is a report before the Court. Thank
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay, may I take it that you
19 have explained to Mr. Feldi the procedures so that he is not disappointed
20 that he appears in court and no further questions are put to him by you.
21 I take it that you have understood that we have your written
22 report so, therefore, we know what your evidence is and then you will be
23 cross-examined by the other parties.
24 May I first inquire with the Defence teams. Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes, I will be cross-examining.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you will cross-examine Mr. Feldi. Could you
2 give us any time indication or assessment.
3 MR. MISETIC: A rough estimate, Mr. President, is 30 to 45
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I am looking at the Markac Defence.
6 Mr. Mikulicic, could you --
7 MR. MIKULICIC: I will have no questions, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You will have no questions.
9 Then, Mr. Feldi, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic.
10 Mr. Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Feldi.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. I would like to start off with the following question. Can you
17 tell us as a matter of fact who General Cermak's immediate superior in
18 the line of command was in August and September of 1995?
19 A. Your Honours, as of the 5th of August, 1995 and throughout the
20 presence of General Cermak in Knin, his immediate superior was the
21 commander of the Split Military District.
22 Q. I'd like to turn your attention, General Feldi, to a video, and
23 these are excerpts, Mr. President, from P2532. This is OTP's interview
24 with General Cermak in 2004. We've made two clips, Mr. President, one of
25 which is in the selection of clips, which comprise P2532, and that is the
1 excerpt at 46 minutes, 54 seconds to 52 minutes, 24 seconds. There is a
2 second clip from that same interview which was not selected by the
3 Prosecution to be part of P2532, and in the original video that portion
4 is at the 2 hour, 29 minute and 54 second mark to the 2 hour, 32 minute
5 and 5 second mark, and we'd like to play both clips.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, one clip already part of another piece
7 of evidence, one clip, not -- would it, although I would like to avoid
8 any duplications, would it not, nevertheless, not be good to have the two
9 clips together in one -- under one exhibit number then.
10 MR. MISETIC: That's perfectly fine with me, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because that avoids that we have to look back
12 for one of the clips and find the other one in a new exhibit number.
13 Mr. Registrar, could you already assign a new number -- and we'll
14 then of course look at it first but already assign a new number to the
15 two clips, one already in 25:32 but to be part of this exhibit as well,
16 the other one new.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1675,
18 marked for identification.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we'll decide on admission after we've seen
20 it and after we have heard from Mr. Carrier.
21 The video may be played.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 Brian Foster: Going back to, then, the special nature of your
24 position, you weren't -- you say, you tell me, formally attached to
25 Gotovina and Cervenko. You had a different route in terms of perhaps
1 somebody you needed to go to if there were things you wanted to discuss.
2 Could you explain what that route was in sense of your subordination, who
3 did you report to? Who did you discuss problems with, other than the
4 ones you mentioned with Gotovina?
5 Ivan Cermak: First of all, all these jobs that I was dealing
6 with nobody was interested, as far as the military was concerned.
7 Because Cervenko was certainly not concerned about the fact that I was
8 dealing with soup kitchens and cleaning up the town and issues relating
9 to the town itself. I was more connected with the office of the
10 president. Because I went down there with special tasks from him. And I
11 was often in touch with Sarinic, and Vesna Skare Ozbolt, and the
12 president on several occasions.
13 Brian Foster: Okay. And while we're perhaps talking about the
14 relationship with the president, did you -- did you put anything in
15 writing to the president or to the president's office about any problems
16 that you were having down there?
17 Ivan Cermak: I didn't put anything in writing to the president
18 because it was not necessary. And I advised him -- discussing things
19 with him. I asked him to do certain things, to reinforce the police. He
20 said he knew. And that things would be done to stop this. Don't forget
21 that the president was certainly better informed in Zagreb than I was.
22 Because he got all the reports from the police ... from the police, from
23 the security services, from SIS, from SZUP and also meetings --
24 Cedo Prodanovic: And international organisations ...
25 Ivan Cermak: ... also pointed out to him. Because all letters
1 and everything that the international community was telling me also
2 automatically went for coordination to the office in Zadar, from the
3 coordination office in Zadar to the Ministry of Defence in Zagreb. And,
4 as far as I know, also to the centre for the international community in
6 sent -- it clearly says that they sent all these warnings of what was
7 going on and that the Croatian government never responded. There were
8 institutions of the government, all the way to the government,
9 institutions of the state that were responsible to prevent all this that
10 happened and they were well-informed.
11 Brian Foster: So, you were saying that you -- you had verbal
12 communication with President Tudjman and you advised him on -- I don't
13 know how many occasions -- of these problems, and he, you're saying,
14 responded that he would deal with them and that he knew about it. Is
15 that what you're saying?
16 Ivan Cermak: [Indiscernible] ... send them reports of what I was
17 doing, conversation, electricity, we have the hospital ... over the
18 hospital, I couldn't -- this is writing to the president. But those are
19 my tasks, and this was my private initiative that I took.
20 Brian Foster: Okay. So, yes.
21 Ivan Cermak: [No interpretation]
22 Brian Foster: It's just that, your position there, and this is
23 where we struggle always, you've said that you were not a classical
24 garrison commander, therefore, you didn't come under that normal command
25 route from the Main Staff. But I'm still not quite clear as to who you
1 did come under, other than the president himself.
2 Jadranka Slokovic: Also president.
3 Ivan Cermak: I said this all before. And I said that at the
4 beginning already, and I say it again, that had I been in this command
5 structure, I would have gotten my orders from General Gotovina, from the
6 Main Staff, and from the commanders who were superior to me. But, since
7 we didn't establish a classical garrison ... tasks that were necessary to
8 the logistics, that's why I was connected to the office of the president.
9 Brian Foster: So, in effect, you were your own authority in
10 Knin, but connected to the office of the president. And that's as far as
11 it goes, is it?
12 Ivan Cermak: Yes, I was connected to the president's office.
13 MR. MISETIC: May I proceed, Mr. President?
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think that transcript and translations are all --
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. General Feldi, you've seen the interview of General Cermak and he
18 seems to indicate that in fact he wasn't in the line of command of
19 General Cervenko and General Gotovina. Did you see that on the video?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. If he wasn't in the line of command of General Cervenko and
22 General Gotovina, can you tell us which line of command, then, he
23 theoretically could have been under?
24 A. On this video footage, I didn't hear at any point General Cermak
25 saying that he was not within the structure of the Split Military
1 District. This wasn't one of the questions put to him at all.
2 Secondly, under the organisational structure of the Croatian
3 Army, within the Split Military District, there is the Knin garrison, and
4 it was pursuant to the decision of President Tudjman that General Cermak
5 was appointed to the commander of that garrison, and that's all. And
6 there is nothing more to state, other than that the Knin garrison was
7 part of the Split Military District.
8 In the footage itself, it is not stated that he was connected to
9 the office of the president. Rather, that he was in communication with
10 the office of president and on occasion in communication with the
11 President Tudjman. In other words, he was not subordinated to
12 President Tudjman. He was not subordinated to General Cervenko either
13 because he is not within the chain of command of garrisons. It is only
14 through Military Districts that he can maintain contact with garrisons.
15 This is the command structure that is in place in the Croatian Army.
16 Now why was the question put to him that he was under one system
17 of authority? This isn't something that was put to him in the footage.
18 He was not within the system of government or connected with the office
19 of the president. This was a question that was apparently put to General
20 Cermak in this footage.
21 Q. You saw at one point in the video that General Cermak says: "I
22 was not a classical garrison commander."
23 Did you note that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What, in the Croatian system, as an expert, can you tell us what
1 a non-classical garrison commander's functions are?
2 A. By your leave, Your Honours, there is no such thing as a
3 classical or non-classical commander of garrisons. There are commanders
4 of garrisons who can be at the head of larger commands, smaller commands,
5 or independent commands, or commands of some of the Military Districts
6 somewhere. So, it is within the command of the Home Guard battalion in
7 Knin that the commands of the garrison lay. It was never independent.
8 It only had nine persons which were assigned to that irregular
9 non-classical command under the establishment.
10 Furthermore, the Knin garrison did not even have its own
11 logistics base or logistics support to be able to supply the units there.
12 There wasn't something that the minister issued as a decision.
13 Now, as for garrisons, there are no classical or non-classical
14 garrisons. Commands, other hand, are strictly defined as to what
15 particular structure they have.
16 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to a witness statement of another
17 witness who is coming to testify, and this is it of Gordan Radin, and it
18 is 65 ter 2D00-718?
19 MR. MISETIC: Before I do that, Mr. President, if I could tender
20 the videos and mark -- ask that they be marked and I tender them into
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
23 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, Your Honours, one suggestion might
24 be that given that a large portion of what was on that video comes from
25 something that is already an exhibit, P2532, and when that was admitted
1 into evidence there was a motion, and my understanding was at the time
2 that Mr. Misetic had the opportunity to put additional portions that he
3 would like added to that translation. I know that it's a partial
4 translation, but perhaps if that could simply be updated with this
5 information rather than having a stand-alone transcript that basically
6 reproduces the same evidence, at least in large part.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I have no problem either way, but it
9 was my understanding from our earlier conversation that the Chamber
10 preferred this for sake of convenience to have it marked.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and Mr. Carrier would prefer a different thing.
12 I think it's all practicalities rather than anything else. Once chosen
13 this avenue, I think we ...
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Once chosen this avenue of saying -- not saying that
16 other avenues would not lead to the same destination, D1675 is admitted
17 into evidence.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 If we could turn to page 3 of this document, which is
21 paragraph 8.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If I was unclear, not saying that other avenues
23 would not lead to the same destination. Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. Now, just by way of background, General Feldi, you may be aware
1 but Mr. Radan worked in -- as the chef de cabinet of President Tudjman
2 during and after Operation Storm. And at paragraph 8, he writes -- or he
3 says in the second sentence:
4 "At some point on 4 August, the president asked us to find
5 Mr. Ivan Cermak, he said he would like to send Mr. Cermak as civilian
6 commander of Knin town immediately after the liberation. As far as I can
7 recall today, I asked the president what a civilian commander meant and
8 he told me that it would be a military person tasked with establishing
9 normal civilian life as soon as possible and collaborating with civilian
10 authorities in that process."
11 MR. MISETIC: If we go down to paragraph 10, and it's --
12 paragraph 10 is on the next page in the Croatian.
13 It says: "The next day, 5 August, we found Mr. Cermak and he
14 immediately came to Tuskanac. I know that finding a formal way of
15 appointing Mr. Cermak as civilian commander of Knin town was a great
16 problem because there was no such position within the establishment
17 structure. When we tried to explain our task with regard to drafting a
18 decree of appointment, we asked the president for guidance and
19 explanation. I understand that the president saw Mr. Cermak primarily
20 as" --
21 Turn the page.
22 "A businessman and not a soldier in a tradition sense
23 irrespective of the rank he had."
24 And if you go to the last sentence in that paragraph:
25 "As we in collaboration with the military office cannot find
1 legal grounds for appointing Mr. Cermak as civilian manager," and in the
2 Croatian, I believe the phrase is [B/C/S spoken] "we contacted the
3 president's military office asking them to find an appropriate
4 establishment position. The military office drafted and sent for
5 president's signature the decree on the appointment of Cermak as
6 commander of the Knin garrison."
7 Now, that is consistent with what you say in paragraph - let me
8 find it - 3.1.4, which is page 49 of 62 in the English. And in your
9 report there, you wrote that:
10 "Consequently when Colonel General Ivan Cermak arrived in Knin on
11 6 August, 1995
12 commander at the Knin fortress as new operation commander but, rather,
13 proceeded with the establishment of the garrison command in the town of
14 Knin with the objectives of providing assistance to the civilian
15 inhabitants and the faster normalization of work and life in the town as
16 well as establishing cooperation and coordination with the UN and EU."
17 Now what I wanted to ask you was: Your report just prior to that
18 section beginning at paragraph 2.3.1, and it's the section marked 2.3,
19 the roles, obligations, and authorities of garrison commanders.
20 And my question to you was that I didn't find anywhere in that
21 section under the HV service regulations anything giving a garrison
22 commander either authority or responsibility to provide assistance to
23 civilian inhabitants, to normalize work and life in a town, and to
24 establish cooperation and coordination with the UN and EU.
25 Could you tell us in your report, in the report 2.3, where a
1 garrison commander under the service regulations has the authority to
2 normalize life in -- with civilian inhabitants.
3 A. In my report, I started from the position that the rules of
4 service or service regulations of the armed forces was to serve all
5 garrisons in Croatia
6 there were problems in the work of the commands of garrisons in 1992 and
7 1993, in terms of the implementation of the rules of service, the Chief
8 of the Main Staff ordered that checks be carried out of the functioning
9 of the garrisons in Croatia
10 order was drafted, which was called an organisational order for the Chief
11 of Staff and the minister of Defence. I referred to in my report. It
12 was supposed to clarify the role and tasks of the garrisons and their
13 respective commands within the Croatian Army. It was still during the
14 period of time when a large portion of Croatia was under occupation.
15 In the new organisational order, they did not clearly prescribe
16 the rules and -- the tasks and rules that have to be followed by the
17 commanders of garrisons, but in item 1 of the order, it is stated that
18 preparations need to be carried out for the establishment of garrison
19 commands once the occupied areas are liberated. This is precisely what
20 happened in 1995 in Operation Storm in the case of Knin.
21 In the organisational order it was ordered that all garrison
22 commands should have clear specific tasks given the specific
23 circumstances in which those garrisons were. The chief of the Main Staff
24 was duty-bound to prescribe the disposition of all HV units which were
25 supposed to be deployed and billeted in Knin. That was never done.
1 Those units which were in Knin were there in passing, or so to say, they
2 were in operational reserve of the district commander. They were not
3 permanently stationed in the garrison, and according to the rules of
4 service and per the organisational order and instruction they could not
5 be in direct communication with the garrison commander.
6 In the organisational order in the preamble as well as in item 4,
7 concerning the duties of the garrison commanders, such commanders were
8 supposed to establish a system of coordination and cooperation in order
9 to cooperate with the civilian authorities in the area of the garrison.
10 Which type of coordination that was supposed to do was unclear. First
11 and foremost, the priority was to assist the inhabitants. This is
12 precisely what the Knin garrison commander did. I would remind you of
13 the meeting of General Cermak with Mr. Akashi on the 7th in Knin.
14 Immediately after the Akashi-Sarinic agreements had been signed. Akashi
15 met with Cermak and in the two-hour meeting, they set out to clarify the
16 possible tasks that were supposed to be implemented in the Knin garrison
17 area pursuant to the agreement.
18 Cermak undertook that obligation and he used that obligation and
19 the agreement as guide-lines.
20 Q. Okay. I think -- I think you would agree with me that General
21 Cermak didn't receive his tasks from Mr. Akashi; correct?
22 A. No, he didn't.
23 Q. Who did General Cermak receive his instructions from?
24 A. From no one. General Cermak, during his stay, was visited by
25 many foreign and domestic delegations. He exchanged his views and
1 experience with them, and because of the situation, he was in, he, of his
2 own accord initiated daily coordination meetings with the people in the
3 area. He met, coordinated, and discussed among others with Mr. Pasic,
4 with the chief of the police administration, with the representatives of
5 other utilities such as the head of hospital, the head of the public
6 utility company, so on and so forth. During such meetings he was briefed
7 on the situation. He was trying to push them to do their work. He would
8 tell them, You are here to breathe life into Knin again. And that was
9 his task. He had no HV units of his own in which he would be able to say
10 that he would engage this or that guards units to implement such tasks.
11 This was a different situation. He didn't have such units. He didn't
12 have such authority because he had not given -- he had not been given
13 that authority by anyone.
14 Q. Okay. The beginning part of your answer when I said who did
15 General Cermak receive his instructions from, you said: From no one.
16 In the HV how many subordinate officers can begin to do things on
17 their own without having received an instruction or an order from a
19 A. Mr. Misetic, a commander must not sit tight, even without the
20 presence of an order of his own accord or initiative he is supposed to
21 deal with the problems he encountered. If ordered to sent a report by
22 his superior he would do so. Otherwise he would simply tell him, I did
23 this and that. Specifically concerning the Knin situation, please recall
24 the meeting at the fortress when General Cermak reported to the garrison
25 command. He notified them that he arrived to clean up the city and he
1 asked that he be released from the meeting early so that he could go on
2 about his tasks. He only came there to advise them that he was there to
3 assist, to breathe life back into the city.
4 Q. I feel a little bit like we're going around in a circle, because
5 if a commander doesn't receive an instruction or an order from a superior
6 and decides to take an initiative, he can only take an initiative within
7 the scope of what the rules and regulations of a garrison commander allow
8 him to do.
9 Would you agree with that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Now, going back to section 2.3 in your report, can you tell us
12 which -- the section is titled: The role, obligations, and authorities
13 of garrison commanders.
14 My question to you is: Within section 2.3, can you tell us the
15 provision of the rules or the service regulations which allow a garrison
16 commander to normalize life in -- in a particular -- in his garrison.
17 A. Mr. Misetic, I will answer your question directly.
18 The Knin garrison commander was not ordered to go to Knin and to
19 set up a command post there.
20 Q. Let's take this outside the context of the specifics of the Knin
22 Speaking about garrisons generally, okay? What I'm asking you
23 is, as a general matter, for any garrison, let's say -- let's use the
24 example of the Benkovac garrison.
25 Now, can you tell us in your report in section 2.3, what would
1 have allowed the commander of the Benkovac garrison to normalize life in
3 A. The rules of service of the armed forces states that, at that
4 time, there was peace in Croatia
5 encountered once he arrived in Knin did not exist. The garrison
6 commander cooperates with the local bodies in terms of regular work and
7 life of the garrison, in terms of order, discipline, conduct of military
8 personnel, as well as organizing different types of events, such as
9 sports competitions and so on and so forth.
10 The problems that existed in Knin were not envisaged by the rules
11 of service. It was not drafted for such conditions, conditions during
12 the period of occupation and immediately afterwards. The taskings of
13 2.3.1 cannot be compared to the tasks given to the Knin garrison
14 commander once he arrive there after Knin had been liberated. The
15 garrison commander who was for example sitting in Varazdin and Zagreb
17 due to services, conduct of -- oversight of conduct of military
18 personnel, in public areas, et cetera. Cermak had none of that.
19 Q. I'm confused now so I'd like you to clarify something. At page
20 46, lines 3 and 4, I asked you: Who did General Cermak receive his
21 instructions from; and your answer was: From no one. And now in your
22 last answer, at line -- page 48, lines 15 through 17, you say: "The
23 taskings of 2.3 cannot be compared to the tasks given to the Knin
24 garrison commander once he arrived after Knin had been liberated?"
25 That was the question I had asked you previously: Who gave him
1 the tasks in Knin to -- on what to do after Knin had been liberated?
2 A. I will repeat my answer. No one gave him such tasks, not on a
3 daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Once he was sent by the president to
4 Knin on the 5th of August he told him, Go there and help, that ordinary
5 life and work be introduced into the town as soon as possible. That was
6 his principle instruction, and he abided by it in the long run.
7 Another task was go and help the Canadians there and be at their
8 service. You can read that in the presidential transcript of the 7th
9 when he explained why he was sending Cermak to Knin. That was the only
10 instruction that one can find. He did not receive daily instructions.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Please understand this. On the 5th, the operation was still
13 underway. There was still combat. He arrived on the 6th, before the
14 operation was concluded. Therefore, this was no peacetime. One could
15 not sit tight waiting for instructions or wait until the 10th for someone
16 to arrive or -- and give you instructions. General Gotovina, who was his
17 superior, was commanding his units in order to conclude the operation to
18 reach the state border and to prevent any activities on the part of
19 straying enemy soldiers. He had his own tasks.
20 And in terms of the garrison, Cermak was there to organise
21 ordinary life and work there. If you're looking for some daily, weekly
22 or monthly instructions, he received none of that from anyone in
23 particular. He received advice and he received requests from those whom
24 he met daily and coordinated with, from the representatives of the local
25 authorities, civilian police, military police, and various delegations
1 which arrived there, telling him of the problems. He met with the
2 refugees in the camp. They wanted to go back --
3 Q. General Feldi --
4 A. -- Cermak wanted to have the electricity running as well as
5 other utilities. Those were his instructions.
6 Q. I agree with you but you had answered my question. And given
7 your answers, can we -- do I understand you correctly that there is
8 nothing in section 2.3 of your report or anything you can point to in the
9 service regulations generally concerning the authority of a garrison
10 commander to normalise life.
11 Do you agree with me on that?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And we're in agreement that in terms of the instructions that he
14 received as to what he was supposed to be doing generally, generally, in
15 Knin, he received directly from the Commander-in-Chief?
16 A. We do not agree on that.
17 Q. Well --
18 A. It was only once that he been given a task by the president and
19 that was to go to Knin. That's it. The president told him, Go there and
20 organise -- or organise things for a normal life in the city and go and
21 help the Canadians. That's it. He never received any other instructions
22 from the president. Such evidence does not exist. No document could
23 corroborate that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, could you please try to focus your
25 answers to the questions that are put to you by Mr. Misetic. Because
1 Mr. Misetic is already, for a while, trying to get a clear answer first
2 to his question, and I think you have given that, that nothing in the
3 formal rules on the role, obligations, and authorities of the garrison
4 commanders mainly contained in the service regulations of the -- no, the
5 organisational order regarding work, order, and discipline in garrisons,
6 that nothing says that it's a task of a garrison commander to normalise
7 civilian life. Because that's a question he did put to you some
8 ten minutes ago; whereas, it took him ten minutes to get a rather simple
9 answer that was a yes.
10 And do I understand your testimony correctly if you say, Well,
11 whatever these rules tell us, a situation was different, so, therefore,
12 it was done in a way rather different from what the rules tell us,
13 because the only thing that happened was that General Cermak was sent by
14 President Tudjman to Knin to get civilian life being normalised again and
15 to take care of the Canadians, which is relatively far away from the
16 tasks that we find in all the formal regulations, on what the normal task
17 of a garrison commander is.
18 Is that correctly understood?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, it is.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
22 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Now, General Feldi, I had read to you a portion from the
24 statement of Mr. Radin. And can you tell us what in Croatian law, rules
25 or regulations is a civilian commander or a civilian manager?
1 A. I can freely say that Mr. Radin not a soldier. The phraseology
2 "civilian commander" does not exist in the Croatian Army or in any of its
3 service rules. It was a play of words on his part, if I may say. One
4 cannot appoint a civilian commander because there are no commanders in
5 civilian life. There are commanders in the military and police, but in
6 civilian institutions there are no commanders. One can have managers, or
7 commissioners and so on and forth, but this was just a phrase by
8 Mr. Radin that he used in the context of his statement. Had he known
9 perhaps of the existence of an institution of the command garrison then
10 he may have said, Yes, that he was that, and it was an advice given by
11 the military cabinet, but the tasks and priorities of that garrison
12 commander were to be those issued to him by the president. The term
13 "civilian commander" is misinterpreted as if that person was supposed to
14 go there and command civilians.
15 That is my simple answer.
16 Q. Would you agree with me that there are no -- or I should -- let
17 me rephrase that.
18 Would you agree with me that neither General Cervenko nor
19 General Gotovina issued orders to General Cermak as to what he should be
20 doing in the Knin garrison?
21 A. Could you please clarify this question?
22 The chief of the Main Staff, General Cervenko, as well as
23 General Gotovina, did issue orders to General Cermak. But not in the
24 sense you think, in the sense of the things he was supposed to be doing.
25 They simply gave him orders he was supposed to implement. There were
1 such instances in which they issued orders to the garrison commander,
2 although it had probably nothing to do with what you are referring to in
3 terms of civilian assistance. Such orders were not received from
4 General -- by General Cermak from either the chief of the staff or
5 General Gotovina. General Cervenko did send an order on the
6 21st of August requesting from General Cermak to submit a report on the
7 areas mined, the secret storage of weapons and the possible locations
8 of renegade gangs in the garrison area and so on, and he did
9 receive that order.
10 Q. Well, on that --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could I -- could I --
12 Mr. Feldi, the interpreters and transcribers have some
13 difficulties in following your speed of speech, so if you would please
14 slow down your answers.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies to the interpreters.
19 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Yes, there are --
21 MR. KAY: There's just one matter on the translation, 53,
22 number 6, we have the word "implement" and a better speaker than me has
23 used the word "receive." 53:6.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we could seek to verify that.
25 I'll read part of your answer, as it was -- Mr. Feldi, as it was
1 translated and transcribed for us.
2 It reads: "General Cervenko did send an order on the
3 21st of August requesting from General Cermak to submit a report on the
4 areas mined on illegal storage, the illegal storage of weapons, and the
5 possible locations of the straying enemy soldiers, and he did implement
6 that order."
7 Is that a correct translation and transcript of the answer?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was not illegal
9 storages of weapons. Rather, secret caches of arms left behind by
10 members of the RSK army and could possibly be used by stragglers of that
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to verify the accuracy of the
13 transcript. I'm not seeking any further exploring the matter.
14 So you say illegal should be understood as secret storage of
15 weapons. Any other matter which is not correctly or accurately
16 transcribed or translated for us?
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, is that -- was this the matter you --
19 MR. KAY: Your Honour, it was another matter --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I --
21 MR. KAY: -- but you we can look at the --
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- I do not know exactly what the matter is because
23 I do not -- I'm not a position to personally verify the matter. You can
24 deal with it at a later stage?
25 MR. KAY: Exactly, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
3 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Mr. Registrar, if I could have Exhibit D818 on the screen,
6 Q. On this issue, General Feldi - I'll wait for the English
7 translation to come up - it's a request from General Gotovina to
8 General Cermak. Would you agree with me that it's not typical that a
9 Military District Commander requests anything of a garrison commander,
10 but, rather, orders him?
11 A. Mr. Misetic, I will use a soldier's saying to answer.
12 Authority, even when requesting, in fact orders. So whenever a
13 subordinate receives a request from a superior, he needs to implement it.
14 The commander can issue an order or a request. In other words, he can
15 say either, Do this and that, or, Please do this and that.
16 At any rate, this is something that a superior would do to the
17 subordinate. What we have here is a case from September, where the chief
18 of the communications department, Mr. Lukovic, acted on his own
19 initiative and went to Bosnia-Herzegovina via Strmica without
20 General Cermak's approval or knowledge. He had on him a pass that had
21 been signed by General Cermak. This is something that Mr. Lukovic
22 himself admitted when he said that he made a mistake. He was supposed to
23 escort a French delegation via Sinj rather than via Strmica. So this a
24 specific example where the commander demands something from a
1 An order is an of an operational nature. Every request has
2 inherently an imperative in it. This is something that the subordinate
3 needs to act upon and carry out because there is what the commander
5 I spoke to Lukovic directly on this particular issue described in
6 the document here and this was confirmed to me.
7 Q. Okay. Again, my question is of a general nature. As a matter of
8 practice in the HV, superior commanders don't request anything of their
9 subordinates, do they? They order them?
10 A. We could state that this is indeed so, when it comes to the
11 procedure of implementing orders.
12 Q. Well, that seems to be a circular reasoning. If it's not an
13 order, then he doesn't have to implement it.
14 Let me ask it a different way.
15 Commanders in Military Districts issue orders to their
16 subordinate garrison commanders --
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 Q. -- in the HV?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How many requests from General Gotovina did you see in preparing
21 for this report to the garrison commander in Sinj, in Zadar, in Split
22 Benkovac? How many times did he not order the garrison commander,
23 instead he issued a request? How many such orders did you find?
24 A. Not a single one, save for this document.
25 Q. Let me turn your attention to section 1.5.50 of your report,
1 which is paragraph -- I'm sorry, page 38 of 48 -- sorry. I'm looking at
2 Part 1.
3 MR. MISETIC: It's page 38 of 62. And page 34 of 57 in the
5 Q. Now, this is your section -- this is the conclusion part of this
6 section. And in the English if we could turn the page. And in the
7 Croatian, if could you look at bullet point 5 of your report in the
8 Croatian. And it's the first bullet point of 39 of 62 in the English.
9 You write:
10 "Reporting," and it's in bold, "as a component of principle of
11 command and control is established as a permanent obligation of the
12 subordinated person within the subordination system and it is regulated
13 by the service regulations of the armed forces, the rules governing the
14 structure and operation," now this relates to the military police, "and
15 in all orders which are issued by the superiors of the military police."
16 Now, you agree with me that reporting is also a component or
17 principle of command and control within the military chain of command?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you agree with me that within the military line, a
20 subordinated person has a permanent obligation to report to a superior on
21 what he or she is doing?
22 A. Can you clarify the term "permanent"?
23 Q. Well, I'm just reading what you wrote in your report here. What
24 did you mean when you wrote:
25 "Reporting as a component or principle of command and control is
1 established as a permanent obligation of the subordinated person ..."
2 What did you mean by "permanent obligation"?
3 A. Permanent obligation, yes, but not at all times and on every --
4 and every day. The reporting is part of the obligations within the
5 superior/subordinate relationship. It is one of the obligations that the
6 subordinated person has in relation to the superior. The superior, in
7 turn, has to define precisely in what manner, at what time, and through
8 which system the subordinates are to report to him.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we spend another five minutes on what the
10 word "permanent" means, I do understand that by using the word
11 "permanent," you did not refer to incidental reporting but that it was an
12 ongoing obligation to keep the superior updated throughout reports.
13 Is that correctly understood?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to focus on the main issue touched upon in
16 the question, rather than to see all side roads to see what's -- if we
17 would turn to the left, what we would finally find there, or turn to the
18 right, what we finally find there. I'd rather see where we end up if we
19 continue on the main road as indicated by the question.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
21 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. How many reports -- how many reports did General Cermak send to
23 General Gotovina in your review of the evidence?
24 A. I can state at this time that he sent between five and six of
25 them. There may have been more that I did not take into account.
1 Q. Which reports are you referring to?
2 A. The first one is the report on the head count of the command of
3 the Knin garrison, was sent to the commander of the Military District
4 between -- or, rather, at the end of August and at the end of September.
5 So there were two of them. So in August, there were ten persons, and in
6 September, there were four persons in the commands, according to the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, again, Mr. Misetic is not interested to
9 hear what exactly was said in those reports but what subjects were
10 covered by those reports.
11 So you tell us the head count of the command, two reports.
12 Whatever the numbers were. Other subjects, please, of reports.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
14 One of the reports was sent to the Chief of the Main Staff on the
15 25th of August, and the same was copied to the commander of the
16 Military District, as he was obliged to do under his superior/subordinate
18 Then there was the report on the write-off of housing units in
19 Knin, and -- the abandoned housing units in Knin, where he reported that
20 Knin did not have a single such dwelling at its disposal.
21 These were official documents, official reports. I am not aware
22 of any other. What sort of communication they had on a daily basis, if
23 they exchanged information, that is something I have no information on.
24 MR. MISETIC: That's okay.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, you earlier said five or six. You have
1 now mentioned two on counting the heads, and two others, one of them not
2 directly sent to Mr. Gotovina but copied to him. That makes four.
3 Any others, that would bring us to five or six?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember at this time,
5 Your Honour. If I do, I will let you know.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Let's go back to paragraph 3.1.4 of your report, General.
9 MR. MISETIC: This is page 49 of 62 in the English. And page 45
10 of 57 in the Croatian.
11 Q. Now, this is again that paragraph where -- I'm going to read the
12 second part of that paragraph where you wrote:
13 "But rather" -- and you're talking about General Cermak. "But
14 rather proceeded with the establishment of the garrison command in the
15 town of Knin with the objectives of providing assistance to the civilian
16 inhabitants and the faster normalisation of work and life in the town, as
17 well as establishing co-operation and coordination with the UN and EU."
18 Now, with respect to the first task, other than the documents you
19 have already identified, are there any reports from General Cermak to
20 General Gotovina about the establishment of the garrison command in the
21 town of Knin?
22 A. Mr. Misetic, I've already said that the command of the Knin
23 garrison had not received an order to relocate from Sibenik to Knin, nor
24 did such an order ask of the Knin garrison to send a report to the
25 Split Military District. I did not find any documents to that effect.
1 Q. Tell me on what authority, then -- on what authority could
2 General Cermak have decided on his own to move the Knin garrison from
3 Sibenik to Split
4 he's moving the garrison to a different location, can he?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, was there a slip of the tongue where
6 you said to move --
7 MR. MISETIC: Sorry.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- the Knin garrison from Sibenik to Split when you
9 meant to say from Sibenik to Knin.
10 MR. MISETIC: That is correct. I apologise.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So on whose authority was that move made?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the decision by the
13 president does not state that he was duty-bound to establish the Knin
14 garrison. Rather, that he was assigned to the post of the commander of
15 the Knin garrison. So he immediately set off for Knin to establish the
16 garrison there.
17 The news about General Cermak's appointment to the position of
18 the commander of the Knin garrison was immediately broadcast. I, myself,
19 heard it over the radio at midnight
20 time knew that the former commander of the Knin garrison, Marko Vojevic
21 [as interpreted], was appointed the deputy commander of the Knin
22 garrison. In other words, Gojevic, who had formally hitherto been
23 commander of the Knin garrison, had to go and meet up with Cermak in
24 Knin. And I don't have any information that Gojevic had been given an
25 order that he should go to Knin and set up a garrison there. I don't
1 have that information.
2 MR. MISETIC:
3 Q. General Feldi, I'm just reading your report here, and in
4 paragraph 3.1.4, you say that General Cermak proceeded with the
5 establishment of the garrison command in the town of Knin
6 On whose orders did he proceed with the establishment of the
7 garrison command in the town of Knin
8 A. Please bear in mind the fact that the document as such does not
9 exist. What is in existence is the video footage of General Cermak
10 reporting to the command -- commander of the Military District at the
11 fortress in Knin on the 6th of August, that he informed him that he was
12 going take charge of normalising the situation in Knin. This is what we
13 have in the footage. We have statements, furthermore, showing that the
14 Knin garrison was being established, and his assistant for logistics
15 accompanied General Cermak on his way to Knin.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, again, you are explaining us what
17 evidence there is that the Knin garrison was established. The question,
18 however, was a different one. The question was: Under whose authority
19 did, as you write in your report, Mr. Cermak proceed with the
20 establishment of the garrison commands. I think there is not that much
21 doubt that it was done.
22 But on whose authority? That was the question that Mr. Misetic
23 put to you. Could you tell us who it was?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the duties of the
25 commander of a garrison are strictly prescribed. When he arrived in
1 Knin, he reported to the commander of the Military District to whom he is
2 subordinated, and the powers to command over the garrison are conferred
3 upon him by his superior. When he arrived in Knin he went to the
4 commander of the Military District, and then he was supposed to assume
5 his duties as the garrison commander. That's all that had to do with his
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going stop you again. We earlier established
8 that whatever the regulations say about what the tasks were of a garrison
9 commander, that that would not apply. That is my first observation.
10 My second observation is that you are telling us whom Mr. Cermak
11 addressed once he had arrived Knin; whereas, the question was a different
12 one. Under whose authority he proceeded to establish the garrison
13 command in the -- Knin.
14 I got the impression from your report, but please correct me when
15 I misunderstood your report, I understood that he was sent there under
16 the authority of the president of the Republic, the Commander-in-Chief,
17 Mr. Tudjman.
18 Is that the authority who would have allowed him or instructed
19 him to establish the Knin garrison?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That's correct,
21 Your Honour.
22 By appointing him a -- Knin garrison commander, President Tudjman
23 granted him all the powers to do his job. He tasked him with restoring
24 normalcy to Knin as soon as possible, and with cooperating with UN
25 personnel in the area. These were the tasks directly given to him by the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Again, you give us all kind of details you were not
3 asked for. We were just seeking who was the authority which allowed
4 Mr. Cermak to establish the Knin garrison or, as you said, proceeded to
5 establish the Knin garrison. From what I now, again, understand, what
6 you're saying - but, again, correct me when I'm wrong - you're saying by
7 appointing Mr. Cermak as the Knin garrison commander, whatever tasks be
8 given to him, that is implied that, since there was no -- not yet a Knin
9 garrison command, that it was implied that that is what had to be
10 established by the newly appointed commander.
11 Is that correctly understood?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I'm looking at the clock. I don't know
14 how much time you'd still need. I can imagine that takes a bit more time
15 than you anticipated.
16 MR. MISETIC: Ten to 15 minutes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ten to 15 minutes.
18 Then I think that it, nevertheless, would be wise to have the
19 break now.
20 We have a break, and we resume at ten minutes to 1.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, you may proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. General Feldi, we left off, the Presiding Judge had asked you a
1 question and you agreed with him that it would have been implied to
2 General Cermak that since there was not yet a Knin garrison command, it
3 was implied that that is what had to be established by the newly
4 appointed commander.
5 And you answered" -- he asked you, is that correctly understood?
6 And you said: "Yes, Your Honour."
7 Now going back to paragraph 3.1.4 of your report, in establishing
8 the Knin garrison command in the town of Knin, who did General Cermak
9 sent his reports about the establishment of the garrison command in the
10 town of Knin to?
11 A. Mr. Misetic, I would like to be more precise in my answer.
12 The command post of the garrison in Knin was set up by virtue of
13 the decision on the establishment of garrison commands from 1993. This
14 specifically was the establishment of the garrison command in the town of
15 Knin. As a command post it had existed prior to that date in a different
16 location. But once General Cermak assumed his role, he was supposed to
17 establish the command post by virtue of the president's decision in the
18 town of Knin. This was not to be a new command post. It had been in
19 existence in the years preceding that, and the then garrison commander,
20 Brigadier Bojovic was reporting, and once General Cermak arrived there,
21 he reported - that is to say, the brigadier reported - to General Cermak
22 as his new commander.
23 Q. All of that is understood. All I'm asking you is: When he
24 established the command post in the town of Knin, who did he report that
25 fact to?
1 A. Mr. Misetic, in 3.1.4, I state that General Cermak initiated the
2 establishing of the command post.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, I'm going to stop you.
4 Did General Cermak establish the garrison command in Knin?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Did he report to anyone, and, if so, to whom, that
7 he had done so?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A separate report on the setting up
9 of the Knin garrison command, which would be headed by General Cermak,
10 was not sent to anyone.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed.
13 Could we try -- could we try to keep matters as focussed and
14 as -- and as simple as possible. If Mr. Misetic would like to know
15 further details such as the -- the date of reporting, or how -- to
16 other -- to whom else a report was addressed, he will certainly ask you
17 about it, so try to focus on the question that was put to you, and it was
18 quite simple. Mr. Cermak did establish and no separate report and that
19 was sent to anyone. It's just two lines that would provide Mr. Misetic
20 with the information he was seeking. If you want to seek any further
21 information, please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
22 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Continuing on in paragraph 3.1.4 you say that he established the
24 command, garrison command in the town of Knin with the objectives of
25 providing assistance to the civilian inhabitants.
1 Now did you find any report from General Cermak to General
2 Gotovina reporting on his work in providing assistance to the civilian
4 A. I did not, Your Honour.
5 Q. Now, it continues on: He was also working on, "the faster
6 normalization of work and life in the town?"
7 Did you find any report from General Cermak to General Gotovina
8 reporting about what he was doing in terms of faster normalization of
9 work and life in the town?
10 A. I did.
11 Your Honour, it is also an answer I still owe to you about the
12 number of reports that Cermak sent to the Military District in Split
13 There was a report on his attempts to locate the vehicles and engineering
14 equipment which went missing in the area of the garrison. He requested
15 assistance to locate such vehicles and to establish order in the town.
16 Q. I guess I had put that in the last category of your report, and I
17 was going to get to that, which is the task of establishing cooperation
18 and coordination with the UN and EU.
19 But in terms of as I understand what faster normalization of work
20 and live in the town, it means establishing electricity in the town, the
21 water-supply, soup kitchens, et cetera. Are there any reports from
22 General Cermak to General Gotovina about how he was progressing on the
23 faster normalization of work and life in the town, including things like
24 reopening businesses, et cetera, in the area?
25 A. Mr. Misetic, there is no such a written report.
1 Q. Okay. And then in the last objective of General Cermak in your
2 paragraph 3.1.4 is establishing cooperation and coordination with the UN
3 and the EU.
4 In addition to the report that you now referred to as -- asking
5 for assistance in locating missing UN vehicle, did you find any other
6 reports from General Cermak to General Gotovina, for example, if General
7 Cermak had a meeting with members of UNCIVPOL or UNCRO or UNMO, did he
8 report on those meetings to General Gotovina?
9 A. He did not report him on such matters and he was not duty-bound
10 to. He sent his meeting reports to the UN office, which existed in Knin
11 next to the Military District of Split command post there. That office
12 was not under Cermak and did not fall within the command post of the
13 military -- of the garrison in Knin.
14 Q. Well, General Feldi, you had earlier agreed with me that a
15 subordinate has a permanent obligation to inform or report to -- to
16 report to his superior.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A. Yes, that is prescribed.
19 Q. And that would include, if a garrison commander felt he was a
20 subordinate of the Military District Commander, if he had a meeting with
21 the UN where various issues are raised concerning potentially the
22 Croatian Army, he has a separate obligation to report to his superior;
24 A. If that is specifically prescribed.
25 Q. Well, you didn't qualify your answer when I asked you before
1 about whether a subordinate in the Croatian Army, in the military, has a
2 permanent obligation to report to his superior. You agreed with me
3 without qualification.
4 Do you recall that?
5 A. I did, and it is so prescribed. A subordinate is duty-bound to
6 send reports to his superior about the tasks he had received from the
7 superior. That is coordination. If he had not received a task, there is
8 no report to be sent about.
9 Q. So if General Gotovina was not the one who tasked General Cermak
10 with coordinating with the UN and the EU, then you're saying he wouldn't
11 have had an obligation to send any reports back to General Cermak about
12 his communications with the UN and EU -- sorry. He wouldn't have had an
13 obligation to send any reports back to General Gotovina about his
14 meetings with the UN and the EU. Correct?
15 A. It needs to be understood that keeping contact with the UN did
16 not fall under the authority of the garrison commander. Rather, it was,
17 under the authority of the UN liaison office which was the only office
18 responsible to do so and to send reports on that topic. General Cermak,
19 as the garrison commander, was duty-bound, and please go to D0034, which
20 is the organisational order --
21 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
22 A. -- in which, in item 3, the garrison commander, is duty-bound to
23 establish cooperation and coordination with other bodies and institutions
24 of the Ministry of Defence, per tasks under their authority. Pursuant to
25 that, he established cooperation and coordination with the UN office
1 through which he established all contacts with representatives of the UN,
2 the EU, and UNPROFOR; that is to say, UNCRO. He did not send reports on
3 that topic to the Military District Commander because the Military
4 District Commander received such reports directly from the office
5 referred to.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Page 68, line 13, it
7 should be subordination, not coordination.
8 MR. MISETIC:
9 Q. General Feldi, you're saying that General Cermak had an
10 obligation under the regulations to have contacts with the UN and the EU;
11 is that correct?
12 A. No, it is not. There is not such a provision in the regulations.
13 He needs to coordinate and cooperate with the office of the Ministry of
14 Defence responsible for liaising with the UN and the EU, not the garrison
16 Q. Okay. But he was coordinating directly with international
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I seek clarification.
19 You said: "He needs to coordinate and cooperate with the office
20 of the Ministry of Defence responsible for liaising with the UN and the
21 EU, and then the last portion of your answer was: "Not the garrison
23 Which comes as a bit of a surprise, because the questions were
24 focussing on reporting to the Military District, rather than to the
25 garrison command, which is the same as the reporting entity.
1 Is that what you intended to say, Mr. Feldi?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you intended to say that he was -- he had
5 to coordinate and cooperate with the office of the Ministry of the
6 Defence and not with the Military District.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this clarification.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not with the UN. The issue was
10 cooperation with the UN, not with the Military Districts.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the contacts with the UN and the EU are
12 not found anywhere in the regulations and where a specific part of the --
13 apparently of the appointment by President Tudjman.
14 Now you referred, in relation to a question about reporting, you
15 related to section 3 of D34 which reads that the -- the garrison commands
16 are required to establish cooperation and coordination of tasks of the
17 garrison with administrations and departments for defence, departments
18 for care, stationary telecommunications and information systems,
19 departments of the MORH headquarters, administrations and other bodies,
20 and institutions of the MORH, MUP ministry and other government
21 administration organs.
22 Now, I understood your reference to this paragraph that there was
23 an obligation to coordinate and cooperate with many but not with the
24 operational military command. Is that your explanation for the line of
25 reporting on the relations with the UN and the EU; that is, that that
1 would go to the Ministry of Defence but not to the operational commands
2 of the armed forces in the Military District?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm under the
4 impression that we are speaking at cross purposes. I did not mention any
5 cooperation on the part of the military garrison commander with the
6 Military District Commanders, and did I not speak of coordination in
7 those terms.
8 Secondly, I said, and I repeat, that the garrison commander was
9 duty-bound to establish cooperation and coordination with the bodies of
10 the Ministry of Defence and the UN -- office for UN is a MOD office with
11 its seat in Knin. General Cermak, as the garrison commander, did -- was
12 not duty-bound to directly communicate with the UN and the European
13 community. This could be done only through that office, which was the
14 only body authorised to communicate and cooperate. That is to say,
15 liaison between HV commanders and representatives of the UN, the EU, and
16 so on and so forth.
17 This is prescribed by the existing regulations.
18 If I may, Your Honour, General Cermak could not speak English and
19 was unable to directly communicate with any officers and employees of the
20 UN. He never even tried to.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, I don't speak any B/C/S. Nevertheless, I
22 consider our communication of a rather direct nature.
23 You explained to us that he was not -- he was not -- not to
24 directly communicate with the UN. But did he communicate with the UN and
25 not through the intermediary of the office you just mentioned?
1 I mean, what should be and what was -- was there direct
2 communication between General Cermak and the UN or the EU?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not come across
4 such an example in any document or report. Whenever General Cermak had a
5 meeting, there was also either the head of the office for the UN or
6 concern liaison officers from the office who also acted as interpreters
7 and those who established contact. There is evidence of that because the
8 UN liaison officers turned to the office for the UN to cooperate or
9 arrange a meeting with General Cermak. The other way around was the same
10 thing. If General Cermak wanted a meeting with UN representatives, then
11 he used that office to put through a request to meet up. That was the
12 practice. At least to the extent I was ascertained through my research.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Correspondence, would that go through that office as
14 well, or would it be direct correspondence?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no direct written
16 communication. It all went through the office. They received mail,
17 translated it, and acquainted General Cermak with it. They also received
18 General Cermak's response, translated it, and then sent it via liaison
19 officers to General Forand or others. Numerous reports testify to that.
20 Those reports were sent by the UN office in Knin through their duty
21 service or by Mr. Lukovic personally to Zagreb --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness trailed off.
23 We did not hear the last person's name.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat the last part of your
25 answer. You said: "Those reports were sent by the UN office in Knin
1 through their duty service or by Mr. Lukovic personally to Zagreb
2 And then you added something. Could you repeat what you then
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I concluded my sentence by saying
5 that the office for the UN prepared -- sorry, received letters from the
6 UN or the European community, translated them, and handed them over to
7 General Cermak. If General Cermak wanted to establish contact or to
8 respond, he would provide a text to Lukovic or his liaison officers in
9 the office for the UN in Knin, which, in turn, would have that translated
10 and forwarded. If General Cermak wanted to meet any foreign
11 representatives he used the office to arrange for a meeting. If any UN
12 representatives be it General Forand or any -- anyone other wanted to
13 meet with General Cermak, they used the office and its liaison officers
14 to convey that information to Cermak.
15 That was the procedure in terms of cooperation and coordination
16 with that office.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The way in which you describe it gives me the
18 impression that it was secretarial services rather than involvement in
19 the substance of the communication.
20 Is that impression correct?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Partially, Your Honour. There were
22 contacts that the office for the UN maintained with the EU or the UN in
23 Knin without General Cermak's knowledge. They're responsible for
24 cooperating with the UN for the entire Sector South for that whole area
25 of Croatia
1 things were done without General Cermak's knowledge. He didn't need to
2 know about that, and he did not participate in such activities.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. KAY: Your Honour, there was the query over the name that
6 mentioned, and the interpreter -- and it's a name familiar to the Court.
7 It was Plestina, p-l-e-s-t-i-n-a, and if anyone wants to, they can check
8 that, page 72, line 23.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although where the witness said he had
10 finished his answer that you -- you're giving some additional evidence,
11 but it can be checked on the audio by anyone who has any concerns about
12 the accuracy at this moment, Mr. Kay, I don't think that the Chamber has
13 any concerns. But everyone who would like to check can do so.
14 Mr. Misetic.
15 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. General Feldi, in one of your prior answers to me you said --
17 I'll just check that. It's page 68, lines 14 to 16: "A subordinate is
18 duty-bound to send reports to his superior about the tasks he had
19 received from the superior."
20 And I believe you and I are in agreement that these tasks about
21 normalization of life, he received directly from President Tudjman and
22 not from General Cervenko or General Gotovina.
23 Do we agree on that?
24 A. Yes, we do.
25 Q. We had been talking -- you answered that this duty of a
1 subordinate to report exists, and therefore, if President Tudjman was the
2 one who gave him the instruction, and at page -- you indicated at page
3 50, beginning at line 19, that the president told him, Go there and
4 organise or organise things for a normal life in the city and go and help
5 the Canadians."
6 Now, if the Commander-in-Chief gave him an instruction to do
7 that, and if a duty exists for a subordinate to report and he wasn't
8 reporting on those topics to General Gotovina or General Cervenko, you
9 would expect that those reports would go back to the Commander-in-Chief.
11 A. I don't know if one would expect that, but did I not come across
12 a single report that was sent to the president.
13 Q. Well, I'm asking you as an expert. Your testimony was, again,
14 page 68, line 14: "A subordinate is duty-bound do send reports to his
15 superior about the tasks he had received from the superior."
16 So, I'm going to ask my question again. You would expect that
17 General Cermak would have sent his reports directly to the commander who
18 had issued him those tasks, which, in this case was the
19 Commander-in-Chief. Correct?
20 A. The Commander-in-Chief said so on the transcript. As to what
21 General Cermak and the president discussed when they met in Tuskanac not
22 even Mr. Radin knows that and nor do I. There is no transcript of that
23 meeting. I cannot claim that he was duty-bound to report to the
24 president, because we don't know whether the president told him, Go there
25 and report regularly about the situation. If he had told him that then
1 it would have been expected from Cermak to send reports to him, but I did
2 not find any piece of information to that extent, to the president
3 ordering him to do so. I did not come across a single report he
4 personally sent to the president.
5 Q. Let me ask you, again, this is the transcript at page 50
6 beginning at line 18, your testimony was: "It was only once that he been
7 given a task by the president. That was to go to Knin. That's it. The
8 president told him, Go there and organise or organise things for a normal
9 life in the city and go and help the Canadians. That's it. He never
10 received any other instructions from the president."
11 Now, what was your basis for saying that the president had told
12 him to organise things for a normal life in the city and go help the
14 A. The transcripts of the meeting at the president's office on the
15 7th of August, 1995, when Mr. Radic [as interpreted] and other
16 participants in the meeting, complained, among other things of problems
17 with the UN. Then the president said that he had sent General Cermak to
18 Knin, an excellent businessman, an honest man, who would help restore
19 normal life there quickly and who would help the Canadians. He told
20 Zuzul to convey that information to the Canadians who were interested in
21 the situation in Sector South based on the information they received from
22 General Forand. This is something that you can find in the transcript of
23 that meeting. That particular exchange between the president and Zuzul.
24 Reading the transcript I concluded that the president had dispatched them
25 over there with these two basic tasks, i.e., to help restore normal life
1 and work in the town as soon as possible and to be at the disposal and of
2 service to the Canadians. However, the transcript does not state that he
3 was duty-bound to help the UN, that he was duty-bound to help all the
4 international forces and the UN. This isn't what the transcript says.
5 The transcript says that he should help the Canadians. Therefore, it
6 follows from the transcript that he had used the office for the UN to
7 establish cooperation with General Forand and other representatives of
8 the UN.
9 Q. And now that we have established that you concluded that he was
10 sent there with two basic tasks: One to help restore normal life and
11 work in the town as soon as possible; and, two, to be at disposal and of
12 service to the Canadians.
13 My question, again, is: Based on your understanding and what you
14 have written here about the duties of a subordinate to report to his
15 superior and your testimony earlier, that he has a duty to report to a
16 superior who actually issued him the tasks, would you have expected,
17 then, that General Cermak, as the superior, would have reported on these
18 two tasks that you have identified to the Commander-in-Chief?
19 A. As a soldier and a general, I would have expected as much.
20 However, let me remind you that on the 26th of August when the
21 president arrived in Knin, General Cermak reported to him on the
22 activities that were undertaken and the tasks he was occupied with. This
23 was a personal report to the president who had dispatched him to Knin.
24 You can see that from the documentation reflecting Mr. Cermak's address
25 to the president upon the arrival of the freedom train in Knin.
1 He was their Commander-in-Chief, in command of an army. And he
2 sent him to Knin and told him, I will ask you -- call you to account to
3 see what you have done. There were reports that the president received
4 as well through various channels on steps taken to restore normalcy in
5 Knin and the steps taken to establish cooperation with the UN, and you
6 heard about it from the statement Mr. Cermak gave in the interview in
8 Q. Thank you very much for answering my questions.
9 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give an opportunity to you, Mr. Carrier, to
13 cross-examine the witness, I would have one question.
14 I think you mentioned Mr. Lukovic twice and you said that you
15 spoke with him about a certain subject and that he had confirmed your
16 interpretation of the events.
17 Now, in your methodology, I see no interviews. Could you tell
18 me, did you have an interview with Mr. Lukovic?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I -- I had spoken to
20 Mr. Lukovic on several occasions, and it had to do with the overall
21 activities of the office for the UN of the Ministry of Defence and the UN
22 department in Knin during and after Operation Storm. I know Mr. Lukovic
23 and used to come across him out in the field when touring the theatre of
24 war, and I was familiar with his work and his duties.
25 Lukovic made a mistake when he set off for Strmica. This is what
1 prompted General Cervenko to write a letter to Mr. Cermak.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, you're, again, on quite a lot of side
3 roads, where I just asked you whether you did have an interview; that is,
4 a meeting specifically scheduled to obtain information in a conversation
5 from Mr. Lukovic.
6 Did you have such an interview with him?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: When did you see him for the last time?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly three years ago.
10 By your leave, the information concerning Lukovic's trip towards
11 Strmica was something that I found in the document that he had sent to
12 Plestina and for which he had been reprimanded by Cermak. I didn't speak
13 to him about it. I don't know how such a conclusion could have been
14 drawn that I had discussed this matter with Lukovic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
16 I made a mistake. I mixed up Lukavic and Lukovic apparently.
17 You said -- and we were then talking about ... you said at a certain
18 moment, I spoke to Lukovic directly on this issue in the document here,
19 and we were then looking at D818, and it was about requesting or ordering
20 something. And then you said: "I spoke to Lukovic" -- and perhaps
21 that's the same as Lukavic, I do not know, "directly on the issue in the
22 document here and this was confirmed to me."
23 Now I wondered at what occasion you did speak to Lukovic directly
24 on this issue?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise if the
1 interpreters made mistake. I told you that I last contacted Lukovic some
2 three years ago.
3 As for this specific case I found the information in the document
4 that Lukovic signed and sent to Plestina. He said that he had taken the
5 French via Strmica and that he had been reprimanded or cautioned for this
6 fact by Cermak. I did not, however, include the document in my report.
7 I can refer to it, and I can include it in the general documentation in
8 support of my report. This was why General Gotovina requested that
9 Cermak no longer allowed such individuals to go across the area under the
10 garrison command.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But in relation to what a subordinate is
12 expected to do - that means request, or order, whatever - you said, "This
13 is something that the subordinate needs to act upon" -- apparently
14 referring to the request by Mr. Gotovina not to escort international
15 observers in certain areas -- "something that the subordinate needs to
16 act upon and carry out because that is what the commander seeks."
17 And then you said: "I spoke to Lukovic directly on this issue in
18 the document here, and there was confirmed to me."
19 My simple question was: When did you discuss this with Lukovic
20 and at what occasion?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two to three years ago, when I was
22 working on the material concerning Operation Storm. I spoke to Lukovic
23 and Plestina in the archives on the Ministry of Defence, approximately
24 three years ago.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was it in any context of preparing the report
1 which is now before us?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was not. I didn't
3 know that I was going to write the report at the time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I just wanted to know.
5 I'm looking at the clock. Mr. Carrier, perhaps it might not be a
6 good idea to start for just a couple of minutes the cross-examination for
7 the Prosecution unless there's a matter which you consider appropriate to
8 deal with in five minutes and then continue tomorrow.
9 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I don't think I can get much done in
10 five minutes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then could you give us any indication, also in view
12 of the way in which cross-examination develops, how much time you would
14 MR. CARRIER: I had estimated four sessions. I know that
15 Mr. Misetic had estimated about 30 to 45 minutes and took significantly
16 longer, and I'm anticipating it could take me somewhat longer. I will do
17 my best to try to finish in four sessions or maybe even in three, if I
18 can perhaps revisit some of the issues tonight.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That may be of some guidance for the Cermak
20 Defence as well as to when to have the next witness to be stand by.
21 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. Arrangements have already been put
22 in train for the next witness and he will be here on time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which most likely will not be tomorrow in view
24 of the time claimed by the Prosecution. Certainly more than -- three
25 sessions or more, which means that the witness doesn't have to be stand
1 by tomorrow, is it?
2 MR. KAY: Flights are booked, Your Honour, arrangements made.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. The only thing I'm saying is, instead of
4 someone who expects that he is required to be in the courtroom tomorrow,
5 instead of waiting here for five hours to find out that there's no time
6 to even start his examination-in-chief, that I take it that the witness
7 will know at its earliest the day after tomorrow.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour can take it that we will deal with all the
9 witnesses so that they are here when necessary and are not kept
10 necessarily waiting. We will be dealing with it in that way.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I hope you do not mind that the Chamber, of course,
12 has also its own concerns and responsibility for witnesses. It's not in
13 any way to suggest that you would not be precise in that respect,
14 Mr. Kay.
15 Mr. Feldi, we'd like to see you back tomorrow, the 23rd of
16 September, 9.00 in the morning in this same courtroom. And I would like
17 to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your
18 testimony, whether it is testimony that you have given already today, or
19 whether that is testimony still to be given in the day or the days to
21 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Feldi out of the
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I ask that --
24 whether I'm allowed to take my expert report and the notes I made along,
25 whereas all the supporting documentation is something I'd like to leave
1 here. If you agree -- I don't know what the practice of the Tribunal
2 is -- or should I leave everything behind?
3 MR. KAY: I don't see why not. It's his report, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
5 MR. CARRIER: I have no issue with him taking it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Can you take your report and your personal notes
7 with you. Please, especially for the personal notes, take them with you
8 tomorrow. Yes?
9 Madam Usher.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very much.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE ORIE: I would just like to put on the record a practical
14 On the 19th of August the Prosecution has filed a request for
15 clarification. That is, a clarification in relation to the deadlines for
16 responding to the submission of expert reports, specifically in relation
17 to Mr. Feldi. That report was not presented in one piece but at -- in a
18 sequence of moments.
19 I think the Chamber gave informally that clarification. That is,
20 that we would start counting -- I think it was on the 17th of August,
21 when, in a submission by the Cermak Defence, Part 3 of the report was
22 filed. First, since there is a filed request for clarification, it's
23 appropriate to put on the record that the clarification has, although
24 informally been given by the Chamber in accordance with what I just said,
25 and I wonder in view of what happened after that, whether there's any
1 further need to address this matter, or whether the matter has been dealt
2 with in its entirety. Because we have then a consolidated report and we
3 had some corrections to the report. But that, I take it, would not
4 trigger any further time-limits for the Prosecution to -- to make up its
5 mind as to the -- whether or not to accept the report and whether they
6 want to cross-examine the witness.
7 MR. CARRIER: No, Your Honour. We just understood it to just be
8 filing what we did, so ...
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then this being on the record, we adjourn
11 until tomorrow morning, 22nd of September -- 23rd of September - I stand
12 corrected - 9.00, Courtroom III
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 23rd day of
15 September, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.