1 Thursday, 24 September 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 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 around the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 A few procedural matters. I do understand that there is a
12 stipulation between the Prosecution and the Gotovina Defence with the
13 following content. Milan Ramljak was Vice Prime Minister of Croatia
14 between the 3rd of August, 1991, and the 12th of August, 1992
16 of May, 1998. He then held the position of Croatia's Minister Of Justice
17 from 14th of May, 1998, to the 13th of April, 1999, and he was not a
18 member of the Croatian government in 1995.
19 I hear of no objection. Therefore, it is now put on the record
20 that at least the Gotovina Defence and the Prosecution stipulated these
22 If any of the other parties would take distance of it, I would
23 like to hear. Otherwise the Chamber will assume that these facts are not
24 contested by the other Defence teams.
25 Mr. Mikulicic, you would like to make submissions in relation to
1 client/counsel privileged -- privilege in relation The Blue Book. You
2 have an opportunity to do so. And could you indicate how much time would
3 you need for that.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, not more than ten minutes, let's
5 say, or maybe less.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will continue in
8 Croatian, if the Court pleases.
9 [Interpretation] Your Honours, the issue was raised of The Blue
10 Book and the material which the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of
12 have a few points to raise to inform the Trial Chamber of the events
14 On the 16th of July, 2007, the Defence for General Markac got in
15 touch through the Office for Cooperation with the ICTY, the Office For
16 Cooperation of the Republic of Croatia
17 the Republic of Croatia
18 from the archives, and the request to make available to the Defence team
19 all the documents and information related to Operation Storm 1995. Based
20 on our request, the Office For Cooperation with the ICTY sent to the
21 Defence for General Markac the material sought and the analysis of
22 Operation Storm 1995 which was in fact The Blue Book that was discussed,
23 and it sent all the material on the 2nd of August, 2007. The material
24 was delivered in hard copy and on CDs.
25 The Defence for General Markac considers the material to fall
1 under Rule 67 of the Rules, in view of the fact that The Blue Book is
2 material that the Defence for General Markac did not -- did not consider,
3 and did not want to, and will not use in its own case. According to the
4 position of the team for General Markac, the material, i.e., The Blue
5 Book, also falls under the remit of Rule 70, since it had been prepared
6 at the request of the Defence in the process of collecting material to be
7 used before the Tribunal for Defence purposes.
8 However, with the intention of being of assistance to the Chamber
9 and the parties to the proceedings, the Defence team will distribute to
10 everyone the electronic copy of The Blue Book, as we received it from the
11 Office For Cooperation with the ICTY which had received it from the MOD,
12 in an attempt to assist the Trial Chamber in the current proceedings.
13 I repeat, this material is -- will not be used by the Defence.
14 It had never been the intention of the team to use it. It was working
15 material which the team for General Markac has decided to make available
16 to all the parties to the proceedings that may wish to have a look at it.
17 We have prepared the original version of the letter we received from the
18 Office for Cooperation with the ICTY, dated the 2nd of August, whereby
19 the material was delivered to the Defence. Of course, the letter has not
20 been translated since it is working material of the Defence. We have it
21 on the screen. We will also show the cover page of The Blue Book,
22 wherein it is stated that the analysis of Operation Storm was compiled on
23 the request of the Defence team for Colonel General Markac, based on the
24 decision of the minister of defence, which we were able to look at
25 yesterday, and which lists all the individuals who, on behalf of the MOD,
1 worked on the compilation of The Blue Book.
2 I would kindly ask the Registry now to show us the letter dated
3 the 2nd of August, 2007, via Sanction, and then I will -- I kindly ask
4 that the cover page be placed on the ELMO, which explains the -- how the
5 book came about and the persons involved in the making of it.
6 This, Your Honours, is the letter from the Office for Cooperation
7 with international courts within the Ministry of Justice addressed to the
8 Defence team for General Markac, wherein it is stated that we are being
9 sent the analysis of Operation Storm which is The Blue Book, and wherein
10 they inform us that they are also sending us supporting documentation
11 with maps contained within four binders, as well as the CD containing the
12 documents, i.e., The Blue Book, and it is in fact the CD that we will be
13 distributing to the parties.
14 Your Honour, should you so wish, we may go through the entire
15 document with the assistance of the interpreters, but I don't think that
16 it is necessary. We merely wanted to show you the procedure whereby we
17 came in -- into the possession of The Blue Book that was discussed here
19 If you have any questions on this score, I will gladly answer
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. The concern expressed by
22 Mr. Kay is whether, by providing The Blue Book there would be any
23 violation of client/counsel privilege, whether that would be a rule which
24 makes an exception to disclosure obligations, whether it would be
25 Rule 70, whether it is work product or not. It's a rather complex
1 situation where, well, there is a request, then a committee is formed,
2 and other people are attending. So to what extent this exactly falls
3 within the scope of internal work product, and to what extent it also
4 touches upon Rule 97, which says that if there's any protected or
5 confidential communication between counsel and client, but if this has
6 been disclosed to third parties, that those third parties can give
7 evidence on that. We can leave all that for the time being alone, I
8 think, because what you're offering is, We'll provide you with The Blue
9 Book. Which means that, certainly, whatever the confidentiality may be,
10 that, at least, under Rule 97, your client has consented to such
11 disclosure. At least I take it that your position is based on consent of
12 your client. Which, for the time being, I think eliminates all
13 problematic, possible problematic aspects of such disclosure. And,
14 therefore, unless other parties would disagree with this observation, I
15 think that we appreciate that you offered assistance to providing
16 The Blue Book, either the Chamber or the parties, at least the parties,
17 but perhaps it -- and I leave that to some extent to the parties as well.
18 The Chamber has not made up its mind as to whether we would like to call
19 that documentary evidence as Chamber evidence. Of course, if the parties
20 would present it as evidence, then, of course, there would be no need for
21 the Chamber to even consider such an initiative. So, therefore, for the
22 time being, we'll wait what the parties will do. It will be made
23 available. It is not only the Markac Defence but now all parties that
24 have access to this material. We will see what happens, and we will
25 consider the position of the Chamber in view of the -- of the course of
1 events that will follow, in relation to this Blue Book.
2 Any need to make further submissions on the matter?
3 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour. One route occurs to me, is it may be
4 appropriate, and I would be seeking this having now been acquainted with
5 the material overnight and wanting to use it on behalf of my client, a
6 stipulation route as to the content of the material as a way of dealing
7 with evidentiary problems, i.e., the reference to General Cermak in the
8 book, making a stipulation between the parties as to what that single
9 reference in whole book is, and that occurs to me as being a -- a middle
10 route that might serve justice as well as protect privilege on the basis
11 that there has been disclosure.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As I said before, the Chamber will see how the
13 parties will deal with the now available material. And I do understand
14 that you -- you have not yet talked to the other parties in relation to a
15 possible stipulation, but you will try to achieve such a stipulation at
16 shortest notice, I take it.
17 MR. KAY: I mentioned to Mr. Waespi information that had been
18 given to me. I was acquainted with it overnight. I'm grateful for
19 Mr. Mikulicic's assistance and statement this morning. It occurs to me
20 that if I start re-examining on the content of it, I may be causing a
21 problem within the proceedings that we could otherwise avoid, but it --
22 if I suggest, as I have to the Court and to other parties that that may
23 be a -- a route to solve a problem, I put it out there so that everyone
24 knows that I'm interested in dealing with it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, of course, the Chamber, not aware of the
1 content of the material, let alone any -- any mentioning of Mr. Cermak in
2 that material, of course, would encourage the parties to deal with it as
3 quickly as possible, because Mr. Feldi is now here, but he will not
4 remain here forever. At least that's what the Chamber expects.
5 MR. KAY: I'm grateful to Your Honours encouragement. That is
6 what I was seeking because obviously the witness is here for a limited
7 amount of time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And would you think that the next break would
9 be the appropriate moment, or would you say give us 15 minutes now?
10 MR. KAY: No, I think it's something that -- materials that could
11 be looked at and something in the break worked out between the parties
12 and -- I think that's the best route.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, I see some eyebrows being
14 raised to my left; that is, the Prosecution. Let's see what can be
15 achieved; and if nothing can be achieved, we'll hear that. I do
16 understand that if the material has been produced overnight, I've got no
17 idea whether it's a small blue book or a big blue book, I have no idea.
18 I leave it, at this moment, to the parties to see whether the suggestion
19 made by Mr. Kay is a viable route or not.
20 Mr. Carrier.
21 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, good morning.
22 The Prosecution is similarly in the dark. We haven't seen it, so
23 we don't know anything about it, whether it has been translated,
24 et cetera. Just to alert the Court to that issue from the get-go.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Mr. Kay apparently found his way
1 overnight to have not only access to it but even such an access that he
2 was able to -- apparently able to understand what was in The Blue Book.
3 I leave it at this moment to the parties. There is no role for
4 the Chamber at this moment, apart from encouraging to seek solutions for
5 whatever problems.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, I could foresee that lack of
9 translation could be a problem. As I said, this document was not
10 mentioned to be introduced as an evidence as it regards to Markac
11 Defence. Therefore, it is on Croatian language. And the material is --
12 well, there is a -- quite an amount of the material, so I don't think
13 that the translation could be completed within a short period. But,
14 nevertheless, here is the CD with the material, and I would like to share
15 with my colleagues.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: So if I may have the assistance of Madam Usher.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you -- this is visible disclosure for the
19 Chamber. The Chamber is never a witness to disclosure, but now we see
20 how it works.
21 Mr. Carrier, I'm leaving behind me -- I see even how disclosure
22 is distributed within the Prosecution's team physically. It's a new
23 experience for me.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: What I meant is one CD per each Defence and one
25 CD for the Prosecution side and one CD for the Chamber.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now the Chamber is a witness as well as where
2 it goes wrong with disclosure.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, as we, I believe, completed this
4 discussion, just for Your Honour I would like to show via ELMO the cover
5 page, the first page of the book which contains the members who
6 participate in obtaining this document, so that that could be also
7 transparent and visible to the OTP and other parties and to the Chamber
8 of course as well.
9 So some of the names were mentioned yesterday, if Your Honour
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see Lovric, Feldi, Pokaz, Bartolac,
12 Skuliber, Sambolec apparently as members of the team.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes. And then the other group below has been
14 composed by Mr. Mihevc, Sertic, and Stojanovic. And they were only
15 included into the working group but not the members of the working group.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They participated in the work of the group
17 without being members. Thank you for that.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: That's all, Your Honour, I have to say. If you
19 have any questions, I will be glad do answer them.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then move on.
22 Mr. Carrier, the Chamber yesterday seriously considered whether
23 it had to cut down the time for further cross-examination. The
24 credibility issues yesterday took far more time than was really needed to
25 establish or to seek to establish what you wanted to establish. After
1 thorough reflection, the Chamber decided not to do that, but may this be
2 a flag for the future. Get to the core of what is at stake more quickly.
3 Therefore, you said you would need four sessions. Well, we have
4 spent now quite a bit of time on this procedural issue. Therefore, in
5 all fairness, the Chamber grants you but will strictly keep you to that
6 time-limit - one hour and a half - for further cross-examination.
7 Madam Usher, could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
8 JUDGE ORIE: To be very practical, perhaps the parties could
9 focus. Apparently Mr. Kay takes it that the name of Mr. Cermak is
10 mentioned only once, and then with reservation of other rights to say,
11 well, on that portion we would agree on what it says apart from that it
12 could be taken out of context, et cetera, but at least that we focus as
13 much as possible on what could be achieved when the witness is still
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Feldi.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, I would like to remind you that you are
19 still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of
20 your testimony. And Mr. Carrier will now continue his cross-examination.
21 May I also ask you again to focus your answers on what is asked.
22 Further details if any parties are interested in it, they will certainly
23 ask for it. But let's start with a focussed answer to the question.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
25 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: FRANJO FELDI [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Carrier: [Continued]
5 Q. Mr. Feldi, am I correct in saying that you had free range to a
6 database that contained basically a -- most of the documents, at least a
7 huge number of documents related to this case and that included witness
8 testimony and witness statements?
9 A. You are right about that.
10 Q. And, in fact, in your report itself you reference on one page the
11 evidence of General Lausic. You reference both his statement and his
12 testimony. Is that right?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Did you have a chance to review all of General Lausic's testimony
15 in this case?
16 A. Mr. Carrier, I did follow directly his testimony before this
18 Q. Now, Mr. Feldi, you're aware, then, that the Prosecution's
19 position in this case is that the military police units were subordinated
20 to HV commanders during Operation Storm and throughout the remainder of
21 1995; correct?
22 MR. KAY: I'm not sure that that -- that's a question that can be
23 put. Are we relying on General Lausic's testimony or the Prosecution
24 case? I think it needs some clarity here, because there are two
25 distinctive issues.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understood that Mr. Carrier was inquiring
2 whether, perhaps on the basis of having listened to questions and answers
3 put to Mr. Lausic whether the witness was aware of what the Prosecution's
4 case, in this respect, was. That is, that the military police units were
5 subordinated to HV commanders during Operation Storm throughout the
6 remainder of 1995.
7 Is that correct, Mr. Carrier?
8 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Are you aware that that's the Prosecution's case?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not aware that that was the
12 Prosecution's case.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But then now you are.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was asked now whether I was aware
15 of that. I'm -- I can only say that I'm sorry that that doesn't seem to
16 be the right case.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, may I also invite the parties not to
18 intervene unnecessarily, also in view of the time-limits that are imposed
19 on Mr. Carrier.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. So, Mr. Feldi, having watched and followed the testimony of
23 General Lausic, a Prosecution witness, you're saying you didn't
24 understand that that was the Prosecution's position then; is that right?
25 A. That is correct, I did not understand it to be that way.
1 Q. Well, in that vein, then, Mr. Feldi, you have referenced a number
2 of documents in your report to support your position which is that the
3 military police were not in fact subordinated to HV commanders as the
4 Prosecution asserts. And a number of those documents -- and I will go
5 through some of them. One is Exhibit P880 [Realtime transcript read in
6 error "P808"] which are the rules governing the structure an operation of
7 the military police. Those are the 1994 rules. You also reference D267,
8 which is a 2 August 1995
9 to preparing military police units to perform military police tasks in
10 the areas of responsibility of the Croatian Army during Operation Storm.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, I think you said P880. If I understand
12 you correctly?
13 MR. CARRIER: Yes, P -- sorry. The transcript is wrong. It's
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
16 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
17 Q. Exhibit P881, which is a 5 August 1995 order, again issued by
18 General Lausic in respect of establishing military police units in the
19 newly liberated areas of Croatia
20 1995 order, again issued by General Lausic. This one is in respect of
21 implementation of military police tasks in the zones of responsibility of
22 the military police units.
23 Now, is it also your position that you're unaware that the
24 Prosecution has taken a contrary view to your interpretation of those
25 documents in respect of military police subordination, and the
1 Prosecution's position is that these documents actually support the
2 premise that military police units were subordinated to HV commanders
3 during Operation Storm and throughout 1995?
4 Were you aware of that or not?
5 A. I was not aware of the Prosecution's case and conclusions. I
6 only followed the witness testimonies and read the documents that you
7 have just referred to.
8 Q. But having followed General Lausic's testimony, you are aware
9 that - and if I can just be direct - the Prosecution's position is the
10 same as General Lausic's regarding those documents, that in fact HV units
11 were subordinated -- or, sorry, MP units were subordinated to HV units
12 during that time.
13 So is that clear to you now?
14 A. It is not. I don't know what made you infer that. That is why
15 it is unclear to me.
16 Q. Well, Mr. Feldi, I'm not asking you to evaluate the inference at
17 the moment. I'm just asking you if now you're aware of the fact that the
18 Prosecution's position is that General Lausic's -- with respect to those
19 documents, that you cite over and over in your report, that
20 General Lausic dealt with during his testimony. Are you aware of that,
21 that -- now you're fully aware that that's the Prosecution's position
22 regarding those documents?
23 A. I am aware of it now.
24 Q. And, Mr. Feldi, your report does not explicitly refer to
25 additional pieces of evidence that the Prosecution also relies on to
1 support its position in this respect regarding command and control over
2 MP units. And in that vain I want to just direct your attention to a few
3 examples from the evidence of General Lausic which you said you looked
4 at, and then I'll have some questions for you.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Completely cognizant of the Chamber's admonition
8 about rising and interrupting, but the continuous use of the phrase, The
9 Prosecution's position that the command and control was with the HV
10 commanders, I don't believe that is has been the Prosecution's case to
11 this point, and it is a term of art to say command and control was with
12 HV units. There is a distinction between command and command and
13 control, and to this point, unless the Prosecutor will point me
14 specifically to where command and control was given to HV commanders in
15 the field, I'm going to object to posing the question without any
16 foundation in the record.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
18 MR. CARRIER: I might be able to clear that up.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
20 MR. CARRIER:
21 Q. Mr. Feldi, when I referred to command and control over MP units
22 in the field, what I'm specifically referring to, just -- is that the MP
23 units were subordinated to HV commanders for the performance of their
24 military police tasks in the -- in the operational zones.
25 MR. MISETIC: I think we've been through this issue before, and
1 those are not the same synonymous terminology. And so I would ask that
2 with an expert witness that the terminology be accurate in terms of what
3 the evidence is on the record.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be -- what the evidence is in the record, the
5 witness told us that he has followed that evidence. If Mr. Carrier would
6 put portions of that evidence to the witness, then I think we avoid any
7 confusion in this respect, and that's what I thought Mr. Carrier would
9 Therefore, Mr. Carrier, let's stay away from whatever terms that
10 are in dispute, and let's see what the comment of the witness is, as you
11 suggest you do, to certain portions of the evidence of Mr. Lausic,
12 material which has been used and considered by him when preparing the
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Mr. Feldi, the first one is D567. This is an analysis of the use
17 of MPs during Operation Storm. It's dated 16 September 1995, and it was
18 sent to, among others, the Chief of the Main Staff, Cervenko;
19 Defence Minister Susak and General Gotovina. It was sent by
20 General Lausic. In that report, he reported that daily operational
21 command by commanders of the HV Military District was one of the things
22 that made it possible to carry out all police tasks within the competence
23 of the military police. Mr. Lausic, during his testimony, stated that
24 Article 9 envisaged the right to implement daily operational tasks in
25 everyday activities to the various commanders of the armed forces in
2 commanders or garrison commanders within those area of responsibility of
3 specific MP unit is, Command MP to executed all military policing tasks
4 in keeping the authority and -- in keeping with the authority and work of
5 the military police. They are also tasked with daily monitoring of the
6 work of the MP and to notify the MP administration with the proposal of
7 measures to be undertaken by the administration so as to ensure efficient
8 functioning of the MP unit.
9 General Lausic also testified that the 72nd Battalion MP Company
10 based in Knin was subordinated to the highest military commander in his
11 area of responsibility --
12 MR. KAY: That's a misquote, as we know, from the -- the test is
13 by function. I'm a bit concerned about it being read out this way. I
14 don't want do be obstructive, Your Honour, but I would appreciate
15 references. I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was about to find it where exactly. If you
17 give the page reference, then we are able to follow that. And then, of
18 course, in order to use your time as efficiently as possible, it would be
19 wise to not summarize or quote in any way which would cause other parties
20 to object.
21 MR. CARRIER: Well, I guess in that respect, Your Honour, I'm not
22 sure, if Mr. Kay doesn't know where it is from. I don't know how he says
23 it is a misquote. But I'll identify it. It is P2159, paragraphs 194 to
25 Q. And just to finish that off, he said that:
1 "... which was the town of Knin and surrounding area and the
2 highest ranking Croatian Army commander in Knin at that time was
3 General Cermak."
4 That same document --
5 MR. KAY: We should rely on the evidence as well because he was
6 cross-examined and gave testimony. And I'm concerned with -- with a
7 one-eyed look at evidence this way and claiming it represents his
8 testimony. Your Honour, perhaps it can be done a different way, by
9 asking the witness questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I think there is no duty for Mr. Carrier
11 to put all the related evidence to a certain issue to this witness.
12 At the same time, Mr. Carrier, it's not very efficient and
13 effective if you ignore that portion of the testimony that stems from
14 cross-examination. Therefore, I would not -- I wouldn't disallow you to
15 put to the witness what Mr. Lausic said, if it is not a -- if it does not
16 reflect the core of his testimony, the whole of his testimony on this
17 matter, then please refrain from saying, This is the testimony of, but
18 you could say, Mr. Lausic said this or that, and then later Mr. Kay can
19 put to the witness what else has been said by Mr. Lausic.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. CARRIER: Yes, and if I can just respond, Your Honour.
22 Mr. Kay's objection is basically, if I'm understanding it correctly, is
23 that what he'd like to put to him during re-direct, and that is clearly
24 open to him, the point being, I've given the limited time and describing
25 it as testimony simply is based on the fact that he said it during his
1 testimony or he put it in his statement. And so to object the first time
2 saying that it should be quoting, and then to suggest in the next
3 objection which follows on the heels of that one saying that I should be
4 summarizing it to give an accurate reflection of everything that Mr. Kay
5 would like in the parts that I'm reading, it, frankly, with respect,
6 doesn't make any sense. So I'm just trying to put things to him --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, in my ruling on what you are allowed to
8 do or not to do is not already what you now say reflected in that ruling.
9 MR. CARRIER: Yes. [Overlapping speakers] ... I'm just
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore -- yes, well, if the ruling is
12 there, there is no need to respond at that moment. If I consider that I
13 could give a ruling which is, to some extent, in your favour, just in
14 order to save time.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
17 Q. Mr. Feldi, another thing that General Lausic indicated was that
18 the Knin MP company was under General Cermak's command for its day-to-day
19 activities and that if a crime was committed within his area of
20 responsibility, it would be his responsibility to direct the military
21 police. And General Lausic also testified that MP subordination granted
22 to HV commanders under Article 9 of the 1994 rules was, in effect, the
23 same system of command and control over military police as described in
24 the December 1992 Military Council. And moving away from General Lausic
25 briefly, General Cermak, himself, in his 2004 interview stated that
1 General Gotovina had the entire military police under him.
2 Now, first, Mr. Feldi, very simply, can you just please tell the
3 Court whether or not you specifically considered any of these specific
4 examples, pieces of information that I have read to you in relation to
5 the issue of MP subordination when you conducted your analysis in your
7 A. Mr. Carrier, I did, and in detail too.
8 When searching for documents, I tried to find at least a single
9 document that would corroborate what you are saying; I did not, however.
10 But, on the other hand, I found at least five other documents which show
11 the contrary, which is that the MP company in Knin was never subordinated
12 to the Knin garrison commander by virtue of any orders. It was only
13 Lausic who said so. I didn't find any documents to corroborate that.
14 The following example testifies to that. In Article 9 under
15 Rules --
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... because my question was --
17 my question was very simple. It was whether or not you specifically
18 considered any of those specific examples. And you said that you had and
19 that you did that in detail.
20 Now, if that's the case, where in your report do you reference
21 that or make that transparent that you considered these things in detail;
22 specifically those pieces of evidence, if you can find any of them.
23 And while you're looking, I'm going suggest to you, Mr. Feldi,
24 you're not going to find them in your report because they are not in your
25 report specifically referenced.
1 A. Mr. Carrier, I don't know whether you studied my report in
2 detail. I do know, however, that I referred to the report you mentioned
3 of the 16th of September, in which General Lausic sends a report on the
4 functioning of the military police during Operation Storm. Therein, he
5 confirms that the commander, General Stipetic, commanded the MP unit
6 pursuant to the order of the chief of MP administration. Nowhere in the
7 report does he say that the MP company in Knin was commanded by
8 General Cermak. Such a position is simply not present in the report, and
9 this is what I state in my report. There is no order issued by
10 General Lausic referenced in my report --
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... because what I'm asking you
12 is specifically the part of that report you're now going through and
13 referencing General Stipetic. I'm asking you whether and where exactly
14 precisely in your report you consider in detail the part where
15 General Lausic reports to Cervenko, Susak, and Gotovina about the command
17 MR. MISETIC: I object to the -- to the formulation of the
18 question. I don't think he reported to General Gotovina.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, whether it's reporting or whether it's
20 communicating on these matters is not the key issue here.
21 So could you please ask -- answer the question without focussing
22 on whether it was a real report or a report in, I would say, in technical
23 terms. But Mr. Carrier would like to hear from you where exactly in your
24 report you'll consider in detail the Lausic communication with Cervenko,
25 Susak, and Gotovina about command.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in chapter 3, the
2 relationship between Colonel General Cermak with the military police in
3 the area of the Knin garrison, under items 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4,
4 3.2.5, 3.2.6, and 3.2.7. These are documents referenced in footnotes 179
5 through to and including 188.
6 MR. CARRIER: Your Honour, if I could ask a follow-up question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your previous question where we would find in
8 the report a certain matter has been answered.
9 MR. CARRIER:
10 Q. What I'd like to know, then, Mr. Feldi, specifically where is it
11 that you're, in detail, discussing that specific portion of
12 General Lausic's analysis? Because I can't see it, at least, in the
13 sections that you're talking about, where you specifically reference that
14 and talk about it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, apparently the question is where you gave
16 your expert opinion on certain matters on the basis of the material
17 footnoted, whether and where to find in the report that you specifically
18 and in detail addressed the testimony of Mr. Lausic in this respect.
19 That's apparently what you would like to know, Mr. Carrier.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in item 1.5.12, and
21 1.5.13, documents D02159 --
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure about the number.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the numbers, because they
24 might have been misunderstood.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] P02159 and P02159 [as interpreted],
1 in footnote 72. And the transcript of testimony which I have under the
2 number that we used of the 27th January 2009.
3 In that section, I refer to items 18 and 19 of the statement and
4 witness testimony in connection with the documents we discussed
5 yesterday. His supervision of the units in the operational areas of the
6 91st, and the preparations and development of the first set of rules
7 governing the work of the military police.
8 In chapter 3 that I referred to earlier, I do not specifically
9 reference Lausic's statements and testimony. Rather, I'm -- I refer to
10 the documents that he produced; the orders and reports that he sent.
11 These documents do not corroborate the position that the MP units, in
12 accordance with Article 9 of the rules governing the work of the military
13 police, were subordinated to the HV commanders.
14 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, if I could interject because given my
15 limited time and given that that isn't an answer to my specific question,
16 I'll leave it there and I'll move on, but what he is talking is obviously
17 not an answer to the question. So if I could just move on to the next
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps it's not a complete answer to the
20 question. I leave it to you.
21 What I noticed is that, for example, the -- that sometimes
22 footnoted material is referred to by its 65 ter number, which
23 specifically, if attention is drawn to certain paragraphs in which we
24 find such footnotes, that the Chamber has no access to 65 ter material.
25 So to the parties - and I'm also addressing you, Mr. Kay, in this respect
1 - should find a solution for that, that the Chamber is not paralysed by
2 having no access to the sources apparently used by the expert.
3 MR. KAY: Yes, and Your Honour did ask for focus cases, and
4 General Feldi could have written a 500 page report, no doubt, quoting
5 everything and -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Le me just -- I'm not --
7 MR. KAY: Yeah.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- saying that. But if reference is made to a
9 specific paragraph which contains reference to such source material,
10 there, of course, in order to evaluate the testimony in relation to that
11 specific paragraph and the specific sources used in that paragraph,
12 there, I think, we would have to find a solution.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
14 MR. CARRIER: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Feldi, I'm going turn your attention now to paragraph 1.5.22
16 of your report, which is on page 30 in English and page 27 in the B/C/S.
17 In this part of your report, you indicate that the minister of
18 defence issued special orders that established the authorities of the
19 military police administration, and you also maintain that -- that in
20 these orders the obligation that all military police units be subordinate
21 only to the military police administration was part of it.
22 And in that respect, you -- you reference two specific orders,
23 the first being Exhibit D35, which is Defence Minister Susak's order
24 dated 6 July 1994
25 as I said, removing -- or, sorry, what the order is about in the title
1 and when he talks about it -- in -- Minister Susak is that the goal is to
2 remove ambiguity in a system of command and control over units of the
3 military police. And the other order from Minister Susak you reference
4 is P2175, which is a Minister Susak order dated 7 August 1995, which is
5 after the launch of Operation Storm. And that one is in respect of,
6 among other things, physical security of warehousing facilities in the
7 liberated territories.
8 Now, Mr. Feldi, when you conducted your analysis, did you or did
9 you not specifically -- specifically consider General Lausic's
10 explanation that he provided regarding these two orders issued by
11 Minister Susak?
12 A. Mr. Carrier, the orders are by the Defence Minister on securing
13 the warehouses of 7 August 1995
14 secure all the storage facilities. In the order of --
15 Q. Mr. Feldi, I'm going to cut you off because I have limited time.
16 My question is, when you conducted your analysis, did you or did you not
17 specifically consider General Lausic's explanation for these two orders
18 issued by Minister Susak?
19 A. No, because I had General Lausic's order. I had the document
20 under footnote 90, which is document D75. General Lausic issued his
21 order as soon as he received the minister's order. To me, this is a
22 piece of evidence showing how the system worked. In the testimony or
23 statement by Mr. Lausic, I did not find anywhere his explanation as to
24 why he took the course he did.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, just --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, first, you referred to footnote 90, and
2 there it appears on the transcript that you would have said document D75.
3 But in footnote 90, a reference is made to D795. And I would like to add
4 to that that your answer seems to be a bit confusing because the question
5 simply was whether you considered the explanation given by Mr. Lausic.
6 Your answer was: No, I didn't, because I could look at the
7 document itself. And then you start explaining that you did not find
8 anything in his explanation, why he took the course he did.
9 Well, there's a contradiction between your first answer that you
10 didn't consider it, and then you explain what you found when you
11 considered his explanation. So that's a bit confusing for me.
12 Mr. Carrier, being aware of this confusion, I don't know whether
13 you want to further clarify it. Apparently the witness, in the second
14 part of his answer, said that he did consider it, but he did not find a
15 satisfactory explanation of the final conclusions drawn by Mr. Lausic.
16 If you want to further explore it, fine; but, if not, fine as
18 MR. CARRIER: I don't think there is any purpose in going further
19 with that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
21 MR. CARRIER:
22 Q. Mr. Feldi, despite your suggestion to the contrary in your
23 report, can you specifically point to what it is in the 1994 rules
24 governing the military police that explicitly states that Article 9, in
25 and of itself, does not produce direct results, or that Article 9
1 requires some kind of implementing order?
2 A. Mr. Carrier, in the last item of the rules governing the work of
3 the MP, it is stated that the application and the interpretation of the
4 rules would be determined by the MP administration. In my view, the MP
5 administration was also duty-bound to regulate the application of
6 Article 9 of the rules. In other words, at what time and under what
7 circumstances the HV commanders would be given powers to carry out
8 certain tasks. This is something that I did not find anywhere in the
9 MP administration that they invoked Article 9 in order to confer the
10 power upon the HV commanders to have command over MP units, and this is
11 something that I highlighted in my report.
12 Q. So that specific item that you're referring to, because in your
13 opinion, the military police administration had -- had done nothing, that
14 the regulations themselves didn't just take effect, given that they were
15 -- when they were signed, it also says that they take effect as of the
16 date of signing them?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. So you're just assuming that there should be some kind of
19 regulation that says that there needs to be implementing orders or that
20 there needs to be some kind of grant from the military police
21 administration in order for HV commanders to have subordination of
22 MP units in the field? You're assuming that; that that should have
24 A. Mr. Carrier, this is not an assumption on my part. We're
25 discussing a document, which is the rules of the military police and not
1 the rules governing the Croatian Army. The rules of the MP indicate that
2 the chief of the MP administration is not entitled to have command over
3 the HV.
4 Therefore, what is stated in the rules makes it incumbent upon
5 the MP administration to regulate when the MP units would be under the
6 command of the HV commanders. Nothing in the rules mentions the general
7 regulations concerning the Croatian Army, the brigade commanders,
8 operational areas, et cetera. This is a piece of regulations. If
9 Article 9 say says MP units can be subordinated to Article 9 in
10 performing regular military police duties, military police units shall be
11 subordinated to the commanders of the Military Districts, commanders of
12 the navy, of the air force; that is to say, to the most senior commander
13 of the Croatian Army, in the area where the military police unit is
14 active. That's Article 9.
15 Therefore, as can you see, according to Article 9 in the
16 performance of regular military police duties, military police units
17 shall be subordinated to the commanders of the Croatian Army. However,
18 in Article 10, I didn't find anywhere the definition of the military
19 police duties. Article 10 states or references areas of activity and
20 military police duties. There is no mention of any extraordinary,
21 exceptional daily or other types of tasks of the military police.
22 In other words, what is relevant is the area where the MP unit is
23 present. And as for the tasks that the military police units carry --
24 carry out, this isn't something that was so defined in Article 9.
25 Now, in the order that General Lausic sends to the various
1 MP units, no mention is made of these regular military police duties that
2 -- or where HV commanders would come in. That's why I referenced the
3 order concerning the securing of storage facilities, because in them, in
4 that order, no duties or obligations were mentioned of the HV units. In
5 fact, HV units didn't have anything to do with these securing or other
6 tasks because they fell within the purview of the military police.
7 That was my understanding and interpretation of the situation, if
8 I have made myself clear.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see whether I understood the main issue in
11 It seems that Mr. Feldi says Article 9 needs further
12 implementation; it's not self-executing. We find no further regulations
13 on it. Therefore, it could not, in itself, directly apply. Whereas, as
14 the absence of further implementing regulations is understood by others
15 as demonstrating that, in fact, Article 9 was self-executing. That seems
16 to be the issue, if -- if that's clear, then we could go on for ages to
17 interpret the absence of further implementing regulatory instruments, and
18 then go back again and again to that the absence demonstrates, on the one
19 hand, that it wasn't effective, it was not ever implemented; and the
20 other view, that it's this very absence that demonstrates that it was
21 directly applicable.
22 That seems to be the issue.
23 The Chamber is fully aware of the issue. It's not for the first
24 time that we deal with Article 9, Article 10, what it explains, what it
25 doesn't explain. The issue is clear. If Mr. Feldi would like to add
1 anything to this analysis or to bring to our attention a striking point
2 which would underline the correctness of his interpretation, he has an
3 opportunity to do so in the next minute; and, otherwise, I think we
4 should move on.
5 Mr. Feldi.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I referenced this in
7 several sections of my report, and I provided, I believe, detailed
8 explanations which do not warrant any additional submissions on that.
9 Thank you. I think I was precise enough.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Mr. Carrier, please proceed.
12 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Feldi, you returned to the issue of warehousing. And what
14 you said in that respect was that -- if I understand you correctly, that
15 because there were being -- orders being issued with respect to that --
16 and is it your position that that's a regular military police task,
17 guarding those warehouses?
18 A. Mr. Carrier, I didn't say that it was one of their regular
19 duties. They were ordered to do that, under the decision or the order of
20 the Ministry of Defence. And whatever the duty, the military police have
21 to carry out orders.
22 In Article 10, among their duties, they have the securing of
23 lives; therefore, of persons, and properties, vital properties, in this
24 instance, they were MOD warehouses placed at the disposal of the army,
25 and this is why the minister issued the decision whereby the military
1 police was supposed to secure all the warehouses in the liberated areas.
2 When the order was issued, the chief of the MP administration
3 proceeded to issue his own order on the same day or on the following day,
4 addressed to the commanders in the field to take upon themselves the
5 security detail.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... simple question:
7 Did you, or do you consider this task to be performed, as ordered, to be
8 within the regular military police tasks? That's the question.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said at the outset
10 that I didn't know what the regular tasks were, because I didn't find the
11 definition of it in any of the regulations.
12 What is prescribed is the area of activity and tasks, which could
13 be regular and exceptional or extraordinary. And it is true that this is
14 the provision of Article 10 of the rules governing the work of the MP.
15 And it was on this basis that the minister issued his decision, and the
16 chief of the MP administration, his order.
17 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. We'll move on from there, Mr. Feldi.
19 Yesterday you mentioned at transcript page T21926, lines 18 to
20 22, that you had submitted a draft report to Mr. Kay and that he had made
21 comments on it, which you took into consideration for your final draft.
22 My question is: As a result of those comments from Mr. Kay, did
23 you add, delete, or modify anything in the draft report before you
24 submitted a final report?
25 A. Mr. Carrier, the first version of my manuscript - it wasn't a
1 final version - numbered some 180 -- 180 pages and had many documents
2 apprehended. When Mr. Kay received the copy, he told me that he accepted
3 the contents as such, but he wanted the report to be reduced to some 50
4 to 60 pages without specifying what it is that I should add or omit.
5 When I produced the version of the report which you have before you now,
6 he accepted the report with some minor stylistic or linguistic changes
7 and told me to hand over the final version, which I did in July. It was
8 on the basis of his request dating from February this year that I
9 produced the report in the course of four to five months and submitted it
10 to him for review, for his consideration. And the material, with all the
11 supporting documents and material, is still in my possession as well as,
12 of course, the copies that were handed over to Mr. Kay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, there was no question about whether any
14 earlier versions were still in your possession. I do understand, and
15 that would have been a short answer, that you reduced the size of the
16 report, because Mr. Kay considered it too long for the purposes, that he
17 did not give you any instructions or requests as far as the substance,
18 the content of it was concerned, apart from reducing the size, and that
19 for the next version, there was only a request to improve some stylistic
21 Is that ... if that is your answer --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour. Thank you.
23 I apologise for belabouring the point.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's try to keep ourselves focussed on what
25 is asked. And it was not asked who had kept copies. If Mr. Carrier
1 wants to know, he will ask you.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
3 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Mr. Feldi, if you could turn to page -- paragraph 1.3.14 of your
5 report, which is on page 18 in English and 16 in B/C/S, you state there
6 that it is utterly inadequate and legally unfounded to refer to the
7 concept of command and control as articulated in the 1990 JNA ground
8 forces regulations or the US Army FM 101-5 to draw any conclusions about
9 the command and control over the HV since these principles are, you say,
10 in contradiction with the command laws and regulations implemented in the
12 Mr. Feldi, can you specifically direct to us what parts of these
13 two documents you reference, the 1990 JNA regulations and the US Army
14 manual that are in contradiction to the extent that they render any
15 conclusions utterly inadequate and legally unfounded vis-a-vis command
16 and control of the HV?
17 A. Mr. Carrier, quite specifically, the rules of service of the
18 Croatian Army were written for the purposes of the Croatian Army. In the
19 JNA, there was the rules of service of the JNA. The rules of service of
20 the JNA provided for its rules and regulations to be applied in times of
21 war, when it comes to documents and regulations that had -- that were
22 applicable to combat activities. Under such circumstances, tasks would
23 be regulated in accordance with these rules applicable in war.
24 When we were drafting our rules of service, we left those parts
25 out because they were contrary to the principles underlying the
1 Croatian Army. This is the specific example of the instant issue.
2 The second specific example is the comparisons drawn between
3 garrison commanders and JNA commanders of town defence structures. In
4 the HV, garrisons are prescribed and no provisions were included
5 regulating the defence of garrisons or the defence of towns.
6 In the JNA rules of service, mention is made of garrison commands
7 which even have the right to engage in mobilizations as well as those in
8 charge of the defence of towns. Similar principles are applied in the
9 Russian army. This was particularly mentioned by Mr. Theunens.
10 I hope this is the answer to your question, Mr. Carrier.
11 MR. CARRIER: That's -- time for the break, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's time for the break.
13 We resume at five minutes to 11.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, please proceed. From my body language
17 you will see what is on my mind as well. Looking in a certain direction.
18 No, not to Mr. Kay. I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Carrier.
19 MR. CARRIER: Oh. Sorry, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The clock is located.
21 MR. CARRIER: I wear a watch, so I was looking at that, but I
22 will move as quickly as I can.
23 Q. Mr. Feldi, the Prosecution asserts that the reality of the
24 situation on the ground is -- in fact, reflects that the applicability of
25 Article 9 was as -- as testified to by General Lausic, and the
1 Prosecution' position is that the MP were subordinated to General Cermak
2 as well as General Gotovina.
3 Now, in your report, if I have understood it correctly, your
4 position is that General Cermak's orders to both the civilian police and
5 the military police were simply to provide information and that they were
6 not actually meant to engage them in carrying out any tasks.
7 Is that right? That's your position in your report?
8 A. Yes, it is, Mr. Carrier.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Feldi, the Prosecution asserts that in fact a number of
10 the document, some of them that you refer to, reflect General Cermak's
11 authority to issue orders to both the military police and the civilian
12 police. And I just want to review a few of those orders as well as some
13 of the responses in relation to orders that were issued by the
14 Knin garrison command or -- or that indicate that General Cermak was
15 issuing orders to these people.
16 Number one -- and for reference is for my friends, it's P513. I
17 don't intend to bring them up, but I'll just summarize them. They are
18 one-page documents. Sorry, this one, actually, is an order by
19 General Cermak dated 8 August 1995
20 elements. It's addressed to the MUP, Knin police station as well as to
21 the military police. It's called an order. It's signed by
22 General Cermak. And it's to take effect immediately.
23 Another document that the Prosecution relies on this in respect
24 is the log-book of the 72nd Military Police Battalion. That log-book has
25 an entry dated 11 August 1995
1 72nd Military Police Battalion duty officer informed regarding a command
2 of General Cermak that members of UNCRO have complete freedom of
4 And these are just examples, Mr. Feldi. But P509, this is an
5 order by General Cermak dated 15 August 1995 regarding unhindered access
6 for civilians at all military and civilian police check-points. That
7 order was addressed to the Knin police station as well as to the Knin
8 military police. It's called an order, and it also says that it is to
9 take effect immediately.
10 And P510, this is a follow-up by the chief of the Kotar-Knin
11 police administration, and ... page 2 of that document in English says --
12 and I'm just going to pause for a moment.
13 "We received an order from the Knin Military District,
14 Croatian army command, commanding us to ensure that from 15 August 1995
15 all civilians pass freely through all military and police check-points on
16 the roads into Knin, ensure that the civilian population can enter the
17 town of Knin without permits. Checks shall continue in accordance with
18 previously stated rules."
19 And, finally, Mr. Feldi, P1147; this is an 8 September 1995
20 letter from General Cermak apologising to a member of the
21 European Mission regarding impermissible behaviour of a person in a
22 Croatian Army uniform. And in that letter, General Cermak indicates that
23 he has issued an order to the military police to investigate.
24 Now my question to you, Mr. Feldi, having looked at some of these
25 pieces of information, when you drew your conclusions with respect to how
1 the orders of General Cermak should be regarded in relation to military
2 police and the civilian police, how do you -- how do you account for the
3 fact that the documents issued are called orders. They're received,
4 according to some of the information I just gave you, received by members
5 of the military police and civilian police who, it seems to indicate,
6 execute those orders, how is it that you can maintain your position that
7 they're only for information purposes, in light of that information?
8 A. Mr. Carrier, it was my conclusion that this was information or
9 notifications sent by the Knin garrison commander to the military police,
10 the civilian police, and others. First of all, he had no operational
11 command authority, pursuant to the organisational order, item 3. He is
12 not authorised to command the military police.
13 As for the orders you are referring to as documents, are not
14 operational orders. Having analysed these orders, I concluded that they
15 do not meet the basic criteria of operational command. An order, or,
16 rather, the orders he issued, were not written by a soldier. One can
17 deduce that. It wasn't put together by a military officer with an
18 operational background and training. For example, in those orders there
19 is no obligation mentioned of the subordinates having to inform on the
20 implementation. Then others are addressed in unusual ways. For example,
21 instead of addressing a document to the 72nd MP Battalion or the
22 Independent Joint Company, as it was referred to by various MP officers
23 in their report, when writing to them he simply addresses that to the
24 military police. He didn't address his orders to the chief of the police
25 station in Knin but to the civilian police in general.
1 Having analysed the orders, I realized that those orders were
2 written ad hoc, if I may say so, in order to keep them informed, and he
3 never received any feedback information on the implementation. There is
4 not a single report of anyone responding to General Cermak's orders to
5 the effect that they had been implemented and measures put in place to
6 prevent such occurrences in the future. I did not come across a single
7 instance of such an order. That is why I concluded that these were
8 merely notifications without placing a burden on anyone to implement
10 Concerning the orders issued by the Knin garrison commander in
11 the various reports of the MP units to their superior commands, there is
12 not a single mention of that. For example, the commander of the 72nd MP
13 Battalion sending reports to Zagreb
14 received an order of the Knin garrison commander and followed it through.
15 We have a situation the other way around in which the garrison commander
16 is complaining that the MP units which received the same orders as the
17 civilian police did not care to implement them.
18 I don't know whether this answers your question.
19 Q. Well, perhaps I could just ask you one clarifying question.
20 If it is for information purposes, what's the point in -- in
21 putting in the order that's directed to military police and civilian
22 police that it takes effect immediately? Is it your position that the
23 information is to take effect immediately or ...
24 A. The obligations of the garrison commanders, it is stated that
25 certain issues are to be regulated by providing information, drafting
1 instructions, and issuing orders. When it comes to the relationship
2 between the garrison commander and the military police units in the area
3 of the garrison, in item 4 of the instruction on the work in garrisons,
4 the garrison commander is duty-bound to put in place cooperation and
5 coordination with MP units in their policing tasks. That is to say, he
6 had no right to order an MP unit. For that reason, he simply sent
7 informational reports to them or instructions.
8 Q. I am going cut you off because it was just about what the purpose
9 was of making it take effect immediately.
10 MR. CARRIER: But, Your Honour, no further questions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Carrier.
12 Mr. Kay, is there any need to --
13 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- further examine the witness?
15 Re-examination by Mr. Kay:
16 Q. General Feldi, you were asked questions about The Blue Book, and
17 you were shown a document that we won't produce on the screen that was
18 Exhibit P2632, marked for identification, and under seal.
19 You remember looking at that document, being taken through it by
20 Mr. Carrier yesterday?
21 A. I do, Mr. Kay.
22 Q. And it concerned the production of an analysis on
23 Operation Oluja; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, it is, Mr. Kay.
25 Q. In that document you looked at, was there any allegation that you
1 had done anything unlawful; yes or no?
2 A. Mr. Kay, as far as I understand, in the document there isn't even
3 my name or -- first or last name. In the document, it is stated that,
4 for the analysis of Operation Storm, it would be General Lovric and
5 General Repinc who would be engaged in working on that. I'm not present.
6 I do not figure. I don't know where the misunderstanding came from. I
7 kindly asked the Tribunal that I receive the decision of the Ministry of
8 Defence from August 2007, in which my name is mentioned as a team member
9 of the committee tasked with making that analysis. There are those
10 people who Mr. Carrier mentioned yesterday as having participated. When
11 we were working on the document, we did not have a indictment and we did
12 not making our analysis based on. That we were completely ignorant of
13 any indictments.
14 I hope this answers your question.
15 Q. It was just a simple question requiring yes or no. Was there any
16 allegation in the documents you looked at yesterday that you had done
17 anything unlawful?
18 A. There was none.
19 Q. Was there any allegation in any of the documents that you looked
20 at yesterday that you had done anything dishonest; yes or no?
21 A. No, Your Honour.
22 Q. In the document itself referred to as The Blue Book, have you
23 read that document in full?
24 A. Yes, Your Honour -- or Mr. Kay.
25 Q. Are you able to tell the Court the number of times that
1 Mr. Cermak's name is mentioned?
2 A. Mr. Kay, as far as I recall, his name is not mentioned
3 whatsoever. There is a mention of the -- of the garrisons in the
4 Croatian Army, but I don't recall having come across Mr. Cermak's names
5 -- name. Perhaps, yes, in the documents attached to The Blue Book, but
6 in The Blue Book itself, I don't remember having seen Mr. Cermak's name.
7 This was an analysis of Operation Storm. Did he not participate in
8 Operation Storm.
9 Q. Can I just ask you to look at an extract of page 353 of the
10 document --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could that be put on the ELMO so that everyone can
12 see it --
13 MR. KAY: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- and that someone reads it aloud so that we have
15 immediately already an impression of what The Blue Book, in this respect,
17 Mr. Carrier.
18 MR. CARRIER: I haven't actually -- other than seeing a bound
19 copy of The Blue Book, I haven't had a chance to really look at it,
20 number one. Number two, the witness actually hasn't even, as far as I
21 know, confirmed that that is what he was referring to, in terms of what
22 was produced or anything. Just showing a page now, and Mr. Kay is
23 identifying it without the witness identifying. I just raise the issue.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- yes.
25 Mr. Kay is in possession of what is called The Blue Book in,
1 apparently, an electronic version, since yesterday. I take it that what
2 Mr. Kay is putting on the ELMO is a passage of the document he received
3 yesterday and which was presented to him as The Blue Book, and for the
4 parties, for the next three months, to engage in battles about whether
5 this is The Blue Book or not or whether it should be called The Red Book.
6 But it's the complete Blue Book, etc. Mr. Feldi is now here; it's on the
7 record, and let's be very practical. If there's any reason upon further
8 studying the matter that this would not be part of The Blue Book, of
9 course, that would be of influence to the evaluation of this evidence.
10 It's clear what is now put to the witness.
11 MR. CARRIER: I apologise Mr. President. I think maybe I wasn't
12 clear. The issue wasn't whether or not Mr. Kay has copied a page from
13 what he is referring to as The Blue Book. My question was whether or not
14 this witness is going to identify that from which it was copied as in
15 fact that which he referred to during his testimony. That's the part I
16 wasn't clear about it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You could ask him about that at a later stage. What
18 would be appropriate to ask him at this moment is at least.
19 MR. KAY: Always grateful to my learned friends behind me --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KAY: And I will get page 353 of The Blue Book --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's now -- it appears in a format which
23 might be recognised by the witness.
24 Mr. Feldi, looking at what Mr. Kay has in his hands at this
25 moment, would that look more or less what you know as being The Blue
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already said that I'm not
3 familiar with it, under the name of The Blue Book. But in any case,
4 that's the material that I worked on. I don't know who named it The Blue
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is this the analysis on Operation Oluja you
7 referred to earlier? Work product --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's put that -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a copy like that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's put this page on the ELMO.
12 MR. KAY: Thank you. My team have kindly photocopied it for me.
13 THE WITNESS: Excuse me --
14 JUDGE ORIE: We have now put -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 MR. KAY: [Overlapping speakers] ... more complicated.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And the Court establishes at this moment that it is
17 not a single page which is put on the ELMO, but that it is a part of a
18 voluminous book with a blue cover. And you said, Mr. Kay, it was
19 page ...
20 MR. KAY: 353, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. KAY:
23 Q. Can you look at page 353.
24 MR. KAY: And if we can just move it up the screen, please, to
25 there. No, not too high, please, to the part where it mentions -- there.
1 Just stop. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Is there any portion that you would like to
3 be read, then we will find a native B/C/S speaking person.
4 Perhaps you could read it. And Mr. Kay will tell you where to
5 start. And if you slowly read, we will understand what it says.
6 MR. KAY:
7 Q. If you read the part that I marked on the photocopy, not wishing
8 to mark the book. Please -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 A. [Overlapping speakers] ... I understand, Your Honour.
10 Q. Can you read that out.
11 A. Certainly, Your Honour.
12 "On the 5th of August, 1995, the Supreme Commander of the armed
13 forces of the Republic of Croatia
14 in footnote 572, appointed reserve Colonel General Ivan Cermak as
15 commander of the Knin garrison. The former Knin garrison commander,
16 Brigadier Marko Gojevic ..."
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Major Marko Gojevic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
19 "is being appointed deputy garrison commander."
20 This is the end of that part of the text, Your Honour.
21 In the footnote we see that it refers to the decision of the
22 president dated the 5th of August, 1995.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is in evidence before this Court.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. KAY: Thank you. That concludes --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Kay's question was whether I
2 remember General Cermak being mentioned in the book. I cannot recall
3 that, but having seen this, I can confirm that this is actually a part of
4 the text that I had written in the book. Thank you.
5 MR. KAY:
6 Q. [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Kay, please.
8 MR. KAY:
9 Q. Are there any other references to General Cermak, so far as you
10 know, in the book?
11 A. Mr. Kay, I do not recall that. I haven't seen the book for the
12 past two
13 but I put it aside afterwards. If there is any other reference, I cannot
14 recall it. Perhaps you can jog my memory.
15 Q. Thank you. I will save the Court time by not asking you to read
16 it and confirm anything, and we'll move on.
17 MR. KAY: But I have asked for a stipulation, Your Honour, on
18 this matter that it was not forthcoming on the break?
19 JUDGE ORIE: The easiest way, Mr. Carrier, I think to see whether
20 such stipulation could be engaged into would be electronic version of the
21 advantage of being searchable.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. KAY:
24 Q. General -- no, General Cermak [sic], we're moving on from this.
25 I want to ask you further questions on other matters, so put away the
1 book please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps would it be good to have the hard copy to be
3 given to the Prosecution so that they --
4 MR. KAY: No, it's the possession --
5 JUDGE ORIE: yes, but therefore I'm inquiring whether it would be
6 a good idea that since the book is now here.
7 Mr. Mikulicic, any problem in giving it for a second in the hands
8 of Mr. Carrier? He will certainly return it to you.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: No problem at all. But just to inform
10 Your Honour, during the break, we produced and gave the book to
11 Mr. Hedaraly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Oh.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: But nevertheless, Mr. Carrier is also
14 [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. I ...
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. CARRIER: I apologise, Mr. President, I understand that it
18 was handed to Mr. Hedaraly and handed it back. Just -- we don't have a
19 physical copy of the book.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If anyone wants to have the book in his hands, he is
21 supposed to rise and then Madam Usher will assist us.
22 Please proceed, continue.
23 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. You were asked various questions concerning the production of
25 your report, one I want to ask you about. Were you ever instructed to
1 write about Operation Oluja as part of your expert report for the
2 Cermak Defence?
3 A. No, Mr. Kay.
4 Q. If any party had served a notice on you, requiring you to give
5 evidence about Operation Oluja in these proceedings, would you have been
6 pleased to do so?
7 A. Mr. Kay, I'm afraid that I didn't quite understand. In the event
8 who exactly sought my statement? The gentleman present in the courtroom
9 or in general terms? Because I was, in fact, called by the police in
11 artillery log-books; whereas, none of the parties to these proceedings
12 ever got in touch with me or tried to make any sort of influence over me,
13 in relation to Operation Storm.
14 Q. Thank you. In relation to your expert report, were you given a
15 page limitation by the Cermak Defence?
16 A. No. There was one given as an approximation, but it was up to me
17 to decide exactly how I was going formulate my views. And for that
18 reason, in fact, the first version was a voluminous one.
19 Q. You were asked questions concerning General Lausic. Did you
20 attend court to listen to his live evidence in these proceedings?
21 A. No, I did not, Mr. Kay.
22 Q. How did you come to consider the testimony of General Lausic?
23 A. I followed his testimony online on my computer at home. I made
24 notes of his testimony, and I paid careful attention to his -- to it.
25 General Lausic is an old friend of mine, comrade-in-arms. There were
1 some parts of his testimony that came as a surprise to me, and for that
2 reason, I made additional searches for certain documents to check whether
3 what he was indeed saying was true. The documents proved him wrong, and
4 that's why I used the documents to show how the system worked in
5 practice. And that the HV commanders were not in command of MP units,
6 save for those for which authorisation was given to an HV commander to
7 have command over.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is not for the first time that I hear
9 this evidence. I think we've heard it already quite a number of times.
10 Mr. Kay, you just asked how he was able to follow. It was
11 apparently through the Internet. That's the answer to the question.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. KAY:
14 Q. Did you consider the exhibits produced through General Lausic in
15 relation to his evidence?
16 A. Yes, Mr. Kay.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 In relation to the issue of de facto control or de jure control,
19 do you appreciate the distinction?
20 A. Mr. Kay, I do understand. Regulations are one thing, and
21 practice is quite another.
22 Q. In relation to General Cermak, are you able to describe, in
23 relation to his position, de facto and de jure, what his authority was?
24 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- if you want to object to the question - is
1 that what you intend to do? - then I would first like to hear the
2 question in its entirety.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
4 MR. KAY:
5 Q. I'll repeat the question as we may have lost of thread of it,
7 In relation to General Cermak, are you able to give your opinion
8 as to his de facto and de jure position as commander of the Knin
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
11 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 The objection is this is not proper re-examination. This is
13 things that Mr. Feldi covered in his report. It was a question that was
14 available to Mr. Kay during his in-chief. He submitted the report. It's
15 not clear that this is an issue which is requiring re-examination.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- it's -- your objection is denied,
17 Mr. Carrier. The witness may answer the question.
18 Are you able to give your opinion as to the de facto and de jure
19 position of Mr. Cermak as commander of the Knin garrison?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can, and I will try
21 to do it in as few words as possible.
22 According to the regulations that were binding on the garrison
23 commander, the organisational order of 1994 and the appended
24 instructions, as well as the rules of service of the armed forces, a
25 number of tasks were defined which the garrison commander was duty-bound
1 to perform, from regulating matters through his instructions, supervision
2 and coordination, and supervision of the tasks performed in -- within the
3 garrison. These were the regulations.
4 De facto, in practice, in the Knin garrison, out of all of tasks
5 that were provided for a garrison commander, the garrison commander,
6 Mr. Cermak, did not have as much as 20 per cent. There was no bathhouse,
7 no river, seas or lakes. No public transportation, no sports terrains or
8 storage facilities. All these issues that were mentioned in the
9 instructions, he didn't know what the HV units were present in Knin
10 because they changed constantly. He did not receive a single piece of
11 information as to which of the HV units in the Knin garrison are
12 available to provide officers and non-commissioned officers to organise
13 duty service, to organise maintenance of order and discipline, or to
14 provide security for certain facilities. All these matters were
15 prescribed de jure as obligatory duties of the garrison commander.
16 However, in practice in Knin at the time when General Cermak was
17 there, all these and other conditions were not in place. He was in fact
18 unable to implement the regulations, because he did not receive
19 instructions, decisions or orders necessary to that effect. Let's me
20 finish with one example.
21 Not a single facilitate in the Knin garrison or in the town of
22 Knin by virtue of the ministry's decision or the department for
23 construction was given to be used by the Knin garrison as they wished
24 which, under the rules, under the regulations they were duty-bound to do
25 as was the case in other garrisons in Croatia, which had their storage
1 facilities, barracks, re -- factories, kitchens, et cetera. What -- this
2 is, in my view, the state of matters with regard do the de facto and
3 de jure situation.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. KAY: Thank you. I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, any further need to re-cross or to
9 re-examine the witness?
10 MR. MISETIC: Yes, briefly, Mr. President.
11 Further cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
12 Q. Good morning again, General Feldi.
13 A. Good morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before we start, there are one or two
15 outstanding issues which perhaps we better deal with before we conclude
16 the testimony. That is, first of all, the two documents, two documents
17 for which Mr. Feldi would phone whatever authority - I'm saying it in
18 this neutral way - I do understand that -- I was informed by the Registry
19 that they expected to receive a copy of the two documents being faxed to
20 The Hague
21 telephone conversation and that finally we would except now to have
22 received a copy of these two documents.
23 Mr. Registrar, could you inform us as to whether, now, at 11.45,
24 copies were received by telefax.
25 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour, unfortunately, we haven't
1 received them yet.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Which comes a bit as a surprise, because in
3 telephone conversation it was said that at the other end of the line that
4 copies would be faxed.
5 But, Mr. Feldi, any further information as to when we could
6 expect these documents?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I contacted the
8 Ministry of Defence yesterday, as promised. They, in their turn,
9 promised to send the telefax. I checked this morning and found that
10 there was nothing coming. I phoned the ministry again and asked them to
11 speed up the process and to make sure that the facsimile arrived before
12 the end of my testimony. I was informed that the state secretary and his
13 chief of the department -- of the department which holds the
14 documentation were not there. The employees of the ministry told me that
15 the documents could be found in the database of the ministry, and that
16 they would do their best to send the documents to us as soon as possible.
17 I don't know if complications can occur, since I did ask that the
18 state secretary make sure that no such complications arise. You can have
19 -- can you look at the document. You will see on the cover page the
20 purpose for which the documentation was made and the list of all of us
21 who produced the paper, and I apologise for the fact that the documents
22 are still not here.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps yu should have phoned your wife,
24 Mr. Feldi, and I don't know for sure whether that would have had a better
25 result, but that is not for me to decide, although there was a strong
1 suggestion in this direction yesterday.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, Your Honour. My
3 wife wouldn't know where to find my papers or where to begin to look for
4 them. That's not her job.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I leave it to the parties. At this moment
6 the documents are not there. I can imagine that we can live without them
7 and that most likely there would no objection to these documents being
8 tendered from the bar table if they would show anything that the Chamber
9 should be aware of.
10 Mr. Carrier, is that approach a professional approach?
11 MR. CARRIER: Yes, that's fine.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see no objections from the Defence side.
13 Mr. Misetic, I wanted to have this clarified before we continued.
14 Please now continue.
15 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. General Feldi, I just wanted to go back to some questioning that
17 concluded with the Presiding Judge putting the matter to you, and this is
18 at page 28, beginning at line 16, going on to page 29, through line 4.
19 And you'll recall that earlier this morning there was a
20 discussion about Article 9 and whether the absence of further regulations
21 could be interpreted either to mean that Article 9 was self-executing as
22 evidenced by the absence of further regulations, or whether, as you say,
23 the absence of further regulations meant that Article 9 was not
25 And my question to you, on the basis of your report, goes to this
1 issue. The Chamber has received in evidence many orders from
2 General Lausic from beginning of 1995 through the end of 1995, and one
3 such example is Exhibit D267, from the 2nd of August, 1995, where
4 General Lausic, in his order, will put that, for example, The military
5 police for daily operational tasks is subordinated to the commanders
6 of... and then amongst other things it says, Military Districts.
7 Now, my question to you, General Feldi, is: If, in fact,
8 Article 9 was in effect and was self-executing, would there have been any
9 purpose to General Lausic then having to issue further orders talking
10 about or ordering subordination to HV commanders, if, in fact, Article 9
11 on its face was applicable and self-executing?
12 A. Mr. Misetic, the 2nd of August document is where the matters that
13 you referred to were regulated. On the very following day another task
14 is issued within the area of responsibility of Major Juric who is given
15 all the powers to have authority over the military police. So basically
16 there is the order which is implemented, and on the 5th, Juric is sending
17 a report whereby the system is working and he is in commands of all -- of
18 all the military police units, including the MP company, stationed in
19 Knin. We need go no further than the documents themselves.
20 Q. [Microphone not activate]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. MISETIC:
23 Q. I appreciate your answer, General Feldi, and I didn't mean to go
24 into the specifics surrounding the 2nd of August order, I was using that
25 as one example. But there are other examples. Let's take it out of the
1 context of Operation Storm, General Feldi.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, sorry to interrupt you. Could you --
3 the 2nd of August document is six pages. Could you refer to a specific
4 paragraph so that we can focus on it.
5 MR. MISETIC: It's page 4 of 6 in the English in e-court,
6 paragraph 12, first bullet point.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. MISETIC:
10 Q. General Feldi, my question was would you agree with me that if
11 Article 9 was in effect and was self-executing from February 1994, there
12 would have been no need for General Lausic to issue his own orders
13 throughout 1994 and 1995 concerning, for example, daily -- or daily
14 operational chain of command in subordinating them, because it would have
15 already been regulated by Article 9 of the rules?
16 Am I right?
17 A. I agree with you, Mr. Misetic, you're right.
18 Q. Thank you very much, General.
19 MR. MISETIC: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Misetic.
21 Mr. Carrier, any furthers questions for Mr. Feldi?
22 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I do have one given my ten minutes
23 with The Blue Book which I --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, well, at least I'm glad that my suggestion
25 leads to something.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. CARRIER: We'll see how it goes but ...
3 My question is, and I haven't had a full opportunity to look into
4 it, so I'm not sure -- sorry. If I could just have one moment,
5 Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. CARRIER: Perhaps I could just ask a clarifying question.
8 Further cross-examination by Mr. Carrier:
9 Q. Mr. Feldi, if you turn to page -- or I will give you the section
10 number. It's 184.108.40.206. And in your original version of your report, it
11 is labeled as organigram number 12, Command in the Croatian Army,
12 4 August 1995
13 Now I just want to clarify a few things. I believe today when
14 you looked at the bound copy of The Blue Book, which you can see is this
15 book here. I think you said you hadn't seen it in two or three years,
16 and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding from your
17 evidence yesterday is that you didn't -- as far as you know, you didn't
18 rely or use anything from that Blue Book when you produced your report
19 for General Cermak.
20 Is that a fair interpretation of your position on that?
21 A. It is, yes.
22 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, if I could ask that something be
23 placed on sanction. I don't speak Croatian, but I do have -- I made a
24 slight interpretation of this organigram -- or on ELMO, sorry. It is
25 something from The Blue Book.
1 JUDGE ORIE: With the assistance of Madam Usher, it can be put on
2 the ELMO.
3 MR. CARRIER: And while that's being put on, Mr. Registrar, if
4 could you bring up the Croatian version of Mr. Feldi's report and if
5 could you find the organigram, which is the top right-hand side corner,
6 pages are numbered, it's 2618, I could be wrong. And I'm not sure -- in
7 English, at least, it's -- at the top of the version I have it's 2618.
8 And the organigram is entitled: System of command in the Croatian Army,
9 Operation Storm, 4 August 1995
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. ...
11 MR. CARRIER: And if the -- if Madam Usher could adjust it
12 slightly so that we could also see the Croatian version of Mr. Feldi's
13 report, and I don't know if it's possible to put the ELMO image up on the
14 screen at the same time.
15 Sorry, just to be clear, just the Croatian version of the
16 organigram in the report.
17 I apologise to you, Mr. Registrar. I know he is trying to find
18 it. And I'll see if I can find it quickly.
19 I believe it is on page -- the bottom of page 14 in the B/C/S.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it -- it takes quite a while.
21 Mr. Carrier, may I take it that you would like to ask the witness
22 to compare what we find in his report to what we find The Blue Book.
23 MR. CARRIER: Yes, that's correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And it's your suggestion that it's the same.
25 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Or very similar.
2 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's ...
4 Could you have a look at what we find in The Blue Book and what
5 we find in your report, could you compare and see whether it's the same
6 or approximately the same? Mr. Feldi?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's roughly the same.
8 It's my diagram. It dates back from the time when I worked on the
9 analysis of Operation Storm. It's one of the diagrams or organigrams.
10 There are several of them, and some of them ended up in this book. I
11 used it deliberately because this system of command was in place in the
12 Croatian Army at the time when General Cermak arrived in the Knin
13 garrison. In order to demonstrate that in this -- under this system of
14 command, there are no garrisons --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, I don't think that Mr. Carrier is
16 interested at this moment in whether there were garrisons or not. But
17 what he apparently wanted to know is whether you relied on The Blue Book
18 in preparing the report, in contradiction to your earlier testimony.
19 Mr. Carrier, is that correct?
20 MR. CARRIER: That's correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I took it from your answer that The Blue Book relied
22 on your diagrams rather than that you relied on the diagrams that were
23 published in The Blue Book. Did you keep electronic --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Did you keep electronic copies of the diagrams you
1 produced before The Blue Book was published?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't do it in the
3 electronic form. I did them by hand, for the most part. And I have many
4 diagrams in my notebooks and various drafts. I did not produce it
5 electronically because there are people who have the -- the necessary
6 expertise. I drew them by hand and then others processed them. The
7 difference between --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you a follow-up question here.
9 You produced them by land, although I read in your CV that you followed a
10 course in computer science, but here you relied on others to produce what
11 apparently is an electronically produced diagram.
12 Would you agree with that?
13 When did you give -- I saw you nodding yes.
14 When did you give your handwritten diagram to those who then
15 turned it into in an electronic version?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when we were working
17 on this material, I gave them my working organigram. It was slightly
18 changed, as you can see, in the book. There is a significant difference
19 between the one used in my text and the one in the book. And by your
20 leave, I can point out two elements that are different. We find them in
21 the organigram in the book and they are missing in my report.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Concerning the book organigram,
24 there is a separate piece of text that you can see, stating that full
25 command authority over the units of the military police was in the hands
1 of the MP administration of MOD, whilst commanders of the Military
2 Districts had the authority of operational command and control over those
3 military police units of that were assigned to them. This piece of text
4 is missing in my report.
5 Further down it says, Operational teams of the Main Staff of the
6 armed forces had the task to convey orders issued by the Chief of Staff,
7 monitor the situation, receive reports, carry out assessments, draft new
8 orders and pass them down to the subordinates. This sentence is also not
9 in my expert report.
10 To continue, if I may, in this text, it says, For the needs of
11 operational oversight a separate command post was established in Ogulin.
12 In my organigram, that was my draft, and I -- I used it during the
13 operation. I didn't make up a single thing. This is just slightly
14 changed to have a clear layout, and I have told you what the reason was
15 for the differences.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, could I try to establish what exactly
17 happened with you had a handwritten diagram drafted? When did you give
18 it to those who produced this electronic version? The electronic version
19 as we find it in The Blue Book?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in 2006, I believe,
21 while we were working on the book, because I worked with the team for at
22 least half of 2007 as well, and this is when we were agreeing upon the
23 structure, et cetera. One of the things we discussed was, among other
24 things, this organigram that concerns itself with the command structure
25 of Operation Storm.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, how did you obtain for yourself an
2 electronic version, if you ever obtained such an electronic version, of
3 what you gave to them in a handwritten form?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received a copy, Your Honour. It
5 was printed out for me so that I could use it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When did you receive that?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was when we
8 discussed the material prepared for the book, before its final form took
9 shape. I provided my organigram to those who were supposed to make the
10 layout and then they gave me a hard copy so that I could take it back
11 home to review it and use it during the meetings in the Central Archives.
12 After that, this organigram was handed over together with the
13 rest of the material, and it was put in the book. What I have is the
14 copy I have been given.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you ever receive an electronic copy?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: How did you get -- in the original report, how did
18 you work in this diagram?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hm. Your Honour, while working
20 on the expert report, I contacted those in the Main Staff who had first
21 put it in electronic form. I asked for it, and they gave me the version
22 I had before. I never received it in electronic form but on -- in hard
23 copy, as a schematic. I scanned it afterwards and put it in an
24 electronic form. That's the version I have. I have no other. I don't
25 have the organigram from the book in electronic form separately. It is
1 only a part of the book.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What we finds in the original - that is, the
3 Croatian version of your report, and I think it is on page 14 - is that a
4 scanned image of a diagram you received from, as you said - let me just
5 check --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The people who put it in electronic
8 JUDGE ORIE: You said you received a hard copy from them. And
9 then you scanned it, isn't it? Let me just check your last answer.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And included it in my report. That
11 is correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You said you never received it in an electronic
13 form, but this is in this report as it is sent to us. This is a scanned
14 image of a hard copy you received from the people in the Main Staff.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know who I received it from,
18 Your Honour. Those were people who used all of our hand-made schematics
19 to put them into the computer. They had it stored as a working version,
20 and as such was given to me. Later on it was amended and changed by
21 suggestions of other team members, and they added the text I mentioned as
22 well as a number of boxes whenever they found my schematic lacking.
23 Such as an amended version as you can find it in The Blue Book is
24 not something I used in my expert report. You can see that for
25 yourselves because of the differences I pointed out.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see your point that there are differences.
2 Perhaps I would like -- what I would like to know specifically is whether
3 the diagram which we find in the original of your report is the product
4 of scanning and putting that image into this section of the report.
5 When thinking about the answer, perhaps I ask you: Did you scan
6 it at home? Did you -- where did you scan it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Where did you scan it then, if not at home?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the office, where I worked with
10 the rest of the team on the preparation of the report. Not only this
11 particular organigram, but all others as well.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said in the office where you worked
13 preparing the report. Which report are you referring to?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My expert report. My expert
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which office was that where you worked with the rest
17 of the team to prepare this report? Which office was that?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Zagreb. In the premises where
19 the team was.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber received the hard copy of the report.
21 Is there an electronic version? I -- it may be that we have received it
22 also on a CD. Is that ...
23 Mr. Kay.
24 MR. KAY: It's filed electronically and created electronically.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Filed electronically.
1 MR. KAY: If Your Honour is doing the questioning, perhaps invite
2 you to ask which team is he referring to so that there is no ambiguity.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, I was still in the middle of that.
4 MR. KAY: So there's no --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Kay.
6 What team were you talking about, Mr. Feldi, when you scanned it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I was a bit
8 unclear. As of last year, I was made a team member for Defence of
9 General Cermak. I was asked to join and assist with that part that I'm
10 familiar with. I was in Knin, and I could be of assistance to Mr. Kay,
11 to get acquainted with the situation as quickly as possible. I joined
12 the, what was called, Croatian part of the team that was in Zagreb
13 Together with the Knin part of the team, we worked on the analysis of the
14 documentation that may be of assistance to General Cermak's Defence. And
15 I was supposed to acquaint Mr. Kay and the rest of his Hague team. This
16 is where I also worked on the expert report, relying on the technical
17 services and support that I needed to produce that report. I used the
18 database that the team had, containing the documents that I used.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, I intervened at a moment where you
21 started some questions. I very much focussed on the genesis of how these
22 diagrams were produced, et cetera. I'm aware that I interrupted you.
23 I'm not saying that I would have no further questions, but I would rather
24 first allow to further develop the questions you would like to put to
25 Mr. Feldi, and meanwhile we'll give it some thought on whether we have
1 further questions.
2 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President. I guess sometimes a
3 picture is worth a thousand words. I don't really want to ask any
4 questions about this.
5 I think it's clear on the face of the document. The one issue,
6 perhaps, that might clarify things is at the Prosecution's request
7 Mr. Kay had sent colour versions of the organigrams used in Mr. Feldi's
8 report. I have a copy of this specific one, which I'm happy to supply in
9 terms of just to reference it.
10 The other thing is since we have a hard copy of a signed original
11 Blue Book here at the moment, and I understand that we have been given a
12 CD of that book, the Prosecution clearly hasn't had a chance to compare
13 the two and make sure everything is there in the same way. I think out
14 of --
15 JUDGE ORIE: There are differences as the witness told us and as
16 the witness showed us, I would say.
17 MR. CARRIER: That's -- obviously, alarm bells are ringing. And
18 so we're asking that The Blue Book be admitted into hard copy, The Blue
19 Book also be admitted as an exhibit so that we have a version of now
20 preserved while it has been referred to in Court by this witness, et
21 cetera. It just makes more sense in Prosecution's submission.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Just the hard copy or the electronic?
23 MR. CARRIER: At least now, definitely the hard copy. And what
24 the Prosecution is submitting for Your Honours' consideration is that we
25 would scan the individual pages of the hard copy book if Mr. Kay would
1 like it back, and, at the same time, perhaps also file or file the
2 electronic version as well, just so that we have a complete record of
3 what this document is.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further questions for the witness?
5 MR. CARRIER: No, thank you.
6 MR. KAY: It's not my copy of the book, actually, Your Honour.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour. I thought
11 that was perfectly clear that this is my copy of The Blue Book, not
12 Mr. Kay's. So I'm not willing to The Blue Book into the evidence. If my
13 learned colleague from the Prosecution side wants to enter this into
14 evidence, let him copy the book and let do with the copies whatever they
15 want. But the original book that I was giving to them, it's not the one
16 that I want to produce it into the evidence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, once an exhibit is admitted into
18 evidence, it will be for the future in the custody of the Tribunal and
19 not available to the owner anymore. The suggestion by Mr. Mikulicic that
20 you would prepare copies of it and then everyone now, apart from the
21 Chamber, has seen from nearby The Blue Book and then to tender the copies
22 into evidence.
23 MR. CARRIER: Yes. And perhaps that's the best solution. If we
24 could scan it first and then look at it, and then determine the best way
25 of dealing with it. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, scanning is another word for copying, yes.
2 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
3 Questioned by the Court:
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, do you remember -- do you remember the
5 discussions where your original diagram was completed or changed into the
6 version we now find on the -- in The Blue Book?
7 A. I cannot recall when, Your Honour. There were many diagrams and
8 many things discussed.
9 The final version that can you find in The Blue Book, as I have
10 said already, was worked on by all of us together, and I don't remember
11 when we produced the final version of it, as can you find it in The Blue
13 If I may, I did not enter those subsequent changes into my copy
14 in my report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I come back to my earlier question, whether,
16 as you said, the hard copy you received from the -- from the team
17 preparing the Oluja analysis, whether you scanned that, whether you are
18 sure about that. You told us already where it was scanned. Are you sure
19 that it was scanned and then put into your report?
20 A. Your Honour, I will try to be more precise.
21 The diagram was originally done by hand. When we were discussing
22 the book with the team at the Main Staff or in the archives, I handed
23 over that diagram, and then it was used by our IT support to put it in
24 electronic form, in that type of layout.
25 After that, the diagram they put in the electronic form was
1 discussed. That copy of the diagram, based on my handwritten one, is the
2 one that I have in the book. When the final version was being discussed,
3 in terms of what should be added or taken away from the diagram, because
4 if you look at some other diagrams, can you see that they have some
5 elements or missing some other elements that the others don't have. This
6 diagram is something that I used to try to prove that this was indeed the
7 system of command. The copy that I received in printed form from the
8 Main Staff is what I asked to have so that I could attach it, and so I
9 did. It not actual -- an actual scan of my handwritten diagram.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand your testimony to be that you
11 received a printed out version of an electronically produced copy of your
12 original handwritten diagram and that you then scanned that printout, or
13 hard copy, and then that the result of this scan was introduced in your
15 Could I ask you, did you -- the report, was that type written by
16 yourself or by anyone else?
17 A. Your Honour, I was typing it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you were the one who introduced the
19 scanned diagrams into this text.
20 A. No, I was not, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Would did then that?
22 A. In addition to the diagram I received from the Main Staff, I
23 worked on some other diagrams as well, and it was put in electronic form
24 by the personnel of the office for General Cermak's Defence, the team
25 members. My IT background is lacking. It is not sufficient for me to
1 produce such complicated diagrams in electronic form. Usually I would
2 make them in handwriting and then would hand them over, so that they
3 would do the graphic design.
4 The same thing happened with the Main Staff. I asked -- I
5 brought in my copy, and it was scanned in the office. Later on, I was
6 able to use that diagram in my part of the text, much as many other
7 diagrams that I used in working version. Some of them are contained in
8 the report as well. That was the procedure that I employed when working
9 on this expert report.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me now try to understand.
11 You received from the Main Staff a printout, a printout, which,
12 you said, was then scanned. At the same time, you tell us that you gave
13 your copy - whether that was the printout or the already-scanned copy -
14 to the team members of the Cermak Defence team in order to produce them
15 in an electronic format. That's at least how I understood your last --
16 because you said it was not the scanned version that was put into your
17 report, but it was an electronic version produced by the Cermak Defence
18 team on the basis of the hard copies you had available, and that, due to
19 your lack of IT experience, they put that in the text you had
21 Is that correctly understood?
22 A. Your Honour, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I will try to
23 make it simple.
24 On my request, the Main Staff gave me a copy of the diagram I had
25 produced when producing the document ation. They had that diagram in the
1 computer. They printed it out. I received a paper, a piece of paper.
2 That printed text is what I handed over in the office to the team I
3 worked with. They scanned it and entered it into their database.
4 When I was working on my expert report, I used the database
5 diagram and put it in the text, and you see the result before you. I
6 only assisted them when they were working on it to have it in the layout
7 as envisaged originally. I don't have it in electronic form. I can only
8 access it from the database.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, your answers create some confusion with
11 You said "they scanned it," the document, "and they put it in the
13 And then you said, I used the database diagram and put it in the
14 text. So you used, from what I understand, the diagram as it was stored
15 in the database; and you put it in your text.
16 Is that correctly understood?
17 A. Your Honour, yes, precisely so.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And, therefore, it was still a scanned copy, and it
19 was not a diagram which was recreated electronically?
20 A. Your Honour, no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you're talking about working with the team
22 members and being assisted by the team. And you said something about --
23 let me just check carefully what you said. Let me just see ...
24 One second, please.
25 You said you were made a team member for the Defence. Did you
1 perform any other duties than to produce this expert report?
2 A. Your Honour, I was one of the advisors on the team, based on my
3 experience and work in the Croatian Army and knowledge of these events.
4 They believed that I could provide useful advice and suggestions, as well
5 as make sure that Mr. Kay and his team get apprised of all the matters as
6 soon as possible. That was the reason why I was included in the team.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So your duties went beyond producing an expert
9 A. Your Honour, these duties preceded my work on this report.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The instruction to produce an expert report, or the
11 request to produce an expert report was given to you after you had
12 already been advising the team. Is that correctly understood?
13 A. Yes, Your Honour, correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Did you work on the report on the premises where the
15 team was working at that moment?
16 A. Your Honour, I partly worked at home and partly on the premises
17 where the team worked. The team did not work round the clock, 24 hours,
18 and I would therefore spend the evenings working at home, and I would
19 roughly spend between three to four hours on the premises of the team.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Now, your diagrams are not exactly the
21 same as the ones which we find in The Blue Book. You've told us that the
22 final analysis was approved by the Main Staff, the analysis that appears
23 in The Blue Book.
24 Did you, in your report, anywhere explain why your diagrams and
25 the content of it deviate from the version that was prepared for the
1 Ministry of Defence, approved by the Main Staff, and, finally, published
2 in The Blue Book?
3 A. Your Honour, nowhere in my report did I comment on this
4 particular diagram and on the diagrams I used in general. The diagrams
5 included in the report were not published in The Blue Book, as they stand
6 now, and I didn't feel the need to account for any difference.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's your assessment of the importance of
8 the difference in the diagram we just looked at in your report and the
9 one which was public -- was published The Blue Book? Would you consider
10 this a minor difference; or would it be relevant to one of the issues
11 that was subject to your testimony here?
12 A. Your Honour, I can confirm that this is the diagram that I
13 produced with minor differences that I referred to.
14 If you will allow me, the purpose of the diagram is to show the
15 system of command.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Feldi, I'm asking you specifically whether you
17 considered the difference between the diagram, as published in The Blue
18 Book, and the diagram, as produced in your report, is of minor importance
19 or touches upon matters that seemed to be of relevance during your
20 examination in this courtroom.
21 A. Your Honour, the diagram published in The Blue Book would have
22 been more appropriately used, had it been put in my report, or, rather it
23 would have been a more appropriate choice, because it is a more complete
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although that is not an answer to my question,
1 I leave it to that.
2 Mr. Feldi, your role as an advisor in the Cermak Defence team, is
3 this to be found in your CV; and, if so, please assist me in finding it.
4 A. Your Honour, no, I didn't include it my resume.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Don't you think that it could have been of relevance
6 to know whether you were engaged in other activities of the Defence team?
7 Just as we know, for example, from Prosecutor experts, whether they are
8 employed by the Prosecution or engaged in their activities. Did you
9 consider this irrelevant, or was there any other reason why you didn't
10 mention it?
11 A. Your Honour, if you will allow me to say this, I didn't mention
12 that I was on the team for the book intended for General Markac, and
13 equally so, I didn't mention my participation in the team for
14 General Cermak. There was no particular reason.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
16 Have the questions by the Bench triggered any need to further
17 examine the witness? That should be after a break, but if not, then we
18 could conclude before the break. If there are any further questions,
19 then they should be ...
20 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I have nothing for my part. Nothing
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 I see that that's true for all parties.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to receive in evidence the
1 electronic copy of The Blue Book, and I think the electronic copy of the
2 expert report was provided to the Chamber but is not specifically
3 admitted into evidence in that format.
4 Is that correct, Mr. Kay? We have received the hard copy as ...
5 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour, it is filed electronically and that's
6 the version --
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's the version --
8 MR. KAY: Yes, we all have the same version. Your Honour has not
9 got any different version.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I'm not saying that we -- I'm just for
11 purposes of at least having an opportunity to compare The Blue Book,
12 electronic version, with the electronic version of the expert report, I
13 just wanted to be sure that the electronic version is, as such,
15 Mr. Carrier.
16 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 As I said before, perhaps additional information that would
18 assist is that Mr. Kay provided the Prosecution at our request colour
19 versions of the organigrams themselves, which I think would be better
20 given that they're -- The Blue Book has colour diagrams, and these are
21 the colour diagrams provided that were referenced in the report, so I
22 could give those over if there is no objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if they are part of what has been filed,
24 and I do understand that the electronic version including the colours,
25 has been filed, then there is no need to -- then it is only the
1 electronic version of The Blue Book that we would like to have in
2 evidence. And we leave it to you, Mr. Carrier, whether you want to have
3 a photocopied version of The Blue Book in evidence.
4 MR. CARRIER: I think, sorry, the issue is that the electronic
5 version that was filed as his report is a scanned version which doesn't
6 reproduce the colour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a scanned version that is ...
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. KAY: As to that, I'm unsure. But we will serve another
10 electronic version -- on the Court. But ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we would like to have -- apparently, this
12 report has been produced under some kind of Word programme or whatever it
14 MR. KAY: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And then you can make it an image by scanning it.
16 And then of course we also have an electronic version but of a different
17 kind compared to the original version which is the version in which you
18 can change letters, if you want to, I'm not suggesting that even, but
19 that's a version in which you can work. Whereas, a scanned version is
20 just a series of, I would say, photographs, of pages, which cannot be
21 worked on anymore, unless you apply OCR, which is optical character
22 recognition and then get it back from a picture, from an image, to a text
23 or a file which contains text, and, for example portions of databases or
24 whatever. And what the Chamber would like to have is a version of the
25 report not as an image but as it was produced.
1 MR. KAY: I understand, Your Honour, yes, we can go to the
2 database and get you that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
4 I have to apologise for taking far too much time and also not
5 considering that we needed a break.
6 Mr. Feldi, there are no further questions for you. I would like
7 to thank you for coming to The Hague
8 that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a
9 safe journey home again. Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for hearing
11 me out, and I wish you success in your future work.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that, Mr. Feldi.
13 Madam Usher, could you escort Mr. Feldi out of the courtroom.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE ORIE: There are a few procedural matters which we cannot
16 deal with now which would take me approximately five to -- well, I would
17 say ten minutes to deal with. That means that the time remaining would
18 be 25 minutes.
19 Mr. Kay, in view of the testimony of Mr. Feldi, which was
20 introduced, his expert report was introduced in a very quick way, I take
21 it that it would make sense to have the next witness to appear, even if
22 is only for 25 minutes.
23 MR. KAY: Absolutely, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Thank you. We will have a break, and we will resume at ten
1 minutes past 1.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.49 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.14 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to briefly go into private session.
5 [Private session]
11 Page 22030 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly apparently left. We are still waiting
22 to hear --
23 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry for the interruption, Your Honour, we're
24 back in open session.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Sorry for being too impatient, Mr. Registrar.
1 We are -- no.
2 Mr. Hedaraly tendered 65 ter 7395. And Mr. Kehoe, although the
3 -- said, as it reads on the transcript that, If he could just have a
4 diplomat, I took it to be a minute, but we are still waiting for your
5 response to the tendering of 65 ter --
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- 7395.
8 MR. KEHOE: My objection to that document - I'd looked back - was
9 based on my objection to some other documents which came into evidence,
10 so we withdraw our objection concerning that document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, could a number be assigned to
12 65 ter 7395, tendered by the Prosecution.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2634.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 Then, finally, as the parties may remember, I stopped halfway in
16 a decision on the admission of 11 witness statements, pursuant to Rule 92
17 bis because it seems that there was a confusing text for me at that time.
18 I now return, then, to the Chamber's decision on part of the
19 Gotovina Defence's motion for admission of 11 witness statements,
20 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
21 When reading out its decision, the Chamber indicated that it
22 would come back to discuss the dates on which the exhibit numbers were
23 assigned to the witness statements. This discussion can be found on
24 transcript pages 21.783 through 21.786, and the Chamber would now like to
25 clarify the dates on which the statements and corresponding exhibit
1 numbers were given.
2 The Registrar has informally told the Chamber that the
3 attestations for each of the seven 92 bis statements will be added to the
4 exhibit numbers previously assigned to each of these statements. And the
5 following statements were assigned exhibit numbers in court, on the 16th
6 of May, 2009; the statement of Davor Perisa given on the 9th May 2008 was
7 assigned exhibit number D195; the statement of Boris Filipovic given on
8 the 9th May 2008
9 Srecko Grubisic given on the 8th of May 2008 was assigned exhibit number
10 D198; the statement of Jordan Tudic given on the 8th of May 2008, was
11 assigned exhibit number D199; and the statement of Josip Elez given on
12 the 8th of May 2008, was assigned exhibit number D202.
13 The following statements were assigned exhibit numbers in court
14 on 19th May, 2009
15 May 2008, was assigned exhibit number D206; the statement of Tihomir Mis
16 given on the 18th of May 2008, was assigned exhibit number D207; and
17 accordingly, as already stated on the record, D195, D196, D198, D199,
18 D202, D206, and D207 were admitted into evidence. And this concludes the
19 Chamber's clarification on this matter.
20 Mr. Kay, are you ready to call your next witness, which I
21 understand will be Mr. Kovacevic?
22 MR. KAY: I am, Your Honour. There is just one matter.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. KAY: The matters Your Honour raised just before the short
25 adjournment. You have been given this in an OCR'd format, which is
1 searchable. That is how the Cermak Defence supplied the English version
2 of this document to the Trial Chamber. So you have a searchable
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is not only my concern about whether it
5 would be searchable or not; it was just an explanation. What the Chamber
6 sought was to receive the document as it was produced.
7 Now, if you produce a document, you then scan it. With OCR you
8 can make it a searchable document again. Even some of the scanned
9 documents are searchable. It is not whether it is searchable or not but
10 is about how it was produced, which interested the Chamber most. If you
11 please consider that within your team.
12 MR. KAY: Your Honour understands that it's a Croatian language
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. KAY: Fine. That was my --
16 JUDGE ORIE: No problem with that.
17 MR. KAY: I was concerned with other matters whether -- and I
18 knew I had given instructions that these reports could be searchable to
19 assist everybody, and that was that. But the document produced by
20 General Feldi is in the Croatian language.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we understood that he had type-written
22 himself, I take it, through a word processor, the text.
23 MR. KAY: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And as he told us he included or inserted in his
25 text the copy of the diagrams he had given in hard copy, which were then
1 stored in an electronic database and of which he had never received an
2 electronic copy of the Main Staff and which was then inserted in his
4 That is what, in brief, the matter which the Chamber is
5 interested in.
6 MR. KAY: Yes. We will endeavour to produce that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Then, Madam Usher, could you escort the next witness into the
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Kovacevic. Before you give
13 evidence, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a
14 solemn declaration, that you speak the truth, the whole truth, and
15 nothing but the truth.
16 Mr. Kovacevic, the text will now be handed out to you. Could I
17 invite to you make at that solemn declaration.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I solemnly
19 declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated,
22 Mr. Kovacevic.
23 I noticed that you have brought a large bag with -- I take it, is
24 full of documents. If you would want to consult them, would you please
25 address the Court so that we are aware that are you consulting any of
1 these documents and whether, looking at the bag, this goes to weight or
2 to admissibility, is, looking at the bag, weight certainly will be
4 You will first be examined by Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay is counsel for
5 Mr. Cermak.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
7 WITNESS: PERO KOVACEVIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Kay:
10 Q. Is your name Pero Kovacevic?
11 A. Yes, my name is Pero Kovacevic.
12 Q. And were you instructed to me to produce an expert witness report
13 in this case?
14 A. Yes. You instructed me to put together an expert report.
15 MR. KAY: May the Court produce 65 ter 2D00-734 for
16 identification, please.
17 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, on the screen in front of you, you will see in
18 your own language, as well as the English language, the front page of an
19 expert report by you.
20 Can you see that?
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 Q. And can you confirm that you handed that report over to me for
23 filing in this case as an expert witness report?
24 A. I can.
25 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may the expert witness report of
1 Mr. Kovacevic be made an exhibit, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
3 MR. RUSSO: Mr. President, I would ask for permission to reserve
4 our position until after the Prosecution has an opportunity to cross on
5 transparency and methodology.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become exhibit number
9 D1676, marked for identification.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do the other Defence teams already want to
11 express their position in relation to this report?
12 Mr. Mikulicic.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: I have no remarks on that report, so -- as it
14 concerns to me --
15 JUDGE ORIE: So admission is not a problem for you.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: We have no objection, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the record. The Chamber will decide
20 at the appropriate time.
21 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. There is also a corrigendum to the document with five
24 MR. KAY: Could 65 ter 2D00-745 be put onto the screen, please.
25 Q. This is a document in the English language.
1 Mr. Kovacevic, do you speak English and read English?
2 A. Not to the extent which would enable me to read it.
3 Q. Thank you. You'll notice a number of details on this piece of
4 paper, and they concern corrections to your report. Do you confirm that
5 you submitted to us a series of corrections of a minor nature to your
6 report to enable it to be more accurate?
7 A. Yes, I can confirm that. More or less, these were just
8 typographical errors.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. KAY: Your Honour, might this be marked for identification
11 following the previous submission for the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and its fate depends on the previous -- on the
13 expert report itself.
14 Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become exhibit number
16 D1677, marked for identification.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I am informed, just for references which I
19 should point out now, that in the English language version there has been
20 a typographical error. At page 43, 3.2.97, and missing is the two words
21 "active duty," where there is the typescript of military person. The
22 Croatian has the original Croatian language of Mr. Kovacevic, with the
23 phrase for "active duty." It's been missed off on the translation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay. Please proceed.
25 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. And I hope that's clear.
1 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, do you confirm the contents of your expert opinion
2 report as submitted to this Court?
3 A. Yes, I do confirm the contents of my expert report.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. KAY: In those circumstances, Your Honour, I have no further
6 questions to ask of ask. Mr. Kovacevic is available for
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
9 Mr. Misetic.
10 MR. MISETIC: I have a few questions for the witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: A few questions. We have seven minutes left. Do
12 you think we could deal with them or?
13 MR. MISETIC: It's possible.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's give it a try.
15 Mr. Kovacevic you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic.
16 Mr. Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kovacevic.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. If I could draw your attention to paragraph 3.2.8 of your report.
23 In that section you stated that:
24 "Military persons shall continue to be responsible for
25 disciplinary violations committed during their service in the armed
1 forces of the Republic of Croatia
2 In your opinion, does that provision also apply to persons who
3 had been mobilized into the HV and then had been demobilized?
4 A. This provision could also be applied in the cases of all those
5 COs and NCOs who had been mobilized into the armed forces and committed
6 disciplinary violations.
7 After having been demobilized, they could be subjected to
8 disciplinary proceedings with different results, such as staggered
9 promotion, and other consequences.
10 Q. What about mobilized persons who were not mobilized COs and NCOs?
11 A. Our situation was rather peculiar, because we had a reserve force
12 which had been mobilized, and was in active duty. They were a
13 constituent part of the armed forces. There was the obligatory military
14 term of those conscripts who had to serve that term, and they were
15 mobilized during the period of an immediate threat to the stability and
16 unity of the state. It was necessary to increase the discipline and
17 reputation of the armed forces. But first and foremost, we were trying
18 to focus on the active duty personnel. If the active duty personnel is
19 well disciplined, that is a guarantee that the reserve force during their
20 service with the armed forces would be respected.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I got the impression from Mr. Misetic's question
22 that he would like to know what would happen if a -- not a commissioned
23 -- or a non-commissioned officer but another serviceman would be
24 demobilized and whether this provision would still apply, rather than to
25 know the background and ...
1 Could you answer that question.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be used only seldom in
3 that case. Because these were reserve soldiers against which one cannot
4 initiate a disciplinary procedure when they have committed an offence,
5 only disciplinary procedure in cases of breaches or violations of
6 discipline could be instituted.
7 MR. MISETIC:
8 Q. That leads me to my next question, Mr. Kovacevic. With respect
9 to a member of the HV who was mobilized into the HV, under your
10 understanding of the rules, could a mobilized member of the HV be brought
11 before the military disciplinary court due to a major disciplinary
13 A. He could in cases of COs and NCOs, but that had to be established
14 through a separate procedure. I don't know whether you need me to
15 explain what the procedure was, once it was learned that a disciplinary
16 violation was committed.
17 Q. Time is sort, so let me see if I can finish today.
18 A. [In English] Okay.
19 Q. My question specifically -- let's exclude COs -- commissioned
20 officers and non-commissioned officers in mobilized units. In terms of
21 an ordinary mobilized soldier, if he commits a major disciplinary
22 violation, would he be brought before the military disciplinary court?
23 A. [Interpretation] No. According to the code of discipline, a
24 mobilized soldier could not. He could only be held responsible for his
25 disciplinary violations, which are minor breaches of discipline, not in
1 cases of offences or major violations, as you termed them.
2 Q. What happens to a mobilized soldier who committed what would
3 amount to a major disciplinary breach? Was there a practice of what
4 would happen to them?
5 A. If we are talking about a soldier and there was a serious
6 violation, and pronouncing a disciplinary measure, be it detention or
7 other measure, detention being the most serious disciplinary measure, it
8 -- if that is impossible, in such cases that person would be demobilized.
9 If, other hand, that soldier was on active duty, then he would be
10 suspended, provided that proceedings were instituted against him in case
11 he had committed an offence, a crime.
12 Q. Just to be clear, when you say that person was active duty, do
13 you mean a professional soldier?
14 A. Yes. We have the active or professional side of the armed forces
15 and the reserve.
16 Q. And I have one final question, Mr. President.
17 If we could go to section 5.1.7 of your report. You talk about
18 the military police. And by way of background, you indicate that the
19 1994 rules removed from subordination to the Main Staff, Military
20 District commands and units of the Croatian Army, the military police.
21 In other words, if I can restate that, the 1994 rules removed the
22 military police from the commands of the Main Staff, Military Districts,
23 and units of the Croatian Army.
24 Can you briefly tell us why that decision was taken, to remove
25 military police units from the command of the army?
1 A. We're talking about amendments to the defence law from 1993. The
2 military police was taken from the commands of the armed forces, and the
3 military police was placed under the Ministry of Defence, and I can tell
4 you later on how this was done.
5 There were several reasons for the decision. The first reason
6 was to increase military discipline and protect reputation, and we wanted
7 to have an independent opinion of the military police that would not be
8 part of the military forces, part of the units, but an outsider. That's
9 how we wanted to prevent breaches of discipline.
10 We followed a German model. The military police was part of the
11 Ministry of Defence, and in Article 151 or 152 of the defence law, which
12 was amended, provides for its specific role with regard to the military
13 forces. The law, as I said, was amended in 1993.
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I note the time. I may have one or
15 more questions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then you have an opportunity. But I'm at risk
17 to be disciplined if I stay any longer in this court, Mr. Misetic.
18 Mr. Kovacevic, it was only very brief today. That will be
19 different tomorrow. We'd like to see you back at 9.00 tomorrow morning
20 in the same courtroom. And I want to instruct you that you should not
21 speak about the testimony whether the small portion of evidence given
22 today or what will follow in the days to come. So, therefore, would you
23 please keep that in your mind.
24 We adjourn, and we will resume tomorrow, Friday, the 25th of
25 September, 9.00, Courtroom III
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 25th day of
3 September, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.