1 Monday, 28 September 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in 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 Although there are a few leftovers from the MFI list of last
12 week, I think we'd better start with the witness now and see whether we
13 can deal with those leftovers later.
14 Mr. Kay, is the Cermak Defence ready to call its next witness?
15 MR. KAY: It is, Your Honour. And thank you for the indication
16 concerning the housekeeping matters.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. KAY: Could we call Mr. Radin, please.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Radin. Before you give evidence,
21 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn
22 declaration. I see that the text has already been handed out to you.
23 May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
25 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Radin. Please be seated.
2 You will first be examined by Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay is counsel for
3 Mr. Cermak.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
5 MR. KAY: Thank you.
6 WITNESS: GORDAN RADIN
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Examination by Mr. Kay:
9 Q. Mr. Radin, just to make things clear, you speak English, don't
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. But you would prefer to give your evidence in your own language;
13 is that right?
14 A. That is correct as well.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. KAY: And with Your Honours' leave.
17 Q. Mr. Radin, could you look at a document that will be put in front
18 of you on the screen there, 2D00718. On the right-hand screen.
19 A. I can see the document.
20 Q. Yes. Can you see a document there in your own language?
21 A. Yes, I can. I think this is the Croatian version.
22 Q. Thank you. And is this document signed by you?
23 A. Yes, it is. I signed it.
24 Q. And did you sign the end of the document and the pages in
1 A. Yes, I did. I signed the document at the end, and I believe I
2 initialed all of the pages between the first and last.
3 Q. Thank you. Is the information in that document, to the best of
4 your knowledge and belief, true and correct?
5 A. Yes, it is. Reading the document subsequently, I found a
6 typographical error. There was a simple mistake in letter pertaining to
7 Ms. Skare Ozbolt, who was the then Assistant Minister, as well as
8 Mr. Sarinic, who was not the chef de cabinet in 1995 but sometime
9 previous to that. It must have been in early 1995 that he was appointed
10 chef de cabinet.
11 In essence, the meaning of the sentence does not change.
12 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the only two
14 corrections --
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- to slow down because you develop a speed of
16 speech which the interpreters and transcriber could not follow.
17 MR. KAY:
18 Q. Thank you. I think what you're referring to is the information
19 contained within paragraph -- I thought 15 but I might be wrong about
20 that. Paragraph 7.
21 MR. KAY: Perhaps if we could turn to the second page -- third
22 page of the statement where paragraph 7 is to be found.
23 Oh, the next page - my apologies - in the Croatian.
24 Q. Is this the paragraph you were referring to, Mr. Radin, in
25 relation to which you said there was a typographical error concerning
1 Mrs. Skare Ozbolt?
2 A. Yes. In line 13. It says in Croatian "pomicnica." The
3 correction version is "pomocnica."
4 In any case, it is just a typographical error.
5 MR. KAY: I hope that that clears matters up. With Your Honour's
6 leave, is the Court satisfied with that explanation?
7 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that if it's just a typographical error
8 that it has no impact on the translation.
9 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
11 MR. HEDARALY: -- just -- not on this issue, but I note that the
12 version that I see on the screen seems to be different from the one that
13 was filed, in that there was a typographical error or, rather, an error
14 at the beginning of paragraph 6 where it says on the document on the
15 screen: "In July 1995." What was filed at page 26483 of the written
16 record is: "In September 1995." I had flagged that because it obviously
17 is a mistake from the context, but I'm just wondering if there were any
18 other changes that were made to this document when it was uploaded that
19 would be different from the version we received in the 92 ter filing from
20 the Cermak Defence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, it looks that the uploaded document is
22 not -- the beginning of paragraph 6 is not the same as the one that was
24 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I can see "In July 1995" at the start of
25 paragraph 6.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The version filed started, "In
2 September 1995," which comes as a bit of a surprise, as a matter of fact,
3 but -- so, therefore, July seems to a bit more logical but the filed
4 version says, "In September 1995."
5 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour, there was that alteration which I
6 believe took place in the English language version which was noted as
7 being a typographical error, and that correction was -- was made. I hope
8 that that explains matters. I'm told that that was the only
9 typographical error that was noticed.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then this is now clearly on the record. Then I take
11 it that the uploaded version will be the one -- the correct one.
12 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Radin, if I were to ask you those questions that you were
14 asked when you made this statement, would you give the same answers today
15 as you gave when you were asked the questions originally?
16 A. Yes, in entirety.
17 MR. KAY: In those circumstances, Your Honour, I move that this
18 document be made an exhibit.
19 MR. HEDARALY: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1678.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I have no further questions --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
25 MR. KAY: Sorry. I have no further questions to ask Mr. Radin,
1 but in according with the practice, I will give a brief summary of the
2 essence of his statement for the record and for those who are listening.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
4 MR. KAY: On the 30th of January, 1995, Mr. Radin was appointed
5 as the chef de cabinet of the president of the Republic of Croatia
6 remained in that position until the 30th of January 2000.
7 At that time in 1995, Mr. Sarinic was the head of the president's
8 office. As the chef de cabinet for the president, Mr. Radin was in
9 charge of the organisational unit in the office of the president. As the
10 president's chef de cabinet, he was formally subordinated to the head of
11 the office, Mr. Sarinic, and he was his immediate superior manager, in
12 terms of organisation. But in carrying out his duties, Mr. Radin was
13 responsible to the president, President Tudjman. His office was located
14 next to the president's office.
15 As the chef de cabinet, he managed the secretaries, the
16 president's archives, and the recording and production of transcripts.
17 On the 1st of August, 1995, the office of the president called
18 Mr. Radin whilst he was on holiday and told him to go to work, not in
19 Brioni where the president happened to be at that time, but to Zagreb
20 After that conversation, he immediately travelled to Zagreb.
21 On the next day, which was the 2nd of August, 1995,
22 President Tudjman returned from Brioni to Zagreb, and he ordered
23 Mr. Radin to start preparing a reserve location in a place called
24 Tuskanac, a separate place from the presidential palace, and it was from
25 there that the office had to relocate and was located at the time when
1 Operation Oluja was launched.
2 On the 4th of August, at about 5.00 in the morning, Mr. Radin
3 moved with the president to Tuskanac. During the course of the day, the
4 president received various operational reports on the progress of the
5 operation from Minister Susak. At some point on the 4th of August, the
6 president asked Mr. Radin to find Ivan Cermak. He said he would like to
7 send Mr. Cermak as civilian commander of Knin town immediately after the
8 liberation. As far as Mr. Radin can recall today, he asked the president
9 what a civilian commander meant, and he told him that it would be a
10 military person, tasked with establishing normal civilian life as soon as
11 possible and collaborating with civilian authorities in that process.
12 Mr. Radin says that he, in collaboration with the military
13 office, could not find legal grounds for appointing Mr. Cermak as a
14 civilian manager. He contacted the president's military office, asking
15 them to find an appropriate establishment position. The military office
16 drafted and sent for the president's signature, the decree on the
17 appointment of Mr. Cermak as commander of the Knin garrison.
18 On the next day, the 5th of August, Mr. Cermak was found, and he
19 went to Tuskanac.
20 According to Mr. Radin's knowledge, as garrison commander,
21 Mr. Cermak did not have authority to command the civilian police. The
22 appointment of Mr. Cermak was not that kind that would give him such
23 authority. The military appointment of Mr. Cermak was within the regular
24 military establishment, and in the context of the specific situation, it
25 was also to cover specific civilian requirements. And Mr. Radin also
1 describes that finding a formal way of appointing Mr. Cermak was a great
2 problem, because of the lack of position within the establishment
3 structure, and they had requested guidance and explanation from the
4 president in relation to the task.
5 Your Honour, that concludes my summary of the statement of
6 Mr. Radin, and, as I have already informed the Court, I have no further
7 questions to clarify matters.
8 Q. Please wait there, Mr. Radin.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
10 Mr. Kehoe, will it be you who will cross-examine Mr. Radin.
11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, very briefly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radin, you will be cross-examined by Mr. Kehoe.
13 Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
14 You may proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radin. Mr. Radin, I would like to ask to
18 you just --
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. I would like to ask you a couple of clarifying questions from
21 your statement. And if we go to paragraph 17 of your statement.
22 MR. KEHOE: If we could bring D1678 back up on the screen.
23 Q. And, Mr. Radin, in this section of your statement you were
24 talking about crimes that were occurring in the Krajina after
25 Operation Storm. And if I can highlight one sentence in paragraph 17,
1 you note that -- after talking about arson and other unfortunate
2 incidents you note, and I quote:
3 "International pressure on Croatia was growing because of these
4 unfortunate incidents."
5 Mr. Radin, as a chef de cabinet, was President Tudjman and the
6 other leaders in the Republic of Croatia
7 the international community?
8 A. I think it was a sensitive time, because such international
9 pressures could be felt in the various statements of state officials and
10 in the contacts that Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Sarinic had in the course of
11 performing their duties in meeting with, be it the ambassadors of foreign
12 states in Croatia
13 Q. Well, just let me take -- maybe "sensitive" is the wrong word.
14 Were they concerned about criticism by the international community?
15 A. There were concerns because the international pressure was
16 something that caused a position for Croatia in the international
17 community which was not a favourable one. Any person working on a state
18 policy needs to be concerned by that, because what always needs to be
19 taken into account is the view of those who are considered friends of
21 Q. Let's talk very indirectly if we may, Mr. Radin, about
22 individuals, as opposed to just individuals in the government generally.
23 Was President Tudjman concerned that Croatia was going to be
24 criticised by the international community because of the crimes that had
25 been taking place in the Krajina after Operation Storm?
1 A. According to my knowledge as the chef de cabinet, Mr. Tudjman was
2 concerned. And after each such a meeting or assessment, he would be in a
3 way angered by such developments. Namely, every morning, we had regular
4 briefings, discussing the latest news about Croatia in the Croatian press
5 and in international reports. That is to say, the reports of the various
6 press agencies, such as the AP or Reuters and others.
7 Every morning, I attended this so-called press briefing, or
8 briefing for journalists, when the presidential spokesperson would inform
9 or brief us about the latest reports concerning Croatia.
10 Q. Well, when these criminal -- when these reports were being
11 relayed to President Tudjman and the rest of the members of the
12 government about crimes that the press had observed in the Krajina, did
13 President Tudjman want those crimes stopped?
14 A. It was my understanding that the president wanted to see that
15 stop, and that such events were rubbing the wrong way. Given my position
16 at the time, as the chef de cabinet, I wasn't privy to all of the
17 political discussions the president held with the various officials from
18 his office, as well as governmental representatives, and I don't know
19 what measures and occasions they discussed.
20 I do know, however, and I am positive that such events irritated
22 Q. Well, sir, as the chef de cabinet, I mean, you note - excuse me -
23 in paragraph 18, and when you're talking about a plan to expel Serbs, you
24 note, about halfway down:
25 "Had there been such a plan I would have known about it, given
1 the position I held at the time."
2 Do you see that, sir?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And if there had been a plan to permit this crime to take place,
5 you would have known that as well, wouldn't you?
6 A. I believe that I would have known about that. I spent a lot of
7 time in the office, a number of hours every day, seven days a week, and
8 it's very hard for me to believe that such a major plan, a significant
9 plan that would have involved a lot of people, would have been adopted or
10 passed without me knowing -- not knowing about it, living next door to
11 the president's office, seven days a week.
12 Q. In the bottom portion of paragraph 18, Mr. Radin, you note that
14 "But I know that the RH government, i.e., its ministries, tried
15 to normalise the situation in that area by issuing orders on crime
16 prevention ..."
17 Who issued those orders, which ministries issued those orders?
18 A. I don't know exactly which ministry that was. However, being
19 familiar with the organisation of the government at the time, I would
20 assume that it was the Ministry of Defence that issued orders within its
21 remit. The Ministry of the Interior obviously worked within its purview,
22 and the government, as the umbrella body charged with the executive
23 power, coordinated all of the activities; whereas the tasks of local
24 administration that were carried out by the municipalities were performed
25 by government commissioners and for Knin that was Mr. Petar Pasic.
1 Q. Well, with regard to the issuing of orders on crime prevention,
2 did you ever hear President Tudjman oppose any minister or any ministry
3 giving orders to prevent crime? Did you ever hear President Tudjman
4 oppose such an order to prevent crime?
5 A. No. I never heard President Tudjman opposing any such order. On
6 the contrary, President Tudjman never got directly involved with the work
7 of the government. On several occasions, he presided over the sessions
8 of the government but he never meddled with its decisions or with the
9 documents the government passed.
10 Q. Mr. Radin, thank you very much.
11 MR. KEHOE: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
13 Mr. Mikulicic.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: No questions for the witness, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No questions for the witness, which means,
16 Mr. Radin, that you will now be cross-examined by the Prosecution. It is
17 Mr. Hedaraly, counsel for the Prosecution, who will cross-examine you.
18 Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.
19 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Hedaraly:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radin.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. Do you have a hard copy of your statement with you in your
25 A. I have it in the back room. I don't have anything on me. If you
1 wish me to do so, I can go --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think there must be a hard copy somewhere around
3 which could be made available.
4 MR. HEDARALY: It's okay. We'll refer to it at some point but
5 not right away, so I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Otherwise, you will have on it on your screen
7 anyhow, Mr. Radin. There's no need to leave the courtroom at this
8 moment, and if there would be a spare copy somewhere and then preferably
9 the one with July rather than September.
10 MR. KAY: It -- that's the English one rather than the Croatian.
11 I believe the witness will want the Croatian.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the -- the Croatian one is about July, yes,
13 that's "srpanj."
14 MR. KAY: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have it in my red
17 binder. Maybe somebody can fetch that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: There is a copy for you --
19 MR. KAY: We will -- we will print one, Your Honour, and it will
20 be clean.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you will receive one, Mr. Radin. Don't worry.
22 Mr. Hedaraly.
23 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Mr. Radin, have you followed any of the proceedings in this case
25 up to now?
1 A. To be honest, not too much. I'm now involved in something else.
2 As far as I could read in the daily press, I did, but I wouldn't say that
3 was too much on -- on the whole.
4 Q. Have you reviewed any of the filings in this case? For example,
5 the Prosecution's indictment, or its pre-trial brief, or any other
7 A. I read the indictment. I did not read the OTP's pre-trial brief.
8 Q. And I think you just mentioned that your knowledge of the
9 proceedings, the trial, was largely based on media reports that you would
10 review; was that correct?
11 A. You asked me whether I followed the proceedings. I said that I
12 didn't, that all I know is through media reports. And when you asked me
13 whether I saw any of the documents pertaining to this trial, and the
14 Prosecutor mentioned some of them, I said very clearly that I read the
15 indictment, and that I did not read the other document that the
16 Prosecutor mentioned, the pre-trial brief.
17 Q. I understand, Mr. Radin. Maybe there's a misunderstanding.
18 Perhaps I have asked the question in a not very precise way.
19 My question was regarding your knowledge of the trial, not the
20 indictment but the actual proceedings. That is largely based on media
21 reports that you reviewed. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, for the most part. I read the indictment and I also spoke
23 to Mr. Cermak's Defence team when I provided my statement. That would be
25 Q. In paragraph 18 of your statement, you state your understanding
1 of the Prosecution's position on a few matters.
2 What is that basis -- what is your basis for that understanding?
3 A. Paragraph 18 was created as a result of my conversation with
4 General Cermak's Defence team. When they asked me whether I would
5 testify, since I am a legal professional by trade, I wanted to be
6 informed about the framework of the proceedings and the scope of the
7 indictment. And during the first conversation I was told that there was
8 an indictment, although I had already read in the media about the general
9 outlines of it, but that was the first time when I got privy to the
10 entire indictment and read it from the beginning to the end. And that
11 would be all I -- I actually know about the trial.
12 Q. I just want to -- to clarify that last answer to make sure I
14 So you read the indictment recently, after having met with the
15 Defence team for General Cermak? Have I understood that correctly?
16 A. Yes. Well, that wasn't so recently. I believe that it was in
17 the month of April.
18 Q. And when you state your understanding of the Prosecution's
19 position, you've indicated that that was based on your conversation with
20 General Cermak's Defence team.
21 So are the details of the Prosecution's position, as you have
22 indicated in your statement, based on conversations you had with the
23 Defence team of General Cermak?
24 A. What I was told briefly by General Cermak's Defence team was
25 later confirmed when I read the indictment. I have the indictment,
1 together with my statement in the back room. I tried to get very well
2 informed and learn about the indictment. To be absolutely clear, I sat
3 down with Mr. Kay and he gave me the major -- the biggest -- the most
4 important outlines of the indictment within the scope of three minutes,
5 and then I read the indictment very carefully, and I provided my answer
6 contained in paragraph 18, as can you read it today.
7 Q. So you read the indictment -- so just to understand, you met with
8 Mr. Kay, you read the indictment, and only after that, you prepared your
9 statement? Is that the accurate chain of events?
10 A. Yes, that would be the accurate chain of events, yes.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radin.
12 I just want to briefly touch upon your -- a topic that has been
13 briefly mentioned here, and your relationship with President Tudjman or
14 at least your professional relationship with President Tudjman.
15 Would it be fair to say that although President Tudjman relied on
16 his close collaborators to advise him, he would be the ultimate
17 decision-maker in terms of important or key, strategic decisions?
18 A. President Tudjman made key, strategic decisions, as he should
19 have, according to the constitution. He did have counsel, advisory body,
20 VONS, the Presidential Council. He very often discussed matters with his
21 collaborators. However, when it came to the matters that the president
22 should be in charge of, he was the chief decision-maker.
23 Q. Thank you. And would it also be fair to say that his decisions
24 were final? And I mean that once he made a decision, no one would really
25 argue with him.
1 Is that a fair statement?
2 A. I believe this you can't really put it that way. Because there
3 were decisions that -- that he changed. He would change his opinion
4 before the implementation of the decision started. There were decisions
5 that were changed after the beginning of the implementation if the
6 government or -- and somebody else reported to him about problems with
7 the implementation of a specific decision.
8 Q. Thank you for that answer, Mr. Radin.
9 I just want to move now to the main topic in your statement,
10 which is the appointment of General Cermak.
11 And in your statement, at paragraph 8, you said that
12 President Tudjman told you that he wanted to send Mr. Cermak to Knin as a
13 "civilian commander," and you then asked President Tudjman what that
15 Mr. Radin, am I correct in saying that the reason you sought
16 clarification from the president is that the term "civilian commander"
17 did not make much sense to you at the time?
18 A. Not only because of that. Military duties and the preparation of
19 military documents in President Tudjman's office was what the military
20 office did. I was the chef de cabinet in charge of civilian duties, as
21 it were. I did not have enough knowledge or experience within the
22 military system to be able to immediately assess whether what the
23 president was saying had any legal grounding or not. I was also
24 surprised by the fact that he mentioned Mr. Cermak's name. That's why I
25 asked him for a clarification. I wanted to be absolutely sure what the
1 president's intention was before further discussions ensued with the
2 military cabinet.
3 Q. But even as a non-military person, the expression "civilian
4 commander" was confusing to you; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, in a certain way.
6 I can -- if ... maybe can I clarify.
7 All decisions on appointment which were prepared by the military
8 cabinet would have to go through the civilian cabinet and finally would
9 reach president for signature. These decisions enabled me to see the
10 structure and the organisation and what appointments were within the
11 president's authority. And that was my source of knowledge of the
12 military system and organisation, and that's what I based my decisions on
13 as to what was normal and what was some -- somewhat unusual.
14 Q. And, Mr. Radin, if I pause sometimes after your answer it's just
15 because I'm getting the full interpretation, so that's why it takes some
17 Now, the response you got from President Tudjman, according to
18 your statement, is that that would be a military person tasked with
19 establishing normal civilian life as soon as possible and collaborating
20 with the civilian authorities in that process.
21 So, Mr. Radin, for President Tudjman, it was important that this
22 task be given to a military person; correct?
23 A. I believe so. The president paid a lot of attention to the
24 military system. He understood that the situation in Knin was difficult,
25 that the military operation at that moment was drawing to an end, and he
1 wanted to appoint a person in uniform. However, the most important thing
2 was to establish normal life in the shortest possible life [as
3 interpreted]. He wanted the area to have electricity, water, and
4 everything else that a normal civilian life entails.
5 A uniformed person, and I'm talking about my assumptions here,
6 was somebody who would have been aware of the situation on the ground,
7 and he also knew that somebody who wore a uniform and had a high rank
8 would find it much easier to deal with the tasks that he intended to
9 assign to such a person. And that's why I believe the fact that that
10 person wore a uniform seemed so very important to -- to him.
11 Q. Thank you. And, in fact, the position of garrison commander is a
12 military position; correct?
13 A. Yes, it is a military position. The position of a -- of garrison
14 commander is a military position.
15 Q. Now, in paragraph 10 of your statement, you state that there was
16 no real position for Mr. Cermak within the establishment structure, and
17 that later on, that is why he was appointed as a garrison commander.
18 Do you recall that -- making that statement?
19 A. I recall that, and if you will allow me, I would like to explain
20 the chain of events.
21 On the 4th, the president asked --
22 Q. Mr. Radin, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Your statement is in
23 evidence so you've explained it there. If you want to add something that
24 is not in your statement, then are you welcome to do so, but there is no
25 need to just repeat what is there. I know have you explained it there,
1 and I will you my question. If you feel a need to go back to your
2 explanation, of course, you can free to do so.
3 Is that -- is that okay?
4 A. I apologise, I understand and I would kindly ask to you repeat
5 your question, please.
6 Q. I haven't asked you my question yet but I will -- I will now.
7 Let me first show you on the screen 65 ter 2D00-0627. And what
8 will you see on the screen, Mr. Radin, is a decision from
9 President Tudjman on the basis and organisation of the Ministry of
11 MR. HEDARALY: And if we go to the second page of that document.
12 Q. You will see a number of positions created.
13 Now, I don't want to go through these in detail. But if I could
14 just move to the last page of the document to show that you the date of
15 that decision is November 1991. Now if we can move in the English back
16 to the previous page and stay on the same page in the B/C/S version, you
17 can see the item under Roman numeral XVII which says:
18 "Other administrations and departments may be formed for the
19 needs of war or in exceptional circumstances?"
20 My question for you, Mr. Radin, is: In light of this,
21 President Tudjman could created a special administration or department
22 for Mr. Cermak in Knin; isn't that correct?
23 A. I would like to be able to answer your question. However, I'm
24 not very well versed in the military system and organisation. I don't
25 think I ever saw this document. If I did, it was a long time ago. And
1 it would be very difficult for me to provide any explanation based on
2 just one excerpt or one provision of a decree. So with all due respect,
3 I hope you won't mind me saying that I'm not able to answer your
5 Q. Not at all, Mr. Radin. Thank you for -- thank you for that
7 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, if I could tender 65 ter 2D00-0627
8 into evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
10 Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will becomes Exhibit P2639.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. And the document is
13 admitted into evidence.
14 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Radin, you were not present at the meeting between Mr. Cermak
16 and President Tudjman on 5 August at Tuskanac; is that correct?
17 A. No.
18 Q. No, you were not present; or no, that is not correct?
19 A. I was not present at the meeting. I was in the building where
20 the meeting took place, but I was not at the meeting itself.
21 Q. And it is because it was at Tuskanac and not in the presidential
22 palace at Pantovcak that this meeting was not taped; is that also right?
23 A. I suppose this is correct, because all the preparations for
24 Tuskanac were done in a bit of a haste, and I suppose that recording had
25 not been provided for -- for that reason.
1 Q. And you referred also to a VONS meeting on 5 August 1995 at
2 paragraph 13 of your statement. And would it be fair to say that that
3 meeting was also not taped for the same reason?
4 A. Yes. However, that VONS session was a ceremonious one more than
5 anything else because it was held to celebrate the liberation of Knin.
6 Q. Now going back to Mr. Cermak's role in Knin. Now some of the
7 functions given by President Tudjman to General Cermak went beyond those
8 of a regular garrison commander. Would you agree with that?
9 A. As far as I understood the president's intention, I would say
10 yes. This related to the civilian part of the tasks that had to do with
11 the putting in place conditions for a normal life.
12 Q. And, therefore, would it be fair to say that General Cermak,
13 after his appointment, had a dual role. On the one hand, he had the
14 military role as a garrison commander; but also had an additional role as
15 dealing with international organisations, including the United Nations.
16 Is that also correct?
17 A. Based on my conversation with the president, I did not understand
18 that his chief task was to be communication [as interpreted] with the
19 international organisations. The way I understood things was that
20 Mr. Cermak, as a very skillful businessperson, would be able to secure
21 normal conditions for life in that city. I don't know if Mr. Cermak
22 speaks any foreign language, and I'm sure that the president, if he
23 wanted somebody in that position to be also in charge of contacts with
24 internationals, would have sent to that position somebody with previous
25 diplomatic experience, somebody who spoke foreign languages, but that is
1 only my understanding of the whole situation, my assumption.
2 Q. Okay. Let me go back to my question and rephrase it, in light of
3 your -- of your comment.
4 So would you agree that General Cermak had a dual rule, on the
5 one hand, a military role as garrison commander; and, on the other hand,
6 a additional role dealing with normalisation of civilian life?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, you have stated, both in your statement and today, your
9 understanding of some of General Cermak's responsibilities in Knin. Was
10 one of these responsibilities also to keep order in the town?
11 A. I did not see Mr. Cermak's appointment in Knin as somebody who
12 would replace the normal system of state authorities and the functioning
13 of the bodies of state administration, which had been established, and
14 which were performing their duties.
15 The government's organisation was in place, and the appointment
16 of Mr. Cermak did not suspend that. The Knin garrison was a formal and
17 legal framework for Mr. Cermak to be sent to Knin in uniform, where he
18 would help the normalisation of civilian life in town. That was my
19 understanding of Mr. Cermak's appointment.
20 I am sure that Mr. Cermak was not professionally challenged by
21 that position, and he probably never -- I'm sure that he never wanted to
22 pursue his career in that sense. The way I understood things was that he
23 already had a well-established job and that his intention was not to be
24 reactivated as a career officer.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radin. You will agree with me that
1 President Tudjman and General Cermak had a better knowledge of
2 General Cermak's specific responsibilities than you do; correct?
3 A. I will agree. When Mr. Cermak was appointed the garrison
4 commander, in my view, legally speaking, he had the authority of such a
5 commander. No agreement between the president and Mr. Cermak could
6 endanger the normal functioning of the system of state authority in that
8 Q. Let me show you P1144. This is a recording -- a transcript of a
9 recording of a meeting that is dated 23 March 1999 between
10 President Tudjman and General Cermak.
11 MR. HEDARALY: And if we go to page 3 in the English and page 5
12 in the B/C/S, at the bottom there's a reference to the interview that
13 General Cermak gave to the Office of the Prosecutor. And General Cermak
14 is discussing his interviews -- his interview.
15 And if we turn the page in both the English and the B/C/S, the
16 first full paragraph at the top in the English, and in the B/C/S as well,
17 I believe, Mr. -- General Cermak says:
18 "They asked me about Knin and all those earlier stories. What
19 was my assignment in Knin. I told them my assignment was such and such,
20 cooperation, with the international community, infrastructure, return,
21 life, hospitals, this and that, et cetera."
22 Then the president, then, adds: "Keeping order."
23 General Cermak agrees: "Keeping order, preventing disorder, mine
24 clearance and so on."
25 Q. Now, Mr. Radin, will you agree with me that based on this, one of
1 the responsibilities of General Cermak in Knin was to keep order?
2 A. I think, and I will repeat what I already said in my previous
3 answer, no arrangement between General Cermak and President Tudjman could
4 change the existing legislative framework in Croatia. Therefore, when
5 General Cermak was appointed garrison commander, he undertook all of the
6 authorities, powers, and tasks of a garrison commander. The tasks of
7 keeping order could not be defined in a new way.
8 To clarify: By that arrangement and by that appointment of
9 Mr. Cermak as garrison commander, the regular authorities of other bodies
10 existing and functioning in that area did not change.
11 If we look at the discussion between President Tudjman and
12 Mr. Cermak, it brings me to only one conclusion and that is that the
13 legal and constitutional order was in place. The authority was defined
14 at the moment of appointment. Mr. Cermak could deal with other tasks.
15 However, the other bodies authorised to pursue specific tasks were not
16 relieved of that obligation.
17 Q. Mr. Radin, I'm not suggesting that the other bodies would be
18 relieved of that obligation. But if President Tudjman appointed Cermak
19 in a dual role, the one being the specific appointment as garrison
20 commander, and then all these other responsibilities that you have
21 indicated in your statement, and keeping order, as I have suggested, that
22 meant that that's what President Tudjman expected General Cermak to do.
23 Is that correct?
24 A. I would agree with you in full, given the precondition that that
25 stood in General Cermak's appointment. I must remind you, however, that
1 General Cermak was appointed only solely to the position of the Knin
2 garrison commander. As far as I know, although my knowledge may be
3 limited, General Cermak did not receive any other appointment from
4 President Tudjman for some other tasks in Knin, and he did not receive
5 any other appointments from the RH government to pursue certain tasks
6 which otherwise fall within the domain or competence of the government.
7 That is the extent of my knowledge.
8 Q. But, Mr. Radin, then the logical follow-up from your statement,
9 from what you're saying, is that if Mr. Cermak had not normalised life,
10 civilian life, and not performed any of the functions that
11 President Tudjman gave him that went beyond those of a normal garrison
12 commander, then President Tudjman would have no -- no remedy against him,
14 A. I don't know what you mean on -- by the term "legal remedy."
15 The only legal remedy would to be relieve the garrison commander
16 of his duties. But based on the fact that President Tudjman appointed
17 Mr. Cermak as the garrison commander, and he told me, Go down there to
18 Knin and help normalise the situation, that does not bring me to the
19 conclusion that General Cermak was given authority to establish order,
20 because, as far as I know, Mr. Cermak had no resources to do that. His
21 appointment as the garrison commander could not increase his scope of
22 authority, so as to include the police or anyone other. By virtue of
23 pursuing his duties beyond the scope of the authority for a garrison
24 commander is simply not possible. That could not be done under the law.
25 Q. I'm not going to belabour the point. I think -- I think -- I
1 think you understand what I'm putting to you and I think your answer is
2 clear in your response.
3 I just want to touch upon one more role that was -- that has been
4 discussed here as the responsibilities of General Cermak. And I believe
5 you just earlier stated that you were unaware about whether one of the
6 roles given to General Cermak was to communicate with the internationals,
7 and the UN in particular, and in your statement you also mentioned that.
8 I want to show you D296, which is another Presidential
9 transcript; this time it is dated 7 August 1995. It will come up on the
10 screen shortly.
11 And if we go to page 20 in the English, page 41 in the B/C/S.
12 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you.
13 Q. There's a decision, Mr. Radin, on this page about some problems
14 with the internationals, the Danes and the Canadians. And in the middle
15 of the page, President Tudjman says -- and I believe in the B/C/S it's
16 the last entry at the bottom:
17 "And another thing, tell them I appointed as commander of the
18 Knin garrison Colonel General Cermak, a former minister, a serious man to
19 solve these [sic] problems [sic]."
20 Now, Mr. Radin, will you agree that your belief or your
21 understanding as to the appointment of General Cermak to deal with the
22 internationals is at odds with what President Tudjman said on
23 7 August 1995
24 A. First of all, it is very difficult for me and almost impossible
25 to comment two transcript sentences taken out of the context and without
1 being aware of what was discussed before and immediately after that
3 Secondly, it is evidently clear that the president of the
4 republic, by sending General Cermak to Knin, wanted to entrust him with
5 certain duties and tasks which had to do with the civilian life and work.
6 That is to say, somewhat beyond the scope of what is mentioned in the
7 decision on appointment. You noticed well that it was only General
8 Cermak and the president were in the room where this additional
9 conversation took place. They are the only people who could with
10 competence say what was discussed.
11 However, whatever the subject of that conversation, legally
12 speaking boils down to the decision on appointment of General Cermak as
13 the garrison commander and to the fact that the president did not appoint
14 Mr. Cermak to any additional positions. He did not appoint him as his
15 special representative or a representative tasks -- tasked with a
16 particular duty. He stayed with that decision on appointment. That is
17 the legal framework within which I can state anything concerning what I
18 am familiar with.
19 Q. And I just want to just clarify one thing, because have you
20 mentioned this several times now and you have talked about
21 General Cermak's legal authority.
22 And your -- what I take your position to be - and correct me if
23 I'm wrong - is that General Cermak's role, responsibilities, and any
24 criminal responsibility he could face is based solely on the legal
25 authority that he received based on his appointment as garrison commander
1 and not on any other de facto authority that he may have had, based on
2 his discussion with President Tudjman.
3 Have I correctly understood your view?
4 A. Formally and legally speaking, when one looks at a decree on
5 appointment, his duties and tasks are bound by that appointment. Of
6 course, General Cermak can be held criminally liable beyond the scope of
7 appointment alone. Criminal responsibility of a person cannot be seen
8 solely through the prism of an appointment. But in the case of
9 appointment and responsibilities of General Cermak in Knin, then,
10 primarily one needs to bear in mind the decision of appointment.
11 Q. Mr. Radin, were you aware that the garrison commander is
12 responsible for placement, order, discipline, and service in the
13 garrison, and that all units and institutions within the garrison are
14 subordinate to the garrison commander in matters of order, service, and
16 Did you know that?
17 A. I did not. I did not busy myself with the military structure and
18 did not analyse what a garrison commander is supposed to do. I spoke as
19 a matter of principle about the way I saw the appointment.
20 MR. HEDARALY: And just for the Chamber and everyone's else
21 references, I was reading from the service regulations, D32, Article 52,
22 that we're all familiar with. There's also a discussion in Mr. Cermak's
23 2001 interview, at P2525, at pages 27 and 28, but I will not bother
24 Mr. Radin with questions regarding those.
25 Q. Mr. Radin, at paragraph 12 of your statement, you say:
1 "According to my knowledge, as garrison commander, Mr. Cermak did
2 not have the authority to command the civilian police."
3 Now were you aware, sir, that General Cermak did in fact issue
4 orders to the civilian police?
5 A. No, was not aware of that.
6 MR. HEDARALY: And once again, Mr. President, the Court is
7 familiar with these. I will not --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. HEDARALY: -- educate the witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The witness says he has no knowledge of that, and I
11 take it you were referring to documents which were signed by Mr. Cermak
12 and which bear the title of order on which, whether these were orders or
13 not, is quite a lot of debate on that. But since the witness has no
14 knowledge of it, I don't think it's of any use to go through these
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Mr. Radin, just change topics a little bit.
19 You were working in the United States from September 1992 to
20 January 1995; is that correct?
21 A. Between 1992 and early 1993, I was at Pittsburgh university for
22 education. As of early 1993 until January 1995, I worked in the Croatian
23 mission in Washington
24 Q. And as a result, would you not have any information regarding
25 what may have been said by President Tudjman in meetings at the
1 presidential palace during that period, right?
2 A. At that time, I was not in Croatia
3 Q. And you also were not on the Brioni island on 31 July 1995; is
4 that also correct?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. So you were not at the meeting that President Tudjman had with
7 his military advisors on that day?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Would I also be correct in stating that you were not involved in
10 any way in the planning of the Storm military operation?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier today in an answer to Mr. Kehoe's
13 question at page 10, lines 6 to 8 of today's transcript, and let me just
14 pull it up so I make sure I don't misquote you.
15 You said that you were not privy to all the political discussions
16 the president held with the various officials from his office.
17 When President Tudjman would meet with other ministers or cabinet
18 ministers, would you be involved in those meetings? And the reason I'm
19 asking you is very simple. There is a few meetings I want to go through,
20 but if you were not present in those, I don't want to bother you with it.
21 So I want to try to get a general understanding of when you were present
22 and when you were not present, and then we can go through these very
23 briefly, hopefully.
24 A. There were different situations. There were certain meetings at
25 which I was present, and I would -- sat through such meetings in
1 entirety. There were other meetings which I did not attend. And yet
2 another type of meetings during which I would be there for a part of the
3 time and would, say, be sent by the president to do something else, or I
4 had to leave because of my own duties.
5 In any case, it varied from one meeting to the next.
6 Q. And if you were present at a meeting and it was taped, would your
7 name be indicated as one of the participants?
8 A. If I was called to that meeting, then, yes, my name would
9 thereby. But that needn't necessarily mean that I actually attended the
10 entire meeting.
11 Q. Let me just go through these very quickly, and we'll just go
12 through the cover pages of each and then we'll go further if necessary.
13 Were you present at a meeting between -- that the president had
14 with Mr. Radic and others on 9 -- on 11 August, when the decision was
15 made to pass a decree regarding the take-over of the property that the
16 Krajina Serbs had left behind?
17 MR. HEDARALY: And if we could have P462 on the screen.
18 Q. And I will further represent to you, Mr. Radin, that I -- I
19 searched your name in the transcript and you did not appear as the
20 speaker at any point of that -- that meeting.
21 A. That is what I wanted to ask. It could so happen that by --
22 because of a technical error, my name does not figure among those in
23 attendance but that, however, I took the floor later.
24 In any case, I don't see my name here, and this is not a VONS
25 session. If my name is not there and if I am not one of those ones
1 taking the floor, then, in all likelihood, I wasn't there.
2 Q. Thank you. The next one is P463. And this is a -- seems to a
3 private meeting between President Tudjman and Mr. Radic.
4 And, once again, you did not appear in the text of the -- of the
5 transcript as one of the speakers. So would your answer be the same for
6 this meeting as well, regarding your unlikelihood of attendance?
7 A. The situation is the same.
8 Q. And the last one that I want to go through is P466. It's a
9 30 August 1995
10 And if you can just confirm that your answer for that meeting
11 regarding your attendance, or probably lack thereof, is the same?
12 A. The answer is the same. If my name does not appear as someone
13 taking the floor, then I probably was not there.
14 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, I am aware that the break is coming
15 soon. I don't have -- I hope I can be done in the next 15 minutes, but
16 depending on if there's any further questions, it may make more sense to
17 have the break now. Or if you want me to try to complete -- there is a
18 fairly large quote that I will deal with so it will take some time, but
19 not too long.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In relation to the three meetings for which
21 you showed the cover pages of the transcripts of the recording, the
22 witness testified that he doesn't see his name. If his name does not
23 appear anywhere, that, in all likelihood, he would not have been present.
24 In order to avoid any misunderstanding, if there are certain
25 matters -- subject matters which you considered of importance, and I do
1 not know whether you want to go through them from now or that you would
2 move to another meeting, then you could perhaps briefly ask the witness
3 if he has any recollection of a meeting held on those days, with this and
4 this subject. Then he does not only have to rely on what he sees and
5 what apparently is in the document, but we would also encourage him to
6 rely on his recollection to the extent that would change anything.
7 MR. HEDARALY: I understand the Chamber's guidance. I was trying
8 to strike a balance between not going into topics if the witness was not
9 present --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time --
11 MR. HEDARALY: -- but I do -- I do understand ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- we stay in an area of likelihood on the basis of
13 documents without even having tried to see whether there is any
14 recollection on the matter. And not to say that you would have to read
15 whole portions of it, but as -- I think earlier you briefly referred to
16 what the purpose of a meeting was or the subject matter. Perhaps if we
17 would do the same. It may well be that the witness says, well, still
18 doesn't trigger any recollection of being present, but then at least we
19 have explored the matter in a more thorough way.
20 MR. HEDARALY: I will do so, Mr. President, and I can do it,
21 hopefully, in the next five minutes before the break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would do that, and then we will have a
24 MR. HEDARALY:
25 Q. Mr. Radin, following the -- Mr. President's guidance, the first
1 meeting that we discussed, that I showed the cover page, was a 9 -- was
2 an 11 August meeting with Mr. Radic and others, when the decision was
3 made to pass a decree regarding the property that was left behind by the
4 Krajina Serbs.
5 Do you remember, independently of what you have seen on the cover
6 page, being present at that specific meeting?
7 A. I don't recall that meeting. I do, however, recall discussions
8 about that topic. I must put a hedge here because a lot of time has
9 passed. But I think it was discussed towards the end of 1995 at a
10 session of the Presidential Council. It was supposed to be a decree and
11 later on a law on the take-over of property left behind during Operation
12 Storm, but -- as well as pursuant to the Law on Housing Relations, under
13 which one of the provisions states that if a tenant has tendency rights
14 but is not using a housing unit for six months, he or she loses that
15 right. This is what was, among others -- other things, discussed at
16 presidential sessions about the situation of human rights and property in
17 the Republic of Croatia
18 Q. I do understand that you have knowledge of these discussions
19 generally. I'm asking you if you remember attending the meeting --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness has answered this question. I
21 think that was the beginning of his answer.
22 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. The next one that I showed you was a meeting that had only
24 Mr. Radic and the president as the -- as the participants; it was P463.
25 And do you recall being at that meeting where, at one point,
1 President Tudjman told Mr. Radic that Croatia should not even let
2 10 per cent of the Serb population return?
3 A. I was not present at that meeting.
4 Q. And the last one was P466. Were you present at a
5 30 August meeting between President Tudjman and others, including
6 Mr. Granic and Mr. Sarinic, where there was a discussion about Serbs who
7 were trying to return to Croatia
8 A. No.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radin.
10 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, this is a good time for a break.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will have a break and resume at
12 five minutes to 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.
16 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Mr. Radin, at paragraph 18 of your statement, which we have
18 discussed briefly today already, there is a portion -- I mean, we talked
19 about the basis for your understanding of the Prosecution's position.
20 And specifically there is a portion that you disagreed with, which is
21 that it was also intended to minimise crimes by denying or concealing
22 them and giving false information about them.
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Please, could you help me? Which part is that?
25 Q. It's in the middle of paragraph 18, and it is -- in the English
1 it the sixth line, the end of the sentence. There's a list there and the
2 last one is that:
3 "The policy was to deliberately fail to report and investigate
4 crimes, and to minimise crimes by denying or concealing them and giving
5 false information about them."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Last portion, I think, is on your line 27.
7 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm.
8 [Interpretation] "To fail to report crimes," are you referring to
9 that part?
10 MR. HEDARALY:
11 Q. Yes, I am.
12 A. [In English] Okay.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. And just keep that in mind while I want to
14 show you a portion of the interview General Cermak gave the Office of the
15 Prosecution in 2001.
16 MR. HEDARALY: If I can have P2525 on the screen. And if we
17 could go to page 20 to start.
18 And Mr. President and, Mr. Radin, I apologise, but I noted
19 yesterday that there was no B/C/S translation linked with the -- with the
20 English transcript. There is a video and there is only the English one
21 right now. So I will just read it into the record and then we can -- for
22 everyone's sake so there can be interpretation, and we will try to find
23 the translation and link it to the exhibit.
24 If we could have page 20, yes. Thank you very much,
25 Mr. Registrar.
1 Q. Go to the bottom in the -- just to try to -- I know will you not
2 get the full context of the interview but I think the question will be
3 based on one portion. And if you want to look at other portions, please
4 let me know, but I think it will be complete from the sake of my
6 You see the questions at the beginning of line 21:
7 "Who else were you not properly with in the military. You
8 mention Mr. Susak, who else?"
9 And if we go to the next page and I want to refer to the portion
10 that starts at line 5, and I will read it:
11 "I also had a telephone duel with General Tolj. General Tolj was
12 in charge of political work, and the media as well, and he was also the
13 spokesperson of the Ministry of Defence during Storm. Oftentimes in the
14 media, in Slobodna Dalmacija and other papers, I criticised the
15 situation, I said that things are happening and it's actually a shame,
16 that some things are bad for Croatia
17 Slobodna Dalmacija I said," this is Mr. Cermak speaking, "that some
18 members of the Croatian military are to blame for what happened and that
19 some of the blame must be put on [sic] military commanders because they
20 have to check the military on the ground, and that not everything can be
21 done that people were doing. And two days later there was an article in
22 the newspaper where General Tolj was quoted saying that on the ground the
23 Croatian military isn't doing anything, that these were some civilians
24 who were dressed in military uniforms looting and burning.
25 "And there was a huge article, my article was tiny, his was a
1 huge article, and it said, The crimes in this area are not being
2 committed by the Croatian military according to reports by the military
3 police, but that this was being carried out by civilians who were dressed
4 up, which was not true, and I called him on the telephone. I told him,
5 You're sitting there in Zagreb
6 the ground is. And the truth is what I'm telling you, I'm telling you
7 now such articles don't really help anybody. They're just negative,
8 because hiding and lying won't help anybody. And I said some nasty
9 things to him. He said, Well, don't be upset with me, you know, that
10 there are people higher up. So, then he sent me basically. And that was
11 the last I heard from him."
12 Now, Mr. Radin, were you aware of this pressure from higher up
13 that Mr. Tolj referred to, according to General Cermak?
14 A. [Interpretation] No, I wasn't aware of that.
15 But I can agree with the assessment that, as much as
16 Operation Storm was brilliant in military, operational and any other
17 term, whatever happened subsequently, was to -- was for nobody to be
18 proud of.
19 Q. But you were not aware of any of these efforts to say that the
20 crimes were committed by people dressed in uniforms, as General Cermak
21 has mentioned?
22 A. No, I did not have any direct information about that.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Radin.
24 MR. HEDARALY: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.
1 Mr. Kay.
2 MR. KAY: Just one --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any need to re-examine the witness?
4 MR. KAY: Just one question of clarification.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Kay:
6 Q. A Dr. Radic was mentioned this morning. Can you tell the Court
7 what his position was?
8 A. Dr. Radic had many functions in the Croatian government, and I
9 believe that at the time in question, in 1995, he was the vice-president
10 of the government and the minister of defence and development, if my
11 memory serves me right.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President with regard to the -- the comment just
16 now, Mr. Misetic says there's a translation error, if I could have him
17 correct it.
18 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President. If we could ask the witness to
19 repeat his answer beginning at page 38, line 23. He was the
20 vice-president of the government and ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the minister of reconstruction
22 and development.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, apparently without even one word from me, it
24 has been corrected, which is the way in which I like it.
25 Mr. Kehoe, any further questions.
1 MR. KEHOE: No further questions Mr. President. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radin, you were asked whether had you attended a
5 meeting in which, as it was -- yes? You receive now interpretation?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, now I am, yes.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE ORIE: You were asked about whether you attended a meeting
9 and that meeting was referred to a meeting in which President Tudjman
10 would have said something about how many Serbs, I think, the number of
11 10 per cent was mentioned, should remain after Operation Storm.
12 Now, did you ever learn about the views of President Tudjman
13 about the demographic composition of the population in the Krajina after
14 Operation Storm?
15 A. As I worked with the late president, it was never my impression
16 that his political agenda is directed against any national minority, any
17 religion or ethnic group.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 A. His obsession -- if I may. His obsession and his life project
20 was to establish an independent and sovereign state of Croatia
21 that one-third of the Croatian territory was occupied from the very
22 moment Croatia
23 that arrived with all sorts of different combinations may serve as an
24 explanation for some of his statements or positions.
25 When it comes to this element of his personal anti-Serb or any
1 other kind of a position, save for the political option to preserve the
2 Croatian state, his view was that long-term negotiations between the
3 Serbs and the Croats were a presumption of peace in the area. I don't
4 know how the two diverging thesis would go together, having in mind his
5 attitudes towards all other nations and the assumption that he was
6 anti-Serb. I don't know how the two go together.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you were not privy to any views of
8 President Tudjman which would include that only a small portion of the
9 Serbs living in the Krajina would preferably stay there?
10 A. No, not in that way.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And then you said in your answer that the fact that
12 one-third of the Croatian territory was occupied from the very moment
13 that Croatia
14 explanation for some of his statements or positions.
15 It was rather unclear to me what statements you were referring
16 to, what positions you were referring to. Is that in any relation to my
17 question, or was it more of a general observation?
18 A. It was a general observation. Bearing in mind the fact that, in
19 the Croatian media --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if it's -- if it is unrelated to my question,
21 to the specific matter I raised, then I verified that the explanation is
22 not in relation to that.
23 I have no further questions.
24 Have the questions triggered by the -- questions by the Bench --
25 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- triggered any need for further questions.
3 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, my only issue with regard to the use
4 of 462, I believe it is -- 463, P463, the 10 per cent issue, just by of
5 clarity on that document, Mr. President, as opposed to this document
6 reflecting 10 per cent in Croatia
7 beginning on page 9 and 10, it reflects a discussion about a map in the
8 small area in and around Karlovac --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I think Mr. Hedaraly mentioned that the
10 witness said he didn't know anything about it, he didn't attend the
11 meeting, so we couldn't find any explanation. And then I asked him in --
12 I didn't go through what is in evidence in relation to this. The witness
13 I mainly asked about the demographic situation after Operation Storm, a
14 small portion I was talking about, that I don't think that we have to
15 explain to the witness where he said that he had no knowledge, no
16 specific knowledge of the views of the president on that, and that he was
17 talking about matters which are not directly related to what would be the
18 remaining portion.
19 So, therefore unless there is any specific matter you would like
20 to ask the witness on there matter or which could clarify the matter,
21 because that's what I was asking, whether there were any questions.
22 MR. KEHOE: And my apologies, Mr. President. My questions are
23 not directed toward Mr. Radin and I don't really -- I don't want to keep
24 him any longer than necessary. My question is just briefly to the Bench
25 as opposed to the witness, because this is not for the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you wanted to draw our attention that
2 careful reading of that document was --
3 MR. KEHOE: Page 9 and 10, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's on the record, that we should pay
5 specific attention to the reading of the pages 9 and 10 of P463.
6 Mr. Radin, this concludes your testimony in this court. I'd like
7 to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering the
8 questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench. Of
9 course, apart from what you testified in court, we also have your written
10 statement which is in evidence as well, so even though you may not have
11 spent that long a time in this courtroom, that doesn't mean that there's
12 not more as it was summarised by Mr. Kay.
13 I wish you a safe return home again.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that there's no queue of witnesses
17 waiting, so that we will continue tomorrow to hear the testimony of the
18 witness to be called by the Cermak Defence.
19 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KAY: We did have the housekeeping matter of the exhibit
22 marked for identification.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have a -- I have a few matters prepared so
24 that we could perhaps shorten the list.
25 The first thing I would like to deal with is D1699.
1 I think last week, Tuesday, the Prosecution indicated that it
2 requested that one article be added to the submission and that it does
3 not object to the admission of these documents, documents being articles
4 from the Housing Act, Official Gazette number 51.
5 We do understand that then this article was uploaded together
6 with the others, and that a spreadsheet was compiled by the Prosecution
7 and by the Defence with comments of a technical nature. We then invited
8 the parties to agree to which of these comments should be put before the
9 Chamber and how that should be done, and that the parties had a week to
11 I know that it's only tomorrow that the week is over, but,
12 nevertheless, I inquire as to whether --
13 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, we have not discussed the matter
14 specifically but we had discussed it prior to the session quite at
15 length. And I think the understanding was the documents would be
16 admitted and we could just e-mail the spreadsheet to the Chamber which
17 has both the Defence's comment as to relevance and the OTP's comment as
18 to relevance, so we can send that later today.
19 I will talk to Mr. Misetic. We'll make sure that everything in
20 the spreadsheet is up to date, because there were some modifications, but
21 we can do that later today, and I'm sure that Mr. Misetic and I can agree
22 with that quite quickly.
23 MR. MISETIC: That's correct, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. MISETIC: If I could also note for the record, I believe,
1 Your Honour, you mentioned D1699 and I think the exhibit we're talking
2 about is D1669.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was just about to correct that, that I made a
4 mistake there. It is 1669 and not, as I said, 1699.
5 Now, comments on relevance, whether that should be sent just by
6 e-mail. These are matters that may have an impact on the proceedings,
7 so, therefore, I do not mind that it will be received by the Chamber
8 through an e-mail, but it is a matter, I think in our three categories.
9 It's not a purely -- of a purely technical -- practical nature. It is
10 not just some impact but it goes to the -- it's to some extent argument.
11 This is the relevance of this document, so, therefore, if you prefer to
12 send by e-mail, then the e-mail should be filed at a later stage, because
13 it is in the third category of e-mail communications.
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm just interested in consistency
15 because we have done this now for a year and a half. In the
16 Prosecution's case in-chief we had extremely voluminous bar table
17 submissions of UNMO documents, UNCIVPOL documents, et cetera. My
18 recollection is we did not file the Defence`s arguments with respect to
19 relevance on all of those documents, so I'm just interested in --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I have not always verified that. But I will
21 certainly, together with Chamber staff, pay attention to that, because
22 any comment, Look at this, look at that, this is relevant, that is why we
23 are tendering it for, of course, is -- may have a direct impact on the
24 proceedings, and therefore, we will certainly review whether the record
25 is complete in this respect, and whether we would need more.
1 MR. MISETIC: Yes. It is my understanding that the procedure to
2 date has been as Mr. Hedaraly suggested for this exhibit, which was
3 simply to e-mail the spreadsheets to Chambers, but if the Chamber now
4 prefers that they be filed --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah --
6 MR. MISETIC: -- if we can go back and allow the Defence to file
7 its comments with respect to bar table submitted by the Prosecution in
8 its case in-chief, we would be grateful.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, most important is that it is
10 transparent as what the parties have brought to the attention of the
11 Chamber, if it is not just of a practical nature.
12 MR. HEDARALY: It made me refresh the Bench's recollection at
13 some point after one or -- after a few month's of trial we had a
14 little -- an informal meeting on how to expedite proceedings, and that's
15 when the Chamber laid out the guidance that bar table motions should be
16 sent to the other party with its relevance. That party would then fill
17 out a column in the spreadsheet saying whether they agreed, whether they
18 objected, and that would then be sent to the Chamber. My understanding,
19 as Mr. Misetic's, was that that would be then submitted to Chambers
20 informally, but, of course, it the Chamber wants those filed, that is not
21 a problem.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a closer look at it. It is not because
23 the Chamber would ignore if it would only be in an e-mail, but it is for
24 the transparency of the proceedings, for those who will look into the
25 matter at a later stage, which may be at stake.
1 Then, moving to another which is a series of four, P2597. That's
2 the Rule 90(H) issue, in relation to P2597, P2598 and P2599, and last
3 one, P2600.
4 The parties were given an opportunity to make further submissions
5 as to the admissibility of these documents in light of the decision on
6 P2593. The Chamber has not received any further submissions, which were
7 due last week, Friday, and in this situation, the Chamber is about to
8 admit these documents into evidence. Since I do not hear any further
9 comments, P2597, P2598, P2599, and P2600 are admitted into evidence.
10 At this moment, I have no other matters on the agenda.
11 Then -- yes, Mr. Kay.
12 MR. KAY: Your Honour, it was the report of Mr. Kovacevic
13 identified as D1676 with the corrigendum 1677, and we, if you will
14 recollect, ran out of time on Friday, as the clock hand was getting to
15 2.00, and matters couldn't be finished in relation to that. Mr. Russo
16 had asked that it be marked for identification. But I move that the
17 documents, both of them, go into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hedaraly.
19 MR. HEDARALY: I did not have a chance to discuss the matter with
20 Mr. Russo. I know he wanted to reserve his position until after the
21 cross-examination. I can talk to him after court today and either then
22 informally Chambers and the parties, or tomorrow morning inform the
23 Chamber of our final position.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps that would be a good idea that at
25 least we hear if there are no further objections. If there are any
1 objections we'd like to hear them in court. And if matters go as
2 smoothly as they went today, we might find time tomorrow to deal with
3 this matter as well.
4 MR. KAY: I'm much obliged, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have seen that the time estimates today --
6 that less time was used than one would expect, in view of the time
7 estimates given by the parties. Is there a chance or should I said a
8 risk that the same happens tomorrow?
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, is it your intention to proceed tomorrow as
11 did you today; that is, just to seek the attestations and apart from that
12 not to -- because you announced that you would need half a session. Of
13 course, you used far less than half a session.
14 MR. KAY: Yes, my guess is, looking at how long it takes to put
15 into evidence a 92 ter, I've guessed it's about half an hour that one
16 needs clearing everything up by the time we start, so that will be my
17 time with Mr. Skegro.
18 I believe the other witnesses for this week are scheduled to fly
19 tomorrow, so they will be here for Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. I think
20 both of them are coming at the same time. If one goes shorter -- we did
21 have a witness, unfortunately, become unavailable for this week so we've
22 had to move him out of the -- the system.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear.
24 Mr. Hedaraly, I don't know whether you will be the one who will
25 cross-examine the witness tomorrow.
1 MR. HEDARALY: I will be. And it will be very likely that it
2 will also -- we will also end earlier tomorrow.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Then, at this moment, what remains is to adjourn.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MISETIC: I have two additional matters if I may.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. MISETIC: Sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, we've got time now so ...
11 MR. MISETIC: Yeah. I believe D1465 was something that we were
12 going to get back to, that is the Mladic diary, and the Prosecution
13 needed to take a look at the excerpts we had selected, which are
14 65 ter 1D2976. Then I have one other procedural matter to address.
15 MR. HEDARALY: Yes. I must confess I didn't bring my list of
16 outstanding issues. I will have it tomorrow, but on that specific issue,
17 we did review it and there are no objections from the Prosecution.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check my list.
19 Yes. I do understand that we were -- actually, we were waiting
20 for the response by the OTP on admission, which was due on the
21 25th of September. I do understand that the version that was uploaded as
22 D1465 should be replaced with 1D2976.
23 Has that been done? Because there was a new version, from what I
24 understand. Perhaps a more complete one.
25 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Well, it has -- it is in e-court as
1 65 ter 1D2976, and D1465, I believe, still has MFI status. And --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. MISETIC: -- we are just waiting for permission of the
4 Chamber to replace what is currently D1465 MFI, which is the entire
5 diary, with the excerpts, which are 1D2976.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I do understand that the Prosecution has
7 no problems with that.
8 Then the Gotovina is granted leave to replace the present D1465
9 with 1D2976, and that new D1465 is admitted into evidence.
10 That was one issue -- yes, Mr. Hedaraly.
11 MR. HEDARALY: While we're dealing with some issues that I can
12 remember have been advised of, there's also P2563 which at the last
13 housekeeping sessions, Mr. Kehoe had asked to look at it at the break,
14 but I think it fell through the cracks, and it is still MFI P2563. If we
15 could just that as well admitted into evidence.
16 MR. KEHOE: Counsel, if I may, can just remind me what that is.
17 I do believe that subject came up --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KEHOE: -- with regard to a document that I said I had no
20 objection to but ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: It a criminal report against an unidentified person
22 who committed rape. That was the document.
23 MR. KEHOE: I think, Mr. President -- I think, Mr. President, you
24 brought that to my attention last week because you said we were looking
25 for a response, and my objection to that document was based on the
1 admission or non-admission of two other documents --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. KEHOE: -- the Chamber admitted in, and then I withdrew my
5 JUDGE ORIE: D1551 and D1552 were these other documents, and we
6 did invite the Gotovina Defence to express whether they still had
7 objections once a decision had been taken on these two documents.
8 Since there are no further objections, P2563 is admitted into
10 Mr. Misetic -- Mr. Kehoe.
11 MR. KEHOE: It's actually -- with regard to one other document,
12 which is D970, and I will bring the documentation with me tomorrow,
13 Mr. President, and it will be very brief. But we could ask the Chamber
14 to assist with CLSS and request the Chamber's intervention on a
15 translation issue, but I was unaware that we were going to do
16 housekeeping work today but I will bring it to Your Honours' attention
18 JUDGE ORIE: I said that we would just deal with some leftovers
19 and not necessarily -- it was not announced as such, but since we had
20 time, we could deal with the matter, and some of these matters had to
21 wait until we had received further submissions which were due either last
22 Friday or by tomorrow.
23 So there's no blame whatsoever for not being fully prepared on
24 this matter at this moment.
25 Mr. Misetic is that -- that was -- that covered the other issue
1 you wanted to raise.
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
4 Then we will adjourn and we will resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the
5 29th of September, 9.00, Courtroom I.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.40 a.m.
7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of
8 September, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.