Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 22541

 1                           Tuesday, 6 October 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:   Good morning to everyone in and around the

 7     courtroom.

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

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

10     everyone in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-06-90-T, the

11     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             Good morning to you as well, Mr. Dondo.  I would like to remind

14     you that the solemn declaration that you have given yesterday at the

15     beginning of your testimony is still binding.

16             Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to continue your

17     cross-examination.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

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

21                           WITNESS:  KAROLJ DONDO [Resumed]

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23                           Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]

24        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Dondo.

25        A.   [In English] Good morning.

Page 22542

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document P1147,

 2     please.

 3        Q.   Mr. Dondo, in direct examination yesterday you testified that the

 4     document will you see in a moment on your screen was probably drafted by

 5     you.

 6             Now, when you say that you drafted document, do you mean that you

 7     formulated the document yourself, or was it dictated to you by somebody?

 8        A.   [Interpretation] It was dictated by Mr. Cermak.

 9        Q.   Now, are the contents of this document true?  Is this an accurate

10     report?

11        A.   I don't know which particular case this is related to, so I can't

12     give you an answer, really.

13        Q.   Very well.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document number P53,

15     please.

16        Q.   Now while the document is being brought on the screen -- yes, you

17     have it here.

18             Now you have given a statement about this document in your

19     statement to the Defence, D1696.  And your testimony was that you were

20     the person who wrote this document.  Did someone dictate this document to

21     you, or did you formulate it on your own?

22        A.   Mr. Cermak dictated it.

23        Q.   Now, I'd like to take you to paragraph 18 of your statement to

24     the Defence.  And that's --

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could have, Mr. Registrar, D1696.

Page 22543

 1        Q.   Now this is what you say about that document.  You say --

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If could you go, Mr. Registrar, to page 7 of

 3     the English version.  That's paragraph 18.

 4        Q.   You say:

 5             "I can say that I wrote it.  We wrote the document as an order

 6     which was the idea of our Office for Cooperation because it was important

 7     to assist UNCRO.  Mr. Cermak signed the document as we sent it.  We did

 8     the same when Mr. Cermak told us to write a request for the return of the

 9     stolen UN vehicles.  We also wrote it in the form of an order."

10             Now you say the idea to write this an order was the Office for

11     Cooperation.  At the time Mr. Cermak dictated the document to you, did

12     you discuss as to how, in what format the document should go, that it

13     should go as an order or anything else?

14        A.   No, we didn't discuss it.  This -- it was formulated as an order

15     because we felt that the document was important in the context of the

16     cooperation with the UN.  We decided ourselves that it should be

17     formulated as an order.

18        Q.   When you say "we," whom are you referring to?  The --

19        A.   The liaison officers' department or office.

20        Q.   And didn't Mr. Cermak have anything to say about that?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   So when you presented the document, when you said Mr. Cermak

23     dictated it to you, and the document at paragraph 4 says:

24             "This order is effective immediately."

25             That last paragraph was also dictated to you by General Cermak;

Page 22544

 1     is that correct?

 2        A.   This is the customary formulation used in orders.  He did not

 3     dictate that bit.  We wrote it ourselves.

 4        Q.   Now did you convey this order from General Cermak to the military

 5     police and the Knin police station, who passed this document on to the

 6     police and the military police?

 7        A.   No.  We gave the letter to Mr. Cermak, and he was to forward it

 8     on to whomever was supposed to receive it.

 9        Q.   Now, do you know of any instance where these orders from

10     General Cermak has reached the civilian police or the military police and

11     they have refused to implement those tasks, saying -- on the basis that

12     General Cermak did not have authority to issue orders to them?

13        A.   I know that the individuals who received such orders completely

14     ignored Mr. Cermak's orders.  For this reason, such orders were issued

15     initially once or twice, and then subsequently, they were formulated as

16     letters only, in view of the fact of the units did not honour them, and

17     in view of the fact that Mr. Cermak did not have any powers over these

18     units.

19        Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber one specific instance where

20     General Cermak issued such an order and where the unit that was -- it was

21     addressed to ignored the order?  Give us an example:  What the order was;

22     when it was issued; to which unit it was issued.

23        A.   I don't recall exactly what sort of orders these were, but we

24     were supposed to see what the situation was like concerning the Promina

25     repeater on the hill overlooking Knin, where the Serbs used to have their

Page 22545

 1     radio stations.  Mr. Cermak told us that we could take the liberty to go

 2     up there, together with the UN, and see what the situation was like.

 3     However, when we approached the area we were denied access by the

 4     military, who told us that the permission from Mr. Cermak was not

 5     sufficient, that we needed the permission from the commander of the

 6     Military District in order to be able to gain access there.  We then

 7     subsequently obtained the necessary document from Mr. Ademi and went back

 8     to the station, which was on a hill overlooking Promina.

 9        Q.   Now, when you approached the units to get access to this

10     repeater, were you carrying a written order from Mr. Cermak addressed to

11     those units, asking them, ordering them to permit you all to enter the

12     repeater?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Now, apart from that incident, can you refer to any specific

15     instance where General Cermak issued a written order to either the

16     civilian police or the military police and where they dishonoured it,

17     where they refused to carry it out?

18        A.   The order to return the vehicles that had been appropriated.  He

19     issued the order as such; however, when the command of the operations

20     zone issued an order to that effect as well, only then was the order

21     acted upon, though it wasn't really fully followed up on.  And I'm

22     talking about the vehicles that had been appropriated during

23     Operation Storm.

24        Q.   What you're referring to is your statement given in D1696,

25     paragraph 24; isn't that correct?

Page 22546

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if we could move to

 2     paragraph 24 on this statement.

 3        Q.   Where you say:

 4             "I can isolate an example of the return of the stolen UN vehicles

 5     when Mr. Cermak sent an order to the civil and military police to find

 6     the stolen vehicles and return them to the UN.  Mr. Cermak was not

 7     superior to the civil and military police.  Therefore his order did not

 8     cause an effect.  After that, Mr. Cermak sent a report to the Chief of

 9     Staff of the Split MD and asked him for assistance."

10             Now --

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   Now, Mr. Dondo, in the course of your work, did you have the

13     opportunity to get to know the military police officers and civilian

14     police officers operating in the Knin area?

15        A.   Not personally, no.

16        Q.   Do you know the commander of the Knin military police, Mr. --

17     have you heard of Mr. Bosko Dzolic?

18        A.   No, I don't remember.

19        Q.   Now, he testified in these proceedings - and I'm referring to

20     P875, paragraph 44 and P876, paragraph 17 - and let me tell what you he

21     said about the recovery of stolen vehicles.  I'll read his testimony to

22     you:

23             "The first time that I attended a meeting with General Cermak was

24     on 8th of August, 1995, when I think two trucks of the International

25     Red Cross had gone missing.  There was only Cermak and me at the meeting,

Page 22547

 1     and he told me that he had been informed by the International Red Cross

 2     that the trucks had been stolen by the Croatian military.  I informed the

 3     military crime police, and some eight hours later, the trucks were found

 4     in the possession of an artillery unit of the 4th Guards Brigade and the

 5     trucks were subsequently returned."

 6             Did you know about that incident, where General Cermak instructed

 7     Mr. Dzolic to find these trucks and the trucks were subsequently

 8     returned?

 9        A.   No, I didn't know about it.

10        Q.   So do you agree with me that there are examples of the military

11     police carrying out General Cermak's request, instructions or orders to

12     recover missing items that you're not aware of?

13             MR. KAY: [Microphone not activated] ... hang on.  Look, we must

14     not misrepresent evidence to a witness.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. -- Ms. Mahindaratne, the issue is orders or no

16     orders.  If you then line them up, all three of them, and say that there

17     are examples of, that is like saying if the issue is whether a car is

18     black or white, and then you show -- you show the witness a car of a --

19     well, a colour which you say, Well, isn't this an example that cars do

20     exist of the colours white, grey, or black.  That is, of course, an

21     answer that -- the issue is whether orders were ignored.  And in your

22     last question, you said, So you do agree with me that there are examples

23     of the military police carrying out General Cermak's requests,

24     instructions or orders.

25             Now, the whole issue is orders or requests, isn't it.

Page 22548

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  My point was actually -

 2     perhaps I did not phrase it properly - that in the given instance -- let

 3     me -- let me --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If you rephrase the question.

 5             MR. KAY:  I do remind my learned friend of the evidence of the

 6     witness, transcript page 9028, and it's important that if testimony is

 7     being used of other people that it is put accurately, in my submission.

 8     Otherwise, it may mislead a witness.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I also point out that the

10     same witness, at transcript page 8953, has in fact provided clear

11     testimony on which would have an impact on the issue before the Chamber.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would formulate the matter in such a way,

13     because what usually happens, Ms. Mahindaratne, that the witness first

14     testifies A, and then in cross-examination, sometimes slightly changes or

15     amends.  If you would formulate it in such a way that we'll elicit from

16     this witness what we want to elicit from him, and that we avoid any

17     discussion as to -- if you just put the facts to him.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Dondo, Mr. Dzolic, the commander of the Knin military

22     police company testified in these proceedings, and according to his

23     testimony, without the mediation of the Military District command,

24     missing equipment were recovered by the military police at the behest of

25     General Cermak.  So -- which you were not aware of?

Page 22549

 1        A.   [In English] I was not aware.

 2        Q.   So do you agree that based on that testimony that you were not

 3     fully apprised of the interaction between General Cermak and the military

 4     police with regard to tasks?

 5        A.   [Interpretation] So I wouldn't put it that way, since Mr. Cermak

 6     held daily meetings attended by representatives of all structures,

 7     especially in the early days after his arrival in Knin, the civilian

 8     authorities and partly military authorities, and I'm referring primarily

 9     to the civilian and military police, were briefed on daily events and

10     developments at these meetings, which concerned the UN or any other

11     issues.  The military police could be informed of these matters at these

12     daily meetings --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo -- Mr. Dondo, the emphasis by

14     Ms. Mahindaratne is that you were not fully -- as she said, fully

15     apprised of the interaction.  Now you explain to us that you were

16     apprised of most of the interaction.  Apparently the issue is that it was

17     not a complete information.

18             I think from your statement we've learned, and from your

19     testimony, that there was interaction, but Ms. Mahindaratne gives you an

20     example that are you not fully -- would you disagree with her that you

21     were not fully - and I emphasise fully - apprised?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can agree with that

23     statement.  I can agree that I wasn't familiar with the fact that she now

24     mentioned.

25             There was no order from Mr. Cermak to the military police to

Page 22550

 1     locate the vehicles.  Rather, there were daily meetings at which

 2     Mr. Cermak informed both the civilian and military police of the requests

 3     he received from the UN to search for the vehicles, and this was a way in

 4     which they could have obtained that information.  But I am not aware of

 5     the fact that he had found them, located them, and informed Mr. Cermak

 6     thereof.  That's true.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Dondo, when you say -- you say that they may have this

 9     sort of way which they could have obtained that information, you're

10     merely speculating, isn't it?  You don't have a knowledge of this

11     specific instance?  You're merely speculating as to how the military

12     police would have been informed of this instance.  Isn't that correct?

13        A.   Of course, I can't remember all the things I remembered 15 years

14     ago, but I'm sure that if Mr. Cermak had received a request from the UN

15     which read that vehicles were missing, I am sure that he presented that

16     letter at the meeting.

17        Q.   Mr. Dondo, may I -- Mr. Dondo, may I just request that you do not

18     speculate, and if you don't have a factual basis for an answer, if you do

19     not know something as a fact, please say so.

20             Now, you referred to the daily meetings that General Cermak held

21     where the civilian police and the military police were present.  Isn't

22     that correct that liaison officers were not required to be present at

23     these meetings mandatorily?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   And, as a result, isn't it correct that you were not present at

Page 22551

 1     all the meetings that General Cermak conducted with the civilian police

 2     and the military police in the mornings?

 3        A.   Correct.  Correct.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document number

 5     P390, please.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Dondo, you were shown this document by the Defence, and

 7     in fact, you have discussed this document.  This is at paragraph 23 of

 8     D1696, and I'll just read that part of your statement to you.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  This is paragraph 23.

10        Q.   Referring to this document you say:

11             "I did not write the document titled 'Your letter of

12     10 August 1995 - freedom of movement,' dated 11 August 1995, marked P390,

13     which you have shown me, but I knew that Mr. Cermak issued it.  The

14     letter was written in our office and we took it downstairs to

15     Mr. Cermak's office to write it in the class and reference number.

16     Mr. Cermak issued this letter because there was a great pressure from

17     UNCRO for the freedom of movement, but the decision to allow UNCRO the

18     full freedom of movement was made elsewhere because Mr. Cermak could not

19     make this decision by himself."

20             Now, whom did you refer to as the decision being made elsewhere?

21        A.   Such a decision could have been made only in the main command of

22     Sector South.

23        Q.   And that would be?  Are you referring to the Split Military

24     District Command?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 22552

 1        Q.   And is it your position that General Cermak could not have issued

 2     authority or approval for freedom of movement without receiving an order

 3     to that effect from the Split Military District Command?  Is that your

 4     position?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   I want to show you -- in fact General Cermak himself discussed

 7     this document or at least this subject in your presence at the interview

 8     in 1998.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if we could have P2526.  And if

10     could you go to English, on the English transcript, page 52; and that

11     would be the Croatian version, page 62.

12        Q.   Mr. Dondo, this is what he says about his authority to issue --

13     on the subject of restriction of movement:

14             "There were restrictions of movement but I don't why."

15             This is halfway through the document.

16             Then about four lines down in the same paragraph, then he says:

17             "And then on the basis of the decision, this agreement between

18     Sarinic and Akashi, I allowed freedom of movement to all the

19     international organisations, all the international community, the Red

20     Cross."

21             Now at this stage, then he says a few more lines, there is an

22     intervention from you.  There is a discussion between you and

23     General Cermak.  And ...

24             MR. KAY:  Perhaps the full matters could be put to the witness,

25     since we're reading it out.  Line -- line 27, page 52.

Page 22553

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could go through the intervention and if

 2     Mr. Kay would --

 3             MR. KAY:  Well, I think it's -- if you're going to --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But see, you're inviting Ms. Mahindaratne to

 5     completely represent what is at stake here and what is relevant for the

 6     question.  And I take it that you follow that --

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President, I would.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- invitation.

 9             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

11        Q.   And after that you intervene at that point.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could ask parties and Court to turn to on

13     the additional translation, page 14; that is in the Croatian version,

14     page 62.  I'm sorry in the additional translation, page 52.  I beg your

15     pardon, page 14 which refers to the main transcript page 52.

16        Q.   Then at that point you intervene, Mr. Dondo, and General Cermak

17     asks you:

18             "What are you saying?"

19             You say, regarding the freedom of movement, you had to consult

20     and ask Gotovina to grant the permission.  That's what you advised

21     Mr. Cermak at that point.

22             And then General Cermak goes on to say:

23             "When the international community asked for it, then we contacted

24     the office and then it was allowed to all the organisations of the

25     international community.  They were allowed freedom of movement, not just

Page 22554

 1     in Knin, but in the whole sector.  In the few days when there was

 2     restriction of movement in the operative zone, that was there when we got

 3     there.  When we got there, and that was what the situation was, because I

 4     arrived on the 6th and I needed a couple of days to see what the

 5     situation was like."

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And then if could you move to page 54,

 7     Mr. Registrar, on the transcript.

 8        Q.   There, the second question, General Cermak is asked this

 9     question:  "Because I wasn't there, I'm probably asking very stupid

10     questions, but you just said that you called -- when you came to know

11     about the restrictions you called Mr. Sarinic?"

12             General Cermak answers:  "Yes.

13             "What exactly did Sarinic tell you?

14             Cermak answers:

15             "He told me that freedom of movement should be allowed to all the

16     organisations, the UN and the Red Cross, in the whole area.

17             "And why did I talk to him?  Because he was the contact person

18     for all the international organisations in the area."

19             Two paragraphs down, the question is asked:

20             "As a result of there discussion you had with Mr. Sarinic, what

21     did you do?"

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please move the text so that we can follow it.  Yes.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

24        Q.   The answer:

25             "I issued the order that all international organisations should

Page 22555

 1     have full freedom of movement in the whole area.  And we informed

 2     General Gotovina about it."

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And next page, that is page 55, Mr. Registrar,

 4     if could you move on to -- at the top.

 5        Q.   The question is asked:

 6             "And now we come to the point where I'm confused.  And I told you

 7     that there are things that I don't understand and I'm probably asking you

 8     very stupid questions.  If you were under Gotovina, as you told us

 9     yesterday, how could you issue an order that they had full freedom of

10     movement, if the initial order to keep them inside the compound was

11     issued by a person who had power to issue such orders?"

12             And General Cermak's response is:

13             "Obviously this confuses you, but I immediately gave the order to

14     all the international organisations to move freely around the area."

15             At that stage, Mr. Dondo, you intervene again.  This is on the

16     same page as -- before page 14 of the additional translations.  You

17     say -- there's something unintelligible there:

18             "... freedom of movement Gotovina banned.  How could you grant

19     the freedom if Gotovina had put a ban?"

20             And General Cermak tells you:

21             "No, about that ... What?  I am listening."

22             And whatever that -- the exchange goes on.

23             So, Mr. Dondo, do you note that, at least in 1998 when

24     General Cermak spoke to the OTP, his views about his authority and your

25     views about what you're saying today about his authority are not the --

Page 22556

 1     one and the same, isn't it?  Do you agree with me?

 2        A.   I can agree that he was presenting a situation differently to the

 3     way he does now.  But my story now is the same as it was then.

 4        Q.   So what you're saying is General Cermak has moved, at least given

 5     different positions at different times with regard to his authority?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  There seems to be translation issue or?

 7             Could you please repeat your question, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 9        Q.   Can you hear me?

10        A.   [In English] I didn't understand.  Last question, I didn't

11     understand.

12        Q.   Okay.  As I understand your testimony, what you're saying is that

13     Mr. Cermak has in fact changed his defences in the course of time.

14     That's what you're telling?

15        A.   [Interpretation] I don't know whether he did, but the fact is,

16     and you can see that in the documents here which show the same thing that

17     I claim; namely, that Mr. Cermak could not have issued an order unless

18     that was approved by the main command of the Operation Zone Split.  And I

19     know that when Mr. Cermak wrote the order on the freedom of movement, he

20     said, Write it down, and I'll settle that with Gotovina.

21        Q.   Okay.  Going back to Mr. Cermak's authority over the military

22     police in Knin, Mr. Dondo, are you aware that General Cermak had

23     instructed the military police in Knin to inform him of crimes committed

24     by the military in General Cermak's area of responsibility?

25             Were you aware of that?

Page 22557

 1        A.   I was not.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, while we're on this document,

 3     if we could move back to page 49 of the English version.  And that would

 4     be page 58 of the Croatian version.  It's the paragraph that starts with

 5     "Okay."  The question is asked from General Cermak:

 6             "Okay, I don't know if you are able to answer this question, but,

 7     if, for example, a Croatian soldier killed a civilian at the check-point

 8     in Knin, who would be the person who had the responsibility to take

 9     action [sic]?

10             General Cermak responds:

11             "That ever happened that a Croatian soldier killed a civilian

12     anywhere, and not just in Knin, then it would be the military police that

13     would take action because that would be just an ordinary criminal who

14     wouldn't have any kind of special status.

15             "Was the military police ordered or instructed to inform you

16     about such incidents, if they happened?

17             "Yes.  I asked the military police to tell me what had happened,

18     what happened so that I could tell the international community and

19     organisations."

20             Now, Mr. Dondo, does that also indicate to you that you were

21     obviously not aware of the orders that General Cermak issued to the

22     military police?

23             MR. KAY:  Well, again, I'm sorry --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne --

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  At least with regard to --

Page 22558

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, the statement says, "I asked the

 2     military police."  Your question is not referring -- it's referring to

 3     this being an example of not being aware of orders.

 4             Let's -- if it comes to requests, asking, ordering, where there

 5     is apparently disagreements between the parties how to understand what is

 6     put on paper, what is said, why not use the rather neutral term which

 7     does not affect your position that if the paper says it's an order, that

 8     you consider that to be an order, and, at the same time, does not affect

 9     the position of the Defence, which says you have to understand what is

10     written down in the context of the powers to that person.  Because that's

11     the issue not for the first time.

12             So, if we would use the other term that Mr. Cermak sought

13     vehicles to be returned, et cetera, then we take a neutral term and then

14     you can further ask him further detail about a piece of paper or what was

15     said at a meeting, et cetera.  But here, where Mr. Cermak said, "I

16     asked," and then to say to the witness, Isn't this a clear example that

17     he ordered, that is not assisting the Chamber.

18             It's clear that he sought to be informed.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes?

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

24        Q.   Mr. Dondo, do you -- does that this reflect, or do you agree with

25     me that, based on what I just read to you, that you were not aware of

Page 22559

 1     specific instances of interaction between General Cermak and the military

 2     police?

 3        A.   I can confirm that I was not aware of every specific

 4     communication between General Cermak and the military police, but I can

 5     also confirm that I was present at the meeting where it was said, both to

 6     the civilian police and the military police, especially the civilian

 7     police, who, after the liberation of that territory had taken over

 8     control, that every crime that occurs in that area must be reported to

 9     him, because he will be fielding a lot of questions from the UN, and he

10     must be ready to answer them.

11        Q.   Finally on this issue, Mr. Dondo, now, there are a number of

12     documents that have -- that you have seen which has been shown to you by

13     the Defence, that we went through today, and there are a number of

14     documents in the evidence base, whereby General Cermak, on the face of

15     the document it says that he orders the civilian police and the military

16     police, and your testimony is that he, although the documents contain the

17     term "order," that did he not have the authority to issue orders to the

18     military police and civilian police.

19             Now, is it then your position that General Cermak was issuing

20     orders on a false premise, pretending to exercise an authority he did not

21     have?  Is that your testimony?

22        A.   I don't know.  From the interpreter, I hear the word "false,"

23     untrue premise, and that's the word that occurred yesterday in our

24     debate, which is probably why it lasted so long.

25             Mr. Cermak neither lied nor gave false statements.  When he

Page 22560

 1     arrived in Knin as commander of the Military District -- as garrison

 2     commander, he signed orders as garrison commander Knin -- of Knin and

 3     issued orders on that basis.  When he realised that these orders did not

 4     have enough power to attain their goal, he realised they were pointless.

 5     And in verbal communications with the civilian authorities of Knin, with

 6     the civilian police, with the military police and all the other

 7     agencies --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo.  Mr. Dondo, could you please focus your

 9     answer on the question that was put to you.  That when Mr. Cermak issued

10     what was said on paper to be an order, whether he issued these orders

11     falsely; that is, that he suggested or presented to have an authority

12     which did he not have.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Dondo, yesterday when I asked you if you had acted as an

17     intermediary between General Cermak and the civilian police and the

18     military police, and I in fact specifically asked you if you had conveyed

19     instructions from General Cermak to either -- either to the civilian

20     police or the military police, you responded in the negative, and this

21     is, for the record, at transcript page number 22482.

22             Now, if you did not convey any instructions from General Cermak

23     to the civilian police or the military police, or if did you not, by your

24     own testimony, act as an intermediary between General Cermak and these

25     two authorities, how would you know what kind of interaction took place

Page 22561

 1     between them, in order to assert that General Cermak did not have any

 2     authority over those two forces?  Because, by your own testimony, you did

 3     not convey any instructions from General Cermak to either of these two

 4     forces.

 5        A.   Mr. Cermak, as garrison commander, had a certain weight and an

 6     obligation to accomplish his mission, and faced with UN questions, he

 7     forwarded these questions to agencies that were supposed to answer them,

 8     that means the civilian, the military, and the special police.

 9             When he received their answers, he would forward them to us,

10     either in writing or verbally, and we forwarded them to the

11     United Nations.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, if you would allow me to formulate

13     one or two follow-up questions on my last question.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, you said Mr. Cermak did not issue orders

16     falsely; that is, that he presented or suggested to have an authority

17     which he did not have.

18             Did Mr. Cermak, when he signed these documents which contained

19     the text "I order," or "it is ordered," did he know that he no authority

20     to issue this piece of paper by the name of "order"?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did not know, because when we

22     came to Knin, there was quite a mess, I would say, in various

23     inter-relations and relations among various commands, which I cannot go

24     into, and orders appeared only in the beginning until this

25     misunderstanding was resolved.

Page 22562

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  What do you consider to be the beginning?  Until

 2     what date?  Three days, five days, ten days, a month?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're asking me to speculate now.

 4     But I would say the first ten days.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, I didn't ask you to speculate, as a

 6     matter of fact, but you expressed that you maybe not be very precise but

 7     your recollection now is that it would have been approximately ten days.

 8             Is that well understood?

 9             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Were you aware that issuing orders was beyond the

11     authority of Mr. Cermak?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since he signed his name and his

13     title, I was not aware of that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  So the -- the garrison commander and you, in your

15     function, as a matter of fact, you didn't know what the authority of

16     Mr. Cermak was, and you just did what you considered to be useful for

17     achieving the goals for which he was sent to Knin.

18             Is that your testimony?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The latter.  We did everything with

20     best intentions, trying to achieve positive goals.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But with a lack of knowledge of where the

22     authority ended.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly, yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, possibly.  I asked you whether you had

25     knowledge or not, not ...

Page 22563

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Now, how did you know that Mr. Cermak had no

 3     knowledge?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How did I know that Mr. Cermak

 5     didn't have information?  Information about what?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That he did not have knowledge as to whether it was

 7     within his authority to sign documents on which it says, "I order this,"

 8     or "I order that"?

 9             How did you know that he had no knowledge what the limits of his

10     authority were?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know that, that he had no

12     knowledge.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, one of the previous answers to one of my

14     question, you said that he had no knowledge, isn't it?  I asked you

15     specifically about that.  I said, Did Mr. Cermak know.

16             I asked you:

17             "Did Mr. Cermak, when he signed these documents, which contained

18     the text "I order," or "it is ordered," did he know that he had no

19     authority to issue this piece of paper by the name of order?"

20             And then you said he did not know.  Because when we came to Knin

21     there was quite a mess, and then you started a lot of explanations.  But

22     your answer was that did he not know.

23             Now my question is:  How do you know that he did not know the

24     limits of his authority?  And now you say, I do not know; whereas, in one

25     of your previous answers, you said Mr. Cermak did not know, suggesting

Page 22564

 1     that you knew about his knowledge of where the limits of his authority

 2     were.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will have to

 4     speculate again.  I suppose that he, as a general who was dispatched to

 5     Knin, and was appointed and immediately had to leave, probably wasn't

 6     fully apprised of what his actual powers were.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  This is pure speculation.  You are speculating

 8     on the reasons why he would not know.  But your answer is that you do not

 9     know whether he knew or not.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

12             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, the earlier explanation where the witness

13     was headed off from giving his answer right at the start of all of this,

14     I think the witness was attempting to explain there the basis --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give me a line and a --

16             MR. KAY:  If I can go back up to ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that when he started about the mess upon arrival

18     in Knin?

19             MR. KAY:  That's it, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. KAY:  Looking at 19 --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I am aware of what you're referring to,

23     Mr. Kay.

24             MR. KAY:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

Page 22565

 1             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   Mr. Dondo, I put it to you that you do not know exactly as to

 4     what authority General Cermak had with the civilian police or the

 5     military police, and your testimony on this matter is all based on

 6     speculation.

 7             How do you respond to that?

 8        A.   [No interpretation].

 9        Q.   I'm sorry?

10        A.   Is that a question?

11        Q.   Yes.  I'm making -- I'm putting to you -- I'm making a

12     proposition.  You could answer as you please.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, this is the way to put a question to a

14     witness in cross-examination.  Ms. Mahindaratne puts to you that you had

15     no knowledge, that it's pure speculation, and you can comment on what is

16     put to you, whether you agree, whether you not agree, why you agree, why

17     you do not agree.  You may comment on this proposition.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, could you please

19     repeat your assertion again.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   I put it to you that you do not know exactly what

22     General Cermak's authority was over the military police and the civilian

23     police in the Knin area, and your testimony, on that subject, is based on

24     your speculation, mere speculation.

25             That is my proposition to you.  If you agree with me, you could

Page 22566

 1     say you agree with me; if not, you can say you disagree.

 2        A.   I disagree.  There is speculation, of course, since I'm not

 3     familiar with all the facts.  However, being privy to the events in Knin,

 4     I can say that he was familiar with the work of the military and civilian

 5     police, if that was your question.

 6        Q.   That wasn't my question and let me just put one more point to you

 7     on this.

 8             In your 2005 statement to the OTP, at paragraph 10, this is what

 9     you say about this matter:

10             "Mr. Cermak did not give us any specific tasks, but as we already

11     had a role as liaison officers, we assumed that it would be the same.

12     Mr. Cermak did not tell us what his role was to be and we were not told

13     that we were to be subordinate to him.  Our understanding that we still

14     worked for the MOD but were supporting Mr. Cermak."

15             Now, according to your own testimony, Mr. Dondo, General Cermak

16     never discussed his role with you, and your -- therefore, I put it to you

17     again, that your assertions made here about General Cermak's authority

18     over the civilian police and the military police are based on

19     speculation.

20        A.   Assertions about his powers over the civilian and military police

21     are, indeed, based on speculation alone.  Yes, I can assert that.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I just have a few more questions to you,

23     Mr. Dondo.

24             Yesterday you testified regarding the level of interpreters, the

25     UN interpreters, and you stated that you could recall specific instances

Page 22567

 1     when, in fact, you had to request the replacement of some of those

 2     UN interpreters because the level of their -- the interpretation was

 3     poor.

 4             Now, can you tell us any specific instance when you made such a

 5     request from the UN, to replace interpreters?

 6        A.   There were two such instances.  One involved a meeting with

 7     General Forand, where, and I can't name any names because I don't recall

 8     them, a girl was interpreting who made mistakes on three occasions, and

 9     we had to correct misinterpretation so that, ultimately, we asked that

10     the interpreter be replaced because the terms she used changed the

11     meanings of the sentences uttered.

12             The second instance involved a meeting concerning the departure

13     of a convoy, where individuals from the Croatian ministry were present.

14     The interpretation was also poor, and we asked that one of the best

15     interpreters present at the camp at the time show up.  He was a young man

16     who excelled at interpretation.  He interpreted fluently and clearly.

17             I can give you one or two more examples of the same type which

18     involved minor meetings.

19        Q.   Now, the girl you referred to as having made -- where you had

20     asked that she be replaced, if you go into private session, are you able

21     to provide the name of that interpreter?

22        A.   I don't recall.

23        Q.   Now, was that request made to General Forand?

24        A.   The request was stated at the meeting with General Forand, yes.

25     General Cermak was there as well.

Page 22568

 1             Since we always had two interpreters on our side, precisely for

 2     the fact that we observed irregularities in interpretation, one of the

 3     two interpreters followed the interpretation of the other side to

 4     intervene where necessary, especially where it came to the various

 5     UN rules.  So one of them basically dealt with the UN rules, the

 6     UN agreements and made sure that everything was interpreted correctly,

 7     and the other one followed the interpretation by the interpreter on the

 8     side of General Forand.

 9        Q.   Mr. Dondo, how do you assess your own fluency of the language

10     English?  Are you fluent?

11        A.   I speak English well.

12        Q.   I asked you that question because it has been suggested here in

13     court, in fact by the Defence, that even your level of fluency in English

14     was not sufficient.  And this is at transcript reference 1166 to 1168.

15             How do you respond to that?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Sufficient for what, Ms. Mahindaratne?

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It was said it is not sufficient to understand

18     the conversations and interpret adequately.  This is at reference 1166 to

19     1168.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  1166, one second, please.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It might not be the exact words,

22     Mr. President, but ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but I'll check whether the ...

24             Could you give me because in the early -- in e-court we have --

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, it isn't true.

Page 22569

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  One -- well, if you give us time first

 2     to verify what was exactly said.

 3             Do you have a date for it?

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It's the testimony of EJ Flynn, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The first day or -- no, most likely then the

 6     later days.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President, in cross-examination.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Let me -- if I'm given a minute I could get

10     that for you, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I will find it.

12             You said 1166.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  1166 going to 1168.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, it's 10th of April.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I have it in front of me.

17             Please proceed, meanwhile.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  The witness has already responded,

19     Mr. President.  I will -- shall I move on to the next area?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I'd -- not only to understand the --

21             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, I would like not only to understand the

23     answer that something is not true, but also to know exactly what the

24     question referred to.  If you would ...

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do we have it anywhere in writing?

Page 22570

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, let me just -- if would you give me some

 2     time.

 3             THE WITNESS:  I apologise.  I apologise, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, you are described in a piece of evidence

 5     as not being fluent in English at the time.

 6             Ms. Mahindaratne, that is what you referred to --

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- when you asked Mr. Dondo whether he agreed, and

 9     he said that's not true.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then you answered -- yes, you said it is

12     not true.  If you have any further questions, please proceed.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President I just have two more

14     questions.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure which period of time

16     this refers to, but it is certainly not true.  I do not speak perfectly -

17     I don't believe every Englishman does - but I do speak it well.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

19        Q.   The reference, Mr. Dondo, was to 1995, the period, August up

20     until November 1995, which is the subject matter of this indictment.

21             However, you have responded to my question.

22             Just one -- the last two questions from me, Mr. Dondo.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have P988, please.

24        Q.   Now while that document is being brought up, you were in fact

25     shown this document -- I'm sorry.

Page 22571

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if we could go to page 7 of the

 2     English version, and in the Croatian version, page 6.

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Dondo, you were questioned about a statement you had

 4     made here.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If we could focus on -- just --

 6        Q.   Do you see the title "Mass Grave in Knin Cemetery."  There it is

 7     reported as follows:

 8             "The mission arrived at the Knin cemetery at 1530, accompanied by

 9     Cermak's liaison officer, Karolj Dondo, and an unidentified colonel

10     described as an information officer.  The cemetery is located on a

11     dead-end street on the far north end of Knin."

12             And then there is some description.

13             Then you -- the last four lines from the bottom of that

14     paragraph:

15             "Mission members speculated that the military authorities wanted

16     to give the impression that technical procedures had been used while

17     burying the bodies, particularly since the liaison officer stated that

18     the whole procedure had been done in accordance with the

19     Geneva Conventions."

20             Then the paragraph numbered 4.4:

21             "The mission asked the liaison officer, Karolj Dondo, whether the

22     ICRC had cooperated in the identification and burial of the bodies.  He

23     replied that the ICRC had participated in all phases of the process.

24             "Upon return to Vienna on 21 August, the mission contacted the

25     ICRC in Zagreb to verify the statement made by Karolj Dondo.  A

Page 22572

 1     spokesperson for the ICRC in Zagreb denied categorically the claim that

 2     the ICRC had participated in any identification and burial of bodies in

 3     the Knin cemetery."

 4             So, Mr. Dondo, you had in fact made a false statement to these

 5     international monitors about the manner in which bodies were buried in

 6     the Knin cemetery.  And in fact in explanation, when you were confronted

 7     with that fact by the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor, in

 8     paragraph 33 of D1695, this is what you go on to say:

 9             "I have been asked about a Helsinki Committee report which states

10     that I accompanied them to the Knin cemetery on or about 18 August.  The

11     report states that I said the burials were being done in conjunction with

12     the ICRC but that the ICRC later denied any such involvement.  It is

13     possible that because I saw how well things were arranged at the

14     cemetery, I simply made the assumption that the ICRC had been involved."

15             So, Mr. Dondo, now, based on an assumption, you did not -- when

16     you met these Helsinki Committee persons you did not tell them that you

17     were simply assuming, but you have asserted that as a fact which proved

18     to be completely incorrect.

19             Now, once you got back from the office -- got back to the office,

20     did you ever find out or at least make inquiries as to whether your

21     assumption was accurate?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

23             MR. KEHOE:  If I -- just one piece of clarity on this assumption

24     because we seem to have merged to whether or not these bodies were buried

25     in conformity with the Geneva Conventions or comments to the ICRC,

Page 22573

 1     because, of course, they're two different concepts.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I took it that Ms. Mahindaratne was focussing on the

 3     involvement of the ICRC.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is correct, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, so you were asked -- you were asked what

 6     you stated for a fact; that is, that the ICRC was involved in all stages,

 7     which, as you then said, was an assumption, whether you ever verified the

 8     accuracy of this assumption.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I verified it with the colonel

10     who was in charge of information affairs, and he confirmed that it was

11     accurate.  I can't recall his name.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13        Q.   When did you verify this?

14        A.   At a later stage.

15        Q.   Now --

16        A.   I don't know when exactly.

17        Q.   Now, at the time in the cemetery when you made that statement to

18     the Helsinki Committee representatives, you were only making assumption;

19     is that correct?  You didn't know, you didn't verify from any party as to

20     whether the ICRC had participated in the burial process or not.

21        A.   The colonel for information and I discussed the matter on our way

22     to the cemetery, where it had been stated that we actually assumed that

23     this was the case, but neither of the two could be sure.  That's why I

24     presented it as my opinion, which I was not sure of, and then,

25     subsequently, verified it with the colonel who confirmed it.  I think it

Page 22574

 1     was after the first inquiry as to whether this was true or not.  I

 2     verified the information with the colonel; I can't recall his name.

 3        Q.   Isn't it right, though, at the time when you made the statement,

 4     you made an assertion that the ICRC had participated and what is reported

 5     here is the whole procedure had been done -- I'm sorry.  The ICRC had

 6     cooperated in the identification and burial of the bodies.  He replied

 7     that the ICRC had participated in all phases of processes.

 8             Now you had -- you have stated that as a fact and in fact there

 9     was a witness here in court who testified about this matter.

10             So my question to you is:  Why did you make a statement to an

11     international organisation, representatives of international

12     organisation, based on -- on mere assumption?

13        A.   Yes.  Because I thought that it was true and accurate.  I

14     believed that that was the case at the time.

15        Q.   Very well.  Thank you, Mr. Dondo.  I have no further questions to

16     you.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, that concludes my

18     cross-examination.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.

20             I have one or two follow-up questions.

21             Had you been at that cemetery before, Mr. Dondo?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  What was it that struck you as so well done on the

24     cemetery which made you believe that the ICRC would have been involved?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the graves were prepared in an

Page 22575

 1     orderly fashion and properly labelled.  This was one of the many reasons.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And some of the others, please?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, the colonel's assertion

 4     that the -- they had participated in the exercise.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  What was the reason to discuss it with the colonel?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reason was that until that

 7     morning I hadn't known I was to go to the cemetery.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But why to discuss this specific subject of

 9     ICRC being involved?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed, in general terms,

11     what had happened and the bodies, how they were buried, and -- because it

12     was said that it was a mass grave, and we claimed it wasn't.  We claimed

13     that all the bodies were buried in individual graves properly, that every

14     grave was marked, and the international community - that is, the

15     representative of the ICRC - was present during burial.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Did the colonel tell you how he knew all this?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Was his position such that he would have first-hand

19     knowledge of these kind of events?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this colonel was in charge of

21     information, and I thought he was supposed to know.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You would say someone who is charged with

23     information would know everything, or what is your perception of what an

24     officer for information is usually doing?  What's his main task?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, in matters like this,

Page 22576

 1     he was supposed to know whether the victims had been buried and whether

 2     the procedure had been fully observed.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not an answer to my question.  My question

 4     is:  Informations officer, is that someone who gathers information what

 5     happens within his own organisation, or is it someone who gathers

 6     information about what the opposite party is doing?  What was his exact

 7     position?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not his job to gather

 9     information about what the other side was doing.  His job was officer

10     for -- I can't remember the military title.  Political activity within

11     the army, I think.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And did he tell you that supervising funerals or

13     burials was within his tasks?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

16             We'll have a break, and we will resume at 11.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, any need to re-examine the witness.

20             MR. KAY:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

22                           Re-examination by Mr. Kay:

23        Q.   Mr. Dondo, dealing with matters, I hope, in order, you were asked

24     questions about the interview that took place at the offices of

25     Mr. Cermak in March of 1998, when the OTP interviewed him, and you were

Page 22577

 1     present.  And do you recollect that you were asked questions about what

 2     you said during the interview and the fact of your presence there?

 3        A.   Right.

 4        Q.   First of all, did anyone from the Office of the Prosecution

 5     conducting the interview object to you being present?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Did anyone object to the fact that you and Mr. Cermak may have

 8     discussed matters during the interview?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   And your purpose for going along to the interview on that day in

11     1998 was what?  Why were you there?

12        A.   I attended that meeting to also serve as an interpreter, if so

13     required.  I mean, if Mr. Cermak asked me.

14        Q.   Thank you.  You were asked questions about the drafting of orders

15     and the office procedures that were used in the garrison, and I think

16     you'll remember looking at one or two, when asked questions by the

17     Prosecution, and I want to ask you about those procedures now.

18             Firstly, when you worked with Mr. Cermak, did he have any

19     knowledge of the system of issuing orders in the military?

20        A.   I don't know.

21        Q.   Have you worked before with any officers, in relation to their

22     work and the need to draft orders at the request of the officer?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Are you able to compare Mr. Cermak's knowledge with those

25     procedures, as compared to the knowledge of other officers you have

Page 22578

 1     worked with?

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I object to this question.  I

 3     don't think this arises from cross-examination, as to -- I have not gone

 4     into this witness's other experience.  That doesn't even arise from any

 5     one of the statements.  There is no testimony before the Trial Chamber as

 6     to this witness's experiences with other officers.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Having consulted with my colleagues, the objection

 9     is denied.

10             At the same time, Mr. Kay, the witness, in answer to one of your

11     previous question, said that he didn't know what Mr. Cermak's knowledge

12     was of the system of orders.  Now you are asking him more or less to

13     compare what he knew with others, and the Chamber considers it's

14     appropriate that you first and then further explore what this witness

15     knows about the knowledge of Mr. Cermak before you start comparing that

16     knowledge.

17             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, that -- that's what I was trying to do.

18     I'm sorry if I was doing it clumsily.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then because -- if he had no knowledge, it,

20     certainly compared to others, then, of course, depends on what others

21     know, but it couldn't be more.  It could be the same or less.  But it was

22     not clear from your question whether you considered still to be some

23     knowledge there, whereas, the witness said that he didn't know about --

24     let me just check exactly what the witness said.

25             I'm focussing on -- let me just check.

Page 22579

 1             Yes, I'm referring to page 36, line 19, and the question in the

 2     two lines before that.  Any knowledge.  The witness apparently doesn't

 3     know.

 4             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, perhaps I will deal with this in a

 5     different -- different way --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. KAY:  -- which may assist the Court.

 8             And for this series of questions, if we go to the transcript,

 9     page 20, line 25 onwards.

10        Q.   And you were asked many questions on this subject about the

11     authority of Mr. Cermak, what he knew, what his knowledge was, whether he

12     knew what his knowledge was, whether you knew what his knowledge was.

13             And during some answers to His Honour Judge Orie, a question was

14     asked:  Did Mr. Cermak, when he signed this documents which contained the

15     text "I order," or "it is ordered," did he know that he had no authority

16     to issue this piece of paper by the name of "order."  And the answer that

17     you partly gave was:

18             "He did not know because when we came to Knin, there was quite a

19     mess, I would say, in various inter-relations and relations among various

20     commands, which I cannot go into, and orders appeared only in the

21     beginning until this misunderstanding was resolved."

22             So could you elaborate and explain what you were saying there?

23        A.   What I meant was that things that occurred at first in Knin were

24     directed by the UN and other international organisations, primarily

25     towards Mr. Cermak, particularly in view of the tasks that Mr. Cermak

Page 22580

 1     presented to us, saying that one of his tasks was to establish good

 2     communication and good relations with the United Nations.

 3             Our desire was to do our best to resolve the problems that

 4     occurred in the beginning, and, so, his requests that he received, be it

 5     regarding stolen vehicles or restrictions on movement, which occurred

 6     mainly in the beginning, were turned into orders, that they were

 7     formulated as such mainly in our office, in the belief that Mr. Cermak,

 8     in view of his position, was able to issue orders.  In his daily duties,

 9     doing his job day to day, Mr. Cermak did not pay attention to the form of

10     writings but the contents.  He signed them and sent them to the relevant

11     person or agency.

12        Q.   Now, let's look at the -- what in fact happened.

13             Were you able to see whether he was able to achieve those goals

14     that he tried to achieve by issuing those documents?

15        A.   Unfortunately, to the extent we were able to see things and get

16     information, all his attempts and efforts were unsuccessful.  And aside

17     from that example that the Prosecutor cited that I'm not familiar with, I

18     am not aware of any case where a positive result obtained after his

19     orders.

20        Q.   Now, in your original text as well, which you -- or the text

21     which we see here where your answer to Judge Orie was, The

22     misunderstanding was resolved, are you able to explain by what you meant

23     in that phrase, in answer to Judge Orie's question?

24        A.   Could you give me the context?

25        Q.   Yes.  I'll read out what you said again to remind you.

Page 22581

 1             "He did not know, because when we came to Knin, there was quite a

 2     mess, I would say, in various inter-relations and relations among various

 3     commands, which I cannot go into.  And orders appeared only in the

 4     beginning, until this misunderstanding was resolved."

 5             And it's that's phrase "misunderstanding was resolved" that I'm

 6     asking you if you can explain further to the Court?

 7        A.   All can I say is that Mr. Cermak realised that his orders were

 8     pointless and that he could not issue them as such.

 9        Q.   And when in that answer as well you refer to, "There was quite a

10     mess."  "He did not know because when we came to Knin, there was quite a

11     mess, I would say ..."

12             Could you explain what you meant by that and how that is relevant

13     to this issue?

14        A.   It is relevant insofar as Mr. Cermak himself did not know in the

15     beginning whom to approach regarding certain problems that occurred in

16     Knin at that time.  The government, or the ministry, or the garrison

17     command, the command of Sector South, or someone else entirely.

18             That was at least the feeling I had.

19        Q.   And you say that that was a -- a feeling.  Is that based upon the

20     facts that you witnessed and what you experienced at the time?

21        A.   Absolutely.  Absolutely.  Since I attended many meetings, I know

22     that Mr. Cermak, General Cermak, would call up the ministry one day.  The

23     next day he would talk to Gotovina.  The next day he would address

24     Mr. Jarnjak.  So there was no particular consistency to this chain of

25     command.

Page 22582

 1        Q.   And in making those contacts and taking those steps, what was

 2     Mr. Cermak trying to do?  Are you able to explain that?

 3        A.   Usually these contacts were made after meetings with the UN, when

 4     he was trying to deal with problems that had been presented to him at the

 5     meeting.  As I said at the outset, these problems concerned mainly

 6     restrictions on the movement of UN forces, who wished to move outside the

 7     designated areas, and did so; and when they did so, they would be stopped

 8     by the Croatian Army, after which they would complain.  In parallel,

 9     there were complaints about arson and other incidents also addressed to

10     General Cermak.

11        Q.   And just taking up what you said about the last matter, in

12     relation to this, what was he attempting to do, in fact?  And by that, I

13     mean when you referred to the arson.

14        A.   With regard to arson incidents, he couldn't do much, except find

15     out where these incidents had happened and inform the civilian police and

16     ask for a report, whether this was, indeed, arson, as opposed to

17     accidental fire, so that he could transmit the information to the UN.

18        Q.   Turning, now, to another subject.  You were asked many questions

19     concerning the events that took place in relation to the matter at

20     Grubori, and you were referred to a UNTV interview that took place on the

21     26th of August.  And a particular passage was put to you.  I'll read it

22     out from the transcript, first of all, before we go to the text.

23             MR. KAY:  Page 22.524.

24        Q.   And my learned friend asked this question:

25             "Now based on your own findings, consequent to your visit to

Page 22583

 1     Grubori in the evening of the 26th of August, do you agree with me that

 2     Generals -- General Cermak's statement or interview given to UNTV crew in

 3     the morning of the 26th of August where he says that already civilian

 4     authorities had been to Grubori and had helped the people, is an

 5     inaccurate statement?"

 6             And you replied:  "I do agree?"

 7             MR. KAY:  If we go to the words within the interview itself,

 8     which we can call up as Exhibit P504.

 9        Q.   And on Exhibit P504, if we can turn to page 2 of the English

10     document to look at the text there, we can see in the second paragraph,

11     if we go to the third line, which this issue concerns:  The Croatian

12     civilian authorities have reached the village and taken care of the

13     people, organised humanitarian aid for them and all other assistance

14     required, so the people remained in their houses.

15             And then if we go to the next Cermak answer again on this issue:

16     The civilian police and authorities were in the village yesterday.  I'm

17     not aware whether the village was visited by someone this morning.  I see

18     no need why the police should go there today again.

19             Now, were you aware at the time that on the 25th of August, the

20     UN and internationals groups had scheduled a meeting in Plavno of the

21     local population, and that is why they were up in that area at the time?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   Did you know whether Mr. Pasic and Mr. Romanic were due to go to

24     Plavno on the 25th of August to that area?

25        A.   I didn't know that.

Page 22584

 1        Q.   Very well.  I'll ask no further questions about that.

 2             Were you aware of what the UN people who reported to you on the

 3     25th of August, why they had been in the area and had come across this

 4     incident at Grubori?

 5        A.   The UN visited all the villages in the area at the time, in order

 6     to inform the people and collect all the people who were willing to leave

 7     the area for Serbia.  I presume that that was one of the reasons why they

 8     were present in the area.

 9        Q.   Did you know of any other functions or -- or tasks or jobs that

10     they were doing, other than that collecting matter you were refer to?

11     Did you know if they were doing any other jobs?

12        A.   Do you mean the jobs of the UN?

13        Q.   Yes.  Did you know -- you've mentioned --

14        A.   [No interpretation].

15        Q.   -- to them going to the area, visiting the village.  Did you know

16     what else they were doing, or is that the full extent of your knowledge

17     on the matter?

18        A.   As I said, to the best of my knowledge, they toured villages and

19     compiled lists of inhabitants present there.  That was the extent of my

20     knowledge at the time.

21             They also had a bus of their own where they boarded the

22     individuals who were willing to leave right away and transported them to

23     Knin.  We personally saw the bus out in the field when we were in

24     Grubori.

25        Q.   In relation to the report made to you by -- you describe an

Page 22585

 1     Italian lady, I believe, on the 25th of August, when you were informed

 2     that something had happened at Grubori and there was fire.  You were

 3     asked if you had reported it to the civil police.

 4             Do you know if the UN people had reported it themselves to the

 5     civil police?

 6        A.   I don't know if they had, but I know that I told them to do so,

 7     to report that to the civilian police, in view of the fact that it was a

 8     criminal offence which falls within the competence of the police.

 9        Q.   Had you expected them then to go to the civil police themselves

10     that day, to report the matter?

11        A.   Judging from their reaction, I had, yes.

12        Q.   And you were asked questions about the words concerning

13     Operation Storm that were written in the Knin police log-book after your

14     report to them of what happened in Grubori.

15             Was Operation Storm still continuing at that time, or had it

16     finished?

17        A.   Operation Storm had finished a while ago, at the time.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             MR. KAY:  I have no further questions.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Judge Kinis has one or more questions for you.

23                           Questioned by the Court:

24             JUDGE KINIS:  Mr. Dondo, I have a question related with your

25     statement given by Defence, and I mention specifically paragraph 20.

Page 22586

 1             In this paragraph, you mentioned that you also participated in

 2     inspections of helicopters -- of UN helicopters, and as far as I

 3     understood, "We told Mr. Cermak that it would be a good idea if we, the

 4     liaison officers, supervise the inspection of the helicopters."

 5             My question is who -- who handed over these inspections?

 6        A.   It wasn't Mr. Cermak that the initiative came from.  It was our

 7     office that suggested the initiative to Mr. Cermak, given that, at the

 8     time, many Serb refugees were in the area, and among them, there were

 9     criminals who had not yet surrendered to the Croatian government.

10             JUDGE KINIS:  Excuse me.  Excuse me.

11        A.   Our idea was that the situation had be to kept under control.

12             JUDGE KINIS:  I'd like to interrupt you.  I'm asking you who

13     executed this -- this order or who actually carried out these

14     inspections?  Which body, military police, civil police?

15        A.   Military police.

16             JUDGE KINIS:  I'm asking this particularly because I wanted to

17     confront your statement with Dzolic transcript.  Dzolic was chief of --

18     of -- of Knin Military Police Company.

19             And in -- -- his statement was given on 17th September 2008, and

20     then specifically referring on transcript pages 901 -- 9132, when I'm ask

21     a question to him:  Did military police participate in this such

22     operations?

23             And he -- he denied completely, saying that military police never

24     carried out such inspections.

25             My question is:  Who tells it true?

Page 22587

 1        A.   I'm telling the truth.

 2             JUDGE KINIS:  You mention here that 15 -- from 10 to 15 flights

 3     were inspected, as far as I understood.  Is it correct?

 4        A.   That's correct.

 5             JUDGE KINIS:  And who -- who provide to you -- to you people from

 6     military police who ensures this inspection really?  And how this

 7     inspection was carried out?  Which tasks was prepared for this inspection

 8     especially?

 9        A.   The procedure was as follows.  The UN liaison officer would

10     inform us of the helicopter's flight a day earlier and would give us the

11     time of the helicopter's takeoff.

12             On the same day, we would draft a written request, addressed to

13     the military police headquarters in the Senjak barracks, unless I'm

14     mistaken, where it would be handed over to the duty officer.

15             On the following day, they would provide us with a military

16     policeman who would come with us to conduct the inspection of the

17     helicopter, since we as liaison officers were not authorised to carry out

18     any sort of inspection or supervision.  So it was a -- a procedure that

19     had many -- that this had been -- taken place on many occasions.  I think

20     that the United Nations can easily confirm this.

21             JUDGE KINIS:  And who drafted this written request and signed?

22        A.   Liaison officers.  After having received information from the UN,

23     a liaison officer would draft a request for an escort of the helicopter,

24     and that would be delivered to the duty officer of the military police.

25             JUDGE KINIS:  Thank you.

Page 22588

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will have just one

 3     question of the witness.

 4                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Dondo, yesterday when Madam Prosecutor asked

 6     you about the report that you compiled on the 26th, following your visit

 7     to Grubori - and for everyone's reference this is page 63, line 20 of the

 8     yesterday's transcript - she asked you if you had observed any weapons in

 9     the area, and your answer was in the negative.

10             Then the Prosecutor asked you whether you had seen any sort of

11     weapons anywhere in the village and your answer again -- and your answer

12     was that you didn't remember.  Do you recall this?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Did you during your visit to Grubori tour the entire village, go

15     through every house and yard, or didn't you?

16        A.   This was in fact where the entire misunderstanding lay between me

17     and Madam Prosecutor, which resulted in a debate.  When I went to

18     Grubori, I went there as an observer, as a liaison officer, and not as an

19     expert who would analyse the way in which the fighting took place there

20     and the events that transpired there.  I took note of what I observed at

21     first glance, since there were only three -- two of us there, and since I

22     knew that there had transpired a terrible incident there with grave

23     consequences, you can imagine that to a certain extent we were afraid and

24     unable to concentrate on individual details that could perhaps be found

25     in different places in the village.

Page 22589

 1        Q.   Is my understanding correct that your answer to my question is

 2     that you in fact did not inspect every house and yard in the village of

 3     Grubori?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Nothing, Mr. President, thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have a few questions for you as well,

10     Mr. Dondo.

11                           Questioned by the Court: [Continued]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, you were asked whether the content of the

13     report you were to forward to the Red Cross, whether that, in every

14     respect, was consistent with your own observations.

15             Now, your answer said:

16             "It can be said that what happened in Grubori was, as was indeed

17     said, a contact between enemy forces and that fire was opened from heavy

18     weaponry upon houses."

19             What heavy weaponry was used to fire upon houses?

20        A.   I apologise, Your Honours, could I have my report on the screen,

21     because I don't recall writing anything of the sort in my report.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but it was part of your answer you gave

23     yesterday to me.  I was not quoting from your report.  It might be good

24     to have the report on the screen anyhow, but ...

25             Mr. Registrar, could you assist us.

Page 22590

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's P764, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  P764.

 3             But that's what you said yesterday when I asked about your report

 4     you said, Well, what happened, as was indeed said apparently in the

 5     report sent to the Red Cross, or at least in relation to the report sent

 6     to the Red Cross, that a contact between enemy forces and that fire was

 7     opened from heavy weaponry upon houses.

 8             My question is:  What heavy weaponry were you talking about.

 9        A.   Your Honour, I was referring to the information contained in the

10     letter that Mr. Cermak sent to the Red Cross.  In other words, those were

11     not my words, and I wouldn't know what sort of weaponry that was.  I was

12     merely re-tracing the words contained in the letter sent by Mr. Cermak to

13     the Red Cross, and I wish to emphasise -- may I continue?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please.

15        A.   I wish to emphasise that the letter was at the heart of the

16     misunderstanding yesterday with Madam Prosecutor, which we were unable to

17     resolve.  My assertions, given both to the Prosecution and the Defence,

18     are that this letter was not written by Mr. Cermak.  Rather, this is a

19     report that Mr. Cermak received from --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo.  Mr. Dondo --

21        A.    -- individuals who --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, why not answer my question?

23             My question was what heavy weapons you were talking about.  If

24     you know, please tell me; if you don't know, please tell me as well.

25        A.   I don't know.

Page 22591

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  So yesterday you presented as for a fact what

 2     happened in Grubori what was actually stated in the letter.  Is that how

 3     I should understand your answer you gave yesterday?

 4        A.   If the report was describing the events as they transpired in the

 5     village, then there is nothing further that I can say about it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You have no personal knowledge of what

 7     actually happened as far as the use of heavy weapons are concerned.

 8             So when you said yesterday:  "It can be said that what happened

 9     in Grubori was, as was indeed said, a contact between enemy forces and

10     that fire was opened from heavy weaponry upon houses," that suggests

11     that, apart from it being said, which I understand to be it being said in

12     the report, that you could personally confirm that, that's at least --

13     that's how I read your answer, but that is not what you intended to say,

14     I now do understand.

15        A.   If you do understand it now, then I need not explain any further.

16     I was merely presenting -- or reading, better said, portions of the

17     letter that we had before us -- portions of the report that we had before

18     us.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the ICRC report.

20             Let me return to your report which you left on Mr. Cermak's desk

21     on the 26th of August, 1995.

22             And could we please move to the next page.  Yes.

23             In paragraph 8, you ask for an urgent clearing up of bodies.  You

24     are describing a situation which comes close to a crime scene.  Is there

25     any reason why you did not ask an investigation, rather than clearing up

Page 22592

 1     bodies?

 2        A.   The sanitisation of bodies -- or, rather, I conveyed facts as I

 3     found them in the field to the police.

 4             The term "sanitisation of bodies" appeared in the log-book of the

 5     police, and I used it in my report after having read it there, knowing

 6     that a day before, Mr. Cermak had a meeting where he told the UNTV that

 7     if a criminal offence had been committed, he would take any and all

 8     measures to have it proved and to have those responsible punished.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  When did you leave this report on the desk of

10     Mr. Cermak?  When did you -- do you remember, you returned from Grubori,

11     I take it?  And then did you --

12        A.   It was rather late, approximately 10.00 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we have -- I have not on my mind the

14     copy of the police log.  Could we have that on the screen as well.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's D57.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  D57, thank you.

17             Now, when did you go to the police to have a look at the police

18     log-book?

19             Could we go to the ...

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That would be page 61, I believe.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Page 61.

22             When did you go to the police, Mr. Dondo?

23        A.   Immediately on my return, at 7.30, 8.00 p.m.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you had a look at the entries in the police

25     log?

Page 22593

 1        A.   Yes.  I was able to see the note made by the gentleman over the

 2     counter.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Also about Operation Storm, which you considered to

 4     be incorrect.

 5        A.   Correct.  And I told him as much, but he ignored it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Did this person then immediately write your

 7     report on the bodies, ignoring what you said, and then the civilian

 8     protection officers for hygiene and sanitation measures that it will be

 9     passed to them, was that immediately written down by that same person?

10        A.   I don't know about that because I went away immediately.  As far

11     as I remember.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's come back to the core of my first question.

13             What made you believe that investigation would have been dealt

14     with and that you had to focus on sanitation rather than anything else?

15        A.   Well, first of all, the people in that village, who inspired my

16     empathy, they addressed us themselves.  They didn't know what to do with

17     the bodies.  It was summer, the smell was spreading, and my first thought

18     was sanitisation.  And they asked themselves that the bodies be removed,

19     and there was even a lady who tried to drag her husband's body through

20     the village to her house to change the clothes.

21             So, primarily, it was the humanitarian situation I found in the

22     village.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And the fact that no investigation had taken place,

24     you considered not to outweigh your humanitarian concerns about the dead

25     bodies still being there?

Page 22594

 1        A.   I don't understand your question, Your Honour.  I was certain

 2     that the investigation would take place the next day.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And what -- on the next day, when you arrived, did

 4     you verify whether any investigation had taken place?  Because you went

 5     back to Grubori the 27th, in the morning.

 6        A.   Sorry, I don't understand the question.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I asked you whether you verified because you

 8     returned in the afternoon of the 26th.  In the full confidence that an

 9     investigation would take place, you returned the next day, in the

10     morning, from what I understand, to Grubori.

11             Did you verify whether that investigation had taken place?

12        A.   I did not check that in the document, but the very fact that

13     Mr. Sacic was there, and Mr. Cermak was there, together with sanitary

14     inspection and the military police [as interpreted], was enough to

15     convince me that all the necessary steps would be taken to conduct an

16     inquiry, and investigate all that needed to be investigated in the

17     village.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, just a slight intervention as it

19     refers to the translation; namely, line -- page 53, line 11, where the

20     witness mentioned police, the transcript says "military police" and I

21     believe the witness mentioned something else.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'll read part of your answer as it was

23     translated to us, Mr. Dondo, and please comment if you think that there's

24     anything inaccurate.

25             You said:

Page 22595

 1             "... but the very fact that Mr. Sacic was there, and Mr. Cermak

 2     was there, together with sanitary inspection and the," and then you

 3     talked about the police.  What police did you refer to?

 4        A.   Crime police.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The crime police was there.  Do you remember exactly

 6     who from the crime police was there?

 7        A.   I don't remember exactly, but I remember a person wearing a blue

 8     suit with "crime police" on his back.  He was touring the site,

 9     inspecting the bodies before they were put in body-bags.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And taken where; do you know?

11        A.   No, I don't know.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, I would like to change subjects.

13             You said that, when Mr. Cermak issued a document saying it was an

14     order that one would just ignore that.

15             Now, there are two ways of understanding ignoring an order.  The

16     first is ignoring that you're under an obligation to do what is in that

17     order; the second interpretation is that, although you would say that

18     order does not give me any obligation to act but I would, nevertheless,

19     look at the information in the orders and then do what the order says I

20     have to do.

21             Now, when you say that his orders were ignored, is it that you

22     say, Well, people were acting upon the information in those orders; or

23     are you saying, No, they just ignored the whole of it, not taking any

24     action, because the order was not given under proper authority.

25             Which of the two did you -- or any third version.  Which of the

Page 22596

 1     two did you mean when you said that the orders of Mr. Cermak were

 2     ignored?

 3        A.   There is also a third option that I would choose.  Namely, that

 4     every unit in the area at the time had its own commander to whom they

 5     were answerable, and every order by Cermak had first to be transmitted

 6     down to that commander, and that commander would then decide whether to

 7     execute it or not.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  So you would say, for example, if Mr. Cermak would

 9     issue an order to the military police that they would not do anything

10     until another order was issued or ...

11        A.   Until the military police commander approved it.  That's my

12     opinion, yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Now let's just assume that you sent an order to

14     the -- to the military police, and that the company commander of the

15     military police sees that order, would you expect him to take action in

16     accordance with the order, even if he might not have been under an

17     obligation to do so, or would you think, or would you know, that they

18     would remain passive?

19        A.   Well, at the beginning, as I said, we believed that these orders

20     would have an effect, and that's why they were written as orders.

21     However, when we realised they did not have any weight --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, Mr. -- yes.  I have clearly in my memory

23     this portion of your memory [sic].  What I'm exploring at this moment is

24     when you realised that they did not have any weight, not any effect, they

25     were ignored, I'm trying to understand exactly what that means, both in

Page 22597

 1     terms of what happened, and in terms of what you understood or expected

 2     to happen.

 3             Now, if Mr. Cermak would issue an order for which he was not

 4     going beyond his authority, let's -- let's take such an example as, I

 5     order the police to investigate military vehicles, UN vehicles that have

 6     disappeared, I order you to do your utmost best to find them.  What if

 7     such an order would be received by the company commander of the military

 8     police, what -- first of all, what happened, if you know; and, second, if

 9     you do not know what happened, what would you expect would happen?

10        A.   Well, to say that I knew what they did with such an order would

11     be untrue.  But I suppose they put it in a drawer because -- because they

12     did nothing about it.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  They would not consider, even though it was called

14     an order, that they were supposed to take action in accordance with the

15     information contained in that order.

16             Is that what you say you would expect?

17        A.   Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you told us that you didn't know what happened.

19     At the same time, no orders were issued anymore, because you thought them

20     to be ineffective and being ignored.  Was it ever verified with those

21     receiving those orders how they looked at what they were supposed to do

22     when receiving such an order?

23        A.   We personally did not verify that, because we were -- that's --

24     that was not our job as liaison officers.  Whether Mr. Cermak or anyone

25     else verified it, I don't know.

Page 22598

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If the company commander of the military police

 2     would have testified in this court that he didn't feel under any

 3     obligation to execute an order given by Mr. Cermak but that he felt that

 4     he was supposed to act upon the information in that order, would that

 5     surprise you?

 6        A.   No.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you just told us that you would expect them to

 8     put it in a drawer.  And when I now ask you whether it would surprise you

 9     that they would take appropriate action upon the information in the

10     order, where you said they would do nothing three minutes ago, put it in

11     a drawer, not take any action at all, that seems to be contradictory.

12             Could you explain why you're not surprised by such a testimony?

13        A.   I'm not surprised because it's not about one unit but a number of

14     units and a number of commanders, and various commanders can react in

15     various ways.  Some would make an effort and say, Let's try to do

16     something about this; and others would simply put it in a drawer and

17     forget about it.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So when I asked you what you expected to

19     happen, the real answer was that, I expected that some of them might put

20     it in a drawer; whereas, others might take action.

21             Is that correctly understood?

22        A.   Correct.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You said you supposed they put it in a drawer

24     because -- because they did nothing about it.

25             So some did something about it, when receiving orders?

Page 22599

 1        A.   I suppose so.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So not issuing any further orders because they were

 3     ignored is part of what was reality.

 4        A.   I would say so.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those answers.

 6             Could you tell me, where did you receive your training in the

 7     English language?  What -- did you learn it at school, did you learn it

 8     anywhere else?

 9        A.   I learned it at school.  I studied it for 14 years, and my wife

10     is Canadian, so that I speak more English at home than Croatian.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  When did you marry?

12        A.   30 years ago.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  30 years ago.  So you were married with her in 1995.

14             I think I have no --

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I have no further questions for you.

17             Ms. Mahindaratne, any --

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, just a couple of questions

19     arising from the questions from the Bench.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21                      Further Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

23        Q.   Mr. Dondo, now you answered a number of questions about how some

24     of General Cermak's orders did not bring about any effect, that they were

25     not, in fact, executed by the recipients.

Page 22600

 1             Now, you testified about the daily reports, the fact that you

 2     reported on a daily basis, or the liaison office reported on a daily

 3     basis, about your activities which was sent to your command in Zadar.

 4             Now, did you report that fact, that General Cermak's orders were

 5     not, in fact, implemented by the forces to which they were addressed?

 6        A.   I think that there is even a document phrased in that way, to

 7     that effect, but we would have to search for it in a sea of documents.

 8     But I believe there is a document showing that General Cermak is trying

 9     his best but has not enough support and not enough capacities to -- to

10     achieve that.

11        Q.   Mr. Dondo, I'm not talking about a document.  My question was:

12     Did you submit any report to your liaison command in Zadar, reporting

13     that orders were not issued by General Cermak were not being implemented?

14        A.   Not on a daily basis.  But I repeat there is one document where

15     we emphasised that, where we noted that, among other things.

16        Q.   That is -- a document.  When you say a document, it is a report

17     by --

18        A.   [In English] A report, yes.  Excuse me.  [Interpretation]

19     Correct.

20        Q.   And those reports are filed in -- were sent to Zadar; isn't that

21     correct?

22        A.   To Zadar, and from Zadar to the command in Zagreb.  That would be

23     a summary.  All command posts had liaison officers who sent their reports

24     to Zadar, they were summarised there, and in summary form, were sent to

25     Zagreb.  Whether every word of every report was transmitted to Zagreb, I

Page 22601

 1     cannot say.

 2        Q.   Now those reports are -- at least those reports that were sent to

 3     Zagreb, do you know where they are?

 4        A.   Well, they have to be at the Ministry of Defence of Croatia.

 5        Q.   So your commander is Mr. Lukovic, isn't it?

 6        A.   Correct.

 7        Q.   Would you surprised to be told that Mr. Lukovic testified in

 8     these proceedings, in fact last week, and his testimony was that some of

 9     those documents were destroyed, burnt.  Do you know that?

10        A.   I do.  All the documents that had been stored at the bases of

11     various arms of command were burnt, because the main command in Zagreb

12     had said they did not need it, because they had all the reports.

13             Thus, everything that was kept in some outposts, to put it that

14     way, the small liaison officers' command post, all those documents were

15     burned at the request of our main command, because they believed they

16     were in possession of all the documents that had been summarised during

17     the war.

18        Q.   Now just two more questions on this, Mr. Dondo.

19             Now, yesterday your testimony was, when I specifically asked you

20     if you had conveyed any instructions from General Cermak to the civilian

21     police and military police, you answered in the negative.  Now, in that

22     context, how is it that you know what impact General Cermak's

23     instructions to the police or -- to the military police or the civilian

24     police had when you weren't in fact involved in conveying the

25     instructions to those forces?

Page 22602

 1        A.   Because on many occasions I participated in meetings which

 2     discussed various tasks that needed to be done and whether they had been

 3     done, some daily meetings and other meetings.

 4        Q.   So what -- what was it that was reported at these daily meetings

 5     that indicated to you that these orders had not been implemented?  Did

 6     the police -- civilian police or the military police attend those

 7     meetings and say, Sorry, we have put those orders into the drawers, we

 8     are not doing it, or was some explanation offered, or did Mr. Cermak tell

 9     something to that you indicated to you that these orders were not

10     implemented?

11        A.   Well, at these meetings, the discussion was mainly about what the

12     tasks were and which tasks had been carried out, and most often we had to

13     face the fact that most of the tasks regarding special units, the

14     civilian police, and to the less extent the civil protection, which

15     mostly performed the orders of Mr. Cermak, did not carry out Mr. Cermak's

16     orders on various pretexts.  They did not have the ability or the time or

17     whatever.

18        Q.   Let me see if I understand your testimony.

19             At these meetings, the civilian police and the military police

20     were present; isn't that correct?

21        A.   Not always.  Each meeting was attended by those who were needed

22     to carry out a certain task.  If somebody had received a task the day

23     before, they were supposed to come that day and report on progress, and

24     by the same token, we had to go to a meeting with the UN and report on --

25     on implementation.  Some tasks were implemented, some were not.

Page 22603

 1             At the beginning, everyone attended, and as time went on, there

 2     were less and less participants --

 3        Q.   So your testimony here, and you have provided this in the

 4     statements, is that at the daily meetings the civilian police and

 5     military police were present.  That is your testimony.

 6             Now, my question is this:  When any task that was requested or

 7     that was conveyed from General Cermak to these forces were not

 8     implemented, did those representatives of those forces, the addressees of

 9     those orders, inform General Cermak why those tasks were not implemented?

10             Now you said some pretext was offered.  So was some explanation

11     given to General Cermak as to why those tasks were not carried out by

12     those forces?

13        A.   I don't remember.  I don't remember that.

14        Q.   Do you recall any meeting where you attended where General Cermak

15     and the civilian police members who were present at the meeting, or

16     members of the military police present at the meeting, had any

17     discussions as to why any task conveyed by General Cermak to those forces

18     were not implemented?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Thank you.  I have no further questions to you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Have the questions by the Bench

22     triggered any need any further questions.

23             MR. KAY:  Those from my learned friend, Your Honour, which arise

24     from the ones from the Bench.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that's indirect --

Page 22604

 1             MR. KAY:  Yeah.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- from the Bench.  Yes.

 3             MR. KAY:  It's just the last issue at page 62, line 6.

 4                           Further Re-examination by Mr. Kay:

 5        Q.   In your testimony, you have explained that crimes that were being

 6     committed were discussed at the meetings.  Did you -- or did you hear at

 7     the meetings any explanations from the civilian police as to why they

 8     could not prevent crimes, why crimes were still continuing?

 9        A.   What was most frequently said was that the area was vast and that

10     the few policemen were insufficient to cover the entire area and

11     especially insufficient to man all the check-points that should be

12     erected in order to prevent access to the relevant area.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. KAY:  That's all I ask from that matter.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Anything else by any of the other Defence teams?  If

16     not --

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, this concludes your evidence in this

19     Court.  I would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and

20     for giving your testimony, answering the questions that were put to you

21     by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you safe trip home again.

22             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, I have a -- even a --

23             [Interpretation] I have a point to make, a request which is a

24     special request, and I suppose it's not -- it is out of the ordinary, but

25     can I be allowed to shake hands with the accused?

Page 22605

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dondo, it is not commonly done, and -- that

 2     direct personal contact between the witness and the accused takes place

 3     in the courtroom, but your words have been translated -- no, they don't

 4     have not even been translated to the accused because they could hear it

 5     directly.  So they are aware of your wish to shake hands with them, which

 6     might perhaps already achieve some of what you intended to achieve.

 7             Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Dondo out of the

 8     courtroom.

 9                           [The witness withdrew]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Under normal circumstances, we would have

11     immediately a break now.  But not knowing exactly what will happen after

12     the break, perhaps it is better to perhaps briefly discuss this.

13             The Chamber understands, Mr. Kay, that the order of the

14     appearance of witnesses has been changed.  Not only been changed but that

15     one witness who apparently is not available at this moment due to

16     illness, as we understood, that that has caused some changes in the

17     schedule and even putting Mr. Dodig before Mr. Pasic; whereas, we

18     expected Mr. Dodig to testify, I think, on Thursday or Friday only.

19             I'd like to hear from -- well, first of all, whether -- of

20     course, we do also do understand that Mr. Dodig arrived today, and that

21     he may have arrived now on the premises of the Tribunal.  If we would

22     start the testimony of Mr. Dodig today, then that would most likely

23     complete the examination-in-chief which apparently is 92 ter, half a

24     session, as you are usually asking for going through the attestations and

25     identifying the document as his statement.  That would mean that we could

Page 22606

 1     still do that today.

 2             But then would the -- first of all, I have to address the

 3     Gotovina Defence, which asked for 45 minutes cross-examination.

 4             Would you be ready to cross-examine that witness tomorrow, Mr. --

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.  Upon reflection, I think our

 6     questioning would be much more concise and limited time-wise, and I would

 7     say if we do anything - if - it would be 15 minutes at the most.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not primarily seeking at this moment the

 9     time-limits but rather on whether you're ready.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You're ready.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I'm looking at the Markac Defence where I find

14     on my list that it was still to be determined whether and for how long

15     the Markac Defence would wish to cross-examine Mr. Dodig.

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, I believe we already informed the

17     Cermak's Defence that we will have no questions.  If we didn't do so, I

18     am now informing and I'm apologising for any confusion.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's -- perhaps my list is not up to date.

20     Then, I'm addressing -- yes, Mr. Kay.

21             MR. KAY:  And for Your Honours' reference, I won't be half a

22     session.  There are no exhibits to produce through this witness --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MR. KAY:  -- and I will just go through the 92 ter procedure and

25     tender him for cross-examination.

Page 22607

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which takes 20 minutes.

 2             Mr. Kehoe, now I have a different question for you.  Would be

 3     ready today already to start cross-examining Mr. Dodig?

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Yeah, I would, Mr. President, if I have any questions

 5     at all.  I will consult with my client and co-counsel, but I would.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Now I'm addressing the Defence because -- the

 7     Prosecution because that is where the objections come from.

 8             Mr. Waespi.

 9             MR. WAESPI:  Yes, we will be ready to start cross-examination

10     tomorrow.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  On the basis of these inquiries, the Chamber wants

14     to take a break now for 20 minutes so that we resume at 1.00.

15             Mr. Kay, that you start your examination-in-chief of the witness,

16     just supposing that he has arrived and that with -- that there's a chance

17     that we might even conclude, if there's any at all, the cross-examination

18     of the Gotovina Defence today, so that, tomorrow, the Prosecution could

19     start its cross-examination.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I just rose to my feet before

21     adjournment just to address Court on just small matter with regard to the

22     previous witness's exhibits.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Having dealt with this suggestion how to

24     proceed today and tomorrow, now you may raise the matter.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, with regard to P2556 [sic], the

Page 22608

 1     Prosecution awaits the Chamber's guidance as to exactly how it prefers --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We are still thinking about that, how to -- how to

 3     organise, to bring in the relevant portions of the comments.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We're still thinking.  And we, and especially

 6     Chamber staff is working hard on it.  So we will come with a solution for

 7     that.

 8             Yes, Mr. Misetic.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  I know we're talking -- well, the document we're

10     talking, but just for the record, if Ms. Mahindaratne could clarify the

11     exhibit number I believe she said P2556.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry.  P2526, the statement -- the

13     interviews of General Cermak and the additional translations.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I had nothing else on my mind.  But you're

15     right, Mr. Misetic, that is not what Ms. Mahindaratne said and what

16     appears on the transcript.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber would like to invite the parties to

19     assist the Chamber with the following.  Mr. Dondo testified that the

20     quality of the interpretation of interpreters hired by General Forand was

21     bad and he related that to inaccuracies in the translation of written

22     documents.

23             Now, I think most of these exchange of -- most of the exchange of

24     letters is available, both in the original and in the translations, and

25     the Chamber would be assisted if the parties could review those

Page 22609

 1     translations and to inform the Chamber whether the inaccuracy Mr. Dondo

 2     talked about is to be found anywhere in these documents.

 3             That may take some time to review it.

 4             Mr. Misetic.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, we will, of course, do that.  I do

 6     wish to note, though, that my understanding of the testimony was that he

 7     was speaking about interpretation in actual face-to-face meetings and I

 8     believe he even referenced one meeting with General Forand where there

 9     were three mistakes and --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I think he also referred to, but if that

11     is a mistake on my part, he said something about that that could be

12     verified on the basis of the letters that were translated.  But if I am

13     wrong in that respect then, of course, it makes no sense --

14             The problems is I have difficulties in checking it over the break

15     because once I am logged in here, I can't log in anymore in my Chambers.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, you're correct.  In fact the

17     witness, in fact, yesterday referred to letters being translated

18     inaccurately so ...

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I -- that was what was on his mind as a kind of

20     an explanation on or as a further elaboration on the bad quality of the

21     interpreters.

22             MR. MISETIC:  If I could just add, Mr. President --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MR. MISETIC:  -- this is not on the letters but on that point,

25     we've raised that issue as well, as a Defence.  And I would just call the

Page 22610

 1     Chamber's attention to Exhibit D126.  This deals with oral

 2     interpretation.  It is the scene of General Leslie at the gate.  The

 3     Court will recall that we examined General Leslie about he was saying one

 4     thing and the interpretation was different on substantive matters.  And

 5     the Court can compare what General Leslie says orally with the -- with

 6     the subtitling in that video.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  It's -- I'm grateful for this short submission,

 8     Mr. Misetic, because you apparently understood well that to the extent it

 9     is possible to verify the lack of accuracy in the translation by

10     consulting documents, because it is not easy if someone says something

11     was translated badly without a record of what was translated, whether

12     that is audio or whether that is letters being translated, it is, of

13     course, not easy to evaluate and to assess the quality of that

14     translation and the risks which may result from a bad mastering of the

15     language used.

16             Mr. Mikulicic.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, since I raised that questions in my

18     cross-examination, just for the record I would like to inform the Chamber

19     that my focus was on oral interpretation, referring to the statement of

20     witness in paragraph 9, which he gave to the Defence team in 2009.  And

21     that was my intention to show through the witness testimony that there

22     were some problems in that communication with the UN representatives via

23     interpreters --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic --

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  -- so I -- I was not referring to the documents,

Page 22611

 1     which I believe they passed a test before issuing to the public.  So ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, the matter you raised with the

 3     witness is perfectly clear.  The Chamber thought that in one answer of

 4     the witness that he pointed at possible ways of verifying and Mr. Misetic

 5     now added one event which would allow us to verify again or to put in

 6     context the quality of the translations of spoken words but also using

 7     perhaps the quality of translations of written documents and to see what

 8     we can learn about it.

 9             Mr. Kay.

10             MR. KAY:  Yes.  It was just the issue that some documents, we're

11     using Tribunal interpretations, translations, of course, as the

12     documents --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, I'm only interested in those

14     documents that were contemporaneously translated.  I'm not -- of course,

15     it makes no sense to see whether the quality of our CLSS is sufficient.

16     That's apart from human mistakes which are made everywhere, that's --

17     they're not at the test.

18             I'm looking at documents and the witness was talking about

19     documents, but I might have misunderstood him.  The documents, as he

20     said, were badly translated at the time and we would have to look at

21     those documents and the translations made at the time because that

22     could - I'm not saying will - but could perhaps give us some insight,

23     further insight apart from testimony in the quality of the

24     interpretation.

25             MR. KAY:  Yes.  And that's why I flagged up the issue of

Page 22612

 1     contemporaneous documents.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that goes without saying --

 3             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that that's implied in my request not to -- to

 5     even pay attention to any translation which was made later at the --

 6             MR. KAY:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, just a matter to flag up so that we don't

 9     rise too quickly after the next adjournment is the timing issues of the

10     Defence case.  We're proceeding very, very rapidly, and I can foresee us

11     finishing the Defence case at the end of October.  And so we're on the

12     last handful or third of witnesses that are coming up, and I've --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. KAY:  -- I flag that up and with the witness department of

15     the Tribunal, attempted to make sure court time is -- is filled and I

16     need to raise that with you, because we are coming rapidly to the close

17     of our -- our case.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kay, I was already glad that the change of

19     the order which comes to us today has not resulted in any impossibility

20     of starting cross-examination.  And I am aware -- the Chamber is aware,

21     although we do not fully follow your discussions, that there are still

22     some tensions about who will come when and whether there is sufficient

23     time to prepare.  I'd rather leave it to this observation at this moment.

24     I encourage the parties to communicate as good as they can in order to

25     ensure an uninterrupted flow of evidence to be heard by the Chamber, and

Page 22613

 1     that's what I would like to say on this subject at this moment.

 2             Mr. Misetic --

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Just briefly to assist the Court.  My Case Manager

 4     has also brought to my attention that, in addition to the video at D126,

 5     there were also -- there was also a video at D67 where interpretation

 6     issues had been raised.  Just so the Chamber is aware of it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  And we'd like to hear from the parties

 8     on written documents or any other verifiable inaccuracies in translation.

 9             We will have a break and we'll resume at ten minutes past 1.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, is the Cermak Defence ready to call its

13     next witness?

14             MR. KAY:  We're ready, Your Honour.  May we call Dr. Dodig,

15     please.

16                           [The witness entered court]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Dodig.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  From your answer, I take it that you hear me in a

20     language you understand.

21             Mr. Dodig, before you give evidence --

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that

24     you make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole

25     truth, and nothing but the truth.  The text is now handed out to you by

Page 22614

 1     Madam Usher.  May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.

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

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

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Dodig.

 5             Mr. Dodig, you will first be examined by Mr. Kay.  Mr. Kay is

 6     counsel for Mr. Cermak.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9                           WITNESS:  GORAN DODIG

10                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

11                           Examination by Mr. Kay:

12        Q.   Dr. Dodig, is it correct that you gave a statement to the Defence

13     this year?

14        A.   It is.

15             MR. KAY:  And could that statement now be put on the screen in

16     front of you.  2D00-707, please.

17        Q.   Dr. Dodig, coming onto the screen in front of you, on the

18     right-hand side, will be a document that I will ask to you look at.

19             And do you recognise there in front of you in your own language a

20     document which is a record of the interview that took place on the

21     30th of April, 2009?

22        A.   I do.

23        Q.   And is that your signature on the front page of the document?

24        A.   Yes, it is.

25             MR. KAY:  And if we could just turn to the last page of the

Page 22615

 1     document as well, page 12.

 2        Q.   And do you recognise there your signature on the date of the

 3     16th of May, 2009?

 4        A.   I do.

 5        Q.   I think in fact you have a hard copy of your statement there in

 6     front of you, do you?

 7        A.   [In English] Yes.

 8        Q.   Just close that and if you need to refer to it, ask the Court's

 9     permission because it all comes up electronically for you.

10             Dr. Dodig, the information that you gave in that statement, is

11     it, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and correct?

12        A.   [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection, true and

13     correct.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             Dr. Dodig, if I was to ask you the same questions today that

16     created the information for your statement, would you give the same

17     answers in court today if you were asked those questions again?

18        A.   Absolutely, I would.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, in those circumstances, may Dr. Dodig's

21     statement be made an exhibit, please.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, before we continue --

23             Mr. Dodig, when did you have an opportunity to last read your

24     statement?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly ten days ago.

Page 22616

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because one of the usual questions whether the

 2     written statement reflects what the witness said was not part of you're

 3     attestation yet.  Because it is three questions, does it reflect what you

 4     said; did what you say is the truth; and then, third, whether he would

 5     give the same answers.

 6             But this has been settled now.

 7             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that there's no -- on the basis of the

 9     written submissions already, that there's no objection.

10             MR. CARRIER:  No objection.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1705.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. KAY:

16        Q.   Dr. Dodig, I have no further questions for you but others will.

17     So please remain there.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the Gotovina Defence.

19             Mr. Kehoe.

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President, we have no questions.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You have no questions.

22             Mr. Mikulicic.

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  No questions, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

25             Before the break I inquired whether the Prosecution would be

Page 22617

 1     ready to cross-examine the witness tomorrow.  If you would be ready to

 2     start already, Mr. Carrier, then that would be appreciated.  At the same

 3     time, looking at the schedule for this week, it might not be a disaster

 4     if you would feel more comfortable to start tomorrow.

 5             MR. CARRIER:  If I could just have one moment, Mr. President.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             MR. CARRIER:  Mr. President, unfortunately, given the very short

 9     notice, I'm not in a position and only because some documents are still

10     being translated and not uploaded so ... we don't actually have --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You would need even these documents for the first

12     25 minutes.

13             MR. CARRIER:  Unfortunately, they are the first --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. CARRIER:  They are the first ones, and in addition, we don't

16     have an exhibit list that's been put together yet.  I'll do that as soon

17     as I can and release it to the parties, but at the moment we don't have

18     one, so I apologise for that as well.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, due to unforeseen circumstances, the

20     scheduling of your testimony changed quite a bit, which results in the

21     Prosecution, at this moment, not yet be ready to use the next 25 minutes

22     to start the cross-examination, which means that we will hear your

23     testimony in cross-examination tomorrow.

24             Mr. Carrier, the schedule was two sessions.  Is that still the

25     estimate?

Page 22618

 1             MR. CARRIER:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 3             Then, Mr. Kay, would then the witness after that already be

 4     available tomorrow in the third session?

 5             MR. KAY:  Absolutely, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. KAY:  And we'll get the witness here earlier, just in case it

 8     doesn't go as quickly as predicted.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dodig, this means that we have to conclude for

10     the day.  You have been with us only for a very short time and may have

11     come a bit as a surprise to you as well to already testify today.  Since,

12     however, you have started your testimony, I instruct you that you should

13     not speak with anyone about your testimony, however short it may have

14     been today, but also about the testimony still to be given tomorrow.

15     We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00.

16             We adjourn and we will resume tomorrow, the 7th of August [sic]

17     9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom III.

18             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, before we adjourn --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MR. KAY:  -- the scheduling of witnesses matter that doesn't

21     concern this witness, I really think that --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So you suggest that we do not resume tomorrow

23     morning but we immediately resume at this moment.  As a matter of fact,

24     the adjournment, then, for the time being is annulled.  But, Mr. Dodig,

25     we'll deal with a very practical matter and we would like not -- we would

Page 22619

 1     not bother with you that.

 2             So, Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Dodig out of the

 3     courtroom.

 4                           [The witness stands down]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, the issue of scheduling and what I have for

 6     this moment, and I don't think there are any pending requests for

 7     protective measures which would cause us to go into private session

 8     or --

 9             MR. KAY:  No --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- are you confident --

11             MR. KAY:  -- not with these witnesses.  If an issue does come up,

12     because it is relevant for the last week, we can go into private session,

13     Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What we have now is Mr. Dodig starting today.

15             MR. KAY:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then Mr. Pasic and Mr. Cipci.

17             MR. KAY:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  For next week, 12th to 15th of October, we have

19     Mr. Cetina.

20             MR. KAY:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We have the expert, Mr. Albiston.

22             MR. KAY:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  There, from what I understand, there was some

24     problem perhaps with that.  And then we have the delayed testimony of

25     Emin Teskeredzic.

Page 22620

 1             MR. KAY:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  What we have on the list.  What I know is that next

 3     week, Friday, we will not sit.  I take it that the parties are aware of

 4     that.

 5             MR. KAY:  Yes, and that's been taken into account in this

 6     schedule, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's what we know at this moment.  Is

 8     there --

 9             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, the problem is this.  The following week,

10     we have a break, as Your Honour knows.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MR. KAY:  And then we have what would be the last week of the

13     Defence case.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, starting the 26th of October.

15             MR. KAY:  Yes.  And I'm confident our witnesses will fit into

16     that slot of the week, a five-day week, and we will have finished by the

17     end of the week, or having the last witness carrying on into the first

18     week of November.

19             So I really only have two weeks to -- to play with, to fit in the

20     personalities.  I have a fixed day in the potential last week where we

21     have a videolink to deal with those witnesses, and so I have to put the

22     order of witnesses, according to the days of availability, and I have two

23     people who have been subject to operations and that has required them to

24     be unavailable in their slot, and there's no problem with that.

25             But Mr. Albiston, who is scheduled for next week on my list, is

Page 22621

 1     an expert witness.  His report was served in September.  I feel the time

 2     could be used to call him then; otherwise we're going to have problems

 3     because I'm coming down to the end of my -- my list, and my last two

 4     witnesses would be experts.  I've got one pending matter concerning a

 5     potential witness which the Trial Chamber has to decide upon.  I was

 6     going to see if I could expedite that and slot him in in that week but

 7     the Prosecution did not want that, because I'd originally said to them

 8     that you can have him at the end, towards the end of the evidence.  Well,

 9     we're getting towards the end of the evidence, and he is another one that

10     I would be fitting into that last week.

11             So looking at the people and their availability, Mr. Albiston was

12     gamely prepared to step into the breech and come to this court next week

13     to present his expert report.  And I have made that arrangement with him,

14     and that is a commitment he can make.

15             If he is not called, we will have a very short week, indeed.

16     I've been -- started by following the parties' estimates.  I have learnt

17     to reduce that, as we had a four-day week at one stage.  I have learnt to

18     reduce that, and we appear to be on a schedule now which slightly reduces

19     the margins that I'm given, and that appears to be a successful way of

20     filling court time.  And I know the witness unit are anxious that they

21     fill court time as well, and Your Honour has made this remark on many

22     occasions during the course of the trial, and I don't want it being said

23     of my team that we have not fulfilled any commitments we should have

24     fulfilled.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that your team, you and your team, but also

Page 22622

 1     the others, always did their utmost best, sometime with more or less

 2     result, but I have no doubt as to the sincere intentions of the parties

 3     to deal with it.  And as matters go now, it goes at -- we're proceeding

 4     quickly, and we are -- when we are not using the time, then it is usually

 5     for reasons which can be well explained.

 6             MR. KAY:  Yes, absolutely, Your Honour.  It's just that I will

 7     have a big hole next week on a four-day week, if I don't call

 8     Mr. Albiston.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Waespi.

10             MR. WAESPI:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11             As you know, we always try to accommodate the Defence, as we do

12     this week by cross-examining Mr. Dodig tomorrow, not on Friday.  But

13     there has been a practice of two weeks' notice observed by the

14     Prosecution during our case, by the Gotovina Defence during their case,

15     to announce their witnesses in advance.  And to bring Mr. Albiston, who

16     is a very substantial expert, with the notice of seven days is just

17     not -- not good enough for us, and I have -- as you know, Mr. President,

18     you might know, received an e-mail from Mr. Kay at the beginning of

19     September basically committing himself to call Mr. -- Sir Jack Deverell

20     and Mr. Albiston at the end of October, beginning of November.  And that

21     is an important undertaking for me to assign resources, allocate these

22     witnesses and I'm not simply not in a position to switch my resources so

23     -- so quickly to Mr. Albiston.

24             If -- I just don't see why Mr. Albiston and Mr. --

25     Sir Jack Deverell cannot be called as intended originally, at the end of

Page 22623

 1     October/beginning of November, in particular, since the case is advancing

 2     so quickly, as indicated by Mr. Kay today.

 3             On the same note, since we only have -- I understand, a week of

 4     evidence after the court break, and given the fact that I believe until

 5     today we have heard of witness of less than a half of the Defence

 6     witnesses, I'm just not sure whether the Defence will call all their

 7     witnesses live or via 92 bis, so if there is an indication in the

 8     intention by the Defence not to call any of these witnesses, we would

 9     appreciate a piece of information that we don't spend resources in

10     preparing witnesses whom the Defence knows, at this point in time, that

11     they are not going do call these witnesses.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Which you could then use, you want to say, for

13     quickly preparing for Mr. Albiston, is that ...

14             MR. WAESPI:  We'll always try that.  Of course, we don't know

15     what Your Honours' decision on this issue will be, we'll be ready

16     whenever we have to.

17             But in relation to Mr. Albiston, an expert on key issues, to tell

18     me now -- and not in a phone call like it's been done in other cases, you

19     know, We're considering, we are in touch with this expert.  Simply

20     dropping us a note this morning, Next week we'll have Mr. Albiston, I

21     don't think is appropriate, given the excellent cooperation we have among

22     each other.

23             And I might just add, in the past we accommodated the Defence,

24     all Defence teams, about their personal schedules, and I'm not asking for

25     accommodation, because I think it is our right to be told two weeks in

Page 22624

 1     advance of the witnesses.  And the situation, frankly, doesn't warrant an

 2     emergency calling of Mr. Albiston, because the week next week is a

 3     four-day week.  We have two witnesses.  One, Mr. Cetina, is fairly

 4     substantial as far as I can see.

 5             So, under these circumstances, I just don't see why we should get

 6     out of order, to call Mr. Albiston.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Looking at the schedule, as the Chamber is

 8     aware of at this moment, there are -- for next week, we have, as matters

 9     stand now, three witnesses scheduled, among them the expert witnesses

10     Mr. Albiston.  But there are a lot of uncertainties there is as well,

11     because we do not know how much time is needed for cross-examination of

12     Mr. Cetina by the Gotovina team or by the Markac team.  Neither do we

13     know for the last witness of next week how much time the Markac Defence

14     would need for the cross-examination of Emin Teskeredzic, which puts into

15     question whether -- apart from whether it should be Mr. Albiston or not,

16     but whether we can deal with the whole of the programme.

17             And Mr. Kay, I do understand that you say that, I adapted my

18     proposed schedule in accordance with the experience we -- we had over the

19     last couple of weeks, therefore, the Chamber, of course, at this moment

20     cannot finally decide the matter.  It has come up rather recently, I do

21     understand.

22             Let me just consult with my colleagues for a second.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The parties are invited, since this situation is

25     rather new and apparently has not been thoroughly discussed among them

Page 22625

 1     yet, the parties are invited, first of all, to sit together, to see what

 2     the possibilities and impossibilities are as far as your proposed

 3     scheduling is concerned, but also to consider what alternative scenarios

 4     could be developed under the present circumstances.  And, of course, the

 5     Chamber would very much appreciate if you would agree, either on the

 6     scenario as you proposed at this moment, or on any alternative scenario,

 7     which would meet the concerns of the parties.  The Chamber offers the

 8     good services of the team leader of the Chamber support staff to see

 9     whether he can assist in these scheduling issues.  Of course, not being

10     involved in any matter of substance or content, and the Chamber would

11     like the parties to report on that preferably by tomorrow, the end of the

12     morning session.

13             The Chamber at this moment is not in a position to -- to decide

14     on the matter, and I also do understand that some of the uncertainties I

15     just pointed at are still there.  I do not know to what extent it has

16     been verified for all of the witnesses still to be called, whether there

17     are any witnesses to be dropped, whether that would change the way in

18     which the Prosecution would use its time in preparing for

19     cross-examination.

20             So the parties, in view of the fact that the situation is rather

21     new, to further explore what possibilities of an agreement there are; to

22     see whether, if no agreement can be reached on this scenario, whether

23     there are any alternative scenarios which would give the Chamber an

24     option to choose and to balance what would be fair to all parties; and

25     then to report to the Chamber.

Page 22626

 1             This is not a way of delaying decisions but it's so fresh,

 2     apparently, that with incomplete information, it would be unwise to

 3     already decide the matter at this moment.

 4             MR. KAY:  Very well, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the Chamber would like to hear from the parties

 6     by tomorrow at the end of the morning session.

 7             We'll adjourn, but now it's a real adjournment, and we will

 8     resume tomorrow morning, 9.00, Courtroom III.

 9                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.38 p.m.,

10                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of

11                           October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.