1 Thursday, 8 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Is the Cermak Defence -- Mr. Misetic.
12 MR. MISETIC: Sorry --
13 JUDGE ORIE: You're not a Cermak Defence but since you're on your
14 feet, I take it that there's something out.
15 MR. MISETIC: I just wanted to ask a question after the Court
16 finishes with the preliminaries, just a procedural question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: What do you consider to be the preliminaries. We
18 have dealt with it, I take it.
19 MR. MISETIC: I was waiting for the Court to see if we were going
20 call the next witness.
21 We just on behalf of the Gotovina Defence wanted to just ask that
22 the Court consider the lineup of cross-examination with respect to the
23 next witness. We understand that there will be a process here and the
24 witness will be giving his evidence in direct. There are -- there are
25 likely to be based on the proofing note we got, changes to one of his
1 statements. That will and has impacted our time estimate that we
2 originally gave the Chamber. The Court will recall that we originally
3 asked for three sessions of cross-examination.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That will now be less.
5 MR. MISETIC: Sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That will now be less.
7 MR. MISETIC: Well, presumably, yes. But that was based on our
8 -- what we believed our 90(H) obligation to be, with respect to certain
9 portions of the statement.
10 I have had a conversation with the Prosecution. I suspect in
11 their cross-examination they will be challenging the changes to the
12 statement which then again depending on what happens in their
13 cross-examination could lead to a need for an extensive redirect -- a
14 recross, I should say, by the Gotovina Defence depending on what happens
15 in their cross.
16 So in terms of the efficiency of how we're going to do this, I
17 just wanted to put out there to the Chamber that it may be more efficient
18 if the Prosecution in this one instance goes first with cross-examination
19 so that we know exactly what it is we're supposed to be cross-examining
21 JUDGE ORIE: And what is the position of the Prosecution in this
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, we see no reason to change the
24 normal order of cross-examination, and I don't think it would increase
25 the efficiency. If Mr. Misetic wants to deal with the statement as it
1 stands, he is free to do that; if he wants to address any changes, he is
2 free to do that.
3 There's a good reason, Your Honour, that the Prosecution goes
4 last, and I don't see any reason to change that here.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll consider the matter.
6 MR. MISETIC: Yes, just on the last point, Your Honour, we've
7 actually looked into it, and I don't know that's in the rules that the
8 Prosecution gets to go last. It's just sort of the practice that has
9 been accepted, and there's been no objection to it, but I don't think
10 there is any rule that actually lays that out in that fashion. And in
11 this particular case let me also add that it actually does affect how we
12 would cross-examine. Obviously I'm not going to cross-examine a witness
13 on matters that the witness, on direct examination, says he didn't say
14 and doesn't stand by.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MISETIC: So ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: There are several elements in the question and the
19 First, Ms. Gustafson, I noticed that you didn't say we object to
20 it, but that you said that there are no good reasons for changing it.
21 Second is that you addressed two matters. The first is the efficiency
22 and then you continued to say that the Gotovina Defence, of course, could
23 cross-examine as they wish. I think no one disputes that right, but
24 whether that that's efficient or not, of course, is something still to be
25 considered. And finally you said there were good reasons why we have
1 adopted this practice. Of course, the issue is whether those good
2 reasons, if spelled out, would lead to the conclusion that, under the
3 present circumstances, we should not proceed as suggested. I'm not
4 giving any opinion at this moment yet, but I just noticed that there are
5 a few loose ends still in the -- what was submitted to the Chamber. Both
6 -- also from Mr. Misetic, of course, we do not know exactly what he has
7 on his mind. I don't know what he wants to cross-examine the witness on,
8 so, therefore, quite many loose ends.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I should have been more
10 clear. I think the good reasons and the efficiency are one in the same
11 in the sense that many times the other cross-examinations -- the
12 cross-examinations of the other Defence teams need to be addressed by the
13 Prosecution in cross-examination, so it is efficient and makes sense that
14 the Prosecution goes last. I don't see any reason that that should
15 change in that case.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We'll see how matters develop.
18 Mr. Kay, are you ready to call your next witness, who I
19 understand is Mr. Pasic.
20 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour, I call Mr. Pasic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Usher.
22 Mr. Kay, could I draw your attention already to the following.
23 There is a suggestion that a document, which is a minutes of the
24 government session to be added to the 65 ter list, and I take it that you
25 want to do that, in order to tender that document.
1 Now, in view of what happened yesterday, would you please
2 consider whether D1634 would do as good as adding a document to the
3 65 ter list and then tender it into evidence.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning -- good morning, Mr. Pasic. You're
6 looking in a direction where the speaker is not to be found. I'm the one
7 who speaks at this moment, Mr. Pasic, yes.
8 Mr. Pasic, before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
9 Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that you will speak
10 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now
11 handed out to you by Madam Usher, and I would like to invite to you make
12 that solemn declaration.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
14 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Pasic. Please be seated.
16 Mr. Pasic, you will first be examined by Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay is
17 counsel for Mr. Cermak.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
19 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 WITNESS: PETAR PASIC
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Mr. Kay:
23 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pasic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. I'd like you to look at a document, first of all, which is a
1 record of the statement that you gave to the Office of the Prosecution in
2 2001 and 2002.
3 I see you've got some papers in front of you there, and looking
4 at them, they seem to be the hard copies of what we're going to look at
5 on a computer screen. On the right-hand side, you will see in a moment a
6 document come up, 2D00-722.
7 If you just put those other papers away in front of you, just put
8 them in the folder, and if you need to refer to them, you can do, and ask
9 -- ask the Court's permission.
10 Now, what you will see on the screen coming up in a moment is a
11 statement in two languages. On the right-hand side, is your own
12 language, but on the left-hand side is a statement in the English
13 language and is a record of that interview in 2001 and 2002. And can you
14 see your signature on that document?
15 A. I can. It's on the left side in the English language copy, but I
16 cannot see it in the Croatian copy.
17 Q. Yes, that's all right. It's the English document that was
18 signed. I'm going to ask to you look at a series of these documents and
19 just identify them for us.
20 MR. KAY: If we can just turn to the last page of the --
21 second-to-last page of the English document, page 9.
22 Q. And, again, can you see your signature there at the end of this
24 A. I can't see my signature in the Croatian version; only on the
25 English copy.
1 Q. Yes. It's the English copy that we're looking at for these
3 And do you confirm that you signed this document that the Office
4 of the Prosecution produced with you on the 3rd of March, 2002?
5 A. Yes, that's my signature.
6 Q. Thank you. And your signature is on the bottom of each page in
8 The next document I want to look at is 2D00-712.
9 This is a document, when it comes on the screen, which is a
10 record of an interview you gave to the Defence, first in the year 2007,
11 then in the year 2009.
12 MR. KAY: And if we can look at the Croatian version, please,
13 this time down at the bottom --
14 Q. Do you confirm your signature on the first page of this document?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. KAY: If we turn to the last page, page 7.
18 Q. This is the last page of that record of the interview you gave
19 with the Defence on the 23rd of April, 2009, when it was signed. And do
20 you identify there your signature on the last page?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Your signature is also on the pages in between, and
23 I'm going to ask you some questions now.
24 The statement that you gave to the Office of the Prosecution, did
25 you read that statement and make some corrections to that document in the
1 statement that you gave to the Defence and signed in 2009?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And when you signed this statement for the Defence, did you read
4 through your Defence statement to ensure that that content was true and
5 correct to the knowledge of your -- best knowledge of your belief?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. The next document I want you to look at is document
8 2D00-763. And you can see a document here, which is headed: Supplemental
9 Information Sheet and contains corrections to that statement you
10 originally gave to the Office of the Prosecution that you wanted made on
11 the 2nd of September, 2009.
12 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I believe the document in e-court isn't
13 signed. There -- this has been signed and uploaded into the system, so
14 we're looking at a document that is to be perfected. It was signed
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kay. Unless there is any reason to doubt,
17 and I see no reason whatsoever, that it would be the same document but
18 now signed that we could proceed for the time being on the basis of what
19 we see on our screen.
20 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. The signed document will be
21 attached to this, I'm told, within the system.
22 Q. If you can just look at that document there, Mr. Pasic, in your
23 own language and look at the matters raised within that supplemental
24 information sheet. Do you confirm that these were corrections that you
25 gave to the Defence concerning that statement to the OTP when we met on
1 the 2nd of September, 2009?
2 A. Yes. If you allow an explanation --
3 Q. I want to look at page 2 of this before you say anything, just to
4 confirm the information on page 2.
5 If you look at page 2 on your screen, do you confirm there those
6 matters that you raised with the Defence, and you wanted to make
7 corrections to the statement of the Prosecution?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is everything that you said within this supplemental information
10 sheet, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and correct?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. And do you confirm that you have read through this supplemental
13 information sheet and that you signed this document yesterday?
14 A. Yes, in its entirety.
15 Q. Thank you. I want you now to look at a second supplemental
16 information sheet.
17 MR. KAY: Can 2D00-764 be placed on the screen.
18 Q. Do you see there on the right-hand side in your own language a
19 further supplemental information sheet?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you confirm that on the 6th of October, when you met me to
22 discuss and confirm your statements, that you requested further
23 corrections be made to your statement to the Office of the Prosecution,
24 which was signed on the 3rd of March, 2002?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. KAY: Again, Your Honour, there is a signed version of this
2 because it had to be typed up overnight, signed yesterday, which has been
3 uploaded into e-court and we await its connection with the document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you said it had to be typed up, does that mean
5 that the witness has not seen the final result?
6 MR. KAY: He has seen it, Your Honour.
7 JUDE ORIE: He has.
8 MR. KAY: I'm just about to ask him that. I was just informing
9 Your Honour that we were in the same procedural issue.
10 Q. Can you look at that page of the document, Mr. Pasic, and confirm
11 that you have read this document and signed a statement for that document
13 If you look at the first page, do you confirm that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I believe you have copies with you in court today in the
16 paper form; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if we just look at page 2, can you confirm when you signed
19 this document yesterday that you read this page?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If we turn to page 3, can you confirm that when you signed this
22 document yesterday that you read this page?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can we turn to page 4. Can you confirm, when page 4 is on the
25 screen, that you have read this and signed this document yesterday?
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. And page 5, can you confirm that you read this in
4 your own language and signed it yesterday?
5 A. Yes, I do confirm that.
6 Q. And page 6, I believe, in the Croatian version as well, do you
7 confirm you read that and signed that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. To the best of your knowledge and belief, is the information
10 contained within this second supplement, true and correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, looking at the information within these four
13 documents, taking into account the corrections made in documents that
14 were produced after the Prosecution statement, if you were to be asked
15 these questions again in court today, would you give the answers as
16 corrected within these statements and provide the same information to the
18 A. With the corrections, yes.
19 MR. KAY: Your Honour, that concludes the 92 ter procedure, and I
20 ask that the four documents be made exhibits.
21 Your Honour, the Court will recollect that one of these had been
22 produced earlier in the proceedings and was marked for identification.
23 That's the document which was the original Prosecution statement, which
24 had been marked for identification as D1307.
25 I believe it was eventually vacated from the list, so --
1 JUDGE ORIE: We have to check that --
2 MR. KAY: Perhaps new numbers should be given to all four in
3 sequence, might be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kay, Mr. Registrar will certainly, at this
5 moment verify whether D1307 was vacated.
6 I would have one question for you. Do you consider the B/C/S or
7 Croatian cover page of the 2001/2002 statement to be a full translation
8 of the original English version?
9 MR. KAY: All can I say is, Your Honour, this will have come off
10 the document system. I don't have a copy of that just in -- in front of
12 The original statement is the English statement and the other
13 document has been translated later into Croatian.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: I might be able to assist, Your Honour.
15 The cover page actually extends onto the second page of the
17 JUDGE ORIE: But even including the second page, do you consider
18 this to be a full translation of the English original?
19 I hope you will be forgive me for being a bit suspicious. When
20 looking at the layout, I see that there are some difference.
21 First of all, and that might not be of great importance, I do not
22 see in the B/C/S version any telephone numbers or addresses, which I find
23 in the English original. But it seems to me - but please correct me when
24 I'm wrong - when I'm looking at the languages, I see three entries in the
25 original, the first one is languages spoken. There it says, Croatian.
1 And languages written, if different from spoken, where, in the original,
2 says that that's Croatian, but in the translation it seems that no answer
3 to that question is given at all.
4 Now, it could well be that the whole of the document is well
5 translated, but, apparently, someone, apart from being what I consider,
6 at this moment, to be most likely sloppy by just leaving out a part of
7 the information, some, perhaps by mistake, that is, the written language
8 different from spoken, to be Croatian. Of course, it's not different;
9 it's the same. But that's, I would say, the sloppiness of the one who
10 drafted the document. But apparently for one reason or another the
11 interpreter also considered it appropriate to leave out addresses,
12 telephones numbers. Of course, I do not know what elsewhere in this
13 document the translator considered to be appropriate to leave out or ...
14 I see that it's not what I expect, and I'm looking both at you,
15 Mr. Kay, and Ms. Gustafson, you intervened as well. What I expect from a
16 translation, that it literally in every respects reflects what the
17 original says. And that's apparently not the case with this cover page.
18 Unless would you disagree with me. And therefore --
19 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I totally agree, otherwise -- [Overlapping
20 speakers] ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... Yes, and then of course --
22 MR. KAY: -- we're not able to comprehend.
23 JUDE ORIE: It could just that it's just the cover page, and it's
24 perhaps even very likely, but nevertheless, it seems that someone
25 considered that it was right to not do what I would expect that person to
1 do, is that just to reflect in the other language what the original says.
2 MR. KAY: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: For this reason, I would like to draw the attention
4 of the parties to it, that it should be carefully checked whether similar
5 problems arise elsewhere in the document, which, of course, I cannot
6 verify. The only way for me to look this is cover pages that still -- I
7 can decipher those, but not the text itself.
8 MR. KAY: The second supplemental information sheet in
9 paragraph 16 deals with an issue of test that was in the English original
10 that is not in the Croatian translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. KAY: And that's a point -- made there.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm encouraging and more or less insisting on great
14 precision in this respect, because otherwise we end up in all kind of
15 problems, where the problems -- the real problems we have are big enough
16 not to be further -- we're not in need of any additional problems.
17 MR. KAY: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, for the time being, Mr. Kay, and I
19 would like to have this verified.
20 MR. KAY: Yes.
21 Your Honour, shall we deal with the exhibit numbering through the
22 Registry at this stage.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take that the Registrar has by now verified
25 Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, D1307 was marked for
2 identification on 13th February 2009 and subsequently vacated on
3 3rd March 2009
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please assign numbers to the
5 documents Mr. Kay has uploaded and put to the witness.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 2D00-722 becomes
7 Exhibit D1706; 65 ter number 2D00-712 becomes Exhibit D1707; 65 ter
8 number 2D00-763 becomes Exhibit D1708; and 65 ter number 2D00-764 becomes
9 Exhibit D1709.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and we are talking about the statement given to
11 the Prosecution, statement given to the Defence, first and second
12 additional information sheet.
13 MR. KAY: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: There's no objection, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then D706, D707 -- no D1706, D1707, D1708, and D1709
17 are admitted into evidence. And the Chamber expects the parties to
18 carefully review original and translation, specifically in relation to
19 the statement given to the Prosecution.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Kay.
21 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Within the statements, there are certain documents referred to
23 that I would seek to make exhibits.
24 The first one concerns 2D00-713, which is in the exhibit D1706.
25 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
1 MR. KAY: And page 3 --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from numbers --
3 MR. KAY: Page 3, paragraph 3.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. But if you could just briefly say -- in your
5 motion you -- you refer to a description of the document. I'm -- just
6 numbers, you're talking to a letter to Serbs, letter to Franjo Tudjman.
7 Which one --
8 MR. KAY: This one is PP1. Which Your Honour will see in
9 paragraph 3 of page 3.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And that is what? I could, of course, check, but I
11 would rather talk --
12 MR. KAY: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I was missing what Your Honour
13 was saying there.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because in your --
15 MR. KEHOE: In Mr. Pasic's letter to the Serbian citizens in Knin
16 before the start of the Geneva
17 statement which we felt should therefore be seen by the Court.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KAY: May that be made an exhibit, please, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1710.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, Ms. Gustafson, I take it.
23 Then D1710 is admitted into evidence.
24 Next one, letter to Franjo Tudjman, I take it, 5th of August.
25 MR. KAY: Yes. Page 3, paragraph 6, Your Honour. It's marked
1 PP2. And it's 2D00-714, referred to in exhibit 1706. We ask that that
2 be made an exhibit, please, Your Honour.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Ms. Gustafson, whenever you say no objection, I take that
6 implicitly Mr. Kay has asked for adding it to the 65 ter list and that no
7 objection extends to that as well.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Correct, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1711.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 Letter of protest concerning appearance of Split county chief of
13 6th of August, Mr. Kay, I see as next one in your motion.
14 MR. KAY: 2D00715, may we add this to the 65 ter list,
15 Your Honour, and my apologies for not following my script and requesting
16 permission previously.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection to that, or to it being made an
19 exhibit. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1712.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D1712 is admitted into evidence.
23 Mr. Kay, the last one in your motion are the minutes I earlier
24 referred to, and I would really like to avoid similar events that
25 happened yesterday.
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, what this is, is an extra part of the
2 document that's -- that's not reflected in the exhibit D1634 which was
3 connected to it. And it's an annex to it, and that is the part that we
4 were essentially adding to it, but we had an entire document. We haven't
5 taken it apart, so what the Court will have is a conjoined document with
6 both parts together.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. KAY: In those circumstances, should we make it an exhibit, I
9 think it might be preferable to have the full document.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least, and that's the difference with
11 yesterday, we know what we are doing, and that's -- Mr. Registrar, the
12 number would be?
13 MR. KAY: We're talking about document here 2D00-716.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1713.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D1713 is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. For references purposes,
18 that's page 4, paragraph 14 that is referred to.
19 The next document, Your Honour ...
20 Your Honour, those are the documents that we need to tender and
21 make exhibits, and I will now give a short summary of the nature of -- of
22 Mr. Pasic's evidence, with the court's leave.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
24 MR. KAY: Mr. Pasic was the government commissioner, also called
25 the trustee, for Knin. He took -- took on that position from 1992 and
1 was appointed on the 6th of January of that year.
2 He was the government's representative dealing with issues prior
3 to the liberation of the occupied territories. And upon the liberation
4 of Knin and the occupied territories, he went to Knin to take on his
5 civil duties. He arrived in Knin and soon connected with General Cermak,
6 and the two of them set about tasks for the normalization of life in
7 Knin. His evidence refers to the fact that General Cermak helped him do
8 his work and, as he understood it, that was General Cermak's job in Knin,
9 which was to help the civilian authorities to organise the return of
10 people to Knin and create normal conditions of life in Knin.
11 His evidence refers to the nature of the work they undertook,
12 dealing with the public services, establishing a bus line, dealing with
13 essential matters that were needed to both feed and look after the people
14 who had come to the area, as well as who were working in the area. And,
15 in those circumstances, him and Mr. Cermak worked together, and
16 Mr. Cermak's position as the garrison commander, helped Mr. Pasic in the
17 performance of his tasks.
18 Your Honour, that is a brief summary of the nature of the
19 witness's evidence, and in view of the fact that he has made his
20 statements, I have no further questions to ask of him.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
22 MR. KAY:
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you would just give me one second.
25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm -- pointed out to me that there was
2 one other document on the OTP statement.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was just asking about the fifth document
4 which is 65 ter 3481, which was mentioned in the Appendix B to your
5 motion which was already on the 65 ter list, but what you indicated that
6 would you tender that document as well. And that was a letter by
7 Mr. Pasic to the police in Zadar and Knin, concerning the theft of
9 MR. KAY: Yes. It's not a -- it's a document from the
10 Prosecution 65 ter list. That's --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it was already on their list.
12 MR. KAY: Yes. [Overlapping speakers]... Your Honour, that is
13 found at page 5, paragraph 7, of his OTP statement, and I ask that that
14 be made an exhibit.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1714.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D1714 is admitted into evidence.
19 I take it, Mr. Kay, that it doesn't change your summary in any
21 Now we are at a point of having to decide on the sequence of
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to take a minute to consider
25 the request by the Gotovina Defence. Now, that would be Prosecution
1 first - that's at least your suggestion - but I haven't heard about any
2 reasons for the Markac Defence.
3 First of all, is there any need to cross-examine the witness?
4 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, Markac Defence would have no
5 questions on that witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that problem doesn't arise.
7 The Chamber will take a minute to consider the matter, how to
8 proceed, and the parties are expected to remain stand by.
9 --- Break taken at 9.56 a.m.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- On resuming at 10.04 a.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered your request,
13 Mr. Misetic, to change the usual order of cross-examination. Your
14 request is denied.
15 At the same time, the Chamber adds to this, that the Chamber will
16 be liberal - I wouldn't use the word generous - but if you would raise
17 matters in re-cross, which were left out from your initial
18 cross-examination, because at this moment have you no reasons, although
19 you have already warned the Chamber that they might be very relevant and
20 might take considerable time in re-cross if Ms. Gustafson deals with
21 those matters and if she challenges portions of the original statement.
22 MR. MISETIC: Very well. Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be brought into the
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, we bothered you with all kind of
2 procedural technicalities for quite a while. We hope that we can now
3 further focus on your testimony.
4 You'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic. Mr. Misetic is
5 counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
9 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pasic.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. I'd like to ask you just as a preliminary matter just a few
12 questions on some of the changes made to your 2002 statement.
13 Could you explain to the Court why it is that you only made these
14 changes upon your arrival to The Hague?
15 A. For a long time, I didn't read the statement that I had given to
16 the OTP closely, and when I felt that the time of my travel to The Hague
17 was moving close, once I was informed of the date when I should appear
18 here, I understood the seriousness of the situation, and I analysed every
19 paragraph thoroughly. It was then that I noticed that some things that I
20 had said then were not correct, and that I couldn't give the solemn
21 declaration of speaking the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the
22 truth if I stand by those parts of my statement.
23 Q. Well, let me show you a couple of documents first and then I
24 would like to get back and ask you a few questions on this topic. But --
25 let me see.
1 MR. MISETIC: Just one moment, Mr. President.
2 If I could have 65 ter 1D2983 on the screen, please.
3 Q. Mr. Pasic, while this is coming up, do you believe that there was
4 an official policy of the Croatian government to allow criminal activity,
5 including burning, looting, and murder to take place in the territory of
6 former Sector South after Operation Storm?
7 A. No.
8 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to some comments attributed to
9 you in 1996, and this is from a news organisation known as AIM, which I
10 believe, Mr. President, is an NGO news letter.
11 The article is titled: Deserted roads of Knin, it's dated the
12 5th of April, 1996. And there are some quotes from you. It talks about
13 the fact that you had been replaced as the commissioner for the town of
14 Knin and then appointed to the post of commissioner of the newly
15 established municipalities of Kistanje, Ervenik, Orlic, and Civljane, and
16 that's in the second paragraph.
17 And then it says -- the next paragraph says:
18 "To a question about recent quarrels with the local leaders of
19 the Croat Democratic Community HDZ who had 'asked for his head' for
20 months, Mr. Pasic answers that tensions were directed against him 'not as
21 a man who just wishes to help, but as a man who was not a member of the
22 rule party and a man of Serb nationality.'"
23 And then this is the quote I want to ask you the question about:
24 "When the last opportunity was given to those people in
25 negotiations in Geneva
1 to stay in their state, to finally see how tragic everything is that
2 their self-proclaimed leaders brought them to, which resulted in the
3 exodus they were pushed into. I wished those people to remain, and an I
4 now [sic] advocate that these people be given the right to a normal life.
5 Individual excesses do not reflect the stance of the official policy,
6 Mr. Pasic ends his statement."
7 Can you explain to the Court what you meant when you said that
8 "individual excesses do not reflect the stance of the official policy"?
9 A. Irrespective of the security situation in the town of Knin
10 was always possible for individual incidents to happen. The -- it
11 depends on people who are prone to cause incidents. Some were probably
12 based on ethnic rivalry or hatred, but those were individual incidents.
13 I stand by my statement that this wasn't encouraged from the
14 Croatian Government or authorities or any official institutions.
15 Q. In that same paragraph I want to ask you to clarify. You said --
16 you asked them to stay in their state to finally see how tragic
17 everything is that their self-proclaimed leaders brought them to, which
18 resulted in the exodus they were pushed into.
19 Can you clarify what you meant when you said that they were
20 pushed into an exodus. Who pushed them into an exodus?
21 A. On that day, that was the 17th or 18th of August, when the first
22 roadblocks were put up, when the Croatian independence was proclaimed
23 among some -- in some quarters in the Serbian community, there was this
24 negative attitude toward the Croatian state and the Croatian people.
25 Q. Just so we clarify, you say 17 of August, you're referring to
1 1990; correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Okay. You can continue your answer, please.
4 A. After that, unfortunately, in the territories mostly populated by
5 Serbs, the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina was created which
6 disgruntled the Croats. And that is why these negative attitudes or
7 tensions were more pronounced than they should have been.
8 I was appointed commissioner of the Croatian government. I must
9 correct Mr. Kay, not on the 6th of January but on the 4th of January.
10 And at that time I wasn't being discriminated against. I was -- I was a
11 citizen of Croatia of Serb ethnicity. I was a member of the SDP party
12 then, and I even said in a broadcast that I was a atheist which at the
13 time was not a popular thing to say.
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the last sentence
15 the witness said. Could he please repeat.
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. Could you repeat the last sentence; the interpreter didn't hear
18 what you said.
19 A. As a citizen of Croatia of Serbian ethnicity, I was a member of
20 the SDP and a atheist. Among the candidates for the post of
21 commissioner, I was appointed. So there was no negative discrimination
22 toward me as a Serb.
23 Q. Okay. I -- I stopped you because I want go back to the specific
24 question, if can you recall.
25 When you said that the Serbs had been pushed into an exodus, do
1 you recall who or what pushed them into an exodus?
2 A. The Serbs had, for a long time, be linked for the then Yugoslavia
3 and the Yugoslav People's Army, and they couldn't accept the existence of
4 an independent state of Croatia
5 leaders who were there already pushed them into that exodus.
6 Q. Okay. Continuing on this exhibit, two paragraphs beneath that,
7 you said -- you were asked:
8 "To a question whether the Serbs are returning and how many of
9 them have actually returned, Petar Pasic says that 'in the territory of
10 the town of Knin 420 citizens of Serb nationality have remained and more
11 than 300 have already returned. I am not at all in favour of the return
12 of those who have committed crimes, nor those who have participated in
13 demolition of democratic Croatia
14 they would create uneasiness among the Croats who have returned and they
15 would disturb the good relations between the Croats and the Serbs.'"
16 And if we go into the next paragraph:
17 "This was, after all, the epicentre of the rebellion against the
18 Croat state, and when the Serbs do return here, it is necessary to take
19 great care who should be allowed to come, and in what way, says
20 Mr. Pasic. What is being said now, what Babic and Mikelic have been
21 doing lately, I think it is pure deception of those people again, because
22 they have done it all the time, all four years. I think they probably
23 expect some kind of humanitarian aid to use those people, or use it only
24 for themselves, as they have done here."
25 Now a few questions on this -- these passages.
1 First, do you recall when you said, "... what Babic and Mikelic
2 have been doing lately," what you were referring to?
3 A. I don't know. Could you please repeat the question.
4 Q. Well, in this quote you say:
5 "What is being said now, what Babic and Mikelic have been doing
6 lately, I think it is pure deception of those people again."
7 And you said this in April of 1996. Do you recall what it is
8 that Babic and Mikelic were doing lately?
9 A. In accordance with the information I have, there was a talk about
10 the establishment of some provisional authorities of the Republic of
11 Serbian Krajina in the territory of the Republic of Serbia
12 Q. Okay. Now, you reference in this passage that 300 Serbs had
13 already returned. Do you remember where they had returned from?
14 A. When I saw the documents they had upon them when they returned, I
15 saw that most of their personal ID, including passports, were issued in
16 Vukovar and Beli Manastir. And as those towns are close to Serbia
17 supposed that they returned from the Republic of Serbia
18 Q. Okay. As the commissioner in the town of Knin, can you tell us
19 whether there were obstacles put in the place of these 300 people to come
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you have any involvement in caring for or housing these
23 people, once they had returned from Serbia or Eastern Slavonia?
24 A. We assisted in the cooperation with the Social Welfare Centre at
25 Knin. We provided initially some financial assistance and, later on, we
1 gave them also some clothes and shoes.
2 Q. As the commissioner in Knin, after Operation Storm and through
3 March of 1996, did you feel that there were obstacles being put in the
4 place -- in place to prevent people from coming back?
5 A. No. Not as far as I know. There weren't any obstacles for those
6 who were willing to return, who had expressed the wish to return, to
8 Q. Explain to us what you meant when you said "this was, after all,
9 the epicentre of the rebellion against the Croat state. And when the
10 Serbs do return here, it is necessary to take great care who should be
11 allowed to come and in what way."
12 A. Since the town of Knin
13 Banja Luka who had been expelled from there and also Croats from the
14 surroundings of Knin, I considered that it wouldn't contribute to
15 building up good relations as they had existed before, to include the
16 ring leaders of the rebellion or those who had perpetrated crimes into
17 the process of return.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit be marked
20 and I tender it into evidence.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1715.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D1715 is admitted into evidence.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Pasic, the reference to Babic and Mikelic in April of 1996, I
3 asked you what you recalled of that, in terms of why you reference them.
4 But let me now show you Exhibit D1610, and that will come up on your
6 And this is an article that appeared in the same news -- news
7 organisation, one month prior to the interview that you gave. So this is
8 7th of March, 1996, and the article is titled: Mr. Mikelic leading the
9 way. Mr. Mikelic, as you know, was one of the leaders of the Krajina
11 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn to page 2 in the English and
12 page 2 in the B/C/S, please. I'm looking at the last two paragraphs on
13 both pages.
14 Q. It says:
15 "Dr. Milan Babic who claims that he had not met Borislav Mikelic
16 since the exodus of the Serbs from the Krajina and that he, therefore,
17 knew nothing about the intentions of the committee, but what he was told
18 by third parties, says as follows:
19 "I am not in favour of individual solutions of the problem of
20 return, because it would mean Croatisation of the Serb returnees, which
21 would jeopardize collective rights of the refugees and blur the problem
22 of the Serb people in exile. I am in favour of collective return,
23 collective security, and collective rights of the Serbs which implies
24 resolution of their political status. Because the Serbs from Krajina -
25 Dr. Babic continues - have the political right to the territory of
1 Krajina. If the committee of Borislav Mikelic approaches the problem of
2 resolving the return of Serb refugees in this way, there will be no
3 conflicts between us - Dr. Babic says - adding that the government of the
4 Krajina operates in exile and that a special commission was established
5 within it to deal with the issues of the status and rights of the
6 refugees, cooperation with various organisations and institutions, so why
7 not Mikelic too."
8 Do you recall whether your comments a month later were directed
9 at what Mr. Babic and Mr. Mikelic were -- I should say, Mr. Babic was
10 talking about in terms of collective return as opposed to individual
11 return of refugees?
12 A. No, this is the first time I have seen this.
13 Q. Well, let me ask you, Mr. Pasic, we saw in the exhibit that was
14 just admitted where you said that individual excesses do not reflect the
15 stance of the official policy. And you've said the same thing
16 essentially in the proofing statement that you signed yesterday, that you
17 did not believe that it was government policy to allow for criminal
18 activity to take place.
19 Your 2002 statement, however, has a passage where - and let me
20 find it - this is page 8 in the English version.
21 MR. MISETIC: This is Exhibit D1706, page 8. I believe it's
22 page ...
23 Yes, this is the second-to-last paragraph on the page in English.
24 And let me ...
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think it's page 14 of B/C/S, if that's what
2 Mr. Misetic --
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, thank you, counsel.
4 It's page 14, the second paragraph.
5 Q. Now, in your 2002 statement, it's recorded as you having said:
6 "I believe that the looting and destruction that took place was planned
7 from above. It was anarchy in Knin, only the president could have
8 stopped it."
9 My question to you is: In 1996 you had said that -- and I
10 understand that, obviously, sir, you that say that that is not accurate
11 and you don't believe that, and that's what you said in your proofing
13 My question to you is: In 1996, you had said publicly you didn't
14 believe it was official policy to condone such activity. You said the
15 same thing now in 2009. Can you tell us how it is that that conclusion
16 came up in 2002?
17 A. I think -- well, I don't think I said anything like that.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MR. MISETIC: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I did not have my eye on
20 the clock, and this might be a good time for a break.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is time for a break.
22 We will have a break, and we resume at 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to continue by asking you some questions
3 about some documents that have been already admitted into evidence.
4 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D56 on the
5 screen, please.
6 Q. Mr. Pasic, do you recall having meetings with a gentleman named
7 Husein Al-Alfi, in the period after Operation Storm?
8 A. [In English] Yes.
9 Q. This is a document which purports to record the results of
10 Mr. Al-Alfi's meeting with you and Mr. Cermak on the 18th of August,
11 1995. And you'll see that -- in the first paragraph, Mr. Al-Alfi reports
12 that: "This morning I had a meeting with ... Petar Pasic, the mayor of
13 Knin." He also records who else was present at the meeting.
14 If you look on your screen, I think you might be able to see the
16 Do you recall this meeting where Mr. Djakovic and Mr. Vidovic
17 were also present?
18 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
19 Q. Okay. If we turn to page 2, which is subparagraph (f).
20 Mr. Al-Alfi says:
21 "I brought to the attention of the mayor, the reports about
22 continuing burning of villages and looting until this time. The mayor
23 expressed his understanding of this problem and informed me that the
24 military and civilian authorities are having regular meetings to put an
25 end to such acts. He further regarded such a behaviour as a crime for
1 which the perpetrators should be prosecuted."
2 My question, Mr. Pasic, is: Can you explain to the Court what
3 meetings you were referring to when you said that regular meetings were
4 taking place between the military and civilian authorities?
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, I'm just not sure that that question
6 reflects what's in the memo which talks about civilian and military
7 authorities are having regular meetings, not necessarily between
8 themselves, and I just think the question might be a bit confusing.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I think Ms. Gustafson is right, that
10 the text does not give that detail, but we perhaps could inquire with the
11 witness what he meant here.
12 MR. MISETIC: I disagree with that interpretation --
13 JUDGE ORIE: But let's ask him. Then we don't have to rely
14 anymore on our interpretation but what the witness can tell us.
15 MR. MISETIC:
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, it says that military and civilian authorities are
17 having regular meetings to put an end to such acts.
18 What meetings are you referring to, or were you referring to,
19 when you had this discussion with Mr. Al-Alfi?
20 A. I was referring to the meetings between General Cermak and the
21 commissioners of the Government of Croatia, with the other participants,
22 and they were the utilities company, the centre for social welfare, the
23 Croatian Red Cross, and my associates.
24 Q. Okay. And were you present at such meetings? And I mean
25 specifically at meetings held to "put an end to such acts"?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell us what steps you know of that were taken to "put to
3 end to such acts," or were being discussed to put an end to such acts?
4 A. We asked that in places where -- in places liberated after
5 Operation Storm that, at the check-points there, control be stepped up,
6 entrance and exits, and the in-flow of people coming into Knin or leaving
7 Knin. So basically control.
8 Q. This meeting was on the 18th of August, and I'd like to turn your
9 attention to Exhibit P988.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Before doing so, Mr. Misetic, could I seek one
12 You were asked about meetings the military and civilian
13 authorities were engaged in. When asked with which authorities you
14 referred to, you said -- which meetings you were referring to, you said
15 Mr. Cermak meeting with, et cetera, et cetera. When talking about
16 military authority, were you exclusively pointing at Mr. Cermak, or were
17 there any other military authorities involved in talks on these matters;
18 that is, to end such acts?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The other officers or persons
20 in authority did not attend those meetings.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Again, Mr. President, it's P988, and I'm interested in page 7 of
25 the English. But if we could first show the cover page so the witness is
1 aware of what this is.
2 Q. This is a report, Mr. Pasic, of the International Helsinki
3 Federation for Human Rights about a fact-finding mission it conducted
4 between 17th and 19th of August, 1995.
5 MR. MISETIC: And if we go to page 7 of this report. This is
6 paragraph 5.1. I'm sorry, the next page, please. There we go.
7 Q. Now, the Helsinki Federation met with you as well on the same
8 date as your meeting with Mr. Al-Alfi, on the 18th of August, 1995
9 there the Helsinki Federation records the results of your conversation
10 with the Helsinki Federation as follows:
11 "We asked Pasic questions concerning the burnings and lootings.
12 He replied with evasive and contradictory statements. He said that most
13 of the destruction taking place is being carried out by civilians taking
14 revenge. However, he did not elaborate or explain how he had come to
15 that conclusion. We asked what measures he was taking to stop these
16 civilians taking revenge, and he answered, I can do nothing, should we
17 shoot them or what? Pasic also claimed" --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. MISETIC: "Pasic also claimed that the 4th and 7th
20 professional HV Brigades were not involved in any burning or looting but
21 that individuals from the 6th Reserve Brigade were responsible."
22 The next paragraph says:
23 "When we asked Pasic about the man beaten at his apartment by
24 HV soldiers and the elderly woman robbed by HV soldiers, he replied, I
25 cannot guarantee anybody's safety."
1 And then the next statements attributed to you are:
2 "I do not apologise for what has happened here.
3 "I could not prevent this from happening.
4 "The position of the Croatian Government is that these people
5 should say.
6 "They need Croatian citizenship to come back."
7 Now, first, let me ask you as a preliminary matter, do you recall
8 meeting the Helsinki Federation on the 18th of August, 1995.
9 A. I don't remember that there were those representatives. I knew
10 -- I know that one of the representatives wrote a column in Drago Pilsel.
11 Q. Do you recall Petar Mrkalj being present at the meeting?
12 A. The name doesn't ring a bell. It -- perhaps.
13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I told you that Mr. Mrkalj
14 was the president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee at the time?
15 A. Perhaps.
16 Q. Do you recall any of the conversation or having a conversation
17 with the Helsinki
18 A. I don't think so, no.
19 Q. Well, they record you as giving evasive and contradictory
20 statements. Do you wish to respond as to whether you were being evasive
21 and contradictory at the time?
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, the witness has said he doesn't
23 remember having this conversation. I'm not sure there is a basis for
24 this question.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
1 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, this is cross-examination. I'm
2 entitled --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if I say, I have no recollection of a
4 meeting with Mr. A or B, then to ask where it took place, et cetera, of
5 course, doesn't make much sense. It is about reporting. Of course, we
6 could ask the witness whether he remembers that he ever, in any
7 conversation, has been evasive, but if he has no specific recollection on
8 this conversation, it's -- I do not see how he would have any knowledge
9 which would allow him to -- to --
10 MR. MISETIC: Well, Mr. President --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, to comment perhaps in a more general way
12 that's appropriate --
13 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I will ask him more
14 generally then, but I'm going to put it to him:
15 Q. Mr. Pasic, do you recall having any reason at the time to be
16 evasive terms of what you were representing to the public as to what was
17 taking place in Sector South at the time?
18 A. No, there was no reason.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Just to come back for one second to the exchange,
20 apparently Ms. Gustafson understood at the time, being during the
21 meeting; whereas, you may have referred to at the time as a period. And
22 that perhaps explains the exchange the views on this matter.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. Let me ask you, although you don't recall the specifics of this
1 meeting, was it your view on or around the 18th of August, or in that
2 time-period, that the 4th and 7th professional HV Brigades were not
3 involved in any burning or looting?
4 A. Yes, I'm certain of that, because I toured the settlements around
5 Knin, and it was said that this was not done by the members of the 4th
6 and 7th Guards Brigade.
7 Q. Well, did they tell that you it was the 6th Reserve Brigade, the
8 6th Home Guard Brigade?
9 A. As for the 6th Reserve or Home Guard Brigade, I hadn't heard of
10 it. As far as I was concerned, there were only the 4th and the 7th
11 Brigades. And there were a number of regiments, Home Guard Regiments,
12 which took part in this operation, but I've never heard of this
13 6th Reserve Brigade.
14 Q. Okay. Let me show you, Mr. Pasic, Exhibit P2319. This is an
15 interview purportedly conducted with Petar Mrkalj and apparently
16 involving Drago Pilsel in terms of how the interview was conducted.
17 MR. MISETIC: If we could go to page 3 in the English. This is
18 page 1 in the Croatian, and it's the middle column, the third column.
20 Q. There's a question posed to Mr. Mrkalj who claims to have been
21 with the Helsinki Federation fact-finding mission. He says -- he asked:
22 What information did you obtain from the representatives of the Croatian
24 Do you see that on the page, Mr. Pasic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. It says:
2 "Mr. Petar Pasic told us that these were isolated cases and that
3 he did not have detailed information. He also said that the houses were
4 torched under somewhat emotional pressure. And finally he said that the
5 Serb houses were not torched by the professional but Home Guard units of
6 the Croatian Army. The head of the defence office in Knin told us the
7 same thing, saying that there were four or five suspects and that there
8 was no hard evidence for their arrest or for initiating any proceedings
9 against them."
10 Now, I know you don't recall the specifics of this meeting,
11 Mr. Pasic, but if in fact you had had information that these houses --
12 first let me ask you this question.
13 Was it your view at the time that these burnings were isolated
14 cases, or was it a widespread phenomenon?
15 A. They were isolated cases.
16 Q. And why do you say they were isolated cases?
17 A. Because, at the same time, nothing else was happening in a
18 village. Well, there would be one house burning, and then perhaps in
19 another settlement, there would be one or two houses burning.
20 Q. Okay. You were the government's commissioner for Kistanje as
21 well; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The Chamber has had -- heard evidence of burnings that took place
24 in Kistanje, speaking now up to the date of the 18th August, which is
25 when you had these meetings with the Helsinki Federation.
1 Were you aware as the government's commissioner that there had
2 been burnings in Kistanje, up to that point?
3 A. Up to that point, I don't think there was any large-scale burning
4 in Kistanje.
5 Q. When did large-scale burning in Kistanje take place?
6 A. I would have to say something before that, with your permission,
7 and to explain something.
8 Most of the people from Kistanje worked in the Sibenik area, and
9 they worked at the metal factory there, for the aluminum industry. It
10 was the TLM, Sibenska, Slobodna Plovidba, and the port of Sibenik
11 Unfortunately, immediately after the first barricades that were set up,
12 they were set up between Sibenik and Kistanje at a place called Plancnik
13 [phoen]. And it was at those barricades that those same people were seen
14 who otherwise worked in the locations I mentioned earlier on, in the
15 various factories. And when I said -- well, there's a term that I like
16 to use, mental revenge, or retaliation and then what probably happened
17 was, that the people that they worked with, when they were forced out of
18 their homes and expelled, and when five or six years later they went back
19 to their homes and found that their houses no longer existed but that
20 trees were growing, fig trees or whatever, out of their yards and houses,
21 they couldn't resist burning.
22 Q. I appreciate the answer, Mr. Pasic, but my question, though, is
23 you have said that up until the 18th, there wasn't large-scale burning in
24 Kistanje. And my question is: When did the large-scale in Kistanje
25 start, from your knowledge?
1 A. If there wasn't any until the 18th, probably it was later, but I
2 cannot tell you when it took place or how long it lasted.
3 Q. Well, Mr. Pasic, I'm going to suggest to that you if you're the
4 government commissioner in Kistanje for that area, you probably have a
5 general understanding of when a significant number of houses was burned
6 down in an area where you are the government commissioner. And I will
7 put to you that the Chamber has received evidence from a report of the
8 United Nations Military Observers that roughly 150, approximately, houses
9 out of approximately 500 houses in the Kistanje municipality were burned,
10 and my question to you is: Can you tell the Chamber when the majority of
11 that -- those 150 houses were burned? I know you said after the 18th,
12 but do you have any more specific information?
13 A. Let me first tell that I, indeed, was the commissioner for
14 Kistanje, but I must also say that I was a government commissioner for
15 four more municipalities, namely, Civljane, Biskupija, Ervenik --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Can you please focus your answer on the question
17 that was put to you. Mr. Misetic was not asking whether you had other
18 functions. Mr. Misetic asked you when, what was reported as large-scale
19 burning, when, according to your knowledge, that took place. If you know
20 tell us; if you don't know, tell us as well.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
22 JUDGE ORIE: One of your earlier answers was that you don't think
23 that there was any large-scale burning in Kistanje before the 18th. What
24 made you think that there wasn't any large-scale burning in Kistanje
25 before the 18th of August?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because those were the reports that
2 were received from the people. Down there at Kistanje, there was a
3 police station, and they received reports about the situation on the
5 JUDGE ORIE: And -- well, apart from a police station being
6 there, receiving reports from the ground, I think that people manning a
7 police station would see by themselves whether there was any large-scale
8 burning and that they would not be dependant on others reporting to them.
9 Would you agree with that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I would.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Now, later on, you said, If there wasn't any until the 18th, and
13 you were referring to large-scale burning, you said, Probably it was
15 Now, first of all, do you acknowledge that there was large-scale
16 burning in Kistanje at any time in August/September 1995?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: When did you receive reports about it, or when did
19 you observe yourself this to happen?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was going to Sibenik,
21 because I lived there, and passed -- in passing through Kistanje, I saw
22 large-scale burning along the main road. It may have been around the
23 20th or the 25th of August of -- because it was then that I used to take
24 that route.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And earlier you did not take that route?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I used to go through Drnis and
2 Kosovo when I went to Sibenik.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And when you say on the 20th and 25th, did you
4 see large-scale burning, houses still in flames, or did you see the
5 result of large-scale burning? That is, houses burned?
6 What did you see, 20 or -- around the 20th or 25th of August?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only saw the results. I didn't
8 see flames or smoke.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if it would have been around the 20th,
10 would you then agree with me that it could well have been that the
11 large-scale burning took place more than two days before that date; that
12 is, before the 18th?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't say so.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Why not?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because there wasn't any.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand from your testimony that you saw the
17 results of large-scale burning on either the 20th -- around the 20th, or
18 the 25th.
19 Now -- and you also told us that what you saw is just the result,
20 not the burning itself or houses in flames. Now, how could you conclude
21 that there was no large-scale burning at the 18th or before the 18th, on
22 the basis of this information?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said that I
24 travelled on several occasions from Knin through Kistanje to Sibenik, but
25 I cannot say exactly whether it was on the 25th, whether it was in
1 August, or at all, or in September, but I knew that when I travelled
2 along that road, there was no large-scale burning.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you -- did you ever receive reports about
4 large-scale burning in Kistanje? Do you have any recollection of
5 receiving reports about it?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So you didn't see it, apart from that you saw the
8 results which may have been either in August or in September; and you
9 didn't ever receive any reports about that. That's your testimony.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
12 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Pasic, while we're generally on this topic, you are aware,
14 and forgive me if it's in your statement and I have not seen it, that the
15 chief of the police of Kotar-Knin Cedo Romanic was, himself, an ethnic
17 A. There are three -- three high officials in the town of Knin
18 Storm who were ethnic Serbs. There was me, there was Cedo Romanic as the
19 chief of police, and --
20 THE INTERPRETER: A third person, whose name the interpreter
21 didn't get.
22 A. I knew that they were Serbs.
23 MR. MISETIC:
24 Q. Okay, the third person, the interpreter didn't get the name, but
25 I think I heard you say Mr. Mihic?
1 A. Milos Mihic, the chief of police at the Knin police station.
2 Q. And obviously from your statements you had a good working
3 relationship, according to you, with General Cermak as well.
4 And my question to you is: If you can tell the Chamber or tell me
5 if you had in fact seen crime, would there have been a reason for you not
6 no report that crime to Mr. Romanic, to Mr. Mihic, if it involved
7 civilian matters, or --
8 A. No, there couldn't have been reason for me not to report that.
9 Q. Did -- again, let me ask you directly. You personally, as an
10 ethnic Serb in the area, did you feel constrained from openly discussing
11 criminal activity?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. Let me call up just so you -- so you have some familiarity
14 with the document. As it document that's been admitted into evidence
15 this morning, this is Exhibit D1714. And this relates to the issue of
16 stolen grapes and corn. And this is page -- you discuss this at page 7
17 of your 2002 interview, which is -- it's D1706.
18 And at page 7 -- I'm sorry. Actually, I don't know if it's at
19 page 7. Page 5; I apologise.
20 You say that this letter is a letter you sent to the police
21 administration in Zadar and the police station in Knin, complaining that
22 people were stealing grapes and corn, and nobody was stopping them.
23 These people I listed by name in the letter and they wore -- and they
24 were in both civilian and military clothing. As far as I know, nothing
25 was done about it, because the stealing continued."
1 MR. MISETIC: And if we could turn the page to see the names as
3 Q. Now, this document is dated the 25th of October, 1995. And I
4 wish to draw your attention to some observations of crime that appear in
5 your 2002 statement. For example, at page 7 of your statement in
6 English, you talk about going with Mr. Cermak's deputy, Marko Gojevic, to
7 a village called Oton Bender. And you saw two Croatian soldiers with a
8 tractor and trailer taking cattle away. Gojevic asked the soldiers why
9 they were taking the cattle, and they replied that they were recovering
10 what they had lost.
11 Also on page 7 you talk about an incident of seeing Croatian
12 soldiers collecting horses and putting them on trucks and taking them
14 And then, I believe, there was the incident of -- which you have
15 corrected in your supplemental information sheet, about travelling from
16 Sibenik to Knin and always stopped in Drnis at a check-point where you
17 see what you have now corrected as civilians driving trucks full of
19 My question is: With respect do each of these incidents, did you
20 file a report with the Knin police station or the police administration
21 in Zadar for -- where you observed goods being stolen, items being
22 looted, cattle and horses being taken, et cetera, did you file similar
23 reports for those observations as you did for -- with specific names of
24 people stealing grapes and corn, which you filed on the 25th of October?
25 A. This report about the theft of grapes and corn wasn't drafted by
1 me. There was an office of the ministry of agriculture and forestry in
2 Knin with two staff. They submitted a list of those who were caught
3 stealing grapes and corn, and I simply forwarded their letter to the
4 police administration in Zadar and the police station at Knin.
5 Q. Well, your testimony -- the witness statement indicates that some
6 of these people on this list are persons either in the Croatian military
7 or wearing military uniforms. I presume, and you correct me if I'm
8 wrong, that the majority of these people, if not all of them, are ethnic
10 Am I correct?
11 A. Well, don't hold this against me, but I really couldn't tell,
12 whether they were ethnic Serbs or ethnic Croats by the way they were
14 And if I may amend, judging by the place of residence of these
15 people and by their first and last names, if I may, I would conclude that
16 most of them were ethnic Croats.
17 Q. My point is that, on the 25th of October, you did not have a
18 problem signing your name to a document which was reporting to the police
19 theft by ethnic Croats.
20 Am I right? You weren't afraid to do this. Or were you afraid?
21 A. No, by no means.
22 Q. So to go back to my question, I understand that this report may
23 have been prepared by someone else. But if you, for example, saw horses
24 being stolen or cattle being stolen, given the fact that you worked with
25 Mr. Mihic and Mr. Romanic and General Cermak, would there have been a
1 reason why you wouldn't have reported that -- or let me ask the first
3 Did you report -- the incidents that you've described in your
4 statement, did you report them to Mr. Mihic or Mr. Romanic or anyone else
5 in the police?
6 A. All the incidents that happened in the field I pointed out to
7 Mr. Romanic and Mr. Mihic orally.
8 Q. Okay. Would they take action? Do you know if they would take
9 action, if you reported these types of incidents to them?
10 A. The later chief of police of Knin, because the Kotar was done
11 away with, and Mr. Mihic returned to Sibenik, so the chief of police at
12 Knin became Mr. Viroza [phoen] and I reported some events to him, some
13 incidents. And he said to me that he -- he submitted written reports to
14 the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Croatia
15 Q. Well --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could we seek clarification of the
18 One of your previous answers was all the incidents that happened
19 in the field I pointed out to Mr. Romanic and Mr. Mihic orally. Then you
20 were asked whether they took any action upon your report. And then you
21 come with a story that someone else was, at a later stage, police chief,
22 and that -- but the question put to you by Mr. Misetic simply was where
23 you said you reported to Mr. Romanic and Mr. Mihic, whether they took any
25 Could you please answer that question.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that, due to their place
2 in the hierarchy, it was their duty to inform their superiors in the
3 Ministry of the Interior.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But the question was whether they took any action,
5 not whether they were duty-bound to do so. Do you know that, or don't
6 you know it? If you don't know, tell us; if you do know, tell us as
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that they took any
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC:
12 Q. You don't think they took any action which now leads to the
13 question as to why they didn't take any action.
14 Mr. Romanic specifically was someone who you would attend the
15 meetings -- with whom you would attend meetings at General Cermak's
16 office on a daily or almost daily basis; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did Mr. Romanic ever explain why he wasn't taking any action on
19 matters that you personally had reported to him?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you ask him or follow up with him to say, Whatever happened
22 with the stolen cattle or stolen horses?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Let me draw your attention to page 7 of D1706, which is the
25 2002 statement.
1 And there you talk about -- let me find the Croatian page for
3 Here we go, it's page 11 in the B/C/S. I'm sorry.
4 MR. MISETIC: If we could go to the bottom, please. Yes.
5 Q. You say:
6 "I also went to the Plavno village and saw Croatian soldiers
7 collecting horses and putting them on trucks and taking them away. I am
8 aware of a woman called Marta Vujanovic being killed and she came from
9 Oton Polje. She was killed with her mentally-retard son. There are
10 three hamlets in Oton, Oton Bender, Oton Brdo, and Oton Polje. I heard
11 that this woman was killed from my uncle, Luka Pasic."
12 And I'd like to turn your attention on this incident, Mr. Pasic,
13 to Exhibit P2345, at English page 62 and B/C/S page 60, please.
14 Mr. Pasic, what we're going to see on it's screen is a report by
15 the Croatian Helsinki
16 and the English version was published in 2001.
17 And you can see in the Croatian version the paragraph in the
18 middle of your screen there, that begins: "At the end of August 1995."
19 MR. MISETIC: And this is at the bottom of the English page.
20 Q. Let me read it out to you. It says:
21 "At the end of August 1995" -- I'm sorry. Let me start with the
22 paragraph preceding, so we understand the context.
23 It says:
24 "The other example of a similar search ended up tragically. A
25 day after military Operation Storm ended, a daughter of Marta Vujanovic,
1 born in 1905, who lives in Germany
2 and brother's, Stevo, destiny born in 1939. She knew that Marta and
3 Stevo remained in the village of Oton
4 to help her.
5 "At the end of August 1995 she wrote a letter to the Croatian
6 Helsinki Committee asking for help. The CHC office demanded that the
7 commissioner of the government, Petar Pasic, help them. Mr. Pasic did
8 not reply to any of the written demands on behalf of the CHC. However,
9 he showed a letter to the international observers and said, I have more
10 important job to do than look around Knin and collect Serb corpses. When
11 he had said that, Marta Vujnovic and her son had already been dead. The
12 Croatian soldiers killed them on August 18th, 1995, in their own house,
13 Mother Marija, was killed inside the house, and Stevo in his own yard.
14 If Petar Pasic had listened to her daughter and sister Lubica, it would
15 be possible that they would be alive today together with other residents
16 of Oton killed that same day."
17 Now my first question, Mr. Pasic, is, do you remember any of this
18 -- did it in fact happen that there was correspondence between you and
19 the Croatian Helsinki Committee with the daughter of Marta Vujnovic?
20 A. Based on this, I cannot confirm that what is said here is true.
21 Because, at the time, there was -- there were no telephone lines,
22 functioning telephone lines between Knin and other towns which can be
23 easily verified.
24 I personally knew the killed -- that killed person. We are even
25 related. So if I had known about that, I certainly would have helped.
1 But it's impossible that she spoke to me over the phone, because there
2 were no functioning phone lines at the time.
3 Q. But --
4 A. I read the Serbian news -- or, rather, the news in the Serbian
5 newspapers, but I'm not sure what identity this was, because they talk
6 about this story in a different way. And mostly in the article that I
7 read it did not refer to Petar Pasic but the problems which occurred in
8 Donji Lapac, Benkovac, Gracac, and some other places.
9 Q. Well, the Croatian Helsinki Committee claims that there was
10 correspondence between you -- I'm sorry, from them to you, meaning from
11 the Helsinki
12 demands sent to you by them.
13 Do you recall such written demands?
14 A. All there is, is one written request, as far as I remember, from
15 the Helsinki Committee sent to me and that was when a convoy from a
16 barracks when on its way to Serbia
17 619. That was its number. And there was a person there called
18 Stana Grkinjic [phoen]. And along the way en route somewhere, she
19 disappeared. And her daughter informed both me and the Helsinki
20 Committee and then -- well, it was Mr. Cicak at the time who was the
21 president of the HHO, and he simply wrote a letter to me. He said,
22 Mr. Commissioner, please look for that person and try and find her.
23 Q. Okay. I'm interested also in knowing how the name of
24 Marta Vujnovic wound up in your 2002 statement. Were you aware at the
25 time of the 2002 statement of the allegations that had been made against
1 you by the HHO in its reports of 1999 and 2002, concerning
2 Marta Vujnovic?
3 A. I don't know how it happened to be there in the first place
4 because the village of Plavno
5 is quite a different matter -- or Konji [phoen], and there are two
6 settlements at a distance of 15 to 20 kilometres.
7 Q. Well, do you know if Mr. Foster and Mr. Casey, the Prosecution's
8 investigators, showed you the HHO, the Croatian Helsinki Committee
9 report, at the time of the interview that you gave them?
10 A. No.
11 Q. No, you don't know; or, no, they didn't show it to you?
12 A. No, no.
13 Q. When you say no, they did not show you the report. Is that what
14 you're saying?
15 A. I think that's it, yes.
16 Q. Okay. Mr. Pasic, let me switch to a different subject.
17 This is Exhibit P822. This is a report from an ECMM monitor. Do
18 you recall a man named Soren Liborius of the European Community
19 Monitoring Mission
20 A. No, I don't remember.
21 Q. Well, if we look at this report, if we look towards the bottom of
22 the first paragraph, it says -- he describes a meeting that he held --
23 I'm sorry, a meeting with Mr. Gambotti, between you and Mr. Gambotti.
24 Do you remember Mr. Gambotti?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Towards the bottom of that paragraph it says:
2 "Returning Serbs, according to Mr. Pasic more than 100 have
3 reported from Serbia
4 And then there's a comment:
5 "Indeed some people are returning but only those with property
6 secured. The team still wait to see when an actual occupant of a house
7 is driven out because the legal owner returned."
8 And the date is the 27th of October of this report.
9 My question -- I had asked you earlier at the beginning of my
10 questioning, Mr. Pasic, about the number of returned Serbs as of
11 April 1996. Do you recall the accuracy of this report, that 100 Serbs
12 had returned from Serbia
13 A. Neither me nor my office were in a position to keep statistical
14 data about the number of those who returned, but what I said was those
15 who did return and came to us, many of them returned but didn't come to
16 see us.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... so is it your testimony or
18 was it your report on that day that 100 Serbs had returned from Serbia
19 and had come to you, seeking help, but there could have been more?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Where would you -- where would these Serbs, these 100 Serbs who
22 had came back that you knew of, where would they be housed?
23 A. Usually -- well, since the flats and houses in Knin were already
24 occupied most of the people who returned went back to villages around
25 Knin in actual fact because they were from those parts in the first
2 Q. Would they go back to their own homes, or would you put them up
3 in other peoples' homes?
4 A. No. They would see to their own accommodation, and we did write
5 a letter and tried to put some people up in a centre, in Strmica, but all
6 those people refused and declined collective accommodation and went back
7 to their native villages, because most of them did have family homes in
8 the villages but were allotted flats, socially-owned flats, in Knin.
9 Q. Well, are you saying Serbs who came back were also allotted
10 flats, socially-owned flats, in Knin in addition to their own homes that
11 they had in the outlying villages?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Well, who is it that was allotted socially-owned flats in Knin?
14 A. Well, attached to the Government of Croatia, there was a
15 commission for accommodation, and at the request of individuals they
16 would allot flats for temporary use, temporary accommodation.
17 Q. Okay. Why -- you mentioned you tried to put some people up in a
18 centre in Strmica. Why were you trying to put people up in a centre in
20 A. Well, until their homes were refurbished we wanted to provide
21 them with temporary accommodation and our people, and I'm from the area,
22 were such that they refused to go into collective accommodation. They
23 didn't want to do that, so they preferred to live in houses that were
24 partially destroyed and been burnt. But with the help of international
25 organisations, they did meet the necessary conditions -- well, they were
1 given the necessary conditions to be able to live in these houses until
2 they were reconstructed.
3 Q. Okay.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could I seek clarification of one of
5 the previous answers.
6 You first said that most of the them did have family homes in the
7 villages but were allotted flats, socially-owned flats, in Knin.
8 Mr. Misetic asked you whether, in addition to the homes they had, that
9 flats were allotted. And the answer was no.
10 I have difficulties in understanding exactly the relation between
11 flats being given to people returning, where you said it was not in
12 addition to their own homes, even if partly destroyed.
13 Who then got these flats or apartments?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think you understood me.
15 The flats, well, after returning from Serbia, these people were not
16 allotted flats. What I said was that they returned -- that they were
17 given these flats, allotted these flats before Operation Storm. But as
18 families, they lived in the villages. So they were able to go back to
19 the houses that had either been devastated or those that could still be
20 used for living. So the returnees, or at least many of them, were not
21 allotted the flats that they had used before.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So let me try to verify whether I understood you
24 Those who had been living in flats, socially-owned flats, in
25 Knin, after they returned from Serbia
1 their socially-owned flats, but, rather would go to their family homes,
2 destroyed or partly destroyed, in the villages where they originated
4 Is that correctly understood?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not quite. Let me explain.
6 The -- by decision of the government of Croatia, the flats had
7 been allocated to other users now. So the Serbs who were returning could
8 not go back, did not go back to their former flats or to any other flats
9 for that matter. In their desire to return, they returned to their
10 family homes, family houses from which they -- which they left when they
11 were allotted these flats previously.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, when these flats were allotted to them
13 and, as you told us, later being allotted to other people, would that
14 include Croatian citizens from Serb ethnicity?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you explain that question,
17 JUDGE ORIE: What I would like to know, whether those who had
18 been living in those flats and apartments in Knin and upon return from
20 well, who were Croatian citizens but of Serb ethnicity?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of those people who left, and you
22 know that the problem the accommodation is still being resolved today,
23 nobody returned to their flats, whether they were Serbs or Croats, those
24 who left for Serbia
25 Operation Storm.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And upon return, they couldn't use the flats they
2 previously had occupied in accordance with the normal regulations.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Neither the flats, nor any other
4 premises, nor anything else, furniture or whatever. They couldn't use
5 that anymore.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Why couldn't they use their furniture anymore?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because, pursuant to a decision
8 taken by the Government of Croatia and the housing commission, that
9 housing space was given to other people who had come into Knin after
10 Operation Storm.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And that included the furniture, and if someone
12 would come back and say, Well, this is my couch, or my fridge or my bed,
13 what would be the answer?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, many people didn't even dare
15 do that, knock on the door of their former flat.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Why wouldn't they dare?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there was another tenant
18 there, another occupant.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But still their furniture. They had paid for
20 their beds, I take it, and for their fridges and for their tables and
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By decision of the government,
23 well, we had social ownership of property previously. Now there was no
24 socially-owned property anymore. I had a flat in Sibenik, for example,
25 and I could buy it up, I could purchase it myself, whereas these other
1 flats had not been purchased. There was no longer any socially-owned
2 accommodation. So it was only a question of furniture and things like
3 that, whether somebody was willing to cede the furniture or not. There
4 were cases like that too.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to understand.
6 You said these people left their flats they had occupied, which
7 were socially-owned flats or apartments. Now you say upon their return,
8 they found these flats to be occupied. But are you telling that it was
9 not socially-owned anymore? Then, if not, who had ownership of those
10 flats previously occupied by this Serb family, which wished to return?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every flat or the flat of every
12 employer. Let's assume he worked for the Croatian railways, for example,
13 a worker of the Croatian railways or something else, those flats belonged
14 to the Croatian railways.
15 Now, if it was a flat belonging to the utilities company,
16 everybody working in the utilities company would be allocated a flat to
17 live in by the company, and so these flats belonged to the various
18 enterprises. And somebody taking occupancy, taking up occupancy later on
19 would get a certificate saying that he had temporary use of the flat, so
20 it didn't belong to him. The flat still belonged to the ministry in
21 which the person worked.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's clear to
23 me that is it was later allotted to other persons; it may not have been
24 the ownership of the company anymore, but it was the government who
25 decided who would occupy that flat.
1 Now I get back to the furniture. The furniture was not
2 socially-owned? The furniture was still owned by those who had
3 previously lived in that flat.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And you said people would not dare to go there and
6 claim their own furniture.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's how it was.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Did you assist them in re-gaining their furniture,
9 or would you just accept that those who were now occupying the flats
10 would use the fridges, the beds, the tables, the chairs?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We accepted the existing situation.
12 Unfortunately, I have to say, that I, too, was allocated a flat for
13 temporary accommodation, but that the person who lived there before me
14 never turned up, he never asked for his furniture back or his flat back.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you describe a situation, and we're talking
16 about an attitude towards those who left, that it was wished - that's at
17 least part of the evidence this Chamber has heard - that people were
18 encouraged to return.
19 Now, could you reconcile the fact that if you would return, that
20 you would have no furniture anymore. Your flat would be occupied by
21 others. What was the attractive perspective that was offered to those
22 who wished to return?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already said that everybody
24 actually wanted to return. There was that wish. And every person hoped
25 that, if they returned, for example, the village I came from, that,
1 ultimately, they would have the opportunity of going back to their flat
2 at some point.
3 But let me explain. Every person who left and, pursuant to
4 Croatian government decision, did not return within six months or did not
5 send in a request to have their flat returned to them, were not able to
6 do so. And it's only now that these requests are being dealt with.
7 So those who tabled their requests in 1998 or 1999, those cases
8 are still pending. But flats and houses were not an obstacle to people
9 who wanted to come back to their origins and native area.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
11 I'm also looking at the clock. I don't know whether this would
12 be ...
13 MR. MISETIC: [Microphone not activated]
14 JUDGE ORIE: I don't hear you.
15 MR. MISETIC: Sorry. I was going to turn to a new topic, so it
16 might be a good time for a break then.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 We will have a break, and we will resume at a quarter to 1.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.24 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could you keep in mind that I would
22 like to reserve some seven or eight minutes at the end of this meeting
23 for procedural matters.
24 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I anticipate I will be done well
25 before the end so --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Ms. Gustafson, would you please keep
2 that in mind.
3 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, first a correction to the record, I
4 put to the witness Exhibit P2345 which is, I have been now told,
5 MNA status, and what I should have called out is P2402, which is in
6 evidence, but it is a redacted version of P2345, and so the record should
7 be clear. The pages, however, are the same in both documents.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's now clearly on the record, Mr. Misetic.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to shift gears here for one minute and ask
12 you a few questions concerning the statement you made on the 2nd of
13 August. This is discussed at paragraph 10 of your 2009 statement.
14 MR. MISETIC: And if we can turn to that. It's D1707.
15 Q. And you're referring to -- back to your 2002 statement, which is
16 D1706, at paragraph 10, and you were asked by the Cermak Defence what did
17 you mean when you said you were -- by the term "trouble to come." And
18 you explained that you believed that the plights of the civilian
19 population would be repeated like in the previous HV operations
20 Maslenica, Medacki Dzep, and Bljesak, particularly since Knin town was
21 the epicentre of and synonymous with the rebellion against the Republic
22 of Croatia
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. My question is if you could please clarify what you were
1 referring to concerning the plight of the civilian population repeated,
2 like in those operations.
3 A. As I have said before, I'm a citizen of the Republic of Croatia
4 of Serb ethnicity. Since 1991, I have been in the focus of events, and
5 after each operation of the Croatian Army, and there have been several, I
6 can mention Miljevci, then came Maslenica, then there was the Dubrovnik
7 coast-line, Sinj and the surroundings, the Medak pocket, Flash. In each
8 of these operations the civilian population suffered most. That is, the
9 population that lived in these areas. I expected something of that kind
10 to happen at Knin, because Knin was the epicentre of the rebellion
11 against the illegally-elected Croatian Government, and that's why the
12 plights there could even exceed those in the earlier operations.
13 Q. Well, what is it that you expected would happen specifically when
14 you talk about the plight?
15 A. I expected an exodus to occur; and it, indeed, happened. The
16 civilian population left in organised convoys, which a so-called army of
17 the Republic of Serbian Krajina did to its own population.
18 Q. And what was the basis of this expectation? Why did you expect
20 A. I expected that because the previous operations resulted in the
21 civilian population suffering most badly, and they mostly left the areas
22 that were put under the control of the Croatian authorities or the
23 Croatian police, even -- even though it was possible to remain in those
24 areas, and yet many people left.
25 Q. Well, did you expect that the -- when you said this on the 2nd of
1 August, were you expecting that if Croatia
2 town, that Croatia
4 A. No.
5 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to show you the video-clip of the Croatian TV
6 newscast on the 2nd of August which carried your call to the Krajina
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, this will be 65 ter 1D2980.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 "Sasa Kopljar: ...the Croatian government commissioner for Knin,
11 Petar Pasic, sent an open letter to the citizens of Serb nationality in
12 Knin who, according to Pasic, in the last couple of days have been unable
13 to leave the town because of the barriers placed at every entrance to the
14 town in order to prevent them from escaping from an already apparent
15 disarray. Your time is nearly up, but it may not be too late to turn
16 your backs on your steeped-in-crime leaders who are leading you to
17 suffering and hell, wrote Pasic, calling the citizens of Knin to accept
18 the peaceful hand of negotiations of Croatia in Geneva
19 their dissident authorities and acknowledge the Republic of Croatia
20 their sole homeland. At the same time, the self-proclaimed Serb
21 authorities are continuing with their intensive ethnic cleansing of the
22 area of north-western Bosnia
23 nationality from the wider Banja Luka area, mostly from the village of
24 Simic, fled by boats from Srbac across the Sava River
25 Croatian coast."
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Pasic, is that in fact the -- how your letter was transmitted
3 over Croatian state television to those in the so-called Krajina who
4 could watch Croatian television?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Other than this report on Croatian television, were there other
7 means through which your letter was broadcast or disseminated to the
8 Krajina Serb population?
9 A. According to the information available to me, not such a letter,
10 but there was a comment on the TV channel of the so-called Republic of
11 Serbian Krajina in which that letter was called a threat to the Serb
12 population in the area of the so-called RSK, and in a very ugly manner,
13 they spoke both about the Croatian state and the commissioner of the
14 Croatian government, calling him an Ustasha commissioner or Tudjman's
15 brown-nose. And in the so-called RSK, especially in the media, the term
16 member of the Croatian people was rarely used. Instead, they used a
17 phrase part of the Ustasha people.
18 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that 65 ter 1D2980 be marked
19 and I tender it into evidence.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1716.
23 JUDGE ORIE: D1716 is admitted into evidence.
24 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. I just wanted to seek a clarification to page 6 of your
1 2002 statement, which is, again, D1706. In it, you state that
2 General Gotovina's headquarters had moved from Split to Knin and was
3 housed next door to Cermak's office.
4 Are you aware that, in fact, General Gotovina's headquarters at
5 all times in 1995, the headquarters itself, was in Split and remained in
6 Split but that there was forward command post that had also been set up
7 in Knin.
8 A. I know the term "command post" and "forward command post," but I
9 don't know, really. I suppose that the garrison of General Gotovina was
10 in Split
11 Q. Okay. I take it from your answer you mean that -- you suppose
12 that the command of General Gotovina was in Split, but the forward
13 command post was in Knin?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, if it just a supposition, do we need a
15 clarification of what is supposed?
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MISETIC:
18 Q. Finally, Mr. Pasic, if you had felt -- let -- this question
19 arises from the 2002 statement, much of which you have clarified now, but
20 I wanted to ask you this question anyway.
21 If you felt that you were a figurehead with no real authority,
22 and if you felt -- if had you felt that there was some sort of a policy
23 to allow crime to take place, would you have stayed in that position as
24 the commissioner of the Knin region?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I think the question is highly
2 hypothetical and calls for speculation on the part of the witness.
3 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but even if it is a hypothesis, then that
5 doesn't mean that it's speculation because the witness is asked about
6 what he would do, and that could be something that he has formed an
7 opinion about already, and, under those circumstances, it would not be
8 speculation, but, rather, thoughts about what to do under what
10 Therefore, the witness may answer the question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that the
12 Croatian Government trusted me in my work, because if it hadn't been the
13 case, I wouldn't have stayed in the position of commissioner from the
14 5th of August till the 9th of March, 1996.
15 MR. MISETIC:
16 Q. Yes. My question, though, is specifically asking you about your
17 perspective on things and my question is --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, perhaps, also in view of my ruling on
19 your last issue --
20 Did you give it ever any thought, Mr. Pasic, that you could have
21 been used as a figurehead with no real authority? Did it ever come to
22 your mind as a possibility?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever think about that, if this would be the
25 case, how you would react, or have you not even thought about that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I partly thought about that. If it
2 had been the case, it would have been difficult for me to accept that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And -- well, sometimes it may be difficult to
4 accept, but what would you have done? Would have you stayed, or would
5 you have quit? What -- in what would this difficult acceptance have
6 resulted, in your thoughts?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my thoughts, or, rather, I
8 didn't think along the lines of making a living. It was about the
9 majority of expelled Croats and Serbs having confidence in me. Some
10 didn't, but they were a minority, and they held opposed -- their position
11 was opposed to mine.
12 I must say that the situation in Knin, in spite of all the
13 efforts made by the garrison and the commissioner and the government of
14 the Republic of Croatia
15 that on March the 9th I was replaced, and I became commissioner of the
16 Croatian Government for four other municipalities. My deputy, that is
17 the man who replaced me --
18 JUDGE ORIE: We are moving away from the question, Mr. Pasic. I
19 asked you whether you had considered for this possibility. You said you
20 partly thought about that and that, if that would be the case, that it
21 would have been difficult to accept that. Would the difficulty of
22 accepting it, would that have had any consequences in what you would have
23 done, in your thoughts? Would you have said, I would have --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... it wouldn't have
1 changed your behaviour. Is that how I am to understand?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I tried to avoid hypothesis and to get
4 it in a clear context, as you may have been aware of. To some extent, it
5 is the phrasing of the question which is also of importance to whether we
6 are not -- we are asking the witness to speculate or not.
7 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 If have you any follow-up questions, I have got no problems with
10 that, let me be clear.
11 MR. MISETIC: I do. It's just -- again, it's a little bit of a
12 difficulty of the 2002 statement, so I'm assuming that my colleagues
13 across the well are going to state that those -- that statement has --
14 was accurate. And if that is the case, then my question, and I will try
15 to be more specific on it, is --
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, if you felt when you were in Knin, in August and
17 September of 1995, that burning and looting was something that had been
18 approved or planned from above, what would you have done?
19 A. If it had been planned and implemented like that, I wouldn't have
20 agreed to be part of that system and part of those authorities.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic.
22 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I don't have any further questions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
24 Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Pasic?
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, if I could just have one
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, you will now be cross-examined by
3 Ms. Gustafson. Ms. Gustafson is counsel for the Prosecution.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. I would like to begin by asking you some questions about your
9 various statements and your subsequent corrections.
10 And you first gave a statement to the Prosecution - that was back
11 in 2001 and 2002 - and you don't need to look at it at the moment, if you
12 could just listen to my question. Because it's not actually related to
13 the contents of that.
14 Now, at that time, the statement was prepared in English and the
15 interpreter sat down with you and read it back to you in Croatian.
16 Is that how it happened?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And after the interpreter read it back to you, it was then that
19 you signed the statement and initialled each page of it, on the English
20 version; is that right?
21 A. I can complete this. I gave my statement on two occasions. On
22 the first two days when I gave my statement, it wasn't read to me, either
23 in English or Croatian. Only in March of the following year, 2002, that
24 statement was read in Croatian.
25 Q. Right. And it was read to you in March of 2002, and after it was
1 read to you, that's when you signed it and initialled every page; is that
3 A. I think so, but ... I'm not sure whether I initialled every page
4 or simply put my signature at the end of the document, the statement.
5 Q. Well, it's in evidence, Mr. Pasic, you can take it from me that
6 your initials are on every page.
7 And now you gave your second statement to the Defence, the Cermak
8 Defence, than was -- that took place on 22nd of November 2007 and the
9 18th of February, 2009. And today in your testimony and as well written
10 in that statement, you confirmed that when you gave your statement to the
11 Defence, you read your Prosecution statement, and I'd like to ask you, at
12 that time were you actually given a hard copy of your Prosecution
13 statement in Croatian to read over?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you read it over, both on the 22nd of November of 2007,
16 and, again, on the 18th of February, 2009; or was it just on one of those
17 occasions that you read over your Prosecution statement?
18 A. Initially, I only read the statement very superficially. I
19 didn't appreciate its full significance, because I thought that that
20 statement would never be used, although it says there the International
21 Criminal Tribunal, and I signed at a time when I may have been a bit too
23 So I didn't attach so much significance to it. But I'm the only
24 one to blame for that.
25 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like you to answer my question, which is: Did you
1 read your Prosecution statement both on the 22nd of November, 2007
2 you met with the Cermak Defence and on the 18th of February, 2009
3 you met with them again; or did you only read it over on one of those
5 A. I read it several times.
6 Q. Did you read it both on the 22nd of November and -- in 2007, and
7 on the 18th of February 2009. Is that -- do I correctly understand you?
8 Thank you.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And were you given -- did the Cermak Defence, at that time, when
11 they took that second statement from you, did they actually give you a
12 copy of your Prosecution statement in Croatian to keep?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we've heard today that you recently met again with the
15 Cermak Defence on the 2nd of September, 2009, a few weeks ago. And at
16 that meeting, the -- the note of that meeting says that:
17 "The purpose of the meeting was to confirm his statement for the
18 Rule 92 ter procedure."
19 So my question is: At that time in September 2009 when you met
20 with the Cermak Defence, I take it they asked to you read over both of
21 your previous statements again. Is that right?
22 A. What I said was that I wasn't cautious enough in -- towards the
23 statement that I gave. But I read both the statements, yes.
24 Q. Thank you. And I take it, at that time, the meeting on the
25 2nd of September, you were aware, they either made you aware then, or you
1 were already aware that you would be called as a witness for the
2 Cermak Defence; is that right?
3 A. It was only last Friday that I was informed by the Tribunal that
4 I would be an official witness. Up until then, I still didn't know that
5 for certain.
6 Q. When did the Cermak Defence first inform you that you would be a
7 witness for the Cermak Defence?
8 A. I think that was before, when we met for the first time in Split
9 But official information, saying that I was a potential candidate for --
10 or, rather, I was a candidate as a witness for the Cermak Defence case,
11 but official information I received on the 2nd or 3rd of September.
12 Q. So the Cermak Defence first informed you that may be a witness
13 for the Cermak Defence when you gave them your statement back in 2007 and
14 2009, and then they confirmed that you were definitely a witness when you
15 met with them on the 2nd of September, 2009. Is that right?
16 A. It didn't confirm that. It wasn't the Cermak counsel who
17 confirmed that. It was confirmed by the Registry of the Tribunal.
18 Q. Well, Mr. Pasic, the note of the meeting that you had on the
19 2nd of September with the Cermak Defence says that the purpose was to
20 confirm your statement for the Rule 92 ter procedure.
21 So I take it then that they explained to you that they were
22 planning to call you as a witness and that your statements would be given
23 do the Trial Chamber as evidence. Is that right?
24 A. Well, most probably they intended to call me. But let me repeat,
25 I was officially informed that I would be coming in as a witness from
1 the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... there seems to
3 be quite some confusion. I do understand that last Friday, you got a
4 message from the Registry that you would go to The Hague in order to
6 Is that correctly understood?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, early September of this year, five weeks ago,
9 you were interviewed by the Cermak Defence.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Did they tell you that they intended to examine you
12 as a witness before this Tribunal?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. And did they tell you that they intended to tender your witness
18 statements, to give them to the Trial Chamber as your evidence in this
19 case? Did they tell you that on the 2nd of September?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, on that occasion, on the 2nd of September, you made a number
22 of corrections to your Prosecution statement. At the end of those
23 corrections, you said:
24 "Pasic informed the Defence that he thinks he did not pay
25 sufficient attention when he read his statement."
1 Now, I understand that statement to mean - and correct me if I'm
2 wrong - that when you met with the Cermak Defence on the 2nd of
3 September, you explained to them the reason why you had to make
4 additional corrections to your Prosecution statement was the fact that,
5 on previous occasions, you had not paid sufficient attention when you
6 read your Prosecution statement.
7 Is my understanding correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So, then, in light of that, I would think that you would have
10 read your Prosecution and Defence statements over more carefully than you
11 had previously on the 2nd of September; is that right?
12 A. All these additions to the statement, I proposed to the Cermak
13 Defence team. None of them said -- none of them told me to write
14 something like that.
15 Q. That's not my question, Mr. Pasic. My question is: On the 2nd of
16 September, having realised that you had not paid sufficient attention on
17 previous occasions, you read your Prosecution statement over more
18 carefully; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 Mr. Pasic, when did you arrive in The Hague? What day?
22 A. I arrived in The Hague
23 Q. And when did you first meet with the Cermak Defence, after you
24 arrived in The Hague
25 A. The same day.
1 Q. And how was that meeting arranged? Who contacted whom to arrange
2 that meeting on Tuesday?
8 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
2 Q. And when did you first inform the Cermak Defence that you wanted
3 to make additional changes to your witness statement?
4 A. When I saw that I had made some omissions in previous -- my
5 previous reading of the statements. I felt the need to make some
6 additions to the statements and incorporate some elements that I had
7 omitted earlier on.
8 Q. And when was that? When did you inform the Cermak Defence of
10 A. Well, I think that was ... on the 1st or 2nd. Well, I don't know
11 what the date was, but I know that we were -- that I suggested that these
12 changes be made.
13 Q. Sorry, Mr. Pasic, my question wasn't clear.
14 I meant after your -- the changes you made in September. After
15 that, when did you first inform the Cermak Defence that you wanted to
16 make additional changes, the changes that we -- that you made just the
17 other day, just on Tuesday. When did you tell the Cermak Defence you
18 wanted to make those changes?
19 A. I -- when was that date?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, I think that Mr. Kay asked you to seek
21 permission when you wanted to consult papers.
22 The question simply is: This same week, when did you tell the
23 Cermak Defence that there were additional changes you would like to make?
24 That was the question.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was the 2nd of
1 September, that that was the slot -- or, rather, the 10th of October.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That is -- well, the 10th of October is --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the 2nd of October.
4 JUDGE ORIE: 2nd of October. And you said you arrived this
5 Tuesday in The Hague
6 Yes, did you give them a phone call on the 2nd of October or ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 2nd of October, I met with
8 Mr. Zeljko Basic from the Defence team for General Gotovina. He was
9 passing through, going from Split
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
12 MR. MISETIC: Just if -- I'm sorry for counsel, but if the
13 counsel could ask for clarification as to which team we're talking about.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON:
15 Q. Mr. Pasic, the transcript reads that you with Mr. Zeljko Basic
16 from the Defence team for General Gotovina. Did you mean -- did you mean
17 Cermak --
18 A. Yes, I beg your pardon, I meant Mr. Cermak.
19 Q. So you phoned him on the 2nd of October, and you said -- you said
21 A. I said that I had received information, telling me that I was
22 going to be a witness, and I was told when and at what time. And then I
23 saw that I was in a bit of a predicament since some statements that I had
24 given to the Prosecutors in 2002 do not stand, since I changed a part
25 with respect to General Cermak. I was supposed to change -- well, as far
1 as I was concerned, as a commissioner of the Croatian government, these
2 statements do not stand, as far as the events that happened after
3 Operation Storm are concerned as well.
4 Q. You phoned Mr. Basic on the 2nd of October. When did you receive
5 the phone call from the Registry that you were officially going to be a
6 witness in this trial?
7 A. On Friday, the previous day. I was called up by a lady from the
8 Registry of the Tribunal, Mrs. Or Ms. Lily.
9 Q. And between the time that Ms. Or Mrs. Lily called you on Friday
10 and the next day when you called Mr. Basic, between those two phone
11 calls, did you read your Prosecution statement?
12 A. Several times.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I'm a bit confused about the 2nd of
14 October. You said the day after that.
15 The witness said he received a phone call on Friday, which was
16 the 2nd of October, and that he called Mr. Basic on the 2nd. So I have
17 difficulties in understanding the day after that.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: I apologise, Your Honour, I hadn't done the
19 counting. He had said on Friday the previous day.
20 MR. KAY: I wonder if it might help if he could see a calendar or
21 something like that, if that would meet with the Court's approval. It
22 sometimes helps people to remember days of the week and dates.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, talking about time, Ms. Gustafson, I
24 asked to you keep in mind as well that I would need seven minutes. We
25 are now at a point where there are just seven minutes remaining.
1 So I would suggest that we leave it for the time being.
2 Mr. Pasic, we'll continue tomorrow, but I want to instruct you
3 that you should not speak with anyone about the testimony, the testimony
4 you gave today - and, of course, tomorrow there will still be testimony
5 to be given - I would -- so you shouldn't speak with anyone, not on the
6 phone, not in any other way, just don't talk about your testimony with
8 And then we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in
9 this same courtroom.
10 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Pasic out of the
12 [The witness stands down]
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Three brief matters.
15 First, when looking, and we dealt with that earlier, about the
16 translation of the statement of the witness, I see that the B/C/S version
17 reads, and forgive me for my pronunciation [B/C/S spoken], which I
18 haven't checked it but looks very much as a kind of a working version of
19 the translation. Usually we're informed what kind of translation we have
20 in our hands. But apparently here we are dealing with a work document
21 rather than a final translation. So could you please verify the status.
22 Mr. Kay is tendering it, but it has been prepared apparently by
23 -- I don't know by whom but at the request of the Prosecution. It is of
24 some concern to me.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: I believe it's a CLSS translation, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But nevertheless, it says that the B/C/S at
2 the top, and it's not contradicted, so my understanding of the Croatian
3 or B/C/S is growing. That meets some concern and it should be verified
4 what the exact status of that translation is.
5 MR. KAY: A schedule of the differences has been done by the
6 Cermak Defence during the proceedings this morning, Your Honour. That --
7 I don't know whether --
8 JUDGE ORIE: We will have to further pay attention to that. We
9 are not in a position at this moment. If you could share that with
10 Prosecution and/or CLSS, that would certainly speed up resolution of this
11 -- of this apparent problem.
12 MR. KAY: It's done, apparently.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Then the Cermak Defence has filed, on the 2nd of October,
15 six motions under Rule 92 bis, which results in some 1500 pages,
16 approximately. It could be 1300 or 1700, I'm not -- the Chamber would --
17 before the Prosecution responds to this motion, the Chamber would further
18 like to discuss with the parties how to proceed in relation to the
19 subject matter covered by these 92 bis statements.
20 Therefore, don't hurry, Mr. Waespi, to have your response already
21 filed today and perhaps wait until the Chamber has given it some further
22 thought on what would be the most efficient way of -- and receiving this
23 evidence, and to work in such a way that we do not lose time on exercises
24 which can -- without any prejudice for the Cermak Defence could be
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, we're very conscious of that, you know
2 that the Rule 68 disclosure on this matter has been an ongoing issue.
3 Those documents come from the first steps taken by us. We have it very
4 much in mind that this information should be scheduled and put in a
5 digestible form.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if you already could give that some
7 thought, then -- because the Chamber will think about it a while as how
8 to digest a large number of pages. And you should be aware that if we
9 receive 1500 pages, we'll read 1500 pages and analyse them in such detail
10 as is required.
11 So that, of course, triggers the further thinking of the Chamber
12 on this matter.
13 MR. KAY: We've had discussions between the Prosecution and the
14 Defence on this matter.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps we might further encourage -- if
16 -- has this been --
17 MR. KAY: It's -- it's a matter -- it's the disclosure just
18 dealing with it, we -- we have very much in mind the concerns the Court
19 has. We were aware of it when we served it, but we had these materials
20 and it was the best way to proceed with the first materials we had. But
21 we're very conscious of the fact that those materials would be put into a
22 schedule, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Or to be presented in another way. As I said
24 before, how the chamber will receive this evidence.
25 MR. KAY: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So I'm not denying any right of presenting evidence.
2 But it's just the form in which it is presented and -- okay. We'll deal
3 with that later, but Mr. Waespi knows that he doesn't have to make
4 over-hours this evening to file a response.
5 Then, as far as next week, Thursday, is concerned, the 15th of
6 October, there are still considerable problems in scheduling the
7 video-conference link on that day. I just want to inform the parties
8 about that.
9 In addition to that, I can already tell the parties that where I
10 said that we have to apply Rule 15 bis anyhow for part of the day, that
11 in addition to that, we would not have the full afternoon session
12 available. Most likely not any further than until 6.00. That is also to
13 be kept in mind. If this, in terms of time needed to elicit evidence
14 from these two witnesses would trigger any further thoughts as to whether
15 that would be enough, the Chamber would like to know. Otherwise, the
16 Chamber will consider whether it's feasible at all to have this videolink
17 next week, Thursday. We are still working on it, but it is just already
18 a flag for the parties.
19 MR. KAY: Can I -- sorry, Your Honour, I don't mean to interrupt.
20 It's just on this distinct issue. It seems me this witness is going to
21 go into tomorrow. The witness scheduled for tomorrow will go into
22 Monday, and we have a witness already listed for Monday who will then
23 continue, and then another witness. It may be to all intents and
24 purposes better to draw a line under that now so that decisions are able
25 to be made on the scheduling of the witnesses, se we have a clear plan.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And to have then have these witnesses scheduled for
2 either the end of October or the first days of November through
4 MR. KAY: We're very much thinking along those lines and looking
5 at the dates for the last batch of witnesses that are to be held after
6 the break.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll include that in our considerations,
8 Mr. Kay.
9 Then one second, please.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In order not to collide with the Chamber who
12 is using this courtroom this afternoon, I refrain from -- what I had in
13 mind is to read practical guidance on bar table submissions. We'll leave
14 that for tomorrow.
15 We adjourn. We will resume tomorrow, Friday, the 9th of October,
16 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of October,
19 2009, at 9.00 a.m.