1 Friday, 9 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Mr. Pasic, good morning to you as well. I would like to remind
13 you that the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of
14 your testimony still binds you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's clear.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to continue your
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 WITNESS: PETAR PASIC [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson: [Continued]
23 Q. Mr. Pasic, the last thing we were speaking about yesterday was
24 the conversation you said you had with Mr. Basic, the one you had after
25 you were called by the Tribunal and told when you would be a witness in
1 this case. And you said that that conversation was on the
2 2nd of October. The 2nd of October was last Friday. Is that right,
3 then? The conversation you had with Mr. Basic was last Friday?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, the call you received from the Tribunal
6 scheduling your testimony, did you receive that call the day before,
7 earlier on that same day? When did you receive the telephone call from
8 the Tribunal?
9 A. As for the International Tribunal. It was Mrs. Lily, that was
10 her name, on Friday, the 2nd of October, at around 4.00 or 5.00 in the
11 afternoon. I was a little surprised when she told me that, on the
12 6th of October, I was supposed to be at The Hague Tribunal. I felt
13 rather afraid and uncomfortable, because I'm 67 years old, and I've never
14 been in a courtroom. And now suddenly I was forced to come -- well, I
15 was supposed to come before a Tribunal of this stature.
16 I called Mr. Basic to tell him the news, to say I had been called
17 to appear and that I'd like to meet with him. Mr. Basic at that time
18 happened to be travelling. He was going from Sibenik to Split. And I
19 asked him to come to Sibenik, to have a cup of coffee, and to discuss the
20 matter over a coffee.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, again, yesterday when I asked you about this
22 initial conversation you had with Mr. Basic when you telephoned him, you
23 said, and I'm going to quote from what you said yesterday:
24 "I said that I had received information, telling me that I was
25 going to be a witness, and I was told when and at what time. And then I
1 saw that I was in a bit of a predicament since some statements that I had
2 given to the Prosecutors in 2002 do not stand, since I changed a part
3 with respect to General Cermak. I was supposed to change -- well, as far
4 as I was concerned, as a commissioner of the Croatian government, these
5 statements do not stand, as far as the events that happened after
6 Operation Storm are concerned as well."
7 Now, when you said "as a commissioner of the Croatian government,
8 these statements do not stand," were there parts of your 2002 statement
9 that you considered should not be a part of your evidence in this trial
10 because of a position that you have held with the Croatian government,
11 either back in 1995 or currently?
12 A. No. My answers have almost nothing to do with that, whether I
13 occupied the post of commissioner of the government or this now. I
14 looked carefully this morning, and I feel that the investigator had 77
15 questions, and I corrected only 12 of those.
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, you've said that your "... answers have almost nothing
17 to do with that, whether I occupied the post of commissioner of the
19 If that's the case, why did you say yesterday:
20 "As a commissioner of the Croatian government, these statements
21 do not stand."?
22 A. When I received this duty to solemnly come before this Tribunal,
23 then I said that the answers I gave to the investigators that I cannot
24 take the solemn declaration saying I would tell the truth because there
25 is no truth there which was --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the last phrase,
2 please. Thank you.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON:
4 Q. Mr. Pasic, the interpreters didn't hear the last phrase you said.
5 You said:
6 "I cannot take the solemn declaration saying that I would tell
7 the truth because there is no" --
8 A. Because in part of the statement, which was given to the
9 investigators, there is no truth.
10 Q. Mr. Pasic, you didn't answer my question, which was: Why did you
11 say yesterday that "as a commissioner of the Croatian government, these
12 statements do not stand."
13 Why did you mention the fact that you were a commissioner of the
14 Croatian government?
15 A. When I gave the statement, I was not a commissioner of the
16 Croatian government. Therefore, a statement of that kind, whether I was
17 or wasn't, would be like that whether I was or wasn't a commissioner of
18 the Croatian government.
19 Q. I'll --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, the Chamber would like you or could I
21 even take some steps ourselves, further explore what happened on that
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: I was -- that's -- if Your Honours would like to
24 do that I was --
25 JUDGE ORIE: From a factual point of view --
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- Going to do that.
2 JUDGE ORIE -- before we go into the why's and et cetera, what
3 exactly happened on that Friday.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Pasic, taking His Honour's directions, you -- you phoned
7 Mr. Basic, you told him you wanted to meet with him in person, and he
8 came to Sibenik to meet with you. And you met with him. Was that also
9 on the Friday, that you met with Mr. Basic on -- in person?
10 A. I met Mr. Basic, both on Friday the 2nd, and on Saturday, the 3rd
11 of October.
12 Q. In both occasions, that was in Sibenik?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, on -- and, sorry, was that at your home in Sibenik where you
15 met with him, in your house?
16 A. No. In a cafe. If you want me to tell you it's called Barun
17 near Solaris.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, on Friday when you met with Mr. Basic in the
19 cafe, how long was that meeting? How many hours or minutes?
20 A. Well, the meeting lasted some 10, 15, 20 minutes when I asked
21 Mr. Basic how and in what way was I to behave to adapt to the situation,
22 how am I to behave when I come before this august Tribunal. We didn't
23 discuss anything apart from that.
24 Q. And I take it, at that meeting, you decided to meet with him
25 again the next day? You arranged to meet the next day with Mr. Basic as
1 well; is that what happened?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. And why was that? Why did you arrange to meet him the next day?
4 A. Well, because I felt the need to talk to him once again.
5 Mr. Basic is -- well, he was a little nervous as well. He might have
6 felt that there was some -- there was some pressure or threats against
7 me, but I categorically rejected that. I said there was no pressure, no
8 threats, nor anything else prior to my leaving for The Hague Tribunal.
9 As far as my departure here and coming in here, only my immediate
10 family knows about that. My wife, who's in Italy over the phone, my son
11 and his wife. And my son has actually come here with me.
12 Q. And the meeting you had with Mr. Basic on Saturday, how long was
13 that meeting? How many hours or minutes did you meet with Mr. Basic on
15 A. Well, I think it was about an hour; that's how long the meeting
16 lasted. Mr. Basic suggested to me that, for the Tribunal, I should
17 prepare in such a way as to check through both the statements I'd given.
18 He -- we parted; we said good-bye; and -- to The Hague -- see you in
19 The Hague
20 Q. At either of these meetings on Friday or Saturday, did you
21 discuss with Mr. Basic the changes that you wanted to make to your 2002
23 A. I did not discuss that, but when I understood the
24 levity [as interpreted] and seriousness of the statements given, I
25 suddenly felt mistrustful towards myself. And from Zagreb to Amsterdam
1 I thought about all this, and I decided, I reached a decision, and
2 decided to change part of the statement I'd given to the investigators.
3 Q. Mr. Pasic, earlier you said that when you initially telephoned
4 Mr. Basic you told him that there was some statements you had given to
5 the Prosecutors in 2002 that do not stand, "since I changed a part with
6 respect to General Cermak, I was supposed to change" ... blah, blah,
7 blah, et cetera, et cetera. When you initially phoned Mr. Basic, you
8 told him you wanted to change parts of your statement. Are you saying
9 that on the same day and on the next day that you met with Mr. Basic you
10 never discussed any of the changes you wanted to make to your statement?
11 A. No, certainly not because part of the statements which I had
12 given earlier referred to General Cermak and, later on, in reading
13 through my own statements, I felt that there were quite a lot of bad
14 statements regarding me and the relationship to -- of the
15 Croatian government towards me as the former commissioner for Knin.
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, sorry, I'm a little confused because it seems to me
17 that when you called - from what you're saying - when you called
18 Mr. Basic initially your main concern was that there were statements that
19 you had made that you wanted to change.
20 MR. KAY: Your Honour, that's not what the witness said.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: There was statements that do not stand. And --
22 MR. KAY: That's not what the witness said in relation to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
24 Could we -- Ms. Gustafson, of course, the witness said something
25 about it yesterday. He said something about it today.
1 Could you please refer to the exact portion of his evidence. If
2 you give me page and line numbers then ...
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's transcript page 22793.
4 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. That's yesterday's transcript?
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes. Beginning at line 21.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 22793.
7 I still have the old page numbering for the 8th of October, so I
8 have --
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: It should be page 77.
10 JUDGE ORIE: 77, thank you. Page 77, you said line 21.
11 Yes, now there is a difference in page numbering as well. Could
12 you give me one word from that line, so with WordWheel I will be able to
13 find it.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's -- the line began:
15 "I said that I had received information ..."
16 Is the beginning of the answer.
17 JUDGE ORIE: "... received information ..."
18 Yes, I have got it.
19 MR. KAY: The Court will recollect there is an lot of uncertainty
20 over dates, 2nd of October, 10th of October, days of the week.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's --
22 MR. Kay: And it may be -- I would refer the Court to the
23 beginning of his testimony on this -- this matter when he refers to being
24 in a hotel.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Just ...
1 MR. KAY: And making a telephone call there.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm aware of that.
3 MR. KAY: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm trying to find it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- perhaps we go through it briefly again,
5 Ms. Gustafson.
6 You phoned Mr. Basic once you had received information that you
7 expected to go to The Hague
8 Is that correctly understood?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Where were you when you phoned him?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in my flat in Sibenik.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you had a phone number of Mr. Basic?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that a mobile phone number or is it ...
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A mobile phone number, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Now, I will take it step by step.
18 Do you know where Mr. Basic was when he answered your call on his
19 mobile phone?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I called him up over the
21 mobile phone, he was on his way from Sibenik to Split -- and Split
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At what time did you call him?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was about 5.00, 5.30, I
24 can't remember the exact time, but I think that's when it was.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that was almost immediately after you had
1 received the phone call from Ms. Lily?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And then you said you wanted to meet with him. At
4 what time did you meet him?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was -- well, in view of
6 the fact that it's quite close to Sibenik, I think we met at about 6.00
7 or half past 6.00.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now -- what now was exactly the reason why you
9 called him?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said before that I felt a certain
11 dose of nervousness and some kind of pressure, so I asked him -- well, he
12 could not come -- decided not to come, but I asked him to come and meet
13 with me, to help me, and tell -- help me with how I was to behave before
14 such an august auditorium as this.
15 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
16 Now, we know, you told us yesterday, that you had met with the
17 Defence approximately a month earlier, early September as well.
18 Do you remember saying this?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: How, in early September, was the arrangement made to
21 meet with the Defence? Did you call them? Did they call you? So I'm
22 now not talking about a week ago, but I'm talking about five weeks ago.
23 Do you remember? Who then took the initiate for the meeting.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were at a meeting one afternoon
25 in Primosten at the proposal of the Defence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was -- was Mr. Basic present during that
2 meeting as well?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, he was.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Had you -- had he phoned you to come to that
5 meeting, or had you phoned him to come to that meeting, or was the
6 meeting in any other way arranged?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Defence called me.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, yesterday, the following - and let's, at
9 this moment, for a moment not focus on the date. You were asked:
10 "So you phoned him?"
11 And then a date was mentioned. And you said what. And then your
12 answer was the following. You said:
13 "I said that I had received information telling me that I was
14 going to be a witness."
15 Now my first question is: When you said this yesterday, were you
16 referring to what information exactly? Was that the phone call you
17 received from Ms. Lily or any other information?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was information that followed
19 Ms. Lily's call.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that was the phone call you made to
21 Mr. Basic immediately after you had received Ms. Lily's phone call?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, just forgive me for a second, but I'm now --
24 I'm deprived from my earlier transcript, and I have to get a new one.
25 I apologise, but I'm just -- the old transcript has been removed
1 and I have to find -- you said it was 22 thousand, 7 hundred and ...
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: 793, Your Honour, line 21.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So when you yesterday answered a question about that
4 phone call, that was the phone call you made to Mr. Basic once you had
5 received the information from Ms. Lily.
6 And I now read the other portions of your answer. So the answer
7 started with:
8 "I said that I had received information, telling me that I was
9 going to be a witness," which we now understand is the information you
10 received from Ms. Lily, "and I was told when and at what time."
11 And then you said:
12 "And then I saw that I was in a bit of a predicament since some
13 statements that I had given to the Prosecutors in 2002 do not stand,
14 since I changed a part with respect to General Cermak."
15 Now you say:
16 "Then I saw that I was in a bit of a predicament since the
17 statements do not stand."
18 And you said:
19 "I was supposed to change -- well, as far as I was concerned, as
20 a commissioner of the Croatian government, these statements do not
22 Now you told us this when you answered a question about what you
23 said during the telephone call with Mr. Basic. So what I'd like to know
24 is whether this - that is, awareness that the previous statement does not
25 stand - whether that was on your mind when making that phone call.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During my telephone conversation
2 with Mr. Basic, I didn't refer to the statements that I had given and to
3 the possible corrections of them at all.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That was not my question. My question was whether
5 that was on your mind at that moment; that there --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you met with Mr. Basic. And can you
8 tell us in a bit more -- you said he was nervous. How did you know that
9 he was nervous? What made you feel that he was nervous? Did he say
10 anything or ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that Mr. Basic was
12 nervous. I was nervous and uncomfortable.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's, then, go back to one of your previous
15 You said, at least when talking about the meeting for the next
16 day, you said:
17 "Mr. Basic is -- well, it [sic] was a little nervous as well. He
18 might have felt that there was some -- there was some pressure or threats
19 against me, but I categorically rejected that."
20 So I understood this answer to be that Mr. Basic was nervous
21 about the thought, that there might have been pressure upon you.
22 What did he say?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He didn't say anything, apart from
24 asking me what I was feeling like. And I told him that I wasn't feeling
25 that well. He asked me if I had any problems. I said no. He said did I
1 experience any sort of pressure or threats. And I said no, none of that.
2 Because, as I told him, no one outside of my close family knew that I was
3 going to testify in The Hague
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, may I take it you didn't tell anyone else; is
5 that what you want to say? Because what other people know is often
6 difficult to -- to fully know about yourself. You didn't tell anyone
21 Now, back to the first meeting, you said -- could you say a bit
22 more in detail what did you then tell to Mr. Basic. How did you start
23 your conversation?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which meeting are you referring to?
25 The one in Primosten or ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, the meeting one week ago, on Friday, once you
2 had called Mr. Basic on his mobile phone. He then came to Sibenik, from
3 what I understand, and then you had a meeting of short duration,
4 15 minutes.
5 What did you tell him?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He told me, when I asked him how to
7 prepare myself, that there was nothing special that I should do, other
8 than, Mr. Pasic, your task is to closely examine and review the
9 statements you gave to The Hague
10 and the Defence for General Cermak.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, from what I understand, one month
12 earlier, in Primosten, you had had a meeting in which you had, I take it,
13 gone through your statements.
14 Is that correctly understood?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I asked to meet with him,
16 because once I received an official call to appear before the ICTY, I
17 felt that this was a very special occasion, and it affected me in a
18 special way.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that -- now, he told you, Just
20 review your statement and that's all you have to do.
21 Then what caused you to arrange for a meeting on the day after
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was on his own, and I was on my
24 own, and we simply met up to have another chat over coffee, and that was
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, that's -- when were you expected to travel, on
2 what day? You met with Mr. Basic on Friday. You met again with him on
3 Saturday. When did --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That's correct. I left
5 for Zagreb
6 hotel, and on the following morning, at 8.00 --
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. I asked you when you left. That was
8 on Monday, from what I understand.
9 Now, you had a meeting of 15 minutes. And you were on -- he was
10 on his own, you were on his [sic] own, and you said -- and we simply met
11 up to have another chat over coffee.
12 About what?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the earlier statement, I said
14 that Mr. Zeljko, when we were having that coffee, asked me, probably when
15 he saw a certain degree of nervousness on my part, he asked me -- he saw
16 that I was uneasy and anxious, so he asked me if there was any sort of
17 pressure that had been excerpted upon me or any threats I might received,
18 and I said that there were no problems as regards myself and my departure
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was on Friday, when you first met with
21 him on that Friday?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Saturday.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. But I'm trying to find out what caused you,
24 when you had met on Friday, what caused you to have another meeting on
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't consider it a meeting. As
2 a host, I wanted -- as a good host, I wanted to see Zeljko off and bid
3 him a safe journey. So we had a cup of coffee and that was all. There
4 were no notes taken, nothing of that sort.
5 JUDGE ORIE: But that was all already known on Friday, isn't it,
6 that you said you -- "I wanted to see Zeljko off and bid him a safe
8 Why didn't do you that on Friday? Why to meet again the next day
9 for a much longer time than on the first occasion, apparently?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because he spent the night in
11 Sibenik, from Friday to Saturday, and being a person, a local person, I
12 wanted to be there for him in the morning.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say, He is not a resident of
14 Sibenik, and when someone comes and sees me in Sibenik, I have some
15 responsibility to make him feel comfortable.
16 Is that why you had coffee on Saturday?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see it as a responsibility;
18 I see it simply as a human gesture.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, some people consider human gestures to be a
20 responsibility. But let's leave that apart.
21 Mr. Pasic, you had discussed -- or at least you had discussed any
22 possible pressure or threats. You had said there was no one.
23 Now, apart from whether you had discussed it, on that Saturday
24 morning, between Friday and Saturday, had you read again your statement?
25 Because Mr. Basic had told you that one of the things you were supposed
1 to do is to review your statement before you would testify, as a
3 Did you, on that Friday or Saturday morning, look at these
4 statements at all?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read them carefully on Saturday,
6 not once but several times. I focussed on every single statement I had
7 given and discerned errors that were either my own fault or the fault of
8 the investigator questioning me.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So you reviewed these statements on Saturday. Now,
10 was that before you met with Mr. Basic or after you met with Mr. Basic,
11 on Saturday?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Following my meeting with
13 Mr. Basic, although I had analysed them also after having met with
14 Mr. Basic, upon my return home on Friday evening.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So, Friday evening you analysed the statements, then
16 had you a meeting with Mr. Basic on Saturday, and then you read them
17 again several times?
18 Is that ...
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, after meeting Mr. Basic on
20 Saturday morning, I had plenty of time to read through them repeatedly.
21 JUDGE ORIE: When you said Friday evening you analysed them. You
22 read them again on Saturday. Did you already discern any possible matter
23 which would need to be corrected on that Friday evening?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I discerned plenty of issues, and I
25 told you that I corrected only 13 out of 77 paragraphs. So that was the
1 bare minimum of what could have and should have been corrected.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you receive a message that you have to go to
3 the Tribunal to testify from Ms. Lily. You phone Mr. Basic. You know
4 Mr. Basic to be a member of the Defence team. Please correct me when I'm
6 Then Mr. Basic tells you that it is important to review your
7 statements. Then you do that on Friday evening, if I understood you
8 well. And you discern quite a number of errors, inaccuracies.
9 Up until now, have I summarized your testimony accurately?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not quite. The omissions that were
11 down to me had been observed by me even before -- before the meeting in
12 Primosten and before I had met Mr. Steven, the lawyer.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you told us that despite the fact that you
14 may have at an earlier moment have already discerned a lot of
15 inaccuracies or matters to be corrected, you read them again on Friday
16 evening, after you had met with Mr. Basic, knowing that you would leave
17 for The Hague
18 Is that correct?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is necessary for me to go back
20 to that and repeat this.
21 As soon as I received a call to appear before the ICTY as a
22 witness, the circumstances became very special, in my mind.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm not challenging that at this moment. But
24 then you met with Mr. Basic. Then you read again your statements on
25 Friday evening and found that there was still a lot of inaccuracies.
1 Then you met the next mourning with Mr. Basic, and after you had met with
2 him, you, as you said, read your statements again. You read them over
3 several times.
4 Is that finding, again, that they were not, in every respect,
5 true and correct? Is that a fair summary of what you told us?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The moment I realised that my
7 statements would be used before this Tribunal, my opinion changed
9 JUDGE ORIE: Your opinion about what?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My opinion of the statements that
11 had been given and that did not contain elements of what I had said and
12 did contain certain statements that I had given without much thought,
13 because I did not believe that they would be used anywhere and at any
14 point in time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now earlier you told us that you had found out
16 about inaccuracies already at an earlier stage, that you already, at an
17 earlier moment - and let me -- you said:
18 "The omissions that were down to me had been observed by me even
19 before -- before the meeting in Primosten and before I had met
20 Mr. Steven, the lawyer."
21 So if you say, "my opinion changed," I do understand that you had
22 already found the statement to be incorrect before you met one month ago
23 in Primosten. So what now exactly changed, in your opinion, on that
24 Friday or Saturday?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing changed, either on Friday
1 or on Saturday. Had Mr. Gotovina's lawyers been to see me, I would
2 probably have had the time to review the statement I had given and change
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take it that you are referring to
5 Mr. Cermak's lawyers or ... you said Mr. Gotovina's lawyers.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. What I said was, Had I
7 ever met them and talked to them, in that case, just as I had changed
8 portions of my statements when I knew that I was going to appear for
9 Mr. Cermak, I'm sure that the same would have happened had I discussed my
10 statements with them, with the Gotovina team.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Why would you have changed the statement, if you
12 have -- would have met with the Gotovina team lawyers? Why would that
13 change your statement?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They didn't meet with me. But
15 probably, had we analysed certain matters, as we did analyse them with
16 Mr. Cermak, we would have arrived at different conclusions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: But your statement is about facts, or is it about
18 conclusions you have drawn?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is about the facts that
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you had earlier met with members of the Cermak
22 Defence team, and you said that you had already found, before the
23 Primosten meeting, the statement to be inaccurate. I'm wondering what
24 makes you change your statement, because that was before you met them.
25 Did you tell them everything - that was one month ago - did you
1 tell them all the points on which you considered your earlier statement
2 to be inaccurate?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Inaccurate interpretations of
4 certain questions, certain issues, led me to change my opinion.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Did you tell -- you told me a couple of minutes ago
6 that you had already found inaccuracies before the Primosten meeting.
7 Had you read over your statements prior to the Primosten meeting,
8 or did you read them at the Primosten meeting? Could you tell us? So
9 I'm now talking about approximately a month ago.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read them in part; part of them
11 in Primosten, and we analysed another part of them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, did you read them together with the members of
13 the Defence team, or did you read them prior to the meeting in Primosten?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read them prior to the meeting in
15 Primosten, and we analysed them with the Defence team.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you went through the statements
17 paragraph by paragraph, or page by page, or just a free discussion on the
18 whole of the statement?
19 How did it take place?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it took place in the
21 following manner: In part, I looked at the mistakes that I noticed and
22 indicated the possibility of having those statements corrected. We did
23 not analyse some other portions which did not have to do with the
24 Cermak Defence team.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So you focussed exclusively on what exactly?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I focussed on, exactly, on the
2 Defence -- well, as a witness called by the Cermak Defence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And you didn't see it fit, at that time, to correct
4 also other parts of the statement, not directly in relation to
5 Mr. Cermak?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I take you back to last week. First meeting
8 with Mr. Basic on Friday, short meeting. Next day, Saturday morning, you
9 had read already on Friday evening the statements again.
10 Did you not at any point in time say to him, Well, I read the
11 statement, and it's still not in every respect accurate. I'll come back
12 to that. Or didn't you even mention what you found the evening before?
13 That is, that the statement was still not accurate.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the meeting on Saturday over a
15 cup of coffee with Mr. Zeljko, neither of us uttered a single word about
16 the statements, either of the Defence or the statements of the
18 JUDGE ORIE: When did you, for the first time, then, raise this
19 issue with the Defence? You had read them on Friday. You had read them
20 several times on Saturday again. Did you give them a call? Did you in
21 any way initiate any contact?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After I arrived in The Hague
23 immediately called up Mr. Zeljko, and we met in the hotel assigned by the
24 Registry. Mr. Basic came straightaway, and I told him that I felt the
25 need to change part of the statement I had given to the investigators.
1 He was a little surprised, but I insisted. And then he informed
2 Mr. Steven, who also came. We had a meeting. And I was resolute and
3 went point by point, looking to see which points I would change. And
4 without any influence from them, I myself - thank God with their
5 assistance - the contents that would be changed with the text that was in
6 the previous statement.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you had said you read the statements over on
8 Friday; you read them again several times on Saturday. Did you have all
9 the statements available to you on that Friday evening?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: When I'm talking about all the statements, I'm
12 talking about the statements given to the investigators of the
13 Prosecutor's office; I'm talking about the statement you later gave to
14 the Defence; and the additional information you had given them in
16 Did you have all these three sources available to you?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Did you have them all in your own language?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That - could I say - old statement given to the
21 Prosecution, when did you receive a copy of that statement? I mean,
22 since when did you have a copy of that statement in your possession?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A copy of the statement given to
24 the Prosecution I had in my possession since the time I first met with
25 the lawyer, Mr. Cermak's lawyer, and that was -- I can't quite remember
1 the date, but I do know that we were in Split for two days. I was on my
2 way back to Knin. And we spent two days having talks.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Was that a little bit over half a year ago, or was
4 that two years ago; do you remember?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was last year.
6 February or March, I can't be quite sure.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We find on one of your statements that an
8 interview was held at the 17th and the 18th of February of this year.
9 Would it be at that occasion?
10 You said two days, and you said February or March --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. But then I said the
12 wrong year.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said last year, and ... it was two days.
14 Now, being in possession of that statement, did you ever share
15 the content of that statement with anyone? Did you ever discuss it
16 with -- or, did you ever give it to read to any other person?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you mean, anyone, any other
19 JUDGE ORIE: Any person in the world. Could be -- could be your
20 children, your neighbours, your -- the local police, your former
21 employer. Whoever.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You kept it, and you never gave it to anyone to
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No one -- well, I kept it for quite
1 some time before I read it, and none of my family members even knew about
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, if you with like to proceed, please
4 do so.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Pasic, from the evidence that you have just given, I
7 understand that it was on Friday evening and Saturday that you realised
8 that your Prosecution statement had a number of errors. I think you
9 mentioned 13, something like that.
10 Is that -- is that right? It was Friday evening and Saturday
11 that you realised that there were these mistakes in your statement that
12 you needed to change?
13 A. I think you misunderstood me. In reading part of those
14 statements, I felt -- well, I felt this before, not only on Friday and
15 Saturday. I felt that there was some mistakes before. Some of those
16 errors related to me and to Mr. Cermak, and they were put right when I
17 met the Defence teams.
18 Q. Okay. Now, in the -- sorry, Mr. Pasic, if I could just ask you
19 to put your papers away for now, and if you want to refer to them at some
20 point, you can ask the Court. If you could just close your folder.
22 Now, according to the supplemental information sheet that was
23 produced from the meeting that you had just on Tuesday with the
24 Cermak Defence, it says:
25 "On 6 October 2009
1 statement for the Rule 92 ter procedure, Mr. Pasic made the following
2 corrections to his OTP statement, which was signed on 3 March 2002.
3 "On his trip to The Hague on the plane, he carefully read his OTP
4 statement after a long time, and he noticed, in certain paragraphs,
5 sentences that do not correspond to what he said to the investigators
6 during his interview. He acknowledges now that he did not properly
7 review the OTP statement."
8 Now, I take it from what you've just said that -- that that's not
9 right, that -- where it says "he carefully read his OTP statement after a
10 long time," you had in fact carefully read your OTP statement quite
11 recently - on Friday and Saturday - and you had already noticed, before
12 you were on the plane to The Hague
13 not correspond to what you said to the investigators.
14 Is that right?
15 MR. KAY: Should we just make it clear: not right that he said
16 it, or not right in terms of the information?
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's --
18 MR. KAY: Otherwise things may be confused, and I'm concerned
19 about that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I take that you understand why
21 Mr. Kay intervenes.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: I understand.
23 Q. So, Mr. Pasic, what I just read to you from that supplemental
24 information sheet, that's not true, right?
25 A. I didn't understand what -- you.
1 Q. Well, where it says in that supplemental information sheet:
2 "On his trip to The Hague on the plane, he carefully read his OTP
3 statement after a long time, and he noticed in certain
4 paragraphs sentences that do not correspond to what he said to the
5 investigators during his interview."
6 That's not correct, that's not true. Is that right?
7 A. The truth is, that -- before -- that I had read the statements
8 begin even before. And on my way to The Hague, I decided to change or to
9 supplement the statements I had given.
10 Q. Okay. Well, from your evidence yesterday, it's clear that you
11 read this supplemental information sheet and you signed it, and then you
12 told the Chamber that it was true. Why did you do that if, in fact, the
13 sentence I just read to you isn't true?
14 A. I don't understand your question.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
16 Your statement that was put on paper this week, Tuesday, after
17 you had arrived in The Hague
18 "In the plane, when I went to The Hague, I read again my
19 statements after a long time."
20 Now, Ms. Gustafson, having heard your testimony, asks you whether
21 that's true, because you just told us that you had read this statement on
22 Friday and several times, again, on Saturday. So reading it on the plane
23 was not after you had not seen them for a long time, because you had seen
24 them a couple of days before. That's what Ms. Gustafson puts to you and
25 says, What we find in this additional statement, therefore, is not true,
1 because it was not after you had not seen those statements for a long
2 time, but it was after you had read them over a couple of days before.
3 And that she's seeking your comment on.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I looked through them
5 carefully on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. And the decision
6 about changing my statement -- well, I decided to do that after
7 frequently having analysed them, and this decision was made when I was on
8 the plane from Zagreb
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although you read the statements several times
10 in the days before you were on the plane. Is that ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the reason why Ms. Gustafson asks you is
13 because your statement says that you read them on the plane after you had
14 not read them for a long time; whereas, you now tell us that you had read
15 them during all these days several times. And so, therefore, not for the
16 first time when you were on the plane.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I said that I started
18 preparing myself in depth for coming in here at the time I was informed
19 by Ms. Lily that I would be a witness --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear to us.
21 Ms. Gustafson is seeking an explanation for what you tell us now,
22 and you now repeat what you said before, and what we find in this second
23 additional statement, that you read the statements on the plane after a
24 long time; whereas, now you tell us that you had read them over again and
25 again in the days before you went on the plane. So you had seen them
1 briefly before being on the plane and not only after a long time, reading
2 them again on the plane.
3 We know what your testimony is, but Ms. Gustafson is seeking to
4 understand why there is a difference between what we find in your Tuesday
5 statement and what you just told us.
6 Do you have any further explanation for that?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have an explanation.
8 But I see no reason for me, who have -- I have come in here to the
9 Tribunal. I see no reason for me to read the statements a day or two
10 before I come in here. I think I have enough sense to know that I have
11 to prepare myself, and I said this at my meeting with Mr. Zeljko on
12 Saturday, when he said, You must prepare and get to know the subject
13 matter in both the two statements given.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I think that the matter has been
15 explored to an extent ...
16 MS. GUSTAFSON:
17 Q. Mr. Pasic, we know that you - from your evidence today - we know
18 you met with Mr. Basic on Saturday, and we know that you called him again
19 when you arrived in The Hague
20 Between your meeting on Saturday with Mr. Basic, and when you
21 telephoned him on Tuesday when you arrived in The Hague, did you have any
22 communication with Mr. Basic or anyone else on the Defence team?
23 A. As for communication, from Saturday, when Mr. Basic left, to
24 Tuesday, between myself and Mr. Basic or anybody else, no, there was no
1 Q. Now, you were originally supposed to testify earlier this week,
2 and then on Monday afternoon the Cermak Defence notified us that they
3 were going to bring another witness in your place and move your testimony
4 to later in the week. And I'm just wondering if, based on your
5 information, your understanding of the events, if it's possible that the
6 Cermak Defence already knew on Monday that you wanted to change your
8 Is that possible, based on your understanding of -- of events?
9 A. It is not certain --
10 MR. KAY: May I just raise one matter here as I think it may be
11 something not known by my learned friend.
12 Mr. Dodig had a --
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Should we discuss this in the presence
14 of the witness? I do not what you're going say, Mr. Kay.
15 MR. KAY: It's a fact known by the Witnesses and Victims Unit
16 that Mr. Dodig had a symposium on Thursday evening for 200 people that he
17 had to address, and so we had to move him to give evidence earlier. So
18 he had to shuffle up the pack, and Mr. Teskeredzic, as you know, is in
19 hospital, or had been in hospital the previous week and was recovering
20 from an operation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson is now informed about this, and she'll
22 certainly then consider this in her line of questioning.
23 MR. KAY: Thank you. I ought to raise it to the Court's
24 attention because Mr. Dodig's arrangements to be gone through the
25 Registry, and he had to leave straightaway when he finished on Wednesday.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think we have an issue that we may
3 need to clarify in terms of the witness's answer.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We are close to the moment where we have a break.
5 If it would be appropriate to deal with it in the absence of the witness.
6 MR. MISETIC: Well, if we can ask him to take his headphones off
7 for just a sec.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We have not verified whether he speaks any English
9 or not.
10 Mr. Pasic, do you speak English? Do you speak any English,
11 Mr. Pasic?
12 THE WITNESS: I don't understand.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well -- Mr. Misetic.
14 MR. MISETIC: There's just, I think, a little bit of uncertainty
15 in the witness's answer at page 30, line 19. He was asked:
16 "Is that possible, based on your understanding of events?"
17 In Croatian he phrased it in such a way that in English it could
18 be translated correctly by the interpreters as "It is not certain." Or,
19 as I understood it, which was "Certainly not."
20 And so those -- obviously that makes a difference in terms of.
21 MR. KAY: I --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I was a bit concerned about the way in which you
23 phrased the question even in English, Ms. Gustafson. So perhaps we --
24 now you have additional information from Mr. Kay. You can consider then
25 over the break whether or not it is of any use to rephrase it or to leave
1 the matter as it is.
2 Mr. Kay.
3 MR. KAY: Somebody helping me has passed me a note: "Definitely
4 not" was their review of it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to Ms. Gustafson, being fed with a lot of
6 information at this moment, how to pursue or how not to pursue this
8 Mr. Pasic, it's time for coffee.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's
10 time for something else, not for coffee.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Pasic, I'm not totally unfamiliar
12 with the -- with the usual scheme of consumptions in the former
14 We will have a break, and we will resume at five minutes to
16 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to put on the record
19 that the request for a videolink for Thursday, the 15th of October, has
20 been, withdrawn, from what I understand, and I take it that at a later
21 stage that we'll receive another request for the scheduling of such a
23 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Chamber is inclined to move next
25 week's Wednesday and Thursday's sessions to the morning. They are
1 scheduled, at this moment, for the afternoon. And for a couple of
2 reasons, the Chamber would prefer to sit in the morning on the Wednesday
3 and Thursday, and would like to know whether there's any objection as far
4 as the parties are concerned.
5 MR. KAY: Not for our part, Your Honour.
6 MR. KEHOE: Not for our part either, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: As well, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Nor from our part, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then next week Wednesday, 14 October, and
12 Thursday, 15th October, move to the morning.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 If we could have D1706 on the screen, please.
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, the statement, the 2002 statement that you gave to the
17 Prosecution, is about to come up on the screen in front of you.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could have page 5 of the English and
19 page 8 of the B/C/S, please.
20 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to direct your attention to the large
21 paragraph in the middle of your screen, the one that begins:
22 "Others at the meetings with Cermak ..."
23 And I'd like you to just read that paragraph to yourself and then
24 I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about it.
25 A. I have read it.
1 Q. Now, is there anything in that paragraph that you did not say at
2 the time you gave that statement that is, in fact, incorrect?
3 A. This is the truth.
4 Q. Are you sure?
5 A. Yes. Save -- save for an addition that I'd like to make, which
6 is the following: At these meetings, Mr. Cermak did not give any tasks
7 either to me or to those present at these meetings.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, you've now testified that you have read your
9 statement probably six, seven, eight, nine times carefully, and you have
10 never made any correction to that sentence. And you've told the Court
11 that you read your statement several times, very carefully, because you
12 realised the gravity of the situation of coming to testify. And you told
13 the Trial Chamber that this statement, with the corrections that you
14 made, that did not include any correction to this sentence, was true.
15 Can you explain why you're changing it now?
16 A. Because nobody has asked me about this so far. Regardless of my
17 detailed review of my statements, I cannot recall all the details; I am
18 67 years old. I am aware of the fact that I'm prone to forgetfulness,
19 and I am not a fit man, contrary to what you may think.
20 Q. Well, Mr. Pasic, it may be that nobody asked you about this
21 sentence so far, but, in fact, on the 2nd of September, when you met with
22 the Defence, you corrected the statement -- the sentence immediately
23 before this sentence. You said that the sentence, "After the liberation
24 of Knin, the Sibenik logistics base came under Cermak in Knin," was not
25 correct, and you didn't say that.
1 Now, your testimony is that that sentence, about the Sibenik
2 logistics base, is correct and you did say that, but it's not correct
3 what's said in the following sentence.
4 Now, which is it?
5 A. Can you please explain it to me once again? What is it that is
6 controversial in the former or in the latter? The logistics base has
7 nothing to do with the meetings and the rest, except for the fact that
8 certain members of the logistics base were present at meetings.
9 Q. Mr. Pasic, the issue is not what's controversial. The issue is
10 what you said in your statement, and what you said on the
11 2nd of September, and what you're saying now. And I'm telling that you
12 on the 2nd of September, you told the Cermak Defence that the sentence:
13 "After the liberation of Knin, the Sibenik logistics base came
14 under Cermak in Knin."
15 You told them that that wasn't correct, and you didn't say that
16 in your interview.
17 Now you're saying, that that sentence is correct, you did say it
18 in your interview, but it's not correct what's said in the sentence
19 immediately following that.
20 And I'm asking you: Which is it? Is it true what you said on
21 the 2nd of September, or is it true what you're saying now?
22 MR. KAY: I think the witness has answered the question,
23 Your Honour, in relation to the first matter, when put to him, and he
24 raised it himself.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: I disagree, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, under the present circumstances, is
2 allowed to put the question even if there would be some repetition in it.
3 Ms. Gustafson, could you please repeat the question. Could you
4 also try to keep your questions relatively short. We noticed that
5 confusion easily is created, and it's for you to take care that it is
7 Perhaps you rephrase the question.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, with the leave of the Bench, I think
9 I'll just move on to the next point.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we can move -- sorry, if we can stay on page 5
12 of the English and move to page 9 in the B/C/S.
13 Q. Mr. Pasic, the paragraph I'm interested now is the one in the
14 middle of the screen that begins:
15 "General Gotovina ..."
16 Now, your 2002 statement says that General Gotovina was
17 untouchable and unreachable, and that at social events he was surrounded
18 by a lot of people; and at the end of these events, they would always
19 sing Ustasha songs. And you've made a correction to that paragraph,
20 that, essentially reverses what's stated here and your evidence -- your
21 correct is that General Gotovina was approachable and that they only sang
22 patriotic song, not Ustasha songs.
23 Now, the word "Ustasha" is a very strong and very pejorative,
24 negative word, isn't it? I think yesterday you referred to the fact that
25 you were called a Ustasha commissioner, as ugly.
1 Would you agree that that's an ugly word?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, generally speaking, you don't use that word lightly when
4 you're referring to other people; is that right?
5 A. I never use that word.
6 Q. Okay. Now, then, can you explain how it is that, if you never
7 use that word, that when this statement was read to you in 2002, and when
8 you read it again in November of 2007, and you read it again in
9 February 2009, you either didn't notice this word or didn't bother to
10 correct it on any of these occasions.
11 Can you explain that?
12 A. I can. I have told you now that there are countless statements
13 there that I could change, but I noticed them at a time when I didn't
14 know who to address these corrections to.
15 Q. Well, when you gave your statement to the Defence in 2007 and
16 2009, February, you did actually make a number of quite detailed
17 corrections to your Prosecution statement.
18 For example, at paragraph 12 of your Defence statement, you said:
19 "In paragraph 18 of my statement to the Prosecution of
20 3 March 2002
21 about having seen a soldier on a tractor with a ribbon around his head.
22 This did not happen when I came to Knin on 6th August 1995 but two or
23 three days later."
24 So how is it that you found it important enough to change,
25 correct the exact date on which you saw a soldier with a ribbon around
1 his head when you gave your statement to the Defence, but you didn't
2 correct what you say now is a false allegation of people singing Ustasha
4 A. I think that I did correct both these allegations. On the issue
5 of General Gotovina, I did correct my statement that one could reach him,
6 that there were songs sung at social events, and if you sing songs like
8 these songs as patriotic, whereas still others may perceive them
10 And I'm convinced that on that day, since the president was
11 expected to arrive, this soldier with the bandana was not there. The --
12 the security situation was such that traffic was not allowed to pass,
13 and, therefore, this person could not have been riding on -- on that day.
14 Q. Mr. Pasic, are you saying that songs like "Vila Velebita,"
15 "Ustani Bane," or "Jure and Boban," those types of songs were sung at the
16 social events that you were talking about, that General Gotovina
18 A. Among other -- others.
19 Let me just state that just as is stated in the supplemental
20 sheet, General Gotovina did not sing these songs, and during his short
21 stay there, he exchanged a couple of words with the people present there
22 and then proceeded to attend to his tasks. And those who did sing, they
23 had to vent out their joy.
24 Now, as for this soldier that I mentioned riding on the tractor,
25 that was -- must have been his triumph there. That was his sentiment at
1 the time.
2 Q. I just want to get back to the songs because you said about these
4 "Some may" -- record -- "some may perceive the songs as
5 patriotic, whereas still others may perceive them differently."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, could I ask that the witness be
8 invited to take his earphones off, please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take your earphones off for a moment.
10 Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, if we could first establish
12 some foundation for these questions. We're assuming what kinds of songs
13 are being sung, and we don't what we're talking about where, when, who is
15 One of the issues that I was going to go into on cross before the
16 change was sent the night before is that, as far as I know, there was one
17 concert where General Forand was also present and the witness was
18 present. I have a video-tape of the entire concert of over two hours,
19 and we can go through songs and what songs are being sung there. If he's
20 talking about events other than that concert, then I think some
21 foundation should be established as to where and when and what we're
22 talking about in fairness to the Defence so we can re-cross if necessary
23 on this point. But there is no foundation at this point.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, social events is already a plural. So
25 apparently Ms. Gustafson is talking about something, not only a concert,
1 perhaps even excludes the concert. But I take it, Ms. Gustafson, that
2 you would be glad to put the answers of the witness in context. That is,
3 what kind of events we're talking.
4 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I could just add, I don't know of
5 what foundation there is that this witness -- how many times he ever
6 actually met or saw General Gotovina. I see, from what I can tell, one
7 occasion that he has referenced in supplemental information sheets. So
8 we don't even know, generally speaking, at this point, what the witness
9 would say if asked how many times have you ever seen General Gotovina in
10 your life.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm -- I mean, first of all, I'm
13 primarily interested, at this point, in exploring the changes to the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: And, secondly, this statement is the evidence of
17 the -- with the corrections, is the evidence of the witness, tendered by
18 the Defence. I don't think it's my obligation to explore a foundation
19 for that. And, like I said, my primary focus with these questions is --
20 is the changes and the manner that they've been changed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The difference in qualification of what the songs
22 are patriot or Ustasha songs. That is what are you primarily -- and may
23 I take it that this is done also in view of credibility and reliability
24 testing, rather than to know exactly what songs were sung, where, and --
25 MR. MISETIC: If in fact, Mr. President, I -- then I -- I'm happy
1 with it if we're in agreement then that this is going to credibility and
2 not for the truth of the matter asserted.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, that's not what I said.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I said -- I used the word "primarily." So,
5 therefore, to say if there is an agreement on that, then -- I understood
6 this to be at this moment the primary focus of Ms. Gustafson' questions,
7 I did not exclude in any way to establish what songs were sung.
8 Let's -- Ms. Gustafson is now aware of the concerns you have. I
9 would leave it in the hands of Ms. Gustafson, whether she would consider
10 this in her further line of questioning or whether she would have to
11 revisit the matter after you have again examined the witness,
12 Mr. Misetic.
13 MR. MISETIC: That's fine, Mr. President. But again --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
15 MR. MISETIC: -- let me just state that it might be good to
16 establish -- and actually fair to the Defence what the witness would say
17 as to when he's ever had a --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think I said that Ms. Gustafson would certainly
19 consider what you said, and you're now repeating what you said before,
20 isn't it.
21 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I leave it in your hands. And you
23 know what to expect if you deal not with those matters because then they
24 will come back, and whether they come back pleasantly or as a boomerang
25 is still to be seen.
1 Could you put on your earphones again. Yes, Mr. Pasic, we will
3 Ms. Gustafson.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Pasic.
6 These songs that were talking about, you said:
7 "Some ..."
8 And I think there is it a mistake in the transcript.
9 "Some may perceive these songs as patriotic, whereas still others
10 may perceive them differently."
11 Now, as far as you are aware, do some people perceive the songs
12 that you mentioned as Ustasha songs?
13 A. I haven't received interpretation.
14 I can hear them now. It wasn't working.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's fixed again, Mr. Pasic, so listen carefully to
16 the question Ms. Gustafson will put to you.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON:
18 Q. Mr. Pasic, the question was:
19 The songs that you mentioned you said:
20 "Some may perceive the songs as patriotic, whereas still others
21 perceive them differently."
22 When you said "others may perceive them differently," would some
23 people perceive those songs to be Ustasha songs?
24 A. Hardly. I listened to them, and I didn't feel that there was
25 anything Ustasha-like in them. Perhaps "Jure and Boban," that particular
1 song could be controversial in some segments, but not that much.
2 Q. So would some people call that song a Ustasha song, as far as you
4 A. Perhaps they would. But not me.
5 Q. And how many occasions can you remember where you attended social
6 events that General Gotovina also attended, after Operation Storm?
7 A. To the best of my recollection, I think that we were together at
8 these parties where there was a guest appearance by the singer
9 Krunoslav Cigoj then Krunoslav Kico Slabinac, another singer, as well as
10 singers Hrid Matic, so perhaps we were there some three to four times.
11 Q. And as far as you can recall, how many of those three to four
12 times occurred in August or September of 1995?
13 A. Well, it's been a long time since then. I know that we were
14 together, but if I were to say now that I was there twice in August and
15 twice in September, I really can't do that. I can't confirm that. And I
16 can't really answer your question. I might have been twice in August. I
17 might have been there three times. I can't say for sure.
18 Q. Now, according to the note of --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, the question may have been
20 misunderstood, at least there is some risk.
21 You said you do not know how many in August, how many in
22 September. You were talking about three or four. Were all those three
23 or for within these two months, or would they be in October or
24 December as well? Or -- your hesitation, was that about to put them in
25 August or September, or even outside that time-frame?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps there was some other events
2 in October, November, or December. But I think that, as for these events
3 that we're talking about, that these events, those four meetings took
4 place in September and August.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this clarification.
6 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Pasic, the note of the interview -- or the meeting you had
9 with the Cermak Defence on the 2nd of September of this year, according
10 to that note, it says that you told the Cermak Defence on the
11 2nd of September that the investigator who took your 2002 interview tried
12 to portray General Gotovina as a negative person through his questions.
13 Can you give me a specific example of a question that the
14 investigator asked you back in 2002 that you think tried to portray
15 General Gotovina as a negative person?
16 A. I did say that, and I stand by that. In questions that were
17 related to General Gotovina, he did, indeed, try to reduce this to some
18 negative personality. And when I said that General Gotovina, for a time,
19 was in Knin and then he led the operation, whether it was called the
20 south -- that he was ready and capable with the Croatian Army of reaching
21 Banja Luka, and, if need be, perhaps he would go on further. He laughed
22 ironically at that, and from that I concluded that he was trying to
23 provoke me as a Serb and a former commissioner to say something negative
24 about General Gotovina.
25 Q. So your conclusion that the investigator tried to portray
1 General Gotovina as a negative person is based on the fact that he
2 laughed ironically when you said that General Gotovina was ready and
3 capable of reaching Banja Luka.
4 Is that right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Can you give me any other specific example of a question that the
7 investigator asked that you think tried to portray General Gotovina as a
8 negative person?
9 A. Nothing comes to mind just now, but there were probably more such
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we move, please, to page 4 of this
12 document, and page 7 in the B/C/S. Page 4 in the English.
13 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to direct your attention to the second
14 paragraph on this page.
15 Do you see that -- that paragraph?
16 A. I don't know -- I didn't understand why these things referred to
17 Mostar, Dubrovnik
18 Is that what you mean?
19 Q. Yes, that's the paragraph. Now, you've made a specific
20 correction to that paragraph on Tuesday, in fact. And I'd just like to
21 ask you if you remember now what the correction is that you made to that
22 paragraph there.
23 If you could read that paragraph and tell me if you remember what
24 correction you made.
25 A. I think that the correction was not made on Tuesday but before
1 that. And what it boils down to is this: I did not say looted property
2 but property that had been taken, were being taken to Mostar and
4 Cijan, dealing in disinfection and disinsection [as interpreted] for
5 food, et cetera, I was -- I received information. And before that I had
6 sent a letter to Mr. Prtenjaca who was in the head of the district,
7 saying that the corn was going bad in the silos belonging to the
8 "Agroprevreda" company and that a speedy intervention was needed to
9 prevent the corn from going bad.
10 The head of the county called up the company in charge of
11 disinfection and disinsection, rat control, and as they found that the
12 company was not able to deal with the situation itself, the corn was
13 transported in trucks.
14 Now, whether by chance or not, the trucks had Mostar number
15 plates and Dubrovnik
16 there's a company which dealt with the grinding of corn, and I think that
17 in that way they managed to prevent the corn from going bad and the corn
18 was all right for human consumption.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to page seven of the English and
21 page 12 of the B/C/S.
22 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to direct your attention to the first and
23 third paragraphs on this page, because, according to the changes that you
24 made on Tuesday, both of these paragraphs are completely incorrect. On
25 Tuesday, you said that you never said anything even approaching what's in
1 those paragraphs, that they're totally wrong. But, if you look at the
2 middle paragraph, the second paragraph on the page, in September, when
3 you made changes to your statement, you made a specific correction or
4 clarification to that middle paragraph. You said, according to the
5 2nd of September statement that the sentence:
6 "I was aware that soldiers from the Croatian Army were committing
7 crimes in the rural areas needs to be explained further. Pasic said it
8 would be wrong to give the impression that only soldiers committed crimes
9 in the rural areas since it was also civilians and civilians in uniform,
10 demobilized people. Pasic informed the Defence that he thinks he did not
11 pay sufficient attention when he read his statement."
12 Now, my question is: Can you explain how it is that in
13 September you noticed there was a mistake to this particular paragraph,
14 the second paragraph on the page, and you made a specific clarification
15 to it; but you didn't notice either the paragraph before that one or the
16 paragraph after that one, which you said, on Tuesday, were completely
18 Can you explain how you missed both of those two paragraphs?
19 A. I -- I'm staying with the fact that I said -- and while I was
20 commissioner of the Government of the Republic of Croatia
21 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'm not asking you about the contents. I'm asking you
22 how it is that in September you noticed that there was a problem with the
23 second paragraph and you corrected it; but you didn't notice that either
24 of the two paragraphs, either the one right before, or the one right
25 after, were completely incorrect, because you only noticed that on
2 Can you explain how that is, how you missed both those paragraphs
3 in September.
4 A. I can't explain it. I don't have that on my screen, and I'm not
5 allowed to use that here, so I can't really compare the two.
6 Q. It should be on your screen.
7 A. Yes, I have it in English and without any corrections on the
8 other bit. I don't have the amended version, the corrected version.
9 Q. No. But, Mr. Pasic, I read to you the correction you made to the
10 second paragraph. And I'm telling you that on Tuesday you said that the
11 first paragraph and the third paragraph were completely wrong. You can
12 take my word for that because it's in your evidence.
13 And I'm asking you how it is that you noticed in September that
14 theres with a problem with the second paragraph and you wanted to change
15 that, but you didn't notice that the paragraph right before or the
16 paragraph right after were completely wrong.
17 Can you explain how you missed that in September.
18 A. Well, don't be angry, but I don't really understand what you're
19 actually asking me.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson is drawing your attention to the
24 In September, you made a detailed correction on one paragraph in
25 the statement you had given to the Office of the Prosecution. You didn't
1 say anything about the paragraph before that; you didn't say or correct
2 anything in the paragraph after that.
3 Now, what Ms. Gustafson is interested to know is this week,
4 Tuesday, you said, These two paragraphs - on which you did not make any
5 comment in September - are totally wrong.
6 And she doesn't understand why you didn't say that in
7 September and why it is only now, on Tuesday, that you suddenly, or you
8 come to the conclusion that these two paragraphs, being totally wrong,
9 without having said a word about it in September.
10 That's what she's asking you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably I analysed it more
12 carefully. But regardless of that, you can be angry with me or not, I
13 have to say that I still don't understand, unless I see the supplement in
14 front of me, before me, unless I have the text.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You said that they were wrong.
16 But, Ms. Gustafson, please read again what the witness said last
17 Tuesday in respect of these.
18 And, Mr. Pasic, we're not angry. We're just trying to find out
19 what evidence, what exactly the content of the evidence is you're
20 providing to this Chamber.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your permission, may I be
22 allowed to take a look at the statement myself to see and then it will be
23 easier for me to answer?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may consult the statement you've given
25 this Tuesday. The statement you've given to the OTP is on the screen, so
1 you can see that on the screen; and Ms. Gustafson also will read what you
2 said on Tuesday. But you may use your hard copy for that purpose as
4 MS. GUSTAFSON:
5 Q. Mr. Pasic, with respect to the first paragraph -- I'm sorry I
6 don't know the page number of the correction in the B/C/S version, but
7 it's at page 3 of the English version from your Tuesday statement. Where
8 it states:
9 "The police did not do anything. Perhaps some of them were
10 involved. I think that some of the police who had been expelled from
11 Knin earlier returned and were frustrated. If the military and police
12 could protect churches and other buildings, why couldn't they protect the
14 On Tuesday you said that is completely incorrect. In respect of
15 the second sentence, you said:
16 "There were some policemen in Knin and in the area around Knin
17 who were displaced in 1991. From 1991 until 1995, they worked as
18 policemen in other areas of Croatia
19 That was the correction you made to the first paragraph.
20 And the correction you made to the third paragraph was, where it
22 "Their units commanders could have stopped them. The commander
23 of the Military District was Gotovina. He was away fighting elsewhere,
24 but the command chain obviously wasn't functioning. Otherwise, the
25 soldiers who were looting and destroying property would have been
1 stopped. Even the government could have stopped them if it wanted to."
2 And then it says:
3 "Mr. Pasic said that he had not said that because he could not
4 have known that."
5 So, on Tuesday, you said that both the first paragraph on that --
6 on the screen and the third paragraph on the screen were completely
7 incorrect, but back in September you made a specific clarification to the
8 middle paragraph, and I read that out to you earlier.
9 And my question is: If it's true that the first paragraph on the
10 page and the third paragraph on the page are completely incorrect, why
11 didn't you notice that in September, when you made a correction to the
12 paragraph right in between those two paragraphs?
13 Do you know -- do you have an explanation as to why you missed
14 those two paragraphs in September?
15 A. I said that I hadn't read the statement carefully enough, and I
16 repeat that now. Tomorrow, or in a few days' time, if I were to look at
17 them again, I might correct something else.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move to page nine of the English and
20 page 14 in the B/C/S.
21 Q. And, Mr. Pasic, I would like to direct your attention to the
22 middle of the page. And it's the paragraph that begins:
23 "The military could have stopped the attacks in the villages."
24 Sorry, that's my mistake. Sorry. Strike that question.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd like to move on to another topic.
1 Q. Now, on Tuesday, you have basically said that there are five
2 paragraphs in your statement all dealing with the subject of either the
3 police or the military failing to prevent or stop crimes that you say are
4 now completely incorrect, and I'm going to read them to you.
5 And the first one is point 2 of your statement from Tuesday where
6 it states:
7 "The cooperation with the police was not good because they didn't
8 do what they could have done. What I mean by that is it the police did
9 nothing at the beginning to protect the people and their property and
10 encourage them to stay. They did nothing stop the civilians and military
11 from looting. My relationship personally with Milos Mihic was good. I
12 think that the mistake that the police made was that they used policemen
13 from the area around Knin instead of using more policemen from other
14 areas of Croatia
15 anything. I don't know if they wouldn't or couldn't do anything. Nobody
16 stopped the looting or burning down of houses."
17 On Tuesday you said that that entire paragraph was incorrect,
18 except for the sentence that said that your relationship with Milos Mihic
19 had been good.
20 Next one is point 3, where it says:
21 "The police coordinators who were sent down from the ministry
22 were in control of the police. That's why they were sent down. Either
23 they couldn't or wouldn't do anything about the looting, or perhaps they
24 had been told to keep their eyes closed."
25 On Tuesday you said that was completely incorrect, that you had
1 known that the minister of the interior had sent coordinators to help the
2 police in the work -- in its work but had not known what their concrete
3 tasks had been.
4 The next one is point 7. And that's the one I read to you
5 earlier about:
6 "The police did not do anything. Perhaps some of them were
7 involved. I think that some of the police who had been expelled from
8 Knin earlier returned and were frustrated. If the military and police
9 could protect churches and other buildings, why couldn't they protect the
11 You said that that was completely incorrect on Tuesday. And you
12 said that there were some policemen in Knin who were displaced in 1991
13 who had returned to Knin in 1995.
14 The next similar correction is point 8 from your statement on
15 Tuesday, which says that -- where it states:
16 "Their unit commanders could have stopped them. The commander of
17 the Military District was Gotovina. He was away fighting elsewhere, but
18 the command chain obviously wasn't functioning..." et cetera.
19 And the last one is point 12, where it says:
20 "The military could have stopped the attacks in the villages.
21 There was no reason for them to go to the villages. There were only old
22 people there. The only reason they went there would be to frighten and
23 loot. They should have had a curfew to keep them in the barracks."
24 And on Tuesday, you said that you had not said that because you
25 simply did not know that.
1 Now, each of these five paragraphs was read to you in 2002. You
2 read them again in November of 2007. You read them again in
3 February 2009. And you read them again, as you said, more carefully,
4 just a few weeks ago, in September. And by my count, that's 20 times.
5 And I get that by multiplying five different paragraphs of your statement
6 by four different occasions when you reviewed your statement, that you
7 have either read or had read to you a paragraph from your statement on
8 this same subject, about the military or police failing to stop the
10 Now, I understand you said you didn't read your statement as
11 carefully as you should have, but even on a superficial reading of your
12 statement, don't you think would you have noticed at least one of these
13 five paragraphs on at least one of these four prior occasions that you
14 now claim are totally incorrect?
15 In other words, can you explain how you missed each and every one
16 of those paragraphs on each and every one of those prior occasions?
17 A. I said that I didn't read some things properly. I wasn't careful
18 enough in reading them, and it is normal that some circumstances can
20 Now, you quoted these paragraphs here, and I'm going to repeat
21 some things for you. Without a doubt, on the territory of where
22 Operation Storm went ahead, there were crimes committed. Nobody is
23 challenging that. What is being challenged and what is contentious --
24 well, not even -- it is not even contentious who perpetrated the crimes.
25 Crimes did occur.
1 Now, as a commissioner, a responsible commissioner, on several
2 occasions I contacted people and I set up meetings that the territory
3 that was under me as a commissioner -- that crimes were being committed
4 and that those crimes were being committed by persons in uniform. It is
5 difficult now to say whether that particular person was a member of the
6 Croatian Army, for instance. It could have been a member of the police
7 or it could have been a civilian for that matter, because, during
8 Operation Storm, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people were
9 mobilized. People were mobilized who had been demobilized previously.
10 So any one of them could have committed that crime, and we pointed that
12 Now, it was difficult to control an area with -- which covered a
13 surface area of 1.049 square kilometres with the few people that we had.
14 If I might be allowed to continue, I am not accusing the army of the --
15 or the police, somebody else should have prevented the crimes. And it
16 was the military police who was in charge of that and the civilian
17 police, the military prosecutor's office and the civilian prosecutor's
18 office. And whether they are military prosecutors or the other
19 prosecutors, whoever, and you must know that quite a lot of crimes were
20 taken to court, were prosecuted, the perpetrators of those crimes were
22 Now, unfortunately, most of them will never see the light of
23 justice and so, in my opinion, that is why these three men are being
24 tried here and now.
25 Q. Now, on the subject of these three men who are being tried here
1 now, virtually all the changes that you have made to your statement,
2 either in September -- the recent ones in September, and then on Tuesday,
3 virtually all of them result in a position that is more favourable to
4 these accused. For example, negative comments about General Gotovina
5 have turned into positive ones; repeated references to the military or
6 the police being able to stop the crimes have been retracted; the comment
7 that Serb returnees and those who stayed did not trust the police has
8 been retracted; the comment that you believed the looting and burning was
9 planned from above, you've retracted; comments that the military police
10 was involved in the looting, you've retracted; comments that a lot of
11 profit was made by the looting; the killings in the villages should not
12 have happened, you've retracted.
13 Mr. Pasic with all of these changes that you have made in
14 September and again on Tuesday, the result is a fundamentally different
15 statement and one that is markedly more favourable to these accused.
16 Is that right?
17 A. You are entitled to your opinion, and I have given you mine.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, the question is whether you agree with
19 Ms. Gustafson that the overall picture in this statement, as you have
20 given it now - and I'm talking about the picture since Tuesday - is more
21 favourable to the accused than the overall picture which emerged from
22 your previous statements.
23 The question is whether you agree with that or not.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I disagree.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And then the question comes up, whether you consider
1 that it's still the same; or that the new statement is less favourable,
2 the picture from the new statement is less favourable for the accused; or
3 didn't it change anything.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry if the new statement is
5 more -- more unfavourable to them. To me, these are facts.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't say that the new one is more
8 You were asked about whether you consider your new statement to
9 be equally favourable or unfavourable to the accused, or whether you
10 consider the new statement to be more favourable to the accused, or
11 whether you consider your new statement less favourable for the accused.
12 Now three options: More favourable, the same, less favourable.
13 That's what Ms. Gustafson, at least, started to ask you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't consider it in the light
15 of being more favourable or less favourable. I said that it was the
16 truth, and I said that if it's less favourable, I'm sorry. And if
17 it's -- well, the fact of the matter is that what I have now stated is
18 the truth. I cannot gauge what is or what is not favourable to them.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON:
21 Q. When you said that if your statement was less favourable to the
22 accused you're sorry, do you want your statement to be favourable to the
24 A. I wasn't giving my statement in order to make it favourable or
25 not favourable to the accused. I gave my view of the matter.
1 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, I'm going to suggest to you that the real reason
2 that you have made all of these changes to your statement in
3 September and in October is not because you didn't say these things. I'm
4 going to suggest to you that you did say these things in 2002 and you did
5 believe them to be true at the time and that the real reason you've made
6 all of these changes in the last few weeks is because you don't want your
7 evidence to implicate the accused.
8 Do you have any comment on that?
9 A. You are here to put your case, whatever it may be. I came here
10 to tell the truth, since I was an eye-witness of all these events. You,
11 Madam Prosecutor, have a piece of paper, and I have a clear picture of
12 my -- in my mind of everything that happened and that I saw with my own
14 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move now to another topic.
15 You've given evidence that you attended meetings that were held
16 every day in General Cermak's office. And my question for you is: Now,
17 who told that you there were to be meetings every day in General Cermak's
18 office that you were to attend? How did you learn that?
19 A. When I came to Knin as a commissioner of the government of the
20 Republic of Croatia
21 time were at the minimum. The only service or structure that could
22 provide any assistance was the army. Not even the police was able to
23 help us, since their premises had been devastated just before the
24 departure of the forces.
25 Q. I'm just going to interrupt you. Your statements are in
1 evidence --
2 MR. KAY: Just one matter. I don't see anywhere reference that
3 he was told to go to meetings and perhaps the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. But -- well, How did you learn that? --
5 MR. KAY: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- is the question.
7 MR. KAY: I --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's try to focus the witness's attention
9 on the question.
10 MR. KAY: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You met on a daily basis, Mr. Pasic, in what I
12 understand to be Mr. -- General Cermak's office.
13 How did you find out that there would be a meeting where you were
14 expected to attend?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the first meeting that we had,
16 it was agreed that we would be in contact when necessary. Perhaps where
17 it was said once or twice daily is not really reflective of the truth.
18 We may have met, as the situation dictated, more than once, maybe five to
19 seven times on certain days. Now, how did this come about? Well, at the
20 first meeting where we agreed on what sort of coordination activity we would
21 have, it was said a meeting would take place on the following day at 9.00
22 or at such and such an hour, and whoever was able to, attended the meeting.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON:
24 Q. Now, how did you know to go to this first meeting that you're
25 talking about? How did you find out about the first meeting where it was
1 agreed on what sort of coordination activity we would have?
2 A. It was natural that, upon my arrival in Knin, I had to find an
3 interlocutor with whom I would be able to solve the problems. I met that
4 individual in the person of Mr. Cermak, and he was the one I contacted.
5 If I may only add this, several meetings, which isn't something
6 that was stated here, were held in the office of the commissioner of the
7 Republic of Croatia
8 simply provided better conditions, in terms of conditioning,
9 air-conditioning, coffee, et cetera.
10 Q. You said:
11 "Upon my arrival in Knin, I had to find an interlocutor with him
12 I would be able to solve the problems. I met that individual in the
13 person of Mr. Cermak."
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. Did anybody tell you to go to Mr. Cermak, or did you just walk
16 around Knin until you happened upon him? How did that happen?
17 A. I shall first have to explain to you that the Commission of the
18 Republic of Croatia
19 big difference if one worked as a commissioner for the
20 Republic of Croatia
21 search of him about the town. I found out that he was appointed garrison
22 commander, and I went to see him.
23 Q. Okay. Who -- who told you that he was appointed garrison
24 commander? How did you find out that General Cermak was appointed
25 garrison commander?
1 A. I think that I heard the news on the Croatian television.
2 Let me tell you, as a matter of fact, it was the County Prefect
3 of the Zadar-Knin county, Mr. Sime Prtenjaca, who informed me about it.
4 Q. And did Mr. Prtenjaca tell you to go and speak with Mr. Cermak
5 when you arrived in Knin?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Now, in your statement to the Prosecution, you said that
8 General Cermak directed you to organise the feeding of people and pushed
9 you to open the stores.
10 Can you be a little more specific about this? What exactly did
11 General Cermak say to you when he directed you to organise the feeding of
12 people and push you to open the stores?
13 A. Following the military and police Operation Storm, the majority
14 of the population that stayed behind and that had returned upon the call
15 of the Croatian government were unable to either stay in their homes or
16 cook meals there. On his office premises, General Cermak organised a
17 soup kitchen, that's how we call it, for those who didn't have the
18 wherewithal to cook their means -- meals, and I was involved in that
20 As soon as the numbers of people who availed themselves of the
21 soup kitchen increased beyond every measure, Mr. Cermak advised me to
22 help the people by opening up a soup kitchen in the premises of what was
23 formally a restaurant, and, in fact, some 300 to 400 meals were served a
25 Q. And --
1 A. In other words, it didn't involve only the population of Croatia
2 and let me tell you, Mr. Cermak and I did not distinguish between the
3 various backgrounds, whether it was a Croat, or Muslim, or a Serb, when
4 it came to helping then.
5 Q. I'd just like you to focus as much as you can on the specific
6 question that I'm asking:
7 You said:
8 "Mr. Cermak advised me to help the people by opening up a soup
10 Do you remember now what exactly General Cermak said to you?
11 A. I can't claim that with 100 percent certainty, but he said that
12 the premises of the Croatian Army, the hall -- the mess hall of the
13 Croatian Army was no longer the suitable place for a soup kitchen, and
14 that appropriate quarters needed to be found where the soup kitchen could
15 relocate to.
16 Q. And General Cermak either directed or advised you to do certain
17 things. Did you do them?
18 A. It depended on what his advice had to do with.
19 Q. Can you think of any instance when he directed or advised you to
20 do something and you didn't do it?
21 A. General Cermak -- well, I was not duty-bound to implement some of
22 his decisions. I only cooperated with him. I did not consider him to be
23 my superior, although I, as a person, do believe that a rank of a colonel
24 or general is a high position.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question was whether you remember anything
1 you were advised or directed to do which you didn't do. You were not
2 asked to elaborate on what your duties were, but just to give an example
3 of something you were advised or directed to do which you then decided
4 not to do. That's the question.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps it would be a good idea to
6 have a look at the tasks that I was given.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. Give -- give us an example. That's what
8 Ms. Gustafson is asking you to do.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Cermak did not give me any
10 assignments or tasks. I had my work remit.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Earlier you were asked if General Cermak
12 either directed or advised you to do certain things, whether you would do
14 Your answer was:
15 "It depended on what his advice had to do with."
16 Now, we are waiting for an example of something General Cermak
17 directed or advised you to do, where you decided not to do it.
18 Just an example.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't really find an example that
20 would tie in with this.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's an answer to the question.
22 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Could we please have D504 on the screen.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I don't know whether -- I'm looking
1 at the clock. I don't know whether you're enter a new area.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: No. And I think it should be quite brief on this
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON:
6 Q. If could you look at the document on your screen, please,
7 Mr. Pasic.
8 You can see this is an order dated 11 October 1995, and it's to
9 the MUP Knin police station and the Commission of the Government of the
10 Republic of Croatia
11 "On the basis of demonstrated needs and in order to be more
12 operative, I hereby order: ... a part of the MUP officers with the Knin
13 police station shall be temporarily transferred to the old grammar school
14 building in Knin ..."
15 And it says:
16 "This order shall enter into force immediately."
17 And it's signed by General Cermak.
18 Did you -- do you recall receiving this order?
19 A. I can see that it was addressed, but I can't remember. It
20 probably did reach us.
21 Q. Do you remember receiving any other similar orders from
22 General Cermak?
23 A. Madam Prosecutor, this order is not directed to me or my office.
24 I had never received an order from General Cermak. This order is
25 addressed to the MUP Knin police station and was sent to my attention
1 only, for -- for my information.
2 Q. Do you remember at all whether this order was implemented,
3 whether MUP officers were, in fact, temporarily transferred to the old
4 grammar school building in Knin about this time?
5 A. This is the first time I'm seeing that members of the MUP were
6 quartered in the secondary school building. They did have a police
7 station in Knin, but I guess the school building had to be placed at the
8 disposal of the broadcasting services or whoever. But to my knowledge,
9 General Cermak was not superior to the police force in order to be able
10 to issue orders to them.
11 Q. Mr. Pasic, I wasn't asking you about that. I was asking you
12 whether the MUP officers were, in fact, transferred to the old grammar
13 school building.
14 Do you remember whether that transfer actually took place?
15 A. I don't know. I don't know.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no further questions on this document, so
18 perhaps it's a good time for the break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 We'll have a break and I'd like to reserve some -- close to ten
21 minutes after the break to start with some procedural matters, which
22 would mean that the further cross-examination would start at
23 approximately 1.00.
24 Ms. Gustafson, could you give us any indication as to how much
25 more time you would need.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: I will try to finish before the end of the day,
2 but I can't guarantee it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, may I take it that you would need
4 considerable time in re-cross?
5 MR. MISETIC: I don't know about considerable. That depends
6 on -- I was intending to address the issue with the Chamber as to my
7 90(H) obligations in this particular circumstance, which I think is
8 somewhat unique. Depending on what the Chamber believes my 90(H)
9 obligation to be, and it could be extensive. Without dealing with the
10 90(H), I do have some matters that I would like to clarify in
11 cross-examination which might take up to a half an hour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, it's unlikely that we would finish today.
13 Mr. Kay, would there be any need to re-exam the witness?
14 MR. KAY: At this moment, I only have one question to re-examine
15 on. At the moment, nothing else arises for me. And it obviously depends
16 on any further questions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand that.
18 And the Markac Defence, same position?
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Same position, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 We'll have a break, and we will resume at ten minutes to 1.00.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to revisit the 92 bis issue I briefly
1 referred to yesterday, because the Chamber would now like to extend an
2 invitation to the parties with regard to the six 92 bis motions, which
3 were filed by the Cermak Defence on the 2nd of October.
4 The motions concern 17 witnesses and the material that the
5 Cermak Defence seeks to have admitted into evidence, including
6 transcripts, witness statements, an associated exhibits. That material
7 amounts to around 1500 pages. The Chamber has not studied the material
8 in detail yet, but the submissions by the Cermak Defence indicate that
9 the material covers crimes committed by Serb forces in the Krajina before
10 the Indictment period in this case. The Cermak Defence argues that the
11 material supports its thesis that individuals were motivated by revenge
12 during Operation Storm.
13 The Chamber notes in this respect that the six Rule 92 bis
14 motions are all very similar and therefore give no, or limited, guidance
15 as to what the Cermak Defence would like to draw to the Chamber's
16 attention to with regard to each piece of tendered evidence.
17 Yesterday, the Chamber informed the parties that it wished to
18 discuss the motions and the best way for the Cermak Defence to present
19 the material contained therein. Already in its decision on the
20 Cermak Defence's request to disclose Rule 68 material of the
21 7th of August, 2009, the Chamber encouraged the parties to engage in a
22 process which would lead to a submission of agreed facts on the matter.
23 This was based on the arguments made by the Prosecution at that time,
24 that it did not dispute the facts that the Cermak Defence sought to prove
25 through the relevant material.
1 As the Chamber has indicated on previous occasions, it is for the
2 parties to review evidentiary material to identify what is relevant and
3 what they find important for this case and then tender only that
4 material. It is not acceptable to tender huge amounts of material with
5 the expectation that the Chamber will do this task for the parties.
6 Considering the nature and the scope of the matters that the
7 Cermak Defence apparently wishes to demonstrate with the extensive
8 material it has tendered, the Chamber considers that the Cermak Defence
9 should seek other avenues for its admission. The details surrounding
10 each incident described by the 17 witnesses appear not to be of
11 importance to the present case.
12 Moreover, as previous submissions in this case indicate, it is
13 not a matter of dispute that crimes were committed by Serb forces in the
14 Krajina prior to the Indictment period. And under these circumstances,
15 the Chamber still considers that the most appropriate way for the
16 Cermak Defence to present the relevant and important portions of the
17 material is through agreed facts. Since the material, to a large extent
18 stems from the Martic case, the Cermak Defence might also consider
19 introducing it through adjudicated facts, in case agreement cannot be
21 The Chamber hereby reiterates its invitation of 7 August 2009
22 instructing the parties to make renewed efforts to reach agreement on a
23 short statement of facts which could replace the lengthy submissions by
24 the Cermak Defence. The parties should report back to the Chamber on
25 their progress no later than the 27th of October, 2009.
1 In the meantime, the Prosecution and the other Defence teams are
2 not expected to respond to the six Rule 92 bis motions.
3 And this concludes the Chamber's invitation.
4 I would like to continue with, given the Chamber' guidance, on a
5 practical aspect of receiving bar table submissions.
6 On 28 September 2009, the Chamber emphasised the importance of
7 having a transparent record of all matters brought to the attention of
8 the Chamber that are not just of a mere practical nature. This can be
9 found at transcript pages 22.183 to 22.185.
10 In the past, and in relation to bar table submissions, the
11 Chamber's practice has been to informally receive a spreadsheet from the
12 parties, which, amongst other things, contained possible objections with
13 regard to the admissibility of certain documents. In previous
14 situations, the Chamber addressed any such objections or comments in
15 court or in filed decisions, so as to put the informally voiced
16 objections or comments on the record. One such example can be found at
17 transcript pages 14.110 to 14.112. The Chamber notes, however, that
18 certain objections to or comments on bar table submissions, although
19 always dually considered, may not have been put on the record previously.
20 The Chamber therefore invites the parties to review the record
21 and, no later than the 6th of November, 2009, jointly file a list of all
22 bar table submissions that involved informally communicated spreadsheets.
23 In this list, the parties are invited to note for which bar table
24 submissions and informally communicated objections or comments were
25 clearly put on the record and include references. For bar table
1 submissions not falling in this category, the parties are invited to
2 attach the respective spreadsheets to their joint filing.
3 For the future, the Chamber invites the parties to submit their
4 joint spreadsheets for bar table submissions in a joint filing. I add to
5 that, that in line with this invitation, the latest spreadsheet
6 concerning the bar table submission on housing laws, e-mailed to the
7 Chamber staff by the Gotovina Defence on 29th of September, 2009, should
8 also be filed.
9 And this concludes the Chamber's guidance.
10 I move to another subject. That is, the suspect interview given
11 by Mr. Cermak.
12 We have received - and I'm referring to the suspect interview in
13 which Mr. Karolj Dondo was present - we have received a transcript of
14 exchanges between Mr. Cermak and Mr. Dondo in English recently.
15 Could I first inquire with the Prosecution whether this
16 transcript covers all the exchanges between Mr. Cermak and Mr. Dondo, or
17 whether that is a selection?
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd have to make inquiries on that, Your Honour.
19 We can probably get back to you in a few minutes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 We'll then hear from you.
22 The Chamber would like - and we'll later hear whether it's a
23 complete set or it is a selection, and if it is a selection, what is the
24 basis for this selection. But the Chamber would like to have this
25 suspect interview to be completed in such a way that, attached to the
1 English version of the transcript of the interview, that we'd find the
2 exchanges between Mr. Dondo and Mr. Cermak, and that we -- references
3 should be given in the text of the interview where such exchanges
4 occurred. So that when reading the English text that our attention will
5 be drawn to any exchanges which we'll then find transcribed in an
6 attachment to that statement.
7 And the chamber would like to know whether we have a complete set
8 or not, in order to see whether we could give further guidance. Of
9 course, if the set is complete, there's nothing more to be said. If the
10 set is incomplete, we'll further consider the matter.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, we'll attend to that right
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 I finally would like to put the following on the record. As all
15 parties are aware, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rules 92 bis,
16 92 ter, 92 quater, deal with the use of written statements. Apart from
17 what we find in the Rules, also some case law has been developed by this
18 Tribunal - and I'm specifically referring to the Limaj and the Popovic
19 case - case law related to the use of previous inconsistent statements.
20 That case law includes procedural implications, such as whether or not
21 one would have to declare a witness hostile.
22 Now, the question could arise as to how the set of rules, as we
23 find them in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, would relate to what
24 we -- what was developed in the case law, whether, if we're talking about
25 92 ter statements, for example, whether a similar mechanism as to
1 previous inconsistent statements but then not compared to testimony given
2 at trial but, for example, other statements, whether, at all, you could
3 rely upon parts of a 92 ter statement to which a witness distanced
4 himself of, at a later stage, whether there would be any procedural
5 implications, whether one could admit this at all, whether, as far as
6 procedural implications, for example, if a cross-examining party would
7 rely on a previous statement, that might be different.
8 Well, the parties are hereby informed that this rather complex
9 legal issue came to the mind of the Chamber - the Chamber has not formed
10 any opinion about these matters - but if the parties, if the same legal
11 issue would ever have come to the minds of the parties, and if the
12 parties would want to share their views or to assist the Chamber in
13 developing its thoughts by providing their views on the matter, whether
14 now or at a later stage, the parties are certainly not discouraged from
15 doing so.
16 That is what I would like to put on the record.
17 Yes, Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: I guess I will take the opportunity extended by the
19 Chamber, if I may, with leave of the Chamber, to address the issue now.
20 At least a portion of it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to do it right away?
22 MR. MISETIC: Well, just one portion which is so that I know how
23 to again --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. MISETIC: -- proceed with what might transpire next.
1 As I read Rule 90(H) subpart (ii) there is a duty to put the
2 nature of the case which is in contradiction of the evidence given by the
3 witness. And I just want to state for the record that my understanding
4 of that is that this witness, if he is being impeached with a prior
5 statement, that that impeachment is not in contradiction of the evidence
6 he is giving.
7 If the Chamber is of a different view and would instead accept
8 that as substantive testimony of the witness, I am prepared to proceed to
9 challenge those portions of the 2002 statement.
10 I also wish to add, however, that it would be our submission that
11 a party relying on a prior inconsistent statement that is seeking to use
12 the portions of that statement as substantive testimony, nevertheless,
13 should then establish foundation for some of the matters that are raised.
14 I note specifically that many of the things that were in the 2002
15 statement are conclusions in fact and not facts.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that the parties would
17 easily agree that there are quite some portions in the 2002 statement
18 which are rather opinion or conclusions than facts. We find a bit of
19 everything in it.
20 But I take it that you would not disagree with that,
21 Ms. Gustafson.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour, in this case I don't see any
23 difference between this instance and many prior instances when
24 conclusions appear in witness's 92 ter statement and the Chamber assigns
25 the appropriate weight to those conclusions based on the foundation in
1 the evidence.
2 MR. MISETIC: That's precisely the point I wish to make,
3 Mr. President, is that if the Prosecution were or had -- has the
4 intention of relying on conclusions that don't have a foundation in the
5 statement, then while we're still on cross-examination, I believe the
6 Chamber -- the Prosecution or the party relying on a prior inconsistent
7 conclusion would have a duty to try to establish some foundation for that
8 conclusion while we're still here.
9 Obviously, that would then impact the probative value of relying
10 on a prior inconsistent statement at least with respect to conclusions in
11 it, if in fact no foundation was established in the statement nor in the
12 examination of the witness.
13 And the reason I raise this is quite simply to -- for us as a
14 Defence to engage in a re-cross of a witness who disavows the conclusions
15 in the statement really amounts to a waste of time. And just simply
16 going through an exercise of making a record that we put our -- the
17 nature of our case to the witness under 90(H) but the witness
18 consistently saying that I didn't say that or those are not my
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I think there are really two issues
21 here, and I think that the first one I disagree with and the second one I
22 think I agree with.
23 The first is the duty to establish a foundation. It's my
24 understanding that the practice of this Chamber is that if there's a
25 conclusion that a witness draws in a 92 ter statement, if a party wants
1 to rely on that conclusion and doesn't elicit a sufficient foundation for
2 it, then the Chamber will not assign that conclusion much weight.
3 But I've not understood the practice in this trial as placing an
4 obligation on a party to explore the foundation for every conclusion in a
6 The second issue is the 90(H) issue. And it's my understanding
7 that the 90(H) rule is essentially a rule of fairness to the witness,
8 that the witness should be confronted with the contrary state of --
9 contrary case of the cross-examining party. And to that extent, if the
10 witness disavows something in a prior statement, I don't see why another
11 cross-examining party would have an obligation to put their case that
12 contradicts something that the witness has disavowed because the fairness
13 issue doesn't arise.
14 The Chamber, at the end of the day, can assign whatever weight
15 they deem appropriate to the original statement and the later disavowal.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me already make a few comments.
17 First of all, I was talking about 92 ter. Of course, a similar
18 question is that the matter I raised before could be raised in -- in
19 relation to expert reports. And there, of course, the issue of
20 conclusions becomes far more prominent than it would be with a witness of
22 Having added that, let me just confirm with my colleagues.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 THE INTERPRETER: The court participants are kindly asked to
25 switch off the microphones that are not in use, because at some points it
1 is almost impossible to hear Mr. Misetic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: In a short consultation, I briefly discussed with my
3 colleagues that we are -- we have two rather distinct situations. The
4 first situation is where a witness draws conclusions and does not provide
5 a factual basis for such conclusions.
6 Now, witnesses of fact, of course, are not supposed to present
7 conclusions and opinions, but, rather -- nevertheless, we also know that
8 sometimes people are inclined to put matters in terms of conclusions.
9 And I think the Chamber has earlier said a few words about that. Without
10 a proper factual basis, the Chamber is not in a position to verify or to
11 adopt conclusions similar to the conclusions of the witness.
12 So, therefore, and that's a general rule, and has got nothing to
13 do, I take it, with whether the statements were inconsistent or not. But
14 if it's just conclusions without a proper factual basis, the Chamber is
15 simply not in a position to draw similar conclusions on the basis of the
16 testimony of that witness. Perhaps there is other evidence which could
17 lead the Chamber to adopt conclusions which are similar or different from
18 the conclusions by that witness, but that's, I would say, a rather
19 general situation.
20 The second situation is a quite different one. That is, where
21 the witness says, I haven't said A, B, or, C, or D, as it appears in my
22 statement. That is exactly the area I referred to earlier where the
23 Chamber is still considering this legal issue and, of course, it depends
24 on the outcome of this, I would say, legal exercise, which we are only at
25 the beginning of. I would say the first step being to define what
1 exactly the issue is. Whether, at the end, we could rely on information
2 provided by the witness in a statement, which he does not confirm at
3 trial. But that's, of course, a situation to be distinguished from the
4 other situation I just mentioned.
5 Therefore, Mr. Misetic, if a witness gives a statement and says,
6 General X, Y, or Z, has, in my opinion, not always met his obligations as
7 a member of the local tennis club, without giving any further
8 information, then, of course, there's no need to go into that in any
9 further detail, because whether he did or did not, there's no factual
10 basis for that, unless, in his statement, we would find how often he
11 attended, whether he trained well, et cetera.
12 So, therefore, if it's clear that conclusions and final
13 conclusions are to be drawn by the Chamber have no factual basis, it
14 doesn't make much sense to put to the witness that, in relation to this
15 matter, the party cross-examining him would have another opinion, because
16 that doesn't make sense.
17 Now, on the other matter - and we were talking about Rule 90(H)
18 to the fairness of the witness - that if a party considers there's
19 inconsistency and may even have doubts as to which of the two, whether
20 that's a statement or testimony, would be of a kind to be believed rather
21 than the other one, more reliable, more credible than the other one,
22 then, of course, it should be clearly put to that witness that there is
23 an inconsistency and that he is invited to explain such an inconsistency,
24 something where we're talking about inconsistency between testimony and
25 statements. That is it usually, I would say, almost automatically done
1 anyhow, because that's in the interests of the party cross-examining that
3 Does this give you sufficient guidance, Mr. Misetic?
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, but there are just two points
6 to raise.
7 One is the 90(H) issue. We were prepared to attempt to discredit
8 the matters in the 2002 statement based purely on the substance of it.
9 So we're at somewhat of a disadvantage in terms of counsel for the
10 Prosecution posits it as, if a party doesn't challenge the foundation of
11 a statement, then there's probative value regardless of whether it's an
12 opinion or a factual statement; the Chamber is free to evaluate the
13 probative value of that.
14 However, that doesn't take into account the fact that there may
15 be information in our possession which would actually further discredit
16 the opinions in the 2002 statement.
17 So that's position we finds ourselves in.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think that -- if that's your first point, let me
19 just -- or would you like to --
20 MR. MISETIC: I will just complete the second point as well
21 because I want to be transparent on what our intention is in re-cross.
22 And it's related to the point Your Honour, that you're raising about
23 92 ter and assessing whether to rely on the statement that the witness
24 has not adopted versus the statement that the witness is currently
1 We intend to explore in re-cross the methodology and methods used
2 by the OTP investigator in 2002 which resulted in some of the statements
3 that appear -- some of the conclusions without foundation that are
4 littered throughout the 2002 statement.
5 To that end, the same investigator appeared in suspect interviews
6 of other people which we have on video and are ready to use, where he
7 says things like, Witness, the Prosecution says there was a plan and that
8 plan was to expel people and to burn their houses and to loot and to
9 prevent them coming back; do you agree? And the witness is then put in a
10 position of either accepting the proposition or rejecting it.
11 We think this witness, it should be explored, if in fact this has
12 now become an issue, whether the conclusions concerning whether the top
13 of the state approved criminal activity, et cetera, is in fact the result
14 of similar leading of a witness, to use a phrase, putting words in his
15 mouth, and then asking a witness, who's in a position of being
16 interviewed by a Prosecutor's office at an international Tribunal,
17 whether he agrees or disagrees with it.
18 So we intend to explore further the reliability of the 2002
19 statement, and part of my cross-examination the Chamber will note is in
20 fact the witness started in 1996 taking the position that he has taken
21 today, and it's, in fact, this statement in 2002 that is somewhat
22 different than what he said -- actually substantial different than what
23 he said in 1996 and in 2009.
24 But I wanted to the Chamber to hear that outside the presence of
25 the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the Prosecution, at certain moments,
4 primarily focussed on credibility, reliability. Is it your later
5 statement that you didn't say any of these things at an earlier stage,
6 true or not? Of course, no determination on what is most credible has
7 been made and, as I outlined before, there is a legal issue involved here
8 which is rather complex.
9 Now, the Chamber thinks that it makes sense to -- where we could
10 not yet for sure exclude for the possibility that the earlier -- the
11 previous statement could serve as evidence. I'm not giving any ruling on
12 that. But as we invited the parties, you may have understood that the
13 Chamber is just considering that legal issue.
14 If we consider a legal issue, then that means that there's no
15 outcome yet. So, therefore, we could not exclude or you could not
16 conclude at this moment as a possible outcome that the Chamber would
17 consider that what was said at the time, as we find it in the statement,
18 is what the witness really said, apart from whether that would be
19 conclusions or -- and whatever to do with that and whatever weight to
20 give to that, that's all open.
21 If you can't exclude for that possibility, then, of course, it
22 still makes sense to challenge in cross-examination the substance of what
23 the witness would have had said and of which we do not know yet whether
24 that could be adopted.
25 The second issue is -- and that, of course, also takes into
1 consideration that you could not exclude the possibility that words were
2 spoken as reported. Of course, it then makes sense to further explore
3 the techniques used during the interviews so as to see to what extent, if
4 one were to conclude that the words spoken as reported or as put on
5 paper, that in order to give any weight to that, or to further consider
6 what the evidentiary value of that would be, to explore these
7 interviewing techniques.
8 So on both issue, the Chamber doesn't think that it would not
9 make sense to do it.
10 MR. MISETIC: We agree, Mr. President, and we will conduct
11 ourselves accordingly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we have 12 minutes left. It took a bit
13 more time, but these are rather fundamental issues so therefore the
14 Chamber considered it appropriate to raise those matters. And I must
15 say, just for your information, that it's not on the basis of what
16 happens today in court or what happened yesterday in court, but that the
17 Chamber was already earlier considering to at least raise the issue as
18 something the Chamber was thinking about, just in order to avoid any
19 misunderstanding as to it being raised today.
20 Mr. Misetic, I take it that you would have some -- for the first
21 ten minutes -- no, but it's Mr. Kay, of course, who should have an
22 opportunity to re-examine the witness.
23 MR. MISETIC: The Prosecution is still in cross-examination,
24 Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Oh. Yes. I even remember that you hoped,
1 Ms. Gustafson, that you would finish your cross-examination in the next
2 session. I think that we should give up that hope, isn't it? Yes.
3 Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, you see when focussing on
7 cross-examination by the Defence you might forget about your right to
8 cross-examine the witness.
9 Thank you, Mr. Pasic. Again, apologies for the delay. We'll not
10 spend much time in court anymore today, and we would like to continue on
11 Monday. But we have still some time left, and Ms. Gustafson will
12 continue her cross-examination.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Pasic, right before the break, we were looking at an order
15 issued by General Cermak, and you said:
16 "To my knowledge, General Cermak was not superior to the police
17 in order to be able to issue orders to them."
18 You said that just before the break.
19 And my question is: Did you know that General Cermak did, in
20 fact, issue orders to the police, such as the one you had -- such as the
21 one you had looked at right before the break. Did you know that?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd like to move to another topic, but I just
24 had one follow-up question on something you said earlier today. And it
25 was about the songs that you said had been sung at social events that you
1 attended, that General Gotovina also attended.
2 And one of the songs you identified was the song you called
3 Jure and Boban; do you remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, the Chamber has received evidence of a song which the first
6 two lines of are: "Evo Zore, Evo Dana, Evo Jure i Bobana. Here comes
7 the dawn, here comes the day, here come Jure and Boban."
8 My question is: The song Jure and Boban that you referred to, is
9 that this song, is it the same song that I --
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on to another topic, in your statement --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, is there agreement between the
13 parties what these songs are? I mean, are there various versions of the
14 song? I mean, I don't know whether you want to ever present that.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, the -- there was a fair amount of
16 evidence about this song and in particular the first two lines of that
17 song. That came in through the witness Barkovic, and I think it's -- I
18 think the connection is clear. I don't --
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's not a contested issue is what exactly the text
20 of the song is?
21 MR. MISETIC: May I ask that the witness's earphones be removed.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Pasic, could you take your earphones off,
24 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President the words of the song are not
25 contested. The --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
2 MR. MISETIC: The --
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I wanted to --
4 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers]... any type of singing is
5 contested. And as I said --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
7 MR. MISETIC: I think before re-cross --
8 JUDGE ORIE: But that's a different matter, whether the song was
9 sung yes or no is another matter. But at least if we are talking
10 about -- we have dealt now with the first two lines and it's not --
11 MR. MISETIC: And if I could just state that in re-cross the
12 Chamber will be entertained with the entire two-hour concert if
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think Ms. Gustafson dealt with three or four
15 social events where songs apparently were sung so.
16 MR. MISETIC: Which is also contested, and I will go into that in
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But we'll get audios of those other as well?
19 MR. MISETIC: Actually we've located all the singers who happened
20 to all be on the one video as opposed to four separate occasions.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll hear later, literally.
22 Mr. Kay.
23 MR. KAY: Your Honour, on this issue of putting matters, I don't
24 know how significant the song is or the interpretation of the words or
25 whether it's the position that the Prosecution are going to say that this
1 song is interpreted a particular way, to my mind, that's a classic
2 example where you should put your interpretation to the witness if you're
3 going seek to get the Bench to draw a particular conclusion on this
5 JUDGE ORIE: The witness changed his qualification of the song,
6 at least as it was put on paper from a Chetnik song to a patriotic song.
7 Now, if the Chamber would ever be -- or would be called to see whether
8 this is any significant change, it might be that we'd have to know the
9 exact text of the song. And that's the only reason why I asked whether
10 there was any dispute about that, and how reasonable one qualification or
11 the other would be.
12 Could you please put on your earphones again. And I had
13 forgotten about the other piece of evidence, then, apparently.
14 Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Pasic, in your Defence statement, you identified the
17 commander of the military police in Knin as Luka Orsulic. And my
18 question is: Do you remember a person named Bosko Dzolic, who was the
19 commander of the military police in Knin up until the 12th of August?
20 A. I'm not familiar with his name.
21 Q. You said also in your Defence statement that you didn't see the
22 military police in attendance at the meetings that General Cermak held in
23 his office. Is that right? Do I understand your evidence correctly?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Now, the Chamber has received a substantial amount of evidence
1 regarding the people who attended these meetings with General Cermak.
2 And other participants at those meetings have given evidence that the
3 military police were, in fact, present at those meetings. And these
4 include Mr. Dzolic, who was, before Mr. Orsulic, the military police
5 commander in Knin, who testified that he attended three regular briefings
6 that General Cermak held at about 10.00 in the morning in his office
7 building; Mr. Dondo also testified that representatives of the military
8 police attended meetings that General Cermak held in the morning; and
9 General Cermak has given statements to the Prosecution in which he sated
10 that he had meetings in his office with the military police and the
11 civilian police.
12 Do you think you might be mistaken about whether the military
13 police were present at morning meetings in General Cermak's office?
14 A. I cannot state that they were or were not in attendance. But
15 what I can confirm, and I do once more, that members of the military
16 police were not present at the meetings that I attended.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm about to move to another topic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we should adjourn.
20 Before which do so, Ms. Gustafson, the completeness of the
21 exchanges between Mr. Cermak and Mr. Dondo, could you inform the --
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, I am informed that it is P2526, which is the
23 exhibit that contains those exchanges, is in fact complete. It includes
24 everything, every exchange that was in the interview. And we can arrange
25 with the --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. P2526. These are the --
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, that's the interview itself, Ms. Gustafson.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm misreading my note.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: But it is everything that been translated from
7 that interview on to the additional document.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So the English transcript of the exchanges between
9 Mr. Cermak and Mr. Dondo completely reflect whatever was said between
10 them as transcribed in B/C/S and -- as audible? Then we do not need any
11 further discussion.
12 Then you are -- the Prosecution is invited to insert in P2526
13 references to the exchanges transcribed in this new document, so that we
14 would clearly see where the exchange is to be located in time; then to
15 attach those transcripts to P2526; and then to upload this new version to
16 be admitted into evidence as a replacement of P2526 as it is now
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, we will do that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Then we adjourn.
21 Mr. Pasic, I give you the same instructions as I did yesterday.
22 Can you hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I can.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That you should not speak - and there's a whole
25 weekend not to speak with anyone about your testimony, whether already
1 given yesterday or today or still to be given next week - not to speak
2 with anyone about your testimony, and we'd like to see you back, Monday,
3 9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom I, because we'll adjourn and we will
4 resume at -- on Monday, the 12th of October, 9.00, Courtroom I.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.
6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 12th day of
7 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.