1 Tuesday, 3 November 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that there was a scheduling issue to be
12 raised, I think by the Prosecution.
13 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
14 We have -- I have discussed with -- with the Defence with
15 Mr. Cayley, who I see who is not here, and with Mr. Mikulicic and
16 Mr. Kehoe, and the possibility of having an extra session next week in
17 light of other plans that are already scheduled, and in light of the
18 schedule, obviously we understand that it's no one's fault, but the
19 schedule's slipping and that the next witness, with the last witness, we
20 wanted to see if there was a way that we could complete his testimony by
21 Wednesday afternoon, and the parties had agreed to have an extra session
22 next week. Just for the sake of transparency, I also had a conversation
23 with the Chamber's legal officer on that issue, and he informed me that
24 there might be a problem with the proposed date of next week, and that's
25 why I wanted to raise the issue with Chamber and see if there was a way,
1 either this week or next week, with the parties' agreement, of course, if
2 we could have at least one extra sitting to ensure that we can have the
3 last -- the next witness complete his testimony by next Wednesday. As he
4 is the last witness, it is also not possible to push him further, so that
5 was the issue that we wanted to raise.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.
7 I think the swap on the 11th from afternoon to morning has been
8 agreed upon and does not meet any objection by the Chamber.
9 Monday, the 9th, and Tuesday, the 10th, to sit the whole day
10 certainly causes some problems. If I just speak for myself at this
11 moment, Tuesday, the 10th, the Rules Committee meets and I'm a bit
12 hesitant to ask all the member of the Rules Committee to find a new date.
13 So on from 11.00 in the morning there would be no problem, but
14 then it is a matter to arrange additional time. On Monday, in the
15 afternoon, my agenda is not empty, let me tell you this. To what extent
16 this can be changed is still to be seen.
17 I suggest that we give the information, as far as other
18 commitments of members of the Chamber, so that we can work to see where
19 time could be gained, together with the Registrar, and the Chamber is
20 certainly not unwilling to cooperate.
21 At the same time, looking at the assessment of time needed, even
22 if we would gain some time, it still might be a rather tight schedule
23 anyhow. So, therefore, the Chamber is willing to accommodate, to the --
24 to the extent possible. At the same time, it's to some extent also in
25 the hands of the parties to conduct the examination-in-chief and
1 cross-examination in such a way that we could finish by Wednesday, the
3 Have you considered one afternoon session on the 11th or ... in
4 the afternoon? One small session --
5 MR. HEDARALY: We could have one session in the afternoon,
6 Your Honour, until maybe 4.00 in the afternoon it would be possible.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If would you include that in exploring all the
8 possibilities, then let's see whether we can achieve the result you wish.
9 MR. HEDARALY: We're very grateful to the Chamber and to the
10 parties for their cooperation on that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then, Mr. Mikulicic, I do understand that
12 even if we would finish on the 11th, that the commencement of the
13 presentation of the Markac Defence would start on the 16th of November.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, on Monday, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: All the preparation has been done in -- according
17 to that schedule.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear further and we'll inform all
19 interested parties, provide them with the information they need to make a
20 new schedule.
21 Then, Ms. Higgins, is the Cermak Defence ready to call its next
22 witness --
23 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- which is an expert witness.
25 MS. HIGGINS: Mr. Christopher Albiston.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston.
2 Mr. Usher.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Albiston.
5 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you
7 make a solemn declaration before you give testimony in this courtroom.
8 And, Mr. Albiston, the text is now handed out to you by the usher.
9 May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Albiston.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston, you will first be examined by
15 Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER ALBISTON
19 Examination by Ms. Higgins:
20 Q. Could you please, first of all, state your full name for the
22 A. My name is Christopher Charles Kennedy Albiston.
23 Q. Thank you. I would like to start by calling up your report --
24 MS. HIGGINS: The public version, please, which is 2D00768.
25 Q. Mr. Albiston, while that is coming up, I hope the operations of
1 the screens have been explained to you, and if there's any problem please
2 just indicate and we'll try and deal with it.
3 A. Yes. Thank you, sir.
4 Q. If you could have a look on the screen, and you see there the
5 first page of a report that you submitted in August 2009, which was filed
6 with the Chamber on the 10th of September, 2009. Is it right that during
7 the course of last week, you prepared a short one-page corrigendum to
8 your report, to deal with some errors which you identified to this report
9 which is before us on the screen?
10 A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
11 MS. HIGGINS: I'd like then to call up the corrigendum, please,
12 so that we have it before us, which is 2D00788.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Albiston, while that document is coming up onto the
14 screen, just to put it into context, this is a one-page corrigenda, and
15 it refers to corrections that you have made in the text which we've just
16 seen. Is that right?
17 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston, you are addressing Ms. Higgins for the
19 second time as sir. I make similar mistakes now and then, but she --
20 THE WITNESS: Forgive me, Your Honour. In the jurisdiction in
21 which I'm used to operating, we're always told to address the Bench
22 rather than counsel, but I will adopt to the local procedure, of course.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have -- it's good, therefore, that I raised
24 the matter so that I understand. In this court it is quite common to
25 address the examining counsel, and we have no problems in that. And if
1 you would like to address the Court, now you have a problem, because
2 there are two men and one woman, so "sir" would not do, "sirs" would not
3 do, so perhaps it is an easy way out to address --
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- and I appreciate that you are used to your own
6 jurisdiction, and that's the problem everyone in this courtroom has
7 already for some 13, 14 years. Thank you.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. HIGGINS:
10 Q. Subject to the corrections which you set out in this document,
11 does the content of the report that we saw on the screen accurately
12 reflect your opinions and conclusions on the subject of the role of
13 police and relationship with Knin garrison commander.
14 A. Yes, it does.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I'd like to tender the public version
17 of the report, which I mentioned is 2D00768; also the confidential
18 version of the report, which is 2D00762, for the record; and,
19 furthermore, so that it makes sense, the corrigendum which is 2D00788.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: There's no objection, Your Honour.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins, in order to avoid that we have
23 documents in evidence which do not add anything to other documents we
24 have in evidence, the Chamber prefers to have the confidential version to
25 be admitted into evidence, and then the public version could be filed as
1 a document so that this -- so that it is accessible to the public, but
2 that it's not evidence, only the confidential versions of these documents
3 to be in evidence.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the report, which is 2D00762,
6 becomes Exhibit D1776, under seal. And the corrigendum, which is
7 2D00788, becomes Exhibit D1777.
8 JUDGE ORIE: D1776 and D1777 are admitted into evidence. And the
9 Cermak Defence is invited to file a public version of these documents.
10 Please proceed.
11 MS. HIGGINS: I'm grateful.
12 Q. Mr. Albiston, in addition to the report and the corrigendum, is
13 it right that on Friday last week, you also prepared or, rather, during
14 the course of last week you also prepared an additional note which was
15 circulated to the Chamber and to the parties?
16 A. That's correct, ma'am, yes.
17 Q. Could you explain briefly why it was that you prepared the note,
18 and then outline the nature of its contents.
19 A. Yes. The -- the note expands upon the section in my report which
20 deals with the methodology of the preparation of the report, and the
21 purpose of the additional note is to provide further transparency,
22 further clarity to the Chamber on the way in which the report was
24 Q. Thank you. And it's not beyond dispute that it also contains a
25 paragraph dealing with other issues arising from your curriculum vitae?
1 A. Yes, there's a -- I beg your pardon. There's an update on my CV
2 as well, yes.
3 Q. I'd like to start, before we go to the main report, by looking at
4 what is Appendix 1?
5 MS. HIGGINS: We have no need to pull it up onto the screen.
6 Q. I should say at the outset that I understand that you have a copy
7 of the report before you, which is un-annotated. Is that right? In hard
9 A. Yes, I have a paper copy here which is straight out of the
10 machine, yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Do you also have two binders of documents which
12 reflect the hard-copy content of your report?
13 A. Well, they were here in the building this morning, but I look in
14 vain for them now, I'm afraid.
15 MS. HIGGINS: Those can be provided to the witness, unless
16 there's any objection.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 MS. HIGGINS:
19 Q. I'd like to start firstly with your CV and your experience as a
20 police officer.
21 MS. HIGGINS: And, Your Honour, for the purposes of the Bench, I
22 have discussed with Ms. Gustafson and it's appropriate that I lead this
23 part of the evidence. If the Bench is satisfied.
24 I'm grateful.
25 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Albiston, that after having served as a police
1 officer in the UK
2 you then since worked for a period of six years as a consultant in
3 matters of policing, security, and intelligence?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Now, you began your career in 1975 with the London Metropolitan
6 Police force and effectively worked your way up through the ranks, until
7 in 1989, as I understand, you were transferred to the Royal Ulster
8 Constabulary in Northern Ireland. Is that right?
9 A. That's correct, ma'am, yes.
10 Q. You have held various positions within the Royal Ulster
11 Constabulary, including chief inspector, superintendent and chief
12 superintendent until, in 1998, when you were appointed assistant chief
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Now when you were first appointed assistant chief constable in
16 the Royal Ulster Constabulary, could you expand upon what your initial
17 duties were at that stage?
18 A. Yes, ma'am. My first appointment was as the assistant chief
19 constable responsible for a headquarters department called management
20 support. That meant that I was responsible for all force policy,
21 performance, research, communications, information technology, and
22 various bits of a large organisation which didn't seem to fit anywhere
24 Q. When did those duties change and what was the nature of that
1 A. In September 1999, I was given an operational command, which made
2 me the commander of what we called North Region which was an area of
3 Northern Ireland in which I was responsible for all operational policing,
4 the CID
5 Q. Now, in your position as assistant chief constable, is it right
6 that you were responsible for commanding approximately 700 civilian
7 staff, and over 3.000 police officers during a period of continued
8 terrorism, public order problems and major police reform as taken from
9 your CV. Is that right?
10 A. That's absolutely right, yes, ma'am.
11 Q. And during that time, you were based in Belfast in Northern
13 A. My office was in Belfast
14 quite extensive, stretching across the whole of the north and the west of
15 the province.
16 Q. You remained in that position until 2001, when you were seconded
17 to the United Nations as the police commissioner for UNMIK, the United
18 Nations Mission in Kosovo, which involved you commanding
19 4.500 international police officers from, I think, over 52 or around
20 52 different countries. Is that right?
21 A. That's right, ma'am. It fluctuated. It was usually 51 or
22 52 countries that were represented there.
23 Q. And it also involved you developing the local force of
24 approximately 4.500 officers at the time?
25 A. By the time I left Kosovo, the KPS, the Kosovo Police Service,
1 numbered around 4 and a half thousand, yes.
2 Q. Now what was the nature, so that we understand, of your role in
3 Kosovo as the police commissioner? What was your role and
4 responsibilities at that time?
5 A. Well, unusually for a United Nations policing mission, the
6 United Nations police in Kosovo had an operational responsibility. That
7 is to say, they actually delivered day-to-day policing services. It was
8 not a monitoring mission or a training mission or an advisory mission; we
9 were doing the policing work.
10 At the same time, under the provisions of 1244 of 99, that's the
11 United Nations authority, we were developing the local Kosovo police
12 service with the eventual aim that they would replace the United Nations
13 as the operational police for Kosovo.
14 Q. Now after a year serving in that position, you then returned to
16 department in the police service of Northern Ireland where you were
17 responsible, as I understand, for all headquarter crime units and the
18 special branch in Northern Ireland. Is that right?
19 A. That's correct, yes.
20 Q. As an independent consultant thereafter for a period of six
21 years, you have provided advice on policing, security, intelligence, risk
22 management, and security sector reform. Is that correct?
23 A. That's correct, ma'am, yes.
24 Q. And during that time, the contracts that you undertook involved
25 providing consultancy advice on policing matters to the Republic of
2 the Slovenian police service on leadership. Is that right?
3 A. Those are some of the ones I dealt with, yes.
4 Q. And you have also been a consultant within police peacekeeping
5 missions with the United Nations, the EU, and the OSCE?
6 A. Well, I wasn't in the missions. I was providing training to
7 officers preparing for leadership roles in those missions. That was with
8 the police service of the Republic of Slovenia
9 Q. And your consultancy has also extended to the Polish police
10 service, the Slovak Ministry of Interior, the Estonian police service,
11 and the British Home Office?
12 A. That's correct, ma'am, yes.
13 Q. Thank you. During the course of your service as a professional
14 police officer, it's right that you have received honours and awards
15 which include the United Nations Civilian Police Medal in Kosovo 2001?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Officer of the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire,
18 OBE, 2001?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. For services to policing. And Her Majesty The Queen's Golden
21 Jubilee Medal in 2002?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. And the RUC George Cross Service Medal?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Having taken a whirlwind trip through your CV, Mr. Albiston, I
1 would like to now -- again before we come to the meat of the report, I
2 would like to ask you questions on the methodology and the way in which
3 you prepared your report.
4 Could you explain to the Chamber when you were asked to prepare a
5 report in this case and by whom?
6 A. Yes. As a result of a telephone conversation, I had a meeting
7 with senior counsel in a hotel in Belfast in December 2007. Senior
8 counsel being Mr. Kay. And Mr. Kay explained to me, in outline terms
9 because we only had a three-hour meeting, what this case was about. He
10 explained briefly the nature of the indictment in so far as it related to
11 Mr. Ivan Cermak, and he explained briefly the grounds on which it was
12 intended that Mr. Cermak would contest the indictment.
13 Q. And what were you asked to do?
14 A. I was asked to consider assisting the Chamber as an expert
15 witness by examining documents in relation to the case, in particular as
16 they referred to Mr. Cermak's involvement with civilian policing, and to
17 offer an opinion, based on my professional experience, in relation to
18 those documents and to Mr. Cermak's criminal liability in relation to
19 those specific issues.
20 Q. Thank you. Could you describe for us next how it was that you
21 came to be provided with documents for you to consider in preparing your
23 A. Yes. I received a large volume of documents from the Cermak
24 Defence team, some in the form of hard paper copies in folders, and some
25 in the form -- electronic form on discs, which I copied on to my own
1 computer in order to read them.
2 Q. Going into the layout of the report, can explain to us how you
3 decided upon the layout and the presentation of your report, please.
4 A. Well, the -- the form that the report takes now is a result of a
5 changing, a developing process over many months. I read the documents
6 and tried to make sense of them in the sense that I tried to order them
7 in a way which was thematic. To some extent, this was done for me
8 because some of the folders I received might be described as themed
9 folders. Particular groups of documents were in particular folders.
10 With other documents it was more difficult because the sheer mass
11 of the material involved reading documents and trying to decide what, if
12 anything, they referred to that was germane to my particular area of
14 Gradually I started to group the ideas together, and then for the
15 purposes of the report, I thought the best way to address it was to quote
16 from parts of the indictment which were relevant to Mr. Cermak's
17 relationship with civilian policing, and then address directly those
18 issues on the basis of the documents which I had seen.
19 Q. Could you give us an approximation, if you can, of how many
20 documents you reviewed in order to write this report, please.
21 A. Well, it would have to be an approximation. I would say it
22 certainly exceeds 2.000 documents and probably doesn't exceed
23 4.000 documents. But it would be somewhere in that range.
24 Q. Could you explain for us how it was that you came to make your
25 selection for the documents that you refer to in this report?
1 A. Well, I tried to read most of the material that was provided to
2 me. But sometimes I would find groups of documents which clearly all
3 related to similar matters, which would be purely military, for example,
4 and spent less time dealing with those. But I tried to read all the
5 documents which I thought had some bearing on Mr. Cermak's dealings with
6 the civilian police, or civilian policing issues.
7 Q. When did you submit your report to the Cermak Defence?
8 A. The completed report was submitted towards the end of August of
9 this year.
10 Q. Did you submit a draft report?
11 A. Yes, I did. I submitted a draft report in early May of this
13 Q. Are you able to explain how your report differed from your draft?
14 A. Yes. I -- I made a number of changes after the draft was
15 submitted, and I attempted to describe in summary form what these changes
16 were in my additional note to which you referred at the earlier part of
17 this -- this session.
18 In summary, I cut out some bits of the report which, on
19 reflection, may not have been so directly relevant to the areas in which
20 I had expertise, and I tried to shorten and rearrange the report to bring
21 greater focus and to make it more pertinent to the specific matters.
22 Q. And, in fact, some of the detail that you have referred to is
23 contained in the additional note.
24 A. I hope the additional note makes it clear what the basic changes
25 were, yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 Mr. Albiston, did you type this report yourself or did somebody
3 else perform that task?
4 A. I typed it myself.
5 Q. Thank you. Before you concluded writing your report, had you
6 seen any other expert report in this trial?
7 A. Yes, I had. I had seen the report by Mr. Reynaud Theunens.
8 Q. Now there's one matter that I'd like to deal with, with you,
9 which if we begin in the executive summary part of your report, you have
10 the hard copy there, I don't think there's any need to pull it up onto
11 the screen. But to assist my learned friend and the Chamber I'm going to
12 be referring to paragraph 2.5 in your report which is on page 7 of the
13 English, and for the purpose of the defendants, it is on page 7 of the
14 Croatian version.
15 If you can just get that paragraph in front of you.
16 A. Yes, I have it.
17 Q. Now, in paragraph 2.5, you have decided to look at staffing
18 levels within the garrison. I wonder if could you explain for us why you
19 chose to examine that, and you refer in particular to D992, D611, and
20 D33, none of which I'd like to call up at this time.
21 But could you give me your observations on the documents that you
22 reviewed and why it was you decided to look at this issue, please.
23 A. Yes. This was at a very early stage of my research. I was
24 looking at strengths, because one of the matters which I felt I ought to
25 consider was the span or breadth of command exercised by Mr. Cermak. And
1 the documents appear to me to demonstrate that the garrison, the actual
2 unit which Mr. Cermak commanded at the time, was in terms of numerical
3 strength very small, and that the conclusion to be drawn from that was
4 the function which he was exercising was an administrative function
5 rather than an operational command, because 11 people is not -- are not
6 going do achieve very much in operational terms in civilian policing.
7 Q. If we can move on now to the next section of your report, which
8 is on page 9 in the English. It's the section headed: Extent of the
9 garrison commander's authority and responsibility.
10 MS. HIGGINS: Perhaps if we could have D1776, the report, on the
11 screen at this stage, to help us.
12 Q. I'm going to start off -- the section actually runs from
13 paragraph 3.1 through to 3.9. And in paragraphs 3.1, you refer to the
14 service regulations of the armed forces, which is D32. We see that
15 reference there on the screen in front of us, where you've taken note of
16 those particular regulations.
17 It's a document which this Chamber is entirely familiar with, but
18 to assist you, perhaps I could ask that D32 now be brought up onto the
19 screen, please, at page 11 in the English, which is headed the section:
20 Garrison, at paragraph 50.
21 As that document is coming onto the screen, do you recall
22 reviewing the service regulations, Mr. Albiston?
23 A. Certainly, yes, ma'am.
24 Q. Do you also recall reviewing an organisational order regarding
25 work, order and discipline in the garrisons?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 MS. HIGGINS: And for the record that is D34.
3 Q. Just waiting for D32 to come up onto the screen.
4 What I'm going to ask you, Mr. Albiston, is, looking firstly at
5 D32, the provisions relevant to the garrison, and thereafter, the
6 organisational order, which we will look at in due course.
7 I'm interested in what you were able to conclude from your review
8 of these two documents, as to whether or not a garrison commander has any
9 form of command or control over the civilian police, as reflected in
10 these two documents.
11 We're still waiting for, I think, paragraph 50 to come up onto
12 the screen.
13 A. Yes. Well, I can --
14 Q. Do you recall the provisions --
15 A. I can answer your question. The purpose of looking at these two
16 documents was to enable me to assess whether a garrison commander, in
17 this time and this place, had any locus in civilian policing matters. It
18 is clear from the documents that the function of the garrison commander
19 is a military function, and not surprisingly from the language, it's a
20 military appointment. But it would be quite possible for a military
21 appointment or a function of this kind to have some sort of connection
22 with civilian policing, so that is why I examined these two documents
23 with some care, and the Chamber can see the conclusions which -- which I
24 draw from my examination of those documents.
25 Q. We see on the screen the section -- we see on the screen the
1 section starting: "The garrison ..."
2 MS. HIGGINS: And if we can go one page after that.
3 Q. These are the sections that have you looked at IN particular, as
4 I understand, Mr. Albiston.
5 Do you recall those provisions?
6 A. Yes. Yes, I do recall those provisions, yes.
7 Q. I'd like you now to briefly look at D34, please.
8 MS. HIGGINS: If that could be brought onto the screen.
9 Q. It's the organisational order regarding work, order and
10 discipline at garrison HQs, dated the 27th of August, 1993.
11 And it's a document, again, that you cite in your report.
12 As it's coming up, I would like you to pay particular attention,
13 please, to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5.
14 And, again it's the same question: Whether or not this document
15 assisted you in determining whether or not the garrison commander had any
16 role of command or control over the civilian police as reflected in this
17 particular document?
18 Do you recall the document in front of you?
19 A. Yes, I recall this document, and like the previous one, it
20 enabled me to draw a conclusion that the garrison commander does not, in
21 fact, have any function of command and control in relation to the
22 civilian police.
23 Q. Now, this document, D34, continues after the first two pages on
24 the third page to go to instructions on regulating some issues within the
25 jurisdiction of garrison headquarters.
1 MS. HIGGINS: If we could bring up the third page, please, onto
2 the screen.
3 Q. Do you recall this document, Mr. Albiston?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 MS. HIGGINS: If I could ask for the next page to come up,
6 please, paragraph 5.
7 Q. In paragraph 3.10 of your report, Mr. Albiston, which is page 12
8 in the English and the Croatian, you rely on paragraph 5 of the
9 instruction. And, again, from your position as a professional police
10 officer, can you assist us with how this provision is understood by you
11 in terms of defining the garrison commander's relationship with the
12 civilian police, please.
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 The document is quite clear in providing a role for the garrison
15 commander, in relation to cooperation and coordination with the civilian
16 police, not command or control over the civilian police.
17 I read this document as a document which is really describing the
18 functions of a garrison commander in peacetime, and these provisions, I
19 think, are best interpreted in relation to the civilian police as a
20 responsibility to conduct a liaison with the civilian police in order to
21 prevent things like soldiers being rowdy on a Friday night. This is
22 really what this is aimed at.
23 Q. You've referred to -- this document, firstly, refers to the terms
24 of cooperating and coordinating. You have referred also to the terms of
25 command and/or control.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you deal briefly with this in section 3.12 of your report,
3 which again is on page 12 in English and in Croatian.
4 For the purposes of assisting this Chamber, could you briefly
5 outline for us, from your perspective, again, as a professional police
6 officer, the meaning, as you understand those terms, on the one hand,
7 coordination and cooperation; on the other hand, command and control,
9 A. Yes, certainly.
10 For the police, command and control indicates a responsibility so
11 that command is a function of an individual, an individual who gives
12 orders, directions, sets policy, provides leadership, and who expects, in
13 return, that those orders should be followed and obeyed. He expects
14 reports back on the way in which the commands have been carried out.
15 Control nowadays is very often used to refer to the mechanisms,
16 if I can put it that way, by which command is exercised. And, in
17 particular, police and to some extent soldiers talk about command and
18 control and think about control rooms with banks of computer screens
19 and -- and telecommunications equipment and this sort of thing, but
20 control can also be the chain of command through which orders are passed
21 down, and reports and responses are passed back.
22 So command and control are terms with different meanings but
23 which are both common to a hierarchical system of instructions and
25 Cooperation and coordination are very different. Cooperation in
1 the civilian policing context can be understood in the ordinary use of
2 the word "cooperation." It's different groups coming together for a
3 common purpose. It may be different organisations coming together for a
4 common purpose, and the organisations may not have overall shared
5 agendas, but in relation to the matters on which they cooperate, they do
6 find common ground.
7 Coordination, particularly in policing and military terms, is not
8 just the ordinary use of the noun to do things together and to avoid
9 duplication, but in policing and military circles it has the additional
10 connotation of trying to avoid what, in some places, is referred to as a
11 blue-on-blue incident. In other words, the compromise of an operation,
12 because different elements who are expected to cooperate together have
13 not communicated properly. They have not established their different
14 area of responsibilities properly and so on. So that would be
15 coordination in a policing sense.
16 Q. Another tranche of evidence that you review, or documentation,
17 refers to the structure of the Ministry of the Interior, and you deal
18 with that in the next section on page 13 which is entitled: Police
19 Structures and the Croatian Ministry of the Interior.
20 In that section, again, to summarise, you refer to documents
21 which include the Law on Internal Affairs, D1077; the Law on Amendments
22 to the Law on Internal Affairs, P1148; the Constitution of the Republic
23 of Croatia
24 Operation of the Ministry of Interior, 65 ter 6104; and the Decree on
25 Seats and Areas of Police Administrations, D443.
1 You also include a document - which I'd like to have on the
2 screen, please - which is P6 -- sorry, P962, which is a document
3 exhibited in this trial, showing the organigram effectively of the
4 Ministry of Interior in Croatia
5 Now having conducted the review as you have, as that document is
6 coming onto your screen, from paragraphs 3.15 in your report through to
7 3.23, you have considered the bare bones and the documentation that go to
8 those bones of the structure from the level, as we see on the screen, of
9 the minister of the interior, to the assistant ministers, the chiefs of
10 sectors, the police administrations, and the police stations.
11 Now, Mr. Albiston, at the end of your section which deals with
12 the Ministry of the Interior, you make the conclusion that the garrison
13 commander had no role to play within the structure of the Ministry of the
14 Interior, and that conclusion is in paragraph 3.19 of your report.
15 Do you recall this section of the report?
16 A. Yes, certainly. The previous section, I looked at the role of
17 the garrison commander to see whether there was any connection between
18 that function and civilian policing; and in this section, I looked at the
19 other side of the equation, the Ministry of the Interior and the civilian
20 policing, to see whether there was any locus within that structure for
21 the garrison commander. And after examining these documents carefully,
22 both in terms of the structures, the organigrams and so on, as well as
23 looking at the named individuals, there was no mention of a garrison
24 commander in any of these Ministry of the Interior and civilian policing
25 structures, and there's no mention of General Cermak.
1 Q. Now, in examining the particularities of the Ministry of the
2 Interior within Croatia
3 administrations; for example, the Kotar-Knin police administration and
4 the Zadar-Knin police administration.
5 Do you recall that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 MS. HIGGINS: Could I please have on the screen D442.
8 Q. Now what's coming up, Mr. Albiston, is a map which has been
9 exhibited, entitled: The area of the municipalities of Kotar district
10 Knin police administration. And I'd like you to look at this map, and a
11 second map in turn, because one of the conclusions that you reach, or one
12 of your observations in paragraph 3.19 of your report is the following.
13 MS. HIGGINS: And that is on page 15 for everybody's purpose.
14 Q. It should be noted that territorially, much of the Knin-Kotar
15 police administration lay outside the Knin garrison command.
16 Now, firstly I'd like you to look at this map so that we
17 understand the different geographical layouts. And if you could give me
18 your observations on this map first, please, in terms of the garrison and
19 the conclusion that you made.
20 A. Yes. The garrison area tends to be a relatively small part of
21 the shaded area down to the -- to the south and east of the shaded area
22 of the map, or the bottom right-hand side, for those who don't like south
23 and east orientations.
24 Significantly, more than half the shaded area is outside the Knin
25 garrison area.
1 Now, one of the implications of that, for those from a police or
2 military background, is the concept of the territorial area of
3 responsibility, and I'm sure the Chamber will be aware that if they go
4 into a -- a policeman's office or a soldiers barracks, they're likely to
5 see maps on the walls. This is quite a common feature, and that is
6 because as policemen, certainly, I can't speak for the military, but as
7 police officers we're very concerned about maps and where our
8 responsibility starts and finishes. And I drew attention of the Chamber
9 in my report to the fact that the Knin garrison area is, by no means,
10 coterminous with the Kotar-Knin police administration area.
11 Q. Now I'd like to see if we can assist you further by pulling onto
12 the screen, please, 2D00789.
13 MS. HIGGINS: And for the purposes of my learned friend and the
14 Chamber, what is coming up is a map that has been prepared by the Zagreb
15 Cermak Defence team, which Mr. Albiston had a chance to review yesterday.
16 We hope that it will be of some assistance to the Chamber as it contains
17 ten-kilometre buffer zones, so it is an easier reckoner in terms of the
18 distance that apply throughout the administrations.
19 Q. Mr. Albiston, could you take a look at this map, please, which,
20 as can you see, indicates Knin as a town, the municipalities are named
21 surrounding Knin; Kotar-Knin police administration, with the number of
22 kilometres calculated; and also Zadar-Knin police administration.
23 Now, what observations do you have, from your perspective again
24 as a professional police officer, in terms of the areas that we're
25 looking at here, please.
1 A. Well, I think the first observation to make is that the
2 geographical area covered by the Kotar-Knin police administration is
3 large. The distance from the town of Knin
4 north of the police administration area is up to 100 kilometres. And
5 this, from a policing perspective, presents certain difficulties, in
6 terms of covering areas effectively.
7 From a uniform policing point of view, the difficulties are the
8 sheer size of the area, so that in order to maintain a visible uniform
9 police presence and to carry out effective patrolling, the number of
10 officers required would be quite considerable, because of the area, the
11 length of the road, the distances to travel, the number of potential road
12 crossing points, and so on.
13 Additionally, from the policing perspective, if we look at the
14 criminal investigation side of policing responsibilities, distances to be
15 travelled can impact on the quality of criminal investigations. And I
16 mention that because if we look at the map that's on the screen now, we
17 can see that for some parts of the Kotar-Knin police administration area,
18 the distance from the town of Knin
19 Zadar is probably not significantly different, if you look, for example,
20 at the areas in the far north.
21 If, however, you look at the areas of the greater population
22 concentration within the Zadar-Knin police administration, you will see
23 that for most of those areas Zadar is significantly further away than the
24 town of Knin itself.
25 Now, that is not surprising. But the difficulty that this
1 creates is that my examination of the documents suggests that the -- for
2 the main part, the resources of the criminal investigation department, or
3 the crime police of the civilian police, were centred on Zadar, and that,
4 with the exception of an individual gentleman called Mr. Krvavica and
5 subsequently five additional officials, the centre from which crime
6 police officers would operate in relation to serious crimes committed in
7 the Kotar-Knin police administration was, in fact, Zadar. And there are
8 reasons why I think this would be problematic.
9 Firstly, there is the traditional problem that police from
10 outside an area have less of a feel for the population with which they're
11 dealing. Sometimes that doesn't matter; sometimes it does. Sometimes
12 police are able to get more information or understand more effectively
13 the information which they do receive, if they have a greater contact, a
14 greater level of understanding of the local community. So distance would
15 be a problem there.
16 But distance is also a problem from the technical perspective of
17 a modern crime investigation. There are problems with not getting to a
18 scene quickly, in relation to potential forensic evidence. If you don't
19 get to a crime scene quickly, you may not see the crime scene in the
20 condition in which it was when the crime took place. Obviously the
21 sooner you get there, the more like the scene at the time of the crime
22 you will see.
23 This is useful, for example, for obtaining photography of crime
24 scenes. It is useful for gauging what the light conditions were or what
25 the weather conditions were at the time of a major crime. It's useful
1 for the apprehension of offenders. It may seem an obvious point, but the
2 longer you take to get to the crime scene, the more opportunity offenders
3 have to escape. But it goes more -- more deeper than that, because the
4 longer it takes you to get to a crime scene with your team of
5 investigators, the less chance of getting witnesses who were present at
6 the time of the events.
7 You may not be able to be so precise about when the incident did
8 occur, if you takes you a long time to get to the crime scene.
9 So there are all sorts of reasons why I thought it worth
10 mentioning in my report that whilst we have the existence of the
11 Kotar-Knin police administration set up under the laws of the Republic of
13 special legislation on the protection of minorities, there was, in my
14 view, as police officer, a disadvantage in having resources for criminal
15 investigation for serious crime centred outside the police administration
16 area itself.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Albiston.
18 In fact you deal with that --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
20 MS. HIGGINS: Sorry, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one clarifying question.
22 Mr. Albiston - and I'm referring to page 26, line 3 and
23 following - you said:
24 "If, however, you look at the areas of the greater population
25 concentration within the Zadar-Knin police administration, you will see
1 that for most of those areas Zadar is significantly further away than the
2 town of Knin itself."
3 What did you consider to be the greater population concentration?
4 Could you just explain on the basis of this map, point at a certain place
5 of greater population concentration, where we would see that Zadar is
6 significantly further away than the town of Knin itself.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President. I appreciate that the map is
8 not marked according to population density. But I have seen other maps
9 which have towns with marks on the towns to show the size of the
10 population. And my recollection is that if you look at the map which is
11 currently displayed, you will see that there is a pale yellow colour
12 which indicates a lowland or valley, and my recollection is that there
13 were more -- there was a greater concentration of population in those
14 areas than in the darker shaded areas which represent hilly or
15 mountainous terrain.
16 So what -- the point that I was making was that in the north of
17 the Kotar-Knin police administration, probably the distances between
18 individual villages and the town of Knin or individual villages and the
19 town of Zadar is not significant, but in the southern part of the
20 Kotar-Knin police administration area, it becomes apparent that Knin is
21 closer to those population centres.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, in your answer you referred to the
23 Zadar-Knin police administration, which I expected to be the blue part of
24 this map. The examples you are now giving are about the Kotar-Knin.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, precisely.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you referring to areas of greater
2 population in the area we find described as the Kotar-Knin police
3 administration on this map?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. President, if I didn't make
5 clear, I was referring only in my answer about population to the
6 Kotar-Knin administration area in yellow on this map.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: And not the blue area of Zadar-Knin.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That was unclear to me.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You used the expression Zadar-Knin police
12 administration and we were looking at this map.
13 THE WITNESS: Ah, well, then I apologise for my mistake.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Please proceed --
16 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- Ms. Higgins.
18 MS. HIGGINS:
19 Q. Is there a term that are you familiar with or that you use to
20 refer to the time immediately after a crime has been committed?
21 A. Yes. In some policing circles in the English-speaking world, the
22 expression "golden hour" is used and that is particularly a reference to
23 apprehension of offenders, the collection or identification of witnesses,
24 and specifically the opportunities to capture forensic material at a
25 crime scene.
1 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this map. I
2 understand that it was provided to Ms. Gustafson, I think, yesterday. Of
3 course, she may need some time to verify that.
4 But I would seek to tend it. Thank you.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could just have a day or so to compare it
6 with our information. Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you assign an MFI number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1778,
9 marked for identification.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 MS. HIGGINS:
12 Q. Now if we proceed through your report, I'm going to be dealing
13 with page 19 next, and paragraph 3.33 --
14 MS. HIGGINS: Which for everyone's purposes is, in fact, still
15 page 19 in the Croatian version as well.
16 Q. In this section --
17 MS. HIGGINS: And could I ask for D589 to be brought up onto the
18 screen, please.
19 Q. In this section of your report, you draw conclusions about the
20 position of the higher echelons of the police towards Mr. Cermak, and you
21 rely upon a report prepared by Senior Police Coordinator Tomurad for the
22 attention of Assistant Minister Moric, dated the 28th of August, 1995
23 A. Yes, ma'am.
24 Q. You see on the screen there, the front page of the document,
25 dated the 28th of August, and the part that you rely on in your report
1 is, in fact, found on page 2 of that document. And it's at the bottom in
2 the English, which begins:
3 "I also deem it necessary to achieve an agreement ..."
4 Do you see that part of the text?
5 A. Yes. Yes, I recall this one.
6 Q. Now, I would like to ask you if you can explain, please, in
7 further detail why it is that you attribute importance to this document
8 in revealing the relationship between the higher echelons of the MUP, as
9 you refer to them, and Mr. Cermak, in terms of the relationship of
11 A. Yes, ma'am. I think this document is particularly significant
12 for two reasons. One reason is that having examined many, many
13 documents, internal documents in the Ministry of the Interior, and in
14 civilian policing, without finding any reference whatsoever to
15 General Cermak or the garrison commander, I now have this document which
16 talks about issues relating to civilian policing, and it does mention
17 General Cermak. And what it says is, as you quoted, that it would be
18 useful for representatives to be in Mr. Cermak's meetings. And to me the
19 significance of that is that if General Cermak, as garrison commander,
20 featured in any way in the Ministry of the Interior or civilian policing
21 hierarchy, surely there would be no need to ask for civilian police
22 officers to be present in meetings which he chaired.
23 Q. Now, you go on, leaving this document aside, to refer to other
24 documents in paragraphs 3.34, 3.35, and 3.36 of your report, which are
25 pages 19 to 20, where you conclude that Mr. Cermak did not have legal
1 authority over the police, having reviewed both MUP documents, in the
2 preparation of your report, and the testimony of several witnesses, which
3 you cite in your report, and I'm not going to take you through all of
4 those documents. But I do have this question for you, Mr. Albiston,
5 which is in fact the reverse, the opposite of what you have been doing.
6 If Mr. Cermak was in command and/or control of the civilian
7 police, what would you have expected to have seen within the MUP
8 documentation which you reviewed, given your experience in numerous
9 policing systems to have shown that?
10 A. Well, I would expect General Cermak's name to appear on a
11 significant array of documents of different types. For example, I would
12 expect to see his name on instructions, policy documents, orders going
13 out to the civilian police. I would expect to see his name on orders
14 transferring or appointing senior police officers. I would expect to see
15 his name on reports going up the Ministry of the Interior chain of
16 command for the information of senior personnel in Zagreb.
17 There are many documents in which I would expect to find his
18 name, but I didn't.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Albiston, just going back to the previous document which
20 we looked at, which is still on your screen, this is D589, which reads --
21 in your answer that you gave to us, you stated:
22 "And to me the significance of that is if General Cermak, as
23 garrison commander, featured any way in the Ministry of Interior or
24 civilian policing hierarchy, surely there would be no need to ask for
25 civilian police officers to be present in meetings which he chaired."
1 If we go back to look at the text of that, it refers to
2 General Cermak holding meetings with UNCRO, UNCIVPOL and other
3 international organisations in Knin. It doesn't to refer to him chairing
4 meetings. It refers to the police wanting to be present at the meetings
5 which he held.
6 Could you assist me with the statement that you made?
7 A. Well, I am aware that --
8 Q. Just to clarify --
9 A. I'm aware that he held meetings. If he held meetings, it may be
10 an assumption or it may be a correct assumption to say that he chaired
11 the meetings which he held. But I accept that, on this particular
12 script, the words are "meetings that General Cermak holds with members of
13 the UN mission."
14 It's a recognition of his international liaison function.
15 Q. Now, I'd like to take you on to page 21 of your report, please,
16 and the section which is headed: The garrison commander's relationship
17 with the civilian police, just to explore there further.
18 At the start of that section you examine the allegation contained
19 in paragraph 19 of the indictment, which is set out at the top of the
20 page, referring to Mr. Cermak directing, facilitating, supporting, and
21 issuing orders to elements and/or members of the HV and RH MUP, including
22 the military and civilian police.
23 Do you recall that allegation that you have reviewed?
24 A. Yes, certainly.
25 Q. Now, the conclusion that you make differs from that conclusion,
1 or rather, differs from the indictment that we see at the top of the
3 In your section of the opinion and your report, you conclude that
4 the relationship that Mr. Cermak had with the civilian police was one of
5 cooperation. And I'd like to examine that a little bit further and why
6 it is you come to that conclusion.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. There's a document that I would like you to look at which is a
9 document under seal.
10 MS. HIGGINS: So if could not be brought up onto the public
11 monitors. It's D487, please.
12 Q. And it's a document which you cite, Mr. Albiston, at
13 paragraph 3.38, page 21 in Croatian. And it will come up on your screen
14 to assist you.
15 A. All right.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins, we can safely deal with this document
17 without going into private session?
18 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, my estimation is that we can.
19 Mr. Albiston is aware of the meaning of under seal documents and I hope
20 that he will be able to deal with that appropriately. Yes, is my answer.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then please proceed.
22 MS. HIGGINS:
23 Q. Mr. Albiston, do you recall this document?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Given the proviso that I have stated that this document is under
1 seal, and if there's any moment where you feel further explanation would
2 be needed, please tell me so that we can go into private session.
3 Could you explain, please, the basis of why it is you rely on
4 this document to explain the relationship between Mr. Cermak and the
5 civilian police, as one of cooperation?
6 A. Yes. This -- this document is providing information to
7 General Cermak. The local police chief has provided this information in
8 relation to a crime matter. But he hasn't responded to an order down a
9 chain of command. The introductory paragraph states:
10 "On the basis of your verbal request for a statement ..."
11 To me, as a police officer, senior police officers may make
12 verbal requests to junior police officers, but they wouldn't see that
13 request described as a verbal request in a written document which came by
14 way of reply.
15 This is indicative of someone from outside a hierarchy, seeking
16 the assistance of someone who is inside the hierarchy. And it goes on to
18 "... a verbal request which was made to you by international
19 institutions ..."
20 And I think from that we are entitled to conclude that the author
21 of this document is saying to General Cermak, Well, look, I understand
22 that you have a liaison function with the internationals, and you've
23 asked me for some information in relation to a crime matter because those
24 internationals have made a request to you, so here is some basic
1 And furthermore, if we look at the final paragraph, we see that
2 the police chief is saying, And by the way, I haven't got authority to
3 give you some information in relation to other matters. Now, I have
4 worked in different areas of policing, and I have worked in areas in
5 which information, shall we say, is restricted, and sometimes there are
6 caveats put on information that it cannot be transmitted without special
7 authority, but that has never applied in an upwards direction in a direct
8 hierarchical situation. There is not a situation in policing where you
9 cannot tell your immediate superior some information because he is not
10 entitled to know it or that you don't have authority to give that
11 information to that individual. That does not take place in a police
13 So I think, if you look at the totality of the two points from
14 the first paragraph and the final paragraph, the conclusion that you have
15 to draw from this document is that General Cermak was not within the
16 civilian police -- policing hierarchy, and that the author of this
17 document certainly did not believe him to be so.
18 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I'm going to be moving to another
19 document. I don't know whether it's an appropriate time for a break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It is, Ms. Higgins.
21 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins, when I invited the Cermak Defence to
25 file the public version of the report, you were kind enough not to tell
1 me that I had forgotten that it was filed already.
2 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, there is no need to do that, and
4 apologies for the mistake.
5 MS. HIGGINS: I have a note to remind myself to the same effect
6 so ... it's on the record. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MS. HIGGINS:
9 Q. Now, Mr. Albiston, we left just before the break looking at your
10 conclusions in terms of the relationship of cooperation between
11 Mr. Cermak and the civilian police. And I want to look at some of the
12 other documents that you rely on in support.
13 MS. HIGGINS: Could I ask that document P2649 be brought onto the
14 screen, please.
15 Q. One of the platforms of documentation that you rely on in making
16 that conclusion is the document that Mr. Cermak was receiving from the
17 police. And I'd like to take now -- look now at the documents in turn,
18 three of them. The first which is coming on to the screen, P2649, and
19 this is a document from Ivica Cetina, dated the 10th of October, 1995
20 the Knin garrison headquarters, attention General Cermak.
21 Do you recall this document that you relied on, Mr. Albiston?
22 A. Yes, I do, ma'am.
23 Q. Could you tell me why you relied on it in support of your
25 A. Yes, ma'am. If we examine the document, we see that it refers to
1 a number of incidents in which the civilian police have been involved,
2 and the information regarding these incidents is coming from Mr. Cetina,
3 a police -- civilian police chief, and the memorandum is addressed to the
4 Knin garrison for the attention of General Cermak. And I think it is
5 particularly worth noting, the first line of the first paragraph which
6 explains the circumstances under which Mr. Cetina, from within the
7 civilian policing hierarchy, is providing information to General Cermak,
8 who is not, in my submission, within the civilian police hierarchy. And
9 that is that the -- the communication says:
10 "In reply to the request of the International Red Cross
11 organisation for submission of data on ... incidents that occurred in the
12 area of Knin ..."
13 So my conclusion is that this document reinforces the view that
14 the civilian police recognised that General Cermak had a role in relation
15 to the international community, in this case, the ICRC, and that they
16 were assisting General Cermak to carry out his role by providing
17 information which that international body had requested.
18 Q. Thank you. The next document in turn that you rely on is P2650,
19 and that is a document which is dated the 11th of October, again, sent to
20 the Knin garrison for General Cermak, signed by Chief Cetina, we can see,
21 on the Croatian version there at the bottom. And again, it's a document
22 that you rely on to support your conclusion, Mr. Albiston.
23 If we take a look firstly at the first page, do you recognise
24 that document?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. And if we just scan, please, to the second page so that you've
2 seen it.
3 MS. HIGGINS: And back to the first page.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Albiston, again, same question: Could you assist me as
5 to why it is you have relied on this document, please?
6 A. Yes. Yes, well, I think we can see by looking at a combination
7 of the English translation and the original document that this, as you
8 say, from Chief Cetina, and it's information being supplied again to the
9 Knin garrison for the information of the garrison commander,
10 General Cermak. And it amounts to very brief rehearsal of information,
11 in relation to the killing of three people, and informs the General that
12 the correct investigative and judicial procedure has been initiated.
13 MS. HIGGINS: And onto the third document in line, please, which
14 is 2645, P2645.
15 Q. This is an document dated the 21st of October, 1995, coming from
16 Zvonko Gambiroza, station commander, and it's to the attention there to
17 various police divisions and authorities. And also you see Knin command
18 post headquarters, attention of General Cermak.
19 The front page is on the screen before you. And it's a subject
20 relating to plaintiff Luka Pasic, criminal act of aggravated theft.
21 MS. HIGGINS: If we could ask for the second page to be put onto
22 the screen, please.
23 Q. Mr. Albiston, in order to assist, this may give you some detail
24 as to help with your recollection of what we're talking about here. You
25 see an outline of the crime itself and the location within the village of
1 Oton Bender. Do you recall that document?
2 A. Yes, I do recall this document, yes.
3 Q. And can you assist again with why it is you've relied upon this
5 A. Well, I have to say at the outset that the provenance of this
6 document is not entirely clear to me, or should I say the purpose of the
7 document is not entirely clear to me. But I think it's interesting
8 because of the large number of recipients and the information which is
9 supplied in it, which, whilst it is not in the format that you might
10 expect for a detailed description of an incident, an investigation being
11 passed between police officers, it nevertheless provides significantly
12 more information than, for example, the previous document, which I was
13 shown just now.
14 The other recipients are police, and it refers to a crime matter.
15 I think what is quite clear is that because of the recipients and the way
16 that the paper is addressed, there's no expectation of any action on the
17 part of General Cermak in response to this document.
18 Q. Mr. Albiston, I'd like to take you on to a point that you make
19 now in paragraph 3.40 of your report, which you will find at page 22 in
20 both the Croatian and the English versions. And it's the point that you
21 make that correspondence initiated by Mr. Cermak with the MUP tended to
22 be in relation to administrative matters, such as accommodation, and did
23 not concern operational policing matters.
24 Do you have that part of the report before you?
25 A. Yes, I see that, ma'am.
1 Q. I would like to you explain, please, the term "operational
2 policing matters" and what it means to you.
3 A. Yes, certainly.
4 It's quite a -- an understood concept within policing circles
5 that there is operational policing, and that there is non-operational or
6 administrative support, and I think the functions are quite distinct and
7 quite well understood by police. So, for example, operational matters
8 would include police patrols, guarding duties, check-points,
9 investigations, public order duties, checks on borders, anything in which
10 the police are doing what only the police can do. Very often in contact
11 with the public. Sometimes in contact with other agencies but certainly
12 designed to achieve policing objectives.
13 Administrative matters are those matters which any large
14 organisation has to engage in, in order to function effectively, and that
15 could include recruitment and selection procedures, training, promotion,
16 internal discipline, policy setting, things like that. That's what I
18 So, for example, if you were sending police officers to carry out
19 a patrol or to set up a check-point, that would be a operational matter.
20 If you were allocated housing or refreshment allowances for police
21 officers, that would be an administrative matter.
22 Q. Now, in the documents that you -- in the documents that you
23 reviewed, and you've told us the extent of that documentation, did you
24 see any documents from or to Mr. Cermak which you would consider to be
25 operational policing matters?
1 A. There were documents which could be said to impact on operational
2 policing matters. In particular, I have in mind in answer to that
3 question, documents concerning missing United Nations vehicles and
4 equipment. The majority of documents which I saw in relation to matters
5 which might impact upon policing which General Cermak was involved in or
6 Ministry of the Interior correspondence, were simply administrative
8 Q. Mr. Albiston, I will be coming on to deal with the UN vehicles so
9 we'll deal with that at a later point.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now you also refer to matters of cooperation within the Ministry
12 of the Interior, between Assistant Minister Moric and Mate Lausic,
13 commander of the VP administration?
14 Do you recall that section?
15 A. Oh, yes.
16 Q. Now, can I take you, please, so you have it before you, to
17 paragraph 3.42 of your report, which you will find on page 23.
18 And, in particular, I'm interested in footnote 75, which provides
19 the base for your conclusions that you make, as to the cooperation
20 between the two bodies.
21 I'd like to pull up a few examples.
22 MS. HIGGINS: If we could start with first, please, D269.
23 Q. And, again, I'm going to ask you why it is you rely and why it is
24 you consider these documents to be relevant in establishing the
25 relationship that existed, firstly, between the civilian police and the
1 military police; and secondly, whether there is anything you would wish
2 to observe in relation to the role of Mr. Cermak.
3 Is that clear, Mr. Albiston?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. HIGGINS: If we turn firstly, then, to D269.
6 Q. And as it is coming up on the screen, again, this is a document
7 dated the 3rd of August, 1995, and it's a document, the subject of which
8 is: Order on the work of the military police, cooperation between joint
9 work of the civilian and military police, and obligations of the military
10 police towards detained members of paramilitary and para-police
12 Does this document look familiar to you?
13 A. Yes, it does.
14 MS. HIGGINS: If we can scan perhaps to the last page of that
15 document. It's a three-page document --
16 Q. So that you've seen the reference there to Mate Lausic and the
17 individuals to whom it was sent to.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And the content of that order is, in fact, referred to on page 2,
20 just again so that you have seen it to refresh your memory --
21 MS. HIGGINS: If that is brought up.
22 Q. So that you can see what was being ordered in respect of that
23 cooperation, Mr. Albiston.
24 A. Yes, I have it, yes.
25 Q. Can you assist me as to why it was you selected this document?
1 A. To me, it indicated the preparations which were being made by the
2 Ministry of Defence, the military police section, for the aftermath of
3 Operation Storm, and the recognition that there would be a need for
4 cooperation between the Ministry of Defence, in the form of the military
5 police, and the Ministry of the Interior, in the form of the civilian
6 police, in order to achieve government objectives in relation to the
7 maintenance of law and order in the area after the military operation.
8 And I think the significance for this Chamber, in relation to
9 General Cermak, is that whilst in many aspects he was regarded as a focal
10 point for cooperation and coordination, when we look at the detail of the
11 operational responsibilities of the civilian police, and, indeed, in this
12 case, the military police, we find no locus for General Cermak or the
13 garrison commander whatsoever. This was an operational matter and he
14 does not appear to have any role in it.
15 Q. Let's look further in time. If we looked now to D46, which takes
16 us to the 10th of August, and it's a document from Josko Moric, the
17 assistant minister of the interior, to Chief Major-General Mate Lausic.
18 And I'd like you to take a look. There are three paragraphs in
19 the document, if you remind yourself of its content, and, again, its
20 significance, please, to your report.
21 A. Yes. This is the -- the other side of the equation, so to speak.
22 Mr. Moric, who was one of the addressees of the previous document, is
23 here sending a communication to his opposite number, and the significance
24 is that it refers to the continuing need for cooperation between the
25 civilian police and the military police. In particular, in this
1 instance, Mr. Moric is addressing two problems. One is that the need for
2 the joint roadblocks and so on, and the other is he is drawing attention
3 to the possibility that persons who are either members of the
4 Croatian Army or at least persons in Croatian Army uniforms are involved
5 in criminal acts, and that under the provisions of the law it would be
6 necessary for the military police to assist the civilian police in
7 dealing with that particular issue. And, of course, although this is a
8 cooperation and coordination issue, because it is operational,
9 General Cermak doesn't feature anywhere in it.
10 Q. The next example from your footnote that I would like you to take
11 a look at, please, is D48. And, again, moving forward in time a week to
12 the 17th of August now, it will be a document from Josko Moric, again,
13 for the attention of Mr. Lausic. It's a two-page document reflecting
14 communication between the two parties.
15 If could you take a look firstly at the front page to
16 refamiliarise yourself. And, again, the same question, Mr. Albiston.
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. HIGGINS: And onto page 2, please.
19 A. Yes. The -- this note, a week after the previous one, rehearses
20 the same concerns and suggests that, in fact, the objectives which were
21 sought to be achieved by the previous letter have not in fact been
22 achieved. And Mr. Moric is exhorting Major-General Lausic to greater
23 efforts by his people to ensure that this cam be improved.
24 Once again, I see no reference to General Cermak.
25 MS. HIGGINS: One final document in the series from that
1 footnote 75, which is D586, please.
2 Q. And, again, we move forward in time, Mr. Albiston, to the
3 22nd of August, correspondence from Josko Moric to Chief Lausic, relating
4 to matters of cooperation between the civilian and the military police at
5 this stage of events.
6 I'm going to ask you to look briefly at the front page to ensure
7 that you recall the document.
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. HIGGINS: And the second page, please.
10 Q. And on the second page, you will see there, second paragraph:
11 "Measures that are proposed in relation to reducing to potential
12 problems through cooperated actions."
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 MS. HIGGINS: And, finally, the third page, please.
16 Q. Where there is reference to the proposal to a meeting to discuss
17 the situation in the field. And this is the last in the series that I
18 will take you to. And it's the same question as before, Mr. Albiston.
19 A. Well, the themes are similar. There's an additional matter which
20 is raised here by the author of the document, which is the concern that
21 demobilisation will lead do what the author calls materiel, weapons,
22 ordnance and such-like, being at liberty in the area and that it's
23 necessary for the civilian police and the military police to cooperate in
24 order to mitigate any difficulties which might arise from that situation,
25 and it calls for a meeting. There were, of course, meetings at all
1 levels between the military police and the civilian police to discuss
2 arrangements for handling these problems, and in none of those meetings
3 and in none of this correspondence is there any reference to the garrison
4 commander, General Cermak.
5 Q. Now following on from these documents, on a similar but related
6 theme, you go on at page 24 of your report to deal with the allegation of
7 the garrison commander as a superior of the civilian police. And I'm
8 interested, in particular, if we start at paragraph 3.47, as part of the
9 review that you undertook for this section, from reading your report, we
10 can see that you looked at the directive governing the internal structure
11 of the Ministry of the Interior, which is D527. Was there anything in
12 that legislation that would support that particular allegation,
13 Mr. Albiston?
14 A. Not at all, nothing.
15 Q. It's a document that you're familiar with --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- so I don't intend do bring it back onto the screen.
18 Now in the following paragraph, 3.48, you observe that documents
19 in this case demonstrate that General Cermak was not within the MUP chain
20 of reporting and command, and in particular the documents in support in
21 footnote 93. And what I'd like to do is to pull up several examples from
22 that reference and to ask you about the nature of the documents that you
23 reviewed --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- and why it is you came to that conclusion.
1 MS. HIGGINS: The first document being, please, D498.
2 Q. And this document is dated the 24th of August, 1995, a document
3 from Chief Cetina to the Ministry of the Interior, assistant minister,
4 and, again, in paragraph two, as it is coming up, there's reference to
5 matters of cooperation. So an internal MUP document.
6 MS. HIGGINS: Sorry, I've made a mistake. Could I ask for P498.
7 My apologies.
8 Q. And, again, if could you just confirm, when it comes on your
9 screen, that it's a document that you recall. And then I'd like your
10 observations, Mr. Albiston, please.
11 A. Yes, I recall --
12 Q. Does that look familiar?
13 A. I recall this document, yes.
14 Q. And if we could go onto page 2, which contains more of the
15 substance of the document itself. And if would you take it from me that
16 it's signed by Ivica Cetina, it's not in dispute, then perhaps you could
17 assist us with why it is you've selected this document, bearing in mind
18 the theme of your chapter here which is the allegation of Mr. Cermak as a
19 superior of the civilian police.
20 A. Well, this document shows the conduct of police operations and it
21 takes the form of a report on progress in a number of matters and gives
22 some information about what the police have actually done. The civilian
23 police, that is. Although it also refers to the cooperation with the
24 military police. But in relation to these matters, the report is going
25 through Ministry of the Interior reporting channels and not to
1 General Cermak.
2 MS. HIGGINS: The next document -- Your Honour, this a document
3 under seal, which is P499. Again I'm confident that it can be dealt with
4 with the witness without going into private session, but for the purpose
5 of the Registry, if could not appear on public screens.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Your cautious approach is appreciated.
7 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MS. HIGGINS:
10 Q. Mr. Albiston, again, with the proviso of an approach of care with
11 this document, could you explain to us the basis of your reasoning for
12 including it in this section.
13 A. Yes, perhaps I could see the second page, please.
14 Yes, again, this is a police document. The author is informing
15 the addressee of the actions taken by the civilian police to address some
16 of the problems which were occurring in his particular area of command,
17 which is within the area which we're discussing today. And it is an
18 internal civilian police, Ministry of the Interior document, which makes
19 no reference to the garrison commander.
20 Q. I'm going to cut short my reliance on other documents and just
21 call up two more which you rely on in this section.
22 MS. HIGGINS: And the first is D573, D573, please.
23 Q. This is a document dated the 24th of August, and it's a document
24 sent by chief of the PU, Drago Matic, to the Ministry of the Interior,
25 reference: As regards your telegram number and reference there to the
1 state of cooperation in paragraph 1, as it comes up before you.
2 Is that a familiar document, Mr. Albiston?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 MS. HIGGINS: And if we could have --
5 Q. So that you have seen it again --
6 MS. HIGGINS: Just the second page, please.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's another document which is consistent
8 with a great many that I reviewed, which show internal police reports
9 going through an internal civilian police reporting structure, as would
10 be expected in a hierarchy, within the Ministry of the Interior. And
11 like so many of these reports, a considerable number that I reviewed,
12 there are elements of cooperation between different state agencies
13 mentioned; for example, cooperation between the Ministry of Defence and
14 the Ministry of the Interior, in relation to the working practices
15 between the civilian police and the military police. But although
16 General Cermak has a coordinating role in this area, he doesn't get a
17 mention. He doesn't get a copy of the documents. And I think the
18 inference, the conclusion which can be drawn from all these documents is
19 that when it comes to operational matters, General Cermak didn't have a
20 role to play.
21 Q. The last document which I'm going to take you to from your
22 footnote is D574, please.
23 And this is a document dated the 30th of August, 1995
24 Josko Moric to the police administrations listed. And in it, he refers
25 to the fact that:
1 "We requested a report on linkage with the military police in
2 order to prevent further torching of houses and illegal taking of movable
3 property from rightful owners."
4 That's on the first page before you.
5 A. Yes, I see that. Thank you.
6 Q. And the second page, please, you see Josko Moric is writing about
7 the responses he received to date.
8 A. Yes, I do, yes.
9 Q. Now, again, this is another document you rely on in the series to
10 support your conclusion that Mr. Cermak was a superior to the civilian
12 A. Certainly. And I think one of the things about this particular
13 document is that in two places there's a hint or suggestion of irritation
14 or at least an indication that Mr. Moric isn't satisfied with the service
15 which is being provided. And you might expect that if General Cermak
16 featured anywhere within the Ministry of the Interior hierarchy, and
17 Mr. Moric, as the assistant minister, were not satisfied with the
18 completeness or timeliness of the reports he were receiving from junior
19 officers within that hierarchy, that he might seek to invoke the
20 assistance of General Cermak. But he doesn't, and he doesn't because
21 General Cermak is not part of this hierarchical structure.
22 Q. Can I take you now to the next page of your report, please, which
23 is page 26 in the English, and page 26 and 27 in the Croatian.
24 And I'm interested in paragraphs 3.50 through to 3.52, where you
25 consider, again within this same section of whether or not Mr. Cermak was
1 a superior to the civilian police, you consider the issue of passes. And
2 I'd like to take you through a series of documents and, again, all of
3 these are referenced in your report, and to seek your observations in
4 respect thereof.
5 MS. HIGGINS: The first document I'd like on the screen, please,
6 is P493.
7 Q. And it's a document which is dated the 3rd of August, 1995
8 Josko Moric to the following police administrations which are listed,
9 headed: Cooperation with military police. I'd like you to read
10 carefully. Point 1 refers to several points of the order. And, in
11 particular, the point about the pass which is mentioned there.
12 Do you see any reference there to the -- to passes --
13 A. Yes, the third bullet point in paragraph 1 refers to passes which
14 have been signed jointly by General Tolj and Colonel Rebic.
15 Q. Yes. And just for the record, it refers to journalists, foreign
16 statesmen and so on can enter the liberated territory through the said
17 check-points in the operations area only by producing a pass, signed
18 jointly by Tolj and Rebic.
19 We're going through this because it becomes relevant to other
20 documents that you referred to, Mr. Albiston.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The next document I would like, please, is D1014.
23 Moving forward in time five days to the 8th of August, 1995
24 the document which will come on your screen is a document from Ivo Cipci
25 which he sends to the Ministry of Interior operative headquarters, and he
1 is requesting an opinion in this document, four lines of text. And I'd
2 just like you to remind yourself, please, of the content of that document
3 and its significance to your report, please.
4 A. Yes. This is a civilian police chief seeking the advice of the
5 Ministry of Interior on the question of passes and free movement for
6 citizens in the relevant area, because he is unsure what steps to take
7 and what the regulations are. So he doesn't ask the garrison commander
8 in Knin. He asks the Ministry of the Interior.
9 MS. HIGGINS: And a document of the same date, of D1769, please,
10 on the 8th of August. It's a two-page document from Josko Moric to the
11 police administrations which are listed. And it concerns the arrival of
12 reporters and public figures in the liberated area, and it addresses some
13 of the procedures.
14 Q. And, again, what I'm interested in, Mr. Albiston, is why you
15 considered this to be relevant to your report, please.
16 Does this look familiar, Mr. Albiston?
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 MS. HIGGINS: And if we could have page 2, please, of the English
19 on the screen. Thank you.
20 A. Yes, I have that. Thank you.
21 Q. And, again, if you could assist me as to why you have relied on
22 this report in this section.
23 A. Well, it's not entirely clear to me whether this is a response on
24 the same day to the previous inquiry, but whether or not that is the
25 case, it certainly addresses the same issue, and it makes it clear that
1 the Ministry of the Interior is the body which has the authority for
2 dealing with this matter.
3 MS. HIGGINS: D494, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: I apologise for the interruption. It's just not
6 clear to me where this document is relied on in the report, and perhaps
7 counsel could assist me.
8 MS. HIGGINS: My apologies, I actually think Ms. Gustafson is
9 correct, that this is a document that was not relied upon in the report,
10 and I will verify that. But it is a document that I would like
11 Mr. Albiston to have seen and I know that he has seen, and therefore I
12 would like his observations as he has given them, unless there is any
13 objection in relation thereto. So if could I put that point on the
14 record and I will verify it, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, so the question would then be a different
16 one, would you have relied on this document if --
17 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- or whether he did not include that, if it is not
19 to be found in the footnotes, rather than to ask him why he relied upon
21 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, if I could just have a moment to
22 verify that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MS. HIGGINS:
1 Q. Mr. Albiston, in relation to this document, this is a document
2 that I asked to you comment on, had you seen this document before I asked
3 you about it? Because it is not contained in your report, in fact.
4 A. Well, it certainly looks familiar. Does it have a number in the
5 court systems, the Chamber's accounting system?
6 Q. The only number that it has is the ERN number at the top of the
7 document on the first page, and it also has D1769, which is an exhibit
9 JUDGE ORIE: An exhibit number, I take it, that was assigned
10 after the report was produced, in view of the number itself.
11 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, I can tell the Chamber that the document
13 looks familiar. I can also tell the Chamber that I examined a
14 significant number of 0361 documents. I cannot be precise and say to the
15 Chamber, yes, this document is one that I have read.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Have you been provided with documents after you had
17 produced the report in its final version or after had you produced the
18 draft report?
19 THE WITNESS: I have seen documents which have a new number,
20 because they have been entered into the court system or exhibited in the
21 Chamber subsequent to my considering them. I'm -- I'm not sure whether
22 that -- whether they're always documents which I haven't seen before.
23 Some of them, I think, I have seen before in a previous system.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
1 Q. The next document which is contained in your report is D494,
3 And this is a document from Ivo Cipci, dated the 15th of August,
4 1995. And it refers to the submission of a pass for entering the Knin
5 garrison, issued by the HV command, and asking for a reply and
6 confirmation in writing as to the validity of the passes for civilian
7 persons in question.
8 And you see at the bottom it also has some handwriting that has
9 been typed out onto the document for our purposes.
10 Do you recollect that document, Mr. Albiston?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And why is it you considered that to be of particular relevance
13 to this section?
14 A. Well, I think if we read the text of the document and the
15 handwritten note in translation, the implication is that the officials of
16 the Ministry of the Interior did not believe that General Cermak had
17 authority to issue passes or to deal with this particular issue.
18 Q. I'd to look a document that is related to this document, which is
19 in fact --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 MS. HIGGINS: I would like to look at a document which is related
22 to this document, which is, in fact, D495. And if I could ask that the
23 English version be put on the screen first, please, which may speed up
24 the questioning to some extent, I'd be grateful.
25 Q. And it's in fact the document which is attached to the one we've
1 just seen, the submission of the pass, the permit to enter the garrison.
2 And, again, you will see some handwriting on the bottom of the document,
3 which I'd like to you look at, and observe as to why you understood this
4 document to be of relevance to your section, please, Mr. Albiston.
5 A. Yes, I apologise, part of the delay is my eyes are at the stage
6 where they have difficulty with the screen, either the writing is too far
7 away or the glasses aren't working properly.
8 But it's clear that this -- this deals with the same issue and
9 indicates the understanding and the -- that General Cermak's passes were
10 not recognised by the Ministry of the Interior as having validity for
11 persons other than military personnel or civilians working within the
12 military establishment.
13 Q. And what observations do you make in regards to Mr. Cermak's
14 authority in this respect?
15 A. Well, the clear inference from these documents is that so far as
16 the people in the Ministry of the Interior were concerned, General Cermak
17 didn't have that authority.
18 MS. HIGGINS: The next document, please, is D496.
19 Q. And this is dated 15th of August, from Ivo Cipci to the Ministry
20 of the Interior. Subject: Visits and admission to the liberated areas.
21 It's a document that you rely on in your report. And it refers
22 to the text of:
23 "We are very pressured by citizens and displaced persons who wish
24 to visit the liberated areas, Knin, Drnis," et cetera.
25 Is this a document you recall, firstly?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. I'd like you to see, as well, the second page, and look at the
3 text on that page, which gives a context to what Mr. Cipci is asking for.
4 A. Yes. Once again, it's a civilian police official seeking
5 guidance from the Ministry of the Interior. In other words, it's a
6 transaction which is taking place within the Ministry of the Interior
7 hierarchy, concerning the free movement of citizens and displaced
9 Q. Well, let's look at P509, please, now, which is a document which
10 comes from General Cermak. And it is a document entitled: Order, dated
11 the 15th of August, 1995. Paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 2 referring to:
12 "... permit civilians to enter the town of Knin without passes,
13 and carry out routine checks following the rules set out earlier."
14 Document you rely on, a document you cite, what are your
15 observations in relation to this document, which does come from
16 Mr. Cermak?
17 A. Well, in this -- in this document, General Cermak is giving
18 permission or agreeing that people can move freely.
19 Q. Do you have any other observations about it in relation to the
20 authority of Mr. Cermak, in respect of the documents that we've seen
21 preceding it?
22 A. Well, I think it's -- it's -- you could say it is consistent with
23 those documents in that, on that this date, General Cermak is not seeking
24 to exercise authority or restrict freedom of movement of citizens in the
25 Knin area.
1 MS. HIGGINS: The last document is P510, please.
2 Q. This is a document dated 16th of August --
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: I apologise for the interruption. That document
4 is under seal.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Which requires the --
6 MS. HIGGINS: I'm grateful --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- cautious approach.
8 MS. HIGGINS: I'm grateful to Ms. Gustafson, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: please proceed.
10 MS. HIGGINS:
11 Q. Document dated 16th of August. I'd like you to consider, in
12 particular, the second page, please.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: I apologise again for the interruption. This
14 document is not referenced in the witness's report and I'm wondering if a
15 foundation could be laid as to the witness's knowledge of the document
16 before further questions are asked.
17 Thank you.
18 MS. HIGGINS: I will, of course, do that, Your Honour.
19 Q. If you could JUST
20 A. Yes, I have read it.
21 Q. Is it a document that you have seen before?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Can you help us with any observations that you may have in
24 respect of this document, given what you know in terms of the
25 documentation you have reviewed? And if there's a need for us to go into
1 private session --
2 A. Yes, I --
3 Q. -- please indicate if you would feel that it would better express
4 your views, we would be able to do.
5 A. I will try to deal with this question without that requirement.
6 This document represents the transmission of the views of
7 General Cermak, as we saw in the previous document, into the context of
8 the civilian policing chain of command, and my interpretation of this
9 document is that the author is transmitting that information to the heads
10 of the police stations within the Kotar-Knin police administration.
11 Q. Now, the next collection you examine are passes which are issued
12 by Cipci, or matters referred by him to the civilian police, which is
13 page 27 of your report, paragraphs 3.53 to 3.54. And I'd like to just
14 take you through a couple of these documents to ask you again why you
15 have considered them to be of importance in relation to understanding
16 this particular aspect of the case.
17 MS. HIGGINS: The first document is D488, please.
18 Q. And as it's coming onto the screen, it's a document dated the
19 7th of August, from Ivo Cipci to the 10th Police Station Sinj. Subject:
20 Going of the Splitska Bank employees to Vrlika, Drnis, Knin, on the
21 8th of August, 1995. And there is reference in the text to:
22 "We agree with the issuing of the passes and the request should
23 be granted."
24 A. Yes, I have that. Thank you.
25 Q. Is that a document you recall having cited in your report?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And can you assist us with why it was you considered that to be
3 relevant, please.
4 A. Well, this is an example of instructions or decisions in relation
5 to free movement, in which the police chief is issuing an instruction to
6 a more junior member of the civil policing hierarchy without reference to
7 the garrison commander in Knin.
8 Q. The next document is D1111. It's a six-page document, but I'm
9 just going to take you through a few of the pages as they deal with the
10 same subject matter. It's a document you have referenced in your report,
11 in support of your conclusions. And it's a document, the first page of
12 which is the 9th of August, 1995, from Ivo Cipci again, to the
13 10th Police Station. And it refers to the passage of journalists and the
14 approval of Assistant Minister of Defence, Mr. Markica Rebic, and Mr. --
15 Major-General Ivan Tolj.
16 Do you recall that document?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And before I ask you to give us your observations on it, please,
19 I would like you to see the second page, which is clearly linked to this
20 page. And it's a document from Chief Djurica Franjo to the Zadar-Knin,
21 Sibenik, Split-Dalmatia police administrations in respect of the same
23 Now looking at those two documents together, please assist us
24 with the importance, from your perspective, to this subject.
25 A. The first page that was shown to me is an instruction coming out
1 from the chief to the police station, in relation to the free movement of
2 the journalists.
3 The second page, in most police files, would be found behind the
4 first page and would be the provenance or the explanation as to where the
5 order came from and what the purpose was. So chronologically, I suppose
6 you would look at the second page first, and you see there that under the
7 provisions of the arrangement which was described in the 3rd of
8 August document, which we discussed earlier, approval has been given by
9 Messrs. Tolj and Rebic for these journalists to visit. That information
10 has been transmitted by Mr. Djurica Franjo to Chief Cipci, who passes it
11 on to the relevant police station. It's the operation of the Ministry of
12 the Interior hierarchy, or chain of command, and the garrison commander
13 whose TAOR might be affected by this is not informed or consulted in
14 relation to this matter.
15 Q. One more example.
16 MS. HIGGINS: D1112, please.
17 Q. It's a similar form into the a document that you have seen and
18 it's one that you cite. It's dated the 7th of August, 1995. It's,
19 again, first page, from Ivo Cipci to the 10th Police Station, concerning
20 a request for a visit to the region as set out in the subject matter.
21 Does that look familiar?
22 A. Yes, it does.
23 Q. And if I could now ask you to look at the second page of the
24 document, please.
25 MS. HIGGINS: In English.
1 Q. And why this document is of relevance to this section,
2 Mr. Albiston.
3 A. It's a similar document which involves authority, in this case,
4 for some political party officials to visit the area. And, again, the
5 chain of command through which the authority is passed is the Ministry of
6 the Interior.
7 Q. I'm grateful. Thank you.
8 I'd like to take you now to paragraph 3.55, please, on page 28 of
9 the report. And, again, this paragraph here is one that you cite in
10 support of your conclusion about events that took place concerning an
11 EU monitoring team. The first document to look at, please, is D498,
12 dated the 16th of August, from Ivo Cipci to the Ministry of the Interior,
13 subject: Information on the presence of European monitors in the area of
14 Vrlika. Referring to two European monitors at this stage not named, it
15 appears from the document. On the front page.
16 Do you have that on your screen?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And then I'd like to you look at the second page of the document,
19 please, towards the -- well, peruse the entire page.
20 Mr. Albiston, before I ask you questions, I'd like to show you a
21 second follow-up document so that we have the context of your
22 observations --
23 MS. HIGGINS: Which is D497, please.
24 Q. And I'd like you to see, this is a document, again, from
25 Ivo Cipci, and he refers to "an attachment for your inspection," dated
1 the 16th of August. So it's the same day. And if we go to the -- so
2 that you have seen it, the second page of that document, here you see
3 reference to submission of an attachment in the text. Well, we did do
4 briefly. And we've gone now to the second page of that document which
5 is, in fact, the report on the presence of these monitors in the area of
6 Vrlika. Again, a document you cite.
7 On the third page, which we have no need to go to, the names are
8 provided of those monitors, and I'd like to you look at the fourth page,
9 please, and the text under the heading number 2.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, in paragraph 3.55 of your report, there's reference to both
12 of these documents. And I'd like you to just expand upon, if you can,
13 the reasons why you've brought these documents to our attention, in
14 respect of the chapter heading for this section.
15 A. Well, I think, reading all the documents together, you can see
16 that there seems to have been some confusion about who has what authority
17 when, and what these documents show, and in particular the last two
18 documents in relation to the two people who were stopped, is that
19 General Cermak appears to have been attempting to provide some sort of
20 informal authority for people to go to places in order to discharge their
21 functions, when, in fact the Ministry of the Interior take a different
22 view of how the procedure should have been operating and what the actual
23 rules and regulations were.
24 Q. Just to follow on from that, I'd like you to see a document,
25 please, which is not referred to in your report. It's P957. And I'd
1 like to ask you, first of all, whether it's a document you recall in the
2 review that you've conducted.
3 MS. HIGGINS: For the record, it's a document dated the
4 17th of August, author Marker Hansen, Hendriks, and it's to RC Knin from
5 Team N2, an ECMM report.
6 Q. Just take a look, Mr. Albiston, and see if that's a document you
7 might have seen before? Because it's not in your report.
8 A. Well, I can say that I have seen a significant number of
9 documents which are ECMM documents. I can say that the material in the
10 first paragraph which I have just read looks familiar, but I cannot tell
11 this Chamber, as a matter of fact, that have I read this particular
12 document in the creation of my report.
13 Q. I'd like to you read, please, paragraph 2 of that document that's
14 in front of you?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I gained the impression that when the witness was
16 referring to paragraph 1, which consists of one word only, the word
17 "calm," that he actually was referring already to paragraph 2, which he
18 must have then read already.
19 THE WITNESS: Mr. President is absolutely correct. I had read
20 about the first seven or eight lines of what is paragraph 2 at the time
21 that I made the remark, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then please finish reading that. And since it is
23 not entirely on your screen, I did not expect you to have it read in its
25 Please proceed.
1 MS. HIGGINS:
2 Q. Now my --
3 A. Well, I've read as far as "political situation," which I --
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. -- think may be what is required.
6 Q. I'm interested in whether or not this document assists you either
7 for or against the conclusions that you have made in respect of this
8 particular incident and the role, or not, of Mr. Cermak.
9 A. Well, I think it is entirely consistent with other documents in
10 this case which I have seen, and I think it's particularly remarkable, if
11 we look at the sixth line of paragraph 2, where it says in reference to
12 General Cermak:
13 "The General reacted immediately by phoning the minister of
14 internal affairs and asking him to contact with the civil police in Split
15 to establish coordination to avoid those accidents in future."
16 I think what that indicates to us is that at the time of this
17 incident, General Cermak is recognising the role of the -- what he
18 describes or what the author of this document, I beg your pardon,
19 describes as the minister of internal affairs, in other words the MUP
20 hierarchy, as the authority which should have been dealing with this
22 MS. HIGGINS: Just to conclude on this series, can I have D499,
23 please, which is dated 17th August, so the day after, 1995.
24 Q. And it's a document written by Josko -- signed by Josko Moric to
25 the police administrations cited. And it's page 2 of that document that
1 I would like to you look at and refresh your memory in respect of, as
2 it's a document cited in your report.
3 And, again, in the sequence of what we've been looking at, could
4 you provide this Chamber with your observations as to the relevance of
5 this document regarding the role of Mr. Cermak.
6 A. Yes. It's -- in my opinion, it demonstrates that the assistant
7 minister for the interior, Mr. Moric, is the man who is making and
8 communicating decisions about the requirements for passes, freedom of
9 movement, and those sorts of issues within this area.
10 Q. I'd now like to take you to different section of your report at
11 this stage, which begins on the same page, page 28, and it deals with the
12 subject of the investigation of crimes and other irregular acts.
13 Do you have that section before you?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. In this section you examined the allegation that Mr. Cermak
16 failed to order either the military police or the civilian police to
17 conduct investigations into crimes that had taken place. And if we turn
18 to paragraph 3.56, which is on pages 28 over to 29, you conclude in your
19 report that General Cermak had no statutory authority to initiate,
20 conduct, direct, or supervise any criminal investigation. And for your
21 purposes, that is supported by footnotes 110, 111, and 112.
22 I'd like to understand how it was that you came to that
23 conclusion, Mr. Albiston.
24 A. Yes. The -- the conclusion is based on an examination of the
25 prevailing laws and procedures in the Republic of Croatia
1 and the role which those laws and procedures accorded to various state
3 To some extent, there are parallels in relation to the military
4 police, but I'm not here to discuss the way that the military police
5 operated. But in relation to the civilian police and the role of the
6 prosecutor and the role of the investigating judge, the documents which I
7 have cited set out quite clearly what the functions of those individuals
8 and those institutions is. And in common with most countries, the
9 Republic of Croatia
10 It required trained state officials to carry out different functions, so
11 that the civilian police would be responsible for securing scenes of
12 crime, for initial investigations at the scene, and, in the case of
13 serious crime, for assisting with subsequent investigations. And the
14 role of the prosecutor, the role of the investigating judge, is set out,
15 and I'm sure that there are many in this Chamber who have far better
16 knowledge than I do of the details of that. But what is quite clear from
17 those regulations is that nowhere is any role accorded to any military
18 officer, any garrison commander, or any general, such as General Cermak.
19 So that is why I conclude that, in fact, General Cermak did not
20 have any responsibility, any rights, any locus in this area, and that,
21 therefore, the suggestion in the indictment is not correct.
22 Q. Now, from paragraph 3.60 onwards in that section, you review the
23 actions that were taken by Mr. Moric, in terms of requesting reports on
24 crimes and investigations from the civilian police, and requesting
25 cooperation between the civilian and the military police.
1 From a review of the documents that you undertook in that
2 section, can you draw any conclusions about the actions taken by
3 Mr. Moric within the Ministry of the Interior as regards the detection,
4 processing and prevention of criminality after Operation Storm?
5 A. Yes, I can.
6 The laws and regulations place the responsibility for civilian
7 policing matters clearly at the feet of the assistant minister. And the
8 sorts of matters which police -- civilian police are expected to deal
9 with are similar to those in many countries: protection of life and
10 property; the prevention of crime; assisting with the investigation of
11 offences; the apprehension of offenders, and this sort of thing. And I
12 think what this series of documents demonstrates is that Assistant
13 Minister Mr. Moric was accepting his responsibilities and he was
14 attempting to discharge those responsibilities through the medium of
15 orders to and reports from the civilian police. And these documents are
16 significant in numbers. They're clear in details, they are consistent,
17 and they don't involve the garrison commander, General Cermak.
18 Q. Following on from that, if we turn to page 34 of your report and
19 paragraph 3.71, you conclude that there is significant evidence that
20 General Cermak was discharging his responsibilities, both as a citizen
21 and as a senior representative of a state body, that he was passing and
22 receiving information about crimes as part of a liaison role. And what
23 I'd like to us do is examine -- we've already seen some of the documents
24 you refer to there in your footnotes, but I would like to us look at the
25 documents we have not yet seen on the screen.
1 MS. HIGGINS: The first of which, please, D230.
2 Q. Because I would like to us explain why it is you rely on these
3 documents in respect of what you refer to as General Cermak discharging
4 his responsibility as a citizen.
5 Do you have that section of the report in front of you --
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. -- Mr. Albiston? The first document, D230, is a document --
8 MS. HIGGINS: Just give me a moment, please.
9 [Defence counsel confer]
10 MS. HIGGINS:
11 Q. It's a document dated the 6th of September, 1995. And you see
12 the subject, Sava Babic.
13 MS. HIGGINS: If we turn over the page, please.
14 Q. And see the author. It's from Chief Cedo Romanic. And
15 information there provided in the first paragraph.
16 Now, in respect of paragraph 3.71, why is this document of
17 relevance, Mr. Albiston, to your conclusions? What is it you seek to
18 rely on here?
19 A. Well, this is a -- this is information coming from the police
20 chief in relation to a serious crime and it's being supplied in direct
21 response, as it says in the last paragraph, to an inquiry from the
22 United Nations. And in my opinion, this demonstrates General Cermak's
23 continuing liaison role.
24 Q. Yes. And you rely on it for that purpose in this regard for this
25 paragraph, 3.71?
1 A. Well, it shows -- it shows a number of things but one of the
2 things it shows is General Cermak participating, if you like, in the
3 communication of information regarding crime.
4 Q. Now another document that we've already looked at, but I'll read
5 it into the record for these purposes, is D487, under seal. I don't
6 propose to bring it up on to the screen again but what I would do is ask
7 for the next document, which is D500, and again it's in the same theme.
8 You rely on it to support the same conclusion.
9 It's a document from commander of the police station,
10 Milos Mihic, dated the 13th of August, and it is partially legible.
11 There are parts of it which are not legible as marked on the document,
12 and it's reference there to gathered information from the members of the
13 HV. And you can read the rest of the text yourself as it comes up onto
14 the screen.
15 Is that a familiar document?
16 A. Yes, I recognise this.
17 Q. And, again, why is this document significant as regards the
18 content of this from Mr. Mihic in respect of this section, where you deal
19 with General Cermak's responsibility as a citizen and the passing on or
20 receiving of information?
21 A. Well, I think this document has to be read in context with
22 another document, and taken together, the documents demonstrate that
23 General Cermak has passed on information concerning the taking of this
24 vehicle, and that Mr. Mihic, the police commander, is asking the other
25 police stations to assist in recovering this.
1 Q. What we're going to do is look at a series, a run of documents
2 after the break in relation to these matters so I don't propose to call
3 it up now, but it will be a document that comes back to us in our
4 consideration of a further part of your report.
5 Another example you cite in this section is D502, which is
6 another document from Milos Mihic, dated the 13th of August, and it
7 receives to -- to them having received a criminal complaint from the
8 Ministry of Defence, Main Staff of HV Knin garrison, and it's addressed
9 to the police administrations.
10 Again, if you could cast your eye over the document and explain
11 to the Chamber why it is of importance to this section.
12 A. Yes. I think this -- this document shows us a couple of things,
13 in relation to this particular issue that we're dealing with at the
14 moment. That is to say, General Cermak complying with his obligation as
15 a state official to ensure that crime is brought to the notice of the
16 proper authorities. This document, taken with others, shows that, once
17 again, Police Commander Mihic is seeking the assistance of other police
18 stations to recover stolen property. And in the first paragraph he quite
19 clearly states that it's the minister -- Ministry of Defence Main Staff
20 of the Croatian Army, Knin garrison, which I think we can take as a
21 reference to General Cermak. So, in this case, General Cermak is
22 participating in the procedure for ensuring that crimes are brought to
23 the attention of the relevant authorities in accordance with the
24 legislation which I cited and which was mentioned earlier.
25 Q. Mr. Albiston, you cited legislation. Do you -- can you recall
1 the provisions that you're referring to when you refer to General -- the
2 obligation of a citizen or a state official in respect of passing on
4 A. It would be around about -- between 139 and 141, I think, the
5 Article number of the relevant legislation. I would need to refer to the
6 document to specify but it's certainly in that area of the Articles.
7 Q. Indeed, Mr. Albiston, and it's not in dispute that that is within
8 the criminal procedural law, which is D1568. It's just for the purposes
9 of clarity for the record.
10 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, if I may deal with one more document
11 quickly in this section before the break.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if could you do that quickly because we're
13 already at a time where we usually have a break.
14 MS. HIGGINS: Yes --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MS. HIGGINS: Yes. The document is D505, please.
17 Q. Just to round off this section, Mr. Albiston. It's another
18 document you cite in your report. It's a document from Ivan Cermak to
19 the police administration, Knin, dated the 19th of August, starting:
20 "Dear gentlemen, we are attaching a memo from the president of
21 the executive committee of the association of small shareholders."
22 And again, why it is that you rely on this document and its
23 relevance to the role of Mr. Cermak in respect of the section you have
24 referred to.
25 A. Yes, well, I think there are a number of issues in this document,
1 which to me, as a snap-shot, is a very, very significant document.
2 It's significant partly for its content and partly for its style.
3 If I address the issue of content first, in effect what is happening here
4 is that the commander of the Knin garrison, General Cermak, is passing to
5 the police information regarding a -- a police matter. And importantly,
6 it says in the second paragraph:
7 "... since we are not authorised for such and similar problems,
8 we are therefore forwarding this memo to you."
9 Now, I read that as a clear indication from the General that
10 police matters are not matters for him. This is a civilian police
11 matter. It is entirely distinct from his responsibilities.
12 So that's the content.
13 In relation to the style, "Dear gentlemen," and "respectfully,"
14 well, some senior police officers that I have dealt with have been quite
15 polite, but have I never known them to address their subordinates in
16 those sorts of terms. So this document is also significant to me, in
17 indicating that General Cermak was not part of the hierarchy which he is
18 addressing from the outside, as it were.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Higgins.
21 Could I ask you, as far as time is concerned, whether we are on
23 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I'm relatively confident that we are.
24 It would just be -- if I don't conclude this session, it would be a
25 matter of 15 minutes in the next session tomorrow. But I'm getting
1 through as I had hoped to.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because your estimate was three sessions.
3 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now if we would follow all the estimates, even if we
5 would take four to six sessions to be five, then we would not conclude
6 this week.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, just to clarify, our estimate has
8 actually changed to up to eight sessions.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which means that in view of the remaining time
10 this week and the time next week, that we really might get in trouble to
11 finish your last witness - that's not you, Mr. Albiston - by next week
12 Wednesday. Even if we would have some additional time available.
13 Could I ask the parties to really thoroughly consider, in view of
14 what apparently is sought to be achieved, to see where time can be gained
15 without losing content.
16 We'll have a -- yes, Mr. Kehoe.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
18 We were talking at the break, my colleague and I, Mr. Misetic,
19 and, of course, we'll talk to the client, and tried to hone down our
20 estimate of two sessions. I don't think, in light of some of the
21 presentation that we have had this morning, that we are going to need
22 quite that time. Frankly, I don't think we'll even -- if we move into
23 some of the areas, depends what happens in the next session, if we move
24 into some of these areas, it should be significantly less than one
1 So I --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because you said moved down to two sessions but
3 the estimate which was --
4 MR. KEHOE: My apologies.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- was one to two sessions.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, my apologies. And my moving down is less than
7 one session, and again I just want to consult with my client and
8 Mr. Misetic concerning a few issues. But I thought I would bring that to
9 the attention of the Chamber at this juncture, as it is considering time
10 estimates for the rest of the week.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
12 Mr. Albiston, you will be aware that the parties are discussing
13 how to use their time, but they certainly are aware that it's your time
14 as well.
15 We will have a break and resume at five minutes to 1.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.36 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins, please proceed.
19 MS. HIGGINS:
20 Q. Mr. Albiston, we are now moving to the section of your report
21 entitled: The garrison commander and the prevention of crime, which is
22 at page 34.
23 In that section you start off by addressing the Prosecution
24 pre-trial brief paragraph 81. The allegation of which is that Mr. Cermak
25 should have taken necessary and reasonable measures to prevent his
1 subordinates from committing crimes.
2 You make your observations and conclusions at several points in
3 your report that the civilian police were not subordinated to Mr. Cermak.
4 What I'd like to go on to look at it is a conclusion that you make that
5 the responsibility for the prevention of crime lay with the Ministry of
6 the Interior.
7 Now, in support of that conclusion you refer to numerous
8 documents, which include D1077, D41, D583, and D411. I'd like to us look
9 at two documents from this selection.
10 MS. HIGGINS: If could I ask that D50 be brought onto the screen,
12 Q. And this is a document from that particular section. We're going
13 to look at the document and the next document, in turn, and I'm going to
14 ask you why it is they support your conclusion and what observations you
15 have to assist this Trial Chamber with the determinations that it has to
17 The first document, D50, is dated the 22nd of August, 1995, and
18 we see it is addressed to various police administrations.
19 MS. HIGGINS: Page 2, please.
20 Q. We know that from the following page it is sent by Josko Moric.
21 And can you see here, on page 2:
22 "Measures that are set out in order for us to monitor the problem
23 at the state level."
24 And you can see the provisions that are made there.
25 MS. HIGGINS: And if we could just go to the top of that page.
1 Q. It refers to a telegram and a reference to:
2 "In order to stop houses being burnt and other people's movable
3 property being taken away unlawfully in the liberated territory."
4 Before I ask you a question on that document, I'd like to move to
5 the second one. Similar theme --
6 MS. HIGGINS: Which is D574, please.
7 Q. Again, it's a document from Josko Moric. This one is dated the
8 30th of August, 1995. And on the first page of that document, we will
9 see a reference to the request of:
10 "... a report on linkage with the military police in order to
11 prevent further torching of houses and illegal taking of movable property
12 from rightful owners in liberated territories."
13 Now I have chosen two examples. You may be asked about others in
14 due course, but could you assist with us these two particular examples,
15 Mr. Albiston, as to why you have included them here?
16 A. Well, yes, this is the operation, once again, of the Ministry of
17 the Interior hierarchy. The acceptance of the responsibilities which
18 I've suggested are conventional to a Ministry of the Interior, which runs
19 a civilian police organisation, and instructions from the assistant
20 minister to the heads of the police administrations to deal with the
22 Q. Now, in your report, you also refer, among other documents, these
23 are documents that we've mentioned before, the Law of the Interior,
24 D1077; the criminal law of Croatia
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The Decree on Internal Organisation of the Ministry of the
2 Interior --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. D527. In your review of those documents, legislation, did you
5 find any provision which would support the allegation that General Cermak
6 had a duty to prevent crime?
7 A. None whatsoever.
8 Q. The next section to touch upon, if we may, is entitled: The
9 garrison commander and the punishment of criminal behaviour.
10 And that begins at page 39 to 40 of your report; Croatian,
11 page 38 to 39.
12 In paragraph 3.84 of that report, you say that General Cermak had
13 no legal duty to punish criminal behaviour of civilian police after
14 Operation Storm.
15 And I refer you to both paragraph 3.83 through to 3.85.
16 Can you expand upon the reasons behind your opinion and
17 conclusion in this regard, Mr. Albiston, please.
18 A. Yes. In relation to General Cermak's authority, I will restrict
19 my remarks, as always, to his authority, in relation to the civilian
20 police, and it seems to me, from looking at the documents and from my
21 knowledge of the issues which face this Chamber, that there are two
22 matters to consider. The one is whether General Cermak was in a position
23 to punish crimes, as it's suggested. That is to say, to deal with
24 serious crimes through the criminal justice system. And the other issue
25 is whether General Cermak was in a position to exercise any form of
1 disciplinary authority over the civilian police.
2 Now, in relation to the first matter, which I think is really the
3 issue before this Chamber, and I'll explain why I say that in a minute.
4 I think I've probably already addressed this Chamber on the legal and
5 constitutional position and where the responsibility lay under law for
6 both the prevention of crime and the investigation and punishment of
7 criminal offences, and that that is set out and that there are roles
8 within the criminal justice system for the civilian police and the
9 prosecutor and the investigating judge, but there is no role for the
10 garrison commander, or other military figures in relation to the civilian
11 police and any criminal offences which civilian police officers might
12 have committed.
13 In relation to the discipline matters, I think there are two
14 points to make. The first is in relation to what I said earlier, about
15 why I make the distinction about what the Chamber is interested in. In
16 my reading of these documents, I do not think that we're talking about
17 disciplinary offences, which would normally be handled within a police
18 disciplinary regime. The sort of matters which have been brought before
19 this Chamber are grave crimes. But there is a disciplinary mechanism
20 within the civilian police of the Republic of Croatia
21 is set out and there is a document which I think the number is 588,
22 probably P588, but it is a sort of a brochure which is in Croatian and in
23 English and is illustrated and sets out in fairly simple terms the
24 structures of the Ministry of the Interior. And I'm sure that the
25 Chamber has this document which can be called up.
1 The reason I mention it, is that it alludes, as any police
2 officer would expect it to, to the internal discipline procedures of the
3 Croatian police. So these internal disciplinary procedures exist, but
4 there is no role within these procedures, again, as any police expert
5 would expect, for a garrison commander. It simply isn't there.
6 On that basis, in my opinion, General Cermak did not have any
7 role in the matters to which this part of the indictment relates.
8 Q. Following on to the next subject you deal with which is examples
9 of General Cermak's lack of authority. And I'm going to take you to
10 three different areas, three different subjects that you rely upon under
11 the heading of the garrison commander UNCRO and examples of
12 General Cermak's lack of authority. That can be found at page 40 to 43
13 of your report.
14 MS. HIGGINS: D303, please, to be brought up onto the screen.
15 Q. I'd like to start firstly, Mr. Albiston, with the issue of the
16 attempts that were made to retrieve UN vehicles and equipment. And it's
17 something that you have already referred to in the evidence that you have
18 given today to this Court.
19 The first document in the series we're going to look at, as it
20 comes up onto the screen, D303, it's entitled: Order. It's -- the name
21 Ivan Cermak there appears at the bottom and it's dated the 9th of August,
22 1995. And it refers to the following in paragraph 1:
23 "Immediately set up a team."
24 Do you see that document before you there?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Now is there anything that you can say, Mr. Albiston, to assist
2 this Chamber, based on your professional experience, about the way in
3 which this order is written, first of all, please.
4 A. Well, to me, the style doesn't look like an order as part of a
5 police hierarchical system, and there's a particular reason for that,
6 which is that it's addressed, if we look at the bottom left-hand
7 corner -- well, it's certainly bottom left-hand corner in the English
8 translation. It's addressed to the commander of the Knin military
9 police, the commander of the Knin police station, and files here.
10 Now in my experience, in a hierarchical situation it is very
11 difficult to address an order to two different individuals without
12 specifying how you expect that order to be complied with. Similarly, the
13 instruction is to set up a team with the task the finding vehicles.
14 That's -- I think the meaning is -- is clear, but I don't think that the
15 style in which it is conveyed is consistent with what I would expect to
16 find in police orders.
17 Q. Well, let look at the next document in the series, which is D503,
18 which is several days later, on the 12th of August, and is a further
19 document entitled: Order. From Ivan Cermak. And, again, it relates to
20 the forming of teams consisting of members of the MUP from the Knin
21 police station and from the Knin military police with the task of finding
22 and returning the stolen UNCRO equipment and vehicles.
23 If you could look at the first page of that document, please.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then I would ask that you see the second page so you can see
1 the entirety of the document and the order that was given.
2 Now, once again, what can you tell us, based on your professional
3 experience, about the -- firstly, the way in which this order is written,
4 if anything?
5 A. Well, I think the language is more directive. In particular, if
6 we look at the last two paragraphs, it suggests that the author of the
7 document is quite keen that the recipients of the document should respond
8 to it -- deal with it and respond to it. But I'm afraid as an order, it
9 still suffers from the same difficulty of being addressed to more than
10 one person. And if I were in receipt of that, I would be seeking
11 clarification as to whether I or the other named recipient was actually
12 the person that was going have to answer to the author on the outcome of
13 the matter.
14 My view is that these two documents -- actually it is difficult
15 to sustain the argument that they are orders because they're not going
16 people in the hierarchy who can receive orders, and there are other
17 documents which might need to be considered to set this in context.
18 Q. Well, let's look at those.
19 The next one is D304, which may assist you. And it's a letter
20 from Ivan Cermak to the Military District Command, attention, Chief of
21 Staff, subject: Report on the behaviour of a part of members of the HV.
22 It consists of only two paragraphs. So if could you just remind
23 yourself again of the content, which perhaps may assist you in answering
24 the questions on this area of the UNCRO vehicles and equipment.
25 A. Yes, I have seen the first page. Thank you.
1 MS. HIGGINS: And the second page, please.
2 Q. Now, why have you relied upon this in your section on UNCRO and
3 examples of General Cermak's lack of authority, please.
4 A. Well, it seems to me, from the text of the document, that it is
5 tantamount to admission by General Cermak that actually he is not getting
6 anywhere with the steps which he has taken, and that he realises that if
7 he wants action from the military in relation to recovery of the
8 vehicles, then it's to the military command that he needs to go.
9 MS. HIGGINS: Document D305, please.
10 Q. This is a document dated the 13th of August, from Ante Gotovina,
11 Colonel General, in the form of an order, dated, as I said, the 13th, and
12 it refers to the return of the vehicles stolen. You have cited this
13 document in this section of the report. Again, if you just remind
15 A. Yes. Yes, I have it.
16 MS. HIGGINS: Page 2, please.
17 Q. We see on page 2 who this document was forwarded to for action.
18 A. Yes, I have seen that. Thank you.
19 Q. And, again, your reason for inclusion into this section,
20 Mr. Albiston.
21 A. Well, it's part of the same story, so to speak, it's a
22 continuation of this matter of the stolen vehicles. And, of course, this
23 document, like the other two which I was discussing, or the two previous
24 to the last one, is addressed to more than one recipient. But it doesn't
25 suffer from the same ambiguities that having multiple addressees might
1 create, because what this document is saying is, We don't want this sort
2 of thing happening, and, by the way, if any of you addressees have got
3 these vehicles, let's have them back.
4 So I think the difficulty which I identified with the previous
5 documents as orders doesn't apply to this one. This is much clearer.
6 And whether it is consistent with other military documents, of course,
7 would be for a military expert to say. But I think this one fits in with
8 the story of the missing vehicles very clearly.
9 Q. In D500, please, next, a document that we have already looked at
10 which triggered your reference, in fact, earlier to there being a chain
11 of documents in this regard. It's a document that you will recall, I'm
12 sure, having looked at it just an hour ago.
13 And, again, what I'm interested in its relevance in terms of the
14 authority or not of the original orders which you saw from Mr. Cermak,
16 MS. HIGGINS: Just for the record, it's dated 13th of August.
17 It's a document from Milos Mihic, and it refers to the gathering of
18 information in respect of a Toyota Land Cruiser and other vehicles.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, and the way that I read this document is that
20 Mr. Mihic, the commander of the Knin police station, is ensuring that
21 information he's received from General Cermak regarding the stolen
22 vehicles is available to the other police stations so that should these
23 vehicles be found, they can be returned accordingly.
24 MS. HIGGINS:
25 Q. Does it tell you anything about Milos Mihic's attitude towards
1 the original order or not?
2 A. He uses the expression "gathered information." He doesn't
3 suggest that he is acting on the instructions of a garrison commander.
4 MS. HIGGINS: And the final document, please, D502.
5 Q. Again, we looked at this before. Document from Milos Mihic,
6 13th of August, referring to different equipment and vehicles. I'm
7 interested in its relevance to the issue of authority of Mr. Cermak and
8 also how Milos Mihic interprets the information, as best you can say, if
9 at all, that he received in respect of the order.
10 A. Yes. The wording is very similar, particularly in the last
11 paragraph. The detailed information in the middle section is different,
12 of course, and in the first section I think it is a little bit clearer
13 that Mr. Mihic is regarding General Cermak as the vehicle for conveying
14 information about a -- a crime from the complainant and into the civilian
15 policing system.
16 Q. What, if any, assistance did you glean in the writing of your
17 report from having reviewed the testimony of Witness 86 in this trial, as
18 we know you have because you referred to it, and I'm interested
19 particularly in respect of the Cermak orders that we have looked at in
20 this regard?
21 A. I think there are -- there's more than one instance in that
22 particular witness's oral testimony to this Chamber to suggest that, in
23 relation to these matters, that witness believed that the orders, as they
24 appear on paper, from General Cermak, were treated by the civilian police
25 as being pieces of information regarding a crime that had been committed,
1 and that indeed there are examples within the oral testimony of that
2 particular witness, which suggests that he did not believe that
3 General Cermak had any authority to issue orders to the civilian police
4 on this or any other matter.
5 MS. HIGGINS: D487, under seal, please.
6 Q. We have looked at this document before. It is the second
7 example, if you like, that you cite to support your conclusion that
8 Mr. Cermak did not have authority. And I'm asking you now from that
9 particular perspective of a lack of authority and what it is in that
10 document that you seek to rely on, please.
11 A. Yes. I think we saw this document earlier today, and I
12 particularly draw the attention of the Chamber to the first paragraph and
13 the last paragraph.
14 The verbal request for a statement is not, in my experience,
15 indicative of authority; authority by General Cermak over the author of
16 this document. The request, it's repeated, comes as a result of an
17 inquiry from the international community, which it reinforces the idea
18 that in this particular case the reason for the existence of the
19 communication which is communicating about a crime, is that
20 General Cermak has been approached in his capacity as the interlocutor or
21 representative of the Croatian authorities by a member of the
22 international community. And again I would draw the Chamber's attention
23 to the third paragraph or --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Albiston.
25 THE WITNESS: -- final paragraph might be more accurate to say,
1 and refer to the remarks which I made earlier.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Higgins, would a reference to the remarks
3 and observations made earlier, would that not have done --
4 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, and that's how I intend to deal with the next
5 example, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
7 MS. HIGGINS:
8 Q. The next example and final example that you rely on we have
9 already looked, and it's D505. I don't intend to recall it back on the
10 screen. It's the letter that you spoke to -- told us about, from
11 Ivan Cermak headed: "Dear gentlemen ..."
12 A. Oh, yeah.
13 Q. And we already have your observations in that regard on this
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The penultimate issue I wish to deal with you with is in terms of
17 the Croatian police and UNCIVPOL, and this is pages 43 to 46 of your
18 report in the Croatian, and 44 onwards in the English version.
19 Now, you have reviewed, during the course of your engagement in
20 this case, the relationship between UNCIVPOL and the Croatian civilian
21 police, and I'm interested in whether or not that relationship reveals
22 anything to you, as a professional police officer, about the position or
23 role of Mr. Cermak as regards the civilian police, particularly given the
24 allegations in this case that Mr. Cermak was superior to the civilian
1 Could you assist the Chamber with that, please?
2 A. Yes. I have looked at a significant number of documents which
3 relate to UNCIVPOL matters and their relationship with the Croatian
4 civilian police. In particular, I was concerned to look at this because
5 of General Cermak's role as an interlocutor with the international
6 community. But what comes through, clearly, taking the documents as a
7 whole, is that police officers dealt with police officers, and, on the
8 basis of my professional experience, I am not at all surprised to find
9 that. The police officers were dealing with police issues. The
10 responsibilities of the UNCIVPOL mission related primarily to monitoring
11 duties, and the people that they would be concerned to be in touch with
12 would be their opposite numbers within the Croatian civilian police, and
13 I think that that's what the documents show.
14 Q. Just to follow on from that point, in paragraph 3.99 of your
15 report, you refer to the fact that records show that UNCIVPOL frequently
16 reported crimes to the Croatian police.
17 Do you have any observations on this reporting of crime line by
18 international police officers to local police and its significance, if
20 A. I think it's not surprising that it should take place,
21 particularly if UNCIVPOL officers were moving in areas where the Croatian
22 civilian police were not operating or not operating at the same time.
23 That, in those circumstances, the UNCIVPOL officers may well, on
24 occasions, have been the first officers to discover scenes of crime, or
25 to have crime reported to them by members of the public, and that they
1 participated in the system by passing on information regarding those
2 crimes to their Croatian civilian police counterparts. And we know from
3 other documents that there were delays and difficulties in establishing
4 an effective civilian police presence by the Croatian police throughout
5 the area concerned, and in other areas, I discuss geography and numbers
6 and so on. So there would, of course, be occasions when the first police
7 officers at a scene or the first police officers available for approach
8 by the public would in fact be a United Nations rather than Croatian.
9 Q. That brings me on to the final question that I have for you,
10 Mr. Albiston, which relates to the issue of civilian police manpower.
11 What conclusions are you able to draw and expand upon in respect
12 of the resources that you have seen available to the police in the months
13 following Operation Storm, the varying commitment of the military police
14 to assist, the lack of vehicles, equipment, et cetera, which you referred
15 to in your report, and how that may have impacted upon the work of the
16 police in the territory.
17 A. I -- the temptation in answer to that question is to take up an
18 awful a lot of the Chamber's time, so I will try to be mindful of that
20 There are, in policing circles, ways of approaching the question
21 of manpower establishment. As I indicate in the report, there are
22 different figures in different jurisdictions which are regarded as being
23 the norm, and a figure of one police officer per 400 head of population
24 would not be particularly surprising. But I hesitated in the report, as
25 I would hesitate in live evidence to this Chamber, to specify the number
1 of police or civilian police that I think would be appropriate for
2 policing in this area at this time. And there are a number of reasons
3 for that.
4 The population was in a flux in terms of its size and its
5 movements. There was a large irregular presence of troops. There -- the
6 situation was immediate post-conflict, which creates additional problems
7 for police; for example, in terms of moving about, because of the
8 possibility of mines, unexploded ordnance, poor road maps, destroyed
9 roads, and so on. Many of the police that were drafted in would have
10 been unfamiliar with the area, so there are all sorts of reasons why
11 policing would be difficult, and one of the ways of addressing
12 difficulties for policing would be to have greater numbers of police.
13 What I think we can say, rather than try to specify the size of
14 the population and the numbers of reported crimes and the distances that
15 needed to be travelled, and from that to derive some sort of formula
16 which is consistent with other parts of the Republic of Croatia
17 of allocation of police manpower, I think it's probably more helpful to
18 look at the incidents which took place and the comments on those
19 incidents by both the civilian police officers and the police
20 coordinators that the Chamber has heard were appointed to assist with
21 re-establishing normal civilian policing at this time. And they point to
22 a number of difficulties in relation to police manpower issues. For
23 example, as is quite common in immediate post-conflict situation, a lot
24 of police manpower was deployed to guarding vulnerable sites, and
25 vulnerable sites could take the form of economic or military
1 institutions. They could take the form of sensitive locations such as
2 what we used call patrimonial sites, for example, protecting churches
3 which would be the churches of minority in an area where there had been
4 conflict. Patrolling, check-points, all these sorts of duties are
5 sapping on police manpower. And I draw attention in my report to an
6 example of a police commander discussing his manpower issues, and my
7 comment is that it seems a very modest demand, in view of my own
8 professional assessment of the sort of requirements that he would have,
9 in order to discharge the duties which were placed upon him by the
10 civilian police hierarchy.
11 So, to be as brief as possible, I would say that there were
12 significant difficulties for civilian policing, that those difficulties
13 meant that manpower was a particularly important issue, that the evidence
14 of the documents suggests that manpower was not adequate to meet all the
15 requirements. For example, whilst the civilian police are seen in a
16 number of documents to complain that the military police do not support
17 them in check-points, the UNCIVPOL police officers are similarly
18 reporting occasions on which the Croatian civilian police failed to meet
19 them and turn up to perform check-points, and sometimes the explanation
20 for this is lack of manpower and sometimes it's lack of vehicles.
21 So there were all sorts of problems that would impact upon police
22 and make it difficult to establish satisfactory manpower levels. I
23 accept that very few senior police officers ever say, I've got enough
24 people. It doesn't work like that. But I think there are legitimate
25 reasons for believing the police coordinators and the police commanders
1 who felt under pressure in terms of the responsibilities which were
2 placed on them by comparison with the resources which were allocated to
4 Q. Mr. Albiston, thank you for that lengthy answer.
5 I have no further questions for you.
6 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, there are a couple of administrative
7 matters which perhaps I could clear up at this stage in regards to this
9 JUDGE ORIE: We have seven minutes left.
10 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want Mr. Albiston to stay with us for those
13 MS. HIGGINS: No. He needn't do. So I'm in the Chamber's hands.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Then, Mr. Albiston, this concludes the session of today, but you
16 will be cross-examined tomorrow, and that would be at 9.00 in the
17 morning, tomorrow, 4th of November, in this same courtroom. But before
18 you are excused for today, I would like to instruct that you should not
19 speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that is testimony you
20 gave already today or whether that is testimony still to be given in the
21 days to come.
22 If that is clear, I would invite you to follow Mr. Usher and we
23 would like to see you back tomorrow.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand all that. Thank you, sir.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
2 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, it relates to just a couple of
3 documents in respect of which their admission. The first is 65 ter 1810,
4 which was the constitution relevant portions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Gustafson.
6 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the relevant portions have been
9 Mr. Registrar, the number would be.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1779.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 MS. HIGGINS: The second documents is 65 ter 1780, which is the
13 criminal law, which we have referred to during the course of the evidence
14 and in the report.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1780.
18 MS. HIGGINS: And the third document is 65 ter --
19 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
20 MS. HIGGINS: Sorry, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm just checking whether the number appears
22 accurately on the screen.
23 D1780 is admitted into evidence.
24 MS. HIGGINS: The third document is 65 ter 6104, which is the
25 decree on the MUP.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1781.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
5 MS. HIGGINS: The final matter, Your Honour, is in respect of
6 D505. The date on the translation in English is wrong and it should, in
7 fact, be the 19th of September, not the 19th of August, for the sake of
8 the record.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- let me just check and have a look at D505.
10 Yes, that seems to be clear.
11 Could a corrected translation then be uploaded.
12 MS. HIGGINS: We can undertake to do that, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The reason why I was looking was because there
14 was one of the documents shown today where August or September was not
15 entirely clear --
16 MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- and when I looked at that, I did agree that it
18 was August document rather than a September document. But that was in
19 one different from this one.
20 If there is a mistake, could you please take care that the whole
21 document, if it is -- I don't know whether it was a final translation or
22 a provisional one, but if we are checking documents, if there are
23 mistakes, then perhaps it would be better to have them checked in their
25 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any other matter.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Just to inform the Court that we have no
3 objection to the admission of the map, which the exhibit number I've
4 forgotten now, but that was displayed earlier on.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was the -- I think the only document
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, that was D1778, marked for
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is now admitted into evidence.
10 Mr. Waespi.
11 MR. WAESPI: Yes, in relation to D1774, a document Mr. Kay bar
12 tabled yesterday, the Prosecution has no objections.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And could you remind me exactly on what the document
14 was so that --
15 MR. WAESPI: It was an Official Note, I think in relation to
16 witness Cipci or Cetina.
17 MR. KAY: Cetina.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Was that the Brgud issue or was that a different
20 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I think it's the report of a criminal
21 report and then a notification of an onsite investigation. It was a
22 document in those from Brgud.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Brgud, and it's the report of what happened on the
24 13th of September, whereas there was gap between the 12th --
25 MR. KAY: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- when the bodies could not be found and the end of
2 the 13th where, I think, UNCIVPOL people found the bodies and --
3 MR. KAY: Yes, Mr. Misetic kindly found it for us.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the one. Yes, I have a clear
5 recollection of that.
6 Then D1774 is admitted into evidence.
7 Any other matter.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: Just a small matter, Your Honour, to assist the
9 Chamber and the Registry. Recently entered document D1781, which is a
10 Decree on Internal Organisation in MUP, consists a D527 which was already
11 entered into the evidence, part of it, so maybe it would be wise just to
12 merge those two documents into one, not have two different documents
13 which one is partially, although part of the other bigger documents,
14 which is D1781.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there some reasons to do so and there are also
16 some reasons not do it, because the reference now on the transcript and
17 for -- someone who is reading the transcript would have to one or two or
18 three pages after that the transcript of your observations and then he
19 could not rely on the exhibit number anymore.
20 So, therefore, I also was hesitant to ask whether any of these --
21 I would say legal instruments, whether they were orders or -- for
22 example, the constitution, I wasn't aware exactly what, if at all, of the
23 constitution was already in evidence. I would be inclined to think that
24 where such a mistake is mad here, that it would be easier for those who
25 will later read the transcript to leave it as this, but I'll discuss it
1 with my colleagues. And if the parties have any view on this matter,
2 then they're invited to share their views with the Chamber.
3 We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow, the
4 4th of November, 9.00, Courtroom III.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of
7 November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.