1 Tuesday, 9 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present in court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe it's advisable that we move into private
7 [Private session]
11 Page 4150 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 On the 13th of April, 2006, the Prosecution filed a motion for
11 admission of statements of witnesses MM-16 and MM-18 pursuant to
12 Rule 89(F). The Prosecution seeks the admission into evidence of, one,
13 the statement of MM-016 with Annexes 1 to 3 and 5; and, two, the statement
14 of MM-018 with Annex 2.
15 In its response of 27 April 2006, the Defence did not object to
16 the admission of those statements and annexes. The Trial Chamber notes
17 that Rule 89(C) and (F) that it is well established in the jurisprudence
18 that witness statements may be admitted into evidence under Rule 89(F)
19 provided certain conditions are met. The determination of the interests
20 of justice under Rule 89(F) is to be made in relation to each individual
21 witness in light not only of the surrounding circumstances but also the
22 evidence to be given by the witness. The Trial Chamber notes that the
23 witnesses will be present in court to attest to the accuracy of their
24 respective statements and annexes and for questioning by the Defence and
25 the Trial Chamber.
1 The Trial Chamber therefore finds that it is in the interests of
2 justice to admit the statements with annexes into evidence and requests
3 the registrar to assign exhibit numbers out of court.
4 That's the end of the decision.
5 Then we also had the Prosecution motion for admission of
6 additional written statements of Witness MM-083. On the 3rd of May, the
7 Prosecutor filed a confidential motion for admission of additional written
8 statement pursuant to Rule 92 bis and for --
9 I'm not quite sure whether we shouldn't go into private session as
10 this one says "protective measures." Maybe we should.
11 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We will are in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 You may call the witness.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if we could bring Mr. Kerkkanen back
21 in, please.
22 Just while we're waiting, just so as a reminder to myself that
23 there are one or two housekeeping matters that we have after the witness,
24 just to alert the Court. Hopefully I'll remember.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whiting. You're
1 obviously not relying on the Court to remind you. It forgets much worse
2 than counsel does.
3 MR. WHITING: No, I wouldn't ask that of the Court, Your Honour.
4 It was a way of making myself remember. I thought if I said it out loud
5 and it was on the transcript it would help me remember.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 WITNESS: ARI KERKKANEN [Resumed]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kerkkanen, first of all let me remind you that
9 you are bound by the statement you made at the beginning to tell the
10 truth, the whole truth and nothing else but the truth.
11 Having said that, let me just express the Court's regret that you
12 have been kept here waiting the whole of yesterday perhaps not knowing
13 what's happening. Due to circumstances beyond the control of all of us in
14 court, we are not able to sit today. We are only able to continue with
15 your testimony today. We hope you can bear with us. Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Milovancevic.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. We shall continue the
21 I would kindly ask you to turn to the second part of the annex in
22 B/C/S. This is 27, and the title is MUP SAO Krajina, Crimes Committed in
23 1991. And this page starts with the footnote 132, for easier
24 identification of the page.
25 At the very beginning of this page, sir, you say this: "Martic
1 and Captain Dragan gave instructions to the War Staffs of the
2 municipalities of Dvor, Glina, and Kostajnica in the area of Banja and
3 Kordun and they participated in a meeting held on 23rd July in the War
4 Staff of the municipality of Dvor in Samarica."
5 With this regard, I would kindly ask you to point to the document
6 which provided the basis for you to say that Martic, the accused in this
7 case, provided War Staffs with instructions.
8 If I may be of any assistance, at the end of this page you are
9 saying in the report on the operation that took place on the 26th of June,
10 1991, it says that the plan for the operation came from Captain Dragan and
11 the War Staff in Glina. This is just for clarification, to clarify my
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Slow down, Mr. Milovancevic. I can hear the
14 interpreter rattling away trying to keep pace with you.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreter.
16 I will bear that in mind, Your Honour.
17 Q. At the very end of that page, you are saying the report on the
18 operation that took place on the 26th of July says that the plan for the
19 operation came from Captain Dragan, and at the beginning you are saying
20 Martic and Captain Dragan provided instructions. So could you please
21 point to the document where you found that Martic provided instructions.
22 A. It is not explicitly said in this document that he provided
23 instructions, and as you referred, the document Exhibit number 2039 states
24 that the plan was received from Captain Dragan and that Glina War Staff
25 for this operation. However, taking into account Martic's position and
1 his presence in this meeting on the 23rd of July, my interpretation is
2 that he was there in his capacity as minister of the interior. Therefore,
3 there must be some meaning in his presence at this particular time just
4 prior to this operation.
5 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, was your task to interpret military or any other
6 instructions or to locate and identify documents? What was your task?
7 A. My task was to locate and identify relevant documents pertaining
8 to the SAO Krajina MUP and the RSK MUP and to write a report on the basis
9 of these documents.
10 Q. Thank you. Can we see on the ELMO or on the screen document 25?
11 That is Prosecutor's document 25 from the 65 ter list.
12 Can we see that on the screen, please?
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is not the
14 document that I asked for. Could you please bear with me just a moment.
15 I would like to check that in the footnote.
16 When I asked for 2025 document to be shown on the screen, I
17 referred to the footnote 133 that mentions document 2025, and the report
18 is entitled report for July -- report for 23rd July in the War Staff of
19 Samarica municipality and signed by the chief of the War Staff.
20 I have this document in B/C/S. It's an entirely different
21 document, the one that I have just mentioned. So it is not the document
22 that is on the screen but the document that is referred to in
23 footnote 133. So could I please have the document from -- referred to
24 in 133, and its number is 2025.
25 In order to save time, I don't have to insist on the document.
1 We'll see whether it will be necessary. I'm going to show the witness the
2 following and tell him the following:
3 Q. In the document that you mention in footnote 133, Mr. Kerkkanen,
4 you are -- the document in its first paragraph speaks about no changes
5 that have taken place --
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may just be of assistance. First
7 of all, I think the initial confusion was because it was interpreted as 25
8 rather than 2025, but it appears that -- that 2025, there's nothing in
9 e-court under that 65 ter number, but the document that I believe counsel
10 is looking for is under 1219, 65 ter number 1219. So if that's of
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Let's have a look at document 1219 and see
13 whether it will be the document that counsel wants to see.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I thank my learned friend for
15 assistance with this matter. This is the document that I had in mind,
16 Your Honour.
17 Q. In the first paragraph of this document, Mr. Kerkkanen, it says as
18 follows: There were no changes on the front line, which was 18
19 kilometres long. From the Dvor barricade to the rail station in Volinja.
20 Further on it says in the last paragraph: After the Defence
21 minister and commanders addressed all present.
22 Is it based, on this document, that you concluded that Mr. Martic,
23 as you say in the first paragraph, provided instructions?
24 A. This is one of the documents that saw Mr. Martic being present on
25 the 23rd of July, 1991. In this meeting, there's also Exhibit number
1 2013, which states Martic was sitting there on the 23rd of July, 1991.
2 Q. It is precisely because of your answer and the contents of the
3 document my question was as follows: You make a conclusion based on the
4 fact that Mr. Martic was there, that he himself provided instructions to
5 the War Staffs. Am I right in saying that and in thinking that?
6 A. Yes, you are right.
7 Q. With regard to this situation in Dvor, these documents speak about
8 the month of July 1991. One of the documents that I would like to be
9 shown on the screen is Prosecutor's document 2409. One of the documents
10 is the decision of the Municipal Assembly of Glina dated 31st March 1991,
11 on separating the police station in Glina from the strength of the
12 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia and on joining that
13 police station to the SAO Krajina SUP. Do you remember any such document,
14 Mr. Kerkkanen?
15 You can already see the document on the screen.
16 Can you scroll up a bit so that the witness can see the whole
17 content of the decision?
18 According to this document, should the police station in Glina be
19 in the hands of the Serb authorities as of the 31st of March, 1991? Would
20 you agree with that, Mr. Kerkkanen?
21 A. That's the decision that this document states, but it doesn't mean
22 that the police station physically was in the hands of the SAO Krajina
23 authorities at that time.
24 Q. Is it factually indisputable that on the 26th of July and 27th of
25 July, i.e., towards the end of July 1991, there were skirmishes and
1 fighting around the police station in Glina?
2 A. There are several documents cited in this report that clearly
3 state that there were some armoured -- armed struggle going on in this
4 area on those dates.
5 Q. Based on the documents that you inspected, could you establish who
6 the Serb forces were fighting against in Glina in the police station and
7 around it?
8 A. In order to answer this question, I should go through again all
9 these documents. I don't remember whether they explicitly state whom they
10 were fighting in this area, but bearing in mind that these documents, or
11 at least one of them, refer to victims of being civilians. I think that
12 civilians were present in these areas as well.
13 Q. The reports that you inspected with regard to the fighting in
14 Glina, did they say anything about the armed opposition which had in its
15 possession various weapons and that they had trenches and that the
16 fighting was going on all day long? Did you find that in the documents?
17 A. Not explicitly, but because some of these documents are basically
18 situational reports, it's clear that there were two sides on this fight.
19 Q. The other party against the Serbs, was it armed, and was it under
20 the control of the then Croatian authorities?
21 A. Well, this is something I can suppose, but now you ask me to
22 conclude something on the -- or interpret these documents, and I don't
23 remember so explicitly the content of these documents. I should go -- I
24 should see them once again in order to give a precise answer to this
1 Q. Can you please tell us which document you need? We can put it on
2 the screen and help you with your testimony in this regard.
3 A. Basically all documents I'm referring to in chapter 1 of this
4 part 2.
5 Q. In other words, after having inspected all of these documents, all
6 you can remember is what the Serbs did.
7 A. These documents are explicitly documents written by Serbs about
8 their actions. So there's no so much information with the other part or
9 partner in this fight was doing. These documents tell what different Serb
10 forces in the area were doing in this particular time.
11 Q. With regard to the operation around Glina, you have stated that
12 according to Captain Dragan's plan, as you say, and the War Staff in
13 Glina, 700 civilians participated in the operation together with 50
14 specials and 50 policemen. And then you continue to say on page 28, or in
15 B/C/S it starts with footnote 126, you say that the commander of the
16 Special Unit called Sundac, Nikola Sundac, and you continue to say that he
17 was also the commander of the sabotage unit, and in the fourth paragraph
18 you say that Nikola Sundac's detachment is being mentioned by two reports.
19 And finally in the fifth paragraph of -- paragraph of that page you say
20 this unit was connected to Milan Martic, which is corroborated by the
21 report on the work of the Special Police Detachment in Dvor Na Uni. In
22 other words, the Executive Board of the municipality of Dvor Na Uni sent a
23 special group for training.
24 My question is -- first of all, let me tell you the -- the quote
25 was rather long, but this is the methodology that you used in your work.
1 Based on the fact that somebody mentions a special unit and then continues
2 to mention a sabotage unit, then a special sabotage unit, is this enough
3 for you to say that these men belonged to Martic? That is my question.
4 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'd object to the question. It
5 misstates the evidence. The report, at least the part that's been cited
6 by counsel, doesn't say that these men belonged to Martic. It says they
7 unit was linked to Milan Martic. Perhaps it's a translation issue, but
8 just to be clear.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend is right. I
11 have already provided the witness with this document which speaks about
12 the connection between Milan Martic and this detachment, and that is the
13 essence of my question, and I am just specifying things in order to avoid
14 any confusion with this regard.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are causing confusion, Mr. Milovancevic, when
16 you say "belonged" instead of saying "linked." So be specific and quote
17 what's said. Don't misstate the evidence.
18 Now, Mr. Kerkkanen, was it sufficient for you to conclude that
19 these people are linked to Mr. Milan Martic?
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, on the basis of these documents, yes, I
21 think that there's enough evidence in the content of these documents
22 sufficiently to link Mr. Martic with these units. And, more specifically,
23 the fact that Exhibit number 2100, the report on the work of the police
24 special unit in Dvor Na Uni, includes in the report this unit, the mere
25 fact that they are dealt with the police report tells about the fact that
1 this group was perceived to be linked to the police.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Could we see on the screen Prosecution document 2437, 2437.
5 Q. What we will now see on the monitor, Mr. Kerkkanen, is a decision
6 from the Executive Council of Dvor municipality dated the 31st of May,
7 1991, entitled "Conclusion." Do you recognise this document,
8 Mr. Kerkkanen?
9 A. Perhaps you can scroll a little bit more down.
10 Yes. I -- I recognise this document. What is the footnote
11 number, may I ask? Because I believe I'm referring to this one.
12 Q. Right now I cannot tell you precisely. It's one of the documents
13 I marked, but now I find it difficult to find the footnote number. It's
14 not on the page we are on at present. But as in the last paragraph of
15 this report, on page 28 you say that the Executive Council of the
16 Municipal Assembly of Dvor municipality sent a certain number of
17 volunteers for training.
18 My question to you, regardless of the footnote number, is the
19 following: Does this conclusion show that the Executive Council sent a
20 certain number of volunteers from their own territory, that is the
21 territory of Dvor municipality, to be trained for Special Purpose Units
22 for the needs of Dvor municipality, and they sent them to the Ministry of
23 National Defence in Knin? Is that what this document says?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think, Mr. Milovancevic, in fairness to the
25 witness you must find the footnote so that he can correctly jog his
1 memory. To say you can't find it and regardless of the footnote you're
2 just going to put the question is not helpful. I think the witness must
3 get what he's asking for.
4 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think I can be of assistance on this
5 document. I don't believe this document is cited in the report. This is
6 a document that I went through with Mr. Kerkkanen as a -- that group of
7 extra documents after we talked about the report, and it was admitted
8 as -- as Exhibit number 471 during that process. So to my knowledge it's
9 not cited in the report.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which document is not cited in the report?
11 MR. WHITING: The document that's on the screen, which is
12 65 ter Exhibit 2437, which is also in evidence as Exhibit number 471.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you hear that now, Mr. Milovancevic?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I realise
15 now that this document is not to be found in any of the footnotes, but
16 Mr. Kerkkanen did comment on it when responding to the Prosecutor's
17 questions, which is why I put my question to him.
18 By Your Honour's leave, I would like to proceed with this
19 question. This document, which bears the number 2437 from the 65 ter
20 list, is not one of the footnotes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: There's nothing wrong in you continuing,
22 Mr. Milovancevic, if only you can be on the same page with the witness and
23 we can all be following what you are talking about.
24 Now, this document belongs to a separate set of documents, not the
25 ones that are in the report. If you can get to that with the witness,
1 that would be helpful.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Witness, I assume you see what the problem is. Can you tell us to
4 what group of documents this document belongs? I'm referring to
5 document 2437. And then could you answer my question, please?
6 A. Yes. Now I remember. These are additional documents that are not
7 cited in the report but were tendered as evidence. And I saw -- I have
8 read through. I'm familiar with this document. And basically what you
9 said about the content, it's accurate except for the fact that it doesn't
10 state that it was ministry of national -- of the national defence but
11 states Ministry of Defence in Knin.
12 Q. As for the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Kerkkanen, I read the text in
13 B/C/S where it says the Ministry of National Defence of the SAO Krajina in
14 Knin. That's what is stated in the text of the document in B/C/S. I
15 don't know how it's been translated into English. However, this detail
16 does not affect your answer.
17 Another question about this document: In this document, is the
18 MUP of the Krajina ever mentioned, or Milan Martic?
19 A. Not in this document, but we have to keep in mind officially on
20 the 31st of May, 1991, Mr. Martic held the position of Minister of
21 Defence. He was appointed to this first on the 29th of May, 1991.
22 Q. And one further question about this document. Is it evident from
23 this document that it refers to training in Knin, sending people from the
24 territory of Glina to be trained in Knin for the needs of Glina
1 Excuse me. I made a slip. I was referring to Dvor municipality.
2 The entire document refers to Dvor. So it was a slip on my part.
3 Are men being sent for training for Special Purpose Units for the
4 needs of a particular municipality, the municipality of Dvor?
5 A. Yes. That's what -- what the document states.
6 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to talk about paragraph 2
7 entitled "Bacin, Cerovljani, Dubica," and it begins with footnote 146.
8 In the first paragraph you say that in Bacin, on the 20th of
9 October or thereabouts, Croatian civilians were killed, and you go on to
10 say that the annual report of the public security station in Dvor Na Uni,
11 referring to the period between the 23rd of June, 1991, and the 1st of
12 January, 1992, confirms that police units subordinated to Martic were
13 active in Kostajnica and Dubica in 1991.
14 My question is the following: Did you find in the documents the
15 information that Serb forces entered Dubica, Bacin, Cerovljani, and
16 Kostajnica on the 16th or the 15th of September, 1991?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. We have heard this from witnesses, but as you don't remember, my
19 next question will be about the quotation you include from this report.
20 You quote the part that states that from the very beginning, the entire
21 personnel of the public security station took part in all actions. Mop-up
22 operations in the territory from Dvor to Volinja have within carried out.
23 On several occasions they provided help in actions in Kostajnica, Glina,
24 Petrinja, Dubica and other places, and that professional and technical aid
25 has been provided to Kostajnica and other organs where it was needed.
1 In connection with this, I wish to ask you whether it's evident
2 from this report that these were combat activities carried out by members
3 of the police of the SAO Krajina from the public security station in
4 Dvor Na Uni. Is that clear?
5 A. It's clear they are talking about combat operations as they refer
6 to mop-up operations. Not exactly necessarily in Dvor Na Uni but from
7 Dvor Na Uni in the areas of other nearby municipalities.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. In the documents you reviewed, did you
9 find the information, as you mentioned the Croatian civilians killed in
10 those places, that apart from any military or combat action the civilians
11 in these places were gathered together, taken to a fire station, and
12 killed? Do you have this information?
13 A. I don't have this information on the basis of these documents
14 related to the police units.
15 Q. Do you know that these civilians were rounded up and taken to the
16 fire station?
17 A. Yes. I think this is what the indictment states.
18 Q. You go on to say in your text: Special Unit commander in
19 Kostajnica, Stevan Borojevic, sent a request to Krajina Ministry of
20 Interior on the 23rd of September, 1991, requesting that official status
21 be granted.
22 And then you go on to say that in January, 1992, Martic confirmed
23 that Borojevic was commander of the Special Purpose Units in Kostajnica.
24 My question is the following: Do these two documents show that
25 Borojevic was not under Martic's command until January 1992; that Martic
1 officially appointed him commander of the unit on the 13th of January,
2 1992? That's footnote 148.
3 A. Yes. That's the -- what this document states, but as I see on the
4 basis of Exhibit number 661, Borojevic request on the 30th of September,
5 1991, to Martic, it's more like asking Martic confirmation the Special
6 Unit is -- is under Martic's command. And I'm referring specifically to
7 the text in this request, which state -- quoting Borojevic, "This is the
8 only unit in this area that has remained under your command."
9 So this shows that this unit was already at that time under
10 Martic's command, but for some reason Borojevic wanted to have a
11 confirmation of perhaps official status of this unit.
12 Q. Did you connect this explanation provided by Borojevic with the
13 first quotation from Borojevic's letter on this page where he says he does
14 not want to be subordinated to the JNA and the command of the TO with his
15 unit? He and his local unit on the ground did not want to be under JNA
16 command, and so they wanted to be attached to Martic. Is that the reason
17 for his request to Martic?
18 A. Well, on -- what I can only state on the basis of this document is
19 that it quite explicitly states this unit was already under Martic's
20 command, because he states that "it has remained under your command."
21 Whatever the reasons for this is the other thing, I don't -- I think is
22 not so relevant in this context.
23 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, in this context, only your conclusion is relevant,
24 and your only conclusion that this is evidence that this unit was under
25 Martic's command, that's what your conclusion is. Did you ever find any
1 documents showing that Martic established in unit?
2 A. Basically it's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion that can be
3 seen and read on this document.
4 Q. Thank you. Let's move on. Saborsko, Poljanak, and Lipovanic.
5 That's point 3 in your report.
6 You say the main attack against Croats in the village of Saborsko
7 took place on the 12th of November, 1991 between 0900 and 1400 hours.
8 Please point us to the document which states that the aim or the
9 goal of the attack on Saborsko was to attack Croats?
10 A. I believe I don't have this kind of document at my disposal, and
11 there is no document like this referred to in this report.
12 Q. Why, then, did you say something like this in your report, that
13 this was an attack against Croats?
14 A. As I understand the basis of other well corroborated information,
15 that's the fact that took place in -- in Saborsko.
16 Q. In connection with the action at Saborsko, did you see a document
17 on the order to Tactical Group 2 of the JNA? And in this order, Tactical
18 Group 2, under the command of Colonel Bulat, is based on an order from the
19 command of the 5th Military District, and it relates to an attack on
20 Saborsko. Have you seen such a military document?
21 A. I think I have seen it, but in order to refresh my memory I should
22 see it again in order to be sure.
23 Q. From the documents you reviewed, did you see the term of a company
24 in Saborsko? I'm referring to a unit of the Croatian armed forces.
25 A. I don't remember seeing that.
1 Q. Thank you. The next point, 4, refers to Skabrnja and Nadin. You
2 say that Skabrnja and Nadin were attacked on the 18th and 19th of
3 November, 1991. On the basis of what document, did you establish that
4 Skabrnja and Nadin were attacked, and how do you know who started the
6 A. Again, this introductory part of this paragraph 4 in this chapter
7 has been based on well established facts. For example, found in the
9 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Kerkkanen, that everything that is in the
10 indictment has to be proved in these proceedings? So these are not
11 established facts.
12 A. Yes, I'm aware.
13 Q. My next question: Did you find the information that in Skabrnja
14 and the seven nearby villages which covered a third of Zadar municipality
15 there were 730 armed men belonging to Croatian units and that they were
16 equipped with boots, helmets, belts, shoulder-straps, automatic weapons,
17 and other weapons? Do you know about this?
18 A. I didn't know all these details, and in this context I think I
19 have to remind that I wasn't undertaking a crime base analysis. I was
20 looking for documents related to these events that the -- are talking
21 about the SAO Krajina or RSK MUP units and forces.
22 Q. You say, Mr. Kerkkanen, that you did not establish facts
23 concerning the crime base, and yet in the part about Dubica, Cerovljani,
24 Bacin, Skabrnja and Nadin, this part is entitled the MUP of the
25 SAO Krajina and the crimes committed in 1991. Why did you put this title
1 there if you did not deal with the crime base?
2 A. Well, I didn't say that I don't deal -- or I didn't deal with the
3 crime base. I said I didn't undertake a crime base analysis. This is
4 something different. I deal with the crime bases when they are somehow
5 related to the SAO Krajina MUP units.
6 Q. In connection with the events in Skabrnja and Nadin, after this
7 introductory sentence saying when the attack against the villages of
8 Skabrnja and Nadin took place, you go on to talk about the structure of
9 the Benkovac police, about the most important persons in the Benkovac
10 police department. You go on to speak of Goran Opacic who was in the
11 public police station and was then transferred to the army. And then you
12 go on to quote the reports about Skabrnja which were drawn up by
13 Lieutenant Simo Rosic, by Ristic of the JNA. And then in the part that
14 has footnote 131, you say there is a report by Ristic on the killings in
15 Skabrnja indicating that members of TO carried out killings.
16 In the next paragraph -- have you found the paragraph,
17 Mr. Kerkkanen?
18 A. I think that you were referring to footnote 163, not 131 as you
20 Q. Yes, that's right. 163. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen.
21 You go on to speak of an Official Note from Lieutenant Commander
22 Simo Rosic and Major Milivoj Ostojic saying that the perpetrators were
23 members of the Benkovac Territorial Defence Staff Special Units or units
24 that fought under their command. And in the next paragraph you mention a
25 report by Simo Rosic dated the 11th of March, 1991, which gives additional
2 According to this information, the group that committed murders
3 was headed by their commander at the time, Zoran Tadic, and besides him
4 murders were committed by certain Serbian volunteers.
5 My question is the following: The title of this paragraph 2 is
6 the police in Krajina, SAO Krajina MUP and crimes in 1991. On what basis
7 do you link Mr. Martic with these crimes? They all mention that it was
8 members of the TO or other volunteers who committed these crimes.
9 A. Yes. I think these investigations carried out in investigating
10 reports written by the JNA at the time are important evidence. And as one
11 of the reports, footnote 163, Exhibit number 1958, refers to the fact that
12 the chief of Benkovac public security station, Mr. Drazic, was present
13 during the attack in Skabrnja.
14 First of all, it shows that there was or there were police units
15 subordinated to Mr. Martic present in those areas, and furthermore, I was
16 interested in finding whether Mr. Martic initiated any similar
17 investigation on those events as the JNA did.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would that be a convenient time, Mr. Milovancevic?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It is
20 the most convenient time for our first break.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then we will break off and
22 come back at quarter to 11.00.
23 Court adjourned.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, on page 34 of the B/C/S version and the title
4 Bruska, December, 1991, we are still talking about footnote 166, because a
5 while ago we spoke about Bruska and Skabrnja. Bruska is our next topic.
6 Have you found it?
7 A. Yes, I have found it.
8 Q. Thank you. Thank you. In several paragraphs here you're saying
9 that the JNA investigated the killings, and according to the information
10 in the first paragraph, a person known as Ranko stated that in Bruska
11 village there was fighting between Dusko Marinovic and Mile Pupovac whose
12 nickname was Kljaja, and the source whose pseudonym is Ranko believes that
13 Mile Pupovac might be one of the perpetrators having revenge as his
15 Further on in the following paragraph you're quoting the report by
16 Major Branislav Ristic of 4 April 1992. On the basis of his contacts with
17 source known as Kota who informed him that the perpetrators were Pupovac
18 and Skoric whose first names are not mentioned but they hail from Medvedja
20 The information that you quote here on the investigation conducted
21 by the JNA, do they point to the motive of the killing in Gruska such as
22 has been mentioned by the indictment? In Bruska.
23 A. I speak here about the document, about the JNA investigation on
24 this particular event, and this document speculates that this dispute
25 perhaps has something to do with the event.
1 Q. Further on, you say that in two MUP reports in Bruska the killings
2 in Bruska are mentioned there, and you quote the report of the police
3 station in Benkovac. Do you remember whether this report of the Benkovac
4 police station that you quote is a report covering a certain period of
5 time rather than just one day?
6 A. I think that one of these MUP reports covers various events. It's
7 like events for a week or so. But in order to be sure, I should see this
8 document. I think it's Exhibit number 679.
9 Q. Can P679 be shown on the monitor, please?
10 Mr. Kerkkanen, you're referring to footnote 67 -- 172. Have we
11 provided you with the right document number? Is that a document that you
12 had in mind?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: It will be footnote 172, not 67 -- 172 as mentioned
14 on the transcript.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is the document that I have in my mind.
16 So it starts -- it's a report for the period between 10th of December,
17 from the 10th of December, 1991, until the 24th of December, 1991.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Based on this document that is in front of you on the monitor, can
20 you see what happened each day? And also, is it obvious, looking at the
21 document, that this document speaks about the events that took place on
22 the 12th of December, the 13th of December, and so on and so forth, and
23 that the killings, the mortar attacks, and the suffering of the civilian
24 population are mentioned? In other words, this is just a review of
25 certain events that took place over a period of certain number of days
1 that this report refers to?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. Is it also correct that under a certain date when all of the
4 things happened in Bruska, which is the 21st of December, 1992, is the
5 massacre in Bruska mentioned? Actually, a more severe, more serious term
6 is used than the one that you used talking about Bruska. I'm asking you
7 that because of the fact that in two SUP reports these killings are
8 mentioned just in passing. Is this a fair comment?
9 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I object to the question. I think it's
10 exceedingly unclear. I'm not sure what the question is.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you're asking if it's a fair
12 comment. I'm not sure what is a fair comment.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. My
14 colleague is saying that my question has been misinterpreted. In other
15 words, the interpretation did not reflect my question.
16 My question was: Is it correct and does the witness possess
17 material from in document based on which he can claim that this killing is
18 mentioned only in passing, which implies that the SAO Krajina police is
19 not interested in the killings, whereas on the other hand this report is
20 just an overview of the events. And this was the gist of my question.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm still not understanding you. Whether this was
22 just mentioned in passing is a statement that's introduced by you. Now
23 you want the witness to justify what you are putting to him instead of
24 justifying what he says. Are we together on that one?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order for you
1 to understand me fully, I would like to say that this is what I asked the
2 witness. Within the context of the document that is on the monitor in
3 front of us, which is an over -- a report, a summary report, is it correct
4 to say that in two MUP reports the killings in Bruska are mentioned only
5 in passing? Is it his testimony that such interpretation of the events as
6 we can see on the monitor is correct? And this is the gist of my
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: But which two MUP reports are you talking about?
9 Shouldn't he comment on the document on the screen rather than on the two
10 MUP reports which we don't have before us?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm just quoting
12 the first sentence in this paragraph, and I'm trying to quote correctly.
13 I am quoting the whole sentence, and I repeat it. And the question is
14 whether this report that we have on the monitor deserves such a comment on
15 the part of the witness. And the second report is footnote 173 that the
16 witness mentions further on. But we are not interested in the second
17 report. We are only interested in the first report, the first MUP
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kerkkanen, maybe you understand the question.
20 Are you able to answer?
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, yes. First I have to correct. You
22 mentioned earlier December 1992. We are talking about the 21st of
23 December, 1991.
24 Basically by its nature the first document, Exhibit number 679, is
25 a summary of events from the 12th until 24th of December, 1991. And the
1 second, Exhibit number 677, is -- gives a little bit more detailed
2 information as it lists names of killed persons and some additional
3 information as well.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you. We shall move on to another topic. In the third part,
6 and the title is "Connection between the MUP of SAO Krajina, i.e., the
7 Republic of Serbian Krajina." I apologise. "A connection between the SAO
8 MUP and the joint criminal enterprise and the linkage between the two."
9 With regard to this title, I would like to ask you as follows:
10 Based on which did you establish that there was a joint criminal
11 enterprise? Which documents did you use in order to establish that?
12 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object. Where -- I don't think that --
13 I don't think the report purports to establish that there was a joint
14 criminal enterprise, notwithstanding the title. I don't think the title
15 purports to make that conclusion. And I don't think that anywhere in the
16 text does it purport to establish that there was a joint criminal
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I perceive the
20 objection as an explanation by my learned friend, and I would be very
21 happy if the witness provided us with his own explanation bearing in mind
22 that this is his report. And if the witness repeats what my learned
23 friend has just said, I will be only too happy and I'll move on.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is true, but be that as it may,
25 Mr. Milovancevic, if indeed the report does not purport to say that there
1 was a link between -- the linkage between the MUP and the joint criminal
2 enterprise, then your question becomes misleading. Do phrase your
3 question in the context of the content of the report.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, this is your title that you have given to the third
6 part, the linkage between the SAO MUP and the joint criminal enterprise,
7 and then your first subtitle is "MUP training in Golubic." "The MUP units
8 in the Posavina corridor." That's your second subtitle. The linkage
9 between the SAO Krajina MUP and the ARSK MUP and Slobodan Milosevic. "The
10 linkage between the SAO Krajina MUP and the Serbia MUP." And the second
11 subtitle is "Training." Another subtitle is "Supply of armaments and
13 All of the subtitles that I have provided you with can -- do not
14 contain the word "joint criminal enterprise," but they are all subtitles
15 in the third part that talks about joint criminal enterprise.
16 With regard to that, do all these titles suggest the existence of
17 the joint criminal enterprise, and do these subtitles actually refer to
18 the existence of a joint criminal enterprise? That is the gist of my
19 question to you, sir.
20 A. Yes, they do refer for the existence of active cooperation between
21 different agencies on different operations in different areas, whether
22 they were police, military, or other agencies from the SAO Krajina, the
23 RSK, from Republika Srpska, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, or from the Republic
24 of Serbia.
25 Q. Based on your answer, can I say that you believe that there was a
1 linkage between the two and that there was indeed a joint criminal
2 enterprise? Is that why you gave the third part this title?
3 A. Documents I reviewed for this report and I'm referring to show
4 that there was a linkage between different agencies I was referring to in
5 my previous answer.
6 Q. And one more question in this regard. Did you ever see a plan
7 document on the so-called joint criminal enterprise which provides us with
8 time, participants, goals, means, or any such thing?
9 A. No, I didn't see.
10 Q. Thank you. With regard to subtitle 1, "MUP training in Golubic,"
11 you're quoting Captain Dragan saying, "Our main objective should be those
12 who have completed training, return to their homes and form mini training
13 grounds wherever possible, as well as warehouses which would produce new
15 With this regard, the question for you is as follows: Such a
16 statement by Captain Dragan, i.e., a report, does it point to the fact
17 that the units trained were MUP units, and is that something that can be
18 concluded based on this quote?
19 A. In order to answer this question, I would like to see this
20 document. I think it's Exhibit number 1952.
21 Q. Can you please tell us what footnote are you referring to,
22 Mr. Kerkkanen, and which document are you referring to, under which
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's footnote 176.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Do you have the document before you, Mr. Kerkkanen? Please look
2 at it and then answer my question if you can.
3 A. Can you scroll down, please?
4 MR. WHITING: If I could be of assistance. I think that the
5 document that was being discussed before with the quotation of "our main
6 objective should be that those who have completed training should return
7 to their homes," I think that is actually a different document. It
8 is 783, which is cited in the next footnote, 177.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's -- I think you are correct. You're
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have this other document
12 on the screen, please, on the monitor, 783 from the 65 ter list?
13 Can you scroll down and go to the second page of the document? A
14 bit further. I would like to see the second page of the document, if
16 THE WITNESS: Well, speaking specifically about this paragraph I'm
17 quoting in the report, it does not say anything about the MUP. But the
18 fact that the same document, and Captain Dragan in this document speaks
19 about Milan Martic, it makes it clear that Milan Martic is linked to this
20 training and what was happening in this training ground at Golubici.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you. On page 38 of the B/C/S version, which is the next
23 page and starts with footnote 182, you are saying in the middle of that
24 page, which is above the subtitle under 2, "The RSK units in the Posavina
25 corridor," above that title, the second paragraph above that title, it
1 appears that SAO Krajina MUP ran a training camp also in Bosnia in
2 Gornji Podgradci in the autumn of 1991. This is what you're saying, and
3 you're explaining this by saying two applicants applying for SAO Krajina
4 police refer in their CVs to the training they received for the Krajina
5 police in Gornji Podgradci between 1 August and 7 October 1991. With
6 regards to this, my question is as follows: Are you aware and do you have
7 a document proving who it was who organised the training centre in Gornji
9 A. The only documents referring to this training centre and training
10 there are these documents referred to in this report, Exhibit numbers 1977
11 and 1978.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. Does this mean that these are the
13 documents referring to these two applicants applying for the police from
14 Podgradci? Is that what you mean?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. If two men are applying for the Krajina police, isn't that
17 evidence that they are not members of the Krajina police? They're only
18 applying to become members, and they explained that they completed some
19 training somewhere, but they are only applying to become policemen. Isn't
20 that direct evidence that they're not actually members of the Krajina
22 A. But it has nothing to do with the fact that they got training, as
23 they state in their documents, by the Krajina police.
24 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, that's not what those two witnesses said. They
25 said they completed training for the Krajina police but not from the
1 Krajina police?
2 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object. Maybe we could refer to the
3 documents, because I don't think that's what it says.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you refer us to the documents,
5 Mr. Milovancevic?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It's
7 document 1977, footnote 186.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's have it on the monitor.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you see the document, Mr. Kerkkanen?
11 A. No, I can't -- now I think I have it.
12 Q. Now you have it before you. I wish to know whether based on this
13 document one can establish whether this refers to the SAO Krajina from
14 which Mr. Martic hails or the Bosnian Krajina.
15 A. We know that at that time the SAO Krajina police was in existence.
16 Whether in the late summer and early autumn of 1991 Bosnian Krajina police
17 was in existence, I doubt.
18 Q. And finally, with reference to Gornji Podgradci, you didn't answer
19 my question whether the fact that two candidates were applying to join the
20 Krajina police shows that they were not in fact members of the police.
21 Does it show this or something else?
22 A. In my -- in my understanding, they didn't need to be members of
23 Krajina police while they -- they undertook training by the police. The
24 first statement -- statement of -- referred to states Nikola Babic
25 saying, "I completed Krajina police training in Gornji Podgradci."
1 Q. That's all the documents you have referring to the Krajina police
2 in Gornji Podgradci? Is that it, these two applications?
3 A. Yes. These documents are the only ones I have about training in
4 Gornji Podgradci. But furthermore, I have to say that later on when the
5 RSK was formed and a police organisation was systematised, on the basis of
6 different documents I have seen that those who were previously working in
7 the Special Police Units or linked with those units in order to become
8 police officers they had to reapply for those positions.
9 Q. We have completed this topic.
10 The next subparagraph is "RSK MUP units in the Posavina corridor,
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina." Here you say that the territory known as the
12 Posavina corridor in Northern Bosnia was strategically a crucial one, as
13 it linked the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the Bosanska Krajina to
14 other Serb areas and Serbia proper. And this territory formed the most
15 important supply route between these regions and Serbia. You then go on
16 to mention a number of documents referring to fighting for the corridor
17 and its participants.
18 My question is as follows: Reviewing these documents and studying
19 the combat activities of the Krajina police and other units, did you
20 obtain information that at that point in time regular Croatian units, the
21 108th Brod Brigade of the Croatian army, the 109th Djakovo Brigade, the
22 102nd Djakovo Brigade, the Zagreb Brigade of the Croatian army, and the
23 Rijeka Brigade of the Croatian army were on the territory of the
24 neighbouring state, Bosnia and Herzegovina? These were regular Croatian
25 units. And that they cut off the corridor. Do you know this,
1 Mr. Kerkkanen?
2 A. I didn't see any documents referring this.
3 Q. In the course of these proceedings, Prosecution Exhibit 711, which
4 is a TV report from Belgrade on the corridor, was shown to witnesses, but
5 as you haven't seen that report, I wish to know whether you found any
6 documents showing that the government of the SAO Krajina asked the United
7 Nations to open the corridor so that the population, the economy, health
8 care, and everything else would be helped because it was facing a total
9 collapse because of the incursion of Croatian units. Did you find that
11 A. No, I didn't. I don't recall seeing this kind of document.
12 Q. Thank you. No further questions about the corridor.
13 MR. WHITING: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Just for purposes of the
14 record, there was reference to -- in one of the earlier questions just now
15 to Prosecution Exhibit 711. I assume that's 65 ter number 711. Just to
16 be clear. Not Exhibit number 711.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we clear that up, Mr. Milovancevic?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I was
19 referring to the 65 ter list of exhibits. I thought I said that, but I
20 may be wrong. I wish to remove any misunderstanding.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 While I'm just talking, Mr. Milovancevic, I just want to find out
23 how much longer are you going to be with your cross-examination. I
24 thought some other day the last time you had indicated that you needed
25 only one session to finish off your cross-examination for today.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am drawing close
2 to the end of my cross-examination. I don't think I will need much more
3 time. I will try to use the time as efficiently as possible.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. I put to you several titles indicating a connection between the
7 MUP of the SAO Krajina and the MUP of the Republic of Serb Krajina and the
8 linkage with Slobodan Milosevic, as you put it, in your title, the links
9 with the MUP of Serbia. And you enumerated a number of documents on
10 supplies for the TO units and the Krajina police coming from JNA units,
11 especially in early 1992.
12 Is this correct, Mr. Kerkkanen? Do you remember these details, to
13 avoid going through them one by one?
14 A. Yes. There are several documents indicating supplies coming from
15 the JNA and to -- to SAO Krajina RSK TO army or police units, not only in
16 1992 but throughout the period from 1991 until 1995, as far as I remember.
17 Q. And in connection with this, I wish to ask whether you saw in the
18 documents that in 1991 the SAO Krajina was Yugoslav territory and whether
19 from the Vance Plan and the report submitted to the Security Council you
20 saw that on the territory of the SAO Krajina, under conditions of
21 implementing the Vance Plan, Croatian legislation did not apply. It was
22 Yugoslav legislation which applied. Do you know of such a report to the
23 Security Council?
24 A. I don't recall this document.
25 Q. Are you aware that the Federal Secretariat for National Defence as
1 a federal organ was the only organ authorised to equip and arm all units
2 on the ground, including on the territory of the Krajina?
3 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object to that question. It goes
4 beyond the scope of the competence of the witness. And also, it's
5 vague. "Authorised to equip," I'm not sure what that means. Under whose
6 authority and what that means. But most importantly, it just goes -- it
7 goes beyond the scope and competence of the witness.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] My question, Your Honour, had
10 to do with the reports quoted by the witness, documents mentioning the
11 Federal Secretariat for National Defence as the highest organ issuing
12 orders to rear bases and JNA units in connection with equipping and arming
13 all the units on the ground. I wanted to be brief and expeditious, so I
14 didn't mention the documents one by one.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any reply?
16 MR. WHITING: Well, I just understood the question to be seeking
17 some kind of legal conclusion in the way it was asked. "Authorised -- the
18 only organ authorised to equip." If there is a document that states that
19 if it was the only organ authorised to equip we can look at that and
20 comment on it, but otherwise I think that counsel's asking the witness to
21 draw a legal conclusion which is not appropriate for him to draw.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, do you have a document or
23 documents? I know you say because of time you don't want to mention them,
24 but at least one that you can refer to which says that, and let the
25 witness comment on that document or group of documents?
1 A. Yes, Your Honour. The witness, in his footnotes, mentioned
2 reports by the military expert Theunens, who spoke in detail on many pages
3 of the powers and authority of the Federal Secretariat and the General
4 Staff of the armed forces of Yugoslavia. If the witness can answer,
5 please let him answer, but I don't wish to draw the witness into legal
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which footnote specifically are you referring to?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have to
9 look. We can resolve the issue in the following manner, Your Honour: We
10 can ask the witness whether he is familiar with Mr. Theunens' report and
11 whether he reviewed that document as Prosecution -- a Prosecution exhibit.
12 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, pursuant to the request of Defence
13 counsel, the reference is to Mr. Theunens' report have been deleted
14 because the trial -- under the Trial Chamber's order of 28 April 2006,
15 because the Trial Chamber found that that lacked probative value. So
16 those have been deleted. So much it's a little strange to be asking about
17 that now.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, apparently Mr. Theunens' report
19 has been deleted from this witness's report.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I will withdraw my question,
21 Your Honour, in this situation. You were asking me whether I could recall
22 a particular footnote, and I wanted to say that this was in the expert
23 report. I didn't want to leave the impression that I was saying something
24 off the top of my head. But I will, however, withdraw my question. I
25 will not insist on these explanations in order to save time, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which expert report are you referring to? Is this
2 witness an expert, testifying as an expert?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was a slip on
4 my part. I was referring to this witness's report, not an expert report.
5 I apologise.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. I wanted to touch on another topic, Mr. Kerkkanen. You will
9 recall that we mentioned a report on the selection of personnel in the
10 MUP, and in your appendix to your statement which is before you, you speak
11 of training in many places, the training carried out by the Krajina
12 police. You mention sending men to the school of the MUP in Zemun and in
13 Banja Luka and so on. Do you remember these details?
14 A. Yes, I remember.
15 Q. Can one draw a general conclusion that the training of police
16 units of the SAO Krajina was carried out by means of public announcements
17 calling on an unmentioned number of persons to apply for a competition?
18 Is that so?
19 A. Not exactly. That was -- that was so in the RSK but not really in
20 the SAO Krajina in 1991, and that's what I have seen on the basis of these
21 documents I was using.
22 Q. Could we see on the monitor 65 ter document 747. It's actually a
23 series of three documents having to do with the application of a candidate
24 who wanted to enroll in the secondary school of the Ministry of the
1 The first of these documents is dated the 16th of June, 1993, and
2 it's an application for enrollment in police secondary school. Do you see
3 that document before you, Mr. Kerkkanen?
4 In this document, the applicant - could we scroll up a little
5 bit - whose first and last name are mentioned here, and his signature is
6 on the original, is applying to enroll in the school.
7 Could we look at the next page of the document, please -- or,
8 rather, the next document belonging to this sequence.
9 This is a report dated the 27th of August, 1993 by the Secretariat
10 of the Interior in Knin, and it's information of enrollment in police
11 secondly school. Is that correct, Mr. Kerkkanen?
12 And on the list we see the candidates who were not accepted. The
13 candidate under number 8 is the one who applied in the first document. Is
14 that correct, Mr. Kerkkanen? That's Aleksandar Tisma, in fact.
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Can we see the next document in this sequence? This is a document
17 issued by the Secretariat of the Interior, Knin, Drnis public security
18 station, and the date is the 30th of June, 1993. Is that correct,
19 Mr. Kerkkanen? And in this document, the candidate, Aleksandar Tisma, is
20 mentioned and the following is stated: "Aleksandar, resident in Drnis,
21 has been -- has taken a rather disrespectful attitude. He socialises with
22 his peers [realtime transcript read in error "pierce"] as well as with
23 people older than him who are prone to stealing, harassment of older
24 citizens of Croatian ethnicity, and he usually takes the initiative in
25 this. He is rather arrogant and impertinent to the employees of the
1 MUP ..."
2 And this report is signed. Is that correct, Mr. Kerkkanen?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Are these three documents, in your view, evidence that when
5 applying for the Ministry of the Interior the candidates were checked?
6 Their personal characteristics and ethical standards were checked? And
7 here a candidate who in wartime conditions is prone to maltreatment of
8 ethnic Croats was rejected. Doesn't this document show what I'm saying?
9 A. Yes, indeed, it shows, and it has been -- I mean, it's also --
10 what I can say, on the basis of other documents that increasingly and in
11 the RSK this was the procedure, but this was not the procedure in the
12 SAO Krajina in 1991. So there was a gradual development in the police
13 forces. In the RSK it became more systematised and became more like a
14 professional police force, but that took place later, not in 1991.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess the word "pierce" at line 19, 39, 19 is
16 supposed to be spelled p-e-e-r-s instead of p-i-e-r-c-e. I don't know
17 whether we could correct that.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] You are right, Your Honour.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And in connection with your
22 last reply, Mr. Kerkkanen, with regard to the situation in 1991, did you
23 find any documents showing that in 1991 the police of the SAO Krajina was
24 composed of those policemen who belonged to the Ministry of the Interior
25 of Croatia and who were dismissed because they were Serbs and who
1 subsequently arrived on the territory of the SAO Krajina having left their
2 previous employment? Did you find this information?
3 A. I don't remember seeing any specific documents to this extent.
4 Q. My final questions to you are as follows: Can you tell us what
5 was your task when you analysed this topic? What was the exact task given
6 to you by the Prosecutor's office?
7 A. My task was to locate SAO Krajina and the RSK MUP documents,
8 select relevant documents to this case and carry out analysis of those
10 Q. In response to my learned friend, you stated that you looked at
11 over a hundred thousand pages of material, that you selected some 20.000
12 pages, and that these 20.000 pages comprised some 3.000 documents.
13 Judging by the number of footnotes and lists of documents that you have
14 provided us with, we're talking about some 270 or 300 documents at the
16 Can you please tell us, based on what criterion did you select the
17 documents that you did out of the 3.000 that you have ended up after
18 your -- your initial search?
19 A. First I have to state that in the beginning of my testimony I gave
20 my estimation that I personally reviewed between 50 to 100.000 pages of
21 documents, not over 100.000. And secondly, the criteria basically for
22 selecting those documents for this report was exactly based on my task,
23 SAO Krajina and RSK MUP documents related to this case and Mr. Martic as
24 the Minister of Interior, documents which are relevant and which shed some
25 light on those events mentioned in the indictment against Mr. Martic.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Let me be very specific. Was your task, in your capacity as an
4 employee of the Prosecution, to choose such documents that would prove
5 Mr. Martic's guilt in this case?
6 A. My task was look generally at all the SAO Krajina and RSK MUP
7 documents, including exculpatory evidence or information concerning this
9 Q. Were any such exculpatory documents included in your report?
10 A. In my understanding, yes. For example, it can be said that those
11 reports related to the Baklajic and Silt group and that the -- some
12 disciplinary action was taken against him can be considered as exculpatory
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkkanen. This concludes my cross-examination.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
17 Mr. Whiting?
18 MR. WHITING: No re-examination, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Kerkkanen, first I would like to clarify the
22 date of a certain document contained in this additional spreadsheet we
23 received about the documents we later learned about, and this is
24 concerning this document number 12. We discussed this today. I didn't
25 want to disturb your dialogue, but I just wanted to clarify.
1 Our Exhibit 471, which is 65 ter number 2437, this decision to
2 send volunteers for Special Purpose Unit training of the MOD SAO Krajina
3 in Knin, signed by the president of the Executive Council Vajagic, and it
4 says -- in the column "Date" it says 31st of March. Shouldn't it be 31st
5 of May, as it says in the next column? This is just a clarification. It
6 may be just a simple error.
7 A. Your Honour, I should see that document before giving an answer.
8 I don't recall it.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Can we see the document Exhibit 471, 65 ter
10 2437. Yes, here it is. It says -- in the English translation it says
11 Dvor, 31st of May. And in the original version it says the same, doesn't
13 A. Your Honour --
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It is May, isn't it?
15 A. Your Honour, that's May. I see only this one. I don't see the
16 31st of March. Is it in the B/C/S version?
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, it's only on the spreadsheet we received.
18 A. Your Honour, then there must be an error in the spreadsheet.
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Thank you. Now, this is more a question to
20 you as to your impressions when going through all these documents. I have
21 two questions as to your overall impression.
22 We had this dispute about the Latin or Cyrillic types. Do you
23 remember? If written on typewriter, to which extent about -- to which
24 extent were these documents typed in Latin and to which in Cyrillic?
25 A. Your Honour, understandably I can't -- it's impossible to give
1 exact figures, but certainly I can state that the vast majority of these
2 documents, typed documents, were written in Latin script.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. And are those documents which we saw
4 mainly carbon copies, and would that -- if yes, would that explain the
5 missing signatures?
6 A. Your Honour, yes.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And to your experience, this is because in certain
8 archives there are carbon copies, whereas the originals must be somewhere
9 else? Do I understand correctly?
10 A. Your Honour, exactly. As usually was the case, documents were
11 made in several copies, distributed to several recipients, and therefore
12 it explains that in copies, not necessarily --
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And these are not photocopies. These are
14 classical carbon copies, are they, in many cases?
15 A. In many cases, yes. And we were able to find -- in several cases
16 we were able to find duplicates of some documents basically which was
17 showing that they were distributed according to the distribution list they
18 had at their disposal.
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. At the end of your cross-examination on
21 Friday, you were asked about weapons stored in the depots under the
22 control of UNPROFOR, and it was rather in their presence. Now, you said
23 later that you saw weapons stored in the fields or, rather, I think it was
24 light artillery. What did you mean by this?
25 A. Your Honour, I think I didn't say they were stored in the fields.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Or in the fields, rather. My correction.
2 A. Your Honour, I saw light artillery pieces deployed in the field
3 with information that they were ready for use.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: When you say "in the field," what exactly do you
5 mean? In one place, more than one place, where? And what sort of
6 artillery was it, for my own understanding?
7 A. Your Honour, I -- I recall one place. I don't remember, or I
8 don't know exactly what was the exact location. Perhaps something like
9 20 kilometres from Knin, but certainly in the RSK area. And by light
10 artillery I mean something like 122 millimetres.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: When you saw the light artillery, did it appear
12 to be in the control of or in the presence of any particular persons or
13 troop or formation?
14 A. Your Honour, as far as I saw, there was only presence of the RSK
15 military in this location, and certainly there were not UNPROFOR personnel
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, in respect of the Samarica training centre
18 and the Special Purpose Units created by the Executive Council of
19 Dvor Na Uni Municipal Assembly on the 18th of June and whether Mr. Martic
20 participated or, rather, influenced the decision, you answered that based
21 on documents on the 18th of June, 1991, officially, Minister Martic --
22 Mr. Martic was Minister of Defence and not Minister of Interior. Now, it
23 was left open-ended. What is the effect or result of that distinction?
24 A. Your Honour, in this case I think there's no effect. They and
25 these units were linked to Mr. Martic irrespective of the fact whether he
1 was Minister of Interior or Minister of Defence at that moment, and at
2 that moment he was Minister of Defence.
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, you were asked questions about the Predrag
4 Baklajic group. I hope I'm pronouncing it right. And an order given re:
5 The disbanding of the group and investigations carried out in relation to
6 the group. I want to know by whom were the investigations carried out,
7 the nature, extent, and the result or consequences based on the document
8 which you said were referred to in investigations.
9 A. Your Honour, I refer to the exhibit number 753. This is Knin SUP
10 Secretariat of Internal Affairs Crime Prevention Department Report that
11 gives information about criminal activities of Baklajic and his group.
12 And the order to disband this unit came also from -- came also from Milan
13 Martic, and this information is provided by the report Exhibit number 688,
14 also from Knin SUP Secretariat of the Internal Affairs.
15 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, I'd like to refer to --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Honourable Judge, please.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I'm so sorry.
18 I'd like to refer to the video clip, Exhibit 478, and there is a
19 reference to a press conference in Belgrade, soon after which Mr. Martic
20 was interviewed about internal conflict in the leadership of the Krajina,
21 and it's a clip in respect of Natasa Kandic in Belgrade.
22 Now, you then say the first part of the clip makes it clear that
23 it took place soon after the peace conference in The Hague in October,
24 November. What does that refer to? Or should it be press conference in
1 A. Your Honour, it refers -- I mean, this clip is from the press
2 conference in Belgrade, and the press conference took place soon after the
3 peace conference in The Hague.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And what did that peace conference in The Hague
5 refer to?
6 A. Your Honour, for the purpose of this clip, it just helped to date
7 this interview with Mr. Martic, that it took place in the autumn of 1991.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, you were asked about a letter written by a
9 group of policemen who were ethnic Serbs from Knin police station to
10 General Petar Gracanin in early 1990 expressing discontent in respect of
11 the insignia that they were being requested to wear and complained in
12 respect of charges. You said you knew of the letter, but you didn't
13 remember the contents.
14 Now, from what you are able to recollect, was Mr. Martic one of
15 the policemen who were complaining?
16 A. Your Honour, I think I expressed myself by stating that I'm aware
17 of the existence of this document, but I didn't refer to this document, as
18 far as I remember, in my report, and I don't recall whether names of those
19 policemen were complaining included the name of Mr. Martic.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I do have a few more questions, and
21 I'm looking at the time having gotten an indication from the Presiding
22 Judge. I apologise to everyone for overextending somewhat, but I am
23 feeling a little under the weather.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: There's nothing to apologise for, Judge. I just
25 thought you have a few more questions. I thought we could round up for
1 the day, but it does look like if you have more questions we may have to
2 come back for the third session this afternoon. So we're going to have to
3 take an adjournment and come back at half past 12.00.
4 Court adjourned, please.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'd like to ask you some questions concerning
9 your examination of the documents and how you dealt with them. Now, what
10 I want to find out firstly, when you were checking the MIIF source and
11 MIFing, what precisely were you doing?
12 A. Your Honour, for those documents that I was referring to in
13 Annex 1 and were not retrieved on those mentioned six document missions, I
14 was checking from the MIF record where from these particular documents
15 were obtained.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please expand a bit further for me specifically.
17 Give me examples.
18 A. Your Honour, if I found a document at OTP disposal that was not
19 retrieved on those documents missions, meaning that I did not know exactly
20 where it comes from, I went to this electronic MIF record or database
21 which shows what is the origin of this particular document and how it was
22 obtained to the OTP.
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What process did you use to check and determine
24 the authenticity of a document and whether you would rely on that document
25 for your purposes, for the purposes of your task?
1 A. Your Honour, basically working in a different archives and
2 document holdings I was using exactly same methods as historians are
3 using. First of all, judging documents by their physical appearance,
4 comparing it to the content of the document. Therefore, trying to find
5 out whether the document is what it claims to be, and also corroborating
6 information in the document with other documents or other sources that
7 tell more or less about same things. So basically this was a process of
8 trying to find out whether documents are reliable and whether they are
10 I don't know whether I need to expand further my answer.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Well, it would help me if you could demonstrate
12 by reference to a particular document.
13 A. Your Honour, perhaps it's a bit difficult to find a particular
14 document, but, for example, documents dealing -- let's say as an example
15 documents dealing with the Golubic training ground. And of course from
16 the content of the document it was possible to -- to make a comparison
17 with other documents that speak about the same training ground and through
18 comparison to see whether the document is what it claims to be. So
19 there's a degree of comparison when judging authenticity of documents and
20 also physical appearance. And I must say that on those six document
21 missions I carried out in different document holdings there was not once
22 raised suspicion that those documents would have not been authentic or
23 they would have been falsed or forged.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I'm merely trying to get to the
25 system that you employed so as to assist me in my deliberations. But in
1 respect of an original document, how would you determine originality, and
2 where no original is available, how would you determine whether the copy
3 with which you are presented is the true copy of the document?
4 A. Your Honour, as previously answered, many documents we reviewed on
5 those document missions were copies of original documents, and of course
6 again by judging the content of the document you can state whether
7 document or documents are genuine. And in addition to this, in several
8 occasions we found same document or copies of the same document in
9 different document holdings, basically demonstrating that these are
10 documents they claim to be.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. I'm going to go on now to Major
12 Knezovic -- the Major Knezovic group which you mentioned. Do you recall
13 that? K-n-e-z-o-v-i-c.
14 A. Your Honour, now I'm not sure which group you're referring to.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Line 7 to 9. It's -- you said that they
17 received orders, staff orders from Knin. What I wanted to know is if
18 there was any document that confirmed or ruled out that they received
19 staff orders from Knin.
20 A. Your Honour, please, I didn't get the page in Annex 1.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Page 34, lines 7 to 9. Have you located it?
22 A. Your Honour, not really. I have page 34, and I have lines from 7
23 to 9, but it doesn't next anything about Major Knezovic.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. Let me go on to something else on
25 that question. That can probably be located.
1 This would be my last question now. Footnote number 9, part 1 of
2 Annex 2. My apologies. There's a reference to Orsat Miljanic? Is that a
3 person and is he connected to or an officer of the Croatian Office of
5 A. Your Honour, yes, indeed.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No further questions.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
8 Any questions arising from the questions by the Chamber,
9 Mr. Whiting?
10 MR. WHITING: No, Your Honour, though if it's of any assistance, I
11 think that with respect to Major Knezovic, I think he's discussed at
12 page -- the top of page 29 of Mr. Kerkkanen's report, and I'm not sure if
13 that's what Her Honour Judge Nosworthy was referring to in her question.
14 I haven't been able to --
15 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Is there a reference to receiving staff orders
16 from Knin?
17 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour, that is -- it says: "The group --
18 the group seems to be act almost independently claiming that they receive
19 their tasks directly from Knin." And there's a reference to a report
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
22 So what I wanted to know is whether in the course of your
23 examination you saw any document confirming or denying the fact of
24 receiving of staff orders from Knin. And then what I wanted to know as
25 well, what did you understand Knin to mean in that context?
1 A. Your Honour, yes. Basically there are many orders that can be
2 regarded as staff orders coming from Knin, even from Mr. Martic himself.
3 And by Knin, I mean orders coming from the authority in Knin, that many
4 documents, as I have seen and we have seen, the authority is Mr. Martic or
5 his subordinates, meaning the police.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have one
10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kerkkanen, with regard to Judge Hoepfel's
12 questions about the carbon copies of the documents that you found, as well
13 as in connection with the question put to you by Honourable Judge
14 Nosworthy, I would like to know whether you established how many documents
15 that you analysed and provided originals and how of them many were copies?
16 Can you tell us that?
17 And secondly, did you have in mind that quite a lot of documents
18 were found in Croatian archives? And we know that the Croatian interest
19 is totally opposed to the interest of Mr. Martic, not only in this case
20 but generally speaking, and that this different interest still exists on
21 the side of Croatia?
22 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object to the second part of the
23 question. I think it's argumentative. It's not established at all
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, regarding the second part of the
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it should not be
3 disputed in this case that the Serb authorities on the one side and the
4 Croatian authorities on the -- the other side were on the two opposite
5 sides throughout the entire period, that they had different interests.
6 And if documents from the Serbian archives, the alleged Serbian documents
7 are found in the Croatian archives, this provides me with the basis for
8 putting such a question to the witness.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, isn't that an issue that you can
10 argue at the end of the case when you make your closing argument rather
11 than argue it with the witness?
12 Alternatively, you can ask the witness to say whether he agrees
13 that the two were opposed and that -- and if he says yes, then that forms
14 the basis for your argument at the close of the case.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The
16 meaning of my question is exactly what you have just said. Thank you for
17 your assistance and instruction with this regard.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Put your question.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Kerkkanen, during the period that you analysed and that the
21 documents referred to, were the Croatian side and the Serbian side in the
22 area two sides with an entirely different, opposing interests?
23 A. Yes, that's what can be said from the common knowledge. And if I
24 can continue by answering the first part of your previous question. Most
25 of the documents we reviewed and retrieved in different document holdings,
1 and archives were copies of the original documents, not originals.
2 And if, Your Honour, you allow, I would continue about these
4 This documentation is part of the SAO or RSK documentation that
5 fell in hands of Croats in 1995, and the only proper place to keep these
6 documents are official archives where they are accessible to everyone.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And one more brief question.
9 Q. The fact that the documents were obtained by the Croatian
10 authorities in 1995 is the explanation provided to you by the Croatian
11 side, isn't it, Mr. Kerkkanen?
12 A. Not exactly. When we were requesting access to those documents,
13 in our request we asked if we can have access to documents obtained by the
14 Croatian authorities in 1995.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The
16 Defence has no further questions.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 Mr. Whiting, I know you didn't ask the Chamber to do this, but the
19 Chamber does remind you that you had a housekeeping issue that you wanted
20 to raise at the end.
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate the reminder,
22 but perhaps we could excuse the witness first because it's actually
23 something that has to be done in private session.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 Mr. Kerkkanen, thank you so much for coming to testify. This
1 brings us to the end of your testimony in this case. You are now excused
2 from further attendance. You may stand down.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 4204-4207 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Due to the illness of the accused in this matter, the matter is
3 now being postponed without a date to a date to be arranged with the
5 Court adjourned.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.06 p.m.,
7 sine die