1 Monday, 29 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. McElligott.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I remind you that you are still bound by the
9 declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony to tell the truth,
10 the whole truth and nothing else but the truth.
11 THE WITNESS: I understand that, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 WITNESS: JOHN McELLIGOTT [Resumed]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. McElligott. I'm Defence counsel for
18 Mr. Martic, the accused, and my name is Predrag Milovancevic and I will
19 now start your cross examination.
20 Although we speak different languages, I kindly ask you to make
21 sure nonetheless to make a small pause before answering my questions so
22 that the interpreters can do their job properly. Thank you.
23 Your statement to the OTP, given in November 2004, can be found in
24 e-court, and I believe there is no need for copies to be handed out to
25 those present in the courtroom. From your personal background, I can see
1 that you were born in 1945, in Ireland, and that upon completing secondary
2 education in 1964, you joined the Irish police force, from which you were
3 retired in 2001. I'd like to know which high school you completed.
4 A. I completed the secondary school level, that is the level I got
5 to, at the age of 18.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, Mr. Milovancevic, where in
7 e-court can we find the statement?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I should have
9 done that beforehand. 1D0047 is the reference number.
10 MS. VALABHJI: Good afternoon, Your Honour. The witness, I
11 believe, doesn't have a copy of the statement.
12 THE WITNESS: It's visible here.
13 MS. VALABHJI: I'm told it's visible on the screen.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I also have it.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Having completed -- or, rather, having joined the Irish police
17 force in 1964, you were promoted to the position of detective
18 superintendent, if I remember well, from your examination-in-chief. I'd
19 like to know whether, upon completing secondary education and after having
20 joined the police force, you attended any other schools?
21 A. Yes, Your Honour. I did a management course with the Irish
22 management institute. It would be perhaps a first level management course
23 around the time I was promoted to sergeant. I also did a subsequent
24 management course with the open university, and our police college also
25 ran training courses for the rank of inspector and superintendent, so I
1 undertook all those courses as I progressed.
2 Q. Thank you. These details cannot be found in your statement. That
3 is why I put these questions to you.
4 You state in paragraph 4 of your statement that on two separate
5 occasions you served with the United Nations; the first time was in
6 1988-1989 where you were head of communications with the United Nations
7 mission in Namibia, and then in 1992-1993, you served with UNPROFOR in the
8 former Yugoslavia. Now, in connection with the fact that you served on
9 two missions with the UN, I'd like to know the following: Whether the
10 main principle governing any UN mission is objectivity and impartiality of
11 the United Nations staff?
12 A. Yes, Your Honour.
13 Q. Between 2nd October, 1992, and 2nd October, 1993, you were serving
14 with the civilian police of the United Nations headquartered in -- at the
15 UNPROFOR head office in Zagreb?
16 A. It should be up to the 1st of November, 1993, Your Honours.
17 Statement does show the 2nd of October, but on reflection I'm satisfied it
18 was the 1st of November.
19 Q. In paragraph 6, you also explained that the peacekeeping mission
20 of the United Nations based on the Vance Plan concept, led to the
21 deployment of troops and monitors of the United Nations, police monitors
22 to certain areas designated as United Nations Protected Areas, UNPAs. I'd
23 like to know whether these protected areas, that is the UNPA areas were
24 identical to the areas covered by the United Nations civilian police.
25 A. The UNPAs were the United Nations protected areas and then pink
1 zones extended further territory on to what was known as the UN -- United
2 Nations Protected Areas.
3 Q. I put this question in reference to your explanation that is
4 contained in paragraphs 14 through 17 in your statement where you state
5 that the sectors of the civilian police of the United Nations were Sector
6 North, Sector South, Sector East and Sector West, with the corresponding
7 head seats, and I merely wanted to know whether your areas of
8 responsibility corresponded to the UNPA zones, but I believe that with
9 your earlier answer, you've already answered my question.
10 Witness, you heard my question. Did you -- is that the answer
11 that you gave earlier on? Was that an answer to this question of mine?
12 That's what I was asking you.
13 A. I understood to you say that you had got the answer.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed, thank you. You had said that he had
15 answered you previously, Mr. Milovancevic, so in fact the position is you
16 shouldn't have asked the question the second time.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. In paragraph 6, where you speak of the UNPAs, you state that these
19 were the areas that should have been demilitarised and that the role of
20 the UN troops was to ensure that the area remained demilitarised and that
21 all persons in them would be protected from fear and armed attack, and
22 that any such attacks were to be prevented. Can you tell me that in the
23 period when you served with the UNCIVPOL, whether the UNPROFOR fulfilled
24 its mission and prevented the UNPAs from any attacks?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Protected the UNPAs
1 from any attack.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The mission, Your Honour, was most
3 difficult, and I think the first difficult step arose when the policing
4 element of it came into being. The Vance Plan provided for the local
5 police to be the police force in the area and that they would carry
6 side-arms. Now, I understand that up to 16.000 other people were put into
7 uniform and armed to a different level completely, long arms and a variety
8 of weaponry was available to these people, and that did not help the UN
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I recollect your evidence-in-chief correctly
11 that the UN civil police were not armed?
12 THE WITNESS: Unarmed.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And do I also recollect your evidence-in-chief
14 correctly that maintenance of law and order was the responsibility of the
15 local police and not the civil police?
16 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Defence counsel, please.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Apologies.
21 Q. Mr. McElligott, in answering my previous question, you spoke of
22 the difficulties that the UN mission was faced with, but you didn't answer
23 my question, which was whether during your term of office there, were
24 there any acts of aggression or attacks on these UNPAs from the outside
25 areas or not? Do you know anything about that?
1 A. Yes, Your Honour. There were. There were incursions and I
2 would -- fair to say there were incursions on all sides, and I remember
3 specifically if he is probing, that there were incursions from the
4 Croatian side, and I recall one in particular at Benkovac in January and I
5 think the Medak pocket is another one of note. So there were, there were
6 serious attacks, and indeed there were random attacks on individuals from
7 time to time. I suppose local conflicts broke out somewhere along the
8 border areas and individuals were killed.
9 I have a specific recollection of a protest coming from the
10 Croatian authorities in relation to an attack on their people at a certain
11 time, and I did a survey of it and at that time I found that the Croatian
12 authorities had actually killed more people than the Serbs did in that
13 particular area over a specific time. So it was very much -- you know,
14 there were incidents on all sides.
15 Q. Now that you mentioned the Maslenica incident and the Medak pocket
16 incident, do you know that because of the Maslenica action, the Security
17 Council of the United Nations passed the -- passed Resolution 802 whereby
18 the Croatian forces were asked to withdraw from the area; and do you
19 know -- are you aware of the fact that during the operation, 491 persons
20 were killed, eight went missing, at least 10 Serb villages in the areas
21 that came under this act of aggression were totally devastated, including
22 properties, homes, churches, and that the local population was expelled?
23 Are you aware of these facts?
24 A. At this stage I'm not aware of the detail of it --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you answer, counsel for the Prosecution is
1 on her feet.
2 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour. I just -- I'm just going
3 to object to this line of questioning on the ground of relevance. What is
4 the relevance of this line of questioning to the crimes in this
5 indictment, in this case?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance of the question
8 should stem from an attempt of the Defence to establish what this
9 witness's understanding of the UN mission and UNPROFOR mission was, what
10 his understanding of the UNCIVPOL mission was and what -- and in what way
11 he approached certain situations arising on the ground. A whole series of
12 documents that were tendered through this witness deal with these matters,
13 and that was the reason why I put the question. The witness himself, in
14 his statement, spoke of the role of the United Nations, and I'd like to
15 know in what way this role was materialised on the ground at the time when
16 he was there, and when he was in charge of the functions that the United
17 Nations assumed upon themselves.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. Valabhji? Any reply?
19 MS. VALABHJI: No, Your Honour. No reply. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Objection overruled. You may
21 proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. My last question was quite extensive but it had to do with one
24 topic only and that's the Maslenica operation. Can you tell us anything
25 about it, based on the question I put to you?
1 A. Based on the Resolution 802, Your Honour, I recall drafting a
2 police proposal for the policing of that area subsequent to 802, and as
3 far as I can recall, 802 covered Maslenica, Pocitelj, and I think there
4 was a third village mentioned in 802, if my memory is correct. And I
5 remember drafting a proposal and I under -- my memory is that it did not
6 materialise into a reality, so that that plan that we had I think there
7 was detailed discussions in relation to the policing of the area, and I
8 had a plan prepared to do it but it didn't come to fruition. But the
9 detail of what actually happened there, I don't have that clearly here.
10 Q. Thank you for your answer, sir.
11 On the issue of the Resolution 802, do you know whether the
12 Croatian side had honoured the decision which is contained in the United
13 Nations Resolution 802, to withdraw from those areas that it had seized in
14 the course of this operation?
15 A. I don't know, Your Honour. All I know is that I did prepare the
16 plan and it did not come to fruition, so I'm not sure where the detail of
17 it broke down, recalling something that's perhaps 13 years old.
18 Q. You mentioned another operation that took place in the area you
19 were in charge of, at the time when you were there, which is operation
20 Medak pocket, which became quite notorious for the extreme brutality of
21 the Croatian forces. Are you aware of the victims the Serbian side
22 suffered during this operation?
23 A. I was in the Medak pocket subsequent to the event and I saw it at
24 firsthand. So I am quite familiar with the devastation that was caused.
25 I suppose it would be fair to say that the area was rendered inhabitable
1 following the attack. Apart from the loss of human life, it would be fair
2 to say that the plan was to make sure that nobody lived there again.
3 Q. As an eye-witness of what transpired at Medak pocket, those were
4 three Serb villages, Citluk, Divoselo and Pocitelj which were completely
5 destroyed. As an eye-witness, would you agree with General Jean Cot
6 words --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt your question? Mr. Milovancevic,
8 was this witness an eye-witness to these events, was he present when they
9 took place incidents took place, or did he go there subsequent to the
10 taking place?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness
12 explained that he went over there after the incident and spoke of the
13 situation as he saw it there.
14 My question was: Based on what he experienced there, would he
15 agree with an assessment of General Jean Cot who had also toured the area
16 at the time and said that this was systematic, deliberate and full
17 destruction. I did not find any traces of life, either human beings or
19 I completed my question to you now, in order for you to understand
20 why I put this question to the witness.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have no problem with you putting the question. I
22 have a problem with you characterising him as an eye-witness. Are you --
23 do you hear me, Mr. Milovancevic?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I hear and understand you, Your
25 Honour. That was the way I understood what the witness was saying, that
1 he was there on the spot and saw certain matters for himself. That's why
2 I called him an eye-witness in terms of what he was able to see there
3 after the operation in the wake of the operation. He was not an
4 eye-witness to the operation itself, at Medak pocket, but he was able to
5 see for himself what the situation was in the immediate aftermath of the
6 operation. That was what I meant.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. McElligott, were you an eye-witness to the
9 THE WITNESS: I went there subsequent to it and saw the site as it
10 was then. It was totally destroyed.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 Mr. Milovancevic, you have now been cleared. Characterise the
13 witness correctly.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. McElligott, based on what you experienced and saw there on the
16 spot, after the operation, would you agree with the characterisation by
17 General Jean Cot who served with UNPROFOR and who in mid-September toured
18 the area and said that the devastation was systematic, deliberate and
19 full, that there were no traces of life whatsoever living, human beings or
20 animals. Would you agree with him?
21 A. Yes, there was absolute destruction. And I understand actually
22 that one lady or female was found in a car following the first contacts of
23 a search. She was there wounded. But there was absolute destruction,
24 yeah, unbelievable.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you proceed, Mr. Milovancevic, I want
1 to correct something that looks correct on the face of it but is
2 incorrect. Line 12, page 10, I didn't say you characterised the witness
3 correctly. I said, "Do characterise him correctly." I just want that
4 line to be corrected.
5 You may proceed.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. With regard to these two examples that you have just mentioned for
8 us, is my next question -- my next question is relative to your last
9 sentence in paragraph 6. We expected that the parties would negotiate and
10 that -- and that they would reach an agreement on coexistence within
11 Croatia and that those who had been displaced would return to their homes.
12 The agreement on coexistence, did you consider this to be one of
13 the goals of your mission, the mission of the United Nations?
14 A. It was part of the Vance, Plan but it would be fair to say at the
15 time I was there, it was something you would see on the horizon. It was
16 an issue that perhaps one would see achieved through diplomacy, and I
17 don't think any of the parties had got to the stage of being at that
18 level, I think. The mission just had not got there. It was on the
19 ground, still one of conflict and I suppose trying to keep a barrier for
20 want of a loose word, between the parties. I suppose we were there as a
21 buffer basically to slow things down and, it was basically at that stage,
22 it was certainly the diplomacy end of it was a long way from a solution.
23 Q. In your own personal experience that you gathered on the ground,
24 do you believe that the agreement on coexistence within Croatia would have
25 been possible for the Serbs, given the description of the Croatian
1 authorities. Would that have been a logical choice? If you think that my
2 question is of a speculative nature and that your answer would call for
3 speculation, you don't need to answer.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is indeed speculative. Now I'm not quite sure
5 where the description of the Croat authorities is given for the witness to
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Sir, in your view, the operation Maslenica in January 1993 and the
9 operation Medak pocket, where the attacks of the Croatian army under the
10 control of the Croatian authorities, if I put it this way to you, would
11 you think that this is beyond any doubt or there is any doubt about that?
12 A. Well, I think I would go back to first principles and say that if
13 we take the Vance Plan as the foundation stone for going forward at that
14 time, and that it was adhered to in the detail, and I referred earlier to
15 the policing component being armed in a manner not in keeping with the
16 plan, that perhaps if we turn the clock back and started with that in
17 mind, I think more could be achieved. The policing element of it was, I
18 would feel, vital to securing the confidence of the minority communities,
19 be it the Croatian or Serb, and I think it would have made a difference
20 if we started on the correct footing.
21 I'm not sure -- like, I know that there is a deep-rooted hurt on
22 all sides, but I feel that, you know, if we could bring that to a halt at
23 that time and build the bridges along there and in a very slow way that
24 things could be achieved. Because I know from my own experience meeting
25 people on the ground, particularly in communities, that there were still
1 bonds despite the ethnic differences and barriers that were created. I am
2 aware of both Serb and Croatian people inquiring and sending greetings to
3 those on the other side of the divide and asking monitors to do it for
4 them, if they met with them. So there was a possibility of making
5 progress. I have no doubt about that.
6 Q. When you mentioned the armed Serbs the second time as a possible
7 problem to the negotiated agreement, can we see document 333 from the
8 65 ter list? I believe that its number is 731. Exhibit 731.
9 If this is document 333, can we please scroll up to the very
10 beginning of the document?
11 On the screen, Mr. McElligott, you can see a report and its title
12 is "Status report on the Serbo-Croatian conflict and UNPROFOR mission."
13 The date is 7 September 1992. It is relative to Sector South, and judging
14 by the text, the date, you have already spoken about this document in your
15 direct examination. Can we please look at page 3 that bears the following
16 number in the top right corner, 6072? In the first paragraph, on that
17 page, under 1, "Croatian military option," it says as follows: "Risks of
18 military action to restore Croatian authority are indeed realistic.
19 Croatian side's patience and goodwill is reaching the point of no return.
20 They seem to react out of pure nationalism."
21 In regard to this paragraph, I would like to ask you who is it
22 that the Croatian authorities are reacting to out of pure nationalism?
23 A. Well, as I said earlier, the Vance Plan dealt with what went on
24 within the United Nations Protected Areas, and I think it is the
25 happenings within there that generated further happenings outside of the
1 area and at that stage you're looking, I suppose, as the bigger political
2 military machines responding, and it's a hen-and-egg situation as to who
3 moves first.
4 So, you know, this is why I said that, you know, if we could
5 establish the principles of the Vance Plan within the mission that
6 confidence could be generated, and I know that military observers had
7 liaisoned between both sides on the front lines that, indeed, they
8 participated in keeping a certain calm and I suppose creating a certain
9 dialogue between the differing parties on the front line. So, you know, I
10 think that the reactions you see there are perhaps responses to what was
11 seen as happening within the United Nations Protected Areas, so it's a
12 hen-and-egg situation as to who starts what on a given day.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I ask: The three areas, Serb villages that
14 were referred to the Medak pocket, is it inside the area that is referred
15 to in this paragraph or not?
16 THE WITNESS: It is within the -- yes. It is within the -- within
17 the UNPA or within the pink zone. It's within the area under the UN
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Given your answer, it is difficult to say what came first, the hen
23 or the egg and who started the conflict.
24 Paragraph 3 on the same page says: "Provocations and replies to
25 the provocations are intensifying."
1 I remind you this report dates from September 1992. And it says
2 further on: "Pressure on the front line from Croatian increases daily
3 under form of incursions, infiltrations of both armed groups and
4 civilians. Clashes and incidents between militia and Croatian police are
5 expanding daily. The confrontation might result from this -- with
6 probable intervention of the Croatian army which would be followed by the
7 opening of -- up of heavy arm stores to back it and mobilisation is
8 probably ongoing overnight."
9 With this regard, I would like to ask you as follows: This report
10 speaks about the daily increase of pressure along the front line and the
11 pressure is put by the Croatian side. Is that correct or not?
12 A. Yes. There were always pressures, always. And they were coming
13 from one side or the other. So it was an area of -- it was volatile at
14 all times, and I suppose there was always a bubble sitting there to be
15 burst. So that was the environment and I know that, you know, these, I
16 suppose, reactions are -- are just driven by events on the day, and this
17 again is where the civil affairs end of UNPROFOR take a role in getting
18 involved at perhaps political level and getting drawbacks, and I have no
19 doubt that they would have been deeply involved in those tensions and
20 trying to get solutions at that level. So this was the environment we
21 were in. It was one of constant tension and perhaps extreme tension at
23 Q. In order for us to understand the situation in which extreme
24 tensions could be felt, could we please see a map which is Exhibit 724?
25 Can this be shown on the screen? This is a map of the former
1 Yugoslavia with its republics and with the UNPA areas.
2 While this is being shown, Exhibit 724, that is, I will remind
3 you, Mr. McElligott, that you explained to us that there were four UNPA
4 areas. You also explained the borders between those UNPA areas and what
5 those were. Now you can see the map on the screen.
6 With regard to this map my question to you is as follows: In the
7 left, lower corner, you can see a square in which it says what the
8 markings of -- on the map mean, and the fourth one from the top is a
9 curved upwards facing a line which says the line of cease-fire or
10 something to that effect. Do you see that, sir?
11 A. Yes, I do, Your Honour, yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could the map be increased, please? We can't read
14 this. Thank you.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. When you said that you see this, this is the fourth marking from
17 the bottom, so this is a curved black line, the line of cease-fire, could
18 we now see the map and can you please show us on the map where this line
19 of cease-fire was? Let me help you. It went along the entire length of
20 Sector East. It goes on along some parts of Sector West, and turns down
21 wards. Could you please show us on the map exactly where this cease-fire
22 line was on the entire territory of UNPA areas? Can we start from
23 Sector East, please, which is somewhere in the middle of the map encircled
24 in red pen.
25 A. This is Sector West in the middle.
1 Q. I meant Sector East, Mr. McElligott, which is to the right from
2 Sector West, again encircled. Can you see that the entire Sector East is
3 bordered by this black line? Is this the cease-fire line? Is this the
4 front line?
5 A. I'm just relying on the map, Your Honour, so I don't know exactly
6 what it is, but it's defined as the front line here, based on the legend
7 on the map.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Am I right to say the front line, if that line
9 is -- designates the front line, it is only to the west of the eastern
10 area, not to the eastern part of -- eastern side of it, neither to the
11 north or south of it?
12 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm, Yes.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Could you show us the cease-fire line on the east sector part?
15 Can you see it? Can you point to it for us?
16 A. This I understand is what you're looking for, this area here; is
17 that correct? Just the immediate boundary to the right.
18 Q. Yes, the black line, yes, precisely so. Thank you very much.
19 Let's look at the other UNPA areas. Can you see that black line?
20 Again, is that the same marking, and can you point that line to us? It's
21 a black line that leads towards the rest of Croatia. Would you be able to
22 describe it in those words, this black line goes towards those white
23 areas? Am I correct in saying that?
24 A. You're looking at the easterly side of the Sector West, is that
25 correct, at the southern part of it? Along here? It's where the line
1 commences on the eastern side.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Something interesting, when you say "along here,"
3 and you're pointing on the screen, we don't see ...
4 THE WITNESS: No, it's not -- this line.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Sir, can you point to the line for us? Could you please do that,
7 just point to the line for us? What line is that?
8 A. This is the commencement of the line again, is it, you're looking
9 for? No?
10 Q. And from there, where does it go? Can you show us?
11 A. It continues westwards, looping around by the top of Sector North
12 coming right down and around by the end of Sector South.
13 Q. Thank you. I don't know whether we have been of any assistance to
14 the Trial Chamber. I don't know whether the Trial Chamber has been able
15 to follow the way you pointed to the line, but can you please describe for
16 us what you have just shown us? Can you do it in the following way? My
17 question to you is: The black line that you see on the map that encircles
18 the red areas, does it represent the cease-fire line between the Serbian
19 side and the Croatian side? Would you say that the black line represents
20 precisely that, the cease-fire line between the Serbs and the Croats?
21 A. It's the cease-fire line between the United Nations protected area
22 and along the Croatian -- eastern side of Croatia. This would be along
23 the edges of Sectors North and South. Is that what you're asking?
24 It's showing up now, Your Honour, yes. There is a line. This
25 line is the line you're referring to here? Is that correct?
1 Q. Yes. This is the line that I had in mind. This is precisely what
2 I wanted you to describe for us.
3 My next question is as follows: Based on what you have described
4 as the cease-fire line, is it obvious or not that the area that was called
5 the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina, depending on what people called
6 it, in other words, the UNPA area, was it encircled from all sides by the
7 territory under the control of the Croatian authorities, save for this
8 part bordering on Bosnia?
9 A. Yes. The Sector North front line would be fully surrounded by
10 Croatian territory, yes.
11 Q. Does the same apply to Sector South, Mr. McElligott?
12 A. Yes, I understand so, yes.
13 Q. We no longer need the map on the screen.
14 Let's go back to the document from the 65 ter list, number 333.
15 In this document, dating from September, that was presented to you just a
16 while ago, when you say that the pressure on the front line mounted by the
17 Croatian side is growing daily and that it translated into incursions,
18 infiltrations of both armed groups and civilians which leads to clashes
19 with Milicija, when you're talking about the front line, this is the line
20 that you're referring to, the one that you just pointed to us on the map.
21 Am I right in saying that, sir?
22 A. That is the front line, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Can we have the third page of document 333 from the
24 65 ter list? That's the document that we saw just a minute ago. Can we
25 see its page number 3, number 3 page of that document?
1 Please, page 3. In the upper right corner, the number is 6072.
2 Can we scroll up a bit? A bit more, a bit more. I would like to see the
3 third paragraph. Go down a bit. Yes, thank you.
4 Now we come to the chapter entitled "Return of displaced Croats."
5 Once you described the situation along the front line and you said that
6 there were daily attacks by the Croatian forces against the UNPA areas.
7 In paragraph 3 in September --
8 A. Can I clarify something? I didn't talk about daily attacks. But
9 there were attacks ongoing. I don't think I used the word "daily."
10 Q. That is correct, sir. I showed you paragraph 3 on this page which
11 says that the pressures on the front line from Croatians increased daily.
12 Under the form of incursions, infiltrations of both armed groups and
13 civilians. This is what I showed you and this is what I meant, but we did
14 that, and we are moving on to the next chapter of this report under the
15 title "Return of displaced Croats."
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you read that to the witness, I tried very
17 hard to look at the paragraph you were reading from. Can you tell us what
18 paragraph that was? The one that talks about daily incursions.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a moment.
20 Let's go back to the top of the page, please, on the monitor. This is
21 third paragraph from the top of that page. Can we scroll up to the very
22 top of the page, page 3? The third paragraph from the top, which starts
23 with the following words -- again the same page but please show the top of
24 the page. Go up, show the top of the page. This is it. Thank you.
25 Q. Sir, can you please read out for us the third paragraph starting
1 with "provocations, retaliation"?
2 A. "Provocation, retaliation process is intensifying. Pressure on
3 the front line from Croatians increases daily under form of incursions,
4 infiltrations of both armed groups and civilians. Clashes and incidents
5 between militia and Croatian police are expanding daily. The
6 confrontation might result from this militia's like trend, with probable
7 intervention of CA following -- followed by the opening up of heavy armed
8 stores to back it. Mobilisation is probably ongoing overnight."
9 Q. Thank you. When we mentioned the front line, I showed you the map
10 to see the front line and we saw that that front line encircled the entire
11 Sector South. Now we can scroll down to the bottom third of page 3. This
12 is chapter 3, "Return of displaced Croats." And at the very beginning of
13 this document, it says that of utmost importance for the UNPROFOR is to
14 show goodwill towards the Croatian side by a gesture and to follow the
15 instructions of the staff, I believe that you meant the UNPROFOR staff, in
16 order to find a model for return.
17 However, the end of the same paragraph, it says: "If we were to
18 go for a limited scope of return, the Croats would spread it everywhere
19 and an uncontrolled large-scale return might lead to an escalation of
21 My question to you is as follows: Were the Croatian authorities
22 putting pressure on UNPROFOR and UNCIVPOL asking for a large-scale return
23 of displaced persons?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you answer, Ms. Valabhji?
25 MS. VALABHJI: My apologise for rising, Your Honour, just to point
1 out in this rather lengthy question, it is said that quote we saw that the
2 front line encircled the entire Sector South. I think in the previous
3 discussion of the front line, there was a mention of the Bosnia part, not
4 being the -- that is the side of the RSK facing Bosnia, not being so
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what my learned
8 friend is saying is absolutely correct. I did say that there was no front
9 line on the Bosnian side. I'm talking only about the front line
10 separating the Croat and the Serbs, and this is what I emphasised. I
11 wanted to show where the line was when it came to Sector South. It was
12 not my attempt to spread the front line to go towards the Bosnian side.
13 It would have been pointless to do that.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Keep excluding the Bosnian side as you put the
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
17 bear that in mind.
18 Q. This was, however, inadvertently done. When we spoke of the front
19 line in Sector South, Witness, is it beyond doubt, and is it quite clear,
20 that we were referring only to the side facing Croatia, not the side
21 facing Bosnia? Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, Your Honour.
23 Q. Thank you. My former question to you was whether there was any
24 pressure by the Croatian forces to make sure that the displaced persons
25 returned, regardless of whether the conditions were there in place, and
1 was UNPROFOR along with UNCIVPOL of the position that this course of
2 action might lead to an escalation of the conflict and possibly its
3 development into a war?
4 A. I think what you're looking at is, there were tensions on all
5 sides and pressures and it's obvious that that is there at that given time
6 and I suppose what you have in the suggestion of an offer of some leeway
7 is I suppose the diplomacy testing the ground to see is there a
8 negotiating position to get the parties to stand off once more? And I
9 think, you know, it's an exploratory type of approach and it is -- the
10 reality was there was continuous pressure from all sides and it's within
11 that environment you will have to assess the movements that are being
12 probed there.
13 Q. Could we have page 4 of the document shown on the screen, please?
14 On page 4, there is one line which reads as follows: That it seems that
15 the conduct of the Croatian forces aims at bringing UNPROFOR into such a
16 situation where it would seem to take all the responsibility, all the
17 burden of guilt, for failures and delays. And it goes on to say that the
18 impression is that some Croatian authorities might wish to deresponsiblise
19 themselves by putting all the burden of guilt on UNPROFOR. Eventually,
20 they are preparing the ground in front of the public opinion to justify
21 possible military action as necessary due to UNPROFOR's unfulfilments, and
22 you go on to say that the implications of pilot movements of return, and
23 you're referring to villages, could be put against us. It says, UNPROFOR
24 is failing in implementing the Vance Plan. The next step could easily be
25 UNPROFOR, go home.
1 In connection with this description of conduct exhibited by the
2 Croatian side, is it quite clear to you that Croatia has been playing a
3 political game in asking for Croatian displaced persons to return, that
4 they were abusing the possibility of return in order to unjustifiably lay
5 the blame on UNPROFOR and prepare the ground for a military action? Is
6 this something that is quite evident from this text?
7 A. Your Honour, I would just like to clarify something. It was said
8 that there that I say implying that I wrote this document. I did not do
9 so. So it is a document that I'm aware of. I just wanted to clarify
10 that, that what is quoted there is not me.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 THE WITNESS: And I can pass comment on it on the basis of my own
14 And I think it's fair to say that, you know, in the brokering
15 process that -- and in the environment we were in, I think every
16 bargaining tool and every pressure that could be applied was applied, so
17 you know, it's part of the cut and thrust of what was going on at that
18 time. So, you know, it's just part of that brokering that went on. But
19 this is where diplomacy perhaps took hold again and the line was held or
20 people drew back and you got another period of perhaps some degree of
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. McElligott, I didn't understand your answer at all. My
24 question to you was to tell us whether the conduct exhibited by the
25 Croatian side, which was described in detail in this UNCIVPOL report, was
1 proof of or an illustration of the conduct of the Croatian side which
2 abused the possibility of return of the Croatian displaced persons in
3 order to lay the blame on UNPROFOR and set the stage for a military
4 action. If you don't know the answer to my question, then say so. If you
5 do know it, then please tell us what you know.
6 A. I think the report is putting forward those inferences, and I
7 think that is what they are. I don't think it's being stated as a reality
8 but I think it's put forward as inferring that those pressures are going
9 to be put on to us, that we are going to be made to feel guilty and I
10 think it's, you know, it's that type of assessment that is being made.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. My next question has to do with the
12 title to be found below this paragraph. "Margins of manoeuvre for
13 UNPROFOR's action."
14 Before I refer you to a portion of the text, I will remind you of
15 the fact that on page 3, we spoke of the pressure from the Croatian side
16 on the confrontation line, which was increasing daily, in the form of
17 incursions, infiltrations of both armed groups and civilians. Then on the
18 top of this page, we were talking about the pressure put on UNPROFOR to
19 solve the problem of the displaced persons, and what comes next is the
20 margin of manoeuvre for UNPROFOR's action.
21 The first paragraph reads: "The situation might need to be
22 assessed presently as a Serb war process in the former Yugoslavia and not
23 as implementation of the Vance Plan in UNPAs."
24 In order to make it quite clear what the first sentence reads
25 here, I will refer you to the last paragraph on the page, and I
1 quote: "Pressure should be concentrated on local authorities in Knin at
2 UN's highest level showing our unwillingness to be cheated further. We
3 might stop threatening them in a way that allows illusions of statehood
4 and calling them ministers. We should openly state that pink zones are
5 part of Croatia and that the bottom line of our operation is obviously
6 using the appropriate formulation. And these are the two formulations as
7 part of instructions." One of them is are we in the driving seat any
8 more? And the second one is: Someone is cheating someone somewhere.
9 My question in connection with this is: Do you believe that the
10 margin of manoeuvre for UNPROFOR's action would be created by in fact
11 laying the blame on the Serbs, in terms of them putting daily pressure on
12 the confrontation line and in view of the pressure from the Croatian side
13 on UNPROFOR with regard to the return of the displaced persons? What sort
14 of formulations are these that come out of UNPROFOR? Can you tell us?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you answer, Ms. Valabhji?
16 MS. VALABHJI: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honours, but I think
17 the translation of a word that was being read, when the document was being
18 read, the translation we got in the transcript is "threatening," whereas
19 the document itself says, "Treating." And it's -- the sentence in the
20 document, the second sentence, "We might stop treating them" as opposed to
21 "threatening them."
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We see that.
23 With that correction, you may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. This is exactly what the text reads here, as my learned friend
1 stated, to stop treating them, not threatening them. With that
2 correction, can you please answer my question, Witness?
3 A. Again, I think we are going back and looking at, I suppose, an
4 approach to the Serbian side at this stage and particularly Knin will be
5 referring to what is actually taking place in the UN protected areas. And
6 I think they are going back and saying, you know, everything is not right
7 here either. And indeed I think the top paragraph, if I read it
8 correctly, implies that interests may be in the greater issues outside the
9 mission. So I think it's UNPROFOR just making a statement perhaps as well
10 in relation to its position. So again, it's, I suppose, the diplomatic
11 end of it, posturing perhaps, I suppose, on the issue.
12 Q. Do you believe that it is a proper way of proceeding, as you say,
13 diplomatically, that you would shift the blame from the Croatian side on
14 the Serb side, and the interpretation of the paragraph, as you gave it
15 now, the -- or, rather, the interpretation of the conduct shown in the
17 Could we please see page 6071 of the document in connection with
18 this? This is the number at the top right-hand side, 6071. Let us look
19 at the bottom part of the page. That is fine. Thank you. Stop there.
20 There is a title here, "Power struggle in RSK." I just started
21 putting a question to you. The instruction as to how the Serbian side
22 should be treated, that they should not be allowed illusions of statehood
23 and that they should not be addressed as ministers, did this particular
24 instruction lead to the text, "power struggle in the RSK"? It
25 says: "Martic is the chief of a gang and not a political leader."
1 And the last paragraph on page -- on this page: "Martic never
2 gave us indications that he probably adhered to Vance Plan. On the
3 contrary, he repeatedly stated in public that there would be no
4 restoration of Croatian authority and that the cease-fire line is the
5 border of the RSK."
6 A. I cannot speak for the writer in this situation, Your Honour. He
7 is indicating there that he's in possession of certain facts in relation
8 to what was said. I'm not in a position to say yes or no in that
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Mr. Milovancevic, would that be a convenient time?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We will reconvene at 4.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Before we had the break, we spoke of the way Mr. Martic was
19 treated in this UNCIVPOL report, as the chief of a gang, and as a person
20 refusing to accept the Vance Plan.
21 We will go back to the very beginning of this report now; that's
22 to say, page 1 of document 333. And we will look at the title of the
23 document. The title is "Report on the Serbo-Croatian conflict and
24 UNPROFOR mission." What sort of Serbo-Croatian conflict was this? It
25 isn't clear on the basis of this report whether this is the clash between
1 the Croatian state and Croatian forces with Serbs who were citizens of
2 Croatia living in an area under UN protection.
3 A. I regard it as a report based on the United Nations protected area
4 that the focus of the report is based on, that mission.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And it's based on the conflict that is taking place
6 between Serbs and Croats.
7 THE WITNESS: Within the -- and the focal point of that is the
8 United Nations protected area.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. This has to do with the document we've been looking at so far,
11 which is the UNCIVPOL report dated 7 September 1992. And with this
12 statement of yours at the end of paragraph 6, where it was expected that
13 the parties would start negotiating and achieving an agreement on
14 coexistence of Serbs and Croats enabling people to return to their homes.
15 Was it within the UNCIVPOL mandate to deal with negotiations, and
16 how is it possible that UNCIVPOL, in its report dated 7 September 1992,
17 should provide political instructions on how to treat one side or both
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, just before the witness answers,
20 the witness explained that this is not his statement. This is a report
21 written by somebody else and he's just interpreting it like you and I are
22 trying to do. So to refer to it as this statement of yours at paragraph 6
23 is incorrect.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
25 rephrase my question. You're right. The witness did state that this was
1 not his report.
2 Q. Witness, this is basically what I'm interested in. The position
3 presented in paragraph 6, which says that it was expected that the sides
4 would reach an agreement on coexistence in Croatia. My question is the
5 following: Was it your business to return Krajina within the territory of
6 the Republic of Croatia and to take care of the coexistence involved or
7 not? Was this the mandate of UNCIVPOL or not?
8 A. My understanding is that the Vance Plan was the foundation for
9 this process, and that all parties agreed and signed off to working with
10 it, and that is the basis of the whole issue.
11 Q. Do you wish to say that the agreement on coexistence within the
12 framework of Croatia was something that was envisaged under the
13 Vance Plan? Is my understanding of what you said correct?
14 A. I think the word "envisaged" is the word used in the Vance Plan,
15 and I think that looking at that word "envisaged" in relation to the
16 environment existing at that time, as I mentioned earlier, I think we were
17 a step removed from a diplomatic solution to a long -- and getting a
18 long-term answer to the whole problem.
19 Q. Did not the Vance Plan envisage peacekeeping in order to create
20 conditions for a peaceful solution to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia
21 without any prejudice for the final outcome of the crisis? Isn't that
22 what the Vance Plan provided for?
23 A. I think -- if I'm correct, I understand it to provide for the
24 peaceful return of people within Croatia.
25 Q. You see, Mr. McElligott, you're not right. This isn't what the
1 Vance Plan envisaged. In connection with this position of yours, I'd like
2 to know the following: The fact that some countries recognised Croatia in
3 1992, did that fact possibly led you to think that way?
4 A. Your Honour, I -- my role was one of a police officer, serving on
5 the mission in relation to the objectives set out to us. I'm not a
6 politician, nor a diplomat. And I would not put myself forward as an
7 authority in the detail of the politics. But I have referred to it coming
8 within Croatia, and I understand that that -- that the wording of it to be
9 that. That's my understanding of it. I haven't seen the document for a
10 long, long time.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, maybe it might be helpful, now
12 that you say that Mr. McElligott is not right, to tell him what the
13 correct position was. And also for the Chamber to understand what the
14 correct position from your point of view is.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I will do
17 It is true that the primary duty of this witness and UNCIVPOL was
18 to maintain law and order in the area under their mission and not to find
19 political solutions or to return the Krajina within the jurisdiction of
20 the Croatian authorities, as the witness himself put in his statement. I
21 tried to find out through my examination whether he, as a member of
22 UNCIVPOL, of the United Nations forces, he acted with certain objectives
23 and goals that went beyond his mission, in connection with this.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Milovancevic, you're not telling the
25 witness what the right position was. You're now misstating again his
1 evidence. He said earlier that it was not the responsibility of the -- of
2 UNPROFOR or the UN civil police to maintain law and order. That was a
3 responsibility of the local police. You are continuing to put things
4 incorrectly to him and you're not correcting him where you say he's wrong.
5 Just tell him where you said he was wrong in stating the Vance Plan as
6 providing for peaceful return of people within Croatia, you said that was
7 a wrong proposition. What was the right proposition? Or what was the
8 right provision, rather?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This
10 is precisely what I will do now.
11 Could we have, please, 65 ter document number 104 on our monitors?
12 This is a report to the Security Council, number S23280, dated 20 December
13 1991, which has -- this report has three annexes. In connection with this
14 document, could we see Annex 3 on our monitor. That's page 15 of the
15 entire document. Therefore, 65 ter document 104.
16 Your Honour, I apologise. Inadvertently I referred the Registrar
17 to the wrong number. This is Exhibit 104 and not 65 ter document 104. My
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Registrar, are you able to give us
20 Exhibit 104?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 1.
22 Q. Mr. McElligott, this is the report to the Security Council dated
23 11 December 1991. The report is of the -- of Secretary-General in keeping
24 with Resolution 721 from 1991. Could we please take a look at page 15 of
25 the document? The title is "Annex 3." MSF 210-01. 003132725. That is
1 the ERN number.
2 While this is being shown, I'm going to read the provision from
3 paragraph 1 of Annex 3, Mr. McElligott. Annex 3 contains the concept for
4 the peacekeeping operation of United Nations in Yugoslavia. When it comes
5 to the general principles, it says, under 1, the peacekeeping operation of
6 United Nations in Yugoslavia will be an arrangement in order to create
7 conditions for peace and security which are necessary for negotiations
8 about the overall solution of the Yugoslav crisis. It is not going to
9 prejudice the outcome of such negotiations.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, the Chamber has been advised by
11 registry that this document, the one that they have on e-court has got
12 only 9 pages and there are no annexes to it. I'm not quite sure what you
13 were reading from now when you read, because what you have called on to
14 the screen is the report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Security
15 Council Resolution 721 of 1991. You have not called a copy of the
16 Vance Plan on the screen.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see we are
18 facing a problem. It is possible that this is our mistake. However, this
19 is a complete document that I have in hard copy. This is the resolution
20 of the Security Council. This document has been provided to us by the
21 Prosecution. The resolution is number -- I apologise, this is a report of
22 the Secretary-General of the Security Council. The number is 23280. The
23 date is 11 December 1991. It deals with this issue. It has four annexes,
24 and the third annex speaks about the concept of the peacekeeping
1 If it doesn't exist in e-court, then I'll have to come back later
2 to this document. I suggest that I should proceed with my
3 cross-examination in order to avoid wasting time. We are going to try and
4 resolve the problem in some other way, if you're agreeable. I did not
5 know until this very moment that there was this problem, because the whole
6 report is a single document.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. In terms of the best-evidence
8 rule, will you make please sure that you get the Vance Plan and not the
9 Secretary-General's reports or other documents so that let us see the
10 original document itself on what it provides, particularly on the question
11 where you challenged the witness, the witness's understanding of the Vance
13 Yes, suspend your further cross-examination on this issue until
14 you have got proper documentation. You may proceed on further
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
17 follow that.
18 Q. In paragraph 8 and paragraph 9, as well as in paragraph 10,
19 Mr. McElligott, of your statement to the Prosecution, that is, you're
20 talking about the mandate of the UNCIVPOL and you're saying that the
21 primary duty is to maintain law and order in the mission area, and this
22 rested with the existing police force. And you're also saying that the
23 UNCIVPOL police force did not have any executive powers for maintaining
24 public order. And you are also explaining that the mandate of the
25 UNCIVPOL implied monitoring the local police under A; and under B to
1 provide appropriate assistance to the appropriate bodies of the
2 international organisations in a view of the return of displaced persons.
3 With regard to this mandate of the UNCIVPOL, my first question to
4 you is as follows: Is it clear that the mandate of the UNCIVPOL does not
5 encompass anything to the effect of seeking a political resolution to the
7 A. No, Your Honour.
8 Q. Did I understand your answer well?
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please go ahead. I think you're about to do the
10 same thing as I was about to, interject in respect of Mr. Milovancevic.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. When you say no, Your Honour, does that mean that seeking a
14 political solution did not make part of the political mandate, or did it
15 mean something else?
16 A. I answered in the sense of did CIVPOL have a role to play in a
17 political solution. And we would not have regarded ourselves as the
18 politicians in the situation. We were there to provide a specific
19 policing role.
20 Q. And one brief question: With that record, in other words, seeking
21 a political solution for the crisis in the area under the UN mandate was
22 not your task, was it?
23 A. I suppose I could be regarded as part of an overall team, and
24 looking at it in a global way, I suppose, every unit played its own part
25 in bringing what would ultimately be a political solution. So in -- I
1 suppose everybody contributed in some way, be it minor or otherwise, in
2 generating what would be finally a political solution. But the police
3 force would not have a leading role, perhaps. Let's put it that way.
4 Q. Does this mean that the police did play a role in seeking a
5 political solution, although it may not have been a leading role, as you
6 say? And what role was that, if any?
7 A. I'll go back to our organisational structure and look at how we
8 functioned, and we reported to the director of civil affairs, who had a
9 direct responsibility -- or responsibility for directing the political and
10 civil affairs end of the mission. So we would have reported into them.
11 So that would be the line of command within the organisation. So, you
12 know, we were -- civil affairs had the political end of the business to
13 deal with. And that is where we backed away and they took up their
15 Q. Can Exhibit 115 be shown, please. The document that is being
16 shown is Vance's plan, Mr. McElligott. Can we go to page 5, 01145413 is
17 the indication on that page. Can we please zoom in on the left page and
18 can we scroll down to the chapter entitled "Basic concept," and can you
19 please read the text under bullet 7, Mr. McElligott? Can you do that?
20 A. "The United Nations troops and police monitors would be deployed
21 in certain areas of Croatia designated as United Nations Protected Areas.
22 These areas would be demilitarised, all armed forces in them would be
23 either withdrawn or disbanded. The role of the United Nations troops
24 would be to ensure that the area remained demilitarised and that all
25 persons residing in them were protected from fear of armed attack. The
1 role of the United Nations police monitors would be to ensure that the
2 local police forces carried out their duties without discrimination.
3 Q. Mr. McElligott, can you please read slowly when you're reading?
4 And can you finish the reading by reading the rest of the text on the
5 following page? You finished with "without discrimination." Against
7 A. "Persons of any nationality abusing anyone's human rights. As the
8 United Nations force assumed its responsibilities in the United Nations
9 Protected Areas, UNPAs, all JNA forces deployed elsewhere in Croatia would
10 be relocated outside the republic. The United Nations force would also,
11 as appropriate, assist the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations in
12 the return of all displaced persons who so desired to -- who so desired to
13 their homes in the UNPAs."
14 Q. Can we scroll down and display the entire paragraph 8 and can the
15 witness please read the last sentence in that paragraph? The last
16 sentence preceding bullet number 9. Starting with "as already" --
17 A. You're looking at: "The UNPAs would be areas in Croatia in which
18 the Secretary-General judged" --
19 Q. Yes, yes, but just the last sentence in that bullet.
20 A. "As already stated, the special arrangements in these areas would
21 be an interim -- of an interim nature and would not prejudge the outcome
22 of political negotiations for the comprehensive settlement in the Yugoslav
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. I apologise for having asked you to
25 read this. It is not easy to read from the monitor. However, does it
1 transpire from the text that you have just read out --
2 MS. VALABHJI: Just to point out that earlier my learned
3 colleague, at page 30 of the transcript, line 17, told the witness that he
4 was not correct when he started to answer regarding the question on the
5 Vance Plan, and I think for the record that this document indicates that
6 he is correct, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.
8 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] If the document speaks about
10 the role of the civilian police of the United Nations, and if it says
11 verbatim that this arrangement in the Owen's plan would not prejudge the
12 outcome of political negotiations for a comprehensive settlement of the
13 Yugoslav crisis, do you consider that your statement that Vance's plan
14 envisaged the reintegration of the Serbian areas in Croatia is something
15 that is contrary to these provisions of Vance's plan?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I don't understand which way
17 you're going, but before I say what I want to say, your learned friend was
18 on her feet. Let's hear what she's got to say.
19 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour. I just wonder could my
20 learned friend point me to the part of the statement that he's referring
21 to? I am not getting it, frankly.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the document that
23 we have on the screen now is the document that has been shown to the
24 witness to help him provide an answer with the statement that we see in
25 the last sentence of paragraph 6 of his statement to the Prosecutor's
1 office. And which is connected with his further explanation. And that is
2 that it was expected that the two sides would negotiate and that they
3 would reach an agreement of coexistence within Croatia. And he also
4 referred to the provisions of Vance's plans envisaging something like
5 that. Now I have shown the document that speak about the negotiations and
6 the special arrangements would not prejudge the outcome of political
7 negotiations. And my question is: Whether his position is prejudging the
8 outcome of political negotiations and is that the way how he perceived the
9 role of his mission or his mission as such.
10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I followed the mandate as it was given
11 to us by the United Nations at the time. I'm now looking -- raising an
12 event 13 years later and, well, detail at this point, I can see where a
13 misunderstanding can arise. And on looking at paragraph 8, it does say
14 that the UNPAs would be areas in Croatia in which the Secretary-General
15 judged that special arrangements were required. So I'm conscious of
16 that. And the final wording there does leave the door open for a
17 negotiated solution. But it didn't certainly influence my thoughts one
18 way or the other on how I should do my job in the mission. I was
19 conscious of the detail of the plan then and worked to it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: It may just be that maybe I've been a little amiss,
21 or remiss, rather. I don't have a copy of your statement to the
22 Prosecutor, and this reference to this paragraph 6 is what I'm interested
23 in because I want to see how it differs with what is in the Vance Plan.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the
25 representative of the Registry to provide the Trial Chamber with a copy of
1 that document, i.e., item 6 of that statement. I know that it was shown
2 to the witness before.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. While we are waiting for that, what I do want
4 to raise with you, Mr. Milovancevic, is that the witness has been saying
5 to you all the time that it was not for his section to negotiate a
6 settlement but he reported to higher command in the -- in the chain of
7 command within UNPROFOR, and all he saw was what they were doing, each one
8 in a way was contributing towards a settlement, a negotiated settlement,
9 and, of course, the contribution by the UN police is quite clear. They
10 were creating conditions in which such negotiation could take place, by
11 separating the parties. Now, I'm not quite sure what it is you are
12 fighting with about -- you are fighting with him about. But maybe once
13 I've got the paragraph 6 of his statement, I may see the contradiction.
14 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, I have some hard copies.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would appreciate a copy. Thank you so much.
16 I've read his paragraph 6.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for your
18 question. We have dwelt upon this quite for sometime. What we are trying
19 to verify is how the witness, as a high official of UNCIVPOL perceived the
20 role of UNCIVPOL. We want to make inferences from that as to how he
21 worked on the ground and what his attitude towards the problem was. This
22 is what I'm trying to get from the witness, actually. We have received
23 answers from the witness, and if you will allow me to do, I may proceed
24 with my cross-examination.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, I'm sorry, I want to follow
1 where you're going. The witness states clearly how he understands the
2 mission of the UN Civil Police in paragraph 6 of his statement to the OTP.
3 He has been telling us from the last two days how he acted on the ground.
4 I would like you to point us to a contradiction, if that's your
5 contention, between his behaviour on the ground and his understanding of
6 the mission, or whatever contradiction it is that -- or inconsistency that
7 it is that you want to point us to. If you are saying that he's
8 misconstrued the Vance Plan, show us how. If you are saying he did not
9 act in terms of the Vance Plan, show us how so that we follow you. As it
10 is now, the last couple of questions you have been putting to him, I'm not
11 able to follow you. And my inability to follow you is now reinforced
12 after reading paragraph 6 of his statement.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. McElligott, the expectations that you speak about in
15 paragraph 6 that an agreement would be reached on coexistence within
16 Croatia, does it arise from the provisions of the Vance Plan that you have
17 just read out for us?
18 A. The Vance Plan --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you answer --
20 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, I object. I think that my learned
21 colleague is now misquoting the statement.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Absolutely.
23 MS. VALABHJI: He says -- he refers to expectations in paragraph 6
24 of the statement that an agreement would be reached on coexistence within
25 Croatia. The line in the statement says: "It was envisaged that the
1 parties would negotiate and reach an agreement of coexistence within
2 Croatia and that those who had been displaced would return to their
4 We've already looked at the text of the Vance Plan in the document
5 that was just pulled up, 01145413, in which the return of displaced
6 persons is specifically referred to, so there is no contradiction in this
7 regard; and second, he merely refers to what was envisaged. There is no
8 question of prejudging the outcome or forcing an outcome or anything of
9 this kind. It's merely what was envisaged at the time.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to add on to what counsel has just mentioned,
11 Mr. Milovancevic, that very sentence that talks of being -- something
12 being envisaged, I would like you to take note of the fact that what was
13 envisaged was that the parties themselves, not UNPROFOR, the parties
14 themselves, would negotiate and reach an agreement. So UNPROFOR was not
15 party to that negotiation. That's what I would like to emphasise to you.
16 You may proceed.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Just one more question about this topic, Mr. McElligott. Your
19 expectations about the outcome of political negotiations were --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where do these expectations come from? Where does
21 he talk about his expectations? We have just read that the plan envisaged
22 that the parties would negotiate an agreement, but he's not part of the
23 plan. He's just implementing that portion of the plan that was within his
24 area of jurisdiction.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll
2 Q. When you're talking about the mandate of the United Nations
3 police, you're saying that it is to -- that the primary responsibility
4 maintaining law and order in the mission area rested with the existing
5 police forces, and the UNCIVPOL police force did not have executive powers
6 but to monitor the local police, to ensure that they carry out their task
7 without discrimination and to provide the appropriate assistance to the
8 United Nations in assisting with the return of refugees.
9 When it comes to the monitoring of the local police, you're
10 talking about the monitoring role of the UNCIVPOL. This role of the
11 UNCIVPOL, did it actually represent a typically policing work on the
12 ground? I mean the way it is described under these two bullet points.
13 A. One has to put it in the context of the environment of the day,
14 and again, the foundation stone for it is the Vance Plan, which was drawn
15 up taking full cognizance of that environment. So, you know, we were
16 dealing with a difficult situation, and we monitored it on the basis that
17 the respect that were due to people's rights should be given to them. And
18 I don't think you can walk away from that, no matter what the
19 circumstances are.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But as I understood you, your testimony yesterday,
21 or I beg your pardon, last Friday, you talked of either people reporting
22 incidents to you or you yourself observing incidents and then writing or
23 communicating with those of the police on either side who you thought
24 could control the situation.
25 THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: And in that respect you wrote several letters to
2 Mr. Martic and other authorities.
3 THE WITNESS: Letters were written to the various departments --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that was the manner in which you were
6 THE WITNESS: That was the -- we monitored, we established facts
7 and then reported on, and if an issue arose to make complaint.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You reported and asked for action to be taken.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, and it was done at different levels. Perhaps
10 at some occasions it was done at station level, district level. And, you
11 know, at a more serious level, it went to effectively government. Let's
12 put it that way.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think that explains the monitoring that he
14 says -- and I think this came from his testimony on Friday,
15 Mr. Milovancevic. Maybe you may want to cross-examine him along that.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I was precisely coming to that
17 topic, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 Q. When in paragraph 10, under items A to N, you list the monitoring
19 duties vis-a-vis the local police forces, those duties, were those duties
20 belonging to the UNCIVPOL police monitors? Was -- were these the duties
21 that they themselves had to discharged?
22 A. Yes, Your Honour, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. In order to describe the way UNCIVPOL carried out its
24 duties on the ground, you presented the UNCIVPOL structure, that's page 5
25 in the B/C/S version, starting with paragraph 13, and according to this
1 UNCIVPOL structure, there is one formal chain of command, as you called
2 it. I have one question in connection with this formal chain of command.
3 Is it true that police monitors operated on the ground as the basic
4 structure of UNCIVPOL, that they were answerable to the station commander
5 of UNCIVPOL, that the UNCIVPOL station commander was answerable to the
6 chief of the sector, that the sector chief was answerable to the UNCIVPOL
7 commissioner in Zagreb, and that the UNCIVPOL commissioner was answerable
8 through the chief of mission in Zagreb to the structure above? Was that
9 the actual chain of command?
10 A. That is the line of command or was the line of command.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that in line with the organigramme that you
12 showed us on Friday?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In paragraph 12, you explain that upon your arrival at UNCIVPOL
16 headquarters, you were appointed chief -- head of operations and then
17 Chief of Staff and deputy commissioner in charge of operations. There you
18 go on to describe the duties you had. Can you tell us: In what
19 particular periods of time you were head of operations, then Chief of
20 Staff, and deputy commissioner?
21 A. I am not sure of the dates. When I arrived at the mission, I
22 filled the vacancy of head of operations, and subsequent to that, the
23 person who was Chief of Staff rotated home. Perhaps that could have been
24 somewhere into -- it would have been somewhere into the new year, 1993,
25 and a further rotation took place then when the deputy commissioner, the
1 Jordanian, went home and I filled that vacancy or was appointed to that
3 So, you know, it all happened within a 12-month period. But
4 time-wise, probably you could have maybe three or four months of a period
5 in operations, maybe the same, and then a further period as the deputy, so
6 they all extended somewhere about four months, there, thereabouts
7 somewhere, range in that area. But they are all based on rotation, taking
8 place within the mission.
9 Q. Were your duties in all three posts to analyse incidents in the
10 area UNCIVPOL was responsible for?
11 A. Well, as head of operations and the deputy commissioner I
12 certainly would be looking at incidents. Chief of Staff was more focussed
13 on our resources or the human and the logistical side of the mission.
14 Q. According to the UNCIVPOL organigramme we were looking at on
15 Friday, which is Exhibit 722, it follows that the analysis of the incident
16 was only within the duties of deputy commissioner and commissioner
18 A. No. The role of head of operations came within the line of
19 command to the deputy commissioner; in other words, that office was the
20 operational side of the mission.
21 Q. Could we look at Exhibit 722 on our monitors, which is the
22 UNCIVPOL structure? This diagram shows that deputy commissioner analyses
23 incidents, so deputy commissioner is in charge of incident analysis. Does
24 it follow from this organisational diagram that you were able to carry out
25 incident analysis while holding all the three posts that you had?
1 A. As Chief of Staff, I was not directly involved in operations, but
2 each morning we -- a meeting was held with the commissioner and his key
3 staff, so I was privy to, I suppose, everything that was happening on the
4 field at all times. But when I was Chief of Staff the focus was on the
5 human resource and the logistical side of the mission. But as I say, each
6 day I was in touch.
7 Q. In other words, incident analysis was not, strictly speaking, your
8 line of business but you were informed of the findings thereof. Is that a
9 correct understanding?
10 A. There was a staff attached to both offices with an overall staff
11 of, I think, 18 at the headquarters, and a number of them were deployed on
12 the operational side and a number on the Chief of Staff side, which would
13 be administrative.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I ask you a question? Does head of operations,
15 as you mention at paragraph 12, mean the same thing as chief of operations
16 as listed on the organigramme just below deputy commissioner?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, yes, same -- same -- talking about the
18 same situation.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. McElligott, in chapter UNCIVPOL sectors, paragraph 14 to 17,
24 you speak of the four sectors, Sector North, Sector South, Sector East,
25 Sector West. In all the four sectors, you also mention the places where
1 the sectors were based. You also mention UNCIVPOL stations. Can it be
2 said that the total of 32 UNCIVPOL stations were located in the four
4 A. There was a further chart showing where each station is located
5 and through the sector. So the detail is there.
6 Q. Thank you. A simple count of these stations mentioned in
7 paragraphs 14 to 17 arrives at the total of 32 UNCIVPOL stations.
8 Let me ask you the following: This disposition of UNCIVPOL
9 stations, does it indicate that -- or does it mean that a given number of
10 police monitors, about 500 of them, went out of each and every one of
11 these stations every day, to monitor the situation?
12 A. Not so. The police staff we had about I think is 18 or 20 I
13 mentioned for headquarters. Each headquarters section would have a small
14 staff to administer the sector. Monitors would work over a 20 -- a
15 seven-day week, so rest days had to be calculated in on the basis that
16 they got a certain amount of rest time, and indeed shift work could also
17 deplete that strength somewhat more on the basis that you could have one
18 shift starting at, say, 7.00 a.m. and finishing at 3.00 or 4.00 and
19 another starting at 3.00 p.m. and going to a later hour, or starting
20 earlier and overlapping so that you don't have the entire staff working at
21 all times.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But did you have 500 police monitors per station?
23 THE WITNESS: We had I think about 460 in all -- overall for the
24 entire mission. Or 640. 640, I think.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be considerably less than 500 per
2 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Stations would vary. But again we have
3 a chart there, a chart showing the actual strength in each station
4 throughout the mission. I think you can range from five to somewhat more,
5 but it was a low staffing level.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have
8 Exhibit 723 on our monitors? These are UNCIVPOL stations.
9 Q. When I put a question to you in connection with the paragraphs
10 where you described UNCIVPOL's structure, I was referring to the UNCIVPOL
11 stations that are to be found in this particular diagram; is that correct,
13 A. Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honour.
14 Q. Thank you. Please let us look at Exhibit 725 now.
15 When we look at document 0810, that's the page, we have Sector
16 East here and the figure of monitors, that's to say, the number of
17 monitors there is 138. If we could take a look at the -- could we have --
18 could we take a look at the document below, exactly? Could you scroll up
19 a bit? Could we look at the last line, bottom left? We have a figure
20 there, I believe it's 138. That's the total number of monitors; is that
21 correct, sir?
22 A. That is correct.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Total number of monitors for? For a station, a
25 THE WITNESS: For a sector, Sector East, I understand it is.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct.
2 Q. Could we look at the next page, please? That's page 0811. Could
3 we also take a look at the last line, at the bottom, where the total
4 number of monitors for Sector North is listed? Do you see the figure?
5 How many monitors were there?
6 A. It's somewhat clouded. I think it's 167 as I read it.
7 Q. Thank you. Could we take a look at the next page? That's
8 page 0812. The bottom left-hand corner shows that there were 127 monitors
9 in Sector South, as far as I'm able to make out. Is that correct, sir?
10 A. Yes, yes, Your Honour.
11 Q. The next page, 813, in the bottom left-hand corner, the figure for
12 the total number of monitors in Sector West is 121.
13 A. Right.
14 Q. In connection with the total number of monitors -- or, rather,
15 when we add up all these figures of monitors, we arrive at a figure of
16 about 500. You stated there were 5 or 8 or 10 of these monitors in each
17 of the stations, depending on the situation, and these were be actually
18 the persons going out into the field.
19 My question is: Did the UNCIVPOL police stations write reports
20 every day on the basis of the information they gathered in the field?
21 A. Yes, Your Honour. A report was prepared each day.
22 Q. In paragraph 21 of your statement, you state that police monitors
23 in various stations submitted daily reports on the incidents they recorded
24 and all these reports were then compiled into one single report. Does it
25 mean that all the reports arriving from all the different UNCIVPOL police
1 stations were then compiled into a single report? For instance, all the
2 police stations in Sector South provided their respective reports, which
3 would then be integrated into a single report? Is that correct?
4 A. A single report was provided -- was produced at CIVPOL
5 headquarters each night, and it set out all incidents of note on the
6 report for the commissioner. It was available each morning.
7 Q. I have the following question: If there were 32 police stations
8 on the ground, let us take this figure as the correct one, although we can
9 arrive at the correct figure, does it mean that every day 32 reports were
10 made which originated from every single police station?
11 A. Each station submitted a report to its headquarters and they then
12 prepared a consolidated report from those documents. So at headquarters
13 we received a report from each sector headquarters. We did not receive
14 all the individual reports. We just received a single report from a
15 district -- from a headquarters office in a sector. So, in other words,
16 we would receive a report from Sector North, south, east, west, Sarajevo,
17 so forth, Macedonia.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question I think that's being put to you is
19 each one of these police stations, on a daily basis, submitted a report to
20 its sector headquarters?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And the sector headquarters would then coordinate
23 all those reports and send them to the main head office in Zagreb.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what we were asking.
1 Proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes.
3 Q. All these questions had to do with paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17.
4 There were four UNCIVPOL sectors, north, south, east, west. When all the
5 reports coming from all the police stations were submitted, each of the
6 sectors would produce a consolidated report, and then each of the sectors
7 would send their consolidated reports to headquarters in Zagreb. Is that
8 a correct understanding?
9 A. Right, Your Honour, yes.
10 Q. In paragraph 22, you also explain that when these consolidated
11 reports from the four sectors arrived, every night a duty officer attached
12 to my office at Zagreb prepared an overall situation report of -- on the
13 basis of all the reports received from the sector chiefs. Does this mean
14 that on the basis of all these 32 reports that were initially submitted
15 and consolidated into four reports, a final, overall UNCIVPOL report would
16 be produced in Zagreb?
17 A. That is so.
18 Q. Do you know which criteria guided the duty officer in selecting
19 relevant from the overall issues and discarding irrelevant issues? Was he
20 governed by his own discretion, or did he have rules to be governed by, or
21 was there something else?
22 A. There were guidelines in the preparation of the reports, and again
23 the people who are there were people of experience, so that again I had
24 access and indeed we had access to all the reports, so we had an
25 opportunity to review what was coming to him as well from time to time, so
1 we were in the position to make a judgement call on the correctness or
2 otherwise of what was being done. So there was an evaluation taking place
3 independent of guidelines.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you know whether the guidelines were informed by
5 the Vance Plan?
6 THE WITNESS: No. They would be based on the -- the foundation
7 would be the Vance Plan, and the guidelines in reporting would come from
8 ourselves based on that.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. But they would be informed by what the Vance
10 Plan requires of you to do on the ground.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Could we have 65 ter document 324 on our monitors? This is a
15 situation report for Sector South of CIVPOL, 29 May 1992 is the date, sent
16 to the sector commander, commander of the UN forces, General Nambiar,
17 65 ter document 324.
18 The document you have before you, sir, do you recognise it as a
19 document normally drafted by UNCIVPOL regardless of the headquarters in
20 this case, it's the headquarters of Sector South?
21 A. Correct. It's been produced already. I have read it already.
22 Q. In the penultimate paragraph on this page, could we please scroll
23 it up a bit to see the end of the page, the penultimate paragraph, yes,
24 please, stop there.
25 Below the title "Operations," it states: "During our first two
1 months here, the local population were optimistic."
2 Have you found that portion?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. "During our first two months here, the local population were
5 optimistic that UNPROFOR would help and protect the local community."
6 This report is dated 29 May 1992. And then, on the next page,
7 bearing the number 5826, there is the title "Expulsion of Croats" there.
8 You -- or I apologise, not you, but the author of this report
9 writes: "Every effort has been made by CIVPOL to ensure their safety
10 within the UNPA Sector South," and they are referring to Croats.
11 The second sentence reads: "Despite these efforts by CIVPOL to
12 ensure their safety, the local Milicija are continuing to undermine and
13 intimidate these people."
14 At the end of this text you're referring to an annex which deals
15 with such incidents.
16 In connection with this portion of the text entitled "Expulsion of
17 Croats," can you tell us whether such a conclusion reported in such a
18 report, which is apparently a monthly report, is that the work product
19 that would be produced by the section commander upon receiving -- by the
20 station commander, upon receiving various reports from police stations?
21 A. Could you clarify the question again, please? Apologies.
22 Q. I apologise, Mr. McElligott. The question might have been a bit
24 When somebody drafts a report covering a one-month period, would
25 that be a report which deals -- which is written by an officer or a person
1 in charge of the analysis of material, and this is the type of material
2 that you're talking about when you talk about the submission of reports in
3 the headquarters in Zagreb?
4 A. This report, as I understand, was prepared by Sameer, Bino. He's
5 a Jordanian, and I suppose -- his mother tongue is not English, and it is
6 prepared in the light of that. But it is -- he's setting out a position
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it a monthly report?
9 THE WITNESS: I would just like to look at the top again, please.
10 Could I?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can the Registrar please show us the top of the
12 document, the heading of the document?
13 Maybe while the Registrar is looking for the heading of the
14 document, we might perhaps take a break, and then answer the question when
15 we come back.
16 Court adjourned and come back --
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.18 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 5.46 p.m.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic? I see your opposite number
21 is standing.
22 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, my apologies for interjecting at this stage,
23 Your Honour, but I just wanted to bring up the issue of the length of
24 cross-examination. At this stage, it would start to exceed the length of
25 the direct exam, and I would just recall the Chamber's -- Trial Chamber's
1 guidelines, paragraph 11 which says that the principle is that the time
2 principally should not exceed the time allotted for the
3 examination-in-chief unless there are particular circumstances requiring
4 an extension. We would submit that there are no particular circumstances
5 and that we would ask that the cross be completed in time so as to allow
6 time for redirect and for Your Honours' questions today, all today.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecutor has
10 introduced a number of documents through this witness, some of them of a
11 tens of pages long. The witness spoke about only some of those pages, and
12 made inferences based on those pages. And now we are being told that we
13 should limit our cross-examination. We are aware of the principle of the
14 equal length of time. However, the witness is very important. He
15 testifies about a period covering a year, and the Prosecutor has had a
16 very easy job. He has shown the witness a document and asked him to
17 confirm things. I believe that we will be able to finish our
18 cross-examination tomorrow, sometime after the first session, and we would
19 kindly request the Trial Chamber to allow us to do that.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, one thing that militates against
21 the Trial Chamber agreeing to that is the fact that your questions are
22 inordinately long, and whatever you say before you finally put your
23 question is invariably not related to the question as such and it's just
24 repetitive of the evidence.
25 I would ask you to - which is also something that is in the
1 guidelines - to please just put your questions to the witness without
2 giving a long speech each time you ask him a question. That way we
3 probably can finish quicker.
4 Proceed, Mr. Milovancevic. Just go straight to cross-examination.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
6 shall follow your instruction.
7 Q. Mr. McElligott, we left it off with the report written in May 1991
8 of Sector South [indiscernible] to the commander of the United Nations.
9 This is a summary report. And my last question to which I would kindly
10 ask to you answer is this: Is this a summary report based on individual
11 reports written about the situation on the ground?
12 A. It is the report written by the sector commander outlining the
13 situation on a given date and it's addressed to the force commander, so it
14 hasn't gone through the normal chain of command for the CIVPOL side. I
15 think it's an assessment. And it sets out a number of points in relation
16 to the establishment of the mission on that date, and he made, I think,
17 two notable points in relation to one, the concerns of the local -- or the
18 expectations, I think, of the local population, and the situation in
19 relation to the minority population as well. So it's not a normal daily
20 situation report.
21 Q. Can we see the next page of the document; 5827, that is. This
22 report is relative to the expulsion of Croats, and it refers to the annex
23 which contains such incidents. The annex is on the following page, and it
24 contains a series of areas, Benkovac, Obrovac, the area of Knin, again
25 Benkovac, Benkovac, and it speaks about individual cases. For example, in
1 the first case, it says that armed bandits attacked the Croatian
2 population in Zelici and also that on the 12th of May --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... don't read
4 what is already there.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Do you believe that the information contained in chapters relative
7 to Obrovac and Benkovac, looking from the bottom of the page, the second
8 and third line from the bottom of the page, do you think that it is
9 possible for such a report to the UNPROFOR mission to reach him and is it
10 a realistic report?
11 It says that 12 artillery shells were fired on Benkovac on the
12 24th of May, that they fell on the town, that somebody was injured, a
13 woman was injured, and that for Obrovac on the same day the 24th of May,
14 again 12 projectiles fell on the ground inflicting somewhat less damage.
15 Is this part of the incident report something that could be left out from
16 a report to the commander of the forces, in your view?
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Sorry, there are two questions there. There are
18 two questions there, which you have asked the witness. Could you address
19 the first question and then could the witness answer the second question?
20 Because there are very much two questions there.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And while you ask the first question, let me just
22 remind you that this witness's beliefs have nothing to do with this case.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since this report
24 did not go through the regular processing of the UNCIVPOL we will not
25 insist. I will move on.
1 Q. In paragraphs 25 and 26 of your statement, you are talking about
2 crimes committed against Croats, in parentheses, murders, thefts, and you
3 said that you were shown a report dated the 27th of July, 1993 in which
4 the specific cases are discussed.
5 In paragraph 26, you mention a list of the specific killings that
6 happened in various places. And in connection with this, you make an
7 inference that in your view, those were intentional and deliberate acts,
8 the acts of intimidation, that it's aimed at achieving a high degree of
9 publicity in order to force entire families to move out.
10 My question to you is as follows: Do you know, has it been
11 established for any of these killings, who the perpetrators were? This is
12 not clear from the report.
13 A. There are a number of incidents mentioned, and while they are not
14 in front of me I believe that there is mention of men in uniform mentioned
15 as suspects for them. This is my recollection, and I don't have the
16 detail. But the view I expressed was that they were deliberate. I
17 think -- some of them were killings, I think, in some instances. I again
18 don't have the detail, but I think there are more than one person killed;
19 indeed, people killed in their homes. So you know that -- and, again,
20 very elderly people. So that I did express a strong view that they were
21 very deliberate. In fact, I think the details would be that they were
22 executions, you know. I would like to look at each one, if it's
24 Q. Can the report number 327 from 65 ter list be shown, please? This
25 is an UNCIVPOL report dated 27 July 1993. Could we go to page marked as
1 7039? On page 7039, before it appears on the screen, it says, under the
2 title "Crimes committed by Croats," [as interpreted] that in the area of
3 UNCIVPOL station in Drnis, there was a killing with -- a murder of eight
4 victims. Can we see please page 7039 of this document?
5 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, just to correct something. The
6 transcript that we see here says as to the document's title crimes
7 committed by Croats but in fact the document reads "Crimes committed
8 against" -- I'm sorry, the transcript says "Crimes committed by Croats"
9 but the document reads "Crimes committed against Croats in Sector South."
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The title is "Crimes committed
11 against Croats from February 1993 to present," and the first part speaks
12 about Drnis station UNCIVPOL in February 1993. There is a list of eight
13 victims. And then in the summary it says: "All of the above-mentioned
14 individuals were found shot in the kitchen of Bracic Ivan's house, with
15 the exception of Josip Parac."
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, in reading that report what is
17 your question to the witness? You are wasting the time. You are the
18 person who says you need more time to question the witness. Put the
19 question to the witness, please. He can read -- this is a literate
20 witness. He can read this -- the statement. You have referred him to the
21 page. Put the question --
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Can you see that the crime was committed by people in uniform, and
24 does it transpire from this document who the perpetrators of the crime
25 was? That is my question to you, Mr. McElligott.
1 A. In this specific incident - the whole screen is not open - but I
2 just got a glance, I don't think there were any suspects that were found.
3 The point I'm making in that is that you're looking at, you know, a
4 family, elderly people killed in their home, and that is a deliberate act
5 in the sense that everybody in that place was killed. I think you cannot
6 get more deliberate than that, and I think the impact of that in the
7 community is absolutely devastating. It would send shock waves anywhere.
8 And I understand I have a number of those mentioned in expressing the view
9 that I did express.
10 Q. Are any uniformed people mentioned in the report in connection
11 with this crime or not?
12 A. In this specific one, no, Your Honour.
13 Q. If you don't know who the perpetrators were, how can you speak
14 about their motives? How can you say that their motive is to gain maximum
15 publicity and that their motive is to force other families to flee? How
16 can you be sure of that? This is a possible inference, but what do you
17 base your inference on?
18 A. I have looked at the overall number that I have selected, and on
19 the basis of an examination of those I've expressed the view. I didn't
20 base it on an individual one, but I have cited a number and based my view
21 on that.
22 Q. Thank you. Can we please look at page 7057, relative to the
23 murder of Pero Palinic in Sonkovic? The case is under January 1993, and
24 it says here that one person, a member of the border police, was arrested
25 by the police in connection with this case, but there was not enough proof
1 to resolve the case. Does this situation point to the fact that the
2 Martic's police or Republic of Srpska Krajina, or anybody else for that
3 matter, had anything to do with the case, in your view?
4 A. Again, it's a single case and again there is a border militiaman
5 mentioned as a suspect. It stops short of that. That's -- could say that
6 the case didn't advance beyond that. And, again, I would take it as one
7 of the group I have selected. And, again, the age profile is a very old
9 Q. Can page 7071 be shown, please? This is relative to the murder of
10 11 persons from Medvidja.
11 Once this page appears on the monitor, you will see,
12 Mr. McElligott, that this is a page relative to the Benkovac station of
14 And if you have it before you now, which you do, you will see that
15 the names of the victims are not known. The fact that the head of the
16 police confirmed that there were 11 murders in that area of Benkovac and
17 even provided the family names of these people, does this fact in your
18 view show that the police was actively involved in elucidating those
19 cases, that they were working on resolving those cases?
20 A. Yes, there were cases --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you testifying now, Mr. Milovancevic, or is it
22 the witness who is testifying?
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm asking the witness whether
24 such a report means that to him or not.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
1 THE WITNESS: Could you drop down the case again, please, or the
2 summary? Again, it's based on the title, crimes against Croats, and it's
3 a summary, and I have no doubt when those who wrote it did it that it was
4 a crime against Croatians.
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. What I asked you, Mr. McElligott, was whether the fact that the
7 head of the police in Benkovac, i.e., the head of the police station of
8 the MUP of the RSK, confirms that there were 11 murders, that he had the
9 family names of the victims, which you didn't have, does this fact point
10 to the fact that the police was actively involved in elucidating those
12 A. Yes, the police were aware of the case, yes, correct.
13 Q. Thank you. Can we go to page 7072? Speaking about the murder of
14 four Croats from Donja Jagodnja. This is the first case on that page.
15 Looking from the top of the page, the date is 18 March 1993. Four persons
16 are mentioned here. It says in the report that the CIVPOL received
17 confidential information that four Croats had been murdered in that
18 village and the house was set on fire. The information that exists in the
19 report, will it provide you with any kind of insight as to who did that,
20 whether they were civilians or uniformed personnel, where they came from?
21 Is there any information in the report pointing to any of those?
22 A. [Previous translation continues] ... again, you have four -- a
23 number of elderly people killed in their home. So it's the killing of
24 multitudes, you know, in a single location shows that it's a clear
25 deliberate plan to kill. One has to look at the consequences of it and
1 the impact that it has on those surrounding it. It's in that context I
2 make my comment.
3 Q. The deliberate plan by unknown perpetrators, can you put a link
4 between those cases, Mr. Martic and the police of the RSK? Based on this
5 report and information contained herein, can you establish that link at
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
8 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, the questions that have been put to
9 the witness on this document refer to certain specific incidents, and now
10 a question is being asked as to the whole report. However, we haven't
11 gone through all of the incidents that are referred to in this report. So
12 I think that the question misstates the evidence, actually.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, any response?
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The question to the witness was
15 as follows, Your Honours: Do the data on the specific incident and the
16 concrete victims provide the witness with an ability to infer that these
17 cases had anything to do with the police of the Republic of Srpska Krajina
18 or Mr. Martic present here? The question was very concrete, and it is
19 relative to the general conclusion by the witness that this is the
20 evidence for the policies that were being implemented in that area.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute, Mr. Milovancevic. Now you're
22 asking -- you're making two contradictory statements. You say the data on
23 the specific incident and the concrete victims provided the witness with
24 an ability to infer that these cases had anything to do with the police of
25 the Republic of Srpska Krajina, or Mr. Martic. Then that's being very
1 specific. You're talking about the specific incidents you have dealt
3 Then you go on, the question was very concrete, and it is relative
4 to the general conclusion. It can't go to the general conclusion if
5 you're talking about just those specific -- this is the very purpose of
6 the objection. The objection is you seek to draw a general conclusion
7 from this witness based on a few incidents without having gone through the
8 whole report. Now, if you want him to comment on those specific
9 incidents, ask him to do so. If you want him to comment on the general
10 conclusion, then lay a basis for that.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
12 Q. In regard to this specific case of the four dead bodies in
13 Donja Jagodnja, can you please tell me who the perpetrators were? Do you
14 have that information?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... reports,
16 Mr. Milovancevic, no suspects and no arrests. How can he tell you who the
17 perpetrators are?
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Since this is just one of the
19 cases, a case that was chosen by the witness and was used in his statement
20 as an illustration of the general politics and the general climate that
21 prevailed at the time, I'm just reading his statement. My question is
22 relative both to the specific case and the general conclusion. I'm asking
23 him about the specific case at the moment. Since there was an objection,
24 I will rephrase.
25 Q. Witness, among the four victims, Zarkovic, Milan is a Serb. Is
1 the witness aware of that fact?
2 A. I think that is stated there. Which report, 82/93, is it?
3 Q. This is at the very top of the page. And the report is 82/93.
4 A. Yeah. No suspects, no arrests.
5 Q. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on.
6 Can 7076, please, be shown, dealing with the murder of the Ivkovic
7 couple? This case was listed under S459/92. Have you been able to locate
8 it, Mr. McElligott? Two persons were murdered in Dobropoljci on the 1st
9 or 2nd of October, 1992. Can you see that, first?
10 A. It's Ivan and Stevanija; correct?
11 Q. Yes, that's correct. In this case, the victims include one Serb
12 and one Croat. They were shot to death.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Does the report clearly indicate that the police launched an
15 investigation, and do you know who it was who reported the incident to the
16 police? Does it transpire from this report?
17 A. It doesn't transpire from the report. But, again, if it's -- I'm
18 basing it on those who have been killed. I think you have a Croat, a
19 male, and the female, who is a Serb married to a Croat.
20 Q. Could we please take a look at page 7082? The last case on the
21 page, at the very bottom of the page, the victims are Arbanas family.
22 There are several victims. The first person is a female Serb married to a
23 Croat; the rest are Croats. Does this report show whether UNCIVPOL
24 reported the incident to the RSK police or in fact no inference can be
25 drawn to that effect?
1 A. This summary report does not state that. This report is just a
2 summary of all the incidents, yeah.
3 Q. In this particular case --
4 MS. VALABHJI: I'm sorry, Your Honour. If I'm not mistaken, the
5 summary we just looked at may continue to the next page, if I'm reading
6 this correctly; that is, the top of 7083.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.
8 You see that Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I was just
10 about to refer Mr. McElligott to that.
11 Q. Under the title "Summary" on the next page, involving this same
12 case, and that's page 7083, it is stated that the police conducted an
13 investigation but that no suspects were identified. Do you know whether
14 the launching of --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, the report does show that the incident was
16 reported to the RSK police and that's why they are investigating. That
17 was your question to the witness.
18 You may proceed.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. On this same page, there is the case involving the murder of
21 family Mirinovic which took place on the 2nd of December, 1992. That's at
22 page 7083. It is evident from this report that the police conducted an
23 investigation. Is that quite clear, sir?
24 A. [Previous translation continues] ... refer to, yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Let us look at the next page, which is murder at
1 Rastevic, page 7084. In this case, a husband and a wife were murdered by
2 unknown persons. Can one conclude on the basis of the report whether
3 there was an investigation or not? Do you have any information about
5 A. On the basis of this report, it's silent.
6 Q. When in paragraph 27 you state in reference to all these specific
7 cases, but you're speaking generally about them, that these were acts of
8 extreme and ruthless intimidation, and indeed they were. However, where
9 not a single perpetrator was identified or the perpetrators' motives for
10 such acts, do you have any basis to tie these cases up with the actions of
11 the accused by merely referring to them?
12 A. They are a sequence of extremely serious crimes committed in a
13 community. And they have -- would have an absolutely horrifying impact on
14 anyone surrounding it, and particularly when they are all directed at a
15 particular ethnic group, they will rebound back to those people.
16 Now, have I connections with them? I didn't make any specific
17 connection, I think, when I made the observation in that particular point,
18 but taking the overall situation I think I strengthened that further as I
19 go, but I just refer to them as obvious acts of serious intimidation and
20 that is what I would see them as.
21 Q. In the next paragraph, which is expulsion of Croats from the
22 RSK -- my apologies, I didn't switch the microphone on.
23 Your next chapter in the text is entitled "Expulsion of Croats
24 from RSK." And then in paragraphs 28 and 29, you provide an explanation
25 of the title. In doing so, you refer again to the report dated 27 July
1 1993. Could we please take a look at the document?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. Valabhji.
3 MS. VALABHJI: Senior counsel has reminded me that the witness
4 probably doesn't have his statement in front of him, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I thank my learned friends from
7 the OTP.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. In paragraph 28, Mr. McElligott, you quote the report dated
11 27 July, which is 65 ter document 327. You also quote 65 ter
12 document 345, which we will deal with later on.
13 And you state in paragraph 29: "Trends from the reports I've been
14 shown indicate that the special police were actively intimidating and
15 expelling Croats."
16 Could we have document 327, that's 65 ter document 327, and the
17 pages are -- the page is 7063.
18 As proof of the fact that the special police, as you put it --
19 therefore, as trends from the reports indicating that the special police
20 were actively intimidating and expelling Croats, you also refer to this
21 particular page, 7063, which is before you, which -- this is the UNCIVPOL
22 report for Sector South, and it reads -- or, rather, the date is
23 23 September 1992. You state that there was theft of wood in Kijevo and
24 that victims were elderly Croats and that unknown suspects from Polaca cut
25 and stole wood from the village. In your view, is this proof of the fact
1 that the special police were persecuting Croats? You don't have to look
2 at the Prosecutor. You can look either at the screen or at myself. I
3 don't think the Prosecutor can help you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think -- I'm not quite sure what you mean by
5 that, Mr. Milovancevic. But in any case your learned friend is on her
7 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
8 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, just to point out that my learned friend
9 refers to a specific page from this report but may be overlooking the fact
10 that there are several reports that the statement, the witness statement,
11 refers to, and then in the subsequent paragraph, he refers to trends from
12 the reports in the plural. So I think it would be imprecise and incorrect
13 to rely on one page from one report, wherever my learned friend is going
14 on this point, to somehow suggest that this particular page refers to or
15 is leading to a conclusion which refers to these reports in the plural.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not drawing
18 any sort of conclusion. I was taking as a starting point the statement of
19 this witness, which refers to this particular page as proof of fact that
20 the special police were persecuting Croats. I wanted to know whether
21 there was anything on this page, that's to say 7063, which constituted the
22 basis for such a conclusion by the witness. I know that the report has
23 100 pages citing these cases. However, the Prosecution specifically
24 referred you to these cases, and that's why I am following in their tracks
25 and referring the witness to page 7063. And my question was whether this
1 theft of wood was proof of the fact that the special police were
2 intimidating Croats.
3 And then I can draw your attention to another case dated 7 October
4 1992, death threats.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you go to death threats, let the witness
6 answer you on this one.
7 THE WITNESS: Could I look at the remaining ones, just in case?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. [Microphone not activated].
10 A. Again, there was one there I would perhaps, if I had the page
11 mentioned is one I would look at, with the hand-grenade thrown is a
12 military item. This is the one there where is attempted murder, Marko, a
13 hand-grenade was thrown into the house occupied by victims who was Knin
14 milicija were contacted and no suspects. Again, if I have used the page I
15 would suspect that that is the one that I drew on because of the fact that
16 there was a hand-grenade involved. It's a military item.
17 Q. Does any element in this case enable you to arrive at the
18 conclusion that the hand-grenade was hurled by the special police force?
19 Secondly, do you see that there are Marko, Bozica and Natasa Juric cited
20 here as victims, and that they were in an occupied house? Do you know
21 what this means? Were they in their own house or in a home that they
22 occupied that was someone else's in? And could this have been the reason
23 for someone throwing a hand-grenade at them?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you mean they are in an occupied house?
25 And where do you get that from?
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the event
2 which took place on the 2nd of November, 1992 at Vrpolje which is
3 S2-32/92. Victims are Marko, Bozica and Natasa Juric, and I was merely
4 reading the text that's contained here, a hand-grenade was thrown into a
5 house. This is the text we have here. Does the witness know whose house
6 these persons occupied?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you ask these questions? You are saying
8 they were in an occupied house. Occupied by whom and whose house is it?
9 Because the text says a hand-grenade was thrown into a house occupied by
10 the victims. Whether the house is an occupied house by somebody else, we
11 don't know. But at the time it was occupied by the victims.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The gist of my question, Your
13 Honour, was whether the witness allowed for the possibility that there was
14 someone else other than the special police who had the motive to throw the
15 hand-grenade at the house? And that was what my question aimed at.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't mention special police. You mentioned
17 occupied house. Say what you mean then. Okay.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was quite
19 specific. In paragraph 28, the witness states: "I have been shown a
20 report dated 27 July, among others pages 7063."
21 And then in paragraph 29 the witness says: "Trends from the
22 reports I have been shown indicate that the special police were actively
23 intimidating and expelling Croats."
24 I can accept the reasoning whereby throwing a hand-grenade into
25 someone's house constitutes intimidation, but on what basis did the victim
1 come to the conclusion that this was perpetrated by the special police?
2 This is what I'm interested in.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, just to clarify that, I just asked to
4 go to the next one and I --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you clarify.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Prosecutor is on her feet.
8 MS. VALABHJI: I was just going to refer to the bottom entry on
9 this page, Your Honours, which my learned colleague did not refer to in
10 his questioning.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Bottom entry, the one of the 5th of November, 1992?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 MS. VALABHJI: That's right, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know whether he is still coming to that,
15 but I'm still concerned with the one he was dealing with at the time, the
16 one where the hand-grenade was thrown in.
17 I see now Mr. Milovancevic is now telling us that he's referring
18 us to paragraph 29. All I was asking him was why does he suggest that
19 this house that was occupied by these victims did not belong to them, it
20 was occupied by someone other person? Because that what he asked earlier.
21 That's what I wanted to clear and that was never cleared and it has now
22 disappeared. I can go back to the transcript, if we have to do that.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. I
24 must have been following my reasoning. If you -- and I must have then
25 disregarded what you were saying.
1 When I saw the term "occupied," I thought that perhaps they were
2 not in their own home but in someone else's home. I'm not sure whether
3 such a possibility could have been inferred and that -- and that perhaps
4 it was on this basis that the conclusion could have been drawn that this
5 was the work of the special police.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then let us read before we put questions so that we
7 know exactly how the word "occupied" is used. And can I appeal to you to
8 please not disregard what the Bench is saying to you.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Witness, case 32/92, dated 2nd of November, 1992, involving a
11 hand-grenade that was thrown into a house occupied by victims, do you have
12 any information to the effect that the house belonged to the victims or
13 perhaps that they were occupying someone else's house? Can any sort of
14 conclusion along these lines be drawn on the basis of the text?
15 A. No, Your Honour. I would just like to add that at the outset I
16 was referred to an incident of chopping wood or stealing wood, but when I
17 stand down I saw another incident here of the last one, actually, 33/92,
18 and I expect that that is the one I had selected when I made reference to
19 the page. I had not seen it at the time because I was -- well, I suppose
20 thrown a little bit by the fact that I had an incident referring to
21 cutting wood placed as the basis for the issue. And it is that one I
22 expect that I had selected.
23 Q. Witness, when we are talking about this case, or rather the last
24 case, involving Citluk and death threats, you can see that as victims, we
25 have the following names listed here, Ana, Milka, Rajko, Ivan, Kata
1 Knezevic. The short summary says that the Knin police told Croats to
2 leave their houses or be killed and not to report that to CIVPOL. Do you
3 distinguish between the special police and, let's say, the Knin police?
4 A. They all came within the ambit of the police, but we knew that
5 there was a division in the sense, and I mentioned it in my direct
6 evidence, that we referred to what would be the regular police, so it
7 is -- I've mentioned in general terms. It's mentioned in general terms,
8 that is the Knin militia.
9 Q. Does this report show whether you, as the civilian police,
10 reported the incident to the Knin police and Mr. Martic to launch an
11 investigation into the matter?
12 A. It would be normal practice for the district commander to raise
13 issues of concern at local level, and, on occasions, issues that would
14 come to headquarters would be raised by letter, and a number of those were
15 documented and presented to the Court at an earlier stage. So it would be
16 normal practice for the local district commander to follow through at that
18 Q. Thank you. I will refer you to two reports above this one, that's
19 to say, the one dated 2nd November 1992, involving attempted murder, and
20 the one above this one, the case dated 7 October 1992 involving death
21 threats. In both cases, it was established that the Knin police had
22 initiated an investigation and that even in the case of death threats it
23 had offered protection, and in the other case that the Knin police were
24 contacted but unfortunately no suspects were identified. You as a police
25 officer of long standing, can you exclude the possibility that bandits and
1 criminals can be found among the ranks of any police force in the world?
2 A. Yes. It is true.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. But I would like to qualify that, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Proceed.
6 THE WITNESS: Using the word "bandit" in the general sense, I
7 suppose you'll find rogue individuals in any organisation and it is true
8 in policing, but finding them in a large scale is perhaps a very unusual
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you. As a -- indicator that points to the fact that members
12 of the special police actively intimidated and prosecuted Croats, you also
13 mentioned page 76 of the report that is before us.
14 Can we see page 7066 and look at it to see what it says there?
15 Can we have page 7066 on the screen, please? 7066.
16 In the first case, the victim is Stipe Vujic and an unknown
17 suspect shot at the house. Nobody was hurt. The Knin Milicija attended
18 the scene. Is this evidence that the special police terrorised Croatian
19 population in your view?
20 A. No. They did attend, yes, of course.
21 Q. Thank you. Interestingly enough, this person occupied somebody
22 else's house, not his own. He was not in his own house. Therefore,
23 somebody shot at it still.
24 The next case, the victim is Katarina Maric. Somebody broke into
25 her house and moved into it. The victim lives in Croatia. The house was
1 abandoned, somebody broke into the house and moved in, the Knin police was
2 contacted. Can this be treated as evidence that special police terrorised
4 A. No, Your Honour.
5 Q. The next case --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sorry, sorry. I don't understand this to be
7 saying that. It says a man and his family broke into a house and moved
8 in. The house belongs to victim who now lives in Croatia. Okay. When
9 does this victim -- does he live in Croatia after that -- after the break
10 in or before the break in?
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] It's not clear from the report,
12 Your Honour. I rushed into the conclusion, but you're absolutely right.
13 I apologise. It says here the house belongs to victim who now lives in
14 Croatia. Does it transpire from this that at the moment of the break in,
15 the victim was in the house or not?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think common English would say "now" refers to
17 the time of writing the report. Not common English but common sense.
18 Isn't it at the time of writing the report? Because if it was at the time
19 of the break in, it would have been "who then lived in Croatia" who then,
20 at that time, of the break in, lived in Croatia. But if it is now lives
21 in Croatia, we don't know whether he lives in Croatia because he has been
22 chased out of his house or not. We -- an attempt --
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. The next act is theft marked as S217/93. The victim is Mirko
4 Kovic, unknown suspects, stole 450 plants, and the police were contacted.
5 Could this be another proof that the special police terrorised Croats?
6 A. [Microphone not activated].
7 Q. The next report is relative to the 25th of January, 1993. We are
8 familiar with the victim. He is a Croatian judge from Knin, Ivica
9 Krvavica. He was mentioned by a previous witness who was -- victim --
10 witness who was here. He says in the report that four armed suspects were
11 arrested by the Milicija after threatening to kill the victim. The
12 suspects were later released, and the Milicija assured the victim that
13 patrols would be made. Does this report speak about the special police
14 threatening Croats?
15 A. No, Your Honour.
16 Q. The next report is relative to a crime against Anda Krvavica. It
17 says that the victim was forced to leave her house by five uniformed men,
18 to accommodate displaced Serbs. "In Potkonje, 30 Croats were forced out
19 of their homes. These people were housed in a school and later they went
20 to Croatia."
21 Would this text provide you with an ability to conclude that the
22 five uniformed men were the special police?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I ask you, Mr. Milovancevic, to please not read
24 again what is there. Just point him to whatever you want to point him to
25 and ask the question you want to ask. I think we are wasting a lot of
1 time by you reading over and over again what is already there.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. You're
3 right. I understand. We are indeed wasting time. But sometimes I do
4 this in order to explain why I'm putting my questions to the witness.
5 With your leave, I would like to proceed.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please proceed.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The next case, the victim is Pera Gojevic. This happened on the
9 30th of January, 1993, and this is the last case on the page before us.
10 The victim was found dead in a field and the Knin Milicija
11 attended the scene. Which element from this report inspired you to
12 conclude that the special police terrorised the Croats there?
13 A. I'm going back to the previous one, Your Honour. That is 20 of
14 93, where five uniformed men, the victim was force to leave her house by
15 five uniformed men to accommodate displaced Serbs. That's the incident I
16 have referred to.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you make of the fact that the Knin Milicija
18 refused to investigate? In the next one, the one below.
19 THE WITNESS: Again, that would be a factor to be accounted as
20 well and the fact that -- in that incident there was no cooperation. You
21 can see in earlier ones there was. So, again, it's the variable that
22 keeps emerging from time to time.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. As regards your last answer, Mr. McElligott, do you recall that on
25 the 22nd of January, 1993 - and the date here is the 30th of January,
1 1993 - the Croatian operation Maslenica was launched? I told you that
2 491 persons were killed during that operation. There were a lot of
3 injured. All the UNCIVPOL stations had been evacuated to prevent
4 casualties during the war operations. Would you allow for the possibility
5 that the hospital did not have enough capacity to provide for the wounded
6 let alone perform autopsies and that all the police officers were on the
7 front line? I'm going to show you documents that talk about that. Will
8 you allow for the possibility that this might have been the reason for
9 this behaviour, rather than a lack of cooperation on the part of the
10 Milicija who did not want to cooperate with the UNCIVPOL?
11 A. Two issues there. One is the autopsy, and it says it was refused.
12 There are no grounds given for that refusal. And then you have the total
13 lack of cooperation with CIVPOL in the matter.
14 And, again, I go back to the Vance Plan and the fact that
15 everybody signed up to it. The least that one would expect in a
16 situation, no matter how grave it was, that some liaison person would be
17 left to link in with CIVPOL and at least keep a door open and show
18 goodwill despite the circumstances, and I think I would regard it as not
19 doing that as a serious issue. I would have expected at least a liaison
20 person would be left available to maintain, to keep the door open. And
21 this was in the headquarters in -- was it in Knin, was it? Yes.
22 Q. We shall go back to that issue a bit later.
23 As regards the previous case, involving people in the school, and
24 that is one case up, one-but-last, are you aware of the fact that the
25 monitors of the special police inspected the school?
1 A. I don't know, Your Honour.
2 Q. Further on, when you say in paragraph 29, based on this, and on
3 other pages of a similar nature, when you say that these are the basic
4 indicators that the special police actively intimidated and prosecuted
5 Croats, you say that the letter that was shown to you and that was signed
6 by Martic indicates that he had command role over the special police unit
7 and that he himself confirmed that there were no conditions for the safe
8 return of the displaced Croats and that he himself would prevent them from
9 returning if -- even if they wanted to return.
10 Do you remember that in that letter Mr. Martic pointed to the
11 problem of forceful return of the refugees that we have already mentioned
12 today, and this forceful return of the Croatian refugees was something
13 that the Croatian authorities tried to enforce? In his letter, Mr. Martic
14 was pointing to the problem that might arise from such a procedure?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's your question? Just ask one question,
16 please, in one sentence.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. McElligott, you say that you saw the letter signed by Martic,
19 which in your view confirms that he himself says that there were no
20 conditions in place for the return of the refugees, and that he himself
21 would prevent the refugees from returning.
22 My question was this: Do you know that Martic was trying -- is
23 talking about an attempt to prevent the forceful return of the refugees
24 that the Croatian authorities were trying to enforce, and are you aware of
25 that, of the existence of that in the letter?
1 A. The letter does refer to returnees coming into the area, and he
2 was pointing out that the environment was not correct at that time for
3 that to take place. And the point I was making, based on the overall
4 report, when you look at it in relation to the activity of the militia,
5 that they were contributing to the environment that he was claiming was
6 preventing them from coming. So that is the point I was making.
7 Q. And the contribution of the special police that you saw, and the
8 way you saw it, are all the cases that we saw on the previous page?
9 A. No. I think when I make that comment, I make it on the basis of
10 the overall report and information in addition to it, because we have to
11 take into consideration accounts we have got from the community, who sleep
12 in the forest by night and who have indicated the source of their problem,
13 and they put it to the special police as the problem.
14 So it wasn't based on a single block of this. The overall report
15 and information in our possession and other factors taken into
16 consideration would show that the special police were active in creating
17 an environment that was not conducive to the return of people.
18 Q. When you say that people talked, and this is my last question
19 today, did you verify any of those stories? Did the monitors check any of
20 the stories that they had?
21 A. They have met with people in the community. I met people myself
22 who outlined their circumstances to me, and it was well-established with
23 our monitors who went into the community; indeed, our monitors lived in
24 the community, they lived in households with families and they were pretty
25 well-established in communities. They got to know lots of people by
1 travelling around, by meeting with them. So there was a good link with
2 the community, and indeed, I think it could be said that the minority
3 community, the Croatian element of it, would have regarded them as their
4 police force rather than anybody else, and I think that was based on fears
5 of what would happen in relation to the police in existence in the sector.
6 So there was a lot of feedback coming from what was going on in
7 communities, and it was not complimentary to the local police. And I
8 think anybody who would sleep in the wood in the middle of winter would be
9 quite frank in disclosing the source of the problem.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes Mr. Milovancevic.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think the moment
12 has come for me to wrap it up for today.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 We will convene tomorrow at what time? 2.00? 2.00 in the
18 Court adjourned.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m., to
20 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of May,
21 2006, at 2.15 p.m.