1 Tuesday, 30 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: First of all, before we proceed to the taking of
7 evidence today, you will all observe that Judge Moloto, our Presiding
8 Judge, is not with us. He is elsewhere on business touching and
9 concerning the Tribunal, and under those circumstances, Judge Hoepfel and
10 I have elected to proceed under Rule 15 bis, and that is the position
12 We are anticipating that Judge Moloto will join us by the third
13 session today. If not, certainly tomorrow.
14 And Mr. McElligott, you are in the thick of your evidence, being
15 cross-examined. You are reminded that your declaration is still
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: JOHN McELLIGOTT [Resumed]
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, you were in the thick of your
20 cross-examination. You indicated yesterday you were somewhere towards the
21 end and that you anticipated completion by the end of the first session.
22 Did I understand you correctly yesterday?
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are very close
24 to the end, and I believe that we will finish by mid-second session. I'll
25 try to be as efficient as possible. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You're reminded of the guidelines, of course,
2 and to try and keep within them. That is the caution that the Chamber is
3 issuing to you. Please do proceed now. Thank you so much.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. McElligott. We shall proceed with your
7 cross-examination. Yesterday we left it off with the special police.
8 During your examination-in-chief, you were shown document Exhibit 730 and
9 you recognised it as the organigramme of the police in sector 7.
10 Can we please see the document on the screen?
11 Before we see the document on the screen, I shall remind you that
12 based on the document representing the organigramme of the police in
13 Sector North, you said that there was regular police that was in charge of
14 keeping law and order and other policing work. According to the document,
15 there were 7.000 police officers in that group, and there was also special
16 police that were in charge of the protection of borders and prevention of
17 terrorism. According to the document, there were 16.000 special
18 policemen. This is --
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: One moment, Mr. Milovancevic. We are not
20 getting the document on our screens. Please go on in the interim.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Now we can see the
22 document on the screen, Your Honour. Can we please zoom in.
23 Q. Do you recognise this document, Mr. McElligott? This is the
24 document that I was referring to. It is here that the regular police is
25 mentioned as well as the units of the special police. In this regard, I
1 would like to ask you which of the two groups was dealing with the
2 customary police work?
3 A. Your Honour, the group -- there was -- please raise the chart.
4 Just a moment. What I call the regular police are --
5 Q. Let's look at the bottom of the page, you mean?
6 A. Yes. Just raise it a little, yeah. You have the special police
7 and you have the border police. What we had is one group which is
8 projected there as a group of about 7.000. I regarded that within that
9 group, there were policemen who were dressed in what I would call normal
10 police uniforms. That within them there was certainly a number of them
11 who were seen by our police officers to be professional police officers
12 who were -- had experience in policing. And --
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. This will do.
14 The regular police, was it under the Ministry of the Interior of
15 Krajina, the 7.000 police officers that you are referring to at the
17 A. We regarded the entire group to be within the authority of the
18 Knin authorities.
19 Q. We shall come back to the entire group a little later. Now I
20 would like to know whether you know that this regular police was on the
21 strength of the Ministry of the Interior of Krajina. I'm talking about
22 the regular police only. Were they under the MUP of Krajina?
23 A. Again, going back to the -- what we saw was a full component of
24 Milicija, and one group, as I say, was regarded as -- within them was a
25 group of police officers who had policing experience, and there was
1 another group that we regarded as a totally different group in a sense
2 that we felt they never had policing experience in any way. They seemed
3 to have a different agenda, a different approach.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: On what do you base this conclusion?
5 THE WITNESS: On the dealings that our police monitors had with
6 them on a one-to-one, on the ground, when they were doing their patrols,
7 the way they were treated, and it was the general view that was
8 established from all those activities.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: For example?
10 THE WITNESS: We have had monitors who were stopped at
11 check-points and abused. I can recall one incident where our police
12 monitors were stopped and held at gun-point, and he was -- actually, the
13 interpreter, a female, who got in between them and our monitors and
14 negotiated a solution to it. I know that those monitors were extremely
15 frightened and stressed by the consequences of the approach that was taken
16 to them.
17 We have had incidents where they would just slow down, were
18 obstructed, weren't allowed their freedom of movement as they were
19 entitled to. I can recall one incident where monitors were not permitted
20 through a check-point and the reasons given were that they had not
21 actually supplied the serial number of their radio, of their car radio,
22 the communications radio.
23 So that type of approach was taken by a particular group. They
24 were what we regarded as the special police.
25 Within the other group, there were people that we regarded as
1 having policing experience. There was a degree of professionalism about
2 them and indeed there was a good degree of contact. They were -- let's
3 put it this way. There was a helpful approach coming. And they were --
4 you know, in some places they were there for quite a while. On occasions
5 we had relationships built up and then the people would move and you were
6 back to square one again. So you had two different groups there and you
7 had two different approaches.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
9 Mr. Milovancevic, would you like to pick up again or anything
10 arising out of what the witness has answered to me.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
12 shall proceed.
13 Q. I hope that you agree that one can say that the regular police
14 belonged to the Ministry of the Interior of the RSK. Is there any doubt
15 about that or not?
16 A. My view is that both sides belonged to the RSK, that they were in
17 the control of the RSK.
18 Q. The Minister of the Interior of the RSK was Mr. Martic; is that
19 correct or not?
20 A. I understand that to be so.
21 Q. You already said, and you have repeated today, that the regular
22 police consisted of the professional police officers who performed those
23 duties even before the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and that the
24 UNCIVPOL had very good cooperation with them. Is that correct?
25 A. It was, yes. Cooperation with some of those people, yes. And
1 within that group, we recognised that there were people who had a
2 professional policing.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. The second group that you referred to
4 as units of the special police, according to the chart before you, did
5 they deal with the tasks that do not customarily fall within the purview
6 of the police work but rather within the purview of the military? Would
7 you agree with that?
8 Can you scroll down a little so that Mr. McElligott has the full
9 picture? Can I see the bottom of the page, the whole remark at the bottom
10 of the document, the note?
11 A. This group, Your Honour, were functioning within the United
12 Nations protection area and we regarded them as Milicija. They were --
13 we -- the whole group was regarded as the police component, but there was
14 a divide. And the divide was one of how they functioned, how they
15 performed with the people.
16 Q. Can you please answer the part of the question which was according
17 to your knowledge, were these people involved in the policing or in some
18 other tasks? We are talking about the protection of the borders and the
19 protection of the population against terrorist attacks. What was that?
20 Was that policing or was it something else?
21 A. They were carrying out check-points within the United Nations
22 protection area and in reality we regarded that as part of the policing
23 function. It would be checking movement of people and patrolling the
24 areas and we regarded that as a policing function.
25 Q. You emphasised, you highlighted, members of this group as the
1 cause of all the problems that occurred in the area. Is that so?
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All the problems in the area? I'm sorry, your
3 opponent is on her feet.
4 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't recall this being
5 the verbatim testimony and I would appreciate a cite to make sure. Thank
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. For precision, Mr. Milovancevic, could we
8 get the citation?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I haven't been
10 precise. I meant paragraph 29 of the witness's statement. Can the usher
11 please provide the witness with a copy of the statement he gave to the
13 Q. Mr. McElligott, I'm referring to paragraph 29 of your statement,
14 where, in the middle, you say: "Reports from CIVPOL monitors show that
15 the special police in active in creating the unacceptable conditions that
16 Martic refers to and that they continued to pursue these activities."
17 My question to you, sir, was relative to that part of your
18 statement. I apologise for not being precise in my previous question.
19 And my question with regard to that part of your statement is as follows:
20 You highlighted members of the special police as the cause of those
21 problems in the area; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, Your Honour.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. You joined the UNPROFOR mission in
24 October 1992 and you left in November 1993. During that time, did the
25 special police units existed [as interpreted]? Throughout the period,
1 that is.
2 A. What I'm aware of is that there were people or people in uniform
3 carrying a variety of arms that were in contravention of the Vance Plan
4 and that they were functioning throughout the protected areas, and these
5 are the people that we regarded as special police, and these are the ones
6 our monitors regarded as special police.
7 Q. That is what you believed. However, are you aware of the fact
8 that special units of the police in October -- in November 1992, the
9 latest, became part of the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina? I'm
10 talking about Exhibit 576 that has been admitted into evidence before this
11 Trial Chamber.
12 A. What I'm accounting for are the people that our monitors met on
13 the ground. Indeed I saw them myself when I was in visiting stations and
14 they were regarded as special police. They were regarded as the Milicija,
15 and people saw them as a group different to what they were regarded the
16 professional police officers.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And did you see them throughout the whole of the
18 time that was put to you by counsel, October 1992 and November 1993? You
19 have not effectively addressed that question.
20 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. At this stage I'm not sure when I
21 saw them or when I didn't see them, but they were certainly present
22 somewhere along the way in my visits during my period there.
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
24 Mr. Milovancevic.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Can
1 Exhibit 576 be shown, please?
2 Q. While we are waiting, I'm going to tell you, sir, that this is a
3 document of the Main Staff of the RSK army. This document was drafted
4 towards the end of November 1992, and it is an order to form staffs and
5 units of the Serbian army of the RSK. The date on the document is
6 27 November 1992.
7 Now you have the document before you. Do you see it, please?
8 This is an order of the Main Staff of the Serbian army, ordering the
9 formation of staffs and units of the Serbian army. Do you have the
10 document before you, sir?
11 A. I see it, yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Could we please turn to page 4? That's item 2.9.
13 While we are waiting for the page to show up with item 2.9, item 2.9
14 speaks of the disbandment and reformation of the administration of special
15 police units; B, 75th Special Police Units Brigade Knin, and the 92nd
16 Special Police Units Brigade Benkovac. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, Your Honour.
18 Q. Thank you. Could we please look at page 6, item 3.10? Item 3.10
19 contains an order to disband and abolish the basic mobilisation plan for
20 the 79th Brigade of special police units in Korenica. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, Your Honour.
22 Q. Thank you. Please let's take a look at page 8. That's item 4.9.
23 Item 4.9 contains an order to the effect that the basic mobilisation plan
24 should be disbanded and abolished for the 80th Brigade of the special
25 police units in Vojnic. Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, Your Honour.
2 Q. Thank you. Could we please look at page 11, item 6.8 of the
3 order? Before this comes up on the screen, let's say that this is the
4 order to disband and abolish the basic mobilisation plan for the
5 85th Brigade of special police units in Okucani. That's the order under
6 subitem A. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Let's look at page 13 of the document. Item 7.11 of
9 the order, which contains an order to disband and abolish the basic
10 mobilisation plan of the 87th Special Police Units Brigade in Vukovar and
11 the 90th Brigade of Special Police Units in Beli Manastir. Do you see
13 A. [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour.
14 Q. Thank you. In connection with what I've just shown you, and
15 that's a list of all the eight special police brigades you spoke of in
16 connection with the chart we saw a moment ago, is it clear on the basis of
17 this order that all of the eight brigades were disbanded and that their
18 basic mobilisation plan was abolished? Does it clearly transpire from
19 this order?
20 A. The orders do indicate that is what has been provided for.
21 Q. Thank you. Let's look at chapter 2 on page 13 of the order.
22 Chapter 2 of the order dated 27 November, which reads: "All previous
23 establishments of the staffs and units of the Territorial Defence of the
24 Republic of Serbian Krajina and the special police units of the Republic
25 of Serbian Krajina are hereby revoked."
1 Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. We will now look at item 4, under final provisions,
4 which is on page 13 and continues through to page 14 of the document.
5 Therefore, item 4 of the final provisions reads: "Special police brigades
6 shall enter into the composition of the corps under whose area of
7 responsibility they can be found and shall in every respect be
8 subordinated to corps commanders as of 0001 hours on 1 December 1992."
9 Do you see this item?
10 A. Yes, Your Honour.
11 Q. Thank you. Let's look at item 6 of the record, which reads: "The
12 Serbian army of the Serbian Republic of Krajina," which is actually
13 established pursuant to this order, "shall keep and maintain its weapons
14 and equipment in depots with the presence of UNPROFOR representatives," in
15 brackets, they are invoking the UN plan for the peacekeeping operation in
16 Yugoslavia. Namely, item 15(C) of the plan. Do you see this particular
17 portion of the order in item 6?
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 Q. In view of the fact that this order provided for the disbandment
20 of special police brigades and their inclusion into the RSK army, and that
21 they shall come under the command of the -- of corps starting from
22 1st December, does it therefore show that the chart that we saw of the
23 police dated 29 November 1991, which talks of special police and states
24 that it is under Martic's command, is it therefore clear that the chart is
25 not consistent with what we have just seen in this document?
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, Ms. --
2 MS. VALABHJI: Sorry, Your Honour, I think the chart that my
3 learned friend refers to admitted Exhibit 730 is dated 29 December 1992,
4 and I think he mentioned 29th November 1991. So I think -- I think that's
5 a mistake.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I thank my learned friend.
8 That's an error, definitely. The chart, Exhibit 730, is dated 29 December
9 1992. My question was put in connection with this particular correct date
10 and I thank my learned friend.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. Thank you. Go ahead.
12 THE WITNESS: The documentation here does indicate an ending to
13 the formalities of that grouping. However, our monitors on the ground
14 encountered people who were armed in contravention of the Vance Plan and
15 that they regarded as the Milicija, so there were people there on the
16 ground functioning. So while the policy may be there, the reality was
17 there were people still in the areas carrying out functions that we
18 regarded as Milicija.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. In connection with this answer you gave, can you tell us whether
21 UNCIVPOL distinguished between a MUP and its members? That's to say,
22 members of the Ministry of the Interior of Krajina and the Territorial
23 Defence. Did you distinguish between members of the police and members of
24 the TO on the ground, or was it quite irrelevant for you?
25 A. We go back to the Vance Plan, where we were left with the local
1 police providing a component with responsibility for policing, and it is
2 that grouping of people that we referred to as Milicija. And again I
3 don't think we differentiated between them in that sense but we certainly
4 had them regarded as Milicija. They were presented as that. And that is
5 how we responded and dealt with them in our reports, and they were there
6 carrying out what would be regarded as a continuous function.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: The question was, though, did you distinguish
8 between the members of the police and the members of the TO.
9 THE WITNESS: Of the military?
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. You have to get down to the nitty-gritty
11 of answering that.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, the Vance Plan left us with just a policing
13 component within the mission, and we were aware that there were people
14 there who were not police who had what we regarded as effectively a police
15 uniform, police-type uniform. Our monitors reported that they had seen
16 these people in other uniforms carrying out duties within the UNPAs. They
17 knew them to see. They recognised them, but they saw them with other
18 uniforms on occasions. So it's a question of what do you call them.
19 What -- they regarded them as people who were part of the Milicija.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please go ahead, Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Could
22 we look at document from the 65 ter list, 344, in connection with this
24 Q. Before we have the document on the screen, I would like to tell
25 you that this is UNCIVPOL report dated 7 February 1993, and could we
1 please see page 2 of the document? That's in B/C/S. I will give you the
2 number. 65 ter document 344.
3 I don't think we have the document. This is 65 ter document 344,
4 an UNCIVPOL report. 344.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Could we get some help with getting it on the
7 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, in case it assists --
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I believe Ms. Valabhji is trying to assist you,
9 Mr. Milovancevic.
10 MS. VALABHJI: Indeed, Your Honour. I think it's admitted
11 Exhibit 740.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Thank you very much. You have the
13 number now. Please go ahead.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I thank my learned
16 Q. This is an UNCIVPOL report. Do you recognise it? It's been
17 already before you. Could we turn to page 2, please, bearing the
18 reference number R0426326? On this page, we have the situation report
19 number 4, which speaks of the murder of husband and wife Palinic and can
20 be found referred to in your statement. In the middle of this passage, it
21 is stated that the local police arrested one suspect and that he was a
22 member of the border police, and in brackets we have the abbreviation TDF,
23 which is Territorial Defence force.
24 I'd like to know the following: Were members of the police and
25 members of the Territorial Defence one and the same thing to UNCIVPOL
2 A. Again, that situation is expressed as member of the border
3 Milicija, and these people fell -- remained within that grouping, as far
4 as our monitors were concerned on the ground.
5 Q. Mr. McElligott, let me remind you of the document you saw a moment
6 ago concerning the disbandment and abolition of the basic mobilisation
7 plan of special police units and their transformation into the army and
8 their subordination to commanders of corps of the RSK army. In light of
9 such a document, can you regard a member of the TO a police officer?
10 A. The -- our monitors on the ground functioned within the Vance Plan
11 concept, and the people who were to be there policing the area were the
12 Milicija. And those who were there were regarded as that. I know that
13 the formalities of the documentation would indicate clearly that things
14 had changed at an organisational level, but on the ground, we believe that
15 nothing had changed, that the same people were there carrying out similar
17 Q. That was your understanding of the situation. Thank you. I do
18 not wish to dwell on this any further.
19 We will go back to paragraph 29 of your statement, where you speak
20 of trends, to the effect that the special police were actively
21 intimidating Croats. That's under title "Expulsion of Croats from RSK."
22 And one of the documents underlying this conclusion of yours is the 65 ter
23 document 345.
24 Could we please have that document on our monitors? 65 ter
25 document, therefore.
1 This is an UNCIVPOL report, Sector South, dated 8 February 1993.
2 We have the document on our screens. Mr. McElligott, do you
3 recognise the document? I believe we've seen it already.
4 A. Yes, Your Honour.
5 Q. This is an UNCIVPOL Sector South document; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, Your Honour.
7 Q. Could the registrar please move the document up a bit to -- in
8 order to see the bottom of the document and the text itself?
9 And Mr. McElligott, could you read the first paragraph under 3,
11 A. You mean the paragraph commencing with the date, is that correct,
12 the 8th of February?
13 Q. [No interpretation].
14 A. "It is reported that the head of patrol in the village of Vrpolje,
15 they met local Milicija who were guarding the residents of this village,
16 the Croatians who were forced to leave their house by the refugees were
17 still living in the school," I take it, "the Milicija informed CIVPOL that
18 they have three buses to transport Croatians, people from the village, but
19 they didn't get the confirmation from Sibenik that the CSI is ready to
20 accept them. There was no complaints from those Croatian people during
21 the visit."
22 Do you wish me to go on?
23 Q. Thank you, no. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. Could we please move
24 to page 350, or ending in numbers 350? I believe that's page 4 of the
25 document. Not 351 but 350.
1 This is a rather long report where, after that introductory part
2 that you read out to us, again the topic of the refugees from Vrpolje is
3 dealt with. Could you please read the second paragraph in its entirety?
4 A. "UNCIVPOL patrols are being carried out in Knin itself, from Knin
5 station. A common problem at present is that the local Croats are still
6 being forced out of their houses and apartments by both newly arriving
7 refugees and local opportunists. Local authorities appear powerless to
8 stop this. Civil affairs is not participating in any plan to evacuate the
9 over 260 persons to the Croatian side at present and instead is
10 pressurising local authorities to deal with the problem. These
11 authorities have been saying that no one will be expelled from their homes
12 in this manner. Local authorities say that they will put these people
13 back into their homes and flats. However, these people who are presently
14 living in a small school, which is grossly overcrowded, with inadequate
15 sanitary facilities refuse to move, and they are indicating to be
16 transferred to the other side. Croatian authorities have rejected this.
17 The situation here is worsening with a few more local Croats joining their
18 numbers with each passing day."
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. This is the report dated 8 February
20 1993. Let me remind you that on the 21st of January, or, rather, the 22nd
21 of January, the large Croatian offensive against Maslenica was launched,
22 and this report speaks of refugees that are arriving and forcing Croats
23 from their houses. That's what we were able to read in the first
24 paragraph. Basically these were refugees that were driven away from their
25 homes by the Croatian army and, in retaliation, were in turn forcing
1 Croats out of their homes. Here we have mention of refugees and local
2 opportunists, and it is stated that local authorities were powerless in
3 preventing this. Is that correct? Is this what you have just read out?
4 A. Yes, Your Honour. I think that was the fallout of the 21st of
5 January, that there was a push forward and people were displaced and moved
6 on and displaced others, and I recall that being the situation that arose
7 from the 21st or the 21st of January incursion.
8 Q. Do you agree with me, Mr. McElligott, that this document is quite
9 unlikely to lead to the conclusion that you drew in paragraph 29, that
10 trends from these reports indicate that the special police were
11 intimidating Croats?
12 A. Your Honour, I have --
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes.
14 MS. VALABHJI: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour.
15 Just to point out that the witness was asked to read one paragraph
16 of the report that's before us. I don't believe -- I'm not sure if he's
17 seen this whole document, and the question that's being now put to the
18 witness by my learned colleague is basing itself on the entire document.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic? In relation to that response
20 that you're going large?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to hear
22 the witness's answer, keeping in mind the situation concerning the
23 expulsion of Croats from Vrpolje and I wanted to see whether this case
24 involved the special police or not.
25 This was a group of Croat residents who were put up in a school,
1 and this is something that we were faced with quite frequently during
2 testimony, and the general assertion was that this was done by the special
3 police. I wanted to hear from the witness whether in this case the Croats
4 that were driven away from Vrpolje and placed in the school were in fact
5 driven out of their homes by the special police or not and to draw a
6 conclusion from there.
7 THE WITNESS: This is a single incident, Your Honour, and I know
8 it --
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please do not go on with your evidence quite as
10 yet. We are dealing with issues between the attorneys.
11 THE WITNESS: I apologise.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: -- Requires patience. One moment, please.
13 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
14 MS. VALABHJI: Just to point out, Your Honour, this is not one of
15 the documents that were discussed in the direct exam. I don't think it's
16 been admitted. Again, I just reiterate what I said earlier, the point is
17 that the document consists of several pages but only a portion has been
18 made familiar to the witness at this time. So perhaps in fairness the
19 witness needs to be shown the whole thing.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes.
21 Mr. Milovancevic, if you're going to be asking the witness to draw
22 conclusions on the entire document, whereas you have been just specific in
23 your question, then you have to be fair to the witness and let him have
24 the opportunity to be advised as to the entirety. That is the basic
25 direction. So please follow accordingly.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will follow your
2 guidance. I note that the document deals with a number of other issues
3 that have nothing to do with the topic I was examining the witness on.
4 This is about a number of UNCIVPOL stations which, due to the ongoing
5 Maslenica operation, had to cease operating, and I simply picked out the
6 parts that were relevant to me, just as the Prosecution is used to doing
7 when examining. If you believe that I should have the witness read out
8 the entire document, then I will withdraw the last question that I put to
9 the witness, by your leave, of course.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Not the entire document but the entire relevant
11 portions to your cross-examination within the guidelines, of course. Try
12 and keep within the guidelines and go to him directly on relevant matters.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Let me
14 just verify whether I have understood you correctly. Does the Trial
15 Chamber accept the fact that I withdrew my last question, or do you insist
16 on me presenting the whole document to the witness? I don't know whether
17 I have understood your guidance well or not.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm trying to get you to understand it. You can
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. The next chapter in your statement before paragraph 30 is
22 entitled "Damage to Croatian villages and property (homes in RSK)."
23 Amongst other things, in paragraph 33, when you're talking about
24 these things, you say: "From my own observations, I recall that Croatian
25 villages and communities in RSK were extensively damaged and abandoned."
1 In this regard I would like to know whether you can tell us which
2 village in Croatia was extensively damaged and abandoned during your tour
3 of duty.
4 A. Ate this stage, Your Honour, I do not recall the specifics of
5 villages. But when I went to areas I went on patrol generally with a
6 station commander and I got a briefing from them and was shown and areas
7 were identified to me. And there were houses and -- number of houses as
8 described damaged and some of them put beyond inhabitation.
9 So at this stage I cannot name a specific village, but I certainly
10 saw them, and they were identified to me as Croatian little hamlets or
12 Q. Mr. McElligott, I don't know whether you have understood me
13 correctly. I am not disputing the fact contained in your statement that
14 you were there, that you saw some houses and some villages that indeed
15 were damaged. However, my question was whether there were any villages
16 during your term of duty, while you were a member of the UNCIVPOL, that
17 were damaged or abandoned. I'm talking about the villages that were
18 damaged during the time you were there, during your tour of duty.
19 A. Again, I refer to the various reports and particularly the report
20 submitted in -- by Inspector Noonan, from Sector South, and it refers to
21 houses being damaged, and I think that would be the basis of information
22 available to me. And I suppose follow-up to that would be when I went out
23 on the ground, I went and looked at areas and saw for myself that there
24 was extensive damage, but the overall report and indeed the same would
25 prevail for reports coming in from the other sectors too. This report
1 just deals with Sector South, but you would have a similar profile in
2 other sectors.
3 Q. Thank you. On Friday, you testified based on Exhibit 721 that the
4 authority of the UNCIVPOL was to observe the work of the local police in
5 order to prevent for non-discrimination and to provide for the protection
6 of human rights. Did you only observe the treatment of the Croatian
7 population in the areas of protection or the overall population in those
9 A. Our monitors patrolled the entire area of the protected areas and
10 indeed they were very much in contact with the communities. I suppose the
11 reality of it was that they lived within the communities and indeed most
12 of them lived with Serbian people in the community, so that they were in
13 touch with all sides and were conscious of incidents of all kinds, and all
14 matters coming to their notice would be reported and were reported, and if
15 incidents relating to Serb damages came to their notice they would be
16 reflected in our report.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. Could you please be briefer in your
18 answers in order to save time.
19 On Friday, Exhibit 726 was shown to you and it was
20 entitled "Crimes against Croats in Sector South." As I was reading the
21 document, I could see that the document lists a number of incidents,
22 including the theft of food, the theft of cattle.
23 In your view, were all incidents that happened and were described
24 in that report are all ethnically biased and committed only because the
25 aggrieved parties were Croats, or do you maybe think that there was
1 another motive to some of these incidents and crimes?
2 A. I have looked at the entire grouping of crimes, and I recall you
3 could brake them down into a group where the perpetrators were identified
4 as people wearing what would be regarded as people in uniform, and then
5 there was another breakdown where specific reference was made to Milicija
6 uniform, and I think the covering note would suggest that the overall
7 figure in that range is about 120.
8 Now, there is another group, then, where you have suspects
9 described as wearing civilian clothes and armed, and I think those figures
10 are quite low. And there is another group, then, where you have people
11 who are unarmed and in civilian attire, identified as suspects.
12 Now, if I recollect correctly, there could be perhaps 25 to 30
13 per cent of the overall grouping where there is no suspect whatsoever
14 identified. In other words, there is no evidence to indicate who
15 perpetrated the crime. So I think that's kind of a broad breakdown of the
16 overall situation. And where suspects are profiled I've -- the report
17 indicates that 120 of those are in uniform.
18 Q. As a result of your answer, and I asked you specifically whether
19 you believed that the theft of food, cattle, household appliances, and we
20 are talking about numerous incidents of the sort, were these incidents
21 motivated by the ethnicity of the aggrieved parties? You've answered I am
22 not going to insist, although I believe that your answer was only partial.
23 Many UNCIVPOL reports say that the complete Serb population was armed
24 because of the Croatian attacks, all the Serbian males were armed because
25 of that. Do you remember those reports?
1 A. Yes, there are reports to indicate there was a high level of
2 arms. And I think in the breakdown of that report you will see where
3 suspects are in civilian attire and armed.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. It's enough. Do you exclude the
5 possibility that a soldier might also be hungry? And would you exclude
6 such a circumstance as a possible motive for a crime?
7 A. I think if the report you have is one of a theft from somebody,
8 that is a crime, and the fact that you are a soldier or otherwise doesn't
9 exonerate you committing that crime, and indeed I think if you look at the
10 victims, and many of them they are quite elderly people, so I don't
11 rationalise it in that way.
12 Q. Thank you. Did UNCIVPOL draft reports on crimes committed against
13 other ethnic groups; for example, Serbs?
14 A. All incidents coming to our notice were recorded. I know that
15 this report specifically focused on the victims who were Croats, but all
16 the other ones are recorded. I'm not sure if they are actually profiled
17 in a single -- organised into a single document at this stage, but that is
18 one that was prepared at the time.
19 Q. Thank you. What about the UNPROFOR? Did UNPROFOR fall victim of
20 the sudden theft of vehicles, parts of their vehicles, and so on and so
22 A. Yes, Your Honour, some vehicles were stolen. Radios were stolen,
24 Q. Thank you. The information about crimes against Croats, was it
25 compared with the general crime situation?
1 A. I know from looking at the situation reports, that the high level
2 of victims were Croats.
3 Q. Thank you. You said that you travelled a lot in order to perform
4 your duties, that you travelled through Sector South and Sector North.
5 Did you get an insight into the economic situation in those areas? Was
6 there enough electricity, food, water? Was there any electricity or water
7 at all?
8 A. There was no electricity. I think on occasions you might have
9 electricity at a weekend or water at a weekend, and I had stayed with
10 families, Serbian families in the Knin area when I went there, and there
11 was no electricity. I have recollections of the lady in the house baking
12 her loaf of bread outdoors on the fire, and at night we sat with a candle
13 and the loaf of bread and a leg of prosciutto, and that was our social
14 night, and indeed I would say a very social night, a very friendly -- and
15 one I will always remember. And I think our monitors are very, very
16 conscious of how people lived, because they lived with them and lived it.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. Before the break, I'm going to show
18 you a document. The numbers R006-812, and R006-825.
19 Before we see the document on the screen -- is the document on the
20 screen? Can the registry confirm that this is the document that I called
22 Are you familiar with this document, sir?
23 A. I'd have to see it on my screen. Which one?
24 Q. The number is R006-8012-R006-8025.
25 Before the document appears on the screen, on page 6, in paragraph
1 3 of this report, it says, and you're going to see the paragraph in a
2 minute: "The collapse of order and law in many parts of the former
3 Yugoslavia and the struggle for survival of the local population have
4 created the atmosphere that the special commission for the investigation
5 of the situation considers to be conducive to -- for illegal activities
6 geared for personal gain. This applies to the local population as a well
7 as to members of the international organisations. At this moment, at
8 least 56 organisations are accredited through the UNHCR."
9 I called for this document so as to be able to read this paragraph
10 of this report, and if you're agreeable, Your Honours, I believe that
11 we'll be able to go -- to go on looking through the document after the
12 break. I believe this is the convenient time for the break.
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You would like to take the break now and then we
14 look at the document and then you continue on?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. This is
16 precisely what I have told you, to keep to our timetable.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. The registrar will locate the
18 document in the interim and we get it on the system. Thank you so much.
19 Can we take our adjournment now until 4.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Mr. McElligott, my last question was about the economic situation
25 and you spoke about problems with water, electricity and so on and so
1 forth. I tried to show you a document, and it seems that I created a
2 problem and the registry could not help me with that. I recorded a wrong
3 number, so I won't insist on this document being shown. I'll try and
4 reach an answer through my verbal question without the assistance of any
6 Given your insight into the situation on the ground,
7 Mr. McElligott, could you say that the collapse of law and order in many
8 parts of the former Yugoslavia, as well as the struggle for the survival
9 of the local population, created an atmosphere which might have been
10 conducive to illegal activities geared for personal gain? You're an
11 experienced police officer, and I would like to know whether you can
12 possibly answer my question.
13 A. There is no doubt that an environment of this nature would
14 generate I suppose a different type of crime, I suppose. One would look
15 at what could be an organised crime in the sense that you introduce black
16 market, and I think there could be issues relating to currency and
17 exchange rates and this type of thing. They arise in the middle of this
18 environment, and certainly there were areas of that or issues like that
19 taking place certainly, and I think it also went down to I suppose what
20 would be the theft of very basic items, too, because of very low supply of
21 even food at times.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. As a professional, do you believe that
23 such an economic situation contributed to a large extent to the rise in
24 crime rates? I believe that you've already answered that question, but I
25 would like to hear it again more directly from you.
1 A. There were thefts, like the profile of the crime even in this
2 report does show the theft of some very basic things; indeed, yesterday
3 was reference was made to the theft of timber from a particular house. So
4 I think the very elementary types of crime were committed, but behind that
5 there were very serious crimes committed, and we have profiled murders,
6 murders of families. So there is a dividing line. There is what I
7 suppose ordinary petty crime, perhaps based at times on the absolute needs
8 of some people, but then there is another profile running as well that has
9 a whole different dimension to it.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Milovancevic, this would be my question to
11 you: How to understand this issue of raising -- of rising crime rates in
12 this period, in this region. This is a very general question, and could
13 you specify what types of crime you mean, you're referring to? Do you
14 have any special statistics on crime rates you're referring to? Or how
15 else should we understand your question or the gist of your question?
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't want to
17 go into any details of this topic. I just wanted to hear the witness's
18 position and his knowledge about the general situation on the ground
19 during that period, given a large number of reports that speak about the
20 theft of bare essentials. If this becomes a recurrence, and if this
21 strikes certain groups of people, certain parts of the population, it may
22 have an impact. What I wanted to know is whether the overall situation
23 lended itself to higher crime rates. I got an answer, which I was happy,
24 but if the Honourable Judges think that the topic should be elaborated, I
25 am only too happy to do that. I might be able to do that. My question
1 was relative to a general situation. It was a principal question. That's
2 why I put it that way.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. I see it's a principal question, and it was
4 also answered in a very principal way. And I was wondering if this really
5 would satisfy, because this doesn't express anything specific concerning
6 the different fields of the crime statistics at that time, at that
7 period. But if you don't mean it in a special way, then we can leave it
8 like that. I'm fine with that.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please go ahead, Mr. Milovancevic, unless you
10 have something further to respond to Judge Hoepfel.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No. I'm
12 happy with the answer I got and with the way that the question was
14 Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Let's now deal with the issue of UNCIVPOL stations. You spoke
16 about the functioning of those stations that existed on the ground in all
17 UNPA areas.
18 Can Defence Exhibit number 1D0042 be shown, please?
19 Before we see the report on the screen, I'll tell you,
20 Mr. McElligott, that this is an UNCIVPOL report for Sector South, for July
21 1993. During this short break, I'm going to tell you that this is a
22 report containing an additional report for June 1993, and this is an
23 overview of incidents per stations. Have you got the document before you,
24 Mr. McElligott?
25 A. No, Your Honour.
1 Q. 042.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I ask to which number you refer, by saying
3 042, please?
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I gave you the
5 whole number. This is number 1D0042, a Defence Exhibit, 1D0042.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Also, Mr. Milovancevic, did you say June of
7 1993? A report containing a report in relation to June 1993? Because I
8 don't see that on the document that is before me. And your colleague,
9 learned counsel for the OTP, is on her feet.
10 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm told that this might
11 be 1D00-1789.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.
13 Mr. Milovancevic, you've been given assistance as to the location
14 of your Defence exhibit. Could we try and get it up on the system?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, and I
16 would also like to thank my learned friend.
17 I have the hard copy of the document. This is a report of the
18 civil police of Sector South, which is relative to the monthly report of
19 Sector South for July 1993. The number on it is --
20 THE INTERPRETER: If the counsel could repeat that number slowly,
21 it would help.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] On the first page.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel repeat the number?
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Can you repeat the number, please?
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Is it 1.000, 1849?
1 MS. VALABHJI: I think it's 1D00-1789. And perhaps the ERN might
2 facilitate things.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Milovancevic repeat the number? The
4 interpreter did not catch the number that Mr. Milovancevic was quoting.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me, Mr. Milovancevic, could you repeat the
6 number which you were quoting, for the transcript?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is Defence
8 Exhibit 1D0042. And this is a monthly report of the UNCIVPOL for July
9 1993, and on its first page, this is the document on the screen, this is
10 the document on the screen, thank you very much. I apologise for the
11 misunderstanding. I don't understand what the problem is, but I know that
12 my learned friend has tried to assist me and I thank her for that.
13 Q. With regard to this document, that is before you now,
14 Mr. McElligott, and I apologise once again for this waste of time, do you
15 recognise this document as an UNCIVPOL document?
16 A. Yes, it looks like one, yes.
17 Q. Based on this title page, do you know who drafted it, who the
18 addressee is, and what is the date that it is bearing?
19 A. It's addressed to the commissioner of UNCIVPOL and it's from
20 sector chief UNCIVPOL Sector South. It is dated -- or it's end of month
21 report for UNCIVPOL Sector South, July 1993. Is there a date?
22 Q. Thank you. Could we have page 5 on the screen, please?
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Did you not want the date?
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since this is a
25 monthly report, as far as I can see, there is no date on the cover page,
1 but by reviewing the document, we'll establish the date, by your leave.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Go ahead.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. Could we take a look at page 5 of the document? You have before
5 you page 5 of the document. Could you please read the title on this page.
6 A. This is a supplementary month end report for June 1993, breakdown
7 of incidents by station. And then the first one mentioned is Vrlika,
8 zone A, pink zone.
9 Q. The document on this page indicates that the UNCIVPOL station at
10 Vrlika was evacuated on the 23rd of January, 1993, whereas the Drnis
11 station on the 27th of January. Do you know why the stations were
12 evacuated? Was the reason for it the Maslenica operation?
13 A. This is the 23rd of January, I know that Benkovac incident arose
14 somewhere there, was 22nd, 23rd. Perhaps this was a further fallout of
15 that. Off the top of my head, I don't recall the detail, but certainly I
16 remember the Benkovac one, and that was early -- or mid-January or late
18 Q. Could we have page 6 on the screen, with -- bearing the number 647
19 at the top right-hand corner? On this page, it is indicated that the
20 Bratiskovski, Smokovic, Medak and Teslingrad stations were evacuated in
21 late January 1993. Does the same apply to these stations, your statement
22 concerning the Drnis and Vrlika stations, that in fact they were evacuated
23 during the Maslenica operation?
24 A. There was an evacuation of a number of stations, yeah, and I
25 think, yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Did UNCIVPOL have access to these locations after the
2 Maslenica operation? Do you recall these details?
3 A. I know that there was a delay in getting back into these areas for
4 a period of time. I think that is even referred to here at the top of the
5 report in relation to - is it Vrlika? - that they are managing to get some
6 patrols in from Knin at that stage in June. So there was -- like they
7 didn't get back to base for sometime, but the top of the report would
8 suggest they were getting patrols in there on a limited basis.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. Could we take a look at page 8, the
10 last three numbers are 4 -- 649. You will see that on page 8, it is
11 stated that the UNCIVPOL station from Benkovac was relocated to Knin on
12 29 January 1993 and that monitors go to their station from Knin every
13 morning. Do you know why the UNCIVPOL station was relocated from
14 Benkovac? Was the reason the same as the one that applied to the stations
15 we saw earlier?
16 A. Benkovac, I know that on the morning of the incursion, at 20 --
17 that one or two of our monitors were taken hostage and held on the top
18 floor of the hotel there for a number of days, and they were eventually
19 negotiated out and returned to Knin. Now, at that stage, our monitors did
20 not return to the area because they were, as I say, they were held hostage
21 for a period of time and they eventually got to patrol the area and basing
22 themselves in Knin, so the entire station party was actually taken
24 Q. Since you seem to remember this event, do you recall this
25 happening at the time when Croatia launched its attack on an UNPA zone?
1 Was that the same period of time as when this particular event occurred?
2 A. Well, I remember Benkovac specifically. I was there that night.
3 So I have a clear recollection of the situation in the morning, and I left
4 that day, and subsequent to that our monitors were held for a number of
5 days, so I was eventually involved in negotiating their release. So I
6 have a specific recollection of that incident.
7 Q. Mr. McElligott, you didn't tell me whether this took place at the
8 time when the Croatian forces launched the Maslenica operation. Did this
9 take place at the same point in time?
10 A. You mentioned the Maslenica operation to me earlier on and I'm not
11 associating the name with a specific event, but certainly if you're tying
12 it to the same day and the Benkovac scenario, this is the one I recall
13 clearly in the sense there was an incursion by the Croatian authorities.
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Who was it who held those officers in hostage?
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, they were under the control of the
16 local Milicija.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: And they -- it -- the area was very much a
19 battlefield, I suppose, or a fully operational military field at that
20 point. There was quite a lot of what you call Serbian response in the
21 area. I believe that quite a lot of the military could also have been
22 based in the hotel, but the police were the people specifically holding
23 our people.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. On this page it is stated that the Obrovac UNCIVPOL station was
2 also evacuated on the 21st of January, 1993, and that its operations were
3 relocated to Kistanje. This station, just as all the previous ones in
4 Benkovac, Bratiskovski, Smokovici, Medak, Teslingrad, Vrlika and Drnis,
5 was evacuated in the second half of January 1991, after the start of the
6 Maslenica operation. Do you tie this evacuation up with the combat
7 activities taking place at the time?
8 A. There was a whole fallout following the Benkovac situation and I
9 suppose the mission went into turmoil basically at that point, certainly
10 down at the Sector South end of it. And I think that is reflected there,
11 that we had to draw back from a lot of our stations.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. We will move on to a different topic,
13 although it is connected.
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: There is an objection being taken by
15 Ms. Valabhji.
16 MS. VALABHJI: Actually, Your Honour, not an objection but just to
17 say that in the question posed, the second half of January 1991 is being
18 referred to and I think that's a mistake. Should be 1993.
19 THE WITNESS: 1993.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, do you accept that it was an
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Apologies. I thank my learned
25 friend. It was a slip of the tongue. Of course the year was 1993.
1 Q. Now, Mr. McElligott, I'm going to ask you about quite a different
2 topic. We are still on page 8 of the document. Could you please read out
3 the first two lines of the second paragraph below the title "Benkovac"?
4 Which starts with the following words "Benkovac was shelled." So I'm
5 interested in the first two lines.
6 A. Could you -- where about it is? Yeah. "Benkovac was shelled on
7 the 1st of the 7th, 1993, 2nd of the 7th, 1993, the 13th of the 7th, 1993,
8 the 14th of the 7th, 1993, the 15th of the 7th, 1993. Burning of
9 wheat-fields near villages of Zazvic on the 4th of July, 1993 and farmers
10 near -- and farmers near village of Lisane-Tinjske have been shelled while
11 harvesting on the 6th of July, 1993 and same location hit by shelling
12 and" -- by -- it's okay, just moved on me.
13 Q. "... and wheat-fields burned ..."
14 A. "... on the 9th of July" -- or "the 7th 1993. Harassment of an
15 elder Croat near village" --
16 Q. Thank you. I was interested in that part of the text you read
17 out. This is a summary report for one month. These lines speak of the
18 fact that the area of Benkovac had been shelled for days. Are you
19 familiar with these events; namely, the shelling of Benkovac in July 1993?
20 A. Specifically, like at this stage, not off the top of my head but
21 I'm aware that there were serious incidents where the escalation of the
22 conflict rose to that level where shelling was undertaken. I was quite --
23 yes, I'm aware of it.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. [Microphone not activated].
1 Q. Could we have page 2 of the document, bearing the last numbers 643
2 on the screen?
3 Please read out the first four sentences immediately below the
4 title "3. Operations," which starts with the following words: "The
5 overall situation in this sector is..."
6 Could you please read out the first four sentences?
7 A. "The overall situation in this sector is tense. Most of the
8 sector experienced shelling for the week prior to the 18th of the 7th,
9 1993. The areas struck the heaviest were Benkovac, Kistanje and Drnis.
10 On the 15th of the 7th, 1993, Korenica was shelled with several of the 26
11 rounds falling within 100 metres of CIVPOL residences. No injuries to
12 CIVPOL personnel were reported across the sector as a" --
13 Q. Thank you. Mr. McElligott, as was the case with the shelling of
14 Benkovac, where wheat-fields were mentioned, do you agree that here it was
15 quite evident that the Croatian artillery was firing upon the inhabited
16 areas within an UNPA, and these were areas predominantly inhabited by
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 Q. Thank you. Could we have page 5 of the document on the screen,
20 bearing the last numbers 646?
21 On page 5, under Vrlika, it is indicated that on the 25th of July
22 1993, that entire day, the villages of Civljane, Otisic, Laktac and
23 Poljane were shelled and one woman was killed. Do you find it quite
24 evident that it was the Croatian army that did the shelling, that shelled
25 the area, and do you know anything else about this event?
1 A. I don't know. Well, I accept that if the shelling took place in
2 the -- from the outside the UNPA it's going to be the Croatian authorities
3 who are doing it. And again it refers to one woman was killed, five
4 thefts from villages and all thefts from Croatian people. Items taken
5 were food, blankets. I don't know who -- it doesn't say there who took
6 anything. So again, I think when -- again when you go back to the report,
7 the overall report, it does say that we did lack information for a period
8 of time in a number of stations, so there is a gap, and while there is a
9 theft there from Croatian, it doesn't say --
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. That will do. You have provided a
11 detailed answer.
12 In addition -- and I apologise for interrupting you. I do not
13 mean disrespect but merely want to save time.
14 At the very start of my cross-examination, we were referring to
15 operation Medak pocket. In connection with this, and given that this was
16 an UNPA area and that the Croatian army attacked the area at the time when
17 you were out in the field, I would like to show you Defence document
18 1D0032 before putting my question to you. I hope I'll have more luck with
19 the numbers now than I had before.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What are you going to do in respect of the other
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since that's a
23 Defence Exhibit, I believe it's already admitted into evidence.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. Thank you.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] If that is not the case, I will
1 subsequently move that it be done, but based on the records I have here,
2 it seems to be a Defence Exhibit. By your leave, I would like to proceed
3 and then we could deal with that at a later stage. Thank you.
4 Q. Do you recognise the document? Can you tell us what it is about?
5 A. Well, part of it is, as I write over it, like a covering note
6 across the report but it contains Cedric Thornberry's signature. Is that
7 the one you're showing me?
8 Q. Can you tell us who drafted the document, who it was addressed to
9 and which date it bears? Can you see that on the page?
10 A. I -- there is a cover --
11 Q. I apologise. To facilitate the proceedings, we will move to
12 page 2. I made a mistake by indicating this particular page which is
13 quite illegible. Could we move to page 2, please?
14 On this page, it is stated clearly who drafted the document, who
15 the document was addressed to, and the date it bears. Can you read these
16 pieces of information for us out loud?
17 A. Yes, this is addressed to the first commander for the information
18 of the SLSG and the DFC and it's from the Cedric -- signed by Cedric
19 Thornberry, NCA, dated the 3rd of October, 1993, and the subject is
20 "report on Medak events."
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Could you maybe repeat once more from whom it was?
22 THE WITNESS: It was from -- from -- is it the HC -- is it HC?
23 And signed Cedric Thornberry.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. McElligott.
25 Could we now have page 19 of the document on our screen, bearing the
1 number 356? These are the last three digits. When we have the page on
2 our screens, could you please read paragraph 48, under
3 title "recommendation"?
4 A. "UNPROFOR has conducted a systematic investigation of conditions
5 in the Medak area."
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
7 MS. VALABHJI: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour. I would just
8 raise at this time the objection on the basis of relevance, Your Honour.
9 If this is going to be about crimes committed by the opposing side, what
10 is the relevance?
11 I had raised this objection yesterday, and I think my learned
12 friend in his response referred to his desire to pursue the line of
13 questioning concerning the role of the United Nations. I think this is
14 now going beyond that. So I just -- I object on this basis, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, let me hear your response.
16 The Trial Chamber is interested to hear what you have to say in response.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the situation is
18 relatively simple for the Defence. Mr. McElligott, having been a high
19 official of UNCIVPOL, and as he is testifying in relation to the period of
20 time while he was out in the field, in leading this piece of evidence, the
21 Defence wishes to see whether the way the witness presented the situation
22 was complete and objective, whether it represents what happened on both
23 sides, and whether the matters he presents are in fact imbedded in the
24 context at the time or not.
25 To the Defence, every crime is a crime, and we believe that the
1 fact that some mass-scale military operations were carried out at the time
2 can have an impact on the general situation in the area. That is why the
3 Defence was pursuing this area.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
5 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, I would just respond very briefly that
6 I recall that the witness was already asked about his visit to the area
7 subsequent to the operation, and he's already responded on this issue.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: The Chamber would like to consult.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: In so far -- Mr. Milovancevic? In so far that
12 it might relate to the issue of credibility, we are going to allow you to
13 pursue it in a very limited fashion, to explore the issue of balance and
14 objectivity in relation to the account that is given by the witness thus
15 far, but please keep it very straight and within the confines of what I've
16 placed before you. Are you hearing me? Thank you.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand, and
18 I have only one question to put to the witness on this matter. And I am
19 aware of the guidelines.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. McElligott, although the paragraph is rather longish, I'd
23 appreciate it if you read it out.
24 A. Okay. "UNPROFOR has conducted a systematic investigation of
25 conditions in the Medak area and the events described in the report show
1 that the Croatian army attack in the area on the 9th of September was
2 fully coordinated and planned. It met little or no Serb resistance.
3 Croatian troops killed most of those who were unable to make good their
4 escape, regardless of age, sex or status, and a number are still missing.
5 Massive destruction to property was conducted by the Croatian forces
6 during their events and particularly during their withdrawal. Virtually
7 all houses and outbuildings in the villages and surrounding hamlets were
8 destroyed, many by explosion. Wells were destroyed or damaged. Household
9 chattels were deliberately destroyed and almost all remaining domestic
10 animals were killed. During a period in which UNPROFOR personnel were
11 prevented from moving into the area in accordance with a prior agreement
12 with the Croatian army, the destruction was completed. UNPROFOR members
13 hearing explosions and shooting and shortly after observing houses in ..."
14 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down with the reading.
15 THE WITNESS: "... in flames. Thus, a comprehensive scorched
16 earth policy was practised by the Croatian army. While the commanding
17 officer, officer in charge of the Croatian army in this undertaking are
18 not identified in this report, these details are available. It is
19 recommended that the report be transmitted to the special rapporteur for
20 human rights commission and to the acting chairman of the Commission of
21 Experts on war crimes."
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. One question on this issue. Based on
24 your knowledge, after having toured the area, would you agree with the
25 description of the events as you read them out now?
1 A. Yes, Your Honour.
2 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions on this subject.
3 I'd like to know whether during your term of service, UNCIVPOL
4 conducted investigations into some other crimes committed by the Croatian
5 forces against Serb civilians. Do you recall that?
6 A. I made reference to one in my direct evidence, if I can recall,
7 and it was -- could you, sir, can I have your question again? In relation
8 to attacks on Serbs? Yes. Civilians. Yes. That's the one I made
9 reference to during my direct evidence, and when I examined a particular
10 period of time, in relation to the complaint, I established that the
11 Croatians had killed a number of Serb civilians in excess of those on the
12 other side.
13 Q. Thank you. Can Exhibit 1D0035 be shown, please? To be more
14 precise, it's page 2, please. Do you recognise this report?
15 A. Yes, Your Honour.
16 Q. Can page 2, please, be shown? The last three digits are 203. You
17 can see that you authored this report; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 Q. And who the addressee was and what is the indication of the date
20 on this document?
21 A. It is addressed to Cedric Thornberry through the commissioner, and
22 it is dated the 24th of February, 1993. And the subject is alleged mass
23 graves between Poljane and Pakrac on and GAJ Sector West.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you please read the first paragraph and the
25 first two sentences of the second paragraph? The first paragraph begins
1 with the words the attached report from Sergeant Nicholson --
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: MS. Valabhji.
3 MS. VALABHJI: I'm sorry to rise yet again, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Not at all.
5 MS. VALABHJI: But I have to return, I'm afraid, to my objection
6 on the basis of relevance. I think now this really goes beyond the very
7 limited scope of questioning pertaining to other crimes, and I would also
8 recall in this context the Trial Chamber's guidelines on the Tu Quoque
9 defence, the fact that the Tribunal does not recognise it as a valid
10 defence and has accepted only to a very limited extent evidence relating
11 to crimes allegedly committed by other parties to the conflict. And in
12 this regard, I would recall the Kupreskic trial judgement which I believe
13 is referred to in the guidelines as well.
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, can we hear from
15 you in response to learned counsel for the OTP?
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 In regard to this document, the Defence has just one question.
18 That's the first explanation. And the second explanation is my response
19 to the objection. And that is that it would really be pointless to use
20 the Tu Quoque defence. However, what is important for the Defence at the
21 moment is what ground among what people and into which territory the
22 UNPROFOR forces and the civil police arrived.
23 The problem on the ground did not start on the 2nd of October,
24 1992 when Mr. McElligott joined the CIVPOL. It had started much earlier,
25 and the Defence would like to demonstrate that these problems on the
1 ground that had a direct bearing on the behaviour and the position of the
2 overall population regardless of their ethnicity had existed much longer
3 before and that they had already been dealt with by UNCIVPOL.
4 If this is not important, the question arises how come that
5 UNCIVPOL that arrived in 1992 launched investigations into the matters
6 that were topical in 1990 and 1991. When this report was drafted the
7 UNCIVPOL thought this was very important for the overall situation and for
8 the assessment of the possible behaviour of the international forces
9 towards the civilian population as well as vice versa. In that sense, I'm
10 trying to present my case, and I am not in any case attempting to engage
11 in the Tu Quoque defence. It would really be unprecedented and pointless.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Forgive me for making this observation, but it
13 appears this is the direction you're heading in. Could you encapsulate
14 your objections within the framework that is necessary? Because you have
15 said, in effect, that you are not pursuing Tu Quoque, but what is the
16 purpose specifically? Please encapsulate what you're saying because you
17 seem to ramble somewhat.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, only one question
19 on this topic should demonstrate that the complete population in the
20 territory where the UNPA areas were and where the civilian police was
21 deployed, that the total population regardless of their religion or
22 ethnicity was at risk due to the war activities that were going on at the
23 time. All the population suffered and the general position on the ground
24 determined the reactions of the population on all sides, or on both sides,
25 regardless of their ethnicity. What I'm trying to --
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ... now that
2 is apparently the Defence case, part and parcel of the Defence case.
3 That's the first thing that the Chamber would like to establish. Right.
4 Let us hear what your question will be. The witness is asked not to
5 respond. The Chamber would like to hear what this question will be,
6 within the framework of what you have said the Defence case is on this
7 specific point.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The question will be as
9 follows: It will be just one and it will be relative only to whether the
10 UNCIVPOL launched an investigation into the suffering of the people and
11 how this arose, under what circumstances, and who was responsible for that
12 population. Nothing else. That's all. This topic, in my further
13 cross-examination, should have taken no more than a minute of the time.
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: It's not a question of how much time. It's
15 whether you are correct in the course that you're pursuing.
16 First of all, the Chamber makes the observation that it sounds
17 very much like more than one question, and within the framework that you
18 have put it, it seems to go beyond what is permitted. And I'm going to
19 rule that you not pursue this area. You're not permitted to. And you
20 move on to your next question.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. McElligott, there is no need for you to answer. You
23 understood the Chamber's ruling.
24 Let us now address an issue that is mentioned in some of the
25 UNCIVPOL documents, only very briefly.
1 Can document 1D0042 be shown? This is the UNCIVPOL report for
2 June 1993.
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's correction: For July 1993.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Didn't we have that already?
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The document
6 is now on the screen. Thank you. This is 1D0042. This is the UNCIVPOL
7 report, Sector South, July 1993. We may have seen the document already,
8 indeed. Can page 2 be displayed, please. The three digits are 643. I
9 apologise, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, are you asking for a certain
11 course to be adopted in relation to the document at this point?
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I shall ask for
13 the admission of this document as a Defence exhibit. However, I believe
14 that it is already in the file, and it would be pointless for me to ask
15 for its admission again. But if it is not in the files, I will ask for
16 the admission and I will do the same for the previous documents, so far I
17 have omitted to do this. But let's, if you don't mind, deal with this
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Previous translation continues] ... very well,
20 please go ahead.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, at a later stage.
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Proceed.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. On page 2 of this document, Mr. McElligott, can you please read
25 the last paragraph on page 2, which goes on to page 3, the first five
1 sentences of that paragraph. "An ongoing situation has is developed in
2 Zaluznica" are the first words in that paragraph. Can you read the
3 paragraph in its entirety and proceed to page 3?
4 A. This is the one referring to freedom of movement; is that correct?
5 No? An ongoing situation, sorry.
6 "An ongoing situation has developed in Zaluznica on the 19th of
7 the 7th, 1993. A local man was abducted by Croatians from within the
8 UNPA. After some discussions the Croatian family finally produced the man
9 to the UNMOs who were able to verify his health and status. The backlash
10 from the local people has been severe. On the 21st of July, 1993 Serbian
11 gunmen killed one Croatian soldier and injured a Croatian civilian near
12 Otacac. The next day the village threw up a roadblock demanding the
13 release of their men. CIVPOL played a crucial role in defusing the
14 situation several times over the period of 20th -- of July 20th of
15 the 7th, 1993 to the 26th of 7, 1993. All efforts" --
16 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McElligott.
17 You're aware of this incident, aren't you? This was caused by the
18 Croatian side in the area that was under your control?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Can page 8 be displayed, bearing the last three
21 digits 649? The same document.
22 On this page, Mr. McElligott, when you have it before you, look at
23 the middle of the page and can you start reading from the sentence
24 starting with "one Serb soldier"?
25 And when you're reading Mr. McElligott, could you please do it
1 slowly for the interpreters? Thank you.
2 A. Where exactly is the --
3 Q. The second third of the text, towards the last paragraph. Towards
4 the very end of the page, the last several sentences, before the last
5 paragraph, the end of the previous paragraph. The text that I would like
6 you to read starts -- no, no, no, no, stop, go back, go back, scroll down,
7 scroll down, more. Stop.
8 What I want you to read starts with the words "one Serb soldier."
9 Below the table there is a long paragraph preceded by a short sentence.
10 At the edge of that long paragraph, the fourth sentence line from the
11 bottom starts with "one Serb soldier," or the fourth sentence from the
12 bottom starts with the words "one Serb soldier." Can you please read
14 A. I see a sentence commencing with "local Milicija." Where is in
15 relation to that sentence? Abducted soldier now -- okay. Yeah, I have it
17 Q. That's right. It's not very easy, Mr. McElligott. There is a lot
18 of text. But this is the sentence that I'm interested in.
19 A. "One Serb soldier was abducted during a patrol along with two
20 others, which were wounded in the encounter. Abducted soldier now POW -
21 happened 15/07/1993. Same day another civilian -- civil person was
22 abducted from the village of Jagodnja Donja while cutting grass on the
23 field. On 16th of the 7th, 1993 three soldiers were captured during
24 patrolling in the vicinity of Novi Grad - believed to be in Zadar prison.
25 Some days or some days the patrolling" --
1 Q. Thank you. Thank you. [Microphone not activated].
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Defence counsel.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Microphone, please.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. Once again, I apologise for the
6 difficulties this text posed. There is lots of it.
7 Are you familiar with this and similar incidents which speak about
8 the behaviour of the Croatian side towards the Serbs on the ground and
9 towards the Serbian population as well as towards the Serbian army?
10 A. Yes, I'm aware of those incidents, yeah.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, just to give you a polite
13 reminder that we have 15 minutes left before the close of this section,
14 having regard to your statement before that you would finish
15 cross-examination by the end of this session -- or by the middle of this
16 session, I'm reminded. So you seem to have gone beyond your mark. I
17 assume that you are near the end, very near, because we are near our next
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may need another
20 five minutes. I would like to apologise. We've had some difficulty with
21 displaying documents on the screen. I am approaching the end of my
22 cross-examination and I will bear your words in mind. Thank you very
24 Q. With regard the situation on the ground in Sector South, where you
25 have had the presence of the refugees, can document 1D0043 be shown,
1 please? This is a CIVPOL report for Sector South, an investigation
2 regarding displaced Serbs from the areas outside Sector South. Can the
3 whole page be displayed, please? Do you recognise this document?
4 A. Yes, it's a CIVPOL report from Sector South. It's a preliminary
5 report dated the 26th of the 4th, 1993, an investigative research
6 concerning displaced persons of Serbian origin from outside Sector South.
7 And again it's signed by it's Al Goodyear, yes, he's one of the police
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. And --
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. McElligott. Can page 2 of the document be
12 displayed? In the report, over 10.000 Serbs are mentioned who had been
13 displaced in the region of Krajina from Zadar, Spit, Sibenik, Zagreb,
14 Rijeka and other towns in Croatia in order to avoid mistreatment that
15 included physical attacks, damage to property and so on and so forth.
16 Have you heard of that? Did you hear of that?
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: [Microphone not activated].
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Honourable Judge.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Sorry. I thought it was on. My apologies are
20 in order. Relevance at this stage? We are going wide again.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm establishing a
22 link between this document and the documents relative to Vrlika and
23 Croatian population that had been expelled from their homes by the Serbian
24 citizens that had been previously expelled by the Croatian army from some
25 other areas. I'm trying to show that there were Serbian refugees from all
1 sides and that the real situation on the ground with regard to the control
2 of law and order was very difficult to contain, given the --
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Hasn't the witness given that evidence before,
4 generally? Why rehash it if it's not absolutely necessary and if it's
5 causing you to breach the rules?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I accept your suggestion, Your
7 Honour. I'll move on to a different topic.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Your five minutes is almost up as well. Please
9 go along nicely.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. In view of all the things that we have discussed so far, through
12 the questions put to you, Mr. McElligott, can one say, and I believe that
13 this is going to be my last question to you, that during the period while
14 you were a member of the mission, the area under the control of the United
15 Nations was drastically attacked by the Croatian armed forces on several
16 occasions around Maslenica, at least ten villages were leveled with the
17 ground, a lot of people had been expelled from the Medak pocket where
18 three villages were erased, and that many other places where there were
19 attacks by Croatian artillery. There were other examples of incursions of
20 up to 600 people from Croatia under arms into the territories under the
21 control of the United Nations. Wouldn't it be evident from all this that
22 the protection forces of the United Nations were failing in performing
23 their mission that was envisaged by the Vance's plan to protect the entire
24 population in those territories from attacks and from the terror?
25 A. This is all part of what was an ongoing conflict and certainly all
1 those things mentioned took place. I think we have to reflect on what
2 happened within the UNPAs as well, and that has to be taken into
3 consideration. So it was a very tumultuous time. And that was the
4 environment that those of us who were there had to work with.
5 I suppose I would say as well that it goes back to the -- the
6 police or the -- in the area with responsibility had to show leadership
7 and strength to manage that conflict and to gain the confidence of those
8 within. And I think that ongoing conflict, one was sparking the other,
9 and I suppose it is very hard to put a balance to it, and I think this is
10 where our role came into play and indeed the local police role came into
11 play was stabilising the UNPAs and trying to gain the confidence of the
12 community within it. And, you know, I said earlier that if that had
13 happened, that perhaps a lot of the other things would not have happened,
14 but again hindsight is a great thing. So that was the environment of the
15 day, and I have no doubt it impacted on everybody.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, your last question, that was?
17 And we wish to thank you.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
19 indeed finished my cross-examination. I would like to thank
20 Mr. McElligott. The cross-examination was rather long. A lot of it had
21 to be read, but that was the nature of the matter. I would like to thank
22 the witness.
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
24 Now, Ms. Valabhji, do you have any re-examination or redirect, as
25 you call it.
1 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, I do, Your Honours. I have a few questions.
2 Before I commence, I was just wondering if my learned colleague
3 intended to seek the admission of R0426642? I don't think it's in
4 evidence yet.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What is your position, Mr. Milovancevic?
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm grateful to my learned
7 friend for reminding me. Your Honour, the Defence has offered several
8 documents for admission during the last session. I would like them to be
9 admitted as Defence exhibits. The last document was 1D0042.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No, 43.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Before that, we had 1D0042. I
12 thought that it was admitted but it hasn't been admitted. This document
13 is the one that has been interpreted by the witness and was relative to
14 the UNCIVPOL police stations that had been evacuated in several places. I
15 hope you remember the document. I may be a bit belated with the admission
16 of this document. Please, I would like to apologise for thinking that the
17 document has already been admitted. I was wrong. So can I seek its
18 admission now?
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: The document is duly admitted. Could an exhibit
20 number be assigned to it in those circumstances, Madam Registrar?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I would also like to seek
22 admission of the next document.
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You're not asking for them to be admitted
24 together? Because the registrar hasn't done that which is necessary as
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, Exhibit number 742 will be assigned
2 to 1D0043. 743 will be given to 1D0042.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Let me
4 just look. If you could just bear with me.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Sorry, could we do it step by step? You asked for
6 admission of 1D0042, and so this was admitted and we asked for an exhibit
7 number, only for this one. Final digits 42.
8 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit number is 00743.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And what is 742?
10 THE REGISTRAR: 742 is assigned to 1D0043.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Was that already asked for --
12 THE REGISTRAR: 43 is given to 1D0042.
13 Can I just repeat? Exhibit number 742 is assigned to the document
14 1D0043. Exhibit number 743 is assigned to the document 1D0042.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one more
16 thing. The last document that --
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You had not in fact made your application in
18 respect of 43 as yet.
19 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And for another document as
20 well. In order to avoid any confusion, I would like to seek admission of
21 1043 and 1D0032. That was relative to the Medak pocket. I failed to do
22 that, and those are the three documents that I seek admission of, and I
23 apologise for the misunderstanding that I may be creating.
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: May I ask the first of the two, when was this
25 discussed? 0043.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think what has taken place is -- what had
2 taken place is that I had mentioned that there was 0043 when he had
3 specifically mentioned 0042. And he was in fact referring to the first
4 one, and the registrar, I think, ran a little bit ahead of him and
5 assigned for 43 when he had not had formally his application before the
6 Trial Chamber. So having now placed his application before the Trial
7 Chamber, what I will do is ask for an exhibit number to be assigned to it.
8 Can we confirm the exhibit number assigned in it's duly accepted
9 as an exhibit and we confirm the exhibit number assigned in respect of 43.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: The registrar has explained that there is a
12 formal application before the Trial Chamber.
13 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
14 MS. VALABHJI: Sorry, Your Honours, I just want to double-check
15 whether 43 has been discussed in the direct -- in the cross-examination.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. I believe that it was.
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It was discussed?
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: It was not discussed or do you mean if he
19 cross-examined in respect of it?
20 MS. VALABHJI: If he cross-examined.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: My recollection is that he did, but could we
22 check the record to ensure whether or not this is so?
23 MS. VALABHJI: Yes.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: We are running a little bit beyond the
25 adjournment period. I ask for the indulgence of the interpreters and all
1 officers of the court concerned, if we just get past this hurdle.
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm advised that it's at page 47, line 23 of the
4 transcript, when the cross-examination in relation to this particular
5 exhibit was placed on the record.
6 MS. VALABHJI: I think -- I wonder if the ERN might be mentioned
7 here so that maybe it's easier. I'm still not sure if 43 was discussed at
8 that point in the transcript or if we were still on 42.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Ms. Valabhji, Mr. Milovancevic, as it appears
10 that the witness will have to return anyway, I'm going to propose that we
11 take the adjournment now. We enquire into what has taken place in terms
12 of the record in relation to this exhibit, and when we return at quarter
13 to 6.00 then we can deal with it and ascertain properly what the position
14 is and then take steps to either have it on the record as an exhibit or
15 not, depending on what the record reveals.
16 So could we take our adjournment now and return at quarter
17 to 6.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 5.53 p.m.
20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, Mr. Milovancevic. I believe the record has
21 now been checked. The transcript, that is. And the position ascertained
22 in relation to the three documents, and in relation to Exhibit 1D0043, I
23 was mistaken in the belief that it -- you were allowed to cross-examine on
24 it. It was rejected on the grounds of relevance, I believe. And do you
25 have anything to say in respect of the documents that you're putting
1 forward now, having had the opportunity to see the record and the
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I lent to the
4 situation by my omission to tender documents on time. The document that
5 should be admitted into evidence is 042, and 032, which is the document
6 referring to Medak pocket.
7 As for 043, we opened the document but the questions were not
8 allowed, and that is why we will not tender it into evidence. But I do
9 move that the other two documents be admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think effectively one has already been
11 admitted, and that is 1D0042. The Trial Chamber admitted that document
12 and asked for an exhibit number to be assigned, and an exhibit number was
13 assigned, which the registrar will confirm.
14 Please confirm again for the record.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The exhibit number is 743.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: We are very grateful to you. And then now in
17 respect of this other one, which is 003 -- 0032. And you were asking for
18 that one to be admitted also? Duly admitted by the Trial Chamber. Could
19 an exhibit number be assigned?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. There the exhibit number will
21 be 742.
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you. Would that effectively dispose of
23 the matter of the exhibits, Mr. Milovancevic, and I believe we can now ask
24 Ms. Valabhji to re-examine, if any.
25 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour. Just a brief
1 re-examination on two topics. Could 65 ter 333 please be displayed. This
2 is admitted Exhibit 731.
3 Could we just look at the paragraph under the heading "general
4 overview"? And please scroll up so that we can see the title of the
5 document. Great.
6 Re-examination by Ms. Valabhji:
7 Q. Sir, you were asked a number of questions about this document by
8 the Defence. I will ask you one question about it right now. And that
9 is --
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Sorry, please go ahead.
11 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. This paragraph of the document refers to a stalemate and to both
13 sides hardening their positions. It's not necessary to read allowed the
14 whole paragraph. We can see it before us.
15 My question is: Did this situation of stalemate and both sides
16 hardening their positions, did that reflect the situation that you
17 encountered when you arrived at CIVPOL in October 1992?
18 A. Yes. There was a stalemate, and indeed I remember on days talking
19 with the commissioner and expressing -- we expressed the view that if we
20 could just make one person happy today or help one person today we would
21 have achieved something, and I think it had got to absolutely going
23 Q. Thank you, Witness.
24 And my second topic is -- well, could 65 ter 349 please be
25 displayed. Thank you.
1 Sir, you were asked in cross-examination a number of questions
2 pertaining to an end of month report from CIVPOL Sector South pertaining
3 to July 1993, and with regard to this document, I'd like to ask you, in
4 brief, what is it about?
5 A. Could you narrow it slightly, please?
6 Q. Could it please be --
7 A. It is a report from Commissioner Michael O'Reilly, and at the
8 top -- a little bit please, little further, to just to get to --
9 addressed to Mr. Thornberry, and it's dated the 14th of August, 1993, and
10 the subject is attack on Croatian minorities in the Sector South.
11 Q. Okay. Could we turn to page 5 of the document, which is the last
12 page? And could you read aloud the third sentence which commences
13 "cooperation from the..." until end of this paragraph, please.
14 A. "Cooperation from the local Milicija has waned" --
15 "Cooperation from the local Milicija has waned over the past week
16 and with the increased shelling prior to the 18th of the 7th, 1993, a few
17 contacts were possible. Since 18/7/1993, contact with the Milicija has
18 decreased notably. We continue to request meetings with their
19 representatives but are told that the people are busy or away performing
20 other duties. I am attempting to contact the minister for the interior
21 here in Knin to raise these issues with him. And I am hopeful that more
22 beneficial contacts will resume."
23 And that is from one of the investigating officers in Sector
24 South, Steve Marissink.
25 Q. Thank you, sir.
1 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honours, could this document please be
2 admitted into evidence?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is duly admitted. Could an exhibit
4 number be assigned?
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be 744.
6 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you. I have no further questions.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well.
9 Judge Hoepfel, do you have any questions to ask of the witness?
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, no questions.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I have just a couple of questions that I'd like
12 to pose to the witness.
13 Could you tell the Trial Chamber what exactly was UNCIVPOL
14 supposed to do in protecting the UNPAs, what was their real role?
15 A. Our role was one of monitoring the activities of the local police
16 and that was the central role that we did have.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Now, I'd like to ask you something following on
18 from that. Now, having received a report and then forwarding the report
19 to the Milicija, if you did not get a response and say in the case of
20 Mr. Martic, when you made the contents of a report known to him and asked
21 for his response in the matter, having not got a response, under those
22 circumstances, was there UN protocol or a CIVPOL protocol as to how that
23 lack of response should be dealt with by CIVPOL?
24 A. CIVPOL reported to civil affairs, and the protests were, in
25 general, made through civil affairs. They dealt with what would be the
1 political element of the mission. So generally you will see a report or a
2 protest made through Mr. Thornberry and followed through would come at
3 that level, at political level.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. So what I'd like to find out, what the
5 Trial Chamber would like to find out, at that level, from your knowledge
6 what system was in place to address coming up against a lack of response.
7 A. I understand that these matters would be raised at other levels in
8 the mission, at -- again, the force commander, when he was head of the
9 mission, would pursue matters at other levels, so that if there was no
10 response coming, we felt that there was no response, but the matter would
11 be raised at other levels in the system, so I would feel that there was
12 always pursuit, perhaps to the highest level.
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: And who would that highest level be?
14 A. It would be -- well, I think at one stage we ended up with the
15 Secretary-General's representative in the mission, and I expected that the
16 protests would go through at, let's put it, UN level.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
18 And my next question, it's in relation to the Vance Plan and the
19 extract which we saw. Now, what I want to know from you is there a full
20 record or full copy of the Vance Plan, or a copy of the full Vance Plan is
21 really the correct description.
22 A. There was a document available, yes, I remember there being one
23 available to us at the time.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Did you have that copy of the full Vance Plan?
25 Do you have a copy?
1 A. I don't have a copy now, no. But there was one available to us.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
3 A. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Would learned counsel for either the OTP or the
5 Defence have any questions arising out of the questions from the Trial
7 MS. VALABHJI: Nothing from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: From Mr. Milovancevic?
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour. I
10 don't have any questions.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. McElligott, I want to thank you for coming.
12 The Trial Chamber is very grateful to you for your patience and that is
13 the end of your evidence. You'll be pleased to hear that we will say
14 goodbye to you now. Thank you very much.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you for having me.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Ms. Valabhji, do you have an application to make
18 to me now, I suppose, as is customary?
19 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, Your Honour, that's right. May I be excused?
20 Ms. Richterova will be handling the next witness.
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I will consult with the other member of the
22 Trial Chamber to see if we can excuse you. Please excuse us.
23 The answer is in the affirmative, Ms. Valabhji.
24 MS. VALABHJI: I'm most grateful, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You're very welcome.
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I appreciate how you recognised the
2 tight rein that I hold over other counsel.
3 Your Honour, the next witness will be handled by Ms. Valabhji, and
4 if that witness could be called.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Ms. Richterova?
6 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, Ms. Richterova. The witness is Charles
8 While the witness is being brought in and Ms. Richterova is
9 changing her seat, I'm wondering if I could raise a matter with respect to
10 the length of cross-examinations of witnesses? Just very briefly. I know
11 it's been raised at specific instances during cross-examinations. I'd
12 like to address it in a broader sense. And we are extremely concerned
13 about this pattern of extremely long and overlong and unjustifiably long
14 cross-examinations. The last -- I've just reviewed the last five or six
15 witnesses, and the cross-examinations in all those cases have far exceeded
16 the direct examinations of the witnesses. In this last case, the witness
17 was examined in direct for two sessions, under two sessions. He was
18 cross-examined for five sessions.
19 Now, if the -- if there were -- if there was a reason for such a
20 lengthy cross-examination, then that would be fine, and the Defence is
21 entitled to have the time that is required to make his defence. However,
22 in our submission, that has -- that's been far from the case. The
23 cross-examinations have been unduly long for a variety of reasons, all of
24 which I think have been recognised by the Court, excessively long
25 questions which contain summary of positions, summary of documents, and
1 argument. Secondly, a number of irrelevant questions, which go far beyond
2 the proper scope of cross-examination and go into matters which are not
3 relevant to the charges. Third, reading documents into the record. And
4 also going over documents that are already in evidence and simply making
5 argument about them, using the cross-examination to simply argue to the
6 Court or to the witness about documents or matters that are already in the
7 record, and it's unnecessary. That can be done in final submissions.
8 In our submission, this -- I mean, we are paid to do this job
9 whether we are sitting in court, whatever. It's not a huge burden on the
10 lawyers to sit. However, it is an enormous burden on the system and on
11 the pace of this trial. It's prolonging the length of this trial, to the
12 point where it almost seems like a deliberate strategy to prolong the
13 length of the trial. And perhaps that's going too far, but it's getting
14 to that point where we are beginning to feel that way.
15 But that's not the most important thing. This is -- it's very
16 difficult to schedule witnesses. We've had witnesses sitting here waiting
17 to testify for a very long time. It's enormously inconvenient to them.
18 It's also, I would submit, unfair to the witnesses who are being
19 cross-examined for that length of time and in that manner, with
20 repetitive, lengthy sometimes very general questions. And it's just
21 making it very difficult to run this trial.
22 We would ask for two -- that this be addressed in two ways by the
23 Trial Chamber. First, we would ask that the Trial Chamber's guideline
24 about the length of cross-examination be specifically enforced in the
25 following manner: That at the beginning of the cross-examination, the
1 Defence -- the Defence counsel either agree -- he either agrees that the
2 cross-examination will not exceed the length of the direct examination, or
3 makes an application at that time to the Trial Chamber for a longer period
4 of time for cross-examination and explains why that is necessary in that
5 particular case. And then it will -- and then it is then decided how much
6 longer time will be granted.
7 The -- Defence counsel has in the previous -- with the previous
8 witness suggested that the number of documents that the witness introduced
9 was a justification for a longer cross-examination. I would respectfully
10 disagree. The documents are in evidence, and I would submit that many of
11 the cross-examination questions were merely argument about the documents
12 and no real information was elicited about the documents which were
13 already in evidence, so I think that was unnecessary.
14 So we would ask that that procedure be followed to try to get
15 control over this process and to allow us to be able to plan more
16 effectively how long things are going to take, so that we do not have
17 witnesses waiting here unnecessarily.
18 Secondly, I would ask the Court this week, so that we may be able
19 to catch up a little bit, to consider sitting some extra time on Friday in
20 the morning. I've raised this with the Defence counsel, and for a variety
21 of reasons Defence counsel opposes this request. However, when I raised
22 it, I think I raised it in the context of sitting the entire day on
23 Friday, the full morning and the full afternoon. Perhaps we could
24 consider not sitting the entire day but perhaps sitting an extra session
25 in the morning, so that, as I said, we may be able to start to catch up a
1 little bit because we are falling behind here or our witnesses, and now we
2 have witnesses waiting for days to testify.
3 Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Whiting, without pre-empting what the ruling
5 would be in relation to this, or a decision, would there be an available
6 courtroom for the extra hours, or is -- am I thinking prematurely in
7 asking to you respond?
8 MR. WHITING: No, Your Honour. I actually checked that before
9 making the request. There is --
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: What was your discovery?
11 MR. WHITING: There is a courtroom available, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Having regard -- well, I will have to let
13 Mr. Milovancevic respond to your submissions here.
14 So Mr. Milovancevic, could the Trial Chamber hear from you in
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this case, we
17 have been dealing with the period covering five years, and large areas of
18 the former Yugoslavia, the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina,
19 the operation of the United Nations and the operation of internal factors,
20 military, political and police. The number of participants is large. The
21 numbers of victims are large. The last witness, I will give you a general
22 remark with reference to the specific witness, this particular witness was
23 used by the OTP to tender large numbers of documents, large amounts of
24 documents, by simply putting documents to witnesses -- to the witness and
25 asking him whether he was familiar with them. The Defence had to point to
1 the contents of some of these documents in dealing with this witness. To
2 claim that this is a deliberate policy when the accused Martic has been
3 sitting in the detention unit for four years, in our opinion is quite
4 improper and something that we did not expect to hear from the
6 As far as the suggestion that the Defence should speak their mind
7 in advance as to the length of the cross-examination is concerned, that is
8 very well. However, I have to say right at the outset that not all the
9 witnesses are equally significant, nor are all expert witnesses equal in
10 terms of the weight to be accorded to their testimony.
11 I will remind this Honourable Trial Chamber, to Mr. Grujic and
12 Mr. Strinovic -- or, rather, Professor Strinovic, who came here as an
13 expert, a professionist, and we had only several questions to put to him,
14 unlike Mr. Grujic. I believe that the Trial Chamber will pass down a
15 ruling on that matter, and I don't want to dwell on that any further.
16 Now, as for the sitting on Friday morning, I believe that we will
17 be able to come to an understanding. Of course, it depends on whether
18 there is a courtroom available. However, every extra session of work
19 requires our preparation in advance. We have been working here for
20 several months very -- under very hard circumstances, and we believe that
21 any additional sitting would prove to be quite taxing for the Defence,
22 also for the Prosecution, the Trial Chamber, and, of course, last but not
23 least for the witness himself.
24 I am quite opposed to the suggestion that the proceedings, as
25 lengthy as they are already, be further extended. I believe that our
1 working week is quite taxing on us and -- as it is, and I believe that we
2 should be quite refreshed and relaxed when coming to appear in court.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Please don't take your seat as yet. I am very
5 grateful for your concern for the Trial Chamber and our comfort, but other
6 than that concern, do you have any concerns in respect of any potential
7 for prejudice or unfairness to your client? Because that's what I would
8 be more interested in. That's what the Trial Chamber would be more
9 interested in, in the circumstances of the submissions made by
10 Mr. Whiting.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for
12 raising this issue. I believed it unnecessary to touch upon that but, of
13 course, the health of Mr. Martic continues as it was in the past days.
14 Every day he spends in the courtroom means that at the end of the day he
15 has to spend at least a half an hour in the cell here, which is quite cold
16 and uncomfortable.
17 On several occasions, it so happened that he had to spend even
18 more time in this cell when we were having frequent adjournments or
19 discussing some matters. This is also something that has to be borne in
20 mind. Of course, in addition to this, Mr. Martic has to prepare himself
21 for every day in the courtroom and provide instructions to us. Such a
22 course of proceeding would constitute a realistic problem for him as well.
23 And we are grateful to the Trial Chamber for appreciating this.
24 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
25 We crave your indulgence for a consultation.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm most grateful to learned counsel for the OTP
3 and learned counsel for the Defence for their respective submissions. The
4 Trial Chamber will defer the matter of a ruling until sometime tomorrow.
5 I would like to say further that notwithstanding the submission
6 made by learned counsel Mr. Whiting, I had intended to give a caution in a
7 more even-handed manner to both counsel for the OTP and counsel for the
8 Defence to try to remember the guidelines, because I think there is a duty
9 on both sides.
10 So before going into the evidence and calling the witness, I would
11 ask that the OTP equally and the Defence be reminded of the business of
12 this Court, the rules of fairness and expeditious trial, and that both
13 sides take steps to ensure that they stay within the guidelines and that
14 there are no infractions.
15 So having said that, I believe we could safely call the next
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: The Prosecution calls Charles Kirudja.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Kirudja, we are going to ask you to take
20 your declaration now, please, before the giving of your evidence. Please
21 go ahead.
22 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
23 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: CHARLES KIRUDJA
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You may sit. Please feel very relaxed and at
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: May I start, Your Honours?
3 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm sorry, Ms. Richterova, please do proceed.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you.
5 Examination by Ms. Richterova:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kirudja. Before we start, I have to apologise
7 that we kept you waiting for such a long time.
8 Could you please state your full name?
9 A. My name is Charles Kirudja.
10 Q. Mr. Kirudja, before I deal with the background information, just
11 one procedural matter. We both speak the same language, and we should
12 both keep in mind to keep pause between a question and answer. I'm pretty
13 sure we will forget but we should try our best.
14 I'm now going to go through some background information and
15 quickly lead you through. You were born on 20th of April, 1946. You
16 received your bachelor degree from the University of Nairobi in Kenya;
17 you received masters degree in business administration from the York
18 University in Toronto, Canada; and doctorate from the University of
19 Western Ontario in Canada. Is it correct?
20 A. Yes, this is correct.
21 Q. You started working for the United Nations in 1997. You held
22 various positions related to development, economics and internal UN
23 budgetary and management matters, and finally you were also involved in
24 peacekeeping operations. In 1988, you were assigned to the UN
25 Humanitarian Assistance Mission in Afghanistan as the chief of finance and
1 administration. Between April 1992 and June 1995, you were assigned with
2 the UN mission in the former Yugoslavia. And finally, as of 2005, you
3 have been posted in the UN mission in Darfur as the head of the office.
4 Is that all correct?
5 A. Yes. That is correct.
6 Q. Now, I would like to focus on your time in the former Yugoslavia.
7 Can you just briefly tell us different locations you were stationed at --
8 during the time you were in the former Yugoslavia?
9 A. I arrived in the former Yugoslavia in April of 1992, in Belgrade.
10 I was there for a couple of days, mainly to familiarise with the head of
11 the mission, and I was asked to proceed from Belgrade through what was
12 then known as Sector East, to Osijek in Zagreb, and then from there I went
13 to Sector West, and then from there, I was asked to proceed to Topusko
14 which was the headquarters of what was then known as Sector North.
15 From there, I was there for about two years. I was also
16 temporarily asked to take up a different assignment at the headquarters in
17 Zagreb of the civilian Chief of Staff. After about ten months or so, I
18 was posted to the head -- to Belgrade, where I headed that office until
19 June 1995.
20 Q. Mr. Kirudja, you mentioned that you spent about two years in the
21 Sector North. The Sector North, was it then one of four designated areas
22 so designated by the Vance Plan?
23 A. Yes. They were all known as UNPA, which stands for United Nations
24 Protected Areas, and it was one of the four of those United Nations
25 Protected Areas.
1 Q. I would like to show the witness 65 ter Exhibit 929.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: And, Your Honours, it's a map, and the format
3 is A-3 so if -- I would distribute the hard copy to assist Your Honours
4 and Defence counsel, and, of course, the witness.
5 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well. Is it on e-court at all?
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is also on e-court but it will be very small
7 on the e-court, so it would be easier to place it on the ELMO.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: This map is taken from the concise map which is
10 already in the exhibit. However, it was marked by the witness and also
11 signed by the witness.
12 Q. Can you -- can you tell the Judges what you highlighted on this
14 A. Yes. On this map, I traced approximately what was the boundaries
15 of what I described earlier as the United Nations protected area also
16 known as Sector North.
17 The tracing shows two things, or three things, that I might want
18 to draw Your Honours to. On this map, you will see -- I'm going to start
19 here, going to the counter-clockwise. This tracing of what was
20 approximately the border of the sector is also a representative of what
21 you might call the line of conflict after the parties laid down their arms
22 and it became the border between the sector on this side, which was
23 predominantly occupied by Serbs, and the other part which represented the
24 rest of Croatia, and this is different from this part of the border, which
25 I'm tracing now, which represented a true boundary as it existed between
1 the six republics that formed the former Yugoslavia. In other words, this
2 is a boundary as it was.
3 It also -- I wanted to highlight two points. It was an
4 internationally recognised border, but between approximately from here,
5 you can see Bosanska Dubica, and all the way somewhere up to here, this
6 part of the border was nominally a border because the responsible people
7 on both sides of the border were Serbs, and they crossed this border
8 easily and without any hindrance from each other.
9 On this part of the border, it represented a different reality
10 because the people in this part of this part of the map that I'm tracing
11 were the Muslims who lived in this area we nominally got to calling the
12 Bihac pocket. The Serbs called Cazinska Krajina and we simply called it
13 the Bihac pocket. This was a hard border in that sense because, on this
14 side, there were Muslims and on this side there were the Serbs. The
15 little X on this map also shows where our headquarters was.
16 This is what I roughly wanted to highlight on this map.
17 Q. Thank you. It was a very exhaustive answer. I just for the
18 record, when you said, first, that it was an internationally recognised
19 border, between which countries? On one side it was, and on the other
20 side it was?
21 A. On this side of this border, all of this side was what was then
22 Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the six republics of the former
23 Yugoslavia. The rest of this inside this, all of this, was what was then
24 Croatia, and it is Croatia today's day [sic]. But this line of
25 confrontation separated this part from the rest of Croatia.
1 Q. Thank you. And another thing which I would like to clarify just
2 for the record is that certain part of the border, or on both sides of
3 certain part of this border lived Serbs, and you started from
4 Bosanska Dubica. Can you tell until where you indicated was this border
5 open to both Serb sides?
6 A. Yes. You come up to Dvor, Dvor Na Uni. That is the border of the
7 opstina known as Dvor. And the border of Dvor would come all the way and
8 get to -- come closer to the border of Velika Kladusa. That's where the
9 porosity of the border stops. And I can't pinpoint here exactly where
10 that point is. It has to be somewhere here. I can't really show it on
11 this map exactly where that is, but conceptually the border of Dvor
12 opstina would go all the way to the border of Velika Kladusa opstina and
13 there is where the porosity of the border stopped. It became a hard
14 border because the Muslims controlled the opstina of Velika Kladusa and
15 Bihac and Cazinska. And those -- it's a long time. All these names I
16 could be wrong about a few facts about what I have said on those -- which
17 opstina is contiguous to what.
18 Q. Thank you. You were very clear on this. And you already
19 indicated that the cross is the location of the headquarters in
20 Sector North?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the name of that town was Topusko?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you tell us what was your title when you were in Sector North?
25 A. When we went in there, it simply developed from simply civil --
1 chief, civil affairs coordinator, to simply -- it was later simplified to
2 civil affairs coordinator, CAC. So some of the document will show CAC,
3 which was for the most of the time when the title stabilised. Earlier,
4 you might have seen some document saying CCA at the very beginning between
5 April and May which stood or chief, civil affairs officer.
6 Q. Yes. We will see this in documents which I mean to show you. But
7 go back to the Sector North. What was your primary responsibility in
8 Sector North?
9 A. The sector, each of the four sectors, the responsibility for
10 conducting the UN business in that sector was evenly split between the
11 sector commander, who was a military officer, and the civilian head of
12 that sector, which was my responsibility. The business of the UN in that
13 sector was summarised by a document we referred to as the Vance Plan, and
14 that is referenced often in some of the documents that you have. That
15 document summarised our business in that sector.
16 Q. So was your primary responsibility the implementation of this
17 Vance Plan in that area?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. We have heard about the Vance Plan, but can you please remind us
20 briefly the paramount features of the Vance Plan? The main components of
21 this Vance Plan?
22 A. The Vance Plan was the agreement the late Cyrus Vance had
23 concluded with the parties in the former Yugoslavia at a certain point
24 before we arrived there outlining what it is that they -- I mean, the
25 Serbs, the Croats -- the Serbs and the Croats were in conflict in that
1 area, what it is they had agreed. The Vance Plan, as I say, was concluded
2 some months before the Security Council resolution that put it into
3 effect, allowed us to come in, and when we arrived -- I will simplify what
4 basically the plan requested us to do.
5 The plan, in the first and foremost intention, was to allow the
6 parties to demobilise and lay down their arms, put their weapons in
7 storage under United Nations custody, what was known as double-key
8 custody, the process of demobilising and bringing these combatants to
9 neutral. The concept was there was a recognition that there would be a
10 political problem that led to the fighting in the first place, but the
11 mission itself was designed so that the responsibility for finding a
12 lasting solution was placed elsewhere, outside the mission, and that
13 mission was specific, UNPROFOR, and different from missions before and
14 missions after, in that it was headed by a military officer. The head of
15 the mission was the force commander, Mr. Nambiar.
16 The reason that I emphasise this is because there was a
17 recognition of the political problem that was there would not be solved in
18 the mission. It was left under something parallel to the mission that was
19 known as the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia. That was
20 conducted and run from Geneva. Therefore, our job was, you get these
21 combatants and these people in conflict to lay down their arms, first and
22 foremost. Secondly, Vance Plan outlined the areas that were supposed to
23 be in conflict and named them as opstinas in an annex.
24 Those opstinas which in Sector North were in this area, there was
25 the opstina of Slunj and --
1 Q. I'm sorry, I'm really sorry to interrupt you. Maybe it would be
2 helpful, because we in fact have this Vance Plan, and when you start
3 talking about opstinas, maybe you would like to consult the Vance Plan.
4 It is -- it is 65 ter number 917, and it has been exhibited under 115, if
5 we can display it.
6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Exhibit 115?
7 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, it was court Exhibit 115.
8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Very well.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA:
10 Q. And from here, if we can go to page 5, the ERN number, yes, and
11 down we can see Krajina on the right, there are names of the opstinas. We
12 could highlight it.
13 So I'm sorry to -- that I interrupted you. So you were talking
14 about opstinas which were named in the Vance Plan, and what Vance Plan
15 meant with these opstinas.
16 A. Thank you. I think you are helpful. I don't think you
17 interrupted me. You helped me rather than me named these from my head.
18 As I began to say, he had named those opstinas as those which
19 would comprise the area the UN was supposed to go into. As you will see,
20 in Krajina, you see there is Kostajnica, Petrinja, Dvor, Glina,
21 Vrginmost --
22 Q. And now if we could go to page 6, there is a continuation.
23 A. You see Vojnic, you see Slunj, and Titova Korenica. I'll stop
24 there and, if you don't mind, show you that our sector stopped just below
25 Slunj, and the split part of that, Titova Korenica and the Sector South.
1 So the boundary I didn't mark on the map because it's a little lower on
2 the map that you had showed on the screen.
3 So these were the opstinas that were named in the Vance Plan.
4 Our -- he also proceeded to outline how day-to-day life would proceed
5 within those opstinas when they came under the UN protection.
6 The authority recognised in the Vance Plan was in each opstina the
7 authority of the mayor and his chief of police. Each opstina had such an
8 authority, under chief of police. There wasn't to be an overarching
9 government beyond each of the opstinas. And our job was secondly to work
10 with the authorities in each opstina, one, to return normalcy, what was
11 expected would be a normal situation, within each opstina, have a balance
12 of police that would represent the community, both Croats and Serbs, and
13 achieve what was expected to be a normal situation such that those people
14 who had been forced to flee from those sectors would return voluntarily.
15 That also was our mandate; voluntary return of those internally displaced
16 people or, if they left the country altogether, refugees. And to go with
17 that, we also had a humanitarian assistance responsibility, since economic
18 life had broken down as a result of the fighting, and therefore provision
19 of humanitarian assistance was also a responsibility for us.
20 But before all of that could start, demobilisation and exclusion
21 of weapons from all of that area was a primary task, and it occupied us
22 extremely early and went on for months before we could get to the other
23 part of the Vance Plan.
24 Q. Thank you. I think you very clearly explained the major features
25 of this Vance Plan.
1 I would like to ask you: When you arrived to Sector North, it was
2 approximately in April 1992, what was the situation there? Was the plan
3 already going on?
4 A. No. When we arrived, the parties were still -- there were still
5 remnants of conflict. Indeed, there were parties in the fox-holes.
6 Q. Can you explain? What do you mean by "fox-holes"?
7 A. In there -- when militaries fight, they do define necessarily by
8 military fiat an area of exclusion from each other where they establish a
9 line of confrontation where they stay on their side in holes dug for
10 defensive purposes, usually with mines in front of them, to preclude the
11 other party from surprise attacks. So when we arrived, there were people
12 still in position. There were tanks still smouldering when we arrived.
13 Q. So the process, you arrived there, and the process -- you arrived
14 there to start the process. Is it correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So can you tell us what -- what was your responsibility? What did
17 you do to implement it?
18 A. The first thing is to -- as usual in UN keeping missions is to get
19 ourselves established, get our assets in place, meaning getting our
20 military people, our contingents, and in this UNPA, our assets were mainly
21 battalions or contributed member states that were to take positions when
22 the combatants were demobilised. We also had civilian police, whom you
23 call civil police.
24 Q. Is it -- I'm sorry again to interrupt just to make clear that
25 the -- we are talking the same thing, the civilian police, does it -- does
1 CIVPOL stands for civilian police?
2 A. Correct. These were a major component of the people we needed in
3 place so that we can get on with the job, and last but not least, we
4 needed civil affairs and other humanitarian assistant civilians to join
5 the mission.
6 So on arrival, the first order of our business was I spent most of
7 the time with the sector commander on military matters, leading to getting
8 the combatants pull out from their front lines eventually.
9 Q. Before we go any further, can you tell us little bit more about
10 the staff you had, the number of people working for you?
11 A. There wasn't a very large number of civilian staff and they were
12 slow in getting there. Understandably. You don't get civilians ahead of
13 military or police. The area is mined, there were few places you could
14 stay, so it took longer to get our civilian component. And when everybody
15 was there, I had more or less a dozen of civilians, but we also -- and
16 when I say "civilians," I'm not counting the police, who were also part of
17 our mandate. We had plenty of police, civilian police.
18 We had three battalions covering the sector. In the -- in the
19 Kostajnica and Dvor area, the Danish battalion covered that area. In the
20 Glina and Petrinja area, the Nigerian battalion covered that area. In the
21 Slunj and the -- part of south of Slunj all the way to Plaski near Titova
22 Korenica, we had the Polish battalion.
23 Q. Also, is it true that representatives of ICRC, ECMM and UNHCR
24 worked in the area of Sector North or in other sectors?
25 A. Yes. The European monitors preceded us. They were on the ground
1 when we arrived. There were plenty of European monitors on the ground
2 when we arrived. ICRC was in other parts, including Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina. UNHCR wasn't there, and because of their importance, it took
4 me a couple months going back and forth in Zagreb to get the deployment of
5 UNHCR into our headquarters, to -- if you recall, I mentioned earlier the
6 issue of humanitarian assistance was of primary importance, and
7 humanitarian assistance, the conduit for that is the UNHCR, and not having
8 their representative on my office would have been a major deficit. So it
9 took some months for me to get the two of them located in my office.
10 Q. You also mentioned that you had to introduce yourself, get
11 familiar. When you arrived, who did you meet, and let's start with the
12 Serbian side?
13 A. Obviously, on the first day on my arrival, I did an internal
14 rendezvous with the military command and the civil police command. But
15 because the task on hand was to get the combatants to demobilise, it
16 became immediately important that I establish contact with
17 representatives, both on the military side and on the -- what we call and
18 refer to in the document, the Milicija, which is simply a term for -- in
19 Serbian for civilian police of their own, the local police. And in a
20 military police situation like this, the first order of business is to
21 look for a liaison to the command, and there were -- there was a
22 structured command.
23 So the first meeting we had was with the liaisons as well as late,
24 immediately within a week, with the commanders of this area.
25 Q. When you -- let's start with this liaison. Do you remember his
2 A. Yes. The first person -- actually, I didn't even have to look for
3 him, he kind of looked for me, because he seemed to be kind of anxious to
4 introduce himself and his service. His name was Slobodan Lazarevic.
5 Q. And did he introduce you to somebody else?
6 A. Yes. I don't know within how short a period but it's fairly short
7 period, maybe within a week or two, he had introduced me to first to whom
8 he said was the commissioner of police, who was based in Vojnic, and he
9 introduced his name, not the person.
10 Q. And do you remember the name he introduced you -- or I'm sorry, I
11 didn't phrase it correctly. What was the name he said?
12 A. He told me that if I wanted anything that had to do with the
13 police, I should contact one Toso Paic, spelled P-a-i-c, not the usual
14 Serbian P-a-j-i-c. This was simply Paic.
15 Q. You also mentioned -- we will go on with this a little bit later.
16 You also mentioned that you met a commander. Who do you refer to?
17 A. This one I'll preface something. The entire area that I showed
18 you in the map, the entire sector, when we arrived, was under a military
19 command that was actually outside the sector. It was part of the military
20 command known as the 10th Corps. The command was in Bihac. And in the
21 map, it's across the hard border that I described, and it is in -- it was
22 in a place called Bihac. And the commander was a lieutenant general
23 called Nikovic, and we had to start with him first, and then we then go to
24 those areas -- because they had divided the entire sector in operational
25 commands. That Sector North was divided into three operational commands.
1 One of those command was known as Banija, and the commander was in
2 Petrinja. The left side of that map was Kordun, and the commander was
3 somewhere very near Topusko, and it has three offices somewhere, and his
4 name was Cedo Bulat. And we had a third command, which is southern part
5 covering Slunj and Plaski -- not Slunj, Plaski and a little bit below, and
6 that was a command that was actually outside my sector. It was in
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. And it was Lika command. And that I proceeded to identify each of
10 these commands and -- on both sides of the border and did the same on the
11 Croatian side and spent a harrowing several months with meetings with all
12 of them, both sides of the conflict.
13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Kirudja, unfortunately, we reach 7.00, which means
14 the end of the session for today. So we will continue tomorrow with the
15 line of questions.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. Please return tomorrow at 2.15 to continue
17 your evidence.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, ma'am.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You're welcome.
20 There is still some business to be dealt with by the Trial Chamber
21 when the witness is gone. So please remain seated.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I just would like to place on the record that
24 during the interim period, I have received word from the Registry in
25 respect of one of the matters affecting the ruling that is to be given;
1 that is, whether possibly we could proceed by way of extra sittings, not
2 to pre-empt any ruling whatsoever in the matter. And I have received word
3 from the Registry that the other courtrooms would not be available,
4 neither this courtroom, for hearing on Friday. So on Friday morning, my
5 understanding is, and I have here the documents that show the sittings,
6 which would show that all the courtrooms would be taken and in use on
7 Friday morning.
8 MR. WHITING: Your Honour.
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
10 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I apologise. I had -- this
11 must have changed recently because I checked it -- oh, I see what's
12 happened is -- I thought Courtroom III was available but I see it's been
14 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes.
15 MR. WHITING: And that's recent. So I apologise for the
16 misinformation I provided.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I understood that it was given in good faith,
18 but it appears that in the interim there was use made of it, intended use
19 put down for it. So that is the position in relation to that.
20 I think we are now in position -- in a position to close off the
21 session, and this sitting will stand adjourned until tomorrow at 2.15 p.m.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 31st day of May,
24 2006, at 2.15 p.m.