1 Thursday, 12 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If I could remind you once again,

7 Mr. Hvalkof, of the affirmation you took at the beginning of your

8 evidence.

9 Mr. Rodic.

10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

11 WITNESS: PER HVALKOF [Resumed]

12 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]

13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hvalkof. I will continue with my questions.

14 Would you please look at tab 9. This is the last page of the

15 documentation entitled "Reasons for Evacuating the Monitoring Mission from

16 Dubrovnik." Under item 2 can you explain further what it says here: "Both

17 sides are constantly violating the cease-fire."

18 A. Yeah. That was apparently the opinion of the people who wrote

19 this, that that was happening. I didn't read -- I didn't write it. But

20 they're saying so. And if you want me to interpret that, it meant of

21 course when -- as it has been mentioned by the Croats that when there was

22 fighting going on or shelling or what have you, there was fire from both

23 sides, yes. So the people who were defending themselves, the Croats, they

24 would fire back, as they have also mentioned in messages when they felt

25 they were attacked in their way. I'm not saying that that was happening.

1 But when they claimed they were attacked, they would use fire. So the

2 Croats were firing also during this conflict, yes, they were.

3 Q. Would you please respond more briefly to my questions and focus on

4 what I ask. It's quite unnecessary to tell me about the Croats returning

5 fire, because I assume that returning fire should not count as a violation

6 of a cease-fire. Do you understand the violation of a cease-fire to imply

7 that somebody started the firing, opened fire first? Do I understand that

8 correctly?

9 A. Any firing from any side, whether it's a cease-fire, is a break --

10 a breach of the cease-fire.

11 Q. Thank you. Did you have an opportunity to see the reports of your

12 monitors in which they say that the Croats violated the cease-fire, the

13 Croatian army?

14 A. Yes. When firing was going on and it was reported fire from both

15 sides, and that was reported normally daily when it -- when it happened to

16 our ops office. And it was registered there that there was fire in the

17 area from both sides when it happened.

18 Q. Why do you keep saying "both sides," and expanding your reply?

19 I'm asking you specifically about the Croatian side. Could you please be

20 precise and tell me whether you received any such reports; if you did, how

21 many there were, if you can remember. Would you just reply briefly to my

22 question, please.

23 A. Yes, reports were received; I can't remember the number.

24 Q. Thank you. There is also item 2 here in which it says that the

25 ECMM monitors have the impression that they are now among enemies and that

1 they can use this unscrupulously as a shield for their needs. My question

2 is: Did at any time the monitors find themselves on positions of the

3 other side, that is, at JNA positions, or were they always in Dubrovnik?

4 A. They were not always in Dubrovnik.

5 Q. Can you tell me whether a monitor spent the night on the other

6 side on one occasion, and if he did can you tell me who, when, and where?

7 A. No.

8 Q. In item 4 it says that Dubrovnik is exposed to fire from land and

9 sea and that the island of Lokrum, the Belvedere Hotel and all the suburbs

10 have been targeted. Have you heard that there were Croatian military

11 positions there?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Would you please look at tab number 10. Yesterday in answer to my

14 question on page 13 at 945, as to whether, according to the memorandum,

15 all paramilitary and irregular units had to be disarmed and disbanded,

16 including the reserve forces of the Croatian National Guard, the ZNG, and

17 you replied that you did not remember the details of that document. Is

18 this correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Would you please look at the first two sentences in item 2 of this

21 letter in tab 10. In the second sentence of the letter signed by you, you

22 say: "I protest because this is completely contrary to Article 4 of the

23 memorandum of understanding of the 1st of September, 1991."

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So this means that you did read the memorandum?

1 A. And I did know the details at the time.

2 Q. This detail in connection with the paramilitary units in Article 1

3 of the memorandum, have you forgotten it?

4 A. I said I have forgotten the details of the memorandum.

5 Q. Wasn't this detail regulated in Article 1, the main reason why the

6 memorandum was signed in the first place?

7 A. I think I have answered that once.

8 Q. I have to ask you whether you have a selective memory in

9 connection with problems concerning the Croatian side and the paramilitary

10 units there.

11 A. I can answer that I do my best to remember and the papers I have

12 got to support me from 13, 14 years ago is a help to me. And I know what

13 I wrote at that time - I said that yesterday - that was correct.

14 Q. Would you please now look at tab 11. On the 9th of November, you

15 addressed the Main Staff of the JNA in Split. Is this correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And item 1 says you are referring to your previous protest, which

18 you addressed to General Strugar. That's what we saw in tab 10 right now.

19 Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you tell me to whom you addressed this protest from tab 10,

22 the one referring to General Strugar. Did you send it to Split also?

23 A. Yes. We also passed a message, the same, to Split to be sure that

24 it was passed through -- to be absolutely sure that everybody was

25 informed. Because we were not always sure that our means of communication

1 was working the best way.

2 Q. Why didn't you send this to Dubrovnik or to Boka?

3 A. We had already sent -- and this was, to the best of my knowledge,

4 sort of making sure that the message was passed.

5 Q. When you say "Split," does this refer to the military naval

6 district? You addressed your letter to them?

7 A. Yes, correct. To Major General Mladenic and his staff.

8 Q. Item 2 of this letter says that you were informed by your people

9 in Dubrovnik that there is fighting in the immediate vicinity of the Hotel

10 Argentina. Can you tell me more about this? What does it mean when you

11 say that there is fighting in the immediate vicinity of the hotel?

12 A. There were impacts of smaller arms. And if I remember in one of

13 the earlier tabs, there are -- people are mentioning they cannot move a

14 foot outside the door, the impacts are close to the hotel, and there is an

15 exchange of fire right around in the area of the hotel. There are

16 details in other of my papers about that.

17 Q. Does this then mean that the Croatian forces were firing from near

18 the Hotel Argentina, in view of the fact that the JNA never actually came

19 close to the hotel. Is this correct?

20 A. I can confirm that there was fire on the hotel. Where the

21 Croatian soldiers were positioned, I'm not aware of. They were not in the

22 hotel or just outside.

23 Q. On the 9th of November, were you in Hotel Argentina?

24 A. No.

25 Q. How then can you say this, because not even your monitors say this

1 in the report they sent you?

2 A. To the best of my knowledge I asked them about the situation and

3 also about -- if there were armed forces in the hotel. And to the very

4 best of my knowledge, they also answered there were not.

5 Q. Let's move on. Tab 12, if you could please look at it. Can you

6 read the last passage of this message.

7 A. The last page?

8 Q. No, on the first page, the last paragraph.

9 A. Yeah, it's my old handwriting again. Okay. "We've just now

10 protested to the crisis committee" -- or it says "have just at 1315

11 protested to the crisis committee. It is impossible to get in contact

12 with" -- and I -- I believe I have written here "it is impossible to get

13 in contact with Strugar," and that is not very polite. It should of

14 course be General Strugar, "and his second in command."

15 Q. Why was the protest addressed by the monitor to the Crisis Staff?

16 A. Because when anybody is firing for whatever reason when there is a

17 cease-fire, you protest to the ones who are firing. Apparently the

18 Croatians had also -- were firing, too.

19 Q. Thank you. Would you please open tab 13. Is it correct that you

20 are again addressing General Mladenic in Split on the 10th of November?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Does this mean that you were having problems in communicating with

23 Dubrovnik?

24 A. I think so.

25 Q. This means that you were also having problems in communicating

1 with Boka. In your view, were Generals Mladenic and Strugar part of the

2 same military formation?

3 A. No, but they had, to the best of my knowledge, communications, as

4 I mentioned yesterday.

5 Q. Would you please now turn to tab 15. When you say to the best of

6 your recollection Mladenic and Strugar, the two generals, had mutual

7 contacts, do you remember that Mladenic was better able to contact

8 Admiral Jokic because both of them were in the navy and Jokic's unit was

9 part of the military and naval district of Split?

10 A. I have no knowledge about the relations between these units as

11 such in the organisation.

12 Q. Did you know what units comprised the military naval district in

13 Split?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did you know what the 9th VPS in Boka was?

16 A. I have never got these information -- these abbreviations. I

17 can't remember.

18 Q. Let me assist you. This is the 9th Military Naval Sector. Do you

19 know what the 9th Military Naval Sector in Boka actually was?

20 A. I have no knowledge about the build-up of that unit, no. To me it

21 was part of the JNA military and here, navy. But the details of how the

22 organisation was, no.

23 Q. Did you know who the commander of the 9th Military Naval Sector in

24 Boka was?

25 A. No, I was not informed.

1 Q. Do you know who the commander of the Military Naval District in

2 Split was?

3 A. We were informed, to my great surprise, that it was

4 Major General Mladenic, who was the commander in Lora base in Split, and

5 he was the highest military authority we had contacted in Split, from the

6 beginning to the end I was there.

7 Q. Thank you. In tab 15 there is a letter addressed to

8 General Kadijevic. Is it true that you never received an answer from him?

9 A. Say again, tab 15. Well, this letter is from the head of mission.

10 And the answer should be to the head of mission. I haven't got.

11 Q. If we look at what this letter is about, we can see that all of

12 this is happening on the 10th of November. Is it you that the head of

13 mission got the information from, that you sent Strugar, the commander of

14 the JNA forces in the Dubrovnik area, a letter without receiving an answer

15 from him? Were you the one who told the head of mission that -- the head

16 of mission in Zagreb, did he receive this information from you?

17 A. The head of mission in Zagreb received this message from me. I

18 relayed the messages concerning Dubrovnik, or we did as such as a staff,

19 to the head of mission.

20 Q. Why did you not then inform the head of mission that the message

21 to General Strugar was actually relayed to General Mladenic in Split

22 because of the communication problems in relation to Dubrovnik and Boka?

23 A. I think we did that, too, but that I have no proof of. But that

24 would be normal, that we passed and I'm -- and that the messages, as you

25 have seen, sent to the complaints or protests, copies of that were also

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 forwarded to headquarters in Zagreb.

2 Q. Thank you very much. Let us please move on to tab 17. On page 1

3 at the bottom of the letter, just next to the signature, there are two

4 remarks or notes. Can you please read out what the last one says. It

5 says: "It is not possible" -- can you please just read out the last two

6 words, because I'm not sure I understand those.

7 A. Neither am I, as half of it has been cut away. It says: "Not

8 possible to have" -- but what was written before at the time I cannot read

9 today.

10 Q. The letter is addressed to General Strugar, commander at the JNA

11 at Boka Kotorska. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you have information that General Strugar, as commander, was

14 actually stationed in Boka?

15 A. Yes, that was one of the informations I had.

16 Q. Can we please briefly look at tab 40. There is a list of names

17 for the JNA: General Strugar, Admiral Jokic, Jeremic, Uljarevic,

18 Svicevic, Hasanagic. Is it correct that it is only next to Jeremic's name

19 that you have a phone number there?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you know where this phone number is physically located?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Does that mean that you could only get in touch with Jeremic

24 possibly, if communications were established?

25 A. I know there was a list of other fax and telephone numbers

1 available in Dubrovnik and in the ops office. But where the numbers

2 actually ended, the numbers as such, I cannot remember. But we had -- we

3 had lists of various contact numbers in both places and I think -- and

4 also in Zagreb.

5 Q. Why didn't you then provide another list?

6 A. Why I did?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. I don't have it.

9 Q. Do you remember whose phone number is from that list you had -- I

10 mean, the phone numbers of course?

11 A. Well, the numbers of this list, I'm sure we had them on the, let's

12 say, the more professional list. This is apparently -- I don't know even

13 who wrote this, but this is a -- typical notes taken by some EC monitor in

14 some place to be brought back and then properly typed and listed and put

15 on the wall. That's all.

16 Q. Do you know whoever wrote this list failed to add other phone

17 numbers, if there were any other phone numbers, in relation to JNA

18 members?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Can you please open tab 22 now. Can you please look at item 6 in

21 this document in relation to the 10th and 11th of November.

22 A. Item 6.

23 Q. The title says the 10th and 11th of November.

24 A. Yes, I'm here.

25 Q. If you look at item 6 it says, among other things: "We have been

1 informed that certain projectiles had hit the inside of the Old Town. We

2 were not in a position to assess the damage because we could not leave our

3 hotel (in a material sense and pursuant to our instructions)."

4 Did you locate that portion of the text?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you please explain this sentence, what this word "material"

7 means and then what does it mean exactly, "pursuant to our instructions."

8 A. I didn't write it, so that would have to be an interpretation, if

9 that is what is wanted.

10 Q. Well, please, I'm sure you can tell us something about these

11 instructions, as I believe that the monitors in Dubrovnik were receiving

12 instructions from higher up; in this case that was you.

13 A. Right. The instructions were not -- never to put an EC monitor's

14 life at risk. So they could not -- during shelling and when there was a

15 danger for that, move out, when there is a risk.

16 Q. Very well. In the next sentence it says: "All 14 members of the

17 European Community for the last two days before departure spent all of

18 their time at the hotel."

19 Is that correct?

20 A. Would you just tell me again where we are now, please.

21 Q. That is the next sentence.

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. Under item 6 in relation to the 10th of November, the very next

24 sentence.

25 A. When Mr. Ghidi has reported it, I'm sure it's correct.

1 Q. If we now go back to item 5 of this report in relation to the 5th

2 of November, we will see that there are two references, one in the middle

3 of the text. There is the following sentence: "For the whole day we have

4 been trying in vain to get in touch with the JNA."

5 And the last sentence under the same item: "It is not possible to

6 get in touch with the JNA command in Boka Kotorska."

7 Is that correct?

8 A. It's not -- that's the last sentence, and now you're mentioning

9 at page 6 then. Yes, I can see that.

10 Q. Is it correct what I've just read out to you?

11 A. Well, when Mr. Ghidi has written it, I'm sure it's correct.

12 Q. In tabs 10 and 11 we looked at letters dated the 9th of November.

13 In tab 13, a letter dated the 10th of November. In tab 15, a letter dated

14 the 10th of November again. In tab 17, we looked at a letter dated the

15 13th of November. All these in relation to a fact in connection with the

16 problem of establishing communication with the JNA in the Dubrovnik area.

17 Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. It is in the same period that you received from Dubrovnik reports

20 from your mission. Your reaction is set out in these letters. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yeah, and we tried to forward the protest through the best means

23 we had. And down there we had the possibility of protesting directly to

24 the other side, which was done.

25 Q. That's precisely what I want to say. You secured your link with

1 the JNA through the Dubrovnik authorities, first of all?

2 A. No, we tried to use the naval base and tried to go through our

3 headquarters in Zagreb.

4 Q. Which naval base do you have in mind?

5 A. The naval base in Split, as we have talked about before.

6 Q. You mean first you always go to the naval base in Split and to

7 Zagreb before you try to get in touch with JNA members in the Dubrovnik

8 area. Is that your answer?

9 A. No, that is not my answer. Of course we first tried -- or the

10 people in Dubrovnik, whoever was there, did their utmost to get in contact

11 with the JNA in the area. When that type of communication failed, we did

12 as anyone would do in this situation: Try all other means available.

13 Q. I don't think there is any essential difference between what I

14 said and what you said. It is my submission that the monitors based in

15 Dubrovnik set up their link with JNA representatives through the Dubrovnik

16 authorities. Is that correct?

17 A. When their own means did not work, they had to try to use the best

18 possible means available. And if -- for example, borrowing a phone or a

19 fax machine from the involved party would be quite a normal thing to do,

20 as you have to get the messages through.

21 Q. The messages to the monitors in Dubrovnik, were they forwarded

22 through the Crisis Staff in Dubrovnik, I mean messages from the JNA to the

23 monitors? Were those forwarded through -- via the Crisis Staff in

24 Dubrovnik?

25 A. Messages from the JNA to the EC monitors in Dubrovnik were

1 forwarded to the -- what have you, the Hotel Argentina. I believe they

2 were -- I don't believe there was a phone. It was a fax. And it was only

3 if there was no contact, I believe, that the JNA passed messages to the

4 crisis committee to have them forwarded to the EC monitors. Normally we

5 tried to keep close -- direct contact, and we borrowed other means when

6 possible --

7 Q. Sorry, I must interrupt you there. Please try to keep your answer

8 as brief as possible. My question now is: In this tab containing 42

9 pieces of evidence, can you find a single shred of paper that will

10 corroborate what you are saying now, that there is indeed a paper trail

11 that you received anything at all, any message at all, from the JNA at the

12 Argentina Hotel?

13 A. When I was at the Argentina Hotel, messages were received --

14 Q. Please, Mr. Hvalkof --

15 MR. WEINER: I would object, Your Honour. He asks questions --

16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

17 MR. WEINER: He asked the witness questions and then he won't let

18 the witness respond to the question he's answering. This is the second

19 time in a row he's asked a question, the witness is directly responding to

20 that question, and then he cuts him off.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am doing my best to try

23 to get the witness focused on specifically what I'm asking him. I'm

24 wasting a lot of time because his answers are unduly comprehensive. My

25 specific question was whether in these 42 tabs, which he has before him,

1 there is a single piece of evidence, single sheet of paper to corroborate

2 that the JNA had direct communication with the Argentina Hotel, which is

3 where the monitors were based. That is my question, and it's a yes or no

4 question. That's the kind of answer it requires. Whereas, the witness

5 goes off: When I was at the Argentina Hotel, so again he's talking about

6 himself. I'm asking about all these 42 tabs. Is there any evidence of

7 that?

8 JUDGE PARKER: This occasion is one, Mr. Weiner, where the

9 question does appear to be capable of a yes or no answer, although other

10 questions today and yesterday have not been of that character.

11 I suspect in this case the answer, Mr. Hvalkof, is no. Is that

12 correct?

13 THE WITNESS: I'm a little doubtful now, Your Honour. The

14 question going on --

15 JUDGE PARKER: The question is whether in the 42 documents that

16 have been presented through you by the Prosecution there is any record of

17 a JNA communication.

18 THE WITNESS: I think no. I can't comment anymore -- the

19 indication.

20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. Can we please now look at tab 24. Page 0218309 in reference to

22 the meeting in Zelenika on the 14th of November, 1991. Have you found it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The first portion of the document says: "We wish to say where we

25 are."

1 Is this a reference to the JNA, JNA representatives? Is it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you please tell me what this means, this mark, NB.

4 A. Well, that's Latin; "nota bene" means something to remember.

5 Q. But it should also refer in this particular case to the positions

6 put forth by the JNA, since they requested that the ZNG leave both

7 Dubrovnik and Srdj?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Among these remarks related to the JNA, there is also a remark

10 that says: "You have abused the Old Town. You should lay down your

11 weapons to avoid conflict and the army will not go into town."

12 Is this also a conclusion that is there?

13 A. Where is that? Sorry I'm confused where that remark is, the last

14 thing you said --

15 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

17 MR. WEINER: I have no problem with him questioning on --

18 questioning the witness on that. What he has just done, though, read line

19 from -- read a passage from line 6 and then went down four more lines

20 after another subject is discussed and read another line to try and link

21 those two matters together. He read an issue which is currently on line

22 6: "You have misused" -- "you have been misusing the old" -- looks like

23 Old Town. And then they talk about exchange of prisoners. Three JNA and

24 then return 23 ZNG. And then the next line says: "You should put down

25 weapons in order to avoid conflict."

1 And he's read those two together as if it's the same topic. I

2 have no problem with the cross-examination, but that's misreading or

3 misquoting this document.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.

5 You've got page 308, have you, Mr. Hvalkof?

6 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour, I was looking at 309.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Page 308, and we're still in the top half of the

8 page. That's some lines down from where you were earlier.

9 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Now, you might like to repeat your question,

11 Mr. Rodic --

12 THE WITNESS: Well, I can read it here, Your Honour.

13 So you are asking me if the JNA is making a conclusion? Because

14 this remark refers to notes I have been scribbling down of remarks given

15 by the JNA representatives at that meeting.

16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. All I wanted is a confirmation. There are six or seven remarks in

18 reference to observations made by the representatives of the JNA that you

19 wrote down. I just wish to ask you additionally about two or three of

20 those observations. I believe my learned friend from the OTP got it

21 wrong. I wasn't trying to conceal anything from you by reading

22 selectively from the document, as they have done in relation to the

23 letters. It's all about these seven nota bene remarks that you wrote

24 down, three of which I asked you specifically.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I can see potential confusion here, Mr. Rodic.

1 Perhaps it can be clarified by the witness.

2 The points following your marginal note nota bene, are they

3 comments that you have made, or are they notes of things said by the JNA

4 representative?

5 THE WITNESS: They are notes, my notes, conclusion of sort of --

6 as far as I remember it now when I look at it, of what was -- what they

7 wanted.

8 JUDGE PARKER: So you are seeking in note form to reproduce what

9 was put to you by the JNA representative. Is that it?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I was trying to put in a more

11 clear handwriting than my nasty scribble here.

12 JUDGE PARKER: I think, Mr. Rodic, your question was on a

13 different understanding. You thought these were the expressions of

14 Mr. Hvalkof's view. If I have not been helpful, carry on then.

15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this page is very clear.

16 Mr. Hvalkof noted down the messages he was receiving at that meeting from

17 the representatives of the JNA. Then there is a line separating off those

18 messages that came from the representatives of the Dubrovnik Crisis Staff.

19 That is how the notes were kept. I only asked him from this first part

20 the messages he noted down as having come from the representatives of the

21 JNA, whether it is correct that the representatives of the JNA were

22 pointing out that the Old Town was being misused, as noted down by

23 Mr. Hvalkof, that arms should be laid down so as to avoid a conflict, and

24 also that they said that the army would not enter the town. I think I

25 have not concealed anything from him, because he can see all the notes on

1 the page. What I am interested in is for him to confirm that the things I

2 read out are correct.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, they are.

4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. At this meeting, did the Crisis Staff tell you that they wanted a

6 stable cease-fire? You can see that underneath this line.

7 A. Well, we can all see it when -- it states the first line from the

8 CC -- well, it's to me --

9 Q. Mr. Hvalkof, I'm just asking you for confirmation.

10 A. Right. Yes.

11 Q. Would you please turn to page 2. This top part of the page also

12 relates to all the messages you heard from the JNA representatives, and

13 you noted down their requests, just as on the previous page. Is this

14 correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Is there mention here of the fact that the JNA wanted people from

17 both sides to be at the observation posts, and you wrote down they wanted

18 JNA plus monitors, "they," being the ZNG plus monitors. Does this mean

19 that the JNA wanted the monitors on their side?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Under the headline "Crisis Staff," did you hear from the

22 representatives of the Crisis Staff that they were willing to accept

23 demilitarisation under international control?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Would you now please look at tab 27. Can you tell me

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 now in the upper left-hand corner it says: "Sent by the chief of the

2 mission. Received by DAV."

3 Can you explain this abbreviation?

4 A. No, I cannot.

5 Q. Do you recognise the person to whom this letter was addressed?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Why are you so sure all of a sudden, because you know and you

8 don't want to say or...

9 A. This abbreviation, to me it's not a name, it's an abbreviation. I

10 have been asked about this before, and I don't know.

11 Q. If we look -- if you look at paragraph 2, there is a sentence

12 here: "The JNA proposal that would be locally discussed on the 25th of

13 November was called an ultimatum by the Croatian side."

14 Did you find this -- have you found it?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. "Dubrovnik had never in its history surrendered and would not do

17 so now."

18 This is followed by this sentence: "The Croatian government had

19 issued strict instructions to the local authorities of Dubrovnik not to

20 surrender their weapons."

21 Is this contrary to what the Crisis Staff said on the issue of the

22 demilitarisation of Dubrovnik at the meeting of the 14th of November?

23 A. I have no weapons about that. It's -- the letter is not written

24 by me. I don't know who is it sent to. I think it's even what I -- that

25 I should answer it. To me, it's a sort of more political question.

1 Q. Mr. Hvalkof, as you have taken a solemn declaration, I think it

2 would be proper for you to answer my question. In view of the fact that

3 in most cases here you answered questions by the Prosecutor about

4 questions that you personally did not draw up, documents compiled by other

5 people during a period of time when you were not present at the place

6 where they were drawing up the documents. Am I right in saying this?

7 A. Oh, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Can you assist me by saying whether this standpoint of

9 the Croatian government put forward by the head of mission in this letter

10 differs from the position of the Crisis Staff of the 14th of November,

11 some ten days previously, which you noted down because you had heard it

12 from them?

13 A. It differs, yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me whether through the reports of your

15 monitors in Dubrovnik you received information to the effect that there

16 was a conflict between the Croatian government and the Dubrovnik Crisis

17 Staff.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Would you please look at tab 28 now. This is the memorandum of

20 agreement, and would you please look at the introduction to this document

21 where it says that: "On Monday, the 25th of November in Dubrovnik," and I

22 underline the following. "The military and naval commanders of the JNA in

23 the Dubrovnik area, General Damjanovic and Admiral Jokic on the JNA side,"

24 who was the military commander and who was the naval commander?

25 A. In this case it's mentioned General Damjanovic and Admiral Jokic.

1 I say again, in this case.

2 Q. Can you tell me whether it's correct that the persons on the other

3 side were the mayor of Dubrovnik, Mr. Pero Poljanic and the commander of

4 the Croatian National Army in the Dubrovnik area, Nikola Obuljen on the

5 Croatian side. All this in the presence of Minister Kouchner. Is this

6 correct?

7 A. This is what is written, so it must be correct.

8 Q. It has not entered the transcript that Nikola Obuljen, the

9 commander of the Croatian army in the Dubrovnik area, was also present at

10 the meeting, as stated in this document. Is this correct?

11 So on the Dubrovnik side, the meeting was attended by Nikola

12 Obuljen and Pero Poljanic. Is this correct?

13 A. Yes, it states that.

14 Q. Would you please look at item 2. Item 2 refers to promises by the

15 local commanders and the local authorities who provided guarantees

16 concerning the security of monitors. And it states that: "Under no

17 circumstances are they or the locations where they are staying or

18 operating to be fired upon or otherwise threatened."

19 It's an important part of this agreement, isn't it?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you tell me whether among the signatures on this agreement you

22 also see the signature of the commander of the Croatian army in the

23 Dubrovnik area, that is Nikola Obuljen?

24 A. I don't see it.

25 Q. Does this mean that he did not undertake an obligation? He was an

1 active participant at the meeting and yet he did not undertake the

2 obligations mentioned in this memorandum.

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. In response to the questions put by the Prosecutor, you said that

5 this document has no value because the JNA on the 5th or, that is, the 6th

6 of December shelled the Dubrovnik area. Is this correct?

7 A. That's correct, yes.

8 Q. I'm asking you now whether you say that up to the 5th and 6th of

9 December the Croats did not fire at all from Dubrovnik?

10 A. Because I didn't observe it.

11 Q. Did you hear about it, Mr. Hvalkof? There are many things that

12 you did not see, yet you talked about them.

13 A. We are talking about the 5th and 6th of December. On the 5th,

14 we're having a meeting in Cavtat, no shooting. On the 6th, shooting.

15 Q. You misunderstand me, obviously. The document before you was

16 signed on the 25th of November, ten days before the 6th of December. Is

17 this correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You told the Prosecutor during the examination-in-chief that this

20 piece of paper was worthless, that it had no value, because the JNA on the

21 6th of December fired shells. Is this correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I'm asking you: In these ten days preceding the 6th of December,

24 did you hear or receive any information from your monitors or any protests

25 from the JNA saying that the Croats had opened fire from Dubrovnik?

1 A. There were no monitors in Dubrovnik until I came down on the 5th.

2 They were evacuated earlier in November.

3 Q. Did you receive anything from JNA representatives informing you

4 that the Croats had opened fire from Dubrovnik in this period?

5 A. Not to my knowledge -- sorry, I say again. In them -- in Split

6 during that -- there may be something in the files. I believe you are

7 talking about what -- reports we received from JNA in Split from the

8 observers evacuated until I came down on the 4th. That is most likely

9 there had been complaints about firing. I cannot remember it, I am not

10 aware of it, I cannot confirm, but it is likely, the conflict you had

11 going on all the time.

12 Q. Of course, because the Croatian commander did not sign this

13 memorandum of agreement.

14 A. May I add a word here. When it was questioned, military matters

15 in Dubrovnik, we discussed with -- what we considered were civilian crisis

16 committee members. And if he has been a member or not -- so it was normal

17 civilian people in charge of the military the way we understood it.

18 Q. At meetings with the Crisis Staff of Dubrovnik, did you see among

19 others Nikola Obuljen?

20 A. I can't remember these people's names. If you show me their

21 faces, it may be possible. I cannot remember.

22 Q. Would you please look at tab number 29.

23 A. Yes, I'm there.

24 Q. This is a letter written by you personally, isn't it?

25 A. It's a report, yes, to my headquarters in Split.

1 Q. In item 2 of this report, is it correct that nothing was noted

2 down at that meeting or that any decision was reached and that a new

3 meeting was to be held on the 6th of December with no mention of any kind

4 of signing of any agreements. Is this correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. In item 3, if you can read through, just skim through A, B, C, and

7 D, the conditions that were discussed. Did you hear proposals to this

8 effect from the JNA even before the 5th of December?

9 A. I can't remember.

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hvalkof. Would you please read item 4 and tell me

11 now, bearing in mind that you are using notes from the meeting, that is

12 your report, is it correct that at the time you thought it was not

13 possible to give a reasonable prediction as to what the final agreement,

14 should there be one, would look like.

15 A. Yes, previous experience told me so.

16 Q. Did this reflect your pessimistic views, in comparison to the

17 optimistic views of the Croatian representatives?

18 A. I was not pessimistic.

19 Q. Very well. Would you now look at tab 30. During the

20 examination-in-chief you said that you had spent the previous night,

21 between the 5th and 6th of December and the early morning of the 6th of

22 December up to 6.00, without hearing any kind of firing on the Dubrovnik

23 area, and that none of your colleagues had heard this either. Is this

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Would you please look at tab 42, the English page is 03053553.

2 A. Could you say the last numbers again. 55 --

3 Q. 553. Would you please look at paragraph 2, the second part of the

4 text which says: "At 0605 hours on the 6th of December, I woke up to the

5 familiar sound" -- have you found this paragraph?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. In this paragraph the fourth or fifth sentence says: Occasionally

8 you would sleep well during the night and not hear anything. Is this

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Could you have heard anything on that night then and testify to

12 this with certainty? Is this correct?

13 A. I am sure all the other times I have been shelled I have heard it,

14 and besides that, my colleagues would have woken me up if I had not heard

15 it.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Evidence that you slept well, Mr. Hvalkof, is the note in your

19 diary that the shelling began at 6.00. In your statement to the Tribunal

20 investigators you say it's about 5.45 that you heard shells being fired on

21 Dubrovnik. And in your article, you say that at 6.05 you were awakened by

22 the sound of shells. In the same article you say that the hotel guests

23 told you that the shelling began at 5.35. Is this correct?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. Military precision and correct information seems not to be your

1 strong point as an ECMM monitor it appears.

2 A. Thank you for that remark. I woke up --

3 Q. Do you agree with it?

4 A. No, I don't.

5 Q. Do you agree then that these facts that I have read out indicate

6 imprecision?

7 A. I gave the times, what occurred to me, what I heard, I gave the

8 times other people gave me. And there's nothing unprecise in that.

9 Q. It's imprecise if you say that you heard fire at 5.45, because

10 it's not true. Can we agree about that?

11 A. If I have said I heard fire at 5.45, it is wrong, I have made a

12 mistake, I apologise for it. I would -- it was reported to me by somebody

13 down -- that they had heard fire that early.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I started this set of

15 questions in connection with the 6th of December, and I would like to

16 round off the 6th of December in a continuous set of questions. Is it a

17 convenient time now or may I continue?

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

19 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, there was a -- I just want to make a

20 correction for the record, too. If -- counsel just again made a

21 misquotation or made a misleading statement. We have the actual statement

22 here of the witness, his statement to the OTP. It says: "On December 6th

23 at approximately 5.45." It doesn't say at 5.45 something happened,

24 approximately. Thank you.

25 JUDGE PARKER: You're wanting us to accept that 6.05 is

1 approximately 5.45 or are you merely softening the difference, Mr. Weiner?

2 MR. WEINER: I'm softening the difference. There's a difference

3 between saying that you indicated at 5.45 and saying that approximately --

4 JUDGE PARKER: All right. I'm sure Mr. Rodic would be well ready

5 to accept that distinction. We will break now and --

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the witness and to the

7 Prosecutor. Thank you.

8 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

9 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Hvalkof, in addition to the impositions we discussed before

14 the break in relation to the start of the shelling, is it correct that in

15 your journal, I am referring to tab 30, the section of the journal

16 referring to the 6th of December, you failed to write down that at 14

17 minutes past 7.00 you sent a strong protest to Admiral Jokic?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Earlier you made a marginal remark that you had made a call to

20 Split and Zagreb, the regional centre. Isn't that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Would it then be a justified move to doubt the precision of all

23 the other information contained in the journal, such as, for example, the

24 number of shells?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Is it your submission that you are certain, based on your notes,

2 that you had counted the exact number of shells per minute?

3 A. My colleagues and I tried, and mostly they were doing that part of

4 the job. And that was what we -- what I noted down. There was a lot of

5 noise, I can tell you.

6 Q. But this counting, this accurate counting, was not then done by

7 you?

8 A. Most of the time not.

9 Q. Who counted the shells then and who relayed this information to

10 you?

11 A. I had two colleagues along with me, and they reported, say, now

12 it's this and so on and now it's that, and so many.

13 Q. Which of the two colleagues by name, if you can say, please, was

14 the one who informed you?

15 A. I'll try to recall both of them. I say again, both of them, you

16 want names? Right?

17 Q. Yes, please.

18 A. Van de Beek and Brolund.

19 Q. Were they both counting or just one of them? I want to know which

20 one, if so.

21 A. They were both counting, not at the same time, because one of them

22 might be occupied by trying to pass messages, assist me in other ways, and

23 the other one could be out observing.

24 Q. Can you tell me what their location was as they counted the shells

25 in.

1 A. Yes. Outside at the -- there's a terrace outside Hotel Dubrovnik

2 or several terraces down towards the sea. And from up there we have a

3 pretty good view of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

4 Q. Were they not in shelters, your colleagues?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did they spend the whole time outside on the terrace in front of

7 the hotel?

8 A. No -- sorry, no. You could also stand -- in the room where we

9 were, you could stand and observe from the window where you had a better

10 observation from outside and when situations seemed not so pleasant, they

11 would move just inside the door.

12 Q. Mr. Hvalkof, for example, in your journal you state that at 20

13 past 7.00, two shells fell on the Old Town. In your article under tab 42

14 you say at 7.40 the first shell fell -- the first shells fell on the Old

15 Town. How do you explain this discrepancy? Again, there is a degree of

16 imprecision involved, isn't there?

17 A. Yes. This was my paper written at the time. The article is not

18 written to give a precise description. It is written without these

19 papers, and it is not meant as a document as description of a situation to

20 people who were interested and had asked me to write it. And I accept and

21 agree, there is a difference of -- what is it? 20 minutes or something,

22 yes. But what I wrote down here in this log sheet, as I call it, that was

23 the facts what I noted down at the time, looking at my watch.

24 Q. It is a fact, isn't it, that when you gave your statement to the

25 investigators of the Tribunal and when you wrote your article, you used

1 notes and documents, just like you do now, during your testimony?

2 A. I used some notes, yes.

3 Q. Despite the fact that you keep using your notes, there is

4 discrepancy in terms of the information you provide, isn't there?

5 A. The difference in timing, yes, I agree. And I didn't take it that

6 serious of those -- I have not checked properly, but this document, my log

7 sheet, states what happened while I was there.

8 Q. The accurate times that you gave in your article, were those

9 recorded based on your memory of events, or were you also consulting your

10 notes while writing the article?

11 A. I was consulting notes available to me at the time and the memory,

12 and this was not a long time after the incident. What I had exactly

13 available in front of me I cannot comment on today.

14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us where you were on the 6th of December

15 when you were taking notes. Where did you spend the most time on that

16 day?

17 A. Down at the basement at the Hotel Argentina in a room from where

18 you could from the windows see the Old Town of Dubrovnik and with these

19 terraces outside.

20 Q. Isn't it true that you spent most of the time in the cellar?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. This is corroborated by your note, or rather, in your answer to a

23 question by the Prosecutor in relation to the time being given as minutes

24 past 11.00, where you stated that Minister Rudolf, too, was in the cellar

25 of the Argentina Hotel in the same room as you and that the minister made

1 a phone call to Zagreb. Isn't that correct?

2 A. They were present there, yes. He made many calls -- tried to

3 anyway.

4 Q. Very well. Can you tell us, please, from the window -- could you

5 observe anything at all from the cellar?

6 A. It was not a cellar; it was a room where hotel guests could stay

7 and be. It was down in the bottom of the hotel, and yes, you could see

8 the Old Town of Dubrovnik from the windows of that room.

9 Q. Could you see the entire Old Town?

10 A. There was a slight corner from the room you could not see from the

11 room, and that's one of the reasons why we walked outside.

12 Q. Could you see Srdj?

13 A. Not from that room, no.

14 Q. As a man who has spent a large portion of his life in the

15 military, as a man who has a lot of experience with mortars, is it not to

16 say the least unconvincing when you tell us that you heard no shells, no

17 mortar shells, being fired from Dubrovnik itself?

18 A. I did not hear it, I did not observe it, and none of us did.

19 Q. Could you see the section of the town that is just behind the Old

20 Town facing Lovrijenac from where you were?

21 A. I cannot recall the name Lovrijenac, so that's difficult to

22 answer.

23 Q. Did you pay any attention to the northern section of the Old Town,

24 the portion of the Old Town facing Srdj, or rather, between the Old Town

25 itself and Mount Srdj? Could you see that section of the town through

1 your window?

2 A. Not from the window, to the best of my knowledge. There was a --

3 there was a corner to the right, which would indicate to me what you say

4 the northern side. There was a portion of the Old Town or the walls there

5 we could not see from the window.

6 Q. When my learned friend from the OTP asked you in relation to the

7 time frame between 10.45 and 1100 hours in relation to the information

8 that 15 {Realtime transcript read in error "50"] shells per minute were

9 falling with several-minute intervals between them. About these 15 shells

10 per minute, can you corroborate this for me on personal experience or is

11 this something someone else told you at the time?

12 A. I can remember a lot of impacts per minute. If you ask me today

13 if I am absolutely sure I can remember 15 myself, not precisely, but it

14 was quite a lot. I don't think 15 to the best of my knowledge as much is

15 wrong. And it was basically reported by my colleagues.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Could I interrupt, Mr. Rodic, just to note that the

17 transcript seems to have recorded your last question as saying 5-0 shells

18 per minute. I'm sure you said 1-5, 15.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] It's probably misinterpretation,

20 Your Honour. I did say 15.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it's been noted now and I'm sure it will be

22 corrected in due course. Thank you.

23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

24 Q. Can you tell me what this means, the first words, in your entry at

25 1130 hours. They are not in English. "Zagreb," and then I presume

1 something in Danish, but I'm not sure.

2 A. You are quite right. I was tired, I wrote in Danish. It says:

3 "Zagreb works, full speed," meaning that we had called -- informed Zagreb

4 about the situation, so they were doing their best to try from their side

5 to establish a cease-fire.

6 Q. How then do you explain this here at 1130 hours or 1139? You say:

7 "At least two shells were fired in the direction of the Old Town."

8 How could you know that?

9 A. At 1139?

10 Q. That's correct.

11 A. How --

12 JUDGE PARKER: In the English language version, Mr. Rodic, it

13 reads: "At least two impacts in direction of Old Town," not that two

14 shells were fired in direction of Old Town.

15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour. It must be

16 the B/C/S translation that I'm using, so it may be a mistake on my part.

17 Q. Let's move on, please. At 11.41, can you please read what it says

18 there.

19 A. "One more big bang, same direction, not observed," which means --

20 when it says "not observed," at this time, somebody has been busy doing

21 something else and we just heard the bang from the same direction or the

22 explosion. And it's clearly stated "not observed," but direction is.

23 Q. You are in the basement of the hotel. How is it possible for you

24 to say from where you are what the direction of the shell is and where it

25 is headed for?

1 A. It didn't say where it was headed for; it says "same direction."

2 We had heard the sound coming in all the time and in general it is

3 possible for people to say which direction. The sound came from the same

4 direction as all the previous shelling observed. And it's clearly stated

5 that this was not observed, but to the best of our knowledge and

6 experience, it came from the same direction as the previous.

7 Q. So you used the sound of the shell to tell the direction where the

8 shell is coming from, but the sound can only come from the window of the

9 room in which you are. Isn't that correct?

10 A. Yes, but it sounded exactly like all the previous shells --

11 observed shelling.

12 Q. So let us get this clear. You could only hear the sound of a

13 shell through the window of the room in which you are, which means that

14 the sound is coming from a totally different direction. Isn't that

15 correct?

16 A. I say "this unobserved explosion seemed to come from the same

17 direction as the previous impact" or -- and that is all I say. And for --

18 I know that when I put down at that time "not observed" it's because it

19 was not observed. And when those -- the others were observed where I have

20 not put it.

21 Q. At that moment, were you or another monitor perhaps standing next

22 to a piano?

23 A. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know. But I would not think so. Of

24 course I can't remember who was standing next to a piano at any time. No,

25 I would not know. I was certainly not, I can tell you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Was this a piano in the same room in which you were staying?

2 A. Yes, there was.

3 Q. Do you remember if anyone was playing the piano in that room? Was

4 anyone playing music or dancing?

5 A. Someone was playing the piano sometimes during the day.

6 Q. You don't think that the sound of the piano would possibly

7 interfere with counting the exact number of the shells falling, do you?

8 A. I don't think so. If you had been there, you would realise that

9 the sound was quite high. And as I said, most observations were made from

10 the outside.

11 Q. If you look at the marks you made in your journal, 11.44, 11.45,

12 11.46, two shells, one shell, two shells. Is it correct that if we look

13 at this journal we can't really say which direction the shells came from,

14 where they fell, or who was firing the shells?

15 A. That is correct. At the time, I sort of tried to cut down

16 writing. All impacts referred to here are in the Old City.

17 Q. Is it true that there is no entry in your diary specifying that

18 the shells you are writing about are only the shells falling on the Old

19 Town?

20 A. That's correct, it's not mentioned here.

21 Q. 11.53, we have the following statement: "Barrage of fire from

22 heavy machine guns."

23 Can you tell me exactly where you heard the sound of these machine

24 guns coming from.

25 A. We heard the sound, and it is, in my opinion, most likely - I

1 cannot prove it and none of us could prove anything - it's most likely

2 that it might have been a Croatian weapon. I have no clue where it came.

3 The sound was there all right.

4 Q. Further you say: "Sporadic fire from different directions."

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. Which sort of fire are you talking about there? Are we talking

7 about artillery fire, about rifle fire?

8 A. In -- the sporadic fire was -- as far as I remember it here now,

9 small arms fire, nothing we could observe -- well, sporadic fire, HMD,

10 heavy machine gun, machine gun, that sort of stuff. But we couldn't see

11 where it came from. We could hear the noise, and for sure it was not from

12 the seaside.

13 Q. At 11.58 you write: "20-millimetre canon fire." Therefore this

14 is 20-millimetre gun or canon fire. Where does that come from?

15 A. Also from unobserved direction, so I can't confirm where it came

16 from. And I can remember that I heard myself, that sound, and I -- it

17 was -- I -- one of my colleagues, who it was I can't remember, reported it

18 also; heard, not observed.

19 Q. You say you remember hearing this sound I assume. Is it true

20 then, since we are talking about a 20-millimetre gun, that you were able

21 to recognise it specifically? It must be much easier for you no doubt to

22 distinguish that sort of fire if it's nearer to you rather than further

23 off from you?

24 A. That's correct. I don't know where it came from. You're right,

25 the closer, the better.

1 Q. At 12.03 you say: "Machine gun fire near the hotel from the

2 Croatian side."

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So here you have clearly identified fire is coming from the

5 Croatian side by a machine gun.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you please tell me: How close to the hotel was that, exactly

8 if you remember?

9 A. No, I cannot. But I know that the reason why the Croatian side is

10 mentioned is that one of the other - my colleagues - was out sort of

11 trying to observe on the land side of the hotel. And that's why we are

12 not spending much time out there because it was not pleasant at all. But

13 that's why we tried now and then when it was reasonable to go and observe

14 and we know that to the best of our knowledge that it was Croatian fire at

15 that time because one of the people were out there.

16 Q. Does this mean that it was only this one occasion, at least as far

17 as this is reflected in your journal, that this monitor came out of the

18 hotel and stood at a place from which he could actually observe Mount

19 Srdj?

20 A. It was not the only time, but that time was not very pleasant. We

21 had shells landing at the corner of the hotel, which I have also mentioned

22 someplace, at that site. So as I mentioned before, we are told that we

23 are not sent out to get killed, so you were not moving out that side

24 because a lot of nonsense was going on there. So it was now and then and

25 it might have been out the door, it might have been through windows. I

1 cannot tell you that.

2 Q. Is it true that since 11.39, or rather, 11.41 to the end of your

3 journal you never make a single reference to any other shells falling on

4 the Old Town?

5 A. When I talk about something about or report artillery fire in --

6 and that means that the shells were landing in the town, yes.

7 Q. My question was quite specific, and it refers to the Old Town. Is

8 it true that as of that time you never mention any other shells falling on

9 the Old Town, no reference in your journal. Isn't that correct?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. At 1430 in the notes it says, among other things: "Admiral Jokic

12 said he had to be in Belgrade at 1400 hours and suggests a meeting

13 tomorrow at 12.00."

14 Did Admiral Jokic mention that General Strugar was also going to

15 Belgrade at the same time?

16 A. He did not.

17 Q. Are you sure of this?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you personally contact Jokic?

20 A. At that time?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. I didn't contact him. We got this letter from the admiral we had

23 negotiated with the day before in letter or fax message.

24 Q. Please look at the entry for 1610 in your log. "Minister Rudolf

25 informs me that General Strugar has now ordered immediate cease-fire."

1 Is this correct?

2 A. Yes, that's what he said.

3 Q. Responding to the Prosecutor's question about this entry during

4 your examination-in-chief you said that Minister Rudolf contacted the JNA

5 and that he told you that Strugar was back on the ground and that there

6 would be a cease-fire. Do you remember what this expression "back on the

7 ground" means? Does this mean he had been absent from the ground?

8 A. I would not know. It does not mean that I knew anything about

9 that. It just suddenly appears that we have been talking to Admiral Jokic

10 the day before, having a meeting with him, and General Strugar had not

11 appeared. So now General Strugar suddenly appears on the scene again, and

12 that's what I mean, now he's back on the ground -- sorry, I am not using

13 my own language, but that's what I meant by it. We suddenly hear -- this

14 time we had not heard really from General Strugar; now we hear from him

15 again.

16 Q. Would you please look at tab 31. Please look at tab 32 also, just

17 the content of these messages.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Are these notes of protest addressed to Admiral Jokic in the VPS

20 Boka?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. In tab 31 you sent this directly to Admiral Jokic at the VPS Boka

23 address. And yet today during your examination, you did not know what VPS

24 Boka meant.

25 A. That's correct. I -- I can't remember that abbreviation. It's

1 right what I said before.

2 Q. You didn't know what Admiral Jokic's appointment was either, and

3 yet you put down VPS Boka. Is that correct?

4 A. That was the information I had when -- that that was a correct

5 address.

6 Q. In tab 32, line 4, is there mention of the position from which

7 fire was opened? There is a list of tank, mortar, and boat artillery fire

8 on Dubrovnik. This is from the letter of the Crisis Staff. Is that

9 right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. This piece of information corresponds with what is in your logbook

12 of the 6th of December at 6.00 when you say: "Shelling began from land

13 and sea towards the fortress near Srdj and the harbour."

14 Were you able to observe firing from the sea at that time?

15 A. There was fire from the sea. Not much, but it was there. The

16 exact time, it should be in the logbook.

17 Q. Do you know who was firing?

18 A. We observed some navy units, and I had no knowledge about what

19 type of units there were. They didn't seem to be that big to me, but

20 there were navy units observed. Yeah.

21 Q. Who did they belong to?

22 A. Well, they looked like normal navy units, grey-coloured, and

23 that's -- and they were firing in the direction of Dubrovnik, as far as I

24 remember now. But that's what they do.

25 Q. Can you say what army these units belonged to?

1 A. I cannot confirm that, no.

2 Q. So they could have belonged to the Croatian army or to the JNA,

3 the navy. Isn't that right?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. Would you please look at tab 33. This is a letter from

6 Minister Rudolf addressed to General Strugar to -- at VPS Boka. Have you

7 found the document?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In paragraph 3 of this document it states that: "Minister Rudolf

10 arrived in Dubrovnik and Cavtat with two other members of the government

11 of Croatia because he had received a guarantee from the supreme command of

12 the armed forces of the SFRY and the command of the VPO Split that he

13 would be able to arrive safely for negotiations with the representatives

14 of the JNA in Cavtat."

15 Is this correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is the line correct then, the military naval sector Boka; the

18 Military District of Split, as the next level; and then the highest level,

19 the supreme command of the armed forces of the SFRY. Do you agree with

20 me?

21 A. That's what's written here, yes.

22 Q. In this letter, in the paragraph before the last, Minister Rudolf

23 informs General Strugar that the Federal Secretary for National Defence,

24 General Kadijevic, has ordered an investigation to establish an

25 irresponsibility of the members of the JNA for the suffering inflicted on

1 Dubrovnik. And the last sentence of this paragraph says: "I am convinced

2 that this investigation will be correct and you will certainly find what

3 the results are."

4 This was written by Minister Rudolf to General Strugar. Is this

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is it correct that Minister Rudolf does not say who is to conduct

8 the investigation on the ground? Is it correct that he does not mention

9 who will carry out the investigation on the ground?

10 A. Yeah, it is. No person is mentioned.

11 Q. Minister Rudolf then is informing General Strugar that an

12 investigation will be carried out on the basis of what he heard from

13 Kadijevic. Is this correct?

14 A. Well, what is written here is what the minister read -- wrote, so

15 it must be correct.

16 Q. It's correct then that according to this letter General Strugar

17 will be informed of the results of the investigation. Is this correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Would you please now turn to page -- to tab 34. Look at the

20 document from the information centre of Dubrovnik. Page 1 is in English.

21 Please turn to pages 2 and 3, which contains documents in B/C/S. Is it

22 correct that in the translation into English the information at the top of

23 these documents is missing, showing the telephone numbers, the word

24 "Zagreb," the word "Staff of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic

25 of Croatia," and the stamp of these two documents. Is this correct?

1 A. They are not on the translation; that's correct.

2 Q. Would you please look at the first document from 1445 hours, the

3 Dubrovnik centre for information, 6th of December, 1991. On the

4 right-hand side there is a stamp and I will read it to you. "Republic of

5 Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 6th of December, at 1500 hours," and then

6 there is a signature.

7 You referred to this institution in your replies as the

8 information centre. Do you know that this is part of the Ministry of

9 Defence of the Republic of Croatia?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 Q. Would you please look at tab 35. The JNA staff from Boka is

13 sending a message to the Dubrovnik Crisis Staff and to

14 Minister Davorin Rudolf. Is this correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In the third sentence it says that General Kadijevic sent to

17 message to you and to the ECMM in Dubrovnik about undertaking an energetic

18 investigation into our responsibility for these events. And then there is

19 a sentence which says: "General Kadijevic summoned me to Belgrade at 1400

20 hours, so that today I will not be able to continue negotiations with

21 you."

22 Is this a letter sent by Vice-Admiral Miodrag Jokic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You know about the details of this letter? You're familiar with

25 them, right?

1 A. I am familiar with the details, yes.

2 Q. Tell me: With whom was the agreement made that two JNA officers

3 should come to Dubrovnik to take pictures of the damage?

4 A. To me the request for that was made, the way I remember it, by

5 Minister Rudolf. He had the contact with and the arrangement with that.

6 And in my opinion, it was a good idea. But the exact person he was in

7 contact with, I'm not sure.

8 Q. Let us now look at tab 36. And would you turn to page 2, the

9 B/C/S document allegedly an -- a pierce of information from

10 General Strugar to Minister Rudolf. If you look at the lower part, the

11 bottom part, mentioning dates and times, connected to the faxes, the

12 telephone numbers, is it correct that one cannot see how and when this

13 arrived in Dubrovnik?

14 A. You cannot see it on this document -- I'm sorry, I'll have to look

15 at the original. I'm not sure of all these numbers, but it states down

16 here 1714. I remember when I was informed, I logged it. So we can go

17 back to the log and check when I saw it at that time.

18 Q. Please follow what I am saying. When you said 1714, does it say

19 sent by 3850386? This is a Dubrovnik number. Right?

20 A. I am -- will not say anything about all these numbers and timings.

21 To the best of my knowledge, it looks like it arrived in Dubrovnik at

22 1715. But all these numbers is -- that's the best I can say about it.

23 Q. But you also cannot see from which number this arrived in

24 Dubrovnik?

25 A. Maybe not. There's lots of numbers here.

1 Q. Tell me: In the bottom part you can see that it says number of

2 pages: 01?

3 A. Yeah.

4 Q. And then in the upper part of the report where it says 1914,

5 38361847 this is the extension for Split. And then on the right-hand side

6 you can see the result, okay, pages: 02. Where is the second page of

7 this document and what does it represent?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Let's move on.

10 A. Anyway, the correspondence was not for me.

11 Q. At tab 37. Underneath this card it says: "Hotel Argentina

12 Dubrovnik, and Hotel Villa Orsula."

13 Can you tell me who was put up in the Villa Orsula?

14 A. I don't know in which rooms people -- persons stayed, so I can't.

15 Q. This is a separate facility, Hotel Villa Orsula, because it is

16 added here by hand. The regards are being sent from the Hotel Argentina

17 and Hotel Villa Orsula. Do you know where this hotel is?

18 A. Hotel Argentina and Villa Orsula are sort of the same complex. I

19 think it's even owned by the same people. So it's, as far as I was

20 concerned, the same hotel, Orsula, part of it a bit more luxury than the

21 other part.

22 Q. Very well. Let us now move on to the log contained in this tab,

23 and it refers to the meeting held in Cavtat. 11.24 you entered the

24 following: "Two bursts of MG fire heard from direction north-west, later

25 informed by the local authorities that a ZNG soldier had gone mad because

1 his brother had been killed."

2 Is this correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. For there similar incidents previous to this one by members of the

5 ZNG?

6 A. This is the only one I can remember.

7 Q. I do apologise, but let us go back just for a moment to this

8 letter, the alleged letter from the previous tab that General Strugar sent

9 to Minister Rudolf. Is it correct that in your logbook referring to the

10 events of the 6th of December at 1714 or 1715, this letter is not entered

11 at all?

12 A. I'll have to go back to the log.

13 Q. It's in tab 30, the last page.

14 A. Tab 30, last page, yeah. At 1914 --

15 Q. I asked you about 1714 or 1715. There's no entry in the logbook

16 that a message had been received.

17 A. That's right. It was received then or handed over to me at the

18 time, 1925. It was not a communication to me; it was passed to me by the

19 people it was sent to.

20 Q. Let us go back to the 7th of December, tab 37. Would you please

21 look at the time 1355, meeting commenced. You say: "I insisted that the

22 sentence 'freedom of movement for EC monitors' was included. This was

23 accepted by Admiral Jokic who told that we could go wherever we wanted,

24 (interesting from my point of view)."

25 Does this reflect your thoughts because something like this was

1 never said before?

2 A. No. It was interesting to hear it again, because it was very

3 positive in my point of view, very positive.

4 Q. Let me ask you: In view of the situation connected with

5 Admiral Jokic, was it interesting to hear this from him personally?

6 A. No. It was interesting for the general situation that we were

7 talking about something which was good talk and positive talk to me.

8 Q. Is it not the same as in the notes of Ambassador Bondioli, the

9 same thing that General Strugar asked for at the meeting on the 28th of

10 October? Was it not the same request that was made by the JNA on the 14th

11 of November, a meeting that you attended also. We spoke about that

12 document and you made notes. This cannot have been the first time that

13 the JNA made just such a request.

14 A. No.

15 Q. Thank you. In your log, in continuation, at 1925, as the time is

16 given, second passage of this entry you say: "If Admiral Jokic accepts

17 our freedom of movement it might mean and should mean that he accepts ECMM

18 teams on JNA side."

19 Admiral Jokic, had he opposed this before?

20 A. I do not -- I cannot remember if he had opposed, but the mere fact

21 of life was that we had no ECMM teams on that side on a permanent basis.

22 And this -- to have that, I have stated before, is very, very important in

23 my way of thinking.

24 Q. I have full respect for your way of thinking, but isn't it quite

25 obvious that much earlier before the 7th of December the JNA themselves

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 requested the presence of ECMM monitors on their side? We've just given

2 two examples.

3 A. From the 14th when the first time I now personally recall that

4 there was this request or suggestion to me, you may recall that we,

5 because of the general situation, had removed the EC monitors from

6 Dubrovnik. Now we are coming back because of the initiative of

7 Minister Rudolf and his colleagues. So the situation had changed, seen

8 from my point of view. Now we are starting on something new after having

9 something, whether it is good or not, removing our people. Now we have a

10 chance to get back and try to do what we are supposed to do.

11 Q. Please, again, you are wasting the time I have at my disposal.

12 The question was whether the JNA made a request before in relation to your

13 explanation as concerns the 14th of November. I will remind you that in

14 Ambassador Bondioli's notes from his first meeting with General Strugar

15 when they first met, it was also stated that a request was made and that

16 it would be helpful for ECMM monitors to also be on the side of the JNA.

17 Isn't that true?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Can we please look at tab 38. This is the agreement

20 that was signed stating the following: "I want to know about the JNA side

21 now, that the other side is being represented" -- it's the first paragraph

22 of the page I'm talking about. "The JNA being represented by the supreme

23 command of the armed forces of the SFRY and the supreme command of the

24 armed forced of the SFRY as the highest form of command is represented by

25 Vice-Admiral Miodrag Jokic."

1 Is that correct? You were after all at the meeting?

2 A. Yes, he was there.

3 Q. In the next passage, this is compared to the agreement signed in

4 Geneva by the President of Croatia Franjo Tudjman and the federal

5 secretary for national defence, Veljko Kadijevic. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is it true that in the very first sentence of this agreement, both

8 sides agree to fully comply with the cease-fire throughout the areas of

9 Metkovic and Dubrovnik municipalities, respectively?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. These forces that were deployed around Dubrovnik, did they stretch

12 as far as Metkovic municipality? Were you familiar with that?

13 A. Sorry. Yes, I believe so.

14 Q. It was also agreed to have a permanent link between the respective

15 commands of the armed forces because of the need to exchange information

16 in order to fully implement the aims of this agreement. Isn't that

17 correct?

18 A. Yeah.

19 Q. Just underneath it says that whoever violates this agreement will

20 be prosecuted by both sides of the agreement and duly inform the other

21 side of any such proceedings being undertaken. Isn't that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. According to that, the report dated the 9th of December, the

24 assessment of damage in Dubrovnik on the part of the JNA, the report was

25 signed by Admiral Jokic, was this report sent to you in order to notify

1 you that there had been an investigation by the JNA?

2 A. I've never seen that report before I arrived here in The Hague.

3 Q. In answer to a question by my learned friend from the Prosecution

4 you said that you had seen this report as early as mid-December 1991.

5 A. I may remember wrong, but I'm answering to the best of my

6 knowledge right now. I might have seen it that, if I have said so. But

7 right now sitting here I can't remember if I saw it at the time. And

8 maybe my absent-minded -- I don't -- but I have seen it for sure.

9 Q. Well, let us not waste time, but all the same. If you look at

10 what items 1, 2, and 3 of this agreement say or items 5, 6, and 7 for that

11 matter dealing with issues related to Dubrovnik. Life and work in

12 Dubrovnik, weapons, and so on. Can we agree that you could hear these

13 things being said by the JNA many times before every time you were in

14 touch with them, roughly speaking, that they were in agreement with these

15 proposals and that the JNA had sent many such requests, even prior to

16 December 1991.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please speak into the

18 microphone.

19 THE WITNESS: I have heard proposals -- proposals of that nature

20 before.

21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Thank you very much. Can you just tell me, if you look at the

23 bottom of the document, on behalf of the supreme command of the armed

24 forces of the SFRY the agreement was signed by Admiral Jokic, isn't that

25 correct, which you certified by your own signature on the same document?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you just briefly look at tab 39, please. This is a report of

3 the commission on damages caused to the Dubrovnik Old Town. The document

4 was compiled by the command of the 9th Military Naval Sector, and the

5 document was signed by Vice-Admiral Commander Miodrag Jokic. Isn't that

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. This document was forwarded to the deputy federal secretary for

9 national defence, Admiral Stane Brovet, wasn't it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And we do agree that the federal secretary for national defence at

12 the time was General Veljko Kadijevic, wasn't he?

13 A. I was informed like that, yeah.

14 Q. If you could just briefly look at the last paragraph, which speaks

15 about the opinion of the commission. The last sentence says: "You cannot

16 identify -- the origin of all the damage cannot be stated with certainty

17 or the perpetrators named because it is obvious that a lot of the damage

18 was not caused by attacks from outside the Old Town centre."

19 I am placing my emphasis on the last portion saying that: "It is

20 obvious that a lot of the damage was not caused by attacks from outside

21 the Old Town centre."

22 Would it be your understanding, then, that much of the damage

23 could be caused by operations of firing from inside the Old Town?

24 A. It's not my understanding, but I am convinced that the main damage

25 or the damage inside the Old Town came from outside the Old Town. The

1 shelling I had witnessed myself on the 6th.

2 Q. Please. Please. Listen to me, please. I am not challenging your

3 views on the matter. I am merely asking you the following: What would be

4 your understanding of this specific sentence when Admiral Jokic says: "It

5 is obvious that a lot of the damage was not caused by attacks from outside

6 the Old Town centre."

7 In your understanding, in your interpretation, is it

8 General Jokic's view -- Admiral Jokic's view that the damage was caused by

9 firing or operations inside the Old Town centre? Would that be your

10 interpretation of this sentence?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. WEINER: I was going to object and move to strike that,

14 Your Honour. He's asking this witness for general -- for Admiral Jokic's

15 view. He can't answer as to Admiral Jokic's view. That's a matter for

16 Admiral Jokic when he comes and testifies.

17 JUDGE PARKER: That is a fair observation.

18 Mr. Rodic, do you want to try and put the question some other way

19 or will you move on?

20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was just about to make

21 a link between this and another document that the witness spoke about

22 earlier. It is the letter by General Strugar, which in terms of it --

23 JUDGE PARKER: I beg your pardon, the interpreter was

24 interpreting. I'll pause.

25 I think you can accept that the document signed by Admiral Jokic

1 appears to suggest the view that a lot of damage was not caused by attacks

2 from outside the Old Town centre, whatever the admiral may have thought.

3 Now, do you want to go on and deal with another document?

4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I will.

5 I will now move on and ask the witness to look at tab 36, which is the

6 information report allegedly sent by General Strugar.

7 Q. Can you please look at the last three lines, or rather, four lines

8 when the general says: "Pursuant to my order, the units stopped firing at

9 11.15 but your forces did not observe a cease-fire. That is why it can be

10 concluded that the buildings in the Old Town are damaged by your forces.

11 My apologies. Your forces have not observed the cease-fire, that is why

12 it can be concluded that the buildings in the Old Town are being damaged

13 by your forces."

14 Does this strike you as a conclusion based on Admiral Jokic's

15 report, or is this similar at least?

16 A. To me, I find it's difficult to see the logic of the last

17 sentences here; it did when I received it. I'm still not sure what -- of

18 the logic of it. And you refer to Admiral Jokic, where he is stating

19 something about --

20 Q. So --

21 A. It reminds me of it, yeah.

22 Q. So you do agree that there is a similarity between the letter by

23 General Strugar and this report by Admiral Jokic, as concerns the

24 assessment of how the damage in the Old Town came about. Isn't that

25 correct? There are similarities there.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. It's not up to me to decide what the two gentlemen meant. I have

2 no further remarks to this.

3 Q. Thank you. Can we please briefly look at tab 41. This is an

4 organisational chart of the JNA in Herzegovina. Do you know where

5 Herzegovina is?

6 A. Yes, roughly the borders, yeah.

7 Q. Can you tell me roughly where it is.

8 A. Well, it's pretty close to the Dubrovnik area, if I say so.

9 Q. Can you name any town in Herzegovina? Have you ever heard of any

10 town in Herzegovina?

11 A. Yes, I have. Right now I can't remember the towns. I'm sorry.

12 Q. What about this organisation chart of the JNA in Herzegovina, what

13 does it belong to? Which forces does it refer to?

14 A. I don't know who made it, and it -- well, you can -- who does it

15 refer to? The organisation of military units, I guess, in Titograd, Boka,

16 and Titovo. You have the various places where people in units are

17 mentioned, and the various officers.

18 Q. Very well. Let us not go any further into this. If you look just

19 where the four X's are, there's a square and inside the square it says

20 "operations group". Just underneath it reads Trebinje and then under that

21 General Strugar --

22 A. Trebinje is just more or less north of Dubrovnik. I have been

23 there later.

24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving any interpretation.

25 Q. That's all very well, but I'm asking you about the square in which

1 it reads: "Operations group," and then underneath "Trebinje" and then

2 further down "General Strugar."

3 During your mission, during your monitoring mission in the former

4 Yugoslavia, did you ever hear any reference to these three terms in -- as

5 belonging to the same context, General Strugar in relation to the

6 operations group or General Strugar in relation to Trebinje?

7 A. No, we --

8 Q. Thank you. Finally, let us please confirm the following: From

9 the 28th of October you were in Split. Isn't that correct? I'm talking

10 about 1991, of course. Is it not correct that from the 9th of November to

11 the 14th of November you provided a detailed description of your

12 participation in the transport of the Slavija ferry without actually being

13 present in the area at the time -- I mean on the land. Can you just tell

14 me briefly your mission in those days --

15 A. I --

16 Q. -- between the 9th and the 14th, did it have to do with the

17 transport, with the evacuation of refugees from Dubrovnik and taking them

18 further up the coast to Rijeka and Pula. Was that the focus of your

19 mission in those days?

20 A. At the start I was sitting in our deputy regional centre in Split

21 receiving, between other things, the reports from Dubrovnik and the

22 requests to have the monitors removed. And then on the 11th, we moved

23 down there, first to be checked in Zelenika, then to go back to pick up

24 people in Dubrovnik, then to go back to Zelenika and to be checked again

25 and have a negotiation with the crisis committee members and the JNA.

1 Q. Please. I know all of that. You've talked about that at length.

2 All I'm asking is about the period of time between the 9th and the 14th of

3 November. Is it true that the focus of your mission was on that ship and

4 that you were not in the Dubrovnik area on land at that time going about

5 your duties. Is that not correct?

6 A. My main job was the ship, yes, and the evacuation of people.

7 Q. Thank you very much. Is it not true that following your departure

8 for Rijeka on the 14th of November, you no longer received firsthand

9 reports from Dubrovnik?

10 A. Correct, not until I was back in Split.

11 Q. I must read this out to you from your statement: "Following my

12 return to Split from Rijeka, I continued to go about my daily tasks.

13 However, from that point to my return to Dubrovnik on the 5th of December,

14 1991, I did not receive any other firsthand reports from Dubrovnik."

15 This applies to the specific period of time, your return from

16 Rijeka, and the 4th and 5th of December, that's at least what you stated

17 to the investigators.

18 A. That's correct. I misstated before -- I didn't hear -- when I

19 left Dubrovnik, I had no contact with Dubrovnik and what I actually should

20 have said before is when I came back I didn't hear anything about

21 Dubrovnik until I was back in Split, and that was not report from EC

22 monitors because they were not there.

23 Q. In relation to your whole mission, your participation in the

24 monitoring mission, your stay in Croatia, is it not true that it was only

25 between the 4th and the 8th of December, 1991, that you were physically

1 present in the Dubrovnik area, your arrival in Dubrovnik, you were there

2 on the 6th when there was shelling; on the 7th you were there at

3 negotiations in Cavtat; on the 8th you made a tour of the town with JNA

4 officers. Afterwards you left Dubrovnik which comprises a total of four

5 days. Is that not correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, you have about 2 minutes of tape left.

8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I'll be done in a minute, Your Honour.

9 Q. Is it not true, Mr. Hvalkof, that in the four days of your actual

10 physical presence in the Dubrovnik area in relation to those four days you

11 testified before this Court giving us a lot of information which relates

12 to the entire two months to events throughout the two months in Dubrovnik

13 area of which you had no direct part.

14 MR. WEINER: I would object, Your Honour. That's a speech.

15 That's for final submissions. That's not a question.

16 JUDGE PARKER: I think it can be answered, Mr. Weiner.

17 Mr. Hvalkof.

18 THE WITNESS: I'll go back and read it again, Your Honour.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. If you can please just answer briefly so we can conclude this

21 cross-examination.

22 A. I have testified to documents I have been forced to look at, yes,

23 from that period.

24 Q. My last question to you: Is it not true that throughout your

25 testimony we have ascertained that you have been shown documents in a very

1 selective manner. During your testimony we have observed a number of

2 discrepancies between your statements and facts, have we not?

3 MR. WEINER: I would object again, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: And this time, Mr. Weiner, I would uphold you.

5 This is getting to be a final submission, Mr. Rodic. We look

6 forward to hearing it when the time comes, but not now.

7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I'll withdraw the question,

8 Your Honour --

9 JUDGE PARKER: Very well and that --

10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] -- and I thank the Chamber for your

11 understanding.

12 JUDGE PARKER: And I hope you appreciate the very considerable

13 consideration we gave you of time on that cross-examination. We will

14 adjourn for 20 minutes.

15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

16 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

19 MR. WEINER: Thank you. Good afternoon.

20 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:

21 Q. We're almost finished, Mr. Hvalkof. I'd like to ask you about a

22 little -- a few questions concerning some matters which were raised

23 yesterday and today. Now, yesterday when you were questioned, you were

24 asked about the need for sending letters of protest to General Strugar

25 after having received letters of explanation from the JNA offices about

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the work on the roadways. Do you recall that?

2 A. Yeah.

3 Q. Now, did you accept at face value or believe all information that

4 was sent to the ECMM, either yourself or the monitors?

5 A. I -- maybe I'm facing a language problem. If I accepted that it

6 was correct. Is that what you mean?

7 Q. Yes. Did you accept as correct and true all the different letters

8 sent to the ECMM?

9 A. Well, we had to accept it. We are not sitting there to suppose

10 that people are telling us lies.

11 Q. Well, when things were sent to the ECMM, did you ever receive

12 information from the parties which you disbelieved?

13 A. In principle we didn't disbelieve anything, but of course you as

14 an individual could sit and be a bit doubtful now and then. But it's not

15 up to us to tell people that it was not true what they were telling us.

16 You had in principle, of course, to believe it.

17 Q. The fact that you received a letter which is exhibit -- Defence

18 Exhibit Number 27 from Colonel Svicevic the same person you testified --

19 that's a Defence Exhibit, not tab 27, sir. The same person who you

20 testified had threatened some ECM monitors. What if any level of trust

21 did you have at the ECMM with Colonel Svicevic?

22 A. It was clearly -- I was clearly briefed about that this was a man

23 the ECMM members should not talk to because he was threatening people on

24 their lives. I have not met this gentleman myself. I was briefed about

25 it and I have heard monitors who were threatened tell about or inform me

1 that they had been threatened.

2 Q. Well, the fact that the ECMM monitors in Dubrovnik protested to

3 General Strugar that the road work constituted an aggressive act after

4 receiving letters of explanation from the JNA, what does that tell you

5 about the ECMM monitors in Dubrovnik's belief of the JNA explanations?

6 A. Well, the EC monitors were, as I said before, passing complaints

7 both ways if they got them. If they got them from JNA, they would pass

8 them to the other people. And of course they had their own evaluation of

9 the situation, so I can only assume - not proved - that they felt it was

10 sort of a threat, but I don't know.

11 Q. And you've indicated that road work can be an aggressive military

12 act under circumstances. Isn't that correct?

13 A. That's correct. I've experienced that in several other missions.

14 Q. There was also some discussion, if we move to another subject,

15 about the Crisis Staff and your meetings with the Crisis Staff and the

16 monitors' meetings with the Crisis Staff. Did you or any of the monitors

17 ever observe any Dubrovnik Crisis Staff members carrying weapons?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did you or any of the ECMM monitors ever hear any of the Dubrovnik

20 Crisis Staff members threatening military action?

21 A. You mean military action against us?

22 Q. Against you or against the JNA.

23 A. Not against us. And to the best of my knowledge, not in our

24 presence to the JNA or to us in that respect, no.

25 Q. Did you ever see any crisis, I say, staff, or crisis committee

1 members wearing military uniforms, those members that you knew wearing

2 military uniforms?

3 A. I have stated today that on one occasion I believe there was one

4 of the members in something which looked like a uniform, camouflage dress.

5 Q. Did -- was that member armed?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you know if that was a member of the Crisis Staff or a part of

8 the Crisis Staff's security team, if they have any?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Do you know if that person was a local police officer?

11 A. I'm not sure he was a member of what you could call the delegation

12 of the Croats who showed up, who came with that group.

13 Q. Now, let's briefly move to another topic. You were questioned

14 yesterday and a bit today about General Strugar and other members of the

15 JNA requesting investigations about incidents or offering ECM monitors to

16 come on to JNA-controlled areas. In fact, you were questioned about that

17 both today and yesterday, about requests to -- for the monitors to come on

18 to JNA areas. During General Strugar's command of the Dubrovnik area or

19 the JNA troops in the Dubrovnik area, did the ECMM monitors have free

20 access to the JNA-controlled areas?

21 A. Not according to my knowledge.

22 Q. When you visited JNA-controlled areas, did you ever have free

23 access?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Were you allowed to walk through JNA-controlled areas and freely

1 investigate allegations of shootings?

2 A. No.

3 Q. I want to ask you another question that was raised. They asked

4 you today about firing or shooting in the vicinity of the Argentina Hotel

5 during that period of shelling in November. And you noted it in tab 11.

6 Could you please turn to tab 12, page 4. Now, on tab 12, page 4, it

7 should have the last three digits on the top as 324.

8 A. Right, I'm there.

9 Q. And could you please read the notation at -- please read the

10 notation at 1420 hours, which is 2.20 p.m.?

11 A. "Incident at entrance of hotel." It's made there briefer, but

12 that's the content of the message.

13 Q. Could you continue --

14 A. "A sniper from the slope opposite hotel has shot and wounded four

15 people -- shot at and wounded four people, three hotel employees and a

16 French journalist. All four wounded in legs or feet."

17 Q. Thank you. Finally, could you turn to -- actually, you don't even

18 have to turn to the document. Remember Ambassador Van Houten's protest to

19 Colonel Kadijevic on November 10th?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. After that protest was issued, did you receive authorisation of

22 any kind to travel to Dubrovnik?

23 A. I just want to -- the date was --

24 Q. November 10th.

25 A. Okay. After November 10th, we had this visit -- first visit to

1 pick up the people. And after that, we could not go to Dubrovnik before

2 it was arranged by Minister Rudolf and his colleagues.

3 Q. Well, the letter was written to General Kadijevic, and in that

4 letter you complained that -- or Ambassador Van Houten complained - if we

5 can go to document 15 - that General Strugar, commander of the forces in

6 the Dubrovnik area -- or that -- that the issue of the breach of

7 cease-fire had been sent to General Raseta and General Strugar, who was

8 the commander of the forces in the Dubrovnik area, without any response.

9 Did the minister of defence, General Kadijevic, ever respond in

10 the manner that General Strugar was not the commander of the forces in the

11 Dubrovnik area?

12 A. I have never seen it or heard it.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. WEINER: No further questions, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, before you sit, an issue which the

16 Chamber has noticed and which you may wish to take up with the witness is

17 the documents that are exhibit P61, 1 and, I think, 2, but certainly

18 Defence Exhibits D26 and D27, that group of documents. While they appear

19 on the face of it to be documents addressed by different people to others,

20 they all have a remarkable similarity of handwriting style. Is it that

21 these are originals, or are they a copy produced by the one person? I

22 thought I would mention it now in case you may want to take the matter

23 with this witness, if the Chamber is seeing the documents correctly.

24 MR. WEINER: May the witness please be shown Documents D25, 26,

25 and 27.

1 Q. Sir, you've heard the Court's question. First let me ask you: In

2 what language are those three documents?

3 A. They are in English.

4 Q. In what language was the messages sent to you?

5 A. They were normally passed in -- I have to be careful, but let's

6 say in the local language.

7 Q. And once it's received in the local language, what happens next?

8 A. We had to translate them. For that reason, we had interpreters.

9 In our case, now and then our own people who could, and otherwise we had

10 to rely on interpreters from one of the sides where we were.

11 Q. Now, the fact that those three letters, those three exhibits, D25,

12 26, and 27, are in similar handwriting, what if anything does that say to

13 you?

14 A. Well, it seems to me that the same interpreter has been used.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. WEINER: Any further questions?

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Weiner, for clarifying that matter.

18 MR. WEINER:

19 Q. Thank you, sir.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hvalkof, may we say, first, your time has come.

21 Secondly, may we thank you for your attendance here and the time you

22 spent. And we wish you well on your journey back to your farm.

23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. May I thank for kind

24 treatment from Your Honour and Your colleagues, from everybody in this

25 room. I wish you all well, all of you.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you then. You are free to go, Mr. Hvalkof.

2 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much indeed, Your Honour.

3 [The witness withdrew]

4 JUDGE PARKER: Do I see you, Mr. Kaufman?

5 MR. KAUFMAN: You indeed, Your Honour. Good afternoon. The next

6 witness is Dr. Colin Kaiser. We have half an hour in which to introduce

7 him. There is no way we will finish, unfortunately, the

8 examination-in-chief today. I apologise.

9 JUDGE PARKER: No apology from you is called for.

10 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 So if I may call Dr. Kaiser.

12 Your Honour, I should like to take this opportunity also to

13 introduce Ms. Andrea Matacic, a research officer from the Office of the

14 Prosecutor. She will be assisting me in this matter.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. If you would be kind enough to

18 take the affirmation which will now be shown to you.

19 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

20 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21 WITNESS: COLIN KAISER.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. If you could be seated.

23 Yes, Mr. Kaufman.

24 Examined by Mr. Kaufman:

25 If it pleases Your Honours.

1 Q. Good afternoon. Sir, if could you state your full name for the

2 record.

3 A. My full name is Colin Reid Erlin Kaiser.

4 Q. And your age?

5 A. I'm 54 years old.

6 Q. And your current address, please.

7 A. 105 rue Haxo in the 20th district of Paris, France.

8 Q. Dr. Colin Kaiser, could you tell the Court where you acquired your

9 title and in what discipline.

10 A. Well, I'm a social and institutional historian of the -- of Old

11 Regime France, by training. My doctorate was a D.Phil. at the University

12 of London, United Kingdom.

13 Q. And could you give a brief description of your employment from

14 1985 until today.

15 A. In 1985, I joined the International Council on Monuments and Sites

16 as an assistant to the director. In 1987, I was asked to become the

17 director of the International Council of Monuments and Sites which is a

18 nongovernmental organisation. It works in cultural heritage and works

19 with UNESCO. I was the director of the international secretariat of

20 ICOMOS. In 1991 I was asked by UNESCO to go to Dubrovnik as an observer.

21 After this mission I worked for the parliamentary assembly of the Council

22 of Europe from end of 1992 until the summer of 1994 in Croatia and Bosnia

23 and Herzegovina, working on the questions of the destruction of cultural

24 heritage. In the summer -- no in the fall of 1994 I was asked by UNESCO

25 to return to Mostar in Herzegovina as a consultant working on cultural

1 heritage. I served a series of missions, going back and forth between

2 Mostar and Paris until the summer of 1995, I was asked by UNESCO if I

3 would like to become the representative and head of office, the UNESCO

4 office, in Sarajevo, and I took up that function in October 1995. I

5 returned to headquarters in 1999 where I stayed for a year and four

6 months. I was asked again by UNESCO to return to Sarajevo to be the

7 representative and head of office again, which I was until the closing of

8 the country office in Bosnia-Herzegovina in September 2003. Now I am -- I

9 have been reintegrated into headquarters and I work in the education

10 sector of UNESCO.

11 Q. Thank you, sir. How did it come about that you were specifically

12 requested to travel to Dubrovnik in 1991?

13 A. In the fall in 1991, sometime early in November, I was approached

14 by Professor Leon Pressouyre, who was a consultant who worked on the --

15 worked for ICOMOS on the world heritage nominations and he asked me if I

16 would be ready, willing to go to Dubrovnik for UNESCO. I said, Yes I

17 would. And then a short while later I was informed that -- I was asked if

18 indeed I would go and I said yes.

19 Q. Would you enlighten us as to UNESCO's particular involvement in

20 Dubrovnik. What was UNESCO concerned about Dubrovnik?

21 A. The first thing to keep in mind was Dubrovnik was inscribed on the

22 World Heritage List in 1979 and the world heritage list is constituted

23 under the convention -- the World Heritage Convention and that is a UNESCO

24 convention. So UNESCO does have a kind of stewardship over the sites that

25 are on that list. Also UNESCO had been alerted by the authorities in

1 Dubrovnik that there had been damage done to the Old Town.

2 Q. When you travelled to Dubrovnik, did you have a specific mandate?

3 A. Well, I was engaged on a consultancy contract. Under that

4 contract I was representative but in fact an observer representative

5 because I report directly to the director general. My specific mandate in

6 Dubrovnik in the framework of the world heritage convention and also The

7 Hague Convention 1954 on cultural heritage in time of war was to ascertain

8 if any military damage or damage had been done from military causes to the

9 Old Town of Dubrovnik and also to make recommendations eventually if there

10 was a restoration which would be required.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 So at this time it may be appropriate to submit to the Trial

13 Chamber and to you of course as well a bundle of documents which has been

14 prepared containing your exhibits. I believe the bundles have already

15 been supplied to the Trial Chamber. Perhaps if these could be put in

16 front of Your Honours' computer screens.

17 MR. KAUFMAN: Could I ask Mr. Usher -- sorry, Ms. Usher today, if

18 the bundles could be placed in front of the witness as well.

19 Q. Sir, could you look at the monitor in front of you, if Ms. Usher

20 could kindly put the monitor on display, video. This is to be found at

21 tab 5 in the bundle. Please have a look at this letter. Do you recognise

22 that letter, sir?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. What is that letter?

25 A. That is a letter of appointment from the director general of

1 UNESCO to me regarding the mission to Dubrovnik, personal representative

2 and observer.

3 Q. I see the letter, sir, is dated the 20th of November, 1991. When

4 did you set off for Dubrovnik pursuant to that letter?

5 A. We set off to Dubrovnik -- we arrived in Dubrovnik on the 27th of

6 November, but earlier we went to Belgrade and also to Zagreb. So I would

7 have left on mission a few days following the reception of this letter.

8 Q. So out of the two cities that you've mentioned, Belgrade and

9 Zagreb, where was your first port of call?

10 A. The first port of call was Belgrade, in fact.

11 Q. And whom did you meet there?

12 A. We were taken to have a high-level meeting with federal military

13 and civilian authorities. I remember there was General Pujic at this

14 meeting.

15 Q. Are you aware of General Pujic's position within the hierarchy of

16 the JNA?

17 A. I'm afraid I'm not sure of his exact ranking.

18 Q. Well, could you tell us what General Pujic said at that meeting.

19 A. Well, General Pujic described the general situation that was

20 reigning on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. As the discussion

21 was mainly, however, about Dubrovnik, about the organising of the mission

22 at Dubrovnik, conditions and security, but also the question of the

23 engagements of federal authorities towards Dubrovnik and the security of

24 Dubrovnik. And Mr. -- and General Pujic talked about those various

25 guarantees that the Federal Government was giving.

1 Q. Who was present, apart from yourself, at this meeting?

2 A. Mr. Daniel Janicot who was the director of the cabinet. The

3 director general of UNESCO was present with his assistant, Mr. Rok Vogric.

4 And also Mr. Bruno Carnez who was a UNESCO functionary and who was the

5 other observer in the mission, and myself.

6 Q. Did the conversation at any point in time turn to the topic of the

7 Old Town of Dubrovnik?

8 A. Yes. The discussion of course turned to the situation of

9 Dubrovnik.

10 Q. What was discussed concerning the Old Town of Dubrovnik? I would

11 refer you to General Pujic's comments.

12 A. Well, General Pujic pointed out that a guarantee had been given

13 that the Old Town would not be bombarded, although he pointed out that --

14 he said that mortars had been placed at the foot of the walls, but that

15 the federal army would not respond to any provocations.

16 Q. Now, I'd like to interject at this point in time and ask you, sir,

17 as we will later find you indeed were in Dubrovnik. I take it you are

18 familiar with the ramparts and the walls of the Old Town of Dubrovnik?

19 A. Yes, I'm very familiar with the Old Town and the walls.

20 Q. Did you have occasion when you were in Dubrovnik to tour the walls

21 of the Old Town of Dubrovnik?

22 A. Definitely. It was extremely important to go up on the walls. I

23 was on the walls every day practically before the 6th of December.

24 Q. So bearing in mind General Pujic's statement, what do you have to

25 say about the matter, based upon your tours of the walls in Dubrovnik?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. I didn't see any mortar positions or any military positions at

2 all.

3 Q. Thank you, sir. We'll come back to that when we discuss the Old

4 Town of Dubrovnik in more detail. But if I can take you back now to the

5 meetings you had prior to your arriving in Dubrovnik. You've talked about

6 the meeting in Belgrade. One last question I'd like to ask you about

7 that: Was this meeting conducted through an interpreter?

8 A. Yes, it was. It was conducted through an interpreter.

9 Q. Are you conversant in B/C/S, sir?

10 A. No, no.

11 Q. And whose interpreter was this?

12 A. This was an interpreter who was supplied by the federal

13 authorities.

14 Q. Sir, you mentioned you had a meeting in Zagreb as well or you

15 moved on to Zagreb. Did you have meetings there?

16 A. We had quite a number of meetings, in fact, in Zagreb.

17 Q. How many days after your meeting in Belgrade was that?

18 A. One or two days. I mean, as soon as we got into Zagreb, we began

19 to have meetings.

20 Q. Okay. Does the name Stamenkovic mean anything to you?

21 A. Yes, Colonel Stamenkovic, it certainly does because we had a

22 meeting with him, several meetings with him, in fact.

23 Q. Tell the Trial Chamber about a conversation that you had or a

24 meeting that you had with the said Colonel Stamenkovic, where it was and

25 what was said.

1 A. The meeting with Stamenkovic was held in the headquarters of the

2 5th Military District in Zagreb. These meetings were about guarantees for

3 travel to Dubrovnik. We also -- we had explained also to the federal

4 authorities what we were doing in Dubrovnik. And my colleague,

5 Mr. Carnez, indicated that we would raise the flags of the United Nations

6 over the Old Town as a form of protection. Colonel Stamenkovic said that

7 federal army would not shoot and that we would even receive a written

8 guarantee to this effect.

9 Q. Did you ever receive a written guarantee to that effect?

10 A. No, we never received a written guarantee to that effect. When

11 we -- when Mr. Carnez insisted about flags, Colonel Stamenkovic said it

12 was extremely good, it was very important. And if they were flags of

13 peace, to run them up immediately. However, flags are formalities; they

14 are inert forms. I remember him using that expression and flags will not

15 prevent action.

16 Q. [Microphone not activated] Who was present at that meeting, apart

17 from Stamenkovic, and yourself, and Carnez?

18 A. We had an interpreter provided by the Croatian side.

19 General Raseta was, I think, present briefly in the meeting. I think he

20 was the commander of the 5th Military District, but he was not present for

21 this particular exchange that we had with Colonel Stamenkovic. And that

22 was it. It was a very small meeting.

23 Q. So let us turn to Dubrovnik. How and when did you arrive in

24 Dubrovnik?

25 A. We arrived in Dubrovnik very late in the evening of the 27th of

1 November.

2 Q. Who greeted you?

3 A. We were received at the -- we landed at the Port of Gruz, the new

4 port of Dubrovnik. We were greeted by Mr. Matko Vetma and

5 Mr. Zvonko Franic who were architects from the Institute for the

6 Protection of Cultural Heritage in Dubrovnik.

7 Q. Had you pre-arranged your meeting with these people?

8 A. We had not pre-arranged the meeting with the people. I think it

9 was arranged through Zagreb, through the authorities in Zagreb.

10 Q. Where were you housed in Dubrovnik?

11 A. We were housed in the institute building, obviously for the

12 protection of cultural heritage. It was in the Old Town. It has always

13 been understood that we would actually be in the Old Town.

14 Q. And where is the institute building situated?

15 A. The institute building is just on the other side of the street

16 from the Dominican monastery.

17 Q. Now, you arrived there with a mandate from Mr. Federico Mayor,

18 director of UNESCO. How did you go about putting that task -- those tasks

19 contained in the mandate into action? What were the first things that you

20 did?

21 A. Well, the very first thing we did and it was morning of the 28th

22 of November, with the officials of the city, we went around and we had

23 three United Nations flags, and we hauled these three flags over the three

24 bastions of the walls of Dubrovnik on Fort Minceta, on the bastion, Fort

25 St. John, and also Fort Bokar. So it was the -- our tour was the very

1 first thing that we did when we got there.

2 Q. I believe that Fort St. John is also known as St. Ivan?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. I wonder at this point in time if we could show you a map and have

5 you point out these places. Okay. On the Elmo, then. Sir, first of all,

6 if you could, point out the institute and the Dominican monastery. In blue

7 pen, please mark.

8 MR. KAUFMAN: This is P13, Your Honours.

9 THE WITNESS: That's the Dominican monastery.

10 MR. KAUFMAN:

11 Q. In you could put the letter A beside that so we have a frame of

12 reference. Thank you.

13 If you could signify where the institute is.

14 A. I'll comment this is not a very good map. The institute is about

15 here.

16 Q. If you could just put a line -- an X, perhaps you could put an X.

17 A. [Marks]

18 Q. Okay. Thank you. We'll use that as a frame of reference.

19 Now, without marking, just for the benefit of the Court because

20 they are marked on the map, I do believe. Point out the Minceta St.

21 Ivan's turret and the Boka turret.

22 A. This is Minceta right here and this is Boka right down here.

23 Q. Yes. And St. Ivan, please.

24 A. And this is St. John's bastion here.

25 Q. Thank you. Why did you put the UN flags in those turrets?

1 A. The UN flags were run up over the town as a reminder that the town

2 was protected under The Hague Convention and also the World Heritage

3 Conventions, they're UNESCO conventions. But UNESCO is a United Nations

4 agency.

5 Q. You mentioned Hague Convention signs.

6 A. Mm-hmm.

7 Q. Were these in position anywhere in the Old Town?

8 A. There were a certain number of Hague Convention signs which were

9 placed on individual monuments in the Old Town.

10 Q. What type of monuments were they put on?

11 A. There was a -- there was one flag which was on the Sponza Palace.

12 There was another palace which was on the palace of the rectors. Another

13 one on St. Blaise Church. Another one on the cathedral.

14 Q. Now, you've told the Court that the first thing you did on the

15 morning of the 28th of November was put up these flags. What did you do

16 immediately thereafter? What was your plan of action?

17 A. Well, we had also a certain number of explanatory meetings with

18 the officials of the town. We had a lunch with them. That was to explain

19 to them and there were journalists there as well, but the most important

20 part of my job was to verify whether or not there had been any damage

21 caused to the Old Town in earlier events.

22 Q. When you say "earlier events," to what earlier events are you

23 referring to?

24 A. There had been apparently shelling of the town on the 23rd of

25 October, and there had been shelling the 10th -- from the 10th to the 12th

1 of November as well. We received information about the shellings earlier.

2 So the question was to simply go and verify them. We had received -- on

3 the spot, we received a small report that had been prepared by the

4 institute. And that would be sort of the base -- some base material to

5 see what, in fact, actually happened. But the important thing was to

6 actually go and see what had happened.

7 Q. So how would you physically go about verifying the damage that had

8 allegedly been caused, as you say, in October and November?

9 A. Well, of course the question was to go physically on to the sites,

10 which is something I did. Sometimes I was accompanied by Mr. Carnez.

11 The -- we had to sort of -- first of all, we had to verify the information

12 that was put into their report. It quickly transpired, though, that I had

13 to find a better tool, a better methodology, in order to summarise and to

14 present the damage. And that was something I began to work on very, very

15 rapidly, I think, on the afternoon even of the 28th of November.

16 Q. Thank you, Dr. Kaiser.

17 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, at this point in time I would like to

18 cease the examination-in-chief because I see we are approaching the

19 appointed time for conclusion of the hearing today. I have a wish to

20 express to Your Honours as well. The fact that I will be presenting a

21 number of exhibits tomorrow to the witness, and instead of presenting

22 exhibits now with only a couple of minutes remaining, I think it would be

23 appropriate to do so tomorrow morning.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.

25 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence of General

2 Strugar would like to ask leave to address you on two topics tomorrow

3 morning. We do not want to say when that might be convenient for the

4 Chamber, either before the beginning or at the end of tomorrow's session.

5 Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Can you tell me, Mr. Petrovic, what those two

7 issues are.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, I can. As you

9 may assume, one of these topics is the Doctor's report, which I believe

10 has already reached Your Honours. And the second topic is connected to

11 the trial schedule. And we would only address you for ten minutes on

12 those two topics, if you would allow me to address you briefly.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Can I indicate, Mr. Kaufman, as you're on your feet

16 that we would plan to take up with you tomorrow the question of the -- any

17 medical examination of the accused that is contemplated and the timetable

18 for that and pursuing the Defence motion as to the health and the

19 continuance of the trial.

20 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honour. I will pass the message along

21 and I'm sure that the relevant attorney who will deal with the matter will

22 be present in court.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I think it may be convenient for that

24 to be dealt with that at the beginning of the day, I would think, so as to

25 give Dr. Kaiser's evidence a clear run.

1 MR. KAUFMAN: As Your Honour pleases.

2 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn until tomorrow. I must ask you to

3 return in the morning, Dr. Kaiser. Thank you.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

5 at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,

6 the 13th day of February, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25