091012IT

Page 22890

1 We are prepared to address the issue in any manner that the

2 Chamber wishes it be addressed, just so that the Chamber is aware.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would like to hear from the other parties

4 once they are ready so that we can make it a focussed joint effort.

5 [The witness takes the stand]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Pasic.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning to you too.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, I would like to remind you that you are

9 still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the

10 beginning of your testimony. That may be clear to you.

11 Ms. Gustafson will now continue her cross-examination.

12 Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.

13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.

14 WITNESS: PETAR PASIC [Resumed]

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson: [Continued]

17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pasic.

18 A. Good morning to you too.

19 Q. Now on Friday at the -- near the end of the court session, I was

20 asking some questions about the military police in Knin, and you

21 explained that you did not recall Mr. Dzolic, the first military police

22 commander in Knin, and explained that you were not present at any

23 meetings between General Cermak and the military police.

24 Now, in your statement that you gave to the Defence, you stated

25 that the military police was not subordinate to General Cermak. And I'd

Page 22891

1 like to ask you if you're aware that General Cermak issued written orders

2 to the military police commander in Knin.

3 Did you know that?

4 A. No, I wasn't aware of that. I told you last time that members of

5 the military police did not participate in meetings together with me and

6 Mr. Cermak.

7 Q. And I -- it's clear from your statement that you know that

8 General Cermak was the garrison commander in Knin. Do have you any

9 specialised knowledge about the authority or function of a garrison

10 commander under the rules and laws that applied at the time?

11 A. As far as I know, a garrison commander does not have any special

12 authorities, save for supplying units currently deployed in the territory

13 of the town where that person serves as a garrison commander.

14 Q. Are you aware of -- of which particular rules and laws applied to

15 define the functions and authority of a garrison commander at the time?

16 A. According to information available to me, I believe that those

17 tasks belong to the civilian sector. They certainly did not belong or

18 fall within the purview of either the military or the police.

19 Q. I take it from your answer that you are not aware of which

20 particular rules and laws applied to define the functions and authority

21 of a garrison commander at the time; is that right?

22 A. I'm -- I don't think you're right. His authorities fell within

23 the purview of the civilian sector.

24 Q. Mr. Pasic, my question was about particular laws or rules that

25 applied at the time.

Page 22892

1 Are you able to identify any particular law or rule that applied

2 at the time?

3 A. No. I must say, unfortunately, that I don't understand your

4 question. What laws and rules? The laws and rules of the Republic of

5 Croatia.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, in your statement that you gave to the

7 Prosecution, you explained that General Cermak was upset about the crimes

8 that were going on after Operation Storm. You stated:

9 "As far as the killings, looting, and destruction was concerned,

10 he was not happy about it."

11 And in your statement to the Defence, you stated that

12 General Cermak did not have the authority that would allow him to prevent

13 crime.

14 Now, as far as you were aware, did General Cermak have the

15 authority to instruct either the military police or the civilian police

16 to take action in response to the report of a crime, to investigate a

17 crime. Did he have that authority, as far as you're aware?

18 A. No, he did not have that authority. And as a person who was

19 serving as the garrison commander and as the person who cooperated with

20 me, I told you that he felt upset after having received reports about

21 lootings and killings and other such things.

22 Q. So I take it that you are not aware of any specific instance

23 where General Cermak instructed either the civilian police or the

24 military police to -- to respond to a crime or to investigate a crime; is

25 that right?

Page 22893

1 A. That is right.

2 Q. Now, in your statement that you gave to the Defence, you describe

3 an incident where you invited General Cermak to your village and that

4 General Cermak organised a delivery of a generator and fuel to the

5 village. And that's at paragraph 30 of your Defence statement.

6 Now, your village is -- you have described as Oton. Are you

7 actually from the hamlet of Oton Bender? Is that right?

8 I see you nodding yes.

9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, I'd like, if we could have P2526, page 82 of

10 the English and page 98 of the B/C/S on the screen, please.

11 Q. Mr. Pasic, the document that's going to appear on your screen

12 shortly is part of an interview that General Cermak gave to the

13 Prosecution, and I'm going to ask you to read some parts of that

14 interview and then ask you a couple of questions, okay?

15 And the passage I'd like to you look at begins in the first

16 paragraph where General Cermak is speaking, and he says:

17 "Just before winter, in October, I was with my people from

18 logistics. We went to the Serbian village of Bender, that's near Knin,

19 because I wanted in the villages surrounding Knin where there were people

20 of Serbian nationality, the people who stayed had behind, that in each

21 village there would be an electricity generator. So I went with my

22 logistics people, and also with the government representative,

23 Mr. Pasic" --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, is it --

25 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think now --

Page 22894

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- for certain that we have the version in the

2 language of the witness on the screen.

3 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think so. I think at this point we're in the

4 paragraph in the middle of the page.

5 JUDGE ORIE: What I see, as a matter of fact, on my screen is

6 that in the middle we have a relatively short paragraph, whereas you

7 apparently are reading from a paragraph which covers some 26 lines, and I

8 do not see --

9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I --

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- any beginning, unless it is the very last one,

11 but --

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think it actually is broken up. I believe this

13 is one of the places where there's an interjection by Mr. Dondo.

14 JUDGE ORIE: That could be, and -- yes, if that is the case, you

15 may proceed.

16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.

17 Q. Are you able to follow so far, Mr. Pasic?

18 If you could look at this point at the paragraph in the middle.

19 And I'll just repeat. General Cermak says -- he mentions your name and

20 then he says:

21 "I went to that village. We set up the generator. We connected

22 the electricity to the village, delivered humanitarian aid. We delivered

23 a couple of televisions so that they wouldn't be cut off from the world

24 and could watch the news. So we talked with people and they roasted lamb

25 for us. We said good-bye. We gave somebody from the village the

Page 22895

1 responsibility to maintain and to fix the generator, and we set off back

2 for Knin."

3 And now, just stopping there for a moment. The incident that

4 General Cermak is describing there, as far as you are aware, is that the

5 same one that you mentioned in your witness statement, where you said

6 that you invited General Cermak to your native village and he organised

7 the delivery of a generator to your village?

8 Is that the same thing that General Cermak talks about here?

9 A. On my screen I don't see written what you have just quoted, but

10 can I say with certainty that there were no incidents. We went there

11 together, and everything corresponds in terms of the contents. We

12 brought the generator, we established the delivery of electricity,

13 humanitarian aid was brought, we spoke to people because we wanted for

14 the people who remained behind and were scared to gain trust in the

15 Croatian authorities, and to make sure that they understand that they

16 would receive as much help and aid as possible.

17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, if we could move down to the bottom of the

18 page in the B/C/S.

19 Q. And if could you look at that last paragraph, Mr. Pasic. And in

20 the English, General Cermak says:

21 "As soon as I arrived at the office, I received a report that in

22 the village three or four people had arrived with a truck. They took

23 sheep away from the people. They put them in the truck."

24 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could move to the next page in the

25 B/C/S.

Page 22896

1 Q. Do you see that?

2 A. Yes, can I see that, and it is the truth.

3 Q. And if we -- if you look at the first large paragraph on your

4 screen, he continues:

5 "They took the televisions that we had given to them" -- sorry.

6 "They took sheep away from the people. They put them in the

7 truck. They took the televisions that we had given to them and I was

8 just completely angry. I exploded. I called the civilian police

9 commander. That was the one who came after Romanic, a Mr. Gambiroza. Do

10 whatever you want, I want the culprits to be found. And I got everyone

11 going. Two or three hours went by and the culprits were captured. One

12 policeman, a civilian policeman with his badge, with his identification.

13 Another policeman who had been suspended a couple of months before, and

14 another two civilians."

15 I take it from your previous answer that you know that the

16 villagers were robbed immediately after your and General Cermak's visit

17 to the village. Is that right?

18 A. This is just one isolated case, which happened --

19 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'm just asking if you know about it. Do you know?

20 Did you know that the villagers were robbed?

21 A. They were not robbed. It was not villagers but a villager who

22 was robbed.

23 Q. And did you know that immediately after General Cermak found out

24 about this robbery that he called Mr. Gambiroza, told him to do whatever

25 he wanted, he wanted the culprits to be found, and that General Cermak

Page 22897

1 got everyone going.

2 Did you know about that?

3 A. I informed General Cermak about the incident. It was a robbery

4 that was perpetrated against my uncle, a man that I shared my residence

5 with, and General Cermak reacted in the way he did.

6 Q. I was just asking if you knew about that reaction. Did you know

7 about General Cermak's phone call to Mr. Gambiroza and what he said to

8 Mr. Gambiroza?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could look at 65 ter 1802, please.

12 Q. And, Mr. Pasic, your uncle who was robbed, is his name

13 Luka Pasic; is that right.

14 Oh. Mr. Pasic, is your uncle that was robbed, is his name

15 Luka Pasic?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, on your screen --

18 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could scroll down in the English. I think

19 that's fine.

20 Q. You can see this is a report from the Knin police station.

21 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we move up in the B/C/S, you can see it's from

22 the Knin police station.

23 Q. And it's addressed to a number of recipients, including

24 General Cermak, and the subject is plaintiff, Luka Pasic, criminal act of

25 aggravated theft.

Page 22898

1 And if could you read the text near the bottom of the page, you

2 can see this describes an incident in the village of Oton Bender on the

3 19th of October, 1995, related to a criminal act by three unidentified

4 perpetrators who took away 56 heads of sheep. And it describes how three

5 suspects have been detained.

6 When you get to the bottom of the page, we can turn to the next

7 page in the B/C/S, as it continues.

8 And the report describes how the suspects were brought to the

9 Knin police station. Describes how one of the suspects was a MUP

10 employee, and another had been removed six months earlier as a MUP

11 employee.

12 And can you see that the report --

13 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we go to the last page in the English.

14 Q. -- is written by Mr. Gambiroza.

15 Now, it appears from reading this report that it deals with the

16 same incident of theft that you describe in your -- that you've just

17 described and that General Cermak described in his interview. Is this,

18 again, dealing with the same incident?

19 A. I did not receive this document, but I believe that it speaks

20 about the same incident.

21 Q. You -- now, having seen this evidence of General Cermak learning

22 about a crime, calling the police commander, Mr. Gambiroza, telling him

23 to do whatever he wants, he wants the perpetrators found, getting

24 everyone going, and having seen this report from Mr. Gambiroza back to

25 General Cermak reporting on the results of the investigation, is it fair

Page 22899

1 to say that when you gave your statements you were not aware of the full

2 extent of General Cermak's authority, in relation to the investigation of

3 crimes?

4 MR. KAY: Before the witness answers the question and in the need

5 for fullness if he is being asked to comment on it, my learned friend

6 should put the following document, 65 ter 2D0005, which is the original

7 report from Luka Pasic to the police and has details there, which is a

8 document that has to be considered in this context.

9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm not familiar with that document.

10 If -- I think the question is a fair one but if you --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Neither is --

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- I would need time to read the document to

13 respond.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Neither is the Court, Ms. Gustafson. So, therefore,

15 although I understand the words of Mr. Kay to be a suggestion, but a

16 suggestion of a kind which should be seriously considered. I'm not

17 saying whether finally if you would have looked at the document, whether

18 it would be appropriate to ask you to include this information but at

19 least I can't, at this moment, say anything about it. But would be

20 please be so kind to have a look at it and see whether ...

21 MR. KAY: I'm grateful, Your Honour. It's the criminal report to

22 the police on -- by Luka Pasic.

23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, when I put 2D305 into e-court I

24 don't get any result. Perhaps it's another number.

25 MR. KAY: No, sorry, it's four zeros.

Page 22900

1 MS. GUSTAFSON: 2D300005, I still get no document.

2 MR. KAY: 2D00005. I'm sorry for the confusion but that is it

3 the document.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that we have -- I did understand 2D300 --

5 MR. KAY: No, no.

6 MS. GUSTAFSON: There's no 3.

7 MR. KAY: No, 3, Your Honour. Forget the 3. It's 2D00005. And

8 forget the 4 as a digit. It's just ...

9 JUDGE ORIE: So I now repeat, 2D00005.

10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I have looked at the document. I

11 could respond, but perhaps the witness should take his headphones off.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 Could you take your earphones off, Mr. ...

14 MS. GUSTAFSON: From what I can see, Your Honour, this is a

15 criminal report by the plaintiff, Mr. Luka Pasic, to the Knin police. I

16 don't see how this impacts on what the witness has seen or the question.

17 The evidence that Mr. Pasic might have made a report to the Knin police

18 station, I don't think, impacts on the question.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, Ms. Gustafson, that the issue Mr. Kay is

20 raising is that it may have been the reporting by Mr. Pasic himself that

21 triggered the police activity, rather than a phone call on which -- phone

22 call which is mentioned in Mr. Cermak's statement.

23 Now, whether this should be put to him or not, of course, the

24 first thing before we ask any conclusions as to the authority of

25 Mr. Cermak, the witness has testified that he was not aware of what may

Page 22901

1 have been said during this telephone conversation with Mr. Gambiroza. So

2 perhaps we first establish what the witness knows, because there seems to

3 be a statement in which Mr. Cermak refers to a telephone conversation he

4 made. And what you're doing, actually, is looking at what then happened,

5 and I take it that Mr. Kay is very much concerned about the solidity of

6 the causal relationship between either Mr. Cermak calling Mr. Gambiroza

7 or Mr. Pasic reporting a crime which may have triggered the police

8 activity.

9 Now, that is, certainly before we start drawing any conclusions

10 as to the authority of Mr. Cermak, seems to be a matter which deserves

11 proper attention.

12 And if you say, well, you do not see how this in any way affects

13 the knowledge - and that's what you said before - you can't see, you

14 said, how this impacts on what the witness has seen or the question. The

15 question was -- let me ...

16 The question was is it -- you put to him the events; that is,

17 Mr. Cermak calling the police commander, saying what he -- you have seen

18 this evidence, phone call, Mr. Cermak telling them to do whatever he

19 wants them to do and having seen this report from Mr. Gambiroza back to

20 General Cermak reporting on the results of the investigation, is it fair

21 to say that when you gave your statements you were not aware of the full

22 extent of General Cermak's authority, in relation to the investigation of

23 crimes.

24 Now, there's a lot of suggestion in there that what may have

25 triggered what exactly. Perhaps we first seek clarification from the

Page 22902

1 witness, whether he has any personal knowledge about what triggered the

2 police activity. If not, then he has not been aware of what was said in

3 the telephone conversation, he has no knowledge of how it was reported

4 back, and he has no knowledge as to what triggered the police activity.

5 Under those circumstances, to ask the witness about the authority

6 of Mr. Cermak might be a bit seeking opinion rather than evidence a

7 witness of fact could provide.

8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do that.

9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm sorry to add further to the matter.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. KAY: The witness has been referred to things that Mr. Cermak

12 has said, of course, which he wasn't present at himself and doesn't know

13 the basis of Mr. Cermak's knowledge. He is being asked to comment on it

14 on a very important matter without having actually been shown what in

15 law, as the Court has heard expert evidence, is the trigger event which

16 is the Article 141 report of a crime.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. KAY: And that's in the document, and --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just explore first what the witness knows for

20 a fact, and then, if that is insufficient, even to form any opinion about

21 the matter, then we should refrain from asking him.

22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll do that.

23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You're with us again, Mr. Pasic.

25 MS. GUSTAFSON:

Page 22903

1 Q. Mr. Pasic, this report --

2 A. [No interpretation].

3 Q. This report from Mr. Gambiroza that's on your screen that you --

4 you said you'd never seen it before, do you know anything about the

5 circumstances that caused Mr. Gambiroza to produce this report and send

6 it to General Cermak and others?

7 MR. KAY: Should it be how the crime was reported?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, "circumstances" is a rather general question,

9 and let's first hear the answer of the witness and then see whether we

10 have to further explore.

11 Do you know anything about the circumstances which caused this

12 report to be produced and sent to the addressee?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Luka Pasic reported a theft and

14 the disappearance of his sheep. I was aware of that, and it was me who

15 told him to go to the police to report the theft. As for any further

16 progress of the investigation and the case itself, it's something that

17 I'm not familiar with.

18 This report by Mr. Gambiroza was not addressed to me. Therefore,

19 I was not privy to the issue of investigation and potential finding of

20 the property appropriated.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said Mr. Luka Pasic reported a theft. Do

22 you remember whether that was before you spoke to Mr. Cermak or after you

23 spoke to Mr. Cermak, that -- that you told him to go to the police?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before. Before the conversation

25 with Mr. Cermak.

Page 22904

1 I advised Mr. Cermak about the fact of my uncle's property going

2 missing, only after that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, please proceed. If you want to

4 further explore the factual chronology, you're, of course, free to do so.

5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Pasic, just one clarification. You said -- you said before

7 the conversation with Mr. Cermak.

8 You -- I take it that you spoke with your uncle and you told him

9 to report the crime to the police and then you spoke with General Cermak;

10 is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And how long was it between the time you spoke to your uncle and

13 the time you spoke to General Cermak? A couple of minutes, a couple of

14 hours, a couple of days? How much time passed?

15 A. A few hours, I think.

16 Q. And after you spoke to your uncle and told him to report the

17 crime to the police, do you know when precisely he actually went to the

18 police and reported that crime?

19 A. He didn't -- I went to see my uncle in his village, and I took

20 him to the police station, to report the property gone missing.

21 Q. And when was that -- how long was that after you spoke with him?

22 A. What do you mean, with the uncle?

23 Q. You said you spoke with him and told him to report the crime to

24 the police. And then you said you went to see him in his village and

25 took him to the police station.

Page 22905

1 After you spoke with him and told him to report the crime, how

2 much time passed until you went to the village and took him to the police

3 station? Was the same day, the next day, the day after?

4 A. The same day.

5 Q. Do you remember now approximately how many hours passed between

6 when you spoke with him?

7 A. I can recall that I was in my uncle's house, and he was supposed

8 to bring the sheep back that afternoon. He went to fetch them and found

9 them gone. I suppose it was around 5.00 or 5.30, perhaps 6.00 p.m. I

10 cannot say exactly.

11 Q. And when you -- when you took your uncle to the police station,

12 was that before or after you had told General Cermak about the crime?

13 A. Could you please repeat your question.

14 Q. Sure. You -- as I understand it, all in the same day, your uncle

15 told you about the crime. You told General Cermak about the crime. And

16 you took your uncle to the police station.

17 Did you take your uncle to the police station before or after you

18 told General Cermak about the crime?

19 A. I took my uncle to the police station before that and then I

20 advised Mr. Cermak of the incident.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MR. KAY: Your Honour, could 2D00005 be made an exhibit whilst

23 we're on the matter?

24 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection, Your Honour, and I thank you for

25 the reminder that I would like to tender 65 ter 1802.

Page 22906

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, two documents.

2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, may I take it, Mr. Kay suggested that

4 you would look at 2D00005, then it's not entirely clear to me whether

5 Mr. Kay also suggested that you would tender that document. I'm just

6 considering whether or not it will be a Prosecution or a Defence exhibit.

7 MS. GUSTAFSON: From my perspective, Your Honour, I'm not sure it

8 matters very much. I'm not sure what my friend --

9 JUDGE ORIE: No, nevertheless I --

10 MR. KAY: Perhaps keep them together as a P number if that

11 assists. If my learned friend doesn't have an objection.

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, they're -- I actually think they're

13 distinct documents perhaps they need to be given two numbers --

14 JUDGE ORIE: I think that it would be wiser to have two exhibit

15 numbers.

16 Mr. Registrar, doesn't make that much of a difference but could

17 we have two P numbers.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter 1802 becomes

19 Exhibit P2645; and 2D00005 becomes Exhibit P2646.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And both are admitted into evidence.

21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to turn another subject now.

23 You explained in your statement to the Defence that after you

24 arrived in Knin, you described your first meeting with General Cermak,

25 and you said:

Page 22907

1 "The objective of the first meeting with General Cermak was to

2 protect property and facilitate an organised return to Knin of the Croats

3 who had been living in hotels. The Knin garrison command issued blank

4 passes which General Cermak gave to me. I gave them to Croats who were

5 accommodated in hotels in Sibenik and Primosten."

6 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could have D489 on the screen, please.

7 Q. Mr. Pasic, you can see this is a certificate confirming that

8 you -- it's dated the 9th of August. It confirms that you took up passes

9 for entering into the Knin garrison, and it says it's delivered by

10 General Cermak.

11 And my question is: You describe in your statement the Knin

12 garrison command issuing blank passes which General Cermak gave to you.

13 Is this certificate relate to the same thing you describe in your

14 statement; namely, General Cermak issuing these passes to you for people

15 to enter Knin?

16 If you look on the screen to the document.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, when General Cermak issued these passes and gave them to

19 you, did he give you any instructions as to how you should hand out these

20 passes, to whom you should give them? What did he say to you when he

21 gave you these passes?

22 A. As he was handing the passes over, he didn't tell me anything.

23 According -- according to the needs of those who came into the office

24 that was in Sibenik, a selection was made; that is to say, the office

25 distributed those passes which we had received from General Cermak, that

Page 22908

1 is to say, the garrison commander.

2 Q. Did he give you these passes in person?

3 A. I cannot recall. I am Petar Pasic, but the passes were received

4 by another person, the person who actually received them signed it. It

5 is Zikica Bunac [phoen], and that is not myself.

6 Q. Okay.

7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we look at D491, please.

8 Q. And this is a document dated the 11th of August, addressed to

9 General Cermak, and the subject is the list of issued passes delivered.

10 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could go to the last page.

11 Q. You can see that it is signed by you.

12 Now, this document appears to reflect you reporting back to

13 General Cermak with a list of individuals to whom passes were issued; is

14 that right?

15 A. This is a facsimile of my signature. It is my signature, indeed,

16 and I think the contents are true.

17 Q. As far as you're aware, did General Cermak have the authority to

18 issue these passes that you gave out?

19 A. I don't know whether he had the authority. But if I may add,

20 these passes were a positive development because, in that way --

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic. I'm not seeking your opinion on the passes

22 at the moment.

23 Let me ask you this: You -- General Cermak gave you the passes,

24 you handed them out, you reported back to him on -- as to who they were

25 issued to. Was there anything --

Page 22909

1 MR. KAY: He didn't say about reporting back. That was not the

2 evidence.

3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Okay.

4 Q. You sent this document back to General Cermak identifying the

5 persons to whom passes were issued. Was there anything that caused to

6 you question or doubt General Cermak's authority to issue these passes?

7 A. No, I had no doubts.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move to Exhibit D422, please.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, in your statement to the Prosecution, you said

11 that:

12 "The Serbs who left their homes during Oluja were required to

13 make a request to return to them by a date in December 1995. If they

14 failed to do so, their home became the property of the state. This does

15 not apply now, as the law has been changed."

16 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could move to the next page in the B/C/S,

17 please.

18 Actually, in the B/C/S, it's the law that begins at the bottom of

19 the first column.

20 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, this is the Law on Temporary Taking Over and

21 Administration of Specified Property, dated the 20th of September, 1995.

22 Is this the law that you were referring to in your Prosecution

23 statement?

24 A. Yes.

25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, if we could move to Article 3 of this law.

Page 22910

1 Q. And this is the Article that describes the property covered by

2 this law, and it says:

3 "Property under this law shall be considered any movable and

4 immovable property ..."

5 And then it goes into more detail and onto the next page in the

6 English.

7 Now, on Thursday, you were asked a question by the

8 Presiding Judge about why people returning from Serbia could not regain

9 possession of their furniture from the new tenants and your answer

10 referred to a decision of the government.

11 And my question is: Is this what you're referring to here, this

12 provision of the Law on the Temporary Take Over of Property which

13 includes under that law, furniture. Is that what you were talking about

14 when you spoke about a decision of the government?

15 A. Yes.

16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Now, if we could move to Article 11 of this law,

17 which is on the fourth page in the English and the next page of the

18 B/C/S.

19 Q. Now, on -- on Thursday, you also said that people who had --

20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.

22 MR. MISETIC: May I ask that the witness take his earphones off

23 again, please.

24 Just if we could establish some foundation with this witness. I

25 know he was on the ground. I don't know if he's familiar or how familiar

Page 22911

1 he is with these laws, but my recollection of the discussion on Friday

2 had to do with socially owned flats as opposed to the temporary take over

3 of property. As counsel knows, there were two separate sets of laws I

4 believe which the Gotovina Defence has now bar tabled. One which deal

5 with the issue of socially owned flats; another which deals property,

6 personal property or real property owned by other individuals. And just

7 so that we don't mix up what the witness said Thursday concerning

8 socially owned flats and then whether the Law on Temporary Take Over

9 applies to socially owned flats as well, if we could just get some

10 foundation from the witness as to what he knows about that and whether he

11 believes that this law applied to socially owned flats as well.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, you referred to -- I think to

13 questions that were put by me, and it is my recollection that was

14 specifically focussing on socially owned flats which would then be given

15 to other persons and then I said something about the furniture.

16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Well, the Your Honour, in his evidence, I think

17 suggested that all property was socially owned, and then he referred to

18 this decision about furniture. This is the only provision that I could

19 identify that referred to furniture. I wanted to clarify what the

20 witness was talking about.

21 In relation to Mr. Misetic's point, the witness has made a very

22 clear statement in his Prosecution statement about Serbs leaving their

23 homes being required to make a request to return, and if they failed to

24 do so, their home became the property of the state. That doesn't refer

25 to socially owned property.

Page 22912

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters -- I wouldn't say simple

2 but at least clear. It's not my recollection, but please point me to the

3 point where the witness said that all property was socially owned, and it

4 certainly does not fit within evidence we received -- all of the evidence

5 we received on the matter.

6 Clearly he was talking at that moment about socially owned

7 apartments. That's one.

8 Now, you put the question to the witness in relation to what we

9 discussed on Thursday, and if you say, This is the only legal provision I

10 could find in relation to furniture, then that does not automatically

11 link it to my question and the answer given to that. Ms. Gustafson, may

12 I take it that you're now fully aware of the concerns of Mr. Misetic and

13 you'll keep this in the back of your mind when formulating the question

14 so as to avoid whatever misunderstanding.

15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. I'm moving off that point and

16 going back to what he said in his Prosecution statement, in any event.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we start with a kind of new entry of the

18 subject.

19 Please proceed. And could the witness put his earphones on

20 again, yes.

21 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, in your Prosecution statement you said that Serbs

24 who left were required to make a request to have their property returned

25 to them by a date in December 1995.

Page 22913

1 Now, in fact, in accordance with Article 11, Serbs actually had

2 to return to Croatia in order to make that request; is that right?

3 A. Not correct. Some Serbs who were abroad could send, and did, a

4 document through notary public about the protection of their property in

5 Knin which means that Serbs residing in Republika Srpska and in the

6 Republic of Serbia could also do the same and submit a document to

7 protect their property.

8 Q. Can you explain how that was possible, in accordance with this

9 law, which states that if the owner of the property returns to the

10 Republic of Croatia and claims this property for his restitution and

11 you -- within 90 days, et cetera, "the Commission shall reverse the

12 decision under Article 5 of this law."

13 A. That's correct. If there were claims for property restitution,

14 and as far as I can remember, there was a very low number of requests

15 from abroad, there were no such requests, as far as I can remember.

16 Q. So you think requests were possible from abroad, but you can't

17 remember any such requests; is that right?

18 A. There were requests. I received them from London, from New York,

19 from -- but I can't interpret this law. I suppose that one had to have a

20 Croatian citizenship in order to claim property restitution. I suppose

21 that was the case.

22 Q. The requests that you received from abroad, were those requests

23 from Serbs trying to regain their property, or were those requests from

24 Croats who wanted to move and -- and have property in Croatia allocated

25 to them?

Page 22914

1 A. No. It was about the protection of property of Knin citizens of

2 both ethnic groups, Croats and Serbs alike.

3 Q. I'm just having trouble understanding your evidence because you

4 said:

5 "There was a very low number of requests from abroad, there were

6 no such requests, as far as I can remember."

7 And then a little later you said: "There were requests. I

8 received from London, from New York ..."

9 A. We're talking about the citizens of Knin who had left the area

10 before Operation Storm and had resided abroad for a long time and then

11 sent in requests for protection of their property.

12 Q. And did you receive any requests from abroad from any Croatian

13 Serbs who had fled at the time of or after Operation Storm, who were

14 residing in places like Bosnia, Serbia, or Hungary, to have their

15 property returned to them?

16 A. I can't remember. But I would say that it is quite possible.

17 Q. Okay. I'd like to move on to something else you said in your

18 Prosecution statement, which was that you received instructions from

19 Mr. Radic to house returning Croats in Knin and the surrounding villages.

20 And you stated that Knin itself was soon very full. And that's at page 8

21 of your Prosecution statement.

22 Now, this process of bringing Croats into Knin, you were not only

23 returning Croats who had left Knin earlier, but you were also moving

24 people in who were ethnic Croats from other places, such as Bosnia; is

25 that right?

Page 22915

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And Knin itself, it changed. The demographic picture in Knin

3 changed substantially. In 1991, Knin had a large percentage -- a large

4 majority of Serbs; and in the months after Operation Storm, that changed

5 and it became a large majority of Croats. Is that right?

6 A. In 1991, the population structure of Knin changed. 90 per cent

7 of the population had been Serbs, and 8.3 per cent had been Croats. In

8 1991, only 250 Croats lived in Knin when Oluja started.

9 In 1995, the situation was reversed. The Serbs left and the

10 Croats returned and now this ratio was probably reversed. There was

11 probably 90 per cent Croats and 8 to 9 per cent Serbs by that time.

12 Q. Okay.

13 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could look at 65 ter 2D00054, please.

14 Q. Mr. Pasic, if you look at the screen, you can see this is a

15 document dated the 30th of August. It's addressed to you. It's from

16 General Cermak. And it says:

17 "Please find enclosed the letters of the citizens interested in

18 living and working in Knin ..."

19 And it lists the names of four people and says:

20 "Since you are competent for acceptance of all returned displaced

21 people and future workers interested in living and working in Knin, you

22 should study seriously the aforementioned letters and facilitate solving

23 citizens' requests ..."

24 Now, this letter indicates that there are four ethnic Croats,

25 Ivan Vujic, Nikola Dumandzic, and Marija and Miroslav Tomljanovic, who

Page 22916

1 want to move to Knin. Is that right?

2 A. I can't say whether they are ethnic Croats or not just by their

3 names and where they come from, but I will allow for that possibility,

4 yes.

5 Q. Now there are -- in addition to this letter, there are a number

6 of other similar letters from General Cermak to you. Do you recall

7 receiving such letters?

8 A. Not so many from General Cermak as I did from Mr. Radic, from the

9 county office.

10 Q. And after receiving a letter like this, would you then work on

11 finding housing for these people?

12 A. In the commissioner's office of the Republic of Croatia for Knin

13 we had a housing office which was composed of the officers of the

14 commissioner's office, the Croatian Red Cross, members of the Ministry of

15 Interior, I believe, and the Ministry of Defence. They were the ones who

16 would determine priorities and who would also issue decisions for those

17 who wanted to be provided with residences in Knin.

18 Q. Now, this -- one -- two of the names on this letter refer to

19 Marija and Miroslav Tomljanovic, and it says "Germany." Is this a couple

20 that live in Germany and want to move to Knin? Do I understand that

21 correctly?

22 A. The names don't ring any bells. But judging by the letter, I

23 would say that they, indeed, wanted to come back from Germany and start

24 living in Croatia again.

25 Q. And was it the case that Croats from other countries were able to

Page 22917

1 come to the Knin area and obtain housing?

2 A. There were people, there were Croats from Canada, who also

3 submitted a request for housing. I can tell you that I know of only one

4 such case that was seen through. How many others there were, I really

5 don't know.

6 Q. Do you have any idea how General Cermak came to have this list of

7 names or these letters from people who wanted to move into Knin?

8 A. I suppose that the senders of those letters misunderstood

9 General's position. They probably thought that he was the one who could

10 help them with their housing problems. He, in his turn, would refer all

11 such letters to me.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd like to tender this document and there are

14 five similar letters from General Cermak to Mr. Pasic that I would also

15 like to tender. They're all on the Defence 65 ter list. The others are

16 2D00014, 2D00212, 2D00450, 2D00550, and 2D00691.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I saw that Mr. Kay was nodding that there no

18 objections.

19 MR. KAY: No objection, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then, it might be useful here to take them as a

21 batch together.

22 Mr. Registrar, the documents just mentioned by Ms. Gustafson.

23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this can be consolidated into one

25 document, and it will be under 2D00054 and gets Exhibit P2647.

Page 22918

1 JUDGE ORIE: P2647 is admitted into evidence.

2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.

3 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to move to another subject.

4 You said in your testimony on Thursday, you said that, as far as

5 you knew, there weren't any obstacles for those who were willing to

6 return, who had expressed their wish to return, and this was given in the

7 context of Croatian Serbs after Operation Storm.

8 Now, it's the case, is it not, that, in the months after

9 Operation Storm, there were thousands of Croatian Serb refugees trying to

10 return to Croatia who were prevented from returning by the Croatian

11 authorities.

12 Is that right?

13 A. I'm not in a position to know the number of those who wanted to

14 return. However, the Croatian government did not prevent the displaced

15 Serbs from returning. Prior to doing that, they had to obtain Croatian

16 documents, and the Croatian government made sure that the displaced Serbs

17 obtained documents in Vukovar and Beli Manastir. And now, if you're

18 looking at the matters, you can see that a number of Serbs who have

19 returned in the meantime have documents that were issued by the offices

20 in Beli Manastir and Vukovar.

21 Q. Mr. Pasic, I would like to read to you two paragraphs of a report

22 from the UN Special Rapporteur for the former Yugoslavia, dated the

23 7th of November, 1995, Ms. Elisabeth Rehn. And the context of these

24 paragraphs is her discussion of the Law on the Temporary Take Over of

25 Property that we looked at a few moments ago.

Page 22919

1 And on 7 November, she said --

2 MS. GUSTAFSON: And for the benefit of the Court and the parties,

3 this is P639, paragraphs 40 and 41.

4 Q. "Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur notes the difficulties

5 facing refugees in returning to Croatia within the deadline in order to

6 reclaim properties. The Croatian Office for Displaced Persons and

7 Refugees has established a procedure for return. After studying the

8 regulations, the Special Rapporteur is convinced that the vast majority

9 of refugees, regardless of their own intentions, will not be able to meet

10 these requirements.

11 "During the meeting with the Special Rapporteur, the deputy prime

12 minister, Mr. Ivica Kostovic, stated that all those who are able to

13 present the required documents would be allowed to return. According to

14 him, this proves the seriousness of the government in its officially

15 proclaimed policy towards the return of refugees. However, the Special

16 Rapporteur points out that a couple of thousand Croatian Serb refugees

17 are already waiting in Hungary for return and are being prevented from

18 doing so by various bureaucratic measures instituted by Croatian

19 officials.

20 "Reports have been received of various administrative obstacles

21 and the very uncooperative attitude towards refugees of both the Croatian

22 liaison office in Belgrade and the Croatia embassy in Budapest. Other

23 reports confirm that refugees have been turned back at the border,

24 despite being in possession of the necessary documentation, including

25 Croatian citizenship papers. Given that return within the prescribed

Page 22920

1 time-limits does not appear feasible, the requirement that the owners

2 must be in Croatia constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for Serbs

3 currently outside Croatia."

4 Do you, Mr. Pasic, have any reason to question the observations

5 of the Special Rapporteur as I read them out to you?

6 A. I read and I heard that report, and I believe that I reacted to

7 Mrs. Rehn's report, and I did not agree with her report.

8 I cannot question the words of Mrs. Rehn, but I also can't

9 question the words of my deputy prime minister, Mr. Kostovic. So there's

10 no way I can believe the words of Mrs. Rehn and not believe the words of

11 my government official.

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we have 65 ter 2353, please.

13 Q. Mr. Pasic, this is a -- what's about to come on your screen is a

14 memo from Mr. Al-Alfi, dated the 12th of October, 1995. And you were

15 shown, on Thursday, I believe, another memo by Mr. Al-Alfi, and I believe

16 you mentioned that you remembered Mr. Al-Alfi.

17 Is that right?

18 I see you're nodding yes.

19 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 MS. GUSTAFSON:

22 Q. And the title of this document is: Meeting with the mayor of

23 Knin.

24 Now, Mr. Pasic -- and if you go to the first paragraph, he is

25 describing a meeting that he with you on the 12th of October in Knin.

Page 22921

1 Do you remember now --

2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Oh, sorry, if we could go to the previous page in

3 the B/C/S. Oh, sorry, no. You're right.

4 Q. Do you remember now meeting with Mr. Al-Alfi on the 12th of

5 October, Mr. Pasic?

6 A. Yes.

7 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go to page 2 in the English and

8 stay on page 2 in the B/C/S.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, I'd like to direct your attention to point 5,

10 which is at the bottom of the page. And it says:

11 "According to the mayor, the Croatian Office of Displaced Persons

12 is preparing a list of those who want to leave the area. He expressed

13 disagreement with such an approach. On the contrary, in his opinion,

14 those who left the area should be encouraged to return. He went further

15 to express his disagreement with the policy regarding the return of those

16 who left the area as expressed recently by Mr. Kostovic, deputy prime

17 minister."

18 MS. GUSTAFSON: And if we could go down to point 7, which is on

19 the next page in the B/C/S.

20 Q. It says:

21 "From the meeting, I could sense that the mayor reached a point

22 of frustration and he hinted that there is a possibility he may be

23 changed very soon. It may be recalled that the mayor is of Serb origin

24 and he is from this area. He informed me that it is very difficult for

25 him to continue holding this post of mayor of Knin at a time when this

Page 22922

1 area turned to be purely an area for Croats."

2 Now, do you recall saying this to Mr. Al-Alfi, that you disagreed

3 with the policy regarding the return of those who left the area, as

4 expressed recently by the deputy prime minister, Mr. Kostovic?

5 A. I don't agree with this statement. I don't find this statement

6 credible.

7 When I said that I did not agree with the return policy, I only

8 said that the return should be selective. Within that context, it would

9 not have been good for the town of Knin, and I still think the same, that

10 among the returnees were the ring -- ring leaders of the rebellion

11 against the Republic of Croatia. According to me, those who were allowed

12 to return should have been those who had left and whose family members

13 had stayed behind in the town of Knin.

14 Q. So it's your view that only the Serbs who had family members who

15 had stayed behind in Knin should be allowed to return to Knin; is that

16 right?

17 A. Not only them. I said that the approach should have been

18 selective, which means when one group returned, and those were people who

19 had family members and property in Knin, after that, applying a selective

20 approach, all those who had return -- who had left would have been

21 allowed to return.

22 Q. So, just to be clear, where it says in this memo that you

23 disagreed with the policy regarding the return of those who left the

24 area, as expressed recently by Mr. Kostovic, is your position that you

25 never said that?

Page 22923

1 A. I agree with the fact that, immediately after Operation Storm,

2 those who had committed crimes and who had chased Croats from Knin should

3 not return; for example, Babic, Martic and some other of the kind.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not think that Ms. Gustafson is asking

5 specifically on the return of Mr. Babic or Mr. Martic.

6 But what she asked you is that what Mr. Al-Alfi reports you as

7 having said - that is, to disagree with the policy - she asked you

8 whether you deny that you ever said what is reported here as what you

9 would have said.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not deny this.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please further explore, Ms. Gustafson,

12 because I'm a bit --

13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- in doubt.

15 MS. GUSTAFSON:

16 Q. So is this memo then correct, Mr. Pasic, that on the 12th of

17 October you said to Mr. Al-Alfi that you disagreed with the policy

18 regarding the return of those who left the area, as expressed recently by

19 Mr. Kostovic?

20 Did you say that to Mr. Al-Alfi on the 12th of October, 1995?

21 A. No. No.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm not interested in exploring this any further,

24 Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm looking at the clock, Ms. Gustafson.

Page 22929

1 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

2 [The witness takes the stand]

3 --- On resuming at 11.18 a.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, you may proceed.

5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Pasic, in your statement to -- that you gave to the Defence,

7 you said that there was no Croatian government or local authorities' plan

8 to expel Serbs and move in the Croats instead. And that's at

9 paragraph 29.

10 And I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about that

11 conclusion.

12 In your Prosecution statement at page 2, you said you had no

13 knowledge of the coming of Operation Storm. So I take it from that, that

14 you were not involved in the planning of Operation Storm, and you were

15 not informed about the plans for Operation Storm.

16 Is that right?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 Q. And you didn't attend any meetings with President Tudjman when

19 plans regarding -- or policies regarding the Krajina Serbs or the

20 movement of Croats into the Krajina were discussed, were you? Or did you

21 attend any such meetings?

22 A. No.

23 Q. But there was a policy, was there not, to move Croats into the

24 homes that had been vacated by the Serbs who had left the Krajina during

25 or after Operation Storm, wasn't there?

Page 22930

1 A. No, there wasn't.

2 Q. Mr. Pasic, your -- your statement to the Prosecution says that

3 you received instructions from Mr. Radic, the minister for reconstruction

4 and development, to move -- to house returning Croats in Knin, and that

5 Knin itself was soon very full. You've given evidence today that Croats

6 were moved into Knin from other places, such as -- who had come from

7 other places, such as Bosnia. And you also gave evidence today that

8 after Operation Storm, the demographic picture in Knin was reversed, and

9 it was about 90 per cent Croat.

10 Can -- how do you reconcile that evidence with your statement

11 that there was no policy to move Croats into the houses that had been

12 vacated by Serbs who had left the Krajina?

13 A. I still stand by the opinion that there was no policy of

14 expelling Serbs and bringing in Croats in their stead. Croats, at least

15 some of them, were, in a way, forced to move into Knin. After

16 Operation Storm, a great many Serbs arrived in Banja Luka. With their

17 arrival there, they simply told the Croats there in their own flats, This

18 is where I'm going stay from now on and you take my house or my flat over

19 there. So it was not a planned thing. That is one thing.

20 Another thing, as for the movement of Croats from other parts of

21 Croatia into the Krajina was an expression of their wish to deal with

22 their housing problem. They wanted to settle in the town of Knin.

23 Q. And the housing commission in Knin and Minister Radic facilitated

24 those wishes of Croats to move into Knin; is that right?

25 A. Yes, it is.

Page 22931

1 Q. Now, I'd like to move to something else that you said in your

2 Defence statement at paragraph 27, which was that -- you stated that the

3 ECMM requested that civilian police patrols be cancelled because the

4 Serbs did not trust the civilian police and that the patrols were

5 withdrawn. And you stated that the ECMM representatives were supposed to

6 protect them - and I -- I take that to be a reference to civilians - but

7 they did not protect them.

8 Now, the Chamber has received substantial evidence from ECMM

9 monitors and ECMM reports, and there's no indication from any of that

10 evidence that the ECMM ever requested civilian police patrols to be

11 cancelled. So I'd like to ask you what exactly is the source of your

12 information that the ECMM requested civilian police patrols to be

13 cancelled?

14 A. The source was the ECMM itself, as well as the inhabitants who

15 informed them of those wishes.

16 Q. And how did you learn of this information from the ECMM? Who

17 told you that the ECMM had requested police patrols to be cancelled?

18 A. At that time, in Knin itself, there may have been some ten

19 different organisations and types of monitors. I couldn't tell them

20 apart, but I can tell you decidedly that in the discussions with them,

21 they expressed their wish for the Croatian police not to enter certain

22 villages. They said that they were going to protect those villages,

23 which they did not.

24 Q. I take it from your answer that you can't remember which

25 particular organisation or which particular person gave you this

Page 22932

1 information, about wanting police patrols to be cancelled?

2 A. I cannot recall, but I know it came from them.

3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we look at P953, please.

4 And, Your Honour, I'd like to tender 65 ter 2353, which was the

5 12th of October memo from Mr. Al-Alfi, which I forgot to do before.

6 MR. KAY: No objection, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 02353 becomes Exhibit P2648.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

10 MS. GUSTAFSON:

11 Q. And, Mr. Pasic, I would like to direct your attention to

12 paragraph 1 of this report, which starts with the words, "General

13 situation ..."

14 And this is a report from the 9th of October, 1995. It's a daily

15 report from Team Knin of the ECMM. And it says:

16 "The stronger CRO police patrolling," and that's a reference to

17 Croatian police, "after the Varivode massacre seems to improve the

18 security situation. However, little is left to protect and it is clear

19 that this new policy is the result of international pressure, rather than

20 it was a planned move. Why did we need a Varivode and why did it come so

21 late? Small-scale looting is still going on."

22 Now, here, Mr. Pasic, the ECMM is observing increased police

23 patrols, has improved the situation, and is asking why it is happening so

24 late. If it is the fact, as you suggest, that the ECMM had requested the

25 Croatian police not to patrol, why would they have written this report?

Page 22933

1 A. After the crime in Varivode and in Gosici, Croatian police

2 patrols became more frequent, irrespective of the fact that some wanted

3 to see them reduced. This is what this is about.

4 Q. Right. But, Mr. Pasic, your evidence is that the ECMM didn't

5 want the Croatian police to patrol. This is an ECMM report. If the ECMM

6 didn't want the police -- Croatian police to patrol, why does it say that

7 patrolling has improved the situation and ask why it is happening so

8 late? Why doesn't it say, Croatian police are patrolling and we don't

9 want them to patrol?

10 Can you explain that?

11 A. As I said, in certain areas were designated as those in which

12 patrols were not welcome. That is to say, in certain areas where more

13 civilians remained after Operation Storm, it is actually good that there

14 was patrolling there.

15 Q. I'd like to move on to something else now, which is -- relates to

16 something you said on Thursday in your evidence.

17 And you said that you were -- in response to a question by

18 Mr. Misetic, you said that you were certain that around the

19 18th of August, the 4th and 7th Guards Brigades were not involved in any

20 burning or looting. And you said:

21 "I toured the settlements around Knin, and it was said that this

22 was not done by the members of the 4th and 7th Guards Brigade."

23 Now, I'd like to ask you: Which specific settlements did you go

24 to; and who specifically did you speak to; and what specifically did they

25 say to you about the 4th and 7th Guards Brigade?

Page 22934

1 A. I said that I had gone and I had often visited my village. I was

2 in Plavno, Podkonje, but there were no Serbs left there, only Croats. I

3 was in -- in Biskupija, in Ocestovo. I don't know how many villages I

4 visited. I also went to Vidosevci, to Macure, which is also part of

5 Kistanje. I visited a number of settlements and villages that belonged

6 to the municipal area of the city of Knin.

7 Q. And who specifically did you speak to who told you that looting

8 and burning was not done by members of the 4th and 7th Guards Brigades?

9 A. I was with people who remained living in their houses after

10 Operation Storm. If I were to tell you now that in Kistanje, the

11 gentleman's name was Djuro Macura, that in Plavno I spoke to Ilica

12 Torbica. In Ocestovo, I spoke to Rade Tango. In my own village I spoke

13 to my uncle, and everybody else who lived there, I don't know whether

14 that would be enough. What else can I tell you?

15 Q. I'm trying to understand, Mr. Pasic, specific information you

16 received from these people that you spoke to about the 4th and

17 7th Guards Brigades.

18 Can you remember that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What specifically did these people tell you; and if could you

21 tell me, who, where, when, and what they told you about the 4th and

22 7th Guards Brigade.

23 A. When they arrived, members who borne the insignia of the

24 brigades, and people are literate and they could understand those

25 insignia, those people told them, Stay in your houses, nobody will touch

Page 22935

1 you, you are going to be safe there, you can rest assured that you will

2 not be touched.

3 Q. Okay. You've told me the what. Now I'd like the who, and the

4 when, and the where.

5 A. I spoke to Mile Kovacevic in the village of Oton and Brdo. I

6 can't remember all of their names, but I know what they told me.

7 If I may add to that, I just remembered, I spoke to a gentleman

8 from Orlic in the Biskupija territory. His name was Nikola Tica. He

9 remained living there, and I believe that members of the 4th Guards

10 Brigade paid him a visit on somebody's instructions, but I don't know

11 whose instructions those were.

12 Q. Do you remember when either of these conversations took place?

13 A. It was 15 years ago. I did not pay too much attention to all

14 that. It would be pure speculation if I gave you a specific time or

15 date.

16 Q. Now, I'd like to go back to -- to the subject that we were

17 speaking about on -- in your evidence on Friday, which was the changes

18 that you made to your statements, and I have one more question I'd like

19 to ask you about that.

20 And you remember His Honour Judge Orie was asking you some

21 questions about last weekend, when you read your statements over several

22 times and found mistakes in them.

23 And at transcript page 22818, Judge Orie said to you:

24 "Then you read your statements on Friday evening and found that

25 there was still a lot of inaccuracies. Then you met the next morning

Page 22936

1 with Mr. Basic, and after had you met with him, you, as you said, read

2 your statements again. You read them over several times. Is that

3 finding, again, that they were not in every respect true and correct? Is

4 that a fair summary of what you told us?"

5 And your answer was:

6 "The moment I realised that my statements would used before this

7 Tribunal, my opinion changed completely."

8 And the Judge asked you:

9 "Your opinion about what?"

10 And you said:

11 "My opinion of the statements that had been given and that did

12 not contain elements of what I had said and did contain certain

13 statements that I had given without much thought, because I did not

14 believe that they would be used anywhere and at any point in time."

15 Now, my question is, when you told His Honour Judge Orie that you

16 realised your statements would be used before the Tribunal last weekend

17 and then your opinion of your statements changed completely, and your

18 statements contained comments that you had given without much thought, my

19 question is: When you came to The Hague on Tuesday, did you change --

20 did you make changes to any of those comments, comments that you had

21 given without much thought?

22 A. Correct. And I also said on Friday that if I were to be asked to

23 do the same thing tomorrow, I would make corrections in some other

24 statements as well.

25 Q. So if I understand your answer correctly, some of the changes you

Page 22937

1 made on Tuesday were changes to comments that you made at the time you

2 gave your statement but you realised last weekend you had made those

3 comments without much thought, and you changed them; is that right?

4 A. It is partly correct. Some statements and some comments do not

5 reflect my words but, rather, the words of either the interpreter or the

6 investigator.

7 Q. Just so it's clear to me, when you said it is partly correct,

8 it's correct that some of the changes that you made were changes to

9 comments you had made to the investigators that you realised last weekend

10 you had given without much thought; is that right?

11 A. Yes, yes.

12 MR. KAY: Your Honour, we're in difficulty this side of the

13 courtroom. I believe I'm not the only one. We've got no transcript and

14 so we can't make notes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, efforts to be reconnected are, at this moment,

16 not successful.

17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18 MS. GUSTAFSON:

19 Q. Sorry, Mr. Pasic, we're just having a technical difficulty.

20 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I --

21 MS. GUSTAFSON: It's working again.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, if we looked at the -- if you looked at the

23 statement that you gave on Tuesday, would you be able to identify now

24 which of the changes you made were changes you made to statements that

25 you had given to the investigators but that you had given without much

Page 22938

1 thought?

2 Would you be able to do this now?

3 A. I perused the statement that I provided to the investigators, and

4 I made my own corrections, and -- well, you can see the penultimate

5 paragraph, the last paragraph, the military could stop the attack in

6 villages. I travelled to Sibenik every day. These are all things which

7 were not said by me. These are not my words.

8 Q. The reason I'm asking, Mr. Pasic, is because the statement that

9 gave on Tuesday, for every single change that you made, the explanation

10 that's given is that you didn't say that. And now it's clear from your

11 evidence that some of the changes you made are changes to statements that

12 you did in fact make but you realised you had given without much thought.

13 My question is: Are you able to distinguish those two

14 situations? Are you able to distinguish the statements that you gave

15 that you said you didn't make, versus the ones you said you made but you

16 didn't give much thought to?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Which ones, Mr. Pasic? Which of the changes here in points 1

19 through 16 are changes that you made to statements that gave to the

20 investigators without much thought?

21 A. Well, in every paragraph, there is an explanation as to what I

22 said, as to what I didn't say as well. I did not say that lorries full

23 of sheep were let through the check-points and that the lorries were

24 driven by members of the Croatian military or the Croatian police. I

25 didn't say that.

Page 22939

1 Q. Mr. Pasic, my question is a little different. In every change in

2 points 1 through 16 of this statement, it says that you're making the

3 change because you didn't say that. But your evidence now is clear that

4 some of the changes you made were changes to things you said but that you

5 had said them without much thought.

6 Do you understand the difference?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And are you able to identify now the changes that reflect

9 comments that you made to the investigators but you made without much

10 thought?

11 A. For example, the annex statement 1, it says that I didn't see the

12 wounded and the killed. I'm telling you now that I never saw a dead body

13 and especially I didn't see any when I return -- returned after Operation

14 Storm. So this is simply not correct.

15 In paragraph 2, here, as well, there are some things which

16 reflect my words and some don't. Some do not reflect the corrections

17 that I made.

18 Q. Mr. Pasic, I -- I'm not sure I understand.

19 Are you or are you not able to identify the specific changes in

20 the statement you made on Tuesday that relate to comments you made to the

21 investigators but you realised last weekend you made without much

22 thought?

23 Are you able to identify those specific changes or not?

24 A. I don't understand you. I would like to understand you. In

25 every additional statement, there is an explanation as to where the

Page 22940

1 true -- the words were not correct and where there are supplements and

2 additions which reflect my new view of the situation.

3 MS. GUSTAFSON: In light of the witness's answers, I'm moving on

4 to the next and final question that I have --

5 Q. For you, Mr. Pasic, which again relates back to something that

6 you said on Friday, when you confirmed that the song you referred to as

7 Jure and Boban was the same song that's also known as Evo Zore, Evo Dana.

8 Now Jure and Boban in that song, that refers to Jure Francetic

9 and Rafael Boban who were commanders of the Black Legion which was a

10 World War II Ustasha unit; is that right?

11 A. I know that, but that song does not have to be tied only to them.

12 Some of the words of that song may be incriminated [as interpreted] and

13 only then lead to the phenomenon that can be tied to them as the high

14 officials of the one-time regime.

15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pasic, for answering my questions.

16 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Gustafson.

18 May I take it there must be some translation issue with the word

19 "incriminated" in the last answer, "words of that song may be

20 incriminated."

21 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think I heard "incriminating," at least in the

22 English.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, incriminating, yes.

24 Yes, Mr. Kay -- well, Mr. Misetic.

25 MR. MISETIC: No, I --

Page 22951

1 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, that if

3 Mr. Misetic is referring to the whereabouts of Mr. Gotovina, that he is

4 not dealing with two months as one unit but, rather, to have a day by

5 day. I do agree with you that the witness was clear and that it was

6 during these two months, and Mr. Misetic thinks that lack of knowledge as

7 to the precise dates may have an impact on the evaluation of the

8 evidence. That is apparently the case.

9 MR. MISETIC: That is correct, Mr. President.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Then --

11 MR. MISETIC: My point was simply that I do want to go through,

12 just like Ms. Gustafson, when the witness says the 4th and the 7th Guards

13 Brigades were not involved, you go through the who, what, when, where,

14 and why, and that's what I'd like to go through with this witness.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep it very factual.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Q. Mr. Pasic, at these concerts that you say took place in the

19 Croatian Army hall, do you recall whether Mr. Cigoj or Mr. Matic would

20 wear costumes in their performances?

21 A. In the Croatian Army hall, as far as I recall, I don't think

22 there were in costumes; they were in suits.

23 Q. Okay. And do you remember when these concerts took place?

24 A. I cannot say exactly. I think some took place in August, others

25 in September, and after that time, I don't think there were any.

Page 22952

1 Q. Do you recall ever being present at any type of concert with

2 General Gotovina anywhere else other than the HV army hall?

3 A. No.

4 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I would like to show a video-clip.

5 This is 65 ter 1D2989.

6 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated] ... to ask you how many

7 hours it is but ...

8 MR. MISETIC: It's a short -- short clip.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

10 [Video-clip played]

11 "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] In Knin today, a Little Christmas

12 Concert was held with performances of children's choirs, ballet and

13 musical groups.

14 "In the season of holiday giving, charity and love, the concert

15 Peace and Love in Knin's Kralj Zvonimir school, sincere greetings were

16 expressed by the youngest ones. Around 400 participants in the Little

17 Christmas Concert consisting of children's choirs, dance and folklore

18 groups from Knin, Split, Zadar, Imotski, Sinj, Sibenik, and Trilj,

19 created a true Christmas spirit at Knin's Kralj Zvonimir school. The

20 Little Christmas Concert was held under the auspices of Ankica Tudjman,

21 president of the humanitarian charity Save the Children of Croatia. The

22 playful and exuberant participants were welcomed by Sibenik's bishop,

23 Dr. Srecko Badurina; Split Military District commander, General Ante

24 Gotovina; and the government's commissioner for Knin, Petar Pasic."

25 MR. MISETIC:

Page 22953

1 Q. Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Pasic, about attending a

2 Christmas concert -- sorry.

3 A. Yes, 100 per cent.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat your question. We had to

5 wait for the translation to be finished.

6 MR. MISETIC: Yes.

7 Q. Mr. Pasic, does that refresh your recollection about attending a

8 Little Christmas Concert where both you and General Gotovina were

9 present?

10 A. Yes, it does.

11 Q. Were any Ustasha songs sung at this children's Christmas concert?

12 A. No.

13 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit be marked.

14 I tender it into evidence, and I would like to tender the short clip of

15 the Knin castle video.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.

17 MS. GUSTAFSON: I have no objection to this last video. I do

18 object to the Knin castle video on the basis that it has no relevance.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.

20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think that's a frivolous

21 objection. Obviously we take a different view than the Prosecution

22 concerning where and when General Gotovina was present. Given that it's

23 clearly relevant if the Chamber were to view the evidence in our favour

24 that there were two concerts and these were the two, and there's only two

25 concerts where any presence by my client can be verified, then the

Page 22954

1 Chamber should be able to review what was actually sung. And, moreover,

2 the clip was put to the witness concerning his identification of the two

3 singers.

4 I don't see any basis for a relevance objection.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: The video-clip of the 17th of August will be marked

7 for identification. And the Chamber repeats its urgent invitation to the

8 parties to see what is there, in that video, the parties could agree

9 upon. That is, primarily, then, on whether any Ustasha songs were sung

10 during these two hours. If the parties cannot agree on that, they may

11 address the Chamber jointly and to explain what the songs are that are

12 contested as to their character.

13 The second video-clip, the Christmas concert, the Chamber takes

14 it, for the time being, that Christmas songs were sung there.

15 Mr. Registrar, could you assign numbers.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the Knin castle video, 17th August,

17 which is 1D2987, becomes Exhibit D1717, marked for identification. The

18 subsequent video is 1D2989, and that becomes Exhibit D1718.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

20 Mr. Misetic, the portion played is the whole of the video, D1718?

21 MR. MISETIC: It's from an evening newscast. That is whole of

22 that news, yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D1718 is admitted into evidence. And the

24 Chamber would like to hear from the parties on D1717.

25 Please proceed.

Page 22955

1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President. In light of the

2 Chamber's invitation to the parties, I would like to put the list of the

3 songs to the witness just so I have something on the record in terms of

4 his opinion of the nature of the songs. With the Court's leave.

5 JUDGE ORIE: The songs of the 17th of August?

6 MR. MISETIC: Yes. I just fear if we get into a dispute later

7 about the nature of the songs, I would like to have the witness provide

8 his opinion while he is here.

9 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to have his opinion on the character

10 of the songs that were sung in his absence. Is this a matter of --

11 MR. MISETIC: I think he would have --

12 JUDGE ORIE: -- fact or is it a matter of opinion.

13 MR. MISETIC: I believe he has knowledge of the songs outside of

14 the fact that were also sung at this concert.

15 Mr. President, these are very common songs that most -- the

16 average person in Croatia would probably be familiar with.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's, of course, the main reason for my

18 concern that we start a -- a wide discussion on the character of those

19 songs.

20 Ms. Gustafson.

21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, there is -- in evidence there are

22 very small number of names of songs. I don't think it will assist the

23 proceedings in any way to list songs that's no evidence on the record of

24 them and then have the opinion of this witness on whether or not it is an

25 Ustasha song.

Page 22956

1 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following. The list of songs sung

2 during the 17th of August concert may be provided to the witness so that

3 can he read the list during the next break, and he will then be invited

4 to tell us whether there's any song he considers a Ustasha song or a

5 strong patriotic song, and then we'll hear from him.

6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Q. Mr. Pasic, I'd like to turn to a different topic now. You heard

8 you'll have some work during the break.

9 My topic now is your -- the circumstances surrounding your

10 2002 interview with the Prosecution, so if I may ask you a few questions

11 about that.

12 In answer to a question from Ms. Gustafson this morning, you said

13 that some of the words and views expressed in that 2002 statement were

14 the words of the investigator or the interpreter and not your own words.

15 And my question is: When Mr. Foster, who was the investigator,

16 was interviewing you, did he say things to you like, What is your opinion

17 about something; or did he tell you what his opinion of something was and

18 ask you whether you agree with him?

19 A. Occasionally he put forth his opinion, and occasionally he asked

20 me for my opinion.

21 When I go back to your previous question, or, rather, we've been

22 discussing extensively the Ustasha songs. I can only repeat that in my

23 interview I did not say Ustasha songs and I had -- I said patriotic

24 songs. Therefore, that term was introduced by him.

25 Q. Well, I'm going to turn your attention to a different sentence

Page 22957

1 that appear in that 2002 statement, and we've already gone over it but

2 let me ask it again. It's at page 8 of the statement.

3 Where what's written down in the statement is:

4 "I believe that the looting and destruction that took place was

5 planned from above."

6 Now, did Mr. Foster say that he believed that it was planned from

7 above and ask you whether you agree with him; or did you volunteer an

8 opinion that you believed it was planned from above?

9 A. I think that he said that it was planned from above and then

10 sought to hear my opinion.

11 Q. Before the break, I'd like to show you a video-clip --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could I ask --

13 When he sought your opinion on it, did you then expression

14 agreement or disagreement?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Firstly I agreed. That is why I

16 said I wanted to make the changes, because they do not correspond to my

17 current thinking and position in relation to the time when I gave the

18 interview.

19 JUDGE ORIE: So what is written down, although in the questions

20 suggested by Mr. Foster actually reflects what you said?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not quite accurately.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I think - but I may have been -- not be

23 clear, I think that I said "actually" reflects what you said rather than

24 "accurately," which is a -- I may not have pronounced my words with

25 sufficient precision.

Page 22958

1 But do I understand that on this matter, Mr. Foster gave his

2 opinion, asked whether you agreed, and that you, at the time, said that

3 you did agree, although you now tell us that you -- your current thinking

4 is different from what you said at the time.

5 Is that correctly understood?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

8 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.

9 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.

10 Q. Mr. Pasic, now following up on that, did Mr. Foster, after you

11 would express agreement with a proposition that he put out there, did he

12 then follow up and say, Mr. Pasic, now let's go and establish the bases,

13 the factual bases for your agreement? For example, on this point about

14 whether crimes were planned from above, did he ask you how do you know

15 that; did you attend a meeting with people from above, et cetera?

16 A. No.

17 Q. There's other portions where you say, Commanders could have

18 stopped crimes. Did he ask you how do you know that; what is your

19 factual basis for saying such a thing; did you attend meetings with

20 military commanders? Any types of questions like that?

21 A. I cannot recall exactly, but as for any meetings with military

22 commanders, be it before or during the military police operation, I did

23 not attend any.

24 Q. Well, if you told Mr. Foster that, in fact, you had never

25 attended a meeting of military commanders, or let's assume you said, I

Page 22959

1 don't have any factual basis for my opinion --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the witness clearly misunderstood your

3 last question. So let's first try to get an answer to that before we

4 continue and may end up in the realm of speculation.

5 MR. MISETIC: Well, I thought he answered it by saying, I cannot

6 recall exactly, but I'll follow up with him again.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understood that in view of the remainder of

8 his answer and that's where I -- perhaps we could first try to find out

9 that out.

10 In your statement, you are reported to have said, Commanders

11 could have stopped crimes.

12 Now, first question: Was this something that was suggested or

13 proposed by Mr. Foster to you?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was his opinion. I

15 said -- actually, I did not say that the unit commanders were those who

16 could have prevented crimes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, did he then suggest to you in his question that

18 that was the case?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was his assumption. My

20 opinion --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Yes, what did you then say? He asked

22 you whether you agreed or not with that?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I said yes or no.

24 But I think I said no.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you know anything about follow-up questions

Page 22960

1 in relation to this specific subject; that is, whether the military

2 commanders could have stopped the crimes?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think he only wanted to learn

4 from me the names of certain unit commanders, or the units that were in

5 the area. I did respond partially because I knew some of the units and

6 commanders who, at the time, were in Knin.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.

8 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Just a last question before the break.

9 Q. Mr. Pasic, if in fact had you been asked by Mr. Foster what your

10 basis of knowledge was for what military commanders could or couldn't

11 have done in that circumstance, when you were reviewing your statement,

12 particularly when it was being read back to you in 2002, would you have

13 asked why those answers concerning your knowledge weren't included in the

14 statement, if you understand what I'm asking?

15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I'm confused by the question. The

16 statement was read back to him in 2002.

17 MR. MISETIC: That's my point, Mr. President. If in fact

18 Mr. Foster had asked foundational questions for these opinions, there's

19 an issue that is going to be raised by the Defence as to why Mr. Foster

20 didn't include --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let's be, then, simple.

22 Was your statement read back to you in 2002?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I told him I didn't understand

24 English, and when I gave that statement, I don't think it was read back

25 to me.

Page 22961

1 JUDGE ORIE: And --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I came to sign the second time

3 round, then it was read back to me from English into Croatian.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that would have been early 2003.

5 So your statement was -- let me.

6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, Your Honour, that was 2002.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm sorry, I'm making a mistake in the year.

8 So the statement was read back to the witness, at least that's

9 his testimony.

10 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm now about to play a video-clip

12 so it might take between five and ten minutes. I don't know how you wish

13 to proceed.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I further inquire with the parties, as far as

15 the time expectations are concerned.

16 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I would say at least another 30 to

17 45 minutes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And as far as the other Defence teams are

19 concerned.

20 Mr. Mikulicic, still the same situation, no questions.

21 MR. MIKULICIC: I will only have a couple of questions,

22 Your Honour, not more than ten minutes altogether. Even less.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Kay.

24 MR. KAY: I won't be more than 15 minutes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which means that we will not conclude the

Page 22962

1 testimony today.

2 Mr. Pasic, we will first have a break, and we'll resume at ten

3 minutes to 1.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Q. Mr. Pasic, during the break have you had a chance to review the

9 songs that were sung on the 17th of August at the Knin castle?

10 A. Well, I didn't listen to them. I just looked at the titles and I

11 can tell that I am familiar with all of them. Your question is probably

12 going to be -- but there is not a single one. All these songs express a

13 patriotic feeling without any hint of an insult made against others or

14 another.

15 Q. Okay. The more specific question is: Would you -- in one of

16 your prior answers you said with respect to Jure i Boban some people

17 might consider that an Ustasha song but you wouldn't. With respect to

18 any of these songs, would some people consider those to be Ustasha songs

19 but you don't?

20 Let me -- let me ask it a different way.

21 Are those -- do those songs have anything to do with the

22 independent state of Croatia or Ustasha, as far as you know?

23 A. No, nothing whatsoever.

24 Q. Thank you very much for those answers.

25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the next --

Page 22963

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.

2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry to interrupt. I just didn't -- we haven't

3 received a list of the songs, so I'm sure we'll get it in -- oh.

4 MR. MISETIC: It's the surrogate sheet to the admitted exhibit.

5 If you open it up, the list is in there.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, now we -- I have explored ...

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I have explored the manner in which

10 the OTP statement was taken. I'd like to show the witness now a video of

11 another interview taken by the same OTP investigator on the same topic,

12 which is a plan to expel Serbs, burn their property, et cetera. And I

13 understand from Ms. Gustafson during the break that she has an

14 observation.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.

16 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. I understand that Mr. Misetic

17 intends to tender a portion of the suspect interview of Mr. Jarnjak. I

18 don't see any foundation for that. Mr. Misetic can ask this witness

19 about the questions he was asked in his interview, and to then put

20 another interview -- portion of another interview to him with another

21 person, I don't think has any relevance.

22 Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we first ask the witness to take his

24 earphones off.

25 Yes, Mr. Misetic, let me first give you an opportunity to

Page 22964

1 respond.

2 MR. MISETIC: Yes. First, I haven't tendered anything, so at

3 this point it's a premature objection, if it's to the tendering of the

4 video. I intend to explore, though, the methodology of how the statement

5 was taken. The Chamber, I am certain, is familiar with the Tribunal's

6 case law, which the Chamber raised on Friday. With respect to the

7 admissibility for the truth of the matter asserted of the 2002 statement,

8 one of the critical factors taken into account by the Limaj Trial Chamber

9 was the fact that the methodology used by the OTP investigator could be

10 verified because it was videotaped, and the Chamber could explore the

11 reliability of the statement because it was videotaped and the nature and

12 way in which questions were posed.

13 In this case, one of the issues we will be arguing later is that

14 there it no videotape of the interview of this witness for the Chamber to

15 explore the reliability of the way in which the statement was taken.

16 The second issue is that the OTP itself didn't call this witness,

17 and so we will be challenging whether the OTP believes that the

18 2002 statement is reliable.

19 The third issue is that it's the same investigator on the video

20 we wish to show him posing questions on the exact same topic, which is

21 covered in the 2002 statement and for which no foundation -- I should say

22 no foundation one way or the other, meaning no indication is given in the

23 2002 statement that Mr. Foster asked the witness what his basis of

24 knowledge was and no indication whether the witness said, I have a basis

25 of knowledge for this or I don't have a basis of knowledge for this. And

Page 22965

1 we believe that the Chamber is entitled to explore with this witness the

2 methodology employed by Mr. Foster, and if there's going to be a debate

3 about whether Mr. Foster uses these types of techniques with witnesses,

4 we are entitled to put to the Chamber the techniques that Mr. Foster has

5 used in the past with other witnesses for which we have a video record of

6 it. And I'm entitled to explore with the witness whether some of the

7 answers or conclusions were, quote/unquote, the words of Mr. Foster and

8 not the witness, which he's already testified about.

9 And also to put the video of the Jarnjak suspect interview into

10 evidence not for the truth of the matters that are discussed on the video

11 but simply for impeachment purposes and to challenge the methodology

12 employed by the Office of the Prosecutor investigators because I suspect

13 this is a factor that the Chamber will have to consider in determining

14 the way in which the 2002 statement will be used.

15 Thank you, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the witness has testified that at

17 various instances matters were put to him as a proposition and that he

18 was asked whether or not he agreed or did not agree. The witness further

19 testified that he is unaware of any follow-up question, specifically in

20 relation to the commanders. He said something that questions were asked,

21 who were the commanders, but which I do not consider a real follow-up

22 question on the matter.

23 Now, what is this video going to add, apart from confirming what

24 the witness said? That's my first -- because now you said the witness

25 was not called by the -- that was your second argument. Was not called

Page 22966

1 by the Prosecution. Therefore, you would -- for that, I take it the

2 issue of reliability of not being called, et cetera, that that's not an

3 issue which would -- which would urge to us look at the video, because

4 calling or not calling can have, I would say, a hundred reasons.

5 And the third issue is same topping and no questions to create a

6 further foundation. That's already what the witness testified. So I'm

7 wondering what this video is going add to what is already the evidence

8 given by this witness.

9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the relevance is that -- let me

10 address it this way.

11 If the Prosecution is now going to claim that the 2002 statement

12 is credible and that these are the views of the witness himself, then it

13 becomes a he said, he said between Mr. Foster and Mr. Pasic.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. MISETIC: If that's the case, then this video bolsters, in

16 our view, Mr. Pasic's assertions that this is how Mr. Foster conducted

17 the interview with him. And we would submit that under Rule 89, this

18 evidence is probative in the sense that it goes to how Mr. Foster

19 conducted interviews of persons within the Croatian system concerning the

20 existence of a plan to expel Serbs, to burn their property, and to loot

21 their property.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't then be the next logical step also to

23 verify whether Mr. Foster ever put anything on paper which is

24 inconsistent with what that witness apparently had said. Because there

25 is a multiple claim by this witness. It is sometimes, I didn't say that;

Page 22967

1 and sometimes, I did say that but I've since then changed my mind.

2 Now, for the first portion, if you would say, We'd like to see

3 the methodology of Mr. Foster, that would then include the whole thing.

4 That is, how questions were put to the witness, what was then put on

5 paper, although this is video recorded, so to that extent, there not a

6 lot of margin to -- to reflect answers in any way different from what was

7 literally said. But --

8 MR. MISETIC: I must admit I'm a bit confused. Is there anything

9 that Mr. Foster put on paper during the interview with this witness? Is

10 that what we're say?

11 JUDGE ORIE: No. What I was saying is that if we are exploring

12 the methods used by Mr. Foster, that that goes from the way in which he

13 puts the questions to the witnesses and what then appears on paper.

14 Now, I do see that there is a difference, that if it is recorded,

15 that you will most likely get everything on paper, transcribed and

16 translated. So to that extent, it is -- the situation is quite

17 different. I'm aware of that.

18 MR. MISETIC: And if I can also state, Mr. President, one of the

19 issues I raised before the break, which will be our argument later, is

20 that if in fact Mr. Foster had explored or if the witness had volunteered

21 some of these conclusions, it is our submission that, given that

22 Mr. Foster is a professional investigator, he would have explored the

23 foundations for some of these conclusions that are littered throughout

24 the 2002 statement. And if in fact he did explore, as a professional

25 investigator would have, then those answers to those foundational

Page 22968

1 questions would have been or should have been included in the

2 2002 statement, even if the witness said, I believe there was a plan but

3 I have no personal knowledge that would support my conclusion on this, I

4 never attended a meeting where anything of the sort was discussed,

5 et cetera. That is what should have happened if, in fact, these

6 questions were put.

7 We suggest, in fact, that the witness is correct, that these

8 conclusions were, in fact, put to him as Mr. Foster's conclusions and

9 that the witness was asked, Do you agree or do you disagree. You were --

10 and if you watch the video of the Jarnjak interview, the way Mr. Foster

11 says it is, You're a person on the inside, you must know this was -- this

12 is true, although we submit you, Mr. Jarnjak, weren't part of plan.

13 I want to explore with the witness whether, in fact, such

14 techniques were used with this witness to say, You must know the plan

15 existed, this is our view, but we believe you weren't part of the plan,

16 Mr. Pasic.

17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, if I could respond briefly.

18 If that is indeed what Mr. Misetic wants to do, to explore with

19 the witness whether these techniques were used with him, he can ask him

20 those questions. He doesn't need to show him the video.

21 Secondly, the -- the suggestion that Mr. Foster would have or

22 should have followed up and would have or should have included things in

23 the 2002 statement, appears to be approaching some kind of allegation of

24 misconduct which we, of course, categorically reject. Mr. Foster is a

25 professional investigator. There are many reasons why investigators do

Page 22969

1 or don't ask follow-up questions to certain conclusions that witnesses

2 give them during interviews.

3 And lastly, Your Honour, what Mr. Misetic said earlier, which is

4 that in his view this video bolsters, in our view, Mr. Pasic's

5 assertions -- that this is how Mr. Foster conducted the interview with

6 him. And we would submit that under Rule 89, this evidence is probative,

7 sounds to me like that is a matter for submissions, that there is nothing

8 to be gained from showing this video to this witness and seeking some

9 kind of conclusion from this witness as to whether it was similar or not.

10 Mr. Misetic can ask the questions about how the interview was

11 conducted. He can make submissions, if and when the opportunity arises,

12 as to what happened -- what may have happened in other interviews and

13 whether or not that's similar.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, just a brief response? I'd --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Very brief.

17 MR. MISETIC: Ms. Gustafson's argument actually walks right into

18 what my point is. She wasn't present at the 2002 interview. She has no

19 idea how Mr. Foster conducted the interview, yet she tells the Chamber

20 they categorically reject any allegation of misconduct.

21 Now I didn't allege misconduct, but I also wonder what basis

22 Ms. Gustafson has to say there was or wasn't or -- if she knows more

23 about this interview and how it was conducted then appears in the

24 statement itself, then that needs to be disclosed to us.

25 The second point, Mr. President, is that's precisely why we wish

Page 22970

1 to show the Chamber that this sort of veil that, because he's an OTP

2 investigator there's a presumption that everything was done by the book,

3 is exactly the reason why we wish to, A, put this video to the witness;

4 and B, let the Chamber decide for itself whether this issue needs to be

5 explored even further.

6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, the allegations that Mr. Misetic is

7 making are based on this witness's evidence which is confused and

8 contradictory. This witness has impeached himself on the way that this

9 interview was conducted. And for Mr. Misetic now to make allegations

10 against Mr. Foster on that basis is not well founded.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I need the record to be clear --

13 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Misetic. There was an objection. You've

14 responded to that, then, yes, you are the last one to -- because you're

15 the attacked party in this respect --

16 MR. MISETIC: Yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- but please keep it short.

18 MR. MISETIC: It's very short.

19 I never made any allegation against Mr. Foster. I'm interested

20 in exploring the matter with Mr. Pasic first, before allegations are

21 made.

22 Secondly, if there's nothing wrong with how the Jarnjak video was

23 conducted, and I'm not suggesting that that is misconduct because it was

24 in fact videotaped, but techniques used by investigators don't have to

25 amount to misconduct to -- to nevertheless call into question the

Page 22971

1 reliability of statements made during an interview. It's not misconduct

2 if -- if techniques were used that make certain statements in a statement

3 unreliable.

4 And to that extent, I wish to reiterate I have not made any

5 allegations against Mr. Foster. I am exploring with the witness the

6 methodology used by the investigator which he --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Which is repetitious.

8 MR. MISETIC: -- used in other cases.

9 JUDGE ORIE: It's repetitious.

10 MR. MISETIC: But which he used in other cases.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the testimony of the witness until now,

14 the Chamber does not consider it the best way to proceed to show to the

15 witness what happened in this interview with Mr. Jarnjak.

16 At the same time, the Chamber considers that there could be good

17 reasons to explore what happened.

18 The Chamber would like to proceed in the following way. The

19 Chamber would like to look at a selection, Mr. Misetic, you will play so

20 that the Chamber is better aware of techniques you are apparently

21 referring to. This not to be shown to the witness at this moment. We'll

22 ask him to leave the courtroom.

23 Then the Chamber invites you and the Chamber may even take some

24 initiative in exploring the matters without having shown, still, the

25 video to the witness to see whether similar techniques or whether the