1 Wednesday, 16 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in the courtroom and just
6 outside the courtroom.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning Your Honours, good morning to
9 everyone in the courtroom, this is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor
10 versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Before we continue, Mr. Russo, you referred us yesterday to map
13 29 and you expressed some concern that we might overlook scales. I take
14 it that you are aware that the scale indicated on map 29, which is
15 1:10.000 is not the correct scale. That map has been reduced in side,
16 therefore, 1:10.000 is not applicable anymore though what we find at the
17 bottom is of course similarly reduced in size so that can be used to
18 orient ourselves on this scale. Actually, one kilometre on this map is
19 five and a half centimetres and the grids on the map are certainly
20 helpful because the blue lines, the blue rectangles, squares, are one
21 square kilometre.
22 Mr. Munkelien, I would first like to remind you that you are
23 still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning
24 of your testimony, and Mr. Kehoe, are you ready to continue the
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 WITNESS: TOR MUNKELIEN [Resumed]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe: [Continued]
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Munkelien.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. I would just like to just go back just a bit to some of the items
8 that we talked about yesterday and you noted for us yesterday you, the
9 UNMOs and you said yesterday at, bear with me, page 1605 -- 1604 to 1605,
10 line 25 and then line 1 and 2 that as UNMOs were the eyes and ears of the
11 Security Council. Is that right?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. So were you saying to us that the -- it was important to be
14 accurate in the situation reports, the sitreps?
15 A. Of course.
16 Q. Now let me talk to you a bit and I want to bring up first P67.
17 Thank you. Can we go to -- this is a, if I may, P67 is the human
18 rights report that we spoke about yesterday. If we could go to page 2 of
19 that document, Mr. Monkhouse, and number 10, and this is a document that
20 refers to a series of burnings that you observed on the 18th of August,
21 1995; is that right?
22 A. That's correct.
23 MR. KEHOE: If we may -- if we can now go to, if I may -- am I
24 reading the 625 ter number here -- 65 ter 4098.
25 Q. Just for speed of reference, Mr. Munkelien, this is a UN sitrep
1 report for the same day, 18 August 1995.
2 If we can go to page 2, there is a report on the bottom of page
3 2 -- I'm sorry, this is just the B/C/S version. And on the bottom of
4 page 2, it notes that UNMO Team Podkonje reported. That was you folks,
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And of course this is just the military area. But let us turn
8 our attention to the following page, the humanitarian aspects in point E.
9 We see that at least UN patrol Sibenik in point E did report some
10 burnings but there are no such reportings from Team Podkonje, are there?
11 A. There's no -- if you go back to first page, then you see why it
12 is not reported like that because it says, "Go some like before."
13 Q. I don't understand what you're saying, sir, there.
14 A. If you could go back to page 1 --
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. -- in the first report --
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. -- that's the report from -- highlights.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. "UNMO patrols still observing looting and burning of houses." So
21 that's the report that we reported and how Sector South reported it
22 onwards to higher headquarter.
23 Q. Stay with me, here. If we go back to page 3 of this document, of
24 course, UN Sibenik gives us individual places where they observed houses
25 burning but Team Podkonje does not; right?
1 A. No. We reported it as you saw in our sitrep and then it's the
2 Sector South headquarter who then watches the report and report what we
3 have seen in the manner that I saw -- showed you now on page 1.
4 Q. Well, if we go back to page 1 just for a moment, and we look at
5 the SMO assessment in point 2, page 1 of this document in page 2, the
6 SMO, the senior military -- page 1, excuse me, at number 2, the SMO
7 assessment. "The HV offensive through the SEC south into
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina has improved the security situation in the area of
9 Donji Lapac."
10 So when this was written on the 18th of August there were ongoing
11 military operations in and around the Donji Lapac area, weren't there?
12 A. According to this one, yes.
13 Q. According to your memory, sir, do you recall them --
14 A. No, I don't recall that.
15 Q. You don't recall that?
16 A. No.
17 MR. KEHOE: Let us if we could move this particular 65 ter 4692
18 into evidence. Is that right? I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong number.
19 65 ter 4098.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo.
21 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would receive number ...
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D92, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D92 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes. Let us turn our attention to yet another
1 situation report, sir. And let me start first with, if I may -- turning
2 your attention back to P67, and I address your attention on P67 to the
3 entry for August the 21st, it's on item 13 on P67.
4 Now, on item 13 on P67 it starts from the bottom of the previous
5 page on to the top, you also include in that item some report by your
6 team of lootings and some burnings. Is that right?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Okay. And again I go back to the next situation report which is
9 dated the 21st of August, and that is 65 ter 1237.
10 Now, looking through this document, let's see if you can just
11 turn to the next page which has -- page 2 of this document. It has a
12 long report from Team Zadar, do you see the -- maybe the bottom half of
13 that page?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. And it has one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- at least
16 seven indications of reports of houses burning; right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Now, let's turn again to the report by Team Podkonje which is on
19 the -- begins on the following page at entry H. If you can just flip
20 pages, entry H that starts at the bottom and goes to the next page.
21 If we can just go to the next page, Mr. Monkhouse.
22 Now, in the entry for Team Podkonje, there is no entry for any
23 burnings, is there?
24 A. Could you please repeat that one and show me the paper that you
25 refer to now.
1 Q. I refer to this --
2 A. The one that's on the screen?
3 Q. The one that's on the screen is the previous --
4 If we can go one page back, Mr. Monkhouse. Mr. Munkelien,
5 Mr. Munkelien. Thank you.
6 My colleague was saying to me I keep calling Mr. Munkelien
7 Mr. Monkhouse, and I say that's Mr. Monkhouse. Little bit of confusion.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Refrain from any comment starting on the word
9 M-o-n-k. Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
11 Q. On this score, if we can go to the bottom of the page, this is
12 the entry for Team Podkonje for the 21st of August, 1995. Now, in this
13 reporting, this is sitrep, for instance, Team Zadar reported many
14 instances of burnings yet Team Podkonje does not.
15 A. But you just showed me first of this one was our report for that
16 day, and then you go back to page number 1, you see the same statement as
17 last time, "burning and looting is still going on." That was how the
18 report went Sector South to higher headquarter. We reported to Sector
19 South what we saw and then from then on it was not in our hands to report
20 further on.
21 Q. You would agree with me, sir, that in the reporting to Sector
22 South, whatever, Team Zadar is listed as observing?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, that's clear, isn't it?
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes, sir, I'll move on.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We've seen that. We don't have to repeat it again.
1 Please would you put to the witness what your point is. You say there's
2 inconsistency in reporting to and from Knin.
3 MR. KEHOE: Exactly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's clear. I mean it doesn't take us 15
5 minutes to establish that. That's really to be seen in three minutes.
6 What's your issue? Are you saying that the reporting from this
7 witness is not correct or is there any comment or do you have questions
8 about how reporting went on? Because this witness said, This is what we
9 reported. And how they report higher up is another matter. That
10 apparently seems to be the issue. Let's try to find out whether the
11 witness can tell us something about that because the inconsistency is not
12 a need to be repeated three, four, five times.
13 Apparently, there are also the Zadar reports, perhaps are not
14 dealt with in the same way as the Podkonje reports. I am also guessing
15 why. Let's ask the witness whether he knows because that's what
16 interests us, isn't it?
17 MR. KEHOE: And, Your Honour, if I can present these documents,
18 I'll just present it from the bar table, which is a sitrep compared to
19 this, where, in fact, in another situation report, and I'll bring it up,
20 the burnings by Team Podkonje were in fact reported, consistent with the
21 humanitarian rights --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Have you discussed with Mr. Russo whether you could
23 introduce them from the bar table?
24 MR. KEHOE: I turn them over, Judge. I have not discussed that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Why not be very practical in these kinds of -- the
1 Chamber would like to hear as much information but in the most efficient
3 Mr. Russo.
4 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, the sitreps to which Mr. Kehoe is
5 referring are part of the UNMO dossier which was given by the
6 Prosecutor's office to the Defence. We certainly have no objection if he
7 wishes to admit any of those across the bar table.
8 MR. KEHOE: I will take my -- that --
9 JUDGE ORIE: And then we can focus with the witness to ask
10 whether he can explain why because that apparently is the issue and I
11 take it, Mr. Russo, that if Mr. Kehoe would consider that there is
12 sometimes detail reporting higher up for some teams and for others not,
13 then you could agree on the level of detail we find and also that the
14 level of detail appears not to be the same for all of the teams.
15 MR. RUSSO: Certainly.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So these are matters for which we do not need
17 the witness, but perhaps if the witness would have any explanations as he
18 gave, for example, that on -- what he considers his reporting to be
19 reflected on page 1, which still does not explain why at other moments, a
20 more detailed reporting higher up we find on other pages.
21 So that is a puzzle which is very interesting and the Chamber
22 would like to hear more about it, but it doesn't take us 15 minutes to
23 establish that, the differences.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I will be guided by Your Honour's
25 instructions and we'll do so accordingly.
1 On that score, Judge, I would address the Court and this will be
2 the document, next document coming from the bar table.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. KEHOE: And if we note in P67, there is an entry from Team
5 Podkonje on the 22nd of August, 1995.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's under number?
7 MR. KEHOE: P67.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What number in P67?
9 MR. KEHOE: P67, it would be A, entry 14 A for Team Podkonje.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KEHOE: And 14 A, it notes that the team observed two houses
13 If I can address the Court to 1D13-0114. That, Your Honour, is a
14 paper copy that we could not upload. In this particular document, if you
15 look up in the right-hand corner at 5706, it should be at point G, the
16 second to last page -- point H, excuse me. If we can see at the bottom
17 of that page, it notes that "UNMO Team Podkonje reported two houses
18 burning in the same location."
19 This is, in fact, consistent with P67 so while the other sitreps
20 have no inclusion of Team Podkonje reporting burnings, this one does.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And now you're going to ask the witness again how
22 this could be explained.
23 MR. KEHOE: I get one more. I have a lot of them Judge but I
24 just picked a sampling of them, frankly.
25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I apologise, but this is document 65 ter
1 4794. We actually do have it uploaded and released in e-court if that
2 would be of assistance. I'm not sure if the Court wishes --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it causes any problems if we
4 upload it. It will be a Defence Exhibit, I take it, whether uploading
5 from the other action would cause any problems. But at least,
6 Mr. Registrar, if you could get it on the screen, that would certainly be
7 helpful. Please proceed.
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. The last document again from the
9 bar table, and I refer Your Honours to the entry in P67 for the 23rd of
10 August, that would 15 A where Team Podkonje reports burning, and if we
11 could pull up 65 ter 3455, which is a situation report from August 23rd,
12 1995. And likewise, Your Honours, beginning on page 3 of that document,
13 we note several teams reporting burnings in the humanitarian aspects
14 beginning at E. There was no such reporting from Team Podkonje.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you want to --
16 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- ask the witness whether now on these specific
18 sitreps, whether it's still the same explanation as we reported as we did
19 and reporting higher up went as it went or whether he has any specific
20 explanation for the -- well, I wouldn't say inconsistency right away, but
21 at least a difference in detail on the reporting to Knin and then up to
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
24 Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
25 A. Yes, I was waiting that you should ask me to answer it. Because
1 from the entry of the HV troops in Knin, beginning August, Team Podkonje,
2 Team Knin, has reported this Knin was a hot spot at that time, so they
3 have reported Zadar suddenly came into business and then it was Zadar who
4 got the report, we got the line in the beginning "looting, burning still
5 in progress."
6 Q. Can you explain, sir, why in the sample that we have, that the
7 sitrep was -- the situation reports that was sent up did include Team
8 Podkonje reporting burnings yet other situation reports did not? All
9 within --
10 A. I can't explain because that was higher headquarters so then you
11 have to ask other witnesses like the one you saw, it wasn't drafted by
12 Steinar Hjertnes, it was released by Steinar Hjertnes, it was somebody
13 else, the OPs officer sector headquarter who drafted this one, so it was
14 out of our hands.
15 Q. You can't explain it?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, let's stay, if you will, with this situation report from the
18 23rd --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I also see that these sitreps are
20 prepared by Captain Anttila. Perhaps he will come up with an
22 Let's move on. Yes.
23 MR. KEHOE:
24 Q. If we can take a look at this situation report from the 23rd,
25 this reports in the first page, if we can go to the first page of this.
1 Now, you note -- it notes in the highlights in the first, second,
2 third -- fourth highlight down in the star it says "large troop movements
3 observed direction in and possible out of Bosnia."
4 If we go down to number two, the SMO's assessment, "The large
5 troop movement is assessed to be rotation of troops in Bosnia."
6 If we can turn the page. If we can just review this and I am not
7 going to read this, but this document reflects large amount of troop
8 movements and HV soldiers and HV military equipment, doesn't it?
9 A. Yeah, it's all mentioning are HV headquarter and HV soldiers.
10 Q. Now, this was all going on in Sector South, was it not?
11 A. It was.
12 Q. And you had -- did you have any idea of the military situation at
13 that time that the HV was, in fact, fighting the Bosnian Serbs and the
14 Krajina Serbs in Bosnia?
15 A. I was aware it was fighting going on, yes.
16 Q. And that was relatively close to the areas that you had gone to,
17 wasn't it?
18 A. Yeah, I saw in the same report that I was arrested in Strmica
19 that day.
20 Q. That's right. You got arrested -- if we go to page 4, you were
21 stopped -- if you go to the last page of this document --
22 A. That was even at the highlights, so it differs what we reported
23 and what they took in so you see it's no consistence in whatever they
24 reported from higher headquarter to even higher headquarter.
25 Q. There was no consistency?
1 A. No, it doesn't look like. Sometimes they reported what we saw
2 and reported; sometimes they didn't.
3 MR. KEHOE: If I may, I don't know whether this is the proper
4 time to tender these situation reports or --
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you've dealt with them.
6 MR. KEHOE: I'm not finished. I have another question on them.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think the new system as it has been discussed
8 already, although there are no written instructions are there, that once
9 you have finished with the witness, a document, then you tender it, it
10 then is -- a number will be assigned and unless there's any objection
11 then immediately we'll decide on admission.
12 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. KEHOE:
15 Q. Let's go to the last page of this situation report. You were in
16 fact stopped going back into the Strmica area, weren't you?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. And if we can bring this -- 1D13-011 -- 0110, excuse me.
19 Now, you reported that you had been up in Donji Tiskovac, were
20 you not?
21 A. We went in that direction, yes.
22 Q. Well, that was in fact in Bosnia-Herzegovina, wasn't it?
23 A. Yeah, that was a very -- according to this map, I can't see the
24 border --
25 Q. The border line is that thick black line.
1 A. Yeah, because we went -- in Strmica, you see the road into
2 Republika BiH going, climbing up to the hill and then we went to the left
3 and followed the border more or less. We were not crossing the border,
4 we were towards the city of Tiskovac.
5 Q. You note in the situation report that -- and this is on the last
6 page, at 23 August, "UNMO was stopped on its way back from Tiskovac."
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. But you're saying you didn't go into Tiskovac?
9 A. I can't recall that we went all into Tiskovac. I know that we
10 went in that direction and going in there, nobody stopped us. Coming
11 back, they said, "Oh, it's dangerous so you shouldn't go there," then
12 they took it into the log base according to this sitrep.
13 Q. But you reported in P67 that you observed, P67 being this human
14 rights form, you observed houses burnt in Donji Tiskovac; right?
15 A. Yeah, if it's in the report, I have reported and seen it.
16 Q. So that means you went in there?
17 A. Yeah, if we reported it then we went into, but we also may refer
18 to Tiskovac as the area of Tiskovac. So maybe we didn't cross the border
19 at that time.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, from the report, I read under 15 A, I
21 take it that you refer to that.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: At D. Tiskovac, not Tiskovac as such. It might be
24 Donji Tiskovac, and I do not know whether Donji Tiskovac is what side of
25 the border. Could you please clarify that first.
1 MR. KEHOE: There is one town, Your Honour. It is Donji
3 Q. And Donji Tiskovac is in Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't it?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. So you don't know whether you were in Bosnia-Herzegovina or not?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Suffice it to say in the Donji Tiskovac area, there was a lot of
8 active fighting very close to Donji Tiskovac going on there, wasn't
10 A. Not that -- we didn't see any fighting when we were there.
11 Q. Well, sir, did you see troops moving in and out of the area going
12 back up to staging areas north of Donji Tiskovac?
13 A. Following the road from Strmica, we saw troops when we left
14 Strmica and we didn't see any troops as far as we went on that road until
15 we came back, and then we were stopped and arrested for one hour.
16 Q. And of course you were let go?
17 A. Yeah, of course. I'm here.
18 Q. Now, sir, the area that was going on, this is during the period
19 of time when you knew that there was fighting going on between the Serbs
20 and the Croatian Army; correct?
21 A. Yeah, I know it was fighting in the area.
22 Q. And did you know that they were fighting under the command of
23 General Gotovina?
24 A. No, I didn't know that any particular name on the fighters.
25 Q. Did you have any idea who was commanding those troops that were
1 fighting up there in the middle of August --
2 A. No.
3 Q. -- of 1995?
4 A. No.
5 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, I will offer the 65 ter
6 1237, 65 ter 3455, and 65 ter 4794, as well as the map of Donji Tiskovac
7 which is 1D13-0110.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 01237 becomes Exhibit
10 D93. 65 ter number 03455 becomes D94. Document 1D13-0114 becomes D95.
11 And finally, 1D13-0110 becomes D96.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Any objections, Mr. Russo?
13 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: D93 up to and including D96 are admitted into
16 Mr. Kehoe, if you could assist me in finding exactly -- I'm
17 trying to find Tiskovac in such a way that I can ...
18 First of all, Tiskovac is in what municipality?
19 MR. KEHOE: It is in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Your Honour, it is
20 taking the north road out of Strmica.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Strmica. And I find that, apparently, in Croatia?
22 MR. KEHOE: That's in Croatia.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Which municipality in Croatia?
24 MR. KEHOE: I must confess, Your Honour, that when it comes to
25 municipalities, I'm not sure which municipality it is in. Maybe I can
1 get some guidance from my colleagues on that point.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that someone could help you out.
3 MR. KEHOE: Strmica is in the Knin municipality.
4 JUDGE ORIE: In the Knin municipality.
5 MR. KEHOE: And Tiskovac is in the Drvar municipality.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I have -- the only thing I have at this moment is
7 map 30 in the bundle we got in the beginning from the Prosecution which
8 is Knin municipality, apparently. I'm trying to find -- I can't find it
9 as a matter of fact. It must be close to the border from what --
10 MR. KEHOE: It is close to the border, Your Honour. You can see
11 from the map that we put on the -- tendered, there is a jutting out of
12 the border a bit. I can bring that map up so you could see it. It's not
13 a straight line.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I would like to have the location in the
15 totality so that I know what I'm talking about.
16 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, we can provide that to you.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, if you look at map 31.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: And you go along the border, on the right-hand
20 side you will see Tiskovac about one-quarter of the way down on the right
22 JUDGE ORIE: I have map 31 in front of me and you said go down
23 from the top?
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: From the top right, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: And if you go down, if you go in about --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Tiskovac, yes, I see it.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Do you see it, Your Honour? Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I see it. That is Tiskovac. And that is, you say,
5 in Bosnia and I'm now comparing this with map 17 where I find in the
6 south of the Donji Lapac municipality, just -- I see there if you follow
7 me, I there find a Tiskovac next to Licki which apparently is located in
8 Croatia so that's exactly why I wanted to know what I'm talking about.
9 And then could we get the D96 again on the screen?
10 So now I have to find Strmica.
11 MR. KEHOE: It's just on the lower right-hand portion of this.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I try to find my way, but it seems that the border
13 on map 17 is a bit different from the border as we find it on map 31.
14 But first, Donji Tiskovac, Mr. Russo, you located in Bosnia as well?
15 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, according to map 31 that we have in the
16 court binder it does seem to suggest that this town is on the other side
17 of the border into Bosnia.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. Therefore, I'm asking you -- I mean I can
19 see that and has been emphasised by Mr. Kehoe. Therefore, I'm -- since
20 I'm a bit lost comparing all these maps, I ask you whether you also take
21 the view that this is in Bosnia.
22 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.
24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, just by way of clarification, I actually
25 have a very clear map just if Your Honour wants to take a look at it. I
1 can just put it on the screen. I'm advised that I can put it on the
2 screen for Your Honour's examination --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. KEHOE: So we can do that just -- yes, I'm told to do it via
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine. Can we zoom in so that we ...
7 Now, the red line is the border, I take it?
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Red line is the border.
10 And then Mr. Russo, is the other Tiskovac, is that a different
11 Tiskovac or -- in the south of Donji Lapac municipality?
12 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I do believe it is a different one.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Or is that Tiskovac Licki? Perhaps that's a
14 different name.
15 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, I believe that is correct.
16 THE WITNESS: And there is also a railroad running into that
17 valley, as far as I remember.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Mr. Munkelien, you have observed my struggle.
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Can you help us out in any way or ...
22 THE WITNESS: I think there was no clear border at that time, so
23 we went into the area, I'm not sure if we went all into Tiskovac but we
24 were in the area. We were not stopped going in there, but we were
25 stopped going out again.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
2 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. I think I was at the point of
3 tendering those exhibits. I'm not sure if they were --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think D93 to D96 are admitted into evidence
6 MR. KEHOE: Thank you. I will move on.
7 Q. Just a couple more brief topics, sir. And one of those is your
8 statement that -- in your January 2008 statement at paragraph 44, that
9 you noted that the Croats could have stopped the looting if they wanted
10 to, looting and burning. Do you recall that?
11 A. Yeah, I did, yeah.
12 Q. Sir, when -- after Operation Storm, do you have any idea of the
13 area that the military police and the civilian police had to get under
15 A. Yeah, the area is big, but the roads are rather few, so if they
16 put on checkpoints on crossroads, junctions and so on, they could hinder,
17 because this looting was not done by pedestrians.
18 Q. And on that score, are you familiar with the NATO experience in
19 Kosovo under similar circumstances?
20 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. I'm not sure what the
21 relevance of that is.
22 THE WITNESS: I've been to Kosovo, so ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: I will just reread the question.
24 THE WITNESS: What was the point?
25 JUDGE ORIE: The NATO experience in Kosovo is a reference to ...
1 MR. KEHOE: Under similar circumstances.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Experience of what?
3 MR. KEHOE: The experience of being able to control the looting
4 and burning that had taken place when NATO came under control of Kosovo.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness may answer the question and we'll
6 then see.
7 THE WITNESS: Of course in Kosovo, as well, you had a lot of
8 roads but you also had the possibility to hinder them to use the roads.
9 It's same in the area around Knin. If you wanted people not to use the
10 roads, you could hinder it by putting up checkpoints, like the
11 checkpoints that didn't stop us going in, they stopped us going back. If
12 they wanted to stop us going in, they could have done that.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. But remember, we were UN cars and at that time, and as all
16 missions, UN has freedom of movement, and I think that was respected
17 going in but not going out again.
18 Q. Was NATO successful in stopping the Serbs from looting and
19 burning in Kosovo?
20 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
22 Mr. Kehoe, could you, before you put this question to the
23 witness, lay a foundation on how he could have a judgement on success --
24 being successful in certain respects?
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
1 Q. Did you say you were in Kosovo, sir?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. And when you were in Kosovo?
4 A. 2001 -- no, 2000, 2001.
5 Q. And are you familiar what happened in Kosovo while it was under
6 the control of NATO with regard to the Serbs looting and burning of
7 villages -- Albanians, excuse me, Albanians looting and burning of
9 A. I think I toured the whole Kosovo more than most of the people in
10 this and I know everything that happened there and I know they didn't
11 succeed too well in preventing it, but it could have been done if they
12 had been on the ground and if they had demanded. The one case that we
13 were referring to now, my knowledge of Knin also stated that if they
14 wanted, they could have put up checkpoints and prevented any looting, any
15 traffic, unwanted traffic into any area of -- around Knin.
16 Q. So, taking your answer that NATO did not succeed in preventing
17 the Albanians from looting and burning, did they?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, that question has been answered. He said
19 they were not successful and he said they could have been successful if
20 they had wanted to be successful.
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, I will move on.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
23 MR. KEHOE:
24 Q. Now just going back -- let's move -- what particular area came
25 under the Croatian control at the time? Do you know the square
1 kilometres of that area?
2 A. No, but it's -- the roads are still there, so I don't know the
3 area, but what we are talking about, it's not the area itself, it's the
4 roads leading in, and that could be controlled.
5 Q. And the area that was under control was similar to the area that
6 the Albanians moved into in Kosovo, wasn't it?
7 A. I don't know the square kilometres and I don't get your point
8 either by doing this.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Square kilometres are the same everywhere, yes?
10 MR. KEHOE: No, no, I'm talking about that -- the area that after
11 Operation Storm came under the control ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There's no reason to compare all these things.
13 I mean if we are talking about being successful, possibilities, we do not
14 compare the full detail. I think the witness said already that the UN
15 were not successful and they could have been successful at the time so
16 let's now focus again on this area.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Just one correction, it was NATO,
18 not the UN in Kosovo.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. KEHOE: I noted that Your Honour said --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I made a mistake.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. Now, were you aware of the efforts by Croatian authorities to
24 prosecute and investigate individuals who were committing crimes in the
1 A. I was not.
2 MR. KEHOE: Just from the bar table, Your Honour, I will just by
3 way of example, like to offer -- this is 1D13-0085, 1D13-0086.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, are you in a position already to express
5 whether you have any objections against this tendering from the bar
6 table. Are you going to put these to the witness?
7 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, he says he had no knowledge so I just...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, take your time. It's clear that
9 Mr. Kehoe wants to tender from the bar table these documents.
10 Yes, please proceed.
11 MR. KEHOE:
12 Q. Now, the last issue that we came up with was the -- you talked
13 about the -- finding the body of Sava Babic on September the 4th of 1995;
14 is that right?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. And were you aware of any investigation or prosecution of that
18 A. No, I only reported it and I confirmed photos were taken the day
19 after and from then on, I didn't follow up the case.
20 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, pursuant to Your Honour's instructions,
21 and by the way, if we could just -- I guess counsel was still waiting to
22 see if they object to that other document so I suspect I should wait
23 before I try to move that into evidence. I'm talking about the document
24 I just moved from the bar table.
25 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, there is no objection to that document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If there is no objection against that document, then
2 tendered from the bar table it would receive ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D97.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D97 admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I have a series of documents that we
7 followed up from the -- one of our last sessions with regard to
8 individuals prosecuted for the homicide of Sava Babic and exactly how it
9 all transpired, it is a, in toto, a 264-or-so-page report. Heaven knows
10 we're not attempting to -- or putting that into evidence to complete the
11 file. However, there are a series of documents that we do have beginning
12 with 1D13-0018.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the Chamber tries to avoid to get in lengthy
14 documents of which only a couple of pages are dealt with.
15 Now, as far as the investigations and proceedings against
16 suspects or accused are concerned in relation to this woman that was
17 killed, is there no way to agree on what, in the context of these
18 proceedings, took place to summarise that in, well let's say, one page,
19 to agree that this is what happens to give all the relevant information
20 rather than to give us 264 pages?
21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I do believe there is. We are not
22 putting 264 pages in. We are just giving you the highlights of the
23 various documents to follow up on Defence Exhibit 9, and what happened
24 from these documents and these series of documents is that an individual
25 is tried for the Sava Babic murder, is tried for a separate murder,
1 convicted of both. It then goes up on appeal and the Sava Babic murder
2 conviction is vacated and the same individual is convicted of a separate
3 murder and sentenced.
4 So --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Not for Sava Babic.
6 MR. KEHOE: Not for Sava Babic but for the other murder --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. KEHOE: -- at the appellate level.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Russo, is that -- does that reflect more
10 or less -- I mean is there agreement about the very short summary and
11 we'll see some details then I take it from Mr. Kehoe, but that is that an
12 individual was prosecuted, was convicted for the Sava Babic murder in the
13 first instance and that on appeal, the conviction did not stand but that
14 he was convicted for another murder.
15 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I apologise, I'm not --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll try to establish together with
17 your colleagues whether you could agree with the Defence on this course
18 of the proceedings as summarized by Mr. Kehoe and then we'll learn about
19 some details at this moment.
20 MR. RUSSO: We'll certainly do that, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 MR. KEHOE: And then of course we have provided all those
22 documents to counsel and I think that it should be relatively simple to
23 come to a consensus.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. KEHOE: Just by way of guidance, Judge, on numbering, I know
1 Your Honour doesn't want numerous numbers, and one prior witness we had
2 introduced some documents or at least identified some documents under
3 Defence Exhibit 9. Should we just incorporate the rest of these into
4 Defence Exhibit 9 or --
5 JUDGE ORIE: To be quite honest, Defence Exhibit 9 doesn't ring a
6 bell immediately.
7 MR. KEHOE: It was some preliminary documents on the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. KEHOE: With the first witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we asked --
12 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- did it have any follow-up.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. And this was the follow-up.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I have a look at that, go back to it and see
16 how we can -- most important for me is that this seems to be
17 investigations, proceedings, which are at least documented in such a way
18 that I would expect the parties to be able to agree on how the course of
19 those proceedings was at the time, and then of course the Chamber is not
20 interested to have every detail of what witness A, B or C said during the
21 proceedings, either on first instance or on appeal but rather on how
22 these proceedings went.
23 So again, whether we integrate them in D9 or keep them separate,
24 the Chamber is more interested to see whether there is a common, shared
25 view on how proceedings went on in relation to someone suspected of the
1 killing of Sava Babic.
2 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I can tell the Court that we have had
3 significant discussions with the Defence and provided them with
4 tremendous amount of in an attempt to get agreed facts with respect to
5 the prosecutions and the circumstances of the case and we will certainly
6 get together with them again and provide the Court is something in that
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then that's clear. I raise this issue -
9 and I'm sorry, Mr. Munkelien, that we are bothering you with procedural
10 matters - also in relation to the police log, which is also a very large
11 document, it has been admitted into evidence, although only on two pages
12 two small entries were used. Now it could well be that in the course of
13 the proceedings before this Chamber that finally, you will rely on that
14 police log again, other pages, other incidents; but if finally it does
15 not, then the Chamber would like to discuss with the parties whether we
16 could limit the document as admitted into evidence to the relevant pages
17 or perhaps some additional pages for the context rather than the Chamber
18 having to go through all of the evidence, which means all the entries in
19 the police log and that we consider that our duty, so therefore we'd like
20 to limit that.
21 This already is some guidance for the parties.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
23 MR. KEHOE: The only reason I raise Exhibit 9, Judge, is the
24 extent that you don't have documents on this same topic in various
25 locales of -- as opposed to just putting it under one particular number
1 which was D9.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. KEHOE: If I might have one moment, Your Honour.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. KEHOE:
6 Q. Just one last question, Mr. Munkelien, and no more from me, in
7 any event.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Mr. Munkelien, you never met General Gotovina during your period
10 of time in Sector South, did you?
11 A. No, we called ourselves just SUNMOs, just another simple UNMO.
12 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, very much, sir. I have no further
13 questions. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
14 I have no further questions of Mr. Munkelien.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
16 Mr. Munkelien, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Cayley, who
17 is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
18 Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
19 MR. CAYLEY: May it please Your Honours, thank you,
20 Mr. President.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Cayley:
22 Q. Mr. Munkelien, I have a series of discreet topics to ask you
23 about which I will headline for you in advance so that you can direct
24 your mind to those topics. I also intend to refer to your statements and
25 I'll read the relevant sections out but if you want the statements in
1 front of you, I'll ask the Prosecution to provide them. I see you have
2 them already.
3 Equally, I want to refer you to some documents but to save time,
4 I'll be referring to specific parts of documents but by all means, stop
5 me if you want to read the whole document. And the same goes for any
6 question that I put to you that you don't understand, please stop me and
7 I'll repeat it to you. Is that all right?
8 A. I will stop you and thank you for clarifying this.
9 Q. Now, the first topic is freedom of movement. So if you can
10 direct your mind to that. Were you aware that the freedom of movement of
11 the UNMOs in Sector South after Operation Storm was governed by an
12 agreement between the Croatian government and the United Nations?
13 MR. CAYLEY: And, Mr. Registrar, if D28 could be brought up in
14 the screen, please.
15 Q. Mr. Munkelien, were you aware of that?
16 A. I don't think I ever saw this document and if I did, I think we
17 more or less tried to say, Okay, we are white, we are unarmed and we are
18 UN observers, so we tried the best to go forward.
19 Q. Could we have the second page of the document and I'm interested,
20 please, in paragraph 4 and 5.
21 Now, you'll -- I'll only read paragraph 5, Mr. Munkelien, but it
22 states that: "UNMOs and human rights monitoring elements of UNCRO will
23 carry out surveillance immediately in all areas except where, in the
24 opinion of the local UNCRO military commanders after consulting Croatian
25 army commanders, the security situation does not permit for such
2 So it would be fair to say that you had freedom of movement
3 subject to the security considerations that were agreed between the UNCRO
4 military commander in Sector South and the Croatian authorities; yes?
5 A. Yes, we had the freedom of movement.
6 Q. But subject to security considerations?
7 A. Yeah.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Your second phrasing of the question was different
9 from the first one. Security considerations is not the same as an
10 agreement between, and I think it was having consulted, isn't it? Not
11 necessarily in agreement.
12 MR. CAYLEY: In fact, Your Honour, we don't need to get into it
13 but paragraphs 4 and 5 are slightly different in that respect but it's
14 right what you're saying in terms of paragraph 5. Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: "It is the opinion of the UNCRO military commanders
16 after consulting," which is not the same as agreeing.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have not read 4 but ... I think 4 doesn't
19 say anything about it. Yes. Would you also please be precise.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, thank you.
21 Q. Now, if I can refer you, please, to your statement of the 4th of
22 September, 1999. And you say in that statement, this is D91 for the
23 purposes of the record, and let me just find the relevant part where you
24 refer to freedom of movement. And it's the first paragraph,
25 Mr. Munkelien. It's the third sentence.
1 "We were restricted in moving into some areas south from Knin
2 but in other areas of the former Sector South, we could move freely more
3 or less."
4 Is that right?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. I want to come back to that statement in a moment, the next
7 sentence, but in your statement that you made on the 9th and the 10th of
8 January of 2008, and if I can refer you to paragraph 43, where you say --
9 do you have paragraph 43 in front of you?
10 A. I have.
11 Q. Where you refer to the fact that -- you speak about restriction
12 of movement in your first statement and then you say, "This restriction
13 was limited to certain areas at different times and the explanation given
14 to us on one occasion was to keep us safe, as there was guerilla activity
15 in the area. I can recall the restrictions were in place on the road to
16 Strmica and some areas south of Knin when I first arrived, but those
17 restrictions eased over time."
18 That's right too, isn't it?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Now, it is normal practice, isn't it, when military operations
21 are taking place for restrictions in movement to be imposed on civilians
22 and other international organisations. Would you accept that?
23 A. I would accept that to the safety of the people, but I can also
24 tell you that UN is normally running the flag, the white cars, and
25 freedom of movement whatsoever.
1 Q. Now, in your first statement --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, could we first try to clarify where the
3 witness says that there was restricted -- "We were restricted in moving
4 into some areas south from Knin." I would like to know who imposed those
5 restrictions? Was that the UNCRO authorities or were these restrictions
6 imposed by any other authority?
7 THE WITNESS: That was imposed by any other authority.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So not in line with the agreement as where we
9 just saw that freedom of movement can be limited after consultation by
10 the -- with the Croatian authorities by UNCRO. So this was not in line
11 with the text of that agreement.
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.
14 MR. CAYLEY:
15 Q. Could I take you back to your first statement, and the first
16 paragraph. And this is one, two, three, four, five, six lines down. Do
17 you see that? "But when it was restricted ..." do you see that?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. "But even when it was restricted, we managed to find other roads
20 and to reach the areas he we wished to visit. This happened in
21 particular in the middle of September or in the end of September when we
22 infiltrated into Bosnia in order to make an assessment of the area from
23 which the Operation Storm had been launched. That was one of the
24 Croatian positions from which Knin had been shelled."
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. Now the question for you is this: Am I right in thinking that
2 what you mean here is that even when you were stopped at a checkpoint by
3 the Croatian authorities that you would actually find another road to get
4 to the destination where you originally intended to go?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And that would be the case even where those particular security
7 measures that had been put in place, in other words, the fact that you
8 had been stopped had actually been agreed between UNCRO and the Croatian
10 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. I don't believe that that
11 fairly characterises the testimony.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Well, I'm just simply developing the point, Your
14 Honour. I'm actually asking the question, was that so even when the
15 security measures had been agreed between the two parties?
16 It's not clear from his statement. It's not clear from the
17 statement he's given that he's saying that we did this when the security
18 measure had not been agreed so I'm asking: Could this have happened even
19 when it had been agreed between the UNCRO military commander and the
20 Croatian authorities that they be stopped at that point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's very hypothetical, isn't it.
22 MR. CAYLEY: But Mr. Munkelien may know or he may not know.
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, may I clarify this?
24 JUDGE ORIE: You've heard the question. If you think you can say
25 something useful to it, then please do so.
1 THE WITNESS: As you referred to in this, we made in one occasion
2 another road out and that was made by the order of sector headquarter, so
3 that means Sector South headquarter. So I mean if there had been any
4 negotiations and any agreement, then sector headquarter wouldn't have
5 given us the permission to go a little bit south of Strmica, go the road
6 up and over the mountains and into Bosnia.
7 MR. CAYLEY:
8 Q. So on this occasion, you were actually ordered to go around the
9 security --
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. -- measures that were in place?
12 A. We were limited access to the Strmica road that you saw on the
13 map that was climbing up in the bends, there, it was excellent to control
14 us but then we went a little bit to the south and managed to come into
16 Q. Who ordered you to go around that security --
17 A. That was Sector South headquarter.
18 Q. Who in Sector South headquarters?
19 A. I suppose all the orders [Realtime transcript read in
20 error "others"] came to our team leader via the senior military observer.
21 Q. If we can now move on to another subject matter which I want to
22 address, Your Honour, and again I'll give you the heading so you can
23 direct your mind to it. The looting and the burning, and my learned
24 friend, Mr. Kehoe, has already asked you a number of questions --
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, can I make a point of 11, 10, 11, 55,
1 I suppose all the others, it should be "orders."
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check now.
3 MR. CAYLEY: He's right, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's page --
5 MR. CAYLEY: It's page 33, lines 12 and 13.
6 JUDGE ORIE: 33, I have to back to it.
7 THE WITNESS: No. 34, I think.
8 JUDGE ORIE: 34, line ...
9 THE WITNESS: 11 -- 1055.
10 JUDGE ORIE: 1055.
11 MR. CAYLEY: It's page --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, orders, yes.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Sorry.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
15 MR. CAYLEY: It is page 33, it is page 33.
16 JUDGE ORIE: My -- moving my left screen is 34, but I'll check on
17 the other one. Please proceed.
18 MR. CAYLEY:
19 Q. Now, you said in your second statement, and you can refer to it
20 if you wish, that you saw looting conducted by both uniformed Croatian
21 soldiers and by civilians; is that right?
22 A. Yeah, I saw it in -- personnel in uniform and personnel in
23 civilians clothes.
24 Q. And I think you mentioned in your first statement that you made
25 which is D91 that on one occasion you saw three persons in uniform
1 setting fire to three houses; do you recall that?
2 A. Yeah, I do.
3 Q. But then in the statement that you made in 2008, you actually
4 changed that account, didn't you? Do you recall? I'm not trying to
5 catch you out here, Mr. Munkelien. If you go to your next statement,
6 it's -- you'll find -- it's at paragraph 39 of the statement that you
7 made in 2008.
8 A. Yeah, the statement is more or less the same. It was three men
9 that I visited across the field from our office.
10 Q. But you didn't actually see them set fire to the house, did you?
11 A. No. Like I think I've stated, I say them go into the house and
12 it was burning when they came out again so --
13 Q. Now, you say in your first statement that you believed that the
14 Croatian authorities could have stopped the looting if they wanted to.
15 Do you recall that?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. Now, in the second statement, you also say, and you've said this
18 already, but I'll come on to a different point, I'm not going to go
19 through this all over again. You made the point that because of the
20 checkpoints and the number of military and police in the area, you
21 believe that the looting and the burning could have been stopped; yes?
22 A. Yes, I do think that.
23 Q. Now, just to speak -- you're a professional army officer, you've
24 been -- up until your retirement, you were in the service for about 30
25 years, I think. Is that right?
1 A. Yeah, even 10 more.
2 Q. 40 years.
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. Now, the kinds of steps that should have been taken in your view
5 which would have stopped the looting, that's what I'm interested in, and
6 if I can put them to you and you can either agree or disagree with me.
7 Do you think that there should have been orders from the Ministry of the
8 Interior to the local police to stop looting and burning?
9 A. Yeah, if the police was functioning at that time. Otherwise it
10 was the land owner, that means civilian authorities or military
12 Q. And do you think that there should have been orders to actually
13 investigate the crimes that were being committed on the ground; yes?
14 A. Yeah, but if you first prevent crimes from being made, then it's
15 better. That means put up checkpoints and control the traffic into the
17 Q. But if crimes have been committed --
18 A. Then you should investigate them.
19 Q. You should investigate; yes? And perhaps orders to have combined
20 checkpoints of civilian and military police; yes?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. Perhaps also orders for mobile patrols of military and civilian
23 police so not just static checkpoints but mobile patrols moving around
24 the area. Would you agree with that?
25 A. Yes, I would.
1 Q. Obviously, orders from the Ministry of the Interior to the police
2 in the Knin area to actually report back to the Ministry of the Interior
3 on what they're doing in the area and their cooperation with the military
4 police; yes?
5 A. Yeah, reports on how they did it and the success and so on.
6 Q. And finally, orders from the Ministry of the Interior to the
7 police on the ground to report back on the progress of investigation and
8 the identification of perpetrators; yes?
9 A. Yeah, that's -- I already -- but you are talking mostly of the
10 police, the land owner on this time I think since the civilian community
11 was not functioning well, it was the military who should put this into
12 practice to control the areas.
13 Q. But you're aware that police stations had only very recently
14 opened in the region, aren't you?
15 A. Yeah. That's why I'm talking about the military. The military
16 was the land owner at this time.
17 Q. What -- at the time, what research did you conduct in the area to
18 actually see what the police were doing? Did you actually speak to the
19 police at all to ask them what their instructions were?
20 A. I can't recall that we were speaking specifically to any police
21 officer, but definitely, we were around the area from early morning until
22 dark and we saw a lot of non-functioning controls on the roads.
23 MR. CAYLEY: If we could please have D49.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Cayley. Meanwhile, I would like to seek
25 one clarification.
1 You were speaking about a land owner which appears to me not to
2 be an ambiguous term. I understood it, but please correct me when I
3 wrongly understood it that you are talking about forces that exercised
4 factual control in the area.
5 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
7 MR. CAYLEY:
8 Q. Now, Mr. Munkelien, you're a military man. In order to have
9 effective checkpoints, you need well-trained personnel, don't you?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. And you need well-trained personnel with reasonable equipment,
12 don't you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you need good intelligence on what is actually taking place
15 in the region, don't you, to make checkpoints work effectively?
16 A. And you need communication.
17 Q. And you also need -- the more checkpoints you have in an area,
18 the more effective your control is, isn't it?
19 A. Yeah, if it's -- if it's done properly, yes, that should help.
20 Q. And those checkpoints need to be properly supervised, don't they,
21 by a higher authority?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And that is really how you control terrain in a military or a
24 police sense; yes?
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. Now, I want to show you very briefly this document --
2 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I apologise, I'm sorry to interrupt.
3 Looking at the transcript, at page 38, about line 14 when Your Honour was
4 asking a question, it indicates that you were talking about forces that
5 exercised factual control in the area. I believe the Court's question
6 was actual control.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. Factual --
8 MR. RUSSO: Oh.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- I think I said.
10 THE WITNESS: Factual.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If that was understood by you.
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah, factual was the word that I understood.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It means --
14 THE WITNESS: De facto.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, de facto control was what I'm talking about,
16 and I have to ask native speakers to what extent that differs from actual
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, the --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'll ask my people, but if there's any native
20 speaker to explain to me exactly what the difference would have been,
21 then I can choose my words perhaps more.
22 MR. KEHOE: I think not being a Webster's dictionary guide but
23 it's basically the same understanding.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. CAYLEY:
1 Q. Mr. Munkelien, what you have in front of you is an order from the
2 Deputy Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia, I'm aware
3 that you won't have seen this document before?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Whose name was or whose name is Josko Moric and this is an
6 instruction that he sent on the 18th of August a number of police
7 administrations including Zadar, Knin which covered the area in which you
8 were operating; do you see that?
9 A. Yes, I see.
10 Q. Now, if we could turn the page, please. Do you see here the
11 order is acknowledging, and I'll read it for you, it's the first
12 paragraph: "Written and oral reports by police stations and police
13 administration show there are daily cases of torching of houses and
14 illegal taking away of people's moveable property in areas liberated in
15 Operation Storm.
16 "Most of these acts are perpetrated by individuals wearing
17 Croatian Army uniforms. The facts indicate that these individuals are
18 formally and actually members of the Croatian Army but amongst them,
19 there are also individuals who are not members of the Croatian Army but
20 are wrongfully wearing Croatian Army uniforms."
21 Now, over the page and I'm not going to read all of this out, but
22 what you say see in front of you are instructions from the Assistant
23 Minister of the Interior to all police stations noted on the front of the
24 instruction including to Zadar, Knin?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you see the first instruction is for local police chiefs to
2 meet with commanders of military police battalions; yes?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. And the next one is an instruction to start immediately
5 investigating individuals who had been torching houses but effectively
6 not investigating anything -- I'll read it, it's the clearest way, it
7 gives the most precision: "The meeting must be informed of the decision
8 that cases of torching of houses and illegal taking away of people's
9 moveable property that have hitherto occurred will not be operatively
10 investigated, but a stop must be put to cases of this type as of today."
11 You'll then see in paragraph 3 that it requests setting up of
12 mixed checkpoints and mixed patrols of civilian and military police, and
13 in paragraph 4 it requests that there be on-site investigation of all
14 cases of torching of houses and looting, illegal taking away of moveable
16 Now, obviously taking into account your observations on the
17 ground of, you know, whether or not this was effective, but if the
18 contents of this document are true, it does demonstrate that individuals
19 within the Ministry of Interior were actually trying to do something
20 about what was taking place on the ground at the time, weren't they?
21 A. Yeah, I totally agree. The intent of in this document is very
22 good, but then there is the discrepance between the intent and the actual
23 doing on the ground.
24 Q. Now, the Croatian police at that time within the Knin region, are
25 you aware of how long they had actually been operational within Knin?
1 A. No, I'm not.
2 MR. CAYLEY: If we could have, please, D40.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. CAYLEY: If we could please move to the second page of D40.
5 Q. Now, again, Mr. Munkelien, I know you've not seen this document
6 before, but you will see that the first police station to open in the
7 region was on the 5th of August, which was Drnis. I won't go through all
8 of them, the last one in Donji Srb opening on the 9th of August, 1995.
9 So by the time you arrived in the region, the police stations had only
10 been opened for about a week, hadn't they?
11 A. Yeah, that's correct.
12 Q. And you would accept that logically and fairly, it does take a
13 reasonable period of time after liberation of territory for a police
14 station to become effective within a region? It takes more than a week,
15 doesn't it?
16 A. It takes more than a week, but then you should have the
17 overlapping with the military police or any that the commander, the de
18 facto land owner had forces to put in to control this.
19 Q. How, in your view, from what you could see on the ground, how
20 well equipped from the Croatian police at this time? How well equipped,
21 the Croatian police, how well-equipped were they during this time?
22 A. I think they had side-arms and uniforms and some cars. It was
23 accurate to what the police officer should normally have.
24 Q. But in terms of vehicles available to them, they didn't actually
25 have that many vehicles, did they, in the early days in Knin?
1 A. I don't know about that, because we saw the vehicles, but I don't
2 know in what amount.
3 Q. Now, you said in your second statement, and I can direct you to
4 it, it's paragraph 30, that on every occasion that you saw a burning
5 house, you did not see any fire brigade vehicle or witness any attempts
6 to put out the fire. Do you see that?
7 A. I see that and I agree with it.
8 MR. CAYLEY: Now, if, please, D57 could be brought up, please.
9 Q. Now, this next document, Mr. Munkelien, is a document actually
10 that the learned President was referring to earlier was the daily log of
11 incidents in the police administration of Knin district.
12 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, is this the document that you were
13 referring to earlier that we --
14 JUDGE ORIE: If it's more than 100 pages yes.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- then it is, yes.
17 MR. CAYLEY: I'm actually going to be referring to a number of
18 pages that we haven't already referred to.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps -- yes, that's what I was alluding to,
20 as a matter of fact, that it might be that we would use it for other --
21 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- occasions and then at the end perhaps limit the
23 number of pages which appear to be relevant.
24 Yes, please proceed.
25 MR. CAYLEY: If we could go, please, to page 18 of this document
1 in the English version. And if you could please bring up for me the --
3 Q. Now, it's very small -- can you read it, Mr. Munkelien? Sorry,
4 it's very, very tiny writing.
5 A. I can read column -- yes, now I can read all the columns.
6 Q. Okay. Perfect. Now, you see here that on the 14th of August of
7 1995, the day that you arrived in Knin, there is a report of a fire at
8 the UNCRO warehouse; do you see that?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. And you see in the next column that a fire fighting team has been
11 sent, fire was localised and the incident was also attended, I think, by
12 the police and a member of the military police and the army assisted in
13 putting out the fire.
14 A. Yes, I see that.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, if you wish, we can pause at this point
16 because I have a number of these to show him.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break and we'll resume at five
18 minutes to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
22 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if we could go back to the log book in front of
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. And you can see there that on the 14th of August, a fire had
2 broken out at the UNCRO warehouse. A fire-fighting team was sent and in
3 fact, a member of the military police actually reported the episode to
4 the police and apparently the fire was put out, material damage
6 Now, I'll show you a number of these, I'm not going to go through
7 all of them, but if we could please now look at page 21. Thank you.
8 So in that instance, you'd agree the one that we've just looked
9 at the military police are doing what they are supposed to do; yes?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, Mr. Cayley, may I ask you one thing.
11 Let's first verify with the witness.
12 When you testified that you never saw someone putting out a fire,
13 a fire brigade, were you referring to burning houses or were you
14 referring to UN facilities?
15 THE WITNESS: I was referring to burning houses out in the
16 different hamlets and in Knin itself.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.
18 MR. CAYLEY:
19 Q. So the next one that we're looking at here, if we go to the
20 bottom of the page, this is a burning house in Kaldrma village being
21 reported on the 15th of August of 1995 by Damir Vrkic and you'll see,
22 Mr. Munkelien, that steps were taken, if you look at the 7th column along
23 that an on-site investigation was carried out into what had actually
24 taken place. Do you see that?
25 A. Yeah.
2 Q. Now, if we could move, please, to page 22?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, I appreciate your efforts to establish
4 what happened, but it strikes me, and I'm speaking for myself but it
5 strikes me that the statement of the witness was about putting out fires
6 at homes and fire brigades. Your first example was aspecific, your
7 second example now is aspecific as well, at least does not directly
8 relate to what the witness said because this does not say anything about
9 efforts to put out the fire. It just says there was a report that there
10 had been a fire. It doesn't say anything about sending someone to
11 extinguish that fire, it just says about -- so therefore, I want you to
12 know that if you put questions to the witness, that doesn't stop the
13 Chamber from thinking.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, the difficulty I have always, of
15 course, is time allowed. There are many of these reports, I mean there
16 are specific reports.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then take the strongest ones where someone
18 is sent to extinguish the fire and preferably not at an UNCRO facility
19 and perhaps where people are still to be saved.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. The next example does actually cover exactly
21 what you're saying. I didn't want to mislead him by just picking and
22 choosing over a period of time, but I'll do as you suggest, Your Honour.
23 Thank you.
24 Q. 15th of August, you'll see there, can you see that,
25 Mr. Munkelien?
1 A. Yeah, I can see it clearly, thank you.
2 Q. They reported via radio -- I'm sorry, we've gone back -- page 22.
3 A. This is 22.
4 Q. 22, okay. They reported via radio communications a fire had
5 broken out in a house near the UNCRO base in the field. So here, we're
6 talking about a house. And you'll see there in the seventh column at
7 2040 hours, a fire fighting team was sent with the team leader Nevan
8 Pavic, Zadar-Knin PU, the firefighters could not reach the house because
9 of the inaccessibility of the terrain. At 1000, the patrol reported that
10 the fire had burnt itself out.
11 If we could look at another example, please, page 31. Bottom of
12 the page, please. Here, we have a fire broke out in a house in Knin,
13 this is 19th August, 1995 at 1615. "Intervention team sent at 1620
14 hours, a fireman sent at 1630 hours. Operational officers sent at 1635
15 hours and they took over the case. Fire localised at 1745 hours."
16 If we could please go to page 36, the 20th of August of 1995.
17 And you will see there a report on a fire, 1225 hours B. Meglic from grad
18 police car reported via US radio communications that a house close to the
19 hospital is on fire. And you will see in the next column, Mr. Munkelien,
20 that at 2235 hours, firefighters informed they localised the fire at 0010
22 I do have -- I'll ask a question now, Your Honour, but ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: But Mr. Cayley, as far as time is concerned, I have
24 here apparently two different times. In the third column, it reads 2225
25 when in the report on the fire, it says 1225. I'm just trying to find
1 out --
2 MR. CAYLEY: Perhaps we can check the original, Your Honour. It
3 may be a mistake or it may be a translation of somebody's mistake in the
4 actual log.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you look at the previous entry, that's 130, it's
6 more likely that it was 2225.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Because the previous one is from 1825 which is
9 confirmed in column six.
10 I'll have a look at the original, if you please proceed.
11 MR. CAYLEY:
12 Q. Now, Mr. Munkelien, you understand the point I'm making. It
13 seems at least from this document, that there were genuine attempts that
14 were being made to put out fires in certain places; yes?
15 A. Yes. As you said, in certain places. Two of them occurred close
16 to and one inside Sector South, so definitely -- but compared to all the
17 fires that we observed, and if you are looking through our sitreps, you
18 have now showed me four incidents where they have tried. I have 400 and
19 even more that they didn't try. So I mean I still stand on my things in
20 my report of 8 or 10 January 2008.
21 Q. How many fire engines were there in Knin?
22 A. How many?
23 Q. Fire engines.
24 A. I don't know. Sorry.
25 Q. It was not a well-equipped fire service --
1 A. No, it was not.
2 Q. -- from what you could see at the time?
3 A. No.
4 Q. So the Croatian authorities actually, to be fair about it, had
5 severe limitations in what they could do in terms of their equipment,
7 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It calls for a conclusion, Mr. Cayley.
9 At the same time, Mr. Russo, if you are poorly-equipped even
10 without putting a question, it would limit your possibilities, isn't that
11 true? And limiting possibilities, of course, would be a conclusion but
12 not a conclusion that could not be followed by anyone who uses his
14 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, could I make a comment? I mean I
15 think Mr. Munkelien did acknowledge that the fire service was not
17 THE WITNESS: I did.
18 MR. CAYLEY: So I don't think -- it's not an unreasonable
19 question to put to somebody that upon that basis, there would have been
20 difficulties in actually trying to put out all of these fires. I don't
21 think that that is an unreasonable question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's not an unreasonable question, it's even an
23 unnecessary question, I mean, if you are limited in your equipment.
24 Either you explore how many there were and the witness doesn't know and
25 then you go into details or you say they were limited in their equipment
1 which the Chamber understands to limit their possibilities anyhow so --
2 MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. CAYLEY: If we could please look at D94.
5 Q. Mr. Munkelien, this is a document that you were shown by my
6 colleague Mr. Kehoe earlier and it's the document that refers to you
7 being arrested at a checkpoint. Do you recall that document?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, I'm actually interested in the second page. Now, just to
10 confirm -- I don't want to go through this in detail, but it's fair to
11 say that what is being reported here is observations on military matters,
12 on force sizes, observation of armoured vehicles, troop movements, is
13 that right, on this page?
14 A. That's very true.
15 Q. Now, if we could please take a look at D28 once again, please.
16 Now, after the fall of Knin, after the end of Operation Storm,
17 the principal function of the UNMOs was to be involved in the observation
18 of violations of international humanitarian law, recording burning
19 houses, murdered individuals. Is that right?
20 A. Yes. According to this one, the effects of the hostilities and
21 so on is mentioned here.
22 Q. Now, if we can go, please, to the next page and we looked at this
23 before. Now, looking at paragraph 5 again, you were allowed to carry out
24 surveillance in all areas -- and I'll read it so that I don't misquote
25 it, " ... where, in the opinion of the local UNCRO military commander
1 after consulting Croatian army commanders," the security situation
2 permitted you to carry out that kind of surveillance. That's right,
3 isn't it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, this provision of the agreement concerns the observation and
6 recording of humanitarian violations, doesn't it?
7 A. Say again the question.
8 Q. This particular provision, this permission for observation and
9 freedom of movement is directly linked to your role in observing and
10 recording violations of humanitarian law, isn't it?
11 A. I don't see it like that. I think that we had a role, freedom of
12 movement and we should report in addition to troop movements and so on,
13 we should report these humanitarian things as well.
14 Q. But your role in actually reporting troop movements and military
15 matters ended when Knin fell. Your role after that time was exclusively
16 to report on humanitarian violations, wasn't it, officially, the official
17 role according to this agreement?
18 A. As you see, we reported it in, and I think even it was taken by
19 Sector South headquarter and sent to Zagreb as well even the military
20 things. We reported the humanitarian things, but we also reported the
21 military things and that was taken into the report. I'm not sure if I've
22 seen any of the reports from Sector South taking in the one that you
23 showed me, but I think they did.
24 Q. But to get an answer to my question, this agreement only
25 envisages you reporting on human rights violations, doesn't it? You read
1 the preamble just a moment ago.
2 A. But I can't say that this one only limits us to do the
3 humanitarian things. We still had the task of reporting military
4 movements as such.
5 Q. So you don't know really whether or not you had a legal right or
6 an agreed right with the Croatian government to go on observing. If you
7 don't know, that's fine.
8 A. I don't know, because we still continued on doing the same task
9 as we had, military movements, military troops and then in addition we
10 got this humanitarian task.
11 Q. Let's move on to another topic, and we're coming to the end now.
12 This concerns, Mr. Munkelien, the 9 ARSK soldiers from Musica Stanovi.
13 Do you remember that episode --
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. -- the arrest of those nine soldiers? Now, if you could look,
16 please, at your second statement, the 2008 statement, and if you could go
17 please to paragraph 33 and do you see there -- do you have that in front
18 of you?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. That you were present on the 29th of August in the village of
21 Musica Stanovi when, "We met with local residents and 9 Serbian soldiers
22 who had been hiding in the woods. We left the village and then met with
23 some Croatian Special Police who were on their way to the village. We
24 went back to the village with the special police, where the Serbian
25 soldiers were handed over after we had obtained some guarantee of their
1 safety. This incident is recorded in the document on the pages numbered
2 0038-7849 to 0038-7850. I can authenticate the record."
3 Now, the question I have for you is this: Do you recall that
4 this event actually took place over two days, that it actually started on
5 the 28th of August and it ended on the 29th of August? From your own
7 A. Yeah, I know it was a period of time, and everything didn't
8 happen on the first day, so it must be 28th and the 29th.
9 Q. But to the best of your recollection, you were actually there on
10 the 29th of August?
11 A. I was there on the 29th, yes.
12 MR. CAYLEY: Okay. If please we could have 2D00-0017.
13 Q. Now, this document, Mr. Munkelien, just so you know what it is,
14 it's actually a document that comes from the Prosecutor's office and it's
15 a report, we believe, by UNCRO about this particular event. You'll see
16 if it to be blown up, please. And you'll see that the date time group 29
17 August, 11.00, place, Musica Stanovi, UN present Lieutenant-Commander
18 Alfonso, Major Komper and Major Tschernetsky all from UNMO Team Podkonje
19 and then it lists the fact that Colonel Vaselko [phoen] from the command
20 -- the commander of the special police unit, was also there and then it
21 lists the names of those individuals.
22 Now, what is somewhat puzzling for me is that your name is not
23 actually listed on this document as being present. Is it possible that
24 you were there the day before on the 28th of August?
25 A. It's possible that I reported it being, like I said yesterday, an
1 indoor man, that means running the radio.
2 Q. So you were not there --
3 A. But --
4 Q. -- you think you may have actually received this report from the
5 UNMO team that was on the ground, that you received a radio
7 A. That's correct. It may come to my memory that I was not present,
8 but did the radio thing on it, on that date. Or we may have been two
9 patrols on that day.
10 Q. So just to clarify your statement, it may well be the case that
11 you in fact were not present at Musica Stanovi --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- on the 29th?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Okay. Now, these individuals, are you aware that there were five
16 located on the first day, on the 28th of August, as your memory serves
17 you, and that on the second day, on the 29th when the authorities went
18 back to the village, there were nine soldiers in the village, nine ARSK
19 soldiers; do you recall that?
20 A. Yeah, I remember. It was some coming forwards the first day and
21 then the rest the next day.
22 MR. CAYLEY: If, please, we could -- in fact, Your Honour, if
23 that could be given an exhibit number, please, that prior document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Tender that document into evidence, Mr. Registrar.
25 That would be ...
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D98.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D98.
3 Mr. Russo, any objections?
4 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D98 admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
6 MR. CAYLEY: If we could now have document 65 ter 1307.
7 Q. Now, this next document, Mr. Munkelien, is a report by General
8 Markac, in fact, reporting on this episode as it took place, and he's
9 making a report on the 28th of August to the chief of the Main Staff,
10 Cervenko. And in fact if we go over the page because it's quite a
11 lengthy report and we're only really interested in one particular
12 section. If you could magnify that, please. If you could go down to
13 about halfway down the page. Yes. It begins, "In the settlement of
14 Lazica Stanovi." Can we blow up the English version, please,
15 Mr. Registrar. Thank you.
16 Now, you'll see written here -- do you see where it says, "In the
17 settlement of Lazica Stanovi," I know it is a slightly different name,
18 but it actually is the same place because the names of the individuals
19 that you will see at the bottom are actually the same as the names on the
20 list that I have shown you, at least five of them are the same of the
22 So you will see there it refers about halfway down, "A member of
23 the United Nations Alun Roberts spokesman from the former Sector South
24 and another three military observers were found in one of the houses in
25 the cited settlement. They were in the company of five enemy soldiers
1 namely, Nenad Todorovic, member -- born in 1972, member of the 92nd
2 Motorised Brigade, Benkovac; Milan Todorovic, born in 1966, a member of
3 the military police since 1992, and a member of the 1st Brigade since
4 1993; Milan Mirkovic born in 1959, a member of the Golubic training
5 centre, and it also mentions Juro Mirkovic and Stevo Mirkovic."
6 Then the next sentence you read, "The listed persons were not
7 immediately detained in the Knin police department due to the presence of
8 Alun Roberts but it will be done tomorrow in the presence of the
9 fundamental police unit of Knin Police Department."
10 Then it refers to the weapons that were recovered nearby. Were
11 you aware that, in fact, these individuals were not taken into civilian
12 police custody until the 29th of August?
13 A. Yeah, I know that because we -- I think we reported it to the
14 headquarter and then Alun Roberts got the task to go there together with
15 the UNMOs.
16 Q. So on the 29th of August, the UNMOs returned with Alun Roberts
17 and the civilian police and took these individuals plus the other four?
18 A. This was on the 28th, wasn't it?
19 Q. No, do you see that it states here, "The listed persons were not
20 immediately detained in Knin Police Department due to the presence of
21 Alun Roberts but it will be done tomorrow in the presence of the
22 fundamental police unit of Knin Police Department."
23 So the question I have for you is: Are you aware that the
24 soldiers remained in the village that day?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Were not actually taken into custody by the civilian police until
2 the following day?
3 A. Yeah, I know that. But I can't tell you if they were found on
4 the 28th and taken into prison on the 29th or if they were found some
5 days before and then taken in on the 29th because definitely they were
6 taken in on the 29th.
7 Q. Okay. Fine. And they were taken eventually to the Knin school,
8 to the collection centre that was being run at the school, do you recall
10 A. I can't recall that. I know that we later picked up the -- those
11 from the village and took them to the school, to the centre and later
12 escorted them into the buses that went to Belgrade.
13 Q. And the collection centre where these individuals were eventually
14 taken, that, as far as you can recall, that was run by the civilian
15 police; yes?
16 A. I'm not -- I can't recall that, sorry.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Yes, could that be
18 given, please, an exhibit number.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D99.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, any objections?
22 MR. RUSSO: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: D99 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
24 MR. CAYLEY:
25 Q. I want to talk to you very briefly again, Mr. Munkelien, about
1 checkpoints. Now, again, relying on your knowledge as a professional
2 army officer, how many individuals, personnel, I'm talking about, do you
3 need to operate a checkpoint if, say, you're working in three shifts?
4 A. Ideally, you should have eight times -- no, yeah, normal shift,
5 eight hours. That means three at a shift, 24 personnel.
6 Q. So you need at least 24 personnel?
7 A. Yeah, that should be the ideal if you are in peacetime and the
8 regulation for working hours and so on. Otherwise, it could be done by
9 two shifts.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to follow the calculations? 24 hours a
11 day --
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- three shifts means one shift, eight hours. You
14 said three at a shift.
15 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you need three personnel at one shift.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. And then --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, then --
19 THE WITNESS: That means nine, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That means nine.
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we agree that the 24, the proper
23 calculation --
24 THE WITNESS: Take it away, sorry.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Cayley.
1 MR. CAYLEY: I'm actually completely confused by the math now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what the witness did, as a matter of fact, he
3 multiplied the number of personnel you need at a checkpoint by the number
4 of hours --
5 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- a shift takes rather than by the number of shifts
7 you need in one day.
8 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And I think it's now corrected.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And 24 has now been reduced to nine. Please
13 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
14 Q. And again with checkpoints, what kinds of equipment do you need
15 to equip a checkpoint properly?
16 A. Do you need more than personnel standing there.
17 Q. I'm talking about equipment. You need radio communications?
18 A. Yeah, yeah, I think we've gone through that. You need maybe a
19 car to come there. You need communication, maybe some cones to put up
20 and some weapons and so on. And back to the figures, you could make it
21 two men in 12-hour shift, that means four personnel as well. That
22 reduces the whole thing.
23 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I don't have any further questions of
24 the witness. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
1 The Markac Defence, Mr. Kuzmanovic or Mr. Mikulicic, who is it?
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It will be me, Your Honour, thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You will now be cross-examined by
4 Mr. Kuzmanovic, who is counsel for Mr. Markac.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Munkelien.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. There are a couple of themes I would like to go over with you
10 similar to what Mr. Cayley did, not the same questions obviously but the
11 same kind of methodology.
12 Before you testified yesterday, have you had the occasion at all
13 to speak with Mr. Anttila in the last six to eight months?
14 A. No, no.
15 Q. When is the last time that you spoke with Mr. Anttila?
16 A. 1995 during the period that we were in Knin.
17 Q. Have you spoken to anyone else from the UNMOs before you came to
18 testify at the Tribunal?
19 A. I had a brief conversation with Peter Marti on the telephone from
20 Norway to Sudan, just after I was done here 10th of January, this year.
21 Q. Mr. Munkelien, you had given us a description of the UNMOs
22 generally and of the kinds of vehicles you had and generally what your
23 responsibilities were. Could you give us an indication of what your
24 daily procedure was, how you would start your day, what you would do
25 during the day, what you would come back to do in the evening?
1 A. As you may be aware of, we were living in the same house and we
2 had a garage where we had two cars parked. We had sharing bedrooms and
3 one living-room that also served as the office for the team.
4 Q. Okay, let me interrupt you for a moment. Maybe my question was
5 misunderstood. What I'm looking for is you'd get up, you'd go to the --
6 to your headquarters. What would you do? How would you get your
7 assignments? How would you go on to the terrain? Who decided those
9 A. Yeah, I was directly into that one, because then I said we were
10 working from the bedroom and into the living-room and there we had our
11 morning brief and from there on we got the tasks and said you and you go
12 in that direction, you and you go in that direction.
13 In the beginning, we were up to four in one patrol because we
14 lacked vehicles, and latter it was normal to run two in each patrol. And
15 then we reported on radio if something in particular happened back to the
16 radioman that was in the living-room. And apart from that, we reported
17 back in the afternoon and that was the sitrep that was given to Sector
18 South. As by the afternoon, I can't recall the special timing, but I
19 know during the day, we should report to Sector South and give our
21 Q. So if you went on a patrol, for example, let's, for example, talk
22 about a patrol that you went on in any patrol, you would get in your
23 vehicle and you would take off for whatever area you would cover?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. And that would take all day?
1 A. That could take all day, but it also could be that you went back,
2 reported what you have seen in that area, and then continued in another
3 direction. For example, going to Strmica, coming back, and then going up
4 in another direction like south or westerly or something like that.
5 Q. Right. Now, the terrain that you patrolled was fairly
6 mountainous, was it not?
7 A. It was.
8 Q. And it was very wooded?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. So it would provide good cover for people who were hiding out;
11 would it not?
12 A. Oh, yeah, it was -- you couldn't cover it all. As I said, we
13 were using vehicles but also for the patrols, not in a big extent, but
14 stopped at particular areas, and went in, talked with the people present
15 and got information from them as well. Not only the thing that we
16 observed ourself but also firsthand from the remaining population.
17 Q. You understood, did you not, that the Croatian Special Police in
18 August were conducting mop-up operations in various parts of Sector
19 South; correct?
20 A. Yeah, I know they were doing some of this one in the area.
21 That's correct.
22 Q. And you described one of those incidences in regard to the
23 handover of the Serbian soldiers on the 29th of August, did you not?
24 That was the result of a mop-up operation, was it not?
25 A. Yeah, I'm not sure if it was a mop-up or if we reported it and
1 they came to mop it up afterwards.
2 Q. You are familiar with Mr. Tschernetsky, are you not?
3 A. I'm not -- I am, yes.
4 Q. Mr. Tschernetsky was a UNMO?
5 A. He was the deputy UNMO Knin and later became the team leader of
6 Team Knin.
7 Q. And Mr. Tschernetsky was from Russia, correct?
8 A. Yes, he was from Russia.
9 Q. Okay.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic and you, Mr. Munkelien, you are
11 developing a speed of speech which causes problems for the interpreter
12 and the transcriber. Please proceed.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, my apologies.
14 THE WITNESS: And, Your Honour, the name on page 62 -- on 32, 43,
15 Tschernetsky. I think that's --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Names are usually corrected --
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- by the end of the day.
19 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Just for the benefit, I'll spell it for -- it's
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When reference is made to pages, I noted that
23 the pages on the screen we cannot manipulate is different from the pages
24 on our screen with the e-court screen with the LiveNote on it so
25 therefore, references, usually it's one page difference. Please proceed.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Munkelien, are you aware that the arrest of these Serbian
3 ARSK soldiers on August 29th was proceeded earlier that week by a visit
4 from Mr. Tschernetsky to these same soldiers?
5 A. Yeah, I heard a story about that, that they had discovered these
6 RSK soldiers up in the village.
7 Q. And that Mr. Tschernetsky did not decide to report these soldiers
8 but instead gave them maps to try to get to Bosnia, did he not?
9 A. I'm not aware of that because all the things that we discovered
10 was reported. I can't say that on that and that day, that was reported
11 to the higher headquarter but I'm sure he did it.
12 Q. You mean you're sure that he gave a map to the soldiers for them
13 to try to get to Bosnia?
14 A. No, I didn't say that. I'm sure that he reported to the higher
15 headquarter what he had found on his patrol up to the village.
16 Q. Okay. Was it within your mandate to give maps to soldiers of the
17 ARSK to try to get them out of the area?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, I think the witness said that he's
19 not aware of that. What's the use of asking him whether that was within
20 his mandate?
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It's just a general question, Your Honour, not
22 specific to this, but to any ARSK soldier that they may have found.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You could put 100 questions in that respect.
24 It continues or it relies, more or less, on rumours. I mean that makes
25 the whole relevance of this, isn't it?
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Well, sure, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If there is no occasion of providing maps, then the
3 occasion becomes rather irrelevant, because you could ask all kind of
4 things, is it -- was distributing all kind of stuff within the mandate.
5 Of course we would not expect that it would be in the mandate unless
6 there's any reason to assume that it happened or that for one reason or
7 another that it's a reasonable assumption that other people considered it
8 to be within the mandate.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: All right, Your Honour. I'll move on.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it, Mr. Munkelien, if I'm -- if you would
11 not have answered that question, I would not have thought that this was
12 within your mandate.
13 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, I totally agree.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
16 Q. So it would, for example, it would not be normal procedure for
17 someone upon coming upon an ARSK soldier to give them a map to Bosnia?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please move on, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: All right, Your Honour.
20 THE WITNESS: Can I just answer that by saying we were not
21 neutral, but we were totally impartial. We didn't help any of the
22 parties in any way that you are indicating in your question.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
24 Q. Are you aware that any -- if any of the HV Special Police --
25 strike that.
1 Are you aware of any of the former ARSK soldiers that were
2 arrested on the 29th of August and brought to Knin, are you aware if any
3 of those people were brought up on any criminal charges?
4 A. No, I'm not.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Would the usher please -- or the registrar
6 please call up 3D00-0080 up, please.
7 Q. Mr. Munkelien, I'll represent to you that one of the persons on
8 the list of soldiers previously identified as Milan Mirkovic was brought
9 up on criminal charges in this particular document. Do you see that on
10 the left?
11 A. Yeah, I see that. It's dated 6 June 1995.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, may I get an exhibit number?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit D100.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kuzmanovic, just in order to see whether
16 we have the same understanding of certain terms, you said "was brought up
17 on criminal charges." May I take it that from this document, it does not
18 appear that he was charged but that a criminal report was drafted and
19 sent by the police to the military Prosecutor's office.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, I will be more precise.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you. I'd like to move this exhibit into
23 evidence, Your Honour.
24 MR. RUSSO: No objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then D100 is admitted into evidence. Please
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
3 Q. I'd like you to refer back, now, Mr. Munkelien, to the D49, if
4 the registrar could bring that up, please, page 2.
5 Now, my colleague Mr. Cayley was asking you some questions about
6 this document, that's the order from the Ministry of the Interior,
7 Mr. Maric to the local police stations and police administration to take
8 specific steps to prevent further activity; do you recall that?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. And you yourself said that prevention was the first step in
11 trying to prevent criminal activity such as what was going on from was
12 happening; correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And would you agree with me that at least as -- that the intent
15 of this particular document was precisely that, to prevent continued
16 disorder from occurring?
17 A. I agree that this looks very well on paper, but when it comes to
18 the land, it was hard to have it into action.
19 Q. I'd like to talk to you a bit about a restriction of movement.
20 You, yourself, said during your testimony that you and I would presume
21 other UNMOs when out on patrol were able to get around checkpoints;
23 A. I mean if we were stopped, we didn't go too much into the terrain
24 due to the -- maybe the danger of mines and so on, but on this particular
25 occasion that we talked about, it was with a consensus of the higher
1 headquarter that we went about and came behind the mountains in Strmica.
2 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Munkelien, that if you were able to
3 circumvent a checkpoint, people who were intent on looting and burning
4 could do the same thing?
5 A. Not normally, because they were having normal cars. We had all
6 four-wheel drives.
7 Q. It would be possible, would it not?
8 A. Everything is possible if you have the intent and the wish.
9 Q. Now, the looting that you observed taking place, Mr. Munkelien, I
10 note that you had earlier stated that there were no photographs that you
11 personally took of any of this activity that was going on; correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And you took no photographs of any of the torching that was going
14 on; correct?
15 A. No, I didn't.
16 Q. There were photographs, however, that were taken of the people
17 who were shot or murdered; correct?
18 A. Yeah, like the one that was shown today or we discussed yesterday
19 on the Babic case. That was done by the headquarter.
20 Q. Was there any particular reason why the UNMOs didn't have even a
21 Polaroid camera or something to take photographs of their observations?
22 A. I've been thinking about it now that maybe should have more --
23 the digital camera wasn't at that time, but Polaroid was definitely
24 there. We didn't use it to document anything so -- of this one.
25 Q. The specific acts of looting that you talked about or in general
1 you talked about looting, what do you determine or how do you determine
2 whether a house has been looted? Do you go inside of it? Do you conduct
3 an internal investigation in the home? Could you explain to us how you
4 determine something was looted?
5 A. Normally, you saw it from outside that something had happened,
6 but you also went a little bit inside and saw that, okay, somebody's been
7 there and dragged out things and maybe put -- if it was running water,
8 put the tap on, so definitely the floor was ruined or you saw that the
9 doors, the window frames, like I also have described, was taken away. So
10 you could see it both on the inside when you went in or you could, in
11 some cases, see it from the outside.
12 Q. Now, when you saw it from the outside, what would you have seen
13 from the outside?
14 A. That normally things were dragged out and maybe left outside the
15 house. They couldn't carry it or it was of no interest but they had
16 taken it out from the house.
17 Q. You have noted a few occasions that you saw people actually
18 engaging in that kind of conduct; correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Would it be fair to state that the vast majority of the time that
21 you determined something was looted, it was simply by observation,
22 meaning that you didn't see anybody in the act of looting?
23 A. No. I saw people in the act of looting. But as you said, I
24 can't document this one on -- other than the reports that we gave in, I
25 have no photos and the memory may be a bad thing, but at least the
1 reports that we gave in gave the evidence that it did happen.
2 Q. Now, were these --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Munkelien, apparently you misunderstood the
4 question that you had not seen people in the act of looting. The
5 question was whether it's fair to say that in the vast majority of the
6 cases of looting, that you didn't see anyone in the act of looting.
7 So I think Mr. Kuzmanovic wanted to know what approximately was
8 the proportion of cases where you did see people in the act of looting
9 and whether, in the vast majority, you did not see people in the act of
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That's correct, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 10 per cent of all the looting that we
13 reported, maybe less, was directly observed.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
16 Q. The same thing with the burning of homes. Can you describe for
17 us what percentage in your observations of the burning of homes that you
18 saw were homes that were actually set on fire by someone as opposed to a
19 house that you saw burning?
20 A. I have one example in my statements that I saw it directly and
21 the rest is observing houses burning for some reason or another.
22 Q. Okay. Active burning, actual --
23 A. Active ignition, I didn't see they did it, because they went into
24 the house and then when they came out again, the house started to burn.
25 Q. Just so I'm clear, that's the instance that you saw someone
1 actually burning a home?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. And the rest of the time you would either see that the home was
4 burning itself but there was no one else around it?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Now when -- did you make any attempt to -- strike the question.
7 Before you came to Sector South, did you have any understanding
8 as to what damage was caused to homes and buildings in the area before
9 Operation Storm?
10 A. No.
11 Q. So is it fair to state that at least as far as you're concerned,
12 you could not differentiate between anything that may have been burned or
13 destroyed before Operation Storm compared to after Operation Storm?
14 A. No. Myself, I couldn't separate that one, but as you see in the
15 report from Kari Anttila, he said at least in one occasion, ruined before
16 Operation Storm.
17 Q. Okay. But you yourself could not make that distinction?
18 A. No, I could not.
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I try to further explore that, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you say you cannot make a distinction. Now I
22 can imagine that whether it was before Operation Storm, let's say the
23 25th of July compared to the 10th of August that it would be difficult to
24 make any distinction.
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
1 JUDGE ORIE: On the other hand, if a house would have been burned
2 three, four, five years earlier, would you still consider that you could
3 make no distinction if you observe a house which was burned a long --
4 couple of years before --
5 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- or more recently.
7 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. Then you could see it because
8 then the trees were growing up again around it and you couldn't -- you
9 could distinct them between those from former times and this that
10 happened now.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're telling, therefore, where you earlier
12 said that you could not distinguish between houses burnt before or during
13 Operation Storm, that you now are telling that under certain
14 circumstances, you could see that a house was burned considerable time
15 before you observed it.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. I could observe that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Munkelien, can you tell us, if you know, the difference
20 between buildings that were damaged from active combat operations during
21 Operation Storm and -- I'll strike the question. It's a confusing
23 Can you tell us, please, whether you could detect among your
24 patrols what buildings were either burned or destroyed as a result of
25 combat operations during Operation Storm?
1 A. Normally, if you are talking about destroyed by shelling, you
2 could normally see the impact of mortar or rocket and then see it out
3 from that. But normally, when it was the -- the building was fired on,
4 you could see broken tiles and you could see scars in the wood in the
5 walls making -- coming from automatic weapons or something. So you could
6 do some distinction, but of course normally, you said that, yes, it's
7 destroyed by -- during the Operation Storm because people had been there
8 before and they knew what houses had not been destroyed before that. The
9 team was not new in Knin, you know.
10 Q. Sure. I guess my question is that there were -- I guess there
11 were three categories of destruction here; were there not? There was
12 what was damaged before Operation Storm --
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. -- or burned, what was damaged during the operation, during
15 combat operations of Operation Storm; correct?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. And there was what was damaged or burned after Operation Storm
18 that had nothing to do with combat operations?
19 A. No. That's correct.
20 Q. And is it fair to state that your reports on burning and
21 destruction of property don't distinguish between those three categories?
22 A. No, the report that we gave in on the 17th was the report
23 directly on the area or all Sector South reports was on direct result of
24 Operation Storm.
25 And then from then on, it was a little bit increasing on that one
1 on the 20th, then the 21st, but from then on, it was houses that was
2 looted, damaged, burned by other -- or later than Operation Storm.
3 Q. Did you have a chance to go into of any of the hamlets away from
4 the road to determine whether homes were burned on looted?
5 A. I think we covered most of the hamlets in the whole area to
6 specifically look for people and then we also observed the building and
7 reported on that one.
8 Q. Would you agree with me that given the remote location of some of
9 these hamlets and villages, that it would be relatively easy for someone
10 who wanted to to go out and loot?
11 A. You mean that we couldn't see it?
12 Q. Correct.
13 A. As I said, I think we covered most of -- I've been climbing a lot
14 in the area, so I think I've seen most of the passes and roads that was
15 not used by cars. So I think we covered most of the distant hamlets in
16 the area as well as along the roads.
17 Q. I guess in conjunction with that question, Mr. Munkelien, a lot
18 of these villages and hamlets you agreed with me were fairly remote,
19 difficult to get to, were they not?
20 A. Yeah, they were.
21 Q. And it wouldn't be very easy to detect or prevent someone who was
22 very intent on looting to get to those hamlets and villages to do that?
23 A. No, but now we are talking about looting of heavily things, so I
24 mean you don't go carrying a lot of things from a house that was only had
25 a path, you were using normally a car to have access to the house, and
1 then you loot it and then you took whatever you needed, left the rest
2 behind, and then went away with the car. You didn't go on remote areas
3 without the possibility to drive.
4 Q. But it did happen in those remote areas; correct?
5 A. It did happen as well, but --
6 Q. And it went undetected, didn't it?
7 MR. RUSSO: Objection, Your Honour. I'd like to clarify when he
8 says "it did happen" if he's referring to it, looting with a car or it,
9 looting without a car.
10 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Looting, period, with or without a car.
11 MR. RUSSO: That's fine, Judge, I just wanted that to be clear.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Looting that happened in remote hamlets. Yes. So
13 there we are. Looting happened and it remained undetected, you said,
14 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Correct.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that correct?
17 THE WITNESS: I think it could be undetected at the time, but
18 during the period we were there, I think we covered most of the hamlets.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
20 Q. And what I mean by "undetected," meaning it could be also
21 undetected by the civil police; correct?
22 A. Yeah, if it was not reported by us or somebody else, it was -- it
23 could go undetected, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, earlier a distinction was made
25 between observing the act of looting and observing looted houses, that
1 is, not seen someone looting it. If we are talking about detection, it
2 might be useful to make a similar distinction.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will do that, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
6 Q. Mr. Munkelien, it's fair to state that at least as far as looting
7 is concerned, it's true, is it not, that the looters were able to evade,
8 to a certain extent, the civil police; correct?
9 A. Like I said, normally, the looting was done by people in cars.
10 That means if they kept on the road, they could be stopped at the
11 checkpoints. If they had a -- knew any bypasses, of course, they could
12 manage to trick the checkpoints, but I think that was not - what shall I
13 say - done in the most cases. The most cases were done by people in
15 Q. I'd like you to take a look, and I'd like to ask the usher to
16 pull up and I believe this is the map but I'm not certain. P70 is the
17 map that Mr. Munkelien drew on, I'm not sure if that -- or P62, I'm
18 sorry. Is that the one that the witness drew on?
19 MR. RUSSO: I believe that is P70.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P70, with seven markings on it.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes.
22 Q. Mr. Munkelien, I'd like to direct your attention to the areas
23 that you've marked PA.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. PA were the sections that you stated that you investigated before
1 the provisional assessment of damage was made on August 18th of 1995;
3 A. You are putting the word "investigation" make it very seriously.
4 I say more patrolling.
5 Q. Okay. What would you have done when you conducted that patrol,
6 just driven through the area and taken a look to see what was damaged?
7 A. Driving around, stopping and then counting buildings.
8 Q. Were others assigned to your detachment driving in other parts of
9 Knin to do the same thing?
10 A. I think at that time, we were two teams out, so yes, there may be
11 others covering other areas at that time.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Now, if it's possible, if we could put the
13 map -- we'll come back to the map in a minute, I'd like to pull up P64,
15 Q. If you could take a look at paragraph 1. I'll read the second
16 sentence of paragraph 1. "The report is based on a rundown of 70 per
17 cent of Knin town and gives only a brief overview of the situation."
18 Now, obviously the section that you looked at was not 70 per cent
19 of Knin town; correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. So is it fair to state that others in your unit were able to
22 cover the remainder of Knin town to make it the equivalent of 70 per cent
23 to make this assessment possible?
24 A. Yeah, or maybe 70 per cent is a little bit high.
25 Q. Well, the report says 70 per cent; correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Point 2 of the report says, in the last sentence, "Only few,
3 three to five impacts is observed in other urban areas." Now, given the
4 fact that 70 per cent of the town was assessed preliminarily, the report
5 concludes three to five impacts observed in other urban areas; correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. I'd like you to go to page 2 of that document now, please.
8 Paragraph 6.
9 I'm reading the second sentence. "Especially para 2 is
10 considered sensitive and must not be released to the media at the present
11 stage. This information should therefore be kept confidential for
12 internal use only."
13 Mr. Munkelien, was there any particular reason that you were
14 aware of why the media was not to be told that the shelling was
15 concentrated against military objectives discussed in paragraph 2 of this
17 A. No.
18 Q. You don't know?
19 A. No, I don't know. And as you see, it's the senior military
20 observer who have done this report so I had no influence except from
21 giving him the data that he reported in.
22 Q. Was there any political pressure that you were aware of being put
23 on the military observers not to release this information?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You don't know or there was none?
1 A. I don't know.
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'd like to get back --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, let's try to understand that last
4 answer. The question was, "Was there any political pressure that you
5 were aware of being put on the military observers not to release this
7 You were a military observer, weren't you?
8 THE WITNESS: I was a military observer, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And your answer was no. And the question was you
10 don't know or there was none. "I don't know." The question was in
11 general about military observers. You were one of them. So we have two
12 options: For others, whether you knew about it, and for yourself,
13 whether you were ever put under any pressure.
14 Could you first answer the question in relation to yourself, was
15 there any political pressure upon you when reporting?
16 THE WITNESS: No, there was no political pressure on me on
18 JUDGE ORIE: And were you aware of any of the other military
19 observers, either at your level or at any other level that were under
20 such pressure?
21 THE WITNESS: No, no others were under pressure.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
24 Q. Do you know whether or not the commander of Sector South was
25 under any political pressure from anyone not to release this information?
1 A. No, I'm not aware that he was under any pressure to -- not to
2 release it.
3 Q. And I think you told us already, you don't know why this was not
4 released to the media; correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. I'd like to go back to the issue of the looting for a moment.
7 You had stated in answer to some of my questions or to one of the
8 questions that it was difficult for many of the vehicles to get into
9 these hamlets because they didn't have four-wheel drive like your
10 vehicles did; correct?
11 A. Yeah, that's correct.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that for the most part, the -- your
13 observations of the looting took place with people using civilian
15 A. Civilian and in some cases also military vehicles.
16 Q. Okay. Would you -- the percentage of people using civilian
17 vehicles were the vast majority, were they not?
18 A. The civilians -- the civilian vehicles were the majority, yes.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Mr. Munkelien [sic], I'd like you to call up
21 D91, please. This is the September 4th, 1999 statement. The third page,
23 Q. The first full paragraph, Mr. Munkelien, starts, "I cannot
24 remember any single episode when I saw any burning while patrolling the
25 area. I saw some burning in Knin." Did I read that correctly?
1 A. Yeah, I see the statement is there, but according to my reports,
2 I saw a lot of burning.
3 Q. Yes. You signed the statement in April of -- it appears to be
4 September 4th of 1999; correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And at least as of September 4th, 1999 when you saw this
7 statement, when you signed this statement that you read -- I presume that
8 you read it before signing it; correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. You could not remember any single episode when you saw any
11 burning while patrolling?
12 A. No, I read the sentence, but compared to our reports, it doesn't
13 make any sense now.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I don't have any other questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
16 Mr. Russo, is there any need to re-examine the witness?
17 MR. RUSSO: Yes, Your Honour, I have just a few questions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Russo:
21 Q. If you could please look, Mr. Munkelien, at your second
22 statement. I believe that's P61. If you could please direct your
23 attention to paragraph 38. If you could please review paragraph 38 and
24 perhaps explain to the Court the statement that was just reviewed with
25 you by Mr. Kuzmanovic regarding whether or not you could recall seeing
1 any incidents of burning or looting.
2 A. Yeah, I corrected that one now this year because as you have read
3 in our reports, the daily sitreps, we made a lot of reports on burning
4 houses during my period in Sector South.
5 Q. Thank you. You were asked by Mr. Cayley first, and then by
6 Mr. Kuzmanovic, questions regarding an order by Joska Moric and that was
7 Defence Exhibit D49 if we could please call that up.
8 If you recall, this was the document that was shown to you and
9 you were asked the number of hypothetical questions about what could have
10 been done, what should have been done to prevent looting and burning.
11 You were asked to take a look at this document and I believe -- I'm not
12 sure if it was discussed during that examination but I believe it did
13 indicate that crimes which had occurred prior to the date of this order
14 would not be investigated. Is that your understanding of the document as
15 well? If we could turn to perhaps the second page?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Russo, that is what the document says. That's
17 what we heard previous evidence. That's what we heard was read to this
18 witness. So is there any reason to again verify that it is the gist of
19 this document on this specific point?
20 MR. RUSSO: There is no reason, Your Honour, I'm move on.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then you could have refrained from it. Please
23 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Asking questions to you with regard to what could have been done
25 and I think the point was made that it took some time to get this order
1 up and running and to actually effectuate the order; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And based on your recollection, can you recall whether or not
4 after or sometime even weeks after the 18th of August when this order was
5 issued, whether or not the crimes referenced in there continued to
7 A. It continued to happen a lot of crimes but of course the police
8 were also more present, especially in Knin town. We saw them very seldom
9 out in the remote areas.
10 Q. And from your recollection of reviewing the sitreps, did you
11 report the continuing commission of these offences in those sitreps?
12 A. We reported whatever we observed in our sitreps, the daily
14 MR. RUSSO: Thank you.
15 Your Honour, in line with what we discussed earlier we would like
16 to move into evidence across the bar table the sitreps which indicate
17 from this date forward the crimes which were catalogued. We can do that
18 once the witness leaves just to help time purposes if you like.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, overloading the Chamber with
20 reports covering all different kind of subjects might not be a very good
21 idea. If -- we have seen already that in Exhibits 67 there are some nice
22 colours in it. I don't know who coloured. We find green, we find all
23 kind of different markings on it. Just saying, "Trial Chamber, here are
24 60 sitreps, do what you want with it" is not the appropriate way of
1 The -- if there are certain matters for which you want to present
2 these sitreps to the Trial Chamber, please explain briefly what you are
3 drawing our attention to and then seek it to be admitted and then we'll
4 hear from the Defence whether there are any objections to that so that we
5 have a focused view on bulky material which we receive.
6 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, we'll certainly do that and we're
7 prepared to indicate with respect to each document the information
8 contained in the document which we would direct the Court's attention to
9 but we can do that at another time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. RUSSO:
12 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if you also recall during I believe it was
13 Mr. Cayley's questioning, there was a discussion about efforts that were
14 made to put some fires out and I believe Mr. Cayley said -- asked you to
15 agree and I believe you did agree that the Croatian authorities had
16 severe limitations in what they could do in terms of their equipment and
17 I think you agreed with that; correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 MR. RUSSO: Mr. Registrar, if we could please pull up 65 ter
20 number 2367, and it is a lengthy document and I would simply ask you to
21 move to page 89, please, of the English translation. I believe that is
22 page 55 of the B/C/S translation, just to assist.
23 Q. If you could look at your screen on the entry, if we could
24 highlight the entry for 0620. As you can see here, this is a report
25 indicating around the 9th or 10th of August, 1995, in the OG Sibenik that
1 a report concerning a fire in the area, this is between the villages of
2 Biocic and Miocic that "cannons were in danger and that they engaged fire
3 fighting planes and the fire was put out."
4 Did I read that correctly? Do you see that?
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I believe it's fire fighting plane.
6 MR. RUSSO: I'm sorry, Your Honour, only one plane.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that makes it safer as well. Please proceed.
8 MR. RUSSO:
9 Q. Do you know where the villages of Biocic and Miocic are?
10 A. Not directly, because it refers to Sibenik, so I can't -- I have
11 to see a map and some grid references to -- I can't tell you. Sorry.
12 Q. Did you ever see any aircraft being engaged to put any of the
13 fires out that you or your UNMOs happened to come upon?
14 A. No.
15 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I'd like to tender this document into
16 evidence, this page.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is this the part of the police -- it is in evidence.
18 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, this is not yet offered into evidence.
19 It is a part of the operational diary.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then I am mistaken. Any objection?
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, if he doesn't know where it is, I
22 don't understand how the document can even come into evidence.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, why not? Do you have to know exactly what
24 place it is. I think Mr. Russo is focussing on the availability and the
25 use of a plane for fire-fighting in the area covered by this document.
1 But if you say this is not Sector South, it's not even near to Knin --
2 and we know that planes fly far faster than firefighters can drive - then
3 please tell us.
4 MR. CAYLEY: I'd only make the point, Your Honour, that Sibenik
5 is not in Knin, Sibenik is on the coast, it's far away from Knin city
6 which is specifically what I was following.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is it within the -- as I said, planes go far faster.
8 Sibenik is at what distance from Knin? And I'm not asking -- I take it
9 that you can agree on that.
10 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I think there's some confusion. The
11 reference in the diary is to OG Sibenik, that is the operational group
12 Sibenik. The military group which had responsibility for this area,
13 where it occurred were the villages of Biocic and Miocic, which is in
14 Sector South.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think -- you say -- I do not know exactly where
16 these villages are but it is within Sector South.
17 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Kuzmanovic, your objection was based
19 on that Mr. Russo didn't know where it was. He now tells us that it is
20 in Sector South. Does your objection stand?
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, I think the whole purpose of
22 using a plane is put out a fire is to put out a fire in a rural wooded
23 area. I mean I think it's impractical, it's not --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. It goes without --
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: -- about houses --
1 JUDGE ORIE: But is that a matter of admissibility or a matter of
2 weight to be given to it?
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I think since he doesn't really know where this
4 is, Your Honour, I don't know how it's admissible if he doesn't even know
5 where this place is.
6 JUDGE ORIE: What is clear, that at least once, a plane was used
7 for the purpose of extinguishing a fire in an area, because that's what
8 it says, in Sector South, not more, not less. That is mainly relevant
9 for the availability of at least that plane at that moment.
10 Objection denied. Please proceed.
11 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 If we could have an exhibit number for that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, this becomes Exhibit P71.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P71 is admitted into evidence.
16 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour. My only -- my last issue,
17 Your Honour, is not necessarily a question for the witness. It's with
18 respect to a document which was shown to the witness during the
19 examination by the Gotovina Defence. I believe it was --
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you put a question in relation to a document in
21 the presence of a witness you should always be very careful not by just
22 putting the question, drawing the attention of a witness to a certain
23 element of that document that could trigger further comments.
24 MR. RUSSO: I understand, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not know what you want to draw -- what
1 you wanted to ask but please keep this in mind.
2 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Munkelien, if you can recall yesterday when you were being
4 questioned by Mr. Kehoe, you were shown an UNCRO sitrep and that is --
5 was marked for identification as D89. If we could bring that up, please.
6 You recall discussing this document in the context of artillery
7 fire coming from the side of the ARSK towards Knin in the direction north
8 north-east of Knin?
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, I don't believe this document was
12 tendered into evidence. I would move at this point to have the entire
13 document entered into evidence.
14 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I do believe that I did put it into
15 evidence. If I didn't under the D number, it was simply an oversight on
16 my part but I did intend to put it in.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, our records indicate that it was
19 only marked for identification and it was never admitted into evidence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And it was marked for identification under what
22 THE REGISTRAR: Under D89, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: D89. No objection. Therefore it is admitted into
25 MR. RUSSO: Thank you, Your Honour. I have nothing further.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Bench has no further questions for you,
3 Mr. Munkelien. Therefore, this concludes your evidence.
4 I would like to thank you very much for having come to The Hague,
5 of having answered the questions by the parties, and by the Bench and I
6 wish you a safe trip home again.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Munkelien out
9 of the courtroom.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break and then after the break, I
12 take it that the Prosecution will call its next witness.
13 MR. RUSSO: That's correct, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, before we take the break, I'd
15 like to address a certain matter, and Mr. Cayley, you are the -- well,
16 not to say the victim of it, but ...
17 For this witness, this witness said something about extinguishing
18 fires and sending fire brigades. Now that led to taking us through this
19 police log where of course the witness couldn't say anything apart from
20 that at least some activity undertaken as a result of fire was there.
21 Now, since the witness couldn't tell us anything about it, I take
22 it that you want the Chamber to consider these entries in this police log
23 in relation to the testimony of the witness that he didn't ever see any
24 fire brigades or efforts to extinguish fires. And then you put that to
25 the witness and just to avoid whatever confusion, if you put it to the
1 witness in the way you do it, you should not expect the Chamber to take
2 that as guidance for how to read these entries.
3 If I could just take you to one of them. That's the 131 entry,
4 20th of August. That was the one where I had a question about 1225 or
5 2225 if you look in the original handwriting, then you'll see that it's
6 not entirely clear but it's most logical that it will be 2225.
7 Now, what you do is you put to the witness that this is an
8 example as activity undertaken at a fire. Most important, perhaps, is
9 what you do not do and what of course the Chamber will be able to read.
10 You said to the witness, "You will see there a report on a fire, 2025
11 hours, B. Meglic from Grad police car, reported that a house was fire.
12 You will see in the next column that at 2235 hours, firefighters informed
13 that they localised the fire at 0010 hours." I have now read literally
14 the transcript.
15 I don't want to hide from you what I see when I read this report
16 so that it would not come as a surprise if your reading and my reading is
17 perhaps not exactly the same. How you could also read it is as follows:
18 First of all, if you say that at 2235 the firefighters informed that they
19 had localised the fire at 0010 hours, that comes as a surprise any how,
20 that you already know at 2235 what will happen on 0010 and of course it's
21 not what is stated there.
22 It reads, "At 2235 hours, firefighters informed and they
23 localised the fire at 0010 hours." Yes, that's different. We agree on
24 that, I take it.
25 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then, of course, what I also see there, that at
2 least you could read it that way, that the report came in at let's just
3 assume 2225, that there was an on-site investigation apparently only the
4 next morning. That's also a way of reading this, because the on-site
5 investigation was conducted between 8.30 and 1000 hours. You could also
6 ask yourself -- no, I take that back.
7 What I want to say, you could also look, for example, at specific
8 aspects of this house which was near to a hospital where we saw also
9 earlier that a fire was mentioned which was near to an UNCRO facility.
10 I just want you to know that if you introduce this in a certain
11 way and present it in a certain way, and if other elements or aspects are
12 not mentioned, that of course there is a risk that there is some
13 difference in reading of it.
14 Now, I do understand that you want to present matters to a
15 witness in a certain way. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if you would
16 do it as completely as possible so that there are no grey areas where we
17 start all interpreting the document in a different way, you not being
18 aware, perhaps, how we might read it unless you say, I take that risk, I
19 will pay no attention to matters that are less favourable to my case, and
20 I take the risk that the Judges will look at it in their way in full
21 neutrality, but not excluding matters that might not be primarily in the
22 interest of your case. This is just an example.
23 Mr. Russo, I could just add to that if you could not pay
24 attention to the word "area" where a plane is used and of course taking
25 it more or less for granted that extinguishing a fire in the woods would
1 be the same as extinguishing a house, to be quite honest, but this is
2 general experience, I've never seen in my life one single house on fire
3 where they tried to extinguish that fire by a plane. I do know that if
4 there is an area or if -- especially if it's a wooden area, even if there
5 are houses in there that you would use planes.
6 So therefore, you put something to the witness as Mr. Cayley did,
7 but what you actually are doing, you're drawing the attention of the
8 Chamber, because this witness doesn't know anything about this plane,
9 you're drawing the attention implicitly, the attention of the Chamber to
10 certain elements, and since of course this is not evidence elicited from
11 a witness, you should be aware and you take the risk that we interpret
12 this material in a totally different way, at least that there is a risk
13 that we will do that. And I think it would be -- it's good that you are
14 aware that using this procedural technique may result in quite a lot of
15 difference of view and that's because documents are used during the
16 testimony of a witness for which the witness can't say anything and they
17 just are in evidence then and then of course the Chamber is more or less
18 left to its own interpretation unless you specifically address certain
20 I will not lecture any further. Yes.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Could I make -- thank you, Your Honour. I mean I
22 would make a point to a degree we're all victims of our own training, our
23 background, where we were trained, the way we practice law.
24 I didn't in any way intend to mislead the witness, and I want to
25 emphasise that to you now, by putting those reports to him. He had made
1 an assertion in his statement that he was not aware at any time, at least
2 to his knowledge, that fires had ever been put out. The only material
3 that I had, that I could put to him to contradict him, is this.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. CAYLEY: And I didn't -- and obviously the detail of it, I
6 mean I could have gone through every single sentence and asked him to
7 comment, but he wouldn't have been able to comment on that because he
8 didn't know.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. CAYLEY: But the intention was to demonstrate that in fact
11 there were attempts made by individuals to put fires out. That was all
12 that I intended by using this documentation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, it's a message to the Chamber
14 rather than to the witness. Of course the witness is not expected to
15 know anything about these things and you could have known that from the
16 first answer. Of course you could go through it or ask him: Are you
17 aware of any occasion during this period? And if he says no, then it's
18 not -- but then you of course can draw the attention of the Chamber to
19 police logs which at least give additional information on the issue you
20 have raised, but then of course what the Chamber most likely would like
21 to know is for 30 days, these 30 days, how many of the similar reports
22 are there.
23 MR. CAYLEY: I mean I could -- I mean I can do that. I could
24 have done that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You could even agree to say it's important for the
1 Defence to demonstrate that there was activity when a fire was reported,
2 then you sit together with Mr. Russo and you say entry this one, this
3 one, this one, this one, and then of course you are also considering
4 whether these were fires at UNCRO facilities or near UNCRO facilities or
5 near to hospitals or whether these were just average houses, whether it
6 was just Knin or also outside of Knin and then you can agree on what is
7 there without going with the witness through all of this. And then of
8 course we would also know whether this is, as you said just a few
9 examples, it's the totality of what was reported in this log.
10 Try to find ways, and I'm addressing both parties, try to find
11 ways to give as complete information to the Chamber which allows us to
12 see to what extent the witness who says, I never observed it, to what
13 extent there is material to contradicts that, because that's of course
14 what the Chamber is interested to know how reliable is the information we
15 receive through the witness, how credible is it, and if there is any
16 documentary evidence that could assist us in better evaluating that, then
17 you are invited to present it to us in the most direct way.
18 Mr. Russo.
19 MR. RUSSO: Your Honour, yes, thank you. I appreciate the
20 Court's direction with respect to that issue. I would just like to
21 balance that against the Court's concern expressed earlier about
22 essentially making a document dump on the Court. If I understand the
23 Court correctly and allow me to propose a situation if, for example, we
24 can agree between ourselves and the Defence with respect to documentation
25 with which the witness cannot personally testify but which may enlighten
1 the circumstances of their testimony, present that to the Court either
2 before or after the witness takes the stand.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, if you agree on that, preferably
4 after the witness takes the stand because we should be as blank to start
5 hearing the testimony, although we have read the statements of the
6 witness so to that extent we are not entirely blank.
7 We'll have a break and we'll resume at 1.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's unnecessary to ask whether you are ready to
14 call your next witness because the witness is already in the courtroom.
15 Good morning -- we have no protective measures, Mr. Tieger.
16 Therefore, good morning to you, Mr. Dreyer. Before you give evidence in
17 this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make the
18 solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and
19 nothing but the truth. The text will now be handed to you by the usher.
20 Will you please stand and may I invite you to make that solemn
22 THE WITNESS: I solemnly swear that I will speak the truth, the
23 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: ANDRIES DREYER
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dreyer, please be seated.
1 Mr. Tieger, before you can proceed, the Chamber will have still
2 have to deliver a decision on adding six documents to your 65 ter exhibit
3 list. The Chamber therefor --
4 Mr. Dreyer, we have to deal with it as a procedural matter first.
5 The Chamber will deliver its decision on adding six documents related to
6 Witness Andries Dreyer to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter list. On March
7 the 20th of this year, the Prosecution requested to add six documents
8 related to Andries Dreyer to its Rule 65 ter list. These documents are
9 drawings of the witness on a map of Knin indicating the routes he took on
10 the 4th of August, 1995, in and around Knin.
11 On the 3rd of April, the Cermak Defence indicated that it did not
12 object to adding these six documents to the exhibit list and the Gotovina
13 and Markac Defence did not respond to the Prosecution's motion.
14 Considering the nature of the documents and that they are
15 disclosed, the Defence teams on the 29th of February as well that the
16 Defence did not object to the Prosecution's request, the Chamber decides
17 that the six documents be added to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter list,
18 and this concludes the decision of the Chamber.
19 Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Examination by Mr. Tieger:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Dreyer.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. Let's begin simply by having you state your name for the record.
25 A. My name is Andries Dreyer.
1 Q. And what is your current occupation, sir?
2 A. My current occupation is I'm on a sabbatical from the United
3 Nations to finish my master's degree.
4 Q. You previously served with the South African Defence force and in
5 1995, you served as the United Nations security coordinator for Sector
6 South in Knin; is that correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. You've previously provided three statements to the Office of the
9 Prosecutor, the first on 8 November 1995, the second on the 4th of
10 February, 1996, and the third on the 22nd of February, 2008. Is that
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And that third statement in February of this year encompassed the
14 information provided in the previous statement, provided some
15 attachments, and also provided any clarifying or additional information
16 as necessary; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, may I have 65 ter 04797 brought up and
19 marked for identification, please. And would it be possible to provide
20 the witness with a hard copy of his 92 ter statement and the attached
21 appendices for reference during the course of his examination.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there are objections against that
23 so ...
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Now, Mr. Dreyer, you have both the hard copy in front of you and
2 an electronic version on the screen in front of you. So let me ask you
3 then if that document is your statement to the Office of the Prosecutor
4 of February 22nd, 2008.
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. Have you had the opportunity recently to review that statement?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. Now, let me provide you with an opportunity to clarify at least
9 one aspect of that. And if I could direct your attention quickly to
10 paragraph 13, that paragraph begins with the time at which you embarked
11 on the second attempt, meaning the trips into Knin.
12 Let me ask you, Mr. Dreyer, if that paragraph in the February
13 2008 statement encompasses information that was provided in your first
14 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor.
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. And did the information in your first statement refer exclusively
17 to the second trip you took into Knin on August 4th, 1995 or was that a
18 summary of your experiences during the day generally while outside the
19 compound? And if needed, I can provide you with a copy of your first
21 A. Excuse me, can you repeat, please.
22 Q. Sure. This paragraph we're looking at now in the February 2008
23 statement --
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. -- in which the trips are broken down into first, second, third,
1 fourth and fifth trip?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. There's information provided here which you indicated --
4 information provided at paragraph 13 which as you indicated was also
5 provided in your first statement.
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And I just wanted to know if the information provided in your
8 first statement and contained here refers exclusively to the second trip
9 you took into Knin or referred more generally to your experiences during
10 the course of the day.
11 For example, in particular, the last sentence of the paragraph at
12 paragraph 13 states, "When back at the camp, we were informed that the
13 attack will recommence the next morning at 0500 hours."
14 A. Mm-hm.
15 Q. Were you advised or informed that another shelling attack was
16 anticipated on the morning of the 5th at the end of your second trip into
17 Knin on August 4th or at the end of the day?
18 A. At the end of the day. I'm sorry, now I understand. No, at the
19 end of the day.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would be grateful if you would
21 make a second's pause between each question and answer and slow down a
22 little, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Everyone received that message.
24 MR. TIEGER:
25 Q. With that clarification, does the February 2008 statement
1 accurately reflect your declaration to the Office of the Prosecutor and
2 is the information in that statement true and correct, to the best of
3 your knowledge?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. And if examined in court here today, would your answers regarding
6 these matters be the same?
7 A. Correct.
8 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I would tender this exhibit at this
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P72.
12 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I have an objection to that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
15 I did, in fact, discuss this with my colleague, Mr. Tieger, and
16 my objection is to paragraph 22 of this where it's a broad-reaching
17 document where the witness says in paragraph 22 travelling during the day
18 that he saw tens of people being killed, if you look at the last
19 sentence, "I can't he be precise as to the number of dead that I saw. It
20 was at least tens of people."
21 I attempted to interview this witness on -- and I don't want to
22 overstate this but on numerous occasions and was unable to do so to get
23 behind this statement, and I have been unable to get behind this
24 statement because there is no factual detail with regard to this other
25 than this broad-reaching allegation concerning tens of dead.
1 So given that particular lack of specificity and certainly our
2 inability to get any clarification from the witness, I would object to
3 this statement.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, still in court where we could put
5 questions to the witness in this respect.
6 Is this a matter of admissibility or a matter of weight or ...
7 MR. KEHOE: I think certainly under the 92 ter circumstances,
8 it's a matter of admissibility, because we are talking about a document
9 that the Chamber is going to consider in conjunction with the witness and
10 under those circumstances, not having the ability to flesh out particular
11 facts so we can see what the circumstances are --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the criterion that you are using is
15 because we are talking about the document that the Chamber is going to
16 consider in conjunction with the witness.
17 Now, let's just assume for argument's sake that the witness put a
18 question, said, I've seen tens of people being killed and could not give
19 any further information about that, would that make his evidence on that
20 portion inadmissible?
21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, your -- would it make it inadmissible?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. KEHOE: It could be, of course, because without some lack of
24 specificity it's completely unreliable and it could be --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, no or little weight to be given to it.
1 MR. KEHOE: I think that when someone goes into this particular
2 allegation where we are talking about homicides, I think it could be
3 given no weight.
4 My point in this is on this particular issue and I will give an
5 example, one of the examples is the evidence that we discussed earlier
6 this week about the incident that took place outside the UNMO camp. We
7 were able to get this particular incident, investigate the incident and
8 bring evidence before the Chamber that allowed to neutralise or have the
9 full picture known.
10 It's impossible with this type of statement to do that, certainly
11 with the witness here in chambers. Now, that was why I endeavored with
12 my colleagues over time to try to talk to Mr. Dreyer so I wouldn't be in
13 this situation now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. Nevertheless, the Chamber
17 invites the Prosecution to seek further details in relation to paragraph
18 22 in the examination in chief because this paragraph, as some of the
19 others, is not giving a lot of details and if, on the basis of these
20 informations, Mr. Kehoe, you would need further time to further
21 investigate, then you may apply for further time or even recalling the
22 witness if need be.
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then when I said that the objection was denied, that
3 of course included the admission into evidence of the 92 ter statement.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Mr. Dreyer, a few moments ago, I mentioned the annexes to the
7 2008 statement and also made reference to the five trips referred to in
8 that document that you made into Knin on the 4th of August.
9 If we could turn next to 65 ter 4799 and have that marked for
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger, the new system is that you first
12 call it on the screen, that you then put the questions to the witness,
13 and that then in one breath, you ask -- you tender it, that a number will
14 be assigned, and we'll decide on admission. So therefore, please proceed
15 at this moment. I take it that the map is now -- the aerial photograph
16 of the markings is now on the screen. Please proceed.
17 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Dreyer, looking at 65 ter 04799, a document which is marked
19 at the top first trip and at the bottom, annex AD-2, does that reflect
20 the route that you took on your first trip outside the compound to rescue
21 UN personnel at approximately 4.35 in the morning to approximately 5.20
22 in the morning?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I would -- well, if I may go through
25 the annexes and then ask -- is it more efficient to ask for numbers at
1 the end of going through the annexes?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. TIEGER: Can we next then call up 65 ter 04800.
4 Q. Mr. Dreyer, looking at this document, does it accurately reflect
5 the route that you took on the morning of August 4th into Knin from
6 approximately 0600 to approximately 0830?
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. And that was the second trip you took out of the compound to
9 rescue UN personnel?
10 A. Yes, it was.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'm just going to object to the term "rescue." I
12 don't think there's been any foundation for the need, that they need to
13 be rescued.
14 MR. TIEGER: I think I'm just referring to the 92 ter statement
15 but I can ask for clarification for that if --
16 JUDGE ORIE: If the 92 ter statement uses the word "rescued ,"
17 and I have to check whether it does, then the objection was ill-placed.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. TIEGER: May we next call up 65 ter 4801.
20 Q. And Mr. Dreyer, looking at the document now on the screen, 65 ter
21 4801, does this accurately reflect the route you took on your third trip
22 outside the compound into Knin from approximately 0830 to approximately
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 MR. TIEGER: 65 ter 4802, please, Mr. Registrar.
1 Q. And looking at 65 ter 4802, Mr. Dreyer, does this document and
2 the markings on the document accurately reflect the route that you took
3 on your fourth trip outside the compound from approximately 1230 to
4 approximately 1500?
5 A. Yes, it does.
6 MR. TIEGER: And 65 ter 4803, please.
7 Q. Finally, Mr. Dreyer, looking at 65 ter 4803, does this aerial
8 photo and the markings on it accurately depict your fifth trip outside
9 the compound into Knin to retrieve UN personnel sometime after 1500 hours
10 on August 4th?
11 A. Yes, it does.
12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, perhaps at this time, it would be
13 efficient to move for appropriate numbers and admission into evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before assigning numbers, are there any objections
17 against admission into evidence of these marked maps?
18 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I do not hear of any other objections. Therefore,
20 Mr. Registrar, would you please assign numbers.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, thank you, Your Honours. 65 ter number 4799
22 becomes Exhibit P73. 65 ter number 4800 becomes Exhibit P74. 65 ter
23 number 4801 becomes Exhibit P75. 65 ter number 4802 becomes Exhibit P76
24 and exhibit -- I'm sorry, 65 ter number 4803 becomes Exhibit P77.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibits P73 up to and including P77 are admitted
1 into evidence. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, if we could next call up 65 ter 4798,
4 Q. Now, Mr. Dreyer, along with your statement to the Office of the
5 Prosecutor in February of 2008 and the appendices we've just seen, did
6 you also provide a document, this document, in which you marked, among
7 other things, the areas in which you observed or experienced shelling
8 during your travels outside of the compound on the 4th of August?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. Now, let me ask you about -- I see there are other markings, I
11 will be asking you about those as well.
12 First of all, I want to direct your attention, however, to the
13 three encircled areas at the far right-hand part of the document, and
14 those would be the circle in the bottom right-hand corner, the oblong
15 encircled area with the marking AA next to it, and the larger semi-circle
16 with the six encircled areas within it -- four, excuse me, encircled
17 areas within it.
18 Do those areas represent areas in which you personally
19 experienced or observed shelling on August 4th, 1995, and if not, what do
20 they represent?
21 A. They do not. They represent areas where I either heard incoming
22 shelling, I either observed smoke rising from the various areas, or I
23 heard from various people within the compound, including the military,
24 that those are areas that might have been shelled, but I did not observe
1 Q. And directing your attention to the slightly squarish circle
2 adjacent to the UN compound and to the left of the circle at the bottom
3 right of the page and as the cursor moving, it's almost like -- there you
4 go, right there where the cursor is.
5 You refer in paragraph 19 of your statement to an incident where
6 a mortar round killed people outside the UN compound after corrections of
7 fire to get on target. Is that the area where that incident occurred?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Apart from those areas, Mr. Dreyer, do the encircled areas
10 depicted on 65 ter 4798 represent areas where you personally experienced
11 or observed shelling during your travels outside the compound on August
13 A. They do.
14 Q. If I may quickly run through some of the markings, that is the
15 alphabetical markings on this document.
16 Can I have you look at first -- and we'll go in alphabetical
17 order, A, which is shown towards the left side of the exhibit. What does
18 that represent?
19 A. I'm just trying to go through my statement, but that represents a
20 military barracks.
21 Q. Okay. And I'll go through this quickly since it is in your
22 statement. Is it correct that marking B which is to the right is
23 identified in your statement as the southern barracks?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. If we could look at marking C, which -- the registrar is way
1 ahead of me and doing very well.
2 Is it correct that that is a mortar section you observed by the
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Marking D, which is -- is it correct that that was an APC that
6 you observed?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Could you go to the bottom of the page, marking E. Is it correct
9 that that apparently is at a location which is off of the area of the
10 map, was an RSK checkpoint that you observed?
11 A. Not that I observed. That someone in the compound observed, yes.
12 Q. And F. Is it correct that that was an overturned Milijcia
13 vehicle with one dead person inside?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was that something you observed?
16 A. I observed, yes.
17 Q. G, is that where you were during your first trip outside the
18 compound when the shelling commenced?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. And H, which is in the middle of an encircled area, is that an
21 area where many UN personnel lived?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Now, and finally, perhaps there is one more marking and if we
24 turn to the far right, I already mentioned the belong encircled area with
25 the marking AA next to it, what does that represent?
1 A. That represents an anti-aircraft position that was on top of the
2 hill which I never observed, but we were told so by the military.
3 Q. An anti-aircraft position maintained by what forces?
4 A. By the Serbian forces.
5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, can I get an exhibit number and tender
6 this document?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Will there be any objections against this?
8 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I don't hear of any other objections.
10 Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit P78.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P78 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Dreyer, apart from the mortar section marked at C, the APC at
15 D, the checkpoint at E which I know you didn't personally observe but
16 heard about, and the overturned Milijcia vehicle at F, did you observe
17 any ARSK military activity on the 4th of August, 1995, during the course
18 of your travels through the town or otherwise?
19 A. On that specific day, no.
20 Q. Now, you indicated that G represented the -- your location at the
21 time when the shelling commenced. Can you indicate to the Court or
22 describe to the Court the nature or intensity of that shelling, precisely
23 where you found yourself and what you did when that happened?
24 A. I can. As far as I can recollect, at that specific point at 5.00
25 in the morning, we were driving with two soft-skin buses trying to
1 collect staff members from the various areas in Knin. Obviously I was
2 responsible for the safety and security of all the UN staff in Knin at
3 the time, and at 5.00 we managed to collect only a few UN staff members.
4 And at exactly 5.00, I was at position G as indicated on the map. The
5 only way I can describe it was that there was almost an immediate
6 explosion of everything around us. It was -- there was glass flying
7 around, there was dust. There was pieces of trees flying around. There
8 was brick flying around. There was a ball of fire that came between me
9 and the vehicle in front of me.
10 I was in radio contact with the person in front of me. I
11 directed him to get out of the area as fast as possible. We made our way
12 across the bridge and into a residential area where we felt the shelling
13 would not be as intense. We were not correct. It was not as intense,
14 but it was till still there.
15 We then made our way back down to the main road. There is only
16 one road that leads across the bridge to the UN compound and it took us
17 the best part of about 20 minutes to get out of there to get back to the
18 UN compound but the only way I can explain it, there was -- it was
19 omnipresent and it was almost everywhere.
20 Q. Mr. Dreyer, you describe five trips that you took into Knin in
21 your statement during -- that spanned much of the day. Was the level of
22 shelling or intensity of shelling during the course of the day as you
23 observed and experienced it constant? Did it vary? Can you describe it
24 for us, please?
25 A. It was not constant. The only way I can describe it was
1 initially, the first, I would say first two, two and a half hours, was
2 very intense. There was periods, there was periods of lull where there
3 was no fire. There was periods where it intensified. There was various
4 areas where the shelling was focused on and then it shifted to other
5 areas. But to answer your question, the shelling was not intense
6 throughout the entire period of the day. There was periods where it was
7 not and there was periods when it was. But I would say the predominance
8 of the intensity was the early hours of the morning.
9 Q. As you indicated, you travelled to various parts of Knin to
10 retrieve UN personnel, and actually let me ask you the question that was
11 posed by counsel a few moments ago. What was the purpose of going into
12 town to locate the UN personnel and did you consider it or not to be
13 rescuing those people?
14 A. As I indicated earlier, my responsibility was to look after the
15 safety and security of UN personnel and we have various colour codings
16 and I was informed about 4.00 in the morning that we've moved from code
17 orange to code red and that indicates only one thing, that indicates that
18 we will be launching a -- we will be regrouping the staff members at the
19 UN headquarters.
20 I think the first intention for us was not necessarily to rescue
21 UN staff members, because we didn't really understand what the -- what
22 the extent of the attack was going to be, but we certainly -- our
23 intention was to relocate the staff members back to the UN compound. I
24 would say that changed at 5.00 from becoming a relocation to certainly
25 changing into a rescue mission, yes.
1 Q. Now, during the course of the day as you travelled to the various
2 locations in town where UN personnel and staff members were housed, and
3 found those people, can you describe for the Court, please, the condition
4 or emotional state in which you found those people?
5 A. Initially, the first couple of people we located before 5.00 was
6 concerned, but they were not -- nor were we, at that point, very
7 concerned before 5.00, we were just handling it as a regular relocation.
8 After 5.00, obviously things changed dramatically and staff members -- in
9 the initial order from us was for the staff to collect their bags and to
10 wait for us outside their residence to make the relocation as easy as
12 At 5.00 that changed because the staff then, the shelling
13 commenced and the staff had to move to -- inside their residence or
14 inside the basement.
15 On your question of in which state did I find the staff members,
16 I found the staff members in a state of extreme shock, some of them had
17 never experienced this before, and at certain points we had to get
18 physical with the staff members in order for them -- to convince them
19 that leaving their homes and getting into the armoured vehicles was the
20 right thing to do. They were totally petrified to even step outside
21 their homes.
22 At various occasions we had to carry them. At various occasions,
23 we had to slap them to snap out of it and to actually walk with us or to
24 move to the vehicles and to get into the vehicles for us to drive them
25 back to the compound.
1 Obviously my intention was to get all the UN staff back at the
2 compound as safe as sound as possible and as quickly as possible to get
3 them out of the area.
4 So to answer your question, there was certainly a great sense of
5 shock and -- because for us, it was really -- for the UN staff, civilian
6 staff, it was a surprise.
7 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, may I next have called up on screen 65
8 ter 1928.
9 Q. Mr. Dreyer, in February of 1996, did you provide to the Office of
10 the Prosecutor a marked aerial photo on which you had marked the routes
11 of four of the five trips you took into Knin on the 4th of August, 1995
12 and also the areas of shelling that you experienced and witnessed?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. And is this that document, that is 65 ter 1928 that document?
15 A. This is, yes.
16 Q. Now again on this document, we see the three encircled areas in
17 the far right part of the screen. Is it correct that as in the appendix
18 to your February 2008 statement that we viewed a few moments ago, that
19 those areas did not represent areas where you personally experienced or
20 observed shelling on the 4th of August, 1995, but were aware of shelling
21 in the ways you described earlier?
22 A. Yes, it does.
23 Q. Okay. And similarly, the marking that's a bit triangular
24 adjacent to the UN compound, is that the area where you observed the
25 incident where the mortar and the people killed by corrected fire that
1 was referred to in paragraph 19 of your statement?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Let me also direct your attention, please, to two markings on
4 this map, and the first is at the top portion, there is a thin square at
5 the top portion of the UN compound. If that can be enlarged. That's
6 slightly to the left of the middle of the screen as you see it. And to
7 the immediate right of that is another square that overlays or that is
8 interspersed with the oblong encircled area.
9 Do you recall whether or not you made those markings on 65 ter
11 A. I did not make them.
12 Q. Apart from those markings, Mr. Dreyer, are the other markings on
13 65 ter 1928 yours?
14 A. Yes, they are.
15 Q. And as in the document we saw before, do the encircled areas
16 represent areas in which you personally experienced or observed shelling
17 during your trips outside the compound on the 4th of August?
18 A. Personally observed, seen, or saw signs of shelling, yes.
19 Q. And those signs of shelling would be what?
20 A. Impacts.
21 Q. And although a bit difficult to see on the screen at the moment,
22 do the coloured lines with arrow indicators accurately depict the routes
23 of the first four of the five trips you took on the 4th of August?
24 A. They do as accurately as the map allowed me, yes.
25 Q. Okay. Do I understand that to mean that when they enter into
1 residential areas and move through houses, that that might not be the
2 precise left turn or right turn you took at that time?
3 A. That does, yeah, correct.
4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, may we have a number for this and may
5 it be moved into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
7 MR. KEHOE: No objections, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit P79.
10 JUDGE ORIE: P79 is admitted into evidence.
11 MR. TIEGER: Now, Mr. Registrar, if we could zoom in to --
12 enlarge the map slightly, perhaps, in the central area of the map.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Dreyer on the map, in addition to the circled areas,
14 there are dots both within and outside the encircled areas. For example,
15 the dots inside the encircled areas are easy to see. Those outside, for
16 example, can be found toward the top of the enlarged area now or near
17 where the cursor is now and in other locations I think the Court has
18 identified those. Can you tell us what those dots represent, please?
19 A. The dots represent specific impact areas which I observed and as
20 I could have managed to find them on the satellite map but those were
21 specific impact areas.
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm just mindful of
23 the time and this is as good a moment as any.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is a good moment to stop.
25 Mr. Dreyer, we are finished for the day. I'd like to instruct
1 you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony, not the
2 testimony already given, not testimony still to be given, with anyone.
3 And we'd like to see you back tomorrow, 9.00 in the morning, same
5 We stand adjourned until 9.00 tomorrow morning.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day of
8 April, 2008 at 9.00 a.m.