1 Thursday, 26 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 [Technical difficulty]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Good morning,
8 Mr. Galbraith.
9 Mr. Tieger, are you ready to put further questions to the
11 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galbraith, then, I would like to remind you that
13 you are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning
14 of your testimony.
15 I see that there is no transcript.
16 And, of course, before we continue, I would invite Mr. Registrar
17 to call the case.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
19 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, we could give it a new start because
21 we have no transcript at this moment.
22 There seems to be a technical problem.
23 Mr. Galbraith, we need some patience. Although the IT helps us
24 very much, sometimes it lets us down.
25 Let's have a new start.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
3 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
4 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 Mr. Galbraith, I, again, but now on the record, remind that you
7 are still bound by your solemn declaration that you gave at the beginning
8 of your testimony this Monday.
9 Mr. Tieger, are you ready?
10 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Again, you're ready.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
14 WITNESS: PETER WOODARD GALBRAITH [Resumed]
15 Re-examination by Mr. Tieger:
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ambassador.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Just quickly, you were asked, yesterday, presented with a
19 document, D416, referring to the Krajina Liberation Army. I was
20 wondering if you were aware of whether that body was ever constituted,
21 formed, and active?
22 A. It certainly wasn't active, and I -- and since I don't have any
23 other awareness of its existence, I presume it was a pretty negligible
24 institution, if it existed at all.
25 Q. You were asked on Tuesday, at approximately page 4997, I think
1 you were directed to a portion of your -- of the book, "United States
3 the Washington Agreement and which included a statement that, by the
4 Washington Agreement, Croatia
5 Croatian republic in part of Bosnia
6 fully the territorial integrity independence and unity of that sovereign
7 country; and in so doing Croatia
8 international law and justice.
9 And you were asked whether President Tudjman, on behalf of the
10 Republic of Croatia
11 Actually, you were asked: President Tudjman, on behalf of the
12 Republic of Croatia
14 And you responded: "He did not like the idea of the Washington
15 Agreement. He did not want to conclude the Washington Agreement. But
16 under intense pressure from the United States, he was pragmatic enough to
17 agree at various times. He did what he could to undermine the Washington
18 Agreement; but in the end, the agreement did survive."
19 I simply wanted to ask to you briefly explain what
20 President Tudjman did to undermine the agreement and why those steps were
22 A. Well, first, he did not want to include the agreement up until
23 almost the last minute. We presented the proposal at one point to him on
24 a Thursday and he rejected it; and then over the weekend, as he
25 contemplated possible sanctions on Croatia, he changed his mind and
1 accepted it.
2 Once it was signed, he -- the idea was then that the separate
3 institutions of Herceg-Bosna would disappear, but, in fact, it remained
4 as a separate state, a de facto state. It had used the Croatian Kuna as
5 its currency. It operated in part with Croatian banks.
6 In the 1995 Croatian - well, was it 1995 or 1996 Croatian
7 presidential election - all through the Herceg-Bosna, there were posters
8 for Tudjman. I think the slogan was "The right man for the right time,"
9 and we also wanted to add "and the wrong country," because it wasn't
11 There was no commitment on his part to building common
12 institutions; and, basically, I could give you a long litany of ways in
13 which he did not wish to see a real integration between the Bosniaks and
14 the Bosnian Croats.
15 Q. Ambassador, you were asked yesterday at length, and there was
16 extensive discussion concerning the laws on return and property, and the
17 question of the timing of return, the intent behind the decrees and laws
18 referring or directed to that issue.
19 MR. TIEGER:
20 And in connection with that, Your Honours, I wanted to present
21 the ambassador with a document that currently has a number for which --
22 but about which this is an dispute. So I wanted to bring the Court's
23 attention to that first, and that is P462.
24 We received a communication, I believe the Court did as well,
25 that this document is contested. I won't be seeking to tender it, but
1 this will be the only opportunity to elicit from this witness any
2 response to -- to that document.
3 We can resolve the question of the admissibility of that document
4 in due course, but I would like to proceed with presenting it to the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic --
7 MR. KEHOE: Just --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, yes.
9 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I am just trying to pull
10 up --
11 MR. TIEGER: Before my learned friend begins, I just wanted to
12 said "I won't be seeking to tender." I meant to say I won't be seeking
13 to tender it at this time, until the issue is resolved.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you intend to put it to the witness.
15 MR. TIEGER: Yes. First, I --
16 MR. MISETIC: It is my understanding of what happened on Monday,
17 and I could be wrong procedurally, but I thought it was admitted with the
18 proviso that we had seven days to raise an objection to get it
19 unadmitted. So, I don't know --
20 MR. TIEGER: I appreciate that.
21 MR. MISETIC: -- what tendering means.
22 MR. TIEGER: Sorry. That is precisely right. I didn't mean to
23 preempt the objection in any way.
24 MR. MISETIC: Right. I guess, I would, on behalf of the Gotovina
25 Defence, I guess object if the document, itself, is not authentic, then
1 the propriety of putting an inauthentic document to a witness, to ask his
2 opinion on a document that, on its face, doesn't appear to be an
3 authentic document.
4 I don't know if the Chamber was -- has seen the e-mail that I
5 sent yesterday.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I saw an e-mail of 6.27 p.m. yesterday.
7 MR. MISETIC: That's right.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It was copied to the legal officer of the Chamber.
9 MR. TIEGER: I mean, as Mr. Misetic, I think, very fairly and
10 graciously pointed out, the document is in evidence pending the
12 The question of its authenticity, in our view, is not one that's
13 going to lead to anything but the admissibility of that document. This
14 is a document that we received pursuant to RFAs in due course, in the
15 same manner as we did the other documents. There may be questions.
16 I mean, I don't want to address the issues raised by counsel at
17 this time, but our position is that the document is fully admissible,
18 properly admissible, will be admitted, but this will be the only
19 opportunity to elicit comment from a well-informed witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I see that. First, when I read the e-mail
21 yesterday, the first thought that came into my mind, if it is not
22 authentic, where does it come from.
23 MR. MISETIC: And I was about to say that we also have the same
24 document from the Republic of Croatia
25 JUDGE ORIE: But a different one.
1 MR. MISETIC: Well, I mean, I guess it is to be determined
2 whether the problem was in Croatia
3 of the Prosecutor, or --
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. Are there differences in relation to the issue
5 Mr. Tieger wants to raise? Because, otherwise, if the whole of the
6 document, if you were both provided apparently by the Croatian
8 MR. MISETIC: The Croatian state archive.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, state archive.
10 And you got it from the?
11 MR. TIEGER: The Croatian government, pursuant to a request for
13 JUDGE ORIE: From the Croatian government, yes. Now, that means
14 that there is a fair chance that those portions which are identical, that
15 we can later sort out what is the entire document, what is the authentic
16 one --
17 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, just to clarify, if I may, so there
18 won't be confusion down the road.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. TIEGER: What appears to be the case is that the document
21 that was provided to Mr. Misetic is identical to the document that was
22 provided to us, with the exception of a number of pages which include the
23 discussion, which the individuals whom he identified in the e-mail
24 participated. So we fully accept that they weren't participants in that
25 particular meeting, and somehow two meetings got conflated in the
1 document we were sent.
2 But, clearly, on the face of that document, or both documents if
3 you want to consider them separately, they were both sent by Croatia
4 They both bear all the same earmarks of all the presidential transcripts,
5 including the same transcribers' notations. It is simply a case that
6 they were placed together, instead of submitted separately.
7 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I don't have knowledge of a second
8 meeting, unless --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that there could be a dispute about
10 what in its entirety would the authentic document or not. At the same
11 time, I do take it that, at this moment, Mr. Tieger wants to put to this
12 witness a portion of what apparently is a transcript or a report of a
14 Now, if the two versions of this document are in that respect the
15 same, then even without the document itself - I don't know how long the
16 portion would be, Mr. Tieger - it could even be read into the record,
17 saying that "Mr. Galbraith, it was reported, although in two different
18 documents, that this and this and this was said during a meeting which
19 was held on, I do understand, the 9th of August," then we can put that to
20 the witness and then later --
21 MR. MISETIC: That is precisely the problem, Your Honour. Let me
22 just take a step back here.
23 The meeting where we know the date, the place, the participants
24 et cetera, is not -- the text that he wants to put to him is not in the
25 context of that meeting. So, I guess, now the position of the
1 Prosecution is that this portion of that transcript that he wishes to put
2 to him comes from some other meeting for which we don't know the
3 participants, the date, the place, anything, at this point in time. So
4 it's out of context completely.
5 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment -- yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: And I would add that Mr. Galbraith is not someone
7 who was present four either meeting. So the second objection would be
8 that, essentially, we are now asking him to comment or provide an opinion
9 on his interpretation of a portion of a transcript which we don't know
10 where it comes from, when the meeting occurred, with whom it occurred, at
11 what date it occurred, to provide, essentially, an opinion. However, I
12 think we are here to hear his observations and facts of what he actually
13 saw at the time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Whether Mr. Tieger is going to ask for an opinion is
15 still to be seen, because I haven't heard Mr. Tieger's question yet. So
16 it could be about whether he observed something personally, as was
17 described in this meeting, of which we do not know who exactly
18 participated --
19 MR. MISETIC: Or when.
20 JUDGE ORIE: When, yes.
21 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour. Insofar as "when" is concerned, like
22 many other documents we've seen in this institution, this could be
23 contextually dated.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. We don't know the document, so
25 whether this document would allow for contextually dating this document
1 is still uncertain.
2 Let me just confer with my colleagues.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will allow Mr. Tieger to read a portion
5 of a report on a meeting on which the Chamber is now fully aware that
6 when this meeting was held, where it was held, who were the participants,
7 is still to be determined; and then we will carefully listen to
8 Mr. Tieger's question, and we'll see what he would like to know from the
9 witness, not perhaps primarily about the document, but primarily about
10 the content of what was reported, both in your version and in your
11 version, Mr. Tieger, that was said during this meeting.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
14 Q. Ambassador, pursuant to the Court's directions, I'm going read
15 portions of this document to you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And do it slowly please, Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: Quite slowly.
18 MR. KEHOE: Counsel, can you tell me what pages you are reading,
20 MR. TIEGER: Beginning with page 18.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which version.
22 MR. KEHOE: That, I don't know either, Your Honour.
23 MR. TIEGER: Exhibit P462, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, P462.
25 MR. TIEGER: And that I believe is page 20 or 21 in the B/C/S.
1 Q. It begins, Ambassador.
2 President saying: "Karpina."
3 And then Drago Karpina: "Mr. President, I think we should pass a
4 law: They would declare all abandoned property, state property on the
5 pretext of preserving the property. And, then, in the procedure, if
6 someone returns, if there are no legal obstacles, the state will give him
7 back his property. In addition, in my opinion, this thing should be put
8 into the context of future succession, war damage, and everything else,
9 as in the case of Italy
10 defended politically, legally, and in any other way."
11 Then Nikica Valentic: "President, in this law, it is important
12 that our people have security and that they cannot be thrown out. In my
13 opinion, that is important, the wording, because nobody will move in if
14 they can be thrown out in a year. Now the question is what form is most
15 suitable to put this basic idea in."
16 Dr. Jure Radic: "Nothing is more important than this, nothing is
17 more important in Croatia
18 Croats. And I don't know, we don't have a report on this, but I don't
19 know if you know that Vojnic used to have only 51 inhabitants. Today, it
20 is a town of 15.000 people. Tomorrow, we can fill up with 15.000 in
21 addition. Lapac has 14 inhabitants, 14 Croats; Donji Lapac, 14
22 inhabitants (It's more than the number of houses). I agree. But it is
23 strategically so important and it's in such a position that we must
24 repair the houses, Gojko, and put Croats there. Such is the position of
25 the place."
1 President: "I am with the more radical. If someone has left
2 the country and does not appear there, I don't know, a month or three
3 month, et cetera, that shall be considered think of the wording, state
4 property, et cetera. We have come out of a war, et cetera. Define it
5 like that."
6 Nikica Valentic: "Not three months. Three months is to long
7 because we ..." --
8 President: "Okay, a month then."
9 Dr. Jure Radic: "Well, then we must do it through a government
10 decree. We can't wait. And the assembly is on the 15th September, and
11 we must do it through a government decree."
12 Djuro Brodanac: "Yes. It should be done urgently, urgent
13 because today ..." --
14 Dr. Jure Radic: "Because the three-month deadline has already
15 expired for Okucani, and that's an area where we must be able to move
16 people in already."
17 There is another I portion I am going to want to bring your
18 attention to in a moment, Ambassador, but let me ask you a few questions
19 about those excerpts first.
20 First of all, referring to Mr. Karpina's initial comments about
21 passing a law declaring all abandoned property state property on the
22 pretext of preserving the property, was that consistent with what you
23 observed in Croatia
24 circumstances indicating that the declaration referring to abandoned
25 property was a pretext -- was based on a pretext for preserving the
2 A. Yes. It is completely consistent with what I observed.
3 Second, it was -- it was part of an operation that was aimed at
4 confiscating this property, and the notion that property was being
5 observed was based on what I observed and the opinions I formed at the
6 time and that I still have. The notion of preserving the property was
7 simply a pretext for taking the property, making it impossible for the
8 Serbs who had left to return to that property, and as part of a scheme to
9 try to resettle Croats in the area, thereby changing its strategic -- the
10 strategic complexion of the Krajina from being Serbian to being Croat.
11 Q. And let me direct your attention -- sorry.
12 Let me continue for a moment.
13 Dr. Jure Radic: "We have good houses, intact houses. Who do we
14 keep them for?"
15 Nikica Valentic: "So, move them into the houses, and we will
16 provide for that by law or decree in the coming days."
17 Antun Vrdoljak: "So they must know that if they move into the
18 house, we will ..." --
19 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Counsel. Can you just give us a --
20 MR. TIEGER: Oh, I'm sorry. That's page 21.
21 MR. KEHOE: Can we transfer there, please.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. Again, Mr. Vrdoljak: "So they must know that if they move into
24 the house, we will not ..." --
25 Then Ivan Milas: "Mr. President, it doesn't even need to be that
1 way. You put everything under the state's sequestration and give
2 guarantees to those inside that nobody will touch them, the state deals
3 with them, and we put that also for these," and then parenthesis, which
4 in these transcripts seems to indicate that someone else is speaking:
5 (We did).
6 Vladimir Seks: "President, we did put it into the law for the
7 second reading, but the people that move into a house have ownership
8 security. They don't want temporary use. They must invest, repair, keep
9 it in order, if they want to own it."
10 President: "Yes. Well, that's clear. It's in our interests,
11 too. Sarinic?"
12 Hrvoje Sarinic: "Mr. President, first, as far as I understand,
13 the law is about allotment of temporary housing, and I'm sure that
14 nobody, or very few people, will move in under these conditions. At a
15 VONS meeting, I already say said where I asked about the case when the
16 French left Algeria
17 international community subsequently adopted; that is, the Algerians
18 moved into all abandoned flats, houses belonging, in fact, to the French;
19 and then the state paid for ten years a symbolic franc for this into a
20 fund, so simply for the sake of form.
21 "And they said, when resolving the whole problem, what they
22 collected over ten years would be made available. We have the
23 succession, which will take place, so we could create such a fund, and
24 say we will include that into the succession and the succession.
25 "But quite the opposite, people have moved in with definite
1 guarantees that they move into the houses."
2 President: "Yes. "We should definitely do that, but there we
3 can -- I mean ..." -- And then it emphasizes: "President" means the
4 president is speaking: "Yes. We should definitely do that, but there we
5 can -- I mean, it didn't go as individual compensation. If from a legal
6 point of point of view they should be individually compensated, then we
7 should do it, and then we have the right ..." --
8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Counsel. I'm just waiting for this page
9 to change.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Although, I take it you can get that page by
11 yourself on the computer. Double-click on it, and then --
12 MR. KEHOE: I was just following the transcript, Judge, but I was
13 following what is coming up on e-court. That's all.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: "... then we should do it, and then we have the
17 right that he did not take part in the war against Croatia in the
18 destruction of Croatia
19 Djuro Brodanac: "Nobody can get such ..." --
20 President: "Please, we must be, if they could destroy half of
22 Q. Ambassador, referring to Mr. Sarinic's comments about the
23 succession in Algeria
24 succession, can you put that into context for the Court, and indicate
25 whether that's consistent with the positions and policies you saw or
1 heard from the people in attendance at this meeting?
2 A. Yes, it is. As I testified before, I heard this transcript,
3 which confirms the points I was making. Tudjman's idea - and they're
4 discussing it in this meeting - Tudjman's idea was that they would seize
5 the Serb property; give permanent ownership to the Croats who settled
6 into it; and then settle the claims of these -- of the departed Serbs,
7 not treating them as Croatian citizens, but as citizens of Yugoslavia
8 and, therefore, having their property settled -- their property rights
9 settled internationally.
10 Sarinic referred to what happened in Algeria, but what I heard
11 earlier in the transcript - and I meant to call your attention to it, my
12 previous answer, but I will now - to set it will as they did, the claims
13 by ethnic Italians in Istrija under the Osemo [phoen] Agreement.
14 Basically, at the end of the Second World War, Tito took over Istrija;
15 confiscated the property of Italians; and then in a by lateral agreement
16 between Yugoslavia
17 almost nothing as compared to the value of the property.
18 And that is exactly what Tudjman had in mind; and, of course, it
19 is what Sarinic is describing happened to the French in Algeria
20 We knew that this is what Tudjman had in mind. We objected to
21 this because we believed that these people were Croatian citizens and
22 should be treated on the same basis as other Croatian citizens, not in an
23 unfair which, which would be the result of handling as claims -- by
24 nationals of a different country.
25 Q. Now, Ambassador, you referred to making it impossible to return
1 and barriers to return. And in your statement at paragraph 36, you
2 stated that although that issue was -- that that issue was linked to
3 passports which Serbs were unable to obtain.
4 I'd like to bring your attention next to P466, if I may, please,
5 and I'd like to direct the Ambassador's attention to page 25 of the
6 English and page 53 of the B/C/S.
7 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, if it's helpful I have a hard copy of
8 that for the witness.
9 Q. Ambassador, if I could direct your attention to page 25, toward
10 the top, when Mr. Jarnjak begins to speak.
11 Ivan Jarnjak: "And I should mention the other question that
12 should become operational now, and I have to say it is not a big one, but
13 it appears."
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I should mention that this is a
15 transcript from August 30th, 1995.
16 Q. Continuing with what Mr. Jarnjak is saying: "The question is
17 about the Serbs that are coming through Hungary, and they are coming to
18 knock on our border because they want to come back."
19 President: "Do they have passports."
20 Ivan Jarnjak: "No. They do not have anything."
21 Mr. Sarinic: "They have Yugoslav passports."
22 Ivan Jarnjak: "I would like us to give them ..." --
23 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me. We're trying to get some context to this
24 reading, Your Honour, from passing back and forth, both on mine and the
25 Court's. Now it comes up on e-court.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Since it is now on the screen, you may proceed.
2 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry. And I recognise now the logical
3 difficulties; and with any future documents, I will pause and make sure
4 that counsel has that on their screen.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we just inquire: Do you have a way of getting
6 the whole of the document and not just the page which is in front of you?
7 Because what I usually do is I immediately switch to the entire document,
8 which makes me less dependant from those who are assisting us; not that I
9 don't appreciate their assistance, but, nevertheless, independence is a
10 great thing.
11 MR. KEHOE: It is a great thing, Judge. It's just that, you
12 know, when someone says "I'm starting at page 18" and they start reading,
13 then I have to catch up and go into that. I am trying to between two
14 different screens to get that. Meanwhile, we are already about ten lines
15 into the reading. So if we could just, you know, pause for a second,
16 say, "Okay. We'll get on this particular page," so I can get on that
17 page, then it will make it a lot easier.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, not for me, but for Mr. Kehoe, perhaps
19 you slow down a bit.
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. Just for me; not for anybody else
21 in the courtroom. Maybe I am not as logically savvy as everybody else --
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... no, no --
23 MR. KEHOE: -- but I would like to read along when counsel is
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER: I think I indicated I would do that.
3 Q. Mr. Jarnjak: "I would like us to give them instructions that
4 they should get entry visas in Belgrade
5 President: "I would not give anything. You have to give
6 instructions to the Customs that they should not let people without
7 papers to cross border.
8 Sarinic: "President, let us get inspired the way it is in
9 Western Slavonia
10 Let them report to the international humanitarian organisations, and then
11 those organisations should give us ..." --
12 President: "Wait a second. He comes from another country and
13 the Custom's officer does not conduct any politics."
14 Sarinic: "We should not let them come here. No way. They were
15 coming like this to Banja Luka as well ..." --
16 President: "Therefore, you see."
17 Ivan Jarnjak: "But we should give our people over there, until
18 they get the request, not to let them come in."
19 President: "Therefore, we should not have any directions, but
20 just to let them know they cannot come inside."
21 Dr. Granic: "According to the agreement, in Belgrade
22 only 204 of them that are registered, and they started to register in
24 that they started to come here without any papers."
25 President: "If we let 204 persons come here, tomorrow you would
1 have 1204, and in ten days 12.000, nothing for now."
2 And, again, Ambassador, is this consistent with what you observed
3 at the time and consistent with the policies and expressions an actions
4 of those with whom you were dealing who were present at the meeting?
5 A. Yes. It was the policy to make sure that Serbs could not return,
6 by making sure that they could not get passports.
7 MR. TIEGER: And one more document quickly, P477.
8 Q. Ambassador, P477 is a report on the situation of human rights in
10 dated 21 December 1995
11 page 9 of that document.
12 MR. TIEGER: And if we could highlight paragraph 35, the second
13 paragraph on that page.
14 Q. And I just wanted to direct your attention to a sentence in the
15 middle of that paragraph: "Given the substantial obstacles to return
16 discussed below, the requirement that owners must reclaim their property
17 by 27 December constitutes a virtually insurmountable obstacle for most
18 Serb refugees."
19 And, Ambassador, was that consistent with what you observed about
20 the effect and purpose of the policies?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Ambassador, I wanted to move on quickly to another subject. You
23 testified, at page 5055 on Tuesday, that you did not believe that Tudjman
24 was going to expel the Serbs, and that if you believed that he was going
25 to expel the Serbs from the Krajina, you would have urged, in the
1 strongest possible way, for your government to give a red light to the
3 Now, directing your attention to your statement, in particular,
4 paragraphs 22 and 23. In paragraph 22, you state that just prior to
5 Storm on August 1st, you issued warnings to President Tudjman that
6 Serbian civilians had to be protected. And as you stated in
7 paragraph 23, you issued the warnings about the need to protect Serbian
8 civilians "because there were a number of reasons to be worried that
9 persecutions of civilians were likely."
10 And you continued to indicate the reasons for that, the reasons
11 for issuing the warnings about the need to protect Serbian civilians,
12 included that you knew that President Tudjman wanted an ethnically
13 homogeneous Croatia
14 And, Ambassador, at paragraph 81 of your statement, you indicate
15 that or you state that: "Had the Serb population remained when Croatia
16 took over ..." -- that's the last sentence and paragraph in that
17 statement: "Had the Serb position remained when Croatia took over, the
18 Croatian policies would have been such to make them leave."
19 And, similarly, at paragraph 42 of your statement - and if I'm
20 moving too quickly, please tell me - you indicate in the last sentence of
21 that paragraph, paragraph 42, that you believe that: "Had the Serbs
22 remained, the Croats would have engaged in ethnic cleansing."
23 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, excuse me, Your Honour. First of all
24 that's an area of speculation, this last line; and, second of all, this
25 was never gone into in cross-examination, and we're talking about a
1 situation where he said there was no ethnic cleansing there. And this
2 particular area is an area of pure speculation, as the Prosecutor knows,
3 in paragraph 42 as to what would have happened if anybody was there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is this in -- I do see two elements in your
5 submission. The one is that you consider the portion read of
6 paragraph 42 to be speculation, which does not object to the question. I
7 don't think that you have asked about that. And, of course, what would
8 have happened if matters would have gone differently, that is clear to
9 the Chamber as well.
10 So to that extent, of course, the Chamber will carefully look at
11 whether there is speculation or whether there are facts known to a
13 The second part, Mr. Tieger, is that the matter was not touched
14 upon in cross-examination and, therefore, whether in re-examination, it
15 would be appropriate to raise the issue.
16 I'd like to have a response to that.
17 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, it would be, I think, clear if I
18 was permitted to ask the question, but the -- it arises from the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then first listen to the question, yes.
21 Mr. Tieger read some portions of the statement of the witness and
22 now we're waiting for his question, and then we might see whether this
23 question is about something that was raised in cross-examination.
24 MR. KEHOE: As Your Honour has pointed out in other instances
25 from questions, you can tell when a question starts out where it
1 ultimately is going to end; and if we go back scroll up and see what --
2 how this question ended in the area of speculation, I think Your Honour
3 can make a conclusion.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber, it may come as a surprise, is
5 often not aware of where a question ends. So, therefore, let's first
6 allow Mr. Tieger to complete the question, and then we may hear an
7 objection to the question as formulated by Mr. Tieger.
8 Mr. Tieger.
9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Putting those together, Ambassador, was it the case that you
11 considered that the purpose of Operation Storm was the reintegration of
12 the Krajina and didn't believe that Tudjman was going to expel the Serbs,
13 but were concerned that during the course or after that operation, there
14 would be an effort to force Serbs out?
15 MR. KEHOE: Judge.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give an opportunity to Mr. Kehoe to object
17 to the question, could you please rephrase it in such a way that I
18 understand the question, and, hopefully, the witness also understands
19 what you're really asking him.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. Ambassador, notwithstanding your belief at the time that Tudjman
22 was not going to expel the Serbs and so you didn't urge the US to give a
23 red light, were you, nevertheless, concerned that during the course of or
24 after the operation, there would be an effort to force Serbs out?
25 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge. This witness, pursuant to Your
1 Honours' question, made it very clear that there was no intent to expel
2 the Serbs as a result of Operation Storm. Now counsel is trying to
3 conflict this, and somehow alter that to the Prosecution's benefit
4 because of that answer.
5 That is clear from that anticipate, and, excuse me, Counsel, and
6 what has happened here is we are now retreading ground that Your Honour
7 clarified with the hope that the Prosecution can resuscitate this. This
8 has been asked an answered, and certainly asked an answered on numerous
9 occasions by the Prosecution and certainly by the Court.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I re-read the question. One second.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the Chamber considers the issue you're
13 raising in this question to be sufficiently dealt with in the examination
14 of the question.
15 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry. I didn't have a chance to respond to
16 Mr. Kehoe. So I want to make this clear, if I may.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
18 Mr. Kehoe.
19 MR. KEHOE: No, no, I am just standing, sorry.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Although, it is not as common as you said, as an
21 exception, but also in order to redress a mistake I've made by not giving
22 you an opportunity to response.
23 So that' fair. So an exception would be for me an exception to
24 make a similar mistake in the future.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER: Contrary to the assertion that the Prosecution is
2 trying to conflate these issues, I'm concerned about the risk of having
3 these issues improperly conflated and am trying to get the full picture
4 of what this witness was aware of and was thinking and was concerned with
5 at the time. And I don't think his determination at the time or belief
6 at the time that the operation wasn't intended for that purpose gainsays
7 other aspects of what you knew and was concerned about at the time, and I
8 just want to make sure that that isn't confused.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, this was dealt with on direct
11 examination. That was the Prosecution's opportunity. The Court
12 specifically put this issue directly before Ambassador Galbraith on two
13 separate occasions. He answered the occasions. The Prosecution doesn't
14 like what the answer was, and now they want to go back into it and
15 attempt to change it. That is the sum and substance of this strategy.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, let's --
17 MR. KEHOE: I apologise.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- let's not analysis strategies.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes. In any event, Your Honour, this is squarely
20 before the Court. Based on what witness said, there is no need to go
21 back into this again, and yet resuscitate and re-cross on the issue once
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in order not to make the same mistake,
25 Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. I don't know what is meant by
2 "resuscitate." But if it provides any clarification, it is extremely
3 useful to the Court, and I think the point I made is one in the interest
4 of clarification. If it doesn't, we -- the Court is clear; if it does,
5 it is extremely helpful.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I gave a ruling earlier on the basis of incomplete
7 information. Now the same ruling stands on the basis of incomplete
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Ambassador, at paragraph -- at page 5175, you were asked about
12 and discussed, in particular, the Varivode incident, but more generally
13 the issue of investigations of killings where pressure from international
14 public on all sides was exceptionally great. And I would like to draw
15 your attention, if I may, please, to 1D33-0325.
16 MR. TIEGER: If that can be called up.
17 Q. Ambassador, this is a further report on the situation of human
18 rights in Croatia
19 14 February 1996
20 Now, this is a section of the report that deals with violations
21 of the right to life.
22 MR. TIEGER: And if we could highlight paragraph 13, please.
23 Q. Paragraph 13 indicates that the -- or states that: "The
24 discrepancies noted in my earlier report, between the number of apparent
25 violations of the right to life recorded by United Nations investigators
1 in the former sectors -at least 150 - and the number of cases
2 acknowledged by the Croatian authorities, continues to be unaccountably
3 large. While the government has pursued prosecutions in the most
4 dramatic cases, e.g., the massacre of nine Serbs at Varivode and some
5 others, there is little evidence of progress in resolving the many other
6 reported cases of individual killings."
7 Ambassador, was that consistent with your observations and
8 information concerning the gap between the number of killings and the
9 investigations -- and the investigations of dramatic or highly publicised
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, if may I, I would tender this exhibit.
13 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr, Kehoe. I take it that you speak on
15 behalf of all Defence counsel.
16 Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit P485.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P485 is admitted into evidence.
19 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, contrary to the Court's concerns
20 that the passage of time would inflate the period of examination, that
21 concludes my redirect.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Mr. Kehoe, any need to put further questions to the witness.
24 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour, we have no further questions.
25 Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I see you're nodding no.
2 MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: No further questions, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any questions by the Bench?
5 [Questioned by the Court]
6 I would have one question in relation to paragraph 59 of your
8 Mr. Galbraith, I will read the relevant part. You said: "My
9 impression was that the initial phases of the operation were relatively
10 respectful of international law, such as bringing people to camps where I
11 understood they were not abused. The Serbs confined in camp did
12 criticise the shelling to which they were subjected."
13 This is an explanation as relatively respectful of international
14 law. Bringing people to camps, could you explain to us where what you're
15 expressing here exactly as bringing people into camps, what that meant
16 under international law, and your views at the time?
17 I mean, do you consider bringing people into camps - it is a
18 rather general statement - in accordance with, or I'm just trying to
19 understand what you're telling us.
20 A. I guess I would say my first point would be that this was --
21 this, of course, is a statement taken by the Prosecutor. Perhaps, as I
22 read this now, it could not look quite as I meant it.
23 What I meant was that there were not major violations of
24 international law that we observed in the early phases of the operation;
25 point one.
1 Point 2, that when people were brought to camps, they appeared to
2 be well treated; and that when I and -- well, I observed this, when I
3 visited a camp in Sisak, and the embassy officers who visit the detained
4 -- people brought to camps around Knin, said that they also were well
5 treated and noted that they felt free enough to speak critically of the
7 I do not mean to imply, and I would not imply, that bringing
8 people to camps is somehow consistent with or respectful of international
9 law. Simply, my point was that there were not, in this early phases,
10 what we consider to be major violations of international law --
11 international humanitarian law.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, what is major and what is minor is still
13 a matter of judgement. Then the second part is --
14 A. Your Honour, just to clarify that point. Of course, you're
15 right, but --
16 JUDGE ORIE: I am just putting a question, so I can't be right or
18 A. No, no. But when I say "major," I am contrasting-- I was, in the
19 statement, trying to contrast what took place in the first few days of
20 the operation, as compared to what followed which, as is obvious from my
21 testimony, did, in my view, constitute major violations of international
22 humanitarian law.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now about the criticism on the shelling. You
24 include that in your assessment, that there were no major violations of
25 international humanitarian law. That also puzzles me. What kind of
1 criticism was there?
2 A. The point in this statement is that the persons in these camps
3 run by the Croatian authorities felt free to speak out. They were not
4 intimidated as were, for example, people that I visited in Manjaca camp
5 in 1992, who were held by the Bosnian Serbs; or, for that matter, when
6 our staff visited HV-run camps in Bosnia in 1993, they were not allowed
7 to speak to the prisoners.
8 So this was a different kind of situation from what was the norm
9 in the war at that time, and that was the point that is meant to be
10 expressed in this statement.
11 As to the question of the shelling, whether that constituted a
12 violation of international humanitarian law, my view, at that time, which
13 is still my view, is that I distinguish what happened in Knin, and here
14 the people who were criticizing were detainees or people in Croatian
15 camps in Knin. But I would distinguish the shelling of Knin, which was
16 relatively brief, based on the observations of the embassy staff, who
17 included military officers -- or, actually, an artillery officer. So it
18 was relatively brief, it was not very destructive, and took place in the
19 context of an operation aimed at capturing the town.
20 That was different from, very different from the kind of shelling
21 that took place in other parts of the war, notably the shelling of
22 Vukovar, which destroyed the city before it was taken; or Sarajevo, which
23 was basically intended to destroy the city without taking it; or of
25 cultural vandalism, as well as aimed at the people.
1 I think I would go on to say that the issue of whether -- I mean,
2 you run into a danger, in my view, when you say that any kind of shelling
3 is a violation of international humanitarian law --
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's certainly not my position --
5 A. No. I'm not saying that is your position. It would also seem to
6 me that you have to make a distinction between, for example, what the
7 United States might do, given the technical it has, and whether it can
8 avoid major, you know, casualties, as opposed to a country that would be
9 much less capable technologically.
10 JUDGE ORIE: One additional question: In your answer, you made
11 reference to your city of Knin
12 observations by those, or at least a person who was there where you were
13 talking about an artillery officer. Would that information also cover
14 villages, dwellings, hamlets in the area, so not in the city itself, but
15 in the area of Knin.
16 A. What our people -- I don't know that they observed shelling in
17 the areas around Knin, as opposed in the city or town of Knin. What they
18 did observe was some burning on the road into Knin.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So their observations were limited, and
20 therefore, the scope of what they told you is similarly limited.
21 A. They didn't go every place, but they did go from Drnis to Knin.
22 I'm not sure now they came from Knin. And we, over time, we had three
23 different trips into Knin in those very early days, which may have taken
24 different routes. I don't know now what routes they would have taken.
25 So the act to getting to Knin would have given them an opportunity to
1 observe more than just the town, and we also had people going to other
2 parts of the Krajina, including myself in Sector North.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
4 Have the questions of the Bench raised any need to put further
5 questions to Mr. Galbraith.
6 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
7 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.
8 Your Honour, if I may, well, this is just an administrative
9 matter, so it shouldn't --
10 JUDGE ORIE: If we need the presence of Mr. Galbraith for your
11 administrative matters, then we'll ask him to stay.
12 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But if not, Mr. Galbraith this concludes your
14 evidence, I'm hesitant to say, in this Tribunal, at least in this case.
15 Mr. Galbraith, I would like to thank you very much for having
16 come the long way to The Hague
17 the questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench. And I usually
18 say "I wish you a safe trip home again," but I change that now and say,
19 I'm happy that we can release you as such a time that it will not
20 frustrate your further private plans.
21 THE WITNESS: My children are grateful, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Galbraith out
23 of the courtroom.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was Mr. Kuzmanovic or was it -- yes,
2 Mr. Kuzmanovic who --
3 MR. MIKULICIC: He will be joining us later, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. He still owes me an answer as to whether the
5 compensation for the loss of property is found in the constitutional
6 court decision.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: I think there is no specific reference to the
8 exact wording "loss of property," but it comes out of the context, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, this is various translation of --
10 MR. MIKULICIC: It is it a question of interpretation, of course.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. as good lawyers, we usually end with that
12 phrase. Thank you very much.
13 I suggest to the parties that we first give an opportunity to
14 Mr. Tieger to raise the administrative matter he has on his mind, and we
15 then would not start with the next witness but, rather, have a break
17 Mr. Tieger.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, rather than take credit for the note
19 that Mr. Hedaraly sent me, perhaps I can ask him to address that matter.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
21 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Exhibit P457 was moved into evidence and also was inadvertently
23 on the bar table list of documents, so it was also admitted as
24 Exhibit P460. So P460 should be vacated, and we apologise for the
25 confusion to Mr. Registrar and the Court.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, I take it that you know how to deal
2 with that. The Chamber supports the suggestion by Mr. Hedaraly.
3 There is an application for protective measures for the next
4 witness. I wonder whether we should deal with it now, then we should
5 have to move in private session.
6 MR. MISETIC: [Microphone not activated] ... before we do that?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Schildge, I'm not going to throw you out of this
10 courtroom because it is a public hearing, not at all. At the same time,
11 of course, you're free to move to the public gallery, if you would like
12 to do that.
13 Thank you for coming; and, of course, your role, your task, I
14 take it, has been finished. So, therefore, if I want to leave, don't
15 hesitate to do so.
16 MS. SCHILDGE: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
18 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
19 Just, I guess, as a housekeeping matter, we had, obviously, the
20 long discussion about Exhibit 462. Before I lose track of the fact that
21 it is an issue, and it is, as far as I understand, admitted into
22 evidence, can we MFI that exhibit at least, or how do we deal with the
23 issue, so that we're --
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... to change the status
25 again. Well, first of all, the issue will internally for the Chamber on
1 be on its pending issues list. So, therefore, we will certainly not
2 forget about it. But perhaps it would be wise, under the present
3 circumstances, to change the status even if that would be only a
4 temporary solution into MFI, if that is possible.
5 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm informed that it has already the status of MFI.
7 I have to read it all during the break to find out exactly what happened.
8 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If there is no other matter, perhaps we briefly move
10 into private session to deal with the issue of protective measures for
11 the next witness to come.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 5226-5229 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 We will adjourn until 11.00. But on the basis of what was
19 discussed during private session, the public should expect that we almost
20 immediately will move back into private session again, once we have
22 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has decided to grant a motion by the
25 Prosecution to order protective measures for the next witness, which is
1 Witness 86. The protective measures granted are face distortion, voice
2 distortion, and pseudonym. And the Chamber expects that in order to make
3 these protective measures effective that most, if not all, of the
4 testimony will be heard in private session.
5 We move into private session.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 5232-5287 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn until tomorrow, the 27th of June, 9.00 in
9 the morning, Courtroom I.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th of June, 2008,
12 at 9.00 a.m.