1 Friday, 5 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-06-90-T, The Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 May the witness be brought into the courtroom.
11 Ms. Mahindaratne, yesterday I was not fully informed when I said
12 you have to prepare for using less time. As a matter of fact, the half
13 an hour you indicated is still available, within your time estimate.
14 There's even more, I'm not encouraging you to use more, but if
15 you would take 35 minutes that would still, and even 40 minutes is still
16 within your time estimate.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Mr. President, while the witness is coming in may I just inform
19 Court yesterday a document tendered, P765 MFI, and I was not in a
20 position to inform Court the other exhibit which was connected, that is
21 P605, and that is in fact also referred to, in fact the document P765 MFI
22 is referred in Mr. Zdravko Janic' statement that is P552 at paragraph 57,
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at it and if it's ...
25 MR. MIKULICIC: I also have some checkings yesterday and I can
1 agree with Ms. Mahindaratne so I will have no objections.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then, under those circumstances P765
3 is admitted into evidence.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Celic. Mr. Celic, I would like to
6 remind that you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave
7 at the beginning of your testimony.
8 Ms. Mahindaratne will now continue her examination.
9 Please proceed.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 WITNESS: JOSIP CELIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]
14 Q. Mr. Celic, good morning.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Now, your testimony yesterday was that at the end of the 26th
17 operation the unit commanders informed you that nothing had happened.
18 Now, my question to you is during the course of that operation
19 before the unit commanders reached the finishing line did they inform you
20 that they had met with resistance and did they request for reinforcement?
21 A. They did not request any kind of assistance but I said yesterday
22 that I had reached the finishing line where they were, and it was
23 established there that what had happened had happened.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
25 A. However, during the operation itself they did not request any
2 Q. Mr. Celic, I would be grateful if you could confine your response
3 to answer my question simply because I'm running out of time so just
4 address the question.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I hate to interrupt, with all due
6 respect that was a multiple question. He answered both questions and one
7 of them was a question that he answered yesterday.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will just move on without wasting any
9 further time, Mr. President, since there is no objection to the --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the answer raises for me another
12 You said it was established at the finishing line there that what
13 had happened had happened.
14 Could you please tell us what you establish that had happened.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When arriving at the finishing
16 line, it was obvious that a house was on fire. So when arriving at the
17 finishing line, I was in contact with Commander Janic, who also said that
18 he would go to the finishing line. And at that moment I believe that he
19 informed Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic, whoever, I don't know, and he came
20 there together with them, and when arriving at the finishing line I saw
21 that the houses were on fire. Obviously there had been contact. It
22 could be seen by that. Rifle gunshots could be heard and on that road we
23 established that -- that there had been firing contact, that there had
24 been a clash and basically that is where we discussed this, what had
1 After this discussion, Commander Janic talked to me again, talked
2 to the group leaders again, and again we talk with the members of the
3 unit and we established that there had been contact, there had been a
4 conflict, there had been gun-fire so at the moment when I was arriving at
5 the finishing line I saw there was fire, smoke, contact.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now in your answer earlier you said -- you said:
7 "When arriving at the finishing line, I saw that the houses were on fire.
8 Obviously there had been contact. It could be seen by that."
9 Now, does a house on fire mean to you that you see that there has
10 been contact, fire contact?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not the only thing I said.
12 What was heard were gunshots too. Obviously there had been contact.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you have any reason to assume at that time
14 that the houses on fire were the result of fire contact or have you
15 considered that it could have had other causes as well?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, since the unit was a
17 professional one, at that moment, I could not have thought of any other
18 reason for the houses to be on fire, except for their having had been
20 Furthermore, I have already mentioned during my previous
21 examinations, that we particularly highlighted at the starting line to
22 all concerned how one should behave and we drew their attention to what
23 was allowed and what was not allowed and how the task was -- task was
24 supposed to be carried out. Of course the emphasis was on one's attitude
25 towards civilians, property, things like that.
1 There was absolutely no reason to believe that there hadn't been
2 any contact. That was the only thing that came to mind.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, at the end of operation, were any weapons seized
6 from the rebel forces or left behind by the rebel forces brought in by
7 your unit? Did you see them bringing any weapons?
8 A. Well, I will do my best to try to remember everything.
9 As far as weapons are concern, there is an reference to automatic
10 weapons because the JNA or rather, our members also had been issued with
11 these weapons. I cannot tell you with any certainty now whether anybody
12 had highlighted that that was the rifle or that that was not the rifle.
13 However, the event itself evolved very quickly. That is to say after I
14 arrived at the finishing line, very soon after that, Mr. Janic came and
15 after that we had a meeting straight away so I cannot say with any
16 certainty whether there had been such weapons or not.
17 However, the members of the units had these same weapons, so I
18 cannot say to you with any certainty well that's -- that somebody said
19 well, that's the rifle. That were zoljas too and whatever else and I
20 cannot say with any certainty what it actually was.
21 Q. Now, generally when weapons are seized in the course of an
22 operation, weapons belonging to the enemy forces, there is a formal
23 procedure of logging that information, isn't it, a record of this number
24 of weapons seized from such-and-such a place.
25 Now, to your knowledge, and please -- and don't guess, to your
1 knowledge, do you know if that day, on the 26th a record was made of
2 weapons seized in the course of that operation?
3 A. I would appreciate it if you had the report I wrote on that day.
4 It is exactly stated there what weapon was --
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm not asking about your
6 report. I'm asking if you are aware that if in fact any weapons were
7 seized in the course of that operation, whether there was a logging
8 procedure where the weapons are brought in, a report is made, whether
9 this is an logging procedure. Now, in fact in your testimony you said
10 that the weapons are seized, it is probably recorded.
11 Now, on that day, on the 26th are you aware of any record being
12 made of weapons seized?
13 A. That is exactly what I wanted to tell you about right now. As
14 far as I can remember in that report of mine it is stated exactly what it
15 was. On the basis of my current recollection I think it was a Zolja, a
16 lot of rifle ammunition, an automatic weapon, either one or two, I cannot
17 remember exactly, but this was recorded in my report and it must be
18 written somewhere. It was recorded. That's for sure. What it was that
19 had happened with the weapons. Whether it ended up at the central
20 warehouse of the police or wherever, that, I cannot state with any
21 certainty but my report of the 26th says exactly what it was and now I've
22 tried to remember, in order to be able to tell you right now.
23 Q. Okay. I'll call for your report in a minute, Mr. Celic.
24 Just before that, one other question. On the 26th, did you go to
25 the village Ramljane to see what had happened?
1 A. This is it the way it was. This is what I seem to remember. I
2 came to the starting line during this operation, I was there where the
3 houses were. That is to say the very beginning of the village. Then I
4 went to the finishing point. I did not go through the village since at
5 that time we had that meeting, the one that I told you about.
6 After that, I think that we all went to Gracac together, and
7 after that I think I had that meeting at headquarters so I did not go
8 back to Ramljane. That is to say that I was not at the actual scene at
9 the outskirts of the village, yes, but not at the place where the contact
10 had taken place.
11 Q. Now, at any time when the houses were set on fire, did you go to
12 that village -- did you see these houses on fire. That's what I'm
13 saying. Not before, but at any stage after the houses had been set on
14 fire, did you go there, either on the 26th or thereafter.
15 A. No, I did not go to the village. I didn't go then, I didn't go
16 after that, as far as I can remember or, rather, on the basis of the
17 reports from the group leaders, I think they actually said that during
18 the operation itself as they went through the village some houses had
19 already been set on fire. That is to say before we arrived there some of
20 the houses had already been set on fire. That is what they stated to me,
21 but I was not in the village myself.
22 Q. Are you aware if Mr. Markac or any other senior officer of the
23 special police sector going to this place to see what had happened for
24 themselves? Did you know if Mr. Markac went, Mr. Sacic, Mr. Turkalj,
25 Mr. Janic?
1 A. Mr. Turkalj was not there on that day. Mr. Markac, Mr. Sacic and
2 Mr. Janic were on the road at the very end of our mission, at the end of
3 this village, but I could show you that position on the map, or you can
4 ask Mr. Markac himself. The meeting lasted for about half an hour
5 perhaps even less. After that where they went that is something I are
6 cannot tell you; I don't know.
7 However, I may assume that Chief Janic probably had quite a few
8 questions in relation to what had happened and I would therefore assume
9 that he could have gone to the scene itself, but I cannot claim that with
10 100 percent certainty. I didn't go, I don't know if somebody did go, but
11 this is it my assumption.
12 Q. To your knowledge, was there any form of inquiry or investigation
13 at the scene to verify, if in fact if this version of the -- the fact
14 that there was resistance was correct?
15 A. Well, I'm going to repeat what I've already said.
16 After our conversation on the road, after that, Chief Janic
17 talked to me. He talk to the group leaders. We talked --
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm asking if there was an
19 investigation at the site to verify the accuracy of this version. That
20 is, that was to see if there was evidence of combat activity to that
21 effect. I'm not talking about that somebody told the other. That is my
22 question: Was there an investigation at the site.
23 A. Well, I've been doing my best to try to explain this to you. I
24 can only assume that since Chief Janic had this detailed conversation
25 with me, with the group leaders, with everybody in order to establish
1 what it was that had happened and whether anything could happened to look
2 at this specific event, it is possible that he personally went there.
3 Perhaps he went with some of the group leaders. I don't know about that.
4 I'm only making an assumption. I went to Gracac then. Whether somebody
5 else carried out an investigation, whether the police came there, whether
6 the crime police went there I really don't know because I was not there
7 at the scene myself. However, I can assume since Janic discussed that to
8 quite an extent with me and with other people probably he went out there
9 to see what had happened because I went to Gracac.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document number
11 1855, please. Sorry.
12 Q. Mr. Celic, while that document is being brought up did any of
13 your group leaders inform you exactly how the houses caught fire? I know
14 you have been talking about combat activity. My question is: Did
15 anybody inform you the cause of the fire, what exactly led to the houses
16 catching fire?
17 A. As far as I can remember, at that time, in view of the terrain, I
18 sub-divided the unit into two groups. There weren't four; there were
19 two. And one of the group leaders said to me that anti-armour weapons
20 were used and probably that is how the houses caught fire.
21 Q. So he said anti-armoured weapons were used and probably that is
22 how the houses were -- houses there caught fire. It is a conclusion, or
23 a guesstimate, because you used the word "probably."
24 A. As for contact, fire had been opened at them, and they responded
25 by using anti-armour weapons. I assume -- well, it is very hard to set a
1 house on fire by using a mere rifle bullet. But what we used absolutely
2 couldn't have done it. We used just the most normal type of bullets. It
3 is only an anti-armour projectile that could have caused that. I don't
4 see any other way.
5 Q. And then --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Celic, could you please refrain from arguing
7 rather than telling us what you were told, what you observed, because
8 what you told us is that by bullets, you couldn't put the houses on fire
9 so therefore it must have been with anti-armour weapons which is based on
10 a suggestion that it was the use of arms that set the houses on fire,
11 which is not established, and which, as far as I understand, you have not
12 observed; but if I'm wrong, please tell me.
13 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Celic, I appreciate you would not have seen this document
16 that is on your screen. And if you could look at the paragraph under
17 paragraph number 1 b there is an reference to the ECMM group observing a
18 big screen of smoke and it says which seemed to raise from Ramljane area
19 and certain areas are given.
20 That is the area in which the special police forces were
21 conducting the operation on 26th, isn't it? We saw the area Kaldrma
22 mentioned in Mr. Markac's report.
23 You can disregard the rest of the report; I'm just asking you to
24 focus on that paragraph b.
25 You're nodding your head. Can you confirm that?
1 A. I'm reading it now. I see it, yes.
2 Q. My question to you is: That area that is indicated is the area
3 in which the special police units conducted the operation on the 26th,
4 isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And generally when the special police forces conduct mop-up
7 operations are there other forces, such as the HV or the civilian police,
8 present in that area, in the area in which the operation is taking place?
9 A. I can just talk about my own unit. That is to say, that I cannot
10 talk about any kind of relationship with the army. However, I can say
11 that before that, in the operation on the 25th and on the 26th, we did
12 not have any contact with the army. We carried out our tasks
13 independently . We never carried out these assignments with the
14 military, as far as I can remember. That is what I can say to you.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move this document
16 into evidence please.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, I will object to this, because
18 what is only verified by this witness as it regards to this document that
19 the area which the document is addressing to is probably the area where
20 the mop-up operation in Ramljane has been conducted. But in the very
21 same document, in paragraph 1 b it says that a big screen of smoke which
22 seemed to raise from Ramljane.
23 So I don't see what -- what level of probability this document
24 carries with it.
25 So I object.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Probability apparently is a matter of weight, isn't
2 it, Mr. Mikulicic?
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, I believe so, right.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Do I therefore have to understand that your
5 objection is mainly on --
6 MR. MIKULICIC: On both way, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admissibility. Then what exactly is the argument?
8 MR. MIKULICIC: The argument of admissibility is that this very
9 document, the witness saw for the first time today. He isn't the author
10 of the document and he is not aware of the circumstances in which this
11 document has been produced.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Now, you know that we have two categories so I'm addressing you.
14 That is documents which are introduced through a witness and documents
15 tendered through the bar table. Would you, first of all,
16 Ms. Mahindaratne, the witness couldn't say much about this document. Is
17 it your intention -- or do you find it a document which should be
18 introduced through this witness, or would you also consider to tender it
19 in another way?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. It could be tendered in
21 other way we are have the ECMM witnesses coming up, but I just wanted
22 this witness to confirm that, that this is the only reason I brought this
23 document up today and I wanted it to be kept with this particular
24 evidence together.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that the timing of it is because
1 the witness testifies about events which at least on the basis of this
2 document could be an event which took place at approximately the same
3 time and at approximately the same place where those who drafted this
4 report observed certain matters.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, if it would be tendered in this
7 context and then it would be a document tendered from the bar table, not
8 because the witness can tell us much about the document itself, although
9 he testified about events which could be, at least by the Prosecution, is
10 related to the events the witness testifies about, would you have
11 objections against it to be tendered from the bar table? And if so, on
12 what basis?
13 MR. MIKULICIC: In that circumstances, Your Honour, I will
14 restrain from any objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Registrar, a number for this
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes exhibit number P766.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P766 is admitted into evidence.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Mr. Registrar, may I call document 3D00-221 [sic], please.
22 Q. Mr. Celic, now, are you aware that the group leaders, did they
23 submit written reports on this incident?
24 A. Yes, I am aware. It was their duty, because it was obviously
25 that there was contact.
1 Q. Who ordered them to submit written reports?
2 A. On the very finishing line, under the orders of Commander Janic,
3 he asked me to do this, and of course, we were all duty-bound to submit
4 the reports. This was regular procedure.
5 Q. And do you know when those reports were submitted?
6 A. No, I don't. But they were requested immediately following the
7 events, so immediately after the operation, or the action, they were
8 requested, and I assume that they were submitted on the same day. Or, in
9 fact, I can say with certainty that it was on the same day.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, we have provided revised
12 translations for this document.
13 Mr. Registrar, if could you could just take -- bring down the
14 English translation, if I could see if this is the previous translation.
15 At the top, we would have the ERN -- top of the document.
16 This is the still the draft translation. We have the revised
17 translations. Because draft translations are not quite accurate. This
18 is the reason that I wanted the --
19 JUDGE ORIE: What did we see on our screen, draft translation or
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We were draft translation on the screens,
22 President, but if we would have checked on e-court the revised
23 translations were uploaded --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I could give the ERN if that would assist,
1 Mr. Registrar. And that would be 06377796, going up to 7797.
2 We will proceed with the draft translation for the time being,
3 Mr. President. I will see why the revised translations cannot be brought
4 up in court.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne, the draft translation looks
6 quite different from the original, isn't it?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is the reason, Mr. President, that --
8 because these are translations provided by the Defence. These are
9 documents we got from the Defence. And we obtained the revised
10 translations well ahead of time. And last night, in fact, on e-court I
11 did see the revised translation, and I don't understand why we can't get
12 it up today in court.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not know who up loaded this. Was it the
14 Markac Defence, I take it from the 3D number.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I see, the original is a two-page
17 handwritten document with at least an author or a name at the bottom of
18 the document, whereas the translation doesn't say anything about --
19 doesn't give a name at the bottom.
20 So, therefore, from a -- it is not only a matter of translation
21 but even a matter of completeness of what apparently this document brings
23 Mr. Mikulicic.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, the documents the Defence is
25 likely decided to be used but the Defence did not use it in the court of
1 the proceeding and we sent for the official translation that document and
2 we didn't receive that translation for the moment.
3 So we simply refrain of usage of this document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'd like to note a I guess a
6 standing objection to this practice by the Prosecution in the future.
7 The purpose of the Defence disclosing document to the Prosecution
8 is that the Prosecution is not surprised if we use a document in
9 cross-examination and they're able to deal with it in cross. I believe
10 that documents that ultimately are not used by the Defence in
11 cross-examination and then taken by the Prosecution as discovery in -- in
12 the case, actually threatens to violate the rule against
13 self-incrimination and the right against self-incrimination under Article
15 The Prosecution cannot, through the defendant, obtain documents
16 that are intended only to prevent prejudice to the Prosecution, flip it
17 on its head and then use those documents in its case in chief when the
18 Defence decides not to use it and I would suggest to Your Honours that if
19 this continues to be a practice by the Prosecution then I ask that we
20 revisit how we the Defence goes about disclosing documents to the
21 Prosecution prior to cross-examination because I think it is a violation
22 of Article 21.
23 Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That is a highly contested issue, Mr. Misetic, as
25 you are certainly aware. To what extent even having to present a
1 pre-trial brief is against the prohibition of -- against the right not to
2 incriminate yourself. That is a --
3 MR. MISETIC: Agreed, Your Honour, but I would --
4 JUDGE ORIE: It is a fundamental issue. I think we could agree
5 on that.
6 MR. MISETIC: There is --
7 JUDGE ORIE: How to resolve that, where the line is to be drawn
8 is a matter to be considered. So, I do understand your objection against
9 this practice.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, there is, of course, a fundamental issue
11 involved in this. Whether the -- your conclusion that it violates the
12 rights of the accused is a right conclusion or not is still to be
13 considered. Of course, the Chamber would prefer the parties to find a
14 solution for it; if not, of course finally the fundamental issue, if
15 again raised by the parties, will be determined by the Chamber.
16 I think, for the time being, this is enough.
17 Now, we are dealing with a document at this moment, which is not
18 there in full translation.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just -- these are
20 documents that the Prosecution has been seeking for years. We have been
21 trying to get these documents and I just wanted to find that out.
22 JUDGE ORIE: From whom?
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: From the Croatian government. We have sent
24 RFAs and we have not received these documents.
25 MR. MISETIC: I would add, Your Honour, then that the Court is
1 seized of a motion regarding outstanding documents and I would ask
2 Ms. Mahindaratne then to tell us in court which of the RFAs that are
3 subject to the motion currently concerning the Republic of Croatia
4 document would relight to, if she has in fact been seeking it for years.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, at this stage I'm not able to
7 identify the exact RFA but certainly at the appropriate time we will do
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would the appropriate time be very soon,
10 Ms. Mahindaratne?
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will hear from you rather soon. Yes?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We have the correct translation now up on the
14 screen, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We have the -- okay. Please proceed.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Mr. Celic, now you have been talking about -- you have been
18 referring to your report on this incident. And is this your report that
19 you submitted in relation to this operation?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Now, who provided you with these details that's included in this
23 A. Group leaders who led the groups.
24 Q. All four group leaders or one particular leader?
25 MR. MIKULICIC: I must object to the question, because, already,
1 the witness stated that there were two group leaders, not four, so
2 it's kind of a suggestion.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless that doesn't make the question
4 admissible, Mr. Mikulicic, because if we could not ask any questions to
5 test the reliability of the document, then of course --
6 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I agree with you in total, but this
7 is not the case. That was a leading question.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You're complaining about leading and not because it
9 is contradicting.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, let me just re-read your question.
11 Yes, it certainly was -- it was leading, to the extent that it
12 suggests that there were four groups and four group leaders,
13 Ms. Mahindaratne --
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll rephrase, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- Which will have to be established. Please
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
18 Q. Mr. Celic, who were the group leaders who reported to you matters
19 which led to you submitting this report? Can you name them?
20 A. I think they were all four group leaders. I assumed that all
21 four of them were.
22 Q. Now, your testimony so far, Mr. Celic, and even yesterday in
23 court was Mr. Drljo's unit was a unit that went through the village
24 Ramljane where the houses on fire, but according to this report, it is
25 not Mr. Drljo's unit that has been gone through but the units of Mr. -- I
1 think you indicate some other areas for Mr. Drljo and you said the first
2 group led by instructor Franjo Drljo and Balunovic covered the axis
3 Kaldrma via Dobrici, and I'm sorry I cannot pronounce the other areas,
4 and it is Mr. Krajina's and Mr. Simic groups that have gone through
6 Now, can you explain to us the discrepancy between your
7 testimony, what you said at the interviews, in Court here, and what is
8 reported here in your report?
9 A. I already said that on the finishing line I described exactly who
10 had which axis. When I issue an order to group leaders at the initial
11 position I also indicate which axis they are on and it is their duty to
12 be on that axis and on the finishing line Drljo said, the leader, he said
13 he went along the axis, his group and the Balunovic group, to the point
14 where the contact was. So I can only say what they said.
15 After the finishing line, and this was a question that the Judge
16 also asked, I cannot talk about what I did not see. I can only say what
17 I saw myself or what they reported to me. For me, the truth at that
18 moment was what they reported to me so if the group leader Franjo Drljo
19 said to me that they had gone through that position, passed through it,
20 then I have to believe that that's how it was. In other words, what he
21 wrote in his report which axis he went along, that's what I then wrote in
22 my report. Because I cannot say at that very moment where exactly he
23 went, when it was in the field. After their reports, I know which axis
24 they went along.
25 Q. Okay. I'm trying to understand your testimony, Mr. Celic,
1 because your testimony is that it was Mr. Drljo's group that went through
2 Ramljane, whereas your report says otherwise, which you now explain, you
3 followed the group -- what the group leaders told you. So are you saying
4 after you submitted this report you found information contrary to what
5 you wrote in your report? Is that what you're saying?
6 A. No. As far as I can recall, the question was about the position
7 where those houses were on fire. Whether this was in Ramljane or Cosici
8 hamlet or some other hamlet I cannot tell you at this point in time but I
9 focussed on the very position where those houses were burning and --
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... let's not waste time. My
11 question was this: You already testified here in Court that the village
12 in which the houses were on fire was Ramljane. Now, in your -- in the
13 course of your interview with the OTP, which is in evidence, you have
14 clearly said that the -- that you in fact identified to Mr. Markac that
15 the unit that went through Ramljane was Mr. Drljo subsequent to which
16 Mr. Markac had an argument with Mr. Drljo.
17 Now, your report says otherwise and you explained that that is
18 because you obtained this information from the group leaders and you just
19 reported it as they told you.
20 So I'm asking you to explain the difference. Are you saying
21 after you submitted this report you found that in fact Mr. Drljo went
22 into Ramljane, are you saying that this report in fact contains
23 inaccurate information? Is that what you're saying? I'm trying to
24 understand your testimony.
25 A. I can answer this question in the following manner.
1 This was a broad line and there were hamlets there. The question
2 was -- the question that Mr. Markac asked of me was with regard to the
3 positions where those houses were burning and at that point I was only
4 able to tell them which axis I had issued or assigned to these various
5 groups, and they reported which axis they kept on. So if it was in
6 Ramljane where the houses were burning then it was there. If it was in
7 some other place, then that is where it was. So I can't tell you exactly
8 precisely at this point whether it was in Ramljane or not. I just went
9 by what the group leaders told me at that point and whether it was the
10 Ramljane village, at this point I can't exactly tell you.
11 What I'm trying to explain is I can only write in the report what
12 was reported to me. In other words, if it was reported to me that these
13 houses were burning in Ramljane hamlet, then that's what I would have
14 written in the report, and if they mentioned that it was in some other
15 place, then that's what I would have written. Whether it was actually at
16 Ramljane or not, I don't know. What I'm just saying is that I wrote
17 exactly what they reported to me.
18 Maybe it was Ramljane indeed or maybe some other hamlet next to
19 it. My reports were exclusively based on the reports of the group
20 leaders, and it is possible that there was some misreported data.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just tender this document
22 into evidence, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections against the admission of
24 this document.
25 Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes exhibit number P767.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P767 is admitted into evidence.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document number
5 3D00-223 and I think that is a Defence 65 ter number, and the document ID
6 06377798, ET.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Let's make the terminology clear here. We don't
10 have a 65 ter list, and that's not a 65 ter number. That's a 3D document
11 that was produced in the anticipation of cross-examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: From the number, Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you're referring to a document
15 uploaded by the Markac Defence on the e-court system and not on your 65
16 ter list.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President, but I was just
18 given specific instructions to say different 65 ter number so that --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And then the document ID. That's why I just
21 used the ter.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- I think it is clear that it is a document
23 uploaded by the Defence.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Mr. Celic, due to lack of time, I'm going to just ask you to just
2 identify these documents.
3 Have you seen this document?
4 A. Yes. This is the report of the group leader.
5 Q. And you see this report prior to today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. When was that?
8 A. Immediately after the action on that day.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move this document into
11 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Mr. Registrar, the
12 number would be.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P768, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P768 is admitted into evidence.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could call Defence document 3D00-225, and
16 the document ID is 06377799.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I hate to interrupt again.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Just along the lines of what Mr. Misetic said I
20 would just like a standing objection to the use of Defence documents that
21 we had listed for cross-examination purposes being used as Prosecution
22 documents, along the lines of Mr. Misetic's argument.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see the point. Again, I repeat, that this
24 is a fundamental issue. From what I under -- I don't know whether we had
25 any questions about that. I remember from other cases that when the
1 parties had problems with this issue that the -- the guidance was that
2 not later than by the end of the examination-in-chief, the Defence should
3 provide the Prosecution with a list of exhibits they intended to use
4 during cross-examination so as to give an opportunity for the Prosecution
5 to orient itself and to prepare itself for further examination of the
7 I have to further explore exactly the technical aspects of
8 uploading and opening, making available to other parties the documents.
9 For example, the Chamber has certainly no access to uploaded documents
10 until they are made available, made accessible to the Chamber. I have to
11 further explore the technical aspects of it, Mr. Misetic and
12 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, if I may, this issue arose first
14 in this case with Mr. Gojanovic. Ms. Mahindaratne had made extensive use
15 in re-direct of documents that I had uploaded but not used, and
16 Mr. Tieger and I had a subsequent conversation on this very topic where
17 no specific agreement was reached. However, I had indicated to
18 Mr. Tieger and I will indicate to the Court that I have resolved that
19 problem by being much more conservative in terms of the number of
20 documents that we actually disclosed to the Prosecution. From the
21 Defence's perspective, in light of Article 21 considerations that we
22 have, if there is a, and I again put it in the Court's hands, but if
23 there's a tension between the document that we might not use being
24 disclosed late to the Prosecution and our initial desire to just give
25 documents to the Prosecution even if we may not ultimately use them, we
1 have decided to be much more conservative in our disclosure to the
2 Prosecution with respect to disclosing only documents that we're concern
3 to use in cross. That's one way we've dealt with the issue.
4 I wanted to note that for the record in case it comes up that we
5 in the future we have to disclose a document late. It is precisely for
6 this reason that we want to avoid disclosing documents that the
7 Prosecution is turning around now and using in its case in chief when we
8 were just trying to be helpful in providing the broadest possible
9 disclosure. We've now cut back on that and are very conservative in what
10 we discussed.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. There's another flip
13 side of this, and you know we get an e-mail in advance notifying us of
14 what documents are going to be used as exhibits. Now, the Prosecution
15 can correct me if I'm wrong but we did not get a notice [inaudible]that
16 these 3D documents would be used in cross-examination if we're -- or in
17 direct examination, and if I'm wrong about that you could let me know,
18 but I don't remember seeing that.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: We have the one. It's in the list. in fact I
20 see Mr. Mikulicic and Mr. Randunic nodding.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the I could add a few problems to this.
22 These documents certainly do not appear on the 65 ter list.
23 Ms. Mahindaratne, at the same time I take it that you would then apply
24 for leave to put them on your 65 ter list given the reason that you only
25 recently discovered the existence of these documents, and even there is
1 another aspect of this, which is even more fundamental. The question of
2 course arises how parties obtain documents. If Ms. Mahindaratne says
3 that these are the kind of documents we're seeking for years, I'm not
4 saying that we find that on the RFA list, but just for the sake of
5 argument if that would be true, and if these documents are obtained from
6 official archives that might result in a situation in which third parties
7 who are under an obligation to assist the Tribunal in its work which
8 includes to assist the parties in their preparation of trial, that there
9 could be decisive influence of such third parties on what material is
10 available to either Prosecution or Defence.
11 I said that I raise the matter for argument's sake. It could be
12 a worrying thought.
13 Mr. Misetic.
14 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, along that line that is precisely
15 why I ask Ms. Mahindaratne to specifically disclose that and as an
16 officer of the Court I also wanted to let you know in response to that
17 that when the issue and the Court had the hearing with specifically here
18 the Republic of Croatia
19 their RFAs to see if we had ever received any document from the Croatian
20 authorities that the Prosecution sought but also did not receive, and as
21 an officer of the Court I can assure you that we did a thorough search
22 and there's not a single document that we were able to obtain that the
23 Prosecution was seeking in its RFAs, and for that reason if there is
24 something with respect to the special police which is something I did not
25 go through, I only looked through the artillery portion of their request,
1 I would ask the Prosecution to produce that because I agree, and I would
2 also add that I would be surprised that given that the Prosecution has
3 been aware of these 3D documents that they're using in court today that
4 this would not have been brought to the attention of the Chamber before,
5 given the nature of the pending motion before the Chamber.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where I earlier said that thinking about these
7 matters, not knowing exactly the factual basis, that could be a worrying
8 thought. At the same time, it's also good to hear that the issue
9 contained in my observations has not escaped the attention of you,
10 Mr. Misetic. That's, therefore, to the contrary, that means that what
11 might worry us might be less worrying because of the attitude of Defence
12 counsel and their perception of their function in this court.
13 I leave it to that at this moment.
14 The Chamber will consider whether it invites the parties to make
15 further submissions on the matter but allows you, at this moment,
16 Ms. Mahindaratne, to proceed.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: If I may add something, maybe as a solution for
18 that very particular procedural situation, could be that documents should
19 be marked as MFI
20 JUDGE ORIE: You would say on the basis of the standing
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Yeah, that's what I had in mind, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that would then start from now on.
24 Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed, and the Chamber will further
25 consider if you want to tender these documents and that is apparently
1 what you wish to do, the Chamber will then further consider whether or
2 not this document will be admitted.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I just -- I'm not
4 sure if the document on the screen has already been -- I move to tender
5 it to have it admitted. I don't know whether it was given a P number.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think this one has not yet a number be assigned to
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. Mr. Celic, I probably did not ask you. Have you seen this
10 document which is on the screen before in front of you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that -- this is one of the group leaders' reports, is it, on
13 the 26th August operation?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When did you see this document?
16 A. I believe that I saw it on that same day too because it was on
17 the basis of their reports that I submitted my report, and it could not
18 have been any other day.
19 In the report you can see specifically how many groups they were
20 divided into, that we had a meeting at the very beginning of the
21 operation and what we drew their attention to --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
23 A. -- in view of the configuration --
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm running out of time. I
25 would be grateful if you could confine your response to my question.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this document
2 into evidence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the objections, we'll have the document
4 marked for identification, and the Chamber will later decide.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number P769,
6 marked for identification.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P769, for the time being, keeps the status of marked
8 for identification.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call Defence document 3D00-235, please,
10 and that's document ID 06377800.
11 Q. Mr. Celic, while the English translation comes up, if you could
12 tell Court, have you seen this document before?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that the report submitted by Mr. Branko Bulanovic, on the 26th
15 August operation?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. When did you see this?
18 A. I believe that it was on the 26th, like all other documents.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move this into
21 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there is an similar objection.
22 Therefore, this document will be MFI
23 Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes exhibit number P770,
25 marked for identification.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P770 is admitted into evidence.
2 Please proceed.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call Defence document
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I misspoke. P770 keeps the status of a
6 document marked for identification, and I apologise.
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Defence document 3D00-230, please, and, I'm
9 sorry, the document ID 06377801.
10 Q. Mr. Celic, could you please identify this document. Have you
11 seen this document before?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And is that the report submitted by the group leader,
14 Mr. Krajina, on -- on the 26th August operation?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When did you see this document?
17 A. Like the others.
18 Q. That is when, you say, on the 26th August itself?
19 A. Yes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this document
21 into evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that on the same objection that we
23 will not decide at this moment.
24 Mr. Registrar, MFI
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number P771,
1 marked for identification.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and it keeps that status for the time being.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I note the time. I will take
5 only about three more minutes and conclude.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Three minutes would just keep you within the
7 original schedule, Ms. Mahindaratne. Please proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Registrar, may
9 I call document P606, please.
10 Q. Mr. Celic, when you were interviewed you used the Lucko Unit war
11 path document, that is the war log or the operation log, extensively in
12 providing details to the investigators. Did you not?
13 A. Yes, I did use it.
14 Q. And you informed the investigators that the war path record is in
15 fact based on underlying reports submitted by unit commanders and
16 Mr. Turkalj had compiled this report would have used your reports for
17 25th and 26th August operations in compiling the war path document?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, for the record, that evidence is at the
19 2005 transcripts. That is P761, part 1, page 79.
20 Mr. President, I'm not going into that so I did not take the time
21 to note down the file page. I just wanted to leave that in the record.
22 Q. Did you -- do you recall saying that?
23 A. Yes, of course. However, I would like to correct this. These
24 are not reports of unit commanders but it is the reports of the group
25 leaders within the unit to the commander of the unit, so it is not other
1 units. It is one unit. When any task is being carried out into the
2 field, the leader can be the leader or the assistant commander, whereas
3 you said unit leaders. But that is not the case. It all takes place
4 within one unit.
5 Q. Certainly, okay.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could go to the English
7 translation, page 10, and B/C/S page 95.
8 Q. Now, in this war path, Mr. Celic, there's a record of the 25th
9 operation but not the 26th operation. Your reports that we just looked
10 at on the 26th operation has not been included.
11 Can you explain why Mr. Turkalj would not have taken on board
12 your report on the 26th August operation?
13 A. I cannot say to you why that is not in the war path document
14 itself. My duty was to write a report and to submit it. The unit
15 commander compiled this war path. Perhaps this was an omission; I don't
16 know. But I guess it would be best for you to ask him. I personally did
17 not compile the war path document but I did submit a report on the
18 operation that was carried out. I believe that that was an omission.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you said three minutes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, if I could just have one
21 minute. I just need to tender two documents. I just forgot that, Mr.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg your pardon.
25 Q. Mr. Celic, you provided a statement or you were interviewed by
1 the Croatian Ministry of Interior officials about the Grubori incident
2 on -- in 2001 and 2004, is it not?
3 A. Yes, twice. I cannot recall the exact date. Once it was 2001
4 and the other time it was 2004. In relation to the war path, if you
5 allow me just one more piece of information. You asked me why the 26th
6 was not recorded as an event. Obviously this is an omission. However,
7 here, here, in the third paragraph from the bottom, you have a sentence
8 saying the unit command consisted of assistant commander Josip Celic,
9 Stjepan Zinic, Bozo Krajina, et cetera, et cetera, so I said at that
10 point in time it wasn't Stjepan Zinic and Bozo Krajina who were assistant
11 commanders. They turned into assistant commanders only later. Obviously
12 there was a mistake so I believe that this led to the error in relation
13 to that document so I believe that it is possible to make a mistake.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I call two documents,
15 please, one after the other. 3169, 65 ter number 3169.
16 Q. And, Mr. Celic, I really have -- don't have any further time. If
17 you could quickly look at this document and confirm if this is indeed a
18 note of your interview with the MUP, Croatian MUP in 2001? And please
19 try to keep whatever you have to say as brief as possible.
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I understand the need for timing
21 but to limit the witness's ability to answer the question to the best
22 extent of his own ability I think is extremely unfair.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: My question was simple, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The first question was whether this is an Official
25 Note which refers to his interview. Let's first hear the answer. If the
1 answer would be no, for example, then your objection would not have --
2 make any sense, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
3 Mr. Mikulicic.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, we had already discussions about the
5 document such like is on the screen right now. This is not a statement
6 of the person. This is a note. So maybe the fair question would be
7 whether the witness has ever seen this document.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I know the answer to that
9 question. This is an official document we have got from Croatia
10 that's why I asked the witness if this is in fact an accurate note of his
12 JUDGE ORIE: But then of course he should have an opportunity to
13 read it, isn't it, Ms. Mahindaratne.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is the minimal fairness requirement.
16 I suggest the following, that, Mr. Celic, there are apparently
17 two Official Notes about interviews and you already testified that you
18 gave interviews.
19 Have you ever any Official Note in which reference was made to
20 your statements?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. And I would like to say that I
22 did not enter the archives and I haven't seen this document until now.
23 However, I did carry out this conversation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I would suggest that we give the original
25 B/C/S versions to the witness and give him, first of all, an opportunity
1 during the next break to read them, and then we will hear from the
2 witness whether he has any comment on the way in which his interview was
3 put on paper in this Official Note. And, meanwhile, we'll have it marked
4 for identification. That would be an appropriate way of proceeding.
5 I am, at this moment, checking. The one I see, is this one, is
6 four pages in English and --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's two pages -- just one page in B/C/S,
8 Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I've got three pages of the document but -- in
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. You're probably
12 right. I'm sorry. I was looking at --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What you see on your screen is always one
14 page. If you --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, I looked at the top, though, it says one
16 of one. That's why I was --
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I'm saying. Whatever appears on our
18 screen is always just that one page. If you would click on the original
19 document then you can check how many pages the whole of the document is.
20 I suggest -- any objections against the proposed way of
21 proceeding. I do not --
22 Mr. Celic, could you, during the break, read this Official Note
23 and the other one, I take it, Ms. Mahindaratne, will now ask to be put on
24 the screen, and if there are any inaccuracies either in the way in which
25 your answers or your words are reflected in the document or inaccuracies,
1 because you said although I said it at the time, it is not an accurate
2 reflection of what really happened, could you please then, after the
3 break inform us about that.
4 Ms. Mahindaratne, this first Official Note will be,
5 Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number P772,
7 marked for identification.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P772 keeps the status of MFI for the time being.
9 The next document, Ms. Mahindaratne, and I take it that will be
10 the last thing you --
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. 65 ter 3047.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, this would be number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be exhibit number P773,
14 marked for identification.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And it keeps that status.
16 Mr. Celic, you'll get another shorter document, and I'd like to
17 invite you to do the some exercise as with the other one just given to
18 you. I think it would be a good idea, Ms. Mahindaratne --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That concludes examination-in-chief,
20 Mr. President, thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, before the break if I could
23 inform Court the RFA number, the request for assistance that Mr. Misetic
24 wanted is RFA number 546 tendered in year 2003. We have requested for
25 this document by that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have hard copy of that RFA? I take it
2 that there will be no objection against the Chamber looking at the RFA.
3 Do you have a hard copy for us.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will have to provided during the
5 practically, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much. Before --
7 Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Is that the only RFA, counsel, or are there
9 others, just so we can --
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is the only number I have at this moment.
11 I would presume that is the only RFA, yes.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If there are any others I take it that you will come
14 up with them.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will do so, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Before we have a break, I would have one question seeking
18 clarification of some of your answers, Mr. Celic. And since the
19 transcript of yesterday has been replaced by now, I have to find it
21 Mr. Celic, you explained yesterday how the group leaders and you
22 were called to -- to write a new report. You remember the report --
23 reports which were typed out by the secretary and where Mr. Drljo did not
24 appear to write a report.
25 Now, it was -- yes, you said: "Mr. Drljo was called in when we
1 were all in Zagreb
2 And you even referred, I think, to a conversation with Mr. Drljo.
3 Now, could you tell us, where were you when you were called in to
4 write the report when you were in Zagreb
5 homes; were you together in barracks? Where were you?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the way it was. This is
7 the answer to the first part that you read out.
8 Franjo Drljo that he did not come. It was probably misrecorded.
9 Franjo Drljo did come and he did attend that meeting. He was present but
10 he did not write a report. He did come to the meeting, he was present.
11 As for the date, as far as I can remember, if the order was on the 1st of
12 September it is possible that I was in the unit. It is possible that I
13 had a day off, but that could best be seen -- well, I'm not sure. I'm
14 not sure. I cannot say for sure whether I was at headquarters of the
15 unit or whether I was off. I cannot recall.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So when you came to write this report, possibly on
17 the 1st of September, you said Mr. Drljo was called actually was there.
18 Is that well understood?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, he was called to write a report, and he did not
21 write a report, from what I understand. Did you address him; did he give
22 any reasons why he did not want to write a report? Could you further
23 explain that to us?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not convene the meeting. It
25 was Mr. Turkalj, the commander of the unit, who did. We did not know
1 what the meeting would be. I didn't know, the others didn't know either.
2 Commander Turkalj told all of us to write reports. After his order I did
3 have this report, I went to my office, I took the office, I went to the
4 secretary, so I can say that after that, Drljo did not hand over that
5 report. Whether he talked to the commander one on one, I don't know.
6 Perhaps it would be best if you asked him, because he certainly had to
7 tell him why he did not hand in a report but he left after the meeting,
8 and I didn't see him after that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you say you didn't see him after that. You
10 never saw him again?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I mean on that day, at
12 that moment, when we had written the report, after the meeting was over.
13 We all have our respective offices and everyone went to his own office
14 and it was our duty to submit this. I saw him at the meeting and I
15 didn't see him after that but then of course I did see him afterwards.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you ever discuss why he did not write a
17 report at that day?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't talk about that. Since
19 we had this official relationship we did not talk about that. He was
20 duty-bound to tell the commander why he didn't do that, but I think it is
21 best for you to ask the commander.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
23 We'll have a break, and we will resume at five minutes to 11.00.
24 And we'd like to hear from you then, Mr. Celic, on these interviews.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm addressing all Defence counsel but, first of
4 all, you, Mr. Misetic, because you were very explicit in the issue of
5 when the Prosecution sent any RFA to seek the documents, as we've seen
6 them on the screen.
7 Page 2 of an RFA dated the 22nd of November, 2003, the eighth
8 bullet point mentions a category where you apparently thought the
9 documents shown to us by Ms. Mahindaratne would not be covered by that
10 category since you said you reviewed everything.
11 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if he could clarify, we do not have a
12 copy of that RFA, I believe, if you're talking about the 2003 RFA.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We were provided with it during the break. It never
14 came to my mind -- oh, you didn't have it at the time.
15 MR. MISETIC: No, we don't and -- now and we still -- we never
16 have had a copy of the RFA and part of the point I wanted to raise --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Not even during the break?
18 MR. MISETIC: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, that's --
20 MR. MISETIC: Unless it was e-mailed, but I don't think.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I was under the impression it had been given
22 but if there has been a misunderstanding, let me give me copy to
23 Mr. Misetic right now.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps we focus first on that bullet point I
25 identified and I could just read it into the transcript. It's just three
2 The request addresses the authorities of the Republic of Croatia
3 and among a lot of other documents one of the categories is all "reports
4 on completion of tasks" ([B/C/S spoken]) completed within RH MUP, sector
5 special police headquarters at the forward command post, Gracac, during
6 the period 4th of August, 1995, until its closure.
7 From what I remember, Ms. Mahindaratne, at the top left corner it
8 was always Gracac which was specifically indicated.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes, but I think there may be a misunderstanding
10 here, Your Honour. That RFA that you have in front of you now is from
11 2003 and I have discussed with Ms. Mahindaratne during the break. I
12 forget the number now. It is 546, is not specifically subject to the
13 request for a binding order to the Republic of Croatia
14 never been appended to that motion because it is not subject to the
15 motion pending before the Chamber. We have had a further discussion and
16 there is a category from what I understand from Ms. Mahindaratne of a
17 document request within -- within the RFA that is subject to the special
18 police documents and subject to the binding order request, and the
19 category of documents requests documents that were submitted to
20 Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic.
21 So again in further consultation with Ms. Mahindaratne during the
22 break the documents themselves on their face that were presented in court
23 today are not addressed to Mr. Sacic or Mr. Markac --
24 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let's then try to take matters step by step.
25 MR. MISETIC: But I --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is there an obligation even without a Court order to
2 assist the Prosecution if they send a RFA under Rule 29 of the Statute?
3 MR. MISETIC: Even if -- I'm sorry.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I also just --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Article 29 --
6 MR. MISETIC: If they send it --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- paragraph 2 says: "States shall comply without
8 undue delay with any request for assistance, or, an order issued by a
9 Trial Chamber."
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm looking at the transcript. If
11 you're asking me whether there is an obligation to assist the Prosecution
12 if they send and RFA under Rule 29, obviously generally the answer is
13 yes. But --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. By an RFA the Croatian government apparently
15 was requested to send a category of reports as I just read to you
16 which -- but we'll give Ms. Mahindaratne an opportunity to respond.
17 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, may I add --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Which you say was not part of a later application
19 for a binding order.
20 MR. MISETIC: Yes, and if I can make two points, Your Honour.
21 One, I just wish to clarify what I stated as an officer of the
22 Court related to the artillery documents that we had reviewed. Obviously
23 I think the Court is probably generally aware that we do not submit
24 requests to the Croatian government concerning the special police and
25 therefore I did not review that portion of their binding order request.
1 The second point is that, as I understand it, and again I have
2 some experience with this, the parties, and I will speak for us, we
3 obviously are in continual discussions with the Croatian government and
4 if in the course of years we drop a subject as no longer being an issue
5 or subject to an ongoing request from us, we narrow down whatever the
6 outstanding issues are between us, we work to resolve them, and that's
7 how issues are resolved. So I understand Your Honours' point. However,
8 I would add that as a practical matter working with from our side the
9 Croatian authorities I know that there is no specific person who is
10 actually continuously analysing documents and reviewing them from RFAs
11 from years back whether, I will speak for the Defence, reviewing our RFAs
12 from years back, they ask us if they've complied, we say yes or no. If
13 it is no, we continue on the search and that's how the process works.
14 Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's practical information.
16 Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, in fact, I just wanted to add
18 that Mr. Kuzmanovic asked if there were other RFAs apart from 546. Yes,
19 there is -- there are two others. In fact, 546 B which was sent in 2004.
20 That was in fact a follow-up RFA asking them because simply because the
21 previous RFA had not been complied with.
22 And then in 2007 we submitted RFA 739 which in fact was subject
23 to the binding order and there we specifically asked for reports that
24 were sent to Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic. Now, Mr. Markac -- there is a
25 report tendered -- submitted by Mr. Markac on this operation, 26th
1 operation which is in evidence so obviously these are reports that are
2 sent to either Mr. Sacic or Mr. Markac.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Addressed to or apparently sent to might not
4 be exactly the same, Ms. Mahindaratne. But let's -- let's -- let's not,
5 at this moment, go in further detail.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. Just to point out that I
7 will not go back into that. But before sending 739, our analyst went
8 down to Croatia
9 reports were never found.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Which then of course raises another issue. This
11 report, at their first appearance look as these are reports that were
12 internally sent to the higher-up level - I keep it as general as possible
13 - which you would expect to finally end in archives. Of course, since
14 what Ms. Mahindaratne tells us, these documents were asked, there was a
15 repeated request, she tells us, same category.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I have a copy here if the
17 Bench would --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that we can -- if there's any need to
19 verify that that you will make it available.
20 Now, apparently these reports were not received by the
21 Prosecution, apart from what follow-up was given to that. Of course,
22 this raises another question, that is how these reports - I don't know
23 whether these were originals. I take it that these were copies - ended
24 up in the hands of whatever Defence team. It appears that Defence team 3
25 put them on e-court.
1 Mr. Mikulicic, Mr. Kuzmanovic, can you inform us on how you
2 obtained possession of these documents.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, in this particular moment, I'm not
4 able to tell you the exact detail how the Defence obtained those
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- very general question.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Very general, I could say that when I took the
8 position of the lead counsel in this case from Mr. Saparovic I have been
9 given the old database that Mr. Saparovic had been collecting during his
10 representation of Mr. Markac. So all these documents that were in the
11 database were transferred to me. So I must make an investigation through
12 Mr. Saparovic what is the source of these documents.
13 But in fact, I would like to add that none of these documents
14 were addressed neither to Mr. Sacic or Mr. Markac.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But that is a different matter.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm focussing at this moment on the --
18 MR. MIKULICIC: On the source.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- category 8, bullet point, page 2 of 546, where at
20 least as far as I understand the nature of the documents and the nature
21 of the category of documents that was asked for that they might well fall
22 within that category.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: I -- if I could assist Your Honour.
24 I don't believe that those type of documents that has been
25 produced by the lower level of the -- of the command and as you -- as you
1 address, that these were directed to the upper level. I don't believe
2 that those types of documents were ever archived.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm not so sure so I will make --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Found somewhere on an attic or -- then of course if
6 there were not archived, then to have the whole series there is -- it
7 comes to say the least as a surprise.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: I could remind Your Honours on Mr. Janic
9 testimony where that type of documents has been produced through
10 Mr. Janic who gave us this document and that was his written report which
11 simply after the submitting to the higher level of command --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not -- let's not further speculate on the
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider what further instructions
16 will be given, as far as revealing the source of these documents.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I would at this time just ask for 546 and 546 B
20 because we don't have those. We do have obviously the 739 which is part
21 of the binding order, but that would probably help us too.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I just received a note that
25 generally as practice we don't hand over our request for assistance to
1 the Defence and we don't copy the Defence, but the matter is being
2 discussed here in court and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: This of course also -- there's an issue there as
6 well, which comes close to the other issue you raised earlier this
7 morning because there is an extensive duty for the Prosecution to
8 disclose but whether that would include RFAs which may reveal the
9 strategical and tactical aspects of the Prosecution's --
10 MR. MISETIC: Well, this is -- I find that ironic because this is
11 the exact point I made at the hearing with Croatia, which was they
12 tendered as document purporting to be from the Defense seeking
13 information which they said free to put in the public domain and then
14 their RFAs are of course confidential, which is precisely the inequity
15 that I wanted to avoid and I had argued for the role that these types of
16 things should be kept confidential and covered by Rule 70. Thank you,
17 Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: On the flip side of that is, you know, we're
20 asked about the documents that supposedly aren't produced and we can't
21 know what category of documents are by providing us with the RFA which we
22 had never received and wasn't directed to us so ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the focus is not at this moment on
24 blaming Defence teams on the matter but rather to find a solution in a
25 rather complex procedural situation where both the right not to
1 incriminate yourself plays a part, where a duty to assist all parties in
2 the preparation of their case plays a role. Usually when I say that the
3 Chamber will further consider whether and what instructions to give to
4 the parties or perhaps to invite them to make further submissions on the
5 matter, that is when I find the issue complex enough not to immediately
6 deal with it and give it some more thought.
7 I leave it to that, for the time being.
8 Could the witness be brought into the courtroom again.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Very practically, Mr. Mikulicic, or Mr. Kuzmanovic,
10 you will be the first Defence team.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: I will be the first, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.
13 Mr. Cayley.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Judge Orie. Just to allow you to plan
15 the day, Judge, I think I am going to be longer than I said yesterday. I
16 anticipate that I will be an hour and a half, two hours, perhaps less.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, to the extent possible, of course, the Chamber
18 would prefer that we could conclude the testimony of this witness today.
19 But, at the same time, I see the importance of the matters raised with
20 this witness.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Another matter is whether there would be any time
23 during this day where we could perhaps conclude this afternoon. I don't
24 know whether this would cause you major problems.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Maybe that will solve the problem, Your Honour.
1 I will be a little bit shorter than I was expected. So I use, let's say,
2 30 to 40 minutes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That gives, at least, another expectation. Parties
4 are encouraged to see what they can do to finish in the morning hours,
5 early afternoon hours if, at the same time, I will ask whether there is
6 any possibility to extend the hearing for limited time this afternoon.
7 Let's then use our time as efficiently as possible.
8 MR. CAYLEY: I'm obliged Your Honour. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, you may proceed.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, but could we first resolve the
11 subject of the Official Note that the witness --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, yes. I should have asked the
14 Could you, Mr. Cepic, tell us or give an answer to the two
15 questions, the first, whether the Official Note reflects what you said;
16 and, second, whether what you said, with today's knowledge, reflects what
17 happened and what you observed.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It reflects them. The
19 conversations that we had were conducted as it's written here, but it is
20 true that had I had more precise information then, as compared to today,
21 what I said today is more correct. But there are some minor errors, but,
22 generally speaking this reflect what I said then.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you point at the minor errors. Could you tell
24 us what these minor errors were.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, if we may, could we get that on the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, I'm looking for the --
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's P772 MFI and P773 MFI.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can't have them both on the screen but you
5 know how to manipulate the e-court system.
6 Could you tell us where the -- and we start with P772.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first portion, I think, is not
8 relevant, but in the first paragraph up here where my information is
9 given, and where my official position was given, the commander and
10 assistant commander -- there is no distinction between the two. I could
11 not have said that I was Deputy Commander because that's not what I was
12 then. But I don't think this is really important in this whole context.
13 In -- on the bottom of page 1, it says that no superior officer
14 said either in writing or orally -- I apologise. So at the end of page
15 1, where this underlined portion is --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated] Yes. Please proceed,
17 Mr. Celic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So, at the end -- at the end of
19 page 1, bottom of page 1, at the very end, the underlined portion it says
20 that none of the superiors reported either orally or in writing that
21 there had been any specific information of any Chetnik terrorist groups
22 remaining in this area. In other words, I could say just as I have said
23 here, that there was some -- there was a security assessment that there
24 was such a group. But here it seems as if there hadn't been such a
1 At that time, I received an order that -- from my commander
2 that -- to the effect that there may be such a group in the area. So
3 that's exactly what I said.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you tell us, you said "at the time," I
5 take it that you refer to the time that you gave that statement you were
6 not fully informed. What information did you receive since that day when
7 you gave this statement which makes you correct your -- the content of
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here that no one had
10 informed me either in writing or orally that they had correct
12 I recall that I said then that we had a meeting with Commander
13 Janic, so I couldn't have missed that, that there was such a possibility.
14 But here it is stated that no one told me so, which is not true. I did
15 say that I had that meeting and that I was told this and it was possible.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please point at other inaccuracies.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is all.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the second statement, the short one.
19 Could that be on the screen, P773.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for this second Official Note, I
21 don't know if this is a spelling error or not, but in the fourth
22 paragraph it is stated as follows: "He can only add that he was
23 interviewed by ICTY investigators in April 2004."
24 But, in fact, the interviews were not in 2004; they were in 2002
25 and 2005. So I believe this was a printing error.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that clarification.
2 Nothing else?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's all.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Celic, you will now be cross-examined by
5 Mr. Mikulicic, who is counsel for Mr. Markac.
6 And thank you, Mr. Mikulicic, for reminding me that we first had
7 to do this exercise. Please proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just -- it was marked for
9 identification until this exercise was carried out. May the two
10 documents be admitted into evidence?
11 MR. MIKULICIC: I have no objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections, P772 and P773 are
13 admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Celic.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. Mr. Celic, at the start I would just like to explain the
19 following. You understand, of course, that as Defence counsel for
20 General Markac I am primarily interested in his role with -- in relation
21 to the incidents in Grubori and in the Ramljane area, and, therefore, I
22 will have several questions about this topic.
23 Let us begin with your arrival at the headquarters of the special
24 police in Gracac.
25 Tell us, please, who issued you a specific task to mop up the
1 area of Plavno-Grubori?
2 A. The specific assignment was issued by the chief of section for
3 anti-terrorist activities, Mr. Janic.
4 Q. You told us that in the absence of the unit commander --
5 Lucko Unit commander, you were assigned to be the operative commander of
6 the units on -- in the field.
7 A. That's correct. Because the commander had other roles.
8 Q. When you talked to Mr. Janic, when he assigned this particular
9 task to you, was Mr. Markac present when you were issued this task?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever get any orders, instructions, from Mr. Markac that
12 related to the caring out of this task?
13 A. No. There was a very strict chain of command, and my superior
14 commander at that time was Zdravko Janic.
15 Q. Once the mop-up operation was completed, you told us that you
16 submitted the report to Mr. Janic?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And Mr. Janic forwarded or submitted his report to the
19 headquarters -- to the staff -- Chief of Staff, Mr. --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not get the name.
21 A. That's correct. On orders from Mr. Janic I addressed my report
22 to the headquarters but I submitted it or I gave it to him.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. And the Chief of Staff in this operation was Mr. Sacic. Correct?
25 A. I think so.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: For the Trial Chamber, and for the record,
2 Exhibit P560 is Mr. Janic's report on the mopping up operation for the
3 28th [as interpreted] which was sent to Mr. Zeljko Sacic, the chief of
4 this department.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I think there is a correction to be made.
6 It's for the 25th, I think it is not 28th.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: No. I said 25th, maybe it was due to --
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I realize it's a -- yeah.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Yeah, thank you.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Celic, once the search was completed on the
11 25th, have you, at any point, informed or discussed the results of the
12 mop-up operation and the events in general with General Markac?
13 A. On the 25th, no; nor did I see him on the 25th.
14 Q. On the next day, on the 26th of August, 1995, you said that
15 Mr. Janic invite the you to come to the headquarters in Gracac.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And that you saw Mr. Markac -- General Markac, Mr. Sacic, and
18 Mr. Pavlovic in an office or a room there.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. In this office, Mr. Sacic told you that the day before, on the
21 25th, in other words, during the search of the terrain an incident had
22 occurred. Do you recall that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Did Mr. Sacic tell you at this point what kind of incident this
1 A. He did not. He just said that there was a -- that there had been
2 an incident and that I said that nothing had happened, and he asked me
3 whether I knew anything about this.
4 Q. Did Mr. Markac have any questions in this regard that he
5 addressed to you at that point?
6 A. As I recall it, when I came into this room, I greeted General
7 Markac and Mr. Pavlovic. We exchanged greetings, and I think he asked me
8 whether I knew why I was summoned there. I think that's all that he
9 asked me. And as for the conversation about the events itself, the
10 incident, this conversation was with Mr. Sacic alone.
11 Q. You explained to us that following this, you went to another
12 room, where you were with Mr. Sacic, and this is where the second report
13 was created, is that correct, that you submitted?
14 A. Yes. I would just like to add something, because in your
15 questioning so far - and perhaps there was an error in interpretation -
16 but the question was whether I had been taken there, but I stress that I
17 had not been taken there, that I went there on my own, with Mr. Sacic.
18 Q. That was my understanding too.
19 So after the second report was drafted, you said that you had
20 left -- you left it with Mr. Sacic. Is that correct?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Upon your return to Zagreb
23 Mr. Turkalj, requested, as you described, that you and other group
24 leaders submit their reports. I will now show you a document and ask you
25 whether you have ever seen it before.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] For the registrar, this is 65 ter
2 03417. Could we please pull it up on the screens.
3 Q. Mr. Celic, this is a document which was issued by the commander
4 of the anti-terrorist unit, Mr. Josip Turkalj, on the 20th of September,
5 1995. It was addressed to the special police sector, to the chief
6 personally, and we said this was Mr. Sacic; correct? And this document
7 states that reports are being forwarded, reports by commanders, Mr. Josip
8 Celic and instructors, regarding the mopping of the terrain. And it is
9 also stated that Mr. Drljo did not submit a report.
10 Mr. Celic, have you ever seen this document before?
11 A. I cannot say for sure whether I have seen it or not, but
12 everything that is stated therein is familiar.
13 Q. In view of the procedure of submitting documents, was it
14 customary at the time for the commander of the Lucko Unit to be submitted
15 to the head of the special police?
16 A. Well, that was the only possibility. According to the chain of
17 command, he only could submit his reports to him.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could this please be given an
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, this is already an exhibit,
22 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm sorry, sorry. I'm aware of it. My mistake.
23 Q. [Interpretation] So after you carried out this procedure that you
24 described to us in detail, and I don't want to go into it anymore, I'm
25 going to ask you the following. Did you ever talk to Mr. Markac about
1 the incident in the village of Grubori
2 A. As for the meetings themselves, I can say that I hardly ever saw
3 him. Even when I did see him, we never discussed this incident.
4 Q. Let us move on through time now. From Mr. Turkalj you receive
5 orders to go back to Gracac together with him and Mr. Balunovic in order
6 to go to the scene in Grubori. That's what you wrote, right?
7 A. Exactly.
8 Q. You went to Grubori and after that -- or before that, you were in
9 Knin as well, right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On that day, during your visit to Grubori, or, during your stay
12 in Knin, did you see Mr. Markac?
13 A. I did not. However, I wish to note that when arriving -- well,
14 we first arrived Gracac. We were supposed to report to Mr. Sacic, I
15 Mr. Balunovic and Commander Turkalj to report to Mr. Sacic. After that,
16 we went to the actual scene and to Knin, but not at any point in time did
17 I see Mr. Markac.
18 Q. And did you see Mr. Sacic?
19 A. Of course.
20 Q. In your previous statements you said that at that point in time
21 when you met up in Knin after Grubori, it became clear to you that the
22 police, and you're referring to the civilian police, had already been
23 made aware of the incident, right?
24 A. Well, as far as I know, out of all the people who were there,
25 well, there were persons from the army but there were also persons from
1 the civilian police too.
2 Q. Later on, you know that a police investigation was carried out in
3 relation to the incident in Grubori, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. After all, as you said, you yourself were questioned by the
6 police twice with regard to that incident?
7 A. Exactly. That has to do with the documents that I have just
9 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask for document
10 00605, please.
11 Q. Mr. Celic, this is a document of the head of the department of
12 the crime police, Mr. Sedlar, from the crime police department and the
13 Sibenik-Knin police administration. It was sent towards the end of 2001
14 to the public prosecutor in Sibenik.
15 Mr. Janic [as interpreted], after you take a brief look at this
16 document, would you agree with me that this document shows that the crime
17 police department in Sibenik was involved in the investigation related to
18 the incident in Grubori and is informing the public prosecutor thereof?
19 A. Exactly.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could this document please be
21 assigned a number.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number D738.
25 JUDGE ORIE: D738 is admitted into evidence.
1 Could I ask that if documents are shown on the screen and not yet
2 replaced by other documents, that they remain on the screen so that we
3 could use the time also to -- to cast another eye on it.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Likewise, I wish to refer to
5 document P624, that was also sent to the public prosecutor in Sibenik,
6 also by the chief of the crime police in relation to the investigation
7 regarding the incident in Grubori. This document has already been
8 admitted into evidence but I'm just referring to it now.
9 Q. Mr. Celic, in view of the fact that you knew that the crime
10 police was involved in an investigation concerning the incident in
11 Grubori, can you say that this is a generally known fact within the
12 special police?
13 A. Well, it was a known fact that an investigation was under way and
14 no one else could have been involved it but the crime police.
15 Q. That was supposed to be my next question, Mr. Janic [as
16 interpreted], so now I'm going to ask you the following. The special
17 police, as an institutional organisation within the Ministry of the
18 Interior, did it have the authority or the logistics to be in charge of
19 crime investigations regarding certain incidents?
20 A. Absolutely not. We could only establish facts on the ground.
21 But as for investigations the special police was never involved in that
22 kind of thing.
23 Q. A hypothetical question but based on your experience, if a member
24 of the special police would commit a crime, then, obviously, the crime
25 police would carry out the investigation. Isn't that right? As we've
1 just seen?
2 A. Exactly.
3 Q. When, or if it were established that a member of the special
4 police had indeed committed a crime, then the crime police would inform
5 the top echelons of the special police about that, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And then the commander of the mentioned unit would take
8 disciplinary measures towards the said member. Is that right?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If it is established that a
11 member of the special police committed a crime, then disciplinary
12 proceedings would be carried out against the person within the special
13 police on the basis of the results of the investigation of the crime
14 police investigation.
15 A. Precisely. If it has to do with a less serious disciplinary
16 infraction then we have on the basis of law proceedings within a
17 disciplinary court. However, if it has to it with serious crimes it is
18 taken to a higher instance.
19 Q. However, within the civilian judiciary of the Republic of
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Mr. Celic, this morning there were references to the action or
23 operation in Ramljane. I wish to show you a map that we received from
24 the OTP just in order to have certain things demonstrated. I used a
25 green highlighter to mark the area of Ramljane. So could we please have
1 it on our screens. It has not been uploaded in e-court yet. However,
2 the procedure is under way, in agreement with the OTP.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we have trouble hearing the
4 speakers because too many microphones are on. Thank you.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation.
6 Q. While we're waiting for the map, I'm going to ask you for your
7 assistance, Mr. Celic.
8 When looking at the map we're going to try to define the area
9 where the operation on the 26th of August took place.
10 You see the green highlighted area. It is called Ramljane.
11 Perhaps it's better if you have a look at the map on your left. You will
12 be able to see it better, but please don't touch it. Around this area
13 that was marked as Ramljane, there are the names of different hamlets.
14 Can you see that, Vokovici and others?
15 A. I see that.
16 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Celic, that in actual fact the area of
17 Ramljane is a broader area within which there are a few other hamlets
19 A. That can be seen exactly on the basis of this map and that is
20 exactly what I wanted to explain in response to previous questions.
21 Q. You can explain it to us now, if the map has jogged your memory.
22 A. When we get a certain area to search, well, it is evident here
23 that it is a broad area. At first we reach agreement with the group as
24 to how the search could be carried out in the best possible way.
25 However, in view of the situation on the ground there are changes. The
1 situation itself -- or rather we adjust to the situation. As for the
2 question which group went through which area exactly, I can know the
3 answer to that only once the operation is over when the group leaders can
4 tell me we went through this village or that village or perhaps three
5 groups entered one village, perhaps one group or perhaps half a group,
6 but it is it evident that this entire area is Ramljane.
7 Q. Two questions in relation to that.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Previous translation continues] ... may I
9 just find out as to if I could be informed as to who made the markings.
10 Is it done by Defence team or ...
11 MR. MIKULICIC: The red markings were already on the map when I
12 received it from your fine office, Ms. Mahindaratne, and the green
13 markings were made by myself.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to put two questions to
16 you in this regard.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The red markings, is this the map which was produced
18 by --
19 MR. MIKULICIC: For demonstrative purposes only, as I was
20 instructed by the Prosecutor Office.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm not familiar with these markings.
22 Certainly it as not as I see, it is not admitted exhibit.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: It's not.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It is not so --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm not comparing --
2 JUDGE ORIE: We ignore the red markings and we'll focus on the
3 green or yellow ones.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm not referring on the red markings at the
5 moment, Your Honour.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I think if, just for clarification,
7 this map I believe was produced through or was given to us which was a
8 map from Mr. Berikoff.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is what was on my mind as well.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, that he, as a matter of fact used this map to say how
11 he toured the area. Is that -- and that are the markings which might
12 come from one of your own witnesses.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry about that, Mr. President. I was
14 just wondering what the relevance of the markings were.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Celic, just two questions with regard to this particular
19 topic, the configuration of the terrain.
20 In an oral report, or if a -- in a written report if there is
21 general reference to the village of Ramljane
22 people actually mean a broader area rather than a very specific position
23 where there are 10, 20, or 15 houses?
24 A. Exactly. That is precisely what I wanted to explain a few
25 minutes ago, or we're Plavno valley, it is a broader area.
1 Q. Another question in this regard, Mr. Celic. You said to us that
2 groups were established that were moving within the terrain but then it
3 depended on the configuration of the terrain, this varied. On the basis
4 of your own experience did you have a situation in which individual
5 members of groups could mingle because of the configuration of the
7 A. Yes, yes. They could even all be moving in a single column along
8 a single road if the area is inaccessible.
9 Q. Thank you. I'm no longer in a position to put questions in
10 relation to this map.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] If Your Honours have no
12 questions, then we can have it removed from the ELMO.
13 Q. Mr. Celic, now we are dealing with the 26th of August, 1995
14 You were given a task on the basis of the same principle that was
15 involved in the case of Grubori, right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. However, the Trial Chamber is already aware that on that day on
18 the railroad between Zagreb
19 Knin. Do you know about that?
20 A. That is the reason why we were engaged.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have document
23 Q. Mr. Celic, I'm going to show you a document. I'm not sure that
24 you've seen it before, but actually it deals with this situation; namely,
25 the fact that the train passed there on the 26th of August, 1995
1 So this is a document that was issued by the national security
2 office of the Republic of Croatia
3 headquarters. The director Mr. Mile Cuk signed it and in paragraph 1,
4 this is a statement to the effect that the president of the Republic of
7 arrive at 1830 hours.
8 You will agree with me that the question of providing security
9 along this railroad right after the armed conflict was over was a very
10 sensitive issue, right?
11 A. Exactly. Because there were some groups that were still left
12 over on the terrain, so evidently this has to do with the 23rd of
13 August and that's precisely when we were engaged. However, I wish to say
14 that I have not seen this document before.
15 Q. If we were to look at page 2 --
16 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the registry
17 for their assistance.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, I ask myself to what extent there's
19 any dispute about first of all chronology that Mr. Tudjman arrived on the
20 train on the 26th; and second, I don't know how important it is for the
21 Prosecution that this may have caused to choose a certain area for the
22 operations the day before that.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: I understand your concern, Your Honour, but I'm
24 trying to establish a context of the events in Ramljane, because --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll hear from you --
1 MR. MIKULICIC: I will not testify on that.
2 Q. [Interpretation] If we were to look at page 2, Mr. Celic, in the
3 third paragraph from the bottom, you will see that the anti-terrorist
4 unit of the MUP was given a task to provide security at the most
5 sensitive part of the railroad.
6 Is that the way you remember it too?
7 A. Yes. And that is precisely what is written here.
8 Q. Is it correct then that on the 26th, when you were searching the
9 terrain in the area of Ramljane, you were actually carrying out this
10 task, which is derived from the document that we see on the screen right
12 A. Yes, I have already said that in my statements to date. As far
13 as I know, this is what we were supposed to do in relation to the freedom
14 train and this task.
15 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could this document please be
16 assigned a number.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number Exhibit
21 JUDGE ORIE: D739 is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. So in line with the task you had, namely to secure the most
24 sensitive part of the railroad that the train took, once the train had
25 passed, your mission was over, right?
1 A. Exactly.
2 Q. Now just a few questions in relation to the incident in Ramljane
3 that you have discussed rather extensively until now as well.
4 After it became evident that there had been combat contact, you
5 said that Mr. Markac arrived and that he entrusted Mr. Janic to
6 investigate the incident. Is that right?
7 A. On that day, Janic was talking to us, the members of the unit
8 too. I was there as well, and it was obvious that this was his duty, to
9 establish all the facts.
10 Q. Mr. Celic, Mr. Janic did testify before this Trial Chamber and
11 I'm going to put part of his testimony to you and I'm going to ask you
12 whether this corresponds to your own recollections.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to refer to
14 the testimony of Mr. Janic on the 10th of July this year.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Previous translation continues] ... we do
16 have a procedure, agreed procedure where generally on an issue that the
17 witness is questioned, his answer is obtained, and then he is confronted
18 with the previous testimony or statement of another witness.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that Mr. Mikulicic is certainly aware of
20 that. Of course, not having heard his question, I do not know or not
21 having heard yet to what portion of the evidence of Mr. Janic he wants to
23 I do not know whether he was following that procedure or not, but
24 he is now at least reminded that this was the procedure.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Much obliged.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Janic, the question is -- I beg your pardon,
2 Mr. Celic, was Mr. Janic the person who conveyed to Mr. Markac what it
3 was that had happened in Ramljane on that day?
4 A. Precisely. And I think that he called him.
5 Q. On page 6192, line 15, Mr. Janic says: [In English] All the
6 information he had, meaning Mr. Markac, about what happened there was
7 received from me.
8 [Interpretation] So that corresponds to what you remember as
9 well, right?
10 A. Yes, yes, because I did not communicate with Mr. Markac. Chief
11 Janic did and that was his duty and that was in accordance with that.
12 Q. A few moments ago you said to us, Mr. Celic, that Mr. Janic
13 talked to you and to the group leaders, right?
14 A. Exactly.
15 Q. Mr. Janic says the following on page 6193, line 23: "[In
16 English] Later on, before departure, or before we went other own separate
17 ways the general trusted with me verifying all this information and to
18 interview the commander of the ATJ
19 verify whether the reports were true. After these interviews, I
20 established that this is exactly what had happened."
21 [Interpretation] Mr. Celic, can you agree with Mr. Janic's
22 interpretation of what happened?
23 A. This confirms what I had said.
24 Q. You've already said, Mr. Celic, precisely that as the freedom
25 train passed there, in view of the order issued to the special
1 anti-terrorist group from Lucko, or, actually, that once the train
2 reached Split
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. After the task on the 26th, Mr. Markac issued an order to your
5 unit to go back to Zagreb
6 A. Yes, on the 26th.
7 Q. My last question, Mr. Celic.
8 Did you personally or through someone else hear General Mladen
9 Markac ever order or take any action for hushing up the incidents in
10 Grubori and in Ramljane or not to have them investigated?
11 A. Absolutely not, and all his orders that had to do with our
12 engagement were to the contrary.
13 Q. Thank you for your answers.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
17 Mr. Cayley, are you ready to cross Mr. Celic?
18 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley is counsel for Mr. Cermak, Mr. Celic.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Cayley:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Celic.
22 A. Good afternoon.
23 Q. You said a moment ago to Mr. Mikulicic that there was a strict
24 chain of command in the Lucko anti-terrorist unit. Do you recall stating
1 A. Exactly.
2 Q. And that chain of command applied equally going up to your
3 superior, Mr. Janic, as it did going down to your subordinates, right?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Now, you also told us, and you have just told Mr. Mikulicic, that
6 during the operation in Grubori, you were the operational commander on
7 the 25th of August of 1995. Yes?
8 A. Precisely. On the 25th and the 26th.
9 Q. If, please, Prosecution Exhibit 772 could be brought up on the
11 As a general principle, Mr. Celic, in military operations it is
12 important, isn't it, that you maintain communications with your
13 subordinates and with your superiors. Correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Now, if we could please go to page 2 of this
16 document. And I believe actually it may be on page 1 of the B/C/S
17 version; I'm sorry about that. The bottom of the page.
18 Q. Let me read to you in the English version - I can't see it in the
19 B/C/S - but I will read to you from the one, two, three, four, fifth
20 line, this is your -- the note of your interview with the Croatian MUP.
21 "He was in Motorola UHF contact with the unit and the men who
22 stayed with the vehicles. They communicated through the so-called small
23 channel number 37 which is used outside the repeater range."
24 Do you recall stating that in your interview with the Ministry of
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And so on the 25th of August of 1995, you were in communication
3 with the sections on channel 37, with the four sections under your
5 A. Let me try and clarify this.
6 We were in contact, this part, so during the task or assignment
7 itself, we are issued a map, then we are issued a channel on which we're
8 going to maintain communication, because we do not necessarily always use
9 the same channel of communication. This is something that the signals
10 people had to determine which channel was useable and which wasn't.
11 So when I say that they were in communication, we were and we
12 communicated via these -- this radio communication. Whether later on we
13 were in contact or not, I cannot say, but the communications were open.
14 They were on but we did not use them.
15 As this is it a small -- the so-called signal channel it is a
16 short-wave channel. If there was a physical obstacle, a hill, for
17 instance, it is it possible that we did not actually have these
18 communications because I was behind a hill. I was on the small channel
19 with my subordinates. But with my superiors I was on the large channel
20 and I informed them. I tried to be as clear as I could.
21 Q. But you did have communications that day, didn't you, with Ante
22 Jurendic over the radio?
23 A. Yes, that's what I did say. We did use this channel and have
25 Q. And Ante Jurendic was within Zinic's section, correct?
1 A. I should check in the report because it is stated clearly there
2 who was in what group.
3 Q. I'll come do that document in a moment but when you had that
4 communication with this gentleman, Ante Jurendic, he was several thousand
5 metres away from you, wasn't he?
6 A. No, I wouldn't say so. I think it was less. We should consult a
7 map. I think it was not that far. I don't think it was kilometres away.
8 Q. So between 500 and a thousand metres, approximately?
9 A. I don't want to provide false information, incorrect information,
10 but as I was with a unit at the time, I was parallel to them. It could
11 have been 100 or 200 metres. It is certainly not kilometres.
12 MR. CAYLEY: If, please, we could have Prosecutor's Exhibit 762,
13 page 13514.
14 Q. This , Mr. Celic, is your interview with the OTP, your second
16 THE REGISTRAR: Apologies, Your Honour. The page reference 13514
17 seems to be meaningless for this document.
18 MR. CAYLEY: That's the 92 ter number that we were talking about
19 yesterday. I can give you another reference. I can give you page 23 of
20 112, and that is V000-5275.
21 Q. While we're waiting for that I'll ask you a couple of other
23 Now, if a unit encountered any resistance while it was out on
24 operations it had an obligation to communicate that fact to you, yes?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. Now, if you look at this particular section of the transcript,
2 this is concerning the range of Motorolas and this was in your interview
3 in 2005 where you were asked: "What's the normal range, the maximum
4 range of the Motorolas used by the special police? "
5 And then you see it goes on to say: "That depends on the channel
6 used. A small channel for a signal area is something of about 100
7 metres. On a bigger channel they can use it for up to a kilometre,
8 depending on the terrain."
9 If you could scroll down, please.
10 And you see there the question's put to you: "Are you saying the
11 maximum is a kilometre?"
12 And you say: "No. I'm saying several kilometres. For instance,
13 now what we are using in the city is a large channel that can be used
14 throughout the city, ten kilometres or more, and in the centre of the
15 unit we are using the small channel which covers about 200 metres."
16 And then you were asked about the channel that you were using on
17 the 25th of August.
18 Now, the Motorola that you had in your possession on the 25th of
19 August, was that on an extended-range channel or a limited-range channel?
20 A. I have to stress that as an operative commander I had two
21 Motorola radio sets. One was on the signal channel, the limited range
22 for short ranges, and the large channel which was an extended range
23 Motorola for a couple of kilometres, as you mentioned.
24 Q. Now, as a assistant commander within the Lucko Unit on that day,
25 you were responsible for the four section commanders, and they, in turn,
1 you were responsible to you. Yes?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. If any one of those sections captured a prisoner of war, they
4 were obliged to bring that prisoner of war to the finish line. Yes?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. At the end of an operation, as the operational commander, you
7 were obliged to seek information on what ammunition had been expended by
8 the four sections, weren't you?
9 A. If there was contact, then they would submit reports what kind of
10 fire was exchanged, how much and so on, what happened. Speaking of the
11 25th, the reports were quite the opposite.
12 Q. Can I ask that question again, because I'm not actually
13 interested in that point at the moment. What I'm asking you
14 specifically: As a junior commander within the special police, at the
15 end of the operation, you were obliged to seek information from your
16 section commanders on the amount of ammunition that had been expended on
17 an operation, weren't you?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 Now, you've already explained to Mr. Mikulicic that when captured
21 weapons were brought back by any of the units they were to be handed over
22 to you. That's right, isn't it? And you gave the example of Ramljane.
23 A. If there were any weapons, they would be handed over to me, and
24 then they would be forwarded to the headquarters of the operation, or, I
25 would send a group leader or a member to -- of the unit to take it
1 wherever it was required.
2 Q. Let's now talk specifically about the 25th of August of 1995.
3 And I want to start at the beginning of that day, and I want you to think
4 very hard about where you were throughout that day.
5 Now, prior to the start of the operation in the Plavno valley,
6 where were you located? So in the early morning of the 25th of August.
7 A. I will try to specify the exact time.
8 So on the 25th of August in the early morning hours it was our
9 duty to come to Gracac because we were arriving from Zagreb.
10 After Gracac together with Commander Janic we went to the Plavno
11 valley. I don't want to misinform you but I assumed that this was
12 between 8.00 and 9.00. I can't be more price but according to the report
13 that was the time, between 9.00 and 9.
14 So in the early morning hours before the operation started, we
15 were there before 9.00.
16 In Plavno valley there was a road. We came out on to this road.
17 Commander Janic assigned us to take positions where our left and right
18 wings were and from this road we set off to carry out the operation.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Celic. Time is short so that is a fine answer but
20 if I can now just move on.
21 Now, you spoke with Mr. Jurendic over the radio. He was a
22 policeman in one of the sections, wasn't he, that advancing through the
23 Plavno valley?
24 A. Correct. We did have communications, we spoke using the
25 communications equipment.
1 Q. And as a result of that communication, you took over two
2 civilians from him and took those back to the vehicles on the road. Yes?
3 A. Precisely. Because I issued an order before the beginning of the
4 operation that civilians were to be taken to safety. At that point, this
5 member did not know where to take them, and because I was there, and
6 that's why I know that it was not in kilometres but a couple of hundred
7 metres, so I went there, I said I was coming and I took over these
9 Q. Now, were you aware that on the afternoon of the 25th of
10 August of 1995 that members of the UN were present in the Plavno valley?
11 A. I can't really say for sure.
12 Q. When you say you can't really say for sure, are you saying that
13 you heard subsequently that members of the UN were in the Plavno valley,
14 that you didn't see them yourself; or are you simply saying you don't
16 A. I don't know, but I did get information that they were there in
17 the immediate vicinity in a school building.
18 As far as the information that I had, they were there on a daily
19 basis assisting civilians with food, medical assistance and so on.
20 Q. And to get to that school, they would have had to have passed
21 your vehicles that were parked up on the road at the start point for the
22 Plavno valley operation, right?
23 A. I believe so.
24 Q. Now, I'd like to read to you the evidence of one of those UN
25 employees who was present on the 25th of August. This is at page 1064.
1 This is actually a video, Your Honours, that was shown to Mr. Flynn by
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, and I'm just going read sections of it because it is
3 not all relevant. That's why I'm not going to show it, but I will give
4 you the page references.
5 If you could listen, Mr. Celic. This is on page 1064 of the
6 transcript, lines 19 to 21. "There was a huge plume of smoke and so we
7 visited that town in the afternoon and we found that in fact almost every
8 structure in the hillside, in this hillside village was in flames."
9 At line 17 they're talking about visiting the Plavno valley.
10 Over the page to page 1065 --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
12 MR. CAYLEY: I'm sorry.
13 Q. Over the page to page 1065, lines 23 to 25: "These Croatian
14 police vehicles were parked one kilometre away and a local military
15 governor admitted police troops had carried out the military operation in
16 the same village of Grubori
17 Over the page to 1066, Ms. Mahindaratne asks the question:
18 "Mr. Flynn, was that an accurate record of what you observed in Grubori
19 on the 25th of August?
20 "Yes," came the answer.
21 Now, Mr. Celic, the question I have for you is this: You've
22 heard that evidence that there was a huge plume of smoke over Grubori on
23 the 25th of August. Did you hear that evidence?
24 A. Yes, now. Not before.
25 Q. And Mr. Flynn states that the vehicles, the special police
1 vehicles were a thousand metres away from the site of the burning?
2 A. This is also the first time that I hear of that.
3 Q. So even though you were with those vehicles and a thousand metres
4 away from the site of this huge plume of smoke, your evidence is that you
5 never saw a thing on the 25th of August?
6 A. Precisely. When we returned to the initial positions, I and
7 Commander Janic drove off to the finishing line in a vehicle. At that
8 point in time, we did not see that.
9 During this task, there was some five to 600 special police
10 members and whose vehicles these were exactly, I can't tell. But I know
11 that while I was there I did not see this personally.
12 Q. What time did you leave to go to the finishing line?
13 A. If I try to reconstruct, if we started off at 9.00, during the
14 movement, we first ran into these civilians on the left flank, and then I
15 returned and it had already started to rain at that point, and Commander
16 Janic told me then that I didn't need to go back with the unit but that I
17 should go to the finishing line.
18 So we did not start off immediately. It was some half an hour or
19 an hour. I can't tell you exactly, later. But during the time while I
20 was there, I did not see this.
21 Q. Let take a look at some of the section commanders reports?
22 MR. CAYLEY: And we could please have Prosecution Exhibit 572.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, I'm looking at the clock. We usually
24 have a break now. If we start looking at other reports, perhaps we could
25 first take the break.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at a quarter to 1.00.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom.
7 While waiting for that, Mr. Mikulicic, on -- on this map --
8 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- I have some difficulties in finding exactly where
10 the railway is. Certainly my eyes are not good enough anymore. If at
11 any point in the future, you could assist me. Because you said it was a
12 certain distance from the area.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, we will do that, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Are you going to upload the -- the map, because on
15 the record now we have the green marking of the map, but is it -- it's
16 not admitted, it's not tendered yet.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. What I had in mind, it was a
18 pure for the demonstrative purposes and we could upload it later on with
20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps that section because since the witness --
21 MR. MIKULICIC: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- referred to the green marking, if this case would
23 ever be on appeal or has to --
24 MR. MIKULICIC: I see.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- has to be analysed by others, then they might
1 miss the ensuing information --
2 MR. MIKULICIC: I understand, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... in the testimony.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Celic, the document that is in front of you on the screen is
8 the report that was produced by Mr. Balunovic, subsequent to the
9 instruction of the 1st of September of 1995. Do you recognise that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If you could, please, look at the one, two, three, four, fifth
13 paragraph, where it begins: "During the armed clash, my group was
14 deployed ..."
15 If you could just read that paragraph and the next paragraph.
16 No, sorry, just read it to yourself. I'm just trying to save
17 time. If could you just read it, because everybody can see it.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, this is information that was not dictated to you by
20 Mr. Sacic on the 25th of August -- on the 26th of August of 1995 in the
21 morning, I'm sorry.
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. So by this period, it was absolutely clear to you that
24 Mr. Balunovic did actually know what happened in Grubori on the 25th of
25 August of 1995.
1 A. Whether he knew and whether he adjusted his report to mine, the
2 one that I had to write as dictated, that is something I don't now.
3 Q. But you can see here clearly that there is new information that
4 is contained in this report that's not in the information dictated to you
5 by Mr. Sacic, right?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And he was your friend. Did you discuss the matter with him?
8 Did you ask him where he got this information from, whether it was his
9 personal knowledge, or whether somebody else had told him?
10 A. I don't know if somebody else had told him. I assume that he
11 adjusted his report to my report, and that within that, he compiled his
12 report and then he inserted this other section. I really wouldn't know.
13 Q. In that section, the part that he inserted, I'll ask you the
14 question again: Did you ask him personally whether this was his own
15 information, whether these were facts that he was aware of?
16 A. Well, I'll answer you quite frankly. Everything I have been
17 saying has been the truth. I don't remember that we discussed that
18 section. But I do know that he had not known of what had happened down
19 there because when we had to travel down there on the second or third day
20 did he not know. Again, so I am convinced that he did not what had
21 happened down there.
22 Q. But you were his commander, weren't you, during the operation?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And he provided you with information on the 1st of
25 September about the operation which you did not have prior to that date,
2 A. What do you mean, the 1st of September? Actually, I would like
3 to say that his information after the terrain was that nothing had
4 happened and this was written on the 2nd of September on orders from
5 Commander Turkalj.
6 But in relation to myself and Mr. Balunovic, I wish to say that
7 his oral report after the end of the action was also that nothing had
8 happened. This report was written later, and it also describes that
9 something had happened.
10 Q. Now, just to close this down, because I don't want to go on
11 endlessly on this, but in terms of the information contained in
12 paragraphs 5 and 6 of this report, it's your evidence that you did not
13 ever discuss those matters with Mr. Balunovic.
14 A. I read his report, but I did not specifically single out
15 paragraphs 5 or 6 and ask him why he had written that.
16 Q. Did you ask him any questions about this report?
17 A. On the day when we had the meeting with our immediate commander
18 we were all duty-bound to attend and --
19 Q. Mr. Celic, I'm going to interrupt you because my time is short.
20 It's a simple question: Did you personally as his operational commander
21 ever ask Mr. Balunovic about the contents of his report that was dated
22 25th August 1995, the report that is in front of us now?
23 A. I'll say once again on the day when the reports were written we
24 did talk about. On that day, he also wrote his report on his own. He
25 submitted it to the secretary, but we did not specifically discuss what
1 it was that he had written down there. We did not discuss it in
3 Q. Bearing in mind what Mr. Sacic had told you on the 26th of
4 August of 1995, were you in any way surprised by the additional
5 information in Mr. Balunovic's report?
6 A. As for my own report, I said that out of all of the information
7 contained in my report I did not know about all of that. I have already
8 said that. And obviously other reports were adapted to my report. So my
9 report, the information contained in my report was something I didn't
10 know about.
11 Q. Mr. Celic, I'll ask you the question once again and then I'm
12 going to move on.
13 Bearing in mind what Mr. Sacic had told you on the 26th of
14 August of 1995, were you in any way surprised or interested by the
15 additional information contained in Mr. Balunovic's report?
16 A. Absolutely yes. The whole situation was different. The first
17 contact was that it had not happened, and then afterwards, it turned out
18 that something had happened after all, so the situation was quite
19 different from the statements that were made right after the action.
20 Q. So though you were surprised and interested, you never directly
21 discussed with Mr. Balunovic this new information contained in his
23 A. Well, I think that I've answered that question for you already.
24 We did talk, and he was convinced then as well that nothing had happened
25 and that he knew nothing. Obviously the report was adapted to my report.
1 Q. Let's move on, Mr. Celic.
2 MR. CAYLEY: If we can please look at Prosecutor's Exhibit 569.
3 Q. Now, if we can just go to the bottom of that particular page, you
4 see, Mr. Celic, that this is Mr. Zinic's report, and, again, in order to
5 preserve time, if you could look at the large paragraph that is the third
6 from the bottom of the report, which begins: "While I was on the left
7 side of Grubori village there was sudden, fierce gun-fire and several
8 explosions were heard."
9 Could you read that paragraph to yourself?
10 A. I've read it.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Zinic indicates that he received information about a
12 group of Chetniks over the system. And he's there referring to your
13 radio communication system, yes?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And that he also heard very fierce gun-fire and several
16 explosions. You see that too?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Now, if you look at the 12 men that were under his command, one
19 of them, number 8 is Ante Jurendic who is the individual with whom you
20 had radio communications earlier in the day. Correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And the system over which Mr. Zinic heard that there were
23 Chetniks -- heard that another group had come upon a group of Chetniks
24 was the same system on which you were listening, wasn't it?
25 A. Correct. However, I wish to point out that I did not hear this
1 conversation over the communications equipment and I did have my
2 communications equipment with me all the time.
3 Q. So you were on the same network at the time, but your evidence is
4 you did not hear what Mr. Zinic heard about Chetniks -- about a group
5 coming upon a group of Chetniks. Correct?
6 A. Exactly.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I may, Mr. President, if I just -- I just
8 want to point out but in fairness to the Defence I would not want the
9 witness to have the benefit of this -- if it is not translated to the --
10 interpreted to the witness what I'm going to say.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can't ask the interpreters not to translate
12 something because the whole of the public would be -- what we could ask.
13 Mr. Celic, do you speak any English? Mr. Celic.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't. I understand some words,
15 very little. I don't speak the language though.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what you want to say, Ms. Mahindaratne,
17 so I don't know whether it is sufficient, if it is complex enough for
18 someone who knows only a few words not to understand or I've got no idea.
19 So I leave it up to you whether or not we will just ask the witness to
20 take his earphones off.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That would be fine, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Celic, could you take the earphones off for a
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I just want to point out that the name that
25 Mr. Cayley just mentioned also transpires in another report of one of the
1 other group leaders. That is P771 and P768. I will not -- I will
2 refrain from using the names so that --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear to me, which, of course, still
4 leaves open the question whether these are several persons with the same
5 name or whether this is a person with the skill of being at several
6 places at the same time.
7 Mr. Celic, could you please put your earphones on again.
8 Mr. Cayley.
9 MR. CAYLEY:
10 Q. Mr. Celic, just to clarify one thing, we -- Ante Jurendic named
11 in this report by Mr. Zinic is the same Ante Jurendic who you met with
12 the two civilians earlier in the day. Correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Thank you. Let's now move to the night of the 25th of August of
16 You returned to which location after the operation was finished
17 and the units had come to the finish line?
18 A. Gracac.
19 Q. And you went with your men, with your four sections back to
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And on the journey back to Gracac, nobody spoke amongst
23 themselves, like soldiers do, about the operation that had just taken
24 place in the Plavno valley?
25 A. Whether people were talking amongst themselves is something that
1 I would not know today. I can just say that in my vehicle, and there
2 were five people in every vehicle, I was convinced, like the rest, that
3 nothing had happened, absolutely. Whether somebody else was discussing
4 something else in a different vehicle or something, I don't know.
5 However, all the information that I had at that time and that I heard was
6 to the effect that nothing had happened.
7 I cannot assert now whether someone in the fifth or tenth vehicle
8 discussed that. However, I'm talking to you about things that have to do
9 with me. I personally had information that on that day, nothing had
11 Q. Who was in your vehicle with you when you returned from the
12 Plavno valley to Gracac?
13 A. Well, I couldn't remember now exactly who was there. I can't
15 Q. Was it the section commanders? Zinic?
16 A. I would just be making a mistake if I said anything. I had a
17 driver and perhaps two or three other members of the unit or perhaps I
18 was on my own with the driver. I really could not say. Whatever I would
19 say would not be right.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Let's look at P563, please.
21 Q. Now, at the end of the operation on the 25th of August, at the
22 finish line, I want you to think about that for a moment, you answered to
23 me earlier that it was standard practice at the end of an operation for
24 you to do a review, do an ammunition check to find out how much
25 ammunition had been expended by the unit.
1 Do you recall that evidence that you said to me earlier today?
2 A. Yes, you have already asked me that. However --
3 Q. Let me ask you the question because I have a specific question
4 for you.
5 When you did the ammunition check, on the Lucko Unit, when it
6 arrived on the finish line on the 25th of August of 1995, did you find
7 ammunition had been expended by the men of the four sections?
8 A. First of all, the answer is I did not check how much ammunition
9 they had on them. This was due to the fact that there was no reason for
10 me to check that on the basis of the reports of the group leaders. Had
11 anything been done, then the members who had done that would have
12 reported to the leader so I did not line up the unit myself to check.
13 There was no check that day, that is what I'm saying, in view of the
14 report that I had received.
15 Q. But it was normally standard practice for you on every operation,
16 wasn't it, as you've said earlier, to check how much ammunition had been
18 A. No. You misunderstood. It was not customary after an operation
19 ended that ammunition reports were made. After all the tasks had been
20 accomplished, depending on the task, we would check whether everyone was
21 okay, whether there were any losses, whether there were casualties and
22 then they would report it themselves.
23 But absolutely never, not in a single task, would there be a
24 lineup of men and then checking how much ammunition they had or not,
25 especially in view of the fact that after such operations men were tired,
1 exhausted and there was no need to bother them with this additional
3 So if there had been any ammunition expended, the user himself
4 would have reported this to his group leader, and then it would have
5 reached me. But it was not customary to go from one special to -- member
6 of the special police and check with them whether there had been any
7 expenditures of ammunition.
8 Q. How did you ensure on any operation that a special policemen
9 actually did report that he had expended ammunition?
10 A. Well, there was a chain of command within any unit itself. So
11 me, as an operational officer, I had group leaders. They were -- they
12 would lead groups of up to ten men and then within that group of men
13 there would be a specialised leader who would have three or four men
14 under himself so there would be three or four commanders -- four or five
15 commanders that would need to relate this information and I wouldn't go
16 from one to the other to check it.
17 As for ammunition itself, I can tell you the following. When
18 weapons and ammunition is issued, it is registered in the card -- the
19 personal file of the user how much ammunition he was issued and it was
20 his responsibility to report any use of ammunition.
21 During the advance of our unit, because Operation Storm lasted a
22 couple of days, there was no special reporting on how much ammunition was
23 exactly issued, whether someone took 50 or 100 rounds.
24 Q. Let's look at 563.
25 This is the report that was dictated to you by Mr. Sacic on the
1 morning of the 26th of August. Is that right?
2 A. That's right. But the report itself, but you said the 26th on
3 the morning. I wouldn't be as specific. I wouldn't say it was then
4 exactly. I can't give you exact information as to when exactly it was.
5 But is this the report.
6 Q. Now, what interests me about this particular report is the
7 following. He told you in this report that an arrested person Stevan
8 Karanovic, around 30 years old, had been brought in by the special
9 police, didn't he?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And you knew, at least from your knowledge, that nobody, that no
12 prisoners of war in fact arrived with the special police at the finish
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And this report also refers to two weapons being seized. And you
16 didn't see any seized weapons at the finish line, did you?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Now, also at the bottom of this report it refers to the village
19 of Grubor being placed under the control of 20 members of the Lucko ATJ
20 under the commander of Franjo Drljo and Bozo Krajina?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Was this report suggesting that those two sections of the special
23 police remained in Grubori whilst the others came to the finish line?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So these two sections remained there until just prior to 4.00 and
1 then returned with everybody else to the finish line. Yes?
2 A. How much time they spent where, I can't tell you exactly. But I
3 can tell you that at the finish line, within 15 to 30 minutes, everyone
4 arrived there, more or less. So it's not true that they were someplace
5 else and arrived later. They arrived at the finish line already by 1600
6 hours, as you can see in this report. Some people may have arrived
7 earlier, others later, but I have to stress that this was a hilly area
8 and they had to come down from a hill. There was a steep incline there,
9 so they arrived in different batches and groups, and they arrived tired
10 and wet and they -- all they were looking for was to get to the vehicles
11 and change as soon as possible. So they didn't all arrive at the same
12 time but they arrived within a period of a half an hour.
13 Q. When Mr. Sacic dictated this report to you, you told him that you
14 had not seen any prisoner of war or any captured weapons.
15 A. After I went to the headquarters where I was with Mr. Sacic, he
16 had my report that nothing had happened and he asked me about the report.
17 I repeated the entire account of where I was during this operation.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. -- and I told him that --
20 Q. Mr. Celic, I'm going to interrupt you because my time is running
21 out. The question I have for you is this. When Mr. Sacic dictated this
22 report to you on either the 25th or the 26th of August, did you inform
23 him that you had not seen a prisoner of war and you had not seen any
24 captured weapons, since you were actually signing this report?
25 A. That is exactly what I was trying to tell you. So I told him
1 that nothing had happened, that there had been no incident, no prisoner
2 of war, nothing. That's exactly what I told him. But I also told him
3 that this was the information that I got from the group leaders.
4 However, based on what he requested from me, I did this.
5 Q. So you signed a report where you essentially could not confirm
6 the information that was in it.
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. Now, you must have asked Mr. Sacic where he got his information
9 from, correct, because he was your superior?
10 A. I didn't ask him. He told me himself. That obviously there had
11 been a clash there, that there were prisoners of war but all this
12 information that he relayed to me didn't really have any meaning to me
13 then. However, now, I do -- it does have some meaning. But as for the
14 information itself, neither then nor now do they have any relevance to me
15 because I could neither confirm them nor deny them.
16 Q. Mr. Celic, you were the operational commander during this
17 operation, weren't you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You had four sections of men under your command. Correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. It never crossed your mind when you were speaking with Mr. Sacic
22 to ask him who had told him about what had happened in Grubori?
23 A. I told him to call, to summon the group leaders and ask them. As
24 for who told him of what had happened, I don't know. He was my immediate
25 superior and he was the authority for me, and based on that, I carried
1 out the order that he issued to me.
2 Q. You said to us earlier that there was a strict command structure
3 within the Lucko anti-terrorist unit. Did you ask your section
4 commanders who had been speaking to Mr. Sacic about what had happened in
6 A. I didn't ask if anybody had spoken with Sacic. At that point in
7 time, on the 26th, I was there alone on my own. There were no group
8 leaders but I asked Mr. Sacic to summon the group leaders.
9 Q. Now, when this information had been given to you, did it become
10 fairly obvious that there had been a contact in Grubori?
11 A. After what he said, there was no reason for me to disbelieve what
12 he said. That became obvious.
13 Q. Now, you stated yesterday to this Court when you were talking
14 about the operation on the 26th of August in Ramljane, that the
15 following, I will read it, it on page 8017 to 8018, lines 23 through to
16 line 3 on the next page: "And when the leader of the group in talking to
17 him saw that the General insisted, he said that he passed by that way and
18 that there was fighting."
19 And now we're talking about the 26th of August.
20 "And he was angry in his responses, and I think he mentioned
21 everything, and I know that on the same day, we had to establish the
22 facts because it was obvious, it was evident that there had been
24 Now, the question I have for you is that if Mr. Sacic made it
25 obvious and evident to you that there had been contact in Grubori, why
1 did you not establish the facts of what had happened there, as you were
2 saying in the case of the operation on the 26th of August?
3 A. As far as I can recall, I can tell you this: At that moment when
4 I was Mr. Sacic I believe the unit was already on its way to Zagreb. So
5 at that point I had no opportunity to talk -- discuss this with him.
6 A detailed conversation about this event was conducted when we
7 were summoned up by the commander which was two or three days later, and
8 we were all there together.
9 When I returned to Zagreb, in other words, and the men who had --
10 had -- who had their days off, they weren't there two or three days, so
11 they weren't within the unit, but I believe already on the second day
12 when I returned to Zagreb I had to go back and this is the first time
13 that I went to Grubori and saw what had happened.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... stop --
15 A. And I said this when you asked me about this.
16 Q. Let's stop and go back to the question.
17 Did you not feel as an assistant commander within the
18 Lucko anti-terrorist unit that after Mr. Sacic had told you these facts
19 that had you an obligation to establish what had happened in Grubori?
20 A. According to the written reports submitted to the headquarters, I
21 had reported all of this. My responsibility was to inform the
22 headquarters of anything that happened at -- in the field, not Mr. Sacic,
23 but Mr. Janic. And also, when I returned to the unit it was my duty to
24 explain everything that had happened exactly then.
25 I cannot give you the precise date. I can't say exactly but I
1 think it was the 26th so I was still down there. When I arrived in the
2 unit my commander was there, he was informed of all of the events and
3 then I went together with my commander to the field. My responsibility
4 was to inform the commander of everything that I had done. But I cannot
5 speak of things that I don't know. If a group leader reported something
6 to me, that's how I had to report it on, because I could not say anything
7 else. I can only speak of the facts that had happened.
8 Q. Between the 26th and the 1st -- the 26th of August and the 1st of
9 September, you must have spoken with members of the Lucko anti-terrorist
10 unit, right?
11 A. I know for certain that I did talk with Mr. Balunovic. The men
12 were on leave on that day because we returned on the 27th, and our next
13 meeting was on the 1st.
14 On those couple of days the men were on leave, and I cannot speak
15 for certain about the time. I know that I spoke with Mr. Balunovic
16 about this, but I don't know if I discussed it with the others.
17 Q. Bearing in mind that what Mr. Sacic had dictated you -- dictated
18 to you was a fairly dramatic and worrying report, did you not feel as a
19 junior commander that you should call these men back from leave and
20 establish the facts of what had happened in Grubori?
21 A. I will reiterate what I've said before.
22 From the point when I had the meeting with Sacic - this was on
23 the 26th, in the afternoon as far as I can ascertain, but I think you can
24 check that exactly - so the day after that I returned to Zagreb and then
25 on the next day I went back there and on that next day I went back to
1 Grubori and I saw what had happened there.
2 So at that point, there was no one could I talk to because the
3 men were on leave because I only went to Zagreb for one day, I spent the
4 night there, and then I returned. I had to be in Gracac the next day
5 already. So there was no one I could discuss this with except
6 Mr. Balunovic, who went back with me, and then I saw that there had been
7 contact there on the axis where we passed, that there was an engagement
8 of the other side.
9 Q. You returned to Zagreb
11 A. I believe so. Please don't hold me exactly on what I'm saying,
12 but I believe it was on the 27th.
13 Q. Between the 27th of August and the receipt of the order of the
14 1st of September to make a report, did you not feel obliged as a junior
15 commander to speak to your four section commanders about what had
16 happened in Grubori on the 25th of August of 1995, bearing in mind what
17 Mr. Sacic had told you on the 25th or 26th of August of 1995?
18 A. Please don't take my word for it when I mention the date, because
19 I might misinform you. But we did discuss this in this meeting a couple
20 of days later, and I think that at that time - in other words when I
21 returned - the men were on leave and I was on leave. So two or three
22 days later we had the meeting and we discussed that.
23 Q. I'm asking you, Mr. Celic, specifically what did you, because you
24 were a junior commander. Did you not thing bearing in mind what
25 Mr. Sacic told you that it was more important to establish the facts of
1 what happened in Grubori than for the men to be enjoying three days leave
2 in Zagreb
3 A. No, Mr. Sacic did not issue any specific instructions to that
4 effect, and I -- it was my duty to submit my report, and did I not get
5 any instructions from him to speak to anyone. I had this information
6 from my immediate superior who also mentioned what had happened, because
7 he was present there, and then we had this meeting where the group
8 leaders, we discussed this, because you mentioned Mr. Balunovic
9 specifically. I can say in his report too it was stated that nothing had
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cermak, I appreciate your efforts I'm also
12 looking at the clock.
13 MR. CAYLEY: I don't think I'm going to finish, Your Honour, but
14 I will certainly move on.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're not going to finish. By when?
16 MR. CAYLEY: I think I'd probably need about another sort of
17 three quarters of an hour, at the most.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I have no re-examination so far,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No re-examination so far.
22 MR. MISETIC: No questions from us, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No questions from you.
24 In view of all this, I would ask you to see whether you could
25 finish in not more than 30 minutes. We would have until quarter past
1 2.00. We can have an extended session today.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Judge Orie.
4 Q. When Mr. Sacic dictated to the report to you of what had taken
5 place in Grubori and that he told you that two women had been killed and
6 two elderly men, did the word "murder" cross your mind?
7 A. No.
8 Q. And why is that?
9 A. I explained this by the fact that I believed him at the moment
10 when he told me everything. I had no reason not to believe him because
11 he was the chief of sector at the time, and for me he was my immediate
12 superior and he had authority and --
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Celic, I'm running out
14 of time and I need you to directly address the questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps --
16 Mr. Celic, in your last answer you said you had no reason not to
17 believe him.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... as you told us
20 in quite some detail that there was no -- you couldn't hear anything that
21 came close to combat activity. You've told us that there were no
22 prisoners of war at the end of the day. Would these two reasons not be
23 good reasons to at least have serious doubt on whether the authority you
24 refer to told you what actually happened?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as what he said to me
1 is concerned, it would be best if you asked him, but I know that there
2 were no prisoners and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no doubt in my mind
5 because I believed that things were the way he had put it to me. In the
6 report when we wrote about prisoners, he knew about my report and I said
7 that as far as I knew there were no prisoners and that not a single group
8 leader had reported to me stating that there were prisoners.
9 JUDGE ORIE: These are all reasons to doubt his version, isn't
10 it? Whether you believed him or not is another question, but just
11 objectively. If he would have told you -- let me put things quite
12 simple. If he would have told that you the whole operation had taken
13 place during the night, would you have believed him? Whereas your own
14 observation was that it took place during the day, isn't it?
15 Would you, under his authority, have believed him?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had no reason not to believe him.
17 As for the operation itself, if I know where my men are it is only
18 natural that the facts indicate that to me. However, I will answer you
19 now. Although I had information that there were no prisoners I really
20 believed them then that that actually was the case. Obviously there had
21 been some kind of a clash because this is what he had said.
22 Finally when we went there we did see that there had been a
23 clash. However, now, should one believe the group leaders who had told
24 me that nothing had happened. He said that something had happened and
25 that I should write that up and ultimately it was established that
1 something had happened. At that moment I had no reason not to believe
3 JUDGE ORIE: Your own observations supported what your group
4 leaders had told you because you didn't hear firing of arms, which would
5 be of the combat type, and there were no prisoners of war at the end of
6 the day. What was told to you by your authority was not consistent with
7 your own observations.
8 Would you agree with that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree. I fully agree with that.
10 However, I would like to try to paint a picture of what the situation was
11 on the ground. Along the line, during -- along this one kilometre I
12 really could not tell whether something had happened. That is to say,
13 that I always left open the possibility that there was a possibility.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are --
15 Mr. Cayley, please proceed, and whether are reasons, objective
16 reasons is finally not for the witness to decide. He can tell us whether
17 he believed or did not believe. Whether there are objective reasons on
18 the basis of what he told us to have doubt or no doubt is finally a
19 matter the Chamber, of course, is able to determine.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I will try and finish in the next ten
22 or 15 minutes on that basis. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. CAYLEY:
25 Q. Now, let us move to the 27th of August of 1995. What time did
1 you arrive in Knin for your visit on that day?
2 A. I cannot say exactly. Perhaps around midday, 1.00 or 2.00 but I
3 cannot tell you exactly. Roughly around midday.
4 Q. And you travelled down from Zagreb with Mr. Balunovic?
5 A. Exactly.
6 Q. And Mr. Turkalj travelled separately or with you?
7 A. Separately, in a different car.
8 Q. Now, I want to talk specifically about what you saw in Grubori.
9 MR. CAYLEY: And if, please, we could have P761.
10 And I will have to find, Mr. Registrar, the correct page for
11 your reference. It's page 13765. And that is page 21.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The ERN number would be V000-4126.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you.
14 Q. Now, while we're waiting for that to come up, Mr. Celic, I'm
15 right in saying that you walked around Grubori with Mr. Turkalj. Is that
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters cannot hear the witness.
18 MR. CAYLEY:
19 Q. Could you repeat your answer to that question?
20 THE INTERPRETER: There's too much background noise.
21 MR. CAYLEY:
22 Q. Let me ask you the question again; I'm sorry about that.
23 I'm right in saying that you walked around Grubori with
24 Mr. Turkalj on the 27th [Realtime error read in error "25th"] of August
25 of 1995, sometime after midday
1 A. Well, now, as for the time-period when we were in Grubori, I
2 cannot say where that was after midday. I can assume that if we were in
3 Gracac at 7.00 we went to Grubori straight away, so as for this entire
4 visit, it was during the course of the morning.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I may just, there is a mistake on the
6 record. It should be on the 26th.
7 MR. CAYLEY: 27th.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 27th.
9 MR. CAYLEY: 27th.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. CAYLEY:
12 Q. Just to establish with you once again, on the 27th of August you
13 walked around Grubori at some time during the day with Mr. Turkalj, is
14 that right? That's the person that you remember walking with you around
15 Grubori, right?
16 A. Absolutely, yes. However, may I explain?
17 The two of us were not on our own. It was a group of people
18 there. But since he was my superior, I was with him all the time. That
19 is to say that my tour of Grubori was with him, throughout.
20 Q. Now, if you could look at your statement here.
21 MR. CAYLEY: This is -- and if we could please go -- this is page
22 13765, and if we could go to the bottom of that page -- I think this is
23 actually the wrong page.
24 Is this page 21 of V00-2126?
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It is actually 4126, for the record. That's a
1 mistake on the top of the --
2 MR. CAYLEY: Oh, 4126. It's a mistake on the page. I need page
3 21, please.
4 Q. Let's just move ahead so that we don't waste any time.
5 Your memory of Mr. Cermak being in Grubori on that day is him
6 standing in the village with a camera crew. That's right, isn't it?
7 A. Exactly.
8 MR. CAYLEY: If we can't find that page, we can actually move on.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The page number is in the English copies are
10 at the top so if you just take the cursor --
11 MR. CAYLEY: It's page -- yeah.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: You got the wrong --
13 MR. CAYLEY: Yeah, it's 4124.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 4124. It should be 4126.
15 MR. CAYLEY: We can move ahead if it is the wrong one.
16 If we could please have 65 ter 3169, which I think now is exactly
17 an exhibit, and is P772.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Celic, I want to talk about events after you left
19 Grubori, and I want to talk about this lunch in Knin itself and the
20 meeting that you say took place before that lunch where Mr. Sacic spoke.
21 MR. CAYLEY: And if we can please go to the last page of this
23 Q. And this is the statement or the Official Note from your
24 interview from 2001 where you speak of your visit to Grubori.
25 Now, I don't dispute the fact that you say you may have had lunch
1 in Knin; we all remember a good lunch. But in this Official Note, there
2 is no mention whatsoever, is there, of a meeting which took place in Knin
3 on the 27th of August, after you visited Grubori?
4 A. Exactly. In this Official Note, it is quite evident -- well,
5 actually I was sure at the time whether we went to Knin first or whether
6 we went to visit Grubori first. You can see this report, but during the
7 examination I have stated that I cannot say exactly what the time was.
8 Now I'm making an assumption in view of all of these facts that
9 it was lunch-time, first Grubori and then Knin and then this says
10 something different, but then that is what I thought at that time.
11 Q. So in 2001 you couldn't recall the lunch or the meeting in Knin
12 on the 27th of August of 1995?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to that because there
14 is a reference to the party going to Knin and it says to see General
15 Cermak. Now that has not been elaborated in this but it's --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you may lead a witness, of course, Mr. Cayley.
17 However, there are limits to what you could lead him, if there are clear
18 points of reference.
19 Now, it is it not lunch and a meeting but it is a person. Could
20 you please keep that in mind.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 Q. Now, in your interview of November of 2002, and you can take this
23 from me, there is no reference at all to this meeting in Knin.
24 Now, again, I don't dispute the fact that you may have had lunch
25 in Knin. Were you aware, do you recall that in the garrison headquarters
1 there was a public kitchen where soldiers and other individuals after the
2 fall of Knin would take communal meals together?
3 Do you recall that location in Knin?
4 A. Well, this is the way I'm going to put it. I just have to
5 distinguish between different things. We did not have headquarters of a
6 unit. We had headquarters where all the specials were. If it was -- if
7 we were out in the field we usually had lunch packages. We --
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you were asked
9 about whether you were aware of a public kitchen where soldiers and other
10 individuals, after the fall of Knin, would take communal meals together.
11 Are you aware or are you not, of this public kitchen?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of that. Not. If
13 you allow me, what I was trying to say in response to your previous
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first wait what the next question of
16 Mr. Cayley will be.
17 MR. CAYLEY:
18 Q. So you can't recall specifically where you had lunch in Knin.
19 You can just recall you had lunch in Knin somewhere?
20 A. No, you misunderstood what I said.
21 I don't remember that there was a public kitchen for soldiers in
22 Knin, but I do remember the building where we had our meals. Whether
23 this was a public kitchen for soldiers, I don't know about that.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MR. CAYLEY: If, please, we could have P762. And if we could
1 please have page 118 of 212, and that's ERN number 5276.
2 That's the wrong one again. Page -- I'm told it is page 429.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: You got the wrong page. There is no page 429
4 of any of the sections.
5 MR. CAYLEY: Sorry, I was told -- oh, I'm told I'm right.
6 Everybody's telling me I'm right.
7 JUDGE ORIE: 429 is a number which could, if you use the Adobe
8 reproduction, then it numbers throughout, whereas I'm not aware of any
9 429 in any other format but ...
10 MR. CAYLEY:
11 Q. Anyway if it could be scrolled down, and the only part I want you
12 to look at, up at the -- yeah, and this is -- I'm having to move quickly
13 through this, Mr. Celic, because I don't have much time, but if you see
14 where you say, "No, I remember when we came to Knin we went to the
15 building where General Cermak was and I recall that we had lunch there
16 all together."
17 Now, again, I am not disputing that you had lunch in Knin, but
18 you will see there is no reference of any kind of meeting with Mr. Sacic
19 speaking, is there, as you testified yesterday?
20 A. As far as I can recall, we had a conversation. Whether you would
21 refer to this as meetings or not, I don't know. But we discussed
22 everything that had happened in Grubori. I was expected to say where I
23 was and what we did. I did. But Sacic had some other information and
24 this is what we discussed.
25 Q. So in fact what you're saying now is that you would not refer to
1 what you say took place as a meeting at all. Based on your recollection.
2 A. No. I said I don't know what you would refer to this as, but we
3 were there together. We discussed all this. And I assume that was a
4 meeting or would qualify as a meeting.
5 Q. Let us take a look at page 13311 -- sorry 13310; my apologies.
6 113, thank you.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Page 424, if that helps.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We just changed from registrar. I think he must be
9 in a state of complete confusion, not having attended.
10 MR. CAYLEY: This is the last one, Your Honour. My word on that.
11 It's ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. CAYLEY:
14 Q. Now, this is the same interview and it is the only other
15 reference to this event that we're talking about and you can see there at
16 line 14: "After that we went to Knin, we went to lunch, it was the
17 building where General Cermak was staying."
18 And again you'll note there is absolutely no reference to any
19 meeting at all. Do you see that? There is no reference to a meeting
20 taking place before lunch. Do you see that? And then I have a question
21 for you after that.
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So what I'm putting to you, Mr. Celic, is this. You have not
25 mentioned in any of the statements that you have made to the OTP or your
1 statement, the Official Note of your statement to the Croatian MUP in
2 2001 that there was ever a meeting preceding your lunch in Knin, and I'm
3 putting it to you that you are mistaken about that, that there was no
4 such meeting.
5 A. I could not have said -- I couldn't say this precisely, and I'll
6 tell you why. During the interview, the investigators did not give me a
7 time-frame when they asked the questions, and I couldn't really talk
8 about the exact time --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you.
10 When you told us about this meeting, Mr. Cayley suggests that
11 since you've never talked about a meeting, irrespective of the exact
12 time, that you may have been mistaken when you told us about this
13 meeting. Is that something that you accept or is that something that you
14 do not accept, that it was a mistake, what you told us about the meeting?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I just wanted to clarify the
16 following, because we are referring back to my 2005 statements and the
17 Official Note. It is it evident from this statement or this note that I
18 first went to Knin and then only to Grubori. I recall very well that we
19 did go to Knin. So this is not at issue.
20 There is no lacunae at any point whether we did go or not. We
21 did go to Knin around lunch-time and obviously based on all the other
22 events, this happened after Grubori and not, in other words, during
23 lunch-time. And we were there and that's where we discussed this and
24 this was a meeting. I would call it meeting. We had lunch there and we
25 discussed this there.
1 MR. CAYLEY:
2 Q. Finally, Mr. Celic, I'm putting it to you because we dispute what
3 you are saying, that there was no meeting and there was certainly no
4 meeting between you, Mr. Sacic, and Mr. Cermak.
5 A. I can only speak for myself and for what I know about. We did
6 come to Knin, we came to this building, we had lunch there and we
7 discussed it. Specifically Mr. Sacic asked me to tell him what I knew
8 about this and I told him that I knew nothing.
9 So in Knin, Mr. Sacic and I did discuss this.
10 Q. You're not actually answering my question and I'll put it to
11 you --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, I think your question was more or less
13 repetitious --
14 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- to mine, and I think the answer of the witness
16 is -- if you want to put it again.
17 MR. CAYLEY: No. I'm told there's a translation error. He
18 said --
19 JUDGE ORIE: About the sequence?
20 MR. CAYLEY: No, I'm not -- he said "I suppose there was a
21 meeting," not "I would call it a meeting."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, how do you suppose that something is a
24 You -- Mr. Celic, you considered this to be a meeting, when you
25 were in that room, as you said, Mr. Sacic spoke most. You considered
1 this a meeting?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if we sat there together and
3 discussed this, if you want to call it a briefing or a debriefing or a
4 meeting, call it whatever you will but I can tell you that we did talk
5 about this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley.
7 MR. CAYLEY:
8 Q. Now, you say that you spoke with Mr. Sacic. Now, you did not
9 speak with Mr. Cermak, did you?
10 A. No, not personally. I personally did not discuss this with
11 Mr. Cermak.
12 Q. And, in fact, Mr. Cermak was not present at this meeting with you
13 and Mr. Sacic, was he?
14 A. When we arrived there, we were all together. And at one point I
15 have a clear recollection of this, I did see Mr. Cermak. But I don't
16 want to provide false information. Whether he was there throughout or
17 left at some point, I -- I couldn't tell you, but I remember that we had
18 lunch together in this building and I think this was the command of the
19 Croatian army.
20 Q. So whilst you saw Mr. Cermak, as you sit here now, you cannot be
21 sure that he was at that meeting, can you, with you and Mr. Sacic?
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I object to that question.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That question has been answered in quite some
24 detail. The witness answered quite detailed questions about this matter
25 before and it is inappropriate to put it to him in this way, Mr. Cayley.
1 MR. CAYLEY: I don't have any further questions, Your Honour.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Cayley.
4 Ms. Mahindaratne.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I dont have re-examination, but just to
7 clarify for the record, at page 107, line 2 to 11 the witness has given
8 in two paragraphs an answer and it is contradictory. I just want --
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's the issue where I expected that there might
10 have been a translation problem. I'm not saying there is.
11 Mr. Celic, at a certain moment, you said that you went to Knin
12 after you had gone to Grubori. That's your testimony?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Because in one of your previous answers, unlike, I
15 would say, most, if not all of the other answers, you put it the other
16 way around, that you first were in Knin and then to Grubori. In that
17 same paragraph you later said: "We first went to Grubori and then to
18 Knin." The last one is the right version, is it, or is it not?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so. I couldn't say
20 exactly until I was given some other information by the investigators but
21 this was my error in the first Official Note. I was convinced that it
22 had been the other way around but then, after the subsequent information
23 I considered it to be otherwise.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And what was that information that you made change
25 your mind?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the interview with the
2 investigators when they asked me at what time I came to Gracac, where I
3 was and so on, and from the evidence of other witnesses, it became
4 obvious that we did not go to Knin first but rather to Grubori, because
5 the others were certain that that's how it transpired and I was not. But
6 now I am fairly certain, almost 99 per cent that it was first --
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... who were those
8 other witnesses, Mr. Celic, and how did you learn about what those other
9 witnesses said?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Balunovic's statement
11 and Mr. Turkalj's statement and according to them, we were all supposed
12 to be there together and we went to Grubori first and then to Knin for
13 lunch. But since we are talking about lunch, then we must have gone to
14 Grubori first. That is how I came to the conclusion that it was Grubori
16 JUDGE ORIE: And when you say the statements of Mr. Balunovic
17 and -- it says on the transcript Turkalj -- oh, I don't know whether I --
18 Those statements were --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- given to whom? Were these statements given to
21 the Croatian authorities or were these statements given to the OTP?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When the investigators asked me to
23 tell them the time-line when we went through it together, I wasn't able
24 to pinpoint the time. But during their questioning, they read out to me
25 quotes from certain statements, and then I was able to orient myself more
1 easily about the time, so I received this information from them.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
4 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I do apologise for interrupting you.
5 May I ask -- based on what you asked, could I ask two or three questions
6 of the witness?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have one or two questions as well.
8 Ms. Mahindaratne, still no questions.
9 Mr. Mikulicic, still no questions.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: I will have a couple of questions, within two
11 minutes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Two minutes. Then I suggest that we take the usual
13 order, if there are questions by the Bench at this moment, and then give
14 a last opportunity to you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Celic, I have two questions for you.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE ORIE: The first is the occasion at which you made your --
19 you wrote your third report, you said it would be most likely 1st of
20 September in Zagreb, is nowhere mentioned in your statement to the
21 Croatian authorities, was it?
22 A. I made no such statements.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you reviewed during the break a report in
24 which you said your statement to the Croatian authorities was actually
25 reflected, and you made one correction. In those reports, we do not find
1 anything about this 1st of September gathering and producing a new
2 report, a few lines added, typed out by the secretary, do we?
3 A. Correct.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I may have missed something. Then I would apologise
7 if I put a question to you that you have answered already.
8 We have very much focussed on the 25th of August, the 25th and
9 26th of August operations.
10 Now, how many operations clearing the terrain in total your unit
11 has done, well, let's say in the month of August and September?
12 A. In August and September, well, the first one at the beginning of
13 August was Storm. Then in mid August there was operation Obruc in the
14 area of Petrova Gora and on the 25th and 26th was Oluja-Obruc in the area
15 of Gospic. I think that all these operations were in the month of
16 August. As for September, I think we really didn't have any but we could
17 look at the war path to check.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Yes.
19 Mr. Mikulicic, I think is in terms of the order the first.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
22 Further cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Celic, the purpose of your conversation and
24 your arrival in Gospic [as interpreted] in the headquarters on the 26th
25 was obviously that in relation to Grubori there are different versions of
1 the events concerned. Is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Sacic as head of the headquarters of the special police was
4 obviously given a task by General Markac who was there to establish what
5 it that had actually happened. Was that your understanding of the
7 A. That was my understanding of the matter because I only talked to
8 him about this and I received this information from him.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Previous translation continues] ...
10 MR. MIKULICIC:
11 Q. [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues] ... that task?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I could just point out the -- there's a
13 reference to Gospic. It should be Gracac, not Gospic. Your arrival in
14 Gospic in the headquarters in --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Should have been Gracac, yes. Thank you. I think
16 there is no confusion about the meeting. Please proceed.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] So Mr. Sacic got that task from General Markac
19 because obviously General Markac wanted to establish the truth no matter
20 what it was. Is your understanding of the matter?
21 A. Well, I cannot say anything about the relationship between
22 Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic. I can say about them and me it was my
23 understanding only that Mr. Sacic is in charge of that part, that he was
24 trying to see what had happened, because I only communicated with him.
25 Q. Thank you for your answer. Do you know that Mr. Sacic before
1 you, on that day in Gracac, talked to someone else about the incident in
3 A. I wouldn't know.
4 Q. And it is correct, Mr. Celic, that the civilian police was
5 informed about the incident in Grubori at that time. Isn't that right?
6 A. Well, in view of the meeting, or rather the visit to Grubori,
7 where the policemen were present obviously they did know about it.
8 Q. And it is right, Mr. Celic, isn't it, that the crime police of
9 the civilian police carried out an investigation and informed the public
10 prosecutor if a crime had been committed as to who the suspects were so
11 that the public prosecutor could decide to issue an indictment before the
12 relevant Court, is that right?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. No further questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was wondering to what extent these questions
16 were a follow-up on anything that happened before you cross-examined the
18 Mr. Cayley.
19 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Two or three questions, you said. I'm looking at
21 the clock.
22 MR. CAYLEY: I will be very quick, Your Honour.
23 Further cross-examination by Mr. Cayley:
24 Q. Mr. Celic, you said a moment ago to His Honour Judge Orie that
25 when the OTP investigators asked you to tell the time-line, when we went
1 through it together you weren't able to pinpoint the time.
2 Do you recall that?
3 A. At that time I couldn't say exactly what the relevant times were.
4 Quite simply because so much time had elapsed, I couldn't say what the
5 exact time had been.
6 Q. So they read to you the statements of other witnesses in order to
7 help you orientate yourself in time. Is that right?
8 A. That's right. Otherwise, throughout the interview I did my best
9 to say the truth and nothing but the truth and that is what I'm doing now
10 and I will give you a specific example that I've just remembered.
11 The question was when I met up with Mr. Sacic was it the 25th or
12 26th. I could not give an accurate answer. However, when it was read
13 out to me that Mr. Sacic made a statement to the effect that he certainly
14 was not in Gracac and Knin on the 25th, that he was in Zagreb then, that
15 he came only on the 26th, then I only could have confirmed that it was
16 probably on the 26th because after that all that time, I couldn't know.
17 I simply could not tell.
18 Q. And you recall the statements of Mr. Balunovic and Mr. Turkalj
19 being read to you by the OTP investigators. Yes?
20 A. Well, I cannot tell you very specifically now whether that is
21 what they read out, but during the interview itself, with them I mean,
22 and with Mr. Balunovic, I can say or rather I could have provided exact
23 information. However, when I talked to the investigators what was really
24 helpful was that, so I was as specific as I could be.
25 Q. Now, in respect to these witness statements that were read to
1 you --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I could just point out
3 this -- the entire two interviews are on record and Mr. Cayley is aware
4 of exactly what has been read to the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, that was also why I had some hesitations
6 to put all these questions to the witness but I did put them to the
8 MR. CAYLEY: Could I ask when more question, Your Honour, please?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. CAYLEY:
11 Q. What was the name of the investigator that read these statements
12 to you. Was it Mr. Casey?
13 A. Exactly.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If there are no further questions ...
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: If there are no further questions, Mr. Celic, this
18 concludes your evidence in this court. I'd like to thank you very much
19 for having answered all the questions, questions put to you by the
20 parties, questions put to you by the Bench and I wish you a safe trip
21 home again.
22 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Celic out of the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we adjourn I would like to express my
2 appreciation to all who made it possible to conclude the testimony of the
3 witness today. That is interpreters, transcribers, security, technical
4 assistance, registry representatives. I would like to thank you very
6 We adjourn until Monday, the 8th of September, quarter past 2.00,
7 Courtroom III
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Monday, the 8th day of
10 September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.