1 Thursday, 11 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Madam Registrar would you -- there
7 is French translation on channel 4. That has been changed by now.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apologies, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No problem. Thank you.
10 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
12 number IT-06-90-T, The Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 Mr. Liborius, I would like to remind you, as I did during the
15 past days, that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at
16 the beginning of your testimony.
17 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
18 MR. MISETIC: I don't know if the Court wanted to deal with the
19 housekeeping matter that we ended with yesterday or should I proceed?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Court still has not given up hope that we
21 might finish because we will continue Friday afternoon and we will stop
22 at 6.00, and we'll see how far we come.
23 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Liborius.
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I have been advised by the staff of
1 the witness assistance section that I should leave at 5.00.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And your plane, as far as I understand, leaves at
4 THE WITNESS: 8.00 I'm told.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I received other information. We'll check that.
6 But if it would be 8.00, that would be three hours and even perhaps three
7 and a half hours. We will check that and we'll take care that you'll not
8 miss your plane. At least we'll do everything in order to avoid that,
9 whether you need to leave at 5.00 or 6.00 for those purposes --
10 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: One housekeeping matter that have is we played a
12 video of Kricke at the end of the session yesterday. I'm advised that
13 there was some change because the number that I called up was still a
14 tentative P number. We have done a clip, we've cut it to the clip that
15 we actually showed in court and have a -- uploaded it and have a D number
16 for it and I would propose that we give -- we, the Defence, tender that
17 clip into evidence and it is 1D50-0377.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And that's the clip that ends where we see the
19 Kricke --
20 MR. MISETIC: The sign, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be exhibit number D750.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, Mr. Waespi. D750 is admitted into
1 We later will deal with the outstanding list of exhibits,
2 Prosecution Exhibits.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 WITNESS: SOREN LIBORIUS [Resumed]
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic: [Continued]
7 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Liborius.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. I'd like to start where we left off yesterday. And as you will
10 recall, I had asked you questions about how -- when you were doing these
11 patrols you were able to determine what was a Croat village -- Croat
12 majority village versus a Serb majority village and whether damage had
13 occurred before or after the 4th of August, 1995. And in the transcript
14 at page 8432 to 8433, you indicated that the way you would be able to
15 tell was from previous information before Operation Storm, from the
16 Regional Centre Knin with its ECMM teams had throughout the war covered
17 the whole area.
18 And then on page 8434 you said: "Usually we would relate to the
19 information that was gathered by the teams prior to Operation Storm;
20 secondly, we would relate to the government of Croatia's statistics for
21 each municipality. The big blue book on municipality structures."
22 So are those the two principle means by which you were able to
23 tell the difference between a Serb majority village and a Croat majority
24 village when doing these patrols?
25 A. I gave you a few examples of -- of this off my head how we would
1 work. I'm sure that in the preparations of our patrols, if there were
2 other relevant information available, we would take that into account.
3 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if could I have P811 on the
4 screen, please.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Liborius, this is the daily report of the 22nd of
6 August, 1995, and you and Mr. Hendriks are the authors of it.
7 Now, the villages down below as well as on the next page are the
8 results of the patrol you and Mr. Hendriks did on that day, and I'm going
9 to ask you now to look at the list and -- and tell me if I'm interpreting
10 the list correctly.
11 For example, if you look six villages in, it says Polaca. Do you
12 see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. It says totally damaged by 1991 war, DPs returning.
15 Am I right to assume that what that means is that this is a
16 village that had been damaged prior to Operation Storm?
17 A. I would say, yes.
18 Q. You obviously were, as you were doing these patrols, noting which
19 villages were damaged but -- you believed had been destroyed or damaged
20 prior to Operation Storm. Is that correct?
21 A. Your question says, as we were doing the patrols noting which
22 villages we believe, I mean, we believe -- what we did was to have a
23 reference later, while we were doing our patrols -- we noted down what we
24 saw, interviewed people, if we could, and then we would see the
25 information that was available to us. I don't know --
1 Q. Let me follow up --
2 A. Your question seems to suggest that we were doing the match, so
3 to speak, while we were on patrol. Am I right to assume that.
4 Q. That wasn't what I intended. Let me follow up on what you just
5 said while giving the court reporter a --
6 A. Please put your question again so I understand it.
7 Q. Okay. We need to pause, just to remind you again, between my
8 questions and your answers so that the court reporter and the
9 interpreters have a fair chance.
10 Let me put it a different way. When you gathered this
11 information during the day and then by the time you prepared the daily
12 report of your activities, you tried to assess which villages were
13 damaged prior to Operation Storm and include that in your daily report.
14 Is that correct?
15 A. To the best of our abilities, yes.
16 Q. So we see that one entry for Polace which indicates that the
17 damage in that village had occurred prior to Operation Storm. The rest
18 of the entries, then, I interpret that you believed the damage occurred
19 during or after Operation Storm. Is that correct?
20 A. That was our impression at that time, yes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if I could have D743 on the
23 screen, please. And if we could go to what is marked on the bottom as
24 1D50-0245, please.
25 That's not the right page, so ... there we go.
1 Q. Okay. Mr. Liborius, I don't know if you can see the screen
2 there, but that is the notebook and the notes you took on the 22nd of
3 August. Feel free to refer to the hard copy that you have in front of
4 you, the original.
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Can you just read us the first few lines of what you've
8 written down there.
9 A. Task, W part of AOR
10 900; Whiskey Juliette 3883; Biljane TD, utilities electricity at work,
11 electrical wiring. 9.30, S for Benkovac. [Foreign language spoken].
12 Q. Can you translate that for us?
13 A. Life normal, people, house okay. Arrow, DP return. Whiskey
14 Juliette 4774, Mikulici Sopot 0939. Zapuzane, Whiskey, Juliette 4473.
15 Q. Okay. We can stop right there. First can you tell me, for
16 example, when you say 0900, 0930, 0939, what does that refer to?
17 A. That would usually be time-line.
18 Q. Okay. Now, you can go through the notes, Mr. Liborius, and flip
19 through the pages. I assume that all those time entries reflect the time
20 that were in the villages that are then reflected in the daily report.
21 Is that correct?
22 A. I would imagine, yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if I could have 1D50-0367.
25 Q. Mr. Liborius, what we've done is we have created charts to show,
1 based on your notebook and based on your daily report, the path that you
2 would have travelled on the 22nd, given the time-frames and the villages
3 that you were in, and if you -- I don't know if can you do it 13 years
4 later, but does that indicate to you - and we can turn the page to the
5 next page.
6 Now, what we've done there is classify according to the
7 classifications that are in your daily report and in your notebook, we've
8 colour-coded the villages and put in where you entered a time we put all
9 those times in.
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And for example the green colour coding is Polace which is
13 in the middle part of your screen all the way to the far left. Do you
14 see it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So that would be a village that you were in that was destroyed
17 before Operation Storm according to your daily report?
18 MR. MISETIC: If we could flip to the last page, please.
19 Q. What we tried to reconstruct based on the times that you were in
20 these villages is the distance between the villages and the travel speed
21 that you would had to be going at various speeds and how much territory
22 you could cover. And if you look through this and compare it with your
23 notes, is it fair to say you, for the most part when you visiting these
24 villages, you were sticking to the main road and not actually going into
25 the villages. You were just driving through the main road and what you
1 could see to the left or to the right of the road is what you would
2 record in the patrol notebook?
3 A. It would depend on the information we had about the area, how we
4 would tailor the individual patrol. And if you suggest, if I get your
5 question right, that we would travel by the main roads between the
6 points, then the answer is yes.
7 Q. Well, what I understood from your notes, and you correct me if
8 I'm wrong, for example, Guglete is the last entry there. On the chart on
9 your screen, as well as in your notebook, it is roughly 12.15.
10 What I understood from your notes, sir, is generally speaking you
11 would be in a moving vehicle making observations and if something caught
12 your attention, as, for example, in Guglete you would then stop the car
13 and check for something specific.
14 Is that accurate?
15 A. Yeah, Guglete. Where are we ... I can't find Guglete.
16 Q. Guglete is the third page of your 22 August entry at the top.
17 A. Yes. Sorry. Sorry repeat, Please.
18 Q. You tell me if I explained this correctly. Your general practice
19 was to drive on a main road and record what you see on the left and the
20 right, and that if something of particular interest caught your
21 attention, you may stop in a particular village, as you did there
22 Guglete, for example, where it appeared that you had an extended stay?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. So for many of these villages this is what you observed on the
25 main roads going left and right without actually going into the villages,
1 while Guglete may be an example where you actually stopped in the village
2 and made observations. Is that correct?
3 A. As to the patrol patterns, there was a difference, as I said
4 again, depending on the situation, some places we would have information
5 from other agencies. At the 22nd of August we had already been on the
6 road for some time. Colleagues had also been. Sometimes we would stay;
7 sometimes we would drive relatively faster having observed what was
8 previously informed to us. Some places we would stop. So I cannot
9 really say that there was only one particular way of doing the
11 Q. Okay. But certainly for some of the villages entered, this is an
12 observation based on being in a moving vehicle passing through on a main
13 road. Is that accurate?
14 A. Some of the observations, yes.
15 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if we could go back to the --
16 THE WITNESS: But I can't tell you at this point in time
17 precisely when did we stop, how long the stop was.
18 The purpose of this book was not to say where are we at a
19 particular time. The purpose of it was to note down information.
20 MR. MISETIC:
21 Q. Well, can we go to the second page of this exhibit, please.
22 If you look at the time sequencing, for example Donje Biljana,
23 9.00 a.m.
24 9.58 you've come back and now you're in Podlug. 10.20 you're in Gornje
25 Ceranje. 10.30 you're in Budak. You can reconstruct, sir, can't you
1 from where you were at various points in the day how much time could have
2 possibly been spent in these particular villages?
3 A. With a plus or minus, I'm not sure whether the exact route, if
4 you look to the east of Budak would that be. I can't tell you today.
5 Sometimes we would take the fastest road returning back, and I cannot
6 today say that it was the exact route, for example, east of Budak, 10.30.
7 Q. Okay. Well --
8 A. But, otherwise, it seems to make sense.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if we could go to the next page,
12 Q. Now, what we've done, Mr. Liborius, is we took that Croatian
13 census of the ethnic break down of the villages that you visited, and
14 then compared and colour-coded them with what you found on your patrol on
15 the 22nd of August. And you'll note again you did make the notation in
16 Polace where you thought that the damage was prior to Operation Storm in
17 green, on this chart; and according to the census Polace was a Croat
18 majority village, as can you see on the screen?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Yes. Now from what I gather, for example, if we look at the
21 middle portion of the screen off to the right you'll see Medvidja. Do
22 you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. That is it coloured pink, because in your notebook it is
25 entered -- and in your daily report it is entered as totally destroyed.
1 Which is, according to the census a majority Croat village.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. I see it, yeah.
4 Q. Lisicic is below Medvidja and in the left. It is also
5 categorised by you in your daily report as totally destroyed. Lisicic
6 had 479 Croats and two Serbs, according to the census. There is another
7 village, Pridraga which is up to the left in blue, in the upper part of
8 this page, which you also --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- identified as totally destroy, a village with 1770 Croats and
11 two Serbs. Now, my first question to you, sir, is based on what you've
12 just answered, that to the best of your ability you did try to identify
13 villages that had been destroyed prior to Operation Storm, as indicated
14 by the green colour coating of coding of Polace, what we should conclude
15 from your daily report is that these Croat villages were burned down
16 after Operation Storm, or during Operation Storm. Is that correct?
17 A. What we observed was recent burning. We did not include in the
18 daily report, if could you please produce that again, the --
19 MR. MISETIC: That would be P811.
20 Q. And I'll just help you out here. I have given you three
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if you can look at them - if we can scroll down a little bit
24 more, Madam Registrar --
25 A. What you see there is that we do not include whether it was a
1 Serb or Croat village. Your question, and that's the reason why I ask
2 you, I'm not sure I fully understand it, that you say it's a Croat
3 village, yes, it was, according to the census in 1991, if you have so
4 checked. And of course it was very unfortunate that from Croat majority
5 villages that they were expelled during RSK times. But we did not
6 include, as you see in the report there, the notion whether it was Croat
7 villages or not.
8 Q. My question, sir, was there are three villages that I have given
9 to you, and if you look on your screen it is D, Viduka, which I have
10 identified for you as Croat majority. If you look farther down,
11 Medvidja --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And -- what was the other one - Lisicic, which is on the next
15 A. [Overlapping speakers] ... I don't see --
16 Q. It's on the next page, last entry.
17 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page, please. Up top.
19 Q. For example totally burned, deserted?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. My question to you is: The first thing that Trial Chamber should
22 include is that your assessment was that that village was burned
23 recently, meaning after the 4th of August. Correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Okay. The second step is that given the population census of
1 1991, the Trial Chamber, according to you, should find that this village,
2 which was -- let me?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
4 MR. WAESPI: Yes I believe the witness said that the -- he didn't
5 know at that time. He made his factual observation as to damage or not
6 whether the village predominantly Croatian or Serb.
7 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, that's incorrect.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
9 MR. MISETIC: I asked him if in preparing the daily reports then
10 they would try to do that, and he said yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Misetic you suggest to the witness things
12 that we should believe.
13 MR. MISETIC: I'll change it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And that's, of course, not what the witness is
15 supposed to do and that's not what we the Chamber expects a witness to
16 day. The reason is for the Chamber the factual observations for the
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. We have now established that Lisicic was burned -- or should say
21 totally burned and deserted after the 4th of August. My question to you,
22 sir, is: It was your understanding that a Croat majority village from
23 1991 was burned down after Operation Storm. You knew that when you put
24 the report together on the 22nd of August. Is that correct?
25 A. What this report was -- sorry. That report was a factual listing
1 of the observations we made during that patrol.
2 Now, of course, where we had a chance - sometimes we did,
3 sometime there were nobody, sometimes time was -- was scarce - we tried
4 to speak with -- with people. Of course, in some of the villages a
5 significant change of population took place during the Krajina years.
6 That was the reason why, in the daily reports, we would remain factual.
7 If it had been -- the houses had been intact before Operation Storm, to
8 the best of our knowledge, and that we, on the 22nd of August, found it
9 totally burnt, recently burnt, deserted, we would note so.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to see whether we can get some clarity in
12 What Mr. Misetic actually is asking you is the following. Where
13 you noted, only for one village that it was totally destroyed in 1991,
14 and you did not note that, in relation to other villages, that
15 Mr. Misetic is surprised that villages of a Croat majority are not noted
16 as being destroyed at an earlier stage and one of the implicit
17 assumptions is that Mr. Misetic would not expect the Croats to fully
18 destroy their own villages in 1995. That's the implicit suggestion.
19 Further, Mr. Misetic is using the word "majority" sometimes
20 pointing at a close to 100 per cent majority, sometimes to a 60
21 per cent/40 per cent majority, he puts that all together.
22 Now, do you have an answer to what apparently is on Mr. Misetic's
23 mind that you did not note the destruction of majority or almost
24 100 percent Croatian villages as done in earlier stages, and Mr. Misetic,
25 for that reason wonders whether your observations were accurate.
1 Could you please respond to that question.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
3 As it is a question that I see contains some different elements,
4 I will try to cover them all. And I think, actually, that I have a
5 recollection of that particular village that Mr. Misetic is referring to.
6 The old destruction done prior to Operation Storm, 1991, would
7 have another appearance as to recent destruction done very recently. I
8 gather that is one of the elements in the answer.
9 Second element, the -- as was mentioned, the implicit suggestions
10 why we do not note down, that it is to say, a 1991 Croatian majority
11 village, that was not really the purpose of --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, that was not my question.
13 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.
14 JUDGE ORIE: My question was why you did not note down for
15 majority Croatian villages that they were destroyed in -- well, prior
16 before Operation Storm, and therefore is the implicit assumption, that
17 the Croats would not destroy totally their own villages.
18 So Mr. Misetic cannot understand that this damage total
19 destruction of villages would take place in 1995. He has difficulties to
20 understand and believe that. Nevertheless, he does not find in your
21 report that the damage to these villages was done far before Operation
22 Storm, that's what is bothering Mr. Misetic.
23 And therefore majority Croat village is not -- he is focussing on
24 villages which on the basis of the census appear to be in 1991 majority
25 Croatian villages; and, nevertheless, there is no clue to early
1 destruction and there is a suggestion of recent destruction.
2 That's the issue.
3 THE WITNESS: Let me then help.
4 What we came across was that the burning did take place, and I
5 think that the -- if you wish, the missing link is the population change.
6 I perfectly see that there is no reason why you should burn what
7 previously had Croatian majority population. Nevertheless, what we saw
8 was that a significant population change had taken place during the war.
9 And, for one reason or another, those houses, in many instances there
10 would be living Serbs in them, were then burned.
11 What we observed was that they were burnt totally or partly,
12 deserted or not.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to see whether I understand you, because
14 it is important that you understand the questions and the answers as
16 What you're actually saying is that what was a majority Croatian
17 village in 1991 might not have been a majority Croatian village anymore
18 in 1995, due to the fact that a Serb population may have gone into that
20 That's what you're telling me.
21 THE WITNESS: In many instances, that was the case, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Mr. Misetic, I'm trying to understand everything, and to
24 understand the answers and verify whether I understood them well because
25 that seems to be a problem now and then.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps one question.
4 One of the matters you have not answered is whether the notation
5 of destruction far before Operation Storm, if that is not there, do you
6 think your observations were and the notations were always accurate, or
7 do you guarantee for the accuracy of the -- not noting that it was the
8 early destruction?
9 Do you think that not noting that it was early destruction gives
10 us reliable information as to the time of the destruction.
11 THE WITNESS: In most instances, yes. My observations were made
12 to the very best of our abilities at that time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Mr. Misetic, there's another matter. I don't know whether you're
15 going to pursue this on the basis of one report only or on the basis of
16 all of the reports because for the reliability of the information of
17 course an overall view would assist the Chamber best.
18 MR. MISETIC: I had given the time. I chose two and I believe he
19 did -- excuse me.
20 JUDGE ORIE: One second. You did choose them at random?
21 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... Well, I mean as I look
22 through his notebook he went on the 18th, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, and I
23 believe the 25th. I took two of them because they were -- I didn't want
24 to go through every day, but at some point it is my position that it's
25 the job of the Prosecution to come back then with these statistics and
1 figure out and make some sense of all of this, but I will continue to
2 pursue this with the witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
5 Q. I want to be clear on this, based on your answers that you have
6 now given to the Presiding Judge, Mr. Liborius.
7 First of all, if it is not noted that the village was destroyed
8 in 1991, that means that your observation was that the village was
9 destroyed after Operation Storm. Correct?
10 A. I'm looking for the -- interjection in the Judge's ...
11 Could we scroll a bit up -- no, sorry.
12 We just a few lines up, please, so I can see the Judge's
14 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: It is now Mr. Misetic, his question.
16 THE WITNESS: "So the absence of information, whether it was
17 destroyed" -- sorry, "the absence of 1991 or prior to Operation Storm
18 should in general be seen as indication that it was done after Operation
20 Do I read you right?
21 MR. MISETIC:
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. I think in most case, yes. In most cases. I will not exclude
24 that there will be some instances where it was not the case.
25 Q. Can you think of a single time that you thought the damage had
1 occurred prior to Operation Storm but decided not to note that in a daily
3 A. We would in general try to get as much information in, of course,
4 within reasonable time resources and so on, and you should take into
5 consideration the amount of destruction, and it was going on as we were
6 there, it compelled us to make the best judgements we could at that time.
7 If there would be a couple of houses, if there would be some quarters of
8 a -- as you indicate in your map, a town where there were both Serbs and
9 Croats, some destruction had taken place before, some had been rebuilt,
10 some then were burned again because sometimes it was also the revenge,
11 that a previously Croat owned house would be rebuilt by the Serbs during
12 the Krajina years and then destroyed. That can blur the picture. And
13 I'm not going to say that everything single house in every single village
14 that we can trace that either before or after.
15 This is a condensed impression of a very large area, being
16 destroyed as we were witnessing it and as we were noting in our reports
17 to the best of our abilities.
18 I excuse the long answer, but that is a reflection, I believe, of
19 the whole truth of the reflection that we are having in our reports.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I -- sorry.
22 Q. I let you get the long response, now I'm going to go back to the
23 question I posed.
24 Can you think of a single time that you thought the damage you
25 saw had occurred prior to Operation Storm but you decided not to note
1 that fact in a daily report. It's a yes or no answer, Mr. Liborius?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I have great problems with this
3 question. The witness - and I do understand that you are focusing to
4 take him back to the question - was that sometimes in villages there was
5 damage which was -- may have inflicted earlier, then rebuilding then --
6 so, therefore, the damage you saw, we should make that clear, did it ever
7 happen or do you have any recollection that you may have seen villages in
8 which you saw early destruction of an early date well before Operation
9 Storm, where you have not noted that down? For example, in circumstances
10 as you described which is that you saw some old damage, some new damage.
11 THE WITNESS: We did have some of the reports dealing with the
12 question of the possibilities of return, and in order to assess that
13 possibility in the area, we could have to observe whether they were
14 inhabitable houses, how large a percentage or so, so, yes there could be
15 instances. In our longer reports, some of which I believe have been
16 tendered into evidence here, we developed that discussion, how are the
17 possibilities for return.
18 In doing that we did not have to relate to whether it was a
19 majority Croat; so, yes, there would be instances where there would be
20 destruction prior to Operation Storm, but in these daily -- in this
21 patrol -- we have patrol report we have here, the -- the pre-1991 mention
22 is, at that time, to the best of our abilities, the only one done before
23 Operation Storm.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, you may have understood that the damage
25 you observed when we're talking about one village in view of the previous
1 answer of the witness was not a basis on which, in my view, you could put
2 that question.
3 We have -- the witness has answered whether he has answered the
4 question, I leave it up to you to see whether you are satisfied.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. MISETIC: In the interests of time, Your Honour, I would like
7 to go back to 1D50-0367, please. And we can go to the third page again.
8 Q. Now, for example, if we look at yellow, undamaged villages, we
9 have in the upper right-hand corner yellow blocks, Komazeci, with the
10 hamlets with V. Varos Komazeci valley. And they are undamaged villages
11 which were 100 percent Serb.
12 Zapuzane, which is in the middle of the page all the way to the
13 left. If you follow it there's a yellow block there. In 1991 there were
14 nine Croats and 532 Serbs, and the village when you saw it on the 22nd of
15 August, was undamaged.
16 My question now is: You were doing this to make an assessment of
17 the situation. Did you ever think to include in your assessments where
18 you actually noted in the daily reports that you found undamaged
19 villages, to note that this was a -- an exclusively Serb village, or
20 almost exclusively Serb village, with respect to these two villages?
21 A. In general, the assessment at a larger scale would be done at the
22 RC level. Sometimes we would include it; sometimes not.
23 What we did see sometimes was that the partly destroyed villages
24 were then later destroyed. And that -- that compilation of information
25 was also done at a higher level.
1 Q. I'm focussed right now on the 22nd of August and your preparation
2 of the daily report. So I have showed you two exclusively Serb villages,
3 or almost exclusively Serb villages.
4 If we go to other undamaged villages, Sopot, which is Mikulici
5 which is in that general area, which is Sopot - sorry - upper left-hand,
6 far left, Mikulici, Podlug, and Perusic. Perusic is on the bottom of the
7 screen on the right-hand side. These are undamaged villages with
8 sizeable Serbian minorities in them.
9 My question to you, sir, specifically for the 22nd of August, you
10 are in a fact-finding role on that day. You're preparing a daily report.
11 Did you think it was important to note where you found Serbian villages
12 or villages with sizeable Serbian minorities that were undamaged, to make
13 that note as well in the daily report?
14 A. As it is not in the daily report, in that particular daily
15 report, it was not apparently felt that it should be included.
16 That is not to suggest that that information, if that is in your
17 question, would not be conveyed on. There would be other reports for
18 that purpose. This -- and I'm afraid I have to say it again. The
19 purpose of the report was to establish what we had seen on the ground.
20 Q. Well --
21 A. It was not to discuss whether it was a Serb majority or it was a
22 Croat or what has happened during the population movement during the war.
23 Q. Mr. Liborius, I'm going to get --
24 A. So, no, it is not in the report. Therefore, it was apparently
25 not considered important enough for that particular daily report.
1 Q. We're going to get to this issue in a moment and I'm going to
2 tell you why we're going through this exercise, so you can prepare to
3 give me an answer when we get to that point.
4 These daily reports were used to compile your 26 August report,
5 in which you, if I may use the word, give an almost apocalyptic
6 assessment of what is happening in Sector South. You specifically note
7 that 60 to 80 per cent of the housing in Sector South had been burned
8 down using this information.
9 Now, we're going through this exercise to see the methodology you
10 used in gathering the information. Given that you are the author of the
11 22nd August daily report along with Mr. Hendriks, my question to you is:
12 At any time between 22nd of August and the submission of the 26
13 August report, did you write down and note Serbian villages or villages
14 with sizeable Serbian minorities that were undamaged?
15 A. I would refer you to the daily reports.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may --
18 THE WITNESS: I have a question here.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... yes. I think, as a
20 matter of fact that if have you any questions at the end of your
21 testimony, of course you can put them. This is not debate or a
22 discussion. This is an examination. So, therefore, you have paper, and
23 so if there's any question that remains, please write it down and at the
24 end you will have an opportunity to raise any issue you consider not to
25 be covered sufficiently.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC:
3 Q. One question, and again it relates to the fact that we heard a
4 lot of your conclusions on direct examination, your 26 August report is
5 submitted, you gave an assessment, I believe, that what happened in
6 August was much more professionally done in light of the speed than what
7 the reports did in four years.
8 So I'd like to ask you, sir, given the fact that you've made some
9 assessments, let's look at this picture, let's take the picture on 22nd
10 of August as you saw it then. And tell me what you conclude, when you
11 find, according to your own testimony, three majority Croat or
12 exclusively Croat villages destroyed after Operation Storm, according to
13 you, two exclusively Serbian villages undamaged, three villages with
14 sizeable Serbian minorities undamaged, and I can also point out to you
15 that there are also villages here with sizeable -- with Croat majorities
16 which you've identified as partly damaged.
17 Given this picture, tell us what you concluded? What's happening
18 on the ground?
19 A. I thought I was here to give evidence of what I saw. If I'm now
20 asked to make a conclusion, based on your information here, that is not
21 what I did in the daily report.
22 So --
23 Q. Do you recall --
24 A. What I saw was that a lot of burning took place.
25 Q. Let me stop you right there.
1 A. So the conclusion you're trying to talk me into to --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, Mr. Liborius, "the conclusion you're trying
3 to talk me into" is not something for you to comment. If the Chamber
4 feels that you're unfairly dealt with by Mr. Misetic, first of all,
5 Mr. Waespi will object against the question; second, the Chamber
6 exercises control, as you may have noticed meanwhile, over the
7 examination of witnesses.
8 Mr. Misetic, at the same time, asking for conclusions if there
9 are any conclusions drawn by the witness at the time which you would like
10 to challenge, no problem. To invite the witness to draw conclusions
11 where he is supposed primarily to testify on facts might not greatly
12 assist the Chamber.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm only doing it because there was no
15 problem with drawing conclusions on direct examination, and specifically
16 he has tendered a report from the 26th of August --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may take him to the --
18 MR. MISETIC: Well --
19 JUDGE ORIE: To the report of the 26th, no problem with that. At
20 the same time, to some extent the Chamber leaves the examination of
21 witnesses to the parties. Not in every respect. And I take it that you
22 have observed how the Chamber has intervened during this testimony of the
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 May I tender this exhibit into evidence, please.
2 MR. WAESPI: Yes, of course we have to accept for the time being
3 that these population figures are accurate for the time relevant. That's
4 1995 and I have no information that this is correct. So given that
5 reservation, we have no objections.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MISETIC: This is -- we disclosed precisely for this reason
8 when we released our documents to the Prosecution. They have the 1991
9 census figures upon which this exhibit is based. I don't intend to
10 tender the exhibit, but I did want to give it to the Prosecution so they
11 can review it and check.
12 MR. WAESPI: Yes. And of course there is a difference between
13 the state of population in 1991 and 1995 as you also heard from the
14 witness. But I do have no objections to the document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes.
16 MR. MISETIC: I believe I was clear, Your Honour, that I'm
17 referring -- these are 1991 statistics.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear to me, certainly, of course.
19 Some questions are still there, for example, just as Biljsana [phoen] is
20 concerned, there apparently are four villages but where we have -- or at
21 least hamlets, but we do not have the -- yes, since there are only four
22 Croats, there could not be more than four in one hamlet. That's for
23 clear which doesn't make a majority anyhow.
24 MR. MISETIC: Let me just state for the record --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber -- one of the things that comes
1 into my mind whether a complete analysis of all the data would not be
2 something that would assist the Chamber.
3 For this moment, there's no objection, Mr. Waespi, if have you
4 got until Monday to make any further observations in relation to the data
5 included here, and Madam Registrar meanwhile could you provide a number.
6 MR. WAESPI: Just to make a point. Of course we can readily
7 ascertain, and I believe Mr. Misetic that these are 1991 data. What is
8 impossible for me to do, even until Monday, is to check whether these are
9 relate the data to -- of the same 1995, which I understand the Defence
10 doesn't claim.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It goes without saying that the source for the
12 numbers here is the 1991 census. We have heard the testimony of the
13 witness, we have -- we can think about all this, and we have to evaluate
14 and interpret the whole of it. That goes without saying.
15 Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be exhibit number D751.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D751 is admitted into evidence.
18 Mr. Waespi, if there are any objections I would like to hear that
19 not later than by Monday.
20 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, two points to make here. Just for the
21 future, the hamlets were not counted separately in the 1991 census
22 figures. The villages were, just for future reference. Secondly, I
23 think the Gotovina Defence will stipulate that on the eve of Operation
24 Storm there were virtually no Croats in this area.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
2 Now, Madam Registrar if we could have 1D50-0191 -- I'm sorry
3 1D50-0191, yes. Sorry. 1D50-0372. Thank you.
4 Q. Mr. Liborius, without taking you through your 18 August daily
5 report, unless wish to see it, we've done the same thing for your patrol
6 on the 18th of August.
7 A. Please, I wish to see it.
8 Q. Okay.
9 MR. MISETIC: P809, please.
10 Q. This is your daily report for the 18th of August, sir.
11 MR. MISETIC: And if we can scroll to the bottom of the page.
12 Q. Do you see the list of villages there, and it continues on to the
13 next page. When you're ready, we can turn the page.
14 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page, please.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. Okay. I note again the first entry on the second page, Jare, you
18 make the identification of a village that you concluded was damaged prior
19 to Operation Storm. Correct.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I note that there are no other similar qualifications for any of
22 the other villages identified here. Correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And from your previous answers to my questions, we should
25 conclude that your conclusion on -- at the end of the day on the 18th
1 August was that all of these villages except for Jare were villages that
2 had been -- and that are identified specifically as having been burned
3 were burned after Operation Storm. Correct?
4 A. I'd like to peruse my notes before --
5 Q. Sure.
6 A. Could we go to the previous page, please, of the daily report.
7 Oh. Could we ...
8 Yes, I see from my patrol notebook that during that day, we out
9 and -- and talking with different people, some places we find no people.
10 And in reference to Jare, as you ask about, I did note in my patrol
11 notebook that it has been destroyed in 1991, 1992. We passed a
12 check-point, and I cannot see from my notes whether we were talking with
13 people to get this information, destroyed in 1991, 1992. The information
14 in my patrol notebook indicates that there were different sources of
15 information. Our own observation, talking with people. So I can only
16 say that Jare -- it would indicate that we had been talk with people
18 Q. Okay. My question, again, sir, was that's what you entered for
19 Jare. For the rest of the villages there is no qualification that they
20 were burnt prior to Operation Storm, and, therefore, we should conclude
21 that your finding on that day was that these were villages that were
22 burnt after Operation Storm. Correct?
23 A. In many instances, yes, with the understanding, as I said before,
24 that also here we are out to check whether it is feasible to return
25 people and how the -- the corpus of houses, accommodation, what the
1 status is.
2 So, again, I won't repeat the discussion, Your Honour.
3 Q. Again, if a notation here -- let's just ask it this way: In this
4 daily report, if it is not noted that a village was burnt prior to
5 Operation Storm, should that be interpreted to mean that your finding was
6 that it was burnt after Operation Storm?
7 A. In most instances, yes.
8 Q. Which instances on this report should it not be interpreted that
10 A. To answer that question, I need to look at my notes.
11 [Foreign language spoken] Could we go to the next page, please.
13 In Bicelic. Do we have Bicelic in -- no, sorry.
14 Yes, in most instances, it would indicate that. I would,
15 however, also say that when this was taking place in the front line area,
16 previous front line area, as we know the pink zone south of the original
17 UN-defined area, we were in areas where, again, the repopulation in the
18 pink zones, the repopulation issue was in particular delicate.
19 Therefore, --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you.
21 Listening to you, I assume that the answer to the question, Which
22 instances on this report should it not be interpreted that way, that your
23 answer would be, I can't identify any of the instances in this report
24 where it should be understood in a different way.
25 That, from many words, I understand is your answer. Is that
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Now if we could turn to 1D50-0372?
6 Q. This is -- the white lines are the patrol you took on that day.
7 The brown line is the international border. So at some point you crossed
8 over the international border and went into Bosnia.
9 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page, please.
10 Q. We've done the same thing again based on the notebook entries
11 that have you for that date, starting at 11.01, and there are two entries
12 there because I believe in your notebook it's unclear whether you mean
13 Djurici or Turici. So we put both in there. There are two places in
14 that general area. One is called Turici, the other is called Djuric, we
15 weren't able to decipher your notes. So we're giving you both on the
16 screen there. And you can see the various ways at the various times it
17 would appear from the timing you took that road, you went all the way
18 down south, you turned around, you went back up. At 1408 you're in Vuci
19 Polje, and continued on up, you went back to Kijevo, and in 1543, at the
20 top middle of the page, you crossed over and you into Unista in Bosnia
21 Is that accurate?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Now again we've done the colour coding, deserted and burnt
24 we've put in pink. Jare, which you identified as being destroyed before
25 Operation Storm, is in green. The yellow marks the undamaged village
1 that you found, and this is from both the sitrep and in your notes -- I'm
2 sorry, in the sitrep undamaged. And in the grey we've put villages and
3 hamlets not in the sitrep but that are referenced in your -- it says
4 diary should say your notebook.
5 Now, if we can turn the page, please.
6 In addition to the green, Jare, which is part of -- which is a
7 hamlet in the Vinalic [phoen] village, which was 100 per cent Croat in
8 1991 and which you did properly identify as being destroyed prior to
9 Operation storm, you will note at the top middle of the page when you
10 crossed over into Bosnia
11 Croat village, Kijevo, middle left hand above the box there with the
12 classifications, Kijevo. Totally deserted and burnt, which was almost a
13 100 per cent Croatian village in 1991.
14 Dabar, which is towards the -- as you travel south down the road.
15 I don't know if you can see it, along that line towards the end of that
16 trip down south there's a pink box. Dabar is also a majority Croat
17 village that was deserted and burnt.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I earlier commented on what is a
19 majority. Of course 61 against 59 is still a majority, but you could
20 also describe it as of mixed population. I see for Dabar, 64 against 55
21 which is not as cruel as 61 against 59, but to say "majority" is at
22 least -- gives an impression which is not --
23 MR. MISETIC: Well, for my purposes, Your Honour, the allegation
24 is the village was completely burnt after Operation Storm, and if there
25 were -- even if you call it a mixed population village, my inference that
1 I'm going to ask you to draw is still the same. [Overlapping speakers].
2 JUDGE ORIE: I don't understand, but from a factual point of view
3 I think it is fair to say it is a mix the population with a Croat
5 MR. MISETIC: That's fine.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. MISETIC:
8 Q. You have on that road down south in the middle, Koljane, which is
9 the village but Dragovic is the hamlet which you identified in the sitrep
10 undamaged which is --
11 MR. MISETIC: I don't know how to phrase it, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Try to do your best.
13 MR. MISETIC:
14 Q. -- majority Serb village that was undamaged on your route. And I
15 have the same questions that I had with the other analysis of your
16 patrol. Why didn't you note that the deserted and burnt villages that we
17 see in pink there and that are either majority Croat or mixed population,
18 why didn't you note that those were the classifications of the village?
19 A. You ask why we did not note that those were the classifications
20 of the villages. We didn't really have that classification. It was a
21 matter of observing whether it was partly destroyed, destroyed, or not
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm going to try to get to my next
25 point in this topic area, so I'm going to tender this exhibit right now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Same reservation, I take it, Mr. Waespi.
2 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be exhibit number D752.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D752.
6 And you have the same time limit, Mr. Waespi, for making the
7 further submissions.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, may I have P810 on the screen,
11 Q. This is the list of villages that you prepared dated 22 August,
12 1995. Can you look -- let's say the first page and determine -- let's
13 look at just the villages that are deserted and burnt or totally
14 destroyed. Tell me which of these villages is majority Serb or majority
15 Croat or mixed population?
16 A. First a correction. I did not prepare that report. It is dated
17 Zadar, the 22nd of August.
18 Q. Who prepared it?
19 A. I would believe that the RC staff in Zadar prepared it. It would
20 be then prepared from the input from the ECMM teams.
21 Q. Well, you, looking at this page, how would you go about
22 determining now which of these villages are destroyed or totally burnt
23 are majority Serbian villages?
24 A. You ask me how I would go about determining now which of these
25 villages are destroyed as majority Serbian villages. Majority in 1991, I
1 would refer -- I would look in the census, as I said, the reference book.
2 I think in general it was not disputed. Whether it was changed, the
3 population, during the war, we have been through that discussion.
4 So if you ask me how I would go about determining, I think that
5 satisfies the question or -- the purpose of the report there was to give
6 an overview of the level of destruction.
7 You indicated in one of your earlier questions that we had
8 written that 60 to 80 per cent of the property in the -- in the -- that
9 part of the Sector South had a been destroyed. That is a factual
10 observation. It is a mathematical exercise.
11 Q. Okay. You agree with me then that there is no way for you to
12 look at this page and determine which of the villages that have been
13 described as burnt or totally destroyed are majority Serbian villages in
14 the 1991 census, correct?
15 A. As I said before, I'll relate to the reference books I told
16 you --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Are you asking the witness whether he could do it
18 now or whether he could do it at the time.
19 MR. MISETIC: Both.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Both. Then let's try to make that clear.
21 Could you at the time -- first of all, can you now?
22 THE WITNESS: Not without the reference material.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you then?
24 THE WITNESS: If I had the reference material, I would through
25 many hours of study be able to do it.
1 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, let's move to P815, please.
2 Q. Let's look at the summary, Mr. Liborius. This is your report.
3 "In the period from the 7th to the 24th of August 1995, three ECMM teams
4 observed a systematic destruction, mainly by burning, of property in the
5 former RSK areas. A rough estimate is that between 60 to 80 per cent of
6 the property in former UN Sector South have been fully or partly
7 destroyed. The burnings were to a very large extent carried out by
8 uniformed HV soldiers under command inside areas where access was
9 strictly controlled by HV military and Croatian civil police."
10 The 60 to 80 per cent there, does that not indicate that the 60
11 to 80 per cent of the property was burned starting on the 7th of August?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. So you agree with me that the report you filed on 26th of
14 August says that the 60 to 80 per cent of the property which was
15 systematically destroyed mainly by burning, is a reference to property
16 that is being systematically destroyed as of the 7th of August. Correct?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
18 MR. WAESPI: I read it different, but --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether you read it different or not is -- let
20 me -- Mr. Misetic puts a question to the witness and if the witness's
21 reading is different then he'll tell us.
22 MR. WAESPI: Yes, but it shouldn't also be a mischaracterization
23 of what on its face appears to be --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if there is any problem there the Chamber may
25 exercise its supervisory function as well.
1 For the time being, the question stands. Could you please answer
2 the question.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. The summary, I believe, is a factual
4 description, so that means that by the 24th of August, that was a rough
5 estimate of the destruction in the former Sector South. That was a rough
6 estimate of the -- and former Sector South of course is also the inner
7 part of Sector South, away from the pink zone and that stuff.
8 MR. MISETIC:
9 Q. Okay. My question specifically, though, is reading the first
10 sentence, the context is that that destruction began on the 7th of
11 August. Correct?
12 A. If we read the sentence: "In the period from 7th to 24th August,
13 three ECMM teams observed a systematic destruction mainly by burning of
14 property in the former RSK area."
15 I can't make it more clinical/factual.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Liborius, of course the text not unequivocally
17 says that it was done after the 7th of August. That's exactly the reason
18 why Mr. Misetic is putting the question to you, because the text as such
19 does not give a direct answer.
20 Now, your answering of this summary, 60 to 80 per cent to be
21 destroyed, did you consider this to be destruction that has been
22 inflicted after the 7th of August. That's the question.
23 THE WITNESS: The destruction was inflicted during -- I mean,
24 also the dates 4, 5, 6, we were not able to observe that. And up until
25 the 24th of August.
1 So, yes, by that time, the destruction had reached around that
2 level, a rough estimate.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 60 to 80 per cent of the destruction as
4 described in this report, you say, refers to destruction which was
5 inflicted between the 4th and the 24th of August.
6 THE WITNESS: The majority, yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No -- majority. It says roughly 60 to 80 per cent,
8 which I understand anything between 55 and 85, the 60 to 80 per cent not
9 to be taken as full precise, refers that to damage inflicted between the
10 4th and the 24th of August, or does it refer to other damage as well?
11 THE WITNESS: The first, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The first.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm going to try to finish
15 this document and then we can take the break, Your Honour.
16 If we could go eight pages in to this document.
17 Q. Now in your own report you annexed as support for those
18 conclusions, if we can look there in the middle and scroll down.
19 MR. MISETIC: And the next page, please.
20 Q. That's the patrol you did on the 18th of August, with the
21 findings. And then the patrol, the first trip we went through, the 22nd
22 of August. Now, there are other patrols listed, but my question to you,
23 sir, is you're the author of that report on the 26th, relying on your own
24 findings of a daily report.
25 You never went back and identified which of the villages you're
1 attaching to support the conclusion are majority Croat villages that are
2 destroyed, did you?
3 A. There is no -- in the summary, discussion of Croat villages or
4 Serb villages.
5 Q. Okay. So then I'm correct. What you're trying to say is that
6 the uniformed HV soldiers carrying this out were burning down Croat and
7 Serb villages. Correct?
8 A. They were burning down villages, as I observed it. Whether they
9 were Croat or Serb villages, I observed burning.
10 Q. So again, my specific question to you is your conclusion was the
11 HV soldiers were burning down villages without with regard to the ethnic
12 composition of the villages?
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I take it --
14 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] -- Mr. Misetic, irrespective
16 of the composition of the population in 1991 because that isn't
18 MR. MISETIC: Again, Your Honour, I mean to me it's semantics
19 because on the eve of Operation Storm every village was majority Serb in
20 the area.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that's -- you're not providing evidence.
22 That may be what you -- we'll look at it in more detail.
23 Again, it is the same question by Mr. Misetic. Is it your view
24 in relation to this report that Croatian soldiers burned down villages
25 even if the 1991 census tells us that these were -- at least at that
1 time, by majority or sometimes even almost exclusively Croatian villages.
2 That's the question.
3 THE WITNESS: In some instances, villages were spared or towns
4 were spared from destruction, even if they were Serb majority villages.
5 I believe Mr. Misetic asked -- asked me to make that distinction between
6 Croatian and Serbian villages.
7 If I could please refer to the discussion in one of the reports
8 where we have observed that some large village centres, irrespectable
9 [sic] of their ethnic composition in 1991, 1995, were used to house
10 certain people: Knin, Obrovac, Benkovac. So there is a mixed pattern,
11 and I cannot, from these reports here, conclude whether this particular
12 village was burned because it had Serbs or not.
13 What we observed, we reported.
14 I hope that satisfies the answer.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it is Mr. Misetic's question. Mr. Misetic,
16 you may proceed.
17 No, you may not proceed, because we'll have a break.
18 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at a quarter past 4.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Misetic.
22 The Chamber has received a submission by the Prosecution on the
23 Defence -- on whether or not to admit a Defence exhibit.
24 To say the least, that the submission shows some innovative or
25 inventive aspects not only to express an expression of the view of the
1 Prosecution whether or not to admit that exhibit, but is proffering a
2 Prosecution Exhibit to replace what the Defence seeks to have admitted.
3 Now I do understand that there this is some confusion about what
4 the basis for such an approach is. I also understand that that aspect
5 has not been dealt with a brief informal exchange of views between the
6 parties. Of course, there is no issue that on the admissibility of that
7 particular document that the Chamber's had, parties can make brief
8 submissions, but of course the Chamber, at that time, did not envisage
9 that the submissions would be of a kind which goes -- well, beyond what
10 is usually discussed if we are discussing the admission of the
11 admissibility of a document.
12 So the Prosecution is invited to explain, in perhaps a short
13 submission, explain the innovative, inventive way approach and what
14 justifies such an approach under the present circumstances, and the
15 Defence is invited to include in its short written submissions this
16 aspect as well so that we have everything on the record.
17 So the chamber has to deal with two issues at this moment: The
18 first is admission of -- what was it? D568. And at the same time the
19 new avenues that apparently the Prosecution wants to find, again
20 inventive, innovative, but not yet fully explained.
21 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 I think Mr. Tieger just made an e-mail shortly after 4.00
23 explaining in a few sentences, but perhaps not detailed enough the
24 innovative approach.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that of course, apparently, if I
1 understand Mr. Misetic well, is one of the concerns that he expressed,
2 that he is uncertain about the procedural basis on which this approach is
4 MR. WAESPI: Yes. We will do that as soon we can, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: And I would note, Your Honour, two things. One, I
7 have not had an opportunity to see Mr. Tieger's e-mail; and second, I
8 assume that we will be given an opportunity to respond to the submission
9 that the Prosecution makes rather than filing simultaneous --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll wait for another second to respond and
11 then include that in your response. I can't imagine that you had not
12 received the reply because it is from --
13 MR. MISETIC: I didn't say I didn't receive it. I just don't
14 have my e-mail open at the moment, so I haven't read it yet.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was three minutes past 4.00.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Liborius, continuing where we left off.
19 I want -- you were invited by the Prosecution to make an
20 assessment and so that's why I'm usually not quick to ask witnesses for
21 their assessments, but let me ask you: You made the assessment that what
22 the Croatians -- Croatian forces did in August 1995 was much more
23 professional than what happened -- what the Serbs did between 1991 and
25 My question to you is: Was part of the professional operation
1 that was conducted, in your view, to burn down villages regardless of the
2 ethnic composition of the village as reflected in the 1991 census?
3 A. When it comes to "professional operation," what I meant was the
4 ability to maintain command and control, to maintain speed of operation,
5 to secure what perhaps be -- be aims. Now, I made a reference to the
6 RSK's abilities for the same, and in that comparison, I felt that the
7 Croatian armed forces were considerable [sic] more professional.
8 We have dealt with the lack of NCOs and that stuff, so I will not
9 dwell upon that, yesterday.
10 With regard to burning down villages, my assessment is based on
11 the observation in the weeks that followed Operation Storm, where, to my
12 mind, the conduct of formations -- sorry, the conduct of soldiers in what
13 I considered formations was, as I said, controlled and executed. This
14 included also the burning down of property.
15 Q. [Microphone not activated] Let me stop you right there, because
16 that is the point I want to get to.
17 And that means it included property in villages which were
18 majority Croat per the 1991 census. That's your assessment. Correct?
19 A. My assessment was and is that the burning was executed to a
20 considerable degree initially, after Operation Storm, in what would
21 appear to me as being an operational fashion.
22 Q. That doesn't answer my question, sir.
23 A. No it doesn't. And the reason is that I did not distinguish
24 between Serb and Croat villages. I did in the pause here, in the break,
25 have a chance to think of your previous questions, and I have to state
1 that the observations in the daily reports and the discussions we did in
2 the longer reports, we did not pinpoint this village was burned by --
3 this village was a Serb village or a Croat village.
4 Q. Well, would -- wouldn't that have been an important thing to do
5 as you were making an assessment as you did in the report of the 26th of
6 August, in trying to figure out what was going on in the sector, sir?
7 A. There could be a lot of things what one could wish to do in the
8 22nd -- 26th of August report, but what is on print is what we see. And
9 I don't recall that I say that 60 to 80 per cent of the property is Serb
10 and is burned by Croats, and I don't develop that line there.
11 If could you please indicate to me where in the report you
12 suggest that I say that.
13 I would also bring to the attention the discussion I have in the
14 100-day report where it is also said that this wanton destruction made it
15 difficult for the Croatian government to execute its ambitious plan for
17 Q. Okay. That is actually a point that I wanted to get into with
18 you later. Let me understand that point. You do make that point in your
19 100-day survey, sir, is that this burning actually obstructed the
20 ambitious Croatian plan to return displaced persons, correct?
21 A. If we can just have the --
22 Q. Well, you just said it, sir --
23 A. Yes, that is --
24 Q. You just said.
25 A. That's my thought, yeah.
1 Q. Okay. Now what I don't understand is how you reconcile the fact
2 that one the one hand you say that all of this destruction was done
3 systematically by the Croatians army on the one hand, and on the other
4 hand you also share the conclusion that this burning obstructed Croatian
6 How do you reconcile those two things?
7 A. I discuss exactly that point in my report, that what could be the
8 reasons for that, what were the official point, what we observed, it is
9 it a very, very good question.
10 Q. Well, that's why I'm posing it to you, sir.
11 A. And can I only say that in such an answer I can only repeat the
12 discussion that is here in the reference material.
13 Q. No, sir. Here's the point. You have come here and you've told
14 us -- let me finish the question, please.
15 You had three days with the Prosecution through which you made it
16 crystal clear that it's your view that the burning that took place in
17 August was done by professional soldiers acting under command in units.
18 At the same time, you also say that this burning frustrated the Croatian
19 plans to return displaced persons to the area. Is it your position that
20 the Croatian government simultaneously executed a plan to burn down areas
21 in order to frustrate its own plans to return displaced persons?
22 A. Before I answer --
23 MR. KEHOE: No.
24 THE WITNESS: I would like to know --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the question is unclear tell us; otherwise,
1 please, answer the question.
2 THE WITNESS: Could you please rephrase your question, please.
3 MR. MISETIC:
4 Q. Sir, in three days of direct testimony, you made it crystal
5 clear --
6 MR. WAESPI: Just a minor point. It wasn't three days of direct
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. And at the same time it doesn't assist very
9 much on how much time he's, but your testimony was as --
10 MR. MISETIC: On direct examination, yes.
11 On direct examination, Mr. Liborius, you testified that it is
12 your view that the destruction that occurred in August 1995 after
13 Operation Storm was systematically done by HV troops acting under
14 command. You also have now told the Court and repeated what you say in
15 your 100-day survey, which is that you believe this burning frustrated
16 the plans of the Croatian government to return displaced persons to the
18 My question is simple: Is it your view that the Croatian
19 government, A, executed a plan to burn down villages while -- which
20 simultaneously frustrated its own plans to return displaced persons?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
22 MR. WAESPI: Yes. I think it would be fair to show the piece
23 quoted in the 100-day report.
24 MR. MISETIC: He just testified to it Judge, I don't need to show
25 him anything.
1 MR. WAESPI: Because you put it to him, Mr. Misetic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's clear enough.
3 Let me just check a few things because the question is ...
4 Yes, you may answer the question.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 The Croatian plan to return the displaced persons became an issue
7 locally; we detected that in our monitoring activity throughout the
9 If I'm now asked to elaborate on -- on why this burning took
10 place, I can give you my thoughts now. They correspond to a vast
11 degree to -- to reporting, that this must have been in an attempt to
12 reduce the amount of property. Perhaps reduce the possibilities for
13 Serbs who have fled to return.
14 MR. MISETIC: That doesn't answer my question, sir.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me try to see.
16 Mr. Liborius, Mr. Misetic - and please correct me when I did not
17 understand you correctly - just wants to know whether it's your testimony
18 that on the one hand side, Croatian government wanted Croats to return,
19 and, at the same time, that it was Croatian government policy to cause so
20 much destruction that that would not be possible anymore.
21 Is that -- I try to simplify.
22 MR. MISETIC: Well, I'm just going to use his own words which is
23 at line 18, page 42.
24 Q. Okay. You just said: "I would bring to the attention the
25 discussion I have in the 100-day report where it is also said that this
1 destruction made it difficult for the Croatian government to execute its
2 ambitious plan for return."
3 Those are your words just now.
4 My question is very simple: Is it your position that the
5 destruction was inflicted under a Croatian plan, which made it difficult
6 for the Croatian government to implement its own plan of return?
7 A. If you take into consideration that large town centres were
8 spared, then it makes sense. If you destroy the countryside, you
9 maintain the larger population centres, and then you have a situation
10 where you can still populate it to a certain degree in the larger town
11 centres. That is exactly the discussion I conduct in some of the
13 Q. That's not what you say, though, sir. You've said in the report,
14 you've said in your witness statements here that the larger town centres
15 were not damaged to any great extent, and your theory in the report was
16 so that people could settle in them.
17 You also say that the burning frustrated the Croatian
18 government's return plans for displaced persons.
19 Now, given that the burning, according to you, occurred in the
20 outlying areas, I return to you my original question which is: Is it
21 your position that the burning in the outlying areas was planned by the
22 Croatian government which frustrated the Croatian government's plan to
23 return displaced persons?
24 A. My position is that what we observed in the countryside suggested
25 very much a plan. What we observed in the larger town centres also
1 suggested a plan.
2 Q. How did the burning obstruct the Croatian government's plan to
3 return displaced persons?
4 A. The burning of the part of the countryside, I think, frustrated
5 the population that had lived in the countryside to come back. One can
6 speculate, even today, if the countryside people should live in the
8 It became an issue as the winter set in, that in fact the
9 destruction had been too much so that it was difficult --
10 JUDGE ORIE: We are moving away from an answer to the question.
11 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
12 MR. MISETIC:
13 Q. Is it simple enough to say, Mr. Liborius, that you cannot
14 reconcile those two positions that you have. Isn't that the right
15 answer? I have given you five opportunities, I'll give you another one
16 if you wish. But isn't the truth that you can't reconcile those two
18 A. That question I don't answer -- understand.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't know whether the witness has come. We
20 have seen what he wrote on paper, we have heard his testimony, and
21 whether he is able to reconcile the two is -- you have pointed to him
22 that, in your view, apparently, that there are plans that would -- not
23 reconcilable, that's clearly implied in your questions, the witness
24 whether he can reconcile it, I don't know whether that's of major
1 We give him -- can you reconcile the two plans?
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if you see a countryside being
3 destroyed -- I'm trying to reconcile, you see a countryside being
4 destroyed, you don't want people there. You want to have them in the
5 larger towns where they're easier to control. You don't want a section
6 of the population to return that used to live in the countryside, some in
7 the cities as well, then it makes sense.
8 Later on, when it dawns upon people that the destruction has been
9 too much, then a problem kicks in. And that was a mood that I felt and
10 still do feel when I discuss with colleagues and friends from the area.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
12 MR. MISETIC:
13 Q. Who are the colleagues and friends from the area that you have
14 discussions with?
15 A. Some of my former monitoring colleagues.
16 Q. And who are the friends from the area?
17 A. Am I supposed to answer that question? Does it give any added
18 value to my findings in 1995?
19 JUDGE ORIE: If can you answer the question, please do so.
20 THE WITNESS: I have a few friends, Croats, Serbs --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you say "friends," and if you are asked who
22 they are, then there is no need to say that you have friends because
23 that's what you said already, isn't it.
24 MR. WAESPI: I don't know whether the witness wants to go into
25 private session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that is an another matter. If you are
2 hesitant to give their names in public, then you can ask for private
3 session, but -- so either in private session or in public session, please
4 tell us who the friends are you were referring to.
5 THE WITNESS: I prefer a private session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
7 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
23 Madam Registrar, D743, please. And now I would like page
24 1D50-0238, please.
25 Q. I'm taking you back to the entry for the 19th of August,
1 Mr. Liborius, in your notebook. We discussed this yesterday. This is
2 that report to the Danish delegation.
3 My question for you, sir, is the report on the 26th, is that the
4 report that you also submitted to the Danish delegation and the Danish
5 Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
6 A. So you mean the identical or what?
7 Q. I don't know if it's identical or not, sir. Is that
8 substantively the same report as you submitted to the DAN DEL, or the
9 Danish delegation?
10 A. As I don't have the reports at hand, I don't know the precise
11 answer. However, there would be different subjects covered. But I
12 really can't tell you because I don't have the reports at hand.
13 Q. Okay. The notation there on the bottom under CRO about the
14 burning being ethnic cleansing. Do you see that?
15 You then after this entry went out on patrols on the 21st, 22nd,
16 23rd, 24th, and 25th, is it fair to say that you had reached your
17 conclusion about ethnic cleansing before you went out on those patrols?
18 A. I don't make prior conclusions. If you see in the notebook, you
19 will see a parenthesis around the word [Foreign language spoken].
20 Q. Which means what?
21 A. Ethnic cleansing.
22 Q. What do the parenthesis mean?
23 A. That it is something that should be discussed.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. So I -- yeah.
1 Q. Mr. Liborius, tell me what you believe -- when I say anarchy,
2 what does anarchy mean to you?
3 A. Anarchy can be a state of -- a situation where this is a lack of
4 order. It can be a free-for-all situation.
5 Q. The dictionary definition of it is: Political and social
6 disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
7 Is that your understanding -- you do you accept that as a
8 definition of the word "anarchy"?
9 A. Thank you for the definition.
10 Q. Is that a yes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. I think there is many pseudonyms to it.
14 Q. But basically that's what you've always understood anarchy to
15 mean, right, is absence of governmental control?
16 A. Anarchy is a fairly broad term, also, to me. It can also be, as
17 I said, a free-for-all situation.
18 I recall that used the anarchy sometimes in reporting.
19 Q. Okay. Do you agree with me that the destruction after the 4th of
20 August, when it began, it was an anarchial [sic] destruction?
21 A. It does ring a bell somewhere in the reporting, I think?
22 Q. No. Do you agree with me?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
24 MR. WAESPI: Yes. The witness actually says in his report -- I
25 think it might be fair to put it to the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No. The witness, Mr. Misetic, has given an answer
2 on what anarchy could mean. Well, now, I could bore you a day with
3 explanations on lines of thought which consider individuals to be not
4 bound by -- I mean, this is a rather -- this is a concept which -- what
5 I'd like to know - and apparently what you would like to know- is not
6 what -- if you are talking about anarchy in those circumstances, what do
7 you refer to at that moment, rather than to ask the witness whether
8 something in the dictionary is -- I could give you -- yes, I know that.
9 At the same time, we could give him ten dictionaries and
10 descriptions and a philosophical ones, et cetera, and then to ask him to
11 choose; that is, of course, the same problem as the photo spread, isn't
12 it? If you get one photograph, you would say yes or no, whereas it
13 really gets a meaning if you give more.
14 Now, I'm not seeking to put to the witness 15 different --
15 different descriptions of what anarchy is. What I would like to know, if
16 he uses that word, what he means. That's what is -- is all about and not
17 to be introduced by --
18 MR. MISETIC: That's precisely what -- my objective, Judge --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. MISETIC: -- but sometimes in cross-examination there are
21 reasons that we do things the way we do.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that, and it may be clear to
23 you that this might not be the most effective way in getting to what the
24 Chamber needs, and I think the purpose is the same.
25 MR. MISETIC: I hope that in the next 20 minutes you will see
1 that I had a method to my madness, as they say, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. MISETIC:
4 Q. Mr. Liborius --
5 MR. MISETIC: And I also, for the record, believe the objection
6 was improper.
7 But let's turn to P824, please. If we could go seven pages in on
8 this document, please, in the English.
9 Q. So this is your 100-day report. And in the summary, this is the
10 first page of text, the second sentence: "In general the period began
11 with total anarchial destruction by looting and burning of the
12 countryside and looting of the town centres."
13 If we could go now to page 20 of this document, please. It is
14 actually page 17 written but it is the 20th page in the electronic
15 version. There we go.
16 Now, sir, I want you to look at that entry. In the Varivode,
17 you're talking about Varivode, and three sentences in you're talking on
18 September 28, is where we start, and then it says: "In the whole eight
19 weeks, before the situation was one of even more anarchy than today."
20 And I note four different occasions in your report you refer to
21 anarchial destruction, anarchy on page 17. On page 26 you write "lack of
22 determination to establish working judicial systems is one of the factors
23 contributing to the anarchy." And then page 29 you again refer to the
24 consequences of this general anarchy.
25 Anarchy is the absence of governmental control. Correct?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, you can ask the witness what he meant
2 by anarchy here and not be given a definition and say, Is this the
3 definition, and then to draw your own conclusions.
4 What did you mean when you use the word "anarchy" in this
6 THE WITNESS: I meant that the absence of what I would call a
7 normal law and order, normality in society, lack of looting and burning
8 in a society where you would be able to -- to say, Okay this is normal.
9 Anarchy was as opposed to unnormal. In the context of the
10 report, in the two examples Mr. Misetic is referring to, what I meant was
11 the breakdown of this normality.
12 I do understand that you can discuss the word or the semantics.
13 JUDGE ORIE: There is no need to enter into a debate in what you
14 could discuss about anarchy. You've answered my question.
15 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. Now, you say in the same report, if we can go back down to page 4
18 of the document -- actually, sorry, page 7, which is numbered page 4 in
19 the document.
20 Again, at the bottom of the first paragraph: "Largely due to
21 this wanton self-inflicted destruction, the ambitious Croatian plan for
22 the return of large numbers of displaced persons from 1991 proved
23 impossible by the onset of winter."
24 Tell us why the destruction made the Croatian plan impossible for
25 the return of displaced persons?
1 A. Lack of property. Inhabitable probability.
2 Q. You go on to say: "Those Serbs and Croats who stayed in the area
3 during the Krajina time soon faced problems; ongoing looting, threats,
4 and random human rights violations and discrimination."
5 Tell us more about the human rights violations against Croats in
6 the sector during the first 100 days after Operation Storm?
7 A. I'll give you an example. In some of the mixed marriages - one
8 Croat, one Serb - where they had been brave enough to stay during the RSK
9 years, sometimes their houses were looted. Sometimes their property was
11 Q. According to what we just went through, in the first portion of
12 today's session you also seem to conclude that the homes and villages of
13 Croatians, according to the 1991 census, were also burned down. Correct?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi has an objection against the question.
15 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I think that's -- assumes facts not in
16 evidence. What the witness said, he observed -- and he said it about
17 four times. He observed burning on the ground irrespective of Serb or
18 Croatian population, and then it was put to him that whether -- he didn't
19 know whether in 1991 these were inhabited by Croats or Serbs.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Mr. Waespi, first of all, assumption of facts which are not in
22 evidence is one of the -- I would say one of the features of a leading
23 question, and leading questions are within certain limits allowed within
24 cross-examination; that's one.
25 If you say Mr. Misetic misrepresented the evidence of the witness
1 he did put to him, then, the question says, You also seem to include,
2 that is a conclusion or a professional conclusion drawn by Mr. Misetic
3 and not necessarily a misrepresentation of what the witness said.
4 At the same time, to include that, Mr. Misetic, might not lead to
5 clear and unequivocal answers. You're invited to rephrase the question.
6 MR. MISETIC:
7 Q. Mr. Liborius, your findings were that even Croatian villages had
8 been burned down after Operation Storm. Isn't that correct?
9 Croatian-majority villages, I should say.
10 A. My findings were that villages I observed being burned down was
11 burned down.
12 Q. Okay. So you had no -- even as of November 1995 you never
13 followed up to see if the villages that you had described as being
14 burned, you never followed up to check the ethnic composition of those
15 villages. Is that fair to say?
16 A. I think that I have, a couple of times, indicated how we worked,
17 what was the object of observation. A village, burned or not burned.
18 The discussions we took in the longer reports --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to.
20 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to cut this short.
22 Would you agree that, at least that's how I understood your
23 evidence, that you did not exclude for the possibility that villages that
24 were, by majority, Croat in 1991, and of which you kept the possibility
25 open, that the composition of the population may have changed since then,
1 were also destroyed during or after Operation Storm?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
4 MR. MISETIC: Can we go to page ten of this document, please.
5 Q. It says: "The plan of returning several tens of thousands in the
6 first month was therefore impossible. Instead, many DPs still occupy the
7 hotels and accommodations causing big frustration for the Croats living
8 in those holding areas in the former free Croatia."
9 Tell us a little bit more about how the inability of to return
10 DPs caused frustration for Croats living in the holding areas in the
11 former free Croatia
12 A. The frustrations experienced by the displaced persons were, among
13 others, congestion in their facilities, lack of normal life for their
14 families, lack of opportunities to resume their normal work, lack of many
15 of the aspects that would be associated with life in their former areas.
16 Q. What I --
17 A. I do think that when you talked to displaced persons living in
18 collective centres, that the feelings they expressed, that their wishes
19 they had, as they could not be fulfilled, it caused frustration.
20 Q. Okay. What the report actually says, sir -- and we can turn the
21 page back. Page 6 of this document. There we go.
22 The caption is housing problems and looting. You then list a
23 series of incidents of looting.
24 Then you turn the page.
25 Now, in your report, as a result of all of these problems of
1 criminality, you write: "The plan of returning several tens of thousands
2 in the first month was therefore impossible."
3 What I'm asking you is: Why did the illegality make the return
4 of tens of thousands impossible?
5 A. If you would see the situation, much of the property was in --
6 the state the property was in, lacking roofs, lacking doors, lacking
7 everything that is associated with a normal habitable accommodation,
8 house, apartment, then it would be pretty clear that moving larger
9 numbers of population, would be difficult.
10 Q. Okay. I think we agree on that, sir. I just want to be clear.
11 What you're say something that the burning and looting that took place
12 after Operation Storm frustrated the return of several tens of thousands
13 of displaced persons. Correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, in addition to that, you write that the fact
16 that the displaced persons couldn't get back frustrated the people that
17 lived in, what you refer to as former free Croatia, because the displaced
18 persons were still living in the hotels and accommodations. Correct?
19 A. The picture was --
20 Q. Mr. Liborius, I --
21 A. -- quite complex. There were persons living in accommodation
22 centres. There were persons living with different family members. There
23 were even Bosnian Croats, and that is what you are also highlighting in
24 this particular section of the report. So the picture was not very
25 simple. It was a mixed picture. But common for all of these persons was
1 that the -- that the -- the material basis was insufficient.
2 Q. Okay. Now, to get back to my question, you're aware that hotels
3 along the Croatian coast, for example, during the war were used to house
4 displaced persons. Correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Those hotels could not return to their function as hotels
7 because the displaced persons were still living in them as a result of
8 their inability to return to their homes. Correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that's what you mean when you say that the burning and
11 looting frustrated the Croats living in the holding areas in the former
12 free Croatia
13 A. That is a large element in it, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a problem that the displaced persons
15 were having into September of 1995 receiving any government assistance in
16 the form of funds from the Croatian government?
17 A. If I am familiar with a problem that they had in receiving the
18 government assistance, well, again, off the top of my head, I remembered
19 that some people complained that sometimes their monthly allowance or - I
20 lack the proper English word - the support came later or it was to be
21 shared with more people or that stuff, that sort of ...
22 Could you be more specific as to what sort of problems -- or what
23 sort of problem, please.
24 I, in my 100-day report, also discuss a host of problems
25 experienced by people as I had observed it, talked to them. I wonder if
1 you could point to some of the specific ones.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You asked whether the witness was aware of a problem
3 where he says that he sees perhaps many problems. Could you please --
4 MR. MISETIC: Sure.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- be more specific.
6 MR. MISETIC: I'll call up 65 ter 1567, please. And if we could
7 go to page 3 of this document, please.
8 Q. You can see it is a RC Knin report.
9 A. Could I have the start again, please.
10 Q. Okay?
11 A. Not okay.
12 Could I please have time to read it?
13 Q. There's a specific portion of this on page 3 that I'd like to
14 draw your attention to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Liborius, if you read the heading, and if you
16 would then follow Mr. Misetic to page 3 --
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and if the matter he raises would still require
19 you to read the whole of the document, please tell us then.
20 MR. MISETIC:
21 Q. Now, subsection d. It says: "The returning DPs are not eager to
22 fulfil the schedule of the CR government as the infrastructure for a new
23 life is still not existing and in many parts of the country, security
24 cannot 100 per cent be guaranteed, de-mining, rebuilding, infrastructure,
25 schools, employment opportunities are long-term projects. The fear is
1 that many DPs will be forced to return long before the region can support
2 them. There have been unconfirmed reports of few DPs receiving money for
3 rebuilding but, in general, no one seems to have received any yet. We
4 heard amount of 25.000 Deutschemarks."
5 Now, I want to ask you about that point, Mr. Liborius. Are you
6 familiar with the problem of displaced persons not receiving money from
7 the Croatian government to rebuild?
8 A. I do recall that, on one or more occasion, that complaints about
9 lack of reception of promised funds was brought to me by local
11 Q. Do you agree, then, that the Croatian government, at least as of
12 the 2nd of September, had not provided financial assistance to displaced
13 persons to assist them in rebuilding, generally speaking?
14 A. I'm not qualified to answer that question.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. I haven't got a --
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you feel not qualified -- unless Mr. Misetic
18 wants to further explore the matter.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
20 MR. MISETIC:
21 Q. The next sentence says: "Official sources are convinced that a
22 big sum will be sent by other European countries to help in
23 re-establishing life worth situation."
24 Are you familiar with -- who these "official sources" might be?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Were generally aware that the Croatian government was seeking
2 assistance from European countries to aid DPs in returning to their
3 former homes and in rebuilding?
4 A. I understood at that time that the Croatian government was indeed
5 seeking. I don't know details of it. The full details of it.
6 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that European aid and European aid
7 programmes were suspended in the fall of 1995?
8 A. If I'm familiar with it now?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. I don't recall that detail.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. MISETIC: If we can go back to the 100-day report, P824,
13 please. And if we could go to page 8, please -- I'm sorry -- yeah, page
15 Q. The GAB, and you write: "After 100 days one of the distinct
16 results is the growing gap between the two different spheres ..."
17 Do you see that? It's page 5 in your report.
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. I'll continue: "As the countryside is largely burned, the
21 towns where the Croatian rule is obvious. The larger towns in
22 Sector South: Knin, Drnis, Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, Korenica, and
23 Udbina were spared from destruction in Operation Storm in August. Here
24 utility services are in general working since September. Electricity and
25 water and basis communications were established."
1 And if we can skip down a little bit, you say: "Moving away from
2 the main street the picture changes. Here the signs of destruction are
3 still to be found. Piles of garbage, personal belonging from the
4 previous owners of the houses spread around in the streets."
5 Now, tell us a little bit about what you found in terms of the
6 towns identified here in your report being essentially intact 100 days
7 after Operation Storm?
8 A. A little bit about the towns, let's start with -- houses and
9 apartments were, in general, connected to public utilities that, as the
10 time progressed, basic cleaning of the cities were conducted, that more
11 people returned -- or some newcomers -- we dealt with the Bosnian Croats
12 in previous questions, that persons were introduced in the towns. Some
13 of them, of course, being previous inhabitants before 1991.
14 A few Serbs came back, numbers I discussed throughout the report,
15 that it became, so to speak, an island of -- let's call it relative
16 normality, relative normality, as opposed to the lack of facilities and
17 lack of accommodation, all that stuff that was required in the
18 countryside, to have people in greater numbers living there.
19 The towns were, of course, also the places where Croat
20 administration would be established and gradually expand. We have
21 elsewhere in other reports also discussed the establishment of -- of
22 these administrative structures.
23 Q. Can I stop you right there, sir, because that is a good point I
24 want to talk to you about.
25 You said the administrative structures of the -- sorry. You
1 said: "In the towns, the towns of course were also the places where
2 Croat administration would be established and gradually expand."
3 Were -- did the Croat administration extend into the countryside
4 as of the first 100 days?
5 A. The police structures were among the first in our monitoring to
6 be established in many areas.
7 Q. Okay. Well, then, why did you say the towns were of course also
8 the places where the Croat administration would be established and
9 gradually expand.
10 What was the difference between the towns and the countryside in
11 terms of the administration?
12 A. Are we missing a verb?
13 I think I know what you're hinting at.
14 In the town centres, you would, as the autumn progressed, come
15 across offices for handling property. You would come across postal
16 offices. You would come across basic utility companies.
17 Q. And what was missing from the countryside, in terms of
19 A. The service provision, public utilities for instance, would be
20 very, very slow in some areas. Some areas it would be a bit faster. The
21 usual services - buses, postal - the provisions that on paper would be
22 available - schools and so on - would be very seldom.
23 But, of course, as the time moved on, some expansion of the
24 above-mentioned would be seen.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I'm looking at the clock.
1 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Before we have a break, Mr. Liborius, could I ask
3 you -- I asked you yesterday to inquire on your availability in
4 The Hague
5 Could you give an answer to that question.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
7 I have identified, in negotiations with my government, six
8 possibilities, of which I'm authorised to suggest one to be picked.
9 In order of priority, they are: 10 November -- sorry, 7
10 November; second priority, 6 November; third priority, 20 October; fourth
11 priority, 21st October; fifth priority, 10 November; sixth priority, 11
13 I am instructed to say that with regard to 10 November and 11 of
14 November, that is pending other tasks.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for the -- yes.
16 Would you like to add something?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.
18 This is a considerable consumption of time associated with these
19 appearances, and I am instructed to say that these dates where one could
20 be picked, I would have to return in the evening of the said date.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If I look at the 6th and the 7th of November,
22 Mr. Liborius, you're saying that we can have you only for one day out of
23 these six?
24 THE WITNESS: Please pick one of these dates.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And if we would need two days, for example.
1 THE WITNESS: I would have to seek new instructions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Liborius, giving testimony is a civil duty,
3 which is not subject to government instructions, and, of course, we're
4 trying to -- that's the reason why I asked you when you would be
5 available. Of course, we try to take into consideration all wishes.
6 But, of course, the first and foremost principle that guides us is the
7 interest of justice in performing our duties.
8 If have you an opportunity -- yes, Mr. Waespi.
9 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. We could provide a letter of
10 support to the Danish government as we did, I think, at the previous
11 occasion which I think was relatively --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course the Chamber is always happy if the
13 Prosecution supports anything the Chamber has on its mind. But -- and,
14 again, it's appreciated.
15 But we are not used, Mr. Liborius, that if there is, in the
16 interests of justice, a need to hear the testimony of a witness, that we
17 limit ourselves if we consider it important, in order to guarantee a fair
18 trial, to limit ourselves as far as time is concerned.
19 I hope you will understand this.
20 Mr. Misetic.
21 MR. MISETIC: Just if the Defence can submit a letter of support
22 as well. If that will help, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that all parties support the
24 interests of justice.
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Liborius.
2 THE WITNESS: Of course, we want to be helpful, no doubt about
3 that. There are a couple of issues that I would like to discuss, and I'm
4 not so familiar with the format here. Either we could take it outside of
5 court or in some other sessions, some of the matters are quite private.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If they are of a private nature, usually parties are
7 entitled to follow all communications between a witness and a chamber,
8 but of course not everything has to be public. We can move into private
9 session if there's anything you would like to bring to my attention of
10 which you would think the public should not know because it's a private
12 And if you want to refer to certain issues in a more general way,
13 then of course I could ask the parties whether they would agree; for
14 example, you say there is a family situation and you do not want to say
15 whether it is the birth of your next grandchild or whether it would be
16 the divorce which has been scheduled in two weeks from now.
17 Then, of course, I could ask the parties whether they would agree
18 that we just hear this in their absence.
19 So you can go -- you can ask us to go into private session. You
20 also can try to refer to a general situation then can seek the consent of
21 the parties.
22 THE WITNESS: Could we meet and talk in a private circle?
23 Probably the Defence and the --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that I can't start discussing matters of
25 which I'm not aware of yet without the consent of the parties. So
1 therefore if you don't give me a clue - you could do that in private
2 session - as to what the subject would be, I cannot even ask the parties
3 to give their consent.
4 THE WITNESS: Let's move into private session then.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We then move into private session.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 8510-8512 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, having used now five hours and 17
22 minutes how much you would still -- I'm aware. No one has to explain
23 the -- what goes quickly and what goes less quickly with this witness.
24 That is clear to the Bench.
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I have quite a bit of material which I
1 am -- in light of, quite honestly, in light of today's events considering
2 scaling back.
3 JUDGE ORIE: First of all -- one second.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I didn't give opportunity to Madam Registrar to
7 announce that we are in open session again. Please proceed.
8 MR. MISETIC: I have quite a bit of material which I'd that I be
9 given the break to review because in light of today's events I am
10 considering scaling back some of my need to cross-examine this particular
11 witness. And in order to avoid a transcript of biblical proportions, I
13 tomorrow, and to use the balance of my time to try to --
14 JUDGE ORIE: First -- would that be first session?
15 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Other Defence counsel, Mr. Kay?
17 MR. KAY: Your Honour, we had a substantial cross-examination of
18 this witness because of the way he -- his evidence has been presented in
19 statement form, viva voce form. He has been allowed to present evidence
20 to this court of his opinion, what he viewed, and we feel it's highly
21 necessary to get into the facts, to go into documents, and to challenge
22 conclusions as to whether he knew what he was talking about. That takes
23 time and I apologise --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm aware of that. I'm just asking you how
25 much time.
1 MR. KAY: Well, I was an eight-hour man as well, Your Honour, and
2 I always do my best do get through this material quickly, but the range
3 of his evidence and the nature of it has caused me with my team to make a
4 file that is substantial, and I will deal with it very expeditiously and
5 try to get it down to six hours, but it is very difficult for us.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not ignoring difficulties the parties are
7 facing. That's clear.
8 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 We have at a minimum two hours worth of cross-examination, Your
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I'm asking this, because, Mr. Waespi, I'm also
13 looking at you at this moment, that tomorrow, first session for
14 Mr. Misetic, and let's just work on the basis of the Chamber granting
15 your requests for time, then we would have six hours at the minimum for
16 Mr. Kay which would take us tomorrow through the whole of the day. Then
17 we'd still have the Markac Defence.
18 Mr. Waespi, from my experience and how I see matters at this
19 moment, I think we might not finish in one day after we have tomorrow
20 concluded. Tomorrow, we'll have to conclude at 6.00. It is -- we
21 checked the reasonable requirements for the travelling of the witness,
22 which would mean that we would have to reserve another two days.
23 Now, the witness gave us a few days. Of course, it's always best
24 to have them as close to the testimony. That would be 20th and 21st of
25 October, being third and fourth in priority. Let me just look for a
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just checking whether we --
4 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Your Honour, that's the week where we
5 will not be sitting.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was just checking that as a matter of fact,
7 which of course is not -- yes. That's exactly the week in which we
8 decided not sit.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I don't know if this is a good suggestion or
12 not. It's pretty obvious that we will not finish with this witness
13 tomorrow. My suggestion would be rather than going the full day to have
14 the normal morning sitting, since we're not going to finish, allow him to
15 get home earlier, and then perhaps finish him in the two days that he has
16 available in November. That is just a suggestion.
17 JUDGE ORIE: With this witness, Mr. Kuzmanovic, I'm not quite
18 confident that we would achieve that, and therefore the witness is here
19 and has complained about the time it takes him to testify. We know one
20 thing for sure, that tomorrow in the afternoon the Danish government will
21 not lose more time than it loses already. So therefore, your suggestion
22 is on the record, I'll discuss it with my colleagues, but I personally
23 have some hesitations as the Presiding Judge who is more or less in
24 charge of the scheduling.
25 Mr. Waespi, since the 20th and the 21st of October are
1 non-sitting days, and I'm hesitant to have this all re-scheduled, also in
2 view of the fact that the witness gave as his first and second priority
3 the 7th of November and the 6th of November, I would like you to
4 thoroughly discuss with the witness and explain to him also his legal
5 position, because I don't know whether his view and the professional
6 legal opinion of the Danish government is fully in line with the views of
7 this Chamber on duties to cooperate. And I'm trying not to seek any
8 further problems in that respect, but if you could perhaps assist the
9 Chamber in seeing whether the witness would be available on the 6th and
10 the 7th of November, that -- and then I have to check whether -- I don't
11 know that, as a matter of fact, we have already our November schedule.
12 Let me just have a look.
13 As far as I'm concerned there might be a risk that we could not
14 sit in full on the 7th, but -- could you try to further discuss it and,
15 again, the two days, I think is really what we need. And if there are
16 any private matters which are of such urgency, please reassure the
17 witness that the Chamber would always consider that.
18 We'll have a break. We'll resume at 20 minutes past 6.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.59 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 6.25 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Liborius, were you in a position to write down
22 the names so as a provide them to --
23 THE WITNESS: I did have a little time for that, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you have it on a piece of paper.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, we need to go into private session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We need to go my private session.
2 We go into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 Mr. Liborius, another matter about when to stop tomorrow -- it
15 can be given to Mr. Misetic.
16 We have consulted with the Victims and Witness Unit who have
17 quite some experience with travelling times in the Netherlands, and they
18 think that if you leave here at 6.00 that that would do. I add to that,
19 that on the basis of 40 years of experience, I can promise you that if
20 you leave at 5.00 that you get a traffic jam between 5.00 and 6.00, and
21 then on from 6.00 you will be able to go to the airport. If the traffic
22 jam at 5.00 is such that will not make it, then it makes no difference
23 whether you leave at 5.00 or 6.00, but under normal circumstances that
24 certainly would do if you are prepared to leave immediately of after the
25 court session.
1 THE WITNESS: I'm grateful for your vast experience.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Liborius.
3 Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
4 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Liborius, going back it your 100-day report there is a
6 conclusion which says: "The lack of determination to establish working
7 judiciary systems is one of the factors contributing to the anarchy?"
8 And you like invite you to explain to us what the problems were
9 with the judiciary systems?
10 A. Could we have the page made available, please?
11 Q. Yes.
12 MR. MISETIC: P824, please. And then if we go to page 27 of this
13 document, please, in English. And two more pages forward, please. One
14 more page back, sorry, page 26. Thank you.
15 Q. Conclusions on part one. Under criminal acts, you say: "The
16 lack of determination to establish working judiciary systems is one of
17 the factors contributing to the anarchy."
18 A. And?
19 Q. What -- can you tell us a little bit more about the state of the
20 judiciary system at the time that you wrote the report?
21 A. Yes. Different impressions from speaking with officials working
22 in the framework of the judiciary, and [indiscernible] in Knin, led us to
23 believe that there was an understaffing, that there was a lack of
24 attention to bringing the proper working conditions to bear. The
25 judiciary system would also, of course, require a well-run police force
1 who would, on own initiative, initiate investigations and so on.
2 Another example could be that instances -- I'll have to relate to
3 my notes and reports to see the exact dates, where problems were brought
4 to higher authorities, including General Cermak, did not receive the
5 proper attention, in our mind.
6 Q. Okay. You also --
7 A. The lack of judiciary systems when it came to protecting civil
8 property, of course, did not encourage people to come back. I do, in one
9 of the reports, I remember, illustrate or give an example with a very
10 simple case. I, off the top of my head, think that I say something
11 like -- it is selected not because of the gravity of the crime but
12 because it simple and straightforward, and that is just an example.
13 Q. Okay. Let me call up P47, Madam Registrar.
14 Mr. Liborius, with the assistance of the usher, I'm putting on
15 the screen a map of the town of Knin
16 examination that on the 5th of August you saw a collection point for
17 looted goods. And once we get that map on the screen, I'm going to ask
18 you to circle the location in Knin where you saw the collection point.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And the right colour, again, for the Defence was
20 blue, yes.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. MISETIC: I'm sorry. We'll have to find the map.
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. MISETIC: P62, Madam Registrar.
25 THE WITNESS: In the meantime I'm happy to assist Mr. Misetic on
1 developing the court issue.
2 MR. MISETIC:
3 Q. That's okay. We'll just wait for the map, Mr. Liborius.
4 There we go.
5 Mr. Liborius, off to the right is the UN Sector South
6 headquarters, the UN camp, which is where you were on the 5th.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Now, with the assistance of the usher, with the blue
9 marker, if could you circle the location where you saw the collection
10 point for looted goods, please?
11 A. Could we have it magnified, please.
12 Q. Which portion would you like magnified?
13 A. Just the entrance to the UN Sector South barracks, please.
14 Q. Meaning in the front of the barracks?
15 A. If could you -- can I point or --
16 Q. Yes. Well, do you need a mouse. Is there a mouse?
17 A. I don't have a mouse.
18 Doesn't work. Can we enlarge this section.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Can we zoom in on the [indiscernible] part, bottom
20 middle part.
21 MR. MISETIC:
22 Q. Does that help?
23 A. Could we zoom in more, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Madam Usher, could you assist
1 Mr. Liborius with a blue pen.
2 Or have you got it already? You can mark on the screen,
3 Mr. Liborius.
4 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
5 MR. MISETIC: I'd ask -- I tender this exhibit.
6 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, I take, it Mr. Waespi.
7 Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be exhibit number D753.
9 JUDGE ORIE: D753 is admitted into evidence.
10 MR. MISETIC: Madam Registrar, if I could now have P825, please.
11 Q. Mr. Liborius, this is the daily report for the 5th of August, and
12 I'd ask you to go through it and see if you can find any reference to a
13 collection point of -- for looted goods in your report. And I note that
14 you are the sole author of the report.
15 A. Could we move down, please.
17 Q. And there's a next page we can look at.
18 A. And your question was, if I could point to ...
19 Q. Well, it's not in your daily report for that day, is it, sir?
20 A. It would not be -- specifics would not be in every daily report.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. MISETIC: If we could now go to the daily report, the first
23 daily report for the 6th of August, which I don't have a P number for
24 yet, but it's 65 ter number 4005.
25 Q. If we can go to section 3 b there, again you're the author of
1 this report. It says: "In and around Knin looting is widespread. The
2 HV commanders seems to be disciplined, however, there are many reports to
3 suggest that individual HV soldiers are not, beating civilians, robbing.
4 There are strong indications of killings of ARSK soldiers after Knin had
5 been taken. This morning the looting was still ongoing, a few houses
6 were fire."
7 If we could turn the page, please.
8 And I note, if you can look at the header there it says this is
9 written at 1547?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And the next page, please. It says in section 5: "We and
12 the rest of UN are still confined to barracks. UN Sector South commander
13 now considers the UN forces to be held hostages by the HV. It is his
14 strong belief that ethnic cleansing is being conducted by the HV."
15 Now, first, when this report was written you still had not
16 actually been able to go out in the town. Correct?
17 A. We had a few monitors who managed to negotiate their way through
18 and had impressions from the town.
19 Q. Well, actually, as of 1547 in this report, nobody got in the
20 town. You said, "We and the rest of the UN are still confined to
22 Do you see that? But there is a subsequent report that day where
23 some of your monitors did manage to get into the town?
24 A. Mm-hm.
25 Q. We could even look at that report --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- which is 65 ter 4007?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, perhaps we first deal with the previous
4 one, 65 ter 4005. It is tendered by the Prosecution, if we already
5 assign a P number to it, then we can admit it into evidence.
6 MR. MISETIC: That's fine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, 65 ter 4005.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That would be exhibit number P826, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P826 is admitted into evidence.
10 Now, I haven't got my list with me. Is 65 ter 4007 on that list
11 as well?
12 MR. MISETIC: It has been tendered by the Prosecution and we
13 didn't get a P number for it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll get a P number for that.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be exhibit number P827.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P827 is admitted into evidence.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. MISETIC:
19 Q. Now, Mr. Liborius, you see that same day now at 2150 both you and
20 Mr. Bigland send a second report. Do you see that in the header?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And if we could go to the next page, please. "SOO and
23 several others went downtown just before dark without HV clearance and
24 were allowed through the HV military police check-point by showing the
25 ECMM go anywhere card."
1 SOO refers to?
2 A. Senior operations officer.
3 Q. Which would be Mr. Bigland?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. "In town there were many soldiers, military police, and civilian
6 police who were relaxed and friendly. If we waved at them they waved
7 back and did not obstruct us."
8 If we can go farther on down: "Some of the accommodation" --
9 sorry, "the office was visited and it was seemed to have been totally
10 ransacked, but the only things missing were the TV, video, satellite
11 system, and mobile phone. Some of the accommodation was visited and,
12 again, the same story, ransacked, but all the personal belongings appear
13 to be still there except for my Rolex Submariner."
14 "There were several civilians on the street, and they appeared
15 to be unafraid and fairly happy to stay. None asked for our assistance
16 when we walked around and spoke to them."
17 And then penultimate sentence is: "They are also siphoning fuel
18 from any damage the vehicles which cannot be used, but apart from the TVs
19 and electronic equipment the looting appears minimal. Even the office
20 beer was left, so RC will have a quiet beer tonight."
21 Mr. Liborius, is that an accurate state of affairs on the 6th of
23 A. That was the impression of SOO, Richard Bigland for that
24 particular trip.
25 Q. In preparing the daily report, did you have any dispute with
1 Mr. Bigland over his assessment of the state of events in Knin on the
2 evening of the 6th?
3 A. I did not have a chance to discuss that with Mr. Bigland.
4 Q. Well, you're the co-author of the report, and so if I may ask you
5 how is it that your name is on the report and you sent it? Did you
6 disagree with that assessment?
7 A. As I told you yesterday that the production of the RC daily
8 report would be going on throughout the day and that the person who then
9 sent it and the input, Richard Bigland's input, was for his own
11 Q. I'm not sure I understood the last answer, sir, so let me ask it
13 Did you sign off -- strike that.
14 Did you review this report before it was sent to HQ ECMM?
15 A. Could you scroll up to the top, please. First page.
16 I'm just checking the time of transmission there.
17 I would imagine that Mr. Bigland has sent it off. We did not
18 sign off reports.
19 Q. I asked you if you reviewed the report before it was sent off to
20 HQ of the ECMM.
21 A. In that shape it had there, I'm not sure.
22 Q. Did you -- why didn't you include in the report your finding from
23 the day before of an HV collection point for lotted goods?
24 A. I would imagine that, at that day, I was busy with a lot of other
25 operational tasks. And with regard to your question, the previous report
1 you showed, why it was not there, there would be different issues that
2 would go into the daily reports.
3 If you look at the first one, you would see that it was mainly
4 how the status of the ECMM teams would be.
5 Q. I'm actually more concerned with the fact that when the ECMM
6 monitors finally got out on the evening of the 6th and could make an
7 assessment based on their own observations, the conclusion was apart from
8 TVs and electronic equipment, the looting appears minimal.
9 And given that you have now shown us on the map that the
10 collection point was right outside the UN compound, that would have been
11 impossible for even Mr. Bigland to miss. Isn't that right?
12 A. It was right outside, yes.
13 Q. So if there were a HV collection point for looted goods located
14 right outside the UN compound, based on what you said on direct testimony
15 about 7th Guards Brigade showing off their loot, Mr. Bigland wouldn't
16 have written that looting appears minimal, would he?
17 A. The loot there, at that point in time, was mainly in small
18 private vehicles coming with exactly TV sets and all similar light
19 issues -- light goods you could carry.
20 Q. Let me ask you this question --
21 A. Unless it is written in the report, the looting was light,
22 meaning that issue -- that the things you could easily just take with
24 Q. Actually it says --
25 A. Neither looting as opposed to being heavy, means that heavy
1 furniture, fixed appliances, heavier stuff, building materials and that
2 stuff, would be removed.
3 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn to the next page, please.
4 Q. Mr. Liborius, it says that the looting appears minimal, not that
5 the looting appears light.
6 What, then, was located at the collection point? Describe the
8 A. I saw TV sets, small electrical appliances, liquor bottles, cars
9 being -- coming there. Things that could be easily transported.
10 Q. And how long was that collection point there?
11 A. Difficult to say. It -- a couple of days, you know, you get used
12 to things like that in your immediate vicinity.
13 Q. Well, when you say a couple of days do you mean a couple of days
14 more after the 6th?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So to the 8th?
17 A. I don't have a precise date.
18 Q. How about the 7th?
19 A. Hmm, I don't know.
20 Q. You talked about five -- the first wave of the looters were in
21 groups of five to 15 uniformed HV soldiers and that you saw this, and my
22 first question, sir, is -- let's talk about a specific event.
23 This issue about you seeing the Diverzantia, which is,
24 Madam Registrar, P807.
25 And there, if we can scroll to number 3.
1 First, sir, if you could review that and tell me whether that is
2 something that you personally witnessed.
3 A. As I said previously, yes, the Diverzantia I personally
4 witnessed, and that is to my mind concerning mainly burning.
5 Q. Sorry. Okay. Burning. Let's stay on this topic, though.
6 A. [Overlapping speakers] Have we left looting or?
7 Q. We'll go back to it.
8 You personally witnessed the skull as the insignia?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Who was travelling with you?
11 A. Mr. Marker-Hansen was travelling with me.
12 Q. Anyone else?
13 A. Perhaps Eric Hendriks. I'm not a hundred per cent certain.
14 Mr. Marker-Hansen was with me.
15 Q. You note in there that the Diverzantia belonged to the 7th Guards
16 Brigade. Do you see that, the group belonging to 7 BDE?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How did you determine that?
19 A. By the tactical signature of the vehicles and the soldiers.
20 Q. It says in the report that -- it said Diverzantia, the skull on
21 their insignia?
22 A. Mm-hm, yes.
23 Q. Did you ever bother to check whether there is such a unit with
24 such a patch in the Croatian army?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Okay. You told us earlier in your direct testimony that you
2 would do these patrols with a book that had the various badges of various
3 different Croatian army formations. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes, that's the book, yeah.
5 Q. Well, did you check in the book to see if there is any unit in
6 the Croatian army that has a badge as with a skull as their insignia?
7 A. The Diverzantia was noted by us when we encountered them. We had
8 a lot of other business to attend to in those particular days. So it was
9 not for us to look up in the larger recognition books which were not
10 available to us. We had short books.
11 Q. Okay. Would it surprise you to learn that there was no such unit
12 known as the Diverzantia with a skull on its insignia in 1995 in the
13 Croatian army?
14 A. It was written on the vehicle. So what surprises me -- I noted
15 what I saw.
16 Q. Okay. Now, the last topic for today, sir, is --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, we have to finish not one second later
18 than 7.00. I don't know whether you have -- whether we could last --
19 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I wish -- if you say I can deal can it in one
21 minute, then it's fine.
22 MR. MISETIC: It's not one minute, but I don't want to tell you
23 I'm going to finish not more than one second, so ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then let's keep on the safe side.
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
2 MR. MISETIC: One point is that I'm unable to decipher the last
3 name of the second name on this list, so if I can get some additional
4 assistance on that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Misetic has difficulty in reading your
6 handwriting. Perhaps it could be returned to you right away, and if you
7 perhaps write it in capitals so that Mr. Misetic can read it.
8 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 MR. WAESPI: And if we could have a copy or see it at one point
10 in time.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Mr. Liborius, you're familiar already with the procedure, so I
13 instruct you again, as I did the previous days, that you should not speak
14 with anyone about the testimony, whether it is the testimony you gave
15 already, or the testimony still to be given.
16 We adjourn for the day. We'll resume tomorrow morning, 9.00,
17 Courtroom I. We will continue to 6.00 in the afternoon. The parties
18 will receive a schedule indicating what breaks we'll have. We have a
19 slightly longer break for lunch-time.
20 We stand adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 12th day of
23 September, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.