1 Wednesday, 17 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Ms. Mahindaratne, is the Prosecution ready to call its next
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. The Prosecution calls
15 Bosko Dzolic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Dzolic. Before you give evidence,
19 the Rules require you to make a solemn declaration that you will speak
20 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 May I invite you to make that declaration of which the text is
22 now handed out to you by Madam Usher.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
24 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dzolic. Please be seated.
1 It is Ms. Mahindaratne who will examine you first.
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 WITNESS: BOSKO DZOLIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dzolic.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record.
10 A. My name is Bosko Dzolic. I am a retired officer of the Croatian
11 army. I don't know if I need to give you any other details.
12 Q. No that is not necessary, Mr. Dzolic. I'll ask you questions and
13 you can just respond to the question.
14 Were you interviewed by members of the Office of the Prosecutor
15 on 17th and 18th May, 2004
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And was that interview conducted via an interpreter?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And in the course of that interview, when the investigators asked
20 you questions, did you answer truthfully?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And was that statement recorded at that time, as in type written?
23 A. It was type written, yes, probably.
24 Q. And at the completion of the interview, was that statement read
25 back to you in your language?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you sign that statement as accurately reflecting what you
3 had stated in the course of the interview?
4 A. Yes. I signed the statement, but it was in English.
5 Q. I will come to the next part.
6 Then, on 20th August, Mr. Dzolic, did you meet with members of
7 the Office of the Prosecutor at what was referred to as a proofing
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On that occasion, did you examine your previous statement in your
11 language and provide certain changes to your previous statement?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And at that time, did you also provide further clarifications and
14 additional information?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in the course of that second interview, when questions were
17 asked of you, did you answer truthfully --
18 MR. KAY: Can I just raise a matter here. My learned friend has
19 led the fact of clarifications and additional information. I have that
20 second statement and read it and the Court has as well; and in my
21 submission, the witness should not be led in relation to those changes,
22 but should be asked for his opinion as to why he altered the first
23 statement. Clarifications, modifications may hold, and additional
24 information may hide a multitude of sins, and it is a statement of
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. Whether it is just
2 clarifications, additional information, or corrections, changes,
3 Ms. Mahindaratne, apparently Mr. Kay takes issue with that.
4 At this moment --
5 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I would add to that, how a
7 36-paragraph supplemental statement could be called clarification is
8 beyond me as well.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Kuzmanovic, I said how to qualify this. I
10 was just about to say that. Apparently, the characterization of the
11 proofing session statement seems to divide the parties.
12 Ms. Mahindaratne, Mr. Kay, Mr. Kuzmanovic, I think at this moment
13 what we're doing is seeking - not the Bench but apparently you,
14 Ms. Mahindaratne - you're seeking to find a way to admission of these
15 documents in which, as a matter of fact, the whys are not at this moment
16 of primarily importance. So let's not quarrel at this moment how to
17 qualify them. Of course, further exploring the reasons and the
18 characterization can take place during the examination-in-chief and the
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In order to save time, Mr. President, I will
21 use a neutral term.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, then, for the time being and for what the
23 purposes we are doing at this moment, that would do; and then, at a later
24 stage perhaps, we can further explore the other matters.
25 Please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Dzolic, on 20th August 2008
3 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor?
4 A. I didn't understand this question.
5 Q. On -- on the 20th of August, 2008, did you provide a second
6 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And, now, at the completion of that interview -- you have
10 You indicated you had problems hearing. Can you hear me,
11 Mr. Dzolic?
12 A. I can hear you, but there's something interrupting the sound.
13 Now it's all right.
14 Q. Is it all right?
15 A. Yes, it's all right.
16 Q. Mr. Dzolic, on that occasion, when you were asked questions by
17 the -- I'm referring to the second occasion, 20th August 2008, when you
18 were asked questions by the members of the Office of the Prosecutor, did
19 you answer them truthfully?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Dzolic, are the contents
22 of your two statements - that is, the one provided by you on 17th and
23 18th May 2004
24 Is it true, the contents?
25 A. More or less true. About this other supplement to my testimony,
1 I can't say because I didn't read it through to the end. So I didn't see
2 whether there were any discrepancies in it as there had been in my first
4 Q. Now, at the completion of the -- the interview on the 20th of
5 August, 2008, was the supplemental statement read back to you in your own
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And after having -- after the statement was read back to you in
9 your own language, did you sign that statement as being a truthful
10 statement of yours?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Now, if the questions that were asked of you by the members of
13 the Office of the Prosecutor in 2004 and 2008 were asked again here in
14 court, would your responses be the same? As in not the terminology or
15 the language but substance of your statements, would it be the same?
16 MR. KAY: Your Honour, we're getting into areas here because the
17 witnesses has referred to discrepancies, and I know we have the mantra of
18 the 92 ter attestation in this court. But it occurs to me, and it may be
19 of some thing of importance to the Bench, that problems such as this are
20 properly dealt with in terms of his attestation now. He has referred to
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: He hasn't referred to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, could I ask the witness to take his
24 earphones off for a second.
25 Could you take your earphones off for a second?
1 I understood the witness as follows: That although the proofing
2 statement was read to him, that he had not yet had opportunity to read
3 through in full that statement. I understood this to be the B/C/S
4 translation of this statement, which was taken in English and put on
5 paper in English. And that, therefore, not having read it again, that he
6 was not certain yet whether there were any discrepancies as he found them
7 in his first statement. That's how I understood what he said about
9 If you would agree with me, we could put that to the witness, and
10 then seek his attestation.
11 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm not trying to split hairs, but the
12 question was: "If the questions that were asked of you by the members of
13 the Office of the Prosecutor 2004, 2008 were asked again here in court,
14 would your responses be the same? As in not the terminology of the
15 language but the substance of your statements, would it be the same?"
16 And it was that, as I called it, the mantra, which is a matter
17 that should be adapted to the circumstances because the witness has
18 referred to the discrepancies and that the first statement was read back
19 to him in English or produced to him in English - not read back but
20 produced to him in English - and he's referred to discrepancies.
21 So if that first statement was read back to him today, the answer
22 to that would be no.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Of course. But I understood that Ms. Mahindaratne
24 took the two statements together to see that the entirety that is the
25 first statement and then as an amended, corrected, clarified, changed,
1 whatever word we use in the second one.
2 MR. KAY: Perhaps that's the language that should be used as Your
3 Honours' formula. That is really what I'm submitting upon --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try --
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... May I?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It is nowhere in the Rules that the parties should
9 seek the attestation, so perhaps I will try to do it.
10 Mr. Dzolic, if the same questions were asked as the questions you
11 answered in your statement, would you give the same answers as you gave
12 in 2004 as corrected or amended in your 2008 statement?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would probably
14 respond in the same way. But as for the corrections I made, I don't know
15 whether there are any fresh errors, whether I have been misunderstood, as
16 I was misunderstood when I gave my statement in 2004.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne --
18 Apparently, you have not been able to read through in your own
19 language the statement you gave a month ago. Perhaps you could read them
20 during the first break, if there's a copy available, and then report to
21 us if there are any such errors.
22 But from your recollection, as the statement, including the 2008
23 statement, was read back to you in your own language, would you give the
24 same answers; that is, the answers that you gave in 2004, as corrected,
25 changed, amended in 2008?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before my arrival to
2 today's session, I was shown the amendments to my testimony of 2008; and
3 glancing through it quickly, I observed some things which might be
4 interpreted differently from what I was trying to say in my statement.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, is there a recording of the
6 proofing session?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. There is no recording; but
8 what can you done, Mr. President, at this stage until the break, so that
9 we don't lose time, I could move to admit the first statement; and during
10 the break, he could be given an opportunity to examine his second
12 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, but please don't misunderstand me, the
13 last thing the Defence would wish to happen is that the first statement
14 would be admitted in into evidence with any risk that the second
15 statement would not be admitted into evidence. That seems to be the
16 whole issue here.
17 So, therefore, what we could do is that you tender the
18 statements. We have an attestation which is not yet fully complete,
19 that, either by having a break now or after the first break, to seek
20 completion of the attestation and then decide on admission. That seems
21 to be the proper course.
22 And I'm not responding on behalf of the Defence; but from what I
23 saw, I have not misunderstood their position as admission of the first
24 statement and not yet an admission of the second statement.
25 You see the problem for the Defence with your solution?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, I see that. Can I then
2 move it with Your Honour's first proposal; that is, to take a break now,
3 let the witness examine the second statement, and then proceed?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, the disadvantage is that we might
5 end up with three breaks rather than two, and that is a loss of time.
6 Let me just confer.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, the Chamber would prefer that you
9 proceed at this moment. We'll finally decide on admission after the
10 first break.
11 Meanwhile, if you would focus on those matters which were not
12 corrected in the second statement, there's hardly any chance that the
13 witness could have been misunderstood in his second statement.
14 At the same time, Mr. Dzolic, we will proceed at this moment.
15 You'll have an opportunity to read through the B/C/S version, the version
16 in your own language of the statement, during the first break. If there
17 are any further comments on your behalf, you can give them after the
18 first break.
19 Is that understood? Yes.
20 Then we should assign numbers to them, then, Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 The first --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can I call up the document, Mr. President, on
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But at least we could ask the witness to
25 identify whether these are the statements.
1 Please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document
3 number 5443, please, Mr. Registrar. That's the statement of 2004.
4 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you see on your screen a document, and if could you
5 just take a look at it and indicate if this is your statement given
6 in 2004.
7 Then go through each page so that can you take a look at your
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could go down, take the
10 English page right down.
11 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that if we've seen one of the two of
12 the signatures and the last page, that that would do.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, yes, Mr. President.
14 And if we could move to the last page, Mr. Registrar, and in the
15 English version also.
16 Q. Mr. Dzolic, is that your statement -- is that your signature?
17 A. No. That's not my signature, what you're showing me now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, we're looking at the witness
19 acknowledgment rather than the interpreter's certification,
20 Ms. Mahindaratne, isn't it? So the last page should be the semi-last
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It's the one before
23 the last page.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is my signature now.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. And do you recognise this statement as a statement you made
2 in 2004?
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May it be given a number, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P875.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P875 is marked for identification.
8 Ms. Mahindaratne.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. May I call document
10 number 5444, please.
11 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you recognise your signature on the first page
12 there, on the English copy?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS MAHINDARATNE: And if we could go, Mr. Registrar, to not the
15 last page, the one before the last page.
16 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you recognise your signature there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you recognise this document as a document you signed on
19 20th August 2008
20 A. Yes.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if the document may be given a
22 P number, please.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P876,
24 marked for identification.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
1 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 May I -- is this an appropriate time to just read a brief summary
4 of the witness's testimony.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps, under the present circumstances, we
6 should delay that until after the first break.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
8 Mr. Registrar, could we call -- could I have document
9 number 1999, please.
10 And in the meanwhile, Mr. President, if the witness could be
11 given the two statements, the B/C/S versions of it, by Madam Usher, and I
12 will not deal with any controversial matters and the witness will be free
13 to indicate if there is a problem.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since there seems to be no objection, could
15 the copies be begin to the witness.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you have been given hard copies of your two
18 statements. If I could ask you to look at paragraph 27 of your 2008
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, for the record, that is P876, MFI.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean 28 or 27?
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Paragraph 27 of your 2008 statement, yes?
24 A. All right.
25 Q. Yeah. In paragraph 27, you were shown -- you refer to a document
1 that is a report from Mr. Lausic entitled, "The Use of Military Police
2 units of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia
3 Now, is this the document that you identified by way of
4 paragraph 27?
5 A. Yes. That is the report of the chief of the military police.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if you could go to page 2
7 of the B/C/S version and page 4 of the English version; and in the B/C/S
8 version, if the document can be taken right down.
9 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you note, under the paragraph 2.5, there is a
10 reference to the address of members of paramilitary formations.
11 Can you just clarify what the term "paramilitary formations"
12 there is referred to? What is paramilitary formations? Are they unknown
13 formations or is it a reference to the enemy forces?
14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm going to object and ask for some
15 foundation given that is he not the author of the document. She's asking
16 him to essentially interpret what the author of the document says. As
17 far as I know, this document references the witness, but is not a
18 document of the witness.
19 So I will object until there is more foundation as to how this
20 witness -- whether he participated in the drafting or in another way
21 would know specifically what this refers to.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the background of the witness,
23 as such, he should be familiar what the terms is at the very least, and I
24 think that in the presence of the witness, that objection and the manner
25 it was raised was inappropriate.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.
4 You may proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Dzolic, this is a document from the military police
7 administration. Are you familiar with that term used in that paragraph?
8 Can you say who the term "paramilitary formations" there is referred to?
9 I'm not asking you to identify the individuals, but what's the formation?
10 A. I don't even know who they're referring to, that's for one. As
11 for the definition for "paramilitary formations," if you want my answer,
12 that would mean an enemy armed formation, which is not part of the
13 regular army. Let's use the term "regular" for practical purposes, so
14 it's an enemy unit.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... thank you, Mr. Dzolic.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, this document was included in
17 the 92 ter submission. I could tender into evidence now or shall I leave
18 so that I don't interfere with Mr. Registrar's numbering since it is
19 already tendered with the 92 ter submission.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it needs a separate number, I take it,
21 since it is -- I think a decision on admission could be taken, unless
22 there is any objection against that at this moment.
23 MR. KAY: No objection, Your Honour. And for my part, it could
24 be admitted as an exhibit and all documents produced that are admissible
25 can be produced that way.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: The Markac Defence is the same, the same
3 MR. MISETIC: We have no objection to this document, and I think
4 I notified Ms. Mahindaratne last night of the one document that we do
5 object to, just for the record.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Mahindaratne, no objections against any of
8 the documents; therefore, I leave it to you. We can proceed in two ways,
9 either to ask Mr. Registrar to prepare a list assigning numbers to all of
10 the documents and that you just may refer to them and only seek admission
11 on a separate basis for any document which is not yet on your list.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. Then I will move
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I call document 653,
17 Q. Mr. Dzolic, while the document comes up, if I could ask you to
18 look at your 2004 statement, paragraph 54. Can you take a look at
19 paragraph 54 of your 2004 statement. And in paragraph 54, you identify a
21 You say: "The cooperation between the military police and
22 civilian police was not working very well. On 18th of August, 1995, an
23 order was received from the chief of military police administration," and
24 you give the numbers there, "instructing us to have new meetings with the
25 civilian police, identify the problems, and get things working properly."
1 Now, can you please look at the document on the screen. Is that
2 the order you referred to as having been issued by the chief of military
3 police administration on 18th August 1995
4 the reference numbers. Your reference numbers reads, "SP 80-01/95-158,"
5 and the next number is --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. Can we have the witness take his
8 earphones off.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you, Mr. Dzolic, take your earphones off
10 for a second.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Your Honour, just if we're going to take --
12 show documents to the witness, even though they're military police, I
13 would have a standing objection on foundation purposes that we first see
14 what the witness actually himself knows about the document.
15 From paragraph 354, I couldn't determine whether he referenced it
16 independently, that he received an order on the 18th of August, or that
17 the OTP, in the course of the interview, showed him the document, which
18 he then said, "Yes, this looks like an order that Mr. Lausic issued on
19 18 August," but it doesn't say in the paragraph whether he has any
20 personal knowledge of the order.
21 I make the submission because it is my understanding that this
22 witness in the normal chain of events wouldn't have received a copy of
23 this order, but would have been passed on tasks from his commander. And,
24 so, if we're going to go through documents, I ask first that we establish
25 a foundation with the witness to see does he recall an order, did he see
1 it at the time, does he know anything about it; and then, if not, then we
2 can see what questions can be posed to the witness based on whatever his
3 answers are. And if he does know, then obviously we can interpret the
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, what could be the follow-up questions
7 and whatnot is still to be determined.
8 But, Ms. Mahindaratne, I take it that you would agree that once a
9 document is shown to the witness, to ask him whether he saw it at that
10 time or not. This is not an indication that if he has not seen it at
11 that time, that he could not be asked questions as to the language used,
12 the type of orders issued, the concepts that were at that time
14 So I'm not -- but I think it is good to know at the beginning
15 whether the witness talks about a document he has seen at a later stage
16 or whether he had seen it at the time.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. Now that the
18 witness has already seen the document, I will ask whether he is familiar
19 with this document before he saw it --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I take it that you will formulate the
21 question to find out what Mr. Misetic thinks is important.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- yes. Before I ask you again - not at
24 this moment by the way to take off your earphones - I'd like to know, do
25 you speak English and do you understand English?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't understand it. Just a
2 little bit: How are you? What's your name?
3 JUDGE ORIE: No legal stuff. Yes.
4 Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Dzolic, before we go to the document, you referred to, in
7 paragraph 54 of your statement of 2004, to a document as an order
8 received on 18th of August, 1995, from the chief of military police
10 Now, how did you know that such an order was issued by the chief
11 of military police administration on 18th of August? Was that order
12 conveyed to you? Did you see that order? Did you see a copy of that
14 A. I think that I've already -- I think that I told the
15 Prosecutors -- the investigators who took my first statement where this
16 was mentioned. I think I told them that I had prepared for this
17 interview. I prepared for it at the military police administration and
18 also at the 4th Corps in the archives, which I had access to, the
19 archives of both the military police and the corps. And that is when I
20 wrote down this number, this reference number, and I told the gentleman
21 who interviewed me when I gave my statement that that was when I saw this
23 Q. So you saw this order for the first time in the archives when you
24 did your own research?
25 A. Yes, when I had to familiarize myself and when I prepared for
1 this interview with the investigators of the ICTY.
2 Q. And before that, on 18th August or just soon thereafter, was this
3 order conveyed to you, either verbally or in other form, by your
4 commander, Mr. -- Colonel Budimir? I mean not the entirety of the order
5 but were you told, for instance, to cooperate, you know, between military
6 police -- military and civilian police?
7 A. I don't remember. As you know, on the 12th of August, I left
8 Knin. So, as far as the participation in Operation Storm, whether he
9 told me about the order in Split
10 with the police in Split
11 excellent cooperation with the civilian police. And I don't even know if
12 it was necessary to have this conversation. But if the commander did
13 relay the order, I would have executed it, together with the Ministry of
14 Interior officials in Split
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, can this document be given a
16 P number and admitted into evidence, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: This is a new one.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. It is not included in the
19 92 ter submission.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P877.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections against admission? No objections.
23 P877 is admitted into evidence.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Now, just for the record, in your statement, Mr. Dzolic, you give
2 the reference number 512-119-01-95-5470; whereas, this document, the
3 number is exactly that, but the last four -- last digits are "547" not
5 Is it possible that you made an error when you added that -- gave
6 that last four digits as "5470"?
7 A. I was going to mention that it says here "class, SP 80-01/95, and
8 then a 5 is omitted. So under "class," it says "150"; and, whereas, I
9 have "5470" in the statement.
10 Q. I think what you have is "5470" and the document has "547,"
11 Mr. Dzolic. I'm talking about the number below. Do you note that?
12 A. I cannot really see the number below that. What I see is "class,
13 SP 80-01/95-150."
14 Q. In any event --
15 JUDGE ORIE: The witness is --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE, Sorry, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- apparently looking at a document, and I didn't
18 see him looking at the screen. So, in order to follow what you are
19 suggesting, Ms. Mahindaratne, I think he should look at the screen in the
20 original document.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: He is looking, Mr. President. I think he
22 didn't quite follow me.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to say
24 this: The class number of the document, here on the monitor, is as the
25 Prosecutor said it or read it. But in the document that I have in front
1 of me, it does not reflect the same class. There is a different class
2 number, and then this is an office number. These are two different
3 numbers. Whether there was some kind of omission when the Prosecution
4 wrote down this number as I dictated it to them, or whether they just
5 merged them together, I don't know what exactly this is all about. But
6 in this document and the document in front of us, the class number is not
7 the same.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, let me just try to understand what
9 happens at this moment.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm referring to, Mr. President, the office
11 number, not the class --
12 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second, please.
13 Yes. You now ask a question to the witness. You said: "In your
14 statement ..."
15 What paragraph of the statement, to start with?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Paragraph 54, Mr. President, the paragraph 54
17 that we were following.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because you started talking about numbers
19 without giving us, if I'm not mistaken, without giving us a clue as to
20 where look in the statement.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I thought you were
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Perhaps, Mr. Dzolic, could you look at paragraph 54 in your
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: There we find as the -- what appears to be the
3 office number, being 512-119-01-95-5470.
4 Now, the document you just saw on the screen has an office
5 number, which is almost the same, apart from the last zero which does not
6 appear on the document that was on your screen.
7 Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know whether it nevertheless that
8 you were referring to the same document, although there is a slight
9 difference in the office number, and whether that may have been a
10 mistake, especially the last zero, after "547."
11 Was that a mistake?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is possible that it
13 was a mistake, because I can see now that in every other respect those
14 numbers are the same.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Date is the same, apparently the subject is
16 the same.
17 So, Ms. Mahindaratne, I think this clarifies the matter.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Mr. President, I --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, another matter is that the handwritten
21 numbers are not, as the class number where apparently the witness
22 focussed on, are not perfectly clear, and there may be a transcribing
23 problem because numbers do not need any translation.
24 I don't think there is any dispute between the parties that the
25 witness was referring to this document.
1 Please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: For the record, Mr. President, the last two
3 pages of this document, in fact, was tendered by the Defence as D48, but
4 this document is together. So we -- to keep it as complete as possible,
5 we left those two documents.
6 But for the record, the last two documents - that's page 4 and 5
7 of the English version and B/C/S page 3 and 4 - in fact, are D48.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Dzolic --
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Could we just move to page 2 of the document,
11 Q. Mr. Dzolic, when you -- you will see in that section where you
12 have -- where there is a title called "Order," order number 2 instructs:
13 "All commanders of platoons -- VP platoons, companies, and battalions,
14 are to contact immediately the highest ranking HV commander in the area
15 of responsibility and completely implement item number 6 of the UEP
16 order," and reference is given to an order dated 16th August, 1995
17 Now, you did say -- and, in fact, I will tender -- in fairness, I
18 will tender that document just after this. But you did say that you left
19 Knin on 12th August. Do you recall that if --
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. -- pursuant to this order, if company commanders and platoon
22 commanders did, indeed, contact or kept in touch with the most senior
23 ranking HV commander in the area? Are you aware that that, indeed,
25 A. I cannot say anything about that. I don't know. I can't recall
1 it. I was not a company commander, in which case I would know what
2 another company commander was doing. I can only speak for my company in
4 Q. Do you see any records as the company commander -- or the since
5 you were within the 72nd Military Police Battalion, did you see any
6 records of company commanders or platoon commanders liaising or
7 contacting the senior-most ranking HV officer in the area, pursuant to
8 this order? Did you see any records to indicate that this order was
10 A. I didn't see anything. But as far as I recall, sometime in
11 August, I had a conversation with the officers of the military police in
13 But whether that referred to this command, whether my battalion
14 commander ordered me to go and have this conversation based on this
15 order, I don't know. But I suppose that other commanders in the field
16 also had to do this, to carry out this order, both with -- both as
17 received from their commanders and also with their subordinates.
18 Q. Thank you for that.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar. Can I call document 3350,
21 Mr. President, this is just a bar table submission just to
22 keep -- since this order is referred to in the previous order, P877, that
23 we just looked at, I'm just submitting this document from the bar table.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And it is not yet on your list, Ms. Mahindaratne?
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P878.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No objection against P878.
4 P878 is admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document P47,
8 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you will see in a minute a document on your screen,
9 which is an order issued by the chief of military police administration,
10 Mr. Lausic, on 14th August which is already in evidence.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It has been tendered by the Defence, D47.
12 Q. And, see, it is addressed to amongst others the 72nd Military
13 Police Battalion?
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to page 4 of B/C/S and
15 page -- also 4 of the English translation.
16 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you note in paragraph 14 -- I will read it. It
17 says, starts off by saying: "Normalize the command and control
18 structure," and then the military police is ordered in this manner: "In
19 daily operational command, subordinate the commanders of the newly
20 established platoons and companies of the Knin VP to the most senior
21 HV commander in the zone of responsibility and send the daily report to
23 And, now, as commander of the -- the Knin military police
24 company, can you explain to Court as to how this particular order was
25 implemented by your company?
1 MR. MISETIC: Objection as to foundation, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. First and foremost, Mr. Dzolic, can you please tell Court if, in
5 fact, this order was conveyed to you by your superior commander, Colonel
6 Budimir. I am referring to paragraph 14. That particular order, was
7 that conveyed to you by Colonel Budimir?
8 No. I'm not referring to your statement, Mr. Dzolic. You see
9 the document on the screen. Do you note paragraph 14?
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, again, I think --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The paragraph 14 of what? The
12 statement or --
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Paragraph 14 of the document on the screen.
14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, again, perhaps he can take his
15 earphones off. I don't want to taint his testimony.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you take your earphones off for a second
17 again, please.
18 Yes, Mr. Misetic.
19 MR. MISETIC: In fairness to the witness, he should be given an
20 opportunity to see the first page. He has already testified that he left
21 Knin on the 12th. This is a document from the 14th. In order not to
22 confuse him, he should be able to at least see that this is a document
23 that issued two days after he left Knin.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if would you give clear
1 instructions as to what should be shown on the screen. At this moment,
2 we see the first page of this document.
3 Please ask the questions you have in mind.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. Mr. Dzolic, first and foremost, let me ask you, are you familiar
6 with this document? Do you need time to read the document?
7 A. I can read it now, but have I have never seen it before.
8 Q. Can you read it and familiarize yourself, and I will take you to
9 paragraph 14. My question is going to be about paragraph 14.
10 A. Yes. We can go on.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can we have the next page, please,
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Next page, please.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
15 Q. Are you finished, Mr. Dzolic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. My question is related to paragraph 14 which reads: "Normalize
18 the command and control structure," and then there is certain other
19 instructions. Then the last sentence starts: "In daily operational
20 command, subordinate the commanders of the newly established platoons and
21 companies of the Knin VP to the most senior HV commander in the zone of
22 responsibility and send the daily report to them."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. My question -- of course, you said that on 12th, you left Knin.
25 Are you aware as to if, in fact, there was such an order issued to the
1 Knin military police company?
2 A. I'm not aware of that. You should ask Colonel Budimir, the
3 commander of the 43rd [as interpreted] Battalion.
4 Q. Now, I think you meant to say 72nd Battalion, isn't it, not 43rd.
5 It is recorded incorrectly as 43rd.
6 Now, my question is: At any stage, do you know if the Knin
7 military company commanders or the platoon commanders, did they send
8 daily reports to the senior -- the most senior HV commander in the zone
9 of responsibility? Are you aware of that order being implemented?
10 That's my question to you.
11 MR. MISETIC: Objection, Your Honour. I think that is asked and
12 answered. He answered that question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. You're referring to page 28, line 7.
14 MR. MISETIC: 4 to 7
15 JUDGE ORIE: 4 to 7. Yes.
16 Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: He has not answered. My first question was
18 whether there was an order issued to the Knin military police company.
19 Now my second question is whether, in fact, he was aware that daily
20 reports were sent. The first question was about whether this order was
21 issued --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's, let's, let's, let's see.
23 Ms. Mahindaratne, Mr. Dzolic [sic] seeks your testimony in
24 relation to the order in which it is said that the companies of the Knin
25 military police would report or should report to the most senior Croatian
1 army commander in the zone of the responsibility and the daily report to
3 First of all, did you know that such an order was issued, that
4 this is the way in which they should report?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I said in my
6 first answer that I'm not familiar with this order. This is an order
7 issued by General Lausic and is addressed to the commander of the
8 battalion. I was subordinate to him. I was only a company commander,
9 and it is my battalion commander who would know about this.
10 The lady is probably asking whether I was aware of the
11 reporting --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. The first question is that even if it is not
13 directly addressed to you, such an order, in writing, nevertheless,
14 sometimes people are aware of the existence of orders or documents which
15 are not directly addressed to them but they nevertheless have knowledge
16 of it.
17 Were you aware of such an order being issued?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not recall. I
19 don't remember this order. I don't remember this report or these
20 paragraphs which are mentioned in this order.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, Mr. Dzolic, I want it make it perfectly
22 clear to you that the question is about not whether you remember to have
23 seen this before, but whether you were aware of such an order, even if
24 have you not seen it being issued. If you are not aware, please tell us.
25 If you say, "I've never seen it, but was aware that such an order was
1 issued," please tell us as well.
2 Which of the two?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible that I knew about
4 these parameters, but, Your Honour, I have stated I would tell the truth
5 and nothing but the truth. I don't remember this. I don't know whether
6 I'm supposed to say that I saw this or that I didn't see it. I just
7 don't remember.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, again, you're referring to having seen
9 it, and my question was about whether you were aware of such an order
10 issued irrespective of whether you have ever seen it. But have I now
11 well understood you that your testimony is ... [Overlapping speakers].
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember --
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- remember having heard about it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's certainly an answer. You have no
16 recollection of any awareness at the time that such an order was issued.
17 Now, the second question is whether you were aware of the
18 commanders of newly establish the platoons and companies of the Knin
19 military police reporting to senior Croatian army commanders, the most
20 senior Croatian army commanders.
21 Are you aware of whether this was done or not? So irrespective
22 of whether you have ever seen orders about it, but was there any direct
23 reporting by the newly established platoon and companies of the military
24 police to the most senior HV commanders? In practice, did that happen?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know about those units on
1 the ground, but I did know that the duty service, in the battalion in
3 commander in its area of responsibility.
4 JUDGE ORIE: When you say "commander," commander of what?
5 Military commander, military police commander?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The official report was sent. It
7 says here that reports should be sent to the commanders on the ground,
8 but this report was also sent to the commander of the military police
9 unit. It was sent to two addresses. One report was drawn up, and then
10 it was addressed to several addressees.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And when you are referring to "commander," in
12 addition to the military police administration, you are referring to the
13 Croatian army command?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The military police
15 administration sent it to the chief of the Main Staff depending on the
16 chain of command and the system.
17 The 72nd Military Police Battalion could only have sent reports
18 to the commander of the Military District, and the ones on the ground
19 could send it to the corps commander or the commander of the brigade who
20 was on the ground.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Mr. Registrar, may I call document 5467, please.
24 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you examined this document at the proofing session;
25 and, in fact, you have referred to it in paragraph 28 of your 2008
1 document. That is P876, MFI
2 document, you expressed some surprise that the records before the 11th of
3 August was not included.
4 Can you say, generally, what type of activity of the Knin
5 military police is recorded in this book?
6 A. In the duty log-book?
7 Q. The log-book that you're looking at right now on the screen, yes.
8 Generally, what type of activity of the military police is recorded in
9 this book?
10 You're looking at your statement, Mr. Dzolic. You have not been
11 asked that question. It's a fresh question.
12 A. The duty log contains information on the events which took place
13 in the area of responsibility of the company in question. This is the
14 front page. I don't know what's inside on the next pages.
15 Q. I know. I will -- we will go through the next pages. My
16 question is a general question: As the company commander of the Knin
17 military police, you would be familiar with this document, would you not?
18 A. I have seen it.
19 Q. Now, according to your statement -- response just now, would all
20 information received by the shift leaders of the Knin military police and
21 any action taken in relation to such information be recorded in this
22 document, generally?
23 A. Yes, if this log-book was maintained as of the first day.
24 Q. Now, in this -- we will go threw this book, Mr. Dzolic, and I
25 will go through a sample of entries.
1 There are a number of entries here where your company has
2 received information about crimes, such as looting or arson --
3 MR. KAY: Shall we -- I must say my learned friend is trying to
4 drive this witness in -- in her direction and her direction alone. We
5 know he left on the 12th of August. This document begins on the 11th of
6 August. He left this company on the 12th of August, so it's not his
7 company thereafter.
8 I really do think, Your Honour, that proper foundation for the
9 questioning of a witness should be established as to what he actually
10 knows, rather than the conclusions of the advocate.
11 I say that with all respect, but we have to follow this, and
12 we're trying to be absorb what's going into the transcript, all of which
13 is potentially significant. And in our submission, this must be done in
14 a proper way with the witness telling us what he knows and whether it's
15 his document, whether he is familiar with how it was produced, et cetera.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may respond.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In fact, if Mr. Kay looked at document, he
19 would see that there are entries related to the witness himself because
20 there are entries on the 11th while the witness was there, and the
21 witness has already responded that he is familiar with this document.
22 In his statement, he has identified the document and the evidence
23 is already --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you are familiar with the document, that --
25 I'm familiar with many documents of which I could --
1 Let's -- if you say, I'll focus on certain entries, let's go to
2 them, see what the date of these entries is, let's see whether the
3 witness has -- what kind of knowledge he has.
4 One of the problems might be that you often introduce questions,
5 for example, by saying, well, this log-book contains, et cetera,
6 et cetera. Let's lock at it step by step.
7 Let's let you formulate your questions, then we will see it
8 brings us.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
10 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. I raise it because the witness
11 answered: "I don't know what's inside on the next page."
12 "Question: I know we will go through the next pages."
13 So, Your Honour --
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I simply know that this witness
15 examined this document in its entirety, and that is why it was not
16 anything improper that I was trying to do.
17 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I gave you guidance,
18 Ms. Mahindaratne.
19 Mr. Kay, at that moment, since I didn't criticise you for the
20 reasons why, there was no reason to further explain that. I expected
21 Ms. Mahindaratne to proceed.
22 Please proceed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm planning to go through a number of
24 entries, Mr. President. I know that it is five minutes before the break.
25 Would you prefer to take the break now, and I start on this since it is
1 going to be a -- without reaching the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if you start with one or two entries and see
3 how that develops, and then we will have a break.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
5 If you could go to page 4, Mr. Registrar, of the B/C/S version;
6 and in the English, it would be 7452.
7 In the English, you would have to go to -- if you click on that
8 arrow, it will give you actually the numbers. Yeah, that's correct.
9 7452, page 1.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Dzolic, you were the commander of the Knin company on
11 11th August, were you not? You left on 12th.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if we can focus on the entry at -- the third entry, that's at
14 10.00, 10.00 a.m.
15 There is an entry where an information come from the
16 40th Engineers Company to the shift leader, and the incident relates to a
17 shooting and arson in Kovacic hamlet. And pursuant to that information,
18 Cobra 40 - that is patrol - is sent, and it says "report attached."
19 Now, since you were the company commander at the time, do you
20 recall this incident where there was shooting and arson from the Kovacic
21 hamlet reported to the military police?
22 A. I don't recall, no.
23 Q. Now, this says that there is a report attached. Do you know
24 where reports that were raised by the Knin military police were sent to
25 or to what it's attached?
1 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour. But as I
2 can see, there is an obvious mistake in the translation.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we proceed, we never discuss what should be
4 the translation or is not the translation in the presence of the witness.
5 Mr. Dzolic, could you please take your earphones off for a
7 Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: As I can see in the English version, it is
9 written "report attached." But in the original version which I have in
10 front of me, it is written that "report is in the order."
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Because it is written in original "izvjesce,"
13 that is "report"; "u," that is "in"; and it is not written "prilog,"
14 which will be "attachment," but it is written "nalog" which is "order."
15 So it could be kind of confusion in that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: This seems to me a perfect moment to have a break,
17 so that the parties could discuss the matter during the break, seek
18 further advice as to whether this is a mistake, because your question
19 apparently was based on "attachments," at least part of your question.
20 Mr. Misetic.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: While the witness has earphones off and before
22 taking the break, I do want to note that I have already sent a e-mail to
23 Mr. Nilsson and Mr. Monkhouse. But I want to put it on the record that I
24 believe that at page 31, lines 18-21, there was a translation error, and
25 we would like to have that checked or put to the witness again while he
1 is here, however the Trial Chamber prefers to do it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Have you sent it also to Ms. Mahindaratne?
3 MR. MISETIC: I did, and I copied all counsel on it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was not in your brief report.
5 So we have quite some work to be done during the break. I take
6 it, Ms. Mahindaratne, if there was an error in translation, that you will
7 find a solution either to have it checked or you put it again to the
8 witness in order to clarify the issue, which I'm not aware of yet.
9 Then we'll ask the witness to put his earphones on again.
10 Mr. Dzolic, we discussed potential translation errors, and we
11 don't want you to be a victim of it. It will be all be sorted out during
12 the break. You, however, are invited to check the version you can read
13 of your 2008 statement and see whether there's anything in there which
14 you'd like to further correct or amend or whatever there is.
15 Do you think 25 minutes would be enough to read through?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hope it will be enough.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 We'll have a break until five manipulates to 11.00, and we'd like
19 to hear from you then.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dzolic, could I first ask you whether you had an
23 opportunity to read in your own language your 2008 statement and whether
24 there's any need to hear further comments?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did have an
1 opportunity to see the 2008 statement, and I do need to add a few things
2 after I've briefly gone through this statement.
3 What I'd like to say in paragraph 3, where paragraph 5 is
4 referred to, it says here: "I would like to add that we received orders
5 from the Military District command." To clarify, I would like to say
6 that this was the command of the battalion of the military police and
7 not -- I wasn't speaking for myself. I just want it make sure that it's
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... let me just
10 wait. Yes, now I hear myself again.
11 You said paragraph 3, in relation to paragraph 5 of your 2004
12 statement, you said you'd like to add that you received orders from the
13 Military District Command Split and also from the military police
15 You would like to add the reference to the battalion, in relation
16 to orders you received from the military police administration?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could you please
18 repeat your question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps I'll do it in such a way: You said
20 you'd like to make a clear reference that it was orders you received from
21 the battalion. Where you there referring to the military police
22 battalion, as we find in paragraph 5 of your 2004 statement?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is on the record.
25 Your next point, Mr. Dzolic.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 4, where reference is
2 made to paragraph 7, discussing the reporting system --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- where it says that the reports
5 were compiled, based on work orders and reports by patrols of the
6 military police, and not unit commanders. This could be a platoon
7 commander or a company commander, but here it is actually based on the
8 check-points. And based on those reports, the duty service of the
9 battalion or the company would compile a report that would be sent to the
10 duty service of the battalion.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So, did I correctly understand you that the reports
12 were drafted by the patrols, which could be under a platoon commander or
13 a company commander, but it was the information from the check-points
14 that was the basis for it, and that it was sent to the duty service to
15 finally compile the report that would be sent to the duty service of the
17 Is that correctly understood?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's, then, on the record as well.
20 Next point, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 5, where reference is
22 made to paragraph 10, it says here that I said I would like to add that
23 the military courts could deal with crimes. What I could like here to be
24 written was not could deal but they dealt with crimes, or, rather,
25 criminal offences committed by members of the armed forces.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that would be criminal offences of any
2 seriousness, all of them, from the most serious to less serious ones?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
4 clarify something here.
5 Military courts dealt with serious crimes, such as murder,
6 looting, robbery, and similar; and as for minor offences, such as
7 disciplinary offences, they would be dealt with by disciplinary courts,
8 in keeping with the rules on military discipline.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And you said military courts could not only deal
10 with these crimes but they actually dealt with those crimes.
11 Is that correctly understood?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Your next point, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 16, where reference is
15 made to paragraph 38, where it says that the main task of the military
16 police was to escort or to bring in perpetrators and investigate crimes
17 committed by members of the army. If a local commander, military
18 commander, was informed that a crime was committed, his duty was to
19 report this to the military police. The word "local" here is very
20 general, so I would like to -- I would like there to be written instead
21 "to the immediate superior."
22 So, in other words, if there were ten superiors to the
23 perpetrator, then they would all have had to react; and the commander,
24 the immediate commander, would have to report this to the platoon
25 commander. If his immediate superior was a platoon commander, then he
1 would have to report it to the company commander.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The word "local" appears twice. Could you guide me
3 exactly to the line where you would like to make --
4 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: If I can point out, in the translation, it was
7 translated as: "So, in other words, if there were ten superiors to the
8 perpetrator," and I think what the translation should have been is if the
9 commander, if it was a squad, the "squad commander" is what he said in
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, Mr. Misetic, it appears to be a rather
12 technical issue; but, in general, the correct translation should not be
13 presented to the Chamber when the witness is listening.
14 MR. MISETIC: Okay. I apologise.
15 But just the ten superiors is --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. There seems to be confusion.
17 Could you tell me exactly is it the line somewhere in the middle
18 of the paragraph or at the end? In the middle it says: "If it was
19 reported to a local military commander that a crime was committed."
20 And at the end of this paragraph, we read: "The local commander
21 could discipline his soldiers himself if it was a minor breach."
22 I got the impression that you wanted to refer to the middle of
23 the paragraph. Is that correct?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. But it should
25 also be corrected in the next sentence because wherever mention is made
1 of "local commander," instead, it should be the "immediate superior."
2 JUDGE ORIE: The "immediate superior" is replacing, twice, the
3 reference to the "local commander."
4 Your next point, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 18, where reference is
6 made to paragraph 45, where it says: "We went to several locations and
7 saw some houses and structures burning."
8 In other words, a military police patrol went to several
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When you say "we," you are referring to --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A military police patrol. I just
12 wanted to be clear. I was not the one who went and visited those several
14 JUDGE ORIE: But you said "military police patrols" went to
15 several locations and saw some houses. That's on the record.
16 Next point, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the same paragraph, where it
18 says I was "sent" by Cermak to see the commanders of the 142nd Brigade, I
19 would like, instead, that it reads that he "proposed" or "recommended,"
20 because where it -- when it says "sent," it could imply that he ordered
21 me, but, in fact, he couldn't.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is clear.
23 Your next point, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph 25, where the rules
25 governing the structures and operation of the military police are
1 discussed. When I say that this is confirmed-- my statement confirms
2 this, I mean the explanation of paragraphs Article 8 and 9, where it
3 clearly says that the military police administration orders the units of
4 the military police; whereas, the commander of the Military District
5 issues orders that relate to daily operational tasks that the police had
6 to carry out in the field. And these daily operational tasks would
7 entail guarding of special buildings, persons, personalities, and areas,
8 and providing security for convoys of the Croatian army.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And that replaces or is in addition to what you
10 called the regular military police tasks? Is that a clarification of
11 what you --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. It says here
13 "regular military police tasks"; instead, it should read "daily
14 operational tasks."
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that clarification.
16 Next point, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 26, referring to an order
18 by Mate Lausic, regarding the subordination of the military police to the
19 most senior HV commander in the respective zone of responsibility, I
20 would like the "daily activities" to be replaced by "daily operational
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then it reads: "For the daily operational tasks of
23 the 72nd Military Police Battalion ..." That's on the record.
24 Next point, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I read this
1 briefly, I don't think I have any more objections to this statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Now we come back to a question which was earlier put to you,
4 whether you would answer the questions in a similar way as you did when
5 giving these statements. Would you give the same answer - that is to
6 say, the answers that you gave in 2004 - as corrected, explained, changed
7 in your 2008 statement, taking into consideration the further
8 explanations and the further amendments to that statement, as you've just
9 given it to us?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm addressing the parties, especially Defence. It
12 seems that the attestation is now complete.
13 If you would disagree, please tell the Court.
14 I hear of no disagreement, which means that P875 and P876 are
15 admitted in into evidence.
16 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Have you resolved the translation issue that
19 apparently --
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. In fact, Mr. Mikulicic
21 was correct. There was a translation error there, and it says here that
22 "the report is attached," but it should read, in fact, that "an order has
23 been issued requesting a report."
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record now as well.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
3 Q. Mr. Dzolic, we were looking at the entry on the document on your
4 screen - if could you lock at it - at 1000 hours, where there's
5 information about shooting and arson, and a military police patrol is
6 sent. There's a note there that an order has been issued requesting a
8 Now, this was a time when you were the commander of the -- this
9 company. Can you tell Court who in such circumstances would issue an
10 order to a patrol, to submit a report?
11 A. Could you please repeat the question?
12 Q. Do you note the entry there at 10.00 in the morning where --
13 A. I do.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... there's a note in relation
15 to that information about shooting and arson. A patrol is sent, and
16 there's a note there that an order has been issued requesting a report.
17 Now, you were the commander of the -- this company on the 11th.
18 Now, can you tell Court who in these circumstances could issue an order
19 to the patrol to submit a report on this incident?
20 A. Your Honour, the way I interpret this log-book of the duty
21 service -- or, rather, a log-book of events that occurred in the area of
22 responsibility, I think it is clear here who -- from whom a report was
23 received that an event occurred or that an act was committed and then the
24 duty service that sends a patrol to investigate in the field. And the
25 report in an order would mean each patrol had a daily order where they
1 were ordered what they're are to carry out on that day, and they would
2 report on their work by filling out this order form. And if anything was
3 discovered or observed, then this patrol would have the responsibility to
4 also draft an additional note on the event, about the event; and then
5 submit it to the duty service, so that then it could be reported through
6 the chain of command, this event could be reported through the chain of
8 I don't know if this clarifies the question that was put to me by
9 the Prosecutor.
10 So, in other words, this was there duty. There is no special
11 order for them to compile a report. The patrol would have to draft a
12 report and fill out this work order that they have with them; and once
13 they did that, it would be sent to the duty service. And if the
14 perpetrator was caught, he would be taken to the duty service, which
15 would then take it over upon themselves to refer this person for further
16 criminal processing to the crime police; and a member of the military
17 police patrol would then draft his own report on the event.
18 This was standard procedure; and from what I can see and the way
19 I interpret this, I think it is clear in itself.
20 Q. And those reports that the patrols would submit, would they be
21 archived somewhere?
22 A. They were archived in the unit, at the headquarters of the unit.
23 So, if there was a patrol, a company patrol, then it would be archived in
24 the company. If it was a company that was attached as a unit to a
25 battalion, in this case, a Split
1 transferred to Knin, the 72nd Battalion, then this would have been
2 archived at the seat of the battalion.
3 Q. Now, in this -- in relation to this entry, there is an record
4 that a patrol, military police, was sent out.
5 Now, when information was received by the shift leader of the
6 military police company, under what circumstances would a military police
7 patrol be sent?
8 What I'm asking you is to focus on the fact whether -- would the
9 military police patrol be sent in realities to any incident reported, or
10 would it have to fall within the purview of the military police activity?
11 And, for instance, would military police still be sent if, in fact, the
12 crime or incident reported involved exclusively civilians?
13 A. A military police patrol -- or, rather, the military police, in
14 keeping with their authorisation, were only able to take action vis-a-vis
15 members of the Croatian army. If a duty service, by some chance, were to
16 receive a report on an incident committed by a civilian or involving a
17 civilian, then the duty service would get in touch with the duty service
18 of the civilian police and refer the information or forward the
19 information to them. And it was their duty or their responsibility, just
20 as it was ours, to go to the crime scene and process that perpetrator if
21 it was a civilian perpetrator.
22 Q. And if, in fact, the person who received the information
23 contacted civilian police, as you just stated, would that fact be
24 recorded in this log-book also, the fact that MUP has been contacted or
25 civilian police has been contacted?
1 A. It would.
2 Q. Now, moving down on that same page, at 1710 hours, there is --
3 there's information received from Golubic by a military police patrol,
4 Mosor 91.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: M-o-s-o-r, for the record.
6 Q. And it records that the removal of bodies and medical services
7 are required, and then: "Military police has informed Knin garrison
8 command -- sorry, Knin garrison informed, but I could not get a doctor on
9 the phone."
10 And my question to you is: Why was the Knin garrison informed in
11 relation to these type of matters?
12 A. Why? Well, you would need to ask the duty service in this
13 particular case. I don't know what their orders were, what their
14 instructions were, regarding the clearing up of the field. But I think
15 that they did so because there was a doctor there who was -- whose duty
16 it was to sanitize the terrain, and I think that I mentioned that this
17 was normally down by the civilian police. I think this was in my
19 However, this particular event involved a military installation;
20 in other words, the Military District doctor was probably supposed to get
21 in touch with his technical service, take them to the crime scene or the
22 spot, and carry out the sanitation of the terrain. That is why I think
23 they were looking for a doctor at the Military District in Knin.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm looking -- if he could take his --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Could you take your earphones off, Mr. Dzolic?
3 MR. MISETIC: I'm listening on channel 1, so I am listening to
4 him in the original, and the translation is incorrect where it says he
5 said "Military District." So I don't know how you wish to deal with it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where you say it is incorrect, you suggest
7 that we should look at it and see whether it was correct because you have
9 MR. MISETIC: I don't have any doubts, but can you take a look at
10 it, yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But the way in which we address our
12 interpreters is that you would --
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes, I apologise, Your Honour. I would like to --
14 JUDGE ORIE: It is not that you can tell the interpreters that
15 they made a mistake, but that you heard in a different way.
16 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It's just a matter of the manner in how we deal, and
18 there's no problem in raising any translation issue. But we invite them,
19 just to see whether they come to the conclusion --
20 MR. MISETIC: Let me be clear. I wish to apologise. It was not
21 my intention to be rude, but the particular issue here is that there's a
22 specific military term in the Croatian system that is being used that may
23 not be familiar to everyone. I point it out, and in no way did I intend
24 to suggest anything improper.
25 I apologise.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that your apologies are accepted.
2 Now, Mr. Misetic, if could you take me back to the line exactly
3 where --
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Previous translation continues] ... page 48,
5 Mr. President, at line 10 -- line 11.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Line 11.
7 Yes. First of all, there is some doubts.
8 Could the interpreters if they say, Well, Mr. Misetic is right,
9 then we could deal with it right away; if not, we'll ask the witness to
10 repeat his words. Could I hear from the English booth.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, I am or the interpreters are not
12 exactly sure what Mr. Misetic is referring to exactly.
13 JUDGE ORIE: He is referring to page 48, line 11, where it was
14 translated "the Military District doctor."
15 Mr. Misetic, could you tell us what you heard in the original, so
16 that we first establish whether you heard the same as the interpreters
18 MR. MISETIC: Yes, "Military District" in Croatian is "Zborno
19 Podrucje," the "Garrison" is "Zborno Mjesto," and I believe the witness
20 said "Zborno Mjesto."
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which would be in line with what we find under
22 the remarks, yes.
23 Could the interpreters already clarify the issue; otherwise,
24 we'll ask the witness to repeat his words.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters are not sure what it was
1 exactly that they heard.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will ask the witness again.
3 Could you please put your earphones on again, Mr. Dzolic?
4 Mr. Dzolic, you earlier said - and I leave out the words which
5 are in dispute - you said: "In other words," and then you refer to a
6 doctor, apparently attached to some institution, was probably supposed to
7 get in touch with his technical service.
8 Could you again tell us what doctor or to institution the doctor
9 was attached as referred to in your answer?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The doctor, this medical service,
11 existed there. It was in the units of the armed forces, but also it was
12 logical then, as far as I can remember, that the same kind of
13 professional was also at a higher level of command, who was an assistant
14 to the commander in this sphere of work or in this purview.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said "there." We're looking at where
17 Perhaps I put it to you: Did you refer to the doctor of the
18 Military District, or did you refer to a doctor of the Garrison? What
19 did you refer to: Doctor, Military District; or doctor of the garrison?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I mentioned the garrison.
21 I think my reference was to the garrison. However, if I take a better
22 look at this report, or this paragraph, where it says the report for the
23 Military District of Knin, and I wasn't able to get in touch with a
24 doctor over the phone, I allow that it is possible that the Knin area of
25 responsibility was -- or Military District -- or, rather, the garrison of
1 Knin was -- received this report, and then someone from the garrison
2 referred them to the doctor who was in charge of sanitization of the
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the witness has explained what he
5 intended to say.
6 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. And in instances like this, where the doctor of the garrison was
9 required for sanitization of bodies, where would they, the military
10 police -- or which section of the garrison would they contact? Was there
11 a duty service of the garrison? What point would they contact?
12 MR. KAY: Again, questions have to be asked -- shall we find out
13 if there were other situations, rather than it being in situations like
14 this. Shall we try and establish that any procedure that there may be in
15 ways that the witness can give his own evidence?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I don't see anything improper in that
17 question, Mr. President, but to save time I will phrase it so that --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Mr. Dzolic, if you needed to obtain the services of the doctor
21 that you have been talking about all this time, where would you call in
22 the garrison?
23 A. What would I need the doctor for?
24 Q. I'm saying in a scenario, if you needed a doctor to, let's say,
25 sanitize bodies or with regard to the disposal of bodies, where would you
2 A. The doctor in charge of those tasks, the competent doctor.
3 Q. I know. But did he have an individual telephone or would you
4 call a particular section within the garrison? That's my question.
5 A. Probably, I didn't manage to get him on the phone. There was a
6 phone. Someone had the telephone number of the doctor whose duty this
7 was, and he was a doctor that had to be called. But who the doctor
8 actually was, I really don't know.
9 Q. Okay. I'll move on.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But it is no answer to your question.
11 What Ms. Mahindaratne was trying to find out was not who actually
12 the doctor was that was tried to be reached; but in such circumstances as
13 depicted by Ms. Mahindaratne, would you just choose any doctor or would
14 you choose to phone to a specific department of the garrison? Was there
15 any procedure established how to get hold of a doctor for sanitization?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably, there was a procedure. A
17 procedure did exist for the sanitization of the terrain. What the
18 procedure was, I'm not aware; and, probably, the leader of the duty
19 service who was on duty at the time wasn't aware of it either. He
20 informed the garrison of the event that had happened in the area of
21 responsibility, and he probably received guidance from them as to what
22 doctor he should call and at what telephone number.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Did you understand it to be the task of the garrison
24 to coordinate or give guidance in this type of situations?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know, Your Honours, what
1 the garrison's task was in this respect. But in the course of my stay in
2 Knin, in the time I spent there, I learned that sanitization of the
3 terrain was carried out, that it was carried out by the civilian
4 protection which was part of the Ministry of Interior. Probably, there
5 should have been a person in the garrison who would monitor or coordinate
6 the work with the sanitization team, if this had to do with a military
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Dzolic, did you at any time prior to Operation Storm
11 receive instructions as to how to -- or as to what steps to take when the
12 military police came across bodies of persons killed?
13 A. To the best of my recollection, I received no instructions about
15 Q. And moving on, if could you move to the entry for 12th August.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And that would be on B/C/S page 4,
17 Mr. Registrar; and on the English page, it is 7452, page 3.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Dzolic, this is the duty log for 12th August; and, in
19 fact, you would see at 11.45, you are indicated as providing some
20 information. So you were there as a company commander.
21 I'd like to you lock at entry at 10.15. There is a reference to:
22 Senior Lieutenant," and the name is not too legible, "Pavlimovic
23 informing the duty service that the building next to the barracks is on
24 fire." Then the action taken is that the Ministry of Interior informed
25 MUP informed which sent the fire brigades.
1 Do you recall this incident, the building next to the barracks
2 being on fire?
3 A. Correct. That is what it says here.
4 Q. What I'm try to say is: Do you recall that incident?
5 A. I don't recall it.
6 Q. Do you recall what the building which was next to the barracks?
7 Was it a shop or a residential premises?
8 A. I don't recall that. It doesn't even say next to which barracks.
9 There were two or three barracks in Knin.
10 Q. Now, in this log-book, there is no record of what investigations
11 had been carried out as to the cause of the fire. Now, can you tell us,
12 you were the company commander so you should know, if there was a fire --
13 MR. MISETIC: Objection to the leading, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
15 Yes. Whether he should know, Ms. Mahindaratne, depends on many
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please refrain from including this kind of, could I
19 say, encouragements to give an answer as you would expect.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I
22 don't think I have the capacity to lead this witness at all, even if it
23 was permitted.
24 JUDGE ORIE: This is another comment, Ms. Mahindaratne, which
25 does not assist the Chamber in trying to understand the evidence.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I apologise, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. Now, Mr. Dzolic, if you could just, say, tell us, if information
5 was received about a fire, what would you, as company commander, do?
6 What instructions would you issue?
7 MR. MISETIC: I'm going object because it calls for speculation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact Ms. Mahindaratne, although
9 she started her questioning by specific reference to the entry in the
10 log-book, her question is now is a very general one: If a fire would be
11 reported, what would you do?
12 Then, of course --
13 MR. MISETIC: Can I make a comment if he takes his earphones off?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Could you take your earphones off for a second? Mr. Dzolic,
16 could you take your earphones off?
17 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, again, the mixing of the specifics and
18 then broadening out to a general, A, confuses the witness; B, the
19 specific remark is that MUP was informed. So is she asking him what he
20 would expect as a commander of the military police after a matter was
21 referred to the MUP? Is she asking him what would he except if a fire
22 was committed within a military barracks by it?
23 I mean, it is an overly broad question that's tied to a specific
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see your point.
1 Ms. Mahindaratne, it came into my mind earlier when we say "the
2 building next to the barracks is on fire," of course, the witness now
3 said he doesn't even know what barracks, but I was trying to imagine what
4 you were asking for.
5 Now I see military barracks which is usually, well, a complex of
6 buildings, structures. And now there is "the building next to the
7 barracks." Is that south, west, east, and north? Then you asked, were
8 these shops, or I think you asked whether it was civilian houses,
9 something like that.
10 Whatever the witness would answer, he could not possibly answer
11 that question in a reliable way without further information about - had
12 not even thought about what barracks - but at least what side "the
13 building." I've never seen a barracks with only one building next to it,
14 or it is at least two.
15 But if we're talking about Knin barracks, whether it would be
16 northern barracks or any other barracks, I would know on the basis of a
17 map, that there's a likelihood that there at least ten, 15, if not 20, or
18 we have seen pictures earlier of some barracks with houses around it.
19 That is a question which almost impossibly could lead to any
20 useful information without further details.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will move on, Mr. President. I will use the
22 next entry which is far more clearer, and --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And then Mr. Misetic asked you always to make
24 a clear distinction between questions focussing on the entry and
25 questions which were not exclusively related to that entry anymore.
1 Would you please keep that in mind.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will do that. Mr. President.
3 It's just that following the objection, I moved on to the
4 generality from the specifics. That's what happened.
5 But I will now move on to -- -
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... you said "another entry,
7 so there the same problem might arise. I am not saying will arise, but
8 please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Mr. Dzolic, we are not talking about that entry anymore. I would
11 like to ask you a general question.
12 If you, as company commander, received information of a fire, you
13 know, of some structures on fire within your area of responsibility, what
14 would you do as a company commander?
15 A. Well, probably what it says here, what this Officer Pavlimovic
16 did. I would report to the duty service, and they would, if this was a
17 civilian building, inform the Ministry of Interior; that is, the civilian
18 police. If the fire was on a military facility, they would send a patrol
19 of the military police, and they would probably also call the
20 fire-fighters to come and put out the fire.
21 Q. Now, if this was a civilian building, after the fire was put out,
22 would there be an investigation into the cause of the fire?
23 A. Well, if it was military facility and if it was with a discovered
24 or if there was information that a member of the armed forces had
25 committed the crime of arson, then a criminal investigation would be
1 started. If there was no information as to the cause of the fire, there
2 would be no investigation because there would be no perpetrator, or a
3 criminal report would be filed against an unknown perpetrator.
4 If it was a military facility, a military police patrol would be
5 sent to secure the site, and then the crime investigation military police
6 would be sent to carry out an on-site investigation.
7 Q. What if it was a civilian facility and there was information that
8 the perpetrators were members of the armed forces -- sorry, members of
9 the military, would the same process be followed as you just said?
10 A. If there was information that the perpetrators of the crime were
11 members of the Croatian army who were not in the barracks or the military
12 facilities, then the military police and the civilian police would
13 jointly carry out an investigation.
14 Q. And if there was an investigation, would this -- or if a criminal
15 report was raised, would your duty log indicate that fact?
16 A. Probably, it would be recorded.
17 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I guess I'm going to make a late
18 objection as to the compound question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Anyway --
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour I --
21 JUDGE ORIE: That last question, Mr. Misetic?
22 MR. MISETIC: Yes. There were two parts to the question, so I'm
23 not sure --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Two parts based on the witness's answer. I
25 just read back what he said and then asked the question.
1 MR. MISETIC: I'm not sure what you read back. The question was:
2 "If there was an investigation or if a criminal report was raised, would
3 your duty log indicate that fact?"
4 I'm saying it's a compound question.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Because the previous answer was dealing with
6 the military police and civilian police would jointly carry out an
7 investigation, and then my question was: "If there was an investigation
8 or if a criminal ..." --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if we start with "if there was an
10 investigation, would your duty log indicate that fact," and then go to
11 the other possibility, apparently, because you said "if this or if that
12 happened, would it be recorded."
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I will move on,
14 Mr. President. I think the question has been answered anyway.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the problem is that if the question is
16 compound and if the answer does not make the distinction which should be
17 made in order to fully understand the answer --
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, President. I will ask him a
19 further question.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. Mr. Dzolic, your answer to my question as to whether the duty log
23 would indicate it is -- you say "Probably, it would ..." -- it is
24 recorded as: "Probably, it would be recorded." And when you said,
25 "Probably, it would be recorded," could you specify --
1 MR. MISETIC: Objection as to the leading now, Your Honour.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I just said could you specify. What is the
3 leading part of it?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I could explain to you what is apparently what
5 Mr. Misetic is saying.
6 Why not ask: "If such an investigation as you referred to, if
7 that investigation was a joint investigation by the military and the
8 civilian police, would such an investigation be recorded in the log-book
9 or somewhere else?"
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. Mr. Dzolic, could you answer the question from the Bench?
12 A. It would be recorded in the log-book, the duty log-book, the
13 log-book of the leader of the duty shift, as a piece of information on
14 the event --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand the last
16 part of the answer.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please repeat the last part of your
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the duty officer had information
20 from the duty service that there had been a joint investigation carried
21 out, this would be recorded in the duty service log-book.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if this would result in a criminal report,
23 would that be recorded; and, if so, where?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information would be entered
25 into the duty log-book. If there had been a patrol going out on the
1 ground, they would draw up their own separate report, which would then be
2 sent as a separate report to the superior command. The crime
3 investigation military police never sent all the information whether a
4 criminal report had been filed or not. They would only provide the basic
5 information that a perpetrator had been discovered and that he was being
7 In the duty log, only this information would be recorded: The
8 crime investigation military police is dealing with the case, and the
9 case is under way; or if it has been completed, it's been referred to the
10 military court or whatever. Whatever happened would be recorded.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So only the basic information would be recorded in
12 the log-book; whereas, the report as such was further submitted to the
13 competent authorities to further decide on the matter.
14 Is that well understood?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crime investigation military
16 police would carry out their own procedure, and they would forward this
17 to the military court.
18 As for the information concerning the event, the duty service
19 would draw up a separate report, as information, and forward it to their
20 superior professional body, which would be the battalion duty service,
21 and they would forward it to the military police administration.
22 So it would be a separate report, stating that this event had
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that investigation took place and whether,
25 for example, someone was arrested, would that find its way in the
1 log-book, this basic information?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If someone had been brought in to
3 the military police unit, as I said before, they would be brought to the
4 duty service and that would be recorded along with the basic information
5 in the daily log-book.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, just for my information, if people were sent
7 and if a joint investigation would have --
8 You apparently have problems with the earphones. Is it okay now?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I can hear you now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If a joint investigation would have taken place
11 without anyone arrested, without clear conclusions as, for example, the
12 cause of fire, would that then be reported back and would that
13 information also find its way into the log-book?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If an incident occurred, that
15 information would be recorded; but if there was no information about the
16 perpetrator of the crime, there would be nothing to enter into the
17 log-book, the duty log-book.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
19 Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 If we could move to page, on B/C/S, page 26; on English, 7472,
22 page 3.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Dzolic, if you could just like at the entry for
24 31st August 1995, at 1205, there is -- there is information from, it
25 says, "Matas Forward Command Post." Are you able to say what that is?
1 What forward command post is that information coming from?
2 Perhaps you can read the entire entry for at that time-period and
3 offer an explanation. From which forward command post is that
4 information coming?
5 A. Forward command post or separate command post? That's how I
6 would interpret this.
7 I don't see what this is about, what the incident is.
8 Q. Mr. Dzolic, I'm not asking you to comment on the incident. I
9 just asked you if you are able to recognise what the source of that
11 Perhaps, there is an translation issue. What do you read in the
12 B/C/S record as that information coming from?
13 A. It says "Matas IZM." I don't know what that is, I don't know who
14 this person is, or what this is supposed to be. I cannot draw a
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
17 A. Maybe if I knew what the incident involved was, I could then make
18 a assumption to what this refers to.
19 Q. Now that "IZM" - correct me if I'm wrong - is abbreviation for
20 "Forward Command Post." Isn't that correct?
21 A. Probably, that's what it might mean.
22 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you are familiar with the abbreviations used in
23 the --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
1 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I am going to object now. There has
2 been no foundation. We are now on 31 August. There is no foundation
3 established. The witness has now said in three answers he is making
4 assumption. He might know what it means, he has now answered the "IZM"
5 question, and now we're going at him again to say -- to challenge whether
6 he should know it. I mean --
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is also a compound objection.
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Well --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
10 I think, even if it is late August, Ms. Mahindaratne can ask
11 questions like, "Do you recognise the abbreviation 'IZM?'" I can imagine
12 that if this is a standing abbreviation, that the parties could even try
13 it agree on that. I've got no idea.
14 But the witness said that he apparently does not know what
15 "Matas" stands for. Perhaps, we could ask the question in a different
17 Mr. Dzolic, Ms. Mahindaratne suggested to you what "IZM" would
18 stand for. Apparently, you hesitated to agree with her. This,
19 apparently, is an abbreviation.
20 First question: Are you familiar with an abbreviation, "IZM"?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: What does it stand for, as far as you are concerned?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Separate Command Post.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
1 And if you would come to further explore what happened on the
2 31st of August, you will certainly remind the earlier observations made
3 by Mr. Misetic.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. Mr. Dzolic, in the information, it is recorded that: "On the
6 orders of General Cermak, tapes with the military police sign should be
7 placed on both sides of the road in front of the IZM to stop vehicles
8 from parking."
9 Then the remarks are that: "Military patrol, Mosor 31, has been
10 informed and will place the tape."
11 Now, my question is this: If I could take to you paragraph 45 of
12 your 2004 statement, you refer to General Cermak, and you say: "I was
13 called to Cermak's office like this on two or three occasions. The next
14 time was 9th August 1995
15 Now, my question is this: Would that, the fact that you were
16 called into Mr. Cermak's office on thee occasions as indicated by you in
17 your 2004 statement, be recorded in the duty log-book for that period?
18 A. It wouldn't.
19 Q. Why not?
20 A. Because I was invited by General Cermak to come there for a
21 conversation because I was subordinate to him in the daily tasks. In
22 other words, I did not report on everything that I did in the log, in the
23 duty service log.
24 The duty service log was for incidents that occurred in the
25 field, on the ground. If I were to report on every move I made and where
1 I went, then this log-book would have 500 pages or more, because it
2 wouldn't just be me but every other commander who would have to do the
3 same thing.
4 Q. I asked you that question, Mr. Dzolic, because this really --
5 this is doesn't relate to an incident but just merely placing tapes, so
6 that is why I asked you whether all such entries were, in fact, included
7 in the duty log; and your response is no.
8 Let me go on.
9 Now, if I could take to you B/C/S page 28 and the English 7476,
10 page 1.
11 Now, Mr. Dzolic, I'm going to just go through a few entries with
12 you, and then I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. To save time,
13 I'll first take you through the entries.
14 On this page, at 2140, there is a report from military police
15 patrol, Mosor 198, to the shift leader, and the information is that:
16 "They had," that's military police, "had stopped an HV truck with
17 40 sheep for which they had no papers."
18 The action taken is: "M-31 patrol sent which took the persons in
19 and handed them over to the crime police for criminal processing. They
20 were released."
21 I'd like to you go on -- this is for 1st and 2nd September,
22 3rd September. That is page B/C/S 29; English 7477, page 2. That is the
23 entry for 3rd September 1995, and there are three entries which I will
24 read to you.
25 At 1410, there is name Denis Keljalj, VP, military police,
1 informs shift leader personally: "The HV had been stopped at Kistanje
2 KBP roadblock with stolen goods."
3 The action taken is: "Patrol sent which brought in HV, handed
4 them over to crime inspector, Runje," I think that is the area where you
5 were based in, "and released them."
6 The next entry, at 1620, the information comes from the Knin
7 military police company commander at this stage, since you were not
8 there, Luka Orsulic. The entry is: "The HV was steeling goods from a
9 house near the Tvik company and was loading them into a lorry."
10 Action taken: "Patrol sent which brought them in and handed them
11 over to the Crime Police, Runje. They were released by the crime
13 Third entry for the 3rd September, 1650, again from company
14 commander himself: "The HV is supposed to come with a lorry to the round
15 about," and time is given as 4.55 hours, "with stolen goods. Patrol
16 sent, they were brought in, and handed over to criminal investigator,
17 Runje, and released."
18 I would like you to move on to the entry for 5th September; and
19 that is at B/C/S page 32, and English translation 7480, page 1.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could go to the bottom of the page,
22 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you notice an entry there for 5th September? This
23 is 1625, where the Knin police station informs someone in the -- I think
24 this is the shift leader, Vrkic: "The hospital is on fire and HV members
25 are not letting firemen extinguish the fire."
1 Action taken: Mosor patrol went personally to intervene and did
2 not encounter the HV soldiers."
3 I just go through two more -- before that, let me ask you, now,
4 in these entries that I read back to you, there is no record of a
5 criminal report being raised or the matter being investigated or the
6 perpetrators being charged. In fact, in the cases of the looting
7 incidents that I read back to you, it says that the perpetrators were
9 Now, are you aware as to during time - I appreciate you left
10 on 12th - but during this period, what action the Knin military police
11 took with regard to perpetrators who were caught with looting or
12 incidents where there was information --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I think it would be appropriate,
14 where you refer to some instances where the persons that were brought in
15 were released, whether the witness has any personal knowledge either on
16 specific cases or on a general attitude by the military police, in this
17 period of time, in how to handle persons who were brought in on a
18 suspicion of having looted.
19 That's first what we should establish before we continue.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
21 Q. Now, first and foremost, let me ask you, are you aware of those
22 incidents that I read back to you where the persons were released or do
23 you know what really happened?
24 A. No, I don't, nor do I know of these events, these incidents.
25 Q. What were the instruction that the military police had been given
1 with regard to how you were supposed to act in the cases when suspected
2 perpetrators of looting were brought in or apprehended?
3 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I have to make an
4 objection again. I'm sorry to be --
5 JUDGE ORIE: We can ask the witness whether he is aware of
6 instructions, and then, of course, we then would have to specify
7 instructions existing up till the 12th of August, any change of
8 instructions after that.
9 MR. MISETIC: In addition to that, if he can take headphones off
10 again, there is it another important point that I have to make.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take your headphones off again?
12 MR. MISETIC: Let me say that your point was important, Your
13 Honour. I didn't mean to say it wasn't. He is saying -- there's
14 confusion now. Is the question what did the MPs on patrol do in addition
15 to what she just read back to him; or is her real question what was the
16 crime police supposed to do? Because now we're talking about different
17 elements of the military police, and to put them all in one umbrella, it
18 seemed that every entry she read said "crime police, turned over to the
19 crime police, crime police released them."
20 So rather than asking a broad question again - I'm reminded to
21 slow down - if we can get more specifics as to -- for the benefit of the
22 witness, as to what specifically the inquiry is about.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, my question is clear. My
24 question was as to him, being a member of the military police, what
25 instructions he had received as to how to act in the case of apprehension
1 of perpetrator of suspected person of looting. I mean, it is a simple
3 And then if, in fact, there were certain elements of the military
4 police were to act, the witness would certainly offer that explanation.
5 If I were to go into those words, then I would be blamed for loading the
7 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may just respond.
8 The question was how you were supposed to act in the cases when
9 suspected perpetrators of looting were brought there or apprehended. So
10 brought in to where; and if it's the crime police which we've already
11 established he is not a part of, then, again, I'm just wondering from
12 that question is she asking how once brought in for processing what was
13 supposed to him; or is she asking the broader question, a report comes in
14 about looting, what are you supposed to do.
15 I think those are two separate issues. The latter, the witness
16 has personal knowledge because that was his job. The former, he has
17 already testified he was not a member of the crime police. He may know
18 generally, but -- and if that is the question, the general question of
19 what is the crime police supposed to do, that is fine, too.
20 But the question was what were you supposed to do after they were
21 brought in?
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apparently, the issue is that it may well be
24 that the witness did not play a role in what should happen after people
25 were brought in.
1 By the way, Mr. Misetic, I understood "to be brought in" as being
2 arrested and taken to a place for further investigation and further
3 processing, so that wasn't the unclear matter.
4 But there was a suggestion that there was a direct involvement of
5 this witness with those persons who were brought in, and that apparently
6 caused concern to Mr. Misetic.
7 Could you, in reformulating your question, could you keep that in
8 mind, and I give you 20 minutes to think about that because we'll have a
9 break first.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, I'll not announce the break to the witness
11 until after I confess to you that when earlier I said that the reference
12 to the statement of the witness was not clear, that was the reference to
13 when I'm talking about what happened in the previous session, the
14 reference to paragraph 54, that although it was a while ago that you
15 referred to it, you did, and you did it even twice, so to that extent I
16 was mistaken.
17 I, however, got a bit lost because Mr. Misetic then objected; and
18 after that, other things happened, so I lost track of the reference you
19 certainly made and even made twice to paragraph 54. The only thing I
20 hope is that the witness did not loose track together with me.
21 Mr. Dzolic, Mr. Dzolic, we now and then deal with procedural
22 matters and we are asking a lot of your patience, apologies for that, but
23 we have to do it now and then.
24 We'll now first have a break, 20 minutes. We resume quarter to
1 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Mr. Dzolic, I just wish to take you back to what we were
6 discussing; but before we go on, I want to get a minor clarification.
7 Now, those entries I read back to you indicated that the
8 perpetrators were handed over to -- the terms used was "crime police,"
9 "criminal investigator," "crime inspector," et cetera.
10 Now, is it correct that these were criminal military police?
11 A. Do you mean the cases that you mentioned?
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my reference, I'm talking
13 about the persons being handed over to crime police or criminal
14 investigator or crime inspector. Is it a reference to criminal military
15 police, that persons were handed over to criminal military police?
16 A. Yes, that's what it says there. That's correct.
17 Q. And there was also a reference to a term "Runje," R-u-n-j-e. Can
18 you tell Court what that is. It says "crime police, Runje."
19 A. This is probably a member of the criminal military police whose
20 last name is probably Runjic; and then his nickname, which was probably
21 Runje, was indicated there. I don't know what else it could mean.
22 Q. Isn't there a location and a place called Runje, R-u-n-j-e, that
23 you're aware of?
24 MR. MISETIC: Object to the leading, Your Honour.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. Let me ask again.
1 Q. Where was the crime military police of the Knin military police
2 company located?
3 A. At the company headquarters.
4 Q. And where was that?
5 A. As far as I can recall, it was in the Senjak barracks. That's
6 where the Knin company was headquartered.
7 Q. And can you tell us where Senjak barracks was located, in Knin,
9 A. I cannot give you the exact coordinates, but I will try to
10 explain for the Court to give an approximate description.
11 I don't know how well you know the Knin town, but going from the
12 main street.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you could make it short.
14 If you say --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, isn't the location of the Senjak
16 barracks in evidence 15, 20, or 25 times.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Now, the criminal military police that these persons were handed
21 over to, were they attached to the Knin military police company?
22 A. These were members of the crime police who operated within the
23 company in Knin.
24 Q. Now, if the crime police raises a criminal report in relation to
25 a matter, would that be recorded in your duty log-book? I'm saying the
1 crime police attached to your company.
2 A. If the processing was completed on the day when the incident was
3 entered, I suppose that an entry would be made. However, if the duty
4 officer did not receive information as to whether the crime police had
5 raised a criminal report or not, then it would not be entered in the
6 log-book for that day; but, rather, one, two, or ten days later, once the
7 criminal processing was complete and all the parameters required for a
8 criminal report to be raised, then it would be written down in the
10 Q. So, now, I read to you a few instances where perpetrators of
11 looting were handed over to criminal military police and were released.
12 Now, in relation to those instances, if a criminal process was
13 initiated and completed, would that be recorded somewhere in this
14 military log-book -- or should that be recorded somewhere in military
15 log-book? Let me rephrase it that way.
16 A. I cannot answer with certainty, but I think that the information
17 as such would probably -- would be entered in the log-book but not on
18 that same day, but maybe ten or 15 days later, once the criminal report
19 was submitted.
20 Q. Now, did the military police battalion have access to the
21 log-books of the companies?
22 A. Could you please repeat the question?
23 Q. Did the commander of the military police battalion have access to
24 the log-books, this military -- the company log-books? Not only your
25 company, but, generally, could the commander access or did he have access
1 to these log-books?
2 A. He did have access. Whenever they inspected -- they carried out
3 inspection, then a member of the duty service from the battalion would
4 come to check on the work, to monitor or inspect the work of the duty
5 service within the company.
6 Q. And how often were those inspections carried out?
7 A. I can't tell you for certain. I don't know.
8 Q. Mr. Dzolic, let me take to your 2008 statement.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: For the record, it's P876.
10 Q. And if could I ask you to look of a paragraph 29, you refer to
11 meetings between the battalion commander, and this is what you say. This
12 is a note official for military police commanders to attend a meeting
13 with the battalion commander, Mihael Budimir, on 12 August 1995 in Knin:
14 "This order was conveyed to me and I can confirm that I attended
15 that meeting, and all the subordinate commanders reported the situation
16 for the last seven days on the ground. I do not recall that the issue of
17 burning, destruction, or looting was discussed at these meetings. The
18 company commanders of 72nd Military Police Battalion met with the
19 battalion commander weekly in Split
20 Now, at these weekly meetings - now, we've just gone through and
21 seen a few entries in the military police log-book, your company
22 log-book, and you have examined this log-book, Mr. Dzolic - there are a
23 number of entries relating to incidents of looting and burning. Weren't
24 these incidents discussed at the weekly meetings in Split when the
25 company commanders met the battalion commander?
1 A. I don't remember that this was discussed at the collegium in its
2 expanded form for the 72nd Battalion.
3 Q. Was it discussed in any other forum that you are aware of, where
4 you were present?
5 A. I don't remember. I was not present in such meetings where such
6 matters were discussed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may have I document number 456,
9 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you have referred to this document in paragraph 6 of
10 your 2008 statement -- I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I'm sorry, I made a
12 Mr. Dzolic, I'd like to take to you this particular document.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could, Mr. Registrar, have page 3 of
14 three of B/C/S; and also in the English version also page 3.
15 Q. In paragraph 2, it is reported that the: "Command and control
16 were implemented through the holding of morning meetings of the battalion
17 command and weekly meetings of the battalion command with the platoon and
18 company commanders through the issuing of oral and written orders and
19 visits to and monitoring of units in accordance with the monthly work
20 plans of the battalion command."
21 Now, this is the report on the work of the 72nd Battalion.
22 Now, apart from weekly meetings this is an reference to the daily
23 morning meetings, and I'm not clear exactly what that refers to. Were
24 there daily meetings between the battalion commander and the company
25 commanders of the 72nd Military Police Battalion?
1 A. There were meetings with the commanders of the local company:
2 The 1st and 2nd Company and the Traffic Company. These commanders
3 attended daily meetings, daily briefings. As for the distant units, such
4 as Zadar, Dubrovnik
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last few words
6 that the witness said.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Mr. Dzolic, could you repeat what you said, the last few words;
9 the interpreter could not catch you.
10 A. The commanders of companies of the military police which were not
11 local of the 72nd Battalion, such as Sibenik, Zadar, Sinj, and Dubrovnik
12 they were present in weekly -- at weekly briefings. They did not come
13 every day to Split
14 Q. When you say "local" can you be -- so that there is no confusion,
15 can you be a little more specific where were these local companies
16 located and which companies are you referring to?
17 A. When I mentioned local companies, they had their own areas of
18 responsibility over a certain area. I cannot give you with any certainty
19 what the boundaries of those areas of responsibilities were; whereas,
20 these companies were at the seat of the battalion, within the seat of the
21 battalion, and did not have their own area of responsibility, except the
22 1st Corps of the military police which was within the area of
23 responsibility of the -- of Split
24 When I mention locations, I don't want to give the wrong
25 impression, but they were composed -- they were of the same structure,
1 but at the lower level, so at the same structure as the battalion
2 command, and they acted independently in their own areas of
4 Q. And would your company be considered one of the local companies
5 that met with the battalion commander daily?
6 MR. MISETIC: Just an objection on foundation, Your Honour. What
7 time-period are we talking about?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. During the period 4th August to end of September, was the Knin
10 company -- military police company, did they conduct or did you or the
11 company commander of the Knin military police company conduct daily
12 meetings with the battalion commander?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, just for my information, at that
15 early period of time, until the 12th of August, the battalion command was
16 located where?
17 We could ask the witness.
18 Where was the battalion command located during this first period
19 when you were in Knin?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The battalion command was in Split
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, that's what I understood from previous
23 Ms. Mahindaratne, would you be expect someone to travel from Knin
24 to Split
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will clarify and
1 I will ask two further questions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Microphone not activated] ... well, it is
4 already covered in the statement. I think I can move on.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, and try to put your questions as
6 focussed as possible.
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Can we have document number 1433, please --
9 I'm sorry. Before that, before we go off this document, can we just go
10 down to paragraph 6 counting from the top.
11 Q. This is a paragraph here which starts, "I should be
12 mentioned ..."
13 Let me read it out to you, Mr. Dzolic. It says: "It should be
14 mentioned that throughout the year 1995 ..." -- I'm sorry.
15 It's the next paragraph: "When carrying out regular military
16 tasks, most of the problems we encountered arose in searches by units of
17 the Croatian army (incomplete searches, irregularly launched searches,
18 searches for persons not within the competent of the military police)."
19 Are you able to explain what that reference is about?
20 A. Your Honours, I can't say anything about this. I did not compile
21 this document, and I don't know what the person who did compile it wanted
22 to say by this.
23 Q. Very well. If you could just go down further on that document.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And in B/C/S, if we move to page 5 -- I'm
25 sorry, B/C/S page 6 and English page 5.
1 Q. Under the heading, "Cooperation of VP units and assessment of
2 cooperation," below the second subparagraph, starting from the third line
3 of that paragraph, it says: "There have been certain problems in the
4 Zadar-Knin police administration due to failure to hold coordination
5 meetings in connection with the behaviour of citizens and members of the
6 HV in the newly liberated areas. The same applies in the Sibenik police
7 administration where there were frequent incidents against members of
8 the HV. The latest example is the behaviour of the said police
9 administration towards the commander of the Split Military District," in
10 the English document going on to the next page, page 6, "Colonel General
11 Ante Gotovina."
12 Are you aware of there being any particular incident or some
13 conflict between the Sibenik police administration and General Gotovina?
14 A. I don't remember this incident.
15 Q. Very well.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I have, Mr. Registrar, document number
17 1433, please.
18 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you recognise this document?
19 A. I do, because I think you showed it to me at our meeting in 2008.
20 Q. That's correct. And you have referred to it in paragraph 31 of
21 your 2008 statement, and this is a document which says: "Criminal
22 reports of the Joint Knin Company for the year of 1995."
23 That's your company, isn't it?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And the report starts only from 5th September. In fact, in
1 paragraph 31, you did indicate that -- some amount of surprise that there
2 were no records before the 5th September.
3 Now, in this document, there are only 25 incidents, criminal
4 reports, raised in the year 1995. Now, being the company commander, are
5 you able to tell Court -- in fact, you did express some amount of
6 surprise. Are you aware that there were more criminal reports raised or
7 more investigations into crime within your company in the year 1995?
8 A. I can't answer that question. That question should be put to the
9 military crime police. I did not keep records of what number of crimes
10 were committed.
11 Q. Now, I'd like to conduct a comparison of this document with the
12 military police log-book; and in fairness to you, let me take to you a
13 sample, Mr. Dzolic.
14 For the 5th September, there is one criminal report against one
15 person recorded, according to this document.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now, if we could go to -- Mr. Registrar, if I
17 could have again document 5467, please. That is the log-book, and if we
18 could move to the 5th September entry. That is in B/C/S page 31; and in
19 the English, 7479, page 2.
20 Q. Mr. Dzolic, you can notice -- note there are six incidents of
21 lotting recorded there: At 1045, there is one entry; then at 1300 hours
22 - this is for 5th September - there's a second entry; at 1330, there's a
23 third entry where persons are brought in with looted goods.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The next page in English. If we could turn to
25 next page, in both B/C/S and English.
1 Q. At 1500 hours, there's one incident; then 1540 --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I think B/C/S we are still not on the same
3 page, so next page, please.
4 Q. At 1500 hours --
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. Registrar. I think you have
6 to go to 7480, page number. Okay. That's correct.
7 Q. At 1500 hours, there's a fourth incident reported; 1540, fifth
8 incident; and 1545, sixth incident.
9 So, according to the military police log-book on 5th September,
10 there are six incidents where members of the HV are brought in with
11 looted goods; but according to the report that we just saw, only one
12 criminal report had been raised for 5th September 1995.
13 Now, Mr. Dzolic, can you -- now, you are a military policeman
14 within the 72nd battalion. Can you offer an explanation as to disparity?
15 MR. MISETIC: Objection, Your Honour, as to foundation,
16 continuing objection, and objection as I believe this was at least
17 partially answered previously.
18 [Microphone not activated] ... wishes more on it, I would be
19 willing to say it with the witness taking his headphones off, but --
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I think, Mr. President, there is foundation.
21 The witness should have knowledge as to --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, asking him for an explanation --
23 no. You may put the question to the witness, and we'll see what his
24 answer will be.
25 Please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Dzolic, can you please answer that question.
3 A. Would you please repeat your question?
4 Q. Are you able to offer an explanation as to why there seems to be,
5 on the face of it, a disparity?
6 MR. MISETIC: Objection to the characterization in light of the
7 witness's previous testimony as well.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dzolic, Ms. Mahindaratne has put a log to you,
9 where we find some entries on bringing in persons for stolen goods on the
10 5th of September; and she also has shown you another document, where only
11 one entry is found for the 5th of September in relation to investigation
12 of looting.
13 Do you have an explanation for the difference in numbers? Five
14 in the one; one only in the other.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no explanation
16 to offer in this respect. I never dealt with the work of the crime
17 police, and I'm not aware of why this has not been registered, whether
18 something was sent for further processing or not. Why this was not
19 entered, I don't know.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 We'll move on from that document.
23 Q. Mr. Dzolic, let me take you to paragraph 11 of your 2008
24 statement, P876, and there you refer to Major Ivan Juric.
25 You say: "Even to this day, I do not know what his real role
1 was. He seemed to have both a command role and that of a coordinator.
2 According to the organisational structure, Budimir was my superior;
3 although, I think I may have seen an order stating that all the military
4 police units were to be put at the disposal of Major Juric."
5 My question to you is: Did you ever receive any orders from
6 Major Juric? Did you personally receive?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. What type of orders were those?
9 A. To get together the forces, to provide security, and to take over
10 the Golubic depot from the members of the Croatian police who were there
11 on a provisional basis. That's an order I can recall at the moment.
12 There were others.
13 Q. Were there any orders relating to crime that was ever issued to
14 you about investigation or arrest of --
15 A. Could you please repeat your question.
16 Q. Were there any orders issued with regard to investigation or
17 arrest or apprehension or visiting sites of incidents that you received
18 from Major Juric?
19 A. I don't recall any such order.
20 Q. Now, you said there were other orders. Can you recall what type
21 of orders they were or you're not able to recall the other orders that
22 you referred to? You referred to one order.
23 A. There were probably other orders. I can't recall now. For
24 example, securing certain protected facilities such as the one I
25 mentioned just now, the Golubici depot, the Krka military depot, securing
1 other protected facilities in the town of Knin. But so much time has
2 elapsed that I can't recall with precision what these orders were and
3 what exactly they contained.
4 Q. Now, you say that he was also -- there was a role -- command role
5 and that of a coordinator. Can you explain that term "coordinator."
6 Coordinating what?
7 A. He coordinated the work of the military police and the work of
8 the civilian police. He attended high-level meetings to agree on the
9 work, and then he would provided me with guide-lines as to how the task
10 that had been greed on should be carried out.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I call for document number 1629, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's also one on your revised list, isn't it?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I will tender this
14 document since it is not included in the 92 ter submission.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No. But it's on your revised exhibit list.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When I asked Mr. Registrar to prepare a list,
20 I take it that he would prepare a list of the annexes to the 92 ter
21 statements and not of your revised exhibit list.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. That's why I -- those
23 that fall outside 92 ter, Mr. President, I will tender it into evidence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Mr. Dzolic, I appreciate you may not have seen this document, but
2 there is a reference to it and that is why I'm showing you this document.
3 This is a report dated 5th August 1995
4 And if we could, if you have time, to just take a look at the
5 cover page.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could move, Mr. Registrar, to page 2 of
7 the English; and we remain on page 1 of the B/C/S.
8 Q. Mr. Dzolic, do you note the paragraph numbered 1.4. There's a
9 reference to your company, VP company in Knin, and numbers are given. It
10 says: "Led by company commander, Bosko Dzolic has formed a supervisory
11 and control post at the town entry and exit, securing all facilities of
12 special importance, receiving prisoners of war, and preventing violations
13 of public law and order."
14 Now, is that an accurate report of the activities of your company
15 and yourself as of this date?
16 A. This was the 5th of August?
17 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that's correct.
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 Q. Do you know who -- from where Major Juric would have received
20 this information?
21 A. He should have received this information from me. At that time,
22 I had to report to Commander Budimir and also to Major Juric about the
23 current situation on the ground, about establishing the Knin company,
24 about setting up check-points, and about providing security for
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I tendered this document
2 into evidence, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit number P879, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P879 is admitted into evidence.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Mr. Dzolic, can I take you to paragraph 8 of your 2004 statement.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is P875.
10 Q. Now, there you say that: "If a member ..." -- you say: "If a
11 member of my company, for example on patrol, saw a crime being committed
12 by a soldier, then the military policeman was to intervene and arrest and
13 take the soldier to the headquarters of the unit of the military police,
14 where he would be handed over to the criminal military police and then
15 taken before an investigative judge who would decide on what course of
16 action was to be taken."
17 Now, were there military crime police units attached to all
18 companies of the 72nd Military Police Battalion?
19 A. I don't understand your question.
20 Q. Were there military crime police units attached to all companies
21 of the 72nd Military Police Battalion? Did each company have crime
23 A. No.
24 Q. So, in each event, what does a military police member of military
25 police of a company that does not have crime police attached to that
1 company do when a person is arrested, a perpetrator is arrested?
2 A. Your Honours, first of all, I wish to clarify here that companies
3 which did not have a crime military police were in the headquarters of
4 the 72nd Battalion, where there was military crime police department
5 dealing with those tasks, and that department was professionally superior
6 to the lower level crime police departments in the companies, those
7 companies that did have a military crime police. And I hope this answers
8 your question.
9 The 1st Company of the military -- general military police which
10 was in the headquarters of the battalion did not have a military crime
11 police department. In accordance with the standard operations procedure
12 listed here in paragraph 8, they would bring that member to the duty
13 service in the battalion, which would then hand over the crime processing
14 of that person to the crime service of the 72nd Battalion of the military
15 police --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The military police
17 of the 72nd Battalion.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. In that same paragraph, it says that: "The military policeman
20 who detained the soldier would notify the duty officer who would write a
21 special report based on the original note from the military policeman."
22 Now, when the duty officer writes a special report, to whom were
23 the special reports submitted?
24 A. It would be the duty officer would submit the report, which would
25 be forwarded to the higher command level.
1 Q. And what would the higher command level?
2 A. If it was the company duty service that submitted the report,
3 then it would be to the battalion command. If it was the battalion
4 command, it would be to the military police administration.
5 Q. Now, was the military commander of the unit to which the -- to
6 which a perpetrator belonged informed when he was arrested and a special
7 report written?
8 A. It's correct that the commander of that unit would also be
9 informed that a member of his unit had perpetrated a crime, so that in
10 accordance with that information and the rules on military discipline, he
11 could take the appropriate action. He could institute disciplinary
12 proceedings against that person.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. Could
14 you find a suitable moment.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I could finish actually
16 within about two minutes, and then my examination-in-chief would be
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. I will ask only about one or two questions at most, Mr. Dzolic.
21 Now, once an investigative process was completed or a member of
22 the HV was charged or a trial was completed, was the unit commander of
23 the unit to which a person belonged informed of the investigative process
24 or what the outcome had been?
25 A. I don't know that, whether the military court sent information on
1 its judgement concerning the soldier of the unit against whom the
2 proceedings had been held before the military court.
3 Q. If the military police had raised a criminal report or charges
4 had been preferred, would that fact be informed to the unit commander by
5 the military police? I'm not talking about the courts --
6 A. Could you please repeat your question.
7 Q. If, for instance, the military police investigated and, you know,
8 charges were preferred or, say, a person was sent --
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Perhaps, I withdraw that question,
10 Mr. President. I will conclude my examination-in-chief at this stage.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 Mr. Dzolic, tomorrow, you will be cross-examined by Defence
13 counsel, and there may be questions or more questions from the Bench as
14 well. I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone
15 about your testimony, whether it is the testimony you gave already or
16 whether it is the testimony you still are about to give.
17 I, first, would like to -- we'd like to see you back at 9.00
18 tomorrow, but I'd already ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I hear from the parties what their estimates
22 are as far as time for cross-examination is concerned.
23 Mr. Kay.
24 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I think I'm going first with this witness
25 with the agreement of my learned friends. I think I will be about three
2 JUDGE ORIE: Three hours.
3 And, Mr. Mikulicic.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: I will go second, Your Honour, and I think I
5 could stay within two hours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: I also would stay within two hours, hopefully less
8 in light of what I expect in front of me.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That gives at least an impression. As always,
10 the Chamber will -- it is rather useless to say that this time is granted
11 or not granted. The Chamber will carefully observe how cross-examination
12 goes, and then see whether to grant more time or whether it finds reasons
13 to say that you should conclude quicker than you had in mind.
14 We adjourn until tomorrow, the 18th of September, 9.00, in this
15 same courtroom, number III
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 18th day of
18 September, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.