1 Monday, 22 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 The Chamber would like to turn into closed session.
12 [Closed session]
11 Page 9229 redacted. Closed session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 We'll just wait until Madam Usher has removed also the other ...
15 Then I will also call you by your own name since the application
16 for protective measures have been withdrawn, Mr. Kardum.
17 You gave already your solemn declaration that you will speak the
18 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in closed session. You
19 are still bound by that declaration and you will now first be examined by
20 Mr. Margetts, who is counsel for the Prosecution.
21 Mr. Margetts, please proceed.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Examination by Mr. Margetts:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kardum.
25 Mr. Kardum, could you please state your name for the record.
1 A. I am Ive Kardum. I was born in 1957 in a place called Nunic, the
2 Kistanje municipality, not far from Zadar. I now live in Zadar and I
3 work in the police administration of Zadar. Otherwise, as far as my
4 basic education goes, I am professor of philosophy and archeology. Thank
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kardum, first of all, please remain seated. You
7 might spend quite a number of hours in this court and there's no need --
8 just remain seated. Could you also focus very much on the questions that
9 are put to you. For example, at this moment, Mr. Margetts only asked for
10 your full name. Of course, if Mr. Margetts would like to pay further
11 attention to your education, and your present position, he will certainly
12 ask about that. But for the -- please focus your answer first to what
13 has been asked.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Mr. Kardum, did you give a statement to the Office of the
17 Prosecutor on the 23rd of March, 2004.
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if 65 ter 5273 could please be
20 brought up on the screen.
21 And if I may provide Mr. Kardum with a hard copy of this
23 At this moment, Mr. President, I would just like to indicate that
24 Mr. Kardum has not had the opportunity to review these statements
25 subsequent to the statements having been given and then a further meeting
1 that was held with the Office of the Prosecutor last year, so he has not
2 had an opportunity recently to review the statements.
3 Q. So, Mr. Kardum, could you please look at that statement. Is that
4 the statement that you gave on the 23rd of March, 2004?
5 A. I gave a statement on the 23rd of March, 2004, in Zagreb
6 don't understand English. I gave the statement in Croatian. The
7 questions were in English, and those questions were translated into
8 Croatian. I answered in Croatian. The statement was read back to me in
9 the English [as interpreted] language. I had quite a number of queries
10 about the translation of what I said. I asked to be supplied with the
11 statement but I was told that the rules are such that I couldn't be given
12 the statement either in English or in Croatian. I wasn't satisfied with
13 that decision. However, I respected the rules and I signed the
15 Now, whether this statement fully complies with what I said, in
16 terms of translation, it's difficult to say. As far as I see now, there
17 are 13 pages to this statement. Now, if there's time I'd like to go
18 through the statement again or at least the portions that I consider to
19 be more significant. I didn't have any criticisms with respect to the
20 way the interview was conducted and the questions but my criticism was
21 about the translations, interpretations and so on and so forth, and what
22 was signed on not. I don't know whether what I said in Croatian was
23 translated in exactly the same way as I said it in the English version.
24 But, yes, this is my signature on the statement.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, in light of the witness's answers,
1 it seems to me that he may need an opportunity to review the translation
2 of this statement he is referring to.
3 I'd also like to refer him to another document before he --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first inquire, do I understand that you do
5 read and understand English?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I don't.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The statement was read back to you in English, you
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The statement was written in
10 English and then the interpreter read it out to me in Croatian so this is
11 a second-hand or third-hand translation because it's -- the statement is
12 given in Croatian, it is translated into English, then the translator
13 reads it out but translates it back to me in Croatian and then I sign the
14 statement in English.
15 So I did sign it but I did have criticisms and queries with
16 respect to the translation and the way in which it was translated and
18 JUDGE ORIE: The only reason why I asked is because earlier it
19 was -- we find on our transcript that the statement was read back to you
20 in English but I now understand that it was read back to you from the
21 English -- English language by an interpreter who interpreted into
22 Croatian. That also clarifies the issue why you may have had queries as
23 far as the interpretation is concerned.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. And, Mr. Kardum, did you also meet last year with representatives
2 of the Office of the Prosecutor and did you give another statement to the
3 Office of the Prosecutor on the 4th of May, 2007?
4 A. Yes. I talked to the investigator of the International Tribunal.
5 You personally, in fact. Mr. Foster and you, yourself. You talked to me
6 on the 3rd or 4th of May, 2007. I have no criticisms with respect to
7 that statement of mine except to say that I made it in what was for me a
8 very difficult time. That is to say, when my father was dying in
9 hospital and he did, in fact, die five days later. So that day, I missed
10 my opportunity to talk to him for the last time. That opportunity was
11 not given to me anymore before he died.
12 Now, I don't have any criticisms to make of you or Mr. Foster
13 because I didn't insist. Had I insisted I am sure you would have
14 postponed the interview for some other time, to respond to my request.
15 So I don't hold it against you but I'd just like to mention it in
16 passing. The interview was heard in a proper manner. As far as
17 translation and interpretation goes, the same holds true for what I said
18 a moment ago and we had even more misunderstandings and queries with
19 respect to the translation. I'm sure you will remember that there are
20 quite a lot of things that were said in English that could not be
21 properly translated into Croatian, and I explained to you that in
22 Croatian that translation and that word meant something quite a bit
23 different to what it did in English.
24 So I will draw your attention to some of those things. Whether
25 you managed to explain them properly and get them put right, we'll see in
1 due course. But, anyway thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if you could please bring up 65 ter
4 5274 on to the screen.
5 Q. And, Mr. Kardum, I would just like to express my condolences to
6 you in respect of the death of your father. Obviously we were not aware
7 of the situation at the time we were meeting with you.
8 A. Thank you very much.
9 Q. Mr. Kardum, could you look at the left-hand side of the screen.
10 Is that a copy of the statement that you gave.
11 MR. MARGETTS: If I may provide a hard copy of the statement to
12 the witness, hard copy of the translation, statement.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, at first
14 glance that should be it. Although the statement is quite a lengthy one
15 so I can't go into the contents now. We can do that later on through
16 your questions, of course.
17 I have never seen my statement in this shape and form.
18 MR. MARGETTS:
19 Q. Yes, correct. That's a translation of the English statement that
20 you provided to us.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, in light of the witness's
22 responses, we'd like to give the witness an opportunity to read through
23 his previous statements. We've already handed to him the two statements
24 in the Croatian language and we also have the numerous documents that
25 were referred to particularly in the second statement in a binder, also
1 in Croatian. If we could hand that to him as well and possibly we could
2 give an opportunity to him to review those materials.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You'd like to do that right now?
4 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I think if we're to proceed
5 with 92 ter procedure which I still think is a profitable one, and
6 ultimately would save us time, then it may be helpful if we do take a
7 short break and give the witness possibly 30 to 40 minutes to consider
8 these documents.
9 And, Your Honour, I regret that we were unable to meet with him
10 in the last few days. We had scheduled a proofing session yesterday and
11 earlier today and Mr. Kardum deemed it appropriate to decline our
12 suggestion in relation to that procedure and that's the reason that we
13 find ourselves in the position we're in now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, one of the problems is that if we
15 would take a break now that we would need three breaks today, which would
16 be an additional loss of time.
17 Is there any way, Mr. Margetts, that you could choose portions of
18 your examination which are least likely to sufficient from any
19 translation issues, that we could, for example, continue for another half
20 an hour, three quarters of an hour and then give an opportunity to the
21 witness to read and meanwhile we would then have these statements marked
22 for identification and that if, of course, the witness -- if parts of the
23 statement are put to him, would like to comment on it, he'll have an
24 opportunity to do so, but after that, we would then invite him to read
25 through the whole of the statements.
1 Is that a -- let me just ...
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I'd like to emphasise that if you say,
4 no, I could not put any question to the witness under those -- on this
5 basis, as suggested by me, then of course the Chamber will most likely
6 follow your suggestion. But it is a kind of a solution which would not
7 result in a loss of time and, at the same time, to some extent will meet
8 your concerns and, of course, also the Chamber's concerns.
9 And before we proceed of course I should also give an opportunity
10 to the Defence to -- to comment, if there's any need to do so, on the
11 suggested way of proceeding.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Maybe, Mr. President, just before the Defence do
13 comment I can put forward alternative scenarios in terms of how the
14 examination will proceed. I certainly accept Your Honour's suggestion
15 that we proceed with the examination and I will do it in a form that's
16 acceptable. The examination -- examination-in-chief was intended to
17 build upon the statements and the -- in fact, I don't think there would
18 have been I would have asked that didn't first refer the witness back to
19 paragraphs of his statement. So I'm interested to know from the Defence
20 whether that procedure is something that -- that they're happy with me
21 proceeding with in the circumstances.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And then may I take it that then the first question
23 always to the witness would be, Is this what you intended to say, does
24 this reflect what you said and then have follow-up questions on the
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So the portions dealt with would then be verified at
3 this very moment and would then give an opportunity to the witness later
4 to finish reading the whole of the -- of the statement. That's your
6 Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, that was going to be my suggestion as
8 well. That's fine with us. And as a matter of fact, I, on behalf of the
9 Gotovina Defence, would prefer that because in light of certain things
10 that happened with -- not last witness but the penultimate witness, and
11 the statement, I would just as soon that the witness be given as much
12 time as he needs to go through the statements so we don't have any
13 questions later about why changes were or were not made to the statement.
14 And if light of that, if Mr. Margetts wants to go through his direct and
15 just refer to the portions, ask him if he still agrees with the
16 statement, then I have no objection to that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Mr. Kardum, we'll proceed in the following way. Mr. Margetts
19 will start with his examination-in-chief. He may refer to portions of
20 your statements. He will first give you an opportunity to read that
21 relevant part of your statement and then put further questions to you.
22 But during the first break - and then please indicate how much time would
23 you need - you're invited to go through the whole of your two statements
24 and to see where you'd like to make amendments specifically in view of
25 the -- of the observations you made in relation to the translation of
1 your statements.
2 That's how we'll proceed.
3 Mr. Margetts.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, just one other practical matter and
5 that is that the parties have reviewed the 92 ter submission, obviously,
6 and have assented effectively with some corrections from the Cermak team
7 in relation to the statements and the documents annexed thereto pending,
8 of course, the 92 ter procedure being successfully completed.
9 Nevertheless, in respect of the documents which are quite an extensive
10 list of documents, some 33 documents, I don't know whether the parties
11 would be happy for those to be moved into evidence at this stage and be
12 given exhibit numbers. That may be an efficient way to proceed.
13 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, on this point I think I would prefer
14 to hear what the witness has to say about a particular document before we
15 agree to move it into evidence. The 92 ter, our agreement to it
16 obviously is always contingent what the witness will say in court as to
17 the procedure under Rule 92 ter. And in light of that, I think, on
18 behalf of the Gotovina Defence, we would first like to hear what the
19 witness has to say about his statements before we start move -- start
20 moving documents into evidence unless on direct he is going to
21 authenticate documents and otherwise provide foundation for their
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then of course another alternative would
24 be if, for whatever reason, this would not be an appropriate way of
25 introducing these documents into evidence, that of course the Prosecution
1 could still consider to tender them from the bar table if it -- if that
2 could be appropriately done. So all alternatives would be open if the
3 introduction of these documents through the witness would not be the
4 appropriate one.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Kardum, first I'd like to deal with some formal matters
8 relating to your role, specifically in the period from August 1995 and
9 the various procedures that were adopted in the Zadar-Knin criminal
10 police department.
11 And I'd first like to refer to you to a document.
12 MR. MARGETTS: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could have 65 ter 3200
13 presented on the screen, and we could move to page 7 of the English and
14 page 4 of the B/C/S.
15 Mr. Registrar ...
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I don't have 3200 on the exhibit list
19 JUDGE ORIE: The last one it appears under number 8, but I must
20 admit that I had quite a busy mourning in replacing one exhibit list by
21 the more recent one.
22 MR. MISETIC: The most recent one I have is number 8. As of 1.00
23 p.m. today number 8 is 2999.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, I'm confronted with a curious
25 situation that the documents that the Registrar is bringing up on the
1 screen is the correct document, but I'm informed that the number should
2 be 2999.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You're right, Mr. Misetic. I took one of the wrong
4 ones of this morning. I now have the one which is not stapled. It's the
5 last one.
6 Mr. Margetts, is 3200 still on your exhibit list?
7 MR. MARGETTS: It seems to me that 3200 is a duplicate of 2999.
8 I think if we go with 2999 that may be the best way to proceed.
9 So, Mr. Registrar, if we could bring up 65 ter 2999, please, and
10 we could move to page 7 of the English and we could move to page 4 of the
12 Q. Mr. Kardum, you'll on the right-hand side of your screen that the
13 document that appears is a report in respect of events that took place on
14 the liberated territories.
15 MR. MARGETTS: And if, Mr. Registrar, you could move to the
16 second page of this document. Sorry, not the second page. And if we
17 could move back again to page 4 of the document on the B/C/S.
18 Q. And, Mr. Kardum, you will see in the listing here that there is a
19 reference to the police administrations of the various areas, including
20 the police administration in Sisak-Moslavina, Karlovac, Split-Dalmatia
21 and then a reference to Zadar-Knin.
22 MR. MARGETTS: And if we could move to the next page, please,
23 Mr. Registrar. And one page further on the English, please.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Kardum, you'll see on the B/C/S version there is a
25 listing of police stations in the Knin district, Kotar-Knin. And you'll
1 see there's a reference to Knin, Donji Lapac, Gracac, Lovinac, Korenica,
2 Benkovac, and Obrovac. Are they the police stations that the crime
3 police were stationed at in August 1995 and was there a crime department
4 at each of these stations; or if there was not a crime department at each
5 of these police stations, could you please indicate which one?
6 A. According to the organisational chart that was developed earlier,
7 I don't know exactly when, perhaps 1991, 1992, or 1993, I wouldn't know
8 the exact year, but I know that the Zadar-Knin police administration was
9 established as such in 1993.
10 Before that, the area of Knin was part of the Sibenik police
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Witness, let me stop you. You are telling us,
13 in quite some detail, how matters developed over the years. However, the
14 question was whether, in the listed police stations, whether there was a
15 crime police section and if so, which one; or if not in which ones not.
16 That's the question. And we are under some time restraints so we have to
17 focus on what Mr. Margetts asks you.
18 Please proceed.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the organisational
20 chart, they should have had crime police departments. However, in
21 August of -- in the month of August, they did not have that. Not one of
22 these police stations had a crime department.
23 MR. MARGETTS:
24 Q. And, Mr. Kardum, could you indicate when the crime departments
25 were formed and these police stations did have crime departments, if all
1 of them did, or if any of them didn't, please indicate.
2 A. According to an internal arrangement, the criminal policemen --
3 the first criminal policemen who were to carry out crime investigations
4 within these police stations were sent out toward the end of August or in
5 early September 1995. There were some four or five criminal policemen
6 who were sent to Knin to cover the area of the police -- of the Knin
7 police station. Four or five police officers were sent to Benkovac to
8 cover the Benkovac-Obrovac and Stankovci area and four or five police
9 officers, criminal police officers were sent to Gracac to cover the area
10 of Lika which was part of the Zadar-Knin. In other words, Gracac --
11 covering Gracac, Korenica and Lapac.
12 Q. And in respect of the Obrovac area, were criminal police sent to
13 the Obrovac police station?
14 A. No. Obrovac was covered by the crime police from Benkovac.
15 Q. And specifically in regard to Lovinac, were criminal police sent
16 to Lovinac?
17 A. Lovinac is a part of Lika and this area was covered by the crime
18 police from Gracac. That police station in Lovinac, I think, even under
19 the organisational chart, it was not supposed to have a crime police
20 department. That's what I think.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum. If we could move on to another related
22 topic and that is, as the chief of the crime police in the Zadar-Knin
23 police administration, who were your superiors.
24 A. My superiors in Zadar were the deputy chief of the police
25 administration. Do you want me to tell you what his name was?
1 Q. Yes, please, Mr. Kardum.
2 A. That is Mr. Nedjeljko Pavlovic and the chief of the police
3 administration, Mr. Ivica Cetina. At the level of the police
4 administration, the further jurisdiction was with the Ministry of
5 Interior in Zagreb
6 Q. And the chiefs of the criminal police in Zagreb, who were your
7 superiors, what were their names and what were their positions?
8 A. In Zagreb
9 sector, Mr. Ivan Nadj, and at the apex of this pyramid in was
10 Mr. Marijan Benko. In addition to these, there were some six to seven
11 chiefs of departments in Zagreb
12 they were, in a certain sense, just in the areas of their expertise they
13 were my superiors. This whole group was headed by Mr. Nadj who was my
14 first or direct immediate superior in Zagreb.
15 Q. Mr. Kardum, just to move on again and to deal with some more
16 structural or procedural matters, could you describe to the Trial Chamber
17 the way in which events that take place in and around the area of the
18 police stations are recorded. For example, is there a log of daily
19 events that the operations officer compiles, and also if you could
20 explain how crimes are recorded.
21 A. Incidents were recorded at the level of the police station. That
22 was the first step. For instance, if there was an event -- an incident
23 in Knin -- in -- it should have been recorded at the police station in
24 Knin. That was the first step.
25 It would be entered in the log-book of daily incidents, which is
1 compiled at the operations centre of the police station in Knin.
2 This log-book contains a column which describes who reported the
3 event, whether it was a civilian or a citizen, a police, a police
4 officer, a soldier, the name of the person and so forth. Then the next
5 entry would be the event itself and a short description of the incident.
6 And following that, there would be a column stating who was informed of
7 the event and what steps were taken to address it.
8 Further on, these events were supposed to - although I didn't
9 really see this - but they were supposed to be recorded also in the
10 log-book of the police administration of the Knin district, and following
11 this, also in the log-book of the police administration for Zadar-Knin,
12 within the operations duty service.
13 I have to stress that all these operations centres or operations
14 duty services were part of the military department at the level of -- at
15 the police department at the level of the police administration in
17 Further on what happens after that, I wouldn't know whether they
18 are registered at the ministry itself or not, I wouldn't know about that
20 As for criminal logs, they were compiled in the same manner that
21 they are today, only at the level of police stations. There is no
22 department for police and no ministry. The crime log-books were only
23 compiled by the police stations. That's how it was done in the past and
24 that's how it is still done today.
25 Q. And could you please explain to the Court how it is that an entry
1 comes to be made in the crime log or the crime register.
2 A. When an incident is assessed as a criminal offence, then it would
3 be assigned a K or a Q number. Some people would read this as K or as Q.
4 So K number, for instance, K 95/ -- 25/95. This, for instance, would
5 refer to a criminal event that occurred on a certain day and that is
6 registered as criminal offence K 25/95. Then there would be also mention
7 of what exactly happened, whether the perpetrator is known or not. Who
8 reported it, what type of crime offence this is, whether it's a robbery
9 or an armed robbery and also the date of when the -- the event was
10 reported would be entered.
11 Q. You state at the commencement of your answer, "When an incident
12 is assessed as a criminal offence," who makes that assessment and refers
13 it to the criminal operations officer for entry into the register?
14 A. Usually this would be entered by the assistant chief at the
15 police station and he would assign this number. But this can also be
16 done by the duty officer at the police station if it is agreed with the
17 district attorney that this is how it should be.
18 So, if this event was referred to the district attorney, then
19 it -- he may suggest, put forward a suggestion of how to qualify this
20 event. Then it would also depend on when this was reported whether it
21 was during the working hours or outside of the working hours, whether the
22 offence was reported during the weekend and so forth.
23 So that's how it was determined what a crime would be assessed as
24 or what kind of qualification would be assigned to it.
25 Q. So entry in the criminal register would be the first information
1 criminal police received in relation to that crime having taken place and
2 the investigative steps would follow from there?
3 A. No, this was not the first time that it would be recorded. The
4 first record would be made within the system of the Ministry of the
5 Interior, where it would be entered in the computer system. However, at
6 this time, this was just a fledgeling system and it was not as good as it
7 is today. Today every event or every incident is recorded and entered in
8 the computer system and we can see what is all the events. However, at
9 this time this was done regularly because there was no electric power and
10 we had other difficulties in trying to make the whole system work.
11 So the first information would reach the duty service and the
12 duty service would enter or register this in the information system.
13 Just a brief information --
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I apologise for interrupting
15 you but my question was actually as to the --
16 MR. MARGETTS: I'm not entirely sure the witness answered my
17 question. If we look at page --
18 MR. MISETIC: I'm listening to him --
19 MR. MARGETTS: -- 19, 1 to 3.
20 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I was listening to him in the original
21 language and he was getting to the point of -- he was in the middle of
22 explaining the reporting from the operative centre. So I'd ask that he
23 be allowed to finish that thought because I do think it is responsive to
24 the question.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If it takes him so many lines then I should perhaps
1 again stress that you should focus your answer immediately on the
2 question put to you. There was some disagreement or whether you slowly
3 came to that point or you had not arrived yet at that point.
4 Could I ask you again to focus your answers precisely on what was
5 asked of you.
6 The question that was put to you, Mr. Kardum, was the following,
7 and -- Mr. Margetts said: "So the entry in the criminal register would
8 be the first information criminal police received in relation to that
9 crime having taken place and the investigative steps would follow from
11 That was the question. Could you please --
12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. And if I could be of guidance to the
13 witness, I think the difference between the question and the answer was
14 the reference to the criminal police receiving information, rather than
15 operations officers or others receiving information.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question, focussing on
17 the criminal police.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that I already answered my
19 question with all my previous answers. But I will repeat.
20 Everything that happens in the field will first reach the duty
21 service. The duty service would then register it in the log-book and
22 I've already described how some of these entries were made. I mentioned
23 how the computer system was still in its pioneering stages at that time.
24 We didn't have sufficient computers, a sufficient number of computers to
25 enter all of that like that.
1 So, all the events that would transpire over a period of 24 hours
2 would then be compiled in a piece of information, or an information
3 sheet. This information sheet would be in the file of the head of the
4 department and one such information sheet would also reach me and also
5 the -- the chiefs of all departments, so we would all receive the same
6 information sheet and the first thing we would do when arrived to work in
7 the morning would be to read this information sheet.
8 If there were any events in it that were of special significance,
9 then after 30 minutes or an hour we would be informed by the duty service
10 if this was what the duty operations officer considered necessary to
11 inform the chief of section, the deputy chief and the head of the crime
12 police. Then the duty officer would inform these people of such
13 information as soon as he received it and in the log-book he would enter
14 all the names of individuals who had been informed of it. For instance,
15 if there was a robbery, or some serious crime that was committed, or a
16 major accident, traffic accident, the duty officer would inform
17 immediately the chief of police, the crime -- the head of the crime
18 department, and the assistants. So those are the individuals that were
19 informed and if --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I would just like you to
21 explain to the Court the significance of the crime register and the
22 extent to which the incidents of crime were recorded in that log-book.
23 A. Well, there was no special significance of it. This is more for
24 statistical purposes so that we can review when we prepare our annual
25 reports. We wanted to make sure that we always had a written document,
1 what items were resolved, which ones weren't, so there was no special
2 significance other than that.
3 And I apologise, I did not hear your -- the second part of your
4 question. I only answered about the significance of this log-book, but I
5 was unable to answer the second part of your question, because I -- I
6 don't recall your question.
7 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kardum. The question is the extent to which
8 the criminal events that took place in the areas covered by the police
9 stations were entered into the crime registers, to what extent were the
10 crimes recorded in those crime registers?
11 A. As a rule, everything should be entered in the registers.
12 However, I assume that you want to know whether this was being done in
13 this new police stations that were established. I really can't answer
14 that question because I have never seen them, and the system of the crime
15 police, the organisation of the crime police, was rather lagging behind
16 our work, so I believe that in the beginning it wasn't even kept. These
17 registers weren't even kept.
18 We from the police administration often helped police stations in
19 this area in their daily work, and I'm not sure that all the events from
20 that time were actually registered in the crime registers.
21 Q. And if they weren't registered in the crime registers, where
22 would have they been registered?
23 A. I don't think there was any other place where they would have
24 been registered. They would have been sent to the district attorney.
25 Every criminal offence or every file case that was assigned a K number
1 would be then forwarded to the appropriate prosecutor, the district
2 attorney. We used to call it prosecutor; now we call it district
4 Q. Mr. Kardum, I'm sorry to ask so many questions about this issue
5 and I definitely will move on. But in your last answer you referred to
6 the assignment of a K number and going back to your earlier answer when
7 that took place, is it not the case that the K numbers are assigned and
8 recorded in the crime registers?
9 A. Yes, they are registered in the crime register. However, I
10 believe that not all the numbers from that period were actually entered
11 in the crime register. I have to be honest, I never actually reviewed
12 these registers at the police stations so I can't be sure.
13 It is quite possible there are far more Q numbers than you can
14 find in registers. In other words, that the police actually handled and
15 investigated more cases than it actually entered at the time in the crime
17 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
18 I'd now like to move on to another related topic, and that is:
19 In August 1995, how many men did you have subordinated to you in the
20 crime police department of the Zadar-Knin administration?
21 A. Perhaps I'm not going to give you the correct figure, but I would
22 say between 50 and 60. 50 and 60 people. And in the crime police
23 department I had a number of sections. If you recall, it was one of the
24 things we didn't agree upon with the translation from Croatian into
25 English and vice versa. I always told you that I was chief of the crime
1 department whereas you called me a sector. A sector is something higher
2 than a department. For example, if you have a company that numbers 180,
3 you call the person in charge, the commander in charge, a battalion
4 commander which has many more men. So anyway, 50 to 60 people divided in
5 a number of departments or sections. One was the crime technology
6 department. They were employees in the crime department. They all had
7 secondary school training except for the leader of the department who had
8 university training. Then I had seven or eight people in the commercial
9 crime -- economic crime sector and they also had university training,
10 usually the faculty of economics or graduates from the factual of law.
11 Then I had three or four men working in the drugs department, drug
12 section, and they had secondary school education.
13 Then another department was for organised crime and so on and so
15 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you there. On the second line of your
16 answer you said already 50 to 60 people, then you started referring,
17 which is fine, to terminology that was used during the interview but now
18 we are at the academic qualifications, something that really was not
19 asked for.
20 Mr. Kardum, may I again ask you to focus on what is asked.
21 And, Mr. Margetts, of course you're examining the witness. You
22 will certainly find a fair balance between interrupting and not
23 interrupting but whether you have found it already is not clear to me.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be mindful of
25 your guidance.
1 Q. Mr. Kardum, in addition to the 50 to 60 people you described
2 located at the Zadar-Knin police administration, how many crime police
3 investigators would have you had to deploy at the police stations that we
4 referred to earlier, Benkovac, Gracac, Obrovac, and the other stations.
5 A. Let me just add one sentence with respect to the people in the
6 crime police department.
7 Usually they were workers who had had about two years experience
8 of working in the police force. So they were inexperienced young people,
9 in actual fact, who had not gained a great deal of experience working in
10 the police force and especially in the crime police. I see that you
11 don't have time for me to explain the reasons for that but I'd just like
12 to say one sentence and that is this --
13 Q. Mr. Kardum, I'll let you just say that sentence, it's just that
14 I'm going to ask very specific questions. If you could give me short
15 answers then I can ask follow-up questions. But my specific enquiry is
16 the number of people apart from those employed at Zadar-Knin police
17 administration, the number of crime investigators that were in the field
18 at the police stations.
19 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already given you that
21 answer. If you followed what I said, I said that there were four or five
22 of them who were sent to Knin sometime towards the end of August or
23 beginning of September and the same number in Benkovac for the
24 Benkovac-Obrovac area and Stankovci as well and also four or five to the
25 Gracac for the area there, Gracac, Lapac and Korenica.
1 MR. MISETIC: Just for -- I'm sorry to interrupt. Just for
2 clarification, in the question it was posed as if these are people in
3 addition to the 50 to 60 that he identified or is it to ask of the 50 to
4 60, how many were sent to the police stations.
5 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. The question was intended to ask in addition
6 to the 50 to 60 in the Zadar-Knin police administration, how many
7 investigators were located at the police stations.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So the question would be whether those located at
9 the police stations were among the 50 or 60 or in addition to the 50 or
11 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So the ones you said were sent to the various police
13 stations, were they in addition to the 50 or 60 or are they included in
14 the 50 or 60 people that were subordinated to you?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, they were people whom I
16 sent from my department. So I sent them from my Zadar department or from
17 the first police or second police station in Zadar.
18 So they weren't people added to that number. They were people
19 taken from that number. So when I asked you [as interpreted] how many
20 people I had subordinated to me, I gave you the answer for the total
21 number of men.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So my relatively simple question could have
23 been answered by, no, they were among the 50 or 60 I told you about.
24 That would have given the full information which the question apparently
1 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Kardum, I'd now like to turn my attention to the activities
4 of the criminal police from the 5th of August, 1995.
5 MR. MARGETTS: And if I could, please, have, Mr. Registrar, on
6 the screen 65 ter 5278, which is at tab 22 in the exhibits, if that's of
7 any assistance.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Kardum, you see on the right-hand side of the screen
9 there a list. Is this list familiar to you; and if so, could you explain
10 to the Court what this list represents.
11 A. Yes, it is. This is a list of individuals who were taken in, in
12 the collection centre for prisoners of war in Zadar.
13 And the first among them is Rade Pupovac. So that's a list that
14 was compiled in hand because we still hadn't set up a system by which all
15 this information could be typed out and so on.
16 I'd like to mention this first case, Rade Pupovac, his father's
17 name, his date of birth, the 24th of May in 1956, the place is Biljane,
18 nationality Croatian, when taken over by the crime police at 1845 hours
19 on the 5th of August. When he left at 1030 on the 9th of August, 1995
20 he was escorted by a police employee Josip Vrancic, and he was handed
21 over to the investigation centre and it doesn't say which court but
22 probably the court in Zadar.
23 Q. Mr. Kardum, you referred to the nationality. Does the reference
24 to Croatian refer to citizenship or does it refer to nationality?
25 A. This is citizenship. Rade Pupovac, as far as I know, was a Serb
1 by ethnicity. His father's name is Jovan. So I can judge by the names.
2 Anyway, he was an ethnic Serb but a citizen of the state of Croatia
3 Q. And these individuals who were detained or held at the prisoner
4 of war facility in Zadar, predominantly what was their nationality?
5 A. These are all not all prisoners of war. Some of these people --
6 well, it turned out that many of them had not taken part in the armed
7 struggle against the Republic of Croatia
8 armed struggle, and they were released straight away. So in the column
9 to whom they were turned over to, it would say the collection centre for
11 Anyway, these people were mostly Serbs but among them there were
12 some Croats as well. I see Simet [phoen] Petrov here, that name. He is
13 a Croat and there are probably other examples, just looking down the
14 list. So there were Croats there as well --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'll refer to you a report
16 in a moment. I would just like to take you through two further documents
17 before I do.
18 MR. MARGETTS: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could please have up on
19 the screen 65 ter 5238 [Realtime transcript read in error "5328"].
20 Q. Mr. Kardum, you see on the screen in front of you, on the
21 right-hand side, a -- a cover letter enclosing an outline of a structure
22 of a final report in relation to the treatment of the prisoners of war
23 and it is dated 16 August 1995
24 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if we could please just turn over
25 the pages of this particular instruction.
1 Q. First of all, Mr. Kardum, is this instruction familiar to you?
2 A. Yes. It was compiled in the Ministry of the Interior.
3 Mr. Ivan Nadj, the chief of the sector of crime police, sent this to all
4 the police departments that were engulfed by Operation Storm, whether it
5 was Sector South or Sector North, and they were sent out a document
6 setting out what happened to the prisoners of war, how many of them we
7 had, how many of them were processed, where they ended up --
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
9 A. -- other structures and elements and so on.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum. I'd like to now refer you to another
12 MR. MARGETTS: And that's, Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 5026.
13 MR. KAY: Just for the record, I see on the transcript 5328 and
14 it's 5238.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I was just about to correct that one way or the
16 other. I don't know whether it's just the transcript or whether said
17 that, Mr. Margetts, but apparently the registrar was able to get 5238 on
18 the screen, but I'll check whether that's the number assigned to this.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, that's 65 ter 5238.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
22 And, yes, if, Mr. Registrar, we could now have 5026, 65 ter.
23 Mr. Registrar, I believe we still have 5238 on the screen. If it
24 is of any assistance, it's tab 19 of the exhibit list, 16 August order
25 from Mr. Ive Kardum.
1 Unfortunately, that's the same document. So I may just indicate
2 to Mr. Kardum that we'll endeavour to rectify the problem we have here
3 and in the interim if I could pass to Mr. Kardum a hard copy of this
4 document, and for the parties' reference, it's the document referenced at
5 number 19 of the -- of the exhibit list. And I don't know whether ...
6 it's a very brief document, Your Honours, and I'll hand up a copy to the
7 Court in English.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, could it be put on the ELMO. One copy for
9 three Judges is --
10 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll look at it on the ELMO.
12 Well, the witness can look at the hard copy.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have looked at the document.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Kardum, and this is a letter forwarded by you enclosing
16 Mr. Nadj's instructions and requesting the preparation and compilation of
17 the information that Mr. Nadj sought. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if we could look at the names of the people who are listed
20 here, there are the names of six persons and I believe that these
21 individuals are the leaders of the various departments that you -- that
22 were subordinated to you in the Zadar-Knin police administration. Is
23 that correct?
24 A. Only partially.
25 Q. And that would be that the analytical department chiefs and
1 deputies are listed from the second person to the sixth person and the
2 first individual is the commander of the holding centre for prisoners of
3 war. Correct?
4 A. No, no. That's not correct. May I explain and go through the
5 individuals one by one. Adem Mehmedovic --
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
7 A. -- was subordinate to me up until Operation Storm and he was
8 chief of the general crimes department.
9 On the day of Operation Storm, pursuant to an order from the
10 chief of the police administration, he was appointed the chief of the
11 holding centre for prisoners of war in Zadar. By the same token, he was
12 an individual who was no longer subordinated to me but directly to the
13 chief of the police administration. So he was the commander of this
14 holding centre for prisoners of war.
15 In actual fact, at the time I actually lost one man from the
16 crime police, and he was a key individual from the general crime
17 department because he was an experienced policeman.
18 I don't know whether the chief of the police administration liked
19 the fact that he was a Bosniak and chose him for that reason to appoint
20 him commander but let's leave that alone for the time being.
21 Anyway, on to the next one --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'll just ask you a series
23 of short questions. How many crime police --
24 JUDGE ORIE: You asked the witness first to go to -- he offered
25 to go through the list.
1 Skrgetic, was he head of the analytical department of the
2 Zadar-Knin and was he subordinated to you?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. She was on a par with me and
4 she was chief of another department and she was subordinated, just like
5 me, to the chief of the police administration, the deputy and the chief
6 of the police administration.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And the next one on the list, Mikulic, same
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ante Mikulic was my subordinate,
10 and this letter was sent to him too, because he was the deputy chief for
11 war crimes and terrorism. And there were persons there that were up for
12 war crimes. So I considered that he should participate, together with
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ahmet Avdic, is the next one. Let
16 me repeat again, it is the same as Adem Mehmedovic. He was a Bosniak by
17 ethnicity and he was in the crime police and the war crimes section. He
18 was subordinate to Ante Mikulic, so not to me -- indirectly to me but
19 directly to Ante Mikulic. He was his subordinate.
20 Then we come to Josip Vrancic who was a retired policeman whom
21 reactivated or mobilised, in fact, six months beforehand because we
22 thought he was somebody who could help us because of his experience. So
23 he was in the searches section. He wasn't a leader, didn't hold a
24 leadership post in the police force. He had secondary school education
25 and helped out that way.
1 Then we come to Ivan Nekic. He was chief of the crime
2 technicians department. He was subordinate to me, and the crime
3 technicians department had responsibilities towards everybody who was
4 taken to the holding centre for war crimes. They needed to be processed,
5 fingerprints taken and so on and so forth.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, that may be an appropriate time for
7 a break. And, Mr. President, I don't know how you wish to deal with the
8 statements, whether you want to take a longer break or ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kardum, you have seen your statements as
10 written down and translated into your own language. How much time you
11 think you would need to read through them and to see whether there are
12 any portions which you're unhappy with?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there are 23 typed-out
14 pages in total. I will do my best to get through them in, let's say, 40
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. We'll then have a break and --
17 Mr. Margetts.
18 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, there are some documents referred
19 to. You may just wish to verify that the documents that are
20 referenced --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the witness -- may I take it that there is
22 no objection against providing the witness with documents -- if reference
23 is made to certain documents, would it be clear for the witness where to
24 find the documents, Mr. Margetts?
25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. For the witness's reference --
1 Q. So Mr. Kardum, if you could open up this binder. You will see
2 that there a coloured tab and that's the reference to your first
3 statement which we have extracted and given to you, and then there's one
4 document which is referred to in your first statement. And then you will
5 see there's a pink tab and that's the reference to the second statement.
6 And then if you look at the numbers on the tabs, those numbers correspond
7 to the paragraph numbers in your second statement in which the documents
8 behind the tab are referred to.
9 So if you take tab 10, that will be the documents referred to in
10 paragraph 10 of your statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is that clear to you, Mr. Kardum?
12 Mr. Kardum, is the method clear to you, that what you find after
13 tab 8 then it would --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I did understand that. I
15 don't think there will be any problems there because these were documents
16 that were mostly compiled outside my jurisdiction, so perhaps I will be
17 able to comment on some but not on others.
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... what we invite
19 to you do at this moment is exclusively look at your statements, if
20 there's a need to -- to check with the documents you're talking about, of
21 course, you have them now available. What we would like to know is
22 whether to what extent the statement as put on paper reflects what you
23 said at that time and also whether that is an accurate reflection of what
24 happened at that time.
25 We don't want you to start further explaining all kind of
1 matters. We just first want to know whether your statement is accurate,
2 that this reflects accurately your words and whether it accurately
3 reflects what happened at the time.
4 We will have a break, and we will resume at 20 minutes past 4.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kardum, we asked you to spend your time during
8 the break on reviewing your statements. Could you help us and tell us
9 where you found problems? And may I then perhaps first take you to your
10 March 2004 statement. If would you just take us to the paragraphs where
11 you think something should be amended.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I managed to look
13 through the statement, the note, the first one but not the second one. I
14 underlined what I consider was not as I had put it or was not correctly
15 translated. So, if you like, I can go through them one by one or --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- or depending on what the
18 Prosecutor wants to ask me.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that we would like to have your statement
20 [B/C/S on English channel].
21 Still no English on channel 4.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now I can hear the English [B/C/S on English
25 Same problem as a minute ago.
1 It could be better by now.
2 Yes. Could you take us -- what is the first paragraph on which
3 you'd like to amend your statement?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first paragraph and the last
5 thing there, I didn't mention that. This reserve senior Sergeant now
6 where it says "first class," I don't think I said this, "first class."
7 It's not an essential point.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just looking at this moment at your 2004
9 statement. You say the first paragraph --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first paragraph and the last
11 word is what I'm referring to.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read to you what I have in English. "I left
13 the military in 1982 with the rank of reserve senior Sergeant."
14 That's how it reads in English.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Without the first class. In the
16 Croatian version, the last words are "first class."
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That at least does not appear in the English,
18 so if there's --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So just reserve Sergeant.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second paragraph is all right.
22 The third is all right too.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... perhaps it was
24 the "senior" which is then translated as -- but we have that on the
25 record. You said the second is all right. The third ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The third is all right. The fourth
2 is all right as well. And so is the fifth.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you take us to the first paragraph which is not
4 all right.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The fifth paragraph is all right.
6 As far as the fifth paragraph goes, when it refers to "... came
7 under Martic's authority." "The Benkovac and Obrovac police station
8 during the first half of 1991, came under Martic's authority or the
9 authority of Martic." So I'd like to refer to the last sentence in
10 paragraph 5. They did not come under the authority of Martic, they were
11 occupied by the rebel Serbs led by Martic. And they were -- the Croats
12 were ethnically cleansed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I then --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Almost wholly.
15 JUDGE ORIE: May I then take it to say that they came under
16 Martic's power. Is that ...
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Came under, that would imply that
18 somebody gave it to Martic. But Martic occupied it forcibly, so in a
19 very different way.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if I understand you well, this ...
21 And if we just add: "... came, due to the occupation --"
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: "-- under the authority of Martic." That is, that
24 it was the consequence of the occupation.
25 Next paragraph in which you would like to make an amendment,
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next paragraph is paragraph 7.
3 This was the first time that it became clear to the Croats where
4 the JNA stood in this conflict. That's the sentence. It was clear to
5 the Croats quite a long time ago. However, when this aggression was
6 launched with the artillery and the aviation and so on, on two Croatian
7 villages, Krusevo and Jasenica which at the time had a population of
8 about 4.000, there were more dead and wounded and the entire population
9 was expelled and those who were weren't expelled were liquidated, killed
10 later on.
11 So that's it. So it was as a result of that that it became clear
12 to them who the JNA was, through this act committed in that area.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say -- one second. I'm trying to reflect
14 what you said, and could I say: Due to the way in which these villages
15 were taken over, and of course part of what you just said is now also on
16 the record, that you said that this was the artillery and the aviation,
17 but that due to the way in which these villages were taken over, it
18 became once again clear to the Croats where the JNA stood in this
20 Is that ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would add, even the Croats who
22 disbelieved it then came to realize what and who the JNA actually was.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So it became once again clear to the Croats, even to
24 those who disbelieved it prior to that, where the JNA stood in this
25 conflict. Yes. That is then on the record.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. That's it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And any further -- next paragraph in which you'd
3 like to make changes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next paragraph I would like to
5 refer to is number 8, in the fourth sentence. "The JNA left their
6 barracks in Zadar peacefully."
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The JNA did not peacefully leave
9 their barracks in Zadar but what happened was this. At the time when
10 they left the barracks, I particularly remembered and we all remembered
11 this in Zadar, that the 5th -- it was the 5th of October, 1991, when 46
12 people were killed in Zadar during an attack of the so-called JNA and
13 rebel Serbs when they reached the outskirts of Zadar and almost entered
14 the town proper. So on that day alone 46 people were killed.
15 I think that I have given you the exact figure but there's a list
16 and testimony of that and of course most of them were civilians. Rockets
17 were used and the cathedral in Zadar was hit from the air. Zadar was
18 targeted from the sea, from the ships, from the air, and from the ground
19 forces, artillery.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So not peacefully. Not peacefully.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. I've earlier asked you not
23 to add and further elaborate, but we'll just take out the word
24 "peacefully." They left -- you have now depicted the circumstances as
25 you saw them at the time, the circumstances under which they left but in
1 your statement we just take out at this moment, peacefully.
2 Please proceed. The next --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. The JNA then, along
4 with the massive use of force, left Zadar.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They left their barracks in Zadar and it's now
6 on the record that -- your views on the circumstances.
7 The next ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the commander, the direct
9 commander was General Mladic and Momcilo Perisic. Momcilo Perisic from
10 Zadar and General Mladic from the Knin area.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I invite you now to move to the next portion which
12 you'd like to ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 12 is the next one I'd
14 like to deal with.
15 The word "department" is used whereas it should be "section."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the same thing with company,
18 the example I gave of company and battalion.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not odjel but odsjek [phoen].
21 JUDGE ORIE: "Section" is replaced by "department." The next
22 paragraph, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 14, after the Maslenica operation
24 the Croatian front line moved and we recovered some of our territory.
25 That was our entire territory, in actual fact. So we didn't go into
1 anybody else's territory, somebody else's territory, that should be
2 understood it was all our territory in the first place.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I did understand this to be that although
4 you recovered that territory that that was not all of the territory you
5 had at that time lost. Yes? So with this understanding, I don't
6 think -- that it's understood in this way that it doesn't need to be
7 amended or corrected. It is on the record now, yes.
8 Next paragraph, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 15 is all right. 16 is
10 all right, 17th is all right. 18th is all right. The 19th, again the
11 department versus section so that should be changed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just find it. There was also a department
13 for organised crime.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Department for organised crime --
15 for general crime.
16 So these are not departments. They're all sections. It should
17 read "section" everywhere.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now let me just ... it now reads: "It also had a
19 special section dealing with white-collar crime, fraud and financial
20 crime. There was also was a section for organised crime, an anti-drug
21 section and an anti-terrorist and general crime section which included
22 the crime of murder and other such crimes."
23 So in English now it says "section" several times and that's what
24 you consider to be accurate.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Section, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please, the next paragraph in which you'd like
2 to make ...
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 20th paragraph. "At the level of
4 the ministry, the decision was made for the crime police to remain at the
5 original police stations as the workload increased in our area as we had
6 to deal with prisoners of war."
7 I don't know where this sentence is coming from. At the level of
8 the ministry. I don't understand this. This is not something that I
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- yes. You say the decision was made
11 at the level of the ministry to keep crime police, et cetera. Would you
12 like to take out "the level of the ministry." It then reads: "The
13 decision --"
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have no idea where it came
16 JUDGE ORIE: So then it becomes: "The decision was made to keep
17 the crime police at their original police stations as the workload
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I just want to make it clear.
21 I could not change what the jurisdiction of the police was. I could not
22 change it from police station to police station. This couldn't even be
23 done by the ministry. We could perhaps change their jurisdictions for a
24 day or two, but that's it. I could not send people from the first police
25 station in Zadar to Knin. This was not something that I had under my
1 powers and of course --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand that you want to further explain,
3 but have your concerns been addressed if we take out "at the level of the
5 The line then reading: "The decision was made to keep the crime
6 police at their original police stations as the workload increased in our
7 area," et cetera.
8 Does that meet your concerns?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would rephrase that.
10 We could not send policemen from police stations because of an increased
11 workload but we also didn't have the authority to do it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So we couldn't send the policemen
14 who remained in Zadar -- in the area of Zadar because of an increased
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say there was an increased workload but
17 even if there would not have been, even then we would not have had the
18 competence to send them somewhere beyond the jurisdiction they were in.
19 Yes. That is --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I could not have done that.
21 I could do it for a day or two but I could not issue any sort of official
22 document and assign them to a different police station. I don't think it
23 could be done even by the chief of the police administration.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... okay, that's on
25 the record now as well.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then in the same paragraph:
2 "In Zadar a collection centre for civilians was formed."
3 This was actually a reception centre for civilians.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say "collection centre" should be
5 "reception centre."
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Reception centre.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's on the record.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this was something that a
9 civilian organisation actually dealt with. They were in charge of the
10 expelled people or people who were refugees. And I think also the
11 Red Cross had a role in it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It reads now: "But that was dealt with by a
13 civilian organisation," and you find that accurate.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So not the police but civilian
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what it says at this moment.
17 Could you take us to the next paragraph.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The reception centre for
19 where it says the -- where it says the "collection centre for prisoners
20 of war" it should be the "reception centre for prisoners of war."
21 JUDGE ORIE: So two times the word "collection" is replaced by
22 "reception." Yes.
23 The next one.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next remark has to do with --
25 refers to paragraph 34.
1 It says: "A Serb witness called Zivko Borak was able to help me,
2 including some men from the ministry including Marijan Benko and others."
3 At this time Marijan Benko was in charge of this investigation.
4 He had been in Zadar for a month and at this time Ivan Nadj was also in
5 Zadar. Milan Turkalj, the chief of the general crime section --
6 department, some colleagues from the Zagreb administration, the
7 Split-Dalmatia administration, and Rijeka and Primorje administrations.
8 The point is they were not -- they did not assist me. They were
9 actually leading this project. An assistant minister cannot assist; they
10 can just -- they are actually the ones who lead a project of that type.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could we then make it: "During the course of the
12 investigation, a number of other police representatives conducted the
13 investigation, including ..."
14 Yes, that's on the record.
15 Next paragraph, please, where you'd like to make a change.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 35. I don't have any
17 special remarks there except some clarifications if necessary.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know on what point you'd like to clarify
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If necessary, I will clarify
21 certain things. Otherwise, I don't have any remarks.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So in itself, it is not inaccurate what is said
23 here, and does reflect what you said.
24 Please proceed.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it does.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next paragraph in which would you like to
2 make a correction.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 36, the last sentence.
4 "If we found a freshly killed body in September 1995, it would clearly be
5 a murder; but if we found a decomposed body, it could be either a murder
6 or the result of the combat activities."
7 I would like to add here also death of natural causes, suicide
8 and similar. Because there were a lot of instances where older people
9 died of natural causes, which was, of course, something that was also
10 established after an autopsy, and there were also suicides.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You would say that you like to add in 36 that apart
12 from murder and combat activities there are another -- there are causes
13 of death which you did not want to exclude here. Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Natural causes, suicide and so on.
15 I even have some examples with me, and you can see that these numbers
16 were not insignificant. There were quite a number of these.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But at least your statement has been completed
18 or has been clarified in this respect.
19 The next paragraph, in which you would like to make --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 38. It says: "The army which had
21 just won the war was very cocky and confident and difficult to deal
23 The interpretation is a bit clumsy and I certainly did not use
24 the word "cocky." At this time, the Croatian army was proud. The boys
25 were aware that they accomplished a great feat and they were happy,
1 proud, not cocky.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... proud and happy
3 and confident and difficult to deal with --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were proud of their
5 accomplishment, that's right.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Next paragraph in which you'd like to make a change.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 39 is all right.
8 44, the last sentence: "I know that some bodies collected by the
9 civilian protection were collected from outside of Croatia, from over the
10 border in Bosnia
11 This referred mainly to the border area with Bosnia and
13 whether a village belonged to Croatia
14 bodies that they found in houses or, I don't know where else, so this --
15 the number of such cases was, I think, 12. Some of them were civilian;
16 some were soldiers.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It says -- some --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were mainly decomposed bodes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Some were collected just at the other side of the
20 border, which means not far away but -- yes. Okay. That's --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. That's right. There
22 is specific mention of the place where this happened, the town.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please tell us where your next correction would be.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 47. My first visit to
25 Knin, and then in the third line from the bottom it says: "After Drnis I
1 could see destroyed houses, although I could not say when they were
3 I just want to make sure that we understand each other. I don't
4 know if this was in 1991, 1992, 1993, or 1994, but certainly they had
5 been destroyed before Operation Storm because these were Croatian areas
6 that were under Serbian control until Operation Storm.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You say from the fact that these were Croatian
8 areas --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Serbian control
11 until Operation Storm, you concluded that they were not destroyed during
12 Operation Storm.
13 Is that a correct understanding?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, clearly. Because it's obvious
15 if a house was destroyed one, two, or three years before or just -- just
16 destroyed, you can tell.
17 Paragraph 51, the second sentence: "I, as chief of the crime
18 police, should have been told about that crime but somebody in authority
19 obviously decided ..."
20 This is not true. Somebody in authority, I did not say this
21 portion "in authority." Somebody did say it but it has nothing to do
22 with authority.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So it now reads: "... have been told about the
24 crime but somebody obviously decided that we were not to be involved."
25 And we took out "in authority."
1 The next --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was supposed -- I should have
3 been told about the crime but obviously somebody had decided that this
4 should not be done. I assumed that somebody made that decision.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have no actual knowledge of who made such
6 a decision, if I understand you well.
7 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please take to us your next correction.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is as far as I managed to get.
10 I didn't get to review the rest. I can do it during the next break, if
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now let me -- you said this is until where, is that
13 including the whole of paragraph 51?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But not yet 52.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I ask you already now, and I will later
18 put the same question to you in respect of the paragraphs that you have
19 then reviewed, do we now understand that with the corrections you just
20 made that the paragraphs 1, 2, and up to and including 51 of your 2004
21 statement reflects what you said at that time, that it accurately
22 reflects what you said with these corrections?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You gave that statement to the best of your
25 recollection, as reflecting the truth? And that if the same questions
1 would you put to you today, that you would answer in the same sense.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Maybe I would have clarified
3 some matters if they weren't clear enough or totally explored.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We actually would like you to do the remainder
5 of the work, not only the 2004 statement but also the 2007 statement, if
6 possible during the next break.
7 Mr. Margetts, I did what perhaps I could have left in your hands
8 as well. I hope you don't mind.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Not at all. Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
11 MR. MARGETTS:
12 Q. Mr. Kardum, prior to reviewing the statement and prior to the
13 break we were addressing the issue of the prisoner of war centre in
14 Zadar. And what I'd like to do is I'd like to show you a file of one of
15 the people who appeared on the list of persons in the centre that we've
16 already reviewed.
17 MR. MARGETTS: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could please bring up on
18 the screen 65 ter 5284.
19 Q. Mr. Kardum, what you see there is a picture of one of the
20 detainees on the right-hand side of the screen. A gentleman by the name
21 of Jovan Rokvic, and his date of birth, et cetera, is recorded and you
22 will see that there's a reference to a Z-1 form at the top of that page
24 Were there prescribed forms that your investigators were to fill
25 out upon the admission of detainees in the collection centres?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. MARGETTS: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could please move on, to
3 the third page of the B/C/S and to the third page of the English.
4 Q. And, again, Mr. Kardum, you'll see that there's a form at the top
5 there and that's a Z-2 form. Again, was that a prescribed form that the
6 investigators were required to fill out?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. MARGETTS: And if we could now move on to page 6 of the
10 English, or, in fact, to page 7 of the English. And that is 206105484 of
11 the B/C/S, or page 7.
12 Q. Now if we could look at the signature on the page.
13 MR. MARGETTS: If we could look, Mr. Registrar, at the bottom of
14 the B/C/S there.
15 Q. Is that your signature there, Mr. Kardum?
16 A. It is my signature as typed, but the signature itself is not my
17 own. Somebody signed this for me, but that person was authorised to do
19 MR. MARGETTS: And if we could now just move through,
20 Mr. Registrar, the remaining pages so that Mr. Kardum can see that the
21 next page is an Official Note. And move through to the next page and
22 just leaf through the pages, if we could. And to the following page.
23 And if we can just stop there for a moment.
24 Q. Mr. Kardum, if you could look at this page here. This is a
25 letter signed by the chief of the crime police Marijan Babic. And it
1 refers to the institution of proceedings against Jovan Rokvic. And the
2 crime is under Article 231 of the Criminal Code. Now I may be stretching
3 your memory, and there may have been changes since then, but do you
4 recall what Article of the Code -- well, not what Article but what crime
5 in the code Article 231 refers to?
6 A. I couldn't recall with precision but these are offences similar
7 to armed rebellion. It is not war crimes. This is not a perpetrator of
8 a war crime. This man was in some way involved in the armed rebellion.
9 I can see here that this man was born in 1922, so in 1991 he was probably
10 60-something old and these men were usually involved in armed village
11 groups that manned some barricade, stopped civilians from moving on so
13 So this referred to 1991/1992, as far as can I see. And also
14 this report was submitted by the crime police of the military police,
15 while we, during our investigation, established that he participated in
16 all this. We returned him to the civilian reception centre and then it
17 was further processed.
18 Very often crime reports were not collated with the -- between
19 the civilian and the military police. If you had to issue a warrant for
20 arrest, this could not be done by the military police. It had to be
21 conducted by the -- or issued by the crime police, the civilian police.
22 But these people were not -- we had no access to them. They were not
23 accessible to us.
24 Q. Mr. Kardum, just to be specific, and you've described generally
25 what Article 231 referred to, would it be correct to refer to that
1 Article as being the offence of a threat to territorial integrity?
2 A. Yes, that's right. You could put it that way. This Article does
3 exist of the Criminal Code. I don't remember it word for word but it is
4 quite clear in what it says.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, does this file, the -- we saw a lengthy list of
6 the detainees, but for each of the detainees was a similar type of
7 processing engaged in by your criminal police?
8 A. I apologise. He wasn't a detainee or a prisoner. He had -- it
9 was somebody who had just been taken into custody. So the police
10 couldn't incarcerate anybody or -- all they could do was hold them in
11 detention for 48 hours, I think, in custody for 48 hours, on remand, and
12 after that, they would have to ask the investigating judge to prolong
13 custody. So the police could not incarcerate anybody so it wasn't a
14 detainee -- or detain anyone, so it wasn't a detainee or a prisoner.
15 Q. In respect of this individual who was in the reception centre, is
16 this an example of the processing that each of the persons in the centre
17 were -- were subject to?
18 A. I don't know how you mean. I'm not quite clear on the question.
19 But can I explain what the general procedure was.
20 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I --
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, if he could --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
23 MR. MISETIC: I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague. Just the use
24 of the terminology, I think we've had evidence now that there were two
25 reception centres. Are we talking about the POW reception centre and
1 what the procedures were there or are we talking about the civilian? And
2 from what I understand from the testimony, this individual was in both
3 the civilian and the POW centre, so if we could just for the witness
4 clarify which centre we're talking about.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, if you would do so, yes.
8 MR. MARGETTS:
9 Q. We're talking about the reception centre where the prisoners of
10 war were present, and I'd just like you to explain to the Court, as you
11 were about to do, the process, the -- the forms that were filled out, the
12 interviews, Official Notes, and the processing that was engaged in, in
13 respect of each of the persons who were in the centre, and whether or not
14 this example that we've looked at is a typical example.
15 Mr. Kardum, I note you've got some pages there. If you could
16 just possibly put them in the briefcase. And what is that page that you
17 have extracted? I wonder if I could have a look at that.
18 A. It's my own document, not yours. I took it with me.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Maybe if that could be presented to the Court.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you -- the Chamber was not aware that you
21 brought any documents with you. If you want to look at your own
22 documents, would you please ask first or announce that you intend to do
23 that so that permission can be given to you.
24 This is a document which is in B/C/S and, therefore, at this
25 moment I've got no idea --
1 Could you tell us what this document is about.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise. All I
3 wanted was to help out the Prosecutor so I brought in a copy of the
4 questions that each crime department policeman had when interviewing
5 somebody in the reception centre. It's a sort of form which was a
6 universal questionnaire, if I can put it that way, and it was universal
7 procedure. It was written in the MUP and sent to us, so it's the
8 procedure. When somebody came to a POW reception centre, the particulars
9 of that person were taken, name, surname, name of the father, et cetera,
10 and then a team of physicians would examine the person --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and then there was a notebook.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just stop you for a second.
14 Would you mind that a copy was made of this document. This is
15 the complete document, one page?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing against that. Quite
17 the contrary.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I suggest -- it is a document with nine
19 numbered paragraphs and then one final paragraph, saying "napomena." I
20 suggest that we have it copied, that a copy will be provided to all
21 parties, that the parties will then consider the relevance of the
22 document and to see whether you want to tender that.
23 Madam Usher, do you think that there would be any way of having
24 it copied during this session. Thank you.
25 Could you please focus again, because Mr. Margetts was asking you
1 whether the documents that were prepared as we found them on our screen,
2 Official Notes, questionnaires, et cetera, whether that was typically the
3 paperwork that was made when people had arrived in the prisoners of war
4 collection centre.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
6 When the person arrived in the reception centre for POWs, not
7 criminals, but POWs, and that is an essential difference of course in
8 concept and terms, that person was examined by doctors first. And any
9 injuries were noted and recorded, if they were such that they required
10 hospitalisation or hospital treatment, and the priority was to sent these
11 people to a hospital for treatment.
12 So based on that, regardless of the fact that some people had
13 taken part in an armed rebellion were dispatched to hospitals for
14 treatment. I remember some of the names, cases in point.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts is not primarily focussing on what you
16 would do with those people who needed medical care. I now do understand
17 that you gave that medical care. Mr. Margetts was asking --
18 THE WITNESS: Okay.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether the type of documents we saw on the
20 screen whether they were typical for processing those who had arrived in
21 the centre for prisoners of war. And I also noticed that there is no
22 medical documentation apparently under these 16 pages, and to that
23 extent, your explanation certainly have assisted that apart from this way
24 of proceeding that if somebody needed medical care that he would receive
1 Is that correctly understood? But now, again, is this paperwork,
2 as we find it here, interviews, is that typical for those who arrived --
3 had arrived in the prisoner of war centre?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. Those are
5 typical documents because one of our priorities was to learn about the
6 distribution of minefields, for instance, for stragglers in
7 Srpska Krajina so-called that were hiding in caves and woods, to learn
8 about the mass graves and things like that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... if Mr. Margetts
10 would like to know why you created those documents, he will certainly ask
11 you, yes?
12 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
13 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Yes, Mr. Kardum, my focus is on the file and you've indicated
15 that that is a typical file and that these were the typical documents
16 prepared in respect of the persons in the centre.
17 In respect of each of the individuals detained, how many of your
18 crime policemen were engaged in the interview process of each of the
19 individuals detained -- sorry, I will rephrase that. Of each of the
20 persons who were in the centre, and I withdraw the reference to any -- to
21 them being detained.
22 A. Well, I can't really say. But usually one or two persons. I
23 won't exclude the possibility of having three people present, but usually
24 one or two.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if we could please now proceed
2 and --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise but I have to stress
4 something at this point, when you asked about the number of people.
5 So the interview could have been conducted, for example, by
6 someone from the crime police, the civilian police, and pursuant to a
7 separate request, the interview could also be conducted by somebody from
8 the secret police and from the SIS but pursuant to a special request.
9 And then those people -- but the people could not be taken out of the
10 reception centre, if you mean the number of people. So there you have
11 it. So one or two people, and that's my explanation.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
13 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if we could please have 65 ter 5276
14 presented on the screen.
15 Q. And, Mr. Kardum, do you recognise your signature on this
17 A. Yes. That is my signature, yes.
18 MR. MARGETTS: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could now move to
19 65 ter 5277.
20 Q. Mr. Kardum, you will have seen the previous document was the
21 cover page. And this is a report that you've submitted on the treatment
22 of prisoners of war on the 21st of August.
23 Do you recognise that report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, if we could move to the third page of the English, please,
1 and to the second page of the Croatian.
2 Now, Mr. Kardum, you will see in the last paragraph of the second
3 page there, it -- precisely as you have just described, you recorded that
4 during the criminal processing, the officials used a list of interview
5 questions prepared in advance, that's at the bottom also of the English
6 page 3. And short summaries of all the crimes committed in the period
7 from 1991 up to -- that is the beginning of Operation Storm.
8 Now, if we move on in the Croatian and we go to the fourth page.
9 And if we look just under the heading, conclusion, Mr. Kardum, you'll see
10 that there's a reference to a telegram from the Republic of Croatia MUP
11 It's the reference number there and it's dated the 4th of August --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I think -- yes, we need to go to
13 another page.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Oh, apologies. Apologies. Yes, if we could
15 proceed to the bottom of the fifth page in the English.
16 Well, that actually goes over to the sixth page.
17 And you will see, Your Honour, that the reference I was making
18 was to a telegram from the Ministry of the Interior. And that is one of
19 the exhibits on our exhibit list so we'll refer to that another time.
20 Q. You can see there, Mr. Kardum, that the telegram was dated the
21 4th of August and that this report refers to the functioning of the
22 Mocire sport hall until 19th of August, 1995.
23 Do you recall that the prisoner of war facility was operated
24 pursuant to directions from the Ministry of the Interior in Zagreb
25 A. Yes, I remember it well. I was there every day. I don't know
1 what you wish to contest there or what you're looking for there. What's
2 the meaning of your question? Do you have a question in this regard?
3 Q. Well, the only question is I just wanted to look at those various
4 components of this report and confirm that this is the report and then my
5 question comes just after the next reference.
6 MR. MARGETTS: And if Mr. Registrar could please now move forward
7 through the table of persons who were processed in the centre. And in
8 the B/C/S we'll get to page 06105015, which is some ten pages on from
9 where we currently are. And in the English that is page 23 of the
11 Q. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Kardum, in that period from the
12 4th August through to the 19th August, is that correct that you processed
13 183 persons in the prisoner of war centre?
14 A. No, that's not correct that 183 persons went past the centre.
15 That number of persons were processed but more went through. Some were
16 returned to the civilian reception centre which means that when the
17 police established that those individuals had nothing to do with any
18 previous reports about those individuals or statements made and so on and
19 so forth, then they were released straight away. They were let go, and
20 they went to the reception centre for civilians and they were treated
21 exclusively as civilians there. So this is the number of persons who
22 were processed.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum. The next question I have is, you have
24 just reviewed your statement of 2004 and at paragraph 41 of the statement
25 you will recall that you said that and your men were at that time fully
1 employed at the collection centre according to the instructions from the
2 Ministry of the Interior. That's the 2004 statement at paragraph 41.
3 I'm just trying to understand precisely the engagement of your
4 men in these tasks. And you had 50 to 60 men, you have referred to the
5 number of men that you had. Is it the case that they were all engaged at
6 the collection centre?
7 A. No. No, that's not correct.
8 Q. Okay. If you could explain to the Trial Chamber how many men
9 were engaged in the processing of the prisoners of war or, alternatively
10 interviewing other persons. In your statement you indicate that
11 interviews were also conducted of civilians and how otherwise the 50 to
12 60 men, under your authority, were engaged.
13 A. Well, they weren't all my men sent to the reception centre for
14 POWs. Life went on. We -- our town was the fifth largest one in
16 regular affairs, go about our daily business. So not everything took
17 place in the reception centre. There were killings, murders in Zadar,
18 for example, there were holdups, robberies, violent crimes and so on,
19 whereas I told you who the 50 and 60 men were. They were crime
20 technicians. For example, in the centre -- well, we covered the
21 reception centre permanently. There were one or two crime technicians
22 permanently in the POW reception centre. Whereas I had a total of 12 of
23 them and we had to work two shifts because we did 12 hours on, 12 hours
24 off. Those were the shifts, which means that in a 24-hour period I had
25 to have four crime technicians out of a total of 12 and the rest were
1 engaged in other affairs, other business. So we didn't only have to
2 cater to the reception centre, we had to deal with our current daily
4 I don't know if I have succeeded in clarifying the situation. So
5 we were given the reception centre for POWs to take care of and the
6 priority of the crime police was to uncover mass and individual graves
7 where Croats had been buried. There was such a lot of pressure from the
8 public, for example, that we had to find out where their nearest and
9 dearest lay. You might not be interested in that but it is very
10 important to know that during that period we found about 310 Croats who
11 had been killed and buried in different individual and mass grave sites,
12 and we were the protagonists of that work. The crime police had to
13 uncover the whereabouts of those bodies. That was part of our work.
14 Q. So, Mr. Kardum, could you just indicate to the Court that the --
15 the matters that you were investigating -- in the investigations you were
16 conducting at the prisoner of war reception centre, those matters
17 involved the crimes that had been committed on the territory prior to
18 Operation Storm. Is that correct?
19 A. Before Operation Storm and during Operation Storm, that is to
20 say, those committed on occupied Croatian territory. Some people shot at
21 Zadar and Sibenik. Others -- I see here that there were three people who
22 were accused of war crimes or whatever, I think that's the piece of
23 information here. Just a moment. Article 120 or paragraph 120,
25 Q. And just for clarification, were any Croatian soldiers held in
1 the reception centre for prisoners of war for crimes that they had
2 committed during Operation Storm?
3 A. No, no. No, no, no, no, no. There were no Croatian soldiers in
4 that reception centre. They were POWs who were combatants fighting
5 against the Republic of Croatia
6 can you see. And I can explain that, how come 13 Croats there.
7 These were people who were born and lived in the territory and
8 under various threats to their families and so on, they were forced into
10 Q. And that was mobilisation for which forces?
11 A. The so-called army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. So the Croats were forcibly mobilised.
14 Q. So, Mr. Kardum, if I can bring you now back to your 2004
15 statement. And at paragraph 47 of your 2004 statement, you refer in the
16 first sentence to your visit to Knin on the 7th, 8th, or 9th of August.
17 And then if I could refer you down to paragraph 49, where you state that
18 you visited the civilian collection centre in Knin.
19 A. Which paragraph did you say? I apologise.
20 Q. The first sentence for the purpose of indicating the date at
21 paragraph --
22 A. I see, yes.
23 Q. And just after reading the first paragraph where it refers to
24 7th, 8th or 9th August, if you could refer then to paragraph 49 where you
25 state that you visited the civilian collection centre in Knin a few days
1 later where three of your crime police were. And if you could --
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could we ... we sometimes need additional time to
4 let the interpreters translate everything you say.
5 Perhaps you repeat your question, Mr. Margetts.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Kardum, I'm just interested to ask you do you recall the
8 names of the crime police who were at the collection centre in Knin?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. And what were their names and who was the leader of those crime
12 A. Their names were Slavko Raspovic, Dejan Klanac and Bozo Razov.
13 Q. And what was their role at the Knin collection centre?
14 A. I have to make a correction. It wasn't a collection centre; it
15 was a reception centre. And their role was to look after the people and
16 through conversations with them, or interviews, to learn whether any of
17 those people who had arrived there, and people arrived in different ways
18 to the centre, many of them voluntarily, whether they had taken part in
19 an armed rebellion against the Republic of Croatia
20 war crime to try and identify such persons, and to escort them to Zadar.
21 Among others, they made up lists of such persons and checked them
22 out in Zadar to see if there were criminal reports filed against these
23 people in Zadar because they weren't able to check that out in Knin.
24 They didn't have the necessary facilities, so they would ask people in
25 Zadar or send faxes to find out, and if they were under an investigation
1 then they would take it further. So that was their only role in Knin.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I'm looking at the clock.
3 Mr. Kardum, from your first statement there are still a limited
4 number of six paragraphs to review, and then the other statement is - let
5 me just check - there are 37 paragraphs. How much time do you think you
6 would need to finish the job? Would half an hour do?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it would.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kardum, already we'll ask Madam Usher to escort
11 you out of the courtroom. I'm sorry to give you homework for the breaks,
12 but it's very much appreciated that you want to cooperate.
13 Madam Usher, could you already escort Mr. Kardum out of the
14 courtroom. We'd like to see you back at 6.00.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE ORIE: It gives the Chamber an opportunity to briefly deal
18 with a procedural matter, because the Chamber would like to make an
19 invitation to the parties regarding the boundaries of Croatian
20 municipalities, or "opcine" in Croatian, as relevant to the indictment.
21 The indictment refers, among others, to Ervenik, Kistanje, Knin,
22 and Orlic municipalities. Its use of the word "municipality" corresponds
23 to how these areas are defined in map 9 of the court map binder.
24 However, map 21 of the binder suggests that the Knin municipality may
25 include all of those areas as administrative subdivisions. Maps 16
1 through 26 are all similar to map 21 in their interpretation of the term
3 The Chamber invites the parties to agree on the correct
4 understanding of the division of Croatian municipalities at the time
5 relevant to the indictment. If Ervenik, Kistanje, et cetera, were in
6 fact municipal subdivisions, then the Chamber also invites the parties to
7 agree on a term that would correctly refer to those. The parties are
8 invited to present their agreement, or, if no agreement is reached, make
9 submissions on the matter by Monday, the 29th of September of 2008.
10 And this concludes the Chamber's invitation to the parties.
11 I take it that after the break it will take us some time to go
12 through the corrections the witness would like to make. I dealt with the
13 matter, because I got the impression that there is a risk that if it is
14 not done in a rather strict way that we might lose time and I hope, but
15 if the party would disagree, that some of my authority would help to
16 proceed. But if there's anything against it, then of course I'd like to
17 know. But I try to do it as transparent as possible.
18 We will have a break, and we resume at 6.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kardum, I'd like to make a follow-up exercise
23 with you.
24 Could we start your 2004 statement, paragraph 52 and following.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 55. Your Honour, I would
1 appreciate if you allowed me a few moments to comment on this paragraph,
2 or, rather, on its last sentence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Kardum, if
4 it reflects what you said, please let me know. If you think that what it
5 says is not --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only partially.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then if you tell me to what extent it
8 does and to what extent it does not, but please keep it brief, because
9 the parties will examine you --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... I will
11 be very brief. This paragraph only partially reflects what I think so I
12 would like to add on to it.
13 It says here, if you allow me to go on.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last sentence reads: "I am
16 aware that part of the Serb position was prepared to leave the area from
17 documents that have come to light since and also from statements made by
18 some Serb returnees."
19 Your Honour, in one of my reports I mentioned some figures and
20 now I would like to repeat them. During the occupation, about 1.000
21 Croatian civilians were killed, about 1.500 Croatian police and military
22 were killed, some 10.000 homes of expelled Croats were destroyed and
23 looted, so that 98 per cent of Croats were expelled from that area and
24 also from the border areas that were under the control of the Croatian
25 authorities, in addition to the -- or because of the daily shelling and
1 so on.
2 Before Operation Storm, there were rumours that Serbs were
3 claiming that if Croats were to come there, they would not remain there.
4 I would like to stress a fact here. The Serb leadership
5 ethnically cleansed the area, the occupied areas of the Republic of
7 This time, they cleansed their own population because there they were
8 unprepared wait for the Croatian authorities facing -- in face of the
9 crimes that they had committed.
10 The same people who had cleansed Croatia of Croatian civilians
11 did the same thing when they cleansed those areas of the Serb population.
12 In the Zadar police administration, we saw that -- we knew that
13 some Serbs had been killed by Serbs because they did not want to flee the
14 Republic of Croatia
15 threatened, they were made afraid, and they were told about horrible
16 things that Croats did, all for the purpose of making them move out of
17 that area, whereby they would also justify their own inability to wait
18 for the arrival -- to await the arrival of the Croatian authorities, and
19 to await those authorities, the Croatian authorities to judge them, and
20 this is all that I wanted to add.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. Could you please -- it -- I
22 consider this to be additional evidence rather than an amendment of the
23 statement because it does not contradict; it adds and explains.
24 Nevertheless, I would like you to not to give statements of a
25 general nature but rather focus on to what extent something is not
1 accurate in your statement.
2 The next paragraph, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the -- I have no
4 further comments on the first statement.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's move to the 2007 statement. Could you
6 take us to the first paragraph where you'd like to make an amendment.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 9 here.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is stated here that I said the
10 police administrations of Sisak, Moslavina, Karlovac, Lika, Senj,
11 Zadar-Knin, Sibenik, Split-Dalmatia, Knin and Glina, which orders in
12 paragraph number 2 that the chiefs of the police administration are to
13 meet. And I think what was omitted here is a meeting with the commanders
14 of battalions of the military police.
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, this does not really
17 reflect on me. This has something that has a reference to my chief, but
18 I thought it should be added.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So the order, as you tell us, was that there should
20 be a meeting -- not only with the chiefs of police but that in the
21 meeting the commanders of the battalions of the military police should
22 also participate.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please take us to the next parts of your
25 statement where you think a correction is needed.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have nothing to add to
2 paragraph 10, but I think I should clarify a bit why we needed to take
3 the measures as required. But if you feel it's not necessary I can go
5 JUDGE ORIE: As long as your statement is accurate, if there's
6 any need for further explanations, the parties will ask you for it.
7 The next paragraph in which you feel a correction is needed.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 15. It says, "the
9 command headquarters Povratak." They were operational headquarters, not
10 command headquarters.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then the word "command" is replaced by
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And the next correction would be in what paragraph.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next paragraph that needs to be
16 corrected is paragraph 30, the last sentence: "These documents were
17 completed in Zagreb
18 administration, Zadar-Knin."
19 As far as I know, that's how it was. I've never seen those
20 documents. Maybe someone has received them, but I have never seen those
22 JUDGE ORIE: So we add: "But were to my knowledge not
23 distributed to the police in Zadar-Knin."
24 Would that ...
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At least not to the chiefs or heads
1 at my level.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And were, to your knowledge, not distributed to
3 police authorities of your level in Zadar-Knin.
4 That's on the record.
5 Could you take us to the next --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 Your Honour, I would like to stress once again. I was
8 responsible for two to three per cent of the total number of men at the
9 police administration. So I don't know if my chief, if he had received
10 the document, whether he distributed it to other departments, but I've
11 never seen it.
12 As for the other -- the remaining paragraphs, I have no more
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this. Then I put the same questions
15 to you as I did before: In relation to paragraph 52 and following of
16 your 2004 statement and the 2007 statement, with the corrections you just
17 made, do they accurately reflect what you said during these interviews?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And did you give the answers to the questions to the
20 best of your recollection in accordance with the truth?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And you would also give the same answers, perhaps
23 not literally, but you would answer these questions in a similar sense if
24 the same questions would be put to you today.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Margetts, I could imagine that you want to
2 tender the 92 ter statements.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President, if we could.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
5 Mr. Registrar, could you please assign numbers to the 2004 and
6 2007 statements, the first one 23rd of March, 2004. The other one it
7 says on your list 4th of May but I think it is 4 and 5th of May,
8 Mr. Margetts, 2007.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes Mr. President. That's correct.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the 2004 statement, 65 ter 05273,
11 becomes Exhibit number P896.
12 And the 2007 statement, 65 ter 05274, becomes Exhibit
13 number P897.
14 JUDGE ORIE: These statements, as amended by the witness, are
15 admitted into evidence.
16 I have a very practical question. At some instances it was just
17 replacing one word by another word, very limited. At other instances
18 there was a rather broad explanation or further elaboration on the
19 statement on the answers given during the interviews.
20 Now, I suggest to the parties that where it's simple to add or to
21 replace a word, that we try to get final versions with these additions
22 and that where it was a broader explanation that it can be found on the
23 record that further explanation, further clarification or further
24 elaboration was given by the witness when he gave his testimony.
25 Of course, I would prefer if the parties would agree on a new
1 version of 896 and 897.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President. We're happy to take the
3 initiative of that and send a proposed version to the Defence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Margetts. You may proceed.
5 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, just in relation to the exhibits or
6 the documents that were referred to in the statements, we don't have
7 objections to those now that the 92 ter procedure has been complied. If
8 we could have exhibit number for those documents, and that is up to
9 document number 33 in the exhibit list --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could we do it as we usually do it, that is, that we
11 invite Mr. Registrar to prepare a list so that we have them all -- that
12 numbers are provisionally assigned to these documents and that we then
13 decide on admission.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Kardum, if we could proceed.
16 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, could you please bring back 65 ter
17 5206 and if we could go to the B/C/S page 5.
18 And if, Madam Usher, I could have some assistance. The English
19 of this document is currently on the ELMO. Thank you.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Kardum, we've talked about the various taskings that you
21 had and the report that you submitted in relation to the prisoner of war
22 collection centre. And you'll note and we did in fact note that between
23 the dates of the 5th of August and the 19th of August, 183 people were
24 processed through the centre. And we noted the nature of the
25 investigations that were conducted.
1 Now, these were the people who were involved in that process.
2 And you've indicated to the Court precisely who they were subordinated to
3 and what their role was.
4 My question is: In respect of each of those individuals, how
5 many crime police officers were working with them at the time, and
6 precisely how did that facilitate the processing of 183 people in a
7 14-day period?
8 A. I've already answered that question. I think I said that one to
9 two persons spoke or interviewed each of these people. I also left the
10 possibility of three persons actually doing the interview.
11 Q. And so those one to three people, who were they subordinated to?
12 In other words, which of these six named persons received assistance from
13 other crime police members? Or maybe I haven't understood you. Were you
14 saying that in each interview there were one to three people present? If
15 so, how many interviews were conducted at any one time and, therefore,
16 how many investigators in total were present on any one day?
17 A. One to two.
18 Q. So with those six people, were they working with other persons?
19 Did they have any crime police subordinated to them?
20 A. Well, there's obviously a misunderstanding here somewhere.
21 Adem Mehmedovic was the commander of the reception centre Mocire.
22 So he was the commander -- the overall commander in the reception centre.
23 Q. So let's focus on Adem Mehmedovic and his role as commander of
24 the centre. How many policemen were subordinated to him?
25 A. He was responsible for the overall situation in the reception
1 centre, the condition of the prisoners of war, their rights, ensuring
2 that they be examined by doctors, that they receive two to three warm
3 meals, that they have showering facilities.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... we've dealt with the
5 reception centre and the activities that the persons there were engaged
6 in. What I want to know is: As commander of that holding centre, how
7 many policemen were subordinated to him for the operation of the centre
8 in the period from the 5th to the 19th of August?
9 A. You mean the number of persons who actually participated in these
10 interviews? I couldn't tell you just off the top of my head now, but I
11 think that each shift had about 20 men who worked on these duties. 20
12 crime policemen.
13 The shifts were 12 hours long, so people would work for 12 hours
14 and then they would be off 12 hours and then they would work the next 12
15 hour, off again. So I was just giving you a ballpark figure. I think
16 there may even have been a schedule of their duties in writing and the
17 names of these men on those lists.
18 Q. So those 20 crime policemen, you've described how many would have
19 participated in each interview, between one to three. So would have
20 there been over ten interviews being conducted at any one time?
21 A. No, no, no. Some people had to make sure that these people who
22 were receiving were registered. Most often these were women policemen --
24 So the first segment, the administrative portion would be done by
25 them. Then somebody would have to inform Mrs. Anka Skrgetic who was not
1 on the premises. She was in the office of the chief of the police
2 administration, so she would have to be informed about who was brought in
3 when. Then would be a person who would be a crime technician to take the
4 fingerprints, to take photos of these individuals and so forth. And some
5 men were the ones who interviewed these men, these people, who were
6 brought in by filling out the forms, Z-1 and Z-2, that we mentioned
7 earlier, because I've already said that the primary interest was to find
8 out what the layout of the minefields was, of straggling groups of
9 rebels, armed groups, to find out about war crimes that had been
10 committed in the area, and the graves where the victims had been buried,
11 about the structure of the civilian and police authorities, the judicial
12 organs, and only then would we want to find out if they had participated
13 in the armed rebellion against the Republic of Croatia
14 Q. So, I mean I'm sorry for concentrating on this and I'm sorry for
15 misunderstanding. You said there would have been -- there were two
16 shifts, 12 hours long and that there were 20 men who worked on these
17 duties and that each shift had about 20 men.
18 So is that a total -- if there's two shifts, each shift had 20
19 men, is that a total of 40 men?
20 A. Yes, the total in a 24-hour period.
21 Q. And those 40 men, those 40 -- you referred to them as crime
22 policemen, they were subordinated to Mehmedovic?
23 A. No. They worked at the centre where Mehmedovic was commander.
24 But as for the criminal investigation itself, I was the person, pursuant
25 to a written order by Mr. Moric, or the minister, I'm not certain, well,
1 I was the person responsible for criminal investigations conducted in
2 that centre, although I was not there -- I was not seated there
4 So the chief of the crime police department was responsible for
5 the investigations but not the commander of the centre. The criminal
6 investigation was just one segment of the work of the centre itself.
7 There was a lot that needed to be done there. The building had to be
8 secured from outside, the food had to be provided, medical assistance and
9 so on and so forth.
10 I have to reiterate here, I don't know why you insist so much on
11 the reception centre but I would like to stress that no one was killed in
12 this centre, no one passed -- no one died, no one --
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
14 A. -- no one suffered any injuries.
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... there is no
16 insistence by Mr. Margetts on anything else at this moment as to how many
17 people who were employed there. That's what Mr. Margetts is asking you
18 about and you apparently are -- it looks even a bit as a kind of a
19 defence against allegations that were never made. So therefore there is
20 no need to do that.
21 Could I ask you one additional question. You said on the 24
22 hours it was 40 police officers involved in -- in two shifts of each 20
23 men. These 40 were among the 50 to 60 that were subordinated to you. Is
24 that how I have to understand your testimony?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Plus ten men who were added
1 from Rijeka
2 came from the Istria
3 knew the conditions prevailing there. And some ten were from my crime
4 police department. 30 --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, not ten. 30.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
7 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. So it's fair to say, and just following on from His Honour's
9 question, it's fair to say that a large proportion of your police were
10 engaged in the work of the prisoner of war centre?
11 A. That's right. During those 14 days, yes, almost half.
12 Q. Now, during those first 14 days, 183 men were processed. Can you
13 assist the Trial Chamber and inform them how many men were processed in
14 all in the collection centres until their closure, which I understand was
15 around November 1995?
16 A. Why November 1995? Why do you mention that date?
17 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... a reference to
18 the record of November 1995.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. The basis for the reference to November 1995
20 was a report that I have on the exhibit list.
21 Q. But I'm more than happy to withdraw that reference and ask the
22 witness himself what date would he say that the centre was closed and
23 also if he could then answer the second question as well, that is, how
24 many persons were processed up until that time.
25 A. I'm clear on what you're alluding to but let me put it this way.
1 The centre was closed at the time that you find in writing. That is to
2 say, what date did we say? The 20th of -- well, my special report to MUP
3 with the figure of 183 there mentions the date.
4 I think it was the 28th, in fact.
5 On the 16th -- or, rather, the 20th of August. 20th of August.
6 It's the report to the ministry about closing the collection centre.
7 Q. Well, just -- the first document that I -- one of the first
8 documents that I showed you today was this list of persons who were in
9 the prisoner of war camp and that list continued on until November 19 --
10 A. Just a moment. Your Honours, I don't allow for the word "camp"
11 to be used. Well, "logor" in the B/C/S, it was a collection centre for
12 prisoners of war, not a camp.
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... there is no
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With full facilities --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- what you call a camp, I call that and I think it
17 was a detention centre. It is, however, not up to you to tell what
18 language is allowed or not. But it is now clear on the record that you
19 fundamentally disagree with Mr. Margetts on the way in which he qualified
20 the facility he is putting questions about.
21 Mr. Margetts, I do not know whether -- I have not looked in the
22 English, as a matter of fact, what word you used. We all know what we're
23 talking about and what the witness called a reception centre.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't a "logor," camp.
1 MR. MARGETTS:
2 Q. Yes. In the reception centre, Mr. Kardum, there were a number of
3 persons and we saw a list.
4 MR. MARGETTS: And if Mr. Registrar could please bring up 65 ter
5 5278 again.
6 And, Mr. Registrar, if you could please go to 06104954 which
7 should be page 11.
8 Q. Mr. Kardum, if you look down to the last entry you will see that
9 there is an entry that has the date of the person being released, which
10 is the 23rd of November, 1995. And so would you agree that there were
11 prisoners of war being processed up until the 23 -- 23rd of November,
13 A. Your Honours, I have to explain this. The centre for prisoners
14 of war was closed on the date it says so. That is to say, the 20th of
15 August, 1995. Because during those days very few POWs arrived, one a day
16 or not at all, and so we had to let the Jazine sports hall go and return
17 it to the owner.
18 Now, all the individuals who were brought in later on were people
19 who were brought in from the forests and woods, caught bearing arms and
20 they surrendered themselves to the Croatia
21 period. And then they weren't taken to that collection centre at all but
22 they were taken to the police administration building where -- well, have
23 you the dates when they were released too. Either on the same day, after
24 they had been processed or the very next day.
25 So they were either set free straight away or sent on for further
1 processing to the respective courts, so the centre really wasn't
2 functioning on the date when the special report was sent out because it
3 was closed. The last person that handed themselves over is not on the
4 list. In 1997, for example, I think it was 1997, that was the last time
5 a person surrendered to the Croatian police and that surrender went
6 through me in actual fact. His name was Sovijetko Popovic, that's his
7 name and surname, and he was from a place called Mokro Polje. We knew
8 that he was in hiding somewhere in the area but --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you explained
10 that the reception centre was closed at the date you mentioned but that
11 some other people who turned themselves in were processed at a later
12 stage. We do not have, at this moment at least -- unless Mr. Margetts
13 would like to know further details about who and at what day and for what
14 purpose arrived.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
16 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Mr. Registrar, if you could please display 65 ter 5030. And this
18 is a report from Ivica Cetina.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Kardum, this is the reference and you'll see it under
20 the name Mirko Kljajic in the second section. And Ivica Cetina says that
21 by 27 November 1995
22 holding centre for prisoners of war and 277 were released and he gives
23 the details of that.
24 So after the 19th of August and prior to the 27th of November,
25 would you agree with me that 94 people were processed by the Ministry of
1 the Interior as prisoners of war?
2 A. Yes, I agree. But not in that particular reception centre. They
3 were processed within the police administration, not as POWs but as the
4 perpetrators of certain crimes against the Republic of Croatia
5 areas where international rights and rules applied --
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. -- because the centre wasn't operational at that time. It had
8 already been closed.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum, for that clarification. And in respect of
10 those 94 persons, can you indicate how many of your crime police were
11 involved in the processing of those persons?
12 A. No, fewer. Just four or five were working at that time.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if we could now move on to 65 ter
16 Q. Mr. Kardum, you will see on the first page there, this is a
17 report to the Ministry of the Interior. It's dated the 6th of August.
18 And there's a list of persons.
19 MR. MARGETTS: And if we move to the second page.
20 Q. You will see that this is from Ivica Cetina and in the final
21 paragraph he says that as at the 6th of August there are 135 elderly
22 people and children in the holding centre. And then he says that
23 Ivka Babic, at the request of her son, was housed at his home, and
24 Ruzica Zarkovic, at the request of her son, was housed at his home. Can
25 you confirm that this is a reference to the civilians held in the
1 civilian reception centre?
2 A. You mean the centre for prisoners of war, that reception centre?
3 Q. No. I mean the -- the location where the civilians were -- were
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
6 MR. MISETIC: If I could be of assistance, I think the problem
7 may be the use of the word "held" in the first question. "Held" connotes
8 some form of detention. That might where the confusion is coming from.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
10 Q. Yes. If there's any confusion there, this is -- I'm just asking
11 you: We've seen the distinction between the prisoner of war centre and
12 the civilian centre and I just want to know whether this is a reference
13 to the persons that were held at the civilian centre -- sorry, this is a
14 reference to the persons present at the civilian centre on the 6th of
15 August, 1995?
16 A. I assume that that is so. I haven't got the list now. But I
17 assume they were civilians who were in the reception centre for civilians
18 on the 6th of August, 1995. If we want further information I can see
19 that Babic here, Sime Babic, and so on, a Croat --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
21 A. Well, I don't know why you want me to comment when the signature
22 is Ivica Cetina. If I can be of assistance, I will be glad to assist
23 but --
24 Q. You can be and you are being, and I thank you for that.
25 Now was there an order from the Ministry of the Interior in
1 relation to the conditions or the circumstances in which persons could be
2 released from the civilian centre?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. And what was that order and what were the conditions for the
5 release of persons from the civilian centre?
6 A. There were no conditions. The only condition was that the
7 person -- well, usually they were ill persons or infirm persons or
8 elderly persons. And already on the 5th - that is the 5th of August, I
9 mean - the deputy minister [indiscernible] sent to all the police
10 department -- to the police administrations -- well, he said that any
11 relatives capable of looking after these people could take them over
12 without any conditions. All they needed was to leave their address and
13 telephone number if they had them.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
15 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I apologise for the interruption. I'm
16 looking at the transcript at page 81, line 21. The witness made a
17 reference -- I believe the name is not properly recorded, and importantly
18 for us, the witness made a reference to that person's ethnicity which was
19 not picked up on the transcript.
20 MR. MARGETTS: I obviously thank my learned friend for picking up
21 these matters, but I would prefer if the witness would be allowed to
22 finish their answer and the corrections could be made at that point.
23 MR. MISETIC: I thought he was finished.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You, at that very moment, interrupted the witness
25 when he was answering a question. I do not blame you for that, because
1 it may well have been beyond what you asked him. But let's -- let's try
2 to see.
3 When you made a reference to -- apparently on the basis of this
4 document of a person by the name Babic, did you refer to the ethnicity of
5 that person?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Croatian. And the other person was
9 of Serb ethnicity.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And the other person was who? Because you referred
11 to Sime Babic, isn't it?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Ivka Babic --
13 JUDGE ORIE: So you refer to --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and the other one was --
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... whose name you
16 saw in the document and by mistake it appears on the transcript as
17 Sime Babic but you referred to Ivka Babic, and you said that that was a
18 person of Croatian nationality.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
20 Ruzica Zarkovic, she was a Serb from a place called Jagodnja, as you can
21 see from this document. If that is at all important.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... just try to
23 have on the record what you apparently have said before.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if we could please have D462
2 Q. Mr. Kardum, in the course of your previous answer, you referred
3 to an order from Zdravko Zidovec, and if we could scan down,
4 Mr. Registrar, on the B/C/S version. Is this the order you referred to?
5 A. I think it is.
6 Q. And you can see in this order there is no reference to the state
7 of health of the individual as being a determinant as to whether they
8 were to be picked up by their family is there?
9 A. No, no. I know -- I personally know that many of those people
10 ended up in hospital. Some of them even died in hospital, in Zadar.
11 Usually elderly and infirm people, people suffering from mental illness.
12 So people who didn't have anybody to look after them and couldn't look
13 after themselves. That was the case for the most part.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kardum. If we could --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, apparently you want to draw attention
16 to the first page in English instead of the second page.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Mr. President. If we could go back to the
18 first page and if we go down it's the first paragraph --
19 JUDGE ORIE: That is clear to me and the witness, of course, has
20 seen the whole of the document since it is a one-page document for him.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. Registrar, if we could please have 65 ter 5028
25 Q. Now, if you can see this, this is a document from the Office for
1 Refugees and Displaced Persons. And you'll the reference at the bottom,
2 the note, it says: "Between 5 August and today," and the date's the 7th
3 of September, 1995, "there have been 596 civilians that passed through
4 the centre for providing care," and you will read on another part went
5 back to their homes or to relatives and consistent with what you -- what
6 your recent answer and part were hospitalised.
7 Is that consistent with your understanding of how many civilians
8 had passed through the centre in Knin between the 5th of August and the
9 7th of September?
10 A. This is a very bad copy of this document and I think it's a
11 document from the government of Croatia
12 looking at it for the first time. I have never seen it before.
13 I can't even read what it actually says because the copy is such
14 a poor one.
15 Q. Well -- the bottom there, there's a reference to the number,
16 there's the note at the bottom, you can see the dark letters below the
17 table which say "note." At the end of that line there is a reference to
19 And so my question is, regardless of whether all words are clear,
20 is it the case, is it consistent with your knowledge that 596 civilians
21 passed through the Knin centre between 5th of August, 1995, and 7th of
22 September, 1995?
23 A. I really can't comment. Quite a number did go through the centre
24 in Knin. Now, where does this date, the 7th of September come from? I
25 don't think it was operational at that time.
1 Q. I'm just looking at the top of the document above the heading,
2 below the title. You will see Zagreb
3 A. Yes, the 7th of September, that's the 7th of the 9th month. So
4 this report was written in Zagreb
5 Gospic, et cetera, mentioned. And then a note at the bottom and I see a
6 figure there, 595 or 596. It is not very clear, rather illegible. But
7 that is not our information. It is information from the civilian
8 services, not data worked out on the basis of the information provided by
9 MUP or whoever.
10 Q. Now, if you look at the table, you will see on the left-hand
11 column there are specifications as to where the civilians left to. It
12 states on the top row how many people were in the centres and then it
13 refers to how many of them left and where they left to.
14 In regard to Zadar, you see that the total number is the number
15 at the bottom, which is four columns on, on the bottom row, 926 persons.
16 And you see that 543 of them left to relatives or friends.
17 A. This copy is really illegible. Do you have another copy?
18 Because I just can't see that here. Now it's been enlarged, but I can't
19 see what it actually says.
20 Q. It may assist if I hand to you a -- a hard copy.
21 A. This is a rather a poor copy but better than the last one so I
22 can make something out. But go ahead, I'm listening.
23 Q. So my question is: Is that right that nearly all of the people
24 who, up until the 7th of September, had left the facility had left -- had
25 left and gone with relatives or friends, apart, of course, from those who
1 had died.
2 A. I don't know. I wouldn't put it that way. As far as I know,
3 many people returned to their homes. As far as Zadar is concerned, many
4 people returned to their homes.
5 For instance, I know full well that from my particular place,
6 well, the place where I was born, that is, people were taken to the
7 reception centre in Zadar and my late father, among others, took in 12 of
8 those people on the 12th of August, 1995. He took them to his own house
9 in Zadar first and then afterwards he took them to their own homes in
10 Nunic, where they were actually from. And all of them remained in Nunic,
11 went on living in Nunic. Some of them died later. Of course they died a
12 natural death. Others are still alive and live in their own homes up
13 there. I even have a list of those people here. It's on me and if you
14 wish me to provide it to the Court, I will be happy to do so.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I'm wondering either there was
16 something -- you asked the witness whether it's true that from Zadar that
17 a large number left to relatives and friends. Now the witness explains
18 that, he said, well, most of them went home. Now the one doesn't
19 contradict the other. It is totally unclear to me whether there is any
20 suggestion in your question that leaving or left to relatives or friends
21 would mean that you would not go home, or, on the contrary, that would
22 you go home. That is unclear.
23 Now, you let the witness explain in quite some detail, but it is
24 not clear to me what you're seeking to establish.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I allowed him to explain in
1 some detail. His explanation, I thought, was not entirely relevant to
2 the question. And in fact, there is the issue of the extent of the
3 orders that we've seen and the manner in which these people were dealt
4 with. And without elaborating any further, there is some consistency
5 between those two, the order and the actuality on the territory. So
6 that's effectively the extent to --
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's what you are seeking to establish.
8 MR. MARGETTS: -- what we sought to establish, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock and I establish that it's
10 7.00. That's --
11 Then, Mr. Kardum, we'll have to finish for the day, and we'd like
12 to see you back tomorrow because we will continue tomorrow morning at
14 We adjourn, and we resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the 23rd of
15 September, 9.00, in Courtroom II.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day of
18 September, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.