Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9228

 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]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9229











11  Page 9229 redacted. Closed session.















Page 9230

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

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16     for protective measures have been withdrawn, Mr.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.

Page 9231

 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

 5     you.

 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

22     document.

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

Page 9232

 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.  I

 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

14     statement.

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,

Page 9233

 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

 8     said?

 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

17     interpreted.

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.

Page 9234

 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

Page 9235

 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

Page 9236

 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.

Page 9237

 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

25     matter.

Page 9238

 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

 5     suggestion.

 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

Page 9239

 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

22     admission.

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

Page 9240

 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

18     disclosure.

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

Page 9241

 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

11     B/C/S.

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

Page 9242

 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

11     administration.

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

Page 9243

 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?

Page 9244

 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 my direct superior was the chief of the crime police

 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, they were assistants to Mr. Nadj and

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

Page 9245

 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

16     Knin-Kotar.

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

19     portion.

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

Page 9246

 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

Page 9247

 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

Page 9248

 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

10     there?"

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.

Page 9249

 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,

Page 9250

 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

Page 9251

 1     would be then forwarded to the appropriate prosecutor, the district

 2     attorney.  We used to call it prosecutor; now we call it district

 3     attorney.

 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

16     registers.

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

Page 9252

 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

14     forth.

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.

Page 9253

 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.

Page 9254

 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

10     60.

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

25     seeks.

Page 9255

 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

Page 9256

 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, because we're dealing with an

 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

10     civilians.

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 and is from Ivan Nadj.

24             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if we could please just turn over

25     the pages of this particular instruction.

Page 9257

 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

11     document.

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.

Page 9258

 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

Page 9259

 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.

Page 9260

 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

 8     question.

 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

13     others.

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.

Page 9261

 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

15     minutes.

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 --

Page 9262

 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

Page 9263

 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

24     channel].

25             Same problem as a minute ago.

Page 9264

 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 ...

Page 9265

 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,

Page 9266

 1     please.

 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

19     conflict.

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.

Page 9267

 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

Page 9268

 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

Page 9269

 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.

Page 9270

 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

 9     said.

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

15     from.

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

18     increased."

19             Yes?

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

Page 9271

 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

 4     ministry"?

 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

15     workload.

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.

Page 9272

 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

15     organisations.

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.

Page 9273

 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

19     anything.

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.

Page 9274

 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

22     with."

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,

Page 9275

 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

12     Herzegovina.  The people from the civilian protection were not certain

13     whether a village belonged to Croatia or to Bosnia, so they collected

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

Page 9276

 1     could see destroyed houses, although I could not say when they were

 2     destroyed."

 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."

Page 9277

 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

11     necessary.

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

Page 9278

 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

23     there.

24             Were there prescribed forms that your investigators were to fill

25     out upon the admission of detainees in the collection centres?

Page 9279

 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

18     so.

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

Page 9280

 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

12     on.

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

Page 9281

 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

Page 9282

 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 --

Page 9283

 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

Page 9284

 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

25     that.

Page 9285

 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.

Page 9286

 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

16     document?

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,

Page 9287

 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

Page 9288

 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

10     English.

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

Page 9289

 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

15     Croatia, that is to say, Zadar and we had to cover it, to deal with our

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

Page 9290

 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

 3     affairs.

 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,

24     whichever.

25        Q.   And just for clarification, were any Croatian soldiers held in

Page 9291

 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 and amongst them there were 13 Croats as

 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

 9     mobilisation.

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

Page 9292

 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

11     police?

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 or had committed some

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

Page 9293

 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

Page 9294

 1     through 26 are all similar to map 21 in their interpretation of the term

 2     "municipality."

 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

Page 9295

 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

Page 9296

 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

 6     Croatia in 1991, 1992 and 1993, but not only then, and also in 1995.

 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.  Of course, they were misinformed.  They were

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

Page 9297

 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.

Page 9298

 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

 4     on.

 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

12     "operational."

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 and were not distributed to the police -- the police

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

21     documents.

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

Page 9299

 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.

Page 9300

 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

Page 9301

 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.

Page 9302

 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

Page 9303

 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 --

23     policewomen.

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

Page 9304

 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,

Page 9305

 1     I was the person responsible for criminal investigations conducted in

 2     that centre, although I was not there -- I was not seated there

 3     permanently.

 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

Page 9306

 1     from Rijeka.  They came from the coastal district and another man that

 2     came from the Istria district.  He had previously lived in Zadar so he

 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.

Page 9307

 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

14     problem.

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.

Page 9308

 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,

12     1995?

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 police in the subsequent

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

Page 9309

 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, a total of 277 individuals were admitted to the

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

Page 9310

 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 or in

 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

15     5020.

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

Page 9311

 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

 4     present.

 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

Page 9312

 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

Page 9313

 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

Page 9314

 1     presented.

 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

24     presented.

25        Q.   Now, if you can see this, this is a document from the Office for

Page 9315

 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, as far as I can see.  I'm

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

18     596.

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.

Page 9316

 1        Q.   I'm just looking at the top of the document above the heading,

 2     below the title.  You will see Zagreb, 7 September 1995.

 3        A.   Yes, the 7th of September, that's the 7th of the 9th month.  So

 4     this report was written in Zagreb, Sisak, Knin, Zadar, Sibenik, Split,

 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

Page 9317

 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

Page 9318

 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

13     9.00.

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.