Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9420

 1                           Wednesday, 24 September 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon to

 9     everyone in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-06-90-T, The

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Mr. Kardum, before we continue, may I remind you that you are

13     still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your

14     testimony.

15             Then Mr. Mikulicic.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you give us any indication as far as time is

17     concerned.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  I could complete my cross-examination within an

19     hour, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the other parties, could they give an

21     estimate?

22             MR. MISETIC:  Approximately an hour and a half, Your Honour.

23             MR. KAY:  I have no questions, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that means that there's a fair chance that

25     somewhere in the middle of the second session, certainly not later than

Page 9421

 1     the end of the second session that we could conclude the testimony of the

 2     witness.

 3             Mr. Margetts, unless you would have hours an hours for

 4     re-examination...

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  No, not at all, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.  Then I ask this, also, for the other

 7     witness waiting so that we do not keep him unnecessarily.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  I thank you, Your Honour.

10                           WITNESS:  IVE KARDUM [Resumed]

11                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic: [Continued]

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Kardum.  Today we shall

14     latch onto where we ended yesterday, and we shall go back to the question

15     of sanitization and civilian protection.

16             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] D348.  Can I ask the registry for

17     D348, please.

18        Q.   So, Mr. Kardum, we said that civil protection was the

19     organisation that was in charge of sanitising the terrain upon the end of

20     combat activities.  You will now see a document compiled by the chief of

21     the police administration in which you work, Mr. Ivan Cetina, the date

22     being the 8th of August in which the Ministry of the Interior sent to the

23     operational headquarters of the action Return numerical data on mobilised

24     forces of civilian protection.

25             So if we look at page 2, we shall see that there were a total, on

Page 9422

 1     the 8th of August, 1995, that is, a total of 157 members of civilian

 2     protection mobilised to sanitize the terrain, clear up human corpses; 27

 3     of them to clear up animal carcasses; 24 persons for pyrotechnical -- for

 4     clearing mines and explosives, that is.

 5             What was the use of the crew for the clearing up of mines and

 6     explosives in the sanitization of the terrain?

 7        A.   Your Honours, as far as I remember the mines and explosives

 8     clearance crew had written order and obligation to check for mines and

 9     explosives, every corpse and the surroundings of every body or animal

10     carcass and to see whether the area around any such found bodies was

11     mined.

12        Q.   We see that of de-mining of -- of the CSEs, there was 16.  You

13     said yesterday that these teams, sanitation teams had to have one

14     forensic technician because there might be the suspicion of a crime

15     having been committed, right?

16        A.   Right.

17        Q.   And then we have general-purpose civilian protection units who

18     were engaged in rounding up livestock.  Do you remember, Mr. Kardum, what

19     kind of a uniform members of the civilian protection wore, if any?

20        A.   As far as I can remember, members of the civilian protection had

21     some sort of a blue uniform, something similar to the reserve police

22     force uniforms, if they wore any, that is.  If they didn't, they had

23     civilian clothes with some patches on the left sleeve where was some sort

24     of an orange-coloured mark, I think.

25        Q.   Thank you for your answer.  If we were to look at the following

Page 9423

 1     page in this document, we would see a list of persons found during the

 2     sanitization of the terrain.  You can see that, of course, this was a

 3     routine procedure in sanitizing the terrain, was it not?  Have you

 4     encountered documents of this kind?

 5        A.   Yes, I have, except I saw them in a different form, a tabular

 6     form, but they reflected more or less this.  They contained these

 7     columns, serial number, identification number, status, the place of

 8     burial, et cetera.

 9        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Just for your reference, Your

11     Honours, similar documents have been also tendered under Exhibits D351

12     and 352.  They are only -- they only concern different periods but are on

13     the same subject.

14        Q.   I'd like that ask you, Mr. Kardum, something that we already

15     broached yesterday; namely, if when examining the terrain you found a

16     body with obvious signs of violence which would indicate that a crime had

17     been committed, then you would inform the competent police station about

18     it, would you not?

19        A.   Yes, exactly.

20        Q.   The police station would then, through its operative duty

21     service, inform the operative duty -- operations duty service in the

22     Zadar police administration, which was competent over Knin in terms of

23     crime, and then a team would be set up to conduct the onsite

24     investigation.  Is that right?

25        A.   Yes.  The central police station would, as a rule, inform the

Page 9424

 1     operations duty service of the police administration but certainly during

 2     the period when the operations headquarters at the level of that police

 3     administration was functioning.  They would also in parallel inform the

 4     criminal police and the investigating magistrate in order to conduct an

 5     on-site investigation.

 6        Q.   So the on-site investigation team would comprise the

 7     investigating judge, who would be - so to speak - the leader of the

 8     on-site investigation to be conducted.  The competent prosecutor and the

 9     forensic technicians or the crime scene examiners and, as you said, the

10     forensic medicine exert expert or the court pathologist as you said

11     yesterday.  Is that right?

12        A.   Yes, that is exactly so.

13        Q.   Would you agree with me as a connoisseur of crime forensics that

14     it is only the court expert who was the competent person to competently

15     conclude what kind of injury had been sustained by the body that was the

16     subject of the on-site investigation, and of what nature such wound or

17     injury was or what it listen inflicted by, and that was his basic role,

18     was it not?

19        A.   Yes, absolutely.  But I do have to say, also, this, Your Honours,

20     that the police, the regularly uniformed police was under the obligation

21     to provide combat security in these instances because there was always a

22     danger of some remnants of enemy troops in the area being active.  And in

23     fact, I saw once a document in which a Chief Cetina instructed the police

24     stations in the area of the PU Knin that they must provide combat

25     security to on-site inspection teams when they attended the scene as well

Page 9425

 1     as to civilian protection teams.

 2        Q.   Thank you for this explanation.  Let us go back to the on-site

 3     investigation.

 4             So after the on-site investigation has been conducted, minutes or

 5     a record is drawn up there on; and if any doubt is established -

 6     suspicion, that is - as to the commission of a criminal offence, then the

 7     police conducts what is referred to as the preliminary processing.  Is

 8     that right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In this preliminary processing, certain measures, i.e.,

11     informative interviews are conducted; material evidence is possibly

12     collected; and once the processing is finished, the compiled file is

13     submitted to the district attorney to the competent prosecutor for his

14     decision, right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   After that, the district attorney, i.e. the prosecutor's office

17     decides whether to institute criminal proceedings, namely conduct an

18     investigation or indict the -- the suspects or not.  Namely, this is

19     exclusively within the competence of the prosecutor's office, right?

20        A.   Yes, that is correct.

21        Q.   In so doing, the police, which conducted the preliminary

22     processing of this file, is -- has no further influence on the further

23     procedure, right?

24        A.   Yes.  It is the investigating judge who is completely in charge

25     of all further procedures.  He can possibly instruct the police to take

Page 9426

 1     some further investigating measures.

 2        Q.   Can you remember, Mr. Kardum, how many court experts,

 3     pathologists, and district attorneys and investigating judges were

 4     available to cover the territory of the Zadar-Knin police administration?

 5        A.   As far as I can recall, there were just two pathologists;

 6     Dr. Josip Duela [phoen] was one, and Dr. Kevarica [phoen] was the other

 7     one.  I'm not sure whether there was a third one.  I don't think so.  Of

 8     investigating judge - this the county court in Zadar - 's competence

 9     because municipal courts are not in charge of such cases but only county

10     courts [as interpreted].  I believe that there were five or six

11     investigating judges who were also to cover all subject matters and as

12     many, I believe, district attorneys or prosecutors.

13        Q.   Thank you.  To the best of your recollection, what was the

14     average duration of such a procedure from the moment there was a report

15     about the -- being a suspicion about a crime having been committed up to

16     the moment when this entire process conducted by the police and

17     investigating judge reached a court?

18        A.   I don't understand your question.  The on-site investigation's

19     duration or what?

20        Q.   No, no.  What was the total duration of the entire procedure if

21     we add up the on-site investigation, the police processing of the case,

22     the investigation undertaken by the investigating judge up to the moment

23     when perhaps an indictment would be filed before the competent Court.

24     How much time would relapse between the beginning of this process until

25     the file appeared before the Court?

Page 9427

 1        A.   It depends on the particular case.  Some of the cases are still

 2     going on, and work is still in progress in respect of them.  Where we

 3     file the complaints, criminal complaints against unknown perpetrators, we

 4     still have some of those cases before courts still unfinished.  But

 5     normally, the normal standard duration would be a couple of months.

 6        Q.   Thank you for this answer.  In this connection, I should like you

 7     to see a document, Mr. Kardum.  That is D179.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] If I can ask the Registry for

 9     that document.

10        Q.   You will see a document which was issued by the civilian police

11     of the United Nations on the 19th of September, 1995, which was sent to

12     the chief, Ivan Cetina, in which document, or rather, which document says

13     that they are submitting a list, a detailed list of all murders that were

14     reported by UNCIVPOL from the 4th of August.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  I think this document should be under seal.  I'm

16     just reminded by my case manager.  Is it the case?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then it should not be shown to the public.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay.  I'm sorry.  I didn't realise it the first

19     time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And if need be, Mr. Registrar, a redaction should be

21     made, and we should -- I don't know what your questions will be, Mr. --

22     whether we have to turn in private session.

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  I don't think it's necessary.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 9428

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] So a gentleman from UNCIVPOL, Jan Elleby, in

 2     fact, is attaching a list in his opinion of all murders and, at the same

 3     time, requesting what the results of the investigations were, the names

 4     of suspects, any arrests made and so on and so forth.

 5             Tell me, Witness, do you know whether such requests by the

 6     civilian police of the UN were heeded by the police administration,

 7     whether they reacted to them by some communication, or did they have any

 8     contact with the police of the UN?

 9        A.   As far as I know, we did not reply to these letters, but we did

10     take action pursuant to them.  Now, of course, whether the chief of

11     sector did that, whether he replied or not, I really wouldn't know,

12     whether the Chief Cetina did that.

13        Q.   Well, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

14             Now, if we take a look at the next page --

15             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the next page

16     of this document.

17        Q.    -- and I would like to remind again that the title of this

18     document was "Murders Reported To CIVPOL."  Now, if we take a look at

19     Item 4, it says there that on the 14th of August, a decomposed corpse was

20     found and that the cause of death was impossible to ascertain.

21             According to you, is this type of report or complaint sufficient

22     to indicate that murder is in question?

23        A.   Absolutely not.  As it says there, it's impossible to ascertain.

24        Q.   In cases as mentioned here, also in items 5, 7, 9, and so on -

25     let's not go through all of them - but mention is made that bodies were

Page 9429

 1     found badly or not badly decomposed.  In your experience, what is the

 2     likelihood to determine the cause of death in this state when the body is

 3     in this state, and I mean prima vista; in other words, your forensic

 4     technician, can he determine it on the site if the body involved is

 5     decomposed?

 6        A.   Our forensic technicians did not mention the cause of death in

 7     most cases.  They would usually determine that the body was decomposed,

 8     and that's what they would note.  And these bodies, that is a -- most

 9     frequently, this was the case that the civilian protection actually

10     removed such bodies.

11        Q.   So in such instances as mentioned here, there would be no police

12     investigation and no processing of a case.

13        A.   No, unless we received some subsequent information that a body

14     found in this condition had actually been killed violently.

15        Q.   I understand.  Now, I would like to refer you -- or let's now

16     touch upon another matter, the matter of the killings or the murders in

17     Varivode as you mentioned in your statement.

18             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could the registrar please show

19     us Document 65 ter 2638.

20        Q.   Mr. Kardum, the document that will come up on the screen in a

21     minute was produced on the 3rd of October, 1995, at the 72nd battalion of

22     the military police, and it was forwarded to the police administration of

23     the military police, and it mentions murders in the village of Gosici.

24     And if you take a look at this, you will see that in Gosici on the 27th

25     of August, a multiple murder was committed and that measures were taken

Page 9430

 1     to investigate and to research this, and it was concluded that

 2     unidentified perpetrators who used a motor vehicle, most probably of TAM,

 3     a TAM, 2001 brand, vehicle.

 4             Now, you told us that on occasion of this murder, a police

 5     investigation was conducted as well.  Is that true?

 6        A.   Yes, that's right.

 7        Q.   Can you recall whether you had in the course of this

 8     investigation any contacts with the military police?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I move for this document to be

11     admitted into evidence and be assigned a number.

12             MR. MARGETTS:  No objections.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D800.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D800 is admitted into evidence.

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17             [Interpretation] Could I now please have 65 ter 3158 on the

18     screens?

19        Q.   The document we're going to see now, Mr. Kardum, deals with the

20     issue of -- of a murder in Varivode, which occurred on the 29th of

21     September, 1995.  This document also is from the military police, and the

22     chief of this administration, Mr. Lausic, informs in it the minister of

23     Defence of the steps taken in order to solve this crime, to solve this

24     murder.

25             I would now like you to look at the third paragraph, where it

Page 9431

 1     states that an assistant of the Ministry of the Interior informed the

 2     military structures that nine bodies of civilians were found, civilians

 3     that had been shot on the 29th of September in Varivode.  And further on,

 4     it is stated that the motor vehicle that was mentioned also in the crime

 5     in the village of Gosici, the vehicle TAM 2001, camouflage -- of

 6     camouflage colour.

 7             Further on, it is noted that operational and tactical measures

 8     have been agreed as part of the criminal processing and that they will be

 9     conducted jointly by the police and the military police.

10             Can you recall that such measures were taken and conducted

11     together with members of the military police?

12        A.   Yes.  I even remember that the military police service was headed

13     by Mr. Ante Glavan [phoen].  I think he was a highly placed individual in

14     the crime service of the military police in Zadar at the Ministry of

15     Defence.

16        Q.   I would just like you to note that this document was produced on

17     the 4th of October and that measures were taken as of the 2nd of October,

18     once the report that a murder had been committed arrived.

19             If we look at the second page of this document --

20        A.   I apologise.  I would just like to say that measures were taken

21     -- in this particular case, measures were taken on the same day, the 27th

22     of September, so it is not true that the investigation began on the 2nd

23     of October.  Rather, it started on the 27th of September.  It is possible

24     that the crime police -- the crime military police, actually, joined in

25     the investigation on the 2nd of October.

Page 9432

 1        Q.   That's exactly what I would like to discuss here.  This matter

 2     here is discussed from the aspect of the military police and not the

 3     civilian police.

 4             Now, if we take a look at the fourth paragraph on the second

 5     page, it is stated there that in order to solve this multiple murder in

 6     Varivode, an operational plan of implementation was put together and that

 7     intensive searches were under way.

 8             Now, according to your rules of service, the creation of an

 9     operational and implementation plan is not done for every crime but only

10     for crimes that are of greater significance or multiple crimes?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I move that this document be

13     enter into evidence.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  No objections.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D801.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  D801 is admitted into evidence.

18             I have one additional question.  You said that already on the

19     27th of September the investigations started.  At the same time, I found

20     in the document somewhere that the persons were killed on the 29th, which

21     seems inconsistent with your testimony.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  As far as I

23     remember -- I apologise.  Maybe my memory is faulty, but if I recall

24     this, this incident was on the 27th of September.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  If I may be of any assistance in that matter,

Page 9433

 1     Your Honour, 27th of September --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  -- is the date of the incident in village Gosici,

 4     and --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, perhaps I have then --

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's one of the problems if you have to look

 8     at these documents so quickly that...

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yeah, of course.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

11             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12             [Interpretation] Could the registrar please show us Document 65

13     ter 3287?

14        Q.   Mr. Kardum, we are still examining the multiple murders in

15     Varivode.  We can see in front of us a document also produced by the

16     military police.  This document is actually a report to Major-General

17     Mate Lausic, who is the chief of the administration, a report on what

18     measures had been taken that far.  In view of the fact that this

19     operation of investigating the murder of -- committed in Varivode was a

20     joint operation between the civilian and military police, I would like to

21     ask a few questions about this.

22             Now, first of all, we can see here the individuals who took part

23     in this operative action, and so we can see that Mr. Franjo Djurica from

24     the Ministry of Interior, or rather, the police was there.  He was a

25     member of the team, and he was the sector chief in the police.  And then

Page 9434

 1     we have the crime investigation department chief, Mr. Turkalj, and Mr.

 2     Ivica Cetina, the chief of the police administration, Zadar-Knin.

 3             Have you ever participated in this operation and implementation

 4     plan in the Varivode crime?

 5        A.   I apologise.  There's an error here.  It's not Ivan Turkalj.  It

 6     should be Milan Turkalj.  And to answer your question, yes, with the

 7     then-assistant minister of the interior, Mr. Marijan Benko and Ivan Nadj

 8     and Milan Turkalj.  I also had -- we also had the participation of two

 9     men from Zagreb, two men from Split, and we -- I also took part in the

10     processing of this crime and also some other crimes.

11             As far as I can recall, this team that is mentioned here was

12     really a team that was supposed to draw up a plan of measures that should

13     assist us in further investigations of similar crimes.

14             So this was in support of the work of the basic -- or rather, the

15     regular police.

16        Q.   But in any case, this murder, this crime received a lot of

17     attention, and serious steps were taken to solve it.  Isn't that right?

18        A.   Yes, absolutely.  And I have to repeat that the investigation was

19     conducted by the assistant minister of the interior who was in Zadar.  He

20     was conducting it from Zadar directly where he stayed for some 25 days,

21     up until the day when a terrorist group, Gama al Islamia, conducted an

22     attack, a terrorist attack on the Rijeka police administration by

23     planting a bomb, a truck -- a bomb truck there.

24        Q.   All right.  Let's not discuss that now.

25             Now, if we look at page 3 of this document, we can see the

Page 9435

 1     measures that were taken as of 6.00 on the 7th of October up until the

 2     10th of October.  You can see that under Item 3.  Identification papers

 3     of 1282 HV members were checked, and 1050 HV vehicles were searched; 17

 4     men were searched, also HV members; and also, because of looting of

 5     property, the following HV members were brought in, and then a list of a

 6     total of 36 individuals who were brought in under suspicion of theft of

 7     property.

 8             Now, on the next page, page 4, it is also stated that the

 9     identity of 69 civilians was established; that 28 persons were removed

10     while attempting to steal property; 11 were warned; while 9 were turned

11     over to the Ministry of the Interior as persons caught perpetrating

12     criminal offences of -- the criminal offence of stealing property.

13             In Item 4, it says that in the course of this operative action,

14     92 staff were engaged on various tasks every day, or daily, and that the

15     number was strengthened by 20 additional members of the anti-terrorist

16     military police platoon.

17             So this indicates that this was a significant operation that, of

18     course, produced results in terms of the number of perpetrators that were

19     discovered?

20        A.   As can you see from the text itself, yes.

21        Q.   Page 5 of this document, please, Item 1, in which the murder in

22     the village - it says here "Gorsic," but obviously this is the village of

23     Gosici - so a murder that was committed on the 27th of August and where

24     the description of this motor vehicle is given.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9436

 1        Q.   Further on, some other cases are mentioned or incidents which

 2     were investigated.  This is an overall report.

 3             And in closing, in Item 6, I would like to draw your attention to

 4     the conclusion where it says that it was noted that there are facts

 5     indicating that uniforms of Croatian soldiers are abused by civilians who

 6     were actually civilians but wearing military uniforms; and also, mention

 7     is made that there have been some crimes that haven't been solved and

 8     that they were committed by members of the Croatian army.

 9             My final question regarding this document, Mr. Kardum, is the

10     following:  Is your recollection of these events consistent with what

11     we've seen in this document here, in brief?

12        A.   This document was produced by the military, but it is very

13     consistent with what I remember, and I just have to say there was a

14     similar document produced by the civilian police; in other words, in the

15     course of our daily activities and precisely during this period of time.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Now, the reason I wanted to show you this document

17     was precisely because this was a joint operation conducted by both the

18     civilian and criminal police.

19             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Now could I move for this

20     document to be admitted into evidence, please.

21             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D802.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D802 is admitted into evidence.

25             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

Page 9437

 1        Q.   In view of the cooperation between the -- of the civilian police

 2     with members of the military police, do you remember that this

 3     cooperation was also manifested at joint control and check-points that

 4     were organised and set up in the territory of the Zadar-Knin police

 5     administration?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   You have already told us in your testimony so far something about

 8     the fact that the civilian police, in fact, did not have the authority,

 9     did not have too extensive powers vis-a-vis members of the Croatian army

10     but in that respect required the assistance of the military police, and

11     that was one of the reasons why the check-points that had been set up

12     were, in fact, mixed.

13        A.   Yes, exactly so.

14        Q.   If at a check-point by searching persons or some stopped vehicles

15     it was discovered that a certain substances or things, rather, were being

16     transported that were probably deprived from the commission of a crime,

17     such effects would be seized, would they not?

18        A.   Yes.  Against receipt, which was issued by the police on seized

19     objects.

20        Q.   Please look at Document 3D01-0143.

21             You said a receipt.  Now, you will see, Mr. Kardum, a specimen of

22     a receipt on the temporary seizure of objections.  We shall zoom in on it

23     for you to see it better, and I'm going to ask you not about the content

24     but whether this is the model of a -- the document on the basis of which

25     items would be confiscated from persons holding such suspicion items.

Page 9438

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   A copy of this document, of this receipt would also be given to

 3     the person from whom the items were confiscated, right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And the other copy would be kept by the official who actually

 6     confiscated the property?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   We see specifically that this is a receipt which was issued by

 9     the 7th police station in Obrovac and that a certain person -- or rather,

10     that 40 sheep were confiscated from a certain person.  This was something

11     which was routinely done at check-points, right?

12        A.   Yes, right.

13             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I please move for a number

14     for this document, Your Honours.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D803, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  D803 is admitted into evidence.

19             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Let us now take a look at another receipt.

21             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I just want to mention that we

22     collect around 500 document like this four that I intend to show just for

23     the purposes.  I don't think that it's necessary all 4 or 500, these

24     documents, to be entered into the court file as an evidence.  Maybe, it

25     is my suggestions, that Defence could make a kind of list of these

Page 9439

 1     documents, and with the exchange of opinions from the Prosecution office,

 2     we could -- we could tender this -- this list as -- as a document to be

 3     in evidence from the bar table.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts.

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  That would be acceptable to

 6     us.  Of course, a number of these confiscated items will also be

 7     reflected in crime registers and reflected in court files and other

 8     material that we've probably already submitted, so reconciliation with

 9     those other files would also be useful.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  So then we would have kind of a stipulation that the

11     parties agree that 500 of these type of documents and then give some of

12     the detail --

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  Just to show the type of procedure that has been

14     --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and perhaps one or two examples, then, attached

16     to it.  Yes.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will give four examples just for the purposes

18     of what I have just been --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for your --

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Now we have, of course, the problems with the

21     translations from that amount of documents, it is obvious.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's one of the advantages of forms, that

23     they usually have the same language, all them.  But of course, what is

24     filled in by hand is another matter.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.

Page 9440

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber appreciates your effort to keep the

 2     number of pages within limits.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             [Interpretation] Can I ask the Registry to show us Document

 5     3D01-0145, please.

 6        Q.   We shall see a similar, or rather, an identical form, a receipt

 7     issued in this case by the police station in Gracac where also an

 8     automatic rifle, nine calves which were being transported on

 9     such-and-such truck with such-and-such licence plates were confiscated

10     from a person.

11             What I should like to draw your attention to, Mr. Kardum, is the

12     fact that this person was stopped at the Stikade military check-point.

13     Can we then conclude that in this case this is -- in this case we had

14     members of the regular police together with the military police manning

15     this check-point?

16        A.   I believe that that was the case.

17             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I please have a number for

18     this document, Your Honours.

19             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D804, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D804 is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at Document

24     3D01-0149.

25        Q.   The document we are about to see is practically identical, an

Page 9441

 1     identical form, however, this time issued by the 72nd Battalion of the

 2     military police.  And it states that such-and-such soldier -- that items

 3     were confiscated from such-and-such soldier with number -- serial number

 4     9 inclusive.

 5             Mr. Kardum, the way you perceive this, this is an identical

 6     example to the previous two which we have just seen except that it was

 7     issued by the military criminal police, right?

 8        A.   Yes.  Because -- because Zlatko Lopac is a soldier, and it is so

 9     written here.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I please move that this

11     document be assigned a number?

12             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D805, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D805 is admitted into evidence.

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, I have another one which is very

17     similar to those first document that I entered, so I don't think that

18     it's necessary to...

19        Q.   [Interpretation] So Mr. Kardum, we saw in which way the

20     check-points functioned, the check-point blockades.  If it would be

21     established by further processing that the -- there -- the confiscated

22     items had been stolen, then you would also file a criminal complaint?

23        A.   Yes, absolutely.  In fact, I saw that there was the mark "KU 83"

24     on one of these receipts meaning that already at that moment, that

25     particular case already had been the subject of a criminal complaint

Page 9442

 1     filed.

 2        Q.   Yes.  This is the receipt that we have just entered as evidence,

 3     D803.  Obviously, that receipt was part of a criminal file and as

 4     material evidence was actually treated as such in the procedure before

 5     the competent court, right?

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, before the document disappears from

 8     our screen, D -- I think it's D805, it says receipt for temporarily

 9     confiscated items, and then we find them listed.  What made the

10     confiscation of a temporary nature?  Could the witness perhaps --

11             MR. MIKULICIC:  I could cover that topic, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if you would cover that.  That's fine, yes.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.

14        Q.   [Interpretation] So you heard His Honour's question.  This

15     receipt says that the items confiscated are temporarily confiscated.

16        A.   I apologise.  All the receipts issued by the police were issued

17     on standard uniform forms.  Now, the final decision whether the item in

18     question would be seized for good or not would be brought by court.  We

19     would just indicate that there was the ground of suspicion that it might

20     have been the subject of a criminal offence, but the final decision was

21     on the police.  But we can see here on the left side that this particular

22     receipt already has a number, a criminal complaint number, which is KU

23     156, meaning that a complaint had already been filed by the crime police.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we perhaps have the original moved up a bit so

25     that we have -- that we can view -- yes, now we can see it.

Page 9443

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  I think we have a problem with the translation,

 2     Your Honour.  Just -- my learned colleague reminded me of that, as it

 3     regards to the -- who is -- who was authorised to reach the final

 4     decision referring to the confiscated items.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We could perhaps ask the witness to tell us.

 6             Who finally was the authority -- who was authorised to make the

 7     final decision in relation to the confiscated items?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Court, exclusively the Court.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay.  We could proceed, Your Honour, if you

11     don't have any further question on the topic.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I have, as a matter of fact, a question which

13     is triggered by the last answer of the witness.

14             Now, receipt means that this document was given to the person

15     from whom items were temporarily confiscated.  Is that correctly

16     understood?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  Those items were confiscated

18     by the police, and it would take them into custody.  As a rule, they were

19     to be delivered with -- against a criminal complaint to the district

20     attorney, but in practice there was no rule where these officers would

21     store all that so that the police kept them in custody and very often in

22     these situations gave them to government commissioners, which is to say

23     to the people in charge in the municipalities.  But in some cases, they

24     could also give it to some persons in the case of theft of wood, for

25     instance, or something which is of bulky nature that would be kept by the

Page 9444

 1     person in question, you know.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not perfectly clear now.  I understand a

 3     receipt to be that someone signs or makes a record of objects being

 4     handed over to another person.  Now, who is here transferring the objects

 5     to whom?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The police hands over these objects

 7     to the district attorney with a criminal complaint.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The confiscated items, as a rule,

10     with the filed criminal complaint given by the police to the district

11     attorney.  But as here we have bulky, voluminous things such as tiles or

12     wooden barrels that is not possible because of practical considerations.

13     That's why the police either keeps them in their own -- on its own

14     premises or has them stored elsewhere, but in situations like these

15     sometimes they would be entrusted to the perpetrator, or rather, to the

16     suspect to keep them until further notice.  And that person was under the

17     obligation to keep such things until the final resolution of his case,

18     when voluminous objects were in question, large, bulky objects.  If these

19     were -- that -- it was jewellery or some smaller items, they would also

20     be transferred to the district attorney's office with the criminal

21     complaint or would have been kept in the premises of the police station

22     in question.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, the last line reads in English:  "The

24     aforementioned items placed in safekeeping with the subject."

25             I do not fully understand what that means.  Could we have a look

Page 9445

 1     at the original.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously, these items were given

 4     to that person for safekeeping or to keep them, to have them in his

 5     custody.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Finally, soldier Zlatko Lopac, finally, was in

 7     charge of keeping those goods, or is that how I have to understand it,

 8     because they were confiscated temporarily from him?  And now the

 9     aforementioned items placed in safekeeping with the subject, is that the

10     person where these items were confiscated from?  Is that how I have to

11     understand the document?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose so, yes.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  If I may.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.  I'm just trying to understand.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  It's maybe -- it's maybe ambiguous on the

16     first sight, but we will cover this.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Kardum, this receipt in fact shows that a

18     certain number of items were found on a certain person and they have been

19     listed, enumerated.

20             You said due to practical considerations, the voluminosity of

21     these items, they simply could not be sent to the district attorney as

22     such; and therefore, that person was ordered to keep them and could not

23     alienate them, could not sell them or in any other way dispose of them

24     until the procedure was over?

25        A.   That's right.

Page 9446

 1        Q.   So these are purely practical reasons and not legal

 2     considerations?

 3        A.   Yes, and this is the practice today as well.  This is the routine

 4     practice today, in fact.

 5        Q.   The items that were less voluminous would be rather -- would be

 6     submitted to the district attorney's office in charge against a complaint

 7     or would have been kept in storage under supervision?

 8        A.   Yes.  But the district attorney always knew where the objects

 9     were.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me now try to fully understand this document.

11             This is a list of rather large objects, wooden barrel, 150-litre

12     capacity, something that you just do not carry away; same true for three

13     wall kitchen cabinets.

14             Now, let's take this example.  Where would these objects have

15     found?  Where was it established that Mr. -- Soldier Zlatko Lopac was in

16     possession of these items?  How would that have been established?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously, we will have to consult

18     the entire list; that is, KU 95-19697.

19             Obviously Soldier Zlatko Lopac was transporting these items on a

20     lorry, I presume, or in a van.  Obviously, he had stolen them in the

21     occupied territory, taken them simply from somewhere in the occupied

22     territory and was unable to prove their origin, where he got them in a

23     legal, lawful manner.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So he was stopped somewhere, and you need,

25     really, a little truck to transport all these items.  Yes.

Page 9447

 1             Now, what would then happen to these items?  Would they be taken

 2     by the police, or was the person just allowed to keep them for that

 3     moment?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depending on how far this was from

 5     any place where it could be stored in a warehouse.  So for practical

 6     considerations, however, from the legal standpoint, everything was done

 7     as should be.  The soldier signed that the items were confiscated.  Also,

 8     the authorised person signed a document, and it was sealed.  And of

 9     course, the district attorney was informed of it.

10             So the -- the only issue that remained unresolved was where these

11     item would say be kept until it was finally resolved legally what to do

12     with them.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And at that very moment -- I'm just trying to

14     imagine what happens.  I see a little truck being stopped with all these

15     goods in it.  Now -- so at that moment the person who's transporting

16     these the goods is unable to establish that he is the rightful owner of

17     these items.  Was it at that moment that such a document would be made or

18     ...

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  It would be made there on the

20     spot, and the person would be taken in for processing.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And what happened, then, with the goods?  Because he

22     was still in charge of the goods, isn't it?  Would he take them ...

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not necessarily, Your Honour.  He

24     would be taken in for processing.  In other words, the police - in this

25     case, the military police, but otherwise, it could be the civilian police

Page 9448

 1     as well - they would try to determine where he got this from.  They would

 2     interview him where he got the items from, which village, what house, and

 3     so on and so forth.

 4             However, here, obviously, this was property of some owners who

 5     had abandoned their homes.  I assume that most probably these were Serbs

 6     that had fled the area, and I doubt that it was possible at all to

 7     determine the owner, the rightful owner of these.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you say such a document was created on the spot

 9     where this person was stopped and where it was established that he was

10     transporting so many goods.  Is that a correct understanding?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The items would be put on --

12     listed on a list.  The person would sign this document that it was

13     actually confiscated from him; and in fact, this is a very powerful --

14     very powerful evidence.  This is an exhibit for the Court, in fact.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now what would then happen?  Police officers

16     there would -- what would the next step be?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This person would then be taken in

18     to the closest police station, and the crime processing would begin.

19     This person would be interviewed.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  He would be interviewed immediately after he was

21     stopped and after this document would have been made.  Where would the

22     goods, meanwhile, be?  Because they were in his truck.  Would the truck

23     be taken to the police station, as well, or ...

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, before being taken in, you said this is a case

Page 9449

 1     where a court number -- I think you said a court number was already

 2     assigned.  How would you assign a number -- I'll just check what exactly

 3     your words were.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  I don't think he said court number, Your Honour.

 5     He said KU number.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- therefore, I'm verifying.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a police number, Your

 8     Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And the police number would be assigned on the

10     street where they were -- where these goods were found in the possession

11     of this person.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the police obviously

13     determined that it was -- that a crime had been committed; in this case,

14     aggravated crime or aggravated theft.  The policeman would call his duty

15     service and request the next free number -- next available number in the

16     register, the police register, the KU number.  So most probably, this

17     number was assigned as KU or the crime number, crime register number, 95.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And he would, then, be taken to the police station,

19     and after he had been processed, after he had been interviewed, he would

20     then leave again and be the one who should look after the goods so that

21     they would remain in his possession?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not necessarily.  In this instance,

23     they would -- in cases such as these, they would have to actually discuss

24     with the direct attorney whether a red crime report should be written

25     out, in which case he would have to be taken in.  If it was a regular

Page 9450

 1     procedure, then there would be a white crime report, in which case this

 2     person would not be detained.

 3             And everything that I have said actually refers to civilians.

 4     Now, this is a military case, and it may be that the military procedure

 5     is a bit different to that of the civilian police.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  What would the difference be?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't know the details of the

 8     procedure of the military police.  I think it was a similar procedure,

 9     but I'm not absolutely sure because I didn't work on this case with them

10     from beginning to end.  Because you can see here that mention is made

11     that the 71st Company of the military police, actually -- or the military

12     crime police was the one who investigated this.

13             So this case was investigated by the military police, not the

14     civilian police.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

16             Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Just for -- yes, thank

18     you, Your Honour.  Just for a clarification.  I could point out at D804,

19     which is the very same receipt, where the truck has been mentioned in

20     which the supposedly stolen goods were found.

21             So in the D805, there was no mention any truck, but obviously it

22     has to be ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, you'll understand what the purpose of my

24     questions is to better understand what happens.  If we have 500 documents

25     in which it says that the person who apparently was suspected of having

Page 9451

 1     stolen them keeps them, then of course it becomes a very interesting

 2     question what then happened afterwards.  It might be misinterpreted by

 3     other persons to see that people continue to transport these objects, and

 4     then, of course, the follow-up issue of whether ever a court decision on

 5     the final confiscation took place.  I mean, this is a whole complex --

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- matter for which, of course, to fully understand

 8     what those 500 documents you will list together with Mr. Margetts what it

 9     actually tells us.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, and I can assure that the

11     Defence will cover there topic in a total -- of course, in due course.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  So from the very beginning where the stolen --

14     supposedly stolen goods were temporarily confiscated up to the final

15     court decision on the matter.  So in that --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Kind of a chain of custody.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  Yes, of course.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Misetic.

19             MR. MISETIC:  I would just draw the Court's attention again to

20     D511 and D568 where you do have final results of -- not necessarily

21     concretely these particular confirmations, but do you have what happened

22     to the cases afterwards.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, we have not fully analysed all this

24     material yet, but since -- as the witness here could tell us about the

25     procedures that I take the opportunity, also, to hear from the witness

Page 9452

 1     and not only study documents.

 2             Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Kardum, we will now broach the last topic

 5     that I have for you, and that is the special police.

 6             Within the Zadar-Knin police administration, there was a unit of

 7     the special police as we saw in Exhibit P500, the commander of which was

 8     Mr. Vrsajko.  Is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In your 2004 statement, you said -- and may I refer you to

11     paragraph - just a minute, please - paragraph 52.  You said that you did

12     not have too many contacts with the special police because these were

13     combat units.  Is that a good interpretation of what you said?

14        A.   I had occasion to meet with Mr. Vrsajko frequently.  However, the

15     nature of his work and that of mine were very different, so we didn't

16     really overlap a lot except in the cases where we cooperated and we had a

17     fair, decent cooperation.

18        Q.   In paragraph 53 of your 2004 statement, you said that as far as

19     you understood the check-points were later -- some check-points were

20     later manned by special and military police.  Did you actually ever see

21     members of a combat unit such as the special police at check-points?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   Maybe this is a misinterpretation or mistranslation, but did you

24     actually mean military police or civilian police?

25        A.   I think this referred to the military police.  The military

Page 9453

 1     police would in those cases handle military persons, and the civilian

 2     police would handle civilians.

 3        Q.   But there were no members of the special police?

 4        A.   No.  As far as I can recall, no, because all the competences that

 5     were within the authority, the powers of the special police were also

 6     within the competence of the regular police.

 7        Q.   Mr. Kardum, you told us at the outset -- when you began your

 8     testimony, you said that you didn't have any contacts with Mr. Markac.

 9     You also just told us just now that you didn't have any contacts with the

10     special police because your work was different.

11             Now, I would like to ask you this in closing:  Have you ever in

12     your experience received an order from anyone in the chain of command not

13     to investigate, an order banning or forbidding an investigation that you

14     were authorised to undertake by law?

15        A.   No, absolutely not.  Never.

16        Q.   Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to issue such an order

17     to you, what would you do?

18        A.   If I were issued such an order - and I'm just trying to think of

19     that -- such a situation, hypothetic situation - I would first inform my

20     immediate superior and ask him to tell me what his position was.  And if

21     he agreed to that order, then I would request to have it in writing; and

22     most probably, I would resign.

23        Q.   Am I correct in interpreting what you have said that your

24     position was that you would always act within the bounds of law and no

25     one could issue any orders to the contrary of that?

Page 9454

 1        A.   Absolutely.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I have

 3     no further questions.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

 5             Mr. Kardum, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Misetic.  Mr.

 6     Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:

 9        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Kardum.

10        A.   Good afternoon.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, may I please call up 1D54-0001,

12     please.

13        Q.   Mr. Kardum, while we're waiting for that to come up on the

14     screen, I have put together maps of your area of responsibility, which

15     we're going to show on the screen, and I'm going to ask you to look at

16     the maps and see if we have put this down on paper accurately.

17             You'll note on the first page, sir, the -- and I will note the

18     Court, there is, I believe, an English translation, but we will use the

19     Croatian version for the benefit of the witness.  The brown line marks

20     the international border with Bosnia and Herzegovina; the green line are

21     the Kotar-Knin boundary line; and the yellow line is the boundary of the

22     police administration of Zadar-Knin.  Does that accurately depict the --

23     your area of responsibility in the police administration, Zadar-Knin?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Can we go to the next page, please.

Page 9455

 1        Q.   Now what we've done, Mr. Kardum, is include the police stations.

 2     You'll see the -- a red circled -- red circles with the yellow are the

 3     police stations within Kotar-Knin; the blue circles are the police

 4     stations that are not part of the Kotar-Knin administration; and the

 5     black circle is the location of the police administration itself.  And

 6     I'd ask you to take a look at this map carefully and see if we've

 7     accurately depicted the various police stations and the police

 8     administration on this map.

 9        A.   I think so.  But I would have a few corrections to make, if

10     necessary, if you feel it appropriate.  I think I should comment on this.

11        Q.   Yes.

12        A.   And I won't be -- all right.  The police station Kistanje, for

13     instance, it existed as such and was operational.  However, I think that

14     it was not within the police system, but in the day-to-day work there was

15     a need to have regular police between Benkovac and Knin, that area.  So

16     then we decided to have an ad hoc outpost, police outpost in Kistanje,

17     which was an outpost of the Knin first police station.  In other words, a

18     police branch or police outpost is of lower rank than the police station,

19     but I think that in the original document it was not envisaged as -- as

20     existing.

21             As for the rest, it is all right except that these blue ones at

22     the Kotar-Knin PU are border police, and the border police stations are

23     different in their work.  They're different in their work to the ones

24     that you marked with the red circles.

25        Q.   That's correct.  And just to clarify, we did put the dates in of

Page 9456

 1     when these police stations were opened up, and they're located on the map

 2     as well.

 3             So what I'm asking you is, these police stations actually did

 4     exist in the month of August as part of your police administration,

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  If we could go to the next slide, please.

 8        Q.   Now, what we've done in the third slide is added -- first of all,

 9     that black line, we've already in this case shown what the border was

10     between the Split Military District and the Gospic Military District.

11     You might not be familiar with that, but that's drawn in on this slide.

12             The blue line is the line held by the HV on the 3rd of August,

13     1995; and the red line is the line held by the ARSK on the 3rd of August,

14     1995.

15             Do you agree that that is your understanding of where the front

16     lines were on the 3rd of August, 1995?

17        A.   I've never looked at a similar map to this one, but to the best

18     of my recollection, I think, yes, that that fully corresponds to the

19     actual state of affairs then.

20        Q.   Looking at this map and looking at the yellow line, is it fair to

21     say that the majority of the occupied territory in Sector South fell

22     under the Zadar-Knin police administration?

23        A.   It is.

24        Q.   Now, this morning I wanted to put some numbers together for you,

25     and I'm sure the Court will correct me and will check my math later.  But

Page 9457

 1     prior to Operation Storm, is it your understanding or do you have an

 2     understanding that the actual area that your police administration

 3     covered - in other words, the actual area held by Croatian authorities on

 4     the 3rd of August - covered roughly 1200 square kilometres?  Is that

 5     consistent with your recollection?

 6        A.   Yes.  That is the area of the former municipalities of Zadar and

 7     Biograd.  Biograd has about 260 and Zadar somewhat under a thousand

 8     square kilometres, these two former municipalities, and that is exactly

 9     that.

10        Q.   After Operation Storm, do you recall that your area of

11     responsibility - and by "your," I mean the police administration

12     Zadar-Knin - expanded roughly five times what it had before Operation

13     Storm to cover roughly 6350 square kilometres of territory?  Is that a

14     fair representation of how much your zone of responsibility expanded

15     after Operation Storm?

16        A.   Yes, that is correct.  We were a second-rank administration, and

17     the Zagreb police administration and the Split and Dalmatia

18     administrations were of the first rank.  Then we became territorially

19     larger, both from the Zagreb administration and the Split-Dalmatia

20     administration taken together.  I often asked my chief, Cetina, then to

21     see to it from our Ministry of the Interior that we should become an

22     administration of the first rank, which would mean a much large number of

23     people and much more resources, et cetera.  But this request could not be

24     accommodated so that this administration was reorganised, and a part of

25     the people went to Gospic where they had belonged before, and another

Page 9458

 1     part went to Sibenik, to which they had also belonged before.  I

 2     apologise for this comment.

 3        Q.   Now, based on some of the answers you gave both to Mr. Margetts

 4     and Mr. Mikulicic, we've established that you had as a high number 60

 5     people working as your subordinates in the crime investigation section.

 6     I've done the math, and, again, I trust that there are people in this

 7     courtroom who will correct me if I'm wrong, but if you assigned all 60 --

 8     or sorry.  If you had these people, and you took -- you did two shifts

 9     and had 30 people per shift out in the field, and none of them were

10     interviewing POWs at the POW centre.  Before Operation Storm, one shift,

11     one person could cover 40 square kilometres of territory, which is 1200

12     square kilometres divided by 30; and after Operation Storm, one of your

13     subordinates had to cover 212 square kilometres of territory.

14             Now, is it fair to say, Mr. Kardum, that your police

15     administration was not adequately equipped to deal with the situation it

16     found itself in when its territorial jurisdiction expanded five times its

17     size in a matter of days?

18        A.   Yes, exactly.  I thank you for such a precise math.  I do have to

19     add that at the very beginning of the Oluja operation I lost four people,

20     four of my men, three of them on account of an incident which they had

21     made, and there was a senior lady, operations officer who had a traffic

22     accident that morning, so that that number was further reduced.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Kardum, you are familiar with Operative Action Povratak,

24     are you not?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9459

 1        Q.   Are you aware that Operative Action Povratak began in 1992?

 2        A.   Yes, I am.

 3        Q.   Are you aware that the Croatian plans under OA Povratak were

 4     based on the principle that the Vance Plan would be implemented and that

 5     Serbian police officers would in fact remain in place when Croatian

 6     authority was restored over the occupied area?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And are you aware that the MUP did not anticipate a situation

 9     where all the police staff in the occupied area would leave?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, when we talk about the difficulties that you encountered -

12     and I believe you mentioned this in your testimony earlier - in

13     establishing the police administration in the crime investigative

14     section, the first and fundamental point was you didn't have enough

15     people to do everything that was required of you in terms of

16     investigations.  Is that correct?

17        A.   That is correct.

18        Q.   Now, before the break - let me just go over this issue - we went

19     through the issue of the receipt a few minutes ago, and you were saying

20     something about the practicality problem.

21             My question to you, sir, is:  Was it your experience that if

22     police officers, either civil or military, were out in some remote area

23     of the police administration, wasn't it the case that sometimes given the

24     lack of resources at that time that all the police could do at the

25     check-point was issue a receipt and follow up with the perpetrator later

Page 9460

 1     because you didn't have enough men to take off the check-point to escort

 2     everybody to the police station for every criminal act.  Is that correct?

 3        A.   That is quite true.  But that receipt was always issued in two

 4     copies, and a copy was kept and another was given to the person in

 5     question so that we could always follow at all times whether the person

 6     in question acted on instructions given him or not.

 7        Q.   Yes.  But my question -- specific question is:  Was it not the

 8     case that if a police officer at a check-point took every person in that

 9     was stopped at the check-point with having committed some criminal act,

10     that the check-points themselves wouldn't be manned because of the

11     shortage of police officers to cover the check-points?  Do you understand

12     my question?

13        A.   Yes, absolutely, I do.  But the -- the check-points were priority

14     points that were not to be abandoned.

15             MR. MISETIC:  I don't know, Mr. President.  I think this might be

16     a good time for a break.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  It certainly is, but not before I have put an

18     additional question.

19             I asked you earlier, Mr. Kardum, what would happen if a person

20     was stopped and where it was established that he was transporting these

21     goods?  You told me that -- you told this Chamber that the items would be

22     put on a list, person would sign the document, and you said, This is very

23     powerful evidence.  And then I said:  What would next happen?  Police

24     officers there would -- what would the next step be?  You said this

25     person would then be taken into the closest police station and the crime

Page 9461

 1     processing would begin.

 2             That is an answer which is quite different from the last answers

 3     you gave to Mr. Misetic.  I asked you without even suggesting what the

 4     next step would be, and you said they would be taken in.

 5             Now, Mr. Misetic and -- ask you, Well, wouldn't that be bad for

 6     the check-point?  Wouldn't it be true that -- and then you said, no, the

 7     check-point should not be abandoned.

 8             Now, please tell me, were these people taken in as you told me?

 9     Yes or no?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Misetic said if

11     this check-point was quite far, quite remote from the police station.  So

12     if this was a check-point which was quite far from the police station

13     because these are large areas that we're talking about here.  For

14     instance, between the police station in Knin and the close police station

15     in the direction of Zadar, Benkovac, you have about 70 kilometres.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand what a long distance is.  Now -- so

17     therefore, your answer to my question should have been:  It depends.

18     Sometimes they would be taken in; sometimes they would not.

19             Could you tell me, how -- what would be approximately the

20     percentage of those who would have been stopped with items on their

21     trucks which they could not explain as being their own -- being their

22     property?  What would be the percentage that would be taken in, and what

23     would be the percentage of those who were so far that it was just making

24     a list and then not taking them?  Would 5 per cent be taken in?  Would 60

25     per cent be taken in?  Would 80 per cent be taken in?  Would 30 per cent

Page 9462

 1     be taken in?  Approximately.  Of course, I do not ask you to give a

 2     precise percentage, but approximately.

 3             Let's start with the first question.  Would the majority be taken

 4     in, or would the majority not be taken in?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The majority would be taken in but

 6     not by the people manning the check-points.  Other police, most often

 7     crime police members would come to get them if civilians were in question

 8     because the criminal police was stationed in the police stations.  I said

 9     before that there were four or five of them in Benkovac who covered

10     Benkovac, Obrovac, and Stankovci; four or five of them in Knin in that

11     period who covered the area of Knin; and four of five of them in Gracac

12     who covered the area of Gracac, Lapac, and Korenica.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So you say the majority was taken in, mainly not by

14     those manning the check-points but by other police officers.  Were there

15     sufficient police officers available to go to the check-point, take them

16     in and -- or was there any problem as far as the number of available

17     police officers was concerned?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that depended on the daily

19     events because the daily incidents, daily events also impacted the

20     possibilities of such officers to come and get these persons.  But as a

21     rule, most frequently they would be taken in.  But it is also depended on

22     the tape and nature, the severity, the gravity of the criminal offence

23     because there were people who were just smuggling or transporting,

24     rather, one sheep or one lamb.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would, then, such a list, although a very

Page 9463

 1     short list, be made, as well, for one sheep or one lamb?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  We filed criminal complaints

 3     even in such cases.  Of course, these persons would often say this comes

 4     from my relative or this is from my friend, it was given to me by a

 5     friend of mine, and similar excuses and this dragged on for -- - ad

 6     infinitum, but we always proceeded in this fashion.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, you earlier told us that the majority would be

 8     taken in.  Could you be more precise?  Would -- 80 per cent, would it be

 9     a vast majority that would be taken in or just a little bit over half?

10     Could you give us further position as far as the percentage of persons

11     taken in is concerned?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is difficult for

13     me to say.  There are documents, case files, and each case file shows

14     whether the person in question was taken in on the same day and

15     interviewed on the same day.  But a free estimation that I could make is

16     that perhaps 70 per cent or more of such persons were taken in in this or

17     that way, one way or another.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for those answers.

19             We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 20 minutes past 4.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 3.54 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, please proceed.

23             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             I forgot to tender the slides as an exhibit, and I ask that they

25     be admitted into evidence.

Page 9464

 1             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  That is Exhibit number D806, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  D806 is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             Mr. Registrar, if I may now have Exhibit D9 on the screen,

 7     please.

 8        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you look on the screen, this is an exhibit that

 9     was admitted with a witness earlier in this case.  It is a criminal

10     report regarding the murder of Sava Babic, and I'd ask to you take a look

11     at that page, and then we'll turn to the next page when you're ready.

12        A.   I'm ready.

13             MR. MISETIC:  We could go to the next page, please.

14        A.   I've seen it.

15        Q.   Is that your signature there?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, if we could go to page 6 in the English, which is also page

18     6 in the Croatian, I believe.

19             When you finish reading it, we'll turn to the next page,

20     Mr. Kardum.

21        A.   Yes, I've read it.

22             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn to the next page, please.

23        A.   I've reviewed it.

24        Q.   Mr. Kardum, do you recall investigating the murder of Sava Babic?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9465

 1        Q.   And do you recall preparing a criminal report in that case, which

 2     I've shown you, as well as a special report in that case?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And do you recall sending the special report, in which it was

 5     suspected that a soldier by the name of Mario Dukic, a member of the

 6     134th Home Guard brigade -- do you recall sending that special report to

 7     the military - sorry - to the military prosecutor in Zadar?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, I'm using this example.  I'd like to you explain, given that

10     you recall the investigation how it is that the investigation was begun

11     and why it is that you filed a special report with the military

12     prosecutor in Zadar.

13        A.   I understand your question.  We had an incident, a murder that

14     occurred I think also in September in a village near Benkovac.  I can't

15     remember with certainty the name of that place, but I'll probably

16     remember it as I speak.

17             A civilian of Serb nationality was killed then.  His name was

18     Petar Botar.  When we conducted an investigation, we found out that three

19     men committed the murder.  These men were of Croat ethnicity.  One of

20     them was Mario Dukic, and I think that at this time he was a member of

21     the 134th Home Guards brigade.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Regiment, interpreter's correction.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And when we learned of that fact,

24     then the military police also participated in the investigation, and

25     Mario Dukic and other two men were brought in.  I can't claim with

Page 9466

 1     certainty, but I think the other two were civilians.

 2             During the investigation, it turned out that the murder had been

 3     committed under the influence of alcohol by Mario Dukic.

 4             I just need to add something, although it has nothing to do with

 5     this murder.  Petar Botar is the father of Branko Botar, a perpetrator of

 6     a war crime at the detriment of a Croat woman during the occupation of

 7     that territory, a woman from Perusic.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Or that person is from Perusic, interpreter's

 9     correction.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this occasion, we proved that

11     Mario Dukic committed this murder with a 7.62-millimetre pistol, and now

12     I can say for certain which murder occurred first.  But because we found

13     a shell, a 7.62-millimetre shell on the crime scene where Babic was

14     murdered, we sent this shell to Zagreb for a forensic examination, and

15     after a while, this -- we received a report from Zagreb that Petar Botar

16     and Sava Babic were murdered by -- from the same weapon or with the same

17     weapon, fire-arm, and it was concluded that the perpetrator was Mario

18     Dukic.

19             As a result, we prepared a special report and filed it with the

20     military prosecutor because Mario was, at this time -- at the time when

21     this crime was committed, he was a member of, as far as I can recall,

22     134th regiment, Home Guard regiment.

23             Mr. Attorney, if you do have any more questions I can answer

24     them.  I just don't want to take up too much of your time with my length

25     explanation.

Page 9467

 1        Q.   Well, what I'm interested in now is you've explained that at some

 2     point because you had established that Mario Dukic had committed a

 3     separate murder with a 7.62-millimetre shell and because you found the

 4     same type shell at the murder scene of Sava Babic, you suspected that

 5     Mario Dukic was involved in the murder of Sava Babic at that point.  Is

 6     that correct?

 7        A.   That's right.

 8        Q.   Now, MUP, in your office, even though you suspected that Mario

 9     Dukic, a member of the 134th Home Guard Brigade, had committed the

10     murder, MUP was still responsible for continuing the investigation of the

11     murder of Sava Babic.  Is that correct?

12        A.   No.  At this point in time, we didn't know that he was the

13     perpetrator of the murder of Sava Babic.  It was only later that we

14     confirmed this because all the weapons and the cartridges that were found

15     -- the cartridge that was found on the site of the murder of Sava Babic,

16     it was found that this cartridge was fired from the same pistol from

17     which the other person was killed.

18        Q.   Understood, but --

19        A.   Petar Botar.

20        Q.   -- what I would like to know is, MUP carries out its

21     investigations of a crime until it confirms a suspect, correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And it's only after MUP has established probable cause that a

24     suspect of a crime such as murder is a member of the Croatian army that

25     the military police is then called in.  Is that correct?

Page 9468

 1        A.   That's right.  So what we are looking at is the crime itself, and

 2     then only secondarily, the perpetrator, because we don't know who the

 3     perpetrator might be.  For us, there is a crime, and that has to be

 4     resolved, and the perpetrator may be a civilian, a military person.  We

 5     don't know that at that point in time.  If it's a member of the Croatian

 6     army, then there's a specific approach.  We have a duty to inform thereof

 7     the competent military service.

 8        Q.   Now, you've answered that you were looking at the crime itself

 9     and then only secondarily, the perpetrator, and that's the point I want

10     to talk about.  Crime that's committed in the liberated territory, it is

11     MUP's task under Croatian law to investigate every crime and to gather

12     evidence that would lead to the conclusion as to who the suspect is in

13     that crime, correct?

14        A.   That's right, if at the very outset the perpetrator is unknown.

15        Q.   Well, tell us -- give us an example where at the very beginning

16     you know who the perpetrator is.

17        A.   Well, for instance, at check-points, if one were to see a

18     military person transporting some stolen goods, then we would -- we would

19     register this as OP, the immediately known perpetrator; NN is

20     unidentified perpetrator; and the NO is subsequently discovered

21     perpetrator.

22        Q.   And let's take the situation now:  A body is discovered, and the

23     -- an immediately known perpetrator -- in other words, the perpetrator is

24     not still physically on the scene when the body is discovered.  It is

25     MUP's job to carry out the investigation if there's a basis do believe

Page 9469

 1     that there was violence involved in the death of that person, to carry

 2     out the investigation that would lead to establishing who is suspected of

 3     that crime, correct?

 4        A.   Yes, absolutely.

 5        Q.   Now, even after you've identified a suspect such as Mario Dukic

 6     after an investigation and you've called in the military police, MUP

 7     still has a role in the investigation, does it not?

 8        A.   Yes.  Then we worked on it together.  You could say that we

 9     cooperated.  I think the military did not have specialised men for such

10     criminal acts and that it wasn't capable of conducting this investigation

11     on its own.

12        Q.   So it was the MUP that had the specialisation pathologists,

13     ballistic experts, other type of expertise to provide in assisting the

14     military police in eventually prosecuting a crime before a military

15     Court.  Is that correct?

16        A.   No, it's not right.  It was not a MUP that had the pathologist

17     and the experts, et cetera.  The experts were independent experts.  The

18     pathologists were physicians of a special -- having a specialisation who

19     could be recruited only at the order of the investigating judge, not at

20     the order of the police.  So following an order of the investigating

21     judge, we could recruit the services of a physician, a pathologist, and

22     they he would then be assigned his particular assignment by the

23     investigating judge.

24        Q.   Let's take the example of Mario Dukic and the murder of Sava

25     Babic.  Who conducts the -- who conducted in that particular case the

Page 9470

 1     ballistics analysis and any other type of expertise that was done in that

 2     case?

 3        A.   The expertise was undertaken by the competent experts in the

 4     centre, the only such centre which existed at the time in Croatia which

 5     was called Ivan Vucetic and was in Zagreb.  It was an independent centre,

 6     I think.  At least that's it how it should have been and should be.

 7        Q.   Was a civilian investigative judge involved in the investigation

 8     of the murder of Sava Babic?

 9        A.   In the investigation of the murder of Petar Botar participated an

10     investigating judge and a district attorney, but that murder was

11     practically solved by the expert.  The expert solved it on the basis of

12     what the investigating judge and the police had recovered at the scene of

13     the murder.  During the on-site investigation, we found inter alia a

14     cartridge, and we sent that cartridge not knowing the perpetrator for

15     ballistic analysis in Zagreb.  After a couple of months, we, the police,

16     received the expert report of the expert from which it stemmed that on

17     the occasion of the murder of Sava Babic the same weapon was used as the

18     one that was used in the case of Petar Botar, and we had already detected

19     the -- or solved the murder of Petar Botar earlier, if you understand me.

20        Q.   Let me ask you this question.  Is it your understanding that the

21     jurisdiction for investigating crime where the specific perpetrator's

22     identity is unknown rests with MUP and that the jurisdiction of the

23     military police under Croatian law at that time only existed once the

24     identity of the perpetrator was confirmed as someone who is a member of

25     the Croatian army?

Page 9471

 1        A.   That's right.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, I'm going to show two exhibits now

 3     to the witness and then ask a few questions.

 4             If I could have 1D54-0012, please.

 5        Q.   Now, this is a criminal report filed by you for the Gosici

 6     murders.  Can you just take a look at it and see if this is the document

 7     that you prepared on 4 October.

 8        A.   Can I see the next page, please.

 9             Yes.  This is a document which was produced in the criminal

10     police department of the Zadar-Knin police administration.  It is my

11     signature.  Actually, it is typewritten that it is my signature, but this

12     was a signed propria persona and by somebody else.

13        Q.   Your Honour, might I tender this into evidence, please.

14             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D807.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  D807 is admitted into evidence.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could have 1D54-0007, please.

19        Q.   Mr. Kardum, this is the criminal report you filed in the Varivode

20     case.  I'd ask you to look through this document and see if you recognise

21     it.

22        A.   Yes, I do recognise this document just as in the first case, I

23     mean, in the case of the previous document.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I tender the exhibit into evidence,

25     please.

Page 9472

 1             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D808.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  D808 is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, may we move into private session,

 6     please.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

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 9473











11  Pages 9473-9484 redacted. Private session.















Page 9485

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Open session]

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, I'd now like to call up 1D54-0017,

 7     please.

 8        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you could take a look at this and read through it

 9     and tell me when you're finished.  This is a criminal report you filed

10     against a Nino Starcevic, whom you identified as a soldier.  I believe it

11     has to do with a theft.  If you could take a look at it, and the date is

12     1 September --

13        A.   I have seen the first page.

14        Q.   The date is 1 September 1995.

15             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page, please.

16        Q.   And there's also a second perpetrator identified in your report

17     as a member of the 4th Guards Brigade and that these two gentlemen

18     committed the criminal offence of taking a motor vehicle.

19        A.   Yes, I've read it.

20             MR. MISETIC:  If we could go to the last page, please.

21             Now, it says "Ive Kardum" on the bottom.  Is that someone who was

22     authorised to sign for you there?

23        A.   Yes.  This was signed by Ante Pogarilic.  In these police

24     stations - I have to explain this - Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, Lapac,

25     Korenica, I was supposed to have a number of staff, 19 in each of these

Page 9486

 1     stations, and at the head of them should have been the deputy chief of

 2     crime police.  And this person was should have had the authority to sign

 3     criminal complaints.

 4             However, since the whole service had not been set up properly,

 5     there weren't -- there simply did not exist -- these people did not

 6     exist, the deputy crime police chief, so that it was -- so that these

 7     jobs were done by other men.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Now, if you could explain here for the Court, the

 9     perpetrator of the first one is identified as a soldier; the second one

10     is identified as member of the 4th Guards Brigade.

11             Can you explain to us how it is that you -- or someone authorised

12     on your behalf filed this criminal report for theft against persons who

13     are identified as soldiers?

14        A.   This was probably done in agreement with the military police

15     because I saw here at the very bottom of page 2 where it says that the

16     official interview was done with the -- in the presence of the military

17     police with Ante Zilic, so I assume that the civilian police asked the

18     military police to conduct the interview with Ante Zilic and vice versa,

19     and they probably agreed that the complaint would be filed by the

20     civilian police.  I'm not even sure that this is the proper procedure,

21     the way they did it, but the point was the job had to be done, and it

22     was.  Now, whether a mistake had been made, that's a different issue.

23        Q.   Okay.  And it says who it was delivered to --

24             MR. MISETIC:  And if we could turn to the next page -- or to the

25     bottom -- next page in English, please.

Page 9487

 1        Q.   It says to the Zadar municipal state attorney's office, the

 2     analytics department, the department of organised crime prevention, and

 3     to the archive.

 4             So the criminal report wasn't filed with the military prosecutor

 5     or the military police.  Is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.  And in my view, that's a mistake.  It's a procedural error.

 7        Q.   It would be your understanding as according to your earlier

 8     testimony that the MUP could investigate this incident; once they'd

 9     identified these three individuals as perpetrators who were members of

10     the HV, you would call in the military police to actually do the arrest.

11     Is that correct?

12        A.   Yes, absolutely.

13        Q.   Now --

14             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, if I could -- I will tender this

15     exhibit into evidence as well.

16             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D809.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D809 is admitted into evidence.

20             MR. MISETIC:

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Kardum, I'd like to take a hypothetical example.  An HV

22     soldier, active duty, gets intoxicated, sits behind the wheel of a car in

23     Zadar, and gets involved in a fatal car accident, which results in the

24     death of another motorist, civilian.  When MUP arrives at the scene, what

25     is MUP's responsibility?

Page 9488

 1        A.   Of course, the arrest of that member of the -- that army member

 2     would be arrested.  Then the MUP would also have to inform the military

 3     police of that arrest of the incident, that they had arrested a member of

 4     the army, that such a report would be also sent to the district attorney,

 5     to the investigative judge.  The investigating judge would conduct an

 6     on-site investigation unless it is entrusted to the civilian police.  If

 7     entrusted to the civilian police, it will conduct the on-site

 8     investigation; and then in agreement with the military police, further

 9     investigating measures would be taken, and the district attorney would

10     ask the competent court to conduct an investigation.

11             Talking about this, some things which were carried out by the

12     police, even if by mistake, even if the police mischaracterized a

13     criminal offence, if it characterized a criminal offence as aggravated

14     theft whereas it was robbery or sent it to a not-competent tier of the

15     system, that is considered an error.  But this is not a particular error

16     in this case.

17        Q.   Who -- first, you said that the army member would be arrested.

18     Who conducts the initial arrest in Zadar of that HV soldier?

19        A.   The police that happens to be first at the scene of the event or

20     closest to the scene of the event, if you're referring to either the

21     military or the civilian police, the police that is first there.  Such a

22     -- we cannot let such a man irrespective of the fact that he's a member

23     of the Croatian army, we cannot allow him to escape, to continue doing

24     foolish things or to try and conceal his criminal offences, et cetera,

25     because we don't want him to escape.  We want to prove that he was

Page 9489

 1     intoxicated or the presence of alcohol in his organism, if that was the

 2     case, and then we would inform the military police, and then we would

 3     agree with them on the further course of action.

 4        Q.   Who secures the crime scene?

 5        A.   The scene of the crime would be secured.  I don't know how

 6     relevant that is, but I think it would be the civilian police, but then

 7     again, it might be the military police because this is a military person.

 8     It can be the civilian police or the military police or a combination of

 9     both police forces.  It will not be only the military police.  Of that,

10     I'm certain because the victim is a civilian.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar --

12                           [Defence counsel confer]

13             MR. MISETIC:  May I have D97 on the screen, please.

14             Your Honours, we are -- we will give a hard copy of D97 to the

15     witness in Croatian.  I noticed that there was a -- a translation error

16     in the English of D97 because it was missing one section, which I would

17     like to ask the witness about, and we, therefore, will show the amended

18     version on Sanction, upload the right version into e-court.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, I hear of no objections.  Of course, I

20     do not know whether the new translation has been uploaded already,

21     whether you have had an opportunity to review it, but...

22             MR. MARGETTS:  I haven't had an opportunity to review it.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  But may I take it that...

24             MR. MISETIC:  We've sent it to Prosecution as part of our

25     disclosure here.  I think we -- Your Honour pointed it out back when we

Page 9490

 1     tendered the exhibit and it wasn't -- it was never --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I take it that if a completed translation is

 3     provided by the parties, that that could -- that we could start working

 4     on that basis, and if there would be any objections, that we would hear

 5     after it has been verified.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  I think you'll see that it's -- I don't think

 7     there's going to be any dispute about it so --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 9             MR. MARGETTS:  It's at Tab number ...

10             MR. MISETIC:  We put it at 14 in our disclosures to the OTP.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you.

12             MR. MISETIC:

13        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you could take a look at that document.

14             MR. MISETIC:  And if we could scroll down in the English.

15        Q.   This is a report from Minister Jarnjak to the state prosecutor,

16     Marijan Hranjski, dated 2 October 1995.

17             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page in English, please.  And

18     just so the Court is aware, what was missing before is under "Known

19     Perpetrators."  It was blank.  The three boxes were blank.  We just put

20     them in so that it's reflected in the new translation.

21        Q.   On the second page, Mr. Kardum, you will see that Minister

22     Jarnjak informs the state prosecutor of certain statistics, and he

23     reports that for the period of 22 August to 2 October 1995, in the police

24     administration Zadar-Knin, he reports 28 murders, 162 burnings, 3 for

25     mining, and 132 cases of removal of property.

Page 9491

 1             And if we go down to the next graph or next table, it says,

 2     Zadar-Knin, 192 on-site investigations were conducted during that roughly

 3     6-week time-period.  The known perpetrators, MUP had identified 28 HV

 4     members, 194 civilian perpetrators, and 1 abuse of uniform with 15

 5     unknown perpetrators.

 6             Now, the first question is, can you tell us what "abuse of

 7     uniform" means?

 8        A.   That was a frequently encountered problem in that period.

 9     Namely, civilians would put on military uniforms and were not members of

10     the army or of the police.  There were less such cases in terms of the

11     abuse of police uniforms.  Most frequently these cases involved the abuse

12     of military uniforms.

13        Q.   Is it consistent with your recollection that the Zadar-Knin

14     police administration conducted 192 on-site investigations during that

15     time-period.  Does that sound right to you?

16        A.   This seems a small number to me.  I think that we had more onsite

17     investigations conducted, and the number of reported people was larger

18     but depends on when the data was received, when the information was

19     finally computer-processed, et cetera, because at that time we were only

20     establishing our computer database and system, so that -- perhaps that

21     might account for that.  Otherwise, we in the police have this practice

22     that we have to finish all the paperwork within a month, so that has to

23     be done by the 4th or 5th of the month.

24             I notice here that the date given is the 2nd of October.  I

25     believe that I saw in the earlier criminal complaints that both Gosici

Page 9492

 1     and Varivode were processed on the 4th of October so that these

 2     complaints were written later.

 3             Therefore, I don't know whether the information on the

 4     then-murder was also entered in the statistics process by the police at

 5     that time.

 6        Q.   Okay.  But do you also agree that for that time-period that the

 7     MUP had identified 28 HV members as -- at least 28 HV members as known

 8     perpetrators.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  Then, Mr. Kardum, I'd like to take you back to your 2004

11     statement, which is P896, page 6 in the English, please.  And this is at

12     paragraph 33.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, if you would read the transcript, after

14     the "Q" for "Question," you will see often "Previous translation

15     continues."  Could I ask you to make a pause as well.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Sorry.  Yes, Your Honour.

17             Your Honour, I don't know if Mr. Margetts has had a chance to

18     review it, but I'm reminded to ask for permission from the Chamber to

19     replace the English translation that's currently with D97 with the

20     corrected version.

21             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, I haven't had a chance to review it

22     properly.  I'll attempt to do so at the next break.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it's just the three categories added, unless

24     we -- may I take it that if I would look at the original, which I have

25     not done yet, it might well be that I could immediately, myself, verify

Page 9493

 1     whether this comes close to what apparently is added to the translation.

 2             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Mr. President, I have attempted to do that

 3     in the binder but haven't found the original.  I've sent an e-mail to

 4     just some other staff to assist me.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  I can inform counsel that the erroneous page was

 6     one we picked up from 65 ter 4444, so you should be able to find the

 7     original uploaded there, and then we made the correction now.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The Defence is allowed to upload, and if there's any

10     problem, we'd like to hear from you within 24 hours.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  Thank you.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. MISETIC:

15        Q.   Mr. Kardum, at paragraph 33 of your 2004 statement, the first

16     sentence says:  "After Operation Storm, we in the civilian police could

17     only conduct investigations where the military were not suspected."

18             That's not accurate, is it?

19        A.   It is absolutely not true.  I can tell you exactly what the

20     actual sense of this should be.  What paragraph did you say this was?

21        Q.   33.

22        A.   After Operation Storm, we in the civilian police could conduct

23     investigations until it was established that the perpetrator of a

24     criminal offence was a military up to that point.  Once it was

25     established that it was a member of the military that was the

Page 9494

 1     perpetrator, we were to inform the military police, and the military

 2     police would then in accordance with the legal regulations seize itself

 3     of the matter and continue the investigation, and we would then further

 4     agree on the further procedure.

 5        Q.   We need to clarify this point further.  It's -- it's not simply

 6     that you -- once you identify that the suspect was in the military but

 7     that you specifically identify the perpetrator by his identity and that

 8     he is a member of the military.  Is that correct?

 9        A.   No, I don't think that that is fully correct.  The moment we

10     arrived at the conclusion that the perpetrator could be a military, we

11     would have to seek the assistance of the military police in order to get

12     to that person and interview that person.  I don't know whether you

13     understand me.  Namely, I believe that I gave a fuller response to this

14     question when I said that the criminal offence was what was meritorious

15     for us.  It was not the perpetrator but the criminal offence that we were

16     guided by.  When we had probable cause to believe that someone could be

17     associated with a criminal offence, we had to deal with that in a

18     different way.

19        Q.   However, in a situation where the identity of a perpetrator is

20     unknown for an unknown crime, let's say you found a body, it would not be

21     enough for you to stop an investigation because you suspect that the

22     murder might have been committed by someone in a military uniform,

23     correct?

24        A.   Yes, absolutely correct.  That is just an assumption.  In respect

25     of every killed person, one could assume that the perpetrator might have

Page 9495

 1     been this or that person, a civilian or a military.  It could have been

 2     under, inverted commas, the friendly side, or some people could have been

 3     -- some Serbs could have been killed by Serbs.  We just have the criminal

 4     offence.  We do not have the perpetrator yet, and of course, the civilian

 5     police is the competent one to act.  But we did make a distinction here

 6     in a certain way between all those events which were not connected to

 7     combat.  But if we knew about some combat activities directly, for

 8     instance, if we came to Knin, the police came there on the 6th of August,

 9     and we find an enemy soldier dead, we would not investigate such a case.

10     That would be handled by the sanitization or civilian protection crew,

11     and they would be responsible -- except, of course, if we found out later

12     that that body had been the victim of a war crime.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, I was also looking at the clock.  I'm

14     aware that quite a few questions were put by the Bench.  Could you give

15     us an indication as far as time is concerned.

16             MR. MISETIC:  I will try to wrap up in 30 minutes, Your Honour,

17     maybe less.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps you would then, also, go over the one

19     hour and 30 minutes you indicated, but we'll ask Mr. Registrar to give

20     full and detailed information, including...

21             Then we'll have a break.  We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, I would like just to inform the Chamber that

25     I -- for the rest of the week I wouldn't be present in the courtroom due

Page 9496

 1     to some emergency that occurs suddenly, and my absence, of course, with

 2     the consent of our client, Mr. Kuzmanovic will take care of the Defence.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I hope that the emergency is not of a sad nature.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC:  Unfortunately, it is, but I'll be back on Monday.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we feel sorry for the emergency being of

 6     a sad nature for you.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 5.43 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, I think you're two minutes off from

12     your one hour and a half according to the registrar.  Could you please

13     finish within the next 15 to 20 minutes.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you.

17        Q.   Mr. Kardum, you've have heard I have 20 minutes, so I need you to

18     be very succinct in your answers, and we'll get through this material.

19             You described in the Varivode case and in the Gosici case that a

20     type of task force was created with the MUP and the military police.  Why

21     wasn't General Gotovina asked to be a member of the task force?

22        A.   As I've already said before, we never contacted officers other

23     than the military police.  We exclusively worked with the military

24     police.  Furthermore, at the time in question, I don't even know where

25     General Gotovina was, and I never communicated with him, and if there

Page 9497

 1     were someone to communicate with him it would have been someone at a

 2     higher level.

 3             We contacted the military police alone.  We generally contacted

 4     lower level officers.

 5        Q.   Did there ever come a time in the Varivode or Gosici case where

 6     you recall somebody saying, we need to involve the commander of the

 7     Military District in the investigation, given that we suspect that

 8     soldiers were involved?

 9        A.   No, I don't remember that ever anything like that was mentioned.

10        Q.   I will save time.  I was going to play a video, Mr. Kardum, which

11     was D508, and it is Minister Jarnjak at a press conference on the 8th of

12     August when he was asked a question about allegations that the Bosnian

13     army had crossed over into Croatia and burned some villages down.  If I

14     may summarize, Minister Jarnjak said the police will go in, secure the

15     area, conduct an investigation, and take appropriate steps once the

16     perpetrator is identified.

17             Why weren't more incidents of burning in your area of

18     responsibility investigated in August/September 1995?

19        A.   I've already tried to explain this earlier.  We were very busy

20     with the tasks that we had at the very outset.  Even before these

21     incidents of burning of houses, we were given priority tasks, which were

22     to secure the reception centres; to find mass graves where people, Croats

23     had been buried during the occupation; finding and marking the minefields

24     in order to prevent civilians from getting there by error; and there were

25     many instances where mines and explosives were discovered.  And most

Page 9498

 1     often the regular police when they would discover something like that

 2     would inform the military police so that hundreds and hundreds of tons -

 3     and I know exactly what I'm saying, I'm very aware of my words - so we

 4     found hundreds and hundreds of tons of mines, shells, huge amounts of

 5     ammunition, guns, weapons.  There was barely a house that didn't contain

 6     ammunition and weapons and so on.

 7             So this is why one of the reasons why we did not conduct many

 8     investigations into these burnings of houses because there was a fear

 9     that there were some mines planted in the house, and we were especially

10     afraid of the mine fields because we didn't know where they were.

11             We had losses in this area, both in civilian casualties and

12     military casualties, and I recall this particular day when I was in Knin,

13     one of our special officers, special policemen was killed, and his

14     father, the man -- the boy had returned from the front line.  He had

15     brought with him a hand-grenade, and the hand-grenade went off, and he

16     got killed and so on and so on.

17             I have to say one more thing here.  As I already mentioned, there

18     were some 12.000 house, Croat houses that had been burned.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me --

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Is this what you were seeking?

22             MR. MISETIC:  I was trying to stop it.

23        Q.   But I do want to you answer what you were about to say.  There

24     were 12.000 Croat houses that were burned.  How do you know that?

25        A.   I know the villages.  I was born in a village between Benkovac

Page 9499

 1     and Knin.  I lived there until my 14th year, and I know some of these

 2     villages, and I know by their names whether they were Croat or Serb

 3     villages and which villages Croats had been expelled from.

 4             I just wanted to stress this:  We did not carry -- we did not

 5     conduct investigations into these Croat houses because an investigation

 6     into an arson, an instance of arson would take at least one day.

 7        Q.   So you didn't investigate the houses, the Croat houses that had

 8     been burned down during the 4-year occupation?  Is that your testimony?

 9        A.   Well, I wasn't -- I wasn't there for four years.  I only spent a

10     year and a half on those tasks.  But, no, we did not investigate those.

11        Q.   What I'm saying is, once the area was liberated, you didn't

12     conduct investigations of the Croat houses that had been burned down

13     prior to Operation Storm, correct?

14        A.   No, we did not conduct investigations.

15        Q.   How -- where does this number of 12.000 Croat houses come from?

16        A.   Well, I can give you an approximation of the villages where most

17     such houses were.

18        Q.   No, no.  Did you --

19        A.   This is my free assessment.

20        Q.   Okay.  You've mentioned the POW centres, and I would like to put

21     certain matters to you in order to get your response.  The Prosecution is

22     making certain allegations about those centres, and I'd like to read them

23     to you and get your response to them.

24             In paragraph 43 of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief, it says:

25     "In the centres, they", meaning the Serbs who were in the centres,

Page 9500

 1     "became even more aware of the systematic abuse of Serbs."

 2             The first question is, did the Croatian authorities who were

 3     running the centre purposely tell Serbs or try to instill fear in the

 4     Serbs who were in the centres?

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  Your Honour --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. MARGETTS:  We're first of all referring to those who were

 8     running the centre.  Of course, that could include this witness, but it

 9     seems to exclude him.  And now we're asking about their purpose in doing

10     something hypothetical that they may or may not have done.  I don't think

11     he can speak to their purpose.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we will see what his answer is, if he says, I

13     can't say anything, or he says, I can only tell you about this, or I

14     could -- I heard from colleagues about all the centres.  We do not know.

15     I think there is nothing inadmissible as far as the question is

16     concerned.

17             Please proceed.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, regarding these

19     centres, I stress once again that I'm proud of the way they were run -

20     the centre in Zadar, at least - and that the citizens of the Republic of

21     Croatia of Serb ethnicity who had been brought there because of

22     incriminating offences that they had committed during the occupation of

23     these areas of Croatia, they could see for themselves that we were trying

24     to proceed as a legal state.  And as far as I know, no one was killed in

25     those centres.  No one was tortured.  They were given medical assistance,

Page 9501

 1     and some of them didn't even enter the centres.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Let me --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please focus on the question.

 5     Mr. Misetic, I leave it to you.

 6             MR. MISETIC:

 7        Q.   The specific question is, with respect to the centre in Zadar,

 8     did you ever see anyone trying to instill fear into the people who were

 9     in the centre?

10        A.   No, absolutely.

11        Q.   Next allegation is at paragraph 115 of the Prosecution's

12     pre-trial brief, and in it the Prosecution contends that:  "The Serb

13     civilians were brought to collection centres, and from these collection

14     centres civilians were systematically transferred out of Croatia."

15             Now, was it your experience with respect to the civilian and POW

16     facilities in Zadar that the Croatian authorities were systematically

17     transferring people from those centres and out of Croatia?

18        A.   As for the reception centre for prisoners of war, I claim with

19     full awareness of what I'm saying that not a single person was

20     transferred outside of Croatia.  They were under the police jurisdiction,

21     and there was an order of 5 August that civilian individuals can be taken

22     over, and this referred to all -- to all adults who had their papers.

23     They just needed to provide their information, but I don't know of any

24     instances of anyone being transferred to one outside of Croatia.

25             As for the centres, what I said about the centres, I claim this

Page 9502

 1     with full responsibility because I have direct knowledge.

 2        Q.   With respect -- you mentioned the order of the 5th of August for

 3     -- in the civilian centre that they could leave if they had their papers

 4     and if someone came for them.

 5             What would happen in the instance of somebody who didn't have a

 6     relative, a friend, somebody who would show up and assist them in leaving

 7     the centre?

 8        A.   They could leave the centre without any impediment unless the

 9     person was obviously unable to take care of themselves.  Such individuals

10     were placed in hospitals or other medical institutions, and when I say we

11     would send them to these institutions, I mean the Croatian authorities.

12     And in the end, when the schools were supposed to reopen on the 1st of

13     September, a number of individuals remained there.  Most of them were

14     elderly and bedridden individuals, and they were hospitalised in a wing

15     of the Knin hospital.  This was a new hospital buildings that had been

16     built, and this is where these persons were hospitalised.

17        Q.   Finally on this topic, paragraph 125 of the Prosecution's

18     pre-trial brief.  This is a question about the reception centre in Knin.

19     The allegation is that Serb civilians and surrendered RSK soldiers were

20     detained in Croatian barracks and collection centres where they were

21     regularly beaten and forced to work.

22             Now, you're the chief of investigations for Zadar-Knin police

23     administration.  Did you ever receive reports of civilians in collection

24     centres being beaten or forced to work?

25        A.   No, absolutely not.  That is something that someone invented.  I

Page 9503

 1     was in Knin.  I visited the collection centre there -- the reception

 2     centre.  They were not detained there, neither the civilians nor the

 3     soldiers.  They were just brought there.  We could not detain anyone.

 4     I've already said this.  The police could not detain anyone.  They could

 5     only take someone in.  The courts would detain people.  God forbid that

 6     we would ever try to force someone to labour, to work, either civilians

 7     or soldiers.

 8        Q.   Mr. Kardum, I'd like to ask you about two deaths that are in the

 9     Prosecution's further clarification.

10             MR. MISETIC:  The first one is if we could call up P251, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Kardum, this is an incident report filed by UNCIVPOL

12     regarding the discovery of the body of Gojko Komazec.  Did you

13     participate in the investigation of the death of Gojko Komazec?

14        A.   Yes.  I have to stress that I had friendly ties indirectly with

15     this man, although I didn't know him.  He was the uncle of a well-known

16     Croat basketball player, Arijan Komazec, and chance would have it that I

17     knew his uncle, Milan Komazec, who lived in Zadar.  He was the father of

18     this basketball player, Arijan.  And at some point in time, Milan came to

19     me and he said that he thought his brother was in this area, so then I

20     asked the commander of the police station in Gracac to inform me of any

21     -- anything he knew about a person named Gojko Komazec.  He told me that

22     they had no information.

23             In the month of March 1996, the Croatian police discovered a dead

24     body on which documents were found bearing the name of Gojko Komazec in a

25     place called Vevudic [phoen], not far from Zrmanja, which is the border

Page 9504

 1     area between Knin and Gracac.  And on this occasion, the investigating

 2     judge, a pathologist, and the district attorney were called.  If I

 3     recall, the pathologist determined that some bones were broken on this

 4     body and this was probably caused by a fall from a high place.  This

 5     individual was then buried in the Zadar cemetery, a number was assigned

 6     to this grave, and his -- the brother of Gojko Komazec knew of this.  He

 7     was aware of this.

 8             Now, there was another man called Gojko Komazec who was born the

 9     same year in the same place, but these are two different individuals.

10     One of them is the father of Jovan - this is the dead man - and the other

11     one was another person whose son's was Uras.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  The son of Uras, interpreter correction.

13        Q.   Thank you.  The second incident is, there was a witness who came

14     to the Trial Chamber whose last name was Sovilj who talked about his --

15     members of his family that had been killed in the Gracac area.  Did you

16     participate in the investigation of the murders of members of the Sovilj

17     family?

18        A.   Yes.  We processed this case in 2001 or 2002, and we were very

19     careful.  We paid a lot of attention to this investigation.  A whole team

20     of men from my section was involved in this, including me personally,

21     because we were informed through a policeman who is a member of our staff

22     about a possible perpetrator or a probable perpetrator of this murder.

23     He told our policeman a story about a Croat soldier of Serb ethnicity who

24     murdered this man immediately in the wake of Operation Storm because of

25     some property issues that they had, and we paid a lot of attention to

Page 9505

 1     this investigation.  We find a lot of consistencies in their stories --

 2     in his story.  There were two members of this family, Sovilj Mira --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  And the interpreter did not catch the other

 4     name.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpreted] -- and they were buried in the

 6     graveyard there.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please be asked to slow down.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please slow down.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We searched this home thoroughly,

10     and we found body parts, charred body parts.  We think that they were

11     body parts because it was just a small pile of charred leftovers, and we

12     sent this to a forensic lab for them to determine whether these were

13     human remains or not.

14             We investigated this, whether the perpetrator was this Croat

15     soldier of Serb ethnicity, but so far we haven't been able to establish

16     whether he was the perpetrator of this criminal --

17        Q.   Your Honour, how much -- do I have any time left?  I have one

18     topic left.  Let me --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I was listening to the French channel, so I missed

20     your last words.  I see in the transcript only "Previous translation

21     continues."

22             MR. MISETIC:  Sorry.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  So I don't know what you had in mind.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Do I have any time left?  I have one topic left,

25     less than five minutes.

Page 9506

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If it's really less than five minutes.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  It is, and I'll stop if it's not.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And 4 minutes, 58 seconds is not less than

 4     five minutes.  That's approximately three minutes, yes.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  Okay.  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             Can we have P918, please, on the screen.

 7        Q.   This is a warning that you were shown yesterday by the

 8     Prosecutor.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  If we could get the English.

10        Q.   I'm just going to ask you a few questions and then show you

11     another document.  But in it, do you have any familiarity with how the

12     Ministry of Defence works?  For example, do you note that this order does

13     not go through the military chain of command but it goes through the

14     political line?  Do you have any knowledge of how the military functioned

15     at that time?

16        A.   As far as I know, the Ministry of Defence has operating within it

17     the Main Staff of the Croatian army.  The chief of the staff also

18     commands the Croatian army on behalf of the president of the state,

19     whereas the ministry is to provide the logistical, legal, and other

20     support to the armed forces, namely everything which comes under the

21     chief of staff.

22        Q.   If we could go, in light of the time ...

23                           [Defence counsel confer]

24             MR. MISETIC:  65 ter 2052, please.

25        Q.   This is a report, the next day from the chief of the political

Page 9507

 1     affairs unit or from an assistant in the political affairs department to

 2     the chief of the political affairs unit.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  And if we could go to the next page, please.

 4        Q.   And here it talks about the measures that were taken by the

 5     political affairs branch to prevent crime before Storm.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  If we can go to page 3 of the English, please.

 7        Q.   It says:  "Both before and after combat operations, we made the

 8     maximum effort to indicate to members through the service the importance

 9     of exemplary and dignified entries into towns."

10             Goes on to say: "They endeavour to prevent unnecessary

11     devastation of religious, cultural, commercial, and civilian buildings.

12     In cooperation with SIS and the military police, many attempts were

13     prevented.  Despite the measures taken, a certain number of civilian and

14     commercial buildings were destroyed either in part or completely."

15             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn -- go to the bottom of the page

16     and then turn the page.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It is four minutes now.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Last question, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MR. MISETIC:

21        Q.   "The number of such negative instances could have been reduced

22     with better and more coordinated work between the civilian and military

23     police and all structures of civilian and military government."

24             My question to you, Mr. Kardum, is that was your experience as

25     well, was it not?  There was a lack of coordination between the civilian

Page 9508

 1     and military branches that in addition to the problems that we talked

 2     about at the beginning of my examination also contributed to the

 3     inability to establish law and order quickly.  Is that correct?  And I

 4     need a short answer.

 5        A.   Your Honours, to corroborate this statement is the fact that

 6     cities such as Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, and Gracac were completely,

 7     almost completely preserved.  I was in Knin on the 7th of August, and

 8     Knin was 90 per cent intact.  Nothing had been devastated except the

 9     Catholic church of St. Anthony, which -- the roof of which had been

10     burnt.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  It seems not to be the answer to your question.

13             MR. MISETIC:  May I have this exhibit marked, Your Honour?  I

14     tender it into evidence, and I'm complete.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  No objection.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D810.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  D810 is admitted into evidence.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay, you're still in a position that you have no

21     --

22             MR. KAY:  Nothing arises, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Mr. Margetts.

25             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, a number of issues have arisen, so

Page 9509

 1     if I could deal with them as quickly as possible, I'd --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

 3             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 4                           Re-examination by Mr. Margetts:

 5        Q.   Mr. Kardum, I have a few further questions for you arising from

 6     some of the answers that you've given to Mr. Mikulicic and Mr. Misetic.

 7             The first matter that I'd like to discuss is notification of

 8     complaints of crimes from international organisations.

 9             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if I could please have 65 ter 5486

10     displayed, and as that comes up on the screen I'll just explain.  This is

11     not a document that's on our 65 ter list.  It is a cover letter that was

12     disclosed in July 2007.  The document that it encloses has been the

13     subject of -- is on our 65 ter list.

14        Q.   Mr. Kardum, if you could look at that document there and confirm

15     that that's your signature there and you've directed this to the sector

16     of criminal police in Zagreb.  Would that have been directed to Mr. Nadj?

17        A.   This is my signature here, as far as I can see.

18        Q.   Yes.  And would have this letter been directed to Mr. Nadj?

19        A.   Yes.  The crime police sector as it is written here, to Mr. Nadj.

20        Q.   I'd just like to show you the enclosure.

21             MR. MARGETTS:  And, Mr. Registrar, if you could please present 65

22     ter 4623.  And if you could just go to the top of the Croatian, as well,

23     please.

24        Q.   You'll see, Mr. Kardum, that there's your -- the facsimile number

25     of the criminal department and your name there and that it's from the

Page 9510

 1     commander of Knin UNCIVPOL to the commander of the Knin police station.

 2     And if we just look at a couple of examples, for instance, the first

 3     example there.  We have information about someone being captured by

 4     Croatian soldiers.  The second example is information about people being

 5     killed by Croatian soldiers.

 6             Do you recall receiving that and forwarding it on to Mr. Nadj in

 7     Zagreb?

 8        A.   Can I just go through it a bit, please?

 9             Yes, I see this text, and I can see my first and last names

10     written up here.

11        Q.   And can you confirm that you forwarded that to Mr. Nadj in

12     Zagreb?

13        A.   That is evident from the first section if that is a component

14     part of this letter.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, if could I have the cover letter

16     entered into evidence and together with this appendix to that cover

17     letter, so that's 65 ter 5486 and 65 ter 46 -- 623.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.

19             Mr. Registrar.

20             MR. MISETIC:  I don't have an objection to the admission, but I

21     think the purpose of the document should be put to the witness as to why

22     -- what the purpose is and why it's being admitted.

23             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.  No contest from me.  I do have another

24     document which is of a similar nature which I'd like to show the witness

25     and put the question to the witness.

Page 9511

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it seems that Mr. Margetts wants to establish

 2     that this document was sent by the witness to Zagreb, and if he has any

 3     further questions, we'll hear from him or, as a matter of fact, the

 4     witness will hear from him.

 5             Mr. Margetts, then, Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 05486, that becomes Exhibit

 7     number P921; and 65 ter 04623 becomes Exhibit number P922.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  P921 and P922 are admitted into evidence.

 9             I don't know whether it's very practical to have it under two

10     numbers, but for the time being we leave it as this.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if I could please have document

12     identification 1D54-0033 produced on the screen.

13             MR. MISETIC:  Again, Your Honour, this is the same objection

14     that's now the subject of a pending motion, just for the record.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, and Your Honour, this is a cover page which

16     -- as Mr. Misetic indicates that we've received from the Defence, and it

17     -- the enclosure is D179 under seal.

18        Q.   But if, Mr. Kardum, you could please look at this document, and

19     could you confirm that, again, this is it a letter that you send to

20     Mr. Nadj; and could you please just have a look at the second

21     paragraph and confirm that you asked Mr. Nadj for further instructions as

22     to how to proceed?

23        A.   Yes, that is my signature.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

25             So, Mr. Kardum, can you confirm that you in fact did receive

Page 9512

 1     complaints from internationals in relation to crimes that had occurred on

 2     the territory?

 3        A.   Can I please see the second page of this document?

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, does this move to a second page?

 5     It did -- yes.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see that this document was

 7     sent to Ivica Cetina and not to Ivo Kardum.

 8             MR. MARGETTS:

 9        Q.   You can confirm, however, that you did receive this and this is a

10     list of complaints from internationals?

11        A.   Yes.  It was received by the police administration by the chief

12     Ivan Cetina.  After talking about it, we forwarded it to the ministry,

13     and that was after the date which this document bears, which is the 27th

14     of September.  Immediately after that date, we had this great project

15     that we embarked upon to process various crimes.  I actually asked the

16     head for his instructions, meaning to ask for assistance.  So he arrived

17     and the Assistant Minister Benko and with an entire entourage of police

18     officers who came to conduct this procedure about all these murders that

19     were referred to in the document.  But I do have an objection to raise in

20     respect of the representatives of the international community because

21     they informed us about crimes that have happened on 4th or 5th of

22     August on the 27th.  I wonder why did they not inform us immediately

23     because I believe that there are also some falsehoods in the text, and it

24     is a question of --

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 9513

 1        A.   How they got by their information.  One of the persons referred

 2     to is Gojko Komazec.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, if I could have this marked for

 5     identification in light of Mr. Misetic's reservations.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the English and the Croatian copies

 7     on our screen at this moment.  They are of different dates, the one 23rd

 8     of September, 1995; the other one of the 19th September, 1995.

 9             Now, it may well be that in the routine at that time that two

10     versions were not produced exactly at the same time, but could we look

11     again at the previous one where apparently this witness writes a letter

12     and forwards the ... because I'd like to look at the ...

13             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  There, at least I didn't see that, that at

15     least there's specific reference made to a document submitted in a

16     language on a certain date, apparently not yet in B/C/S at that moment.

17             Mr. Misetic.

18             MR. MISETIC:  I object on the basis of the motion that's

19     currently pending.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's because of the disclosure of --

21             MR. MISETIC:  Correct.  It's not on the 65 ter list as part of

22     the disclosure.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's on the record.  So apart from that

24     objection, there are no other objections.  Then we'll deal with that

25     matter.

Page 9514

 1             I'll discuss with my colleagues how to deal with it, either to

 2     have them marked for identification.  I think we admitted the previous

 3     document where there was a similar objection.

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  The first one that I presented today was just one

 5     that we -- had become relevant and I sought to add to the 65 ter list,

 6     but it emanated from the Prosecution, so --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you earlier referred to a pending motion

 8     and objection based on that, isn't it?

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Well, that motion has many or multiple components,

10     one of which is that these documents are not on the 65 ter list, but

11     there's also an Article 21 argument in the motion.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll further analyse what decisions on admission

15     were taken earlier and see whether we have to review those decisions in

16     light of the pending motion for this document.  At least at this moment,

17     it will be marked for identification.

18             Mr. Registrar, that would be number...

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P923 marked for identification,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

22             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

23        Q.   Mr. Kardum, at the start of your examination by Mr. Misetic, he

24     indicated the change in the geographic area that the police were

25     responsible for after Operation Storm, and I'd just like you to indicate,

Page 9515

 1     was it the case that in that additional area, the Knin area and

 2     surrounds, there was a very great change in demographics during and

 3     immediately after Operation Storm; that is, did a lot of people depart

 4     from at that territory?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Is this an issue in dispute?

 6             MR. MARGETTS:  The issue being I --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I know.  I do understand --

 8             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that you want to inform the Chamber of the fact

10     that if there's less population, there's less work to be done, isn't it?

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But the fact you're seeking to establish seems to be

13     not in dispute.  Please make a clear distinction between what you could

14     argue at a later stage and whether this is any fact that is in dispute.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It's argumentative at this moment.

17             MR. MARGETTS:

18        Q.   And in early August 1995, Mr. Kardum, there were many military

19     personnel on the territory, the newly acquired territory or liberated

20     territory under your police administration, correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now --

23        A.   "Many" is a relative concept.  There were soldiers, yes.

24             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. Registrar, if I could please have D49

25     displayed.

Page 9516

 1        Q.   Mr. Kardum, I'm going to show you again the 18 August order from

 2     Mr. Moric, and we dealt with that in the course of the examination.  In

 3     particular, we dealt with paragraph 5.

 4             In this order, there's a reference by Mr. Moric, and if we could

 5     just stay on that first page there, please, Mr. Registrar, for a moment.

 6     There's a reference for Mr. Moric that you will see there, Mr. Kardum, to

 7     the fact that there were many acts perpetrated by individuals wearing

 8     Croatian army uniforms.

 9             And if we can please turn over now to paragraph 5, you will see

10     that, again, this is the paragraph we looked at a day or so ago.  It says

11     if the military police cannot perform the tasks, then the police will do

12     it, irrespective of whether the perpetrator wears a Croatian army

13     uniform.

14             Now, at that stage, what was your practice in relation to these

15     incidents where the perpetrator was wearing a Croatian army uniform?

16             MR. MISETIC:  If you could establish what time-period we're

17     talking about.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts.

19             MR. MARGETTS:

20        Q.   The time-period, Mr. Kardum, indicated in this correspondence,

21     the correspondence is 18 August.  So in the period from the 5th of

22     August to 18 August, and if there is a distinction, please make it, but

23     I'm also interested in the remainder of August.

24        A.   This letter by Mr. Moric was sent by Mr. Moric, the assistant

25     minister of the regular police, to the chief of the police

Page 9517

 1     administration.  I'm not quite sure whether and when I received this

 2     letter.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- the question is not when you received it but

 4     what your practice was at that time, between the 5th and the 18th of

 5     August, if -- of course, in view of this instruction, whether you did act

 6     alone irrespective of whether the perpetrator wore a Croatian army

 7     uniform or not.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The practice was as I described it

 9     before.  Namely, we would detain them until the military police came.  We

10     would process them if there was no military police, and then we would

11     subsequently inform the military police thereon, and I have described

12     this several times, I believe.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Did the practice change after the 18th of August?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in particular, no.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that you described the practice also

16     before the 18th of August.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

19             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20        Q.   You were also asked about the process of sanitation, and I'd just

21     like to confirm with you that there were -- there was a distinct

22     responsibility for sanitation that -- that the civil protection

23     department had, and that was a different responsibility to the

24     responsibility of the criminal administration had for criminal

25     investigation.  Is that correct?

Page 9518

 1        A.   I do not quite understand your question.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any -- it seems so obvious to me that is

 3     the whole line of the way in which the witness answered all of the

 4     questions.  Is there any need to --

 5             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes, Mr. President.  There appears to be an issue

 6     that arose.  If I could please have D233 displayed.

 7        Q.   This, Mr. Kardum, may assist you.

 8             This is an order from Zdravko Zidovec, and you've seen this

 9     before.  It's been referred to in your 2007 witness statement.  And if

10     you could just look at this order, you will see that Zdravko Zidovec, the

11     assistant minister responsible for civil protection, has indicated the

12     various tasks that will be performed in respect of the identification of

13     bodies.

14             And so can you please look at that and confirm that there's no

15     reference in any part of this order to any investigative steps?

16        A.   Zdravko Zidovec was the assistant minister for civilian

17     protection affairs, and what you have just stated is correct.  He was not

18     in charge of the crime police.

19        Q.   And it's the case that the forensic technicians that were

20     assigned to the sanitation teams were assigned to teams that came under

21     the jurisdiction of Zidovec and more immediately, Cemeron.  Is that

22     correct?

23        A.   No.  They were under the jurisdiction of the assistant minister

24     for the crime police.  They were part of the crime police, but at that

25     moment they were assigned to assist the civilian protection crews working

Page 9519

 1     on the territory, and their specific assignments are spelled out in Items

 2     1 and 2 of this order.

 3        Q.   And also, we had the opportunity to see the order that came from

 4     Maric on the 6th of August.  And similarly, the task prescribed was one

 5     of identification, correct?

 6        A.   [No interpretation]

 7        Q.   And the issue that I want to ask you directly about is this.

 8        A.   Maric --

 9        Q.   The role that we saw prescribed by Zidovec's --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, it seems that your last question did

11     not receive -- the answer to your last question was not interpreted.

12     It's [Microphone not activated] appear on the transcript.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  I'm sorry.  Can I -- the interpreter failed to

14     switch on her microphone.  Can I repeat it?  I know what it was.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If you can repeat the answer, please do so.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  He was the chief of all

17     forensic technicians at the level of the MUP.  He was generally the chief

18     of all the forensic technicians.

19             MR. MARGETTS:

20        Q.   Yes.  That's not specifically my question.  My question is, we've

21     seen Zidovec's order, and earlier we've seen Maric's order.  We also had

22     the benefit of seeing the crime police sector minutes from the meetings

23     that were held in Zagreb.  The role of the forensic technicians was

24     prescribed there, and it was one of identification, wasn't it?  That was

25     the role that they were given.

Page 9520

 1        A.   That's right, and that is in Item 1.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Margetts, I'm looking at the clock.  How much

 3     time would you --

 4             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, I really -- I could complete the

 5     examination in the next five minutes, certainly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the Defence already indicate whether the

 7     questions put until now trigger any need for further questions?

 8             MR. MISETIC:  I'm hoping that Mr. Margetts will put to him what

 9     he wants to interpret this order as.  If he does that, then I won't ask

10     any questions.  If he doesn't, I'm going to put it to him in one

11     question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then with the indulgence of the interpreters and

13     everyone else who assists us, I'd like to finish, as a matter of fact,

14     and that should be done within the next eight minutes unless this finds

15     strong opposition.

16             Well, I haven't -- as to the objections, I hear of no strong

17     opposition.

18             Thank you very much already in advance.

19             Please proceed, Mr. Margetts, and stick to your time estimates.

20             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  At Mr. Misetic's

21     invitation, I'll move straight to the issue, and that is this.

22        Q.   That the forensic technicians who were assigned to the sanitation

23     teams, they performed the task of identification of the bodies, but they

24     didn't conduct any onsite investigation, did they?

25        A.   I wouldn't agree with you completely because they photographed

Page 9521

 1     the site -- the scene of the crime, which is part of on-site

 2     investigations, which is part of the forensic technician's job.  So not

 3     completely, but in part they did perform some investigative actions.

 4        Q.   And those investigative actions are prescribed in the orders of

 5     Zidovec and in the order of Maric that we saw?

 6        A.   That's right.  Maric was a lower-level officer in the criminal

 7     police.  He was the subordinate to Mr. Zidovec, and I think that he even

 8     referred to this order from Mr. Zidovec.  He was the chief of all

 9     forensic technicians in Croatia.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Kardum.  That concludes my questions.

11             MR. MARGETTS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, no further questions.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kardum -- yes.

15             MR. MARGETTS:  Mr. President, there is one issue, and that's the

16     exhibits that I need to tender.  If we could attend to that.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I take it that we'll deal with that

18     tomorrow --

19             MR. MARGETTS:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and not ask more from those who are assisting us.

21             Mr. Kardum, this concludes your testimony.  I would like to thank

22     you for coming the far way to The Hague and for having answered the

23     questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench, and I'd like to

24     wish you a safe trip home again.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 9522

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we adjourn, and we'll resume tomorrow,

 2     Thursday, the 25th of September, quarter past 2 in the afternoon in

 3     Courtroom I.

 4                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of

 6                           September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.