1 Monday, 29 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Mr. Hendriks, before we continue, I would like to remind you that
12 you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
13 beginning of your testimony.
14 Mr. Kuzmanovic, you asked the witness to prepare a list of
15 documents he solely authored at the time.
16 Mr. Kuzmanovic, we have considered whether we would encourage the
17 witness to do so. Over the weekend, we have looked at the correspondence
18 between ECMM and the Chamber, and we thought that could be done safely
19 without in any way interfering with the reasons why the documents were
20 redacted; however, Mr. Hendriks has prepared a list but has not limited
21 himself to shows documents he solely prepared himself. So, therefore, I
22 suggest -- I take it that the reason why you'd need that is just to know
23 better how to cross-examined, rather than --
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, one of the problems is that on the list
1 Mr. Hendriks has prepared, we find more than just his own name. So,
2 therefore, I'm afraid that we have to redact this list again, so it
3 exclusively provides you with the information.
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I know the specific ones that he
5 has written that were not redacted, and that is 812 -- and I can go
6 through that list now, Your Honour, because I had that list already:
7 P812 - these are all P numbers by the way - 814, 818, 945, and 957.
8 The other documents -- and I did get a call from Chambers, and I
9 appreciated the assistance that I received from Chambers. We went over
10 the remaining documents, and those were the documents either that were --
11 that were all redacted, which I was not sure whether he wrote them
12 himself or he -- or the witness co-authored him.
13 And those were the ones I was looking for, Your Honour. Make we
14 could ask the witness, or if he has provided that to Chambers, that would
15 be a route to go.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the problem is he provided them in such a
17 way that sometimes when he was not the sole author, it, nevertheless,
18 appears on the list and also names the other person who authored that.
19 So we have to --
20 I'll ask Ms. van den Berge to perhaps take out again those
21 documents from the list that are not authored solely by Mr. Hendriks, and
22 then provide it to you. Would that be --
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That would be wonderful. Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, you'll receive a list, although a
2 very short list of documents, solely authored by Mr. Hendriks.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, thank you, first of all, for doing
5 your homework during the weekend. Thank you for that.
6 Mr. Kuzmanovic will now continue his cross-examination.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
8 WITNESS: ERIC HENDRIKS [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic: [Continued]
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hendriks, for reviewing those documents. I
12 appreciate it.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Before getting into those documents, I wanted to
14 pull up 65 ter 2410, please.
15 Q. Mr. Hendriks, that's your statement of April 18th, 1996.
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we go to page 2 of that statement, please.
17 Page 2 of the statement itself, not the second page of the document.
18 Q. This statement, Mr. Hendriks, was not part of your -- not part of
19 your -- I'm sorry. This statement was not discussed in your direct
20 examination, Mr. Hendriks. We talked about it briefly on Friday.
21 The first part of your statement here, at the stop of page 2,
22 discusses that it was your impression that the Croats were able to take
23 over the Krajina within two days, and you listed several reasons, the
24 first being that Operation Storm was well prepared and executed on an
25 unexpected day.
1 When you say "Operation Storm was well prepared and executed,"
2 what do you mean by that?
3 A. Exactly as it reads, such an Operation Storm only has a chance of
4 successful if it is well prepared and carried out accordingly, so rapidly
5 and smart.
6 Q. Okay. I understand that rapidly and smart is an assessment that
7 you made based on your observations, but what were the specific things
8 that made it rapid and smart?
9 A. I can't elaborate too much on that because I wasn't present. I
10 was in a bunker and was unable to observe anything. But the mere fact
11 that it was finished within a day was cause for me to say they managed to
12 take care of that quickly.
13 Q. Now, your second point was the ARSK was not well equipped and
14 organised. Was that based on your observations when you were in
15 Sector South, before Operation Storm?
16 A. No, because, in effect, we were not allowed to observe the ARSK
17 lines; but, later on, we saw basically what they looked like and we
18 concluded that -- well, that distribution was not that rock-solid --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The defence was not
20 that rock-solid.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
22 Q. Did you have any indication that there was mobilisation called at
23 the end of July of 1995, of all able-bodied mean in the Krajina?
24 A. Yes, because among others, my interpreter's friend was mobilised.
25 So it was said that all able-bodied men were mobilised at that point.
1 Q. Point number 4 on this document, sir, says: "Most of the ARSK
2 defence forces pulled out after the recommendation of the Krajina
3 authorities (by radio Knin) to the population to flee asap."
4 Now, was it your understanding that Radio Knin was broadcasting
5 an evacuation of the population out of the Krajina?
6 A. I'm not sure exactly how it worked. That is what I heard from my
7 interpreter who also had that from hearsay, and that is about how it must
8 have gone. So I can't be clear about that.
9 Q. Just to make -- just to clarify that a little bit, it's your
10 understanding that you learned from your interpreter that Radio Knin was
11 broadcasting an evacuation of the local population. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes. I learned that through my interpreter, yes.
13 Q. Do you recall the name of your interpreter?
14 A. There were two. I know only their first names: Renata and
16 Q. Thank you, sir. Later on, in page two of your document at the
17 very bottom, you say: "The Croats didn't want to destroy the main cities
18 because they would like to populated them asap with all the DPs ..."
19 I'm assuming that's displaced persons. Correct?
20 A. [No verbal response]
21 Q. I see you're nodding your head.
22 DPs is displaced persons, correct? Yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. "... from the coastal areas."
25 Now, where did you get the information that the Croats didn't
1 want to destroy the main cities?
2 A. That was, in effect, a conclusion we reached on our own because
3 Knin was not destroyed and other large cities were not destroyed, so the
4 Croats had that problem with displaced persons and got back to that later
5 on. So we didn't hear from -- we didn't hear about that from somebody
6 else, that was our own conclusion.
7 Q. On the next page of your statement, page 3, at the very top, it
8 says: "To the assessment of General Forand, the commander of UN
9 Sector South, the pause of the shelling could have been a deal between
10 Tudjman and Milosevic in order to prevent a slaughtering by giving the
11 opportunity to the population to flee away to Bosnia/Serbia."
12 Now, was this something that you heard directly from General
14 A. I didn't hear that directly, but I do know that General Forand
15 wrote his own account of the Operation Storm situation and his
16 conclusions on that subject; and I believe that this was the subject we
17 spoke about. So, in effect, that was his conclusion about that.
18 Q. You didn't have any indication that that occurred, meaning a deal
19 between Tudjman and Milosevic, did you?
20 A. No, I didn't, but I can imagine it.
21 Q. Now, later on, in that paragraph, there's also some speculation
22 about "the new RS general," who joined the ARSK forces a short time
23 before Storm, "played a big role in breaking the resistance of the army
24 by advising the commanders not to resist, but to save as much lives as
1 Where did you get the information that led you to that?
2 A. I believe from that same summary by General Forand, but I can't
3 say that for sure.
4 Q. Okay. Just so I'm clear, the assessment that you make, based on
5 what you thought was something that came from General Forand, is that the
6 new general essentially broke the will of his own military to resist?
7 A. Not so much the will to resist as the will to indicate at a
8 certain point: "Men, don't let massive slaughter happen, get out of here
9 in time." Something like that.
10 Q. Well, sir, your statement specifically says that this new RS
11 general played a big role in breaking the resistance of the army. And by
12 "army," we're talking the RSK army, correct?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
14 MR. HEDARALY: Sorry, Your Honour. If he is going to put the
15 statement of the witness, he should be accurate in telling that the
16 statement says that "it might be," not that it was stated as a fact.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I think the question is very simple and spoke
18 for itself.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think the context is clear enough that it is a
20 possibility which is described, "it might be."
21 I have another question on my mind: The new RS general, who is
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know his name.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Kuzmanovic.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Was that perhaps General Mrksic? Does that name ring a bell to
3 A. No.
4 Q. Getting back to my earlier question, your statement specifically
5 says: "The new RS general played a big role in breaking the resistance
6 of the army ..."
7 My question to you is: The army was the RSK army, correct? He
8 is referring to his own military?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So, again, I'll ask you: The conclusion here is that the RSK
11 general broke the resistance of his own army?
12 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry. That question was asked --
13 JUDGE ORIE: The question was asked, and not only that, but then
14 the witness explained exactly what he meant by those words.
15 Let's not make it -- he said "a massive" and "then get out." He
16 has --
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
20 Q. Later on, in this paragraph -- or in this statement on this page,
21 sir, in the paragraph which begins: "If the authorities ..."
22 About the eighth line down, there's a sentence that says: "The
23 absence of responses to requests for the results of investigations into
24 numerous killings reported by UNCIVPOL, and then it says: "Figure until
25 3rd October 1995
1 order to stop the incidents underlines the attitude of the authorities."
2 Now, I have several questions regarding that portion of your
3 statement. The Croatian police had no obligation to report anything
4 about results of investigations to UNCIVPOL, did it, or do you know?
5 A. I don't know whether or not they had such an obligation; but if
6 UNCIVPOL had asked about that, apparently they didn't receive
7 satisfactory answers.
8 Q. Now, you, yourself, don't know what kind of investigations were
9 undertaken by the Croatian police. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Meaning my statement is correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you don't know how many people may have been arrested or how
14 many people may have been tried, or convicted, or acquitted. Correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Further down in this same statement, the next line says: "I
17 think that the authorities must have been able to prevent most of the
18 criminalities by sending out 'flying patrols' and by arresting, followed
19 by punishment, the criminals."
20 My first question to you is what is a "flying patrol"?
21 A. You shouldn't take it literally as it reads here, but simply a
22 patrol that goes through the area here and there, not along a regular
23 route but at random so that's not expected.
24 Q. And you say in the -- further in this sentence: "By arresting,
25 followed by punishment."
1 Is it your assertion that people should be arrested and punished
2 without any kind of judicial process involved?
3 A. No, I don't mean it that way. There should always be a judicial
4 process involved.
5 Q. And, simply, if someone is arrested doesn't necessarily mean that
6 they have to be punished if they're not convicted. Correct?
7 A. No, the judge decides that.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I'd like to move 65 ter 2410 into
9 evidence, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
11 MR. HEDARALY: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That is the whole of the statement, Mr. Kuzmanovic?
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Has an attestation been given on the whole of
15 the statement?
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will ask, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that is the appropriate way because it
18 would then be, more or less, a 92 ter statement, unless you would want to
19 limit it to one way to the portions read, but then there is no need to
20 tender it, wouldn't it?
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, I do want to tender it, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, fine then.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I could go through it briefly.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Sure.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Do we know whether the witness had an opportunity to
2 review this statement?
3 Mr. Hendriks, did you recently have a look at this document and
4 were you able to review whether it accurately states what you said at the
5 time, or haven't you seen it for a while?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean my statement from 1996,
7 Your Honour? I did, in fact, re-read it last week.
8 JUDGE ORIE: When you re-read it last week, did you find it an
9 accurate reflection of the statement you gave in 1996?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because it's 13 years later
11 now, and I don't have any reason to take a different view of things. I
12 set it forth in writing at that time as I felt about it then.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So may I understand your last answer to be that you
14 gave that statement at that time, to the best of your recollection, in
15 accordance with the truth and that would you not give any answers
16 different from the answers given at that time, if you would be asked the
17 same questions today?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is it's own story.
19 It's just -- it's not based on any standard list of questions, other than
20 what I wrote in the document at that time; and, at that time, that was my
22 JUDGE ORIE: And you still consider this statement to be the
23 truth, to the best of your recollection, today?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think that this would be the attestation we would
1 need under Rule 92 ter.
2 Mr. Hedaraly, you have no problem with that?
3 Then, Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number to the 1996
4 statement, or rather, written report by Mr. Hendriks.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D820.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D820 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Hendriks, you were kind enough to review many of these ECMM
9 reports over the weekend to determine, other than the ones that were
10 identified, which of the redacted reports you had written exclusively,
11 and I will briefly like to go through those with you.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: P951, if that could be called up, please.
13 Q. Mr. Hendriks, this is a document dated September 9th of 1995, and
14 it is entitled "Special report of the condition of cultural heritage in
15 former Krajina." I believe you were asked some questions generally about
16 this in your direct examination, if I'm not mistaken.
17 You do mention in a number of instances, for example, in Cetina,
18 in Vrlika, and in -- excuse me, Biskupija, the specific -- and Milosi,
19 the specific type of church, whether it is Catholic or Orthodox, whether
20 it was damaged or intact. But for the most part, in this report, there
21 is not a designation of which church, whether Catholic or Orthodox, was
22 touched or untouched, damaged or undamaged. Correct?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Was there any specific reason, as far as you know, that you did
25 not, other than those few instance, designate the type of church, whether
1 it was an Orthodox church or a Catholic church, was damaged or undamaged?
2 A. It's perfectly possible that at that time we didn't know exactly
3 what type of church it was, so I didn't -- I didn't associate a specific
4 designation with it.
5 Q. The next redacted document that you said you had written yourself
6 was P955.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If that could be pulled up, please.
8 Q. That's a document dated September 7th.
9 On the second page of the document, you note, toward the bottom
10 of the document, that there's a Serbian gentleman who had a Croatian
11 friend, and the comment is: "The Croatian friend said that the looting
12 can't be prevented because this revenge can't be stopped in a 'country in
13 war,' where no proper law and order is present."
14 Now, the assessment of the friend of this Serbian gentleman, what
15 caused you to put that in your report?
16 A. A team comment has same value as the writer attributes to it. In
17 effect, that was my reflection at the time that if even in Croatia
18 don't really believe in having order there, what should we believe in
20 In other words, he made it appear as if it was simply something
21 you would have to get used to; and, on that day, it surfaced in my mind
22 as something that I wanted to set forth in writing. That's my opinion,
23 and the higher echelons should do with that as they please.
24 Q. But the looting and killing at some point did stop, did it not?
25 A. I can't say exactly. I was in that area until the end of
1 October; and, when I left, the looting and killing had not really stopped
3 Q. So it's your assessment that at the end of October of 1995, the
4 looting and killing had not stopped at all?
5 A. I don't remember anymore. I would need to review reports from
6 that period. But as far as I remember, it had not stopped yet when I
7 left the area.
8 Q. The other report that you had written yourself is 65 ter 5475.
9 This is a report dated August 2nd, 1995. This is before
10 Operation Storm. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You note, in the middle of this paragraph, which is point
13 number 2: "At the KenBat," meaning Kenyan Battalion, "meeting, we heard
14 that with RSK shelled the area of Strmica-Grahovo at least 50 times with
15 artillery, and that they now have taken their positions and that they are
16 trying to solve the supply problems."
17 Now, before Operation Storm, according to your report, the RSK
18 was shelling the area of Strmica to Grahovo. Correct?
19 A. It reads that according to the Kenyan battalion that had bombed
20 the RSK, and that's what I reflected, but I'm not sure whether it was
22 Q. Well, wasn't that part and parcel of the RSK's position, to try
23 to counterattack to retake Bosansko Grahovo that had fallen to the
24 Croatian military?
25 A. I couldn't tell you exactly what the situation was because that
1 was not the area of our interest, but we did try to gain an impression of
2 what was taking place there. But whether the artillery had been by the
3 with RSK, it can also be a misperception by the Kenyan battalion because
4 there was no actual investigation as to who fired the artillery and
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, I didn't intervene before the
7 witness answered the question, but if you ask about a report and if the
8 witness says, "Well, that's what they said, but whether it is true or
9 not," then the next question to see, "wouldn't that part and parcel
10 of ..."
11 So, of course, if the witness doesn't know whether it happened at
12 all, to ask him to put in an certain context something he says he doesn't
13 whether know is true or not is not something that greatly assists the
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... understand, Your
17 JUDGE ORIE: But, happily enough, in the answer, the witness
18 could explain. It is very difficult for him to answer a question.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I understand that, Your Honour. What is
20 puzzling to me, though, is whenever there is an indication of the RSK
21 shelling or committing some act, he doesn't know, but whenever there is
22 some allegation about the Croats doing something, all of a sudden it
23 becomes --
24 JUDGE ORIE: This is inappropriate comment, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
25 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's one. Second, there is an reason here,
2 because RSK is here put between, how do you call it, not brackets but --
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Quotation marks.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- quotation marks.
5 Therefore, I find, first of all, that in this specific instance,
6 that there is a reason in the written report for the answers the witness
7 gave. Whether they're correct or not, of course I have no judgement on
8 that at this moment. But you should refrain from --
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will, Your Honour. I apologise.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- from telling that this witness gives answers in
11 such-and-such direction. I take that the apologies are directed to
12 Mr. Hendriks.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, and to the Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'd like to move 65 ter 5475 into evidence,
18 MR. HEDARALY: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D821, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D821 is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go, please, to P952.
23 Q. Mr. Hendriks, I'm now going to move to ECMM reports, most of
24 which have redacted authors, and these documents were documents that you
25 indicated you were not the author of. But they have all been moved in
1 through you, so I'm going to ask you some questions about a certain
2 selection of them, just so you know.
3 This is a report dated September 6th of 1995; and, on point 5,
4 which is on the second page, the heading is "Economic, industrial, and
5 infrastructure matters." Section a says: "43.000 people used to live
6 before in 43 local communities of the Knin municipality, covering 1.079
7 square kilometres."
8 Do you have any knowledge, Mr. Hendriks, as to where these
9 particular figures were discovered or what the source of those figures
11 A. No.
12 Q. The reason I ask you that question is there -- there has been
13 considerable testimony about the number of people in the Knin
14 municipality and in Sector South that left before and during the course
15 of Operation Storm. At least according to this ECMM document, the 43.000
16 people who used to live in these communities, there is no indication as
17 to how many of those people stayed. Correct?
18 A. Well, I'm sure they figured out how many people lived there at
19 the time and how many people were still present after Operation Storm has
20 been estimated as well, but I couldn't tell you how many there were.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you. Later, in that same paragraph, it talks about:
22 "Knin's commissioner's office having 453 flats under their supervision,
23 but most of those people needing flats/houses or accommodation do not
24 wish to move into houses of run-away Serbs."
25 Now, at least according to this report, it appears as though
1 displaced persons did not want to populate flats that had been abandoned
2 by Serbs. Is that correct?
3 A. As it's stated there, yes, that's correct.
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to P954, please.
5 Q. This is a report. While it's coming up, I'll give you the date
6 of it, sir. It's September 11th of 1995. Point number 2, political
7 matters, it says: "Team Gospic learned from the," and there's a
8 redaction, "of the Lika-Senj Zupanje that this county has 3.700 square
9 kilometres and 71.000 inhabitants."
10 Now, it appears from this document - and please correct me if I'm
11 wrong - that the 71.000 inhabitants referred to in this paragraph are
12 people currently living in this zupanje, or county. Correct?
13 A. I don't know. I did not draft this report. I assume that at the
14 time there was a summary at CC level of what was known at the time. So I
15 can't tell you exactly whether it was before or after that point.
16 Q. Thank you. Later in this document at the bottom, under military,
17 operational and security matters, point b, it says: "UN reports 500 to
18 600 explosions heard during the Sunday," and then going on to the next
19 page, "morning hours in the general area of Boricevac in direction of
20 Bosnian border. After this shelling, the state of the alert in the
21 Donji Lapac area is relaxed, but HV police troops are still deployed,
22 manning check-points wearing helmets and flak-jackets."
23 Now, do you know what the "HV police troops" is referred to in
24 that paragraph?
25 A. No.
1 Q. It appears from this paragraph that there's some significant
2 fighting on at or near the Bosnian border and near Donji Lapac, at least
3 as of the date of this report of September 11th. Correct?
4 A. That's perfectly possible. I don't think that they simply wrote
5 that in the report for no reason.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could, please, go to P932.
7 Q. This is another ECMM report that was admitted through you,
8 Mr. Hendriks, obviously noting that you're not the author, dated
9 August 23rd of 1995.
10 And if we look at section 2.d, it says: "During a visit in
11 Mogoric, Team Gospic learned from in the village deployed policemen that
12 the reason for their presence is to secure the remaining Serbs and to
13 receive those who are hiding in the woods."
14 Then there's a comment: "The fact that these policemen are from
15 one department north-east of Zagreb
16 to use domestic police for their tasks, fearing crimes and harassment
17 being committed against Serbs."
18 Now, do you know were in any domestic police available in the
19 newly liberated areas?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, there may be a translation issue
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Should I shorten and repeat the question, Your
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm intervening because it has been done twice, so I
25 don't think that repeating the question -- yes. But, perhaps, we could
1 seek clarification with you.
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Sure, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You used the expression "domestic police." Did you
4 want to refer to the police that would be locally present?
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I understand. I will --
6 JUDGE ORIE: "Domestic police" can be translated in several ways
7 and that might cause a problem.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will -- I know where you're coming from, Your
9 Honour. I will rephrase.
10 Q. Mr. Hendriks, from the context of this paragraph, it's clear that
11 police in this area of -- liberated Croatia were police from Zagreb
12 Now, Zagreb
13 for use of police from Zagreb
14 are afraid to use what is termed here "domestic police" is apparently an
15 issue in the report.
16 Now, domestic police - you can tell me if I'm wrong - within the
17 context of this paragraph, that is police that were locally based.
19 A. I assume that that's correct, yes.
20 Q. Now, were you aware during the time that you were in
21 Sector South, Mr. Hendriks, of any domestic police that were native to
22 the areas that were liberated, having been established right after
23 Operation Storm; or were most of these police forces brought in from
24 outside the area, if you know?
25 A. No, I can't tell you anything about that.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 On the following page, under section 5, again, "Economic,
3 industrial, and infrastructural matters," there's a notation that says:
4 "For the first time -- the first time, after four years water from the
5 Zrmanja river started flowing again to Zadar."
6 Were you aware, prior to Operation Storm, that the water flow to
7 the area of Zadar which was not occupied was interrupted?
8 A. No, I did not learn anything about that.
9 Q. In section b, there's a discussion that this is an project to
10 redistribute live stock to people, and there's a mention that says the
11 person whose name is redacted "was concerned that the governmental
12 returning plan enabling people to return as quickly as possible to their
13 former homes can only work in large cities but not in small villages or
15 Now, what I wanted to ask you about was the redistribution of
16 live stock. There have been several indications throughout the course of
17 this trial and in reports that livestock were being taken away by either
18 civilians or members of the Croatian military.
19 Now, it appears, at least by this report, that livestock was to
20 be redistributed to people. Did you have any indication that livestock
21 that you saw was being prepared for redistribution?
22 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
24 MR. HEDARALY: The question in its form is fine, but I object to
25 the commentary that led up to the question; that is, "there have been
1 suggestion in this trial" and then he asks the question.
2 If anything, it should have been done the other way around.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I fully agree with you that this is suggestive; but,
4 of course, suggestive questions in cross-examination are not, as such,
6 MR. HEDARALY: It is not the suggestion of the answer in the
7 question, it is the suggestion that there is evidence in the trial before
8 that has said something. It could be in misleading more than just --
9 JUDGE ORIE: That is an old issue. It certainly doesn't reflect
10 the totality of the evidence we have received on the presence of
11 livestock in the area and in what state they were. Nevertheless, it's
12 also true that at least part of the evidence certainly reflects a system
13 of redistribution.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'll rephrase the question, Your Honour. I'll
15 re-ask it. I don't think there is anything wrong with it --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But perhaps if you would also put the question
17 in such a way that -- I would know exactly what you were asking for
18 because for me it would be very difficult to see whether a cow is
19 prepared for redistribution if it's in a meadow, but, of course, there
20 could be other situations which may be more clear.
21 Please put the question again to the witness.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will, Your Honour.
23 Q. In the context -- in the context of this particular paragraph,
24 sir, there is a -- at least appeared to be a plan to redistribute
25 livestock to people.
1 Now, during your course of time that you were in Sector South,
2 did you have any opportunity to observe what was being done with
3 livestock and whether there was, in fact, any redistribution of
5 A. The only thing that I saw was that livestock was being loaded up
6 by people. It could have been a systematic plan but livestock could also
7 have been stolen or both processes could have taken place, but I don't
8 have any genuine indications to that effect.
9 Q. So, one or the other, you can't -- you don't know is a fair
10 answer. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to P933, please.
13 You must have the wrong document here. It's 65 ter 30 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Kuzmanovic, your last
15 question, where you said "you do not know whether it was the one or the
16 other," that is, theft or redirect examination, by that question, did you
17 aim at excludeing other possibilities?
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I guess I did not. The question was one or the
19 other, but I suppose there could be other possibilities.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a third, or a fourth or a fifth option, and
21 owner. Someone owning cattle, loading up his cattle, and moving to
22 another place would neither be redistribution or theft. What the witness
23 said, I think, that he observed was people loading up cattle, that's all.
24 So you did not intend to exclude other possibilities by the last question
25 because, otherwise, we would have to put it to the witness.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Correct. I did not exclude anything, Your
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then it may be clear from his observation that the
4 factual observations of the witness apparently were that cattle was
5 loaded and transported.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: And beyond that, nothing else. Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 The correct exhibit designation is P940. Mr. Registrar, I think
10 that is 65 ter 3067, if I'm not mistaken.
11 Q. And while we're waiting for that to come up, Mr. Hendriks, that's
12 a report dated August 29th of 1995, and I'd like to go down to section e
13 of number 3.
14 Section e of number 3, says: "H-u-m-o."
15 Could you tell me what that stands for, Humo?
16 A. Humanitarian officer.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 It says: "Humanitarian officer reports that in Podinarje valley,
19 nine RSK soldiers surrendered to HV under UN observation?"
20 Then there is a comment: "As this joint action of UN/HV was
21 successful, and the lifeline of Serb soldiers dwindles, we can expect an
22 increasing number of surrenders."
23 Now, were you aware that there were pockets of Serb soldiers in
24 the mountains and woods of Sector South, similar to the ones that
25 surrendered here?
1 A. That is perfectly possible, but I can't be absolutely sure.
2 Q. Were you aware of any military activity that was ongoing in
3 late August/early September 1995 to try to find these small pockets of
4 ARSK soldiers that may be hiding in the mountains and woods?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to P934, please, and if we go to
7 section 3.
8 Q. It says, "Military, operational, and security matters." This is
9 August 11th of 1995, and there is an notation here that says that: "The
10 team was assured of complete FOM, freedom of movement, but was -- but
11 advised them to remain on the main roads due to the ARSK snipers who
12 remain in the hills. The team also met the chief of police in Gracac,
13 Mr. Kavurin, who was busy setting up the policija station in town. They
14 were, once again, assured of complete freedom of movement. Team reports
15 much damage from shelling in the town, with many houses burnt, and a
16 number of civilian protection forces men ..."
17 I believe that should be "cleaning" the streets, not "leaning"
18 the streets. Correct?
19 A. Yes, that's how it reads.
20 Q. Were you -- did you happen to go to Gracac at any point in time
21 around the 11th of August of 1995?
22 A. Most probably not, because this is about the Korenica team and
23 that was the northern area and that was not our area.
24 Q. All right. Thank you.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to P935.
1 Q. This is an August 13th, 1995 report, and it discusses in the
2 first section, political assessment, talking about the new mayor of Knin.
3 It says in the first paragraph: "He is expected to be a puppet
4 for the controlling Croat authorities and is purely a figurehead for the
5 world to see how 'well' the remaining Serbs are being treated by the
7 Now, can you give me any information upon what that assessment
8 was based?
9 A. No. This report was compiled by the RC, and they had their own
10 observations and conversations at that time. So that is their opinion
11 that is reflected here.
12 Q. I do understand that, Mr. Hendriks, and these document were
13 admitted through you as a member of ECMM. So I guess I'm asking you as
14 to whether or not had you any independent knowledge, other than what the
15 authors in this report apparently said, about whether or not this new
16 mayor of Knin was purely a figurehead.
17 Do you have any information on your own regarding that?
18 A. No. I don't feel that information is very valuable. When you
19 talk to the men, you form an opinion; and, as I mentioned, this was
20 written by the RC perhaps based on conversations or perhaps translation
21 from a newspaper. It is a general story, it's a political assessment.
22 So, whether or not he was a puppet, that is not for me, in any case.
23 Q. Did you ever have any interaction with that gentleman, the mayor
24 of Knin?
25 A. Not as far as I remember.
1 Q. On page 2 of this particular document, there's a military
2 assessment and analysis. It says, in the second sentence of that first
3 paragraph: "It is assessed that the swiftness of the success of
4 Operation Storm caught not only the HV by surprise but also the civilian
5 authorities who were supposed to go in afterwards and take over.
6 Consequently, as the 'capital' fell in 36 hours, instead of the expected
7 week, the military and civilian police who were next to arrive did so
9 Now, was it your experience that the Croatian government, based
10 on your observations, was unprepared to deal with the situation because
11 it happened so quickly in and around Knin?
12 A. Yes. The authorities in Knin had some difficulty getting it all
13 off the ground. That was my observation. It was not pretty well
14 prepared yet.
15 Q. And it's true, is it not, that before Operation Storm occurred,
16 the assessment was that the Croatian military would not be able to
17 re-take -- the general assessment by Western observers, anyway, was that
18 the Croatian military would not be able to retake the Sectors North and
19 South. Correct?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. The fact that it was taken within a short time caused quite a bit
22 of chaos and unpreparedness on behalf of the Croatian government, did it
24 A. You would need to ask them that. I don't know.
25 Q. Well, based on -- do you agree with that -- with my statement,
1 based upon what you observed during the course of time you were in
2 Sector South?
3 A. You can't simply state that cut and dry.
4 Q. Okay. What can you state then? What do you mean by your answer?
5 A. The real cause of the chaos and whether the Croatian government
6 was unprepared is impossible to tell. Perhaps, it was business as usual.
7 On the other hand, things might have happened faster than expected and
8 they didn't see it coming. I can't assess that.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to section 3 of this same report,
11 under "Humanitarian assessment."
12 Q. Again, this as of August 13th of 1995.
13 The first sentence of this says: "A well-planned and carefully
14 executed clean-up operation has been in action throughout the week. The
15 Croatian army and police have swept up through the former RSK, removing
17 My question to you is: Removing evidence of what?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. I mean, there was cleaning-up going on in and around Knin of the
20 shops and the things that were smashed and broken, and the damage.
22 A. Yes, also.
23 Q. Now, the implication at least is that there was something to hide
24 by this statement?
25 A. Yes, you might say that.
1 Q. Yet the press and teams like the ECMM and the UNMOs and the HRAT
2 team, they were all over Sector South during that time, were they not, as
3 of August 13th of 1995?
4 A. Yes. At the time, they were present, yes.
5 Q. On the last page of this exhibit, sir, the second-last paragraph,
6 the second sentence, it says: "Knin town and immediate surroundings have
7 suffered only superficial damage and, therefore, are the only area where
8 DPs can be expected to re-establish themselves. There appears to have
9 been a specific policy to protect the town, as with the majority of
10 Orthodox churches in the former Sector South."
11 Now, was it your observation as well that Knin town and immediate
12 surroundings suffered only superficial damage?
13 A. The town of Knin
14 depending on what you consider to be the immediate surroundings, I would
15 qualify that because as soon as you got outside Knin, there were a lot of
16 burnt out houses and similar damage.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to P937, please, at the very
18 bottom of that document, under 2, "Military assessment."
19 Q. It says: "In the former RSK ..." - again, this is 20th of
20 August, 1995 - "... still an unknown number of Serb soldiers are fighting
21 and hiding in the woods. The areas, according to UN and CALO, are
22 Strmica, Mogoric, Mazin, and the wooden mountain range of Pljesevica
23 (north Korenica). The HV tries with special anti-guerilla forces to
24 catch these soldiers; but during their mopping actions, some HV solders
25 were killed or caught by them. Also, in the Dinara area, some nests of
1 ARSK soldiers are presumed, and so the HV authorities state that the
2 whole country, not even Knin vicinity, is not 100 percent safe yet."
3 My question to you regarding this military assessment is: Did
4 you ever have an opportunity to observe these anti-guerilla forces in
5 action; and in what areas, if so?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- the witness has answered the question.
9 Nevertheless, part of the portion that was read to him by you does
10 neither appear on the transcript, and approximately the same portions
11 were not translated to him either due to your speed of speech.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Sorry, I thought I was going slow.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you perhaps -- because in your question, you were
14 talking about anti-guerilla forces and that is exactly, for example, the
15 portion which was not read to him.
16 I suggest that you read again now the whole of the portion at
17 such a speed that the witness can hear the translation, that the
18 transcribers are able to transcribe what you said, and that you then put
19 the question again to the witness. He may come up with the same answer,
20 but I would rather have a complete file on which he bases his answers.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will. Thank you, Your Honour thank. I will
22 endeavor to read more slowly. Just so Your Honour knows, I have about
23 three more reports to review after this, and then I will be done. So, if
24 we need to go beyond the break, it will be very, very short.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you can could that, well, let's say, within
1 the next ten minutes approximately then, we would have the break a little
2 bit later, so that --
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will do that, Your Honour, so I can finish,
4 and I will do my best to read a little more slowly.
5 Q. Mr. Hendriks, you understand when you read English, do you not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you have a chance to read this section 2, "Military
8 assessment"? I know I read it to you, but you had a chance to review it
9 on your screen. Correct?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if we invite the witness to read on from the
11 top of this page, especially where it reads "the HV tries with ..."
12 Could you please read that portion again, Mr. Hendriks, in
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
16 Q. Mr. Hendriks, I had asked you a question earlier about whether or
17 not you had a chance to observe what's termed in this report "special
18 anti-guerilla forces of the HV."
19 Can you tell us, please, once again, whether or not you had a
20 chance to observe them; and if so, when and where?
21 A. We didn't see them.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we can go to P939, please, which is an ECMM
23 report dated August 27, 1995
25 Q. Under section b, it says: "Operation Storm seems not to be
1 finished yet due to the big number of police, special police, and HV
2 monitored in the Srb, Donji Lapac, and Mazin area. Local commanders
3 passed to UN and ECMM some unconfirmed information about small fighting
4 between diminutive groups of ARSK soldiers hiding in the woods west of
5 Srb and Donji Lapac, and HV and police forces ransacking the wooden
7 Now, had you had an opportunity to go up into this area where
8 these operations were going on, Srb, Donji Lapac, and Mazin?
9 A. As far as I know, those areas were outside our patrol area, so
10 that would have come from a different team.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to P941, this is an August 31st
13 ECMM report.
14 Q. Again, there's a mention in section 3, under "Military,
15 operational, and security matters," that: "Team N2 was informed through
16 a letter from General Cermak about ROM," restriction of movement, "in the
17 widen areas north-east of Knin, stretching in to Bosansko Grahovo, in an
18 area 20 by 20 kilometres. All IOs," meaning international organisations,
19 "are prohibited to go there due to cleaning actions done by special
20 police forces."
21 Now, were you made aware of areas in which special -- mop-up
22 activity was going on by special police forces?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Where was it made known to you that these mop-up activities by
25 special police forces were occurring?
1 A. As it says here, we saw a letter signed by General Cermak, but I
2 don't remember where I saw that letter.
3 Q. Were you ever in any areas after mop-up operations had occurred?
4 A. Undoubtedly.
5 Q. Can you tell me, as we sit here today, what areas those might
6 have been?
7 A. We drove throughout the entire South Sector in September. There
8 were two or three teams that covered the South Sector. So that included
9 the areas where the mop-up operations took place.
10 Q. But you, yourself, didn't observe what may or may not have
11 happened after those mop-up operations took place, correct? You just
12 drove through the areas where they occurred.
13 A. Yes. But I also spoke with people there, so our standard
14 operating procedure of driving, visiting villages, talking to people, and
15 listening to hear what had taken place.
16 Q. None of that specific information about what happened and who you
17 spoke to after a mop-up operation is contained in any of the reports have
18 you written. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The last document I'm going to go through with you, sir, is P958.
21 It's dated the 12th of September of 1995, and section 2, "Political
22 matters," the part b.
23 It says: "The chief of police in Gospic," and then there's a
24 redaction, "informed Team G-1 that, for the moment, coordination between
25 police and other administrative authorities is not possible and that the
1 police, as a lack of personnel, for effective control in the AOR,"
2 meaning Lika-Senj County
3 according to him, the result of deep hate and revenge feeling. He
4 stressed that ten policemen have already been fired because they
5 committed criminal acts.
6 "He also complained that police arrested thieves but justice does
7 not react in a proper way. Chief of police explained the duties of the
8 special police: Discover minefields and clear them, find hidden
9 warehouses of ammunition, look for hidden people.
10 "Finally, he said that Croatian leaders saw only problems to
11 liberate the occupied area, but now they are faced with problems they
12 have not expected before."
13 And there are two questions I'd like it ask but that section that
14 I just read to you.
15 From what you saw and you observed during the course of time in
16 Sector South, it is true, is it not, that the civilian authorities, based
17 upon what was going on in Sector South, were not prepared to deal with
18 the problems they were facing, specifically looting and burning.
20 A. I suspect that that is correct.
21 Q. Now, the issue of the duties of the special police, as described
22 by the chief of police in Gospic, did you ever observe the special police
23 involved in any of the activities described here: Discovering,
24 minefields, finding hidden warehouses of ammunition, and looking for
25 hidden people?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you have any reason to disagree with the explanation of the
3 role of the special police, at least as described here?
4 A. This is the account of the chief of police in Gospic, he said
5 that; but, moreover, Gospic is not a mine area. That was stated to the
6 Gospic team and they simply wrote that down, and I have no reason to say
7 that that account is nonsense.
8 Q. One final question: Based on your observations in your area of
9 responsibility, is it fair to state that, other than engaging in mop-up
10 operations, you were not aware of what the role of the special police
12 A. Very generally, we knew what the role was of the special police.
13 Q. Okay. I guess -- other than mop-up operations, what did you
14 observe the role of the special police was in your area of
15 responsibility, if you know?
16 A. I didn't observe any of that, but we did know what the purpose
17 was of the special police.
18 Q. Okay. I don't want to keep asking the same question. But what
19 was the purpose, from your understanding, of the special police?
20 You've told us that you knew what it was, but you haven't told us
21 what it was.
22 A. Well, tracing munitions warehouses, discovering minefields, and
23 those types of things.
24 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I don't have any further questions. Thank you
1 for the extra time, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
3 Mr. Kehoe, everything depended on what time the others would
4 take, isn't it right, for cross-examination?
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. I would expect in two hours, I
6 finish, I do believe.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, and we will resume at five
8 minutes past 11.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the third cross-examining party always
12 has the advantage, could also call it disadvantage, that part of the
13 ground has already been covered by the others. In view of that, I'd like
14 to encourage you to see whether you could do it in one hour and a half;
15 and, of course, if you show that your questions are always focussed not
16 too much art of advocacy, just the advocacy in itself would do, I would
18 And, of course, if you proceed in that way, we see that could you
19 not conclude within that one and a half hour. We would give you
20 additional time, but take the advantage of part of the ground already
21 been covered by the others.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, you will now be cross-examined by
24 Mr. Kehoe, and Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
25 Please proceed.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hendriks.
3 I will try not to cover ground that has been covered before, but
4 I will bounce between some of the things in your statements and ECMM
5 statements. So, if at any point my questions are not clear or you just
6 you need some time to refer to your statements, please take that.
7 Mr. Hendriks, in response to some questions on direct
8 examination - and I'm referring to paragraph 12 of your statement at
9 931 - if can you go to your statement from 2008, in paragraph 12, you
10 note: "In my previous statement, I also stated I saw a lot of RSK
11 soldiers in Knin and that they may have been on rotation. What I meant
12 by this is that there were a lot of RSK -- ARSK soldiers in the town of
13 Knin, but they were just hanging around and mainly drinking. It wasn't
14 as if they were part of a unit."
15 Now, shortly after you arrived in Knin, you were aware, were you
16 not, that the HV had taken Bosansko Grahovo, were you not?
17 A. Not specifically. It's perfectly conceivable that that was
18 mentioned, but I don't remember that specifically.
19 Q. Were you aware, Mr. Hendriks, that on the 28th of July, President
20 Milan Martic declared a state of war on the entire territory of the
21 Republic of Serbian
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if we can go to your first statement from 1996, which is
24 D820, at the bottom of the second page of the document, and the first
25 page, it is a fact that at the time, prior to Operation Storm, the
1 military situation was tense, was it not?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. As you said in your 2008 statement, there were a lot of soldiers
4 in town and; also, you also noted that every military capable man was
5 mobilised, and I think you told us on direct between 18 and 50 years of
7 So, for the situation in Knin, in the latter part of July and the
8 first days of August, everything was very tense and there was a fear of
9 something about to happen, wasn't there?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, you also noted that in your statement to the Prosecution,
12 again in paragraph 12, in that last sentence: "I can confirm that I did
13 not see any ARSK heavy artillery or tanks in and around Knin."
14 Now, my colleague, Mr. Kuzmanovic, brought to your attention D821
15 which is an ECMM situation report or ECMM report for the 2nd of August,
16 where the Kenyan Battalion reported shelling by the ARSK, at least 50
18 Now, sir, when you are saying and you told the Prosecution that
19 you didn't see any heavy artillery, you are not saying that they didn't
20 have the artillery; simply that you didn't see it. Isn't that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And, in fact, I think you told us that you were not allowed to
23 monitor the confrontation lines prior to Operation Storm that were being
24 held by the ARSK?
25 A. Yes, I said that.
1 Q. So, if they had artillery and tanks at the front line on the
2 morning of the 4th of August, you simply wouldn't know about it. Is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, you also -- if I can just shift topics but say in the same
6 vein of pre-Storm, you noted in your 1996 statement that: "Prior
7 Operation Storm, people were ..." -- and I refer to page 2 of the
9 If I can get the exact location, it's about three quarters of the
10 way down: "In the days before Operation Storm ..."
11 Do you see that, sir?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "In the days before Operation Storm, there a lot of rumours among
14 the people and they became very restless, and not knowing what to do,
15 some of them were able to leave to Serbia or Bosnia."
16 Now, one of your -- your landlady attempted to go as well, didn't
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And understanding that you came to the area on the 24th of July,
20 how much prior to that did this departure of people from Knin or the area
22 A. I didn't understand the question.
23 Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it. It was probably not a very clear
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. KEHOE:
2 Q. With the understanding that you came to Sector South on the
3 24th of July, approximately when did this departure of people from Knin
5 A. I believe it was in the week of 31 July, perhaps the weekend
6 before that.
7 Q. Now, the evacuation came in earnest after this radio broadcast on
8 the 4th of August by the RSK authorities. Is that not correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. And was this -- were you familiar with the evacuation order that
11 was signed by President Martic?
12 A. No.
13 Q. But this evacuation began -- I think you told us the evacuation
14 began towards the eve -- on the evening of the 4th of August. Is that
16 A. That was told by the people who entered the barracks, and they
17 said that to my interpreter. It was said that the evacuation started in
18 the course of the evening.
19 Q. So, if we can just take this chronologically from your own
20 experience, the shelling of Knin began in the early morning hours of
21 the 4th; and then these people told you that sometime in the afternoon,
22 Radio Knin broadcast that the civilian population should evacuate; and
23 then that's when the civilian authorities began to evacuate. Is that
24 basically the progression?
25 A. That's basically the progression.
1 Q. And as part of this progression, you told us -- or, actually, is
2 mentioned in Exhibit 820, that buses came to - and I'm looking at 820,
3 your 1996 statement - buses came to the governmental building to pick
4 people up and to take them away.
5 Do you see that, sir?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... told that as well.
8 A. Yes, I was told that as well.
9 Q. Now, after the evacuation began, you were also informed that that
10 is when the ARSK soldiers began to leave the front lines to go back to
11 their families. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In a sense, they --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I seek clarification on one of the previous
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, in one of the questions of Mr. Kehoe
20 the Knin Radio, could I say, call for an evacuation was put to have taken
21 place in the afternoon; and you apparently agreed with that.
22 Could you tell me exactly what the source of your knowledge of
23 the radio broadcast by Radio Knin in the afternoon, on what that is
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard that through the report by
1 my witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But did your interpreter tell you that it was in the
3 afternoon? Was any time given?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm translating what it says here.
5 So I heard from my interpreter that in the afternoon of the 4th, after an
6 entire afternoon of broadcasting music, there was a recorded tape by
7 Martic, stating there was no reason to panic because the defence
8 positions were stable. So, exactly when this broadcast took place is
9 impossible for me to say, but I suspect it was sometime in the afternoon.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I may just try to find where exactly what you read.
11 Of course, some of these statements are relatively new to us as well.
12 So you were reading. I haven't got it in front of me at this
13 moment. Which page is that of the --
14 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if we go to -- it's D820; and if we go
15 to the top of, it's page 3 of the document. Actually, it's on the
16 screen, Judge, if we can just scroll up just a bit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. KEHOE: And we look at point 3: "The leadership in Knin was
19 the first who fled away. From my interpreter, I learned that in the
20 afternoon of the 4th, after a whole day of broadcasting music, a recorded
21 tape of Martic was broadcasted with a statement that there is ..."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because you earlier said "From your own
23 observation, you said ..."
24 But I do understand that you learned from your the interpreter
25 that it was the afternoon. I'm just trying to follow the chronology.
1 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Kehoe, I am aware that I urged you to do
3 this efficiently as possible, but sometimes I have a need to verify
4 exactly what the basis for the question and the answer is.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes. I don't know if Your Honour wants any
7 additional clarification on the chronology.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's clear enough. The question came to my mind
9 when you referred to his own observation and the broadcasting in the
10 afternoon, where I had no recollection that the witness testified that he
11 personally observed or heard. But it is hearsay and it appears here, and
12 that has been clarified now.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. KEHOE: I think I did ask the question on the recollection.
15 I think the witness corrected me and said "I heard it from my
16 interpreter." So maybe I threw you off with my question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Your question was about chronology. So the personal
18 observation and where the chronology came from exactly, that was on my
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. KEHOE:
22 Q. And I think we left off, Mr. Hendriks, that this abandonment of
23 the positions by the ARSK soldiers began after this notice on the radio
24 that the civilian population should evacuate. Is that right?
25 A. That's perfectly possible. Perhaps, before that, some soldiers
1 are left as well, but I think that the majority of the soldiers left
2 after that broadcast.
3 Q. If we can just shift subjects for one moment -- for the next
4 series of questions, Mr. Hendriks, and I want to focus just briefly on
5 paragraph 16 of your 2008 statement, P931.
6 And you note towards the bottom of the page, and we're talking
7 about the artillery, that the purpose was to break the resistance of the
8 army by having them surrender or flee and, at the same time, to scare the
9 civilians into abandoning the area.
10 Now, sir, as an artillery -- as an anti-aircraft officer, or
11 retired anti-aircraft officer with the Dutch military, you know that the
12 purpose of artillery, in part, is to break the resistance of the
13 opposition, is it not?
14 A. That would -- could be one of the duties of artillery fire, yes.
15 Q. And one of the other purposes of artillery fire could be knocking
16 out the communication capabilities of the enemy; and by that, I mean
17 radio, television, any other means of communicating that a military force
18 might have. Is that right?
19 A. That's possible, depending on the priorities of the artillery
21 Q. Now, with regard to the shelling of Knin, you do not know whether
22 the headquarters of the army of the Serb Krajina were, in fact, hit, do
23 you? And I'm talking about the shelling on the 4th, on the 4th of
25 A. I stated at the time that most important sites and buildings were
1 not destroyed, so probably not the headquarters of Serb Krajina army
3 Q. Well, sir, let me, if I may, let me show you D389.
4 And, sir, this is an intelligence report by the army of Serb
5 Krajina from the 4th of August of 1995, and I refer you to the fourth
6 paragraph down.
7 Of course, this is a report by the ARSK concerning the attack on
8 the 4th. It notes that: "Knin was attacked from Livanjsko Polje from
9 several directions, and by the time this information was drafted between
10 2000 and 300 rounds of different calibres impacted on the town. The
11 first to strike was carried out on the building of the SVK General Staff
12 which suffered great damage ..."
13 This is a report in evidence concerning what the ARSK reported.
14 My question to you, sir, is: You didn't know about this. Is that
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't speak about this, no.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, if you speak too quickly, there is an
19 additional problem, that is, that the interpreters will rely, more or
20 less, on the transcript as well, just to catch up with where they are
21 behind. Then we may have sometimes double problems: One, that the
22 transcript is not always fully able to follow you; and, then, the
23 interpreters relying on the transcript have additional problems.
24 Could you please keep this in mind.
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
1 Q. My question -- and I apologise, sir, and to the interpreters for
2 moving too quickly.
3 My question to you, sir, is that when you were writing your
4 reports, you did not know that the ARSK headquarters had been hit by
5 artillery fire on the morning of the 4th, did you?
6 A. No, I didn't know that.
7 Q. Okay. If we continue with this document and go to the next
8 sentence: "Later, the fire was transferred to the military barracks,
9 13 Kaplara, the Tvik factory, the railway intersection, and residential
10 buildings and the area beneath the Knin fortress."
11 You, likewise, did not know that the military barracks had been
12 hit, nor the Tvik factory and the railway intersection. Isn't that so,
14 A. No.
15 Q. No, you didn't know they were hit?
16 A. No, I didn't know that.
17 Q. So when you told the Prosecution in paragraph 16 of your
18 statement - and I'm talking about 931 - that first sentence: "My
19 observations were that shells seemed to be following everywhere and no
20 where, and did not seem to be aimed at specific targets."
21 You made that statement, did you not, because you didn't know
22 what specific targets had been hit. Isn't that correct, sir?
23 A. In paragraph 16 and in general, to be quite honest, during our
24 drive through Knin, the general observation was that large parts of those
25 targets were still intact. It is perfectly possible that they had been
1 hit, but then the question is what degree of destruction had taken place.
2 Q. Let me take one step further. You just mentioned your drive
3 through Knin when you were going to UN Sector South. Approximately what
4 time of day was this?
5 A. Around midday
6 Q. And during that drive through Knin, you saw no casualties, did
7 you? I refer you to your 1996 statement, D820, in the last paragraph.
8 A. I did not see any injured during that ride.
9 MR. KEHOE: Now, if I can bring up P947, P947.
10 Q. Mr. Hendriks, this is a photograph that Prosecution put into
11 evidence through you, noting that this was damage in Knin that you
12 observed on the 12th of August of 1995. Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. KEHOE: Let me turn our attention to P62. I'm sorry, P62.
16 Q. Mr. Hendriks, this is an overhead of the Knin area.
17 MR. KEHOE: And I would ask the assistance of the usher,
18 Mr. President.
19 Q. I would like, Mr. Hendriks, if you could use this overhead and
20 tell us where these buildings were that you identified as being in Knin
21 which we just saw on P947.
22 A. Well, I would have to take a guess, but I suspect about in this
23 area, but I'm not sure. Because if I remember correctly, this is where
24 the UN barracks were and that our homes were about here, and this is
25 about how we drove. So I suspect about halfway, but it's a guess.
1 Q. If I can orient you just a bit, so maybe it could be a little bit
2 easier. If you look at the --
3 MR. KEHOE: With the assistant of the usher, could we blow up the
4 right-hand side of the photograph, so maybe it would be easier for
5 Mr. Hendriks to get oriented. Oh, okay. They tell me it would lose the
6 red mark.
7 Q. Just at the right-hand side, sir, the right-hand side of the
8 photograph there that is encircled, that is the UN barracks.
9 My apologies to you. I probably should have done that
10 previously. But, with all due respect, with that in mind, sir, and if
11 you orient yourself, if you want to re-draw that with that orientation.
12 MR. KEHOE: We certainly is would have no objection to that,
13 Judge, because I think that --
14 JUDGE ORIE: But the usher could to assist, too, if you are
15 seeking to remove the earlier one, or should we keep it?
16 MR. KEHOE: No. I think, in fairness to the witness, Judge, if
17 we orient him, and I think he was just a bit confused as to where the UN
18 barracks was.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But my question is whether we want the first marking
20 to be removed and then to be replaced by it, or that we add to the
21 original, perhaps mistaken, marking another one.
22 MR. KEHOE: I have no objection to removing it, counsel.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think it might be less confusing for those
24 who will at a later time look at it.
25 Madam Usher, could you assist the witness in removing this.
1 MR. KEHOE: And if I just, now that it is removed, if we could
2 zoom in on the UN barracks on the right-hand side, so that the witness
3 could just get oriented just a bit.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We start over again.
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, you may always ask to have portions
7 being zoomed in, if that assists you in orienting yourself.
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, that's fine.
9 Q. Now, with that orientation, Mr. Hendriks, can you tell us where
10 this photograph that you took -- or that was taken and you identified,
11 P947, was taken in Knin?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
13 MR. HEDARALY: I would just like, pursuant to the witness's
14 previous answer, to invite him not to guess, but, really, if he remembers
15 where the location is.
16 MR. KEHOE: Of course.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we do not expect anything less from
18 Mr. Hendriks.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't really remember. It would
20 really boil down to guessing, but I do know that somewhere in Knin were
21 these two buildings.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. Mr. Hendriks, let me show you a series of photographs, which is
25 MR. KEHOE: And, Your Honour, this is a series of three photos.
1 Q. Now, looking at the first photo that you had, this is the
2 photograph that you admitted into evidence, which is P947.
3 MR. KEHOE: If we could then go to the next paragraph.
4 Q. Sir, those are the photographs of the same buildings in the same
5 area, obviously taken after these buildings have been refurbished, is it
7 A. That's what it looks like, yes.
8 MR. KEHOE: If we could go to the next photo.
9 Q. And this is an overhead of the street in the previous photograph,
10 which is in Grahovo, the street is actually Sarajevska Ilica,
12 MR. KEHOE: And just for reference purpose, Your Honour, this
13 photograph is taken from -- if we could go back one photograph, just to
14 reference ourselves. This is taken from the direction of Livanjsko Polje
15 going into Grahovo.
16 Q. So would you agree with me, Mr. Hendriks, that the photograph you
17 identified as being in Knin is a photograph of buildings that were -- or
18 are located in Grahovo?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I take it on the condition that these are
21 photographs taken in Grahovo.
22 Mr. Hendriks, would you make a clear distinction between what you
23 know and what you are, even in this courtroom, told. You have had
24 perhaps 30 seconds to look at all this, and then you confirm that this is
25 Knin but Grahovo. Well, I can imagine that you say, "Well, it looks very
1 much as if it is the same, and if I thought that the first photograph was
2 taken in Knin, and if this photograph is not taken in Knin, so I must
3 have been made a mistake." That's all fine.
4 But you now already have situated when have you been for the last
5 time in Grahovo and have identified these buildings as being in Grahovo.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. In my first statement from
7 1996, I attached a photograph; and then, in April 1996, I thought that
8 the apartment buildings were Knin. That's why I said that the photograph
9 had been taken of apartment buildings in Knin. It's possible, because
10 there was no caption under the photograph, that I made a mistake at that
11 time, because we didn't go to Grahovo that many times.
12 But if this building -- these buildings could be in Grahovo, but
13 exactly the same buildings could be in Knin, but I don't know. So I
14 don't know whether that photograph was taken in Knin or in Grahovo. But
15 in 1996, I thought that the photograph had been taken in Knin.
16 JUDGE ORIE: There's no question about that. Your testimony now
17 is that from what you see now, that you made a mistake at that time,
18 which, of course, is important for to us know.
19 At the same time, I did put this question to you in order to make
20 you aware that you apparently, as I take from your last answer, without
21 any factual knowledge, you just now locate these buildings in Grahovo
22 where they may well have been. I was not able to check that on the basis
23 of Google Earth. I see "photograph of Grahovo, 2008." So, apparently,
24 someone writes on this photograph that it was taken in Grahovo. But,
25 apparently, you have you no knowledge of that.
1 What you do have is a strong impression that you perhaps have
2 made a mistake, and whether this is a Grahovo building or whether it's
3 any other place. If you know, please tell us; if you don't know, please
4 be more careful in answering to questions that you would agree with
5 Mr. Kehoe that this is a building in Grahovo.
6 Let's move on.
7 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. If I could move into evidence
8 1D55-0020, the array of three photos.
9 JUDGE ORIE: This issue seems to me -- I mean, of course, we
10 could do a lot. It takes a bit to compare surroundings. It is also
11 known that sometimes buildings are approximately the same, especially new
12 buildings. It seems to me that this is an excellent opportunity to speak
13 with the Prosecution and see whether they agree, which avoids that the
14 Chamber starts analysing exactly on the basis of the photo material not
15 having any opportunity to go beyond that, and perhaps reach conclusions,
16 perhaps wrong conclusions, perhaps right conclusions; whereas, the
17 parties are in a better situation to compare all information they have
18 and to come to an agreement on whether the witness really made a mistake.
19 Perhaps could you agree on that.
20 MR. HEDARALY: Certainly, Your Honour. I mean, I haven't seen
21 these before yesterday, so I'm in the same position as you are.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking you at this moment to come to final
23 conclusions and to agree, but it appears to me that this is by accident
24 an opportunity to agree on a very factual issue.
25 MR. HEDARALY: I'm more than happy to discuss the foundation of
1 this picture with Mr. Kehoe and see if we can come to an agreement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.
3 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I don't know if you want to MFI this at
4 the time or just take it into evidence, subject to --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. I think, Mr. Hedaraly, can we take it into
7 MR. HEDARALY: I think we can, but there's the foundation issue
8 that you've raised.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, if the witness says it is Grahovo
10 where has no knowledge of it, of course, we'll not give much weight to
11 Grahovo, nor to 2008, nor to anything else.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D822.
14 JUDGE ORIE: D822 consists of three photographs and is admitted
15 into evidence.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. KEHOE:
18 Q. Mr. Hendriks, just staying a bit with the shelling issue, I take
19 it that -- or were you involved with any of the UN military observers who
20 did an assessment of shelling of Knin and determined that the shelling
21 was concentrated on military objectives? Were you involved in that or
22 did you become aware of that?
23 A. I was not involved, but I did become aware of it.
24 Q. And did you learn that the assessment of the UN military
25 observers was that the shelling of Knin was, in fact, concentrated on
1 military targets -- or military objectives?
2 A. Not specifically.
3 Q. Well, generally, were you aware that that was their conclusion?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were you, likewise, aware that the UNCIVPOL -- that UNCIVPOL did
6 a similar analysis and came up with a similar result; that is, that the
7 shelling was concentrated on military objectives?
8 A. No. We did not learn anything like that from the UNCIVPOL. We
9 were in contact with the UN headquarters for Sector South, and that's
10 where the military analysis came from.
11 Q. Let me shift gears with you just a moment, sir, and let me take
12 you to the period of time directly after Operation Storm.
13 And were you aware that right after Operation Storm, north of
14 Knin and north up through Strmica, there continued to be fighting between
15 the ARSK and HV troops?
16 A. I don't remember whether that was known.
17 Q. Well, maybe, were you aware at this point if any fighting was
18 taking place north of Strmica at all after Operation Storm?
19 A. It is perfectly possible that that took place at the time, but I
20 don't know now whether I was aware of it at the time.
21 Q. Now, if I can take you to exactly -- or ask you about some of the
22 events transpired directly after Storm. Were you aware that on the
23 9th of August that General Gotovina issued an order for active defence in
24 the confrontation line between the Serbs and the HV? Were you aware that
25 that took place on the 9th of August?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Let me turn your attention to P830, which is an ECMM report of
3 10 August 1995
4 MR. KEHOE: And if I could move to the second page, 3 f, towards
5 the top of the page.
6 Q. This was read to you during your direct examination: "Team Knin
7 report the continuing restriction of movement. In trying to get to
8 Benkovac and Obrovac, they were told by the policija on the check-points
9 they could only get to these places with written permission from General
11 Do you recall, Mr. Hendriks, if there were HV troop movements
12 during this particular area when you and other members of the Team Knin
13 came to this check-point?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Were there troop movements coming from or resupplying, if I
16 may -- were there anybody resupplying from the coast up through this area
17 and up to the confrontation line? Was that going on, if you know?
18 A. No, I don't know anything about that.
19 Q. So it would be fair to say, Mr. Hendriks, that at this particular
20 time, you didn't know anything about what the HV was doing concerning
21 troop movements, resupply, or somehow planning for the next operation.
22 Is that right?
23 A. We didn't receive that information from General Cermak or CALO,
24 and those were our counterparts. We were not told what the HV troops
25 were doing. That was not really our business.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. Let me shift, if I may.
2 And I noted in your statement - and I'm talking about your 1998
3 [sic] statement at paragraph 8 - that you reviewed reports before they
4 were sent to Zagreb
5 that struck me as being inaccurate or inconsistent with my observations
6 for that day."
7 I'd like it turn your attention to P805, and if I could go to --
8 and P805, just to orient you, sir, is a 7 August 1995 report by ECMM.
9 MR. KEHOE: If I can go to the second page of this report.
10 Q. And on the 7th of August, ECMM reports in point b: "In the Knin
11 area, it seems as if random looting and destruction of houses and
12 property is about to reach a degree where it will get even more difficult
13 to re-start normal life."
14 Comment: "It is very unlikely that this is a deliberate policy
15 of the authorities."
16 Now, you agree with that, do you not, sir?
17 A. I don't really understand the question.
18 Q. Well, the comment, ECMM comment, let me just stay at the
19 beginning that you told us in direct and on also in your statement at
20 paragraph 8, you have never seen anything in these reports that struck me
21 as being inaccurate, and you noted on direct that you read these reports.
22 And the comment here is that it says it is very unlikely that
23 this, talking about looting and destruction of property, that this is a
24 deliberate policy of the authorities.
25 Now, you agree with that, don't you, sir, or this assessment made
1 by ECMM on the 7th of August, 1995?
2 A. What I meant in my statement here about everything that I saw and
3 read elsewhere, I was referring primarily to segments of text that were
4 taken over from my own report or summarized. So I didn't mean that I
5 always agreed with entire RC reports because that was not my
6 responsibility; but the sections gleaned from my own team report I was
7 curious about them, I read them, and they conveyed the truth at that
9 Q. Now, this is -- this report is written by Mr. Bigland and
10 Mr. Liborius and on behalf of RC Knin.
11 Now, this accurately reflects the position of RC Knin on the
12 7th of August, does it not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Hendriks, I'm not saying that looting did not take
15 place, but, initially, some of the searches of -- let me withdraw that.
16 As a military man, you understand that some of the searches that
17 were taking place in the Knin area were, in fact, done for security
18 reasons, were they not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let us turn your attention to some of the reports that talk about
21 the civilians returning to Knin.
22 MR. KEHOE: And what I'd like to do is if I could just, in the
23 spirit of moving more quickly, Your Honour, just go through a couple of
24 reports and then just ask a question from there.
25 If I can turn first to P352.
1 Q. This may not have been a document that you saw previously, but it
2 is a Sector South situation report from 6th August 1995.
3 MR. KEHOE: If I could go one, two, three, five pages in, if I
4 may, or maybe six pages, yeah, six pages in.
5 Q. Let's focus on paragraph F. It reflects in the middle that:
6 "More civilians, including cars with Split licence plates, are seen in
7 Knin ..."
8 MR. KEHOE: If I can go to P806 which is an ECMM report of
9 8 August 1995
10 Q. Last sentence: "DPs, displaced persons, already returning to
11 their homes, as of the 8th of August."
12 MR. KEHOE: P933, which will be the last report in this series,
13 which is a report to RC Knin of 9 August 1995 from November 2, Team N2.
14 Q. The last paragraph on that general situation: "It seems like
15 Knin, for the first time, is becoming a big tourist attraction.
16 Extensive traffic was recorded on the main road between Knin and Drnis."
17 MR. KEHOE: If we can just turn to the next page.
18 Q. In the middle there: "We saw the same development in Drnis. A
19 lot of civilians are in the city, and it seems that they are looking for
20 property that belonged to them ..."
21 Now, almost immediately after Operation Storm, Mr. Hendriks, the
22 civilian population began to come back to Knin and the outlying areas to
23 attempt to re-take their property. Isn't that right?
24 MR. HEDARALY: I think there's a vagueness to the question. Are
25 we talking about the Croat civilians that came back that left in 1991 or
1 during the war, or the Serbs that had left in August --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please be more precise in your question,
3 Mr. Kehoe.
4 MR. KEHOE:
5 Q. Well, Mr. Hendriks, were there a lot of Croat displaced people,
6 who had been evicted from Knin between 1991 and 1995, were a lot of those
7 Croats coming back to Knin and the outlying areas to attempt to take
8 their property that previously belonged to them?
9 A. Well, I believe they were displaced persons. You could tell that
10 from the licence plates on the cars. But whether they were looking for
11 their own belongs or belongings of others, I can't say.
12 Q. Well, if we look at this report, it notes that: "A lot of
13 civilians are in the city, and it seems they are looking for property
14 that belonged to them previously." What does that mean?
15 A. That would, indeed, mean that they were looking for their own
16 home to check for their belongings. That's what it says.
17 Q. Now, this happened almost -- and the first report that we talked
18 about was the 6th of August. This happened almost immediately after
19 Operation Storm, didn't it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, let us take that issue of the civilians coming back into the
22 area with the situation report that my colleague, Mr. Kuzmanovic,
23 discussed with you, which was P35, the second page under "Military
24 assessment," where it is written that: "It is assessed that the
25 swiftness of the success of Operation Storm ..." --
1 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me. I'm sorry, P935. My apologies. P935.
4 My apologies, Mr. Usher. Could we go to the second page of that
6 Q. It notes, yes: "It is assessed that the swiftness of the success
7 of Operation Storm caught not only the HV by surprise but also the
8 civilian authorities who were supposed to go in afterward and take over.
9 Consequently, as the capital felt in 36 hours, instead of the expected
10 week, the military and police who were to next arrive did so late. The
11 civilian authorities were also caught on the hop and have not been able
12 to bring their move forward at all."
13 MR. KEHOE: One last report, which is P830, section 2 a. This is
14 an ECMM report of 10 August 1995
15 authorities of Knin have still not moved in. There is no one to talk
17 Q. So, Mr. Hendriks, at this particular point, beginning on
18 6th August, there is a civilian population that is moving down into --
19 coming back into Sector South; the military and the civilian police have
20 gotten in late; and ECMM reports that as late as 10 August, there is
21 still no political authorities that have moved in and no one to talk to.
22 Is that an accurate assessment of the situation when we combine
23 those ideas?
24 A. Yes, that's possible. I have a different impression. The
25 Croatian troops invaded the area and then are basically in command of the
1 area, so they might put up all kinds of check-points and other obstacles
2 to obstruct the civilian population. Apparently, that didn't happen, but
3 perhaps the civilian authorities were not prepared for the rapid
5 Q. And were you aware, Mr. Hendriks, that in -- on the 6th of
6 August, 1995, the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia
7 reinstituted in Knin and that civilian authorities took over on the
8 6th of August? Were you aware of that?
9 A. Not, specifically, but I assumed that that was the case.
10 Q. In the early days after Operation Storm, sir, there was a serious
11 power vacuum in the Knin area, wasn't there?
12 A. I can't answer that properly because we were quickly introduced
13 to General Cermak, the military commander on site, who represented
14 himself as being responsible for law and order throughout the area.
15 Q. And I think you said in response to questions by -- by my
16 colleague, Mr. Cayley, that General Cermak was attempting to be helpful
17 to the ECMM and the UN, wasn't he?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. But prior to Operation Storm, in the area, some 12.000 Croat
20 homes had been destroyed, hadn't they?
21 A. Do you mean in the war in 1991?
22 Q. Between 1991 and 1995, were you aware that 12.000 homes had been
23 burned, Croat homes, prior to Operation Storm?
24 A. I was aware that at the time there had been some damage; but
25 whether it was 12.000 homes, I couldn't tell you.
1 Q. I reference you to the testimony of Ive Kardum of last week at
2 page 9420, line 17. It says: "As I already mentioned, there some 12.000
3 Croat house, Croat houses that had been burned.
4 You, as you sit here, you were unaware of that figure. Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, with the knowledge that you were unaware with that figure,
8 when you were assessing the 60 to 70 per cent of houses destroyed as a
9 result of Operation Storm -- and I'm referring to the report of -- that
10 was filed as P815. That would be the first page, where it notes: "It is
11 a rough estimate that between 60 and 80 per cent of the property in the
12 former UN Sector South have been fully or partially destroyed."
13 When that was reported, was that reported without the knowledge
14 that approximately 12.000 homes, Croat homes, had been burnt prior to
15 Operation Storm?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Well, let me just discuss the report that Mr. Hedaraly addressed
18 to you, which is P920.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe --
20 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, P920.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You earlier referred to line 9490, line 17, as far
24 as the -- that's at least what I read in the transcript. I'm there
25 discussing with Mr. Mikulicic how much time he would need.
1 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry, Judge, if I made a mistake. It should
2 have been 9420, 9420, line 17 and 18, if I misspoke on that score.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's where I am -- no, I think that is --
4 MR. KEHOE: 9240.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I misspoke. 9420, line 17, in my
6 transcript, is a discussion with Mr. Mikulicic about how much time he
8 MR. KEHOE: It is in the -- actually, it is interesting. There
9 is an number up here, if we can turn to 9498.
10 JUDGE ORIE: 9498.
11 MR. KEHOE: I was referring to the number at the top, but it may
12 be 9498, line 17.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the real source, yes.
14 MR. KEHOE: I think the reference number at the top is when the
15 testimony actually begins, and I was reading that number as opposed to --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I found it.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. KEHOE: And if I could bring up P938.
19 Q. Mr. Hendriks, this is the document that Mr. Hedaraly showed to
20 you on direct examination; and on the -- I believe he directed your
21 attention to Polaca, P-o-l-a-c-a, which is about in section c, about one,
22 two, three, four, five, six, or seven down, where you noted that the
23 damage was by 1991 damage.
24 Do you see that, sir?
25 A. Yes, I see that.
1 Q. Now, so do we take it from the rest of this report that the
2 damage in all of the rest of these villages was as a result of post-Storm
4 A. Yes, as a consequence of operations after Operation Storm.
5 Q. Let me bring up for you, if I may, D751, and turning to pages 2
6 and 3 of that document.
7 And this is the villages that are listed for that date for the
8 22nd of August that Mr. Hedaraly referred you to, and with the
9 clarifications that are set forth in the left.
10 And if we could just go to the next page of this document, I'd
11 like to just to talk to you a little bit about this.
12 Now, just looking at that, some of these villages -- and if we
13 look at the top, third from the left, Pridraga, which is Donja Viduka,
14 which is on your list and you note that it is totally destroyed, and the
15 1991 census reflects that it is almost entirely a Croat village.
16 Over to the lower right-hand corner, we have Lisicic, which is
17 not an entirely a Croat village, but virtually all Croat. That is
18 totally destroyed.
19 If we just go up to the right just a little bit more, in
20 Medjvida, the report reflects that is totally destroyed, and that is a
21 mixed village with more than half being Croat.
22 Staying with this document, if we can go to Zupane in your list,
23 you say it is partially destroyed. That is on the left-hand side. And a
24 partially destruction reflects it is mostly a Serb village.
25 Rodaljice -- excuse me, I'm sorry. It is Kolarna, which is in
1 the area of Rodaljice, which is another Croat village that is partially
3 Now, just staying with this, sir, based on your assessment, what
4 were villages that were mainly Croat villages prior to Operation Storm,
5 your reports reflect were destroyed after Operation Storm. Is that
7 A. No, I didn't get that. I don't understand the question properly.
8 Q. Let me just take these one by one, and maybe I moved too quickly.
9 Look at the top, we have Pridraga, which is in the top left-hand
10 corner, and then in parenthesis is "Donja Viduka." We have according to
11 the 1991 census 1.770 Croats, two Serbs, and seven others. So the 1991
12 census reflects that this is a Croat village.
13 Your assessment, in your report that we have reflected in this
14 map, is that this village was totally destroyed and there's no indication
15 that it was destroyed prior to Operation Storm.
16 So is it your position, Mr. Hendriks, that the Croats, after
17 Operation Storm, were destroying villages that were almost entirely Croat
18 prior to -- well, per the census of 1991?
19 A. No. My perception was that villages were destroyed primarily
20 where Serbs were in the majority, but there were also houses burned that
21 belonged to Serbs.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, let me try to see whether I can get
23 you on the track of Mr. Kehoe.
24 Mr. Kehoe is drawing your attention to the following: In the
25 survey of the damage to villages, you have indicated, at least once for
1 Polace, that this was damage pre-Operation Storm. Yes?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: As far as, for example, Pridraga is concerned, the
4 report does not indicate that it is pre-Operation Storm damage and
5 describes the village as totally destroyed.
6 Mr. Kehoe puts to you that the population of Pridraga, on the
7 basis of the 1991 census, was by a very vast majority Croat. He now
8 wonders whether the damage, which appears in your report, total
9 destruction, is Operation Storm damage, which would mean that the Croats
10 would destroy a village which was by the vast majority Croat, in 1991,
11 during Operation Storm; that is to say, that they were destroying their
12 own villages.
13 That, Mr. Kehoe, if I well understood you, is the issue you
14 wanted to raise with Mr. Hendriks.
15 Mr. Hendriks, could you comment on this line of reasoning as a
16 product of your report at that time and the added information of the 1991
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems unlikely to me that during
19 Operation Storm, the Croats would completely destroy a village that,
20 prior to 1991, was overwhelming Croat. Perhaps the survey was
21 incomplete, but I can't say that now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Incomplete in what respect?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That perhaps it should have
24 indicated that the village had already been destroyed prior to 1991, but
25 I couldn't tell that you now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
2 MR. KEHOE:
3 Q. Well, sir, let me just take this one step further, and if we can
4 look at the two villages that you have toward the top. One is Zapuzane
5 which you have undamaged; and Komazeci in the Komazeci valley, which is
6 also untouched. If with go to the map, Zapuzane is on the left-hand
7 side, midway down: "Nine Croats and 532 Serbs."
8 So we could say that is virtually an entire Serb village.
9 And if we go to the other side of the map and we go to Komazice,
10 that is, by the 1991 census, an entirely Serb village. Your report
11 reflects that both of those entirely Serb villages were not damaged.
12 Do you see that, sir?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So if, in fact, ECMM was of the belief, as they say in 815, P815,
15 that the destruction of these Serb homes was -- or destruction of the --
16 withdraw that -- that the burning that was going on was organised in some
17 fashion, why do we find Croat villages that are totally destroyed, while
18 in the same patrol that you took on the 22nd of August, you have Serb
19 villages which are virtually intact?
20 Do you have any explanation for that?
21 A. I don't have any explanation for that.
22 Q. Now, the damage that you are looking at and that you observed,
23 that was coming at a time when the Republic of Croatia
24 problem housing displaced people who were down on the coast or were in
25 other locations, weren't they?
1 A. It is possible.
2 Q. Well, possible. If it is possible, let's just talk about it.
3 MR. KEHOE: Let's go to P935.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, can we concentrate on what the witness
5 knows. I don't know whether -- he says this is possible. Of course, if
6 you give him further information, he might say it is likely or the
7 document says so. That, of course, is not the kind of testimony we are
8 seeking at this moment.
9 But please proceed, and keep this in back of your mind.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Maybe it is easier, Judge, if I go through again a
12 series of ECMM reports.
13 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I don't know if you want to take a break
14 now. I can probably shorten this up and finish relatively quickly when
15 we come back.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps that could be a good idea, but I'd
17 like to put one or two additional questions before we do so, which are
18 the following.
19 I have looked, Mr. Hendriks, at these photographs, not only 30
20 seconds but a bit more, and I looked at your statement. Let me say it
21 cautious at this moment, there is a likelihood on the basis of the
22 Google Earth map where it's indicated that the other picture would have
23 been taken in Grahovo.
24 From the Google Earth, I take it Bosansko Grahovo?
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Now, you said you have taken this picture approximately 12th of
3 August. Now, could you tell us when you last visited Grahovo,
4 Bosansko Grahovo? Did you go there after Operation Storm? Did you go
5 there prior to Operation Storm?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were in Grahovo before Operation
7 Storm, and I believe afterwards, again.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, when you went there before Operation
9 Storm, was there already considerable damage to that town?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember.
11 JUDGE ORIE: When you went there after Operation Storm, was that
12 town substantially damaged?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that either.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm asking this because you're producing a
15 photograph with, well, substantial damage to the buildings shown there,
16 and that there's a likelihood that this is a photograph taken from an
17 apartment building in Bosansko Grahovo.
18 Now, I'm trying to understand where, what, went wrong? Is there
19 is possibility, yes?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not that something's going
21 wrong. It's -- the issue is my memory. In April 1996, I assumed that
22 the photograph had been taken in Knin. Perhaps it turns out know that
23 the buildings were in Grahovo. Then apparently, on 12 August, I was in
24 Grahovo, but I don't remember anymore. That was 13 years ago.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You say on the 12th of August. Your statement says
1 it was on or around. Apparently, now you have a piece of information
2 which focuses you exactly on the 12th of August, or is it?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because my first statement
4 reads dated approximately, so about 12 August.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I described on 23rd of
7 April, 1996.
8 JUDGE ORIE: But you're now saying: "Then apparently on the 12th
9 of August, I was in Grahovo." Is this just a deduction from what you see
10 on the photograph because you say, "I took it; I must have been there."
11 Is that what you're telling me?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If those buildings are, indeed, in
13 Grahovo. But the same type of buildings may have been in Knin. But if
14 they were not in Knin, if that's concern, then this photograph was taken
15 in Grahovo, or it could have been a different city. I can't explain
16 that, but we were in Grahovo.
17 So, presumably, we were in Grahovo around the 12th, and I took
18 this photograph or my colleague, Stig Marker-Hansen, did.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hedaraly.
20 MR. HEDARALY: I may have some information that helps the
21 Chamber. I don't want if you want to address it while the witness is
22 present or not.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we will ask the witness to already take his
24 break, and then you can address me.
25 Could I ask Madam Usher to escort the witness out of the
2 We'll have a break of some 20 minute, approximately,
3 Mr. Hendriks.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
6 MR. HEDARALY: There is a report, Your Honour, that was addressed
7 in direct examination. It is a P934, which is an 11 August daily report.
8 And on the second page, there's a reference to the damage in Grahovo.
9 It's listed there in the report as damage from shelling, and I raised it
10 with the witness because the church was undamaged. So that would seem to
11 indicate that the witness was in Grahovo on the 11th of August.
12 I don't know if that assists.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where the witness earlier refers to the 12th,
14 he earlier appeared not to be certain about whether it was the 12th or
15 not. That could explain it.
16 Of course, I'm asking this because, of course, I have great
17 concerns in that, if there are made such mistakes, could it be a
18 photograph taken by someone else who has kept the negatives, because I
19 think it was not all electronic photographing yet. So it's a matter of
20 exploring what seems to be mistakes and to try to understand what
21 happened in order to be better able to assess where we should be
22 extremely cautious in material that is produced.
23 Have you ever asked the witness whether he still has the negative
24 available to him?
25 MR. HEDARALY: I have not, Your Honour, because he said it was in
1 Knin, and I --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You had no reason at that time to doubt that.
3 I think, after the break, one of the things we could do is to ask him
4 whether he has still kept the negatives, because if that is the case,
5 then it might further assist you in coming to agreement.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If the new photographs are taken in Grahovo - and of
8 course, I have no reason at this moment to have any doubt about that -
9 then it really seems that the other photograph is taken in Grahovo as
10 well, and all kind of other details, which is, of course, of some
11 concerns. Not that the photograph was taken, but that it is presented as
12 Knin damage.
13 We will have a break and resume at 1.00, and we would like to
14 finish with the witness today.
15 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, a few more questions on the photograph
20 of the damaged building.
21 Do you still have the negatives?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know where they are?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps Stig Marker-Hansen has
1 JUDGE ORIE: This one photograph, was it by chance that you had
2 kept it, or do you have a whole series?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have several photographs.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Have you shown all of them to the investigators or
5 the members of the Office of the Prosecution?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You've just shown this one.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, the five that were
9 attached to the first statement.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you be willing to make available the
11 other photographs you still have?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether the parties have any interest
14 in looking at other photographs. Then, of course, if that's the case, we
15 would invite the witness to tell us when they were taken, and perhaps
16 even more important, where they were taken.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any need for that, then we know at least
19 that there's a source of information. How relevant, I have got no idea.
20 But if the parties want to explore it, it is there.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
23 Q. Mr. Hendriks, before we move off the -- the chart that's on the
24 screen, and also looking at your list of villages that is in P938, given
25 your answer previously, sir, it's accurate to say that you cannot tell
1 whether the damage you observed on the 22nd of August, 1995, happened
2 before Storm or after Storm. Isn't that right?
3 A. I can't say for certain. But what we were looking for at the
4 time, of course, we were looking for recently damaged and burned houses.
5 So if the report read damaged, without stating that we could that he will
6 it was from 1991, then it had been burned recently.
7 Q. So staying with the village that we talked about previously,
8 which virtually an entirely Croat village, Pridraga, which is Donja
9 Viduka at the top of the page, which had 1.770 Croats, and you say that's
10 totally destroyed, you don't know, as you sit here, whether that was
11 destroyed before Storm or after Storm, do you?
12 A. No, I don't know that.
13 Q. Now, just a last subject here, sir. You noted for us, in
14 response to the questions by my colleague, Mr. Kuzmanovic, and this is at
15 line -- excuse me, page 33 today, line 12:
16 "From what you saw and you observed during the course of time in
17 Sector South, it is true, is it not, that the civilian authorities, based
18 upon what was going on in Sector South, were not prepared to deal with
19 the problems they were facing, specifically looting and burning.
21 Your answer is: "I suspect that is correct."
22 Now, if we could just briefly, quickly go through a series of
23 ECMM reports, and I'd just like to ask you a question or two from them.
24 MR. KEHOE: Now, going to first P935. This is an ECMM report of
25 the 13th of August, and if we can go to the page three of this document
1 at the bottom of the page, "Humanitarian assessment."
2 Q. The second -- bottom of that page, just before it ends at
3 paragraph: "DPs," displaced people, "from hotels, caravan sites along
4 the coast, and refugees from Western Europe, have been seeping back to
5 visit their original homes, (some to stay). Representative of Split
6 Zupanja, DPs association estimates 100.000 DPs will return to free
8 MR. KEHOE: If we could go to P511, this is an ECMM report of
9 18 August, and if we could go to the second page, "The Economic
11 Q. Towards the bottom of that page: "Today the rain and the sheer
12 lack of unburned houses meant that few fires were observed. And the lack
13 of unburned houses meant that few fires were observed. The fields are
14 still left with nobody working in them. How the Croatians will harvest
15 the crops is not yet known. It seems to become a large problem, or will
16 they just rotten in the fields? Will the DP become forced labour in the
18 MR. KEHOE: Next, just to 20 August 1995, which is P937, another
19 ECMM report, and if we can go to the last page, which is under
20 "Humanitarian assessment," 3 d.
21 Q. "DPs and refugees from Croatia and Europe
22 the area; however, no infrastructure and destroyed houses make immediate
23 habitation possible."
24 MR. KEHOE: P812, 23 August 1995
25 If we can just scroll down just a bit, under: "The plan..."
1 Q. "The plan for B," being Benkovac, "is to serve as accommodation
2 to DPs coming from the tourist areas. These will be accommodated in
3 tents, if necessary."
4 MR. KEHOE: Let us turn to P3 -- 953, which is the last document.
5 This is 9 October 1995
6 second page.
7 Q. This is a discussion between the Team Knin: "Meet the manager of
8 the screw factory Tvik in Knin," and there's a discussion, you can read
9 it, about ECMM assisting at Tvik factory.
10 Towards the bottom of that paragraph, it notes: "Team comment,
11 TC: 'Housing problem is paramount. Nobody will come to work without
12 this problem solved.'"
13 Now, sir, my question, based on those reports, is that ECMM saw
14 that this burning was causing a tremendous problem for the Republic of
16 the area. Isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So you would agree with me that while this burning was going on,
19 it did not serve the interests of Croatia -- of the Republic of Croatia
20 because it prevented these displaced people from coming back to their
21 homes or inhabiting other homes. Isn't that right?
22 A. Houses that had been set on fire could obviously not be occupied
23 by displaced persons; but in the cities, a lot of houses had not been set
24 on fire, and then the question was simply which house do we allocate to
25 whom? So there was a housing problem. On the one hand, there were some
1 houses available to put people in, but it had to be authorised; but
2 houses that had been set on fire, that was a problem because you can't
3 occupy those for the time being.
4 Q. Well, we saw, based on the P953 that we have on the screen, that
5 there wasn't enough housing in Knin for the workers to work at the Tvik
6 factory. Is that right?
7 A. Not one on one. So there were homes, but people would move into
8 those who were not entitled to move into them, so it was rather
9 disordered. There was no organised procedure for who was to allow live
10 where; and as long as it was so disorganised, fewer people came to Knin
11 to join in that mess.
12 Q. It was chaotic, wasn't it, sir?
13 A. Yes. That housing problem was chaotic.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... make is that -
15 and, of course, this is not the first time that the matter is raised -
16 that burning houses would prevent them for being used for those who were
17 in need of houses, then the point is made, that this may have been in the
18 interest -- not burning, in this respect, would not have served the
19 interests of Croatia
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. My last couple of questions for you, Mr. Hendriks, has to do with
24 your report, which is P951, which is your report concerning churches.
25 MR. KEHOE: P951.
1 Q. Now, in that church -- that list of churches, I don't see Knin.
2 Do you know what happened to the Catholic church in Knin? This is prior
3 to Operation Storm. Do you know what happened to the Catholic church in
4 operation -- in Knin, prior to Operation Storm?
5 A. No.
6 Q. The fact is that most of the churches that were preserved
7 throughout Sector South were Orthodox churches, weren't they?
8 A. I can't assert that.
9 Q. Well, let us look at P -- the last of the documents, P934.
10 MR. KEHOE: And if we could go to -- this is an ECMM report of
11 11 August 1995
12 Q. At the bottom, Team Knin, 3 g: "Team Knin reports the churches
13 in Polace and Vrlika, Orthodox, undamaged; but the Catholic church in
14 Vrlika recently destroyed and with Serb graffiti on the wall."
15 Comment: "Team had interviewed Serb refugees in the camp who
16 were from that area, and they said that the church was untouched when
17 they had left after shelling had started. They believed that the damage
18 may have been done by the HV in order to put the blame on Serbs. This
19 seems fairly sensible as it is unlikely that people fleeing for their
20 lives would stop to write nasty messages on the wall."
21 Mr. Hendriks, this was your team. Was it seriously the position
22 of the team that the HV destroyed their own Catholic church in Vrlika?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Thank you, sir.
25 MR. KEHOE: I have no further questions question, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
2 Mr. Hedaraly, is there any need for re-examination?
3 MR. HEDARALY: Briefly, Your Honour.
4 If I can have D820 on the screen, please.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Hedaraly:
6 Q. And, Mr. Hendriks, this is your 1996 statement, a statement about
7 which you were asked a few questions, and I want to clarify a matter in
8 there. I don't have if have you a hard copy if front of you, but I would
9 like to go to the third page of that document, page 2 of the statement
11 MR. HEDARALY: And if we can focus on the top part.
12 Q. Now, you were asked questions about item 3, where it says: "From
13 my interpreter, I learned that in the afternoon of the 4th, after a whole
14 day of broadcasting music, a recorded tape of Martic was broadcasted with
15 a statement that there is no reason to panic because the defence
16 positions are stable."
17 Now, I want to move to item 4 which is in the next paragraph. It
18 says: "Most of the RSK defence forces pulled out after the
19 recommendation of the Krajina authorities by radio Knin to the population
20 to flee asap in order to assist the families to escape Krajina."
21 Now, it seems to me, and I am asking you, were there two messages
22 that you were told were broadcast on the radio, the first one saying that
23 defence position was stable, and second one saying that the population
24 should leave?
25 A. I don't know whether there were two separate broadcasts.
1 Q. When you read item 3 and 4 in your statement, you wrote that. So
2 reading it again, does it seem like you're talking about the same message
3 or about two different messages?
4 A. Then it appears to be about the same message.
5 Q. So, in the same message, in 3, it says that the defence positions
6 are stable. It also says that the people should leave.
7 A. Let me read over paragraph 3 again first. Just a moment, please.
8 Q. Yes, take your time.
9 A. Well, in paragraph 3, it reads that a radio broadcast had been
10 inserted, and the friend of my interpreter who was in the army heard
11 something and talked about that, and refugees in the camp reported things
12 as well. So this account is basically based on three sources.
13 Q. And that's an account of number 3 in your statement?
14 A. Numbers 3 and 4.
15 Q. Okay. If we can go to your 2008 statement now, I want to direct
16 to paragraph 18.
17 MR. HEDARALY: P931. I'm just going to wait until everyone has
18 it on their screen.
19 Q. And this is when you describe the state of the town on the 7th of
20 August when you leave the UN compound, and you say: "I saw a lot of
21 personal goods, such add clothing, furniture, and so on, thrown out of
22 the houses and buildings in the yards. My own house was looted, and my
23 watch, radio player, cassette recorder, and other items were missing when
24 I returned home."
25 Now, Mr. Kehoe asked you, at page 56 of the transcript: "As a
1 military man, you understand that some of the searches that were taking
2 place in the Knin area were, in fact, done for security reasons, were
3 they not?"
4 And you said: "Yes."
5 And my question for you is: What you saw in town on the 7th,
6 with all these goods in the street, did that seem consistent to you with
7 security searches?
8 A. No.
9 MR. HEDARALY: I have no more questions, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: I may have a few questions, but I'm first seeking
13 information from Mr. Kehoe.
14 You asked the witness during his ride he saw --
15 MR. KEHOE: Casualties.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- casualties, yes. You referred to D820, last
18 MR. KEHOE: Page 2.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Page 2, yes. That is missing then.
20 MR. KEHOE: If you go down a paragraph, Your Honour --
21 JUDGE ORIE: If I have page 2, and then --
22 MR. KEHOE: It's, actually, page 3 of the document, page 2 of the
23 statement. They're page natured differently.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me first read it.
25 MR. KEHOE: Midway through.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One short question on that.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE ORIE: You were asked about casualties. You said, "I
4 didn't see any injured people."
5 May I take this to include that you didn't see any dead persons?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That is also in view of this paragraph in your
9 Could we have P952 on the screen.
10 If the parties could assist me, on what page I find the
11 question -- let me just see. Could the parties assist me. There was a
12 question put in relation to the persons who will be hesitant to take --
13 to occupy the houses that was left by Serbs.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Section 5 on page 2, Your Honour, in the middle
15 of that, section a.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we enlarge that portion.
17 It is the portion about the 453 flats, Mr. Hendriks.
18 At the end of this subparagraph, I find the words, "Slobodna
19 Dalmacija." I would like to know what that means for the reporting. I
20 know that Slobodna Dalmacija is a newspaper. Now, what does it mean,
21 that the name of this newspaper appears under this paragraph 5 a?
22 A. I think that the entire paragraph 5 a is a translation of what
23 was published in that newspaper on that date.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
25 Some questions were put to you in relation to redistribution of
2 Did you observe livestock which was dead and apparently not had
3 died to the extent you could see that from natural causes?
4 A. Yes, one pig.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
6 Is there any need to put further questions to the witness.
7 Mr. Kehoe.
8 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, Mr. Kuzmanovic?
10 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hendriks, this concludes your testimony in this
13 [Interpretation] Thank you very much for coming and for answering
14 all questions from parties and from the Judges.
15 Ordinarily, I add that I particularly appreciate somebody having
16 come from so far away, but that would not be entirely appropriate.
17 Nonetheless, I wish you a safe trip home.
18 Thank you very much.
19 [In English] Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Hendriks
20 out of the courtroom.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, There is one housekeeping matter.
23 I had tendered 65 ter 2821 from the bar table, but our colleagues
24 from the Cermak Defence kindly informed us that another version of that
25 document was already into evidence under P258. So I will withdraw the
1 request to tender 2821, and just so the record knows that P259, my
2 apologies, is the right exhibit.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, was a number already provisionally
5 assigned to it, Mr. Registrar?
6 MR. HEDARALY: It was not, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It was not. Then we don't have to take any action.
8 The withdrawal is on the record.
9 Are there any other procedural matters because I do understand
10 there is no witness available for the next 11 minutes.
11 MR. HEDARALY: That is correct, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Any other procedural issue to be raised? If not,
13 then we'll adjourn. We will adjourn until Wednesday, the 1st of October,
14 9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom --
15 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, just one issue. I note that it's a
16 subject near and dear to your heart, but it has to do with the excerpts
17 of the Sekulic book. I don't know if you want me to put it on the record
18 exactly what the parameters of that was, or if you want me to do it some
19 other way.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If I may, I was just about to say in which courtroom
21 we would resume, but since I have not done that yet, the adjournment is
22 not complete.
23 You have greed with the Prosecution about the context pages?
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We would then have in evidence what pages you are
2 MR. KEHOE: This is 1D01-0005, which is D777; and 1D01-0001 is
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, you will understand that is now entirely
5 clear to me what is in evidence and what is not in evidence.
6 Mr. Hedaraly, I take it that you'll check on what is uploaded,
7 whether no mistakes were made, because that's the worst I could think of.
8 Then, of course, the Chamber will know exactly which portions of the book
9 are now tendered, and I think we admitted the portion you focussed on but
10 we wanted to get rid of a lot of extra pages, which you were not
11 focussing on.
12 Which means, that I give it another chance, that we resume on
13 Wednesday, the 1st of October, 9.00, Courtroom II.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.36 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of
16 October, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.