1 Thursday, 9 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 I do understand that the preparation for the next witness to be
12 called by the Prosecution give rise to some questions which the party
13 would say like to discuss first before the witness will be called.
14 Mr. Misetic, I think you were the one who raised the issue.
15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
16 I rise because, as the Chamber is aware, yesterday the
17 Gotovina Defence filed a witness statement of this witness which it
18 formally took in July of this year. We filed it as a Rule 92 ter
19 submission. In the e-mail in which I sent a courtesy copy to the parties
20 and to the Chamber, I indicated that normally we would wait for
21 cross-examination to put this type of statement to a witness. However,
22 in light of Rule 92 ter and in order avoid a situation which actually
23 came up with a witness a few weeks ago, which was Mr. Dzolic, whereby the
24 witness makes 92 ter attestations when his statements are submitted by
25 the Prosecution, and then in the Defence case, he makes corrections which
1 he failed to make at the beginning, the Prosecution could, in theory, ask
2 for Rule 91 instruction against its own witness.
3 To avoid that situation, we decided that it was best if the
4 Defence statement could be given to the Chamber and to the Prosecution so
5 that in any proofing, as well as before the Rule 92 ter attestations are
6 made, any changes that needed to be made to the initial statement given
7 to the OTP, could be put to the witness and then the witness could make
8 those changes if he deemed them necessary. If he disavows the statement
9 given to the Defence that could also be put to the witness before he
10 makes the Rule 92 ter attestation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're saying is that Ms. Mahindaratne could
12 use this statement --
13 MR. MISETIC: It was filed with the Registry, officially served
14 on the Prosecution, and therefore, there was no reason whatsoever that
15 the Prosecution couldn't use something that we had publicly filed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. MISETIC: Except, obviously, I should correct that the annex
18 to the filing was confidential yesterday but, nevertheless, something the
19 Prosecution could use.
20 What transpired today is that the Prosecution didn't put the
21 statement to the witness, didn't -- as far as I know, tell the witness
22 that they are in possession of the second statement, proceeded to
23 question the witness on matters that are in the statement without telling
24 him, A, that they have the statement; or B, giving him an opportunity to
25 review his statement to see if -- either to refresh his recollection, or,
1 in my estimation, to alert the witness to the fact that there is nothing
2 wrong with the fact that he gave a statement to the Defence, that we have
3 filed it with the parties and with the Chamber, and that he has no reason
4 to be nervous about the fact that he has given a statement to the
6 Instead what transpired was, he has now been asked questions by
7 Ms. Mahindaratne without the benefit of having seen the second statement.
8 There are now inconsistencies between what he told Ms. Mahindaratne today
9 and what he says in the statement he signed to the Defence.
10 Inconsistencies, I would say, on peripheral matters which are, did he --
11 has he ever seen his statement to the OTP prior to today. Apparently he
12 told Ms. Mahindaratne that today is the first time he saw it. In the
13 Defence statement he actually says, I have now seen it today, and we go
14 point by point through the statement.
15 Now I think it was a disservice to the witness not to simply say
16 we have received a statement, this is a second statement, please review
17 it. Did you give the statement; was it coerced; did you freely give it;
18 are these corrections that you made to the initial statement?
19 So now we are in a position where the witness, not knowing that
20 all the parties have the second statement, signed an additional statement
21 today where he says that the first statement is accurate, but also notes
22 that the statement he -- he acknowledges having given a statement to the
23 Defence in which he says, But that statement was also consistent with
24 what I have said in my first statement to the OTP.
25 Now, I don't think that the Prosecution thinks that the statement
1 he gave to the Defence in July is consistent with the statement he gave
2 in January. So now we have a situation where the witness has not made
3 substantive changes to his first statement in January but says that the
4 second statement, in July he gave, is consistent with that first
5 statement and he has never seen it because it was never shown to him.
6 Now, from my perspective, from the perspective of the Defence,
7 this trial is about a search for the truth. Why such a statement would
8 not be shown to the witness is inexplicable to me. What purpose is
9 served by not telling him that there's second statement out there that he
10 should review before coming to court today and being asked to make the
11 attestations in which he is swearing under oath about statements made in
12 the first statement. I think it is unfair to the witness, it's unfair to
13 the parties and it's unfair to the Chamber.
14 I had a conversation with Ms. Mahindaratne where she said to me,
15 that the reason she didn't show it to him is because, initially, she
16 asked him, Is this the first time you've seen your statement. He said
17 today is the first time he has seen his OTP statement. As a result of
18 that, Ms. Mahindaratne concluded that the Defence engaged in questionable
19 tactics to obtain the July 2008 statement, and therefore, there is no
20 need to show him the statement at all because the statement is
22 I think these are matters that should have been put to the
23 witness, let the witness tell us if the statement is defective or not.
24 They weren't put to him. I reject the allegation that the witness was
25 manipulated, particularly where the Prosecution didn't put to the witness
1 if he had been manipulated in any way, in the giving of the second
2 statement, and particularly where the witness himself says that he thinks
3 the second statement given to the Defence is consistent with the first
4 statement given to OTP.
5 So what we do now, I think I spoke with Mr. Waespi before we came
6 to Court. We are both of the agreement that it will take the wisdom of
7 the Bench to figure out how we proceed from here. I wanted to alert the
8 Chamber to the situation, and to be fair to the witness, I think he
9 should be allowed to see the second statement given to Defence. And I
10 ask that he be instructed, because there is a common misperception among
11 witnesses that it is somehow inappropriate to speak to the Defence, that
12 he be told that if he gave a second statement to the Defence, that
13 there's nothing wrong with that and that he shouldn't feel uncomfortable
14 acknowledging that he gave a second statement to the Defence and
15 reviewing it and telling us if what he said to the Defence is the truth
16 as he understands it.
17 And from there, I'm happy to proceed whatever the witness says
18 about the OTP statement, the Defence statement and whatever other matters
19 he is here to testify about.
20 Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I think Mr. Misetic is avoiding
23 the fundamental issue involved in this matter. First and foremost, I
24 have to say we, the OTP, did not in any way make the witness feel
25 uncomfortable about speaking to the Defence. In fact, in the
1 supplementary statement, the witness has clearly admitted being
2 interviewed by the Defence investigator.
3 Now the issue was, Mr. President, I had the Defence statement
4 with me at the time of proofing and I had all the intentions of showing
5 the Defence statement to the witness. But when I questioned him as to
6 whether he had been shown the OTP statement and whether he has made
7 amendments or whether he indicated in any way that he wished to make
8 amendments, he categorically stated that that was not the case. He has
9 never seen the OTP statement and has never gone through the submissions
10 or his statement point by point.
11 Now, in the context of that position, if you view the Defence
12 statement, it is clear that there is something terribly wrong because the
13 Defence statement starts off by saying -- with the -- if I could take
14 Your Honours to the first paragraph. It starts off -- paragraph 1 of
15 Defence statement starts off in this manner: "I am giving a voluntary
16 statement on my participation in the military police Operation Storm, as
17 well as the events I personally participated in after Operation Storm. I
18 must emphasise that I gave a statement to the ICTY OTP on 27
19 January 2008, which I haven't seen to this day. And on the basis of my
20 notes which I had compiled during this interview, I sent a written
21 amendments to my responses to the ICTY OTP." And then the second
22 paragraph --
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... slow down.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
25 In the second paragraph starts off in this manner: "I have been
1 presented with my statement by persons from the office of the Defence of
2 General Gotovina, and I can se that the amendments which, as I have
3 previously mentioned, I sent to the ICTY OTP at the end of March 2008
4 have not been inserted into the statement." From that point onwards, the
5 witness is -- the statement goes through point by point, he refers to
6 paragraphs in the OTP statement and makes amendments.
7 Now, yesterday the witness was very clear that he has never
8 been -- he categorically stated and I repeatedly asked him the question,
9 Were you given the OTP statement? He said, No, after I was interviewed
10 by you on 27 January 2008
11 statement. I never made any amendments. I never stated to the Defence
12 investigator I wanted to make any amendments. He never asked me. I even
13 asked him the Defence investigator had read back the OTP statement to
14 him. He said no, that he was never shown any documents. In fact, this
15 statement -- the Defence statement also includes paragraphs where the
16 witness is shown documents and asked to comment.
17 Now, in that context, it was clear to me what we had before us,
18 Mr. President, was a problem. On the one hand, we have a statement filed
19 by the Defence under 92 ter yesterday, which clearly is taken on the
20 basis that the witness is given a statement and is making amendments to
21 the OTP statement. And now, yesterday, the witness was denying that. So
22 I believe that this was a situation that had to be dealt with and solved
23 in the interest of transparency while all parties are present before
24 Court. I did not think it was appropriate for me, in the context of what
25 the witness told me yesterday and the OTP investigator, for me to go into
1 the Defence statement and for me to try to divulge as whether it was
2 correct or whether it wasn't. I believe that it should be done in Court
3 in the presence of all parties. And I don't -- I don't understand why
4 Mr. Misetic is so offended by the attempt -- attempt by the Prosecution
5 to solve this matter before Court, in the presence of the Defence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to see whether I understood your position
8 What are you saying that, in view of the answers given to your
9 introductory questions to the witness, you were confused because there
10 was so much inconsistency between what appears on paper as his
11 July statement compared to what he told you yesterday, and for that
12 reason you did not pay attention to the July statement, apart from that
13 it was given and -- but did you not want to go into the content of it in
14 view of the doubts you had on whether this would reflect what -- not only
15 what he said but also what had happened on the 25th of July.
16 Is that how I have to understand your position.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President. Apart from
18 that -- because there is an issue about the methods which may have been
19 used in obtaining the July statement, which I believed was a matter that
20 should be sorted out before Court because to me, at that moment, it was
21 clear that it was questionable, the methods of obtaining the statement
22 and --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When I use the words "what he said and what
24 had happened," I on purpose avoided the words, methods or anything,
25 rather to see to look at it in exclusively factual terms so that we not
1 start or get already saying you're using method which is inappropriate,
2 et cetera, et cetera. I would first concentrate on the facts what has
4 Anything else, Ms. Mahindaratne.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
6 And apart from that, the Prosecution filed a 92 ter submission on
7 10th September. And the Gotovina Defence filed their objection on
8 7th October and not -- sorry, not objection, the response on 7th October,
9 and in the response the Defence clearly stated that they had no objection
10 to the submission.
11 Now, on 7 October the Defence was in possession of this statement
12 given by the witness in July. And clearly, at that stage, it was
13 apparent if, in fact, the -- the statement that the Prosecution was
14 filing by way of its 92 ter motion was, in fact, not accurate and has
15 been changed subsequently, at that stage, the Defence should have, at the
16 very least, alerted the Trial Chamber that in fact the submission is not
17 accurate. Without doing that, the Defence has indicated that it had no
18 objection to the submission.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But, Ms. Mahindaratne, it's not uncommon in this
20 case and in this Tribunal that portions of a written statement are
21 corrected and now, of course, the matter is whether the inaccuracy was of
22 such a kind that it could not be repaired anymore, whether the attention
23 of the Chamber should have been drawn to the fact that it might be
24 difficult to get an attestation on the statement, the attestation, by the
25 way, which contains three portions. The first one being whether it
1 reflects what he said. Whether what he said at that time, whether he
2 would give the same answers is, of course, another question.
3 So, therefore, I'm not pronouncing any judgement on it but to say
4 if there is no objection against admission of a 92 ter statement,
5 although the other party knows that it might not be the final and the
6 last version of the statement is -- whether that's inappropriate or not
7 is still to be seen. You say it is; Mr. Misetic, I see already from his
8 nodding that he disagrees with you, which doesn't come as a surprise.
9 Anything else, Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. That is my explanation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Briefly, Mr. Misetic.
12 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 First, I -- just as a matter of procedure, I still don't have an
14 objection to the first 92 ter statement coming in as long as
15 clarifications, corrections, et cetera, as we do routinely here, are made
16 by the witness. There are also matters covered in the January OTP
17 statement that aren't covered in the Defence statement, and for that
18 reason, those matters should come in pursuant to Rule 92 ter. That's the
19 first point.
20 The second point, to respond substantively, is, I am virtually
21 certain that when OTP calls witnesses who gave statements in 1995, that
22 they don't go through the procedure of, first, not showing their
23 witnesses their 1995 statement, questioning how much do they remember,
24 how much is consistent with their own 1995 statement, for example. And
25 then if the witness inaccurately answers questions that appear in his
1 1995 statement, I highly doubt that the OTP says, well, this is a
2 statement we can't use because the witness doesn't recall telling us
3 these matters, and there have been many witnesses who have come to --
4 with different answers to questions, have clarifications, et cetera.
5 The fact of the matter is, the proper procedure is to put matters
6 to the witness and let the witness tell us what the situation is. It
7 shouldn't be left for counsel to make conclusions on behalf of the
8 witness, and that is what we're talking about here. These are her
9 conclusions -- Your Honour, let me just say, paragraph 12 of the
10 statement she took today says, now referring to the two statements:
11 "The meaning of what I told Mr. Ivankovic is same as the meaning of what
12 I have told the OTP."
13 At that point, what possible reason could there be for
14 Ms. Mahindaratne not to take the statement out and say, well, do you
15 think this portion of your OTP statement is consistent with what you said
16 to the Defence; and if so, can you explain why. She's on notice that the
17 witness apparently thinks that the two statements are similar.
18 Now, again, this is about a search for the truth. Instead, we're
19 in this one-way street now, if I can call it that way, where the witness
20 has not been told that everyone has the second statement. He is going to
21 be asked to make attestations under Rule 92 ter. The Defence will come
22 up, show him the statement, and I would suggest to Your Honour there is a
23 strong possibility that he's going to say, Yes, I gave that statement to
24 the Court as well.
25 The only issue -- I should say, it has only come up recently that
1 Ms. Mahindaratne herself personally, with a witness as recently as two
2 weeks ago, because the witness in cross-examination made a further
3 correction based on the cross-examination that he didn't make at the
4 beginning, she asked for a Rule 91 instruction against her own witness.
5 In light of what she did with that witness, that's why I felt it was best
6 for this witness that all these matters be fully disclosed, fully aired
7 before we come to Court today or before he makes the attestation, so that
8 we don't get a situation where now we're in cross-examination and now the
9 witness is deemed to be a liar or asked to be given an instruction for
10 perjury because Ms. Mahindaratne didn't put these matters to him before
11 we came to Court.
12 I fail to see the utility of this practice, and I again suggest
13 that the proper course for this witness, before he makes a Rule 92 ter
14 attestation, is to show him the Defence statement and then ask him
15 whether he wishes to make any corrections or adopt what he said in the
16 second statement as his further Rule 92 ter.
17 Thank you, Your Honour.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I could just add one thing
19 here. Mr. Misetic made personal comment about the manner in which I
20 proofed. The way we proof witnesses is we show -- give them the
21 statements and they're asked to go through it carefully and to make any
22 amendments or corrections, if there are any. And we do not discuss
23 details the way -- in the manner that Mr. Misetic suggested. So if, for
24 instance, a witness comes to Court and not having made a correction in
25 his supplemental statement or in the course of proofing to his previous
1 statement, that does not mean that I did not address those issues. It
2 means that, having gone through the statement, the witness did not make
3 that particular correction. We do not pinpoint and ask about every such
5 And Mr. Misetic is completely misrepresenting the manner in which
6 we proof witnesses.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. While he said he was virtually certain, I
8 refrain from asking him what was the basis for that, I just noticed that
9 he says he was virtually certain, and that's how it is.
10 Let's -- I feel the need that the Chamber briefly considers the
11 matter. That might take one minute; that might also take ten minutes --
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'm sorry. I just -- having listened to the
15 discussion, I did want to add one thing, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It's a 92 ter statement, whether the Defence
18 take it is or whether the Prosecution takes it, so the methodology should
19 be the same. The witness should be given the statement. He should be
20 able to look at it, make any corrections or changes that he or she needs
21 to make to it and that's it. It should be the same whether a Prosecution
22 statement or whether it is a Defence statement. In this case, since the
23 Prosecution is tendering this witness and since the Prosecution was made
24 known and publicly filed the 92 statement by the Defence, the same
25 methodology should be apply and there should be really no difference.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand you well that you expect
2 Ms. Mahindaratne to seek the attestations for the admission of the 92 ter
3 statement filed by the Defence. Is that --
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, I don't, Your Honour. But I think it's -- a
5 92 ter statement is a 92 ter statement, whether it's from Defence or the
6 Prosecution, and since it's a statement given by that particular witness
7 outside of the courtroom in preparation for trial, I think the same
8 methodology should apply.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As such, I do agree with you that a 92 ter
10 statement, whether it comes from the Prosecution or from the Defence, is
11 a 92 ter statement. That is written evidence rather than evidence given
13 Mr. Kay, you've been silent until now.
14 MR. KAY: No, I was silent, but it was a point very much in my
15 mind that Mr. Kuzmanovic has made that when the witness is here he is a
16 witness of the Court, and the statements, of course, may come from one
17 party or the other party. In this sequence of events, the Defence here,
18 because of nature of statement, they had disclosed it in advance to
19 assist the Court bearing in mind what had happened recently. They could
20 have kept the statement back and gone in cross-examination and matters
21 taken a much longer course. The party presenting the witness now, the
22 Prosecution, with that statement in hand, having been put on notice by
23 the Defence that they were seeking for its admissibility under 92 ter, it
24 seems to me quite clear, they should have put that statement to him so
25 that he was in full possession of all the facts, and we didn't end up in
1 the sort of circumstance that we find ourselves in now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, we are in the circumstances as we are at
3 this moment, so we have to find a solution for that. And of course, the
4 Chamber is also -- would also be concerned about attestation being given
5 on statements which are contradicting. That is of course not a solution
6 for the situation.
7 I will briefly consider the matter with my colleagues. As I said
8 it can take one minute, up to ten minutes -- yes, Mr. Misetic.
9 MR. MISETIC: Just in light of your last comment, Your Honour.
10 I'm not necessarily asking that he make attestations on our statement
11 right now, although I would -- that would be my preference.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But sooner or later, of course --
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
14 Judge ORIE: -- if it is submitted as a 92 ter statement, then we
15 have to seek attestations.
16 MR. MISETIC: I agree, but let me just make clear what my point
18 My point is that right at the outset the Trial Chamber should get
19 the best evidence possible. That's what I think we strive for in the
20 courtroom, including the Bench. Even if is not a 92 ter Defence at the
21 beginning, he should have been able to look at the statement and then
22 say, oh, yes, either I agree with what I told the Defence; or, I need to
23 make that correction in this paragraph in my statement. Then we would
24 have the best evidence possible right at this beginning.
25 I fear that, at the moment, just by going with the OTP statement,
1 we're not getting the best evidence because it hasn't been put to the
2 witness yet.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do see that, of course, another question arises
4 whether under the present circumstances, in respect of some parts of the
5 statements given, whether the application of Rule 92 ter is the
6 appropriate Rule to be applied at this moment.
7 I will consider the matter, the Bench will consider the matter,
8 and we'll be back most likely before 3.00.
9 The parties are requested to remain stand by.
10 --- Break taken at 2.49 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 3.00 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I said hopefully before 3.00.
13 The Chamber has considered the procedural situation, in which we
14 find ourselves at this moment, and has spent its time mainly on seeking a
15 solution rather than trying to find out, who's right, who's wrong, who is
16 to be blamed for what exactly. And the Chamber suggests that we proceed
17 in the following way. If the parties would disagree, then we'll listen
18 to any submissions, and if they give rise to reconsidering our
19 suggestion, then we'll do so; if not, we'll stick to our suggestion.
20 The way to proceed, in the view of the Chamber, is that we invite
21 the Prosecution to call the witness, that I will then try, by putting
22 some questions to the witness, to sort out the issue of when he, for the
23 first time, saw the written version of his January statement, whether he
24 saw it when he was interviewed in July. Just fact-finding on what
25 happened with the statement, rather than to deal with any substance of
2 If there's any need, the parties could, if they think that
3 something essentially is missing, they could also, but within the strict
4 limits, put some questions to the witness. We'll then know more or less
5 what the situation is, as far as this witness is concerned, about rather
6 important matters as to whether a statement was shown to him at a certain
7 moment or whether just questions were put to him on the basis of a
8 statement that was not shown to him at that time in July. We'll just
9 hear from the witness what the situation was.
10 After we have done that exercise, the Chamber invites the
11 parties, in the strongest composition of their teams, to sit together, to
12 identify also in view of the basis of the answers given by the witness
13 which might add some information, to identify those portions in all three
14 statements - that is the January statement, July statement, and
15 October statement - to identify those portions where the parties consider
16 the statements not to be consistent.
17 Once these portions have been identified, to proceed by tendering
18 the 92 ter statements with the exception of the inconsistent
19 contradicting portions. And then, Ms. Mahindaratne, you will be invited
20 to elicit oral testimony of the witness on any matter which, as a result
21 of this identification of inconsistent portions, is taken out. So the
22 contested issues there where there seems to be an inconsistency, where
23 there seems to be a contradiction, is evidence that should be elicited
24 orally, and then, of course, cross-examination will also be done in the
25 usual way, and that we keep those portions of all three statements which
1 are considered not to be inconsistent.
2 That is the suggestion of the Chamber.
3 Is there anything which should keep us off from proceeding this
5 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I could just clarify two matters.
6 One is, would the witness be allowed to see the July 2008 statement
7 before he is questioned by you; and second is, would the Chamber be
8 willing to tell him that he -- he had just as much right to meet with the
9 Defence as he did with the Prosecution and that he --
10 JUDGE ORIE: There's no problem in telling the witness that
11 speaking to both parties is not a problem.
12 MR. MISETIC: And -- I should add that and there was no problem
13 if the Defence showed him his OTP witness statement during its interview,
14 that that is allowed by the rules and he shouldn't feel that there was
15 something inappropriate about that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, whether we would give him his
17 July statement, if it is to identify that that's the statement he gave,
18 fine; but of course we would not go to the substance because the
19 questioning in the beginning is limited to what has happened; did you see
20 your January statement at that time; was it given to you. Perhaps, I
21 think we have an unsigned copy of it. At least -- I have an unsigned
22 copy of the July statement.
23 MR. MISETIC: Because original is in Croatian and is signed and
24 you got an English translation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I take it that the signatures are there. But
1 we'll -- for purposes of identifying the statement he gave, I see no
2 problem. But as far as the substance, the content of the statement is
3 concerned, I'd rather not do it, because there seems to be a difference
4 of view between the witness and the parties on whether the statements are
5 consistent yes or not, whether it is a similar statement or whether the
6 statements are quite different. And rather than to ask him to analyse
7 what is put on paper and whether that is really the same or something
8 different, I rather have those portions be taken out of the statements
9 and to elicit oral evidence from the witness on those portions.
10 MR. MISETIC: Yes, I didn't mean to show him or go through the
11 substance of the disputed issues between the parties, just the
12 paragraph in the Defence statement where he says, I am now being shown my
13 OTP witness statement which does -- the portion that Ms. Mahindaratne
14 read out and to ask him, did you tell this to the Defence in July of
15 1995 -- 2008, I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, that is part -- I could tell him
17 that we have a written statement which reads and then ...
18 Any further comments on what is suggested as a solution?
19 Ms. Mahindaratne.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I go with such and --
21 thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we could proceed -- oh, yes, and the
23 parties get half an hour to identify those portions. If they do not
24 agree, then the Chamber will assist the parties in identifying
25 inconsistent portions, not necessarily to be done in Court. That is a
1 rather technical matter which could be dealt with out of Court because
2 the Chamber is not going to accept a discussion up until Christmas on
3 what is consistent and what is not consistent. The Chamber would like to
5 Then, Ms. Mahindaratne, I take it that you call, Mr. Simic.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No protective measures.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
9 Mr. President, I take it once his name is recorded I would inform
10 him that you would take over the -- the questions. I'm not to proceed
11 with any questions until you have completed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I even could ask him to state his full name
13 for the record.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Simic, I take it.
16 Mr. Simic, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of
17 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration, that you
18 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 The text of the solemn declaration will now be handed out to you
20 by Mr. Usher. May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: DAMIR SIMIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Simic.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Simic, could you please state your full name for
3 the record.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Damir Simic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And your date of birth is?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 1st of March, 1956
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Simic.
8 Usually, and perhaps that's what you expect, you would now be
9 examined by Ms. Mahindaratne. But since we have a few questions in
10 relations to the statements you've given, I will first put a few
11 questions to you.
12 Have you given a statement to investigators of the Office of the
13 Prosecution on the 27th of January of this year?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us, when did you, for the first time,
16 see the written version of the statement you have given.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw it for the first time
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yesterday. Did you not see it in July, when you
20 were interviewed by Mr. -- I think it was Mr. Jovanovic [sic], when you
21 were interviewed on behalf of the Defence? And let me add to this, there
22 is nothing wrong if the Defence would show you a copy of the statement
23 which they may have received by the Prosecution. They're fully entitled
24 to do so. Did they show you your January statement?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they didn't.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we see in the statement that was taken and
2 which has been given to the Chamber - let me first find it - and I read
3 just a portion of -- of that statement as it was put on paper, you said:
4 "I must emphasise," and that's what you told the -- what you told
5 Mr. Ivanovic, as I understand. You told him: "I must emphasise that I
6 gave a statement to the ICTY Office of the Prosecution on the 27th of
7 January, 2008
8 notes which I had compiled during this interview, I sent a written
9 amendment to my responses to the ICTY OTP."
10 Is that what you told Mr. Ivanovic?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: When you then further were interviewed, was
13 reference made to what you had stated in your January interview?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in your statement in July, we see that, on
16 paper, reference is made to certain paragraphs or points in that
17 January statement. Do you remember that portions of that statement,
18 which everyone was fully entitled to show you, how do we have to
19 understand your July statement in which it says in relation to point
20 so-and-so, I say this and this and this, how could that have been done if
21 no reference was made or if you had not been shown your
22 January statement? That's a puzzle for us.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see the text itself. It
24 was only referred to orally.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So when I asked you whether reference was made
1 to that statement, it was done but orally, and you were not shown the
2 statement itself, so you heard what was in the statement but you did not
3 read what was in the statement.
4 Is that correctly understood?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we do understand that you have sent a
7 letter to the Office of the Prosecution in which you further clarify your
8 January statement. That letter, have you shown that to the --
9 Mr. Ivanovic, who was interviewing you, on behalf of the Defence? Was he
10 aware of the letter that you sent and the content of it?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't show it to him, and I
12 didn't mention it to him either.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't believe it to be of
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now your supplementary witness statement which
17 was taken this weak starts by saying: "I have been shown my statement
18 that I gave on 27th of January," and you say, "this is the first time
19 that I have seen the statement since I gave it to the representatives of
20 the ICTY."
21 Do I understand that, on that very day, which is the 8th of
22 October, you, for the first time, have seen the statement on paper?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 I am looking at the parties, whether there are any additional
1 questions in relation to what happened, as far as statements being shown,
2 being given is concerned.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Not from the Prosecution, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you like me to show the statement, is
5 that the matter you would like because you asked for that.
6 MR. MISETIC: I think it would be helpful just to have him -- is
7 this the statement you signed in July --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. But then I would need the -- do we
9 have the original in --
10 MR. MISETIC: We have the 1D number.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you assist us.
12 MR. MISETIC: I think I have to give it him.
13 Mr. Registrar, it is 1D56-0005.
14 I think we have to release it, Your Honour; it will take one
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Mr. Simic, we have to overcome some technical difficulties but it
18 will not take long.
19 Mr. Simic, could you already look at the screen.
20 Do you recognise the document in front of you on the screen?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is -- could you tell us what it is?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the cover page of the
24 statement I gave on the 24th of July, 2008.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we move to the last page.
1 Do you recognise the signature at the bottom of that page? It
2 has now disappeared but ...
3 When I said the last page, I should have said the semi-last page.
4 This is the page. Do you recognise the signature which appears
5 in the middle of this page?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And it is whose signature?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is my signature.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And did you put that signature -- where did
10 you put it on this piece of paper? Where were you when you signed the
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In what sense do you mean?
13 JUDGE ORIE: I -- I was informed that the interview took place in
14 a restaurant, I think. Did you sign the statement in that restaurant, or
15 did you sign that at another place?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was at a notary public's.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Any further questions?
19 Mr. Simic, your examination goes a bit different from what is
20 usually done. We'll now first take a break. The parties will have to
21 consider certain matters. And after that break, which will take
22 approximately half an hour, Ms. Mahindaratne will start your examination,
23 and then later on, you'll be cross-examined by Defence counsel.
24 I think it would be wise to take 35 minutes. Hard work for the
25 parties to be done. If there's any problem for which the parties would
1 like to have the assistance of the Chamber, we do not leave the building,
2 we're here for the full 35 minutes.
3 We will have a break until 4.00.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Recess taken at 3.25 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the Chamber was informed that the
8 parties had reached agreement on --
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- what portions would remain and what portions
11 would be taken out of the statements.
12 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. We have put it in an e-mail and
13 sent it to Mr. Nilsson. I have also provided a copy to Madam Registrar
14 who will print it for you. But if you wish, I will also read it into the
15 record as to what our agreement is.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first have look at it. It depends on how much
17 it is.
18 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is short enough to read it.
20 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honours. The Prosecution and the
21 Gotovina Defence agree that pursuant to Rule 92 ter, assuming all the
22 attestations under the Rule are made, that the January 2008 statement
23 given to the OTP, the July 2008 statement given to the Gotovina Defence,
24 and the supplemental statement given to the OTP today, can be admitted
25 into evidence with the following addendum, which is that the OTP will
1 remove paragraph 17 from the January 2008 statement, will remove
2 paragraph 16 from the October 9, 2008
3 the OTP will lead live paragraph 5 of the supplemental statement given on
4 October 9, 2008
5 The Gotovina Defence will lead live paragraph 2, page 2, of the
6 July 2008 statement --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see that we -- because they're not
8 numbered. Page 2, paragraph 2, is: "In the operative action Varivode
9 and Gosici ..." Is that the paragraph?
10 MR. MISETIC: No, no. This is now of the Defence statement,
11 numbered page 2 at the bottom.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. I am --
13 MR. MISETIC: We sent around last night and copied Mr. Nilsson
14 on --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have a witness statement, but no page numbers
16 at the bottom.
17 MR. MISETIC: That's what I mean. We sent one -- a corrected
18 translation with page numbering at the bottom. You must have the older
19 version. And there were also some translation --
20 JUDGE ORIE: What's the paragraph you're talking --
21 MR. MISETIC: It's paragraph 2 of what is, in essence, the page
22 after the cover page.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that is: "I have been presented ..."
24 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. MISETIC: We will lead that live.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. MISETIC: Then if we go to two more pages in, which is the
4 third page after the cover page. The Gotovina will lead live paragraph
5 2, which begins: "After I was presented ..."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MISETIC: The Gotovina Defence will remove the next
8 paragraph, which begins: "Regarding the order ..."
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's out, yes.
10 MR. MISETIC: And will remove the paragraph after that, which
11 begins: "With respect to the claims ..."
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. MISETIC: And then, finally, Your Honour, the parties have
14 agreed that OTP will not address matters in its direct examination that
15 the Gotovina Defence will lead live in its cross-examination, which
16 specifically means paragraph 2, page 2, of the July 2008 statement and
17 paragraph 2, page 4, of the July 2008 statement. However, OTP is free to
18 address these matters in redirect examination, with the permission of the
19 Court obviously, should the Gotovina Defence lead them live in cross.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, one question, if you lead this evidence
21 live in cross, if Ms. Mahindaratne would address these matters in
22 redirect, would that be considered a kind of a cross-examination or would
23 it be examination-in-chief? I'm just asking, what your view on that is.
24 It sounds to me as if, for that particular portion, Ms. Mahindaratne
25 would be in a position more or less to cross-examine the witness.
1 MR. MISETIC: I think, Your Honour, that actually paragraph 2,
2 page 2, is a new matter because it relates to whether he had seen his
3 statement before yesterday.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mm-hm.
5 MR. MISETIC: Paragraph 2, page 4, I believe addresses matters
6 that are in his January statement and for that reason -- or at least
7 related to his January statement so ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll come to that at a later stage. If you could
9 reach agreement on what your position exactly is at that moment, that
10 would be appreciated. If not, the Chamber of course will guide you.
11 Then I think we could start, Ms. Mahindaratne. There was one
12 question, by the way, I've forgotten to ask the witness. That is,
13 whether any documents were shown to him, although his January statement
14 was not shown to him in July, because we find in the supplementary
15 statement, supplemental statement, that no documents were shown to him,
16 whereas very explicit in the July statement is where he says, This
17 document which was shown to me by the OTP and which is shown to me today
18 again, where it is very explicit. I had not asked him. If that's a
19 matter that would bother you, I take it that you will take care of that.
20 Although it is a portion which is taken out, I think. Yes, that's the
21 two paragraphs taken out regarding the order I mentioned in point 17 and
22 which I saw again today.
23 MR. MISETIC: Yes, that's being taken out. The preceding
24 paragraph also references a document that he was presented, and as I lead
25 it live, I would be happy to address that with him as foundation --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although there he is not that explicit that
2 it's being shown to him again today.
3 MR. MISETIC: Well, we've removed it because the related
4 paragraph in the OTP statement is also being removed, so it's a non-issue
5 at this point.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Mr. President, if I could just, on that point,
7 draw your attention to paragraph 11 of the supplemental statement. The
8 witness's position at proofing was that he was not shown any documents.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I was referring to.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That -- then, Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to --
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- examine the witness.
14 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
16 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What are we going to do about the admission of
18 92 ter statements because there were no objections. There are still no
19 objections. We know that some portions have been taken out. Would it
20 not be the best to first examine the witness and then to say, apart from
21 what you've told us today, is -- for the remainder are your statements,
22 do they reflect -- he hasn't read them all?
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is what, Mr. President, I wanted to point
24 out, that as far as the OTP January statement and the supplemental
25 statement are concerned, he has read them again. But I don't know if he
1 has had the opportunity to read the Defence statement recently, and
2 correct, if he wishes to make any corrections or amendments to the
3 Defence statement.
4 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I -- again, I've leave it in your
5 hands, but we now have agreement. I certainly would like him to read
6 through his July 2008 statement. As far as I know, he hasn't seen it
7 since July 2008.
8 JUDGE ORIE: But give it to him in the next break, wouldn't that
9 be a good idea --
10 MR. MISETIC: Okay, yes. And, Your Honour, if I may say somewhat
11 sheepishly, I did not catch the issue in paragraph 11 of the supplemental
12 as it relates to my leading paragraph 2, page 4, of July 2008. So if I
13 could discuss that one paragraph with my colleagues during the break.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, paragraph 11 was the reason why I
15 raised the issue in relation to that taken out paragraph.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's focus --
18 Mr. Simic, the break was -- Mr. Simic, the break was a little bit
19 longer than expected; apologies for that. You will be now further
20 examined by Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I ask if I could lead him
23 on paragraph 11 of the supplementary statement in the course of my
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I would ask then that if we could hold
1 off on that until he gets the statement during the break so he can go
2 through it before -- and then after he has read through the statement,
3 she ask lead him on it.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't think that that is a
5 requirement. I would be just asking him a question, straightforward
6 question he'd be --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I said that it was a question which I had a mind to
8 put to him. Let me then start for one second and seek verification of
9 what we find in paragraph 11 --
10 MR. MISETIC: Can --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. MISETIC: Can I ask that he be pointed to that, whatever it
13 is, in the July statement and asked to --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I will put the two to him and then I --
15 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Simic, again, I have one or two questions for
18 In your supplementary statement which was taken this week, you
19 said the following, and you were talking about the interview that you had
20 with the Defence in July. And you said -- you told that when the
21 statement was complete that it was certified by a notary public in
22 Biograd. And then you said: "I did not bring any notes with me and
23 Mr. Ivankovic did not show me any documents during the interview."
24 Now, in the written report of the interview, I just read one line
25 for you, and it is about an order -- an order of the 9th of August, 1995
1 You said the following: "Regarding the order I mentioned in point 17,"
2 that is this 9th of August order, "and which was presented to me by the
3 ICTY investigators and which I saw again today ..." and then you give an
5 This part of your July statement suggests that you were shown
6 that order not only in January but also in July, whereas in your
7 supplementary statement you say, "No documents were shown to me."
8 Could you help us out?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I had seen that specific
10 order before without anyone having shown it to me, presenting it to me.
11 Maybe it had been accessible to me. I don't know how to explain that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand your answer to be that when you said
13 "which I saw again today," that that does not necessarily mean that it
14 was shown to you during the interview, but that you might have looked at
15 it on that day but not during the interview.
16 Is that your answer?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say it is your answer that that possibly
19 may have happened.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is possible.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 I think we have dealt with the matter, Ms. Mahindaratne,
23 Mr. Misetic.
24 Then please proceed.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I, with your permission. I
1 don't know if the witness's response -- whether he understood what he was
2 being exactly asked, that when it says -- you say it is your answer that
3 it is possible may have happened. I don't know what his -- what his
4 understanding was.
5 May I ask a question or may I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think that -- let me ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, you may move to your next subject,
9 Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
12 Q. Mr. Simic, now you already testified that you provided a
13 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor on 27th January 2008.
14 On that occasion, and I'm referring to the interview with the
15 Office of the Prosecutor in January, did you examine three documents and
16 provide explanations regarding those documents?
17 A. Can you tell me specifically what documents you mean?
18 Q. I'm referring to the note you had compiled on 25th October
19 regarding your investigations, and the statement you made to the
20 ministry of -- I'm sorry, Ministry of Interior -- the statement you made
21 regarding that investigation into the Gosici incident in 2001, the
22 statement you made in 2001, and another military document.
23 Do you recall examining those documents and providing
24 explanations in your statement?
25 A. Well, if you could show me those documents, then I would be able
1 to tell you. I would like to see what it is --
2 Q. Okay. --
3 A. -- about.
4 Q. I will take you there. Let me just first go through some other
6 Now, last evening, did you examine the statement you made to the
7 Office of the Prosecutor in January 2008?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Having examined that statement, did you provide further
10 clarifications and amendments by way of a supplementary statement? I'm
11 referring to last evening.
12 A. I saw that statement and I gave an additional statement which was
13 addressed to Mr. Foster, but you did not get it. That was my objection.
14 Q. No, Mr. Simic, you misunderstood me. Last evening, when you went
15 through your statement given in January, did you also provide an
16 additional statement last evening which was recorded? I'm not referring
17 to the letter you sent; I'll get to that. But I'm talking about last
18 evening, having examined your statement of January 2008, did you provide
19 a further statement?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Now, was that statement recorded in Croatian?
22 A. You mean the January 2008 statement? Is that the statement
23 you're referring to?
24 Q. No, no. The statement that you made in -- made last evening, was
25 it recorded in Croatian?
1 A. It was.
2 Q. Now, after the proofing session finished for the day, did you
3 read that statement, the one that was recorded in Croatian last evening?
4 A. I did. I did read it.
5 Q. Now, having read that, did you find that it accurately reflected
6 what you had stated in the course of the proofing meeting last evening?
7 A. Yes, I did find that.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to speak into
9 the microphone.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. Mr. Simic, is it possible for you to perhaps pull up your chair
12 so that could you speak closer to the microphones.
13 And then did you sign the supplementary statement as being true
14 and accurate last evening?
15 A. Yes, I did, I signed it.
16 Q. This morning, did you examine that supplementary statement again
17 and confirm that it was true and accurate?
18 A. Yes, I confirm that.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar [sic], may I have document 5487,
21 Q. Now, Mr. Simic, subject to the clarifications that you provided,
22 clarifications and amendments you provided to your January 2008
23 statement, subject to those, are the contents of your January 2008
24 statement true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
25 A. This statement of 27 January 2008
1 my objections to Mr. Brian, and there have been some corrections and
2 amendments made.
3 I think that it would be complete and accurate if those
4 corrections and amendments are included.
5 Q. They would be included, Mr. Simic.
6 Now, last evening you provided clarifications and amendments to
7 the statement, did you not? Last evening.
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. And I will also -- soon after this I will also tender your letter
10 into evidence but subject to -- my question to you is: Subject to the
11 clarifications and amendments in your supplementary statement and your
12 letter sent to Mr. Foster, is your statement of 27 January 2008 true and
13 accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
14 A. Yes, it is true.
15 Q. Now, if you were asked those questions that were asked of you by
16 the members of the Office of the Prosecutor in January and last evening
17 again today in court, would your responses be the same?
18 A. I think that they would.
19 Q. Do you recognise the document on your screen?
20 A. Yes, I do recognise it.
21 Q. Is that your statement of 27 January 2008?
22 A. Yes, that is its cover page.
23 Q. And is that your signature at the bottom of the page?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And Mr. Registrar, if you could go to the not
1 the last page but the one before the last page, please. I'm sorry, it
2 should be Madam Registrar.
3 Q. Mr. Simic, is that your signature at the bottom of the document?
4 A. Yes, that is my signature.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to move this document
6 into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now are you taking all three at one time? Are
8 we talking about the January statement plus the letter plus the
9 supplementary statement, or -- because you said --
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I was going to, then,
11 call up the supplementary statement, then the document, then the letter,
12 and then tender them into evidence, but if --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you -- perhaps if the witness has looked at
14 everything --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- and then we can do it under three numbers. Then
17 we have a complete picture.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
19 Mr. Registrar [sic], may I call document 5500, please.
20 Q. Mr. Simic, you will see in a moment a document on your screen.
21 Do you recognise -- recognise this document?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Is that your signature at the bottom of the cover page?
24 A. Yes, that is my signature.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If could you move to the next page, please. I
1 think that is the last -- the one before the last page.
2 Q. Is this your statement given last evening?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And do you recognise your signature at the bottom of the document
5 on this last page?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. Now, are the contents of this statement given last evening true
8 to the best of your knowledge?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And if those questions that were asked you of last evening were
11 asked again in court today, would your responses be the same?
12 A. They would. They would be the same.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I call document 5501,
15 Q. Now, Mr. Simic, you mentioned yesterday, and it is recorded in
16 paragraph 13 of your supplementary statement, that you sent a letter to
17 the Office of the Prosecutor providing a list of amendments to your
19 Did you hand over that document to the Office of the Prosecutor
20 this morning?
21 A. Yes, I did. I handed it over to you.
22 Q. And last evening you mentioned that -- that this document was
23 sent to the OTP under registered cover, and you said that you may have
24 had the postal receipt, which is also recorded in the supplementary
25 statement. Now, were you able to find that receipt, to be -- to be given
1 to the Office of the Prosecutor this morning?
2 A. No, I wasn't because the receipt is in Croatia. I don't have
3 it -- I don't have it with me here.
4 Q. Is it in your possession in Croatia or --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, isn't the issue whether this is
6 the letter he wrote?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I was just about to ask
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but whether he has receipt or not, if this the
10 is letter he wrote then we --
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I just wanted to
12 demonstrate the fact that we have -- we have searched and we have not
13 found this document in our --
14 JUDGE ORIE: You have -- yes.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then, but if this is the letter he referred to
17 earlier which he said was an important amendment or clarification to his
18 letter, then that's the core issue.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I only brought it out
20 because Mr. Misetic, in fact, inquired from me during the break. That is
21 the only reason.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps I should not have
24 But let go to the -- what appears to be the core of the --
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I can just say that I just inquired.
1 There is it no dispute --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No dispute.
3 MR. MISETIC: -- so there's no need. I accept their
4 representation that they didn't receive it until yesterday.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
7 Q. Mr. Simic, is this the document that you sent to the OTP in
8 March 2008?
9 A. Yes, that is the document.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Perhaps we could go to the last page,
11 Madam Registrar.
12 Q. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document?
13 A. Yes, that's my signature.
14 Q. And are the contents of this document true to the best of your
16 A. As far as I remember, yes.
17 Q. Did you write this letter on your own?
18 A. Yes. And I said so this morning.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I believe perhaps this is a
20 moment to submit the statement of 2007 [sic] with supplemental statement
21 of 8 October together with this document into evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I have no 2007 statement, but I take it that you're
23 referring to the January 2008 statement.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I refer to the
25 January 2008.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I take that we'll decide on admission of the
2 three together and that, if taken together, is there any -- is there any
4 MR. MISETIC: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. Nevertheless, as they are now on our screen,
6 Ms. Mahindaratne, they cannot be admitted because have you to redact them
7 in accordance with your agreement which means that paragraph 16 and 17 --
8 no, no, paragraph 17 of the January statement should be taken out;
9 paragraph 16 of the supplemental statement should be redacted; and I take
10 it that paragraph 5 of the supplemental statement stays but we'll further
11 elaborate it in your examination-in-chief.
12 So, therefore, no -- we could decide on admission once you have
13 uploaded the redacted versions of the statements.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I will do that at close
15 of sessions tonight.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's already provisionally provide numbers for
17 them. Madam Registrar, the January 2008 statement, still to be redacted
18 would be number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number P967, marked for
20 identification, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the supplemental statement dated the
22 8th of October, 2008, would be.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number P968, marked for
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we have the letter, the letter which
1 is the 12th of March, 2008, sent to the Office of the Prosecutor.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number P969, marked for
4 JUDGE ORIE: P969 is admitted into evidence. And the other two
5 documents will be admitted into evidence once a redacted version has been
7 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the Prosecution also included
9 three documents in the 92 ter submission of which I move to withdraw one
10 document because it has already been tendered into evidence by the
11 Defence, and that would be document number 3216, 65 ter, which has
12 already been tendered into evidence as D281.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And the remaining ones would be 65 ter numbers.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 65 ter 5488. Mr. President, since the witness
15 wanted to have a look at the document, I will quickly show these two
16 documents -- yeah.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you ...
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may have I document number
19 5488, please.
20 Q. Mr. Simic, I just asked you a little while ago whether you recall
21 reviewing some documents when you were interviewed by the OTP in
22 January and in providing explanations regarding those documents in your
23 statement and you wanted to take a look at those documents.
24 Do you remember examining this document in January -- on
25 27 January and providing an explanation regarding this document in your
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this document
4 into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If there are no objections, Madam Registrar, 65 ter
6 5488 would be ...
7 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit number P970, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P970 is admitted into evidence.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if I could have document
10 number 5489, please.
11 Q. Mr. Simic, do you recall examining this particular document on
12 27th January 2008
13 your statement?
14 A. Can you show me another page of this document as well?
15 Q. Yes.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if we could move to page 2
17 and if you could just skip through it; it's only five pages.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fine.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Is -- do you recall examining this document on 27th January 2008
21 and providing an explanation in your statement?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move this document into
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we proceed on that, you said it's only
1 five pages. And -- oh, the English is five pages. I see the original is
2 three pages. Yes, that is clear to me now.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, 65 ter 5489.
5 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit number P971, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P971 is admitted into evidence.
7 Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, the purpose of showing these documents to
8 the witness is also to give substance to his statements. Now, the other
9 document, you said we don't have to deal with, because it is already in
10 evidence. Of course, if we could link that to the statement of the
11 witness, then at least we would know that this was the document he gave a
12 statement about.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well Mr. President.
14 Madam Registrar --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Although it needs not to be admitted anymore.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if I could have document
17 number D281, please.
18 Q. Mr. Simic, do you recall examining this document?
19 And I will ask Madam Registrar to go on to the next page so that
20 you can take a look at it.
21 Do you recall examining this document on 27 January 2008 and
22 referring to the document?
23 A. Yes, I reviewed the document.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's already in evidence, Mr. President. I
25 will ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please move on.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I have the witness's
3 statement, P967, please.
4 Q. Mr. Simic, I'd like to show your statement given to us, to the
5 OTP, in 2008, January.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to next page,
7 Madam Registrar.
8 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I could just -- I'm sorry to
9 interrupt. Just to clarify for the record, and in case I'm mistaken
10 about something, but the document that was previously shown to the
11 witness is part of the paragraph 17 that has been removed from the
12 statement. Is that --
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct.
14 MR. MISETIC: Okay. So -- thank you.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Mr. Simic, I'd like to you look at paragraph 3 of your statement,
17 where you have provided information regarding the structure of the
18 72nd Military Police Battalion.
19 My question to you is: Did each of the military police
20 companies, and you refer to general military police companies there, did
21 each of the military police companies have crime police sections attached
22 to the companies?
23 A. All independent companies, that's to say, the ones that were
24 outside battalions, had crime police sections as part of them, according
25 to their establishments.
1 Q. No, my question is -- I'm not referring to the independent
2 companies but I'm referring to the companies, the general military police
3 companies within the 72nd Military Police Battalion. Did those companies
4 have military crime police sections attached to them? I'm not saying --
5 when you say "company," I'm not referring to huge companies, maybe a
6 section, two or three officers or ...
7 A. We are probably at odds. We probably misunderstand each other.
8 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if we --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
10 MR. MISETIC: My objection is to lack of specificity. I think
11 there has been testimony already on this issue, and if we could -- I
12 think it will clear it up if we talk specifically by companies that we're
13 talking about.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well. I will ask about two particular
16 Q. Now your -- the company that your -- you belonged to was the
17 4th Company, Sibenik, which was within the 72nd Military Police
18 Battalion. Is that correct?
19 A. That was the 4th Company within the 72nd Military Battalion.
20 There was no corps there. It was attached to the battalion, and its
21 title was the 4th Company.
22 Q. Now, did the 4th Company have its own crime police?
23 A. The 4th Sibenik Company had a crime police department, as per
24 establishment, which comprised both commissioned and non-commissioned
1 Q. And who was the head of that department, of the 4th Company,
3 A. Me personally.
4 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Were you inquiring to the crime police section or to
6 the company?
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The crime police section, Mr. President. I
8 used the word department for that reason because the --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would be very specific in your
10 question, then.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I just --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could we ask you, Mr. Simic, who was in command of
13 the crime police section of the 4th Company you were in?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me be even more precise. With
15 the 4th Company there was a military police service. I was at the head
16 of that -- rather --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, crime police section.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. And whom did you report to?
21 A. As the head of that crime police section, I was directly
22 subordinated to Boris Milas, according to the chain of command.
23 Q. Who was Captain Mrkota?
24 A. Captain Nenad Mrkota was the commander of the 4th Sibenik
1 Q. Did you receive orders from him?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you report to him?
4 A. Only as far as the work of the service was concerned. I reported
5 to him on the work of the service.
6 Q. When you say -- can you be a little bit more specific, Mr. Simic.
7 When you say "I reported to him on the work of the service," what are you
8 referring to? Is it the tasks of the crime police or what exactly are
9 you referring to?
10 A. Those were the daily assignments of the crime police. I reported
11 on the problems detected, activities carried out and activities planned.
12 Now, as for the monthly reports of the crime police, I sent that
13 directly to the battalion --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the witness. If
15 he could repeat the last part of his answer.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. Mr. Simic, could you repeat the last part of your answer because
18 the interpreter didn't hear you.
19 A. I passed over to Captain Mrkota all the daily planned activities
20 for a particular day. This was at the morning briefings within the
21 company. As for the monthly reports on the work and efficiency and the
22 activities carried out by the crime police service, I reported to
23 Boris Milas.
24 Q. Mr. Simic, is it possible for you to speak up a little or get
25 closer to the microphones so that, you know, the interpreters could hear
1 you properly. Thank you.
2 And who was Boris Milas?
3 A. He was the chief of the section of the crime police in the
4 72nd Battalion.
5 Q. Thank you. That was going to be my question.
6 Now, what was the area of responsibility of the 4th Company,
7 Sibenik, after the liberation of the territory on 4th and 5th August?
8 I'm not talking about the area of responsibility in peacetime but this is
9 after Operation Storm.
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the question.
11 I don't know -- the last sentence, I'm not sure what that distinction is.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but much depends on when you consider the
13 Operation Storm to be finished, Ms. Mahindaratne.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Your earlier question was, however, clear and that
16 you said after the 4th or 5th of August.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll stay with that, Mr. President. That's
18 what I meant.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will repeat my question.
21 Q. Mr. Simic, I'm sorry if I confused you. My question was: After
22 the territory was liberated on 4th and 5th August, 1995, what was the
23 area of responsibility of the 4th Company, Sibenik, the military police?
24 A. The military police of the 4th Company, Sibenik, had the area
25 from Sibenik to Loznica and, in the hinterland, all the way to Drnis
1 before the action.
2 After the action, pursuant to various orders, the AOR changed.
3 As I had a lot to do within my service, resolving various problems, I was
4 unable to keep track of that. This was not part of my duty.
5 Q. I'm not criticising for you -- for that at all, Mr. Simic. It
6 was just a question which the Trial Chamber would be interested in
8 If could you say -- can you at least by way of municipalities,
9 let me ask you, did the -- did the area of Drnis come within the area of
10 responsibility of the 4th Company, Sibenik, after the 5th of August?
11 A. Yes, absolutely. I know that because I sent an officer and a
12 non-commissioned officer out into the field.
13 Q. And did the area of Kistanje come within the area of
14 responsibility of the 4th Company, Sibenik, after 5th August, 1995?
15 A. I wouldn't know about that. I did not send my men over there.
16 Q. I'm not asking about whether you sent your men, but do you know
17 if the 4th Company, Sibenik, military police of the -- I'm referring to
18 the 4th Company, Sibenik, your company, whether they had any personnel
19 deployed in Kistanje. Are you aware of that?
20 A. I can't claim that with certainty.
21 Q. Now, within the 4th Company, Sibenik, were you the most senior
22 officer of the crime police?
23 A. I was.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I have document P880,
1 Q. Mr. Simic, do you recall examining this document yesterday and
2 this morning?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if you could go to -- in the
5 English version, page 25. And in the B/C/S, 7728.
6 Q. While that is being brought up, Mr. Simic, are you familiar with
7 the provisions relating to the work of the military crime police, which
8 are included in this document? I'm not going to ask you without
9 referring you to the particular Articles, but are you generally familiar?
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. Are these the rules that governed your activity during 1995?
12 When I say "your activity," I'm referring to the work of the military
13 crime police.
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. I'd like to you look at Article 61, Mr. Simic, where it refers --
16 I'll just read it out. You can read your version.
17 "An authorised official of the military police may arrest a
18 person if there is reason to believe that the crime committed falls
19 within the jurisdiction of a Military Court when there are grounds for
20 this provided for by the law that prescribes a criminal investigation."
21 The next paragraph reads: "The arrested person must be brought
22 before the investigating judge in charge without delay with a report on
23 the crime committed and the grounds for the person's arrest."
24 And in the English version, if we could go to next page,
25 Madam Registrar.
1 The final paragraph of that Article reads: "The authorised
2 official of the military police must inform the senior officer of the
3 arrested member of the Croatian army of the arrest within 24 hours ..."
4 and then there is further text.
5 My question actually is about that.
6 Now, how was the information transmitted by the military police
7 to the senior officer of the arrested member? And I presume that senior
8 officer is the senior officer of the unit to which the arrested member
9 belonged. How was that information conveyed by the military police?
10 A. An authorised official of the military police, where a person was
11 arrested for a criminal offence, regardless of the offence, it could be
12 murder or anything else, reported to his own duty service of the offence
13 committed, and the duty service of the company that arrested person
14 belonged to reported that information to the superior of the person
16 Q. My question was: How was that information conveyed? Was there a
17 formal mechanism, in writing, or just an ad hoc manner, by telephone?
18 How was that information conveyed?
19 A. Information may have been, could have been transmitted by
20 telephone but it had to be necessarily followed by a written report.
21 Q. And what was the superior officer of the arrested person supposed
22 to do with that information when he received that report, as far as
23 you're aware?
24 A. I wouldn't know that. That was not part of my job.
25 Q. Okay. Let move on.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if I could --
2 Mr. President, may I have this document tendered into evidence,
4 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
5 Now we have -- first of all, isn't it already into evidence; that
6 is my first question. The second question is: If you quote one line or
7 three lines or five lines of an Article, should we then receive 70 pages
8 or something.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, it is in evidence. I made a
10 mistake, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg your pardon.
13 Madam Registrar, may I call document 5493, please.
14 Q. Mr. Simic, do you recall examining this document last evening and
15 this morning?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And you were asked specifically to take a look at chapters 1, 12,
18 13, 15, and 17?
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, for the record, what is
20 available on -- in the English language is just those chapters. It is a
21 huge document and I wish to draw the attention of the Chamber to those
22 particular chapters.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please add, then, the cover page of
24 that document, because now it's a document without any -- let me check.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I was under the
1 impression that was there, perhaps --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let me just have a look. I see one original,
3 and I see three translations uploaded, apparently, of certain portions.
4 MR. KAY: 65 ter 2252 and 2253 may assist others with other
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will have the cover page uploaded,
7 Mr. President. The text of the chapters I referred to are included in
8 the translations. What is not available is the cover page, and I will
9 have that uploaded at the close of business.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you also check the 65 ter numbers
11 to -- Mr. Kay just mentioned to which the Chamber has no access.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. That's a mistake that
13 those -- the 65 ter numbers Mr. Kay referred to are the old 65 ter
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And which --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there are -- Ms. Mahindaratne, I read, and I'm
18 just -- I'm just reading what you presented, is -- yes. Yes. That they
19 were previously registered under other numbers; I see that.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I just ask the question on this,
21 Mr. President? I just want it bring your note -- draw your attention to
22 the fact that the translation doesn't entirely cover the entire document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear. And we will receive a
24 translation of the cover page to be attached to one of the three portions
25 of the English translation.
1 Please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Simic, having examined those particular chapters, can
4 you say were those rules -- and that is in chapter -- the provisions in
5 chapter 1, chapter 12, 13, 15, and 17, did those rules apply during 1995?
6 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think
7 the witness should be shown why that question is being put to him.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll ask that because the witness is aware of
9 that -- I pointed it out during proofing. I will ask that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But of course what you said to him during
11 proofing is not something --
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, I'm sorry, Mr. President. I should
13 ask one more question --
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- to which the Chamber is privy.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
17 Q. Now, Mr. Simic, this is a document published in December 1995.
18 My question to you is: Having examined those chapters, did you find that
19 if the rules which were contained in this document, published in
20 December 1995, were they also applicable or did they govern your activity
21 during 1995?
22 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, again, for the sake of clarity. Since
23 December 1995 is in 1995, I think it should be clear what period of time
24 we're talking about, and what rules specifically as compared to what
25 other rules.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I referred to the rules, Mr. President, but if
2 Mr. Misetic --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Misetic, I see that apparently you have --
4 you have a sharp eye on possible complications which can be resolved in
5 cross-examination, if need be.
6 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, you heard what Mr. Misetic said,
8 Ms. Mahindaratne -- you could even avoid.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President, I will ask him
11 Q. Now, in your activity work of the crime police during the period
12 4th August to end of September 1995, did these rules also apply, in the
13 sense that the rules that were governed by -- the rules that governed
14 your work during that period, were they one and the same, as contained in
15 these provisions, in those particular chapters that I referred to you?
16 A. Whether they were observed, that is not at all a question. It
17 was my obligation to observe those rules.
18 Q. No, my question was if, in fact, these rules were the same that
19 were applicable during the period 4th August to end of September, 1995.
20 My question is, although it is published in December 1995, did -- were
21 the rules similar to what you followed during 1995?
22 A. I'll try to answer this way. I was a policeman in August, on the
23 4th of August, and at the end of September as well. So I had to abide by
24 all those rules in -- at all those times.
25 Q. And those rules that you abided by, are these the rules?
1 A. Yes.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if -- may I be permitted to
3 tender this document into evidence, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, it's just a question that I honestly
6 don't know the answer to. Is there a codification published prior to
7 December 1995 or is this -- is the Prosecution saying this is the first
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, we are not aware of it. We
10 have asked the Croatian government for the handbook for the period
11 applicable to -- relevant to the indictment, but this is what we have
12 got. So if, in fact, we did have codification before that, I would be
13 tendering that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The answer is no, Mr. Misetic. At least the
15 Prosecution is not aware of any.
16 MR. MISETIC: Then I guess it goes to weight but not
17 admissibility but --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, questions have been put to the witness, he has
19 reviewed the document, he answered the questions, so therefore --
20 MR. MISETIC: Fine.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, before we continue, you --
22 I'm just trying to, you said -- you asked the witness whether he had
23 reviewed chapters 1, 12, 13, 15, and 17.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if I look at three portions of translations, I
1 find chapter 1, at least; I find 12; I find 15; and I think, 16. 13 and
2 17, could you tell me in what portion of the document this -- what
3 portion of the translation this is found. And I have the numbers of the
4 translations. One is 03621498. That, as far as I can see, is chapter 1.
5 I have same first four digits and then 1522, which looks as if it were
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I do not find 13 there. Then we have same first
9 four digits and then 1527, which is 15, followed by 16 and no 17.
10 How do you expect the Chamber to evaluate the testimony of the
11 witness where different chapters, at least not all of them the same
12 chapters, are given to us, compared to what the witness testified about?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I was under the
14 impression that the translations of those two chapters were there. But
15 therefore, I see the problem. Could the document be marked for
16 identification and I will see that the translations of those two sections
17 are uploaded before cross-examination starts.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The handbook of procedures for the criminal
19 military police, 1996 -- let me just check. And you said it was ...
20 Madam Registrar that would receive number ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit number P972, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Which is marked for identification and keeps that
23 status for the time being.
24 Ms. Mahindaratne, if I'm able to check all this in -- in one or
25 two minutes, wouldn't it be a good idea that you check your material also
1 before you examine the witness?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I apologise, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I have, Madam Registrar, document number
5 4671, please.
6 Q. Mr. Simic --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, meanwhile I'm looking at the
8 original of the last documents, which bears the year 1996, which
9 apparently was sent or at least we find some kind of a letter --
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- apparently from the Ministry of Defence at an
12 earlier date in 1995.
13 If you would upload that as well so that could give us valuable
14 information about applicability or whether it follows any or document --
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- so I'm not seeking the whole of the document but
17 page 03621495, if you would review whether that --
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. In fact, those were --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- contains any valuable information.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: In fact, those were the pages that I'd
21 requested a translation, Mr. President. It was in fact the first four
22 pages of the document so ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: So you could add them to the document which is now
24 marked for identification in translation as well.
25 Mr. Misetic.
1 MR. MISETIC: I apologise for the interruption, but just so that
2 you're fully aware of what the issues between the parties might be, we
3 will -- I have looked at and we will take the position that there was
4 another code that applied here during the relevant time-period.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Mr. Simic, you -- did you have the opportunity to examine this
9 document last evening and this morning?
10 A. I did. What was offered to me, I did review.
11 Q. And is this the duty log-book of the 4th Company, Sibenik, of the
12 72nd Military Police Battalion?
13 A. Yeah, this is the cover of that book.
14 Q. And we will go through the next few pages.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, what is available in this
16 document is only for the period 4th August to 11th August. That's for
17 the record.
18 Q. Now, having examined this document last night, did you find that
19 the contents accurately reflected the tasks of the 4th Company, Sibenik,
20 for the period 4th to 11th August?
21 MR. MISETIC: I'm going to ask for foundation on that,
22 Your Honour.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the witness is a senior officer
24 of the 4th Company, Sibenik, and he is, in fact, in the supplementary
25 statement --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- could you refer us to a paragraph.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It's not -- I will
3 ask a question before I ask that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
6 Q. Can you explain how this duty log-book was maintained, Mr. Simic?
7 A. Each one of these eight officers and -- and non-commissioned
8 officers who were registered here conducted a duty for an uninterrupted
9 24 hours. They also had assistants would who take over during rest
10 periods. All the events over the period of 24 hours would be jotted
11 down, entered in written form in the log-book.
12 Q. And were you at any stage also involved in maintaining the
14 A. Yes. I absolutely used that book, and I entered all the events
15 for the day that took place in the company in the book.
16 Q. Is there any mechanism or is there a duty upon the person who
17 maintains the book at the time to ensure that the entries entered here
18 are accurate?
19 A. Absolutely. That is why only officers are on duty.
20 Q. And having examined this document last night, did you have any
21 reason to doubt the accuracy of the entries in this document?
22 A. I believe that whoever made the entries into the book did so
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I enter this document into
25 evidence, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P973, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P973 is admitted into evidence.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And while we're on this document,
5 Madam Registrar, could you move to the English translation page, page
6 number 7. And B/C/S would be 1175.
7 Q. Mr. Simic, at -- in the English translation, the date starts from
8 the previous page. That is 6th August 1995
9 Mr. Simic, the entry for 2050 on 6th August indicates that nine
10 military policemen were sent to Kistanje. Are you able to offer some
11 information as to whether this is a patrol being sent or is it a platoon
12 being sent to be permanently relocated to Kistanje or was this a
13 check-point being set up?
14 A. I don't know who was on duty that day. It can be seen on the
15 next page, probably. If it is not a problem, I would like to see the
16 following page, please.
17 Q. Certainly.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no doubt for me -- there
20 is no reason for me it doubt it.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. No. My question was whether you would be able to say by looking
23 at the entry that the nine persons who are being -- nine military
24 policemen who are being sent to Kistanje on 6th August what was it -- is
25 it being sent -- are they being sent as a military police patrol or a
1 platoon being relocated to or deployed to Kistanje or is it a -- are they
2 being sent to set up a check-point in Kistanje? Would you be able to
3 offer some information? What kind of deployment was that; that's what
4 I'm asking you.
5 A. I saw it yesterday for the first time and now I'm looking at it
6 for the second time. My presence is not indicated in these documents
7 anywhere, so I have no way of knowing unless I was there at the time.
8 There is no way I -- I could know. I would have to have been there and I
9 wasn't there. It was not my stint of duty.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was outside working hours --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Simic, if
13 you would just tell us that you don't know, whether you could have known,
14 if that's a matter Ms. Mahindaratne wants to further explore, she'll
15 certainly do so.
16 She asked you what kind of deployment it was and you don't know.
17 Just tell us that and then wait for the next question.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. While we're on that page, Mr. Simic, could you look at the entry
23 for 1425. And it refers to a fax from 72nd Military Police Battalion
24 came and there is another reference there. I only ask because through
25 this log-book there are numerous entries of faxes coming from the 72nd
1 Military Police Battalion.
2 Now, would you be able to say as to what kind of communication -
3 and I'm not asking of the substance - what type of communications came
4 from the 72nd Battalion to the 4th Company, Sibenik, by way of faxes?
5 Was it order or -- I'm trying to get you to describe, if possible, what
6 they were.
7 A. At 1425, a fax arrived from the military police of the
8 72nd Battalion. Information about the cancellation of wanted posters
9 because they were issued at a level of all companies. The companies
10 where those people operated and moved.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... let me just ask you this
12 way. How did orders from the 72nd Battalion arrive at the 4th Company,
13 Sibenik? What was the means through which orders were conveyed to your
15 A. Not to me but to the commander of the company. That depended on
16 the confidentiality level, whether it could be send by fax or some other
17 way. Orders certainly did not come by fax. It was either by other
18 communication mean, by Rebus or code.
19 Q. You say -- your response wasn't that clear. You said that
20 depending on the confidentiality level, whether it could be sent by fax
21 or some other way. Orders certainly did not come by fax.
22 My question is: Were orders conveyed by fax? And I'm not sure
23 what you exactly said because you said depending on the confidentiality,
24 it could be sent by fax or some other way. And the next phrase was:
25 "Orders certainly did not come by fax." I'm asking to you say which did
1 you mean.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You may answer the question.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All orders which operationally had
4 to do with the Sibenik Company did not come by fax. They would either
5 come -- be brought by messenger by courier or by Rebus because they bore
6 a specific secrecy degree because they were confidential.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. What about the daily taskings?
9 A. Daily tasks were something else. For instance, this one, the
10 cancellation of a wanted circular. An order regarding the sending of a
11 convoy, that is not a true order in the military sense; it is more of an
12 instruction. Like also in the case of the regulation of some part of
13 traffic or something like that, that would be conveyed by fax.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, can we go to page number 10,
15 please, in the English version, and B/C/S 1177.
16 Q. Mr. Simic, if you could look at the entry for -- this is for --
17 in the English version it starts -- the date is noted on the -- the
18 previous page, right at the bottom, 10 August 1995.
19 If you note the entry at 1720 it says: "Mail arrived," and there
20 is a reference number given. It says, "Subject: Order to comply with
21 military disciplinary measures from the commander of ZP, Military
22 District Split
23 Now, can you explain that this is an order that has arrived at
24 the 4th Company, Sibenik, directly from the Military District command or
25 has it been sent here to your company via the normal chain of command
1 through the battalion command?
2 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm going to object on multiple
3 grounds. It mischaracterizes the order itself, which is in evidence.
4 Furthermore, foundation as to whether this witness knows, how he knows,
5 it is -- she's presented it as an order to the company which, it's in
6 evidence, and there should be some foundation for that claim.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I think the entry itself speaks
8 for it, the document is clear.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to --
10 MR. MISETIC: It's says --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask the witness. Would you, please,
12 Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 Please put just to the witness what we read here and then ask
14 questions about the matter, and, of course, the question should always be
15 to the extent the witness knows.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
18 Q. Mr. Simic, are you able to look at this entry and tell us, as to
19 if this order has been sent directly or if it has arrived via a chain of
20 command through the battalion, to the 72nd Military Police Battalion?
21 A. As we can see from the entry, at 1720, mail with that number
22 arrived there. It doesn't say how it arrived though. It could have been
23 brought directly to the company by a courier, or a courier from the
24 encryption service could have brought it over.
25 I don't know what this is about, whether this was an escort that
1 was to be provided for transport, whether it was securing of a military
2 area or providing security to a person. I don't know.
3 Q. Do you recall around this time, did you -- was this order
4 discussed with you by your commander, Mrkota?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is the witness aware of the order? He just told us
6 that he doesn't know what it is about, and then he mentioned a few
7 possibilities which are difficult to reconcile with the description of
8 the order as we read it in the entry.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will rephrase, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
12 Q. Mr. Simic, at any stage did your company commander, Mrkota,
13 discuss an order referring to military disciplinary measures received
14 from the Military District Command Split with you?
15 A. No, he didn't. As far as I know, he didn't. There was no need
16 for him -- no reason for him to discuss this with me.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness explain his last answer.
19 You said there was no need to discuss it with you. Why was there
20 no need to discuss it with you?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a senior lieutenant of the HV
22 by rank and I was the head of the military police crime service. I was
23 not a commander of a platoon or anything that would have boiled down to
24 the operational level. I did not have my own troops, so to speak.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if could I ask a follow-up
1 question on this.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. In response to question from the Bench, you said: "I did not
5 have my own troops, so to speak." Why did you use that term, did you
6 understand this order on military disciplinary measures to refer to the
7 conduct of troops?
8 A. No, no. I spoke in the context of your question concerning
9 Mrkota, company commander. I could not act in operational terms because
10 I did not have my own army. I could not proceed to carry out
11 assignments. I could not go and erect or tour check-points or go
12 patrolling, that sort of thing.
13 Q. So who -- which sections in the 4th Company, Sibenik, would
14 Captain Mrkota direct this order to?
15 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first try to identify whether the witness
17 knows what this order is. Because, otherwise, it is all a bit in the
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I should ask one --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Or if you would say, in general, are aware of orders
21 issued to comply with military disciplinary measures, and do you know how
22 these orders were passed to others. Then that's a question dependant on
23 the answer to the first question. You could put the second question.
24 But you're talking about this order --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Sorry Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... not yet established that
2 the witness knows what this order is about, apart from what he reads in
3 the description in this log.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will just ask him
5 a question based on his response.
6 Q. Mr. Simic, you said: "I could not go and erect or tour
7 check-points or go patrolling, that sort of thing."
8 Now, if such activity was required, that is, setting up
9 check-points or go patrolling, what sections of the 4th Company, Sibenik,
10 would Captain Mrkota have to address? Such orders in general, and I'm
11 not referring to this order.
12 A. Captain Mrkota could convey orders down to the lower levels,
13 which was platoon commanders who could, in their own right, convey orders
14 to squad commanders. That's the way the chain went.
15 Q. And how many platoons did the 4th Company, Sibenik, have during
16 the period 4th to 5th August, to end September 1995?
17 A. Three platoons.
18 Q. Approximately how many personnel were attached to each of these
20 A. Roughly 30 men.
21 Q. And when you say "roughly 30 men," roughly 30 men per platoon?
22 Could you be specific?
23 A. Every platoon had around 30 men.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President this would be appropriate.
1 JUDGE ORIE: A suitable time to have break. Then we will have a
2 break and we'll resume at 6.00.
3 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour ...
4 --- Recess taken at 5.40 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Mr. Simic, as the senior-most officer of the crime police of the
9 4th Company, Sibenik, did your subordinate personnel within the crime
10 police report to you on their daily activity?
11 A. Can you please repeat the question? Or clarify it.
12 Q. Now, your testimony was that you were the senior-most officer of
13 the crime police section of the 4th Company, Sibenik. That's correct,
14 isn't it?
15 Now, my question is, did your subordinate officers and personnel
16 within the crime police section of the 4th Company, Sibenik, report to
17 you on their daily activities, or their daily taskings? I'm talking
18 about the crime -- military police crime -- military police taskings.
19 A. Having had the highest rank, I was at the head of the service and
20 they were duty-bound to report to me. And in our daily morning
21 briefings, we would have discussed the tasks and the activities of the
23 Q. Now, I'd like you to look at, Mr. Simic --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if we could move to page 11
25 of the English version of the document on the screen. And the B/C/S
1 version is -- actually, we can stay on the same page in the B/C/S
2 version. Same page, Madam Registrar, if we could move to the right-hand
3 corner of the page. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Mr. Simic, do you note the entry at 2255, where it is recorded
5 that: "Duty officer of the 72nd Military Police Battalion Pavlovic
6 informed that some houses were set on fire by HV members in the villages
7 Kricke Donje and Kricke Gornje." And then it reads: "The R-platoon in
8 Drnis was notified via MUP colleagues."
9 Now, do you recall that incident?
10 A. No.
11 Q. If there was an investigation into -- some form of investigation
12 into this particular incident, were you -- would you as the head of the
13 crime military police of the 4th Company, Sibenik, be informed of that
15 A. I would. If my men in Drnis were in charge of the investigation.
16 Q. And were there any crime military police who were outside your
17 command present in Drnis?
18 A. I believe there were at the time.
19 Q. Now, Drnis, you said -- your testimony was that Drnis was within
20 the area of responsibility of the Sibenik -- the 4th Company, Sibenik.
21 A. I said that I -- our AOR
22 Operation Storm, certain platoons were detached. I didn't know about
23 Kistanje. And I deployed certain non-commissioned officers of the
24 military police crime -- of the military crime police to be in charge
1 Q. Now, my question is, Mr. Simic, this is an entry for
2 10th August 1995
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How many -- how many officers or personnel attached to your crime
5 police department were sent by you to Drnis?
6 A. You mean from Sibenik?
7 Q. From -- from your crime police section of the 4th Company,
8 Sibenik, how many officers did you send to be attached to the platoon in
10 A. When the Drnis platoon went, they accompanied them, or perhaps
11 they went or followed them a day or two later.
12 Q. My question is: How many officers did you send?
13 A. One commissioned officer and one non-commissioned officer.
14 Q. What was their responsibility?
15 A. They were supposed to be in charge of the Drnis AOR, of the AOR
16 of that platoon.
17 Q. Now, Drnis - this is after the liberation - Drnis came within the
19 A. If you allow me, I will try to explain this.
20 The 4th Company detached one platoon out into Drnis. Two men of
21 the military crime police followed them, and they had their own
22 responsibilities. This was not the AOR
23 that platoon which was there temporarily. So this was not our structure
24 or unit. It was merely sent out detached into the field.
25 Q. Okay. Now, those two -- you said the responsibility of those two
1 officers that you sent were the activities -- the area of responsibility
2 was Drnis. Now, if any criminal investigations were to be conducted in
3 Drnis, would that duty fall upon those two officers?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. And were there any other police, military police, crime military
6 police, attached to that platoon in Drnis? Except for -- other than
7 those two officers.
8 A. To my knowledge, no.
9 Q. Now, did those two officers report to you?
10 A. Well, there -- I'm not certain anymore whether they reported to
11 the commander of the platoon there or to me. But I believe that they
12 went through their platoon and reported that way through the platoon to
13 the battalion. That's my opinion.
14 Q. As head of the criminal police section of the company, who -- in
15 order -- who would receive information about the daily taskings of the
16 crime police, crime military police or all the platoons and all the
17 sections within the Sibenik 4th Company?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness repeat his answer.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Can you repeat your answer, Mr. Simic. The interpreter didn't
21 hear you.
22 A. All the companies, all the independent platoons, including the
23 Drnis independent company which had its AOR, its duty services, its
24 commander, and two duty service officers, they acted independently, and
25 most probably they reported on their daily work to the battalion, which
1 was stationed in Split
2 military police administration in Zagreb.
3 Q. Were you in any way informed of what those officers were
4 reporting to the platoon leader?
5 A. No. Had I been reported to, I would have included the results
6 their work into my reports.
7 Q. So where would the -- the work of those two officers be reported
8 in? In what document? Is there is a daily report or daily log?
9 A. It would have to be in the duty officer's log and in the report
10 sent to the battalion.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I just one more -- if --
12 Madam Registrar, could you please move to page 12, please, on -- in the
13 English, and B/C/S --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, I would like to ask one or more
16 In the entry it reads: "R-platoon."
17 What does R stand for?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I am.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] R-platoon stands for reserve
21 platoon. Those were not active servicemen but reservists.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And they were not among your three platoons?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were part of the 4th Sibenik
24 Company, but they were not active servicemen. They were reserve
25 servicemen. For the purposes of the action itself, some of the men were
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you said the 4th Company, Sibenik, had
3 three platoons. Did you include the reserve platoons, yes or no?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now was the R-platoon in Drnis, was that one of the
6 platoons which was directly under your command?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under the command of
8 Commander Mrkota, not me. I did not have platoons under my command.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then it becomes less and less clear to me.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please try to clarify. It's not clear to me
11 what an R-platoon is and was attached to the 4th Company but not military
12 police then or ...
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. The witness's testimony,
14 as I understood, was that the three platoons were within the 4th Company,
15 Sibenik, military police while the witness was the head of the crime
16 military police section.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say platoons of military police but
18 not crime police. Let's just -- is that how we have to understood --
19 there were platoons of the military police but not of the crime section
20 of the military police. Is that --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so. Because the service
22 of the military crime police belonged to that company, not the other way
24 JUDGE ORIE: And you sent two of your people of the crime police
25 to the platoon in Drnis, which was a military police platoon but not part
1 of the crime police.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. Only two men from
3 the military crime service went there, because the total service numbered
4 eight men, not more than that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Just on that one last clarification, Mr. Simic, when you said the
8 total service number was eight men, not more than that, those eight men
9 were the members of the crime military police section within the
10 4th Company, Sibenik. Is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Thank you. I think we have on the screen one last question on
13 this document, Mr. Simic.
14 At 1150, and this is for the date -- the date on the English
15 document comes from the previous page. And even the B/C/S. There is a
16 record: "The 72nd Military Police Battalion duty officer informed
17 regarding a command of General Cermak that members of UNCRO have complete
18 freedom of movement."
19 Do you know, Mr. Simic, as to how the freedom of movement of
20 UNCRO -- or what role did the 4th Company, Sibenik, play in the control
21 of the movement of UNCRO, UNCRO -- members of UNCRO. Do you know that?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I move this document into
24 evidence, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections, Madam Registrar.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, before we -- you started asking
3 specific questions, did you not yet tender this document into evidence
4 and was it not yet --
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, just -- it is possible I may have
8 made a mistake there. If Madam Registrar has a --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, let's see ...
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- I will search for the word "admitted."
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I have made a
14 mistake. It has been confirmed that it was tendered, P973. My
15 apologies. My apologies, Madam Registrar.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I have document D --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, it may be my lack of mastering the
19 English language, but perhaps the parties could assist me in the entry we
20 just read. It says: "Duty officer informed regarding a command of
21 General Cermak ..." Is that the same as an order or is that -- I don't
22 know whether the native speakers could help me out. Whether a command
23 is -- yes. I mean native speakers in -- in the original language
24 rather than --
25 MR. MISETIC: I'm a native speaker, Your Honour, but I defer to
1 Mr. Kay on --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kay's knowledge of the -- of B/C/S is now
4 MR. KAY: Yes. Was Your Honour asking for any illumination on
5 the matter --
6 JUDGE ORIE: A command from what -- is that an order or is it
7 a -- a command. As I said, it may be my lack of knowledge --
8 MR. KAY: It exists as a command.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It exists as a command. Then I will look at my
11 Please proceed.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Madam Registrar, may I have D737, please.
14 Q. Mr. Simic, I'm going to show you a document that you saw last
15 night and this morning, and I appreciate it you would not, in the normal
16 course of business, be familiar with this document.
17 This is a document already in evidence.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Madam Registrar, if could you move to
19 page 9. And that's in B/C/S 0556. Page 9 in the English version.
20 Q. You examined that report which has -- which is included there for
21 the 4th Company, Sibenik. And I'd like you to look at a particular
22 paragraph there.
23 In the English, it's the fourth line from the bottom, which
24 starts with: "Second platoon of the military police that has a total of
25 33 military policemen."
1 Mr. Simic, do you note that -- in the B/C/S, it's about the
2 seventh line from the bottom, about eighth line. It says: "Second
3 platoon of the military police that has a total of 33 military policemen
4 has been relocated to the liberated city of Drnis. First platoon of the
5 VP and their 24 military policemen have been relocated to Kistanje.
6 Focus tasks were the security of the vital objects and road
8 And then it goes on to describe what their tasks were.
9 Now, you just testified that you sent two men -- two members of
10 the military crime police within your section to Drnis. Likewise, did
11 you also send members of the military crime police to Kistanje, to be
12 attached to the platoon that was sent there?
13 A. No, I didn't, because, automatically I would have endangered the
14 functioning of the service in Sibenik.
15 Q. Why do you say that? Can you explain that answer. What do you
16 mean by endangering the functioning of Sibenik -- functioning of the
17 service in Sibenik?
18 A. If I were to halve the service, according to the AORs and
19 according to the duties within the company itself, I would not have been
20 able to cover all the tasks that I had to make sure were carried out
21 because of the shortage of men. I would have compromised the activity.
22 Q. So if any criminal activity were to be investigated which came
23 within the jurisdiction of the military police, which section of the
24 4th Company, Sibenik, would have had to carry out that activity?
25 A. The military police crime service.
1 Q. Yeah, my -- my question was: Since did you not send any members
2 of the military crime police section to Kistanje, what would they have --
3 what have been done if it was required to carry out any criminal
4 investigations with regard to activity in Kistanje?
5 A. Had there been any need for it, it would not have been difficult
6 to send an individual from Sibenik to carry out crime scene
7 investigations, rather than keep him there all the time. It wasn't a
8 problem either to instruct the men in Drnis to go to Kistanje, rather
9 than have permanent staff there.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I call for document 750,
12 Q. Mr. Simic, you examined this document last night and this
13 morning. This is a report issued by you, isn't it?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. It's a monthly report for the period 25th July to 25th
16 August 1995 for your area of responsibility within the 4th Company,
17 Sibenik. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Are the contents of this report accurate?
20 A. Can I see the next page as well?
21 Q. Yes.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if you could go it page 2.
23 Of the B/C/S also.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the content is correct.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Now, on page 2, it says right at the top there, second line:
2 "Members of the 72nd Military Police Battalion, 4th Company, crime
3 investigation military police through their operative preventive
4 activities in the period between 25th July and 25th August, 1995, filed
5 one criminal report for crime of heavy obstruction of public traffic
6 safety. And in the above-mentioned period, eight crimes were recorded
7 for which criminal reports will be filed."
8 Now if criminal reports were filed with regard to those other
9 eight crimes, where would that have reflected? Would it have reflected
10 in the monthly report for 25th August to the next period?
11 A. I don't know whether that is obvious in this report but there
12 were eight criminal offences registered for which criminal reports would
13 be filed meaning that criminal investigation had not been finished or
14 that -- that they were civilian persons or if they were civilian persons
15 might have been handed over to the MUP and the like.
16 Q. So where would one have to look to find out exactly what those
17 eight crimes were, since there is no details in -- given in this report?
18 A. In this report. This report.
19 Q. No. My question is, since we -- there is no description of what
20 those eight crimes were, where would -- if one wanted to find out what
21 exactly those crimes were, who the perpetrators were, where is it
22 recorded? Is there some kind of formal documentation process whereby one
23 could gather that evidence?
24 A. I said that not perhaps all the eight had been processed and
25 perhaps a report was sent subsequently on the commission of these
1 criminal offences.
2 I'm not quite sure what the case was in this particular instance,
3 but the battalion [Realtime transcript read in error "platoon"] should
4 be -- should have such records.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move to tender this document
7 into evidence.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter said --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Madam
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P974.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry. The interpreter said battalion not
13 platoon should have such records.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second, Ms. Mahindaratne. I was puzzled
15 listening to the French channel what the English interpreters would have
16 to tell us. I have now seen it on the screen.
17 P974 is admitted into evidence.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: On the same document, if you could move to
20 page 4 of the same document, page 4 in English. And with B/C/S, it's the
21 next page.
22 Q. Mr. Simic, can you explain to us what those statistics indicate
23 for the month of August. It -- it says reported crimes. Total crimes,
24 1 -- sorry. Total crimes, 8, it says. And then there is a breakdown:
25 With unknown perpetrators, 3; number of crimes where the perpetrators are
1 identified by the submitter of the report, 2. Number of crimes where the
2 perpetrator was caught in the act, 3. Number of crimes where the
3 perpetrator was discovered at a later stage, 2. And crimes discovered --
4 percentage of crimes discovered at later stage as compared to known
5 perpetrators, 66.6 per cent; total solved crimes, 7; and percentage of
6 solved crimes as compared to total of crimes, 87.5; and remain unsolved,
8 Now, according to this table, there are a total of seven crimes
9 have been solved, but we see only one criminal report filed, no other
10 details. Are you able to explain to Court what this chart indicates?
11 A. This is the total of reported criminal offences, and later, the
12 action taken to solve them. This is what this table shows.
13 Q. My question was: The seven -- of the seven solved crimes, there
14 is only a reference to one criminal report being filed. What about the
15 balance six?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you're apparently referring the
17 witness to an entry which I have difficulties to find.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It's on the
19 chart --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And there is under --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Which column?
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's eighth column, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: There I read: Total of solved crimes, 7.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. There we have seven solved crimes. And
2 now somewhere else it reads only one report filed is --
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The report filed was at the beginning of the
4 report, Mr. President. I already addressed that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's not to be found in here.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's clear it me.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Mr. Simic, could you explain to Court, we have seen right at the
11 beginning of this monthly report you referred to one criminal report
12 filed. But according to this chart, it says seven crimes have been
14 Now what about the balance six, were those crimes solved, they
15 were discharged or were criminal reports filed? How would one be able to
16 gather that information?
17 A. Perhaps you could find it in the MUP. Perhaps they were solved
18 by the MUP. Perhaps they were solved by the military police of the
19 71st Battalion. Maybe it is in their records.
20 Q. Now, if we go to the next page, there's another table.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, if you could move.
22 Q. There it is reported that one criminal report was submitted
23 against one soldier for the period August 1995. Is that a reference to
24 the criminal report which -- referred to at the beginning of this report,
25 the first page of this report, where it was mentioned that one criminal
1 report was filed for the crime of heavy obstruction of public traffic
3 Is that one and the same?
4 A. Probably. It says the reported criminal offences and the
5 structure of reported persons. In this case, we have one criminal
6 file -- report filed and one person.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I have document 3032,
10 Q. Mr. Simic, this is a report issued by you for the month of
11 September on the activities of the crime military police of the
12 4th Sibenik Company. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that is correct. From the -- from the 25th of August to the
14 25th of September.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to the next page,
16 Madam Registrar.
17 Q. You examined this report last night and this morning. Are the
18 contents of this report accurate?
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 Q. I could ask you a question with regard to the first report also.
21 Now, whom do you submit these monthly reports to?
22 A. To the 72nd Battalion, the criminal police, to Mr. Milas.
23 Q. Now, if we remain on page 2 of both the versions.
24 According to this report it says: "4th Company military police
25 members filed four criminal reports for the following crimes, including
1 crime of endangering public traffic, crime of grievous bodily harm, crime
2 of theft of a weapon or a piece of combat equipment, and crime of taking
3 a motor vehicle."
4 It goes on to say, next paragraph: "In the aforementioned
5 period, as a result of responding to reported crimes and regularly
6 patrolling the places where many people as well as HV members gather, the
7 Sibenik military crime police officials filed 33 reports on the violation
8 of military discipline."
9 Now, can you explain to Court, Mr. Simic, what the difference is.
10 There is a reference to criminal reports, four criminal reports being
11 filed against members of the HV and then 33 reports on the violation of
12 military discipline.
13 What kind of crimes would have been -- I'm sorry, the criminal
14 reports, the crimes are described. What kind of acts were caught up in
15 the reports related to violation of military discipline?
16 A. Criminal reports referred to criminal offences committed, and the
17 33 violations on military discipline is violations, breaches of
18 discipline, committed by members of the Croatian army.
19 Q. Now, if persons were apprehended or just proven that they were
20 found to be looting, what type of reports would be filed? Criminal
21 reports or reports relating to breach of military discipline?
22 A. Criminal reports would be filed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this
24 document into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be number ...
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit number P975.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P975 is admitted into evidence.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Registrar, may I have document 2440,
5 Q. Mr. Simic, I appreciate this is not a document issued by you but
6 it's a document relating to the 4th Company, Sibenik, criminal military
7 police. It's dated 21/9/1995
8 criminal military police member in the newly liberated area of Drnis."
9 And it reads that: "There were no criminal reports filed against
10 the Croatian army members in the Drnis area in the aforementioned period.
11 There were 14 disciplinary reports filed against the Croatian army
12 members." And paragraph three says: "The following items were taken
13 from the Croatian army members for which they were issued with the
14 receipt on temporary confiscation of property." And then it gives a list
15 of documents which includes 19 pieces of TV sets and so many domestic
16 appliances and electronic goods.
17 Now, can you explain as to why there are no criminal reports or
18 any type of reports raised in relation to the -- the goods that have been
19 confiscated from the possession of the members of the HV?
20 A. As far as I remember and to the extent that I am familiar with
21 this, all these items were confiscated at a local check-point. What
22 happened with the members, I couldn't say.
23 Q. You just said that -- I asked you a question when it came to
24 looting what type of reports would be filed, whether it's criminal report
25 or reports on breach of military discipline, and you said criminal
2 Now, are you able to offer an explanation as to why no reports
3 have been filed in relation to the -- to the -- this property?
4 A. It is item 5 that provides you with a solution, with an answer.
5 Q. Items 5 says: "The criminal military police members conducted no
6 independent on-site investigations. They conducted seven on-site
7 investigations in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior members,
8 while five of them were carried out in the presence of an investigating
10 Now, how does --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
13 Q. Now, how does that paragraph explain the absence of there being
14 no criminal reports or any type of reports being filed in relation to
15 this number of property being taken?
16 A. All these items which were confiscated at the check-points when
17 not -- the perpetrators were not caught red-handed stealing them. They
18 were caught having them. Nobody said that they went into a house and
19 looted it. They just had them. That is why no on-site investigations
20 were undertaken for such -- in respect of such items.
21 Q. So is it the position, then, Mr. Simic, that the crime military
22 police did not charge or file any reports or conduct any investigation in
23 relation to members of the HV who were found having in their possession
24 looted goods, simply because they were not seen looting?
25 A. I assume that that is correct. Simply, no one had seen it, and
1 no one was sent to the scene of the event. So no patrols were sent out
2 to the scene nor were they able to find anyone in -- catch anyone in the
3 commission of a crime.
4 Q. Was that the general practice in the -- amongst the crime
5 military police of the 72 Military Police Battalion, that if a member of
6 the HV was not caught in the act, there would be no investigation as to
7 whether he had, in fact, perpetrated the particular crime or not?
8 A. I don't think it was the practice, but we needed some concrete
9 material evidence in order to be able to do something. They could all
10 say and they did say at those times, I found it here, I found it there,
11 and that was what we had to grapple with. They would be punished because
12 reports would be sent to the different units, you know.
13 Q. So when you say that the reports would be sent to the different
14 units, you're talking about as a report of a disciplinary breach, not a
15 criminal report?
16 A. I only suppose that they sent reports because I had no insight
17 with the work, into the work of that particular unit.
18 Q. Mr. Simic, what were the -- now, you were the head of the crime
19 military police of the 4th Company, Sibenik. What were the instructions
20 that you had received from your superior command as to how to deal with
21 perpetrators who were found looting or who were found with -- in
22 possession of looted goods who were members of the HV?
23 A. According to the rules of procedure of the crime police, crime
24 military police, such people would be brought before the investigating
25 judge. The military investigating judge.
1 Q. Apart from the rules, did you have any instructions as to how to
2 deal with the situation after the liberation of the territory from your
3 superior command?
4 A. No, we did not.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wish to tender this document
6 into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number P976.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P976 is admitted into evidence.
10 Could I ask a few questions in relation to this. You have dealt
11 with the documents, Ms. Mahindaratne?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Simic, we see a list of close to 100 items
14 that were taken from Croatian army members, and they were issued with a
15 receipt of temporary confiscation of property.
16 Now what happened with these TV sets, for example? Did you store
17 them, or were they left in the hands of those who had been found in
18 possession of these objects?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that those items were
20 taken away, seized and stored in storehouses.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Tell me where these objects were stored, including
22 the three tractors and five vehicles. You -- where were they stored,
23 since they were seized, from what I understand, in Drnis?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were probably sent to barracks
25 for safe custody.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What was probably -- do you know whether they were
2 sent to barracks? And, if so, what barracks?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had no supervision over such
4 matters so that I am unable to tell you that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Sometimes I do know things even if I do not
6 supervise what happened. Do you know or do you not know?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Can you exclude for the possibility that these items
9 were left in the hands of those who were found in possession of these
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot rule out that possibility,
12 because receipts were issued for goods seized. At least that was the
13 practice then.
14 JUDGE ORIE: What did that mean, that receipts were issued?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That meant that a certain person
16 had taken a certain item, a TV set, and its brand, its type would be
17 indicated and such.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's then put on a piece of paper.
19 And then what happened -- you talked about the practice at the time.
20 What then happened with the TV set once it had been put on paper what
21 brand it was ...
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't call it a piece of
23 paper. It was a receipt which had its number, its seal and a signature.
24 It was a valid document. Namely, if the owner appeared at any point or
25 if it was established that it had been the object of a criminal offence,
1 then that paper would be invoked.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I asked you, as a matter of fact, what
3 happened with a TV set once this was put on paper. Was it kept, was it
4 held in custody by the person with whom it was found or ... and did he
5 have to return it once an owner would show up? Is that what happened
6 or ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These objects were seized from
8 unknown perpetrators against a receipt for seized objects. Namely, one
9 could not hold a receipt and hold on to an item. So that the items, I
10 suppose, were sent to barracks and other places.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You suppose that. But you do not know, if I
12 understood you well.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you say they were seized from unknown
15 perpetrators. But the persons from which they were seized were known,
16 weren't they?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only said in this particular
18 incident, by way of example, the perpetrators are unknown. But these
19 receipts did specify the object taken and from whom it was taken, by name
20 and surname.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why were they taken from these persons?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, a soldier cannot go to war
23 holding a TV set under his arm. It is to be supposed that it is not his
24 property. He must have taken it from somewhere or someone must have been
25 given to him.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You're telling us that all these TV sets and video
2 players, that you assumed that they did not belong to the soldiers who
3 were found in possession of them.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And did you ever interview those persons known by
6 name of which you thought they were in the possession of items that were
7 not owned by them? Did you go and interview them; did you give any
8 follow-up to the seizure?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not come into contact with
10 these persons because this took place in the area of Drnis; I wasn't
11 there. Kresmir Balkas [phoen], lieutenant, was in charge of that area,
12 not I.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But this is a report to the criminal military police
14 in Sibenik. Did you never ask what -- whether they gave it any
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were probably attempts at
17 finding the rightful owner in order to return these items to him or her.
18 That was the objective of all this activity.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever receive reports about, for example,
20 these 100 items, whether any of these items was returned to the rightful
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... any reports on
24 follow-up, apart from what you said was the purpose of all it, but did
25 you ever receive reports on whether that was -- purpose was ever achieved
1 by further investigation, by identifying owners, by ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have such information.
3 That sort of feedback is something I did not have.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And you said these people would be punished since it
5 was reported to -- I think you said their commanders.
6 Do you have any information about people being punished, specific
7 information, about people being punished for having been found in the
8 possession of items, you say, you had to assume they were not theirs?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kresmir Balkas could have known
10 about this because this was his responsibility.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I asked you whether you have any specific knowledge
12 about it.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not. I don't have.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I'm looking at the clock. Five minutes
15 too late. I should look at the clock earlier.
16 Could we ask -- first of all, Mr. Simic, I would like to instruct
17 you that you should not speak with anyone about the testimony you have
18 given already, or the testimony still to be given.
19 Yes, and I take it that you want to see that we provide the
20 witness with a copy of the statement.
21 MR. MISETIC: Actually I was going to just advise the Court that
22 we provided it to him in the last break. I don't know if you wish that
23 he retrain it overnight or -- but I leave it to Your Honour to decide.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ...
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Simic, I do understand that you were
2 provided with a copy of the statement that you gave to the Defence.
3 Would you please carefully read it, if have you not done yet already, and
4 bring it tomorrow. I again instruct you, you should not speak with
5 anyone about your testimony, whether given already or still to be given,
6 nor about the statement. You should refrain from communicating with
7 anyone about these matters.
8 Then, Mr. Usher, could you please -- and we'd like to see you
9 back tomorrow, I think in the afternoon, Madam Registrar.
10 Yes, would you please follow the usher.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could you give us an estimate on
14 the time you'd still need? I see that you are two off from the end of
15 your list. Is that 2440 is, there are two others to follow.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I would have about
17 another half an hour of examination left. But I didn't understand
18 exactly what you meant when you said I'm two off --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I see on your exhibit list, I think the last
20 document you were dealing with was 2440 which is on my list but that
21 might not be the last one --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President. That's what I
23 was dealing with, 2440, but --
24 JUDGE ORIE: On my list there were two still following, but you
25 may not follow that order.
1 Let's -- you need half an hour.
2 Could I inquire with the Defence how much time Defence counsel
3 would need.
4 Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I think I'm going to be less than two
6 hours. I will review it again tonight. In light of a 92 ter from the
7 Defence side, I think I might be able to shorten that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kay.
9 MR. KAY: Half an hour.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Half an hour as well, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That brings us to three hours all together. And
12 Ms. Mahindaratne, half an hour for you, that makes it three and a half
13 hours. That fits into one session. The parties are urged to use their
14 time in such a way that we can conclude the testimony of this witness
15 tomorrow. And if you say you'd need another half an hour, I think --
16 yes. Initial estimate was two hours. You've used -- you asked for one
17 more hour. We said we wouldn't stop you, but we would look at how it
18 would develop. You have used now 2 hours 13 minutes. Half an hour is
19 granted and -- but we'll keep you to that rather strictly.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Mr. President, may I just -- for what it's worth, it is clear
22 from the estimates given by the Defence that we would be able to conclude
23 tomorrow, but the witness did indicate that he wished to leave tomorrow
24 for medical reasons.
25 JUDGE ORIE: To leave tomorrow -- tomorrow evening.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Tomorrow night, Mr. President. It doesn't
2 interfere with the court time.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is another reason why we should try to
4 conclude tomorrow.
5 We adjourn, and we will resume tomorrow, the 10th of October,
6 quarter past 2.00, Courtroom I.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Friday, the 10th day of
9 October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.