Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10177

 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

Page 10178

 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,

Page 10179

 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

 5     Defence.

 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

Page 10180

 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

21     "defective."

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

Page 10181

 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

Page 10182

 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

Page 10183

 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, this is the first time I'm seeing the OTP

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

Page 10184

 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

 7     well.

 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

Page 10185

 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

 3     happened.

 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

Page 10186

 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

Page 10187

 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

Page 10188

 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

Page 10189

 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

 4     detail.

 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.

Page 10190

 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

12     orally.

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

Page 10191

 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

17     is.

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,

Page 10192

 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

Page 10193

 1     it.

 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

Page 10194

 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

 4     way?

 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

Page 10195

 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

Page 10196

 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

 4     proceed.

 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.

Page 10197

 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

18     yesterday.

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.

Page 10198

 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, which I haven't seen to this day.  And on the basis of my

 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

Page 10199

 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

15     importance.

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

Page 10200

 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

15     moment.

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.

Page 10201

 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

11     document?

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

Page 10202

 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

Page 10203

 1     remove paragraph 17 from the January 2008 statement, will remove

 2     paragraph 16 from the October 9, 2008, supplemental statement, and that

 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.

Page 10204

 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.

Page 10205

 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 --

Page 10206

 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

15     courtroom.

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

Page 10207

 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

24     examination-in-chief.

25             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I would ask then that if we could hold

Page 10208

 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

17     you.

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.

Page 10209

 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

 4     answer.

 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

Page 10210

 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

Page 10211

 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

 5     questions.

 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?

Page 10212

 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,

20     please.

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 is a statement to which I sent

Page 10213

 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

Page 10214

 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

Page 10215

 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,

14     please.

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

18     statement.

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

Page 10216

 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

 8     it.

 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

23     intervened.

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.

Page 10217

 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

15     knowledge?

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.

Page 10218

 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

 3     objection.

 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

24     identification.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then we have the letter, the letter which

Page 10219

 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

 3     identification.

 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

 6     uploaded.

 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

Page 10220

 1     statement?

 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 and providing an explanation regarding this document in

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

24     evidence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before we proceed on that, you said it's only

Page 10221

 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 ...

Page 10222

 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.

Page 10223

 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

15     companies.

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

25     officers.

Page 10224

 1        Q.   And who was the head of that department, of the 4th Company,

 2     Sibenik?

 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

25     Company.

Page 10225

 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

Page 10226

 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

Page 10227

 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

 7     knowing.

 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,

25     please.

Page 10228

 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.

Page 10229

 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

15     arrested.

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.

Page 10230

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Madam Registrar, if I could --

 2             Mr. President, may I have this document tendered into evidence,

 3     please.

 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

Page 10231

 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

 5     numbering.

 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

14     numbers.

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.

Page 10232

 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.

Page 10233

 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

10     specifically.

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?

Page 10234

 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

 8     codification?

 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

Page 10235

 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

 6     12.

 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

Page 10236

 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.

Page 10237

 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 --

Page 10238

 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

13     log-book?

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

23     accurately.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I enter this document into

25     evidence, please.

Page 10239

 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

Page 10240

 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

Page 10241

 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

14     Company?

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

Page 10242

 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

Page 10243

 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

Page 10244

 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

Page 10245

 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

18     air.

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.

Page 10246

 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

19     platoons?

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.

Page 10247

 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

22     day.

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

Page 10248

 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

14     investigation?

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 went as far as Drnis.  After

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

25     there.

Page 10249

 1        Q.   Now, my question is, Mr. Simic, this is an entry for

 2     10th August 1995.  That is, after the liberation of the territory.

 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

 9     Drnis?

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

18     AOR of the 4th Company, Sibenik, military police.  Is that correct?

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 of the 4th Company but the AOR of

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

Page 10250

 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

Page 10251

 1     was stationed in Split.  And the battalion, in turn, reported to the

 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

15     questions.

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

Page 10252

 1     mobilized.

 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

23     around.

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

Page 10253

 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.

Page 10254

 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

Page 10255

 1     Mr. Kay on --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Kay's knowledge of the -- of B/C/S is now

 3     tested.

 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

10     Webster's.

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."

Page 10256

 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

 7     communications."

 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.

Page 10257

 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,

11     please.

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:

Page 10258

 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

Page 10259

 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

10     Registrar.

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

Page 10260

 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,

 7     1.

 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.

Page 10261

 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

13     solved.

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

Page 10262

 1     report was filed for the crime of heavy obstruction of public traffic

 2     safety.

 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,

 9     please.

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

Page 10263

 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 ...

Page 10264

 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,

 4     please.

 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 and it says:  "Report regarding acts of

 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

Page 10265

 1     reports.

 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

 9     judge."

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

Page 10266

 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.

Page 10267

 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.

Page 10268

 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

10     objects?

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,

Page 10269

 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.

Page 10270

 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

15     follow-up?

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

21     owner?

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

Page 10271

 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]

Page 10272

 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.

Page 10273

 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.

Page 10274

 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.