Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11440

 1                           Monday, 10 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone, both in and just outside

 6     the courtroom.

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

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

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

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Ms. Mahindaratne, is the Prosecution ready to call its next

13     witness?

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  But prior to commencement

15     of examination, I have been informed by the Defence that -- that they

16     would like to address the issue of the admissibility of some documents,

17     and I think it might be efficient for both parties --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  In relation to this witness?

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley.

21             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.

22     Thank you.

23             I have some substantial comments on the admissibility of a number

24     of the documents that the Prosecution seeks to adduce through this

25     witness.  I also understand that Mr. Mikulicic has some comments, also

Page 11441

 1     Mr. Misetic.

 2             You know already, I think, Your Honours, that the Cermak Defence

 3     team filed three motions last week on Saturday, addressing this

 4     particular issue, and I won't rehearse now all of the arguments that we

 5     made then, but I will summarize the essence of those arguments.

 6             Our objection relates to two categories of documents that the

 7     Prosecution seek to bring in through this witness:  First of all, a

 8     series of MUP Ministry of Interior Official Notes which are in the form

 9     of statements of certain witnesses, including one concerning Mr. Cermak;

10     and, secondly, we object specifically - and I think this objection will

11     be unique to us, and it won't be objected to by the other Defence team -

12     to three media articles, which I will deal with finally.

13             The MUP Official Notes first, and if it assists, Mr. President, I

14     can give you the 65 ter numbers of those documents.  They are 65 ter

15     2344, which is an MUP Official Note of Draginja Djuric; 65 ter 3298,

16     relating to an MUP Official Note from Nada Surjak; 65 ter 6085, relating

17     to Veselin Karanovic; 65 ter 6086, relating to Marija Djuric; and,

18     lastly, 65 ter 4388, an MUP Official Note relating to Ivan Cermak.

19             All of those MUP Official Notes are addressed in the written

20     pleadings that we filed on Saturday.  We would like to add a further

21     three documents now, orally, to our motion, which address those Official

22     Notes in respect of Nada Surjak, Veselin Karanovic, and Marija Djuric,

23     and they are these:  65 ter 327, relating to MUP Official Note for Zeljko

24     Sacic; 65 ter 2655, relating to Branko Balunovic; 65 ter 326, relating to

25     Mladen Markac.

Page 11442

 1             Our grounds and, very briefly, Your Honours, because we argue

 2     this matter in the three filings that we made on Saturday, these MUP

 3     Official Notes purport to be witness statements.  They are, in effect,

 4     hearsay, and the ones that I have specifically reference that we object

 5     to go to the acts and conduct, or the alleged acts and conduct, of

 6     Mr. Cermak.

 7             They have no indicia of reliability.  They are, in effect,

 8     summaries of an interview with a witness made by a Croatian police

 9     officer, and it seems that they were made after the event, so after the

10     interview.  They are not signed by the witness.  They were not taken down

11     by the Croatian police for any form of criminal proceedings.  They are

12     not contemporaneous with the events in question, in Grubori.  This

13     witness who is coming before you today simply received these documents.

14     He cannot say anything about the truth of the content of these particular

15     notes.  They are not formal statements in the sense, as we understand

16     them in this court.

17             Now, in particular, they go, as I have said, to the acts and

18     contact of the accused; and both the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal and

19     also this Trial Chamber in another case has advised extreme caution in

20     admitting out-of-court statements about the acts and conduct of the

21     accused which cannot be tested by the Defence.

22             What I mean by this is the following:  We cannot cross-examine

23     this witness on the content of those statements, because he cannot speak

24     to the content of those statements.

25             And if we could, for a moment, Your Honour, please, go into

Page 11443

 1     private session, because I want to address a matter which I think

 2     absolutely exemplifies what I'm trying to say here.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 4                           [Private session]

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 11444

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Open session]

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in open session.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

17             MR. CAYLEY:  Very briefly, Your Honours, in respect of three

18     media articles, 6102, 6103, and 3476.  6102 is an article entitled "Five

19     Chetniks killed."  It makes no mention of events in Grubori at all.

20     There are unidentified sources within that document.  It characterizes

21     acts and conduct of Mr. Cermak.  We cannot cross-examine this witness on

22     the truth of the content of that particular journalistic article, which

23     is full of journalistic comment, and it is very difficult to separate

24     what is possibly attributed to Mr. Cermak and what is journalistic

25     comment.

Page 11445

 1             The Prosecution should call, at the very least, the journalist

 2     who wrote this article so that we can at least try and get to the bottom

 3     of the nature of this article.

 4             We make the same comments in respect of 65 ter 6103, and we make

 5     the same comments in respect of 3476.

 6             If you'd just allow me, Your Honour, one moment to consult with

 7     my colleague, but I think I may have finished my submissions.  Thank you.

 8                           [Defence counsel confer]

 9             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you, Your Honour, I have no further comment.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Cayley.

11             Markac Defence has notified that it will join the submissions by

12     the Cermak.

13             Mr. Mikulicic, would you like to add?

14             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  I would like

15     to add one more aspect, which refers to the Official Notes.

16             As for the formal legal value of Official Notes in Croatia, in

17     criminal proceedings, it will be explained to us by a witness at least in

18     cross-examination, the witness that worked on those issues for a number

19     of years.

20             However, I would like to remind everybody of the practice of this

21     particular Trial Chamber.  The Trial Chamber has already met with the

22     proposal of introducing Official Notes in evidence, however, when we were

23     faced with an Official Note drafted by the MUP of the Republic of Croatia

24     with respect to the witness was sitting in the courtroom.  Then, for

25     procedural matters, the witness would be asked whether the Official Note

Page 11446

 1     reflected the contents of the interview with the MUP official.  Some

 2     witnesses would confirm that that was the case with minor amendments.

 3     However, some witnesses, for example, Stjepan Buhin, clearly stated that

 4     the Official Note did not reflect the contents of the interview that they

 5     had; and in such a situation, the Trial Chamber would disallow the

 6     admission of such an Official Note into evidence.

 7             Now we are faced with a difference situation.  We are dealing

 8     with the Official Notes of the persons who will not come to this

 9     courtroom as witnesses, who cannot say anything about the veracity of the

10     notes; and the Defence does not have the possibility to cross-examine

11     such witnesses.

12             Thus, the Markac Defence conclusion and proposal is identical to

13     the Cermak Defence, and that is that there is it no grounds for these

14     Official Notes that the OTP proposed to be admitted to, indeed, be

15     admitted into evidence.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

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

18             I would join in my colleagues with respect to notes that go to

19     specifically the acts and conduct of the accused, which I think is

20     particular situation here.  This is where we join their objection.

21             I would also like to put on the record that, over the weekend,

22     the Prosecution filed its response to our 92 bis application where it

23     opposed the admission into evidence of a statement taken by the OTP, I

24     think even years before the statements taken that they are trying to

25     admit today that were taken by the MUP.  Our position is that the

Page 11447

 1     Prosecution cannot have it both ways.  A statement taken by Prosecution

 2     which the Defence would like to tender through the cross-examination of a

 3     witness soon to be before the Chamber, to us, from the Prosecution's

 4     perspective, should be more reliable than a note of an interview taken by

 5     the Croatian police.

 6             Nevertheless, we, in particular here with the Gotovina Defence,

 7     are in the position where OTP is objecting to the admission of a

 8     statement taken by the OTP, which we would seek certification for, on the

 9     basis that OTP cannot cross-examination the witness that it, itself,

10     interviewed; while, on the other hand, today coming into court and

11     seeking to tender witness interview notes of the Croatian police, which

12     none of the three defendants can cross-examine.

13             Our broad interest here, Your Honours, is to try to achieve some

14     sort of coherent policy with respect to the admissibility of statements

15     generally.  And if the Prosecution believes that statements given to the

16     Croatian MUP that cannot be cross-examined should be admitted, it is our

17     position that the Chamber should take a similar approach with respect to

18     statements taken by OTP, particularly where the Defence is proposing to

19     the follow the procedures outlined in Rule 92 bis.

20             Thank you, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

22             Ms. Mahindaratne.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I first respond to Mr.

24     Misetic's argument.  I think the jurisprudence here is very clear; that

25     is, a statement obtained for the purpose of judicial proceedings, the

Page 11448

 1     current judicial proceedings, are statements which fall within the scope

 2     of 92 bis, 92 ter, and 92 quater; and unless the requirements of those

 3     rules are fulfilled, they cannot be admitted.  However, a statement which

 4     has been obtained or given to national authorities or other agencies, not

 5     for purposes of this particular proceedings before court, are admissible.

 6     I think that's the current jurisprudence, and, in fact, I can, if

 7     necessary, cite the references in the Haradinaj decision and established

 8     jurisprudence.

 9             So there is a legal basis for the admission of this -- these

10     records of interviews conducted by officials of the Ministry of Interior.

11             Apart from that, Mr. President, there is also a factual basis

12     contrary to what Mr. Cayley said.  This witness is in a position and he

13     has already through his supplementary statement identified these notes.

14     Those were interviews conducted pursuant to an investigation initiated by

15     this witness in 2001.  And upon his instructions -- upon his

16     instructions, the officials of the Ministry of Interior conducted the

17     interviews and then submitted the interview notes to him, and he has

18     perused each one of them.  In fact, in his supplemental statement, he

19     even goes on to say that he identified certain notations and markings on

20     these records of interview made by himself.  So there is a factual basis.

21             Apart from which, based on these notes, the witness has made

22     certain indicia to continue with the investigation.  So, it is not -- it

23     is material that these statements were made, they were recorded; and

24     based often these notes, the witness has made certain indicia.

25             So there is a factual basis and a legal basis for admissibility.

Page 11449

 1     Apart from which, comparison of these statements, particularly if you

 2     compare the record of interview between Veselin Karanovic and Marija

 3     Djuric, there is consistency on the -- between the versions, which adds

 4     to the indicia of reliability.  This is a mere matter of whether that

 5     goes weight that the Trial Chamber will consider at the appropriate

 6     stage.

 7             So my submission is there is a legal basis and factual basis for

 8     admission of these notes for interview, and they differ substantially

 9     from statements obtained by investigators of the OTP or investigators of

10     Defence for purposes of these trial proceedings.

11             With regard to the three press articles addressed by Mr. Cayley,

12     that is, 65 ter 6102 and 6103, they are enclosures to a document that is

13     65 ter 2572; that is, a memo sent by the current witness to the

14     Sibenik-Knin police administration, instructing them to continue with the

15     investigation.  In fact, the witness has enclosed these two articles with

16     that letter and has sent it to the Sibenik-Knin police administration

17     giving them notice that based on those press articles that they are to

18     take certain investigative steps.

19             Now, the Defence has not objected to the letter; that is, 2572.

20     It is included in the 92 ter submission.  These two press articles are,

21     in fact, enclosures.  If you take away the attachments, the letter itself

22     is incomplete, so it does not make any sense to keep away the two press

23     clippings.

24             Apart from which, the relevance of the press clippings is that

25     during the particular time is the fact that the crimes had occurred had

Page 11450

 1     been published in newspapers, which goes to the issue of notice.  So

 2     Mr. Cayley's arguments on the inability to cross-examine the journalist

 3     who wrote the press articles doesn't apply any longer, because it is a

 4     matter that these incidents have been openly published and, as such, is

 5     relevant and has probative value.

 6             I have nothing further to add, Mr. President, unless there is any

 7     particular issue you want me to address.

 8             Mr. President, may I also add - I'm sorry for going back - the

 9     Defence itself has admitted records of interviews made by MUP officials,

10     and if I just give a couple of examples:  D902, an Official Note of

11     interview with Nikola Vucinovic, recorded by Zadar-Knin crime police

12     department; and D8904, the Official Note of interview of David Marincic,

13     by the Zadar-Knin crime police department.

14             These are not witness who were here for any part to

15     cross-examination, and the Defence itself has tendered those notes, so,

16     obviously, the Defence itself acknowledges the admissibility of records

17     of interview made by the Ministry of Interior officials.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, if I did not misunderstand the

19     Defence, the issue is that under no circumstances, an Official Note of an

20     interview could be admitted into evidence, but that the main two issues

21     being the first one if they go to the act and conduct of the

22     accumulative.  Even if they would perhaps not literally fall within the

23     frame of Rule 92 bis, that would be a reason not to admit them.  The

24     second one is that there is no -- that the witness cannot be

25     cross-examined.

Page 11451

 1             Now, of course, admission and the need for cross-examination are

 2     not absolutely values.  If the other party does not find a reason to

 3     cross-examine the witness or if it is about the matter which is dealt

 4     with in other evidence, then, of course, is not whether you can admit OTP

 5     Official Notes or not.  The issue is whether, under the present

 6     circumstances, in view of what the Defence has argued, whether these are

 7     admissible exhibits.

 8             I think that's the issue; isn't it?

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, with regard to -- I would say

10     that that is not an issue on which admissibility is dependant on.  That

11     is a matter that Court will -- which goes to the weight of the documents

12     and not admissibility.  Apart from which, the Prosecution wants to tender

13     these notes to establish that these statements were, in fact, made at

14     that particular time; and based on which, this witness has taken certain

15     steps to continue with the investigation.

16             When weighing the -- the truthfulness of the contents of the

17     documents, the Trial Chamber will have other material which may

18     corroborate or may contradict, and the Trial Chamber will have the

19     opportunity to consider the truthfulness of the contents.  For example,

20     one of the press articles that I wish to tender, in fact, corroborates

21     one of the Official Notes to which the Cermak Defence objected.  For

22     example, the interview note of Journalist Nada Surjak is fully

23     corroborated by the press article to which also the Cermak Defence has

24     objected.

25             So these matters are matters the Trial Chamber will consider

Page 11452

 1     under -- when considering weight to be given to these notes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I can imagine that the Defence would come up with

 3     the argument that if one evidentiary element is non-admissible, that the

 4     fact that another non-admissible element of evidence would corroborate

 5     that, then that would not be of great help to solve the problem.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  I would say that the press

 7     article is clearly admissible because, in fact, the Defence has tendered

 8     several press articles.  I think, in fact, it was in Mr. Cermak's Defence

 9     that started tendering numerous articles, but I don't want to split hairs

10     here, Mr. President.  I just want to point out that the press articles

11     indicate that contemporaneously these incidents were published.  Now,

12     just on that basis, they're admissible, so the press articles are

13     admissible items of evidence.

14             My point is that an admissible item of evidence, in fact,

15     corroborates these admissible notes, and, therefore, the issue argued by

16     Cermak Defence is without merit.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand that you say that since you're

18     so confident that the Chamber will reject the objection raised against

19     the press articles, that under those circumstances you can invoke the

20     press articles as corroboration.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I didn't quite say that, Mr. President.  I'm

22     never confident about that.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you say they're clearly admissible, where the

24     Defence argues that they're not, so that shows at least some confidence

25     in the argument of this debate, and you anticipate already on that.

Page 11453

 1             Mr. Cayley.

 2             MR. CAYLEY:  Yes, Your Honours, if I might just briefly address

 3     the comments of my learned friend.

 4             The MUP Official Notes that are partly the subject of this

 5     application are not formal investigative steps.  They are not part of the

 6     formal judicial investigation that would have taken place in the Republic

 7     of Croatia.  They are, in fact, part of the stage related to preliminary

 8     inquiries in the case.  My understanding of Croatian law - and I think

 9     that Mikulicic will be asking the witness about this - is that these are

10     notes taken by the police submitted to the public prosecutor, who would

11     then submit those to the investigative magistrate who would be the

12     individual who would take formal statements from these witnesses.

13             So, in terms of their status within Croatian proceedings, they

14     are very low, indeed; and you will see, in our motions, they are not

15     admissible as evidence in proceedings in the Republic of Croatia.  I

16     know, respectfully, the Court is not bound by the law of other states,

17     but I do respectfully submit that it is a matter that you should consider

18     when deciding whether or not these particular matters are -- these

19     particular notes are admissible.

20             My learned friend also made the point that reliability goes to

21     weight and not to admissibility, and I would respectfully correct her

22     here, that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal identifies essentially a

23     tipping point.  I call it a tipping point because yes, it is true that

24     admissibility goes to weight, but there comes a point in time when the

25     indicia of reliability is so low in a document that it essentially ticks,

Page 11454

 1     and the particular item in question is no longer admissible particularly,

 2     particularly, where it goes to central issues in the case, such as here

 3     the acts and the conduct of the accused.  I would refer Your Honours to

 4     the 2000 Appeals Chamber decision in Kordic and Cerkez, which is cited to

 5     in our pleadings.

 6             I would also note the decision in the Haradinaj case which was a

 7     decision of this Trial Chamber, which examined statements that had been

 8     taken by national authorities --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, if I may interrupt you, it is now the

10     second time that you say it:  You're right and you're wrong.  You're

11     right to the extent that it is Trial Chamber I, and you're wrong to the

12     extent that the panel of Judges in that case, of course, that there is

13     only one overlap with this case, which is certainly a minority.

14             MR. CAYLEY:  Well, I wasn't suggesting, Your Honour ...

15     [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, no --

17             MR. CAYLEY.  [Overlapping speakers] ... decision of this Chamber.

18     It's of another Trial Chamber in another case, in the Haradinaj case,

19     where statements that were taken by national authorities, so not by the

20     Tribunal itself, not by the Office of the Prosecutor, and which did

21     address the acts and the conduct of the accused that were found to be

22     inadmissible.

23             I can read here from that decision at paragraph 11:  "The Chamber

24     refused to admit the evidence," these were essentially statements

25     compiled by national authorities, "refused to admit the evidence and held

Page 11455

 1     that admitting statements concerning the acts and conduct of the accused

 2     given by persons without the possibility to examine them in court would

 3     create a high risk of prejudice to the Defence."

 4             Your Honours, we assert the same position here.

 5             Lastly, my learned friend stated that this witness can admit

 6     these documents because he has received them.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, you started reading, and I'm just trying

 8     to find paragraph 11, because circumstances were rather specific there;

 9     isn't it?  You were quoting a line, a line saying that a similar caution,

10     even it if not 92 ter statements, is appropriate, and that this is of

11     even greater importance - it says "import" - when the sources are

12     anonymous or unclear and when the material itself contains signs that

13     warrant specific signs as to its reliability.

14             I do remember from that case that there was a rather strong

15     suggestion supported by evidence that people were ill treated when they

16     came to police statements where they statements which, of course, is

17     something which at least I have not found here, until this moment.

18             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, that is a distinction that can be made,

19     but you will see in our filings over the weekend that we do suggest to

20     the Court that there are a number of factors which make these particular

21     MUP official documents unreliable.  Different, you're absolutely right,

22     Your Honour, to the situation in Haradinaj, but nevertheless unreliable.

23             I won't go through them, I rehearsed them to you in my first

24     argument, but we still maintain that they are unreliable, they can't be

25     tested, and we do respectfully say that the Court should be extremely

Page 11456

 1     cautious about admitting them.  In fact, we assert that they should be

 2     reject.

 3             Lastly, the last point I make is simply this:  My learned friend

 4     stated that this witness can admit these documents because he can

 5     identify them because he received them.  Well, frankly, I could admit

 6     those documents on them because I have received them and I can identify

 7     them, but I can't say anything about the content of these documents about

 8     what the witness's has actually stated.

 9             This particular gentleman, whilst he is the public prosecutor, he

10     was the public prosecutor on this case, he did not attend these witness

11     interviews, and he cannot give evidence to this Court on what was

12     actually said in those interviews.

13             That is all that I wish to say, Your Honours.  Thank you very

14     much.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  As far as the press articles are concerned,

16     Mr. Cayley, where Ms. Mahindaratne says it is not because I think this

17     journalist would know what had happened, but the importance is this type

18     of publications appeared at the time.  Therefore, it seems to me that the

19     evidentiary -- the probative value, rather, is in the fact that these

20     stories were published, rather than to the truth of their contents.  Is

21     that correct?

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's correct, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley.

24             MR. CAYLEY:  Well, if the Prosecution is saying that that is the

25     only reason that these documents are being admitted, that is one thing;

Page 11457

 1     but these documents do contain suggestions, assertions about the acts and

 2     content of Mr. Cermak.  I do believe that my learned friend was talking

 3     about corroboration of these sources by other evidence that is before the

 4     Court.  On that basis, particularly bearing in mind that there is

 5     journalistic comment, particularly bearing in mind that it is very, very

 6     difficult to identify the sources of these stories, we would still object

 7     to those newspaper articles because we cannot cross-examine this witness

 8     on acts and conduct.  Notice, I accept, is another matter.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Cayley.

10             Mr. Misetic.

11             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President, just briefly in response

12     on the 92 bis issue.

13             Ms. Mahindaratne attempts to make the distinction that the

14     statements taken by OTP were taken for purposes of this proceeding and,

15     therefore, they are inadmissible because Rule 92 bis requirements have

16     not been fulfilled.  That seems to be a rather circular argument, Your

17     Honour, because the fact of the matter is we have asked for the Rule 92

18     bis requirements to be fulfilled, and the Office of the Prosecutor is

19     objecting to allowing us to fulfil the Rule 92 bis retirements, on the

20     basis that the statements are not subject to cross-examination by the

21     Prosecution and are otherwise not reliable.

22             So it is a rather circular argument to say that that is what the

23     distinction is between OTP statements and statements given to the

24     Croatian police.

25             The OTP's position in objecting to 92 bis application is

Page 11458

 1     precisely that, A, they cannot cross-examine the statement given to them;

 2     and, B, that this witness in the 92 bis filing was not disclosed by the

 3     Defence and under Rule 65.  Well, those two issues are at play here;

 4     similarly, they are now trying to tender statements, albeit given to the

 5     Croatian police, that, A, are not subject to cross-examination by the

 6     Defence, and, B, involving witnesses who were not disclosed pursuant to

 7     Rule 65 ter

 8             So I would suggest, Your Honour, that the Prosecution is

 9     attempting to have it both ways here.

10             More broadly, and just as a matter of policy and for guidance

11     from the Trial Chamber, on this issue that the -- any statement given to

12     a party in these proceedings, that statement is inadmissible, per se,

13     unless the requirements of 92 bis and Rule 92 -- and/or Rule 92 ter are

14     fulfilled.

15             I would suggest that, Your Honour, that is an artificial

16     distinction being created.  While I completely understand that principle

17     with respect to statements taken by a party and then being tendered by

18     that party into evidence, there is an clear policy that would not support

19     such a practice by either the Prosecution or Defence.

20             We are in a different situation here and one that, perhaps, I

21     might suggest was not contemplated by Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 ter, which

22     is that statement taken by the opposing party, where the opposing party

23     was the one who had the opportunity to interview the witness and to

24     record what it is that that witness said in the interview, should

25     indicate that that statement is at least as reliable for the Trial

Page 11459

 1     Chamber as a statement given to a third party; in this case, the Croatian

 2     police.  And what I am -- would particularly seek some clarification or

 3     guidance on is the fact that what is the real policy distinction or the

 4     real issue of reliability if in fact a statement given to -- between a

 5     statement given to an opposing party within these proceedings and where

 6     we are attempting to fulfil the requirements of Rule 92 bis, why that

 7     statement should be deemed less reliable than a statement given to a

 8     non-party where the requirements of neither Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 ter

 9     are being fulfilled.

10             I would suggest, Your Honour, that these are artificial

11     distinctions that the Prosecution, in light of the arguments that it

12     raised in opposition to our Rule 92 bis filing, should either be required

13     to allow statements in -- in cross-examination if in fact the

14     requirements of the rules are fulfilled; or, if not, then should not be

15     allowed to tender witness statements of non-parties into evidence,

16     because the principles should be the same, Your Honour.

17             Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, the argument that you can't have

19     the cake and eat it, could you please respond to that.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I think it is, needless to say,

21     that 92 bis is a -- 92 bis, 92 quater is -- they are exceptional

22     situations; that is, unless the conditions are fulfilled for a 92 bis

23     admission, they would not admitted.

24             Now, in the same vein, where the Prosecution attempts to tender

25     statements under 92 bis, the Defence would object if the Defence is of

Page 11460

 1     the view that we have not fulfilled the particular criteria that is

 2     required for admission of a statement under 92 bis.  And, likewise, in

 3     the given situation, the Defence attempted to admit a statement where the

 4     Prosecution was of the view that the -- the witness could be brought to

 5     court and be subject to cross-examination, and unless the specific

 6     conditions have been fulfilled, you know, we had the right to object and

 7     I think the final decision as to whether it was a matter which warrants a

 8     statement to be admitted under 92 bis will be determined by Court.

 9             So the fact that we objected to that given situation where the

10     Defence attempted to admit a statement under 92 bis does not in any way

11     contradict what I stated earlier with regard to the fact that statements

12     which fall within the scope of 92 bis, 92 quater, and 92 ter, unless the

13     criteria is fulfilled, would not be allowed to be admitted, as opposed to

14     statements which fall outside that scope.  I don't think the Prosecution

15     was trying to have the cake and eat it, contrary to what Mr. Misetic

16     stated.  It is just that in that given scenario the Prosecution was

17     satisfied that it had a basis to file an objection because we were of the

18     view that the Defence had not fulfilled, or the situation had not -- was

19     not of a -- the required conditions which would permit admission under

20     92 bis.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.  I must admit that I have

22     missed the response by the Prosecution against this matter and, of

23     course, it is now put into play, so to say.  So, therefore, I -- there

24     was a lot of material filed, whereas I usually and my colleagues are very

25     often very much available over the weekend.  That's not the same for

Page 11461

 1     every weekend.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I did not get you.  Did you say

 3     when you said you missed the response with regard to the 92 bis objection

 4     or ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  My response now or the --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, no. Your response now, it was clear and well

 8     understood what you said, but the written submissions.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  We did not file written submissions,

10     Mr. President, but with regard to the 92 bis, I could get the objections

11     to Court.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  But I think, as a matter of fact, someone said had

13     been filed over the weekend.  So, therefore, this could also have been

14     perhaps an a courtesy copy already given.  Yes, but I hope the parties

15     will understand that if the courtesy copies are flying over in the

16     weekend and if the Chamber is not receiving copies, usually we wait until

17     a matter is filed unless we have a specific reason to expect that

18     something comes in, in which case we often ask for a courtesy copy.

19             My recollection is that the -- that we asked when a response

20     would be filed, and I think the answer we got at that time, that it would

21     be on Friday.  Ms. Mahindaratne, on the 92 bis.  I think I specifically

22     asked for that because we saw that there was some urgency in that matter.

23             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I can advise you that the OTP did in

24     fact file it Friday evening and serve courtesy copies on the parties and

25     the Chamber on Friday evening.

Page 11462

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but, nevertheless then, I have missed that --

 2     those written submissions.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to

 6     take much more of your time or go over the same grounds again.  However,

 7     the exchange of arguments between the OTP and the Defence teams somehow

 8     implies that we're talking about witness statements.  However, I repeat,

 9     Official Notes compiled by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of

10     Croatia are not witness statements because they're not signed and they

11     don't contain any information to the witness about their right and

12     obligations.

13             This is simply a piece of paper produced by the MUP after an

14     interview with a certain person, X/Y.  Thus, this is not a statement, and

15     such a piece of paper, especially in the absence of the person who --

16     from whom the -- that piece of paper originated, cannot be subject to

17     Rules 92, bis, or ter, or whatever other rules.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it is clear if there is no attestation from

19     those person that they cannot be introduced or admitted under Rule

20     92 ter.  But that seems not to be the primary issue.  The issue primarily

21     seems to be whether there other avenues through which the statements and

22     then for what purposes they could be admitted into evidence.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I just add one thing, just

24     in response to what Mr. Cayley said, just a minor -- just a correction.

25     This witness did not merely receive, and I said this before but I -- just

Page 11463

 1     so -- just to respond to Mr. Cayley.  These notes were obtained, recorded

 2     pursuant to the witness's instructions.  He was directing the

 3     investigation.  I just wanted to point out that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think you said that out already, but at

 5     least -- and if so, it is now twice on the record.

 6             This is now twice on the record as well, the evidentiary status

 7     of these documents, under Croatian law.

 8             The Chamber will need some time to consider both the written

 9     submissions and an oral argument that has been made this morning.

10             It is difficult to forecast time we would need.  The parties are

11     invited to remain stand by.

12                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I was informed that there was a technical problem as

14     well, with moving from one kind of session into other kind of session, a

15     matter which needs the urgent attention of our technicians.

16             Therefore, under those circumstances, and which -- just looking

17     at the clock, if we would restart at 10.30, so then we have a relatively

18     long break now, and that with one other short break, we might come

19     through this morning.  Therefore, the parties are invited to remain stand

20     by, well, let's say, on from 25 minutes past 10.00.

21                           --- Recess taken at 9.55 a.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has considered the various matters, and

24     gives guidance to the parties as follows.

25             On the admission of the exhibits which were objected, the Chamber

Page 11464

 1     gives a final decision on one only at this stage.  The Chamber will not

 2     admit into evidence the Official Note compiled on the 10th of January,

 3     2002, which relates to an interview conducted in the Zagreb police

 4     administration on the 9th of January 2002 of, well, let's say, the

 5     interview given by Mr. Cermak.

 6             As far as the other exhibits are concerned, the Chamber invites

 7     the parties to have them marked for identification if there's any

 8     objection against any of these documents, because the Chamber has

 9     difficulties at this moment, where the witness is still available, to

10     finally assess whether any reliability concerns are opposing admission.

11     So, therefore, we'll take advantage of the availability of this witness,

12     and at the very end, we'll decide on the admission.

13             Then there was another matter that is about a 92 bis submission

14     made by the Defence opposed by the Prosecution.  At this moment, the

15     Chamber is struggling with the stage of the proceedings, and we'll still

16     have to finally make up our mind whether or not this is an appropriate

17     way of proceeding.  That's an element which is entirely apart from the

18     other matter raised therein, that is, the strict 92 bis requirements, and

19     whether the position taken by Prosecution, what consequences that should

20     have finally for the decision to be taken on the admission of exhibits,

21     specialty the Official Notes that were or at least that will be tendered

22     and provisionally marked for identification.

23             At least, Ms. Mahindaratne, where you said you withdraw one, I

24     take it that then you will tender the others.

25             We'll see that in the context of the respective submissions from

Page 11465

 1     both parties, and then take them into consideration.  But the timing, at

 2     this stage of the proceedings, of course, is a matter which is rather

 3     separate from that, and, therefore, the Chamber is not in a position yet

 4     to decide on that matter.  But, of course, we'll have to do that soon

 5     because the witness, through which this 92 bis material would be

 6     introduced, is on the list rather soon.

 7             So, therefore, if this may guide the parties on how to proceed in

 8     the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, then the Chamber will

 9     finally decide on the matter.  Then the reasons for already now deciding

10     not to admit the Official Note in relation to the, if I could say, the

11     Cermak interview, those will be given at a later stage.  That needs some

12     careful formulation.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I note you didn't mention anything

14     about the articles.  Is that included?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Articles are included, yes, at the same level.

16     Also, we'll deal with them, you can put questions about them.  There are

17     many elements in those articles as we have discussed before the break,

18     such as, that it was published, what was published.  Apparently, there is

19     also mentioning of what supposedly had been said by the accused.  So,

20     therefore, that will be dealt with in a similar way.

21             At the same time, just to give an example, there is corroboration

22     about many days of rain, for example.  That is a relatively neutral

23     element in the whole of it, but, of course, it's a complex matter, and

24     we'll finally decide on whether it goes to weight or whether it goes to

25     admission.

Page 11466

 1             Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to call your the witness?

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  The Prosecution calls

 3     Mr. Zeljko Zganjer.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Zganjer, yes.  No protective measures?

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7                           [The witness entered court]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Zganjer.  I hope that I pronounced

 9     your name in the right way.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, sure, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Which also confirms that you can hear me in a

12     language you understand.

13             Mr. Zganjer, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of

14     Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that

15     you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16             May I invite you to make that solemn declaration of which the

17     text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

19     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.  Please be seated.

21                                WITNESS:  ZELJKO ZGANJER

22                                [The witness answered through interpreter]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Zganjer, I saw that you took some documents out

24     of your bag.  If during your examination you would feel any need to

25     consult any document, would you please tell me so that it's clear when

Page 11467

 1     you are and when you're not consulting your documents.

 2             Mr. Zganjer, you will first be examined by Ms. Mahindaratne.

 3     Ms. Mahindaratne is counsel for the Prosecution.

 4             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6                           Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:

 7        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Zganjer.

 8        A.   Good morning.

 9        Q.   Can you please state your full name for the record, please.

10        A.   Zeljko Zganjer.

11        Q.   What is your current occupation?

12        A.   At this moment, I am a lawyer in Zagreb; I have my own private

13     office.

14        Q.   On 8th December 2005 and 12th July 2006, were you interviewed by

15     members of the Office of the Prosecutor?

16        A.   Yes, that's right.  November 2008 and July 2006.

17        Q.   How about 8 December 2005, Mr. Zganjer?  Do you recall being

18     interviewed in 2005, December?

19        A.   I agree.

20        Q.   In the course of those two interviews when the representatives of

21     the Office of the Prosecutor asked you questions, did you answer them

22     truthfully?

23        A.   I answered truthfully and to the extent of my recollection of the

24     details involved.  I was asked questions about the circumstances of some

25     things that happened five or six years before, perhaps even more.

Page 11468

 1        Q.   Now, were those two interviews audio-recorded?

 2        A.   Yes, tape-recorded.

 3        Q.   Did you meet with members of the Office of the Prosecutor on

 4     4th and 5th November 2008?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Were you provided with audiotapes and the corresponding

 7     transcripts of those tapes in advance of that meeting?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   At that meeting --

10        A.   If I may, I would like to clarify something.  I was provided with

11     the tapes of my interview.  During the actual interview, on the 8th and

12     9th of November this year, I was given an addendum to my previous

13     interview with the ICTY investigators which was something that had not

14     been forwarded to me via e-mail.  I looked at the addendum, and I have

15     had a chance to familiarize myself with its substance before coming here

16     to testify.

17        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, I was going to ask you about the addendum which is

18     the supplementary statement, if you would allow me.

19             At that meeting - you referred to "addendum," and we use the term

20     "supplementary statement" here - at that meeting, did you provide a

21     supplementary statement to the Office of the Prosecutor; that is, on the

22     4th and 5th of November, 2008?

23        A.   Yes.  I supplemented my statement, and I explained some things

24     during my interview with the Prosecutor on the 8th and 9th of November,

25     2008.

Page 11469

 1        Q.   Yes, I was getting to that, Mr. Zganjer.  I don't intend to in

 2     any event not to lead that evidence, so if you just allow me.

 3             Now, at that meeting, did you inform the representatives of the

 4     Office of the Prosecutor that you had reviewed the transcripts of your

 5     previous two interviews and that you made -- wanted to make a

 6     clarification.  Subject to that clarification, subject the contents of

 7     the transcripts were accurate and true?

 8        A.   That's true.  What you suggest is true.  There were

 9     clarifications, and the transcript of my interview was made to reflect

10     that.

11        Q.   And last evening, or perhaps this morning, did you have the

12     opportunity to examine your supplementary statement that you gave on the

13     4th and 5th November?

14        A.   Yes, I did have the opportunity.

15        Q.   And did the supplementary statement accurately reflect what you

16     had stated to the members of the Office of the Prosecutor on 4th and 5th

17     November?

18        A.   Yes, it did.  There were some additional explanations that were

19     furnished, which I believe resulted in a greater degree of precision.

20        Q.   Now, are the contents of the supplementary statement true, to the

21     best of your knowledge?

22        A.   Indeed, true to the extent that I can recollect.

23        Q.   Now, if you were asked the questions that were asked of you by

24     members of the Office of the Prosecutor on 8th December 2005, that is,

25     December 2005 interview; on 12th July 2006; and on 4th and 5th

Page 11470

 1     November 2008, today here in court, would your responses be the same?

 2     When I say "same," one would not expect it to be verbatim, but would the

 3     substance be the same?

 4        A.   Yes, no doubt.  I believe it would be essentially all the same.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I wish to move into evidence

 6     the -- the tapes and the transcripts of the two interviews, and I refer

 7     to them by the 65 ter number and the supplementary statement.  The first

 8     interview, that is, the interview of 8 December 2005, is under 65 ter

 9     6083, and that includes four transcripts.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections against admission of 6083.

11             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

13             Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1046.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  P1046 is admitted into evidence.

16             The next one would be, Ms. Mahindaratne.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  65 ter 6084, and that's the interview on 12th

18     July 2006.  That includes five transcripts.  Mr. President, I want to

19     clarify the record.  There are six tapes but only five transcripts.  They

20     capture all six, and let me explain.  The tape bearing ERN number

21     T0005443 has side A and B, and there are corresponding transcripts to

22     that; then there are two tapes bearing ERN T0005444, which has side A

23     and B.  There are two transcripts corresponding to those two tapes.  Then

24     there are two final tapes, T0005445, side A and B; but there is only one

25     transcript which captured both tapes.  So, hence, the five transcripts.

Page 11471

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that clarification.

 2             No objections against 6084.

 3             Mr. Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1047.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  P1047 is admitted into evidence.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could call on the screen, Mr.  Registrar,

 7     6105; that is, the supplementary statement of 4th and 5th November.

 8        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, in a moment, you'll see on your screen a statement,

 9     and if you could just look at it.

10             Is this the first page --

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  We will wait for the B/C/S document to come

12     up, and, Mr.  Registrar, if you could go to the bottom of that page.

13        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, is that the cover page of your supplementary

14     statement provided on 4th and 5th November, 2008?

15        A.   Yes, that's the page.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr. Registrar, if we move to the not the

17     last page, but one before the last page, and if we could ...

18        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, do you recognise your signature at the bottom of the

19     page, under the declaration, if you could wait for the B/C/S to come up.

20             Is that your statement that you just saw?

21        A.   Indeed, that is my signature.  There is no doubt about that.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I wish to move into evidence a

23     supplement statement, dated 4th and 5th November 2008, 65 ter 6105.

24             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] No objections, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

Page 11472

 1             Mr. Registrar, 6105 would be?

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P1048, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P1048 is admitted into evidence.

 4             Ms. Mahindaratne, in view of the earlier guidance or ruling, may

 5     I take it that documents you want to tender from the bar table, of

 6     course, perhaps in relation with the remainder of the testimony of the

 7     witness, that you would usually have it tendered, but that we already

 8     know that if you would give that information at this moment, that

 9     everything would be marked for identification for the time being.

10     Documents you will specifically deal with, of course, will get

11     immediately an MFI number; whereas, the others will have to wait until a

12     final list has been produced.

13             I'm talking about the very practical matter of numbering.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's anything would you like to raise with the

16     witness during the examination-in-chief, I suggest that it will be given

17     the MFI number immediately, and whatever then remains, if there is

18     anything to be tendered from the bar table, then --

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.  I have already

20     tendered 19 documents from the bar table of which I have --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But usually some documents are nevertheless

22     dealt with.  I don't know whether that is it your intention or not.  Then

23     sometimes that list becomes shorter.  Then, of course, what then remains

24     is for the registrar to provisionally assign numbers; that is, to give

25     them MFI numbers to those documents.

Page 11473

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'll keep that in mind.  Whenever I deal with

 2     a document in the bar table submission, I will inform the Court of that.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             At the same time, Mr. Zganjer, I have to -- Mr. Zganjer, you're

 5     looking at Ms. Mahindaratne, but I'm speaking to you at this moment.

 6             Mr. Zganjer, this is also perhaps a good moment to explain to you

 7     why you had to wait for a while.  There were some procedural aspects of

 8     documents you had been referring to, which were raised last Friday and

 9     over the weekend and which were further discussed this mourning in court,

10     and the Chamber had to take some time to give a ruling and or to give

11     guidance on these matters.  So that is why you had to wait for such a

12     long time before you were invited to enter the courtroom, just for you to

13     you know.

14             Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             One other thing, Mr. President, the Prosecution filed a motion to

17     add three documents, that is, 65 ter 6102 and 6103, in relation to which

18     there is an objection regarding admissibility, but this is with regard to

19     the motion to add, as well as 6088.  Mr. President, they are documents

20     which were not in the 65 ter list, if I could have a decision.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

22             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. President, only that standing objection that

23     we've made in respect of those documents.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Which will finally materialise in our decision on

25     admission, rather than on being added to the 65 ter list; is that how I

Page 11474

 1     have to understand it?

 2             Then leave is granted, Ms. Mahindaratne, to add them to the

 3     65 ter list, but this is not a decision yet on admission into evidence.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             May I read a summary of the witness's testimony at this stage,

 7     Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You have explained to the witness the purpose of

 9     this, I take it.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Zeljko Zganjer was the deputy to the head

13     state attorney of the Republic of Croatia from February 2003 to

14     February 2006.  During the period relevant to the indictment, and until

15     September 2002, he served as a county state attorney for Sibenik.

16             Mr. Zganjer provides information relating to the structure and

17     workings of the law enforcement and judicial system in Croatia.  His

18     evidence covers the procedure followed by the military and civilian

19     police to investigate crimes, the involvement and role of the state

20     prosecutor and the investigating judge in such investigations, and the

21     procedure relating to the processing of crime.

22             The witness provides information concerning the investigations

23     and prosecutions undertaken by the Croatian authorities with respect to

24     crimes committed during and in the aftermath Operation Storm.

25             The witness was directly involved in, amongst others, the

Page 11475

 1     investigation of the killing incidents in Gosic and Varivode.  In 2001,

 2     the witness initiated an investigation into the incident in Grubori which

 3     occurred on 25th August 1995.

 4             That is all, Mr. President.  I could move on with the

 5     examination.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I have permission of Court

 8     to hand over the binder of hard copies of his statement and transcripts

 9     to the witness.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That is usual practice, so since I hear of no

11     objections, you may hand it over.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, let me just explain, so that there won't be any

14     interruptions when you move.  The binder right at the top has your

15     supplementary statement given in November, and thereafter the interview

16     notes are attached with tab markings which indicate which interview notes

17     are enclosed.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I call document 2572,

19     please.

20             Mr. President, this is a document which was included in the

21     92 ter motion, but in view of the guidelines with regard to documentation

22     received today, I'm calling it up right now.

23             So, Mr.  Registrar, if you could take a note of it.

24        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, if I could just take you to paragraph 13 of your

25     supplementary statement.

Page 11476

 1             Mr. Zganjer, before you go to the document, if I could ask you to

 2     look at paragraph 13.

 3             At paragraph 13, for the record, P1048, you state that you're

 4     shown a memo, dated 31st May 2001, which you say:  "... which I sent to

 5     the Sibenik-Knin crime police department.  The memo concerns the killings

 6     in Grubori in August 1995, and also attaches media articles relating to

 7     these events."

 8             And you refer to the memo -- the reference number of the memo.

 9     Is that the memo you referred to in paragraph 13?

10        A.   Yes, that is the memo.  If I may just make one observation,

11     paragraph 13 talks about the 31st of March 2001; whereas, the memo that

12     I'm looking at on my screen bears the date the 31st of May, if I'm not

13     mistaken 2001.  Nevertheless, the substance of the memo is consistent

14     with the one that I was thinking of.  I do notice that one discrepancy

15     concerning the date.

16        Q.   I think, Mr. Zganjer, it must be a translation error in the

17     Croatian version of the statement, because in the English statement which

18     you have signed, the date is correctly recorded as 31st May 2001.

19             Moving on, you have attached two media articles and sent it to

20     the Sibenik-Knin police administration, and you go on to say this, and

21     I'm reading paragraph 2 of the document which is on the screen:  "For the

22     purposes of the criminal investigation processing, I am enclosing copies

23     of articles published in the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija," pardon my

24     pronunciation, "on 25th, 26th, and 29th August 1995, entitled 'Mopping-up

25     operation:  Five Chetniks killed and Reaper with a machine-gun,' which

Page 11477

 1     discussed the incident in Grubori hamlet in detail."

 2             Then in the next paragraph, you go on to say:  "In addition to

 3     the persons referred to in the article, 'Reaper with a machine-gun,'

 4     interviews also need to be conducted with citizens Draginja Djuric and

 5     Marija Djuric, who, according to information gathered, have some

 6     knowledge of the incident."

 7             In the next paragraph, you say:  "I reiterate may insistence that

 8     all measures and actions set out in the aforesaid request be implemented

 9     as a matter of urgency."

10             Now, what was the reason which led to you to send these press

11     articles to the Sibenik-Knin police administration?  Why did you consider

12     that relevant to the investigation?

13        A.   Any information on an incident that the state prosecutor happens

14     to be looking into might prove helpful in what we refer to as pre-trial

15     investigations.  We work on collecting the evidence of any crimes and

16     their potential perpetrators.  It is in that light that the media

17     articles should be viewed.

18             Again, as I said in the memo, these focussed on the incident in

19     Grubori.  As far as I can now remember, actual names were given in those

20     media articles, names of citizens who knew something about what had

21     happened.  Therefore, in my assessment, these articles were useful, or

22     potentially useful, in terms of helping us find out a number of things

23     that at a later stage in the proceedings might have proved helpful.

24             MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... regards to

25     the translation, Your Honour.

Page 11478

 1             Again, it seems that we have a problem.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, if there is a problem, you know how

 3     to resolve that.  We invite then the witness to repeat a portion of his

 4     answer.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  Of course, Your Honour --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll ask specific attention of the

 7     interpreters for that portion, and then if anything remains, then we'll

 8     ask the witness to take off his headphones.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, I'm aware of it, Your Honour.  What I'm

10     referring to is a statement of the witness, which was put into the

11     transcript under page 37 and line 10.  It relates to the part of the

12     proceedings which has been translated as a "pre-trial investigation."

13     That kind of translation is something that is not accurate to the what

14     witness said.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll ask the witness to repeat what he said, and

16     then if there's any discussion, so that we first try to avoid whatever

17     mistake, and if then there's another matter remaining, then we'll look at

18     that.  If you --

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay.  Page 37, line 10.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  I see what most likely the issue may be.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  I mean, this is specific to the Croatian law.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's follow the order I suggested, that is, that we

23     first exclude for any possibility that there is a mistake, and then if

24     there's any legal matter to be discussed, that we can do it.

25             Your answer was, and I now read it in English:  "Any information

Page 11479

 1     on an incident that the state prosecutor happens to be looking into might

 2     prove helpful in what we refer to as ..."

 3             Then could you repeat what you then said?

 4             Because may I take it that that is the issue, Mr. Mikulicic.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's what I thought it would be.

 7             So what you referred to as what exactly?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was very specific.  I said that,

 9     at this stage, we were dealing with pre-criminal proceedings.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MR. MIKULICIC:  I think this type of translation, as we are

12     facing now in the transcript, is more accurate.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Apparently, what I understand your request for

14     clarification is such, Mr. Mikulicic, that you would say we have not yet

15     entered the stage where criminal proceedings have started, but have not

16     yet reached the trial stage, but this is a kind of an introduction to

17     what may become criminal investigation, criminal proceedings.  Is that

18     correctly understood?

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  That is precisely what I had

20     in my mind.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

22             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             May I tender that document into evidence, Mr. President.  As I

25     said, it is already included in the 92 ter submission.

Page 11480

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objections, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1049.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  P1049 is admitted into evidence.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may have I document number

 7     6103, please.

 8             And, Mr. President, for the record, two articles referred to in

 9     the previous document, that is, P1049, have been included, but we have

10     not been able to secure the third article.  I just wanted to clarify that

11     for the record.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, these, at least all three of them, were

13     attached to the letter.  Do you now keep them separate as you did before,

14     that is, that the articles are appear on your bar table list; or do you

15     consider the two newspaper articles to be attached and to be part of

16     P1049?

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is so, Mr. President, as attachments to

18     P1049.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And they have been uploaded as such into

20     e-court?

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  At the moment, this is

22     pursuant to the objection, so we have to adjust it.  Accordingly, at the

23     moment, they are separate documents.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is exactly why I was asking.  I said

25     P1049 is admitted into evidence, and, of course, this would not include

Page 11481

 1     in accordance with the ruling I gave earlier or the guidance I gave

 2     earlier.  So what we have to do now is to have MFI numbers for the two

 3     articles.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  That is why, although

 5     they are referred to in P1049, I would bring them up and deal with the

 6     witness, so that the Trial Chamber would have relevant testimony required

 7     for assessment of these documents.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, I do not know what specific

 9     questions you would like to put to the witness in relation it this press

10     articles.  Perhaps, apart from that these were the ones, I don't know

11     whether that's a matter which could be agreed upon by the parties.

12             I'm just wondering what exercise we're now engaging in.

13             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. President, I mean, if simply I think the point

14     you're make is if the witness received these documents, or if the witness

15     transmitted these document to the police, we don't disagree with that.

16             I mean, I think we can move very quickly.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... that is not an issue --

18             MR. CAYLEY:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  if that's the only

19     point, then --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to put further questions, then, of

21     course, Ms. Mahindaratne, we'll have to look at them.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I have one further question.

25             If I could have on the English translation, Mr.  Registrar,

Page 11482

 1     number 06436582.  That is the cover page, the caption under photograph.

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Zganjer, while that is being done, you could obviously

 3     follow the B/C/S document.

 4             Under that photograph of Mr. Cermak and another person, it

 5     reads --

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could, Mr.  Registrar, focus on that

 7     caption just below the photograph.

 8             I wonder if it could be brought up further so that the witness

 9     could read that small caption under the photograph.

10        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, are you able to read that caption under the

11     photograph?

12        A.   Indeed.

13        Q.   And it reads:  "'If I had wronged Croatian, I would have fled

14     like the others did,' Veselin Karanovic explains to General Cermak in

15     Grubori."  Is that correct?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  "Is that correct," Ms. Mahindaratne, is not a

17     very --

18             MR. CAYLEY:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour, yes --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't have to ask the witness that, unless there

20     is a translation issue.

21             Please put --

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

23             I have one question relevant question.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Come with relate question --

25             MR. CAYLEY:  Mr. President, could I just for the purpose of the

Page 11483

 1     record.  I mean, you know what I'm go to say, Your Honour.  She can't ask

 2     questions -- asking the witness to simply read this article, trying to

 3     establish the truth of the document, it's not a proper exercise, and I

 4     object to it.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President, that was not the objective

 6     at all.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's be clear.  If we have an original and a

 8     translation in which there is text, then there is no need to ask a

 9     witness whether that is what the document reads.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  I was just creating sort

11     of a preliminary question for the required -- the question that I want to

12     ask, which is relevant.  It is not in any way an inappropriate exercise.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Then first put that question to the witness.

14             And, Mr. Zganjer, I would like you to perhaps wait a second with

15     answering the question, so that if there would be any objection, that it

16     can be raised before you answer that question.

17             Ms. Mahindaratne.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

19        Q.   Now, in the course of the investigation initiated by you in 2001,

20     did the Sibenik-Knin crime police interview Veselin Karanovic and submit

21     the official record of that interview to you?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You may answer the question.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  As far as I remember, I think

24     there was no Official Note reflecting an interview with Veselin

25     Karanovic.  I don't think a record of that interview was ever submitted

Page 11484

 1     to me, again to the best of my recollection.

 2             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, just one point.  I'm not objecting to

 3     that question, but I'm just objecting to the characterization.  I think

 4     Mr. Mikulicic has already stated this.  My learned friend is using the

 5     term "investigation," and this was not an investigation under Croatian

 6     law.  The investigation would have started at the point in time when the

 7     investigative magistrate took matters up.  This was actually prior to the

 8     formal investigation, as far as I understand Croatian law.  So I would

 9     just ask that the questions be characterised in that fashion.

10             Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you're invited to express yourself

12     as precise as possible.  On the other hand, there is no need to further

13     intervene if anyone makes a mistake, because if ever -- the Chamber is

14     now fully aware that it should clearly distinguish between all the

15     different stages of any efforts to find out the truth about matters that

16     have been reported and which may have a criminal implication, and this is

17     the general term for a very general, very general phenomenon which is

18     often referred to as an investigation at its different stages.

19             Please proceed.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, is it possible that you probably have forgotten.

22     Let me take you to paragraph 18 of your supplementary statement, where

23     you did, in fact, examine Mr. Karanovic's official record of interview.

24        A.   I apologise, Your Honours.  This note obviously exists in the

25     file.  It was shown to me.  I'm sure that I had it before me during this

Page 11485

 1     interview, and I confirm that that was one of the notes that I had

 2     received during the pre-criminal proceedings by the police.  That's why I

 3     would like to correct my previous statement, or, rather, what I said just

 4     a while ago.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I move this into evidence,

 6     and I do note --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You're asking for it to be marked for

 8     identification?

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1050,

12     marked for identification.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And it keeps that status.

14             Please proceed.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And I will just, from the bar table,

16     Mr. President, tender 65 ter 6102, which is the other media article.

17             Mr. Registrar, if could you bring it up and give it a numbering,

18     an MFI numbering.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just check to see what we have.

20             Yes, Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1051,

22     marked for identification.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25             Mr. Registrar, if I could have document number 6085, please.

Page 11486

 1        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, let me, in fairness to you, since you forgot, let me

 2     just bring up Mr. Karanovic's statement, so that you can examine it and

 3     which you referred to at paragraph 13 -- sorry, 18 of your statement.

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, with all due respect, I don't mean

 5     to intervene, but it keeps getting called a "statement."  It is not a

 6     statement.  It is an Official Note, and I think we need to be precise

 7     here.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.  I will rephrase.

 9        Q.   The official record of interview --

10        A.   Yes.  This is precisely the Official Note recorded after the

11     interview with Citizen Karanovic.  You showed it to me either on the 8th

12     or 9th of November of this year during my interview.

13        Q.   That was 4th and 5th, Mr. Zganjer.  I just wanted to correct the

14     record.

15        A.   Very well.  The 4th or the 5th, yes.

16        Q.   Now, do you know what led to the criminal police to interview

17     Mr. Karanovic?  Was it pursuant to your instructions or what was the

18     factor that led them to interview him?

19        A.   It was very obvious; the reasons were quite clear.  Veselin

20     Karanovic resided in the territory at the time, at the moment when this

21     incident occurred.  The mere fact pointed to a possibility that he might

22     have certain information about the events that were subject of my

23     interest, as well as the subject of the police operations after the

24     incident that had taken place in Grubori.

25        Q.   Now, can you tell Court as to what procedure or what methods did

Page 11487

 1     the police follow in conducting these interviews?  To start off, where

 2     were these interviews conducted?

 3        A.   I personally was not present during that interview.  I can't tell

 4     you whether that interview was conducted on the premises of the police

 5     administration of the county of Sibenik and Knin, or that maybe it was

 6     conducted at the place of residence of Citizen Veselin Karanovic who was

 7     interviewed.

 8             As I look at the Official Note on the screen, I can't see where

 9     the interview actually took place, but I allow that it may have been one

10     of the locations that I have mentioned.

11        Q.   And how do those Official Notes assist you in your investigation?

12     Did you consider these notes as usual for your investigation?

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'm just going to object to the question as

14     being pretty leading.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, let me just --

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  At page 47 line 3, the question was:  "... these

17     notes as useful for your investigation," and that's what I'm objecting

18     to.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I started off by saying --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course.  Of course, we could ask, "Did you

21     consider them useful or not useful."  Of course, a question has to focus

22     on something and it's not on whether the witness liked the typewriting of

23     it or whether he preferred long or short ones.  I mean, these are all

24     questions in relation to that.

25             So we have to focus one way or the other, Mr. Kuzmanovic.

Page 11488

 1             Could you please tell us whether you consider these Official Note

 2     useful or not useful for the work you had to do?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours, I

 4     would like to clarify one thing.

 5             This Official Note that we have in the file, according to the

 6     Croatian penal code and according to the rules of the criminal procedure,

 7     is not evidence.  It is just --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... no doubt.  It's not the

 9     subject of the question to you, that whether it is evidence or not.  The

10     question was whether it helped you in performing your duties, and not

11     whether it could be used in evidence in court at a later stage.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, it was useful in this

13     pre-criminal proceedings.  It was a piece of information provided by

14     Mr. Karanovic as to what he knew and what he might tell us in the

15     criminal proceedings against perpetrators, i.e., what he might be able to

16     provide as a witness in court.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may this document be tendered

18     into evidence.  This is again a document included in the bar table

19     motion.

20             Mr. Registrar, if you would take note.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             No objections.

23             Mr. Registrar.

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Subject to the MFI -- these are MFIs?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course.

Page 11489

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1052,

 2     marked for identification.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And it keeps that status for the time being.

 4             Could I ask one additional question.  Did those Official Notes

 5     also provide information which you could us in giving instructions for

 6     further investigations, further - I hardly dare to use the word

 7     "investigations" - but how to proceed in your pre-criminal

 8     investigations?  Did these Official Notes help to you find your way?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, the contents of these

10     notes might help a state attorney in his further proceedings in the

11     pre-criminal proceedings.  It all depends on the type of information and

12     its significance that a citizen offers during his interview with the

13     police.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand you well that, or I ask you, could

15     that trigger, for example, new areas of investigation?  On the basis of

16     this information, would you use that, if of course relevant, to explore

17     matters dealt with in such Official Notes?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you will allow me, Your Honours,

19     I don't know what Citizen Karanovic said.  But if Citizen Karanovic had

20     said that there was a witness in the village by the name X/Y who had been

21     an eye-witness to the events, then the words in his statement would

22     prompt me as a state attorney to order the police to conduct an interview

23     with the possible witness mentioned by Citizen Karanovic.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

Page 11490

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             And, Mr.  Registrar, if could I just call up 65 ter 1166.

 3        Q.   And, Mr. Zganjer, in fact, I didn't go according to the sequence.

 4     I should have shown you this document first.  This is the document sent

 5     to you by the Sibenik-Knin crime police department on 16th July 2001.  It

 6     reads as follows, and I'm reading the first paragraph.

 7             It says:  "Further to your request and the documents sent to us,

 8     please be informed that, to date, we have interviewed the following

 9     persons:  Draginja Djuric, Marija Djuric, and Veselin Karanovic.  Please

10     find enclosed the three separate Official Notes that we compiled

11     regarding these interviews."

12             Is this note that you were sent the interview records of Veselin

13     Karanovic and Marija Djuric?

14             If I could take you to paragraph 17 of your supplementary

15     statement, Mr. Zganjer, you say -- you identified that document, and you

16     said:  "This was received by me together with the enclose issues in the

17     document."

18             This is the document, isn't it?

19        A.   I confirm that this document was, indeed, given to me and that I

20     received it with all of these enclosures.  I received it personally,

21     because if you look at the stamp in the upper right corner, that's where

22     I inscribed in my own hand the name of the case file that was given to

23     this case at the state attorney's office.

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

25     evidence, please, and this is again included in the bar table submission.

Page 11491

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And it is not subject, as such, to the objections

 2     from what I understand.

 3             Mr. Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1053.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  P1053 is admitted into evidence.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, can I have document P622,

 8     please, P622.

 9        Q.   Now, while that document is brought up on the screen,

10     Mr. Zganjer, if I could take you to paragraph 24 of your supplementary

11     statement, you say:  "I'm now shown a copy of the work plan drafted by

12     Ivica Vesel, and approved by Gojko Markovic, chief of general crime

13     department, dated 13th November, 2001, referred to above.  This is a plan

14     to conduct an investigation into the deaths in Grubori in August 1995."

15             In the next line, you say:  "This document was received by me and

16     I have seen it before.  It was sent to me enclosed with a letter of

17     14 December 2001 from chief of crime police department."

18             Then about two lines down, you say:  "In the course of the

19     investigation, the criminal police have gathered documentation referred

20     to under the heading numbered 2, documentation.  One of the documents

21     collected from the special police administration and referred to in this

22     document is the response to the letter of Elisabeth Rehn, composed on 30

23     March 1996 by the special police sector and signed by the by the special

24     advisor to the minister, Mladen Markac.  Special police and crime police

25     are both part of MUP, and, as such, these documents were collected by the

Page 11492

 1     crime police through official means."

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Now, if we could move, Mr. Registrar, to page

 3     6 of the English translation and page 3 of the Croatian version.

 4        Q.   There in the documentation, the first paragraph reads:  "The

 5     special police administration provided the documentation compiled with

 6     respect to the implementation of Obruc police operation within the

 7     military police Operation Storm; namely, the following ..."

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if could you move, Mr.  Registrar, to the

 9     next page on both versions.

10        Q.   There, just under that letter of Elisabeth Rehn, it reads in the

11     English version:  "Official statement in reply," and, in fact, you

12     corrected that translation in proofing, where you said, "response to the

13     letter of Elisabeth Rehn, composed on 13 March 1996 by the special police

14     sector, and signed by the special advisor to the minister, Mladen

15     Markac."

16             And, Mr. Zganjer, I showed this document to you because it is

17     relevant to the next document, and I will ask you the question.  It is it

18     already in evidence.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  But while we're still on this document, if you

20     could move -- Mr. Registrar, if I can now call up document number 493.

21        Q.   While that's coming up, I want to refer you to your statement

22     again, Mr. Zganjer.  In paragraph 25 of your supplementary statement, you

23     read -- you say:  "I'm now shown a copy of a report from the chief of

24     Sibenik-Knin crime police department, addressed to the Sibenik county

25     prosecutor, dated 8 February 2002.  The report attaches documentation

Page 11493

 1     gathered during the investigation into the killings in Grubori.  I

 2     received this report and the enclosed files referred to."

 3             Now, is this the document that you're referring to at

 4     paragraph 25?

 5        A.   Yes, that's the document.  I received it, and it bears the date

 6     8 February 2002.  If the registrar, please, lowers down the document, you

 7     will see in the right upper corner that I inscribed the markings of the

 8     file in my own handwriting.  This is the number under which this case was

 9     filed in my office in Sibenik, and the number is K or D044/01, in my own

10     handwriting.

11        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... on page 1, if could I read

12     the heading, you say -- they refer to your communication, that is

13     Mr. Zganjer, your communication.  Reference numbers are given, and the

14     first paragraph reads:  "Through further action, following your request,

15     we have taken operative and criminal investigation measures and

16     accordingly gathered additional documents.  The following documents are

17     enclosed ..."

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could move, Mr.  Registrar, to

19     page 2 of the English version as well as the B/C/S, the Croatian version.

20        Q.   Under the heading contained in file number 3, it reads:  "Special

21     police sector documents."

22             The second document enclosed is -- it reads in the English

23     translation:  "Disclosure of information, "and you again corrected that

24     during the proofing to be an incorrect translation, and you said

25     "response regarding Elisabeth Rehn's letter, compiled on 13 March 1996 by

Page 11494

 1     the special police sector, and signed by the special advisor to the

 2     minister, Mladen Markac."

 3             That document has been enclosed and sent to you with this letter.

 4     Is that correct?

 5        A.   When it comes to the letter written by Elisabeth Rehn and opinion

 6     on it compiled by the special police sector, it is signed by the special

 7     advisor to the minister, Mladen Markac.  This opinion can also be found

 8     enclosed to the documents that were submitted to me.  However, correct me

 9     if I'm wrong, I believe that this opinion did not get to me with Mladen

10     Markac s signature.  It arrived without that signature.

11             But I would like to see the document that is on the files of the

12     state attorney's office, and then I will be able to see whether I'm right

13     or not.  I believe that the opinion that I received did not contain

14     Mr. Markac's signature.

15        Q.   I will show that you document, Mr. Zganjer.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you will do that now, because I'm

17     seeking a time for a break.

18             If you would first like to --

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Tender this, yes, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Any objections?

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objection, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection.

23             Mr. Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, this becomes Exhibit number P1054.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  P1054 is admitted into evidence.

Page 11495

 1             If you want to deal with the signature issue right away,

 2     Ms. Mahindaratne, that might be the logical thing to do before the break.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, actually, there are two other

 4     issues with regard to this document.  I wanted to deal quickly with that.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But then, I think, since many of you have been

 6     waiting here on from 10.30 already in this courtroom, then I'd first have

 7     a break.

 8             Mr. Zganjer, keep this document well in your mind because further

 9     documents will be put to you after the break.

10             We will have a break and we will resume at a quarter to 1.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, I'd like to just go back to the document on the

16     screen; and below that document we just referred to, there is again --

17     this is at the bottom of the English translation and halfway through in

18     the Croatian version.  It says:  "Contained in file number 3," and you

19     think that is probably a mistake.  You think it should read file 4.  And

20     in file 4, you sent 17 Official Notes of interviews conducted with Lucko

21     anti-terrorist members.

22             Then under file number 5?

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If we could on the English translation move,

24     Mr. Registrar, to the next page, and remain on the same page on the

25     Croatian version.

Page 11496

 1        Q.   Under file number 5, you're sent material regarding the check --

 2     regarding the vehicles observed at the incident seen in Plavno village,

 3     25 August 1995, and three Official Notes on interviews with -- which the

 4     official record of interview with Ivan Cermak."

 5             Now, you wish to see particularly the document we referred to

 6     before the break.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could call document P505,

 8     at MFI state, at the moment.

 9        Q.   While that is being brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if I could ask you

10     to look at your supplemental statement.  At paragraph 26, you say:  "I'm

11     now shown a copy of a letter from Mladen Markac addressed to the minister

12     of the interior, Ivan Jarnjak, in response to a letter from Elisabeth

13     Rehn."

14             The report is dated 13 March 1996 and you give a reference

15     number, which is the reference number on the document on your screen.

16             "This is a letter referred to about a document bearing 03500258

17     to 0259, as well as in the work plan, bearing number 03500519 to 0523.

18     This would be the letter I received.  I believe I received a copy of the

19     original document which was sent to Minister Jarnjak.  I'm now shown a

20     copy of this document without a signature.  I believe the copy which was

21     sent to me did not have a signature.  It is likely that the original

22     letter received by Jarnjak had a signature.  I did not have any reason to

23     doubt the authenticity of the document since I received it from the crime

24     police through official channels."

25             Now, Mr. Zganjer, is this the document - I'm referring to the

Page 11497

 1     document on the screen - is this the document you're referring to in

 2     paragraph 26 of your supplementary statement?

 3             And if you want to go into the next page, please let me know.

 4        A.   Will you please show me the next page, next page.

 5             Yes, that's the document.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, this document is currently in

 8     an MFI state on the basis that the Defence had objected.  I believe I

 9     established the basis for admission.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  I believe not, Your Honour.

11             There is no basis at all.  The document is still unstamped,

12     unsigned, and has no official number in the head of the documents.  So

13     the Defence very much doubts whether this is an authentic document, no

14     matter which was the sources that the witness has been obtained with this

15     document.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, the witness has testified, and

18     in his words, he says, "I did not have any reason to doubt the

19     authenticity of the document since I received it from the crime police

20     through official channels."

21             Now, if the suggestion of the Defence is that there has been some

22     fabrication within the official channels, then it is up to the Defence to

23     tender that in evidence.  I believe we have established a foundation on

24     the basis for admission of the document.  There is a witness who

25     identifies the document and who says that he has received it in the

Page 11498

 1     course of the investigation initiated by him.  He has received it through

 2     official channels and he says he has no reason to doubt the authenticity.

 3             We are referring to here the state prosecutor who has received

 4     documents.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, as we are speaking on the subject, I will

 6     ask my learned friend from the Prosecutor's bench to ask the witness of

 7     the certain lack of signature stamp and the official number of the

 8     documents; and, afterwards, my learned friend could ask the witness

 9     whether this is an example of the usual official documents.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I think existence of stamps and signatures, we

11     don't have to put many questions to the witness in relation to that, I

12     would say.

13             Yes, although it would have been a matter -- of course, it is

14     triggered more or less by the discussion on admissibility of this

15     document, Ms. Mahindaratne, where I would otherwise would have expected

16     Mr. Mikulicic to deal with the matter in cross-examination.

17             Yes, I'm not blaming you, Mr. Mikulicic, let that be clear.  But,

18     of course, I'm thinking aloud about where --

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, while you are thinking aloud, I

20     would also say something in that manner.  I would like to think aloud.

21     The Prosecution had Elisabeth Rehn on the stand as a witness.  Why did

22     they ask her if he ever received this document.  That would the proper

23     way to establish the foundation --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

25             MR. MIKULICIC: --  not through the witness who is not issuing the

Page 11499

 1     documents --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, we are -- Mr. Mikulicic --

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Okay, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- we're not going to argue the matter in the

 5     presence of the witness.

 6             Let me just check.

 7             Yes, Mr. Zganjer, could I ask you the following question:  If you

 8     were copied on a letter sent to, as in this case, Mr. Jarnjak, was it

 9     common, uncommon, did it happen oft, did it happen sometimes, that the

10     copy you received would be an unsigned one, an unstamped one?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was standard procedure for

12     anyone sending a document to me to stamp it and sign it.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But that was not my question, as you may be

14     aware.  It was about when you were copied on a document, in this case a

15     letter sent to another person.  So if you were sent a copy of that

16     letter, whether it would always be signed and stamped.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document was sent to me, and I

18     said the following about the document in my statement:  I believe this to

19     be an authentic document.  Now, why did I say that?  It wasn't the

20     veterinarian service that sent me this document.  I got it from the

21     Sibenik-Knin police administration, which was an integral part of the

22     Ministry of Interior.  That is the key to my belief that the document is

23     an authentic one because of its source and because of the person who

24     produced this document, regardless of the fact that the person did not

25     actually sign the document.

Page 11500

 1             To me, it was Mr. Mladen Markac who produced this letter.

 2     However, was this letter eventually forwarded to the minister of the

 3     interior, Ivan Jarnjak, or not?  Was it stamped and signed by Mladen

 4     Markac for that person?  I don't know.  But here you have my reasons for

 5     believing that this is an authentic document.  It's about disclosure.

 6     And in terms of substance, this is a response to the letter that

 7     Ms. Elisabeth Rehn had previously sent to the Ministry of Interior.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One additional question:  Do you remember any

 9     incident ever that you would receive a copy of a document, which was not

10     addressed to you but just copied to you, from this same source, that is,

11     the Sibenik-Knin police administration, where the copy that was

12     September to you was not the same as what was sent to the person to whom

13     the letter was addressed?

14             Did you ever experience that something went wrong there?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regrettably, I cannot answer this

16     specifically, Your Honours.  I simply don't remember.  Nevertheless, it

17     is a normal course of action even for Official Notes that I was receiving

18     to be signed by whoever produced them and to be stamped by the relevant

19     police administration on its way out.

20             Despite all of this, some of the Official Notes were neither

21     signed nor stamped.  Again, as I was receiving all these documents from

22     the Sibenik-Knin police administration, who, in turn, had probably got

23     them from the crime police police administration which was part of the

24     Ministry of Interior, at the time, I had no reason to question the

25     authenticity of these documents, despite certain formal shortcomings that

Page 11501

 1     they may have manifested.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.  The Chamber will

 3     decide on the admission of this document.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             Mr. Registrar, may I call document number 4388, please.

 7             MR. CAYLEY:  This is the document that you decided is actually

 8     not admissible in evidence.  This is the interview of Mr. Cermak --

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Sorry, Mr. President.  That was my mistake.

10             MR. CAYLEY:  Thank you.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I withdraw that question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, now, do you recall that memo that was sent to you by

15     the chief of crime police department on 8th February 2002, that we just

16     looked at a little while ago, where we looked at the files, and I'm

17     referring to P1054.  You noted that you were also sent 17 official

18     records of interview with members of the Lucko Unit.

19             Now, in fact, if I could take to you paragraph 30 of your

20     supplementary statement, Mr. Zganjer, you state the following:  "I was

21     also sent a number of Official Notes of interviews with members of

22     Lucko Unit or the special police, and I'm now shown these documents and I

23     can confirm that I received these documents from the Sibenik-Knin crime

24     police.  I believe that the marking on the documents, some of the text

25     being underlined, were made by me."

Page 11502

 1             Then you identify and authenticate six Official Notes of

 2     interviews.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, there has been no specific

 4     objection in relation to the admission of these six documents, with the

 5     exception of the general, the blanket objection from the Gotovina

 6     Defence.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  That's not true.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry.  With regard to Mr. Balunovic, I

 9     beg your pardon, I will call the documents in, Mr. President.

10             Mr. Registrar, can I have document number 2653, please.

11        Q.   Now, while that is being brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if I could take

12     you to the first document you authenticated.  You referred to the

13     Official Notes of interview with Ivica Matanic compiled on 4 December

14     2001 in Zagreb police administration.

15             Is this the note you referred to and you recognise the markings

16     on the document?

17        A.   [No interpretation].

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Could both of witness's microphones be switched

19     on please.  Thank you.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I see page 1 of the notes, but I

21     believe there might be another page.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Previous translation continues] ... could we

23     move to page 2.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  This is the Official Note

25     that was delivered to me, and there was an attachment which is the

Page 11503

 1     document that we spoke about a while ago.  The underlining is, well, it's

 2     just like that.  It is a personal feature of my work.  I use this to mark

 3     out certain portions of the statement that I for various reasons might

 4     find to be of particular interest.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I move to tender this into

 6     evidence.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  I object this, Your Honour, on the very same

 8     reason that we were talking about the Official Notes as an evidence on

 9     the beginning of today's session and when you brought up the decision

10     that your final decision you will postpone until the results of the

11     proceedings.  It could be marked as MFI but not as an evidence.  That is

12     my position because we cannot --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that it is tendered into evidence, and

14     what you expect the Chamber in line with its earlier guidance would do is

15     to invite Mr. Registrar to mark it for identification, which is what I

16     have done by now.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1055,

18     marked for identification.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  P1055 is marked for identification.

20             Please proceed.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, there is five other notes, and

22     I understand there is an objection.  May I just tender it from the bar

23     table, and I understand they will be marked for identification.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And those that will remain on the list you will

25     provide to Mr. Registrar, so that he can assign MFI numbers for those

Page 11504

 1     documents as well.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document number --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, apart from that we have dealt with

 6     the issue of whether this type of material is admissible into evidence,

 7     is there any objection against trying to introduce it through the bar

 8     table, rather than to put it to the witness.

 9             Is there any issue?  I'm just --

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, I could only predict that the answer

11     of the witness will be exactly the same as it relates to the first one,

12     so I don't think it is worth time consuming to go through whole

13     procedure.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That is understood.  I want to avoid that we have

15     later overlooked some issues.

16             MR. CAYLEY:  No, I think Mr. Mikulicic has said it perfectly

17     clearly.  The objection stands.  But if it's through the bar table, it

18     makes no difference to us.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21             Mr. Registrar, may I call for document D738, please.

22        Q.   While the document is brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if you could look

23     at paragraph 31 of your supplementary statement.  You say:  "I'm now

24     shown a report from chief of Sibenik-Knin crime police department

25     addressed to county prosecutor Sibenik, dated 14th December 2001.  The

Page 11505

 1     report attaches notes of interviews carried out as part of the

 2     investigation into the killings in Grubori."

 3             Is this a document you identified by paragraph 31?

 4        A.   I must raise a matter at this point.  I believe you've now read

 5     out parts of paragraphs 31 and 33.  Now which specific paragraph do you

 6     have in mind by your question?

 7        Q.   I'm sorry, Mr. Zganjer.  I think you perhaps -- you didn't hear

 8     me.  I was reading paragraph 31.  Let me read it again:  "I'm now shown a

 9     report from the chief of Sibenik-Knin crime police department, addressed

10     to county prosecutor Sibenik, dated 14th December 2001.  The report

11     attached notes of interviews carried out as part of the investigation

12     into the killings in Grubori."

13             I'm asking you if this is the document you referred to in

14     paragraph 31?

15        A.   Yes, that's the document.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I move this into evidence.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Any objections?

18             No objections.

19             Mr. Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, I believe this already in evidence

21     as a Defence exhibit.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.  It is already in

23     evidence.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It is already in evidence.

25             Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, the only question you put in relation to

Page 11506

 1     this document to the witness is whether this was the document.  The

 2     documents that an ERN number.  It's specified in his statement.  Is there

 3     any need to assume that what shown to him, as far as ERN numbers is

 4     concerned, that there are any mistakes there, because otherwise -- or

 5     would we go through all of the documents?  Of course, there could be

 6     mistakes.  Since also the subject, especially in paragraph 31, even the

 7     subject is mentioned, ERN number is given.

 8             And I'm also looking at the Defence.  Is there any need to verify

 9     for all of these documents whether this is the document shown to the

10     witness?  If so, we have quite lot of work to do.

11             MR. MISETIC:  No, Your Honour, not from the Gotovina Defence.

12             MR. CAYLEY:  I think we would take the same position.  If this is

13     just a rehearsal of identifying ERN numbers, I agree, yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Mr. Mikulicic.

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  We are taking the very same position, Your

17     Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, therefore, unless there is any

19     reason to have doubts whether there could be confusion as far as

20     documents are concerned, then there is no need to repeat in court what

21     the witness said already in his supplementary statement --

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

23             Actually, I had intended to submit all these documents from the

24     bar table, but I particularly brought this document up because it

25     encloses an interview note of Nada Surjak, where the Cermak Defence

Page 11507

 1     particularly --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you wanted to --

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Because of the specific objection in relation

 4     to that Official Note, I believe that I want to bring it up in court.

 5     That is the only reason.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  But you only asked whether this is it the document,

 7     and then you gave an ERN number.  That is the only thing you did.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  Then I was going to go to

 9     the contents.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If you want to put further questions.  I took

11     it, but perhaps I'm wrong, that once you've put it to the witness, and if

12     you are seeking it to be admitted into evidence, that you've then dealt

13     with the document.  But I might be wrong in that respect and then my

14     apologies for that.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. CAYLEY:  Can I just before we embark on what my learned

17     friend has just notified the Court that she is going to ask the about the

18     content of the statement, again I don't need to repeat myself.  My

19     understanding is that she wants to put questions about the Official Note

20     in respect of that particular individual.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  I was going try get him to

22     confirm that he had received the note of Nada Surjak.

23             MR. CAYLEY:  That's fine.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If I would have remained silent, we might have

25     saved sometime.

Page 11508

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, by this note, you have been sent four Official Notes

 4     of interviews which includes the interview note of Nada Surjak, and I

 5     want to take you to that particular note.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could call -- have on the

 7     screen document number 3298.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, if I could save some time for the

 9     court, we are ready to stipulate - I'm talking about the Markac Defence,

10     of course - we are ready to stipulate that all those Official Notes has

11     been received by the witness.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know whether that resolves all of your

13     concern, Ms. Mahindaratne.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.  In which event, I

15     will move on, but let me just ask one question with regard to this

16     document.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You're free to put any question.

18             Please proceed.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

20        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, do you note the document on the screen, and you

21     identified earlier on that you -- that certain notations on these

22     documents were made by you.

23             Are these underlinings made by you?

24        A.   I am familiar with the document, and as for the interventions,

25     i.e., the underlining, that is what I did myself.  I am the author of

Page 11509

 1     these interventions.

 2        Q.   Can you tell the Court, in terms of underlining, what is

 3     exactly -- what is the process you went through in reviewing these

 4     documents?

 5        A.   Of course, I read these documents; and as I've already told you,

 6     there are some things that seemed important and that's why I underlined

 7     them.  The underlinings would have helped me to focus on the important

 8     bits of the text on a second reading.

 9             I would call it a rationalisation of time, a time-saving

10     technique.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may it be marked for

13     identification, please.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1056,

16     marked for identification.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  It will keep that status for the time being.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if I could call document 3476.

19     This is also one of the press articles to which Defence objected,

20     Mr. President.

21        Q.   And, Mr. Zganjer, I appreciate that you may not have seen this

22     document or press article.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If we could go, Mr.  Registrar, to page 3 of

24     the Croatian version and in the English version 03524451.  If could you

25     focus on that photograph, and if you could just take -- oh, yes.

Page 11510

 1        Q.   There is an photograph of reporter interviewing Mr. Cermak on

 2     this -- in this picture.  Can you tell Court who that reporter is based

 3     on this article -- let me just make it shorter.

 4             Do you agree that it was Ms. Nada Surjak, whom we just referred

 5     to, who is seen interviewing Mr. Cermak in Grubori here?

 6        A.   I can see Mr. Cermak depicted in the photograph, there is no

 7     doubt about that.  And as for the lady depicted in the photo, I can just

 8     see her profile.  I might agree that this is Mrs. Nada Surjak, a

 9     journalist of the Croatian Television.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May this document be given MFI status,

12     Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1057,

15     marked for identification.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I also, Mr. President, submit from the bar

17     table document number 3297, which is a memo which also attaches an

18     Official Note of interview.

19             And, Mr.  Registrar, if I could have 3297.

20             I'm just submitting this from the bar table, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It has attached to the document official

23     record of interview, Mr. President, so considering the guidelines given,

24     although the cover sheet could be admitted.  Since there is an attachment

25     which is a official record of interview, maybe it could be given a --

Page 11511

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Cover letter, I'm a bit confused Ms. Mahindaratne.

 2     I always understand tendering from the bar table to be that without

 3     showing it or even presenting it to the witness, that you would seek it

 4     to be admitted into evidence; whereas, what you're doing is you're

 5     showing it to the witness and then saying you want to tender it from the

 6     bar table, although no questions were put to the witness.  So it seems to

 7     be a kind of intermediate procedure.

 8             Mr. Registrar, the cover letter, just the cover letter, would be?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number P1058.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P1058 is admitted into evidence.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And page 2 and 3 may be given an MFI status,

12     Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Second, third page, the attached Official Note,

14     Mr. Registrar, would be?

15             THE REGISTRAR:  P1059, marked for identification, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And it keeps that status for the time being.

17             Please proceed.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I have document 6087, please.

19        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, in this document on the screen, the chief of crime

20     police department reports to you on the following lines.  He says:

21     "After additional action, following your request, interviews have been

22     conducted with General Mladen Markac and Mr. Zeljko Sacic concerning

23     their knowledge of events in the village of Grubori on 25th August 1995

24     when a number of people perished."

25             Now, in relation to that, at paragraph 27, referring to your

Page 11512

 1     notes --

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  This for the record, Mr. President, has been

 3     tendered with the bar table motion, bar table submission.

 4        Q.   It says:  "At entry 12 of my notes, I have made a note of

 5     investigative plans to conduct an interview with the command structure of

 6     the special police, Mladen Markac, and Zeljko Sacic, in order to

 7     ascertain the type of weapons used at the time of the Grubori incident,

 8     as a shell casing was found by the bed of one of the victims.  We

 9     requested details from the special police of the type of weapons

10     allocated to each officer at the time, and also requested ballistic

11     testing to ascertain whether the shell casing matched a weapon in

12     possession of the special police at the time.  I do not believe we

13     received any such details of weapons used by the special police before my

14     tenure in Sibenik ended in September 2002."

15             Now, can you explain to Court what steps did you do when you did

16     not get the required information from the special police sector?

17        A.   There is a conversation that I held with the police officials who

18     were involved in the criminal proceedings in this case.  I made a note of

19     that conversation on the cover of my case file.

20             In that conversation, we looked at the possibility that you're

21     talking about at the moment, where I described in my statement under

22     bullet point 27.  The photos from the place of the incident in Grubori,

23     as far as can I remember, depicts, or at least one of them depicts, the

24     body of an elderly man next to a bed.  As far as I can remember, he was

25     shot in the head.  That photo also it depicts a bullet casing.

Page 11513

 1             I repeat, this is as much as I can remember after seven or eight

 2     years.  There was some indicia that the bullet casing found by that body

 3     was in the possession of UN members, i.e., one of them who had taken the

 4     photo originally.

 5             We were then supposed to take steps to see whether we can get a

 6     hold of that bullet casing.  And since we had already identified that, in

 7     the zone of responsibility in the area of Grubori, a special police units

 8     was in place at the time of the incident, it only seemed logical that we

 9     would try and get hold of the weaponry of that unit and of any written

10     traces as to the fact who of the members carried or had been issued with

11     what weapons.

12             We were supposed to identify the serial number or some other

13     identification marks of that weapon; and then if we were able to get hold

14     of the bullet casing, we were supposed to carry out ballistic expertise,

15     in order to establish whether the bullet had been fired from any of the

16     weapons of that particular unit.  The only thing that we were able to

17     find of that bullet was its casing, nothing else.

18             If the ballistic expertise were to prove that, then based on all

19     the documents collected about the persons who had been issued with

20     certain types of weapons, we have been able to arrive at a possible

21     suspect or the perpetrator of the crime, which was the killing of that

22     elderly man who had been shot dead lying by his bed or in his bed.

23             I don't know what happened.  I stopped working in Sibenik in

24     2002.  I don't know whether anything was done to this effect.  I repeat,

25     on the 15th of September, 2002, I left that position.  I am -- I

Page 11514

 1     continued working in the state attorney's office but in a different

 2     position.

 3             However, there is an written trace of my conversation with the

 4     police officials about this issue.  You can find it on the cover of my

 5     case file where I provided a summary of that conversation and my requests

 6     towards the police as to what they were supposed to do with this regard.

 7        Q.   Now, Mr. Zganjer, were you given a further explanation by any

 8     authorities as to why these steps had not been carried out during 1995,

 9     soon after the incident, or until you instructed these steps to be

10     carried out in 2001?

11        A.   Well, this may not have been exactly the subject of my interest.

12     In my statement that I provided to the investigators of the OTP of this

13     Tribunal, I stated very clearly when I had first learned about this

14     incident in Grubori.  I also stated what I did with this regard after my

15     initial information.

16             It arises from what I stated and from the written documents on

17     the case file what my points of interest were and what dilemmas I had to

18     eliminate and what it was I actually wanted to establish.

19        Q.   Mr. Zganjer, you may have misunderstood me.  It was not a

20     criticism against you.  My question was whether you had ever received any

21     information as to why these investigative steps had not been carried out

22     in 1995, soon after the incident when the matter was fresh, why nothing

23     of this sort this been done until you instructed the police to carry out

24     these steps?

25        A.   I've already said, and I repeat, when I learned about the

Page 11515

 1     incident in Grubor, I contacted my colleague in Zadar, an official with

 2     the state attorney's office there.

 3             Why did I contact my colleague in Zadar?  I did that because of

 4     area of Knin, including the area of the settlement, or, rather, the

 5     village of Grubori, was also under the authority of the state attorney's

 6     office of Zadar and the court of Zadar.  Also, it was within the

 7     jurisdiction of the police administration of the county of Zadar and

 8     Knin.

 9             I asked my colleague in Zadar whether he had ever received a

10     report on the incident in Grubori.  He told me that he hadn't.  I asked

11     him that either in 1998 or 1999 when the area of Knin, or the general

12     area of Knin, was returned to the county of Sibenik-Knin and when it fell

13     within the jurisdiction of my office of the state attorney, the office

14     that I headed.

15             My colleague in Zadar did not know anything about that at all.  I

16     suppose that the investigating judge didn't know anything either.  Why

17     this was not investigated from the -- from the moment it happened in 1995

18     to sometime in 1999 or 2000, when I started investigating the whole

19     matter, I really wouldn't know.  You would have to ask somebody else

20     about that.

21        Q.   Very well, Mr. Zganjer.  Based on this letter that is the

22     document on the screen, it is -- it indicates that it was upon your --

23     following your instructions that Mr. Mladen Markac and Mr. Zeljko Sacic

24     had been interviewed by the Sibenik-Knin crime police.

25             Now, what were your reasons to instruct the police to interview

Page 11516

 1     Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic?

 2        A.   The reasons were very clear and very simple.  I learned that

 3     special police was active in the area, and I learned which unit of the

 4     special police were active.  It was only logical for me to ask for

 5     Mr. Markac and Sacic to be interviewed because they belonged to the

 6     structure of the special police units.

 7        Q.   And having interviewed them, did you receive any information or

 8     assistance which facilitated your investigation any further from either

 9     Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic?

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Objections.  The witness didn't say that he

11     personally interviewed those --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood --

13             MR. MIKULICIC: -- individuals.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood this to be once interviews were held

15     with them, because apparently that's what the letter says:  "Interviews

16     have been conducted with ..."  That's how I understood it.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's correct, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             Now, the question to you was whether you received any information

20     or assistance which facilitated your investigation any further from

21     either Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, the

23     statements provided by Mr. Markac and Mr. Sacic did not contain any

24     information that would shed light on the whole event.

25             I repeat, I really can't remember the contents of their

Page 11517

 1     statements; but, by and large, they spoke of the alleged armed conflict

 2     involving the special police of the Republic of Croatia and the remains

 3     of the other party to the conflict, the members of the other party to the

 4     conflict.

 5             I may be mistaken.  I am trying to remember.  There was a

 6     difference there as to whether these people, the elderly people, got in

 7     between the exchange of fire between the warring parties, or they were

 8     allegedly executed by the members of the enemy army, because they had not

 9     agreed to put up resistance to the Croatian armed force.  Something along

10     these lines, roughly, was said.  That was the position, as it were, that

11     one could discern from the statements of the members of the special

12     police including the statements provided by Messrs. Markac and Sacic, as

13     far as I can remember, as I sit here today.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I tender this document into

16     evidence.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  I have no objection, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1060.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  P1060 is admitted into evidence.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And the attached statements, 65 ter 326 and

22     327, the Official Notes of records, will be tendered from the bar table,

23     Mr. President, later on.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We will find them then on the list, and I may take

25     it they will also be marked for identification.

Page 11518

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will just add that, as it concerns to the

 2     Official Note for Mr. Mladen Markac, that the Chamber already took the

 3     position as regards to Official Note for Mr. Cermak.  So it is the very

 4     same procedural situation.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, the special position was, of course,

 6     raised by Mr. Cayley very specifically as far as Mr. Cermak is concerned.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, I had not to be repeated if I just accept,

 8     on the same basis, all the reasons that Mr. Cayley has stated, that these

 9     are the very same that the Markac state as well.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Without having it reviewed again, the Chamber

11     will give a decision soon, but perhaps not today.

12             Please proceed.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I call document 1241, Mr. Registrar.

14        Q.   And while that document is brought up, Mr. Zganjer, if could I

15     take you to paragraph 10 of your supplementary statement.

16             At line 4, you start off by saying:  "I'm not aware of any police

17     or other investigation which was carried out into this incident," and

18     you're referring to the Grubori incident which you have referred to in

19     line 3, "prior to the investigation I initiated ..." --

20        A.   I apologise.  What paragraph is that?

21        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... paragraph number 10 of your

22     supplementary statement.

23             Do you have it?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   You refer to the Grubori investigation and you go on to say:

Page 11519

 1     "I'm not aware of any police or other investigation which was carried out

 2     into this incident prior to the investigation I initiated in 2001.  If

 3     the police had instigated an investigation, the investigating judge would

 4     have been informed.  In March/April 1998 following territorial

 5     reorganisation, Knin came under the jurisdiction of Sibenik-Knin county

 6     court."

 7             This is what you just stated a little while ago, too.

 8              "Sometime after that, I began to receive information from

 9     Amnesty International and Croatian Helsinki Committee concerning the

10     events in Grubori.  I then contacted the police to ascertain what

11     information existed concerning this matter.  Prior to 1998, the Zadar

12     county court had jurisdiction to initiate an investigation into Grubori.

13     Mr. Galovic, the Zadar state county [sic], confirmed to me that they had

14     not received any report from the police regarding the incident; and, as

15     such, there had been no investigation initiated by the Zadar county state

16     attorney.  I personally believe that this matter should have been

17     reported to the state attorney and investigative judge on duty at the

18     time of incident."

19             Now, I appreciate you may not have seen the document which is on

20     the screen right now.  That is a memo sent to the county public

21     prosecutor.  It was a memo sent to the public prosecutor of the Republic

22     of Croatia by county public prosecutor.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if we could go to the next page.

24        Q.   Is that the person you mentioned as your colleague in Zadar

25     county court?

Page 11520

 1        A.   You mean the county attorney's office in Zadar?  Yes.  Ivan

 2     Galovic is his name.  You're showing me a document bearing the date

 3     18 December 2003, if I'm not mistaken.

 4             This is letter sent by the county attorney's office in Zadar.

 5     This letter bears a stamp, and it was signed by Mr. Ivan Galovic, the

 6     state attorney in Zadar.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr.  Registrar, if we could just go to

 8     page 1.

 9        Q.   There in paragraph 1 he reports to the state attorney of the

10     Republic of Croatia that:  "We have not received a criminal report or a

11     standard," that is could be a translation issue there, "report regarding

12     killings in the hamlet of Grubori."

13             Then the next paragraph reads:  "2 and 4, regarding killings in

14     the hamlet of Gosic and village of Varivode of seven persons with the

15     last name Borak in Gosic and seven persons with the last name Beric,

16     Dusan Djukic, and another person in Varivode, we filed an indictment

17     against Pero Perkovic et al for crimes under Article 34, paragraph 2 of

18     the KZRH Criminal Code of Republic of Croatia."

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And if you could move to next page.

20        Q.   Right at the top, it says:  "The county court in Zadar acquitted

21     the accused of the said crimes which were described in the first instance

22     judgement under items 4 and 7.

23             "The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia upheld the appeal

24     of the public prosecutor, and on the grounds of erroneously established

25     facts, quashed the judgement pertaining to the said crimes.

Page 11521

 1             "The case was then remitted to the competence of the county

 2     public prosecutor's office in Sibenik on 4 October 1999."

 3             That is correct, isn't it?

 4        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 5             Let's go back to item number 1, please.

 6             It is true, and it is confirmed by Mr. Ivan Galovic in this

 7     letter, that they never received a criminal report or any other report

 8     for the killings in Grubori.  I'm referring you to the part of my

 9     statement in which I said that, in a telephone conversation, I had

10     learned that myself from Mr. Galovic.  That was sometime towards the end

11     of 1998 or beginning of 1999.  I can't pinpoint it exactly the time of

12     that telephone conversation.  In that telephone conversation, he

13     confirmed to me what he states in this letter dated 18 December 2003.

14             I would like to add that items 2 and 4 also reflect the truth;

15     that is, items 2 and 4 in this letter.

16             After it was quashed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of

17     Croatia, the case was then remitted to the competence of the county

18     public prosecutor's office in Sibenik and the county court in Sibenik,

19     and we're talking about a case --

20        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, can this document be entered

22     into evidence, please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I hear of no objections.

24             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objections.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 11522

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number P1061.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I note the time, Mr. President, and I

 4     apologise for the five minutes I have --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I didn't want to interrupt the witness in

 6     giving his last answer.

 7             Ms. Mahindaratne, could you tell how much time you would still

 8     need.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I believe about 30 to 40 minutes.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Zganjer, we'd like to see you back tomorrow when

12     the examination will continue.  I instruct you that should not speak with

13     anyone about the testimony you have given until now or the testimony

14     still to be given tomorrow.  You should refrain from any conversation

15     with whomever on that subject.

16             As far as resuming tomorrow is concerned, unfortunately, the

17     Presiding Judge is not available and up until 10.00, and my consultation

18     with the other Judges was just about to learn whether they would continue

19     under Rule 15 bis.  They decided that they will not, which means we will

20     resume tomorrow at 10.00.

21             Tomorrow, Tuesday, 11th November, at 10.00, Courtroom I.

22                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,

23                            to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day of

24                            November, 2008, at 10.00 a.m.