1 Wednesday, 12 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
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 Good morning to you, Mr. Zganjer, as well.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that the solemn
15 declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony still
16 binds you.
17 Mr. Mikulicic, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
19 everybody in the courtroom.
20 WITNESS: ZELJKO ZGANJER [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic: [Continued]
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Zganjer.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... before I
25 begin that announce that I was going through my questions last afternoon
1 and I could be finished within the first session, so until the first
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Good morning to you, Mr. Zganjer, once again.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Can all the extra
7 microphones be switched off.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The topic we're going to discuss this morning is the Official
10 Note. We've already discussed this at great length, but I should like to
11 clarify certain issues and I would like to have your assistance in that.
12 It is true, is it not, that the Official Note is, in fact, a
13 form, a template that a police officer uses to record a pre-investigation
14 action, be it an interview with a suspect or a witness, or a search of an
15 area, a location, and so on and so forth?
16 Do you agree with me?
17 A. Yes, I do, though I do want to correct you in one matter. It's
18 not searching of an area, but going through an area inspecting.
19 Q. Regardless of the way in which the Official Note is made and the
20 format used, it does not carry as much significance as other documents,
21 such as the record of an interview with a witness or a scene of crime
22 investigation report and so on. That is right?
23 A. Yes. The Official Note is only a piece of information and not a
24 piece of evidence.
25 Q. You've just used the term information or notification.
1 Notification for whom?
2 A. Well, for the state attorney, who, before deciding to initiate
3 criminal proceedings against a person, will draw upon the notification to
4 learn certain facts that will be material to him to decide whether to
5 initiate criminal proceedings against a person for a certain crime.
6 Q. In essence, therefore, the Official Note represents an incentive
7 for the judicial bodies, be it the state attorney or the investigating
8 judge, to go through with the formal evidence and pursue investigation
9 activities based on the information contained therein. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. As for the Official Note made by the police once they've
12 conducted interviews, it could be divided roughly into two segments: The
13 Official Note of the interview conducted with a potential witness; and
14 the Official Note of the interview with a suspect or a potential accused.
15 Is that right?
16 A. Yes, that's right.
17 Q. From a formal point of view, the procedural fate of such an
18 Official Note is also a different one, when we talk about the two
19 different types. So the Official Note of an interview held with a
20 potential suspect must be, under the Croatian legislation, physically
21 removed from the case file. Is that right?
22 A. Yes, that is true. It has to be removed, enveloped, and cannot
23 be used in the presentation of evidence at trial.
24 Q. Exceptionally, though, it can be used where the accused
25 specifically invokes that possibility. Is that right?
1 A. I don't think so. I believe that the investigation judge or the
2 trial judge hearing the case should, nevertheless, insist that the party
3 concerned make the same statement before him as had been done before the
5 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zganjer, in the course of your interviews with
6 OTP investigators, you touched at great length also the topic of the
7 Official Note, did you not?
8 A. Yes, this was discussed as well.
9 Q. The OTP investigator, Mr. Robert Casey, in the course of the
10 interview you had on the 12th of July, 2006, I'm referring to pages 16188
11 to 16189, practically put to you his view, his interpretation of the
12 Official Note that -- notes that the police made at your request on the
13 events in Grubori from the conversations with members of the special
14 police and other individuals.
15 He characterized them in the following way: That the interviews
16 conducted were very poor, that they were not compiled in any sort of
17 format, that the contents of these interviews did not really make a
18 contribution or bring anything in, and that you should not perceive this
19 as criticism levelled against you.
20 Do you recall the investigator saying something of the sort?
21 A. Yes. Mr. Casey did make certain comments, and Ms. Dave Morris I
22 believe did so as well. She was present during my interview. But these
23 were comments coming from the OTP, and I would not wish to go into that.
24 Q. At any rate, some criticism was directed at you since a lot of
25 time had elapsed between March 2002 and November 2002, when you received
1 the information. However, you said that the incident at Grubori took
2 place on the 25th of August, 1995, and that the police could have done
3 something before 2001 as well. That was your position, was it not?
4 A. Yes, that was my position.
5 Q. Thank you. We broached the topic of the incident in the Grubori
6 hamlet in the Plavno valley.
7 You told us that at the time these events transpired, that's to
8 say, the 25th of August, 1995, the body which had territorial and subject
9 matter jurisdiction was the court in Zadar and, as a consequence, the
10 state attorney's office in Zadar as well. Is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. When you were informed of the case, once the jurisdiction was
13 transferred, you initiated the procedure on your own initiative in order
14 to establish what had actually transpired there. Is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Under the Croatian legislation, the state attorney has the power
17 of initiating proceedings, and where there is no criminal report filed
18 but the state attorney learns that something happened which might come
19 under his jurisdiction. Is that right?
20 A. Yes. The Croatian provisions, legal provisions regulating the
21 work of the state attorney, state that the state attorney may become
22 active on a case as soon as he receives reports or information of a
23 criminal offence committed; in other words, there is no need for a
24 criminal report to come from the police.
25 Q. However, it is true, is it not, that in the majority of cases,
1 that is the way in which proceedings are initiated by the state attorney;
2 that's to say, a report or notification, whether it come from the police,
3 from various inspection bodies, or from private citizens?
4 A. Yes, undoubtedly, these are the most often ways in which the
5 state attorney is prompted into action.
6 Q. To put it colloquially, once you got into the case itself, once
7 you were familiar well it, is it true - and I tell you what happened -
8 you came to know that the Zadar state attorney's office had never
9 received a criminal report concerning the events in Grubori?
10 A. Yes, that is what I learned. Not only that a criminal report had
11 not been filed, but not even a regular report accounting the events in
13 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to Exhibit P1061 on
14 this issue, Your Honours. This is a letter, the correspondence between
15 the state attorneys of Sibenik and Zadar.
16 Q. Similarly, Mr. Zganjer, you came to know that once the incident
17 in Grubori was entered into the log-book of the Knin police station, the
18 general duty police did not dispatch a patrol in order to secure the
19 crime scene. We discussed yesterday the fact that this should have been
20 normally the first step taken in such a situation.
21 A. Yes, that's true.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may just correct the
15 record, this is a minor point; however, Mr. Mikulicic referred to P1061
16 as correspondence between the state attorneys of Zadar and Sibenik. It's
17 actually correspondence between the state attorney of Zadar and the
18 public prosecutor of the Republic of Croatia
19 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm grateful to my learned friend. Thank you.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zganjer, did you know Ive Kardum. Do you
21 know who he is?
22 A. No, I don't know the gentleman.
23 Q. We heard the testimony of Mr. Kardum, who, at the time of the
24 events in Grubori, was the chief of the crime police in Zadar and who
25 said that he had not been informed of the incident. However, what you
1 have most certainly established is that no sort of a crime scene
2 investigation was conducted in Grubori, either by the state attorney,
3 investigating judge, or the police. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Therefore, no follow-up forensic examination of the injuries
6 sustained by the victims in order to ascertain the mechanism of injury in
7 which the injuries were inflicted -- by which the injuries were
8 inflicted, or the cause of death.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Equally so, no evidence was collected from the crime scene. We
11 see from your file that you asked the police to try and obtain the bullet
12 casings you saw on the photographs and which had presumably been taken by
13 the UN -- by the UN members. Do you remember that?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. In actual fact, you were prompted by your report from Amnesty
16 International to launch the proceedings. Is that so?
17 A. Yes, that is correct. That was the first notification that I
18 received about this incident, and it came from the Amnesty International
20 Q. In that report, it is noted that one of the victims of the
21 incident, Jovo Grubor, had been killed in such a way that he was
22 slaughtered, that his throat was slit. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes. I think that the Amnesty International report did mention
24 the fact that one of the persons, Jovo Grubor, or perhaps somebody else,
25 had simply had his throat cut.
1 Q. In the course of the proceedings in which you tried to establish
2 facts, was this fact really established by an expert through an
3 examination of the body or perhaps an autopsy performed by a forensic
5 A. While the case was in my hands, I don't think that we were ever
6 able to establish this fact, so this remained a claim that was made in
7 the Amnesty International report. It never went beyond this claim, but I
8 do allow that it was possible when the victims were exhumed from the Knin
9 cemetery that the body of Jovo Grubor was among those exhumed. I
10 attended the exhumation, but in the mean time, I had left Sibenik. I do
11 know for a fact that the report on this exhumation and the autopsies or
12 post-mortem examinations that followed later was submitted to the state
13 attorney's office.
14 Now whether Jovo Grubor's body really was exhumed in that
15 exercise, I cannot claim that with full certainty, but I do allow that
16 this was possible; and if, indeed, it was exhumed, I don't know what was
17 ascertained upon the examination of Jovo Grubor's body. I would not now
18 like to bother the Court with details, but if we're talking about any
19 evidence of his throat being cut, it is possible that no evidence was
20 actually found because of the decomposition. That is a consequence of
21 the body being buried for such a long time.
22 This is just a layperson's assessment, so that would be my answer
23 to your question.
24 Q. Just a follow-up question, do you remember -- regarding the
25 incident that occurred in August 1995, as we said, do you remember when
1 the exhumation and the autopsy of the bodies were conducted?
2 A. I think it was in 2001. I think it was in 2001 in mid-April or
3 May, as far as I can recall.
4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zganjer, let me go back to the interview that you
5 had with the OTP investigators.
6 The OTP investigator, Robert Casey, put it to you that there is
7 no doubt there was an attempt to cover-up things; by that, he means the
8 Grubori incident by the special police.
9 Now, question to you is this: As examined the materials that
10 were at your disposal that you were able to collect, did you ever obtain
11 any evidence or any knowledge that this claim that the Prosecution put to
12 was based on facts, facts that you had at your disposal?
13 A. On the basis of the facts that I had at that time, I could not
14 reach a conclusion that this was, indeed, an attempt to cover up. But I
15 have to say that, as far as I'm concerned, it was inconceivable to me why
16 this event was not reported to the duty investigating judge and the duty
17 state attorney.
18 This was an incident of such a nature and of such a scope that,
19 simply, this incident should not have engendered any kind of academic
20 debate, whether this should have been reported to the investigating judge
21 and the state attorney, because it is without a shadow of a doubt, it's a
22 case that should have been reported to them.
23 Q. Mr. Zganjer, do you know that special police members are not the
24 element of the police force that carries out crime investigations --
25 crime scene investigation, and they are not the part of the police force
1 that submits reports to the investigating judge and so on? Can you
2 confirm that?
3 A. Yes. Special police has clearly defined special tasks,
4 interviewing, citizens or suspects, conducting crime scene
5 investigations, taking other operational crime investigation measures.
6 These are not the tasks of the special police; that's for sure.
7 Q. A little while ago, you said that the mere fact that the state
8 attorney received word or a report of a crime, this is enough to prompt
9 them into action.
10 As you conducted actions on the Grubori case, did you come across
11 any facts that indicated that there was an attempt to cover up or to in
12 any other way tamper with the investigation from any side. In that case,
13 you would have to institute criminal proceedings against any such party?
14 A. Yes, quite naturally. In such a situation, I would have tried to
15 clarify all the circumstances in which this attempt to tamper or cover up
16 of this whole incident by those persons was carried out.
17 Q. And my last question on this topic: As you dealt with the
18 Grubori case while you were the state attorney in Sibenik, did you ever
19 obtain any evidence or learn anything to the effect that General Markac
20 did anything to, in effect, prevent any investigation into the Grubori
21 incident and clarification of the circumstances of the incident?
22 Did you come across any traces of this activity on part of
23 General Markac?
24 A. From the materials that I had at my disposal, I was unable to
25 establish any facts that would indicate that I should reach such a
1 conclusion, the conclusion that Mr. Markac had in any way prevented or
2 obstructed the actions of the police regarding the Grubori incident.
3 Q. Thank you. Now I would like us to move on to a different topic.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] The document P505, MFI, could I
5 please have this document on the screen; P505, MFI.
6 Q. Mr. Zganjer, you will see this document in front of you. It's a
7 document that you received from the police, and it's a document, it's a
8 purported memorandum from the special advisor to the minister of the
9 interior, Mr. Mladen Markac, to the minister of the interior, Mr. Ivan
11 In response to the Prosecution questions, you said that you had
12 no reason to doubt the authenticity and credibility of this document
13 because, at your request, it was submitted to you by the competent
14 authorities, the Ministry of Interior in this case. I fully respect and
15 understand your position, and, honestly, I would have the same position
16 in the circumstances because I did the same job as you did for a number
17 of years.
18 However, because of certain circumstances, in particular,
19 pertaining to this issue, I have come to suspect the authenticity and
20 credibility of this document, and let me now draw your attention to some
21 of the defects.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, you're introducing, first of all,
23 your personal experience, what your feelings were. Of course, we are
24 here to hear the testimony of the witness, rather than your --
25 MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... my testimony, of
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- testimony. And if you say --
3 MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I was trying to put my
4 case --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, there's no problem with leading,
6 but at a certain moment, it becomes counterproductive. Could you please
7 keep this in mind.
8 MR. MIKULICIC: I will try to avoid this, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zganjer, could you please look at the
12 heading or the letterhead in this document and, in particular, the number
13 which begins -- the reference number which begins with 511-01-30, and now
14 this is an empty space here.
15 It is usual practice - could you please confirm that or not -
16 that usually the number from the registry book is entered here and the
17 first figures listed here define the body, designate the body that
18 actually issued this document, and it is quite clear that the numbers
19 that are put in by the registry book are missing here. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, I agree with you.
21 Q. If we now go back to the next page of this document.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the registrar
23 to move to page 2.
24 Q. We can see that Mladen Markac is designated here as the person
25 issuing the document, but the document is unsigned and there is no
1 official stamp on this document. It is usual for documents, official
2 documents, to bear both. Can you confirm that?
3 A. Yes, can I confirm that. It is quite usual that such documents
4 are signed by the drafter and an official stamp is affixed to them.
5 Q. In light of those circumstances, I went one step further and I
6 sought official information.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 3D01-0565 up
8 on our screens.
9 Q. We will have it in front of us. However, I sent a letter to the
10 office for the Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal with
11 the Ministry of Justice, and I asked them to let me know, under item 1,
12 whether the controversial document, if it exists, was, in fact, signed.
13 I asked for a signed copy of this document to be sent to me.
14 I also wanted them to let me know whether the registry book of
15 the special police sector, for the year 1996, if there is any trace that
16 would indicate that this document signed by General Markac was, in fact,
17 sent and received in the office of the then-minister of the interior,
18 Mr. Jarnjak, and, furthermore, whether any such document was later on
19 forwarded to the Special Rapporteur, Elisabeth Rehn, from Mr. Jarnjak's
21 Mr. Zganjer, you can see this in front of you --
22 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... evidence,
23 Your Honour.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D909.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D909 is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I received an answer to this
4 letter or request, and that is document 3D01-0563.
5 Q. I received this reply from the Directorate for International
6 Cooperation of the Justice Ministry. It was signed and stamped by
7 Mr. Markotic who is the head of the directorate, and we can see here that
8 all the registry numbers are in place.
9 I am notified in this letter that from the Justice Ministry -- or
10 rather, from the Ministry of Interior, they received information that
11 they have checked in their archives and were unable to find a signed copy
12 of the document at issue. Furthermore, this memo was not entered in the
13 registry book for the relevant time-period; that is, 1996, of the former
14 assistant minister for special police, General Markac, and a copy of his
15 personnel file is provided by the directorate.
16 In the last paragraph, they note that the file was not entered --
17 that this document was not entered in the registry books of the office of
18 Minister Jarnjak.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... evidence,
20 Your Honour.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D910, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D910 is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would ask the registry to show
1 document 3D01-0567.
2 Q. [Interpretation] This is the registry book of the special police
3 sector which at that time, in 1996, did exist. It's a huge book, of
4 course, and we will now look at the entries for the dates in question,
5 and that's the 13th of March, 1996, and this is the date listed on the
6 controversial document as the date that the document was actually issued.
7 We can see in the upper area that this page starts with the date
8 which is the 12th of March; and then further down the page --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, I am asking myself what exercise we
10 are engaged in at this moment.
11 The witness gave his view on face value of a document, and it's
12 clear from that what the basis of his assessment is. The basis would not
13 easily allow for any inferences as to whether that is correct or not. He
14 just gives his impression, the impression he gains on the basis of that
16 Now you're taking us through a lot of apparent verification
17 exercises on the authenticity of this document. Now, what would we
18 expect the witness then at then end to say, "Well, I was wrong, I was
19 right." I mean --
20 MR. MIKULICIC: That would be my final questions, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, of course, these are questions for the
22 Court to decide --
23 MR. MIKULICIC: No --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether he was right or whether he was wrong. We
25 are not asking --
1 MR. MIKULICIC: That would not be my question whether he was
2 right or he was wrong. My question would be, if he knew then those
3 facts, would it be that his impression would be the same. That would my
4 final question, and that's all.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a hypothetical question, if you would have had
6 another knowledge, would you have --
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Yeah, like this.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's a matter of logic, rather than anything
9 else, isn't it? You think that the -- of course, if the witness could
10 say, "Well, I know that these records or these registers are not
11 complete; therefore, I would have to doubt to say so," et cetera.
12 But, of course, I'm asking myself whether providing this
13 information to the Chamber, and as argument to add to that, please keep
14 sharply in mind that what the witness says is just based on his --
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Knowledge.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what he knew at the time. We, and especially
17 you, Trial Chamber, you know far more about the matter. So if
18 evaluating, at face value, the assessment of this witness, please keep in
19 mind that the witness was not aware of that and that. Then I'm inclined
20 to say that we could do the job, because the job is about -- simply, it
21 is if you have an initial, a provisional assessment of a situation, if
22 you add information, would that affect the assessment, if the witness
23 would say no.
24 Of course, if he can add anything to that, if you have any
25 knowledge about this or to say that this is incomplete, or "I know for
1 certain that these records have been checked, and I know that it was
2 always established that there were complete." So if something is not in
3 there, it could not -- I mean, if he has any such knowledge, I would
4 certainly like to know for sure, because then he adds to what apparently
5 is documentary evidence which gives a further insight in what this letter
6 may be.
7 Therefore, I'm asking whether this witness can add anything to
8 what I take it, Ms. Mahindaratne, I heard of no objection, additional
9 information, you accept as being obtained from the Croatian government.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Absolutely, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Would you please keep that in mind, Mr. Mikulicic.
13 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, sure, Your Honour. If the witness just can
14 answer my final question, whether he would state within his impression,
15 it was impression because he said that the document came through the
16 channels of the Ministry of Interior, and, therefore, he estimated his
17 authenticity and --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think we can be very clear.
19 Verification seems not to confirm, Mr. Zganjer, does not confirm
20 that the letter was sent and/or received. If you would have had this
21 information at the time, and since you see this kind of information now,
22 would you find that a reason to reconsider your first impression of
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, I was aware of that
25 information at the time -- had I been aware of the information at that
1 time, I would have called into question what I thought. What I see now
2 drives me to believe that there was some kind of a game played within the
3 Ministry of Interior.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... may I tender
6 this document into evidence, Your Honour.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D911, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D911 is admitted into evidence.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zganjer, at the time you worked and was --
14 were active in the Sibenik state attorney's office, you were faced with
15 certain activities that the Ministry of Justice or the state attorney of
16 the Republic of Croatia
17 actions taken, statistics concerning crime, and so on and so forth.
18 This could be called the usual activity, could it not?
19 A. Yes. That was the usual activity in which every state attorney's
20 office engaged periodically, and regularly at the end of the year
21 informing the Ministry of Interior of the number of received criminal
22 reports, and informed the state attorney's office of the actions taken on
23 that score.
24 Q. I will show to you a document concerning the military judiciary,
25 the military court.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can the registrar please call up
3 Q. This is the memo from the then-minister of justice,
4 Mr. Separovic, dated 5th of January, 1996, addressed to the presidents of
5 the military courts in Zagreb
6 can you see.
7 In this memo, the ministry, in paragraph 2, seeks to be notified
8 of the court proceedings against perpetrators of crimes committed after
9 the military and police Operation Storm, regardless of whether the
10 proceedings were pending against persons of Serb ethnicity or persons of
11 Croat ethnicity, or members of the Croatian army.
12 Mr. Zganjer, were you aware at that time of this practice whereby
13 the Croatian authorities sought information on the criminal proceedings
14 pending; thus, wishing to be informed about the number and type of
15 criminal proceedings carried out after Operation Storm?
16 A. Yes. What you are showing to me here on the screen is a document
17 sent to the presidents of military courts. I was not familiar with the
18 specific document, since it had to deal with military courts. However, I
19 knew that the Ministry of Justice, through the state attorney's office of
20 the Republic of Croatia
21 information from state attorney's offices.
22 Q. The competent state attorney was duty-bound to inform the chief
23 state attorney of the information?
24 A. Yes. All the district or county state attorney's offices
25 collected various information which was then compiled at the level of the
1 national state attorney's office and forwarded to the Ministry of
3 Q. Mr. Zganjer, while you were performing the duty of a state
4 attorney, did you personally ever receive any sort of instruction or
5 order that in the course of criminal proceedings, you should make some
6 concessions, refrain from certain criminal proceedings, or
7 characterizations of certain crimes?
8 Did you ever receive such sort of information from anyone in the
9 various structures of the Croatian authorities?
10 A. Counsel Mikulicic, all my life throughout my career in the state
11 attorney's office, I worked by following my conscience, and I was never
12 asked by anyone to turn a blind eye to anything. I was primarily in the
13 service of my conscience rather than the service. That would be my
14 answer, rather than in the service of my position. I was never told by
15 anyone to turn a blind eye or to not see things clearly on any matters.
16 Q. Did you ever hear from any of your colleagues that anybody else,
17 be it in your state attorney's office or in other state attorney's
18 offices that you were in contact with, had been subjected to such
20 A. When it comes to the Sibenik state attorney's office and my
21 deputies, they knew full well what my professional work ethic was, and
22 nobody could have excerpted any sort of pressure upon them without me
23 knowing about it. They were responsible for their jobs to me; and me, by
24 virtue of my position being the state attorney, I protected them from the
25 higher levels, be it the Ministry of Justice or the national state
1 attorney office, regardless.
2 Q. My last question, Mr. Zganjer, on the issue of -- that we're
3 discussing now. When you left the Sibenik office, you ceased working on
4 the Grubori case. You said that at that time you left, the case was
5 still open, it had not been closed. Do you have any information as to
6 whether this same case is closed today or whether the investigation is
7 still ongoing?
8 A. I must admit that I do not have any specific knowledge about
9 that. In the month of September of 2002, I assumed a different position
10 within the state attorney system, whereupon I left the state attorney's
11 offices. I have to be frank, that due to the great workload that I had
12 to take on after I left the Sibenik state attorney's office, I did not
13 have time or interest to know what was going on.
14 When I left the state attorney's offices system altogether in
15 February 2006, I did not have any way of knowing what was going on in the
16 Grubori case in operative terms; that's to say, after the 15th of
17 February, 2006.
18 Q. Equally so, I believe you have no knowledge as to whether the
19 potential suspects or perpetrators of the Grubori incidents were
21 A. I don't know, but I don't believe that they have been identified
22 so far. I don't think so.
23 Q. Thank you for these answers. I don't have any other questions.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... on the screen
25 into the evidence, Your Honour.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D912, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D912 is admitted into evidence.
5 MR. MIKULICIC: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
7 Mr. Kay, or Mr. Cayley?
8 MR. CAYLEY: We don't have any questions, Your Honour. Thank
10 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't know whether you were third in line or
11 second in line without questions. Thank you.
12 Mr. Misetic.
13 Mr. Misetic, Mr. Zganjer, is counsel for Mr. Gotovina and he will
14 now cross-examine you.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
18 Q. Mr. Zganjer, good morning.
19 MR. MISETIC: Let me start, Mr. Registrar, if can I call up
21 Q. Let me start, Mr. Zganjer, with where you left off with
22 Prosecutor yesterday, which is this issue of the admissions or
23 confessions that had been made in the Varivode case, and you said that
24 the confession was made in front of the investigating judge, which is
25 correct. But I'd like to show you statement of one of the accused or the
1 Official Note of the interview of one of the accused before he went to
2 the investigating judge, which is the Official Note of the interview of
3 the subsequently accused Zlatko Ladovic.
4 The note was taken by Ivo Kardum. You will recognise that he was
5 at the time the chief of the crime police in the Zadar-Knin police
6 administration. Is that correct?
7 A. I don't see the information on the screen, but I have no reason
8 to doubt the truthfulness of what you say.
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we can go to page 2 in the
10 English, which is also page 2 in the Croatian.
11 Q. Mr. Ladovic talks about - it's quite long; it's a three-page
12 Official Note - but he talks about the events in Varivode. If we
13 start --
14 MR. MISETIC: I won't go through the whole thing in order to save
16 If we go to six lines below the line that has "Jakovljevic, Ivan"
17 in bold - it's six lines in the English and I am not sure how many in
18 Croatian - the sentence begins: "He says that Coro was wearing the
19 camouflage pants ..."
20 Q. Now Mr. Ladovic, according to the Official Note, says: "He says
21 that Coro
22 tied, and that he was carrying an automatic rifle. Zlatko and Zuki moved
23 forward, and Coro
24 how he move -- sorry. He states how he asked Zuki where the Chetniks
25 were and that he responded ahead. Coro
1 a garden and that he and Zuki continued along the road."
2 Then a few lines below that, he talks about Ivica Petric, and
3 then he says: "He states that at one point, unexpectedly, Zuki fired at
4 these civilians from an automatic rifle, and he didn't know what to do,
5 until he realized what was going on. Seeing what Zuki did them, he said
6 to him, 'Zuki, those aren't Chetniks. What are you doing?' Then he
7 replied, 'It doesn't matter, this is the same gang.'"
8 Then it goes on to details about the killing of other civilians
9 as well in Varivode.
10 Now, my question goes back to these Official Notes. You
11 ultimately decided that the confession before the investigating judge, as
12 well as the confession made at least in the Official Note to Mr. Kardum,
13 did not even provide a reasonable basis to proceed with the Varivode
15 My question for you is: What is it about this Official Note that
16 was not credible to you as a basis for proceeding with charges against
17 Mr. Ladovic?
18 A. I will have to explain a couple of things to you.
19 The Official Note that Counsel Misetic has shown me was not of
20 interest to me when I received this case for my action. When I received
21 this case for my action - that was in 1999, if I'm not mistaken - I
22 focussed in particular -- or rather, I only focussed on the confessions
23 made by some of the accused before an investigating judge, and this is
24 what I really have to stress: Before an investigating judge.
25 These people - Ladovic - were questioned by a investigative
1 judge. And in this stage, when the Supreme Court quashed the judgement
2 and ordered a retrial, I only took into account Ladovic's statement and
3 Jakovljevic's statement made before the investigating judge because only
4 those statements were used as evidence at trial, and I could only
5 evaluate them, not an Official Note. This is why I see no need for any
6 reference to be made to this Official Note.
7 There is the -- there are statements of four of the accused in
8 this case, given to an investigative judge; and this is an Official Note
9 that we discussed at length in the proceedings. This is merely a
10 notification; it is not evidence.
11 In this case, as regards the statement by Ladovic, as a citizen,
12 or as a suspect, we had his statement given to an investigating judge;
13 and when the case came to me, I focussed on analysing the parts of the
14 case file that had evidentiary value. This Official Note does not have
15 evidentiary value; whereas, Zlatko Ladovic's statement before an
16 investigating judge does have such value.
17 This is why I focussed on that statement, not on this Official
18 Note, because I could not come to court and tell the judge, "I'm sorry,
19 judge, but this what is he said in his Official Note," because the Court
20 would simply brush aside this intervention, and they would say, "Now
21 you're referring to something that is not contained in the case file,"
22 because this Official Note had been redacted from the case file a long
23 time ago as material that cannot be used as evidence in criminal
25 Q. Let me follow up. You were asked some questions -- and, first,
1 let me just explain to you, Mr. Zganjer, what we're trying to do here,
2 first, with these Official Notes is determine their reliability. You
3 were asked some questions on this point both by the Prosecutor and by the
4 Presiding Judge yesterday.
5 What I'd like you to do -- even though you did not have this in
6 the case file, you are aware of the facts of the case against Mr. Ladovic
7 because you ultimately decided not to prosecute him.
8 So what I'd like you to explain to us is, now looking at the
9 Official Note and Mr. Ladovic's acknowledgment, at least in the Official
10 Note, of the events in Varivode and his presence there, my question is:
11 Looking at this, do you consider this a reliable statement to the police;
12 and, if not, why not?
13 A. Well, this statement by Mr. Ladovic, this Official Note of an
14 interview with Mr. Ladovic, was, at any rate, a useful piece of
16 But useful for whom? The county state attorney's office in Zadar
17 at the time when the criminal report against the four people was
18 received. At that time, this Official Note became a relevant document
19 for them, enabling them to decide whether criminal proceedings should be
20 launched against those persons or not.
21 Q. I understand the procedural issues that you're addressing. Let
22 me phrase the question a different way.
23 The official police note says that Mr. Ladovic says he was in
24 Varivode with Zuki and Ivica Petric, and Coro and Zuki fired at civilians
25 in Varivode and killed civilians in Varivode.
1 Is that true?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to that question. I
3 think this witness cannot answer that question as to whether that is true
4 or not. He has explained what the notes are and their purposes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me see. The objection is granted.
6 But I do see what you'd like to know, Mr. Misetic.
7 This Official Note first reflects a statement given to police
8 officers by Mr. Ladovic. Do you have any reason to believe that the
9 Official Note does not accurately reflect what Mr. Ladovic told the
10 police officers?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do allow that what the police
12 officer recorded when interviewing the citizen or suspect Ladovic is,
13 indeed, accurate. But --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is an answer to my first question. If
15 you'd like to add anything at a later stage, you may do so.
16 If you would, please, listen to my second question: Do you have
17 any reason to believe that what was put on paper as the statement or what
18 was put on paper as reflecting what Mr. Ladovic had told the police
19 officers was not in accordance with the truth?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this point in time, I have to
21 admit that I cannot recall details from Mr. Ladovic's statement, the
22 statement that he gave to the police officers. I do allow that this is
23 what he really did say to the police officers, and that they recorded
24 this accurately in the Official Note.
25 However, Mr. Ladovic spoke about this in his interview with the
1 investigating judge --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and I would kindly ask --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you say the reasons for believing or the
5 reasons to doubt the truthfulness of his statement is found in the later
6 statement he gave to the investigating judge, if you say on the basis of
7 what I've seen there, I have doubts as to whether he told us the truth -
8 not us, of course - he told the truth to the police officers, if that is
9 what you want to draw our attention to, please do so.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for this
12 You, in fact, may have rendered in the most accurate terms what I
13 have been trying to say. I have reason to doubt the contents of the
14 statement because what he said to the police, and in particular what he
15 said to the investigating judge, he and the other accused, well, what
16 they told the investigating judge in particular has nothing to do with
17 the scene of the crime. It is enough for you to look at what they said
18 in the course of the investigation and to look at the photo file where
19 the crime scene is recorded.
20 You can see that it simply cannot be true. The manner in which
21 they described having killed some people does not correspond to what was
22 established at the crime scene, and you don't have to be a genius. All
23 you have to is read in detail their confessions and look at the
24 photographs, and you can see that there is something wrong with the
1 JUDGE ORIE: If I do understand you well, you say that the
2 reasons for you to believe if the Official Note accurately reflects what
3 he said, the reason is that the statement he gave to the investigating
4 judge is not consistent with what he apparently told the police. You add
5 to that that the details he gave do not match the information you had
6 available on the events.
7 I, when trying to understand your testimony, I noticed myself - I
8 might be mistaken, where I said inconsistent - I haven't seen that
9 material. But I'm trying to understand what you're telling us.
10 You say: This is apparently what he told, he gave a statement at
11 a later stage to the investigating judge, and details he describes there
12 do not match with the information he had about the events, the terrain,
13 and the circumstances.
14 Have I understood your answer well?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, that's what I'm
16 trying to say. If you allow just one more remark, as far as I can
17 recall, after seven or eight years, one of the accused said more or less
18 the following: We were moving down the road towards the village of
19 Varivode; and at one point, two people we didn't know in uniform came
20 towards us, and I automatically turned my machine-gun towards them and
21 shot them, killing them.
22 None of the victims were found on the road. The event that one
23 of the accused described would indicate that there was a certain distance
24 between those people and him, the man who fired the shots. The people in
25 Varivode were killed in their own yards. They were killed as they sat at
1 their tables, in front of their homes. For the most part, they were shot
2 in the head. They were shot in the head in their own front yards. This
3 is what I can recall.
4 So this confession, this story about how those two people were
5 killed, the circumstances as they with described, has nothing to do about
6 what was established on the crime scene. I'm sure that you have the
7 files, that you have the photo file, and it would a very simple exercise
8 to look at that time and come to this conclusion, to check it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
10 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Zganjer, my question on this topic, in light of your answers,
12 is this: In light of your 27 or 28 years of experience in the Croatian
13 criminal justice system, do you have any insight that you could offer us
14 as to why these defendants, and in this particular case, Mr. Ladovic,
15 would tell the police or confess to the police that he, in fact, had
16 participated in the murders in Varivode?
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I don't know how the witness
18 could respond to that question as to --
19 JUDGE ORIE: We do not know whether he can answer.
20 He is asked whether, in his experience, whether he could offer
21 any reason, in this particular case, why they would have told the police
22 that they were involved. We don't know. If he can't explain, he will
23 tell us. If he has any information which would help him and help us to
24 understand this confession, he'll tell us.
25 Mr. Zganjer.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my response, I can only refer to
2 what, in the course of the proceedings, the accused actually did say, and
3 what they did say is that they were beaten brutally by police officers.
4 I cannot confirm that, but I cannot rule that out.
5 I do know that had I been the state attorney at the time when
6 they were brought into custody, I would have asked them to show me the
7 evidence for this abuse that they allegedly suffered at the hand of the
8 police officers, and then I would ask the investigating judge to record
9 all this evidence. In that case, that would give more or less credence
10 to what they were saying. But this is what they stated in the course of
11 the investigative proceedings before a court in Sibenik.
12 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... 1D60-0074 into
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D913.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D913 is admitted into evidence.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could now have P1062 on the
20 screen, please.
21 Q. This is the special report that you were shown by the Prosecutor
22 of the 27th of June, 2002, by Mr. Glavan.
23 MR. MISETIC: And if we could go to page 3 in the English of this
24 report, please. And if we could scroll down please in the English, and
25 it's page 2 of the Croatian.
1 Q. This is now the second paragraph from the bottom in the Croatian.
2 MR. MISETIC: And if we could scroll down in the English text
4 Q. It says: "Furthermore, according to the information collected,
5 Nenad Mrkota and other persons, together with Bozo Bacelic currently in
6 detention of the county court in Sibenik, put pressure on the witnesses
7 in the criminal procedure for the crime committed in Prukljani and crimes
8 committed in Gosici and Varivode, suspected of being committed by Bozo
9 Bacelic and Goran Vunic."
10 Now, Mr. Zganjer, this is sent to you at the end of June in 2002,
11 and I note from the Prukljani case, which you prosecuted, there was a
12 trial six weeks later -- I'm sorry, ten weeks later in September of the
13 same year, in which Goran -- in this case, it says Bozo Bacelic and Goran
14 Vunic were together, suspected of committing the crimes in Gosici and
15 Varivode; yet ten weeks later in the trial against Bacelic, one of the
16 witness against him was Goran Vunic.
17 MR. MISETIC: We can see that in Exhibit D843, Your Honours.
18 Q. My question is, Mr. Zganjer: After receiving this report,
19 between the time you received this report and, ultimately, when Mr. Vunic
20 testified against Mr. Bacelic ten weeks later, did you do anything to ask
21 Mr. Vunic or question him or take any other measure to investigate any
22 basis for the allegation that he was involved in the murders in Gosici
23 and Varivode?
24 A. Counsel Misetic, let me first clarify one thing. I received the
25 document on or around the 27th of June, 2002. You're talking about some
1 ten weeks after that. I don't know what ten weeks are we talking about.
2 The judgement in the Bozo Bacelic et al case for the Prukljani case was
3 made public on the 12th of September, 2002.
4 It appears to me that if you're talking about Goran Vunic, that
5 in the Prukljani case, Goran Vunic was examined as a witness before I
6 received this document, that is, before the 27th of June, 2002; but, of
7 course, we can check that by inspecting the case file.
8 I do know for a fact that the judgement was made public in the
9 Bozo Bacelic et al case on the 12th of September 2002. I also know for a
10 fact that Goran Vunic was a witness that was called in that case, and I
11 think that Goran Vunic was examined as a witness at this trial before I
12 received this document that you're now showing me.
13 Now we have to check the case file and see when Goran Vunic was
14 actually examined as a witness in that case, in that trial. So if you
15 can be more specific with your question. So I would like to ask you to
16 take this caveat into account, and perhaps I could prompt you to verify
17 what I have just told you in some way.
18 Q. I will do that during the break, and then we'll continue this
19 topic after the break, Mr. Zganjer.
20 But while we're on this document, regardless of whether he -- the
21 date of his testimony, you now have enough information at the end of
22 June 2002 certainly that Mr. Mrkota participated in the crime of
23 obstructing a criminal investigation. Correct?
24 A. Yes. When I received this notice, I had quite specific
25 information about all this. There was the statement by Davor Simic, a
1 police officer. As far as I can recall, there was his work plan, there
2 were search warrants that were never actually implemented. So I did have
3 information that for some reasons, Nenad Mrkota may have obstructed the
4 police action, actions aimed at Goran Vunic.
5 So it is true, in fact.
6 Q. What happened? What was the result of your investigation of
7 Mr. Mrkota's obstruction of the criminal investigation in Varivode?
8 A. As I've already said a few times, in September, I went to Zagreb
9 So now we're talking about late June. But if the Court is interested in
10 this, I can tell you what doubts I had when it comes to Nenad Mrkota and
11 the facts that transpired relating to his actions.
12 So, here, we have notice or notification that Nenad Mrkota may
13 have obstructed police actions; in other words, actions conducted by
14 himself, because Davor Simic was in the company that was under the
15 command of Mrkota.
16 So how could we qualify this in operational terms, in legal
17 terms? If it is, indeed, true that Nenad Mrkota knew in advance what
18 Bozo Bacelic and Goran Vunic would do in Gosici, and if he promised that
19 he would assist them in this manner by obstructing the police
20 investigation, then, in that case, Nenad Mrkota would be held criminally
21 responsible for aiding a murder or perhaps even a war crime, if he
22 promised he would help them in advance knowing what they would do at a
23 certain location.
24 But if, in fact, Nenad Mrkota learned what Bozo Bacelic and Goran
25 Vunic had purportedly done at a later stage, then his conduct could be
1 qualified as aiding a perpetrator after the commission of the crime. So
2 if we're talking about this crime, aiding after the fact, then at the
3 time when we received this notification, seven years, almost full seven
4 years after the crime was committed, we would be in an area where the
5 statute of limitations had already expired in relative terms, and we
6 could not prosecute Nenad Mrkota. And if the former was the case, if he
7 knew in advance what they would do and if he promised to assist them,
8 then there would be no statute of limitations.
9 We were in a legal quandary here. We had to resolve that and
10 take action as appropriate.
11 Now, whether, after I left, the state attorney's office thought
12 along those lines and conducted appropriate checks, I can't tell you. I
13 don't know that.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I could just correct the
15 record, the witness said Davor Simic, and it's been recorded as Davor
16 Simir, but I think also the witness was referring to Damir Simic, if I am
17 not mistaken.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was on my mind as well. As you also know,
19 usually the transcripts are reviewed after we leave the courtroom, and it
20 is a lot of work, but it certainly will assist those who are hearing the
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. MISETIC:
24 Q. Last question before the break, Mr. Zganjer: Did you ever
25 consider at the time you received the report on the screen, that, in
1 fact, the opposite was true and someone was obstructing the investigation
2 in Varivode by claiming that Mr. Mrkota was, in fact, obstructing the
3 investigation of the "real perpetrators"?
4 In other words, did you ever consider that someone was trying to
5 assist the accused -- the existing accused in the Varivode case by coming
6 up with an alternative theory?
7 A. In the Varivode and Gosici cases, which were conducted against
8 certain persons, we came by certain facts and information which led us to
9 suspect that the crimes in Varivode and Gosici were committed by other
10 individuals altogether, individuals wearing the uniform of the Croatian
11 army, because the witnesses in that case made statements along those
12 lines. You certainly must have the statements of these witnesses who
13 said that before hearing the gun-fire from Gosici, they had seen trucks
14 with uniformed individuals heading toward Gosici. After that, they heard
15 gun-fire again and, upon arriving in the area, saw what they saw. That's
16 what some witnesses said in no unclear terms, if I recall that well.
17 Among others, this was one of the facts which led us to suspect
18 that the possible perpetrators are either members of the Croatian army or
19 persons who put on Croatian army uniforms ad hoc. There were quite a few
20 of those, you know, at the time who would put on Croatian army uniforms
21 in order to go and borrow things from abandoned homes. They wore the
22 uniform of the Croatian army, but whether they were actually members of
23 that army is a big question mark.
24 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... moment, Your
25 Honour. This would be a good time for a break, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break. We'll resume at 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.09 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
5 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D843 on the screen,
7 please. If we could go to page 2 in the Croatian and page 4 in the
8 English version, please, and down at the bottom of the page in the
10 Q. Mr. Zganjer, I'm just showing you this so that maybe you can help
11 us clarify this. In the actual judgement for the Prukljani murders in
12 the Bacelic case, it says that the indictment was issued on the 1st of
13 March, 2002 and amended on 1 March 2002, as well as on 23 August 2002
14 the main hearing. That's where I came to the conclusion that the trial
15 took place on 23 August 2002
16 Do you recall when and over how many days the trial in the
17 Bacelic case took place?
18 A. The trial definitely started after the indictment was filed. If
19 it says here that the indictment was filed on the 1st of March, 2002
20 then the trial must have ensued after that date. I can't recall at this
21 time if the indictment was challenged in any way, but this does not
22 change my statement that the trial must have started after the 1st of
23 March 2002.
24 It is also true that one of the hearings in that case was held on
25 the 23rd of August, 2002. It is also true that the trial ended on the
1 11th of September, 2002, when this judgement was published, the one
2 you're showing right now on the screen. I'm now correcting the part of
3 my statement where I said that the judgement was published on the 12th of
5 I think that I saw on the cover page of this judgement that it
6 was published or rendered on the 11th of September, 2002, and I change
7 that part of my statement.
8 Q. Mr. Zganjer, I will move on to a different topic, and I'd like to
9 show you --
10 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could call up 1D60-0001,
12 Q. Mr. Zganjer, what I'm going to you is the actually operative
13 action plan that the MUP came up with on the 15th of October, 1995
14 its a plan to establish the identity of the perpetrators of the homicides
15 in the settlements of Varivode and Gosic.
16 Now, this is the 15th of October, and you will note some of the
17 names: Pero Perkovic; Zvonimir Lasan Zorobable; Zlatko Ladovoc, whose
18 statement we've looked at this morning; Ivica Petric; Boris Vunic;
19 Nedeljko Mijic; and on the right-hand side, Nikola Rasic Zes. The work
20 plan states that by 0300 hours on the 16th, the correct addresses need to
21 be established for these individuals.
22 I ask you to note here that the only person so far with the last
23 name of Vunic who is suspected by the MUP is Boris Vunic on the 15th of
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I asked that the exhibit be marked,
1 and I tender it into evidence.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I would not principally object
3 to this document, but you can see page 3 and 4 of the documents are
4 missing from the Croatian version as well as the English version. From
5 what I can see, there is a signature at page 2; but at page 3, I don't
6 know whether that is supposed to be an attachment or what it is. Page 3
7 is numbered as page 5, so obviously page 3 and 4 are is missing.
8 MR. MISETIC: I will be happy to disclose that counsel. It is
9 not a big deal to us. Actually, we added the page 5.
10 Q. Mr. Zganjer, if you could turn to that page.
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, it is the last page in this exhibit.
12 Because in the attachment to the MUP plan, it says that the
13 subject of the search is going to be the house of person Vunic Boris, son
14 of Ante, born on 20 December, 1971.
15 So, Your Honour, to satisfy Ms. Mahindaratne, I ask that the
16 exhibit be MFI
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I agree to that, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D914,
20 marked for identification.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
22 MR. MISETIC:
23 Q. Now, subsequent to the work plan, interviews were conducted with
24 some of the persons who are named in the wok plan.
25 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if could I have 1D60-0007, please.
1 Q. Mr. Zganjer, let me ask you a preliminary question. If, during
2 the course of an interview or an investigation of one criminal event, the
3 police and/or the prosecutor's office learns of the commission of a
4 different crime, what is the obligation of the police and/or the
5 prosecutor's office with respect to the additional crime uncovered in the
7 In other words, do they have an obligation to investigate that
8 additional crime as well?
9 A. Of course, there is such an obligation. The course of a criminal
10 investigation is always unpredictable, one way or the other. You could
11 be initiating the proceedings for one crime, and then you may come across
12 helpful information indicating that other crimes may have been committed
13 in addition to the one you were investigating.
14 Generally speaking, the police uses such information in order to
15 investigate these other lines, indicating the commission of other crimes.
16 The police will inform the state attorney's office of that information.
17 But, as a rule, the police will always do whatever can be done today,
18 today, rather than leaving it for tomorrow. If there is indication that
19 certain actions need to be taken right away in order to obtain useful
20 information, the police will do so, with a view to getting the
21 information necessary.
22 Of course, the police will inform the state attorney of all the
23 useful information they have gathered.
24 Q. Let me take to you this statement now, and this is where
25 Mr. Lasan talks about, towards the middle of the page: "Upon entry to
1 the house, Zvonimir told them he had killed the old man, but he cannot
2 remember the exact words he used. After staying there for a short time,
3 they left that village; and on their way to Kistanje, they met Petric and
4 Patko who were also on their way to visit the area."
5 Then it goes down, I believe, to the last sentence: "Aside from
6 this murder, Zvonimir states that he didn't kill or shoot at anyone else
7 after Operation Storm, besides shooting at some Chetniks during the
8 operation and burning one house when they entered Kistanje, which he
9 thought was a Chetnik house because he saw a lot of books there that were
10 mostly in Cyrillic and a picture of a man in a Yugoslav uniform."
11 Now, my question is: There seems to be specific information
12 about at least one of the perpetrators of a burning houses in Kistanje.
13 Do you know if anything was done on the basis of this information to
14 prosecute this individual, or anyone else who was with him, for setting
15 fires in Kistanje?
16 A. I don't have specific information about that; however, I would
17 like to draw everybody's attention to one fact. This statement taken by
18 the police officer, from the citizen Zvonimir Lasan, was taken in 1995 in
19 relation to the Varivode and Gosici events, if I'm not mistaken. This
20 statement, in addition to the criminal report against certain individuals
21 for the crimes committed in Varivode and Gosici, was given to the Zadar
22 state attorney.
23 The year was 1995, and the area of Kistanje is mentioned here,
24 which also came under the Zadar-Knin police administration purview and
25 the purview of the Zadar state attorney. Now, whether they, on the basis
1 of the information provided by Citizen Zvonimir Lasan, acted in any way
2 as a follow-up, that's something I don't know. I repeat: The
3 proceedings were conducted by the Zadar-Knin police administration.
4 A moment ago, you showed me the work plan that was drafted by the
5 Sibenik police administration. Nothing strange there. What was involved
6 was a serious crime and the stage was that of the pre-criminal proceed.
7 In the attempt to identify the perpetrators of the crime, the members of
8 the Zadar and Sibenik police administrations were involved; however, the
9 case was so serious that the Zagreb
10 involved as well, as did the military police, and the security an
11 information service, too. The case was such that it demanded an
12 all-encompassing police investigation.
13 MR. MISETIC: I ask that this exhibit be marked, and I tender it
14 into evidence.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, again, principally I would not
16 object, but this is a matter that I raised with Mr. Misetic last evening.
17 We have only one paragraph, and there's another paragraph that has been
18 translated. So, at this stage, I'm unable to, you know, make any sense
19 of what the rest of the notice is. This is not a huge document, and I
20 believe parties generally submit partial translation where the documents
21 are large. But we're now talking about a record of interview from a
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters simple.
24 If you would be granted another 24 hours to review whether the
25 remainder of the document would cause to you ask the Chamber to
1 reconsider admission or to reconsider the extent to which this document
2 should be admitted into evidence, as far as translation is concerned,
3 would that that do?
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So then we'll ask Mr. Registrar already to
6 assign a number. We'll give a decision on admission, but you're in a
7 position to revisit the matter.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D915.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D915 is admitted into evidence.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Mr. Registrar, if could I have 1D60-0014 on the screen, please.
14 Q. This is a statement or an Official Note, I should say, of an
15 interview with Berislav Setkanic, and I only put it on the screen because
16 it was taken as part of the Varivode, Gosic investigation. It has a
17 reference to Vunic Bore, which is short for Boris, with a description,
18 and stating that he knows some of the individuals. Two of them are
19 friends with Nikola Belic.
20 But in any event, it is Boris Vunic who is referenced or whose
21 name comes up in the course of the Varivode, Gosici investigation.
22 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that this exhibit be marked,
23 and I tender it into evidence.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection on the same basis, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D916.
3 JUDGE ORIE: D916 is admitted into evidence. The Prosecution has
4 an opportunity, within the next 24 hours, to revisit the matters as far
5 as completeness of the translation is concerned.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. MISETIC: Now, Mr. Registrar, if could I have 1D60-0020.
8 Q. Mr. Zganjer, this is the 17 October 1995 Official Note of the
9 interview with Boris Vunic.
10 MR. MISETIC: And if we turn the page, please.
11 Q. Actually, it's not an Official Note. It says it's a record on
12 taking a statement, and it is actually signed by Mr. Vunic at the bottom.
13 Mr. Vunic, on the 17th of October, Mr. Boris Vunic said, at the
14 very top, that he was in Kistanje during the liberation. "I was going
15 around houses for the purposes of finding war booty. When we came to the
16 police station in Kistanje, right at the entrance, I found a
17 7.9-millimetre calibre M53 machine-gun which I immediately took for the
18 purpose of keeping it for myself. After going through the other rooms in
19 the above-mentioned, I found a military bag in a closet containing the
21 I won't read it, but there is a description of all the different
22 types of weaponry he found. He goes on to talk about in the middle of
23 August going back into the liberated area with his brother Goran and
24 taking tractors, taking them back to his home. He says, from the 1st of
25 September to 14th September, he was in the field in Drvar. While in the
1 field in Drvar, he found more weaponry and kept it for himself.
2 Then he says: "At the end of September, not remembering the
3 date, I went to the liberated areas again by tractor to the settlement
4 Djevrska; and from one family house also owned by people I don't know, I
5 took around ten new windows, put the same on the tractor, drove them home
6 to Ladjevci."
7 Now, Mr. Zganjer, this is on the 17th of October. You've seen
8 that the Sibenik police had a work plan with Boris Vunic's name on it.
9 In his statement to the police, Boris Vunic tells the police that he has
10 all sorts of weaponry that he acquired and took home for his own personal
12 What would you, as the prosecutor, expect to be the next step in
13 the investigation with respect to Boris Vunic?
14 A. This statement that was taken by the Sibenik police on the
15 17th of October, 1995, from Boris Vunic indicates that he, in fact, took
16 for himself various weapons that he found in Djevrska, Ladjevci.
17 At the time, well, I could tell what you I would have done, but
18 this case was not in my jurisdiction at the time. But be that as it may,
19 the statement itself dictates that the weapons be seized from Boris
20 Vunic, that a search be carried out of his apartment, and that the
21 weapons be taken away from him.
22 It is possible that Boris Vunic might have agreed to hand over
23 the weapons, making the search unnecessary. The weapons seized in this
24 manner would then perhaps be examined by a ballistics expert. As far as
25 the taking of tractors and other items is concerned, now it's a matter of
1 judgement, whether to prosecute Boris Vunic for theft or some other
3 So that -- those would the actions that would stem from this
4 statement that he made.
5 MR. MISETIC: Now if we could go back to P1063, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, would you allow me to put one
7 clarifying question.
8 You said the theft, whether to prosecute Vunic for theft, that
9 would be a matter of judgement. What did you mean by that exactly?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course, a search would
11 have to be carried out, and it -- we would have to ascertain whether
12 Boris Vunic had, in fact, taken the tractor, as he claims here. The
13 tractor should have been seized with appropriate receipt being issued to
14 him, the weapons should have been seized from him, and then a criminal
15 report should he been filed against him for theft or for unauthorised
16 possession of a fire-arm. This is what his statement dictated quite
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was it your experience that if such
19 information reached the police in 1995 just after Operation Storm, that
20 the appropriate action as you explained to us that should have been taken
21 was actually taken?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at this point in time, I
23 don't know that. I don't know whether any criminal reports were filed
24 against Goran Vunic on the account of this statement, and whether he was
25 prosecuted for what he had told the police officers here in this
1 statement. We're talking about 1990 --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... what I asked
3 you is whether such information in 1995 would have reached the police,
4 whether, in fact, action as you described that would be appropriate to
5 take on the basis of such information was taken in 1995?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, action would have been taken,
7 should have been taken, because we face similar situations, countless of
8 them; and many people were prosecuted for acts of this nature. I'm
9 talking about theft, taking of various items such as tractors and so on
10 from abandoned houses in the liberated territory. There were many such
11 cases at that time.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us, especially since there were many
13 of them, whether the capacity allowed for investigating them and
14 prosecuting them, or whether there was just a certain percentage that
15 would be investigated and prosecuted?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of the lack of personnel
17 that we faced at that time, all the cases that came before the state
18 attorney's office were dealt with. Actions were taken.
19 So, in spite of the small number of personnel in the state
20 attorney's office, we tried to deal with all those cases in a proper
21 manner and to forward them to courts when there was enough evidence to
22 prosecute persons against whom criminal reports were filed.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm asking this question in relation to the
24 answer when you said in relation to the tractors, for example, it was a
25 matter of judgement.
1 You didn't say, in relation to the weapons, that it was a matter
2 of judgement whether or not to prosecute those cases; however, you did so
3 in relation to the tractors. But you explained, then, that you had to
4 establish whether he actually had stolen those tractors.
5 Well, wouldn't be the same be true for establishing whether he
6 had taken the weapons? I mean, you make a distinction there between the
7 approach you would take in relation to the weapons and to the tractors.
8 In the one, you say, "We'd go there, we'd search, we'd try to find them,
9 they may have been given to the police already"; and in relation to the
10 tractors, you said it required judgement, and when asked to explain you
11 said, "Well, of course, you would have to establish the facts, and that
12 would be true for the theft of weapons as well."
13 So, therefore, I'm puzzled by the distinction you made there.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your intervention is
15 quite subtle and apposite. Let me be quite specific.
16 There is no substantial difference between tractors and weapons.
17 They are treated in the same manner; the procedure is same. This has to
18 be reported and perpetrators have to be prosecuted.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you very directly: Would it be
20 that, in view of the type of stolen goods - weapons, which create a
21 certain danger to society and tractors, which are primarily prejudicial
22 to the owners of the tractors - that, in fact, priority was given to
23 matters like weapons rather than to tractors and windows?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, priority had to be given
25 to weapons, rather than to old beds, frames, window frames, or ancient
1 washing machines and tractors.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could it, therefore, mean that theft of such goods
3 as you mentioned were less vigorously investigated and prosecuted?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that you're talk being
5 weapons now?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Or the other goods being less vigorously
7 investigated and prosecuted, which, of course, means that, I would say,
8 the dangerous stuff - weaponry, ammunition, machine-guns - to be more
9 vigorously investigated and prosecuted.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only speak about my
11 experience while I worked in Sibenik and the time-period after the
12 military and police Operation Storm. I think that my memory serves me
13 right if I say that, in fact, we did have more people who were prosecuted
14 for stealing furniture and furnishings than of people who took weapons.
15 So, in the huge mass of criminal cases, many more dealt with
16 household appliances than with weapons, cases where people found and then
17 took the weapons. I'm talking about the Sibenik area, within the
18 jurisdiction of the state attorney's office in Sibenik.
19 JUDGE ORIE: One follow-up question in that respect: Are you
20 talking about absolute numbers, or are you talking about percentages?
21 To clarify my question, if you investigate and prosecute ten
22 cases of thefts of weapons, and if you investigate and prosecute ten
23 cases of theft of tractors and windows, then the ten for the weapons
24 might be 50 per cent if 20 of such cases were known; whereas, the
25 tractors and the windows might be one per cent if a thousand cases were
2 So, if you say more cases were prosecuted in relation to these
3 less dangerous goods, that does not yet give an insight on the priority
4 given and on the level of vigour with which investigations and
5 prosecutions took place?
6 So, to keep it simple: Were these, I would say, these less
7 dangerous goods, were they from a point of view of percentage of
8 investigations and prosecutions equally or less vigorously investigated
9 and prosecuted.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me say this once again.
11 The cases involving theft of less dangerous goods were in the majority.
12 There were far more of them.
13 Let me precede this by saying that it was easier to identify the
14 perpetrator of a theft that involved less dangerous goods, such as
15 household appliances. Why? Because there were many cases of people
16 going to the liberated area and loading beds, wardrobes, washing machines
17 on to the tractors, and driving down the road, where they would be
18 stopped and military and civilian police. Those items were then seized
19 from those people and they were given appropriate receipts, and criminal
20 reports were filed against them.
21 Those people who took weapons did not go around recklessly and
22 boldly with ten rifles hanging about their necks allowing themselves to
23 be caught by the police. Those who stole weapons knew that this was a
24 more delicate matter that had to be concealed in some manner, and this is
25 why it was more difficult to identify those who stole or took weapons.
1 This may be one of the reasons why the majority of criminal
2 reports had to do with the theft of less dangerous goods, as opposed to
3 the smaller number of cases that involved the theft of weapons.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's also the reason why I included in one
5 of my previous questions limited the cases to those that had became known
6 to the police.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 I'm reminded that I forgot to ask that 1D60-0020, which is the
10 statement of Boris Vunic, be tendered into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D917.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D917 is admitted into evidence.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MISETIC:
18 Q. Now, Mr. Zganjer, you've told us that you expected, based on
19 Mr. Boris Vunic's statement, that for the weapons, there would be an
20 investigation or a search for those weapons.
21 MR. MISETIC: If I could now take you back to P1063, please.
22 Q. Now, this is the letter of the state prosecutor in Zadar of the
23 23rd of October.
24 MR. MISETIC: And if we scroll down on the screen.
25 Q. Again, it is concerning the Gosici and Varivode case and some of
1 the names that were in the MUP action plan from the 15th, which I showed
2 you a few minutes ago. I will tell on this list, if you go to at
3 point 4, it's Ivica Petric and Nikola Rasic.
4 MR. MISETIC: If we turn the page, to page 2.
5 Q. Number 5 is Nedeljko Mijic who also in the action plan and who
6 also had already been interviewed by that point.
7 Then if you look below paragraph -- the paragraph below paragraph
8 number 5, the state prosecutor says, in relation to the stated:
9 "Informative interviews should be conducted with the above-mentioned
10 persons regarding the committing of the stated criminal offences, as well
11 as with the eye-witnesses, and necessary verifications should be made
12 concerning the possession of certain weapons."
13 MR. MISETIC: Now if we go back to page 1 of the document.
14 Q. Now, you said yesterday that it was, indeed, unusual that in a
15 letter from the state prosecutor's office, in point 1, the name Vunic and
16 then the first name is deleted, and by hand somebody wrote in Vunic,
17 Goran. I believe yesterday you said you don't know when that insertion
18 of the name took place.
19 But my first question is : Again, you were the prosecutor in the
20 Varivode and Gosici case. Did you find any evidence in the file before
21 the date of this letter in which Goran Vunic had been considered a
22 suspect by anyone in this case, in the case of Varivode, Gosici?
23 A. If I could ask you, Counsel Misetic, to rephrase the question and
24 be a bit more specific or precise. I have to say that I did not really
25 understand it, and I would like to be able to you a specific answer.
1 Q. My question is -- you have made statements in your statement
2 about Goran Vunic being a suspect in the Varivode, Gosici case.
3 My question to you is: Do you know of any evidence in the file,
4 prior to this letter, which would indicate that Goran Vunic was a person
5 of interest to any authority in the Republic of Croatia
6 When I say that -- when I say "a person of interest," I mean
7 specifically in the Varivode, Gosici case.
8 A. Well, I don't know if I will be able to give you a specific
10 I don't know how I could know about some things about Goran Vunic
11 before this letter was even drafted. If this letter or this motion by
12 the county state attorney's office drafted on the 23rd of October, 1995
13 sent to the chief of the Zadar-Knin police administration by the Zadar
14 state attorney's office, and if all this happened in 1995, at that time I
15 covered an entirely different area, and I was not aware of this case.
16 My knowledge about Goran Vunic, as a potential perpetrator of the
17 crime in Gosici and Varivode, dates back to the time when I started
18 taking action in order to try to identify the perpetrators of the crimes
19 in Gosici and Varivode, if they were not the people who were charged with
20 this -- with these crimes. So, after a decision was made not to
21 prosecute people who were charged with those crimes, I start taking
22 action to identify the actual, the real perpetrators.
23 It is it only then that Goran Vunic became a suspect, as a
24 potential perpetrator. This is when I learned from the memo sent by the
25 military police that you showed me, the date is the 27th of June, 2002
1 what actually happened in relation to Goran Vunic and police activities.
2 I learned about the alleged efforts to obstruct the investigation by the
3 commander of the military police company, Nenad Mrkota, who obstructed
4 the investigation that was put and trained by -- in a very proper manner
5 by military police officer Damir Simic.
6 The question then is why Nenad Mrkota did this in relation to
7 Goran Vunic. Why is it that, in 2005, he stepped in and prevented the
8 search of the apartment and other premises used by Vunic, and why the
9 weapons used -- the side arms and the other weapons used by the
10 reconnaissance company were not seized. It is only then that Goran Vunic
11 became, in my eyes, a potential suspect as one of the possible
12 perpetrators of this crime.
13 Q. I will take you through, now, why perhaps Mr. Mrkota stopped the
14 investigation, if he did, at all. Let me ask you this question: In the
15 state attorney's office, when you sent out a letter to someone else and
16 put the official seal on the letter, in the copy that was retained for
17 the file in the state attorney's office, it's true, is it not, that you
18 wouldn't necessarily put a seal on the file copy? Correct?
19 A. Well, it was not necessary, if we're talking about a copy that
20 remained in the files, in the archives of the state attorney's office.
21 But letters or documents that were sent to specific addressees, they had
22 to have the stamp affixed, the case number, and a signature had to be
24 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... this document
25 in its form in the file of the county state attorney's office in Zadar,
1 which is 1D60-0024, Mr. Registrar, please.
2 Q. The file copy in the state attorney's office in Zadar has only
3 Boro Vunic at point 1.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to the -- the
5 reference to the file copy. Now, we do not know whether it is a file
6 copy. The Defence tenders this document. We do not know from where the
7 Defence has got it.
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, anticipating that precise objection,
9 I contacted the chief prosecutor in Croatia, Mr. Bajic. While I was on
10 my feet, he has sent a letter of confirmation that this is the file copy
11 that they have in Zadar. We will disclose it to Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 Should she have any other questions, she can address me.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So I take it that, during the next break, you and
14 Ms. Mahindaratne will set together, to see whether there remains any
15 dispute as to the source of this document?
16 MR. MISETIC: Yes. If necessary we will translate the entire
17 correspondence with Mr. Bajic.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. MISETIC:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Zganjer, as you heard, Mr. Bajic has confirmed for us
22 this morning that this is the file copy of the letter in Zadar.
23 Who -- let me put it a different way?
24 You have no idea who blocked out Boro, called Babac, in the
25 original, and then hand wrote in Goran Vunic. Correct?
1 A. I really don't have any knowledge about that.
2 Q. Let's take a look at this further now.
3 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked. I
4 don't know if Ms. Mahindaratne wishes to MFI it until she looks at
5 Mr. Bajic's correspondence.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will object to the document, Mr. President,
7 because I wish the Chamber to examine both documents. In fact, I have,
8 if the Chamber requires, I have brought printout hard copies of both
9 documents, the Prosecution version and what the Defence has just
10 tendered. You can see certain aspects on the Prosecution document which
11 indicates as to what the original document is. For example, if you
12 compare the signatures --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that you want to us look at both
14 documents at least.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So it should be marked for identification anyhow;
17 and then perhaps after your discussions during the break, it will be
18 clear to the Chamber where exactly what the problem is. And even if it
19 would be true, what you say, that could be relevant information for this
20 claim to consider; and that for that reason, whether it's a forgery or
21 whatever the background may be, that it would be good to have it in
22 evidence, just to consider.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. The Defence has objected
24 to the Prosecution version. In fact, it is in the MFI state. So
25 perhaps, you know, both documents can be tendered into evidence, and then
1 the Trial Chamber will have the benefit of comparing both documents.
2 MR. MISETIC: I have no objection to that, Your Honour, as long
3 as -- I have no objection to that. And in addition to that, if there is
4 an issue still that Ms. Mahindaratne has that what I have put on the
5 screen is confirmed by the state prosector in Croatia as filed
6 [indiscernible] to me, then I will ask that the letter from Mr. Bajic to
7 the Defence also be tendered --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest -- first of all, we our at this moment
9 hearing you, Mr. Misetic, and I have not asked over Defence counsel on
10 the matter.
11 I suggest that you sit together to see what joint conclusions you
12 can draw; and then, on the basis of that, inform the Chamber. If there
13 is any matter of admission into evidence remaining after that, of course,
14 the Chamber will give its ruling on it.
15 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We have it marked for identification for the time
17 being, Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D918,
19 marked for identification.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Now, let's look at -- I'm not what sure what the P number is now.
24 Just a moment.
25 Yes. This is, I believe, being submitted by the bar table by the
1 Prosecution, so I don't think it has a P number yet.
2 It is 65 ter 6092 -- actually, I'm advised now it is P1072.
3 Q. Now, this is Mr. Simic's operative plan of the 25th of October.
4 In it, in the first paragraph, he references the county prosecutor office
5 in Zadar letter as the basis for putting the work plan together that
6 we've just looked at.
7 And if we look at point 1 of the plan - and this letter is dated
8 25 October - point 1 of the plan says --
9 MR. MISETIC: If we can scroll down in the English. Yes.
10 Q. "Ascertain until 0800 hours, on 25 October 1995, the proper
11 addresses of the following persons," and then he identifies Goran Vunic
12 as one of the individuals.
13 The letter is date -- or the plan is dated 25 October, and the
14 plan requires that the address be obtained by 0800 hours. So,
15 presumably, Mr. Simic is -- wrote this plan before 0800 hours on the
16 25th of October.
17 Do you see that?
18 A. [No verbal response]
19 MR. MISETIC: Now if we could go back to the first page and
20 scroll to the top.
21 Q. I ask you to look at the UR
22 plan in which Mr. Simic asks that the address of Goran Vunic be found by
23 0800 hours ends in 51. It's document 51.
24 MR. MISETIC: Now, Mr. Registrar, if could I have 65 ter 6094,
1 Q. Now, this is the arrest warrants issued by Mr. Mr. Simic, again
2 on the same day, 25 October. In point 1, he asked that Goran Vunic be
3 addressed and he now has the address that he is seeking in the work plan.
4 If you look up at the UR
5 number is 45.
6 Now, you, as a prosecutor, is there anything -- when you see that
7 the work plan document number 51 and the arrest warrant is document 45,
8 does that give you any suspicions?
9 A. I actually don't know the way in which these reference numbers,
10 file numbers, were written in these memos. The fact that in this
11 particular file number the number 45 is mentioned, and in the previous
12 one there is number 51, would indicate that this particular letter
13 numbered 45 was written before the 51 one.
14 However, if in document number 51 it is written that the address
15 of Goran Vunic needs to be ascertained, this would mean that the address
16 had already been ascertained by the time that letter was written, since
17 we have this particular letter here stating the address. Those are my
19 However, the deadline given for ascertaining the address of Goran
20 Vunic, i.e., 8.00, this is nothing out of the ordinary. That is the
21 character of police work. This particular letter could have been written
22 at 5.00 in the morning on the 25th of October.
23 Q. There's nothing particularly problematic to me with respect to
24 the 0800 hours. What I wanted to point out was the difference between
25 the UR
1 MR. MISETIC: Now, if we could go -- sorry.
2 I am asked to clarify that 65 ter 6094 is, in fact, P1074, MFI
3 If we could go to P970 now, please.
4 Q. This is that Official Note of Damir Simic upon which Mr. Glavan
5 relied in his 2002 letter to you. This Official Note has no class or UR
6 number on it, does it?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, if in a criminal file, such as this, you've seen Mr. Simic
9 on that very day enter documents into the file using the procedure of
10 putting class and UR
11 this document has no such identification on it - is it correct to say,
12 Mr. Zganjer, that this document at any point in time between
13 25 October 1995
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to that question.
15 This witness cannot answer that for -- in addition to which, Mr. Simic
16 testified in this court, and --
17 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ORIE: We're not going to discuss the evidence available to
19 this ... [Overlapping speakers]
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, that doesn't -- no,
21 Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The question, you objected to the question because
23 you said the witness cannot answer that, and then you wanted to add
25 So let's focus on whether the witness can answer it.
1 Whether there is a possibility that it was inserted in the file,
2 that possibility remains open if, first of all, if the witness would not
3 know when it had been, so if we ask the witness whether he has any
4 knowledge when it was inserted in the file and find out about his
5 knowledge, then, of course, logic could assists us all well.
6 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I am afraid I have to point out that
7 the Prosecution has led evidence --
8 JUDGE ORIE: We're not going to discuss evidence in the presence
9 of the witness, at least if I do not know what it is, then I'm strongly
10 opposing it.
11 MR. MISETIC: Well, can I ask that the witness then be excused
12 for a minute.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Mr. Zganjer, could you please leave us for a second.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, since the witness has left the
17 courtroom, you will an opportunity also to now briefly discuss the
18 evidence which is already before this Chamber.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, perhaps it's fair I stop
21 Ms. Mahindaratne at a time when she wanted to do it in the presence of
22 the witness, which I opposed, but now the witness is not there.
23 Please proceed.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Mr. President, Mr. Simic testified in this proceedings, and the
1 Defence did not cross-examine Mr. Simic on this basis at all. In fact,
2 he was cross-examined on a completely different basis. It was suggested
3 to him that the investigation was prevented by Nenad Mrkota because Goran
4 Vunic testified in the same case; that is, the status from suspect was
5 converted to that of a witness.
6 Now, there was never a suggestion made that the identities were
7 wrong, that there was a Boris Vunic, or that the documents had been
8 inserted. There was never a suggestion made to Mr. Simic that there was
9 conspiracy involved or a fabrication of material. He would have been the
10 only witness who could have answered these questions.
11 Now the Defence is attempting to lead that evidence, if I may use
12 the term with apologies, through the back door. This is it not the
13 appropriate way to cross-examine witnesses. This witness in court cannot
14 answer these questions.
15 That is all I have to say, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We don't know whether he can answer the question,
17 because he has not given an answer. We don't know what his knowledge
18 exactly is. It could be, but it just imagining, that he heard from
19 someone that he inserted a document in a file at a certain date. I don't
20 know. I have to assume at this moment that you would not know either,
21 Ms. Mahindaratne, but you have a clear suspicion that he might not know
22 the answer to this question.
23 Let's make it a very factual question.
24 Mr. Misetic --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I could just add one --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I now give the opportunity to Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. It is somewhat surprising to
3 hear my esteemed colleague on the other side of the aisle now complain
4 that I'm asking questions about Mr. Simic, given that she herself put on
5 a series of documents of Mr. Simic's that she never put to Simic and that
6 she left for Mr. Zganjer. I can go through them all for you.
7 But now, suddenly, it is a problem when the Defence starts to
8 cross-examine on the documents that she is trying to admit through this
9 witness. The problem is she failed to put her case to Mr. Simic, failed
10 to put these documents that Mr. Simic is the author of to Mr. Simic. May
11 I suggest it that it is she who is trying to enter documents in through
12 the back do you remember. I'm just trying to meet her case. Those are
13 the simple facts.
14 Now, with respect to why I'm putting these matters to this
15 witness, not only is she trying to put the documents in through the back
16 door, she, at paragraph 38, has Mr. Simic testifying that: "This
17 investigation was prevented from being carried out by the commander of
18 the military police company, Nenad Mrkota."
19 Then: "I believe if this investigation had been carried out as
20 planned, the real perpetrators of this crime may have been brought to
21 trial. As far as I know, Goran Vunic was always mentioned in the
22 capacity of the a suspect in relation to this case."
23 Now, I'm entitled to challenge those assertions, particularly
24 since Ms. Mahindaratne is putting those claims in through this witness.
25 Moreover, Ms. Mahindaratne went so far, yesterday, as to claim
1 that the conspiracy rises all the way to the commander of the 72nd MP
2 Battalion, Mr. Budimir. Again, it's a matter that she never put to Mr.
3 Simic, but she trying to get in through Mr. Zganjer.
4 This is our response to her putting in Simic material through
5 this witness, Your Honour.
6 I might also add --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may --
8 MR. MISETIC: I might also add, with respect to the protected
9 witness issue, I was putting to Mr. Simic matters that Prosecution
10 witness Ive Kardum told the Trial Chamber that he had heard. So it is
11 not without foundation that I put those matters to him, and I simply took
12 what Mr. Kardum had said and put it to Mr. Simic.
13 Thank you, Mr. President.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, with the exception of one
15 document, all documents tendered through this witness were documents
16 received by him, attached to the special report that was handed over to
17 him by major Glavan. So I did not tender a single document of Mr. Simic
18 with the exception of one document, which was a work plan which attached
19 to the special report that was received by this witness.
20 Now, I also want to point out that the Defence, both parties,
21 have an obligation under Rule 90(H) to put to a witness the opposing
22 suggestion, if the witness's testimony is contrary to the Defence or the
23 Prosecution position.
24 Now, Mr. Simic was here, and this position taken by the Defence
25 was never put to him. He could have been the only person who could have
1 answered whether he inserted a document or not. Now to bring this
2 evidence after he has left court is unfair by the witness.
3 That is all I have to say, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first ask before we continue --
5 MR. MISETIC: If I did put --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I'm drawing your attention to page 62,
7 line 7, where you're making reference to paragraph 38, and then you say
8 Mr. Simic testified. May I take it that you wanted to refer to
9 Mr. Zganjer in that respect?
10 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. That was my mistake. I
12 JUDGE ORIE: That has been corrected now.
13 Let me just take one second.
14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may, let me just --
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Both parties blame each other for not having put
17 questions to witnesses during the examination either in chief or
18 cross-examination at a certain stage.
19 The parties will forgive the Chamber for not having every detail
20 available immediately and to see what merits there are in those
21 positions. We have considered the matter. And if questions were not put
22 to a witness, and if there's a position taken that this is unfair and
23 that therefore questions should not be put to this witness, of course,
24 there are two remedies to prohibit putting any further questions to this
25 witness or to consider at a later stage whether the questions and answers
1 given by this witness viewed in the totality of the evidence would urge
2 the Chamber or would justify to call Mr. Simic again to answer questions
3 you say he is the only one who could answer.
4 The Chamber has considered the matter and will allow Mr. Misetic
5 to proceed and will consider at any later stage whether questions and
6 answers will create a need to re-call Mr. Simic.
7 Could the witness be brought in --
8 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm looking at the clock.
10 Yes, Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: Just so can I complete the record, in terms when
12 you look back at the transcript later, I believe I did put matters to
13 Mr. Simic. I specifically asked him whether he advised anyone of what he
14 wrote in this Official Note. He said with respect to -- the only person
15 he said is with respect to Boro Milas, and he said: "I think I told him
17 I also specifically asked hem whether he addressed this note or
18 sent this in writing to anyone else, and he said "No."
19 So, to that extent, Your Honour, I did put it to him, and my
20 suggestion simply was that this is a document that nobody else can vouch
21 for expect Mr. Simic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, if at any later stage the parties
23 will make submissions on whether or not Mr. Simic whether there's a need
24 to re-call Mr. Simic, then we'll get all these details you have already
25 put on the record by now.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock. Perhaps it is it better
3 that someone informs Mr. Zganjer that it's time for coffee anyhow, and
4 that we'd like to see him back after the break.
5 Mr. Misetic, could you give us an impression on how much more
6 time you would still need.
7 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I would say a half an hour at the max.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Ms. Mahindaratne, could you give us an indication on as matters
10 stand now how much time would you need for re-examination.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: At the most, half an hour, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So with half an hour and half an hour, that
13 would take us to the end of today's session.
14 Therefore, I, out of caution, inquire with Cermak Defence, still
15 no questions.
16 We will have a break and we will resume at twenty minutes
17 to 1.00. The parties are urged to check their cross-examination and
18 re-examination, to see, in fact, wether we can complete the examination
19 of this witness today.
20 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zganjer, when we were discussing a procedural
1 matter, we were so close to a break that we took a break by then. This
2 is just as an explanation.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Mr. Zganjer, let me ask it a different way. The Official Note on
6 the screen, you don't have any information as to when that note was put
7 in the file, do you?
8 A. I saw this Official Note as an attachment to a document that was
9 submitted to me on the 27th of June, 2002. This was part of the special
10 report from the military police, the crime investigation division.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. It contained this Official Note, and this is the first time that
13 I saw it.
14 Q. Mr. Zganjer, let me ask you the following question, and it is
15 somewhat hypothetical but relevant to this issue.
16 If, in the Croatian system, a search warrant is issued for
17 person A, but should have been issued for person B, and person A and B
18 live together in the same house, pursuant to the search warrant misnamed
19 under person A, the authorities find incriminating evidence against
20 person B, assume for the sake of argument that the search warrant was
21 defective, would the evidence obtained purpose to the defective search
22 warrant cause any difficulties in the prosecution of person B, under the
23 Croatian system?
24 A. The arrest warrant has to specify the person that is to be
25 brought into custody. If the person who is brought into custody is not
1 the person named in the arrest warrants, then we are entering the zone --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question was about a search warrant;
3 that is, to search the premises to see whether any evidential material,
4 any evidence can you found there, not about arresting a person. So the
5 search warrant, saying there's a suspicion against Mr. A, we allow the
6 search of the premises where he lives; A by the way is a mistake, because
7 the suspicion is against B; and now during this search on this premises,
8 incriminating evidence is found in relation B, whose name is not
9 appearing on the search warrant.
10 Would that cause problems later on in using that evidence in a
11 case against B?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise.
13 Perhaps I'm unable to grasp this question due to my own failings.
14 Can we perhaps have -- clarify this in this manner: We have
15 warrant for the arrest of a certain person, that's one situation; and
16 then we also have the search warrant for the search of certain premises.
17 So Counsel Misetic I would like you to clarify and specify this, and I
18 will be happy to answer your questions.
19 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... permission,
20 Mr. President, I will tell him in Croatian, because I'm not sure what
21 translation is he receiving.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Search warrant, not arrest warrant.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So the arrest warrant lists person A, and it is erroneous because
25 it actually pertains to person B, and they live in the same house.
1 MR. MISETIC: I'll check the transcript later.
2 Q. [Interpretation] A search of a house is carried out based on the
3 warrant that lists person A, and incriminating evidence against person B
4 is found. Now, can this evidence be used against person B in criminal
5 proceedings, or would there be problems because the evidence was found on
6 the basis of an erroneous search warrant?
7 A. If a search warrant pertains to the premises where person A is
8 residing or is present, and if, in the course of the premises used by
9 person A, items are found that do not belong to person A but to person B,
10 I think that, in that case, it would be a valid search, and I think that
11 evidence found in the premises used by person A could also be used as
12 evidence in criminal proceedings in a trial.
13 Q. My question was a bit more specific than that. So we're talking
14 about a defective search warrant against person A. What I mean is that
15 the search warrant should have been issued for person B, but due to a
16 mistake, person A is listed in the search, is named in the search
18 So there was no factual basis for the search of person A's house,
19 but due to a mistake, the defective search warrant was issued. Could
20 this engender any problems in future criminal proceedings against
21 person B?
22 A. Well, there could problems because the validity of evidence
23 obtained in this manner could be questioned if the search warrant named
24 person A instead of person B.
25 Q. [In English] Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
1 You have some testimony here, and I understand very much that
2 you're knowledge of what Mr. Mrkota may or may not have done in 1995 is
3 based on what you were told by Mr. Glavan in 2002. I understand that.
4 However, part of your statement, at paragraph 38, says that:
5 "The investigation was prevented from being carried out by commander of
6 the military police company, Nenad Mrkota."
7 Then you go on to say: "I believe if this investigation had
8 within carried out as planned, the real perpetrators of this crime may
9 have been brought it trial."
10 Now, my question to you is: As you were considering and as you
11 consider this evidence, in your judgement, is it possible, in light of
12 what I have shown you in terms of the state of the evidence against Goran
13 Vunic prior to that letter of the 23rd of October, that Commander Mrkota
14 stopped the search of the premises of Goran Vunic, on the basis that he
15 himself had no information that Goran Vunic was the target of the
16 investigation and thought that it could jeopardize the results of the
17 search of the home of Boris Vunic, because the search warrant would have
18 been issued in the wrong Vunic's name?
19 A. Of course, I have to say, to be consistent with what I said
20 before, when I spoke about Nenad Mrkota, I was talking about the special
21 report from the military police administration, the CID. Now, whether
22 the claims contained in the special report would be corroborated in the
23 course of the proceedings, now, that's a whole different question.
24 We talked about the validity of evidence given that the search
25 warrant erroneously named such-and-such a person. I cannot rule out the
1 possibility that this might have been the reason why Nenad Mrkota, if at
2 all, if he did, in fact, prohibited any further actions and the search
3 from going on. But what is quite clear to me is the fact that Nenad
4 Mrkota, Commander Mrkota, if he was motivated by those reasons to prevent
5 a search, should have explained that. He had to clarify whether this was
6 Boris or Goran Vunic, and then we would know what to do, how to proceed
7 from there.
8 Q. Let's take a look at that exact question.
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could have 1D60-0042 on the
10 screen, please.
11 Q. Now, this is a document from the 26th of January, 1996,
12 Zadar-Knin crime police department. The subject is "Murders by unknown
13 perpetrators, ballistics report."
14 There are several dates about what the requests. The last two
15 are 26 October and 22 November, 1995. Here, the crime police sector is
16 reporting on forensic analysis on weapons seized from individuals.
17 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we can go in the English to
18 page 5.
19 Q. This is now -- I draw your attention to binder number 13. One of
20 the ballistics tested done was on a Kalashnikov automatic rifle, calibre
21 7.62-millimetre, serial number, seized from Boris Vunic.
22 MR. MISETIC: If we could go to page 12 -- actually, page 11,
23 please, of the English -- actually, page 10 then.
24 I'm sorry, Mr. Registrar.
25 Q. This is a letter from the 19th of May, 1997, again sending
1 weapons which have been fired for the purpose of solving the murders by
2 unknown perpetrators in the area of the Zadar-Knin police administration
3 in the time-period between 28 September 1995 and 3 October 1995.
4 MR. MISETIC: And if we go to the next page, please.
5 Q. At number 26, we have the weapon of Boris Vunic.
6 Now, on the basis of these documents from 1996 and 1997, would it
7 appear to you that at some point in time, the authorities, in fact, did
8 get the weapons, or get at least one weapon, from Boris Vunic?
9 A. Not only would that have appear to me, but the documents you're
10 showing me indicate that the subject of ballistics examination included
11 the weapons found on Boris Vunic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. President, I ask that 1D60-0042 be marked, and I
13 tender it into evidence.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number D919.
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. Registrar and Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D919 is admitted into evidence.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Zganjer, I also note that in the actual judgement in the
22 Varivode case in 1997, it's a 114-page judgement which has been tendered
23 by the Prosecution in its bar table submission. There is no reference
24 whatsoever to Goran Vunic, but there are three references to Boris Vunic.
25 MR. MISETIC: In the English, it's at page 18, page 52, and
1 page 65.
2 Q. Now, I'm sure you reviewed that judgement many times. If Goran
3 Vunic had -- it had been alleged at any point that Goran Vunic was one of
4 the persons in Varivode and/or Gosici at the time of these murders, based
5 on your experience, would his name have come up during the trial in the
6 Varivode case or in the judgement?
7 A. Well, I don't know. In fact, we've been discussing Vunices all
8 this time, Boris and Goran. I believe that these are, in fact, two
9 brothers. As far as I'm able to remember now, Goran Vunic did have a
10 brother. Whether his name was Boris or not, I don't know. I can't
11 recall all the details of the judgement; and, consequently, I can't give
12 you a specific answer to that question, unfortunately. I really can't
13 tell you whether the names of Boris and Goran Vunic were mentioned in the
15 What I do remember is the fact that the ballistics examination
16 indicated that none of the weapons seized and which were subjected to
17 ballistics examination included the rifle which would have matched the
18 bullet casings found at the scene in Gosici and Varivode.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm going to switch topics, so I
21 don't know if there are any additional questions from the Bench.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, not at this moment.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. One of the question I did have was, actually, is that one of the
1 suspects in the MUP work plan from 15 October and mentioned throughout
2 the rest of the Varivode case was a gentleman named Nedeljko Mijic.
3 Are you familiar with that gentleman's name?
4 A. I think that the person by the name of Nedeljko Mijic was one of
5 the persons in -- accused for the murder in Varivode or Gosici. At any
6 rate, a person by the name of Nedeljko Mijic was one of the persons
7 charged with this incident. I can't be sure whether it was in Gosici or
8 in Varivode.
9 Q. I ask you that question because of a different murder, or two
10 murders, that took place in the area of Kakanj on or around the
11 18th August. You, in your statement, talk about the fact that you
12 personally met with one of the victims who was not killed but was
13 seriously injured in that that incident, Mr. Mirko Ognjenovic, who
14 testified before this Trial Chamber.
15 Mr. Ognjenovic, in his statements and before this Trial Chamber,
16 said that one of the individuals who was in a uniform turned to the other
17 individual and referred to him as Nedeljko.
18 Now, I understand that there, in theory, could be many people
19 with that first name. But in light of the fact that that murder and the
20 Gosici murders took place roughly nine or ten days apart, in the course
21 of your investigation of the Kakanj murders, did you investigate Nedeljko
22 Mijic as a potential perpetrator of those murders.
23 A. Quite a lot of time has elapsed. As far as I'm able to remember
24 now, I think that, together with a police officer, I personally spoke to
25 this person, Ognjenovic, in Kakanj. I think that Mr. Ognjenovic
1 recounted the circumstances surrounding the death of these two
2 individuals to me and the policeman with me. I believe he even showed us
3 some photographs he had on him.
4 The two persons killed were, in fact, exhumed subsequently in the
5 cemetery in Zadar, if I'm not mistaken. I might be at risk of making a
6 mistake, but as far as I remember, Mr. Ognjenovic was telling us at the
7 time about the correspondence between the two either members of the
8 Croatian army or merely two individuals wearing HV uniforms. I believe
9 he told us at the time that one of the persons addressed the other one by
10 Nedjo. That was everything Mr. Ognjenovic told us.
11 I don't believe that he used the full name Nedjelko. I think
12 that he told the name was or Nidjo or Nedjo.
13 Well, now that person who was referred to as addressing the other
14 one as Nedjo or Nidjo supposedly would have tried to dissuade the other
15 person from doing what he was about to do, but I don't think he used the
16 full name when telling us the story of Nedjelko. I think he used the
17 name of Nedjo. I think it was the conversation taking place between the
18 two, and one of them was called Ognjenovic.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... question on another matter.
20 You were shown a letter from Mr. Separovic, which is Exhibit D912
21 now, this morning by Mr. Mikulicic, in which Mr. Separovic asks the
22 military courts to send him their files so that those files can be sent
23 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
24 From a disciplinary perspective, who did military prosecutors
25 answer to ultimately for their work?
1 A. The military prosecutor was directly subordinate to the hierarchy
2 of the state attorney's offices. I, as a deputy of a military
3 prosecutor, was directly answerable to the military prosecutor of my
4 district in Split
5 that was Mr. Simic - was directly responsible to the state attorney of
6 Republic of Croatia
7 Q. Did the commander of the Split Military District - in this case,
8 General Ante Gotovina - issue an order to the military prosecutor?
9 A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I would answer such a question
10 with a counterquestion: Could have the military prosecutor suggested or
11 ordered to General Gotovina which axis he should use in an attack?
12 Q. Now, the same question concerning discipline with respect to
13 military judges. Who did military judges answer to vertically?
14 A. They were directly subordinate to the Supreme Court of the
15 Republic of Croatia
16 of the Republic of Croatia
17 Of course, you, Counsel Misetic, know that full well, that this
18 is a different sort of subordination to that of military prosecutors.
19 The Supreme Court cannot order a judge of a military court what sort of a
20 judgement he should render; however, the national state attorney could
21 have instructed a military prosecutor on how to proceed in a given case.
22 Q. And my final topic, Mr. Zganjer, Mr. Ive Kardum testified before
23 this Trial Chamber that in his assessment between 1991 and 1995,
24 approximately 10.000 homes --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object. Mr. Zganjer is a
1 practice in this -- established in the -- in this Court as to how to put
2 other witness's testimony to a witness in court.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. MISETIC: Well, if he ... [Overlapping speakers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, we have not heard the question yet, but
6 you are aware of this practice, Mr. Misetic.
7 MR. MISETIC: That's not what I'm ask being about, so --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
9 MR. MISETIC:
10 Q. As I said, Mr. Ive Kardum testified before this Trial Chamber
11 that approximately 10.000 homes had been burned down between 1991 and
12 1995 of ethnic Croats in the occupied areas.
13 My question to you is: Did you prosecute people after Operation
14 Storm for the burning down of the homes of Croats during the occupation;
15 and, if so, how many; and, if not, why not?
16 A. There were very few such cases in the area of the Sibenik county
17 state attorney's office.
18 Now, why didn't we process such crimes, or why didn't we receive
19 any criminal reports for such offences? Well, you see, it was very
20 difficult to ascertain who of the members of which army set which houses
21 on fire. It is a fact that many homes of Croats were burnt. However,
22 after the war, it was difficult to ascertain which of the members of the
23 enemy army set fire to which house. It was difficult to ascertain, and
24 there were only a handful of such cases.
25 Q. Yes. Mr. Zganjer, thank you very much for answering my
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I'm advised that there may be an
3 issue on the transcript. At page 68, line 2, it says "arrest warrant."
4 Yes. I believe I was speaking in Croatian at the time, and I believe I
5 said "search warrant" and not "arrest warrant" in line 2, page 68.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that the matter
7 finally became clear on what we are talking about.
8 MR. MISETIC: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, any further questions for the
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I would urge the parties to see if you could finish
13 well within a half-hour from now, because there are a few procedural
14 matters I would like to deal with which are of an urgent character.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
17 Mr. Registrar, if you could bring up D919, please, on the screen;
18 D919, the weapons and analysis document that Defence just tender into
20 Re-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
21 Q. I will read it while the document comes up. Mr. Zganjer, in
22 fact, you were shown this document. If you could go to the page 1D00 --
23 I don't think this is -- I will just read out the -- because Mr. Misetic
24 himself indicated the period for which he said these weapons were
1 "And it is for criminal proceedings for murders by unknown
2 perpetrators in the area of Zadar-Knin police administration in the
3 time-period between 28 September 1995 and 3 October 1995."
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I don't know in which document that
5 information is, but I don't think Mr. Misetic will dispute that.
6 Q. Now, these weapons were obtained and analysed for crimes
7 committed for that period, as I understand, from that document; that is,
8 28 September 1995
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If could you go perhaps to the page 1D60-0064.
10 I think it must be about page 7 or 8 of the English version. Yes, we
11 have that page, and then the corresponding page on the B/C/S version.
12 Q. That is correct, isn't it, Mr. Zganjer?
13 A. No, no --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Yes, correct.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could bring up on the screen,
16 Mr. Registrar, P970. If you could take -- yes. If you could take the
17 page down.
18 Q. If you note that that paragraph numbered 1, it records that Goran
19 Vunic, and his details are given, member of the 113th Infantry Brigade,
20 is wanted for committing a crime on an undetermined day in August 1995,
21 together with two others as yet unidentified men, and the killing
22 incident is with regard to a person named Gojko Lezajic.
23 So, based on the date of offence, can you -- is it correct that
24 the weapons analysis document, which had crimes indicated for the period
25 28 September 1995
1 crime for which Mr. Goran Vunic is wanted?
2 A. Yes. The time-period mentioned in the previous document does not
3 correspond to the period mentioned in this Official Note, but --
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
5 MR. MISETIC: [Previous translation continues] ... be allowed to
6 complete the answer, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 If you could please ... [Overlapping speakers]
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
10 Q. Please go ahead, Mr. Zganjer, if you have anything else to say.
11 A. But if I may observe, the dates mentioned in these submissions
12 and in the evidence in this case is not as important. When you seize
13 certain weaponry, you cannot be sure that there are reasons to suspect
14 that the weapons were used between a certain period, June and September.
15 It will be only through ballistics examination once it's done that you
16 may realize that there was a crime committed even before that date.
17 This is something that is simply possible. Once you've seized a
18 concern amount of weapons, you can't say, "Yes, we do have reasons to
19 suspect that the weapons may have been used to commit crimes between
20 1st September and 30 October." The ballistics examination will examine
21 the casings found at a crime scene even -- that were there even before
22 the 1st of September.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
24 A. And, of course, it can always be possible that from that
25 weapon --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Zganjer.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have D914, please.
3 Q. Mr. Zganjer, I was given only a very few minutes, and I will be
4 grateful if you could respond to my questions briefly, because we're
5 running out of the time.
6 I just want you to take note of a document that I'm about to show
7 you. This was just tendered by the Defence.
8 If could you go to page -- the third page, do you note, at the
9 top of page, the investigating officer who arrested Mr. Boris Vunic is
10 recorded as "F. Mikulandra"?
11 If could you --
12 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'd ask for foundation that he
13 arrested him.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Well, because it is it noted there, and then
15 according to D917, Mr. Mikulandra has recorded his interview.
16 These are Defence documents --
17 MR. MISETIC: I'm not sure that he was arrested, but that's fine,
18 Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's on the record then.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Then can we have D917, please.
21 Q. This is it the record of interview with Boris Vunic, and at the
22 interview, Mr. Mikulandra present, according to the first page of the
24 If you see, according to this first page, it mentions that he is
25 being investigated: "In the course of proceeding, pursuant Article 151
1 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, for reasonable suspicion of committing
2 a criminal offence of aggravated theft as described in Article 126,"
3 and the rest of the Criminal Code details are given.
4 Now, so, there is no record that he has been brought in for a
5 case of -- on suspicion of a killing incident in Gosici here, is there,
6 Mr. Zganjer?
7 A. Correct. As far as I'm able to recall his statement, he does not
8 speak of any possible knowledge he may have of the events in Varivode and
9 Gosici, and I'm referring to this statement.
10 Q. Right.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If he could go, Mr. Registrar, right down to
12 the bottom of the page.
13 Q. It records that: "At the beginning of Operation Storm, to be
14 more exact on 4 August 1995
15 Regiment in the composition of the 2nd Company of the 2nd Battalion."
16 Your testimony was, and we have tendered a number of documents,
17 where Goran Vunic was --
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is Boris Vunic.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. I know. I am referring to Goran Vunic.
22 Your testimony was that Goran Vunic was a platoon commander of
23 the 113th Brigade.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Then if we could have P10 -- I'm sorry, P1072.
25 Q. Now, that is the work plan of the -- the Sibenik military police
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could go to page 2 on English version,
3 and, Mr. Registrar, if I could just go down on the B/C/S -- sorry, the
4 Croatian version. Yeah. No, I'm sorry. It's also page 2 of the
5 Croatian version, and right at the bottom of the page on both versions,
6 bottom of the page.
7 Q. Do you note that one of the officers who is sent to search the
8 premises of Goran Vunic is Frane Mikulandra? He is assisting the
9 military police in this search activity. Isn't that correct?
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm going to object. Whether he is
11 assisting or not, his name on the page. What happened, whether he even
12 knew his name was on the page, there is no foundation for it.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. Can you please respond to this question, Mr. Zganjer: Was the
15 Sibenik criminal military police conducting this particular investigation
16 in cooperation with the Sibenik military police administration
17 officers -- I'm sorry, Sibenik civilian police officers who belonged to
18 the Sibenik police administration?
19 A. Well, this work plan - and I don't know whether it was really
20 implemented or not - indicates that this was a coordinated activity,
21 which was part of the criminal investigation. It was carried out in a
22 coordinated manner both by the military police and the general duty
24 Q. Thank you for that.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have just one last document,
1 Mr. Registrar, P1074.
2 Q. And while that is coming up, Mr. Zganjer, that is the special
3 report that was sent to you -- I'm sorry, that is the investigation plan
4 of the criminal military police.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry I asked for the wrong document. I
6 beg your pardon, Mr. Registrar. If could I have P1073.
7 Q. Now, you were asked questions about the search warrant as to
8 whether, if there were search defects in a search warrant, what the
9 impact would be. You were also asked the question as to whether is it
10 possible that Mr. Mrkota may have prevented the investigation from being
11 carried forward because he felt there was no evidence against Goran
13 Now, I'd like to draw your attention, while this document is on
14 the screen, to your supplementary statement, and I don't know whether you
15 have it with you.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Madam Usher, if you could just --
17 Q. If could you look at paragraph 41, you -- you're referring to the
18 search warrant. And for lack of time I will go to the particular line,
19 which is about the seventh line, where you say: "If for any reason the
20 warrant cannot executed, then the authority which is required to execute
21 the warrant - in this case, the Sibenik criminal military police - have
22 to report such fact to court. I believe the military prosecutor in Split
23 to whom this search warrant was also delivered should have inquired as to
24 the execution."
25 Now, are aware of any report whatsoever or any documents existing
1 in these criminal files where Mr. Nenad Mrkota or anyone from the Sibenik
2 criminal military police reporting to the investigating judge as to why
3 the warrant was not executed?
4 A. I don't know whether the military police company commander,
5 Mr. Nenad Mrkota, military police in Sibenik, told the military
6 prosecutor and the investigating judge why this search warrant was not
7 executed. The search warrant is quite clear and precise, and it pertains
8 to the search of the premises in Sibenik at number 6 Zagrebacka Street
9 and a room in the Monting [phoen] Hotel, occupant which is Goran Vunic,
10 son of Ante.
11 So I don't know --
12 JUDGE ORIE: This is going too deep. The question was limited to
13 whether you were aware of any reasons being reported, not on whether it
14 was difficult to execute the search warrant. I understood your answer to
15 be that you don't know of any such reasons being reported. Is that
17 THE WITNESS: Da [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. In fact, you did also -- I want to bring to your notice that the
21 address of the place to be searched is indicated in the search warrant.
22 Thank you, Mr. Zganjer.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I just have one more -- Mr. President I if
24 could just have a minute.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That minute is granted.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could quickly have
2 document P1007.
3 Q. While that document is it being brought up, Mr. Zganjer, you were
4 asked questions by Mr. Mikulicic about the military discipline records.
5 I know you have been a military prosecutor, but since it has been some
6 time, it is possible that you may have forgotten.
7 I want to show you a particular document.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could go to page 2 of the Croatian
9 version and page 4 of the English version.
10 Q. Now, you stated that where a person was prosecuted in a military
11 court, there would not be a parallel proceeding against that same person,
12 same member of the military in the disciplinary courts.
13 Now, do you note Article number 8, where it is stated, I believe,
14 from paragraph 3: "The military disciplinary court finds that the
15 offence against military discipline is, in fact, a minor one, shall issue
16 a disciplinary measure.
17 "If a criminal offence is found to be a major violation of
18 military discipline, the offender my also answer before ..." --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel is kindly asked to slow down when
20 reading. Thank you.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. "... may also answer before a military disciplinary court if this
23 is in the particular interest of the armed service.
24 "Proceedings before military disciplinary courts shall be
25 conducted independently of the proceedings or outcome of the criminal
2 Do you note from that, Mr. Zganjer, that what you said, or your
3 answer to Mr. Mikulicic's question, was incorrect. That, in fact, where
4 a crime is prosecuted in a military court, there can be a parallel
5 disciplinary proceedings in the military disciplinary courts -- military
6 disciplinary tribunals?
7 A. Well, obviously, I was not specific enough.
8 These are the rules of service from 1992, but I cannot claim
9 this. I really don't know whether and in how many cases the special
10 interests of the service resulted in parallel military disciplinary
11 proceedings against persons who were, at the time, criminally prosecuted.
12 I really don't know. If there were such cases, and if there
13 were, how many of them, cases where the same person would face for the
14 same acts, for the same offences, both the military disciplinary
15 proceedings parallel with the criminal proceedings for reasons that had
16 to do with special interest of the service.
17 I simply cannot envisage a situation where person A, an active
18 duty serviceman, is being tried before a military court for murder, and
19 that a military disciplinary proceedings are conducted before the
20 military disciplinary tribunal for the same offence.
21 But I have to say this with a caveat, I'm not sure whether I'm
22 correct, but I'm not sure whether in 1992, when the rules of service were
23 adopted, whether military disciplinary prosecutor's offices were in place
24 and military disciplinary tribunals were in place, or whether they were,
25 in fact, established at a later date.
1 So take this with a grain of salt, I allow for the possibility
2 that I may not be right. But as far as I can recall, the prosecutor's
3 office and tribunals for military disciplinary matters were established
4 only in 1995 or 1996.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zganjer, for responding to my questions.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zganjer, I have one question, if could you
10 perhaps briefly answer that question.
11 Questioned by the Court:
12 JUDGE ORIE: You told us that an Official Note containing an
13 interview, or at least reflecting what was said during an interview with
14 a suspected person, should be removed from the case file.
15 Do I understand that the same does not apply, even though not
16 being evidence, but that the same does not apply in relation to Official
17 Notes reflecting what a witness would have told the police?
18 A. The Official Notes about interviews with suspects are removed
19 from the case file, as are Official Notes on interviews conducted with
20 citizens who provide information about a crime. Both kinds of notes are
21 removed from the file and cannot be used as evidence at trial.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
23 Have the questions by the Bench or questions in re-examination
24 triggered any need for further questions?
25 Then, Mr. Zganjer, this concludes your evidence in this court.
1 I'd like to thank you very much for come ago long way to The Hague and
2 for having answered the questions that you were put to you by the parties
3 and by the Bench. I wish you a safe trip home again.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out
6 of the courtroom.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE ORIE: One matter which is relatively urgent. I would like
9 to deal with it briefly; that is, I would like to deliver a decision. It
10 is a decision on the Gotovina Defence's Rule 92 bis motion.
11 On the 4th of November, 2008, the Gotovina Defence filed a motion
12 for admission of a statement pursuant to Rule 92 bis. The statement in
13 question was given by a person to the Prosecution in 1999, and
14 subsequently disclosed to the Defence. That person is not on the
15 Prosecution's witness list.
16 On the 6th of November, 2008, the Cermak and Markac Defence
17 informed the Chamber that they do not oppose the motion. These
18 submissions can be find at transcript pages 11.214.
19 On the 10th of November, 2008, the Prosecution filed its
20 response, opposing the motion. The Prosecution argued that the Gotovina
21 Defence had not shown why it should be allowed to call a witness during
22 the Prosecution case. The Prosecution added that, should the Chamber
23 decide to allow the Gotovina Defence to do so, the person in question
24 should be called for cross-examination.
25 Rule 85 sets out the sequence of presentation of evidence during
1 trial, with the presentation of the evidence for the Prosecution
2 preceding that of the Defence. Presentation of evidence includes
3 introducing testimony of witnesses viva voce, as well as pursuant to
4 Rule 92 bis, 92 ter, 92 quater. The Chamber may, if it is in the
5 interests of justice, decide to vary the sequence of presentation of
6 evidence set out in Rule 85.
7 The Gotovina Defence has not provided any reasons why it would be
8 in the interests of justice to introduce the testimony of the person in
9 question now, during the Prosecution's case, as opposed to during a
10 possible Defence case. If the Gotovina Defence intends to use the
11 statement during cross-examination of witnesses called by the
12 Prosecution, it may do so without having the statement admitted into
13 evidence. This may be done by simply reading the relevant portions of
14 the statement to the Prosecution witness and then seeking his or her
15 comments. This does not mean that the relevant portions enter into
17 The Chamber does not find that it is in the interests of justice
18 to allow the Gotovina Defence to introduce the evidence of the person in
19 question during the Prosecution's presentation of evidence. The Chamber,
20 therefore, denies the motion, without prejudice, to any further motion by
21 the Defence, with regard to the admission of the statement.
22 This concludes the Chamber's decision.
23 Very briefly, I see Mr. Hedaraly arrived. He would be here
24 during the last session of the today. He must have noticed that we did
25 not have sufficient time to discuss the photo spread issue in relation to
1 Witness 3, but the Chamber is aware of the need to further deal with the
2 matter and we'll find a moment for that very soon.
3 Then, there is another matter in which there was an issue about
4 objections against admission into evidence of P703, which is still marked
5 for identification. The Chamber invites the Prosecution to see whether
6 P703 is still needed to be tendered, since P177 is virtually the same
7 document, although under a different ERN number, and was admitted into
8 evidence on the 1st of May, 2008. Similarly, Defence is invited to
9 explain why objections were raised now, the issue being that Mr. Marti
10 could not be questioned on the matter, where this document had been in
11 evidence already since the 1st of May, whether the objection stands.
12 Finally, the Chamber received information that for the next
13 witness, I think it was the Gotovina Defence that indicated that it would
14 need ten hours. As always, the Chamber will closely follow the course of
15 how the cross-examination goes. The Chamber hopes, at the same time,
16 that where, now and then, we have urged the parties to take less time,
17 that this does not result in asking for more time in the beginning, so as
18 to end at the very end with the same amount one has in mind.
19 MR. MISETIC: No, Your Honour --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I am not entering any debate on the
21 matter, but just to let you know, the Chamber will, as always, follow how
22 the time in cross-examination is spent to see whether, finally, it would
23 allow to you spend the ten hours.
24 MR. MISETIC: I can tell you, Your Honour, that that goes without
25 saying. Every time we're on our feet, we are aware that you are
1 following how we are using our time. Let me just state that the reason
2 is that I, at this point, do intend to take the ten hours, and it
3 directly relates to the fact that the Prosecution has decided not to call
4 certain witnesses in its case in chief which were on their witness list
5 concerning many relevant issue before the Trial Chamber. We will attempt
6 to cover them all with this witness, and, perhaps, we wouldn't have the
7 need for extra witnesses that the Prosecution now does not intend to
9 So there is really a valid reason why we need that much time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So you would say that a major portion of the time
11 spent may be spent under Rule 90(H), which says that if you go beyond
12 what is asked through witness in chief, if the witness who is
13 available --
14 MR. MISETIC: No. Actually, the witness does refer to all
15 relevant issues in his statement, and he has personal knowledge of the
16 issues. Some witnesses would have perhaps been more knowledgeable, but I
17 will certainly put those matters to the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll closely follow the course you take.
19 We'll adjourn for the day, and, again, apologies for the six
20 stolen minutes.
21 We will resume tomorrow, Thursday, 13th of November, 9.00 in the
22 morning, Courtroom I.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of
25 November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.