Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13558

 1                           Friday, 12 December 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Mr. Registrar, would you please call case.

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

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

 9     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Is the witness -- one second, please.

12                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13559











11  Pages 13559-13562 redacted. Private session.















Page 13563

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

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

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, while the witness is being

10     brought in, if I could just address the Court on a housekeeping matter.

11     Yesterday the transcripts were given one exhibit number which was P1150,

12     but I have been advised that that could cause some problems because there

13     are three sections of the transcript, and unlike the previous instances,

14     the transcripts, these particular transcripts don't bear register

15     assigned page numbers, so we have to go through the particular ERN number

16     and the page number, and each section has its page numbering starting

17     from afresh, which mean --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You say that every page reference would be a

19     multiple choice question, is it one, two, or three.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Exactly, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar is this ...

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Your Honours, we can assign individual exhibit

23     numbers to each document.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And then we describe them as the transcript, first

25     part; transcript, second part; and transcript, third part.  So that it is

Page 13564

 1     clear from the description that it consists of three parts.

 2             Mr. Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Transcript, first part, 65 ter number 06161 will

 4     remain exhibit number P1150.  The second transcript, 65 ter 06162,

 5     becomes exhibit number P1151.  And the third transcript, 65 ter 06163,

 6     becomes exhibit number P1152.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  It follows from our

 8     decision yesterday that P1150, P1151, P1152 are admitted into evidence.

 9                           [The witness entered court]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Turkalj.  Good morning.  Please be

11     seated.

12             Mr. Turkalj, I would like to remind you that you are still bound

13     by the solemn declaration you have given yesterday at the beginning of

14     your testimony.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne will now continue her examination.

17             Please proceed.

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

19                           WITNESS:  JOSIP TURKALJ

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21                           Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]

22        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Turkalj.

23        A.   Good morning.

24        Q.   Now yesterday the last question I asked you was if you had rules

25     of engagement in -- engaging in artillery operations, and your answer was

Page 13565

 1     that you didn't have rules of engagement but that you had -- that you

 2     used tactics of artillery based on which you acted upon during the

 3     operation.

 4             Now, did those tactics --

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour, I don't believe that is what

 6     the witness said.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If there is any dispute what the witness said,

 8     please literally quote him, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

10        Q.   The answer:

11             "There were no rules of engagement for artillery per se.  What we

12     had in place was the tactics of artillery, based on which we acted upon

13     in the course of the operation."

14             This is at page 13556, line 22.

15             Mr. Kehoe.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.  My statement is that that in -- it envisions

17     many different issues when it talks about artillery.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, Ms. Mahindaratne has now put to the

19     witness what he literally said, and that was the purpose of this

20     exercise, not to start exploring the differences between the original and

21     the later quote.

22             Ms. Mahindaratne.

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

24        Q.   Now my question to you is, Mr. Turkalj, did those tactics include

25     specifications which required you to maintain a minimum -- a prescribed

Page 13566

 1     minimum distance from civilian settlements in engaging targets or in the

 2     process of selection of targets?

 3        A.   I can answer the question in the following way:  There existed

 4     specific information about the location of the military targets, and to

 5     us, they were targets, as such.

 6        Q.   Were you instructed by Mr. Markac, Mr. Sacic -- I'm sorry, the

 7     inner control branch or any authorities that engaging targets, whatever

 8     the targets that you had been provided with as those that you should

 9     consider in firing at or ordering attacks on, that you should take into

10     consideration the distance between that target and civilian settlements

11     or civilian structures?

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I'm going to object to line of this

13     questioning for this reason:  It presupposed that Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic

14     or the inner control have that specific authority to direct them to do

15     that.  So if she can establish that foundation, then the question is

16     relevant.  If not, then there's not foundation for that.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  My questions was whether he ever received

19     instructions, so as to whether this comes into the purview of Mr. Markac,

20     Mr. Sacic, or the inner control branch is not my question.  My question

21     is a whether he has received.  And it's a yes or no answer.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's at least a question about facts.  It's

23     not for the first time that an issue arises whether orders, instructions

24     were given, received, although there may be some doubt as to the

25     authority to issue such orders, so therefore, it is appropriate to put

Page 13567

 1     questions of fact whether anything was received, whether any orders were

 2     given, any instructions given.

 3             The question about authority which, of course, is not -- is

 4     partly a question of fact can be the following question:  Not necessarily

 5     such a clear, factual question should be preceded by first exploring the

 6     authority to do what the witness is asked whether that has been done.

 7             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

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

 9        Q.   Can you please answer my question, Mr. Turkalj, or do you wish me

10     it repeat it?

11        A.   I can answer your question.

12             When we received information about the location of military

13     targets and all the other related information that we thought was

14     interesting in an offensive action, in an attack action, when we spoke to

15     Mr. Sacic and two or three days earlier with Mr. Markac, we were told

16     that when selecting targets we should pay attention to artillery fire, in

17     order to make sure that the civilians, if any in the area, do not come in

18     harm's way.

19        Q.   Now, when did Mr. Markac tell you -- tell that to you?

20        A.   This was probably a day before the start of Operation Storm.  In

21     a conversation we had.

22        Q.   Now you said when we received information about the location of

23     military targets and all the other related information.  What were the

24     other related information which was provided to you when you were

25     provided with the -- with locations of military targets?  What is the

Page 13568

 1     other relevant information?

 2        A.   When I refer to information, I mean the information we had

 3     concerning the 9th Motorised Brigade which was positioned ahead of us.

 4        Q.   So that is what -- was there any other information such as how

 5     far the particular target was to a civilian settlement, how many

 6     civilians were present in the settlement, such information, was that

 7     given to you?

 8        A.   I believe that I answered this question yesterday.  Based on the

 9     topographic map of the area, I was able to gauge the distances between

10     the civilian features and military targets.

11        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, were you aware of the range of error for the

12     artillery that you were using?

13        A.   For firing upon military targets, we used the most precise type

14     of artillery pieces we had at the time.  The range of error is from 12.5

15     to 25 metres.

16        Q.   And for which weapon is that?  What type of weapon are you giving

17     that probable range of error?

18        A.   I'm referring to 130-millimetre cannons and about calculating the

19     elements for artillery fire.

20        Q.   And for 120-millimetre mortars, what was your probable range of

21     error?

22        A.   When calculating the elements involved, I believe the range is

23     roughly the same.  Range of error, that is.

24        Q.   And you also use, in the course of the operation, MBRL,

25     multi-barrel rocket launchers systems, isn't it?

Page 13569

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   Now your testimony is that you used -- you said for firing upon

 3     military targets, we used the most precise type of pieces we had at the

 4     time.  What were the most precise pieces that you considered to be

 5     appropriate for you to be using in the course of the operation?

 6        A.   [French on English channel]... 130-millimetre cannons for the

 7     targets that are deep -- the rear that are deep behind the lines.

 8             MR. KUZMANOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... get a

 9     translation for the answer, for most of the answer.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you repeat the question, Ms. Mahindaratne,

11     there are -- it doesn't appear on the -- on the transcript in full

12     detail.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, we lost part of your answer.  Let me repeat my

15     question to you, if you could answer.

16             Now, you -- what type of artillery pieces that you -- did you

17     consider to be capable of firing with position?  You said precise pieces.

18     What exactly were you referring to?

19        A.   I said that the most precise artillery piece we had --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, by way of clarification on these

22     issues I looked at the statement that he gave, which is P1049, and I

23     have, of course, have read P1150, 1151, and 1152, which are the three

24     statements, and if counsel could point to me where this discussion ensues

25     concerning the various uses of artillery, I would be illuminated.

Page 13570

 1     Because I read this, and while there is a brief discussion about

 2     artillery, there is certainly no discussion on there score.

 3             I just want to be looking in the right direction.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It my be a --

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, this -- this amount of detail

 6     has not been explored in the course of the interview, and as such, it is

 7     not in the statements nor in the interview transcripts.  However, we have

 8     -- the Prosecution has not had the benefit of proofing this witness, or

 9     we have not had any communication with this witness.  And I believe this

10     witness has the knowledge and facts that the Trial Chamber would be

11     interested in assessing the other evidence.  I do not know on what basis

12     I could be barred from proceeding with this line of questioning just

13     because it has not been dealt with previously.  If it is an issue of

14     disclosure --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed this line of

18     questioning.  It is a follow-up, and a -- of one of the answers of the

19     witness where he made precise -- he gave precise information, the 12.5 to

20     25 millimetres asked for further exploring.

21             You may proceed.

22             MR. KEHOE:  If I could just on that score, Judge.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Kehoe, Ms. Mahindaratne may proceed.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I would like to discuss this at the break,

25     Judge, because there is an issue of disclosure that I'd like to put on

Page 13571

 1     the record.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The disclosure issue, that is something different.

 3     I do not know --

 4             MR. KEHOE:  There is a disclosure issue.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It was [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, when I referenced Your Honours to the several

 7     hundred page statement that Mr. Turkalj gave, P1150 through 1152 as well

 8     as prior it statement where the Office of the Prosecutor had numerous

 9     Russ sessions to discuss this with the witness, there is no discussion

10     about margin of errors on T-130s or margins of errors on mortars.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  It is triggered about by the answer of the witness,

12     Mr. Kehoe.  If the witness would have said the precision is 10

13     centimetres to 20 centimetres, everyone would have would accepted that

14     and if -- so therefore, that's the reason, as I explained, the disclosure

15     issue, the line of questioning is accepted by the Chamber as a logical

16     sequence of one of the answers given, where Ms. Mahindaratne did not ask

17     -- asked about precision of weapons which is, in this context, quite

18     logical.

19             So therefore Ms. Mahindaratne is allowed to continue.  I

20     consulted my colleagues on this decision, which is a Chamber decision.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Well, I note my objection to the record, Your Honour.

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

23        Q.   Now, could you answer my question.  Let me repeat it again.

24             What weapons did you consider to be -- when you used the term,

25     you said:  I used precise -- or the most precise equipment.  What were

Page 13572

 1     the weapons that you were referring to there?

 2        A.   I said that we used the most precise artillery pieces we had at

 3     our disposal at the time.

 4        Q.   And what were they?

 5        A.   We used 120 mortars, multi-barrel rockets and cannons.  And

 6     cannons are among the most precise weapons.  Also Howitzers.

 7        Q.   So you said you used multi-barrel rockets.  Did you consider

 8     multi-barrel rockets to be a weapon capable of firing with precision?

 9        A.   No, that weaponry can fire with precision, but multiple barrel

10     launchers are used to cover a surface and not a target which is a point.

11        Q.   Can you clarify that answer further.  When you say a multi-barrel

12     -- let me just read it back exactly.

13             You said part of your answer has not been recorded.  You said, It

14     is used to cover a surface and not a target.

15             Can you clarify that, bear with us, Mr. Turkalj.  We are not very

16     knowledgeable about artillery.  So could you specifically, you know, tell

17     us what you mean by that.  Surface in what sense?

18        A.   In the military sense the multi-barrel rocket launcher is used to

19     cover a target which is an area like a room.  I don't mean a room in

20     terms of a building.  A room, in this strict sense, would mean an area of

21     100 by 100 metres, roughly.

22        Q.   So what type of military targets would you used multi-barrel

23     rocket launchers systems against, what type of target, what could you

24     articulate?

25             And going back to your testimony yesterday, you said when I asked

Page 13573

 1     you what type of targets were -- you provided you said, you provided with

 2     certain --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, this is an area that there has been absolutely

 5     no disclosure.  We're now asking for an expert opinion on a particular

 6     area, and the OTP, A, has certainly has not put him in the expert

 7     category; and, B, there is no disclosure in this line in any of these

 8     statements.  None.  This is a new line of questioning that

 9     Ms. Mahindaratne has decided on this morning with this witness.

10             Now the accused is entitled to disclosure.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  In fact, this line of

12     questioning is ensuing from the responses given by this witness.  In

13     fact, the witness yesterday testified as to what type of targets he was

14     provided with, and this morning, he himself, offered that testimony about

15     position weapons.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, this is not --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Not all at the same time.

18             MR. KEHOE:  Apologies.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  If I could say, Mr. President, I'm not seeking

20     an expert opinion.  The witness was in charge of artillery, and I'm

21     asking him -- this is factual matters.  This is it not an expert opinion.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Look at the last question that Ms. Mahindaratne

23     asked, if that is a factual matter.

24             So what type -- this is on line 6 of page 15:

25             "What type of military targets would you use multi-barrel rocket

Page 13574

 1     launchers systems?  What type of target?  What could you articulate?"

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you would change that question in relation

 3     to the targets that were given to you, what type of weapon you used, then

 4     it suddenly is not expert anymore, then it's just a question about facts.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  That is true.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And Ms. Mahindaratne.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  we could start analysing

 9     the way in which you formulate exactly the question where it is a

10     question of fact and where it becomes a question of opinion.  Let's not

11     spend time on that.  You have heard that by reformulating the question

12     slightly it becomes well, let's say, for 95 per cent a factual question.

13     You're invited to focus on facts.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will do so, Mr. President.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  If I might add, as Your Honours knows, we have

16     the statement and we have the three transcripts.  And I don't know if

17     Your Honours have read that or not.  99 per cent of what Mr. Turkalj says

18     in those statements and transcripts has nothing to do with artillery.  So

19     it is, in all honesty, a disclosure issue.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, he told in the statement what artillery was

21     used, so therefore some follow-up questions in that respect.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I do agree with Your Honour, and there is no

23     question that that did occur and that witness did talk in some small

24     instances about that in his statement.  But the focus of this examination

25     isn't necessarily on what has been discussed in the transcripts or in the

Page 13575

 1     statement.  It is on something almost entirely different.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You can argue how different and how close it

 3     is.

 4             Ms. Mahindaratne, there is it some merit in what Mr. Kuzmanovic

 5     says.  There is certainly also merit in what Mr. Kehoe says about the

 6     formulation of the question and when he becomes an expert.  But since you

 7     rely mainly on the, I would say, on the experience of the witness, you

 8     can ask him about his experience, and then it's not expert evidence, but

 9     it's experience.

10             Just to give you an example.  You didn't ask him any further

11     questions on the 120-millimetre mortars.  Now you can ask someone what

12     exactly is the error range, et cetera he is you can also ask a witness,

13     Did you fire mortars at -- with the different charges, did you ever

14     notice a difference in position when you used a one charge or a

15     six-charge.  Then you ask for facts and matters the witness may have

16     observed personally and which may have relevance for the issue here.

17             Mr. Kehoe.

18             MR. KEHOE:  And, Your Honour, the difficulty without going to

19     specific facts is that the margin of error not only with cannons and

20     Howitzers and --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.  Mr. Kehoe, we are not going to discuss

22     here the substance of what apparently is the disputed content of the

23     questions.

24             MR. KEHOE:  The only issue, Judge, is when the facts are --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no.  If you want to do that, we first to ask the

Page 13576

 1     witness whether he --

 2             MR. KEHOE:  If we can ask the witness to leave.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, do you understand or speak English?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you take off your earphones for a second,

 6     please.

 7             Yes, Mr. Kehoe.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  On this issue, Your Honour, and the reason I was

 9     getting back to the facts and why the facts are important is because

10     issues concerning margin of error et cetera and all this weaponry depends

11     on distance, depends on weather conditions.  A --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I have fully agree with you.

13             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             JUDGE ORIE:  On that matter it is not without reason that I said

15     you can ask a witness whether he has fired mortars with one charge or six

16     charges which, of course, also the angle makes quite a difference, and I

17     think that with a be important for Ms. Mahindaratne to know.  She said

18     we're not expert ourselves in artillery.  That putting a question about

19     an error of -- margin of error doesn't make very much sense if you do not

20     have other information available, such as weather conditions, atmosphere

21     conditions, charges used, angle of firing, there are a lot of -- at the

22     same time, Mr. Kehoe, that also explains why if a witness says, Well, I

23     used this weaponry, and they have 12.5 to 25 meters of margin of error,

24     and would that be true for the -- that is true for the cannons.  Would it

25     be true for the mortars as well?  Yes, approximately the same.  These, of

Page 13577

 1     course, are answers which justify further exploring on what exactly was

 2     taken into consideration when firing this type of weaponry.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  And I will say that -- that the facts are important,

 4     but the overall facts on non-disclosure virtually precludes from

 5     cross-examining on this because we had no notice that this was an area

 6     that going to be the subject of the Prosecution's direct.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne might not have been prepared

 8     for an answer of 12.5 to 25 metres as well.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  She asked the question what the margin of error was.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but she may be surprised by the answer.  That's

11     why I gave that answer earlier.  If you say -- if you put a general

12     question to a witness and you receive an answer, which might come to some

13     spent as a surprise, then even if you had not in mind to explore in

14     detail such matters, that this might cause you to do so because of the

15     unexpected answer.

16             Let's -- Ms. Mahindaratne, you are aware that there is -- there

17     are objections against putting this witness in a situation where he more

18     or less serves as an expert witness on all kind of details, on margins of

19     errors, technical details of weaponry.  At the same time, I left you some

20     margin to put some questions.  If you would keep that in mind, that these

21     objections, as I said before, are not totally without merit, although not

22     sufficient at this moment to bar you from putting some questions in

23     relation to this, but certainly not -- this is not a green light for

24     exploring in every detail this area, which certainly does not prominently

25     appear in the statement of the witness.

Page 13578

 1             If you would please keep that in mind, then we can proceed.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will, Mr. President.  Thank you for those

 3     guidelines.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, would you ...

 5             And may I urge the parties to see whether we can have a flow of

 6     evidence, which is not interrupted on a minute-by-minute basis.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, I appreciate that.  And to and to

 8     the extent I did that, personally, Your Honour, I apologise to the

 9     Chamber and to my co-counsel.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed.

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

12        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, now you said -- and I'm just going back to what you

13     just said with regard to 120-millimetre and 130-millimetre cannons, you

14     said the probable range of error that you considered was 12.5 to 25

15     metres.  Based on what did you arrive at that figure?

16        A.   I arrived at that figure the following way:  It includes all the

17     elements that need to be put into the calculation when firing, stating

18     that the margin of error could be as little as 12.5 metres.  I know all

19     that because I completed the Military Academy.

20             I can add to that, that if one has a computer at one's disposal,

21     if you do it electronically, then the calculation gets even more precise.

22        Q.   Did you use -- in directing the artillery operations, did you use

23     any charts or any written instructions that set out the margins of error,

24     the -- the other elements that need to be factored in calculating the

25     probable range of error with regard to particular types of weapons.  Did

Page 13579

 1     you use such material?

 2        A.   I did not fully understand the question.

 3        Q.   Now, within the special police artillery section, were there any

 4     specific instructions given with regard to are, let's say, example, that

 5     the probable range of error related to go 120-millimetre mortars would be

 6     such-and-such when -- when you factor in the particular charge you use,

 7     the particular elements of weather, so on and so forth, were there

 8     written instructions or certain charts that you used?

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sorry.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic, the question started as a factual

11     question.  When reformulating when the witness said he didn't understand

12     the question.  It might that be the question changed a bit of character.

13     If would you not mind, Mr. Kuzmanovic, and if that would deal with the

14     objection you may have, I could try to reformulate the question.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  My objection actually was in part that, Your

16     Honour.  But the main objection I have is the question assumes that the

17     special police itself has an artillery section, and I think that needs to

18     be established.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps -- when you were -- Mr. Turkalj, when you

20     were in charge of the use of artillery, do you know whether any tables

21     were used to calculate what margin of error would apply in the specific

22     circumstances of the use of that weapon; that is, calibre, angle of

23     firing, charge, et cetera?  Were you using tables?  Were they available?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Specifically when determining the

25     elements for firing of artillery weapons, there were tables.  Each piece

Page 13580

 1     had its own respective table, and that is what we used to determine the

 2     elements.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And how specific were these tables?  What elements

 4     appeared on this table resulting in a certain margin of error?  How

 5     detailed were they?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tables were precise, drafted by

 7     experts.  We were not the authors of those tables.  We merely used them.

 8     The tables do not originate from the special police.  Those tables are

 9     used by armed forces all over the world.  They have nothing to do with

10     us, and the elements depend on the coordinates of the target, direction,

11     distance, and all the other elements one needs to have in order to engage

12     a target.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

15        Q.   You said, Mr. Turkalj, that these tables were used by armed

16     forces all over the world.  Now, the tables that you used, what were the

17     origins of those tables?  I mean, you could not have been using a

18     universal table.  What -- can you tell us from which military force or

19     which armed forces had -- or from which authority had issued those

20     tables?

21        A.   From the point of view of artillery, such tables depend on the

22     piece you use.  There were such tables in existence in the eastern part

23     of the world and the western part of the world.

24             The difference may have been between 60 and 64.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, do you know generated these tables?

Page 13581

 1     Was it -- the ones you used, were they JNA table, were those American

 2     tables, were those manufacturer tables; do you know?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were JNA tables, provided

 4     they corresponded with the pieces we had.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Turkalj.

 8             Now going back to your testimony yesterday, you said that you

 9     were provided with designated targets which included targets on the front

10     lines, and then you also said that you were provided with certain targets

11     in the depths behind the lines, which you describe as, and I will read

12     them to you:  Command points, railroad junctions, warehouses of equipment

13     pieces, communication centre.  And you said that would be it more or

14     less.

15             Now when I just asked you about the 128-millimetre multi-barrel

16     rocket launcher systems and as to what type of targets you use such a

17     weapon, you said for surface areas, not specific targets.

18             Now did you, in the course of the operation, use multi-barrel

19     rocket launchers systems against a type of weapons that you described

20     yesterday?  That is, the targets in the depth which were command points,

21     railroad junctions, warehouses of equipment, or communication centres?

22        A.   Multi-barrel rocket launchers were used exclusively to engage the

23     enemy defence at the front lines and the rear, meaning up to one or two

24     kilometres where the enemy forces are, just behind the front line.

25        Q.   So if I could understand your answer, is it correct that you're

Page 13582

 1     saying that the multiple rocket launchers were used only against forces,

 2     that is personnel, by you?

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Sorry to interrupt.  The previous answer wasn't

 4     complete.  In terms of what the witness said.  I don't know if there was

 5     a gap in the translation or what happened, but the answer is not

 6     complete.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, on the record, I, at this moment as

 8     your last answer:  Multi-barrel rocket launchers were used exclusively --

 9     I think you said for front line positions and positions in the rear,

10     positions in the rear, meaning up to one or two kilometres where the

11     enemy forces, just behind the front line, were.

12             Is that -- because we are missing part on the transcript.  Is

13     that what you said?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is it.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

17        Q.   If could you clarify, did you mean that they were used only

18     against forces, as in personnel?

19        A.   That is right.

20        Q.   Now, you said that -- previously you said that three days before

21     the operation, Mr. Markac had informed you or had -- at a meeting had

22     been told, you had been instructed to take care of -- take care that

23     civilians would not be in harm's way in using artillery.

24             Now, what type of steps did you take to ensure that, to minimise

25     collateral damage?

Page 13583

 1        A.   We took all the steps necessary.  We designated the targets at

 2     the front line and in the rear of the front lines along the axis of

 3     attack of the special police.  We also designated the targets within our

 4     area that were important for the fulfilment of our goal.  We were precise

 5     in terms of what the goals were in the entire area.  We prepared the axes

 6     of attack, and we had a battery covering each of those within their

 7     respective areas.

 8             The artillery we had had a longer range, and it was exclusively

 9     under my control.  Therefore, no one could have acted without my consent.

10        Q.   So were there any designated targets involved in the course of

11     the operation which were close to civilian settlements?

12        A.   I'm afraid you will have to repeat your question.  There were

13     fortified targets.

14        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

15        A.   Because the front line was being put in place for three years

16     before the attack itself.

17        Q.   My question is --

18             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, one clarification, Mr. President.  I

19     apologise for the interruption.  If counsel could designate in her

20     question or describe what she means "close to civilian settlements," what

21     that means in artillery respect.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

24        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, now, you referred to targets, designated targets, in

25     the depths, and you described -- I referred to those four types of

Page 13584

 1     targets.

 2             Were there such targets located either within civilian

 3     settlements or, say, within proximity of 50 to 300 metres to civilian

 4     settlements or civilian structures?

 5        A.   I would seek further clarification.  Are you talking about any

 6     targets in settlements or the targets along the axes of attack of the

 7     special police?

 8        Q.   I'm referring to the targets in depth, not on the confrontation

 9     lines.  You referred to four types of targets which were designated in

10     the depth.  Were there such targets located in villages or towns or near

11     villages or towns?

12             Let me be more specific.  Which fell within the probable range of

13     error as you saw it?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Probable range of error is not a good -- you earlier

15     said within 50 to 300 metres [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  I'll stick to

17     that, Mr. President.

18        Q.   Could you answer that question, Mr. Turkalj.  Did you understand

19     my question?

20        A.   If I understood your question correctly, the direction of attack

21     of the special police was a bit wider in range than the territory we have

22     been discussing so for at Mount Velebit.

23             Along the axis of target there were many targets, not only the

24     four or five that we referred to yesterday.  Those targets as well as

25     others were in proximity of certain settlements, some of which were

Page 13585

 1     settlements as well.

 2        Q.   So what kind of steps did you take to ensure that collateral

 3     damage was minimised?  Now you said that you had instructions to ensure

 4     that civilians would not be in harm's way.  So my question to you is what

 5     kind of steps did you take to ensure that?

 6        A.   As far as my work goes, and the work of artillery, we had two or

 7     three targets inside settlements.  We worked very precisely on those

 8     occasions with a very small number of projectiles, seeking only to

 9     neutralize that particular target.

10        Q.   And what were those three targets, and where were they?

11        A.   I'm talking about the brigade command, the 9th Gracac Brigade,

12     that is.

13        Q.   And where was that located?

14        A.   It was inside Gracac itself.

15        Q.   And what were the other two?

16        A.   Next, there was a cross-roads in Gracac itself, the two main

17     roads, then there was a police station housing some of the operational

18     forces in the area.

19        Q.   When you say in the area, which area?

20        A.   The area along the axis of attack.  Those were active forces.

21        Q.   Can you tell me -- when you say "axis of attack," what specific

22     location?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, let me try to understand what

24     we're doing.

25             You're exploring the three targets, which were close to

Page 13586

 1     settlements or even within civilian settlements.  Does it make any

 2     difference whether in the police station there were people from a large

 3     area or a small area?  We're talking about the police station housing

 4     persons as a target.  Does it matter whether they came from far, whether

 5     they had red hair.  Whether -- isn't the focus on targeting this -- this

 6     object.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

10        Q.   Can you tell me first, Mr. Turkalj, what weapons did you use on

11     those three targets?  What particular weapon did you use?

12        A.   We used only the 130-millimetre cannon.

13        Q.   And you said that you used -- let me be precise.

14             You said you used only a small number of projectiles.  For

15     example, how many rounds did you have to fire approximately to

16     neutralize, let's say, the police station housing forces?

17        A.   I can't give you a precise answer to that question.  It would

18     probably take an expert who would be prepared to answer that.

19             In my view, it would take three or four rounds to neutralize the

20     station or to put it out of operation.

21        Q.   And are there reports of expenditure of ammunition or that

22     particular, you know, with regard to that day's operations.  Is there any

23     report that would give, ammunition expenditure that you have tendered,

24     submitted to inner control branch or any special police authorities?

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Ms. Mahindaratne please speak into her

Page 13587

 1     microphone.  Thank you.

 2        A.   There were reports on the expenditure of ammunition for the

 3     operation for the whole of Operation Storm.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, we are reaching the limits.  I

 5     earlier said that some follow-up questions that arise in the statement

 6     are allowed.  But if we go to specific targets, et cetera, at least you

 7     should have given notice where you were not in a position to -- to proof

 8     the witness, that you would explore further, although without any

 9     proofing, certain matters, such as specific targets used.  Because there

10     is no basis for that in the statement.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Microphone not activated]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And you really have reached the limits, which I

13     although not in a very concrete way, set to you earlier.

14             Please proceed.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will move on, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, I'd like you to look at your statement, and

17     that is the section under tab 2.  For the record it is V000-5303, page

18     117 to 119.  For the record, it is P1150.

19             This is what you say in your testimony, and I read it to you.

20     This is towards the bottom of page 117.

21             Asked the question:

22             "I would assume that through intelligence, perhaps from the

23     military, you would be aware of whether the enemy had, perhaps, military

24     installations?"

25             Then the next page you say, The intellegence, military

Page 13588

 1     intelligence, was gathering information.  They were using the aircraft --

 2     and you're referring to self-manned drones.  And you say, All the

 3     information that regarded that data, we got from the inner control

 4     department, and so you within the artillery, would have had the

 5     coordinates of where those locations were.

 6             Page 119 you said, Personally had, was given one or two

 7     photographs of those locations.

 8             And did you target those as a matter of course before the

 9     operation or when the operation commenced, or did you just wait until you

10     were called up to, shall we say, use artillery on these locations?

11             Your answer is, When the attack started, only one location was

12     targeted, and all the rest, the artillery was used based on request of

13     the commanders.  There were not many locations targeted, and I can only

14     name that the repeater Celavac was one of the targets, and there was one

15     enemy position that was also targeted.

16             You're talking about the predetermined targets.

17             And now my question to you is:  Now where was that enemy

18     artillery position located which you fired at, which you referred to in

19     your testimony?

20        A.   There were artillery enemy positions.  At the very beginning of

21     the operation, we were targeting an enemy Howitzer battery.

22        Q.   My question was, where was that located?

23        A.   That position was close to Sveti Rok.  It is a settlement.

24        Q.   Now you say that only that position and the Celovac repeater was

25     targeted at the commencement in terms of predetermined targets,

Page 13589

 1     thereafter, it was on the basis of fire support which has been called for

 2     from the ground.

 3             Now why weren't the other targets fired at at the commencement?

 4     Was there no necessity to fire those targets?

 5        A.   Perhaps you didn't quite fully understand the text here, or

 6     perhaps the investigator didn't quite understand it.

 7             When the commencement of the attack was signalled and when an

 8     order was issued, we fired upon these targets:  The Howitzer battery, the

 9     communication centre.  These were the targets that had to be neutralized

10     so that we would not have difficulties in our attack.

11             As the units advanced from their starting positions, they came

12     into combat contact with the enemies and asked for support each along

13     their own respective axes.  I don't know what time of day it was, but it

14     could have happened some ten minutes or half an hour after the start of

15     the attack.

16        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... my question was:  Now with

17     regard to predetermined targets, you said at the commencement that only

18     those two were targeted.  Were there any other targets which were

19     designated or identified as being required to be engaged at the

20     commencement of the operation, or was it only those two?  And I'm not

21     talking about --

22        A.   No.  Many targets were designated, not only two.  My conclusion

23     was that these two targets had to be fired upon right after the signal

24     for the commencement of the attack was given.  Other targets were fired

25     at once the attack was under way.

Page 13590

 1        Q.   Now, yesterday when I asked you as to whether there were lists of

 2     targets, your response was not very clear.  You said there were

 3     designated targets.  I'm going to ask you that question again.

 4             These predetermined targets, were there written lists that were

 5     provided to you?

 6        A.   I think it's all one and the same thing.  The targets were

 7     determined.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The question is were they put on paper one after

 9     another.  That makes a list and whether they were determined, you can

10     determine a target without putting them on a list, and that's apparently

11     the question.  Did you receive lists?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The targets were determined on the

13     topographic map based on which the activities took place.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

15        Q.   My question -- you're still not answering my question,

16     Mr. Turkalj.

17             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Ms. Mahindaratne, I specifically asked whether

19     they were on the list, and now the witness says they were indicated on a

20     map, which I understand, but we could verify that, that there was no

21     list, but that you found them on this map.

22             Is that correctly understood?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correctly understood.  The

24     targets were plotted into the map.  I put them down.  The -- designated,

25     the several targets and the basic information.

Page 13591

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Now you said you did put them on the map.  Did you

 2     get them dictated by someone and then you put them on the map, or did you

 3     receive several sheets on which they were indicated?  How did that

 4     happen?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I said yesterday,

 6     there was information from our service about the targets on the ground

 7     and the enemy forces that were positioned along the axis of attack of the

 8     special police.

 9             According to the information we had from our members who were on

10     the front line, that line had been determined well ahead.  We selected

11     the targets that we thought were needed.  And when it came to the

12     artillery fire that was supposed to be active deep behind the lines, I

13     designated the targets based on information I received from my department

14     which contained the targets that were instrumental for the successful

15     outcome of our operation.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That still -- let me try it verify whether I

17     understood your answer.

18             Is it that you got information by bits and pieces and that you

19     put them on the map and that during the operation itself you received

20     information -- information which made you decide what targets you had

21     already on the map to be engaged; or possibly also targets not yet on the

22     map?

23             I'm trying to understand what you're telling us.

24        A.   What I've just said is that we decided which targets we would

25     engage, based on the information we had which told us where exactly the

Page 13592

 1     targets were.  This was the front line and shorter and longer distances

 2     behind the front line.  Your question had to do probably with the targets

 3     on the ground that emerged at a later stage as new ones, and if we

 4     detected such, then they would be engaged as well.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So where you said, You decided which targets you

 6     would engaged, based on the information we had, which told us where

 7     exactly the targets were, you are talking about targets of which you had

 8     received information already prior to the operation, which you plotted on

 9     a map?  Is that how I should understand?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

13        Q.   Now before the operation started, did you discuss -- once you had

14     already plotted those targets, did you discuss or report back to

15     Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic as to -- with regard to those targets, did you

16     inform them what targets you were going to engage in the course of the

17     operation and show them either the map or whatever information you had?

18        A.   I will not be able to give you as precise an answer as I would

19     wish to.  But Mr. Markac believed that I would do the artillery part of

20     the job very well, and he certainly did not have cause to check --

21        Q.   That's not my question.  I did not ask about what Mr. Markac

22     thought about you.

23             My question was, did you discuss those targets?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, it was an introduction to the

25     answer, the answer being, as far as I understood it, that Mr. Markac left

Page 13593

 1     it to you, and that there was no later check on the way in which you

 2     performed that task.

 3             Is that what your answer was?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I said.

 5             Mr. Markac trusted that in view of my qualifications and the

 6     experience in the artillery field that I would do the job very well.  He

 7     had no reason to doubt that.

 8             On the other hand, he knew, I will repeat, that we do the job

 9     well, and there was no need for him to check later on which targets

10     exactly we engaged along our axis of attack.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

12        Q.   Thank you for that answer, Mr. Turkalj.

13             Now, you did refer yesterday to the HV artillery support that was

14     added to the special police for the operation.  Now, in the course of the

15     operation, who called for fire support from the HV unit that was added to

16     the special police?

17        A.   I think that the previous answers spoke of that particular unit.

18     That's why I'm not quite clear on your question.

19        Q.   No, my question is this:  There was HV -- that there was HV

20     artillery support that was added to special police for the operation, and

21     that is your testimony.

22             Now, in the course of the operation, who called for their fire

23     support?  I'm not asking as to who really brought them in, but who called

24     for the fire support?  Was it you or -- who would contact the HV unit

25     that was providing artillery support and ask them to fire to the

Page 13594

 1     particular designated target?

 2        A.   Nobody asked of them to engage a particular target.  Rather, I

 3     issued orders to these artillery pieces as to which targets they would

 4     engage.

 5             The support could be asked by the commanders who led their forces

 6     along their respective axis of attack, if they came into contact with the

 7     enemy forces.

 8        Q.   So the support asked by the commanders, did it have to go through

 9     you, or could the commanders who were leading the attacks contact the

10     artillery batteries or groups or the HV unit directly and call for fire

11     support, or did they have to inform you, and then you would then divert

12     that particular request to the particular artillery unit?  How did it

13     happen?

14        A.   Commanders along their axis of attack had their own support.

15     There was a battery that followed that axis of attack.  I'm talking about

16     the main and auxiliary axes of attack of the special police.  Where it

17     was necessary to fire from 130-millimetres cannons from that particular

18     firing position, then they would seek that sort of support solely from

19     me.

20        Q.   Now, the HV unit you described, if you required the HV unit to

21     get involved or provide you with fire support, was it you who had contact

22     them, or could the commanders who were leading the axis of attack contact

23     them directly?  That is my main question, Mr. Turkalj.

24        A.   I've answered that.  If it was necessary to fire, for instance,

25     from 130-millimetre cannons, then they could have asked me to have them

Page 13595

 1     open fire.

 2        Q.   If there was a requirement to engage the rocket artillery fire,

 3     I'm referring to the multi-rocket launchers system, could the commanders

 4     who were leading the axis of attacks ask for that directly, or did that

 5     request have to go via you?

 6        A.   Every commander along his axis of attack had a multi-barrel

 7     rocket launcher, 120-millimetre, of the RAK type.  With that sort of

 8     multi-barrel rocket launcher, he could receive that sort of support

 9     without my clearance.

10        Q.   Now, if you needed to have the rocket launcher that was within

11     the HV unit that was providing support for the special police operation,

12     if you required engagement of that equipment who would call for that

13     support from the HV unit.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I think we're mixing units

15     here.  As to whether or not the HV unit that was working with them had

16     the multi-barrel rocket launchers or just a T-130.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  In fact, his testimony is clear that the HV

18     artillery support did have a rocket.  Let me refer to the particular

19     transcript reference.

20             Actually, I get back to you, since it is specifically mention in

21     the transcript, but I don't want to waste time.  In the meanwhile, I will

22     ask another question, and I will get back to it.

23        Q.   Now let me just take you through your testimony, Mr. Turkalj.

24             If I could ask you to go to your transcript V000-5303, the

25     section under tab 2, page 89.

Page 13596

 1             Have you found that page?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, could you assist us --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I haven't found it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Since I have an opportunity only to open one Adobe,

 5     could you always say first, second, or third, so that -- or refer to

 6     1150, 151, or 52 so that I can find my way through the --

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It's section 1, Mr President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Page 89.

10        Q.   That is, Mr. Turkalj, the section under tab 2, page 89.  And let

11     me read what I'm -- I want to take you to.

12             You were asked this question:  Okay.  Bearing in mind artillery

13     is quite an important task, did you have any, shall we say, forward

14     spotters or something travelling with the special police as they advance

15     so that they could give accurate positions for area targeting?

16             Are you on the page, Mr. Turkalj?

17             And then your answer is -- goes to page 90:  No, the

18     reconnaissance there were units that were advancing.  Commanders of the

19     units were the ones who were assessing the situation and, if necessary,

20     requesting support.

21             You say there were coded maps.  I don't know if you're aware of

22     that.

23             And let me just keep -- when there, on page 90 you say:  "Based

24     on those coded maps in each square [indiscernible], it was easy to

25     determine precise --

Page 13597

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 3        Q.   It was easy to determine precise elevation points and to give

 4     precise instructions where the artillery should be acting, if necessary.

 5             So your testimony is there were no forward observers.  So in the

 6     absence of forward observers, who corrected the fire for you?

 7        A.   Let me answer this way:  Along the axis of attack of the special

 8     police, it is true that the commanders of the units sought -- sought

 9     support from their battery, and they had all had a coded map based on

10     which, they were able to pinpoint the exact location of a target.

11             Specifically when they came into cat contact with the enemy and

12     when they engaged in combat, based on the coded map, they would not

13     exactly where they were and where the target was, and then they would ask

14     for the support from their battery which would fire at the target.  Of

15     course they were able to adjust their fire, if it was closer, further

16     away, to the left, or to the right.

17             Let me just add, the artillery batteries were not able to have

18     their own observers or spotters because the terrain would not allow for

19     that, but the commanders of units or rather, the commanders of specific

20     axes were also observers.

21        Q.   Why didn't the terrain allow for forward observers?

22        A.   I suppose you didn't see the area.  It's a mountain.

23        Q.   So if you're talking about the topographic preventing forward

24     observers, how would the battery crew be informed, that, in fact, their

25     round has either contacted with the designated target or that there has

Page 13598

 1     been a firing error which requires correction, if there was no mechanism

 2     to report back to the firing crew?

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I don't think he said -- Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's wait.

 5             What Ms. Mahindaratne is asking you is how you received the

 6     information to fire a little bit more to the left or to the right or a

 7     little bit further or a little bit closer.  How did you receive and from

 8     whom did you receive that information?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was exactly the same system as

10     the one you used by the artillery scouts or spotters, that you mentioned.

11             The commander who sought support was the one who would give

12     feedback to the battery as to where to direct their fire.  He was, in

13     fact, the observers and that system -- and since the communication system

14     functioned perfectly, there were no problems there.

15             I can explain this to you.  Had this involved a military scout,

16     or rather a forward observer, the same exact system would apply.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

18        Q.   Are you saying, Mr. Turkalj, that the commander acted as a

19     forward spotter.  Is that what you're saying?

20        A.   The commander who was present along the axis of attack and who

21     was in command over on that axis and his associates and colleagues who

22     were in the -- there, were able to guide the fire and correct the fire,

23     since they were in contact with the battery.  They all had these coded

24     maps, based on which they directed the artillery fire.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock.

Page 13599

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I notice I have already

 2     gone over the time.  This is a good time for a break.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  This is a good time for a break.

 4             Then we will have a break, Mr. Turkalj.

 5             We will resume at five minutes past 11.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.

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

10        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, now, you mentioned three targets which were in

11     Gracac, and your testimony was that you used only 130-millimetre cannons

12     to neutralize them.

13             Did you ever call for the multiple rocket artillery fire on

14     Gracac?

15        A.   No.  Multiple rocket fire was not used in relation to Gracac.

16        Q.   Now, when you called for fire on Gracac, did you ask for that

17     fire support from the HV unit that was providing artillery support to the

18     special police operation?

19        A.   Let me be more specific.  I ordered the fire position to engage

20     targets.

21        Q.   Did you order the HV unit that was providing artillery support to

22     the special police operation to engage targets in Gracac.  That's my

23     question.  I'm referring to that -- that HV unit that was added to the

24     special police operation.

25        A.   I don't know if we understand each other.  When we're talking

Page 13600

 1     about 130-millimetre cannons, that's the platoon that belonged to the

 2     Croatian army.

 3        Q.   Okay.  That's -- that was my question.

 4             Now, Mr. Registrar, may I have --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I seek some clarifications.

 6             You were asked whether you ever called for the multiple rocket

 7     artillery spire on Gracac.  Your answer was:  "No.  Multiple rocket fire

 8     was not used in relation to Gracac."

 9             Now calling for the use of certain weaponry is not exactly the

10     same as it being used.

11             Did you intend to say, I never asked, or perhaps even ordered,

12     multiple rocket artillery fire on Gracac; or did you say, Well, I may

13     have asked for it, but it finally was not used?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The multi-barrel rocket launcher

15     was not used in the activities on Gracac.  The fire from that rocket

16     launcher was neither asked for, nor was it used.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

18             Now, the second question, it was not entirely clear.  Do I

19     understand that the use of the 130-millimetre cannon, that you gave the

20     order to fire this weapon, which was in the weaponry of the HV unit that

21     was added to this special police operation?

22             Is that well understood?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's well understood.  The two

24     cannons that were active along the axis of attack of the special police,

25     they fired upon my order and upon my request.

Page 13601

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 2             Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

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

 4             Mr. Registrar, if could I have D1095.

 5        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, you see a document, and I appreciate you may not be

 6     familiar with this document.  This is a daily combat report issued by the

 7     commander of the Zadar Operational Group dated 4th August.  And can you

 8     take a look at the document if you're not familiar with it.

 9             I'd particularly like to draw your attention to paragraph 4 of

10     this document, where it reads:

11             "The MUP Ministry of Interior special units were supported by

12     130-millimetre guns and 122-millimetres Howitzers in the first sector

13     engaging Gracac and the area behind the lines.  The support was weakened

14     by the belated arrival of the SVLR, self propelled multi-barrel rocket

15     launchers and ammunition," and then there is some further details.

16             And then, "the entire day the artillery was engaging the front

17     line and the area deep behind the enemy lines."

18             Now, there is a reference here to the SVLR rocket arriving

19     belatedly, and the support being weakened because of that.  Did you at

20     any time call the -- the HV unit which was providing you with artillery

21     support to use the multiple rocket launcher on any targets?

22        A.   As far as this report is concerned, I didn't have an opportunity

23     to see it, though this is my view of it.

24             This is the information where the operations group Zadar or

25     someone on behalf of that group is submitting a report that they were

Page 13602

 1     seven days late in arriving at their firing position.  In other words,

 2     they were not present at the start.

 3        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... to you is, did you ask the

 4     HV unit that was supporting artillery operations of the special police to

 5     provide multiple rocket fire on any targets in the special police axis of

 6     attack?

 7        A.   Yes, we did ask for it.

 8        Q.   What were those targets that you asked for that fire against?

 9        A.   To engage personnel.

10        Q.   Where?

11        A.   In the area at the foot of the Velebit, along the axis of the

12     axis of attack of the special police, then in the area of Mount Velebit

13     at the Prezid Pass.  Those were the targets we worked on during the

14     operation.

15             There was several targets.  Not just one.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may have I document 1403,

17     please.

18        Q.   I'd like to show you an another document, and you probably will

19     be familiar with this document, Mr. Turkalj.  This is the -- what is

20     known as the war path, and this an extract of the war path, of the,

21     pardon my pronunciation, Bjelovarsko-Bilogorska special police unit.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And, Mr. Registrar, if you could take to the

23     English document page 6 and on the Croatian version page 5.  And if we

24     could focus on paragraph 3 of the -- page 6 on the English and the last

25     paragraph on page 5 in the Croatian version.

Page 13603

 1        Q.   Now, in the English version around line 6 and the Croatian

 2     version the last paragraph about line -- last paragraph, I think about

 3     line 6, is that ...

 4             Mr. Registrar, I think we have the wrong ... are we on page 5 of

 5     the Croatian version?

 6             If we could go down --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, it seems to be chronological, so

 8     therefore one page back takes us back from the 6th of August, perhaps to

 9     the 4th.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes.  I'm just trying to find the point, Mr.

11      President.  I'm referring to that section in paragraph 3 of the English

12     version which says:  "On 6th August in accordance with the order of

13     Turkalj."

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see at 0500 hours on the 4th of August.  Is

15     that what are you --

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No.  Mr. Registrar, if you could about to the

17     next page on the English version -- sorry, the Croatian version.  Page 6

18     on the English version.  On the Croatian version, if you could move to

19     the next page.  I'm sorry about this.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  There we have the entry for the 6th of August.

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

22        Q.   Do you note that paragraph that reads -- and on the English we

23     are on the wrong page, Mr. Registrar.  It's -- it should be page 6 on

24     English.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what I see on my screen seems to be the right

Page 13604

 1     page, if I'm not mistaken.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, I see it is apparently ...

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Should be the previous page, page 6.

 5             Yes, this is the correct page.

 6        Q.   Do you see that paragraph, Mr. Turkalj, which says:  "On 6

 7     August in according with the order of Mr. Josip Turkalj, the RTS was

 8     deployed in the region of Gracac, and around 2130 hours, part of the RTS

 9     of the Sisak-Moslavina police administration" --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What you are reading now, does it that appear on

11     your screen, and where does it appear on your screen?

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Paragraph 3, Mr. President, line 6.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, does it appear on the document on your

14     screen, if you have the e-court?

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm looking at the e-court Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But there are no line numbers or page numbers,

17     are there?

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm just trying to guide the parties where it

19     starts.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Tell me -- I have on my screen a document, to the

21     left, English; to the right, Croatian.  Could you tell us where in the

22     English I find what you just read?

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Paragraph 3 --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Paragraph -- third paragraph.  I now see it, yes.

25     In the middle of that paragraph.

Page 13605

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Exactly.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Exactly.  About five lines down.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I have found it, yes.  And this does now also appear

 5     for the witness or the witness has a hard copy -- no, has no hard copy.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Now we are on the correct page, Mr. Registrar.

 7        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, if you see the last paragraph, three lines from the

 8     bottom, it reads as follows:  "On 6 August in accordance with the order

 9     of [Overlapping speakers] ...  the RTS was deployed in the region of

10     Gracac.  And around 2130 hours, part of the RTS of Sisak Moslavina police

11     administration's special police unit joined a part of Zadar police

12     administration's special police unit."

13             Now you just said that rocket artillery was not used on Gracac,

14     and you did not ask for it nor was it used.  Can you first tell us what

15     is RTS?

16        A.   I said that the rocket artillery was not used to engage Gracac.

17     In this report, it says RTS, which is the rocket artillery group, and it

18     is clear in the report that it was on my order that the RTS was deployed

19     in the area of Gracac, meaning that they arrived at a position in -- in

20     proximity of Gracac.  On the 6th of August, the units had already passed

21     Gracac.  These people were following those units and, at that point in

22     time, reached Gracac.  They may have even spent the night there.  They

23     were billeted there.

24        Q.   So your testimony is they were never ordered to fire on Gracac?

25        A.   No.  They were billeted, accommodated there.

Page 13606

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Turkalj.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I wish to tender this into

 3     evidence.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Have I no objection, Judge, if the witness can just

 5     take his headphone off, I have just one comment.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you take off your headphones for a second.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  The Prosecution has lead evidence -- I'm sorry -- in

 8     this report that Gracac had fallen by this point.  I'm not clear on the

 9     line of questioning that the Prosecutor is engaged in, because at the

10     time he is referring to that, the evidence that the Prosecution has put

11     in already is that the special police had already taken Gracac, so I'm a

12     little confused as to the relevance of this line of questioning.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I was merely seeking an explanation,

14     Mr. President.  We were wondering what it was, and the deployment of the

15     RTS in Gracac, we were not quite clear what it was, and I thought this

16     would be the witness to seek that explanation from.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And you wanted to exclude the possibility that there

18     was any multiple rocket fired after Gracac had been taken?

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

20             MR. KEHOE:  I guess that is excludeing the possibility that the

21     special police were firing on themselves given the evidence that the

22     Prosecution is leading.  But if that's the case, then we'll just move on.

23     [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We've heard the evidence.  I take it that you move

25     on to your next subject, Ms. Mahindaratne.

Page 13607

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the witness -- could you put on your

 3     earphones again.

 4             Thank you.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I call for document 1638, please.  I'm

 7     sorry.  It's 65 ter 1638.  I'm sorry.  I had not tendered the previous

 8     document into evidence, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That is why Mr. Kehoe has made an observation, but

10     we have not heard from Mr. Kehoe if there is any objection.

11             MR. KEHOE:  No, Your Honour, I apologise.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes exhibit number P1153.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  P1153 is admitted into evidence.

15             Please proceed.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, can I have document 1638,

17     please.

18        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, this is a request from Mr. Markac requesting for

19     logistic support from the HV Main Staff.  And this is requesting for

20     replenishment.  Now are you able to say if, in fact, the quantity of

21     ammunition which was being requested corresponds to the expenditure,

22     daily expenditure, of the ammunition?

23             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, just some clarity on that.  Is he talking

24     about the artillery level of the T-130s or the artillery that was

25     deployed back down to the individual commanders in support of advancing

Page 13608

 1     troops?

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I think it is a straightforward question,

 3     Mr. President, as to whether request for replenishment corresponds to

 4     expenditure.  And I was particularly going to draw his attention to the

 5     120-millimetre mortars and the 128-millimetre rocket fire -- rocket

 6     missiles.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's hear the answer of the witness.

 8             Could you answer the question, Mr. Turkalj.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the replenishment with

10     ammunition, we see items 1 and 2 that refer to artillery, these being the

11     120-millimetre mines and -- or and 128-millimetre missiles.

12             Add regards the expenditure of ammunition, this could refer to

13     the first day of operation.  It was the logistics department that kept

14     track of expenditure, and they were aware of their supply in the

15     warehouses and what would be the amount required for the purpose of the

16     operation.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

18        Q.   So being the person in charge of artillery, would you be able to

19     say as to whether -- do you agree that, in fact -- or an amount close to

20     400 pieces of 128-millimetre rockets were used on the first day of

21     operation by the special police artillery operations?

22        A.   I would like to be able to precisely answer, but I can't know how

23     much ammunition was spent the first day.

24             As for the 400 pieces of 128-millimetre missiles, that could be

25     possible for the first day.

Page 13609

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I tender this document into

 3     evidence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.

 5             Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes exhibit number P1154.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P1154 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 9        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'd like to you look at your transcript, 5304.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  And for the benefit of -- it's section 2,

11     P1051, Mr. President.

12        Q.   And if you could look at page 14, you refer to Zeljko Sacic, the

13     chief of special police, issuing you orders in relation to the artillery

14     commitments for the advancement Donji Lapac, and you go on to say, Sacic

15     was issuing orders, specifically all of us received our orders from him.

16             And if you go on to page 15:

17             "We also were given new maps because I personally did not have

18     any map that would present anything further than Gracac, so we were given

19     new maps there for that other area."

20             Now, talk being maps, first question I want to ask you, you

21     referred to previously also coded maps and your operations being

22     conducted on the basis of maps.  Were those maps preserved after the

23     operation?

24        A.   I can't tell you whether there are still topographic maps in

25     existence that were used during the operation.

Page 13610

 1        Q.   Generally what did you do after the operation with regard to

 2     those maps?  Were they handed over to a department in the special police,

 3     such as the inner control branch?

 4        A.   I want to go back to the part of the report, whereby it says that

 5     new maps were made upon entering Gracac and the headquarters was set up,

 6     the employees of the internal control department were then, at that

 7     point, working on a new map, a new topographic map, that could be used in

 8     the continuation of the operation.  These were working maps, to be used

 9     by commanders to be able to navigate along the axis of attack and

10     direction.

11             As for artillery, it was useful for us to designate the targets

12     which had already been plotted in and to designate any potential new

13     ones.  The system, the artillery functioned, remained the same as the one

14     that was in place during the first couple of days of the operation.

15        Q.   My question to you was:  What did you do after the operation?

16     Were those maps handed over to -- in the inner control branch or some

17     other department, or were they discarded?

18        A.   The topographic map distributed to the commanders for further

19     advancement in that direction were -- was not a document as such.  The

20     only document that could be -- would be preserved was the plan of attack

21     with specific tasks.  I'm not sure whether those maps were then sent to

22     the headquarters.  I believe the employees kept them on them, and it was

23     of no use subsequently.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, may I just in order to avoid that

25     other people find puzzles in our transcripts.

Page 13611

 1             Page 50, line 19, I take it that you wanted to refer to P1151

 2     rather than P1051.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.  My apologies for that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 6        Q.   Can I ask you to move to page -- we are still on the same

 7     transcript.  Mr. Turkalj, that is section 2.  We were reading off page

 8     15.  If you could move to page 21.

 9             Mr. Turkalj, I'm asking you to move to your transcript which is

10     on your desk.  Page 21.

11             I'm sorry, I think you're looking at -- it's a wrong one.  Tab 2.

12     Tab 3, sorry, the second section.  Just below tab 3, yeah.

13             This is regarding your -- the advance into Donji Lapac.  This is

14     what you say:

15             "And again had you been supplied with the locations of potential

16     enemy positions or facilities?"

17             And if you could go to page 22.  You say:

18             "No, there was no particular intelligence.  There was only the

19     information that Lapac was a place which had rather strong forces."

20             Now you entered Donji Lapac on the 7th of August, did you not,

21     Mr. Turkalj, the special police forces?

22        A.   I believe it to be the 7th.

23        Q.   So when you, in fact, entered -- or when the special police

24     forces entered Donji Lapac, were there any enemy forces still present in

25     Donji Lapac?

Page 13612

 1        A.   As far as I know, there was no fighting in Donji Lapac.

 2        Q.   And when you say there were no fighting in Donji Lapac, did you

 3     order artillery attacks on Donji Lapac before the forces entered?

 4        A.   We did not open fire on Donji Lapac.  Our artillery targeted the

 5     mountainous terrain in front of Donji Lapac.  However, we did not target

 6     Donji Lapac itself.

 7        Q.   I'd like you to go to page 32 on the same transcript,

 8     Mr. Turkalj.  And there you say, the question is asked:

 9             "Am I right in saying that you as the commander of the artillery

10     did not authorise shelling or use of artillery on Donji Lapac?"

11             You say:

12             "When Donji Lapac is regarded, we were acting targets that were

13     in the front of our units.  When the units practical entered Lapac, then

14     Drazan Curkovic called with a request that the staff Markac, Sacic, or

15     someone should contact the military and inform them about it, as military

16     was acting with the artillery on Donji Lapac.  It was within their

17     authority and military authority."

18             Your testimony was, and you elaborate this further, that when

19     you, the special police forces entered Donji Lapac, HV forces were still

20     shelling the town, and you had to, in fact, ask for a request to cease

21     that fire.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

23             MR. KEHOE:  Just by way of clarity, if the Prosecution can ask

24     which Military District this firing into Donji Lapac was coming from, was

25     it the Gospic Military District or the Split Military District?

Page 13613

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  It is it Gospic, Mr. Kehoe.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm not going to ask about the districts.  I'm

 4     going to ask him about a completely different issue.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  In the spirit of clarity, Mr. President, I thought I

 6     would raise that issue, that it is not the Split Military District firing

 7     into the Donji Lapac.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, we know that.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You want to make a distinction which is apparently

10     not relevant for Ms. Mahindaratne's question.  If it would turn out to be

11     relevant for the witness to make that distinction, he certainly will do

12     so.

13             Ms. Mahindaratne, perhaps you repeat your question.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

15        Q.   My question is, Mr. Turkalj, now, you said the special police

16     forces did not fire on Donji Lapac, or you did not order because there

17     was no fighting there.  So what was the HV artillery acting on in

18     Donji Lapac when the special police forces entered there.  What were they

19     firing against?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That is another question.  Ms. Mahindaratne, I would

21     not mind if you put another question.  But let's try to first seek an

22     answer to the previous question.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'll --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it -- Mr. Turkalj, when your special police

25     forces entered Donji Lapac, were HV forces still shelling the town, and

Page 13614

 1     is it true that you had to ask for -- that you requested to cease that

 2     fire?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is completely correct.  The

 4     special police forces had entered Lapac, and at the outskirts of Lapac,

 5     it was the HV artillery that began opening fire from the direction of

 6     Udbina.  Clearly, that artillery had links with the Military District of

 7     Gospic, given the fact that, at that point in time, they had no

 8     information on the pace of advancement of the special police, because

 9     Donji Lapac, I suppose, was along their axis or direction of attack.  And

10     as for the targets they were trying to engage, I can't tell you about

11     that.

12             It is also true that Mr. Curkovic used radio communication to

13     find out from me whether it was us who was opening fire, and then they

14     used communications to advise the Military District of Gospic that the

15     police forces had already entered Lapac and that they should cease fire.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

17        Q.   I'd like to you look at your statement of 2004, Mr. Turkalj.

18     That is it under tab 1 on your binder.

19             Mr. Turkalj, the binder that is on your table.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Paragraph, Ms. Mahindaratne.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Paragraph 37, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

24        Q.   In paragraph 37, starting with third line you say this:

25             "We did not target Donji Lapac with our artillery, but the

Page 13615

 1     military did.  They were supposed to have reached Donji Lapac from Udbina

 2     before us, but they did not arrive.  In fact, the army was still shelling

 3     the town, and we had to communicate with the army to tell team that they

 4     were in the town and to stop shelling it."

 5             Now, when you entered into the Donji Lapac town, you already said

 6     there was no fighting, there were no forces.  Did you observe as to where

 7     the shells had impacted and where they were -- what they were shelling at

 8     in the town?

 9        A.   The statement is general when it comes to the shelling of the

10     town.  I don't know which targets they engaged.  I didn't observe that,

11     because I was not in Donji Lapac at that time.

12        Q.   Okay.  Moving on to another area.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, can I have document 65 ter

14     number 6172, please.

15        Q.   And while that document is coming up, Mr. Turkalj, could you look

16     at -- on this same statement, paragraph 69.  And this is what you say, if

17     I could read it to you, you say that:

18             "Disciplinary matters were dealt with the special police, by the

19     inner control department of the special police.  Every unit had at least

20     one member who worked for the inner control department, and sometimes

21     even the commander of that unit did not know who that person was.

22             The inner control dealt with all levels of discipline within the

23     special police.  All such matters would be reported to Mladen Markac, and

24     he would decide how a member of the special police who committed a

25     disciplinary offence would be dealt with.  Crimes committed by a member

Page 13616

 1     of the special police would be handed to the criminal police by

 2     Mr. Markac, to be investigated.

 3             I am not aware of any criminal investigations that were

 4     undertaken by the criminal police into the special police, although I am

 5     sure that there were some criminal investigations into the members of the

 6     special police but not contacted with war activities."

 7             Now, if I could ask you to look at the document on your screen,

 8     Mr. Turkalj.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  I'm sorry, Ms. Mahindaratne, for interrupting,

10     but I would like you to have in mind the corrections that the witness

11     made yesterday as regards to the inner control unit.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, he did.  He didn't make any changes.  He

13     provided for the clarifications, which is on the record, so I did not

14     read anything incorrectly, Mr. Mikulicic.

15        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'd like you to look at the document on the screen.

16     This is a proposal by -- issued by Mr. Mladen Markac regarding

17     disciplinary measures to be taken against a member of the Lucko Unit, and

18     it refers to the regulations he is acting under.

19             Now, are you familiar with this matter?  Because it -- at the

20     end, it, in fact, refers to a report made by you.

21        A.   This is correct.  The only thing I can add is that within the

22     Ministry of Interior, there was such a disciplinary procedure that for

23     minor breaches of discipline every commander of a unit was duty-bound to

24     pass a decision for a disciplinary procedure and for a major breach of

25     discipline, it was prescribed that the proposal for initiating a

Page 13617

 1     procedure, Mr. Markac would issue.  In other words, the commander of the

 2     special police.

 3             Every commander within the sector of the special police was

 4     duty-bound to provide information and documents based on which a proposal

 5     for the initiation of a disciplinary procedure may be drafted.  In this

 6     particular instance, we can see that there is an Official Note of the

 7     head within the intervention unit of Lucko, and on the basis of this Mr.

 8     Markac, as assistant minister, produced a proposal for the initiation of

 9     a disciplinary procedure.

10        Q.   In such instances where they were major disciplinary measures

11     involved, was it always the case that you would submit the information to

12     Mr. Markac in writing, you or the particular unit commander?

13        A.   Within the sector of the special police, there was the practice

14     in place whereby the chief or the commander would write everything and

15     sent the proposal, and Mr. Markac would sign it.  That was the practice.

16             However, Mr. Markac could not submit a proposal for the

17     initiation of a disciplinary procedure if he did not have from the unit

18     the information and the task to -- or, rather, not the task, the request

19     to initiate such a disciplinary procedure.

20        Q.   Thank you for that.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I wish to tender this document

22     into evidence.

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objections.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number P1155.

Page 13618

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P1155 is admitted into evidence.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 3        Q.   And, Mr. Turkalj, if I could ask you to look at your transcripts

 4     again.  And that is the section under tab 2.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Madam Usher, if you could assist.

 6        Q.   If you could look at page 52, this is section 1, for the record,

 7     P1150.  Page 52.

 8             You're referring to disciplinary measures here, Mr. Turkalj, and

 9     you use specific examples.  You say:

10             "For example, there was one occasion the information sent by the

11     inner control that a certain commander in [indiscernible], pardon my

12     pronunciation, was cooperating with a certain firm or company involved in

13     some criminal actions.  And, for example, just if I were in a car given

14     for my use, if I exaggerated the use of the car for not professional

15     task, and sort of -- also the information could have been given to the

16     General so that he could then make his own assessment based on such

17     intelligence."

18             Whom do you -- first of all, whom do you refer to there as

19     General?

20        A.   In the interview, this was one of the general examples

21     illustrating how the system functioned.  It was only natural for me that

22     if Mr. Markac had information to the effect -- a piece of information to

23     the effect that I was using an official vehicle for private purposes,

24     that was something that he would inquire about, and I don't see that

25     there's anything stated here outside of what I have just referred to.

Page 13619

 1        Q.   That was -- I wasn't criticising you for that.  Mr. Turkalj, my

 2     question was -- just simply the first one was whom you referred to as

 3     General Markac.

 4             And the second question is do you know whether there was regular

 5     interaction between inner control branch and Mr. Markac?

 6        A.   The internal control department was the component part of the

 7     sector of the special police.  What sort of internal communication there

 8     was is something I cannot give you an answer to.  The internal control

 9     department was part and parcel of the special police sector.

10        Q.   Now, in your interview you informed the investigators that you

11     believe Mr. Markac driver was in the inner control branch.  Were you

12     referring to Mr. Anto Soljic?

13        A.   I don't know if I referred to Mr. Soljic, but Mr. Solic was the

14     chief of the internal control department.

15        Q.   Now, in the paragraph that I read to you earlier from your

16     statement, you referred to criminal matters committed by special police,

17     and you said -- the part that I read was crimes committed by a member of

18     the special police would be handed to the criminal police by Mr. Markac.

19     I read it to you earlier on.

20             Now, in the case of crimes committed by members of the special

21     police, would a unit commander of a unit of a special police inform

22     Mr. Markac of that particular members' deeds by way of a written report

23     as in the case of disciplinary measures that we referred to earlier on?

24        A.   I think that these are matters that are quite separate, one from

25     the other.  If we are talking about a criminal offence perpetrated by any

Page 13620

 1     member of the special police, the same sort of legislation applied to

 2     that individual as to every other citizens of the Republic of Croatia.

 3             As far as the workings of it were concerned, every member --

 4        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 5        A.   -- if he learned that --

 6        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, let me -- so I am very clear.  Let me take you back

 7     to your statement to the part that I'm referring to.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Madam Usher, if could you assist.

 9        Q.   If you could look at paragraph 69 of your statement of 2004, and

10     the English version, I'm reading five lines from the bottom of that

11     paragraph.

12             You say:

13             "Crimes committed by a member of the special police would be

14     handed to the criminal police by Mr. Markac to be investigated."

15             Now how would -- if you as the commander of the Lucko Unit got

16     information that a member of your unit had committed a crime -- now, your

17     testimony is that it would be Mr. Markac who would hand him over to the

18     crime police for investigation.  How would you as the unit commander

19     report that fact to Mr. Markac?  How would you convey such information to

20     Mr. Markac?  Was it through a written report, as in the case of major

21     disciplinary measures?

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'm going to object to the form of the question.

23     There are words thrown into the question that don't exist like major

24     disciplinary measures.  There was only disciplinary measures, then there

25     is a difference between what a major disciplinary measure is and what a

Page 13621

 1     criminal act is.  And I think those things need to be defined.  Those are

 2     very important terms.

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I referred exactly to the testimony.  The

 4     witness referred to minor disciplinary measures and major, and he said in

 5     the case of major disciplinary measures, it was Mr. Markac who dealt with

 6     the proposals.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If you are using the language that the witness used

 8     in his statements this is a reason to deny the objection.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, the statement says in paragraph 69

11     "... would decide how a member of the special police who committed a

12     disciplinary offence would be dealt with," not a major disciplinary

13     offence, not a minor disciplinary offence.  It is very specific in the

14     statement.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President, I'm referring to his

16     testimony previously.  Let me read that part for you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If could you give us, in order to avoid

18     further confusion, the date --

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Just today's evidence.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Today's evidence, page?

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Give me minute, Mr. President.

22             Page 57, line 19.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  The testimony of the witness:

25             "This is correct.  The only thing I can add is that within the

Page 13622

 1     Ministry of Interior, there was such a disciplinary procedure that for

 2     minor breaches of discipline, every commander of a unit was duty-bound to

 3     pass a decision for a disciplinary procedure.  And for a major breach of

 4     discipline, it was described that the proposal for initiating a

 5     procedure, Mr. Markac would issue."

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You're both a bit right.  Minor and major

 7     appears.  Although you're talking about measures major measures, which is

 8     not what the witness said.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Proceed, yes, Mr. President, maybe I used the

10     correct term.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  Perhaps repeat the question

12     [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...  Mr. Turkalj, now in the case of a

15     crime, how would you report that to Mr. Markac so that Mr. Markac could

16     inform the crime police or hand over the perpetrator to crime police?

17     Was that done by way of a written report as you -- you described earlier

18     where we saw a document where you had tendered written reports, or would

19     you do it verbally?  What was the procedure set up for you to inform him

20     of crimes committed by members of the special police?

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  If I may interrupt, Your Honour, just for a

22     second.

23             I would like Ms. Mahindaratne to clarify whether he is dealing

24     with a known perpetrator or unknown perpetrator of the alleged crime.

25     That is the [indiscernible].

Page 13623

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I think I was -- have I been referring to the

 2     question so clearly, I was referring to if a unit commander receives

 3     information --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you may ask that question.  I

 5     mean, again, if such a distinction becomes relevant, then the witness

 6     will have to face it when answering that question, and then it will

 7     emerge anyhow.

 8             May I again urge the parties to not unnecessarily disrupt the

 9     flow of evidence.

10             Please proceed.

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

12        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, let me repeat that question to you again.

13             If you, as the commander of the Lucko Unit, receives informs that

14     a member of the -- of your unit, Lucko Unit, had committed a crime, how

15     would you inform that fact to the commander of the special police,

16     Mr. Markac, so that he could take action to hand over that perpetrator to

17     the crime police?  Would you do that in writing, or would do you that

18     verbally?  I'm asking you to tell the Trial Chamber what the procedure

19     is.

20        A.   Your question is, in my view, a hypothetical one and that is how

21     I'm going to answer it.

22             It is definitely not the same if we know the perpetrator of a

23     crime or not.  It really matters.  And I answered before -- or, rather,

24     this part of your question in what way would I react as a commander, this

25     is again down to the way in which the Ministry of the Interior works, and

Page 13624

 1     its rules have set out in detail in what way the police shall work or

 2     behave, where a report has been received of a criminal offence that was

 3     committed.

 4        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, if a member of a special police unit, let's say you

 5     knew that one of your unit members had commented a crime, whether you

 6     know the identity of the perpetrator, you know the crime, and you have to

 7     have him investigated through crime police.  Now, your testimony is that

 8     it would be Mr. Markac who would hand over that perpetrator to crime

 9     police.

10             My question is simple.  How would you bring that information that

11     one of your members, whom you know the identity of, had committed a crime

12     to Mr. Markac's knowledge?  I think the question is very simple.

13        A.   The question is simple, but I believe my answer was too.  If I

14     knew of an individual having committed a crime as an authorised person,

15     as a person working within the system, I would be duty-bound to report

16     that to my superior, of course, and to the crime police, in order to --

17     for an investigation to be launched.  If I know that the crime was

18     committed.  This is the duty of every member of the ministry.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the question was focussing, how you would

20     report.  Would you write a report and send it, would you give a phone

21     call to your superior, would you -- that's, I think, what

22     Ms. Mahindaratne is interested in knowing.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, where a report was

24     received of the -- of a crime having been committed, information has to

25     be -- that information has to be reported to someone in -- verbally and,

Page 13625

 1     if necessary, in writing too.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, I'm moving on to the event in Grubori.  Your

 4     testimony --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, we still have no clear answer.

 6             In your statement you say:

 7             "All such matters would be reported to Mladen Markac, and he

 8     would decide how a member of the special police who committed a

 9     disciplinary offence would be dealt with.

10             Crimes committed by a member of the special police would be

11     handed to the criminal police by Mr. Markac to be investigated."

12             Now you say it should be reported to someone verbally or, if

13     necessary, in writing too.  What Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know, and

14     I would like also like to know, in case of a crime, how would you report

15     to Mr. Markac so that he could decide how to deal with the matter and how

16     the known perpetrator would be handed over to the criminal police.

17             Could you tell us in what cases would an oral report do or was,

18     in cases of crimes, a written report to Mr. Markac always the appropriate

19     way of reporting?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot quite answer that.  I

21     don't know if it's been specifically said whether the report should be

22     passed on verbally or in writing, the information of a criminal offence.

23     Such information can be conveyed verbally and in writing.  I would

24     definitely convey that information in writing if I had learnt that some

25     members of the special police committed something like that, and I would

Page 13626

 1     submit that to my superior.  I believe that's what I said.

 2             I also said, however, that it would be the duty of every member

 3     of the Ministry of the Interior to inform the competent police branch

 4     where a criminal offence needs to be investigated.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.

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

 7        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'm -- I would like to take you to your testimony

 8     about the event in Grubori.

 9             Now, your testimony so far that some days after the incident

10     Mr. Zeljko Sacic, the chief of the sector, ordered you to visit Gracac,

11     and you did so, and then from there you went to Grubori with Mr. Celic

12     and Balunovic.  At which time Mr. Sacic, Janic, and Mr. Cermak, and a

13     journalist by the name of Nada Zuriak [phoen] were present among others

14     in Grubori.  For the record, this evidence is in V000-5304, that's

15     section 2, page 113 to 121.

16             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Now, Mr. Registrar, can I have ...

17        Q.   And thereafter your testimony was that after the visit to

18     Grubori, you went to Mr. Cermak's office in Knin in a convoy?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, one second.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour, but I was

21     advised by my colleagues who are listening to the Croatian translation

22     that name of Mr. Markac was mentioned as one of the persons who visited

23     Grubori, although this is not in the transcript, as I can see, but just

24     for the record that there was Croatian translation of the question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 13627

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I think that was a mistake.  I didn't mention

 2     Mr. Markac's name.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether it was a mistake or something went missing

 4     or was changed.

 5             Yes, that is an incomplete part of the transcript at this moment,

 6     but special attention will be paid to it and it's clear,

 7     Ms. Mahindaratne, that you did not refer or at least did not intend to

 8     refer to Mr. Markac in this context.

 9             Please proceed.

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

11             Mr. Registrar, may I have document 3527, please.

12        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, were you interviewed by the Ministry of

13     Interior in 2004 about what you knew of Grubori, the incident in Grubori?

14        A.   A colleague from the Ministry of the Interior interviewed me

15     about the events in the area of Grubori.

16        Q.   And at the time that you were interviewed, did you take down

17     notes of what you were saying?

18        A.   I was not taking any notes, and I don't think the colleague was

19     either.

20        Q.   So that I don't waste time, Mr. Turkalj, with the permission of

21     Court Mr. President if I could have the -- this particular document

22     handed over to the witness during the break so that he could exam it

23     without going through it in court.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  That was also my intention to propose.

Page 13628

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  That's good.

 2             Mr. Turkalj, this Official Note, the original one, will be given

 3     to you.  Would you please be so kind to read it during the next break and

 4     upon return to give any comments you may have on this Official Note of

 5     the interview that was held with you.

 6             I see you're nodding yes.  I take that for a positive answer.

 7             Ms. Mahindaratne.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

 9        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'd like to you look at your transcripts.  That is,

10     V000-05305.  That is section 3 of the transcript, for the record P1152.

11     Madam Usher, if I could have your assistance.  It's the last section

12     under tab 4.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Also in order to avoid puzzles for those who are

14     reading transcripts later, I see on page 67, line 18, it reads document

15     3527.  I was informed that it should be 2537.  I don't know where the

16     mistake comes from, but if you would agree, then it's now on the record,

17     Ms. Mahindaratne.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

21        Q.   If you could go to page 20, and this is where you refer to -- on

22     your return from Grubori to Knin to Mr. Cermak 's office, you talk about

23     a conversation between Mr. Cermak -- Cermak and Sacic.

24             This is what you say:

25             "We were quite a number of people there, and talking there, but

Page 13629

 1     after some time I went out, and I was standing in a corridor with one

 2     special police member from Rijeka, I can confirm it.

 3             I don't recall how long it lasted."

 4             You're referring to the discussion between Mr. Sacic and Cermak.

 5             "From all of it, I still have one sentence in my head, when

 6     Cermak addressed Sacic and said words to the effect, Well, what have you

 7     done there?"

 8             That is what that you say:

 9             "It was something like a question, like an expression of anger.

10     It's hard to comment now on what it really meant?"

11             Now, were you aware as to why Mr. Cermak seemed displeased or

12     angry at the time?

13        A.   In my statement, I clearly said that other issues were discussed

14     as well, while we were having coffee.  As for this part of the statement

15     of the transcript, it states that I did not hear exactly what the

16     discussion was about and what was the manner of discussion.  It was not

17     an official meeting.

18             In any case, I tried to tell as best I could as to what happened

19     there.  I believe Mr. Cermak asked what had taken place there because

20     neither he nor anyone else knew at that point in time what did take

21     place.

22        Q.   Can I ask you to go on to page -- on the same section, page 42.

23     If you could turn down to page 42, Mr. Turkalj.

24             And you further elaborate on that conversation.  This is what you

25     say:

Page 13630

 1             "But it is certain that Mr. Sacic said that one should say that

 2     there came to some combat activities and that some civilians got killed."

 3             Then a few lines down, you say:

 4             "It is certain that he said there:  That it came to a conflict,

 5     and that within the conflict, those civilians were killed, conflict with

 6     some terrorists and than it should be said that way."

 7             If you go on to the next page, page 43.  This is actually

 8     something that you said, but it is in the English, you know, translation

 9     it is recorded as if R.C., Robert Casey is saying, but this really the

10     translation of the witness's statement.  You say:

11             "Sacic did not say that to me.  I assume he said that to Cermak.

12     So it wasn't -- I wasn't able to make any decisions about it."

13             You were asked this question:  "Is this a conversation you

14     overheard though?

15             "Yes, I heard that conversation and also later on in conversation

16     with Celic --"

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter's note that we cannot see what

18     the witness said on the transcript; we see only the English version.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I think we can go to the top of the page.

20             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Cayley, if --

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Oh, yes, I think the interprets can see it

23     now.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's now on line 1, we see what was said by

25     the witness in his own language.

Page 13631

 1             Mr. Cayley.

 2             MR. CAYLEY:  Could the witness take his headphones off, please.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, could you take your headphones off for

 4     a second.

 5             Mr. Cayley.

 6             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, I'm requesting that the counsel for the

 7     Prosecution put this extremely carefully to the witness.

 8             If you look at the transcript for this particular part of the

 9     interview, it is not as clear as Ms. Mahindaratne is actually putting it

10     to the witness, and I can give you page references.

11             If you go to page 42 of the transcript, you will see that what

12     the witness actually says is, "Sacic said it is certain that one should

13     say that there came to some combat activities and that some civilians got

14     killed."

15             Subsequently on page 45 in this interview, the witness says he

16     assumes, he assumes that Sacic told Cermak.  Not that he knows, not that

17     he heard.

18             And then you will find that the investigator then goes on and

19     basically puts it to the witness on page 49 when Sacic was saying to

20     Cermak was he suggesting that this was going to be the line, the party

21     line, they got killed because they were terrorist there.

22             We could spend a very long time on this, Your Honour, and I don't

23     wasn't to waste the time or interrupt the flow of evidence, but I think

24     if it is it read carefully, and if it's put honesty, frankly, the witness

25     does not say that he overheard this conversation between Mr. Sacic and

Page 13632

 1     Mr. Cermak.  He assumes it, and then the investigator take that

 2     assumption and puts it is to him as a fact.  This is it your

 3     interpretation of the transcript in its entirety.

 4             MR. CAYLEY:  Your Honour, I'm careful about interpretations.  I'm

 5     reading what I see and how the questions were put, and I think it is not

 6     fair, frankly, to put it to this witness that he overheard this

 7     conversation because that is not what he said.  And there are certainly

 8     leaps in logic that occur in this interview which do not really represent

 9     or go about in a way that actually seeks the truth.  That is it the point

10     I'm making here.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would wait for a second so that you can

12     respond both to Mr. Cayley's observations and --

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Mr. Kuzmanovic's.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  And I'd like to further add, Your Honour, along

16     those same lines as Mr. Cayley has stated, if you look at page 57 of the

17     transcript, you can see where this is going.  Because the investigator is

18     essentially saying here and testifying basically advising Mr. Turkalj to

19     be very very careful with your answers here because, as I said before, it

20     is my intention, meaning the investigator, to get the Croatian courts to

21     deal with certain members of Lucko Unit.  And I'll make it clear now that

22     I believe, and this is the investigator speaking, that Mr. Sacic in his

23     position of rank has used that position to perhaps exert pressures on

24     certain members of the Lucko Unit and -- let me go on to page 57.  To

25     support his, and I believe it's his proposal, to cover up the crimes by

Page 13633

 1     saying there were terrorists there.

 2             So this is the context in which these questions are being asked,

 3     not to elicit information as an investigator from this witness, but to

 4     basically pressure him, put words in his mouth, and put his case to the

 5     witness, and I think that's improper.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  This is partially argumentative.

 7             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I understand that, Your Honour, but I think the

 8     context in which you need to understand --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we have admitted this document into evidence,

10     which allows us to clearly follow in every detail what the witness said,

11     in response to what questions, how his statement developed, and please be

12     assured that the Chamber has read, and the Chamber usually does not leave

13     Grubori to the very end, if there's any time left.  But sometimes we even

14     start with certain portions to focus on -- at least I'm now speaking for

15     myself.

16             At the same time, Ms. Mahindaratne, you wanted to respond.  Let

17     me first give an opportunity for you to respond because you said it might

18     save time, and I'm very much interested in --

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President, all this could have been

20     simply avoided if the counsel just waited to hear my question.  I was

21     going to read back the transcript to the witness, and I was going to ask

22     him to clearly state to Court what he heard in the course of that

23     discussion.  I wasn't going do anything unfair, in fairness to the

24     witness and in fairness to everybody, that was going to be my question,

25     and I think all this could have been prevented if --

Page 13634

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you would say you would not add the kind

 2     of things the investigator added when he did put the questions to the

 3     witness at that time, which I would not have taught him if I ever would

 4     have given a course of examination of potential witnesses.

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You are aware of what may follow if you would

 7     unfairly put matters to the witness, that's clear now by the submissions

 8     made by the other parties, and you will have that in your mind when you

 9     put questions to the witness.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Absolutely, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, at the same time, perhaps before we

12     continue, perhaps it would be better to have a break because it might

13     take some time, I take it, the issue you want to raise.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Very well, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We will have a break, and we will resume at ten

16     minutes to 1.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.

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

21        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'm going to read back to you because there was some

22     interruptions, this is what you say.  First let me read back to you what

23     you said in your interview.

24             "But it is certain that Mr. Sacic said that one should say that

25     there came to some combat activities and that some civilians got killed.

Page 13635

 1     It is certain that he said there, and it came to a conflict, and that

 2     within the conflict those civilians were killed, conflict with some

 3     terrorists and that it should be said that way?"

 4             "Sacic did not say that to me.  I assume he said that to Cermak,

 5     so it wasn't -- I wasn't able to make any decisions about it."

 6             "Yes, I heard that you -- is that a conversation you overheard,

 7     though?"

 8             "Yes, I heard that conversation, and also later on in

 9     conversation with Celic, Celic, Celic told me that Sacic told him that

10     when writing report, it should be put that way."

11             "When you spoke to Mr. Celic in Grubori did he at that time

12     indicate to that you he had been told that he had got to put this in his

13     report?"

14             "No, I think afterwards.  I don't know if we were talking about

15     it then."

16             And if you could go on to next page, page 44.

17             "I think it was later on.  Maybe it was only within the last year

18     in those conversations that he mentioned that."

19             Mr. Turkalj, I'm referring to page 44.  And if you could move to

20     page 45, you were asked a question again:

21             "I appreciate that so what I want to do is go back.  I just want

22     to confirm what, what you heard Mr. Sacic say to Cermak about it being as

23     a result of -- or suggesting it was a result of a conflict with

24     terrorists.  Can you just tell me exactly to the best of your

25     recollection what was said?"

Page 13636

 1             "I have to say that I really cannot be certain how precisely it

 2     was said.  More or less it was said that the special police without

 3     mentioning any unit, just in general, special police came across some

 4     terrorists there, and in their fighting some civilians got killed."

 5             Page 46:

 6             "Was he suggesting this was the story to be used or this was what

 7     his information was?"

 8             You were asked the question: "Who?"

 9             "When Sacic was saying this to Cermak, was he suggesting that

10     this was going to be the line, the party line, they got killed because

11     there were terrorists there?"

12             "Yes, in that sense."

13             "So I just wanted to make sure I got this right.  Sacic was

14     basically saying that this is the story we are going to use whether it

15     was true or not."

16             "Yes, that's what it would turn out to be."

17             "Well, you say that's what it turned out to be.  Is that what you

18     understood it to mean at that time?"

19             Page 47:

20             "It is how I understood that, but I cannot repeat the exact

21     words."

22             "No, but ... but that was the ... the line that Mr. Sacic was

23     going to do down, that however they were killed, it was as a result of

24     terrorists being there."

25             "Yes."

Page 13637

 1             "Whethers that with an a true story or not?"

 2             "Yeah, well, regardless of that."

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. ...

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Sorry, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, my question -- so that there is no room

 6     whatsoever for confusion, can you tell --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

 8             Yes.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

10        Q.   So that, Mr. Turkalj, now what I like you to do so there is no

11     room whatsoever for confusion, can you tell the Chamber, and I appreciate

12     you cannot remember or you cannot be asked to use the exact words that

13     Mr. Sacic used, but can you tell the Chamber what Mr. Sacic told

14     Mr. Cermak after they returned from Grubori at that meeting you're

15     referring to here, what was the conversation and what was substance of

16     Mr. Sacic told Mr. Cermak?  Use your own language, if -- you don't have

17     to use the exact words.

18        A.   I will try to explain in my own words.

19             When we were in the area of Knin, Mr. Sacic, as can be seen from

20     the transcript as well, said that based on all the information he said,

21     and based on the things that could be seen, that there was fighting, that

22     there was a clash in that area, and I said something to that effect.

23     Rather, that there was a clash there, fighting in the area.  I cannot

24     recall his exact words at this point in time.

25        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... say that?

Page 13638

 1        A.   Mr. Sacic was the chief of sector.  He was our boss.  In that

 2     room --

 3        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... and we are running out of

 4     time, so please concentrate on what I'm asking you.  To whom did

 5     Mr. Sacic say that there was a clash?

 6        A.   Mr. Sacic, if he said that, he did so to Mr. Cermak, who was in

 7     the room, as well as to the others who were there.  He did not whisper

 8     that into Mr. Cermak's ear.  He said that out loud.

 9        Q.   Now you had just returned from Grubori, and you had -- at which

10     point you saw Mr. Cermak, Mr. Sacic, Mr. Janic, and you said you walked

11     around Grubori.  Based on what you saw in Grubori, did you note any

12     evidence of a clash?  I'm not referring to houses burning or people being

13     killed, but was there any -- did you notice any evidence of combat

14     activity in Grubori?

15        A.   When I arrived in the area of Grubori, what I could see could be

16     described as a clash that had taken place.  It would be difficult to

17     assess that in any other way.

18             I believe anyone who was in that area at that time could have

19     supposed that there had been a clash.

20        Q.   What -- what is it that you saw that made you -- made you saw --

21     might indicate a clash?  What was it that you saw there?  Because your

22     evidence so far is you saw the burning houses, you saw two bodies.  What

23     else did you see?

24        A.   I'm telling you that when one entered the area, one could suppose

25     that there had been combat.  The houses were not burned as after a --

Page 13639

 1     after arson, one could see there were bullet holes and that weapons were

 2     used, that there was some real fighting.

 3             It is difficult to explain the whole thing now, but based on our

 4     experience throughout the war, it looked like there was fighting.

 5        Q.   Where were bullet holes?

 6        A.   On the walls.  One could see the holes on the walls of two or

 7     three houses.  However, I don't think I would be able to recall any more

 8     details than that.

 9        Q.   Now, when -- at the meeting when Mr. Sacic told Mr. Cermak what

10     you say he told, did Mr. Cermak respond to that?  Did he say anything?

11        A.   I don't remember.

12        Q.   I'd like you to look at your statement of 2004, Mr. Turkalj, and

13     Madam Usher, if I could have your assistance.  And if could you look at

14     paragraph 50.

15             At paragraph 50 you say:

16             "I not recall any particular decisions being made, although it

17     was said that the bodies needed to be buried.  It was either

18     General Cermak or Zeljko Sacic who said that the bodies should be buried.

19     The question of an investigation was not discussed while I was there."

20             Now, at what stage did the discussion about the disposals of

21     bodies take place; after Mr. Sacic told Mr. Cermak about the -- the clash

22     or before?

23        A.   As far as I recall, I made certain corrections to item 50 of the

24     statement, whereby I said that it was not a formal meeting, and that

25     other.

Page 13640

 1        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 2        A.   Things were discussed --

 3        Q.   I'm not talking about a meeting.  I didn't even refer to the word

 4     "meeting."  My question was at what stage did the discussion about the

 5     disposal of the bodies take place, after Mr. Sacic talked to Mr. Cermak

 6     about a clash or before, in the course of the same conversation?

 7        A.   That conversation could have ensued only following the fact that

 8     there been a conflict there and that there were dead people, and that

 9     sanitation and hygiene measures were required.  It could have only taken

10     place after that.

11        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, your testimony was you were ordered by

12     Mr. Markac to call for reports from Mr. Celic and the special

13     instructors.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, if could I have document P566,

15     please.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue that, Mr. Turkalj, you say it

17     could not have been but after the clash was discussed or was subject of

18     the conversation.  That's not logic.  It could have been before or after,

19     isn't it, you can talk about dead bodies without discussing a clash.  So,

20     therefore, I do not see the logic in what you apparently present as the

21     only logic answer.

22             I mean, if you've seen dead bodies, whether they have to be

23     buried or not, you could have discussed that before you have discussed

24     any clash or after you have discussed any clash.

25             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, if you would ask the witness to

Page 13641

 1     remove his headphones, I think I know in the translation where -- it got

 2     lost in translation.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's a translation problem, then could you

 4     take off your earphones for a second.

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I think it was, "You could not

 6     collect the bodies after a clash had occurred, not the fact that there

 7     was a discussion about a clash."  I think that's where the --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's then clear, and then we'd like to have

 9     an answer to the question, because that -- if that is the result of -- of

10     an incorrect translation, then we should put the question again to the

11     witness and seek his answer.

12             Mr. Turkalj, there may have been a translation issue.  Therefore,

13     I would like to put the question again to you.  The issue of the bodies

14     to be buried, was that subject of the conversation before or after the

15     clash that would have taken place in Grubori was discussed?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stated that the conversation took

17     place in a room in Knin, and I believe the Prosecutor put the question

18     that way.  It concerned the conversation that took place in that room in

19     Knin.

20             I also said that I could not recall the conversation in detail.

21     It was a general conversation.  The gist of this question was whether

22     these bodies had to be buried and hygiene measures taken.  Whether that

23     was said only after the fact that Mr. Sacic said there had been clash

24     there, to me, it seems possible, and that's what I wanted to say, that

25     after the conversation there had been a clash, it was said as part of

Page 13642

 1     that discussion that sanitation and hygiene measures were required.

 2             I don't know whether I'm making myself clear.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You say it was possible that it was said after that,

 4     but you're not concern.  Is that ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not certain.  I'm not certain

 6     about the discussion in that room.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

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

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, you issued this order to Mr. Celic and the four

10     instructors on the orders of Mr. Markac, isn't it?  That's your

11     testimony.

12             My question to you is:  When did Mr. Markac order you to call for

13     this report?  On the 1st September itself or before?

14        A.   This order -- actually, this is my order.  It was drafted

15     pursuant to Mr. Markac's orders.

16        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... please focus on my question.

17             My question was, when did Mr. Markac order you to call for

18     reports which led to you issuing this order?  Was it on 1st

19     September that Mr. Markac told you to call for this report or before?

20        A.   I received a written order from Mr. Markac to ask for reports

21     from the instructors.  I think it was either on the 31st of August or the

22     1st of September.

23        Q.   While we're on this document, I just want to get you to -- do you

24     know that the incident in Grubori is referred to as 26th August, but we

25     know it was on 25th of August.  It's a mistake, isn't it, Mr. Turkalj?

Page 13643

 1        A.   Yes, it took place on the 25th of August.

 2        Q.   Now, your testimony was that based on this, you were provided

 3     with reports by Mr. Celic and three special instructors, and Mr. Drljo

 4     did not -- refused to submit a report, and you, in fact, submitted

 5     Mr. Celic and -- the other three reports to Mr. Markac with your order

 6     dated 20th September.

 7             I'm not going to call those documents, Mr. Celic [sic], those are

 8     the documents you handed over to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2004.

 9             Now my question to you is:  Your testimony was that when you

10     visited Grubori, you asked Mr. Celic as to what had happened, and he had

11     told you that he didn't know what happened because he had taken an

12     elderly civilian to safety.

13             So when you received the report from Mr. Celic, which is already

14     now in evidence, where there is reference to combat activity, did you

15     confront him as to the difference or the fact that he is now tendering a

16     written report which was different to what he told you in Grubori?

17        A.   I can answer this question by telling you that I did not see any

18     sort of reports.  The reports that the members wrote on the ground, they

19     sent to those who were in charge of the action.  They were not duty-bound

20     to send them to me.  There was the headquarters and the command who

21     received such details.

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... call the documents so that

23     we don't waste any further time.

24             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, could you please call P564,

25     please.

Page 13644

 1        Q.   Now based on this order of yours, Mr. Celic submitted a type

 2     written report to you, which you handed over to the Office of the

 3     Prosecutor, which we will see on the screen in a moment.

 4             Your testimony, Mr. Celic [sic] according to what you told the

 5     members of the Prosecutor is that when you visited Grubori --

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I'm sorry.  Ms. Mahindaratne keeps

 7     referring to Mr. Turkalj as Mr. Celic in the transcript, and it's just

 8     confusing.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Sorry.  My mistake.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

12        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, now your testimony is when you went to Grubori with

13     Mr. Celic and Mr. Balunovic, Mr. Celic told you when you asked him to

14     what happened that he did not know what happened because he had taken an

15     elderly civilian to safety.  Now that is your testimony, correct?  That

16     is what you have told us.

17             Now, when you received this report from him, did you ever

18     confront him with the fact that in this report he gives details of the

19     events in Grubori, as opposed to previously, when you questioned him, he

20     told you that he did not know what happened?

21        A.   I will give you my answer again.

22             We can see that the report we have on the screen was sent to the

23     action headquarters and not to me.  I only forwarded it further, and the

24     members who took part in the action sent it -- the report to the HQ, and

25     in this way, I met my obligation toward Mr. Markac to furnish the reports

Page 13645

 1     by members.

 2        Q.   Are you saying, Mr. Turkalj, that being the commander of the

 3     Lucko Unit, when there is a serious matter involved, which is the

 4     incident in Grubori, and your subordinate commanders submit reports to

 5     you to be forwarded to Mr. Markac, you did not even read them?  Is that

 6     what you're saying?

 7        A.   I read the reports, though I was not required to, I did read

 8     them, and I did what my task as the Lucko commander, I said that a report

 9     should be furnished considering the Storm encirclement action, and I

10     forwarded them to Mr. Markac.

11        Q.   So beyond -- beyond just forwarding the reports, Mr. Turkalj, as

12     commander of the Lucko Unit, you were not interested in finding out for

13     yourself what the truth was, is it; is that your testimony?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please ...

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the statements from

16     members, and I don't see that this should be in any other way.  I cannot

17     change their reports.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

19        Q.   That is correct, Mr. Turkalj, but your testimony was very clear.

20     You said that when you questioned Mr. Celic and then you returned from

21     Grubori and you questioned Mr. Balunovic and the other instructors and

22     many other members of the Lucko Unit, they all told you that they did not

23     know what happened, yet later on, you see these same people submitting

24     written reports which contain information completely different to what

25     they told you.

Page 13646

 1             So as a commander of the Lucko Unit, are you saying you did not

 2     so much as confront them about this contradiction?

 3             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, there are quite a few assumed facts

 4     in that question.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do agree.  But the question simply is, based

 6     on the information you apparently received the day before from Mr. Celic,

 7     after you had read his report, and as you said, you forwarded it, did it

 8     never come to your mind that there was an inconsistency that you should

 9     discuss with Mr. Celic in order to prevent that the reporting might be

10     untruthful?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat my answer.

12             The reports were sent to the action headquarters, which had to,

13     in turn, report on all the events including this action and including the

14     events in the area of Grubori.

15             I as the unit commander did not have the competence to command

16     the action.  I wasn't down there and was not able to know what happened

17     there.  The reports I received, I find relevant.  As I said, I could not

18     change them in any way, and I forwarded them to Mr. Markac.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, may I ask you one additional question

20     then.

21             You received the report.  You knew what Mr. Celic had told you

22     before.  You read the report.  You forward the report.  Were you aware

23     that at that moment the version that was told to you was not the same as

24     the one that was put in the written report?

25             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Mr. Celic told me that in the

Page 13647

 1     conversation with Sacic, he was told to write another report.  I stated

 2     as much.  Mr. Celic also said that he did not have reason to doubt what

 3     had happened there, since he himself was not present in Grubori.  That

 4     was the information I received, and the only other thing I could do was

 5     to forward the incoming reports.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That is not an answer to my question.

 7             My question was whether you were aware of the difference or

 8     inconsistency between what Mr. Celic had told you and what you found in

 9     the report.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Celic had told me that he was

11     not present in Grubori, when we're talking about that particular event.

12     And he told me that Mr. Sacic explained to him that another report had to

13     be drawn.  In this way, I did not check these reports at a later stage.

14     I believe my answer is very clear.  I did not double-check this report

15     subsequently.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

18        Q.   Now Mr. Celic told that you Mr. Sacic had told him to write

19     another report, and your testimony is that Mr. Celic told -- that

20     Mr. Sacic had told him what to write.  This testimony is it for the

21     record at V000-5305, page 43, page 59, and page 76.

22             Now, did you ever ask Mr. Sacic from where he obtained the

23     information, which he -- based on which he dictated -- or sorry, told

24     Mr. Sacic to write this version of the report?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you referred to Mr. Celic to write a new

Page 13648

 1     report.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   Did you ever ask Mr. Sacic on from where he obtained the

 4     information regarding the incident, based on which he told Mr. Celic to

 5     write the second report?

 6        A.   No, I didn't talk to Mr. Sacic.

 7             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document P625,

 8     please.

 9        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, was there a register maintained of all weapons

10     issued to the individual members of the Lucko Unit?

11        A.   Members of the Lucko Unit signed up for their weapons according

12     to the register of issued weaponry.

13        Q.   Now, are you aware that during the investigation initiated into

14     the events of Grubori in 2001 that a list of weapons issued to members of

15     the Lucko Unit in August 1995 was compiled and submitted?

16        A.   I don't really remember the list.  I do know, however, that all

17     the members were issued with weapons and that records were made thereof.

18        Q.   If, Mr. Registrar, if we could go to page 8 of both the English

19     translation and the Croatian version.

20             Mr. Turkalj, your name is at number 42.  Are the details of the

21     weapons recorded against your name correct, as those that you were in

22     possession of in August 1995?

23        A.   I believe so.  I believe that this sort of weaponry was issued to

24     me.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, can I call up document P578,

Page 13649

 1     please.

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, your testimony was that you were not aware of

 3     any of the weapons of the Lucko Unit being examined for forensic analysis

 4     in relation to the events in Grubori.

 5             For the record this evidence is at V000-5305, that is section 3,

 6     page 136.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, 65 ter numbers and ERN numbers are

 8     not searchable for anyone who looks at this transcript later, what will

 9     remain, exhibit numbers or MFI numbers.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, let me give an exhibit

11     number.

12             P1152, page 136.  That is section 3.

13        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, do you recall this order that was issued to you by

14     Mr. Markac?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We are not yet in the 5.000s, Ms. Mahindaratne,

16     could you please give the right P number.

17             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  P1152, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, P1152.  I'm sorry, I read something in the

19     5.000s, but I may have made a mistake.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I would like to -- my learned

21     colleague to pose a foundation for the -- that document because it's

22     obviously that the document has been issued on -- on the late 1999, and

23     it's obviously out of scope of the indictment.  So what will be the

24     foundation for showing up this document to the witness?

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, this is an exhibit in evidence,

Page 13650

 1     and it relates to disposal of weapons of --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, for two reasons.  First of all, it is it in

 3     evidence, Mr. Mikulicic.  Apparently, either you have not objected to it,

 4     or such an objection was denied.

 5             And second, one couldn't say that any document outside the

 6     time-frame of the indictment is for that reason irrelevant.  We have seen

 7     a lot of documents from after 2.000, especially in relation to these

 8     events which I never noticed that they were considered to be irrelevant.

 9             So, therefore, Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm have to say,

11     Mr. President, I am having trouble to move on fast because you have both

12     counsel from the same Defence party objecting, I recall, in fact, once

13     Chamber did indicate that was not appropriate.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think you're right, and could we seek that

15     counsel -- and especially on the last objection.  If there's a good

16     reason to assume that one counsel would know far better on certain

17     matters that an objection would be justified, that I would not, under all

18     circumstances, disallow if it is practical, and to force one counsel,

19     first, to consult other, but then, of course, it should be on matters

20     which really make sense.  And, Mr. Mikulicic, I regret to say that, that

21     I had to tell that you if a document is in evidence, that relevance,

22     mainly based or exclusively based on time-frame is not an objection which

23     should not be taken very seriously.

24             Please proceed.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

Page 13651

 1        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, do you recognise this order?  This was issued to you

 2     by Mr. Markac directing to you send a number of weapons belonging to the

 3     Lucko Unit for repair and to be written off.

 4             If you wish to see the next page, I can ask that the next page be

 5     shown to you.

 6        A.   There's no need for that.

 7        Q.   And this, in fact, has a list of weapons attached to.  I'm not

 8     going to waste time we don't have the time to go through a comparison of

 9     the list of weapons attached to this document, and the previous list that

10     we looked at which indicates weapons which were in the possession of

11     members of the Lucko Unit in August 1995.  But I can tell you there are a

12     number of weapons in both lists which are the same.

13             Now, when you were sent this order, did it ever confer to you or

14     were you concerned, particularity in the context that what happened in

15     Grubori was a still an open matter and there was serious allegations

16     against members of the Lucko Unit, that weapons should have been

17     reserved, weapons used by members of the Lucko Unit in August 1995,

18     should have been preserved instead of being sent for repairs or to be

19     written off and dealt with?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, that is a pretty leading question.

22     We're getting here into almost a paragraph worth of question without

23     really giving the witness a chance to give an explanation.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             Mr. Turkalj, when you received this order, did it ever come to

Page 13652

 1     your mind that it may have served the interest of finding the ultimate

 2     truth on the Grubori incident to preserve these weapons for

 3     investigations?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me first observe that the 1999

 5     order we see here was an usual order, based on the technical examination

 6     of weapons plan under which the weapons were regularly sent for checks

 7     and repairs.  I'm talking about the orderly condition of weapons.

 8     Weapons would be sent to the workshop or to -- or were actually checked

 9     for their condition within their unit, and the unit -- the commission

10     would be consisting of men from the logistics unit and the technical

11     repairs unit.  The weapons found to be malfunctioning would either be

12     sent for repairs or would be written off, or if in good order, they would

13     be sent back to the unit.

14             Back in 1999, when this order arrived, I did not really think

15     about the weapons having been used at any point during the war or who may

16     have been wielding a particular rifle during the war, and I'm not

17     referring specifically to this event but to the war activities in

18     general.

19             MR. KUZMANOVIC: [Previous translation continues] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The transcript, I first wanted the witness to finish

21     his answer.

22             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I'm sorry.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Transcript reads page 91, line 12, "unusual order."

24     I understood it was an usual.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Precisely, Your Honour.

Page 13653

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 2        Q.   Who initiated this move?  Did you request Mr. Markac to have the

 3     weapons subject to a technical inspection at this stage, or was that

 4     initiated by Mr. Markac?

 5        A.   As far as I know, this was regular procedure and the logistics

 6     department within the special police force dealt with this as well as the

 7     technical repairs department of the Ministry of the Interior.

 8             Let me just add that weapons inspection was standard procedure,

 9     regular procedure.

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may have document 2809, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I want to show you just another document quickly.

12             And if we could go to next page, Mr. Registrar, on the English

13     version.  No, I'm sorry, on the same page.

14             Now, this is a follow-up order where -- after the technical

15     inspection and the commission has issued the decision on the weapons to

16     be written off, Mr. Markac has sent this order to you, and at paragraph

17     -- the last paragraph reads:

18             "In this context the commander of the police administration's

19     special police ATJ Lucko is required to issue an order to the logistician

20     regarding deletion of weapons from the record through a decision on

21     write-off weapons and file this decision in the units archives."

22             Now, why was it required to delete -- no, first question, how do

23     you delete the records of weapons from -- or how do you delete the

24     weapons from record?  What is the process involved in deletion?  Do you

25     discard the issue cards, or how is it done?

Page 13654

 1        A.   In relation to this decision on the write off of weapons, this

 2     isn't an order really, it is said that an order should be issued to the

 3     logistics officer, the person who is in charge of maintaining the records

 4     of weapons and of the weapons stored because the procedure was, and is

 5     today, that where weapons are written off, they have to be deleted from

 6     the records of the weapons in possession of a given unit because they are

 7     no longer in the possession of that unit, where a piece of weaponry is

 8     written off, it has to be deleted from the records.  And this was not

 9     just true for weapons but for the materiel and technical equipment in

10     general, and this was the way in which records and statistics were kept

11     within the Ministry of the Interior.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I wish to tender this document

13     into evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number P1156, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  P1156 is admitted into evidence, in the absence of

17     any objections.

18             Mr. Turkalj, I have one additional question in relation to this.

19             These are quite detailed instructions and orders on what you

20     explained to us was a routine matter.  Were such orders about -- to the

21     level what weapons for inspection or weapons malfunctioning, apparently

22     Mr. Markac being aware of the malfunctioning of the weapons, was that

23     always dealt with at this level?  Would for every weapon that should be

24     inspected or being destroyed, were there always orders signed by

25     Mr. Markac?

Page 13655

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As part of its regular procedure

 2     the sector of the special police conducted the supervision of units and

 3     of the materiel and technical equipment used by its members, in terms of

 4     they're being in good order and condition.  The condition that I referred

 5     to, and I said who it was composed of, if the commission found that the

 6     weapons were malfunctioning, they would be written off, or otherwise sent

 7     back to the unit.  Orders to that effect always came from the sector of

 8     the special police.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  My question was whether it was always at the

10     level of Mr. Markac, and whether he always signed such orders, or whether

11     the matter was dealt with at a lower level.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was mostly at the level of

13     Mr. Markac.  That was the usual procedure.  The supervision itself came

14     from the sector of the special police, and upon their orders, and when

15     I'm saying the sector of the special police, the chief of that sector was

16     Mr. Markac.  That was the usual procedure.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I therefore take it that instructions

18     for inspection or sending back weapons, once repaired, to the units,

19     et cetera, that if you say, Mostly at the level of Mr. Markac, that --

20     well, let's say, in 80 per cent of the weapons which were dealt with in

21     this system, that you would receive orders, or decisions signed by

22     Mr. Markac himself?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Decisions of this sort were signed

24     by Mr. Markac.  When I mentioned -- well, as far as the level of the

25     sector of the special police, Mr. Sacic, assistant to the sector, could

Page 13656

 1     also deliver such decisions.  I can't claim whether it was always

 2     Mr. Markac or whether it was Mr. Sacic as well.  I said that

 3     predominantly such decisions came from Mr. Markac.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.  No, I'm looking at the clock.  I

 5     should withdraw my invitation, Ms. Mahindaratne.

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  [Microphone not activated]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You're not yet at your full four hours.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, I was hoping not.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But you're close to it.  Would you please consider

10     that over the weekend, that you're close to it.

11             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, we'd like to see you back on Monday, at

13     9.00 in this same courtroom.  And I again instruct you that you should

14     not speak with anyone about the testimony you have given or you are still

15     about to give.

16             In the absence of any procedural matters, we adjourn for the day,

17     and we'll resume on Monday, the 15th of December, 9.00 in the morning, in

18     this same courtroom, I.

19                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

20                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of

21                           December, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.