Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13657

 1                           Monday, 15 December 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

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

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

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Good morning, Mr. Turkalj.  I would like it remind you -- I would

13     like to remind that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have

14     given at the beginning of your testimony, that is, that you will speak

15     the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16             Ms. Mahindaratne.

17                           WITNESS:  JOSIP TURKALJ

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19                           Examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]

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

21        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Turkalj.

22        A.   Good morning.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, may I have document P606,

24     please.

25        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, you compiled a record referred to as the war path or

Page 13658

 1     the war record for the Lucko Unit on the orders of Mr. Markac, did you

 2     not?  And you'll see the document in a moment on the screen.

 3             This was compiled by you, wasn't it?

 4        A.   It was drafted by my unit colleagues, and I signed the report.  I

 5     am familiar with it.

 6        Q.   What were the sources of information for the report?  And I -- we

 7     will go through -- this is just a cover note.  What were the sources of

 8     information based on which this report was compiled and submitted?

 9        A.   The entire report was drafted, based on the knowledge an

10     information that was in possession of some of the employees that were in

11     the field, and the data from various log-books and rosters of those who

12     were in the field.

13        Q.   And it's -- the cover note indicates that it's -- it was

14     submitted on 16 February 1998.  To whom did you submit this report to?

15        A.   This report was submitted to the special police sector, to the

16     chief personally.

17        Q.   Who had access to this report, apart from the chief?  For

18     example, did the inner control branch have access, did Mr. Markac have

19     access to this report?

20        A.   I can't tell you precisely who had access to it.  It was

21     forwarded to the special police sector, and the chief at the time was

22     Mr. Sacic.

23             As for who had access to it and what he did with the report is

24     something I can't say.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, could you turn to the Croatian

Page 13659

 1     version, page 91, and in the English page 10.

 2        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'll take you to the section for -- which is --

 3     which reports on the operation on 25th and 26th August.

 4             Now, when was this section compiled?  Is it in 1998, since you

 5     submitted the report in 1998?

 6        A.   I believe so.

 7        Q.   Now, with regard to the operation on the 25th, this report has no

 8     reference to people being killed and houses burning in the course of the

 9     operation.  Did anybody, either Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic or the inner

10     control branch, question you about the absence of that -- such

11     information with regard to that particular operation in this report?

12        A.   This report on the war path did not contain such information.  It

13     mainly focussed itself on what the tasks of the unit were, starting with

14     1990 until the end of 1995.  In such reports, such war paths, one does

15     not include that type of information.  It only contains information on

16     the whereabouts of the unit at any point in time.

17        Q.   So what was the basis or what was the source of information based

18     on which you reported for the 25th August operation in this record?  What

19     were your other -- the underlying reports that you used?

20        A.   As regards this report, we used solely the orders we had received

21     for particular tasks.  It was based on the commands orders that is, and

22     on the participation of individual people included in those tasks.  No

23     additional information was provided in the war path, and you could

24     probably see the same pattern when other operations in the course of that

25     period are mentioned.

Page 13660

 1        Q.   Now, in this report there is no reference to an operation being

 2     conducted on the 26th of August.  You were aware that there was an

 3     operation conducted in the area of the Promina hills on the 26th August,

 4     were you not?  You have, in fact, referred to in your interview

 5     transcripts.  Why is that not referred to?

 6        A.   That is correct.  However, in this report, among all the other

 7     reports that have to do with Operation Storm, this one, all -- includes

 8     the 25th and 26th of August as well -- with regards to Operation

 9     Oluja-encirclement.  It was a single operation.  I don't know whether you

10     get my point.  Reports were not drafted on the particular details of any

11     given operation.  This is merely a report on the war path of the unit.

12        Q.   That's correct.  But the point is you just told Court,

13     Mr. Turkalj, that what you recorded here as to where the units were at a

14     particular time.  Now you are aware there was operation on 25th, and you

15     were aware that there was another operation on the 26th in another area,

16     in the -- in the area of the Promina hills.  So why is that not referred

17     to in this report?  That's my question to you.

18        A.   The employees drafting this report probably did not find it

19     necessary to include any details.  That's why they use the term Operation

20     Storm encirclement, including both the 25th and 26th of August.

21        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

22        A.   To repeat, this is not a report on the specific tasks.  This

23     mainly concerns the name of the operation and the whereabouts of the

24     unit.

25        Q.   Very well.  I will move on.

Page 13661

 1             Can I just ask you, Mr. Turkalj, to turn to your transcripts.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Madam Usher, if I could have your assistance.

 3        Q.   This is --

 4                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  This is P1152, that is section three of -- the

 6     ERN number is V000-5305.

 7             If I could ask you, Madam Usher, to turn to page 49.

 8        Q.   And, Mr. Turkalj, before we go into that, are you aware of any

 9     reports relating to the 26th August operation in the Promina hills

10     existing within the Lucko Unit?

11             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour, I think this is 1152.

12             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's what I said.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Sorry, it came up as 1162.

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry.  It should be 1152, but I believe I

15     said 1152.

16        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, if you could answer me, are you aware -- Mr. Turkalj

17     are you aware of reports -- before you go through that, Mr. Turkalj, can

18     you answer my question.  Are you aware of reports relating to the 26th

19     August operation in the Promina hills existing within the Lucko Unit?

20        A.   I did not have occasion to see such reports at that time.  I did

21     see some later, however.  To repeat, the reports were not sent to the

22     unit itself but to the command of operations.  That is a different thing.

23        Q.   When you said you saw reports later, when did you see reports

24     relating to the 26th August operation later?  When was that?

25        A.   When I received such documents from you.

Page 13662

 1        Q.   From who -- Mr. Turkalj, we did not show you any documents

 2     relating to the 26th August operation.  What are you -- I'm not relating

 3     to the Grubori event.  I'm relating to the operation in -- on the 26th in

 4     the Promina hills.  Have you ever seen any reports, written reports,

 5     related to that operation?

 6        A.   I don't recall such reports.

 7        Q.   Now, in -- on page 49 you refer to this operation.  And you refer

 8     to what Mr. Celic told you about that operation, and this is what you

 9     say:

10             "I can say only what I talked about with Celic and what he told

11     me in that aspect.  He told me that they had a search in that area, that

12     you mentioned, although I still do not know which particular part they

13     were searching.

14             He told me - next page - that some houses were set on fire during

15     the search.  And he told me that Mr. Markac talked to him and to some

16     other people from the unit, more specifically one instructor whose name

17     is Franjo Drljo.  That is, once again, I learned from Celic because I was

18     not present there."

19             Then the last -- "Celic also mentioned that it was not a pleasant

20     conversation and that Drljo said to Markac words to the effect, So I did

21     it, so I burned them, so what now?  Kill me if you want."

22             And you go on up from that point onwards, Mr. Turkalj, you go on

23     to describe what Mr. Celic told you and which -- that was a conversation

24     that took place between Mr. Markac and Mr. -- Mr. Markac and Franjo Drljo

25     where Drljo told him that he had burned houses.

Page 13663

 1             Now, apart from that, did Mr. Celic tell you any further details

 2     about that operation of the 26th?

 3        A.   No, there was no further discussion about the operation.

 4             At the beginning of my testimony, I said that subsequently I

 5     talked to Mr. Janjic who said that he had investigated that event.

 6        Q.   Now, you were informed by your assistant commander Celic that

 7     Mr. Drljo had admitted to the commander of the special police,

 8     Mr. Markac, that he had burned houses.  Now, what did you as commander of

 9     the Lucko Unit do about that?  Why didn't you take any measures against

10     Drljo?

11        A.   Regarding that, I cannot state precisely that Celic told me of

12     someone who had confirmed to him that they had burned houses.  In any

13     case, Celic told me there was fighting and firing and some houses were

14     set ablaze but not in the sense that it was arson.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  With respect to this line of questioning, we had

17     a witness, Mr. Celic, who came here to testify.  He was asked nothing

18     about these issues.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, it is an inappropriate

20     intervention while the witness is listening to this.  May I just ask --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Can we ask the witness to take his earphones off.

22             Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please respond to --

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, if Mr. Kuzmanovic would read

24     Mr. Celic's transcripts which are all in evidence, Mr. Kuzmanovic will

25     see Mr. Celic's testimony about 26th August operation, which is exactly

Page 13664

 1     what is stated here by this witness.  Mr. Celic talks about the

 2     conversation between Mr. Markac and Mr. -- and Drljo where Drljo admits

 3     to burning of houses.  I think Mr. Kuzmanovic should read the transcripts

 4     first before rising to his feet.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  I totally disagree with that assertion, and

 7     Mr. Celic was here, and these questions should have been asked of him

 8     directly.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, well, if it is part of a written

10     statement which is admitted into evidence, then, of course, there's no --

11             Ms. Mahindaratne, could you give us the page references for

12     Mr. Celic's --

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President, can I do it after the

14     break because I don't have the page in front of me.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, otherwise I will try to find it.

16             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  My position, Your Honour, is if this is just

17     another part of another document that she's referring to that we received

18     when we have 92 ter statements and materials for witnesses, that's one

19     thing.  He was here on the stand; he could have asked the questions

20     directly.  He wasn't.  Now they're trying to go through a witness,

21     basically a double hearsay.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  If it is in his 92 ter statement, and I'll

23     check that immediately - I can't tell that you I have a lot on my mind -

24     then it is entirely appropriate what Ms. Mahindaratne does.

25             Ms. Mahindaratne, if you, meanwhile, proceed, then I'll try to

Page 13665

 1     find the relevant ...

 2             Could the witness ...

 3             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  May I proceed, Mr. President?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Turkalj, you just said that Mr. Celic told you that

 7     there had been combat activity.  Now, how is it that you have never

 8     mentioned that either in your statement or the interview?  The statement

 9     during -- can you not hear me or ...

10             Mr. Celic [sic], your evidence was I cannot state precisely that

11     Celic told me.  You said:  "Celic told me Mr. Was fighting and firing and

12     some houses were set ablaze but not in the sense that it was arson."

13             Now how come you never mentioned either in your statement of 2004

14     or at the interview there 2005 that Celic told you that there was firing

15     and the houses were burned in the course of the combat activity?  You

16     never mentioned that.  Why are you saying that for the first time here?

17        A.   I must confess it was very difficult to remember every word after

18     so many years, and it all depended on the investigator's questions.

19        Q.   Okay.  I move on.  Mr. Turkalj -- but let me just ask one

20     question.  Did you have ever question Franjo Drljo about this

21     conversation between him and Mr. Markac, or did you find out what really

22     happened in the course of that conversation?

23        A.   No.  As regards that part, I did not talk to Mr. Drljo, given

24     that the operation commander had inquired into the event, and Drljo must

25     have explained that.

Page 13666

 1        Q.   Did Mr. Markac ever call you up, or did Mr. Sacic ask you to call

 2     up any reports regarding the 26th August operation either from Celic or

 3     any other special instructors involved in that operation?

 4             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I am going to continue to object to

 5     this line of questioning.  She's not listening.  I'd ask the witness to

 6     take off the headphones, please.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please take off your earphones for a

 8     while, Mr. Turkalj.

 9             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             He has already answered two or three times that the commander of

11     the operation was the one who investigated this incident.  And she keeps

12     asking him whether he did so, and he keeps saying the same thing.  The

13     commander of this operation investigated this incident.  I don't know we

14     need to go any further.

15             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I do.  I think it's because Mr. Kuzmanovic was

16     not listening to my question, Mr. President.

17             My question was did Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic ever ask this witness

18     to call up reports from the -- from -- his assistant commander Celic or

19     any other special instructors to written reports on this operation, as

20     Mr. Markac had then done with regard to 25th August operation.

21             I think Mr. Kuzmanovic has a difficulty in, you know,

22     differentiating between these questions.  These are frivolous objections

23     to say the least.

24             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  You know what, Counsel, I would really prefer

25     that we not get into those sort of language issues.  This is an issue

Page 13667

 1     with respect to your methodology of questioning.  This witness has

 2     answered the question on more than one occasion, and I'm sure he will

 3     answer it the same way again if he gets asked, so if you want to continue

 4     to waste time, that's fine with me.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  It's only Monday morning, and now already -- I'm

 6     just checking.  I'm trying to check a lot of things at the same time.

 7             Last question by Ms. Mahindaratne was, whether this witness was

 8     ever called upon to produce a report.  Whether he investigated himself is

 9     a different matter.  So to that extent, the objection is denied.

10             And could you refrain from unnecessary interruptions.

11             Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.

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

13        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, let me repeat my question to you.  Were you ever

14     asked by Mr. Markac or Mr. Sacic to call reports from Celic --

15     Josip Celic or any other special instructors to submit written reports on

16     the operation on the 26th as he did with regard to the operation on the

17     25th?

18        A.   No.  There was no such a request.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Let me take you, Mr. Turkalj, and this is my last

20     line of questions.  If I could ask you to turn to page 126 on the same

21     section.  That is P1152.  That's V000-5305, page 126.

22             Now your testimony was that at some stage the deputy commander of

23     the Lucko Unit, Mr. Curkovic - pardon my pronunciation - informed you,

24     told you, that one of the members of the Lucko Unit, namely Igor Beneta

25     may have participated in the incident on 25th August in Grubori.  It's at

Page 13668

 1     page 126 and 127.

 2             Now, did you ever ask him what the basis of that information was?

 3        A.   This was only in an informal conversation that I heard the name,

 4     but it could not be absolutely checked up on, nor could direct knowledge

 5     be obtained in relation to anything.  I can't really confirm anything in

 6     relation to this particular conversation.

 7        Q.   When were you told that by Mr. Curkovic?

 8        A.   I can't recall that either.  I can't pinpoint the time.  At any

 9     rate, it was at a certain point in time after the action.

10        Q.   I'm going to show you three documents --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter isn't certain of the last

12     witness's last answer.  Could he please repeat it, please.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

14        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, could you please repeat your answer again.

15             Mr. Turkalj, could you say what you said earlier on, your answer,

16     repeat your answer, with regard to the time-frame when he may have told

17     you this.

18        A.   I said that it wasn't shortly after the action.  It could have

19     been several years later.  I can't recall exactly.

20        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'm going to show you three documents, and I'll ask

21     you a couple of questions about them.  I'll just show you those

22     documents, and you ought to be familiar with them.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, could I have document 6447,

24     please.

25        Q.   You will see in a moment, Mr. Turkalj, on the screen a report

Page 13669

 1     sent by you to the special police sector regarding the matter of transfer

 2     of Igor Beneta and others dated 21st October, 1995.

 3             This is your document, isn't it?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Why was Mr. -- whose proposal was it to transfer Mr. Igor Beneta

 6     in this stage, something like one month from the incident in Grubori?

 7     Whose proposal was it?

 8        A.   This was solely on the proposal from the unit.  But it had

 9     nothing to do with those events.  This was regular procedure of

10     transferring members to new posts.

11        Q.   Was there a regular procedure when members were transferred from

12     the unit?  Was there a roster, or how was it done?

13        A.   There was no specific or concrete procedure in place.  It

14     depended on the requests coming from individual members.  Somebody wanted

15     to take a different post or be dispatched to a different town or village.

16     For the most part, it was the result of an agreement between the

17     commander and the individual, or in regard to some members, there was

18     such a working relationship where the superiors felt that it was better

19     for these individuals to be transferred to some other posts.  This was

20     nothing unusual.

21        Q.   So generally these transfers took place on the basis of a request

22     from the individual concerned or in consultation with the individual

23     concerned, is it?

24        A.   That's correct too.  What's also correct is that there was a

25     request from the command where we would be possibly asking for their

Page 13670

 1     transfer to a new post.  Let me repeat, I don't see anything unusual in

 2     the document.  This was regular procedure, not only applied by this unit

 3     but by all units.

 4        Q.   And can the individual concerned in the course of this type of

 5     regular procedures, as you say, do the individuals concerned resist such

 6     transfers, or do they refuse to accept the transfer or ...

 7        A.   The ministry worked in such a way, and I mean the Ministry of

 8     Interior, that every member of the ministry can be transferred or granted

 9     transfer to another post.  Of course, this decision can be complained

10     against, a complaint can be lodged against it.

11        Q.   And if a complaint is lodged against such a decision is there a

12     procedure involved where it is reconsidered, or is there an inquiry?

13     What is generally done?

14        A.   This isn't a matter for us.  It is it a matter for the personal

15     service.

16        Q.   My question is, Mr. Turkalj, and I will be very specific.  For

17     instance, when a decision to transfer a member of the Lucko Unit is made,

18     can the -- that member refuse to accept the transfer paper, resist it

19     quite -- let us say, refuse to accept the papers, just, you know, resist

20     it in such a way, not go through regular procedure of moving for an

21     appeal against such a decision?

22        A.   The transfer decision is serviced upon an individual by the

23     personnel service and only by the personnel service, not by the

24     commander.  Everyone who receives such a decision is allowed to appeal

25     the decision within, I believe, six or seven days, and this is the

Page 13671

 1     practice that still exists today.  And the appeal or complaint is filed

 2     with the personnel service.

 3        Q.   And did Mr. Sacic, as the chief of the sector, get involved in

 4     these transfer procedures, either proposing that a transfer be made, or

 5     that if a member resists a transfer in cancelling that previous decision;

 6     or is it only the personnel department that gets involved in such

 7     procedures?

 8        A.   I don't think that it was within the competence of Mr. Sacic to

 9     do that.  That was within the purview of the personnel service.  When

10     we're talking about the level of the units themselves, they produce

11     proposals; they don't issue decisions.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I tender this document into

14     evidence.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  No objections, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit P1157.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P1157 is admitted into evidence.

19             Ms. Mahindaratne, on Friday you told us you would need another

20     20 minutes.

21             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And I checked with Mr. Registrar.  He said that

23     looking very carefully at the time taken and interruptions et cetera that

24     you had had approximately 30 minutes, but you've taken this 30 minutes

25     already.  Could you please wrap up.

Page 13672

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President, I will just tender two

 2     documents and I --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. Registrar, can I have document 6448,

 5     please.

 6             Mr. President, let me just tender those two documents in the bar

 7     table, so I had not waste any time.  Document number 6448 and 6449, I

 8     will tender from the bar table.  I don't have to have any questions from

 9     this witness.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's -- you know the procedure for bar table

11     documents, is that you briefly describe them and that you -- now these

12     are relatively short ones, and apparently they are follow-ups in relation

13     to the last one, is that ...

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there, although the formality is --

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  I wouldn't object to this, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You wouldn't object, and since I do not hear any

18     objections from the other Defence teams, Mr. Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 6448 becomes exhibit number

20     P1158.  And 65 ter 6449 becomes exhibit number P1159.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  P1158 and P1159 are admitted into evidence.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:

23        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, we handed over to you during the first break on

24     Friday, the -- an interview -- a record of an interview that Ministry of

25     Interior officials had had with you, and you were asked to review that

Page 13673

 1     document and let us know if there were any mistakes or if the record was

 2     an accurate reflection of the interview.

 3             Do you have anything to say about that note?  If perhaps on the

 4     screen, Mr. Registrar, if could I have 2537; that is the document.

 5             Do you recall the note that was given to you, Mr. Turkalj?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   Is that an accurate reflection of the interview that was

 8     conducted by the Ministry of Interior officials with you in 2004?

 9        A.   It is not an accurate reflection of the interview.

10        Q.   Are there many mistakes?

11        A.   The contents in their entirety are different from what we talked

12     about, and from the statement I gave to the ICTY investigators.  In the

13     last sentence, it is even stated that the statement is identical to the

14     one given to the ICTY investigators.  In fact, it is not.  Besides, this

15     is an Official Note, not a statement, which I didn't either see or sign.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I will not tender that, Mr. President.

17             That concludes my examination-in-chief.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.

19             Mr. Mikulicic, I got a estimate of the time you would need.

20     Could I receive from other counsel an estimate as well.

21             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, I may be one session, or I may not be any

22     questions at all.  We're reviewing the position.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Gotovina.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, I will be very brief, half an hour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Half an hour.

Page 13674

 1             Then, Mr. Mikulicic, please proceed.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Turkalj.

 5        A.   Good morning.

 6        Q.   Since we will be speaking in the same language, for technical

 7     reasons, namely interpretation, I kindly ask you to be mindful of the

 8     fact that we have to make a break between questions an answer, so please

 9     make a short pause after you have heard my question before answering so

10     that the interpreters can do their job.

11             Mr. Turkalj, in the line of questions the Prosecutor just put to

12     you, there was reference of the arson -- or, rather, the firing of houses

13     on 26th of September -- of August, 26th of August, 1995, which was

14     conducted by the anti-terrorist unit Lucko.  Though you were a commander

15     of the unit, you were not out on the field on that day, were you?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   The operational commander in the field was Mr. Celic; was he not?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The commander of the overall action was Mr. Janjic.  Is that

20     right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   You were asked about whether you spoke to anyone in the wake of

23     the action, and you said that you spoke both to Mr. Celic and Mr. Janjic.

24     We heard the testimonies of both of these individuals in court.

25             Can you please clarify one portion of the statement by Mr. Janjic

Page 13675

 1     who said here in his testimony that Mr. Markac had personally tasked him

 2     with investigating the circumstances which led to the houses being set on

 3     fire and he assumed -- and he said that he assumed that task upon

 4     himself.  What did Mr. Janjic tell you?

 5        A.   I believe that I mentioned my conversation with Mr. Janic, and he

 6     said that he had met with Mr. Markac who had tasked him with inquiring

 7     into the matter.  That's to say the events in which the unit was involved

 8     on -- of, in, on the 26th.  Mr. Janjic told me that he had, in fact,

 9     inquired and reported to Mr. Markac about what had happened in the area

10     on the 26th.

11        Q.   Mr. Janjic stated in this courtroom that he claimed that the

12     houses came to be set on fire due to the fact that a rocket launcher had

13     been fired at them.  What did he tell you?

14        A.   He told me that after they had investigated the matter he had

15     information to the effect that there was fighting going on and that, in

16     fact, the houses came to be -- or were set on fire, through the firing of

17     a rocket launcher.

18        Q.   Thank you.  There was another incident which is the subject of

19     this case which we heard a lot of evidence about that.  That's in the

20     Plavno valley, specifically in the village of Grubori.  This Chamber

21     heard that the event took place on the 25th of August, while a mop-up

22     operation was going on, one in which your anti-terrorist unit Lucko took

23     place.

24             You were not out in the field at that time either, were you?

25        A.   No, I was not.

Page 13676

 1        Q.   The information you have about the event are, in fact -- is, in

 2     fact, indirect information you received from those who took part in what

 3     happened.  Is that right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Following these events and following your visit, personal visit,

 6     to the village of Grubori which you testified about last week, you said

 7     that it -- it was your impression that there was some fighting going on

 8     there.  You were sent by the commander of the special police to ask from

 9     the commander of the action Mr. Celic and the instructors to submit their

10     reports, which is what you did.  Is that right?

11        A.   Yes.  And I said as much last week.

12        Q.   When the written reports were being written, was any sort of

13     duress, measures of coercion applied towards Mr. Celic and the

14     instructors to draft the reports this way or the other, or was it

15     entirely left up to them to write the reports as they wished?

16        A.   All the members of the unit had their rooms on the premises of

17     the unit, and once I gave them the order to produce the report, they

18     produced the reports independently, and nobody told them in any way how

19     to write the reports.

20        Q.   The leaders of the group that were formed in the action of the

21     search operation, and they were asked to produce the report.  We know

22     that Mr. Drljo did not produce a report.  However, is it true that

23     Mr. Drljo verbally reported to you?

24        A.   I reported to Mr. Markac about the fact that Mr. Drljo did not

25     produce a written report.  Mr. Drljo, on his part, told me that he had

Page 13677

 1     not been there.  That he was not aware of what took place in Grubori,

 2     that he had only heard gunshots and that he believed as a result of that,

 3     he need not write a report.  It was on the basis of this information that

 4     I reported to Mr. Markac accordingly.

 5        Q.   Did Mr. Drljo tell you that he would not be submitting a report

 6     in addition to other matters also because he was not a group leader?

 7        A.   Yes.  He said something to that effect.  This was an insult to

 8     him, since he was an instructor.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can the registrar please call up

10     65 ter 3258.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  And can the counsel and the witness make a

12     pause between question and answer.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Both you, Mr. Mikulicic, and you, Mr. Turkalj, are

14     invited to make a break between question and answer, and then answer and

15     question.

16             Ms. Mahindaratne, if meanwhile, if could you try to find the

17     relevant portion of the Celic statement.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I did, Mr. President, but I just wanted to,

19     for what it's worth, just check -- in fact, my colleague did check, and

20     have I got the transcript reference numbers where it was discussed in

21     court as well as the -- in the statement, the paragraphs.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would it be a good idea if you just sent by

23     e-mail the relevant page numbers so that everyone can check, and if you

24     would please then copy the Chamber.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  The Chamber.  Yes I will do that.  I will do

Page 13678

 1     that at the break.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Because it is not evidence; it is just assisting us

 3     in finding the relevant portions you referred to.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I will do that, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, on our screens we can see the

 8     report from the criminal investigation police department sent to the

 9     county state attorney's office or state attorney in Sibenik on the issue

10     of what happened in Grubori, and it dates from 2004.

11             Do you agree with me that -- this points to a conclusion that

12     back in 2004, still an investigation was ongoing about the events that

13     transpired in Grubori nine years previously?

14        A.   Yes.  I have not seen this report before, but since it was sent

15     by the criminal investigation police to the state attorney's office, or

16     to the state attorney, evidently there was an investigation under way.

17        Q.   I would like to direct you to paragraph 2 of the report, where

18     the CID informed the state attorney as follows:

19             "However, as is evident from these interviews," and they're

20     referring to the interviews conducted in paragraph 1 of this report, "we

21     still have not been able to establish the compositions of the groups and

22     the possible commanders of these groups.  The reason being that all the

23     above-mentioned members of the anti-terrorist unit stated that there had

24     been no strict division into groups during the operation but that they

25     had acted jointly on the ground, and that then, depending on the lie of

Page 13679

 1     the land, and internal friendships between individuals, they moved on,

 2     either in small groups or in pairs."

 3             Mr. Turkalj, this sort of an interpretation of the lie of the

 4     land and the type of the land which is mountainous and forested, is it

 5     consistent with what you know of this search operation?

 6        A.   Yes, it is possible.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can this document be assigned an

 8     exhibit number, please.

 9             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I have no objection.  This was

10     a document included in the bar table submission with regard to this

11     witness.  So maybe Mr. Registrar --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So there is no need you would say -- the bar table

13     you just --

14             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Yes, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then, Mr. Registrar, if you would ...

16                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That means that, at this moment, only one document

18     is then tendered.  Mr. Registrar will verify, and you can also verify

19     whether Chamber can -- at this moment whether the other document is the

20     same as the one tendered by Ms. Mahindaratne, if so, we leave it as it

21     is.

22             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I just also say that that

23     bar table submission was not copied to the -- to the Chambers yet because

24     we are awaiting objections from the Defence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You mean bar table submission and not the two bar

Page 13680

 1     table documents you --

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  You said one of the bar table.

 4             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Trying to find out what we are talking about.

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  No, if that is the case, then I would say that we

 8     strike from bar table submissions whatever is tendered into evidence and

 9     admitted into evidence by the other party before the bar table procedure

10     has been completed.

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

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, Mr. Registrar, the ...

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number D1200.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  D1200 is admitted into evidence.

15             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, you strike it from your bar table

17     submission.

18             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I'll do that, Mr. President.  I'm doing that

19     right now.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, while we can still this document on

22     the screen which you say indicates that nine years after the Grubori

23     incident, an investigation was still pending about it, do you have any

24     sort of information today about the fact that in the village of Grubori,

25     on the 25th of August, 1995, a crime would have been committed, and do

Page 13681

 1     you have information about who would have been the one for whom there

 2     would have been reasonable suspicion that the individual had committed

 3     the crime?

 4        A.   I don't have any specific information about there having been

 5     committed a crime or about the possible perpetrator thereof.

 6        Q.   In other words, if you don't have that sort of information today,

 7     you did not have it back then; in other words, in the months of August or

 8     September 1995?

 9        A.   No, we did not have it.

10        Q.   In the situation when Mr. Drljo did not wish to submit a written

11     report, did you have any indications that he might have been connected

12     with the crimes in the village of Grubori and that was why he did not

13     wish to submit a written report perhaps?

14        A.   No.  Absolutely there were no indications of Mr. Drljo

15     participating in any such event that could have been tied in with the

16     crime.

17        Q.   You told us, Mr. Turkalj, that Mr. Drljo was an undisciplined

18     member of the special police unit, mildly speaking, but, on the other

19     hand, that he was a very good fighter.  Was it your assessment when he

20     was not punished because he did not write the report, you as the

21     commander had all of these conditions in mind?

22        A.   Well, all I can say is that Mr. Drljo did not respect authority

23     simply as a person.  That was one of his character traits.  But, on the

24     other hand, I can confirm that he was an excellent fighter, since we were

25     in the middle of war.  He did have authority in the unit and broader when

Page 13682

 1     fighting was concerned, so I believe that one report was not a reason to

 2     submit a request for disciplinary measures.  At that point in time, for

 3     me, I won't say that it was an unimportant, but let's say that it was not

 4     important.

 5        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, when you were at the scene of the crimes together

 6     with Mr. Sacic, Balunovic in Grubori, and you saw that there were many

 7     people there according to what you said, and they included some members

 8     of the police, of the local police station, were you able to notice if

 9     the local police was informed about the events in the village of Grubori?

10        A.   In my testimony, I said that there were many people there.  I

11     think -- or I thought that there were some members of the regular police

12     there, and that made it clear that they were informed about the events in

13     the same way as those who had just arrived to that area.

14        Q.   Since you are a person who participated in the events, I would

15     like to ask about your reaction.  It is indisputable that in the police

16     there was a criminal police section, which was in charge of looking for

17     perpetrators of crimes and evidence.

18        A.   Within the police in control of that area and the general city

19     police who were there, they only dealt with criminal acts.

20        Q.   It's correct, isn't it, Mr. Turkalj, that special police did not

21     have a section for crime, did not investigate criminal acts, or look for

22     perpetrators of crimes.  Is that correct?

23        A.   Yes, that is correct.

24        Q.   However, on the other hand, if the criminal police actions or the

25     judicial organs were to establish that some member of the special police

Page 13683

 1     did commit a specific crime and if the special police command was

 2     informed of that, measures would then be taken, wouldn't they?  Certain

 3     disciplinary measures?

 4        A.   Well, I would like to correct you a little bit.  If we're talking

 5     about crimes, specifically if it's a crime, we're not taking disciplinary

 6     measures, then we're talking about an investigation, and then I, as the

 7     commander, could then provide the opportunity to interview the member the

 8     police were interested in, and we could provide some logistic support, if

 9     this was being asked of us.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would like the registrar to

11     show us D1078, please.

12        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, you will see on your screen shortly a decision under

13     which a member of the anti-terrorist Lucko, Mario Spekuljuk, was relieved

14     of duty because criminal proceedings were initiated against him in the

15     investigation centre of the county court in Zagreb, and that's where he

16     was also detained.  So we see a situation here when possible perpetrator

17     of a crime was identified, and on that basis, you will see on the

18     following page, Mr. Markac, made a decision to suspend him from duty.

19             Is this a procedure that you are familiar with and that was usual

20     for cases like that, when a member of the anti-terrorist unit that you

21     were heading had committed a criminal act?

22        A.   You can see from this document that investigations were initiated

23     against Mr. Spekuljuk and that Mr. Markac, therefore, suspended him from

24     duty pursuant to the relevant rules of work.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I would now like to move to another topic; that is,

Page 13684

 1     the topic of the procedure of repair and write-off of weapons in the

 2     anti-terrorist unit, Lucko.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could the registry please show us

 4     document 3D01-0702.

 5        Q.   And while we're waiting for the document to appear, it's correct,

 6     isn't it, Mr. Turkalj, that the procedure to repair, inspect and

 7     write-off weapons was regulated in writing at the Ministry of the

 8     Interior.  There were documents about that, and here we see the rules of

 9     procedure, with official personal, arms, weapons and ammunition which was

10     adopted by the minister of the interior.

11             Mr. Turkalj, did you have the opportunity to familiarize yourself

12     with these rules?

13        A.   The rules were in force, and we operated on the basis of its

14     regulations.

15        Q.   Can we now look at Article 6 of the rules in the Croatian text.

16     This is on page 3, which states:

17             "A police administration structural unit, authorised for matters

18     of operational technical equipment, conducts periodical inspections and

19     maintenance of personal arms in a police administration."

20             Simply stated, are we talking about the weapons maintenance plant

21     here?

22        A.   We're talking about the structural unit of the police

23     administration, and it has to do with the repair of technical equipment

24     of the police administration, and you can say that we're talking about

25     the weaponry repair and maintenance workshop.  It's part of that section.

Page 13685

 1        Q.   Article 6, paragraph 2 says that:

 2             "The structural unit ... in accordance with its own inspection

 3     plan at least once a year, conducts inspections of the complete personal

 4     arsenal ..."

 5             Is this something that concords with the practice in the

 6     anti-terrorist unit Lucko, as well as in all the special police units, as

 7     well as in the general police units?

 8        A.   I have already said that that was the usual procedure, and we can

 9     conclude on the basis of these rules that each year, an inspection was

10     carried out of weapons and equipment as well as the operation of the

11     depots, and the procedure was something that applied to all our

12     operations.

13        Q.   If it were to be established that certain weapons that were

14     inspected were found to be faulty, they would be repaired, wouldn't they?

15        A.   The commission that inspected the weapons would decide whether

16     the weapons -- whether it was possible to repair the weapons or not,

17     depending on the state they were in, and then depending on their

18     assessment if it was possible to repair the weapons, they would be sent

19     to the workshop, repaired and returned to the unit.  If it was not

20     possible to repair the weapons, that -- to the extent that it was not

21     worth repairing the particular piece, it would be written off.

22             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to Article 9 of

23     this document.  This is on the following page.

24        Q.   Article 9 talks about the procedure of writing off personal

25     equipment, and we're talking about what you just mentioned, that in case

Page 13686

 1     it was not possible to repair the weapons, or it would not be worthwhile

 2     this repair them, a report would be compiled, and they would be proposed

 3     for write-off.

 4             So this was a regular procedure, wasn't it?

 5        A.   Yes.  That is exactly what I said a little bit earlier.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we have an exhibit number for

 7     this document, please.

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1201.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D1201 is admitted into evidence.  Although,

12     Mr. Mikulicic, it appears to be a provisional translation, very informal.

13             MR. MIKULICIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...  The official

14     translation has -- yes, has been requested, and we will have it in due

15     course.  That's what was our information.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the -- the official translation will then

17     replace the provisional translation.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             [Interpretation] Can we now please look at document 6165,

22     Mr. Registrar.

23        Q.   The document that we just looked at were the rules on handling

24     weapons drafted or adopted by the minister, and the implementation of the

25     rules actually is a kind of instruction about how to write-off weapons.

Page 13687

 1             Can we now look at this document, on page 2.

 2             So these instructions were adopted on the basis of the rules that

 3     we just looked at, and it was adopted by the chief of the weaponry

 4     special equipment and technical protection.

 5             Can we look at the next page with text, please.

 6             We could say that this is an operative document which specifies

 7     how to handle weapons.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.  It's a guideline, it means that it provides an explanation

 9     how -- of how to write-off weapons.  That procedure is --

10        Q.   And now we can see in paragraph 2 that a commission is formed for

11     write-off of weapons which has three members.  We don't have to go into

12     detail here.

13             Then on the following page, we see in heading 3 what the methods

14     and procedures are of the write-off of weapons.  And in item 2, it is

15     specified how to separate working from faulty parts in order to follow

16     the procedure correctly.  You're familiar with that?

17        A.   Yes, I am.

18        Q.   And it's something that was applied regularly in the weapons

19     write-off procedure at the anti-terrorist unit, isn't it?

20        A.   Yes.  This was the only way that the inspection and write-off of

21     weapons could be conducted.

22        Q.   Very well.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have an exhibit

24     number for this document.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

Page 13688

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1202, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  D1202 is admitted into evidence.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document

 5     52222.

 6        Q.   We're looking at a document signed by Mr. Markac, special

 7     minister's advisor, where you are ordered, as well as Mr. Bole, the chief

 8     of logistics, based on the inspection carried out on your unit, it's a

 9     request for 40 weapons to be serviced and then to proceed and issue the

10     appropriate decision on write-off.

11             Mr. Turkalj, we can see on page 2 a list of the weapons that are

12     supposed to be inspected and evaluated, if it is possible to repair them

13     or not, and the serial numbers of these weapons are provided, and we can

14     note that it is not said which piece of weaponry was issued to which

15     member of the unit.  So it is an anonymous list, isn't it?  You would

16     agree with that?

17        A.   Yes, I agree.

18        Q.   This order that we are looking at, was it something that would

19     indicate anything extraordinary or unusual, deviating from the regular

20     procedure in your experience?

21        A.   No, it's nothing unusual.  It's a list of weapons and the serial

22     numbers, the type of weapon and the number, which was issued to the

23     Lucko Anti-Terrorist Unit regardless of whether it was issued to the

24     depot or to individual members.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  Can we have a number for this document, please.

Page 13689

 1             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  This is P578.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could agree with that.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Ms. Prashanthi, I obviously missed

 4     this.

 5             [Interpretation] Can we now look at 6170, please.

 6        Q.   And now we will see another document on the same topic consisting

 7     of authorised persons or -- meant for the authorised persons at the

 8     anti-terrorist unit Lucko, and it says that based on the plan for the

 9     supervision and technical inspection of weapons on order of the special

10     advisor to the minister, Mladen Markac.  On 10th of November 1999, an

11     inspection was carried out in the Lucko Anti-Terrorist Unit, and it was

12     found that a number of weapons were malfunctioning and needed to be

13     serviced or repaired.  And then there is a list of weaponry that would be

14     subject to inspection.

15             So this is the list of weapons which was included in the previous

16     order, the P578 that we looked at earlier.  In this document, what is

17     being described is the extent and the state of weapons pieces, what the

18     malfunctions are, and it's an order of the special advisor to the

19     minister, Mr. Mladen Markac.

20        A.   Yes.  This is the plan of the maintenance and technical

21     inspection, and this is the plan that the inspection would be carried out

22     after.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] May I have a number for this

24     document, please.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

Page 13690

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number D1203.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  D1203 is admitted into evidence.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this type of

 5     document can be found in the 65 examples to 2809, 2651, as well as 6167.

 6     I presume these documents are on the bar table list of the Prosecution,

 7     and therefore I won't press this topic any further.  I just wanted to

 8     indicate that the documents refer to the same subject, the same topic.

 9        Q.   As we saw the decision on what to do with weapons always needed

10     to be made by the especially appointed commission.  Isn't that correct,

11     Mr. Turkalj?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Do you agree with me that the existence of such procedure points

14     to the fact that inside the Ministry of the Interior, including, of

15     course, the sector of special police, care was taken of weapons, and

16     there were no independent voluntary decisions of individuals even if

17     those included commanders to decide on the fate of weapons themselves?

18        A.   Weapons and their use and handling is exclusively prescribed by

19     the instructions of the Ministry of Interior.  It was impossible to deal

20     with equipment and weapons of this type in any other way.

21        Q.   A few additional questions on the topic, Mr. Turkalj, before we

22     break.

23             During your examination-in-chief there was discussion about why

24     the weapons of members of the anti-terrorist unit Lucko who took part in

25     the search operation on the 25th of August in Grubori; that is, the 25th

Page 13691

 1     of August, 1995, was not exempt from the standard procedure.

 2             My question is the following:  Does anyone, apart from the

 3     competent prosecutor, have a possibility to order that certain pieces of

 4     weaponry or objects be exempt and kept separately as evidence, or could

 5     that be done by the police themselves?

 6        A.   The police could not do that alone, since there were special

 7     instructions pertaining to equipment and weaponry.

 8        Q.   Was there a particular reason that particular care would be taken

 9     as regards the weapons of the special police unit of Lucko?  Particularly

10     in view of the fact that there was no evidence, no proof of which piece

11     was issued to which particular member of the unit, when -- during -- when

12     participating in an operation?

13        A.   As regards the weapons inside the unit, the regular procedure was

14     followed in terms of data on the weapons and the storing of the weapons

15     as well as the details we have already discussed regarding servicing and

16     maintenance of weapons.

17        Q.   Let us look at an exhibit.  It is P625.

18             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] The ERN number is 0465-1852.

19        Q.   This is it a list of personnel of the anti-terrorist unit Lucko,

20     who, on the 25th of August - it seems that the year is wrong.  It should

21     be 1995 instead of 2004 - took part in the military police operation

22     Storm encirclement.  We won't into any details on the list, but just to

23     remind ourselves, we can see that each member of staff was issued with

24     several different pieces of weaponry.  Is that correct?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 13692

 1        Q.   Is it also correct that when participating in the operation, the

 2     particular staff member had to decide which of the weapons he had been

 3     issued with would -- he would take with him?

 4        A.   Out of the list of weapons they had been issued with, each

 5     particular staff member was free to choose the particular piece he deemed

 6     best for any particular operation or action, as regards the police.

 7        Q.   Therefore, it depended solely on the type of operation.

 8        A.   Precisely so.  And they would then take appropriate pieces with

 9     them.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we please

11     look at 2852 next.  2852.

12        Q.   This is a letter by Mr. Celic following a request of the police

13     director, in which he states, in paragraph 2 that:

14             "Considering that the anti-terrorist unit of Lucko does not have

15     a record that would allow us to accurately determine what weapons the

16     members of the Lucko Unit were using on the 25th of August, 1995 ..."

17             Mr. Turkalj, does this assertion tally with your recollection and

18     experience, that there was no separate record kept on who used what piece

19     during the operation?

20        A.   This is correct.  It cannot be ascertained, since each staff

21     member had a number of weapons that they had been issued with, and they

22     decided themselves which weapon they would take for what operation.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, I would kindly ask

24     a number for this document.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection, Mr. President.

Page 13693

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I think my bar table submission will be

 3     reduced, Mr. President.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes exhibit number D1204.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  D1204 is admitted into evidence.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  I think it's an appropriate time for having a

 7     break, Your Honour, if you wish so.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll then have a break, and we'll resume at five

 9     minutes to 11.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kuzmanovic.

13             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14             Before Mr. Turkalj -- I'd ask that he leave his headphones off

15     for this.

16             I just want to make the Court aware we did get the transcript

17     reference with regard to my objection.  Nowhere in the transcript

18     reference that I received that I looked at with reference to what

19     Mr. Celic said does it say that Mr. Celic told Drljo that Markac --

20     Mr. Celic said that he had heard Drljo tell Markac that he had burned

21     houses.  That is what I was objecting to before.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I was checking that.  I have not found the

23     references yet.  But if we are talking about -- I was looking at page 40

24     of tape 2 of two side A.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No, Mr. President.  It's tape 3.

Page 13694

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Tape 3.

 2             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That is -- if it's convenient on the e- court.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll look at it later because I was also -- well,

 4     not to say worried about it, but that was the focus of my verification.

 5             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Just so --

 6             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, may I just say, I can say it

 7     with a sense of responsibility that not only in the statements of

 8     Mr. Celic but even in court, I read back what he had referred to with

 9     regard to the conversation between Markac and Drljo on the 26th.  The

10     argument, and, in fact, I have questioned him on this in court.  So the

11     objection was without merit, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we have two issues now, whether it was put

13     to Mr. Celic as a witness, that's one; and the second is whether what you

14     said reflects what is Mr. Celic said.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  That's correct, Your Honour.  I just want to be

16     very very specific about this.  The statement that was put to Mr. Turkalj

17     was that Celic said that Drljo told Markac that he had burned houses.

18     That's not what Celic said in the transcript life.  That's not what Celic

19     said in any conversation in an interview.  And why is that important?

20     Because that question is being put to Mr. Turkalj, who is basically the

21     third level -- it's third level hearsay being put to him.  Because Celic

22     is overhearing Drljo talk to Markac.  That's double hearsay in and of

23     itself.  Then that question is being put to Mr. Turkalj who said -- who

24     talked to Celic.  That is fourth level hearsay.

25             So my problem with that is I don't disagree there was some

Page 13695

 1     discussion between Celic -- that Celic overheard that Drljo and Markac

 2     had no specific issues either in the trial transcript or in the interview

 3     were made about Drljo telling Markac himself that Drljo had burned houses

 4     and that really is very important obviously for obvious reasons, and that

 5     is why I objected.

 6             Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think we shouldn't use time in court at this

 8     very moment to verify all of this.  We are now hearing the evidence of

 9     Mr. Turkalj in cross-examination and nevertheless, of course, it's

10     important for the Chamber to verify it, and we'll certainly do that but

11     not at this very moment.

12             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, you may proceed.

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, just one more question in relation

16     to the Grubori incident.

17             I'm referring to your statement from 2004, which is P1149,

18     paragraph 48.  In this courtroom, on several occasions, there was mention

19     of the fact which, to tell you the truth, was not corroborated by expert

20     opinion, and that is that one of those killed in the Grubori incident had

21     a cut throat.  In your statement, paragraph 48, you said that when you

22     were in Grubori and when you saw a male corpse that you thought you saw a

23     gunshot wound to the body but that you were not certain.  And you also

24     stated that afterwards you heard that a knife wound was present on the

25     body.

Page 13696

 1             First of all, who did you hear that piece of information from,

 2     that on the corpse that you had seen and on which you believed there was

 3     a gunshot wound that, in fact, it was a knife wound.  Can you recall that

 4     now?

 5        A.   As far as I remember, it is true what you said.  As for the knife

 6     wound, if I recollect correctly, the investigator mentioned it to me.

 7     Prior to that, I had no such information.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  We can move to another topic, which is the topic of

 9     Storm and the use of artillery in the course of the operation.

10             To start with, Mr. Turkalj, can you tell us precisely what your

11     role was in Operation Storm?  You were commander of the anti-terrorist

12     unit Lucko, as you have said, but you had completed Military Academy and

13     specialized in artillery; isn't that correct?

14        A.   Yes, it is.

15        Q.   Your role in Operation Storm, regarding the use of the special

16     forces of the Ministry of Interior had to do with artillery, correct?

17        A.   Yes.  Solely with artillery.

18        Q.   Let us look at document D543 together.

19             This exhibit is something that the Chamber has already seen.  It

20     is an order by the chief of the Main Staff, General Cervenko, on the use

21     of the special MUP forces during Operation Storm.

22             Let us have a look at item 2 of the order, towards the bottom of

23     the page.  Thank you.  Whereby it is stated that as regards the MUP

24     special forces, the operation shall be carried out in two phases.  In the

25     first phase tactical surprise needs to be achieved by committing forces

Page 13697

 1     of adequate strength with considerable artillery support in order to

 2     reach the assigned locations.

 3             General Cervenko is referring to the use of the artillery of the

 4     special police forces.  Can you tell us what sort of artillery of their

 5     own did the special police have that they could use in Operation Storm?

 6        A.   As regards their own artillery, they had mixed artillery

 7     batteries comprising of a 120-millimetre mortars and 128-millimetres RAK

 8     12 rocket launchers.

 9        Q.   If we are to discuss the range of artillery, this Chamber has

10     heard an expert witness who said that different types of artillery are

11     used for different targets.  If we try to define the type of artillery at

12     the disposal of the special police, how would you categorise it,

13     short-range or long-range artillery, and what is its use?

14        A.   I would say it is short-range artillery.  The mortars had the

15     range of 6.200 metres; and RAK 12, 8.500 metres.  It is short-range

16     artillery mainly used to attack the front lines of the enemy and

17     immediately behind them.

18        Q.   In the first phase when the special police artillery was used, we

19     see that it includes the locations of Sveti Rok, Balonje [phoen], Vukova

20     Kosa, and so on and so forth.  It is the area of Mount Velebit.

21             Can you tell us what is the lie of the land there and whether it

22     is populated, whether the area is populated.

23        A.   As regards the terrain there, it is mountainous, over 1.000

24     metres in altitude.  In that area, there were no settlements.

25        Q.   Let us move to the next page of the order, please, where

Page 13698

 1     General Cervenko mentions the second phase of the operation, in which he

 2     orders that the radio relay facility at Celavac needs to be taken control

 3     of as well as the tunnel at Prezid in order to join the 9th Guards

 4     Brigade forces.  What is the importance of the Celavac facility?

 5        A.   Celovac facility was a communication centre used by the enemy.

 6     It dominated the entire communications network in the area.

 7        Q.   What about the pass and tunnel at Prezid?

 8        A.   The pass and at tunnel was along the road between Gracac and

 9     Obrovac, and we had to be able to control the road in order to prevent

10     any link up of any enemy forces or introduction of new, fresh forces by

11     the enemy.

12             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Registrar

13     to kindly put up 65 ter 1893 on the screen.

14        Q.   We just saw the order sent by the chief of Main Staff to the

15     special police forces.  In order to coordinate with the right-hand side

16     neighbour which was the Military District Split as the Chamber has heard,

17     the same order was sent to OG North, to Staff Brigadier Rahim Ademi

18     personally.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Let us go to next page of this order in Croatian,

20     towards the bottom of the page in Croatian.  Let us go to the bottom of

21     page 2, please.

22        Q.   As you can see, Mr. Turkalj, there is an note, a remark here,

23     beginning with the words:  Brigadier, sir.

24             And when we move on to page 3 we will see that the remark was

25     drafted by Brigadier Rajko Rakic.  It is a comment on Mr. Ademi's behalf

Page 13699

 1     of General Cervenko order.  In item 2 he says that the launching of the

 2     MUP special forces operation will probably result in the Chetniks

 3     attacking the Pontoon bridge and other facilities and that it is

 4     necessary, therefore, to reinforce the area with artillery.  The special

 5     police in the course of the first phase did receive reinforcements in

 6     terms of artillery by the Croatian army.

 7        A.   Yes.  An artillery group was deployed to the foot of the Velebit

 8     mount.

 9        Q.   We will be dealing with that later.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we first have a number

11     assigned to the document.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne.

13             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number D1205, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Exhibit D1205 is admitted into evidence.

17             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] On the issue of these

18     reinforcements, can the registrar call up P614, and can we turn to page

19     23 of the document, ERN number 0349-3618.

20        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, this document is already in evidence.  It is an

21     analysis of the course of Operation Storm sent by the special police

22     personally to the chief of the Main Staff, General Zvonimir Cervenko.

23             Let's look at the page we have on our screens.  This is part of

24     the analysis referring to the rocket and artillery support of the joint

25     forces of the special police in Operation Storm.

Page 13700

 1             Can we please have your comments on the rocket artillery support

 2     described herein?  Look at the start of the text, where it is stated that

 3     the forces of the special police were provided support by, and there

 4     follows a list of weapons.

 5             Can you explain what this is it about.

 6        A.   This is my comment.  The rocket artillery support for the special

 7     police was provided by six mortar batteries of 120 millimetres in

 8     calibre; one rocket battalion of RAKs, and they were along the same axis

 9     of attack; three 130-millimetre cannons; one 22-milimetres Grada multiple

10     rocket launcher; and ten 107-millimetre light LRLs, and they were the

11     ones used along the axis of attack of the special police during Operation

12     Storm.

13        Q.   Please focus on 130-millimetre cannons.  Were the weapons of the

14     special police, or were they attached from the Croatian army as support

15     along the axis of attack?

16        A.   They were attached to the special police along its axis of attack

17     and were not part of the arsenal of the weapons of the special police.

18        Q.   The document goes on to detail the weapons used along the axis of

19     attack.  Their Honours are already aware of the fact that the special

20     police advanced along one main axis and four auxiliary axes.  Each of

21     these axes had its own rocket artillery support.

22             Can you describe for us in what way the artillery of the special

23     police was used.  Who called for that support, and who provided clearance

24     for the use of artillery?  What was the procedure like?

25        A.   The procedure was very simple.  Every axis of attack, including

Page 13701

 1     the main and auxiliary ones, had a rocket artillery battery designated

 2     for their purposes.  Every commander of every axis referred to their own

 3     battery that they had assigned to them as their support and asked for the

 4     type of support that they needed.

 5        Q.   At the bottom of the page, it is stated that the organisation of

 6     rocket and artillery support for the special police was reinforced by the

 7     rocket and artillery forces of the Croatian army.  The document goes on

 8     to list them as the reinforced 130-millimetre cannon platoons and

 9     reinforced 122, D30 Howitzer platoons.

10             First of all, can we agree that this is this long-rage artillery?

11        A.   Well, this could be termed as medium to long-range artillery.

12        Q.   If we turn to the next page, page 24, we will see an entry which

13     reads:

14             "In addition to the rocket and artillery support provided to the

15     joint forces of the police, the aforementioned long range artillery

16     support provided support to the unit of the right hand neighbour."

17             Mr. Turkalj, is this consistent with what you remember, that the

18     artillery provided by the HV to the special police, in fact, provided

19     support to both the special police forces and the HV, where these are the

20     so-called termites; that's how the members of the unit were referred to?

21        A.   This particular artillery group was intended for providing

22     support to the forces of the special police and the HV, which also

23     launched an attack at the foot of the Velebit mount, as well as to the HV

24     forces that were attacking along the right-hand side of the police

25     forces.

Page 13702

 1        Q.   Is it true that this particular unit which provided support to

 2     the special police units did so at the request of yourself, or other

 3     members of the special police, and I'm referring to the commanders of

 4     individual axis, who referred to you, and that, in fact, it was not

 5     resubordinated to the units of the special police in the strict sense of

 6     the word?

 7        A.   At the commencement of Operation Storm, the artillery group we're

 8     referring to provided support at the request of the special police, or,

 9     rather, through me.  I was the one who designated the target that had to

10     be engaged where necessary.

11        Q.   I forgot one thing, Mr. Turkalj, when we were referring to

12     130-millimetre cannons a moment ago, we realized that the analysis

13     mentioned them twice on the same page.  Were these one and the same

14     cannons that were used by the HV and which provided support for the

15     special police units?  You did say that the special police did not have

16     that sort of weaponry.

17        A.   These were the only cannons present in the area.  There were none

18     other than that.

19        Q.   You said that you sought support that was supposed to engage the

20     previously designated targets.

21             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can the registrar please call up

22     D549.

23        Q.   As for these targets, in the course of the -- this case we were

24     able to see the internal control department which provided the command of

25     the special police with intelligence concerning the extent of the enemy

Page 13703

 1     forces and the activities that are to be expected from the other side.

 2             Is it true that the information provided by the inner control

 3     department for the purposes of Operation Storm was, in fact, the basis

 4     upon which the targets engaged with artillery were designated?

 5        A.   That's correct.  The inner control department gathered

 6     intelligence in cooperation with the Croatian army and delivered the

 7     intelligence to me and probably to others.  The intelligence contained

 8     the deployment of the enemy forces and what was to be expected from these

 9     forces in the course of Operation Storm.

10        Q.   It is true, is it not, that on the basis of such intelligence you

11     selected the targets to be engaged at a given moment at different stages

12     of the operation?

13        A.   That's true.

14        Q.   For Their Honours' benefit, the document identical in contents

15     but dating from a different period, is D1052 -- or, rather, 1092, 1093,

16     and 1098.

17             We're referring to military targets, of course.  You said that

18     one of the targets was communications.  You just described for us the --

19     the importance of the Celavac radio relay feature as well as the Prezid

20     feature.  And in the course of your testimony, you said that other

21     targets were warehouses, command posts, assembly posts, which constituted

22     the targets your artillery engaged.  Is that correct, Mr. Turkalj?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   We will now discuss an artillery issue, and I presume you will be

25     able to help us with it, in view of your relevant experience.

Page 13704

 1             Can you explain to us the meaning in artillery -- in the

 2     artillery sense, the firing of a projectile upon a military target in

 3     order to -- with a view to disrupting it, as opposed to firing a

 4     projectile upon a military target with a view to neutralizing.  What is

 5     the different -- from a -- in terms of artillery?

 6        A.   Engaging a target to neutralize it would mean that great many

 7     more projectiles would need to be used, and when we're talking about

 8     command posts or communication centres, neutralizing them would mean

 9     placing them out of operation.  In other words, such locations could not

10     -- no longer be used as venues for commanding or engaging in any sort of

11     activity.  Neutralizing it means to make it impossible for these features

12     to operate.

13             Disrupting a target means to fire a small number of projectiles

14     upon that location, in order to diminish its capacity to engage in the

15     activities that location normally engages in.

16        Q.   Judging from the tactics the artillery of the special police

17     employed in the early stages of Operation Storm, would you say that they

18     engaged in -- they engaged targets with a view to neutralizing them or

19     disrupting their activity?

20        A.   Well, if we're talking about the targets deep behind the front

21     line, then the intention was to disrupt their activity; whereas the

22     targets that were on the front line, or immediately behind the front

23     line, then the intention was to neutralize their activities.

24        Q.   Are you referring to the strongholds held by the enemy which were

25     used to fire upon the Croatian forces?

Page 13705

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness please repeat his answer

 2     because there was no break between question and answer.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you make breaks between question and answer,

 4     and could you repeat your last answer because the interpreters could not

 5     hear it.

 6             So the last question was whether you were referring to the

 7     strongholds held by the enemy which were used to fire upon the Croatian

 8     forces.  Could you repeat your answer to that question.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't received interpretation.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you now receive interpretation?  Apparently not.

11     Let's check.

12             Do you now hear me in a language you understand?  Yes.  You were

13     invited to repeat the -- your answer to the last question, and the last

14     question being whether you were referring to the strongholds held by the

15     enemy which were used to fire upon the Croatian forces.

16             Could you please repeat your answer to that question.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer was that the targets to

18     be neutralized were the strongholds held by the enemy, which engaged in

19     artillery fire upon the Croatian forces.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Once the first defence line of the enemy was

22     broken through and in the subsequent activities that the special police

23     engaged in, what sort of tactics did the artillery engage in?

24        A.   Can I just make an introduction to this question?

25        Q.   Yes.

Page 13706

 1        A.   Given the lie of the land as the Croatian forces were advancing

 2     toward the foot of the Velebit mount pretty quickly, we were not longer

 3     able to rely upon the artillery support because of the range that they

 4     had.  For these purposes, we used the artillery that was attached to the

 5     special police in order to make sure that our forces could further

 6     advance, until such time as the special police artillery was able to

 7     redeploy to new positions.

 8        Q.   Can we make a difference now in the number of spent ammunition in

 9     relation to the first part of the action, which is Velebit, compared to

10     the next part of the action.  Which part of the action, the first or the

11     second, used more artillery shells, depending on the phase of the action?

12        A.   Depending on the phase of the action, the most artillery was

13     spent breaking through the first line of defence.  It is difficult to

14     give you a percentage, but most of the artillery -- or more artillery was

15     spent in that phase.

16        Q.   You said that that was a demanding hilly area, mostly

17     uninhabited.  Is that what you're referring to?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, there was a question about shelling in the following

20     phase of the action on the town of Gracac.  In this courtroom, we heard

21     testimony from an eye-witness of this shelling who lived in Gracac.  I'm

22     now referring to the testimony of Mr. Mile Sovilj.  And he told us, and

23     this is transcript page 2241, line 8, that the shelling of Gracac that

24     day when Oluja started proceeded at intervals and that, from what he

25     recalled, he remembers about some 15 shells following on the area of

Page 13707

 1     Gracac where he lived.

 2             Can you please tell us from -- based on your recollection how

 3     many shells were fired at Gracac, the town itself?  Does this number

 4     correspond to what you know?

 5        A.   Yes, I think that the number is accurate, about the number of

 6     projectiles fired at Gracac itself.

 7        Q.   When you're talking about targets, I assume that you are

 8     referring to military targets?

 9        A.   Yes.  I'm exclusively talking about targets.

10        Q.   But these targets are in inhabited areas, populated areas, in

11     civilian areas, let's put it that way.  You have already explained to the

12     Prosecution that this had to be done very precisely, in order to minimise

13     possible collateral damage.  Isn't that right?

14        A.   Yes, that is correct.

15        Q.   The same witness, Mr. Mile Sovilj, in his testimony said that in

16     the centre of Gracac itself, there was a police station, the municipal

17     building as well where the national or people's defence office was.

18     There was railway station, intersection of the roads from Knin to Zagreb

19     and towards Otric, then depot next to the railway station, which the

20     witness -- about which the witness said that that's where he saw certain

21     weapons.

22             Does that correspond with your recollection of the facilities and

23     the buildings in Gracac and the targets?

24        A.   Yes, those were the targets.

25             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I think we have a practice here when we put

Page 13708

 1     previous continue testimony from other witnesses to a witness in court,

 2     there is an practice as to how that should be done.  I think this is the

 3     second time Mr. Mikulicic has breached that.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC:  I was trying to save some time and not to quote

 5     all the parts of testimony of witness Mile Sovilj, and, therefore, I gave

 6     the reference.  And the reference, I could repeat, starts from transcript

 7     page 2241 --

 8             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  That's not what I'm talking about.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Mahindaratne, let's be -- of course, if you ask

10     a witness to describe a certain event, then -- then it makes sense to

11     hear the version of the present witness and after that to perhaps put to

12     him what another witness said about it.  But to first ask him whether

13     there was a railway station there, and then to say, Well, that's what

14     Mr. Sovilj told us as well.  Of course, it doesn't make sense.  I do

15     agree with you that is the rules, but, of course, rules should be applied

16     always in context.  And here the only thing until now is that in the

17     centre of Gracac itself, there was the municipal building; there was a

18     railway station; there was an intersection -- well, these intersections

19     usually do not move very quickly, so, therefore, looking at it in the

20     context, it is more efficient to put these simple matters to this

21     witness.  It could even have been put to him separate from Mr. Sovilj's

22     testimony.

23             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  Mr. President, I only rose to my feet because

24     the witness has already testified in examination-in-chief as to what

25     targets were present in Gracac and also the previous question as to the

Page 13709

 1     number of shells fired at Gracac.  The witness should have been asked

 2     that, and then thereafter if there was a contradiction to -- with the

 3     previous testimony.  That is why, Mr. President, that I feel that --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, whether he has testified in chief, that

 5     is, of course, a different matter.  And it would even, I would say,

 6     undermine, more or less, your objection because -- if he had already

 7     testified about it, then, of course, the procedure which is to seek the

 8     testimony of the witness before putting to him what other witness said

 9     apparently has then already been met.  Isn't it?

10             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  I guess so, Mr. President.  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's try to -- to interpret rules and

12     guidance and context and with full understanding of what it is all about.

13             Please proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, the first lines of defence of the

16     enemy were broken through in the first half of the day, and then you said

17     that after that you descended down the slopes of the Velebit towards the

18     road leading from Gospic towards Gracac.  The pace of the events was

19     quite considerable, wasn't it?

20        A.   Yes, it was.

21        Q.   Can you tell us if the command insisted on this pace of advance

22     of the special unit?

23        A.   The command of the special unit insisted, depending on the

24     conditions at the front, at the time the situation on the front line, the

25     breakthrough of the front line, and so on and so forth.

Page 13710

 1        Q.   In your experience, why was the pace of advance in these actions

 2     important for special units which are actually pushing back enemy forces,

 3     why is this pace important?

 4        A.   Well, it's now a question of tactics, but the main assignment was

 5     not to permit the enemy forces to group, and, in that way, to create a

 6     second line of defence, which would then place before us the same problem

 7     of having to breakthrough that second line.

 8        Q.   You told us that, in your view, the bulk of the artillery was

 9     spent in that first phase.

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] So I would now like us to look at

11     document P1154.  1154.

12        Q.   What we are going to see, Mr. Turkalj, is a request from the

13     special police sent on the second day of the action, the 5th of August,

14     to the Ministry of Defence, to General Cervenko, the chief of the

15     Main Staff, for replenishment of ammunition for the requirements of the

16     special police.

17             Not going into too much detail, I would just like to you comment.

18     We can see that what is being asked here under the first two items are

19     120-millimetre mines and 128-millimetre missiles or projectiles.  And

20     then later, missiles for a hand-held rocket launcher.

21             According to the categories that we referred to earlier,

22     short-range, medium-range and long-range artillery, what would be the

23     purpose of these projectiles?  Are these projectiles for long-range

24     weaponry or --

25        A.   These are projectiles for short-range artillery.  The other

Page 13711

 1     projects are anti-armour ammunition or shells which the members carry

 2     with them.  And then we see also replenishment and guns.

 3        Q.   And was this request implemented to the letter?  Was all this

 4     weaponry and ammunition delivered to the special police units, or were

 5     there some logistical imprecisions, if we can put it that way?

 6        A.   The question of replenishment was something that was under the

 7     jurisdiction of the logistics section, so I don't know how much actually

 8     of this was delivered.

 9        Q.   My question had to do with document P614, which was an analysis

10     of Storm, and on page 35 negative experience from the action are referred

11     to from the operation.  And then in item 5, it says that untimely support

12     in ammunition for the artillery was a negative aspect resulting in more

13     difficulties for those firing positions, because they were supplied under

14     enemy fire.

15             Do you recall such problems occurring?

16        A.   Yes, there was such problems.  In an operation like that, it can

17     happen for the ammunition not to arrive in time especially in the sector

18     where our logistical forces were moving and the artillery was shifting to

19     new positions and then fire was opened from enemy artillery in those

20     sections, so it was not that easy to organise everything.

21             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could the registrar now please

22     show us D1095.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, I'd like to take the opportunity to

24     ask one additional question.

25             Where you several times refer to short-range and long-range

Page 13712

 1     artillery weaponry, where does the short-range move into long-range?

 2     What is approximately where you ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Targets on the first line of

 4     defence, enemy defence, and for shorter depth - we're talking about

 5     targets that would be in contact with the Croatian forces, where the two

 6     forces were in contact - that's where short-range artillery would be

 7     used, in the area of attack.  Long-range artillery would be used in the

 8     course of the operations for targets in the depth, and these artilleries

 9     would be separate.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you express that in distances.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All targets that are farther than

12     eight kilometres could only be fired at with long-term -- long range

13     artillery.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document

17     D1095.

18        Q.   Other than this problem that was indicated as a negative

19     experience in the analysis of the Storm operation, we can also see from

20     this document that the weapons malfunctioned.  And now I'm drawing your

21     attention to paragraph 4, the biggest paragraph, on the first page where

22     it says that :

23             "The 130-millimetre gun was jammed, that the 203-millimetre

24     Howitzer also broke down.  According to this categorisation.  We're

25     talking about medium or long-range weaponry, aren't we?

Page 13713

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And does what you know correspond to what it says there, that

 3     there were malfunctions while using artillery?

 4        A.   Yes, of course.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document P586,

 6     please.

 7        Q.   In the examination-in-chief, Mr. Turkalj, battles were discussed

 8     and the use of artillery in Donji Lapac.  You are now going to see this

 9     document.  It has already been admitted into evidence, and it's a report

10     from the chief, Mr. Branislav Bole, chief of logistics, sent to the chief

11     of sector, Mr. Zeljko Sacic.  It had to do with the fighting to liberate

12     Donji Lapac.

13             Mr. Turkalj, first of all, it is correct, isn't it, that the

14     special police actually did not use artillery in the fighting to liberate

15     Donji Lapac itself?

16        A.   Yes, that is correct.  This is what I have already stated.

17        Q.   Then what it says here in paragraph 2 is that although there were

18     no major battles in the town of Donji Lapac, in the town centre two

19     houses were burning as a consequence of artillery rocket support actions.

20     But then later major incidents occurred in town, and houses were set on

21     fire.

22             Were you an eye-witness of these events, Mr. Turkalj?

23        A.   From what I know -- I was also in Donji Lapac myself when forces

24     of the special police entered that sector.  In any case, because of my

25     duties, I was among the last to arrive.

Page 13714

 1             Could you please repeat the question about what I know.  Are you

 2     asking about what I know about how Donji Lapac looked?

 3        Q.   Yes.

 4        A.   As for Donji Lapac itself, it wasn't burned or destroyed.  There

 5     was no destruction, and I would even say that everything appeared quite

 6     normal.

 7        Q.   The Trial Chamber has already heard testimony that there was a

 8     friendly fire incident in Donji Lapac.  Do you remember that?

 9        A.   Yes, I remember it well.

10        Q.   How long did this friendly fire at special police forces last

11     before radio communication was established, asking for the artillery

12     firing to stop?

13        A.   It was difficult -- it's difficult to say how long it lasted, if

14     fire in the area.  Perhaps it's not quite correct to say on Donji Lapac

15     but somewhere in that area at the entrances to Donji Lapac, or whatever

16     the targets were that the artillery was firing, but it did last for

17     minutes, perhaps even several scores of minutes.

18             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document

19     06171, please.

20        Q.   I assume, Mr. Turkalj, that you didn't have the opportunity to

21     see this document, because this is a document on the participation of the

22     rocket and artillery battery of the Brod-Posavina unit in the Operation

23     Storm Oluja 1995?

24        A.   I haven't seen this document before.

25        Q.   I'm going ask for your comments on the document then.

Page 13715

 1             Based on the description of the equipment and materiel in the

 2     second paragraph of the document, can you please tell us what sort of

 3     artillery is talking -- being talked about here?

 4        A.   It is artillery that the special police had, and we can see here

 5     that it includes only 120-millimetre mortars and RAK 12, which is a

 6     128-millimetre rocket launcher.  The rest had nothing to do with

 7     artillery but with vehicles.  As for the rocket Strijela 2M, it has to do

 8     with anti-aircraft defence.

 9        Q.   Was this artillery, as part of the Brod-Posavina police

10     administration special forces, which through its engagement with the

11     joint forces of the special police forces, made its pieces available for

12     use to the joint forces?  Was this the method applied in order to

13     establish the joint forces?

14        A.   Yes.  It was that method, and the same principle was used with

15     other units and their artillery.

16        Q.   In the last paragraph on this page, I would like to elicit a

17     comment from you.  It says:  "It was also agreed on a who can ask for

18     artillery support."

19             Can you comment on this sentence of the report?

20        A.   Yes, I can.  The commander of the battery, who I suppose

21     forwarded this report, was at the meeting prior to the operation and

22     familiarized with the principles to ask for artillery support and what

23     was the axis of attack that he was supposed to engage.

24        Q.   If we go to page 2 of this document, please focus on paragraph 2,

25     which says that, on the 4th of August of 1995 upon the beginning of the

Page 13716

 1     operation at 0400 hours, he explained to the members, and "he" is

 2     probably the submitter of the report, Mr. Andrija Zivkovic, commander of

 3     the rocket artillery battery, how we would perform the rocket artillery

 4     operations on the targets already designated.

 5             "At 0520 hours we fired the first rockets and shells and the

 6     artillery support lasted for about half an hour."

 7             Now we come to the part that I'm interested in:

 8             "And then we only opened fire pursuant to a request of

 9     Mr. Josip Turkalj who was chief of artillery of the special units."

10             This was then the procedure applied when the artillery forces of

11     the joint forces were used?

12        A.   Yes, that was the procedure.  The commanders could ask me to

13     engage certain targets, and I would approve of such targeting at the

14     artillery position.  It wasn't only up to me to designate targets.  The

15     axis commanders could also request fire support.  However this position

16     was relatively close to me, and I could supervise their work.

17             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] May I receive a number for this

18     document.

19             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1206, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D1206 is admitted into evidence.

23             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 05612 next.

24        Q.   Perhaps later we are going to discuss the establishment of the

25     joint forces of the police that participated in Operation Storm.  This

Page 13717

 1     Chamber has already heard evidence of the joint forces being formed in a

 2     way that from individual police administrations, parts of special police

 3     forces units were joined and that a common headquarters was established

 4     that was in charge of the operation.

 5             What we can see on the screen is an order of the 27th of July,

 6     that is on the eve of Operation Storm, issued by assistant minister,

 7     Mr. Mladen Markac, sent to the chiefs of four police administrations

 8     personally, as well as to you, as the ATJ unit, Lucko commander.

 9             As we can see from the order, it discusses the gathering of

10     artillery pieces from the units of the special police.  It is stated that

11     from the Osijek-Baranja police administration, two 120-millimetre mortars

12     should be attached to the joint forces, and the same goes for the

13     Sisak-Moslavina police administration.

14             As for the Karlovac police administration, what was requested was

15     a four-member crew, and from the police administration of Zagreb, an

16     additional two mortars were requested.

17             Mr. Turkalj, in relation to what we have discussed so far, this

18     is the operational implementation of the manning of the joint forces of

19     the police with artillery pieces.

20        A.   Yes, this was sent to the chiefs of police administrations, and

21     they were supposed to hand this order to the commanders of their

22     respective special forces.  It is also stipulated here where those

23     commanders were supposed to report to, so as to be issued with specific

24     artillery tasks.

25        Q.   Therefore, that was the model used to establish the artillery of

Page 13718

 1     the joint forces for operation Storm?

 2        A.   Yes, it was.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please receive a number

 4     for this document.

 5             MS. MAHINDARATNE:  No objection.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1270.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  1207 is admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, as for you and the members of the

11     special police that serviced the artillery pieces, did you have or did

12     you receive proper training on the use of artillery in keeping with the

13     Geneva Conventions and related protocols?

14        A.   Yes.  The commanders of the batteries that we have been

15     discussing of the special police received orders from me providing

16     instruction on the use of artillery, and they also conducted training

17     with their respective staff on the use of artillery.

18        Q.   Briefly, in two sentences, could you tell us what was the essence

19     of the instructions you issued on the use of artillery in keeping with

20     the laws of war?

21        A.   The essence was that only military targets could be engaged, and

22     we did so in that part of the attack operation.

23             Tactically speaking, it also addressed the issue of artillery, in

24     the sense of how to neutralize enemy targets.

25        Q.   Thank you for that answer.

Page 13719

 1             In the analysis document of the special police, which is P614,

 2     Mr. Turkalj, concerning the use of artillery at page 23 that we have

 3     already seen, it is stated, I will quote:

 4             "Through their efficient use, meaning the artillery, the

 5     fortified enemy positions and facilities were destroyed as well as the

 6     strategic military targets in depth of the enemy were engaged, thus

 7     creating psychological uncertainty and anxiety among the ranks of the

 8     enemy as well as the Serbian population?"

 9             Mr. Turkalj, in your experience and education during the Military

10     Academy, it is correct, is it not, that the use of artillery carries a

11     relatively significant psychological effect.  Can you tell us about that?

12        A.   Artillery does have a psychological impact in order to demoralize

13     enemy forces.  It is one of its basic tasks to demoralize the enemy.  As

14     for the use of artillery against military targets, irrespective of

15     whether it is in proximity or distance from settlements does have a

16     certain psychological effect on the population in the area as well.  This

17     last sentence is basically a statement of mine, a comment of mine.

18     Artillery as such can cause fear among the population as well as the

19     forces in that area.

20        Q.   You mentioned the effect of explosions and detonations upon

21     firing.  You also said that it was a mountainous terrain with gorges and

22     valleys.  In your opinion, and expertise, what is the effect of

23     detonations and firing of shells from artillery pieces in such terrain?

24        A.   As for the lie of land, perhaps there is a part I would like to

25     add to your question an offer a single reply.  When we destroyed the

Page 13720

 1     communications centre of the enemy as well as our targeting of the radio

 2     relay facility enabled -- did not enable them to communicate effectively

 3     anymore, and engaging other targets along the axis of attack of the

 4     special forces did have a certain negative impact on the persons in the

 5     vicinity.  Such persons can not precisely determine where detonations

 6     came from; they only hear them.

 7        Q.   Thank you for that answer.

 8             However, I'd just like to go back to one part of your answer

 9     because it wasn't recorded.

10             What was your personal view on the use of artillery?  You said

11     that the population could suffer feelings of fear, of anxiety?

12        A.   I said that I would also be scared if I heard artillery being

13     active nearby.

14        Q.   I wanted to ask you this:  In a mountainous terrain with

15     depressions and gorges, there's an echo effect amplifying the noises of

16     firing, multiplying them, so to speak.  Is that a byproduct, so to speak,

17     of the use of artillery?

18        A.   Yes.  I can confirm that.

19        Q.   Therefore, it is correct that a layperson, when artillery is used

20     in such geographical conditions could conclude that there was a far

21     greater number of shells that were fired, given the echo effect than the

22     number that was actually fired?

23        A.   One could conclude that.  In such geographical conditions it is

24     very difficult to assess how many projectiles were fired at individual

25     targets if a person concerned has no particular knowledge and experience

Page 13721

 1     with artillery.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             As regards, artillery, Your Honours, this concludes there topic,

 4     unless you have questions about that, otherwise I will move on to another

 5     topic.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please move on.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, we are going to discuss the topic

 9     of the joint forces of the special police next.

10             We saw, and you mentioned that as well, that Mr. Markac, the

11     assistant minister, who was actually the commander of the special police

12     sector, he sent an order to certain police administration commanders as

13     regards personnel, materiel, and equipment.

14             In your experience and, knowledge, what was the relationship

15     between the special police unit commander at the police administration

16     vis-a-vis the head of that police administration?

17        A.   Well, I would try to it turn your question around a bit.  The

18     special unit of the police was a part of the police administration

19     structure.  It was part and parcel of it.  The head of that police

20     administration was responsible for the work of that particular special

21     police unit.

22        Q.   I am not going to talk to -- about the joint forces now but,

23     rather, on the use of the special police forces.

24             Could a police administration head independently decide on the

25     use of the special police unit inside his police administration, within

Page 13722

 1     its territory?

 2        A.   As regards the tasks of the special police, the head of the

 3     police administration would exclusively decide on the orders and

 4     decisions concerning daily use and work of that particular special unit

 5     in that area.  It was the head of the police administration who could

 6     issue orders to the unit, and he was in charge of the use of that unit in

 7     his area.

 8        Q.   In situations such as Operation Storm, when joint forces are

 9     formed, joint forces of the police that is, from individual police

10     administrations, including all of them save for the ones that did not

11     have special police units, some members of the special police units'

12     staff were assigned to the joint forces.

13             Those of the staff who remained in their respective police

14     administrations, what was their role and who decided on the tasks of

15     those special police who remained within their respective

16     administrations?

17        A.   Those members of the special police units who did not participate

18     in the joint forces remained under the competence of the head of the

19     police administration, and he issued them tasks.

20        Q.   Did I understand you well, it means that the headquarters of the

21     joint forces, vis-a-vis those special police forces that did not

22     participate in the joint forces held no sway?

23        A.   That is correct.

24        Q.   However, if the head the police administration should, for

25     whatever reasons, and I'm not even referring to combat here or the mop-up

Page 13723

 1     operation, but, for instance, civil unrest taking place in the territory

 2     outside of the purview of that particular police administration, should

 3     therefore the police of that particular police administration have to be

 4     engaged outside of its purview of competence, then it has to apply to the

 5     minister; does it not?

 6        A.   Yes.  It has to apply to the Ministry of the Interior to allow it

 7     to use its staff outside of their respective police administration.

 8        Q.   The unit you were the head of, the anti-terrorist unit Lucko, was

 9     of a specific sort because it did not fall under any of the police

10     administrations.  Rather, it was a part of the sector of the special

11     police; is that right?

12        A.   Yes, that is right, because that particular unit was present in

13     the Ministry of Interior before other special police units were formed.

14        Q.   Your unit, and I don't mean this disrespectfully toward anyone,

15     had the status of an elite unit within the Ministry of Interior compared

16     to the other special police units belonging to various administrations.

17        A.   Yes, you could say that it enjoyed the status of an elite unit,

18     although in combat activities, it was not given any specific role for

19     that score only, nevertheless, it did enjoy a special status.

20        Q.   There are -- there is statistical data speaking of the dead and

21     injured members of the anti-terrorist unit Lucko, as opposed to other

22     members of the special police forces in that particular operation.  And

23     it is true, is it not, that it was precisely your anti-terrorist unit

24     Lucko which suffered a great number of dead and injured?

25        A.   That's true.  From day one of the war in Croatia, it was engaged

Page 13724

 1     in almost all important war activities and had more dead and wounded than

 2     any other unit in Croatia.

 3        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, let me go back to the events which transpired on the

 4     25th and 26th of August, 1995.

 5             Let me remind you that the so-called freedom train was supposed

 6     to travel the railway between Zagreb and Split.  Do you remember that

 7     period?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   It is true, is it not, that to that end, the anti-terrorist unit

10     Lucko was engaged in the most sensitive section of the railway, where the

11     train was supposed to travel, holding the president of the republic,

12     ministers, and many of the diplomates accredited in Zagreb.

13        A.   That's true.

14        Q.   Once the freedom train passed the railway track from Zagreb and

15     reached Split, the anti-terrorist unit Lucko was dispatched back to

16     Zagreb?

17        A.   That's correct.  I said that in my statement that Mr. Janjic as

18     commander of the action did not deem its presence necessary there anymore

19     and ordered that it return to Zagreb.

20        Q.   Did rumour reach you to the effect that once the freedom train

21     finished its journey, the return of the anti-terrorist unit Lucko to

22     Zagreb was some sort of a punishment for the crimes that were committed

23     in one of the villages?

24             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't hear the name.

25        A.   Yes.  In fact, the commander believed that the unit needs to go

Page 13725

 1     back to its base, since its task was finished.

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Is it true, is it not, Mr. Turkalj, that the

 4     operational action of providing security to the railway track to be

 5     travelled by the freedom train ended as the train reached Split?

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document D1084,

 8     please.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... there was an

10     observation by the interpreters that the interpreters could not hear the

11     name of the villages, if you would please look at --

12             MR. MIKULICIC:  The name of the village is Ramljane.

13     R-a-m-l-j-a-n-e.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, the former Minister of the Interior

17     of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Vekic, issued this document at the end of

18     1991.  My first question is:  Have you seen this order before, ever

19     before?

20        A.   I have never seen this order.  At least I don't remember.

21        Q.   I'll ask you to comment certain portions of the document.  In

22     practice, in the everyday life and work, did the anti-terrorist unit

23     conduct itself in line with this particular order?  And I'm referring to

24     items 5 and the subsequent items.  It says here that for every special

25     unit formed, its reserve force has to be set up as well, equal in number

Page 13726

 1     to the active duty unit.

 2             Is this consistent with the practice you came to know while you

 3     worked with the special police?

 4        A.   Yes, in principle it does tally with how it worked in practice.

 5        Q.   Can you tell us who were members of the reserve force of the

 6     special police unit?

 7        A.   Members of reserve force units in the various police

 8     administrations were citizens who were charged with certain duties in the

 9     police.  Both the general duty police and the special police force had

10     its reserve force.

11        Q.   Am I right in interpreting your answer by saying these were

12     individuals with police training?

13        A.   Yes, they did have some sort of police training through their

14     work.  As the reserve force, they underwent police staining.

15        Q.   This is particularly what item 6 speaks to, namely that the

16     reserve forces of the special unit would be formed of members of the

17     reserve force of the special police according to the criteria set in

18     place for active-duty special policemen.

19             Item 7 reads:

20             "The special units are to be engaged solely pursuant to decisions

21     issued by the chief of police administration and deputy minister of the

22     interior or the person thus authorised by him."

23             It seems that what you've just said confirms the practice, as it

24     was?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.

Page 13727

 1             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we turn to page 2 of the

 2     document to look at item 8.

 3        Q.   Where the minister orders that the -- that before engaging a

 4     special unit in the area of his administration, the chief of a police

 5     administration must obtain clearance from the deputy minister or the

 6     person authorised by the him.

 7             It seems to me, and you will correct me if I'm wrong, that the

 8     practice is somewhat modified this decision, and that the chief of a

 9     police administration subsequently did not need to obtain the approval

10     from the minister or the deputy minister to use his forces within the

11     territory of the administration but only when it came to their use

12     outside of the police administration.

13        A.   Well, as far as I know, for the territory of an administration --

14     of a police administration, it was solely the chief of that particular

15     police administration that would approve the use of the police force.

16        Q.   But if we look at item 9, it speaks of this other situation,

17     where the police is being used in the territory of a different police

18     administration, where it cannot be used, meaning the police force,

19     without the approval from the deputy minister.

20             This is consistent with your experience, is it not?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.

22        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, when the combat activities of the joint forces of

23     the special police were over, there remained another task which was,

24     according to the order of the chief of the Main Staff within the purview

25     of the joint forces, and that was the duty of the -- the duty to carry

Page 13728

 1     out search and mop-up operations outside the inhabited areas.  This was

 2     something that was carried out by the special police; was it not?

 3        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 4        Q.   To your recollection, and based on your experience, can you tell

 5     us what the main task was in the search operation that was assigned to

 6     the special police?

 7        A.   As far as I remember, since the HV and special police units

 8     advanced very quickly in Operation Storm, which meant that certain groups

 9     of enemy soldiers could have found themselves cut off and lingered in

10     mountainous areas, that are difficult to control, the special police was

11     given the order to conduct a search operation in order to detect,

12     sabotage terrorist groups or groups of enemy soldiers who stayed behind

13     after their forces were routed in Operation Storm.

14        Q.   We spoke of the pace at which our units, meaning the military and

15     the special police forces advanced during Operation Storm.  Is it true,

16     is it not, that the advancements was made along certain roads and axes

17     and some of the terrain not covered by these, i.e., the mountainous area,

18     stayed behind, was not cleared up or certain pockets were formed where

19     one could not be sure whether there were any mines laid or lingering

20     stragglers of enemy forces, and so on and so forth?

21        A.   Yes, that's right.  That's what I said.  There were certain areas

22     not covered in the initial stages of Storm and were left behind, and

23     there were -- there was materiel and technical equipment, explosives, and

24     weapons that had been wielded by the enemy.

25        Q.   Before we make the break, the area that was searched by the

Page 13729

 1     special police in this search and mop-up operation was difficult to

 2     access; was it not?

 3             Did you ever have occasion to hear or see that the special police

 4     force had conducted such search operations in inhabited areas, villages

 5     or towns?

 6        A.   As far as I know, the special police conducted such operations

 7     solely in the elevated feature, such as the Petrova Gora or the Plitvice

 8     lakes which is a forested area, difficult to survey.  The areas of

 9     [indiscernible] and similar features.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, it's time for a break.  May I remind

11     you, and also you, Mr. Turkalj, that the speed which you develop in

12     question and answer gives the interpreters a hard time today, so if could

13     you please slow down and make these breaks.

14             So we will have a break, and we will resume at ten minutes to

15     1.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, please proceed.

19             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Turkalj, before we had the break, we were

21     discussing joint forces and search operations.

22             First let me put a question to you about the setting up of the

23     joint forces.  The joint forces of the special police could also be set

24     up for the purposes of combat activities but also for purely regular

25     policing tasks, such as policing rioting, any other sort of unrest, and

Page 13730

 1     so on and so forth; is that right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can the Registrar please call up

 4     D1089.

 5        Q.   The document we're about to see dates from August 1992, and is,

 6     in fact, a proposal from the then-chief of the special police department,

 7     Mr. Markac, which was sent to assistant minister Josko Moric.  Later on

 8     when we look at page 2, we will see that assistant minister Josko Moric

 9     approved the proposal, as did deputy minister Zeljko Tomljenovic.

10             This is a proposal for establishing action Poskok, horned viper,

11     in the area of Velebit.  You are familiar with Poskok action that the

12     special police conducted in the area of Mount Velebit?

13        A.   Yes, I am.

14        Q.   Is it true, is it not, that the idea behind the whole action was

15     to prevent the breakthrough from the enemy forces across the Velebit

16     mount, and out on to the -- from preventing it from coming out on the

17     seaward side, and thus cutting off Croatia into two parts, northern and

18     southern parts; is that right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   In this document General Markac, in fact, proposes the tasks of

21     the special police within the action as a whole.

22             Please look at item 3, locating sabotage terrorist groups, their

23     capturing, disarmament, bringing in, and destroying.

24             Item 4, locating, identifying, marking and, in cooperation with

25     the Croatian army engineering team, demounting and destroying

Page 13731

 1     mine-explosive devices.

 2             On the next page, items 5 and 6, speak about the fact that the

 3     special police, as part of its work, has to engage in detecting all

 4     manner of explosive devices hidden away in various caches and hideouts on

 5     the Velebit mount, as well as detecting dead bodies, and burials, graves.

 6             In fact, these were the tasks discharged by the special police as

 7     it was conducting searches and mopping up areas; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  These are identical tasks.

 9        Q.   The tasks were defined in light of the fact that the members of

10     the special police had specialist knowledge.  Primarily I'm referring to

11     scuba divers, speleology, explosive specialists, and so on and so forth.

12     It is true, is it not, that members of the special police had to go

13     through specialist training and specialize in various fields?

14        A.   Every unit had organised, specialized groups, the ones that you

15     referred to, and they had to go through their regular training alongside

16     their regular work.  And it had to do with the specialist knowledge you

17     to referred to.

18        Q.   Based on the specialist knowledge and training members of the

19     special police under went, they were used for special purpose missions;

20     is that right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I will be changing topics now.  I am not doing this

23     in the proper order, but this is because I omitted to next something, and

24     I have to get back to it now.

25             You remember when we discussed the use of artillery, I showed you

Page 13732

 1     the order from the chief of the Main Staff to engage special police units

 2     in Operation Storm.  This order is now marked as D1205.  This order was

 3     sent to Brigadier Ademi for his information.

 4             You will remember that Brigadier Rajko Rakic added in his hand an

 5     observation that the area had to be reinforced with artillery.

 6             I would now like to you look at D1094.  When Brigadier Rakic

 7     placed his remark on the order sent for their information about the

 8     reinforced artillery - this was on the 29th of July, 1995 - the chief of

 9     the Main Staff, General Cervenko, reacted with a 30th July order --

10             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] This isn't the document.  Can we

11     have D1049.  That's 65 ter 2162.

12        Q.   There seems as if we have small technical problems, but perhaps

13     we can do it without this document.

14             Here it is.  Can we look at item 4.

15             In this order by General Cervenko, which followed the next day

16     after the remark by Brigadier Rakic about the use of artillery, General

17     Cervenko orders that forces engaged on the slopes of Velebit to be

18     provided with a special artillery group that would provide them -

19     referring to the HVO forces - and the MUP forces with artillery support.

20             One question about this, Mr. Turkalj.  It's correct, isn't it,

21     that only the chief of the Main Staff was authorised to order artillery

22     support and then that order was operationally implemented at the level of

23     army command?

24        A.   Yes.  It would be further operationally implemented in the

25     Military Districts that it applied to, relating to artillery support.

Page 13733

 1        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, I'm at the end of my cross-examination, and I would

 2     just like to put a few more questions to you.

 3             We talked about how, on the 25th of August, or, rather, the 26th

 4     of August, an incident took place in the village of Grubori and in the

 5     area of the village of Ramljane where some houses were set on fire, and

 6     some persons were killed in the village of Grubori.  And we talked in

 7     that sense that there were a lot of contested facts, and you tried to

 8     explain that, as well as some other witnesses who were here.

 9             In relation to that, this is my question, did you ever, or anyone

10     that you know, received from the superior structures within the police or

11     the state government in general, any kind of instruction, oral or

12     written, that these events should be covered up, that they should not be

13     investigated, that they should -- or that the facts relating to those

14     incidents in Grubori should be concealed?  Did you know anything like

15     that?

16        A.   Well, I'm going to try to respond very simply to your question.

17     I don't know.  I did not, nor did I hear of any other of my colleagues

18     received any kind of instruction to cover up any event that happened over

19     those few days.

20        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, thank you very much for your answers.  I'm going

21     conclude my with that, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

23             Who is next in line, Mr. Kay.

24             MR. KAY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Turkalj, you will you now be cross-examined by

Page 13734

 1     Mr. Kay.  Mr. Kay is counsel for Mr. Cermak.

 2             MR. KAY:  Thank you.

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kay:

 4        Q.   Mr. Turkalj, where were you when you first heard that an incident

 5     had happened in the Plavno valley in Grubori on the 25th of August, 1995?

 6        A.   I'm sorry, I didn't get a translation.

 7        Q.   I'll repeat the question.  Where were you when you first heard --

 8     I'll start again because we may have switched channels.  I don't know.

 9             Where were you when you first heard that on the 25th of August,

10     in Grubori, in the Plavno valley, that there had been an incident and

11     people were killed?

12        A.   As you already know from my statement, I said that I was not in

13     the area during those few days, and I think that it was only on the 27th

14     that I was called to that area, and that was the first time that I

15     received information about an incident or event happening in that area.

16        Q.   So on the 25th of August, where were you on that day?

17        A.   On the 25th of August, I was working in Zagreb.

18        Q.   And you didn't hear anything about an incident in Grubori whilst

19     you were in Zagreb, on that day; is that right?

20        A.   That is right.  I didn't hear anything.

21        Q.   On the next day, the 26th of August, were you still in Zagreb?

22        A.   Yes, I was in Zagreb.

23        Q.   Did you hear anything on that day about an incident happening in

24     Grubori, in the Plavno valley?

25        A.   No, I did not.

Page 13735

 1        Q.   So moving, then, to the 27th, what time of day was it that you

 2     heard that something had happened on the 25th?

 3        A.   I cannot tell you the exact time, but it was sometime in the

 4     morning.

 5        Q.   And where exactly were you when you heard that information in the

 6     morning?

 7        A.   I was in the area of Plavno and of Grubori.

 8        Q.   And why had you gone to Grubori in the area of Plavno on the

 9     27th?  What caused you to go there on that day?

10        A.   I have already said in my testimony that I was called by

11     Mr. Sacic to come to Plavno because there was certain activities there.

12        Q.   On the 27th, then, when Mr. Sacic called you, where were you when

13     you received that call?

14        A.   I was in Zagreb.

15        Q.   And in what particular place?

16        A.   I could have been at home.

17        Q.   And so how did he communicate to you whilst you were in Zagreb?

18        A.   By telephone, I think.

19        Q.   And so you left Zagreb, and you went where from Zagreb?

20        A.   I went to the Gracac area and then continued towards Plavno.

21        Q.   Now, in Gracac, where exactly did you go?

22        A.   I only met Mr. Celic and Mr. Balunovic in Gracac.  I didn't go

23     anywhere specifically; we just with met up in Gracac and then continued

24     on our way.

25        Q.   Did you travel from Zagreb to Gracac on your own?

Page 13736

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   And what place did you meet Mr. Celic and Mr. Balunovic at in

 3     Gracac?

 4        A.   I don't know exactly where we met.  We met somewhere in Gracac

 5     itself.

 6        Q.   Well, was it on the street, in a cafe, or in an office?

 7        A.   We met in front of the building where the staff of the special

 8     police was.  But I cannot definitely say where it was.  But I think

 9     that's where it was.

10        Q.   Had you ever been to that building in Gracac before the 27th of

11     August?

12        A.   I believe so, yes.

13        Q.   And just thinking about the time again, as we've got there in

14     front of the special police building, are you able to think again and

15     recollect what time of day that you met Mr. Celic?

16        A.   We met sometime in the morning.  Maybe around 7.00 or 8.00,

17     approximately.

18        Q.   Did you meet Mr. Sacic when you were in Gracac?

19        A.   I don't remember.  No, no, I didn't.

20        Q.   Did you speak to Mr. Sacic when you were in Gracac?

21        A.   I did not meet Mr. Sacic when I was in Gracac.

22        Q.   How long did you spend in Gracac, having met Mr. Celic?

23        A.   We didn't stay long in Gracac.

24        Q.   So from Gracac, where did you then go?

25        A.   After Gracac, we went to the area of Plavno.

Page 13737

 1        Q.   And how long did it take you to get from Gracac to this area of

 2     Plavno?

 3        A.   It's hard to say, but perhaps about an hour and a half, two

 4     hours.

 5        Q.   And when you say "in the area of Plavno," is that the village of

 6     Grubori?

 7        A.   No.  I'm thinking about the area of the settlement of Plavno

 8     itself.  It's a bit below the village of Grubori.

 9        Q.   And thinking again, what time of day would that have been, if

10     you're able to tell us, when you arrived in Plavno village?

11        A.   It's hard to say exactly what time it was.  Perhaps it was around

12     10.00.  It's hard to be specific.

13        Q.   And did you travel from Gracac to Plavno on your own or with

14     anybody?

15        A.   I travelled alone.

16        Q.   Did Mr. Celic and Mr. Balunovic also go to Plavno at the same

17     time?

18        A.   Yes.  But they had another vehicle.

19        Q.   Did Mr. Celic tell you why you were going to Plavno?

20        A.   Mr. Celic didn't tell me that.  I've already said that Mr. Sacic

21     told me that I was to go to the village of Plavno because there was a

22     specific event that happened there.

23        Q.   Well, taking this in stages, did Mr. Sacic describe to you what

24     the specific event was, what had happened?

25        A.   No, he didn't describe anything specifically, no.

Page 13738

 1        Q.   So what did he describe then, if he didn't describe anything

 2     specifically?  What did he say to you was your mission and reason for

 3     going to Plavno?

 4        A.   He didn't mention any specific assignment.  No such assignment

 5     was given to me.  He just called and said that I was supposed to go to

 6     that area, and this is what I did.  The alleged reason was that there had

 7     been some event in that area.

 8        Q.   Well, looking at it, then, why did you go to Gracac first and not

 9     drive direct to Plavno?

10        A.   For the simple reason that I didn't know where the settlement or

11     the village of Plavno was.  I'd never been in that area before.

12        Q.   So when you went to Gracac, was Mr. Celic expecting you to come

13     to Gracac?

14        A.   I told Mr. Celic to come to Gracac so then we can go -- we could

15     go to the area of Plavno, because I didn't know that area of Plavno at

16     all.

17        Q.   Had anyone else told Mr. Celic that he should go to Plavno, or

18     was it just as a result of your request?

19        A.   As far as I know, it was as a result of my request that we should

20     meet in Gracac and then continue on to Plavno, because I didn't know

21     where Plavno was.

22        Q.   So had you telephoned him in advance to say that you were coming

23     down?

24        A.   No.  He also set off from Zagreb.

25        Q.   Did he travel down with you from Zagreb?

Page 13739

 1        A.   No.  Everyone had their own vehicle.

 2        Q.   Did you travel together, although in separate vehicles?

 3        A.   No, we didn't.

 4        Q.   Did you know that he was travelling from Zagreb at the same time

 5     as you?

 6        A.   Yes.  I told him to go to the Gracac area so that, later, we

 7     could go to the Plavno area together.

 8        Q.   Mr. Balunovic, did he travel down from Zagreb as well?

 9        A.   He went together with Mr. Celic.

10        Q.   Who arrived in Gracac first?  You or Mr. Celic?

11        A.   Mr. Celic.

12        Q.   So he was waiting for you there, was he?

13        A.   Yes.  As I said, we met in front of the building.  Perhaps he

14     arrived five or ten minutes before I did, but I'm not able to say exactly

15     how much earlier.

16        Q.   Did Mr. Celic explain to you why you were going to Plavno?

17        A.   No.  I called Mr. Celic to come with me.

18        Q.   Looking at that in two parts, then, when you called Mr. Celic,

19     did he say anything to you about what had happened in Plavno?

20        A.   No.  I've already said that I didn't speak with Mr. Celic before

21     that.  Only when we arrived at Plavno.

22        Q.   But when you met Mr. Celic in Gracac outside the special police

23     building, did you have a conversation with him as to why you were going

24     to the Plavno area?

25        A.   No.  We didn't discuss those questions specifically.  I've

Page 13740

 1     already said that.

 2        Q.   So he didn't make any explanation to you on that morning of the

 3     27th of August as to why you needed to go to Plavno?

 4        A.   No, not that time.  I said that when we came to Plavno, we were

 5     together, and that was when we talked.

 6        Q.   Just one matter of detail.  Did you travel that morning before

 7     you went to Grubori to Knin?  Before you went to Grubori.

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   Where did you stop in the village of Plavno with Mr. Celic?

10        A.   I cannot say exactly.  I'm not really that familiar with that

11     area.  That was the first time that I was there, and I never went back

12     there again.  But we stopped somewhere close to Grubori, somewhere on the

13     road.  I don't know the name of that place.  I'm -- I can't say that now.

14        Q.   And how long did you stop there for?

15        A.   I'm not able to say that either.

16        Q.   Did you have a discussion with Mr. Celic before you later went to

17     Grubori as to what had happened in Grubori?

18        A.   I mentioned in my statement what we talked about.

19        Q.   I'm sorry, I want you to answer my question, though.  You may

20     have said many things in your statement, but I want you to answer my

21     questions.

22             I'll repeat it.  Did you have a discussion with Mr. Celic before

23     you later went to Grubori as to what had happened in Grubori?

24        A.   I don't recall the exact details of the conversation, but we

25     talked about the assignments of the unit, we talked, he explained the

Page 13741

 1     area, more or less where the unit was supposed to sweep the terrain.  He

 2     explained to me, and I said this in my statement, that he wrote this

 3     statement and that after the statement, while he was talking with

 4     Mr. Sacic, he wrote an additional report about the circumstances.  He

 5     also told me that he was not at that place, since there was some other

 6     assignments he was executing at that time.  Specifically, he was

 7     somewhere else.  And he doesn't know what happened in that area.  That

 8     was more or less the gist of the conversation.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  So before you went to Grubori, did you know that

10     there had been an assertion that there had been a fight between the

11     special police units and terrorists in that area?

12        A.   The only information that I had, and that was that precise

13     information, is that there had been a fight there with the opposing

14     forces.

15        Q.   Thank you.  You then went to Grubori.  And how many houses in

16     that village were you able to see?

17        A.   We didn't search the houses.  When a number of the people who

18     were in Grubori, when they came to that area, we saw that whole area more

19     or less, but I had the feeling that you could see perhaps in two or three

20     houses that there had been possible fighting.  There were traces of

21     weapons, of bullets, traces on the walls of the houses.  The houses were

22     not burned or showed other kind of damage.

23        Q.   Did you speak to Mr. Sacic whilst you were in Grubori?

24        A.   No, I didn't speak to Mr. Sacic about anything in particular.

25     I've already said that there were several people there, and Mr. Sacic and

Page 13742

 1     I did not talk with one another.

 2        Q.   Do you know if Mr. Sacic spoke to Mr. Celic whilst you were in

 3     Grubori?

 4        A.   I don't recall him talking with Mr. Celic then, when he was in

 5     Grubori.

 6        Q.   Whilst you were in Grubori, did a group of people also enter the

 7     village which were journalists, General Cermak, and other people,

 8     amounting to about 30 people?

 9        A.   I cannot say how many people were there when the group came to

10     that area, but there were many people.  That's why it's hard to say who

11     talked with whom.

12        Q.   And what was the purpose of you being actually there physically

13     in Grubori at that time?

14        A.   You mean me personally or the group?

15        Q.   You personally.

16        A.   I was not under the impression that my presence there was

17     required or important for anything.  However, it is a fact that Mr. Sacic

18     called me and told me that I was supposed to go to that area.  Other than

19     that, I had no specific tasks there.

20        Q.   Were you present in Grubori when there were any discussions about

21     there having been a combat at that -- on the 25th of August between the

22     special police and the terrorist forces?

23        A.   I was present in the settlement of Grubori as a member of the

24     group you referred to.  There were no specific discussions that took

25     place.  However, there were several people there, and they were talking

Page 13743

 1     to each other.  Therefore, I suppose that they did exchange comments.

 2        Q.   Did you hear such comments being made that the special police had

 3     been involved in a combat action with Serbian terrorist forces?

 4        A.   Yes, there were such remarks made.

 5        Q.   Where you were and what you saw, did it look like, to you, that

 6     that could have been an explanation as to what had happened in Grubori?

 7        A.   As I have said already, as far as I could assess, the looks of

 8     the area, I concluded that there was fighting.

 9        Q.   You're a member of the special police.  Are you able to name the

10     other types of people, if there were any, other than special police who

11     were in Grubori during your visit?

12        A.   While I was in Grubori, I know that Mr. Celic and Mr. Balunovic

13     were there who arrived with me.  There was Mr. Sacic.  There was some

14     other members of the HV.  There was some civilians.  I can't say

15     specifically who was there in the settlement of Grubori.

16        Q.   Did you know if there were or were not members of the ordinary

17     civilian police also there at that time?

18        A.   I think there were representatives of the civilian police.

19     However, I do not remember who they were or what their names were.

20        Q.   How long did you spend in Grubori during this visit?

21        A.   It was a relatively short period of time, 15 to 20 minutes.  I

22     can't be any more precise than that.

23        Q.   From Grubori, you then went where?  Where was the next place you

24     went to?

25        A.   From Grubori, we went downhill to the area of Plavno, where we

Page 13744

 1     stayed for a relatively short time as a group.

 2        Q.   And then where did you go next after that place?

 3        A.   After that, we went to Knin.

 4        Q.   And who did you travel with?

 5        A.   I was in my own vehicle.

 6        Q.   Had you ever been to Knin before?

 7        A.   No, I had not.

 8        Q.   When you went to Knin, what place did you go to?

 9        A.   I think I went to the building or facility where the Croatian

10     army was.  I don't know what the name of the building was, though.  It

11     may have been a headquarters or simply a building with the HV.

12        Q.   Can you think back now as to what time of day it was when you

13     arrived there?

14        A.   It was sometime before lunch, perhaps around noon.  I can't tell

15     you the precise time, but around noon.

16        Q.   Is this the time and the place where you had a cup of coffee?

17        A.   Yes, we did have a cup of coffee.

18        Q.   And was there general discussion amongst people at that time and

19     at that place about what had happened in Grubori?

20        A.   At that place where the group was, in the room, there was

21     discussion about general things, life and work in Knin, and its environs.

22     There was mention made of Grubori, that it all looked like there had been

23     fighting, but there was also some general discussion.

24        Q.   Was that a statement that was made by Mr. Sacic at that time,

25     that there had been a combat between the special police and a Serbian

Page 13745

 1     terrorist group?

 2        A.   I think Mr. Sacic did mention that, that he did mention that

 3     while we were having coffee.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kay.

 5             MR. KAY:  I have one last question on this point, Your Honour,

 6     to --

 7        Q.   Was there any suggestion made by Mr. Sacic that what had happened

 8     in Grubori must be misrepresented, or a false story promoted, or people

 9     misled about what had happened?

10        A.   Could you please repeat your question, because I did not

11     understand it fully.

12             MR. KAY:  Your Honour, I will continue my questioning tomorrow

13     with the court's leave because I have a few other matters, and I do

14     notice the time of the clock.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Kay.

16             Mr. Turkalj, I give you the same instruction as I did before,

17     that is, that you should not speak with anyone about the testimony,

18     whether already given or still to be given, and we'd like to see you back

19     tomorrow morning, 9.00.

20             We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, the 16th of

21     December, 9.00 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

22                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

23                                to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of

24                                December, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.