1 Thursday, 18 December 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Who's going to take the next witness?
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I am, Your Honour. The Prosecution calls
13 Mr. Normand Boucher.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
17 Ms. Gustafson, is the witness a native English or French-speaking
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Native French-speaking, Your Honour, but he will
20 be testifying in English.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Boucher.
23 Before you give evidence in this Court, the rules require that
24 you make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole
25 truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 The next will now be handed out to you by the usher. May I
2 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Boucher. Please be seated.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Mr. Boucher, from what I
8 understand, you speak French and English. If you have problems whilst
9 you speak English, you can and you may speak French. We do have
10 French-speaking interpreters, and there is absolutely no problem. But I
11 have understood that you have chosen to speak in English.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I -- my
13 mother tongue is French.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [No interpretation] -- in English, please let me
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 WITNESS: NORMAND JOSEPH BOUCHER
20 Examination by Ms. Gustafson:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Boucher.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. Can you please state your full name for the record.
24 A. Normand Boucher.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: And could the witness please be shown 65 ter
2 number 6540.
3 Q. Mr. Boucher, do you recognise the statement on the screen as a
4 type written version of a handwritten statement that you gave and signed
5 on the 11th of February, 1996?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. Thank you. And could the witness please be shown 65 ter number
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, just on the transcript the previous
10 65 ter number was 6540, whereas on my list I have 6450, instead of 6540.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: I misspoke, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So then the statement of 1996 is 6450.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON:
15 Q. And, Mr. Boucher, do you recognise this statement as one that you
16 gave on the 11th and 12th of November, 1999?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 And finally could the witness please be shown 65 ter number 6542.
20 And, Mr. Boucher, do you recognise this statement as one that you
21 began to give in April of 2008, finished on the 5th of November, 2008
22 and signed on the 24th of November, 2008.
23 A. I do recall this.
24 Q. And taken together, are these three statements true and accurate
25 to the best of your knowledge?
1 A. To the best of my knowledge, they are.
2 Q. And do they accurately reflect what you said at the time that
3 they were taken?
4 A. Yes, they do.
5 Q. And if I asked you today in court the same questions you were
6 asked when you gave those statements, would you give the Court the same
8 A. I would.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I would like to tender those three
10 statements into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, and from the Gotovina Defence a
12 message was received, there's no objection against any --
13 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, would you please assign numbers
15 to the statements.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Your Honours, 65 ter number 6450 becomes
17 exhibit number P1176. 65 ter number 6451 becomes exhibit number P1177.
18 And 65 ter number 6452 becomes exhibit number P1178.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. P1176, P1177, and P1178
20 are admitted into evidence.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour. And if I could provide
22 the witness with hard copies of those statements, and if I could read a
23 summary of his statements into the record.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You have explained to Mr. Boucher what the purpose
25 of that is?
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Mr. Normand Boucher was a UNCIVPOL officer
4 stationed in Knin from March 1995 until approximately 22nd August 1995.
5 On the morning of the 4th of August, 1995, he was awakened by the sound
6 of a shell hitting a nearby house at 5.00 a.m. As he was making his way
7 to the basement, a shell hit his house. He took refuge in the basement
8 of his house, where he stayed for approximately two hours. He then moved
9 to the basement of a nearby house.
10 A few hours later, he made his way to the downtown area where he
11 took refuge in a tall building. Along the way, he saw shelling damage.
12 Mr. Boucher was picked up by a UN APC
13 4th of August, 1995, and was taken to the UN compound.
14 Mr. Boucher was permitted to leave the UN compound to conduct a
15 foot patrol of Knin around 7 August 1995 with another UNCIVPOL monitor.
16 In Knin, Mr. Boucher saw soldiers coming out of houses carrying clothes
17 and household items, and he saw soldiers loading electronic items into a
18 truck marked Puma Brigade. Around the 11th of August, Mr. Boucher
19 witnessed an incident of burning houses and crops involving soldiers with
20 a Puma Brigade truck in Kosovo village.
21 In Mr. Boucher's assessment, the Croatian civilian police did
22 nothing to stop the burning and killing in the area after Operation Storm
23 and were unable to stop military personnel from committing crimes.
24 And that concludes the summary, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Gustafson.
1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: If I may, the statement starts that I was in
4 Sector South from March 1995 when, in fact, I started in January 1995.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON:
6 Q. Thank you, sir. I was referring to your time based in Knin, but
7 in any event, the summary is not part of the record, so ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for pointing at the imprecision,
9 Mr. Boucher. I think Ms. Gustafson explained now that she was actually
10 referring to Knin, rather than to Sector South. But your statement is in
11 evidence. This is just to inform the public about what is in your
12 statement. But nevertheless, they should be rightly informed. I agree
13 with that.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could the witness please be shown 65 ter number
16 6497. This is a marked photograph of Knin, and I have hard copies to
17 distribute so it is easier for the witness and the parties and the Bench
18 to read.
19 JUDGE ORIE: In view of what expect to be the nature of this
20 document, may I take it that there is no objection against adding it to
21 the 65 ter list because it does not appear on the list yet.
22 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And that is true for all Defence teams, so it is
24 added now to the 65 ter list.
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Boucher, do you recognise this photograph as one that you
2 marked yesterday and which you identified a number of locations that you
3 mentioned in your statements?
4 A. I do recognise this, and I would like to point out that I did
5 have a chance to speak with the Defence who provided a larger map, and
6 some of the indication, for example, of the house I was living in was
7 clearer on the larger map than this one. It's a very close
8 neighbourhood, but it's a matter of maybe a street over. And also the
9 house where I moved to for my second protection, and also the house --
10 one of the house next door, for example, that two CIVPOL monitors lived,
11 was maybe more correct on the bigger map, but the rest of it is the same.
12 Q. Is there anything you would like to correct that you realize now
13 is incorrect on this photograph you have before you?
14 A. Like I say, just the identification of my residence that I was
15 renting, which is A. C is the location of the Knin CIVPOL -- sorry, not
16 the CIVPOL office. It's the --
17 Q. Perhaps we could take them one by one, the locations that you
18 would like to correct.
19 A. Right.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: If the exhibit could be brought up on the screen,
21 and if there's corrections, they could be made electronically.
22 Q. Location A you marked as your house. Is that correct, or would
23 you like to correct the location you marked as your house, as A?
24 A. I would put it a little bit further -- would you look on the
25 picture now a little bit further more, to the top. So it is probably one
1 street further or higher up.
2 Q. Perhaps if the witness could be given a red marker, and he could
3 mark with an X the location of his house.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then we have to -- it doesn't make sense
5 to add more to what we see at this moment. Then I suggest that --
6 because we can't remove anything from this marked map because the
7 markings are not electronically made. So therefore, we would have to
8 zoom in, and I must say that where the line connecting A to one of the
9 two small circles which appear to create an 8 within a wider circle, it's
10 not entirely clear whether the A goes to the lower or to the upper part
11 of what I now call an 8. So therefore, perhaps if we have either a clean
12 map or another map, the witness said that --
13 MR. KEHOE: Frankly, if I can be of some assistance, the only
14 thing that we didn't discuss with Mr. Boucher yesterday was, Take P62 and
15 go to that area and blow that up.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. KEHOE: It was no more mysterious than that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, no one complained about it.
19 MR. KEHOE: No, no, I'm saying that was able to see his house
20 more clearly. I think that it is difficult on this map.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I would then suggest that we invite the witness to
22 mark with more precision on P62 - is that the clean map? Yes?
23 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- and then blow it up and then to have more details
25 about perhaps, A, D, and K, which are very close to each other.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you. If the witness could be shown P62,
3 JUDGE ORIE: Loading maps takes a while, Mr. Boucher.
4 Could we zoom in on the -- a little bit below left of the centre
5 of this picture.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we go to the left of where it says Knin
7 general supply.
8 JUDGE ORIE: There we are.
9 Could we invite the witness with the colour for Prosecution
10 is ...
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: I believe it's red, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's red.
13 THE WITNESS: So I will put a circle around where my house was.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you mark that with an A.
15 THE WITNESS: The location of the house where the CIVPOL monitors
16 lived that was partly destroyed is D. It's right there.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I don't think that there is any need to
18 mark again the -- the residential area. That appears to be clear on this
20 MS. GUSTAFSON:
21 Q. Thank you. Are those the only two locations that you needed to
23 A. The only other thing is when I moved to the tall building on the
24 map you had shown me, again being a bit smaller, it was a bit confusing.
25 But with the larger scale as it is now, I have a better chance to show
1 you exactly where this house or this building is.
2 Q. Are you able to locate that on this map now? Could you mark that
3 with an F.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. And in the other map, you also marked the neighbouring building
6 where you later saw damage. Can you mark that on this as well, as G.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Is that everything then, the corrections that you needed to make?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, perhaps the original map and this
12 correction could be given one exhibit number.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, can they be joined?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, that's not a problem. They
15 will become exhibit number P1179.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that just as there's no objection
17 against adding it to the 65 ter list that there is no objection against
18 admission into evidence?
19 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That is then true for the map with markings A up to
21 and including M and the more precise markings of A, B, F, and G, on a
22 second map marked electronically.
23 Mr. Registrar, that 1179 is admitted into evidence. I should say
25 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. And, Mr. Boucher, just staying with that map for a moment, the
2 location -- the large circle that you marked K, where it was -- you
3 labelled it as a residential area where you saw a lot of damaged houses,
4 are you able to estimate for the Court how many houses you saw damaged in
5 that area you marked as K?
6 A. It would have to be a guesstimate, but I would think they would
7 be something in the neighbourhood of about eight to ten.
8 Q. Thank you. And what was the extent of the damage to the house
9 that you lived in?
10 A. It looked like a shell -- I must clarify one thing as I start. I
11 have no military experience. And when you talk about the different kinds
12 of fire-power that military has, I have no clue. I'm a police officer,
13 so with smaller weapons.
14 So the damage that occurred to my residence that I was renting
15 was a shell that was fired from far away, went through the roof and into
16 the house, the attic, and into the apartment. I was renting the upstairs
17 apartment of this house.
18 Q. And how much damage to the structure did the shell cause?
19 A. Well, houses are made of cement, so it takes a lot of rounds to
20 really destroy a house. The roofs and the red clay, of course, they
21 break fairly easy. The cement which is actually the floor of the attic
22 is also in cement, and all of it is with -- is rebarred, in other words
23 there is metal in there to make sure that the cement doesn't break away.
24 And as the residence explained to me, houses are made that way to prevent
25 them from crumbling in an earthquake situation.
1 So the shell went through the roof, of course, blew away a large
2 hole of the red clay tiles, broke some of the wood that supports it, and
3 made a hole through the floor of the attic and into the second floor.
4 Q. Thank you. The same question with respect to the house where the
5 CIVPOL monitors lived, the one you marked as D. What was the extent of
6 the damage to that structure?
7 A. That house received -- I would call it shelling, again, large
8 projectiles on the side of the house which created a big crater, a big
9 hole, on the side of the house. The hole would have been, I suspect,
10 about a metre big, diameter.
11 Q. Thank you. And the building you marked as G, the one next to the
12 one you took shelter in, the taller building in the downtown area, do you
13 know what the use of that building was prior to Operation Storm? Was it
14 residential, commercial?
15 A. Both building F, where I took refuge to protect myself, and G
16 were both residential apartment buildings, and I would think they were
17 about six storeys high, five or six storeys high.
18 Q. Thank you. I would like that ask you --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, would you allow me two questions to
20 clarify some of the answers. And perhaps first, I should start with a
21 further explanation of the markings, because at a later moment, people
22 might have some difficulties in exactly understanding the markings.
23 The markings are two small circles, the one just above the other,
24 above the two of them. Letter A which relates to the upper circle.
25 To the right of the lower circle, we find, although a bit
1 unclear, a D, which refers to the lower small circle. So D should not be
2 confused as a location, but just a marking to the right of the lower
4 Then I'd like to ask one question: You talked about a hole in
5 the wall of -- of the house where the CIVPOL monitors lived. Now a hole,
6 did it go all through the wall?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you could look through it into the interior
9 of the house.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. In your 2008 statement at paragraph 15, you described what you
15 saw that day on the 4th of August in the streets. You said:
16 "From what I saw on the streets that day, people were running
17 everywhere and vehicles were stalling because of lack of fuel. It was
19 And I'd just like to ask you, were you able to gather from the
20 people that you saw on the streets and in the buildings that day what
21 their psychological or emotional state was?
22 A. Well, I did. Not when people were running everywhere, but I did
23 very soon after, and that's starting from the point which was about 10.00
24 in the morning when I took refuge in building F. The residents that were
25 in the basement, there were a lot of resident there is, of course, crying
1 and talking because some people came from other areas to protect
2 themselves in that large building. There were some comments there. I
3 could understand some of the conversation. There were some people in
4 that basement also that spoke English, and clearly identified their
5 frantic situation.
6 And from that point, also after 7.00 at night when I arrived at
7 the UN camp, there were people who were actually interpreters, of course,
8 their English being much better, would have -- would explain what
9 happened during the time they were trying to find their way to the UN
10 camp, and also would relate comments from other residents. But even
11 before this, there are important events that took place that had people
12 on edge for quite a few days before this.
13 Do you want me to cover this?
14 Q. I think that's covered in your statement. I just wanted to get a
15 sense of the actual situation on the 4th.
16 And you said that people were running everywhere and vehicles
17 were stalling. Were you able to gather from your travels on the streets
18 where people were attempting to go?
19 A. Well, in my statement I covered that I tried to get a direction.
20 I had asked the chief of the milicija, the Serb police, before the attack
21 if there was a plan, and he didn't even want to talk about this,
22 discarding it as if we don't need it.
23 So from this, I gathered there was no plan, and people were left
24 on their own, I guess, to fend. The one thing you have to remember is
25 that sector, like all four sectors, there was really very little articles
1 and fuel and whatever else that came in, in the sectors, except for a lot
2 of black market, including some of our UN vehicles were getting siphon of
3 fuel and whatever.
4 The other things is if there is no plan -- and people, where are
5 they going is my question.
6 Q. If I could just stop you. That was my question. Were you able
7 to get a sense, based on your observations on the 4th, where people were
8 going or not? If you didn't, that's fine too.
9 A. I had no idea. I know there were people that knew some dirt
10 roads that led out of the sector through Bosnia. I had heard about this
11 many times from different -- you know, observations from other groups and
12 from some interpreters and citizens, but I did not know where these roads
13 were, and I didn't think that a lot of residents had reliable vehicle,
14 for example, to make it. Like, a lot of Ladas, they only work when they
15 felt like it, and so on. So not very reliable modes of getting out of
17 Q. You're talking about modes of getting out of there. Did it
18 appear that people were attempting to leave Knin on that day?
19 A. It actually started before that day. Again, going back to --
20 Q. Sorry, Mr. Boucher. I'm going interrupt you. That is in your
21 statement as well. But based on what you could see on the 4th, did it
22 appear that people, on the 4th, were attempting to leave Knin?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. I would like to move to another topic which is the
25 foot patrol that you described, and that's at paragraphs 55 to 56 of your
1 1999 statement, as well paragraphs 21 to 26 of your 2008 statement. This
2 is a foot patrol that you described conducting with the Swedish CIVPOL
3 monitor on about the 7th of August.
4 At paragraph 55 of your 1999 statement you said:
5 "Everywhere I looked I saw soldiers coming out of houses,
6 carrying with them everything which a house would contain, clothes,
7 household goods, et cetera. The soldiers were laughing as they did
9 And I'd like to ask you, are you able to estimate for the Court
10 how many soldiers you saw during that patrol carrying goods out of houses
11 like this?
12 A. 13 and a half years later, my memory misses it a bit. But in
13 1999 if I said that statement, I would hold by it. The number of people
14 or soldiers that would be actually doing this, I can't recall, but I know
15 there was, and several of them. Exact numbers, I can't tell you.
16 Q. And from what you recall, were the soldiers during this more or
17 less openly, or were they trying to hide what they were doing, or could
18 you tell?
19 A. It was very open.
20 Q. And was there any reaction by the soldiers to the presence of you
21 and your colleague?
22 A. Yes. There was a comments, yelling, whistling, and so on. And
23 actually there was a lot of soldiers that were already drunk, out of
24 control, I would think, or certainly not professional.
25 So, yeah, they were -- and, again, I estimate them to be -- I
1 never saw one where I could identify there was ranks on their shoulder or
2 on their arms, so they were obviously of the private category, I suppose,
3 or the enter-level soldiers so -- and, again, what number -- there was
4 some in different parts where we walk right from outside of the UN camp
5 going all the way to the bridge, and then into the downtown there was
6 some, and they were moving about. I could not see -- there was no
7 confrontation at this point that I could see, otherwise we probably would
8 not have been there.
9 And then going in to where my house was, very close on one of
10 those streets, there was actually even a truck, and they were loading,
11 you know, TVs and VCRs and electronics and whatever else.
12 Q. And during that patrol, did you see any civilians or only
14 A. I don't recall seeing civilians per se. I don't recall. That's
15 not clear in my mind.
16 Q. And were the soldiers in uniform?
17 A. Yes, all of them were in uniform, yeah.
18 Q. And can you -- are you able now to describe the uniform?
19 A. Well, they're camouflage-type uniform, combat uniform. Not dress
20 if want, what you would show in a parade, but really confrontation-type
21 uniforms. Camouflage, I guess, I would call it.
22 Q. And you said that they were shooting in the area. Do you recall
23 the kind of weapons that they had? Were they -- what kind of weapons
24 they had?
25 A. Well, most of them had access to -- they would probably be AK-47
1 was the type of weapons that they had. I don't recall pistols, for
2 example. Pistols, to me, would have identified probably officer or a
3 little bit higher ranks, but I didn't see any of those. But --
4 Q. Sorry. These were automatic weapons?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you talked a moment ago about seeing soldiers loading TVs and
7 VCRs into a truck, and you've described this in your statement. And in
8 your statement you said it was a truck marked "Puma Brigade." And you
9 also described the Puma Brigade sign. You said it had a black Puma on it
10 with the name Puma.
11 I'd like to show you a picture --
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: If the witness could be shown P281.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. I note from my conversations with
15 Mr. Boucher yesterday that he was shown the one photograph of the Puma
16 badges, as opposed to a spread or a multitude and, of course, showing
17 one, and being the one that is on the screen. So certainly I note the
18 methodology that was employed by the Prosecution which we have objected
19 to previously, and I do believe that -- Your Honour, and I don't have the
20 transcript, did express some caution about that methodology.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: The witness did -- was asked to describe the
22 badge in the statements before it was shown to him, and I believe that
23 the objection previously was about a photo spread of individuals, not --
24 I don't recall this coming up with --
25 MR. KEHOE: No --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, much depends on -- I think an
2 identification procedure should always start with asking a witness to
3 describe something.
4 Then sometimes a description is such that could you not find more
5 species which meet the description. For example, if I say the person had
6 a sun tattooed on his right cheek, then it might be very difficult to
7 find six persons with tattoos on the right cheek showing the sun.
8 Now, here apparently, the witness in his statement described
9 names, whatever happens now in court, if this has been done before the
10 witness entered court, we all know that an identification as such in
11 court is -- doesn't add anything to the identification done outside of
12 court, so the only reasonable question to put to him is, Is this the
13 emblem or are these the insignia you identified earlier? And then what
14 to do with that, is still to be seen.
15 But it makes no sense, the first identification. And when I
16 refer to identification, of course, usually it's faces, persons, but the
17 first one is decisive to the extent that whatever happens later, it's not
18 a fresh identification, where a choice has been given.
19 So let's move on. The -- if there is -- if a number of similar
20 emblems do exist, then it would have been preferable to put more emblems
21 to the witness even out of court, and told that he can identify that he
22 can make a selection among them. But this apparently has not happened.
23 This is now on the record.
24 At the same time, of course, he has described a specific name to
25 it. We'll see. Mr. Kehoe, I think that this properly identifies the
1 problem you raise, isn't it?
2 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that's now on the record.
4 Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour. Just to clarify this
6 identification happened yesterday, and I simply wanted to put that on the
7 record. And in terms --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If would you have -- again, I do not know what
9 the choice would have been, whether it would have been possible or not
10 possible to compose a sheet. I don't know whether there are more.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Not based on the --
12 MR. KEHOE: I will tell that you the Prosecutor provided us with
13 a series of badges as part of their tests list.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's true, Your Honour. This badge and no
15 other similar badges appear in that book. There's nothing that could
16 have been --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other badge with the name Puma on it?
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: I haven't looked at it recently, Your Honour, but
19 I believe not.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If that is the case, then we are more or less in the
21 area with the man with the sun tattooed on his right cheek.
22 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Judge, there is a multitude of badges, and
23 we had a situation about previous witnesses who testified, and I can give
24 you name of the individual who testify, about the unit that was there and
25 convinced that it was there, and identified the badge. And that unit was
1 somehow well north -- to the north in Sector North and not in Knin.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You're raising another matter than I was addressing
3 at this moment. That is whether a photo spread of various, all bearing
4 the name Puma could be created, yes or not. Because that, to some
5 extent, could explain or could be the floor of what was presented to the
6 witness yesterday.
7 Let's proceed.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Boucher, were you shown this badge yesterday?
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. And did you yesterday recognise it as the badge, or the sign that
12 you saw?
13 A. Yes, I did, and I also mentioned that some vehicles actually had
14 the letters "Puma" on it.
15 Q. And --
16 A. Not necessarily with this badge all the time, but just the word
17 "Puma" on the vehicle.
18 Q. So to clarify, you sometimes saw this sign and sometimes just the
19 word "Puma?"
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Thank you. And the truck that you saw on the patrol that you
22 took, where on the truck was the sign?
23 A. I can't positively say anymore. It was on the vehicle.
24 Otherwise, I wouldn't have recorded it in my head. But was it on the
25 door or on the fender or on the front hood of the truck? I'm not sure at
1 this point.
2 Q. Thank you. And at paragraph 26 of your 2008 statement, you said
3 you didn't recall passing any check-points during this patrol. I'd like
4 to ask you more generally, in the days following Operation Storm, do you
5 recall seeing any check-points that had been set up by the Croatian
6 police or the military?
7 A. The only check-point or place where we were actually stopped to
8 go was at the -- the cemetery. I do not recall any check-points in any
9 other place, and so in my mind, we had pretty free access -- that was the
10 first day on foot only, although they were yelling at us and whatever and
11 whistling and screaming names. We were not -- in my mind, we were not
12 checked, stopped, to say, Where are you going and so on, and there was no
13 place where you had to show them UN identification or anything like that.
14 So I don't recall any check-point. Of course, we were limited. And that
15 day, on foot, we did not reach the cemetery, so there was -- that was
16 later on.
17 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to move to another topic, which is the
18 next patrol that you described taking, around the 8th of August, when you
19 discovered several dead bodies.
20 And the first one I'd like to ask you about is -- this is at
21 paragraph 58 of your 1999 statement. You described finding the corpse of
22 a man in uniform on a hilltop on the road to Drnis who had been shot
23 through the head.
24 And I would just like to ask you, how did you discover this body?
25 A. You have to remember, this is August, it is very hot. Smell of
1 any dead people or animals and so on. But this one here was right by the
2 side of the road. And in my identification and my statement, I said it
3 was on the road to Drnis. But, in fact, when you leave Knin and go up
4 the hill, there is several curves on the way to Drnis, but right on top
5 of the hill, you can turn right - and I forget the name of this small
6 village. You can turn right, and it was on the top of the hill. So it
7 is not really the road, complete road, or the clear road, to Drnis but
8 another side road, and there was a body right on the side of the road.
9 First of all, the smell, you would have the smell, and then,
10 secondly, because it is summer, the body is all swollen up. It becomes
11 about double the size that normally it would be.
12 Q. So you saw this body?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you said it had been shot through the head. Did you see the
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And how close were you able to inspect the wound?
18 A. Well, without gloves, you really don't wanted to touch bodies, in
19 the summer, particularly. But within few feet, two feet.
20 Q. As a police officer, did you have some experience with bullet
21 wounds, identifying bullet wounds?
22 A. Well, again, this is summer. It's dated, within a matter of a
23 day, for example, the body will decompose a lot faster than in the winter
24 when it freezes and so on. But when you have a hole on the side of the
25 head, then it becomes pretty obvious.
1 Q. Are you able, and if you're not able, then please tell the Court,
2 to estimate the range at which the person was shot?
3 A. I cannot say that.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, could we ask the witness, because top
6 of the hill, side street, whether you would be able to identify the place
7 where you saw the body on the map, so that we have precise information.
8 THE WITNESS: I can.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Is it --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have P69 then on the screen again so that
11 the witness could tell us what you could tell us -- what you could do is
12 give instructions how to move the cursor so that we know where it is, and
13 we could ask the witness then to mark it, but ...
14 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the map that have I seen so far would
15 not include that road.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we refrain from using that map. It's
17 outside the scope of that map.
18 THE WITNESS: It is outside.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON:
20 Q. I'd like that ask you about the two bodies that you found, the
21 man and the woman. And you describe this as leaving the town, up the
22 hill, direction Gracac. And I'd like to ask you, how did you discover
23 these two bodies?
24 A. I believe it one of the CIVPOL monitors that said there were two
25 bodies on the road, and there was a little tractor. A lot of people
1 would vehiculate with a tractor. They would sit in the little trailer
2 and then, you know, control the tractor. The tractor's on the side,
3 there's clothes all over, and there's a man and a woman, a man in
4 uniform, a woman not in uniform, again, shot.
5 Q. And were you able to -- in your statement you described them as
6 being both shot in the head. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And how close were you to the bodies when you saw these wounds?
9 A. A metre.
10 Q. And where were the bodies in relation to each other? How close
11 together were they?
12 A. Maybe two metres apart.
13 Q. And in relation to the tractor?
14 A. The tractor was almost in the middle of the road, so that's why
15 it was pretty obvious. You couldn't miss. You had to drive around it.
16 And the body were more on the side of the road, and then, again, like I
17 said, there was clothes around it, and -- that's it. That's the scene.
18 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to move on to the incident you describe
19 of the burning you witnessed in Kosovo village, and you describe this as
20 sometime around the 11th of August. And it's described primarily at
21 paragraph 71, 72 of your 1999 statement.
22 If you could just is describe to the Court in your own words what
23 you -- what you witnessed that day, please.
24 A. Well, I had a scheduled meeting to see the chief of the policija,
25 that's the -- and I don't know the different ranks in chiefs that they
1 have or had. But the chief for the Dalmatia
2 you had to go through Drnis -- from Knin to Drnis and then on to Sibenik.
3 And as you leave Knin, you go through a village that's call
4 Kosovo. And as I drove on my way to Sibenik, this is when I saw the
5 again small -- smaller vehicle, truck-type, green in colour, with
6 soldiers taking out cans that what appeared to me like gas can, I
7 suppose, jerrycan is what we call it in Canada, and they were taking them
8 out of the back of this truck and going toward the houses.
9 And, of course, I had a meeting to go and so on, so I kept on
10 going. And on the way back -- the houses were not on fire then. On the
11 way back the houses were on fire and there was part of the corn crops and
12 so on also on fire. So my deduction was that they went there, and they
13 were actually walking with cans going towards houses, that they were set
14 on fire. I did not see them light it up or spread gas on the building or
15 anything like this. But it appeared to be that was what was happening.
16 Q. And when you returned and saw the houses on fire, can you
17 estimate now how many houses you saw burning or burnt?
18 A. Well, in that area, there's about -- I would say about eight to
19 ten houses right by the road, and then there's quite a few that are
20 actually fairly far from the road. In other words, there's another dirt
21 road, I think, that goes in the back, and I think it's a dirt road. And
22 it would have maybe in the neighbourhood of about 20 to 25 houses back
24 So the houses by the roads were on fire when I came back, or at
25 least still smoking and the roofs -- the only thing that burns is the
1 wood that supports and then furniture inside. That's still on fire. And
2 then can you see that the houses far away are also on fire, except for a
3 few. Of course, there's so much smoke, it's hard to see, but I noticed
4 later on further trips that way that there was a few houses that were not
6 Q. Thank you. And now I'd like to show you a video. This is P847,
7 and we have it set up in Sanction.
8 [Videotape played]
9 "My name is Soren Liborius. I worked for ECMM during and after
10 Operation Storm in August 1995. Today is 18th of May 1997. We are
11 looking in the direction of the road going from Knin down to Drnis, going
12 south down to Drnis, and we are in the northern end of the Kosovo valley,
13 located immediately south of the Knin valley."
14 MR. KEHOE: If I may it, Judge.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we stop. I was about to stop you as
17 MR. KEHOE: I do believe that there a -- this is 92 ter
18 testimony, and it's certainly not applicable to this particular witness,
19 and if this is 92 ter information or prior testimony, which is what it is
20 is, that should be put to the witness, that's the procedure. Absent
21 that, there is no -- there no methodology to allow this monologue to go
22 on that's included in this tape.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I had a different problem on my mind. But we'll pay
24 attention to you. That is, that there was translation in B/C/S, but
25 there was no translation in French. Have you provided the booth with the
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, Your Honour. I had -- mistakenly, I thought
3 that because it was an exhibit, I didn't need to do that, but I
4 understand that I'm mistaken.
5 JUDGE ORIE: For the completeness -- first of all, it is an
6 exhibit, but we are playing not the whole of the exhibit. I think we
7 started at 41.20.
8 MS. GUSTAFSON: I believe that's where the exhibit starts, Your
10 JUDGE ORIE: That could be. I don't have a recollection precise
11 enough to know that. So that is a --
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm happy to play it without the sound, Your
14 JUDGE ORIE: You just want to show the pictures to the -- yes.
15 As far as the objection where Mr. Kehoe was concerned, let me try
16 to fully understand you. Of course, I do not know exactly what I can
17 expect to see at this moment. The witness has described what he saw on
18 his way when he passed through the village of Kosovo
19 what he saw.
20 Now, I understood that Ms. Gustafson would play a video related
21 to that. Is that ...
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, and it's -- it's -- I'm not
23 sure what the objection is related to 92 ter submission, but There's a
24 video, and I'd like the witness to look at the video.
25 MR. KEHOE: My objection is this, Judge: This is this video with
1 this dialogue by Mr. Liborius is part of their 92 ter submission, so it
2 is testimony in the case that has been offered into evidence by the
3 Prosecution. So the procedure on this score has always been, if we're
4 going to confront a witness with testimony of someone else, then that
5 person, this particular witness in this case, Mr. Boucher, needs to be
6 asked about that first.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do not know what -- what will be shown, but
8 I expected that what Ms. Gustafson was about to show was related to the
9 evidence elicited just a minute ago by -- through this witness.
10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour, and I have no intention of
11 putting anyone's statement on this matter to the witness. This is video.
12 MR. KEHOE: The video has the dialogue or the monologue listed
13 below. The video that we just saw had the writing that -- that
14 Mr. Liborius was speaking on the screen.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then Ms. Gustafson now offered to present this
16 video without spoken words, and, of course, I do know that you still
17 could read it. But if we would instruct the witness to focus on the
18 picture and not to read the text below, then at least to that extent,
19 that would meet your objection, isn't it?
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes. But, Mr. President, I just ask technologically
21 whether the screen can be shown to the witness without the particular
22 writing underneath.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think that that would be easy, because it is
24 an integral part, from what I understand, from the picture, the text, but
25 if we would invite Mr. Boucher to -- to ignore and to refrain from
1 reading the text below and the text not to be made audible, then we could
3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's fine, Your Honour. In the interests of
5 transparency, the witness has seen the video with the audio.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's good that Ms. Gustafson informs us about
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I appreciate that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's play the video again.
10 Mr. Boucher, I would like to instruct you that you should look at
11 the pictures and ignore any text. Just look at the pictures.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: The text has been taken off, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It has been taken off. So therefore, I was too
14 quick in saying that it might be difficult.
15 We started a minute ago at 41:20, so let's start there again.
16 [Videotape played]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Boucher couldn't ignore this text, but ...
18 [Videotape played]
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could just stop there for a moment.
20 Q. And, Mr. Boucher, you were shown this video yesterday. Is that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you recognise this road?
24 A. Yes. This is the road that leads to Drnis.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could continue.
2 [Videotape played]
3 JUDGE ORIE: And I can add to that the first stop was at 41:35.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MS. GUSTAFSON: If we could stop there.
6 Q. Mr. Boucher, did you recognise that scene?
7 A. Well, that's exactly what I tried to mention earlier. There was
8 some houses close to the road that were burnt, and then there's several
9 houses, maybe 25, 27, 30 houses further away, closer to the mountain or
10 that little hill at the back which is actually serviced through a
11 separate road, but it is all part of this Kosovo village, if you want.
12 Some of the houses at the back were not burnt. But the ones on the road,
13 I think all of them were burnt.
14 Q. The houses that can you see now, are those the ones that you
15 described as being close to the road?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if we could move the video back.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The second stop was made at 42:39.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour. If we could stop there.
20 Q. Are these houses that you saw burning?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And are these the ones that you describe the as being further
24 A. Yes. And there's also some crops of corn and different kinds of
25 grains and gardens, if you want, broken down there small patches, if you
1 want, and some of them were also on fire.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you. And we're now at 42:41.
3 Q. You described this incident as occurring on approximately the
4 11th of August. There is other evidence - and I'm referring in
5 particular to P830 which is in the ECMM report - that this incident may
6 have occurred on the 10th of August. Is it possible that you may be
7 mistaken and, in fact, you saw this on the 10th?
8 A. It's possible.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. My information is not based on what I heard from ECMM or other
11 types of services or agencies, Red Cross, UNHCR. It's the comments that
12 -- that, in my mind, this was a day I was travelling to see the chief of
13 policija in Sibenik, and the best of my recollection, it's the 11th.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: And could the witness now be shown 65 ter 4062,
17 Q. In your most recent statement you recognised this document as a
18 protest letter that you wrote to General Cermak, in relation to your
19 attempts to gain access to the Knin cemetery?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I'd just like to ask you about the first line, where you say --
22 you refer to:
23 "Refusals from your personnel to give UNCIVPOL access to the
24 Orthodox cemetery near Kninsko Polje."
25 When you talked about your personnel, who were you referring to?
1 Who was denying you access to the cemetery at this time?
2 A. At first it was the military. There was people on green
3 uniforms, not allowing not allowing CIVPOL monitors to get close to the
4 cemetery. And a little bit later, it was the policija.
5 Q. When you referred in this letter to your personnel, were you
6 referring to the military or the police or both?
7 A. Well, in my mind, I think, General Cermak had been appointed as -
8 if the translation is right - as the governor of Knin, and I thought he
9 had authority over military and police.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could tender this document into evidence,
12 please, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P1180, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P1180 is admitted into evidence. I've heard of no
17 Please proceed.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you. And if the witness could be shown 65
19 ter number 2043, please.
20 Q. And, Mr. Boucher, again, in your most recent statement at
21 paragraph 35, you describe this statement as the response you received
22 from General Cermak to your protest letter.
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Did you, in fact, contact Mr. Romanic in relation to accessing
25 the cemetery in accordance with this letter?
1 A. My trip to Mr. Grgurcin, who was the chief -- Mr. Romanic's
2 chief, if you want, his boss, in Sibenik, I discussed that with him. And
3 there was a comment which is in my statement, that the police did not
4 override military, and which is actually a very common - probably in most
5 countries - once the military has an operation, the police certainly
6 cannot stop it. And one of his comments, which is again in the
7 statement, is the military is the military, they do what they want to.
8 Q. I'm just wanting you to focus on this particular letter. Did you
9 contact Mr. Romanic after receiving this letter, in relation to accessing
10 the cemetery?
11 A. Yes, I did. But after taking about Mr. Grgurcin, he advised me,
12 Going back to see Cedo Romanic, and he will give you a note from the
13 policija to give you access to wherever you want to go, and I did this.
14 Q. And in your statement you described going to the cemetery
15 yourself after receiving permission from Romanic. And what happened when
16 you went to the cemetery?
17 A. Was not allowed access. Couldn't -- the road -- actually both
18 ends of this little road were stopped, and you couldn't get in.
19 Q. Stopped. Did somebody stop you?
20 A. Yes. There was somebody right at the intersection where you turn
21 to get on to the cemetery. No cars were going through. The road was
22 blocked. And at the other end of it, which is closer to the hospital
23 that part, too, was also blocked.
24 Q. Blocked by whom?
25 A. The military.
1 Q. The military at that point?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. And did you ever learn why you were being denied access to the
4 Knin cemetery?
5 A. No. Reality is -- and I don't know how many times I said this in
6 meetings with officials or policija. Our role was to monitor, and the
7 sooner we can monitor whatever is happening, the sooner we're out of
9 Q. Did anyone you spoke to in the police or the military give you
10 any reason, to your recollection, why you couldn't access the cemetery?
11 A. No. A comment for a lot of areas, for example, was, For your own
12 safety, stay out. But I don't think they used that line there. Just
13 you're not allowed to go in.
14 MS. GUSTAFSON: If I could tender 65 ter 2043 into evidence,
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit PP1181.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P1181 is admitted into evidence.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. There's just one last brief topic I would like to go over, which
22 is your conversations with the Colonel in the Croatian army that you knew
23 as Colonel Zelic. And you described in your most recent statement at
24 paragraph 18 that you met him four or five times. And you also stated
25 that you complained to Colonel Zelic about the behaviour of his soldiers,
1 and he told you they were just celebrating. That was at paragraph 18 of
2 your most recent statement.
3 Do you recall now what specifically you complained about, in
4 terms of the behaviour of the soldiers to Colonel Zelic?
5 A. If you give me a minute, please.
6 Q. Certainly.
7 A. Well, all the times that I met with him, I was at the gate, and
8 I'll just give you a little bit of brief why I was there and why he would
9 show up.
10 When it was code red, I was not CIVPOL anymore, I answered to the
11 commander of the UN. And the task that he had assign the me, and my
12 monitors, the main task was to receive refugees that were coming in, so
13 please man the gate, take names, and so on.
14 And whoever would show up at the gate, there was a lot of
15 soldiers coming up on their own, breaking ranks, if you want, asking is
16 somebody here, they are pointing guns everywhere, actually. It was -- to
17 me, not very professional in manner, very excited, and so on. There was
18 a lot of drinking. Could you hear them yelling and whatever else, even
19 from the camp, which is not invest from there, several houses, drinking,
20 and even shooting. They weren't that far.
21 So in one of the times that -- I think he is a colonel from the
22 translation. Colonel Zelic showed up. I said him, I said, you know, Is
23 there any way -- first of all, I always ask can we go out, because we
24 weren't allowed to go out for our own protection. That was the main
25 comment. But I said you know, Could we stop this? And he said they're
1 just having fun. They went through dishes and so on and confrontation,
2 and now they're just celebrating.
3 Q. So when you were having this conversation, was this at the time
4 that you saw the soldiers drinking and shooting in front of the gate, so
5 you were --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You were referring to what was happening --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- in front of you and Colonel Zelic?
10 A. Wasn't right at this moment, but it happened over a period of
11 hours and -- yeah.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. GUSTAFSON: Those are my questions, Your Honour.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Boucher.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 Ms. Gustafson, looking at your exhibit list, I see that, of
17 course, the statements, we've dealt with them. Protest letter, response
18 to that.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: There's nothing else on the list.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing else because we have 3374 and 292 and 6494,
21 you leave them.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Who will be the first to cross-examine Mr. Boucher?
25 Mr. Kehoe, we are approximately ten minutes from where we usually
1 would have a break. If you would prefer to start after the break, then
2 we would have an earlier break. But if you say, No, I'm --
3 MR. KEHOE: That is preferable, Your Honour, just to get a little
4 set up.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Boucher, you will now be cross-examined by
6 Mr. Kehoe. Mr. Kehoe is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 MR. KEHOE: No. I way saying if we could take the break now.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, you could take the break now. I misunderstood
10 you. Yes. I should have understood you well. I said if you would
11 prefer, and you said it was preferable, so I should have better listened
12 to you.
13 We will have a break, and we'll resume at quarter to 11.00.
14 But you know what will happen after the break, Mr. Boucher.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you may proceed.
19 MR. KEHOE: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Boucher.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. It seems like only last night that we were together.
24 A. It was last night.
25 Q. Mr. Boucher, you met with the Gotovina Defence team on two
1 occasions in January of 2008 and last night, being the 17th of December,
2 2008. And do you recall giving us the -- a statement last night that you
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. And I think I provided you a copy --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between
7 question and answer for the purposes of interpretation.
8 MR. KEHOE: My apologies. If we could bring up on the screen
10 Mr. President, I have to say that we finalized this last night
11 with Mr. Boucher. This there is no B/C/S version at this point.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The main interested party in having the B/C/S
13 version is the Defence. So, therefore, without objections by other
14 Defence teams, the Chamber will allow you to proceed.
15 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Mr. Boucher, if we can just look through this. This is -- you
17 see your signature at the front or the bottom of this page?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And I believe that during the course of this, you initialed every
20 page. And if we could go to the final page of this document, I believe
21 you signed it.
22 A. I did.
23 Q. Now, last night, did you have a chance to review this document in
24 total before you did sign it?
25 A. I did.
1 Q. And does this document accurately reflect what you said during
2 the course of these interviews?
3 A. Yes, it does.
4 Q. And if I asked you the questions that -- or if I asked you about
5 the information set forth in this document here in the courtroom today,
6 would your answers be the same as that set forth in the statement before
8 A. They would be.
9 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, we'd like to offer into
10 evidence 1D00-0750.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, in principle we have no objection.
13 But we just received the statement in the cross-examination material. We
14 didn't receive it last night after it was completed. I think the
15 statement goes beyond normal cross-examination documents, and, you know,
16 in the future if this is going happen, we would ask that we get as much
17 notice as possible of a 92 ter statement being submitted by the Defence
18 through a witness like this.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, there's some parallel and some
20 similarity with proofing notes, that is, statements taken after the
21 arrival of a witness. I would say it would be -- the Chamber has some
22 difficulties in immediately deciding upon the matter not only because
23 Ms. Gustafson has not fully digested the document, but also because the
24 Chamber usually wants to know what it admits into evidence. And we have
25 seen it now for, I think one minute, which is not sufficient for 11
2 MR. KEHOE: I'm shocked, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this is becomes exhibit number
7 JUDGE ORIE: D ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: D1217 is marked for identification, and the chamber
10 would to like receive a hard copy, if possible.
11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So that even -- that we can follow better and even
13 put an eye on the document when the witness testifies.
14 The problem is that if finally, for whatever reason, we would not
15 admit it, that, of course, would highly influence the course of the
16 cross-examination, I take it.
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, we are a bit -- and I have no reason
19 at this moment to expect that we would not admitted it into evidence, but
20 we just haven't seen it.
21 Q. I understand, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed on the basis as if this document would
23 be admitted into evidence.
24 We expect, Mr. Boucher, that we might not finish this morning,
25 and that your testimony could be concluded only this afternoon, which
1 gives us at least some additional time for reading during the breaks.
2 Let's proceed on this basis.
3 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President. One of my colleagues is going to
4 get a hard copy. At this point, I will be referring to various
5 paragraphs as we have --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We have it on our screen for the time being.
7 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
8 Q. Mr. Boucher, I would like to direct your attention to the
9 statement given to the Gotovina Defence yesterday. And I would like to
10 talk to you a little bit about some of the items that I believe you
11 started to get into during the course of direct -- and Ms. Gustafson had
12 a different question for you. But -- and in paragraph 9 of the statement
13 that you gave to the Defence, you talk to some degree about your early
14 impressions in Sector South, concerning -- and this is prior to Operation
15 Storm, Mr. Boucher. Concerning abandoned and burnt houses that you
17 Can you just give the Chamber a bit of an idea of your
18 impressions on that line.
19 A. Well, this being my first UN mission, in 2001 I also worked in
20 Kosovo, which was prior to this statement. But before going to Croatia
21 as I mentioned, there was briefings on what to expect. Also about the
22 role of UN civilian police, that the conflict was between two groups.
23 The comments was, Once you're in a monitoring role, you really have to
24 stay impartial as best you can. And there was even comments -- and I'm
25 saying this because it leads to how I entered these -- from Zagreb,
2 surrounded by certain groups of people who have basically the control of
3 this area, and you will be monitoring what is happening there. There
4 were comments like, Make sure you don't fall into a Stockholm syndrome by
5 the people around you. Try to see both sides of the arguments, try to
6 negotiate, bringing two sides together, and so on.
7 But upon physically entering -- well, first of all, in Zagreb
8 little bit more briefing about what to except in whole, and first of all,
9 I finally find out I was going to Sector South, as opposed to another
10 sector. There would be briefing even on the spot, and that's why I was
11 stationed at first at the station in Drnis to understand how Zone of
12 Separation works, and so on. So I knew this in Zagreb.
13 When I entered the Sector South, after several days of delays
14 because of road conditions and so on, it's in January and the roads were
15 in very good shape, you're hit by, visually, seeing a lot of house that
16 were burnt, you know, obviously vacant. There was no roofs on them, and
17 they were -- this was the result what I found out in Zagreb, in Ottawa
18 and also by -- once in the sector, this was the result of destruction
19 that took place in 1991, in the start of this conflict.
20 Q. Now can you give us a time-frame of when you're first seeing
21 this, and are in the Serb-held territory of the Krajina, when you see
23 A. Right. Well, I arrived, I think it's in mid-January in Zagreb
24 Briefing, it took about five or six days. I was ready to go, but just
25 the road condition was not very good. So it would be closer to the end
1 of January by the time I finally entered the sector. It was explained to
2 me, you're entering a sector, a so-called Krajina - I still don't know
3 what that means - but that's what the Serb rebels - is the way I would
4 them who had control. The Serb rebels had control of this territory, but
5 also, there was also three other territories, or three other sectors, if
6 you want.
7 I also saw a lot of destruction which was left over from 1991.
8 But also saw very well traffic, again, because there is lack of fuel for
9 a lot of people moving about, especially in the rural area. It seemed
10 like a very depressed area. I mean, it hits you when you come from large
11 cities with all kinds ever things and traffic and moving about and jobs
12 and whatever. A lot of things were a little bit behind from -- of
13 course, from Canada
14 example, you're dealing with small areas and horse-drawn, and I, as I
15 mentioned earlier today, a lot of people would actually be moving with
16 these little tractors that you sit in the wagon, so it looks like a very
17 depressed area. A lot of long faces also. People who I guess had lived
18 through this --
19 Q. Let me cut through this.
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. During the period of time I think you had, you know -- if you
22 hadn't said this previously. I mean, you tried to talk to both sides,
23 tried to talk to Croats, tried to talk to Serbs that were in the area;
24 did you not?
25 A. I did once I was there.
1 Q. And on that score, did you begin to learn things about what
2 happened prior to Operation Storm, obviously concerning the Croat
3 population and the continued harassment of the Croat population?
4 A. That was quite evident, and there was a lot of situational
5 reports that would identify this. But in order to get both sides of the
6 coin, as I mentioned earlier, from the orientation in Ottawa
7 not listen only to the Serb in the so-called Krajina. You had to listen
8 to the Croats on the other side. And understanding fully well, this is
10 So to understand both sides, you have to talk to somebody. And
11 on the Croatian side, which I didn't spend very much time, because my
12 main duty was in Sector South. On the Croatian side, I had many
13 discussions with police officers who were police officers but before
14 1991, Croatian police officers. And some of them were actually thrown in
15 jail by the group of rebels, by some of them who were actually their
16 co-workers, their co-police officers, and so on. So you get the feeling
17 of what exactly happened around 1991, when really, the rebel Serbs did
18 not want to wear the insignia, the chequer board insignia of Croatia
19 their police hats. And so that was the start of it.
20 The other thing is, made very clear to me, the former Yugoslavia
21 only had one army for the whole Yugoslavia
22 by the Serb. The Croatian side, when they separated, the only way they
23 prevented a full sector, if you want, a complete sector of Croatia, was
24 by police officers with small arms, pistols and shotguns, and so on, and
25 maybe some civilians also, they prevented the whole take over, if you
1 want, of Croatia
2 So if you listen to this side -- not to take sides of the Croats
3 or down play the Serb situation, but that's the situation that I had to
4 deal with.
5 Q. Now, when you went in there, was there a degree of frustration on
6 the Croatian side of the status quo with the zone of separation?
7 A. Very much so, on may fronts. One was right in the Zone of
8 Separation of several areas. There were cemeteries, and actually both
9 sides wanted to -- this is something a bit unique. There is an high
10 esteem, if you want, on cemeteries and the dead, and they really want to
11 visit their dead, families and so on, and that became a conflict for us
12 in the UN, particularly the military side, to allow them to go there for
13 their ceremony, and so on.
14 And then who could go through the Zone of Separation. And then
15 the mining that took place, you know. I think both sides put mines to
16 protect their side, and then the UN tried to take control in the centre.
17 It was quite -- quite a task just to try to control that, although it
18 wasn't the responsibility of the civilian police. We had to travel
19 through the Zone of Separation continuously.
20 As far as frustration, yes, there was a lot of frustration
21 because when I arrived four years later, there was really no progress,
22 from both sides. And they are frustrated with the UN. As I had said
23 before, we were visitors there trying to keep the peace, if you can, in
24 our case monitoring, which is not really keeping the peace. And for me
25 very frustrating because this was a mission where I was not armed, could
1 not even defend myself.
2 Q. Let me just get back -- with regard to the frustration, let's
3 just talk about the Croat side. I mean, you heard stories from the Croat
4 side of relatives and loved ones being abused inside the Krajina, and
5 you, likewise, heard that there was a frustration about the UN not doing
6 anything. That frustration was at its peak during the time you got
7 there; isn't that right?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. Now, I'm just pausing for the interpretation.
10 Now, that frustration, did that make things difficult in
11 post-Operation Storm, certainly the relationship between the Republic of
13 A. It did for CIVPOL for sure. It did for a lot of the other -- the
14 other agencies. I won't speak for them. They can speak on their own.
15 But for CIVPOL, they saw us as police officers from many
16 countries, and they were hoping that we would be able to solve what
17 should have been police matters, seniors being assaulted, theft happening
18 from them, phone calls, threatening phone calls, and things like this,
19 when, in fact, we were only monitors.
20 Q. These are threats and phone calls against the Croatian population
21 prior to Operation Storm, right?
22 A. Against the minority Croats that there were, left in the sector,
24 Q. Okay. Now, you noted during the course of your direct
25 examination that during the period of time that the area was held by the
1 Krajina Serbs, there was also a black market?
2 A. Yes, there was.
3 Q. Now, the black market brings with it a criminal element, doesn't
5 A. It does. There is a contrabands going through different routes,
6 through Bosnia
7 word from interpreters as much as locals. I mean, there's goods being
8 transported back into the -- and obviously, going around Zones of
9 Separation or other means. I don't know how exactly they made it.
10 Q. As a police officer for 30-odd years, sir, you're familiar with
11 the black market and the criminal element. And you're likewise familiar
12 with -- with or know that what comes with that often times is violence.
13 A. Yes, it does.
14 Q. And do you know whether or not that black market continued to
15 exist after Operation Storm there?
16 A. Was no need for black market after this. Because the Croats, if
17 you went outside of the Zone of Separation, whether it be Split, Sibenik
19 goods to be bought, to be imported from other countries, and so on. So
20 there was no ration for fuel, for clothing, and food, and so on. And as
21 soon as the Zone of Separation disappeared, it was a free-flowing market
22 for everything.
23 Q. Along that black market score, I mean, prior -- prior to
24 Operation Storm, did you learn of violence among black marketeers and
25 criminals just among the Serb population before Storm?
1 A. Yes. It is obviously a matter of greed, which is typical, even
2 on our streets. Where there's different groups that compete for the
3 territory, for anything that's being sold, from drugs to fire-arms to any
4 goods. So that existed.
5 There was -- I don't want to talk about rumours, because it is
6 non-proven. But there is rumours of different groups trying to control
7 what came in and how it came in, and tried to prevent others from doing
8 the same thing.
9 Q. And these rumours that you heard about groups controlling the
10 black market and preventing others from doing it, did those rumours
11 include that individuals were killing other individuals in order to
12 control those areas?
13 A. Again, they're rumours. Not -- we didn't investigate that per
14 se, to say we have information on that, so, again, they're rumours at
15 this point.
16 Q. Now, let's turn our attention to the time just before Operation
18 You did see, just prior to Operation Storm, an increase in ARSK
19 troop movements, didn't you?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. And you noted in -- at paragraph 6 in your statement to the
22 Gotovina Defence that the rebel Serbs, however, did not want to become
23 part of Croatia
24 Now this morning, just going on that line, this morning, when you
25 were asked some questions about the evacuation or people leaving by
1 Ms. Gustafson, and this is at page 15, line 11. You don't have that
2 before you, but just for the court's reference. You started to say: It
3 actually started before that, again, going back to, and then you were cut
5 So let's me allow you to elaborate on what you began during
6 direct, concerning the departure of the Serb population prior to
7 Operation Storm.
8 A. If I recall correctly, there is two events that really shattered
9 the confidence of the rebel Serbs, and whoever could leave, probably
10 tried to leave or wanted to leave or left.
11 The first event was when the Croat army took Sector West in, I
12 don't know, five or six hours, it was over. They realize a few things,
13 and again --
14 Q. Who is the they, when you say "they?"
15 A. The Serb rebels realized that the Yugoslav army and Serbia
16 behind us, to help us, which was one belief that they always it. If we
17 need help, Big Brother will come and help. And it went, destroyed this
18 statement heard many times, wherever there is one Serb, it's Serbia
19 that shattered that approach.
20 The second thing that really -- so a lot of people starting to
21 leave. You could see some people were organising their trips and I had
22 heard all kinds of stories about this after the 1st of May. And some
23 left to go outside.
24 The second event was when the rebel Serbs fired -- I think
25 they're called --
1 Q. Orkan rockets?
2 A. Yeah. Some kind of bombs that shatters and throws all kinds of
3 pieces. When they then fired this into Zagreb on the square, and it hit
4 - actual killed people but injured other people - it was reported in the
5 local paper, the Slobodna Dalmatia, that now, that irritated the Croats,
6 but it also put on the heels a lot of people that lived there, the rebel
7 Serbs, to say, Are we rattling the cage here, and what will happen?
8 Q. Before you move on, do you know --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you're using the interpreter "rebel
10 Serbs" in various contexts. If it is about firing rockets, then I
11 understand that it's the Serb military who takes up arms against the
12 Croatians. But you also used that term in the context of wanting to
13 leave, where it seems to me that you're referring rather to the Serb
14 population of the area, and I do not know on what basis you consider the
15 whole of the population to be rebels or just people residing there and
16 perhaps wanting to leave.
17 That's -- so could you -- when you used the expression "rebel
18 Serbs," could you always be clear to whom exactly you refer, because in
19 the question, Mr. Kehoe was referring to the Serb population, which is,
20 of course, not the same as active members of the ARSK, the armed force of
21 the republic Republic
22 who actively and positively joined the armed forces and perhaps others
23 who were -- who had to, but mainly because they were living there. So it
24 is a quite a complex concept you're talking about, and I would like to --
25 I would invite you to always make clear exactly what you're referring to,
1 instead of using rebel Serbs. Not to say that there would be or would be
2 no merit in considering Serbs, whether all Serbs or some of the Serbs to
3 be rebels against the Croatian government.
4 Please proceed.
5 THE WITNESS: If I can maybe clear why that statement comes out
6 like this. First of all, all the men who would be of probably driving
7 age except very old men, were provided with camouflage were provided with
8 AK-47s, were provided with grenades, training. So all the men between 18
9 and, I think, 60 or maybe even 65, were considered and were enlisted to
10 be part of the Krajina Defence system, if you want.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has heard quite some evidence on that
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. KEHOE:
15 Q. If I may just clarify an issue - thank you, Mr. President.
16 If I may clarify one issue. You noted that another event that
17 caused concern among the Krajina Serbs was the shelling of Zagreb
18 you were going to describe what you knew about the -- what weapon system
19 was used. Do you recall what it was used?
20 A. Well, the word used was "cluster bombs." So in other words, when
21 land, they throw projectiles, and I think they're made to injure people
22 or kill them. But it's not just one -- one piece that stays together as
23 a projectile, but it sort of throws a lot of projectile. And, again, I'm
24 not a military person, but the military that were around me were telling
25 me that cluster bombs were -- if you hit a crowd, you're going to kill a
1 lot of people. That's the idea.
2 Q. On the 4th, or thereafter of August during Operation Storm, did
3 you see the HV firing any such weaponry, such cluster bombs like that?
4 A. Not to my knowledge.
5 Q. Now, let's move back to the two events you talked about, the fall
6 of Sector West and also the shelling of Zagreb, and that was in the first
7 week of May, the end of the first week of May, 1995. Was it not?
8 A. I think it was on the 1st of May.
9 Q. Let's move ahead. And what was the temperature, if you will, as
10 it grew in the Krajina thereafter?
11 A. Temperature about the feeling of people and so on?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. The panic was starting to set in, as I mentioned before. One --
14 they felt there was no backing.
15 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I'm just trying to fix the microphone.
16 It's hard to believe somebody can't here me, but ...
17 THE WITNESS: They, the Krajina Serbs, felt there is no backing
18 or no Big Brother to come and help them should they need help.
19 The other things is they also realize that they were well
20 trained, the Croatian army was well trained or well planned, if you want,
21 directed or whatever -- sorry. Whatever the comments was, and that's
22 sort of scared them. Because a lot of them who were in 1991 knew that
23 didn't exist then.
24 And, again, I'm reporting what I had heard from the locals. And
25 then after this, again was -- which happened, I think, it was in June or
1 something when the shelling to Zagreb
2 even more than a month later, so, again, that's -- a lot of them were
3 starting to panic. If we don't have Big Brother behind us, a solid,
4 larger military force, we won't be able to defend ourselves. And this is
5 something I actually discussed with the chief of the milicija at the
6 time, Mr. Vojko. I made it plain to him, like, if a confrontation
7 happens, do you think you can defend yourself with this old stuff you
8 have here, like old vehicles, and his comment is, Don't worry about us.
9 So again, I'm not a military man, but it is it pretty obvious
10 that when have you vehicles dating bark to just after World War II, you
11 know, how are you going to compete with a modern military?
12 Q. Continuing on that score, up until the -- after the shelling of
13 -- of Zagreb
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now -- I'm sorry, were you going to add something?
17 A. Yes. The other aspect, was for us, for UN CIVPOL at that point,
18 I also had discussion with the commissioner of CIVPOL in Zagreb, and I
19 said, You know, as CIVPOL monitors and their mission, they usually go
20 through Zagreb
21 holidays, maybe it would be wise not to send new monitors that are coming
22 on to mission to Sector South. And we reduced a number of UNCIVPOL
23 monitors by a large number. In other words, when Storm happened, we were
24 down to about two dozen, and before that, we were about 200. So we
25 ourselves adjusted to some of this comments that we heard regularly. And
1 by the way, a lot of people think that even the locals and that could be
2 Croats, or Serb, in this Krajina, a lot of people thought they weren't
3 well-informed, but they were well-informed. They had contacts with
4 families in other places, which some of them auto used to live there and
5 are displaced, you know, around 1991 when the conflict started. And the
6 local paper was always brought in by somebody, and TV, by the way, there
7 was two stations that played regularly, just with simple rabbit ears on
8 the TV, you could catch a Croat channel and a Serb channel.
9 Q. By the way, If I can ask you just an aside. I'm going back to
10 Sector West which you mentioned previously.
11 Were you aware that the UN had assisted at the request of the
12 ARSK government, that the UN assisted removing Serbs from Sector West in
13 an operation called Operation Safe Passage? Did you know about that?
14 A. I had heard about it, but I don't know who the principal was, who
15 took charge, and who did what.
16 Q. Let's talk about the fall of Grahovo the 28th of July, 1995
17 recall that, don't you?
18 A. No -- I don't, what Grahovo.
19 Q. When the HV began to make incursions up on the Dinara?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now that was at the end of July; was it not?
22 A. It was ongoing for quite a long time because they were actually,
23 from what we were told through UN briefings, the Croat army was actually
24 making a road to bring equipment in Dinara mountain, which is actually a
25 fairly steep mountain, a lot of rocks. So it was ongoing for a long
1 period of time, and the UN was monitoring this through, I don't know what
3 Q. Were you aware at the end of July that President Martic of the
4 Republic of Serbian Krajina had declared war or had declared a state of
5 war? Excuse me.
6 A. I don't recall this.
7 Q. Okay. But you were aware that the HV was possessed on the Dinara
8 to take Knin and the Krajina. Is that right?
9 A. The comments that -- we had briefings, by the way, every morning,
10 which was main agencies together, including the military commander for
11 the UN, CIVPOL, UNHCR, I forget, but many agencies. Every morning we
12 would try to report some of the things we found, where we're going and,
13 you know, things like this. So I was aware that this was happening, and
14 I was also informed that, you know, one of the comments that came -- and
15 if I remember right, it came from Colonel Leslie, there's 10.000
16 soldiers, Croatian soldiers, just waiting to come in. So it reached a
17 point, they're right beside Knin, not very far.
18 So from this point, it was obvious that if there is 10.000
19 soldiers -- I do not believe there was 10.000 soldiers, but there was
20 maybe a few thousand soldiers. Irregardless, in my mind, in police
21 terms, and I'm sure military terms would be the same, you cannot keep
22 1.000, never mind any more, sitting still, feeding them, bedding them,
23 and making sure they're, you know, ready for a long period of time.
24 Something will happen.
25 Q. So in your mind, Mr. Boucher, it wasn't a matter of if the HV was
1 going to move. It was simply a matter of when.
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. And prior to Operation Storm when the HV was sitting up on the
4 Dinara, they were not shelling Knin on -- until the morning of the 4th,
5 were they?
6 A. They were not.
7 Can I just add one other point.
8 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 A. It's a point of interest, because there was discussions between
10 the president, President Tudjman, and Milosevic at the high level to see
11 if they finally break a deal. It was happening at the same time, and I'm
12 sorry, I do not remember where it was, whether it was Brussels or
13 somewhere else. But the locals - and so was I - were following then, and
14 it was about the same time, it was in July, end of July, beginning of
15 August. And finally they both walked away. There was no deal. So from
16 that point. I can tell you the arms went down from a lot of people
17 thinking, What's next?
18 Q. And the population continued to leave, didn't they?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, let us talk about this particular period of time. It is
21 this time, and I think you referred to this in paragraph 33 of the
22 statement that you gave to the Defence. Where you note on the eve of
23 Storm. Do you see that, sir?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. I'll let you catch up.
1 A. Got it.
2 Q. "On the eve of Storm I had a conversation with General Forand,
3 and he said that the Serbs should have an escape plan, or at least think
4 about one. This was not to give Mr. Vojko a tip, but really just to say
5 that unless he didn't care about the people that stood by him in the
6 protests not to be part of Croatia
7 to save lives. They could have prepared an escape route ..."
8 Now you discussed just earlier about you going down to see
9 Mr. Vojko, and I trust that is the conversation that you were discussing.
10 But the general consensus, Mr. Boucher, was that the HV, in time, had the
11 ability to surround Knin, cut it off, and destroy it. Isn't that right?
12 A. That's right. In my mind, it was, and I would add that the --
13 the discussion with the General Forand was in the morning in one of the
14 briefing, and he asked me, Could you please at least ask him if he has a
15 plan? And that was the intent.
16 Q. Because -- because the general idea from General Forand and from
17 you was that if Knin was surrounded, and if the HV moved in in force to
18 attack, there would be an extremely high casualty rate among the people
19 living in Knin. Isn't that right?
20 A. Potential was very, very high, unless everybody put their hands
21 in the heir. But if they were fighting for that territory for four
22 years, we had no idea what exactly they could do.
23 Just one last point.
24 Q. Go ahead.
25 A. There was --
1 Q. I was waiting for the translation, but you go ahead.
2 A. Sorry.
3 There was a lot of senior people, too, that were not mobile, and
4 there were some that did not want to be mobile.
5 Q. Let me go back to an answer that you gave. And when I gave you
6 the scenario of a massive urban conflict, that the only way out was a
7 bloody conflict or put their hands up. Was there any indication that you
8 saw prior to Operation Storm that the RSK authorities were planning on
9 putting their hands up and saying, We give up?
10 A. No indication.
11 Q. After the attack ensued on the morning of the 4th, of 1995, did
12 you receive any information prior no the artillery salvo on the 5th, that
13 the ARSK wanted to contact the HV and say, We give up?
14 A. Not to my knowledge.
15 Q. Now, in General Forand and your attempt to avoid a bloody urban
16 battle, you wanted Vojko to plan an escape route out; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In rejecting your entreatise, did Vojko tell you that the RSK and
19 the ARSK were planning for a last ditch stand in Knin?
20 A. He did not mention that to me.
21 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, may I just go into private session for a
23 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 14016-14019 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 MR. KEHOE:
10 Q. And as you learn about how things ensued with the attack on
11 Operation Storm, you concluded, did you not, that the planning by the HV
12 and General Gotovina to allow that escape route was the humanitarian
13 thing to do because it avoided an urban bloody conflict. Isn't that
15 A. This is what happened. What the planning was, who planned, I'm
16 sorry, I wasn't part of, I don't know. But it was obvious that there was
17 a route leading towards Sector North and Topusko with hundreds of people
18 moving that way.
19 Q. Let us turn your attention, if we can, to the actual shelling of
21 And if we could bring back up on the screen, if I may, I think --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, could I ask one or two additional
23 questions, because --
24 You describe that people were leaving through what you considered
25 to be escape routes. Now, the question was that this was part of
1 General Gotovina's plans to leave them open and to -- what's the basis --
2 and you more or less -- in your answer, you describe the situation,
3 whereas the answer was specifically not on what you saw happening but
4 whether you were aware that that was part of the plan of
5 General Gotovina.
6 Now, do you have any knowledge about what you saw on the ground
7 being part of the plan by General Gotovina?
8 THE WITNESS: I do not have any knowledge about the plan to
9 attack and take Knin, nor leaving escape routes going anywhere other than
10 the fact that I know people -- the word got around among themselves, this
11 is the route to go. And within hours, I remember after I was back at the
12 UN headquarters, speaking with the commander, UNCIVPOL commander or
13 Sector Chief in Sector North saying, They are coming our way, the
14 refugees leaving your territory, your Sector South.
15 But I do not know who was part of the plan or what the plan was
16 from a military point of view. No idea.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I could have asked a similar question on
18 50 per cent of the topics you dealt with at this moment. I heard no
19 objections about laying a foundation and source of knowledge. But even
20 if there's no objection, that doesn't mean that it is not relevant for
21 the Chamber to hear the source of knowledge, and that it would not be
22 important for the Chamber that a foundation is laid. And from this last
23 answer, you see what was more or less intertwined observations on what
24 happened on the ground and what were the plans, that you skillfully have
25 woven them together in your questions, and the witness has confirmed and
1 responded in the affirmative to your questions. But upon further
2 examination, it turns out he has - which doesn't come as a surprise - no
3 knowledge whatsoever of at least part of you put to him.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. KEHOE:
6 Q. On that score, just staying with that last answer, Mr. Boucher,
7 you do know that the HV did not cut off that escape route. Isn't that
9 A. I do know that.
10 Q. Now let's turn to the shelling of Knin, sir, and if we could go
11 back to the 1179 -- actually, the second photograph of the blow-up that
12 you made marks on.
13 Now, Mr. Boucher, this is the photograph, the little blow-up that
14 you had written on this morning, and I'd like to talk first about your
15 particular residence. And from your particular residence, you are
16 familiar with the ARSK barracks are you not, sir?
17 A. I am.
18 Q. And approximately how far was your residence from the military
20 A. From my residence to about the entrance gate to the north
21 barracks, I would estimate about 500 feet. It's not far.
22 Q. Now, also in that general area was the milicija. And the
23 milicija, I believe during the course of your statements said that's the
24 police. Is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, could you with a blue pen on this particular document, then
2 we'll have to put another item, but could you circle in blue pen with the
3 number 1 next to it, where the milicija is.
4 A. [Marks]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: Have I no objection, Your Honour. It's just that
7 this location was marked on the other photo as B, if we want to use the
8 same letter, that's fine. If not, that's fine too.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the precisions and corrections could use the
10 same agenda.
11 MR. KEHOE: That's fine -- can we remove that, and we can put the
12 letter B, as opposed to the number 1.
13 THE WITNESS: The letter B?
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you make a cross and a letter B, then we know
15 that the circles are for the Prosecution, and the crosses are for the
16 Defence in different colours.
17 THE WITNESS: I'll put a cross on it, and I'll write B.
18 MR. KEHOE:
19 Q. Now --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, would you mind if the witness also marks
21 where the entrance gate is, because it could be far closer if the
22 entrance gate is at an odd position.
23 Could you mark also where the entrance gate is that you just
24 referred to, and we have no entrance gate yet. So if you would make
25 that --
1 THE WITNESS: I made an X.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, X is -- yes. The X is where it is, and then
3 if you could put a letter to that.
4 MR. KEHOE: If we want to stay with this, it's N.
5 JUDGE ORIE: N is the next ...
6 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. KEHOE:
10 Q. Now again from your residence, how far is the milicija?
11 A. It would be about the same distance, about 500 feet and so on.
12 Three's blocks are actually only the thickness of a house, so it is not
13 really -- so I would say 500 feet, maybe. I don't think it is more than
14 600 feet. Not far.
15 Q. Let's talk about the milicija and this being the police
16 headquarters. Is this where you met Mr. Vujko?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And tell us a little bit about the role of the milicija as an
19 entity of the police and also as having military functions.
20 A. Well, this was a learning experience for me in this mission,
21 where police officers could change their identity from being civilian
22 police officers to military. In other words, there would be many times
23 during the time before Operation Storm where all of the milicija, Serb
24 police, would change from their blue uniform of police, civilian police,
25 to green. And I had asked interpreters and people who lived in town why
1 was that. And for one thing -- one answer was a lot of these people are
2 actually -- they were not police officers before 1991. They became
3 police officers because they didn't want to go to the front where the
4 military where positioned, but in case of emergency or certain training,
5 they were all included as part of this, again, so-called Krajina area
6 defence system, or military.
7 Q. Did you become aware, Mr. Boucher, that prior to Operation Storm
8 and during Operation Storm members of the milicija had been sent to the
9 front line on the Dinara?
10 A. I was not aware.
11 Q. Let us go to the time or the day or night just before
12 Operation Storm, and I want to direct your attention to paragraph 34 of
13 -- of your statement.
14 In paragraph 34 of your statement, you note -- this is the second
16 "The night before Storm was actually very, very quiet. I know
17 that because I woke at maybe 2.00 in the morning. I was on the second
18 floor and could hear people talking in the field in the back, so I got
19 up. Of course I couldn't see anything, but I could hear them running
20 through the bushes. In retrospect I believe it was probably Croatian
21 soldiers in the middle of the night looking at the area where they were
22 going to attack and maybe figuring out distance -- figuring out distance
23 for their guns."
24 Now before I ask you about this specific incident, as a police
25 officer for many years and with the RCMP and with the police in
1 Medicine Hat, it's typical for you as a police officer before you do a
2 radio or an arrest or a search to go get real time information of that
3 location just before you send police in; isn't that right?
4 A. It is. It's very accurate, even more so if it was a SWAT team.
5 You want to know the doors, the windows, the exits, the potential getaway
6 systems, everything.
7 Q. Now when this happened on the early mourning hours of the 4th,
8 you thought it was essentially the same thing but in a military context,
9 didn't you?
10 A. I didn't think this at 2.00 or 3.00 in the morning, but by the
11 morning when the first shell was fired, yes.
12 Q. When that first shell was fired, you concluded they were down
13 there trying to get real time information?
14 A. I think so.
15 Q. Now as we move back through the particular shelling, and if we
16 can go back to the exhibit that's on the screen, and I want to take you
17 to paragraph 36 of your statement, and also, actually, it begins, if I
18 may, on paragraph 16 of your 2008 statement to the Office of the
19 Prosecutor. That would be P1178. At paragraph 16, you note that at
20 paragraph 40 of my 1999 statement, I mentioned that one shell went
21 through my roof. I think they were aiming at the ARSK and milicija
23 Do you see that, sir?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. So you concluded that, sir, when you went in your basement and
1 you thought about the direction of fire and the location of those
2 targets, didn't you?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Tell us what you did.
5 A. I also thought that maybe because the owner of this house was an
6 older man, Serb man about 75, his son in law was also an officer in the
7 ARSK. It was either a house target for this, to get back at this
8 officer. Or what was maybe more plain, because as you see in the
9 picture, it is fields behind my house. I thought that any other shell
10 that doesn't make it to the north barracks or the milicija office, I'm in
11 danger here. And particularly -- because I went to the basement. In the
12 basement of the window, right in front where I was sitting, because it is
13 a small basement, so then at that point, I realized, I better get out of
14 here because of all of the shells that are coming in, if one another one
15 misfires, and doesn't reach the anticipated target, it might be the last
17 Q. So the direction of fire was coming over your house towards the
18 military barracks?
19 A. From all the plans that I had seen in the UN briefings and where
20 the soldiers were waiting on Dinara mountain, I was in the -- pretty well
21 the direct line to the north barrack and also milicija.
22 Q. And is that what caused you in paragraph 36 of your statement to
23 the Defence to say:
24 "As I said, I'm not a military man. When the shelling began, it
25 became obvious that the shelling was geared towards the military
2 Do you see that as the first sentence?
3 A. I do.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- questions being asked on the Defence
7 statement, that it be more appropriate to be asked in a non-leading way.
8 MR. KEHOE: It's cross-examination, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's cross-examination I would say under Rule
10 90 (H), where the Defence considers that the witness may have knowledge
11 which would support the Defence case, which is, of course, not the
12 typical type of cross-examination where you challenge the evidence which
13 was elicited by the Prosecution.
14 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I -- I must demure in the sense that
15 many of the witnesses that we have -- have been put on by the Prosecution
16 were witnesses that we were, in fact, using to get information to support
17 the Defence. Much in the same way --
18 JUDGE ORIE: That is a part -- that may be true. That is not an
19 answer to how you should examine those witnesses when you are not
20 challenging the evidence they gave to the Prosecution, but where you are
21 seeking to elicit evidence which supports your own case, but I do see
22 that it's not always easy to draw that line.
23 But in view of my earlier question I put to the witness and the
24 short comment I gave on that, I would say that it would certainly assist
25 the Chamber if would you follow the suggestion as is implied in
1 Ms. Gustafson's observation or objection.
2 MR. KEHOE: If I may just on that score, Your Honour, I mean, we
3 are, in fact, challenging the position of the Prosecution through this
4 witness. I mean -- the picture that the Prosecution is trying to develop
5 through this witness is countered directly from the questions that I'm
6 asking on that score.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, therefore, Rule 90 (H) isn't even
8 needed, isn't it? Should I give you an opportunity to read the three
9 small notes that Mr. Misetic passed to you? I will give you an
10 opportunity to do that if you --
11 MR. KEHOE: I don't need them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You don't need them.
13 MR. KEHOE: I say this, with all due respect, Mr. Misetic, I'm
14 sorry about that.
15 What I'm saying to you is that they led evidence on shelling,
16 specific evidence on shelling that we are challenging through this
17 witness, and this is the -- this is a direct challenge to it, and that's
18 why I submit to the Chamber that this is appropriate for leading
19 questions on cross.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, it was a simple challenge to the
22 evidence, and there would be no need to take a separate statement
23 eliciting new positive assertions from this witness. The Defence has
24 done that, and if they're going ask questions about those assertions, I
25 think it should be done --
1 JUDGE ORIE: It could also be, Ms. Gustafson, a matter of
2 efficiency to put already -- if you expect that cross-examination would
3 take quite sometime, to put it on paper. So the mere fact that it
4 appears in this statement as such is not a reason to follow your
6 I think the views on both sides have been expressed clearly, and
7 I would suggest that you keep in the back of your mind, Mr. Kehoe, what I
8 said had some merit and Ms. Gustafson's observations, and that we
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I will attempt to negotiate that
11 with as non-leading questions as I possibly can.
12 Q. Now, in addition to the direction of fire, let us talk about the
13 time that the firing commenced. The firing commenced at 5.00 a.m. in the
14 morning. Isn't that right?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. And, Mr. Boucher, it commenced at a time when there was virtually
17 no one on the streets. Isn't that right?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. Now, you moved to the location from A to D, and then you went to
20 the location which is F. And I believe you said that there was a --
21 another building, G, that had also received a round.
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Now that, sir, was in a line of fire of the ARSK facility that
24 you see before you, marked as the Knin general Supply. Isn't it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Approximately how far was the -- it's been known as the Senjak
2 barracks during the course of this trial, so approximately how far is F
3 from the entry or the Senjak barracks as a whole?
4 A. I would say no more than about 200 feet, 250 feet at the max.
5 It's not far.
6 Q. Now, when you were running from A to D, and then from D to F, did
7 you see any dead bodies on the street?
8 A. No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you asked about the damage to building D,
10 I think it was.
11 MR. KEHOE: G. I think I was talking about G.
12 JUDGE ORIE: G.
13 MR. KEHOE: Isn't that G there? Isn't that above F is G? That's
14 what --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Oh, you were talking about that one.
16 MR. KEHOE: I think he said during direct that G had taken a
18 THE WITNESS: G had a hole on the side of the building about two
19 metres in diameter, big one.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you both for G and for D, could you mark on
21 this map - and it has not yet been stored, I think - could you mark on
22 the map the direction of the impact, which means that if you give it a
23 small arrow that the point of the arrow is at an angle of 90 degrees to
24 the wall that was hit. Do you understand what I mean? If this is the
25 wall, that the arrow points at that wall at 90 degrees which is not to
1 say that the wall was hit under that same angle, but at least we know on
2 which side of the building that wall was found.
3 Could you do that for D and for G.
4 THE WITNESS: Same colour, blue.
5 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Blue. Yes, that is fine. The Chamber borrows the
7 colour. Objections?
8 MR. KEHOE: Judge, I think it is it appropriate to have your own
9 colour. I'm kidding. Please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. Now, Mr. Boucher, when you look back at these events, for
15 instance, the firing on your house, did you conclude that -- that they
16 were firing on the barracks, and they just missed, or fired on some other
17 military targets and just missed?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
19 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I ask that the source of the
20 witness's knowledge of the --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Targeting be explored, if these questions are
23 going to be asked.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's look at the question very precisely.
25 Well, the question is a factual one, whether the witness
1 concluded or not. What the value of such conclusions is, is, of course,
2 a different matter. So it's -- you may answer that question, whether you
3 concluded that or not, Mr. Boucher, if you drew such a conclusion, it
4 might be good for us to know on what specific knowledge or expertise you
5 based that conclusion.
6 THE WITNESS: As I mentioned before, I am not an expert in
7 military large weapons. I happen to be -- was the best shooter in the
8 RCMP in all of Canada. Won the Canuck Cup which is a competition. It's
9 in the small arms, but understanding projectile as they pushed through
10 powder or explosives, some of them misfire, some of them have delayed
11 firing, and the accuracy of shooting depends a lot on the competence of
12 the shooter and the equipment.
13 So if I leave it with this, in my mind, I have seen rounds with a
14 pistol or rifle that didn't go as far as the previous round with the same
15 weapon, and I have seen ones that didn't fire. I have seen one that were
16 delayed reaction, and I sent a total of six years as an instructor for
17 all the RCMP in the basic training, and I have seen millions of rounds,
18 but it is in small-arms.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether you drew any conclusions, I
20 take it at that time.
21 MR. KEHOE: Or thereafter.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Or thereafter, and, if so, on what this conclusion
23 was based.
24 THE WITNESS: And in my statement, Your Honour, I indicated that
25 I believe that the rounds were not making it to the intended targets of
1 the northern barracks or the milicija office. That's what in my mind
2 because I was so close to them, and I have -- I had walked in front of
3 them. I have seen military equipment around. I have seen the police
4 turn into military, the Serb police milicija. And I was almost positive
5 in my mind that the intention of the Croatian army was to hit those
6 targets. But the rounds did not make it, and one of them hit my house,
7 one of them hit a house very close to mine. And, again, the house where
8 the two CIVPOL colleagues were also living was also hit.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, on what was your assumption based that,
10 as you said, that the intention was to hit the targets you just
12 THE WITNESS: Again, I knew where the positions of the Croatian
13 army was on Dinara mountain, and it leads backwards from the arrow that I
14 showed on the -- on the map. So it was pretty obvious at this point and
15 after that the rounds being shot were coming this way, and particularly
16 again -- and I wasn't thinking about the -- the military compound which
17 is called general supply, Knin general supply. I completely forgot about
18 that. In my mind, the only thing I could think is they are trying to hit
19 the northern barracks and the milicija office.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me put it very bluntly to you. It's the
21 Prosecution's position that the targeting was intended to or -- as a
22 matter of fact, that it was indiscriminate fire. Did you have any
23 knowledge, or do have you any -- because your whole reasoning appears to
24 be based on, I would say, decent military targeting, which is the
25 position of the Defence as well.
1 Now the position of the Prosecution is a totally different one.
2 Now your reasoning is apparently based on a decent military targeting
3 concept. Is there any reason why you would know whether the Defence is
4 right in its position that it was decent military targeting or whether
5 the Prosecution is right in their position, that it was incriminate
7 THE WITNESS: Only my sheer deduction that if you are in a combat
8 situation, and that could be police as much as military, you will try to
9 neutralise your enemy or your opponent fairly quick. And for them, it
10 would be to try to neutralize the northern barracks in this case or the
11 milicija, which were actually potential conflict for them or
12 confrontational for them, because they had personnel, equipment, and so
13 on. From Dinara mountain with long binoculars or telescope, I'm sure
14 they could see where the equipment was, you know, large vehicles, trucks,
15 and so on, they're green, so they're, you know, easy to spot, and they
16 were really the only ones that were moving around, as far as large
18 This is a deduction on my part, but if I was in a confrontation,
19 as a police officer, it would be the same thing. Try to neutralize the
20 conflict as soon as you can that poses the most dangerous potential to
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. KEHOE:
24 Q. Let me take you through your path of going from A to D to F. And
25 before I ask you that, you knew, sir, based on information that you
1 received that if shelling ensued you were instructed to get down, don't
2 move around, and go into a low place, weren't you?
3 A. This is something I learned from Colonel Leslie. And it happened
4 maybe three or four weeks before, because I had never thought about this,
5 but Colonel Leslie said, If ever there is shelling, lay low, go in a
6 basement somewhere, don't run the streets, because have you more chances
7 of getting killed by pieces of pavement flying than the projectile
8 itself, so debris will kill you, cement or whatever, so lay low. So
9 based on that, that's why I laid low for two hours in the basement of my
10 rented accommodation, and when I realized it was wasn't as safe, or
11 certainly not as safe as it should have been, I moved across the street
12 to the other house that had a large foundation, if you want, or a
13 basement, no windows. And then from there, I was the Sector Chief. So I
14 had to find my way back to the UN as best as I could, which, by the way,
15 the UN had sent an APC
16 saw the big hole in the roof and thought I had -- I was done. And twice
17 I walked out of this second house because I heard this large noise, like
18 a loud truck, if you want, loud motors, and I don't even know if it has a
19 muffler on it. But by the time I would come out of that second house
20 basement, I could see the white UN APC driving away.
21 So by the second time I realized they are probably not coming
22 back to pick me up. I am going to have to move.
23 Q. Well, staying with the early part of your answer, did
24 Colonel Leslie, or did anybody in the UN tell you that, The purpose of
25 artillery is to suppress movement of troops or people or anybody else?
1 A. It wasn't explained to that level, except for your answer safety
2 we were supplied a fairly thick vest, a fairly heavy thick vest, and a
3 blue hard helmet, but this has limited protection. The only comment was
4 if there's shelling, don't run the streets, hide. And, in my mind, I
5 knew with the -- from the plans or the maps that were shown where the
6 Croatian army was stationed on mount Dinara, so I had to protect myself
7 from that angle to stay behind some other larger buildings.
8 Q. When you went to F, you, in fact -- F, the building that is
9 circled with F, and i use that initial. When you went to that location,
10 you went down to the basement, and the basement was populated with
11 people, wasn't it, that he were laying low and not moving?
12 A. It -- it was pretty full of people that were from that building.
13 And, again, it's a similar, the several similar buildings there. G is a
14 the same type of building as F, and then there's other ones beside as you
15 can see. All about five or six floors, I'm not sure. So I would think
16 that the residents from those buildings were in the basement and -- and
17 even people that came from other places to hide there because this was
18 tactically probably a very safe building.
19 Q. When you were down in that basement, and you were done there for
20 some hour, were you not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When you were down in that basement, did the people in that
23 basement tell you that neighbours and loved ones had been killed during
24 the shelling?
25 A. I don't recall that. I do recall that they were quite upset.
1 Some of them who could speak English were saying, Stop them, and do
2 something. And my only comment is just last week the Serbs were, through
3 aircrafts, bombing Bosnia, and the UN didn't stop them there either. So
4 how could I stop them today? How could I stop the Croatian army today?
5 So it was a long, long day.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I'm looking at the clock. We had an
7 earlier first break. Could you find a suitable moment to break within
8 the next couple of moments.
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
10 Q. Well, Mr. Boucher, when you gave your statement in 1996 and
11 described these events, if those people in the basement had told you that
12 family and friends had been killed by shelling, you would have included
13 that in your 1996 statement and -- but it's not there. But that is
14 something that you would have included. Isn't that right?
15 A. I would think so. It think it would be important.
16 Q. So based on the fact of that importance and the fact that it's
17 not there, you can now conclude that those people did, in fact, not say
18 anything about family and neighbours being killed during the shelling,
19 did they?
20 A. I don't recall anyone talking about family or for friends being
21 killed during that time. It was more berating the UN, You're useless,
22 and so on.
23 Q. I understand.
24 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, this is a good time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break and resume at a quarter to 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, in view of the time estimates, may I
4 assume that you will finish your cross-examination in the session.
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, at the risk of not losing
8 these etchings, if I could move this into evidence at this time.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit number D1218.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D1218 is admitted into evidence. And I noted that
12 Ms. Gustafson has no objections.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, can we flip back to the other
15 photograph in this exhibit, as I do believe it is now a joint exhibit, of
17 JUDGE ORIE: 11 -- yes.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 MR. KEHOE:
20 Q. Mr. Boucher -- oh, I'm sorry.
21 Mr. Boucher, talking about the area K, you were asked a question
22 by Ms. Gustafson on page 10, beginning on line 22, and you don't have
23 that before you, sir, I'm reading from the transcript, so bear with me.
24 This was from earlier this morning.
25 Mr. Boucher, just staying with that map for a moment, the
1 location, the large circle you mark with K where it was, you labelled it
2 as residential area where you saw a lot of damaged houses.
3 "Are you able to estimate for the Court how many houses you saw
4 in that area you marked as K?
5 "Answer: It would have to be a guesstimate. I think it would be
6 in the neighbourhood of eight to ten."
7 Now --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I think there was how many damaged
10 MR. KEHOE: Damaged houses. I'm sorry. Damaged in that area.
11 Q. How many houses you saw damaged in that area damaged you marked
12 as K, and you answered, it would have to be a guesstimate. I think it
13 would something in the neighbourhood of about eight to ten.
14 Now putting aside the residence that you -- your residence and
15 the other CIVPOL residence, you don't know when these other houses were
16 damaged, do you?
17 A. Of my recollection, that day my house, the two CIVPOLs
18 residences, and the first one that received the first shell in the
19 morning, which is about -- not that far. Right at the corner of the next
20 street, if you want, so not very far.
21 So the rest of them, I see in the -- the damaged houses several
22 days later.
23 Q. Now, if I can show you P228.
24 And, sir, this is an UNCIVPOL assessment of damages that I
25 believe was shown to you last night.
1 Do you recall this, sir?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. And in this particular assessment of damage by -- and you know
4 Mr. Steinar Hagvag, do you not?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. And from this report, and had you a chance to review this report,
7 you told the Office of the Prosecutor -- and I realize Mr. President that
8 Your Honours don't have a copy of this, so I'm reading from a proofing
9 note. And I will try to quote as accurately as possible.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If do you it literally then ...
11 MR. KEHOE: Literally, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. KEHOE:
14 Q. The witness thought the report was relatively accurate based on
15 his observations.
16 Is that your testimony, sir?
17 A. It is.
18 Q. Now, let us shift gears, and I want to talk to you a little bit
19 about some of the burning and looting after Operation Storm that you
20 discussed in the statement with the Prosecutor, and you first talked
21 about it in your 2008 statement, and it would be in paragraph 19 of your
22 2008 statement. That would be your last statement.
23 Do you have that before you, sir?
24 A. Just a minute.
25 Q. And this is, for the record, P1178.
1 A. I do have it.
2 Q. And your note there is that there was a big difference in the
3 demeanor between the Croatian army soldiers and officers. My impression
4 of the soldiers was that they were "yahoos" out for revenge. I got the
5 impressions commanders did not have much control over lower ranks.
6 Tell us a little bit about that, Mr. Boucher. Can you tell us
7 the foundation for that statement?
8 A. Right after the -- in my opinion, had fairly good control of Knin
9 and not having been outside of Knin, but from what I see from the UN camp
10 and also on my visit into town on foot in the next day in the cars, and
11 that's within a few days, they're out drink, they're drunk. Some of them
12 are shooting in the air with their AK-47s. Some grenades are thrown
13 because it is a lower bang, if you want, than if it was a large tank or I
14 guess larger equipment. A lot of swearing and yelling. You could see
15 there was no rank structure or at least insignias on their shoulders or
16 arms. The fact that they are showing up at the gate -- that was right
17 after they really took control. And, again, pointing their weapons all
18 over the place. I mean, there is usually a port arms position to carry a
19 weapon, so that it's always safe, pointed in a safe direction. That
20 didn't take place. They were all over the place, pointing it, and
21 towards us, and as they turn, you know, not being careful with it.
22 They broke ranks to come to the gate to ask about family members
23 or friends are they in here and so on. It did not appear like it was
24 controlled, disciplined. And I didn't see that in the rank. The rank
25 and files, the Sergeants and higher, the one that had ranks showing on
1 their shoulders or arms or Colonel Zelic, for example, who showed up
2 several times at the gate to try to negotiate certain things. It was
3 always to the point, you know, well-organised. But the lower ranks for
4 what I would put it, would be -- if it is not out of control, certainly
5 -- I put the term "yahoo." That is my term, maybe it's not correct, but
6 it is certainly not professional, not what you would expect of a
7 professional military, but in reality this is a new military, in my mind.
8 It is four years old, there are some probably very good soldiers in it,
9 but from what I could see right there in front of me, the lower ranks,
10 not very good.
11 Q. Let me discuss some of the trips that you had made out of the
12 base, and I think you weren't sure if it was the 6th or the 7th, but I
13 think you said this morning it was the 7th.
14 The first time you wept to your residence and it was looted, the
15 only thing that was taken was beverages. Is that right?
16 A. That I could see. I didn't stay there very long. One of the
17 information I had from some of the military personnel, when you go back
18 to certain places, watch out. Make sure there is no booby-traps or
19 whatever it is, whatever that would be, is hidden wires, I guess, or
20 whatever it may be. So I carefully went back into my accommodation, and
21 I knew that just a few days before I had made a provision trip to make
22 sure I had food in my house and I had bought a brand new case of
23 Coca-cola, because it is in the summer, it's warm, and I put it in the
24 fridge. That first visit, that was gone. I'll just retrace for a
1 For whatever reason, again, when the attack started, I went out
2 of my residence after the shell, and I locked the door. And when I came
3 back the door had been broken, the Coke is gone, but I can't see anything
4 else missing. So that first visit, that's all I saw. It was only on the
5 second visit -- of course, there is nobody in the house.
6 On the second visit that I notice the TV is it gone. It's not my
7 TV; it belonged to the owner of the house. But I had a brand new leather
8 coat, which was not taken on the first visit I went back to my residence,
9 but it was gone on the second one and so on.
10 So there may have been waves of looting, if you want, to go and
11 pick up whatever valuables was in there.
12 Q. You don't know who went in there the second time and looted those
13 other objects, do you?
14 A. Other than those who picked up the TVs, I didn't see them in my
15 accommodation, but I saw them coming out of my houses close to mine with
16 TVs and VCRs. Other than that, I don't know who else would have -- it
17 could have been neighbours, if there was neighbours too. I don't know.
18 Q. By the way, I mean, staying with the TV sets and VCRs, and you
19 mention this in your 1999 statement at paragraph 56 of the Puma brigade.
20 "I saw a truck marked Puma Brigade. It had 50 to 60 TVs and
21 VCRs." They were that openly, weren't they?
22 A. They were.
23 Q. Do you have any idea whether or not any of those items were
24 inventoried after they were taken?
25 A. I have no idea.
1 Q. Let me turn our attention to the burning issue that you talked
2 about on direct examination. And I believe in your first statement in
3 1996, if I may -- and that would be paragraph 10. You noted that there
4 were three soldiers involved. Is that right?
5 A. If I wrote that in -- in -- closer to the event, I would say that
6 that would be correct.
7 Q. And just going back to the prior question on these TVs and VCRs.
8 I asked you about inventory. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not
9 the military police confiscated any of those items?
10 A. I have no idea.
11 Q. Okay. Let me just -- if you could just refer to your first
12 statement in paragraph 10. It notes that:
13 "I saw a Croat truck Puma with cans of petrol and three soldiers
14 burning houses on the road to Drnis."
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So this is three guys in a truck, and they had Puma on the truck?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was it spray painted on, was it --
19 A. All the ones that had Puma on it, were actually -- well, if it
20 was painted or pasted on, but it was a clear-cut. It wasn't, like, just
21 spray painted with a can type of thing. It was a clean indication of who
22 they were.
23 Q. I mean, did you check for a plate, a licence plate?
24 A. There was no licence plates on it.
25 Q. Now, did this strike you as a sophisticated military operation,
1 given some houses were burnt and others weren't, or did you believe this
2 was three guys outdoing their own thing?
3 A. I can tell you that in 1995 and in 1996 and when I had to review
4 this in 1999, I had a chance to review what exactly happened here. And
5 in my mind, what I saw there is it looks like they're going systematic
6 with cans they're going to be burning all these houses. And that's the
7 statement I gave. But the more I thought about what happened what
8 happened there in -- was why are there some houses not burnt? I started
9 to question why is the process that they used, whoever they were, under
10 what command, if there was any, to exempt some of them. I also started
11 to put, maybe in my mind, two plus two here. I think there were some
12 people who were out of control on their own. That's my feeling, because
13 that can happen with the police, if there is no strict professional
14 standards, policies, whatever it is.
15 I also see some things that doesn't jive in my mind. And it's
16 not just about the burning of houses, but why would they protect a Serb
17 church if they want them out of there? I also saw that.
18 So there were things that are just don't match to the original
19 way I was thinking. I just thought, at first, they're cleaning house,
20 and there's a really strong revenge to what happened to them, the Croats,
21 in 1991. But there is a lot things that don't quite equal this.
22 So in my mind, this is a young military, as I said, they
23 recruited -- and some of them said that. They volunteered to take back
24 their territory. What kind of training did they have, what kind of
25 discipline did they have, did they have any ethic -- military ethic
1 trainings? Those are things I would question -- I do question for a
2 police officer. I think they would question that to say -- or did they
3 just recruit people to have the numbers to do the attack and retake their
4 territory. So that's -- the more I thought about it, I think there were
5 a lot of people that weren't professional soldiers, and, of course, some
6 of the things I listed to you, it was pretty easy for me with time to
7 say, there was a bunch of people out of control here.
8 Q. Staying with this burning issue, sir, again, in your proofing
9 statement with the Prosecution, you said that the witness remembered
10 seeing "Hrvatska Kuca" written on houses. It didn't always make a
11 difference to what happened to the house.
12 Is that accurate, sir?
13 A. That is. There was -- they also would put [B/C/S spoken], don't
14 touch. Hrvatska Kuca, meaning it was a Croat house. But even then, you
15 see there was houses, the doors had been broken into. But some of this
16 was also done quite a few days after, because what we started to notice
17 is we had vehicles from outside of this so-called Krajina area, if you
18 want, or Sector South, people who lived in Sibenik, Split, Zagreb
19 back, I think, to check on their houses or their relatives' house and
20 whatever, and they spray painted that. That wasn't organised, I don't
21 think, by any specific groups, because it was all kinds of different
22 kinds of colours of paint and whatever. But it was done, and I think
23 they were -- I would think they were trying to stop the looting or stop
24 anybody damaging their houses.
25 Q. Now, you also -- you noted in paragraph 42 of your statement to
1 the Defence, D1217 MFI
2 "I also noted that there were Serb areas of some villages that
3 were not burnt. Additionally, the Croat soldiers were escorting both
4 Serb and Croat refugees to the UN compound, and General Cermak urged all
5 Serbs to stay in Croatia
6 the chief of police in Knin. I consider all these actions as
7 inconsistent with the systematic attempt to keep Serbs from returning."
8 I don't want to row hash what you put the statement, but are
9 those some of the factors that have led to a reassessment of your
11 A. This is -- these are some of the elements that don't match. If
12 it was really organised to the point that everybody is on the same page
13 under the same plan to do what -- I guess you would call ethnic
14 cleansing, then I guess they would have flushed out everybody. But the
15 reality is you mentioned some of the points.
16 The other thing that is -- which I found out later. I didn't
17 find out until several days after, is that we were notified that the
18 attack was coming. So why would they do that if they really wanted to
19 hide things, other than to prevent damages or death of UN personnel, and
20 maybe -- and the timing, as you -- you mentioned that, but I think it
21 makes sense, because in the police, we do the same thing. If you're
22 going to do a search -- you want to surprise armed gangs, for example,
23 you do it either in the middle of the night or really early in morning.
24 There is an element of timing.
25 So there is a lot of things about this that leaves you with the
1 impression that I don't think everybody was on the same plan here.
2 MR. KAY: Can we have paragraph 42 on the screen. I'm sorry,
3 Your Honour. General Cermak was mentioned in paragraph 42, and we don't
4 have it on the screen.
5 MR. KEHOE: It's paragraph 42 of the Defence statement.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Cermak is mentioned in the paragraph. Yes.
7 MR. KEHOE: No, no, no. That is not what I was reading.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You're not reading.
9 Mr. Kay is apparently referring to the fact that Mr. Cermak
10 appears in ...
11 MR. KEHOE: Remarkably, Your Honour, it is also paragraph 42 in
12 the Defence statement.
13 MR. KAY: So sorry, it's just that -- yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Matter is resolved.
15 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, by the way the Chamber would not mind if
17 the balance between what the witness observed, questions about what he
18 observed, and answers to what he observed, and how he developed over time
19 his theories, his impressions, his opinions, et cetera, that could be a
20 bit more in direction to the facts.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. KEHOE:
23 Q. Consistent with what the President noted, can you give us the
24 factual bases behind your conclusions during this, because, obviously,
25 the Chamber wants to know if you have a conclusion, what facts led to you
1 that conclusion. Whatever that conclusion happens to be concerning the
2 situation that we were just discussing.
3 A. Well, I have to rely to my evidence and my experience, I guess,
4 in my own sector. I'm a police officer, and for several years I used to
5 do audits. And when you go and do that or verification in any office,
6 you look for, Is everybody working on the same goals, on the same
7 objectives. Who do you have working, doing what, and so on to achieve
8 these goals so that you can measure that. Otherwise everything is doing
9 their own thing, but there is no coercion. So policies, directives, and
10 I don't have access to this, never did, for the Croat army. But I notice
11 from my experience when you go do some offices, there is always some --
12 it seems like they are on their own agenda, their own -- you know, they
13 make decisions on their own. It is always very important to have strong
14 leadership at every level of supervision, and I would think in the
15 military, it would probably be more important to have that. And I
16 started to look at this, and I said, There is a lack of proper
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Boucher, may I draw your attention to the
19 difference of what a witness should tell a Court and what a police
20 officer should investigate. I can imagine that a police officer seeks
21 patterns in order to have access to other evidence, whereas a witness is
22 primarily is expected to tell us about his personal observations, and I
23 do see, and the Chamber does accept, that sometimes you can put it in a
24 context on the basis of a wider set of information you have received, but
25 the focus should be on your own observations.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I'm just trying to go a step further
3 from your prior question and try to lay out for the Chamber through the
4 witness --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the last answer was, again, very
6 theoretical, and could you have stopped the witness.
7 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. And just going back, the Chamber wants to know some of the facts
12 that you're discussing. Let's go down to the next level. The facts that
13 you're discussing that led to you a conclusion that what you observed was
14 inconsistent with the systematic attempt to keep Serbs from returning.
15 A. Again, there are houses that are not burnt. They're Serb houses.
16 So some obviously have a house to stay and maybe a field and a crop to
18 Mr. Cermak publicly - because when he came to the camp, the UN
19 camp - publicly with the media there said Serbs that want to stay can
20 stay. You know, the chief of police is a Serb. That's appointed. That
21 in itself shows something. So there are things -- and, again, the
22 Orthodox church are still standing, I think, as far as I know. Well,
23 contrary, the Catholic -- so, I'm sorry, but these are the evidence that
24 I saw that makes me think this one way.
25 Q. Just staying with the -- the lack of destruction to the Orthodox
1 church, and we talked about cemeteries before, that there was a -- first,
2 that there was an effort not to have Orthodox churches damaged. Did you
3 ever conclude that there was an effort not to have those graves
4 desecrated as well?
5 A. This is where I have a hard time understanding this. Because in
6 my discussion with the policija and in the letter to Mr. Cermak, I'd
7 asked for free movement to go everywhere, and although on paper it was
8 afforded, in reality on the ground, it wasn't present. So that's why it
9 doesn't jive. If we are monitors and we should be able to go everywhere,
10 why are we not permitting?
11 As far as -- just going back to the church, yes, the churches
12 were protected. Right away. The soldiers were standing on guard, so
13 that nobody would destroy them. And later it became police officers
14 standing in front of the Orthodox church so ...
15 Q. Were you allowed to go into the Orthodox church?
16 A. No. Well, I never tried either. I didn't have time for that.
17 Q. Do you know anyone who attempted to go in?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Let us shift gears to some of the items that you had talked about
20 briefly on direct examination, and I'd like to talk with you -- about in
21 your 1999 statement about the dead bodies that you observed. And
22 describing paragraph 58, and that would be paragraph 58 of 1177.
23 Do you see that, sir?
24 A. Just a moment, please.
1 Q. Now, the first body that you talked about, that man as you note
2 in your statement was in uniform. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, do you have any information with regard to his circumstances
5 of death? Not how he died but the circumstances surrounding how he died.
6 A. If you give me a moment, please.
7 Q. Sure.
8 A. I think I said in there that they were both shot in the head.
10 Q. I'm not saying that, sir. I'm asking you how he died. The
11 circumstances of his death, whether or not it was during a combat, foray,
12 or anything of those circumstances. You have you no knowledge about
14 A. I have no knowledge of that.
15 Q. Now, you note in paragraph --
16 JUDGE ORIE: There may be confusion.
17 We're talking about dead bodies you observed described in
18 paragraph 58.
19 Mr. Kehoe, you were talking about a man in a uniform, which
20 appears to refer to the first finding of a dead body of a male. And in
21 the answer of the witness, he referred to, They were both, which seems to
22 refer to the second incident where a male and a female were found dead,
23 and that female -- that male was also in a uniform, so I'm confused about
24 which event you are asking about and whether it's the same event as the
25 witness is answer relates to.
1 MR. KEHOE:
2 Q. Mr. Boucher, I'm going to ask you about both events. And let's
3 talk about the first one, when you're talking about the --
4 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President. I missed that when he
5 talked about both.
6 Q. "I'm talking about the individual man camouflage that was shot in
7 the head.
8 A. Mm-hm.
9 Q. My question remains the same. You don't know the circumstances
10 as to how that person died?
11 A. I do not.
12 Q. Now this event I trust was August the 8th, and I take that from
13 the fact that you say the next day after, you had been out on the street
14 on the 7th.
15 A. I believe it is correct.
16 Q. And you note that in paragraph 58, that he had been dead for some
18 A. True.
19 Q. Okay. Now even given that it's the summer and warm, you don't
20 know whether or not that person was killed on August 4th, August 5th, or
21 whenever, do you?
22 A. I do not.
23 Q. The same is true of the next two bodies, the male and the female.
24 Now I understand that the female doesn't have a uniform on, but the male
25 does. They likewise had been dead for some time, as you say in the
1 statement. And you don't know the circumstances of that death either.
2 A. That's true.
3 Q. Is it fair to say, Mr. Boucher, that during your travels around
4 and everything that you talked about in your statement, other than that
5 woman that you describe in paragraph 58, all of the male bodies that you
6 picked up, all the bodies you picked up, had camouflage on, didn't they?
7 A. I'll just correct you. We didn't pick up any bodies, but we came
8 across and found. They were all in uniform except -- and I don't recall.
9 There was a person in a car that it looked like a tank had rolled over,
10 squished the car, and there was arm sticking out. I don't remember if
11 the arm had a uniform on or not, and I didn't know if it was a man,
12 woman, or whatever.
13 Q. Now, this male and this female, how far were these bodies from
14 the UN compound?
15 A. Complete opposite end of -- they were actually outside of the
16 town of Knin. You go up the hill, going towards Zagreb or Gracac. And
17 when you reached the complete top of the hill, that's where the little
18 tractor and trailer and the two bodies were found.
19 Q. Sir, let me turn our attention to a couple of other items
20 quickly. And I -- in your first statement, we're shifting gears now,
21 sir, and we're going to start talking about a couple of items that took
22 place within the compound after the -- the displaced Serbs came in. I'm
23 sure there were Croats too, but the people came in.
24 A. Mm-hm.
25 Q. And in paragraph 7 -- let me say initially, I mean, in
1 paragraph 7, and this is, again, for the record, P1176, you note there
2 was one report of a rape by the Croat army, but it was changed to "the
3 lady asked to strip, and they took her nice clothing."
4 Now, tell us a little bit about this sequence of events. What
5 you were initially told that this woman was accusing soldiers in the
6 Croatian army of, and after further analysis, what actually took place.
7 A. The first complaint to the CIVPOL was that she had been raped,
8 and this was actually fairly important because we had in the UN all kinds
9 of comments to really document this closely, because it is a scenario
10 that was used in other parts of the former Yugoslavia. And upon trying
11 to question this woman more and more to get more detail, where, when,
12 who, what, you know, anybody present, whatever, she recanted her story
13 and said, Actually, they asked me to just take my clothes off, and they
14 took my clothes.
15 But we reported it anyway in case again she would recant her
16 story to something else later.
17 Q. Did you conclude as a police officer that many of the stories or
18 some of the stories that you were receiving from people coming in there
19 were exaggerations, or didn't hold up under scrutiny, either one or the
21 A. It was very common to receive all kinds of different stories that
22 you had to document and look deeper, because people would jump to
23 conclusion. It became fear, I think, and propaganda. Once we tried to
24 document facts, what exactly, who was there, and so on, and so on, a lot
25 of it fell apart. Or, it's reported from another person, another person,
1 and so on, that also, in most cases, fell apart.
2 Q. And, Mr. Boucher, did it fall apart because at least to some
3 degree that the interpreters were giving you information that they wanted
4 you to hear?
5 A. The interpreters were scared themselves. If you remember in my
6 statement, most of the interpreters were -- were Serbs. There was only a
7 few that were Croat. Some of them actually had to be enticed to come to
8 the gate, We need your help when people are coming and speaking the
9 language and asking things so that we can provide some kind of service.
10 If it is open the gate to receive them as refugees and so on. And
11 through their fear, I think there is a lot of different stories that came
12 about, and we tried as best we can. Remember now, our CIVPOL number is
13 quite a bit lower. We're trying to determine what exactly happened, and
14 some of it was not -- was exaggerated.
15 Q. Now, the exaggerations that you heard in UN Sector South
16 headquarters, you also heard the same from the military arm of things as
17 well, didn't you? I'm talking about the UN forces that were there.
18 A. Well, to a concern degree, again, I saw through police eyes more
19 than military eyes. One comment I made earlier is I don't think there
20 was 10.000 soldiers out there, but this is what the word that was -- was
21 put out as.
22 Q. And that was Colonel Leslie who told you that?
23 A. Yes. There was some bad, I think, publicity or media reports and
24 conflict, I think, that happened before Storm, before the Storm between
25 the Croat authorities and the media, including the media reporting
1 through the UN --
2 Q. You're talking about Mr. Roberts.
3 A. Well, yeah. I think he was part of this. But even, I think -- I
4 think the Canadians probably since the Medak Pocket in 1993, there was
5 some bad feelings in there. They saw themselves as - the military I'm
6 talking about - as peace keepers, and all of a sudden, they were in
7 combat. Because I heard comments about this from the other Canadians.
8 Not being a soldier, you know, and trying to be impartial, remembering
9 what my briefing was in Ottawa
10 the road. You have to listen to both sides, and don't jump do
11 conclusions, and so on. So my comments are put -- as much as I can in
12 those context.
13 And I'm not saying, by the way, that the Croats weren't -- they
14 weren't helpful. The military was not helpful in giving us access that
15 we needed to really monitor. There is some negative aspect to this. It
16 would have been easier if we could have been able to really document
17 right away and have clear access to wherever we wanted to go right away.
18 Q. Well, Mr. Boucher, Colonel Leslie told you about these 10.000
19 troops which you concluded was an exaggeration. I want you to listen to
20 a tape from a radio broadcast in Canada from the 21st of July, 2003
21 show called "Sounds Like Canada," and this is General Leslie speaking.
22 It has been received in evidence.
23 MR. KEHOE: If I can play this at minute 2:43 through 3:10
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, have transcripts been provided to --
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'm not sure what the relevance of this
3 transcript is to the answer of the witness. I don't think they're
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the problem is I do not know what questions
6 Mr. Kehoe will put to the witness after he has played this video.
7 MR. KEHOE: It's an audio, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's an audio.
9 I take it that you have some relevant questions after we have
10 listened to this audio.
11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 [Audiotape played]
14 MR. KEHOE: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Kehoe, please.
16 MR. KEHOE: I'm not sure what the technological issue is, Your
17 Honour. We tested this before we came in to make sure it was working. I
18 can just read the transcript and just go from there.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can do that.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Would you please just let us know what segment
21 are you going to be reading from.
22 MR. KEHOE: It would be page 2, and it would start from the last
23 sentence of the third paragraph: Back then, in 1995 ...
24 Do you see that? And then it moves done down to the next line:
25 "I'm a gunner."
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, and keep your speed of speech in
3 MR. KEHOE: Just allowing the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm just -- the experience is that when you
5 start reading that it goes up quickly.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. KEHOE: "Back then in 1995 he was a colonel in a Krajina
8 capital of Knin."
9 This is Colonel Leslie.
10 "I'm a gunner. I'm an artillery officer, a professional, a
11 professional. So I can comment on it with some degree of validity. This
12 was deliberate targeting on a massive scale of residential areas. Why?
13 Because I believe it was targeted to break their well to resist. And by
14 the way, it worked. It killed a lot of civilians, and we'll never know
15 the exact number. But estimates -- estimates -- estimates range from 10
16 to 25.000 dead."
17 Q. Now, Mr. Boucher, you mentioned to us preliminarily that there
18 were bad feelings by the Canadian military resulting from the
19 Medak Pocket operation. Do you believe that the Canadian experience in
20 Medak Pocket affected the objectivity of some of these Canadian officers
21 and enlisted men when they were reporting as to what was happening in
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, if a foundation could be laid as to
25 the witness's knowledge.
1 JUDGE ORIE: He has not asked for any knowledge. He is asked for
2 his belief, as a matter of fact. Belief is usually not that relevant.
3 And if we would like to know whether they were influenced, I think that
4 would need a kind of expertise of which I have some doubts as whether
5 this witness disposes of that. But if you want to explore that, and use
6 your time for that, Mr. Kehoe, you're free to do so.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
10 A. I believe it could have --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No I asked -- I gave you an opportunity. I
12 said you were asking for a belief, and we have heard the beginning of the
13 answer, he could have had.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah. Of course, but why could you exclude that it
16 could have had. That's exactly the kind of asset, the balance to
17 theories, thoughts, et cetera, and facts, that the balance should be more
18 to the facts. I gave you then an opportunity to say that if you're
19 asking for an opinion, then especially in relation to this question, then
20 at least you should first explore on what basis, that is, on the basis of
21 what expertise, this witness could draw such a conclusion. Because I'm
22 afraid that if we would have a are professor in psychology before us, he
23 might be hesitant to answer that question.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. KEHOE: I understand Mr. President.
1 Q. Mr. Boucher, did you have conversations with Colonel Leslie or
2 General Forand or other members of the Canadian contingent in Knin about
3 their experiences in the Medak Pocket?
4 A. I did not. My only recollection is there is an documentary film
5 that plays on TV in Canada
6 Medak Pocket, and there's comment there, so ...
7 Q. Moving to -- back to the actual transcript, sir, without -- that
8 I read to you which is D329, when you were there in Knin, was there --
9 and General Leslie says that the estimates range from 10 to 25.000 dead,
10 when you were there, sir, and out in the community and talking to the
11 people, did you ever hear any number of dead that remotely came close to
12 that number as set forth by then Colonel Leslie?
13 A. I did not.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Boucher.
15 MR. KEHOE: I have no further questions of this witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We could start further cross-examination, but that
19 would be seven minutes only. We are scheduled to resume this afternoon
20 at 3.00. Now, I have received time indications of two Defence teams,
21 each 45 minutes or less, at least it was less than 45 minutes, and the
22 same for the other Defence team which brings me down, within one and a
23 half hours.
24 If these estimates are still accurate, then I leave it to you,
25 Ms. Higgins, whether you would to start now or whether we would use the
1 first session, which takes one hour and a half or a little bit more to
2 hear the evidence in cross-examination by the two Defence teams. And
3 then after the break, give an opportunity for re-examination and
4 questions put by the Bench.
5 Would you like to start at this moment, or would we have a break
6 until 3.00?
7 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, I'm entirely in Your Honours hands and
8 the Benches hands. I'm very happy to start for the next five, six
9 minutes. I have a rather short section that I can deal with now. My
10 estimate is approximately 50 minutes, Your Honour, so perhaps best that I
11 commence now.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- then perhaps we start at this
13 moment. Mr. Boucher, you will now cross-examined by Ms. Higgins.
14 Ms. Higgins is counsel for Mr. Cermak.
15 Cross-examination by Ms. Higgins:
16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Boucher.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. I would like to start just by asking you a couple of questions
19 about your role in UNCIVPOL and the reporting mechanism to the Croatian
21 Now, as I understand from April 1995, you held the position in
22 Sector South as Sector Chief for UNCIVPOL, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And that, in fact, after Operation Storm, you left as best you
25 can recall on the 22nd of August. Is that right?
1 A. I don't recollect this clearly, because I can try -- and I don't
2 remember the dates. But I did -- it was the end of our mission. I did
3 go with the other two Canadians who was the Sector North commander or
4 Sector Chief and Sector East to the coast with the approval -- because we
5 were actually supposed to go on holidays at the beginning of -- of
6 August. And we delayed this because this was coming.
7 So there is some days that I was not in the sector and the Deputy
8 Chief was actually acting as the Sector Chief.
9 Q. Let me try and assist you, Mr. Boucher, by directing you --
10 there's no need to call this up, but just so you can have a look at it.
11 And the first statement that you make at the very end, paragraph 11, you
12 confirm then that you took leave on the 22nd of August. Would you
13 consider that to be a reliable statement that you made in 1996, shortly
14 after the events?
15 A. I would have to say yes.
16 Q. Now, when you went to Croatia
17 that right?
18 A. It was.
19 Q. Did you speak any of the Croatian language yourself?
20 A. When I arrived there, no.
21 Q. Okay. I note that you yourself have said - again, I can direct
22 you, it's in your second statement, but can you take it from me - that
23 you stated that you didn't know very much about the conflict or about the
24 area before you left. Would that be fair to say?
25 A. That is fair. I only received information and briefing about
1 what to expect, and, again, directions, Stay fair, listen to both sides.
2 Q. You have, we know, extensive policing experience. You've
3 confirmed to this Court that have you no military experience. Is that
4 right, isn't it?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Is it also right that the nature of the briefing that you
7 received when you were in Canada
8 were to expect when you arrived in Croatia, in terms of -- let me try and
9 precise my question. In fact, what I'm actually -- let me ask you this
11 Once you had got to Knin and after Operation Storm itself, did
12 you receive any specific briefing as to the functioning of the civilian
13 and/or military structure within that liberated territory?
14 A. Are you asking about any directions from the UN that, for
15 example, who would be responsible; or are you asking me did -- was there
16 comments on television and newspaper about who was appointed?
17 Q. We'll come on that if we may. What I'm interested in is whether
18 this was any specific detailed information which you were given as to how
19 the institutions would function after Operation Storm, and by
20 institutions, I'm referring to the civilian structures and the military
22 A. I did not get official.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, just to confirm for me, did you have
24 interpreters who were assigned to work with UNCIVPOL members?
25 A. Yes, we did. Before Storm, yes. After Storm a lot of them moved
1 and never came back, so we were down to not too many interpreters.
2 Q. And is it right that in your role, you were involved with
3 Mr. Elleby in drafting and working out a strategy of joint work with the
4 Croatian civilian police?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You knew Mr. Romanic as the chief of the police administration of
7 Kotar Knin, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And he was one of your main points of contact within the Croatian
10 civilian police. Would that be right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Mr. Boucher, I'm going to come on to look at the document about
13 the joint work after the break. So we'll come back to that at 3.00.
14 Thank you very much.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Boucher, we'll have a lunch break, and we'll
17 resume at 3.00.
18 Mr. Usher, could you already escort Mr. Boucher out of the
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could we turn into private session.
22 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 3.00 this afternoon.
11 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.47 p.m.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 --- On resuming at 3.11 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for the late start, but we
15 had quite few matters, with the recess coming, which are also to the
16 benefit of the party in this case.
17 Are you ready to continue, Ms. Higgins.
18 MS. HIGGINS: I am, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
20 MS. HIGGINS: Thank you.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Boucher, we were going to discuss the strategy of joint
22 work that I understand you were instrumental in putting together with
23 Mr. Elleby, and I'd like P240 to be brought on to the screen so you can
24 have a look at the document itself.
25 While the document is coming up can I just let you know for the
1 record that this document is dated to be effective from the 26th of
2 August, 1995, and I know that's a period when -- by which time you had
3 left Knin but I'd like to just ask you about the principles that are set
4 out herein and ask you to confirm a few points, if I may.
5 The first is this. If you look at point 2, you can see there
6 there is reference to the establishment of regular meetings with the Knin
7 police department commissioner, it says Mr. Zedo, but it is Mr. Cedo
8 Romanic. That was one of your intentions. Is that right?
9 A. Well, after Storm it became -- it was in the sector per se
10 because the UN was really the one that determined that there was a Zone
11 of Separation. The partnership had to be enhanced I think with the local
12 police, because before that, it was a matter of finding -- for example we
13 would find bodies, evidence, whatever it may be. We were not police
14 officers to investigate but to turn over the information. So this was in
15 light of making better cooperation that once we find evidence,
16 information, regular meetings to make sure that we would work
18 Q. And part that cooperation that you had set up is also reflected
19 in point 3 which refers to daily liaison with the police stations. If
20 you can see that in the first two lines?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And point 5, we see there there's reference to monthly, on a
23 monthly basis to have meetings with the commissioner of the Zadarska,
24 Kninska police department, Mr. Marijan Bitanga in Zadar and there's
25 reference to Mr. Dragan Matic concerning the Drnis police. Again part of
1 the intention, to increase cooperation in your role to monitor
2 effectively the Croatian police. Is that right?
3 A. This was not all my work, if you want, because my intention
4 before I left was to establish some relationship.
5 These people for example were identified here as the chief of the
6 administration and so on. That must have been brought forward by
7 Mr. Elleby who replaced me after I left, also replaced me during my
9 Q. And just to complete analysis of this document, at point 6 we see
10 that any problems that there were on the lower levels were intended to be
11 resolved by Mr. Franjo Djurica. Can you see that in point 6?
12 A. I see it but I don't know Mr. Franjo Djurica.
13 Q. Thank you. Another working relationship that you had established
14 aside from Mr. Romanic was with the Croatian police chief in Sibenik, a
15 man you have already mentioned by the name of Mr. Grgurcin. Is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. From the limited time that you were able to see what was
19 happening in Knin, can you help this Trial Chamber with the resources
20 that the local civilian Croatian police had to their access for them to
21 be able to use, to your knowledge, the best of your knowledge?
22 A. I don't recall -- and I'm not sure what -- what type of resources
23 you're talking about. Human resources or equipment?
24 Q. For example, human resources, vehicles that they could use, can
25 you assist us with that?
1 A. I know before I left I had asked the CIVPOL monitors to work very
2 cooperatively with the police to -- for more than one reason but one of
3 the reasons was to establish a sense of normalcy for the community.
4 There was more and more Croatian residents and maybe even of Serb ethnic
5 origin coming back to the community to their houses and so on, people who
6 had been away for four years, so to get things going really, really the
7 authority for policing was the policija.
8 Q. Mm-hm.
9 A. The -- our authority was based on monitoring and monitoring human
10 rights, monitoring several things. And of course if there would have
11 been issues at that point with the minority Serbs that stayed behind, in
12 fractions, so on, of course you can deal with it fairly quickly. That
13 was my intention. But how it was pursued after I left, I have no idea
14 how things turned out.
15 Q. And presumably you have limited knowledge given the time that you
16 were there in terms of the actual resources that the Croatian police had.
17 Is that fair?
18 A. That is very fair. I would only add just a few things.
19 One is the CIVPOL monitors were not armed and one of the policies
20 we had, is we were not to pick up unless there was a serious injury
21 somebody who was armed. So to have in our vehicle, for example, a
22 policija, or have somebody who was carrying a weapon, a military, was
23 against our policy. And, again, for the reason that the CIVPOL monitors
24 and stations would also receive complaints sometimes so there was really
25 two source. If somebody could approach the local policija and say there
1 is an issue, there's an infraction, there's a crime, they could also do
2 it through the medium of the CIVPOL police and it was important to keep
3 the two avenues. Because they were afraid. They would never go to the
4 policija until you establish credibility again. And so after I left, I
5 don't know what exactly happened there.
6 Q. Just so that I understand the remit of your knowledge,
7 Mr. Boucher, and your experience, can you please ask you to briefly have
8 a look at P962.
9 MS. HIGGINS: If that could be brought onto the screen, please.
10 Q. The document that you're going to see is an organisational chart
11 of the Ministry of Interior. And what I'd like to ask you is to just run
12 your eyes across the names in that document. And I'd like to know
13 whether or not you were familiar with the higher echelons of the Ministry
14 of the Interior.
15 If you look towards the bottom third, you'll see the name Cedo
16 Romanic, and you will see the police stations underneath. Can you see
18 A. You have to go a little bit further down.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Oh, yes, I see it now. Yes. There's also names further, higher,
21 Marijan Bitanga, Ivica Cetina.
22 Q. Did you meet either of these gentlemen?
23 A. I don't recall.
24 Q. If you -- you have seen the top of the screen. Were you familiar
25 with any other names within the Ministry of the Interior that are marked
2 A. I am not.
3 Q. Could I just ask you to confirm, Mr. Boucher, that the work that
4 you undertook in your role with UNCIVPOL and your liaison with the
5 Croatian police had nothing at all to do with Mr. Cermak, did it?
6 A. I think you're probably right on that point. The only -- the
7 only time really where I met Mr. Cermak, I was under the authority of the
8 commander. It was code red, and Mr. Cermak came to the UN camp --
9 Q. Could I stop you there, Mr. Boucher, because I will come to that
10 on a separate issue. So if I could ask to come back to that in a moment.
11 Just to conclude the section on UNCIVPOL and the civilian police,
12 can I ask you to clarify for me how it was that you and your associate
13 members of UNCIVPOL reported the crimes that you came across to the
14 Croatian police? How did that happen; how was it done?
15 A. My direction was to all station commanders when we reopened the
16 different stations or offices that if you come across a crime or report a
17 crime, sometimes when you investigate, it becomes nothing, but report
18 that as soon as you can to -- locally to the policija. In some cases
19 they would not know it because nobody has reported it. That was the
20 process. It also meant that we were to report what we found and also in
21 what means who we contacted and to make sure there was documentation that
22 certain things and complaints were actually passed on to the policija.
23 Q. From reading your statement, would it be right to say you make
24 reference at one point about it being easier to talk to the police. Is
25 it right to say there were oral reports to the police or were there also
1 written reports, if you can recall?
2 A. There was a lot more relationship with the policija before Storm
3 and even after Storm, except for a few policija who obviously thought we
4 had no business there anymore. But having said that, even before Storm,
5 it was easier to organise a meeting to share what are the issues you
6 have, because as I had said this morning, they were also informed through
7 families and so on about things that happened in the sector, which they
8 could not reach obviously.
9 Q. Indeed.
10 A. So it was always very easy to deal in my mind much easier to deal
11 with the policija than it was to deal with the milicija.
12 And after Storm, at the beginning, let's say for several days
13 after Storm the policija seemed like it didn't really have an engagement
14 yet. The military was not out of the way to really -- to allow them to
15 do as much. But as that grew, we asked them to get involved and we
16 shared whatever we could.
17 Q. And do you know whether, and if so how, that information was
18 recorded by the Croatian police? Is that something within your knowledge
19 or not?
20 A. It is not.
21 Q. It's right, I think, to say, again having looked at your
22 statements that you yourself raised the issue of arson and looting with
23 the police chief in Drnis, Mr. Bilac, and with Mr. Romanic. Is that
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. You were aware, again I understand the limited time you were
2 there, and please correct me if I'm wrong but is it right to say that you
3 were aware as would have been the normal course of events that the power
4 to investigate those crimes lay with the Croatian civilian police. Is
5 that -- was that your understanding at the time?
6 A. If I go back to a statement I received from Mr. Grgurcin in
7 Sibenik and my comment to him is, It's very difficult -- we don't have
8 freedom of movement like we should have. And his comment is, The
9 military is the military. They do what they want. And I also understood
10 from that statement that if it's a matter of time until we can pull back
11 and we -- or I should say the policija has a bigger role to play. But
12 it's -- it's very fair to say also that when there's a military operation
13 going on, the police, civilian police, takes a second stage. Not only
14 for here. It happened in Quebec
15 situations and the military is called in to play a role, they take the
16 first stage.
17 Q. I understand that, Mr. Boucher. The question I was aiming to ask
18 was really to do with the reason you were reporting it to the Croatian
19 civilian police was that you would expect them to be investigating the
20 crimes that took place. Is that right?
21 A. More than that.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. My intention was to -- they knew or certainly ought to know who
24 the different commanders of the military people that were involved, as an
25 example the ones that I saw with the gas, jerrycans to at least get on
1 them that this has to stop. And so more in a communication process and
2 hopefully that would have been enough.
3 Q. From the observations that you made, it's right to say that it
4 was your own observation that at the early stages the Croatian police
5 were not, to use your words, really on top things. Is that accurate?
6 A. That was my -- that's what I observed.
7 Q. In terms of your freedom of movement around the area, was it your
8 understanding and your knowledge that Mr. Cermak had tried to assist on
9 paper with facilitating a freedom of movement. Correct?
10 A. That's the letter I received.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, in practice, in terms you getting around the
12 territory, after the first few days, let's leave that to one side, from
13 reading your statement - and again if you'd like to look at, it's your
14 second statement that you gave, paragraph 31 - you explain, and that for
15 the record is P1177. No need to call it up unless it would assist the
17 You explain in some detail that given your experience as a police
18 officer, when you were stopped at the check-points you managed to the
19 negotiate your way through and come to an arrangement to get you where
20 you wanted to go. Is that a fair enough summary of how you managed to
21 see what you needed to see, Mr. Boucher?
22 A. This was done on a quite regular basis.
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. The issue was more about the cemetery, that was the one area that
25 was -- for some reason, couldn't get access for quite a while.
1 Q. I'll come on to that.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. And it's right, again from your statement, paragraph 34 of your
4 third statement, for the record P1178, that in seeking greater freedom of
5 movement, in your position, you asked Mr. Grgurcin for assistance. Is
6 that right?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And in fact he told you to go to Cedo Romanic and you were given
9 a paper that sometimes assisted, sometimes not so much. Correct?
10 A. That's true.
11 Q. Now in relation to the Knin cemetery I would like to deal with
12 that briefly. Again, I understand that you don't have military
14 A. That's true.
15 Q. You firstly addressed, as you have been shown, Mr. Cermak, with
16 your concerns about getting access. Correct?
17 A. True.
18 Q. That was dated the 11th of August, which we have seen from the
19 record. You can take that from me.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. For the record 65 ter -- sorry P1180, no need to call that
23 On the 13th of August you were shown by my learned friend P1181
24 which was the response from Mr. Cermak informing you that he had passed
25 on your letter to Mr. Romanic, and it would be he who would resolve the
1 issue for you. Is that right?
2 A. Yes, I did receive that letter.
3 Q. Yes. Now, in relation to those who turned you away, are you able
4 to tell me or not whether they were military or civil protection units?
5 Do you know, first of all, what the civilian protection units were?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So from that I can take it, can I, that you are not able to
8 assist me with distinguishing whether in fact those people who turned you
9 away were members of the civilian protection?
10 A. The first time I tried to go there myself --
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. -- with another monitor, it was military, other words, green
13 uniform. And after this, it was policija. The best I can recall, it was
14 blue uniform.
15 Q. We know from a document that is already in evidence in this case,
16 for the Bench's record P33, it's a HRAT report, Mr. Boucher, dated the
17 15th August that although a team had been turned away at some point, on
18 the 15th, access was granted an hour and a half later that same day.
19 Were you aware of that or not?
20 A. I'm not aware of that.
21 Q. Okay. Were you aware that the civil protection units were in
22 fact part of the MUP?
23 A. Wasn't aware of that.
24 Q. Were you aware of the role that they had, in terms of security of
25 establishments such as the Knin graveyard? Was that in your knowledge or
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. I'd like to move now to deal with the matter that you have
4 raised concerning the meeting or at least when you saw live - again to
5 use your word, Mr. Cermak - and that was in the UN camp. Is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was that the only time you saw him, to the best of your
9 A. That's the part that is a bit foggy because I think it was
10 actually twice. So I'm not positive. Once for sure, because I remember
11 that one time where when he came in to -- right inside the gate of the UN
12 camp and there was also a cameraman like the media was along. But I
13 think there was even a second meeting.
14 Q. Let's take it in stages. Were you present on the 7th when we
15 know that Mr. Akashi visited the UN camp.
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. Did you per chance see Mr. Cermak then, who we know visited the
18 camp on that day? Is that possible?
19 A. It is very possible.
20 Q. Now the occasion that you talk about in your statements
21 concerning Mr. Cermak being at the camp, did you come to know that on the
22 7th of August General Forand had met with General Cermak and that it was
23 during a meeting on that day that General Cermak asked for access to
24 the -- to meet with the displaced persons in the camp. Is that within
25 your knowledge, Mr. Boucher?
1 A. That part, no; but I do have knowledge that there was several
2 requests to see the list of all the refugees that came in to camp by
3 different people. And again I don't recall today if Mr. Cermak was one
4 of them but Mr. -- or the Colonel Zelic on several occasion even had a
5 meeting. I remember escorting him from the gate to the headquarters
6 where General Forand was, and there was other people. When I visited
7 Cedo Romanic at the policija office also requesting the list.
8 Q. Let me try and assist you, if I can, by refreshing your memory.
9 In your second statement, paragraph 63, you will see, if you take a look,
10 that you explained that you came to know that General Cermak requested
11 through the liaison officer that he wanted to meet all the refugees.
12 That was certainly within your knowledge, Mr. Boucher, wasn't it?
13 A. That part was, yes. Because I was requested to see if there was
14 a committee, if a committee to be identified to represent the refugees,
16 Q. And if I can try and assist you further, I'd like us to look at a
17 record from the time, because it is a matter of evidence before this
18 Court that is undisputed that the meeting that you're talking about where
19 Mr. Cermak comes to the camp is on the 8th of August.
20 So just to give you the opportunity to look at a contemporaneous
22 MS. HIGGINS: If I could have P29, please, on the screen.
23 Q. While it's coming up, Mr. Boucher, just to explain its context to
24 you, this is a report that was made issued -- daily report issued by the
25 HRAT team, the name of which you may be familiar, the Human Rights Action
1 Team in Knin. And if you could look at the very bottom of that page,
2 this is reference there -- sorry. Could I ask you in fact --
3 MS. HIGGINS: Could I have the second page of that document,
4 please, on the screen.
5 Q. If you look at the bottom two lines you'll see reference there
6 to: "Today, however, General Cermak came to the compound and in the UN's
7 presence delivered to a committee of the DPs," over the page please, "the
8 Croatian government's position regarding their reintegration."
9 That paragraph there at the top of the page, I won't read it out
10 in full, but if you just take a moment to scan it, Mr. Boucher, it refers
11 to Mr. Cermak announcing to the displaced persons the range of rights
12 that would be guaranteed for them.
13 Is the record there, does that accord with your recollection of
14 what Mr. Cermak had to say that day?
15 A. It does.
16 Q. Do you have any further recollection about the way in which
17 Mr. Cermak addressed this issue with the displaced persons and the
19 A. I don't, because the decisions were from the commander, not from
20 me. So I was an observer and limited, at that.
21 Q. One point that you have made clear to us in evidence before this
22 Court is Mr. Cermak wanting the people to stay in Knin. Is that right?
23 A. That's true.
24 Q. And you'll see reference there again in that paragraph that I
25 just referred to as Mr. Cermak not wanting a dead town.
1 Can you see that on the fourth line from the bottom of the first
3 A. I -- I don't recall that comment, to see a dead town, but I
4 remember the fact that whoever wants to stay can stay.
5 This may have been an issue of interpretation, but ...
6 Q. Of course.
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. Did you come to know about the provision of assistance to those
9 people in the camp of blankets, food and cigarettes? Did you come to
10 know about that?
11 A. I don't recall this.
12 Q. Mm-hm.
13 A. And my explanation would be that when the refugees came in, we
14 really had nothing, not even enough food. It became my responsibility
15 with the CIVPOL monitors under the command of General Forand to please
16 look after the refugees the best we could and at the same time also
17 manning the gate, so looking after the refugees and also trying to
18 provide enough food, which was short. We didn't have enough food, and
19 there was even water issues for a thousand people plus all the UN, but
20 the goal was to create a committee for them. They were there. If they
21 could cook themselves, if we could try to supply -- it started out with
22 eggs and, you know, minimal, cheese and whatever we could gather, to
23 cook, clean and so on and really look after themself and identify to some
24 of the CIVPOL monitors if they needed, for example, medical assistance
25 and whatever. So once that was created as a committee, I was a bit away
1 from it.
2 Q. So you're not sure how that matter was resolved in the end --
3 A. No, I do not.
4 Q. -- effectively? Did you come to see a follow-up letter.
5 MS. HIGGINS: If I can ask for P388, please.
6 Q. A follow-up letter sent by Mr. Cermak to General Forand straight
7 after that meeting on the 8th of August?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ...
9 MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I will try to inject more
11 Q. If I could ask to you just peruse that document.
12 A. I do not remember seeing this document.
13 Q. You can see there, perhaps, however, having been at the meeting,
14 that there's again reference to trying to assist with the conditions of
15 normal life for the displaced persons in the camp. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. I'd like now to deal with a new topic with you, Mr. Boucher,
18 which concerns the title and appointment of Mr. Cermak. And I'd like to
19 deal firstly with the fact of his appointment, if I may.
20 I know from the first statement that you made back in 1996 - and
21 again, you can take it from me, if you'd like to check, it's
22 paragraph 8 - and the wording ask as follows. You say: "General Cermak
23 was appointed by Mr. Tudjman on approximately the 6th of August, 1995
24 be the governor of the Knin area."
25 Now either at any time during your stay in Knin or thereafter,
1 did you come to know that he was in fact appointed a day earlier, on the
2 5th, and you're right to say by President Tudjman.
3 Did you know about the date of the appointment being the 5th?
4 A. No.
5 Q. In your second statement that you made, for the reference it's
6 paragraph 62, and again if I could just read the piece to you so that
7 you're following with me, you state that: "About three days after the
8 attack, I watched local Croatian TV where President Tudjman announced
9 that he had appointed General Cermak as governor of Knin. I had never
10 heard of General Cermak prior to this."
11 Do you remember where you were when you heard this broadcast?
12 A. I believe it was a TV that was set up in the UN camp to monitor,
13 you know, what was presented on different channels. And again there may
14 have been a delay with the media, you know, finally announcing this. But
15 it could have been 7th, could have been 6th. My comment about I didn't
16 know about this, this was also reported by interpreters --
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. -- that he had been appointed so ...
19 Q. I was going to come on to ask you that, how it was that you came
20 to understand that was being said.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Your understanding was through an interpreter. Is that right?
23 A. Several of them. Through the media relation office also the UN.
24 At the UN camp there was an office that dealt with media.
25 Q. You've mentioned that and you have dealt with that in the
1 statement that you recently gave to the Gotovina team.
2 Just to touch upon Mr. Cermak himself so that I'm clear about
3 your testimony, it's right to say that you never had a one-on-one meeting
4 with Mr. Cermak. Is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Is it also accurate to say - and again to be fair to you - that
7 you didn't have any personal firsthand knowledge of what his actual role
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Yes. At any stage again either during your stay in Knin or
11 thereafter, did you come to know about Mr. Cermak being tasked with being
12 a point of contact for the UN?
13 A. I didn't know that.
14 Q. Did you come to know that part of his role concerned
15 normalization of life in Knin and assisting with this issue of the
16 displaced persons?
17 A. Again, I didn't know that. If I can just repeat what I said
18 earlier. A lot of this information would have been shared with the
19 commander, General Forand, because this was all under code red.
20 Q. Mm-hm.
21 A. So I was not in authority to make any deals or agreements.
22 Q. I understand. I'm actually just going to give you an opportunity
23 to deal with it because I'm going to come on to a point that may be more
24 difficult in a moment.
25 Again, for the sake of clarity, right that you yourself never
1 went to his office in Knin. Is that correct?
2 A. That's true.
3 Q. And it would be fair to say that you were never told or informed
4 yourself about the level of staffing he had in the garrison?
5 A. That's true.
6 Q. Or the resources that he had available to him. Would that be
8 A. That's true.
9 Q. Now, in the first statement that you gave, as well as providing
10 information about Mr. Cermak's appointment, you also explain a little
11 from your understanding as to who was in command of the army and the
12 police, to remind you, paragraph 8 of the first statement, we're
13 introduced to the gentleman named Colonel Zelic and you say: "The Croat
14 military was under command of a Colonel Zelic."
15 Do you recall that?
16 A. True. That's the first contact I had with anybody from the Croat
17 army, who showed up with some authority and wanting to -- well, again
18 wanting to have the list of refugees but saying that he was speaking on
19 behalf of the Croat army.
20 Q. And in fact you give us more detail in your second statement when
21 you explain that he came to the camp on, you believe, the 6th of August.
22 And he introduced himself as the commander of the army. Correct?
23 You can have a look at paragraph 53, if that helps, of your
24 second statement, Mr. Boucher.
25 A. That's what I wrote so I would think that's the information I
1 received through the interpretation.
2 Q. And that you in fact dealt with him in trying to assist
3 yourselves getting access out of the UN camp?
4 A. That's true.
5 Q. In terms of the police in your first statement you refer us to,
6 of course, Cedo Romanic who was, you say the new chief of police in Knin.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you refer to us Goran, Goran --
10 A. Grgurcin.
11 Q. Exactly. Thank you. I have been doing so well with that name up
12 to now.
13 In terms of his position as the chief of police for the Drnis
14 area out of Sibenik. Do you recall that from your statement?
15 A. Yes, that's true.
16 Q. One observation that you provide for us, in terms of General
17 Cermak, can be found at paragraph 65 of your second statement, and again
18 I'll read it out for you, Mr. Boucher.
19 "General Cermak did not appear to me to be a military man. He
20 did not carry himself in that way. He did not have an aura of authority.
21 His hair was long. I think he wore a uniform. This was the only time I
22 saw General Cermak live. However, I saw him several times on TV."
23 Is that an accurate and fair summary today of your impression of
24 Mr. Cermak, from when you wrote that statement?
25 A. I would agree with this. But you know today the more I try to
1 remember, I don't even think he was in uniform.
2 Q. Okay. I'd like to now give you the chance to examine with me
3 finally before I close the third statement that you made. For the
4 record, it's P1178.
5 If you have that before you, Mr. Boucher, we know from the front
6 sheet of that interview that you were interviewed on the 3rd and the 9th
7 of April, and you signed the document on the 5th of November, 2008, a
8 short time ago. Do you recall giving that interview?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Present during that interview the names are cited on the front
11 sheet. They are Ruth Frolich, Brian Foster, Katrina Gustafson and Deon
12 Van Rooyen. Do you see that?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Did those interviews take place in The Hague or elsewhere?
15 A. This was telephone interviews.
16 Q. Okay. And do you know -- well, for starters, did you yourself
17 either record the interview or did you take any notes during the
19 A. I did take a few notes but a lot of it was referring to the
20 previous two statements I had submitted, and what it was is, they did the
21 transcribing, send it back to my assistant so that I would proofread it
22 to make sure and I made the corrections that I thought should be made and
23 then forwarded back the -- a copy and upon my arrival here gave them the
25 Q. Were you ever provided with a tape-recording of the interview
1 that took place?
2 A. I was not.
3 Q. Do you still have the notes that you made during that interview?
4 I know it's probably difficult for you to recall.
5 A. I don't think I do.
6 Q. Now, during the telephone interviews that took place, first of
7 all, how was it that you came to sign the document? Was it faxed over to
8 you and you faxed it back?
9 A. It was actually -- I don't think it was through fax but through
10 e-mail. And it was sent back without the signature, until all the
11 corrections were made. At that point once it was correct, I signed it
12 and then we e-mailed it back. And the message attached to this was,
13 Could you please bring the original when you arrive here in The Hague
14 Q. Sure. Thank you.
15 During the telephone interviews that took place, were you
16 yourself given any further information about Mr. Cermak by any -- anybody
17 who spoke to you on the phone?
18 A. I'm not sure what information you're talking about.
19 Q. I'm just asking whether in fact you were given any information as
20 to what Mr. Cermak's role was or who he was. Was there any information
21 that was passed your way that you can recall?
22 A. I don't recall that.
23 Q. Okay. I'd like you to now just have a look, please, at
24 paragraph 43 of your third statement. I'll read the extract into the
25 record. It's a short extract.
1 "As governor of Knin, I believed Cermak was in charge of both
2 the military and the civilian authority in Knin. I base this on the fact
3 that it was announced on TV that he had been appointed as some kind of
4 governor of Knin. Interpreters and civilians I spoke to told me that
5 this meant that he was the military and civilian boss of the area."
6 Dealing with the title first, and I see clearly there that have
7 you inserted the word "believed." I want to deal firstly with the title.
8 Did you come to know at any point that he was not in fact the governor of
9 Knin but was appointed as the garrison commander of Knin?
10 A. This is the first time I hear that title.
11 Q. I'd like to show you for the record, and for your benefit so you
12 understand my questions, a contemporaneous document which is D31, please.
13 MS. HIGGINS: If that can be brought up onto the screen.
14 Q. As it's coming on to the screen, to put it into context it's a
15 document that this Chamber is extremely familiar with, and I hope they
16 will indulge me by presenting it to you, Mr. Boucher.
17 It's a document dated 5th of August, 1995, and as can you see
18 from its content, it's a decision issued by Franjo Tudjman appointing
19 Colonel General Cermak as the commander of the Knin garrison.
20 Can you see that?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. I know you had a media department, as you have explained to us.
23 I'd like to finally give you the opportunity of looking at D36, please,
24 which again refers to the same point.
25 Is it right that you had people reviewing the media articles that
1 were coming in so that you could appraise yourself of what was happening
2 in the area? Did that happen?
3 A. We did have a media -- the information wasn't always fanned out,
4 though, to everyone particularly at that hectic time. We were -- we had
5 our hands full.
6 Q. I can imagine. I understand. If you can take a look at this
7 article and tell whether or not you ever saw it.
8 MS. HIGGINS: For the record, it's a press article which was
9 published in Slobodna Dalmatia dated the 6th of August.
10 Q. And in that first paragraph you see reference again to the
11 decision appointing Ivan Cermak as the commander of the Knin garrison.
12 I understand and I think it's right to say that the information
13 you got, you relied on interpreters to give it to you. Correct.
14 A. That's true.
15 Q. You also fairly state in that paragraph 43 that we've just looked
16 at, that it was your belief that he was in charge of the military and
17 civilian authority, and that you based that on the announcement on TV,
18 and that the interpreters you spoke to gave you the information that he
19 was the military and civilian boss. That was the sole basis, wasn't it,
20 Mr. Boucher?
21 A. It was.
22 Q. And just to clarify, did you ever come to know that in fact
24 that something you came to know or not?
25 A. When the interpreters said that to me, one of the interpreters,
1 the first time, I thought governor? What does that mean? And apparently
2 comments were that person is responsible for the Knin area.
3 Q. To put this -- yes. But you didn't in fact know what he was
4 responsible for, did you?
5 A. I was -- I did not, no.
6 Q. And it's right to say that you never saw any orders that were
7 issued by Mr. Cermak to either the military or the police. Would that be
9 A. I never saw any orders, no.
10 Q. Thank you. Could you provide me with any of the names of the
11 interpreters or civilians that you spoke to about this?
12 A. You know, most of the interpreters it was by first name, Tanja
13 or -- there was a young woman by the name of Lily but family name, I'm
15 Q. Mr. Boucher, thank you very much for answering my questions.
16 A. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Higgins.
18 Your estimate of time, Mr. Kuzmanovic, is still the same?
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I will done by the balance of the
20 day. Just joking.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You know my sense of humour, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour, I should be no more than 20
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
25 You will now -- Mr. Boucher you will now be cross-examined by
1 Mr. Kuzmanovic, who is counsel for Mr. Markac.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Kuzmanovic:
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Boucher, I'd like to take you to your statement, P1178,
6 please. Paragraph 38. And please let me know when you get there.
7 A. Could you tell me which statement this is. They don't have
8 numbers on them.
9 Q. Sure. It's the one dated 11/12 November 1999. I'm sorry, it is
10 not that one. It is 3rd and 9 November 2008 and 5 November 2008.
11 A. And which paragraph again, please?
12 Q. 38.
13 A. Thank you.
14 Q. There's a gentleman there in that paragraph identified as Nelson
15 Garcia. Is Nelson Garcia, was he an intelligence officer?
16 A. To my knowledge he was not. He worked under the UNCIVPOL
17 headquarters in Zagreb
18 out of Zagreb
19 Q. What kind of contact did you have with Mr. Garcia subsequent to
20 this meeting?
21 A. May have been with telephone conversation. I don't even know if
22 there was communication, written communication.
23 Q. I think you said you were being based in Knin, that you weren't
24 necessarily aware of the structure of the Croatian Ministry of Interior
25 and how the police was structured after Operation Storm. Correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Do you know if Mr. Garcia was aware of that?
3 A. I would think he would be, because it was more at his level from
4 the UNCIVPOL headquarters to the head of the policija in Zagreb. So I
5 would think, it's a guess, but I would think he would be aware of that.
6 Q. Mr. Boucher, this is not a criticism of you at all, but would you
7 agree with me that had Mr. Boucher -- or had Mr. Garcia been aware of how
8 the police was structured that it would have been beneficial to you in
9 your work in Knin to know the various structures were involved after
10 Sector South became liberated?
11 A. It certainly would have been beneficial, for sure.
12 Q. I'd like to show you, please, D497.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to the ... the attachment on
14 there, Mr. Registrar? Is there no attachment to that? Is it ...
15 That's not the document. I must have it written down
16 incorrectly. I will move on and I'll come back to this.
17 One second.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
20 Q. My question I guess, before I get back to this other document is:
21 You work with Mr. Elleby. Correct?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. So you were basically the person in charge up until the time you
24 left in roughly August 22nd or so?
25 A. I was.
1 Q. And Mr. Elleby was your number two?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. Who, if you could tell me, what other people did you have with
4 you in your office that you worked with on a daily basis from UNCIVPOL?
5 If you could give me some names.
6 A. You're talking about at the Knin level?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. There was one police officer from Lisbon, Gustavo was his name, I
9 forget his family name.
10 Q. Did you work with a Mr. Romassev?
11 A. That name's familiar and I believe he was working out of the Knin
12 station, not the Knin headquarters of CIVPOL.
13 Q. Okay. Describe the difference between the Knin station and the
14 Knin headquarters of CIVPOL.
15 A. The directions for the UNCIVPOL was given to the Sector Chief,
16 the Deputy Chief and administrative officer and humanitarian office and
17 some support in translations and maybe secretarial.
18 The rest of the UNCIVPOL officers were actually working in
19 offices in detachments or stations. Knin was one of them. So if people
20 were to approach with a complaint, they would go to the station, not
21 necessarily to the Sector Chief or Deputy chief, if you understand. So
22 policies and directions for UNCIVPOL at the sector level was the
23 responsibility of the UNCIVPOL headquarters and that would have been
24 myself, the Deputy Chief, the admin officer, and the humanitarian
1 Q. Okay. So if there was a complaint, for example, somebody wanted
2 to report that there was a dead body or that perhaps there was evidence
3 that a crime had been committed, they wouldn't come to you; they would
4 come to the office. Correct?
5 A. Generally that would be case unless they knew me or they saw me
6 somewhere, and what I would do is I would probably relay the message to
7 one of the UNCIVPOL monitors to please go to that location and have a
8 look and make the local contact with the policija.
9 Q. Now, would they issue a daily report to your office?
10 A. They would. Every station would have their own report, what the
11 monitors do and have to report every day. It was submitted to the -- the
12 Sector South headquarters for UNCIVPOL. It was coordinated through an
13 operations officer which was like somebody who answered the phone or
14 relayed messages and so on. And that -- the station's report was
15 actually put into an a sector situational report forwarded to Zagreb
16 every day.
17 Q. Okay. So you would have several levels of reporting and as far
18 as you were concerned, were you sort of the compiler of the reports that
19 sent them along?
20 A. I would see the report every day unless if I was out of the
21 office the Deputy Chief would either sign it, but I would usually see it
22 when I came back. Like if I went to Korenica, for example, if I came
23 back late that night or in the morning, I would definitely -- unless it
24 was something out of the ordinary. But I would see this report. If I'm
25 there on the spot, most of the time I would be, I would sign the report
1 and send it forward to Zagreb
2 Q. It's true, Mr. Boucher, is it not, that the information that you
3 sent along, you yourself did not independently verify or confirm; it
4 would just be information that you had received and then had passed along
5 in another report to Zagreb
6 A. I would agree with you that most of the reports I would not have
7 been on the scene. I would not second-guess or verify everything.
8 Except if I was at the scene or -- then that way I with a know for sure.
9 That's true.
10 Q. Would it a general practice or a rule for UNCIVPOL members not
11 to, for example, when they came upon a crime scene to disturb anything at
12 the crime scene or to alter the crime scene in any way?
13 A. My response may not be politically correct, but the unfortunate
14 thing about the UNCIVPOL police monitors from different countries, some
15 of them, and that's from their own comments, some police officers were in
16 the mission and their comment was, Back home I'm only a police driver, or
17 I'm only in charge of the police stores for uniforms or equipment or I'm
18 an administrator, so the quality of investigation from one officer to
19 another could have been good span, so -- during Storm and right after,
20 there was a limited number of people so we tried to use everybody we
21 could, so -- but, yeah, the reporting on some of them the English was
22 very limited, coming from some countries just barely, you know if you see
23 a report, then you probably have some of them are hard to decipher what
24 exactly do they mean by this. So that's correct.
25 Q. Okay. I guess the short answer to my question was you are not
1 necessarily sure whether it was the general practice for UNCIVPOL members
2 not to for example when the came up on a crime scene disturb anything at
3 the crime?
4 A. I'm pretty that there are situation where they could have been
5 disturbed because of a lack of police investigative experience.
6 Q. I found the document, and of course I was incorrect. It was
7 P497, not D497.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could pull that up, please.
9 Q. Mr. Boucher, this document is a document dated the 3rd of
10 August of 1995. At that time, you were in Knin. Correct?
11 A. I was.
12 Q. This is pre-Operation Storm. And if you will take a look at the
13 cover page, this document is addressed to the police administrations of
14 various places, including for example Zadar-Knin and the second area
15 being Sibenik which is where you had a colleague. Correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Were you aware that the Sibenik police administration did not
18 cover Zadar-Knin?
19 A. You might be right, because I think they covered Drnis and --
20 part of it. The Zadar-Knin was out of Zadar.
21 Q. Okay. And you didn't have for example a chart or a scheme that
22 showed for example if a crime occurred in Drnis, it would be reported to
23 Sibenik or if a crime occurred in some other place, it would be reported
24 to Zadar?
25 A. No. If the crime happened in Drnis it would be reported at the
1 policija office in Drnis, not in Sibenik. If it happened let's say in
2 Gracac, it wouldn't be reported in Zadar. It would be reported at the
3 policija office in Gracac. More local area, if you want.
4 Q. This order and if you -- we will go to the second page, please.
5 The second page notes that the order requires immediate setting
6 up of police administrations in various areas obviously in preparation
7 for what would happen in the event that the territory was liberated after
8 Operation Storm.
9 Were you given any information at all by your people in Zagreb
10 that this was going to occur?
11 A. No.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: The next document I'd like to call up is
14 Q. Mr. Boucher, this is a document dated August 17th. You were
15 still in Knin at that time. Correct?
16 A. I was.
17 Q. It is a letter directed to the chief of the military police
18 administration from a Mr. Moric from the Ministry of Interior of Croatia
19 describing the situation involving burning houses, among other things and
20 identifying that the perpetrators of the acts in most cases persons
21 dressed in Croatian army military uniforms.
22 Was that your awareness that the perpetrators of acts that you
23 observed were dressed in Croatian army military uniforms?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Now, there were also people who weren't members of the Croatian
1 army who abused those uniforms that you saw. Is that not true?
2 A. That, I don't know.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I'd like to tender this document.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number D1219, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: D1219 is admitted into evidence.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Mr. Registrar, please call up D499.
9 Q. This document is dated also August 17th from Mr. Moric. And you
10 had discussed issues regarding restrictions of movement during your
11 examination. Correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This is an order on the second page signed by Mr. Moric in the
14 second paragraph asking in the police administration areas not to
15 restrict the movement of people associated with the European Union
16 monitors, UNCIVPOL members or UNCRO members. Were you aware of this
18 A. I notice on the order that it's top secret and it's also dated
19 the 17th of August. My efforts to get more movement was way before that.
20 But I never did see this report, no.
21 Q. I didn't necessarily ask you if you saw the order itself but were
22 you made aware of it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You had earlier discussed, Mr. Boucher, the issue of the churches
25 and the fact that they were standing particularly Serbian Orthodox
1 churches, whereas the Catholic churches that you'd run across, many of
2 them had not been.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'd like to call up 44 -- 65 ter 4429, please.
4 Q. This is a document dated August 21st, 1995.
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If we could go to the second page.
6 Q. It's an order again from Mr. Moric from the Ministry of Interior
7 seeking information regarding churches and monasteries in the Orthodox
8 diocese in the area asking for a report about what had been done to
9 protect them and for a separate report regarding Catholic churches.
10 Were you ever made aware of that report or did you ever have an
11 ability to review that report?
12 A. I never saw the report. I was never made aware of this report,
13 and if I look at the date, it's getting to the end of my stay in Knin.
14 So maybe that information was passed on to my successor. I'm not sure,
15 but I was never made aware of this.
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I would like to tender this
17 document, please.
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1220, Your Honours.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: And finally, Mr. Boucher --
22 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Oh, sorry, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D1220 is admitted into evidence. The reason why I
25 was slower than usual, Mr. Kuzmanovic, is that the language in the
1 previous document sounded so familiar to me that I wondered whether it
2 would not be --
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: You're referring to D499, Your Honour?
4 JUDGE ORIE: The last one, the --
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: The new exhibit, the 65 ter that has just been
6 turned into an exhibit?
7 JUDGE ORIE: I will check that. That was the letter from
8 Mr. Moric about --
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Oh, that was the one before.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It is similar. It is different. There are two
12 separate documents, Your Honour, relating to that. You are correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it --
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'll find the reference to the other document,
15 Your Honour. I'll get it to the -- to the Chamber. Because it is
16 similar to another document that has been previously marked and
17 identified as an exhibit but it's not the same.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that would then be just for ... would that
19 be D48 then, perhaps?
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And you say it's different.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Because the language appears to be the same more or
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I looked at them both and I don't know if
1 they're i-- the one that I have is different from D48. And if they're
2 the same, Your Honour, I'll double-check.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you'd please double-check that.
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
6 Q. The last area, Mr. Boucher, is regarding UNCIVPOL itself. You
7 said that you had over 200 members of UNCIVPOL in Sector South before
8 Operation Storm, roughly before Operation Storm began. Correct?
9 A. I wouldn't say over. It was close to 200 but I think it was a
10 little bit below 200, yeah.
11 Q. What was the reasoning behind limiting the number of UNCIVPOL
12 members after Operation Storm to about you said about two dozen?
13 A. That was because we knew that the talks between the president was
14 going nowheres. President Tudjman, Milosevic, we also knew that the
15 Croatian army was getting very close, so I would -- I would say that the
16 information we had within the UN ranks was there is a potential conflict
17 -- not a conflict but a re-taking of territory and if you remember, of
18 course on May 1st, Sector West went -- was -- went out. So I think the
19 sheer deductions by most people involved was limit the number of people
20 have you in sectors to -- to, you know, protect them if you want. And
21 that was the discussion I personally had with the commissioner of the
22 UNCIVPOL in Zagreb
23 because there is somebody leaving almost every month, please don't send a
24 replacement until this clears up. And that's what was done.
25 Q. Do you think in hindsight it would have been better to have those
1 200 people in Sector South after Operation Storm under the circumstances?
2 A. The reality is there was a lot of new monitors but without UN
3 experience, a lot of them in Zagreb
4 holding them in Zagreb
5 after -- after Storm, I don't know really what happened, if we got any
6 more help, because my tenure there wasn't very long. I had to go. End
7 of mission.
8 Q. One other follow-up question in terms of the vehicles you had at
9 your disposal for patrolling, Mr. Boucher. I think we had heard some
10 testimony before that UNCIVPOL had two or three vehicles that they had to
11 use for their patrol out of Knin. Is that accurate?
12 A. I don't recall the exact number but we had issues because we had
13 a lot of vehicles hijacked by the Serb -- in the sector. We had lost
14 vehicles. And every time monitors went to Zagreb, the vehicle didn't
15 come back because nobody else came back to bring it back.
16 So you're right. We were down to a few. The exact number, I'm
17 not sure. I would estimate there would be more, because there was about
18 two dozen. I would estimate there would probably be about seven or
19 eight, in that neighbourhood.
20 Q. That's all the questions I have, Mr. Boucher. Thank you very
22 A. Yeah, thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I've been informed by my case
25 manager that it is the same document as D48, only from a different
1 source, so ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The handwriting on D48 misses at D1219 --
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- but apart from that, it seems, as far as the
5 content is concerned to be a similar document.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: We can withdraw that, Your Honour, if that is
7 appropriate to do.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps D1219 could be vacated. Again it is
9 not the same document but you refer to the content rather than to
10 anything else and the numbers of the -- at the top are exactly the same,
11 content is the same.
12 Ms. Gustafson, before I give you an opportunity to re-examine the
13 witness, if there is any need for that, I would like to invite the
14 parties and I do it in the presence of you, Mr. Boucher, you gave an
15 estimate of the distance from your house to the northern barracks as
16 being approximately 500 feet, and you said not more than 600.
17 Could I invite the parties -- we have map 29 in the binder which
18 gives a scale and is not a distorted map. Looking at that map, I would
19 come closer to 950 to a thousand feet than 600, which might be relevant;
20 the difference between 180 metres and close to 300 metres might in
21 relation to the matter concerned be relevant.
22 Mr. Boucher, if have you any comment on what I just said, I
23 looked at a map and thought that you might be a bit low in your estimate.
24 THE WITNESS: I won't argue with you, Your Honour. You may have
25 the best source. But I remember walking that distance often because at
1 one point I was walking to the UN camp and within a few minutes I was at
2 the milicija office or was close to the gate of the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You were apparently are in good shape.
4 THE WITNESS: I was.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I invite the parties to agree on
6 whether this -- whether there might be a bit of a low estimate --
7 assessment given by the witness.
8 Ms. Gustafson.
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I just have one
11 Re-examination by Ms. Gustafson:
12 Q. Mr. Boucher, a few moments ago you were asked questions about the
13 possibility of crime scenes being disturbed by UNCIVPOL monitors, and I
14 wanted to ask you more concretely, did you ever become aware of any
15 specific situation where a crime scene was disturbed by an UNCIVPOL
17 A. To my knowledge, no. But what I really was trying to raise is it
18 was possible because we had -- all monitors had to have five year's
19 police experience but it was a very diversified level of experience that
20 they had.
21 Q. I understand. Thank you very much.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Those are my questions.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE ORIE: I have one question for you, Mr. Boucher.
1 You described for the Chamber, if I could summarize it, the
2 unruly behaviour of the soldiers, and you said this was different and you
3 mentioned sergeants and higher-ranked military persons.
4 Now, did you ever happen to see them together, that is, the
5 sergeant and higher together with the soldiers, the ones behaving
6 relatively well, and the other ones, the soldiers behaving unruly? And
7 I'm asking you to in order to find out whether, if your answer would be
8 in the affirmative, whether there was any initiative or response from the
9 sergeant and higher-up level to those who behaved unruly.
10 A. The only time you could actually or at least I could see within
11 the same view would have been right outside of the gate of the UN
12 compound where there was, you know -- sorry, Croatian army vehicle parked
13 there and a sergeant there which was actually a liaison. He stayed there
14 a lot. He would only go away to get orders or directions and come back.
15 Not far from him could have been, and there were sometimes, some private,
16 I don't know if that is the right term, but lower soldiers. But -- and
17 around him and whoever was running or controlling the tank, because there
18 was a tank at one time right in front of our gate, like I said, a lot of
19 the private would come right to the gate, point the gun it's just -- they
20 were so excited to be there, asking the interpreters at the gate.
21 So in the presence, yes. Were they in the organisational charts
22 supervisors and so on? That, I don't know. I can't help you there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then my second question: Did they respond
24 in any way to this unruly behaviour?
25 A. I didn't observe that at all.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, a similar question in relation to when
2 you saw people taking out all kind of goods from the homes.
3 Did you ever see higher ranking military persons nearby and -- or
4 was it you just saw those privates, as you called them, doing these kind
5 of things, in the absence of any higher ranking military men?
6 A. In my recollection, I've never seen rank beside them when -- what
7 I consider things to be out of the ordinary. So it is basically at the
8 lower level of the army. So -- and I think I mentioned that before, that
9 it was a bit strange to see that but ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
11 Is there any need for further questions?
12 MR. KEHOE: No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, Mr. Kuzmanovic, and Ms. Higgins, not.
14 Then, Mr. Boucher, this concludes your evidence in this Court. I
15 would like to thank you very much for having come a long way and I'm
16 happy that we could conclude your evidence now so that there would be no
17 need for you to return. I'd like to thank you for having answered the
18 questions put to you by the parties and by the Bench.
19 [Interpretation] [No interpretation].
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Merry
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Boucher out
23 of the courtroom.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to deal with a few procedural
1 matters. It will not take very long but if we would start with it now,
2 we might not all be properly prepared, which could result in it taking
3 even more time than necessary. I would like to go through the exhibit
4 lists still outstanding. There were some objections I think it was in
5 relation to Mr. Turkalj. I would like to deliver one or two decisions.
6 I would like to give an opportunity, at least that was reported to me as
7 the wish of the Gotovina Defence to address the matter of Rule 70 issues
8 in relation to the New York Times article, to make a brief submission.
9 Is that correct, Mr. Misetic? Yes.
10 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I would like then to do that also after the break.
12 Could you give us an estimate on how much time that would take? Because
13 if it would be a long submission, I would invite to you do it in writing.
14 If it would be a brief submission, I would give you an opportunity to do
15 it now, after the break.
16 MR. MISETIC: I just wanted to put it on the record, so it should
17 take me less than three minutes, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will have a break and we will resume
19 although not for very long, I hope, at five minutes to 5.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 4.37 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 5.04 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few housekeeping matters on my list.
23 The first is the list of if I can call them Theunens's exhibits,
24 on which no decision has been taken yet. Have you parties received a
25 list, 18th of December, sent by Mr. Monkhouse to all the parties?
1 It is a list consisting of 38 documents which mentions the 65 ter
2 numbers, the provisionally assigned exhibit numbers, and the exhibit
3 status, until now, and none of them being confidential.
4 Are there any objections against admission of those exhibits? If
5 you're not prepared for it, we'll, of course, wait for a moment. But --
6 a moment would then mean three weeks, but are there any objections
7 against the exhibits which appear on the list as starting with P01182 up
8 to and including P01219?
9 Mr. Misetic.
10 MR. MISETIC: We have no objections, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Mr. Kay.
12 MR. KAY: No objections.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Cermak Defence.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: We have only one remark, not really objections
15 and I think we solve it with Mr. Registrar. It is concern of 65 ter 1026
16 which was already tendered as exhibit.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: That on my list has been removed already. So
19 apparently you're then working from a list with 39 documents instead of
20 38. Is that --
21 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Chamber admits into evidence the
23 documents for which provisionally were assigned exhibit numbers P01182 up
24 to and including P01219.
25 One second, please.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The list will be filed so that we have a complete
3 record of the 65 ter numbers to which these exhibit numbers were
5 Then I move on to the list of exhibits in relation to the
6 testimony of Mr. Turkalj. This list, sent to the parties, 18th December,
7 contains 28 records, exhibit numbers provisionally assigned from P01220
8 up to and including P01247. Objections are there against P01221, P01222,
9 and P01223, but from what I understand, these objections are mainly about
10 the description, or am I mixing up now ...
11 Yes, it's about comments in the relevance section of the
12 application for admission; but it's not, from what I understand,
13 objections against admission into evidence.
14 Then I have another comment on 3508, 65 ter number, which is
15 provisionally assigned P01226, and that was an observation in relation to
16 what was a pending issue -- one second, please.
17 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: That was an objection because P01226 was an exhibit
20 consisting of an Official Note and the objection was raised, I think it
21 was by the --
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Markac Defence, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Markac Defence, yes. And the objection was raised
24 also in view of the absence at that time of Chamber's decision regarding
25 the admissibility of Official Notes of interviews. These were the
1 Official Notes to which Mr. Zganjer testified.
2 Now, the Chamber has meanwhile decided this issue. I don't know
3 whether it was filed already or not. The Chamber has decided that the
4 Official Notes are admitted into evidence with the exception of the
5 Official Notes and one of them was already decided, Official Notes of the
6 interviews with Mr. Markac and Mr. Cermak.
7 One of them was already decided, so the decision for one of them
8 gives just the reasons and for the other Official Note, it gives the
9 reasons and the decision itself.
10 Under those circumstances, where all the other Official Notes
11 have been admitted into evidence, Mr. Mikulicic, would you first like to
12 read our decision or could you already choose your position on the basis
13 of this information? I leave it entirely --
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. I would like to first read the
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine. Then the Chamber admits into
17 evidence Exhibit numbers P01220 up to and including P01225. Then 65 ter
18 3508 provisionally assigned P01226 is marked for identification. The
19 Chamber further admits into evidence P01227 up to and including P01247.
20 Then I move to the last set, exhibits tendered during the
21 testimony of Mr. Al-Alfi. I put on the record that there were objections
22 against 65 ter numbers 4125, 4133, and 4252.
23 Are there any other objections? These were the three documents
24 which moved into an area which, for most of the documents, was not within
25 the scope of the indictment. The Chamber has not yet deliberated on
1 those objections.
2 So 4125 is MFIed, 4133 is MFIed and also 4252 keeps the status of
3 being marked for identification.
4 Are there any other objections against the exhibits appearing on
5 this list, the list in total consisting of nine documents?
6 If not, then P01169 up to and including P01173 are admitted into
7 evidence. Also admitted into evidence is P01175. All these lists will
8 be filed so that they are on the record with all necessary details.
9 Mr. Misetic, you asked three minutes to make further submissions
10 on Rule 70 aspects of the New York Times newspaper article.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, I will quickly say this, and in
12 addition, there's one other matter as to why the article is relevant.
13 I wanted to put on the record that with respect to the Rule 70
14 issue concerning D1212 MFI
15 where internal Prosecution memoranda had been leaked to the press
16 concerning my colleague Mr. Kehoe and on the basis of the press articles
17 about leaked internal OTP memos a matter concerning Mr. Kehoe's
18 eligibility was raised before the Chamber. The Gotovina raised at the
19 time the issue of whether materials that would otherwise would be
20 protected by Rule 70 could be leaked to the press and then those articles
21 used in proceedings, and the Chamber in its 25 July 2007 order titled
22 Order to the Prosecution concerning the alleged conflict of interest of
23 attorney Gregory Kehoe at page 4 held that: "Rule 70 is concerned with
24 restricting the Prosecution's disclosure obligations to the Defence
25 pursuant to Rule 66 and Rule 67 and it is not relevant to the present
2 And the Chamber then proceeded to take into consideration the
3 matters that were raised in the newspaper article containing information
4 about internal OTP memoranda.
5 The second -- a additional issue as to relevance that I'd like to
6 raise is that this article is dated 21 March 1999 and exhibit P1144 which
7 has been admitted into evidence is in fact a transcript of a conversation
8 held between President Tudjman and General Cermak two days after that
9 article was published. And if you look at P1144 at page 3, the president
10 in talking to General Cermak says: "Who are those who gave testimony
11 against you and the others, the thing that The Hague is now talking
12 about? "
13 That context of that conversation takes place as a result of the
14 article that we have now tendered as MFI D1212. The transcript in 1999
15 was tendered by the Prosecution and therefore I would add that as an
16 additional argument as to relevance, because it provides context as to
17 why that conversation took place.
18 Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, any need to briefly respond to this?
20 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Your Honour, and I will try to be brief.
21 Regarding the decision of the -- it was the Pre-Trial Chamber in
22 July 2007 which was just Justice Moloto by himself I believe at that
23 time, and that although the issue was framed as an issue of disclosure,
24 it was in a very specific context which was when that was the only way to
25 resolve the issue that was at stake which was -- I will stay vague
1 because there were confidential filings, but about Mr. Kehoe's
2 eligibility as counsel, and only by reviewing such material could the
3 Pre-Trial Chamber reach the decision that it had to reach. But so first
4 of all, the situation was completely different. And although framed as
5 the disclosure, the reason that that material cannot be disclosed was
6 because it is confidential and not to be used at trial. The Pre-Trial
7 Chamber Judge Moloto, at the time the Pre-Trial Judge, was very mindful
8 of that when he ordered the Prosecution to provide other materials he
9 only ordered the Prosecution to do so to the Pre-Trial Bench and only
10 later on in order to allow Mr. Kehoe to respond was he allowed to -- did
11 he ask us, the Prosecution, if we would agree to Mr. Kehoe and the
12 Gotovina Defence being able to review it.
13 So that's just the clarification that I would like to make and
14 that was the issue on the July 2007 decision.
15 With respect to the presidential transcript, my recollection of
16 that presidential transcript, the context of it is a little different. I
17 would have to look at it again but I don't think that it's exactly as
18 Mr. Misetic characterized and in any event I don't think that it makes it
19 automatically relevant and of such relevance and probative value that the
20 Prosecution should lose the Rule 70 protection, absent a waiver.
21 MR. MISETIC: 30 seconds, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: 30 seconds Mr. Misetic.
23 MR. MISETIC: Just to address Mr. Hedaraly's position, I'm not
24 asking for the underlying memoranda that were in the article and so
25 therefore the issue as it related to Mr. Kehoe and then producing the
1 underlying memoranda is not at issue here. The issue is whether the
2 Chamber could consider the matters in a newspaper article. It did.
3 We're saying just because it may -- the underlying memos may still be
4 protected by Rule 70 doesn't mean that the Chamber can't consider just
5 the article on its face.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, 30 seconds.
8 MR. HEDARALY: I don't think there's any need, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Then the Chamber will consider the matter and --
11 Then I'd like to issue an oral decision. Well, as a matter of
12 fact, it's not a decision. It's the reasons for a decision already given
13 by the Chamber.
14 These are the Chamber's reasons for granting trial-related
15 protective measures for Witness 84.
16 On the 22 October 2008
17 that the Chamber order the trial-related protective measures of pseudonym
18 and face and voice distortion for Witness 84.
19 On the 22nd of October, 2008, the Cermak Defence filed its
20 response, indicating that while it did not oppose the request for
21 protective measures, it disagreed with the Prosecution's arguments in
22 support of the motion. It further indicated that by reason of the
23 witness's job and the subject-matter of his testimony, it would be more
24 appropriate for the testimony to be in closed session.
25 The following day, the Markac and Gotovina Defence filed their
1 responses, both requesting the Chamber to deny the motion.
2 On November 3rd, 2008, having observed the emotional condition of
3 the witness in court, the Gotovina and Markac Defence withdrew their
4 objection to the protective measures request. They further joined the
5 observation of the Cermak Defence on the need to hear the testimony of
6 the witness in closed session. These submissions of the Defence can be
7 found at transcript pages 11068 and 11069.
8 On the same day, the Chamber granted the motion and decided that
9 it would hear the testimony of the witness in closed session. This
10 decision can be found at transcript pages 11069 and 11070. The decision
11 was rendered in private session and the public is hereby informed about
13 The Chamber held, in its reasons for its first protective
14 measures decision in this case, which can be found at transcript pages
15 2610 and 2611, that the party seeking protective measures for a witness
16 must demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the security or welfare
17 of the witness or the witness's family, should it become known that the
18 witness has given evidence before the Tribunal. This standard can, for
19 example, be satisfied by showing that a threat was made against the
20 witness or the witness's family. The mere expression of fear by a person
21 is insufficient to justify protective measures.
22 Witness 84 is a Croatian Serb who lives with his family in
24 could antagonise certain persons in the place where he and his family
25 live. For two years after Operation Storm, Witness 84 received
1 threatening calls from unknown persons who asked him why he was still
2 working and living in his home town. After the witness's retirement in
3 1997, the phone calls stopped. Witness 84 further informed the Chamber
4 that he was told by a witness who had already testified under protective
5 measures in closed session in this case that local journalists had been
6 pestering him to talk about his testimony.
7 An additional issue for Witness 84's concern for his safety and a
8 matter that has caused him some anxiety is that he was interviewed by one
9 of the Defence teams at a police station in the presence of a Croatian
10 police official. Witness 84 stated that the rumour that he had been
11 interviewed spread and that he had decided to minimise his trips into
12 town out of fear to be recognised. He further stated that in his town
13 there was a negative attitude against Serbs and that he had been harassed
14 in the street. The Chamber additionally considered the fact that the
15 Defence withdrew its objections to the Prosecution's request.
16 For the aforementioned reasons, the Chamber found that the
17 Prosecution had demonstrated an objectively grounded risk to the security
18 of Witness 84 should it become known that he had given evidence before
19 the Tribunal.
20 The Chamber furthermore considered that, in light of the nature
21 of the anticipated evidence of the witness, the only effective way to
22 protect his identity was to hear his testimony in closed session.
23 And this conclude the Chamber's reasons for its decision to grant
24 protective measures for Witness 84.
25 Are there any other procedural matters the parties would like to
2 MR. KAY: Your Honour, we had during the testimony of
3 Mr. Theunens several bar table submissions. They were given marks for
4 identification ranging from D1107 to D1199. All those matters have been
5 agreed between the parties and submitted to the registrar of the court,
6 and we await their admission into evidence with the Court's leave.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me be very open to you, Mr. Kay. When
8 preparing this, I asked the staff whether we had a full list at this
9 moment. It was not available. That's the only reason why we have not
10 dealt with it. There is no reason to believe that where the parties have
11 worked this out, that there's any -- would be any major obstacle against
12 admitting into evidence, but this Chamber always prefers not to deal with
13 matters if they're not fully on top of it. That's the only reason why I
14 have not dealt with it.
15 If you would insist to --
16 MR. KAY: No. I can say --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- have a session tomorrow morning, then we'll deal
18 with it, Mr. Kay. Otherwise, you will have to wait till after the winter
20 I don't think that it will a major obstacle for the parties not
21 to know our final decision on the matter to proceed in preparing for the
22 remainder of the case.
23 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour. I won't be sacrificing my
25 MR. KEHOE: I do have outstanding the Boucher statement, which is
1 D1217, which is MFIed.
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, we have reviewed the statement.
3 There is no objection to it. I'd just -- if we could get some guidance
4 from the Chamber as to the timing of the disclosure. As I mentioned, it
5 was disclosed in the cross-examination material and it's our position if
6 the Defence wants to tender a 92 ter statement that we should get advance
7 notice and I know the statement was taken last night but it would have
8 assisted our preparation to have it last night as opposed to after our
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This seems to a very general call to receive
11 statements which are sought to be admitted under Rule 92 ter as early as
12 possible. That, I would say, goes without saying.
13 Let me just check for one moment.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is aware of many aspects of it.
16 Mr. Boucher arrived in The Hague
17 under the present circumstances and also looking at its content might not
18 have bothered the Prosecution greatly.
19 Of course, this is an issue that if 92 ter statements are
20 presented after the examination-in-chief has been concluded and if it
21 creates substantial new elements, then of course lengthy statements
22 whether we could immediately continue or whether that would be unfair to
23 the Prosecution is still to be considered, but I hear that in relation
24 this statement there's no objection, although some concern is expressed
25 about the late timing of the disclosure.
1 Is that correctly understood?
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Exactly, Your Honour. We would like to avoid the
3 situation in the future.
4 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I appreciate that and certainly it was
5 a situation because of the timing of it. But if we're on the topic of
6 late disclosures, and I know I speak on behalf of all the Defence, if the
7 Prosecution could work a little harder to get us proofing notes before
8 ofttimes 9.00, 9.30, 10.00 the night before a witness comes on, we'd
9 appreciate that as well.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I earlier and could I say
11 spontaneously already mentioned the proofing notes and the time of
12 disclosure. So, therefore, that is not overlooked by this Chamber.
13 D1217 is admitted into evidence.
14 Any other procedural matter which --
15 MR. HEDARALY: One brief matter, Your Honour.
16 For a while now we had -- the Prosecution had what was referred
17 to as the Cermak bar table motion and in the meantime many of these
18 documents have been admitted on behalf of the Cermak Defence. There are
19 two documents that are outstanding on the Prosecution's list to which we
20 were told there were no objections so we just have those admitted so we
21 can finally close the chapter on that bar table. Those are 65 ter 3530
22 and 65 ter 2552.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I reiterate what I said before, if I'm not on top of
24 what it is about, I'll first check and then consult with my colleagues
25 before any decision is given. But thank you for the reminder,
1 Mr. Hedaraly.
2 Any other procedural matter at this moment?
3 Then I have a brief matter which I wouldn't call procedural,
4 although it has got to do something with procedure. The Chamber was
5 informed about a wish expressed by Mr. Gotovina to return the good wishes
6 for Christmas, which spontaneously were given by Mr. Boucher. Now, as
7 the parties are aware of, the Chamber certainly does not encourage
8 exchanges of a more personal kind, but Mr. Boucher started, he was the
9 one who wished us a Merry Christmas, so therefore under those
10 circumstance the Chamber would not deny anyone to return those wishes but
11 would also give an opportunity to Mr. Cermak and Mr. Markac whether they
12 wish in these extraordinary circumstances to join in the return of the
13 wishes expressed by Mr. Boucher. Because it is so unusual you might have
14 felt it would be inappropriate but under the present circumstances I give
15 you an opportunity to join if you wish to, Mr. Cermak.
16 THE ACCUSED CERMAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do join in
17 these good wishes of General Gotovina.
18 THE ACCUSED MARKAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, indeed I would
19 like to join General Gotovina's good wishes too.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then the good wishes put on the little piece of
21 paper by Mr. Gotovina will be relayed to Mr. Boucher and -- through the
22 Victims and Witness Section and the message will be added to that that
23 Mr. Cermak and Mr. Markac are joining in these wishes.
24 Since we are talking the best wishes for Christmas, the Chamber
25 would like to present the best wishes for the Christmas Days and for the
1 new year to everyone in this courtroom.
2 We adjourn.
3 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I think on behalf of all the Defence and
4 the Prosecution we extend the Chamber the same, I'm sure speaking on
5 behalf of my colleagues across the well. We extend the same wishes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: There is case law that there is latitude to return
7 Christmas wishes.
8 MR. KEHOE: That's right, that's right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, therefore it is accepted, with gratitude,
10 by the Chamber.
11 We adjourn for the year, and we'll resume on Monday, the 12th of
12 January, quarter past 2.00, in Courtroom I.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.39 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Monday, the 12th of January,
15 2009, at 2.15 p.m.