1 Thursday, 22 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 The Chamber wants to use the first session for going through the
14 submissions to be made.
15 Before we do this, however, I'd like to put on the record that
16 the Prosecution has communicated informally to the Chamber that no
17 protective measures will be needed for 92 bis witnesses, Junjga Dragutin
18 and Stevan Zaric. One could say that that goes without saying because
19 there was no application within seven days. However, there was a limited
20 application not within the seven days, which creates a risk to redact the
21 address of the other witness, the other 92 bis witness, dealt with in the
22 3rd of November, 2008, decision. I think that message or that request
23 came only on the 15th of December, which is six weeks after.
24 MR. HEDARALY: That's right Your Honour. It was an oversight and
25 we apologise and the Chamber staff communicated with us, and we checked
1 and it is for Witness 65 which is seek to have the address redacted into
2 92 bis at the station.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Apologies should be addressed to the witness
5 Then we move on. And the first item on the list is, I think,
7 MR. MISETIC: I think, Your Honour, this is one that is under
9 JUDGE ORIE: That is one under seal, yes, it's.
10 MR. MISETIC: Should we go into private session to --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps out of an abundance of caution we might
12 deal with it -- but I think it is preferable go into private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Page 14836 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 D427 was a translation issue, and as far as the Chamber sees at
9 this moment, nothing opposes D427 to be admitted.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour the translation has been
11 completed and revised document is released and attached.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then D427 in the absence of any observations
13 is admitted into evidence.
14 The next one is a document under seal, D563. The unredacted
15 version still under seal has been uploaded by now and nothing opposes --
16 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- admission.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: The very same situation as with the previous one.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D563 is admitted into evidence.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Under the seal, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal, yes.
22 Then the next one is D568. The Chamber is drafting in relation
23 to this document a written decision, and it has full priority for the
25 Next one is D720 on our list. We first have to point at a
1 mistake in transcript page 7427, line 25, reference is made to D327 and
2 that was a clear mistake. It was intended that a reference would be made
3 to D720. That is now on the record.
4 Then the Chamber will admit and does admit into evidence D720.
5 We move on to the next one, is D725.
6 MR. HEDARALY: The Prosecution has advise the Defence via e-mail
7 that we do not object to the admission of the relevant portions of D725.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand there are no further objections now
9 and the parties have reached agreement on admission, and, therefore, D725
10 can be admitted and is admitted into evidence.
11 We move on to D778. There are no further objections. Therefore,
12 D778 is admitted into evidence.
13 We move on to D792, a video footage. We do understand that the
14 footage now uploaded is 30 minutes, 48 seconds, and that there's no
15 objection against admission, and it's uploaded in e-court. Therefore,
16 D792 is admitted into evidence.
17 We move on to D829. This was a video uploaded of approximately
18 15 minutes, of which two minutes are played, the area between 6 minutes,
19 7 minutes, in which I think the witness was asked whether he recognised
20 the area shown on this footage. There was an issue as to whether other
21 parts should be played as well.
22 Is there any further need to have other parts of the video played
23 or reviewed?
24 MR. HEDARALY: Not from the Prosecution side.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And I don't think there is any need from the Defence
1 side. Therefore, D829 in its entirety the 15 minutes, only which is
2 played partly in court is admitted into evidence.
3 We move to D831. That was, among other matters, also a
4 translation issue. We do understand that the translation has now been
5 uploaded and that therefore nothing opposes admission anymore.
6 Therefore, D831 is admitted into evidence.
7 The next one is D843. That is, if I could say the one judgement
8 or two-judgement issue where the Chamber was quite a bit confused, and
9 the Chamber wonders whether since Mr. Zganjer has now testified, whether
10 there is any agreement among the parties, as the Chamber invited them to
11 reach. That was --
12 MR. HEDARALY: I believe the issue was there was an excerpt of a
13 judgement and the Chamber asked parties to upload the full judgement and
14 I think it has been done under D843. We have the full judgement. So
15 therefore I think there's nothing anymore that opposes admission.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So D84 being the judgement in its entirety is
17 tendered, no objections and is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. HEDARALY: You said D84, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: D843, yes, I'm sorry. D843. The full judgement, is
20 admitted into evidence.
21 For the next one, I think the Chamber indicated that we might
22 need -- let's go into private session anyhow at this moment.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 14840-14844 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 We were discussing D918 and P1063. The Prosecution does not
25 oppose the admission of D918 and the Defence does not oppose the
1 admission of P1063 so that the Chamber can determine how to interpret
2 these two different versions of what is -- in many respects, the same
4 D918 and P1063 are admitted into evidence.
5 We move on to D954. I do understand that the correct B/C/S
6 version of this document has been uploaded, which was, up till now, an
7 obstacle to admission.
8 MR. HEDARALY: Actually my recollection Mr. President is slightly
9 different and it was a longer article, and Mr. Mikulicic and I agreed to
10 have only three pages, the relevant three pages replace that article and
11 that has been done. So there is no longer any objections to D954.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, there is one little issue.
13 And that is the original portion of this document that has been
14 released under 3D01-0620, which is corresponds with an English version of
15 the document. So the original should be attached to the English version
16 of the documents and, therefore, the entire 954 should be replaced with a
17 new translation of only three pages in English and two pages in B/C/S.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There was an issue about the original B/C/S --
19 the B/C/S original lacking, that was the reason that it was not admitted,
20 and it was also unclear whether the entire exhibit was sought to be
21 admitted or only a part of it. All this has not been settled, from what
22 I understand. The B/C/S original is uploaded, and the relevant portions
23 are there in translation.
24 Therefore, Mr. Registrar, I take it that the references given by
25 Mr. Mikulicic are sufficiently clear for you, and under those
1 circumstances, D954, being an article titled: "The Confession of the
2 Chetnik duke, Rade Cubrilo," 20th of March, 1996, is admitted into
3 evidence in its relevant portions.
4 We move on to D1079.
5 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, if I can assist the Chamber to
6 expedite the matter.
7 These were the following documents were all documents submitted
8 to the bar table from the Defence in connection with Mr. Theunens'
9 testimony, and the Prosecution does not object to any of them, so it's
10 D1079, D1083, and then D1106, up to and including D1199.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I have a far longer list.
12 Let's go through them one by one. The issue was - and I'm now
13 returning to D1079 - first there was a problem with the unsourced last
14 paragraph of this document provided by the assistant minister who
15 authored this document. That was one problem. And the second one was
16 that the Prosecution wished to examine the request by the Markac Defence,
17 the request underlying the response.
18 Now, I think, as a matter of fact, that the Chamber at that time
19 expressed views on these last paragraphs - let me just find it --
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, I could remind you, if I may,
21 that it was Your Honours' wish to read the document in its entirety. And
22 that's one issue.
23 And the other issue was that the Prosecution office has requested
24 to see the Markac Defence request to the Ministry of Justice, and we
25 provided the Office of the Prosecutor with this request.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the time, the Chamber said the following,
2 and I'm referring to page 13528, where I said:
3 "I leave it for the time being to the parties, whether the --
4 for -- whether the appropriate action to take would be, for example, to
5 take out the last three lines that deals with facts and have a" -- and
6 then have as a result a redacted version tendered into evidence and
7 admitted into evidence, "or whether the parties agree that at this moment
8 no factual support for rather blunt factual statements are there so that
9 the parties agree that the Chamber, on the basis of this alone, could
10 ignore this information."
11 It's just untested factual information.
12 Now have the parties agreed on either to redact or do the parties
13 agree that the Chamber, on the basis of what the -- I think
14 Assistant Minister Rajcic that the Chamber could not establish anything
15 on the basis of that alone.
16 MR. HEDARALY: I don't think we have, but we'll talk with
17 Mr. Mikulicic, and we will resolve the issue and inform the Chamber.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: That's fine with me, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So then the issue of the request to be shown
20 to the Prosecution that has been resolved; but the other matter has not
21 been resolved.
22 Then we move on to D1083. The issue there was whether there was
23 a full translation.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... whether it has been
2 MR. MIKULICIC: We are still waiting for the official
3 translation, so ... it has been re-sent to the TTS for translation.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So we can't finally deal with it at this
6 Then we move on to D1106. I think nothing at this moment opposes
7 admission of a set of letters which were MFI'd at the time.
8 MR. KAY: Quite so, Your Honour, they are old faithful, so to
9 speak. We've raised them a number of times and there's never, ever been
10 an objection to them.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then D1106 is admitted into evidence.
12 The next D1107, and following, going up to D1181; that is, a bar
13 table submission by the Cermak Defence.
14 On the 15th of December, exhibit numbers were assigned. It was
15 on the basis of this that I just gave you the numbers. It was
16 established that D -- no, let me just first.
17 MR. KAY: Shall I try and assist?
18 JUDGE ORIE: We had the numbers D1107 up to D1181 ready for
19 admission. Then we have D1182 and D1183 are duplicates and have been
20 vacated by now.
21 MR. KAY: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And then what remains is D1184 up to and including
24 MR. KAY: Exactly, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And that's -- so, therefore, admitted into evidence
1 are D1107 through to D1181, the last one included, and D1184 through to
2 and including D1199.
3 MR. KAY: Much obliged, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to D12 -- 12 is not a matter we'll
5 deal with at this moment.
6 We move on to D1223. I think D1223 was not yet admitted into
7 evidence because the witness was given an opportunity to review the --
8 the supplemental information sheet. He reported in court that he did not
9 find any inaccuracies, and for that reason nothing opposes admission.
10 Therefore, D1223 is admitted into evidence.
11 Next one, D1225. For this document, the Prosecution has asked
12 additional time to consider possible objections. This was done during
13 12th of January.
14 Any objections Mr. Hedaraly.
15 MR. HEDARALY: There are no objections and the same was true of
16 D1227 and D1229. So for all those three of those, the Prosecution does
17 not have any objection.
18 JUDGE ORIE: D1225, D1227, and D1229 are admitted into evidence.
19 We move on to D1231.
20 There was an issue whether this was -- should have been a bar
21 table document or not, because the witness could not say much about
22 D1231. But the Chamber is not aware of any objections even if the
23 witness could not say anything about it. It doesn't mean it
24 automatically lacks relevance and probative value.
25 MR. HEDARALY: Actually, Mr. President, my information and I
1 don't know what had transpired in court, if the objection was preserved
2 or not. But there was one problem with the document in itself, whether
3 bar tabled or through the witness, is that it was shown to the witness
4 whether he couldn't say anything about it -- about the date of the death
5 and there's an inconsistency within the document on page 2 of the
6 document, the date of death is reporting as being the 4th August and on
7 the page 3 of the very same document the date of death is 8th
8 of August and since that was the purpose for tendering it, I think there
9 was an issue with that.
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, for the record I don't think that goes
11 to admissibility as first point but secondly the item that Mr. Hedaraly
12 referred on the second page doesn't -- on page 3 doesn't say that there's
13 second date of death. It says when did the event occur. And it is
14 listed as 8/8. But in terms of what it explicitly says what is the date
15 of death, that is on the first page and it says 8/4.
16 Whatever the case may be, we can argue at trial or in closing
17 argument about the probative value, but I don't think this issue effects
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
20 MR. HEDARALY: I looked at that time last night, Your Honour, if
21 I can just have a few seconds just to make sure that I remember
23 If the -- if the date of death is the 4th of August, and then the
24 incident that caused the death on the 8th of August. On its face there
25 is a problem with the document, and I don't think it's a matter of
1 weight. I think it's a matter much the reliability, the inherent
2 reliability of the document; and it is of such a point especially if it
3 is tendered for that very purpose to contest when death he occurred which
4 is why it was tendered initially then I think the probative value is so
5 low because of the inheritance inconsistency that it cannot be admitted.
6 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, these are records that we received
7 from the Office of the Prosecutor so I expect there is no issue about
8 authenticity. There is no issue that this is the official record. I
9 don't think there is any issue of admissibility here because there is
10 certainly no prejudice to the Prosecution if the document is admitted.
11 Again rather than spending time here arguing about the document
12 itself, I will reserve and argue it later; but I do think this is more of
13 an issue of argument rather than the document itself.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, I take that the position of the
15 Defence is more or less let the Chamber struggle with this document but
16 that you would not oppose admission, and, of course, if there is
17 contradicting information in the document, be aware that it will be a
18 struggle for the Chamber.
19 Do you want us to engage in the struggle, or would you save us?
20 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, I was objecting to save the Chamber
21 the struggle, but if the struggle will be saved by letting it into
22 evidence then we will withdraw our objection.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: D1231 is admitted into evidence.
25 Then we move on to D1236.
1 Mr. Hedaraly, the Prosecution asked for time to review the
2 original document.
3 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President. For D1236 and D1237 -- and we
4 have received those and we are satisfied. There are no objection to
5 those two documents.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D1236 and D1237 are admitted into evidence.
7 As far as D1265 is concerned which is the Netherlands army
8 publication entitled, "Combat Operations," I think the issue was what to
9 select from that document because it was a 103-page document. I think
10 parts of it were already in evidence, if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not
11 certain about that -- not.
12 MR. MISETIC: No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And what would be the selection.
14 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, as I understand it, we have now
15 rescanned only seven pages of this document, and they are located at
17 JUDGE ORIE: And those are what pages?
18 MR. MISETIC: If I may have a moment, we'll pull that up,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Then I'm already addressing you, Mr. Hedaraly, one of the issues
22 was that Mr. Russo would like to have a look on whether he would like to
23 have more pages selected.
24 MR. HEDARALY: Obviously we're waiting to know which pages the
25 Defence will select. Now we'll look, if there's anything else. My
1 understanding is I don't think in this particular document there is
2 anything. But if I can just get back to the Chamber just to be
3 absolutely sure that that is the position.
4 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid that we are keeping matters on our
6 admitted now. May I take it that if the Prosecution wants more there
7 will be no objection against that.
8 MR. MISETIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then D1265 as it is uploaded now, that is, seven
10 pages are admitted into evidence and the -- if the Prosecution wants to
11 add more pages to the selected portion of this document, they should
12 inform the Defence and the Chamber within the next 48 hours.
13 Then we move to the Prosecution exhibits.
14 We start with P480. There was an issue about the authenticity of
16 Has any -- has this been resolved in any way or not?
17 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, pursuant to the Chamber's
18 instruction we provided the RFA response to the Defence back in the
19 summer, I believe; and the Chamber had given them one week and we hadn't
20 heard anything. This was the leaflet that had been exhibited, the bar
21 table attached to one of the witness statements.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That was on the 27th of August, I think, when a week
23 was granted to the Gotovina Defence to look at when and how the
24 Prosecution had received this document.
25 We have not heard anything since then. I now understand that --
1 that week.
2 MR. MISETIC: There's no objection, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Then P480 is admitted into evidence.
4 I do note that earlier there was a date attached to this
5 document, the 5th of August, 1995, upon inquiries with the Prosecution,
6 it turned out that that date, for which the basis was entirely unclear,
7 was an error and therefore does not appear anymore in the description of
8 this document.
9 Mr. Registrar, am I reflecting the present situation correctly?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to P482, the book, an excerpt of the
12 book. We have an English translation of ten pages. The whole of the
13 book in B/C/S is 159 pages. The parties were invited to agree on what
14 portions of the book should be uploaded and should be sought to be
15 admitted into evidence.
16 On the 25th of November, the legal officer of this Chamber asked
17 the OTP to give an update to the Chamber by the 26th of November. The --
18 no response was received on 26th of November; and, therefore, on the 28th
19 of November, the parties were reminded in court to resolve the issue, and
20 we have not received any further response from what I understand.
21 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, we have talked with the Defence and
22 the issue was the translation whether to have the entire book translated
23 or relevant portions. The Prosecution initially only tendered two
24 chapters of the book. The Defence wanted to tender the whole book, and
25 the Prosecution does not have any objection to the entire book coming
1 into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a translation.
3 MR. MISETIC: Actually, Your Honour, I think we had a subsequent
4 conversation and the Prosecution was going to let me know -- we -- the
5 discussion was we didn't need the whole book. However, I think on the
6 record, when this came up the Prosecution was going to upload the
7 introduction by General Gotovina where I believe on the record I said it
8 says something to the effect of events as depicted in the book are not
9 necessarily as they were in reality and that was part of the introduction
10 and OTP was going to upload that portion which I think was one or two
11 paragraphs and in the discussion with Mr. Tieger and Ms. Gustafson in
12 order to avoid having to having to upload the entire book, there was a
13 discussion about whether OTP would stipulate that in the entire book
14 there is no reference of anybody having done anything wrong, and they
15 were going to get back to me on that. And that would avoid us having to
16 upload the entire book.
17 So with those elements in mind, we would have no objection to the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
20 MR. HEDARALY: I was not aware of this latest development but I
21 will check with Mr. Tieger and --
22 JUDGE ORIE: One of the reasons why the Chamber scheduled this
23 housekeeping session at this moment is because any remaining issue we'd
24 like to be resolved within -- before Friday at the end of the day.
25 I think you would like to have a stipulation and then have no
1 further objections to those portions uploaded at this moment, or would
2 any additional part.
3 MR. MISETIC: Just the introduction. I would also add,
4 Mr. President, that CLSS has told us that they will not translate the
5 entire book. That was an additional reason why we had the discussion
6 with OTP about how we can avoid ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it now seems you are very close to resolution
8 of the matter.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You are invited to reach a conclusion by the end of
11 tomorrow, close of business tomorrow, and then we can decide the matter.
12 I then move on to P505. I think that was the issue that was
14 introduced --
15 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour, let me remind you, if I may.
16 There is a really long pending issue. There is the letter of supposedly
17 the letter issued by Mr. Markac, but the letter was not signed, it was
18 not stamped and which not provided with an official number; and,
19 therefore, we corroborate our position through tendering the Exhibits 909
20 and 910, and this is a request from Markac Defence to the Ministry of
21 Justice and a response received from the Ministry of Justice, which
22 states that there was no records in the official books, log-books in the
23 Ministry of Interior of that letter.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now there once was an indication that the
25 Prosecution would tender this document again during the testimony of a
1 future witness. I'm not fully aware of which witness that would be,
2 but ...
3 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, it was -- it was discussed with
4 Witness Zganjer, who considered this to be an authentic document that
5 transcript reference 11499, line 13 to 11500, line 25 and the Chamber had
6 stated that it would decide on admission on the following page.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what we'll do. We now have all the
8 information we need to decide the admissibility issue. The Chamber will
9 decide the matter.
10 We move on to P703.
11 On the 12th of November, the Chamber has asked -- has invited the
12 parties to further consider the matter, and we'd like to know whether the
13 Prosecution still presses for admission of P703. And for the
14 Gotovina Defence, whether the objection is still upheld.
15 MR. HEDARALY: No, Your Honour. In fact, P703 is the same as
16 P177 already admitted, so P703 can be vacated.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Can be vacated. P703 is vacated.
18 Then we have a series of document, starting with P769, P770,
19 P771. Yes. These are documents which we're waiting, more or less, for a
20 decision which was finally filed on the 5th of December. These are the
21 reports on the terrain clearance. That was the issue of documents that
22 were presented on the list to be used during cross-examination but
23 finally not used.
24 The Chamber has decided this matter in the 5th of December,
25 decision, and, therefore sees no reason, at this moment, that the
1 objection would still stand, in view of the Chamber's decision against
2 P769, P770 and P771. These are, therefore, admitted into evidence.
3 P778, the Chamber invited the parties to agree on a redacted
4 version of this document. The Chamber understands that an agreement has
5 been reached, that the redacted document has been uploaded and is ready
6 for admission.
7 P778 is admitted into evidence.
8 We move on to P821. The issue there was whether the transcribed
9 portion of a handwritten document, whether there was -- whether it was
10 correctly transcribed, the Prosecution would check that. On the 5th of
11 November, information was sought whether it had been checked already, and
12 then we were informed that we'd further hear from the Prosecution, but I
13 think we have no final answer yet.
14 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, the transcriptions and the
15 translations in one language because if the Chamber remembers this
16 document was transcribed in Danish and in English, so the corrected
17 transcription raised in court by the Defence as well as translations in
18 one language in English and B/C/S have been done. They have been
19 forwarded to the -- to the -- to the registry late last year and it's
20 only a matter of, I think, uploading and linking them; and I think they
21 were sent to the Defence as well to verify but if not we can do that as
23 But the documents are ready to be attached, and the corrected
24 versions are ready to be uploaded.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The notebooks, has the Defence teams received the
1 new version of P821 and are there any objections against this now revised
2 transcript of the notebook?
3 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I think we -- we're struggling to find
4 when it was sent to us. I don't doubt that it was, but we can't find it
5 so, Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following then that: The Chamber will
7 hear before tomorrow close of business whether there's still any
8 outstanding. So we receive a report anyhow. If the report would be
9 there are no further objections then it seems that the document is ready
10 for being admitted. If there are any further objections or if there's
11 any further time needed to review the revised transcript and translation,
12 then we'd like to hear from you not later than tomorrow, close of
14 Then ... one second, please.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have a whole series of document, starting at
17 P899 up to and including P917.
18 I think these exhibits have -- there was a memo dated 23rd of
19 September which covered these documents, and the Chamber would like to
20 know whether there are any objections to these MFI'd exhibits.
21 MR. MISETIC: We have no objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: There's no objection against these documents to be
23 admitted into evidence.
24 Then P899 up to and including P917 are admitted into evidence.
25 Next one is P923, which is the matter at stake there is an
1 similar one as the matter decided in the 5th of December, 2008 decision,
2 and therefore, it appears that, on the basis of that decision, nothing
3 opposes admission anymore.
4 In the absence of any objections, P923 is admitted into evidence.
5 I would like to leave the decision on P1050 and P1051 for a
6 moment and move on to P1052, P1055, and P1056. The Chamber has almost
7 finished a written decision on these documents, so a decision will follow
8 if not this week, that would be then be for practical reasons, then
9 certainly early next week.
10 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I understand they were
11 admitted. The reasons were to follow so perhaps we could just admitted
12 them into evidence. On the 18th December, there was oral decision with
13 reasons to follow.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You're right. The reasons we are struggling -- not
15 struggling with reasons but struggling with writing down the reasons,
16 which is not the same, and I think you are right, Mr. Hedaraly. I think
17 what we put on the record is that the Chamber had decided to admit them
18 just to inform the parties what the result would be. I'll check
19 carefully. I know that at least one of the statements was already
20 admitted. Whether the others were formally admitted or not still to be
21 seen, but we'll --
22 MR. HEDARALY: In the interest of try not to keep the matters
23 outstanding. The transcript reference to the decision was on
24 18 December at 14110, and I think the decision was to admitted all notes
25 of interviews apart from those of the accused at that time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's for both the accused it was said
2 already, yes. That certainly is the decision, there's no doubt about
3 that, but the written version will then follow.
4 I would like to leave open for a second P057 where the Chamber
5 still has to decide.
6 P1059 is covered by the same decision, Mr. Hedaraly, where the
7 reasons will follow in writing.
8 P1063 we have dealt with that one in relation with D918, so that
9 matter has been settled as well.
10 I move now to P1064. This -- it was an error, it was by mistake
11 that this document was still MFI
12 ordered, on the 10th of November that the documents proposed in evidence
13 by the Prosecution be marked for identification because objections had
14 been raised in relation to some documents but not in relation to this
15 one. So, therefore, it was by mistake that it was not, at the time,
16 admitted and was still on the MFI
17 up to and including P1071. Therefore, these nine exhibits are admitted
18 into evidence. No, I'm now making a mistake. There are eight documents,
19 not nine. P1064 up to and including P1071.
20 The next one is P1072, will be dealt with, together with P1073
21 and P1074, in an oral decision to be delivered later today.
22 Then P1075 was similar to P1064, was by mistake, kept on the MFI
23 list, whereas nothing opposes admission into evidence; and, therefore,
24 P1075 is admitted into evidence, for the same reasons P1076 is admitted
25 into evidence.
1 I now move to P1077, the crime registers for police stations
2 Obrovac, Gracac, and Benkovac.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to these crime registers, the parties
5 were invited to provide further information to the Chamber. The
6 invitation was to review the documents and provide the Chamber with
7 information as to which police station each of these crime registers
8 belonged to and to indicate the relevant time-period covered by the crime
10 The Cermak Defence has responded on the 17th of December.
11 The Chamber note having received a response by all parts -- yes,
12 Mr. Hedaraly.
13 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Your Honour. We have sent -- we had
14 sent revised descriptions which have not been changed and than covers the
15 information. Can I either read it. It's very essentially P1077 is the
16 crime register for the Gracac police station from the period August to
17 December 1995; 1078 is the same, but for the Obrovac police station;
18 P1079 for the Benkovac police station; P1080 for the Drnis police
19 station; P1081 for the Knin police station; P1082, the Donji Lapac police
20 station; and P1083, the Korenica police station, and they all cover the
21 same period, August 1995 to December 1995.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
23 Where the Chamber has not received any response by the other
24 Defence teams, that is, the Chamber considers that the -- that the
25 documents can be admitted into evidence but does -- this does not deprive
1 the other Defence teams from making submissions, shedding further light
2 on the questions raised by the Chamber, if they wish to do so.
3 Therefore, P1077 up to and including P1083 are admitted into
5 Then we move to P1084, P1085, P1086, P1087, P1088, P1089. These
6 are documents still on the MFI
7 apparently the registrar has not marked them as now admitted, as you
8 said, the Chamber indicated that they had -- the Chamber had decided to
9 admit them, so they are now formally admitted into evidence, and the
10 reasons will be found in this written decision, which follows soon.
11 Then we P1090, which is the Official Note and interview with
12 Mr. Markac, is not admitted into evidence.
13 And then P1091 is the preliminary interview with Mr. Sacic which
14 is also covered by the decision on admission, where the -- only the
15 accused interviews were not admitted.
16 Therefore, P1091 is admitted into evidence.
17 We move on to P1096.
18 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President. P1096 and P1097 were the maps
19 and description provided by Witness Novakovic. The parties were asked to
20 agree and one page was added; and Mr. Misetic and I had agreed on the
21 language. So there's a page in there that references the right part in
22 the transcript, so there's no -- no longer any issues.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that the objections against
24 P1096 and P1097 have been withdrawn and that there is an agreement.
25 Therefore, they are both admitted into evidence.
1 Then we come to a series of documents covered by a memo sent by
2 the registrar to the parties in which exhibit numbers were assigned, a
3 memo which was sent on the 18th of November and which covered P1103 up to
4 and including P1109, and these seven documents are admitted into
6 We leave P1113 ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: P1113, P1114, P1115; that is, the expert report by
9 Reynaud Theunens, the addendum to the expert report by Reynaud Theunens,
10 and the corrigendum to the expert report by Reynaud Theunens, are
11 admitted into evidence.
12 I would leave P1118 for a moment.
13 P1138 was vacated on the 11th of December, and, therefore, does
14 not appear on the -- should not appear on the MFI list anymore.
15 Numbers P1167, P1168, and P1174 were, by mistake, not on the list
16 that was sent to the parties, as I understand, because they were --
17 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I misinformed you. We'll not, at this very moment,
19 deal with the Exhibits P1167 and P1168 and only for P1174 it is true that
20 they were, by mistake, not put on the list that was sent to the parties
21 because, by mistake, they been granted in our system the status of
22 admitted. Therefore, since it was not on the list of the parties, I take
23 it you have not prepared for an answer to P1174.
24 The issue is the same in relation to P1167 and P1168. Objections
25 were raised, and the Chamber is preparing a decision on the matter.
1 We move on. P1226 is an interview note and is also covered by
2 the decision on the Official Notes, admission of Official Notes prepared
3 by the MUP.
4 The same is -- no. Therefore, P1226 is covered by the decision,
5 the written decision that will follow, and since it was still on the MFI
6 list, there may be some confusion as whether there was a decision --
7 certainly there was a decision to admit but whether this has been put on
8 the record in such a way that Mr. Registrar -- Mr. Registrar has put it
9 in the system as an admitted document.
10 So P1226 is admitted into evidence. Reasons to follow in the
11 written decision.
12 MR. HEDARALY: I'm sorry, Mr. President, just for the sake of
13 consistency when we discussed these first four witness interviews, I know
14 we had --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Remind me to the numbers.
16 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, it's P1052, P1055, P1056 and P1059, and I
17 don't think they were formally admitted, but they are covered by that
18 same decision with reasons to follow.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And are admitted into evidence all the numbers, the
20 four numbers you just read.
21 For P1251; that is, the expert report of Dr. Clark, the
22 objections against admission of this report were rejected. Reasons to
23 follow. The reasons will follow.
24 Then P1252. That is a document, list of autopsy reports signed
25 by Dr. Clark which was disclosed at a very late stage, and for that
1 reason MFI
2 Mr. Misetic.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, we have no objections.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then in the -- on the assumption
5 that this is true for the other Defence teams as well, P1252 is admitted
6 into evidence.
7 The same is valid for P1255, Mr. Misetic?
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes. As well as for P1256, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And on the same assumption, P1255 is admitted into
11 A similar issue arises with P1256 although slightly different
12 because part of the photographs were already in evidence but an
13 opportunity was given to further review the Knin exhumation photographic
15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, we have no objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then P1256 is admitted into
18 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: We now move to P1257. Mr. Kehoe asked for time to
20 review P1257.
21 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, we have no objection to the admission
22 of the report. It is disputed, however, for the record, that this
23 autopsy report is connected to the person to whom the Prosecution claims
24 it is attached along the lines of what I said earlier I think this is
25 more in the line for argument and not admissibility.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then P1257 is admitted into evidence.
2 Then we have P1259, P1260, P1261, P1262. The Chamber will decide
3 on this expert report of Mr. Konings, the addendum to it, the terms of
4 reference, and the corrigendum but will not deal with it at this very
6 P1273, the famous "stacionar" issue.
7 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think we have about half the
8 Tribunal working on that word and have not been successful so ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then you should engage the other half.
10 MR. MISETIC: Yes, we will, Your Honour. We will.
11 And if I may take the opportunity, Mr. President, I'm advised
12 that with respect to D914, we have uploaded the additional two pages,
13 pages 3 and 4, that OTP wanted uploaded, and it is now in e-court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said D914. Is that ...
15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Misetic.
17 Then as such, the even -- there were two issues in relation to
18 P1273, the first one was the translation or the meaning of the word
19 "stacionar" and the second was about the use of this map in
20 Operation Storm. Does that go to admissibility in relation to relevance
21 or ...
22 Mr. Misetic.
23 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I guess it would go -- the Court is
24 the gate keeper of what evidence comes in. If it is not related to
25 Operation Storm obviously we could put in various exhibits, and it might
1 have some probative value but in terms of under 89 (D), the overall
2 prejudice in terms of introducing matters that might be extremely
3 tangential unless there's a link established connecting that document
4 somehow to Operation Storm, we would argue that it shouldn't be admitted
5 because it might then call for to us to have to move some evidence in
6 about positions in 1993 which obviously the OTP's admitting it for some
7 purpose. We would have to come up with evidence to meet that purpose and
8 rather, in my view, spending time and resources on a training exercise
9 map from 1993 where there is no evidence that it is connect to the
10 operation, I would argue that it should not be admitted into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
12 MR. HEDARALY: I believe the argument was made on the record but
13 I can repeat it, and the Prosecution's position is that it would be an
14 issue of weight. It is relevant to the extent that even if it is a
15 training map, there are targets that are listed there that on their face
16 are not military targets. So in any event, they do raise an issue
17 regarding intent which is obviously one of the issues in this case. So
18 there is relevance to it, and there is enough relevance and probative
19 value for it to be admissible. Of course, the weight of it will be less
20 because it is a training map from 1993 but that does not bar
21 admissibility of the exhibit.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say on the face, you are primarily
23 referring to the description of --
24 MR. HEDARALY: That is correct, Your Honour.
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may just respond, very briefly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. MISETIC: Again, under the protocol a structure is not on its
3 face not a military target that. Depends on what that structure was
4 being used for at the time, and whether something is a military target is
5 depends on the use; if there is no evidence provided by the Prosecution
6 stating even if their translation were ultimately to be used what that
7 facility was actually being used for, it doesn't tell us anything about
8 whether it was a legitimate military target or military objective or not.
9 MR. HEDARALY: There was also an issue raised by Mr. Konings
10 whether the very fact that things without descriptions that could lead
11 someone to believe that this -- not a military target without
12 specifically describing why or what the purpose of it was, so in that
13 sense it is also relevant in light of his testimony.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber admits into evidence P1273 and waits for
17 further follow-up, specifically in relation to the "stacionar" issue,
18 after the other half of the Tribunal has expressed its views on it.
19 Then before we go to the break because I'm aware -- but if we
20 could finish before the break, that would be good.
21 We have a few issues on maps. On the -- in the joint submission
22 of the parties on the division of Croatian municipalities which was filed
23 the 7th of November, in paragraph 7 both parties asked that the map in
24 Appendix A of this submission be admitted into evidence.
25 Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number to this
1 attachment, which is Appendix A to the joint submission? And I think it
2 is uploaded under 65 ter number 5982.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1282.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P1282 is admitted into evidence.
5 The second map issue. In the last paragraph of this joint
6 submission, the OTP has asked the -- for the map binder to be admitted.
7 There, unlike in paragraph 7, we do not see whether there's -- this is a
8 joint request or whether there's any objections. It's introduced as a
9 request by the Prosecution in a joint submission.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm advised by Mr. Kehoe that we have
12 admitted some of these maps into evidence through the cross-examination
13 of Mr. Konings, and I think we need to check to make sure that we're now
14 not double counting.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we'd like to hear whether there is
16 agreement on the whole of the map binder what to be -- to admit and was
17 is standard and what is not standard and whether there are any
18 objections. So if you could go through the map page by page, and then
19 see what is already in evidence, what is sought to be admitted into
20 evidence, and then finally whether there any objections on whether is
21 this is a joint request as well.
22 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll have to look at to what extent admission
24 of the binder as such would result in any duplicates.
25 Then the Chamber would like to put on the record that at
1 transcript page 13481, D1112 is admitted into evidence, but that is a
2 mistake. The transcript should read that D1102 is admitted into
3 evidence, not D1112, which, at that time, was -- or was still on our MFI
4 list. So there was a clear mistake. It's D1102 and not 1112 that is
5 admitted into evidence.
6 We have asked quite a lot from transcribers, interpreters, very
7 long session, but it allowed us to complete this housekeeping session.
8 Is there any urgent matter, really urgent matter to be dealt with
9 at this very moment? If not, we will have a break until quarter past
10 11.00, when the Prosecution will call its next witness.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.49 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: As far as the next witness to be called concerns ,
14 the Chamber has not had sufficient time to consider the details of the
15 objections against the admission of exhibits attached to the statements.
16 From I understand, the Cermak Defence had no objections
17 whatsoever; the Gotovina Defence had objection against mainly against the
18 exhibits attached rather than to the statements. Is that --
19 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Mr. President. It's the exhibits not
20 the statements.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then, Mr. Kuzmanovic, I haven't seen but it
22 could be my mistake.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, it's been filed. I don't think
24 it's been sent out by the service yet. Basically the bottom line for us
25 is we don't object to the statements. The issue is with some of the
1 exhibits either duplication or exhibits that were late, or -- basically
2 along the same lines as the Gotovina Defence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question is whether we can proceed before
4 having finally considered this matter.
5 Mr. Hedaraly.
6 MR. HEDARALY: There are several issues that I want to try to
8 There's issues about admissibility as I understand because the
9 Defence claims that the witness was not present at the time the reports
10 were prepared. To me, that's an issue of weight or admissibility of the
11 document at the time of admission not addition to the 65 ter list and for
12 those documents where he was not, he will be asked questions regarding
13 his knowledge of these events or sometimes patterns involved.
14 So I think those are not really objections -- they are formally
15 been objected to be added to the 65 ter list, but those all ultimately
16 admissibility issues, and we think it is a weight issue.
17 Then there are -- the other categories of document which are
18 three formal attachments to the witness statement, and the Prosecution
19 had indicated along time ago and the practice had been consistent that
20 attachments to witness statements were part of the witness statement and
21 although not formally sought to be added to the 65 ter list would be used
22 at trial as evidence, most of our witnesses had attachments to their
23 witness statements and then once again if the issues of admissibility we
24 can deal with that as we proceed. But so from the Prosecution's point of
25 view, the objections of the Defence are more admissibility objections
1 than admission to things we had added to the 65 ter list.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say some of the issues raised in the
3 objections will be dealt with during the examination of the witness. And
4 as far as attachments being an inherent part of -- of statements, the
5 statements including the references to those documents and these
6 documents themselves were disclosed --
7 MR. HEDARALY: It is essentially a notice issue, Your Honour,
8 that once they were notified of the witness statement the attachments are
9 referred to it. So there is no notice aspect --
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. They are disclosed. The documents the witness
11 refers to in his statement are disclosed well in time.
12 MR. KEHOE: That that's not necessarily true.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's why I'm asking.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I was waiting for my learned friend to finish
15 before I disagree with me.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, even -- there might even not be a need to
17 disagree with him.
18 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's hear what Mr. Hedaraly tell us.
20 MR. HEDARALY: There was an issue in this case about the diary in
21 the aerial photograph which apparently were not disclosed with the
22 witness statement last year for some technical reason, but regardless,
23 the witness statement in the second paragraph clearly said that the
24 witness provides a diary. There are repeated mentions of the diary in
25 the statement and we never heard from the Defence that those were not
1 disclosed. It is only in preparing for the witness that I noticed that
2 those attachments had not been formally disclosed, but they are referred
3 in such a way in the statement that everyone is clearly notified. So
4 that if the statements had been reviewed, we would have known that the --
5 there was a problem with disclosure.
6 But they were disclosed I think on the 8th of January when I was
7 preparing for -- for this witness, and I realised that there had been an
8 inadvertent omission with respect to two attachments to the 2008
9 statement which was disclosed well in time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You disagree, Mr. Kehoe.
11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I mean first I appreciate that
12 counsel's onus to put the burden back on the Defence as opposed to taking
13 the responsibility of the OTP which was to routinely disclose those
14 exhibits that they are intending to put into evidence; and I assume that
15 in reviewing their case they recognised some time ago that they hadn't
16 disclosed this, and we only got notification of it in January.
17 There does seem to be a pattern with this with the OTP. We can
18 address that at a different time, but that is not the sole purpose of all
19 of these -- our objections to these exhibits. Yes, some of them fall
20 into disclosure and if we can just go down through them seriatim.
21 C 1, of course, is the one that is in his statement, but if we
22 look at what is C 2 and C 4, which are instructive, those are the diary
23 of the witness and also a report for ECMM dated 15 September 1995.
24 Now, this apparently was provided to the Office of the Prosecutor
25 in April of 2008. And were not disclosed. So I mean, obviously, there
1 is considerable delay in that regard.
2 C 1, of course, is a newspaper article that he doesn't refer to
3 in any way, shape, or form. The aerial photograph C 3, I mean that, of
4 course, was not disclosed either. And then we have a series of
5 documents -- well, actually there is a series of documents we're talking
6 about D12 which is frankly so redacted. No one can understand exactly
7 who is the source of that document.
8 But then we have a series of documents from going from D6 through
9 D17 which are ECMM reports -- excuse me D16, yes, D17 as well because it
10 refers to the time-frame when he was -- he, Mr. Hansen was gone. He was
11 gone from Sector South from 17 August to 5 September.
12 Now, the difficulty with this, Your Honour, is: Number one, the
13 Office of the Prosecutor had these ECMM reports; and number two, there
14 were ECMM officials such as Mr. Liborius, such as Mr. Hendricks, such as
15 others that were there during that operative time-frame, and for some
16 reason, known only to the Office of the Prosecutor, they chose not to
17 provide those witnesses with these document. I still don't understand
18 that why -- understand why.
19 Nevertheless they put these documents on a witness list with a
20 witness who wasn't even present at the time, and I suspect based on what
21 Mr. Hedaraly just said he expects to ask questions about information in
22 those reports when the witness wasn't even there.
23 That goes from -- if I can just check my notes, that goes from D6
24 through D17. We object, of course, to the redactions that are in D12.
25 And, of course, we reject to it, the failure to disclose C 1, C 2, C 4,
1 all of which were in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor no
2 later than April of 2008.
3 Likewise just based on the prior rulings of the Court C 1 is a
4 newspaper article that this witness isn't quoted; this witness isn't
5 referred to. I think it's a Globus article of 11 August 1995.
6 So the objections pursuant to our motion fall into a variety of
7 categories: Lack of disclosure, lack of timely disclosure,
8 notwithstanding the Prosecution's attempt to put the onus on the Defence;
9 the redaction, and the attempt to put any number of exhibits D6 through
10 D17 in through a witness who wasn't there at the time when there were
11 many other witnesses with which these documents could have been
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly -- yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I apologise for interpreting. We just want to
17 put our position the record, Your Honour. We just saw on the e-mail that
18 our filing has been submitted everyone.
19 There was one omission in the filing and that's related to C 1
20 meaning that we object to the argument -- or to the article as this
21 particular witness has not -- was not mentioned in the article. He has
22 nothing do with the article. And all of the other arguments that were
23 put fort in our motion will stand by and are similar to the arguments
24 that Mr. Kehoe's made, specifically regarding this particular witness not
25 being present during certain portions of -- of these ECMM reports and
1 many portions of these ECMM reports have information that is completely
2 outside the scope of -- of matters in the indictment meaning talking
3 about situations in other parts of the former Yugoslavia. Several of
4 those documents have large sections devoted to that.
5 Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Now when we're talking about, Mr. Hedaraly, I will give you an
8 opportunity to briefly respond.
9 Now, as far as reports, including elements which deal with other
10 parts of the former Yugoslavia
11 them to take them out. I think --
12 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, I think is a more a practical issue.
13 Usually those sections are clearly delineated. I think we have seen some
14 of the reports that usually overall reports from ECMM, higher, from
16 says Bosnia
17 all agree that those are irrelevant and should not be paid any attention,
18 and I am more than happy to stipulate those portions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, would that, at least in respect of
20 this element be would be a solution.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That would be fine, Your Honour. Just as an
22 example, I can give you an example. 65 ter 7009, the last essentially
23 four -- two to three
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it seems that a proposed solution there
25 could be reached.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That would be agreeable, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hedaraly apart from this rather practical
4 MR. HEDARALY: There's also -- there's a few issues that I
5 tried -- I think I tried to untangle, and I'm not going to repeat myself.
6 The report where it is came claims that Mr. Hansen was not there
7 this is an issue of admissibility with the witness or alternatively a bar
8 table issue but it's not an issue of addition to 65 ter list. That's the
9 first point.
10 With respect to the attachments and the disclosure issue, I did
11 not try to put the onus on the Defence. I acknowledged that it was an
12 error on the Prosecution's part. I was simply pointing out that the
13 prejudice may not be as high as it is claimed here.
14 Finally, the newspaper article has already been, a part of it,
15 admitted into evidence under P701, which is Mr. Alun Roberts's testimony;
16 and that was a globus article. Mr. Hansen attached a translation that he
17 had received in 1995 and had it provided to the Office of the Prosecutor
18 and attached to his statement; so we just are now using the full article
19 and we got the original, as well, uploaded. And it is not true that it
20 is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form in his first statement he
21 does -- although he is not mentioned himself in the article, it is his
22 position that he received that it is a contemporaneous newspaper article
23 of the time of 11 August.
24 So we're not talking about the 2000 or 1999 or 2006. We're
25 talking about a contemporaneous report of what happened during Operation
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kehoe --
3 MR. KEHOE: If is he not mentioned in it, he's not quoted in it,
4 he's got nothing to do with writing it, what is the relevance of going
5 true it with him? I mean, it's an exercise again of going through
6 documents with which the witness clearly has no applicability. Contrary,
7 I mean, the Prosecution seems to think that any document that -- they
8 bring before this Chamber can be admitted, and it's not a question of
9 admissibility, it's a question of weight. There has to be some screen to
10 this, and part of that screen is -- part of the screen that should be
11 imposed on the Prosecution is in a document such as this.
12 Now, the exercise -- I go back, and counsel has not answered
13 that, the exercise of putting documents in that counsel maintains go to
14 admissibility those documents -- when Mr. Hansen wasn't there, those
15 documents should have been discussed with witnesses that were there. Not
16 with somebody that was on leave someplace and certainly the underpinnings
17 of those documents go to its admissibility and asking the rhetorical
18 request: Why didn't the Prosecutor ask these questions to witnesses who
19 were there when they would have written --
20 MR. HEDARALY: Wouldn't it be more convenient to wait to see what
21 questions I put to the witness before making those decisions, and
22 frankly, I mean, I'm stunned by the fact that documents are being put
23 that the witness knows nothing about concerning a number of exhibits
24 numbers that the Defence has [Overlapping speakers] ... that's just
25 shocking, frankly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- I think we there's no need to spend further
2 time on one party blaming another party that publications are tendered
3 into evidence where the direct link with the witness is not always a full
4 100 percent clear.
5 I think that happened on both sides, or should I say on four
6 sides. The issue, that issue is clear to the Chamber and we struggle
7 with it now and then.
8 Any further submissions.
9 MR. HEDARALY: No, Your Honour, but it obviously would affect the
10 examination significantly. First of all, to know whether they are
11 admitted to the 65 ter list; and, second of all, and whether the
12 attachments will be objected to.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber needs perhaps not hours but at least
15 needs a bit of time to consider how to proceed. We'll adjourn but
16 everyone should remain stand by.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: Just one little issue before the adjournment, as
20 it refers to D1079, Mr. Hedaraly and myself reached the agreement so that
21 the -- from the documents would be redacted three last lines as you
22 suggested previously.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And on the basis of this agreement and the
24 redaction that will be applied, D1079 is then admitted in this version.
25 That was the -- Mr. Misetic, I'm seeing that this was an issue
1 very much, I think, a document which was --
2 MR. MIKULICIC: That was the answer.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... the answer, yes. It
4 comes as a bit of a surprise to me because we're not dealing with MFI
5 matters at this very moment. But if there is an agreement, Mr. Misetic.
6 MR. MISETIC: I apologise, Your Honour, actually I was reminded
7 by my case manager that I had advised the Chamber that we had uploaded
8 pages for D914 before we took the last break and we got off track and --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was informed about that, and I'm a bit
10 surprised as a matter of fact. But since Mr. Mikulicic raised the issue,
11 and I thought at that moment the only thing I had to do is to say, Okay
12 then it is admitted. But it turns out to take more, but it is admitted,
13 and we'll deal with the others quickly.
14 We'll first deliberate for a while on how to proceed.
15 --- Break taken at 11.43 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the objection against
18 admission, and on the basis that those objections, the Chamber cannot
19 decide at this moment not to admit. It will defer its decision on
20 admission of the documents tendered in the motion until the end of the
21 testimony of the witness.
22 However, we make two specific observations. The one is about the
23 newspaper article. If, and that appears to be the case, the witness
24 can't tell us any more than this is a newspaper article which describes
25 A, B, and C, which is something which everyone who can read could tell
1 us, even without anyone telling us, we could read it ourselves. If he
2 has no other knowledge about the matter and -- unless he says, I have
3 read it at the time, and I was influenced by its contents and I did this,
4 or that, then of course that may have some relevance. But if is just
5 what we see on paper at this moment, then the Chamber will consider
6 admission of this newspaper article totally unrelated to this witness.
7 We'll carefully check what portions are already in evidence. We don't
8 have at our disposal at this moment all the details, when it was
9 tendered, what witness said what about it, but we'll then under those
10 circumstances deal with it as if it were a bar table submission. That's
12 The second observation is about the diary. Well, the Prosecution
13 has already admitted that it was a mistake not to -- well, of course,
14 just omitting that you made a mistake is not sufficient to -- to give a
15 remedy to the other party. If there's any need for further time to
16 prepare further cross-examination on the diary, or if, in view of
17 investigations still to be conducted, the Defence of any of the three
18 accused would reserve its position as to have an opportunity to re-call
19 this witness, the Chamber will then seriously consider such a request.
20 What I also just said also means that the documents can be put to
21 the witness and, of course, Mr. Hedaraly, where we were not in the
22 position not to admit, that does not mean that, first of all, that it is
23 admitted; and, of course, we'll certainly look at a sharp eye on the
24 questions that you will put to the witness, and, of course, we have in
25 the back of our minds what the objections were.
1 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President. Just before we call our
2 next witness, I want to clarify the record regarding document C 4.
3 Although it was not provided with the witness statement in April of 2008,
4 it was independently disclosed to the Defence on 28th March 2007.
5 So for that document, the late disclosure issue does not apply.
6 With that said, we are ready to call our next witness, Witness 130,
7 Mr. Stig Marker Hansen.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And there are no protective measures, from what I
10 MR. HEDARALY: No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the parties are invited to find a
12 solution for the relevant portions in the documents; that is, in a
13 totally different geographical area or outside of the time-frame, as
14 suggested earlier.
15 MR. HEDARALY: That's -- we have a number of these documents on
16 the record. So that's why I was -- could just agree that the portions
17 that are outside the area will not be considered by the Trial Chamber.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Marker Hansen.
21 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of
23 Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that
24 you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher, and I would
1 like to invite to you make that solemn declaration.
2 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
3 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
4 WITNESS: STIG MARKER HANSEN
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
6 Mr. Marker Hansen, English is not your mother tongue, as I
7 understand. Nevertheless, I take it that since there has been no request
8 for further translation that you will give your testimony in the English
9 language. Is that correctly understood?
10 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you ever have any problem either in
12 expressing yourself in that language or to understand what others say,
13 please immediately address me and ask for further assistance.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You will now first be examined by Mr. Hedaraly.
16 Mr. Hedaraly is counsel four the Prosecution.
17 Mr. Hedaraly, you may proceed.
18 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Examination by Mr. Hedaraly:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hansen. Can you please state your full name
21 for the record.
22 A. My name is Stig Marker Hansen.
23 Q. And just to clarify the record, in statements and documents you
24 are sometimes referred to as Mr. Hansen as your last name or
25 Mr. Marker Hansen hyphenated as your last name. Can you clarify for the
1 record what is your last name?
2 A. My last name is Hansen.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. HEDARALY: If we can have 65 ter 7000 on the screen.
5 Q. And, Mr. Hansen, do you recall providing a witness statement to
6 the Office of the Prosecutor on 18 December 1995?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. And is that the statement you see on the screen in front you. If
9 we move to the bottom, will you see your signature?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. HEDARALY: If we could have 65 ter 7001.
13 Q. And, Mr. Hansen, do you also recall providing a witness statement
14 to the Office of the Prosecutor on 21 and 22 August 1997?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. And is that the statement that we see on the screen in front of
18 A. It is, yeah.
19 Q. Finally do you recall providing a supplemental witness statement
20 to the Office of the Prosecutor on 23 and 24 April 2008?
21 A. I do.
22 MR. HEDARALY: If we could have 65 ter 7002 on the screen,
24 Q. And can you confirm that that is the statement we see on the
1 A. It is confirmed.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
3 Did you have a chance to review these three statements in the
4 last week or so?
5 A. I did.
6 Q. And do these statements accurately reflect what you said to the
7 Office of the Prosecutor in the course of those interviews?
8 A. Yes, they do.
9 Q. Are the contents of these statements that you signed true, to the
10 best of your knowledge and recollection?
11 A. They are.
12 Q. Finally, Mr. Hansen, if you were asked the same questions today
13 that you were asked in those interviews, would you give the same answers?
14 A. I would give the same answers, yes.
15 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, at this time I would like
16 65 ter 7000, 65 ter 7001 and 65 ter 7002 to be admitted into evidence,
17 pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you assign numbers to these
19 three statements.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 7000 becomes Exhibit P1283.
21 65 ter number 7001 becomes Exhibit P1284, and 65 ter 7002 becomes
22 Exhibit P1285.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's the understanding of the Chamber on the
24 basis of the submissions that there are no objection against the
25 admission of the statements themselves.
1 Therefore, P1283, P1284 and P1285 are admitted into evidence.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.
3 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 At this time we'd also like to move five documents under
5 Rule 92 ter, which are attached to witness statements which were on the
6 65 ter list and which have not been objected to in the filing. Those are
7 65 ter 3193, 65 ter 4225, 65 ter 2837, 65 ter 4234, and 65 ter 3418 and
8 they are all discussed in the witness statements and therefore the
9 foundation is found there.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as you may be aware, Mr. Hedaraly, the Chamber
11 has no 65 ter numbers. But I take it that the Defence teams will have
12 verified whether the 65 ter numbers you just read were documents to which
13 no objections were made.
14 MR. HEDARALY: I can provide the number on the exhibit list.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Let's -- as soon as -- could you just
16 briefly identify what are these ECMM reports.
17 MR. HEDARALY: Of course, 65 ter 3193 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you refer to the --
19 MR. HEDARALY: The first one, 65 ter 3193 is number 13 on the
20 list which is an ECMM daily report from headquarter ECMM on
21 5 September 1995
22 65 ter 4225 is a weekly report from RC Zagreb covering the period
23 2 to 9 September 1995
24 JUDGE ORIE: Where you refer to where we find them on the list in
25 the motion because you just said 12.
1 I'm sorry, isn't it, the first one, no, 13 --
2 MR. HEDARALY: Which is B10. B10.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, have I in the motion, page 18801, I have under
4 number 13 -- oh, yes, there we have the 65 ter numbers, by the way.
5 13 on the list, you mean the Excel sheet.
6 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We will find it. We have sufficient information.
8 Thank you. You may proceed and we'll, in the absence of any
9 objections, Mr. Registrar, could you please assign number to the.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those will Exhibit P1286 through
11 Exhibit P1290 respectively.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit P1286 up to and including Exhibit P1290 are
13 admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. HEDARALY: And if we could also marked for identification the
16 four documents referred to witness statements that are subject to
17 objections, which are found on number 20 to 23, 65 ter 7003, excuse me,
18 65 ter 7006. I will refer to them during the examination, and if they
19 are eventually admitted, then it will clarify the record.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please assign numbers in
21 order to marked for identification the numbers 20 to 23 on the list. The
22 first one being ECMM report, consequences in former RSK of
23 Operation Storm for the period 7 to 24 August 1995.
24 MR. HEDARALY: That's not correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm lost with lists. What is --
1 MR. HEDARALY: Okay.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What lists are you using? I have got an Excel sheet
3 and on number 20. I see, I'm making a mistake, as a matter of fact.
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's a newspaper article yes.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: If you have the Excel list on the bottom, right.
7 120, 2009 that should be the correct exhibit list.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I was making a mistake because I read the Excel line
9 numbering as the numbering of the exhibits. But number 20 on the list
10 appears on number 28 of the Excel list, but let's forget about the Excel
11 list. That's the newspaper article, Globus.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter number 7003 through 65 ter
14 number 7006 will receive Exhibit P1291 through Exhibit P1294 respectively
15 all marked for identification.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And keep that status for the time being.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Mr. Hansen, sorry about these delays, these procedural matters
20 that arise.
21 I first want to briefly ask you about the situation in Knin prior
22 to Operation Storm.
23 MR. HEDARALY: And, Your Honour, I have a binder of hard copies
24 of the documents on the exhibit list. If that can be given to the
1 Q. I first want to refer you to your first statement, which is at
2 tab 1 of your binder, which is now P1283. And I want to focus at the
3 bottom of the second page, the first page of text, where you stated:
4 "Apart from ARSK headquarters staff there was never a military
5 defence of Knin. Troops, artillery, and tanks were all deployed on the
6 front lines and soldiers were only seen in Knin when on leave and [sic]
8 I want to ask, explore this will you a little bit, and my first
9 question for you is: Did you actually these ARSK troops, artillery, and
10 tanks deployed on the front line?
11 A. Affirmative. When travelling across the -- the front line, we
12 saw to some extent the deployment of RSK.
13 Q. And what could you see in Knin itself, in terms of ARSK troops,
14 artillery, and tanks?
15 A. Well, as I -- I highlight in the statement, we -- I don't recall
16 seeing any manoeuvring of heavy materiel or heavy equipment; and it was,
17 though, a regular mission to see uniformed personnel walking the streets
18 of Knin.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, you announced in paragraph 2 of your
20 submission, 92 ter submission that you would read a summary. Now for
21 everyone to better understand the additional questions that will be
22 answered by the witness, perhaps it would be a good idea to do it right
23 in the beginning.
24 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Have you explained to Mr. Hansen?
1 MR. HEDARALY: I have a summary. I just omitted to read it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. Hansen was an ECMM monitor in UN Sector South
4 from June 1995 to September 1995. He was on the N2 monitoring team until
5 the ECMM reorganisation in September 1995 when he became the leader of
6 monitoring team K1.
7 He personally observed the shelling of Knin on 4 August and
8 witnessed shells falling in residential areas including in the immediate
9 vicinity of his accommodation.
10 In the first days after the offensive, he was able to observe HV
11 soldiers storing and carrying away looted valuable items right in front
12 of the UN compound. In the course of his monitoring activities, he
13 witnessed various incidents of looting and burning, as well as cases of
14 harassment and killings of local Serbs.
15 Mr. Hansen had regular meetings with Accused Cermak, to whom ECMM
16 would often report about the lack of law and order in the Sector and
17 about restrictions of movement. He also met with Accused Gotovina on
18 20 September 1995
19 widespread crimes of looting, arson, and harassment.
20 This concludes my summary.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. HEDARALY:
23 Q. Mr. Hansen, going back to Knin, before Operation Storm, did you
24 see any units or any organised groups of soldiers in the town?
25 A. No, we did not.
1 Q. And did you ever visit the northern barracks in Knin prior to
2 Operation Storm?
3 A. Affirmative. On a few occasions, we visited the barracks.
4 Q. And what was the context of those visits or the purpose of those
6 A. Well, liaison with -- with staff officers.
7 Q. Do you remember when was your last visit before Operation Storm?
8 A. I don't have any precise recollection of the dates of the
10 Q. And can you describe your observations on those occasions
11 regarding the level of activity in the northern barracks on your visits
13 A. As far as I remember, I -- I saw a kind of a dull, lower activity
14 situation, not really indicating a lot of activities.
15 Q. And was that the same on each of your visits there?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. In your first statement, still staying with your first statement,
18 on the paragraph immediately preceding the one we were just discussing,
19 you talk about the Tvik factory and the railroad and their contribution
20 to the economy.
21 And I just want, first of all, to clarify that when you're
22 referring to before the war, you mean before 1991; is that right?
23 A. That is right.
24 Q. Now, did you ever, prior to Operation Storm, visit the Tvik
25 factory in Knin?
1 A. Yes, I visited the factory on several occasions.
2 Q. And can you tell the Chamber what was the purpose of those
4 A. At that time, we were conducting an economic survey of the
5 pre-war economy in the entire region.
6 Q. And what was, to your knowledge, the purpose of the Tvik factory?
7 What was it producing?
8 A. It was producing nuts and bolts to the -- to the Yugoslav market.
9 Q. In your visits there is in June and July of 1995 --
10 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour, I object. That's not what he
11 said. If he wants to ask the dates he was there, that's fine, not
12 leading the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly.
14 MR. HEDARALY:
15 Q. Mr. Hansen, you arrived in Knin on 29 May 1995; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. An Operation Storm started on 4 August 1995?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. So your visits to the Tvik factory would be between 29 May 1995
20 and 4 August 1995?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, in the course of your visits to the Tvik factory
23 in 1995, before Operation Storm, was the Tvik factory working, was it
24 producing anything?
25 A. No. The production had ceased and staff there were basically
1 maintaining or guarding assets at the factory.
2 Q. Did you have any conversations with anyone at the Tvik factory in
3 that -- in those times?
4 A. The dates of the visits I was in dialogue with a manager of Tvik.
5 Q. And in the course of these discussions with the manager of the
6 Tvik factory, did he ever tell you anything about converting the factory
7 to produce --
8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, stop. I have to cease the leading. I
9 mean, if we are going to talk about a conversation; number one, it is it
10 hearsay, but at least ask what was said during the conversation and not
11 testimony by counsel.
12 MR. HEDARALY: It's a yes or no question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- that's --
14 MR. HEDARALY: Did he have a --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, a yes or no question, leading questions are
16 very often yes or no questions; so, therefore, that answer as such -- but
17 let me just re-read it.
18 MR. HEDARALY: I can go through all the topics --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
20 The question leads to the extent that it directs the attention of
21 the witness into a certain area. That could have been done in a more
22 neutral way, and you're invited to rephrase your question.
23 At the same time, Mr. Kehoe, I was a bit surprised by your
24 previous objection which took Mr. Hedaraly quite a bit of time, the June,
25 July issue. If it is in evidence that someone arrives in late May. And
1 if it is prior to Operation Storm, of course, it could have been that he
2 had been there three years ago as well. But would you not expect under
3 those circumstances that the witness would immediately say, Of course, it
4 was not there, it must have been at another occasion. And technically it
5 might have been right whether it wasn't necessary to object against, that
6 leading is highly questionable.
7 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President if I could respond --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. No. You're not going respond.
9 MR. KEHOE: [Overlapping speakers] ... there is an answer. When
10 do take a break, Mr. President, I'd like to respond to that because there
11 is a response because it goes directly to evidence that's already been
12 presented to this Chamber.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. The witness was there. June, July, just
14 talking about June, July, nothing else.
15 MR. KEHOE: He was there. But makes a difference based on
16 evidence that has been presented to this Chamber --
17 JUDGE ORIE: If it was or not in those moments.
18 MR. KEHOE: Of course, where in those months. Yes, absolutely
19 that was the point of my objection as opposed to what Mr. Hedaraly --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Can you ask further details, Mr. Kehoe, in
21 cross-examination if you think that the matter is not dealt with in such
22 a way that it is sufficiently assists the Chamber, but there is no reason
23 at that moment to object against that question.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President I would like to be heard on this
1 score when we do have a break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
3 Mr. Hedaraly.
4 MR. HEDARALY: Speaking of breaks, Your Honour, I don't know what
5 the Chamber had in mind. I know there was a break before the witness
6 started. But I don't know if that's a formal break or not, so I would
7 seek the Court's guidance in terms of timing.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You were invited to rephrase the question in a more
9 neutral way, such as did you ever learn about whether the production
10 was -- had been the same always or ...
11 MR. HEDARALY: Okay. I was asking about breaks in the -- in the
12 session since we had a long break, but not really -- I'm sorry.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
14 MR. HEDARALY: That's the guidance I was seeking. But thank you
15 for the guidance.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break and we'll start at ten minutes to
17 1.00 and have a break until ten minutes past 1.00.
18 Not now, Madam Usher. I wouldn't say comedy of errors but it
19 seems that --
20 Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.
21 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. And let me ask you the question in the way that the
23 Presiding Judge has suggested.
24 Did you ever learn whether the production in the Tvik factory
25 would be changed to anything other than nuts and bolts?
1 A. No. And -- and on tours through the factory, we saw no evidence
2 of any production at all.
3 Q. Now, were you able to observe the machinery that was used in
4 the -- in the Tvik factory?
5 A. Yes. The manager took us on tours through the factory.
6 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether this machinery could be
7 used to produce anything other than nuts and bolts?
8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour, there is no foundation for
9 that question, whatsoever.
10 MR. HEDARALY: Do you have any now, is the foundation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: As far as, I could see, it was a very old-fashioned
13 production facility that could not easily be used for any more fancy
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us whether you have any experience in
16 relation to machinery and products that can be produced by machinery, or
17 is it just a layman's impression.
18 THE WITNESS: That would be a layman's impression.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.
21 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Mr. Hansen, did you hear about the negotiations between the RSK
23 and the government of Croatia
24 A. Affirmative. We knew about the -- the starting up of the peace
25 talks in Geneva
1 Q. Do you have any further knowledge on those talks about those
3 A. We had no detailed information about -- no.
4 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, at this time since the witness
5 doesn't have any knowledge, I'd like to bar table 65 ter 3991, which is
6 at line 48 of the spreadsheet, but the number of the document,
7 65 ter 3996, which is number 49, and 65 ter 4115, which is item 353.
8 They all talk about these negotiations -- there is already evidence
9 before there Court about them and these are ECMM reports about those
10 negotiations. There's no need to go with the witness through them.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against bar table admission of 3991,
12 3996, and 4115.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to take a look at them
14 to follow the bar table procedure that the Chamber has established.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is just a brief description and what to
16 specifically look at, that's -- have you prepared that?
17 MR. HEDARALY: Not in written form, but we can do that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you do it in such a way, and we'll provisionally
20 introduce them that we can hear from them.
21 Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these will become Exhibit P1295
23 through P1297 respectively, all marked for identification.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. I want to move to the next page of your first statement, P1283.
3 And you state --
4 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, perhaps this could be a good time
5 for a break. I'm going change topics. So if that's convenient.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case, we'll have a break now.
7 We'll then resume at ten minutes past 1.00, sharp.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.48 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.10 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, where the Chamber would have given you
11 later this morning, an opportunity to further make further submissions in
12 relation to your objection. I now understand that you will deal with the
13 matter on cross.
14 MR. KEHOE: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hedaraly, please proceed.
16 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Mr. Hansen, moving to the page of the statement on the screen
18 that is the next page in your hard copy, page number 3, at the top, you
20 "From my position, I could see impacts all over the city and
21 especially the area in the immediate vicinity of the hospital. Houses
22 close to mine were hit, and heavy smoke generated from a residential area
23 only a few hundred metres to the south."
24 And then a little later on:
25 "One grenade impacted only 20 metres from our HQ."
1 Mr. Hansen, can you clarify for the Court when you made these
3 A. That was in the early hours of the morning of the 4th of August.
4 Q. And where were you specifically when you made these observations?
5 A. I was at our office, at the ECMM headquarters in -- close to the
7 MR. HEDARALY: If we can have what has been marked for
8 identification as P1293.
9 Q. And that's the aerial photo of Knin that you marked. And while
10 that comes up, let me ask you about the next portion of that paragraph,
11 when you say:
12 "In the afternoon en route to UN HQ, we passed the above
13 mentioned areas, pure residential, and saw private houses still ablaze,
14 among them also the residence of the Orthodox priest. We passed Tvik and
15 saw the impact, proceeded to the main street and passed impacts in the
16 middle of the street."
17 Now what I'd like to you do is, with the assistance of the usher,
18 if can you mark for us the location of the house of the Orthodox priest
19 that you saw being hit by a shell.
20 MR. HEDARALY: And if we can move to a different portion of
21 the -- of the photo. We'll get to that later on. If we can zoom back
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. What is circled here is the ECMM
24 headquarters --
25 MR. HEDARALY:
1 Q. That what's you refer to as number 1, Roman numeral I.
2 A. That's true. And the house of the Orthodox priest is one -
3 sorry - these houses here.
4 Q. Could you circle where you think that house is?
5 A. One of these here.
6 Q. And could you put an A next to that.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Thank you.
9 Now when you were allowed out of the UN camp on 7th August, on
10 your first trip to Knin, and we'll talk about that trip in more detail,
11 but did you see this house again?
12 A. On the 7th, when we saw -- honestly, I'm -- I'm not totally sure
13 on that if it was the 7th or the 8th.
14 Q. Did you see that house again after you were allowed to leave the
15 camp, either on the 7th or later?
16 A. That's true, I did.
17 Q. And how did that house look?
18 A. Well, at that time it was a ruin. It was burned down.
19 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, if we could have P1293 with the
20 marking admitted into evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
22 MR. KEHOE: No objections.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1298.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Now later in that same statement in the paragraph right before
3 number 4, you talk about your patrols on the 6th to the 8th, and that you
4 could see impacts in the streets near the residential areas.
5 And I just want to -- while the picture is on the screen, those
6 the areas that you identified as III Roman numeral; is that correct?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. And you also circled the hospital as 3. Now, to your knowledge,
9 was the hospital hit by shells?
10 A. To my knowledge, there was no structural damage, and therefore
11 not a direct hit.
12 Q. Did you see shells in the area of the hospital, impacting in the
13 area of the hospital?
14 A. Yeah, we saw, in the general area of the hospital, we saw
16 Q. And in that same paragraph you state:
17 "The shelling is assessed to be psychological, with the purpose
18 to drive out the Serb population. The shelling was not meant to destroy
19 the city, and the general idea of the attack seems to be the retaking of
20 an intact and population-wise empty city."
21 Now, Mr. Hansen, can you provide the Trial Chamber because this
22 conclusion itself is not of assistance to the Chamber, can you provide
23 the Chamber with the facts ans observations that formed the basis of that
25 A. Yes. I mean, during the first day of the shelling, we could hear
1 certainly the impact throughout town and we could see smoke develop in
2 different quarters of the town. We had the hospital area in direct line
3 of sights and could see the impact there and certainly we saw the impact
4 that landed just in our own garden.
5 At the time we -- we could patrol. I went to town and to the
6 residential area close to the Tvik factory, and what we saw there was
7 impact -- I would call it somehow, occasional impact with no structural
8 damage; and we saw basically facades on high-rise buildings being -- bear
9 witness of shrapnels and -- so the conclusion is that we did not see any
10 targeted structural damage, more a -- an occasional shelling of Knin.
11 Q. And when later in the statement you said that what you believed
12 to be military targets were not targeted, do I take -- should I take that
13 to mean there was no damage to them?
14 A. That is true. We -- I did not go into the northern barracks, but
15 passing by, we did not see any structural damage.
16 Q. If we can have Exhibit P1292 marked for identification. That is
17 your diary. That is at tab 21 of your binder. And you have the original
18 Danish as well in the binder if you want to refer to that. I will refer
19 to the English, for obvious reasons.
20 And if we can go to page 2 when it comes up on the screen. In
21 the middle of that paragraph, that is one of your entries for the 4th of
22 August, you say in the middle of that paragraph:
23 "I can quite simply not accept how people are being driven out.
24 I can understand the Croats, but I'm really disgusted by their methods.
25 They are breaking all the laws of war."
1 Now, Mr. Hansen, what did you mean by that?
2 A. Well, it's again referring to the nature of the shelling. It
3 appeared at this point it was targeting the -- driving out of the
4 population of Knin rather than anything else, and -- so at this point in
5 time, we concluded that the operation had the objective to re-take the
6 geography of the RSK rather than -- with an empty population.
7 Q. Let me now show you 65 ter 4026, which is on tab 50 of your
9 And just for the Court's information, the tabs are matching the
10 exhibit list so when we come to admission, it may be easier.
11 If you refer to that document. This is a special report from the
12 chief for logistics of ECMM whose name is redacted. But let me just ask
13 you: Do you know who that was on 4 August?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Can you tell the Court?
16 A. I recall him as -- you mean the name?
17 Q. Yes.
19 Q. Was he with you in the ECMM shelter on 4 August 1995?
20 A. Correct, yes he was.
21 Q. Now regarding the --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go into private session for one second.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 14906-14907 redacted. Private session.
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.
14 MR. HEDARALY:
15 Q. And this was the only time that that -- that a redacted name will
16 be disclosed in my examination just so that all the parties will rest
18 I noticed Mr. Kehoe's microphone is still on. I don't know if he
19 was planning on saying something.
20 MR. KEHOE: I will if you want me to.
21 MR. HEDARALY: I'm okay, thanks.
22 Q. Mr. Hansen, let's get back to the report. And the author of this
23 report says -- well, without mentioning the name, was the author of this
24 report with you in the ECMM shelter on 4 August?
25 A. He was, yes.
1 Q. And he says, regarding the 4th of August:
2 "Shelling Knin started at 500 hours. ECMM team took cover in the
3 shelter during the day. Fifty refugees from the neighbourhood joined
4 ECMM building, most of them families of our accomodation."
5 Now, Mr. Hansen, do you recall neighbourhood families seeking
6 shelter to the ECMM headquarters on the 4th of August?
7 A. Yes, I do. And I knew quite a lot of -- of the persons taking
8 shelter in our office.
9 Q. Can you describe for the Court whether these were civilians or
11 A. They were all civilian, mostly elders, women and children.
12 Q. Can you talk to the Court, what was the atmosphere in the ECMM
14 A. Well, there was an atmosphere of uncertainty, nervousness, and
15 people afraid, scared, children crying, and absolutely uncertainty.
16 Nobody knew anything about what was happening.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
18 MR. HEDARALY: Mr. President, I would like to have 65 ter 4026
19 into evidence.
20 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1299, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
24 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Hansen, let me change topics now and talk a little bit about
1 the looting that you witnessed.
2 First I want to start when you were still in the UN camp, not
3 allowed to get out, as described in your statement. Actually, why don't
4 I deal with that briefly first.
5 If you go to tab 25 of your binder. That is 65 ter 7008.
6 There is a report from the 7th of August, covering the period 4
7 to 6 August. On the third page of this report, under political
8 situation, it says:
9 "ECMM in Knin are blocked in their barracks by five HV tanks and
10 are not allowed to patrol the town nor investigate reports of small-arms
11 shooting. May suggest that clean-up operation that they did not want the
12 UN to witness."
13 Mr. Hansen, do you remember being prevented from leaving the UN
14 camp by five HV tanks?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. While we're on this document right after it says:
17 "ECMM reports that there are strong indications of killings of
18 ARSK soldiers following the taking of Knin and states that the town had
19 on 6 August been cleared of dead bodies on 5 August."
20 Next paragraph : "ECMM ... reports on 6 August that in some
21 parts of the former RSK territory advancing HV units burnt and destroyed
22 livestock and property, abandoned by Krajina Serbs ..."
23 My question for you is, can you tell the Court what was the
24 source of this information that ARSK soldiers were being killed and that
25 advancing HV units burned and destroyed livestock and property?
1 A. Mostly I would say that it is an anecdotal information given to
2 us by refugees. At this point by residents from Knin and the surrounding
3 areas seeking refuge in the southern barracks where we were hosted.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you. Your Honour, if I could have
6 65 ter 7008 into evidence.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I just want to correct the record on something,
8 Your Honour. Page 74, line 11 what appears to have been read in was that
9 ECMM reports. I've lost it.
10 MR. HEDARALY: ECMM in Knin. Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It says actually, UN forces are blocked in the
12 barracks, not ECMM are blocked in their barracks. The report itself
13 says, UN forces are blocked in their barracks by five HV tanks not that
14 ECMM forces are blocked.
15 That's the correction I wanted to make. Thank you.
16 MR. HEDARALY: I don't think that is it right, but the document
17 is in evidence.
18 Can we have 65 ter 7008 admitted into evidence, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Then, Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1300, Your Honours.
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I hate to rise again, Your Honour, but this --
22 it may be a minor point, but we have all made mistakes reading documents
23 into the record. If you look at the page under political situation, it
24 says something crossed out and then later on in that same line it says,
25 "UN forces are blocked in their barracks."
1 Now in the transcript, it doesn't say that. It wasn't read that
2 way and that's the only thing I was trying to point out was --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now let's see, where exactly --
4 MR. HEDARALY: That's page 73, line 24. I was looking at 74,
5 line 11.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I was focussing on the source Mr. Hedaraly gave and
7 I had difficulties in finding it.
8 Mr. Hedaraly, the correction you would agree.
9 MR. HEDARALY: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question to you, Mr. Hansen.
13 Could you tell me exactly what you mean by anecdotal?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. We would talk to -- to the
15 persons who were seeking shelter in the barracks, and I would categorise
16 the information as anecdotal, as people were under no obligation to
17 reveal a -- a fact to us or -- I believe we had no means of verifying the
18 information at this point.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just what people told you, not in a systematic
20 questioning of those persons but just what -- what they spontaneously
21 uttered to say so. Is that --
22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that is true, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And I have another question and that relates to
24 something you said before the break.
25 You said, "We saw no production," when you were talking about the
1 Tvik factory.
2 Now, production, from what I understand, can mean a lot of things
3 but among others the following: Production, the act of producing
4 something but also the result of that act, that is a product.
5 Now did you want to say that you didn't see any production
6 ongoing or did you intend to say that you did not see any products.
7 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm. Happy to clarify that, Your Honour. We
8 saw a lot of boxes and pallets with nuts and bolts but did not see any
9 operating machinery. So no ongoing production, but previous production.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.
12 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Hansen, I want to go back to your first statement, at tab 1
14 which is P1283; and I want to focus again on page 3 of that statement, in
15 the second paragraph, in the middle you say: "Shortly after" -- and
16 you're referring about when the Croatian flag was flying over Knin
18 "Shortly after, we saw all means of remaining Serb vehicles,
19 i.e., vans, cars, tractors, bikes, used by HV 4th Brigade to collect
20 valuables from the left-behind apartments and houses in front of the UN
21 HQ. A big garage was used as a storage site."
22 Then you say:
23 "A great number of vehicles off-loaded the goods at this storage
24 site guarded by the HV troops. The 6th August evening and night, it was
25 all loaded on military trucks and carried away, direction Drnis."
1 And, Mr. Hansen, can you tell the Court exactly what you saw?
2 A. Yeah. As -- we were, as I said before, we were prevented from
3 leaving the barracks but we could go to the top of buildings. And just
4 outside the perimeter, we saw an appeared to a parking area for lorries
5 or trucks, and that particular site was used for the compilation of
6 commodities that you were brought in by uniformed personnel.
7 It was -- we also saw that a particular building was used as a
8 storage, and it appeared it was a garage. So what we saw, the activities
9 that was ongoing, more or less, throughout the day was that all kinds of
10 vehicles were used to transport commodities and then further on, they
11 were unloaded on trucks and taken away.
12 Q. Let me show you the aerial photo again, P62, a blank aerial photo
13 and we will ask to focus on the UN camp on that photo. While that photo
14 loads up because it's pretty large, let me ask you: You talked about
15 commodities. What type of commodities did you see brought there on the
16 5th and then taken away on the 6th?
17 A. We saw television sets, stereos, refrigerators, and this kind of
19 Q. And while we're still waiting let me ask you, you identify the HV
20 4th Brigade collecting these items. How did you know that they were HV
21 4th Brigade?
22 A. As far as I remember, the -- the insignia was painted on -- on
23 some of the vehicles.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Once that picture comes up, I will ask
25 you to identify the garage where you saw these HV 4th Brigade soldiers
1 collecting valuables on the 5th.
2 MR. HEDARALY: If I can ask the usher to focus on the UN camp, at
3 the bottom right. Maybe just zoom in a little more. Thank you. And if
4 we can have the assistance of the usher to help the witness mark the
5 location of that garage.
6 Q. And if you can circle it, and place an A next to it?
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
9 MR. HEDARALY: Your Honour, can we have this admitted into
11 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1301, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit P1301 is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. HEDARALY: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. I now want to move to the 7th and 8th of
17 August, the first days after you were allowed to leave the UN compound.
18 I will refer to both your diary and your third statement.
19 I will start with your diary, which is P1292, which is tab 21 of
20 your binder, and the entry for the 7th of August, which is page 5. At
21 the beginning where you say:
22 "I went into Knin twice today. Knin is no longer Knin. The main
23 road through the town has been destroyed. Large craters and shop windows
24 have been blown out. Houses, either are or have been in flames. The
25 objective of the first tour was to fetch our things from HQ ... where we
1 lived. We were just in time to save the computers and communications
2 equipment. The Croats were already in action when we got there. We told
3 them it was ECMM property, and they left with nothing more than a little
4 bit of diesel."
5 Mr. Hansen, do you remember seeing Croatian soldiers at the ECMM
6 headquarters when you arrived there on the 7th of August?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And who was with you on that first trip?
9 A. ECMM colleagues were with me.
10 Q. Can you identify those?
11 A. By name?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Yeah, one colleague was which I am very sure was there, was
14 Soren Liborius, and as far as I remember also Mr. Eric Hendriks
15 participated in this trip.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. And after going to the ECMM headquarters
17 you went to your own accommodation; is that right?
18 A. That is true.
19 Q. And you also recount that in your diary when you say:
20 "My own lodgings had also visitors. Everything was upside down
21 but luckily my civilian clothes and uniform was still there. My camera,
22 CD's, speakers, et cetera, were gone."
23 If we could just leave the diary on the screen for a while, you
24 refer to your third statement at tab 3, at paragraph 20; and there you
25 say about the same trip:
1 "My interpreter's house is located in the residential area, north
2 of the Tvik factory and the house had shrapnel on the its walls and was
3 damaged because of the shell impacts, although the house did not receive
4 a direct hit. The house was also missing a number of valuable items,
5 such as a TV set. The main entrance door was broken, and the house had
6 been completely ransacked."
7 And I wanted to go on to the next page on your diary, I'll ask my
9 "In the first few days after the attack it seemed that a certain
10 discipline prevailed, but now I can see that every single houses has been
11 gone through with a tooth comb and all valuables removed."
12 Mr. Hansen, can you explain to the Court what was the basis of
13 that statement?
14 A. Yeah. We as I said, in the -- in the diary entry, we met people
15 who were removing stuff from -- from our office and our private houses
16 when we got there. But also further on driving through town, it was
17 obvious that -- that each and every single house was broken into or every
18 apartment was broken into, and -- and we saw -- it was at this point very
19 visible in -- in -- in the streets that the people were collecting items.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
21 MR. HEDARALY: I saw the clock, Mr. President. We can adjourn
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hedaraly.
24 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, just one issue with the -- with the
25 witness here. If we could have the opportunity to just take a look at
1 the witness's original diary not the Xerox copy, I would appreciate it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would like to see the original rather
3 than --
4 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hansen, do you have your diary, the original
6 with you?
7 THE WITNESS: I don't have it with me here, but I have it in the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you be willing to -- to leave it the
10 hands of the Defence for, just for verifying?
11 MR. KEHOE: Very briefly, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Very briefly. How much time would you --
13 MR. HEDARALY: Just for the record, Your Honour, the Defence can
14 make that request of Prosecution. We asked the witness, and the witness
15 provided photocopies of the portions that were -- that were here now --
16 to we -- wants the original diary. They have -- they can compare the
17 handwritten photocopies with what has been provided in evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that, and I think it's in
19 general to see the original is a reasonable wish.
20 You would be willing to give it temporarily, and the Defence will
21 return it to you, to Mr. Kehoe and his colleagues.
22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, can I bring it tomorrow.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Or would it be -- if you say. I dont' know what
24 exactly you are having for --
25 MR. KEHOE: We an take a look --
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, the issue is that if something strikes your eyes
2 tomorrow and then there is not sufficient time then rather have it done
3 this afternoon but then through the victims and witness section that it
4 could be delivered and that you return it within say, one hour, or --
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes, absolutely.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Other Defence teams interested in looking at the
8 Mr. Kuzmanovic, you now then stay close to Mr. Kehoe. I take it
9 you'll find a way to --
10 So if you could please provide to the victims and witness section
11 the original, and the professional obligation of Defence counsel is to
12 return it to you in exactly the same state as they received it.
13 We'll then adjourn and --
14 MR. HEDARALY: Sorry Mr. President. Didn't instruct the witness
15 not to --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're right. And I highly appreciate that not
17 only Mr. Misetic assisting me in keeping the speed of speech such that
18 everyone can follow, but thank you very much.
19 Mr. Hansen, you are instructed that you should not speak with
20 anyone about your testimony, whether the testimony you gave today or the
21 testimony still to be given. Is that clear?
22 THE WITNESS: That's -- thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will adjourn and we resume tomorrow, Friday,
24 the 23rd of January, at 9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom III.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.
1 to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of
2 January, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.