1 Monday, 26 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
5 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
7 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, The
8 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 I'd just like to put on the record that the Chamber was informed
11 about an exchange of e-mails about the timing of the submissions the
12 Chamber asked for. I do understand that the Gotovina Defence has filed a
13 submission and sent a curtsy copy to the Prosecution, and it seems that
14 this has resolved the matter.
15 MR. TIEGER: Well, I'm not entirely sure it resolved the matter,
16 Your Honour, in the sense that Prosecution's last e-mail indicated the
17 nature of the problem. We're doing our best to conform to the schedule.
18 I believe we will do so. I would urge as a somewhat separate matter that
19 where possible and I, appreciate the fact that there are circumstances
20 where the exigencies of time may dictate otherwise, that we try not to
21 impose orders that absolutely require people to come in on weekends to do
22 that work. I know there's an understanding which unfortunately is true,
23 that everyone works weekends any way but to actually schedule matters to
24 be done on a Sunday, I think, is a matter that should be avoided, where
1 In any event, we're -- we believe we will be able to file a
2 response by the noon
3 otherwise. At the moment, I think we're on schedule.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's understood and appreciated that the parties
5 would say like to avoid, to the extent possible, any forced labour during
6 the weekend. That's on the record.
7 And -- yes. Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
8 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. The --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No protective measures, Mr. Tieger?
10 MR. TIEGER: That's correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Lausic would be your next witness?
12 MR. TIEGER: Correct, Your Honour.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Lausic.
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this Court, the Rules of
17 Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration, that
18 you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 May I invite to you make that solemn declaration, of which the
20 text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lausic. Please be seated.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lausic, you will first be examined by
1 Mr. Tieger. Mr. Tieger is counsel for the Prosecution.
2 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 WITNESS: MATE LAUSIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examination by Mr. Tieger:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Lausic.
8 A. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tieger.
9 Q. Mr. Lausic, let me begin with a pure formality. Can you state
10 your full name for the record, please.
11 A. My name is Mate Lausic.
12 Q. Mr. Lausic, I wanted to move on to some of the formalities of
13 utilizing some of the materials you've provided previously, so let me ask
14 you these questions.
15 In 2004, on the 13th and 14th of May, is it correct that you were
16 interviewed by representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor, and, at
17 that time, your rights under Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure and
18 Evidence were read and the interview was tape-recorded. Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And subsequently, on the 11th of August, is it correct that the
21 interview of the 13th and 14th was reduced to statement form and that you
22 had an opportunity to review the accuracy of that statement and initial
23 the pages of that statement and sign it at that time?
24 A. It is it correct that in the month of August of 2004, the
25 transcript in the English language was read back to me; that was my
1 statement in the capacity of a suspect that -- that was a statement taken
2 of me in May of 2004. And over a couple of days in the month of August,
3 the OTP investigators, with the assistance of interpreters, went through
4 that May 2004 transcript with me, and I signed a witness statement in the
5 English language back in 2004. At that time it was read back to me,
6 there was no audio or videotape given to me. But up until the 17th of
7 December, 2008, I had not been able to see either the transcript of the
8 interview of me as a suspect of May 2004, or the statement that I gave in
9 August of 2004 in the Croatian language, the language that I understand.
10 Q. Okay. Let's take it a step at a time then.
11 MR. TIEGER: If I could ask that 65 ter 7032 be called up.
12 Q. And, Mr. Lausic, do you recognise 65 ter 7032 now on the screen
13 as the statement you referred to a moment ago, that was read back to you
14 and that you signed in August of 2004?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. Now you may have foreshadowed the next question, but I
17 will ask you that.
18 Did that statement, the August 2004 statement, accurately reflect
19 the information you provided the representatives of the Office of the
20 Prosecutor in August of 2004?
21 A. I said that I saw that statement in the Croatian language for the
22 first time on the 17th of December, 2008, when investigator Brian Foster
23 handed me the Croatian version in the Zagreb office of the ICTY.
24 As I went through the Croatian version of my witness statement of
25 August 2004, I observed some errors that were of purely technical nature
1 and others that were quite substantial in nature. If I may indicate one
2 difference between the English and Croatian versions, on the first page,
3 is that of rank. In the Croatian version, it is said that I'm a retired
4 Croatian army Colonel General, whereas in the Croatian general it says
5 that I was a Major-General. Have I noted a substantial number of such
6 errors in the notebook that I have taken along with me here.
7 Q. Well, Mr. Lausic, it is my intention to provide the Chamber with
8 this statement in its most accurate form and, of course, I intend,
9 therefore, to ask you if you had any corrections to make to the
10 transcript, having reviewed it, so perhaps it's best if we -- if you
11 advise the Chamber of any inaccuracies in the statement that you noted
12 and that you indicate those by paragraph number so the Chamber can follow
13 in the transcript it has -- in the copy of the statement it has before it
14 where those corrections should be made.
15 A. I'm grateful for that, and I would kindly ask to be given that
16 possibility, yes.
17 Q. Okay. So the first correction you indicated, Mr. Lausic, with
18 respect to your rank at retirement is found at what paragraph?
19 A. That's page 1, the one I can see on the screen before me, where
20 it says current -- or rather former occupation. In the English version
21 it says Croatian army Colonel General; whereas, in the English version,
22 it says the Croatian army Major-General. That's the difference.
23 So the correct version is Major-General -- or Colonel General
24 depending on ...
25 Q. Okay. Well, I'm not sure if we have a translation dilemma
1 because I have heard both versions for the cover page reference, both to
2 Colonel General and Major-General. And I'm not sure it's helpful if I
3 repeat to the witness that the English says Colonel General.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the English version says Colonel General, and
5 that's -- is that correct, or is it Major-General? Should it be
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. I am the retired
8 Croatian army Colonel General.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's what the English version says.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So that seems to be correct then.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: Okay.
14 Q. Mr. Lausic, if you could move through the statement and identify
15 any other corrections you wish to be made.
16 A. Yes, please.
17 On page 2, paragraph 3. Paragraph 3, line 4, the Croatian
18 translation of the English original states that on the 1st of February,
19 1971, I was admitted into the state Security Service in the city of
21 of February, 1971, I was admitted into the public security service of the
22 city of Zagreb
23 Q. Well --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read the English to you.
25 "On the 1st of February, 1971, I was accepted to the secretariat
1 of public security of the city of Zagreb
2 police in Zagreb
3 Is that correct, or is that not correct? Because it reads in
4 English the public security.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. Thank you, Your
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next one, please.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also on page 2, in paragraph 3, the
9 text goes on to state that in September or October of 1971, I passed a
10 professional exam and became the authorised staff member, whereas I
11 became the authorised official of the public security service.
12 JUDGE ORIE: "Staff member" is then corrected into official of
13 the public security service.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
16 Please proceed, next one.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 3, paragraph 10, line 2, the
18 6th Department was charged with the security of protected persons and
20 The term "structure" is incorrect here. What was referred to was
21 protected persons and buildings or facilities.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
23 The next one, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also on page 3, in paragraph 10,
25 line 8:
1 "Since I became head of security of the President of the
3 The term in the B/C/S "nacelnik," head or chief is incorrect. My
4 correct term in Croatian was "sef." Again, head or chief in English.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It now then would read:
6 "By becoming the sef of the security for the President of the
8 That's on the record.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Next one, please.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 4, paragraph 14, line 1.
12 "On the 1st of December, 1991, I took over the command of the
13 military police administration upon an oral order." Instead of the word,
14 "I took over the command," what should be stated is, I took over the
15 position of the chief of the military police administration.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
17 Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 5, paragraph 15, line 4, the
19 criteria that the Brigade commanders had to apply when selecting military
20 policemen is being referred to, and the translation says:
21 "There were no criteria for the selection of men, so that only
22 the physical characteristics of men were taken into consideration, and
23 therefore the men had to be physically strong, two metres tall, 100
24 kilograms in weight in order to discipline a soldier, et cetera
25 et cetera."
1 This is incorrect. This was merely a rhetorical figure that I
2 presented. These were not the actual criteria the commanders applied.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be correct to understand it that the
4 criteria were that they should be tall and strong people, without any
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
8 Then physically strong, tall and strong people, without any
9 reference to specific length or specific weight.
10 Please proceed.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 6, the continuation of
12 paragraph 18 from page 5. Line 3: "But professionally speaking or on
13 the professional level, they became part of a company."
14 Instead of the words "professional level," what should be stated
15 is "establishment-wise."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 We are in the English on the fourth line from the bottom, page 5.
18 They remained with that Brigade, but establishment-wise they became a
19 part of the company, and the company was within a battalion."
20 That's on the record.
21 Please, could you give us the next correction.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Further down the page, continuation of paragraph 18 from page 5,
24 line 4: "That platoon had to submit reports to the company commander."
25 Instead of -- well, in the B/C/S prijavak, the term "izvjestaj"
1 should be used.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes is "report" in English.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It now reads at the second line at the bottom of
4 page 5: "This platoon had to report to the commander of the company, and
5 he reported to the commander of the battalion."
6 Is that correct? Then the English version seems to be correct,
7 and it may be a problem in the B/C/S translation.
8 Next one, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Again, at page 6, paragraph 22, second line from the bottom:
11 "The events in which Croatian army personnel participated either
12 as victims or as participants in combat and other events of interest."
13 Instead of "in combat," it should read: "In incidents and other events
14 that were of interest from the security point of view."
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then the word "incident" now reads "incidents and
16 other events that were of interest from the security point of view."
17 That's on the record.
18 The next one, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Mr. President, if I may be allowed to explain what my corrections
21 are based on.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, most important at this moment is that we have
23 the right version. What was wrong in the earlier one is not something
24 that bothers us at this -- greatly. But if that is different, if the
25 parties are interested in that, they will certainly ask you about it.
1 Please with the next one.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 Page 7, paragraph 24:
4 "Again commanders of battalions of military police are
5 responsible to the military police administration in accordance to the
6 management and professional line." This is how it should read. Or
7 expert and control line.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So you would say, "based on the expert and control
9 line," rather than the administrative and professional line. Is that
10 correctly understood?
11 That's on the record. Next one, please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, the same page, 7,
13 paragraph 25, last line, it reads: "It is submitted to the commander
14 about the task that was taken -- that was carried out, and it should
15 read: "To the commander too ..."
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: To the commander as well,
18 JUDGE ORIE: So we would then have to read that they would go
19 back to the commander as well, and not the commander who had issued the
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. Next one, please.
23 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me. If we could return to the
24 previous correction.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
1 MR. TIEGER: I was just looking at the transcript; I thought I
2 heard it that way. The transcript read that the witness said based on
3 the management and professional line or the expert and control line. I
4 wasn't -- I just wonder if there could be some -- whether he was
5 indicating that either of those of terms would be used because it may be
6 used later on as well so ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can check that. I understood your previous
8 question, second line of paragraph 24, that where you said the
9 "management and professional line;" whereas in English, at this moment,
10 it reads "administrative and professional line" that that should be
11 replaced by "expert and control line." But if that is not the case,
12 please tell us what exactly you wanted to change.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Now we're talking
14 about paragraph 24.
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... we go back to
16 your previous correction.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I entered my corrections on the
18 basis of the transcript of my interview, in which I had a status of a
19 suspect. That was taken in May 2004. I took the words that were in the
20 transcript, and I wanted to have them in the statement.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you please tell us then exactly what
22 words you would like to use instead of what words, as we find them at
23 this moment?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want it to read: Expert and
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Instead of?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Administrative and professional.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is how I understood your correction.
4 Mr. Tieger, that sufficiently clarifies the matter?
5 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have gone through the last line of
7 paragraph 25, where you said would go back to the commander as well.
8 That's on the record.
9 Then we move on to the next one. That would be ...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 7, paragraph 26, five
11 lines from the bottom, where it says: "In order to receive
12 reinforcements from the 57th Military Police Battalion," it's a typo it
13 should read 67th Military Police Battalion.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's how it reads in English. In reads:
15 "Because the commander of the 68th Battalion did not have enough
16 people, he then turned to the administration of the military police for
17 reinforcements from the 67th Battalion of the military police in Zagreb
18 and that is correct, from what I understand.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next one, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 8, paragraph 29, line 3:
22 "Then disciplinary proceedings would be stood, and he would be handed
23 over to the commander of that platoon." Or, rather, "that soldier." It
24 should be -- it should read: "Disciplinary report would be committed,
25 and he would be handed over to his commander.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so the word "charge" is now replaced by "they
2 would write a disciplinary report and submit it to the soldier's
4 It's on the record. Next one, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 8, paragraph 30, line 3
6 from the bottom: "The next 5 per cent had experience in police because
7 they served their national service in the military police." And it
8 should read: "In the military police of the former JNA."
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's how it reads in English. So that's correct.
10 Now, I noted another difference, that is that another 5 per cent
11 had some military police knowledge, but you just spoke about experience.
12 Is knowledge or experience the right expression?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of their national
14 service in the Yugoslav people's army, in the course of the 18 months,
15 which was the usual length of the national service, these men were
16 military police officers; it was their specialty. In the first six
17 months they undertook specialist training for the military police, and in
18 the next 12 months they actually worked as military police in the
19 Yugoslav people's army, so you can speak about ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: That sounds like experience which includes knowledge
21 gained during that experience and training.
22 That's on the record. Next one, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 8, paragraph 32, line 4 from
24 the bottom:
25 "In other words had we checked the criminal records of all of the
1 military police members that we caught or found in the Ministry of
2 Interior," it should actually read:
3 "Through the criminal records kept by the Ministry of Interior,
4 we were able to run checks on all members of the military police whom we
5 had found in military police units."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you intend to say that -- that they are not
7 necessarily caught but just found in the military police units?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Croatian translation, it is
9 very important, this distinction between catch or find. As I gave my
10 statement, what I meant was that when we went out in the field and when
11 we were trying to see what the situation was in the military police at
12 that time, I came across -- I found people who claimed that they were
13 military police and they had that as -- in their files in the Croatian
14 army; whereas if you say catch, "hvatati" in Croatian, then this is the
15 term that you use when you catch a perpetrator of a crime and when this
16 person is then processed by the police.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it now reads that: "All members of the
18 military police that we found, we checked their criminal records,"
19 et cetera.
20 It's on the record. The next one, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 9, paragraph 33, line 3 from
22 the bottom in the Croatian version:
23 "As a police officer I knew what crimes were dirty or more
24 serious and also what crimes were committed because people wanted to
25 profit from them."
1 Instead of this term that "people wanted to profit," it should
2 read that are committed out of base motives or greed. This is it legal
3 terminology that is used in the Croatian Criminal Code, base motives and
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then 33 reads:
6 "I also knew which ones were the dirty and most serious crimes
7 and those crimes that were committed out of basic motives and greed."
8 That's on the record.
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, sorry, the distinction between basic
10 and base.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, base, yes. Base motives and greed. That's now
12 how we understand your statement.
13 Mr. Lausic, the next one, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, at page 9, paragraph 34,
15 line 7: "You can create a good military officer from such a man." It
16 should read: "It is possible to create a good military police officer
17 from such a man."
18 JUDGE ORIE: It now reads: "From these it is possible that you
19 create a good military police officer."
20 Next one, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 9, last line in
22 paragraph 34: "If the units wanted to accept him, return to their
23 military units." It should read: "To other units of the Croatian army."
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record, "other units of the Croatian
25 army" instead of "their military units."
1 Next one, please.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 10, paragraph 38: "The first
3 rank that I received was the rank of a brigadier colonel." The word
4 "brigadier" which is there in the Croatian army should be deleted from
5 the Croatian version, because the first rank that I received was one of
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In English it reads: "The first rank that I
8 got was the rank of a colonel, lieutenant-colonel ..."
9 Is that correct?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The English version is correct.
12 Could you take us to the next one.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 10, paragraph 38, line
14 4: "Since I had a rank of superintendent in the police," it should read
15 "chief superintendent."
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's how it reads in English. So that's correct
17 in the English version.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Lausic.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, paragraph 38 at page 10,
20 line 4 from the bottom. "At that time we did not have those ranks
21 brigadni [phoen] general, brigade general, or stozani [phoen] brigadier,
22 which is -- which would be staff brigadier. What should actually be
23 there is the rank of brigadier general or staff general.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in English it reads: "We didn't have brigadier
25 general," the rank of brigadier general or staff brigadier, and now you
1 say that should be -- should be staff general? I read it again in
2 English and, please, correct me -- if it's right we leave it as it is.
3 Please correct me in detail when it is wrong.
4 It now reads in English: "I must inform you that at the time we
5 didn't have brigadier general, the rank of brigadier general, or staff
7 Is that --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. That's correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then the English version stays as it is.
10 Could you take us to the next one.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again at page 10, third line in
12 paragraph 39: "The Main Staff of the Croatian army published general
13 rules of the armed forces." Instead of what it says in the Croatian
14 version which is "would publish," it should read just "publish."
15 JUDGE ORIE: In English it reads "issued" which has the same
16 meaning, from what I understand. "Published" is even a bit more, but I
17 would say generals of the armed forces that are issued apparently were
19 That's on the record. Please proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, at page 10, paragraph 40,
21 line 4, "perhaps even for those who served as conscripts." The word
22 "perhaps" should be deleted.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's on the record.
24 Next one, please.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 10, paragraph 41, line
2 "Every citizen of the Republic of Croatia
3 report a crime. On the 7th of December 1991, the President of the
4 Republic issued an instruction published in the Official Gazette number
5 67/91." It should read: "The President of the Republic issued a decree
6 about the organisation, work and scope of the judiciary in a state of
7 war," et cetera, et cetera.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The word "instructions" is replaced by a more
9 precise reference, a decree about the organisation, work, and scope of
10 the judiciary, and that's not the full title, from what I understand.
11 Please proceed, next one.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 11, paragraph 42:
13 "A military court applies to everyone. There is no special code
14 for the military or -- and for civilians. It applies to everyone."
15 Instead of the words "there is no special code for the military
16 and for the civilians," it should read: "The Criminal Code applies to
17 everyone, both to civilians and to the members of the Croatian army."
18 JUDGE ORIE: The correction about the applicability of the
19 Criminal Code applying to everyone, whether military or civilian, is on
20 the record.
21 Could you take us to your next one.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 11, paragraph 45, line 2:
23 "Once military courts and military prosecutor's offices were set
24 up within the military police, there was a need to set up a special
25 military crime police sector." It should read: "Separate speciality,"
1 which would be the criminal military police, instead of the word
2 "sector," it should be speciality.
3 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean exactly there by speciality? A
4 special unit, or is that what you refer to?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me be very specific here. The
6 military police had three specialities. It was the basic military
7 police, general duty military police, traffic military police, and
8 criminal military police. And those were the specialities within the
9 military police, as an arm within the Croatian army.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If we would say, To set up a special branch of
11 criminal military police, would that ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, that would perhaps be
13 the closest approximation.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The word "area" is replaced by "branch."
15 Next one, Please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 11, paragraph 46, line
17 2: "And Ante Gugic from the Zagreb police became a member of the
18 military police administration."
19 It should read: "Became the chief of the criminal police section
20 or department."
21 JUDGE ORIE: That is on the record.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, at page 11, paragraph 46,
23 line 5:
24 "The minister appointed Ante Gugic, the chief of the criminal
25 police odsjek in the military police administration." It should read
1 "odjel department," because odjel is a higher -- in the hierarchy. It
2 can have several odsjek, so he was appointed the chief of the odjel
3 department, not of odsjek or section.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It now reads at this moment in English that the
5 minister had appointed Ante Gugic as a chief of the criminal police
7 Is that ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the military police
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think that the English text is correct.
11 Please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again at page 11, the same
13 paragraph, 46. It's line three from the bottom: "Markica Rebic was
14 appointed the assistant defence minister for security."
15 That post did it not exist. This is how it should read: "He was
16 appointed the assistant -- the deputy assistant defence minister for
18 At that time, the assistant defence minister was
19 Mr. Josip Perkovic, and Mr. Markica Rebic was appointed his deputy.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It reads in English: "Markica Rebic was
21 appointed deputy assistant for the minister for security." And then
22 between brackets: "This post did not previously exist."
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then the English is correct.
25 Please proceed.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 12, paragraph 50, last line:
2 "There was no cordon sanitaire for the soldiers." It should actually
3 read: "There was no sterilisation zone for soldiers for mines, shells,
4 explosives, and rounds." In this sense the term "sterilisation" is a
5 technical term.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, sterilisation here refers to mines, shells, and
7 explosives and rounds. You would say, it is directly related to ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Primarily of weapons too.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- this clarification is on the record.
10 Please proceed.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 13, paragraph 56, the third
12 line from the bottom, there is an obvious typographical error: "The
13 military police cannot arrest a member of the Croatian army." Instead of
14 "military police" it should say "civilian police."
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see a reference in this paragraph to the
16 civilian police and a few lines further down to the MUP, which seems to
17 refer to the same.
18 I think the English version is correct.
19 Please proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 14, paragraph 57. I'm going
21 to read all of it, all of paragraph 57, because this is not my statement.
22 These are the words of the investigator, Mr. Foster. And it is obvious
23 from the transcript.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Your statement is that he said something.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. All of paragraph 57
1 does not really show my words. These are Mr. Foster's words, the
2 investigator's words. It is quite obvious if you look at the transcript
3 of the interview I had with him in April 2004.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In paragraph 57 in English it starts by
5 saying: "You say ..." which mean that the person interviewed, that's
6 you, refer to what the interviewer is telling the interviewed person and
7 apparently serves as introduction that may follow.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I don't know if the witness is saying that
10 was not his words and shouldn't be part of this statement. That's how I
11 was understanding him to be raising his objection to Mr. Foster's
12 statements being included within his witness statement.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I see this is a technique which is used in
14 some systems to make clear that someone else says something.
15 But, Mr. Lausic, you say you didn't even put on the record what
16 someone else said. You refrained from saying anything about that. Is
17 that -- did you repeat the words, or is it just that --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is contained in
19 paragraph 58.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's then be -- let's try to resolve it.
21 What you read in paragraph 57, is that what the investigator
22 said, what he told you; or is it not?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly. Those were the words that
24 he used when he addressed me before he put his specific question. When
25 he said that he had talked to civilian policemen, and he did talk to
1 them, and he said that they had said that they did not have authority
2 over the military, over military personnel.
3 Since this is a witness statement, it is my understanding that
4 paragraph 57 should be part of my very own statement, but that is it not
5 the case.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's clear in 57 that what is in there. Other
7 words not of the interviewed person, but you now tell us that the
8 interviewer spoke those words. That's clear and on the record.
9 Please proceed.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 14, paragraph 58, the second
11 line from the top: "The first stage is reporting a certain incident."
12 Instead of "reporting," it should read "registering a certain incident."
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's how it reads in English.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Next one, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 14, also paragraph 58, line 6
17 from the bottom: "The civilian police can complete criminal processing
18 there, arrest that person, and take that person to the police station,"
19 et cetera.
20 It would be right to say "the military police can complete
21 criminal processing there," and so on and so forth. The rest is correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just verify whether I understood you
24 Yes, the -- you say and that -- the criminal military policemen
25 begins with the criminal investigation, and that one can end in two ways
1 to have these criminal proceedings completed there by the military
2 police. He arrests the person.
3 Is that your correction?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President, correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then please take us to your next correction.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 14, paragraph 61, we
7 have the same situation like with paragraph 57. Since everything
8 contained in paragraph 61 is actually what the investigator stated,
9 Mr. Brian Foster, and that can be established by looking at the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
12 Now that is not the words you spoke; but reading it now, is that
13 what he said to you? Were these words spoken by the person that
14 interviewed you?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So even if you may not have put the words of that
17 other person on the record at that time, you now confirm that this is
18 what he said?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Indicates]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 MR. KAY: Your Honour, may I raise -- I'm slightly concerned
22 because the witness statement we're looking at should be the evidence and
23 testimony of this witness. The words of Mr. Foster or whatever he may
24 have said are not to be the words of this witness within this witness
25 statement, and accordingly, the issue should be whether he agrees with
1 what was said or disagrees for it to exist within the statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if he just -- Mr. Kay, if Mr. Lausic now
3 tell us that that is what Mr. Foster said at that time, that I find
4 nothing else then that those apparently were words spoken by -- whether
5 he agrees or not what was said is, at least from this paragraph, does not
7 So it's just a factually establishing what Mr. Foster said during
8 the interview, nothing more, nothing less.
9 MR. KAY: Yes, I --
10 JUDGE ORIE: And that appears now from the testimony given by
11 Mr. Lausic at this moment and not from paragraph 61, because he says, I
12 did not speak those words. It was Mr. Foster who said it. It is
13 presented as if he more or less repeated the words of Mr. Foster. That
14 is not confirmed at this moment that he spoke those words during the
15 interview, repeating the words of Mr. Foster.
16 The only thing we know now is that the testimony, at this moment
17 is, that those were words spoken by Mr. Foster, whether he agrees,
18 disagrees, and whether it is relevant, or whether we could do without, it
19 may shed some light as to how the question was introduced to which we may
20 find answers at a later stage. It's not an answer by this witness.
21 MR. KAY: What I was looking at, Your Honour, whether it should
22 be excised totally from the document because it is not the statement of
23 the witness, which would be, in my view, the appropriate way of having
24 his witness statement before the Court. To have it in this form means
25 that we are introducing something in a different form than this witness's
1 witness statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do see that it is more or less a foreign
3 element in the witness statement.
4 MR. KAY: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time you're asking for quite an exercise
6 with the same result, perhaps not technically, but those words
7 apparently, and that's what we hear from the witness now, apparently were
8 spoken by the -- Mr. Foster, and they are not part of the statement he
9 gave at the time. So whether we take them out and then have it
10 reconstructed on the transcript of today is, of course, a technical
11 matter rather than anything else.
12 MR. KAY: Yes. I notice Your Honours making corrections on Your
13 Honours' statements, as I guess we are all doing as well, in the same
14 way. We've put a line through it as not being his testimony, his
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- at least there is no
17 misunderstanding about that.
18 MR. KAY: Yes. Thank you.
19 MR. TIEGER: Well --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
21 MR. TIEGER: Let's be slightly clearer on that. In the previous
22 example the witness refers back to what was said, and it is necessary
23 contextually. Sometimes it may [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: But the technical issue is whether we put on the
25 record that the witness testifies today what was said to him at the time
1 or that we understand the statement in such a way that paragraph 61 does
2 not refer to what the witness repeated as the words of Mr. Foster.
3 MR. TIEGER: Completely clear, Your Honour, and I think it is it
4 clear on the record.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
6 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. This is just purely an objection
7 for the record in terms of this overall.
8 I have a problem with, just in terms of these statements and in
9 this instances in particular, with the fact that an investigator in the
10 course of an interview of a witness is putting suggestions to the witness
11 about what other people have already said. And I think -- just for the
12 record I think it is it an improper technique then in terms of what the
13 answer -- the answer here may not be problematic but overall to conduct
14 witness interviews with someone and say everyone or many people are
15 saying this, you know, how do you respond to that? Instead of just
16 saying, Could the civilian police take action against soldiers without
17 having to say, Other people have said otherwise?
18 JUDGE ORIE: It's a way of leading the witness. At the same time
19 to have it on the record at least makes it transparent what was
20 apparently used as an introduction to answers to which he then responded.
21 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour. I think the reason that the
22 Defence has a problem with this conceptually is that since it's 92 ter
23 and suppose to be, This is how the witness would testify on direct if the
24 questions were posed to him, this type of question could never be -- not
25 never, but in most often couldn't be posed to him like this.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think most important is that we have a complete
2 and correct understanding of what these paragraphs tell us. 57, 61, do
3 not tell us what the witness said, whether or not repeating the words of
4 Mr. Foster, but here Mr. Foster, apparently that's a technique used in
5 some systems, puts into the mouth of the witness what he actually said
6 himself by introducing as, You tell me, or, You say. And that's clear.
7 At the same time the witness now confirms that this is what, actually,
8 Mr. Foster said at the time.
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, by way of reference, I've looked at 57.
10 Unlike Mr. Tieger's proposition that it is adopted by the witness, it is
11 it not.
12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, did not say it was adopted. I simply
13 said it was referred to and is contextual. I wasn't saying he adopted or
14 disagreed with it. The text will tell that. So I certainly wasn't
15 trying to reinterpret what was said there, only that it is contextual.
16 MR. KAY: Therefore, it shows there is lack of clarity in my view
17 and --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think I explained earlier, quite clearly that as
19 we read it here, it just refers to what Mr. Foster apparently said. We
20 now heard from the witness that he did not use those words during the
21 interview, but he confirms that those words were spoken by Mr. Foster,
22 and I think I said already one page ago that this does not include any
23 confirmation of the correctness or anything. It just reflects what
24 Mr. Foster apparently had said.
25 MR. KAY: Very well, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing more, nothing less.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Lausic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President.
4 Page 15, paragraph 62, the last line:
5 "The other reason is that the civilian police had had negative
6 experience in clashes with members of the Croatian army, some of whom
7 behaved in an opportunistic manner."
8 It should read as follows: "So the civilian police behaved in an
9 opportunistic manner in some cases."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then I formulate it again so as to verify whether I
11 understood you well.
12 "The second reason was that the civilian police had negative
13 experience in conflicts with the members of the Croatian army and so the
14 civilian police behaved in an opportunistic way."
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, in fairness to what the witness said,
16 he said in some cases.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, in some cases.
18 So in some cases, the civilian police based in an opportunistic
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take us to the next one.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 16, paragraph 65 as continued
23 from the previous page, page 15. The third line from the bottom. "They
24 had military experience."
25 Instead of saying "they had military experience," what should be
1 stated is "they had had some military training," as the transcript
2 correctly states. Experience and training, or education, is quite
3 different in the Croatian language, terminologically.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In English it reads they had a military
5 background which is rather vague. Yes. We change that they had some
6 military training.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Next one, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, page 16, paragraph 69,
10 line 1: "In the second subgroup there were professors." The word
11 "professors" should be under quotation marks because the word was used by
12 way of an illustration of their work and the attitude of the officers. I
13 tried to use this word rhetorically when I called them professors.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. People with a rather theoretical background.
15 Is that how I have to understand "professors" between brackets or ...
16 THE WITNESS: No, I shall take the liberty of correcting you.
17 What I meant was the attitude they had towards their soldiers. They
18 treated them as a professor would. They would explain that something
19 that they were doing was not nice or was wrong, but they did not act in a
20 military soldierly fashion issuing strict orders, a softer approach as it
22 JUDGE ORIE: They were teaching rather than commanding. Is that
23 more or less ...
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it could be put that way.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please take us to the next correction. And
1 "professors" is now explained and put between quotation marks.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 18, paragraph 79, line 1.
3 "For example, let us say that there is a case of the crime of poisoning.
4 I did not find the word "poisoning" in the transcript, and I
5 cannot really put it into any context related to my statement.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In English it reads: "For example, let's say
7 we have a crime of arson or a crime of murder."
8 That's how it reads in English. Is that correct?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, correct. Arson, yes.
10 Poisoning and arson are not the same thing.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Arson is right.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please take us to the next one.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same page, paragraph 80, line 5
15 from the top: "From day one, from 1991 onwards, that was the rule."
16 Obviously it was a typo. It should have read "from 1992 onwards."
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's put on the record.
18 Next one, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same page, number 18,
20 paragraph 81, the last line: "As far as I know, we stored all criminal
21 records in the administration of the military police."
22 The word "used" should be on a permanent basis: "We stored them
23 there on a permanent basis."
24 JUDGE ORIE: It reads in English:
25 "As long as I was in the police, the records in the civilian
1 police administration were to be kept for" --
2 Let me just -- were you referring to the last sentence in the
3 military police? Is it about in the military police administration?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: "We, as far as I know, we have kept permanently all
6 crime files."
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That would be the right
8 way to put it. Permanent, Your Honour. "Permanent basis" is missing.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I was a bit confused by the first line where the
10 word "permanently" appears. But your correction is in relation to the
11 last sentence of paragraph 81. The word "permanently" is added.
12 Please proceed.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 19, paragraph 82, line 8 from
14 the top: "And he gave me the fax number with code 048."
15 It should read: "049." It's an obvious typo.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's on the record.
17 Next one please.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Same page, number 19, the same
19 paragraph, 82, line 11: "And I was told that on the 8th of
20 September 1993 a company of the 71st Battalion in Gospic."
21 Without the word "a" in the sense of one, because there was just
22 this one company, so there is no need to specify that it's one because
23 that was the only one.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And it now reads: "And I was told that the company
25 of the 71st battalion in Gospic."
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Thank you, Mr. President.
2 The same page, paragraph 83, line 2: "The battalion of the
3 military police was not stationed only in one position."
4 Instead of the word "one position," what should read should be
5 "one location or locality." Position and locality or location are
6 different terms in Croatian.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. "Position" is replaced by "location."
8 Next one, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 20, paragraph 85, line 3:
10 "They would have to send preliminary reports;" whereas, it should read
11 "they should send extraordinary reports," because the two words meaning
12 is completely different in Croatian.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that you're referring -- well, in
14 English, I see that -- and I read it in its context.
15 "For example, attacks even against members of the military
16 police, the use of force, would they have to send an extraordinary report
17 to the military police administration?"
18 Is that ... is that the portion you wanted to correct?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Instead of the word
20 "provisional report" the word "extraordinary" or "interim report" should
21 be used, as stated in the transcript.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The English text reads "interim report," and
23 now use the word "extraordinary report." I do understand this to be a
24 report not in the regular sequence of reporting, but in between a special
25 report an interim report would have to be sent.
1 THE WITNESS: [In English] That's true.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock at this moment. And,
5 Mr. Lausic, the Chamber appreciates very much the precision with which
6 you reviewed your statement. We're now at page 19. We have 52 pages
7 which would take us through the whole morning.
8 Would there be any way -- of course, we could not ask the
9 Prosecution to go through the statement with the witness, but if the
10 parties -- because it seems that most of the changes are rather
11 uncontested. Is there any way of using time in between as well by the
12 two parties with the witness to see whether we can more speedily move on,
13 because otherwise we are -- it takes us the whole day.
14 I'm aware that I'm asking you to sacrifice weekends -- breaks
15 after -- and also I'm asking the witness to sacrifice where there was
16 already complaint about taking the time on the weekends, but ...
17 MR. MISETIC: I was going to use the break to recover from the
18 forced labour over the weekend, Your Honour, but ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I was already alluding it that in my --
20 in my observation.
21 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, despite my earlier complaints, my
22 concern is not about either the Prosecution's efforts or -- or even that
23 of the Defence. But I do wonder whether it is fair. That would mean the
24 witness was basically working -- if we work through the break and then we
25 work through the next session, he is working for three and a half hours
1 straight, I think that's a bit much.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should have relied on the wisdom of my
4 colleagues before I even suggested this.
5 Enjoy your break, Mr. Lausic, and for the parties as well.
6 We'll resume at 11.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, could I just inquire with the --
10 the Markac Defence why the Chamber has not yet received the Turkalj, or
11 at least I do understand Mr. Kuzmanovic said the Turkalj translation
12 issues have not been communicated yet. Is that correct or not?
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, that's me, Your Honour. I will get to that
14 forthwith. I had two witnesses last week, so that delayed me, so I will
15 get it as soon as I can.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
17 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, you were doing just fine in directing
19 the witness to his corrections, so I won't interfere with that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not --
21 MR. TIEGER: I'm happy to say the same things, but ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- well, if you take over the next session.
23 And perhaps I might intervene now and then to have things on the record.
24 And sometimes, of course, the Chamber's understanding of the corrections
25 made might be of importance.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. Mr. Lausic, if we could proceed with the corrections to the
4 statement. If you could turn to the next one in order, please.
5 A. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
6 Page 20, paragraphs 86, 87, 88, and 89. I don't have any
7 comments to make in relation to the substance of these paragraphs. What
8 I would like to note, however, is that the statements contained in these
9 paragraphs cannot be found in the transcript of the interview I had with
10 investigators in May 2004. Rather, these are statements that I made
11 which were not taped either on the audio or the videotape back in
12 August 2004 when certain documents were shown to me. In other words, I
13 have no way of comparing the text of the statements contained in
14 paragraphs 86 through 89 with a transcript. I read the paragraphs, I did
15 not observe anything that would not appear to be my statement, but since
16 I don't have the corresponding tapes or transcripts, I cannot compare
17 these statements with my answers given to the questions put to me in
18 August 2004.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lausic. If you can proceed.
20 A. Page 21, paragraph 91, line 2 from the bottom: "So that only
21 after a conversation with General Krpina ..." It should read instead
22 "Brigadier Krpina" because he had the rank of brigadier and not general.
23 MR. MISETIC: I apologise to Mr. Tieger. If I could just get a
24 clarification to the witness's penultimate answer. He seems to indicate
25 now that there was -- there are statements in the statement that were not
1 videotaped. I don't know if that's the position of the Office of the
2 Prosecutor as well. Because it is my understanding that this statement
3 is based on what he said in May of 2004.
4 MR. TIEGER: I will let the witness speak for himself. My
5 understanding of the previous answer was that in August, the witness
6 reviewed the statement, made some additional comments or corrections, and
7 was also shown some documents about which he commented. And one or both
8 of those factors is reflected in the paragraphs he just referred to.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that he -- they were not included in his
10 May statement, and for that reason, there is no audio, because in August
11 no audio was made, and that, therefore, he was unable to compare on an
12 audio basis, what he said in August. But he recognises this as his
14 And he is nodding yes now, so I take that as a confirmation
15 of ...
16 MR. MISETIC: I'm just -- if that's the case, then there would be
17 just for the purpose of the record in August, then, was he still a
18 suspect under Rule 42, 43, and 44, which would require that these matters
19 be taped?
20 JUDGE ORIE: It was my understanding, but please correct me if
21 I'm wrong, that when the witness was interviewed in August that he was
22 not considered to be a suspect anymore; whereas, he was in May. Is that
23 correctly understood?
24 MR. TIEGER: Well, based on the -- based on the -- well, he
25 certainly wasn't warned again pursuant to Rule 42 again. That's clear.
1 MR. MISETIC: The question was, was he a suspect in August of
3 MR. TIEGER: Or was he consider a suspect? I haven't inquired,
4 Your Honour, to determine whether or not this procedure was followed
5 because he was no considered a suspect, or because it was a follow-up of
6 the -- of the prior proceedings. If you wish to make that confirmation
7 one way or another, I can. But what is clear is that the witness was not
8 warned under Rule 42.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if we could get just a clarification
11 for that in the next break, and, then, depending on the answer, outside
12 the presence of the witness, I would just like it put something on the
13 record on this point.
14 Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you were taking the witness back to his
16 previous answer, whereas -- let me just get back to the relevant portion
17 of the transcript.
18 Yes, Mr. Tieger, I was expecting you to say at the moment to say
19 that what the witness said is reflected in the English; last answer he
20 gave, the brigadier.
21 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The last correction you made appears in the
23 accurate way in the English version, Mr. Lausic, so, therefore, that's
24 clear on the record.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Lausic, if you could continue to the next correction, please.
3 A. Page 22, paragraph 97, line 5 from the top: "... then issued
4 weapons and started applying stricter security for commands and
6 It should in fact read as follows: "First -- firstly the
7 preparation of the operation where they would take charge of certain
8 camps, locations where people who are mobilized would come, where weapons
9 would be issued, and stricter security applied in respect of commands and
11 Without this correction, the Croatian version of this could be
12 construed to mean that the Croatian army issued them with weapons. What
13 is correct is that the military police provided security for mobilisation
14 assembly points where people were called up would be -- would come and
15 where they would be issued with weapons. So it wasn't the military
16 police that issued them with weapons. Rather, the military police
17 provided security for such places.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. Now you made -- there's one
19 small difference. You said "stricter security for the commands and the
20 commander," in English, in the singular; whereas, you spoke about
21 "commanders," the plural. Is that -- is it plural or singular?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Commands, i.e., headquarters, where
23 the commander and his staff would be housed, and the commander
24 personally. That's normally how security is organised.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. And, Mr. Lausic, your next correction, please.
3 A. Page 25, paragraph 112, as continued from page 24, the second
4 line from the bottom: "And that all eight of them had previously -- had
5 criminal reports." "Criminal records."
6 What should be said is that: "All eight of them were members of
7 the enemy side and that they were in combat," as was, in fact, correctly
8 stated for the transcript.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That appears clearly. I think they were members of
10 the enemy of forces, that they were engaged in combat. And these eight
11 persons had criminal reports, as it reads here, submitted against them.
12 You want to change that in "criminal records," or would "criminal
13 reports" be fine?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Criminal reports had been filed
15 against them. That would be correct. Because if they were to say that
16 they had criminal records, that would mean that they were already
17 registered somewhere either with the police or courts.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then it seems that the English text is in every
19 respect correct.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. KAY: Your Honour, one matter arises from two previous
22 paragraphs, 107 and 108, which I raise at this stage because it might be
23 appropriate, more appropriate, to deal with it now.
24 In 107 it begins: "You suggest that this particular order from
25 Ademi and 108 you ask ..."
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, similar issue as 57 and 61.
2 MR. KAY: Exactly, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's check that.
4 Mr. Lausic, could you have a look at paragraphs 107 and 108.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's absolutely correct,
6 Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although halfway paragraph 107 it moves from
8 what apparently the interviewer had told you to your comments on it. Can
9 we then go the first portion, You suggest that, is that what Mr. Foster
10 told you at the time, apart from whether you repeated that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President. All the
12 words and sentences up until the start of the following sentence:
13 "I can say that this order is not according to military
14 principles in terms of a military vertical structure, but I would not
15 like to draw other's conclusions for this."
16 And save for this sentence, all the other words were uttered by
17 the investigator.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And would that same be true for the whole of
19 paragraph 108; that is, all words spoken by the investigator?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Mr. President.
21 Without looking at the transcript, I could not say -- state that with any
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is it your recollection that the interviewer said
24 words of this kind, as you find them in paragraph 108?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will be very careful and allow
1 for the possibility that one part of the paragraph constitutes a question
2 and the other my answer.
3 JUDGE ORIE: In 108 I see no answer. I see that in 107 what
4 appears to a question, and then the last two sentences to be your answer.
5 However, in 108, I only see a reference to the words apparently spoken by
6 Mr. Foster, when then paragraph 109 starts saying, "My response is ..."
7 which suggests that 108 reflects the question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, but I cannot be
9 certain. In the Croatian language, it starts as follows:
10 "You ask if the commander of the military police should report
11 the commander of his battalion of something that was done, and to say
12 that an order was given to him to do something that he should not."
13 In fact, this entire portion would be me asking the investigator
14 if I understood his question correctly. Because in paragraph 109, I
15 carry on by saying, "My answer, my response is that in any case ..."
16 So paragraph 108 would be me asking the investigator if my
17 understanding of his question was correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether we should understand it in that way is
19 another matter.
20 But what I'd like it know is, do you recognise in the text of
21 paragraph 108 the question as it was put to you at the time?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then that resolves the matter.
24 Then let me just take you back where we were. Without soliciting
25 to it, I get the transcript of another case on my screen as well, and
1 I'll just ignore that. But I have to get back to the ...
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lausic, we have dealt with your correction you
4 made at the end of paragraph 112. Could you please move to your next
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Page 25, paragraph 114, line 4 from the bottom. Again it reads
8 that: "Major Ante Gugic was the chief of section," et cetera.
9 The correction would be "chief of the department of the criminal
10 investigation police."
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how it reads in English, "the criminal
12 department within the military police administration."
13 Could you move to the next one, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 26, paragraph 116, same as
15 above, line 3 from the bottom.
16 JUDGE ORIE: My apologies. Yes, I'm sorry, I had to deal with
17 some technical matters on my screen, where ...
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 26, paragraph 117, same as
19 above. "The then chief of the criminal investigation section," which
20 should, in fact, read "the criminal investigation department."
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We've seen that we find that 116, reflected in
22 a correct way. In 117, it also reads in English, "department."
23 I give Mr. Tieger the lead again.
24 Mr. Tieger.
25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lausic. If you could direct your attention to the
2 next correction you wish to make.
3 A. Page 27, paragraph 120, line 10 from the top: "All the
4 entry/exit wounds were inflicted from the same distance."
5 The correction version should be: "All the entry/exit wounds
6 were inflicted from a distance."
7 Q. That is essentially what the English now says, but I suppose the
8 witness's correction offers a tiny bit of additional clarity.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do understand that entry/exit wounds
10 inflicted from a distance does not mean that they were all inflicted from
11 the same distance. That is, it could be 100 metres, 120 metres, 80
12 metres which is not the same distance but all from a distance rather
13 compared to nearby. Is that ...
14 MR. TIEGER: I agree, Your Honour, except the English as I -- if
15 I'm directing my attention to the proper portion, it didn't read the same
16 distance; it said from "some distance."
17 JUDGE ORIE: "Some distance," yes, you're right. I misread
18 "some" and "same."
19 MR. TIEGER: Nevertheless --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's clear now.
21 MR. TIEGER: Yeah.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lausic. Next correction, please.
23 A. The same page and the same paragraph, 120, one line further down:
24 "Only one corpse had a entry/exit wound inflicted from a very close or
25 contact range."
1 The term that I used was from absolute range, point-blank range
2 in other words, which means that the barrel rested against the tissue.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So the option that it could have been from a couple
4 of centimetres is excluded. You say it was contact range, that is,
5 contact between the weapon and the body.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes.
7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you --
8 JUDGE ORIE: The word "close" is taken out.
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. The correction is noted, and if you could turn to the next
11 correction, please.
12 A. Thank you. Page 23, paragraph -- page 32, paragraph 151:
13 "Susak went on to say that a meeting was held with the BiH army
14 and the Croatian Defence counsel and that they were heading towards
15 Donji Vakuf and Kulen-Vakuf."
16 The correct version should read:
17 "And that they were moving towards Donji Vakuf" -- "they are
18 moving towards Donji Vakuf and Kulen-Vakuf." In other words present
19 tense, not past tense.
20 Q. So "are" for "were" in that sentence?
21 JUDGE ORIE: At least I do not know whether they were would mean
22 necessarily a different thing, but if we make it "are," then it certainly
23 avoids whatever confusion.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Lausic, next correction, please.
1 A. The same page, 33, paragraph 151, this sentence continues as
2 follows: "The military police has to act more energetically and prevent
3 all offences."
4 Correction: "The military police should be more energetic in its
5 action or activity."
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not certain whether this is reflected in the
8 I will read you to what the English text says. It reads: "The
9 military police must be more vigorous in handling and preventing all
11 I see you're nodding yes, which I understand to be a confirmation
12 of the correctness of the -- the accuracy of the English text.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Lausic, you were about to continue with --
16 A. Again page 33, again paragraph 151, Minister Susak's statement
17 continues. That is line 5 from the bottom. And in the sentence:
18 "We have to prevent the possibility that heros of the homeland
19 war be put before a court with his gestures and grimaces, and so on and
20 so forth."
21 It should read as follows: "We must prevent the heros from the
22 homeland war from being put before a court."
23 Mr. President, if you allow me, without this correction, without
24 this terminological correction, this sentence of Mr. Susak's could be
25 interpreted in the following way, it could be understood in the following
1 way: That commanders could prevent the possibility of bringing heros
2 before a court of law; that is to say, something that his sentence did
3 not mean. The point was of his sentence that commanders should realize
4 that some things should not be done so that heros of the homeland war as
5 perpetrators would not be brought before a court.
6 So that's why I repeat what the correction version would be, and
7 that's in line with the transcript: "We must prevent the heros of the
8 homeland war from being brought before a court."
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. Thank you for that correction, Mr. Lausic. If could you move on
11 in your next correction, please.
12 A. Again, page 33, paragraph 151.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could the parties check very careful this last
14 portion because it appears on the transcript whether it's transcribed
15 correctly. Because the correction the witness made does not deprive the
16 text as he then read it out from all of its ambiguity. Because whether
17 we're talking about possibility or just about preventing someone to come
18 before a court, there still appears to be a possible interpretation that
19 preventing someone to appear before a court could mean, Don't do anything
20 that could bring you before a court, or let's do everything to ensure
21 that you will not be brought before a court, whatever you have done.
22 So, therefore, I'd like to invite the parties to carefully check
23 the original text in this respect.
24 MR. KAY: Your Honour, the two previous sentences, in my view,
25 put in context what the witness is saying if you read those because they
1 were quite clearly instructions that the military police must be more
2 vigorous in handling and preventing offences, commanders must pass on a
3 ban on excessive behaviour and crimes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see the context. I'm not blind for that.
5 But, at the same time, the witness refers to the language that appears on
6 the transcript in this specific line, and I would like to have that
7 verified so that there is no doubt about that.
8 MR. MISETIC: I'm sure if you're asking him to verify what he
9 said in May 2004 or verify what is in his notebook from the 2nd of
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. I think he --
12 You referred to your transcript of the interview. Is that --
13 have I understood that correctly?
14 Then I'd like to -- one doesn't exclude the other.
15 MR. MISETIC: Actually, that's -- the sentence appears in the --
16 as an entry in the notebook or in the diary of the 2nd of August.
17 General Lausic, I believe, was then attempting to explain what that
18 sentence means in his suspect interview, and so if there is any ambiguity
19 about the sentence in the 2nd of August diary, it should be put to him
20 now. Because I think that's exactly the point. He was trying to remove
21 any ambiguity about --
22 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment he asked for a correction to be made
23 on the basis of the transcript of his interview. At this stage. We are
24 there and not any further.
25 First of all, we should know exactly what his statement reflects,
1 transcript, the notebook, and then, of course, later on we go to the
2 substance of it.
3 MR. MISETIC: Well, just rather than -- in the interests,
4 actually, of economy, Judge, it is not only as I understand the Rule 92
5 ter process that he is asked, Is this what you said, but would you say
6 this again if these questions were posed to you on direct examination.
7 So there is two prongs here, and if there is anything unclear
8 about -- even if he said something in the May 2004 transcript that is in
9 any way ambiguous, it should be put to him now if he wishes. And I
10 believe General Lausic indicated he wanted to remove ambiguity. As part
11 of the 92 ter process, he should remove that ambiguity right now.
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... then perhaps you could
13 ask him right away.
14 Mr. Lausic, what you said during your interview, what you find as
15 a text in your notebook, does that reflect that the way to prevent that
16 heros of the homeland war would be put before a court was aiming at
17 preventing that any behaviour would take place that could bring someone
18 before a court.
19 Is that how you intended ...
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
24 MR. TIEGER:
25 Q. Mr. Lausic, if you could move on to your next correction, please.
1 A. Same page and the same paragraph, 151. Again, it has to do with
2 what Mr. Susak said at the briefing. I'm referring to the second line
3 from the bottom: "Officials of political activity also must carry out
4 their task by correctly briefing the members of the HV."
5 Correction: "The officials of political activity also must carry
6 out their task by correctly briefing [sic] the members of the HV."
7 In Croatian "briefing" and "referiranje" do not mean the same
8 thing, briefing and referiranje. So if I look at the translation, if I
9 look at the Croatian version of my statement, it would seem that
10 officials of political activity were supposed to report to soldiers but
11 the meaning of the statement is -- by your leave, Mr. President, I'm
12 going to convey things exactly as they stand in my diary; namely,
13 Mr. Susak's words.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The English reads "briefing" which is, as I
15 understand, correct, in your view.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then I have no objections.
17 MR. TIEGER:
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lausic. Next correction, please.
19 A. Page 34, paragraph 157, line 4 from the bottom: "As far as I was
20 concerned, traffic would go via the Maselinca Bridge
21 is free ..."
22 In the transcript there is it no reference to "me," so as far as
23 I'm concerned cannot be put in the context of this statement.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean we should take out "as far as I'm
25 concerned," just --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It's on the record.
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. I'm sorry, I thought you were looking for the next correction.
5 My apologies.
6 Mr. Lausic, if you could turn your attention to the next
7 correction, please.
8 A. Page 35, paragraph 158, line three from the bottom: "The
9 headquarters will be situated in the Ministry of the Interior and
10 Mladen Laskovic ..."
11 The wrong word was used or, rather, his last name was misspelled.
12 It should be spelled L-a-c-k-o-v-i-c, not L-a-s-k-o-v-i-c.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. Please move to the next one,
14 Mr. Lausic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Page 35, paragraph 161, line 2 from the bottom:
17 "There was a discrepancy between the orders passed at the working
18 meetings that were held and the way that these orders were implemented in
19 the field."
20 Correct. It would be correct in the following way: "The orders
21 passed at the working meetings that had been held."
22 In Croatian that would mean meetings that had been held, that had
23 finished. They were held and then they were done; whereas the way it's
24 been put here means that the meetings went on over a longer period of
25 time, in continuity as it were. So the transcript has a correct
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As far as my knowledge of the English language
3 permits me to interpret this, that what the witness just said is
4 reflected in the English text.
5 Please proceed, next one.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, if I could -- I'm sorry, Your Honour, and
8 if you asked for the English language. I think in fairness, and I don't
9 know how important this is, that the meetings that were held could in
10 fact refer to an ongoing process, the kinds of meetings that were held on
11 a regular -- so I think that the correction that the witness made that is
12 that meetings that had been held may offer a degree of precision that --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that --
14 What do you consider what reflects better what you said the
15 meetings that were held or that had been held? I understood you to say
16 that the meetings that were held in a continuity that that's what you
17 wanted to say.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. The meetings were
19 held and then orders were issued afterwards. Then, in the later period a
20 discrepancy was observed in terms of what had been agreed upon at the
21 meetings, what had been written into the orders, and then, ultimately,
22 what was done in the field. So the meetings had been held.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the meetings having been concluded, then
24 what you saw in the field not in line, not fully in line, and there was
25 some discrepancy. Then I misunderstood you. Thank you for correcting
2 Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Mr. Lausic, I think you were moving on to your next correction.
6 A. Page 35, paragraph 162, line 7: "That the military police was
7 not energetic enough in its actions and that we have to be more
8 economical with the use of our resources and our equipment."
9 Instead of the word "economical," the transcript refers to
10 economising, that we have to economise with the use of our forces and
11 equipment. In the Croatian meaning the word "economical" is different
12 from the word "economising." Economising means good husbandry or,
13 rather, taking care of a particular resource that you have in the right
15 JUDGE ORIE: And which of the two now is ... is the correct
16 version? Is that the part of what you just said is not yet on the
17 transcript. I have some difficulties in repeating it.
18 Is it -- "economical" I understand is in accordance with the
19 economic laws, that is. And "economising" I do understand is to best
20 deal with the available means and to use them in the -- I would say best
22 Now, which is it? Is it "economizing" which is the right
23 expression; or is it "economical?"
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Economizing would be right. Thank
25 you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That means using them as a good house rather.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
5 Q. And if you could continue, Mr. Lausic.
6 A. Again, page 35, paragraph 162, line 6 from the bottom:
7 "During Flash, I used my eyes and ears. When I went out into the
8 field, I saw that some things," et cetera et cetera.
9 The correct version would be: "During Flash, I was missing eyes
10 and ears in the field."
11 Again, this is a rhetorical figure of speech. What I meant was
12 that ... on the basis of the reports that I received, and later on, as I
13 went out into the field, I observed many incorrect things. So what I
14 missed were eyes and ears in the field. This is a rhetorical figure of
15 speech. It is not that I used eyes and ears in the field, as this text
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The English reads: "I was missing my ears an
18 eyes on the ground," which I do understand is that you had no direct
19 accurate information on what happened on the ground, until when you went
21 Please proceed.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Page 37, paragraph 168 continues from page 36, line 5 from the
24 bottom: "Units of the military police were fully subordinated to the
25 commanders of the operative groups of the military districts or
1 commanders of the operative groups, so -- or the highest commander."
2 That's wrong. It should say the top commander. Well, the word
3 that they meant was -- or, rather, what is written here has the
4 connotation of supreme, whereas it should say the highest because it is
5 the President of the Republic that is the Supreme Commander. That is the
7 MR. TIEGER: As I read it, Your Honour, in the portion, it does
8 say highest instead of supreme.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, the context there were a few matters
10 which may require proper attention.
11 I will read to you slowly what it now says in English. It reads:
12 "The units of the military police were in its entirety
13 subordinated to the commanders of the Military Districts or the
14 commanders of the Operative Groups or to the highest commander of the
15 Croatian army, which was in accordance with the rules on the organisation
16 and the work of the military police, which was issued in 1994."
17 Is that correct?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Thank you,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Next one, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no other
22 corrections that I noted. However, due to the brevity of time that I had
23 for studying this witness statement, well, I would like to remind you
24 that I received all the documents on the 17th of December last year, so
25 perhaps during the remaining part of my testimony, I may be able to
1 indicate some other inaccuracies that may crop up.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Have you read the statement in its entirety, since
3 the 17th of December? I'm --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct. I have read it, but
5 then my concentration went down too, because of the volume of the
6 material that was submitted to me and also the fact that very little time
7 was made available to me. I had to compare everything to the transcript,
8 and this is rather a strenuous work.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is your major concern about the comparison with the
10 transcript? Is that where your hesitation lies?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, precisely.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Because if that is it the problem, if you come back
13 at a later stage and point at some matter where you have doubts as
14 whether it is transcribed properly, if it refers to the May interviews,
15 of course, we'll have an opportunity to verify on the basis of the audio
16 recording whether your present statement reflects what is you said.
17 So if you have any problem in that respect in the near future,
18 where you have some doubts, then there certainly will be a possibility to
19 verify that.
20 Do you have any other concerns, apart from the comparison with
21 the audio recording and the transcript?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for your question. No, I
23 have no problems.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Then I suggest to the parties that if at a later stage anything
1 would come up which is related to transcript and original language used,
2 that this will be verified on the basis of the underlying material.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. TIEGER:
5 Q. I think this was implicit, Mr. Lausic, but I'll ask for purposes
6 of the record. Was the information that you provided, and to the extent
7 it may have been corrected today, during your interview and in your
8 statement true and correct?
9 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. And if asked about the same matters in court, would your answers
11 be the same?
12 A. I believe that that is the case.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I would move it into evidence.
15 Mr. Misetic had a question about the interview, the August interview
16 process that he wanted me to address after the break. I can do that
17 before the break. And I don't know if it was supposed to be addressed
18 outside the presence of the witness or not.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's what Mr. Misetic suggested.
20 MR. MISETIC: I think it's a procedural matter that can be
21 addressed with -- just before the break. I think we can handle it, so we
22 don't interrupt --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps also for similar future situations,
24 Mr. Lausic, do you speak and understand English?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not to an extent to which that I
1 could follow a conversation in English that employs expert terminology
2 like it does before this Court.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So you have some basic knowledge of the English
4 language. That is for all of us to know.
5 Mr. Tieger, it is a procedural matter. I don't think that --
6 well, let me not speculate on anything. Would you like to raise the
7 matter, and do you think it could be done in the presence of your
9 MR. TIEGER: Well based on what I -- I mean, it's difficult to
10 know where this might go, and so I'm --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it would be wiser --
12 Mr. Lausic, there is a procedural matter we'd like to discuss,
13 and since we do know where the discussion go, could I invite you to leave
14 the courtroom for a short while.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 MR. MISETIC: I don't know if I was sufficiently clear. What I
17 meant was at 12.25, if you wish.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let now continue. We have set in action everything,
19 so let's --
20 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, I got a little bit out of sequence, and I
21 apologise for my role in that.
22 But in any event the question was Mr. Lausic's status at the time
23 that he was -- the interview was taken, and I'm advised that he was
24 regarded at that time as a witness, not a suspect.
25 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm -- I don't know how to handle this
1 and how to raise it, but in terms of the bases for the witness being
2 changed from witness to suspect, and suspect to witness, and suspects
3 again, this witness is a named identified member of the alleged JCE.
4 That is public knowledge.
5 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me.
6 MR. MISETIC: It's a public filing.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
8 MR. TIEGER: My apologies for interrupting, Mr. Misetic. I think
9 he is correct. There is no basis for do so.
10 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, will --
11 JUDGE ORIE: You say it's a mistake, or is it --
12 MR. MISETIC: I can address it, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't whether you address whether Mr. Tieger
14 made a mistake, but let's -- I will listen to you.
15 MR. MISETIC: Okay. What happened was initially it was filed
16 confidentially. The clarification identifying named individuals of the
17 alleged JCE subsequently pursuant to a motion filed by Gotovina Defence
18 and joined by the Markac Defence, the Trial Chamber ordered that that
19 filing be made public. It, in fact, was publicly filed, so there nothing
20 improper about discussing this publicly.
21 Mr. Lausic is a named member of the alleged JCE in a filing by
22 the Office of the Prosecutor. If he was a suspect in May of 2004 and he
23 is he an identified member of the alleged JCE in, I believe, May of 2007,
24 then what is the evidentiary basis for having changed him to a witness
25 and removing the suspect classification, and then subsequently something
1 must have arisen between August 2004 and May 2007, some additional
2 evidentiary basis to make him a suspect again.
3 I think that the matter needs further clarification because it
4 may have a relevance to our cross-examination of this witness in terms
5 what the Prosecution is alleging in terms of the role of the military
6 police in this, the role of the witness in all of this, and I would like
7 to put those matters to the witness in cross-examination.
8 Thank you, Mr. President.
9 MR. TIEGER: I don't believe it presents any problem, Your
10 Honour. I believe the filing indicated -- the clarification addressed
11 those persons who may have been members of the JCE or may have been tools
12 of the JCE. There were many matters that transpired between 2004 and the
13 time of the filing, not the least of which was a clarification of the law
14 with respect to tools and, no doubt, further exploration of the
15 evidential material that might be relevant to those considerations. So I
16 think as matters stand, the Defence is perfectly placed to make a
17 determination about how to cross-examine the witness, and I can't imagine
18 any further clarification would be of assistance.
19 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, it is my understanding that as
20 recently as last week, and this is my understanding from Mr. Waespi, that
21 in fact this witness was again advised of his rights under Rule 42 as a
22 suspect. So if he's as late as last week -- as recently as last week
23 being given his rights as a suspect under Rule 42, it is not simply a
24 matter of he is a tool of the JCE but not his -- his witness status has
25 remained intact since August of 2004.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, first the facts, I do -- it's put to the
2 Chamber that.
3 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continued]... the witness was
5 advised of his rights under Rule 42 as a suspect last week. Is that
7 MR. TIEGER: No, it is not correct. In fact we didn't meet with
8 the -- I think the communication was should we meet with the witness, we
9 would do so. And it is correct that had we met with the witness to
10 inquire about the statement, out of an abundance of caution, we would
11 have advised the witness pursuant to Rule 42, but we did not.
12 So, I mean, that distinction for purposes of this discussion may
13 not be particularly pertinent. However, I have some considerable
14 difficulty seeing the relevance to the issue before the Court. There's
15 no question -- I mean, the Court has the information before it, knows
16 when we filed the clarification, knows the status at the time. Our
17 determination at this point to advise the witness under the broad, broad
18 terms in the Rules that provide such advisement of rights to witnesses
19 seems, to me, not to bear on issues related to cross-examination or any
20 other relevant issues before the Court. Seems perfectly consistent with
21 where we found ourselves.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to focus on one of the first questions.
23 That is, what exactly the relevance for this information is. When
24 cross-examining the witness what would it change? Because that's what
25 Mr. Misetic raises, and that's what is contradicted by Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I have been given the floor but my learned
2 friends on this matter.
3 It is it classically important someone who is a suspect or a
4 suspected accomplice or member of the criminal conspiracy or joint
5 criminal enterprise is classically someone to whom the Court has to treat
6 their evidence with caution. That is because their evidence may be
7 self-serving, seek to put the blame on other people to avoid criminal
8 liability themselves. And it is imperative that those listening to the
9 evidence are able to bear that in mind when considering questions asked
10 and the answers given of the witness.
11 This is of great importance to those cross-examining because the
12 manner of those questions should entitle the questioner to be able to
13 reflect that position within the questions.
14 Furthermore, certainly from the jurisdiction I come to and --
15 come from, and most other jurisdictions that I am aware of, this is a
16 matter that the Prosecution should bear in mind when investigating and
17 handling a witness in legal proceedings. They have a duty to fairness in
18 the proceedings, and if a witness is not treated in the appropriate
19 fashion of witnesses who come into this category of suspect or
20 co-conspirator or accomplice, whatever, then they may be misled or
21 mislead the Tribunal, and by that I mean courts, generally, into the
22 nature of the evidence that is coming before it. Very important
23 principle. It exists in many other jurisdictions and, we believe, of
24 great importance to this witness, who was originally named within the
25 proceedings as having been a member of the JCE.
1 In my submission, it is not transparent to have a statement that
2 the witness doesn't fall into that category, but a wider category. A
3 tool of the JCE was another phrase used, and in my submission, that is
4 being less than transparent with the position that the Court must
5 appreciate in dealing with this witness.
6 MR. MISETIC: If I can just respond, and then I'll let Mr. Tieger
7 respond to both.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Misetic.
9 MR. MISETIC: I join in my colleague's position. Let me also add
10 that I believe that it is clearly relevant in assessing the credibility
11 of the witness that the Chamber know whether the witness has -- was told
12 last week that he had rights under Rule 42 because it also goes directly
13 to the motivation of any witness or -- who becomes a suspect given that
14 answers to questions provided in his proceeding, he may perceive as
15 putting him in jeopardy. And if that's the case, it's clearly a relevant
16 factor for the Chamber in assessing credibility of answers and the
17 credibility of the witness, and, therefore, I belive as part of
18 cross-examination it is clearly a relevant factor to consider.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, Your Honour. If I could just add something
22 to that discussion of my learned friends.
23 In our jurisdiction, I mean in Croatian jurisdiction where I come
24 from, if one was interviewed in a capacity of suspect and then the status
25 has been changed during the process and the suspects suddenly became a
1 witness, then the interview in the capacity of suspect should not be
2 entered into the evidence into the case file. So this is a principle of
3 Croatian jurisdiction, and I believe this is the principle that the
4 witness is simply used for because it's a common knowledge in Croatian
5 judicial system.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Mr. Tieger.
8 MR. TIEGER: Two quick points, Your Honour. Of course, the
9 Prosecution maintains its previous position.
10 Number one, in response to -- one of the points Mr. Kay made, I
11 fail to see how there is it any lack of transparency in merely reciting
12 the terms of the clarification which is all that I did. If the Defence
13 wants to argue on its own that the witness is or should be regarded as a
14 member of the JCE rather than a tool, he is it free to do so. But all I
15 did was recite the terms of the clarification to the best of my
17 Number two, in terms of Mr. Misetic's inquiry, again, in the
18 interest of full transparency, the witness was advised that if the -- if
19 a further interview or proofing or further contact of that type was to go
20 forward, he would be advised of his rights under Rule 42.
21 Now I believe the Defence has all the information including the
22 timing of the interviews, the timing of the filing of the clarification,
23 and now we now the accuracy of the witness evidence. We also know what
24 the Defence intends to argue, and they are free to do in terms of witness
25 credibility or any other factors. But I don't -- I don't see any other
1 issue to create a problem in going forward at this stage.
2 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if I may, the issue for us is the
3 witness may have been told himself that he was a witness in 2004. I
4 myself am now not exactly sure, given Mr. Tieger' comments, whether in
5 fact OTP says he is a suspect or he is not a suspect. He seems to have
6 been advised of his rights -- of the rights of a suspect last week, but
7 there is a stopping short of saying he in fact is a suspect. It clearly
8 goes to what was the witness told last week? What is the position of the
9 Office of the Prosecutor, specifically on that point? And is it in the
10 knowledge of this witness that he has that status?
11 Let me clarify for the record what we have decided to argue, at
12 least speaking for the Gotovina's Defence, in response to Mr. Tieger's
13 comment is, has clearly not been decided and, of course, depends on what
14 answers are to the questions. So I don't wish to in any way suggest that
15 we have taken a position about what our position is going to be. That,
16 of course, is it subject to hearing the testimony.
17 Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps first, a very factual question. And what
19 was said to the witness last week, I did understand from Mr. Tieger that
20 there had been no conversation. That he just expressed what he would
21 have told him if there would have been a conversation or --
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, there was an attempt to set up a
23 meeting for the purpose of going over possible corrections and so forth.
24 The witness was advised that if we met, he would be advised of his rights
25 under Rule 42. That was the conversation.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- now I better understand what
2 happened and what did not happen.
3 Mr. Kay, it must be something serious when are you holding your
4 laptop in your hands. That must be really something ...
5 MR. KAY: It's called first-aid where I come from.
6 If I go back to the clarification filing by the Prosecution
7 referred to by Mr. Tieger. And I will read out paragraph 1.
8 "The Trial Chamber previously ordered the Prosecution to 'widen
9 the circle' of named participants to include key military or political
10 figures to the extent that they are known by the Prosecution. Although
11 this was in the context of a JCE that embraced all persons whose conduct
12 led to the commission of crimes, the Prosecution hereby complies with the
13 order in the context of the proposed indictment by providing additional
14 particulars concerning key military or political figures among the many
15 persons who were members of the JCE. Alternatively, these persons were
16 used by or cooperated with JCE members and their conduct is thereby
17 imputable to the members of the JCE. These additional key military or
18 political figures include the following people identified by reference to
19 their position at the time of the events. This witness is thereafter
20 named amongst others."
21 Let us be frank, Your Honour. This is a witness who comes from
22 an important position within the events that took place concerning the
23 subject matter of this indictment. We all know that. This witness has
24 made a statement and become a witness for the Prosecution. The Defence,
25 it is it obvious, put this on the basis that he has made a self-serving
1 statement. He has sought to cooperate with the Prosecution to avoid
2 prosecution himself, and that his evidence is unreliable for those
4 It is of paramount importance that the Court be absolutely clear
5 as to the nature of this witness that appears before it, and that the
6 usual safeguards that can happen in all cases are available to the
7 Defence in relation to this witness.
8 It is something we would be seeking. His statement has now been
9 through the 92 process, put into -- sought to be put into evidence before
10 the Court, and in those circumstances at that stage when we have this
11 title of evidence, we are entitled to know and the Court to be informed
12 of the exact position with this witness. It is it utterly wrong for
13 there to be a clouding of the issue; could be a tool, or is a member
14 supported, contributed to the JCE, because that, in our submission, is an
15 attempt to play fast and loose with the usual norms of save guards in
16 relation to evidence from a particular category of witness. It serves
17 the Prosecution interest, but it does no service to the Defence, and, in
18 our submission, also the Court, because the Court has to direct itself
19 appropriately in relation to the reliability of witnesses. And one can
20 see every reason why a suspect cautioned gives a self-serving interview,
21 is then ushered through a process whereby he becomes a witness because he
22 is extended the hand that he will not be prosecuted, if he cooperates.
23 And we have to be absolutely clear about matters such as these because
24 they involve evidence that is very fundamental to the charges against all
25 the accused.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Very briefly.
3 It also raises the implication for the witness under the
4 circumstances as to his potential to be able to seek counsel. He is,
5 under the circumstances, potentially liable to be prosecuted in Croatia
6 and he, for the witnesses basis, is entitled to know what his particular
7 rights are under the circumstances. And I don't know if that has been
8 communicated to the witness.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. A question is put to the
11 Prosecution: Is this witness considered by the Prosecution to be a
12 suspect member of the joint criminal enterprise; or is he considered to
13 be a tool, I think that's the -- you wanted clarity on that.
14 MR. MISETIC: Yes. And, Your Honour, there is it one additional
15 point that I failed to make, and I'm reminded of by Mr. Kehoe.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, but I'm now putting a few questions, and
17 if there's anything you'd like to add, I will certainly give you an
18 opportunity. But let's not --
19 MR. MISETIC: Well --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from what Mr. Kehoe --
21 MR. MISETIC: It's actually important, Mr. President because --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll let you continue in one or two sentences
23 to make clear how important it is.
24 MR. MISETIC: The issue is in the change of status from suspect
25 to witness, what was the discussion, if any, that may have been relayed
1 to the witness about a change in status? Because to the extent --
2 JUDGE ORIE: We can ask Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So one of the questions, Mr. Tieger, you're invited
5 to respond, is whether you consider Mr. Lausic to be a participant in a
6 joint criminal enterprise, at least as it was clarified, whether you
7 consider him to a potential member of the joint criminal enterprise, or a
8 potential instrument, a tool.
9 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, I'm not going to deviate, and I
10 don't think it would be appropriate to at this point, from the
11 clarification that the Court at that time asked us to file and which we
12 did file and which Mr. Kay just recited.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You say he is either a participant --
14 MR. TIEGER: [Overlapping speakers] ... and we filed a formal
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now, therefore, you disagree with Mr. Kay
17 in being in a position at this moment to -- to provide further clarity in
18 this respect. You say he is either one of the two, and that's what the
19 Prosecution is able to say, was willing to say.
20 MR. TIEGER: That's precisely what we said in -- in the
21 clarification, and it hasn't been changed since.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, let me then very practically ask the
23 Defence, you have expectations of what the Chamber should do.
24 But let me first address the other matter raised by Mr. Misetic
25 which -- because I had forgotten. Was Mr. Lausic informed about a change
1 of in status when he was interviewed in August?
2 MR. TIEGER: In August 2004, Your Honour, you know where I was at
3 the time. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that his -- I'm
4 advised that his counsel was present. That's about the -- that's about
5 the most information I can provide at this moment.
6 JUDGE ORIE: In 2004 counsel was present, you say. Le me
7 just ...
8 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I'm looking at the cover page.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would that be Nika Pinter, or ...
10 MR. MISETIC: That is it his counsel. However, I'm a bit
11 confused, and I think that may be confused as well. Because as we know
12 the substance of the statement is from the May 2004 suspect interview, in
13 most respects. There may be additions that took place in August. But
14 the statement itself indicates that the interview was taken on three days
15 in August and makes no reference to the questioning in May, so I'm
16 wondering whether the indication that Ms. Pinta was present refers to
17 potentially the fact that she was present for the suspect interview in
18 may, and whether or not she was present in August is unclear it me at
19 this point.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. TIEGER: Well, I think can I clarify that confusion. I'm
22 advised that it's both. That's what I was -- that's what I was advised.
23 I can double check that, but I'm ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Indeed, there's a strong suggestion that if
25 the dates of the interview are the 9th, the 10th, and the 11th of August,
1 and names of all persons present during interviews that that would relate
2 to the interviews mentioned here. But Mr. Tieger will verify that, I
3 take it, and that we even could each ask the witness.
4 What exactly would the Defence like the Court to do in very
5 practical terms apart from giving the traditional guarantees? Just what
6 would you invite us to do? To explain to the witness what the situation
7 is; that is, that he was once interviewed as a suspect, that at a later
8 stage he was -- and we could ask him how he experienced this position.
9 The presence of the counsel was interviewed, but primarily as a witness,
10 and then to tell him that the -- perhaps the objective grounds for -- or
11 at least that -- that the grounds for considering him a suspect at the
12 time might not have disappeared in the their entirety so that we are
13 still in a position where, of course, it also depends on the answers he
14 may give. Someone -- if you'd say, My evidentiary basis to consider him
15 a suspect are insufficient. But, of course, he can change that himself
16 and, therefore, to say that is he not -- if there would be any answer, he
17 would have fear to incriminate himself that he is not under an obligation
18 to answer that question. He might come up with totally new information
19 as a follow-up of the -- of -- in response to the questions put to him.
20 What exactly, what kind of action -- and I'm not saying that the
21 Chamber will follow your suggestions. But what would you expect the
22 Chamber to do?
23 MR. MISETIC: I will let Mr. Kuzmanovic deal with the second
24 portion of it.
25 The first question, Your Honour -- and I still don't -- I mean,
1 we got into a discussion about JCE, a member or a tool. The issue from
2 my perspective is very simple. Does the OTP consider him a suspect or
3 not? I mean, it's --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But then -- we have at least a couple of concepts of
5 a suspect is. For example, is someone still a suspect if not every basis
6 for a suspicion doesn't exist anymore, but where there is a firm and
7 irreversible decision not to further pursue the matter and not to
8 prosecute him. Would he still be a suspect? That is one of the
10 MR. MISETIC: We litigated that issue in January of 2008. The
11 position of the Office of the Prosecutor at that time was, Yes, indeed,
12 he is a suspect.
13 I would say Your Honour that suspect is strictly defined in the
14 Rules of Procedure and Evidence. And the ultimate question is, is this a
15 person concerning whom the Prosecutor possesses reliable information
16 which tends to show that the person may have committed a crime over which
17 the Tribunal has jurisdiction?
18 It's not an assertion that the person should be accused. It's
19 may have.
20 Now --
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, should be accused. If he cannot be accused
23 MR. MISETIC: You will recall that that's the position that we
24 took in January, and the Office of the Prosecutor fought us tooth and
25 nail on that position, and we had to come up with a comprise to resolve
1 that matter. But as far as I understand, the Office of the Prosecutor
2 made submissions to the Chamber that despite the fact that the OTP can no
3 longer indict the person, the person remains a suspect because they could
4 face jeopardy in the states of the Former Yugoslavia.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, if we're talking about suspect and if
6 you're referring to the Rules, of course, you're refer to what -- and I
7 heard that before. You're referring to a mechanism what is usually
8 called an intrastate or a intra-institutional mechanism, and that
9 sometimes, although the rationale for protecting someone from
10 self-incrimination which may not any further apply in one institution,
11 does not exclude for once and forever the possibility that treating him
12 not as a suspect could create a risk that unaware of possible
13 prosecutions in other jurisdictions that this would be not appropriate to
14 do. So then we have someone for which perhaps an objective test would
15 still qualify -- he would still qualify as a suspect here, although there
16 is no way of any following prosecution and that there's no way of any
17 further investigation against that person, wherever he may be, at some
18 risk, and I would like to know from you whether ever any investigation
19 has been conducted against Mr. Lausic in view of possible prosecution in
21 MR. MISETIC: Well, I obviously wouldn't have access to that
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can ask whether you are aware of such --
24 either you -- you would know would, of course, not be an absolute answer
25 whether there ever has been an investigation, but you could tell us
1 whether you are aware of any such investigation that was ever conducted
2 or you're not aware of it.
3 MR. MISETIC: I'm not aware of it, Your Honour. But let me say
4 this, just so that I'm clear and I don't get accuse of taking two sides
5 on the same issue.
6 What I'm relaying to you is what I understand the Office of the
7 Prosecutors's position to have been in January 2008. That is to say, we
8 were the ones, you will recall to you, who raised the issue of these --
9 when they were trying to do suspect interviews with persons in the Split
10 Military District chain of command, we said that, in fact, the use of
11 suspect status as a means of coercing and pressuring people. The Office
12 of the Prosecutor came back and said they're still faced jeopardy in the
13 countries of the former Yugoslavia
14 and Mr. Tieger will know more about it, cooperation between Office of the
15 Prosecutor and local prosecutors in terms of exchange of evidence and
16 those type of matters, and that for that reason, these persons were been
17 given suspect status.
18 It's relevant for a number of reasons because the witness should
19 know either if is he a suspect from the perspective of the Office of the
20 Prosecutor, that has certain implications on his testimony. If the
21 Prosecution is going to come forward and say, Mr. Lausic, the Prosecution
22 no longer considers you a suspect, that may actually be relevant to the
23 witness in terms of the answers he will provide in light of the fact that
24 the statement that is now before you is, in fact, given at a time when he
25 was a suspect, at least major -- the majority of it was. Which portions
1 came in August is not clear from the face of the statement.
2 But either way, the issue has relevance here, and we -- you know,
3 to me, it seems rather simple to say, Given that the Prosecution has
4 already said that the fact that someone can no longer be indicted here
5 doesn't have an impact on the definition of suspect under the Rules of
6 Procedure, whether Mr. Lausic fits that definition in the Rules of
7 Procedure and Evidence.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, last round.
10 MR. TIEGER: Certainly, Your Honour.
11 The Prosecution is not a proponent of what the rules say. The
12 Prosecution was doing its best in the circumstance that Mr. Misetic
13 described as we related to the Defence to abide by the Rules as best it
14 could interpret them, and we offered that interpretation which seemed to
15 be consistent with what we understood.
16 I have already indicated in this particular context that we
17 indicated to the witness that should we meet for the purpose of going
18 over the statement, that we would advise him of his rights pursuant to
19 Rule 42. I think the Court has had all the information it needs to
20 proceed for quite some time now. I would be happy to answer any explicit
21 questions the Court might have. But it seems to me that much of the --
22 much of the last few minutes has been taken up with various possibilities
23 that will be addressed during the course of cross-examination. And all
24 the relevant factors are now before the Court, and that is the basis on
25 which all of this has been argued.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I tried one again.
2 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
3 MR. MISETIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
4 I guess the bottom line really is, what is the status of this
5 particular witness? The Chamber is entitled to know, we're entitled to
6 know. What incentives, if any, has this witness be given to testify
7 under the circumstances?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is clear, and it was already clear from
9 the foregoing.
10 One minute for practical suggestions because I asked that before.
11 What do you expect the Chamber to do?
12 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, we would be grateful if you could,
13 after the break, ask the witness -- either first instruct the witness, as
14 I understand Mr. Tieger's position, that he is considered a suspect.
15 That's point one, and that's why he was advised of his rights under
16 Rule 42, unless I'm wrong, but that's how I understood the answer.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I understood it a bit differently.
18 MR. MISETIC: Well --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm now asking for the practical suggestion and not
20 reopening the debate.
21 To instruct the witness, to at least to tell what the situation
23 MR. MISETIC: Yes. The fact is that if the three parties in this
24 proceeding: The Trial Chamber, the Prosecution, and the Defence cannot
25 determine whether or not the person is a suspect, I can imagine that the
1 witness, himself, is having system difficulty coming to that conclusion.
2 And I would urge all of us to come to a -- a resolution of that issue and
3 to advise the witness of it. Because in addition to what Mr. Kuzmanovic
4 said that the witness has certain rights under the Rules if indeed he is
5 a suspect, there is also the issue of the witness's -- the assessment of
6 his credibility that the Chamber will have to make.
7 The second thing is I would be grateful if the chamber would
8 inquire of the witness simply if he has any or had any communications
9 considering his status and what was told to him about, again, if
10 anything, about changes of status from suspect to witness and if anything
11 was expected of him as a result of that change in status. Was he advised
12 that he would become a witness in the case against the three accused
13 here? Did he, under whatever circumstances, perhaps under his own
14 conclusions that may not have been put him by the Prosecution, come to
15 the understanding that there was some quid pro quo in exchange for the
16 change in status and that doesn't -- again, let me be clear that I'm not
17 asserting that anything was done like that by the Prosecution, but given
18 the circumstances, did the witness come to that conclusion as a result of
19 the change in -- in status that occurred apparently over -- somewhere
20 within a four-month period?
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay.
23 MR. KAY: An order from the Court to the Prosecution directing
24 them to inform the Court when Mr. Lausic moved from the status of being a
25 suspect to becoming a witness, an order from the Court to the Prosecution
1 to declare any statements they have made to the witness about him
2 becoming a witness.
3 My submission is that from what Mr. Tieger has said, he is a
4 suspect. That is why it was in the Prosecution's mind to caution him.
5 In those circumstances, I submit that his 92 ter submission through the
6 Prosecution should no longer be accepted. He should be taken as a viva
7 voce witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: What in this respect changes your position in
9 relation to the earlier --
10 MR. KAY: My position is this: That I'm highly concerned about
11 the unsatisfactory nature of the status of this witness, and the more
12 that has been discussed, the more the alarm bells have rung in my head as
13 counsel for one of the accused about the nature of this witness and the
14 type of testimony that has been obtained from him at this stage.
15 In my submission, there is it every incentive for that statement
16 to have been self-serving. I think the revelation that he was going to
17 be cautioned this week before being spoken to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I asked you what we should do, and we're
19 now more or less ending up in repeating some of the arguments that were
21 And that is not what I have invited you to do at this very
23 MR. KAY: Sorry. I thought Your Honour wanted me to explain my
24 change in position. I have.
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... if you would say it's on
1 the basis of the discussions we had today, then that is clear enough.
2 MR. KAY: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic, very short question. Because we
4 have to take a break. What specifically are at this moment the rights
5 for this witness different from any other witness?
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: In this particular case if is he a suspect, Your
7 Honour, I think he is entitled to know that he has the right to counsel
8 and to have that counsel present --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Where do we find the right of counsel for a suspect
10 who appears as witness in court?
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I don't think we knew that before the witness
12 testified, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No. But I'm asking you where to find that in the
14 Rules. That the witness testifies under ...
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I would think under the practical circumstances
16 given the fact that he is subject to prosecution in Croatia, he would be
17 entitled to that. Ans I can't cite a specific rule in our rules right
18 now, Your Honour, but I think under the circumstances, he would be
19 entitled to that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Anything else?
21 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The right to be informed that if any answer would
23 incriminate himself --
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, of course, Your Honour.
25 MR. MISETIC: I was going to direct you to Rule 90(E), Mr.
1 President. The witness would clearly have rights to object and that he
2 would be given use immunity by the Chamber in that event.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am aware of those Rules.
4 We have to take a break now later than we intended to do.
5 Could the witness be informed that we would like to see him back
6 after the break, and we'll resume at five minutes past 1.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.43 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.
10 The Chamber will put a few questions to the witness before we
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lausic, before we continue, I would like to put
14 a few -- before we continue, I'd like to put a few procedural questions
15 to you.
16 A statement was taken, I do understand, in May 2004, a statement
17 which has been video-recorded, and you referred to the recording several
18 times. You were then assisted by counsel, isn't it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And then you were informed that this was an
21 interview where you were a suspect.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you were interviewed again in August 2004. We
24 see on the cover page that same counsel was present. Was she present
25 both in May and in August?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in August, was -- was explained whether you
3 still were a suspect or that you would -- were interviewed as a witness.
4 Has this been explained to you in August?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some time towards the end -- well,
6 I'm speaking from memory now. Towards the end of July 2004, I was
7 contacted by telephone, by my lady lawyer, and she conveyed a message to
8 me from the OTP from The Hague
9 suspects, and that the Prosecutors were asking for another meeting with
10 me, and they were asking what the right time for that would be, but in a
11 different status, as a witness.
12 At that interview, the transcript that -- the transcript of the
13 interview that I gave as a suspect would be transformed into a witness
14 statement. I agreed to that. The time was set, and the investigators
15 came to Zagreb
16 Tribunal in The Hague
17 gave a witness statement.
18 This was done in the following way: The investigators read the
19 transcript in the English version with the assistance of an interpreter.
20 They repeated what was said during my interview, and then, at the end of
21 these two or three days, if I'm not mistaken, of this interview, an
22 English witness statement was compiled, and I signed every page.
23 After August 2004, I had no further contacts with The Hague
24 Tribunal, with the OTP, or with anyone else, all the way up to
25 December --
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll come to December, I take it December 2008.
2 You just told us that you -- a message was revealed to you that
3 you were taken off the list of suspects and that was without any
4 conditions, then, I do understand. It was not, You have to give a
5 statement, and then we'll take you off the list of suspects; or was it
6 just revealed to as a message, You are taken off the list of suspects,
7 and you're invited to have another meeting. Were you under any
8 obligation at the time to have another meeting, or were you, just as I
9 just said, invited for that other meeting?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, my understanding was that
11 this was my moral obligation, if I can put that way, to come to that
12 meeting. I did not even put that question to myself as to whether I had
13 to come or whether I didn't have to come. I simply accepted this as a
14 fact, and I was ready to respond to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you were invited, and you responded in the
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it from your previous answers that you
19 were not offered anything in return for cooperating or at least meeting
20 again with the investigators?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now we come to December 2008. I take it, then you
23 were -- could you briefly explain what happened then.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some time after the 10th of
25 December - I don't have the exact date recorded - I received a call
1 through the interpreter at The Hague OTP, and I was asked to come, on the
2 17th of December, to the Office of The Hague Tribunal in Zagreb
3 Mr. Foster, an investigator, would then hand me over the Croatian
4 translations of the transcript of the meeting that I had in May 2004 as a
5 suspect, and a Croatian translation of my witness statement from
6 August 2004.
7 At the agreed time, at exactly 1600 hours, I was at the Office of
8 The Hague
9 first name was Stefan; I can't remember his last name. He took this
10 binder out of his bag. He handed it over to me. He handed over two CDs
11 as well with the video and audio recordings from May 2004. He warned me
12 that we could not discuss the case at all. He said that this was simply
13 a technical hand-over of the documents concerned and the two CDs.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you then invited to meet again with them,
15 or was it just that the material was given to you for review?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The material was given to me for a
17 review. And then last week -- I can't be very specific because I don't
18 have my notes here with me. Last week I received a telephone call from
19 The Hague OTP, and it was agreed that on the 21st of January, 2009
20 Mr. Foster accompanied by Prosecutor Tieger would come to Zagreb
21 they would go through my witness statement together with me. I agreed to
22 that. However, on the 20th of January, a day before they were due to
23 arrive, I was contacted yet again by the OTP. Again, everything I'm
24 saying takes place through an interpreter, and I was cautioned that this
25 meeting that had been agreed upon for the 21st of January would be
1 recorded. There would be an audio and video recording. I was cautioned
2 that this was compulsory for The Hague OTP on the basis of Article 42 of
3 the Rules of Procedure of The Hague Tribunal.
4 I was told that I have the right to have an attorney present. I
5 asked for an opportunity to consult my attorney. I did indeed consult my
6 attorney over the telephone, and he cautioned me that Article 42 pertains
7 to suspects -- suspect interviews, and that this is by no means a form
8 that was applied in the form of witness interviews.
9 When I talked to The Hague Tribunal again, I said I that agreed
10 to an interview but without any audio or video recording, and that I do
11 not see any need for my lawyer to be present.
12 After my response to that effect.
13 MR. MISETIC: Oh, sorry, there it goes. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 THE WITNESS: After my response that effect, again through an
16 interpreter, I was asked to give the telephone number of my lawyer so
17 that the Prosecutions from The Hague
18 was necessary. I said that there was no need for them to establish any
19 contact with my lawyer. I said that I was sufficiently well versed from
20 a legal point of view with the work and the Rules involved, and that they
21 could explain to me why it was necessary for the lawyer to be there and
22 for a video and audio recording.
23 I was told that there was a possibility of a necessity on the
24 part of the Croatian judiciary for an audio an video recording of this
25 interview of ours where I would be shown some new documents that I would
1 state my views on.
2 I refused that kind of interview. And after that, the gentleman
3 from The Hague OTP said that there was no need for them to come to Zagreb
4 and that we would be seeing each other in Court today.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
6 Could I ask you, your interview was about -- and your statements
7 are about what happened in a period before Operation Storm but also about
8 the time when Operation Storm took place, what functions you had, what
9 meetings you attended, et cetera. So it covers the Operation Storm and
10 the pre-Operation Storm period.
11 Was this ever investigated in Croatia, as far as you were aware
12 of, in view of establishing whether you would be a suspect under Croatian
13 law for whatever offence committed in this context?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before the Croatian
15 judiciary, I was not given any sort of status of suspect in respect of
16 any of the events in Croatia
18 JUDGE ORIE: But you were never informed or you never concluded
19 from any circumstance that you would be investigated as a suspect, in
20 relation to these matters; that is, your involvement in your professional
21 capacity in Operation Storm and what preceded that operation.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Mr. Lausic, are you aware that no new indictments can be brought
25 against persons anymore before this Tribunal, apart from -- I have to be
1 more precise. No further indictments in cases relating to, well, the
2 1990s to say so. So I'm not talking about perjury cases or contempt
3 cases. But are you aware that no indictments can be brought anymore
4 before this tribunal?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President. I am aware
6 of that. I have to add to what I said concerning my contacts with
7 representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor which transpired last
8 week in respect of their intention to come to Zagreb. When I opposed the
9 audio an video recording and the presence of lawyer, they warned me and
10 told me that they could not and would not be issuing an indictment
11 against me. However, that they had obligations toward the Croatian
12 judiciary in the sense that where certain proceedings would be initiated
13 against me, they would have to have that sort of recording of an
14 interview conducted with me.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any concern about investigations or
16 proceedings brought against you in Croatia
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not have any concerns in that
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, when interviewed in 2004, in May,
20 later in August, were your answers ever influenced by any concern you may
21 have had at that time to be prosecuted before this Tribunal or to be
22 prosecuted in Croatia
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To hold the status of a suspect is
24 psychologically speaking, of course, a more difficult position than that
25 of a witness. By the same token, the degree of concern and preparedness
1 before giving a statement is different to the situation where one give a
2 statement as a witness.
3 I have to say that as a police officer of a long-standing, I
4 interpreted it as a tactical move on the part of the OTP where in that
5 first contact with me, they gave me the status of a suspect. However,
6 with the same degree of conscientiousness and seriousness were the
7 answers that I have regardless of whether my status was that of a suspect
8 or a witness.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So when you testified this morning when we had
10 gone through the August 2004 statement when you said, I gave the answers
11 to the best of my abilities in accordance with the truth, that is valid
12 -- was valid at the time and is valid today. Is that well understood?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then having gone through all these details,
15 Mr. Lausic, whatever we discussed, whether you can still be indicted,
16 which is not the case, before this Tribunal, and whether you have any
17 concerns about what might be investigated in Croatia. You told us that
18 you had no concerns. But, nevertheless, I inform you that, under the
19 Rules of this Tribunal, that if a question would be put to you and if an
20 answer to that question, a truthful answer to that question, might tend
21 to incriminate you, that you may object against answering that question.
22 That should be clear to you. I take it that as a policeman you know what
23 I'm saying, that this is the reflection of -- of your right to be
24 protected against forced self-incrimination.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If that is it clear, then, Mr. Tieger, you may
2 proceed. We have not much time left, but ...
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 I should probably begin by tendering 65 ter 7032 into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's the 92 ter statement August 2004.
6 MR. TIEGER: Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections.
8 No objections.
9 Then Mr. Registrar that would be number?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2159, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P2159 is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. TIEGER: And similarly for the accompanying --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take it are they put on a list already,
14 and there's, of course, seven documents were added to -- at least you
15 seek them to be added to your 65 ter list.
16 Is there any objection against the seven documents not yet on the
17 65 ter list?
18 Then leave is granted to add any document appearing in your
19 application to add it to the 65 ter list.
20 Then, finally, was there any objections exceeding the word limit
21 as we found it in the motion of the Prosecution? If not, then permission
22 is granted to that.
23 Is there any objection against admission of any of the documents
24 appearing on -- attached -- appearing in the motion, the 92 ter motion?
25 Then we can prepare the list, and they are admitted into
1 evidence. But numbers, of course, still have to be assigned to them.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Lausic, P2159, which is the August 1994 [sic] statement
5 refers at paragraph 19 to the creation of temporary instructions for the
6 work of the military police units and then again at various paragraphs to
7 the establishment of the rules on the organisation and work of the
8 military armed forces.
9 MR. TIEGER: I'd like to turn to that document. That's
10 Exhibit 880 [sic], and if that can be presented to the witness.
11 Q. Mr. Lausic, you should see the rules governing the structure and
12 operation of the military police of the armed forces of Croatia on the
13 screen right now. That's P1880. And I'd like to turn first to
14 Article 9.
15 Now, Article 9 states that:
16 "While performing their regular military police tasks, military
17 police units are subordinate to the commander of the Military District.
18 The commander of the HRM, the Croatian navy; the commander of the HRZ,
19 the Croatian air force; or to the highest HV commander by function in the
20 military police units of operations."
21 And if I can direct your attention to paragraph 28 of the
22 statement. That is, paragraph 28 of P2159, it states that at item 9 of
23 these rules:
24 "The commanders of the military police units are subordinated in
25 their daily operative command to the commanders of the
1 Military Districts, to the air force commanders, the navy, or to the
2 highest commander in their area of responsibility."
3 Mr. Lausic, I wanted to ask you when you used the term "daily
4 operative command" in your statement at paragraph 28, did that mean
5 anything different from the language in Article 9 --
6 MR. KAY: Probably best not lead the witness on to the
7 interpretation of the statement but to ask him what he meant.
8 MR. MISETIC: [Microphone not activated].
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm inclined here that -- well, we could start with
10 that, Mr. Tieger, and then later come to any linguistic issues.
11 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. MISETIC: If I may make my objection again.
14 The tactic of putting things to a witness and then drawing his
15 attention to something else is in and of itself leading. I will object
16 now and to the extent that practice is going to continue to be used, it
17 is leading.
18 JUDGE ORIE: A question without any direction isn't a question
20 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger, and please keep in mind that you
21 perhaps first ask the witness for an explanation of what he meant, and if
22 there is any need then to further address the linguistic issue, then you
23 are you free to do so.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Lausic, referring to paragraph 28 of your statement, what did
1 you mean when you stated that the commanders of the military police units
2 are subordinated in their daily operative command to the commanders of
3 the Military Districts?
4 Can you clarify and explain that to the Court, please.
5 A. Article 9 of the Rules governing the organisation and work of the
6 military police which is the full title of the rules dating from 1994 --
7 or, rather, Article 8 states that all units of the military police are
8 subordinated to the military police administration under the command and
9 control of the chief of the military police administration.
10 This is implied in Article 8 and that something that was in the
11 course of 1992 and subsequently explained in various instructions, it
12 implies that the administration of the Military Police which is part of
13 the Ministry of Defence in organisational terms and is found in the
14 sector of the security intelligence affairs of the MOD headed by the
15 minister of security in the first instance, and by the minister, himself,
16 in the second instance, was not part of the Main Staff of the armed force
17 of the Republic of Croatia
18 Article 8 implies that the military police administration shall
19 determine the basis of development of the military police through various
20 specialities and subspecialities, that it shall follow the implementation
21 of any such development, that it shall advance the organisation and
22 structure of the military police, that the military police administration
23 shall develop educational curricula for the training of the military
24 police, that the military police administration shall determine the
25 criteria for the selection of common policemen, non-commissioned and
1 commissioned officers. In other words it shall be in charge of the
2 personnel matters within the administration, that through the personnel
3 administration of the Ministry of Defence, it shall appoint and relieve
4 of duty the command cadre, that it shall enforce the control and monitor
5 the work of the military police, that it shall issue the military police
6 with the necessary orders and instructions on the tactics aimed at
7 implying -- at implementing various tasks. In other words, to command
8 the units of the military police at a strategic level, with the objective
9 of achieving a uniform tactics of work and uniform application or
10 implementation of military police powers.
11 Article 9, which reads that while performing regular military
12 police tasks, military police units shall be subordinate to the commander
13 of the Military District, the commander of the Croatian navy, the
14 commander of the Croatian air force, or to the highest Croatian army
15 commander by function in the military police units area of operations
16 means that all these bodies listed in Article 9 within which area of
17 responsibility given military police units are deployed, be it a
18 battalion, company, or a platoon, shall have the power to issue daily
19 operational orders to carry out all the military police tasks falling
20 within the purview of the military police.
21 The subsequent Articles of the rules list the relevant tasks and
22 powers of the military police.
23 Q. Mr. Lausic, your timing is impeccable. It is it precisely 1345,
24 the time that Court likes to close.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lausic, we'll adjourn for the day. I'd like to
1 instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in any way with
2 anyone about the testimony, testimony whether given already today or
3 testimony still to be given in the days to come, and we'd like to see you
4 back tomorrow, when we're sitting in the afternoon.
5 We adjourn, and we resume on Tuesday, the 27th of January,
6 quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in Courtroom I.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
9 January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.