Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16102

 1                           Tuesday, 17 February 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

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

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

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

10     Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Good morning, Mr. Puhovski.  I would like to remind you that

13     you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the

14     beginning of your testimony.  And Mr. Misetic will now continue his you

15     may proceed.

16             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17                           WITNESS:  ZARKO PUHOVSKI [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19                           Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic: [Continued]

20        Q.   Good morning again, Professor.

21        A.   Good morning.

22        Q.   I would like to start off with a topic and show you a video first

23     to address another issue for which you may have some knowledge.

24             MR. MISETIC:  The video, Mr. Registrar, is 1D67-0211.

25        Q.   And professor you will notice this is a television interview that

Page 16103

 1     you gave to the Croatian state television programme, Sundays at 2.

 2                           [Videotape played]

 3             "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]

 4             "Stankovic:  Now that you have mentioned this Veritas, for many

 5     Croatian it is an enigma.  What is Veritas.

 6             "Zarko Puhovski:  Basically Veritas is a non-governmental

 7     organisation in Serbia led by former functionaries of what was once

 8     called the Republic of Serbian Krajina as well as some younger

 9     individuals that have joined as well.  The ambition of Veritas is to

10     provide a complex overview of all the Serb victims in the wars from 1991

11     to 1995, that is that they have even expanded this further on to 1999 in

12     Kosovo, et cetera, to the bombing, and furthermore, according to its own

13     opinion, it provides objective facts regarding these victims.  On a

14     number of occasions when faced with their findings, we determined that

15     parts of these findings were incorrect.  And unfortunately, part of these

16     incorrect findings influenced the Prosecution in of The Hague Tribunal

17     for reasons that I'm not able to comment upon, as I simply don't know

18     them.  Not in order to be secretive here but because I don't know why

19     this came to be, why they did this.  We warned those who wished to listen

20     to us when they wished to listen.  They would always listen to us

21     politely and then proceed according to their wishes.

22             Let me return to what I was saying earlier.  When we talk about

23     surprises, I'm not saying that I was looking over Ms. Del Ponte's

24     shoulder, but I think they possess certain information that they did not

25     use, and it seems unbelievable to me that they wouldn't use these facts.

Page 16104

 1     The Defence has information as well.  The issue, of course, is to what

 2     extent will the Defence be able to sufficiently organise itself?  Will it

 3     have enough time?  And will it, I would dare say, fall into the pressure

 4     that is being exerted to join the Gotovina, Cermak, Markac cases

 5     together, or will it see that it would perhaps be better to separate

 6     these cases?"

 7             MR. MISETIC:

 8        Q.   Professor, on that video it seems that you have some reservations

 9     it Veritas.  And I wanted to just seek your comments as to whether you

10     indeed have reservations about them and what the basis of your

11     reservations are.

12        A.   My reservations, and this is something that the Helsinki

13     Committee referred to in two of its statements, therefore, is not my

14     reservations alone.  Has to do with three elements.  First the morale

15     integrity aspect.  The leaders of Veritas like Savo Strbac were

16     proponents of a regime which in our view constituted a denial of human

17     rights.

18             Secondly, because the organisation had dealt with a very

19     selective process.  In other words it selected the victims along ethnic

20     lines.  Of course, it is important to determine how many victims there

21     were on individual sides, but there has to be an objective approach.

22             Thirdly, we were sometimes in a situation where our colleagues in

23     the field were able to ascertain that the data they had published was

24     simply not true.  In some of our statements, made by, for instance,

25     colleague Hellebrandt and colleague Gazivoda, we went public with this in

Page 16105

 1     2002, unless I'm mistaken.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the video be marked, and

 3     I tender it into evidence.

 4             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1322, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  D1322 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we could have on the screen now

 9     1D67-0365.

10        Q.   Mr. Puhovski, you recall from yesterday that I asked you to keep

11     in mind one of the names that -- two of the names that Mr. Pilsel had

12     given to the Office of the Prosecutor, Carlos Zvonimir.  And I'd like to

13     show you a document of the Croatian police at the moment.

14             Now, this is a police -- this is an Official Note, and in it you

15     will see that according to the police, in the second paragraph there was

16     a vehicle.  In the proximity of the vehicle several persons were present,

17     officers of the crime politician approached the same in order to

18     establish the reason of their stay in the settlement Komic because nobody

19     is currently residing there.  And it says:  "At the site the persons were

20     identified as ..."

21             There are individuals listed.  Number three, the person present

22     is Carlos Zvonimir, born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, vice president of

23     the Croatian Helsinki committee.

24             Number 4 is Jadranko Mrkalj who is, I believe you indicated, the

25     son of Petar Mrkalj.

Page 16106

 1             If you go down to the bottom after the last name, it says the

 2     above mentioned Magdic, Mario and Ozegovic Hasim were found putting

 3     post-mortem remains of decomposed bodies in a wooden casket, and the

 4     officers of the crime police department conducted informative interviews

 5     with all of the mentioned persons regarding ..."

 6             MR. MISETIC:   If we turn the page in English.

 7        Q.   "... the circumstances of the discovery of the dead bodies, at

 8     which point it was established that the bodies were identified by the

 9     citizen Momcilovic Dusanka as the following persons.

10             And then identifies the deceased.

11             And then it says:  "The above mentioned citizens intended to

12     conduct burial of the bodies at the Komic local cemetery even though they

13     had not previously informed the competent organs and the chief of the

14     crime police department of Zadar-Knin police administration,

15     Mr. Ive Kardum was immediately notified of the events who then notified

16     the public prosecutor and the investigating judge in Zadar, and the above

17     mentioned persons were prohibited from burying the bodies until the

18     arrival of the on-site investigation team."

19             You can turn the page in Croatian, please, but ...

20             Now my question, Professor, is why wouldn't members of the

21     Helsinki Committee upon the discovery of a body report this to the

22     appropriate authorities for processing, and do you have any knowledge of

23     this incident and why the Croatian Helsinki Committee would start to bury

24     remains rather than contact the local authorities?

25        A.   I will have to repeat.  At least on 30 occasions, between the

Page 16107

 1     summer of 1995, and unless I'm mistaken this is early 1996, we turned to

 2     various local authorities, in particular the Zadar police administration.

 3     We had never met up with any response.

 4             In this particular instance, the dead bodies were deposing.

 5     Mr. Jovan Nikolic, the Orthodox priest was summoned, and I believe he was

 6     the only Orthodox priest active in Croatia at the time.  So that in line

 7     with the custom and religious tradition, the individuals had -- the

 8     remains of the individuals who had for at least three weeks been lying

 9     exposed be buried, and this is something the neighbours were aware of, as

10     well as the members of the local authorities.  Nobody did anything.

11             We believed it was our task to do something about it.  As soon as

12     our representatives appeared, of course, the police force emerged, and

13     seemingly wanted to show that it was very active.

14        Q.   In the statement it says at the top of page 2, which is in the

15     middle of the English translation there, that Momcilovic Dusanka in the

16     course of the interview, it was established that the same discovered the

17     bodies on 15 February 1996, but didn't report the same to anyone except

18     the Helsinki Committee in Karlovac.

19             Do you know if the Helsinki committee between the time it was

20     reported to the Helsinki committee and the time they intended to do the

21     burial that they contacted the Zadar-Knin police administration?

22        A.   I repeat, I don't know, but I do not believe that they did.  It

23     is quite telling that the lady believed that the Helsinki Committee is

24     the one she needs to turn to rather than the local police authorities

25     which only goes to show what sort of a reputation they enjoyed among the

Page 16108

 1     citizens in that area.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked,

 3     and I tender it into evidence.

 4             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1323, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  D1323 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. MISETIC:

 9        Q.   Professor, I would like to turn your attention now to a different

10     portion of the Helsinki Committee report which is page 82 in the English.

11     I'll try to find it in the Croatian, the right page.

12             MR. MISETIC:  And, again, Mr. Registrar, this is exhibit 65 ter

13     4674.

14             In the Croatian it's page 81 in e-court; page 80 in the original.

15     Okay.  Sorry, it's the next page in the English.

16        Q.   Actually, I can show you first here, and then we'll go back to

17     that previous page in English.  But you have the original in front of

18     you, Professor.  What I'm interested in is the number of burned houses.

19     You quote General Forand as having stated on the 10th of October, 1995,

20     that according to his data, the UN military observers visited 320

21     villages and counted 22.000 burned houses?

22             MR. MISETIC:  If we can go back one page in the English, please,

23     which is again back one page in the Croatian version as well.

24        Q.   There's that paragraph which is the third paragraph.  It says:

25     "In the former UN Sector South at least 22.000 houses and a number of

Page 16109

 1     villages were burned in a systematic and organised manner."

 2             Now the report seems to cite General Forand on the 10th of

 3     October for the number that is 22.000 burned houses.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  And, Mr. Registrar, if we could pull up Exhibit

 5     P400, please.

 6        Q.   While we're waiting for that, the number of 22.000 burned houses

 7     is a number that was then used in the film, Storm over Krajina as the

 8     number of burned houses.  Correct?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   Now this is, Professor, the press statement of General Forand on

11     the 12th of October.

12             MR. MISETIC:  And if we could go to page 2, please.

13        Q.   In the fourth paragraph, if we can go to page 2 in the Croatian,

14     yes.  Fourth paragraph.  The first thing I would to -- let's just talk

15     about the number 22.000.  What General Forand seems to have said is that

16     21.744 houses were observed over 16.578 were destroyed by fire or

17     severely damaged.  Before you give your answer, I can tell you I will

18     explore with you the number of 16.578 in a minute.  But just do you see

19     that in fact the number of 22.000 is General Forand's number of houses

20     observed and not houses burned or destroyed, as is indicated in the HHO

21     report?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   Now, so -- now we get to the number of 16.578 destroyed by fire

24     or severely damaged.  And I would just like to show you a few samples of

25     the methodology and analysis that went into that number.  And you may

Page 16110

 1     have actually some knowledge, given your knowledge of this area, that you

 2     may be able to help us out to understand some of the complexities here.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if we could have on the screen

 4     1D67-0265, please.

 5        Q.   Now what I'm going to you show you step by step this is, for

 6     example, an analysis of the number of burned homes in the Korenica area.

 7     And can you see what we've done is we've put Korenica, which is in the

 8     middle towards the bottom middle, is the city of Korenica, as well as all

 9     of the outlying villages in the area.

10             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page, please.

11        Q.   We've -- what we did was then we went to the official census of

12     the Republic of Croatia, 1991 to talk about the total number of

13     inhabitants in the entire wider Korenica area of Serbs and Croats as well

14     as the total number of dwellings in that wider area, so they're all

15     plotted in terms of the numbers.  It is clear that the Serbs were the

16     overwhelming majority in the Korenica area and the total buildings

17     according to the census is 947.

18             MR. MISETIC:  If we can go to the next page, please.

19        Q.   This is now just a breakdown of the number of buildings in each

20     of the cities, villages -- city, villages, and hamlets.  We've broken it

21     down.  It's the population as well as the total buildings.

22             MR. MISETIC:  If we go to the next page.

23        Q.   This is again a continuation of the remaining four hamlets which

24     gives the ethnic composition as well as the total buildings according to

25     the census.

Page 16111

 1             MR. MISETIC:  And now if we go to the final page, please.

 2        Q.   First let me ask you, just in fairness to you, Professor, are you

 3     able to understand this in English, or would you like to us put a --

 4        A.   I do.  Sorry.

 5        Q.   This is a break down now.  And the UNMO analysis of the number of

 6     burned buildings in Korenica, they only included three of the eight

 7     villages and hamlets in Korenica municipality.  We went ahead and assumed

 8     that perhaps the UNMOs didn't know that these were separate areas, so we

 9     included them just in case they didn't separate it out.

10             So if you look at the total viewed according UNMO, if you go to

11     the column that says total viewed, according to the UNMO report, they

12     viewed 3215 houses.  And then it says how many were totally destroyed and

13     partially destroyed.  You see that they say 622 were total destroyed.

14     2.953 were partially destroyed.

15             Now if you go to the column that says the total number the

16     buildings in 1991, you will see that where the UNMO said that they viewed

17     3.000 buildings in Korenica, there were only 617 in Korenica according to

18     the census.  In Seganovac they viewed 15; there were 26.  In

19     Vrelo Korenicko there were 200 that UNMO says it viewed, but there were

20     only 90 on the census.  And if you go down and add them all up, and then

21     we went ahead and proceeded to include in numbers 4 through 8 any other

22     villages in that area that may have mistakenly been included as part of

23     Titova Korenica, and you get a total of 947 total buildings according to

24     the census.  And I can just tell you, in case there's any confusion, that

25     earlier on in this case there was testimony by Mr. Anttila and under

Page 16112

 1     questioning by Judge Gwaunza.  This is at page 2.673 beginning at line

 2     24, going over to the next page, and ending at line 12.  Judge Gwaunza

 3     asked maybe -- and I will read it out.  She says:

 4             "Can I ask you, would you know whether in giving those figures

 5     they would include, for instance, the number of buildings or structures

 6     that may have been burning or that may have been burnt within one

 7     homestead.  In other words I'm asking if a team visit the one homestead

 8     where there is a house in other smaller structures outside, and they

 9     found that the house and the structures were burning.  In their reports

10     would they say five structures were burning, or would they say one,

11     referring to the homestead?"

12             And Mr. Antilla responded:

13             "To my understanding the teams considered houses as houses where

14     people would be living, so they would not be considering sheds for the

15     livestock and so on.  That was their task anyway."

16             Now this is the example of Korenica.  Do you see that the number

17     of 16.000 that General Forand mentions, in fact, there is an significant

18     variance now when we look at Korenica between the total number of houses

19     they claim to have viewed and the total number of buildings that actually

20     were recorded in the 1991 census.

21             Professor?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Do you recognise the possibility that that number of 16.000 may

24     be inflated?

25        A.   There were three sources we drew upon.  One was the

Page 16113

 1     United Nations, or their observers, in other words; the second one was

 2     the official position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Mr. Granic,

 3     who said that 5.000 homes destroyed during combat alone, and we found a

 4     great many that were destroyed later on.  And in addition to that, we

 5     used our findings from various areas to draw inferences.  Because we had

 6     limited resources, human and materiel resources, we weren't able to go

 7     out into each and every area, but on the basis of the observation made

 8     with regard to certain localities, we drew inferences which were

 9     consistent with these ones here.  Our first findings that were presented

10     as an approximation in the HHO report were -- had to do roughly with

11     20.000 homes from both sectors.  And this figure was later on used by the

12     UN sources and by various NGOs and the press.  I repeat, again, these

13     were inferences that we made on the basis of the findings from the areas

14     observed.

15             As far as this discrepancy is concerned, let me draw your

16     attention to one possibility that we entertained as well.  Here in fact

17     the case was that the former Yugoslav municipalities which were much

18     larger, were confused with the new system of the Republic of Croatia

19     where the municipalities were far smaller.  And at times we would have a

20     great confusion like in the area of Kostajnica and Korenica.  And this is

21     just an offhand theory now that I'm drawing your attention to as a

22     possible explanation.  As far as the methodology used by foreign

23     observers and how they might have arrived at the figures they have

24     arrived at, that is something that I cannot comment upon.

25        Q.   Well, first let me just clarify.  HHO didn't do its own

Page 16114

 1     systematic assessment of the number of burned buildings.  Correct?

 2        A.   In those reports you have that, in several dozens of communities

 3     we counted those houses.  Other results are extrapolated from other

 4     reports, so they are not a fruit of systematic research.

 5        Q.   And do you agree that the actual report, the HHO report from

 6     2001, doesn't cite any statement by Minister Granic in support of the

 7     number.  What it does is rely on General Forand's assessment in terms of

 8     what is explicitly in the report.

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  I would like to take a look at a different

11     municipality.

12             MR. MISETIC:  I'm sorry, Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be

13     marked, and I tender it into evidence.

14             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1324, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I can also tell you we have

19     submitted the underlying census and information to the Prosecution.  If

20     the Court wishes that we mark those and tender those for the benefit of

21     the Court, we're capable of doing that as well.  It's up to the Chamber.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll give it some thought, whether we will invite

23     to you tender it.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could now have 1D67-0275.

25        Q.   This is the village of Licki Osik and the surrounding area.  What

Page 16115

 1     we have done is we've put a map together with the confrontation line as

 2     of the 3rd of August.  And we can see that Licki Osik is in fact a front

 3     line village.

 4             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page, please.

 5        Q.   This is now, we have put in again the wider villages and hamlets

 6     that were on both sides of the confrontation line as well as the ethnic

 7     breakdown.  And you can see that there's a roughly equivalent ethnic

 8     breakdown of the Licki Osik and surrounding area.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  If we turn the page, please.

10        Q.   This is now a further breakdown in detail of the various villages

11     and hamlets that make up Licki Osik, and can you tell, for example,

12     Licki Osik itself is a roughly ethnically balanced area, as is

13     Siroka Kula.

14             MR. MISETIC:  If we can turn the page, please.

15        Q.   Again we have done the same type of analysis, comparing what UNMO

16     says were the total number of viewed buildings, comparing it to the

17     number of buildings that actually existed in 1991, and you can see -- you

18     can see that there's a difference.

19             What I'm particularly interested in, though, is if we look at

20     Licki Osik and we assume for the sake of argument that every building,

21     meaning of the 953 that were there in 1991, if we assume for the sake of

22     argument that every building there was completely or partly damaged,

23     given the ethnic composition there, meaning 1570 Serbs, against -- I

24     shouldn't say against -  with 1156 Croats, can you explain why or what

25     the circumstances would be that might lead to the complete destruction of

Page 16116

 1     a village that has a rough ethnic balance?

 2        A.   According to my knowledge, Licki Osik was not completely

 3     destroyed.  Almost two thirds of edifices remained undamaged.  Don't hold

 4     me to the percentage, but roughly, that's first.

 5             Secondly, we have seen situations where mixed population villages

 6     completely destroyed.  First one side would destroy the other side's

 7     houses, and then the other side would destroy the first side's houses.

 8     But I'm not sure that I know that this happened in Licki Osik.  And I

 9     reiterate it is not known to me that Licki Osik has been destroyed to

10     that extent as some other communities.

11        Q.   Based on your answer, I have two questions.

12             One, then if in fact two thirds it wasn't destroyed, then that

13     would mean that the UNMOs numbers with respect to Licki Osik would be

14     significantly less than what they reported, correct, because they

15     reported 800 --

16        A.   That's obvious.

17        Q.   So that's the first point.

18             The second point is you have now mentioned something that in fact

19     is probably true which is that areas that were under Serb control that

20     were of mixed ethnicity in 1993, let's say, could have had Croat houses

21     damaged or destroyed, and then in 1995 people who returned to that

22     village did the same to the Serb houses.

23             My question is when you then try to do an assessment of the

24     entire area, and you come up with numbers like this for houses totally or

25     partly destroyed it's very difficult then to determine who did the

Page 16117

 1     destroying, how many of the houses were destroyed prior to August 1995,

 2     how many were destroyed subsequently.  Certainly if you are at the UNMO.

 3     Correct?

 4        A.   Our colleagues who went out on the ground, they cynically called

 5     humane botany, you would see in houses that had been destroyed for two or

 6     three years, you could find vegetation, even trees growing out of such

 7     ruins.  And it was very accurate, although primitive, criterion to tell

 8     those two types of damaged houses apart.  There were houses where trees

 9     were growing out of -- so that they could have been destroyed in the

10     summer that we investigated that situation.  We took that into account.

11     It would -- it was very easy to tell those apart.  Very few houses were

12     destroyed by the Serbs in the summer of 1995.  Most of the buildings that

13     were destroyed were destroyed when the Serbs had recently taken control

14     of the area, as it was in 1991 and beginning of 1992.

15        Q.   Okay.  You, however, don't know whether the internationals when

16     they were doing this, how accurate they were in distinguishing

17     pre-Operation Storm and post-Operation Storm damage; correct?  You didn't

18     review their work.

19        A.   I did not check, but when you read their reports it is obvious

20     that they hadn't done that, whenever they did so, they listed or

21     enumerated buildings and recorded buildings that were useable and damaged

22     -- and buildings that had been damaged.  They evidenced the degree of

23     destruction and maybe the cause, whether it was fighting or some other

24     cause of destruction.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 16118

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked,

 2     and I tender it into evidence.

 3             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:   Mr. Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1325, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

 7             MR. MISETIC:

 8        Q.   Professor Puhovski, I'd like to take you now to Kistanje.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Which, Mr. Registrar, is 1D67-0294.

10        Q.   This is the village of Kistanje with all of its surrounding

11     hamlets, and, once again, what we've done is we have included every

12     hamlet and village in the Kistanje area and put the census material

13     together.  So you see the number of the Serbs versus the number of Croats

14     there in 1991.  And according to the census how many total buildings

15     there were in the entire wider Kistanje area, and it's 547 buildings.

16             MR. MISETIC:  If we turn the page, please.

17        Q.   Now we have taken then the UNMO report from November of 1995 and

18     put all -- anything that is from the Kistanje municipality on the chart,

19     and put their assessments of total viewed, completely damaged, and partly

20     damaged.  And according to their report, which is Exhibit P176 in

21     evidence, there were 101 completely damaged buildings in Kistanje and 63

22     partly damaged.

23             Now, not to minimise the amount of damage, which is not my

24     intention, but what I wish to point out, though, is compared to the

25     census figures, it would indicate that there is roughly one third of the

Page 16119

 1     buildings in Kistanje were either completely or partly damaged when

 2     compared to the census figures of 1991, according to UNMO.

 3             Do you recognise that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And the damage to Kistanje, this number now, that comes to again

 6     roughly one third, or to be precise, 164 completely or partly damaged

 7     buildings out of 547.  That number, 164, is from a report dated

 8     November of -- November 4, 1995.  You're familiar with the fact that

 9     Kistanje wasn't -- that the damage in Kistanje didn't occur at one

10     instance; it was -- it continued to pop up for several weeks after

11     Operation Storm.  There would be other incidents of burning.  Correct?

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.  It is stated on page 93 of our report.

13        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

14             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked,

15     and I tender it into evidence.

16             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1326, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D12 -- just one second, what's the number.  D1326 is

20     admitted into evidence.

21             MR. MISETIC:

22        Q.   Then one last assessment on this issue, Professor.

23             MR. MISETIC:  This is 1D67-0373 please.

24        Q.   What we did was, Professor, we took nine municipalities from the

25     UNMO assessment.  This is just nine.  There are more.  We didn't have

Page 16120

 1     time to go through all of it.  But if you -- we start to flip through.

 2     You can read across, we took the UNMO assessment and put them in the

 3     proper municipalities.

 4             So, for example, you can look at the Benkovac municipality which

 5     is the first municipality there.  Then you can look at various villages

 6     that are referenced in the UNMO report from the Benkovac municipality.

 7     We gave -- we put in the number of buildings in those villages in 1991,

 8     compared it with the UNMO assessment of total viewed, completely damaged,

 9     and partly damaged, provided you with an assessment of the ethnic

10     composition of those areas, and then we have a column that says the

11     difference and identify the UNMO team involved.

12             You can -- we can with scroll down.  For example, we did the same

13     for Drnis, Donji Lapac, Gospic.

14             MR. MISETIC:  If we turn the page, please.

15        Q.   There's Knin --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have the B/C/S version on our screen at this

17     moment.

18             MR. MISETIC:  I'm sorry.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any way that we can have the English

20     version.  Yes.

21             MR. MISETIC:

22        Q.   Knin and -- it is referred to as Titova Korenica because that was

23     the name prior to 1991.  It is now just Korenica.

24             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page, please.

25        Q.   Otocac.

Page 16121

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Turn the page, please.

 2        Q.   Senj and Sibenik.  And now there's the total line at the

 3     building.  You can see that the total number of buildings in this

 4     municipalities -- at least I should say the villages, cities, and hamlets

 5     referenced in the UNMO report within these municipalities.  The total

 6     number of buildings in 1991 was 6342, but UNMO claimed to have viewed

 7     13851 in that area and claimed to have found 10647 completely or partly

 8     damaged buildings in those areas.  And if you compare the total viewed

 9     against the total number of buildings that were documented in 1991,

10     that's a difference of 7500 buildings.

11             If you take the total number of damaged buildings alleged to have

12     been found, which is 10647, and subtract out the total number of

13     buildings that actually there were in 1991, the difference is 4305 more

14     buildings than UNMO claims to have -- had been completely or partly

15     damaged than the 1991 census recognises as having even existed at that

16     time.  And that assumes that every buildings that existed in 1991 was

17     partly or totally damaged.

18             My point, Professor, is that this number that has been bandied

19     about over the course of the years of 22.000 burned houses, very much

20     relies on the assessment of the UNMOs, which you will concede, you have

21     never actually sat down, looked at that report and tried to do a

22     scholarly analysis after that report that you might do at Zagreb

23     university, for example.  There is no scholarly assessment that you have

24     attempted to do of that assessment.

25        A.   Just three things.  On page 93 that I cited just a minute ago in

Page 16122

 1     our report, it is clearly stated that we did not count damage and burned

 2     houses, that these were assessment.  Another thing, any sociologist would

 3     say this to you, the Yugoslav census was based on the concept of

 4     household.  It's a patriarchical concept, so there are certain edifices

 5     which are connected with every household.  The UNMOs must have counted

 6     barns and some other outbuildings, and this is the only way that they

 7     could have come up with such a number.

 8             So you didn't take into account just the main building but also

 9     the pigsty or cowshed and sheds for other types of cattle.  So they must

10     have counted each of them separately, and this is the only explanation

11     that seems to me plausible.  Although there is this possibility, that

12     somebody, you know, just invented those numbers, but it doesn't seem true

13     to me.

14        Q.   Well, there is also the possibility that this assessment was done

15     in a moving vehicle, driving down the main roads, and just by eyesight

16     trying to make estimates of how many buildings are in the village, how

17     many were destroyed, et cetera.

18             Do you recognise that?

19        A.   Unfortunately, I have to, because this is something that I cannot

20     discount.  But the situation was too serious, and it still is, to let

21     somebody just drive around or approach the same place down two different

22     roads and then count double.  I would like to believe that this is a

23     difference in methodology and not a job lacking seriousness.  But I don't

24     know.

25        Q.   Let me ask you a factual question.

Page 16123

 1             Did the HHO have the underlying UNMO assessment when it was

 2     preparing this report?  Meaning -- let me be specific.  I don't mean just

 3     a report of a number.  I mean did you have the UNMO report, village by

 4     village, hamlet by hamlet, of the counting they were doing?

 5        A.   No.  My answer is no.

 6             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked,

 7     and I tender it into evidence.

 8             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1327, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D1327, I heard, is admitted into evidence.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. MISETIC:  Two short topic areas, Mr. President, and I will be

14     finished.

15        Q.   Professor, let me show you - if I can find it - 1D67-0099,

16     please.

17             I want to show you two exhibits to save some time, Professor, so

18     first I will show you this one, I'll show you the next one.

19             This is an article from Nacional from 15 October 1997.  It is an

20     interview given by Cedo Prodanovic who at the time was a member of the

21     Presidency of the Croatian Helsinki Committee.  You can see in the

22     picture, and again this is it October 1997, there's a picture there, and

23     it is Mr. Prodanovic and Mr. Cicak standing in front of the Tribunal.

24     And this is his interview discussing a meeting that was held between Mr.

25     Prodanovic and Mr. Cicak on the one side with the Office of the

Page 16124

 1     Prosecutor.  And I'd like to just point out a few comments of

 2     Mr. Prodanovic.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  If we could go -- in the Croatian we will have to

 4     blow this up because the print is very small.  It's at the bottom far

 5     left-hand column.  There we go.  And in the English it starts at the

 6     bottom of the first page.

 7        Q.   It says:

 8             "The first question regarded the reasons for which he and

 9     Ivan Zvonimir Cicak travelled to The Hague."

10             And Mr. Prodanovic said:

11             "Mr. Cicak and I went to The Hague upon the invitation of the OTP

12     of the international Tribunal as officials of the Croatian Helsinki

13     Committee which is part of an international organisation for the

14     protection of human rights.  The ICTY demonstrated" --

15             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page, please.

16        Q.    "... an interest for the activities of the HHO, so they invited

17     us to give them firsthand information regarding our work."  And a few

18     sentences down.  It says:

19             "A great deal of data collect in the field by our activists was

20     interesting to the international Tribunal in The Hague.  Therefore, we

21     mainly discussed determining the methodology of our work so that our

22     collaboration would be as effective as possible."

23             Now, actually let me ask you a few questions while we have this

24     here.

25             Are you aware of the circumstances of this visit of

Page 16125

 1     Mr. Prodanovic and Mr. Cicak to the Office of the Prosecutor?

 2        A.   I remember that there was talk about that at the executive

 3     committee after they had returned.  They reported briefly to their

 4     colleagues on their stay in The Hague.  I was still in the

 5     Helsinki Committee at the time.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Prodanovic says, "They invited us to give them firsthand

 7     information regarding our work," and then he goes on to say, "We mainly

 8     discussed determining the methodology of our work so that our

 9     collaboration would be as effective as possible."

10             What was the methodology that was agreed upon between the HHO and

11     Mr. Prodanovic, on the one hand, and the Office of the Prosecutor?

12        A.   As far as I am aware, we informed the people in The Hague about

13     our methodology.  They were only launching their investigation and were

14     interested in knowing how this was done in the region.

15             We acquainted them with our methodology.  By that time the

16     material for the report had already been finished, and we were

17     contemplating its distribution by way of photocopies.  To my knowledge,

18     this had to do with us conveying to them our experience in relation to

19     the investigations done into the Krajina.

20             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit be marked,

21     and I tender it into evidence.

22             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D1328.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

Page 16126

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, I'd now like to show a video.  This

 2     is 1D67-0209, please.

 3                           [Videotape played]

 4             "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]

 5             "Stankovic:  What does this mean?  Are there aggravating or

 6     mitigating circumstances for Gotovina, and how do you know this?

 7             "Zarko Puhovski:  I don't know this.  I can't say that I know

 8     what they know, but I do know that there are some additional facts which

 9     they received which weren't in the indictment, some of which are

10     positive, some negative.

11             "Stankovic:  Which type of facts do you think prevail?

12             "Zarko Puhovski:  In my opinion with regards to the current

13     indictment, there are more positive than negative facts.

14             "Stankovic:  You are not able to comment further?

15             "Zarko Puhovski:  I cannot say anything because these are clearly

16     matters of an internal nature.  They know them.  Now whether or not they

17     will use them is a different issue.

18             "Stankovic:  Does this mean that the HHO participated in

19     disclosing these documents?

20             "Zarko Puhovski:  We gave them everything we had to the state

21     attorney, the police, and representatives of the court in The Hague.

22     What a what they did with these materials is partly evident now.

23     Unfortunately, they used other sources as well, namely, Veritas and

24     others, which we discussed, if you recall, almost five years ago in your

25     show.  There was nothing we could do about this whatsoever."

Page 16127

 1             MR. MISETIC:

 2        Q.   Professor, I'm interested in the last comment where you say that,

 3     "We gave everything we had to the state attorney, the police, and the

 4     representatives of the Court in The Hague.  What they did with these

 5     materials is partly evident now."

 6             My question is a combination of your statement on this TV

 7     programme and Mr. Prodanovic's talk about a methodology.  The underlying

 8     reports the investigations in the field, the notes, the data on the

 9     computer database, you seem to indicate, and that's why I'm asking to

10     correct me now, that this material was given to the proper authorities.

11     Mr. Prodanovic is in The Hague in 1997 discussing the methodology of

12     cooperation between OTP and the HHO.  Why weren't the underlying reports

13     submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor at least, so that we could

14     verify some of the witness statements that are referred to in this

15     report?

16        A.   I repeat, we handed over our reports when they were finished in

17     1999 -- or, rather, we sent them to some 300 addresses.  I have already

18     mentioned this.  From the office of the president to all the state

19     agencies, to all the embassies, to the Zagreb office of the ICTY.

20             This is what we did with the material at the time.  At times,

21     members of certain Defence teams approached us for information and at the

22     time when I was president of the HHO we provided the information to

23     everyone who asked for it.  In other words we did not adopt specific

24     approach depending on who turned to us.  We provided whatever material we

25     could gather at the time, in the premises of the HHO.

Page 16128

 1             It all revolved, in essence, around the report that is being

 2     analysed here, and that was available to everyone.  I don't know that

 3     anything changed in the work methodology.  Once Mr. Prodanovic and

 4     Mr. Cicak returned from The Hague.  I don't think this had to do with

 5     anything beyond that which they said here.  In other words that they

 6     discussed the way that we went about things and the way we were still

 7     going about things at the time.

 8        Q.   I understand that the report was circulated.  But as you probably

 9     are aware, Ms. Higgins asked you, and I'm asking you, the underlying

10     information that forms the report, you indicated that Mr. Mrkalj,

11     Jadranko Mrkalj has that information and was asking money for it.  I'm

12     asking you why that underlying information, instead of going to

13     Mr. Jadranko Mrkalj, didn't get sent to the Office of the Prosecutor for

14     their use or, alternatively, to the Croatian state prosecutor's office or

15     the Croatian state police?

16        A.   For the reasons I mentioned the other day, all the data was in

17     the possession of Petar Mrkalj.  Upon his death they were in possession

18     of his son.  None of us sought the material, though we would have liked

19     to have our copies of the material, we did not believe it necessary to

20     pay for it.  The material was held in private hands because

21     Mr. Petar Mrkalj lived in fear of the control of the military secret

22     service over the HHO, and that's why he kept all the material in his own

23     apartment in Karlovac, and that's why they stayed with his son

24     ultimately, and his fears proved to be true in fact.

25             Nobody asked me personally to give the underlying material in

Page 16129

 1     relation to the report, and I, myself, wanted to have my own archive of

 2     it and --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the interpreter please finish.

 4        A.   [Previous translation continues] ... I wanted to have an archive

 5     of my own, but I did not ultimately have it, due to the fact that I

 6     didn't want to pay for it.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Frolich.

 8             MS. FROLICH:  I'm sorry.  I think there is an error in English

 9     transcript, page 26 line 11, where it says "none of us sought the

10     material."  I think the witness might have said something different in --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We will verify that.

12             When you said upon his death they were in possession of his son,

13     referring to this materials, and then in the next line you said, it

14     starts in the transcript, "none of us," and then the part that follows,

15     Ms. Frolich has raised some doubts, and then the end of that sentence is,

16     "although we would have liked to have copies of the material."  Could you

17     tell us what did you say about seeking the material, did you, did you

18     not, did none of you?  Did it ...

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The material concerned consisted of

20     handwritten notes made on the basis of the field work and audiotapes, all

21     of which were used for the drafting of the report.  The material was in

22     the apartment belong to Petar Mrkalj in Karlovac at the time when he

23     died.  He kept them there because he was afraid that somebody would steel

24     them from the HHO office.  When he died, his son, Jadranko Mrkalj

25     inherited them.  I tried to obtain the material from Jadranko Mrkalj --

Page 16130

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so where the transcript reads, "none of us

 2     sought the material," is that inaccurate?  Because that's what we read on

 3     our transcript.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies.  Nobody ever asked us

 5     to hand over the material underlying the report.  I, as the president,

 6     asked to have the material because I wanted to have a complete archive.

 7     However, I, as a president, or any of my colleagues were never asked by

 8     anyone to provide the underlying material.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, because I'm getting a bit confused, finally,

10     Jadranko Mrkalj asked money for it.  And finally did you obtain that

11     material, or did you not?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me repeat.  We decided that we

13     would not be paying in exchange for the material, and, consequently, we

14     did not obtain it.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So, therefore, it was not in your possession

16     so as to provide it to anyone.  Is that --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  They were not, and no --

18     nobody asked us to provide them.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. MISETIC:  I'd like to ask that the video be marked, and I

21     tender it into evidence.

22             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1329, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  D1329 is admitted into evidence.

Page 16131

 1             MR. MISETIC:

 2        Q.   Last document, Professor.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. Registrar, if I could 1D67-0249, please.

 4             Can we scroll to the top of the Croatian, please.

 5        Q.   Professor, this seems to be a fax line from you at the top with a

 6     date and a time stamp.  And it's --

 7             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page.

 8        Q.   It is titled to the Croatian Helsinki Committee for human rights

 9     members, dated 17 May 1998.

10             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn the page, please, just to look at

11     the signature.  There is a signature at the bottom?

12        Q.   Professor, this is your resignation letter to the Croatian

13     Helsinki Committee in 1998.  Correct?

14        A.   Yes, that's my letter.

15             MR. MISETIC:  If we could turn back in the Croatian, please.

16        Q.   Now, you in fact resigned from the Helsinki Committee in 1998,

17     and you provided the committee with your reasoning for why you were

18     leaving.

19             MR. MISETIC:  If we can go to the bottom paragraph.

20        Q.   "Amongst other things, you write that for a longer period, the

21     committee was too often (because sometimes it is almost inevitable) and

22     uncritically involved into the party and political activities, and,

23     respectively, it was tendentiously reduced to the media promotion

24     apparatus."

25             First, can you explain what types of things was the committee

Page 16132

 1     doing at the time which led you to conclude that the committee was

 2     uncritically involved into the party and political activities?

 3        A.   Several members of the committee, contrary to the logic of an

 4     NGO, were involved in the activities of certain political parties, or

 5     supported them, in my view.

 6        Q.   Which members of the committee were you referring to?

 7        A.   Several individuals.  For instance, Mr. Cicak, who participated

 8     in several political party activities, although not as a member of the

 9     party.  Like, for instance, those of the HSLS.  And I was referring to

10     Mr. Banac.  Primarily I was referring to the two of them.

11        Q.   Okay.  You continue on that that paragraph, and you say:

12             "Lately, perhaps, it seemed that racing sponsors on the basis of,

13     according to me, misunderstood professionalism, pushed aside the original

14     mandate of the HHO.  The HHO has dealt more and more with what foreign

15     donators requested, e.g., war crimes, for which I am convinced it is, in

16     principle, questionable whether they are within the scope of our work."

17             Can you comment on what exactly you meant there that the HHO was

18     dealing more with what foreign donators requested.  What foreign donators

19     are you referring to there?

20        A.   At that point in time, the spring of 1998, we had around 30

21     employees, and it required smooth working.  Unlike the initial small

22     organisation, as it grew in number, it became less flexible.  The donors

23     concerned were the Soros Foundation, primarily the Soros Foundation at

24     the time.  The Helsinki Committees from Sweden, and Norway, Denmark, and

25     the Netherlands, as well as the USAID, the USAID organisation.  At the

Page 16133

 1     time more than half of the funds were donated by the Soros Foundation.

 2     That was roughly the situation at the time.

 3        Q.   Did you believe that these foreign donors were focussing the work

 4     of the HHO on war crimes, and why did you believe that it was

 5     questionable whether this was within the scope of the HHO's work?

 6        A.   It seemed to me that, regardless of the large number of

 7     employees, our resources were quite limited, and our main task was to be

 8     concerned with the violation of the rights of the living.  I believe that

 9     the bulk of our work on the other issue had been done in 1995 and 1996.

10             A month or two before this, I suggested that the special

11     department concerned with war crimes within the HHO and which had four to

12     five employees, should discontinue its activity.  I felt that we no

13     longer needed it with the lapse of time.  This was the part that was in

14     dispute.  It was felt by some others that we could attract a lot of funds

15     from donors if we pursued this activity.

16             I'm telling you that this is happening some three years after the

17     end of the war, and my feeling was that there was no need to be involved

18     in this specifically.  Rather, that we should concentrate on the people

19     turning to our office, seeking for assistance.

20        Q.   Professor, that's actually the point I wanted to get to.  You

21     left in 1998 before the first report came out in 1999.

22             Do you agree with me that the report in 1999 was written, trying

23     to put as much -- as much -- as many allegations as possible in the

24     report to justify the foreign financing that had gone into the HHO, and

25     that may be one of the reasons why the underlying documentation that

Page 16134

 1     supports the report is in fact missing.

 2             MS. FROLICH:  Mr. President, I have to object.  This calls for a

 3     speculative answer on the part of the witness who was not present in

 4     1999.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We do not know.  But the question could be put in

 6     such a way that whatever fear you may have on whether it calls for

 7     speculation could be taken away.

 8             Mr. Misetic, I leave it in your hands how to do that.

 9             MR. MISETIC:  Sure.

10        Q.   Professor, you're one of the founders of the HHO.  You have spent

11     many years in that organisation.  You resigned as a result of some of the

12     issues that you have mentioned in the letter, including the fact that --

13     I think you have just testified that some people in the organisation felt

14     that dealing with war crimes was a good way to get money for the

15     organisation and that you resigned out of principle for that reason.

16             My question to you is:  Do you agree with me that it is entirely

17     possible that 1999 report was compiled to justify the foreign financing

18     that had gone into the HHO, but the underlying documentation has never

19     surfaced so that the report itself can never be verified?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, I left it in your hands.  But these are

21     two questions, as a matter of fact.  And what you're doing at this moment

22     is, we should clearly distinguish between several issues apparently here.

23             Mr. Puhovski, you said you thought that no attention was needed

24     anymore for war crimes, but apparently foreign sponsors were pushing for

25     war crime activities.  Is that how I understand -- I have to understand

Page 16135

 1     your testimony?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't say that they exerted

 3     pressure.  A decision had to be made to stop receiving certain funds,

 4     which the committee was in dire need of.  So it was that sort of

 5     pressure, financial pressure.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand that.  But -- and some of you

 7     thought that continuation of paying attention to war crimes would favour

 8     further funding by these foreign sponsors.

 9             Is that well understood?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I repeat, unless I'm mistaken, we

11     had a three-year contract.  My suggestion was that we should terminate

12     the contract, because I believed that we had done everything that was in

13     our power.  This would mean that the cash-flow would stop.  The idea was

14     not that we would be receiving these funds beyond 2000.  Rather, we were

15     under the contract, supposed to receive the funds until the end of 1999,

16     whereas my suggestion was that we should stop it -- that we should

17     terminate the contract with the beginning of 1998 and close down the

18     department that dealt with these issues.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No further attention for war crimes and ending a

20     contract which would fund such activities.  That was your position.

21             Now, finally, do I understand that this funding continued and

22     that that department paying attention to war crimes continue its

23     activities?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until the end of 1999, yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, Mr. Misetic did put a question to you in

Page 16136

 1     which he implied, more or less, that paying further attention to war

 2     crimes would also mean that you would have the maximum number of

 3     allegations on war crimes.

 4             Now, paying attention to investigating war crimes and getting the

 5     highest number of war crimes is -- is not exactly the same.  If -- did

 6     you ever feel any pressure to focus on investigation of war crimes; or

 7     did you also feel, perhaps, pressure to produce as many war crimes as

 8     possible, or allegations of war crimes?

 9             Was it just the subject, or was it also the result, the outcome

10     of such investigations?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had a very long conversation

12     about this in 1996 with Mr. Ari Neiyer [phoen] who was in charge of that

13     field of work of the Soros Foundation which was our main sponsor.

14     Mr. Neiyer is one of the world renowned experts for the investigation of

15     war crimes and violations of human rights.  When he came to see our team

16     again in 1997, he kept alerting us to the fact that we should rather

17     leave out some of the allegations rather than publish them and be proved

18     wrong.

19             In his capacity as a donor, he insisted on us being very careful

20     with figures, and it seemed a reasonable position to me.  The pressure,

21     the financial pressure, that is, was on the topic itself and not on the

22     numbers.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then perhaps there is one element in your

24     question which has not been answered yet, and perhaps you put it to the

25     witness, that is about whether the underlying documentation was kept away

Page 16137

 1     in order to -- I leave that to you.

 2             MR. MISETIC:  If I can follow up on that question first.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             MR. MISETIC:

 5        Q.   Professor, that is what happened in 1996.  However, with respect

 6     to what happened after you left, and your resignation letter talks and

 7     you've testified now about Mr. Cicak engaging in certain political

 8     activities.  But my question is this:  You understand that there were

 9     hundreds of thousands of dollars that were put into the HHO by these

10     foreign donors.  Correct?

11        A.   Yes.  At a certain point in time, we received some 500.000

12     dollars a year, let's say in 1997, 1998, the amount was worth much more

13     than it is it today.  Let me just, for the sake of illustration, tell

14     that you in 1998, my professorial salary was some 500 dollars, which is

15     more than four times lower than today, so we could say that the

16     difference was -- difference was four-fold.

17        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] [Previous translation continues] ...

18     actually, you say that in your resignation letter.  You make reference to

19     the fact that you're the only activist in the HHO, everybody else was

20     paid against professional, social, or commercial logic?

21             My point to you is that people who were getting paid as

22     professionals or under commercial logic within the HHO, you have to

23     produce results for people that are putting 500.000 dollars a year into

24     your organisation, right?

25        A.   Without any doubt.  It says 3.500.000 in the record.  That is

Page 16138

 1     error.  500.000 is what I referred to.

 2             You see the HHO had its finances secured on a basis of a

 3     long-term plan.  We had been given funds and the Soros Foundation was

 4     satisfied with the outcome of our activities.  There was no need for us

 5     to produce something in order to satisfy anybody.  The only insistence

 6     was that we should continue our investigations into the war crimes which

 7     was something that I felt was pointless.  But nobody asked directly or

 8     indirectly that we adjust in any way, increase or expand the results for

 9     such-and-such a purpose.

10        Q.   Two short questions because we're coming up on a break, and I

11     would like to finish before the break.

12             First, was it understood, was it not, that as a result of this

13     financing there had to be some final report by the HHO.  Correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   Second, you have talked about Mr. Mrkalj was afraid of the

16     Croatian intelligence services and therefore hid the underlying

17     information at home.

18             My question is posing an alternative, which is that Mr. Mrkalj

19     kept the underlying information not only outside the HHO but never gave

20     it to the Office of the Prosecutor, to Croatian prosecutors, or the

21     Croatian police, because he knew that the report, in 1999, didn't have

22     supporting underlying documentation for all of the allegations in it.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Frolich.

24             MS. FROLICH:  Objection, Mr. President.  Again, this is calling

25     for speculation on what Mrkalj' motives might have been.

Page 16139

 1             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but we could ask Mr. Misetic --

 3             MR. MISETIC:  If I could make a response.  She's put into

 4     evidence on direct what Mrkalj was afraid of the intelligence services,

 5     so if that's speculation --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I understood that to be that -- what we should

 7     ask the witness is whether Mr. Mrkalj told him any such thing or whether

 8     there is in the fact to his knowledge, which would be in line or not in

 9     line with either the one or the other explanation.  That is -- we'll ask

10     the witness for facts, and I leave it in your hands, Mr. Misetic.

11             MR. MISETIC:

12        Q.   The Judge is asking for facts, Professor, but my question is also

13     tied to your experience in the HHO.  Your knowledge, intimate knowledge

14     of the internal workings of that organisation.

15             First, did Mr. Mrkalj tell you explicitly that he didn't want the

16     underlying information to come to light because it might undermine the

17     credibility of the report?

18        A.   Mr. Mrkalj spoke to me and others on the committee on several

19     occasions, and he even wrote letters about being afraid of the military

20     service.  This is no secret, and these are facts that can be corroborated

21     by the HHO archive.  He never told me anything of the sort.  When I said

22     the -- when the report was published, not a single objection was made to

23     it, save for that one, which as I said, we managed to prove the objection

24     was wrong.

25             When the report was published in photocopies in 1999 and when it

Page 16140

 1     was published as a book in 2001, we had reason to believe that everything

 2     contained in it was corroborated.  What was clear to me was that the

 3     associates working for Mr. Mrkalj wrote information on their own.  So

 4     they knew that there was underlying documentation.  I spent hours upon

 5     hours listening to the audiotapes of the interviews made in the field.  I

 6     was listening to the people working in the field, reading their notes and

 7     I was aware of their existence at the time.  Unfortunately, I don't know

 8     where the material is today.  I can testify that in 1995, 1996, and 1997,

 9     the material did exist.  I cannot vouch for the entire report, of course,

10     but I can vouch for the parts of it for which I did the debriefing.

11        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, Professor Puhovski, for your testimony.

12             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, I ask that the exhibit on the screen

13     be marked, and I tender it into evidence.

14             MS. FROLICH:  No objection, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1330, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  D1330 is admitted into evidence.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, pursuant to what I said on the

19     record yesterday, we have put together a bar table submission for the

20     remaining documents concerning Mr. Puhovski's testimony.  It has been

21     submitted to the OTP, and I'm advised that OTP has no objection.  I could

22     be wrong, obviously but ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Frolich.

24             MS. FROLICH:  If I could have until after the break to just

25     verify that once again.  Thank you very much.  But --

Page 16141

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Another 25 minutes.

 2             MS. FROLICH:  Yes, thank you.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic, you were so kind to offer the

 5     underlying census material to add to the material.  The Chamber would

 6     appreciate if could you add that.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  That will in our bar table then as well,

 8     Mr. President.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             We will have a break, and we will resume at 11.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

14             Mr. Puhovski, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Mikulicic.

15     Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Markac.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor Puhovski.

20        A.   Good morning.

21        Q.   Since we're speaking the same language, I would like to ask you

22     to pause between my question and your answer, so that the interpreters

23     may do their job properly.

24        A.   All right.

25        Q.   Mr. Puhovski, during your testimony, you were asked and discussed

Page 16142

 1     the methodology whereby the HHO activists collected information and data.

 2     You also said that you -- HHO activists verified data by returning to the

 3     same place where they got the data from to verify what they were told.

 4             At the time, was it possible to obtain official data from the

 5     police, the competent state prosecutor or judiciary, at large?

 6        A.   In my experience, it -- the top of the police structure,

 7     Minister Jarnjak and assistant Benko were cooperative.  But out in the

 8     field, cooperation with local police stations was very difficult,

 9     particularly in the first couple of months in autumn in 1995 and

10     spring-time 1996.  There was virtually no cooperation at all.

11             Another thing.  The local population were afraid of the police

12     and official organs, and we saw some documents, corroborate that when it

13     was stated that they addressed with their concerns us and not the local

14     police because they found it more acceptable.

15             The third problem was -- my experience was that the top brass of

16     the police did not receive data from the field immediately, and with

17     Mr. Jarnjak and Mr. Benko, I spoke on several occasions, and I found out

18     that they were misinformed.  But after a while it would transpire that

19     what data they had did not correspond to the state of affairs in the

20     field.  I attribute that to the poor organisation of the network of the

21     institutions in the area that had been reintegrated into Croatia, and

22     this meant that they most probably were not ready.

23        Q.   This was supposed to be my next question, Mr. Puhovski.  You are

24     aware, of course, that in the newly liberated territory, the Croatian

25     authorities, and by this I mean the police and the judiciary, did not --

Page 16143

 1     had not functioned for more than four years, and that they had to

 2     re-establish institutions of the system anew.

 3             Did this circumstance -- was recognised by the HHO in their

 4     reports and in their work?

 5        A.   Yes, we had to recognise that because or activists confronted

 6     this situation daily, the situation where what was required of the

 7     authorities did not work or their functioning was negative towards Serb

 8     citizens.  There were negative reaction towards them.

 9             In several months of the Autumn of 1995, we had 50 reports by

10     people who claimed that they had been kicked out of police stations

11     whenever they entered them to seek service, and when they introduced

12     themselves and it could be concluded that they were Serbs from their

13     names and family names.  Some things could not progress further, but the

14     problem was that it was claimed that everything was going okay, that the

15     civilian authorities had taken control over the whole territory and that

16     the whole territory had been reintegrated into the rest of the country,

17     but for months after August 1995, this did not hold.

18        Q.   Without a doubt, it followed from the political will.

19        A.   Yes, from the very top of the leadership.

20        Q.   When you talk about HHO activists a couple of days ago, you said

21     something about their educational and professional profile or background.

22             My question is:  Among the HHO activists were there any people

23     who had received any forensic or criminology training or background to

24     recognise the situation out in the field?

25        A.   Unfortunately, no.

Page 16144

 1        Q.   I noticed, Mr. Puhovski, in the HHO's report - that's 65 ter

 2     4674 - that very often, or as a rule, the Croatian term murder and

 3     killing is being used.

 4             Will you agree with me that that term has some legal

 5     connotations, which presumes an act of illegal termination of another

 6     person's life.  And the accent is on "illegal"?

 7        A.   That's no doubt about that.  I answered that -- by Mr. Misetic

 8     yesterday.  We use the term in a context which is not strictly legal

 9     discourse.  I repeat, this report was not meant to be a report for a

10     judicial institution.

11             On the other hand, our understanding was that it went exclusively

12     for people who were unlawfully killed.  We did not deal with the loss of

13     life during the military action.  If that happened, we noted it as such,

14     and in that case, certainly the word "murder" was not used.

15        Q.   But I presume you will agree with me, Professor Puhovski, that

16     attribution of an unlawful act in the term "murder" by nature, would

17     follow from a forensic process or some other process that would determine

18     that this was so, and this is not something that would be prima vista --

19     be obvious to somebody who has no forensic training?

20        A.   There's no dispute about that.  We did not use the term in its

21     legal sense, although if you take a look at the description carefully, in

22     many cases, it corresponds to the technical or legal sense of the word,

23     but this term, I repeat, was used in colloquial sense of the word and not

24     strictly legal or technical sense of it.

25        Q.   In your statement - and that would be?

Page 16145

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   In your 2007 statement, which is P2316, MFI, in paragraph 10, you

 3     state that in mid-August 1995, you were briefly visiting Knin.

 4             Please tell me, was that your only visit to the Sector South that

 5     -- the area that the indictment deals with, that visit from mid-August

 6     1995?

 7        A.   My statement was in 2007.  It says here in the transcript 1997.

 8        Q.   Well, could be my mistake or a typo.

 9        A.   I visited Knin only once in that period, as late as December 1995

10     for an hour or two, en route to somewhere else, and that was a period

11     when we were engaged in -- in our first review of the area, and I was

12     there for a couple of hours.

13        Q.   In paragraph 11 of this statement, you say that your impression

14     was that the police did not function properly, and you corroborated that

15     by the fact that during your journeys, despite the presence of

16     check-points in the territory, you were never stopped or questioned about

17     what was -- what you were doing there.

18             Professor Puhovski, had you been stopped and questioned, would

19     this argumento a contrario mean that you were denied access to the area,

20     which was the subject of the activities of the Croatian Helsinki

21     Committee?

22        A.   I cannot speak as an expert.  It seemed logical to me that it --

23     that each person passing there would have to be stopped and questioned.

24     I had a letter explaining my mission there.  It was in the glove

25     compartment of my car, but I didn't reach for it even once because nobody

Page 16146

 1     asked me to show any kind of document.  I encountered two policemen that

 2     I knew -- sorry, not policemen, soldiers.  They just waved me through.  I

 3     presumed that they recognised me.  Both were my students.  But this not

 4     seem professional control over territory, in my view, and these were not

 5     my journeys, just one single journey when I was passing through these

 6     places that this happened to me.

 7        Q.   Professor Puhovski, without false modesty, then and now, you are

 8     a public figure and easily recognizable throughout Croatia.  Is it not

 9     the case?

10        A.   Yes.  I was a public figure, but I was not popular, as it were.

11     I was not focus of much public love.  I was a bit hated, rather being

12     loved by the public.

13        Q.   When, in your testimony, you discuss the facts indicated by the

14     HHO's report, on several occasions you stated that that report was

15     publicised, was sent to more than 300 addressees, and that you never

16     received any refutals of the facts listed in that report.

17             Do you think, Professor Puhovski, that absence of refutal may

18     lead us to conclude that the facts contained in the report are credible?

19        A.   There was a refutal by the minister of the interior and minister

20     of the justice, but we proved them wrong.  They claimed that one person

21     from the list of casualties was alive.  We did not find that they were

22     right, but this prompted us to report -- to publish this report as a

23     book, because two years had passed since its publication in the

24     photocopied form, and we believed that those two years were ample time

25     for all the reactions and feedback.  Reactions were negative, but they

Page 16147

 1     were of an ideological nature.  We were claimed to be Serbian mercenaries

 2     or the servants of an international Jewish conspiracy but nobody disputed

 3     the facts.

 4        Q.   Let's take a look at an example, much exploited at the time and

 5     still, and it concerns the incidents at the village of Grubori in P231 --

 6     no, correction.  4674, on page 54 in the English version or page 56 in

 7     Croatian.  What is discussed is that in the village of Grubori, a man,

 8     identified as Milos Grubor was shot behind his ear, and then I will quote

 9     part of that report.

10             "Further on there was another house with a body on the floor in a

11     room.  We could not see who it was (Ivo Grubor born 1930, note PM)"  I

12     assume that stands for Petar Mrkalj.  These are his initials.

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   "The person talking to us said that he had brought the body

15     during the afternoon while we were not there.  When he turned the body

16     over, the scene was horrible."

17        A.   I'm being shown the wrong page.

18             In the e-court version, that would be page 54; and in the printed

19     book, 53; English version 56.

20        Q.   So on the right-hand side of the screen, you have the right page.

21             And the last sentence of this paragraph that I'm quoting is:

22     "His throat was slashed in two."

23             Furthermore it is stated:

24             "Inhabitants of Grubori were killed by members of the special

25     place, and for that reason until today the Republic of Croatia has not

Page 16148

 1     recognised this grave incident, has not investigated it, and has not

 2     provided answers to queries."

 3             In footnote number 48, there is reference to Alun Roberts, UN

 4     spokesperson in his interview to the Voice of America on the 11th of

 5     September, 1995, as your source.

 6             Mr. Puhovski, you are familiar with the incidents in the village

 7     of Grubori?

 8        A.   It is.

 9        Q.   Is it known to you that because of the incident in the village of

10     Grubori investigation has been initiated, that it's still ongoing, and

11     that it has not been possible to identify the immediate perpetrators of

12     this incident if it were a crime or criminal offence?

13        A.   It seemed to us that the description of facts could correspond to

14     a description of a criminal offence, but let the judiciary deal with

15     that.

16             We found about that when Mr. Bajic became state prosecutor

17     general, 15 years after the fact.  While we were preparing this report,

18     we did not know that an investigation had been initiated because we were

19     not given any information to that effect.

20        Q.   Professor Puhovski, let me acquaint with you one fact.

21             Before this Trial Chamber a Mr. Zganger testified who, at the

22     critical time, was a prosecutor in Sibenik.  And it was within his

23     jurisdiction that the investigation into this crime took place.  He

24     testified here and told us that an investigation was launched and that

25     there were great difficulties.  But we will get back to that later.

Page 16149

 1             Mr. Puhovski, look at this quotation which I think has to be

 2     attributed to Alun Roberts which says that he was presented when the

 3     inhabitants of the village of Grubori practically manipulated the dead

 4     body, turned it over, brought it out from the field into the house.  Will

 5     you agree with me that this sort of conduct, to say the least, does not

 6     contribute to the establishment of facts and traces on the ground.

 7             MS. FROLICH:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Frolich.

 9             MS. FROLICH:  I think it is inaccurate to say that Mr. Roberts

10     said that was present when people manipulated bodies.  That is not what

11     the quote says.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  If there is any doubt as to whether a quote is

13     accurately summarized, you're invited, Mr. Mikulicic, as usual, to put

14     exactly to the witness what you refer to.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  I understand, Your Honour.  I will quote the

16     sentence which begins after the brackets and it says:

17             "[Interpretation] The man who spoke with us told us that he had

18     brought the body over in the course of the afternoon while we were not

19     there.  When he turned the body over, the scene was horrific.  His throat

20     had been splashed in two."

21             Footnote 48 Alun Roberts, the UN spokesperson in Glas America --

22     Voice of America, on September 11, 1995.

23             Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my conclusion is that the quotation is

24     to be attributed to Mr. Alun Roberts.

25             Would you agree with me, Mr. Puhovski?

Page 16150

 1        A.   There is no doubt about the fact that this is something that

 2     Mr. Alun Roberts said.  Let me go back to your earlier question.  There

 3     were dozens of cases where individuals removed bodies to other locations.

 4     I heard audiotapes of people saying we placed the grandma on the bed to

 5     make it more comfortable for her.  Of course, the grandma was dead.

 6             These were traditional customs.  People were not used to having

 7     individuals and in violent death.  People died of natural causes there.

 8     Throughout the war, the ethnic Serb population fully mistrusted the

 9     Croatian authorities.  They did not expect anyone to show up and even

10     less to show up and behave properly.  I'm telling you that there were

11     certain reasons there, there was idealogy there, but there were also some

12     expectations on their part.  Even those who knew something about it or

13     who didn't know anything about it did not think it necessary to wait for

14     the professionals, for the forensic officers to arrive, for the policemen

15     to arrive.  They simply wanted to put the -- sort things out, to get in

16     touch with the relatives, and to get in touch with an institution.  And

17     most often that was the Helsinki Committee.

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Puhovski.  On the issue of the atmosphere that was

19     pervasive in what was formerly in the Republic of Serbian Krajina and

20     their attitude toward the Croatian authorities, this is something that we

21     will get back to later.

22             What is being described here is a very, very ugly fact which is

23     that Mr. Jovo Grubor was killed and that he met his death by having had

24     his throat cut in two.

25             Similarly we were able to see a video, P2321, where the same

Page 16151

 1     statement was made by General Forand, who was commander of Sector South.

 2     This assertion that a man has had his throat cut found its way into the

 3     UN report and into the report of the HHO.  And I will put the following

 4     question to you, Mr. Puhovski.

 5             Let us first see on our screens the dead body of Jovo Grubor.

 6     This is the photograph which is part of D1245.

 7             While we're waiting for the photograph to appear, let me tell you

 8     that Dr. Clark appeared here as an expert witness for the Prosecution,

 9     and he gave his expert findings here.  He is a pathologist, who was

10     present when a number of dead bodies that were exhumed in the area of

11     Sector South were autopsied.  He, himself, produced an autopsy report for

12     Mr. Jovo Grubor.  It is beyond doubt, he explained to the Trial Chamber

13     here, that's at transcript page 14278, line 23, through to 14281, that a

14     wound could that be observed on the neck of the body of Mr. Jovo Grubor

15     does not originate from a wound -- from a -- from a knife.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:

18        Q.   [Interpretation]  [Previous translation continues] ... but from a

19     bullet which is the source of the wound.

20             Were you ever aware of this?

21        A.   No.  I told your learned friend yesterday that on several

22     occasions it so happened that the individuals would exaggerate the state

23     in which the dead body was, and this was down to the shock and not much

24     more.  We did not have other possibilities than to publicise the

25     information which was confirmed by two independent reports.  This was

Page 16152

 1     information that was gathered by internationals who should have been

 2     professionals.  It was not the case that a niece found the body of

 3     Mr. Jovo Grubor, and then she could be justified in exaggerating the

 4     condition in which the body was, which is something that we come across

 5     quite often.  These were officers, and we had no reason to doubt what

 6     they said.  This is all can I tell you in our defence.  Now, when it

 7     comes to this story about it actually being a bullet rather than a knife,

 8     this is something that I was not aware of.

 9        Q.   Mr. Puhovski, let's be quite clear.  You're not a position to

10     state anything in your defence or in the defence of the Croatian Helsinki

11     Committee.  We're simply speaking about the facts here.

12        A.   And I'm trying to clarify them.

13        Q.   Similarly in your evidence so far you spoke of the issue of

14     evacuation.  I want to refer you to part of the report of the HHO,

15     specifically page 15 of the Croatian version and 16 of the English

16     version in e-court, and that's page 14 of the printed version.

17             There, the statement of Nedelijka Draca is reported, who said

18     that the information for evacuation was received by the population on the

19     2nd, and what is meant, of course, is the month of August, and the order

20     to pack was received on the evening of the 3rd August.  She goes on to

21     say that on the 4th of August, in the morning, people started moving out

22     in the direction of Donji Lapac.  That's when the exodus started.

23             You, the HHO activists, based on your fieldwork came to conclude

24     that the evacuation of the Serb population was both organised an ordered.

25     Is that right?

Page 16153

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   In the next paragraph, Mrs. Draca said that the people were

 3     notified by our leadership, and she is referring to the leadership of the

 4     Republic of Serbian Krajina.  The people were instilled great fear from

 5     the Croatian army.  We had to avoid that.  Those of us who were not

 6     fleeing hid very well to make sure that they did not find us.  Otherwise,

 7     we would have to be running or else be killed by Serbs.  They went from

 8     house to house to check if people were indeed leaving.

 9             Mr. Puhovski, this fact related to evacuation, was it an

10     exception, or was it something that the HHO activists were able to

11     ascertain in their fieldwork, were things that happened again and again?

12        A.   We were able to establish this in a number of locations in Sector

13     South.  As far as I know, in Sector North, there were certain areas where

14     the decision to evacuate was sabotaged.  Things unfolded differently

15     there.

16             Practically in all the cases known to us in Sector South, this is

17     what things were like.

18        Q.   Mr. Puhovski, let me show you a part of the statement on this

19     particular issue, which was given before this Tribunal in the case

20     against Slobodan Milosevic by Djuro Matovina.  That's at page 11.000,

21     line 7, where the witness says -- and I will quote it in English.

22             "[In English] Jovan Raskovic's speech was another speech of

23     hatred.  Inciting hatred between Serbs and Croats living in that area.

24     Among other things he said, I remember one, he said that there is no

25     future for Serbs in the independent state of Croatia, that another

Page 16154

 1     Ustasha government is in power, that if Serbs want autonomy and ask for

 2     it, they should have it.  And he ended his speech with the words, Serb

 3     brothers, see you in Krajina.  You will have no happiness in the Ustasha

 4     states."

 5             [Interpretation] This takes me back to the topic you broached a

 6     moment ago, Mr. Puhovski, which is the fear-inducing atmosphere, the aim

 7     being to instill fear in the Serbs from the Croatian authorities as an

 8     Ustasha authorities, which is something that had been present throughout

 9     the duration of the Serbian Krajina.

10             Would you agree with this fact?

11        A.   This is, indeed, the truth.

12        Q.   For the benefit of the Their Honours, I wish to refer you to the

13     statements given by witnesses Sovilj, Sava Mirkovic, Jovan Vojnovic, and

14     protected witness number 15.

15             With regard to the atmosphere that was systematically being

16     induced by the authorities of the so-called Republic of the Serbian

17     Krajina, there exists another important witness statement of which I will

18     read a paragraph to you, and then ask you to comment upon it.

19             MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]  Can I have the registrar's

20     assistance.  This is document 1D41-0214.

21             MS. FROLICH:  [Previous translation continues] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Frolich.

23             MS. FROLICH:  I hesitate to rise because I'm sure that foundation

24     has already been laid, and, Mr. Mikulicic, I would like to remind of the

25     procedure of putting other statements to the witness.

Page 16155

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that you have already questioned the

 2     witness about what you want to put to him now.

 3             MR. MIKULICIC:  I did, Your Honour.  That is referring to the

 4     atmosphere which was prevailed in the Krajina state at those times.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation]  What we are about to read now, Mr. Puhovski, is

 8     the statement by witness Slobodan Lazarovic.  He gave a statement to the

 9     OTP investigators in 1999.  I am at page 25 of the B/C/S version and page

10     26 of the English version.

11             Allow me to read a paragraph to you.

12              "In 1995, the life in Krajina became even harder for the local

13     population.  It seemed as if everyone had gone mad.  People felt that

14     they were imprisoned in that back of the beyond without any future.  They

15     decided to resolve any dispute they had with arms.  A great many people

16     participated in the killings of Croats in 1991 and later.  Those who did

17     not saw that the killings were being condoned, tolerated, by the official

18     level.  Once there were no Croats left there, violence spread among the

19     Serbs themselves.  The problem was further aggravated by the fact that

20     the population was fully militarised.  All the men aged between 18 and 65

21     were mobilized, but there were also volunteers who were only 16 years

22     old, and those who were as old as 75.  All of them were armed, and the

23     law dictated that they should all wear their uniforms at all times,

24     regardless of whether they were on duty or not."

25             This portion of the statement, Mr. Puhovski, depicts the

Page 16156

 1     atmosphere and the situation in the Republic of Serbian Krajina prior to

 2     Operation Storm.  Will you agree with me that inducing such an atmosphere

 3     among the population at large was one of the prerequisites for an

 4     evacuation to take place in the days preceding Operation Storm and which

 5     was to take place during Operation Storm?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Professor Puhovski, are you aware of the fact - and this is

 8     something that the HHO's report speaks of - that the population which

 9     fled the Serbian Republic of Krajina fled to first Bosnia-Herzegovina and

10     later on to Serbia.  And in Serbia, which was the Federal Republic of

11     Yugoslavia at the time, they were rechannelled to go to Kosovo, that

12     parts of motorways were cordoned off in order to provide -- to channel

13     them or funnel them through toward Kosovo.

14             Are you aware of that fact?

15        A.   I am aware of that from newspaper articles and primarily from the

16     writings of the institute for -- Fund for Humanitarian Law which

17     primarily dealt with the matter.

18        Q.   Thank you for your answer.

19             Let me go back, while we still have the document on the screen,

20     to the following passage of Mr. Lazarovic's statement, and that would be

21     page 27 in the B/C/S version, or page 28 in the English version.

22             He states:

23             "Rumours were spread that the Ustashas would kill all of the

24     civilians, and I am aware of some individuals who actually were tasked

25     with going around to spread rumours to the effect that the Ustashas were

Page 16157

 1     slaughtering children.  Under such circumstances no one is going to stay

 2     around to find out if the rumours are true or not.  They are just going

 3     to leave.  I myself concocted a story of civilians being massacred by the

 4     Muslims of the 5th Corps of the BH army in Topuska which got reported on

 5     CNN.  There was no truth to the story at all."

 6             Professor Puhovski, did you actually learn that such false

 7     stories were spread to instill fear in the local population?

 8        A.   Propaganda was spread which was based on lies; but not,

 9     unfortunately, always in all cases based on lies.

10        Q.   Furthermore, Slobodan Lazarovic on page 28 in the B/C/S and page

11     20 --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Mikulicic

13     you are referring to the Slobodan Lazarovic statement.  Could you give us

14     a clue as far as numbers are concerned.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  This is an ID, 410190.  And I'm referring --

16     that's a translation.  And I'm referring to the English version.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But this Chamber has no access to --

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  I believe it's on the screen now,

19     Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  It's on the screen.  Yes.  Thank you.

21             MR. MIKULICIC:  I'm now referring to the page 28 in the B/C/S

22     version, and corresponding page in English version is - let me check.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I was primarily asking because the statement of

24     Mr. Lazarovic has been used at earlier occasions, and I just couldn't

25     find whether [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 16158

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Indeed, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... It was never tendered and

 3     admitted because --

 4             MR. MISETIC:  That was the subject of our 92 bis motion which was

 5     denied, so we are now trying to --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's what I just wanted to get clear again.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Allow me another quote.

12             Mr. Lazarovic talks with the OTP investigators and says:

13             "Krajina Serbs in their majority had left before Croatian forces

14     reached them.  Most of them went to Bosnia or to Republika Srpska.  At

15     one border crossing into Republika Srpska, the authorities of the

16     Republika Srpska closed that border crossing down and forced the refugees

17     to pay 100 Deutschemarks for crossing over into their territory."

18             Next paragraph:

19             "Given the atmosphere of fear which had been rehashed over the

20     preceding four years, and the tactic of instilling fear which was used

21     after the Croatian offensive had started, very few Serbs were willing to

22     stay in Topusko.  People were -- people there were in a state of mass

23     panic, and a number of Serbs shot each other in dispute."

24             On the next page, and I will finish quoting Mr. Lazarovic.

25             "However, when we reached Serbia we were treated as criminals.

Page 16159

 1     We were all frisked, our weapons were taken away, and only then were we

 2     allowed to continue on your way.  But when we entered Serbia we saw that

 3     the police had blocked all exits from the motorway.  They did so in an

 4     attempt to force the refugees to continue towards Kosovo."

 5             Professor Puhovski, my question is, following from your

 6     testimony.  Is it correct that the evacuation plan that had been prepared

 7     in the Republic of Serbian Krajina was a continuation of a plan for the

 8     refugee citizens of Serb ethnicity to be settled in Kosovo, as a

 9     counterweight to the Albanian population of the then Serbian province of

10     Kosovo?

11        A.   What I can repeat what I said in public about that, there were

12     two reasons on the part of the Serbian leadership or the then Yugoslav

13     leadership, one was to dismerge the predominantly positive image of

14     Croatia as a victim of aggression.  And the second was to obtain some

15     ethnic Serb population to change the ethnic composition of the province

16     of Kosovo, Koseva.

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  [Previous translation continues] ... into the

18     evidence, please.

19             MS. FROLICH:  I object, Mr. President.  The Prosecution has not

20     had a chance to test this evidence in these proceedings, so, therefore,

21     at this stage we would object.

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  But this is an official OTP document.

23             MS. FROLICH:  Yes.  But it was taken for a different proceedings,

24     and we -- we have even statements taken perhaps for the purpose of these

25     proceedings have been MFI if the witness has not appeared.  We strongly

Page 16160

 1     object to the admission of this evidence without the evidence of the

 2     witness being heard.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, first of all, you have read a part of

 4     a statement to the witness and then you asked him something which was --

 5     well, to some extent related to it, so this witness testified about his

 6     knowledge.

 7             Now, under what Rule would you like to have the statement to be

 8     admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  As a corroborative statement to the testifying of

10     present witness, Mr. Puhovski.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But if this is a statement which is prepared

12     for the purposes of the proceedings before this Tribunal, then, of

13     course, if you would have it tendered under Rule 92 bis, that is, without

14     cross-examination, then you know what the requirements are, isn't it?

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, I am aware of it, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And then the Chamber, an application is usually

17     made, and then the Chamber will decide whether the witness should be

18     called for cross-examination, yes or no.  We have no attestation from

19     this witness.  So, therefore, it looks as if the requirements of

20     Rule 92 bis are not met.  And I just inquired, and Mr. Misetic told me,

21     yes, we wanted to have it admitted under Rule 92 bis, and the Chamber

22     denied that.

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  That was a different situation at that time.  But

24     really I don't want to have an another argument on it.  We will try to

25     prepare a motion on it, and then we could have a Trial Chamber's ruling.

Page 16161

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I will have to dive again into the

 2     circumstances which led us at that time to decide as we did.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course, there is another matter, the timing.

 6     Apparently, you want to have the witness to testify before this Chamber

 7     on behalf of the Defence.  Now, we have had situations where statements

 8     were taken by the Defence during the Prosecution's case, and at some

 9     moments there was no disagreement on how to proceed with that.  But, of

10     course, the introduction of a 92 bis or a 92 ter at this stage of te

11     proceedings requested by the Defence is ...  but I will first have to

12     look again into the earlier decision on the matter.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Professor Puhovski, I would like to ask you to

16     comment, and while we're waiting for the document to appear, which is

17     3D00-0212, in your testimony and in your statement you said that while

18     the report is being prepared you were not aware that the Croatian

19     authorities were undertaken investigations into incidents that may

20     indicate a commission of a criminal offence.

21             Did you learn later how many cases there were concerning crimes

22     that were committed during or after Operation Storm?

23        A.   We received information only when Mr. Bajic became state

24     prosecutor general, and they -- that's information indicated in a large

25     number of cases, but also -- it is indicated that the qualifications of

Page 16162

 1     the criminal offence was not war crime.

 2        Q.   What we see on the screen is a letter by the Croatian public

 3     Prosecutor's office to a law firm Mikulicic, Loncaric, Bahun, Topic on

 4     criminal offences committed during and after Operation Storm.

 5             If we look at page 3 of this document.  If you do so, we can see

 6     a summary of the number of criminal offences, the number of proceedings,

 7     almost 4.000 criminal offences.  Then the document discusses how many

 8     criminal reports been rejected, how many investigations were ongoing

 9     during the preparation of that document, how many charges or indictments

10     were brought.  On the next page we have a table stating that almost 2.000

11     judgements were handed down, out of which 1.500 convictions and 180

12     acquittals.

13             Furthermore, it is discussed what were the qualifications of

14     those criminal offences.  We can see it is two pages down the road,

15     criminal offences of murder, robbery, rape, and causing fire.

16             Those figures are important, Mr. Puhovski.  Did the Croatian

17     Helsinki Committee ever supplement its report on Operation Storm with the

18     data that could be provided by the state prosecutor's office?

19        A.   No.  Because, at the movement when this was published, in 2001,

20     they could have given that information, but they did not.  And I repeat

21     that I received this information a couple of years later, when this book

22     had only been published.

23             MS. FROLICH:  [Previous translation continues] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Frolich.

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

Page 16163

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection.

 2             MS. FROLICH:  No.

 3                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If there is no objection, then we should continue.

 5     But it is a bit unclear.  I was waiting for the translation where

 6     Ms. Frolich started to say something.  She more or less interrupted the

 7     answer of the witness.

 8             No objection, not against the question, not against anything.

 9             Then let's proceed.

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I'm just waiting for the

11     number.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's unclear to me.  On the -- that's why

13     I'm reading the transcript.  I do not see any tendering on the transcript

14     at this moment.  But you tendered this letter?

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  No.  I tendered the whole document, which --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I mean the one -- let me ...

17                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But just to understand fully the document.

19     Let me just have a look.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, Your Honour, if I may of any assistance.

21     It's a ten-page document which contains a cover letter from the Croatian

22     attorney office, and as an attachment, the data referring to the crimes

23     committed within or after the Operation Storm.  So it's a --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The letter is from January 2006.  By the way, I've

25     got a 11-page document.

Page 16164

 1             MR. MIKULICIC:  Maybe in English.  I counted the Croatian

 2     version.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could be a difference.

 4             Now, are you tendering this document at this moment.  Because I

 5     think the witness said - let me check that as well.

 6             Got a problem with my system.

 7             If you forgive me for one second, Mr. Mikulicic, I have to get

 8     the right transcript on my ...

 9             Yes.  You asked -- first of all, you told the witness that the

10     figures are important, that apparently is your opinion about the

11     importance.  Now, you put to the witness an overview of numbers which you

12     received in 2006.  The only thing you did is you asked witness whether he

13     considered these figures when the report was written.  He said, no,

14     because it wasn't there at that time.

15             Now, what -- how does the chamber have to understand tendering

16     this document for the truth of its content or --

17             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, absolutely.  But this document

18     was not prepared in 2006.  This document was --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it was sent to you in 2006.

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yeah.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And let's then have a closer look at the document.

22             MR. MIKULICIC:  There is only the portion of a more voluminous

23     document, which is already, I believe, in possession of the Office of the

24     Prosecutor of this fine Tribunal.  This is it only a portion of this huge

25     document which is dealing with the criminal offences connected with

Page 16165

 1     Bljesak and Oluja operations.  So it shows --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  Yes, but what is in the

 3     hands of the Prosection is not our concern, Mr. Mikulicic.  Our concern

 4     is --

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Our concern is what we are supposed to do with this

 7     information, because the witness just said, I wasn't aware of it.  Well,

 8     now, if we would accept every document where a witness comes and says,

 9     I'm not aware of that, to have it then tendered for the truth of the

10     content, that, of course, would be -- well, I would give, I would say,

11     great opportunities to all parties to get everything into evidence.  They

12     wish to have in evidence without any -- so, therefore, I'm just inquiring

13     with you the background of this [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  Yes, with all due

15     respect, Your Honour, if I may of assistance, the witness said in his

16     testimony that he was not aware that the Croatian authorities has been

17     conducted some investigations on or procedures before the judicial system

18     in Croatia concerning to the crimes committed during or after the

19     Operation Storm.

20             This document officially delivered by the Croatian attorney

21     office, general attorney office, has established the fact that there has

22     been a lot of these investigations, so that the part of the witness's

23     testimony that he isn't aware is not necessary the fact that we have to

24     combine with -- that there was no such investigation and procedures.

25             So that was my point, just the point of fact that the Chamber

Page 16166

 1     could be aware of the numerous procedures that has been undertaken

 2     concerning the crimes committed during or after the Operation Storm.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's exactly now the point I want to -- I can

 4     follow you to the extent that this document contradicts apparently what

 5     the witness said.

 6             Now, so either of them must be not accurate.  Now, if you say,

 7     This is the reflection of what is the real truth and, therefore, please

 8     accept on the basis of this document, that the witness is not telling us

 9     what happened, but that this document tells us what happened, leaving

10     apart a third possibility that neither the witness nor the document tells

11     us what happened.  But to say that this is for the accuracy of this

12     document and, of course, I tend to agree with you that these figures are

13     important, to introduce this through this witness may ask for some

14     further consideration.

15             MR. MIKULICIC:  Perhaps we may ask the witness whether he is now

16     aware of those proceedings that has been -- that has been introduced

17     after the -- after the Operation Storm has finished.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whether or not that is -- we could ask him.

19             Mr. Puhovski, could you tell us, did you become aware of a large

20     number of prosecutions in relation to offences committed during

21     Operation Storm, after you had written the report?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have already said, I received

23     from Mr. Mladen Bajic, the state prosecutor general, roughly a similar

24     document, and I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of it.  At the

25     time of the drafting and publishing of the report, none of it was

Page 16167

 1     information known to either us or the public at large.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But you -- and you said you have no reasons to

 3     doubt the figures given.  It's not in contradiction with what you learned

 4     from other sources.  Is that ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll repeat.  To my knowledge, the

 6     information contained therein is accurate.  We were not either primarily

 7     or secondarily engaged in trying to find out who was responsible.  We

 8     wanted to ascertain the facts.  We were not able to know anything about

 9     these proceedings because they were not referred to in public, save for

10     two or three exceptions, like the Varivode case, and especially not in

11     this summarily way, not until Mr. Mladen Bajic assumed the position of

12     the state prosecutor general.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm just trying to also have a look at the

14     document so that I know what exactly, apart from the quoted portions, we

15     find in it.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The document being tendered for the truth of its

18     content.

19             Ms. Frolich.

20             MS. FROLICH:  Yes.  As I said before, there are no objections to

21     the admissibility, but I would just like to draw the Chamber's attention

22     to the -- to the kinds of statistics that are put in this report as well

23     as to the fact that it listed crimes committed linked to the Flash and

24     Storm military operations.  It doesn't break down any further recording,

25     for example, exactly what types of proceedings were initiated for

Page 16168

 1     Operation Storm, as opposed to Operation Flash, against whom, what type

 2     of perpetrator, what ethnicity of perpetrator and victim, et cetera.

 3     When these proceedings were initiated all these are relevant factors to

 4     be taken into consideration by the Chamber when deciding what weight to

 5     attach to this document.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

 7             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, that could be part of some other document,

 8     but as it concerns to this one, I'm only referring to the figures that

 9     has been put down by the Attorney General of the Republic of Croatia.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will have a look at.  If it could be

11     marked for identification for the time being, then the Chamber will

12     decide on admission.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be given

14     Exhibit D1331, marked for identification.  Thank you, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

16             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Professor Puhovski, your line of profession

18     strictly speaking is not sociology, is it?

19        A.   I'm a professor of philosophy, social -- political sciences and

20     social philosophy.

21        Q.   But I do presume that in your line of work you had to deal with

22     certain sociological issues, at least that is how you presented it during

23     your evidence.  Is that right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Are you familiar with the book by professor Ozren Zunec?  He is a

Page 16169

 1     professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb.  He refers to a

 2     sociological theory.  The book is called "The Bare Living."  And the

 3     theory is that of collective violence.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   When confronted with violence which was evidently present in the

 6     wake of Operation Storm, and where evidently a number of criminal

 7     offences was committed, Professor Zunec attempted to explain this by

 8     employing the theory of collective violence.  He said that in certain

 9     situations such violence arises as a universal phenomenon.  He draws a

10     parallel with the riots in Los Angeles in 1992 where 50.000 people were

11     involved, and where more than 50 persons were killed.  He draws a

12     parallel with Kosovo, where, after the intervention of the NATO alliance

13     in 2004, riots erupted where many homes were burned, people killed, many

14     Serbs fled.  He also cites the example of France, in 2005, et cetera.

15             Can you tell us what you know of this theory of collective

16     violence and if, in your view, it can be somehow applied to the events in

17     the aftermath of Operation Storm, in the newly liberated areas.

18        A.   In the strictly technical term, the theory of collective violence

19     is a subheading of the theory of collective action, although we shouldn't

20     go into great detail now.  Recently it has been developed as a

21     theoretical or philosophical approach at defining violence which is

22     connected with the ideological apparata of the state.  In other words,

23     the violence which the state or other bodies, but most likely the state

24     induces by creating collective identity which should somehow override

25     individual identity.  In other words, to create an atmosphere in which

Page 16170

 1     every individual in any times of crisis would automatically side with the

 2     collective, regardless of the person's own ideological or political or

 3     professional affinities.  It is connected to the theory of ethnic

 4     nationalism which was developed mostly by some of the British experts and

 5     which was used to interpret the events in Northern Ireland.  It seems to

 6     me that the interpretation advanced by Colleague Zunec, in connection

 7     with the local Croatian circumstances, is quite correct, and it does move

 8     within the realm of the theory itself and of the reality in Croatia

 9     itself.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Puhovski.  I have no further questions for you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.

12             It will depend on how many questions you would have, whether we

13     proceed before the break, Ms. Frolich.

14             MS. FROLICH:  Yes, thank you, Mr. President.  I only have a few

15     questions for the witness.  I believe we can finish before the break.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

17             MS. FROLICH:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           Re-examination by Ms. Frolich:

19        Q.   Professor Puhovski, in paragraph 15 of your 2009 statement you

20     mentioned that initially in 1995 and 1996 there was no intent to publish

21     information collected during your fact-finding missions.  I'm asking you

22     this:  Whose idea was to initiate this project of these fact-finding

23     missions and collection of information in the first place.

24        A.   Originally this was the proposal by Mr. Petar Mrkalj, on his

25     return from the first mission of the International Helsinki Federation.

Page 16171

 1     Since, at the time, I was the only member of the committee present in

 2     Zagreb, I immediately agreed with the suggestion, and, in September of

 3     1995, or in October, I can't remember correctly, when we had enough

 4     people for the Plenary session, the Plenary decided that we should embark

 5     on the fact-finding mission since it became quite evident at the time

 6     that the public was being served one-sided information.

 7        Q.   Do you know if Mr. Mrkalj was influenced by any external factors

 8     or external pressure to go and investigate the alleged incidents in the

 9     Krajina region?

10        A.   Formally speaking, as deputy president, I dispatched Mr. Mrkalj

11     to Knin, together with representatives of the IHF, so that could have

12     been some sort of pressure.  But he could have been influenced by some

13     members of the IHF team.  At the time, practically no one outside of the

14     close circle of people knew what was going on, and there could have been

15     no pressure to speak of, since the topic in relation to which pressure

16     was supposed to be exerted was not known to the public.  Once the HHO

17     decided as its Plenary that we should be dealing this, we needed further

18     two months to raise funds for that mission, which was initially primarily

19     coming from the Soros Foundation.

20        Q.   At the time of the fact-finding missions, were you given any

21     external directions on how to report and what to put emphasis on?

22        A.   We discussed this issue solely with representatives of the

23     United Nations in Croatia, with the people from the International

24     Helsinki Committee, and with the colleagues from Serbia, who were engaged

25     in similar activities in the human rights committee or the fund for

Page 16172

 1     humanitarian law.

 2             At the time these were practically the only individuals outside

 3     of Croatia whom we engaged experience with and discussed work

 4     methodology.

 5        Q.   And, lastly, when exactly did you obtain the funding to publish

 6     the report, if you could say?

 7        A.   If you're referring to the publication of the report in the form

 8     of the book, I can't tell that, because this transpired at the time when

 9     I was not on the committee.  In late 1999, when the photocopied version

10     was published, I can tell that when I became president in late 2000, the

11     documentation relevant to the book, this is something that I was privy

12     to.

13        Q.   Thank you, Professor Puhovski.

14             MS. FROLICH:  That concludes my examination, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Puhovski, I don't know whether you are familiar

18     with the issue I will raise in my question, but do you know how houses

19     were defined in the 1991 census?  Because what we have seen here

20     apparently is that there are reports about many more houses observed for

21     the purposes of whether they were damaged or not; and, at the same time,

22     we see in the 1991 census that not that number of houses apparently have

23     been establish to exist in 1991.

24             Are you aware of how houses were defined in the 1991 census?  If

25     they were defined as such.

Page 16173

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only give you an indirect

 2     answer.  I know for a fact that in the 1981 census, the following

 3     formulation was used:  Family house and the attendant farm buildings or

 4     outbuildings.

 5             As far as I know, that was the premise from which the census was

 6     made in 1981 because at the time I was involved in the process to a

 7     certain degree.

 8             I don't know how this was done in 1991.  It is quite possible

 9     that the same methodology was applied.  Let me only note that the census

10     was made at the time when Yugoslavia was already breaking up, and

11     probably whatever methodology was used, it was not applied properly.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if you say, "family houses and the attendant

13     farm buildings or outbuildings," I --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1981.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I am familiar myself with a situation where, for

16     example, in the countryside a family is living and when the parents grow

17     older, either the parents move out and live on the same yard, let's say,

18     within a distance of anything between 10 and 50 metres, create their own

19     house; or that the children move out of the parental house and live,

20     although nearby, a similar distance, and don't criticise me for whether

21     it should be 50, 70 metres, but just close to the parents.

22             Under the 1981 census such a situation where two generations

23     would live in the same -- more or less on the same farm yard, to say so,

24     would that be one house or to houses?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer depends on how many

Page 16174

 1     house numbers they were allocated.  In the countryside they would have

 2     old numbering systems.  They wouldn't have individual house numbers, but

 3     the entire village would have a number.

 4             Now, if there was one house number that referred to a given yard,

 5     in a given village, then that was normally considered to be one

 6     household.  This is something that I know from the 1981 census, though.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And whether that was still was valid in 1991,

 8     you just don't know.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  That was my question

10     to you.

11             Any need for further questions?

12             Then, Mr. Puhovski, this concludes your testimony in this court.

13     I'd like to thank you very much for not only for coming to The Hague and

14     for answering the questions put to you by the Bench and by the parties

15     but also for your patience and even for re-scheduling your return home,

16     and I hope that everything with your return this afternoon goes well.

17     Thank you.

18             Would you please follow Madam Usher.

19                           [The witness withdrew]

20                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Misetic.

22             MR. MISETIC:  Just for the record, we have been advised by the

23     Ms. Frolich that the OTP has no objection to our bar table for this

24     witness so ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the registrar is invited to provisionally

Page 16175

 1     assign numbers to them so that the Chamber can decide on admission.

 2             The Chamber has decided and puts on the record that the

 3     application for videolink for Witness 82 is granted.  Reasons to follow,

 4     but it is important that preparations can start for the videolink.

 5             I have one question for you, Mr. Mikulicic, in relation to the

 6     data that was sent to you in February 2006.

 7             The cover letter says something about reports of -- of

 8     prosecutors.  Because from the cover letter I take it that one of your

 9     specific questions was, Have there been cases in proceedings in cases of

10     persons who, according to the indictment, were killed.  So that is a far

11     more individualized question than we see from this answer.

12             Now, in the letter, I read that what is sent to you is the report

13     submitted to the government and to the president of Croatia on the

14     numbers, and it's added the records are fragmentary because of fully

15     defined methodology of recording was never agreed on, and it says we are

16     forwarding both or data and the from other sources in the hope that you

17     will find this useful for the proceedings.  And then a warning follows

18     that the data are cumulative and that the breakdown would require insight

19     in all the documents.

20             Then it says in your letter, you included the list of persons who

21     were killed, as alleged in the amended indictment, and that your request

22     to be provided with data you could use to establish a collection.  Then

23     it says that this list was forwarded to all public prosecutors, and that

24     you are sent copies of the reports submitted by them.

25             Now, the document you seek to tender into evidence, that's a

Page 16176

 1     cover letter and a report, what is attached to the cover letter?  Is that

 2     all the information you received in the response to your request?  Or

 3     have you made a selection?  For example, one of the things that might be

 4     interesting is to see how the prosecutor's report on proceedings in cases

 5     where the alleged victim appears in the indictment.  That might be quite

 6     interesting information.

 7             Have you received that?  Have you made a selection on what you

 8     attached to this letter?  Or is it everything you received?

 9             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, there are a lot of questions.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, there are.

11             MR. MIKULICIC:  I will try to answer them.

12             First, what is attached to this cover letter is only part of the

13     documents that I have received from the attorney general's office.

14             Second, I only partially received the answer to my questions,

15     whether it refers to the connection with a annexed list of the murdered

16     victims during and after the operation Storm.  This was -- this type of

17     arrangement has never been completed, not today.

18             So I just, for the purposes of that witness, compose the document

19     of 10 or 11 pages, whatever version he is counting on and try to

20     establish the fact that there was a huge number of the criminal

21     proceedings carrying on after the Operation Storm.  That was my whole

22     purpose, just to inform the Chamber that the Croatian government has been

23     taking the steps, trying to prosecute the alleged perpetrators of these

24     crimes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  At the same time, it's not limited to Storm

Page 16177

 1     and aftermath, or is it?

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, if you look at the second page of the

 3     document, then it is written that these are the crimes committed in

 4     connections with the operation Bljesak and Oluja.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So it is not limited --

 6             MR. MIKULICIC:  It is not limited.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... to Storm.

 8             MR. MIKULICIC:  No.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And for that purpose, what is to be linked to Storm

10     and what is to be linked to Flash is not to be -- cannot be deduced from

11     this document, unless we look perhaps at the areas which we find in one

12     of the later pages.

13             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  Maybe I could, later on, provide a more

14     precise document.  But the purpose of this one is just to shown up the

15     attitude of the Croatian government, and that is to prosecute the

16     perpetrators of the alleged crimes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Did in the other responses, does it appear

18     anywhere that one of the names you gave that proceedings were instituted

19     in that specific case?

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  Your Honour, quite frankly that was three years

21     ago, and I should made an additional inquiry on that topic.  I cannot say

22     at the top of my head.  But I believe, yes, at least some of them.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I fully agree, it's three years ago.  The

24     Chamber will further consider the matter.  We will first have a break.

25             Mr. Hedaraly, you don't wanted us to have a break.

Page 16178

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  I can't leave, Mr. President, so maybe I can go to

 2     a longer.  I just wanted to inform the Chamber that the next witness, I

 3     won't name him because we don't know, he has arrived.  He is at his

 4     hotel.  We have been re-informed by VWU that if we wanted to start his

 5     testimony, they could make him available in the last session.  The

 6     Prosecution is ready to proceed, so it is up to the Chamber.  We just

 7     wanted to inform the Chamber.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think there was an outstanding MFI list to

 9     be dealt with.  And since everything did his homework, I take it, perhaps

10     we should spend -- rather than rush the witness into this courtroom.  He

11     arrived today?

12             MR. HEDARALY:  He arrived early this morning.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps that is another reason perhaps not to

14     start for just half an hour, and spend time on the MFI list.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber, under the present circumstances,

17     prefers to spend the remaining time today on the MFI list.

18             We would like to see you back at 1.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 12.39 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic, [Overlapping speakers] ...  you're on

22     your feet, I was informed that Ms. Higgins would like to address the

23     Chamber.  But that is related to our MFI list.

24             MS. HIGGINS:  Your Honour, it was related to a question that you

25     asked me on Friday concerning Mr. Puhovski, and I wanted to put the

Page 16179

 1     answer on the record so that Your Honours have it.

 2             Your Honour asked me the question in relation to how many

 3     individuals those four tables actually covered in the entirety.  We have

 4     done a check, and they related to 32 individuals in total which I hope

 5     satisfies Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MS. HIGGINS:  The second point, if I may, Your Honour, and I

 8     understand that you may wish to allot a different time-slot for this part

 9     of my intended submission.  I know that Your Honours have to decided upon

10     the admissibility of Mr. Puhovski's report.  And there are certain

11     factors which have emerged through his testimony that I would, at some

12     stage, seek to address Your Honours on, and perhaps now is not the best

13     occasion given the task ahead.  But before Your Honours make a decision

14     on admissibility, I would ask that you here me briefly in respect of

15     eight or nine or summary points that we would ask you take into account

16     before making that decision.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has decided to postpone its decision on

20     admission until after the testimony.  Of course, then what emerges during

21     the testimony is relevant to consider.  So, therefore, you will get a

22     opportunity, although not at this moment.

23             MS. HIGGINS:  I'm grateful.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mikulicic.

25             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, very briefly.  Since we have

Page 16180

 1     been informed that videolink for the Witness 82 has been granted, it will

 2     be my request to be present on the side -- I mean, on the other side of

 3     the videolink while this witness will be testifying in UN premises in

 4     Zagreb.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- are there any specific reasons for

 6     that apart from, of course, that to be there, but it's at least an

 7     uncommon request, and the Chamber remembers that there were some -- some

 8     vague matters that the witness had reason to, et cetera, which was then

 9     not further specified.  But your request is there.  If the Chamber would

10     need further information for the reasons apart from that, of course,

11     that's -- I can imagine that -- it has been in literature, it has been a

12     long-standing question on if there is an videolink, who should be on what

13     side.  That's -- I'm aware of that legal -- on the legal articles written

14     on that matter, if not on that matter alone.

15             Mr. Hedaraly.

16             MR. HEDARALY:  Just on that point, Your Honour, I think there is

17     also a distinction between being present and whether Mr. Mikulicic

18     intends to conduct his cross-examination from the office there, in which

19     case, of course, the Prosecution would seek as well to be present and

20     that may not be the most practical solution.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, finally the whole

22     truth --

23             MR. MIKULICIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  Well, obviously, I

24     was aiming to my cross-examination, not to be purely present on the site,

25     of course.

Page 16181

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll consider the matter and also consider

 2     whether we need further information, or whether we could decide the

 3     matter right away.

 4             Then I think we could now move on to the MFI list.

 5             I take that the parties have received, I think, the 17th of

 6     February, last version.  I would try to go through them as quickly as

 7     possible.

 8             I start with the D numbers.  D398.  The issue here apparently is

 9     that the exhibit, the statement should either be tendered by the Defence

10     as a 92 bis statement or else it should be vacated, the number.  And I

11     think that the Gotovina, and the Cermak would confer on the matter and

12     get back to the Chamber.

13             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, this goes back to the issue of the

14     Kosta Novakovic statement.  The Chamber has now made a ruling, which I

15     would invite the Chamber to reconsider that we can't do 92 bis

16     submissions on the Prosecution's direct.  So I don't know how or if we

17     would be allowed to do a 92 bis motion because it's an OTP statement,

18     because that's the same situation with Novakovic [Overlapping

19     speakers] ... I'm sorry, Lazarevic.

20             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry to jump in.  I wanted to -- I'm sorry

21     for the interruption, but this is getting a little strange.  We submitted

22     that statement pursuant to 92 bis initially.  Then based on some

23     information from the Defence, we withdrew it.  So we had an attestation

24     for that first statement.  It turns out in the course of investigation

25     that we would be willing to resubmit that 92 bis because we have the

Page 16182

 1     certification.  So if there is no more any objections, we're fine with

 2     that.

 3             The only item I would like to note is that if we have one

 4     statement from this witness admitted, there is another statement, a

 5     March 2008 supplemental statement short that is there.  That was the

 6     Official Note taken by Croatian government about this -- from this

 7     witness.  So if we're going to admit one statement, we should admit the

 8     whole lot.  And there were objections to the Official Note, because now

 9     we will only have a partial, essentially, version or testimony of the

10     witness.  So I think that adds another layer of complication to the

11     issue.  The -- initially, the idea was that witness statements would not

12     be admissible.  At that time Witness 70 was on the Prosecution witness

13     list.  Now the Prosecution will no longer call that witness.  But we have

14     no problem with the statement going in through 92 bis, but we would urge

15     that the March 2008 statement and the Official Note as well get admitted

16     because they all deal with similar matters.

17             MR. MISETIC:  Mr. President, if I may respond to that.  Here's

18     the situation.  As Mr. Hedaraly correctly states, when we tendered this

19     statement, it is with the understanding that the witness was coming later

20     because the witness was on the Prosecution's witness list and could make

21     the 92 ter attestations with respect to the statement.

22             Mr. Hedaraly is incorrect, however, in saying that if we tender

23     the statement for one purpose, that all statements of the witness

24     automatically should come into evidence.  The situation here is quite

25     simple.  This witness had testimony with respect to two incidents.  One

Page 16183

 1     of the incidents was related, the Court will recall, to the Sava Djuric

 2     the person whose son and wife testified in this case, who allegedly had

 3     been burned alive in his house.  We tendered it this statement because

 4     this statement dealt with that killing incident which is a killing

 5     incident in the indictment.  She has given a subsequent statement which

 6     deals with the events in Grubori, which is obviously something that other

 7     Defence teams would have the right to cross-examine on.

 8             MR. HEDARALY:  That is incorrect, Mr. Misetic.  That statement

 9     refers to both to Grubori and -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             MR. MIKULICIC:  Well, to the extent that it does, clearly the

11     subsequent statement have more to do with Grubori and the Defence --

12             MR. HEDARALY:  That is also incorrect.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that vital for our discussion, whether it -- what

14     the balance is in the second statement?

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Well, it is to an extent, Your Honour, in that,

16     first of all, the statement was tendered and MFIed because a witness was

17     anticipating to be called.  But if the issue then during Mile Djuric's

18     testimony which is when it happened, and later on Milica Djuric's

19     testimony, the issue was to the extent it relates impeachment of the

20     witness that was here, Mr. Misetic read out on the record the portions

21     that he was using to contradict the witness.  So in the sense for the

22     purpose of impeachment, that is already on the record.  It is already

23     there.

24             Now what we're talking about is admitting the statement which was

25     taken for the purpose of this Tribunal which can only be done under the

Page 16184

 1     rules, 92 bis, 92 ter, 92 quater, which is what brings us here.  And what

 2     I'm saying is that if we are going to accept 92 bis submission of one

 3     witness of one witness statement, when there's another statement dealing

 4     with similar issues correcting the first statement, clarifying the first

 5     statement, it doesn't seem to be assisting the Court to only have a

 6     portion of that story.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  Your Honour, I think can I simplify this.

 8     Mr. Hedaraly if his position is that, for purposes of impeachment,

 9     reading out the portion is sufficient for us to rely on for purposes of

10     impeachment, I'm perfectly happy with that.  We will withdraw D398.  And

11     that's all I intended it for anyway, so that will short-circuit the

12     entire debate.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, then D398 shall be vacated and will

14     not tendered as a 92 bis statement by any of the Defence teams, and this

15     after -- because that is where we ended the last time after the Gotovina

16     and Cermak Defence had conferred, and I take it --

17             MR. MISETIC:  With the caveat, again, Mr. President, based on

18     Mr. Hedaraly's representation that can I use the read-out portion as

19     impeachment of what -- I can't remember the son's name now, but who came

20     here and testified which is when I tendered the exhibit.  I think it is

21     Mile Djuric, if I'm not mistaken.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, the weight to be given to all that

23     is still to be considered by the Chamber, as long as that is clear --

24             MR. MISETIC:  That's fine, but I --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Because whether we believe the one statement or the

Page 16185

 1     other.  But it's clear that it has been put to that witness, and that for

 2     the purposes of seeking to establish that he was not telling the truth.

 3             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but whether or not that was the case, is still

 5     to be considered.

 6             Well, if we take that long for every item, then -- but 398 is

 7     from our list.

 8             D568 is not a matter we can deal with at this very moment.

 9             Then the next one is D1079.  There was an issue that the

10     Prosecution would like to have a look at the request that was sent by the

11     Markac Defence and see whether, on the basis of knowledge of this

12     document whether there were any objections to admission.

13             First of all, did you receive the request as sent by -- I think

14     it was by Markac Defence, Mr. Mikulicic.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  We did receive it, and we have no objection.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

17             Then D1079 is admitted into evidence.  And it may be -- and I

18     think -- was it -- now was that last line taken out, or was it not?

19             Mr. Mikulicic, if you could --

20             MR. MIKULICIC:  I believe it was taken out, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it was taken out, yes.  And I just wanted to

22     make clear that the Chamber earlier expressed hesitations about that last

23     line of this letter.

24             Then we move on to D1083.

25             Mr. Mikulicic, the issue was translation.  Have you received a

Page 16186

 1     final translation?

 2             MR. MIKULICIC:  Unfortunately, I did not, Your Honour, for the

 3     moment.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So we have to wait.

 5             MR. MIKULICIC:  We have to wait --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Despite our need to proceed, we should behave

 7     disciplined, and that's on my mind often.

 8             That means that D1083 stays on our list.

 9             D1212 is not a matter we'll deal with at this very moment.

10             D1285.  I think that this document is now uploaded, both the

11     exhibit and the translation, but, Mr. Misetic, is that the final version

12     that is it now uploaded?

13             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.  I am advised it is ready to be

14     admitted.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Any objections?

16             MR. HEDARALY:  No objection.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection.  Then D1285 is admitted into evidence.

18             Then there are a few remaining documents on our list in relation

19     to Witness Puhovski.  We'll need a bit more time for that.

20             Let me move to the Prosecution Exhibits.

21             The first one is P482, which is an excerpt from the book by

22     Mr. Gotovina.  Prosecution sought ten pages to be admitted; Defence

23     wanted to consider to add pages to that.

24             Is there any agreement, meanwhile, by the parties on how many

25     pages and which pages?

Page 16187

 1             MR. HEDARALY:  I believe so, Your Honour.  We have sent to the --

 2     to the Defence the portions of the -- it was an issue with the whole book

 3     and the translation.  And there was agreement with the Defence that they

 4     wanted to the introduction in, and we wanted a few portions there.  We

 5     sent those to Defence.  I think it's just a matter of technically

 6     uploading the right pages.  But I think there was agreement on the

 7     content of the exhibits, so ...

 8             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Mr. President.  That's correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  There are no outstanding translation issues in

10     relation to those portions?

11             MR. HEDARALY:  No, there are not.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, of course, if they're not uploaded at this

13     moment, the Chamber can't decide to admit them into evidence, but if this

14     could be done as quickly as possible so that we can get if from our list.

15             Could I ask -- Mr. Misetic, you're always in court; Mr. Hedaraly

16     is not always in court.  Could you inform the Chamber as soon as that has

17     been uploaded with the number, then we will immediately decide to

18     admitted it into evidence.

19             MR. MISETIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we move on to P505, and I have to establish

21     that I can't read my own handwriting anymore.

22             Yes, P505, which was debated at quite some time.  The Chamber has

23     decided to admit it into evidence and considers that the objections goes

24     to weight rather than to admissibility.

25             We then move on to P821.  That is the transcript of a notebook of

Page 16188

 1     Witness Liborius.  I think on the 22nd of January, I think an updated

 2     translations were reported.

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  It was just a matter of technically uploading the

 4     right translations because there were several languages on the notebook.

 5     But that is done now, so it's ready to be admitted.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then P821 is admitted into evidence.

 7             We'll not deal, at this very moment, with P1050, P1051, P1057, or

 8     P1118.  We will also not deal, at this moment, with P1167.  Same is true

 9     for P1168, P1174, and P1251.  I think --

10             MR. HEDARALY:  Sorry, Your Honour.  My recollection of what

11     happened on 22nd January is for the expert report of Dr. Clark.  The

12     Chamber indicated that there were the objections were denied, but the

13     report was not formally admitted into evidence.  I thought I had the

14     reference with me.  I can find it if --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine.  The Chamber is busy drafting a

16     decision on the matter, and that explains why we're not dealing with this

17     matter at this very moment.

18             Then I draw the attention of the parties to an exhibit which is

19     not on the list.  It was admitted already; it's P1272.

20             You may remember that P1272, or would even be not even be

21     surprised if you would not remember, but was a target list, at least a

22     list with target types.  Then the parties agreed on the system used

23     there, what the X, the Y, and the Zs stand for, and the parties were

24     about to -- I think it was Mr. Russo who wanted to the check on the map

25     whether the plotting was correctly done and to seek then to reach an

Page 16189

 1     agreement with the Defence on that, so that the Chamber would have

 2     guidance as to the positions of the parties.

 3             Now, I think we have not heard of any agreement since then.

 4             Mr. Misetic.

 5             MR. MISETIC:  What has transpired since then, Mr. President, is

 6     we're at this moment discussing the matter.

 7             Mr. Russo has not objected to the admission of this list but has

 8     created and plotted these coordinates on his own map, and in an e-mail we

 9     got last night or this morning he says that they're basically similar but

10     he wants to tender his own separate exhibit which has been identified on

11     the exhibit list for tomorrow's witness.

12             We have since then this morning contacted him and indicated that

13     we disagree with some of his plotting, and so we went to court and some

14     of our staff is dealing with Mr. Russo directly to try to work out the

15     coordinates on his map which he intends to tender tomorrow.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  First of all, of course, it would be highly

17     appreciated if the parties could agree on plotting, where they apparently

18     agree on the system coordinates --

19             MR. MISETIC:  No.  That's not correct.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then let me just check what --

21             MR. MISETIC:  Let me -- I have to say this.  I'm not sure if

22     Mr. Russo disagrees with the system that we used to plot the coordinates

23     and thinks there is also another system that can be used, or if we're

24     using the wrong system and he is using the right system.  That's what I

25     think the discussion amongst other things is between the parties today

Page 16190

 1     before tomorrow's witness arrives.

 2             If I could also note for the record that with respect to this

 3     specific exhibit, OTP disclosed a better copy of the exhibit which is as

 4     you will see, if you can, there were the -- there was blacked out, the

 5     first two targets.  And OTP has obtained a better copy which is more

 6     legible, and I would assume because it was disclosed to us - and this ERN

 7     0646-2101 - that OTP will be uploading the better, more legible copy into

 8     e-court.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, this seems to be a very technical matter.  Of

10     course, the Chamber would highly appreciate if the parties could come to

11     some kind of an agreement.  If not, which is imaginable, because there

12     may be different views on systems, the Chamber would appreciate a short

13     submission.  And perhaps you could even agree on what such a submission

14     would be to explain clearly what keeps you apart.  Because it seems to

15     very technical, rather than anything else.  So if there are two systems

16     existing, say one system is the right system in the view of the Defence,

17     the other one -- the difference of the systems is this.  So that we know

18     where the problem lies.

19             MR. MISETIC:  That is fine, Mr. President.  I can tell that you

20     it's my understanding that using either system, you get to the same

21     place.  It's just a question of where you round the decimal point.

22             MR. KEHOE:  You don't get to the same place.  It is really a

23     different system depending on how far you take out the decimal point.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- where one Defence counsel on the same team

25     says that you get to the same place, whereas the other Defence counsel

Page 16191

 1     says -- the same team says that you get to a different place, that seems

 2     to be the perfect demonstration of what should be done out of court.

 3     That is to, first of all, agree within the team and then preferably also

 4     with the Prosecution.

 5             And then if there is no agreement, we'd like to hear exactly why

 6     there is no agreement.

 7             Then we move on.  We leave P1272 behind us.

 8             P1291 and P1292, the Chamber is not yet ready to deal with that.

 9             MR. HEDARALY:  Sorry, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MR. HEDARALY:  On that note if you remember during the

12     examination of Mr. Hansen, there was also P1293 which was the map that

13     was marked by the witness.  Then later on he marked in court --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I was about to come to P1293, as a matter of fact.

15             MR. HEDARALY:  Oh.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And I would say that -- that P1293, at the time, was

17     vacated, because it was supposed to be replaced by P1298, whereas, since

18     then, I understand the Prosecution became aware that some details would

19     be lost, and, therefore, seeks to re-tender P1293, in order not to be

20     prejudiced by the loss of some details.

21             MR. HEDARALY:  That is correct.  And just so that Mr. Registrar

22     knows it is 65 ter 7005, since the P number now doesn't show anything.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Any objections against the re-admission of

24     P1293?

25             MR. HEDARALY:  It --

Page 16192

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  supposed to be the same

 2     map, but --

 3             MR. HEDARALY:  The markings made by the witness with the circles

 4     above the areas in the statement, and it was one circle that was lost by

 5     zooming in to identify the additional house.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, we don't have any objection.  And I do

 7     recall this map.  This is a map that he --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  No objection.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  No objection.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then P1239 is now assigned to 65 ter 7005.  It is

11     tendered again and is admitted into evidence.

12             Then we move on to P1295.  This was a bar table document, and the

13     Defence was seeking additional time to review this document as a result

14     of that.

15             Any objections against the submission of P1295?

16             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, frankly at this point it's been a

17     while since that, and I didn't know this was back on, this listing on

18     Mr. Hansen.

19             MR. HEDARALY:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, but that -- not at the

20     same time.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Hedaraly.

22             MR. HEDARALY:  And I apologise to Madam transcriber and

23     Mr. Kehoe.  It was -- there were three or four documents, and Mr. Kehoe

24     indicated he wanted until Monday.  It was a Friday on the 26th, so my

25     impression was that since we haven't heard anything, there were no

Page 16193

 1     objections, but now to ask for further time seems a little --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just verifying that.  And it was -- it was at

 3     transcript pages 14950, and that was Mr. Hansen.  We're talking about the

 4     23rd of January.  It was tendered across the bar table, and it was, at

 5     that time said, that you would make up your mind within a week.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I think I indicated one of your

 7     court officers had asked me about this document previously, and I had

 8     indicated I did not have an objection.  I think he had asked me during

 9     one of the breaks --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if that's the case, and there are no other

11     objections, of course, the Chamber itself communicates on these kind of

12     matters in court.  But it's clear now, and that it would be valid for

13     P1295, P1296, and P2157.  Three --

14             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, there were three ECMM reports that I wanted to

15     take a look at.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The first one, 3rd of August; the second one,

17     3rd of August in relation to the Z-4 plan, and the 3rd, 4th of September,

18     1995.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

21             MR. KEHOE:  No objections, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then P1295, P1296, and P2157 are admitted into

23     evidence.

24             Then I move on to P2196 and P2197.  The one piece of Croatian

25     legislation, the other one a report by Miroslav Zironic [phoen].  The

Page 16194

 1     Chamber understands for this one and also for the next one, P2198, orders

 2     issued by Ante Gotovina, that there are no objections against admission

 3     and that, therefore, nothing opposes admission.

 4             Since I do not hear from any of the Defence teams, these three -

 5     that is P2196, P2197, and P2198 - are admitted into evidence.

 6             Next one is P2199, order dated the 2nd of August, 1995.  This

 7     order is a duplicate of a part of D1282, which was used by the Defence in

 8     cross-examination.  Therefore, under those circumstances, P2199 can be

 9     vacated.

10             Then next series of three, P2200, P2201, P2202.  As matters stand

11     now, there appear to be no objections, and, therefore, P2200, P2201, and

12     P2202 are admitted into evidence.

13             The next one is P2203.  This is a document which was added to the

14     65 ter list through a 92 ter application, and I also understand that it

15     is a duplicate of P2215, and then I understand that P2215 will be vacated

16     if this document will be admitted into evidence.

17             MS. FROLICH:  That is correct, Mr. President.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I think there are no further objections.

19     Therefore, P2203 is admitted into evidence.

20             Next, P2204.  It's a summary of a diary entry, and this exhibit

21     is the 22nd of August entry from Mr. Lausic's complete diary, but that

22     diary is already in evidence as P2166.

23             Now, is there any specific reason why you would like to have this

24     as a separate exhibit into evidence?

25             Ms. Frolich.

Page 16195

 1             MS. FROLICH:  No, Mr. President.  Indeed we put it on our list

 2     also of duplicates that we would like to vacate.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then P2204 is vacated.

 4             Next one, P2205.  This is a part P2241, which is a rather lengthy

 5     document of 518 pages and not yet translated.

 6             Now, I do not know what to expect as far as the translation is

 7     concerned, but the Chamber is inclined to admit these several portions

 8     and not to wait until 518 pages have all been translated.

 9             MS. FROLICH:  Mr. President, if this is the document that I have

10     P2205, and this document is 24 pages long, as I see it, and that is the

11     document we wish to tender, so ...

12             JUDGE ORIE:  What I said is that you have also tendered P2241.

13             MS. FROLICH:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And apparently P2205 is just a portion of P2241.  So

15     we have --

16             MS. FROLICH:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If I could be of guidance to you, P2205, P2207,

18     P2238, P2240, P2250, and P2252, are all separate portions of P2241.  If,

19     of course, P2241 would finally be translated in full, 518 pages and be

20     admitted, of course, there would be no need to again tender portions,

21     unless there is any specific reason for doing so.

22             MS. FROLICH:  First of all, Mr. President, I don't believe that

23     there are in fact actual portions of these -- these exhibits are portions

24     of P2241.  There may that be that the contents are nearly identical.  And

25     I should have to check if they are in such a way similar so that we do

Page 16196

 1     not have to tender them all.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's be very practical.  There are no objections.

 3     We're not going to wait for P2241.  And there being no objections, P2205

 4     is admitted into evidence.

 5             P2206, there are no objections and is, therefore, also is

 6     admitted into evidence.

 7             P2207 is the same as we discussed before; part of 2241.  Although

 8     the Prosecution does not yet agree to that, but it will be -- it is

 9     admitted into evidence.

10             P2208, there are no objections, is admitted into evidence.

11             P2209.  I think this document was used by the Defence in cross,

12     and there was an issue about whether the one document was ...

13                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  P2209 is a part of P1013.  And I think there

15     was an issue about whether it was complete or not.  The Chamber has

16     carefully checked, and it seems to be in there completely.

17             MS. FROLICH:  Yes, we would like to vacate this document as well.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  P2209 is vacated.

19             Then the next one is one of a long list, that's P2210, which is

20     not on the 65 ter list.  I think we earlier asked the Prosecution to make

21     an application for any document not appearing yet on the 65 ter list to

22     have it admitted to that list before we can decide on admission.

23             MS. FROLICH:  Yes, Mr. President.  It was suggested to us, and I

24     believe that if we -- I can make an oral application at this time for all

25     the outstanding documents that were -- that were to be admitted to the 65

Page 16197

 1     ter list that were present on the --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, is that --

 3             MS. FROLICH:  [Previous translation continues] ... bar table.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Are they all not on the 65 ter list for the same

 5     reason?  Or do we get a variety of reasons why they should now be

 6     admitted, where they earlier were not on that list?  Because if we get to

 7     a series of reasons why, then, of course, it's -- if you say, This is all

 8     material that we received two weeks ago, that's clear.  Then the Defence

 9     would now how to answer.  But if you say, One was, we received it, but we

10     had forgotten about it, and the other was illegible, then, of course, I

11     would rather have it clearly structured in a short written submission to

12     which the Defence could then --

13             MS. FROLICH:  That would be more applicable to this situation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we will not further deal with any of the

15     -- then I just do a few more, but then we have to stop.

16             P2211, P2212, P2213 are all tendered, and there appear to be no

17     objections, so, therefore, all three are admitted into evidence.

18             P2214, not on the 65 ter list.

19             P2215 has been vacated meanwhile.  P2216, no objections;

20     therefore, admitted into evidence.

21             P2217, not on the 65 ter list.

22             P2218, tendered, no objections.  Admitted into evidence.

23             P2219, up to and including P2222, not on the 65 ter list.

24             P2223 tendered.  No objections and admitted into evidence.

25             And then we come to a long list of further --

Page 16198

 1             Ms. Frolich.

 2             MS. FROLICH:  Just a comment.  What I have is that P2221 and

 3     P2222 were in fact parts of larger 65 ters.  P2221 was part of 65 ter

 4     3918, and P2222 is in fact duplicate of 65 ter 1869.

 5             Therefore, I don't believe there's reason to add them to --

 6     because they're already on 65 ter list.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll verify that.

 8             We have to stop for the time being.  Unfortunately, we were not

 9     able to finish the whole list, but we made at least some progress.

10             The Chamber will see when we find time to finish the list.  It

11     might be rather soon.

12             Any other urgent matter to be discussed at this moment?

13             Ms. Frolich.

14             MS. FROLICH:  Mr. President, I just wanted to make a comment on

15     the video that was part of the bar table submission yesterday discussed

16     in Court that I said I would watch and say if there were any objections.

17     There are no objections to admission, but obviously, we would like to put

18     on the record this is again a journalistic compilation.  And there is

19     only narrate, and there is no footage to support narrative's comments as

20     such in the video.  We'd just like to submit that for Chamber's

21     consideration.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is it all about weight and probative

23     value.  We'll consider that.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We will adjourn for the day, and we will resume

Page 16199

 1     tomorrow morning, 9.00, in Courtroom III.

 2                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 18th day of

 4                           February, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.