1 Friday, 3 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
11 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, et al.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. The Chamber decided that
13 it would start this morning in the absence of the witness because we
14 ended up yesterday two parties fighting about what the document would be
15 or would not be, or what it would demonstrate or not demonstrate.
16 Now, Gotovina Defence apparently knows the document.
17 Ms. Mahindaratne it as well.
18 The witness authored it, apparently. So he knows -- so everyone
19 knows and the battle starts and the Chamber has no idea yet what we are
20 talking about.
21 So we do it in a different way. Let's have these documents on
22 the screen and then, Ms. Mahindaratne, you can tell us, first of all,
23 what the document is. We can look at the date, we can look at the
24 time-frame, we can look at whatever. And then tell us briefly what you
25 expect the witness could tell us about and what your views on the
1 document are.
2 Then if Mr. Kehoe disagrees, then he will certainly be on his
3 feet and tell you that you're totally wrong, and then finally we'll know
4 what the issues are and then we can ask the witness about the issues
5 because he, apparently as the author, knows best.
6 Could we get these documents we had yesterday, Mr. Registrar.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That would be 65 ter 7320, Mr. Registrar.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And ...
9 Which is a document presented in an English version, five pages.
10 It is a -- the first page being a letter sent by the witness to the
11 Republic of Croatia
12 that he attaches to this letter the requested data for the district state
13 attorney office in Zadar, the municipal state attorney's office in Zadar,
14 and the municipal state attorney's office in Benkovac.
15 That is dated the 30th of August, 2006. That's --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may also draw Court's
17 attention to the subject heading; that is, "Documentation Regarding the
18 Criminal Acts in the Storm," it reads.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. "Documentation Regarding the Criminal Acts in
20 the Storm." I take it -- I'll also have a look at the original.
21 So at least a major difference with the other documents we saw is
22 that they were all contemporaneous and this is a document created only
23 relatively recently.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct Mr. President. Apart from
25 which, Mr. President, this document contains details --
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll further go to the -- any further comments to
2 be made in relation to the first page, Mr. Kehoe. Did we miss anything
3 which might turn out to be relevant?
4 MR. KEHOE: No, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move to the next page, and I would have a
6 look at the originals to start with.
7 Ms. Mahindaratne, what now is -- first of all, let's have a look
8 at what the columns are.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could just state, Mr. President. This
10 particular chart on page 2, which is only on page 2, is a list of charges
11 filed against known perpetrators by the county state attorney's office in
12 Zadar, and there are seven entries there. And --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me have a look. What we have, we have a -- it
14 says chart 1. We have the -- how it was reported, name of the --
15 personal data of the suspect, description of the offence, place and date
16 on which the offence allegedly was committed, whether there is any victim
17 and injured person, what and when was decided in relation to this, and
18 what finally the decision by the court has been.
19 So these are the columns we have here.
20 Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, you made a selection, apparently, to be
22 First of all, is there a -- the first page says the data you
23 requested in relation to Storm. Now, is there any -- I noted yesterday
24 that I think I saw that, at least some of the crimes were committed
25 before Storm had started.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do we know -- is there any clue, have the parties
3 any idea were these tables or these charts made at the time that the
4 latter was created, or was it -- is there any agreement on that or not,
5 because, otherwise, we'll ask the witness.
6 MR. KEHOE: I think that I can -- this particular document was
7 made after the fact, and it was after the change in jurisdiction. As the
8 witness pointed out in his witness statement, there was in 1997 a change
9 back in jurisdiction.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KEHOE: He made these in -- excuse me, 2006, where --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So it was -- my simple question was, is there
13 any agreement on when the chart was made, was that at the time the letter
14 was created. Apparently 2006 is when the letter was created so the
15 answer is, as far as you are concerned, Mr. Kehoe, that this document was
16 created in 2006.
17 MR. KEHOE: That's my understanding.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is my understanding, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently there seems to be no disagreement on
22 Now, Ms. Mahindaratne, on what basis -- I mean, we see table 1,
23 we see table 2, where the numbering starts again. Do we have any idea on
24 the structure of this document? Every page starts a new numbering
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. I could explain, actually,
2 the structure if I'm given just a moment.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, your understanding of the structure.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yeah, as it is produced on the document,
5 Mr. President, because when -- at the start of a new table there is a
6 heading, and that's the basis on which we have translated. And if I'm
7 allowed, Mr. President, I could just quickly take you through and it will
8 be clear then to the Court and the parties how --
9 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid confusion, Ms. Mahindaratne is
10 invited to explain to us how she understands the document. Whether
11 that's a proper understanding, we'll hear from you, and finally we'll
12 hear from the witness what it's all about.
13 MR. KEHOE: And, Mr. President on that score, her understanding
14 of the document is irrelevant, and I think should be put to the witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but my problem is, Mr. Kehoe, and I hope you
16 understand, that finally we'll find out what the witness can tell us
17 about this document. The problem is that we start a battle already on
18 matters where the Chamber has no clue whatsoever about what the issue is.
19 So, we're at this moment, the only thing we're doing is trying to
20 find out where there is an issue. For that purpose, Ms. Mahindaratne is
21 invited --
22 MR. KEHOE: I understand.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- to explain to the Chamber, what, in her
24 understanding, the document is about and how it is structured.
25 Ms. Mahindaratne.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 And Mr. President if you go to page 3, that is the next page.
3 JUDGE ORIE: 3 original or 3 in English?
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 3 original, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 3, I am on the third page in the original, yes.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, that's the next page.
7 Now, there, Mr. President that is a new chart, that is chart
8 number 2 --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: -- which is a list of charges filed against
11 unknown perpetrators by the county state attorney's office in Zadar, and
12 there are 14 entries.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Is that translated on page 3 of the
14 English as well?
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. -- it is translated on page 2 of the
16 English. That is, the top chart, which is now on the screen.
17 JUDGE ORIE: When we are talking about page 2, are you referring
18 to e-court pages or are you referring to --
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's on the screen, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I'm -- yes, sometimes I'm using, okay.
21 That's page 3 in e-court, yes. List of charges against unknown
22 perpetrators. And that corresponds, as you said, with the --
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: With page 3 and 4 of the original version.
24 JUDGE ORIE: 3 and 4 of the original.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: There are 14 entries, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear.
2 So there we have a list of charges filed against unknown
3 perpetrators. Then we continue, Ms. Mahindaratne.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. On page 5 of the
6 JUDGE ORIE: 5 of the original.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And we remain on the same page as the -- on
8 the English version. There is a list of reported incidents to the county
9 state attorney's office in Zadar. It says: "KTR," "KR" and "DO." There
10 are two entries there.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I move on, Mr. President?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And at page 6, chart number 4 starts, and that
15 would be, Mr. Registrar, the next page on the English version. There is
16 a translation.
17 That's the top chart there, Mr. President, which is a list of
18 reported incidents to the county state attorney's office and there -- I'm
19 sorry. It's a list of charges filed against known perpetrators by the
20 municipal state attorney's office in Zadar.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And there are ten entries there. This is page
23 6 of the original.
24 JUDGE ORIE: There apparently are, yes. And then the next.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Next one starts at page seven of the original.
1 We remain on the same page as the English translation, which is a list of
2 charges filed against unknown perpetrators by the municipal state
3 attorney's office in Zadar. There are 126 entries so this chart goes
4 from page 7 to page 17 on the original.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So apparently the document tells us the charges
6 brought by the -- by the various prosecutorial authorities against the
7 known and unknown perpetrators, county and municipal, known and unknown.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President. There are also
9 two more charts, if I could just point it out.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And the sixth chart starts at page 18 of the
13 And, Mr. Registrar, if could you move to the next page on the
14 English translation.
15 And that's a list of charges filed against known perpetrators --
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's the same for Benkovac, known and unknown.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. And there you have the
18 sixth charge 277 entries going from page 18 to 35.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And then the last chart starts at page 36,
21 which is against unknown perpetrators, 9 entries, and that is just one
22 page there, the last page.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we agree until now what the document is
24 about? That, at least, this is contained in the document, six portions.
25 Is there any problem with the incomplete translation at this moment?
1 MR. KEHOE: No, I --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Because it always lists the first and last one and
3 we find in between, we find some matters perhaps we could not fully
4 understand, such as the persons who reported sometimes. It seems to be
5 an office rather than a person. But apart from that, and we have at
6 least the word "indictment" and we have "judgement." We might not in
7 every respect be fully capable of reading all of the document, but the
8 structure seems to be clear.
9 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I agree that the -- we have read what
10 the document says.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. KEHOE: We do not agree on its completeness because this is
13 an incomplete document which is why the Gotovina Defence did not use it,
14 in that as the witness noted, his documents prosecuted by the Zadar
15 county attorney was sent to Sibenik in 1997. When that was brought to
16 our attention, the information in this document -- since it was not
17 complete, we went back to the contemporaneous documents that we'd
18 admitted into evidence.
19 So ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the question is, one of the issues may be
21 why, in 2006, are there any documents produced which -- well, let's say
22 do not give a complete picture, or do the other documents not give a
23 complete picture?
24 Ms. Mahindaratne, or is it overstated what we find in the
25 contemporaneous documents? What's the issue.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, in the contemporaneous
2 documents, the figures are mere statistics which are not supported;
3 whereas in this table, if this table was properly examined, one sees that
4 there are crimes which do not relate to crimes which are committed in
5 relation to Operation Storm included as such. What the Prosecution wants
6 to demonstrate to the Trial Chamber is that when this witness compiles
7 data as -- and submits as prosecution's conducted by his office in
8 relation to crimes committed in the aftermath of Operation Storm, he has
9 included irrelevant cases, such as we saw yesterday, crimes relating to
10 falsifying public document, crimes committed before operation Storm.
11 JUDGE ORIE: What you say, the activities as presented in the
12 statistical data are not presenting what they pretend to present, which,
13 of course, what we then need to do -- to see whether there is any merit
14 in such a statement, we have to go back to what data are gathered in the
15 one document and what data are gathered in the other document.
16 Now, from what I remember and all the other statistical data
17 where the crimes were set out, I never saw any reference to forgery of
18 documents. However, the total number was always split up in known
19 offences; that is, 34, I think, it's -- well, so, therefore, then it
20 would not only be including documents but also a kind of a falsification
21 because they are attached to certain types of crimes. Whereas, you say
22 in these, what we find here, we find different types of crimes.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President. And apart
24 from that, even where the type of crime comes within the -- the nature of
25 crimes that's relevant to the indictment, I would demonstrate that there
1 are, for example, there are crimes that comes under Article 34, murder,
2 which is listed here which in fact are killing incidents which is not
3 within the scope of these proceedings, which are completely outside. For
4 example --
5 JUDGE ORIE: How do we know that the factual data on which this
6 report of 2006 is based, whether that is the same set of factual data
7 which were used to produce the statistics in 1995, 1996,
8 Ms. Mahindaratne? How do we know?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, firstly I wanted to in fact,
10 you know, ask the witness that now this document demonstrate that he, in
11 response to a request from the state attorney for data on crimes
12 prosecuted in relation to Operation Storm, he has sent in 2006 a whole
13 entire list, and if in 2006 his list which he claims to be prosecutions
14 conducted of crimes relating to Operation Storm includes irrelevant data,
15 it's an inference that Court could draw that the statistics provided in
16 1995, 1996, so on, in the absence of the underlying materials supporting
17 such statistics cannot be taken on the face of it. It's not reliable.
18 That is the point that the Prosecution wants to demonstrate to Court,
19 because at the moment all the material that has been placed before the
20 Trial Chamber is just mere statistics.
21 There are no informations supporting such statistics as it has
22 been done in this table. And we believe, Mr. President, that this is one
23 of the reasons that this table was not in fact tendered into evidence,
24 because --
25 JUDGE ORIE: This is suggestion on bad intentions by the other
1 party, that is to keep away from the Chamber certain information which
2 may be relevant. Let's just say that the Prosecution considers it's
3 relevant to present this material as well, without talking about how bad
4 the intentions are of the other party. Maybe good, maybe bad.
5 MR. KEHOE: I can actually -- I'd like to --
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber finally does not have to determine about
7 the intentions of the parties, but to have them determine on the basis of
8 the indictment.
9 MR. KEHOE: If I may respond -- [overlapping speakers].
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second, I don't know whether
11 Ms. Mahindaratne has already finished.
12 Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I may just point out, Mr. President. What
14 I wanted to mainly place before the Trial Chamber is that the Defence has
15 not produced, or at least this witness has not produced, a table of this
16 nature supporting the statistics he has provided in the reports, and in
17 the absence of such information the Trial Chamber would not be able to
18 evaluate the relevance or for that matter to figure out if the statistics
19 given by him indeed are related to prosecutions of crimes which are
20 relevant to the indictment.
21 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I may, that claim is simply
22 outrageous, and I will say --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I --
24 MR. KEHOE: I --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I invited Ms. Mahindaratne to refrain
1 from qualifications of bad intentions. If you would say that you
2 disagree --
3 MR. KEHOE: I disagree.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You disagree.
5 MR. KEHOE: Respectfully, and if I may add this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. KEHOE: We have presented to this Chamber what this witness
8 said is the most accurate contemporaneous assessment of statistics, which
9 is the statistics from 1995 going into 1996.
10 Now, what he will say if the Prosecution asks is: Are the
11 documents that you reviewed in 2006 complete, and do they include the
12 files that were shifted and part of the Sibenik district that you lost
13 jurisdiction over in 1997.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So what he will tell us, you expect that the
15 difference could be explained by the borders of jurisdiction had changed
16 and that therefore the data collected at a later stage would not include
17 all of the data, which were gathered in 1995/1996.
18 Ms. Mahindaratne.
19 MR. KEHOE: And if I may, judge --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KEHOE: -- with regard to the other crimes that -- such as
22 forgery, et cetera, if Your Honour looked at D1554 as an example, on the
23 last page of that document, and I don't know if Your Honour wants to
24 bring it up, but --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think if you --
1 MR. KEHOE: If I can just tell Your Honour what those other items
2 are that we didn't go through, there are items such as Article 161, which
3 is a traffic accident as well as 156. There's forgery, which is 206.
4 Article 196, theft of cultural artifacts, Article 344, a violation of the
5 customs law.
6 There are any numbers of those articles set forth in that last
7 page of the exhibit that chronicles some of those items, which of course,
8 the numbers Your Honours can look at pale in comparison to the theft and
9 robbery and larceny charges that were detailed on the prior page. So it
10 is not that this witness overlooked chronicling them, they certainly had
11 very little relevance herein.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, we're now talking about
13 municipal Benkovac, municipal Zadar, and county Zadar
14 Mr. Kehoe, the contemporaneous reports sent to Mr. Lovric mainly,
15 they covered what exactly, the prosecutorial activities Zadar county and
17 MR. KEHOE: And district courts.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- municipal.
19 MR. KEHOE: Municipal courts, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And municipal courts. Was Benkovac included?
21 MR. KEHOE: At that juncture, yes, it was, until 1997.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Benkovac was included. And the -- yes.
23 Ms. Mahindaratne, this list you are now -- these tables, let me
24 just try to find the total number of charges.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: [Microphone not activated]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I could give the total number of charges
3 Mr. President. It's, according to this table, it's 445 for all three
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whereas in the old documents, we had --
6 because we had already in November 1995, 705. We have 987 in
7 February 1996. And, therefore, what we mainly have to do is to explore
8 to what extent we're talking about the same set of data. Because it
9 would be -- well, to say so, it would be rather stupid to present or to
10 create something in 2006, a couple of hundred, in order to apparently
11 support or give further details, where, in an earlier stage, you already
12 had a number of a thousand people indicted.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may, and perhaps I didn't
14 make myself clear.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The purpose of this exercise is not to compare
17 that data with the date given in this table but to demonstrate to Court
18 the -- the methodology adopted by this witness in compiling data as
19 prosecutions conducted by his office and his municipal prosecutor's
20 offices. I wanted to demonstrate, in fact, this table not only with
21 regard to those two entries that we dealt with yesterday but there are
22 several other entries included as prosecutions of crimes relating to
23 Operation Storm, which it meant, in fact, they're not.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But that's -- okay. You say the witness, when
25 authoring this document, was imprecise in including documents --
1 indictments or at least cases not related to Storm.
2 Now, whether or not a forgery is related to Storm, it depends, I
3 would say.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. Apart from that --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: -- based on our assessment, in fact, we have
7 highlighted those entries which are not relevant to the indictment, or
8 for that matter to Operation Storm, the figures come down by 50 per cent.
9 That's what we want to demonstrate to Court, that in fact what may be
10 seen as 100 prosecutions, once one goes through with the -- entry by
11 entry, it transpired that in fact the numbers are much less, about 50
12 per cent of the reported numbers. So given that, it would be -- it's not
13 safe to accept the testimony or the witness's mere statistics in the
14 absence of underlying material supporting those figures.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you say it's --
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: For example, Mr. President if I could just
17 have a minute.
18 There are in fact crimes listed here as those relating to
19 Operation Storm but in fact committed before Operation Storm.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see your point. You say that this document
21 created in 2006 raises a lot of questions.
22 Now, you say that -- let's put those questions to the witness,
23 and, because the inference should be, in your view, that, when, in 2006
24 he created tables which raise so many questions, why, and how could we
25 rely on what was created in 1995/1996, where we do not even have an
1 opportunity to verify.
2 Is that the issue?
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least I see what, in your view, the issue
6 MR. KEHOE: And as we conduct this examination, the Prosecution
7 should say that we say, the Prosecution, there's a 50 per cent reduction
8 in statistics. Can you account for that 50 per cent reduction in
9 statistics because those were crimes committed out of the Sibenik-Krajina
10 area and thereby were engulfed in those particular statistics. Because
11 Your Honour is 100 per cent correct. We're looking at a different set of
12 statistics as that that which came up in 1995 and that which the
13 Prosecutor wants to put in evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, evidence for the unreliability of the work.
15 MR. KEHOE: Absolutely.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- of the witness. That's it, Ms. Mahindaratne?
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's it, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Not more, not less. Then ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is delighted that it has the impression
21 that it has got now an idea of what we're talking about, which is always
22 good if a chamber also knows what we are talking about.
23 Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.
24 Ms. Mahindaratne, it might be that we -- that we take it step by
25 step. For example, the first question being: What data were you
1 requested to send; perhaps also ask why, in 2006 such data were asked. I
2 might put a few questions to the witness first to start with, if you do
3 not mind. I'm so delighted that I know what we're talking about --
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Please, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- that I'd like to give it some follow-up.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Galovic.
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
9 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, our apologies that you had to wait for
10 a while.
11 THE WITNESS: I understand.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Galovic, I would first like to remind you
13 that you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave at the
14 beginning of your testimony.
15 Mr. Galovic, yesterday we saw document, and that's how we
16 concluded yesterday, a document on the screen.
17 Could we have it on the screen again.
18 Can you see it on the screen.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You sent this letter to the state attorney's office
21 in 2006; is that correct?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember what request you received exactly,
24 in response to which you sent this letter and attachment?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult for me to remember
1 because I sent a great many such reports. I can conclude from this
2 document that I only wrote in one line a sentence to the effect that I am
3 sending information on such and such crimes.
4 When they sent letters from the ministry and the state attorney's
5 office, and I'm quite sure that it was the state attorney's office
6 general that sent on letters to lower level state attorney's offices,
7 they rarely specified what exactly it was that they were after. They
8 said that they were interested in crimes related to Storm and that was
10 So what we could do was to look into the registers, find the
11 relevant information, and include it in our letters. What I can tell you
12 with certainty is that all the data included in such letter is correct.
13 Now, what can be concluded or observed or gleaned from the data,
14 in my view, not much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'll take it step by step --
16 THE WITNESS: Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- if you would not mind.
18 So you don't remember what exactly was requested when you sent
19 this, and you say this was quite common, that the requests for
20 information were not very specific. Is that -- okay.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, nevertheless, specific or not, you sent this
23 set of data.
24 Now, we looked at other documents, contemporaneous reports you
25 sent at the time. We have seen quite a number of them. Looking at them,
1 we see indictments brought after approximately half a year after
2 Operation Storm already, a thousand; whereas, in this document, where the
3 attachment covers apparently the prosecutorial activity of the county and
4 municipal attorney's office in Zadar and the municipal state attorney's
5 office in Benkovac, all together go, well, let's say, in the 400
7 Could you explain to us why we find in this document a number
8 which is -- apart from further details, but overall is less than half of
9 what we find in the other documents?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, and quite simply. Knin is
11 not included here because it was transferred under the jurisdiction of
12 Sibenik, and Knin constituted or covered the highest number of such
13 incidents. In other words, Sibenik, having got Knin under its
14 jurisdiction now, continued keeping records in relation to Knin.
15 If you included in this number the data related to Knin, you
16 would arrive at the figure I mentioned.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say the territorial scope is different,
18 which explains for a difference in the total numbers.
19 Now, in the letter, it refers to criminal acts in Storm.
20 In the data, we find several offences listed which allegedly had
21 been committed prior to Operation Storm. Could you explain the apparent
22 discrepancy between the title, the subject as mentioned in the letter,
23 and the appearance of crimes which are -- or offences which were
24 committed prior to Storm?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is evidently an error. The
1 error is either in the date of the commission of the crime or the error
2 was committed by someone in the municipal state attorney's offices.
3 One has to keep in mind the fact that the data was collected in a
4 very short period of time, and due to the speed with which one had to
5 proceed, errors could have inadvertently have been made, and that's the
6 only explanation I can provide for it.
7 Let me also add that this is largely due, also, to the fact that
8 the request for data was highly imprecise. I am still not quite clear on
9 what offences related to Storm actually means.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
11 Ms. Mahindaratne, I indicated that I would put a few questions
12 first. It's your witness. Please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, it's not your witness. But you are
15 examining -- cross-examining the witness at this moment.
16 Please proceed.
17 WITNESS: IVAN GALOVIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]
20 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, when you compiled the statistics that were
21 reported in the documents that were submitted yesterday, did you prepare
22 a table such as this or some kind of work product which listed out the
23 cases, specific cases, which supported your statistics?
24 A. There was no need for something of this sort. We extracted all
25 the data from the registers, which are regularly kept. All the data is
1 verifiable. You can check it today in the relevant registers. Tables
2 were produced as well, not of this kind. It depended on what sort of
3 information was requested.
4 If you're asking me about what we looked at yesterday, I will
5 tell you how it is that I interpret the data. From the data you showed
6 me yesterday, one cannot glean much. You can see what sort of workload
7 lay in the hands of prosecutor's offices. The register -- or the record
8 I kept for the purposes of the ministry is much better, because the
9 individual charged with these matters in ministry had originally come
10 from a prosecutor's office, and he knew what sort of information is
11 helpful for specific -- in situations.
12 Let me illustrate this. If you have data according to months,
13 then, in addition to the workload, you can also see what sort -- what
14 type of criminality was most frequent, what sort of criminality had to be
15 prevented the most, in this way you can also organise your work and know
16 where to focus, what to focus on. Collecting data is only a mechanical
18 Q. Mr Galovic, I'm just trying to find out the manner in which you
19 compiled the statistics you reported.
20 Now here we have a table, a chart, you have prepared based on
21 which one can easily gather the numbers, figures. Now, yesterday you
22 reported, you know, in different reports number of statistics. Now,
23 surely in order to get those figures your office and your municipal
24 prosecutor's offices would have gone through a process in extracting the
25 information from the registers. Now, can you explain to us how exactly
1 were the information extracted and where was it recorded? In what
2 manner? That's what I'm asking you.
3 A. I think I answered this question already but I will repeat it.
4 As you say yourself, we had the information in our registers and
5 the information was simply copied from the registers. The clerks in the
6 office did that job. I would tell them what the period of time sought
7 is, and what type of crime ought to be extracted.
8 The next stage is that the information is collated. The clerk
9 makes another check of the accuracy of information, if necessary, and the
10 information is forwarded.
11 Q. Now, you just said you, in fact, instructed the clerks about
12 the -- what -- what -- let me just say exactly what you said. Extracted
13 information on this. Now, you instructed them on the time.
14 Now what time-frame did you tell -- instruct the clerks to -- to
15 extract the information for? What was the given time-frame? Did you
16 say, Give me the -- the statistics of crimes prosecuted for this specific
17 time-frame? What was the time-frame?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, we have seen many reports with all
19 of them their own time-frame. Sometimes one month, sometimes anything
20 after Operation Storm. So, unless -- I mean, I'm asking myself -- I take
21 it that if you are preparing for statistics on a specific month that you
22 instruct to collect the data for that month.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well Mr. President, I will specify --
24 JUDGE ORIE: And the other one sometime it was cumulative for a
25 longer period of time.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. Now we'll take your first report, D1554.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And before I move off this document,
4 Mr. President, may I tender this document into evidence?
5 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President I have no objection of it in that --
6 excuse me -- actually, the Croatian going in, of course, is not a full
7 translation. I don't know how Your Honour wants to handle that. But in
8 theory, we have no objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think in view of the evidence given by this
10 witness, if the parties could live with an incomplete translation,
11 because it seems to me that what, in view of the evidence, seems to be
12 relevant of this document, is sufficiently accessible for
13 English-speaking persons.
14 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, you convinced me, so we have no
16 JUDGE ORIE: Same is true for the other Defence teams.
17 Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2568.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
20 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Mr. Registrar, if I could have D1554.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, first of all, let's look at your report
24 compiled for October 1995.
25 Now, the figures given in this report --
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could go, Mr. Registrar, to the
2 next page.
3 Q. If you take as an example, there's a record of criminal files
4 being raised against 305 persons under Article 126.
5 Now, this relates to what period? When you instructed your
6 clerks what did you tell them? To give you statistics of crimes
7 committed for which period?
8 A. The preamble specifies this. It relates to a month. I don't
9 know which specific month it states here in the document. But this is
10 what the document states in the preamble.
11 Q. Now, when -- now, you today, in relation to the previous
12 document, you said even today you don't understand what it means by
13 crimes related to Operation Storm.
14 Now, what type of crime did you --
15 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could you refer to where it says
17 "related to Operation Storm."
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Because the testimony yesterday was, rather, in
20 terms of time --
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President I'm referring to testimony
22 today. The witness just said this.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that was about the 2006 documentation.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. I hadn't finished my
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. Please finish your question.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Now, when you compiled these statistics, did you have an
4 understanding as to what type of crimes you were supposed to look at?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Are we talking about 1995?
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 1995.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. In 1995 when you compiled these statistics, were you specifically
10 focussing on a type of crime as those related to Operation Storm?
11 A. By all mean, yes. However, the primary criterion was the
12 liberated territory; in other words, offences committed at the time in
13 the liberated territory and the time-period being that one month,
14 depending on which period was being queried. And all the offences which
15 were -- to which the municipal courts in Benkovac, Knin, Donji Lapac,
16 Gracac, and the municipal court in Zadar were put on notice of, these are
17 the subject-matter jurisdiction courts. You see, the courts at the time
18 had that subject-matter jurisdiction only for offences which carried a
19 sentence of maximum of five years. But let me not tire you with this
21 The criterion was the crimes committed in the liberated territory
22 and falling under the jurisdiction of these courts. This was the request
23 we received.
24 Q. Now, in saying "crimes," going by this document, we can see you
25 have focussed on crimes against property and crimes against persons. Did
1 you instruct your subordinate officers to focus on the type of -- for
2 example, if you say crimes against property -- crimes against persons, if
3 it's a killing incident, that the victims should be -- should be members
4 of the Serb population, or did you take on board killing incidents in
5 relation to all persons in that area of responsibility?
6 A. You have that information there. Murder is listed first.
7 Criminal offences against life and limb. Every report started with that
8 heading first.
9 Q. Mr. Galovic --
10 A. I did not focus on crimes against property.
11 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, excuse me. The witness has got to
12 complete the answer before he's being interrupted.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: But the witness was not answering my question.
15 That's why I tried to focus him to my question, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I got the impression that you had put this question
17 to him already yesterday.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And he didn't answer, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's -- [overlapping speakers].
20 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, enough with the commentary.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know,
22 apparently, is whether in reporting and presenting statistical data,
23 whether any distinction was made as to the ethnicity of the victims.
24 That appears to be the question. Could you answer that question?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, not. I don't understand
1 the question. I said so yesterday. Of course, no attention was paid to
2 that. Murder is murder.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, irrespective of the ethnicity or the victim.
4 And they were all reported and there was no distinction.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Irrespective of that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Now, in relation to the cases of theft that's reported, was there
9 any distinction made as to what type of theft should be taken on board,
10 should be considered in compiling the data, or were all crimes of theft
11 prosecuted by your office and the municipal prosecutor's offices during
12 the period taken on board?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could I perhaps make the question
14 a bit more precise. You said whether all crimes of theft were
16 Were all crimes of theft that were reported prosecuted without
17 any distinction?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. That was not my question.
19 My question was, whether in providing the statistics.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Do the statistics include all crimes of thefts
22 which were prosecuted, without drawing a --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Fine. Now I understand your question.
24 In these statistics you presented in 1995, were all prosecutions
25 for all crimes of theft included?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Now, if I could go back to the previous chart,
3 Mr. Registrar - I did not note down the exhibit number - P2568.
4 And if we could move to page 2, Mr. Registrar, of the -- the
5 original version.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, I want to draw your attention to entry number 1
7 there. There is a killing incident reported there, in relation to one
8 Milos Mrkic, who is the accused and the victim is reported as Sava Mrkic.
9 Now we in fact -- now this is reported as a killing incident
10 prosecuted by your office in relation to Operation Storm, and this report
11 is in -- filed in 2006.
12 Now, we examined the corresponding crime file, and in fact this
13 is what we found --
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could bring up document
16 Q. -- and there, there are the details of the accused in the first
17 paragraph there. And the crime is reported in second paragraph, if I
18 would read to you.
19 "As 5th August 1995
20 where, from the Maslenica operation, he lived with his wife Sava, who was
21 unable to move, after the Croatian military police forces having
22 liberated" -- you know, it goes on "... he set off a hand grenade with
23 the intention to kill himself and his wife Sava, who was lying on bed in
24 spite of her attempts to dissuade him."
25 Now, the killing incident you reported as a prosecution relating
1 to Operation Storm there in that chart. It's a killing incident, it's an
2 attempted suicide, and it's the husband killing the wife.
3 Now, this is what I tried to ask you: In compiling your
4 statistics, you said you did not differentiate, make a distinction on the
5 basis of who the -- the victim was. So in the absence of underlying
6 material supporting your statistics, the Trial Chamber would not be able
7 to evaluate the relevance of those statistics to this indictment.
8 Are you able to provide the Trial Chamber --
9 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, I object to the commentary
10 by counsel. If counsel has a question, that's fine. Commentary about
11 she believes is irrelevant.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President I can --
13 MR. KEHOE: No, you can't.
14 JUDGE ORIE: There are two basic rules, the one being,
15 Ms. Mahindaratne, that you do not include comments in your question. You
16 may put a leading question in cross-examination, there's no problem with
17 that. But you can't first give your comments. And the second basic
18 rule, is that this Chamber decides on what can be done and what cannot be
19 done and not be objected.
20 MR. KEHOE: My apologies, Mr. President, to the Chamber.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, first let me suggest to you that in the absence
24 of and the underlying material, your statistics cannot be evaluated as
25 being relevant to this indictment. Now, are you able to?
1 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, that is -- I object to the
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. First let me
4 just --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you're doing exactly the same as
6 you did before.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I apologise, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And, well, at least Mr. Kehoe learned that the
9 Chamber decides, so the second basic rule has now been observed. The
10 first basic rule we expect you to observe in the question you'll put to
11 the witness.
12 Please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. Mr. Galovic, are you able to provided material or information
15 such as that you provided in your table here, that we've just gone
16 through, to the Trial Chamber so that we can evaluate your statistics?
17 Are you able to provide that material to the Trial Chamber?
18 A. I can provide you with all the material. All the material I have
19 I can send to The Hague
20 don't know what is in dispute. I don't know which are the materials or
21 documents that are being challenged. In connection with this case, I can
22 provide with you all the materials, either from the state attorney's
23 office or from the Court file that I can get again possession of. If
24 that is the problem.
25 Am I understanding you properly?
1 Q. Mr. Galovic, the problem is we do in fact have the material and
2 we tried to find corresponding materials supporting your statistics. But
3 what we have obtained so far from Croatia
4 Do you have --
5 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, excuse me.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, this has caused more or less, as a matter of
7 fact, Mr. Galovic, you -- apart from answering the question, you also
8 asked yourself what the issue was and why what you had done until now was
9 not sufficient, and then Ms. Mahindaratne responded to that, which is a
10 bit out of the scope of the examination of a witness. So it's
11 understandable that Ms. Mahindaratne responded to what you said. But
12 she'll now put her next question to you.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. Now, first and foremost, can you tell me what type of material
15 can you provide to support your statistics that you provided yesterday?
16 Are you able to provide crime files?
17 A. In principle, yes. It's an enormous undertaking because some of
18 those data are in Knin, some in Gospic and Gradacac, some in Benkovac,
19 some in Zadar, some even in Karlovac, but it is possible. If the entries
20 are not sufficient, then I don't see that should be any problem for us to
21 collect all this information that you are requesting and provide you with
22 it. There's no problem there. I simply couldn't make up these figures
23 and data. The data are as they are. Whatever you wish, you can obtain,
24 but I must caution you - and I've already said that several times - that
25 they are dispersed, the data has been dispersed after the change of
1 jurisdiction to several state attorney's offices. That is why some
2 things do not coincide. But each of them individually are precise and
3 correct, because there's the number of reports of the police. There's a
4 date, there's the name of the person, there is the act, there is the
5 actual crime, and whichever data you request, I can provided you with
6 within a reasonable period of time.
7 Q. Are you able to provide us with the work product or the tables
8 that may have been produced in compiling the statistics? For example, in
9 extracting the data from the registers, your clerks may have surely made
10 a record. Are you able to provide us with that record?
11 MR. KEHOE: If I may get some clarity. Are we talking about the
12 1995 statistics or 2006?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. 1995 statistics.
15 A. It's quite a long time ago, but you will be surprised by my
16 answer. Not much but some, yes. The data written by hand which were
17 later included in this report, I do have them. I have such data.
18 Q. And --
19 A. For these monthly reports sent to the ministry and tables that
20 accompanied them.
21 Q. So you do have tables, such as the table that we saw a little
22 while ago, supporting your statistics which you could provide to the
23 Trial Chamber. Is that what you're saying?
24 A. In a sense, yes. They're not identical tables. The tables
25 differ, depending on what you wish to show by a table. The table I'm
1 referring to for this period you can see the quantity of files received
2 and what happened later with those files, the process that was
3 undertaken, the indictments issued and so on. But I'm sorry, I don't
4 understand. If you have this report, is this checking the data? Fine.
5 I do have a part of that, and I can send them to you. In fact, the part
6 referring to these data could be sent to you in a short period of time.
7 You will receive pages written by hand and how those data were extracted
8 and transformed into this report. This is the logical sequence of
10 Q. And do those documents refer to the -- the crime files, the
11 corresponding crime files, so that we be able to undertake an evaluation
12 vis-a-vis your entries in the manner that you have done with your table
13 that was just produced.
14 A. Let me see. If you wish to do a complete check, then it would be
15 best for you to ask me whether I can provide the original files and they
16 contain everything. Then I'll obtain the entire file, either from the
17 court, or my own, if I have it, and I will forward them to you. Because
18 those files were formed after the state attorney's office in the court,
19 if there were -- there was an indictment. And those documents must be
20 part of the file and there can be no dispute about that.
21 Q. Very well, Mr. Galovic. I --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, the Chamber wonders this is the
23 right time and the right place to explore further investigative
24 facilities that may exist where the Chamber expects you to cross-examine
25 the witness further.
1 Could you please proceed.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, in your chart that we just saw, you note the
4 source of your report, the body that has reported the incident to your
5 office. And that would be -- that's indicated in column 2, the column 1
6 refers to numbers.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could have P -- I
8 give the 65 ter number. 7320. That was exhibit number P2568.
9 MR. KEHOE: 2568.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, counsel.
11 And if you could go to the next page, Mr. Registrar.
12 Q. In column 1 -- I'm sorry, column 2, you record the -- the source
13 of the criminal report. And we note that in most of the entries you
14 record the source as a police station, and you also indicate the KU
16 Now, isn't it correct that when a police station initiates an
17 investigation, that matter is recorded in their own crime registers and a
18 KU number is assigned?
19 A. That is so. That is precisely this number that appears here.
20 Those are the KU numbers.
21 Q. Likewise, if you, as a state prosecutor, request the police to
22 undertake an investigation, the police would then record that matter in
23 their own crime registers. This is apart from registration in your own
24 books. They would be recorded in the crime registers of the police
25 station which would be given a KU number; isn't that correct?
1 A. Partially. Because the KU number is the number of the criminal
2 report. There are various numbers, because every processing doesn't end
3 with a criminal report.
4 I can't tell you exactly how the police numbers its documents,
5 but if I asked the police to conduct an inquiry, then, certainly, that is
6 recorded with a reference to my own number on the letter addressed to
7 them, for them to be able to respond to that same request.
8 Q. So if the police conducts an investigation, that matter would be
9 essentially registered in the police crime registers; isn't that correct?
10 Please, I'm saying in addition to records maintained by your office.
11 A. Let me correct myself. The police never conducts an
12 investigation. Maybe there's an error in the translation.
13 The police either acts independently or upon instructions from
14 us, and they process the case. They conduct inquiries, and when they
15 establish that there is ground to suspect that a criminal act has been
16 committed, and if the perpetrator is known, then a criminal report is
17 filed with this -- such a number.
18 If they establish that there was a crime committed and they
19 haven't discovered the perpetrator, then it figures under a different
20 number as a report against an unknown person. All this is registered.
21 They have their own register and the state attorney's office has their
22 own register. We have our own records and they have their own, referring
23 to the same problems, the same issues.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, we have a procedural matter to
25 be raised. I note the time, so perhaps the witness --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps we already ask Madam Usher to
2 escort Mr. Galovic out of the courtroom.
3 We'll have a break, Mr. Galovic. We'd like to see you back after
4 the break.
5 Ms. Mahindaratne. Oh, Mr. Hedaraly.
6 MR. HEDARALY: Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you.
7 The issue we'd like to put on the record is with respect to
8 expert reports from the Defence. I note the reference in the transcript
9 at 17977 on 3 June where we were told we were going to receive the bulk
10 of expert reports within two weeks. We've had discussion with counsel
11 about this on an ongoing basis. Last week, we asked for -- to get all
12 the reports by 30 June. As the Chamber knows so far, we have received
13 two expert reports: The experts of Mr. Cross and the expert report of
14 Mr. Corn. We have not received any other expert reports.
15 Given the Defence's announcement that they will close their case
16 in the first or second week of September, that reduces the time left for
17 us to prepare for any other experts. Also the recess is coming so many
18 of our staff will be missing. In all fairness to Mr. Kehoe, we have
19 discussed the matter with him several times. He informed us - and he
20 will correct me if I'm wrong - there are two additional expert reports
21 that we may get but that he is waiting for an English translation.
22 Given the late nature now as the Defence case is essentially has
23 three weeks before the recess and two or three weeks after, we would
24 really need disclosure of these report if experts will be called right
25 after the break just so that we can prepare adequately. For example,
1 Mr. Corn's report we received like literally 30 days before he is
2 supposed to testify, or 31 days, and part of this process of negotiating
3 and asking in June and the agreement to give us in advance was the
4 understanding that sometimes more time than 30 days is necessary for
5 these reports.
6 So if we can just put that on the record and have a date by which
7 we can be certain we will get reports for any experts that will be called
8 in the Defence case.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President. With regard to the report, I
11 think counsel misspoke. That's not Mr. Corn's, that's General Cross'
12 report. I think that that's just clarifying that last bit.
13 General Cross will testify before the break. Any other expert
14 that we have, such as we provided Professor Corn's expert. He is not
15 going to testify until September.
16 The other issue is General Jones. He likewise will not testify
17 till after the break, but his report will be done imminently; and
18 imminently I have within the next few days, the early part of next week
19 the latest I believe.
20 The one problematic report that I talked to Mr. Hedaraly about
21 which he gracefully had mentioned was a report that I got from an expert
22 that literally is somewhere in the area of 60 to 70 pages in Croatian
23 we'll have with attachments, which we are vigorously trying to translate.
24 To be frank with you, Your Honour, I haven't been able to read it myself,
25 and we are, I will tell you, putting all hands on trying to get this
1 translated so we can put it to some use.
2 And I will tell you, Mr. President, that it will not be used
3 prior to the break. I mean, we will, of course, not put it in until --
4 till the -- well, after the break. I mean, we can gladly give it to them
5 in Croatian now. Out of respect of colleagues, I know they don't speak
6 Croatian either, so that's we've been vigorously trying to get it
7 translated. But that's where we are with regard to that report and
8 that's fueled from Mr. Pokaz.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Jones report.
10 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me?
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Jones report.
12 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Next week, Tuesday? You said a couple of days.
14 MR. KEHOE: If I may.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's Friday morning.
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. KEHOE: My problem, and I know this is not something that
18 is -- my problem right now is this the 4th of July weekend in the United
19 States and people are out and about, so if I can have till Thursday and I
20 will get it by then.
21 Again, he will not be testifying until after the break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thursday, and no testimony before the recess. Is
24 MR. HEDARALY: Well, it --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just talking the Jones report.
1 MR. HEDARALY: It doesn't look like we have choice, Mr.
2 President, in this matter. I mean, we're told that the bulk of the
3 reports we'll get by mid-June. Now we're mid-July we've received two. I
4 mean, I understand there is some problems but that is what the Chamber
5 told us, and we were instructed to raise the matter and we tried to
6 discuss the matter over and over and we asked for 30 June, and we
7 understand that there are obviously problems associated with it. But, it
8 is getting harder and harder to prepare. I know it's after the recess,
9 but during the recess a lot of our team will not be here either. So
10 we're talking about, if we get it next week, two weeks before the recess,
11 and two weeks after the recess, gives us four weeks - maybe one or two in
12 the middle. It's just -- and then if we get other expert reports that
13 got to get translated, then we will end up with three, four, five expert
14 reports, and we'll have a --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I was not inviting a re-start of the discussion
16 because it is clear what's bothering the Defence and I'm just ...
17 Mr. Kehoe you said the early part of next week. That's Thursday
18 for you?
19 MR. KEHOE: Well.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different approach of what a week is.
21 MR. KEHOE: I forgot about the 4th of July weekend which
22 Mr. Cronin, my colleague reminded me of. Mr. President, if I could
23 say -- but, I mean, and I'm trying to get this information to the
24 Prosecution as quickly as possible. I mean, we did receive addendums to
25 two reports less than or for 30 days prior to. For instance, Mr. Konings
1 testified. But that's neither here nor there. I am trying to get this
2 report to them as soon as possible. I will tell the Chamber with regard
3 to General Jones' report, we are talking about somewhere 12 to 14 pages
4 tops. This is not some magnum opus for the OTP to get their mind around,
5 so I think that is -- it's going to be quite terse.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you consider the specific circumstances
8 that exist in the United States these days. Let me then also pay
9 attention to the time difference between the United States. In the
10 United States they can work on it for the whole of the Wednesday, which
11 means that the time limit is set at Thursday morning, 9.00.
12 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: For the Jones report.
14 Now the other one. What's the size of the other report? You
15 haven't read it, but you have weighed it, I take it.
16 MR. KEHOE: I have weighed it, Mr. President, and it is --
17 frankly, it was -- in Croatian it was 60 to 70 pages. I mean, it was
18 double-spaced, but it's still pretty lengthy. I was -- we are feverishly
19 getting any number of people attempting to translate it. And I will tell
20 in all candid --
21 JUDGE ORIE: When did you receive it?
22 MR. KEHOE: I think the early part of last week.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Early part and late part of weeks is --
24 MR. KEHOE: I do believe I was told about last [overlapping
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Friday or?
2 MR. KEHOE: Well, I think I was told about a week of last Monday
3 or Tuesday, one of those days.
4 JUDGE ORIE: What portion has been translated.
5 MR. KEHOE: I'd have to check, Mr. President. I can find that
6 out at the break of how much has been translated. If we can -- just my
7 colleague can send an e-mail back to the Zagreb office and the people in
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is the structure of the report such that you can
10 identify, well, let's say general conclusions or I have got no idea what
11 the report is, but sometimes you can start translating conclusions and
12 then go to the details later, or leave out the footnotes for the time
13 being so that you prepare, first of all, the body of the -- I'm trying to
14 find a way in which --
15 MR. KEHOE: I do believe there are conclusions and we can refocus
16 and get conclusions on the various areas. There is a structure. Again,
17 this is what has been told me. There are individual conclusions in that
18 structure, and we can provide those. I just have to -- if can just send
19 an e-mail during the break, and hopefully by the next break we can have
20 more concrete information on that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, it's not a way out for the problem.
22 It's just a practical approach that if, for example, you tell us that it
23 would take you another ten or 14 days to have it translated, that we
24 would suggest to you, that already to, in the sequence translation, that
25 you might even gain some advantage by giving priority to certain parts of
1 the report. It's certainly not to offer you a way out that more time
2 could be used for the translation.
3 The Chamber would like to be informed about when you would expect
4 to be able to provide a translation, and also what has been translated
5 over the last ten days, because you apparently are in possession of this
6 report now for ten days. You were in an ongoing discussion with
7 Mr. Hedaraly on timely production of a -- of an expert report.
8 Therefore, the Chamber would like to know what has been done over the
9 last ten days to -- and then we'll further deal with the matter.
10 Any other issue, Mr. Hedaraly?
11 MR. HEDARALY: If I could just confirm that these are the only
12 additional reports we'll be getting; those two?
13 MR. KEHOE: Just those two. I do have one matter that
14 Mr. Hedaraly raised yesterday, and I'm glad that Mr. Hedaraly MFI'd those
15 two documents, because I honestly don't recall what they were, but we
16 have reviewed those documents and have no objection. Whatever those two
17 documents were exactly --
18 MR. HEDARALY: That's P2566 and P2567.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And can you remind us what these documents are,
20 because they were bar tabled.
21 MR. HEDARALY: They were bar tabled Mr. Waespi at the end, but
22 the testimony of witness Bilic, which were documents about the -- parts
23 of the documents of the whereabouts of the 15th Home Guard Regiment,
24 which the witness was part of.
25 MR. KEHOE: That's correct. And an order and the whereabouts;
1 that's right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, the -- P2566 and P2567 are
3 admitted into evidence.
4 We will have a break and resume at five minutes past 11.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.09 a.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Mr. Registrar, may I have document number 4460, please. That's a
10 65 ter a number.
11 Q. Mr. Galovic, isn't it correct that you met with delegates of the
12 Amnesty International during 1997, 1998?
13 A. I did meet with them a great many times. I don't remember
14 exactly when, but I did meet with representatives of various
15 international organisations.
16 Q. And the principal purpose of those meetings were to discuss
17 prosecutions conducted by your offices in relation to crimes committed in
18 relation to Operation Storm; isn't that correct?
19 A. No, not just that, but that was included.
20 Q. And you discussed the statistics and prosecutions conducted by
21 you with -- with those delegates; isn't that correct?
22 A. Probably, yes.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could move to the
24 English translation, page -- this is the English -- it's the original.
25 Page 23, and the Croatian translation page 24.
1 And in the English I'm referring to the first paragraph, which is
2 continuation from the previous page.
3 Q. Mr. Galovic, do you see that paragraph where it's recorded:
4 "The prosecutors in many relevant courts were reluctant or
5 refused to meet with Amnesty International delegates visiting Croatia
6 May 1998 without express permission of the Ministry of Justice. However,
7 the organisation was able to meet with the prosecutors handling most of
8 the cases of killings committed in former Sector South, the Zadar and
9 Sibenik county courts?"
10 And then it's footnoted, footnote number 12 reads:
11 "In late March 1998, changes to the borders of the Zadar and
12 Sibenik counties went into effect which transferred many municipalities
13 which had been in Zadar county to Sibenik county, including Knin and many
14 others in former Sector South. As a result, ongoing criminal cases also
15 were transferred from the responsibility of the Zadar county prosecutor
16 and court to the Sibenik county prosecutor and court. As a result, the
17 dust has been blown off several outstanding cases, which are now coming
18 to trial in the Sibenik court [sic]."
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to the next page, page
20 24. And in the Croatian version, page 24.
21 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I'm advised that the witness can't see
22 the footnote or hadn't -- hadn't scrolled down on the B/C/S to see the
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
25 Q. Do you see that footnote, Mr. Galovic? It's right at the top?
1 A. Yes, I see it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Were you able to follow what was -- what
3 Ms. Mahindaratne was reading?
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we move to the Croatian version, focus
6 on the paragraph right at the bottom, page 24. And in the English
7 version, paragraph 2, in page 24.
8 Q. It reads:
9 "Despite the Croatian authorities assurances that instructions
10 had been given to ... relevant courts to pursue prosecutions from
11 Operation Storm as a matter of priority ... Amnesty International can
12 find no indications that in fact this was the case. Some cases where
13 indictments had been issued in 1995 or early 1996 were transferred to the
14 Sibenik county court without a trial date ever having been set. The case
15 of two former soldiers accused of rape noted above being one such example
16 (the indictment was issued in December 1995). Another example is a trial
17 for the killing of Andja and Draginja ... which began in Sibenik in
18 May 1998, although the indictment had been filed by the Zadar county
19 prosecutor in September 1996 - that would have been one of the two cases
20 for which the authorities supplied information that an individual was
21 under investigation in June 1996."
22 Mr. Galovic, this is a report about activities of your office.
23 Now, isn't this report accurate, your -- the indictments you filed in
24 fact were not taken out for trial until the cases were transferred to the
25 Sibenik prosecutor's office; isn't that correct?
1 Did you hear me, sir?
2 A. Yes, yes, I understand. You want me to tell you what is stated
3 in the report of Amnesty International, for me to interpret it my own
4 way. Is that what you're asking me to do?
5 Q. No, my question was, isn't it correct that the indictments that
6 you proffered were not in fact as it's reported here, taken out for trial
7 in the -- until they were transferred to the Sibenik prosecutor's office.
8 This is an accurate report, isn't that so?
9 A. No, you have misunderstood it. Because a trial is not decided by
10 me. I complete my duty once I issued the indictment. So it says even
11 though the attorney sent the indictment to the court at such and such a
12 date, it's up to the court to continue the proceedings. As a state
13 attorney, I have no influence over the decisions of the court.
14 Q. Let me also take you to another portion of this report,
15 Mr. Galovic.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to page 19 of the
17 English, the original, and the Croatian version, page 19, Mr. Registrar.
18 And in the Croatian version, it's focussing on the last paragraph.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, just for the record, when you're
20 referring to pages you are referring to e-court pages and not the paging
21 as we find it on the top of the -- each page of the document.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's correct, Mr. President. Thank you.
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Excuse me, can I please have the 65 ter number
24 one more time. It was not -- it was mistranscribed in the transcript.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 4460.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you.
2 Q. And if we could just scroll down to the bottom of the page and
3 the -- do you note that paragraph, Mr. Galovic, which says:
4 "The response is typical in so far as it is vaguely refers to an
5 enormous number of criminal prosecutions with no indication of how, if at
6 all, the specific concern fits into those numbers. Depending on when the
7 letters were issued and by whom, the statistics varied. In
8 correspondence with Amnesty International and in other international
9 fora [phoen] the authorities clearly intended to convey that these
10 investigations and criminal proceedings was sufficient to address the
11 human rights violations and other acts of violence committed in the wake
12 of Operation Storm."
13 And if you could move to page 21, Mr. Registrar, on the English
14 version on e-court, and Croatian version it's page 21, paragraph 2.
15 It says:
16 "Of these 2.849 cases, which the authorities claim were before
17 the courts in June 1996, less than two per cent concerned cases of
18 killings for the criminal act of murder."
19 Then Article 34 of the Croatian Criminal Code:
20 "The authorities claimed that 22 individuals were under
21 investigation, the legal proceedings were under way against 30 people,
22 and that final decisions had been made against one person. When Amnesty
23 International spoke to prosecutors in May 1998 and inquired about why,
24 when in some of the cases the perpetrators had been on active duty with
25 the military or police, they had not been charged with crimes against a
1 civilian population" -- then the act is referred to "Article 120 of the
2 Croatian Criminal Code and the criminal act under Croatian law with which
3 soldiers who had been serving with the RSK army are normally charged if
4 the act involves the killing of civilian. The prosecutors were unable to
5 provide a response. Amnesty International fears that the reason may be
6 political given the widely cited comment of Milan Vukovic, president of
7 the supreme court of Croatia
8 cannot commit war crimes since they were defending the homeland."
9 And on the same page, if you go to the last paragraph on the
10 English version, in the Croatian version also bottom of the page. I'm
11 sorry, Croatian version page 22 on e-court. I'm reading from the second
12 line from the bottom.
13 "And in fact during that meeting, while the justice minister did
14 provide Amnesty International with a breakdown of the statistics which
15 reflected the numbers of individuals charged with particular offences
16 before particular courts, the [indiscernible] of the Justice Ministry
17 noted that these statistics do not in fact solely relate to criminal acts
18 committed in 1995, but represents the criminal cases which are currently
19 before the courts in the relevant regions. The Ministry of Justice
20 representatives confirms that there is no way to discern from the
21 statistics provided which cases were for acts committed in 1995 and which
22 are for acts committed in, for example, 1996 or 1997, nor is it possible
23 to conclude any information about who the victims or suspects might be."
24 Now, this is what we have been discussing, Mr. Galovic. Isn't it
25 correct that today you're unable to just the same way, when you met the
1 delegates of Amnesty International way back, you are unable to in fact
2 accurately provide information to the Trial Chamber to establish that the
3 statistics you provided are for crimes committed in 1995, specifically
4 for August and September 1995; isn't that correct?
5 A. No, it is not correct. Simply, it is not correct. What you have
6 read out doesn't relate it me. It is the impression of Amnesty
7 International linked to proceedings in the whole country. Many comments
8 referred to the work of the ministry. I personally, for each and every
9 criminal act, I'm ready to provide all data and to provide answers,
10 regardless of the question, be they factual or legal questions, for any
11 criminal act, and specifically for killings. And specifically linked to
12 why an act was qualified as being this or that. So for each individual
13 case I'm ready to provide answers.
14 Q. Mr. Galovic, my question is not whether you are ready but you are
15 unable today in the course --
16 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I object to the commentary by counsel.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I said that I am able to
18 do that.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
20 Q. Mr. Galovic, my question is you're unable today, or in the course
21 of your testimony before this Trial Chamber, to provide this Trial
22 Chamber with the required information to support that the statistics you
23 have provided in fact relate to crimes committed in August and
24 September 1995; isn't that correct? In the course of these proceedings.
25 A. If you would want me to take out this pile of papers supporting
1 the documentation, you are right. What I am not able to do, really, is
2 from where I'm sitting now to present to you the supporting material, the
3 mound of material. You are quite right in that.
4 However, I am happy to provide with you any answers to any of the
5 cases or any reports, be they from Amnesty International or anybody else
6 who talked to me.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I move this document into
9 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, in theory I have no objection. If I
10 could just take a look at an appropriate time. If we could get an MFI it
11 real quick.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I apologise.
15 MS. HIGGINS: Can I register my concerns at this point on behalf
16 of the Defence team for Mr. Cermak. The reality of this document is that
17 it's a 60-page Amnesty International report. It's not being tendered
18 through an Amnesty witness or through someone who could speak to how it
19 has been prepared. It is analogous to some of the reports that were
20 dealt with through, for example, Mr. Puhovski who could actually speak to
21 the report. It cover a plethora of issues, including crimes that were
22 allegedly committed in the region. And we have had no opportunity, of
23 course, to cross-examine the maker or preparer of this report.
24 So in our submission it falls into the category of case of an NGO
25 report, and it's not appropriate in the circumstances that we face today
1 with this witness who can speak to merely portions, most of which, if not
2 all, he doesn't accept.
3 In my submission the more appropriate way of dealing with this
4 would be to consider the admission of those portions that
5 Ms. Mahindaratne has dealt with with the witness, to that I would have no
6 objection. But to the entirety of the report which actually also deals
7 with key allegations in this case, including the allegation of Grubori,
8 and I would object to the admission of the entire report, Your Honour.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I not only join in that objection, but for all
12 the discussion of the lack of underlying documentation, we have no
13 documentation for this what report. What underlying documents Amnesty
14 International reviewed, what underlying information they had to base
15 their report on, so I think it's quite hypocritical to criticise this
16 particular witness on the issue of not having his documentation for which
17 his tables were the result of, and when we have bold accusations in this
18 Amnesty International report, without any way to verify, cross-examine,
19 review the underlying documentation ourselves for this particular report.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I don't know whether the witness was criticised
22 or whether questions were put to him as to the availability immediately
23 at this moment on the supporting data. But apart from that, the first
24 issue, Ms. Mahindaratne, apart from other concerns expressed by the
25 Cermak and Markac Defence, are you willing to limit the -- are you
1 willing to limit the evidence to those portions of this document you
2 dealt with, with the witness, leaving the others -- parts out?
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President for the reason there are
4 other -- I don't know want to take the time of Court, but there are other
5 portions that's relevant to this witness included in this report.
6 Further, the Defence has in fact tendered, you know, for example Mr.
7 Sekulic's book without calling him to testify and gone through several
8 other, for example, the book by Mr. Marko Vrcelj, then there are other --
9 this practice has been followed by the Defence in -- during the
10 Prosecution phase of the case, Mr. President.
11 My intention in tendering this is apart from the excerpts that I
12 just read out, there are other information which is relevant to this
13 witness's testimony with regard to the statistics and data.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then, of course, we would at least need to
15 know which portions you are referring to, because I do understand that
16 again the Chamber has not seen the whole of the report, that if, for
17 example the Grubori incident is dealt with, which may or may not have to
18 do anything with statistics, that Mr. Kuzmanovic objects against at least
19 those portions.
20 So you can approach it from a negative way or from a positive way
21 that you have to identify positively the portions you'd like to seek --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I could do that Mr. President -- not
23 immediately, but I could identify and then perhaps we could just tender
24 those excerpts in -- of the entire report if that is preferable.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well if you -- if you have not done that yet,
1 and to the extent the Defence would want to put questions to the witness
2 in relation to those portions, then, of course, it could not be done
3 after the witness has left The Hague
4 So if you would like to do something of the kind, it should be
5 done at its latest during the next break.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll do that, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have it, then, for the time being marked for
8 identification, Mr. Kehoe.
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Awaiting a further selection of portions of the
12 MR. KEHOE: And I just on that score, Ms. Mahindaratne's comment
13 on page 50, line 6, if there in fact other portions of this report that
14 are relevant to Mr. Galovic under 90(H), the Prosecution has the
15 obligation to put that to the witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think it -- if other portions are relevant it
17 should be verified with the witness whether -- I don't know what the
18 reports comment on what he said, whether he said certain things or not.
19 But you should, to start with, identify the relevant portions.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will do that Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And whether it should be put to the witness depends
22 on whether the testimony of the witness in any way contradicts the
23 Prosecution's case because that's the test under Rule 90(H).
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Not knowing what portions of the document are
1 relevant, of course, it's impossible to say at this moment whether that
2 is the case or not.
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if it could be assigned a
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P2569, marked
8 for identification.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. I will come -- come to that particular subject later on,
12 Mr. Galovic.
13 Just moving on to the case of Varivode and Gosici, which you
14 discussed yesterday with Mr. Kehoe. And you are aware that the charges
15 in that case has been dropped; isn't that correct?
16 A. No, not in my case. Charges were dropped once the case was
17 transferred to Sibenik and after my appeal was upheld before the supreme
18 court and admitted that facts were erroneously established, remanded the
19 case to the court, which in this case was the court in Sibenik, where,
20 unfortunately, my colleague, my counterpart withdrew the charges.
21 Q. That's what I meant. I should have, you know, elaborated by
23 Now, in your statement at pages 6 to 10, you in fact address this
24 particular crime.
25 Now, isn't it correct that this judgement, the judgement
1 provided --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if I could have in the meanwhile, Mr.
3 Registrar, P1076, please, the judgement itself.
4 Q. Mr. Galovic, the judgement will be on the screen in a moment and
5 you will be very familiar with that since you appealed against it.
6 Now, this judgement relates to a consolidated trial relating to
7 four separate killing incidents; isn't that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All together eight persons were indicted in that consolidated
10 trial; is that correct?
11 A. That's correct, yes. It was consolidated by the court. It is
12 only the court that can decide about consolidating, joining cases.
13 Q. Now, in the indictments you proffered and, we have those
14 indictments if you want to look at them, but you're probably more
15 familiar about -- you're familiar with them.
16 You have described the -- all the eight accused as civilians.
17 In fact, you have -- addressing that issue in your statement at page 9
18 you have stated as follows. You have been questioned about that and you
20 "Reading the indictment for Gosici I realised that Ivica Petric,"
21 I'm sorry, I think that was corrected. Pero Perkovic, yes?
22 MR. KEHOE: If I may, the sentence was corrected. Reading
23 indictment of Gosici, I realised that the Visa Petric and Slatko Ladovic
24 were not members of the HV at the time the criminal offence was
25 perpetrated. And the next sentence should be "Pero Perkovic" not "Ivica
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Okay. Thank you, counsel.
3 Q. "Pero Perkovic and Nikola Rasic were members of the HV; however,
4 they had days off. But I'm certain that Ivica Petric and Nikola Rasic
5 were only formally HV members and that this status was formally
6 terminated at that point when the indictment was raised," which is why,
7 according to Article 1 of the decree on amendment and supplement of the
8 decree on the organisation, and you refer to the -- the law.
9 You say:
10 "When the military status of the perpetrator of criminal offences
11 criminal" -- this is not correctly recorded. I'm just reading verbatim.
12 "Criminal proceedings terminated before the charges were raised, the
13 trial shall be conducted before the municipal district court having
14 jurisdiction, and in this case the county court in Zadar had jurisdiction
15 for the trial."
16 Now, isn't it correct, Mr. Galovic, that seven out of eight of
17 these persons, and I would tell you exactly whom with the exception of
18 the sixth accused, all the other accused were in fact members of the HV
19 at the time the alleged offences relevant to this indictment were
21 A. Is that a question?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. I cannot agree with you. And I can explain why.
24 Operation Storm ceased in my area on the 7th. The situation in
25 the army was all but clear. For the purposes of Storm people from the
1 reserve force were mobilised, and following Operation Storm, it was down
2 to the military administration and the pace of their work on which their
3 mobilisation of these people depended.
4 The military courts were provisional courts, and that is why soon
5 thereafter they were abolished, did not have the necessary human and
6 technical resources to keep up with the situation. If the status of any
7 individual was at any point in time questionable, actions have to be
8 taken speedily. Under our legislation, such swift investigations that
9 have to be carried out can even be carried out by the court that does not
10 have jurisdiction simply to expedite proceedings because that's the
11 central matter.
12 However, the important matter is the following. In every
13 situation, if the individuals concerned have been demobilised before the
14 indictment is issued, they fall under the jurisdiction of a civilian
15 court. Therefore, in any case, they would have been tried before a
16 civilian court.
17 Now, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is something that
18 lies solely within the powers of the court. I have no say in that.
19 Before the supreme court or before the county court, the subject-matter
20 jurisdiction was never called into question. If I may only add this, two
21 out of the eight persons were accused of 16 crimes of aggravated murder,
22 murder each, in all 32 crimes of aggravated murder.
23 As for the rest, depending on the crimes they participated, in
24 they were charged with seven and nine crimes of aggravated murder
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President. If we could check the word the
3 witness used at page 54 line 19, that first word I believe would --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could I.
5 MR. MISETIC: I believe --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, let me just find it.
7 Yes. You said it was down to the military administration, and
8 the pace of their work on which their ... and then what did you say in
9 relation it persons? You said --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that these persons were
11 certainly not members of the Croatian armed forces any longer. They were
12 no longer soldiers. That is my position. And this proved true later on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not re-stating the content the.
14 The transcript reads at this moment: "It was down to the
15 military administration and the pace of their work on which their" -- as
16 it reads now, "mobilisation of these people depended," where logically
17 one would expect "demobilisation."
18 What did you say?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Demobilisation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The matter has been clarified.
21 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Mr. Galovic, that wasn't my question. My question was at the
24 time the alleged crimes were committed, the accused, with the exception
25 of the sixth accused, all the others were members of the HV. My question
1 was at the time the offence were committed, the accused were members of
2 the HV; isn't that correct? You are aware of that, isn't it.
3 A. I am not, but I cannot say that they were not. I don't know. I
4 took such activities as I was bound to take under the law, which included
5 the request for the conduct of an investigation and the request for
6 detention, which the court granted. We did not have time to try and
7 ascertain whether they were members of the army or not. My position is,
8 still today, that to all intents and purposes they never were members of
9 the army.
10 Q. Very well, Mr. Galovic. Let me in fact point out that material.
11 You are aware that all eight accused testified before the court
12 in this trial; isn't it?
13 A. I don't know that, but I have no reason to doubt that.
14 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I think the witness is confusing the
15 actual trial in the Zadar court as opposed to here because the question
16 is it was testified that:
17 "You were aware that all eight accused testified before the court
18 in this trial?"
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, let me be specific.
20 Q. Mr. Galovic, you're aware that the accused testified before the
21 Zadar county court in the trial which you conducted against them. You
22 are aware of that, isn't it?
23 A. This is what confused me. They do not testify. They were
24 accused. They presented their Defence. That's what confused me. Under
25 our law, they present their Defence.
1 Q. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology vis-a-vis how you
3 Do you know that in fact one of those accused testified before
4 this Trial Chamber; in fact, two days back.
5 A. I do.
6 Q. Now, let me first take you to, on this judgement.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could move to -- in
8 English version page 9, and the Croatian version, page 11. And if you
9 could just focus on paragraph 2 of the Croatian version.
10 Q. This is a statement by the first accused, Nikola Rasic.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry, I think we're on the wrong page of
12 the English version. Page 9.
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, that's correct. Thank you.
15 Q. And this is what Nikola Rasic said before the Zadar court about
16 his -- what he was doing at the time of the crime, Mr. Galovic.
17 He says:
18 "He took part in Operation Storm volunteering in Skradin after he
19 heard that it was being prepared. There he was issued with an automatic
20 rifle and equipment. In that operation, he took part in attacks on
21 Ljubicici and Tepsici, where his commander was accused Mijic. During the
22 Operation Storm, he advanced in the direction of Kistanje."
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if we could move to -- in the Croatian
24 version it goes on to the next page. And in the English version if we
25 could move to the next page, Mr. Registrar. And if you could go up on
1 the page.
2 Q. It says:
3 "Upon the presentation of the incriminating evidence relating to
4 the murder committed on 20th August, 1995, in Ocestovo near Knin," that's
5 one of the crimes related to this consolidated indictment, "when the
6 victim Savo Solaja was killed, he stated that it was true that he had
7 been in Ocestovo that day because he was issued a command by Gojevic that
8 morning to more towards Srb."
9 Now this reflects that not only was the first accused a member of
10 the HV at the time of the offence, but he was in fact on duty, wasn't he,
11 quite contrary to what have you stated in --
12 A. May I?
13 Q. Yes, please.
14 A. That is true, if you believe what he says. He was an accused,
15 and, under our law, he was entitled to defend himself whatever way he
16 wanted, including by lying. On the other hand, what else can you expect
17 from an individual who had been charged with 16 murders, but that he
18 would say that -- of course, he wouldn't say that he did that from -- for
19 the -- venting his base instincts to kill old women, et cetera. Of
20 course, he said that it was his duty as a member of the Croatian Army.
21 That was his Defence which I would never accept without verifying it
22 first in detail.
23 In this particular case it was not relevant, because nobody
24 deployed him over there, if anybody did, to kill and loot. Such Defences
25 that they devised subsequently I never trusted nor did my deputy who
1 worked with me. Somebody who killed nine individuals cannot be treated
2 as a credible individual. That's my view.
3 In every word they utter, they will boast by saying that they
4 were performing their military duty. That is another way of enabling
5 themselves to look at themselves in the mirror by saying that you were a
6 patriot doing your duty rather than merely a robber killing people.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, what is the information that you were provided
8 with which in fact indicated to you that these persons were not members
9 of the HV at the time of the crime?
10 A. I don't want to go back to the time of the commission of the
11 crime because I said that, at that point, all steps needed to be taken to
12 preserve evidence.
13 Q. Mr. Galovic --
14 A. In --
15 Q. Could you please answer my question. My question was: What is
16 the information that was provided to you that, in fact, contradicted
17 this, that indicated to you that they were not in fact members of the HV
18 at the time the crime was committed? What is the information that was
19 given to you that made -- renders this -- [indiscernible].
20 A. From their overall conduct and their statements, from having
21 observed the entire group, it became clear that to say the at least their
22 status was questionable. That was not, however, the time to deal with
23 their status. We were supposed to address the crimes they committed.
24 That's what I saw as my duty.
25 Q. Did you --
1 A. Had it subsequently turned out that they were members of the HV,
2 then it would be down -- up to the court to decide who had jurisdiction
3 over them. It was not down to me to decide on the jurisdiction. It was
4 up to the court, if you will. It was up to the court structure all the
5 way to the supreme court to deal with their status. I was interested in
6 establishing if they committed the offence or not. That was what I was
7 dealing with at that point in time.
8 Q. Mr. Galovic, did you in fact in preparing to submit the
9 indictment or conduct investigations call for information from the
10 military police or from the military to establish what their status was
11 on the date of the crime?
12 A. The day that we learnt about it, it meant that a criminal report
13 should be filed and that simultaneously those persons are taken up by the
14 investigating judge, that the proceedings had to be initiated, because,
15 if we within the deadline of 24 hours you don't start proceedings they
16 are released. Afterwards, all the questions you're putting to me were
17 within that competence of the court and not mine. And, after all, no one
18 had any remarks or objections regarding this, afterwards.
19 Q. Let me just quickly read out some other excerpts, Mr. Galovic,
20 and then I will ask you a question. I don't want to go through the
21 reading the entire -- of all of the other accused, but for the record,
22 Mr. President, the second accused --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll just give the page numbers,
25 Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You want to put to the witness that the other
2 accused also told the court that they were on active duty when these
3 crimes were committed. Is that --
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's keep matters rather simple.
6 Are you aware, Mr. Galovic, that the other accused have given
7 similar statements when defending themselves at trial?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the factual basis for, I take it, the
10 question --
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- is there. Please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could just go to page 16
14 of the English version and in the Croatian version page 27.
15 I'm sorry, if you could go to page 18 of the English version.
16 And page 29 of the Croatian version.
17 Q. Mr. Galovic, now, you studied this judgement in considering
18 appealing against it; isn't that correct? This is what the seventh
19 accused stated in front of the Zadar county court.
20 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, I think the witness was
21 asked to -- I think he was nodding yes and there is no response.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It has now been confirmed that his body language was
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Now this is what he has stated. He says:
2 "Although the fact that he was in the area of Bosnia
3 from 3 to 11 October 1995
4 these criminal proceedings make it necessary to falsify the date of his
5 demobilisation as being on 25th September and not as it should be on 17
6 October 1995. He connects this with threats from the police, but he will
7 no longer be a Croatian soldier and this behaviour insulted him
8 specifically. He took part in Operation Storm from the very beginning."
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if you could move to page
10 20 -- sorry, page 21 of the English version. And the Croatian version,
11 page 31, focussing on paragraph 3.
12 Q. This is what the eighth accused said before court.
13 "After the terrain near Drvar, he was given five or six days of
14 leave. And on 1st October, 1995, he was to have headed towards Mrkonjic
15 Grad where they set off on 3rd October and were there until 13th October.
16 It is easily possible to check in the unit that he had returned from the
17 front on 13th October, and it is therefore improper that the police
18 forces falsified his demobilisation date in order to make it appear that
19 in the period the police is interested in, he was not a soldier."
20 Now, Mr. Galovic, when you saw those references, were you not
21 concerned that a formal military process may have in fact been abused to
22 cover up a crime or to make these accused appear as being civilians on
23 the date of the crime? Were you not concerned when you read those
24 portions in the judgement?
25 A. On condition that I did read them, certainly it is disturbing.
1 But let me say, once again, that this fully confirms all that I have said
2 in relation to what I considered to be relevant, whether, at the time of
3 the indictment, they were civilians or not. I'm not talking about the
4 date of the perpetration of the act. I said that even if they were
5 soldiers, in the procedural sense, this doesn't change anything. It was
6 our duty to take the steps we took and after that, to continue the
7 proceedings as we had started them before a civilian court because in the
8 meantime they had been demobilised. So it's quite irrelevant for the
9 procedure whether this was in October or in September.
10 Now, as I personally was not in charge of the case, I cannot tell
11 you, but I can check if there is anything that can be checked with regard
12 to the records, because, after all, this is also part of Defence of the
14 Q. Now, when I asked you whether Mr. Pero Perkovic had testified
15 here you said you knew about it. How did you know about it?
16 A. I watched it on the Internet, or part of it, most of his
18 Q. Thank you. And in fact I would like to show you a document.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That would be 2556, Mr. Registrar, if could
20 you call that up on the -- I'm sorry, it's Exhibit P2556.
21 Q. And this is in fact --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, you read from page 21 in English.
23 On page 20 of the judgement, I read: "The eighth accused, Nedeljko
24 Mijic, defends him with ..." and what then follows is apparently what he
25 submit to the court. You are talking about whether you are disturbed by
1 reading this in a judgement, but is it a proper understanding of this
2 part of the judgement that it reflects what the Defence of the accused
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Not any finding of the court.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. My point was whether in
7 fact the witness took note of it and acted upon it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness has earlier given his views on the
9 interest an accused may have in putting forward such a Defence. You may
10 proceed. I just wanted to be clear that there's no misunderstanding of
11 what was read to us.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, because I pointed out that
13 these are confessions made by -- not confessions, the testimony of the
14 accused before the Zadar county court. In fact, Your Honour, in fact,
15 with the -- the position to the witness that all the other --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
17 Please proceed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Now, if --
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could have, Mr. Registrar,
21 Exhibit P2556.
22 Q. Now, in a moment, Mr. Galovic, you will see on the screen the
23 record of interrogation of the accused Pero Perkovic. In fact, this is
24 one of the documents that you considered for -- in contemplating the
25 indictment; isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you notice that in the section where the personal details of
3 Mr. Perkovic is noted, about the ninth line it says:
4 "He's a member of HV Croatian Army from July 1991 to 25th
5 September 1995 with only two-month break, 113th Brigade."
6 I don't know whether on the Croatian -- can you see it in the
7 Croatian document?
8 A. Yes, I see it.
9 Q. So in fact the documentation that you considered in contemplating
10 the indictment itself records the accused as being members of the HV;
11 whereas, in this court, you indicated that you were not certain about the
13 A. May I answer now?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I'm sorry, but it says here clearly that he was a member until
16 the 25th of September, 1995, and the indictment was issued in
17 February 1996. I have already said on several occasions that a person
18 who is demobilised, even if he was -- even if he had been a soldier when
19 the crime was committed, it is the civilian court who -- that has
20 jurisdiction over this person, and this confirms precisely what I have
21 been saying. It says the 25th of September, 1995, and I accept this as
22 an accurate date.
23 Q. Let me in fact call up a document right now.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I can have P1007, Mr. Registrar.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, your position is that if a soldier who has
1 committed a crime is demobilised before the charges, he is considered as
2 a civilian. In fact, let me show you the code of military discipline of
3 the HV. In fact, the military itself does not endorse what you are
4 saying. And if we could move to Article --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, your line "... he is considered as
6 a civilian," is a complex one. What I heard the witness tell us is that
7 prosecution and trial takes place before a civilian court, whether he is
8 then considered as a civilian is a different matter, but for that
9 purpose, that's what I heard the witness say.
10 I also heard the witness say that sometimes it was difficult to
11 establish whether, due to demobilisation, people were still or were not
12 anymore members of the HV, but I did not hear him say that if demobilised
13 before the charges were brought, that he was considered to be a civilian,
14 and especially since you do not refer us to -- refer to this status in
15 any time-frame. I have some difficulties in fully understanding this
16 observation which apparently precedes your question.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, let me just put two questions
18 before that thing and to make it clear and make the point as clear,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. Now, in the indictment, Mr. Galovic, I'm not taking issue with
23 the fact that the accused were in fact tried in a civilian court. But in
24 the indictments, you do not, in fact, mention the fact that the accused
25 were in fact members of the HV at the time the crime was committed.
1 Their, in fact, civilian status is described. In fact if we -- if you
2 want to go back to the indictments, there is not a singular reference
3 that they were members of the military at the time the crime was
4 committed; isn't that correct? If could you say yes or no.
5 A. Not fully. If when looking at the judgement, which I did
6 recently, there's no mention of their status, except in one case, in the
7 case of Hrstic and Petric.
8 Q. Mr. Galovic, I'm not talking about the judgement. In your
9 indictments have you not mentioned any --
10 A. The indictment, in the factual description -- the factual
11 description of the judgement is identical to the factual description in
12 the indictment, but if you wish I will speak about the indictment.
13 In relation to the murder of Canak, I think, my deputy said that
14 they were engaged in some kind of an action, and that is when they killed
15 Petric and Hrstic, so you can check that.
16 Q. Mr. Galovic, please, my point is that --
17 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, the witness is answering
18 her question. She may not like it, but she [sic] is answering the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne specifically asks --
21 Ms. Mahindaratne specifically asks whether membership of the HV was
22 mentioned in the indictment against the accused in this case.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In one case, it was. What I have
24 just been saying, in relation to the killing of Djuradj Canak, for Petric
25 and Hrstic. In other cases, no mention was made of their status, whether
1 they were civilians or military personnel, but just the fact that they
2 committed a crime.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
5 Q. If you could now, I'm not in fact -- the issue is not about where
6 they were tried, Mr. Galovic. But the issue is that the indictments do
7 not divulge the fact that they were members of the HV at the time the
8 crime was committed and as such, isn't it correct, if one were to provide
9 statistics of the crimes committed by military personnel, as opposed to
10 civilians, your documentation would in fact be misleading?
11 MR. KEHOE: Well, Mr. President, first of all, I object to the
12 form of this question, because again counsel is giving a speech for the
13 first four lines. If we can just limit this to a question as opposed to
14 the prefatory comments, I think that would be helpful.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, wouldn't it be true that -- I
16 think the witness explained to us that it's -- whether someone was
17 demobilised or not was a rather confusing matter in that point of time.
18 The witness also explained to us that accused had a certain interest in
19 presenting themselves as active military personnel.
20 Now, if you want to say that if wrongly someone was qualified as
21 a civilian or a military, that this might have had consequences for the
22 statistics, to the extent the statistics would pay attention to the
23 status of an accused, whether it's misleading or not depends on whether
24 it's wrong or not. It misleads if it's wrong; it doesn't mislead if it's
1 I think we have spent quite some time on what the status of the
2 persons was. I think we have spent some time on -- on the basis of the
3 knowledge of this witness, what decisions were taken at the time to bring
4 them before the court. These last questions do not really assist the
5 Chamber in making the determinations.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President, I will move on.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could move to page 2, the English
9 version, and Croatian version, page -- yeah, page 2 in the Croatian
10 version also. And focus on Article 2. I'm sorry, if could you move to
11 the next page, Mr. Registrar.
12 Q. Now, you could see --
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could focus on Article 4, I think, on
14 the Croatian version, it's page two; that's right.
15 Q. The Article reads as follows, Mr. Galovic, you can see:
16 "The following persons serving notice armed forces may be held
17 liable for violations of the Code of Military Discipline."
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne. Yes, now we have the -- yes,
19 please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. "... violations of Code of Military Discipline: 1, servicemen;
22 2, civilians serving in the armed forces (herein after civilians serving
23 in the armed forces).
24 "Even after termination of services in the armed forces persons
25 under the paragraph 1 of this Article shall continue to be responsible
1 for the violation of the Code of Military Discipline committed during
2 their service as determined by this Code."
3 So isn't it correct -- my question to you, Mr. Galovic, is in
4 order for the military to be able to discipline a member of the HV, even
5 those who have been demobilised, but if the crime had been committed when
6 they were members of the HV, they would have to have information that a
7 person has been convicted in a criminal process.
8 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, we're dealing with military
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, it is perfectly clear.
11 MR. KEHOE: That's fine.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
14 Q. So my question to you is: Was there a process in which the
15 civilian courts, upon convicting members of the military who had
16 committed crimes but who had been demobilised before indictment, and
17 after a process in the civilian courts having convicted, was there a
18 process for the civilian courts of your office to inform the military in
19 order to -- so that they could take disciplinary measures under this
20 Article, Article 4. How would the military know that in fact a member of
21 the HV who had committed a crime has been tried for a serious crime in a
22 civilian court, if in fact he had been demobilised before indictment but
23 after the crime?
24 A. I would say, as a matter of principle, that the criminal
25 proceedings should include disciplinary proceedings. This doesn't
1 exclude a disciplinary proceedings but it's something quite different,
2 and it has nothing in common with criminal proceedings and court
3 proceedings, and the court has no obligation to initiate any such thing.
4 This is initiated by the disciplinary judge within the army if
5 interested. He looks for information, because this is mostly known. If
6 he intends to start the disciplinary proceedings, then the disciplinary
7 judge from the disciplinary court will look for the data that he needs if
8 he needs such information. However, in criminal proceedings that is
9 never done, because a criminal proceeding should consume everything that
10 was part of a disciplinary procedure.
11 Q. Let me just move on.
12 Now, are you a aware, Mr. Galovic, that in the Varivode/Gosici
13 trial all the accused claimed that they had in fact been threatened and
14 their confessions were obtained under duress?
15 A. Of course I know. But they claimed that this was done to them by
16 police. However, what we based our indictment on were their Defences
17 before the investigating judge, because what is stated in the police,
18 according to our law to this day, is not evidence. Statements made to
19 the police are just the material for starting proceedings.
20 After this statement to the police, they were taken to the
21 investigating judge, and then they said what they said in their Defence.
22 In two cases almost complete confession -- in two cases a complete
23 confession and in one a partial confession, and that is what we were
24 guided by. This whole story about duress and threats started several
25 days later when one of the accused asked to be seen by the investigating
1 judge again for him to tell him his story once again, and all I can say
2 is that he had no other thing to resort to, because how else will you
3 defend yourself, unless you say that you were threatened and forced to
4 make a confession under duress.
5 Q. Now do you know, Mr. Galovic, that Mr. Perkovic in fact testified
6 that he made the statement to the investigating judge, that this very --
7 the same day that he was interrogated by the police. Do you know that?
8 He testified to that effect in -- before this Trial Chamber.
9 A. I don't know what the problem is, even if he didn't make the
10 statement on the same day. They all made statements very shortly after
11 the statements to the police because the deadlines are short. They first
12 made the statement to the investigating judge, and after that, he made a
13 decision to conduct an investigation and to hold them on -- in remand.
14 That is the procedure. There could be no other.
15 Q. Now, isn't that correct, Mr. Galovic, that the Trial Chamber in
16 Zadar - I'm just referring to the Zadar county court - acquitted the
17 accused on the basis that those confessions were considered unreliable
18 because they did not correspond to the material evidence in the case,
19 the -- the accounts given by the eye-witnesses and the other physical
20 observations on the ground.
21 Isn't that correct? That was one of the basis on which the court
22 rejected those confessions?
23 Did you hear me?
24 A. Yes. That's correct, the court in the first instance acquitted
25 them. However, on appeal the supreme court -- on our appeal the supreme
1 court overturned the first instance decision and remanded the case for a
2 re-trial. And the supreme court referred, in fact, to the confessions by
3 the accused as mentioned in the first instance judgement. That was the
4 basis for which the supreme court in fact upheld the convictions, in
5 respect of Petric and Rasic in that case. And, unfortunately --
6 Q. We'll --
7 A. -- on that same basis the supreme court rejected our appeals
8 against sentences.
9 Q. We'll -- in fact, I will tender the supreme court judgement later
10 on, Mr. Galovic.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have the judgement
12 again, P1076 on the screen.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm also looking at the clock.
14 Would you give us an estimate on the time you would still need.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I may perhaps need about -- a
16 substantial amount of the next session. Perhaps ...
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I inquire with the Defence teams.
19 MR. KEHOE: Frankly, Mr. President, right now I'd be very brief.
20 I'd say, you know, five minutes or so, maybe a few minutes more, but not
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Higgins.
23 MS. HIGGINS: I don't currently anticipate anything, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Likewise, Your Honour.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, we'll first have a break. It's
3 approximately time for a break. We want the testimony of this witness to
4 be concluded today.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Which practically means that you have half an hour
7 after the break. And if it would be 35 minutes that would not bring us
8 into great problems. The Chamber would very much like to you continue
9 your cross-examination in a focussed and organised way, in which
10 repetitions are avoided.
11 We'll have a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes to 1.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Mr. Galovic, isn't it correct that in the Varivode/Gosici trial
17 process, the -- the ballistic analysis on the shell casings found at the
18 scene did not match the weapons seized from the accused?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. Isn't it correct that the witnesses to the incident did not
21 identify the accused as having been at the scene of crime?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. You are aware that --
24 A. Not that they were not not at the scene of crime. They were
25 there and admitted to that, but nobody identified them, and that is much
1 is true.
2 Q. That was my question.
3 And isn't it correct that Mr. Zganjer, the Sibenik county
4 prosecutor, upon getting the case back for re-trial, dropped the charges
5 on the same grounds on which the Trial Chamber, in fact, rejected the
6 confessions, as being unreliable?
7 A. That was Mr. Zganjer's decision, that's right.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, the documents in relation to
9 this section shall be bar tabled later on, due to lack of time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that will are be no --
11 MR. KEHOE: I don't know, Mr. President. To the extent there are
12 matters in there that go to the Defence -- the -- the OTP's case, I mean,
13 they're still responsible to put those issues to the witness so ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But usually court-related materials.
15 MR. KEHOE: I agree with Mr. President. I don't know if that's
16 what we're talking about. Are we simply talking about just court-related
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's it, Mr. President. There is nothing
20 MR. KEHOE: Well, if -- if -- my next statement of that is if the
21 Prosecution at some point is going to argue things that Mr. Galovic did
22 or did not do that are contained in those documents, then they still have
23 the obligation to put it to Mr. Galovic now.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
1 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, did you consider the discrepancies vis-a-vis --
2 between the material evidence and the confessions of these accused in
3 contemplating your charges? Did you consider the fact that the ballistic
4 analysis did not match the weapons seized from the accused, did you
5 consider the fact that there were no identification of the accused, did
6 you consider the fact that the versions provided by the witnesses did not
7 correspond to the witnesses?
8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, I think that's three
9 questions. I object to the form.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although this witness has shown to be perfectly
11 able to identify the several parts.
12 MR. KEHOE: I withdraw the objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, could you please answer the questions.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I took all of this into
15 consideration. On the issue of ballistic examination, I have to tell yo,
16 that there was among the bullet casings such material that could indicate
17 whether certain weapons were fired from or not. However, the material
18 was quite damaged, and the examiner said that it was difficult to
19 determine if the weapons were fired from or not. However, still, this
20 did not mean that the perpetrators could not be established.
21 Furthermore, there were so many weapons around that it was not
22 possible with precision to rule out that certain weapons were used, and
23 no specific findings were made in relation to that. There is an number
24 of -- what we referred to as indirect evidence on the basis of which I
25 made rulings, and I stand by them. What was among the findings of the
1 ballistic expertise does not support the decision but does not exclude
2 the decisions that were made in respect of the accused. I wanted to
3 follow up on that; however, this was no longer within my jurisdiction.
4 Q. Mr. Galovic, do you know that the Sibenik prosecutor, Mr. Zganjer
5 - he, in fact, testified here - upon decision to drop the charges, he
6 initiated a investigation to find out who the actual perpetrators were;
7 and in the course of that investigation, he found that the military
8 police company in Sibenik had suppressed the investigation, in order to
9 protect the actual perpetrators.
10 Were you aware that?
11 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I object. That is not what he said.
12 I mean, does he have a line in -- reference in his testimony where he
13 said exactly that.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Transcript reference: T.11542 to T.11544.
15 Mr. President, T.11542 to 544.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you perhaps read to the witness what the
17 testimony was. Let me just see ...
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Let me read it, Mr. President.
19 Q. "Having taken over the case, I analysed the evidence and
20 established that there was no reliable evidence to proceed against those
21 accused who had been indicted in the case. I discussed this with the
22 state attorney for Croatia
23 to dismiss the case against the five persons who had been indicted. I'm
24 not aware of any other persons being tried for the crimes after that, I
25 believe if the military police officers Simic had been allowed to carry
1 out the investigation including ballistic investigation in October 1995
2 as planned, the real perpetrators of the crime could have been
4 Then it goes on to ...
5 "Goran Vunic, as far as that case filed is concerned, and I
6 stress the case file, was not mentioned as a person who would be under
7 suspicion" --
8 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, where are you reading from counsel?
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 11543, line 21.
10 Q. "... was not mentioned an as person who would be under suspicion
11 this way or the other. When is it that the name of Goran Vunic
12 ultimately emerges? When I decided to desist the criminal prosecution of
13 those suspects, the following question arose. If -- as I was deeply
14 convinced those persons were not the perpetrators, who was it that killed
15 the 17 individuals. At that point for a state attorney the proceedings
16 against those accused ended. However" -- and it goes on.
17 "... [indiscernible] led me to learn in 2002 that for certain
18 reasons, the commander of the military police company in Sibenik Nenad
19 Mrkota had obstructed the activity of the military police of Damir Simic.
20 It was at that point that the suspicion arose, which made me believe that
21 Goran Vunic could be the possible perpetrator of the events in Gosici and
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, were you able to follow the portions of the
24 testimony that were read to you?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
2 Q. Now, did you ever have that information, that --
3 A. No. There was no reason why I should learn that.
4 You asked me if I knew that Mr. Zganjer had established. From
5 what you've just read out, I did not observe him establish anything. Had
6 he established something, then it would have been only logical for that
7 person to be prosecuted.
8 Q. Let me tell you, Mr. Galovic, in fact Mr. Damir Simic, the head
9 of crime section of the Sibenik police testified in these proceedings,
10 and he confirmed and he in fact testified to --
11 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, can we have a page and reference.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, the tone as such, Do you have a page
13 reference. If you can just --
14 MR. KEHOE: Respectfully --
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers].
16 MR. KEHOE: I respectfully need page reference.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Ms. Mahindaratne.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I will just direct counsel to
20 P971, which is in evidence, with the entire note is about the issue of
22 Q. Now, in fact the head of crime section of the military police in
23 Sibenik testified that when he attempted to investigate a suspect, in
24 relation to the Gosici/Varivode killings, his company commander
25 interfered with that investigation and stopped him from proceeding.
1 This in fact -- isn't that correct, Mr. Galovic, that -- that
2 reflects that your -- the basis on which you indicted the suspects were
3 not grounded on a complete investigation into the crime?
4 A. Absolutely not. My position remains as it has always been, and
5 there is Mr. Zganjer's position.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Now isn't it correct, Mr. Galovic, moving on to another area,
9 that when the police receives information of serious crime, particularly
10 in the case of killing incidents, they have to report the matter to the
11 investigative judge and yourself?
12 A. In principle, yes. That's correct.
13 Q. That same rule applies to -- applies where a human corpse is
14 covered; isn't that correct?
15 A. In principle, they would inform me of all such situations.
16 If the corpse belongs to a person who was killed, in that case,
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I have document P -- Exhibit P1061,
19 please, Mr. Registrar.
20 Q. Now, isn't it right, Mr. Galovic, that you never received a
21 report from the police regarding the killings in Grubori hamlet in the
22 Plavno area on 25th August 1995
23 A. That's right. I never received it.
24 Q. You have in fact confirmed that fact by this report to the state
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, isn't it correct that during the time the Grubori incident
3 was -- received publicity on TV and in the press?
4 A. What period of time are we talking about?
5 Q. In August 1995 just soon after the killings in Grubori.
6 A. Yes, I know. But when did it receive publicity?
7 Q. In August 1995.
8 A. Publicity? How? When I didn't know of it.
9 Q. In fact this Trial Chamber has seen video footage of General
10 Cermak being interviewed by a journalist from HTV.
11 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MS. HIGGINS: I'm sorry, I object to this line of questioning.
14 The witness was asked specifically whether he knew of publicity at the
15 time. The witness gave an answer which clearly indicated that he didn't.
16 It's therefore wrong of Ms. Mahindarante to then try and again suborn the
17 witness by making reference to video footage in this manner, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That objection is denied. It was in the margin of
19 an answer that the witness said something about it, and Ms. Mahindaratne
20 is entitled to further explore the matter, although within certain
21 limits, Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Now, did you see that interview on HTV where General Cermak was
24 interviewed about what happened in Grubori. This Trial Chamber has
25 viewed it. Did you see it? It was two days after the incident that he
1 was interviewed?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Let me ask to show you, Mr. Galovic, a press clipping of the
4 incident which was published in Slobodna Dalmacija, newspaper.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have, Mr. Registrar, P1050 which is
6 not -- which is marked but not admitted into evidence.
7 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. HIGGINS: At this stage, could I ask that a foundation be
10 laid as to whether this witness at that particular time saw any media
11 articles relating to this incident?
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. Let me ask you --
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second.
15 Ms. Mahindaratne may approach this evidentiary issue as she
16 wishes, against whether we go from the general to the specific or from
17 the specific to the general is up to her.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could have
20 that document on the screen, Mr. Registrar, P1050, marked but not
22 Q. Now, what you are seeing, Mr. Galovic, is a press article about
23 this incident which was published on 29th August in this newspaper.
24 Now, is it your position that you never saw any press reports of
25 this incident during the time?
1 A. That's right, I didn't. I would dearly like to know what the
2 article says. I didn't see that. I didn't see such an article.
3 Q. When did you first learn of the incident?
4 A. I think it had to do with the publication of information of the
6 I came to know about the killings in Grubori. I knew about Gosici and
7 Varivode. We discussed that. But I didn't know about Grubori, no.
8 Q. And when was that? When -- when did you read this --
9 A. When did I learn about it?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. It was no longer within my competence. It was within the
12 competence of Sibenik.
13 Q. Mr. Galovic, you are not --
14 A. I saw that the first document you showed me was from 2003.
15 Q. You did not answer my question. I said when -- give us a
16 time-frame when you learned of the incident in Grubori. If you could
17 give us a year and a month, or even just a year.
18 A. That's not how you put the question, and cannot give you the
19 exact year. I don't know. I tie it up with the report of the Helsinki
20 Committee. I said that this happened definitely at a time when this no
21 longer fell within my competence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Just to keep matters simple. Do I understand that
23 it was only after some years that you learned about it for the first
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I just -- Mr. President, just one document I
7 could not show this witness which is necessary, under Rule 90(H).
8 If could I have, Mr. Registrar, a document P1063.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, would it not be fair to the
10 witness to - but correct me when I'm wrong - that it is the position of
11 the Prosecution that it was the talk of town and of common knowledge at
12 the time that such a thing had happened; whereas, the witness testifies
13 that he learned about it only years after that. That's apparently your
14 position, isn't it.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I thought in showing the
16 documents and referring to the HTV
17 specifically do that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think the witness has heard what I just said
19 and which you confirmed is the position of the Prosecution.
20 Mr. Galovic, this Chamber has received some evidence about who
21 paid attention at that time to what became known as the Grubori incident,
22 and it's the position of the Prosecution that it was common knowledge, it
23 was talk of the town, it was -- whereas, your testimony is that it was
24 only after a couple of years that you learned about it, and I think, in
25 all fairness, this should be put to you.
1 Any comment?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. I have no comment
3 except to repeat what I have already said, that I learned about it
4 several years later.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Now, do you recognise the document that's on the screen,
8 Mr. Galovic? That's a document issued by your office?
9 A. I do.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could move to the next page,
11 Mr. Registrar?
12 Q. Do you recognise the signature of the person who has signed this
14 A. Yes, it is my deputy.
15 Q. And the seal?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So you identify this document as a document issued by your
19 A. Yes, correct.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 Moving on to --
22 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be some unrest in the --
24 MR. MISETIC: Yes. This is improper what she's, in our position,
25 Ms. Mahindaratne has not provided [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I don't think this should be --
2 JUDGE ORIE: What -- Ms. Mahindaratne, we do not interrupt each
3 other. I have the privilege of interrupting you, but Mr. Misetic was
4 about to tell us why he thought it improper.
5 Can that be done in the presence of the witness, Mr. Misetic, or
6 should it...
7 MR. MISETIC: In light of the time I will try to be as vague as
8 possible. But I will ask to you look in e-court at Exhibit D918.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, this is what I wanted to point
10 out: That it should be discussed in the absence of the witness.
11 MR. MISETIC: No.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic says looking at Exhibit D918 would help
13 us out already. So that's the first thing I'll do.
14 MR. MISETIC: If I could compare number 1, I think it was
15 improper to ask this witness to authenticate, as Ms. Mahindaratne did.
16 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please, in the order you
19 choose, deal with the authenticity of this and/or similar documents in
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If you could go to page 1 of this document,
24 Mr. Registrar.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, there is a name in paragraph 1. The name
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And on top it is written Vunic, Goran.
4 Do you see that?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. Does the fact that it's written in hand there render you to
7 question the authenticity of this document?
8 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, at this point, it is incumbent upon
9 Prosecution to show them the document that was received from the Republic
10 of Croatia
11 JUDGE ORIE: I allowed Ms. Mahindaratne, in the order she
12 chooses, to deal with all of it. All the authenticity issues and whether
13 you would start with the one, which apparently what you prefer over the
14 other, that I left in the hands of Ms. Mahindaratne. But I ensured that
15 we'll not just work on the basis of one or -- I take it that you would
16 have done it anyhow if --
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- Ms. Mahindaratne would have limited herself to
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- and the Chamber is not interested in hearing
22 evidence, which is based exclusively on a selective presentation of
23 documents to this witness. But where we start and where we end, that, at
24 this moment, is left in the hands of Ms. Mahindaratne.
25 MR. HEDARALY: And, Mr. President, in the manner that objection
1 was placed before this witness was inappropriate by counsel. I alerted
2 you --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let proceed in the next 20 minutes. I noticed that
4 from both sides inappropriateness is invoked.
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
7 Q. Do you have -- have -- how do you respond to my question?
8 A. I beg your pardon. You asked me whether I confirm the
9 authenticity of the signature. Do I confirm the authenticity of the
10 stamp? I do. But not this as well because it was not done in my office.
11 It's out of the question that a document would come from my office
12 corrected by hand. And there's a -- my original document where something
13 else is written. It says Vunic, Boris, and not Vunic, Goran. This
14 document went to the chief of police. No one in the state attorney's
15 office would act in this way, least of all my deputy.
16 So I cannot confirm the authenticity of this. The signature is
17 hers, the stamp is authentic, and the document came from our office but
18 not in this form.
19 Q. Let me show you the other document, D918, please.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if you could go to the next page.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, can you look at this document and tell Court
22 if, in fact, this is a document issued by your court -- issued by your
24 A. Judging by the signature, yes.
25 Q. Is your seal there?
1 A. No, I don't see it.
2 Q. In the previous document, you identified your seal. And in this
3 document, you don't have a seal. So what is it -- can you explain to the
4 Court as to why -- how this document does not contain a seal whereas the
5 previous document contains a seal?
6 A. It can only be attributed to error. That's the only way I can
7 explain it, because it's the same document, the same date. Is it the
8 same date? I'm asking you. Is it the same document with the same date
9 and same contents?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. And then I could explain. I -- this document may have come from
12 my office, because a copy remains in the file in the state attorney's
13 office. That copy doesn't have to be stamped. But what is sent out has
14 to be -- bear a seal. But it is the same document.
15 Q. Moving on to another area, Mr. Galovic.
16 Now, yesterday you testified that -- actually questioned by the
17 Bench about what you seen in Kistanje. You said that you could only
18 remember one house, and last time -- in order to prevent any objections
19 this is what you say:
20 "I'm trying to visualise what I saw at the time, and I'm unable
21 to -- it would be ridiculous to say that I didn't see anything of the
22 sort. Unfortunately, I can't recall that scene in Kistanje, which would
23 leave the impression of total destruction, whereas I can do that in
24 respect of some other places."
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if could I have P203, please.
1 Q. There is, in fact, a document, I appreciate you may not have seen
2 it from the head of security an information service going to the minister
3 of defence. And I'd like to point out, Mr. Galovic, paragraph 4 where it
5 "In the liberated area of the hinterlands of Zadar and Sibenik,
6 the establishment of the civilian authorities is not being carried out in
7 a satisfactory pace. More precisely, in the liberated settlements," and
8 there are two places, "Djevrska and Kistanje. The situation is rather
9 chaotic. Incidents of mass burning of houses, plundering of property" --
10 and there are so many activities being reported.
11 Now this is -- please take note, 8 August 1995.
12 Let me also show you two more documents, and I will ask you the
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have P2349.
15 Q. This is, in fact, a report of the Operation Group Sibenik, dated
16 11 August 1995
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if you could go to page 5
18 of the English version and page 4 of the Croatian.
19 Q. There is under item 8, report:
20 "The conduct of the HV members while entering inhabited
21 settlements was correct. However, once the settlements were occupied
22 (particularly places inhabited by Serbs), the commanders lost a -- lost
23 control over their soldiers, which resulted in a number of torched houses
24 and cases of robbery, particularly in the area of Djevrska and Kistanje,
25 and Drnis."
1 And that's dated 11th August.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And if I could have one more document, that's
4 I'm sorry P830 -- or maybe 880. I may have ...
5 If I could just have a minute, please.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That was correct, P830, Mr. Registrar. It
8 should be a report, not a statement. That's correct.
9 Q. Now, this is a report dated 10th August by the -- reported by
10 monitors from ECMM. And if you could go to page 2 of the English
11 version, as well as the Croatian version.
12 Under the heading, "Humanitarian and human rights matters" the
13 paragraph marked b, it is reported:
14 "Team Knin reported from their patrol today that the villages of
15 Raducic and Rudele were deserted and looted but without any burnt houses.
16 The village of Kistanje
18 This is dated 11th August -- sorry, 10th August.
19 Now, Mr. Galovic, your testimony was that you visited Kistanje
20 twice in the period 10th to 15th August. It seems implausible that --
21 MR. KEHOE: Objection, Your Honour, the form.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's the technical way in which you put it.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President. I will rephrase it.
24 I will rephrase, Mr. President.
25 Q. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber as to how it is that such
1 widespread -- such destruction in relation to Kistanje has been reported
2 on the 8th, 10th and 11th, but you, visiting the area between 10th and
3 15th, twice, saw only one house, or could remember seeing only one burnt
5 A. I didn't say that I saw only one house. But I told the
6 Honourable President that I saw at least one. I couldn't say how many.
7 I spoke about my impression. I didn't go to Kistanje, I passed through
8 Kistanje on the way to Knin, and I'm talking about my impression. My
9 impression need not be right, but what I said, and I stand by it, is that
10 I didn't register it. You pass through the main street, the settlement
11 is spread out on both sides of the street. You pass through Kistanje and
12 that is the length of time I was there. There was no reason for me to go
13 to Kistanje, because no one had ever reported to me anything linked to
14 Kistanje, and my job was to go to Knin, to set up a state attorney's
15 office in Knin.
16 Q. And I --
17 A. -- and that is what I said and that is what I stand by.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I have just one last question, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It really will be your last question.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Mr. Galovic, in responding to the Trial Chamber yesterday you
22 said: "Kistanje which would leave the impression of total destruction,
23 whereas I can do that in respect of some other places."
24 Now you told Court that you could describe other places which
25 were totally destroyed. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber what the
1 other places were that you could recall as being completely destroyed?
2 A. I was referring to Turanj, that is on the -- in the approaches to
3 Karlovac, because I passed through Turanj frequently going to Zagreb
4 And this is something that cannot be described in words. That is what I
5 was referring to.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Galovic, for answering my questions.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, that concludes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
11 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
12 A couple of issues. I will try to move through it as quickly as
13 I can.
14 If we can move to first P20, which is the statement of Mr. Flynn.
15 Re-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
16 Q. Mr. Flynn, Mr. Galovic, is a Human Rights Action Team member for
17 the UN.
18 MR. KEHOE: If we can turn to page 21 in this document.
19 Q. Going to line 5 into line 6 he notes:
20 "I mean, in Kistanje alone, we saw at least seven or eight
21 buildings that had been set on fire."
22 Now, on that particular observation, is that consistent, in your
23 view, of an impression, Mr. Galovic, that there had not been mass
24 destruction to Kistanje?
25 A. In my view, yes.
1 Q. I'm going to shift to another topic that I would like you to
2 discuss, and it has to do with the Amnesty International report, P2569,
4 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I'm not sure which document you have.
5 It's 18 in the hard copy but 21 in the e-court.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see it on the screen. I think there was a
7 difference of three pages, usually.
8 MR. KEHOE: I believe that was correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. KEHOE: That's the paragraph; I appreciate that. If we can
11 just bring that up in the B/C/S.
12 It's the paragraph -- if we could scroll down in the English.
13 That's the paragraph.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Registrar, if we could scroll down in the
16 English, please. I'm looking at that paragraph beginning: "Of these 2849
17 cases..." and it's page 21 in the B/C/S. Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Galovic, I'm addressing myself to about midway in that
19 paragraph, and we're talking about Amnesty International when Amnesty
20 International spoke to prosecutors in May 1998 and inquired about why
21 when in some instances the perpetrators had been on active duty with the
22 military police --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Military or MS it says.
24 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, exactly right. The military or police.
25 Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. They had not been charged with war crimes against the civilian
2 population, referring to Article 120. The prosecutors were unable to
3 provide a response.
4 Mr. Galovic did you have a discussion with Amnesty International
5 about the -- your ability or inability to prosecute crimes as war crimes
6 under Article 120 of the Croatian Criminal Code; if you recall?
7 A. No. But I did speak to them frequently, as I said before, with
8 representatives of various organisations. I don't know whether we went
9 that far in a discussion for them to suggest to me how I would prosecute
10 something. After all, I can't see how they would know better than me
11 because I'm paid to do this job and I am responsible.
12 If we are talking about war crimes, according to criminal law a
13 war crime can be committed only during the time of an armed conflict.
14 Once an armed conflict stops, I can no longer qualify it as a war crime.
15 If I were to do that, I would putting myself in a position for the Court
16 to acquit the accused because of an incorrect legal qualification,
17 because in the practice of our court, especially the supreme court, in
18 some cases, when we are talking about the same criminal acts that come
19 under the same chapter, the sentence may be revised. Otherwise, not.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the issue you raised became perfectly clear
21 even if not going through the details of the supreme court case law.
22 MR. KEHOE: Actually, that was going to be my next case -- my
23 next question, and I will just hone it in.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Before Mr. Kehoe gets to that question, there
2 was a qualifier on line 22 that was not translated. Before the word
3 "criminal law" it was described as a specific -- it was a qualifying
4 adjective. The word --
5 JUDGE ORIE: After you said that you were paid to do the job and
6 were responsible, you said: "War crime according to criminal law," any
7 specific criminal law you had in mind? Did you say according to criminal
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basic criminal law of the
10 Republic of Croatia
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
12 MR. KEHOE:
13 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic, just talking about Operation Storm, and you're
14 talking about an armed conflict, can you tell me when, in basis of this
15 law, when the armed conflict began and ended?
16 A. The armed conflict, in my view, started on the 4th of August and
17 ended on the 7th. In that area, there was no need for any war operations
18 anymore nor were there any.
19 Q. So after August the 7th if crimes had occurred, how would it be
20 dealt with under Croatian law?
21 A. As aggravated murders, if we're talking about killings. But
22 certainly not as a war crime. That is my position, which I'm fully
23 capable of defending, I think.
24 Q. Now, one last topic, and I would like --
25 A. May I just add a few words?
1 Q. Certainly, you know more about this than I do.
2 A. The punishment for a war crime, according to the basic criminal
3 law of the Republic of Croatia
4 It is 20 years. And I was guided by that, too.
5 So the only difference is when it becomes outdated.
6 Q. Sir, I would just like to address one last subject concerning
7 these letters, and I would like to bring up, if I may, D918.
8 Now, D918, if we can go to the second page, you noted that there
9 was no stamp. I think you said that in the course of your testimony, if
10 it came from your office there would not be any stamp. The files in your
11 office, if it came from the files in your office, there would be no
12 stamp; is that right?
13 A. Yes, that's right, there wouldn't.
14 Q. Let me show you a sequence, 1D60-0080, and let me take you
15 through this sequence.
16 Now, this is a letter from the Republic of Croatia
17 to the Gotovina Defence team by Mr. Markotic, referring to your 23
18 October 1995 letter, and it notes that we have received a response from
19 the county state attorney's office by which the authenticity of said
20 letter is confirmed.
21 Do you see that, sir?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. And the next letter, if we can, next document in this, and it
24 would be page 2. Yes.
25 This is a Zadar county letter, if you can just look at that
1 briefly. And this package, once again referring to the same letter,
2 where it notes: "I have determined that the letter dated 23 October 1995
3 sent to the Zadar Knin police administration requesting a continuation of
4 operation [sic] and crime processing in this case is authentic."
5 MR. KEHOE: Let's go to the third page and fourth page.
6 Q. I will tell you by way of background, this is the letter from the
7 Mr. Farcic in Zagreb
8 and 6.
9 Again, sir, this appears to be once again -- can we go to the
10 first page then the second page.
11 Does this appear to be the same working copy that came from your
12 office? You have to say yes.
13 A. That's it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Or no.
15 A. That's precisely so.
16 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, at this time, we'll into offer evidence
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It your position at this moment that an
19 authentication by another person who has not testified is not available
20 for cross-examination is something that could be admitted into evidence?
21 MR. KEHOE: Of course, Mr. President. Just take it as the
22 weight. Obviously, this witness said it came from, you know, his
23 particular file, and it didn't have a stamp because it was a working
24 copy, and then we're just working up the chain. It was delivered to us
25 by the Republic of Croatia
1 authenticate copy coming from Mr. Galovic's office's files.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I thought that I -- let's not try to hurry this. If
3 there is any discussion about admission.
4 Mr. Registrar, would you, for the time being, MFI these
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that becomes Exhibit D1569 marked
7 for identification.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Galovic --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, Ms. Mahindaratne took more time, but you
11 certainly took more time than the five minutes you said you needed as
12 matters stood at that time.
13 MR. KEHOE: One last question.
14 JUDGE ORIE: One last question.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. KEHOE:
17 Q. Mr. Galovic, you noted in the course of your statement and during
18 this testimony -- you noted in your statement in the course of this
19 testimony that eight individuals were indicted for the Gosici/Varivode
20 killings. If evidence had come to your attention of more than eight
21 individuals, would you have indicted them as well if the evidence
22 supported that charge?
23 A. Of course, I would have.
24 Q. Mr. Galovic, thank you very much. I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Galovic, this concludes your testimony in this
4 court. I'd like to thank you very much for coming a long way to
5 The Hague
6 by the Bench, and I wish you a safe trip home again.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. It was a honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we will resume on
9 Tuesday, the 7th of July, 9.00, Courtroom I.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of July,
12 2009, at 9.00 a.m.