1 Tuesday, 7 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Mr. Misetic, is the Gotovina Defence ready to call its next
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No protective measures.
15 MR. MISETIC: That's correct, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zidovec.
17 MR. MISETIC: That's correct.
18 Madam Usher.
20 MR. CARRIER: There is one issue -- actually, two issues I think
21 we'd like to raise before the witness comes in.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's the issue?
23 MR. CARRIER: One, my colleague Mr. Hedaraly is going to deal
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you -- your so new that you're still the
1 unidentified speaker.
2 MR. CARRIER: Oh, sorry, it's Carrier, C-a-r-r-i-e-r.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, you will get your reputation soon,
4 Mr. Carrier.
5 MR. CARRIER: One of the issues is Mr. Misetic contacted us and
6 Asked whether we had any objections to adding two documents to their
7 65 ter list.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. CARRIER: I can indicate that the first document which is
10 memo from Mr. Jarnjak, or Minister Jarnjak, I have no issue with that.
11 That was actually, I believe, on the Cermak Defence 65 ter list, which is
12 65 ter 2D00-531.
13 The other document is a table, and on the Cermak Defence 65 ter
14 list it's 65 ter 2D00-131. The problem that we're having with this is
15 that it's a table -- it's not clear what the provenance of the table is.
16 Moreover, there a number of different tables included in the initial
17 group of documents that was sent to the OTP by Mr. Misetic, not all of
18 them have been translated. There is also a three-page document that was
19 initially included that had -- that has not been translates so we don't
20 know exactly what that consists of. My understanding is that this was
21 actually -- both of these documents, one that we're not objecting to, and
22 the other one were shown to the next witness during the proofing session,
23 although my understanding is that initially when it was shown to him it
24 was shown to him as -- as though it was an attachment to the first
25 document which we don't have any issue with. Which the Prosecution
1 understands is not the case, that these are actually separate documents.
2 I think Mr. Misetic is now clear these are actually two separate
3 documents. We just don't know where the send one came from, who created
4 it, for what purpose, et cetera.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber has been copied on a short e-mail
6 message on which you announced that you would seek to have admitted
7 documents to the 65 ter list.
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President. Actually --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the first one which - this was said by
10 Mr. Carrier - is on the, I think, on the Cermak 65 ter list, that that
11 seems, therefore, not to be a major problem.
12 MR. MISETIC: They both are on the Cermak 65 ter list. However,
13 the reason we have them as one document is because when they were
14 produced to us, if the Chamber looks at the original of what we sent,
15 both documents were together in one file.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. MISETIC: And the first page of the B/C/S shows the file
18 marking on it, and in the original says that the file is called Separate
19 Police Units, and OA Povratak is in the upper right-hand corner. So when
20 they were produced to us, they were produced to us as one file.
21 The second point, Mr. President, is that this witness in fact was
22 part of the OA Povratak operational command. The document that
23 Mr. Carrier is referencing, the table, is titled OA Povratak. It's part
24 of OA Povratak and would have been clearly a table prepared as part of
25 OA Povratak of which this witness was a member of the operational command
1 as -- in his position as assistant minister of the interior.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I must, admit reading it on my screen, I have to
3 turn my head 180 degrees. So it was presented as one document.
4 MR. MISETIC: One file.
5 JUDGE ORIE: One file.
6 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Does that in any way -- this explanation, does that
8 in any way meet your concerns, Mr. Carrier?
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Some additional information,
10 Mr. President, is a that we have received the initial document from
11 Minister Jarnjak, I think, on a number of occasions always as a separate
12 document, not part of a file. I understand my friend's position that
13 this witness is part of the OA Povratak command, although in his
14 statement he doesn't actually indicate that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in his statement, of course, this is not a
16 92 ter witness for --
17 MR. MISETIC: [Microphone not activated]
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is.
19 MR. MISETIC: There is a 92 ter motion that was filed, last
20 Thursday, I believe.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Last Thursday, yes.
22 MR. MISETIC: Or Friday.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I have the statement, so don't worry about that.
24 But I thought that -- yes.
25 Yes, therefore, when I intervened when you referred to the
1 statement was incorrect.
2 Mr. Carrier, please proceed where I interrupted you.
3 MR. CARRIER: Just following up on that, we don't have any
4 objection to the statement under 92 ter.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. CARRIER: Despite what Mr. Misetic says about Mr. Zidovec
7 being part of the OA Povratak command, he doesn't indicate that in his
8 statement. It's just not clear where this table's come from. But,
9 moreover, there's also a number of things that haven't been translated
10 with regard to that file, just as portions, so we don't have actually the
11 whole file at this point.
12 JUDGE ORIE: As far as translation are concerned, Mr. Misetic.
13 MR. MISETIC: I'm sorry about that. I wasn't aware that all of
14 it wasn't translated, although I see that most of it is information that
15 I don't think needs to be translated, but if the headers are not
16 translated, we'll be sure to correct that.
17 But let me also point out that at paragraph 30 of the witness's
18 statement concerning his participation in the OA Povratak command, he
19 says all assistants to the minister were part of Povratak, insofar as
20 their areas of responsibilities were engaged in that operation. So he as
21 an assistant minister, Mr. President, we would submit was in fact part of
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now let's try to find a very practical
25 Mr. Misetic would like to have this document added to the 65 ter
1 list. Id there any way that you introduce the document without showing
2 it to the witness asking him question? I take it that you have gone
3 through the document during the proofing sessions.
4 MR. MISETIC: Well, I'm not sure --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you -- if you ask questions about have you
6 seen a document; or were you shown a document of this and this kind;
7 could you explain to us whether this was what it was; et cetera. So the
8 65 ter list is there to make sure that the other party knows in advance
9 what will be put to the witness.
10 Now, apparently here it is not that there is it some fundamental
11 objection against adding this one, but that there are still some
12 questions in relation to that, where does it come from, et cetera
13 et cetera. Of course, without showing the document yet, we could seek to
14 clarify some of the issues Mr. Carrier raised. Was it -- you say it is
15 one file. Mr. Carrier seems not to know whether it was one file, what is
16 the relation between the one document and the other.
17 If you start with the one and say, Was anything attached to it;
18 or did you see any document related to it; and what do you know about
19 that document? And then make your oral application to have it added to
20 the 65 ter list, because Mr. Carrier will be better in a position to
21 respond to that oral application in relation to the second document.
22 Do you understand what I mean?
23 MR. MISETIC: I do, Mr. President. I can just tell you that in
24 the proofing the witness, he doesn't -- and I think as is evident, made
25 perhaps from his statement, he doesn't have very specific recollections
1 of specific documents. The first document noted that it was sent to all
2 assistant ministers of the interior, from which the witness confirms that
3 in the ordinary course of business he would have received a copy of if
4 it, if in fact it says that it went to all assistant ministers of the
6 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness doesn't know that much about it, have
7 you then considered to tender it as a bar table exhibit?
8 MR. MISETIC: I would, Mr. President. I would just say that if
9 possible I would avoid that only because this is -- we would submit a
10 document that -- at least the first document would have gone to him as a
11 recipient of the document, so there is no need to bar table it. If there
12 is an issue regarding whether that was part of the file or not, then
13 we'll bar table the second one. But I would also add that given that he
14 in paragraph 30 of his statement says that he in fact was part -- or
15 engaged in OA Povratak as an assistant minister, we think that adds
16 something in terms of his basis of knowledge to comment on the general
17 statistics of how many police may have been engaged in the area. And I
18 would note that on that specific question, at paragraph 36 of his
19 statement, the OTP asked him questions on deployment of police,
20 specifically, the separate police units which is in fact the file folder
21 that I'm now trying to tender, is the statistics on the separate police
22 units that were deployed. So in fact the Prosecution -- but for the
23 Prosecution having flagged this for us in their statement of the witness,
24 we perhaps wouldn't have even looked there.
25 So the file folder actually is simply adding to what the witness
1 is already going to testify to as to paragraph 36 of his statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
3 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, at paragraph 31 of his statement he
4 actually says:
5 "I did not directly participate in the operation," in relation to
6 operation Povratak.
7 And again, the issue with the table as opposed to the document
8 from Minister Jarnjak is, the one from Minister Jarnjak we agree is sent
9 directly to all assistant ministers, whereas the table isn't, which is
10 the issue. And we -- they're not connected in any way or at least not in
11 a way that is obvious to the Prosecution.
12 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I may at one point.
13 Perhaps, if it is going to be an issue as to whether he was part
14 of Povratak or not, I think the Prosecution is aware that the witness
15 issued many orders during and after Operation Storm. And in the upper
16 right-hand corner coded them as being part of OA Povratak. So I will
17 take him through those, his own orders, under OA Povratak if that is an
18 issue, but I don't think it should be in dispute even -- that the witness
19 participated in OA Povratak.
20 MR. CARRIER: And we don't dispute that he was part of it. It's
21 just that he says he was, and so it's just not clear what he would have
22 been receiving.
23 JUDGE ORIE: There is no dispute that he was, but he is saying
24 that he was not part of it, of the operation or whether he --
25 Let's -- if you can't resolve the matter, if the objection
1 against this part of the document to be admitted -- to be added to the
2 65 ter list stands, then, of course, the Chamber will have to decide.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, the Chamber invites you to make the
5 oral application to add it to the 65 ter list at the best possible moment
6 before the break, when the -- when you think you have laid the
7 ground-work as good as you can, and we'll then decide during the break
8 having a closer at the document and translations, et cetera.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So and the first one is -- leave is granted to
11 add the -- the first one, there was no objection, Mr. Carrier. So leave
12 is granted for that one, and the other one we'll hear from you when we
13 are in a best position to decide on the matter.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Mr. President, with respect to the
16 discussion last week, let me just advise the Chamber that with respect to
17 expert reports, Mr. Jones's report will be available by 9.00 a.m. on
18 Thursday. With respect to Mr. Pokaz's report, we have now engaged three
19 translators to get that done by Thursday at 9.00 a.m. as well, and that
20 is --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You were invited to tell us what portion was already
23 MR. MISETIC: First 15 pages have been translate by Friday, but
24 there was a significant amount that was left, and we had to engage other
25 interpreter/translators to get that done. So we have hired -- or engaged
1 two additional translators, who are now working on separate sections of
2 the document. A draft translation will be completed by Thursday at
3 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not going to be asking Mr. Hedaraly or
6 Mr. Carrier whether you're happy with it, but whether you can live with
8 MR. HEDARALY: We'll live with it, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then could the witness be escorted into
10 the courtroom.
11 I spoke too quickly. I was not going ask you whether you were
12 happy with it. And since that word does not appear too often on the
13 transcript, it would be a pity if it would miss it.
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, let me just also note that while the
15 witness is coming in that there were three documents that had an ERN
16 number, ERN number, in the statement which have not yet been admitted
17 into evidence. They are all in the Prosecution's -- all three are on the
18 Prosecution's 65 ter list. I've had a conversation with Mr. Carrier and
19 Mr. Hedaraly, and at the conclusion of the 92 ter, I would like to simply
20 move those 65 ter exhibits into evidence so that the statement is
22 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll proceed as suggested.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Zidovec. Can you hear me in a
1 language you understand?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that you
4 make a solemn declaration at the beginning of your testimony, that you
5 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The
6 text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher, and I would like to invite
7 you to make that solemn declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Zidovec.
11 Please be seated.
12 WITNESS: ZDRAVKO ZIDOVEC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Misetic:
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zidovec, you will first be examined by
16 Mr. Misetic. Mr. Misetic is counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zidovec.
20 A. Good morning.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Can extra microphones please be turned off.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
24 MR. MISETIC:
25 Q. Mr. Zidovec, could you please state your full name for the
1 record, please.
2 A. My name is Zdravko Zidovec.
3 Q. Mr. Zidovec, I would like to turn your attention to a statement
4 that you gave to the Office of the Prosecutor in 2007. It is --
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar 65 ter, 1D27-68. If we could have
6 that on the screen, please.
7 And, Madam Usher, if you would assist me in providing a hard copy
8 in B/C/S to the witness.
9 Q. Mr. Zidovec, if you look at the screen first, on the left-hand
10 side is the original English statement that has some signatures on the
11 bottom. Do you recall whether your signature is on the first page of
12 this statement? Can you tell us whether it is?
13 A. I recognise it. This is the text of the statement I gave to the
14 investigators in June of 2007.
15 Q. And, Mr. Zidovec, yesterday you pointed out to us two areas that
16 you wanted to address, if we could turn your attention to paragraph 55 of
17 your statement, please.
18 Is there anything you wish to correct in paragraph 55 of your
20 A. Yes. I would like to make a correction. The figure I gave at
21 the time, which has to do with the list of between 1200 and 1300 bodies
22 throughout the territory covered by Operation Storm, that the units of
23 the civilian protection sanitized in the course of August and thereafter.
24 The figure, unfortunately, was not correct. The number involved is
25 902 bodies that the civilian protection sanitized throughout the area of
1 its activity as part of operation Povratak in the wake of Operation Storm
2 covering the stretch from Sisak to the area covered by the Split-Dalmatia
3 police administration.
4 The error was made due to the fact that I had a very short period
5 of time at my disposal to prepare for my discussions with investigators,
6 and in that short period I did not have occasion to obtain documents that
7 would allow me to recall the exact figures. The reason why I was unable
8 to get the documentation was that, as of 2001, when the civilian
9 protection became part of the state administration for rescuing, that
10 particular documentation relating to the civil protection had been
11 archived in the state archive and was no longer accessible.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think that if Mr. Misetic would be interested to
13 know all the backgrounds, why you said what you said at the time, and why
14 you could not have said otherwise, and then he will certainly ask for it.
15 If you just make the correction needed, and maybe that there are
16 questions, you'll then hear about it. But let's first try to keep
17 focussed on what, apparently, Mr. Misetic is seeking, to have a
18 correction on a number.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. MISETIC: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And let me just --
21 I don't think this is going to be disputed, Mr. President, by the
22 Prosecution, so let me just save some time by saying --
23 Q. Mr. Zidovec, at paragraph 58 in the Croatian version of this
24 document it says that -- the report says that there was a dispatch of
25 100 conscripts to Gracac fire station. In the original English, it says
1 that the dispatch was of 20 conscripts to the Gracac fire station, and so
2 there's a correction that needs to be made in your -- translated version.
3 Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Other than -- other than these two corrections, is there anything
6 else in your 2007 witness statement to the Prosecution that needs to be
8 A. Yes. I would like to make another correction which was the
9 result again of an error on my part, and this is the mention of -- or,
10 rather, in paragraph 13 and 15 of the B/C/S version of the Croatian
11 version of my statement, I talked about the preparation of the
12 civilian protection for the protection of civilians against any harm that
13 may come to them, not in the course of the Operation Storm, but in the
14 course of another operation --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the name of.
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. Could you repeat the last part of what you said. You said --
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 THE WITNESS: It had to do with the preparations of the civilian
20 protection for the evacuation of the population for possible enemy
21 operations in the course of Ljeto, Summer 95, the order to that effect
22 came from the office for defence of the country of the Ministry of
24 Q. Is there anything else that needs to be corrected in your
1 A. I think that the other paragraphs reflect our discussions more or
2 less, and I would have no other interventions to make at this point.
3 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Misetic, is there a problem with the
4 transcripts in LiveNote? I see that the LiveNote is working on the main
5 monitors but not on the individual stations.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't looking at the other screen, but I see that
7 it's stopped at page 12, line 5.
8 MR. MISETIC: Okay.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Since it seems to be operational on the other
10 screen, I suggest that we proceed, because that means that from a
11 technical perspective, that there is a reliable transcript.
12 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- which certainly, sooner or later will appear on
14 our personal screens as well.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Zidovec, your 2007 statement, with the -- excluding the
18 corrections that have you now made, does the statement accurately reflect
19 what you said to investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor?
20 A. It does, yes.
21 Q. At the time you gave this statement in 2007 to investigators of
22 the Office of the Prosecutor, did you give the statement to the best of
23 your knowledge and in accordance with the truth?
24 A. I confirm that I did.
25 Q. Mr. Zidovec, if I asked you the same questions today that you
1 were asked in 2007, would your answers be the same today as they were in
2 2007 and as reflected in your 2007 witness statement, subject to your
4 A. They would be the same, of course. Although they would be
5 substantiated by better figures and facts.
6 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask -- that 65 ter 1D27-68 be
7 admitted into evidence.
8 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1570.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 I have, Mr. President, explained the process of reading a witness
15 summary to the witness. And with your permission and leave, I would like
16 to read out the summary.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 MR. MISETIC: Witness Zdravko Zidovec was the assistant minister
19 of the interior during and after Operation Storm, responsible for
20 information, analysis, and fire and civil protection. The witness states
21 that his preparation for Operation Storm began only a few days before the
22 operation. The witness was responsible for the establishment of
23 reception centres for civilians after Operation Storm. There was no plan
24 to bring to the reception centres those persons who were capable of
25 living by themselves.
1 The witness was also responsible for the burial of human remains
2 after Operation Storm. The task of collecting bodies was within the
3 exclusive authority of the civil protection. In the event that a body
4 was found by the civil protection where the cause of death appeared to be
5 suspicious, the responsibility for criminal investigation was with the
6 crime police of the Ministry of Interior. A crime technician of the
7 crime police would accompany the civil protection unit at every burial.
8 In the aftermath of Operation Storm, the witness states that the
9 civil protection units searched 48.000 houses in the liberated areas,
10 primarily for the purposes of sanitation.
11 Than concludes the witness summary, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, now with your leave I would like to
14 tender into evidence three documents mentioned in the witness's 92 ter
15 statement. The first document is referenced at paragraph 53 of the
16 statement. It is ERN number 0607-5489, which is 65 ter 4664. I'd like
17 to move that into evidence.
18 The second document is referenced at paragraph 58 of the
19 statement. It is ERN number 0349-3739, and it is 65 ter 4440.
20 And the third document is referenced at paragraph 70 of the
21 statement. It is ERN number 0349-3704, and it is 65 ter 4430.
22 And I'd ask that the three exhibits be marked, and I tender them
23 into evidence.
24 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, 4664.
1 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 4664 becomes Exhibit D1571.
2 65 ter 4440 becomes Exhibit D1572.
3 And 65 ter number 44330 becomes Exhibit D1573.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D1571 through D1573 are admitted into evidence.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Mr. Registrar, if we could have on the screen, please,
8 Exhibit P-- that's P1148, please. And if we could go to English page 5
9 of this document.
10 Q. Mr. Zidovec, you were responsible for the civil defence, and I'd
11 first like to show you by way of background the Law on Amendments to the
12 Law on Internal Affairs. This is beginning at Article 24 -- sorry. 24b.
13 Now -- it's page 4 of the B/C/S.
14 Now, Mr. Zidovec, could you tell us what this law is, in relation
15 to the work of the civil defence. How this law relates to the work of
16 the civil defence.
17 A. Civilian protection came under the competence of the Ministry of
18 Interior in January of 1994, alongside fire-fighters and some other
19 activities, because it had been shown that the Law on -- in the interior
20 had to be amended. This particular provision fully covers the activities
21 of civil protection; namely, protection and rescue of citizens and
22 properties, as well as dealing with consequences of natural disasters,
23 technological and environmental disasters. What was also envisaged were
24 the consequences of nuclear disasters, as well as, of course, war
1 Q. Okay. Mr. Zidovec, I would like now like to turn your
2 attention -- turning directly to Operation Storm, please.
3 MR. MISETIC: And if we could turn to Exhibit D232, please.
4 Q. This is an order of yours from the 4th of August to all police
6 Do you recognise this document?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You'll see that this is the order activating the civil protection
9 and the fire service.
10 MR. MISETIC: And if we could turn to page 2 of this document in
11 the English and leave it on page 1 in the Croatian.
12 Q. If you look at paragraph 3, you order that in the police
13 administrations, including Zadar-Knin and Sibenik:
14 "Immediately prepare the activation of civil protection units,"
15 and then underlined: "Immediately activate a detachment for hygiene and
16 sanitation members [sic] and a detachment for terrain clearing ..."
17 MR. MISETIC: And then in the next paragraph, if we could turn
18 the page in the B/C/S, please.
19 Q. It says that:
20 "The police administrations, in cooperation with the military
21 authorities, and on their approval engage in the removal of the bodies of
22 the dead in cooperation with the criminal police."
23 Now, first, can you explain to the Chamber what you meant when
24 you said that the police administrations are to remove bodies of the dead
25 in cooperation with the military authorities?
1 A. This part of the sentence relates to a very clear form of
2 cooperation, which had previously been defined in the removal of bodies.
3 The crime investigation police, i.e., forensic officers who normally
4 conduct scene-of-crime investigations had to be part and parcel of the
5 team involved in the removal of bodies.
6 This meant that the forensic officer was supposed to attend the
7 scene where the body was found and take all the steps prescribed by the
8 law, i.e., examine the body, collect all information that may help in the
9 identification of the body, such as lifting finger-prints.
10 What also had to be examined was the manner in which the person
11 died possibly, the body had to be photographed, and, finally, what had to
12 be produced was a detailed crime report or detailed forensic report. It
13 was only once the forensic officer conducted his examination was the
14 civilian protection allowed to proceed to bury the remains.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic --
16 MR. MISETIC: I'll get back to it, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. What I would like to tell everyone is that the
18 system is functioning apparently again and that you have to reconnect to
19 the server to receive the running LiveNote on your personal screen.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this process of having a crime investigator do an
23 investigation prior to the burial, would that also include bodies of ARSK
24 soldiers that may have been encountered? In other words, did the MUP
25 civil protection units also bury bodies of ARSK soldiers, and, if so,
1 would the MUP crime investigator also do the same process of
2 photographing the body, producing a detailed crime report, et cetera?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Now, going back to -- to paragraph 4, can you explain a little
5 bit further what you meant when you said that this was to be done in
6 cooperation with the military authorities. What did you understand that
7 to mean?
8 A. This meant primarily that communication had to take place as to
9 whether civilian protection teams could be dispatched to specific areas
10 where it was known that the remains of those killed were to be found, and
11 where no direct combat activities had taken place.
12 Secondly, it also meant that we counted on the possible
13 assistance of military machinery, in order to prepare the burial sites,
14 in keeping with the conventions that we were duty-bound to adhere to.
15 Q. Okay. Mr. Zidovec, let me turn your attention now to
16 Exhibit D233.
17 And in paragraph 64 of your statement, you say that:
18 "Only civil protection had the task of collecting bodies. This
19 authority belonged exclusively to the civil protection."
20 Now, this is an order of yours from the 5th of August.
21 A. Mm-hm.
22 Q. Do you recognise this document?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And here you have laid out a procedure for the burial of bodies.
25 MR. MISETIC: Let me wait for the Croatian version to be on the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
3 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President. Before my friend
4 continues, if he could ask perhaps what the procedure was, rather than
5 reading out the order. It's leading.
6 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think the witness just testified
7 what the procedure was, the photographing, the bodies, et cetera. There
8 is already foundation. There is foundation in the statement, and it's
9 the witness's own document.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Even the question was put whether that covered also
11 ARSK soldiers found, if that is the procedure. But I haven't, of course,
12 looked at the document yet, whether this document describes a different
13 procedure or whether it just gives the details.
14 Mr. Carrier, Mr. Misetic responded to your objection. Does that
15 change your position?
16 MR. CARRIER: No, because he was starting off saying -- referring
17 to the document saying you lay out the procedure. And then I just wanted
18 to make -- I was clarifying whether or not he intended just to read it
19 him, or if he could ask him what the procedure was.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Mr. Misetic answered that he had asked
21 already about the procedure and that only after that he now draws the
22 attention of the witness to this document.
23 MR. CARRIER: And this one goes into more detail, I suppose is
24 the --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
1 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I may also add that at paragraph 46
2 of the witness's statement, this exhibit specifically was shown to him.
3 He commented on it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, please proceed,
5 Mr. Misetic.
6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Zidovec, as I said at paragraph 46, you referenced that you
8 were shown this document by the Prosecution. This is -- can you explain
9 to the Chamber what this document was, why you issued this order.
10 A. The document was issued one day after the start of
11 Operation Storm. We were certainly expecting civilian victims as well as
12 military victims in the area. For this reason, we issued a document
13 where we defined in detail for the relevant police administrations the
14 procedure that they had to follow in applying hygiene and sanitation
16 We believed that such a set of instructions was very important
17 because it was the civilian protection units from these very police
18 administrations that were the first to reach the area. We wanted to make
19 sure that no omissions or errors are made in developing documentation and
20 burying remains. We thought it important to draw their attention to
21 these matters once more, and, in particular, I refer to item 4, where, in
22 very precise terms, we describe the manner of burial that needed to be
23 followed for every body.
24 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Zidovec, let me turn your attention to
25 Exhibit P898, and you reference this document that we're -- I'm about to
1 show you at paragraph 54 of your statement.
2 First, can you tell the Chamber who Slavko Maric was during
3 Operation Storm?
4 A. Slavko Maric was the head of the forensic centre at the crime
5 police at the seat of the ministry.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you were shown this document by the Prosecution, and
7 it talks about the identification of persons and dead bodies --
9 MR. MISETIC: And if we turn to page 2 in the English, please.
10 Q. Now, you have already testified in court about photographing
11 bodies, et cetera. Is the section under the portion that -- titled
12 "Dead Bodies" is this the procedure, as you understood it, of what was to
13 be done?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Now, can you explain from the perspective of the MUP what the
16 process of photographing a body might mean in an investigation? In other
17 words -- let me be more specific. Does photographing a body begin an
18 investigation? What is it procedurally within the Ministry of Interior
19 when a body is photographed?
20 A. I believe that this is one of the key activities of the police.
21 In this particular case, it was simply necessary to make photographs, in
22 order, first of all, to be able to prove the condition of the body when
23 found. Also, whether there were any visible marks which could help the
24 experts as to why this particular person died.
25 Q. Mr. Zidovec, let me turn your attention to Exhibit D1571. This
1 is referenced at paragraph 53 of your statement. And in your statement
2 at paragraph 53, you say what we're about to see on the screen:
3 "... is an instruction sent by me, dated 6 August 1995, with an
4 example of the form that was to be filled out by the sanitation group."
5 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page, please. And I believe
6 one more page in the English to get to the attachment. If we ...
7 Can we also turn the page in the Croatian version, please.
8 Q. Now, is this the form that the civil protection units were
9 supposed to use when registering bodies that were found?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Now, you see the columns there, and there's a number,
12 identification number; and then status, civilian or soldier. Could you
13 tell the Court first how the status of the person would be determined.
14 A. The fundamental element was obviously the equipment or parts of
15 uniform that was -- that were found on the body.
16 Q. Now, if I could turn your attention to Exhibit D69, please.
17 Now, this is the OA Povratak list of individuals at the end that
18 were all collected. Was this -- comparing your previous form that you
19 had sent out with the final Povratak list of bodies, can you confirm that
20 this list was prepared pursuant to the instruction that you had sent on
21 the 6th of August?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Zidovec, I'd like to turn briefly to the issue of the HV
24 and sanitation, and this is related to paragraphs 65 through 69 of your
1 MR. MISETIC: And if we could first turn to Exhibit D598, please.
2 It is an order of General Cervenko from the 5th of August.
3 Q. The order, in point 1, says that the Military Districts are to
4 establish mixed sanitation detachments.
5 MR. MISETIC: And if we could turn the page in the English,
7 Q. Now, the paragraph above, numbered paragraph 2 in
8 General Cervenko order it says:
9 "In establishing the detachment, ensure that the sanitation teams
10 invariably include criminal investigation technicians from MUP for
11 identification, persons for keeping records, medical team ..." et cetera.
12 And if I could turn your attention to Exhibit D234, please. This
13 is General Cervenko's order on the 5th. This is now a document which
14 reflects the minutes of a meeting held on the 6th of August between the
15 heads of the crime investigation departments in the MUP.
16 MR. MISETIC: And if we turn the page in English, please. And
17 turn the page in Croatian, please.
18 Q. Now, the sentence above the section that begins AD-2, it says:
19 "Mr. Zidovec liaises with the HV regarding hygiene and sanitation
20 measures and the identification."
21 Now can you tell the Chamber whether you recall liaising with the
22 HV concerning sanitation measures?
23 A. Given the situation which the first civil protection units
24 encountered in the field on the 5th of August, we thought that it was
25 necessary to come by logistical support, i.e., mechanisation that would
1 enable us to carry out sanitation, that is removal of the bodies as
2 quickly as possible, the bodies that were found in the ground. The
3 civilian protection did not have any such mechanisation. And that I
4 believe that in the crime police department, they were also convinced
5 that such mechanisation could be achieved through a cooperation with the
6 Croatian Army. I am not aware of any specific arrangements made in the
7 field, but I do know that this document came to me, it was submitted to
8 me. And as regards making the necessary mechanisation available, it was
9 done on the ground, arranged by our representatives who were there and
10 most probably the military authorities that were also there.
11 If I may go back to the order of General Cervenko, which I was
12 just shown, I would like to say once again that, according to all my
13 knowledge, the sanitation of human bodies was carried out exclusively by
14 civilian protection, in cooperation with crime police, and this was done
15 in the way which I previously described.
16 Certain other elements of this order by General Cervenko indicate
17 that there was -- that we were supposed to set up a rather -- or to have
18 a rather ideal situation in order to be able to carry out this order, but
19 we were far from any such ideal situation.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if could I have exhibit 65 ter
21 1D830, please.
22 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is also a document of yours dated
23 6 August 1995
24 -- who was the deputy head of the MUP civilian protection as coordinator
25 for clearing the terrain of bodies. And you sent this to the Zadar-Knin
1 police administration operative staff.
2 Do you recall appointing Mr. Davidovic in the field to coordinate
3 the collection of bodies?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If you look in the upper right-hand corner of this document, it
6 says OA Povratak. Can you tell the Chamber why you issued this document
7 with those words on the page?
8 A. This was done because all of the affairs as of the morning of the
9 4th of August and also in the case that we had in May of that year during
10 the Operation Flash, all that was done within the framework of the
11 OA Povratak.
12 Q. Were you, as an assistant minister, part of OA Povratak?
13 A. Yes, of course, because of the duties that I carried out at the
14 time. All assistant ministers and all the work carried out at the time
15 belonged to the operational action Povratak.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that 65 ter 1D830 be marked,
18 and I tender it into evidence.
19 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1574.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D43 on the
24 screen, please.
25 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is a document dated 7 August 1995 bearing your
1 signature and stamp. And it says:
2 "Assistance to the Zadar-Knin police administration." And then
3 it says: "For the needs of rapid terrain clearance of the town of Knin
4 urgently mobilize 100 civilian protection conscripts from the area of
5 Sinj. The unit shall be dispatched for jobs relating to the clearing of
6 the terrain and roads in the area of town of Knin."
7 "The unit must report to Mr. Stanko Batur at the Knin police
9 Can you tell the Chamber who Mr. Stanko Batur was.
10 A. Mr. Stanko Batur was chief of section of the civilian protection
11 at the police administration in Zadar, and immediately after the
12 completion of the Operation Storm he was sent to Knin because the then
13 police in Knin simply had nobody who would be capable to take over the
14 duties, which according to the first information received, were supposed
15 to be very abundant.
16 On the 5th of August, the chief of Department of the Civilian
17 Protection from the ministry arrived to Knin along with his associates.
18 They estimated the situation pertaining to the civilian protection
19 activities, and this was the main reason why we requested from the
20 nearest police administration to provide such a number of persons. They
21 mostly were supposed to engage in cleaning of the town, following the
22 combat activities, and what particularly concerned us at the time was an
23 estimate that in a large number -- that the large number of houses and
24 apartments were abandoned. And in order to prevent any possibly socially
25 critical element we were supposed to act.
1 Q. We will get that topic in a few minutes, Mr. Zidovec. But I just
2 wanted to establish who Mr. Batur and Mr. Davidovic were.
3 MR. MISETIC: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could now have exhibit
4 65 ter D1837, please.
5 Q. Can you tell the Court briefly to Damir Cemerin was.
6 A. Damir Cemerin was chief of Department of Civilian Protection at
7 the seat of the ministry which belonged to the section for fire services
8 and civilian protection.
9 Q. This is a document from Mr. Cemerin to you on the 11th of August,
10 reporting on the state of civilian protection activities in the
11 Zadar-Knin and Lika-Sinj police administrations. And it was reported to
12 you that:
13 "On 11 August at 0800 hours a meeting was held with Mr. Cetina;
14 Mr. Djurica; Mr. Batur, who we just spoke about; Mr. Davidovic was also
15 present at the meeting. And if we go to the third paragraph, it saw says
16 Mr. Batur and Vanjak reported that activities were proceeding with
17 relative difficulty because of the large area and the lack of logistic
18 support partly within the police administrations, but above all, from the
19 bodies in the canton.
20 "They also reported on a meeting with representatives of the
21 Croatian army who had committed themselves to joining in the clearing the
22 area and with all available means, and above all, in burying animals and
23 collecting and caring for animals which are mainly roaming around the
24 liberated territory. To carry out that commitment the Croatian army
25 would join the action after 12 August with three to four excavators,
1 lorries, and about 150 soldiers, as well as hygiene teams and units for
2 the combat security of the areas where the teams are working."
3 Now, is this a report that you received on or about the 11th of
4 August, from Mr. Cemerin?
5 A. Yes, I can confirm that it is.
6 Q. I will ask you a few questions about this document after we look
7 at the next document.
8 MR. MISETIC: But, in the interim, Mr. President, I tender 65 ter
9 1D837 into evidence.
10 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1575.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
16 Q. Now, this document talks about lack of logistic support and what
17 the Croatian army had agreed to do on -- on or about the 11th of August.
18 And, Mr. Zidovec, let's turn to Exhibit P496, please.
19 What I'm going to show you is an order of General Gotovina from
20 that same day, 11 August.
21 A. Mm-hm.
22 Q. And now it talks about -- it makes a reference to
23 General Cervenko's initial order. And in the aim of clearing up the
24 terrain, point 1 is the establishment of a mixed detachment.
25 And if we look at paragraph 3, of this, if you look at the
1 entries at number 2 and number 3, General Gotovina's order makes
2 reference to Mr. Davidovic and Mr. Batur.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
4 MR. CARRIER: I'm not sure whether or not Mr. Misetic is going
5 read this document to him our ask him whether he knows anything about it,
6 or whether he has seen it before, whether he was aware of it at the time.
7 It seems to be leading if you just read it out to him without any
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we do not know yet what the questions will be.
10 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I just ten minutes going over who
11 Boris Davidovic and Stanko Batur are. I haven't had a chance to even ask
12 the question yet. So there are plenty of foundation laid for this
13 witness knowing who those individuals are.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which does not necessarily include his
15 knowledge of this document, but you may proceed, Mr. Misetic.
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. Mr. Zidovec, you see that two of the people from the MUP are
18 included in an order of General Gotovina. First of all, can you tell us,
19 based on your knowledge as assistant minister, could General Gotovina
20 order Boris Davidovic or Stanko Batur?
21 A. No, I do not have any such knowledge, and I cannot confirm that
22 this was the case.
23 Q. Now --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, it's not for the first time that have I
25 difficulties in understanding the answer. The question was:
1 "Could General Gotovina order Boris Davidovic or Stanko Batur."
2 The answer is:
3 "No, I do not have any such knowledge and cannot confirm that
4 this was the case."
5 Did you want to say that General Gotovina could not give any
6 orders to Boris Davidovic and Stanko Batur?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no specific knowledge. I
8 cannot at all recall that the three persons listed here who belonged to
9 the civilian protection received any orders directly from
10 General Gotovina, or they -- indeed, that they carried out these orders.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But that wasn't the question. The question was
12 whether General Gotovina was in a position to give orders to these
13 persons. That was the issue.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think he was in a position
15 to do so. But let me just add that there was no need for such order,
16 since the civilian protection had very specific --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Whether there was any need for anything was, again,
18 not the question. There are, I would say, three options. The first one
19 is he could; the second one is he could not; and the third one is I do
20 not know. If he could, I think that Mr. Misetic will further explore on
21 what basis; if could not, Mr. Misetic or Mr. Carrier, at a later stage,
22 will explore the basis for such an answer. If you don't know, then we
23 are informed about that.
24 Could we try to keep our answers as clear as possible.
25 And, Mr. Misetic, in this context, if you would not mind,
1 otherwise we would have waited for a second. But if I take to you
2 page 28.
3 MR. MISETIC: My LiveNote is now down.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Your LiveNote is down. Oh, I will read the -- and
5 perhaps the witness could listen with me as well.
6 You said in one of your answers that, when we're talking about
7 number of persons, you would need, you said, What particular concerned us
8 at the time was an estimate, that in a large number, that the large
9 number of houses an apartments were abandoned and -- I'm specifically
10 focussing on the last part of your answer which reads:
11 "And in order to prevent any possibly socially critical element,
12 we were supposed to act."
13 I've got no idea --
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President let me just state --
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- what that was.
16 MR. MISETIC: I've got a whole section to go into this issue, but
17 if you wish to clarify that sentence --
18 JUDGE ORIE: No. But, for me, it's -- if I would unkind, I would
19 describe it as bureaucratic language, very much vague and not very to the
21 So I would like to invite you to give answers as clear as
22 possible and as factual as possible.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Zidovec, turning to this order, at page 25, line 15, of
1 today's transcript, you talk about - I'm sorry, but my LiveNote has now
2 crashed - a necessity to come by logistics, mechanisation, et cetera, to
3 enable us to carry out sanitation and removal of bodies as quickly as
5 Are you aware of whether the Split Military District was
6 providing logistics to the civil defence to assist it in removing bodies
7 and fulfilling its civil protection tasks?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, noting your admonition about prior
10 to the break, let me turn to that topic right now. Although,
11 Mr. President, let me ask a procedural question. I'm reminded that the
12 two documents are on the Cermak Defence 65 ter exhibit list. Am I
13 allowed to use documents that are on their list?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, in view of the function of 65 ter
15 lists, would you object against the use of the documents which appear on
16 the exhibit list of another party?
17 MR. CARRIER: In this circumstance I'm not opposed to the
18 Gotovina Defence adding it to their 65 ter list. But my objection was
19 more about whether or not this person can obviously speak to the specific
20 part of the -- one of the documents. That is something I can raise at
21 the point it is, perhaps, specifically addressed depending on the
22 foundation, but that was a long way of saying no.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Until now, I think the only thing we discussed was
24 an application to add the documents to the 65 ter list, and their appears
25 now to be no objection to that, which would have saved us a bit of time
2 Mr. Misetic.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted to add the documents to your 65 ter
6 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Zidovec, as assistant minister of the defence -- sorry, and
8 an assistant minister of the interior, would you regularly receive copies
9 of instructions or orders from the Minister of the Interior that would be
10 sent to all ministers -- all assistant ministers of the interior?
11 A. I think I can answer the question in the affirmative.
12 Q. Okay. Turning your attention to paragraph 36 of your statement,
13 you were asked questions about groups of 100 separate police being sent
14 to the various police administrations to carry out difficult duties.
15 "I believe these groups were formed as additional control over
16 the territory to assist in controlling the movement of people and groups
17 in the area, in particular, they were to form check-points to execute
18 this task of controlling movement."
19 How do you -- what is your basis of knowledge about the sending
20 in of groups of police officers and the reasons why these additional
21 officers were sent in the area?
22 A. I know about it because the OA Povratak staff constantly received
23 information about the uncontrolled movement of various individuals of
24 different status. There was a large presence of the army there, a large
25 presence of refugees and returnees. The need arose for such check-points
1 to be erected in the area, in order to maintain public law and order.
2 Q. Would have you received information -- as part of this
3 information, would you have also received copies of reports about the
4 numbers of police that were being sent in and withdrawn from the
5 liberated areas?
6 A. I suppose that this was the case, but I cannot confirm that it
7 happened in every case.
8 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, on this basis, may I show him the
9 documents or ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
11 MR. MISETIC:
12 Q. Mr. Zidovec, let me show 2D00-531, please.
13 Now, this is again a part of OA Povratak, and it's from
14 Minister Jarnjak on 28th of August. And it talks about, as you can see,
15 the third paragraph -- sorry, if we could change the page in English,
17 The third paragraph talks about the needs in the liberated
18 territories concerning numbers of policemen and the problem of the fact
19 that -- it says:
20 "It will not be possible to keep such a large number of policemen
21 as assistants much longer due to structural, economic, and operational
22 reasons and for reasons regarding the assessment of the volume and
23 importance of the jobs and tasks which await us."
24 It says, Therefore, the problem with the formation of police
25 administrations, stations, and substations within the liberated
1 territories is to be dealt with immediately to be resolved by
2 31 March 1996
3 Then talks about the police administrations in the liberated
4 areas are to commence the manning of the planned job positions.
5 MR. MISETIC: If we turn the page in the English, please.
6 Q. The manning of those police administrations and police stations
7 in the liberated area is to be conducted at a rate of 15 per cent per
8 month. And under number 4 it says:
9 "All other police administrations are to decrease the assistance
10 which they are providing to the administration noted under item 1 at a
11 rate of 15 per cent per month."
12 And if we could look at the bottom --
13 MR. MISETIC: If we turn the page in English, please. Or if we
14 could scroll down, I'm not sure that if it's -- yes, if we could turn the
15 page in English, please.
16 Q. It notes that it is forwarded to the deputy minister and all
17 assistants to the minister.
18 Now, do you recall receiving this specific document from
19 Minister Jarnjak?
20 A. I can't recall specifically, but there would be no reason why I
21 would not -- for me not to receive it, that is. If it has been sent to
22 all assistant ministers, that included myself.
23 Q. Do you recall a discussion within the OA Povratak action about --
24 towards the end of August that the police that had been sent in from
25 outside the liberated territories to assist had to be withdrawn
1 gradually, and the police that were now being formed within the liberated
2 area had to start increasing their own personnel in the area?
3 Do you remember a discussion about this?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that 2D00-531 be marked, and I
7 tender it into evidence.
8 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1576.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
12 Before we have a break, Mr. Misetic, I would like to ask one
13 additional question.
14 Mr. Zidovec, could you tell me, what a recruitment to be carried
15 out at a rate of 15 per cent a month means?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it involved a process of
17 replacing men who had been in the field for a while and had already been
18 exhausted by the work performed. What it also may have included was that
19 personnel was being transferred from one police administration to the
20 next, and this flow of personnel meant that some police administrations
21 were understaffed.
22 So in my view, this was a rotation of personnel with a view to
23 meeting the needs arising in the liberated area, whilst not disturbing
24 the work in the mother administration, so to speak, in the parent
1 JUDGE ORIE: My question was what this 15 per cent actually
2 meant. Would it mean to replace 15 per cent of the total force per
3 month? Would it mean that 15 per cent of the force would be considered
4 to be exhausted? Would it be that you would fill 15 per cent of the
5 vacant positions not counting the positions that were filled by others?
6 I'm just trying to understand what does that mean. The 15 per cent, I do
7 see that there was a need to strengthen and to refresh. But what does
8 recruitment of 15 per cent per month mean? 15 per cent of what?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't give you a specific answer.
10 This was fully outside of my remit. I simply don't remember.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Zidovec.
12 We'll have a break, and we will resume at five minutes past
14 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Two brief matters, Mr. Misetic.
17 The one unrelated to this witness, we announced that the 16th of
18 July was a non-sitting day. Mr. Kehoe asked us to consider whether the
19 17th, being a non-sitting day would be feasible. We have explored the
20 possibilities; they are non-existent, unfortunately, Mr. Kehoe. So,
21 therefore the 16th. Apart from that, the 20th of July will be a
22 non-sitting day as well.
23 This far, not in relation to the witness, as far as the other
24 document, the tables are concerned, we see that that document starts in
25 the original with a page -- first of all, it starts with one page with an
1 empty stamp which is not translated. However that same stamp. But now
2 filled in - it's a kind of a form - is translated, then we have the order
3 or the -- which we dealt with earlier.
4 What then follows is apparently a list of police administrations
5 which is not translated. Of course, the language is very much the same
6 in repetition, but it is not translated. And that -- I think that if,
7 for example, would you have of all the used terms, [B/C/S spoken], [B/C/S
8 spoken], then that comes back 27 times, but also the -- although we could
9 guess what is the title of it, we would like to have a translation for
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then that is a list of -- that's three pages.
13 Then we first come to the first table, OA Return Assistance.
14 That page is fully translated. However, on the page after that, in the
15 original, we find in the title the date of the 27th of August, 1995
16 That is not translated. And what we find there, there are several pages.
17 Sometimes it's same content with some handwriting, and then in an other
18 copy of apparently the same document, the handwriting is replaced by
19 typescript. But we have no -- even not the titles, the columns are not
20 translated. So as it stands now, either are you limited to only the
21 fully translated table, in which at least the incompleteness of
22 translation is not a problem anymore. Whether there are any other
23 problems, that is then still to be seen.
24 So if you want to have everything and then please prepare for a
25 full translation to the extent possible, perhaps discuss with Mr. Carrier
1 whether the objections are still outstanding.
2 MR. MISETIC: Actually, Mr. President, what I had sent around
3 yesterday was the Gotovina Defence's original and translation. I'm
4 content with the Cermak Defence's translation which is already uploaded
5 into e-court and just tendering that into evidence.
6 So I'm interested in the chart, the first chart with the
7 numbers -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the problem is this Court has no access
9 to uploaded documents immediately --
10 MR. MISETIC: I can call it up.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you do that, then I can compare that with
12 the document I have in hard copy here.
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
15 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, may we have 65 ter 2D00-131 on the
16 screen, please.
17 You see, Mr. President, that the one document you were stating is
18 translated here. And then if we turn to page 2 and then page 3 in the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that's uploaded in e-court. The third
21 page contains -- I'll check it again.
22 Yes, these are the seven rows in OA Return, help, all fully
23 translated. Yes, it seems all the numbers are all exactly the same.
24 And then we have the other table.
25 Yes, that seems to be a complete translation of everything. I
1 was looking at the numbers, whether they are approximately the same.
3 Mr. Carrier, you had a similar opportunity to check whether we
4 have everything in translation now. Translation issue seems to be
5 resolved, if we would use this version of the document. I'm -- I must
6 say, not entirely. Not entirely.
7 MR. CARRIER: No, that's actually --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, for example, I see that on --
9 MR. MISETIC: The numbers.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, let me see --
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, that's what -- I'm talking to my
12 case manager about the numbers in Zadar-Knin don't seem to be --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you verify, and could you sit together
14 with Mr. Carrier and see whether we have finally -- because if numbers
15 are not --
16 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, may I propose that since the numbers
17 are going to be the same whether they are in the B/C/S or in the English,
18 that they could be verified in the original, and then we will discuss and
19 circulate a final translation to fix any errors.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, it seems that not for the full
21 100 per cent, but for 98 per cent of the problems have been resolved, the
22 technical problems.
23 Any further objection?
24 MR. CARRIER: No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then it can be admitted into evidence, but the
1 Chamber would like to receive, let's say, within the next 24 hours
2 whether there is any reason to review whether there are any technical
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1577.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence, with the provisio I
7 just expressed.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President. While we have this
10 exhibit on the screen, if we could also have the original Croatian
11 version of the chart, please.
12 Q. Mr. Zidovec, I just want to see if you can help us perhaps
13 understand the chart. You may or may not be able to help us. It says
14 OA Povratak at the top.
15 A. Mm-hm.
16 Q. And can you tell us, having been an assistant minister of the
17 interior, the title is in Croatian "ispomoc," which is help, can you tell
18 us what your understanding would be as to what this chart represents.
19 A. In my view, the chart contains information on additional police
20 forces sent from certain police administrations to other police
21 administrations. The aim was to assess the situation in Sector South and
22 elsewhere, where it was necessary to do so.
23 Q. Let's look at the column Zadar-Knin, which is the second column
24 -- second row, I should say.
25 Do you see that?
1 MR. MISETIC: Perhaps we could blow that row up.
2 Q. Can you tell us where it says: "First echelon of help," what the
3 entry there means, in your interpretation.
4 A. I think an assessment had to be made of the strength of forces
5 which would be able to cover all the problematic areas. In other words,
6 we simply did not know what the specific --
7 Q. Let me ask you --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zidovec, could you tell us what you know and
9 what you don't know. It is not always clear whether are you looking at
10 the document and try to understand what it means and then give us your
11 explanation of what it means, or whether have you any knowledge on how
12 this 1st echelon and the 2nd echelon, what it really means.
13 Do you know it, or are you just interpreting, or mainly
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly what the term
16 "echelon" means in this specific case.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that was apparently the issue in respect
18 of this table.
19 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please tell us if you do not know, rather tell us
21 than try to digest in your own thoughts what it could mean and then
22 present that as the most likely interpretation of the document.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
24 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President.
1 MR. MISETIC:
2 Q. Mr. Zidovec, at paragraph 45 of your statement, you discuss fire
3 prevention service, and I'd like to ask you a few questions about that.
4 But first let me show you D600.
5 Now, fire prevention was part of your portfolio. And if we look
6 at this document, this is also an OA Povratak order.
7 MR. MISETIC: If we scroll down, please.
8 Q. It's the 6th of August. It has your signature and stamp. And it
9 says -- the subject is evidence of fires for the purpose of statistical
10 record of fires that were the result of combat operations in the areas of
11 your police administrations ... it is necessary to send to this
12 headquarters the following information for the previous day."
13 And you see what you instructed the fire services to report.
14 Number 2 is cause of fire. And my question to you is, how would
15 the -- what is your understanding of what the fire service would do to
16 determine the cause of a fire?
17 A. The fire prevention service must know the cause of fire. That's
18 part of its job, to determine whether the fire was caused by a war
19 activity, by someone setting something on fire, or for -- for quite a
20 different reason.
21 Q. Well, let me ask you this. The order says that you're seeking
22 this information to keep statistical records of fires that were the
23 result of combat operations.
24 If -- what would happen in the event that one of the fire teams
25 determined that the cause of the fire was not as a result of combat
1 operations but a deliberate fire set as arson by a member of the
2 military? What would the procedure be, once that cause of fire was
4 A. The data on all the fires that were not results of combat
5 activities were sent by fire-fighting units to the criminal police.
6 Q. Which criminal police would they send it to?
7 A. To the criminal police at the seat of the ministry. I assume
8 that the -- they also forwarded this to the relevant police
9 administration in the field, so in Knin or elsewhere, wherever the fire
11 Q. Let me show you a video, Mr. Zidovec, on the basis of that last
12 answer as the foundation.
13 MR. MISETIC: This is Exhibit D508. I believe the transcripts
14 have been provided to the booths.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether that could be the basis for the last
16 answer is -- is still --
17 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... anticipating an
18 objection --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, but it's of course also highly suggestive
20 that here you'll find the basis for your last answer, which is not what I
21 expect you to do, Mr. Misetic.
22 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, it wasn't directed to the witness; it
23 was directed to Mr. Carrier. Because I'm trying to find the line whether
24 have I established a foundation or ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, the witness hears whatever
1 you say.
2 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
6 "Journalist: Mr. Minister, Jim Rupert, Washington
7 information does your government have concerning the reports of setting
8 villages on fire by the Bosnian army that entered the Croatian territory
9 to provide support to the Croatian military operation?
10 "Jarnjak: I have no information concerning this matter.
11 However, when we come to that area, and any area, the police will
12 establish the actual state of affairs, inspect each object, take records,
13 and thereupon establish whether it was caused by combat activities or
14 something else. Then I will be able to give a specific answer to your
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. Now, Mr. Zidovec, is what the minister says there the correct
18 procedure as to how it would be established or who would establish
19 whether a cause -- a fire was caused in combat or as arson by the
21 A. Given that the order which I signed was sent to a range of police
22 administrations from Vukovar onwards, it is rather difficult for me to
23 answer your question.
24 The fire-fighters could not work in all the areas in the same
25 way. They could not even be in all the areas. However, wherever they
1 there were fire-fighters, obviously they could also establish the causes
2 of fires. From their reports, the crime police could deduce the elements
3 for their further activities.
4 Q. Yes. My specific question, though, is whether it was ultimately
5 determined by the fire service that the fire was deliberately caused by
6 civilian or military personnel, would jurisdiction still remain with the
7 crime police to investigate the arson further?
8 A. I would kindly ask to you repeat your question.
9 Q. Is it fair to say that the first determination of whether a fire
10 was caused by arson or in combat, is determined by the fire service of
11 the MUP; is that correct?
12 A. In the given circumstances where they were present, they could
13 indeed make such an estimate.
14 Q. Okay. And what would happen if -- let me change the question.
15 If the cause of the fire was determined to be arson, would it
16 matter whether you suspected, at the fire level, that the arson was set
17 by the military or the civilian police? Or would the fire service report
18 it to the crime police of the MUP, and then they would deal with the
19 issue of who caused the fire?
20 A. Our reports were sent to the police stations in the field and
21 also to the crime police at the level of the police administration and
22 also at the level of the ministry, which then processed them in their
23 criminal reports when they decided to make -- to file criminal reports.
24 Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge as to what the crime police
25 would do in the event that they determined that the fire was set by
1 military personnel?
2 A. No.
3 Q. All right. Let me turn to another topic --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one clarifying question.
5 You just said:
6 "Our reports were sent to the police stations in the field and
7 also to the crime police at the level of the police administration and
8 also at the level of the ministry, which then processed them in their
9 criminal reports when they decided to make -- to file criminal reports."
10 Now, a few minutes ago, you were asked about the data on all the
11 fires that were not results of combat activities; therefore, had other
12 causes were sent by fire-fighting units to the criminal police, you said.
13 And then the question was: "Which criminal police would they
14 send it to?"
15 And you said:
16 "To the criminal police at the seat of the ministry. I assume
17 that they also forwarded this to the relevant police administration in
18 the field, so in Knin or elsewhere, wherever the fire occurred."
19 So a couple of minutes ago, it was just an assumption that they
20 would sent it to the local police authorities; whereas, now, you state,
21 if I understood you well, that they were sent to the police stations in
22 the field.
23 What made the difference between the assumption five minutes ago
24 and, now, it not being an assumption anymore, but a statement what
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the events that occurred in the
2 field were obviously recorded in such a way that they would end up in a
3 certain police station; that is, police administration, in the field.
4 From there, the reports were also coming to the headquarters of
5 the OP Povratak, and there we had uniformed police, crime police, and all
6 other types of police. In certain regular analysis that were undertaken,
7 it was obviously clear that the crime police would undertake certain
8 additional investigation of any suspicious fires and proceed with
9 criminal reports.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's not an answer to my question. The same problem
11 you had with your last question, Mr. Misetic, that the answer given was
12 not an answer to your question.
13 May I ask you to well consider what the question is, and then to
14 give an answer to the question, focussing on what the person who asks the
15 question would like to know.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Mr. Zidovec, turning your attention to reception centres. My
19 first question to you is: To your knowledge, did you receive any -- let
20 me rephrase it.
21 Did you receive any reports that international organisations,
22 whether the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the United Nations,
23 et cetera, criticised Croatia
25 A. No, I have never received any such reports.
1 Q. What was the ethnicity of the people that were housed in the
2 reception centres during and after Operation Storm, to your knowledge?
3 A. In the reception centres, there were citizens of both Croatian
4 and Serbian ethnicity.
5 Q. Can you explain to the Chamber why reception centres were
7 A. The first order to set up reception centres was signed by me on
8 August the 4th, under the assumption that, obviously immediately after
9 the combat activities, the population of the area will need assistance.
10 We requested the cooperation from the government office for refugees and
11 also the cooperation of local institutions, primarily social welfare
12 centres. However, the situation in the field was such that these centres
13 were mostly set up by ourselves, in different school facilities and other
14 similar public facilities which could receive the population. And then,
15 again, we would ask for cooperation and assistance of the relevant
16 institutions such as social welfare centres and other services.
17 Q. Okay. Were the reception centres set up as part of a plan to
18 remove Serb civilians from the liberated areas?
19 A. No, no.
20 Q. Did you receive any information which indicated to you that
21 within the reception centres fear was deliberately being instilled in
22 Serb civilians so as to encourage them to leave Croatia?
23 A. I have never been informed about that.
24 Q. Do you have -- or did you receive any information that Serb
25 civilians were systematically being transferred out of the reception
1 centres to locations outside of Croatia
2 A. We have not received any such information.
3 Q. Would the authorities transfer people to these reception centres
4 against their well, to your knowledge?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Were people allowed to leave the reception centres once they had
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you explain what the procedure was if a person wished to
10 leave the reception centre?
11 A. Such a person was erased from some basic records that we kept,
12 and the relevant social welfare centres would be informed about this;
13 also, the respective Red Cross unit, but I'm not sure that this was a
14 rule. What was certainly the case was that any such person was allowed
15 to leave a reception centre at any time he or she wished to do that, in
16 order to return home or to go anywhere else.
17 Q. What about persons who were determined to be incapable of living
18 by themselves? Sick, elderly? How would those people ultimately leave a
19 reception centre?
20 A. For such persons, we requested the social welfare centres to take
21 care about them and also Red Cross units, in order to provide the
22 necessary logistics.
23 Q. Okay. Turning your attention to the issue of the -- to
24 paragraph 23 of your statement, I should say, which is your statement
25 that in the aftermath of Operation Storm, civilian protection units
1 examined -- should say 48.000 houses, primarily for the purposes of
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question in relation to the last
4 series of questions about the reception centres.
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Mr. Zidovec, your answer about
7 everyone being free to leave the reception centre, would that be equally
8 true for men, including able-bodied men, women, children? Would it be
9 true for everyone?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This rule obviously applied to
11 everybody who was in a reception centre. The old people who were,
12 indeed, in the reception centre were mostly elderly, some of them
13 entirely incapacitated, unable to move, who were brought there by their
14 relatives because there was nobody else in the surrounding area who would
15 be able to take care about them.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But were there also able-bodied men, and were they
17 sometimes questioned about their past? And would they also be free to
18 leave the reception centres?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our reception centres that were
20 set up by the civil protection, we had no such questioning.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
23 MR. MISETIC:
24 Q. Just following up on the Presiding Judge's questions, do you know
25 what the difference was between a reception centre and a collection
2 A. The population that went to the reception centres was the
3 population whose basic living was jeopardised. There they were provided
4 with fundamental medical care, and they were -- the proposals were made
5 to organise their social security and obviously certain hygienic
6 functions were carried out. So certain elementary assistance was
7 provided by the civilian protection.
8 Q. Yes. But do you know what a collection centre was?
9 A. I assume on the basis of a document which was shown to me here, a
10 document of the crime police, that they referred to centres where they
11 could have arrested soldiers or members of some military formations, but
12 civilian protection had nothing to do with such collection centres. Our
13 centres were exclusively of a humanitarian nature.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Now, going back to paragraph 23 of your
15 statement, why was the civil protection examining 48.000 houses?
16 A. There were two main reasons. First, the apartments and houses
17 were examined to establish if there were any bodies in there; and,
18 secondly, also certain sanitation measures, clearing up measures were
19 carried out in order to prevent any infections that could occur following
20 the fact that these houses or apartments were abandoned. So, obviously,
21 if there were any food items of animal origin, for example, because there
22 was no electricity there, so we wanted to prevent any possible epidemics.
23 Q. What type of things would civilian defence remove from the houses
24 once they entered?
25 A. They removed foodstuff of plant or animal origin that were left
1 behind. You know that nearly everybody at the time had large amounts of
2 fresh meat in -- in the fridges or dry meat and other kinds of foodstuff,
3 and due to the summer weather, this was a potential source of -- of
5 Q. When civilian protection would enter these houses, would they be
6 in uniform, on all occasions?
7 A. Generally speaking, they were wearing uniforms. If any member of
8 the civilian protection did not have a full civilian protection uniform,
9 this only occurred with people who carried out these duties for a long
10 period of time, because the uniforms would -- would simply not be useable
11 anymore, and we did not have replacement uniforms. The civilian
12 protection also never entered any house or apartment without a police
13 escort. This was a very clear instruction to all civilian protection
15 Q. How would the civilian protection enter a house if the house was
17 A. As I said, the civilian protection groups were escorted by the
18 police and any such group also had an explosive expert who would carry
19 out the initial examination of the door, first of all, before they
20 entered, and then -- of the apartment. Obviously the circumstances in
21 the month of August were such that possible stench or anything else that
22 would provide the indication that there was a reason why the civilian
23 protection had to intervene, in such cases, the civilian protection would
24 force the door to enter the premises.
25 Q. Finally, Mr. Zidovec, turning your attention to paragraph 34 of
1 your statement. You say:
2 "It is normal to expect larger amount of criminal activity in the
3 area after such a large operation."
4 Can you tell us why there would be an increase in criminality in
5 that area?
6 A. This statement that I made to the investigators is obviously
7 partly a result of my general experience, because we have all witnessed a
8 range of such turning-point activities, and this was just one of them.
9 In addition, everything that happened in the first days after the
10 completion of the combat activities in that area, brought about certain
11 emotions which could not at all exclude the possibility of criminal
12 activities. Once this area was opened, people went there for a variety
13 of motives. There were refugees, displaced persons, but also criminals.
14 Q. Do you know if the border with Bosnia was secure?
15 A. One part of the border with Bosnia was covered by the police
16 stations. However, this is a rather porous border, and that part which
17 is usually called green border was such that one could cross it without
18 any real risk or without any possibility of the police controlling the
19 entire area.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could I seek clarification of the
21 previous answer of the witness.
22 You said:
23 "Everything that happened in the first day after the completion
24 of the combat activities brought about certain emotions which could not
25 at all exclude the possibility of criminal activities."
1 Now have I never heard of emotions which would exclude for the
2 possibility of criminal activities. But could you tell the Chamber what
3 you actually wanted to say here? Is it to say that emotions emerged
4 which would drive people to acts of a criminal nature which, under other
5 circumstances, they would not have committed? Is that what you wanted to
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I wanted to say that there
8 was a very realistic possibility for the property that was in the area to
9 be stolen, for various reasons.
10 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I understood in paragraph 34, you were
11 only talking about expectations. But leaving that apart, so what you
12 wanted to say is that after Operation Storm, you could expect a higher
13 level of theft.
14 Now in the next line, you say that there were refugees, displaced
15 persons but also criminals. Now, I do understand that criminals have an
16 inclination to, at least if they are thieves, to theft, anyhow. So what
17 then is the special emotion? Because this Chamber heard a lot of times
18 that people were sometimes emotional because they saw that all their own
19 property had been stolen or had been destroyed earlier and, although not
20 being criminals, that they would take what they think was taken from
21 them. These were not criminals.
22 Now, what did you intend to say there, that it was only criminal
23 that would commit theft or -- and what special emotions would have played
24 a role there?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as emotions are concerned,
1 I'm referring to refugees and returnees in that respect. When I'm
2 mentioning criminals, I'm quite clearly referring to certain individuals
3 who engaged in crime for personal gain and had no other links to that
4 area than crime.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then see whether I understood your answer
6 well. You had criminals who are stealing just because they wanted to
7 become richer, and there were other people that, under the emotions of
8 possibly revenge or possibly because they saw that their property had
9 been taken by others and sought compensation, and that they may have
10 been, for those reasons, inclined to take goods that may not have
11 belonged to this them.
12 Is that how I have to understand your answer?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that the motive of
14 revenge was quite understandable under the circumstances.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, could you also try to elicit from -- I
16 sometimes need a rather long exegetical exercise in order to understand
17 what the witness really wants to say.
18 Could you please, also in the way in which you question him, try
19 to get answers which are understandable for normal people as well.
20 MR. MISETIC: I'm going have to pass that task on to my
21 colleague, Mr. President, because I have completed my direct examination.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zidovec.
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you have got one second.
24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Next, Cermak Defence.
1 Mr. Cayley.
2 MR. CAYLEY: As things stand, Your Honour, no questions thank
4 No questions, then for the Markac Defence.
5 Mr. Mikulicic.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Zidovec, you will now be examined by
8 Mr. Mikulicic. And Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Markac.
9 Please proceed.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Zidovec.
12 A. Good afternoon.
13 Q. I will have several questions for you and since we speak the same
14 language, we should be mindful of the fact that we need to make a pause
15 between question and answer so that the interpreters can do their job.
16 After I put a question to you, please wait with your answer so that the
17 interpretation can catch up.
18 Mr. Zidovec, mention was made of the uniforms of the civil
19 protection, and you explained that, due to the objective circumstances,
20 it was not always the case that the special -- that the civil protection
21 units of wore uniforms.
22 At any rate, can you tell what was the colour of the civilian
23 protection uniform at the time, if you remember?
24 A. The civilian protection uniforms were of a
25 greyish/greenish/brownish colour, although brown was the predominant
1 colour. The uniforms had a sign of the civilian protection which clearly
2 identified them. The insignia was envisaged the under the civilian
3 protection convention.
4 Q. On the issue of the insignia, is it right that it was a blue
5 triangle against an orange background?
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... [In English]
8 I would just like to draw your attention that that type of sign could be
9 find under the Annex 1 to Additional Protocol of Geneva Convention from
10 12th of August, 1949, in paragraph 15.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zidovec, the civilian protection team which
12 went out into the field on request consisted as you told us of a
13 scene-of-crime officer, a civilian protection officer, and an explosives
15 Now the role of the scene-of-crime officer, in relation to the
16 examination of a dead body and within the civilian protection team was
17 exactly what?
18 A. His main role was to preserve the location where the body was
19 found and to preserve the trace evidence; in other words, the
20 finger-prints, and to take a photograph of the body. Thus, preserving
21 the state and condition of the body before sanitation takes place.
22 Whenever it was possible, the body was searched for possible ID.
23 Q. Was the scene-of-crime officer precisely the person who was
24 authorised to establish if, on the basis of the examination of the body,
25 there were any indications of foul play?
1 A. Yes. The scene-of-crime officer would examine the body and have
2 the first indications of the possible cause of death.
3 Q. If I understand the procedure correctly, and you'll correct me if
4 I'm wrong, there were two basic courses of action, the first being the
5 following. If the scene of crime does not conclude that there was any
6 foul play in relation to the body, what follows next is the removal of
7 the body.
8 Is that right?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. In the event of the other situation, where the scene-of-crime
11 officer, upon examining the body, suspects that murder may have been
12 committed, another type of procedure will follow.
13 Can you explain what that procedure was.
14 A. According to this procedure and on the basis of the detailed
15 crime report produced by the scene-of-crime officer, the crime police
16 would, as part of the police administration, take further steps in the
17 investigation, proceeding from the evidence collected during the scene of
18 crime investigation.
19 Q. Is my understanding correct, that in this case, the
20 scene-of-crime officer would send his report also to the relevant crime
21 police about the reasons to suspect that a crime had been committed?
22 A. All the reports produced by scene of crime officers ended up in
23 police administrations, including the ones you referred to, and the ones
24 where it became obvious that the bodies concerned were to be found there
25 as a result of combat activities and other type of activities.
1 Q. Was this a two-fold procedure. According to one, it was the
2 police administrations that received information; and according to the
3 other, it was the civilian protection that received information.
4 A. I don't understand your question.
5 Q. The hygiene and sanitation reports were produced and ultimately
6 sent to the staff of OA Povratak, OA Return, and they were in fact
7 produced by civilian protection bodies, were they not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does this mean that the reports produced by scene of crime
10 officers about possible crimes also ended up in the hands of the civilian
11 protection bodies and the staff of the OA Povratak?
12 A. These sort of reports did not reach the civilian protection
13 structure. As you could see from the forms that were shown here, we only
14 entered the data envisaged by the format of the document.
15 Q. The sanitation process you described for us during your
16 testimony, you, as a high-ranking officer -- official of the Ministry of
17 the Interior, did you ever receive instructions or orders, formally or
18 informally, to the effect that the sanitisation process should be used as
19 a method of suppressing evidence of crime as a method of covering up for
20 foul play, crime, murder, arson, looting, and such-like?
21 A. No, never.
22 Q. Let us move to a different topic now.
23 In your statement, and I'm referring to paragraph 39 - this is
24 D1570 - you say that in late August and early -- or early September 1995,
25 you visited Gracac.
1 To the best of your recollection, what was the condition of the
2 town when you got there? And I'm referring to the buildings, the
3 streets, and so on?
4 A. In the part of town where I moved, it was practically intact. I
5 spent most of the time at the police station, i.e., in the same building
6 housing the police station of the Krajina police. The building did not
7 have any damage traces. It needed a good cleaning but nothing more than
9 Close to that building there was a motel whose -- the name of
10 which escapes me now, which was not damaged either. But that time, meals
11 were provided there, both to the civilian protection units of and
12 policemen. The civilian protection was billeted in a tent close to the
13 police station.
14 According to what I heard, a unit of the Special Police was to be
15 found there at the time, and I knew General Markac and others among them,
16 so I wanted to go and say hello. I took the civilian protection vehicle,
17 and I went to the facility where they were, some 3 to 4 kilometres away
18 from the police station. There, I found several individuals I knew. I
19 spent perhaps half an hour talking to them on some vital matters, how
20 they were faring, et cetera. I did not have to do the civilian
21 protection business or that of the Special Police. It was a private
22 conversation which lasted roughly half an hour. At that point members of
23 the Special Police did say that they would appreciate it if the civilian
24 protection unit cleaned the premises where they were quartered, and we
25 merely engaged witty jokes about us not being able to afford, by that
1 time, to pose as housekeeping help.
2 Q. Mr. Zidovec, now that you have broached the topic, the visit to
3 the HQ of the Special Police in Gracac, how did it strike you in terms of
4 the level of equipment and the conditions in which the Special Police
5 were dwelling?
6 A. If I remember correctly, they had a rather large room with tables
7 put together and chairs, and I seem to recollect a computer being there.
8 I know that an individual from the technical -- operational technical
9 sector accompanied the Special Police contingent, and I presumed that the
10 computer was his.
11 Q. If I understand you correctly, you perceived that room to be more
12 of an office, an administrative office; is that right?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. As you travelled through the area liberated in Operation Storm,
15 you said you came across check-points; do you recall that?
16 This is my question: Do you remember who it was who manned the
17 check-points? What sort of units were they?
18 A. The check-points were manned by the civilian police, sporting
19 blue uniforms and by reserve [as interpreted] police forces, which had a
20 different colour uniform; it was greyish/blue. The pattern was different
21 and distinct from the regular police blue uniform.
22 Q. Mr. Zidovec, you could recognise members of the reserve police by
23 their uniforms; is that correct?
24 A. Of course. Of course, members of Special Police wore uniforms of
25 a distinct green colour, which differentiated them from all other police
2 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ... on page 63,
3 line 10, was wrongly interpreted my question in respect of the type of
4 police that I mentioned. I mentioned special, not reserve police.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that's now on the record.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And that is what, therefore, the witness may have
8 understood to be your question.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, the witness understood correctly,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. [Interpretation] My last question to you, Mr. Zidovec. Did you
14 ever see members of Special Police on the check-points? So were any of
15 the check-points manned by Special Police members?
16 A. No, never.
17 Q. Thank you for your answers.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: [Previous translation continues] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will first have a break before you have an
20 opportunity to cross-examine the witness, Mr. Carrier.
21 We will resume at a quarter to 1.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zidovec, you will now be cross-examined by
25 Mr. Carrier. Mr. Carrier is counsel for the Prosecution.
1 Mr. Carrier, please proceed.
2 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Carrier:
4 Q. Mr. Zidovec, I have one introductory question. I just want to
5 figure out, were you a member of the Command Staff of Operation Povratak?
6 A. In the Command Staff of the Operation Povratak, there were all
7 the competent assistant ministers, including myself.
8 Q. When you gave your statement to OTP and the Prosecution
9 investigators back in 2007, at that time you told them that you didn't
10 really remember much about Povratak. You said that you didn't directly
11 participate in that operation. You said that it was primarily a police
12 operation. You said you seemed uncertain to even -- who was in charge of
13 that operation.
14 Can you explain how it is as a member of the Command Staff of
15 Operation Povratak you told the investigators that, and how come now you
16 say that you were involved in that operation?
17 A. This, first of all, had to do with a large of period of time
18 which elapsed since these events. I was in charge of the civilian
19 defence and fire-fighting exclusively in 1995 and never thereafter. And
20 in 2001, I retired, and, at that point, I simply turned my attention
21 towards some other activities, and I did not discuss these matters
22 anymore. So the 12 years is certainly a long period of time which
23 influenced what I said during that interview, and I also did not have any
24 time to prepare for that interview. This is why my answer was to
1 Q. So I do understand you to say that, since 2007, you started to
2 look at documents and then you realized or remembered that you actually
3 were a member of Operation Povratak. Is that how it worked?
4 A. This is not entirely true. After my interview with the
5 investigators, possibly a year or so later, I was invited by the Defence
6 team. And during that conversation we tried to extend some of my
7 recollections. So between that moment of time and my arrival here,
8 another year has elapsed. Once I was invited by the Defence to appear
9 here, I started looking up certain documents or start -- tried to contact
10 certain people who worked at the civilian protection at the time, in
11 order to immerse myself into this subject. And before my arrival here, I
12 also had an opportunity -- a couple of days of day before my arrival, I
13 also had an opportunity to look at my statement.
14 Q. You mentioned that in 1994 civil protection was moved from the
15 Ministry of Defence, and then it came under the authority of the Ministry
16 of the Interior, and was under your authority during 1995. I take it
17 that when the authority was given to the MUP over civil protection, it
18 was simply over the existing structure that was in place, that had
19 existed since 1991.
20 A. I do not understand precisely. Which structures are you
21 referring to?
22 Q. You said in your statement that civil protection had existed
23 since 1991; right?
24 A. Yes, that is correct, and it was an integral part of the Ministry
25 of Defence.
1 Q. And that's the structure that you took over -- or your ministry
2 took over in 1995 and you were in charge of during 1995.
3 A. No. The structure of civilian protection, fire-fighting, and
4 fire prevention was set up in January of 1994 when civilian protection
5 was moved from the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Interior. And
6 there was another assistant minister who was in charge of that for a
7 period of one year. When he left the ministry towards the end of 1994,
8 in the early days of 1995, the minister made a decision whereby I was to
9 be in charge of these segments, most probably he believed that in this
10 way we could cover these issues without hiring a new assistant minister.
11 Q. Okay. If a member of the military had asked that civilian
12 protection personnel from the MUP be transferred to their groups for
13 sanitations purposes, would you have been informed of that?
14 A. I suppose I would, either directly or by people belonging to the
15 civilian protection which received such a request.
16 Q. And during Operation Storm, Mr. Cemerin, who was the chief of
17 civilian protection, he was on the ground during that operation and
18 monitoring civilian protection; is that right?
19 A. That's right. He supervised and coordinated the work of our
20 units and our people on the ground.
21 Q. And he would have been reporting to you about what his
22 observations were, in terms of what was happening with civil protection
23 sanitation operations after Operation Storm; right?
24 A. Yes. Apart from general information that I received from him, I
25 also received his opinions as to what needed to be improved, in order to
1 carry out our tasks better. And also, within the civilian protection
2 department, some of those tasks were -- some of these decisions were made
3 by himself.
4 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Zidovec, I didn't ask you about improvements or
5 anything like that. I just wanted to know whether or not he did in fact
6 he did report to you. So just to move it along a little more quickly, if
7 you could just answer the question I pose to you.
8 Now in your 2007 statement to the Prosecution, you said that
9 civil protection had exclusive authority to collect bodies of people
10 killed during Operation Storm. You said that you conducted that work
11 completely independently from the military.
12 In your supplemental statement you explain that perhaps you had
13 some logistical support from the army, although you don't know the
14 details of that. You also said that during your testimony today that
15 perhaps there was some communication with the military, at least with
16 respect to figuring out whether it was safe to conduct a sanitation
17 operation. But you also say that civil protection never acted on orders
18 from the HV Main Staff. And in your statement in 2007 you said that
19 there was no formal or official communication with the military on
20 collecting dead people. You also said that you were not aware of the
21 military having conducted any sanitation operations during
22 Operation Storm.
23 Mr. Zidovec, I am going to suggest that, actually, none of that
24 is accurate, and that in fact the MUP civil protection sanitation units
25 that were under your authority including MUP civil protection personnel
1 that you personally appointed to coordinator positions during
2 Operation Povratak, not only coordinated their human sanitation
3 activities with the HV but they also worked under the supervision of the
4 HV to quickly sanitize the liberated territory of bodies after
5 Operation Storm.
6 Would you agree with that?
7 A. I have no information about this. And I might add that during
8 the conversations that I had these days, with people who used to work in
9 the civil protection, including Mr. Cemerin and others, I was told
10 categorically by them that military bodies did not participate in the
11 sanitation operations carried out by civil protection.
12 Q. You mentioned today and in your supplemental statement from
13 July 2009 that you maintain the position that you had exclusive authority
14 for human sanitation, but you didn't discount the possibility that HV
15 provided some logistical support, although you're not sure if they did do
16 that in fact. I'm going to suggest to that there wasn't an order from
17 the Split Military District logistics group before Operation Storm
18 ordering support, in terms of manpower, supervision, among other things,
19 for sanitation after the operation.
20 Are you aware of that?
21 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
22 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could I please have document number
23 65 ter 4503.
24 Q. Mr. Zidovec, what's coming up on the screen in front of you is a
25 Split Military District logistics order for Operation Storm dated the 1st
1 of August, 1995.
2 MR. CARRIER: If we could go to page 6 in both English and the
4 Q. And you'll see on this page it reads that:
5 "Human sanitation shall be performed daily in cooperation with
6 police administrations."
7 MR. CARRIER: And if we can go to page 10 in both the English and
8 the B/C/S.
9 Q. Mr. Zidovec, item number 11 of this logistics order is entitled
10 "Sanitation of the Theatre of Operations." Item 11.1 indicates that the
11 medical service of the HV command shall be responsible for the sanitation
12 of the theatre of operations.
13 Item 11.2 says basically that HV units of themselves can sanitize
14 if it can be done quickly.
15 Item 11.4 indicates that the HV will supply resources and troops
16 to perform the sanitation with joint forces and that if the military
17 isn't able to provide sufficient troops, the civilian institutions will
18 be engaged, as required.
19 Item 11.5 indicates that human sanitation will be carried out
20 under the supervision of qualified HV personnel, and they list some, and
21 one of them can be an army medical unit.
22 And then just below item 11.5 in the next paragraphs, it's
23 indicated that appropriate logistics base medical service in whose area
24 of responsibility the sanitation is being formed will provide the
25 necessary forensic experts.
1 Now, Mr. Zidovec, given this logistics order from the Split
2 Military District before Operation Storm, is it your position that you
3 weren't aware that this order was made, that these resources were ordered
4 to be supplied, that forensics experts were ordered to be supplied, all
5 in support of human sanitation operations?
6 A. No. Is this is the very first time that I have seen this
7 document, and as regards to your final question, I have to answer
8 negatively, I don't know.
9 Q. During your examination today, Mr. Zidovec, you were shown an
10 order from General Cervenko, which is Exhibit D598.
11 MR. CARRIER: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could please call that up
12 onto the screen.
13 I'm sorry, I've just been reminded that I'd like to tender the
14 logistics order.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
16 MR. MISETIC: I think we need an updated translation of it, which
17 I think is of some significance. So subject to the updated translation,
18 11.1 doesn't say Croatian armed forces; it says Croatian forces, which
19 are two different terms, which will be relevant later.
20 Subject to that, we have no objection.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So no objection against the original, although
22 would you like to have the translation verified.
23 Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2570.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 May I take it that you'll share your concerns about the
2 translation with Mr. Carrier and that either he or you, together, will
3 take care that we finally get the translation we need. That is, a fully
4 accurate translation, especially if is on vital points of the document.
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. CARRIER:
8 Q. Mr. Zidovec, were you aware that -- of General Cervenko's order
9 back in August of 1995?
10 A. To the best of my recollection, I was not aware of it. Or I
11 should perhaps say I didn't see it.
12 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, Mr. Registrar, could we have D598 on the
13 screen, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, could we have a clarification of that
15 last answer.
16 You were asked whether you were aware of this order. Now
17 awareness can be the result of looking at the document, hearing about the
18 document or whatever other information you would have received about an
20 You then said: "Or I should perhaps say I didn't see it." The
21 question was not, I think, whether you had seen the order. The question
22 was whether you were aware of the existence of that order.
23 Now, I do understand that you haven't seen it. Were you by any
24 other means aware of such an order to exist, whether or not in writing?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this moment my answer is
1 negative. I wasn't aware of it. But what I do know is that in one or
2 two orders received the previous day during the day, on the 4th of
3 August, we sent almost identical instructions from the civilian
4 protection to our units in the field.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
6 MR. CARRIER: If we could go to page 2 and point number 2 on that
7 page in both the English -- well, it may be page 1 in B/C/S.
8 Q. Point number 2, Mr. Zidovec, reads that:
9 "In coordination with the police administrations and health
10 Crisis Staff in the counties, include a civil protection unit from a
11 county police administration ..." and it goes on to give different
13 And then the next paragraph, under number 2 it says that:
14 "In the course of the work of the sanitation detachment, the
15 commander of the detachment or a person designated by him, shall
16 coordinate all issues concerning the implementation of the sanitization
17 task within the scope of authorities of the counties."
18 A. Mm-hm.
19 Q. Now, you agree with me that it's -- that order indicates that
20 part of the detachments formed for human sanitation by the HV are to
21 include civil protection units as well.
22 A. I don't know that civil protection units belonged to detachments
23 that were set up by the Croatian army.
24 Q. General Cervenko's order indicates that if a detachment is set
25 up, civil protection units are to form part of that; right?
1 A. Yes, this is what is written here.
2 Q. Point number 3 from this order from this order, which at the
3 bottom of page 2 and on to page 3 of the English - still page 1 of the
4 B/C/S - reads that:
5 "Sanitation shall be conducted in accordance with the
6 instructions of the Ministry of Defence."
7 And it goes on to give details about that order, which is dated
8 15 October 1993
9 lists some priorities. The first one being removal of corpses.
10 Now, Mr. Zidovec, in your 2007 statement you indicated that you
11 had you never heard of a military doctor named Dr. Brkic. We'll come
12 back to that.
13 This Chamber has already received evidence that Exhibit D1058 is
14 an order from Dr. Brkic which outlines how human sanitation, among other
15 things, is to be conducted. Were you ever aware of any order from an HV
16 Main Staff doctor about how human sanitation was to be conducted?
17 A. No, I wasn't aware of such an order.
18 Q. Now point number 7 in General Cervenko's order appoints Brigadier
19 Dr. Zlatar from the HV Main Staff to coordinate, supervise, and provide
20 expert advice to the participants in the sanitation campaign.
21 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, can I get a clarification from
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
24 MR. MISETIC: Exhibit D1058 doesn't appear to be the document
25 that Mr. Carrier claimed it would be.
1 MR. CARRIER: D1056.
2 MR. MISETIC: D1056, okay.
3 Q. And this person who is appointed to supervise, et cetera, is to
4 coordinate and determine the procedure regarding corpses, carcasses,
5 scattered livestock, et cetera.
6 Now you agree that what is being described here is what you say
7 came under your authority for civil protection. Is that not right?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Mr. Zidovec, were you ever aware of an order issued by
10 General Cermak during August 1995 regarding sanitation operations?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
12 MR. MISETIC: Sorry, Mr. Misetic, I have to note an objection. I
13 finally pulled up D1056, and in the future if counsel could call up the
14 documents so we have a chance to make our objections on time to the
15 proposition that was posited, I don't believe accurately reflects what
16 the document sates. So just so that we don't move too fast before we can
17 make our objection.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that Mr. Carrier did not do it
19 intentionally, but he is urged to be very precise so as to give a fair
20 chance to the Defence to --
21 MR. MISETIC: Well, Mr. President, the document is dated
22 15 October 1993
23 witness testified happen in 1994, and I don't think it was accurately
24 depicted as to what the contents of the document are.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed at this moment, Mr. Carrier, I
1 think you --
2 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, in light of what you just said, if
3 Mr. Carrier can provide to us the exhibit number for the document he is
4 referring to at the moment, that would help me. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Mr. Carrier.
7 MR. CARRIER: P506.
8 Q. Mr. Zidovec, are you aware that the military set up sanitation
9 detachments at both the garrison and Military District level during
10 Operation Storm and that civil protection personnel and units were
11 incorporated into those structures?
12 A. No. No, I don't know.
13 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could you please call up
14 Exhibit P506, please.
15 Q. Now, Mr. Zidovec, as we wait for this to come on to the screen,
16 this is an order dated 5 August 1995
17 is the HV Knin garrison commander. And this is an order issued to
18 institute organised and expert hygenic and sanitation measures in
19 relation to human an animal remains in the liberated area.
20 You've never seen this order, though; is that right?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Now on page 1 you can see that General Cermak is ordering a
23 terrain and hygiene sanitation measures staff under his command. And you
24 can see he appoints a number of people. The first one being Brigadier
25 Dr. Brkic, the Main Staff officer, as the head of staff. And just so
1 we're clear this is the same doctor that wrote the Ministry of Defence
2 instructions on hygiene and sanitation, dated 15 October 1993. That was
3 a document mentioned in General Cervenko's order that we already looked
5 You can see there are other people appointed as -- other army
6 people appointed as head of human hygiene and sanitation measures. That
7 is Major Sruk. There's a Lieutenant Dr. Snezija [phoen] - I know I'm
8 pronouncing that probably very incorrectly - but that doctor was
9 appointed as assistant head for human hygiene and sanitation measures.
10 And you can see another person appointed was Captain Boris Radovic, and
11 he was appointed coordinator for animal hygiene and sanitation measures.
12 Were you ever aware of these people? You already said you don't
13 know Dr. Brkic, but do you recognise the other names at all?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And would you agree with me that this order by General Cermak
16 seems to be setting up a team to deal with, among other things, organised
17 and expert sanitation of human remains in the liberated area?
18 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to my learned
19 friend's question. The witness has already said he has never seen the
20 document. Mr. Carrier is simply characterizing the document and asking
21 the witness who has never seen the document before to confirm the
22 contents of the documents, what the document represents itself to be.
23 I don't see any point to that question at all.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, what the -- this order seems to be
25 setting up, if you ask that from a witness who has never seen the
1 document before, then you invite the witness to do something even the
2 Chamber could do. That is, to see what the documents tell us. If you
3 have any further questions in relation it that, of course, you may put
4 them to the witness.
5 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could you please call up document
6 number 65 ter 7342.
7 Q. Mr. Zidovec, what is coming on to the screen here is a document
8 that you issued on 7 August 1995
9 And it was sent to the Zadar-Knin police administration operative staff,
10 and in that document you explain that your goal is to coordinate hygiene
11 and sanitation measures in that police administration. And you
12 particularly mention the town of Knin
13 Do you recognise that document?
14 A. I signed it.
15 Q. And can you see that you have appointed a Mr. Cicko who was a
16 senior advisor in the MUP civilian protection department. He was
17 appointed to position of coordinator for hygiene and sanitation measures
18 in Knin. Do you recall whether or not he actually accepted that
19 appointment and went to Knin to work?
20 A. He was in Knin, yes.
21 Q. And another person that you appoint is Dr. Sugnetic. I think I'm
22 getting that quite wrong. And he was also a senior advisor with -- or,
23 sorry, just an advisor with the Ministry of the Interior's civilian
24 protection department, and you appointed him as deputy coordinator.
25 Do you know whether or not that doctor took that up position and
1 went on to the ground and helped coordinate human sanitation operations?
2 A. I don't recall the name specifically or whether he was there, but
3 I do know for a fact that Mr. Cicak was.
4 Q. Were you aware that in August 1995 General Cermak requested that
5 Mr. Cicko and presumably the other doctor, although the name is
6 misspelled, General Cermak requested that these people be transferred to
7 the terrain hygiene and sanitation's measure staff under Dr. Brkic.
8 Were you aware of that?
9 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
10 MR. CARRIER: If I could tender that document, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
12 Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that'll become Exhibit P2571.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I'd just like to make one point. And
16 again, it's related to Mr. Carrier not announcing the exhibit numbers.
17 If you actually look at the exhibit that he is referring to, and it's
18 D1048, it doesn't quite say what Mr. Carrier is saying. And I know
19 Your Honour, often makes the point about accuracy. It broadly says what
20 Mr. Carrier is saying, but it certainly doesn't mention Dr. Brkic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, if there is a specific or if there is a
22 repeated comment on the accuracy of a summary or a quote of a document,
23 then you will have to first show the original and then take us to the
24 passage you want to summarise or you want to quote so that we can verify
25 whether it's accurate.
1 This has been raised now two times, so I invite you to show us,
2 for the next two or three documents, that you always accurately summarise
3 or quote. And give us an opportunity to verify.
4 MR. CARRIER: Certainly. The next exhibit is D1058. The one
5 after that is 65 ter 2096. The one after that is D603.
6 And, Mr. Registrar, if could I have Exhibit D1058 on the screen,
8 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is a request from General Cermak dated
9 10 August 1995
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- if you just wait for a second so that we have
11 the document in both languages on our screen, as we have them now.
12 Yes, please proceed.
13 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. And can you see the subject heading is "Request for the transfer
15 the personnel from the civil defence." And in this request,
16 General Cermak states:
17 "In regard to the sanitation of the municipality of Knin
18 request the transfer of personnel from the MUP civil defence of the city
19 of Zagreb
20 municipality of Knin with the aim of improving efficiency."
21 And one of the people listed is the person that you had
22 appointed, Damir Cicko. And I take it you're not in a position to
23 confirm whether there was a Dr. Santetic, who was a member of civil
24 defence, or is that a misspelling of -- do you know if that person exists
25 as a member of civil defence?
1 A. I can tell you nothing about the person under number 2. I simply
2 can't remember.
3 Q. And I take it you don't remember whether or not you received this
4 request from General Cermak or whether you granted it or anything?
5 A. No, I can't. In view of the addressee to which this -- or,
6 rather, the address that was involved, he -- the letter would not have
7 come to me for my information but to the civilian protection.
8 Q. But you would have been aware of the request, given that this is
9 a request for transfer of civilian protection staff to -- to the HV.
10 A. Unfortunately, I can't say anything specific about it, confirm
11 it, or deny it, because I don't remember.
12 MR. CARRIER: Your Honour, the next exhibit is going to be D30
13 and D612 after that.
14 Q. Mr. Zidovec, do you recall whether or not you ever received any
15 reports or any subsequent interactions on the ground during the
16 sanitation process between Mr. Cicko and Dr. Brkic.
17 A. I don't know anything about it.
18 Q. Do you know a person who was employed as an engineer during
19 August 1995 named Ivan Jelic?
20 A. I don't even know where the person was employed. The name
21 doesn't tell me anything. I don't know.
22 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D30 up on
23 the screen, please.
24 Q. Mr. Zidovec, this is a report from Dr. Brkic to General Cermak
25 dated 12 August 1995
1 measures taken in the period from 5 to 12 August 1995. And in this
2 report, he indicates that he arrived in Knin on the 5th of August, 1995
3 And on page 1 and on to page 2 in the English, but still in page 1 in the
4 B/C/S, under heading 1, which is human sanitation and technical measures,
5 Dr. Brkic talks about arriving in the Knin city cemetery, discovering
6 that there was an excavator, there's was a hole, there were several
7 bodies around the hole and in the hole. Also indicates that exact
8 numbers of bodies would have been indicated in the daily report. And he
9 talks about an interaction with Ivan Jelic. And if you go down to the
10 next paragraph, he talks about arriving back in the cemetery on
11 7 August 1995
12 inquiries as to who had filled it in; he didn't get an answer. He talked
13 about how he realized his presence there was indispensable due to the
14 work and actions that they were performing. And he goes on to say that
15 together with the civilian protection staff, pursuant to General Cermak's
16 order, they produced certain results which conformed with all the rules
17 of hygiene and sanitation measures and talks about having to deal with
18 the bodies in a different way.
19 And then down at the next paragraph, Dr. Brkic indicates that
20 this work certainly could not have been carried out without civil
21 protection and specifically names Mr. Cicko, among others.
22 Were you ever aware or made aware from Mr. Cicko, the person you
23 appointed or anyone else about any involvement with an army doctor?
24 A. In our dealings, there were no army doctors.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, I would need a couple of minutes for a
1 few procedural matters. We have only a couple of minutes left.
2 Therefore, my question whether this would be a suitable moment needs only
3 one answer.
4 MR. CARRIER: Yes, that's fine.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Mr. Zidovec, we'll adjourn for the day. We'd like to you back
7 tomorrow in the afternoon at a quarter past 2.00 in this same courtroom.
8 Meanwhile, I instruct you that you should not speak with anyone
9 about your testimony, whether it is the testimony you gave already today
10 or whether it's testimony still to be given tomorrow.
11 I'll ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the courtroom, and we'd
12 like to see you back tomorrow.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to read quickly the reasons for a
16 decision which was taken already quite a while ago.
17 These are the Chamber's reasons for granting trial-related
18 protective measures for Witness AG-58.
19 In court on the 9th of June, 2009, during closed session, the
20 Gotovina Defence applied for full protective measures for Witness AG-58.
21 This request can be found at transcript page 18.405. Neither the
22 Prosecution nor the Cermak or Markac Defence objected. On the same day,
23 the Chamber granted the application and decided that it would hear the
24 testimony of Witness AG-58 in closed session and refer to the witness by
25 his pseudonym. This decision can be found at transcript page 18.410, and
1 the decision was rendered in closed session and the public is hereby
2 informed about it.
3 This Chamber has previously held that a party seeking protective
4 measures for a witness must demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to
5 the security or welfare of the witness or the witness's family, should it
6 become known that the witness has given evidence before this Tribunal.
7 The mere expression of fear by a witness is insufficient to justify
8 protective measures. This standard can, for example, be satisfied by
9 showing that a threat was made against the witness or the witness's
11 Witness AG-58, a Croatian Serb, lives with his family in Serbia
12 The witness feared that, should it become known that he had testified,
13 the security and welfare of his family in Serbia might be put at risk.
14 The witness's fear was based on two incidents that occurred just before
15 he left for The Hague
16 certain person or persons in his vicinity appeared to be following him.
17 On another occasion, he encountered an acquaintance, who made comments
18 that were delivered in a way and contained allusions such that the
19 witness could, and did, reasonably perceive them as a warning about his
20 family's security or welfare. The Gotovina Defence stated that these
21 comments were made after the witness informed his acquaintance that he
22 was called to testify by the Gotovina Defence. None of the other parties
23 explored this assertion, which was made at transcript page 18.352.
24 For these reasons, the Chamber found that the Gotovina Defence
25 had demonstrated an objectively grounded risk to the security and welfare
1 of Witness AG-58 and his family, should it become known that he had given
2 evidence before this Tribunal. The Chamber furthermore considered that,
3 in light of the nature of the anticipated evidence of the witness, the
4 only effective way to protect his identity was to hear his testimony in
5 closed session.
6 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons for its decision to
7 grant protective measures to Witness AG-58.
8 Next matter. Very briefly, the Chamber was informed that
9 Mr. Markac would prefer not to be present in court on the 13th of July.
10 This is understood as a waiver of the right to be present during that
11 day, and if it's for personal reasons that Mr. Markac prefers not to be
12 present, then the Chamber doesn't need any further information. If,
13 however, there would be other reasons which would be of a kind for the
14 Chamber to know, the Chamber would expect Mr. Kuzmanovic or Mr. Mikulicic
15 to inform the Chamber in an appropriate way.
16 Then, finally, we turn into private session for one second.
17 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Finally, Mr. Carrier, could you give us an indication as to how
10 much time you would still need for your cross-examination.
11 MR. CARRIER: I hope to complete it in the first session.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The first session.
13 Then anything unusual long for re-examination or just within the
14 normal limits which is anything between five and ten minutes?
15 Then we adjourn, and we resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the 8th of
16 July, quarter past 2.00, Courtroom I.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day of July,
19 2009, at 2.15 p.m.