1 Tuesday, 6 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
11 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Good morning to you as well, Mr. Dondo. I would like to remind
14 you that the solemn declaration that you have given yesterday at the
15 beginning of your testimony is still binding.
16 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to continue your
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 WITNESS: KAROLJ DONDO [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne: [Continued]
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dondo.
25 A. [In English] Good morning.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document P1147,
3 Q. Mr. Dondo, in direct examination yesterday you testified that the
4 document will you see in a moment on your screen was probably drafted by
6 Now, when you say that you drafted document, do you mean that you
7 formulated the document yourself, or was it dictated to you by somebody?
8 A. [Interpretation] It was dictated by Mr. Cermak.
9 Q. Now, are the contents of this document true? Is this an accurate
11 A. I don't know which particular case this is related to, so I can't
12 give you an answer, really.
13 Q. Very well.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document number P53,
16 Q. Now while the document is being brought on the screen -- yes, you
17 have it here.
18 Now you have given a statement about this document in your
19 statement to the Defence, D1696. And your testimony was that you were
20 the person who wrote this document. Did someone dictate this document to
21 you, or did you formulate it on your own?
22 A. Mr. Cermak dictated it.
23 Q. Now, I'd like to take you to paragraph 18 of your statement to
24 the Defence. And that's --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have, Mr. Registrar, D1696.
1 Q. Now this is what you say about that document. You say --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If could you go, Mr. Registrar, to page 7 of
3 the English version. That's paragraph 18.
4 Q. You say:
5 "I can say that I wrote it. We wrote the document as an order
6 which was the idea of our Office for Cooperation because it was important
7 to assist UNCRO. Mr. Cermak signed the document as we sent it. We did
8 the same when Mr. Cermak told us to write a request for the return of the
9 stolen UN vehicles. We also wrote it in the form of an order."
10 Now you say the idea to write this an order was the Office for
11 Cooperation. At the time Mr. Cermak dictated the document to you, did
12 you discuss as to how, in what format the document should go, that it
13 should go as an order or anything else?
14 A. No, we didn't discuss it. This -- it was formulated as an order
15 because we felt that the document was important in the context of the
16 cooperation with the UN. We decided ourselves that it should be
17 formulated as an order.
18 Q. When you say "we," whom are you referring to? The --
19 A. The liaison officers' department or office.
20 Q. And didn't Mr. Cermak have anything to say about that?
21 A. No.
22 Q. So when you presented the document, when you said Mr. Cermak
23 dictated it to you, and the document at paragraph 4 says:
24 "This order is effective immediately."
25 That last paragraph was also dictated to you by General Cermak;
1 is that correct?
2 A. This is the customary formulation used in orders. He did not
3 dictate that bit. We wrote it ourselves.
4 Q. Now did you convey this order from General Cermak to the military
5 police and the Knin police station, who passed this document on to the
6 police and the military police?
7 A. No. We gave the letter to Mr. Cermak, and he was to forward it
8 on to whomever was supposed to receive it.
9 Q. Now, do you know of any instance where these orders from
10 General Cermak has reached the civilian police or the military police and
11 they have refused to implement those tasks, saying -- on the basis that
12 General Cermak did not have authority to issue orders to them?
13 A. I know that the individuals who received such orders completely
14 ignored Mr. Cermak's orders. For this reason, such orders were issued
15 initially once or twice, and then subsequently, they were formulated as
16 letters only, in view of the fact of the units did not honour them, and
17 in view of the fact that Mr. Cermak did not have any powers over these
19 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber one specific instance where
20 General Cermak issued such an order and where the unit that was -- it was
21 addressed to ignored the order? Give us an example: What the order was;
22 when it was issued; to which unit it was issued.
23 A. I don't recall exactly what sort of orders these were, but we
24 were supposed to see what the situation was like concerning the Promina
25 repeater on the hill overlooking Knin, where the Serbs used to have their
1 radio stations. Mr. Cermak told us that we could take the liberty to go
2 up there, together with the UN, and see what the situation was like.
3 However, when we approached the area we were denied access by the
4 military, who told us that the permission from Mr. Cermak was not
5 sufficient, that we needed the permission from the commander of the
6 Military District in order to be able to gain access there. We then
7 subsequently obtained the necessary document from Mr. Ademi and went back
8 to the station, which was on a hill overlooking Promina.
9 Q. Now, when you approached the units to get access to this
10 repeater, were you carrying a written order from Mr. Cermak addressed to
11 those units, asking them, ordering them to permit you all to enter the
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, apart from that incident, can you refer to any specific
15 instance where General Cermak issued a written order to either the
16 civilian police or the military police and where they dishonoured it,
17 where they refused to carry it out?
18 A. The order to return the vehicles that had been appropriated. He
19 issued the order as such; however, when the command of the operations
20 zone issued an order to that effect as well, only then was the order
21 acted upon, though it wasn't really fully followed up on. And I'm
22 talking about the vehicles that had been appropriated during
23 Operation Storm.
24 Q. What you're referring to is your statement given in D1696,
25 paragraph 24; isn't that correct?
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could move to
2 paragraph 24 on this statement.
3 Q. Where you say:
4 "I can isolate an example of the return of the stolen UN vehicles
5 when Mr. Cermak sent an order to the civil and military police to find
6 the stolen vehicles and return them to the UN. Mr. Cermak was not
7 superior to the civil and military police. Therefore his order did not
8 cause an effect. After that, Mr. Cermak sent a report to the Chief of
9 Staff of the Split MD
10 Now --
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Dondo, in the course of your work, did you have the
13 opportunity to get to know the military police officers and civilian
14 police officers operating in the Knin area?
15 A. Not personally, no.
16 Q. Do you know the commander of the Knin military police, Mr. --
17 have you heard of Mr. Bosko Dzolic?
18 A. No, I don't remember.
19 Q. Now, he testified in these proceedings - and I'm referring to
20 P875, paragraph 44 and P876, paragraph 17 - and let me tell what you he
21 said about the recovery of stolen vehicles. I'll read his testimony to
23 "The first time that I attended a meeting with General Cermak was
24 on 8th of August, 1995, when I think two trucks of the International
25 Red Cross had gone missing. There was only Cermak and me at the meeting,
1 and he told me that he had been informed by the International Red Cross
2 that the trucks had been stolen by the Croatian military. I informed the
3 military crime police, and some eight hours later, the trucks were found
4 in the possession of an artillery unit of the 4th Guards Brigade and the
5 trucks were subsequently returned."
6 Did you know about that incident, where General Cermak instructed
7 Mr. Dzolic to find these trucks and the trucks were subsequently
9 A. No, I didn't know about it.
10 Q. So do you agree with me that there are examples of the military
11 police carrying out General Cermak's request, instructions or orders to
12 recover missing items that you're not aware of?
13 MR. KAY: [Microphone not activated] ... hang on. Look, we must
14 not misrepresent evidence to a witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. -- Ms. Mahindaratne, the issue is orders or no
16 orders. If you then line them up, all three of them, and say that there
17 are examples of, that is like saying if the issue is whether a car is
18 black or white, and then you show -- you show the witness a car of a --
19 well, a colour which you say, Well, isn't this an example that cars do
20 exist of the colours white, grey, or black. That is, of course, an
21 answer that -- the issue is whether orders were ignored. And in your
22 last question, you said, So you do agree with me that there are examples
23 of the military police carrying out General Cermak's requests,
24 instructions or orders.
25 Now, the whole issue is orders or requests, isn't it.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President. My point was actually -
2 perhaps I did not phrase it properly - that in the given instance -- let
3 me -- let me --
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you rephrase the question.
5 MR. KAY: I do remind my learned friend of the evidence of the
6 witness, transcript page 9028, and it's important that if testimony is
7 being used of other people that it is put accurately, in my submission.
8 Otherwise, it may mislead a witness.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I also point out that the
10 same witness, at transcript page 8953, has in fact provided clear
11 testimony on which would have an impact on the issue before the Chamber.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you would formulate the matter in such a way,
13 because what usually happens, Ms. Mahindaratne, that the witness first
14 testifies A, and then in cross-examination, sometimes slightly changes or
15 amends. If you would formulate it in such a way that we'll elicit from
16 this witness what we want to elicit from him, and that we avoid any
17 discussion as to -- if you just put the facts to him.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Dondo, Mr. Dzolic, the commander of the Knin military
22 police company testified in these proceedings, and according to his
23 testimony, without the mediation of the Military District command,
24 missing equipment were recovered by the military police at the behest of
25 General Cermak. So -- which you were not aware of?
1 A. [In English] I was not aware.
2 Q. So do you agree that based on that testimony that you were not
3 fully apprised of the interaction between General Cermak and the military
4 police with regard to tasks?
5 A. [Interpretation] So I wouldn't put it that way, since Mr. Cermak
6 held daily meetings attended by representatives of all structures,
7 especially in the early days after his arrival in Knin, the civilian
8 authorities and partly military authorities, and I'm referring primarily
9 to the civilian and military police, were briefed on daily events and
10 developments at these meetings, which concerned the UN or any other
11 issues. The military police could be informed of these matters at these
12 daily meetings --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo -- Mr. Dondo, the emphasis by
14 Ms. Mahindaratne is that you were not fully -- as she said, fully
15 apprised of the interaction. Now you explain to us that you were
16 apprised of most of the interaction. Apparently the issue is that it was
17 not a complete information.
18 I think from your statement we've learned, and from your
19 testimony, that there was interaction, but Ms. Mahindaratne gives you an
20 example that are you not fully -- would you disagree with her that you
21 were not fully - and I emphasise fully - apprised?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can agree with that
23 statement. I can agree that I wasn't familiar with the fact that she now
25 There was no order from Mr. Cermak to the military police to
1 locate the vehicles. Rather, there were daily meetings at which
2 Mr. Cermak informed both the civilian and military police of the requests
3 he received from the UN to search for the vehicles, and this was a way in
4 which they could have obtained that information. But I am not aware of
5 the fact that he had found them, located them, and informed Mr. Cermak
6 thereof. That's true.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. Now, Mr. Dondo, when you say -- you say that they may have this
9 sort of way which they could have obtained that information, you're
10 merely speculating, isn't it? You don't have a knowledge of this
11 specific instance? You're merely speculating as to how the military
12 police would have been informed of this instance. Isn't that correct?
13 A. Of course, I can't remember all the things I remembered 15 years
14 ago, but I'm sure that if Mr. Cermak had received a request from the UN
15 which read that vehicles were missing, I am sure that he presented that
16 letter at the meeting.
17 Q. Mr. Dondo, may I -- Mr. Dondo, may I just request that you do not
18 speculate, and if you don't have a factual basis for an answer, if you do
19 not know something as a fact, please say so.
20 Now, you referred to the daily meetings that General Cermak held
21 where the civilian police and the military police were present. Isn't
22 that correct that liaison officers were not required to be present at
23 these meetings mandatorily?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And, as a result, isn't it correct that you were not present at
1 all the meetings that General Cermak conducted with the civilian police
2 and the military police in the mornings?
3 A. Correct. Correct.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have document number
5 P390, please.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Dondo, you were shown this document by the Defence, and
7 in fact, you have discussed this document. This is at paragraph 23 of
8 D1696, and I'll just read that part of your statement to you.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: This is paragraph 23.
10 Q. Referring to this document you say:
11 "I did not write the document titled 'Your letter of
12 10 August 1995
13 which you have shown me, but I knew that Mr. Cermak issued it. The
14 letter was written in our office and we took it downstairs to
15 Mr. Cermak's office to write it in the class and reference number.
16 Mr. Cermak issued this letter because there was a great pressure from
17 UNCRO for the freedom of movement, but the decision to allow UNCRO the
18 full freedom of movement was made elsewhere because Mr. Cermak could not
19 make this decision by himself."
20 Now, whom did you refer to as the decision being made elsewhere?
21 A. Such a decision could have been made only in the main command of
22 Sector South.
23 Q. And that would be? Are you referring to the Split Military
24 District Command?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And is it your position that General Cermak could not have issued
2 authority or approval for freedom of movement without receiving an order
3 to that effect from the Split Military District Command? Is that your
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I want to show you -- in fact General Cermak himself discussed
7 this document or at least this subject in your presence at the interview
8 in 1998.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could have P2526. And if
10 could you go to English, on the English transcript, page 52; and that
11 would be the Croatian version, page 62.
12 Q. Mr. Dondo, this is what he says about his authority to issue --
13 on the subject of restriction of movement:
14 "There were restrictions of movement but I don't why."
15 This is halfway through the document.
16 Then about four lines down in the same paragraph, then he says:
17 "And then on the basis of the decision, this agreement between
18 Sarinic and Akashi
19 international organisations, all the international community, the Red
21 Now at this stage, then he says a few more lines, there is an
22 intervention from you. There is a discussion between you and
23 General Cermak. And ...
24 MR. KAY: Perhaps the full matters could be put to the witness,
25 since we're reading it out. Line -- line 27, page 52.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could go through the intervention and if
2 Mr. Kay would --
3 MR. KAY: Well, I think it's -- if you're going to --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But see, you're inviting Ms. Mahindaratne to
5 completely represent what is at stake here and what is relevant for the
6 question. And I take it that you follow that --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, I would.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- invitation.
9 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
11 Q. And after that you intervene at that point.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could ask parties and Court to turn to on
13 the additional translation, page 14; that is in the Croatian version,
14 page 62. I'm sorry in the additional translation, page 52. I beg your
15 pardon, page 14 which refers to the main transcript page 52.
16 Q. Then at that point you intervene, Mr. Dondo, and General Cermak
17 asks you:
18 "What are you saying?"
19 You say, regarding the freedom of movement, you had to consult
20 and ask Gotovina to grant the permission. That's what you advised
21 Mr. Cermak at that point.
22 And then General Cermak goes on to say:
23 "When the international community asked for it, then we contacted
24 the office and then it was allowed to all the organisations of the
25 international community. They were allowed freedom of movement, not just
1 in Knin, but in the whole sector. In the few days when there was
2 restriction of movement in the operative zone, that was there when we got
3 there. When we got there, and that was what the situation was, because I
4 arrived on the 6th and I needed a couple of days to see what the
5 situation was like."
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And then if could you move to page 54,
7 Mr. Registrar, on the transcript.
8 Q. There, the second question, General Cermak is asked this
9 question: "Because I wasn't there, I'm probably asking very stupid
10 questions, but you just said that you called -- when you came to know
11 about the restrictions you called Mr. Sarinic?"
12 General Cermak answers: "Yes.
13 "What exactly did Sarinic tell you?
14 Cermak answers:
15 "He told me that freedom of movement should be allowed to all the
16 organisations, the UN and the Red Cross, in the whole area.
17 "And why did I talk to him? Because he was the contact person
18 for all the international organisations in the area."
19 Two paragraphs down, the question is asked:
20 "As a result of there discussion you had with Mr. Sarinic, what
21 did you do?"
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please move the text so that we can follow it. Yes.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
24 Q. The answer:
25 "I issued the order that all international organisations should
1 have full freedom of movement in the whole area. And we informed
2 General Gotovina about it."
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And next page, that is page 55, Mr. Registrar,
4 if could you move on to -- at the top.
5 Q. The question is asked:
6 "And now we come to the point where I'm confused. And I told you
7 that there are things that I don't understand and I'm probably asking you
8 very stupid questions. If you were under Gotovina, as you told us
9 yesterday, how could you issue an order that they had full freedom of
10 movement, if the initial order to keep them inside the compound was
11 issued by a person who had power to issue such orders?"
12 And General Cermak's response is:
13 "Obviously this confuses you, but I immediately gave the order to
14 all the international organisations to move freely around the area."
15 At that stage, Mr. Dondo, you intervene again. This is on the
16 same page as -- before page 14 of the additional translations. You
17 say -- there's something unintelligible there:
18 "... freedom of movement Gotovina banned. How could you grant
19 the freedom if Gotovina had put a ban?"
20 And General Cermak tells you:
21 "No, about that ... What? I am listening."
22 And whatever that -- the exchange goes on.
23 So, Mr. Dondo, do you note that, at least in 1998 when
24 General Cermak spoke to the OTP, his views about his authority and your
25 views about what you're saying today about his authority are not the --
1 one and the same, isn't it? Do you agree with me?
2 A. I can agree that he was presenting a situation differently to the
3 way he does now. But my story now is the same as it was then.
4 Q. So what you're saying is General Cermak has moved, at least given
5 different positions at different times with regard to his authority?
6 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be translation issue or?
7 Could you please repeat your question, Ms. Mahindaratne.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
9 Q. Can you hear me?
10 A. [In English] I didn't understand. Last question, I didn't
12 Q. Okay. As I understand your testimony, what you're saying is that
13 Mr. Cermak has in fact changed his defences in the course of time.
14 That's what you're telling?
15 A. [Interpretation] I don't know whether he did, but the fact is,
16 and you can see that in the documents here which show the same thing that
17 I claim; namely, that Mr. Cermak could not have issued an order unless
18 that was approved by the main command of the Operation Zone Split. And I
19 know that when Mr. Cermak wrote the order on the freedom of movement, he
20 said, Write it down, and I'll settle that with Gotovina.
21 Q. Okay. Going back to Mr. Cermak's authority over the military
22 police in Knin, Mr. Dondo, are you aware that General Cermak had
23 instructed the military police in Knin to inform him of crimes committed
24 by the military in General Cermak's area of responsibility?
25 Were you aware of that?
1 A. I was not.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, while we're on this document,
3 if we could move back to page 49 of the English version. And that would
4 be page 58 of the Croatian version. It's the paragraph that starts with
5 "Okay." The question is asked from General Cermak:
6 "Okay, I don't know if you are able to answer this question, but,
7 if, for example, a Croatian soldier killed a civilian at the check-point
8 in Knin, who would be the person who had the responsibility to take
9 action [sic]?
10 General Cermak responds:
11 "That ever happened that a Croatian soldier killed a civilian
12 anywhere, and not just in Knin, then it would be the military police that
13 would take action because that would be just an ordinary criminal who
14 wouldn't have any kind of special status.
15 "Was the military police ordered or instructed to inform you
16 about such incidents, if they happened?
17 "Yes. I asked the military police to tell me what had happened,
18 what happened so that I could tell the international community and
20 Now, Mr. Dondo, does that also indicate to you that you were
21 obviously not aware of the orders that General Cermak issued to the
22 military police?
23 MR. KAY: Well, again, I'm sorry --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne --
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: At least with regard to --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, the statement says, "I asked the
2 military police." Your question is not referring -- it's referring to
3 this being an example of not being aware of orders.
4 Let's -- if it comes to requests, asking, ordering, where there
5 is apparently disagreements between the parties how to understand what is
6 put on paper, what is said, why not use the rather neutral term which
7 does not affect your position that if the paper says it's an order, that
8 you consider that to be an order, and, at the same time, does not affect
9 the position of the Defence, which says you have to understand what is
10 written down in the context of the powers to that person. Because that's
11 the issue not for the first time.
12 So, if we would use the other term that Mr. Cermak sought
13 vehicles to be returned, et cetera, then we take a neutral term and then
14 you can further ask him further detail about a piece of paper or what was
15 said at a meeting, et cetera. But here, where Mr. Cermak said, "I
16 asked," and then to say to the witness, Isn't this a clear example that
17 he ordered, that is not assisting the Chamber.
18 It's clear that he sought to be informed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
24 Q. Mr. Dondo, do you -- does that this reflect, or do you agree with
25 me that, based on what I just read to you, that you were not aware of
1 specific instances of interaction between General Cermak and the military
3 A. I can confirm that I was not aware of every specific
4 communication between General Cermak and the military police, but I can
5 also confirm that I was present at the meeting where it was said, both to
6 the civilian police and the military police, especially the civilian
7 police, who, after the liberation of that territory had taken over
8 control, that every crime that occurs in that area must be reported to
9 him, because he will be fielding a lot of questions from the UN, and he
10 must be ready to answer them.
11 Q. Finally on this issue, Mr. Dondo, now, there are a number of
12 documents that have -- that you have seen which has been shown to you by
13 the Defence, that we went through today, and there are a number of
14 documents in the evidence base, whereby General Cermak, on the face of
15 the document it says that he orders the civilian police and the military
16 police, and your testimony is that he, although the documents contain the
17 term "order," that did he not have the authority to issue orders to the
18 military police and civilian police.
19 Now, is it then your position that General Cermak was issuing
20 orders on a false premise, pretending to exercise an authority he did not
21 have? Is that your testimony?
22 A. I don't know. From the interpreter, I hear the word "false,"
23 untrue premise, and that's the word that occurred yesterday in our
24 debate, which is probably why it lasted so long.
25 Mr. Cermak neither lied nor gave false statements. When he
1 arrived in Knin as commander of the Military District -- as garrison
2 commander, he signed orders as garrison commander Knin -- of Knin and
3 issued orders on that basis. When he realised that these orders did not
4 have enough power to attain their goal, he realised they were pointless.
5 And in verbal communications with the civilian authorities of Knin, with
6 the civilian police, with the military police and all the other
7 agencies --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo. Mr. Dondo, could you please focus your
9 answer on the question that was put to you. That when Mr. Cermak issued
10 what was said on paper to be an order, whether he issued these orders
11 falsely; that is, that he suggested or presented to have an authority
12 which did he not have.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
16 Q. Now, Mr. Dondo, yesterday when I asked you if you had acted as an
17 intermediary between General Cermak and the civilian police and the
18 military police, and I in fact specifically asked you if you had conveyed
19 instructions from General Cermak to either -- either to the civilian
20 police or the military police, you responded in the negative, and this
21 is, for the record, at transcript page number 22482.
22 Now, if you did not convey any instructions from General Cermak
23 to the civilian police or the military police, or if did you not, by your
24 own testimony, act as an intermediary between General Cermak and these
25 two authorities, how would you know what kind of interaction took place
1 between them, in order to assert that General Cermak did not have any
2 authority over those two forces? Because, by your own testimony, you did
3 not convey any instructions from General Cermak to either of these two
5 A. Mr. Cermak, as garrison commander, had a certain weight and an
6 obligation to accomplish his mission, and faced with UN questions, he
7 forwarded these questions to agencies that were supposed to answer them,
8 that means the civilian, the military, and the special police.
9 When he received their answers, he would forward them to us,
10 either in writing or verbally, and we forwarded them to the
11 United Nations.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, if you would allow me to formulate
13 one or two follow-up questions on my last question.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, you said Mr. Cermak did not issue orders
16 falsely; that is, that he presented or suggested to have an authority
17 which he did not have.
18 Did Mr. Cermak, when he signed these documents which contained
19 the text "I order," or "it is ordered," did he know that he no authority
20 to issue this piece of paper by the name of "order"?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did not know, because when we
22 came to Knin, there was quite a mess, I would say, in various
23 inter-relations and relations among various commands, which I cannot go
24 into, and orders appeared only in the beginning until this
25 misunderstanding was resolved.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What do you consider to be the beginning? Until
2 what date? Three days, five days, ten days, a month?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're asking me to speculate now.
4 But I would say the first ten days.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I didn't ask you to speculate, as a
6 matter of fact, but you expressed that you maybe not be very precise but
7 your recollection now is that it would have been approximately ten days.
8 Is that well understood?
9 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].
10 JUDGE ORIE: Were you aware that issuing orders was beyond the
11 authority of Mr. Cermak?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since he signed his name and his
13 title, I was not aware of that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So the -- the garrison commander and you, in your
15 function, as a matter of fact, you didn't know what the authority of
16 Mr. Cermak was, and you just did what you considered to be useful for
17 achieving the goals for which he was sent to Knin.
18 Is that your testimony?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The latter. We did everything with
20 best intentions, trying to achieve positive goals.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But with a lack of knowledge of where the
22 authority ended.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, possibly. I asked you whether you had
25 knowledge or not, not ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No. Now, how did you know that Mr. Cermak had no
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How did I know that Mr. Cermak
5 didn't have information? Information about what?
6 JUDGE ORIE: That he did not have knowledge as to whether it was
7 within his authority to sign documents on which it says, "I order this,"
8 or "I order that"?
9 How did you know that he had no knowledge what the limits of his
10 authority were?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know that, that he had no
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, one of the previous answers to one of my
14 question, you said that he had no knowledge, isn't it? I asked you
15 specifically about that. I said, Did Mr. Cermak know.
16 I asked you:
17 "Did Mr. Cermak, when he signed these documents, which contained
18 the text "I order," or "it is ordered," did he know that he had no
19 authority to issue this piece of paper by the name of order?"
20 And then you said he did not know. Because when we came to Knin
21 there was quite a mess, and then you started a lot of explanations. But
22 your answer was that did he not know.
23 Now my question is: How do you know that he did not know the
24 limits of his authority? And now you say, I do not know; whereas, in one
25 of your previous answers, you said Mr. Cermak did not know, suggesting
1 that you knew about his knowledge of where the limits of his authority
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will have to
4 speculate again. I suppose that he, as a general who was dispatched to
5 Knin, and was appointed and immediately had to leave, probably wasn't
6 fully apprised of what his actual powers were.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is pure speculation. You are speculating
8 on the reasons why he would not know. But your answer is that you do not
9 know whether he knew or not.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
12 MR. KAY: Your Honour, the earlier explanation where the witness
13 was headed off from giving his answer right at the start of all of this,
14 I think the witness was attempting to explain there the basis --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give me a line and a --
16 MR. KAY: If I can go back up to ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is that when he started about the mess upon arrival
18 in Knin?
19 MR. KAY: That's it, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. KAY: Looking at 19 --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I am aware of what you're referring to,
23 Mr. Kay.
24 MR. KAY: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Dondo, I put it to you that you do not know exactly as to
4 what authority General Cermak had with the civilian police or the
5 military police, and your testimony on this matter is all based on
7 How do you respond to that?
8 A. [No interpretation].
9 Q. I'm sorry?
10 A. Is that a question?
11 Q. Yes. I'm making -- I'm putting to you -- I'm making a
12 proposition. You could answer as you please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, this is the way to put a question to a
14 witness in cross-examination. Ms. Mahindaratne puts to you that you had
15 no knowledge, that it's pure speculation, and you can comment on what is
16 put to you, whether you agree, whether you not agree, why you agree, why
17 you do not agree. You may comment on this proposition.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madam Prosecutor, could you please
19 repeat your assertion again.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. I put it to you that you do not know exactly what
22 General Cermak's authority was over the military police and the civilian
23 police in the Knin area, and your testimony, on that subject, is based on
24 your speculation, mere speculation.
25 That is my proposition to you. If you agree with me, you could
1 say you agree with me; if not, you can say you disagree.
2 A. I disagree. There is speculation, of course, since I'm not
3 familiar with all the facts. However, being privy to the events in Knin,
4 I can say that he was familiar with the work of the military and civilian
5 police, if that was your question.
6 Q. That wasn't my question and let me just put one more point to you
7 on this.
8 In your 2005 statement to the OTP, at paragraph 10, this is what
9 you say about this matter:
10 "Mr. Cermak did not give us any specific tasks, but as we already
11 had a role as liaison officers, we assumed that it would be the same.
12 Mr. Cermak did not tell us what his role was to be and we were not told
13 that we were to be subordinate to him. Our understanding that we still
14 worked for the MOD but were supporting Mr. Cermak."
15 Now, according to your own testimony, Mr. Dondo, General Cermak
16 never discussed his role with you, and your -- therefore, I put it to you
17 again, that your assertions made here about General Cermak's authority
18 over the civilian police and the military police are based on
20 A. Assertions about his powers over the civilian and military police
21 are, indeed, based on speculation alone. Yes, I can assert that.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, I just have a few more questions to you,
23 Mr. Dondo.
24 Yesterday you testified regarding the level of interpreters, the
25 UN interpreters, and you stated that you could recall specific instances
1 when, in fact, you had to request the replacement of some of those
2 UN interpreters because the level of their -- the interpretation was
4 Now, can you tell us any specific instance when you made such a
5 request from the UN, to replace interpreters?
6 A. There were two such instances. One involved a meeting with
7 General Forand, where, and I can't name any names because I don't recall
8 them, a girl was interpreting who made mistakes on three occasions, and
9 we had to correct misinterpretation so that, ultimately, we asked that
10 the interpreter be replaced because the terms she used changed the
11 meanings of the sentences uttered.
12 The second instance involved a meeting concerning the departure
13 of a convoy, where individuals from the Croatian ministry were present.
14 The interpretation was also poor, and we asked that one of the best
15 interpreters present at the camp at the time show up. He was a young man
16 who excelled at interpretation. He interpreted fluently and clearly.
17 I can give you one or two more examples of the same type which
18 involved minor meetings.
19 Q. Now, the girl you referred to as having made -- where you had
20 asked that she be replaced, if you go into private session, are you able
21 to provide the name of that interpreter?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 Q. Now, was that request made to General Forand?
24 A. The request was stated at the meeting with General Forand, yes.
25 General Cermak was there as well.
1 Since we always had two interpreters on our side, precisely for
2 the fact that we observed irregularities in interpretation, one of the
3 two interpreters followed the interpretation of the other side to
4 intervene where necessary, especially where it came to the various
5 UN rules. So one of them basically dealt with the UN rules, the
6 UN agreements and made sure that everything was interpreted correctly,
7 and the other one followed the interpretation by the interpreter on the
8 side of General Forand.
9 Q. Mr. Dondo, how do you assess your own fluency of the language
10 English? Are you fluent?
11 A. I speak English well.
12 Q. I asked you that question because it has been suggested here in
13 court, in fact by the Defence, that even your level of fluency in English
14 was not sufficient. And this is at transcript reference 1166 to 1168.
15 How do you respond to that?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Sufficient for what, Ms. Mahindaratne?
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It was said it is not sufficient to understand
18 the conversations and interpret adequately. This is at reference 1166 to
20 JUDGE ORIE: 1166, one second, please.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It might not be the exact words,
22 Mr. President, but ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I'll check whether the ...
24 Could you give me because in the early -- in e-court we have --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, it isn't true.
1 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One -- well, if you give us time first
2 to verify what was exactly said.
3 Do you have a date for it?
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's the testimony of EJ Flynn, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The first day or -- no, most likely then the
6 later days.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, in cross-examination.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Let me -- if I'm given a minute I could get
10 that for you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, I will find it.
12 You said 1166.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: 1166 going to 1168.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, it's 10th of April.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have it in front of me.
17 Please proceed, meanwhile.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The witness has already responded,
19 Mr. President. I will -- shall I move on to the next area?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'd -- not only to understand the --
21 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, I would like not only to understand the
23 answer that something is not true, but also to know exactly what the
24 question referred to. If you would ...
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do we have it anywhere in writing?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, let me just -- if would you give me some
3 THE WITNESS: I apologise. I apologise, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, you are described in a piece of evidence
5 as not being fluent in English at the time.
6 Ms. Mahindaratne, that is what you referred to --
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- when you asked Mr. Dondo whether he agreed, and
9 he said that's not true.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you answered -- yes, you said it is
12 not true. If you have any further questions, please proceed.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President I just have two more
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure which period of time
16 this refers to, but it is certainly not true. I do not speak perfectly -
17 I don't believe every Englishman does - but I do speak it well.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. The reference, Mr. Dondo, was to 1995, the period, August up
20 until November 1995, which is the subject matter of this indictment.
21 However, you have responded to my question.
22 Just one -- the last two questions from me, Mr. Dondo.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I could have P988, please.
24 Q. Now while that document is being brought up, you were in fact
25 shown this document -- I'm sorry.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if we could go to page 7 of the
2 English version, and in the Croatian version, page 6.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Dondo, you were questioned about a statement you had
4 made here.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could focus on -- just --
6 Q. Do you see the title "Mass Grave in Knin Cemetery
7 reported as follows:
8 "The mission arrived at the Knin cemetery at 1530, accompanied by
9 Cermak's liaison officer, Karolj Dondo, and an unidentified colonel
10 described as an information officer. The cemetery is located on a
11 dead-end street on the far north end of Knin."
12 And then there is some description.
13 Then you -- the last four lines from the bottom of that
16 to give the impression that technical procedures had been used while
17 burying the bodies, particularly since the liaison officer stated that
18 the whole procedure had been done in accordance with the
20 Then the paragraph numbered 4.4:
21 "The mission asked the liaison officer, Karolj Dondo, whether the
22 ICRC had cooperated in the identification and burial of the bodies. He
23 replied that the ICRC had participated in all phases of the process.
24 "Upon return to Vienna
25 ICRC in Zagreb
1 spokesperson for the ICRC in Zagreb
2 the ICRC had participated in any identification and burial of bodies in
3 the Knin cemetery."
4 So, Mr. Dondo, you had in fact made a false statement to these
5 international monitors about the manner in which bodies were buried in
6 the Knin cemetery. And in fact in explanation, when you were confronted
7 with that fact by the representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor, in
8 paragraph 33 of D1695, this is what you go on to say:
9 "I have been asked about a Helsinki Committee report which states
10 that I accompanied them to the Knin cemetery on or about 18 August. The
11 report states that I said the burials were being done in conjunction with
12 the ICRC but that the ICRC later denied any such involvement. It is
13 possible that because I saw how well things were arranged at the
14 cemetery, I simply made the assumption that the ICRC had been involved."
15 So, Mr. Dondo, now, based on an assumption, you did not -- when
16 you met these Helsinki Committee persons you did not tell them that you
17 were simply assuming, but you have asserted that as a fact which proved
18 to be completely incorrect.
19 Now, once you got back from the office -- got back to the office,
20 did you ever find out or at least make inquiries as to whether your
21 assumption was accurate?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
23 MR. KEHOE: If I -- just one piece of clarity on this assumption
24 because we seem to have merged to whether or not these bodies were buried
25 in conformity with the Geneva Conventions or comments to the ICRC,
1 because, of course, they're two different concepts.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I took it that Ms. Mahindaratne was focussing on the
3 involvement of the ICRC.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That is correct, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, so you were asked -- you were asked what
6 you stated for a fact; that is, that the ICRC was involved in all stages,
7 which, as you then said, was an assumption, whether you ever verified the
8 accuracy of this assumption.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I verified it with the colonel
10 who was in charge of information affairs, and he confirmed that it was
11 accurate. I can't recall his name.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. When did you verify this?
14 A. At a later stage.
15 Q. Now --
16 A. I don't know when exactly.
17 Q. Now, at the time in the cemetery when you made that statement to
18 the Helsinki Committee representatives, you were only making assumption;
19 is that correct? You didn't know, you didn't verify from any party as to
20 whether the ICRC had participated in the burial process or not.
21 A. The colonel for information and I discussed the matter on our way
22 to the cemetery, where it had been stated that we actually assumed that
23 this was the case, but neither of the two could be sure. That's why I
24 presented it as my opinion, which I was not sure of, and then,
25 subsequently, verified it with the colonel who confirmed it. I think it
1 was after the first inquiry as to whether this was true or not. I
2 verified the information with the colonel; I can't recall his name.
3 Q. Isn't it right, though, at the time when you made the statement,
4 you made an assertion that the ICRC had participated and what is reported
5 here is the whole procedure had been done -- I'm sorry. The ICRC had
6 cooperated in the identification and burial of the bodies. He replied
7 that the ICRC had participated in all phases of processes.
8 Now you had -- you have stated that as a fact and in fact there
9 was a witness here in court who testified about this matter.
10 So my question to you is: Why did you make a statement to an
11 international organisation, representatives of international
12 organisation, based on -- on mere assumption?
13 A. Yes. Because I thought that it was true and accurate. I
14 believed that that was the case at the time.
15 Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Dondo. I have no further questions to
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, that concludes my
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
20 I have one or two follow-up questions.
21 Had you been at that cemetery before, Mr. Dondo?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: What was it that struck you as so well done on the
24 cemetery which made you believe that the ICRC would have been involved?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the graves were prepared in an
1 orderly fashion and properly labelled. This was one of the many reasons.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And some of the others, please?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, the colonel's assertion
4 that the -- they had participated in the exercise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What was the reason to discuss it with the colonel?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reason was that until that
7 morning I hadn't known I was to go to the cemetery.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But why to discuss this specific subject of
9 ICRC being involved?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed, in general terms,
11 what had happened and the bodies, how they were buried, and -- because it
12 was said that it was a mass grave, and we claimed it wasn't. We claimed
13 that all the bodies were buried in individual graves properly, that every
14 grave was marked, and the international community - that is, the
15 representative of the ICRC - was present during burial.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Did the colonel tell you how he knew all this?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Was his position such that he would have first-hand
19 knowledge of these kind of events?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this colonel was in charge of
21 information, and I thought he was supposed to know.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You would say someone who is charged with
23 information would know everything, or what is your perception of what an
24 officer for information is usually doing? What's his main task?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, in matters like this,
1 he was supposed to know whether the victims had been buried and whether
2 the procedure had been fully observed.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's not an answer to my question. My question
4 is: Informations officer, is that someone who gathers information what
5 happens within his own organisation, or is it someone who gathers
6 information about what the opposite party is doing? What was his exact
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not his job to gather
9 information about what the other side was doing. His job was officer
10 for -- I can't remember the military title. Political activity within
11 the army, I think.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And did he tell you that supervising funerals or
13 burials was within his tasks?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
16 We'll have a break, and we will resume at 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, any need to re-examine the witness.
20 MR. KAY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 Re-examination by Mr. Kay:
23 Q. Mr. Dondo, dealing with matters, I hope, in order, you were asked
24 questions about the interview that took place at the offices of
25 Mr. Cermak in March of 1998, when the OTP interviewed him, and you were
1 present. And do you recollect that you were asked questions about what
2 you said during the interview and the fact of your presence there?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. First of all, did anyone from the Office of the Prosecution
5 conducting the interview object to you being present?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did anyone object to the fact that you and Mr. Cermak may have
8 discussed matters during the interview?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And your purpose for going along to the interview on that day in
11 1998 was what? Why were you there?
12 A. I attended that meeting to also serve as an interpreter, if so
13 required. I mean, if Mr. Cermak asked me.
14 Q. Thank you. You were asked questions about the drafting of orders
15 and the office procedures that were used in the garrison, and I think
16 you'll remember looking at one or two, when asked questions by the
17 Prosecution, and I want to ask you about those procedures now.
18 Firstly, when you worked with Mr. Cermak, did he have any
19 knowledge of the system of issuing orders in the military?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Have you worked before with any officers, in relation to their
22 work and the need to draft orders at the request of the officer?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Are you able to compare Mr. Cermak's knowledge with those
25 procedures, as compared to the knowledge of other officers you have
1 worked with?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I object to this question. I
3 don't think this arises from cross-examination, as to -- I have not gone
4 into this witness's other experience. That doesn't even arise from any
5 one of the statements. There is no testimony before the Trial Chamber as
6 to this witness's experiences with other officers.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Having consulted with my colleagues, the objection
9 is denied.
10 At the same time, Mr. Kay, the witness, in answer to one of your
11 previous question, said that he didn't know what Mr. Cermak's knowledge
12 was of the system of orders. Now you are asking him more or less to
13 compare what he knew with others, and the Chamber considers it's
14 appropriate that you first and then further explore what this witness
15 knows about the knowledge of Mr. Cermak before you start comparing that
17 MR. KAY: Your Honour, that -- that's what I was trying to do.
18 I'm sorry if I was doing it clumsily.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then because -- if he had no knowledge, it,
20 certainly compared to others, then, of course, depends on what others
21 know, but it couldn't be more. It could be the same or less. But it was
22 not clear from your question whether you considered still to be some
23 knowledge there, whereas, the witness said that he didn't know about --
24 let me just check exactly what the witness said.
25 I'm focussing on -- let me just check.
1 Yes, I'm referring to page 36, line 19, and the question in the
2 two lines before that. Any knowledge. The witness apparently doesn't
4 MR. KAY: Your Honour, perhaps I will deal with this in a
5 different -- different way --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. KAY: -- which may assist the Court.
8 And for this series of questions, if we go to the transcript,
9 page 20, line 25 onwards.
10 Q. And you were asked many questions on this subject about the
11 authority of Mr. Cermak, what he knew, what his knowledge was, whether he
12 knew what his knowledge was, whether you knew what his knowledge was.
13 And during some answers to His Honour Judge Orie, a question was
14 asked: Did Mr. Cermak, when he signed this documents which contained the
15 text "I order," or "it is ordered," did he know that he had no authority
16 to issue this piece of paper by the name of "order." And the answer that
17 you partly gave was:
18 "He did not know because when we came to Knin, there was quite a
19 mess, I would say, in various inter-relations and relations among various
20 commands, which I cannot go into, and orders appeared only in the
21 beginning until this misunderstanding was resolved."
22 So could you elaborate and explain what you were saying there?
23 A. What I meant was that things that occurred at first in Knin were
24 directed by the UN and other international organisations, primarily
25 towards Mr. Cermak, particularly in view of the tasks that Mr. Cermak
1 presented to us, saying that one of his tasks was to establish good
2 communication and good relations with the United Nations.
3 Our desire was to do our best to resolve the problems that
4 occurred in the beginning, and, so, his requests that he received, be it
5 regarding stolen vehicles or restrictions on movement, which occurred
6 mainly in the beginning, were turned into orders, that they were
7 formulated as such mainly in our office, in the belief that Mr. Cermak,
8 in view of his position, was able to issue orders. In his daily duties,
9 doing his job day to day, Mr. Cermak did not pay attention to the form of
10 writings but the contents. He signed them and sent them to the relevant
11 person or agency.
12 Q. Now, let's look at the -- what in fact happened.
13 Were you able to see whether he was able to achieve those goals
14 that he tried to achieve by issuing those documents?
15 A. Unfortunately, to the extent we were able to see things and get
16 information, all his attempts and efforts were unsuccessful. And aside
17 from that example that the Prosecutor cited that I'm not familiar with, I
18 am not aware of any case where a positive result obtained after his
20 Q. Now, in your original text as well, which you -- or the text
21 which we see here where your answer to Judge Orie was, The
22 misunderstanding was resolved, are you able to explain by what you meant
23 in that phrase, in answer to Judge Orie's question?
24 A. Could you give me the context?
25 Q. Yes. I'll read out what you said again to remind you.
1 "He did not know, because when we came to Knin, there was quite a
2 mess, I would say, in various inter-relations and relations among various
3 commands, which I cannot go into. And orders appeared only in the
4 beginning, until this misunderstanding was resolved."
5 And it's that's phrase "misunderstanding was resolved" that I'm
6 asking you if you can explain further to the Court?
7 A. All can I say is that Mr. Cermak realised that his orders were
8 pointless and that he could not issue them as such.
9 Q. And when in that answer as well you refer to, "There was quite a
10 mess." "He did not know because when we came to Knin, there was quite a
11 mess, I would say ..."
12 Could you explain what you meant by that and how that is relevant
13 to this issue?
14 A. It is relevant insofar as Mr. Cermak himself did not know in the
15 beginning whom to approach regarding certain problems that occurred in
16 Knin at that time. The government, or the ministry, or the garrison
17 command, the command of Sector South, or someone else entirely.
18 That was at least the feeling I had.
19 Q. And you say that that was a -- a feeling. Is that based upon the
20 facts that you witnessed and what you experienced at the time?
21 A. Absolutely. Absolutely. Since I attended many meetings, I know
22 that Mr. Cermak, General Cermak, would call up the ministry one day. The
23 next day he would talk to Gotovina. The next day he would address
24 Mr. Jarnjak. So there was no particular consistency to this chain of
1 Q. And in making those contacts and taking those steps, what was
2 Mr. Cermak trying to do? Are you able to explain that?
3 A. Usually these contacts were made after meetings with the UN, when
4 he was trying to deal with problems that had been presented to him at the
5 meeting. As I said at the outset, these problems concerned mainly
6 restrictions on the movement of UN forces, who wished to move outside the
7 designated areas, and did so; and when they did so, they would be stopped
8 by the Croatian Army, after which they would complain. In parallel,
9 there were complaints about arson and other incidents also addressed to
10 General Cermak.
11 Q. And just taking up what you said about the last matter, in
12 relation to this, what was he attempting to do, in fact? And by that, I
13 mean when you referred to the arson.
14 A. With regard to arson incidents, he couldn't do much, except find
15 out where these incidents had happened and inform the civilian police and
16 ask for a report, whether this was, indeed, arson, as opposed to
17 accidental fire, so that he could transmit the information to the UN.
18 Q. Turning, now, to another subject. You were asked many questions
19 concerning the events that took place in relation to the matter at
20 Grubori, and you were referred to a UNTV interview that took place on the
21 26th of August. And a particular passage was put to you. I'll read it
22 out from the transcript, first of all, before we go to the text.
23 MR. KAY: Page 22.524.
24 Q. And my learned friend asked this question:
25 "Now based on your own findings, consequent to your visit to
1 Grubori in the evening of the 26th of August, do you agree with me that
2 Generals -- General Cermak's statement or interview given to UNTV crew in
3 the morning of the 26th of August where he says that already civilian
4 authorities had been to Grubori and had helped the people, is an
5 inaccurate statement?"
6 And you replied: "I do agree?"
7 MR. KAY: If we go to the words within the interview itself,
8 which we can call up as Exhibit P504.
9 Q. And on Exhibit P504, if we can turn to page 2 of the English
10 document to look at the text there, we can see in the second paragraph,
11 if we go to the third line, which this issue concerns: The Croatian
12 civilian authorities have reached the village and taken care of the
13 people, organised humanitarian aid for them and all other assistance
14 required, so the people remained in their houses.
15 And then if we go to the next Cermak answer again on this issue:
16 The civilian police and authorities were in the village yesterday. I'm
17 not aware whether the village was visited by someone this morning. I see
18 no need why the police should go there today again.
19 Now, were you aware at the time that on the 25th of August, the
20 UN and internationals groups had scheduled a meeting in Plavno of the
21 local population, and that is why they were up in that area at the time?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you know whether Mr. Pasic and Mr. Romanic were due to go to
24 Plavno on the 25th of August to that area?
25 A. I didn't know that.
1 Q. Very well. I'll ask no further questions about that.
2 Were you aware of what the UN people who reported to you on the
3 25th of August, why they had been in the area and had come across this
4 incident at Grubori?
5 A. The UN visited all the villages in the area at the time, in order
6 to inform the people and collect all the people who were willing to leave
7 the area for Serbia
8 were present in the area.
9 Q. Did you know of any other functions or -- or tasks or jobs that
10 they were doing, other than that collecting matter you were refer to?
11 Did you know if they were doing any other jobs?
12 A. Do you mean the jobs of the UN?
13 Q. Yes. Did you know -- you've mentioned --
14 A. [No interpretation].
15 Q. -- to them going to the area, visiting the village. Did you know
16 what else they were doing, or is that the full extent of your knowledge
17 on the matter?
18 A. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, they toured villages and
19 compiled lists of inhabitants present there. That was the extent of my
20 knowledge at the time.
21 They also had a bus of their own where they boarded the
22 individuals who were willing to leave right away and transported them to
23 Knin. We personally saw the bus out in the field when we were in
25 Q. In relation to the report made to you by -- you describe an
1 Italian lady, I believe, on the 25th of August, when you were informed
2 that something had happened at Grubori and there was fire. You were
3 asked if you had reported it to the civil police.
4 Do you know if the UN people had reported it themselves to the
5 civil police?
6 A. I don't know if they had, but I know that I told them to do so,
7 to report that to the civilian police, in view of the fact that it was a
8 criminal offence which falls within the competence of the police.
9 Q. Had you expected them then to go to the civil police themselves
10 that day, to report the matter?
11 A. Judging from their reaction, I had, yes.
12 Q. And you were asked questions about the words concerning
13 Operation Storm that were written in the Knin police log-book after your
14 report to them of what happened in Grubori.
15 Was Operation Storm still continuing at that time, or had it
17 A. Operation Storm had finished a while ago, at the time.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. KAY: I have no further questions.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kay.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Kinis has one or more questions for you.
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE KINIS: Mr. Dondo, I have a question related with your
25 statement given by Defence, and I mention specifically paragraph 20.
1 In this paragraph, you mentioned that you also participated in
2 inspections of helicopters -- of UN helicopters, and as far as I
3 understood, "We told Mr. Cermak that it would be a good idea if we, the
4 liaison officers, supervise the inspection of the helicopters."
5 My question is who -- who handed over these inspections?
6 A. It wasn't Mr. Cermak that the initiative came from. It was our
7 office that suggested the initiative to Mr. Cermak, given that, at the
8 time, many Serb refugees were in the area, and among them, there were
9 criminals who had not yet surrendered to the Croatian government.
10 JUDGE KINIS: Excuse me. Excuse me.
11 A. Our idea was that the situation had be to kept under control.
12 JUDGE KINIS: I'd like to interrupt you. I'm asking you who
13 executed this -- this order or who actually carried out these
14 inspections? Which body, military police, civil police?
15 A. Military police.
16 JUDGE KINIS: I'm asking this particularly because I wanted to
17 confront your statement with Dzolic transcript. Dzolic was chief of --
18 of -- of Knin Military Police Company.
19 And in -- -- his statement was given on 17th September 2008, and
20 then specifically referring on transcript pages 901 -- 9132, when I'm ask
21 a question to him: Did military police participate in this such
23 And he -- he denied completely, saying that military police never
24 carried out such inspections.
25 My question is: Who tells it true?
1 A. I'm telling the truth.
2 JUDGE KINIS: You mention here that 15 -- from 10 to 15 flights
3 were inspected, as far as I understood. Is it correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 JUDGE KINIS: And who -- who provide to you -- to you people from
6 military police who ensures this inspection really? And how this
7 inspection was carried out? Which tasks was prepared for this inspection
9 A. The procedure was as follows. The UN liaison officer would
10 inform us of the helicopter's flight a day earlier and would give us the
11 time of the helicopter's takeoff.
12 On the same day, we would draft a written request, addressed to
13 the military police headquarters in the Senjak barracks, unless I'm
14 mistaken, where it would be handed over to the duty officer.
15 On the following day, they would provide us with a military
16 policeman who would come with us to conduct the inspection of the
17 helicopter, since we as liaison officers were not authorised to carry out
18 any sort of inspection or supervision. So it was a -- a procedure that
19 had many -- that this had been -- taken place on many occasions. I think
20 that the United Nations can easily confirm this.
21 JUDGE KINIS: And who drafted this written request and signed?
22 A. Liaison officers. After having received information from the UN,
23 a liaison officer would draft a request for an escort of the helicopter,
24 and that would be delivered to the duty officer of the military police.
25 JUDGE KINIS: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will have just one
3 question of the witness.
4 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dondo, yesterday when Madam Prosecutor asked
6 you about the report that you compiled on the 26th, following your visit
7 to Grubori - and for everyone's reference this is page 63, line 20 of the
8 yesterday's transcript - she asked you if you had observed any weapons in
9 the area, and your answer was in the negative.
10 Then the Prosecutor asked you whether you had seen any sort of
11 weapons anywhere in the village and your answer again -- and your answer
12 was that you didn't remember. Do you recall this?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you during your visit to Grubori tour the entire village, go
15 through every house and yard, or didn't you?
16 A. This was in fact where the entire misunderstanding lay between me
17 and Madam Prosecutor, which resulted in a debate. When I went to
18 Grubori, I went there as an observer, as a liaison officer, and not as an
19 expert who would analyse the way in which the fighting took place there
20 and the events that transpired there. I took note of what I observed at
21 first glance, since there were only three -- two of us there, and since I
22 knew that there had transpired a terrible incident there with grave
23 consequences, you can imagine that to a certain extent we were afraid and
24 unable to concentrate on individual details that could perhaps be found
25 in different places in the village.
1 Q. Is my understanding correct that your answer to my question is
2 that you in fact did not inspect every house and yard in the village of
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
8 MR. KEHOE: Nothing, Mr. President, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I would have a few questions for you as well,
10 Mr. Dondo.
11 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, you were asked whether the content of the
13 report you were to forward to the Red Cross, whether that, in every
14 respect, was consistent with your own observations.
15 Now, your answer said:
16 "It can be said that what happened in Grubori was, as was indeed
17 said, a contact between enemy forces and that fire was opened from heavy
18 weaponry upon houses."
19 What heavy weaponry was used to fire upon houses?
20 A. I apologise, Your Honours, could I have my report on the screen,
21 because I don't recall writing anything of the sort in my report.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, but it was part of your answer you gave
23 yesterday to me. I was not quoting from your report. It might be good
24 to have the report on the screen anyhow, but ...
25 Mr. Registrar, could you assist us.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's P764, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P764.
3 But that's what you said yesterday when I asked about your report
4 you said, Well, what happened, as was indeed said apparently in the
5 report sent to the Red Cross, or at least in relation to the report sent
6 to the Red Cross, that a contact between enemy forces and that fire was
7 opened from heavy weaponry upon houses.
8 My question is: What heavy weaponry were you talking about.
9 A. Your Honour, I was referring to the information contained in the
10 letter that Mr. Cermak sent to the Red Cross. In other words, those were
11 not my words, and I wouldn't know what sort of weaponry that was. I was
12 merely re-tracing the words contained in the letter sent by Mr. Cermak to
13 the Red Cross, and I wish to emphasise -- may I continue?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
15 A. I wish to emphasise that the letter was at the heart of the
16 misunderstanding yesterday with Madam Prosecutor, which we were unable to
17 resolve. My assertions, given both to the Prosecution and the Defence,
18 are that this letter was not written by Mr. Cermak. Rather, this is a
19 report that Mr. Cermak received from --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo. Mr. Dondo --
21 A. -- individuals who --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, why not answer my question?
23 My question was what heavy weapons you were talking about. If
24 you know, please tell me; if you don't know, please tell me as well.
25 A. I don't know.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So yesterday you presented as for a fact what
2 happened in Grubori what was actually stated in the letter. Is that how
3 I should understand your answer you gave yesterday?
4 A. If the report was describing the events as they transpired in the
5 village, then there is nothing further that I can say about it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have no personal knowledge of what
7 actually happened as far as the use of heavy weapons are concerned.
8 So when you said yesterday: "It can be said that what happened
9 in Grubori was, as was indeed said, a contact between enemy forces and
10 that fire was opened from heavy weaponry upon houses," that suggests
11 that, apart from it being said, which I understand to be it being said in
12 the report, that you could personally confirm that, that's at least --
13 that's how I read your answer, but that is not what you intended to say,
14 I now do understand.
15 A. If you do understand it now, then I need not explain any further.
16 I was merely presenting -- or reading, better said, portions of the
17 letter that we had before us -- portions of the report that we had before
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the ICRC report.
20 Let me return to your report which you left on Mr. Cermak's desk
21 on the 26th of August, 1995
22 And could we please move to the next page. Yes.
23 In paragraph 8, you ask for an urgent clearing up of bodies. You
24 are describing a situation which comes close to a crime scene. Is there
25 any reason why you did not ask an investigation, rather than clearing up
2 A. The sanitisation of bodies -- or, rather, I conveyed facts as I
3 found them in the field to the police.
4 The term "sanitisation of bodies" appeared in the log-book of the
5 police, and I used it in my report after having read it there, knowing
6 that a day before, Mr. Cermak had a meeting where he told the UNTV that
7 if a criminal offence had been committed, he would take any and all
8 measures to have it proved and to have those responsible punished.
9 JUDGE ORIE: When did you leave this report on the desk of
10 Mr. Cermak? When did you -- do you remember, you returned from Grubori,
11 I take it? And then did you --
12 A. It was rather late, approximately 10.00 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we have -- I have not on my mind the
14 copy of the police log. Could we have that on the screen as well.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That's D57.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D57, thank you.
17 Now, when did you go to the police to have a look at the police
19 Could we go to the ...
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That would be page 61, I believe.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Page 61.
22 When did you go to the police, Mr. Dondo?
23 A. Immediately on my return, at 7.30, 8.00 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then you had a look at the entries in the police
1 A. Yes. I was able to see the note made by the gentleman over the
3 JUDGE ORIE: Also about Operation Storm, which you considered to
4 be incorrect.
5 A. Correct. And I told him as much, but he ignored it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did this person then immediately write your
7 report on the bodies, ignoring what you said, and then the civilian
8 protection officers for hygiene and sanitation measures that it will be
9 passed to them, was that immediately written down by that same person?
10 A. I don't know about that because I went away immediately. As far
11 as I remember.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's come back to the core of my first question.
13 What made you believe that investigation would have been dealt
14 with and that you had to focus on sanitation rather than anything else?
15 A. Well, first of all, the people in that village, who inspired my
16 empathy, they addressed us themselves. They didn't know what to do with
17 the bodies. It was summer, the smell was spreading, and my first thought
18 was sanitisation. And they asked themselves that the bodies be removed,
19 and there was even a lady who tried to drag her husband's body through
20 the village to her house to change the clothes.
21 So, primarily, it was the humanitarian situation I found in the
23 JUDGE ORIE: And the fact that no investigation had taken place,
24 you considered not to outweigh your humanitarian concerns about the dead
25 bodies still being there?
1 A. I don't understand your question, Your Honour. I was certain
2 that the investigation would take place the next day.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And what -- on the next day, when you arrived, did
4 you verify whether any investigation had taken place? Because you went
5 back to Grubori the 27th, in the morning.
6 A. Sorry, I don't understand the question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I asked you whether you verified because you
8 returned in the afternoon of the 26th. In the full confidence that an
9 investigation would take place, you returned the next day, in the
10 morning, from what I understand, to Grubori.
11 Did you verify whether that investigation had taken place?
12 A. I did not check that in the document, but the very fact that
13 Mr. Sacic was there, and Mr. Cermak was there, together with sanitary
14 inspection and the military police [as interpreted], was enough to
15 convince me that all the necessary steps would be taken to conduct an
16 inquiry, and investigate all that needed to be investigated in the
18 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, just a slight intervention as it
19 refers to the translation; namely, line -- page 53, line 11, where the
20 witness mentioned police, the transcript says "military police" and I
21 believe the witness mentioned something else.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll read part of your answer as it was
23 translated to us, Mr. Dondo, and please comment if you think that there's
24 anything inaccurate.
25 You said:
1 "... but the very fact that Mr. Sacic was there, and Mr. Cermak
2 was there, together with sanitary inspection and the," and then you
3 talked about the police. What police did you refer to?
4 A. Crime police.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The crime police was there. Do you remember exactly
6 who from the crime police was there?
7 A. I don't remember exactly, but I remember a person wearing a blue
8 suit with "crime police" on his back. He was touring the site,
9 inspecting the bodies before they were put in body-bags.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And taken where; do you know?
11 A. No, I don't know.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, I would like to change subjects.
13 You said that, when Mr. Cermak issued a document saying it was an
14 order that one would just ignore that.
15 Now, there are two ways of understanding ignoring an order. The
16 first is ignoring that you're under an obligation to do what is in that
17 order; the second interpretation is that, although you would say that
18 order does not give me any obligation to act but I would, nevertheless,
19 look at the information in the orders and then do what the order says I
20 have to do.
21 Now, when you say that his orders were ignored, is it that you
22 say, Well, people were acting upon the information in those orders; or
23 are you saying, No, they just ignored the whole of it, not taking any
24 action, because the order was not given under proper authority.
25 Which of the two did you -- or any third version. Which of the
1 two did you mean when you said that the orders of Mr. Cermak were
3 A. There is also a third option that I would choose. Namely, that
4 every unit in the area at the time had its own commander to whom they
5 were answerable, and every order by Cermak had first to be transmitted
6 down to that commander, and that commander would then decide whether to
7 execute it or not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So you would say, for example, if Mr. Cermak would
9 issue an order to the military police that they would not do anything
10 until another order was issued or ...
11 A. Until the military police commander approved it. That's my
12 opinion, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now let's just assume that you sent an order to
14 the -- to the military police, and that the company commander of the
15 military police sees that order, would you expect him to take action in
16 accordance with the order, even if he might not have been under an
17 obligation to do so, or would you think, or would you know, that they
18 would remain passive?
19 A. Well, at the beginning, as I said, we believed that these orders
20 would have an effect, and that's why they were written as orders.
21 However, when we realised they did not have any weight --
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, Mr. -- yes. I have clearly in my memory
23 this portion of your memory [sic]. What I'm exploring at this moment is
24 when you realised that they did not have any weight, not any effect, they
25 were ignored, I'm trying to understand exactly what that means, both in
1 terms of what happened, and in terms of what you understood or expected
2 to happen.
3 Now, if Mr. Cermak would issue an order for which he was not
4 going beyond his authority, let's -- let's take such an example as, I
5 order the police to investigate military vehicles, UN vehicles that have
6 disappeared, I order you to do your utmost best to find them. What if
7 such an order would be received by the company commander of the military
8 police, what -- first of all, what happened, if you know; and, second, if
9 you do not know what happened, what would you expect would happen?
10 A. Well, to say that I knew what they did with such an order would
11 be untrue. But I suppose they put it in a drawer because -- because they
12 did nothing about it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: They would not consider, even though it was called
14 an order, that they were supposed to take action in accordance with the
15 information contained in that order.
16 Is that what you say you would expect?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you told us that you didn't know what happened.
19 At the same time, no orders were issued anymore, because you thought them
20 to be ineffective and being ignored. Was it ever verified with those
21 receiving those orders how they looked at what they were supposed to do
22 when receiving such an order?
23 A. We personally did not verify that, because we were -- that's --
24 that was not our job as liaison officers. Whether Mr. Cermak or anyone
25 else verified it, I don't know.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If the company commander of the military police
2 would have testified in this court that he didn't feel under any
3 obligation to execute an order given by Mr. Cermak but that he felt that
4 he was supposed to act upon the information in that order, would that
5 surprise you?
6 A. No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you just told us that you would expect them to
8 put it in a drawer. And when I now ask you whether it would surprise you
9 that they would take appropriate action upon the information in the
10 order, where you said they would do nothing three minutes ago, put it in
11 a drawer, not take any action at all, that seems to be contradictory.
12 Could you explain why you're not surprised by such a testimony?
13 A. I'm not surprised because it's not about one unit but a number of
14 units and a number of commanders, and various commanders can react in
15 various ways. Some would make an effort and say, Let's try to do
16 something about this; and others would simply put it in a drawer and
17 forget about it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So when I asked you what you expected to
19 happen, the real answer was that, I expected that some of them might put
20 it in a drawer; whereas, others might take action.
21 Is that correctly understood?
22 A. Correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You said you supposed they put it in a drawer
24 because -- because they did nothing about it.
25 So some did something about it, when receiving orders?
1 A. I suppose so.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So not issuing any further orders because they were
3 ignored is part of what was reality.
4 A. I would say so.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
6 Could you tell me, where did you receive your training in the
7 English language? What -- did you learn it at school, did you learn it
8 anywhere else?
9 A. I learned it at school. I studied it for 14 years, and my wife
10 is Canadian, so that I speak more English at home than Croatian.
11 JUDGE ORIE: When did you marry?
12 A. 30 years ago.
13 JUDGE ORIE: 30 years ago. So you were married with her in 1995.
14 I think I have no --
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions for you.
17 Ms. Mahindaratne, any --
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, just a couple of questions
19 arising from the questions from the Bench.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
23 Q. Mr. Dondo, now you answered a number of questions about how some
24 of General Cermak's orders did not bring about any effect, that they were
25 not, in fact, executed by the recipients.
1 Now, you testified about the daily reports, the fact that you
2 reported on a daily basis, or the liaison office reported on a daily
3 basis, about your activities which was sent to your command in Zadar.
4 Now, did you report that fact, that General Cermak's orders were
5 not, in fact, implemented by the forces to which they were addressed?
6 A. I think that there is even a document phrased in that way, to
7 that effect, but we would have to search for it in a sea of documents.
8 But I believe there is a document showing that General Cermak is trying
9 his best but has not enough support and not enough capacities to -- to
10 achieve that.
11 Q. Mr. Dondo, I'm not talking about a document. My question was:
12 Did you submit any report to your liaison command in Zadar, reporting
13 that orders were not issued by General Cermak were not being implemented?
14 A. Not on a daily basis. But I repeat there is one document where
15 we emphasised that, where we noted that, among other things.
16 Q. That is -- a document. When you say a document, it is a report
17 by --
18 A. [In English] A report, yes. Excuse me. [Interpretation]
20 Q. And those reports are filed in -- were sent to Zadar; isn't that
22 A. To Zadar, and from Zadar to the command in Zagreb. That would be
23 a summary. All command posts had liaison officers who sent their reports
24 to Zadar, they were summarised there, and in summary form, were sent to
1 cannot say.
2 Q. Now those reports are -- at least those reports that were sent to
4 A. Well, they have to be at the Ministry of Defence of Croatia
5 Q. So your commander is Mr. Lukovic, isn't it?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Would you surprised to be told that Mr. Lukovic testified in
8 these proceedings, in fact last week, and his testimony was that some of
9 those documents were destroyed, burnt. Do you know that?
10 A. I do. All the documents that had been stored at the bases of
11 various arms of command were burnt, because the main command in Zagreb
12 had said they did not need it, because they had all the reports.
13 Thus, everything that was kept in some outposts, to put it that
14 way, the small liaison officers' command post, all those documents were
15 burned at the request of our main command, because they believed they
16 were in possession of all the documents that had been summarised during
17 the war.
18 Q. Now just two more questions on this, Mr. Dondo.
19 Now, yesterday your testimony was, when I specifically asked you
20 if you had conveyed any instructions from General Cermak to the civilian
21 police and military police, you answered in the negative. Now, in that
22 context, how is it that you know what impact General Cermak's
23 instructions to the police or -- to the military police or the civilian
24 police had when you weren't in fact involved in conveying the
25 instructions to those forces?
1 A. Because on many occasions I participated in meetings which
2 discussed various tasks that needed to be done and whether they had been
3 done, some daily meetings and other meetings.
4 Q. So what -- what was it that was reported at these daily meetings
5 that indicated to you that these orders had not been implemented? Did
6 the police -- civilian police or the military police attend those
7 meetings and say, Sorry, we have put those orders into the drawers, we
8 are not doing it, or was some explanation offered, or did Mr. Cermak tell
9 something to that you indicated to you that these orders were not
11 A. Well, at these meetings, the discussion was mainly about what the
12 tasks were and which tasks had been carried out, and most often we had to
13 face the fact that most of the tasks regarding special units, the
14 civilian police, and to the less extent the civil protection, which
15 mostly performed the orders of Mr. Cermak, did not carry out Mr. Cermak's
16 orders on various pretexts. They did not have the ability or the time or
18 Q. Let me see if I understand your testimony.
19 At these meetings, the civilian police and the military police
20 were present; isn't that correct?
21 A. Not always. Each meeting was attended by those who were needed
22 to carry out a certain task. If somebody had received a task the day
23 before, they were supposed to come that day and report on progress, and
24 by the same token, we had to go to a meeting with the UN and report on --
25 on implementation. Some tasks were implemented, some were not.
1 At the beginning, everyone attended, and as time went on, there
2 were less and less participants --
3 Q. So your testimony here, and you have provided this in the
4 statements, is that at the daily meetings the civilian police and
5 military police were present. That is your testimony.
6 Now, my question is this: When any task that was requested or
7 that was conveyed from General Cermak to these forces were not
8 implemented, did those representatives of those forces, the addressees of
9 those orders, inform General Cermak why those tasks were not implemented?
10 Now you said some pretext was offered. So was some explanation
11 given to General Cermak as to why those tasks were not carried out by
12 those forces?
13 A. I don't remember. I don't remember that.
14 Q. Do you recall any meeting where you attended where General Cermak
15 and the civilian police members who were present at the meeting, or
16 members of the military police present at the meeting, had any
17 discussions as to why any task conveyed by General Cermak to those forces
18 were not implemented?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions to you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Have the questions by the Bench
22 triggered any need any further questions.
23 MR. KAY: Those from my learned friend, Your Honour, which arise
24 from the ones from the Bench.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that's indirect --
1 MR. KAY: Yeah.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- from the Bench. Yes.
3 MR. KAY: It's just the last issue at page 62, line 6.
4 Further Re-examination by Mr. Kay:
5 Q. In your testimony, you have explained that crimes that were being
6 committed were discussed at the meetings. Did you -- or did you hear at
7 the meetings any explanations from the civilian police as to why they
8 could not prevent crimes, why crimes were still continuing?
9 A. What was most frequently said was that the area was vast and that
10 the few policemen were insufficient to cover the entire area and
11 especially insufficient to man all the check-points that should be
12 erected in order to prevent access to the relevant area.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. KAY: That's all I ask from that matter.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Anything else by any of the other Defence teams? If
16 not --
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, this concludes your evidence in this
19 Court. I would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague
20 for giving your testimony, answering the questions that were put to you
21 by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you safe trip home again.
22 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have a -- even a --
23 [Interpretation] I have a point to make, a request which is a
24 special request, and I suppose it's not -- it is out of the ordinary, but
25 can I be allowed to shake hands with the accused?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dondo, it is not commonly done, and -- that
2 direct personal contact between the witness and the accused takes place
3 in the courtroom, but your words have been translated -- no, they don't
4 have not even been translated to the accused because they could hear it
5 directly. So they are aware of your wish to shake hands with them, which
6 might perhaps already achieve some of what you intended to achieve.
7 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Dondo out of the
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Under normal circumstances, we would have
11 immediately a break now. But not knowing exactly what will happen after
12 the break, perhaps it is better to perhaps briefly discuss this.
13 The Chamber understands, Mr. Kay, that the order of the
14 appearance of witnesses has been changed. Not only been changed but that
15 one witness who apparently is not available at this moment due to
16 illness, as we understood, that that has caused some changes in the
17 schedule and even putting Mr. Dodig before Mr. Pasic; whereas, we
18 expected Mr. Dodig to testify, I think, on Thursday or Friday only.
19 I'd like to hear from -- well, first of all, whether -- of
20 course, we do also do understand that Mr. Dodig arrived today, and that
21 he may have arrived now on the premises of the Tribunal. If we would
22 start the testimony of Mr. Dodig today, then that would most likely
23 complete the examination-in-chief which apparently is 92 ter, half a
24 session, as you are usually asking for going through the attestations and
25 identifying the document as his statement. That would mean that we could
1 still do that today.
2 But then would the -- first of all, I have to address the
3 Gotovina Defence, which asked for 45 minutes cross-examination.
4 Would you be ready to cross-examine that witness tomorrow, Mr. --
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President. Upon reflection, I think our
6 questioning would be much more concise and limited time-wise, and I would
7 say if we do anything - if - it would be 15 minutes at the most.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not primarily seeking at this moment the
9 time-limits but rather on whether you're ready.
10 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You're ready.
12 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm looking at the Markac Defence where I find
14 on my list that it was still to be determined whether and for how long
15 the Markac Defence would wish to cross-examine Mr. Dodig.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I believe we already informed the
17 Cermak's Defence that we will have no questions. If we didn't do so, I
18 am now informing and I'm apologising for any confusion.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's -- perhaps my list is not up to date.
20 Then, I'm addressing -- yes, Mr. Kay.
21 MR. KAY: And for Your Honours' reference, I won't be half a
22 session. There are no exhibits to produce through this witness --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. KAY: -- and I will just go through the 92 ter procedure and
25 tender him for cross-examination.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which takes 20 minutes.
2 Mr. Kehoe, now I have a different question for you. Would be
3 ready today already to start cross-examining Mr. Dodig?
4 MR. KEHOE: Yeah, I would, Mr. President, if I have any questions
5 at all. I will consult with my client and co-counsel, but I would.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now I'm addressing the Defence because -- the
7 Prosecution because that is where the objections come from.
8 Mr. Waespi.
9 MR. WAESPI: Yes, we will be ready to start cross-examination
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis of these inquiries, the Chamber wants
14 to take a break now for 20 minutes so that we resume at 1.00.
15 Mr. Kay, that you start your examination-in-chief of the witness,
16 just supposing that he has arrived and that with -- that there's a chance
17 that we might even conclude, if there's any at all, the cross-examination
18 of the Gotovina Defence today, so that, tomorrow, the Prosecution could
19 start its cross-examination.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I just rose to my feet before
21 adjournment just to address Court on just small matter with regard to the
22 previous witness's exhibits.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Having dealt with this suggestion how to
24 proceed today and tomorrow, now you may raise the matter.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, with regard to P2556 [sic], the
1 Prosecution awaits the Chamber's guidance as to exactly how it prefers --
2 JUDGE ORIE: We are still thinking about that, how to -- how to
3 organise, to bring in the relevant portions of the comments.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We're still thinking. And we, and especially
6 Chamber staff is working hard on it. So we will come with a solution for
8 Yes, Mr. Misetic.
9 MR. MISETIC: I know we're talking -- well, the document we're
10 talking, but just for the record, if Ms. Mahindaratne could clarify the
11 exhibit number I believe she said P2556.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'm sorry. P2526, the statement -- the
13 interviews of General Cermak and the additional translations.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I had nothing else on my mind. But you're
15 right, Mr. Misetic, that is not what Ms. Mahindaratne said and what
16 appears on the transcript.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to invite the parties to
19 assist the Chamber with the following. Mr. Dondo testified that the
20 quality of the interpretation of interpreters hired by General Forand was
21 bad and he related that to inaccuracies in the translation of written
23 Now, I think most of these exchange of -- most of the exchange of
24 letters is available, both in the original and in the translations, and
25 the Chamber would be assisted if the parties could review those
1 translations and to inform the Chamber whether the inaccuracy Mr. Dondo
2 talked about is to be found anywhere in these documents.
3 That may take some time to review it.
4 Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, we will, of course, do that. I do
6 wish to note, though, that my understanding of the testimony was that he
7 was speaking about interpretation in actual face-to-face meetings and I
8 believe he even referenced one meeting with General Forand where there
9 were three mistakes and --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I think he also referred to, but if that
11 is a mistake on my part, he said something about that that could be
12 verified on the basis of the letters that were translated. But if I am
13 wrong in that respect then, of course, it makes no sense --
14 The problems is I have difficulties in checking it over the break
15 because once I am logged in here, I can't log in anymore in my Chambers.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, you're correct. In fact the
17 witness, in fact, yesterday referred to letters being translated
18 inaccurately so ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- that was what was on his mind as a kind of
20 an explanation on or as a further elaboration on the bad quality of the
22 MR. MISETIC: If I could just add, Mr. President --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. MISETIC: -- this is not on the letters but on that point,
25 we've raised that issue as well, as a Defence. And I would just call the
1 Chamber's attention to Exhibit D126. This deals with oral
2 interpretation. It is the scene of General Leslie at the gate. The
3 Court will recall that we examined General Leslie about he was saying one
4 thing and the interpretation was different on substantive matters. And
5 the Court can compare what General Leslie says orally with the -- with
6 the subtitling in that video.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- I'm grateful for this short submission,
8 Mr. Misetic, because you apparently understood well that to the extent it
9 is possible to verify the lack of accuracy in the translation by
10 consulting documents, because it is not easy if someone says something
11 was translated badly without a record of what was translated, whether
12 that is audio or whether that is letters being translated, it is, of
13 course, not easy to evaluate and to assess the quality of that
14 translation and the risks which may result from a bad mastering of the
15 language used.
16 Mr. Mikulicic.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, since I raised that questions in my
18 cross-examination, just for the record I would like to inform the Chamber
19 that my focus was on oral interpretation, referring to the statement of
20 witness in paragraph 9, which he gave to the Defence team in 2009. And
21 that was my intention to show through the witness testimony that there
22 were some problems in that communication with the UN representatives via
23 interpreters --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic --
25 MR. MIKULICIC: -- so I -- I was not referring to the documents,
1 which I believe they passed a test before issuing to the public. So ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, the matter you raised with the
3 witness is perfectly clear. The Chamber thought that in one answer of
4 the witness that he pointed at possible ways of verifying and Mr. Misetic
5 now added one event which would allow us to verify again or to put in
6 context the quality of the translations of spoken words but also using
7 perhaps the quality of translations of written documents and to see what
8 we can learn about it.
9 Mr. Kay.
10 MR. KAY: Yes. It was just the issue that some documents, we're
11 using Tribunal interpretations, translations, of course, as the
12 documents --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, I'm only interested in those
14 documents that were contemporaneously translated. I'm not -- of course,
15 it makes no sense to see whether the quality of our CLSS is sufficient.
16 That's apart from human mistakes which are made everywhere, that's --
17 they're not at the test.
18 I'm looking at documents and the witness was talking about
19 documents, but I might have misunderstood him. The documents, as he
20 said, were badly translated at the time and we would have to look at
21 those documents and the translations made at the time because that
22 could - I'm not saying will - but could perhaps give us some insight,
23 further insight apart from testimony in the quality of the
25 MR. KAY: Yes. And that's why I flagged up the issue of
1 contemporaneous documents.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that goes without saying --
3 MR. KAY: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- that that's implied in my request not to -- to
5 even pay attention to any translation which was made later at the --
6 MR. KAY: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. KAY: Your Honour, just a matter to flag up so that we don't
9 rise too quickly after the next adjournment is the timing issues of the
10 Defence case. We're proceeding very, very rapidly, and I can foresee us
11 finishing the Defence case at the end of October. And so we're on the
12 last handful or third of witnesses that are coming up, and I've --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. KAY: -- I flag that up and with the witness department of
15 the Tribunal, attempted to make sure court time is -- is filled and I
16 need to raise that with you, because we are coming rapidly to the close
17 of our -- our case.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kay, I was already glad that the change of
19 the order which comes to us today has not resulted in any impossibility
20 of starting cross-examination. And I am aware -- the Chamber is aware,
21 although we do not fully follow your discussions, that there are still
22 some tensions about who will come when and whether there is sufficient
23 time to prepare. I'd rather leave it to this observation at this moment.
24 I encourage the parties to communicate as good as they can in order to
25 ensure an uninterrupted flow of evidence to be heard by the Chamber, and
1 that's what I would like to say on this subject at this moment.
2 Mr. Misetic --
3 MR. MISETIC: Just briefly to assist the Court. My Case Manager
4 has also brought to my attention that, in addition to the video at D126,
5 there were also -- there was also a video at D67 where interpretation
6 issues had been raised. Just so the Chamber is aware of it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And we'd like to hear from the parties
8 on written documents or any other verifiable inaccuracies in translation.
9 We will have a break and we'll resume at ten minutes past 1.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, is the Cermak Defence ready to call its
13 next witness?
14 MR. KAY: We're ready, Your Honour. May we call Dr. Dodig,
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Dodig.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
19 JUDGE ORIE: From your answer, I take it that you hear me in a
20 language you understand.
21 Mr. Dodig, before you give evidence --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that
24 you make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole
25 truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out to you by
1 Madam Usher. May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
3 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Dodig.
5 Mr. Dodig, you will first be examined by Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay is
6 counsel for Mr. Cermak.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: GORAN DODIG
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Examination by Mr. Kay:
12 Q. Dr. Dodig, is it correct that you gave a statement to the Defence
13 this year?
14 A. It is.
15 MR. KAY: And could that statement now be put on the screen in
16 front of you. 2D00-707, please.
17 Q. Dr. Dodig, coming onto the screen in front of you, on the
18 right-hand side, will be a document that I will ask to you look at.
19 And do you recognise there in front of you in your own language a
20 document which is a record of the interview that took place on the
21 30th of April, 2009?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. And is that your signature on the front page of the document?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 MR. KAY: And if we could just turn to the last page of the
1 document as well, page 12.
2 Q. And do you recognise there your signature on the date of the
3 16th of May, 2009?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. I think in fact you have a hard copy of your statement there in
6 front of you, do you?
7 A. [In English] Yes.
8 Q. Just close that and if you need to refer to it, ask the Court's
9 permission because it all comes up electronically for you.
10 Dr. Dodig, the information that you gave in that statement, is
11 it, to the best of your knowledge and belief, true and correct?
12 A. [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection, true and
14 Q. Thank you.
15 Dr. Dodig, if I was to ask you the same questions today that
16 created the information for your statement, would you give the same
17 answers in court today if you were asked those questions again?
18 A. Absolutely, I would.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. KAY: Your Honour, in those circumstances, may Dr. Dodig's
21 statement be made an exhibit, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, before we continue --
23 Mr. Dodig, when did you have an opportunity to last read your
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly ten days ago.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because one of the usual questions whether the
2 written statement reflects what the witness said was not part of you're
3 attestation yet. Because it is three questions, does it reflect what you
4 said; did what you say is the truth; and then, third, whether he would
5 give the same answers.
6 But this has been settled now.
7 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that there's no -- on the basis of the
9 written submissions already, that there's no objection.
10 MR. CARRIER: No objection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit D1705.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. KAY:
16 Q. Dr. Dodig, I have no further questions for you but others will.
17 So please remain there.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the Gotovina Defence.
19 Mr. Kehoe.
20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, we have no questions. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You have no questions.
22 Mr. Mikulicic.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: No questions, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
25 Before the break I inquired whether the Prosecution would be
1 ready to cross-examine the witness tomorrow. If you would be ready to
2 start already, Mr. Carrier, then that would be appreciated. At the same
3 time, looking at the schedule for this week, it might not be a disaster
4 if you would feel more comfortable to start tomorrow.
5 MR. CARRIER: If I could just have one moment, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, unfortunately, given the very short
9 notice, I'm not in a position and only because some documents are still
10 being translated and not uploaded so ... we don't actually have --
11 JUDGE ORIE: You would need even these documents for the first
12 25 minutes.
13 MR. CARRIER: Unfortunately, they are the first --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. CARRIER: They are the first ones, and in addition, we don't
16 have an exhibit list that's been put together yet. I'll do that as soon
17 as I can and release it to the parties, but at the moment we don't have
18 one, so I apologise for that as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, due to unforeseen circumstances, the
20 scheduling of your testimony changed quite a bit, which results in the
21 Prosecution, at this moment, not yet be ready to use the next 25 minutes
22 to start the cross-examination, which means that we will hear your
23 testimony in cross-examination tomorrow.
24 Mr. Carrier, the schedule was two sessions. Is that still the
1 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
3 Then, Mr. Kay, would then the witness after that already be
4 available tomorrow in the third session?
5 MR. KAY: Absolutely, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. KAY: And we'll get the witness here earlier, just in case it
8 doesn't go as quickly as predicted.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, this means that we have to conclude for
10 the day. You have been with us only for a very short time and may have
11 come a bit as a surprise to you as well to already testify today. Since,
12 however, you have started your testimony, I instruct you that you should
13 not speak with anyone about your testimony, however short it may have
14 been today, but also about the testimony still to be given tomorrow.
15 We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00.
16 We adjourn and we will resume tomorrow, the 7th of August [sic]
17 9.00 in the morning, in Courtroom III.
18 MR. KAY: Your Honour, before we adjourn --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. KAY: -- the scheduling of witnesses matter that doesn't
21 concern this witness, I really think that --
22 JUDGE ORIE: So you suggest that we do not resume tomorrow
23 morning but we immediately resume at this moment. As a matter of fact,
24 the adjournment, then, for the time being is annulled. But, Mr. Dodig,
25 we'll deal with a very practical matter and we would like not -- we would
1 not bother with you that.
2 So, Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Dodig out of the
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, the issue of scheduling and what I have for
6 this moment, and I don't think there are any pending requests for
7 protective measures which would cause us to go into private session
8 or --
9 MR. KAY: No --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- are you confident --
11 MR. KAY: -- not with these witnesses. If an issue does come up,
12 because it is relevant for the last week, we can go into private session,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What we have now is Mr. Dodig starting today.
15 MR. KAY: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Pasic and Mr. Cipci.
17 MR. KAY: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: For next week, 12th to 15th of October, we have
19 Mr. Cetina.
20 MR. KAY: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We have the expert, Mr. Albiston.
22 MR. KAY: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: There, from what I understand, there was some
24 problem perhaps with that. And then we have the delayed testimony of
25 Emin Teskeredzic.
1 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What we have on the list. What I know is that next
3 week, Friday, we will not sit. I take it that the parties are aware of
5 MR. KAY: Yes, and that's been taken into account in this
6 schedule, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what we know at this moment. Is
8 there --
9 MR. KAY: Your Honour, the problem is this. The following week,
10 we have a break, as Your Honour knows.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. KAY: And then we have what would be the last week of the
13 Defence case.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, starting the 26th of October.
15 MR. KAY: Yes. And I'm confident our witnesses will fit into
16 that slot of the week, a five-day week, and we will have finished by the
17 end of the week, or having the last witness carrying on into the first
18 week of November.
19 So I really only have two weeks to -- to play with, to fit in the
20 personalities. I have a fixed day in the potential last week where we
21 have a videolink to deal with those witnesses, and so I have to put the
22 order of witnesses, according to the days of availability, and I have two
23 people who have been subject to operations and that has required them to
24 be unavailable in their slot, and there's no problem with that.
25 But Mr. Albiston, who is scheduled for next week on my list, is
1 an expert witness. His report was served in September. I feel the time
2 could be used to call him then; otherwise we're going to have problems
3 because I'm coming down to the end of my -- my list, and my last two
4 witnesses would be experts. I've got one pending matter concerning a
5 potential witness which the Trial Chamber has to decide upon. I was
6 going to see if I could expedite that and slot him in in that week but
7 the Prosecution did not want that, because I'd originally said to them
8 that you can have him at the end, towards the end of the evidence. Well,
9 we're getting towards the end of the evidence, and he is another one that
10 I would be fitting into that last week.
11 So looking at the people and their availability, Mr. Albiston was
12 gamely prepared to step into the breech and come to this court next week
13 to present his expert report. And I have made that arrangement with him,
14 and that is a commitment he can make.
15 If he is not called, we will have a very short week, indeed.
16 I've been -- started by following the parties' estimates. I have learnt
17 to reduce that, as we had a four-day week at one stage. I have learnt to
18 reduce that, and we appear to be on a schedule now which slightly reduces
19 the margins that I'm given, and that appears to be a successful way of
20 filling court time. And I know the witness unit are anxious that they
21 fill court time as well, and Your Honour has made this remark on many
22 occasions during the course of the trial, and I don't want it being said
23 of my team that we have not fulfilled any commitments we should have
25 JUDGE ORIE: I see that your team, you and your team, but also
1 the others, always did their utmost best, sometime with more or less
2 result, but I have no doubt as to the sincere intentions of the parties
3 to deal with it. And as matters go now, it goes at -- we're proceeding
4 quickly, and we are -- when we are not using the time, then it is usually
5 for reasons which can be well explained.
6 MR. KAY: Yes, absolutely, Your Honour. It's just that I will
7 have a big hole next week on a four-day week, if I don't call
8 Mr. Albiston.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
10 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 As you know, we always try to accommodate the Defence, as we do
12 this week by cross-examining Mr. Dodig tomorrow, not on Friday. But
13 there has been a practice of two weeks' notice observed by the
14 Prosecution during our case, by the Gotovina Defence during their case,
15 to announce their witnesses in advance. And to bring Mr. Albiston, who
16 is a very substantial expert, with the notice of seven days is just
17 not -- not good enough for us, and I have -- as you know, Mr. President,
18 you might know, received an e-mail from Mr. Kay at the beginning of
19 September basically committing himself to call Mr. -- Sir Jack Deverell
20 and Mr. Albiston at the end of October, beginning of November. And that
21 is an important undertaking for me to assign resources, allocate these
22 witnesses and I'm not simply not in a position to switch my resources so
23 -- so quickly to Mr. Albiston.
24 If -- I just don't see why Mr. Albiston and Mr. --
25 Sir Jack Deverell cannot be called as intended originally, at the end of
1 October/beginning of November, in particular, since the case is advancing
2 so quickly, as indicated by Mr. Kay today.
3 On the same note, since we only have -- I understand, a week of
4 evidence after the court break, and given the fact that I believe until
5 today we have heard of witness of less than a half of the Defence
6 witnesses, I'm just not sure whether the Defence will call all their
7 witnesses live or via 92 bis, so if there is an indication in the
8 intention by the Defence not to call any of these witnesses, we would
9 appreciate a piece of information that we don't spend resources in
10 preparing witnesses whom the Defence knows, at this point in time, that
11 they are not going do call these witnesses.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Which you could then use, you want to say, for
13 quickly preparing for Mr. Albiston, is that ...
14 MR. WAESPI: We'll always try that. Of course, we don't know
15 what Your Honours' decision on this issue will be, we'll be ready
16 whenever we have to.
17 But in relation to Mr. Albiston, an expert on key issues, to tell
18 me now -- and not in a phone call like it's been done in other cases, you
19 know, We're considering, we are in touch with this expert. Simply
20 dropping us a note this morning, Next week we'll have Mr. Albiston, I
21 don't think is appropriate, given the excellent cooperation we have among
22 each other.
23 And I might just add, in the past we accommodated the Defence,
24 all Defence teams, about their personal schedules, and I'm not asking for
25 accommodation, because I think it is our right to be told two weeks in
1 advance of the witnesses. And the situation, frankly, doesn't warrant an
2 emergency calling of Mr. Albiston, because the week next week is a
3 four-day week. We have two witnesses. One, Mr. Cetina, is fairly
4 substantial as far as I can see.
5 So, under these circumstances, I just don't see why we should get
6 out of order, to call Mr. Albiston.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Looking at the schedule, as the Chamber is
8 aware of at this moment, there are -- for next week, we have, as matters
9 stand now, three witnesses scheduled, among them the expert witnesses
10 Mr. Albiston. But there are a lot of uncertainties there is as well,
11 because we do not know how much time is needed for cross-examination of
12 Mr. Cetina by the Gotovina team or by the Markac team. Neither do we
13 know for the last witness of next week how much time the Markac Defence
14 would need for the cross-examination of Emin Teskeredzic, which puts into
15 question whether -- apart from whether it should be Mr. Albiston or not,
16 but whether we can deal with the whole of the programme.
17 And Mr. Kay, I do understand that you say that, I adapted my
18 proposed schedule in accordance with the experience we -- we had over the
19 last couple of weeks, therefore, the Chamber, of course, at this moment
20 cannot finally decide the matter. It has come up rather recently, I do
22 Let me just consult with my colleagues for a second.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The parties are invited, since this situation is
25 rather new and apparently has not been thoroughly discussed among them
1 yet, the parties are invited, first of all, to sit together, to see what
2 the possibilities and impossibilities are as far as your proposed
3 scheduling is concerned, but also to consider what alternative scenarios
4 could be developed under the present circumstances. And, of course, the
5 Chamber would very much appreciate if you would agree, either on the
6 scenario as you proposed at this moment, or on any alternative scenario,
7 which would meet the concerns of the parties. The Chamber offers the
8 good services of the team leader of the Chamber support staff to see
9 whether he can assist in these scheduling issues. Of course, not being
10 involved in any matter of substance or content, and the Chamber would
11 like the parties to report on that preferably by tomorrow, the end of the
12 morning session.
13 The Chamber at this moment is not in a position to -- to decide
14 on the matter, and I also do understand that some of the uncertainties I
15 just pointed at are still there. I do not know to what extent it has
16 been verified for all of the witnesses still to be called, whether there
17 are any witnesses to be dropped, whether that would change the way in
18 which the Prosecution would use its time in preparing for
20 So the parties, in view of the fact that the situation is rather
21 new, to further explore what possibilities of an agreement there are; to
22 see whether, if no agreement can be reached on this scenario, whether
23 there are any alternative scenarios which would give the Chamber an
24 option to choose and to balance what would be fair to all parties; and
25 then to report to the Chamber.
1 This is not a way of delaying decisions but it's so fresh,
2 apparently, that with incomplete information, it would be unwise to
3 already decide the matter at this moment.
4 MR. KAY: Very well, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber would like to hear from the parties
6 by tomorrow at the end of the morning session.
7 We'll adjourn, but now it's a real adjournment, and we will
8 resume tomorrow morning, 9.00, Courtroom III.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.38 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of
11 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.