1 Wednesday, 7 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
10 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Good morning to you, Mr. Dodig.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And before we continue, I would like to remind you
15 that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at
16 the beginning of your testimony. That is, that you will speak the truth,
17 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 Mr. Carrier, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Dodig.
19 MR. CARRIER: Yes Mr. President. There -- I think there was a
20 slight problem with the exhibit list this morning, so if we could just
21 confirm with my friends that they have received it now. I think that
22 some of them may not have been released yet. I just want to make sure
23 that everyone's on the same page. There is also one document, and I have
24 informed my friends that we're still waiting -- the translation is done.
25 It's just a slight holdup in getting it put on the list. So I won't deal
1 with that until after the break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed. Unless there's anything in
3 response to be said but -- nothing.
4 Then please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
5 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
6 WITNESS: GORAN DODIG [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Carrier:
9 Q. Mr. Dodig, you state that from October 1993 until June 1994, you
10 were the Assistant Minister of Defence. You didn't mention it in your
11 statement but your job during that time was as Assistant Minister, head
12 of Security and Information Service, or SIS; is that right?
13 A. What you say is correct, but my curriculum vitae written here was
14 not written by me. It was derived from the documents available to the
15 Defence. If I had known I was supposed to write my own CV, I would have
16 done so. It's correct that I was in the Ministry of Defence,
17 Assistant Minister for Security ...
18 Q. Mr. Dodig --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, perhaps -- Mr. Dodig, perhaps already at
20 the beginning we are not unlimited in time.
21 The question was answered by your first sentence. To defend
22 yourself on whether it would have been in your curriculum if it would
23 have been created in a different way is not something that Mr. Carrier
24 has shown to be interested in very much at this moment. So could you
25 please focus your answer on what is asked and apparently, in the
1 question, Mr. Carrier was seeking to know exactly what your duties as an
2 Assistant Minister of Defence were.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. And Mr. Dodig, just to follow up on that, because I'm the first
6 person to cross-examine you here, your statements are in evidence so you
7 don't need to repeat those things unless you find it necessary but just
8 to focus in on the questions that I'm asking.
9 Is it fair to say that, even before this trial started and before
10 any of the evidence was called in this case, that you had publicly
11 expressed negative opinions about this Tribunal. For instance,
12 statements to the effect that this Tribunal's indictments, including the
13 one in this case, are politically motivated?
14 A. Well, I am a public figure, and oftentimes, in the context of my
15 public activity, I express certain opinions on certain developments, and
16 it must have been in that context then. I did not speak about the work
17 of the Tribunal but of its motives, the way I see them.
18 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could we please have document number
19 65 ter 7428 up on the screen, please.
20 Q. Mr. Dodig, what is going to appear on the screen in front of you
21 is an article that appeared in the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija on the
22 30th of January, 2001.
23 Sorry, Mr. Dodig, I will get back to you in a second.
24 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I understand that apparently they
25 haven't been released, which is what I was canvassing in the beginning.
1 But apparently that's our fault. I apologise for that.
2 Mr. President, I'm informed by our Case Manager that he is still
3 trying to release the document, so ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you move then to another subject for the time
5 being, until this is released.
6 MR. CARRIER: I will do that.
7 Q. Mr. Dodig, I apologise to change the train of thought on you.
8 Mr. Dodig, you say in your statement that you heard about
9 Operation Storm at the same time as all the other citizens in Croatia
10 And I take it by that, that you mean that you learned about the operation
11 when it started on the 4th of August, 1995. Is that correct?
12 A. Precisely.
13 Q. And, Mr. Dodig, is it fair to say, then, that you were not
14 specifically consulted, nor was your input solicited by anyone from the
15 office of the president, the Main Staff, the Ministry of Defence --
16 A. [No interpretation].
17 Q. -- or the Ministry of Interior in relation to the planning or
18 execution of Operation Storm?
19 A. No, nobody either contacted me nor informed me.
20 Q. And, Mr. Dodig, in the final paragraph of your statement, you
21 explain your understanding of the Prosecution's allegations in this case,
22 that there was a policy to encourage or condone the crimes and
23 discriminations perpetrated against Serbs in the aftermath of
24 Operation Storm, and that was done in order to create a climate of fear,
25 to drive Serbs away from the area. And in that paragraph, you state in
1 effect that these allegations are false.
2 You also state that you probably would have been informed at the
3 time had an allegation of that nature been true. My question is,
4 Mr. Dodig, given that you were not even consulted on the operation
5 itself, why would you think that you would probably have been informed
6 about a related criminal plot against the Krajina Serbs?
7 A. Give me just a moment to see ...
8 Yes, in that last sentence, I wrote that the political position
9 of the government of Croatia
10 government of Croatia
11 that I would have known during the war if such a tendency had existed. I
12 didn't mean that I would have been informed at one single moment. But I
13 am aware of what the political positions were, the general attitude
14 towards the Serbs in Croatia
15 from anyone, not even a hint from the high officials that they had such
16 an attitude towards the Serbian community in Croatia that would support
17 the theory that the became was to expel them from Croatia.
18 Q. Well, Mr. Dodig, following up on that, you mentioned that you had
19 had many meetings and discussions with Mr. Pasic, who was the Croatian
20 government's civil authority representative for Knin. You also state
21 that in your opinion he was exposed to psychological and political terror
22 at the hands of Serbs, apparently those who didn't want or accept any
23 cooperation with Croats and had declared him a traitor for even talking
24 to Croats.
25 Would you then -- in your statement you contrast that with your
1 evaluation of Mr. Pasic's very proper relations with Croats, and you note
2 that he was accepted by all authorities and the Croats in the area. Is
3 that a fair summary of your position?
4 A. I think so. The community where it happened is a relatively
5 small community, so I know quite a few people, quite a few Croats from
6 the town where Mr. Pasic lived, and they had a very good opinion of him
7 from that time and later. There is not a personal qualification or
8 attitude. It's just my experience of Mr. Pasic as a man who found
9 himself in a very delicate situation.
10 Q. When you say that he was accepted by all authorities, are you
11 talking about all the Croatian authorities?
12 A. I mean the part of the authorities that I was able to relate to
13 at that time. I could not talk to anyone from the top echelon of this
14 Croatian authorities about Mr. Pasic, but I did talk to town mayors,
15 municipal officials, and they all said that Mr. Pasic was a very good,
16 decent man.
17 Q. So despite what you said about knowing how the upper echelon
18 thought in other circumstances, at least in this circumstance, you say
19 you don't really know what their attitude was towards Mr. Pasic, the top
21 A. No.
22 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, could we please have Exhibit P463 up
23 on the screen.
24 Q. Mr. Dodig, this is a transcript that's coming up on the screen in
25 front of you. And it's from a meeting that was held on the
1 22nd of August, 1995, between President Tudjman and Dr. Jure Radic at the
2 presidential palace. And ...
3 MR. CARRIER: Mr. Registrar, if we could turn to page 5 in the
4 English and page 7 in the B/C/S. And if you could go down to the bottom
5 of the page, please, in the English.
6 Q. Mr. Dodig, I'm just going read a bit of an exchange here.
7 This is President Tudjman speaking. He says:
8 "Wait a second, hadn't I sent Cermak to Knin, it would have been
9 horrible there."
10 Dr. Radic replies:
11 "I agree. Maybe I didn't use the right example, precisely
12 because we're all using it, but the military authority cannot run civil
13 matters in the terrain ..."
14 MR. CARRIER: If you turn to the next page in B/C/S, please.
15 Q. "... military authority cannot decide on who goes to which
17 President replies:
18 "It cannot, but it can maintain order in these transitional
20 MR. CARRIER: Turning the page in English.
21 Q. Dr. Radic replies:
22 "I agree with you, but where's the problem? The problem is where
23 [sic] the person elected in civil authority is bad, and that is usually
24 the case. Well, not everywhere, we have a good one in Kostajnica but the
25 one in Knin is no good. I don't know where he came from, he's a Serb."
1 The president replies to the question:
2 "He is a Serb?"
3 Dr. Radic replies:
4 "Yes, yes, I was told yesterday that he was a Serb. He's no good
5 for anything."
6 President Tudjman replies:
7 "Okay, replace him."
8 Dr. Radic goes on:
9 "We discussed that as well today. But since this guy is no good,
10 naturally Cermak has to do everything, and then various problems come
11 up ..."
12 MR. CARRIER: I think if we turn the page in B/C/S.
13 Q. "The county executive gives up, et cetera, so there's a lot of
14 mess in the terrain. I'm telling you this because I've been through that
15 and seen it all over there."
16 President Tudjman says:
17 "There is no reason for a Serb being there right now."
18 Dr. Radic replies:
19 "Sure, he shouldn't be there."
20 And the president says:
21 "There's a majority of Croats there, so change that."
22 Now -- I'll just wait a moment while that translates.
23 A. I've got the translation.
24 Q. Mr. Dodig, you agree that the person that President Tudjman and
25 Dr. Radic are talking about is Mr. Pasic; isn't that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And although in your statement you had said all authorities
3 accepted him and you qualified that to some extent, saying it was more
4 the people you knew in the area, you have, in your statement, said that
5 you understood how the leadership thought. However, this exchange would
6 suggest that, at least with regard to Mr. Pasic, there is exhibited a
7 certain bias against having a Serb in that position in Knin. Is that
9 A. It's difficult for me to comment on a meeting that I did not
10 attend, because experience teaches me that there are many elements that
11 go into what people say at a particular time in a particular place. But
12 if you ask -- if you are asking me, I will be happy to answer that
13 question, and I will, of course, appreciate what the president said about
14 being brief.
15 Q. I take it you agree with me, then?
16 A. No. No, I don't agree with you.
17 President Tudjman was a man who wanted efficiency. The point
18 here is not that Mr. Pasic is a Serb; the point is that he was
19 inefficient, ineffective. And as at that time people spoke about others
20 in terms of Serb and Croat, it gives the impression that that's the main
21 thing here, which it isn't. The main point here is being able to -- to
22 achieve an effect in a certain area.
23 Q. Now, you don't mention in your statement anywhere about Mr. Pasic
24 being ineffective or inefficient or anything. You actually spend two
25 paragraphs of your statement praising him. Can you explain the absence
1 of your new evaluation on his inefficiency?
2 A. That was an assessment of why President Tudjman may have said
3 that, and I cannot judge Mr. Pasic's efficiency. I only spoke about the
4 position he found himself in and his psychological and moral traits
5 that -- as I saw them in my contacts with him and based on what I heard
6 from people, mostly ethnic Croats, who considered Mr. Pasic an honest
8 Q. So just to go back a little bit.
9 Despite what the president says in the transcript about an
10 exchange with -- with Dr. Radic saying is he no good, he should be
11 replaced, et cetera, the inefficiency, et cetera, that you attributed to
12 the statement, you're just speculating about that. You don't really
13 know, despite the words that are on the page. Is that fair?
14 A. I do not agree with the way you're putting it. I knew along
15 which lines he was thinking. There were many situations in the Croatian
16 political life when Mr. Tudjman accepted somebody efficient irrespective
17 of his or her ethnic background. And we are now speaking about a time
18 when it was necessary to react fast, and he decided based on the input he
19 received. There were elements of chaos, there was lack of control, and
20 President Tudjman simply wanted to replace the man in charge. That is
21 how I see it.
22 Q. At the time that you were there, August/September 1995, he wasn't
23 replaced, though, was he?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Do you remember Mr. Pasic at all during September 1995 being in
2 A. I did meet him occasionally, but never in an official meeting.
3 Q. Mr. Dodig, you said in your statement that you did not speak with
4 President Tudjman in the period leading up to Operation Storm, nor during
5 the period after Operation Storm. You did, however, mention that you had
6 conversations with President Tudjman during an earlier period of time in
7 his office in Zagreb
8 you're talking about, that these meetings were happening?
9 A. From the end of 1993, November to be more precise, up to roughly
10 May 1994. And, later, it happened occasionally at some social events or
11 at tennis matches.
12 Q. In the period leading up to Operation Storm, did you consider
13 yourself a confidant of the president?
14 A. I considered myself that throughout the period. But I also knew
15 that confidence is not sufficient to deal with all things in life. It
16 ask also necessary to know, to have knowledge about these things, and I
17 didn't consider myself a person who could be of assistance to
18 President Tudjman at the time, nor did he hold that opinion. I'm
19 speaking about military issues or other issues, because I know nothing
20 about military things.
21 Q. Moving away from military things for a second, correct me if I'm
22 wrong, Mr. Dodig, but in your statement you seem to base your
23 understanding of President Tudjman's position vis-a-vis Serbs by
24 reference to his -- his soul, which, according to you, apparently
25 revealed a more emotional man at first glance.
1 And my question, Mr. Dodig, is, whether during your interactions
2 with President Tudjman, you ever heard Serbs in Croatia referred to as a
3 threat or a strategic threat, or as a cancer.
4 A. No, never in such a way. It did happen that there was talk about
5 the problem of the Serbs and how the state can be consolidated. But
6 never were there -- there was anything pointing to a possible negative
7 attitude of President Tudjman toward the Serbs as an ethnic community.
8 When terms such as "cancer" were used, they didn't apply to all
9 Serbs but only those who impede the consolidation of Croatian statehood,
10 and certainly a much greater number of Serbs in Croatia then lived and
11 still live in towns where there was no imminent threat of war.
12 So we are -- I'm now speaking about territories where the
13 Croatian state had no control, and President Tudjman has a rational and
14 normal attitude toward the Serbian community in Croatia as an integral
15 part of the civic body or civil body of Croatia.
16 Q. But I am correct, you have heard the term "cancer" being applied
17 to at least some Serbs in Croatia
18 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President. This has come up --
19 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].
20 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me. I mean that question -- well, the
21 question's been answered but it's the context of any comment on that
22 regard that the Chamber has heard is extremely important --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
24 MR. KEHOE: -- and I just point to Dr. Zuzul's testimony on that
1 JUDGE ORIE: The witness, and to that extent I think Mr. Carrier
2 is right asking the witness, the witness explained to us what was meant
3 if the word "cancer" was used. Now therefore it is appropriate to ask
4 the witness when, as far as he knows, that word was used and in what
6 Could you give us an example of when the word "cancer" was used
7 in relation to Serbs?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was never present when such a
9 word was used, so whatever I say would be mere guessing.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please refrain from guessing in this
11 courtroom, to explain to us what the word "cancer" would have meant if
12 used in relation to Serbs where you were not present. Even if you were
13 not present, you can have knowledge about such an event, even without
14 being present, we would then like to know. But just to explain the
15 context of the use of the word "cancer" where you say you would be just
16 guessing, is not something that assists the Chamber.
17 Mr. Carrier, please proceed.
18 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Dodig, you said that you were never present when the term
20 "cancer" was used in relation to Serbs. Were you present during the
21 freedom train speech in Knin that President Tudjman gave on the
22 26th August 1995
23 A. No.
24 Q. Mr. Dodig, continuing on on President Tudjman's position on
25 Serbs, in your statement, you say that his position was to -- or in order
1 to encourage Serbs to start loving Croatia
2 that Serbs had to be given greater rights than other Croatian citizens,
3 and you call that positive discrimination.
4 Mr. Dodig, this Chamber has received evidence that
5 President Tudjman was openly advocating that Croatia should try to entice
6 Croats from abroad, places like Paraguay
8 re-populate the Krajina; and, at the same time, President Tudjman was
9 also expressing his view that the Serbs that had fled during the
10 operation should not be allowed to return home.
11 Mr. Dodig, my question for you is: Would you agree that
12 contemplating such differential treatment in terms of Croats versus Serbs
13 is very difficult to reconcile with your statement regarding
14 President Tudjman's views that Serbs were an integral part of Croatia
15 deserving of positive discrimination.
16 A. If you allow, I'll try to explain very briefly.
17 President Tudjman, with regard to populating Croatia, invited not
18 only Croats from the countries you mentioned to populate the Krajina but
19 also to go to the islands that are sparsely populated, to go to Lika, and
21 about 4 million, 4 and a half million.
22 President Tudjman said to me explicitly and used the term,
23 understanding the political significance of the Serbs in Croatia, their
24 historic role in the Croatian state, and the attitude of the world when
25 it comes to Serbs and Croatia
1 So he most certainly did not have a negative attitude toward
2 them. Whether he liked them or not isn't for me to speculate about. But
3 he wanted the Serbs in Croatia
4 part of that state, and in order -- or to enable them to feel that way in
5 this young country consolidating itself, he wanted to give them greater
6 rights than other citizens of Croatia
7 To mention an example, the voting right at elections.
8 Q. Mr. Dodig, can I just ask you about something you just said,
9 because I'm going to suggest to that you you're contradicting yourself.
10 You said -- in relation to President Tudjman:
11 "So he most certainly did not have a negative attitude towards
13 Meaning Serbs.
14 And then you go on to say:
15 "Whether he liked them or not isn't for me to speculate about."
16 Now, can you explain how those things, two statements can hang
17 together, because it seems that you, in fact, in the first sentence are
18 speculating, given your second sentence?
19 A. I apologise, but I disagree with you. You don't have -- you
20 don't need to have a positive attitude towards someone if -- only if you
21 like them, because liking somebody is an emotional category; whereas, a
22 positive attitude is a rational one.
23 Q. So is it fair to say you really don't have any knowledge of
24 President Tudjman's personal views on Serbs?
25 A. That cannot be said.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, would this assist the Chamber? The
2 witness is clearly explaining to us that whether you like someone or not
3 you can nevertheless take a positive approach to a person or a group, and
4 that you can treat someone fairly well even if you don't like him. Think
5 about doctors in hospital who would treat people they do not like at all
6 but treat them from a medical point of view in a perfect way.
7 Therefore, you are seeking apparently something I have
8 difficulties to follow.
9 There is another matter. You asked the witness, and that is how
10 this line of questioning apparently started, you asked the witness
11 whether the -- whether the differential treatment, as you put to the
12 witness, differential treatment, Croats versus Serbs, whether that is
13 difficult to reconcile with the statement of this witness regarding
14 President Tudjman's views that Serbs were an integral part of Croatia
15 Now the witness answered extensively that question but not really
16 because the answer came down to there -- I do not believe that there was
17 such a differential treatment. Whether to discuss the consistency of
18 certain views, if you disagree on what these views are, doesn't make that
19 such sense.
20 You see, apparently, inconsistency in what the witness says and
21 what you deduce from the testimony we've heard until now. The witness
22 clearly does not accept that that evidence reflects what actually was the
23 truth, and there it stops. And then to hear why he disagrees on a
24 factual basis on your question that we find already in his statement.
25 So the witness answer effectively is, I do not accept your
1 proposition that there's any evidence that could be believed which would
2 reflect such a differential treatment.
3 Let's leave it to that, because this Chamber will finally has to
4 determine whether or not there is credible evidence in relation to that.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Dodig, do you recall what date it was in August 1995 when you
8 first arrived in Knin?
9 A. I cannot say for certain, it was a few days after the liberation
10 of Knin.
11 Q. And in your statement, you -- you seem to indicate that you
12 arrived a few days before you attended the UN camp with General Cermak on
13 the 9th of August. So would it be fair to say it was some time around
14 the 7th of August or so? I mean, just to put it in a ballpark; I know
15 you can't be exact.
16 A. Yes, let's say it was around that time.
17 Q. And when you arrived Knin, in your statement you describe being
18 out on the street for one or two hours. And you report seeing a joyous
19 atmosphere, people crying with joy, not very many damaged buildings. You
20 do, however, note that there was much disorder. Specifically you say you
21 saw some garbage.
22 My question for you, Mr. Dodig, is, upon arriving in Knin and
23 over the course of the next few days, did you notice any of the following
24 things: Number one, a large number of HV members in the town?
25 A. A large number of persons in uniform, yes.
1 Q. What about damage caused by shelling to civilian structures?
2 A. I mostly walked down the main street in Knin, and there was no
3 severe damage there.
4 Q. Did you notice any evidence of looting by HV members?
5 A. No. I saw broken shop windows, but evidence of looting,
6 especially by Croatian soldiers, no.
7 Q. What about people in uniform, Croatian Army uniforms?
8 A. No. It -- it was day-time, and I didn't see anyone looting.
9 Q. Any evidence of arson?
10 A. Not in Knin itself. I had come from the direction of Drnis, and
11 I saw smoke from afar. But what was burning, whether it was hay or grass
12 or houses, I cannot tell.
13 Q. Mr. Dodig, this Chamber has received evidence that following
14 Operation Storm's shelling campaign, that the town of Knin itself over
15 the next few days had many HV soldiers present, that there were HV
16 members looting in Knin, that there was arson happening in Knin, and that
17 there were signs of destruction to civilian structures. In light of the
18 evidence before the Chamber on those points, are you able to explain how
19 it is that you didn't see any of those things?
20 A. I -- I'm certain that on main street, where I moved about, there
21 was no severe destruction, and it's hard for me to say whether there was
22 more destruction in some other parts of town where I didn't go.
23 Q. Mr. Dodig, I want to review a part of your statement with you.
24 Then I'm going to ask you some questions about it.
25 If I could direct your attention to paragraph 19 of your
1 statement, which is on page 11 in the English and 10 in the B/C/S.
2 Second half of that paragraph, you state:
3 "But that was a time when people from all parts of Croatia
4 and I think that is why things we did not want happened. I am sure that
5 they were not members of the Croatian Army, although they were wearing
6 uniforms, but everyone" -- sorry, "everybody was wearing a uniform at the
8 And then in the next paragraph, paragraph 20, you go on to state:
9 "In my opinion, Mr. Cermak did not know about the crimes either."
10 Mr. Dodig, your reference to "things we did not want to happen,"
11 do you mean crimes like arson and looting?
12 A. The statement I gave was based on my knowledge and the facts that
13 I learned during all these years since Operation Storm and not based on
14 what I knew at that time about the crimes, because, at that time, I knew
15 nothing. I only learned of them in the following years.
16 When I spoke -- or, rather, that I didn't speak to Mr. Cermak
17 about crimes because I didn't know about them, I -- I based that on fact
18 because I think that Mr. Cermak would have told me if he had known. So
19 it is natural not to speak about something you don't even know exists.
20 Q. Well, in your statement, in fairness, you didn't say you didn't
21 think General Cermak knew about the crimes either because he would have
22 told you about them had they been happening. You just say: "In my
23 opinion, Mr. Cermak did not know about the crimes either," which, again,
24 contradicts what you said, where you don't speak about things you don't
1 Are you saying you just don't know if General Cermak knew about
2 the crimes or are you guessing he didn't know?
3 A. I say that in my opinion he didn't know, because I suppose that
4 he would have shared it with me if he had known. But I didn't know of
5 the crimes at that time. I clearly said that I learned about them later.
6 And what does later mean. After five or six months, after a year or two,
7 I learned some facts, read the papers, et cetera, from which it follows
8 that there had been crimes. But, at the time we're speaking about, I
9 didn't know of any crimes. I have seen no dead bodies for me to start
10 wondering what happened, because there weren't any dead bodies where I
12 Q. Well, Mr. Dodig, would it surprise you, then, that General Cermak
13 himself has told Prosecution investigators that he was aware that members
14 of the HV had committed crimes during this period, which included
15 looting, burning, and killing. And you mentioned reading newspapers
16 later on, but even during this time, in September 1995, General Cermak
17 appeared in the media talking about crimes having been committed.
18 Does that surprise you at all?
19 A. No. Mr. Cermak is an honest man, and he said what he had found
20 out to be true.
21 When I talked to him during several visits to Knin, we discussed
22 these things, and he said nothing of the sort. So what you are saying
23 does not contradict what I say. Because, at that moment, he wasn't aware
24 of it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, you again now say, At that moment he
1 wasn't aware of it. Let's stick to the facts --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose. I suppose he didn't
3 know about it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I -- what you know is what you may have discussed
5 with Mr. Cermak. Let's avoid to draw conclusions. What you can say for
6 a fact is what you discussed. What he told you or whether there is any
7 other fact that would indicate such knowledge.
8 Let stick to the facts primarily and not draw conclusions,
9 because that creates most of the possible confusion.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. KAY: Your Honour, if I just may raise a matter, I hope the
12 Court finds it helpful. I think the speculation is inherent in the
13 nature of the question that was asked when he is asked to comment upon
14 something that was said on another occasion without any reference to time
15 or other matters. But it's -- it's inherent. I think it is almost
16 inviting a witness to speculate. If I was asking a question in that way,
17 I would anticipate that it would come in that form, that the witness
18 would comment on something that he wasn't a party to.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I to some extent agree with you, but, of
20 course, part of the basis for such questions - and perhaps it would be
21 wiser for Mr. Carrier not to be lured into that position - is in the
22 answers, is in the statement of the witness himself. He says, In my
23 opinion, I believe, et cetera, et cetera, and then, of course, we have
24 already a basis for getting confused, confused between what the witness
25 knows for a fact and what the witness believes, what the opinion of the
1 witness is.
2 Mr. Carrier, this is a witness of fact, and let's focus on that,
3 and perhaps it would be wise if the witness said, This is my opinion, you
4 can try to explore the factual based for such an opinion, as I just did,
5 and as I did before, rather than to discuss the accuracy of the opinion.
6 The opinion may be right, the opinion may be wrong. What we're
7 interested in are the knowledge of this witness of the facts, and on the
8 basis of those facts, the Chamber will draw the conclusions whether they
9 are the same, or whether they are different from the conclusions drawn by
10 this witness.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Dodig, is it fair to say that you had quite limited contact
14 with General Cermak during your time in Knin during August and
15 September 1995?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And, in fact, in your statement you said that during your time in
18 Knin, you only met with General Cermak three or four times and
19 specifically you mentioned the first meeting in his office when you
20 arrived; second meeting when you went to the UN camp with him on the
21 9th of August; and -- additionally you mentioned having gone to one
22 meeting that General Cermak had and addressed the people present.
23 Is that the sum total of your contact with him, or do you have
24 any other specific recollection of any other time you met with
25 General Cermak in Knin during the period?
1 A. I don't know if there's any point in mentioning that every time I
2 came, I went to greet him and that was all. There was no substantial
3 meeting at any time.
4 Q. So, just to be clear, you can't think of another time other than
5 those three examples I just gave you. Is that fair? Other than saying
6 when you came back to Knin on occasion, you'd greet him.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And when you left Knin during August and September 1995, how --
9 how long were you away? Was it for a day, or for a week?
10 A. I did not understand. Sorry.
11 Q. You said that when you came back to Knin you would greet him as
12 well. So "coming back" presumes that you left. And, in fact, I'm
13 putting it to you, you weren't in Knin the whole time. So I'm interested
14 in how many days you actually spent in Knin during August and
15 September 1995?
16 A. I cannot give you a precise answer in days, but I'm sure that I
17 went six or seven times to a refugee camp. I saw the refugee camp as the
18 focus of my work and I tried to resolve problems there, because I think
19 that was the only structured environment in which you could do anything
20 in an organised way.
21 Q. You didn't only just go to the refugee camp. You went to Zagreb
22 as well, didn't you, to attend cabinet meetings?
23 A. I did go back to Zagreb
24 to discuss that topic. There were current affairs that I had to deal
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, again, Mr. Carrier clearly seeks
2 information about presence and absence in Knin. You give us a tiny
3 little bit of information about -- you say, I went to a refugee camp. I
4 don't know whether that was 10 kilometres from Knin or 100 kilometres
5 from Knin, which could serve to better know for how long you were away.
6 You tell us about the importance of being in a refugee camp. Mr. Carrier
7 says, But you also went to Zagreb
8 importance of the meetings in Zagreb
9 What Mr. Carrier wants to know is, during this period of time,
10 how often and how long you were in Knin; and how often and how long you
11 were elsewhere. So if could you please focus your answer on what is
12 asked, rather than to deal with all kind of matters in which Mr. Carrier
13 has not yet showed any interest to be informed about.
14 So could you tell us, month of August, how often were you away,
15 and where was that camp.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to be as precise as I
17 can in my answer.
18 The refugee camp in Knin was located roughly 800 metres, one
19 kilometre from Knin so it was very, very close. My workplace was not --
20 JUDGE ORIE: So, in terms of returning to Knin, when you were in
21 the refugee camp, you were actually in Knin, perhaps not exactly in town
22 but within one kilometre.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes [In English] Exactly.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So Mr. Carrier started asking about when you say,
25 When I returned to Knin, the refugee camp was more or less in Knin.
1 How long did you stay there? A couple of hours, or one or more
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, from two to three, three
4 and a half hours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now Mr. Carrier apparently wants to know what
6 you meant when you said, When I returned to Knin, where you had been.
7 Now, did you include in that answer your absence for a couple of
8 hours, going to the refugee camp?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I spoke mostly to people in the
10 street. I know on two occasions I visited also the hospital --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Dodig.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because I --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, again, please try to understand what is
14 asked from you.
15 It was about meeting Mr. Cermak when you returned to Knin.
16 Now, did you refer to meeting Mr. Cermak when you had been in the
17 refugee camp; or did you refer to meeting Mr. Cermak when you had been in
19 That's what Mr. Carrier is interested to know.
20 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I think --
21 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].
22 MR. KAY: -- the actual question was -- because I was watching
23 this as there was a couple.
24 I'm interested in how many days you actually spent in Knin. I
25 think the question had departed from Mr. Cermak to how many days in -- in
1 Knin. I hope that assists Your Honour and --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but how many days you are in Knin is directly
3 related to how many days you're not in Knin.
4 And apparently the focus initially was on the frequency of
5 contacts with Mr. Cermak, which were described in terms of, When I
6 returned to Knin.
7 Mr. Carrier, is that what you --
8 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- sought information about.
10 Now let's try really strictly to stick to facts and preferably
11 the facts that you are asked about, and then if you know them, tell us;
12 if you don't know them, tell us as well.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Carrier.
14 MR. CARRIER:
15 Q. Mr. Dodig, during the months of August and September of 1995, how
16 many days did you spend in Knin itself; if you know?
17 A. I cannot be mathematically precise. I can say seven or eight
18 days. That's how many days I spent in Knin. When I say "day," I mean
19 from 9.00 a.m.
20 Q. And other than these seven days, where were you the rest of the
21 time during August and September 1995?
22 A. I was working in my workplace. I had annual leave and some other
23 things to attend to at the hospital where I was also working.
24 Q. And that's in Split
25 A. [In English] Yes. [Interpretation] Yes.
1 Q. So in your statement, all the observations and evaluations that
2 you make of General Cermak, his authority, what happens at the meetings,
3 whether or not he can issue orders, that's based on the few days that you
4 were in Knin up to seven days during August and September 1995.
5 Is that fair?
6 A. That was mainly in August. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. And because the refugee camp is basically in Knin, that you were
8 going to because you said that was your primary focus, I take it that
9 your visits to those -- to the refugee camp was happening during the
10 seven days that you were actually physically in Knin during August and
11 September 1995?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, in view of the statement of the
14 witness --
15 When you are talking about the refugee camp, what actually are
16 you talking about? Are you talking about the UN compound; or are you
17 talking about any other refugee camp?
18 Mr. Dodig, could you tell us --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The UN base.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. Then we know where it is. Then if
21 you would have used that word - and I'm not blaming for you for choosing
22 your own - then I would not have had to ask about the distance.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
25 Q. So in your statement you discuss having attended an open-door
1 meeting with General Cermak. Is it fair to say it's just one meeting
2 that you went to in that respect?
3 A. Sorry, but I have to say this. Very often terminological
4 differences create great problems. When I say meeting, I mean when I
5 came to Knin to call on Mr. Cermak. It was not a proper meeting.
6 Mr. Cermak was so busy, people were coming and going all the time.
7 That's why I called it open doors. It was so hectic that there was no
8 time, no opportunity for any meaningful conversation. Mr. Cermak was
9 often embarrassed that he had no more time to give me and talk to me
10 properly. He would just say a few sentences and say, I'm sorry about
11 this, but let's try to -- to do what needs to be done.
12 There was no meeting in the sense that there was an agenda,
13 people attending a proper discussion --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I suggest to you that when this was just a
15 brief encounter that you use the expression, I briefly saw him, and if
16 there was any meeting with an agenda, you would then that call that a
17 meeting so that we avoid confusion for the remaining time.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. CARRIER:
20 Q. So, Mr. Dodig, you are actually talking about a brief contact
21 with General Cermak when you say that you didn't notice any military
22 police or civilian police at -- isn't really a meeting but it's a brief
23 contact between you and General Cermak. Is that what you're talking
24 about in your statement?
25 A. Precisely.
1 Q. And is it fair to say, then, in your statement where you're
2 talking about General Cermak issuing orders to people, that relates also
3 to these periods of time when you're having brief contact with
4 General Cermak. You just don't see him during those brief contacts
5 issuing orders or anything like that?
6 A. Those were very brief moments, true. But even in those brief
7 moments, he would contact several people, to whom he would issue certain
8 instructions, I would say, rather than orders, as to what needs to be
10 Q. But you don't actually know whether or not General Cermak was
11 issuing orders to anybody. You don't actually have knowledge of that.
12 You're just talking about the brief interactions you had with him.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And is it the same when you say that you didn't think that
15 General Cermak understood military hierarchy or that he wasn't really a
16 member of the military. That was just based on your brief interactions
17 with him during those seven days that you spent in Knin, not on anything
19 Is that fair?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. And going back because it wasn't apparent in your statement, when
22 you talk about not seeing much destruction in Knin or looting or crimes
23 committed by HV, this is limited to the certain days obviously that were
24 in Knin, which you can't actually identify precisely, other than,
25 perhaps, the 9th of August, 1995?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is there any reason why you didn't actually make it clear in your
3 statement that you were only in Knin for seven days during August and
4 September 1995?
5 A. I did not know it mattered.
6 Q. And if I could just return to -- to something you said before.
7 When I raised the issue of having attended a cabinet in Zagreb, you said
8 that you had attended, is that right, you had attended cabinet meetings
9 during August and September 1995?
10 A. I attended meetings within the office that I was in charge of,
11 not cabinet meetings. There was one cabinet meeting held in Knin itself
12 where I was invited and I went. But did I not attend other cabinet
14 Q. At the cabinet meeting that you did attend, you said before that
15 you didn't talk about anything do with the issues in Knin. Is that fair?
16 Because I was confused by something you said there. I'll just try to
17 find it.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So I take it, then, you wouldn't have been -- your name wouldn't
20 be on a transcript during a cabinet meeting where you discuss four
21 different types of Serbs that remain in the Krajina in August 1995; where
22 you discuss certain problems; where you discuss the number of Serbs left
23 in the Krajina.
24 That doesn't ring a bell at all?
25 A. No.
1 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, I know it's slightly early, but this
2 is -- the next document is the one that we had trouble uploading and it's
3 the last thing I will be dealing with.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and may I take it that if we have a break of
5 25 minutes, that then the problem will be resolved?
6 MR. CARRIER: I would love to say yes, but let me just check.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. CARRIER: I'm being told yes, it will be.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're --
10 MR. CARRIER: I'm expressing a certain amount of doubt.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- already saving your position if it turns out not
12 to be the case.
13 That's the only document you still wanted to deal with?
14 MR. CARRIER: I may also have a few brief questions about the
15 first two I tried to use.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber wants to avoid that we come back
17 here and wait for another 10 or 15 minutes to find that the problems were
18 not resolved.
19 Could you -- we will have a break of 25 minutes and we'll resume
20 at ten minutes to 11.00. But if, for whatever reason, you'll not be able
21 to put on the screen what you want to put on the screen, we'd like to be
22 informed before we enter the courtroom.
23 We'll have a break, and we will resume at - I give you five more
24 minutes - five minutes to 11.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you even had more time, due to all kind
3 of other things Judges of this Chamber had to do during the break.
4 Apologies for the late start.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Mr. Registrar, could we please have document number 65 ter 7431
8 on the screen, please.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Dodig, what is going to appear on the front of you [sic]
10 is a document which are the minutes of the 260th Closed Session of the
11 Croatian government.
12 MR. CARRIER: And for Your Honours and my friends, there's only
13 six pages that have been translated into English and unfortunately it
14 wasn't the cover page, given the short turnaround time. But I'll suggest
15 what it says to Mr. Dodig and he can agree or disagree. That may be of
17 Q. But looking at the front page, Mr. Dodig, is that what it says,
18 that this is the 260th Closed Session of the Croatian government, and
19 then below that, it lists the date of the 23rd of August, 1995, and
20 starts to list the various participants in the session?
21 A. I guess that must be correct. I didn't attend that session.
22 Q. Well, perhaps we could just turn to the second page in B/C/S,
24 And if we go near the top. In the indented paragraph in bold at
25 the top, Mr. Dodig, your name is mentioned there, Dr. Dodig.
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Does that refresh your memory about a session that started at
3 11.05 a.m.
4 attended that meeting?
5 A. I did. If it says here, then I did.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, it's only five lines back that you said
7 that you didn't attend that meeting. Could I ask to you very carefully
8 think about the answers you are giving. I do understand that you
9 focussed on what you saw on the cover sheet. But if you rely on any
10 document to -- when giving your answer, would you -- and that was more or
11 less what I found to you say; that is, that since your name was not
12 there, you must not have attended that meeting, whereas on the second
13 page you saw your name and said, Well, then I must have been there.
14 That we know exactly what are conclusions based upon reading
15 documents and what is your own recollection.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. CARRIER: Thank you.
18 And, Mr. Registrar, if we could turn to page 14 in the B/C/S,
19 please, and remaining on page 1 in the English.
20 Q. You see at the top of the page, Mr. Dodig, your name appears and
21 I'm suggesting to that the reason that is, is because it indicates that
22 you're the one speaking here, because these were recorded meetings that
23 had been transcribed.
24 And if we look at -- in the English version halfway down where it
25 begins with the words, "Of course" - this is you speaking - which, again,
1 in Croatian is also halfway down the page. It basically corresponds and
2 beginning with the word -- I'll mispronounce it but it is "dakako."
3 In this section, Mr. Dodig, of the minutes, you're talking and
4 you're actually talking about that you're concluding that there is four
5 categories of people, that is Serbs that remained in the liberated areas
6 after Operation Storm, and you give us a breakdown of what those groups
7 consist of. One is those that remained in the villages and hamlets. The
8 next are Serbs that were the UNCRO barracks in Knin. Then you talk about
9 the Serbs that are in collection or investigation centres, which is the
10 third category. The fourth is in Western Slavonia, which finishes off at
11 the bottom of the page in English.
12 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Mr. President, I have an inquiry.
13 I'm sorry, counsel, go ahead.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kehoe.
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I -- I look at this document with the
16 65 ter number, and I look at this transcript with my colleague,
17 Mr. Misetic, and I don't want to speak for my other colleagues but --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it a matter you're raising at this moment
19 that can be raised in the presence of the witness? I don't know what's
21 MR. KEHOE: Yes. Yes, it can be. It has to do with disclosure
22 under Rule 68 subdivision (2) of all relevant information, and it appears
23 to us collectively that we have never seen this document before, albeit
24 it clearly falls into Rule 68 subdivision (2) as relevant matter. And
25 the question I ask my learned friend across the well is why it has not
1 been disclosed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the first question is whether it has been
3 disclosed --
4 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- and then if not, why not.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, my apologies. My apologies. I took a look with
7 Mr. Misetic and my Case Manager, Ms. Katalinic, and we don't have it
8 disclosed. Now I can --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that the basis for you is that
10 you have no knowledge of any disclosure, so we first seek to verify that.
11 And then if there was no disclosure we'll try to find out what the
12 reasons were.
13 Mr. Kay.
14 MR. KAY: For our part, Your Honour, this has not been disclosed.
15 This witness has been on our witness list for some considerable time, on
16 the 65 ter list and then as a scheduled witness. There is supposed to
17 have been Rule 68 disclosure in this case. We have made a number of
18 complaints on several occasions about that failing to take place, but I
19 have been able to track a very important reference to my client in this
20 document that I read as being totally exculpatory on an important issue
21 in this case. I am very, very concerned.
22 What is happening here is a document is being sprung up into
23 court. This witness is asked whether he can remember something or not
24 15 years ago. He is then asked questions. He's then said, Ah, here is
25 your name, so you must have been there. He has got to read the document.
1 He should have been able to read this document whilst we were
2 interviewing him and confirming his 92 ter statement as one of those
3 documents that might be relevant in the case --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, I'm stopping you. Let's first try to
5 establish whether there is agreement about the non-disclosure so that we
6 have that for a fact before we continue.
7 MR. KAY: It is not on the EDS.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
9 MR. CARRIER: On the issue of disclosure, it was disclosed under
10 the RFA 750 in March 2008. It was disclosed on March 6th, 2008, on a CD.
11 ERN range 0614-2565-0614-3142.
12 And if I could perhaps address the other issues --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have a few matters. First, whether it was
14 disclosed. I would invite -- there seems to be disagreement about
15 whether it was disclosed, yes or no. So, therefore, it needs to be
16 verified whether it was disclosed.
17 The second issue is whether it was disclosed specifically also
18 under Rule 68 (i), that is, disclosed as exculpatory material, or whether
19 it was just disclosed in the EDS system. From your answer, I did not
20 understand, Mr. Carrier, that it was specifically disclosed as
21 exculpatory material, which raises another matter, which is whether it is
22 exculpatory material; therefore, we'd have to rely on what Mr. Kay found
23 to be of an exculpatory nature.
24 These are the issues I think we're dealing with at this moment.
25 How we will proceed in verifying whether it was disclosed or not,
1 Mr. Carrier now gave further details about disclosure.
2 Could -- is there a possibility that you verify that right away
3 or should we give you an opportunity first to --
4 MR. KAY: The machines are grinding as we speak, Your Honour, to
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, like our brains, Mr. Kay, yes.
7 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
9 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, just one last comment on this with
10 regard to the disclosure, and we are checking these -- this range, but we
11 also ask whether or not it has been -- it was disclosed in English, as
12 the OTP is required to do.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, in what language was it disclosed? In
14 view of the fact that you were still working on the translations, it
15 might not have been already March 2008.
16 MR. CARRIER: My understanding is it was disclosed in B/C/S,
17 hence the fact that we're waiting for the translation today.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are waiting for the translation since
19 March or?
20 MR. CARRIER: No, no, my understanding is that there's not a
21 rule that requires it to be disclosed in English, that it just be
23 JUDGE ORIE: Rule 68 (ii) you'd say doesn't need to be
24 translated --
25 MR. CARRIER: No, if I could --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- however exculpatory material.
2 MR. CARRIER: No. It had not actually been identified under
3 Rule 68 and the reason is -- if I could just explain a bit of the
5 Initially it was just that Mr. Dodig's name appeared in the body
6 of the document. I didn't -- I don't speak B/C/S, nor do I read it, so I
7 had to wait to figure out what it was, what it said. Obviously this was
8 happening -- well, perhaps not obviously, but this was happening on
9 Monday when I was reviewing the ISU search. Not knowing exactly what it
10 said, we were told at 4.30 p.m.
11 to the next day, and so that's part of the reason why it hadn't actually
12 been properly looked at in that context yet.
13 And so --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are two different issues. The first is
15 what explains the period of time between March and September; and the
16 seconds issue, which seems to be a smaller issue, is whether we would
17 hear the testimony of Mr. Dodig on Wednesday or on Friday. The first
18 cover six months; the other covers two days.
19 MR. CARRIER: It is actually longer than six months. It was
21 JUDGE ORIE: 2008.
22 MR. CARRIER: In March, so ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's 18 months, then, yes.
24 MR. CARRIER: But as I said, it was disclosed in B/C/S on
25 March 6th --
1 JUDGE ORIE: So you would say a search on the name of the
2 witness, even in B/C/S, would have at least been an indication of
3 relevance of this document in relation to this witness?
4 Is that --
5 MR. CARRIER: Potentially. If -- sometimes, I mean, these
6 searches happen, I'm sure Your Honour's aware, where names come up.
7 There's not even the same name or it might have absolutely no
8 significance whatsoever.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. CARRIER: Hundreds of documents turned up with Mr. Dodig --
11 Dr. Dodig's name on them, in relation to his medical practice. It had
12 absolutely nothing to do with it. So it's a matter of slowly manually
13 going through them and that was what was happening, so ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Kuzmanovic.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, thank you. I would like to add,
16 out of the 84 documents that are listed on the cross-examination document
17 list, this one is not among them.
18 MR. CARRIER: If I could respond to that. I actually said that
19 this morning, that this one was --
20 JUDGE ORIE: You said that there was one document still waiting
21 for translation --
22 MR. CARRIER: And this is it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- and that was this document.
24 MR. KAY: Your Honour, on the disclosure issue, I'm informed that
25 it's now been tracked in a 577-page document in Croatian, with no
1 description of the nature of the document.
2 This doesn't solely concern Mr. Dodig's name. Mr. Cermak's name
3 is mentioned and that is what I'm particularly concerned with, because
4 there is a reference there by this witness to him of an important nature,
5 which is exculpatory, and my learned friend will know that, and he has
6 reviewed this document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then one of the things that then arises is
8 that if there is a late disclosure issue, that disclosure should,
9 according to the Rules, also be disclosure to the Chamber.
10 Now, that sometimes would be unfavourable for the party who
11 suffered under the late disclosure. However, since this appears to be
12 exculpatory material, there, I think, the basis for this Rule - that is,
13 that the Chamber is informed as soon as possible what exculpatory
14 material was not disclosed to the Defence - would apply.
15 Let me just confer with my colleagues for a second.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kay, is there anything --
20 MR. KAY: To update Your Honour, because the grinding wheels have
21 produced a further piece of information.
22 The document itself wasn't disclosed. It was in a spreadsheet.
23 The document itself is not in the EDS, so it's in a spreadsheet with
24 other material.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's in kind of an index, but not -- and what
1 description is found in the --
2 MR. KAY: Just RFA 750.
3 MR. CARRIER: If I could just clarify one thing. To go back to
4 what I was saying before. It was disclosed in a CD.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first --
6 Mr. Dodig, I am aware that you are more or less the victim of
7 this procedural issue. I hope that you will have understanding for the
8 fact that the Chamber has to deal with these matters before we can
9 continue and even before we decide whether we continue or not.
10 So, I take it that I'm talking on behalf of Chamber and the
11 parties, that we apologise for the inconvenience.
12 Mr. Carrier.
13 MR. CARRIER: I apologise, I think perhaps it didn't show up in
14 the transfer. It may have gotten cut off, but we disclosed it on a CD on
15 March 6th, 2008
16 to read out the part, the one reference to General Cermak if that's what
17 he is referring to as exculpatory. I don't if that's going to assist
18 or ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, you have raised the exculpatory aspect of
20 this late disclosure. And, of course, the Chamber is not informed about
21 what it says about Mr. Cermak. So I -- Mr. Carrier now suggests that he
22 would read that portion. I don't know whether you would agree or whether
23 you would propose another approach to that aspect.
24 MR. KAY: That's certainly helps me on this issue. And just for
25 the context, it's this witness mentioning the fact that -- that can be
1 read out by Mr. Carrier.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So you would not oppose --
3 MR. KAY: No.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- to take this approach.
5 Mr. Carrier, you're invited to read the portion which you, as I
6 now understand, correctly understood to be referred to by the Cermak
7 Defence as being of an exculpatory character.
8 MR. CARRIER: Well, just to be fair, it's where Mr. Cermak's name
9 appears. And maybe I could just make sure that I'm not on the wrong
11 But page 3, is that --
12 MR. KAY: Yes.
13 MR. CARRIER: Oh.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it seems that you agree at least on this issue.
15 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please read it.
17 MR. CARRIER: If I can see his name. Perhaps I can give a little
18 bit of context --
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. If you would first please read it, because you
20 agreed on -- and Mr. Kay agreed on reading. Before we end up in a debate
21 on whether the context you are giving is right or wrong, let's just first
22 listen to what is reported to have been said.
23 MR. CARRIER: "On the other hand, there is General" --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Who is speaking?
25 MR. CARRIER: This is Mr. Dodig.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig speaking, yes.
2 MR. CARRIER: "On the other hand, there is General Cermak's
3 positive wish to resolve there as soon as possible, and, on the other
4 side, within the barracks themselves, there is a tendency to let all
5 those who wanted to leave, to leave; therefore, those from UNCRO barracks
6 and avoid the possibility of whatever."
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take it that this refers to who could or
8 who could not leave the UNCRO barracks, and that that is a matter
9 Mr. Cermak wanted to resolve.
10 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. And also the issue of leaving,
11 people leaving --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. KAY: -- is highly relevant. And --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
15 MR. KAY: -- because of the issue of the JCE, joint criminal
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that.
18 Well, at least we have now factual information of the exculpatory
19 nature, and I take it that, in this respect, disclosure to the Chamber by
20 reading that portion, at least was done, although not completely with the
21 whole of the document. But the purpose, of course, of disclosing late
22 disclosure material to the Chamber as well is to enable the Chamber to
23 form an opinion about the effect of the late disclosure for the party who
24 suffered under the late disclosure.
25 MR. KAY: I'm grateful for Your Honours' help.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now -- so we are now there, that Mr. Carrier says
2 that the document has been disclosed on a CD and that the existence of
3 this document as a product of a Request for Assistance has been -- has
4 been disclosed in the EDS. That's where we stand, the reference not
5 being very precise, but, apparently, listing, This is what we received,
6 material received as a result of a Request for Assistance, and then it
7 being disclosed on a CD-ROM.
8 Is there any -- I just first try to establish what has happened.
9 Any comments on the factual part of what I just said?
10 MR. KEHOE: I -- my only response to Mr. Carrier's comment is
11 that we do not have this 577-page document. At minimum, of course, we
12 would like the document. I think that we have been pretty careful
13 tracking the documents but we do not have this document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, is it your position that you say,
15 Can't find it at this moment, or is it your position it was never
16 disclosed on the CD-ROM?
17 MR. KEHOE: My records reflect that it was not disclosed on a
18 CD-ROM to the Gotovina Defence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The other parties.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: It is the same position with Markac Defence, as I
21 have been instructed.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, has the Cermak Defence received such a
23 disclosure on a CD-ROM.
24 MR. KAY: Well, our searches so far have shown nothing coming up.
25 We are also referring this elsewhere, I won't say in our empire but
1 within our organisation, for them to try and see if it is in other parts
2 of the database. But there's nothing shown so far.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, the parties disagree on the
4 factual issue, whether anything more was disclosed than a rather general
5 reference to material received as a result of a Request for Assistance.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the consequences, once we
8 have established what factually took place, in terms of disclosure.
9 The Chamber finds no reason at this moment to stop Mr. Carrier
10 from asking questions to the witness; but the Chamber explicitly wants to
11 leave it open as to what facilities should be granted to the Defence for
12 re-examination, or cross-examination, in view of this new material.
13 The Chamber also will, unless, up to the moment that we have
14 finally made up our mind as to how to proceed on the longer term, will
15 MFI whatever document is tendered at this moment.
16 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 I think in fairness to the witness he should at least be allowed
19 to get a copy of it and read it before any questions are asked about it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be fair.
21 That's six pages, Mr. Carrier, if I understood you well, six
22 pages that were translated?
23 MR. CARRIER: Six pages translated, but I think the document
24 itself might be in the order of 54 pages.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you -- I mean, we'll not hear anything
1 from any of the other pages. Of course, we could ask the witness to
2 browse through them. I don't know whether it refreshes his recollection
3 and what the relevance of the other portions are.
4 But I would like to hear from the parties whether we should give
5 the witness time for 50 pages, or time for six pages, or anything in
7 I would think that for six pages, that 15 to 20 minutes would do.
8 What I suggest is that we would give the witness 30 minutes, to start
10 MR. KAY: Your Honour, it seems to me, by the nature of the
11 document, having been able to read it now, he will be able to deal with
12 questions on it within this passage of six pages, I should expect that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Even without having -- but having it read first.
14 MR. KAY: Yes. He needs to read it obviously but --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then --
16 MR. KAY: -- he can see what he said, and that will assist him.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And therefore you would say --
18 MR. KAY: If he wants to --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- that some 15 minutes would do.
20 MR. KAY: Yes. And if he wants to see wider, it obviously should
21 be open for him to request that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. KEHOE: Just --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
25 MR. KEHOE: I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. President, just as a final point
1 in this matter, we would reiterate our ore tenus motion under Rule 65 ter
2 for disclosure of these 577 documents, to see if there's anything else in
3 there that -- above and beyond what we're dealing with now.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
5 MR. CARRIER: I have been advised it has already been brought
6 down on a CD, I think or -- sorry.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. CARRIER: They'll disclose the CD this afternoon. They're
9 bringing down a copy of the document for the witness now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a hard copy of the whole of the document?
11 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And then would the witness know which six pages
13 require his attention first?
14 MR. CARRIER: Where his name appears is him speaking.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
16 MR. CARRIER: It's 14 to presumably 20, or 19.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you would please -- Mr. Dodig, we will
18 give you an opportunity to read what is considered by the parties at this
19 moment to be the most relevant portion of this document.
20 Pages 14 to 20 in B/C/S, Mr. Carrier?
21 MR. CARRIER: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So would you please first read pages 14 to 20
23 in your own language. We'll give you some additional time so that you
24 can have a glance on the other pages, but I understand that at least the
25 Prosecution will not put any questions to you in relation to those other
2 Mr. Kay, in view of questions you may have for the witness, would
3 you invite him to read page 3 as well?
4 MR. KAY: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: For the context.
6 MR. KAY: [Microphone not activated] I have just seen the six
7 pages and it -- that -- that page is within that, so he will see that.
8 Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now let's me just ...
10 I think reference was made to page 3 out of the six.
11 MR. KAY: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Out of the six. Now I understand better.
13 Mr. Dodig, you're invited to first focus on pages 14 to 20 of
14 that document, and then just perhaps skip through the other pages, to the
15 extent you consider it useful, but, as far as it stands now, no questions
16 will be asked about the other portions of the document.
17 Now, I'm looking at the clock. We could take now an early break
18 and then continue.
19 Let me just check with Mr. Registrar.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, you will be provided with a hard copy of
22 this document. I invite you to read those pages. And, meanwhile, we'll
23 deal with a few procedural matters.
24 Madam Usher, would you please escort Mr. Dodig out of the
1 May I take it that the logistics for Mr. Dodig to receive the
2 hard copy are in place?
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to briefly deal with a few matters and
5 perhaps before we deal with the practical aspects of it, perhaps I should
6 deliver the two decisions on video-conference link and on protective
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps -- the decisions I wanted to deliver are the
10 decisions of the Chamber in relation to witness IC-1 and IC-2 and these
11 discussions are relevant for the practical arrangements to be made in
12 relation to the scheduling of next week.
13 If I understand the results of your conversations well, an
14 alternative solution would have been to hear the testimony of
15 Witness IC-1 and IC-2 through videolink next week, Wednesday and
17 MR. KAY: Correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the decisions I wanted to read, and I don't
19 know whether we find time to read them in its entirety, but the Chamber
20 has decided to grant the requests for videolink, so that hurdle doesn't
21 exist anymore.
22 Now, I also inform the parties that, at this very moment,
23 everyone is working hard to see whether this can be done, so there is no
24 problem in accepting the idea, but the practicalities are rather complex,
25 because there are competing videolinks on these same dates scheduled,
1 which requires that both the Victims and Witness Section and Court
2 Management Services have to consider whether they have staff available to
3 do this all at the same time, or to re-schedule the court schedule either
4 for this Chamber or for the other Chambers which want to use a videolink
6 So that is a rather complex, practical problem at this moment.
7 It seems that nothing opposes adopting the suggested solution, if that
8 can be done. That's the main problem at this moment.
9 I can't give you any results yet. We have to wait until all
10 those involved have -- have made their efforts to see whether this
11 suggested videolink can fit into the programme.
12 Any comments in this respect? If not, then I'd like now to read
13 the two decisions. We would then have a break, and that would give
14 additional time for Mr. Dodig, and even if you don't want to listen to
15 the decisions, but, rather, spent consulting people out of this courtroom
16 elsewhere, the Chamber would fully understand that. And then, at least,
17 we have had some additional time to prepare for what will happen after
18 the break.
19 I start with a decision on protective measures and a
20 video-conference link for Witness IC-1.
21 On the 14th of September, 2009, the Cermak Defence filed a motion
22 requesting the trial-related protective measures of face and voice
23 distortion and pseudonym for Witness IC-1. The Cermak Defence also
24 requested that the evidence of Witness IC-1 be given via video-conference
1 On the 17th of September, 2009, the Prosecution filed its
2 response, indicating that it did not object to either of the requests.
3 The Gotovina Defence and the Markac Defence did not respond.
4 The Chamber will first address the request for protective
6 As has been held in previous decisions, the party seeking
7 protective measures must demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the
8 security or welfare of the witness or the witness's family, should it
9 become known that the witness has given evidence before the Tribunal. As
10 the Chamber set out in its recent decision on protective measures for
11 Witness 13 on the 8th of June, 2009, it should be considered that even
12 though the granting of protective measures is, and should be, the
13 exception to the rule of a public trial, the threshold for when it should
14 be granted cannot be set too high. For example, to exclude persons who
15 have not experienced threats or harassment would defy the purpose of the
16 measures; namely, protection from risks that might occur as a result of
17 the testimony.
18 Witness IC-1 is a Croatian Serb currently residing with his
19 family in Croatia
20 as he believes his testimony could cause hostile reactions in the Serb
21 community -- Serb community of his home town. The witness is expected to
22 testify about how the Croatian authorities treated him after
23 Operation Storm. Recently, the witness learned of threats and harassment
24 directed against another Defence witness, a Serb living in the same town,
25 also testifying in this case and on similar events. This person has
1 already been granted protective measures by the Chamber. Although
2 Witness IC-1 has not experienced any threats directed against him or his
3 family, the Chamber considers that there's a risk that his testimony may
4 antagonise persons in his immediate surroundings, and that he therefore
5 might suffer similar threats or harassment as the witness referred to
7 For these reasons, the Chamber finds that the Cermak Defence has
8 demonstrated an objectively grounded risk as to the security and welfare
9 of Witness IC-1, should it become known that he has given evidence before
10 this Tribunal. The Chamber therefore grants the protective measures of
11 face and voice distortion and pseudonym. Even though not requested by
12 the Cermak Defence, the Chamber further grants private session for
13 portions of the testimony that could reveal the witness identity.
14 The Chamber will now address the request for testimony via
15 video-conference link. According to Rule 81 bis of the Tribunal's Rules
16 of Procedure and Evidence, a Chamber may order that the proceedings be
17 conducted by way of video-conference link if it is consistent with the
18 interests of justice. This standard is met, if, first, the witness is
19 unable or has good reasons to be unwilling to come to the seat of the
20 Tribunal; second, the witness's testimony is sufficiently important to
21 make it unfair to the requesting party to proceed without it; and, third,
22 the accused are not prejudiced in the exercise of their rights to
23 confront the witness.
24 The witness, who is 79 years old, has informed the Cermak Defence
25 that he suffers from a serious form of a heart arrythmia and colon
1 cancer. The witness recently had an operation and is currently
2 undergoing treatment which further aggravates his condition. Although no
3 confirming medical records have been presented, and in the absence of
4 objections from the Prosecution and the other parties, the Chamber is
5 satisfied that the witness's advanced age and physical condition render
6 him unable to travel to the Tribunal to testify.
7 Having been notified about the substance of the witness's
8 anticipated testimony, the Chamber is further satisfied that it is
9 sufficiently important to make it unfair for the Cermak Defence to
10 proceed without it.
11 Finally, the Chamber finds that neither party is prejudiced in
12 the exercise of their right to confront Witness IC-1, if the witness
13 appears via video-conference link. The parties, none of whom objected to
14 the motion, will all be provided the opportunity to cross-examine the
16 Therefore, the Chamber finds that it is consistent with the
17 interests of justice to grant the Cermak Defence's request to hear
18 Witness IC-1's testimony via video-conference and grants the request,
19 pursuant to Rule 81 bis.
20 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on protective measures
21 and proceedings via video-conference for Witness IC-1.
22 I now move on to the delivery of the Chamber's decision on the
23 Cermak Defence's motion for video-conference link for Witness IC-2.
24 On 14th of September, the Cermak Defence filed a motion
25 requesting that the evidence of Witness IC-2 be given via
1 video-conference link.
2 On the 28th of September, 2009, the Prosecution filed its
3 response indicating that it did not object to the request. The
4 Gotovina Defence and the Markac Defence did not respond.
5 According to Rule 81 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and
6 Evidence, a Chamber may order that the proceedings be conducted by way of
7 video-conference link if it is consistent with the interests of justice.
8 This standard is met, if, first, the witness is unable or has good
9 reasons to be unwilling to come to the seat of this Tribunal; second, the
10 witness's testimony is sufficiently important to make it unfair to the
11 requesting party to proceed without it; and, third, the accused are not
12 prejudiced in the exercise of their rights to confront the witness.
13 Witness IC-2 is 83 years old. The Cermak Defence has submitted
14 that his health is frail and that he suffers from asthma. Recently the
15 witness was treated at the local hospital. His doctor told a member of
16 the Cermak Defence that the witness's present condition was caused by
17 stress relating to threats he received in connection to his testimony
18 before the Tribunal. Although no confirming medical records have been
19 presented, and in the absence of objections from the Prosecution and the
20 other parties, the Chamber is satisfied that the witness's advanced age
21 and physical condition render him unable to travel to the Tribunal to
23 Having been notified about the substance of the witness's
24 anticipated testimony, the Chamber is further satisfied that it is
25 sufficiently important as to make it unfair for the Cermak Defence to
1 proceed without it.
2 Finally, the Chamber finds that neither party is prejudiced in
3 the exercise of their right to confront Witness IC-2, if the witness
4 appears via video-conference link. The parties, none of whom objected to
5 the motion, will all be provided with the opportunity to cross-examine
6 the witness.
7 Consequently, the Chamber finds that it is consistent with the
8 interests of justice to grant the Cermak Defence's request to hear
9 Witness IC-2's testimony via video-conference link and therefore grants
10 the motion, pursuant to Rule 81 bis.
11 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on proceedings via
12 video-conference link for Witness IC-2.
13 Looking at the clock, and assuming that we would resume at a
14 quarter past 12.00, would we conclude the testimony of Mr. Dodig's
15 testimony today? And I'm aware of uncertainties that may have been
16 caused by the most recent developments, I would say disclosure
18 Mr. Kehoe, you're already on your feet before I put the question,
19 but I don't know whether there was anything you would like to raise or
20 that you wanted to --
21 MR. KEHOE: It -- it goes back to our discussion previously. We
22 have been continuing to look through evidence in the case concerning this
23 transcript of 8/23/1995
24 the Chamber that it is this -- not the 577 but this particular transcript
25 is in evidence already at D426. And we, in fact, obtained it from
1 another source and put it into evidence. So ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: So --
3 MR. KEHOE: We did not get it from the OTP, but we did in fact
4 put it into evidence, and I just want to inform the Chamber that --
5 because we have continued since our discussion on this to go back through
6 and see what we have and don't have.
7 If Your Honour pulls up D426 and turns to page 9, I think it is
8 the -- the pertinent section is there, 8 and 9.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least D426 is described as transcript of
10 Government of Croatia
11 look at the translation.
12 Yes. It would even have prevented the witness from saying that,
13 on the first page, not seeing his name, that he had not attended because,
14 of course, this translation appears to be a -- one that was produced
16 Now, this Chamber fully understands the problems the parties may
17 have with managing the huge number of documents, disclosed documents,
18 documents in evidence; full understanding for that.
19 The Chamber would also fully understand if the parties would
20 conclude from these problems that before blaming others for not having
21 fulfilled their duties, and, Mr. Carrier, you must be very happy that you
22 had already -- that there was no further obligation for you to fulfil,
23 that it's like, I think, Mr. Jordan
24 Moliere, who says, I wasn't aware that I had spoken -- and then he uses a
25 term of not poetry but another type of language. I wasn't aware that I
1 had done this for all of my life, so you may not have been aware that
2 there was no disclosure issue at all and that already it was on the
4 It teaches us that what I tried to do, as a matter of fact,
5 earlier today, to first focus on factual, to establish what are the
6 facts, and only once we know that the facts are such that they justify
7 some emotion - perhaps not always to the extent we let it go - but that
8 we first focus on the facts, and that we then only start time -- spending
9 time on --
10 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- heated debates on matters which finally turn out
12 to be not necessary at all. Nevertheless, Mr. Kehoe, you have certainly
13 assisted in avoiding that even more time is lost on the matter and the
14 Chamber appreciates that highly.
15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I don't want to take this any further
16 making this disclosure, but it still does not eliminate -- the one issue
17 for us is that we haven't received the 577 documents that we want to
18 see -- or pages, whatever it is, and we want to see what's in that
20 We -- this particular document came from another source, not from
21 the Office of the Prosecutor --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, I do understand that your request to have
23 access to the 577 pages still exists.
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. Mr. Carrier, I take it that you will
1 accommodate Mr. Kehoe, who helped us so -- and helped you so well out.
2 MR. CARRIER: Yes. And for my part, if, obviously, you wave a
3 red flag at a bull, you should except to perhaps have it rush at you. So
4 I take no offence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Many red flags, many red flags today.
6 We'll have a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.25 p.m.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, did you have a chance to read the
11 relevant pages?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, please proceed.
14 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 If we could have Exhibit D426 on the screen, please. And I'll do
16 my best to work from that, because that is already in evidence.
17 If we could turn to page 9 in the English, please. Or perhaps
18 actually if we could turn to page 8 first, and page 14 in the B/C/S.
19 Q. Mr. Dodig, you can see this is the document that you had a chance
20 to look at. Your name appears at the top.
21 I take it, having had a chance to review this now, are you -- are
22 you in a position to change your mind with regard to something I asked
23 you before, that you actually went to a cabinet meeting, that you talked
24 about four different categories of Serbs left in the Krajina, that you
25 discussed certain problems, and that you also discussed the number of
1 Serbs that remained in the Krajina, now that you've had a chance to look
2 at it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So was it just that you forgot that you had done that or can you
5 explain how it is that you -- first off that you --
6 A. What do you mean?
7 Q. Well, Mr. Dodig, you were asked a very specific question. First,
8 whether you had attended the cabinet meeting; and you said first no, and
9 then you said yes, you had. Then you were asked explicitly whether or
10 not you discussed certain things; you said no. Can you -- I'm just
11 wondering if you can explain. Is it just lack of memory about certain
12 events that happened or ...
13 A. I admit that I have been imprecise, sir, but so have you. We are
14 talking here about a cabinet meeting and not an office meeting. I do not
15 remember everything that happened 15 years ago, and if there are certain
16 imprecisions, then, I will do my best to -- to reconstruct what has
17 happened. And I will certainly speak only the truth.
18 MR. CARRIER: And, Mr. Registrar, if we could turn to page 9 in
19 the English version, which -- which is page 15, I believe, in the B/C/S
21 Q. Now, Mr. Dodig, on this page in English, halfway down, where you
22 talk about specific problems in relation to the UNCRO barracks in Knin,
23 you are describing a situation which I'm going to put to you sounds
24 problematic. In fact, you say that there's wounded people there, and the
25 overall situation at the point referred to as the hospital is problematic
1 from the point of view of health care.
2 And then you go on about providing beds for some adults and some
3 childrens -- for some children.
4 I'm asking you if you can explain those comments in the cabinet
5 meeting, in relation to the statement you gave, where you say, at
6 paragraph 16, that after a few visits to the UNCRO camp, you say that the
7 situation was completely calm and that none of the people showed any
8 interest in talking to you, and before that you describe basically a
9 medical situation that isn't problematic at all.
10 Can you explain why it is that the cabinet meeting reflects a
11 different interpretation of the events?
12 A. I cannot remember how much I spoke at the cabinet meeting and how
13 it was translated, about things that happened or about the situation as
14 it was at the time. But, certainly, my visit to the UNCRO refugee camp,
15 as we called it, was such that I detected the situation, I established
16 what it was like, and -- at the humanitarian and why not say political
17 level, and what I said here is a result of a -- this information that I
19 And on the following day, we sent a truckload of medical items to
20 Knin. I knew what the general policy was and what -- how we should
21 behave in such situations. And my interpretation of the situation, as it
22 was, and even at the cabinet meeting where I spoke about the four
23 categories of Serbs, these are my arbitrary -- this is my arbitrary
24 classification. It's not based on any expert finds or scientific
1 I focussed on this because there were a great many problems. The
2 people were disinterested because they had received what they wanted, and
3 later on, it all depended on their own decisions, whether they would
4 leave camp together in any direction -- well, some of them later did go
5 abroad. And when I look at this report and when I see how we spoke and
6 when I see the reactions in the cabinet, I'm still proud of what we did,
7 because we didn't see them as enemies but as people who needed help.
8 So I do not know what exactly to answer to you. Do ask me more
9 precisely, if you want.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, would you please focus your answer on
11 what is asked.
12 But, apparently, Mr. Carrier, Mr. Dodig has difficulties, so
13 could you please focus his attention to what you would like to know.
14 MR. CARRIER:
15 Q. Basically I just wanted to know, Mr. Dodig, why is it different
16 in terms of what you are saying in the cabinet versus what you say in
17 your statement. That's all I want to know on that -- on that point.
18 A. I would ask you to point out these essential differences to me.
19 Q. I'll take that answer as you don't see any essential differences
20 and I will move on.
21 On page 16 of your statement, halfway down that paragraph, and
22 near the bottom of the first paragraph on page 9 in English, you're
23 discussing particular problems in the barracks, the UNCRO barracks, and
24 one of the things you talk about is presence of media and the problem of
25 the -- what you call the so-called informative interview, i.e., the
1 manner in which the people who, in a way, participated in the armed
2 rebellion against Croatia
3 The next paragraph goes on:
4 "On the one hand, it is General Cermak's very good wish to solve
5 it as soon as possible, while, on the other hand, there's a tendency
6 within the barracks itself that anyone who wants to leave is free to
8 My question is: What you are talking about there is that
9 General Cermak was insisting that there be interviews of people in the
10 camp before they be allowed to leave.
11 Is that right?
12 A. As far as I remember, General Cermak said that he had to speak to
13 the camp commander and agree with him what to do and how to resolve the
15 Q. That's with regard to the interviews, though, right?
16 A. I suppose so.
17 MR. CARRIER: And if we could turn to page 17 in the B/C/S. And
18 if we can start -- which is this second paragraph appearing on page 17 in
19 the B/C/S, which is the final paragraph on page 9 in English.
20 Q. You're quoted as saying here, Mr. Dodig, that -- and these are
21 the people inside of the UNCRO camp:
22 "As for their attitude on leaving Croatia, most of them wishes to
23 leave, approximately 70 per cent of them, and there's also a smaller
24 number of those who cannot decide as their decision depends on the fact
25 whether their house is preserved or not, whether it is burnt or not, and
1 very often, as a pre-condition for making the decision, they asked to be
2 allowed to go outside and convince themselves of the condition of their
4 You don't mention that in your statement anywhere, that the
5 people that you were talking to in the UNCRO camps were predicating their
6 decision on whether to leave, or at least some of them, on whether or not
7 their house had been burnt down.
8 Can you explain why you didn't mention that?
9 A. Yes, I can. I failed to mention many things in my statement
10 because otherwise my testimony would go on for days.
11 I can mention dozens of examples of helping people and taking
12 them outside, but I didn't consider it necessary for this trial. When
13 people said they wanted to leave, they were scared, on the one hand, and,
14 on the other hand, they were curious to see what had happened. They were
15 mostly people who were not from Knin itself but from the surroundings.
16 So a period of time was necessary to enable them to see it, but
17 there were examples of people who had left and decided on their own to
19 And perhaps another detail, often in conversations with these
20 people, the issue wasn't whether there were people there who had remained
21 and felt innocent, it wasn't an issue whether they would stay for
22 political reasons, but simply for existential reasons, economic reasons,
23 whether they would have anything to live off --
24 Q. Mr. Dodig, I was just pausing -- I was just pausing to let the
25 translation finish, not to invite to you answer more.
1 MR. CARRIER: If we could turn to page 19 in the B/C/S --
2 Q. Where are you speaking and the bottom of page 10 in the English.
3 You're quoted, Mr. Dodig, as estimating that the number of Serbs
4 that remained in the former occupied territories was between 2.000 and
5 2500 citizens of Serb nationality.
6 You also didn't mention those numbers in your statement anywhere.
7 Can you explain why that is?
8 A. I simply didn't consider that an important piece of information.
9 Q. And, Mr. Dodig, earlier today when I had asked you about certain
10 public statements had you made regarding the Tribunal, you said that you
11 didn't speak about the work of the Tribunal, but, rather, its motives.
12 And I'm going to suggest to you that you said more than -- you made
13 comments that were more than just about the motives. You said, and this
14 is document 65 ter 7428, which we started to look at before it wouldn't
15 be called up. This, just to be clear, is an article that appeared in
16 Slobodna Dalmacija on January 30th, 2001, where some comments were
17 attributed to you, and I will read what you it says in one respect.
18 You say:
19 "'The Hague Tribunal is a political Tribunal. It has money,
20 power, media, and army, but it does not have a moral power, and it will
21 make a faux pas because of that sooner or later,' warned Dodig, saying
22 that judgements are worthless unless they are perceived as righteous."
23 Do you have any recollection, Mr. Dodig, of making that type of
25 A. No. I did speak often about the way I see the International
1 Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
2 said this, and I'm positive that I never authorised such a text.
3 What you said may be a free interpretation of a journalist. But
4 if you are interested in my opinion, I will -- I will present it, but I
5 consider this to be a free interpretation.
6 Q. Let me just ask you this: Do you agree with the sentiment
7 expressed, in terms of what I just read to you? Do you agree with that?
8 A. Well, not only sentiment but I certainly never said that the
9 Tribunal in The Hague
10 There are many things we can talk about, but a man can change his
11 opinion based on the facts that he learns. Whatever I said in 2001
12 doesn't mean that I would say the same thing today, due to the
13 information that I learned in the meantime and that effect my -- the way
14 I see a certain problem.
15 Q. Okay. So --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, Mr. Carrier is asking you whether the
17 sentiment in the quote is what you said. And then you started explaining
18 that you changed your mind and that you would have never said that the
19 Tribunal had an army.
20 Is that to be understood as that the sentiment, apart from the
21 army part, was, in 2001, your opinion, and that you changed it since
22 then? I'm trying to understand your answer. Because Mr. Carrier is
23 trying to focus on what you said at the time; whereas, you are saying, I
24 don't think about this anymore in this way.
25 Does that mean that the sentiment, as expressed, apart from the
1 army part, is more or less reflecting your thoughts at that time?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the issue of how I see
3 the Tribunal in The Hague
4 elaborate than just to answer yes or no. So it is practically impossible
5 to give an unambiguous answer to your question. I am actually
6 embarrassed by having to pass judgement on some people who are being
7 tried, and that is the reason why I'm being emotional about this
9 Bearing -- I swore at the beginning of my testimony that I would
10 say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I cannot
11 lie either to you or to myself. I have an opinion about this Tribunal,
12 but I don't want this opinion to affect your attitude toward the
13 indictees here.
14 I'm deeply convinced that the bad things that happened after
15 Operation Storm would have been even worse if it hadn't been for these
16 people who were in their respective positions. Speaking about things
17 beyond a time-frame and outside of a certain area is -- will result in
18 not only a different experience but also in wrong conclusions. Both as a
19 human being and a doctor, I'm convinced that those who did bad things
20 that make me shiver, just as any civilised person, not only in Croatia
21 but anywhere in the world, that these people are not sitting here.
22 In every society there are some 15 to 20 per cent of psychopaths
23 and those were the times when such people did bad things, committed
24 crimes, but these people are not the ones sitting here. And that is the
25 reason why I have a such an opinion about this Tribunal, which I value
1 highly, and I believe that it will eventually pass a just judgement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, could I seek one clarification.
3 You earlier said: "I'm actually embarrassed by having to pass
4 judgement on people being tried."
5 Now, who did you have in mind that would have to pass judgement?
6 Who -- you're embarrassed by us having to pass judgement, or that you, as
7 a witness, would have to pass judgement? What did you mean?
8 I read the sentence again to you. You said:
9 "I'm actually embarrassed by having to pass judgement on people
10 being tried, and that is the reason why I'm going emotional about the
12 The first part of the sentence, could you please explain what you
13 actually meant there.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
15 Testimonies and the replies that I have to give as a witness and
16 which are often brief result in possible false conclusions, and I feel as
17 part -- part of these people here. If I knew that, at any moment, any
18 one of them, directly or indirectly, by failing to do something, helped
19 to commit criminal deeds anywhere, believe me that I would be unwilling
20 to live in such a country, and I couldn't identify with that society or
21 that time or those people in any way.
22 So the trial they are standing here, I see as a trial I am
23 standing too, and I know what -- how -- how willing I was to sacrifice
24 and what my -- that my motives were humane. I would like to remind
25 everybody of the Jewish proverb that the fate of one person is the fate
1 of the entire world. And that is why I feel this way, and I'm trying to
2 explain it to you.
3 By participating in this trial or in these proceedings, I feel
4 like I'm also involved in trying these people.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, you may proceed.
6 MR. CARRIER: No more questions. Thanks.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give an opportunity to the parties to put
8 further questions to you, when you said, in this meeting on the
9 23rd of August that there were wounded people, could you elaborate on who
10 were wounded or what kind of wounds you saw?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my statement, I mentioned that I
12 had seen wounds, but I did see young people who were covered up to their
13 waist with blankets and they were lying down. I shook their hands, and I
14 concluded that they were only slightly wounded, possibly they were not
15 even -- they didn't even have wounds that were bleeding. And it was in a
16 moral dilemma: Should I react as a doctor or as representative of the
17 Croatian authorities?
18 None of them -- none of those whose hand I shook had a fever. Of
19 course, that isn't anything that I can claim for certain. Everyone had a
20 strong enough -- had -- had enough strength in his hand, and I can say as
21 much, because I have been -- I had been a doctor for decades and I have
22 experience, so I can tell what a case is about when I see it.
23 So I supposed that they had some kind of viruses. But by the way
24 they moved underneath that blanket, I could tell that they had some other
25 problems. I was -- those people were all very young, between 20 and 35
1 years of age, and even in unrelated conversation with the late
2 Mr. Pupovac, who was the president of that refugee council, who said, If
3 any of these injured needs medical assistance, let me know, and I will
4 see to it. Those are my words and he said, No problem, be assured that
5 we will let you know, if necessary.
6 So these people certainly weren't -- didn't suffer wounds by
7 playing football, and -- as I said at the cabinet meeting. But resolving
8 the situation at that moment would have -- would have had more
9 detrimental consequences than positive ones, at that moment.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, you earlier asked Mr. --
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig, you asked Mr. Carrier to further explain
13 to you what the inconsistencies would be what you said in this meeting on
14 the 23rd and what you say in your statement.
15 Now, in your statement, first of all, you say they were not
16 wounded; whereas, in the government meeting you are reported to have said
17 that there's wounded people there and that there was a problematic
18 situation as far as health care is concerned.
19 Now, looking at it in the context, and also listening to your
20 answer you just gave, people might think that the inconsistency between
21 what you said in the government and what you said in your statement is
22 the following. That in the statement you present a picture where people
23 are pretending to be sick and to be wounded, and that you are fully aware
24 that they are only trying to hide and that you didn't say anything about
25 that; whereas, in the government meeting the picture created could be
1 understood as a different one, that people were wounded and there was a
2 problematic health-care situation.
3 Now, I think that this is one of the issues Mr. Carrier had on
4 his mind when he asked you to explain the inconsistencies; that is, the
5 picture you give on page 8 in your statement and the words you spoke at
6 the government meeting, could you given an explanation for that.
7 And I'm not inviting you to again tell us what you exactly did;
8 but I'm inviting you to explain the different colour in the two pictures.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to explain very briefly.
10 In my statement that I gave to this Tribunal, I did not mention
11 that there were wounded people because I cannot say that for certain.
12 When I spoke at the government session --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dodig --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that there were wounded
15 people --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- I'm going to stop you there.
17 You say you could not establish that there were wounded, so
18 therefore, that's why you gave your statement.
19 Now, your statement - but if it is incorrectly translated, I
20 would like to hear - says they were not wounded; whereas, if I understand
21 your testimony now well, is that you apparently wanted to say, I could
22 not finally establish whether they were wounded or not.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally did not see a single
24 wound, but from circumstantial evidence, I thought there were wounds and
25 injuries. But the way a court judges things, in terms of yes or no, I
1 cannot claim anything for certain. I don't have the tangible evidence.
2 But when I say that there are wounded people, and I say it at a
3 government meeting, that sort of obliges those present to respond --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- more quickly.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what you're actually saying at this moment -
7 and please correct me when I've misunderstood you -- is there were good
8 reasons to believe that people were wounded, but I could not finally
9 establish whether they were or not.
10 That's approximately what you tell us now, isn't it?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly that's it. And, of course,
12 there are wounds of varying intensity.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not asking you to further elaborate on
14 what wounds there are.
15 In your statement, you say, they were not wounded. You do not
16 say, I had every reason to believe that they were wounded but I couldn't
17 establish that. You say they were not wounded, and you then further
18 explain, in direct relation to that, that they were hiding rather than
19 being sick and/or wounded. That creates a totally different picture from
20 what you tell us now.
21 Could you comment on that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any point -- at every point in
23 my statement, I say that it's my evaluation. Whatever I'm saying is my
24 perception and my evaluation. When I say here there were no wounded
25 people, I say that because I didn't see any wounds. And precisely
1 because I appreciated the fact that the Court requires positive
2 statements, I could not say that there were any wounded people because I
3 did not see any wounds. What I said was the result of my experience as a
4 physician and the circumstances of that particular situation.
5 Some of those people who were perhaps sick or wounded pretended
6 to be in good health, but I myself pretended that I do not notice. And I
7 said a moment ago that by the way they moved under the bedding, it was
8 obvious they had certain problems and conditions that could have been a
9 result of trauma rather than disease, and this trauma, I believe, they
10 sustained in war operations.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is this belief -- do you have any reason for that,
12 any factual basis for these conclusions, or is it just what you think may
13 be the case?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that was so.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kay, any wish to re-examine the witness.
16 MR. KAY: Thank you, Your Honour, just a few questions arising.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Kay:
18 Q. Dr. Dodig, you were asked questions about meeting Mr. Cermak, and
19 just to get the picture, I'd like to ask you some questions about that.
20 You described in your statement about visiting the UN camp with
21 Mr. Cermak on the 9th of August. And I wonder if you're able to tell us
22 as to how long you were with Mr. Cermak on that day.
23 A. Relatively briefly. I believe up to an hour in his office. But
24 that doesn't mean that I was with him. We reached the camp, I can't
25 remember how, and then he went to one side to speak to the Military
1 Commander of the camp, and I followed another medical errand.
2 Q. And the meeting with the Council of Refugees took how long?
3 A. In my estimation, between two and a half and three hours.
4 Q. And that meeting with them, was that a meeting at which both you
5 and Mr. Cermak were at together during that time?
6 A. No, no, I was alone at this meeting.
7 Q. Can you explain how long Mr. Cermak was with you, then, and the
8 Refugee Council when you had discussions with them on this visit?
9 A. A few minutes, perhaps. He greeted them and left.
10 Q. In relation to the questions that you were asked about other
11 meetings, you referred in your statement that you knew that Mr. Cermak
12 held meetings in his office with representatives of the civilian
14 A. I heard from many people who came to Knin that they had spoken to
15 Mr. Cermak, but I'd like to find the right term for these interactions.
16 I would call them brief encounters; that would be more precise.
17 Q. Thank you. You were asked questions about the differences
18 between your perception of the camp when you gave your statement at the
19 closed session of the government on the 23rd of August, which we saw in
20 the transcript, Exhibit D426, with the phrase in your statement:
21 "... the situation was completely calm and none of those people
22 showed interest in talking to me."
23 What did you mean by the expression "the situation was completely
24 calm"? Perhaps you could explain that.
25 A. The situation was calm enough for medical affairs to be under
1 control. Second, they were given the possibility to decide themselves
2 what their next step would be: Leave the camp, or stay.
3 The situation was also calm insofar as a kind of peace reigned,
4 and people were no longer afraid of what might happen the next minute and
5 whether they would be able to leave or not. They had already succeeded
6 in establishing contact with a number of international humanitarian
7 organisations that visited and they had managed to come in touch with
8 their family and perhaps some other people and organisations who were
9 able to give them more assistance than I was at the time.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. KAY: I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, just briefly.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Dodig. I would like to just talk with you a
16 bit about some of the questions that were asked from my learned friend
17 Mr. Carrier and the quote that he read about this -- this being --
18 The Hague Tribunal being a political Tribunal. And I take it your
19 opinions and your views on The Hague Tribunal were shaped by what you
20 read and saw and heard coming out of the Tribunal, and statements by its
21 staff. Is that right?
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. Let me bring up on the screen [Microphone not activated] ...
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MR. KEHOE: Apologies. I can bring up on the screen via
1 Sanction, 65 ter 1D2986. And this is an excerpt from Ms. Florence
2 Hartmann's book, from page 44, 47, and 48, that's been translated --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- Mr. Kehoe, let's -- before we start
4 this, if you want to put something to the witness rather than reading a
5 text to him.
6 Mr. Dodig, could I ask your attention, please, not to read at
7 this moment on the screen. You're still -- yes.
8 Could you ask the witness whether he has read the book before we
9 come to any further conclusions on the matter.
10 MR. KEHOE:
11 Q. Are you familiar with Ms. Hartmann's book?
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what I suggest but whether he read it.
13 MR. KEHOE: Well, I just -- no, no. My --
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's the first question.
15 MR. KEHOE: My first question was familiar; my next question did
16 he read it and was he aware of conversation -- well, I'll just ask the
18 Q. Are you familiar with Ms. Hartmann's book?
19 A. I know that Ms. Hartmann published a book and I have read certain
20 excerpts that appeared in our press.
21 Q. And, sir, you are aware that that book was translated into
23 A. I am.
24 Q. And you, likewise, were aware that Ms. Hartmann did a media tour
25 throughout Croatia
1 Croatian press. You are aware of that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And are you aware, sir, of Ms. Hartmann's allegations that the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, let's first ask the witness what he
5 remembers --
6 MR. KEHOE: Okay.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- from the excerpts, and then if that creates any
8 link, then, of course, we have that link clearly established. If it
9 doesn't create a link then, of course, then we could further see whether
10 it refreshes the witness's memory.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. KEHOE:
13 Q. Well, Dr. Dodig, in your -- your comments -- excuse me, in the
14 matters of Ms. Hartmann's writings and her speeches, can you tell us
15 basically what you read from that book and specifically what excerpts you
16 read from that book concerning her activities within the Office of the
17 Prosecutor when she was the spokesperson?
18 A. At this moment I cannot recall any details. Those were excerpts
19 I read in newspapers that were actually journalists' views and
20 interpretations. I am one of those people who hate talking about things
21 they are not perfectly familiar with. I know that Mrs. Hartmann
22 published a book. I know that she was tried for contempt of court, but I
23 cannot recall any details of the book.
24 Q. Let me show you something that refresh your recollection
25 concerning her comments.
1 MR. KEHOE: And I turn to excerpts from her book, 65 ter 1D2986,
2 that we show via Sanction.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, just for my information, you started with
4 what was published, as Mr. Dodig says, views. That was in 2001. That
5 was your starting point of your line of questioning. And then you are
6 apparently exploring on what basis he had formed his opinions.
7 Now, are we talking about the opinions expressed in 2001, or are
8 we talking about the opinions, as he said, had changed his view.
9 MR. KEHOE: Well, Ms. Hartmann is talking about what happened in
10 2001. If we contextualise what Hartmann is talking about, is about
11 events in 2001 and prior to that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then, of course, it becomes important to
13 know what the witness knows, apart from perhaps later reading it in
14 Ms. Hartmann's book, about what happened in 2001.
15 MR. KEHOE: Well, the issue --
16 JUDGE ORIE: You understand, I'm trying to --
17 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge. The issue that the Prosecution
18 is attempting to say -- and maybe the witness might take his earphones
19 off, so I don't really --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we first have to establish whether he speaks
21 any English or not. Some psychiatrists do.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You do. Then it is of no use to take your earphones
24 off, Mr. Dodig.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, it may be clear that there's nothing that
2 should not be asked to this witness, but it should always be clear what
3 he knew, at what time, and what could be at the basis of whatever
4 statement, opinion, whatever it is.
5 MR. KEHOE: Well, the --
6 JUDGE ORIE: And then the first thing we have to establish what
7 comes to his recollection without the assistance of any refreshment and
8 then after that, we could see whether his recollection, if there is any
9 need to do so, is refreshed by any matter. I would like to have that on
10 the basis of a clear analysis.
11 MR. KEHOE: And Mr. President --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
13 MR. KEHOE: -- my line of cross is different than articulated by
14 the Chamber. In the line of cross --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about your line of cross --
16 MR. KEHOE: No, no, no, but because it's -- because it is -- it
17 is different in the sense of whether or not the witness has read and
18 analysed what Florence Hartmann said. To the extent that he perceived,
19 in 2001, the Tribunal being a political body, and to the extent that his
20 credibility or bias is being attacked by the OTP in that regard, this is
21 showing the Chamber, through this witness, that the -- he was not the
22 only person during this operative time-frame to say that this body was
24 JUDGE ORIE: But Mr. -- okay. Mr. --
25 MR. KEHOE: And that the OTP --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, you're then invited to first explore with
2 the witness, without using any book or anything else, to explore what was
3 at the basis of his opinions at that time. And then once we know that,
4 that we could then compare that with other people's opinions at the time.
5 We would then at least know whether what you will put to him as the
6 opinions of others is the same or is different, and, therefore, we first
7 have to explore what was at the basis of his opinions.
8 Mr. Carrier.
9 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, if we could move into private
10 session for one moment. I just have an issue.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session. I don't know the
12 reason yet, but ...
13 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Having consulted my colleagues, Mr. Kehoe, I can
8 speak on behalf of the Chamber that the Chamber is assisted by an
9 approach in which you first establish the basis for opinions expressed by
10 the witness at any time. We still do not know for sure whether apart
11 from the army, whether that was what the gist of what his opinions was at
12 the time, because we had some difficulties in establishing that. And
13 then only after that, to compare that with others, whether in books,
14 whether anywhere else, that is the appropriate way to elicit evidence
15 from the witness which does assist the Chamber.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Dr. Dodig, let me talk to you about your comment about The Hague
19 Tribunal being a political Tribunal, or if you said that, or were of that
20 belief back in 2001.
21 Now, turning our attention to the Office of the Prosecution, were
22 you of the belief during that period of time that you concluded or had
23 the opinion that the Office of the Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal was a
24 political body?
25 A. For the most part, yes, precisely the Office of the Prosecutor.
1 Q. And what was the basis of that opinion, Dr. Dodig?
2 A. The basis for that opinion was my perception from what I had been
3 reading and hearing over the year; namely, that the Office of the
4 Prosecutor is the predominant institution in this Tribunal, and that all
5 that we hear from the Tribunal, as a three-pronged institution, is what
6 the Office of the Prosecutor puts out.
7 Conditions were always placed before Croatia, emanating from the
8 Office of the Prosecutor, so the OTP had always been perceived as an
9 institution within The Hague Tribunal who has a precise game plan and a
10 clear objective, that objective being not to find individuals guilty of
11 war crimes but individuals who symbolised the Croatian defence war, in
12 terms of military and other leadership, people who I am deeply convinced
13 play their role in that war very honourably. And, of course, I'm aware
14 that there were individuals in the category of psychopaths that I
15 mentioned who did do ugly, ugly things.
16 Q. I understand your conclusions, sir, and in the interests of time,
17 you noted for us that you don't recall exactly what Ms. Hartmann had to
18 say in her book --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, let's first try to explore that in as
20 much detail.
21 I do understand you answer to be that you said that for two
22 reasons you considered the Office of the Prosecutor to be the predominant
23 political element in the work of this Tribunal. The first being that
24 always they were in the foreground; that's one. And, second, because
25 they did not -- they were not after the guilty ones but they just wanted
1 to attack the symbols who had honestly behaved.
2 Is that correctly understood?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now were there -- were there any other reasons,
5 apart from the ones you mentioned, that contributed to you forming an
6 opinion about the Tribunal or the Office of the Prosecutor as being
7 political organs or bodies? Was there any other thing that comes to your
8 mind what was at the basis of your opinion?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was the basis of my -- my
11 JUDGE ORIE: And that was there were no other important elements
12 at the basis of this opinion.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nothing I -- in particular that I
14 can think of, in this moment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.
16 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Now, Doctor, Judge Orie asked you about the two reasons for your
18 position, and in line 18, Judge Orie said you considered for the two --
19 excuse me. You considered -- for two reasons you considered the Office
20 of the Prosecutor to be a predominant political element in the work of
21 this Tribunal, to which you responded yes.
22 Were you aware that Florence Hartmann gave the same opinion as
23 the opinion that you just articulated, concerning the Office of the
24 Prosecutor being the predominant political element in the work of the
1 Were you aware of that?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Well, let me talk to you, go back, if we may, concerning
4 Ms. Hartmann, her book, her discussions on media tours in Croatia, and
5 what was printed in the press in Croatia, and you noted for us that you
6 didn't recall exactly what you had read, so let me go to these excerpts
7 from Ms. Hartmann's book, again, if I may, which is 65 ter 1D2986, and if
8 we can view that via Sanction, and we are only going to look at three
9 short excerpts on page 44, 47, 48 which have been translated into
11 And if I may, at page 44, at the top, it notes:
12 "Lawyers, military analysts and policemen from every country of
13 the Commonwealth followed them and rushed to The Hague. France
14 falling behind. While the Prosecution and the procedure fall under
15 Anglo-Saxon hands, Paris
16 However, without a budget, the ICTY depends on contributions." It talks
17 about a piece in France
18 "These differences ..."
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kehoe, could you gave us the time-frame, because
20 it says a year later, but I've got no idea in what year we are.
21 MR. KEHOE: I will have Mr. Misetic, if he can, check the
22 Croatian translation because the book itself, my understanding is that it
23 has only been drafted in -- or written in -- published, excuse me, in
24 French and Croatian.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier.
1 MR. CARRIER: I just -- the part where it says "followed them,"
2 I'm just curious as to who "them" is.
3 MR. KEHOE: From Mr. Misetic's review of this, it appears that
4 she is referring to the late 1990s, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Late 1990s. Thank you.
6 MR. KEHOE:
7 Q. Next paragraph:
8 "These difference in the attitude between the French and the
9 Anglo-Saxons were evident from the very start and they are not
10 coincidental. All the realists in the Tribunal see ... the extenuation
11 of the political -- of the political authority, its judicial branch. As
12 soon as the effects of the announcement started to become obvious,
13 everyone was in agreement that the goal was already accomplished. The
14 ICTY was a means of justification for the politicians and as a vent for
15 their [sic] emotions caused by the atrocities committed in Bosnia and
17 "Immediately afterward [sic] it was abandoned with no means to
18 sustain itself with no budget. Against all expectations, a handful of
19 sufficiently idealistic masters were going to pull it away from its fate
20 of a worn-out alibi tossed in the waste basket. They knocked on every
21 door and finally found funds to open their first investigations.
22 "This unexpected awakening brought the great powers in an awkward
23 position. They gave promises which they had no intention of keeping.
24 They created obligations for themselves which they didn't perceive as
25 binding. Now they will have to make a deal because the work of the
1 Tribunal will undoubtedly have political implications. However, the
2 great powers are still not responding as fast and with the same armament
3 before this creature is slipping from their hands and the creature they
4 are afraid."
5 MR. KEHOE: If we can just scroll down a bit.
6 Q. They're talking about the Prosecution in this next paragraph, on
7 page 42:
8 "Some barely know where the Balkans even are [sic]. They are
9 hounding the Prosecution, the moving force of the Tribunal, whose Judges
10 have been subdued to the position of arbitraries between the Defence and
11 Prosecution [sic]. Military analysts, lawyers, and intelligence officers
12 easily blend in the crowed continuing to occupy humble yet strategic
13 positions and serving more to their own governments than the ICTY."
14 The last section, talking about Carla Del Ponte:
15 "But at no time has she herself stated at the end of the [sic]
16 mandate could she have imagined that the work of the international
17 Prosecutor was so much different than the work of a state attorney, that
18 [sic] there were so many pressures and attempts of political influence.
19 Faced with the possibility of disobedience by the Prosecutors, the
20 Anglo-Saxons could not content themselves with the mere sharing of advice
21 which was so rarely followed. This why they simultaneously developed far
22 more devious and dangerous strategics which the masters will not always
23 able to detect in time."
25 Now, sir, Dr. Dodig, does that -- those excerpts refresh your
1 recollection in any fashion concerning the position of the former
2 spokesperson of the Office of the Prosecutor according -- discussing the
3 political nature of the Office of the Prosecutor?
4 A. Unfortunately, no. My memory is not refreshed. These were --
5 this was the way I saw it much before I read it. Based on things I may
6 not be able to remember now and synthesising them all afterward, I
7 appreciate the efforts and honour this Court, and I believe the Tribunal
8 will do what it is supposed to do. And I will be only too glad if I come
9 to the conclusion eventually that I was wrong and that this Tribunal is
10 not political, and you may rest assured that I will certainly do so, and
11 if -- if that happens, and I will explain to the people where I live that
12 I was wrong about saying that this is a political body.
13 We'll see whether that will happen or not, but after all this, I
14 feel bad.
15 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I have no further questions.
16 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I have one last question for you.
18 In your statement, you said that -- in paragraph 6:
19 "Along the road which I took to Knin, there were only a few
20 torched houses."
21 This morning, page 17, lines 21, 22, you said that you could not
22 see whether it was hay, or grass, or houses that produced smoke.
23 Could you explain the difference in your perception when you gave
24 this statement and when you gave your testimony this morning, where you
25 said you couldn't see whether it was hay, or grass, or houses.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, I couldn't see --
2 or couldn't tell from a distance, and here where I say that I saw only a
3 few houses on the road from Drnis to Knin, which is a distance of about
4 30 kilometres, no burnt house I saw there had been burned recently. So
5 it was impossible for me to tell from travelling down that road, whether
6 those houses were actually torched in Operation Storm or at some other
7 time. So the houses may have been 200 or 300 metres away from the road.
8 So it was really hard for me to tell whether that house or those houses
9 had been burned recently or -- and whether or not they were burned in a
10 military operation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
12 Any further questions triggered by the questions put to the
13 witness by the Bench?
14 MR. KAY: No.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If not, Mr. Dodig, this concludes your evidence in
16 this Court. I would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague
17 and for having answered all the questions that you were put to you,
18 questions by the --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- parties and questions put to you by the Bench. I
21 wish you a safe trip home again.
22 Madam Usher.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: As far as next week, Thursday, the 15th, is
2 concerned, everyone is still working. If we would sit that whole day,
3 then it should be expected that part of the day that the Chamber could
4 sit only under Rule 15 bis, at least some part of the afternoon. Of
5 course, the Chamber will have to consider, in view of the evidence we
6 anticipate to receive, whether that would be in the interests of justice
7 to proceed in the absence of one of the Judges, and, further, all the
8 staffing issues have not yet been resolved. Everyone's working hard. We
9 hope to know as soon as possible, whether it will be that Thursday.
10 We'll then also consider what consequences this would have and
11 the Cermak Defence is also invited consider what consequences that would
12 have for the Wednesday, the 14th. Because I think, up till this moment,
13 the two video-conference links were anticipated to take place on the 14th
14 and the 15th. 14th is impossible. If we would sit more than half a
15 day's session on the 15th, we have to consider what consequences that
16 would have for the sessions on the 14th.
17 MR. KAY: I can assist Your Honour with that, because we have the
18 schedule for that week. We had the witness Mr. Cetina in the line for
19 the first two days of that week, and then the -- one of the witnesses who
20 had to go to hospital and would be free and available on the Wednesday,
21 the 14th, so we cover those three days. It's really --
22 JUDGE ORIE: That would be then be the witness who couldn't
23 testify this week on Friday.
24 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So that would then be on -- that witness would be
1 scheduled on Wednesday?
2 MR. KAY: Wednesday, travelling Tuesday, arriving Wednesday.
3 What it's coming down to now is this spare -- it's not a spare day. It's
4 a day that's available.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you are aware that if we would not
6 conclude the testimony of that witness on Wednesday and if we are
7 preparing for a videolink on Thursday, that irrespective of whether that
8 witness would have concluded its testimony, that we would have to start
9 with the videolink because that -- videolink prepared always takes
10 precedence over any other witness waiting, because the technical
11 facilities are not there forever. We should use them once they are
13 MR. KAY: Yes. He is not a big witness, looking at it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No. But perhaps it would also be good also to
15 discuss this briefly with the other parties and perhaps with the
16 Prosecution to see whether that testimony of that witness could be
17 concluded on that Wednesday so as to avoid that he has to stay over until
19 Then we'll adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow, Thursday,
20 the 8th of October, 9.00, Courtroom III.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of
23 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.