1 Thursday, 29 October 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon 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 Mr. Cetina, I would like you to remind you that you're still
13 bound by the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of
14 your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
15 but the truth.
16 Mr. Misetic, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Cetina?
17 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic will now cross-examine you. He's
19 counsel for Mr. Gotovina.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 WITNESS: IVICA CETINA [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Misetic:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cetina.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. I'd like to take you back to some answers that you gave yesterday
3 to questions posed to you by Mr. Kay, and referring to transcript page
4 23.398, beginning at line 20. And you were asked about preparations
5 that -- whether preparations had been made as a result of a meeting on
6 the 3rd of August in Zagreb
7 you returned to Zadar, gathered the members of your specialist team,
8 informed them of the imminent operation, and told them that we should get
9 prepared for the return to that territory. And then the next question on
10 the next page:
11 "Was there any planning done in advance for the situation of
12 check-points or areas of patrol?"
13 And your answer was:
14 "No, our primary objective was to reach the location and to get
15 settled in the police building."
16 And if could show you a document --
17 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, this is P493, please.
18 Q. As you'll see on your screen, this was an order issued by
19 Mr. Moric on the 3rd of August to the attention of police administration
20 chiefs. And the Zadar-Knin Police Administration is one of the
21 addressees of the order. And then it orders co-operation with the
22 military police. And if you look through the order, there are specific
23 tasks issued to establish contacts with the military police. The second
24 point under point 1 is -- sorry, it's to establish contacts with the
25 military police in your police administration and agree on harmonised
1 action in the implementation of tasks. At the demarcation lines,
2 establish check-points jointly with the military police. It tells you
3 what to do with journalists, to -- and the next point is establish law
4 and order, ensure smooth traffic flow in liberated settlements to
5 organise joint patrols. The last one on the first page in the English
6 says: At the intersections of important roads establish joint
7 check-points. If we turn the page, what to do with refugees. Point 2 is
8 a point on treatment of captured members of paramilitary units.
9 Now, my first question is: Do you recall receiving this order on
10 the 3rd of August, 1995?
11 A. I don't know if I saw it on the 3rd of August. Perhaps we should
12 look at the document itself, but it may have reached me on the 4th or
13 the 5th. I don't know.
14 Q. Well, did you do any preparations on any of the items that were
15 sent in this order in terms of planning for where check-points would be?
16 Did you establish communication with the military police in your area of
17 responsibility prior to Operation Storm beginning?
18 A. I don't remember that we established contacts. I said yesterday
19 that the primary objective was to reach the locations where we were
20 supposed to set up police stations, whereas all these tasks it was
21 understood would follow afterwards.
22 Q. Okay. Well, let me turn your attention to another document,
23 Mr. Cetina.
24 MR. MISETIC: This is, Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 4414.
25 Q. This was another order issued on the 3rd of August to, amongst
1 others, to yourself, the administration chief of the Zadar-Knin Police
2 Administration. And in this order Mr. Moric advises you or orders you, I
3 should say, to -- at 0300 hours on 4 August to ban all civilian traffic
4 on the following roads --
5 MR. MISETIC: If we turn the page, please.
6 Q. -- sorry, I should say that first entry was along the road M2
7 from Zadar to the Maslenica Bridge
8 MR. MISETIC: If we scroll to the very top, please in English.
9 Q. Sorry, and Prizna. It goes on in the next paragraph to say:
10 "At precisely 0400 hours ..." there is a ban of civilian traffic
11 on several roads. And it talks about where civilian traffic should be
12 directed, et cetera.
13 Do you recall receiving this order prior to the commencement of
14 Operation Storm?
15 A. I don't remember; however, it would only be logical that we did
16 receive it and act upon it.
17 MR. MISETIC: Okay. Mr. President, I ask that 65 ter 4414 be
18 marked and I tender it into evidence.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit P2654.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P2654 is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry, Mr. President --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it should receive a D number. That's -- I
25 followed Mr. Registrar as I always do, but here perhaps it would have
1 been better to suggest a D number.
2 Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise for the error, Your Honours. It
4 should be D1759.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We now admit into evidence D1759 I think it was.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, D1759.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And P2654 is vacated. Please proceed.
8 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Mr. Cetina, as a general matter, do you agree with me that the
10 police had the authority to detain members of the Croatian army at
11 check-points if, for example, they were found to have looted items in
12 their possession; they were allowed to detain them and then they were
13 supposed to call in the military police so that these individuals could
14 be processed further in the military criminal justice system?
15 A. Yes, that's all right in theory, but in practice, things were
17 Q. Well, let's take a look at --
18 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 1D2994, please. If we could
19 show the witness the top of the page in the Croatian original, please.
20 Q. I'd ask you to peruse this document, Mr. Cetina. It's dated the
21 3rd of October, 1995, and it is a document authored by you. And it's a
22 plan for a stake-out. And in the introduction you say that you have
23 operative information in connection with the criminal offence of violence
24 committed by three unknown perpetrators wearing Croatian army uniforms on
25 the 3rd of October around 1330 hours against a victim named
1 Andjelko Gambiroza, a Croat by nationality, in the manner that, while
2 holding the above stated under gunpoint, the unknown persons ransacked
3 his house and threatened him. And he must leave his home because if he
4 didn't they would come back during the night, liquidate him, and take his
5 cattle. For the purpose of preventing the criminal offence of violence
6 from being committed against Mr. Andjelko Gambiroza and capturing the
7 unknown perpetrators, the police department of the Zadar-Knin Police
8 Administration brings the following: Implementation plan for a
10 And then you describe a plan or you order a plan. The stake-out
11 would begin at 2200 hours on the 3rd of October and be carried out by a
12 special police unit of the Zadar-Knin Police Administration and by
13 military police members from the independent company of the 72nd MPs in
14 Knin. The stake-out lasts until 0600 hours.
15 You are to notify the victim that the stake-out is going to take
16 place. Point 5 is reports on potential actions during the stake-out or
17 observations which may be of interest are to be delivered to the
18 commander of the Knin police station after the stake-out or, rather,
19 surveillance has been included.
20 "I hold the commander of the special police group or, rather, the
21 commander of the Knin police station responsible for the implementation
22 of the stake-out."
23 Now, Mr. Cetina, this is an example where -- where unknown
24 perpetrators potentially could, in fact, be members of the Croatian army.
25 The police, nevertheless, had the ability to investigate the matter and
1 then, depending on the outcome of or the identity of the perpetrators, if
2 caught, either processed the individuals themselves or, if they turn out
3 to be members of the Croatian army, to refer the matter to the military
4 police for further prosecution. Correct?
5 A. The key here does not lie in the stake-out plan; rather, in who
6 would carry out the plan. It was envisaged that the special units of the
7 police and the military police would carry out the stake-out. And this
8 is the key issue. The ordinary uniformed police were not able to carry
9 out such acts.
10 In addition to that, it says -- it doesn't say that it was
11 members of the Croatian army who were the perpetrators; rather, it says
12 that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they might have worn HV
13 uniforms. Let me repeat that the key does not lie in the drafting of the
14 plan, because that's, of course, where the ordinary uniformed police
15 would have a major role; rather, that the forces materialising the plan
16 were different, and they're listed under number 1.
17 Q. Yes, but, Mr. Cetina, first you agree with me that you would have
18 had no authority to issue any order to the military police; correct?
19 A. No, I could not have ordered the military police. I suppose that
20 the plan was drafted at the level of the department chief, Mr. Bitanga,
21 in co-operation with the military police. The plan does not say that we
22 could have ordered the military police; rather, it's envisaged that the
23 action, the operative action, would be carried out jointly by the
24 civilian and the military police.
25 Q. I understand that. But what I'm suggesting to you is that, for
1 example, the special police units that are referred to here are units
2 under your command as the chief of the police administration, Zadar-Knin;
4 A. Yes. However, let me repeat - and I stand by what I said - the
5 involvement of the special police units and the military police force
6 went along the lines of the fact that they were the only forces capable
7 of confronting the individuals described at the outset, at the beginning
8 of the plan.
9 Q. Okay. What I'm -- Mr. Cetina, if you look at paragraph 6 of the
10 order, you say you are holding the commander of the special police group
11 or, rather, the commander of the Knin police station responsible for the
12 implementation of the stake-out. My only point to you is: Regardless of
13 whether you're using the fundamental police, the basic police, or the
14 special police unit, in terms of the MUP's side of this plan, the MUP had
15 the authority to conduct a stake-out even where the unknown perpetrators
16 were suspected to be members of the Croatian army?
17 A. Let me try and clarify this. When it comes to the use of the
18 military police, that's quite clear; however, when the use of the special
19 police forces comes into play, the matter is quite different. The
20 special police force was attached in a way - as far as I know - to the
21 Croatian army for the purposes of Operation Storm. Therefore, before
22 Operation Storm and after Operation Storm it was under the competence of
23 the Zadar Knin-police administration. In this particular instance, the
24 force went back under the command of the Zadar-Knin Police
25 Administration. I presume as much because that would have been the
1 general idea.
2 Q. We'll continue on this question.
3 MR. MISETIC: But first if I can ask, Mr. President, that this
4 exhibit be marked and I tender it into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think the document can be admitted into evidence,
8 but, Mr. Misetic, could you closely look at whether the translation is
9 made with the accuracy we would think it should be. For example, the age
10 of Mr. Gambiroza, in English he becomes rather young.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes, we'll correct the translation.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. MISETIC: I think he was born after the incident occurred
14 from what I can see.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Similarly, Mr. Kay, yesterday you quoted from D586, where you
17 were kind enough to correct the translation, that is, "mobilisation" and
18 "demobilisation." You corrected the incorrect translation the second
19 time to the word "demobilizacija." You said, of course, that that's what
20 is meant, and not "mobilisation" as we find in English. It was a -- not
21 a final translation. We saw a lot of not final translations yesterday,
22 and sometimes if we find such a clear mistake in translation the Chamber
23 would very much appreciate if that whole document would be reviewed and
24 would be made a full translation, rather than to expect that everyone now
25 or even if there ever would be an appeal would immediately know where the
1 translation is wrong.
2 MR. KAY: Certainly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Registrar, this document, although a
4 corrected version will be uploaded, would receive number ...?
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit Number D1760, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D1760 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Mr. Registrar, if we could see, please, Exhibit D576.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Cetina, you saw this document yesterday. Mr. Kay asked
10 you some questions about it.
11 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn to page 2.
12 Q. This is, again, your report back to Mr. Moric about statistics of
13 crime taking place in the Zadar-Knin Police Administration.
14 MR. MISETIC: If we could go to page 2 in the English.
15 And we've lost the B/C/S. Unfortunately this is illegible in the
16 B/C/S, I think.
17 Q. Okay. If you look at the paragraph that begins:
18 "There are still some individual cases of house burning ..."
19 That is the fourth paragraph in the Croatian version.
20 "There are still some individual cases of house burning and
21 removal of movable property by others than the owners on the entire
22 liberated area. The perpetrators are, for the most part, uniformed HV
23 personnel, while civilians are less frequently involved as perpetrators.
24 "On-site investigations are performed independently by the
25 civilian police without the presence of the military police."
1 Then you give statistics:
2 "Between 20 August and 31 August ... a total of 55 on-site
3 investigations were carried out: 47 on-site investigations for burnings
4 and eight on-site investigations for abstraction of movable property.
5 "Where crimes have been committed, an investigation is launched.
6 "During the reporting period, nine perpetrators in HV uniforms
7 were identified. No individuals were reported for misuse of HV
9 My question to you is: Your report indicates that the Zadar-Knin
10 Police Administration is conducting on-site investigations independently
11 without the presence of the military police. How were you able to
12 identify nine perpetrators in HV uniforms of the crimes that were
14 A. Let me repeat again. The information contained herein is summary
15 information that was sent from the police stations out in the field. The
16 information is based on data which could not perhaps be used as such to
17 be delivered to the republican prosecutor's office. They were the result
18 of what the police on the ground was able to observe. This does not
19 necessarily mean that we processed as many cases in our dealings with the
20 prosecutor's offices. I repeat, these are -- the data contained therein
21 is summary information.
22 Q. Yeah, but that's not what my question concerned. The MUP was, in
23 fact, investigating crimes and, within the context of those
24 investigations, was competent to identify HV members as the perpetrators
25 if, in fact, that's what they found; correct?
1 A. We can say that the term "members" was used probably because
2 Croatian army insignia seemed to have been recognised, but the report
3 does not say per se that these were HV members that were identified. I
4 don't have the text before me anymore. I can't refer to the exact
5 portion. Perhaps this could be corrected.
6 Q. It's at the bottom, the last sentence on your screen in front of
7 you in Croatian.
8 A. I apologise. I have nothing at this moment.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please check and --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now it's here. It's fine now.
11 Thank you.
12 Sorry, could you repeat the question?
13 MR. MISETIC:
14 Q. Let me rephrase it. The MUP had general jurisdiction to
15 investigate and identify -- investigate crime and identify the
16 perpetrators of crime, including if the person was wearing an HV uniform;
18 A. Yes, in co-operation with members of the military police.
19 Q. And that's not what this report says, Mr. Cetina. You
20 specifically wrote that the "on-site investigations are performed
21 independently by the civilian police without the presence of the military
23 That's what the report says. Now, I'm asking you again: You had
24 general jurisdiction to identify perpetrators of crime, even if the
25 perpetrator was wearing an HV uniform, irregardless of whether a military
1 police member was present?
2 A. On-site investigations at crime scenes could have been performed
3 by the civilian police, but a criminal investigation directed against HV
4 members according to the Law on the Interior could only be carried out
5 together with the military police, that is to say, such persons would be
6 handed over to the military police.
7 Q. Mr. Cetina, I don't want to play a semantics game with you, so
8 let's make sure we are talking about the same thing, and I'll give you an
10 The MUP has a check-point where there are no military policemen
11 present, and yesterday Mr. Kay took you through several reports where you
12 were complaining about the lack of military police at MUP check-points.
13 On that check-point, a car with civilian licence plates comes up with
14 three individuals in HV uniforms in it, with a trailer containing
15 household items, televisions, refrigerators, et cetera. The MUP police
16 at that check-point - you will agree with me - has the authority to stop
17 that car; to identify those individuals; and, if it suspects that the
18 goods on the trailer are stolen, to exclude them from traffic; detain
19 them; call the military police, if in fact they are identified as active
20 HV members; and then further processing would be conducted by the
21 military police. That's how the system worked; correct?
22 A. I could agree. But in practice, it depended on the assessment of
23 the police officers involved. They were supposed to estimate whether
24 this could lead to a conflict.
25 Q. Okay, yesterday you were asked some questions about Mr. Moric's
1 order of the -- I believe it was the 17th of August, where, in answer to
2 the Presiding Judge, you referred to what the law was and what you were
3 required to do under the law. And that's what I'm asking you right now.
4 Under the law, the police was required to act as I described in my prior
5 question; correct?
6 A. Yes. Mr. Moric did require that. But the implementation of such
7 orders was supposed to be in keeping with the Law on the Interior and the
8 Law on Criminal Procedure.
9 Q. Let me rephrase my question --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: May I seek clarification of one of the previous
14 When Mr. Misetic gave you a picture of what could happen at a
15 check-point, he asked whether that was how the system work, and you said:
16 "I could agree. But in practice, it depended on the assessment
17 of the police officers involved. They were supposed to estimate whether
18 this could lead to a conflict."
19 What kind of conflicts were you referring to?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A conflict in the sense that such
21 people could resist being identified. We discussed that yesterday. We
22 insisted that at check-points, together with our police officers, there
23 be the military police as well.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that if the civilian police
25 would take action against such a person under those circumstances, that
1 whether or not to do that would depend on their estimate on whether those
2 persons would accept such an intervention by the civilian police in the
3 absence of the military police. Is that how I have to understand your
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Misetic.
8 MR. MISETIC:
9 Q. So, Mr. Cetina, it was simply left up to the perpetrators to
10 decide how they wished to be processed or whether they wished to be
11 processed, and you left it to the perpetrators to make the determination
12 as to whether they would be apprehended or not?
13 A. The situation as such lasted for about a month and a half, during
14 which there were possibilities of such rows. The risk period was about a
15 month or a month and a half, during which we have to apply this type of
16 approach in order to overcome the period.
17 Q. Well, let's take it -- let's look at a concrete example.
18 MR. MISETIC: Mr. Registrar, if we could have Exhibit D660 on the
19 screen, please.
20 Q. This is a work order of the MUP from the 14th of August, and then
21 the next page is the report of what these police officers actually did on
22 the 14th of August.
23 MR. MISETIC: If we could turn the page.
24 Q. Point -- paragraph 1 of the report, it talk -- it says:
25 "Vehicles, persons, and baggage, that is, items transported from
1 and to Benkovac were checked. Approximately 20 vehicles were inspected,
2 of which seven entered Benkovac with an appropriate permit, while the
3 other civilian vehicles were driven by persons dressed in Croatian army
4 uniforms, whose identity we verified and established that they were
5 members of the Croatian army."
6 If you look at paragraph 3:
7 "At 11.30 hours we prevented the unlawful transport of tractors
8 (i.e. without any documents) by three persons dressed in Croatian army
9 uniforms, who were driving three tractors, two trailers, and a cultivator
10 with trailer from the direction of Benkovac. These persons were kept
11 until the arrival of the military police and then returned along with the
12 stolen vehicles back to Benkovac."
13 That is how the police was supposed to act; isn't that correct,
14 Mr. Cetina? If you encounter members of the Croatian army looting and
15 you stopped them at a check-point, you detain them and wait for the
16 military police to arrive?
17 A. One should applaud to the police. I think we fared rather well.
18 Q. Well, then let's look at another report of yours.
19 MR. MISETIC: D581, if we could have that on the screen, please.
20 Q. This is your report. Again, you were shown this document
21 yesterday. It's the 12th of September. It's a report to Mr. Moric.
22 MR. MISETIC: And if we go to the bottom -- to page 2 in the
23 English, please, and the fourth paragraph in the Croatian.
24 Q. "On-site investigations are performed independently or in
25 co-operation with a civilian investigating judge without the presence of
1 the military police.
2 "Between 22 August and 10 September ... a total of 82 on-site
3 investigations were carried out, of which 75 were related to burnings and
4 seven to mining."
5 Then the last paragraph is:
6 "During the reporting period, there were no individuals reported
7 for abuse of HV uniforms and 28 HV members have been identified as
9 Now, once again, you, in fact, were conducting on-site
10 investigations and identifying HV members as perpetrators of crimes
11 without any co-operation from the military police; correct?
12 A. I could only respond to this question if I saw the case file of
13 the 28 HV members and the crimes involved. It is only then that I could
14 tell you who did what and in what way.
15 Q. Well, you're the author of this document, Mr. Cetina, so what
16 were you conveying to Mr. Moric when you said that 28 HV members had been
17 identified as perpetrators and that 82 total on-site investigations were
18 carried out?
19 A. As I just said, we forwarded summary reports. In order for me to
20 be able to tell you who followed up these 28 cases, I would have to look
21 into the cases individually. I did not see the files. People drafting
22 the summary report had insight into that.
23 Q. Okay. Well, can you at least tell us what does it mean in your
24 report when you report that "28 HV members have been identified as
25 perpetrators"? What does that mean?
1 A. This should mean that if there was reasonable doubt of such
2 persons having committed a crime, that the state attorney's office was
4 Q. Okay. So would you then agree with me -- or let me see if I can
5 sum up what you're saying. As a legal matter, the MUP had the ability to
6 act towards perpetrators in HV uniforms, but whether they did it in
7 practice was a question of their own judgement?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Mr. Cetina, at page 8 of your OTP statement you
10 discuss the issue of issuing documentation to persons who had lived in
11 the occupied territory up until Operation Storm. And can you tell us,
12 first of all a -- let's take the example of an ethnic Serb who lived in
13 Knin and was born in Knin, but up until Operation Storm had never sought
14 Croatian documentation. In the Croatian system, what was their status?
15 In other words, until they actually applied for their identification
16 papers, what -- were the persons there, formally speaking, Croatian
17 citizens or persons who had the right to obtain Croatian citizenship?
18 A. Formally speaking, those persons were expected to lodge an
19 application to obtain Croatian citizenship.
20 Q. Okay. Until they lodged that application, do you know whose
21 citizenship they had? In other words, when the Republika Srpska Krajina
22 existed, do you know whose citizenship these individuals had?
23 A. I don't know that.
24 Q. Okay.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, you're now focusing your question on
1 the Republika Srpska Krajina period, whereas I wondered, if someone was
2 born in 1980, being an ethnic Serb -- well, perhaps his birth being
3 registered but that's being all -- whether what would be the citizenship
4 of that person before the Republika Srpska Krajina came into existence.
5 Is that something --
6 MR. MISETIC: I --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- that was included in your question? I did not --
8 in your first question, I wasn't aware that you excluded it.
9 MR. MISETIC: No, I was talking about the period from 1990 to
10 1995. So in -- I have a document that might assist the Court, which
11 will -- I will either put questions to him or bar table it,
12 Mr. President. This is 65 ter 1D3000.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at it, but I don't make it a
14 secret to you that I would like to know what happened with citizenship
15 since the birth of that person.
16 MR. MISETIC: Well, I think, from 1980 to 1990, I think, we're
17 all in agreement on whose citizenship they would have, I would assume.
18 From 1990 --
19 JUDGE ORIE: That is Yugoslavia
20 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Right.
22 MR. MISETIC: From 1990 onwards, take a look at this document,
23 Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's have a look.
25 MR. MISETIC: If -- because the original is so difficult to read,
1 we received it from the Office of the Prosecutor, I have a hard copy for
2 the witness if he prefers. But if he can read it on the screen, that's
3 fine, and if he can read Cyrillic.
4 Mr. President --
5 Q. And Mr. Cetina, you'll see Article 1 of the
6 RSK Law on Citizenship says:
7 "A citizen of the Republika Srpska Krajina has citizenship of the
9 Article 2 says:
10 "A citizen of the RSK is concurrently a citizen of the
11 Socialist Federal Republic
12 MR. MISETIC: And then if we turn to page -- I'm sorry, if we
13 call up 65 ter 1D3001.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Court participants are kindly requested to
15 switch off the microphones which are not being used. Thank you.
16 MR. MISETIC:
17 Q. And then this is an amendment to the Law on Citizenship of the
18 RSK that was passed on the 16th of October, 1993, with the termination of
19 the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and its replacement with
20 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The law was amended to state at
21 Article 2 -- in Article 1 and Article 2 that the words "Socialist Federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia
24 MR. MISETIC: So, Mr. President, we -- and I'd ask then, under
25 the Croatian system, but our position based on this would be that the
1 individuals were citizens of the FRY in August of 1995.
2 Q. With respect to their status, Mr. Cetina, under the Croatian
3 system after the conclusion -- or during and after the conclusion of
4 Operation Storm I understand your answer to be that they are considered
5 to be persons with the right to obtain Croatian citizenship, which isn't
6 then consummated until they actually apply with the appropriate Croatian
7 authorities to obtain that Croatian citizenship; is that correct?
8 A. They had the right to file an application.
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, perhaps my mind is not quick enough to
11 follow all this. You just showed us a piece of legislation which says
12 that a citizen of the Republic of Serb Krajina is a citizen of the
13 Republic of Serb
14 raises --
15 MR. MISETIC: Two things, Mr. President, that was Article 1 --
16 JUDGE ORIE: That was the one and the second one that
17 simultaneously was also a citizen of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
18 MR. MISETIC: Correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Now, still -- but forgive me that it's still a puzzle. That
21 still doesn't answer for me the question who is a citizen of the
22 Republic of Serb
23 have citizenship of the Republic of Serb Krajina. But that is the same
24 as saying if you've got blue hair, you're among the blue-haired people.
25 MR. MISETIC: It's Article 3, Mr. President --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and perhaps --
2 MR. MISETIC: If we can go back to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's the previous one. Yes, because then we saw
4 this second law --
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- which that the "Socialist Federal Republic
7 that terminology is replaced by "Federal Republic." But --
8 MR. MISETIC: Yes --
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- as far as I remember, I saw already "Federal
10 Republic of Yugoslavia
12 MR. MISETIC: Well, if we can go back to 65 ter 1D3000, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry, but I would like to be able to follow
14 exactly what we are looking at and what it means.
15 MR. MISETIC: You'll see, Mr. President, in Article 2 it refers
16 to the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. MISETIC: And then Article 3 defines who has the right to
19 acquire citizenship of the RSK.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me see.
21 MR. MISETIC: I should also add, Mr. President, how specifically,
22 within each of those four categories, is then further elaborated upon in
23 the subsequent text of the law.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just perhaps - and I take it that there will be no
25 great dispute about it - would you have to apply or would it be
1 automatic? By origin, for example, or by birth on the territory, that
2 sounds very much as if it would automatically apply once you're born
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: The quickest way is to make it an exhibit so that I
6 can read the whole of the document. And then, of course, my next
7 question would be, We know that in all matters of nationality that it's
8 not uncommon that one state says you're a national of my state on this
9 and this and this basis but that another state might issue legislation
10 which grants also citizenship of the other state. So this is the RSK
11 legislation which we can go through.
12 What was the existing Croatian legislation in terms of people of
13 Serb ethnicity born on the territory of one of the former republics of
14 the -- of Yugoslavia
15 not saying it is, but it comes to my mind - that it could well be that
16 obtaining citizenship of the RSK might not impress that much the Croatian
17 authorities which would not even acknowledge the existence of such a
18 state, let alone on the Croatian territory.
19 MR. MISETIC: No, it would not -- and if I may refer back to the
20 cross-examination of Elisabeth Rehn we touched upon this a little bit in
21 that cross-examination, Mr. President. Obtaining Croatian citizenship
22 had nothing to do with their status under the Republika Srpska Krajina,
23 which was an entity that Croatia
24 However, the issue was the persons who were born in the then-Socialist
25 Republic of Croatia
1 The issue raised during Mrs. Rehn's cross-examination was, and I
2 suspect the witness may know something about this, that the way you
3 obtained it was you had to go to your local county where the register of
4 births were kept, which was the only way the state had of knowing who
5 actually was born on the territory of Croatia
6 the problem which is now in evidence is that those were taken in the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the registers were not available anymore.
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I do remember that. I do not have all the details
11 of Mrs. Rehn's cross-examination immediately.
12 MR. MISETIC: Yes. So from Croatia
13 the witness could speak to this.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps he will.
15 MR. MISETIC:
16 Q. Yes. Mr. Cetina, in terms of how -- let's take as an example an
17 ethnic Serb in Knin on the 8th of August, so after Operation Storm, that
18 person could prove their right to Croatian citizenship by, amongst other
19 things, showing a copy of their birth documents in the registers which
20 should have been in Knin at the time evidencing their birth in Knin.
22 A. That's correct. That would be a sufficient enough document for
23 the police to serve as an identification of the individual.
24 Q. And do you recall there being problems as a result of missing
25 birth records, death records, marriage records, et cetera, that may have
1 been taken by the RSK authorities when they left?
2 A. I really don't remember the details. Anyhow, these are
3 administrative matters, matters of state administration which I really
4 cannot speak about.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I ask that 65 ter 1D3000 and 1D3001
6 be marked and I tender them into evidence.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those will become Exhibit D1761 and
10 D1762 respectively.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I wonder, Mr. Misetic -- I wonder whether it would
12 be wiser to separate the two or to keep them together as one exhibit.
13 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, if you wish to make it more efficient
14 we can make them one exhibit. That's fine.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not only efficiency, also because they are
16 related to some extent.
17 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And that at least prevents that we lose sight of
19 another document related to the first one.
20 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could we assign the two documents one
22 number, that would be ...?
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, in that case both documents
24 1D3000 and 1D3001 will become Exhibit Number D1761.
25 JUDGE ORIE: D1761 is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cetina.
3 MR. MISETIC: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Mr. Mikulicic, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Cetina?
6 Mr. Cetina, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Mikulicic.
7 Mr. Mikulicic is counsel for Mr. Markac.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Cetina.
10 A. Good afternoon.
11 Q. I know that a lot of time has elapsed since the events that are
12 at the centre of this case, and I know that the memory tends to fade, but
13 please focus on answering my questions as best you can so that we can
14 assist the Trial Chamber in establishing the actual state of affairs.
15 On the 1st of January, 1995, you were appointed as chief of the
16 Zadar-Knin Police Administration, were you not, Mr. Cetina?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Let me go back to your statement given to OTP investigators,
19 which is now D1745, where you state, in relation to the powers that you
20 had in terms of discipline within the military -- within the police
21 administration, that they were regulated by the law. Can you tell us
22 what sort of powers did you have as the administration chief in terms of
23 enforcing the discipline among the employees of the police?
24 A. Where there were grounds to suspect that policemen should be held
25 liable in certain -- in terms of discipline because he had allegedly
1 violated discipline, he would have been held responsible in terms of
2 disciplinary responsibility.
3 Q. We've heard already in this case that there were two forms of
4 disciplinary offences: Minor and major. When it came to minor
5 disciplinary breaches, were you entitled to pass down such -- such
7 A. No, we had first-instance disciplinary court - and I should not
8 have had the right to interfere with its dealings anyhow. My only power
9 was to file a request for the initiation of a disciplinary procedure.
10 Q. Similarly, there was a system in place in case there was a major
11 breach of discipline, but in that case, again, the disciplinary court
12 would be the one to decide and to act pursuant to your request. Is that
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Cetina, should it happen that a member of your police
16 administration, a person identified, would be a suspect in relation to
17 the commission of a crime and that an investigation was launched before
18 the competent court, had you received notice of it, what sort of powers
19 would you have in that respect?
20 A. As a rule, where there is a certain degree of suspicion, a
21 disciplinary procedure is to be launched, although this is a hypothetical
22 question, but this is the way things should transpire in practice.
23 Q. I have another option that I would like to hear your explanation
24 about. Should the -- there be a suspicion that an unidentified member of
25 your police administration took part or had a part to play in the
1 commission of a crime, who would be charged with the investigation
2 procedure? Would it be you as administration chief or would there be
3 somebody else envisaged under the law to carry out the investigation?
4 A. Well, for the criminal investigation that would be the police;
5 and for the judicial investigation, the court investigation, that would
6 be the investigating judge.
7 Q. Thank you. Let us clarify one fact which I believe still remains
8 unclarified and stems from your statement, the one that you gave to the
9 Prosecution, D1745, page 3, where you speak of the special police units
10 which were organised within your police administration. This was
11 mentioned a moment ago. And you drew a distinction in terms of what sort
12 of powers the special police units had in peacetime and in times of its
13 use in combat operations such as, for instance, Operation Storm. Would
14 you agree with me, Mr. Cetina, that these are two different sets of
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It is true, is it not, that members of the special police who
18 were engaged in combat activities during Operation Storm were outside of
19 your jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction, in fact, of the Main Staff
20 of the Croatian army; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. However, where they were not engaged in combat activities but,
23 rather, on duties within your police administration, duties that were of
24 a peacetime character, then you were the one deciding about their
25 engagement; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you for these answers. Mr. Cetina, we have just been
3 discussing the issuance of documentation to the citizens who did not have
4 documents and happened to find themselves in the territory of the
5 Republic of Croatia
6 Serb ethnicity. Did you know whether there was any sort of
7 discrimination employed by the state authorities issuing such
8 documentation in respect of Serb citizens who applied for Croatian
10 A. No.
11 Q. When you say "no," do you want to say that there was no such
12 discrimination or that you didn't know?
13 A. No, I was not aware of it; and had I been, I would have most
14 certainly opposed the practice.
15 Q. Do you recall anyone ever addressing you or your subordinates in
16 protest - and I'm referring to citizens of Serb ethnicities - in protest
17 of a fact that in the documentation issuing a procedure they were
18 discriminated against or dealt with in a way that was different to the
19 treatment according to members of the Croat ethnicity?
20 A. No.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document 3D04-1087.
22 Q. Mr. Cetina, let's move to a different topic now, that is to say
23 the searches of the terrain which were widely used in the aftermath of
24 Operation Storm. As you can see here, this is a letter sent by
25 Assistant Minister Mr. Moric, Josko Moric, to various police
1 administrations including yours on the 9th of August which states that it
2 is presumed that elements of Chetnik units are on the run in the woods
3 and that there is a possibility of them attacking the police, and that
4 the instruction was that in such cases the sector of the special police
5 force should be informed as a matter of urgency.
6 Mr. Cetina, do you know whether there were such instances in
7 practice where the straggling elements of Serb personnel were to be found
8 in the Croatian territory hiding away from representatives of the
9 Croatian authorities?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Under such circumstances, you did not - did you? - engage members
12 of the ordinary uniformed police to deal with these matters; rather, on
13 such cases you notified the special police forces. Is that right?
14 A. Yes, because the ordinary uniformed police were not trained or
15 equipped for such actions.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, may I have this document entered
17 into the evidence, please?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1762.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cetina, correct me if I'm wrong, you were
24 aware of the fact that members of the special police, following the
25 combat activities, took part in the searches of the terrain in the areas
1 that were liberated?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up document
4 65 ter 5828.
5 Q. Mr. Cetina, I will show you a document which has to do with this
6 issued. It will soon appear on the screen. This is a document sent by
7 General Mladen Markac from the special police sector to the
8 Gospic Split Military District, to the Knin Garrison, as well as to the
9 chief of the Licko-Sinjska Police Administration and the chief of the
10 Zadar-Knin Police Administration. The document informs them of the
11 activities carried out in the searches of the terrain.
12 Can you confirm, Mr. Cetina, that this was a way of searching the
13 terrain in order to avoid certain unwanted situations that may involve
14 the local population and the police force active in the area?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: May I tender this document into the evidence,
17 Your Honour?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit Number D1763.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Let us move on to a different topic, i.e.,
24 sanitisation of the terrain. This was already discussed, and I do not
25 wish to duplicate your testimony and waste Their Honours' time.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask the Registrar to call
2 up document D233.
3 Q. In other words, this is a document that has already been admitted
4 into evidence. An order on the conduct of sanitisation. And this is
5 something that was sent to, among others, the Zadar-Knin Police
6 Administration. And the procedure of sanitisation is described here in
7 detail. Let me first ask you: Have you ever seen this order? Has it
8 passed through your hands as have many other thousands of such documents?
9 A. Yes, in fact that's the case.
10 Q. At any rate, now that you're looking at it, can you recall that
11 the exact procedure of sanitisation was set out in the first days of
12 Operation Storm?
13 A. Yes, and this is in fact the way in which it was carried out.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Can we look up document D601 now,
16 Q. This is another document on the same issue. It has also been
17 drafted by Assistant Minister Mr. Zidovec. The date is of the
18 7th of August, in other words two days later. This document was sent to
19 your police administration too. The document states that the chiefs of
20 the police administrations have, based on assessments, a duty to pass
21 decisions engaging the civilian protection, public utility companies and
22 others as a matter of urgency in order to engage in sanitisation.
23 Do you recall whether you used the services of the public utility
24 company, such as the street cleaning, fire brigade, et cetera, in the
25 duties relating to sanitisation?
1 A. To the best of my recollection we did, although we needed to get
2 more personnel in than that.
3 Q. In the course of the sanitisation of the terrain where dead
4 bodies were detected, members of the crime police force within your
5 administration were involved; is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is it true that where a trained policeman would establish by
8 examining the body that there was a suspicion of a crime of foul play,
9 was his duty -- or rather, let me ask you: What was his duty in that
11 A. His duty was to assess what the matter at hand was.
12 Q. If he were to establish that there was foul play, in other words,
13 murder, what was his obligation as a crime investigation policeman?
14 A. If the degree of suspicion was high enough in his assessment, the
15 crime investigation police was supposed to be notified.
16 Q. What would follow such a notice?
17 A. If the degree of suspicion is high enough, if that's the sort of
18 assessment made, then the Law on Criminal Procedure was supposed to be
20 Q. Let me translate your answer into laymen's terms. Does it mean
21 that in that case a team would be formed which would conduct an on-site
22 investigation, and where it would be established that a crime was
23 committed, a criminal procedure would follow?
24 A. Yes, these are in fact activities as part of the inquiry or
1 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we next please see
2 65 ter document 4564.
3 Q. Mr. Cetina, based on this instruction of
4 Assistant Minister Mr. Zidovec to mobilise civil protection forces for
5 which chiefs of the police administrations were responsible, I wanted to
6 show you --
7 MR. MIKULICIC: I am advised that this is already D348, so I
8 apologise, Your Honour.
9 Q. [Interpretation] -- I wanted to show you a document you sent out
10 on the 8th of August to the Ministry of the Interior in which you report
11 on the carried out mobilisation of civilian protection forces as well as
12 on the number of corpses that were found in the territory of this other
13 Knin police administration. Looking at the document, could you recall
14 those particular events?
15 A. We sent a number of similar documents to the ministry, but yes it
16 was always in this format.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I wanted to enter this document into
18 the evidence, but obviously it is already in the evidence, so I have no
19 further --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then there is no need to do it.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, thank you. And I'm sorry for this mistake.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cetina, I thank you for your answers. I
23 have no more questions.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honours, that concludes my
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mikulicic.
2 Ms. Mahindaratne, looking at the clock, I think it would be wiser
3 to invite you to start your cross-examination after the break.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, Mr. Cetina. We'll resume at ten
6 minutes past 4.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, I was informed that you would need
10 another three minutes. Please.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, thank you.
12 [Interpretation] Registrar, could we please have 2D00545.
13 Q. Mr. Cetina, although I said I concluded your cross-examination,
14 in the meantime I came across an important document concerning a
15 disciplinary proceedings. And I would just require your comment after
16 you were able to see the document. As you can see, this is a request to
17 initiate a disciplinary procedure. We cannot see it here, but you signed
18 it. You submitted this application against an employee of the police
19 administration by the name of Roko Soric because on the 31st of August he
20 was found driving a vehicle without registration plates. Do you recall
21 that event?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. Briefly, could you describe the situation to us given that you
24 were the person who actually found the person committing the disciplinary
1 A. Yes, I recall this case in which I personally acted against that
2 person who was a police member when I arrived in Knin.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you can assist us. We have some problems
4 with the transcript, I understand. So, Mr. Mikulicic, could you please
5 explain in your language to Mr. Cetina that we have to wait for a second
6 until we have resolved this issue.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Mr. Cetina, there seems to be a problem,
8 technical glitch, with the transcript. We'll have to wait until that is
9 resolved. Therefore, please do not start answering yet.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Hopefully a re-start of the system will help us out.
11 If not, we'll see.
12 If no one speaks, we'll never find out whether the system is
13 working again.
14 This is also the moment to remember that we are lost without a
15 transcriber and a functioning system.
16 Mr. Mikulicic, could you please start again where the system was
17 not functioning anymore. You asked for 2D00545 to be on the screen.
18 Could you please re-start at that moment.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: I will, Your Honour.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cetina, I will repeat my question for the
21 record, at least the part of it that was not recorded. You see that this
22 is a request for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings submitted by
23 you. I wanted to ask you whether you recall that event as an example of
24 the disciplinary measures that were at the disposal of the police
1 A. Yes, I remember it.
2 Q. You, as the chief of the police administration, submitted this
3 request to initiate disciplinary proceedings, based on which the
4 disciplinary court was supposed to act; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] I would now kindly ask the
7 Registrar to turn the next page of the document.
8 Q. We can see that this is a decision by which the police member is
9 being suspended from duty during the disciplinary proceedings. This is
10 actually a suspension from work; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As a part of that suspension, the police badge and the police
13 uniform are being seized of the policeman. That was one part of the
14 disciplinary measures; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we now move to the next
17 page of the document.
18 Q. We can see here that the proceedings were initiated by the first
19 police station in Knin for the crime of theft. It seems that there were
20 reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed that crime.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, this is a set of documents under the
22 one number, and it show ups the procedure in the disciplinary matter
23 referring to Mr. Soric Roko.
24 [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Registrar to move a step
25 further. That's right.
1 Q. Mr. Cetina, you see this is a letter of the Knin police station
2 sent to the chief of the police administration in which it is stated that
3 there were grounds to believe that Mr. Roko Soric committed the crime of?
4 aggravated theft from Article 126 and that it is asked that disciplinary
5 proceedings be instituted. In parallel --
6 MR. MIKULICIC: And if we can go to the next page of the
8 Q. -- we see that the police measure of seizure of objects is being
9 implemented, that is to say his side-arm, his rifle, and his badge were
10 being taken away?
11 MR. MIKULICIC: Another part of the document, please. This is a
12 page of the previous one.
13 Q. [Interpretation] You can see, Mr. Cetina, that this is a receipt
14 of temporary seizure of certain objects, the official side-arm, rifle,
15 and police badge were being taken from Mr. Roko Soric. This was part of
16 standard procedure; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if we go further, we see that there is another receipt --
19 MR. MIKULICIC: If I could ask the Registrar to go one step
20 further, please.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Another confirmation of temporary confiscation.
22 The vehicle that he was found driving was also seized, and you were the
23 person who found him driving that vehicle. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: If I could ask the Registrar to go one step
1 further, please.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Finally, the last document in the batch is a
3 note of receipt in which we can see that certain objects were seized,
4 including the official side-arm, rifle, and ammunition. Those items were
5 seized by the police station.
6 Was this standard procedure during the relevant period of time in
7 cases of disciplinary breaches or offences committed by members of the
8 police administration?
9 A. Yes, more or less this is the procedure. The seized items
10 included the rifle and the ammunition which were not involved in the
11 commission of the crime, if there was a crime at the end. The vehicle
12 was seized as well, although it may have been ascertained later on that
13 there was no theft of vehicle. I believe the procedure was concluded by
14 simply initiating a disciplinary procedure against the employee for
15 driving a vehicle without traffic -- without plates.
16 Q. Is this part of standard procedure as well?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: May I, please, enter this document into the
19 evidence, Your Honour. That is to say, the set of documents.
20 Your Honour, I was just advised that I spoke in vain. Could I
21 have this document entered into the evidence, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Ms. Mahindaratne.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No objection, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, series of documents.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D1764.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour for additional time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Mikulicic, we started with the seizure and the reporting and
6 serious reasons to believe that the four -- found may not be the one
7 belonging to the police officer. Any final decisions because the witness
8 tells us that he may have been driving without his licence plates on his
9 car. Do you think --
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, it's all we've got. Maybe we could
11 ask the witness; maybe he remembers that specific incident --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he said something about that it was his
13 recollection that it may have been just driving without licence plates.
14 But we could ask you, perhaps, Mr. Cetina. Do you have any
15 recollection on this case?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Was it established that the car belonged to the
18 police officer, or was anything established about ownership of the car in
19 which he was found driving?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that I pulled him over
21 and identified him. As for any follow-up procedure concerning the
22 vehicle and the objects, that is something I'm not familiar with.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, I think you said something about
24 it - let me just check. You said:
25 "Although it may have been ascertained later on that there was no
1 theft of the vehicle which is" -- and you said:
2 "I believe the procedure was concluded by simply initiating a
3 disciplinary procedure against the employee for driving a vehicle without
4 traffic -- without licence plates."
5 Of course, I'm more or less asking you now on the basis of what
6 you believe this. And you say:
7 "As for any follow-up procedure concerning the vehicle and the
8 objects, that is something I'm not familiar with."
9 Although, you suggested at least some familiarity, that is, that
10 the whole issue of theft was not further pursued.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't trying to suggest
12 anything. Certain departments had to do their work. I don't know what
13 exactly was done or was ascertained. This was merely an assumption of
15 JUDGE ORIE: Would there have been any good reasons for this
16 assumption rather than another one, that is, that the car did not belong
17 to the police officer and that for that reason he should have been
18 further prosecuted or that further disciplinary proceedings should be --
19 should have followed?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I truly cannot recollect that
21 anymore. I cannot remember the details.
22 JUDGE ORIE: What do you remember apart from -- if you say you do
23 not recollect the details anymore, what do you remember?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember pulling him over --
25 actually, we met somewhere along the road. This was a policeman from my
1 force, although I didn't know him personally. In any case, he was handed
2 over to the employees of the Knin police station. And the request for a
3 disciplinary procedure did arrive later, although I do not recall when
5 JUDGE ORIE: So you are totally unfamiliar with the fact on
6 whether it was finally established that the car did belong to this police
7 officer or did not belong to this police officer?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not recall that, and I'm not
9 familiar with it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I invite you then to refrain from further
11 assumptions which have a certain suggestive -- can have a certain
12 suggestive impact.
13 Ms. Mahindaratne, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Cetina?
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina, you will now be cross-examined by
16 Ms. Mahindaratne. Ms. Mahindaratne is counsel for the Prosecution.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Cross-examination by Ms. Mahindaratne:
19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cetina.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. I just wanted to clarify a couple of matters. In your statements
22 to the Office of the Prosecutor as well as the Defence, you record your
23 current occupation as police officer. Can you be a bit more specific.
24 What is your current designation and in which department of the Ministry
25 of the Interior are you working?
1 A. I work in the crime police administration on white-collar crime.
2 Q. And what is your current designation?
3 A. I am an assistant to the chief.
4 Q. Now, yesterday we were discussing the Kotar-Knin Police
5 Administration and the Knin-Zadar Police Administration. Just to clarify
6 further, was the territory covered by the Kotar-Knin Police
7 Administration within your area of responsibility, within the territory
8 that was covered by the Knin-Zadar Police Administration?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So, in effect, the head of the Kotar-Knin Police Administration,
11 Mr. Romanic, was subordinated to you?
12 A. One could explain it as follows: Formally speaking, he was
13 subordinated to me, but the Kotar-Knin Police Administration had a
14 special status vis-a-vis the ministry.
15 Q. Okay. And one further clarification. Now, Mr. Bitanga was the
16 head of uniformed police within your police administration; isn't that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And subordinated to you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, yesterday, Mr. Kay showed you some orders issued by the
22 assistant minister of interior, Mr. Moric, regarding contacting military
23 police between -- to co-operation. And you testified that it was Mr.
24 Bitanga who contacted the military police in the area, and I'm referring
25 to transcript page 23.404 to 05.
1 Now, in addition to Mr. Bitanga, did you yourself also contact
2 military police or commanders of the military police in your area of
4 A. Yes, during several meetings, perhaps once or twice.
5 Q. So it's once or twice that you contacted military police
6 commanders in your area of responsibility during the -- during 1995; is
7 that correct?
8 A. In principle, yes. Mr. Bitanga had more operational contacts.
9 Q. And who in the military police did you contact?
10 A. I recall Mr. Matanic fairly well, but not the others.
11 Q. Have you met Colonel Budimir?
12 A. I do not recall Mr. Budimir.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Cetina, you were interviewed by the Defence in April of
14 this year, which is the statement actually you, in fact, signed in
15 August; isn't that correct? You signed the statement given to the
16 Defence as a consequence to being interviewed in April of this year; is
17 that correct?
18 A. I gave a statement. I don't know when we established contact for
19 the first time, but I signed the statement after I had given it.
20 Q. Were you interviewed only once or several times?
21 A. Twice, I think.
22 Q. Was the initial interview conducted in April 2009?
23 A. I no longer recall, although I believe so.
24 Q. There's no issue about that. My question is: At the time you
25 were interviewed by the Defence, were you provided the statement that you
1 had given to the Office of the Prosecutor to review?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And having reviewed the statement given to the Office of
4 the Prosecutor, you, in fact, confirmed its accuracy when you made the
5 statement to the Defence; isn't that correct? And let me, in fact, read
6 what you have said in paragraph 1 of the Defence statement. This is
7 D1743. You start off by saying:
8 "I confirm that the statements which I gave to the Office of the
9 Prosecutor of the ICTY on 10th and 11th September, 2001, and on 25th and
10 26th February, 2002, are true to the best of my recollection."
11 Now, my question is -- what I'm getting at is this: Having said
12 that, during the last two weeks when you were interviewed, that is, on
13 the 13th and 23rd of October, you made three further corrections to the
14 statement given to the Office of the Prosecutor. Now, how is it that you
15 did not note those mistakes in the statement given to the Office of the
16 Prosecutor initially when you reviewed it, when you were interviewed by
17 the Defence in April this year?
18 A. They were clarifications of certain answers.
19 Q. Let me take you to those clarifications.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could call up D1744.
21 Q. And this is a correction you made. You -- I'm going to the first
22 clarification that is on page 1 of both versions. Referring to page 6,
23 paragraph 4 of the -- your statement to the OTP, you made a correction to
24 the paragraph that starts with:
25 "I did not have any special contacts with the Croatian army. The
1 only contact I had with the military was with General Ivan Cermak."
2 And your clarification is this, you say -- you had said that you
3 could not explain why this passage in this statement was written this
5 "He had many contacts with the military police with whom he
6 liaised both before Operation Oluja and after Operation Oluja."
7 And you go on to clarify it further. And you go on to say:
8 "Problems that he had experienced with military personnel
9 committing offences within Zadar-Knin PU area he raised directly with the
10 VP and his officers liaised directly with the commanders regularly."
11 Now, you just said, Mr. Cetina, that you met the military police
12 only twice, and most of the contacts were carried out by Mr. Bitanga, yet
13 in your clarification you start off by saying that you had many contacts
14 with the military police with whom you liaised both before
15 Operation Oluja and after Operation Oluja.
16 Now, can you explain to the Trial Chamber as to why suddenly
17 during the last two weeks you decided to make that clarification or
18 change to the OTP statement, having confirmed its accuracy when you were
19 initially interviewed by the Defence?
20 A. What this is all about is that I was, throughout this time,
21 referring to the contacts that I and my associates had. I had far fewer
22 contacts than they did, and that's what I tried to clarify here. It
23 would have been far easier to have in front of me now the question that
24 was put to me and in response to which I gave the answer.
25 Q. Let's go to the second correction.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If we could move, Mr. Registrar, to the next
3 Q. And there you have made a correction to page 10 of the statement
4 given to the OTP and paragraph 1.
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Actually, that paragraph starts from page 9,
6 Mr. Registrar, if you could just start with page 9 -- I'm
7 sorry -- I'm sorry, I made a mistake, Mr. Registrar. We'll keep on this
9 Q. In your statement given to the OTP, Mr. Cetina, you say this:
10 "I do not know if any special commission was set up to
11 investigate the murders in Varivode and Gosici. My only interest was to
12 solve the cases in respect of ongoing crimes. I can say that we did a
13 lot of things. We tried to process every important criminal act."
14 And then after a couple of sentences you say:
15 "I would agree that once the Serbs had fled from the liberated
16 area, the area was under the control of the Croatian armed forces."
17 And having said that, then you corrected that last couple of
18 weeks in this way. You say that he had not said that particular sentence
19 or that passage to the investigators in the context of this paragraph.
20 Mr. Cetina said that:
21 "After reading the entire paragraph, it was noticeable the last
22 sentence of the paragraph did not refer to the very content of this
23 paragraph, and the context is misleading."
24 So your correction is that, as it stands, your statement
25 indicates -- to the OTP indicates that -- the passage "I would agree that
1 once the Serbs had fled from the liberated area, the area was under the
2 control of the Croatian armed forces" was in relation to the crimes that
3 you had been discussing, whereas you have now, over the last couple of
4 weeks, said that that passage was not provided in the context of the
5 crimes you were discussing. So can you then tell us in what context did
6 you make that statement?
7 A. I don't recall. However, based on the answer that you have just
8 now quoted to me, I would say that the question must have been leading in
9 this way. And I'm really sorry that we don't have the question here. We
10 don't have the substance of the question, and that would help us to see
11 why this was put in the context as it was.
12 Q. Mr. Cetina, if you cannot recall the context in which you said
13 it, how is it that after seven years, after you made the statement to the
14 OTP, you could now tell this Trial Chamber that that particular sentence
15 was not made within the context in which that sentence is recorded
16 presently? On what basis did you make that correction?
17 A. On the basis that it simply does not fit with the rest of the
18 paragraph of the statement. I had besides an hour to review the entire
19 statement and to state whether I was in agreement with it.
20 Q. Why didn't you notice that when you initially reviewed the
21 statement in April, the initiate contact you had with the Defence?
22 A. I must have overlooked it.
23 Q. Let me take you to the third correction you made and that's a
24 correction to page 14 of the OTP statement, paragraph 6. And referring
25 to -- there, you refer to meetings hosted by Mr. Cermak. This is what
1 you say in your OTP statement:
2 "Cermak hosted these meetings, but they were not very formal, and
3 there was no specific agenda. We were all given the opportunity to
4 outline our problems, but no specific decisions were made. Everybody had
5 to resolve their own problems, and nobody could issue an order to anybody
6 else. These meetings were, in fact, only an opportunity to communicate
7 with each other. General Cermak must have been aware of ongoing murders
8 because he had to ask for reports."
9 You have made a correction to that, and it is a clarification.
10 You say that:
11 "Mr. Cetina said that he explained in the statement to the
12 Defence they concerned the exchange of information about events in Knin
13 because the civil police was interested in the functioning of matters in
14 the civilian area, such as restoring electricity, water, cleaning of the
15 town, protection of economic facilities, factories, et cetera ..."
16 And you further clarify what those meetings were about. Now, do
17 I understand this correction to mean that you -- what you're saying here
18 is that those meetings were conducted between Mr. Cermak and yourself for
19 purposes of discussing administrative matters such as restoring
20 electricity and waterworks, or were other issues also discussed at these
21 meetings such as crimes and the problems that were faced by civilian
22 police and police in the area?
23 A. If Mr. Cermak had such information, we would gladly have accepted
24 it. We were talking about the setting up of an office to deal with state
25 administration matters such as the settlement of domicile issues,
1 et cetera.
2 Q. No, that's not my question, Mr. Cetina. My question is: At
3 those meetings between yourself and Cermak - and I believe you also say
4 that Mr. Franjo Djurica also attended those meetings sometimes - did you
5 also discuss, apart from, you know, waterworks and electricity -- the
6 restoration of electricity and such matters, did you also discuss crimes
7 that were being committed in your area and the problems? Did you inform
8 Mr. Cermak the problems that your police officers had in policing the
10 A. We didn't have the obligation to inform Mr. Cermak. In
11 principle, we primarily went to the Knin police station and then
12 afterwards we would go to see Mr. Cermak --
13 Q. Mr. Cetina, please --
14 A. I'm answering your question.
15 Q. Please, go ahead. My apologies.
16 A. As I said, if Mr. Cermak had certain information about events
17 that were of interest to the police, then we gladly heard him out on the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina, the questions are pretty clear, that is:
20 Did you discuss the occurrence of crime and problems you may have had in
21 coping with that during these meetings? Did you or did you not?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we did; however, I -- our
23 primary interest lay with the policing.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would have said "yes" approximately
25 three minutes ago, then we would have known your answer immediately
1 rather than whether there was an obligation to do so, whether that if
2 Mr. Cermak had certain information that you would have been willing to
3 receive that. Let's try to stick to the facts. The questions were
4 clear. And could you please directly answer the questions that are put
5 to you by Ms. Mahindaratne.
6 You may proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Mr. Cetina, let me take you to another part of your statement
9 made to the OTP.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, Mr. Registrar, if I could D1745 on the
11 screen. This is at page 5, paragraph 3.
12 Q. You refer to the police commanders appointed in your area of
13 responsibility and you say:
14 "I believe that all or most of the police officers who were
15 appointed as station commanders were Serbs," the fifth line on
16 paragraph 3.
17 And the second line above that you say:
18 "They also made appointments of professional police officers who
19 were called coordinators."
20 Now, isn't it correct that the reason why the police commanders
21 who appointed were of Serb ethnicity was the constitutional requirement
22 which made it mandatory for appointment of persons of Serb ethnicity in
23 areas which were predominantly inhabited by Serbs? Wasn't that the
24 reason why the police commanders in your area of responsibility were all
1 A. The ministry appointed them, and I presumed that that was the
2 reason, yes.
3 Q. Now -- and since this was liberated territory and as such these
4 were areas which were predominantly inhabited by the Serb population,
5 therefore this was to fulfil that particular constitutional requirement;
6 isn't it correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, you referred to the police coordinators who were appointed.
9 Isn't it correct that all the police coordinators were of Croatian
10 ethnicity -- I'm sorry, Croat ethnicity?
11 A. I don't know if they were Croats. I would have to look at their
12 background information. They were all appointed by the Ministry of
13 the Interior.
14 Q. Do you know Mr. Buhin, one of the police coordinators?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. He was of Croat ethnicity; isn't that correct?
17 A. I presume so. I don't know how he declared himself.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, is there any dispute about the
19 ethnical background of police coordinators?
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Mr. President, I was just addressing
21 paragraph -- I will move on, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
24 Q. Now, Mr. Kay asked you a series of questions yesterday as to if
25 advanced preparations had been taken prior to Operation Storm to set up
1 police work in the liberated areas --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And this is at transcript reference 23.397 to
4 Q. Isn't it correct that prior to Operation Storm there were a
5 series of military operations going even back to 1993 - and I'm referring
6 to Operation Medak Pocket and in 1995 there was Flash - where territory
7 formerly held by the RSK were liberated?
8 A. Yes, they were liberated.
9 Q. So isn't it correct then that the officials of the Ministry of
10 the Interior did have previous experience in preparing for policing of
11 liberated territory as a consequence of the previous operations?
12 A. They did, but we didn't. At the time, I was not in a position
13 that would permit me to plan that.
14 Q. Would you also agree with me, Mr. Cetina, that crimes were
15 committed in the liberated territories after those previous operations
17 A. I don't know the details. I know what I could read in the media.
18 Q. And what did you read in the media? Does that confirm -- what
19 you read in the media, does that confirm my proposition to you?
20 A. My duties were not of such a nature that would permit me to have
21 information about what was happening in the areas. Whatever I knew was
22 what I could read in the press, and I can't go in the details. I know
23 that there were certain judgements in connection with this. That's the
24 extent of the knowledge I have.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina, the only thing Ms. Mahindaratne asked
1 you is what you did read in the newspapers, because your previous answer
2 referred her to newspapers. Now, did you read in those newspapers that
3 crimes were committed in the liberated territories in these earlier
4 stages of the conflict?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read that in connection with
6 Medak Pocket there were judgements rendered which had to do with
7 General Norac. I wasn't aware of anything other than that.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I just then seek -- the only thing you read
10 about what happened -- well, first of all, there were two operations
11 referred to by Ms. Mahindaratne, the first Medak Pocket, the second
12 Flash. When reading the newspapers, it was only that you read about
13 General Norac -- judgement against General Norac being rendered, or did
14 you ever read something about crimes that may have been committed at the
15 time in the Medak Pocket where an operation had taken place?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, only about the judgement.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And about Flash, Operation Flash?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall reading anything
19 specific about any judgements in connection with Flash.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't asking about judgements but about crimes
21 reported about having been committed.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't remember. I
23 would have to peruse the press.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Cetina, your testimony - and I'm here referring to D1745,
3 page 6, paragraph 1 - that you conducted daily meetings with the police
4 commanders within your area of responsibility and the police coordinators
5 and that you also took field trips to check on the ground situation.
6 Now, those police commanders you met with on a daily meetings would
7 include Mr. Romanic and Mr. Mihic; isn't that correct?
8 A. Yes, but I didn't meet with everyone every day.
9 Q. Whom did you meet with at your daily meetings of the police --
10 your police commanders? Would you have a representative from the Knin
11 police, either Mr. Romanic or Mr. Mihic?
12 A. If you'll allow me to, I'll explain this.
13 Q. Please.
14 A. In view of the vast territory and the lack of communications,
15 several days later the need arose for different police stations to be
16 visited on different days. If you had five to six police stations, you
17 could set aside one day for each of the police stations.
18 Q. So it would be correct to say that you met with Mr. Romanic
19 and/or Mr. Mihic regularly, if not daily?
20 A. On average, once a week with Mr. Romanic.
21 Q. And you also met with the police coordinators, Mr. Buhin and
22 Mr. Baric, who were -- who oversaw the area Knin and the related area on
23 a regular basis, did you?
24 A. I met them less often than I did Mr. Romanic.
25 Q. At those meetings, were crimes and the problems the police had in
1 the area in policing the crimes discussed?
2 A. All manner of problems were discussed.
3 Q. And did the police commanders give you a report of the reports of
4 crimes the police stations had received or the area the police
5 administration in the case of Knin police administration had received in
6 a given time and what follow-up investigation steps had been taken in
7 relation to those matters?
8 A. They reported to me on the most important issues. I could not
9 have possibly been aware of all the matters. Steps were taken through
10 the chiefs that were subordinated to me, either in relation to the
11 ordinary uniformed police, criminal investigation police, or the civilian
12 protection department.
13 Q. I'd like to take you to your statement given to the OTP --
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And that's -- I'm sorry, statement given to
15 the Defence, that's D1743 -- that's correct, D1743. Mr. Registrar, if I
16 could have that on the screen.
17 Q. And there in paragraph 17 - this is in relation to the incident
18 in Grubori, Mr. Cetina - this is what you say:
19 "I found out about the murders in the village of Grubori later,
20 because I was not in my office on the day when the murders occurred or
21 for several days afterwards."
22 About five lines below that you say:
23 "Mr. Kardum informed me about those events a day or two after
24 they happened. When he informed me about all the events, he told me that
25 coordinators Buhin and Baric from the Knin District Police Administration
1 were informed immediately about those events and that they immediately
2 reported to their superiors in Zagreb
3 regarding the events in Grubori was unnecessary."
4 Now, after Mr. Kardum informed you about the incident in Grubori,
5 did you inquire from him at any stage thereafter as to the status of that
6 investigation as to whether any perpetrators have been arrested?
7 A. Mr. Kardum informed me of the incident which took place in
8 Grubori and told me precisely what you've mentioned now, that Buhin and
9 Baric had been informed about everything. I believed that Mr. Romanic
10 was aware of it as well. As for the follow-up action, I was not in Knin
11 at the time. I was attending different -- I was attending to different
12 tasks which took me to the north of the area.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Cetina, until when were you -- when did you hold the
14 position as head of the police administration Knin-Zadar?
15 A. I was the head until the 31st of December, 1995, but as of
16 January 1 of that year, I no longer performed the duties of the head as
18 THE INTERPRETER: The end of the witness's answer was
19 unintelligible, could he please be asked to repeat it.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
21 Q. Mr. Cetina, could you repeat the last bit of your answer that has
22 not been taken down by the interpreters. Could you repeat what you just
24 A. After the 1st of December, I was -- I knew I was going to go
25 back, and I went on leave. The deputy chief of the police administration
1 took up my duties from that point on.
2 Q. So, Mr. Cetina, this incident, Grubori incident, occurred on
3 25th of August. Now, is it your position that after you were informed of
4 the incident by Mr. Kardum some days after the incident, you never
5 inquired from him as to the status of that investigation or as to if
6 anybody has been arrested? You just completely ignored the matter
7 thereafter? Is that your position?
8 A. I did not ignore that, but there were many events. Mr. Kardum
9 informed me that it involved an incident which fell within the area where
10 there were war operations.
11 Q. No, were -- did Mr. Kardum inform you that the incident related
12 to the killing of five civilians and burning of several houses in a
14 A. I don't recall exactly the number of persons involved, but, in
15 any case, all the people who dealt with the incident had sufficient
16 experience to know what to do.
17 Q. My question to you, Mr. Cetina, is: Do you consider that as a
18 serious enough incident to inquire from your subordinate officers as to
19 what action, follow-up action, had been taken by them? This is after all
20 your area of responsibility in which a serious crime had been committed.
21 A. Given that this was probably a border-line case, he may have
22 informed me or maybe Mr. Romanic did. I never wrote down what they
23 actually told me.
24 Q. What do you mean by "border-line case"? Can you clarify that? I
25 didn't understand.
1 A. This incident took place in Grubori, and for me at the time it
2 was the only incident of that sort. That's why I referred to it as a
3 border-line incident.
4 Q. Did you ever receive any written reports about the investigation
5 regarding Grubori from your police officers, either Mr. Bitanga or
6 Mr. Kardum or Mr. Romanic or Mr. Mihic?
7 A. I do not recall that. But if there are any documents attesting
8 to that, please show them to me.
9 Q. No, there aren't any documents that we are aware of, Mr. Cetina.
10 But are you -- to your knowledge, was an on-site investigation carried
11 out into those killing incidents in Grubori?
12 A. As far as I know, it was not. But it could be qualified as such
13 only if there were measures taken under the law, although I don't think
14 they were.
15 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Cetina. I don't understand that answer. I asked
16 you if -- so your -- do I just take your answer to be just "no"? But I
17 don't understand what you meant by "but it could be qualified as such
18 only if there were measures taken under the law ..."
19 Do I understand your answer to be that there were no measures
20 taken at all under the law in relation to that incident? Is that what
21 you are saying?
22 A. If such steps were taken and if there are documents in existence
23 showing that, I would kindly ask to be shown those documents; otherwise,
24 I don't know.
25 Q. Mr. Cetina, isn't it correct that Mr. Buhin, in fact, discussed
1 this incident with you? He informed you about the killing incident? And
2 in fact -- in fairness to you let me tell you exactly what Mr. Buhin said
3 about this matter.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: This is, for the record, transcript reference
5 9981 to 82.
6 Q. When Mr. Buhin, the police coordinator, was questioned about this
7 incident this is what he said. He said:
8 "I believe it was sufficient to inform the chief of the police
9 administration, Mr. Ivica Cetina, and I'm sure he knew about what was
10 going on. He promised that he would set up a team for an on-site
11 inspection and make sure there was an investigating judge there. He also
12 promised to dispatch them to Knin. At this point, there was no further
13 need for me to check whether he had in fact done that or had informed the
14 chief of the crime police."
15 And at transcript page 9994 to 9995 this is what he said:
16 "At the time, I informed Mr. Cetina about the incident and he
17 spoke about dispatching an investigating judge and some forensic
18 technicians. I had the impression that he was taking this seriously and
19 that he would act based on this. He said that it would take him at least
20 three hours to put together a team, get an investigating judge on the
21 case, and for them to then reach Knin."
22 Now, how do you respond to Mr. Buhin's testimony? According to
23 him you -- he had discussed this incident with you, you were the person
24 who were supposed to inform the investigating judge, and you were the
25 person who was supposed to form a team to conduct an on-site
1 investigation, none of which had happened. So can you explain to the
2 Trial Chamber exactly your position on this matter.
3 A. I truly do not remember Mr. Buhin calling me and presenting the
4 problem to me in such words. It is strange because Mr. Buhin was not
5 subordinated or answerable to me. Why would he call me? He was supposed
6 to call the ministry directly to state his opinion about the event. He
7 could have called the state attorney's office and no one would have
8 stopped him. He could have called Mr. Kardum and conveyed to him, since
9 he was the chief of the crime police administration. Mr. Buhin was a
10 coordinator who was directly appointed from the Ministry of the Interior,
11 and as such was not subordinated to me.
12 Q. Do I understand your evidence to mean that you can't recall
13 Mr. Buhin telling you about this incident? Is that how I am to
14 understand it? You don't have a recollection, is that what ...?
15 A. I don't have that recollection. It would not have been customary
16 for Mr. Buhin to communicate with me in that way.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina, your earlier answer was:
18 "I truly do not remember Mr. Buhin calling me and presenting the
19 problem to me in such words."
20 I now understand that you have no recollection that Mr. Buhin
21 called you on the matter. What was the use of saying that you didn't
22 remember him calling you "and presenting the problem to me in such
23 words," which suggests that he may have done so in other words? Do you
24 remember any conversation with Mr. Buhin on the Grubori incident?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not. It is only possible that
1 Mr. Romanic informed me because I communicated with him far more
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any recollection of Mr. Romanic
4 informing you about the Grubori incident?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible that he informed me
6 about the incident, but I believe - at least as far as I can
7 recall - that I was informed about it by Mr. Kardum.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so you say it's possible but you just don't
9 remember that you -- that Mr. Romanic talked with you about the incident.
10 Ms. Mahindaratne, you may proceed.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Cetina, you said that you -- to your knowledge no
13 investigation -- or that you were not aware of an investigation or you
14 were not aware of an investigating judge visiting this -- the scene of
15 crime in Grubori. Now, when did you know that? At what stage did you
16 know that no investigations had been carried out into the Grubori
18 A. As far as I know, there were no investigations. As for when I
19 learned of that, I could only give you an opinion of mine if I were shown
20 a document but not from what I can remember alone.
21 Q. Mr. Cetina, I'm trying to understand your position. You're the
22 head of the Knin-Zadar Police Administration. In your area of
23 responsibility, a serious crime has been committed: Five civilians and
24 several houses burnt. And you, yourself, you are testifying that no
25 investigations have been carried out into that incident, yet you have
1 done nothing about it. Can you please explain to the Trial Chamber why
2 you, as the head of the police force for that area, did not do anything
3 to investigate a serious crime such as what happened in Grubori?
4 A. The information we have from the field was that the incident took
5 place in a combat area; therefore, I had to receive information from
6 different people, from all those who were in the field. And that
7 information was put together by Mr. Kardum who informed me.
8 Q. Are you able to offer any plausible explanation to the
9 Trial Chamber as to why your police officers, your subordinate police
10 officers, didn't carry out any investigation into this incident?
11 A. They were in the field and they were the best persons to assess
12 what needed to be done.
13 Q. Very well.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, may I have - and this next
15 document is under seal - it's D179.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have to go in private session or is there no
17 need to do that?
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No need, Mr. President, as long as the
19 document is not shown.
20 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
22 MR. MISETIC: D179 is actually an exhibit the Chamber, in
23 September 2008, inquired with the parties whether it needed to remain
24 under seal. The Gotovina Defence had asked for it initially at the
25 beginning of this case. We advised the -- Mr. Registrar that we no
1 longer need it under seal and the Prosecution also took the same
2 position, and therefore we would move that the status be changed and that
3 it can be a public document. And I have the e-mail chain of
4 communications in September 2008 if it's needed.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And -- the problem is to lift the confidential
6 characteristic of an exhibit, not having a clear recollection why it was
7 granted, is a bit beyond what the Chamber can do at this very moment.
8 MR. MISETIC: I can state it briefly, Mr. President. It was at
9 the beginning of the case and there was some discussion about the
10 identity of victims being broadcast; however, the Prosecution has,
11 subsequent to that, filed its clarification schedule of killing victims.
12 That's a public document. And I think the parties agree that there is no
13 longer a need to maintain that confidentiality.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, relying primarily on your explanation
16 and noting that none of the other parties have contradicted it, which I
17 would not expect them to do because the Chamber is used to you informing
18 the Chamber appropriately on matters in which the Chamber is seeking your
19 assistance, then under those circumstances and having heard your
20 explanation, D179 -- the Chamber changes the status of D179 in a public
22 Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also looking at the clock. Apparently -- I
25 don't know how many questions you have on the next document. If it would
1 be --
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: It's -- it could be a substantial number of
3 questions, Mr. President, so this might be a good time for the break.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we better first take the break. We'll have
5 a break and resume at ten minutes to 6.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 5.29 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 5.51 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Mr. Cetina, now this document was shown to you yesterday by
11 Mr. Kay, you may recall, and when Mr. Kay asked you whether you recall
12 this document being given to you by Mr. Elleby, you said you recalled
13 receiving it and then you went on to say that the killings listed in this
14 document were within your police administration.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: For the record, this is at page 23.450.
16 Q. Then you were asked as to what you did about this list, having
17 received it from Mr. Elleby, and your answer was - and this is at page
18 23.450 - you said:
19 "First of all, I have to say that it's a list of persons who
20 quite certainly lost their lives during the war operations or most of
21 them, and you can see that if you look at the dates when they were found.
22 Part of those persons were certainly murdered as well, that is to say the
23 crime of murder had been committed against them."
24 Now, you didn't quite give an answer as to what you did after you
25 received this list, but when you said that this document contains a list
1 of persons who for the most -- most of whom have died during war
2 operations, did you mean that the persons listed there had died due to
3 combat activity and not -- they were not outright murdered? Is that what
4 you meant?
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if you could just go to the
6 next page perhaps so that Mr. Cetina can have a reference to the list
8 Q. You looked at this list and that was the answer you gave.
9 A. Could you please repeat your question?
10 Q. When you were asked as to what you did after receiving this list,
11 your response was:
12 "First of all, I have to say that it's a list of persons who
13 quite certainly lost their lives during the war operations or most of
14 them and you can see that if you look at the dates when they were found."
15 Now, I have to say --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please then quote the
17 whole of the answer in view of the question you just phrased.
18 Mr. Cetina, you then said:
19 "Part of those persons were certainly murdered as well, that is
20 to say the crime of murder had been committed against them."
21 That's the whole of the answer, Ms. Mahindaratne.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
25 Q. Now, looking at this document, what information led you to
1 conclude that these persons had, in fact, died due to combat activity --
2 in fact, not all persons, you said "most of them" and that some had been
3 murdered. What is it -- what information do you gather from this
4 document which led you to give that response? Do you understand what I'm
6 A. I think I do. A piece of information we had was the date of
7 death, that is, the 5th of August. Next, could we please see the rest of
8 the document. I think we also have some people from Varivode. I'm not
9 sure, but perhaps we could see that.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: Sorry, it may be of assistance if we show the
11 witness the hard copy of the document so that he could go through it in
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I don't think I have a hard copy of the
14 Croatian version.
15 Q. But let me ask you this in order to make things -- to move on.
16 Mr. Cetina, you said it was a date -- you said:
17 "Quite certainly lost their lives during the war operations or
18 most of them. And you can see that if you look at the dates when they
19 were found."
20 Now, you just mentioned 5th August. There was only one body
21 found on 5th August. There isn't any other -- in this list, you can go
22 through the entire list.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Perhaps, Mr. Registrar, we could go page by
25 Q. I could not find any bodies found during the initial days of
1 Operation Storm here which would lead you to conclude that, perhaps three
2 or four at the most. Now, why did you say that most of these persons
3 were killed as a result of war operations? What is it that you see in
4 this document which would lead you to that conclusion?
5 A. They were killed in the area of war operations. That was the
6 main reason why I made that conclusion. I don't know what other
7 indicators there may be.
8 Q. So is it your position, Mr. Cetina, that any body found, person
9 killed in the area where there had been war operations would lead the
10 police to conclude immediately that they had died due to combat activity
11 and then proceed on that basis? Is that your testimony?
12 A. The right conclusion can be only made by the people, the teams
13 who were in the field who had access to the scene and the right
15 Q. So you would agree, then, that when you received this list you
16 had to inquire as to if investigations had been conducted into each of
17 these incidents to verify as to what the cause of death was and if it
18 was, in fact, murder, that perpetrators were found or investigations were
19 conducted; isn't it?
20 A. What I can tell you is that this document was forwarded to the
21 chief Kardum of the crime police, and he had to correlate the persons and
22 the locations and to link up with the civilian protection in order for
23 sanitisation to be carried out.
24 Q. Was that your primary interest, that sanitisation could be
25 carried out? Were you not interested in finding out if, in fact, these
1 matters had been investigated?
2 A. I forwarded the document to the chief of the crime police and he
3 knew what he had to do.
4 Q. Mr. Cetina, let me tell you in fact what Mr. Kardum - he in fact
5 testified in these proceedings - as to what he said about this list.
6 Now, this is at transcript page T9511 going to 12. Mr. Kardum testified,
7 and I'll read it to you. It was his testimony that you discussed this
8 matter with him. And let me just --
9 JUDGE ORIE: 9512, line 11, Ms. --
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
13 Q. He testified that you discussed -- you and him, that you gave him
14 the list, that you discussed the content, and it was sent on to Mr. Nadj
15 of the Ministry of the Interior. Now, there was -- he did not say that
16 you asked him to inquire into any investigations. There is no evidence
17 at all supporting what you're saying here. Now, did you or didn't you
18 make inquiries, either from Mr. Kardum or any other officers about it, as
19 to whether these killing incidents had been investigated?
20 A. These were incidents that happened in the war-affected areas. In
21 my view, Mr. Kardum acted properly by sending the information to the
22 Ministry of the Interior in order for them to make the right assessment
23 about what could be done about it.
24 Q. As I understand your testimony, is it your position then that
25 when you received information about persons killed in your area of
1 responsibility from the international monitors, what you did was send
2 that information to the Ministry of the Interior for the officials of the
3 ministry to take -- make an assessment as to what should be done. Is
4 that how you proceeded with matters?
5 A. Mr. Kardum and Mr. Nadj, they were the heads of the crime
6 investigation police, Mr. Nadj in Zagreb
7 they were the most competent persons and the best-placed persons to
8 decide about what had to be done.
9 Q. Weren't you as the head of the police administration concerned as
10 to finding out what was going on? Or did you just leave it in the hands
11 of the subordinate officers without making further inquiries?
12 A. I left it up to them to take the case further.
13 Q. Mr. Cetina, in fact, when this list was shown to you by the
14 investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor - and I will take you right
15 to that point in your statement. This is at page 10 of the OTP
16 statement, paragraph 3 going onto 4 - when the list was shown to you this
17 is what you said, this was in 2002:
18 "I cannot be sure if I have ever seen that document. I had a lot
19 of documents passing through my hands. I cannot recall if I ever
20 responded to this letter from Jan Elleby."
21 Now, in 2002 when you were shown this list, you couldn't -- you
22 didn't have any recollection of that or that's what you claimed at that
23 time. Then yesterday and today you clearly remember the list. Can you
24 explain to the Trial Chamber as to why, when the investigators confronted
25 you with this list in 2002, you didn't remember anything about it? Was
1 there any reason why you wanted to distance yourself from this list?
2 A. There is no special reason for it; rather, they showed me the
3 documents so speedily that I could not really concentrate at the time and
4 realise whether I had seen it or not.
5 Q. Mr. Cetina, in fact Mr. Elleby testified in these proceedings,
6 and he -- his testimony was that when he handed over this list to you,
7 you read the list, you put it aside, and asked Mr. Elleby to leave your
8 office. This is at transcript reference T3377 as well as P216, page 5.
9 Now, can you explain to the Trial Chamber as to why you reacted
10 in that manner when Mr. Elleby gave you this list? Why were you hostile
11 to Mr. Elleby when you were presented with this list?
12 A. In full respect of Mr. Elleby who stated something like that,
13 that's absolutely not the truth. I'm not the kind of person who would
14 throw anyone out of my office.
15 Q. Moving on, Mr. Cetina.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have document P53,
18 Q. I'd like to take you to your statement given to the Defence, and
19 I just -- since we're going to have another document on the screen, let
20 me read that to you. This is paragraph 10 of the Defence statement
21 D1743. You were shown the document that will come on your screen which
22 is now on your screen, and this is what you say about the document. You
24 "I confirm that I have not seen this document before. I have
25 already explained that a military serviceman could not issue orders to
1 the police. From the aspect of the regulations on the police, there is
2 no basis to be found anywhere in the law for the issue of any sort of
3 military orders for the police station in Knin to which this order was
4 sent. It was only information in terms of where the UNCRO staff would be
5 moving, but this does not relate to the actions by the police."
6 Now, as I understand your testimony to be, is it your, then,
7 opinion that this was an order issued to the military police but sent to
8 the civilian police for information. Is that what you're saying?
9 A. No. I don't know about the military police. As for the civilian
10 police it -- the order definitely didn't mean anything to the civilian
11 police because the civilian police acts in keeping with the Law on
12 Internal Affairs and Law on Criminal Procedure.
13 Q. Now, in relation to this order, Mr. Cetina, you say this, that:
14 "This order does not relate to any actions by the police."
15 Now, isn't it correct that there were civilian police
16 check-points established in the liberated territory?
17 A. Yes, they were.
18 Q. So isn't this order -- before that, let me ask you one more
19 question. Isn't it correct then that the UNCRO vehicles were stopped at
20 those civilian police check-points?
21 A. In my view, the UNCRO vehicles were not stopped by the civilian
22 police for checks or simply because they would not let them through.
23 Q. Is it your position that UNCRO vehicles were not stopped by
24 civilian police check-points; is that your testimony?
25 A. That's the way it should be, yes.
1 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have D499, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina, may I remind you that when something is
3 asked about what happened, that the answer should not be what should have
4 been done but what, as far as you know, happened. When you were asked
5 whether it's correct that UNCRO vehicles were stopped at those civilian
6 police check-points you said:
7 "In my view, UNCRO vehicles were not stopped by the civilian
8 police for checks ..."
9 And then when Ms. Mahindaratne asked you whether it is your
10 position that they were not stopped, you said:
11 "That's the way it should be ..." which is not necessarily the
12 same as what happened.
13 Could I invite you to clearly answer to questions, where you're
14 asked about what happened, to tell us what you know about those events.
15 And if you're asked about whether that was in accordance with how it
16 should be, you can, of course, tell us or give an answer to that question
17 as well but not to mix them up.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Mr. Cetina, are you familiar with this document? It's an order
21 sent by Mr. Moric and it's addressed to the chiefs of the police
22 administration, including yourself? Do you recall receiving this
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the order reads as follows, it says:
1 "In accordance with your assessment that the general security
2 situation in liberated areas is such that it allows for unimpeded
3 movement of people and goods as well as a gradual normalisation of life,
4 there is no longer any need to restrict movement in those areas.
5 "Consequently, do not restrict the movement of European Union
6 monitors, UNCIVPOL members, or UNCRO members. Movements and itineraries
7 of UNHCR convoys must be announced in advance."
8 Do you know that what you just said was incorrect because, in
9 fact, the civilian police have been involved in restricting the movement
10 of the UNCRO members and other international monitors?
11 A. According to my information, the police had not been restricting
12 it, not even before the date of this letter.
13 Q. Are you suggesting that Mr. Moric issued an order of this nature
14 without any basis? I don't understand your testimony, Mr. Cetina. If
15 the civilian police were not involved in restricting the movement of the
16 international monitors, why would Mr. Moric have issued this order?
17 A. My understanding of the document is that we should not be
18 restricting the movement of the vehicles of these institutions either,
19 and he's not referring to any sort of document whereby the ministry would
20 have banned these institutions from moving about.
21 Q. Very well. Moving on to another area. If I could read to you a
22 statement you made about General Cermak's authority in the statement
23 given to the OTP, that is D1745.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: And, for the record, that's at page 6, the
25 last paragraph, fourth line.
1 Q. Going from the bottom you say:
2 "I do not know," referring to General Cermak, "I do not know what
3 his official position was in Knin at the time and in the aftermath of
4 Operation Storm. It was my impression that he was coordinating the work
5 of the town services, such as ensuring electricity, water-supply, and
6 cleaning up the town. I do not know why somebody in the rank of general
7 was appointed to this post except maybe because the military was still
8 present there."
9 And then in the statement given to the Defence and that's D1743,
10 paragraph 4, you say this about Mr. Cermak's authority:
11 "I think that Mr. Djurica told me that Mr. Cermak had been
12 appointed the commander of the Knin Garrison, but I do not know what the
13 duties of a garrison are because I am not familiar with the military
15 Now, did General Cermak discuss his authority with you at any
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you receive any instructions from the Ministry of Interior
19 officials or the assistant ministers or from Mr. Jarnjak regarding
20 General Cermak's appointment to Knin and as to what you had to do to vis
21 a vis Mr. Cermak?
22 A. No.
23 Q. In your statement to the Defence at paragraph 8 you say this:
24 "I was very clear when I told investigators of the ICTY Office of
25 the Prosecutor that Mr. Cermak did not have authority over the police,
1 nor could he influence the work of the police. My superiors were in
3 was that Mr. Cermak did not impose himself on the police. There are two
4 key regulations governing the procedure of the police. The first is the
5 Law on the Police, and the second, the Rules of Procedure of the police.
6 If we were to look at all the regulations from 1990 to date, we would not
7 find a single regulation that mentions in any way that the army can
8 command the police."
9 If I understand your testimony so far, I understand what you say
10 about your assertions about Mr. -- General Cermak's authority to be based
11 on your understanding of the police regulations, namely, that the
12 military could not command the police. That is what you are generally
13 saying. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes, that was the case, formally and de facto.
15 Q. Now, you were shown a number of orders issued by General Cermak
16 to the Knin police by the Defence team, including the previous order we
17 looked at, P53. And in your statement there are a number of paragraphs.
18 You have expressed your opinion about what you think those documents
19 mean. Now, until the Defence showed you those documents, you had not
20 seen them. Isn't that correct?
21 A. I had not seen them.
22 Q. At any time, did either Mr. Romanic or Mr. Mihic or for that
23 matter even the police coordinators inform you that General Cermak had
24 issued orders to the Knin police?
25 A. No.
1 Q. But did either Mr. Romanic or Mr. Mihic complain to you that they
2 were receiving orders and ask -- seek your advice as to how they should
3 respond to those orders?
4 A. No.
5 Q. So as I understand, since you hadn't seen the documents until the
6 Defence showed them to you, Mr. Romanic or Mr. Mihic had not discussed
7 them with you, your opinions expressed in the statement given to the
8 Defence about those documents are mere speculations; isn't that correct?
9 A. No, they're absolutely not speculations. And if you'll allow me
10 to, I'll try and explain.
11 Q. Please.
12 A. I am surprised at such a view that General Cermak was the
13 superior of the police because from what we were able to see yesterday
14 and today from a number of documents which arrived from the ministry to
15 the police administration, it was clear who it was that the police
16 administration was addressing. These documents testify to the vertical
17 hierarchy of the Ministry of the Interior. When this is coupled with the
18 Law on the Internal Affairs and the Law on Criminal Procedure, the matter
19 becomes quite clear.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have document P509,
22 Q. Mr. Cetina, if I could just read back to you a statement you made
23 in the Defence statement, that's paragraph 14. Now, this is with regard
24 to the document you'll see in a moment, P509. You say:
25 "I confirm that I have not seen it before. The police had their
1 regulations which described the manner of establishing the identity of
2 persons moving around in a certain area. Speaking in principle, it was a
3 war area and the Serbs could not have had Croatian personal documents.
4 Therefore, a policeman at a check-point or when he came across some
5 person otherwise would have asked for personal documents to establish the
6 person's identity but would not have asked that person for a pass. The
7 Law on Temporary and Permanent Residence on the basis of which the
8 policeman would act, as far as I know, does not recognise passes as a
9 document; it only recognises a personal identity document."
10 Now, in this order, General Cermak orders that:
11 "From 15th August, 1995, onwards, allow civilians unhindered
12 entry into the town of Knin
13 civilian police on all access roads to the town.
14 "Permit the civilians to enter the town of Knin without passes
15 and carry out routine checks following the rules set out earlier.
16 "This order enters into force immediately."
17 And it's addressed to Knin police station and Knin military
19 Now, if you say there was no requirement for passes to allow
20 people to move around, do you know why -- what prompted General Cermak to
21 issue this order? Are you able to say -- I know you haven't seen the
22 document. Are you aware of it?
23 A. I have not been aware of it. I will try to explain the format of
24 a police order if you'll allow me.
25 Q. If you're not aware of it, I don't want you to, you know,
1 speculate, Mr. Cetina. Let me show you another document that might --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, perhaps we can -- because the
3 witness apparently wants to explain something.
4 Would you want to tell us that the format of this order is not
5 the usual police format for orders? Is that what you had on your mind?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise to all those who
7 drafted the document, but such a document could not be issued by the
8 police because the preamble of the document should contain the basis
9 pursuant to which the document is issued --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you. What could or could not have
11 been done, your testimony, apparently, you wanted to give, was that this
12 is not the format you would normally find in a police organisation.
13 That's where Ms. Mahindaratne stopped you. Now being aware of this,
14 please move on, Ms. Mahindaratne.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Mr. Registrar, can I have D496, please.
17 Q. Mr. Cetina, you can see this document which is a document issued
18 by Split-Dalmatia Police Administration and it's dated the same day as
19 General Cermak's order, the 15th of August, and it's addressed to the
20 Povratak staff and it reads as follows:
21 "Visits and admission to the liberated areas.
22 "We are very pressured by citizens and displaced persons who wish
23 to visit the liberated areas (Knin, Drnis, et cetera).
24 "We have been informed that the regular Split-Knin railroad line
25 has been restored, which is being regularly announced through the media
1 (radio, television), where citizens are informed that they have free
2 transport on the said railroad line in the next ten days. This creates
3 enormous pressure both at barrier check-points and in operations staff
4 because citizens feel that they can travel without any problem on the
5 said train.
6 "Please give us urgent directions as to how we should act in this
7 newly developed situation."
8 And that's a document from your colleague, head of Split-Dalmatia
9 Police Administration. Do you note on the top right-hand side there's a
10 handwriting notation there that says:
11 "Call the Split-Dalmatia Police Administration and say that
12 Cermak will annul the passes today."
13 A. I'm not aware of it, no.
14 Q. So possibly you were, then, not aware of a process, a system that
15 was applicable on the ground, which was that there were passes? And, in
16 fact, your colleague, the head of Split-Dalmatia administration had
17 called for this, and do you note that -- that you have not been aware of
18 a system? Do you agree that this is a matter that you have not been
19 aware of?
20 A. I don't know. I don't remember it, but I don't think I was.
21 Q. Now, let me also show you another document, Mr. Cetina, in fact,
22 which will really perhaps demonstrate to you that what you're talking
23 about in terms of these passes is completely inaccurate.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, before showing a document to the
25 witness to tell him already that it shows that his previous testimony was
1 inaccurate or his understanding was inaccurate is not the way in which I
2 expect cross-examination to be done. You may put leading questions to
3 the witness, but already to tell him what the finding will be if we look
4 at the document would be a bit early, isn't it?
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Sorry. I apologise, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, can I have -- this is a
8 document under seal, P510.
11 Pages 23542-23543 redacted.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Mr. Registrar, may I have document 504, please.
12 Q. Mr. Cetina, you -- in fact, your testimony is that Mr. Cermak did
13 not have any authority over the Knin police. Let me show you a document
14 and ask you this question.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: D504.
16 Q. Now, what you see on your screen is an order issued by
17 General Cermak dated 11th of October, 1995, and it's addressed to the
18 Knin police station. And it goes on to say:
19 "On the basis of demonstrated needs and in order to be more
20 operative, I hereby order:
21 "A part of the MUP officers with the Knin police station shall be
22 temporarily transferred to the old grammar school building in Knin,
23 Petra Krvavice Street, number 5.
24 "This order shall enter into force immediately."
25 Now, were you aware that General Cermak issued an order to
1 transfer -- temporarily transfer officers from the Knin police station to
2 another location?
3 A. I have to explain something. This sentence does not say that
4 they were supposed to be moved out of the police station building in
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not understand.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- while the issue is not whether you understand
9 every detail of the text and whether police was ordered to move out,
10 Ms. Mahindaratne would like to know whether you were aware of this
11 document called an order, whether you are aware that it was issued by
12 Mr. Cermak.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember it. I don't think
15 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge on what is described here
16 which deals with a transfer of a part of the MUP offices to the old
17 grammar school building in Knin? Are you familiar with that event?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Mahindaratne.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Mr. Cetina, taking you to the statement given to the OTP, you
22 described a particular incident - and this is at page 7, paragraph 1 -
23 you say:
24 "I remember that General Cermak called me on the telephone about
25 a month after Operation Storm. He told me that at a village, I'm not
1 sure of the location, he said he was there on his own initiative and that
2 as the village had no power he had organised a generator. General Cermak
3 also stated that members of the international organisations were present
4 in the village when he handed the generator to the villagers. The same
5 evening, General Cermak called me again on the telephone and reported an
6 incident to me. He told me that two men in a vehicle had been to the
7 village and stolen sheep and cattle. He told me that I had to do
8 something immediately to punish the offenders. I do not remember if the
9 generator was also stolen. I remember that the police stopped the
10 vehicle near Sinj and that the sheep and cattle were returned to the
11 villagers. I immediately alerted the local police commanders, and that
12 was why the criminals were stopped."
13 Now, my first question is: Do you recall if that village that he
14 referred to was a place called Oton Bender?
15 A. I don't recall the location referred to.
16 Q. Okay. Now, in such instances when General Cermak made requests
17 or instructed that investigations be carried out into specific incidents
18 and when that was done, did you report back to him and say, "Well,
19 General, that was carried out?
20 MR. KAY: I'm sure the witness has ever said that as described by
21 my learned friend --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, could you please take care that
23 what you put to the witness --
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President, let me rephrase
25 my --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- accurately reflects his testimony or his
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
4 Q. Now, in that given situation, when General Cermak called you and
5 said that something had to be done immediately to punish the offenders
6 and you contacted the local police commanders and you say that -- and
7 that was why the criminals were stopped, did you report back to
8 General Cermak that indeed something had been done regarding his
10 A. I was not obliged to inform him. I don't recall whether I did,
11 but I was under no obligation to do so.
12 Q. Let me show you a document, Mr. Cetina.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. Registrar, if I can have P2645, please.
14 Q. And the document you will see on the screen, it's not -- I'm not
15 suggesting it's the same incident, it's probably another incident. But
16 it is a document that has been copied to you too. It's dated
17 21st October, 1995
18 attention of the chief, crime police division attention of chief,
19 Knin command post headquarters, attention of General Cermak, and
20 Split-Dalmatia police authority. It refers to an investigation subject,
21 Plaintiff Luka Pasic, criminal act of aggravated theft, and refers to an
22 investigation carried out into --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
24 microphone. Thank you.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: My apologies.
1 Q. Refers to criminal -- an investigation carried out into case of
2 theft of 56 heads of sheep. Do you recall receiving this report?
3 A. I don't.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, my apologies. I have read a
5 portion of that document which is under seal, so a redaction may be
6 called for.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please prepare a redaction.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you.
9 Q. Now, are you able to explain to the Trial Chamber as to why this
10 report has been submitted to the -- to Mr. Cermak? And it's a report
11 issued by Mr. Gambiroza.
12 A. I would not have written this document in such a way, but this
13 was probably to inform the addressees about the event.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cetina, usually if I send someone a document
15 that is for the purpose of him knowing the existence of that document.
16 That is an answer that does not respond to what you were asked. The
17 question is whether you have an explanation as to why this was sent to
18 Mr. Cermak, which means why this information given by Mr. Gambiroza was
19 sent to Mr. Cermak in view of the position of Mr. Cermak in relation to
20 police activities. That is, as you certainly would have understood, was
21 the core of the question. Could you understand that question, whether
22 you have an explanation; if not, then we'll move on.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I have no explanation.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
25 Q. Mr. Cetina, isn't it correct that when investigations were
1 carried out at the behest of Mr. Cermak, reports were indeed sent back to
2 him to let him know that he is --
3 MR. KAY: I must object because again we're falling into the trap
4 that started the previous line of questions, isn't it right --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne --
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, may I make my submission -- my
7 apologies --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but there is something included is that this
9 was a -- that this was an investigation which was made at the behest of
10 Mr. Cermak. And as you earlier said - and I do understand what, perhaps,
11 the issue was - you started your line of questioning where you may have
12 assumed that what we find in the document is the same event as dealt with
13 by Mr. Cetina in his statement. Now, once you had asked about it, about
14 Oton Bender, then you yourself said, Well, even if it's not the same.
15 So you can put such a question to the witness, which would be,
16 perhaps, Mr. Cetina, that where you earlier in your statement said that
17 at a certain moment - and I'm talking about the event with the generators
18 and the report that was received on theft - that if under those
19 circumstances Mr. Cermak expressed as a view that something had to be
20 done about it and that in a situation which shows some similarity with
21 the event that you stated about, whether it comes as a surprise that,
22 under those circumstances, Mr. Cermak is informed about the action taken
23 on this -- again, this event which shows at least some similarity with
24 the event you described, whether or not it is the same. Could you please
25 answer that question. If it does not come as a surprise, I think
1 everyone will understand that; if you think it comes as a surprise,
2 please explain it.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did receive information. I don't
4 recall any particular details. In any case, I received information from
5 General Cermak; and given the urgency, because the assessment was that
6 the perpetrators were getting away in a vehicle, the information was
7 passed on urgently and the perpetrators were found. I am not familiar
8 with any details, but I did forward that information.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is it your conclusion - and I have to interpret your
10 answer - that the event you described in your statement is the same as
11 the event on which we here see a report being sent?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say that with any
13 certainty. I don't recall any details or locations or anything else
14 concerning this.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we return back to the question that was
16 put to you, that if Mr. Cermak expresses as his view that something
17 should be done about it, would it be to be expected that he would then be
18 informed about the action taken upon what he had said?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, please proceed. I'm not saying
21 that the matter has been fully explored, so I leave that in your hands,
22 but please proceed.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
24 Q. Mr. Cetina, let me just in fact bring up another document.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: If I could have, Mr. Registrar, P2656 -- I'm
1 sorry, I have made a mistake. P2650. My apologies, Mr. Registrar.
2 Q. Mr. Cetina, isn't it correct that you yourself sent written
3 reports to General Cermak on investigations carried out into incidents?
4 In fact, you will see what you're looking at right now is one such
6 A. Yes, that is my signature.
7 Q. So do you agree with me that you yourself sent written reports to
8 General Cermak on investigations carried out into specific incidents?
9 A. Yes, this is my signature, and I sent this document.
10 Q. You have, in fact, in this document - and I don't want to waste
11 time reading the entire thing, you can read it - you have given a
12 description of what has been done at a crime scene and of cartridge cases
13 found, et cetera. Now, you just testified that there was no obligation
14 on your part to send reports to General Cermak on crime -- investigations
15 into crime. If you had no obligation, why were you submitting written
16 reports providing such detail about investigations to Mr. Cermak?
17 A. I truly don't know, but this document probably has a history, a
18 chain of events, a reason that it was drawn up.
19 Q. Mr. Cetina, I'm not showing you a document written by someone
20 else. This is a document signed by you, therefore you perhaps would be
21 the only person who could tell the Trial Chamber as to why you sent this
23 A. I don't remember why I sent this.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I'm looking at the clock. We have
25 to stop.
1 Earlier you said that the event on which this witness testified
2 which included generators being brought to a village and that same
3 evening a report of sheep being stolen was probably another one. I do
4 not know yet. If any of the parties is aware of an event other than the
5 one in Oton Bender where generators were provided to a village where that
6 same evening the thefts of sheep was reported, the Chamber would like to
7 be informed about it so that we are better able to assess the probability
8 of whether what the witness stated covers the same event or a different
10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I didn't probably -- perhaps
11 said it wrong -- I didn't want to say "probably," but I said "perhaps."
12 The reason was the testimony given by this witness here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I am fully aware why you didn't say that it was
14 the same event on the basis of the evidence. I think you couldn't say
15 that. But you said that probably it was another event.
16 Mr. Misetic.
17 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, I just rise on a different
18 matter slightly.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a different matter.
20 Then I would first like to instruct Mr. Cetina that he should not
21 speak with anyone - and that's the same instruction as I gave yesterday -
22 Mr. Cetina, that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony.
23 And we would like to see you back tomorrow morning, but tomorrow morning.
24 If you would please follow Madam Usher. Could you please follow
25 Madam Usher. We deal with another matter which is ...
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President. Just as a housekeeping matter,
4 Ms. Mahindaratne indicated that we needed a redaction because P2645 was
5 under seal, and I'm looking at the document and in e-court and it doesn't
6 indicate that the document has any confidential status.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to -- not
8 P2645 but P510.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Do we need to -- the matter has been raised. I'm
10 confident that you can communicate this and if there was any error or
11 mistake, that it will be corrected, not necessarily to discuss it and
12 verify everything in open court.
13 Last matter, Ms. Mahindaratne, you asked for five sessions.
14 Could you give us an estimate as to whether you think you could stay
15 within the time?
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I think it will be much shorter
17 than that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Much shorter.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I believe I will be able to finish within the
20 first two sessions tomorrow.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which would make it four.
22 Could the other parties, Mr. Kay, could you already --
23 MR. KAY: Your Honour, there may be some re-examination. It
24 won't be of an inordinate length --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but, of course, inordinate or not, I'd like to
1 know whether there's a fair chance that we could conclude the testimony
2 of this witness tomorrow.
3 MR. KAY: We will. It's just that we haven't finished yet.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, I'm not asking a final assessment,
5 of course you can't give that. But, nevertheless, it's good to know what
6 your impression is up to this moment is.
7 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I'm concerned because the present theme of
8 questioning and there is evidence that indicates why this witness sent
9 details of cases to Mr. Cetina. We've seen the document from the
10 International Commission of the Red Cross. We've seen other documents
11 and, of course, we have our bar table submission pending, which enables
12 some documents in chains to be put together. This has been served on the
13 Prosecution, and it's certainly a matter we would like cleared up so that
14 exhibit numbers could be given to the documents within our bar table.
15 And the document we're looking at now, it is a reasonable inference to
16 say that that's a similar document to the ones we've been looking at in
17 relation to passing on information between this witness and Mr. Cermak.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see your point; at the same time,
19 Ms. Mahindaratne, of course, can test whatever evidence, whether it's
20 there already, as she wishes.
21 At the same time, Ms. Mahindaratne, if a witness testifies that
22 people were -- had died during combat operations and then not to put to
23 him that he said already that some may have been killed, just ignoring
24 the whole difference between "during" or as you repeatedly put to this
25 witness "as a result of," that's not what the witness said. The more
1 accurate the reference to the -- what is already in evidence is, the more
2 the convincing capacity of testing that evidence could be. Accuracy is
3 something which is highly appreciated.
4 Mr. Kay.
5 MR. KAY: On the matter we're just looking at here, the last
6 document -- and I rise because it comes from the Prosecution database and
7 it's been uploaded by us as a criminal report referring to this matter
8 dated the 20th of September, 1995, when the murders were committed, it's
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KAY: And is an earlier document that shows that the
12 police -- crime police, public prosecutor, department for organised crime
13 prevention were all seized of this matter within Zadar-Knin Police
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. KAY: I direct my learned friend's attention to that --
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- I'm quite certain that if you have similar
18 references to documents that are produced, first of all, by the
19 Prosecution but then tendered by you or being part of a bar table
20 submission still to be made, that Ms. Mahindaratne will take advantage of
21 such communications.
22 MR. KAY: Thank you.
23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but those communications then should take place
25 before tomorrow morning 9.00 because we adjourn for the day. And we'll
1 resume tomorrow, Friday, the 30th of October, 9.00, in this same
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m.
4 to be reconvened on Friday, the 30th day of
5 October, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.